12 ms·

If you want to complain about unfairness of the market, at least argue for more equality, not more inequality. My heart won't bleed for you - if you want to be

If you want to complain about unfairness of the market, at least argue for more equality, not more inequality. My heart won't bleed for you - if you want to be selfish, just be; don't cry to me for help. I don't find the moral argument for pay per productivity very convincing. Being smart is like winning a lottery; you are lucky enough already to be born that way. I think (useful) effort is what should be rewarded, not productivity.

rahimnathwani 13y ago
I think (useful) effort is what should be rewarded, not productivity. How can we reliably measure effort? If we are to reward by effort, how can we encourage people to go into fields where they will be even somewhat productive? If I could choose any job, it would be stand-up comedian. I may not make anyone laugh. Should my reward be the same as that of Louis CK or Chris Rock?
- asgard1024 13y ago
  I am not sure we can reliably measure productivity, either. GDP is supposed to be such a measure, but it has its own share of problems. Anyway, I argued from a moral perspective, not a practical one. It's a complicated problem, and everybody has a different perspective (and they should have). To answer your question - what should be discouraging is your incompetence in the field. In other words, you either shouldn't get that job or become frustrated with it enough to try something else. And on the other hand, if you are good at something, you are probably already plenty motivated to do it. Think about it - if all the jobs would be payed equally for the same effort, why would you want to waste your life on something that you cannot do well? The difference is that I see usefulness as a binary thing. To me, if there is enough good people doing the stuff already, therefore we don't need you even if you like the job, and you shouldn't get it (your work in that field is not useful). Instead of, having market system to depress the wages for all the people in that field, just because everybody is capable of doing that job. Or because there are differences in productivity between jobs. Also, I agree that other people have to decide somehow whether or not your work is useful for society, it cannot be just your decision. But I don't agree the weight of this decision to be tied with productivity (I think it should be decided democratically, in fact), because that's prone to positive feedback loops.
  - rahimnathwani 13y ago
    if there is enough good people doing the stuff already, therefore we don't need you even if you like the job How can we determine whether there are enough people doing the stuff already? Going back to my comedian example, should I get to be a comedian just because I started doing it at some minimum acceptable quality, before there were 'enough' comedians, whilst the next Louis CK has to do something else? I think you're missing: - we don't need to measure productivity in aggregate (and I agree GDP has problems in doing this) but for each individual, and probably only in a relative sense - competence in a field and motivation to do it are not necessarily correlated, as evidenced by the popularity of career-change guides - A democratic process for deciding whether your work is useful for society would require a lot of information on each person's work. I don't see how you could summarise that information without coming up with a metric which means something like 'productivity' Anyway, we've veered far off topic and I don't think we'll convince each other. Have a great weekend!

rahimnathwani 13y ago

I think (useful) effort is what should be rewarded, not productivity. How can we reliably measure effort? If we are to reward by effort, how can we encourage people to go into fields where they will be even somewhat productive? If I could choose any job, it would be stand-up comedian. I may not make anyone laugh. Should my reward be the same as that of Louis CK or Chris Rock?

asgard1024 13y ago
I am not sure we can reliably measure productivity, either. GDP is supposed to be such a measure, but it has its own share of problems. Anyway, I argued from a moral perspective, not a practical one. It's a complicated problem, and everybody has a different perspective (and they should have). To answer your question - what should be discouraging is your incompetence in the field. In other words, you either shouldn't get that job or become frustrated with it enough to try something else. And on the other hand, if you are good at something, you are probably already plenty motivated to do it. Think about it - if all the jobs would be payed equally for the same effort, why would you want to waste your life on something that you cannot do well? The difference is that I see usefulness as a binary thing. To me, if there is enough good people doing the stuff already, therefore we don't need you even if you like the job, and you shouldn't get it (your work in that field is not useful). Instead of, having market system to depress the wages for all the people in that field, just because everybody is capable of doing that job. Or because there are differences in productivity between jobs. Also, I agree that other people have to decide somehow whether or not your work is useful for society, it cannot be just your decision. But I don't agree the weight of this decision to be tied with productivity (I think it should be decided democratically, in fact), because that's prone to positive feedback loops.
- rahimnathwani 13y ago
  if there is enough good people doing the stuff already, therefore we don't need you even if you like the job How can we determine whether there are enough people doing the stuff already? Going back to my comedian example, should I get to be a comedian just because I started doing it at some minimum acceptable quality, before there were 'enough' comedians, whilst the next Louis CK has to do something else? I think you're missing: - we don't need to measure productivity in aggregate (and I agree GDP has problems in doing this) but for each individual, and probably only in a relative sense - competence in a field and motivation to do it are not necessarily correlated, as evidenced by the popularity of career-change guides - A democratic process for deciding whether your work is useful for society would require a lot of information on each person's work. I don't see how you could summarise that information without coming up with a metric which means something like 'productivity' Anyway, we've veered far off topic and I don't think we'll convince each other. Have a great weekend!