my economic thought experiment

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Mightysword » Wed, 27. Feb 19, 08:32

fiksal wrote:
Wed, 27. Feb 19, 04:12
Just to be clear, we recognize her worth because of being a high earner, not because of quality music?
Uh why not both? I don't think they're mutual exclusive, rather they actually are mutual inclusive. She won't be a high earner if we don't value her music. After all, "starving artists" is a thing.
I am familiar with a similar reason. But a one that was pointed to me as a more significant reason - is mismanaged production and lack of competition.
"Mismanaged" is a very general thing, and lack of motivation fall under it. My mother was an extremely motivated and talented worker before our country fell to communist. She had dreamed about a comfortable life not just for herself, but her parents, to act as the locomotive and pull all of her brother and sister (which there are about 10) to greatness, and that motivated her to work hard, far harder than most of her peer That's all shattered, under communism she was not allowed to have more than what enough to barely sustain herself regardless of how much she works, so the question is why should she work at her full potential when 1/10 of that already max out the reward? And that lasted until the Soviet collapse and various communist country embraced capitalism again and people are freely compensated for their work. It didn't take her long to stand at the top of the food chain again with the talents she had.

It's big enough of a problem that it became some soft of a folklore joke in my country, there was this saying: under communism a farmer working on the field, as he lifted the hoe above his head for another swing he heard the bell chim for the end of shift, he would release the hoe and it fell to the ground instead of actually finish the motion for that last swing. People were just that apathetic and indifferent. Often time people will try to find various reason to blame for a collapse, but ultimately beyond any infrastructure or technology is always the human factor. You can move mountain with barehand if the people motivated enough, and even the best machinery won't dig a tunnel if the operator can't be arsed to do it. ;)

fiksal wrote:
Wed, 27. Feb 19, 04:12
Her quitting the music scene can play out the same way in just a couple variations of the two concepts discussed so far.

- the paycheck cap is too low for her (lets say the same $500k), she quits.
- she stays, if it's 36million and not taxed.

- the progressive tax is too high for her tax bracket, she quits.
- she stays, if it's not, and also not taxed.
That's not really how it works. Think of your proposal is like strip mining or overhaversting a natural resource. Ideally you want to harvest (tax) just enough not only to sustain your need (social spending) but also preserve the deposit, let it recover ( motivation to keep producing) and ideally, even let it develop (motivation to grow and develope), because as population increase, your need for it will only increase, not decrease. Most of the ideal from socialism I see so far is akin to you look at these rich deposits (people with high earning) and you want to strip mining it. Like I said, you will have a pretty good haul at the beginning, but you will also deplete the deposit with little chance of recover (people stopped working, or move away).

I want to remind you that I've previous amended the plan to a version of progressive tax. I've not looked into numbers, but for the sake of keeping this discussion going, lets say it's higher than the one right now in US.
Then I have nothing to add on that, since the point of discussion had shifted. I only original came out to address why a hardcap is an extremely bad idea, so my argument is built around that, if that's no longer the case then my argument is moot. :)
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 27. Feb 19, 10:02

fiksal wrote:
Mon, 25. Feb 19, 16:01
...Am I reading you right that you dont think the progressive tax is a good idea?
(Trying to boil everything down to some simple concepts. :))

A progressive tax system is a good idea. I like it. It works.

It allows people to excel. It allows people to earn what the market is willing to pay for their work. It allows them to be "free to write their own destiny" while still serving the "needs of the Greater Good." And, when people hit hard times and aren't able to earn enough? It offsets that by limiting, sometimes even doing entirely away with, taxes. It's also fair.

But, you've only addressed limits on "Maximum Income." That's nothing. And, moreover, it's arbitrarily decided. Where's the "Why?" The only "Why" I see is "they make too much monies." Why does that matter?

Why does the existence of "no limits" matter? Are you trying to solve some other problem than just hating money and abhorring the fact that it changes hands in large amounts? I'm serious. :)

Or, is there some other problem you're trying to address? If that's the case, then why not start out directly addressing that problem instead? Somebody, somewhere, once your system is put in place, is going to start getting upset about it and demand a rational explanation for it. Where is that? If you can't give one, then people who want to make large amounts of monies one day are going to start asking you what it is, too. You're going to have to give them an answer they can agree with or else you will be proclaiming yourself a "Tyrant." Unless, of course, you believe in tyranny as a legitimate form of government.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by fiksal » Wed, 27. Feb 19, 16:48

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 27. Feb 19, 08:32
Uh why not both? I don't think they're mutual exclusive, rather they actually are mutual inclusive. She won't be a high earner if we don't value her music. After all, "starving artists" is a thing.
I can take both in perfect world.

Now though if we value someone's music or art we arent necessarily making them high earners. In US, an artist is better off taking a white color job.

but it's offtopic.
Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 27. Feb 19, 08:32
"Mismanaged" is a very general thing, and lack of motivation fall under it.
Okay, so it's all of the above then. It is indeed something that I've also heard.

There's a good tv documentary that looks into events surrounding the collapse, and just daily life. If you want to check it out...well and can understand Russian, I can link it too.

