3 ms·

>The problem is that one person makes $10,000 (or $40,000) while another makes $10,000,000. Explain to me, how is that a problem. Suppose someone invents a met

by Kenji 9y ago

>The problem is that one person makes $10,000 (or $40,000) while another makes $10,000,000. Explain to me, how is that a problem. Suppose someone invents a method to make lots of clean renewable energy very cheaply. They make a company and earn $10,000,000. Did they not deserve the fruit of their labour? Is that a problem?

naasking 9y ago
Ignoring the 10,000 externalities your scenario completely ignores, why should such a person enjoy any more compensation than any other job? Everyone is enjoying the "fruits of their labour" from their wage. What makes you think this deserves more compensation?
- golemotron 9y ago
  Envy is the real problem. It has serious health effects [1] [1] http://charris.ucsd.edu/articles/harris_salovey_2008.pdf http://charris.ucsd.edu/articles/harris_salovey_2008.pdf
- falcolas 9y ago
  > What makes you think this deserves more compensation? The idea that we live in a meritocracy, and intelligence and novelty are rewarded more than being a corporate drone. We don't live in a meritocracy, but it's an ideal that many (probably a lot of folks who work in startups) would rather push towards: replace the "lucky" rich with the "deserving" rich.
  - naasking 9y ago
    > The idea that we live in a meritocracy, and intelligence and novelty are rewarded more than being a corporate drone. But this argument assumes that financial incentives actually encourage and yield good work. Studies have shown this to be false. When you provide monetary incentives to achieve a goal, the outcomes are worse than the outcomes from people who pursued the same goals for no financial incentives. Without financial incentives, people do work that gives them purpose and meaning, which ends up helping other people more than any financially incentivized goals.
- ameister14 9y ago
  If you have an opportunity to make money, it can be a great motivator to take risk and innovate. Without that increase in compensation, the risk/reward calculation changes, making it less likely to justify innovation.
  - naasking 9y ago
    > If you have an opportunity to make money, it can be a great motivator to take risk and innovate. Artists don't have a financial motives. They're often poor, and yet they continue to pursue their art. People will do things that give them purpose and provide them meaning, that will never change. But if the financial incentive is removed, you won't crowd the field with people whose only purpose is to make money.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      I've been involved with the art world since I was a child, and I can tell you that artists definitely have financial motives. It's not the only thing motivating them, but it plays a role. People don't just have one motivation, you see. If I have a desire to do something but it isn't strong enough to follow through, other factors can motivate me to complete the goal. Sure, some people will starve for art. Most of the time, that's not because they desire to become as skilled as possible, but because they desire social and moral superiority and associate poverty with status and acceptance in their community. I don't personally see that as any greater or worse than pure profit motivation, and see it as much worse than a motivation to earn money in order to accomplish other goals, such as feeding, sheltering and clothing family.
      - naasking 9y ago
        > If I have a desire to do something but it isn't strong enough to follow through, other factors can motivate me to complete the goal. Agreed. > I don't personally see [social standing motives] as any greater or worse than pure profit motivation, and see it as much worse than a motivation to earn money in order to accomplish other goals, such as feeding, sheltering and clothing family. But we're talking about financial rewards that far exceed what's needed to feed, shelter and clothe your own family. You initially mentioned the risk/reward calculation, and rewards certainly affect it, but suppose instead of incentivizing via rewards, we remove the disincentive of risk. You no longer have the exorbitant rewards attracting people who are just after money, but you still encourage innovation for those who have insufficient motive absent high rewards given the risks.
- Kenji 9y ago
  > What makes you think this deserves more compensation? They deserve more compensation because their work is worth more. It is that simple. Not everyone produces the same amount of value - in fact, how much value people produce at work usually diffes by a lot! Someone who shovels dirt by hand moves less dirt in a year than one person with machines in a day. The idea that everyone produces equal value is not only ludicrous, it is deeply toxic and removes any incentive for individuals to excel and solve problems in a productive and creative way.
  - naasking 9y ago
    > Not everyone produces the same amount of value Agreed. > They deserve more compensation because their work is worth more. [...] removes any incentive for individuals to excel and solve problems in a productive and creative way. How does that follow from your premise above? It seems you're also assuming that only financial incentives motivate people to do good work. Do you actually believe that's true? Because psychological studies have shown that people who things for financial incentives actually perform worse than those who do them for non-financial reasons. So frankly the evidence doesn't support the premise that financial incentives are useful. So you have to justify that they are somehow necessary.
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> Explain to me, how is that a problem. Suppose someone invents a method to make lots of clean renewable energy very cheaply. They make a company and earn $10,000,000. Did they not deserve the fruit of their labour? Is that a problem? If the typical person making that amount of money had invented "a method to make lots of clean renewable energy very cheaply" then it wouldn't be a problem, but those aren't the people we see making that kind of money. And when the money is made from dirty energy, or high frequency trading, or executives who deny employee raises to boost profits, or just good old fashioned interest on inherited wealth, people start to wonder what everybody else is getting in exchange for keeping society structured in a way that causes those people to make that amount of money.

