3 ms·

When I was a teenager and I had just got heavily into martial arts - my Professor was teaching us about perception. (1992) One of the examples he used, was to

When I was a teenager and I had just got heavily into martial arts - my Professor was teaching us about perception. (1992) One of the examples he used, was to ask us "Who is the most important people in a restaurant?" >"The dishwasher, and the Janitor" >>"Do you think you'll go to a restaurant again if its bathrooms are filthy and your dishes are dirty?" His point was that you have to look beyond whats in front of your face, and look at things as a whole, as a system, identify all the components, even if you cant seem them - you can see their impact on the situation.

doubled112 2y ago
On a bigger scale, look anywhere garbage collection people have gone on strike. There are tons of jobs many take for granted and are much more important than we give them credit for.
pbhjpbhj 2y ago
I think if you're asking "Who are the most important people in a restaurant?" then you're already on the wrong path. The janitor and dishwasher are vital, but so too are most of the roles. It's a collective effort. Which of the legs of a chair is most important? Silly question imo. Which person is least important, usually the one that makes the most money. Their capital is important, but with a more distributed wealth in society the workers would be able to own the restaurant without an overlord. I'm really interested in the idea of flat wage structures. The cleaner is possibly one of the lowest paid people at my office, but they give up just as much time to be there for an hour as the CEO does.
- bumby 2y ago
  >they give up just as much time to be there for an hour as the CEO does. I think this misunderstands a fundamental economic idea: people aren’t paid commensurate to their time or sweat invested; they are paid (in theory) with their differential contribution to the economy. Therefore, people who get paid well tend to have at least two things: 1) a rare skill and 2) a relatively high contribution to the economy. Sometimes those are correlated with effort and time, but they don’t have to be.
  - praptak 2y ago
    Isn't this a circular explanation? You are paid for your contribution to the economy. What is your contribution to the economy? Well, it is the amount you are paid.
    - natmaka 2y ago
      In theory the more difficult to replace you are, the more you are paid.
    - bumby 2y ago
      Not necessarily. Just because they are (somewhat) proportional does not mean they are equal, or even easy to measure. Clergy, for example, don’t usually contribute much to the economy in raw terms, but they are paid because of what they add to the quality of someone’s life.

doubled112 2y ago

On a bigger scale, look anywhere garbage collection people have gone on strike. There are tons of jobs many take for granted and are much more important than we give them credit for.

pbhjpbhj 2y ago

I think if you're asking "Who are the most important people in a restaurant?" then you're already on the wrong path. The janitor and dishwasher are vital, but so too are most of the roles. It's a collective effort. Which of the legs of a chair is most important? Silly question imo. Which person is least important, usually the one that makes the most money. Their capital is important, but with a more distributed wealth in society the workers would be able to own the restaurant without an overlord. I'm really interested in the idea of flat wage structures. The cleaner is possibly one of the lowest paid people at my office, but they give up just as much time to be there for an hour as the CEO does.

bumby 2y ago
>they give up just as much time to be there for an hour as the CEO does. I think this misunderstands a fundamental economic idea: people aren’t paid commensurate to their time or sweat invested; they are paid (in theory) with their differential contribution to the economy. Therefore, people who get paid well tend to have at least two things: 1) a rare skill and 2) a relatively high contribution to the economy. Sometimes those are correlated with effort and time, but they don’t have to be.
- praptak 2y ago
  Isn't this a circular explanation? You are paid for your contribution to the economy. What is your contribution to the economy? Well, it is the amount you are paid.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    In theory the more difficult to replace you are, the more you are paid.
  - bumby 2y ago
    Not necessarily. Just because they are (somewhat) proportional does not mean they are equal, or even easy to measure. Clergy, for example, don’t usually contribute much to the economy in raw terms, but they are paid because of what they add to the quality of someone’s life.