one simple thing that we continue to disregard is inequality stemming from market exchange itself. If something costs 10 bucks to produce, I'm going to sell it for 15, the difference 5 is my value extracted. If my neighbor fails to extract as much value from their product, I'm now richer than them. Now this value extracted is expected to be correlated with value added but it's not always. So we do want the inequality that arises from success vs failure of value addition but not that from mere value extraction. Which means we need to take into account that the average energy requirement will be much higher than that of the lowest living standard and here we should introduce a variable for inequality and see the total required energy blow up.
I'm still in favor of reducing inequality by a lot but zero is not ideal because then you lose the ability of profit being an incentive and signal across the economy. So you need to account for a "healthy" inequality.
Yes, economist call it healthy unemployment and so on. It’s about finding labor to do the work that nobody wants to do but we have to get it done at lower wages - like cleaning public toilets or construction work and so on. But it gets complicated because farmers get left out when there’s overproduction of food. Resilience of the healthy unequal population will then need welfare networks for healthy functioning of the economies. Thanks.
@@murtuguddeclimateacademy83 yes and the usual answer to this healthy unemployment is we'll get robots to clean toilets but that's not an answer because there will always be a worst human job at any point in time. I think we agree that a healthy society is going to be unequal, albeit with hopefully robust welfare that allows me to fall on bad luck and still live a decent life and hope to turn my luck around. if now, we still want the person with lowest standard of living to be "decent" by your definition, we can't consider "decent" to be the average right..? because average will be much higher than lowest.
Inequality has always been there and will always be there. Only the lowest rungs know what they think is acceptable as ‘decent’. The challenge is to see if we can do better than their own expectations. So we are talking about minimum wage and safety nets as two separate things.
Im not an economist. There is plenty of energy to sustain great standard of living for all humans. china put a lot of energy and resources into building houses and entire cities no one ever lived in. A lot of energy is wasted to create economic activity that keeps the GDP number going up.
Yes, if we could go for quality of life instead of standards of living, we could get away from the tunnel vision on GDPs. But it’s not going so well in switching
@birth rates have plummeted around the world. While most of the younger generations are not even trying to have all the stuff older generations cared about.
one simple thing that we continue to disregard is inequality stemming from market exchange itself. If something costs 10 bucks to produce, I'm going to sell it for 15, the difference 5 is my value extracted. If my neighbor fails to extract as much value from their product, I'm now richer than them. Now this value extracted is expected to be correlated with value added but it's not always. So we do want the inequality that arises from success vs failure of value addition but not that from mere value extraction. Which means we need to take into account that the average energy requirement will be much higher than that of the lowest living standard and here we should introduce a variable for inequality and see the total required energy blow up.
I'm still in favor of reducing inequality by a lot but zero is not ideal because then you lose the ability of profit being an incentive and signal across the economy. So you need to account for a "healthy" inequality.
Yes, economist call it healthy unemployment and so on. It’s about finding labor to do the work that nobody wants to do but we have to get it done at lower wages - like cleaning public toilets or construction work and so on. But it gets complicated because farmers get left out when there’s overproduction of food. Resilience of the healthy unequal population will then need welfare networks for healthy functioning of the economies. Thanks.
@@murtuguddeclimateacademy83 yes and the usual answer to this healthy unemployment is we'll get robots to clean toilets but that's not an answer because there will always be a worst human job at any point in time.
I think we agree that a healthy society is going to be unequal, albeit with hopefully robust welfare that allows me to fall on bad luck and still live a decent life and hope to turn my luck around.
if now, we still want the person with lowest standard of living to be "decent" by your definition, we can't consider "decent" to be the average right..? because average will be much higher than lowest.
Inequality has always been there and will always be there. Only the lowest rungs know what they think is acceptable as ‘decent’. The challenge is to see if we can do better than their own expectations. So we are talking about minimum wage and safety nets as two separate things.
Im not an economist. There is plenty of energy to sustain great standard of living for all humans. china put a lot of energy and resources into building houses and entire cities no one ever lived in.
A lot of energy is wasted to create economic activity that keeps the GDP number going up.
Yes, if we could go for quality of life instead of standards of living, we could get away from the tunnel vision on GDPs. But it’s not going so well in switching
@@murtuguddeclimateacademy83well if people aim for quality there is a point where they have enough. The default mode today is more and never enough
Yes, maybe we will wake up before it’s too late.
@birth rates have plummeted around the world. While most of the younger generations are not even trying to have all the stuff older generations cared about.
Yes, depopulation could be the boost earth needs