These people are our future

[IowaSkinsFan]

You might like that actually. Think about this: what is the value to our society from waste collection and disposal? Does the guy who comes to your house and dumps your trash in a truck and drives it off provide less value to you than Microsoft?

My answer is not necessarily "no", but "not really", and I believe that social and economic status should reflect that to some degree.

Yes, the trash truck driver provides less value than Microsoft. I'm assuming your saying the trash truck driver may be more of a necessity than Microsoft, but that doesn't mean he's more valuable. The reason trash truck drivers aren't paid as much is because there is labor competition. If people absolutely despised being a trash truck driver you would see their weekly pay go up a lot because its necessary to take out the trash and there would be less people wanting to do it.

It's necessary that I eat. Does that mean the price of food should be 100 times as much as it is? It would be if no one wanted to grow, distribute, and sell it, I'm sure that would be the case.

[wufwugy]

Yes, the trash truck driver provides less value than Microsoft. I'm assuming your saying the trash truck driver may be more of a necessity than Microsoft, but that doesn't mean he's more valuable. The reason trash truck drivers aren't paid as much is because there is labor competition.

There's a lot of labor competition because there's a lot of poor people, there's a lot of poor people because there's too many rich people or the rich are too rich. There are many explanations, this is only one, but an important one

Do this: create a society that cares about its citizens, one where every single natural born citizen has entirely equal rights to every other. Then find how much the market for low-skill labor decreases. In fact, the market would be so small that people would end up taking the jobs mostly due to the vast increase in pay. The market would eventually reach equilibrium, and we know for a fact that this equilibrium level is substantially lower than in current US labor markets

This is assuming a truly equal society, which is nothing close to what we have now, and never will be. We think of equality as encompassing pretty much only the stigma issues we've had in the past, yet don't realize that real equality would mean things like 100% estate tax, 100% equal distribution of national wealth. I'm not claiming to be in favor of those things, but the point is that arguments for deservedness tend to ride on the back of inequality

If people absolutely despised being a trash truck driver you would see their weekly pay go up a lot because its necessary to take out the trash and there would be less people wanting to do it.

Fortunately for the lucky and the smart, people care enough about food and shelter and basic camaraderie for them to take the shit jobs when that's all there is at one point in time. In the US, this exploitation is far more apparent than in Europe. Take Europeans and drop their level of rights down to US levels, and watch as the entire labor force goes on strike. Same can be said of taking Americans and giving them those Chinese sweatshop jobs that all those Chinese people obviously value enough to take

It's necessary that I eat. Does that mean the price of food should be 100 times as much as it is? It would be if no one wanted to grow, distribute, and sell it, I'm sure that would be the case.

You're taking elaborate issues and trying to explain them in simplistic, cut and dry terms. In some areas of the world, agriculture has been subsidized to the point that it's super cheap, in other parts of the world, agriculture is so expensive that people go without dinner. There's much more going on here than just how people value things

[a500lbgorilla]

Yes, the trash truck driver provides less value than Microsoft. I'm assuming your saying the trash truck driver may be more of a necessity than Microsoft, but that doesn't mean he's more valuable.

BBC News - Cleaners 'worth more to society' than bankers - study

Not making a point, merely illuminating my basis for understanding. The people who do shit work for shittier pay lift the whole world upon their shoulders.

edit I guess I am making a point but would enjoy being shown wrong.

[IowaSkinsFan]

BBC News - Cleaners 'worth more to society' than bankers - study

Not making a point, merely illuminating my basis for understanding. The people who do shit work for shittier pay lift the whole world upon their shoulders.

edit I guess I am making a point but would enjoy being shown wrong.

I'm wondering what exactly is meant by creating wealth and destroying it?

[a500lbgorilla]

I'm wondering what exactly is meant by creating wealth and destroying it?

This has been a sticking point for me as well. Talk radio keeps telling me that the rich create wealth and that gov't destroys it. I am decidedly confused on wealth entropy.

[wufwugy]

I'm wondering what exactly is meant by creating wealth and destroying it?

Not sure exactly how they're getting their figures, but overall, wealth is characterized by a myriad of factors like market indexes, wages, economic activity. What the article is basically getting at is that the return on investment garnered from things like product-less service-less speculative banking is negative whereas real product real service activity is positive.

