The people who do get hired at the increased minimum wage after come at the expense at the total demand for labor.

> maybe no job would actually save them

No, I am saying that they are not going to have a job if the minimum wage prevents them from being hired.

That is a fact up to the point where markets are actually np-complete themselves, therefore not self-regulating in certain short time frames.

I am not sure if this can be related to NP-completeness.

howso?

I am not aware that there is a precise calculation of prices happening in markets to that degree.

but that means that it's impossible to predict the prices up to a sufficient precision, and what exactly the reasons are that made them so.

Which is why every attempt to design an economic system that relies on their prediction has failed.

There are many heuristic processes occurring that are vastly distributed.

What determines a good price in one industry might be completely different from the pricing mechanisms in another.

And you are right to point out that there is some lag inherent in the system.

That lag, that degree of misstatement of the price, is where people speculating on price shifts make money or lose money.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1002.2284 😃

I knew I've seen it pop up somewhere 🙂

There are many NP-complete problems in nature.

That does not mean that there aren't many processes that provide good approximations thereof.

> I knew I've seen it pop up somewhere 🙂

Yes, which is why you shoehorned it in.

random digression: I hate the smiley being the laughing one, colon-closeparen shouldn't be equal to colon-D

People don't usually bring up classes of algorithmic complexity in the context of market economies.

so, the question on whether and how a govt should act about people ending up on the wrong side of the fence of life seems still unanswered at this point.

The how not I can propose.

One way not to do it is to mess with the market forces, which is what the minimum wage does.

It is like heating a thermometer to make it warmer outside.

Likely true, yes.

Neither do you gain an increase in employment numbers.

Black unemployment, for example, has been lower before introduction of the minimum wage in the US than after.

If you want to hand people money, at least do that, but do not misstate the value of a good or service. That is the function of the pricing mechanism.

It is simply a measure what a good or service is worth in relation to another and deluding yourself to it does not mean that the demand for coal miners (or journalists) has suddenly increased.

The reason why a coal miner might get paid half as much as some other job X is because there is half as much demand for coal miners at that price point.

The question what should be done with people who cannot make ends meet doesn't really enter into it.

If you artificially raise their wage, then you might as well just hand them the difference between what they would have been paid and what you think they ought to be paid. At least that way the market correctly reflects the price of coal miners.

But all you are doing is handing them welfare through the government then, so you are achieving the same thing with more side effects and extra steps.

That is why I posted that graph.

If a community wants to take care of some person who cannot find work, go ahead and do so. But should the solution be to force everyone to take care of that person?

If beggars can die in the street, I guess it's a responsibility everyone has (and wants) to change that, be it only that society is a multiplayer game where one can't always control the circumstances one ends up in.

If people feel that responsibility there should be no reason to force them.

And if they do not, they relinquish entitlement to demand the same of others.

But the addition of coercion adds nothing moral to it.

I doubt you should be allowed to likely kill somebody by taking their last valuable, but that's just me.

Who is taking it?

A refugee? A citizen? A real shitbag person you wouldn't want near your house? A white male? You know the problem with intersectionality is that this is suddenly supposed to matter - in a democracy.

Then again, I'm as lost as you in this discussion, yes.

No, I don't exactly understand the scenario you are trying to bring up.

You referred to killing someone.

Kill them through inaction?

I am not sure what you mean.

If there is no coercion, you are not killing anyone.

Well my point was more about "killing" someone through removing them from the little they had. Closing the mine, the asbestos factory, the sweatshop, the mental asylum. But I might make too big of a leap here, am I conflating two distinct issues here? In fact, I'm not sure I can tell why this seems so obvious to me.

Even if we accept all of that as true, I don't think that obfuscating the issue through a sort of price fixing is the right solution.

We settled that earlier, didn't we.

If we concluded that it was immoral and society at large should ensure their continued livelihood, then one can explore solutions such as a loan or financing social security, or Milton Friedman's negative income tax.

now we're talking!

But by mandating this social responsibility you are not proposing a solution much different from holding a gun to my head to enlist me to carry your spouse up a hill.

Let's address the moral mechanics of it:

Let us say your spouse needs to be brought to a hospital up a hill. You cannot carry her alone. I come by.

