[daishi55]

They are not trolling. They are stating the simple, undeniable fact that there is more than enough to go around and if we had a more equitable distribution of resources, we could take care of everyone with disabilities 10x over with plenty to spare.

[chung8123]

I don't think people realize how much evening out society will impact them. This is a very US (and probably EU) way of thinking. Everyone thinks they are middle class but when it comes down to it there are far more people in poverty and that evening things out will bring down the quality of life for the people advocating for evening out things.

[WarmWash]

The problem is that when you get more for less, it kills the incentive to do more. This is a really glaring problem, and people go to really great lengths to either sweep it under the rug or hand wave it away.

[tmnvix]

Incentives don't disappear at some arbitrary level of taxation. I think you can have both sufficient incentives and more equitable distribution. The frankly obscene levels of wealth concentration we are witnessing suggest that there is a lot of room for refinement.

I do find it interesting that a lot of people (not trying to imply that you are one) bang on about incentives while also fighting tooth and nail in favour of weighting taxes toward earned income (derived from doing useful/productive things) instead of unearned income (derived from simply owning things).

I get that some people view all forms of tax as theft and while I appreciate their honesty, I simply can't take them seriously.

[jbritton]

Your tax dollars just go into a cesspool of fraud, corruption, waste, incompetence, distribution to cronies. Money taken and spent badly feels like theft.

[amanaplanacanal]

If you are saying we should do a better job of keeping track of that, I don't think many would disagree with you.

[bluefirebrand]

> it kills the incentive to do more

I'm an employee. I don't really benefit from doing more. When I do more, someone else makes money. In my experience that someone else is just as likely to lay me off for a cheaper worker as they are to give me a raise

The incentives our system produces are already really skewed, and it would be nice to see them skew the other way for once

[WarmWash]

It seems your complaint is a lack of recognition, and maybe redistribution would provide vengeance for this injustice. But that is different than "we ought to start giving raises to people who do less work, not more" which is what "skewing the other way" seems to imply.

[yoyohello13]

Maybe we should start requiring companies to pay a percent of wages in equity. That would at least allow workers to share in a company’s success.

[WarmWash]

I'll always liked this idea until trying to map it out myself, and always running aground, preferring performance bonuses instead.

You can't pay bills with equity, you will get paid a smaller salary, you need to be a mature adult to understand what "value can go to zero, and that is the game" entails, you likely will get diluted, your ownership stake isn't large enough to materially change the company, you cannot cash out whenever you want, having equity definitely doesn't make you rich automatically.

Besides, if you are savvy enough to be genuinely motivated by the idea of having equity, just go buy stocks in solid companies.

[bluefirebrand]

Take a few moments to think about how companies would (easily) shift their behavior to avoid this

It wouldn't be too hard I don't think. Avoid having employees by making everything a short term contract / gig style work

[amanaplanacanal]

So make it apply to those people too. Make them legally employees for this purpose.

[bluefirebrand]

My observation is that if we leave our recognition up to people with power, they will choose to keep it for themselves or give it to their friends a majority of the time and that seems fucked up to continue to allow in a just society

> "we ought to start giving raises to people who do less work, not more"

This is completely beside the point, honestly

We should not use the most productive members of society as a measuring stick as though they were the average.

The average person does "way less work" than your very productive workaholic outliers, but that doesn't mean those people deserve way less.

Somehow we've all wound up being measured against the most exceptional people, instead of being measured against the average.

Keep in mind we're talking about a society where the median person only makes like $45k per year and exceptional people make many many times more than that

I'm not sitting here saying that some random shmuck should have Elon Musks income or anything, we could probably do better than 45k a year though

[germandiago]

You do not get equity from your comoany?

[bluefirebrand]

Pff, what? No.

You're in a super small bubble if you think earning equity in your employer's company is standard.

[joquarky]

Why do we need an incentive to do more?

[WarmWash]

There are still human societies on Earth that still live the same way they did 2,000 years ago. Most people would not want to live that way, and therefore they need to rely on people who did/do more. The best way to rely on them is to make then rely on you too.

"Valuable work leads to good outcomes for everyone" is probably one of the slipperiest slopes there is.

[nate_meurer]

If that's true, it's odd that so many social welfare programs across the western world are consuming an ever-growing share of GDP, incurring massive debt, and grinding toward insolvency and collapse. Exactly how much more of our money and labor do you want to take from us in order to continue this madness?

[germandiago]

European here. I left Europe 14 years ago. I tried to come back. My decision was to run away bc it is impossible to build a reasonable life in a stable way where you do not get smashed mercilessly...

It is just too much.

[germandiago]

Yes, remove the human incentive to produce, which is that the rest can consume in a way that is profitable enough for the producer and you will see the wxcess disappear in front of your eyes for killing the incentive to produce.

Infinitely redistributing does not yield products for all, but scarcity for all.

[WarmWash]

This is why we pass laws making it illegal to not produce excess.

