Comments by "Jasper Mooren" (@jaspermooren5883) on "TED" channel.

  1. Inherently, paying your people more costs money, you only make it back when all people start to have more and therefore can participate more efficiently in society. Even if all your restaurant workers spent all their extra money on going to your restaurant, you still lose money. The system only works when everybody does it (so more people who don't work at your restaurant also go there). Simple game theory, personal optimisation is quite different from group optimisation. There is simply a limit in the current situation as to how much you can do as an employer. This is not necessarily a defence of Nick Hanauer, since I don't know him. But your attack is at least on an economic level unfounded.
    4
  2. Except it is exactly the other way around, @paxwallacejazz. Just look up the definitions.
    3
  3. I wonder why no one has brought up the most massive flaw in this system: its systematic slavery, since you are literally forcing 100s of people to get a career they didn't choose to have. Unless you make it voluntary, in which case it is not at all random. Its a funny idea, but its using a sledgehammer to kill a fly (to be honest, what problem is it really solving? As if the person who didn't have a job is less susceptible to bribary than the seasoned politician is). I don't want to live in a world where literally the entire goverment is changed every couple of years. Nothing gets done in that system. It's just objectively worse than democracy, since non of its issues are solved (its basically bribary, but there is no system which inherently roots that out). It does create a hole bunch of other issues though.
    1