If you had a way to coerce me, such as a gun, would it be moral for you to force me to help you?

I don't know. I happily accept the responsibility the way things work where I grew up. But why? No clue, tbh.

Regardless of why, you do so willingly. But what if you didn't?

And if you had some responsibility, through some sort of debt, for example, how should it best be enforced?

I don't take the position that the state is useless. I am not a complete anarcho-capitalist.

> how should it best be enforced?
Cannot tell. Apparently western democracies seem to show quite some variation in this concern, which is what makes this topic interesting, I guess.

Let's steelman your argument then, or the position I think you're taking:

Let's take my view to the most unfavorable degree.

Let's say that I am an incredibly wealthy person, a billionaire. You have a starving mother.

If you take just a tiny fraction of my wealth, through a means that does not even do physical harm to me, you could save your mother.

Would it be moral?
Would you do it?

(BTW, I would do it, but for reasons I will explain after.)

> be it only that society is a multiplayer game where one can't always control the circumstances one ends up in.

What would I think of you, the shitbag billionaire you'd be, if you didn't?
If you want a society that sustains billionaires, you'll probably have more than one starving mother. That's just how a society goes, I guess.

Yes, a pretty shitty society it would be.

But what is that society then? You allow people to steal, as long as they think they can do more good than you with what they stole.

To what degree does that rule hold? Do we not end up with a Sorites Paradox?

It is, that's why western societies vary on these terms so much, I guess.

||My bike was stolen today...||

I think we can have both.

I think I can save your mother AND be a society of law and order, in which stealing is illegal.

...taxes?

If we do not want a sorites paradox, we have to stick to principles that do not depend on the judgement of degree. Any judgement of degree always results in grey zones, which is why I am a free speech absolutist.

If I steal from the billionaire, I should be punished.

BUT I should only be punished to the degree of harm I cause.

I might have acted immorally in stealing, but the state can compel me, according to absolutist laws, to restore the damage I have done.

If I stole $100 to save my mother, the state can force me to pay it back.

I will then commit the crime, knowing how much the life of my mother is worth, and accept the punishment.

But the harm to the billionaire should not be ignored simply due to its degree of harm.

It is no less an immorality and should therefor be balanced by the state.

so, to sidestep the thought experiment a bit: let's build a government that manages to sell saving the starving mother to billionaires in a way that makes them want to invest that money, too. A bit like some places in my country accept tax deals with rich people...

Or rather, some places got rather "famous" for doing so in recent decades 😃

To give any intelligent answer to that I'd have to return to issues of principle.

I should not be forced to be the caretaker of people I owe nothing to, but as soon as I have a debt, there is a contract, which the state should enforce.

If a group of people are all in agreement that they assist each other in times of need, we do have voluntary systems that do not require coercion.

Those systems, for example, are implemented in insurance.

Maybe that's why there are so many insurance companies around here. I must say, though, I really like living in a place where people aren't pushed too far beyond what they can bear. You're not guaranteed to win, but if you lose, there are enough resources so you can get your act together.

Yes, but our ability to consistently reproduce these conditions depends on the degree of our understanding of the underlying principles.

Which is, as far as I understand it, not even entirely untrue for the US, so maybe my views aren't free of some cliche, either.

Most people who approach this topic from a moral view cannot articulate clear principles that can be consistently applied.

For example, if I can prevent the starvation of a person through some of what I have, should I be compelled to do so? How far? Within your state? Within the next country? All the way in Africa?

Shouldn't all my excess wealth be taken by that logic and distributed among all starving people?

That is true, but I think what I can take away from this discussion is a better understanding of what it exactly is that I don't know in this regard.

Good. And I'm not trying to corner you and I am trying to be as receptive to learning.

> Shouldn't all my excess wealth be taken by that logic and distributed among all starving people?

Technically, I guess so. But yeah, I was against the 1:12 ratio initiative, as it was called here.

One central question that always crops up in questions of the role of state and responsibility to your fellow humans is this:

Is it moral to compel someone to be moral?

no

Isn't that just a reformulation of your earlier paradox?

That one was one of degree.

I think a clear answer to that is wrong.

it's like forcing someone to be charitable, it defeats the purpose of charity

As long as you formulate a position on an assessment of degree, you will have to contend with grey zones.

