Wealth.

Pages

AuthorTopic: Wealth.
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #25
quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

The conclusion I came to is this. If the people really want to murder to get ahead, they are within their rights to overthrow the government and put in place a new one where murder is legal.
Why overthrow the government when it's so much easier to just avoid getting caught? A government's moral rights, in your view, only extend as far as its ability to enforce its authority. All available evidence suggests that there are plenty of people for whom crime does pay -- and as long as you're getting away with it, does it matter exactly how you're doing so?

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Shaper
Member # 247
Profile Homepage #26
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

The conclusion I came to is this. If the people really want to murder to get ahead, they are within their rights to overthrow the government and put in place a new one where murder is legal.
Why overthrow the government when it's so much easier to just avoid getting caught? A government's moral rights, in your view, only extend as far as its ability to enforce its authority. All available evidence suggests that there are plenty of people for whom crime does pay -- and as long as you're getting away with it, does it matter exactly how you're doing so?

No doubt! I hate stupid criminals. You dont have to get caught you fools.

--------------------
The Knight Between Posts.
Posts: 2395 | Registered: Friday, November 2 2001 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #27
quote:
Originally written by Tully
At the risk of getting into a eugenics argument, I must ask, are these people not the best humanity has to offer and thus deserving of success in the capitalist system?

That's tautological. People who you define as "strong" and "successful" are the people who achieve success under capitalism. Our arguments are that unregulated capitalism is not the best system.

Let's consider some things. Our society depends on having many people at the bottom and few at the top. What would you do with a world full of executives and lacking in assembly line workers? What about even highly skilled jobs that don't pay well and may not lead to better things? Are post-docs failures?

—Alorael, who is not an economist (or a psychologist) and cannot put a hard number on how much to skim off the top. HIs reasoning is that you can get people to keep working hard as long as you don't take away everything they make. Thus, graduated income tax makes a great deal of sense. There is no need to give perfect lives to those who won't hold a job, but there is no justification for people working long hours to live below the poverty line.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Agent
Member # 2820
Profile #28
quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

An interesting argument, one I have thought on myself many times.

The conclusion I came to is this. If the people really want to murder to get ahead, they are within their rights to overthrow the government and put in place a new one where murder is legal.

The reason this doesn't happen is because most people, strong and weak, agree that killing is bad. Such feeling are weak, but they are also bred into humans at birth, since this moral viewpoint is probably based in a fear of death, something few people don’t have. These few people that would prefer a world where they can kill and be killed are more than welcome to destroy government if they want. But in the end, they can't, because its supporters are greater in number and consist of the strong and weak alike.

The argument is fine, but I am again astounded by your ability to make something as neutral as "killing is bad" sound so nihilistic. Regardless, I'd still like to know how well you are doing in life right now.

Also, Tully, you were implying earlier that you like stratification and don't like people being equal. I'm sure someone will pick up from where I leave off. I'm not so sure whether you'll disagree with me on this.

--------------------
Thuryl: I mean, most of us don't go around consuming our own bodily fluids, no matter how delicious they are.
====
Alorael: War and violence would end if we all had each other's babies!
====
Drakefyre: Those are hideous mangos.
Posts: 1415 | Registered: Thursday, March 27 2003 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6700
Profile Homepage #29
Perused the thread, felt like throwing two cents in (just two, I swear!).

I have considered many issues and appraches of government for years, and have come to only one conclusion:

Anarchy is not an option. Even anarchy will eventually fall into a system in which someone controls and regulates someone else.

Make what you will of it. I doubt that it will contribute anything... but two cents is two cents...

--------------------
The Silent Assassin wants to build the better mousetrap.
And I refuse to give him the six-digit funding for which he asks.

--------------------
-Lenar Labs
What's Your Destiny?

Ushmushmeifa: Lenar's power is almighty and ineffable.

