Hacker News Reader

Comment by simplestats | Hacker News Reader

So labor is wealth now? This is the same argument again. I could also discover oil on my property, or build a bigger house on it with my own labor, or all the other houses could get destroyed in an earthquake. Or, on the other side, someone could invent a new process or tool that makes your skills obsolete. Or a million immigrants could show up and bid labor prices down. These all change the amount of labor I will want in return for my house. But none are wealth transfer. Labor is how wealth is produced but it is not wealth itself.

View on HN

Yes, real wealth (and paper wealth) shifts around constantly depending on external factors, including all of the factors you listed above. Wealth is just optionality - if my house is worth $1M I have more options than if the my house is worth $500K, even if it is the same exact house.

Yes, labor is how wealth is produced, but in a sense, an individual's labor is more than that: a person's unrealized wealth is the discounted future value of their lifetime income minus necessary survival expenses. That's not a constant number - it depends on the individual's choices, but nevertheless, that is some number. And that number has some associated optionality.

If we increase the price of houses, the optionality associated with that future stream of earnings decreases, and therefore I believe that wealth has actually been transferred (since the optionality of the homeowner increases)

> Yes, labor is how wealth is produced, but in a sense, an individual's labor is more than that: a person's unrealized wealth is the discounted future value of their lifetime income minus necessary survival expenses. That's not a constant number - it depends on the individual's choices, but nevertheless, that is some number. And that number has some associated optionality.

Economics is the study of scarcity. Wealth is real stuff like the house.

"Unrealized wealth" or "The potential to create wealth" or "the future value of your skills" shifts around, sure. Not the same thing as actual wealth though. And these shifts of theoretical outcomes are not transfers of wealth. This sounds like straining to fit something to emotional language.

> So labor is wealth now? This is the same argument

...as Marx made, yes. And he was a pretty sharp cookie, so maybe the argument is correct.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com