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 27. Feb 19, 08:32
That's not really how it works. Think of your proposal is like strip mining or overhaversting a natural resource. Ideally you want to harvest (tax) just enough not only to sustain your need (social spending) but also preserve the deposit, let it recover ( motivation to keep producing) and ideally, even let it develop (motivation to grow and develope), because as population increase, your need for it will only increase, not decrease. Most of the ideal from socialism I see so far is akin to you look at these rich deposits (people with high earning) and you want to strip mining it. Like I said, you will have a pretty good haul at the beginning, but you will also deplete the deposit with little chance of recover (people stopped working, or move away).
so the key to any taxation is not to over mine, just enough so that it's not too damaging? I like that

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 27. Feb 19, 08:32
I want to remind you that I've previous amended the plan to a version of progressive tax. I've not looked into numbers, but for the sake of keeping this discussion going, lets say it's higher than the one right now in US.
Then I have nothing to add on that, since the point of discussion had shifted. I only original came out to address why a hardcap is an extremely bad idea, so my argument is built around that, if that's no longer the case then my argument is moot. :)
Fair enough. I am just making sure we arent talking about what was already discussed )




Morkonan wrote:
Wed, 27. Feb 19, 10:02
Why does the existence of "no limits" matter? Are you trying to solve some other problem than just hating money and abhorring the fact that it changes hands in large amounts? I'm serious. :)
Purely a mathematical / economics exercise. No feelings to abstract things involved.

Morkonan wrote:
Wed, 27. Feb 19, 10:02
Or, is there some other problem you're trying to address?
The problem of the large and growing gap between low income, middle income, and a vast gap to high earners.

Which I wouldnt consider a problem if low income would have a comfortable life, being able to afford education, healthcare, home.

The approach was pulled out of thin air with no major research. I could've easily suggested eating the poor to solve the issue, but that discussion probably would've ended faster.


Does that answer your question? )

Morkonan wrote:
Wed, 27. Feb 19, 10:02
If that's the case, then why not start out directly addressing that problem instead?
What's your take on the gap?

I also want to remind you that several posts ago I've switched to progressive tax over the cap idea. The former is indeed problematic.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 27. Feb 19, 18:32

fiksal wrote:
Wed, 27. Feb 19, 16:48
...Does that answer your question? )
Yes. Though, I am not sure that eating the poor would be a viable solution without sufficient sanitary precautions... ;)
..What's your take on the gap?

I also want to remind you that several posts ago I've switched to progressive tax over the cap idea. The former is indeed problematic.
Sorry, missed that. No prob.

My take on "The Gap?"

Well, much like you, my first concern is that those who have very low incomes compared to what is needed to "survive and thrive" are able to see their basic needs met. That is my first and primary concern.

Next up, without yet discussing how to solve problems in the first point, is that we aren't necessarily experiencing a "Gap" in terms of "Wages." We're experiencing a "Gap" in terms of "The Value of Work."

What is the solution, then, if not all work has the same economic impact nor does all work have the same social value? Do we subsidize the value of work and, when we do, what does that government subsidization actually do to the behavior of the people?

Remember when I said that taxes are used to influence behavior? Well, subsidization has the same general effect. This isn't an argument that rests on "lazy people will be lazy if the government pays them to be lazy." It's an argument being made that the value of certain forms of labor are going to continue to decline and that subsidization, if it is the only strategy willing to be used, will only ever increase as the cultural definition of a "Minimum Standard of Living" increases.

What is today's definition of a "Minimum Standard of Living" compared to the same general standard in 50 BC within the Roman Empire? What about in, let's say, the 19'th Century in the US when "the dream" was wagon-training to the West to start a farm, own a bit of land, raise a family in a "New World of Opportunity and Adventure?"

Today, things like Internet Access are part of a "Minimum Standard of Living." Having a cellphone, a "smartphone" is considered part of that. Having adequate transportation is part of that. All of these things are part of subsidies that go into supporting a "Minimum Standard of Living." I am, for the record, in full support of certain forms of Public Welfare programs. There will always be a portion of the population that is at the economic "bottom" and we must do all that we can to support those citizens lest we risk social instability. Plus, it's the Right Thing To Do. :)

The Gap isn't about income. It's about the value of labor coupled with our definition of the minimum standard of living.

So... Should someone shoveling fries into a hopper earn XXXX monies based upon the actual value of their labor or the needs of our society to subsidize the value of that labor? And, what happens when that's all we do? What happens when we are, in fact, building our own less-valuable labor force on purpose? That's the real danger. As long as we only apply subsidization strategies to perpetuate the continuity of low-value labor, we're going to have trouble. We'll eventually get to the point where it's possible a large portion of our total work hours are, in fact, of such low economic value that we can't collect the monies necessary to subsidize it... Well, doubtful, but the economic stress in such a situation would be dire.

We must, in my opinion, acknowledge some things. For one, a person's value to society is not based upon their economic contribution. That's important. That is part of our (US) founding principles. Next, we have to acknowledge that not all labor is of equal value and that not all minimum wage labor is worth the minimum wage being paid. It is very likely that, as of right now, paying someone a minimum wage to shovel fries into a hopper is overpaying someone based on the value of that labor. And, if we do nothing else to counteract the growing disparity between the value of labor, we'll be perpetuating it and it will grow. Lastly - Someone can make valuable contributions to our economic well-being and produce very valuable labor by simply being afforded the opportunity to do so, but there will always be "Rich People" who apparently do little to gain their wealth and poor people who apparently do nothing to achieve better economic status. WE are not to "blame" for either of these situations. It's part of the model and it's always going to exist.

