4 ms·

The article says: "Shouldn’t we all be paid proportionally to the value we produce and our time." If your work is directly contributing to that value, then sur

by trafnar 15y ago

The article says: "Shouldn’t we all be paid proportionally to the value we produce and our time." If your work is directly contributing to that value, then sure. But in the example given (a machine that prints $100 vs $1 bills), the work is exactly the same. If you expect to be paid more to work on the more expensive machine, another worker would surely undercut you. I don't think it is "bogus" to be paid for work and not take a share of the profits. I have specifically requested this arrangement at various startups, even when offered stock. If you want to be compensated with some sort of stock or royalties, you are making a bet on the future success of the business. Apple has become one of the most successful companies ever, while building quality products. Their products are thoughtfully designed by obsessive designers and engineers, the best of the best. Apple products would make a great "USA souvenir" if not for the fact that they are already available worldwide.

babarock 15y ago
> Apple has become one of the most successful companies ever, while building quality products. Their products are thoughtfully designed by obsessive designers and engineers, the best of the best. Sure Apple's may look like "quality products" if you compare them to current products offered by competitors. But the article goes beyond that scope. We are evolving into a a consumerist society where we don't expect our products to last more than a couple of years. Take the Apple TV for instance. As soon as you buy it, its value decreases and never gains value back. There is very little chance that its value ever goes back up (except maybe if some hobbyists in 2075 will be interested in collecting them). Compare that to the Fender guitar or the Schwinn bycicle mentionned in the article. I agree with the author that we should demand higher quality from our products and not go for the shiny thing at a (barely) affordabel price all the time.
- tlianza 15y ago
  In the case of technological products, make no mistake: the consumer does not want products to last 10 years. You can surely run a 10 year old computer, but what are you going to do with it? Does anyone want a 5 year old cell phone? So long as we continue to make advancements at the pace we're moving, there is no demand for consumer electronics that last that long. So long as each generation gets cheaper or better (which for the most part is true) and we figure out a decent recycling process (and I think we have) let's just keep moving. I think it's a very fair point in other, slower-innovating industries.
mohene1 15y ago
Yes, you are right that Apple delivers world class products. But I think the souvenir/uniqueness test is still important. Because when you look at an American like company Apple, a lot of the mp3 player concept was invented in South Korea. Their post-1997 product design was launched by Sir Jonathan Ive, a Brit. By having a product unique to ones culture it tends to speak about the domestic production and development of the item. I agree with you that proportional payment might not be the best. I agree some compensation for the value produced, as you said, seems more just.

by trafnar 15y ago

babarock 15y ago

> Apple has become one of the most successful companies ever, while building quality products. Their products are thoughtfully designed by obsessive designers and engineers, the best of the best. Sure Apple's may look like "quality products" if you compare them to current products offered by competitors. But the article goes beyond that scope. We are evolving into a a consumerist society where we don't expect our products to last more than a couple of years. Take the Apple TV for instance. As soon as you buy it, its value decreases and never gains value back. There is very little chance that its value ever goes back up (except maybe if some hobbyists in 2075 will be interested in collecting them). Compare that to the Fender guitar or the Schwinn bycicle mentionned in the article. I agree with the author that we should demand higher quality from our products and not go for the shiny thing at a (barely) affordabel price all the time.

tlianza 15y ago
In the case of technological products, make no mistake: the consumer does not want products to last 10 years. You can surely run a 10 year old computer, but what are you going to do with it? Does anyone want a 5 year old cell phone? So long as we continue to make advancements at the pace we're moving, there is no demand for consumer electronics that last that long. So long as each generation gets cheaper or better (which for the most part is true) and we figure out a decent recycling process (and I think we have) let's just keep moving. I think it's a very fair point in other, slower-innovating industries.

mohene1 15y ago

Yes, you are right that Apple delivers world class products. But I think the souvenir/uniqueness test is still important. Because when you look at an American like company Apple, a lot of the mp3 player concept was invented in South Korea. Their post-1997 product design was launched by Sir Jonathan Ive, a Brit. By having a product unique to ones culture it tends to speak about the domestic production and development of the item. I agree with you that proportional payment might not be the best. I agree some compensation for the value produced, as you said, seems more just.