5 ms·

> Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time w

by danjayh 11y ago

> Are you willing to create value for other humans at less than your time is worth? Because that is what you are asking them to do. If it was worth their time we wouldn't have to threaten them with pain or death to incentivise them. Friend, hunger pain and risk of homelessness are what motivate many people to drag themselves to work. Without that threat, many people choose to be unproductive, and it makes society as a whole poor. If you take too heavily from those who are productive to enable this, it dicencentivises them. This has been demonstrated repeatedly -- in the USSR, in China's old system, in Cuba, in the DPRK, in Saudi Arabia (who, with less oil money, are having serious problems), and even in the Internet's beloved Denmark ... literally over and over and over. (ref for Denmark, since I know that will be one of the more contentious entries on my list: http://www.businessinsider.com/free-universities-and-no-student-loan-debt-is-hurting-denmarks-economy-2014-6 http://www.businessinsider.com/free-universities-and-no-stud... ) Asking them to take what someone else is willing to give them for their work, without the threat of imprisonment from the government to motivate the giving, is not asking them to work for less than they're worth. Quite the contrary, it's asking them to work for an amount that exactly reflects the value other humans assign to their labor.

creshal 11y ago
So what exactly is Denmark's problem? Unemployment is still lower than average. Gini, HDI, GDP, all metrics you could wish for are excellent. Companies not finding enough engineers is a complaint you hear world-wide, from Germany to the US, usually followed by "so please reduce immigration restrictions so we can get Indians for half the wage instead".
Kristine1975 11y ago
That article about Denmark isn't proof of anything but that conservatives in Denmark don't like Denmark's welfare system.
clavalle 11y ago
>hunger pain and risk of homelessness are what motivate many people to drag themselves to work. Without that threat, many people choose to be unproductive That, in my view, smacks of rationalization of widespread exploitation of an entire sector of human beings. This forum is full of people that will not starve if they don't work -- at least not for a while. But the vast majority are doing what they can to create value in the world. Are they just better human beings than the poor who must be threatened in order to create value? Or have we built enough capital of one type or another to make the transaction of our time and effort and application of our capital worth it? An improvement of our lot? If all of us more fortunate creatures were told that we'd never turn a profit for our efforts, how many of us would put in that effort? I would wager not many (a situation that plagued most of those socialist systems you mentioned). The poor are put in a situation where they are asked to work but never profit. They must work to limit their loss. They must work to merely not die. It is little wonder that we have people that prefer welfare and don't do much to better their position because the alternative is to spend their time and effort pushing for -- nothing. What I would push for is not Socialism -- which is where everybody owns the means of production which is dragging everyone down into that same pitiable state of never being able harvest your own profit for your own efforts -- but merely giving the poor a guarantee that they will not die or be in pain -- enough food, housing, medical care to live. Those that need their labor will then have to entice them to work. They have to look at how much their labor is worth to them and try and pay them based on how much profit they can wring from the value they can create -- like lawyers are paid, engineers, management, skilled workers, professionals...literally everyone else. It's not crazy, it is how 3/4s of the population in the US conducts business. It is just an extension of that strong bargaining position in the free market to those in danger of having to work for less than their time is worth for no hope of bettering their position just to merely not die. It may mean that I have to take it on a bit of faith, but I trust that 1/4 at the bottom will work to better their position just like the rest of us if given the chance. I don't think we're any better, when it comes down to it.
- danjayh 11y ago
  > This forum is full of people that will not starve if they don't work -- at least not for a while. But the vast majority are doing what they can to create value in the world. Not immediately, but eventually. Also depends greatly on the person. Plenty of people making 100k+ work paycheck to paycheck, and will be in the exact position a poor person would be in (relying on credit, missing payments) immediately after losing their work. Put simply, I'm calling you on this: most people in this forum do work under threat of either losing housing/food or relying on some safety net without a job. I make really good money, and without work I'd probably be screwed in a year or two, assuming I'm willing to borrow heavily first. > Are they just better human beings than the poor who must be threatened in order to create value? Or have we built enough capital of one type or another to make the transaction of our time and effort and application of our capital worth it? An improvement of our lot? None of the above. Working for food, shelter, and transportation, just like everyone else. > If all of us more fortunate creatures were told that we'd never turn a profit for our efforts, how many of us would put in that effort? I would wager