To solve the problem, we have to encourage the switch from a manual labor model and factory-line worker mentality to one that is more in keeping with the changing economic and workplace landscape. Towels aren't made in the US very much, anymore, when they used to be a mainstay of many region's industries. Why? Because other nations are just starting their "Towel Manufacturing" phase in industrial development. It's their turn to make towels just as it is now our turn to crank out spaceships and supercomputers and cold fusion plants...

We need service jobs. We'll always need them and we will always have a place for a really good ditch-digger. But, these positions need to become a much smaller portion of our overall work-hours spent. That is the only way that the value of that labor is going to increase. The only sensible way to decrease that segment of the labor force, while still preserving what we truly need of it, is to shift the work population to more valuable work.

One day, and it's likely to be much sooner than not, the Robot Menace is going to enter the workforce. McDonald's will probably have only a handful of employees present at any one time at a local fast-food restaurant. The movie theatres will die off and people will just sit and watch their five-foot wide "smartphones" instead. There's already only a handful of actual, live, "Telephone Operators" when just over ten years ago there were entire buildings full of them that supported their families with that job. Now, they're in the Philippines and India...

The value of work is changing and, whether someone likes it or not, the valuable jobs are changing as well. We have to force changes in our own labor force in order to stay healthy and so that their work will actually be valuable and can sustain their basic needs to live and thrive. It's not about the "Wage Gap" at all, it's the Value of Labor Gap.

Grimmrog
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu, 6. Dec 18, 13:17
x4

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Grimmrog » Fri, 1. Mar 19, 15:52

The value of labor?

What do you think would be more crucial, if the entire leadership of mcdonalds would be gone for a month, or of every guy shoveling fries is gone in each restaurant?

The thing is some management layers have no real impact on the business anymore they have created an own spehre of existing for the sake of existing without creating any value to the company. BUT they have alot of time telling everyone and the world how they are crucial and so everyone believes it and let them keep going. And since this layer is cycling between companies this layer will not be gone because it's people of that layer hiring people of that layer. if you ever have been in a bigger company and attended in these meetings where they meet and say a lot but actually no value is generated than having ist together talked without generatign any result, then you would know what I mean.
The value a job has is defined by damage done if the job isn't done. And I am pretty sure the loss of management for half a year would not have such a big impact than the loss of every cleaning personal. In fact the later oen would probably cause more issues if we start havign health issues due to the lack of proper cleaning.

Just because a job is not complex or complicated does not mean it is less worth or less important. But in the world where everyone tries to compete with each other we are trained to make many othersbelieve that.
Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 26. Feb 19, 02:26


One of the most fatal flaws of most socialism system is it makes a very bad assumption: I see a person earning 2mil, if I cap it at 500k it means I can take away the extra 1.5mil for socialist cause. The problem is after the first time, you will not see that 1.5mil for the taking next time, that person you took the money from will mostly stop making money after that 500k. Yes, it can creates an equality at the beginning, but after you end up with a situation where everyone have less in the long run. The problem with these kind of proposal is that you're very focus in solving an acute problem, but when you take a step back and look at the wider pictures there are so many side effects that ripple through the system. ;)
Does money in that socialistic system you made just disappear? it doesn't. It is used for whatever the sopcialsim uses it. But it is in the end via payment going to people as workforce costs or other payments for created goods, and so goes back to these people. The only way it dosappears if another nation exists that you import valueless goods form and export your money. tbh, the current capitalism is exactly the system where everyone has less in the long run, because a few get more and more rich while more and more others have less. it just looks good in our western civilisatiosn because the ones we took the stuff from are not in those nations instead it is in others. But it does not make this system not have this effect, it just allows soem natiosn to say "look our capitlaism is fine whee have quite a lot wealth". So you just locally don't have that negative impact and therefore think its fine.

"everyone has elss in the long run"
that makes no sense and ist just an unproofen claim. In that system youw ouldn't have homeless people, and surely they have less than such a system would provide.

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Observe » Fri, 1. Mar 19, 21:45

Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 26. Feb 19, 02:26
...everyone have less in the long run.
Let's say we have 100 people whose combined labor equals 1000 marbles. In capitalism, you may have 10 people owning 90 marbles apiece, with the remaining 100 marbles spread out among 90 people in the amount of 1.1 marble each. In the long run, everyone has less - except those few at the top. This might not be a bad thing, if a salary of 1.1 marble is enough to live.

If however, 1.1 marbles does not provide basic needs, is it unreasonable for for the majority 990 people to question the equity of a system in which they find themselves at a distinct disadvantage?

Don't tell me each of those few ultra-wealthy people, works 90 times harder during the course of a 24 hour day, than the single mom who has to work two jobs, comes home too exhausted to properly nurture her child and too poor to pay for insulin because her child is diabetic.

I know there are those who say "That woman's problems are not of my making. She shouldn't have got herself knocked-up in the first place", or something equally in denial of human nature and bereft of compassion or empathy or logic.

Using the marble analogy, let's say we determine that basic needs can be met with a minimum salary of two marbles. That still leaves 180 marbles each for those 10 people at the top. Not bad. There doesn't need to be a maximum salary. As long as basic needs are met, let the remainder go to those who wish to pursue it.

