Marginal Value of a Human Being

[AlpsStranger]

Too many dynamic variables to really give a good answer.

Pretty much this. Just saying "Have a one world union" is already describing the single most significant event in human history and one that I, frankly, would be apprehensive towards on a good day.

Not to mention the fact that a lot of people are just dicks.
"OHHHHH LAZY WELFARE BUMS" they'll just say. "GET THEM OFF THEIR LAZY BEHINDS AND FORCE THEM INTO LABOR BY ANY MEANS POSSIBLE."

And that's the reason why I don't take silly utopian crap seriously anymore. Even if you rely on authoritarianism to stomp down the dicks ( which has a whole host of problems, such as the inevitable loss of free expression and freedom of conscience ) then you're running a big risk of getting a Lord God King Megadick as Dear Leader.

My position that we should leave each other alone as much as possible will never lead to utopia. Period. Full stop. But I feel that "Hey, let's not try to run each other's lives!" is significantly less likely to result in out-and-out hell on earth scenarios.

 

[El_Machinae]

I suspect that there're many places that have negative marginal value in some of their population. Humans have a fixed minimal consumption, but it's pretty low compared to what we actually consume. There're so many subsidization schemes out there that it's really tough to figure out each person's net contribution minus their cost.

And important thing to remember is that someone's economic value is not what they're paid, but what people are charged for their services. I've had clients billed $75 per hour for my services, and I certainly wasn't being paid the whole amount: but I was 'worth' that much to them, I provided that much value. It would be the same with immigrant workers, etc., where their work-product is probably worth many times what they're being paid, and the 'social benefit' of their labor is more accurately described based on what people're charged to access their services.

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm not sure I buy this whole Rynd Randian - whoever that person is - notion of the "producers" getting sick and tired of their lot. It doesn't work that way. Wealth is not perceived as an absolute value. It's a relative value. By the standards of much of the world I am obscenely wealthy. I have enough convenience and power to put the pharaohs to shame. But I don't feel wealthy because my relative net worth isn't out of line or even necessarily equal to many around me.

If you get into social sciences you get some super basic theories around the "thin blue line" of individuals in society, such as police, that are paid to keep everyone in line and in accord with the rules. Rules which, almost always keep some people on top and some people at the bottom. How much do police officers generally need to be paid? Somewhat more than the average member of society, but they certainly don't need to be paid enough to put them "on top." Producers(Lord I hate that term) are likely the same way. So long as society is structured such that the people who are rich have ample people to be richer than, and they aren't so isolated as to only see people equally as rich as them, that'll work. Assuming adequate absolute wealth to account for basic needs and whatnot.

 

[Leoreth]

Maybe it's just because we're on a Civ forum, but I love how matter-of-fact and simplistic these solutions are. Like the part where we "make a global union" and "make it so overpopulated societies can benefit ( not sure why this is in quotes ) from societies with plenty of resources."

Who is doing this and what magic power is being used to ensure this/these individual(s) are not hopelessly corrupt? Why should I suddenly believe that a "world union" would be less hopelessly corrupt than any other government?

Any solution that refers to humanity as though it were a large, predictable and pliable machine is immediately suspect unless we simply assume you're talking about extreme repression.

I think the reason is more that the OP is speaking in very abstract terms reduced to very simplistic variables. Of course economics is full of nuance and when the required social and political change enters the picture it becomes even more complicated.

What I just wanted to demonstrate, again by being as general as possible, is that there is no reason to assume that increases in productivity will result in a whole segment of society being marginalized because we lack the wealth to meet their basic desires. It's all a question of distribution.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Maybe it's just because we're on a Civ forum, but I love how matter-of-fact and simplistic these solutions are. Like the part where we "make a global union" and "make it so overpopulated societies can benefit ( not sure why this is in quotes ) from societies with plenty of resources."

Who is doing this and what magic power is being used to ensure this/these individual(s) are not hopelessly corrupt? Why should I suddenly believe that a "world union" would be less hopelessly corrupt than any other government?

Any solution that refers to humanity as though it were a large, predictable and pliable machine is immediately suspect unless we simply assume you're talking about extreme repression.

I did ask you to tell me if I was stupid, and it seems as if I am

After reading ze OP I got the idea that we are dealing with some sort of ideal citizen, and I therefore presumed an ideal government. I'm sorry for this, I've done to many "thought experiments" in this "style".

(I had some assotiation that "benefit" could be confused with "exploited", which I guess is wrong, and also not what I meant)

But more importantly: I misunderstood the isssue at hand. I've read more closely and done some thinking, and now I have a clearer view.

What if they are both wrong and we reached a point where full employment (or something close) is simply not economically efficient, because production and value can be maximized with some much smaller percentage of the people in our society. Leaving many not just without jobs, but permanent drags to society.

What I think I believe is about the same as Leoreth has said. The thing is that we can make what everyone needs without having everyone work.

The solution: cut working hours, hire the "leftovers" to work in the cutted (cutted?) time, and don't reduce wages.

The capitalists (are those the ones Raynd-whatever calls producers?) will not like this yes? Too bad for them, their priorities should be last.

Essentialy: Implement socialism.

 

[Borachio]

I did ask you to tell me if I was stupid, and it seems as if I am

Take no notice of AlpsStranger, it's just his way.

The solution: cut working hours, hire the "leftovers" to work in the cutted (cutted?) cut time [or " the time that's been cut" might be more natural. "to cut" is an irregular verb and the past participle is "cut", instead of the more regular -ed form], and don't reduce wages.

 

[Crezth]

I like AlpsStranger's way of thinking. Rather than reduce humans to Klackons, let's reduce them to numbers. If a number gets too low, purge it. Society!

 

[Gucumatz]

I like AlpsStranger's way of thinking. Rather than reduce humans to Klackons, let's reduce them to numbers. If a number gets too low, purge it. Society!

Now you are thinking like Stalin

 

[Borachio]

Klackons are tricky. Their lack of religious buildings is somewhat offset by their unrest bonus, but they still lack the power production and they can't produce the major research buildings either. This puts a high priority on either conquering cities of other races or controlling nodes.

Hmmm. Let me think about this.

 

[Farm Boy]

Klackons got butchered after 1.