A principle that does not depend on degree has no grey zones.

shouldn't. ideally. there is geometric optimization, I guess.

Similar issues crop up in optimization problems, yes.

But, I am not sure if we are stretching the analogy beyond what is useful.

I like how peterson tells the story about the soviet famine.

I think he approached it from a perspective of incentives.

exactly, and how they piled up in the wrong place with terrible "if you die in Canada you die in real life" consequences.

That sounds pretty funny.

I don't remember that part.

a thing that should be obvious, but when it isn't you'll scratch your head how it possibly couldn't be obvous. https://xkcd.com/180/

then again, the world is so full of complication and contradiction, I guess it's no real surprise people get lost in postmodernist views.
like really, you have to make an attempt finding the difference between real or not, and if you can't find it, nobody can do that for you. well maybe Trump can, but that's not necessarily the best for you personally.

or maybe it is, who can tell.

anyway, I have to be doing stuff.

Okay. It was good talking.

Copypasting my rant about Tim being completely illiterate about UBI here:

Yeah. I ranted on another Discord yesterday how insanely upside down Tim "gets" what UBI actually is.
He talks about UBI competing with taking a job in McDonald's making McDonald's having to raise the salary of employees, just to keep them. Which is inverse of the typical left-wing argument against UBI: it allows corporations to pay less because the pay is subsidized by taxpayers.
Basically, socially conservative socialists tend to argue against UBI because they frame it as corporations benefiting from tax money. And although I disagree with them if that invalidates UBI, they are at least more correct about the facts than Tim Pool is. But I cannot really be surprised by a kigger not knowing how money works and what incentivizes and disincentivizes people to work.
He claims that having few hundred dollars for every citizen disincentivizes working (and it does to a very, very small amount but not much since living off such amount is miserable, it's basically just to ensure you wouldn't starve) and in argument against UBI, actually presents a valid critique toward Finnish existing welfare system that tortures unemployed people with paperwork, unneeded re-training (run by consultation agencies who get paid by government), etc.

Finland even has a phenomenon where companies lay off people, and should they not get a new job immediately, they need to go to the welfare agency to prove that they are an active job seeker (rather than a leech), they get unpaid traineeship offer that is required to take in order to have any social security. And the welfare workers send you to "train" in the company where you worked as a paid employee for years, "practicing" the job you earlier got. It's just that rather than getting for example 2000 eur from your employer, now you would get about 1000 eur from the tax-payer. The company would get you as a slave.
And this is what Tim Pool agrees with, because "UBI is socialism". And the sad part is that very few in the center understand UBI. Only far-lefties and far-righties do... and far-left opposes it because it's not equality of outcome (as you can still affect the bottom line by choosing to work) and far-right opposes it because they are ancaps and oppose every welfare imaginable (even if UBI is by far the least disturbing form of welfare to the job market since it does not compete with working as you can actually keep it even if you work).
In a perfect world, one might hope centrists would understand how UBI works (just like many who are economically far-left or far-right do), but realize they don't have the reasons they have to oppose it (i.e they are neither ancaps nor communists). But no. Centrists just seem to run in the problem of being too dumb to even understand what UBI is.
/rant

@Timcast don't fall into that trap, even if northam shouldn't be removed for blackface, don't forget he wanted to legalize killing newborns...

@whiic Mind that AnCaps will also prefer NIT before all other forms of welfare because Friedman

@H3llbender no, even Rothbard prefers regular welfare over NIT.

Friedman is a commie, even David.

What constitutes something as being right, just because it's moral?

Kinda unsure if this counts as political

Might belong more to philosophy

Morality is subjective.

Unless you believe in God.

Especially if you believe in God

Only if you believe in theistic relativism.

I don't know of any theist that does.

If morality is God's will, then it is just his subjective opinion.

That's a pretty weird take. Where did you get the idea that God's will is an "opinion"?

That's a very strange interpretation.

Is something good because God commands it or does he command it because it is good?

It's still an odd line of reasoning but the latter would be more appropriate if I had to choose.

What is God then?

That's a question that has been explored for millennia. That answer can only be truly sought in a personal relationship with God. Now, that isn't to say that morality is subjective because one's relationship with God is personal. The relationship is individual, but that to which you are relating is unchanging.