Some say that Taylor Swift (for example), might stop performing if there was a government imposed salary cap. That being the case, I ask you, what better argument could there be in favor of a maximum wage?

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 1. Mar 19, 22:29

Grimmrog wrote:
Fri, 1. Mar 19, 15:52
Does money in that socialistic system you made just disappear? it doesn't. It is used for whatever the sopcialsim uses it. But it is in the end via payment going to people as workforce costs or other payments for created goods, and so goes back to these people.
Pretty common counter argument from people who favor socialism that, and IMO also a very flaw one. :)

It's less about disappearing, and more about it wouldn't be created in the first place. It seems that argument is based on the assumption that the wealth are just "there for the taking". And as such, it's logical to think that the more someone take, the less available for everyone else. Except the problem here is when you talk about wealth, it has to be "created". Typical attitude from socialism is they're too focus at what to do with the output, and don't pay enough attention or deserved credit to the input. Yes, if you only allow that artist to take home 500k, that doesn't mean the extra 1.5mil will just disappear, and yes it will go back to the society. But you glossed over one very important fact: you can only take the 1.5mil if that 2mil is created in the first place, and that 2mil was there for you to take is because the artist created that wealth of 2mil. So if he or she decides to stop making wealth, then there is nothing for you to take away.

People tend to talk about "resource", but that's only part of the equation. Look around you, there are many countries with comparable resources but large difference in wealth, you can also see countries like Japan with little resource but generate large amount of wealth. Wealth making is a human process, and it needs talents, motivation, management ...etc... beside just raw resource. If someone like Swift is discouraged to create wealth, it's a loss not just for her, but for everyone because it's not only she brings home less, there is also less for you to take away. Again, this is NOT a philosophical debates, this is historical fact, when talented individuals are appropriated encouraged and rewarded, they are a boost to the society. Targeting these people and make them a problem out of short sight prejudice and jealousy is the same as shooting yourself in the long run. :roll:
Last edited by Mightysword on Sat, 2. Mar 19, 03:12, edited 2 times in total.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 2. Mar 19, 02:58

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 1. Mar 19, 22:29
Grimmrog wrote:
Fri, 1. Mar 19, 15:52
Does money in that socialistic system you made just disappear? it doesn't. It is used for whatever the sopcialsim uses it. But it is in the end via payment going to people as workforce costs or other payments for created goods, and so goes back to these people.
Pretty common counter argument from people who favor socialism that, and IMO also a very flaw one. :)

It's less about disappearing, and more about it wouldn't be created in the first place. It seems that argument is based on the assumption that the wealth are just "there for the taking". And as such, it's logical to think that the more someone take, the less available for everyone else. Except the problem here is when you talk about wealth, it has to be "created". Typical attitude from socialism is they're too focus at what to do with the output, and don't pay enough attention or deserved credit to the input. Yes, if you only allow that artist to take home 500k, that doesn't mean the extra 1.5mil will just disappear, and yes it will go back to the society. But you glossed over one very important fact: you can only take the 1.5mil if that 2mil is created in the first place, and that 2mil was there for you to take is because the artist created that wealth of 2mil. So if he or she decides to stop making wealth, then there is nothing for you to take away.

People tend to talk about "resource", but that's only part of the equation. Look around you, there are many countries with comparable resources but large difference in wealth, you can also see countries like Japan with little resource but generate large amount of wealth. Wealth making is a human process, and it needs talents, motivation, management ...etc... beside just raw resource. If someone like Swift is discouraged to create wealth, it's a loss not just for her, but for everyone because it's not only she brings home less, there is also less for you to take away. Again, this is NOT a philosophical debates, this is historical fact, when talented individuals are appropriated encouraged and rewarded, they are a boost to the society. Targeting these people and make them a problem out of short sight prejudice and jealousy is the same as shooting yourself in the long run. :roll:
I agree with this and we have a recent example of it in action. Amazon bailed on setting up in New York over the politics there. This just happened not many days ago. NY gets none of the revenue or jobs that come from a giant corporation.
Who made that man a gunner?

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Mightysword » Sat, 2. Mar 19, 03:12

Observe wrote:
Fri, 1. Mar 19, 21:45
Let's say we have 100 people whose combined labor equals 1000 marbles. In capitalism, you may have 10 people owning 90 marbles apiece, with the remaining 100 marbles spread out among 90 people in the amount of 1.1 marble each.
See above, what you said is the same thing as Grim said, and thus it has the same flaw assumption. This arguments only make sense if the 1000 marbles were simply there out of thin air or grown on a tree. If that is the case, I actually would have argued equal access for all. See, this is precisely the reason why I picked artists as an example. Like I have told Fiskal, I'm pretty sure whenever these argument come up 9 out of 10 times people have a very specific target in mind, something like the evil CEO who received bonus while the workers are exploited and suffered, you believe that it's because these people are taking too much of "existing resource" for themselves and thus leave little to others. Not like I agree with that, but even if I do, then that logic still doesn't apply to people like artists and athlete. If one morning an artist wakes up, have a spell of inspiration and wrote a song, that song break make it to the top ten and break all record, earning millions of royalty. Even if we let the artist keep most of the royalty, who exactly they are taking away from? More importantly, if that song wasn't wrote, then there will not be a single penny for anyone.

