Random Thoughts (Political Edition)

Yes, I could also learn new skills, but what I am is what I am, and what I am good at is what I am good at; we seldom choose it. I won't be able to learn skills in what I'm not good at
That's selling yourself short IMO, I mean there was a time when you didn't know how to drive you had no idea if you would be good at it. Not all skills are equally valuable to society at specific time that's just the reality of life and isn't really limited to humans. A cat that can rap would be certainly interesting but within cat society not particularly useful ;)
 
That's selling yourself short IMO

Not at all. I like learning new things. But I know I have limits.

I like singing, for example, but I'll never be a singer, because I lack the talent to be one.

Telling people that they can be whatever they want and if they don't succeed it's only their fault needlessly hurts and damages people as much, though in a different way, as telling them they can't be anything more than what they already are. And they both damage society. Overencouragement keeps the world full of delusional people, stifling deprives the world of still unexpressed potentialities.

, I mean there was a time when you didn't know how to drive you had no idea if you would be good at it.

And I tried, and I found I am (decently) good at it.

But I also tried other things. I know that I'll never be a good salesman or a marketer, for example. Not in the standard way, at least. I tried, and it really is out of what I can do. Still, I keep having arrongat salesman telling me how better than me they are just because they fit perfectly in the picture, with no more effort in what they do than I put in what I'm good at.

Not all skills are equally valuable to society at specific time that's just the reality of life and isn't really limited to humans.

Yes. But the idea of a society is to help everyone do what they do best, whenever possible; instead, our societies favour the most "valuable" skills, overpay those and spite everything else.

A cat that can rap would be certainly interesting but within cat society not particularly useful ;)

I'm not speaking of almost pointless skills, but of skills that can generate advantages and goods useful for other people. :)
 
Not at all. I like learning new things. But I know I have limits.

I like singing, for example, but I'll never be a singer, because I lack the talent to be one.

Telling people that they can be whatever they want and if they don't succeed it's only their fault needlessly hurts and damages people as much, though in a different way, as telling them they can't be anything more than what they already are. And they both damage society. Overencouragement keeps the world full of delusional people, stifling deprives the world of still unexpressed potentialities.



And I tried, and I found I am (decently) good at it.
I think you missed my point there, I'm not saying that anyone can do anything but rather that you never know until you try. I am not of the opinion that anyone can do anything, like you I can't sing for shit but I know this because I tried :p

But I also tried other things. I know that I'll never be a good salesman or a marketer, for example. Not in the standard way, at least. I tried, and it really is out of what I can do. Still, I keep having arrongat salesman telling me how better than me they are just because they fit perfectly in the picture, with no more effort in what they do than I put in what I'm good at.
That's a different story though.
Yes. But the idea of a society is to help everyone do what they do best, whenever possible; instead, our societies favour the most "valuable" skills, overpay those and spite everything else.
Societies are inherently utilitarian and are meant to further the entire society not the individuals. So an ability to make stone axes was a valuable skill 50,000 years ago because it helped to further humans but is mainly useless now because we don't use them anymore.

I'm not speaking of almost pointless skills, but of skills that can generate advantages and goods useful for other people. :)
All skills are useful to others on some level, I got a friend who makes chainmails and armor like that for cosplay, LARP, ren faire stuff. It's useless to society but it is a cool skill and there are people who want it.
 
I think you missed my point there, I'm not saying that anyone can do anything but rather that you never know until you try. I am not of the opinion that anyone can do anything, like you I can't sing for shit but I know this because I tried :p

I see we could wreak serious havoc by karaoking together... :-D

That's a different story though.

Only partially. When I try to make things better for me, I got annoyed answers from people liking the current way because it's favourable to them.

Societies are inherently utilitarian and are meant to further the entire society not the individuals.

I'm not so sure about it. Societies are mostly shaped by their most influential groups. But the optimum for a society would actually be everyone producing at their best. This also means, if possible, in what they're better at.

So an ability to make stone axes was a valuable skill 50,000 years ago because it helped to further humans but is mainly useless now because we don't use them anymore.

That's the ability to build tools, it's still useful; only with different tools.

All skills are useful to others on some level, I got a friend who makes chainmails and armor like that for cosplay, LARP, ren faire stuff. It's useless to society but it is a cool skill and there are people who want it.

That's not useless to societies in any way, that's more useful than financial brokers! :p

On a more serious note: your friend is much more useful than the guy in the Slot-Machine venue under my apartment. If the Slot-Machine Guy earns more, we have a problem, for example.
 
Last edited:
I see we could wreak serious havoc by karaoking together... :-D
If I ever end up in Bologna or you in NYC we can certainly test that hypothesis :p
I'm not so sure about it. Societies are mostly shaped by their most influential groups. But the optimum for a society would actually be everyone producing at their best. This also means, if possible, in what they're better at.
True but at the same time there will be fringe skills that are not strictly useful. A close to home example, ability to drive a manual, doesn't do any good for society, is fun though :)

That's the ability to build tools, it's still useful; only with different tools.
True enough but I'm sure you see my point

That's not useless to societies in any way, that's more useful than financial brokers! :p
Not going to argue with that, I think the finance industry is a massive drag on our civilization.
 
