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

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”