"But where does the impulse to sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice come from?"
According to the philosopher Tim Dean - How we become human - it stems from a long held religious belief he called "costly signally". Thus the more costly it is to give something up or do something (sacrifice), then the more we are impressed with that faith, which then forms a bond of trust or kinship around that particular faith [pp. 130-32].
Thus, that why I think our belief that somehow we will all becomes greenies or address climate change is somewhat doomed. We humans are not prepared to make these costly sacrifices. We might engage in some form of environmental virtue signaling from time to time, but when it comes to the really hard or costly stuff - then we shirk away from it. One of my political rules of thumb is Green issues predominate when the economy is good, but drop well down the list of concerns when the economy turns bad.
The "impulse to sacrifice" could have four sources:
* a genuine desire to help other people because it feels like the right thing to do
* positive feelings that derive from making an effort to help others in combination with an expectation that helping will make a real difference
* observation of beneficial effects of previous helping activities by self or others, which support the first and second sources
* a desire to be seen to be doing something perceived to be good for others.
In each case, anticipated private benefits would exceed private costs.
In the first, second and third cases, EXPECTED social benefits should exceed social costs. However, helping may sometimes hurt. Those being helped may become dependent on help and/or lose their autonomy. Then, REALISED benefits to recipients may be undermined and helpers may become disillusioned, diminishing social benefits or raising social costs.
In the fourth case, social costs might exceed social benefits, because observers could be upset by the perceived hypocrisy of those attempting to signal their virtue and virtue signallers' own satisfaction may be diminished by their behaviour.
I can't think of cases in which people sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, except out of fear. However, I don't think that can be called sacrifice or sacrifice for sacrifice's sake.
Unfortunately, because of the public good aspects and free-rider phenomenon associated with tackling wicked problems like climate change, microplastic pollution, traffic congestion, and appalling inequality, there is too little sacrifice to help others from a social perspective.
I never thought of it like this, but it explains an awful lot about human behavior. Way more than can be covered in a single essay, though you give a strong sample all the same.
I’m sorry, but I disagree with you on peoples willingness to sacrifice. I don’t have any studies to back this up, just my life experience of watching peoples behaviour. Imo there are the following types:
1. The "look a me” type, aren’t I wonderful! Grandstanders all, of which there’s a reasonable number.
2. Those who’ll do what they believe is right, regardless if it costs them and that’s a small %.
3. When it adds up and makes sense for them and it won’t cost them. The largest group.
4. Those when regulation forces them.
Look back to when Rudd was PM and everyone was happy to support action on climate change, right up until they believed that they’d have to put their hands in their pockets and suddenly everyone was a doubter. No, I don’t believe conspiracy theories did their magic, they were just the excuse to change their ideas.
Another point of contention is your position on covid and the precautions etc. Your degree training in economics can give you all the understanding of data, but none of the knowledge of epidemiology etc. I wouldn’t take advise from any medical professional on economics and I can’t remember the last time one publicly offered their opinion.
As to your comment on herd immunity and the GBC I suggest you read the numerous articles from people who have a shedload more expertise in this area than an economist would: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/
Also the Burnett and Doherty Institutes don’t seem to agree with your take.
And no, during covid I wasn’t thinking I was going to die. WA closed its borders quickly and we had 95 deaths up to the reopening and today we’re on the way to joining the other states (not suggesting we should have stayed closed, once the borders were open it was virtually no restrictions whatsoever).
If I’ve taken the wrong view on your post, I’ll happily apologise.
I suspect that this ( see below - Precautionary Principle) has much to do with it. One of Talebs other themes is the wisdom of the ancients where traditional societies have learned of the risks of ruin, so that caution ( sacrifice?) is the sensible response.
Covid is interesting. Lockdowns we’re the logical (precautionary) thing to do, certainly at first, but Long Covid, serious, unpredictable organ damage and the loss of working hours haven’t played out yet - a bit like GMOs?
Regarding Superannuation. You are wrong to think there is some kind of magic pudding that people can fund the decades many are now spending voluntarily and involuntarily out of the workforce retired by raising social security taxes. People hate taxes and do not value the socialised longevity insurance component you speakof.
They have no surity they will live long enough to benefit or fully offset the fact that they are paying premiums funding the current baby boomer generation's retirement today with no rock solid guarantee they will have as generous of pension benefits when they get old. Everyone is aware of the aging population and know the current system is unaffordable even with the super system supplimenting let alone ending super and putting every retiree on the centrelink queue looking for liveable risk fee inflation proof retirement income.