Which is exactly the point I made here. I know perfectly that not all which company do is try to f**k the workers, but I am confronted with people, like LeV, for example, who can't understand the fact that the number of companies that actually do that is greater than the number of companies that don't.

Companies have to care about profits, otherwise the company won't exist, and everyone will be unemployed. It's also not simply about splitting the profits evenly, since some thought should be given to the future of the company, and how best to expand it. That might require significant investments. Short sighted greedy people simply don't care though, they want as much money as they can get their hands on, even if it comes at the detriment of the company. The American auto industry has struggled with that because of their damaging contracts with the unions.

Would you rather have half of a company worth 100 thousand dollars, or a tenth of a company worth 1 million dollars? It seems like people nowadays only look at percentages, rather than actual dollars. They feel their pay is more "fair" if it were half, even though that would be less money. The quality of life in our countries has skyrocketed, everyone is doing better, but people ignore all that and focus on what percentage they get. Their prosperity isn't judged on its own, but by how it compares to the prosperity of others. Your house isn't this many square meters/feet, it's either larger or smaller than your neighbors house.

If your skills are being exploited so badly, why not start your own company? Oh right, that would require massive amounts of hard work and stress, mountains of paperwork to fill out, licences to obtain, regulations to comply with, permits to acquire, etc, not to mention the risks and uncertainty. And yet few give thought to all the work that needs to be done before you are even allowed to start doing your job and bring money in to the company. You devalue the efforts of others and focus solely on yourself.

If there are more people willing do your job, rather than theirs, it's because your job is easier and less risky. Which means it should pay less. And fairly so.
 
Companies have to care about profits, otherwise the company won't exist, and everyone will be unemployed.

I never said they shouldn't, I say we have to set the boundaries of this search for profit.

It's also not simply about splitting the profits evenly, since some thought should be given to the future of the company, and how best to expand it.

Profit should be failry divided. Not evenly, not equally; fairly.

If your skills are being exploited so badly, why not start your own company? Oh right, that would require massive amounts of hard work and stress, mountains of paperwork to fill out, licences to obtain, regulations to comply with, permits to acquire, etc, not to mention the risks and uncertainty. And yet few give thought to all the work that needs to be done before you are even allowed to start doing your job and bring money in to the company. You devalue the efforts of others and focus solely on yourself.

If there are more people willing do your job, rather than theirs, it's because your job is easier and less risky.

If you refer to me in particular, you are -extremely- off target. The jobs I loved best were all self-employed. And I try to do those, and I would do those; alas, those jobs are unprotected, subject to exploitation and severe taxation, and in most cases severely underpaid at the origin, for a series of reasons, while requiring the highest and least common skills among the jobs I've done. The safe work is the one I'm doing right now, which most people can do, the least skilled job, which I not what I would want to do. But labor unions did their job decades ago, so it's decently paid, it's, among the things I can do, the safest choice.

Also, I -am- planning in starting my own company. Unfortunately, this is incredibly difficult and complicated where I live.

Which means it should pay less. And fairly so.

And it pays more. I am the living proof that your theory might not match reality.

- - - Updated - - -

If I ever end up in Bologna or you in NYC we can certainly test that hypothesis :p

Agreed!

True but at the same time there will be fringe skills that are not strictly useful. A close to home example, ability to drive a manual, doesn't do any good for society, is fun though :)

I know, that is exactly why I added the "if possible"... :)

True enough but I'm sure you see my point

I do, actually, but I believe it's important to choose well the examples, in this case, because skills can really evolve by adaptation. So I needed to add to that. The matter is quite complex.

Not going to argue with that, I think the finance industry is a massive drag on our civilization.

:nod:
 
Last edited:
If you refer to me in particular, you are -extremely- off target. The jobs I loved best were all self-employed. And I try to do those, and I would do those; alas, those jobs are unprotected, subject to exploitation and severe taxation, and in most cases severely underpaid at the origin, for a series of reasons, while requiring the highest and least common skills among the jobs I've done.
This is precisely why I want a smaller government. It should be as easy as possible for citizens to become self employed and it feels like governments only get in the way of that, then convince people that more regulations and bigger government will solve everything. And people wonder why the rich get richer, why middle class folks have trouble moving up, why wealth distribution widens, etc.


The safe work is the one I'm doing right now, which most people can do, the least skilled job, which I not what I would want to do. But labor unions did their job decades ago, so it's decently paid, it's, among the things I can do, the safest choice.

Also, I -am- planning in starting my own company. Unfortunately, this is incredibly difficult and complicated where I live.

And it pays more. I am the living proof that your theory might not match reality.
I'm not talking about skills though. Being able to balance bowling balls on your head is a skill, that doesn't mean you'll make any money off of it. I'm specifically talking about jobs that fewer people are willing to do, not because the pay is bad, but because it's a lot of work, very difficult, high risk, etc. Like starting your own company. If you do it and succeed, the idea that the teenager you hired to work part time should get to decide how the profits are divvied up is a joke. What you did was a hundred times harder than what they did, so you should get paid a hundred times more. Seems fair to me.
 
