3 ms·

I thought about a similar thing recently; and I concluded that what most people make (in money) is completely undeserved in terms of work they do. (At least, in

I thought about a similar thing recently; and I concluded that what most people make (in money) is completely undeserved in terms of work they do. (At least, in my case, I am SW developer and I am sure I wouldn't myself pay for the amount of work I do - there is like 3 orders of magnitude difference of what I would be willing to pay for a feature and what a feature costs to develop.) The point is, we should stop thinking in terms what we deserve; if we truly were making what we deserve (for our work), most of us couldn't live. This idea is related to labor theory of value, which is simply wrong. Currently, thanks to organization and machinery, the vast amount of work needed to sustain our lifestyle is not done by human beings, but it's simply granted to us. That's one of the reasons why I am against libertarianism. Strict meritocracy, while nice in theory, would mean utter poverty for most people.

icebraining 13y ago
I'm confused. What do you mean by deserve? If you reject the labor theory of value, then on what do you base that amount? And whether a meritocracy would lead people to poverty depends on what you consider meritorious. People have widely different ideas of such, which means that no such evaluation can be made.
- asgard1024 13y ago
  On the amount of work I put in compared to amount of work I get back in my salary (or the amount of work necessary to have my living standard). The latter is much higher. So either (a) I exploit other people or (b) the extra work comes from machinery and organization (productivity). But although my salary is above average, it doesn't explain the difference, so (a) is probably not such a big factor. I consider merit based on amount of work you do, disregarding the productivity. I am not my own cause of high productivity, I was simply born to that world. In capitalism, why should I? The productivity can be (and often is) ascribed to capital, which is owned by somebody else. As you correctly say, people have different ideas about this. But the point is, someone has to own the capital and the productivity gains (it may be the collective ownership, though). Just saying you don't care who owns it (because you believe in value of your work alone) will make you poor, because you will in essence give up those enormous gains.
  - bryanlarsen 13y ago
    There's a third explanation: c) you're capturing some of the value put in by a lot of dead and some not-quite-dead people. The value of a computer running your software is tremendous. The delta in value between a computer that runs your software and one that doesn't is pretty miniscule in comparison. The value you're delivering is due in part to people like Archimedes through Von Neumann and Linus Torvalds and millions of others. Does that mean you owe part of your salary to Archimedes' descendants? We're all Archimedes descendants. "We stand on the shoulders of giants" -- Chartres This is partly a different way of expressing your (b), but I prefer this framing.
    - asgard1024 13y ago
      The question then is, is this (c) a part of the merit? It seems to me that not entirely so. If this is part of merit then inheriting a factory is also merit of the person who inherited it, which contradicts my intuition. Of course, knowledge as such is in public domain, which is a state of affairs I am perfectly happy with. But I guess I can imagine a system where it isn't (just like factories of dead owners are not becoming public domain), so I cannot be completely ignorant to the issue of who owns that knowledge (unless I want to be really poor).
bryanlarsen 13y ago
there is like 3 orders of magnitude difference of what I would be willing to pay for a feature and what a feature costs to develop. Sure, but remember that the perception of money is relative. Would paying your salary seem unreasonable to a billionaire who wanted that feature? Do you spend money on restaurant meals that you're perfectly able to cook yourself just to save a bit of time? We live in a world where my Dad almost single-handedly can grow enough food to feed 10,000 people. (Of course, he has lots of help from the much maligned agro-industrial complex). This really distorts the value of money, for the reasons that you have pointed out.

icebraining 13y ago

I'm confused. What do you mean by deserve? If you reject the labor theory of value, then on what do you base that amount? And whether a meritocracy would lead people to poverty depends on what you consider meritorious. People have widely different ideas of such, which means that no such evaluation can be made.

asgard1024 13y ago
On the amount of work I put in compared to amount of work I get back in my salary (or the amount of work necessary to have my living standard). The latter is much higher. So either (a) I exploit other people or (b) the extra work comes from machinery and organization (productivity). But although my salary is above average, it doesn't explain the difference, so (a) is probably not such a big factor. I consider merit based on amount of work you do, disregarding the productivity. I am not my own cause of high productivity, I was simply born to that world. In capitalism, why should I? The productivity can be (and often is) ascribed to capital, which is owned by somebody else. As you correctly say, people have different ideas about this. But the point is, someone has to own the capital and the productivity gains (it may be the collective ownership, though). Just saying you don't care who owns it (because you believe in value of your work alone) will make you poor, because you will in essence give up those enormous gains.
- bryanlarsen 13y ago
  There's a third explanation: c) you're capturing some of the value put in by a lot of dead and some not-quite-dead people. The value of a computer running your software is tremendous. The delta in value between a computer that runs your software and one that doesn't is pretty miniscule in comparison. The value you're delivering is due in part to people like Archimedes through Von Neumann and Linus Torvalds and millions of others. Does that mean you owe part of your salary to Archimedes' descendants? We're all Archimedes descendants. "We stand on the shoulders of giants" -- Chartres This is partly a different way of expressing your (b), but I prefer this framing.
  - asgard1024 13y ago
    The question then is, is this (c) a part of the merit? It seems to me that not entirely so. If this is part of merit then inheriting a factory is also merit of the person who inherited it, which contradicts my intuition. Of course, knowledge as such is in public domain, which is a state of affairs I am perfectly happy with. But I guess I can imagine a system where it isn't (just like factories of dead owners are not becoming public domain), so I cannot be completely ignorant to the issue of who owns that knowledge (unless I want to be really poor).

bryanlarsen 13y ago

there is like 3 orders of magnitude difference of what I would be willing to pay for a feature and what a feature costs to develop. Sure, but remember that the perception of money is relative. Would paying your salary seem unreasonable to a billionaire who wanted that feature? Do you spend money on restaurant meals that you're perfectly able to cook yourself just to save a bit of time? We live in a world where my Dad almost single-handedly can grow enough food to feed 10,000 people. (Of course, he has lots of help from the much maligned agro-industrial complex). This really distorts the value of money, for the reasons that you have pointed out.