ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 13th November 2018, 11:10 AM   #2601
Mr Salk
Scholar
 
Mr Salk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
You do see how they are not actually being paid for their work, right? They are being paid for their rarity.
As long as we keep the two concepts separate (salary due to work and salary due to indispensability), we might still have a fair system, provided we allow unskilled workers to become skilled and indispensable.

But there is a third level: managers.
They are neither paid for the amount of work they do, nor their rarity (they are easy to replace). They are paid as Trophies for the company, a kind of advertisement to the Stock Market: "see here, we pay our CEO more than you do, because ours does more than yours".

So yes, the system is very unreasonable, since you won't find a CEO who does more work than plenty of people with two jobs and no access to childcare for their kids.
Peculiar take. Specialized-workers ARE the rarity. They are compensated at a higher rate for investing in themselves; human capital. There is no doubt class and institutional constructs do not provide equal opportunity, but you are admitting that skilled labor is "indispensable" or at least of higher value.

Managers and CEOs usually do more "work" than their employees. Employees certainly toil and sweat more, but their duties are primarily to clock-in on time and push things. There is generally very little decision-making required in a properly managed business.

Last edited by Mr Salk; 13th November 2018 at 01:00 PM.
Mr Salk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 06:02 PM   #2602
Leftus
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 874
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
that's like saying that when the loot was to be divided, the guy with the gun didn't steal from the others since they hadn't split the money yet.
This still implies that the money belonged to someone else. That everyone is somehow entitled to an equal share. No matter how much, if any, effort they put into the system.

Quote:
In probably every business, the contribution of workers to the bottom line and their pay are pretty uncorrelated; this is due in part to the difficulty in assessing their effect of total productivity.
But much more important is the negotiating power of a worker of a specific job: some will get paid much more for the same amount of contribution than others, simply because they are harder to replace.
This amounts to "stealing" from those with less safe jobs, but since it is a Free Market-blessed kind of stealing, it is somehow ok.
Why are they harder to replace?

It's no more "stealing" than "taxes are theft." They did not steal the money from the less safe employees because the less safe employees have no claim to that money. There is a definition problem here.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th November 2018, 06:03 PM   #2603
Leftus
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 874
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
Even if Gaetan achieved his plan to eliminate money, then certain people eventually would become "rich" by accumulating some valuable commodity such as cattle or other livestock or a clean water supply.
Bullets.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 12:31 PM   #2604
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,992
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
This still implies that the money belonged to someone else. That everyone is somehow entitled to an equal share. No matter how much, if any, effort they put into the system.



Why are they harder to replace?

It's no more "stealing" than "taxes are theft." They did not steal the money from the less safe employees because the less safe employees have no claim to that money. There is a definition problem here.
You are just reinforcing my argument that the amount of work completed is completely divorced from the amount of money received for it.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 01:18 PM   #2605
Mr Salk
Scholar
 
Mr Salk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
You are just reinforcing my argument that the amount of work completed is completely divorced from the amount of money received for it.
How do you define WORK? In addition to measuring-sweat, I assume you are calculating difficulty and specialization, which are improved with education and experience. Those personal-investments strongly correlate with income.
Mr Salk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 03:05 PM   #2606
Joecool
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Bullets.
It may seem humorous but I agree with this. In a no money society (like the caveman days), might makes right.

Gaetan thinks no money will solve the world's problems but the reality is that no money would turn the world into chaos.
Joecool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th November 2018, 06:06 PM   #2607
Leftus
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 874
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
You are just reinforcing my argument that the amount of work completed is completely divorced from the amount of money received for it.
Seems we have to come to a definition of work. Right now, my work consists of keeping spreadsheets up to date. Not nearly as taxing as, say, roofing in July, but different skill sets, no?

Of course, I've not said what's in those spreadsheets, but as you can imagine it does require some specific knowledge.