Last edited:
This is precisely why I want a smaller government. It should be as easy as possible for citizens to become self employed and it feels like governments only get in the way of that, then convince people that more regulations and bigger government will solve everything. And people wonder why the rich get richer, why middle class folks have trouble moving up, why wealth distribution widens, etc.

On that, you're not wrong in theory; but practical applications also shows that strong rules and a strong government helps reducing exploitation

To put it simple, if the laws weren't so strict, I wouldn't be paid more to translate things, I would be paid less to do the less-skilled job.

It is clearly that way, and it is as much clearly not all the fault of the government.

There is a balance that must be kept between overregulations and lack of regulations; they are both sub-optimal. There isn't a single force which is "just good".

I'm not talking about skills though. Being able to balance bowling balls on your head is a skill, that doesn't mean you'll make any money off of it. I'm specifically talking about jobs that fewer people are willing to do, not because the pay is bad, but because it's a lot of work, very difficult, high risk, etc. Like starting your own company. If you do it and succeed, the idea that the teenager you hired to work part time should get to decide how the profits are divvied up is a joke. What you did was a hundred times harder than what they did, so you should get paid a hundred times more. Seems fair to me.

No teenage part-timer should and will decide how to split the profits, but they must be divided fairly. If you are a great architect and you build a great dam, you're clearly doing a job no one can do, but your reward can't be infinite, because the project has limits and because without the man carrying the sand, the concrete and the steel, you wouldn't be building anything at all.

On that basis, isn't the simplest of workers as necessary as the great architect? The dam wouldn't be built without both people, but at the same time we know they are different.

So it's not right to pay everyone the same (communism), but there is surely a limit to the difference in pay, and it's not that high as we might think. 100 times is already a big difference. Probably too big for most jobs. But we live in a world where people get 100-200-1000-10000 times more than their last employee, and that's not only unfair, but also not the best for the economy.
 
Last edited:
On that, you're not wrong in theory; but practical applications also shows that strong rules and a strong government helps reducing exploitation
You are talking about two different types of regulations, labor regulation is one thing that's your child labor laws, 40 hour work week, vacation/sick time laws, maternity/paternity leave laws, overtime laws, etc...

Then there is regulation on business, like not being open before 5am or all the hoops you gotta jump through in order to open up your own business. Like needing a license to be a hairdresser...

No teenage part-timer should and will decide how to split the profits, but they must be divided fairly. If you are a great architect and you build a great dam, you're clearly doing a job no one can do, but your reward can't be infinite, because the project has limits and because without the man carrying the sand, the concrete and the steel, you wouldn't be building anything at all.
What constitutes fairness though? I would argue that fairness is basically decided by the free market aka people willing to do X work for X pay is what makes that work worth X.
So it's not right to pay everyone the same (communism), but there is surely a limit to the difference in pay, and it's not that high as we might think. 100 times is already a big difference. Probably too big for most jobs. But we live in a world where people get 100-200-1000-10000 times more than their last employee, and that's not only unfair, but also not the best for the economy.
I don't really agree with that, let's break down your example:
Architect is responsible for:
- Original design
- Making sure that design is structurally sound
- Making sure its repairable
- Selecting proper materials
- Making sure that it fits the budget
- Getting it done on time
- Breaking down the project
- Anything going wrong
- Managing the overall project

Welder on the project is responsible for:
- Welding where his told to weld
- Making sure his welds are good

If that dam collapses or there is some structural problem with it it's the architect's head on the line not the dude's who was pouring cement into the forms. In addition to that the architect had to go to school for years, prove themselves on smaller projects before getting a big one like a dam, compete with other architects and their designs, etc... A welder went to a vocation school for a couple of months and is ready to weld (I actually know how to weld from youtube guides and fucking around in my friend's garage).

Also what does percentage really matter? If you make 250k/year, which would put you in top 5% in the US you are still making nowhere near the CEO who might be pulling 20-50mil/year but you are not exactly poor either.
 
You are talking about two different types of regulations, labor regulation is one thing that's your child labor laws, 40 hour work week, vacation/sick time laws, maternity/paternity leave laws, overtime laws, etc...

Then there is regulation on business, like not being open before 5am or all the hoops you gotta jump through in order to open up your own business. Like needing a license to be a hairdresser...

It is perceived differently, but it is exactly the same thing. The difference is in our perception. "The Market" is a tool, generated by human behaviours. It is a series of connections and correlations between action and reaction, due to the way the human nature is. It has mechanical laws and is not "good" or "bad". It's like a hammer. And just like a hammer, if you use it to forge steel, it's good, if you use it to crush people's skulls open, its bad. It's not the hammer, it's the people who use them. (like weapons...)

We put a limit to "the market" when it comes to child labour, but the mechanism in itself has none. If the mechanism were to be left alone, child would work 12 hours per day in sweatshops, like it happens in South-East Asian textile factories or in Africans cocoa plantations. -WE- put a limit because our sensibilities refuse such an idea, because our minds like to think we don't exploit child labour.

But the "market" itself, the mechanism, would lead to people exploiting that. And you can see this when you take away the knowledge of the thing. Western societies like to buy goods manufactured by children. They are cheap. Just don't tell them how they're done.

