7 ms·

While I accept that it might not be so bad once you get used to it, I really can't imagine any reason that it could be a good thing. The government could also

by hugh3 16y ago

While I accept that it might not be so bad once you get used to it, I really can't imagine any reason that it could be a good thing. The government could also compulsorily publish photos of everybody's genitals every year. Again, you'd probably get used to it, and it probably wouldn't be as bad as it sounds, but I can't see any upside to it.

kragen 16y ago
> I really can't imagine any reason that it could be a good thing. It means that anyone who's interviewing for a job at a company can look up what everyone else at the company makes, so they don't have to waste time interviewing with companies that pay too little, and it gives them better negotiating leverage. In general, it pushes the labor market toward being an ideal liberal market. Marx thought that would result in the wages of labor falling to just above its cost of production, i.e. just enough to feed and clothe you. It looks like he was wrong.
- dantheman 16y ago
  Marx had a labor theory of value, just like adam smith which is entirely wrong. The cost of a good is determined by the value it provides to the consumer. The consumer will not pay more than the value it provides the to them. In Marx's view the cost of a good is determined by how much it cost to produce.
  - kragen 16y ago
    I have the impression that the standard economic doctrine was that the cost of a good was determined by where the supply curve intersects the demand curve — which is to say, the point at which the amount it costs to produce it is equal to how much value it provides to the consumer. This in itself doesn't contradict Marx's point (and what Marx thought the real value of things was is irrelevant). The point where he got it wrong was apparently in equating the cost of keeping a laborer alive with the cost of their labor. To elaborate, if you're not familiar with these ideas of supply and demand curves, the idea is that as you produce more and more of something, the cost to produce it eventually starts to go up forever. For example, working 20 hours a week might have a negative cost, working 40 hours a week means you don't have a lot of socializing time, working 80 hours a week means you have no leisure time unless you have someone else to cook and clean for you, working 100 hours a week means you're sleep-deprived and have time for neither leisure nor cooking and cleaning, working 168 hours a week is invariably fatal within a few months, and working more than that is impossible. On the other side, the incremental value to the consumer diminishes after some point, ultimately reaching zero. A single fork per person is useful every day, six forks per person is useful only when they invite friends over or want to postpone doing the dishes, thirty forks per person is useful only if you're doing funky art projects by bending forks, and 300 forks per person would be valuable only as scrap metal, i.e. the labor that went into making them produced zero or even negative value. The theory is that these two curves must intersect in at least one point, and that's the market equilibrium. It's commonly assumed that they intersect in only one point because they're monotonic, but that's probably not true.
    - dantheman 16y ago
      Yes, of course supply and demand factor into the cost. Your argument above is using the theory of marginal utility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility) the labor theory of value was replaced by that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
  - Qz 16y ago
    The cost of a good is determined by how much a producer can get away with selling it for.
    - splat 16y ago
      Or by how much a consumer can get away with buying it for.
  - caf 16y ago
    The consumer will pay at most the value that it provides them; however the producer will charge at least the cost to produce the item. If the former is less than the latter, obviously there is no sale. If the latter is less than the former, then the price will be somewhere in between these points - exactly where is the interesting thing.
- zephjc 16y ago
  > It means that anyone who's interviewing for a job at a company > can look up what everyone else at the company makes, so they > don't have to waste time interviewing with companies that pay > too little, and it gives them better negotiating leverage. It also means you can see how much your co-workers are making. This can create resentment if two people doing the same job with the same experience make different amounts of money.
  - kragen 16y ago
    Is it bad for injustice to create resentment?
- colanderman 16y ago
  Ironically, this seems to be where the US is headed, if its ever-growing income disparity is any indicator. If you are paid $50k/yr, that's enough to feed and clothe you and then some, and those at the top are free to pocket the excess. It will be interesting to see if Norway's new law causes workers to value their labor more highly. Edit: apparently this is old news! I wonder what effect is has had...
fanboy123 16y ago
It would force a flattening out of the pay structure in the US. It is up for debate whether or not its a GOOD thing. But that is what it would accomplish because envy is so disruptive in the workplace. Try cutting wages on middle/lower tier workers if they know exactly how much upper mgmt makes. Tough to look a man in the eye while trying to extract some value out for yourself.
- jacques_chester 16y ago
  > It would force a flattening out of the pay structure in the US. How? The wealth of the richest is already extensively canvassed in the media.
  - fanboy123 16y ago
    CEOs of big companies yes. Middle mgmt of big companies and upper of small not so much.
icefox 16y ago
> I can't see any upside to it. When tax time came around I received papers from the government with a completely filled out tax form based upon all of my public information. If everything was OK I would sms a code back to them and my taxes were done.
- travisp 16y ago
  Isn't this done in other countries where your income information is not made public to everyone?
Schmidt 16y ago
Pictures of genitalia would only be a source of embarrassment, I can't really see how that is comparable to tax records.