A whole lot of "investment" banking (speculative ponzi banking is a better phrase) doesn't really do anything real, yet its size, due to deregulating mergers and caps etc, still has a stranglehold on the entire economy. Their destruction of wealth can be viewed as creating faux wealth, siphoning real wealth into their secret vaults, then releasing the faux wealth onto the economy. Which is pretty much what happened. Creating and destroying wealth happens all the time. If i find an oil field I've created wealth, if I burn down your house I've destroyed it

[Numbr2intheWorld]

BBC News - Cleaners 'worth more to society' than bankers - study

Not making a point, merely illuminating my basis for understanding. The people who do shit work for shittier pay lift the whole world upon their shoulders.

edit I guess I am making a point but would enjoy being shown wrong.

As Danny said before, to become a cleaner it requires almost no education or special skill of any kind. The reason that they don't get paid as much is because almost anyone could do it. If we decided to pay cleaner's $50 an hour, then we'd have millions of cleaners. What would happen then is their value would go down and they actually would be almost worthless to society. If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one.

This is why we don't pay cleaners their "value."

[a500lbgorilla]

As Danny said before, to become a cleaner it requires almost no education or special skill of any kind. The reason that they don't get paid as much is because almost anyone could do it. If we decided to pay cleaner's $50 an hour, then we'd have millions of cleaners. What would happen then is their value would go down and they actually would be almost worthless to society. If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one.

This is why we don't pay cleaners their "value."

I know this is douchey replying every time with a link but

YouTube - RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

But a reward system based on you do this and you get $$$ seems applicable only to these jobs that mean more back-breaking yield more money, not the you innovate and we reward you with billions framework.

Some points I want to make but don't have time to put pretty words to:

"Anyone can do it" does not negate the fact that those who do it lift up the rest of us.

Their value is pretty cemented because they represent the bedrock of society. And is variable only based on what you build upon that bedrock.

"If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one."

UFW: The Official Web Page of the United Farm Workers of America - Titled "Take Our Jobs, Please"

So that's not true, unless you restricted their numbers and paid them to a level representing the nebulous "American Dream." But wherever there are people, there will be demand for these crap jobs which hoist up societies.

[a500lbgorilla]

I know this is douchey replying every time with a link but

YouTube - RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

But a reward system based on you do this and you get $$$ seems applicable only to these jobs that mean more back-breaking yield more money, not the you innovate and we reward you with billions framework.

Some points I want to make but don't have time to put pretty words to:

"Anyone can do it" does not negate the fact that those who do it lift up the rest of us.

Their value is pretty cemented because they represent the bedrock of society. And is variable only based on what you build upon that bedrock.

"If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one."

UFW: The Official Web Page of the United Farm Workers of America - Titled "Take Our Jobs, Please"

So that's not true, unless you restricted their numbers and paid them to a level representing the nebulous "American Dream." But wherever there are people, there will be demand for these crap jobs which hoist up societies.

But people should always be paid less than they generate. You can guarantee yourself a raise if you prove that you've generated X revenue for the company while holding a salary of Y (X>>Y) and it provides for societal surpluses if everyone is taking less in than they create. So obviously the shit workers shouldn't be paid awesome wages, but you can't say that the rich do everything for society when the many poor take the brunt of the workload, is my point.

Again, I still don't understand how wealth is either created or destroyed and would appreciate any foundation anyone could give.

[wufwugy]

Again, I still don't understand how wealth is either created or destroyed and would appreciate any foundation anyone could give.

Economies are artificial constructs based on resources and activities of the world and people they're built around. Wealth is an artificial designation of "pricing" those resources and activities. Creation or destruction of wealth is when the artificial designation goes up or down. Some wealth is backed by real and good stuff more than others

This is actually a complicated issue I don't understand well, but that's pretty close to the fundamentals. I may not know how the variables all interact to designate wealth, but I know that it happens. Understanding the details well is PhD level stuff though

[a500lbgorilla]

Economies are artificial constructs based on resources and activities of the world and people they're built around. Wealth is an artificial designation of "pricing" those resources and activities. Creation or destruction of wealth is when the artificial designation goes up or down. Some wealth is backed by real and good stuff more than others

This is actually a complicated issue I don't understand well, but that's pretty close to the fundamentals. I may not know how the variables all interact to designate wealth, but I know that it happens. Understanding the details well is PhD level stuff though

Hmmm, I want to go deeper. I N C E P T I O N

[Lyric]

Economies are artificial constructs based on resources and activities of the world and people they're built around. Wealth is an artificial designation of "pricing" those resources and activities. Creation or destruction of wealth is when the artificial designation goes up or down. Some wealth is backed by real and good stuff more than others

This is actually a complicated issue I don't understand well, but that's pretty close to the fundamentals. I may not know how the variables all interact to designate wealth, but I know that it happens. Understanding the details well is PhD level stuff though

An island with two men on it is an economy. Economy is the word we use to describe creation and exchange of wealth. On an island the entire economy would be two men exchanging their wealth -- food, medicine, shelter, and tools. They would be creating these things and exchanging them, creating a two man island "economy."