One of the two main point I'm making here is that in this example: If Swift generated 600million for the economy, there is no problem for her to keep 40mil for herself. If she generates 1billion dollar revenue, I'm perfectly ok with her keeping 100million for herself. The issue here is because there are people looking at those numbers as they are without any frame of reference or context, they just think it's an issue when someone earn 100million while poor joe over here struggling with minimum wage. Imagine this: you're sitting at a restaurant having a steak, someone come up to you and take your dish away because "you shouldn't have steak when there are hungry children in Somalia". Well, what do you think? :sceptic:

And more dangerously, their belief is often empowered by the assumption that 1billion they see are god given gift that has always been there for the taking. I mentioned this in another thread debating similar topic with another poster: too often these numbers are thrown around with too little to no "quantitative literacy", they appeal too much to emotion and not enough on the math. I'm not sure but I think it's the same point Mork was trying to make when he repeatably asking Fiskal to define "why is this a problem". Someone who makes 110million and keep 100million for herself, yes that will be a problem. But it shouldn't be a problem for someone who make 1billion to keep 100million. You can not arbitrary decide that "someone is a problem because they hit the magic number of 100million".

The other main point I'm trying to make here, and again the reason why I chose an Artist as an example. There are far more people who are legitimately belong to the top bracket, that's not an exclusive zone for the "enemies of people" who you believe are only there through the exploitation of others. Yet when people make up these "proposal to fix the problem", most of the time that's exactly the angle they approach. I just point out the ripple effect when a plan is made with such narrow vision, it is like trying to smash a fly when it's landing on top of your sunny side up, kill the fly and spoil your breakfast at the same time. You focus too much on the fly that you didn't see the egg ;)
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 2. Mar 19, 04:35

Mightysword wrote:
Sat, 2. Mar 19, 03:12
Imagine this: you're sitting at a restaurant having a steak, someone come up to you and take your dish away because "you shouldn't have steak when there are hungry children in Somalia". Well, what do you think? :sceptic:
This is absolutely the fastest route to get an unspeakable act of violence committed on your person by a Texan and no one should ever try it.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Morkonan » Sat, 2. Mar 19, 20:09

Grimmrog wrote:
Fri, 1. Mar 19, 15:52
The value of labor?

What do you think would be more crucial, if the entire leadership of mcdonalds would be gone for a month, or of every guy shoveling fries is gone in each restaurant?
They can drive a truck over to Home Depot and fifty-eleven migrants will jump in the back, all capable of shoveling fries. They won't even have to be able to speak English. For ninety days out of the year, they can hire juveniles to shovel fries. As long as they don't touch a cash-register, they don't even have to go through a bonding process. Or, someone can install an automagic robotic fry-shoveler and then nobody will have to get paid to shovel fries. Heck, the only reason shoveling fries exists as a "job" is because installing a robot to do that would outrage too many people. There are, after all, fast-food restaurants that are almost entirely robitically operated.

Not disparaging anything anyone does in order to make ends meet, just pointing out that reality is what it is.
The thing is some management layers have no real impact on the business anymore they have created an own spehre of existing for the sake of existing without creating any value to the company. BUT they have alot of time telling everyone and the world how they are crucial and so everyone believes it and let them keep going. And since this layer is cycling between companies this layer will not be gone because it's people of that layer hiring people of that layer. if you ever have been in a bigger company and attended in these meetings where they meet and say a lot but actually no value is generated than having ist together talked without generatign any result, then you would know what I mean.
We do so love to organize stuffs... We love org charts and "Departments" and "Managers." We like to be able to point at that one person and ask "So, what have your 100 hundred underlings been up to, this week."

Meetings may not generate a whole lot of real "management." But, the devil is in the details - The managers manage people, not meetings. That doesn't mean a lot of middle-layer management isn't useless. It just means that the format we expect performance to be demonstrated is not always the best format to judge it. But, if we don't have that meeting? Well, golly, we must not be justifying our paychecks this week!
The value a job has is defined by damage done if the job isn't done. And I am pretty sure the loss of management for half a year would not have such a big impact than the loss of every cleaning personal. In fact the later oen would probably cause more issues if we start havign health issues due to the lack of proper cleaning.
But, notice - I was talking about the value of the labor. This wasn't about "the job." Critical jobs are critical, but it's the value of the human labor being put into them that I was judging. For instance, the thing about "Telephone Operators." They used to be a thing, used to have buildings full of them, used to have retirement plans and even <gasp> pensions involved with them. That's how "important" and "critical" that job was. Today? Meh, it's all robotics, switches, and a few live operators in third-world countries where that labor IS valued. In the US? It's dead as Adam's housecat... That doesn't mean that "Call Centers" and "Customer Service Centers" aren't valued labor, but they're all going the same way - Automated processes and third-world countries where that labor still has great value. (Or, the measly pay is still very lucrative in that market.)
Just because a job is not complex or complicated does not mean it is less worth or less important.
Look what you wrote. Even after I made it a point to write that we should never judge anyone's worth by their economic contribution... Nowhere did I ever mention "important" in any other bit than to say how important it is that we not judge a person's value based on their job.

