One effect of income is (supposedly) to incentivize work,
A way of modelling this is replacing u(x) with a u(X, L), where L is the number of non-work hours in a week, and replacing S with (168 - L)W, where 168 is the total number of hours in a week and W is your hourly wage. Then you maximize u((168 - L)W—g, L) + wtg with respect to L and g.
Let’s pull our heads out of the rabbit hole and understand that the monetary system is the most inefficient way to get anything done. “Charity” is a word used to elicit guilt so that the general populous will cover the gaps created by misappropriated funds collected by governments. If you desire to live in a community then take care of the members of that community, as they would take care of you. No money need change hands.
Erm, the monetary system is generally a pretty efficient way to get anything done. Things like division of labour and comparative advantage are pretty handy when it comes to charity too.
A way of modelling this is replacing u(x) with a u(X, L), where L is the number of non-work hours in a week, and replacing S with (168 - L)W, where 168 is the total number of hours in a week and W is your hourly wage. Then you maximize u((168 - L)W—g, L) + wtg with respect to L and g.
Let’s pull our heads out of the rabbit hole and understand that the monetary system is the most inefficient way to get anything done. “Charity” is a word used to elicit guilt so that the general populous will cover the gaps created by misappropriated funds collected by governments. If you desire to live in a community then take care of the members of that community, as they would take care of you. No money need change hands.
Erm, the monetary system is generally a pretty efficient way to get anything done. Things like division of labour and comparative advantage are pretty handy when it comes to charity too.