All hail lord Noric, god of... well, something important, I'm sure.
Posts: 735 | Registered: Monday, January 16 2006 08:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #30
Thuryl: Sure, criminals can always just not get caught. However, this gives the government the right to increase 'protection tax' and enact harsher law enforcement. It all evens out in the end.
quote:
Alorael:
What would you do with a world full of executives and lacking in assembly line workers? What about even highly skilled jobs that don't pay well and may not lead to better things?
First question: why would you ask that? Did I imply somehow that this would happen? It wouldn't. Second question: Can you give me an example of a highly skilled job that doesn't pay well? As for graduated income taxes, yes, this is the kind I would support. If the government exists to protect people, then the people that have the most to protect should pay the most taxes.

Garrison: I would love for all people to be equal. The problem is that people don't like to be equal. I always keep this fact in mind when thinking about these things.

Lenar: A shout out against anarchy is always appreciated.

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #31
Because your Darwinian argument has a gaping hole in it. If people who rise to the top are better, the gene/meme pool would be better off without everyone else. That's obviously false; you can't have any even remotely capitalist society without all the lower levels and lots of them.

If these people are necessary in general but expendable in all specific instances, you don't have to compensate them adequately. Pure capitalism doesn't. I think everyone would be better off if we did.

—Alorael, who would like to to imagine a secondary school teacher, a post-doctoral researcher, a doctor, and a business executive. It's reasonable to expect their salaries to go from lowest to highest, respectively. The teacher and the doctor provide essential services, the researcher allows science and technology to advance, and the executive keeps a company running. The necessity of the jobs do not correlate with pay and the amount of skill required is difficult to quantify. Would you want to suggest that businessmen are more skilled than scientists, though, or that their skills are more valuable?
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #32
How would the proposed deregulation affect all those many companies which currently exist only because of regulations? Like auto insurance. I forsee the instance of the financially poor deciding against insurance, and the wealthy not needing it. The middle class is left holding the bag. Stratification results in the middle class becoming the lower class, the lower upper class becomes the middle class, and eventually all material wealth is in the hands of a guy named Dave, from Toledo, who cleans toilets. Lucky bastard.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #33
Alorael: There are only so many upper level jobs to go around. Even if every single person in the world was skilled enough to do them (never going to happen) they simply would not all get the jobs they wanted. Most will end up on the bottom, no matter how skilled they are. The skilled of the skilled will remain on the top.

Your right about compensation. Those on the bottom are under compensated, but rightly so as they are less skilled than those that makes the big bucks. We pay fast food employees less than they can live on, yet they still take the jobs. Why?
quote:
Aloreal:
you can get people to keep working hard as long as you don't take away everything they make
You see, we think the same thing! Only I beleive in cutting out the middle man: government. When they can no longer serve the wealthy fast food, that is when their pay is raised. And yes, it does happen.

I said people should make money according to their skill, not according to the value of their job. Teachers really don't need that much education, nor does it need to be good education. In my experience, the only really smart high school teachers I ever met taught high school for fun and also had a real job at some point. Sorry if that offends anyone, but I had some really stupid high school teachers. Scientists, basic research is lame, so they get paid a lame amount of money. If they are truly skilled and they end up discovering something useful, like the cure for a disease, their wealth will reflect this. Doctors, very skilled, and they get paid well. Executives, for every genius executive that get millions of dollars a years, their are thousands of failures that didn’t make it so far. If these few can succeed in such a cutthroat work environment, they deserve to be so wealthy.

Edit: Salmon: Insurance companies would exist with or without government regulations. They might be smaller, there might be less of them, but they would still exist. Halfway through your post, I stopped understanding you.

[ Saturday, October 28, 2006 23:52: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ]

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Agent
Member # 2759
Profile Homepage #34
Which completely avoids addressing Alo's point, Tullegolar.

However, the trouble I have with Tullegolar's views is not that they don't make sense, but that they make me want to vomit.

--------------------
"I can't read this thread with that image. But then, that's not a complaint." -Scorpius

Geneforge 4 stuff. Also, everything I know about Avernum | Avernum 2 | Avernum 3 | Avernum 4
Posts: 1104 | Registered: Monday, March 10 2003 08:00
Guardian
Member # 2476
Profile #35
Yeah, he's proud to own that greed for power is the one and only human drive he values and respects. So let him find out where that leads him. If pursued with consequence, this is a very dark road.

