4 ms·

> If the median worker isn't responsible for the increased productivity, are they entitled to a share of the work of other people? I usually turn this question

by Vinnl 8y ago

> If the median worker isn't responsible for the increased productivity, are they entitled to a share of the work of other people? I usually turn this question around: as a programmer, I'm responsible for a greater share of productivity than some people in different functions who are paid less. However, I do not work harder, do not sacrifice more, do not hate my job more - more likely the opposite, even. Why am I entitled to a larger share of profits than other people? (I understand that the system generally "works better" this way. However, since we're talking about being entitled to something, I wonder if there's a moral argument that can be made.)

zeroname 8y ago
> Why am I entitled to a larger share of profits than other people? You aren't entitled to profits at all. Profits come after cost. You're cost. You cost more because the demand for your labor versus the supply of your labor raises the price of your labor. Don't assume this will go on forever, the next bust may well wipe out the huge wage advantage of today's tech workers.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Sure, I'm not assuming this will go on forever. The main point of asking my question was to get a grip on a moral framework for justifying... I don't know, private property?
  - zeroname 8y ago
    1) No one treats everyone else's property as well as their own (tragedy of the commons). 2) The fact that you are paid more ensures that society's demand of your kind of labor is met, resulting in a more efficient allocation of resources. If everyone instead was paid the same, there would be less incentive to get better training or to perform undesirable work, resulting in less efficient allocation of resources.
    - Vinnl 8y ago
      Yes, that's the reason we're doing things this way, but that's not a moral reasoning. If it were, that would mean being opposed to e.g. being taxed to take care of the disabled. I'm wondering whether there's a way to reconcile those two in the same moral framework.
      - zeroname 8y ago
        > Yes, that's the reason we're doing things this way, but that's not a moral reasoning. It is moral to allocate resources more efficiently, as it increases well-being and reduces waste. > If it were, that would mean being opposed to e.g. being taxed to take care of the disabled. Not at all. A society which allocates resources more efficiently has more resources available to deal with such problems. It is also in the self-interest of every individual to be taken care of, should they become disabled. The (im)morality of using taxation to this end (as opposed to voluntary charity and private insurance) is a separate debate altogether. > I'm wondering whether there's a way to reconcile those two in the same moral framework. They're already reconciled.
leetcrew 8y ago
imagine a laborer who works double the hours you work, exhausting his mind and body more in a single hour than you do all day. but all this mind and back breaking work is to create ugly mud sculptures, unwanted by all but the most eccentric connoisseurs. do you think he is entitled to even greater compensation than you, because he works harder? would you find it fair if he were compensated exactly the same as you?
- Vinnl 8y ago
  No, I don't think he's entitled to greater compensation than me - because I don't have a good rule for determining how much either of us should be entitled to earn. In a moral sense, that is - I understand that me receiving better compensation helps to prevent ugly mud sculptures from being created. That doesn't make me feel entitled to my compensation, though.
  - leetcrew 8y ago
    > I don't have a good rule for determining how much either of us should be entitled to earn. I don't have an objectively provable rule, but I do have one that makes a pretty good starting point: if you create something valuable, you should be able to capture most (or even all) of that value. of course, no one just creates things from scratch. they use tools designed by other people, they use resources extracted from the earth, their productivity might be multiplied if directed by a good team leader, etc. if you take the final product and subtract all the tools, resources, and infrastructure used, you have your personal contribution. I think we should strive for a system where the worker keeps as much of their contribution as possible. some people's contribution will be much larger than others', depending on their skills and the type of work they do, but I don't think this is inherently unfair if you have first accounted for all the external things they have benefited from.
    - Vinnl 8y ago
      But what about people unable to work? What about the elderly, the disabled, or, as more and more gets automated, those no longer able to provide more value than robots? If our moral code is limited to "you are entitled to the value you create", then those people would be left out - and I think that's inconsistent with the rest of my moral code.
briandear 8y ago
It doesn’t matter how “hard” you work, but the value of the work - and value is 100% determined by how much people will pay for your output, and that price is determined by the scarcity of your product. A guy that digs gold out of the ground is going be able to sell that gold at a higher price than a guy digging worms; while working at exactly the same “hardness.” There are those that would suggest that both should be paid the same, which is ridiculous as that suggests a pound of worms is as valuable as a pound of gold.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Sure, that's how the system works, and why it works well in order to make sure gold gets dug out of the ground rather than worms. That makes it a justification for doing things this way, but it's not a justification for me, personally, feeling entitled to the money I receive.