Though I generally like to refer to God as the higher moral order.

That sounds pretty fucking subjective to me.

It means that you have to overcome your subjective tendencies as a human being to understand something which is not subjective.

A personal relationship doesn't mean you get to decide whatever you want.

Something being subjective doesn't mean you get to decide either. Value is subjective but people don't choose their values.

Subjective means taking place solely within one's own mind, but the relationship is a relationship to that which is outside of the individual.

That's why they say "let God into your heart"

If I value an object, but the object exists outside of my mind, does that make the value objective?

The point is that you can have a subjective view of the higher moral order, but that doesn't mean the higher moral order itself is subjective.

What do you mean by "the higher moral order"?

God

What do you mean by "God"?

that's quite a straw man

>flag
>God

can you spot the difference? 🤔 🤔 🤔

What do you mean by "God"?

I already answered that question. Read the Bible if you want to know.

Circular reasoning bruh.

>What is this rock?
limestone
>what is limestone?
a type of rock
>What is this rock?
limestone
>Circular reasoning!

... what did you expect from circular questioning?

Going full postmodernist on me doesn't help your argument that morality is objective.

I'm going full postmodernist? This really isn't a genuine discussion anymore.

I never understood why I had to pledge to the flag every morning. Did my allegiance expire over night?

it's a picture of a pipe, not a pipe. halfthink btfo

@H3llbender I don't really get the difference between NIT and UBI. That said, all conservatives I've talked over the internet call me a commie for supporting NIT/UBI... even though Finnish ancaps (reluctantly) support NIT/UBI because why it's not go-die-in-the-gutter welfare model, it's the closes to that that there could be.

Still too socialist for Tim Pool.

I guess it's the idea of paying even the people unwilling to work that grinds the gears the most, despite existing welfare systems also paying to the unwilling, as long as you play the system correctly and pretend to be willing. UBI is openly OK with unwilling to work getting paid, which causes moral outrage.

@whiic NIT is friedman's version of UBI, i.e. All NITs are UBIs but not all UBIs are NITs.

Also you need to find a higher quality of conservative

Leftists propose UBIs as solutions to automation, Libertarians propose NITs as solutions to welfare

Usually leftwingers oppose UBI, though because a non-automated income redestribution is more "caring" and has more "heart". Because UBI cannot intervene if you use your money on drugs, etc. Basically, leftwingers want a nanny state where the state pays directly to the housing company, directly to the grocery store, etc. via means like food stamps.

Basically, left wing thinks that bureaucracy is love.

UBI will only increase automation.

If min wage is a price floor then a NIT would be a subsidy is the idea really.

The ultimate goal is UBI/Star Trek society, I think we’re just pushing it too quickly.

Like generations too soon, and resources way too soon.

And the (low quality, emotions before facts type) conservative on the other hand opposes NIT/UBI because "you shouldn't have a welfare system at all". And they ignore that there **already is one**, and UBI would be to **replace** the ineffective old system.

But they treat it in vacuum: because UBI is not full ancap mode, they reject it. They only accept total abandonment of welfare.

The welfare system kills personal ambition, IMO. There’s not enough wealth (in any measure) to make everyone comfortable and also nurture ambition.

Ambition is natural.

Hence, the current, ineffective bureaucracy hell prevails to see another day, because the hard ancap let-them-die-in-gutter is unelectable agenda to run on. And bureaucracy wins with the help of ancaps.

Not that any libertarian worth their salt is going to propose a UBI provide a comfortable middle class existence. Usually you'd see them require subletting rent at the least.

Welfare is also clearly unconstitutional in the states.

General welfare clause as it’s interpreted disputes that.

@H3llbender Yeah. I think a proper UBI would be like 600-700 euros/month giving Finnish living costs. It would not be lavish living.

Just a piece of paper, according to Hamilton.

Pieces of paper matter.

No, people think General Welfare means a bunch of stuff it doesn't. The meaning is clearly laid out in the constitution.

Hint: current welfare via bureaucracy gives 1000+ eur/month but only to the gamers who know how to play the system.

Which is why you've seen libertarians utterly shut up about UBI once it got to leftist minds.

The issues that are always run into are how things have been interpreted. I think you have to start from here and move forward, not try to reargue settled arguments.