--------------------
Polaris
Rache's A3 Site reformatted 2/3 done
Rache's A3 Site, original version
Posts: 1828 | Registered: Saturday, January 11 2003 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #36
quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

Your right about compensation. Those on the bottom are under compensated, but rightly so as they are less skilled than those that makes the big bucks...

I said people should make money according to their skill, not according to the value of their job. Teachers really don't need that much education, nor does it need to be good education.

Teachers are a good example of why pay-by-occupation is not the same thing as pay-by-skills. It takes very little skill to be a bad teacher. It takes a LOT of skills, many of which aren't easily taught, to be a good teacher. There are plenty of bad teachers out there and a decent handful of good teachers, but they all get paid at the bad teacher rate.

quote:
Scientists, basic research is lame, so they get paid a lame amount of money.
Well, this is just ignorant. Without massive quantities of boring basic research, you wouldn't be able to do applied research, and you wouldn't get much out of science at all.

[quote]Doctors, very skilled, and they get paid well.[/quote]Doctors go through a lot of specialized training, but so do academic researchers, who get paid a lot less. MBAs are a lot less skilled than doctors and often get paid better.

I think you are making an implicit distinction between skill and useful skill that you should make explicit.

quote:
Originally written by Micawber.:

However, the trouble I have with Tullegolar's views is not that they don't make sense, but that they make me want to vomit.
That's the trouble I have with the universe.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #37
quote:
I said people should make money according to their skill, not according to the value of their job...Scientists, basic research is lame, so they get paid a lame amount of money. If they are truly skilled and they end up discovering something useful, like the cure for a disease, their wealth will reflect this.
So basically Darwin was a moron, Einstein was such an idiot I bet that he couldn't button his own shirts, Bohr, Schrodinger, Tesla, Francis and Crick, all intellectual illiputians with no skill whatsoever. Make way for the real geniuses in the software, computer, and pharmaceutical industries. Clearly they have much more skill than those other ignoramouses and their pay reflects that. Not like anything they did supplied the foundation for all of the other real intellectual achievements.

There is an inherent contradiction here. Developing fundamental science takes a LOT of skill. People who do fundamental research in quantum mechanics modelling to develop a basis for making better transistors generally don't make the big bucks as the team that actually engineers it. However, such an activity would not be possible without the basic research.

Hate to break it to you, comparatively, the development part of R&D is generally the "easy" side, yet it makes the most money. Even "easier" is the business and marketing side. Generally the most money goes to the latter. Had I, as a scientist, wanted to make the most money the easiest way possible, I would not be a scientist, I'd be in business.

quote:
I said people should make money according to their skill, not according to the value of their job...Doctors, very skilled, and they get paid well.
True, but I'm willing to bet if only a handful of people got sick and injured in a given year, then they would not be making a lot of money. Fact is, the value of the job matters in this case.

* * *

The problem with your worldview is that if everyone aspired to do what you say is good, we would get nowhere. There would be no good teachers, no fundamental science, because all the "skilled" people would be a bunch of doctors engaged in bloodletting and a slew of bankers.

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #38
quote:
Originally written by Emperor Tullegolar:

Those on the bottom are under compensated, but rightly so as they are less skilled than those that makes the big bucks. We pay fast food employees less than they can live on, yet they still take the jobs. Why?
Because they were born poor, came from a broken home, moved around so much that they hardly had the opportunity to go to school, and started working full-time at age 14 to support their deadbeat parents. Alternatively, because they moved here from Mexico and have to work two jobs in order to support their entire extended family back home, so they never had time even to go to trade school, nor do they speak enough English to take advantage of their inherent talents and unbelievable work ethic. It's not what they would've chosen had they been given the same opportunities as those who were born middle-class or wealthier in America.

