4 ms·

I think we differ on the semantics, I see "This money is owed to me" as I own that money. I may not physically have it in my possession but I have mechanisms to

by Grimm1 5y ago

I think we differ on the semantics, I see "This money is owed to me" as I own that money. I may not physically have it in my possession but I have mechanisms to retrieve it and that is wherein ownership is for me. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, your concern is unless you have it physically you can't say you own something. > These are in direct contradiction with each other, and you confirmed exactly what I'm saying in the second one. This is exactly how the money isn't yours! That money in the bank isn't yours either just because the employer could've paid you with it! By my above clarification does it make sense from my viewpoint if I now say something like, "That money is mine, my employer is simply holding it for me, because I could use the courts to retrieve it if they said they don't want to give it to me." You don't have to agree I just want to make sure I'm getting my point across.

dataflow 5y ago
> I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, your concern is unless you have it physically you can't say you own something. No, that's not what I'm saying. You can obviously lend something and it still belongs to you even though someone else possesses it. I'm saying that if something has previously belonged to someone else, it will not be yours until and unless either (a) its existing owner, or (b) a valid legal procedure actually transfers the ownership. Moreover, until that is the case, you cannot take possession of it without the consent of the owners, and doing so would not make you its owner. Furthermore, a mere contract that you would be paid $X by Y time does not imply you will be the owner of $X of the payer's money at Y time (nor earlier). It is merely a promise to transfer ownership, which may or may not occur due to numerous reasons both inside and outside the employer's control. Just like how a stock option is a promise to transfer stock, not a grant of ownership of the stock, and just like how that has nothing to do with your physical possession of anything. I'm pretty sure it's possible to write a contract that actually grants you ownership of some funds by a certain time, but I'd bet no employer would agree to that. Precisely because it would have quite different legal implications than merely a promise of payment. I get the feeling the confusion here is that you're conflating moral ownership with legal ownership. That you have a moral right to something and that there exists a legal procedure to grant you ownership doesn't mean you are the legal owner before that procedure occurs.
- Grimm1 5y ago
  First thank you for the clarification. I'm going to do something never before done on the internet and change my position. I think you've convinced me that there is a difference. Though I'm not sold that in most matters of practicality it would have that much of an impact because if I'm able to compel you to give me X through something like "a valid legal procedure" then I at least had a claim to ownership of X to begin with, which I can use to get possession of X and full ownership, in your sense, of X. It just took me a few extra steps instead of a neat transfer by the person I'm compelling through the legal procedure but at the end I still get X. The only other thing I see here is that with stock options, execution is legally optional and a decision made by the person with the option. It's not legally optional to pay someone wages if they're employed under a standard wage contract and that decision isn't made by the employee to not be paid it's being made by the employer that's an important distinction. Anyway, whether I have X or a magic token (in this case the government) that upon using it will force you to give me X makes no difference to me, still got X. If it didn't contracts would be worthless and we both know that's not typically the case. So if anything I see it as a distinction ultimately without difference but I guess there is value in seeing the distinction anyway. Anyway good conversation and I imagine we still have some disagreement here but I'm going to go enjoy my Saturday evening, have a good one yourself!

by Grimm1 5y ago

dataflow 5y ago

> I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, your concern is unless you have it physically you can't say you own something. No, that's not what I'm saying. You can obviously lend something and it still belongs to you even though someone else possesses it. I'm saying that if something has previously belonged to someone else, it will not be yours until and unless either (a) its existing owner, or (b) a valid legal procedure actually transfers the ownership. Moreover, until that is the case, you cannot take possession of it without the consent of the owners, and doing so would not make you its owner. Furthermore, a mere contract that you would be paid $X by Y time does not imply you will be the owner of $X of the payer's money at Y time (nor earlier). It is merely a promise to transfer ownership, which may or may not occur due to numerous reasons both inside and outside the employer's control. Just like how a stock option is a promise to transfer stock, not a grant of ownership of the stock, and just like how that has nothing to do with your physical possession of anything. I'm pretty sure it's possible to write a contract that actually grants you ownership of some funds by a certain time, but I'd bet no employer would agree to that. Precisely because it would have quite different legal implications than merely a promise of payment. I get the feeling the confusion here is that you're conflating moral ownership with legal ownership. That you have a moral right to something and that there exists a legal procedure to grant you ownership doesn't mean you are the legal owner before that procedure occurs.

Grimm1 5y ago
First thank you for the clarification. I'm going to do something never before done on the internet and change my position. I think you've convinced me that there is a difference. Though I'm not sold that in most matters of practicality it would have that much of an impact because if I'm able to compel you to give me X through something like "a valid legal procedure" then I at least had a claim to ownership of X to begin with, which I can use to get possession of X and full ownership, in your sense, of X. It just took me a few extra steps instead of a neat transfer by the person I'm compelling through the legal procedure but at the end I still get X. The only other thing I see here is that with stock options, execution is legally optional and a decision made by the person with the option. It's not legally optional to pay someone wages if they're employed under a standard wage contract and that decision isn't made by the employee to not be paid it's being made by the employer that's an important distinction. Anyway, whether I have X or a magic token (in this case the government) that upon using it will force you to give me X makes no difference to me, still got X. If it didn't contracts would be worthless and we both know that's not typically the case. So if anything I see it as a distinction ultimately without difference but I guess there is value in seeing the distinction anyway. Anyway good conversation and I imagine we still have some disagreement here but I'm going to go enjoy my Saturday evening, have a good one yourself!