So is my work less valuable because I don't sweat? Or is it more valuable because it requires a specific set of skills?
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2018, 09:01 AM   #2608
Gaetan
Master Poster
 
Gaetan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,554
Would you tell to Donald Trump to accept the migrants who are in Mexico because they are the victimes of the US empire monetary policies. US have to take their responsabilities. And by the way the fires in California are just the results of the government environmental policies. Don't listen medias, they just defend the interest of rich but when we'll abolish money this will just fall off.
Gaetan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2018, 09:15 AM   #2609
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,323
Donald Trump is a moron so I wouldn't tell him anything. I don't know why you seem to like him so much.

Anyway, we decied not to abolish money since that would be a stupid idea.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th November 2018, 09:48 AM   #2610
Leftus
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 874
Originally Posted by Gaetan View Post
Would you tell to Donald Trump to accept the migrants who are in Mexico because they are the victimes of the US empire monetary policies. US have to take their responsabilities. And by the way the fires in California are just the results of the government environmental policies. Don't listen medias, they just defend the interest of rich but when we'll abolish money this will just fall off.
This will be interesting, but what, specific, monetary policy?

And what specific change should be made?

Last edited by Leftus; 18th November 2018 at 09:49 AM.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 11:31 AM   #2611
Joecool
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by Gaetan View Post
Would you tell to Donald Trump to accept the migrants who are in Mexico because they are the victimes of the US empire monetary policies. US have to take their responsabilities. And by the way the fires in California are just the results of the government environmental policies. Don't listen medias, they just defend the interest of rich but when we'll abolish money this will just fall off.
If you abolish money, where will the migrant Mexicans go? They want to come to the US to make money.
Joecool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 12:48 PM   #2612
Mr Salk
Scholar
 
Mr Salk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by Gaetan View Post
Don't listen medias, they just defend the interest of rich but when we'll abolish money this will just fall off.
Please work on your diction, comrade.
Mr Salk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 01:03 PM   #2613
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 5,992
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
Seems we have to come to a definition of work. Right now, my work consists of keeping spreadsheets up to date. Not nearly as taxing as, say, roofing in July, but different skill sets, no?

Of course, I've not said what's in those spreadsheets, but as you can imagine it does require some specific knowledge.

So is my work less valuable because I don't sweat? Or is it more valuable because it requires a specific set of skills?
The point is the divergence between amount of work and value of work.
The issue is: shouldn't full work, no matter how unskilled, be enough to fully provide for a family? Shouldn't that be the universal base salary for all occupations?
And then, on top of that base salary, people would be able to negotiate added-value salaries, based on their skill level and the demand for their skills.

But IMO, we should be aware of the different reasons why we pay people more than others.
Otherwise, we get asinine statements suggesting that single mothers working two jobs to provide for their family are just not applying themselves.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 01:21 PM   #2614
Mr Salk
Scholar
 
Mr Salk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The point is the divergence between amount of work and value of work.
The issue is: shouldn't full work, no matter how unskilled, be enough to fully provide for a family? Shouldn't that be the universal base salary for all occupations?
And then, on top of that base salary, people would be able to negotiate added-value salaries, based on their skill level and the demand for their skills.

But IMO, we should be aware of the different reasons why we pay people more than others.
Otherwise, we get asinine statements suggesting that single mothers working two jobs to provide for their family are just not applying themselves.
Enough to "provide for a family" is difficult to manage. That's 20$ cheeseburger territory.

Minimum-wage should be poverty-line. A 16yr old dishwasher is overvalued and overpaid if he can support and provide for a family.
Mr Salk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 02:10 PM   #2615
Joecool
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by Mr Salk View Post
Enough to "provide for a family" is difficult to manage. That's 20$ cheeseburger territory.
Where I live, the cost of a McDonald's big mac value meal is approximately equal to the state minimum wage of about $9.25 per hour.

