Today I got told that I am the...

[KrazyHorse]

Producer surplus

[Kuciwalker]

That is savings, and represents a claim on future consumption (unless you're talking about charitable donations, of course)

I understand that - my point was that some people earn and save more than they ever intend to consume, even if they have no particular intention of donating it to charity. That ultimately represents free stuff for society.

[Kuciwalker]

You're also leaving out the massive wealth transfer from parents to their children, which is no less of an externality for being selfishly motivated.

[KrazyHorse]

I understand that - my point was that some people earn and save more than they ever intend to consume, even if they have no particular intention of donating it to charity. That ultimately represents free stuff for society.

There are such things as inheritances...

[KrazyHorse]

You're also leaving out the massive wealth transfer from parents to their children, which is no less of an externality for being selfishly motivated.

I don't count direct family as society...

[Aeson]

Because in the vast majority of cases it's more a function of whatever happens to be available in one's area and available to one's skill set, experiences, and financial pressures than fully free choice (like you said, you've "been lucky to have the opportunity"). The fulfilling crap is few and far between, and more competitively sought out than you'd think, unless you happen to have a bankroll to do it yourself.

I noted that already. But I still think the question is important. It's what I'd ask myself if I found myself in a position where it applied. Not so much to question my motives, but to look to improve my future or outlook. I don't think it necessarily has to be by changing a job, it can be by changing a personal outlook on the job or rationalization of it. If I get stuck working for a wage in the future, I know that I can (but not necessarily will) view it as meaningful based on what the wage allows me to do, even if the actual work involved seems meaningless to me.

Basically, the question is to help a person realize the meaning there can be, or already is, in the job, or otherwise.

[curtis290]

The question we should ask ourselves is why do we have such a financialized society where most of the jobs are meaningless paper-pushing office jobs. Thanks to our decision to become a neoliberal society we don't produce anything anymore and outsource the important jobs that require honest, hard work (or pay Mexicans to do them). We've made the decision to be one of the world's primary financial centers and to base our economy around that. It's time to evaluate that decision from both an economic and a social perspective.

[Kuciwalker]

There are such things as inheritances...

I am aware of this.

1) estate tax, of course
2) The broader point: if someone is motivated (at least in part) to earn money for the sake of its nominal value rather than its instrumental value (e.g. treating accumulated wealth as a positional good), then they are increasing the demand for capital relative to the demand for consumption goods, which should benefit everyone with more demand for consumption goods (i.e. most people). The existence of sufficiently many people with this preference (and the wealth to act on it) should mean that returns on savings are lower than they would be otherwise. Therefore, even if in the long run a given person's savings are all converted to consumption, they are being converted at a lower rate and represent some transfer directly to society at large.
3) It's not obvious to me at all (I could be convinced with data) that all savings are eventually consumed. Savings that are never consumed really are just gifts to society; equivalently, they should allow the government to print additional money without inflating the money supply.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't count direct family as society...

1) I don't see why you shouldn't; certainly, we don't really need to incentivize people to raise their children well (except when we do...) but that doesn't mean it isn't a wealth transfer. (A huge one!)
2) The children will eventually get jobs and pay taxes as well, and the amount of taxes they pay will be at least partly dependent on the amount of wealth and labor gifted to them.

[KrazyHorse]

Curtis

Manufacturing, agriculture etc are mostly low-value activities best accomplished by low-cost workers.

You should look into it.

[BlackCat]

Manufacturing, agriculture etc are mostly low-value activities best accomplished by low-cost workers.

You should look into it.

Yup, KH is teh smartz guy.

[KrazyHorse]

I am aware of this.

1) estate tax, of course
2) The broader point: if someone is motivated (at least in part) to earn money for the sake of its nominal value rather than its instrumental value (e.g. treating accumulated wealth as a positional good), then they are increasing the demand for capital relative to the demand for consumption goods, which should benefit everyone with more demand for consumption goods (i.e. most people). The existence of sufficiently many people with this preference (and the wealth to act on it) should mean that returns on savings are lower than they would be otherwise. Therefore, even if in the long run a given person's savings are all converted to consumption, they are being converted at a lower rate and represent some transfer directly to society at large.
3) It's not obvious to me at all (I could be convinced with data) that all savings are eventually consumed. Savings that are never consumed really are just gifts to society; equivalently, they should allow the government to print additional money without inflating the money supply.

1) well, yeah. But civilized countries don't have an estate tax
2) dude, this point is ridiculous. Think it through. The marginal effect on the rate of return due to a single person's savings is minuscule and only represents a macroscopic transfer from all savers to all consumers, not from the individual saver to the rest of society
3) only savings held as currency allows this

[Kuciwalker]

The question we should ask ourselves is why do we have such a financialized society where most of the jobs are meaningless paper-pushing office jobs. Thanks to our decision to become a neoliberal society we don't produce anything anymore and outsource the important jobs that require honest, hard work (or pay Mexicans to do them). We've made the decision to be one of the world's primary financial centers and to base our economy around that. It's time to evaluate that decision from both an economic and a social perspective.

Explain the fact that US manufacturing output has consistently grown faster than its population since the end of World War II, given your assertion that "we don't make anything anymore".

Is it also true that we don't grow food anymore?

[Kuciwalker]

3) only savings held as currency allows this

Sorry, I was originally writing a different idea, went back and changed something, and ended up with that (it's obviously incorrect). Savings indefinitely held as any asset should be functionally equivalent to a charitable donation.

2) dude, this point is ridiculous. Think it through. The marginal effect on the rate of return due to a single person's savings is minuscule and only represents a macroscopic transfer from all savers to all consumers, not from the individual saver to the rest of society

I was careful to specify that this effect occurs in the aggregate. The point is that savings held for extremely long periods of time before being consumed should be functionally equivalent to savings held indefinitely up until the time they are actually consumed (duh), and if the returns on savings are lower than they would be if everyone were motivated purely by deferred consumption, then savings held for long periods of time will have provided a benefit to society in excess of the value of goods they are exchanged for.

This works even if all savings are eventually consumed, as long as some of the people who make the decision to save their income do so without the intention of consuming the savings later.

[Hauldren Collider]

Kuciwalker, do you still think we should tax inheritance at 100% (i.e. no more inheritance)?