Libertarians don't support UBI by definition.

Libertarians think they are the only libertarian in the room

Libertarianism is perfect, except we’ve already got systems that work that conflict with their beliefs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

Really it is split 50-50 between minarchists and anarchists

Arguing with a libertarian is usually a nightmare. Almost as bad as arguing with a communist.

Libertarianism is based on the non aggression principle. You can't advocate for something that violates that and still call yourself a libertarian.

Yes, communism can work. No, it can’t work in any practical sense today.

Post scarcity is fantasy, not sci fi, comrade.

@halfthink Commies advocate for things that violate the core of their belief system all the time

communism is close to perfect on very small scales but as soon as you dont see/speak/know the people you are sharing with it goes to shit

I don' t know why other utopian ideologues can't

Communism is incoherent, it is impossible to advocate for it at all.

Communism as a system of government cannot work. It is inherently authoritarian.

Their core beliefs are set up in a capitalist world. They’re not possible in a world where resources are scarce.

NAP STATUS VIOLATED

That is the issue.

Resources will always be scarce.

At the end of the day I'll say that the moment that Anarcho-communism becomes possible, Anarcho-Capitalism became possible a few moments prior. Both are utopian.

This idea that only libertarians that are libertarians need to be ancap, is the cancer that ensured these libertarians will **all be autistic** without concept of gray area.

There is zero chance a spacefaring society like a Star Trek world doesn’t become communist.

Ancap is political autism.

Communism is science fiction.

Ancom is political schizophrenia...

Scarcity exists even with replicators.

@whiic I really should start using Minarchist instead.

It’s not worth discussing until resources are plentiful.

And then it becomes colonial in real world senses.

@H3llbender Well, minarchism (i.e small "L" libertarians, thicc libertarians) are also pretty much co-opted by ancap thinking.

They are just ancaps who allow for police. Even they reject: roads, welfare, etc.

Because there is a lot of people have just enough knowledge to totally derail the conversation

Ancaps want police, just privatised.

Like the roads won’t become capitalist with asphalt and right of way becoming the capital.

@halfthink Halfthink really suit as your name.

How is private police different from mafia, btw?

Ancaps are not communists.

Also regarding General Welfare because this is very important, Article 1 Section 8 clearly defines General Welfare. If anyone can find anything in here that sounds like "welfare" is it's colloquially known today, they have a very large imagination. https://usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html

mafia steals yourshit if you dont pay, private police lets others stel your shit if you dont pay

@whiic It is enough to rid the knee-jerk reaction that I am fighting though through, which is enough for my vague sense of localism to prevail I think.

Can we all agree that education is a right, therefore everyone should be able to access it without drowning in debt?

no

😦

not on the common sense

@whiic private police would be voluntarily funded and have competition. How is a state different from the Mafia?

The definition of general welfare is defined by the Supreme Court.

@DefinitlyNotInsane - NL What prevents private police from stealing as well?

You have the right to educate yourself, but you can't force anyone else to do it.

And pretending it doesn’t is mental masturbation.

To educate yourself, you need the means

The point of a right is that if you are isolated from society, does it still exist? For example, you don't require anyone to be around to have free speech. Someone has to stop you from having it.

@Turiaki We can agree that the education system has countless market failures, mostly due to government intervention.

@halfthink And different mobs didn't fight each other over turf? How is private police competing against each other different from mafia?

@whiic id say morality, but as soon as they start stealing id say they lose their title as "police"

@H3llbender True, that much is obvious

Is there a "no confidence" vote in the US Constitution? If not, there should be.

So you don't have a right to an education in the sense of going to a school. You don't have the right to healthcare because it has to be provided.

@DefinitlyNotInsane - NL Did morality prevent the mafia from operating?

@whiic well no but nobody joins the mafia to protect people from criminals do they

Title of "police" means nothing without some formal power granted to them.

There are states that are passing resolutions for a constitutional convention, as defined by the constitution. The error in their thinking is that the old people didn’t know more than us.

And they are just human. They are just as easily corrupted as mafia itself.

@Turiaki Ascribing positive rights to the population at large is an *incredibly* dangerous thing to do.

@whiic market forces would create a tendency towards property rights being the only rights protected, while a monopoly has a tendency to systematically violate property rights.