Originally Posted by Mr Salk View Post
Minimum-wage should be poverty-line. A 16yr old dishwasher is overvalued and overpaid if he can support and provide for a family.
This is the reason why this subject needs to be thought through carefully. Conversely, if the job itself is worth enough to support a family, then a 16 year old should be paid equally for equal work.

But I suspect that automation will replace as many jobs as possible if wages keep climbing.
Joecool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 03:03 PM   #2616
Mr Salk
Scholar
 
Mr Salk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
Where I live, the cost of a McDonald's big mac value meal is approximately equal to the state minimum wage of about $9.25 per hour.



This is the reason why this subject needs to be thought through carefully. Conversely, if the job itself is worth enough to support a family, then a 16 year old should be paid equally for equal work.

But I suspect that automation will replace as many jobs as possible if wages keep climbing.
I suspect they automate as hard as they can regardless of wages. Nobody works like a robot.
Mr Salk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th November 2018, 07:15 PM   #2617
marting
Graduate Poster
 
marting's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,045
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
I will use lottery winners as an example. Many of them wind up broke after a number of years, even after winning a mind boggling amount of money. And that's because they don't know how to manage their money/lifestyle properly.
A friend of my wife, who almost never gambled, won the lottery a few decades back and wisely chose the 20 year payout. At the time she was young and hadn't finished college but went on to finish and worked a regular job starting around 40k/y. She took the yearly lotto check (low 7 figures) and bought rentals. After 10 years or so she quit as dealing with her expanding rentals took too much time even though she loved her job.

Stories are often written about the winners that quit their jobs and blow it all in short order. No one writes stories like hers where prudent decisions are made.
__________________
Flying's easy. Walking on water, now that's cool.
marting is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:41 AM   #2618
Leftus
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 874
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The point is the divergence between amount of work and value of work.
The issue is: shouldn't full work, no matter how unskilled, be enough to fully provide for a family? Shouldn't that be the universal base salary for all occupations?
This raises another issue is how you define family. I would say that, no, not all work should provide for a "family" as that would block out the young, teenagers, and others from entry level jobs. Work has to create some sort of value for the employer otherwise they have no function on the job and don't need to be there.

The McDonalds I visit once a week, put in Kiosks. The first week I was there, there were two or three employees standing in front of the counters not doing anything. Next week, those employees were not there. In short, they weren't creating value for the employer so they were either scheduled less or let go. They could have grabbed a mop, emptied the trash, or done anything other than stand about and do nothing. Those opportunities were destroyed, forever, by the price of employment. Labor costs were greater than the value being created.

Quote:
And then, on top of that base salary, people would be able to negotiate added-value salaries, based on their skill level and the demand for their skills.

But IMO, we should be aware of the different reasons why we pay people more than others.
Otherwise, we get asinine statements suggesting that single mothers working two jobs to provide for their family are just not applying themselves.
I get that your example of the single mother working two jobs are working hard. They may even be hustling harder than I am. But I would ask, what are they doing to improve their situation? Are they trying to gain skills that would allow them to move up. I know this is all theoretical, but I've seen it in some of the jobs I've worked. People complaining that "they aren't given the opportunity" and putting zero effort into gaining that opportunity. I also know people who, while complaining about their salary, when I send them various jobs they have the skill to get, don't apply. Despite it coming with a 2-5K raise.

My nephew, works as a dishwasher, minimum wage. We were hiring and he certainly has the skills to do the work. Almost anyone does, to be fair. Basically, you correct numbers sent in on paper forms and verify them on what was input into the system by data entry. Job comes with full benefits, pension, and some overtime. Would have been 4 bucks more an hour, starting, with some promotional opportunities. Flat out, would not apply. Wouldn't be working more, just getting paid more. Life would be objectively better. Didn't want to. I don't get it, not my life. But should his employer pay him more because he doesn't want to put any effort into improving his current condition? To pay him more to support a family he doesn't have?
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 11:09 AM   #2619
Mr Salk
Scholar
 