The mechanism works perfectly; those children have no way to defend themselves, they cannot -choose- their job, they are just exploited. They "accept" the offer. What is "market" for the consumer is "slavery" for the producer, but disguised as market as well; "hey, if they didn't work for me, they would die; there are so many of them... it's the demand and offer...".

The same gose for everything else.

Of course there is a vast difference between child's labour and opening hours, but the way the mechanism works is exactly the same. It only passes from inhumanity to laughable weakness because "what does such a small change makes"? Still, you can't refuse; if you do, someone else will take your place. It's demand and offer; you've got no power at all.

And small change after small change, powerlessness after powerlessness, conditions are eroded. It's the maket. The hammer which can forge steel is used to chip away your position piece by piece, when you've lost power and you can't do anything to prevent it.

And since the mechanisms of the market is what it is, there's no limit to where it might go. The limit is fixed elsewhere, in our perception of society and of our rights.

Unfortunately, we live in societies which convinced us that we are the best, and we are directed to a glorious future of "bestness", and we will have no shortcomings, no imperfections, and we will earn our prize". All the others are losers, we'll fight alone, we're the best. Because, like L'Oreal said: "we're worth it". And since we're so better, no sacrifice is ever too much, it's just that we are weak if we question them.

What constitutes fairness though? I would argue that fairness is basically decided by the free market aka people willing to do X work for X pay is what makes that work worth X.

Wealth is created by using three tools: people's mind, people's hands, people's time. You have to correctly reward each one of these things. That is fairness. You come up with solid, breakthrough ideas that no one else is able to conceive, you should be rewarded for your ideas. You can build things that no one else can, you should be rewarded for your craft. You work the lowest job of all, but you dedicate your time to it, you should be rewarded for that.

If you can't live out of your (well-done) work, you are underrewarded. If you are made slave to your job, you are underrewarded.

If you struggle, but your employee doesn't, your're underrewarded. Because people who work together are a group, a squad, so when one struggles, everyone struggles; otherwise it's people exploiting other people. (I've personally heard my boss explaining me that 5?/hour for my transltions was too much, but he had iPads, BMWs, dinners and petrol to come and go everyday from his home 150 km away paid for by the company)

I don't really agree with that, let's break down your example:
Architect is responsible for:
- Original design
- Making sure that design is structurally sound
- Making sure its repairable
- Selecting proper materials
- Making sure that it fits the budget
- Getting it done on time
- Breaking down the project
- Anything going wrong
- Managing the overall project

Welder on the project is responsible for:
- Welding where his told to weld
- Making sure his welds are good

If that dam collapses or there is some structural problem with it it's the architect's head on the line not the dude's who was pouring cement into the forms. In addition to that the architect had to go to school for years, prove themselves on smaller projects before getting a big one like a dam, compete with other architects and their designs, etc... A welder went to a vocation school for a couple of months and is ready to weld (I actually know how to weld from youtube guides and fucking around in my friend's garage).

That doesn't count, in the market. Think of the market, if there were five architect, but only one welder, the welder will be paid -more- than the architect, despite all the things you've listed.

Would that be fair?

No, it wouldn't

That is the market; it's a tool, a series of inputs and outputs. It has no good or evil. -We- have to use it to build good things or evil things.

The welder is as necessary to build a dam as the architect. They don't have to be paid the same, because they do different things, but one cannot be underpaid, unless the other is too. -That- is fairness.

It is unfair for an employee to be underpaid if the employer is not underpaid too.

Also what does percentage really matter? If you make 250k/year, which would put you in top 5% in the US you are still making nowhere near the CEO who might be pulling 20-50mil/year but you are not exactly poor either.

An average person in the US will make... what? 2 million dollars in his entire life? 3? 5? There is no person who can justifiably say to work so good as to make in a year 10 times what an average person will make in a lifetime. That is BS; the time, skills and craft required don't allow that to happen.
 
Last edited:
It is perceived differently, but it is exactly the same thing. The difference is in our perception. "The Market" is a tool, generated by human behaviours. It is a series of connections and correlations between action and reaction, due to the way the human nature is. It has mechanical laws and is not "good" or "bad". It's like a hammer. And just like a hammer, if you use it to forge steel, it's good, if you use it to crush people's skulls open, its bad. It's not the hammer, it's the people who use them. (like weapons...)

We put a limit to "the market" when it comes to child labour, but the mechanism in itself has none. If the mechanism were to be left alone, child would work 12 hours per day in sweatshops, like it happens in South-East Asian textile factories or in Africans cocoa plantations. -WE- put a limit because our sensibilities refuse such an idea, because our minds like to think we don't exploit child labour.

But the "market" itself, the mechanism, would lead to people exploiting that. And you can see this when you take away the knowledge of the thing. Western societies like to buy goods manufactured by children. They are cheap. Just don't tell them how they're done.

The mechanism works perfectly; those children have no way to defend themselves, they cannot -choose- their job, they are just exploited. They "accept" the offer. What is "market" for the consumer is "slavery" for the producer, but disguised as market as well; "hey, if they didn't work for me, they would die; there are so many of them... it's the demand and offer...".

The same gose for everything else.

