Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Pyxl101 3504 days ago
> Earning a high level of income makes life extraordinarily comfortable, to the point where it is easy to become complacent and stop trying to really contribute to society in a meaningful way.

Earning a high level of income in general already signifies that a person is contributing to society in a meaningful way. Their income is reflective of the service provided to others.

All corporations exist to better the lives of people. Their purpose is to earn profit for shareholders (ultimately, people), but how do they accomplish that? Mostly, by making useful goods or selling useful services. A consumer will then buy one of these goods or services because that consumer has decided the value of the good/service to them is greater than the value of the dollars they'd need to pay for it. E.g., If you have decided to buy a car for $10k cash, then you have decided that having the car now is more valuable to you than having $10K USD now. The fact that the car exists and is available for sale has thus enriched your life, by giving you the option to buy it. The car's makers are providing a service to others.

As a result of each purchase, both sides ends up with greater total value than they had before. When people trade, both are better off.

A tremendous income generally comes from delivering tremendous value in the world to others. There are many layers of indirection involved, so it's difficult to see for one's self how one's job (like an office job or financial job) improves the lives of others in the general case, but through trickle-down effects it always does if you follow cause and effect through enough steps.

Or for a clear and notable example, consider the game of Minecraft. It was largely developed by a single individual, Markus Persson aka Notch. He sat down and used his game development skills to produce something marvelous. Many people came along and each decided to pay Markus $X for his game Minecraft, and since over 100 million copies have been sold, Markus became a billionaire. Many people found great enjoyment in the game, and Markus gained a great number of dollars.

In general, tremendous income results from delivering tremendous value. Our society is working correctly and incentivizing the right things if this is the result of ethical business dealing. Sometimes people get rich through scams, fraud, theft, and other shady dealings, but in a society with law and order, this is the exception rather than the rule.

4 comments

> Earning a high level of income in general already signifies that a person is contributing to society in a meaningful way. Their income is reflective of the service provided to others.

Yeahhh no, income is a laughable measure of one's contribution to society. Labor is a market as any other, and salary is a function both of the value provided as well as supply vs. demand. In the Valley, VC-funded technology companies can afford to pay exorbitant salaries but are a gamble as to whether they will provide any net value, as evidenced by their ability or inability to develop a sustainable business. Other distortions exist like rent-seeking or manufactured demand require serious mental gymnastics to see as a contribution to the world but can support high incomes.

> All corporations exist to better the lives of people. Their purpose is to earn profit for shareholders (ultimately, people), but how do they accomplish that? Mostly, by making useful goods or selling useful services.

Taking a page out of Ayn Rand? Corporations exist to enrich their owners, which is great; however providing a useful good or service is a sufficient but not necessary condition of doing so.

> income is a laughable measure of one's contribution to society.

Whilst you're currently correct I think we should be constraining our markets so that you are not.

> Sometimes people get rich through scams, fraud, theft, and other shady dealings, but in a society with law and order, this is the exception rather than the rule.

How about inherited wealth? Large groups of people are excluded from your wonderful vision of society.

I don't understand the hate inherited wealth gets here sometimes. It is the only realistic way to improve your family's lot in life over the generations.
It's not at all compatible with the view that wealth reflects your contribution to society (expressed upthread). Or individualist meritocracy which HN is so fond of.
"A tremendous income generally comes from delivering tremendous value in the world to others"

So, you want to say that Kim Kardashian[0] provides more value to the world per year than ~1230 paramedics[1] combined?

0. http://moneynation.com/kim-kardashian-net-worth/ 1. http://money.usnews.com/careers/best-jobs/emergency-medical-...

Or one Trump being worth about 116,000 paramedics?
It's hilarious that the one thing that is consistently down voted on hn is economic orthodoxy.

This is absolutely no different to the anti vaccination movement.

People are simply too lazy and arrogant to listen to what the economics profession has to say, and ignore that fact that the methods, organization and incentives of the economics profession are identical to the rest of academicia.

Which side of economics, the "freshwater" or "saltwater" side? There isn't the kind of consensus in economics that there is in, say, climate change. And economics is much more susceptible to funding-based distortion.
Both freshwater and saltwater would agree with the comment I replied to. freshwater and saltwater econ differ in their approach to macro models. Both sides broadly agree on general equilibrium theory as kind of first order approximation, and the post was a summary of general equilibrium theory.

Which side do you think would disagree or are you just trying to bluff me out with technical terms you don't fully understand?

As to funding, can you point to major sources of funding for academic econ research that would introduce bias?