5 ms·

How do you define providing value to society here? Curious who and what types of jobs make the cut.

by qwrusz 10y ago

eevilspock 10y ago
Let's first tackle something a bit easier than absolute value, which is relative value. If we can't agree on the answers to these questions it's unlikely we can agree on anything: 1. Does it make sense that four hedge fund guys got more money than all the kindergarten teachers in America combined? [1] (I used the word "got" instead of earned because "earned" presumes an answer.) 2. Does it make sense that Zuckerberg is worth tens of billions and Albert Einstein maybe had a net worth of one million at death? Or that Einstein earned a modest professor's salary for his enormous contributions to science, but his estate earns $10-12 million on royalties for his name and likeness (photo, Baby Einstein license, etc)? You can't answer that it makes sense because that is what the market determined, because that would be begging the question (whether the market reasonably and fairly compensates people). -- [1] http://www.vox.com/2014/5/6/5688794/these-four-hedge-fund-guys-out-earned-every-kindergarten-teacher-in http://www.vox.com/2014/5/6/5688794/these-four-hedge-fund-gu...
- bbcbasic 10y ago
  It does "make sense" in that I am able to make sense of it. It doesn't make me think "WTF how is that possible". Are you really wanting to ask "is it fair" or "is it just" or "is it good for society"?
  - JabavuAdams 10y ago
    > Are you really wanting to ask "is it fair" or "is it just" or "is it good for society"? Yes, of course that's what the eevilspock is asking.
- oli5679 10y ago
  Another way of thinking about this is marginal value. Imagine a world where person X has a heart attack and the next best person qualified to do their job steps in and paid their wage demands. The fall in social benefits less change in wages is their marginal contribution. For Einstein, this is presumably astronomical. For the best primary school teachers this will also be high (it might be low/negative for some of the worst). These are not directly relevant to the question of whether the quant traders have a positive marginal contribution to society.
- qwrusz 10y ago
  Don't first tackle something a bit easier on my behalf, but if you need to then we can. Like the definition of value, which I asked you about above, whether something "makes sense" to me does not mean it will makes sense to you, and vice versa. I enjoy the chance to discuss and learn more about this stuff, but there is a ton of subjectivity here. You seem to be saying value is intrinsically tied to money and how much money someone makes or how much money their estate is worth...? That is not a priori true. And many examples where it appears value and money don't interact at all. One example sort of connected to what you asked: I am not a full-time kindergarten teacher like you brought up, but I do volunteer with an after-school math tutoring program. Now this is nothing to brag about or anything, just one person for a few hours a month playing a very small role helping students as they learn math. But this is volunteer work and I don't get any money for doing it - I don't even get a cookie or Capri sun like the kids sometimes get. Does it make sense I am paid all of $0.00 for this time I spend volunteering helping students learning math? So now let's just get to the real question you ask: does the market "reasonably and fairly compensate people" for work they are currently doing as well as for any future impact their previous work may have led to? My opinion and my gut feeling is that in general no it doesn't. But why would it? So I'm not an expert with in-depth knowledge about every occupation and employee differences between them, and nobody knows the future or what future positive impacts someone's work may lead to. I also don't claim to have some specific set of target amounts in my head for what would be fair compensation for each respective type of work in the market... The unfairness here is something I feel, but I know everyone's feelings and views on this topic will be unique. I have not come across a system that is objectively more fair. Have you? I am not trying to play games, I really don't know. So what system do you suggest would be more "fair" to everyone? and again how do you define providing value to society?
  - eevilspock 10y ago
    > Don't first tackle something a bit easier on my behalf, but if you need to then we can. I appreciate the open-minded reason in the rest of your reply, but wow, this opening is patronizing. A failure to read what I wrote, specifically "If we can't agree on the answers to these questions it's unlikely we can agree on anything." I'm not interested in a technical/logical debate where the two participants don't even share the same values. It's pointless nor do I enjoy it (It's just intellectual masturbation. Wait, scratch that, masturbation is enjoyable). It is absolutely essential to determine first whether we have common ground. And that common ground, if it exists, is not some objective a priori truth, but subjective values. Most of the answers to your other questions are dependent on values. Why would the market be fair, you ask? That's my whole point. To me, to my values, fairness matters. To other people's values, optimizing the world for material wealth matters more, and to others optimizing the world for their personal wealth matters most. (It's a very important question how individuals of the same species can have such divergent values, but that's another large topic). If you go back 700 years, I doubt anyone came across a system objectively more fair than feudalism. I'm very glad people didn't decide to not challenge it and look for better. To me it's sad that my first comment above got so many down-votes (up to 5, then down to negative, now back to zero). I frequently quote Upton Sinclair here on HN because it to me perfectly captures the filter bubble that is HN: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Perhaps the biggest problem I see, in America at least, is that many people treat private property as an "a priori" right, and the invisible hand as a wielder of truth, rather than getting that private property and the free market are social contracts, nothing more. I'm not trying to play games either. :)

How do you define providing value to society here? Curious who and what types of jobs make the cut.

by qwrusz 10y ago

How do you define providing value to society here? Curious who and what types of jobs make the cut.