Take that capitalist pig!

[germandiago]

I see, so you are suggesting making black markets appear. Good, I see you studied economic history a lot...

There is no way around this, believe me.

Not sure why you call pigs to people producing actually. That is how things end up working.

Not waiting for people to produce fornyou while you insult them amd try to set infinite restrictions until they do what you want... which by the way looks to me like modern slavery.

[encrypted_bird]

Just as an aside, I suspect the last line had an implied "/s". If so, I think they really should have included it.

[laughing_man]

The only reason there's more than enough to go around is people work for the betterment of their own life. If you disconnect the link between work and material comfort that simple, undeniable fact will no longer be fact.

[shuwix]

Tou've said it perfectly.

Last time when link between work and material comfort was disconnected was communism.

It looked good on paper from 1920's perspective, but was a downward spiral.

If we are to be functioning society, people need motivation to do their best ... and then, there's some spare wealth for the unfortunate.

[xedrac]

People say this, but I'm not sure I understand how it could be true. For example, taxing billionaires is often cited as the solution to this problem. But if we took Elon Musk's $730 billion fortune and divided it evenly among the US population, people would receive a one-time payment of about $2000, and then that fortune would be gone, and any opportunities or advancements it was creating. So I'm genuinely curious where you see this incredible excess coming from.

[techteach00]

I'm so sick and tired of hearing about this mythical "excess". I can't afford housing. Millions like me can't. There is no excess. Unless it's being hoarded by the capital class.

[zem]

I mean, it is very obviously being hoarded by the capital class! there has been tons of writing on the subject, no one can credibly deny that that's what's happening right now.

[nate_meurer]

The wealth of the "capital class", whatever that means, is dwarfed by the debt being run up by governments.

My favorite example: if you confiscated all of the wealth from all of the billionaires in the USA, it would fund the federal government for around six months. If you add state and local governments, those funds would last just weeks.

The rich don't have your money. Your government does, and they're flushing it down the toilet (and bombing Iran).

[closeparen]

The wealth of the capital class is, unsurprisingly, capital - the facilities, equipment, organizational structures, etc. used to make stuff. What does it mean for capital to be hoarded?

[cutterl6]

The same people crying about this "capital class" are often turning a blind eye to rampant migration and fiercely protesting against the deportation of illegal aliens. As if the laws of supply and demand have no effect on housing when it might conflict with one's liberal ideals.

[amanaplanacanal]

Yes we all know we need more housing supply.

[cutterl6]

Your advocacy for the working class would seem so much more genuine if you weren't so hellbent on displacing them from their employment, homes, communities, and cultures with millions of unskilled incompatible foreigners. You would sooner see affordable housing burned to the ground than used to accommodate needy White families.

[arjie]

Certainly, and notably the 'capital class' that's 'hoarding' the housing he's talking about are what look like normal people. You'd make more money taxing half of the value of those who own SFHs in Santa Clara alone than you would Elon Musk - and hurt productive capacity and jobs far less. The disconnect between the desire to extract what people describe as a fair share from the 'capital class' comes up rapidly against the wall of realizing they themselves are the 'capital class' in question. Everything else then becomes a war of definition as they try to narrowly constrain the scope of this such that they can send their kids to Monta Vista while simultaneously having everyone else pay much higher taxes.

[AlexandrB]

> we could take care of everyone with disabilities 10x over with plenty to spare.

Yes, like the 40%[1] of Stanford undergrads who have disabilities. The greatest long term impediment to what you're suggesting is folks who don't need the help taking advantage of the resource distribution. It both massively increases the costs and sours those who have to pay into the system on the whole thing leading to a backlash.

If we could just solve this quirk of human nature, we'd be all set.

[1] https://fortune.com/article/rise-in-elite-students-seeking-a...

[watwut]

Yeah, disability accommodation like having single dorm room and being allowed to cook for themselves rather then using cantine. Maybe the question is why the cantine is obligatory anyway.

[NuclearPM]

This is an issue, but billionaires are a greater issue.

[mrkstu]

You could take away 100% of billionaires capital to redistribute and end up in the exact same place in 4 years.

[jjav]

You would not end up in the same place because then you'd be in a world without billionaires, so you would not have people who can too easily just buy every politician and law they wish for their own perpetuation.

That alone would be a massive win.

[cucumber3732842]

It's not the ~50 billionares I'm worried about. They are human. You can appeal to Bill Gate's desire to leave a legacy he's proud of. You can appeal to Elon Musk's desire for technological progress.

What worries me are the god knows how many "billionaire equivelent" entities and institutions that swing their dicks around in the same manner but do so with the sociopathic ruthlessness of corporations and governments.

Peter Thiel may be evil but he'll almost certainly never knowingly instigate genocidal war in a foreign land for marginal benefit to his interests whereas that's exactly the kind of thing that nonhuman entities do because no person is singularly responsible.