4 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.