Mr Salk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
My nephew, works as a dishwasher, minimum wage. We were hiring and he certainly has the skills to do the work. Almost anyone does, to be fair. Basically, you correct numbers sent in on paper forms and verify them on what was input into the system by data entry. Job comes with full benefits, pension, and some overtime. Would have been 4 bucks more an hour, starting, with some promotional opportunities. Flat out, would not apply. Wouldn't be working more, just getting paid more. Life would be objectively better. Didn't want to. I don't get it, not my life. But should his employer pay him more because he doesn't want to put any effort into improving his current condition? To pay him more to support a family he doesn't have?
You can wash dishes stoned.
Mr Salk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 12:21 PM   #2620
Joecool
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
The point is the divergence between amount of work and value of work.
The issue is: shouldn't full work, no matter how unskilled, be enough to fully provide for a family? Shouldn't that be the universal base salary for all occupations?
And then, on top of that base salary, people would be able to negotiate added-value salaries, based on their skill level and the demand for their skills.

But IMO, we should be aware of the different reasons why we pay people more than others.
Otherwise, we get asinine statements suggesting that single mothers working two jobs to provide for their family are just not applying themselves.
That's awesome and I wish more lottery winners went that route but you have to admit that seeing someone win millions and blow it in a few years makes better television.

The point is that Gaetan can try to take money from the rich and re-distribute to the poor, but the poor are likely to continue to be poor, because many of the poor don't manage money well.
Joecool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:03 PM   #2621
Mr Salk
Scholar
 
Mr Salk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
That's awesome and I wish more lottery winners went that route but you have to admit that seeing someone win millions and blow it in a few years makes better television.

The point is that Gaetan can try to take money from the rich and re-distribute to the poor, but the poor are likely to continue to be poor, because many of the poor don't manage money well.
You don't give them cash. You give them food-vouchers, subsidized housing and bus-passes.
Mr Salk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:18 PM   #2622
Joecool
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by Mr Salk View Post
You don't give them cash. You give them food-vouchers, subsidized housing and bus-passes.
And in many cases, people sell those things for cash.
Joecool is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:46 PM   #2623
Leftus
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 874
Originally Posted by Joecool View Post
And in many cases, people sell those things for cash.
And since they get less than face value for these, they fall behind even more. Better off with cash.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 03:06 PM   #2624
Mr Salk
Scholar
 
Mr Salk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by Leftus View Post
And since they get less than face value for these, they fall behind even more. Better off with cash.
Only addicts are better off with cash. No point subsidizing addicts.
Even if they barter, at least discounted-goods gets cycled into the poor-community.
Mr Salk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:39 PM   #2625
Gaetan
Master Poster
 
Gaetan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,554
Yes i understand what you say but did you buy gold recently because when money will collapse the gold will rise in value. And by the way the picture showing on a 10$ bill should be el diablo.

Last edited by Gaetan; Yesterday at 05:42 PM.
Gaetan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 05:54 AM   #2626
Leftus
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 874
Originally Posted by Gaetan View Post
Yes i understand what you say but did you buy gold recently because when money will collapse the gold will rise in value. And by the way the picture showing on a 10$ bill should be el diablo.
Gold will rise in value? Compared to what?

Also, I'm still waiting for the specific monetary policy of the US that directly caused the problems in Honduras. The suggested change would be awesome, but I shant hold my breath over it.
Leftus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:44 AM   #2627
Gaetan
Master Poster
 
Gaetan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 2,554
Your president thinks that the president of Venezuela is a bad dictator but he likes to do business with the dictator of South Arabia this is just to show you how bad money is.
Gaetan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 07:53 AM   #2628
RoboTimbo
Hostile Nanobacon
 
RoboTimbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Springwood, NJ
Posts: 29,323
I think you've missed a step or two in showing the link between his idiocy and money.
RoboTimbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Economics, Business and Finance

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:28 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.