Of course there is a vast difference between child's labour and opening hours, but the way the mechanism works is exactly the same. It only passes from inhumanity to laughable weakness because "what does such a small change makes"? Still, you can't refuse; if you do, someone else will take your place. It's demand and offer; you've got no power at all.

And small change after small change, powerlessness after powerlessness, conditions are eroded. It's the maket. The hammer which can forge steel is used to chip away your position piece by piece, when you've lost power and you can't do anything to prevent it.

And since the mechanisms of the market is what it is, there's no limit to where it might go. The limit is fixed elsewhere, in our perception of society and of our rights.

Unfortunately, we live in societies which convinced us that we are the best, and we are directed to a glorious future of "bestness", and we will have no shortcomings, no imperfections, and we will earn our prize". All the others are losers, we'll fight alone, we're the best. Because, like L'Oreal said: "we're worth it". And since we're so better, no sacrifice is ever too much, it's just that we are weak if we question them.
You are getting way too deep into this stuff and perhaps reading what I didn't say into what I said. I'm not saying that the market is some sort of an all powerful super natural benevolent force. My point is that there are different types of regulation, some is positive and some is questionable, some is plain terrible like licensing requirements for people who cut hair. Things like extended hours have potential benefit of creating more jobs or at least giving more money for current employees as well as possible coercion but IMO former is more likely than latter.

To specifically address the idea of sweatshops and child labor. The thing is that things like sweatshops and Chinese factories with horrible conditions can exist IS because of a crappy economy. There are too many people and not enough jobs, so people are desperate and take any jobs (as shitty as those jobs are they do allow them to at least earn some money). Additionally despite all the horrors 3rd world quality of life has been on a pretty steady rise, sure it's nowhere near us but it is much better than it used to be.

Wealth is created by using three tools: people's mind, people's hands, people's time. You have to correctly reward each one of these things. That is fairness. You come up with solid, breakthrough ideas that no one else is able to conceive, you should be rewarded for your ideas. You can build things that no one else can, you should be rewarded for your craft. You work the lowest job of all, but you dedicate your time to it, you should be rewarded for that.

If you can't live out of your (well-done) work, you are underrewarded. If you are made slave to your job, you are underrewarded.

If you struggle, but your employee doesn't, your're underrewarded. Because people who work together are a group, a squad, so when one struggles, everyone struggles; otherwise it's people exploiting other people. (I've personally heard my boss explaining me that 5?/hour for my transltions was too much, but he had iPads, BMWs, dinners and petrol to come and go everyday from his home 150 km away paid for by the company)
See that right there is why Lev calls you a Marxist ;) Your value to the economy and society is only the value you can produce that's the only fairness you going to get.


That doesn't count, in the market. Think of the market, if there were five architect, but only one welder, the welder will be paid -more- than the architect, despite all the things you've listed.

Would that be fair?

No, it wouldn't
Yes it would, the welder would then have a rare and valuable skill and not easily replaced.

The welder is as necessary to build a dam as the architect. They don't have to be paid the same, because they do different things, but one cannot be underpaid, unless the other is too. -That- is fairness.

It is unfair for an employee to be underpaid if the employer is not underpaid too.
But what is underpaid? Amount of compensation comes from all the things I mentioned above, you could build a robot that does welding (how most cars are made these days) and just need someone to press a button.


An average person in the US will make... what? 2 million dollars in his entire life? 3? 5? There is no person who can justifiably say to work so good as to make in a year 10 times what an average person will make in a lifetime. That is BS; the time, skills and craft required don't allow that to happen.
Don't know the statistics but why is it BS? If your job can afford you a comfortable lifestyle where you are not worried about putting food on the table each month or losing your home that's plenty. I remember years ago I came across an article about a study that was done on job satisfaction vs compensation. What they found was that amount of compensation drops in importance drastically once it reaches 70k/year.
 
You are getting way too deep into this stuff and perhaps reading what I didn't say into what I said. I'm not saying that the market is some sort of an all powerful super natural benevolent force. My point is that there are different types of regulation, some is positive and some is questionable, some is plain terrible like licensing requirements for people who cut hair. Things like extended hours have potential benefit of creating more jobs or at least giving more money for current employees as well as possible coercion but IMO former is more likely than latter.

Yes, I agree on the fact that regulations might have good or bad consequences, depending on how they're written. I disagree on the latter part, though. extended hours has, given the current sitaution, much more costs than gains if we consider boths sides combined.

To specifically address the idea of sweatshops and child labor. The thing is that things like sweatshops and Chinese factories with horrible conditions can exist IS because of a crappy economy. There are too many people and not enough jobs, so people are desperate and take any jobs (as shitty as those jobs are they do allow them to at least earn some money). Additionally despite all the horrors 3rd world quality of life has been on a pretty steady rise, sure it's nowhere near us but it is much better than it used to be.

What worries me is the fact that this economical system would need more desperate people. The fact is that if it's true that world life quality has risen (I would like to go deeper in the thought, though, I feel like there's more to this that this simple fact), the disparity between the rich and the poor has terribly increeased, which is a sign of instability and reduction of possibilities, not progress.

See that right there is why Lev calls you a Marxist ;) Your value to the economy and society is only the value you can produce that's the only fairness you going to get.

