4 ms·

We'd need to decouple work and wages. Someone told me there is no such thing as working illegally in the US. There is only illegally getting paid. I am sure we

by 3825 14y ago

We'd need to decouple work and wages. Someone told me there is no such thing as working illegally in the US. There is only illegally getting paid. I am sure we can find work for everyone but how much is the compensation? Perhaps we ought to guarantee a certain amount of money to everyone whether they be Warren Buffet or Joe Schmucks. Then, we'd get rid of the minimum wage. I had a similar conversation with a coworker this morning. What job would have the most people applying for if no job paid any money? In other words, if salary and job were decoupled, what result would we see?

sparebytes 14y ago
Well you wouldn't see any garbage men, or just about anything shown on Dirty Jobs
- likeclockwork 14y ago
  So you're saying these jobs are only done under the threat of starvation?
  - bcoates 14y ago
    He said "no job paid any money", not Milton Friedman style guaranteed income. A lot of jobs need to pay a premium over the alternatives to get enough people to do them.
    - 3825 14y ago
      Right and that is a part of the thought experiment. How would society evolve around not being able to compensate people to do those things through money? It is just a thought experiment though and I was not trying to solve any problems, I was just wondering what jobs are the most attractive once you remove money from the equation.
goggles99 14y ago
Wow, did you not even think for a second about the consequences? We'd need to decouple work and wages Well what incentive would people have to go to 11 years of college then to become a surgeon? What incentive would a start-up founder have to work 80 hour weeks for years on end if there was no chance to get rich off of it? What job would have the most people applying for if no job paid any money? In other words, if salary and job were decoupled, what result would we see? The job which required the least amount of effort. The more difficult or time consuming the job, the less applicants there would be.
- HeyLaughingBoy 14y ago
  No, it's an interesting idea. People would do what they wanted to do as opposed to what they had to do in order to earn a living. I can look to my wife as an example. She's a horse trainer. She makes very little money (pretty small market for clients to start with), gets injured frequently: sometimes badly, but absolutely loves the work. There are many of us out there who really like what we do and would do it even if we weren't paid, as long as we still had a source of income
- flyinRyan 14y ago
  >The job which required the least amount of effort. Nor me. I'd be working on programming projects I'm interested in instead of the same lame CRUD apps for big companies.

by 3825 14y ago

sparebytes 14y ago

Well you wouldn't see any garbage men, or just about anything shown on Dirty Jobs

likeclockwork 14y ago
So you're saying these jobs are only done under the threat of starvation?
- bcoates 14y ago
  He said "no job paid any money", not Milton Friedman style guaranteed income. A lot of jobs need to pay a premium over the alternatives to get enough people to do them.
  - 3825 14y ago
    Right and that is a part of the thought experiment. How would society evolve around not being able to compensate people to do those things through money? It is just a thought experiment though and I was not trying to solve any problems, I was just wondering what jobs are the most attractive once you remove money from the equation.

goggles99 14y ago

Wow, did you not even think for a second about the consequences? We'd need to decouple work and wages Well what incentive would people have to go to 11 years of college then to become a surgeon? What incentive would a start-up founder have to work 80 hour weeks for years on end if there was no chance to get rich off of it? What job would have the most people applying for if no job paid any money? In other words, if salary and job were decoupled, what result would we see? The job which required the least amount of effort. The more difficult or time consuming the job, the less applicants there would be.

HeyLaughingBoy 14y ago
No, it's an interesting idea. People would do what they wanted to do as opposed to what they had to do in order to earn a living. I can look to my wife as an example. She's a horse trainer. She makes very little money (pretty small market for clients to start with), gets injured frequently: sometimes badly, but absolutely loves the work. There are many of us out there who really like what we do and would do it even if we weren't paid, as long as we still had a source of income
flyinRyan 14y ago
>The job which required the least amount of effort. Nor me. I'd be working on programming projects I'm interested in instead of the same lame CRUD apps for big companies.