not many (a situation that plagued most of those socialist systems you mentioned). The poor are put in a situation where they are asked to work but never profit. They must work to limit their loss. They must work to merely not die. Once again, calling you on this. Unlike the socialist systems, in our system even the poor can accumulate savings and wealth, albeit at a slower rate. After I graduated school, I lived cheaply enough that I could have accumulated savings on a McDonald's wage, if I had needed to. It's all a matter of personal choices, fiscal discipline, and fiscal education. Maybe we should focus on adding appropriate personal finance education to school curriculum as a way to help people get away from the cycle of debt. > It is little wonder that we have people that prefer welfare and don't do much to better their position because the alternative is to spend their time and effort pushing for -- nothing. I've seen people making 100k+ spend so foolishly that they are effectively 'pushing for nothing' (zero or negative net assets). I've seen people making 20k/ea spend so wisely that they can buy a house, a car, have a child, and save. Hardly 'nothing.' > What I would push for is not Socialism -- which is where everybody owns the means of production which is dragging everyone down into that same pitiable state of never being able harvest your own profit for your own efforts -- but merely giving the poor a guarantee that they will not die or be in pain -- enough food, housing, medical care to live. Hey, if I could have all of those things guaranteed, even I might consider sitting around exercising my (low-cost) hobbies all day. Not beneficial to society. Also, guaranteeing those things to one class of people means threatening another with imprisonment if they don't remit a significant portion of their income to that class -- are you OK with that? > Those that need their labor will then have to entice them to work. They have to look at how much their labor is worth to them and try and pay them based on how much profit they can wring from the value they can create -- like lawyers are paid, engineers, management, skilled workers, professionals...literally everyone else. Trust me, professionals are only partially paid based on the profit they generate. Yes, if they were not generating profit their jobs would be eliminated, just like many lower paid jobs are automated when faced with forced wage increases. However, their salaries are set as a function of labor demand vs. labor supply, just like everyone else's. I teach SW development classes at a local college as a side-job, and I can tell you that people struggle with professional programs vs. other majors. My wife is completing a second degree, an associates in Nursing. She has commented repeatedly how she's had to work way harder to get this nursing degree than her 4-year bachelors, which was not a hard science degree (these days, nursing definitely is a hard science degree). These fields have high pay because the number of people willing and able to get into them is low, and the demand for them is high. > It's not crazy, it is how 3/4s of the population in the US conducts business. It is just an extension of that strong bargaining position in the free market to those in danger of having to work for less than their time is worth for no hope of bettering their position just to merely not die. It may mean that I have to take it on a bit of faith, but I trust that 1/4 at the bottom will work to better their position just like the rest of us if given the chance. I don't think we're any better, when it comes down to it. For the reasons stated above, I disagree with the proposition that a lack of a social safety net that doesn't require work as a precondition puts them in a position with "no hope of bettering their position just to merely not die." Asking them to do work to receive benefits (as long as we don't specify what work we're asking them to do) is not asking them to work for less than they're worth, it is actually asking them to work for exactly what their labor is worth, with the added benefit of a bonus above that value being taken from another person and given to them in the form of a social safety net. Actually, now that I think about it, since they're receiving this benefit, we're asking them to work for more than their labor is worth, and it's actually the person paying for the benefit that we're asking to work for less than they're worth ... and we're asking the person paying for this benefit to do it under the threat of imprisonment if they decide not to pay.
locopati 11y ago
There's another option to those who are hungry and suffering. Perhaps you should read up on the French Revolution. There's a rational self-interest argument to helping other people so that they do not reach levels of desperation where violence is a reasonable alternative.
- barry-cotter 11y ago
  That's a terrible argument. If you're in a position of power over a hostile population you should preemptively destroy their capacity to harm you. There's a reason the French revolution happened during an economic contraction after a long period of growth. Same deal in Russia with its revolution. The revolution is always lead by people who see themselves as being on the verge of losing something they had a tenuous grasp of. People who are hungry and suffering don't revolt. They starve. The ambitious gentry and clerisy who see themselves sliding down the social ladder attempt to revolt and are usually crushed. Anyone who is hungry and suffering is incapable of organising enough to be a threat to any military or paramilitary organisation. Are there any successful slave revolts besides Haiti, ever?

