flyfisher Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389535933' post='2335173'] It's about how we value other people's time. Some people are worth more man hours than others. They're mire valuable. I can fit a new back door. It will take me all day. I'm not great at it but I have the tools and I can do it. My friend can do it in two hours. How many man hours is fitting a back door worth? The problem comes when he needs me to play bass, which he can't do at all. Now if I play bass for two hours in his band, is this the two hours that he spent fitting my door, or two of the six hours I saved when he fitted my door? Do I owe him 4hours? I think I should it's only right, but then he can't play bass at all so I'm saving him hundreds of hours of learning. This is where we remember that money is a tool to be exchanged and not hoarded. [/quote] I'd interpret that example as suggesting our time is equally valuable, whatever skills we actually possess and that money is a tool to trade those equally valuable skills because no one can do everything. Of course, all this equality stuff has been tried before and has generally been a dismal failure, which I put down to our innately selfish nature. People don't really want to be equal they want to have more than everyone else, which means that many people lose out but we don't seem to care as long as we're alright. And being among the richest 1% of people on the planet (ever!), we're extremely 'alright'. Shame we're not a bit more honest about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389535933' post='2335173'] It's about how we value other people's time. Some people are worth more man hours than others. They're mire valuable. I can fit a new back door. It will take me all day. I'm not great at it but I have the tools and I can do it. My friend can do it in two hours. How many man hours is fitting a back door worth? The problem comes when he needs me to play bass, which he can't do at all. Now if I play bass for two hours in his band, is this the two hours that he spent fitting my door, or two of the six hours I saved when he fitted my door? Do I owe him 4hours? I think I should it's only right, but then he can't play bass at all so I'm saving him hundreds of hours of learning. This is where we remember that money is a tool to be exchanged and not hoarded. My vision would have a limit put on profits, a tax if you like to be paid to the unemployable, but the limit wouldn't be absolute, it would be relative to the number of people you employ. I think it's being proposed in the form of pay ratios between directors and employees. Eg. You cannot pay a director more than 200x the lowest paid employee. I think my idea is better, (of course) [/quote] Yes, indeed (again..!). Money is a representation, a symbol, of no intrinsic value of itself. It represents something. To me, that 'real' value being materialised for the purposes of exchange and commerce is time. Someone asks you to do something that uses up 2 days of your life..? If you're willing, you get paid 2 days. Is that door fitting or bass playing..? Doesn't matter; it's 2 days. As for the second point, about pay differential, I've thought about that, too. Some occupations are hourly, and when you're done, you're done. Factory presence, or cashier, for an 8-hour day, is 'worth' 8 hours. Some occupations go beyond the physical presence (those 'on call', such as doctors, or firemen..?),and I would 'rate' them as more than their physical presence (at a fire, for example...). Instead of 40 hours a week, they could be esteemed at 60 hours, for instance. Some occupations go beyond this, even, and have no 'switch-off' time. University professors..? Poets..? Business executives and/or managers..? Dare I include heads of financial institutions..? Politicians..? There are 168 hours in a week, so I would esteem them at that. Given that I consider an hour to be the same rate for all, we can calculate a pay differential of 4 to 1 (approximated for simplicity...). The 'ordinary' wage earner gets X for his/her week. The very, very top earner gets 4 times that. That's how I see rewarding those in positions of responsibility, over those doing more menial (although just as 'valuable'...) tasks. I'm well short of your '200 x', though... Edited January 12, 2014 by Dad3353 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389536841' post='2335193'] I'd interpret that example as suggesting our time is equally valuable, whatever skills we actually possess and that money is a tool to trade those equally valuable skills because no one can do everything. Of course, all this equality stuff has been tried before and has generally been a dismal failure, which I put down to our innately selfish nature. People don't really want to be equal they want to have more than everyone else, which means that many people lose out but we don't seem to care as long as we're alright. And being among the richest 1% of people on the planet (ever!), we're extremely 'alright'. Shame we're not a bit more honest about it. [/quote] No. I put it down to the fact that we are actually not all equal and the idea of equality is a construct bourne out of idealism. We are all different and we should all be treated differently. Including pay. In nature it usually balances out ok, species evolve and get stronger. And we get bigger and stronger through inheritance! Edited January 12, 2014 by TimR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389538337' post='2335222'] No. I put it down to the fact that we are actually not all equal and the idea of equality is a construct bourne out of idealism. We are all different and we should all be treated differently. Including pay. In nature it usually balances out ok, species evolve and get stronger. And we get bigger and stronger through inheritance! [/quote] ...and we were doing so well..! Never mind; this is where we part company, I'm afraid. Nice to see that we could agree on a few points though. Thanks for the ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389538337' post='2335222'] No. I put it down to the fact that we are actually not all equal and the idea of equality is a construct bourne out of idealism. We are all different and we should all be treated differently. Including pay. In nature it usually balances out ok, species evolve and get stronger. And we get bigger and stronger through inheritance! [/quote] Do you mean by inheritance of bigger and stronger characteristics or by being given stuff by pure luck? It's an interesting area though, as we struggle to separate our animalistic, evolutionary, instinctive, kill-or-be-killed heritage with our intelligence-led, cultural and compassionate characteristics. Human history seems to be one of great success in the former and dismal failure in the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UglyDog Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389527067' post='2335020'] We're widening the subject quite considerable here, aren't we..? [/quote]Well, you mentioned inheritance first [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389527067' post='2335020'] I will allow (for the sake of debate...) a certain 'ceiling' to be passed on, including some sentimental value of artefacts (a clock, or portrait; whatever...). Above that value (to be determined, I've not got a set figure in mind...), the 'estate' goes to the state. [/quote]I would respectfully suggest that the state can f*** right off. It is perfectly possible, although not that common, granted, for substantial areas of land and buildings etc to be acquired through sheer hard work or canny investment etc rather than dastardly historical robber-baronhood. Are you going to tell Richard Branson that he's got to leave Necker Island to HM Treasury or shall I..