That's not true, unfortunately. Job exploitation is real, with people creating much more value than they are receiving, to the point that they can stay poor or even miserable while other become insanely rich. The raise in disparity shows that. To have a market working like you and LeV say, you should have a perfect system where everyone can refuse a job which is underpaid. But that not only doesn't happen, but can't happen.

If that makes me a Marxist, then good, it means that Marx was right, after all... ( :-D :-D :-D )

Yes it would, the welder would then have a rare and valuable skill and not easily replaced.

But that would still require two hours, instead of the risk the architect would get. Yes, you could argue that this can't happen, but that's actually not true. It is quite possible that a job which is easy to get will and with low responsibilities will grant tons of money to those who do it, maybe only because other people still haven't noticed. But that's not fair to those who have more things at stake (their ideas, their craft, their time). I understand the idea of "luck", such as being born with the right skills at the right moment, but that's not a way to progress and a raise in human wealth, only to opportunistic individualism, with maybe a zest of progress and cyclical crisis and failures. Oh, wait...

But what is underpaid? Amount of compensation comes from all the things I mentioned above, you could build a robot that does welding (how most cars are made these days) and just need someone to press a button.

so you would need to reduce the price of your goods. (if it costs less to make...) Which many companies don't do, to the great joy of their shareholders.

Don't know the statistics but why is it BS? If your job can afford you a comfortable lifestyle where you are not worried about putting food on the table each month or losing your home that's plenty. I remember years ago I came across an article about a study that was done on job satisfaction vs compensation. What they found was that amount of compensation drops in importance drastically once it reaches 70k/year.

The last part is because Time is extremely valuable, probably the most valuable of the three things you can provide to others. I was saying that the idea that a man could produce in a single year what an -average- man earns in ten lives is idiotic to start with. Men have not enough time for that to happen.
 
Yes, I agree on the fact that regulations might have good or bad consequences, depending on how they're written. I disagree on the latter part, though. extended hours has, given the current sitaution, much more costs than gains if we consider boths sides combined.
We can agree to disagree I guees :)

What worries me is the fact that this economical system would need more desperate people. The fact is that if it's true that world life quality has risen (I would like to go deeper in the thought, though, I feel like there's more to this that this simple fact), the disparity between the rich and the poor has terribly increeased, which is a sign of instability and reduction of possibilities, not progress.
Not really accurate analysis IMO, economy is going to need more educated people and white collar workers as low level work is going to get automated.

That's not true, unfortunately. Job exploitation is real, with people creating much more value than they are receiving, to the point that they can stay poor or even miserable while other become insanely rich. The raise in disparity shows that. To have a market working like you and LeV say, you should have a perfect system where everyone can refuse a job which is underpaid. But that not only doesn't happen, but can't happen.
Disparity is irrelevant though, look at it this way. Say I have a company that makes $1000 every month and have one employee that I pay $500/mo, we are both getting 50% so there is no disparity. The company grows and now makes 10000/mo, so I double my employee's salary to $1000/mo, his share of the pie is smaller now and there is bigger disparity between what I get and and what he gets but he still makes double what he used to. Say my company grows again and now makes 20k/mo and I give my employee 1500/mo, disparity grows yet again but now his making 3x what he was. Is it fair? I think it is, after all I'm the one who built the company in the first place, I spent time and money to get it off the ground, I assumed all of the risks, etc... So I get to reap more rewards and my employee gets much better compensation than before. I can also hire more employees and further grow my business.
If that makes me a Marxist, then good, it means that Marx was right, after all... ( :-D :-D :-D )
Problem is that historically any country that has tried something like this didn't do very well.


But that would still require two hours, instead of the risk the architect would get. Yes, you could argue that this can't happen, but that's actually not true. It is quite possible that a job which is easy to get will and with low responsibilities will grant tons of money to those who do it, maybe only because other people still haven't noticed. But that's not fair to those who have more things at stake (their ideas, their craft, their time). I understand the idea of "luck", such as being born with the right skills at the right moment, but that's not a way to progress and a raise in human wealth, only to opportunistic individualism, with maybe a zest of progress and cyclical crisis and failures. Oh, wait...
No one is born with a skill, some skills are more valuable at different times. Being a great hunter used to be an extremely valuable skill, it's no longer the case. Also just because a skill is useful for a limited amount of time doesn't mean it's not progressive. Before computers came along there used to be people who would do calculations by hand for scientists, that's a much less useful skill these days but it has given us much progress.