by Kenji 9y ago

naasking 9y ago

Ignoring the 10,000 externalities your scenario completely ignores, why should such a person enjoy any more compensation than any other job? Everyone is enjoying the "fruits of their labour" from their wage. What makes you think this deserves more compensation?

golemotron 9y ago
Envy is the real problem. It has serious health effects [1] [1] http://charris.ucsd.edu/articles/harris_salovey_2008.pdf http://charris.ucsd.edu/articles/harris_salovey_2008.pdf
falcolas 9y ago
> What makes you think this deserves more compensation? The idea that we live in a meritocracy, and intelligence and novelty are rewarded more than being a corporate drone. We don't live in a meritocracy, but it's an ideal that many (probably a lot of folks who work in startups) would rather push towards: replace the "lucky" rich with the "deserving" rich.
- naasking 9y ago
  > The idea that we live in a meritocracy, and intelligence and novelty are rewarded more than being a corporate drone. But this argument assumes that financial incentives actually encourage and yield good work. Studies have shown this to be false. When you provide monetary incentives to achieve a goal, the outcomes are worse than the outcomes from people who pursued the same goals for no financial incentives. Without financial incentives, people do work that gives them purpose and meaning, which ends up helping other people more than any financially incentivized goals.
ameister14 9y ago
If you have an opportunity to make money, it can be a great motivator to take risk and innovate. Without that increase in compensation, the risk/reward calculation changes, making it less likely to justify innovation.
- naasking 9y ago
  > If you have an opportunity to make money, it can be a great motivator to take risk and innovate. Artists don't have a financial motives. They're often poor, and yet they continue to pursue their art. People will do things that give them purpose and provide them meaning, that will never change. But if the financial incentive is removed, you won't crowd the field with people whose only purpose is to make money.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    I've been involved with the art world since I was a child, and I can tell you that artists definitely have financial motives. It's not the only thing motivating them, but it plays a role. People don't just have one motivation, you see. If I have a desire to do something but it isn't strong enough to follow through, other factors can motivate me to complete the goal. Sure, some people will starve for art. Most of the time, that's not because they desire to become as skilled as possible, but because they desire social and moral superiority and associate poverty with status and acceptance in their community. I don't personally see that as any greater or worse than pure profit motivation, and see it as much worse than a motivation to earn money in order to accomplish other goals, such as feeding, sheltering and clothing family.
    - naasking 9y ago
      > If I have a desire to do something but it isn't strong enough to follow through, other factors can motivate me to complete the goal. Agreed. > I don't personally see [social standing motives] as any greater or worse than pure profit motivation, and see it as much worse than a motivation to earn money in order to accomplish other goals, such as feeding, sheltering and clothing family. But we're talking about financial rewards that far exceed what's needed to feed, shelter and clothe your own family. You initially mentioned the risk/reward calculation, and rewards certainly affect it, but suppose instead of incentivizing via rewards, we remove the disincentive of risk. You no longer have the exorbitant rewards attracting people who are just after money, but you still encourage innovation for those who have insufficient motive absent high rewards given the risks.
Kenji 9y ago
> What makes you think this deserves more compensation? They deserve more compensation because their work is worth more. It is that simple. Not everyone produces the same amount of value - in fact, how much value people produce at work usually diffes by a lot! Someone who shovels dirt by hand moves less dirt in a year than one person with machines in a day. The idea that everyone produces equal value is not only ludicrous, it is deeply toxic and removes any incentive for individuals to excel and solve problems in a productive and creative way.
- naasking 9y ago
  > Not everyone produces the same amount of value Agreed. > They deserve more compensation because their work is worth more. [...] removes any incentive for individuals to excel and solve problems in a productive and creative way. How does that follow from your premise above? It seems you're also assuming that only financial incentives motivate people to do good work. Do you actually believe that's true? Because psychological studies have shown that people who things for financial incentives actually perform worse than those who do them for non-financial reasons. So frankly the evidence doesn't support the premise that financial incentives are useful. So you have to justify that they are somehow necessary.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

> Explain to me, how is that a problem. Suppose someone invents a method to make lots of clean renewable energy very cheaply. They make a company and earn $10,000,000. Did they not deserve the fruit of their labour? Is that a problem? If the typical person making that amount of money had invented "a method to make lots of clean renewable energy very cheaply" then it wouldn't be a problem, but those aren't the people we see making that kind of money. And when the money is made from dirty energy, or high frequency trading, or executives who deny employee raises to boost profits, or just good old fashioned interest on inherited wealth, people start to wonder what everybody else is getting in exchange for keeping society structured in a way that causes those people to make that amount of money.