Forum Post: There will always be income inequality.
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 3, 2011, 9:01 a.m. EST by JoeTheFarmer
(2654)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
People are resources in a society. Some people make themselves more valuable than others. Someone who went to medical school is worth more than someone who dropped out of High School.
Someone who played basketball for 10 hours eery day as a child is more valuable than someone who hung out smoking pot.
Someone who saved all their money and then risked it all by taking investing it in a restaurant or some other business is worth more than someone who spends all their money and ends up working for the person who owns the business.
Someone who spends most of every day for three years writing a book like Harry Potter is worth more than someone who types into an OWS forum all day.
We are paid what we are worth. Some people are just worth more.
If you look are income inequality around the world, the US is about in the middle of the pack of 150 countries. The least inequality is in some of the small wealthy countries like Luxemburg, Sweden, Germany, South Korea, and Japan. The worst inequality is in the poorer countries in Africa, South America, Eastern Europer and parts of Asia. The richest man on the planet is from Mexico.
We will never achieve a system where everyone receives equally. We need to strive to create a system of equal “opportunity” for everyone. Some people will excel and others will not. We need to a safety net for those who fall or fail.
When you really think about it, we are not “all created equal”. I will never sing like Whitney Huston, or play basketball like Michael Jordan, or invent things like Steve Jobs.
Only a few extremists are talking about a fully egalitarian society. Most are talking about moderate equality. The type we had in the 40s-70s, when the middle class became dominant and there was general prosperity and the American Dream was alive.
Now we have greater inequality than we had in 1928. It's unhealthy in so many ways. It is a societal ill. A major one. And our inequlity is the worst of any advanced market democracy - yeah, a little better than Rwanda - awesome.
http://www.businessinsider.com/plutocracy-reborn
Paris Hilton probably earns 10k per hour from her investments. She's worth more than a trauma nurse or a firefighter or a electrical engineer? I don't think so.
All of the ideas in this post turn on one central concept: that the labor market accurately and efficiently determines the worth of someones labor. That is exactly what at least some of us are questioning. The American labor market is inherently irrational, for a number of reasons, but not the least of which is that this particular political economy privileges capital, as a social class, and this privilege is reinforced year after year through laws, judicial decisions, the structural tendency of our system to concentrate wealth, and therefore power, and therefore access to privilege. If you take these conditions as given, all that you say above is true. Occupy is at least raising the question that these conditions are not "natural" or "universal" or "forever", but are simply the result of decisions and actions made by people in the past, and they are up for discussion and revision. It's very easy to assume that what is will always be. I'm sure two hundred years ago, there were many people, maybe a majority, who said, "There will always be slaves. It's just the way things are. Be satisfied with your lot". That's what you are saying above, with regard to the fairness and universality of market allocation of labor costs.
I believe the American labor market is pretty rational. You are paid according to what value you add. A good company treats its labor force well, will pay employees more, and offer them better benefits. In turn employees are more productive and more attentive to quality. People are rewarded for going the extra mile and when times are hard will hang on to their job while others around them that were slackers will more likely lose their job. The exception is union shops where everything is based on seniority rather than merit.
This is the way that we are taught that it is supposed to work, and it might even work on a farm (as I assume from your name) but it doesn't work like this in the majority of business in the real world. Sorry
Glad to know I'm just a commodity, like there is no other measure of human worth and we have to take that as a given.
No we are not all the same, but everyone has something they can excel at.
Luxembourg is a great example of how hard work and wealth are not synonymous. There is no corporate income tax, but if you want to move your corporation there you need to hire a few Directors from Luxembourg to sit on your board and pay them fat salaries.
I never said there is no other measure of human worth. Why would you think of yourself as just a commodity? That is not a great way to look at life.
Most of the posts I see here at OWS are related to economics. People do have economic value. When it comes to getting a job you have a value based on your skills, talent, work ethic, and track record. Why would you ignore that value if you were hiring someone?
Sorry I inferred it from "... is more valuable than someone who hung out smoking pot."