Let's first tackle something a bit easier than absolute value, which is relative value. If we can't agree on the answers to these questions it's unlikely we can agree on anything: 1. Does it make sense that four hedge fund guys got more money than all the kindergarten teachers in America combined? [1] (I used the word "got" instead of earned because "earned" presumes an answer.) 2. Does it make sense that Zuckerberg is worth tens of billions and Albert Einstein maybe had a net worth of one million at death? Or that Einstein earned a modest professor's salary for his enormous contributions to science, but his estate earns $10-12 million on royalties for his name and likeness (photo, Baby Einstein license, etc)? You can't answer that it makes sense because that is what the market determined, because that would be begging the question (whether the market reasonably and fairly compensates people). -- [1] http://www.vox.com/2014/5/6/5688794/these-four-hedge-fund-guys-out-earned-every-kindergarten-teacher-in http://www.vox.com/2014/5/6/5688794/these-four-hedge-fund-gu...

bbcbasic 10y ago
It does "make sense" in that I am able to make sense of it. It doesn't make me think "WTF how is that possible". Are you really wanting to ask "is it fair" or "is it just" or "is it good for society"?
- JabavuAdams 10y ago
  > Are you really wanting to ask "is it fair" or "is it just" or "is it good for society"? Yes, of course that's what the eevilspock is asking.
oli5679 10y ago
Another way of thinking about this is marginal value. Imagine a world where person X has a heart attack and the next best person qualified to do their job steps in and paid their wage demands. The fall in social benefits less change in wages is their marginal contribution. For Einstein, this is presumably astronomical. For the best primary school teachers this will also be high (it might be low/negative for some of the worst). These are not directly relevant to the question of whether the quant traders have a positive marginal contribution to society.
qwrusz 10y ago
Don't first tackle something a bit easier on my behalf, but if you need to then we can. Like the definition of value, which I asked you about above, whether something "makes sense" to me does not mean it will makes sense to you, and vice versa. I enjoy the chance to discuss and learn more about this stuff, but there is a ton of subjectivity here. You seem to be saying value is intrinsically tied to money and how much money someone makes or how much money their estate is worth...? That is not a priori true. And many examples where it appears value and money don't interact at all. One example sort of connected to what you asked: I am not a full-time kindergarten teacher like you brought up, but I do volunteer with an after-school math tutoring program. Now this is nothing to brag about or anything, just one person for a few hours a month playing a very small role helping students as they learn math. But this is volunteer work and I don't get any money for doing it - I don't even get a cookie or Capri sun like the kids sometimes get. Does it make sense I am paid all of $0.00 for this time I spend volunteering helping students learning math? So now let's just get to the real question you ask: does the market "reasonably and fairly compensate people" for work they are currently doing as well as for any future impact their previous work may have led to? My opinion and my gut feeling is that in general no it doesn't. But why would it? So I'm not an expert with in-depth knowledge about every occupation and employee differences between them, and nobody knows the future or what future positive impacts someone's work may lead to. I also don't claim to have some specific set of target amounts in my head for what would be fair compensation for each respective type of work in the market... The unfairness here is something I feel, but I know everyone's feelings and views on this topic will be unique. I have not come across a system that is objectively more fair. Have you? I am not trying to play games, I really don't know. So what system do you suggest would be more "fair" to everyone? and again how do you define providing value to society?
- eevilspock 10y ago
  > Don't first tackle something a bit easier on my behalf, but if you need to then we can. I appreciate the open-minded reason in the rest of your reply, but wow, this opening is patronizing. A failure to read what I wrote, specifically "If we can't agree on the answers to these questions it's unlikely we can agree on anything." I'm not interested in a technical/logical debate where the two participants don't even share the same values. It's pointless nor do I enjoy it (It's just intellectual masturbation. Wait, scratch that, masturbation is enjoyable). It is absolutely essential to determine first whether we have common ground. And that common ground, if it exists, is not some objective a priori truth, but subjective values. Most of the answers to your other questions are dependent on values. Why would the market be fair, you ask? That's my whole point. To me, to my values, fairness matters. To other people's values, optimizing the world for material wealth matters more, and to others optimizing the world for their personal wealth matters most. (It's a very important question how individuals of the same species can have such divergent values, but that's another large topic). If you go back 700 years, I doubt anyone came across a system objectively more fair than feudalism. I'm very glad people didn't decide to not challenge it and look for better. To me it's sad that my first comment above got so many down-votes (up to 5, then down to negative, now back to zero). I frequently quote Upton Sinclair here on HN because it to me perfectly captures the filter bubble that is HN: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Perhaps the biggest problem I see, in America at least, is that many people treat private property as an "a priori" right, and the invisible hand as a wielder of truth, rather than getting that private property and the free market are social contracts, nothing more. I'm not trying to play games either. :)