7 ms·

> Your income should not be based on input (risk, comfort), but rather your output (scale, value). Why?

by anoncake 6y ago

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
samtho 6y ago
Compensation, in a perfect world, should be based on how much value you bring to the company.
- anoncake 6y ago
  You did not answer the question, you just repeated the initial claim.
  - oneplane 6y ago
    You seem to be dodging the obvious: the "why" is because a company has no value when you are risk-free and comfortable because it gets nothing from the inputs towards you, only from your outputs. That doesn't mean it is exactly that black-and-white; your input and output are related. Then there is the availability thing; people with skills and experience are not easy to find so you often want to retain them at the company, and compensation is a great motivator.
- batiudrami 6y ago
  It is clear that your perfect world and my perfect world are quite different.
- Der_Einzige 6y ago
  Not again! The labor theory of value is rearing its head out of the grave again! Oh no! /s
MAGZine 6y ago
Because people pay for output, not input. They don't care if you bought a pencil from someone else or grew the tree, made the paint, etc all yourself. They buy a pencil.
- anoncake 6y ago
  That does not answer the question. Why should someone's income depend on their output? Why is that the ethically correct outcome?
  - concreteblock 6y ago
    Why did you automatically bring "ethics" into this discussion? The person you replied to was probably using the word 'should' in reference to some other objective.
    - anoncake 6y ago
      I automatically bring ethics into this discussion because I try to be a decent human being and actually care about the society I live in.
      - concreteblock 6y ago
        Someone said, roughly, that X should be like Y. You immediately asked them why this was ethically optimal. To me that seems like a non-sequiter. There is no reason to suspect that the optimization (with respect to whatever objective you desire, e.g. total happiness) of a large, complex, chaotic, system (such as a society) can be best achieved by using 'ethical correctness' as the only criterion for decision making. At least, that's my opinion. I hope that doesn't make me an indecent human being.
  - xyzelement 6y ago
    >> That does not answer the question. Why should someone's income depend on their output? Why is that the ethically correct outcome? Because anything else is wishful thinking at best and destroys society at worst.
offby37years 6y ago
If you need a hole dug by tomorrow and you have $1k to spend, you can either: - Pay one person ($1k) with an excavator - Pay ten people ($100/each) with shovels

> Your income should not be based on input (risk, comfort), but rather your output (scale, value). Why?

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

samtho 6y ago

Compensation, in a perfect world, should be based on how much value you bring to the company.

anoncake 6y ago
You did not answer the question, you just repeated the initial claim.
- oneplane 6y ago
  You seem to be dodging the obvious: the "why" is because a company has no value when you are risk-free and comfortable because it gets nothing from the inputs towards you, only from your outputs. That doesn't mean it is exactly that black-and-white; your input and output are related. Then there is the availability thing; people with skills and experience are not easy to find so you often want to retain them at the company, and compensation is a great motivator.
batiudrami 6y ago
It is clear that your perfect world and my perfect world are quite different.
Der_Einzige 6y ago
Not again! The labor theory of value is rearing its head out of the grave again! Oh no! /s

MAGZine 6y ago

Because people pay for output, not input. They don't care if you bought a pencil from someone else or grew the tree, made the paint, etc all yourself. They buy a pencil.

anoncake 6y ago
That does not answer the question. Why should someone's income depend on their output? Why is that the ethically correct outcome?
- concreteblock 6y ago
  Why did you automatically bring "ethics" into this discussion? The person you replied to was probably using the word 'should' in reference to some other objective.
  - anoncake 6y ago
    I automatically bring ethics into this discussion because I try to be a decent human being and actually care about the society I live in.
    - concreteblock 6y ago
      Someone said, roughly, that X should be like Y. You immediately asked them why this was ethically optimal. To me that seems like a non-sequiter. There is no reason to suspect that the optimization (with respect to whatever objective you desire, e.g. total happiness) of a large, complex, chaotic, system (such as a society) can be best achieved by using 'ethical correctness' as the only criterion for decision making. At least, that's my opinion. I hope that doesn't make me an indecent human being.
- xyzelement 6y ago
  >> That does not answer the question. Why should someone's income depend on their output? Why is that the ethically correct outcome? Because anything else is wishful thinking at best and destroys society at worst.

offby37years 6y ago

If you need a hole dug by tomorrow and you have $1k to spend, you can either: - Pay one person ($1k) with an excavator - Pay ten people ($100/each) with shovels