4 ms·

> There is still a direct correlation between work and benefit, as in if you work more, you make more, but you keep more. This correlation isn't all that direc

by hn0 9y ago

> There is still a direct correlation between work and benefit, as in if you work more, you make more, but you keep more. This correlation isn't all that direct in my experience.

macspoofing 9y ago
>This correlation isn't all that direct in my experience. What do you mean? That's certainly the case for hourly jobs where more hours equals more money.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  The relationship between hours worked and work done is not direct and, more importantly, the route to advancement into better-paying work is rarely just being really efficient at your job.
  - macspoofing 9y ago
    >The relationship between hours worked and work done is not direct Whose arguing that? All I argued: If you work 60 hours @ $10/hr you make more money than if you work 40 hours @ $10/hr. That is a fundamental difference between a market-based economy and a marxist one. In the latter, that equation does not hold. >the route to advancement into better-paying work is rarely just being really efficient at your job. Again, whose arguing that? I made a simple, shallow observation. You're trying to tie in some fuzzy nebulous concepts of 'better-paying work' and 'efficiency' and 'career advancement'. It has nothing to do with anything. Yes, some people work 80 hours and make less than other people who work 1 hour. Not the point here.
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      People not working "enough" hours isn't a structural problem if they're producing enough. If your argument is just that "people will spend more hours at work if their incentives are aligned exactly to making them do that," then I don't disagree, but I also don't find it revelatory.
      - macspoofing 9y ago
        >then I don't disagree, but I also don't find it revelatory. Because it isn't. And yet we still have people who believe Marxism can work.
        emodendroket 9y ago
        I don't think your argument works unless you actually go back and tie the hours thing to productivity. If I go to work and goof off for eight hours is the system working? I'm also not really sure what this all has to do with feudalism.
        TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Marxism says that people should not be incentivized to work more hours. If anything, I think Marx's labor theory of value[1] would be more likely to lead to the opposite problem, people being incentivized to work rather than being incentivized to produce value. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Karl_Marx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Karl_Mar...

by hn0 9y ago

> There is still a direct correlation between work and benefit, as in if you work more, you make more, but you keep more. This correlation isn't all that direct in my experience.

macspoofing 9y ago

>This correlation isn't all that direct in my experience. What do you mean? That's certainly the case for hourly jobs where more hours equals more money.

emodendroket 9y ago
The relationship between hours worked and work done is not direct and, more importantly, the route to advancement into better-paying work is rarely just being really efficient at your job.
- macspoofing 9y ago
  >The relationship between hours worked and work done is not direct Whose arguing that? All I argued: If you work 60 hours @ $10/hr you make more money than if you work 40 hours @ $10/hr. That is a fundamental difference between a market-based economy and a marxist one. In the latter, that equation does not hold. >the route to advancement into better-paying work is rarely just being really efficient at your job. Again, whose arguing that? I made a simple, shallow observation. You're trying to tie in some fuzzy nebulous concepts of 'better-paying work' and 'efficiency' and 'career advancement'. It has nothing to do with anything. Yes, some people work 80 hours and make less than other people who work 1 hour. Not the point here.
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    People not working "enough" hours isn't a structural problem if they're producing enough. If your argument is just that "people will spend more hours at work if their incentives are aligned exactly to making them do that," then I don't disagree, but I also don't find it revelatory.
    - macspoofing 9y ago
      >then I don't disagree, but I also don't find it revelatory. Because it isn't. And yet we still have people who believe Marxism can work.
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        I don't think your argument works unless you actually go back and tie the hours thing to productivity. If I go to work and goof off for eight hours is the system working? I'm also not really sure what this all has to do with feudalism.
      - TheCoelacanth 9y ago
        I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that Marxism says that people should not be incentivized to work more hours. If anything, I think Marx's labor theory of value[1] would be more likely to lead to the opposite problem, people being incentivized to work rather than being incentivized to produce value. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Karl_Marx https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value#Karl_Mar...