News Teaching: Is Minimum Wage Corruption?
Hi! Happy Wednesday!
“When the people find [ways] that they can vote [and bribe] themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
News: Last election, four states voted themselves a pay raise.
Corruption in the US is such that the top 1% of this country is acquiring more of the overall wealth every year and have been at a increasing rate since 2000. Voters saw fit to counteract this slightly by voting themselves a raise. Ha! We are hell bent on heralding the end of the republic.
Why the doom and gloom? Because isolating a single part of a system, a system required to run as a whole, subverts the system thereby corrupting the system. That is how direct democracy and bribes are both equal. Both direct democracy and corruption are concerned with isolating a single policy independent of all others thus subverting the whole system health being taken into account.
What's the solution?
Public voting.
Read on dear reader, read on!
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is no evidence to back up the public voting claims made herein. None. So, innovation is the key. Small audience experiments where data is collected and methodology refined as to what works and what fails is necessary before expansion of new social ideas and transitioning social experiments such as public voting to larger audiences. This has been my biggest complaint about ACA, experimenting on an entire country to start is a bad idea. Passing a bill for everyone as a requirement to see if that experiment works is just bad social science. Innovation replaces revolution, especially when trying radical new ideas such as public voting or public health. Irreni is not just a pretty name, but a philosophy.
How does public voting work?
This post discussion assumes the technological approach of the vote bank and percolation voting discussed yesterday. You might want to take a quick second and read that.
There a two major adaptations applied to yesterday's discussion:
Won't I be penalized if my vote is public? Will I loose my job? Will my family reject me?
The answer is not obvious. The answer is there is no difference in risk whether a vote is private or public. A public vote and a private vote have the same risk. To see how this is just ask yourself a few questions:
How corruption is managed with a perk voting system. Recall perk voting is a pyramid network in that a single person can cast a vote on behalf of thousands and millions if they have a large enough network pyramid of voters. However, that network is going to be contingent on who that person has already committed themselves to voting too. Bribe such a person to change a vote that has thousands if not millions of network votes and then that network may collapse as that network of voters may strongly disagree with the vote shift and bail out. As a consequence of this then the best way for someone at the top of the network pyramid to retain their network before changing a corruption vote is to spread the corruption money around the network. That gets expensive and by expensive I do not just mean lots of money, but I also mean devaluing money. If bribes are paid as hourly wages then minimum wage equates to minimum bribe.
Minimum wage today is a corruption system check on the wealthy people's corruption. Mitigate runaway wealth corruption and you also minimize minimum wage needs. Public voting manages corruption, making corruption moot, by opening corruption to such a large field as to balance any single influence. Once a bidding war of votes gets started then the principled voters, the ones voting the issue, may easily dominate in size the delta, the difference in voters influenced by cash on both sides. A frustrated, neutered corruption system leaves a system of the people, by the people and for the people better positioned to stay dominant, hopefully with no need to isolate issues such as wages because a whole system believed to be fair won't need it.
Well come! and well met!
“When the people find [ways] that they can vote [and bribe] themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.”
― Benjamin Franklin
News: Last election, four states voted themselves a pay raise.
Corruption in the US is such that the top 1% of this country is acquiring more of the overall wealth every year and have been at a increasing rate since 2000. Voters saw fit to counteract this slightly by voting themselves a raise. Ha! We are hell bent on heralding the end of the republic.
Why the doom and gloom? Because isolating a single part of a system, a system required to run as a whole, subverts the system thereby corrupting the system. That is how direct democracy and bribes are both equal. Both direct democracy and corruption are concerned with isolating a single policy independent of all others thus subverting the whole system health being taken into account.
What's the solution?
Public voting.
Read on dear reader, read on!
What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is no evidence to back up the public voting claims made herein. None. So, innovation is the key. Small audience experiments where data is collected and methodology refined as to what works and what fails is necessary before expansion of new social ideas and transitioning social experiments such as public voting to larger audiences. This has been my biggest complaint about ACA, experimenting on an entire country to start is a bad idea. Passing a bill for everyone as a requirement to see if that experiment works is just bad social science. Innovation replaces revolution, especially when trying radical new ideas such as public voting or public health. Irreni is not just a pretty name, but a philosophy.
How does public voting work?
This post discussion assumes the technological approach of the vote bank and percolation voting discussed yesterday. You might want to take a quick second and read that.
There a two major adaptations applied to yesterday's discussion:
- All votes are public. Everyone can see who everyone votes for. This is so you know who you can bribe and what to bid.
- Vote buying, bribes, are now legal with the caveat that the financial payments to be made when votes are cast are also made public.
Won't I be penalized if my vote is public? Will I loose my job? Will my family reject me?
The answer is not obvious. The answer is there is no difference in risk whether a vote is private or public. A public vote and a private vote have the same risk. To see how this is just ask yourself a few questions:
- Are my political leanings ever exposed in my conversation ever? Especially with the people closest to me who could damage me the most?
- Do people ever jump to unsubstantiated conclusions? Especially about the hot topic issues: religion, money and politics? In other words, are your assumptions that people are not judging you valid simply because they don't know how you voted?
- Are you really that important or are you just paranoid?
- If someone is going to persecute you on how you vote then do you really think they will believe you tell the truth on a private vote? If said person does not trust you then a private vote as a concept is a moot point.
- Vote is indirect.
- Your vote can be bought by the highest bidder, 24/7, with a vote bank. Make some money.
- Pay people to vote and they will "come out to vote". In a vote bank system, however, votes are not cast they are banked. What this really means for a perk vote is that people will take the time to bank votes if they want the money.
How corruption is managed with a perk voting system. Recall perk voting is a pyramid network in that a single person can cast a vote on behalf of thousands and millions if they have a large enough network pyramid of voters. However, that network is going to be contingent on who that person has already committed themselves to voting too. Bribe such a person to change a vote that has thousands if not millions of network votes and then that network may collapse as that network of voters may strongly disagree with the vote shift and bail out. As a consequence of this then the best way for someone at the top of the network pyramid to retain their network before changing a corruption vote is to spread the corruption money around the network. That gets expensive and by expensive I do not just mean lots of money, but I also mean devaluing money. If bribes are paid as hourly wages then minimum wage equates to minimum bribe.
Minimum wage today is a corruption system check on the wealthy people's corruption. Mitigate runaway wealth corruption and you also minimize minimum wage needs. Public voting manages corruption, making corruption moot, by opening corruption to such a large field as to balance any single influence. Once a bidding war of votes gets started then the principled voters, the ones voting the issue, may easily dominate in size the delta, the difference in voters influenced by cash on both sides. A frustrated, neutered corruption system leaves a system of the people, by the people and for the people better positioned to stay dominant, hopefully with no need to isolate issues such as wages because a whole system believed to be fair won't need it.
Well come! and well met!
Comments
Post a Comment