3 ms·

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 so

by 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. :)

by qwrusz 10y ago

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. :)