It's not the "job" I'm concerned about. It's the fact that we are starting to have to force ourselves to overpay for labor that is not actually worth the economic contribution. Wouldn't it be better if everyone shoveling fries at McDonald's had, instead, a "better job?" I think so. I also heartily believe that if someone wants to do that for a living that's OK to, but there's a ceiling that they're going to hit one day that may not be affordable for the rest of the economy to subsidize.
But in the world where everyone tries to compete with each other we are trained to make many othersbelieve that.
It's not about the person. It's not about a "critical job." Critical and important jobs that the society need to be filled will always be filled, no matter how distasteful they may be. And, society is willing to pay very good money for people to do those jobs. A skilled ditchdigger, once the robotic revolution takes over, will still be able to find a ditchdigging job if they're better than all the other applicants. Society will still need a human with a shovel for a very long time. But, there won't be as many of those jobs and they're only ever going to be paid "just so much." It's an admirable thing to devote oneself to physical labor, but anyone who is capable of it, just like with other types of labor, can do it. And, it's a lot easier to get into the bottom floor of a ditchdigging company than it is to be a rocket surgeon.

The $100,000 garbage worker

That is what a "critical job that people are willing to pay for" looks like. Even in small areas, most can still make a living. Where I live, the drivers can make around $90k. That's close to a friggin six-figure income. They couldn't make that shoveling fries because we don't value that labor very much. And, we value the garbage truck driver's labor because we consider it distasteful... Heck, the drivers here don't have to get out of the truck because there's an automated robotic arm that picks up the cans. At least one that was in the paper recently is making over $100k a year... True, he's been working for that company for a very long time, but I have to salute him. He's probably got a darn nice house, a retirement plan and his kid's college tuition ready to go!

But, again, it's not about the "job" and it certainly isn't about valuing human beings based upon what job they do. It's about how we want to value labor and the danger of overinflating the value of what is actually low-value labor as far as the rest of the economy is concerned.

We should be pushing hard for much higher value labor in sectors where the competition is much less fierce. Should we be competing for world-wide ditchdigging jobs? No! A bajillion third-world countries are competing for those jobs, why waste our time on them when the pay couldn't even pay for a month of Netflix? We should be doing all we can to move our workforce into high-value jobs. Today, that's STEM professions and, specificaly, IT and Data services. That's the kind of job market that can dramatically help to expand opportunities for everyone. Everyone.

PS - I have never once looked down an anyone due to what sort of job they have. I don't do it. Everyone is a human being, just like me, right off the bat. (If they prove themselves to be a jerk, though... :) )

Grimmrog
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu, 6. Dec 18, 13:17
x4

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Grimmrog » Tue, 12. Mar 19, 14:44

you couldn't even find people to pick the avocadoes in the US, you realyl think you can that eaisly rpelace all the fries shoveler? hah, far from reality if you think so.

Grimmrog
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu, 6. Dec 18, 13:17
x4

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Grimmrog » Tue, 12. Mar 19, 15:10

Mightysword wrote:
Fri, 1. Mar 19, 22:29
Grimmrog wrote:
Fri, 1. Mar 19, 15:52
Does money in that socialistic system you made just disappear? it doesn't. It is used for whatever the sopcialsim uses it. But it is in the end via payment going to people as workforce costs or other payments for created goods, and so goes back to these people.
Pretty common counter argument from people who favor socialism that, and IMO also a very flaw one. :)

It's less about disappearing, and more about it wouldn't be created in the first place. It seems that argument is based on the assumption that the wealth are just "there for the taking". And as such, it's logical to think that the more someone take, the less available for everyone else. Except the problem here is when you talk about wealth, it has to be "created". Typical attitude from socialism is they're too focus at what to do with the output, and don't pay enough attention or deserved credit to the input. Yes, if you only allow that artist to take home 500k, that doesn't mean the extra 1.5mil will just disappear, and yes it will go back to the society. But you glossed over one very important fact: you can only take the 1.5mil if that 2mil is created in the first place, and that 2mil was there for you to take is because the artist created that wealth of 2mil. So if he or she decides to stop making wealth, then there is nothing for you to take away.

People tend to talk about "resource", but that's only part of the equation. Look around you, there are many countries with comparable resources but large difference in wealth, you can also see countries like Japan with little resource but generate large amount of wealth. Wealth making is a human process, and it needs talents, motivation, management ...etc... beside just raw resource. If someone like Swift is discouraged to create wealth, it's a loss not just for her, but for everyone because it's not only she brings home less, there is also less for you to take away. Again, this is NOT a philosophical debates, this is historical fact, when talented individuals are appropriated encouraged and rewarded, they are a boost to the society. Targeting these people and make them a problem out of short sight prejudice and jealousy is the same as shooting yourself in the long run. :roll:
you know human ressources is a ressource too, and the reason other countries are having less is that initially more wealthy countries made other countries depend on them to even exist. What do you think would happen if the poorer countries would get the major payment of the end products price? Then stuff would shift quickly. Thats why currently rich people try a lot to keep the status quo, because richness and wealth is where the rich people are. Do you think the cleaning women in Japan is so much more "qualified" than in any 3rd worl country? Surely not, but it is the badly distribution of money that leads to this and nothing else than that. And yes the more someone takes the less is available for others, If 5 people have 100 dollar each and one lends another 50dollar at 10% interest rate, there is later 105dollar at one perosn which means it had to be taken form someone else. But these moneys interests did not generate any value or wealth. Thats why interests and laons can entirely blow up an economy at the moment someone realises there is non exiting money in numbers around there. Havign to say that feels like on hasn't understood why the great Depression happened. It happened because too many people were too poor to effort goods and people with lots of money lend others money to get more money. And when they weren#t able to pay it back, the System broke down to "re-valuating" of things and their proper worth. To prevent this money also gets printed creating inflation of money. Thats the same with your "artists" piece it doesn't have any value outside of artificial expectation of it's value. The only true value something has is the amount of human work, and what that human needs to live to create it. Creativity of "Art" is no real value, it also does not add "wealth" it's purely fictional (exactly like stck speculations are). There is no difference between a piece of paper sketched by a child or made by an "artist" it's bost just time X spend on brining color into a paper. The rest is purely fictional. High valuable Art is a "problem" made by people with too much money not knowing what to waste their money at. And trading of art is a business model of making profit from that "problem". Also, socialism isn't focussed on what to do with the output. It is t make sure thing get valued properly in terms of "real needs" and that everyone gets a proper fair amount of those real needs statisfied. There is no need to overvalue any piece of art. That only happens in capitalism where someone tries to convice someone else form his output having a sepcific value to maximise his monetary profit on said output. And that can end up pretty bad when he realises all this "wealth" is worthless actually.