by danjayh 11y ago

creshal 11y ago

So what exactly is Denmark's problem? Unemployment is still lower than average. Gini, HDI, GDP, all metrics you could wish for are excellent. Companies not finding enough engineers is a complaint you hear world-wide, from Germany to the US, usually followed by "so please reduce immigration restrictions so we can get Indians for half the wage instead".

Kristine1975 11y ago

That article about Denmark isn't proof of anything but that conservatives in Denmark don't like Denmark's welfare system.

clavalle 11y ago

>hunger pain and risk of homelessness are what motivate many people to drag themselves to work. Without that threat, many people choose to be unproductive That, in my view, smacks of rationalization of widespread exploitation of an entire sector of human beings. This forum is full of people that will not starve if they don't work -- at least not for a while. But the vast majority are doing what they can to create value in the world. Are they just better human beings than the poor who must be threatened in order to create value? Or have we built enough capital of one type or another to make the transaction of our time and effort and application of our capital worth it? An improvement of our lot? If all of us more fortunate creatures were told that we'd never turn a profit for our efforts, how many of us would put in that effort? I would wager not many (a situation that plagued most of those socialist systems you mentioned). The poor are put in a situation where they are asked to work but never profit. They must work to limit their loss. They must work to merely not die. It is little wonder that we have people that prefer welfare and don't do much to better their position because the alternative is to spend their time and effort pushing for -- nothing. What I would push for is not Socialism -- which is where everybody owns the means of production which is dragging everyone down into that same pitiable state of never being able harvest your own profit for your own efforts -- but merely giving the poor a guarantee that they will not die or be in pain -- enough food, housing, medical care to live. Those that need their labor will then have to entice them to work. They have to look at how much their labor is worth to them and try and pay them based on how much profit they can wring from the value they can create -- like lawyers are paid, engineers, management, skilled workers, professionals...literally everyone else. It's not crazy, it is how 3/4s of the population in the US conducts business. It is just an extension of that strong bargaining position in the free market to those in danger of having to work for less than their time is worth for no hope of bettering their position just to merely not die. It may mean that I have to take it on a bit of faith, but I trust that 1/4 at the bottom will work to better their position just like the rest of us if given the chance. I don't think we're any better, when it comes down to it.