On the contrary the Australian Super system is the envy of most of the world because governments have seen it has worked with people accepting they need to save for their own retirement and because they know they will get back the money some day it's not just being taxed away to fund someone else's retirement, there is broad based support and acceptance of the Super System.
What you fail to understand is that there is no magic pudding. Sacrifice today is required to fund your twilgiht years. Ending Super doesn't mean sacrifice is not required. It just changes the manner in which the sacrifice is made through higher social security taxes to make up for it with the uncertainty of the political whims of the governments that come to power when you retire in the future. Most people understand self provision is the safest and most secure way to be assured you will still have an income when you can nolonger work.
The plethora of underfunded public social security systems around the world where politicians have failed to make the case for sustainable social security taxes and/or cuts in future pension benefits promised to future retirees also gives strong evidence that Australia is a world leader in the policy response of how to fund people's retirement. Social security is going to be bankrupt in the US in just 10-15 years after decades of underfunding and overpromising to those who might vote you out of office that you can have your cake and eat it too.
Sorry Cameron, you are a great thought leader on housing and why house prices are so hard to become more affordable no matter what lever you pull. But regarding Super you fail to see the bigger picture. Australia's pension system is the envy of the world.
Yes some super fund administrators and fund managers are overpaid and clip the ticket, but their fees are a tiny fraction of the returns the super asset pool generates overall and also entirely avoidable if people want to run their own SMSF or invest in a ultra low fee industry superfund that has management fees as low as 0.05%PA vs long term returns of 8-12%PA.
Sooner of later Sacrificing today for a better tomorrow pays off. Just look at all the smarties who bought a house early while still contributing to super who now have low mortgage interest to pay and massive capital gains while those who did not sacrifice and rented were able to rent a much better lifestyle in the short term, but in the long term they are now paying the price.
The key is balance and maintaining a system the majority will accept between consumption today vs consumption tomorrow over their working life where they convert their human capital to financial capital.
My take on Cameron’s Super objections wasn’t about paying more tax into the tax system, but for it to go into a retirement pension, thus saving the massive management fees paid, which are the most expensive worldwide.
I don’t agree with your comment that the fees are tiny, project the extra amount Australians pay over a working life and see the difference.
I understood what he is arguing very Well. Get rid of Super and have a universal age pension funded by social security taxes. They have tried that in other countries like the US and the problem is politicians overpromise benefits and fail to raise enough social security tax to fund those benefits. It's easier to get yourself voted into power if you promise to legislate high retirement benefits as voters would love to have a higher retirement income.
At the same time, saying you will raise taxes to fund those high retirement benefits is a recipie for losing votes. So you can see why such systems end up chronically underfunded and unreliable like a ponsi scheme it may work today but in the coming decades when there are less and less taxpaying population to pay in taxes vs those drawing benefits, it becomes a long term time bomb. We don't have that in Australia and that's thanks to the combination of the age pension + Super.
You are nuts if you think people would be happy to pay a 12% age pension levy with a promised future pension benefit off on the never never at the mercy of the government of the day when you get to retirment age, instead of a 12% Super guarantee contribution into their own personal Super fund account they own 100% and will one day get back the benefits of.
The high management fees are mostly a thing of the past when admin was more manual and funds lacked scale and competition of being able to move to a better performing super fund. Not so today especially post royal comission.
Most people are on a MySuper product where the fees are very low 0.5-0.7%PA and again entirely avoidable if you have a big enough balance to manage your own SMSF and are willing to do the admin. APRA instituted annual performance tests that all super funds are subject to and the bottom 25% of underperforming funds are named and shamed, forced to write to their members saying they were one of the worst performing funds and not allowed to take on new members until fund performance improved.
Obviously this has been cryptonite to bad funds and there has been lots and lots of consolidation of high fee funds into low fee funds. One other thing people should be careful of is confusing fees with insurance premiums. They are both coming out of Super but the insurance is for people's protection if they become disabled or die and cant earn an income. What happens to their families with everyone carrying high mortgage debt. If you don't want the insurance that's something easily switched off by opting out. But you can't use that as an argument against Super.
I’m not against Super as such, but the management fees are just the start, my fund is 0.6%, but I’m paying more than that (no insurance), so I guess platform fees etc. My argument is surely a state super style setup avoiding the issues you mentioned would surely give a very small management fee / platform cost.
I do admit not being in the super finance area may mean this is just simplistic!
"But where does the impulse to sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice come from?"
