9 ms·

Can you build a house without a carpenter? If not, is he entitled to a part of your house even though you paid him to build it?

by nec4b 4y ago

edent 4y ago
I would say that, yes, a carpenter is entitled to a share of the profits. They used their labour to build something which appreciates in value. Traditionally, it has been too hard to track fractional ownership of an asset and calculate a share of profits. And most workers prefer cash up front rather than waiting for a payday which might not materialise for decades. I'm not going to go full blockchain/NFT on this idea. But it is easy to see how in the future a long-lived guild of tradespeople could build your house at a discounted price now in return for a share of the sale profits in the future. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing though.
- nec4b 4y ago
  And if the house depreciates, should the carpenter then help him with the mortgage payments?
- 8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
  Could you make the argument that the carpenter should be given the option to be paid in equity or in cash, if both parties agree to it? Is there any argument against giving people the option to choose the sort of compensation risk profile that works best for their individual situation?
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  No. The carpenter is entitled to pay for his work. He's not entitled to additional value the recipient of the work may or may not get from him completing the job, unless he negotiates that up front. It seems likely that no one in their right mind would agree to pay the carpenter profit sharing for every transaction that may occur from that building. They'd find another carpenter.
runarberg 4y ago
This is a silly question, so silly in fact that I suspect it is only intended as reductio ad absurdum (which can be a fallacy if based on a false or inadequate premise). A carpenter is entitled to the fruits of their labor, which can adequately be provided with money.
- nec4b 4y ago
  >> This is a silly question, so silly in fact that I suspect it is only intended as reductio ad absurdum (which can be a fallacy if based on a false or inadequate premise). I commend you for knowing logical fallacies. Though it would be even better if you were able to demonstrate those fallacies instead appealing to your own authority. >> A carpenter is entitled to the fruits of their labor, which can adequately be provided with money. I agree. Unfortunately, some people here claim developers working for google are entitled to their share of google's profits and carpenters working for said developers are not entitled to a share of profits from what those developers earn.
  - runarberg 4y ago
    There are plenty of examples of Reductio ad absurdum being a fallacy because of a false or inadequate premise. Zeno’s paradox[1] being a famous one. The false premise being that you can actually add infinite number of times (modern mathematics take the limit as n approaches infinity). Here the prime candidate for the premise being wrong is to equate the work of carpenter working in their own enterprise at a project, to that of a google worker, working at Google’s enterprise for any project their management tells them to. The former gets the fruit of their labor in full when the job is finished and paid for, the latter is suffering from a systematic exploitation as each time the stock goes up in price (or when dividends are issued) the shareholders get the fruits of the worker’s labor, as opposed to the workers them selves. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes
    - nec4b 4y ago
      >> The former gets the fruit of their labor in full when the job is finished and paid for, the latter is suffering from a systematic exploitation as each time the stock goes up in price (or when dividends are issued) the shareholders get the fruits of the worker’s labor, as opposed to the workers them selves. This is a bit hard to parse. Isn't the developer's work also paid for after each unit of time served. And why exactly is the developer being systematically exploited every time the stock price increases and the carpenter is not if the house appreciates? Doesn't the developer literally live in the fruits of carpenter's labor?

Can you build a house without a carpenter? If not, is he entitled to a part of your house even though you paid him to build it?

by nec4b 4y ago

Can you build a house without a carpenter? If not, is he entitled to a part of your house even though you paid him to build it?

edent 4y ago

I would say that, yes, a carpenter is entitled to a share of the profits. They used their labour to build something which appreciates in value. Traditionally, it has been too hard to track fractional ownership of an asset and calculate a share of profits. And most workers prefer cash up front rather than waiting for a payday which might not materialise for decades. I'm not going to go full blockchain/NFT on this idea. But it is easy to see how in the future a long-lived guild of tradespeople could build your house at a discounted price now in return for a share of the sale profits in the future. I don't know if that's a good or bad thing though.

nec4b 4y ago
And if the house depreciates, should the carpenter then help him with the mortgage payments?
8f2ab37a-ed6c 4y ago
Could you make the argument that the carpenter should be given the option to be paid in equity or in cash, if both parties agree to it? Is there any argument against giving people the option to choose the sort of compensation risk profile that works best for their individual situation?
slowmovintarget 4y ago
No. The carpenter is entitled to pay for his work. He's not entitled to additional value the recipient of the work may or may not get from him completing the job, unless he negotiates that up front. It seems likely that no one in their right mind would agree to pay the carpenter profit sharing for every transaction that may occur from that building. They'd find another carpenter.

runarberg 4y ago

This is a silly question, so silly in fact that I suspect it is only intended as reductio ad absurdum (which can be a fallacy if based on a false or inadequate premise). A carpenter is entitled to the fruits of their labor, which can adequately be provided with money.

nec4b 4y ago
>> This is a silly question, so silly in fact that I suspect it is only intended as reductio ad absurdum (which can be a fallacy if based on a false or inadequate premise). I commend you for knowing logical fallacies. Though it would be even better if you were able to demonstrate those fallacies instead appealing to your own authority. >> A carpenter is entitled to the fruits of their labor, which can adequately be provided with money. I agree. Unfortunately, some people here claim developers working for google are entitled to their share of google's profits and carpenters working for said developers are not entitled to a share of profits from what those developers earn.
- runarberg 4y ago
  There are plenty of examples of Reductio ad absurdum being a fallacy because of a false or inadequate premise. Zeno’s paradox[1] being a famous one. The false premise being that you can actually add infinite number of times (modern mathematics take the limit as n approaches infinity). Here the prime candidate for the premise being wrong is to equate the work of carpenter working in their own enterprise at a project, to that of a google worker, working at Google’s enterprise for any project their management tells them to. The former gets the fruit of their labor in full when the job is finished and paid for, the latter is suffering from a systematic exploitation as each time the stock goes up in price (or when dividends are issued) the shareholders get the fruits of the worker’s labor, as opposed to the workers them selves. 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes
  - nec4b 4y ago
    >> The former gets the fruit of their labor in full when the job is finished and paid for, the latter is suffering from a systematic exploitation as each time the stock goes up in price (or when dividends are issued) the shareholders get the fruits of the worker’s labor, as opposed to the workers them selves. This is a bit hard to parse. Isn't the developer's work also paid for after each unit of time served. And why exactly is the developer being systematically exploited every time the stock price increases and the carpenter is not if the house appreciates? Doesn't the developer literally live in the fruits of carpenter's labor?