by hugh3 16y ago

kragen 16y ago

> I really can't imagine any reason that it could be a good thing. It means that anyone who's interviewing for a job at a company can look up what everyone else at the company makes, so they don't have to waste time interviewing with companies that pay too little, and it gives them better negotiating leverage. In general, it pushes the labor market toward being an ideal liberal market. Marx thought that would result in the wages of labor falling to just above its cost of production, i.e. just enough to feed and clothe you. It looks like he was wrong.

dantheman 16y ago
Marx had a labor theory of value, just like adam smith which is entirely wrong. The cost of a good is determined by the value it provides to the consumer. The consumer will not pay more than the value it provides the to them. In Marx's view the cost of a good is determined by how much it cost to produce.
- kragen 16y ago
  I have the impression that the standard economic doctrine was that the cost of a good was determined by where the supply curve intersects the demand curve — which is to say, the point at which the amount it costs to produce it is equal to how much value it provides to the consumer. This in itself doesn't contradict Marx's point (and what Marx thought the real value of things was is irrelevant). The point where he got it wrong was apparently in equating the cost of keeping a laborer alive with the cost of their labor. To elaborate, if you're not familiar with these ideas of supply and demand curves, the idea is that as you produce more and more of something, the cost to produce it eventually starts to go up forever. For example, working 20 hours a week might have a negative cost, working 40 hours a week means you don't have a lot of socializing time, working 80 hours a week means you have no leisure time unless you have someone else to cook and clean for you, working 100 hours a week means you're sleep-deprived and have time for neither leisure nor cooking and cleaning, working 168 hours a week is invariably fatal within a few months, and working more than that is impossible. On the other side, the incremental value to the consumer diminishes after some point, ultimately reaching zero. A single fork per person is useful every day, six forks per person is useful only when they invite friends over or want to postpone doing the dishes, thirty forks per person is useful only if you're doing funky art projects by bending forks, and 300 forks per person would be valuable only as scrap metal, i.e. the labor that went into making them produced zero or even negative value. The theory is that these two curves must intersect in at least one point, and that's the market equilibrium. It's commonly assumed that they intersect in only one point because they're monotonic, but that's probably not true.
  - dantheman 16y ago
    Yes, of course supply and demand factor into the cost. Your argument above is using the theory of marginal utility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_utility) the labor theory of value was replaced by that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value
- Qz 16y ago
  The cost of a good is determined by how much a producer can get away with selling it for.
  - splat 16y ago
    Or by how much a consumer can get away with buying it for.
- caf 16y ago
  The consumer will pay at most the value that it provides them; however the producer will charge at least the cost to produce the item. If the former is less than the latter, obviously there is no sale. If the latter is less than the former, then the price will be somewhere in between these points - exactly where is the interesting thing.
zephjc 16y ago
> It means that anyone who's interviewing for a job at a company > can look up what everyone else at the company makes, so they > don't have to waste time interviewing with companies that pay > too little, and it gives them better negotiating leverage. It also means you can see how much your co-workers are making. This can create resentment if two people doing the same job with the same experience make different amounts of money.
- kragen 16y ago
  Is it bad for injustice to create resentment?
colanderman 16y ago
Ironically, this seems to be where the US is headed, if its ever-growing income disparity is any indicator. If you are paid $50k/yr, that's enough to feed and clothe you and then some, and those at the top are free to pocket the excess. It will be interesting to see if Norway's new law causes workers to value their labor more highly. Edit: apparently this is old news! I wonder what effect is has had...

fanboy123 16y ago

It would force a flattening out of the pay structure in the US. It is up for debate whether or not its a GOOD thing. But that is what it would accomplish because envy is so disruptive in the workplace. Try cutting wages on middle/lower tier workers if they know exactly how much upper mgmt makes. Tough to look a man in the eye while trying to extract some value out for yourself.

jacques_chester 16y ago
> It would force a flattening out of the pay structure in the US. How? The wealth of the richest is already extensively canvassed in the media.
- fanboy123 16y ago
  CEOs of big companies yes. Middle mgmt of big companies and upper of small not so much.

icefox 16y ago

> I can't see any upside to it. When tax time came around I received papers from the government with a completely filled out tax form based upon all of my public information. If everything was OK I would sms a code back to them and my taxes were done.

travisp 16y ago
Isn't this done in other countries where your income information is not made public to everyone?

Schmidt 16y ago

Pictures of genitalia would only be a source of embarrassment, I can't really see how that is comparable to tax records.