View Single Post
Old 07-29-2019, 10:04 AM
thorny locust's Avatar
thorny locust is offline
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 1,259
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
You can have the last word.
If you're going to give me the last word, then I'm going to take it.

Though I suspect that it won't actually be the last word in this thread.

Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
That’s between 2-3% of the workforce. Do you remember when we talked about unemployment? Unemployment at 3. 7% is really too low because it means we are through actual full employment and there is a labor shortage. This number usually falls somewhere below the unemployment number (which is where it is now.) like unemployment, this number actually supports the opposite of what you are arguing. It tells us that there are too few part-timers seeking full time employment.
[ . . . ]
Those who usually work full time living in poverty equal 2.9%. This is also a really good number.
[ . . . .] like the other numbers we have discussed, it is actually lower than is actually good for the economy.
If you add up 3.7% unemployed, 2+% working part time who want to work full time, 2.9% who are working full time but still don't earn enough to live on, and some hard-to-determine percentage who aren't counted because they've given up actively looking for work, that gets you at minimum somewhere significantly over 8.6% of the working age population. And you say that's not high enough.

But that's not the main point. I'm willing to posit that as the economy's currently constructed you may be right. However: You can argue that the economy won't function unless there are significant numbers of people (the exact percentage isn't the issue) who can't find a job that pays them enough to live on. Or you can argue that people who don't have a job that pays them enough to live in are in that position due to their own individual choice to not be properly responsible for themselves. But trying to claim both of those positions at once just plain doesn't work.

Do you know the game 'musical chairs'? It doesn't matter how hard people are trying or how fast they are. If there are fewer chairs than participants, some people are going to wind up out. And you're saying that the economy only functions if there are fewer chairs than participants; but that the individual people who wind up without a chair are individually to blame for not having one.

Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
The “society as a whole” doesn’t have a checkbook.
How did we get the interstate highway system, then? Or a judicial system? Or the military?

Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
I’m struggling to find a rational argument in the above. They have something that is worth a whole lot of money but they don’t want to sell it because they are either emotionally attached to it, or doing so is a pain in the neck. But, they need money and/or owning this thing costs more money than they can afford to spend and so we need to help them why?

I had the exact same problem, except it was an ‘83 Porsche 911 turbo .
No, that is in no way the exact same problem. Driving a different car didn't upend your entire life.

You're failing to understand the problem because you think money is essentially exchangeable for homes; or, to put it slightly differently, that a home and a house are the same thing. Apparently, as I suspected from your earlier post, you're one of the people for whom this is true. Explaining why it isn't true for others is a bit like trying to explain the impact of color in artwork to someone who only sees shades of grey.

Coming at this from a different direction, which is almost certainly not going to work either but maybe somebody else will be able to see it so I'll give it a try: rationality is a tool that we use to get us what we want. It's a really really useful tool; it can make it possible to accomplish things we couldn't do without it; it can make it possible to accomplish things we didn't even know we wanted when we started to use it; and it can make it possible to avoid unwanted results that could make it impossible to get what we want. But rationality is never the driver. Emotion is always the driver; and it is absolutely essential. Wanting to keep one's home is emotionally based, yes. Wanting to have one's children succeed, by whatever definition of succeeding one believes in, is also emotionally based. Wanting to be able to get something to eat today is emotionally based. Wanting to stay alive, or wanting anyone else to be able to do so, is emotionally based.

So 'the underlying base of that argument is emotional, not rational' is in no way a useful argument. It applies also to everything you yourself want to have happen, no matter how much of a rational or rationalized superstructure you build on top of it.

(It occurs to me that you've also massively moved a goal post. This part of the discussion started because you said (post 101) that property taxes aren't regressive. I pointed out that often they are in practice. Saying that it's possible to get out of the situations in which they are doesn't mean that they aren't.)

Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
What I said is that they are quantitatively the same thing .
Being satisfied with one's situation and being extremely dissatisfied with it but not expecting to be able to improve it are quantitatively the same thing?

Maybe. But they're not qualitatively the same thing.