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='UglyDog' timestamp='1389545819' post='2335320']...It is perfectly possible, although not that common, granted, for substantial areas of land and buildings etc to be acquired through sheer hard work or canny investment etc rather than dastardly historical robber-baronhood...[/quote] Quite so, given the current way of things. I have thoughts on that, too, but I fear that we are unlikely to agree on much, here. I'll expand if you insist, but if it's simply so that you can snap at my heels, I'll desist. No problem with debating the matter, of course, but I'm only really interested in reasoned argument. It's the ethics that matter to me, not the status quo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389536216' post='2335185'] Well, the actual scientists doing the difficult and creative design and development work only receive an hourly rate, so would that be another example of a few people getting inordinately rich on the back of the work of many others? [/quote] Depends. If - as is likely - we're talking about big pharma, then shareholders would presumably get rich. The shareholders are likely to be pension funds, to which many of us are contributors and will eventually enjoy a return on the investment. Or we would be, had not a certain irascible, gotch-eyed Hibernian intervened in the process a few years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiltyG565 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1389549759' post='2335415'] Or we would be, had not a certain irascible, gotch-eyed Hibernian intervened in the process a few years ago. [/quote] I never intervened in anything! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389543793' post='2335295'] Do you mean by inheritance of bigger and stronger characteristics or by being given stuff by pure luck? ... [/quote] Pure luck? What is the purpose of having children? On an animalistic side it is so that our genes survive. It's a bit of a bummer to work hard all your life to improve yourself and the chances of survival of your gene pool, if someone's just going to come along and take all that hard work off them and stick them right back down where you started from. Now that would promote a very selfish society and completely destroy any idea of family, not to mention a country that just stagnates. Pass your genes on and run away quickly, your work is done... Edited January 12, 2014 by TimR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389549999' post='2335423'] Pass your genes on and run away quickly, your work is done... [/quote] Seems to have worked pretty well for most organisms on the planet. But I get your point and of course we'd all like to be able to give our kids a 'leg up' in the race of life. However, where does it all end? Don't we already have enough people moaning about the 'Eton toffs' running the country? Yet isn't that just a natural consequence of allowing the accumulation of wealth and therefore privilege down the generations? Is that really what we want - hugely wealthy and powerful 'dynastic' families? Also, what about the ever-increasing costs of end-of life care and all the recent hoo-ha about asking people to contribute to their own care home costs? Why should the state pay for someone to go into a care home when they could sell their own home and pay the care costs themselves? Such a suggestion is generally deemed to be outrageous, yet in practice, the people complaining about it are really just expecting the state to subsidise their kid's inheritance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dad3353 Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Those that have played the game 'Risk' will understand where this cumulation and passing on reaches its conclusion. One final dynasty, owning (by fair means or foul, it doesn't seem to matter...) all the land, mineral rights, copyright, patents and licences. Five or six siblings on the planet, owners of all. The others; dispossessed. It's OK, it's natural selection. The cream floating to the top. Concentration of power. The Way of the World. Hmm... I would have things otherwise. My 'models' are rather Diogenes, Gandhi, or that other bloke that got nailed up. To each his/her own, though. I'm only small. Things could be so much nicer (although still not Ambrosia...) for so many billions on the planet today, but the 'few' won't relinquish, so it will just remain a dream. It explains, partially at least, my healthy dose of cynicism, though. Never mind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiltyG565 Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389562655' post='2335615'] Seems to have worked pretty well for most organisms on the planet. [/quote] Are you referring to all the organisms with complex financial systems or the ones without? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oggiesnr Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 [quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389529684' post='2335076'] The writer takes a risk, in the same way as a research worker, or an architect. They should get paid for their work. OK. Now, why the lifelong payments..? [/quote] No the risk is different. Almost every research worker, architect, designer is making something either as a paid employee (ie even if the idea doesn't work they get paid) or as a result of a contract to provide that service (sometimes this can actually involve a royalty fee or a licence fee similar to a songwriter). However the "risk" of not making money out of the design is being carried by someone else. The songwriter is a different position (unless they've been directly commissioned or employed to write a song), they are carrying all the risk and 99.9% of their work will do nothing, the system allows them to keep going because that 0.1% (or less) will provide them with an income, take that away and there's no way of making money as a songwriter unless you envisage lots of Brill Buildings springing up Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wateroftyne Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 [size=6][i]"Here man.. what are yaz airl gannin' on aboot? Wharraloada bollicks!"