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Morkonan » Tue, 12. Mar 19, 16:49

Grimmrog wrote:
Tue, 12. Mar 19, 14:44
you couldn't even find people to pick the avocadoes in the US, you realyl think you can that eaisly rpelace all the fries shoveler? hah, far from reality if you think so.
Nobody wants to pick avaocados. It's hard work. Backbreaking, really. Working in jobs that nobody else in the US wants is one of the things that "immigrants" do. Walk into any slaughter-house & meat-packing plant in the US and you'll see rows upon rows of them, all working hard in a disgusting job, illegal and legal immigrants.

But, working inside? In an air-conditioned environment that doesn't involved backbreaking labor? People will be standing in line to sign up for that. That is, of course, if there is a market for that job. Right now we're cusping on "peak employment" so competition for labor is a bit fiercer. But, some jobs are not traditional "earner" jobs, like packing fries. They're often beginning jobs or seasonal or jobs for bonded minors in the off-school season.

I'm not dumping on anyone's job. I really want to make that clear. I don't consider anyone's value based upon what they do for a living as long as it's legal and does rely upon actively preying upon the misfortune or ignorance of others. I am extremely appreciative of all the fries I have received and the workers who packaged them! :)

There are jobs that have industries supporting them that can enable a "living wage." Unfortunately, some job categories have markets based on the two most difficult to manage factors in business - Thin profit margins and a income stream that absolutely depends on volume. Any business that relies on these things, like "fast food", is going to be constantly under pressure from all sides. Supply, labor, implicit costs, marketing, logistics, etc... IOW - It's a crap-show business UNLESS you're one of the ones at the very top. Then, you have the power to substantially lower costs, to streamline your systems, to get supply contracts and labor agreements and take advantage of tax breaks and incentives. If you don't have those things? Then, you're like any other restaurant and will go out of business just like the majority of all restaurants end up doing.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 12. Mar 19, 23:00

Grimmrog wrote:
Tue, 12. Mar 19, 15:10
Do you think the cleaning women in Japan is so much more "qualified" than in any 3rd worl country? Surely not, but it is the badly distribution of money that leads to this and nothing else than that.
Again, we have been pushing this question many times across many posts and many threads: define "bad", tell me why it is "bad", justify "bad". So far every single person we ask this question either avoiding answer it entirely or give some vague hand waving gesture about it. Japan has no industrial resource, it has little farm-able land, it lost WW2, two of its major cities got nuked, its current Constitution was heavily influenced by outsider. By both political and geology reason it should be one of the POOREST country in the region. Yet it's somehow at the top. You say human is resource too, and I agree, and it's about the only resource Japan has. So it's clearly Japan is where it is today because it either has high grade quality resource and better management of said resource, and thus the country is appropriately rewarded. It's not like Japan was a country that was born rich.

You can try to enforce fairness, but you can not create "equality", and this is the delusion that I think too many people have. It's like in a race, you can ensure fairness by having all competitors starting at the same time and location, and ensure they all have even attributes. But unless you enforce a "you can not run faster than the the slowest runner" rule, not everyone will reach the finish line the same time. I always tell the people with this delusion that even if we have a magical button to reset the universe where everyone can start again equally, unless you willing to hit that button every so often it's meaningless, because sooner or later there are always someone pulling ahead unless you force everyone to conform to the lowest common denominator.

The only true value something has is the amount of human work, and what that human needs to live to create it. Creativity of "Art" is no real value, it also does not add "wealth" it's purely fictional (exactly like stck speculations are). There is no difference between a piece of paper sketched by a child or made by an "artist" it's bost just time X spend on brining color into a paper. The rest is purely fictional. High valuable Art is a "problem" made by people with too much money not knowing what to waste their money at. And trading of art is a business model of making profit from that "problem". Also, socialism isn't focussed on what to do with the output. It is t make sure thing get valued properly in terms of "real needs" and that everyone gets a proper fair amount of those real needs statisfied. There is no need to overvalue any piece of art. That only happens in capitalism where someone tries to convice someone else form his output having a sepcific value to maximise his monetary profit on said output. And that can end up pretty bad when he realises all this "wealth" is worthless actually.
There is so many problems with this argument I'm not sure how to start ... but I'll try:

