3 ms·

So somebody that takes 5 hours to complete a task that I can do in 1 should be paid the same? Wouldn't this lead to people trying to take longer in completing

by Slaul 10y ago

So somebody that takes 5 hours to complete a task that I can do in 1 should be paid the same? Wouldn't this lead to people trying to take longer in completing tasks and making things seem "harder" than they are?

rayiner 10y ago
I'm sensitive to the potential for gaming -- all systems can be gamed. But look at the big picture. The average guy putting in an honest day's work is never going to be an engineer at Google, no matter how hard he tries. Those who are getting paid $300k at Google are largely being compensated not for the hours they put in, but the fact that they were born with a certain level of intellectual ability and aptitude. Surely you can recognize the unfairness of compensating people dramatically different based on qualities they have no control over?
- grinnbearit 10y ago
  It also incentivises the google engineer to be as productive as they possibly can, assuming that salaries are indicative of marginal utility. Otherwise the engineer could spend his brain power on his own hobby projects while mowing grass for income.
- r_smart 10y ago
  Wouldn't it then be unfair to pay the best person the same as the worst person? The incentive there is clear: Be the worst person and save your energy for something else. If your outcome is the same regardless of your effort, then you remove the desire to strive. That eventually leads to stagnation and collapse. If we actually care about fairness, we should focus on social mobility and doing our best to create equality of opportunity. A lot of this begins with fixing public schools (in the US at least).
- hx87 10y ago
  By those criteria, isn't "effort" an innate factor? After all, people only have so much control over things like stamina and motivation.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    More reason for income equality. Studies show that things like impulse control have a significant innate component too.
    - tnl_ord3 10y ago
      On the contrary, more reason for income inequality. If we are concerned for the future population, that low-time preference people with good impulse control are payed more shouldn't trouble us. Whence come this desire to destructively level everyone?
      - hx87 10y ago
        It's the classic efficiency vs justice tradeoff. IMO the best way to approach it is the "socialism below, capitalism above" approach combining a strong tax-funded UBI with a free-market, low-regulation (except environmental regulation) economy and a cultural move from individual ownership to collective but capitalist ownership (e.g. own REITs instead of homes, shares in Uber/GM instead of cars).
- tnl_ord3 10y ago
  The economic madness of considering only the time worked, and not the importance of the work, is obvious. Abolish nature: then life will be fair. We all, presumably, enjoy being human, and not animal. Man would not have come into existence if intelligence was not incentivized. The unusually smart and apt engineer, receiving a higher salary than the average or below average person, is less disincentivized to reproduce. If we were to equalize incentive for all the groups, smart and dumb, patient or impatient, we'd be equalizing their rate of reproduction, and forcing more incapable, experientially limited people into existence. Wolves had no choice between being born carnivorous or herbivorous. When they attack our sheep, we kill them regardless. The fairness you suggest is madness.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by Slaul 10y ago

rayiner 10y ago

I'm sensitive to the potential for gaming -- all systems can be gamed. But look at the big picture. The average guy putting in an honest day's work is never going to be an engineer at Google, no matter how hard he tries. Those who are getting paid $300k at Google are largely being compensated not for the hours they put in, but the fact that they were born with a certain level of intellectual ability and aptitude. Surely you can recognize the unfairness of compensating people dramatically different based on qualities they have no control over?

grinnbearit 10y ago
It also incentivises the google engineer to be as productive as they possibly can, assuming that salaries are indicative of marginal utility. Otherwise the engineer could spend his brain power on his own hobby projects while mowing grass for income.
r_smart 10y ago
Wouldn't it then be unfair to pay the best person the same as the worst person? The incentive there is clear: Be the worst person and save your energy for something else. If your outcome is the same regardless of your effort, then you remove the desire to strive. That eventually leads to stagnation and collapse. If we actually care about fairness, we should focus on social mobility and doing our best to create equality of opportunity. A lot of this begins with fixing public schools (in the US at least).
hx87 10y ago
By those criteria, isn't "effort" an innate factor? After all, people only have so much control over things like stamina and motivation.
- rayiner 10y ago
  More reason for income equality. Studies show that things like impulse control have a significant innate component too.
  - tnl_ord3 10y ago
    On the contrary, more reason for income inequality. If we are concerned for the future population, that low-time preference people with good impulse control are payed more shouldn't trouble us. Whence come this desire to destructively level everyone?
    - hx87 10y ago
      It's the classic efficiency vs justice tradeoff. IMO the best way to approach it is the "socialism below, capitalism above" approach combining a strong tax-funded UBI with a free-market, low-regulation (except environmental regulation) economy and a cultural move from individual ownership to collective but capitalist ownership (e.g. own REITs instead of homes, shares in Uber/GM instead of cars).
tnl_ord3 10y ago
The economic madness of considering only the time worked, and not the importance of the work, is obvious. Abolish nature: then life will be fair. We all, presumably, enjoy being human, and not animal. Man would not have come into existence if intelligence was not incentivized. The unusually smart and apt engineer, receiving a higher salary than the average or below average person, is less disincentivized to reproduce. If we were to equalize incentive for all the groups, smart and dumb, patient or impatient, we'd be equalizing their rate of reproduction, and forcing more incapable, experientially limited people into existence. Wolves had no choice between being born carnivorous or herbivorous. When they attack our sheep, we kill them regardless. The fairness you suggest is madness.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]