4 ms·

There's no problem moralising it while keeping in mind that the current system indeed is amoral. I think the point is whether it should be. Personally, I'm of

by rue 16y ago

There's no problem moralising it while keeping in mind that the current system indeed is amoral. I think the point is whether it should be. Personally, I'm of the opinion that no job worth doing is worth less than any other job, but I recognise there's “some” ways to go before that thought becomes in any way mainstream again…

thebigredjay 16y ago
I don't think it's amoral. There are "world-shakers" in this life who aren't satisfied with how the world looks and they strive to change it. They develop an idea that provides value to others and they build a beast from nothing. With out people like this there would be no change, no progress. Founders create the world as we know it. And, a slight adjustment to the original phrase will correct it. Founders, in general, are not 1,000 more valuable than their employees. Successful founders are 1,000,000 more valuable than their employees.
- rue 16y ago
  No, they really aren't. They can extract 1000 or 1000000 times the money, sure.
nitrogen 16y ago
I'm of the opinion that no job worth doing is worth less than any other job... Following this reason would end up with a world in which no job is worth doing. The value of a job is in how much value it provides to others. If one person's 8 hours produces 100 times as much value for others than another person's 8 hours (e.g. 100x time saved, 100x food produced, etc.) then the first person's job is worth 100x more than the second, and by your logic the second person's job isn't worth doing. But if there's nobody or no machine to replace the second person, then that job doesn't get done. If the second person's job was originally worth doing until the 100x person came along, why would it no longer be worth doing if it's now worth relatively less to others?
- rue 16y ago
  That doesn't follow, at all. Let me reformulate: any job whose existence isn't necessary (most of the financial sector, for example) can be terminated and the remaining jobs, all being necessary, are of equal value.
  - nitrogen 16y ago
    Okay, next questions: 1. Who decides which jobs aren't necessary, and by what reasoning? 2. Why is a job (such as software development) that can multiply x hours of work across thousands or millions of users equally as valuable as a janitorial job that provides value to the dozen or so people who use the facilities? I'm not saying either person is more or less valuable as a human being just by virtue of their job, but that their work itself can be more or less valuable to society as a whole. So how do you reconcile that fact with the binary idea that all jobs are either valueless or of equal value?

by rue 16y ago

thebigredjay 16y ago

I don't think it's amoral. There are "world-shakers" in this life who aren't satisfied with how the world looks and they strive to change it. They develop an idea that provides value to others and they build a beast from nothing. With out people like this there would be no change, no progress. Founders create the world as we know it. And, a slight adjustment to the original phrase will correct it. Founders, in general, are not 1,000 more valuable than their employees. Successful founders are 1,000,000 more valuable than their employees.

rue 16y ago
No, they really aren't. They can extract 1000 or 1000000 times the money, sure.

nitrogen 16y ago

I'm of the opinion that no job worth doing is worth less than any other job... Following this reason would end up with a world in which no job is worth doing. The value of a job is in how much value it provides to others. If one person's 8 hours produces 100 times as much value for others than another person's 8 hours (e.g. 100x time saved, 100x food produced, etc.) then the first person's job is worth 100x more than the second, and by your logic the second person's job isn't worth doing. But if there's nobody or no machine to replace the second person, then that job doesn't get done. If the second person's job was originally worth doing until the 100x person came along, why would it no longer be worth doing if it's now worth relatively less to others?

rue 16y ago
That doesn't follow, at all. Let me reformulate: any job whose existence isn't necessary (most of the financial sector, for example) can be terminated and the remaining jobs, all being necessary, are of equal value.
- nitrogen 16y ago
  Okay, next questions: 1. Who decides which jobs aren't necessary, and by what reasoning? 2. Why is a job (such as software development) that can multiply x hours of work across thousands or millions of users equally as valuable as a janitorial job that provides value to the dozen or so people who use the facilities? I'm not saying either person is more or less valuable as a human being just by virtue of their job, but that their work itself can be more or less valuable to society as a whole. So how do you reconcile that fact with the binary idea that all jobs are either valueless or of equal value?