|
ManOeuvre -> RE: A guarenteed paycheck for all? (1/11/2017 10:51:15 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tweakabelle
I think you have some work to do to establish that the dichotomy you present is a valid one.
I have not presented a dichotomy, but I think I see your point.
If I'm mistaken, perhaps you can help me out.
If you wouldn't mind checking my work, I appreciate it.
On the one hand, resources, property and labour.
On the other, a discontinuation of some benefit or other.
In the first group, I would place all personal and real property, the value created by one's labour, and value created (or lost, there is risk) from risking capital in some way. So I'd list Karl the bricklayer's resources, property and labour as follows:
- The bricklayer's house, valuables and savings.
- The value created by his action of laying bricks.
- The value created (or lost) by risking his capital in some sort of venture. The negatives of buying a second truck and paying wages will hopefully be lesser than the profits accrued by the additional work.
How did Karl get the house, his truck, his trowels, his boat? Maybe he inherited it, maybe he won some of it in a lottery, maybe it fell off the back of a truck, but like most Karls and most bricklayers he probably earned it by laying bricks. He may get lucky, but he has some idea of the odds, so he works really hard. As such, every new dinar that goes his way is either luck or a product him creating value or risking capital.
In the second group, un-earned benefits (which may or may not be discontinued)
- Karl lives in a country that offers workbooks free of charge to all men between the ages of 15 and 65. One simply shows up at the royal bootery and picks out a pair. They are paid for out of the royal coffers and the boots are worth 100 dinars.
Now there is an intuition that Karl will consider himself more aggrieved if:
A - The king's armed representatives comes to his house and tell Karl that he must immediately part with 100 dinars as part of a new tax initiative.
than if:
B - There is a royal proclamation that the free-booting days are over, and the program is being discontinued.
This intuition is well born out in research which uses expected-value gambles. Essentially, people are much more willing to tolerate risk to avoid losses of something that is already theirs, than they are to avoid missing out on an unexpected windfall, gift or other unearned resource.
I think that the fact that this intuition is well attested when broken down into micro-transactions speaks to a pervasive sympathy for the right of people not to have their things taken from them being much stronger rooted than one for privilege of receiving gifts.
|
|
|
|