According to the philosopher Tim Dean - How we become human - it stems from a long held religious belief he called "costly signally". Thus the more costly it is to give something up or do something (sacrifice), then the more we are impressed with that faith, which then forms a bond of trust or kinship around that particular faith [pp. 130-32].
Thus, that why I think our belief that somehow we will all becomes greenies or address climate change is somewhat doomed. We humans are not prepared to make these costly sacrifices. We might engage in some form of environmental virtue signaling from time to time, but when it comes to the really hard or costly stuff - then we shirk away from it. One of my political rules of thumb is Green issues predominate when the economy is good, but drop well down the list of concerns when the economy turns bad.
I think you might be spot on with every point here Neil. Nice comment. Yes on costly signalling. Yes on virtue signalling instead.
The "impulse to sacrifice" could have four sources:
* a genuine desire to help other people because it feels like the right thing to do
* positive feelings that derive from making an effort to help others in combination with an expectation that helping will make a real difference
* observation of beneficial effects of previous helping activities by self or others, which support the first and second sources
* a desire to be seen to be doing something perceived to be good for others.
In each case, anticipated private benefits would exceed private costs.
In the first, second and third cases, EXPECTED social benefits should exceed social costs. However, helping may sometimes hurt. Those being helped may become dependent on help and/or lose their autonomy. Then, REALISED benefits to recipients may be undermined and helpers may become disillusioned, diminishing social benefits or raising social costs.
In the fourth case, social costs might exceed social benefits, because observers could be upset by the perceived hypocrisy of those attempting to signal their virtue and virtue signallers' own satisfaction may be diminished by their behaviour.
I can't think of cases in which people sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice, except out of fear. However, I don't think that can be called sacrifice or sacrifice for sacrifice's sake.
Unfortunately, because of the public good aspects and free-rider phenomenon associated with tackling wicked problems like climate change, microplastic pollution, traffic congestion, and appalling inequality, there is too little sacrifice to help others from a social perspective.
I never thought of it like this, but it explains an awful lot about human behavior. Way more than can be covered in a single essay, though you give a strong sample all the same.
I’m sorry, but I disagree with you on peoples willingness to sacrifice. I don’t have any studies to back this up, just my life experience of watching peoples behaviour. Imo there are the following types:
1. The "look a me” type, aren’t I wonderful! Grandstanders all, of which there’s a reasonable number.
2. Those who’ll do what they believe is right, regardless if it costs them and that’s a small %.
3. When it adds up and makes sense for them and it won’t cost them. The largest group.
4. Those when regulation forces them.
Look back to when Rudd was PM and everyone was happy to support action on climate change, right up until they believed that they’d have to put their hands in their pockets and suddenly everyone was a doubter. No, I don’t believe conspiracy theories did their magic, they were just the excuse to change their ideas.
Another point of contention is your position on covid and the precautions etc. Your degree training in economics can give you all the understanding of data, but none of the knowledge of epidemiology etc. I wouldn’t take advise from any medical professional on economics and I can’t remember the last time one publicly offered their opinion.
As to your comment on herd immunity and the GBC I suggest you read the numerous articles from people who have a shedload more expertise in this area than an economist would: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/
Also the Burnett and Doherty Institutes don’t seem to agree with your take.
And no, during covid I wasn’t thinking I was going to die. WA closed its borders quickly and we had 95 deaths up to the reopening and today we’re on the way to joining the other states (not suggesting we should have stayed closed, once the borders were open it was virtually no restrictions whatsoever).
If I’ve taken the wrong view on your post, I’ll happily apologise.
I suspect that this ( see below - Precautionary Principle) has much to do with it. One of Talebs other themes is the wisdom of the ancients where traditional societies have learned of the risks of ruin, so that caution ( sacrifice?) is the sensible response.
Covid is interesting. Lockdowns we’re the logical (precautionary) thing to do, certainly at first, but Long Covid, serious, unpredictable organ damage and the loss of working hours haven’t played out yet - a bit like GMOs?
https://research-portal.uea.ac.uk/en/publications/the-precautionary-principle-fragility-and-black-swans-from-policy
Regarding Superannuation. You are wrong to think there is some kind of magic pudding that people can fund the decades many are now spending voluntarily and involuntarily out of the workforce retired by raising social security taxes. People hate taxes and do not value the socialised longevity insurance component you speakof.
They have no surity they will live long enough to benefit or fully offset the fact that they are paying premiums funding the current baby boomer generation's retirement today with no rock solid guarantee they will have as generous of pension benefits when they get old. Everyone is aware of the aging population and know the current system is unaffordable even with the super system supplimenting let alone ending super and putting every retiree on the centrelink queue looking for liveable risk fee inflation proof retirement income.