They probably have less complex skills and specialized learning than people who make more money than they do, but that doesn't mean that they are inherently inferior. I worked with some reasonably bright people when I worked in fast food (along with, of course, my fair share of morons). They were markedly less educated than most people I deal with, but that reflected their life circumstances more than it did their innate qualities. Indeed, they were not lazy or unambitious, for in order to improve their lots in life they did back-breaking labor in conditions that would've made weaker persons retch.

They were certainly no more "strong" or "weak" than anyone else, unless you are simply using those terms as synonymous with "rich" and "poor," respectively, which now appears to be the case.

[ Sunday, October 29, 2006 08:04: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #39
Tully, your ignorance of how various professions work is the big stumbling block here, and it's not something that can be solved here. But hey, other people have said it better already.

We also only agree about what to do and not where to do it. I think we can tax the rich heavily without getting them to stop working. You think you can stop paying the poor and keep them working. The latter is only true because unlivable wages are more survivable than no wages at all.

—Alorael, who really thinks that learning a bit about how basic research works would be eye-opening. Dependence on grants, especially federal grants, is a good argument for government. So is the fact that the vast majority of important discoveries don't make the discoverers rich and may not even be recognized as important for decades.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #40
quote:
Originally written by Giant Cuddly Masculine Squid:

Tully, your ignorance of how various professions work is the big stumbling block here, and it's not something that can be solved here. But hey, other people have said it better already.
Sorry Alo, but Lego already explained his ignorance. He had some pretty crappy teachers in school. He obviously was failed by the education system in which he was ensconced, despite the success of his father. In some ways I pity him. Even with money, and his father's connections, his education was limited and deeply flawed. This, combined with bigotry, does indeed make Jack a dull boy.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #41
Salmon, poor form. There's no reason for the argument to get personal.

Insult the argument, not the man.

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #42
He just gets me so worked up I want to cry. Sorry about getting all close to home and such.

--------------------
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Well, I'm at least pretty sure that Salmon is losing.


Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Too Sexy for my Title
Member # 5654
Profile #43
quote:
Originally written by Spookee Salmon:

He just gets me so worked up I want to cry. Sorry about getting all close to home and such.
Awww, *hugs*. Don't worry, it'll be alright.
Posts: 1035 | Registered: Friday, April 1 2005 08:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #44
The weak are able to combine in vast numbers, and thus impose their will on the few strong.

Some would say that this is inevitable. The strong cannot compete and will have to go to the wall. It's the way of the world.

But I am a soft-hearted, quixotic guy. I think there should be laws to give the strong some minimal level of protection, and to constrain the weak to behave with decency.

[ Sunday, October 29, 2006 13:58: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ]

--------------------
We're not doing cool. We're doing pretty.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Shaper
Member # 7420
Profile Homepage #45
Teachers: I suppose secondary school may have failed me. But hey, I seem to be doing fine in college despite my poor educational history. I blame my inherent intelligence.

Scientists: I must have more information, then. What is the difference between all the different kinds of research you guys are mentioning? And how much do scientists in each one of those field of research get paid? Give me something to work with here.

Poor=Weak?: I never said this. If someone is born into poor conditions, but they are both intelligent and charismatic (strong) they will be noticed and given an opportunity for advancement. If those in power are too stupid to notice them (weak), which happens a lot when the weak inherit power (money) then they will suffer for not having a fine addition to their organization. Luck does factor into everything, I said this before. Sociology is a soft science.

SoT: Historically, revolutions against the strong are always failures. The French Revolution led to an Empire, the Russian Revolution led to dictatorship, even the American Revolution did not improve the positions of the weak, as every single founding father was an aristocrat. The weak may outnumber the strong, but the strong will always be on top because the weak too stupid to organize. That’s why they are the weak.

Edit: Used a character this board doesn't like.

[ Sunday, October 29, 2006 17:19: Message edited by: Emperor Tullegolar ]

--------------------
You lose.
Posts: 2156 | Registered: Thursday, August 24 2006 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #46
I'm stuck on one point: you've admitted that luck is factor in whether people succeed in a laissez-faire capitalist system (what you've advocated) or not. You've also claimed that laissez-faire capitalism rewards the "strong" and doesn't reward the "weak."