It is only complicated if you look at millions of people at one time.

[Lyric]

Again, I still don't understand how wealth is either created or destroyed and would appreciate any foundation anyone could give.

If you walk into a forest and build a house from the trees, you have created wealth -- the house is worth more than the trees. If the house burns or is destroyed, the wealth you created is gone.

If you grow tomatoes in your back yard, harvest them and create a pasta sauce, you have created wealth. If you eat the sauce, the wealth is destroyed.

This is how money is created -- when a home is built, tomatoes are grown, or when anything of value is created or discovered. All of these things bring new money into the world and make the world a more comfortable place.

[a500lbgorilla]

If you walk into a forest and build a house from the trees, you have created wealth -- the house is worth more than the trees. If the house burns or is destroyed, the wealth you created is gone.

If you grow tomatoes in your back yard, harvest them and create a pasta sauce, you have created wealth. If you eat the sauce, the wealth is destroyed.

This is how money is created -- when a home is built, tomatoes are grown, or when anything of value is created or discovered. All of these things bring new money into the world and make the world a more comfortable place.

I like this. Both that order yields wealth and consumers destroy it.

Of all the combinations of the trees, a house is better than a mishmash of lumber like a pile, or a tall stack of wood.

But the idea that new money is created doesn't make sense to me. If the tomatoes are grown, that means that something else isn't grown, and beyond that something is taken from the world to create those tomatoes, so even their wealth creation is coupled with some negative wealth in some sense.

[a500lbgorilla]

As Danny said before, to become a cleaner it requires almost no education or special skill of any kind. The reason that they don't get paid as much is because almost anyone could do it. If we decided to pay cleaner's $50 an hour, then we'd have millions of cleaners. What would happen then is their value would go down and they actually would be almost worthless to society. If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one.

This is why we don't pay cleaners their "value."

I hate that I keep getting pulled back to this right now, but I also think the idea is that the value created by remedial workers is obvious and straight forward and undervalued, while the value crated by bankers and the like is very difficult to parse through. So the stance that crap workers definitely create value is easy to stand by, while defending the allocators of investment capital seeking to marry ideas with resources to grow a 20% likely to succeed company is a concept beyond the grasp.

As ISF said before, it's a problem with too many variables floating around in the unknown.

[Numbr2intheWorld]

I hate that I keep getting pulled back to this right now, but I also think the idea is that the value created by remedial workers is obvious and straight forward and undervalued, while the value crated by bankers and the like is very difficult to parse through. So the stance that crap workers definitely create value is easy to stand by, while defending the allocators of investment capital seeking to marry ideas with resources to grow a 20% likely to succeed company is a concept beyond the grasp.

As ISF said before, it's a problem with too many variables floating around in the unknown.

So are you just saying many people have a hard time understanding why the cleaner gets paid less? Or are you saying you still don't believe he should be paid less?

[a500lbgorilla]

So are you just saying many people have a hard time understanding why the cleaner gets paid less? Or are you saying you still don't believe he should be paid less?

People don't have a hard time understanding why cleaners get paid less, they have a difficult time reconciling why industries of capital-allocation get paid so much more.

And I believe he should be paid "less" and adequately but less than the value he produces, I believe that of all jobs including my own.

I have a point I want to make, but it's lost to me right now, maybe later tonight I can summon it up.

[wufwugy]

As Danny said before, to become a cleaner it requires almost no education or special skill of any kind. The reason that they don't get paid as much is because almost anyone could do it. If we decided to pay cleaner's $50 an hour, then we'd have millions of cleaners. What would happen then is their value would go down and they actually would be almost worthless to society. If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one.

This is why we don't pay cleaners their "value."