- I come home each day after work with 3 basic need to fullfilled: hungry, so I eat. Tired, so I sleep. Stress, so I need to unwind. I'm hardly a cultured man, but I do listen to various music for about an hour a day, usually two, and I do it so I can de-stress and freshen up for my next work day. So while it's not as important and as tangible to my "survival" as the food I eat or the clothe I wear, it's important for me in term of remainining a productive member of the society. People also read fiction, novel and not just scientific journals for the same reasons. To say they have no value is preposterous, and would only make sense if human are simply machines and robots that only need an oil change to continue function. Btw, your comparison to a child's sketch is also absurd. I pay a proper artist singing songs for 2 hour because their "voice" help me relax, does that mean child yapping in my ear for 2 hours has the same value simply because ... he also sings for 2 hours? I'm all for equal pay for equal result (in relative to the environment they live in), but the equal pay for equal effort argument is always a stupid one in my book. And that's not even a human thing, that's a natural thing. Say two farmers working the same amount of land, working the same amount of hour. Do you think that means "the land" will guarantee them the same yield ?

- A song is not priced at million of dollars, it's priced usually no more than what people pay for a starbuck or a hamburger. The reason it brings in million dollars for the artist because millions of people buy it. You don't have to be rich to pay a singer for their song. Even if you're a fan of 5 of the most famous singer, as long as your desire is simple about listening to their song, even a broke student can afford that.

- And who is going to have the authority to define what is the "real" need? You? And who has the right to define its value? Also you? It's often in these argument, it's always the people who don't make the money are the one claiming they know what is the best way to spend them.


Also, go back and read that last quote of yours again, it basically exemplify the problem that had brought up to other posters similar you in this thread: your argument is rid of bias and prejudice. You're looking at art as if it's only about a 50million painting sitting in some billionaire's gallery, people talk about problem as if it's only between the poor janitor and collaborate CEO. And because of this tunnel vision, the "simple" solution they tend to come up with would screw thing up for everyone in between. Unless you can filter out these prejudice and able to look at all the angle, you have little hope in proposing a sensible solution. :roll:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Masterbagger » Wed, 13. Mar 19, 03:42

Grimmrog wrote:
Tue, 12. Mar 19, 15:10

Thats the same with your "artists" piece it doesn't have any value outside of artificial expectation of it's value. The only true value something has is the amount of human work, and what that human needs to live to create it. Creativity of "Art" is no real value, it also does not add "wealth" it's purely fictional (exactly like stck speculations are). There is no difference between a piece of paper sketched by a child or made by an "artist" it's bost just time X spend on brining color into a paper. The rest is purely fictional. High valuable Art is a "problem" made by people with too much money not knowing what to waste their money at. And trading of art is a business model of making profit from that "problem". Also, socialism isn't focussed on what to do with the output. It is t make sure thing get valued properly in terms of "real needs" and that everyone gets a proper fair amount of those real needs statisfied. There is no need to overvalue any piece of art. That only happens in capitalism where someone tries to convice someone else form his output having a sepcific value to maximise his monetary profit on said output. And that can end up pretty bad when he realises all this "wealth" is worthless actually.
Art is the perfect example of capitalism in action. Things can have value beyond the physical and material effort it took to produce them. Things can be valuable because they took such a profound level of mastery to create that no one else could it.
Who made that man a gunner?

User avatar
Morkonan
Posts: 10113
Joined: Sun, 25. Sep 11, 04:33
x3tc

Re: my economic thought experiment

Post by Morkonan » Wed, 13. Mar 19, 17:41

Mightysword wrote:
Tue, 12. Mar 19, 23:00
...
There is so many problems with this argument I'm not sure how to start ... but I'll try:...
Masterbagger wrote:
Wed, 13. Mar 19, 03:42
...
Art is the perfect example of capitalism in action. Things can have value beyond the physical and material effort it took to produce them. Things can be valuable because they took such a profound level of mastery to create that no one else could it.
Both of these examples and the subject in general:

"Art" has implied value and sometimes implicit value.

Food has both as well. Food is necessary, so it has implicit value to us. But, "good food" has a higher quality of implied value. Taste is certainly an implicit value, but presentation of food and the "experience" is somewhat implied.

The point being that "Art" has very definite value to human beings. It's also very likely it has some value for non-humans, as well. (Dogs/dolphins/cats/cows/etc all appear to place value on certain things humans call "art.")

But, there are a bunch of hopeful "artists" out there. It's kind of sad, really. They see their art as being a route to "self-expression" and feel the desire to pursue that so strongly that they also often "demand" that self-expression be acknowledged as Art of the highest quality and value...

If one's child makes a bit of macaroni are and one places that lovingly on the refrigerator, there is no art on the face of the Earth that is more valuable... But, the legions of those posting garbage on Deviantart are uncountable and each seem to be requiring acknowledgement of their personal "skill." Even so, their parents and friends might think they're wonderful. They might even get followers who enjoy their art. So, in the end, it has some sort of value for someone, even if it sucks... :)

We're crazy creatures. We don't obey all the rules. We will sacrifice our lives for a flag on a battlefield and will discard instructions on how to perform CPR in favor of putting our kid's new crayon drawing on prominent display. Aren't we wonderful things? :)

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”