[/i][/size] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 [quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1389600568' post='2335858'] ... [size=6][i]"Here man.. what are yaz airl gannin' on aboot? Wharraloada bollicks!"[/i][/size] [/quote] It's just the usual BC stuff about how life is so unfair. Seems to have spilled out of OT for some reason though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 [quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1389584917' post='2335820'] Are you referring to all the organisms with complex financial systems or the ones without? [/quote] Ah, the arrogance of man. In the race of life, intelligence is vastly overrated. Indeed, it could be argued that intelligence is the very thing responsible for buggering up the planet for all the other life forms that have survived perfectly well without it for billions of years. Indeed, intelligence seems to be a prime reason for buggering up the lives of the organism that posesses the most of it. Life on our planet managed perfectly well without 'complex financial systems' for billions of years and will surely manage without them again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UglyDog Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 [quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389549999' post='2335423'] Pure luck? What is the purpose of having children? On an animalistic side it is so that our genes survive. It's a bit of a bummer to work hard all your life to improve yourself and the chances of survival of your gene pool, if someone's just going to come along and take all that hard work off them and stick them right back down where you started from. Now that would promote a very selfish society and completely destroy any idea of family, not to mention a country that just stagnates. Pass your genes on and run away quickly, your work is done... [/quote] Well the country wouldn't be entirely stagnant -- HM Treasury would be very nicely off thank you very much, what with all that property and land and cash that they'd have seized from peoples' estates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Alternatively, I'd predict that there's be a dramatic increase in the number of people dying with only a few beans to their name and nothing for the state to actualy grab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiltyG565 Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389620293' post='2336154'] Ah, the arrogance of man. In the race of life, intelligence is vastly overrated. Indeed, it could be argued that intelligence is the very thing responsible for buggering up the planet for all the other life forms that have survived perfectly well without it for billions of years. Indeed, intelligence seems to be a prime reason for buggering up the lives of the organism that posesses the most of it. Life on our planet managed perfectly well without 'complex financial systems' for billions of years and will surely manage without them again. [/quote] I have no doubt that you are correct (and I personally hold the view that our knowledge overtook us, leading us to make some very large mistakes without fully understanding their impact before it was too late) - however, this is a discussion about a financial matter. The fact is that we are the only species with a financial system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) [quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1389634799' post='2336379'] The fact is that we are the only species with a financial system. [/quote] We are the only species with a financial system [i]at present[/i]. My experiment with squirrels is showing great potential. As for musicians and royalties, who remembers the bonds issued by Mr David Bowie back in 1997 which were securitised against his future record sales / royalties. Prudential of America bought the lot for $55m, kick-starting speculation that Generation Dinosaur (Dylan, Young, et al) would follow suit. The outcome? Subsequent issues (e.g. Holland Dozier Holland) met with tepid interest. By 2004 the Bowie Bonds were downgraded to near junk status and in 2007 the rights reverted to the [s]Pantomime Dame of Rock[/s] Thin White Duke. The moral of this story? Actually, I haven't got a clue. [color=#ffffff].[/color] Edited January 13, 2014 by skankdelvar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimR Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1389636857' post='2336403'] We are the only species with a financial system [i]at present[/i]. My experiment with squirrels is showing great potential. ... [/quote] That's just nuts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiltyG565 Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1389636857' post='2336403'] We are the only species with a financial system [i]at present[/i]. My experiment with squirrels is showing great potential. [/quote] Squirrels would be great for banks. After all, they do save their nuts by burying them, then they forget where they buried them and they are lost. Imagine how banks would take advantage of the poor squirrels! *Squirrel walks into bank* "Hi, I think I have an account here..." *clerk taps furiously at keyboard and sees that Mr.Squirrel does indeed have an account with some money in it* "No, sorry Mr.Squirrel, but I think you have the wrong bank. Have you tried the one down the street?" [/digression] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 [quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1389637254' post='2336413'] Imagine how banks would take advantage of the poor squirrels! [/quote] Which is one of the reasons why my work with squirrels is pro bono and gratis. Among the squirrel skills under development is the ability to write polite but assertive letters of complaint. Coupled with 'enhanced household budgeting', we hope within only a few centuries to liberate squirrels from the stranglehold imposed on them by the high street banks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 When part of the ceiling fell down in the old house I'm renovating it was pretty obvious where the squirrel's lost nuts were! If only I could convert old walnuts into even harder currently I could afford to fix the ceiling. [quote name='MiltyG565' timestamp='1389634799' post='2336379'] The fact is that we are the only species with a financial system. [/quote] Indeed. And look where it has got us. Another few hundred years may well see us consigned to an invisibly thin layer in the four billion year geological record of this planet* [size=2]*other planetary timescales are available[/size] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.