Again the point is how difficult it would be to replace someone training a welder is nowhere near as hard as training an architect and therefore even having a single welder doesn't make that welder as valuable as having 10 architects.

so you would need to reduce the price of your goods. (if it costs less to make...) Which many companies don't do, to the great joy of their shareholders.
Untrue, most technologically intensive goods are actually much cheaper than they used to be. Since it's a car forum lets look at cars, a 2016 Ford Mustang makes 435HP comes with a bunch of tech like Bluetooth and so on and starts at about 32K. 10 years ago you would have to get like an M3 or an AMG merc to get all that. Sure the price might be roughly the same but the value of the goods gone up quite a bit.
The last part is because Time is extremely valuable, probably the most valuable of the three things you can provide to others. I was saying that the idea that a man could produce in a single year what an -average- man earns in ten lives is idiotic to start with. Men have not enough time for that to happen.
I don't see why it matters, if you make enough to do the things you want you make enough, not much to it...
 
priz/me and SirEd just fundamentally disagree so these long discussions are getting a bit pointless. I will add this though: capitalism has resulted in unprecedented growth, wealth, and prosperity, while socialism has by and large resulted in misery and oppression, with few exceptions.
 
priz/me and SirEd just fundamentally disagree so these long discussions are getting a bit pointless. I will add this though: capitalism has resulted in unprecedented growth, wealth, and prosperity, while socialism has by and large resulted in misery and oppression, with few exceptions.

I'd only modify the unprecedented qualifier. You are correct in the context of modern nation states. Ancient Greece, Rome, and other pre-modern states experienced significant growth and prosperity, and their systems were neither capitalist or socialist. Their systems are no longer feasible/applicable in our time, and you are right, for the time being capitalism is the best system, but that's not to say that it will always be.
 
I'd only modify the unprecedented qualifier. You are correct in the context of modern nation states. Ancient Greece, Rome, and other pre-modern states experienced significant growth and prosperity, and their systems were neither capitalist or socialist. Their systems are no longer feasible/applicable in our time, and you are right, for the time being capitalism is the best system, but that's not to say that it will always be.

Umm... Disagree with the assessment of ancient world being prosperous, they had slaves... That means that a large portion of population had less than nothing.

Also fairly certain you would classify their economic systems as capitalist. They produced and exchanged goods and services for currency. You can even see said currency and goods in museums ;)
 
We can agree to disagree I guees :)

Yes, of course! :) (if we were always in agreement, that would be boring and unchallenging)

Not really accurate analysis IMO, economy is going to need more educated people and white collar workers as low level work is going to get automated.

But it will pay the white collars as low as what it once paid blue ones.

Disparity is irrelevant though, look at it this way. Say I have a company that makes $1000 every month and have one employee that I pay $500/mo, we are both getting 50% so there is no disparity. The company grows and now makes 10000/mo, so I double my employee's salary to $1000/mo, his share of the pie is smaller now and there is bigger disparity between what I get and and what he gets but he still makes double what he used to. Say my company grows again and now makes 20k/mo and I give my employee 1500/mo, disparity grows yet again but now his making 3x what he was. Is it fair? I think it is, after all I'm the one who built the company in the first place, I spent time and money to get it off the ground, I assumed all of the risks, etc... So I get to reap more rewards and my employee gets much better compensation than before. I can also hire more employees and further grow my business.

I thought about disparity in another direction. The fact that you earn more should be indication of the fact that your contribution to the same project is greater, and that's fine. But there's no way a man can contribute to a project 300-500 times what a solidly working person can, in the same amount of time.

Problem is that historically any country that has tried something like this didn't do very well.

I am not Marxist. At best, he can call himself Siredwardist, if you know what I mean: I don't follow an ideology.

No one is born with a skill

That was to say that if someone needs that skill, that skill's cost can't be too low. If it can, why don't the employer do it himself? Human labour (of any kind) has a minimum cost.

Again the point is how difficult it would be to replace someone training a welder is nowhere near as hard as training an architect and therefore even having a single welder doesn't make that welder as valuable as having 10 architects.

we were talking as if we only had one welder; the exmaple was meant to show that demand and offer are quite tricky, and might not reward correctly each skill. A situation with one welder and 10 architects is surely unstable and destined to change, but life is short, and it might as well have destroyed the lives of most of those architects anyway.

Untrue, most technologically intensive goods are actually much cheaper than they used to be.

That's mostly because technology has advanced, though.

Look at it this way. Machines are cheaper than human workforce. But why invest and swap to machines, if you should then lower the prices enough to cancel out the expense for the reduced costs? No one would. Instead, they do; it means that swapping to machines covers the risk of the investment, so it means that even with reduced prices, the amount saved is greater than the amount invested, and the balance is positive. (take into account all types of pros and cons).

It is clear that the companies usually have an advantage in swapping towards machines instead of humans. They end up earning more.

I don't see why it matters, if you make enough to do the things you want you make enough, not much to it...

It does. Time is vital. You can only make enough for the things you want to do if you can still do the things you want to do. What you earns doesn't matter, if you don't have time to do what you want to do.

priz/me and SirEd just fundamentally disagree so these long discussions are getting a bit pointless. I will add this though: capitalism has resulted in unprecedented growth, wealth, and prosperity, while socialism has by and large resulted in misery and oppression, with few exceptions.

I am not socialist, that inextricable dichotomy according to which if someone is not actual-days-capitalist then he is socialist should end. Also, what made great the XX century was a bit more complex than capitalism; it included resources overexploitation, colonialism or neo-colonialism, wars and struggles, social unrest, recurrent crisis and the blind commitment to the policy of an impossibly ever-growing economy.
 