by Vinnl 8y ago

zeroname 8y ago

> Why am I entitled to a larger share of profits than other people? You aren't entitled to profits at all. Profits come after cost. You're cost. You cost more because the demand for your labor versus the supply of your labor raises the price of your labor. Don't assume this will go on forever, the next bust may well wipe out the huge wage advantage of today's tech workers.

Vinnl 8y ago
Sure, I'm not assuming this will go on forever. The main point of asking my question was to get a grip on a moral framework for justifying... I don't know, private property?
- zeroname 8y ago
  1) No one treats everyone else's property as well as their own (tragedy of the commons). 2) The fact that you are paid more ensures that society's demand of your kind of labor is met, resulting in a more efficient allocation of resources. If everyone instead was paid the same, there would be less incentive to get better training or to perform undesirable work, resulting in less efficient allocation of resources.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    Yes, that's the reason we're doing things this way, but that's not a moral reasoning. If it were, that would mean being opposed to e.g. being taxed to take care of the disabled. I'm wondering whether there's a way to reconcile those two in the same moral framework.
    - zeroname 8y ago
      > Yes, that's the reason we're doing things this way, but that's not a moral reasoning. It is moral to allocate resources more efficiently, as it increases well-being and reduces waste. > If it were, that would mean being opposed to e.g. being taxed to take care of the disabled. Not at all. A society which allocates resources more efficiently has more resources available to deal with such problems. It is also in the self-interest of every individual to be taken care of, should they become disabled. The (im)morality of using taxation to this end (as opposed to voluntary charity and private insurance) is a separate debate altogether. > I'm wondering whether there's a way to reconcile those two in the same moral framework. They're already reconciled.

leetcrew 8y ago

imagine a laborer who works double the hours you work, exhausting his mind and body more in a single hour than you do all day. but all this mind and back breaking work is to create ugly mud sculptures, unwanted by all but the most eccentric connoisseurs. do you think he is entitled to even greater compensation than you, because he works harder? would you find it fair if he were compensated exactly the same as you?

Vinnl 8y ago
No, I don't think he's entitled to greater compensation than me - because I don't have a good rule for determining how much either of us should be entitled to earn. In a moral sense, that is - I understand that me receiving better compensation helps to prevent ugly mud sculptures from being created. That doesn't make me feel entitled to my compensation, though.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  > I don't have a good rule for determining how much either of us should be entitled to earn. I don't have an objectively provable rule, but I do have one that makes a pretty good starting point: if you create something valuable, you should be able to capture most (or even all) of that value. of course, no one just creates things from scratch. they use tools designed by other people, they use resources extracted from the earth, their productivity might be multiplied if directed by a good team leader, etc. if you take the final product and subtract all the tools, resources, and infrastructure used, you have your personal contribution. I think we should strive for a system where the worker keeps as much of their contribution as possible. some people's contribution will be much larger than others', depending on their skills and the type of work they do, but I don't think this is inherently unfair if you have first accounted for all the external things they have benefited from.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    But what about people unable to work? What about the elderly, the disabled, or, as more and more gets automated, those no longer able to provide more value than robots? If our moral code is limited to "you are entitled to the value you create", then those people would be left out - and I think that's inconsistent with the rest of my moral code.

briandear 8y ago

It doesn’t matter how “hard” you work, but the value of the work - and value is 100% determined by how much people will pay for your output, and that price is determined by the scarcity of your product. A guy that digs gold out of the ground is going be able to sell that gold at a higher price than a guy digging worms; while working at exactly the same “hardness.” There are those that would suggest that both should be paid the same, which is ridiculous as that suggests a pound of worms is as valuable as a pound of gold.

Vinnl 8y ago
Sure, that's how the system works, and why it works well in order to make sure gold gets dug out of the ground rather than worms. That makes it a justification for doing things this way, but it's not a justification for me, personally, feeling entitled to the money I receive.