Re: Is Intelligence/Skilled Labor a Natural Resource? (spinoff of oil s&d discussion)


"Dan in Philly" <djr8@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:431b4fbc$1_2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> <royls@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message ...
>
>>>It's the people with less intelligence
>>>who have to work at it. Hence the analogy with land and Georgism: if
>>>you're
>>>lucky enough to inherit land, the government should tax away the excess
>>>rent; if you're lucky enough to inherit intelligence, then the government
>>>should tax away the excess rent.
>
>> ?? But if you own land, you don't have to do anything but sit around
>> a cash the rent checks. If you have brains, you actually have to
>> _use_ them to _contribute_ something,
>
> The janitor works just as hard as I do. But he earns 25k while I earn 75k.
> The difference is due to luck (our brains), so why not tax away my
> "excess" 50k? As with land, it won't change anything - ie I wouldn't quit
> my job.

"As with land..."

But you're surely wrong there. Economists do debate the elasticity of the
supply of labor, but no one would say it's zero, particularly at the rates
your example would imply. But no one debates the elasticity of the supply
of land, because it's zero by definition.

> In fact, a committed georgist-socialist would argue that janitorial work
> is _harder_ than my desk job. So my after-tax salary should be _lower_
> than the janitor's, to the point where I'm almost ready to quit my job and
> become a (higher-paid) janitor.

That's an odd formulation, "georgist-socialist." Georgists (and "quasi-"
Georgists) think that, to the fullest extent practicable, rents should be
taxed away. Socialists believe that government should own the means of
production.

I'm guessing that's because you think both the Georgist and Socialist
projects aim at redistributing wealth down the ladder. That's incorrect
about Georgism, which aims to discontinue the status quo project of
redistributing wealth *up* the ladder.

> Dan in Philly
>
>


.

Relevant Pages