This is not true

Not only do societies exist where the lowest skill jobs make very strong wages, but the effects throughout the society are one of equalizing and raising living standards and such of the rest of society, not everybody and their brother clamoring to get one particular 'overvalued' job. What you may think is overvaluing menial labor is actually increasing economic strength, and our history shows it's one of the only ways to do so.

"Value" is largely artificial. The middle class used to be "valued" more than it is now. Their real value hasn't gone down at all, just the ability for corporations to centralize profit payout into the executive bracket. They've done this by lying and gradually shifting the goalposts to the point that the populace believes them and believes their real value is less than it should be

[Duffryn]

Let me propose a basic hypothetical. Someone offers you a stereo system for $100. You know that he stole this stereo and this is why you can buy it at such a low price. You buy it. Did you not endorse stealing? If not, now lets say that nearly everyone in the world declined to buy stolen merchandise, would the amount of stealing in the world be more, less, or the same than it is now?

The world is not that simple. Suppose I need a new computer. Should I buy a micromac, whose CEO, Bill Jobs is a billionaire but never gives any money to charity? But their biggest investor just donated $1m to victims of the Haiti earthquake. But they just switched their production of computers to China and threw 20, 000 americans out of work. Ummm.... What about MacMicro? CEO Steve Gates has a charitable foundation. But they were just found guilty of discriminating against their ginger haired workers. And they employ child labourers in India. Hmmm. Do I support a greedy CEO or the exploitation of children? Most of the time you don't know the nefarious practices of the suppliers of goods and services, but if you did, you would be lucky ever to find a supplier whose values you totally agreed with. Most of the time we have the illusion of choice not a real choice.

Rich people are not accountable. They are newsworthy. If you shot 20 people tomorrow, you would find yourself "accountable". Mel Gibson may have lost some income, but that is hardly being accountable. His DVDs have not been removed from shelves and he is still living a very comfortable life with more money than 99.99% of the world's population.

A charitable society is unrealistic. Some wealthy people would give selflessly as they do now. But others would give with strings attached or just buy a third jumbo jet. Even if people cared enough to boycott the goods and services of those they disliked, the non charitable rich would employ expensive PR companies to present themselves more favourably or even buy media outlets to ensure they got a good press. Just look at how the world works now.

Such a society would be an oligarchy and there has never been one of those that was not tyrannical. I agree with wufwugy that this would end up in totalitarianism. It would not matter if 99% of the population was not bananaist, if the rich person paying for the hospital, school or soup kitchen was a bananaist, then in most cases if you wanted treatment, an education or food, at the very least you would have to listen to the principles of bananaism and attempts to convert you. If you did not conform to the principles of bananaism, then you would get no help. And what could you do about that? Boycott the bananaist's company? Who would care amongst all the PR propaganda persuading everyone about its caring, charitable and non-banaist activities.

The argument is interesting though. I have never understood the advocates of small government and had no clue that some thought this would be more compassionate.

[wufwugy]

I have never understood the advocates of small government and had no clue that some thought this would be more compassionate.

There are a lot of different ways and levels upon which this can be described, but I'll approach it with the the most fundamental yet meaningful way I know how

Humans are naturally wrong. The survival of our ancestry was dependent upon being wrong much more often than being right. Here's why: when you're in the jungle and there's a strange sound behind a bush, you have two options, 1) treat it like it's a danger or 2) treat it like it's not a danger. Now, the vast majority of the time, the noise is not a danger. It's a squirrel or the wind or whatever, but a certain small fraction of the time it's a tiger and that's all it takes to end your life. This and other scenarios is why humans (and all animals) have incredibly strong positive affirmations that are ultimately irrational. Because if we didn't, we wouldn't have survived.

So yeah, when our ancestors were walking through the jungle and heard a strange sound, they were "wrong" by responding to it as if it were danger, but that's also the only way they could promote survival. This carries over to everything we do and are today. If you take everything humans believe, the vast vast majority of it is wrong, but because we believe it it makes sense to us and all that.

Human biology has evolved to normally believe the most ridiculous things ever make total sense, and the more complicated and abstract things become, the worse this is. Things like economics are so difficult to understand that only a tiny fraction of people who express thought on the matter have the slightest clue of what they're doing, and their correct analysis also comes exclusively from proper usage of the scientific method. One of the biggest "thought-crimes" people make is thinking that "sense" has any bearing on truth. The only bearing on truth is demonstrable observation, and that really has no discernible correlation with "sense"