3 ms·

This article implicitly assumes that intensity/amount of labour should translate directly into income. Dunno why it should, but it would be interesting to thin

This article implicitly assumes that intensity/amount of labour should translate directly into income. Dunno why it should, but it would be interesting to think of what the world would be like if that were truly manifested in reality. I wish upon all these socialist academics that they could live in such a world as they thoughtlessly describe/claim to desire.

okonomiyaki3000 9y ago
The article doesn't implicitly assume that at all. You seem to have missed the entire point.
- airstrike 9y ago
  From the article: > Meanwhile, few who make the “I did it all myself” argument question the absurdity of seeing earnings as a measure of grit and moral worth. Does anyone really think that a CEO, whose pay is on average 271 times greater than that of his typical worker, works 271 times harder than his employees, who might actually be doing strenuous physical labor?
  - okonomiyaki3000 9y ago
    Exactly. Rather than "implicitly assuming" one thing, it quite explicitly states the opposite.
- ams6110 9y ago
  I think it does. Whether it's the subhead about linking work and reward or Johannes Siegrist's study of "unfair compensation: “effort/reward imbalance” (ERI)" The implication is clear that some people are rewarded less for the same effort. Well not all effort is equally valuable. Anyone can sweep a floor, so the effort of doing so isn't worth much.
  - uyholes 9y ago
    This argument always seems backward to me, because the important issue with this topic isn't about the supply and demand for the floor sweeping, it's the assumption that the supply for the work of the CEO position is lacking, as opposed to restricted due to power structures or incentive for control of money. What I mean is, yes, everyone can sweep, the compensation is lower, but there is less power also. As you move up the hierarchy, you are not only potentially going up in skill, but also in the amount of power afforded and compensation enjoyed. Let's take a hypothetical case where all employees are equally skilled. Just for argument. Now you create positions of more and more power. By definition, there will be fewer positions of greater power, otherwise those higher positions would not have so much power. Because of the power those positions afford, there will be more competition for positions of more power, under the assumption that people want more power. Because those workers are all equally skilled, though, something other than skill must determine success in gaining those positions. And once they have those positions, they can use that power to increase their compensation relative to other employees. They can also use that power, consciously or subconsciously, to create or shape a narrative that they deserve that compensation more than others. This is hypothetical, and reality involves something in between the "floor sweepers get paid pennies because everyone can sweep" and "CEOs are randomly assorted into positions of unlimited power" but the point is that there are properties accrued by the inherent nature of power structures, and those properties lead to inequities just as much as supply and demand of skills. I can't believe that in the US the power structure side of reality is ignored so much in favor of the supply and demand side of reality, even when it's staring us in the face and glaringly obvious. And that you can't see society as complex and nuanced, and have to choose to be either a rabid capitalist or socialist.
narrator 9y ago
All work is of equal cost. Not all work is of equal value.
anigbrowl 9y ago
This article implicitly assumes that intensity/amount of labour should translate directly into income. Perhaps because that's how employers typically exhort their staff to greater productivity? Never once have I had an employer say 'there's a fat bonus waiting for someone who can figure out a clever shortcut through this problem' or the like. For people who genuinely start at the bottom, personal initiative is often discouraged rather than rewarded and the benefits of innovation or exceptional performance often accrue to the nearest manager rather than the eager beaver.
- darepublic 9y ago
  More like never once was the bonus based on who made the most phone calls rather than who made the most sales. Changing societal reward to reflect the greatest amount of virtue signalling based on a scheme where you get points for possessing the markers of victim hood is worse than the flawed system in place today.
analog31 9y ago
The amount of labor does translate into income, but what are the units of measure? Joules? Hours? Indulgences? Arguably, the units are dollars. A dollar's worth of work is worth a dollar.

okonomiyaki3000 9y ago

The article doesn't implicitly assume that at all. You seem to have missed the entire point.

airstrike 9y ago
From the article: > Meanwhile, few who make the “I did it all myself” argument question the absurdity of seeing earnings as a measure of grit and moral worth. Does anyone really think that a CEO, whose pay is on average 271 times greater than that of his typical worker, works 271 times harder than his employees, who might actually be doing strenuous physical labor?
- okonomiyaki3000 9y ago
  Exactly. Rather than "implicitly assuming" one thing, it quite explicitly states the opposite.
ams6110 9y ago
I think it does. Whether it's the subhead about linking work and reward or Johannes Siegrist's study of "unfair compensation: “effort/reward imbalance” (ERI)" The implication is clear that some people are rewarded less for the same effort. Well not all effort is equally valuable. Anyone can sweep a floor, so the effort of doing so isn't worth much.
- uyholes 9y ago
  This argument always seems backward to me, because the important issue with this topic isn't about the supply and demand for the floor sweeping, it's the assumption that the supply for the work of the CEO position is lacking, as opposed to restricted due to power structures or incentive for control of money. What I mean is, yes, everyone can sweep, the compensation is lower, but there is less power also. As you move up the hierarchy, you are not only potentially going up in skill, but also in the amount of power afforded and compensation enjoyed. Let's take a hypothetical case where all employees are equally skilled. Just for argument. Now you create positions of more and more power. By definition, there will be fewer positions of greater power, otherwise those higher positions would not have so much power. Because of the power those positions afford, there will be more competition for positions of more power, under the assumption that people want more power. Because those workers are all equally skilled, though, something other than skill must determine success in gaining those positions. And once they have those positions, they can use that power to increase their compensation relative to other employees. They can also use that power, consciously or subconsciously, to create or shape a narrative that they deserve that compensation more than others. This is hypothetical, and reality involves something in between the "floor sweepers get paid pennies because everyone can sweep" and "CEOs are randomly assorted into positions of unlimited power" but the point is that there are properties accrued by the inherent nature of power structures, and those properties lead to inequities just as much as supply and demand of skills. I can't believe that in the US the power structure side of reality is ignored so much in favor of the supply and demand side of reality, even when it's staring us in the face and glaringly obvious. And that you can't see society as complex and nuanced, and have to choose to be either a rabid capitalist or socialist.

narrator 9y ago

All work is of equal cost. Not all work is of equal value.

anigbrowl 9y ago

This article implicitly assumes that intensity/amount of labour should translate directly into income. Perhaps because that's how employers typically exhort their staff to greater productivity? Never once have I had an employer say 'there's a fat bonus waiting for someone who can figure out a clever shortcut through this problem' or the like. For people who genuinely start at the bottom, personal initiative is often discouraged rather than rewarded and the benefits of innovation or exceptional performance often accrue to the nearest manager rather than the eager beaver.

darepublic 9y ago
More like never once was the bonus based on who made the most phone calls rather than who made the most sales. Changing societal reward to reflect the greatest amount of virtue signalling based on a scheme where you get points for possessing the markers of victim hood is worse than the flawed system in place today.

analog31 9y ago

The amount of labor does translate into income, but what are the units of measure? Joules? Hours? Indulgences? Arguably, the units are dollars. A dollar's worth of work is worth a dollar.