Last edited:
But it will pay the white collars as low as what it once paid blue ones.
Blue collar actually make good money depending on industry. My electrician friend been making way more than me for a while (though I think I caught up by now)
I thought about disparity in another direction. The fact that you earn more should be indication of the fact that your contribution to the same project is greater, and that's fine. But there's no way a man can contribute to a project 300-500 times what a solidly working person can, in the same amount of time.
But he can be doing multiple projects. Think of any large corporation that produces multiple products and has many departments, CEO has to be aware of all aspects of the business (which is why they get in trouble for things like Dieselgate) and ultimately carries the responsibility for them all. Sure they are not doing all of those projects but the "buck stops here"

That was to say that if someone needs that skill, that skill's cost can't be too low. If it can, why don't the employer do it himself? Human labour (of any kind) has a minimum cost.
Then you get into opportunity cost, any time an architect is welding they can't do their own job.

we were talking as if we only had one welder; the exmaple was meant to show that demand and offer are quite tricky, and might not reward correctly each skill. A situation with one welder and 10 architects is surely unstable and destined to change, but life is short, and it might as well have destroyed the lives of most of those architects anyway.
Sure this is why my electrician friend was making more than I was despite me being white collar and in a well paying industry, there is a stronger demand for electricians.


That's mostly because technology has advanced, though.
Yes, and technology has advanced as part of capitalistic competition, look at general state of consumer technology in USSR vs the west for any time period and the latter was way ahead.
Look at it this way. Machines are cheaper than human workforce. But why invest and swap to machines, if you should then lower the prices enough to cancel out the expense for the reduced costs? No one would. Instead, they do; it means that swapping to machines covers the risk of the investment, so it means that even with reduced prices, the amount saved is greater than the amount invested, and the balance is positive. (take into account all types of pros and cons).
Because you can sell more of a cheaper good than you could of a more expensive good and keep your profit the same or greater. Say it costs $10 to produce a widget using mostly human labor force, that widget sells for $20 so your per-unit profit is $10. At $20 you are able to sell 100 widgets, that nets you $1000 in profit. Now you replaced your human workers with machines and it costs $5 to produce same widget. So you lower the price to $15, now you can sell 200 widgets because they are cheaper and more people are willing to buy. You end up with $2000 in total profit on your widgets. So while your per unit profit is the same your total has increased by 100%. This isn't even getting into economies of scale and other fun things with increase in production capacity.

But again the end price doesn't have to drop for value to increase, computers (and electronics in general) are a very good (albeit extreme) example of that. A fully loaded Apple II sold for $2600 it had a massive 280x192 max resolution with amazing 6 colors and a whopping 64KB of RAM. Today a fully loaded iMac will cost you $2400 with a 3.3GHz CPU, 4K screen, 16GBs of RAM and a 512 SSD, so not only do you pay $200 less but you also get a much more capable machine that you would have in 1979.

It does. Time is vital. You can only make enough for the things you want to do if you can still do the things you want to do. What you earns doesn't matter, if you don't have time to do what you want to do.
Don't really see what it has to do with anything. You are talking about X person making X more than Y person because X person is considered more valuable. Time doesn't enter into that equation at all, we are assuming same working hours otherwise comparison makes no sense.
 
Last edited:
Blue collar actually make good money depending on industry. My electrician friend been making way more than me for a while (though I think I caught up by now)

That doesn't changr my point; having more white collars doesn't necessarily means a growht in wealth.

But he can be doing multiple projects. Think of any large corporation that produces multiple products and has many departments, CEO has to be aware of all aspects of the business (which is why they get in trouble for things like Dieselgate) and ultimately carries the responsibility for them all. Sure they are not doing all of those projects but the "buck stops here"

They don't dedicate enough time to everything to justify that money, else they wouldn't do anything else than working. Also money act as a flywheel, and in the end, money is rewarded way, way more than ideas, craft and time, which is ultimately unfair.

Also, our world has shown that being as such high level allows to avoid responsibilities and avoid the right losses for one's errors, thus mining the foundations of social justice and delegating losses to the poorest people.

Then you get into opportunity cost, any time an architect is welding they can't do their own job.

You started telling that an architect has to earn more than a welder, I told you that this only depends on the demand and offer of the places. This is why the tool we call Market is so dangerous, because it deosn't really take into account things that are important, if not partially.

Yes, and technology has advanced as part of capitalistic competition, look at general state of consumer technology in USSR vs the west for any time period and the latter was way ahead.

No, don't look at the USSR, which was a distinctively skewed mess of ideology, totalitarism and detachment from reality.

Human societies have progressed even when they weren't capitalistic. Sure capitalism helps this, but it is in no way a perfect system; it has many, many flaws, for example it needs laws to contain it and avoid turning it into a social disaster. (see the damages of laissez-faire capitalism).

Because you can sell more of a cheaper good than you could of a more expensive good and keep your profit the same or greater.

This is one advantage of the balance of elements I was talking about. I took it into account.

Don't really see what it has to do with anything. You are talking about X person making X more than Y person because X person is considered more valuable. Time doesn't enter into that equation at all, we are assuming same working hours otherwise comparison makes no sense.

Never assume that. If the CEO is working on many projects, for example, he's actually dedicating little time to each one of them, but still earning a lot for that little time. And the truth is that low-income labour of all kind offer the only thing they really have to compete: time.
 
Top