On the contrary the Australian Super system is the envy of most of the world because governments have seen it has worked with people accepting they need to save for their own retirement and because they know they will get back the money some day it's not just being taxed away to fund someone else's retirement, there is broad based support and acceptance of the Super System.
What you fail to understand is that there is no magic pudding. Sacrifice today is required to fund your twilgiht years. Ending Super doesn't mean sacrifice is not required. It just changes the manner in which the sacrifice is made through higher social security taxes to make up for it with the uncertainty of the political whims of the governments that come to power when you retire in the future. Most people understand self provision is the safest and most secure way to be assured you will still have an income when you can nolonger work.
The plethora of underfunded public social security systems around the world where politicians have failed to make the case for sustainable social security taxes and/or cuts in future pension benefits promised to future retirees also gives strong evidence that Australia is a world leader in the policy response of how to fund people's retirement. Social security is going to be bankrupt in the US in just 10-15 years after decades of underfunding and overpromising to those who might vote you out of office that you can have your cake and eat it too.
Sorry Cameron, you are a great thought leader on housing and why house prices are so hard to become more affordable no matter what lever you pull. But regarding Super you fail to see the bigger picture. Australia's pension system is the envy of the world.
Yes some super fund administrators and fund managers are overpaid and clip the ticket, but their fees are a tiny fraction of the returns the super asset pool generates overall and also entirely avoidable if people want to run their own SMSF or invest in a ultra low fee industry superfund that has management fees as low as 0.05%PA vs long term returns of 8-12%PA.
Sooner of later Sacrificing today for a better tomorrow pays off. Just look at all the smarties who bought a house early while still contributing to super who now have low mortgage interest to pay and massive capital gains while those who did not sacrifice and rented were able to rent a much better lifestyle in the short term, but in the long term they are now paying the price.
The key is balance and maintaining a system the majority will accept between consumption today vs consumption tomorrow over their working life where they convert their human capital to financial capital.
My take on Cameron’s Super objections wasn’t about paying more tax into the tax system, but for it to go into a retirement pension, thus saving the massive management fees paid, which are the most expensive worldwide.
I don’t agree with your comment that the fees are tiny, project the extra amount Australians pay over a working life and see the difference.
I understood what he is arguing very Well. Get rid of Super and have a universal age pension funded by social security taxes. They have tried that in other countries like the US and the problem is politicians overpromise benefits and fail to raise enough social security tax to fund those benefits. It's easier to get yourself voted into power if you promise to legislate high retirement benefits as voters would love to have a higher retirement income.
At the same time, saying you will raise taxes to fund those high retirement benefits is a recipie for losing votes. So you can see why such systems end up chronically underfunded and unreliable like a ponsi scheme it may work today but in the coming decades when there are less and less taxpaying population to pay in taxes vs those drawing benefits, it becomes a long term time bomb. We don't have that in Australia and that's thanks to the combination of the age pension + Super.
You are nuts if you think people would be happy to pay a 12% age pension levy with a promised future pension benefit off on the never never at the mercy of the government of the day when you get to retirment age, instead of a 12% Super guarantee contribution into their own personal Super fund account they own 100% and will one day get back the benefits of.
The high management fees are mostly a thing of the past when admin was more manual and funds lacked scale and competition of being able to move to a better performing super fund. Not so today especially post royal comission.
Most people are on a MySuper product where the fees are very low 0.5-0.7%PA and again entirely avoidable if you have a big enough balance to manage your own SMSF and are willing to do the admin. APRA instituted annual performance tests that all super funds are subject to and the bottom 25% of underperforming funds are named and shamed, forced to write to their members saying they were one of the worst performing funds and not allowed to take on new members until fund performance improved.
Obviously this has been cryptonite to bad funds and there has been lots and lots of consolidation of high fee funds into low fee funds. One other thing people should be careful of is confusing fees with insurance premiums. They are both coming out of Super but the insurance is for people's protection if they become disabled or die and cant earn an income. What happens to their families with everyone carrying high mortgage debt. If you don't want the insurance that's something easily switched off by opting out. But you can't use that as an argument against Super.
I’m not against Super as such, but the management fees are just the start, my fund is 0.6%, but I’m paying more than that (no insurance), so I guess platform fees etc. My argument is surely a state super style setup avoiding the issues you mentioned would surely give a very small management fee / platform cost.
I do admit not being in the super finance area may mean this is just simplistic!