danjayh 11y ago
> This forum is full of people that will not starve if they don't work -- at least not for a while. But the vast majority are doing what they can to create value in the world. Not immediately, but eventually. Also depends greatly on the person. Plenty of people making 100k+ work paycheck to paycheck, and will be in the exact position a poor person would be in (relying on credit, missing payments) immediately after losing their work. Put simply, I'm calling you on this: most people in this forum do work under threat of either losing housing/food or relying on some safety net without a job. I make really good money, and without work I'd probably be screwed in a year or two, assuming I'm willing to borrow heavily first. > Are they just better human beings than the poor who must be threatened in order to create value? Or have we built enough capital of one type or another to make the transaction of our time and effort and application of our capital worth it? An improvement of our lot? None of the above. Working for food, shelter, and transportation, just like everyone else. > If all of us more fortunate creatures were told that we'd never turn a profit for our efforts, how many of us would put in that effort? I would wager not many (a situation that plagued most of those socialist systems you mentioned). The poor are put in a situation where they are asked to work but never profit. They must work to limit their loss. They must work to merely not die. Once again, calling you on this. Unlike the socialist systems, in our system even the poor can accumulate savings and wealth, albeit at a slower rate. After I graduated school, I lived cheaply enough that I could have accumulated savings on a McDonald's wage, if I had needed to. It's all a matter of personal choices, fiscal discipline, and fiscal education. Maybe we should focus on adding appropriate personal finance education to school curriculum as a way to help people get away from the cycle of debt. > It is little wonder that we have people that prefer welfare and don't do much to better their position because the alternative is to spend their time and effort pushing for -- nothing. I've seen people making 100k+ spend so foolishly that they are effectively 'pushing for nothing' (zero or negative net assets). I've seen people making 20k/ea spend so wisely that they can buy a house, a car, have a child, and save. Hardly 'nothing.' > What I would push for is not Socialism -- which is where everybody owns the means of production which is dragging everyone down into that same pitiable state of never being able harvest your own profit for your own efforts -- but merely giving the poor a guarantee that they will not die or be in pain -- enough food, housing, medical care to live. Hey, if I could have all of those things guaranteed, even I might consider sitting around exercising my (low-cost) hobbies all day. Not beneficial to society. Also, guaranteeing those things to one class of people means threatening another with imprisonment if they don't remit a significant portion of their income to that class -- are you OK with that? > Those that need their labor will then have to entice them to work. They have to look at how much their labor is worth to them and try and pay them based on how much profit they can wring from the value they can create -- like lawyers are paid, engineers, management, skilled workers, professionals...literally everyone else. Trust me, professionals are only partially paid based on the profit they generate. Yes, if they were not generating profit their jobs would be eliminated, just like many lower paid jobs are automated when faced with forced wage increases. However, their salaries are set as a function of labor demand vs. labor supply, just like everyone else's. I teach SW development classes at a local college as a side-job, and I can tell you that people struggle with professional programs vs. other majors. My wife is completing a second degree, an associates in Nursing. She has commented repeatedly how she's had to work way harder to get this nursing degree than her 4-year bachelors, which was not a hard science degree (these days, nursing definitely is a hard science degree). These fields have high pay because the number of people willing and able to get into them is low, and the demand for them is high. > It's not crazy, it is how 3/4s of the population in the US conducts business. It is just an extension of that strong bargaining position in the free market to those in danger of having to work for less than their time is worth for no hope of bettering their position just to merely not die. It may mean that I have to take it on a bit of faith, but I trust that 1/4 at the bottom will work to better their position just like the rest of us if given the chance. I don't think we're any better, when it comes down to it. For the reasons stated above, I disagree with the proposition that a lack of a social safety net that doesn't require work as a precondition puts them in a position with "no hope of bettering their position just to merely not die." Asking them to do work to receive benefits (as long as we don't specify what work we're asking them to do) is not asking them to work for less than they're worth, it is actually asking them to work for exactly what their labor is worth, with the added benefit of a bonus above that value being taken from another person and given to them in the form of a social safety net. Actually, now that I think about it, since they're receiving this benefit, we're asking them to work for more than their labor is worth, and it's actually the person paying for the benefit that we're asking to work for less than they're worth ... and we're asking the person paying for this benefit to do it under the threat of imprisonment if they decide not to pay.

locopati 11y ago

There's another option to those who are hungry and suffering. Perhaps you should read up on the French Revolution. There's a rational self-interest argument to helping other people so that they do not reach levels of desperation where violence is a reasonable alternative.

barry-cotter 11y ago
That's a terrible argument. If you're in a position of power over a hostile population you should preemptively destroy their capacity to harm you. There's a reason the French revolution happened during an economic contraction after a long period of growth. Same deal in Russia with its revolution. The revolution is always lead by people who see themselves as being on the verge of losing something they had a tenuous grasp of. People who are hungry and suffering don't revolt. They starve. The ambitious gentry and clerisy who see themselves sliding down the social ladder attempt to revolt and are usually crushed. Anyone who is hungry and suffering is incapable of organising enough to be a threat to any military or paramilitary organisation. Are there any successful slave revolts besides Haiti, ever?