Your definition of "strong" clearly includes not only charismatic, ambitious, and intelligent, but also lucky. Do you consider lucky to be an inherent quality, or do you admit that "strong" is not an inherent quality?

It's rather different to say that laissez-faire capitalism is justified because it rewards the inherently best individuals than it is to say that it is justified because it rewards the fortunate.

[ Sunday, October 29, 2006 21:08: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 4153
Profile Homepage #47
EDIT: Fixed to not repeat what Kel said... don't write so fast, Kel!

EDIT2: Post 2345... almost significant.

quote:
Originally written by Lego:

I blame my inherent ego.
FYT, sorry.

Research is incredibly important for everyone who makes the "important" discoveries. Newton's "standing on the shoulders of giants" quote comes to mind. Granted, some of it becomes pork, particularly if the "weak" get involved, as I imagine you think.

Basically, I agree with Kel. Your definitions keep changing, and your sudden inclusion of luck is just a little evasive.

Explain your concept of justice, please. It'll help sort out all of this semantic lunacy, particularly your willingness to excuse it by including luck as a variable.

[ Sunday, October 29, 2006 18:38: Message edited by: Ephesos ]

--------------------
Gamble with Gaea, and she eats your dice.

I hate undead. I really, really, really, really hate undead. With a passion.
Posts: 4130 | Registered: Friday, March 26 2004 08:00
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #48
quote:
Teachers: I suppose secondary school may have failed me. But hey, I seem to be doing fine in college despite my poor educational history. I blame my inherent intelligence.
Nothing like ducking an argument by braging about yourself... :rolleyes:

Seriously, in light of what we've said, I'd like you to respond to the part about how teachers should get paid less.

quote:
Scientists: I must have more information, then. What is the difference between all the different kinds of research you guys are mentioning? And how much do scientists in each one of those field of research get paid? Give me something to work with here.
That's a difficult question to answer because science is so large and by no means monolithic. My perspecive is that research and development comes from two primary sources: government grants/contracts and industry. Research itself can be (not perfectly) broken up into two categories: fundamental science and development.

Industry largely focuses on the latter. They develop and sell a product, be a new medicine, a more efficient automotive engine, etc. These scientists tend to make the most and are more focused on shorter-term, get a product to market goals. As such, one can argue that they are most productive. Industry tends to do little basic research as it often does not pay off in the short term.

Universities tend to do a lot of the fundamental science with some application. This includes things like protein folding studies, quantum chemistry, chaotic/non-linear behavior, etc. The payoffs for these are dubious, but when they succeed, open up whole new areas of science allowing for application development. University researchers tend to make less than their industry colleagues. Primary funding is from government and some from industry.

Laboratories are more difficult. A place like Fermilab does a lot of fundamental particle physics, or pure science if you will. whereas Los Alamos does "mission based" science geared toward the nuclear weapons program and related projects of national security*. They do some fundamental science, but usually geared toward an application. Pay depends highly on the laboratory but is typically more than a university and less than in industry. The main difference between a lab and industry is that the "product" is more abstract like national security.

I know this is a very vague outline. One could write whole books on the subject because it is so diverse. Before I want to write more, I'd like to know your perception of how science works.

* To be fair, Los Alamos does a LOT more than nuclear weapons. However, a large share of its funding goes for that work.

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #49
Tully, how do you explain the fact that people who grow up poor tend to stay poor, people who grow up rich tend to stay rich, and people who grow up in between tend to stay in between? You can't claim genetics without making every evolutionary biologist have a fit over the timeframe. How do you argue that advantage does not beget advantage or, if it does, how do you not see that as a barrier towards proper social stratification?

—Alorael, who would like to emphasize the "tend" above. Yes, there are rags to riches stories and sometimes the mighty do fall. By and large, though, classes maintain themselves.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00

Pages