I don't smoke myself, but I have a lot of friends who do, and they are a lot more valuable to me than any basketball player I know of, times a million! :)
I see where you're going with the equal opportunity thing, it would be a big improvement, and I agree people can be viewed as resources with economic value as you call it; it was probably more so the language I had a problem with... I don't think a doctor is more valuable than anyone else, although they certainly get paid more than most.
Sure, I would take all those things into account; but at the same time I think we should stop defining success in monetary terms, like someone with less money is somehow less of a person, or a less useful resource for that matter.
Pro athletes are not useful resources at all, they play hard sure, but they are paid well because they have a unique ability to entertain a lot of people at the same time. Basically, television networks create their worth. CEOs sink companies, corrupt politicians, and exploit other resources; they are probably even less useful resources than pro athletes.
I really hope a better way is possible, but sure equal opportunity would be a good starting place. At least that way if someone wanted to be a CEO it wouldn't matter if their parents could afford to send them to Harvard.
"I don't think a doctor is more valuable than anyone else, although they certainly get paid more than most."
If you find yourself lying on the road with a femur fracture, you may reconsider that assessment.
Their stock might raise a bit in that case, but ordinarily I find my garbage man does a lot more good for me, as I tend to avoid pill pushing medical doctors like the plague.
I did not say that someone with less money is less of a person. I said that someone gets paid more because we are willing to pay them more because of what they bring to the table. To me that means they are a more valuable human resource. Human resource is a term used to refer to employees. Many larger companies have human resources departments. The better companies consider humans the most important resource.
alexrai in essence agrees with you. he did mention that everyone has intrinsic value, which is your point.
what i think he doesn't agree with is that some are worth more than others. sadly, this is true. even if you consider only non-monetary benefits of having certain qualities, then you'll find aberrations such as that attractive people have more friends, more dates, and generally more success in life than ugly people, and this is an area studied very extensively in economics and social science.
Ya, I agree more or less; but I still don't like it! :p
If women left the work force then all the men would be worth twice as much! The problem isn't a simple matter of wages. The problem is the fact that I don't choose my landline, they don't even offer me a line that will get 56k dial up, I don't get to pick my electric company, I have a co-op but might not if I move to get different phone service, I don't have choice in going to the only hospital in the county or dieing in and emergency, if I am incarcerated, I don't have a choice of prisons, all the gas companies collude to keep prices the same and jack their profits up, Monsanto has taken the choices from farmers as Seed Banks were CLOSED and small people driven out of their market as they tried to gain a total Monopoly on the World's seed, (I am not allowed to be informed about what I feed my children even, further crippling my power to choose). You raise minimum wage and I guarantee the basic service providers will raise their prices and their PROFIT MARGINS not just their earnings up so much that I am left with less buying power than before my "RAISE". This makes raising wages useless, its just charity money to basic service providers that does nothing to better my life. That's right, these are gravy train industries that provide no real innovations or and the people have no real choices in. They are Monopolies and virtual Monopolies that do nothing but use their money to undermine the entire system. Every dime they have ever made in PROFITS they stole from tax payers who should have been protected from this by their government. So minimum wage makes you eligible for food stamps and Corporations don't even pay people enough to feed themselves. Take over, Cap, regulate these basic service providers and end this cycle, put billions maybe TRILLIONS of WASTED dollars back into the regular economy, there is your stimulus plan. Forgive me for saying that wages mean nothing at face value if basic service providers are high-jacking every nickle and dime you have.
ITS NOT INEQUALITY - ITS UNJUST
DONT SITE NUMBERS - COMPARE
2011 the average American CEO makes 300 times what his average employee makes.
1981 the average American CEO makes 30 times what his average employee makes.
this explains it all
I am not sure how you fix that since companies are willing to pay millions to a person that they believe can have a multimillion dollar impact on their business. I am not sure companies want to change that.
For example, Apple was willing to pay Steve Jobs millions to get him to come back and run the company. They went from a company on the edge of bankruptcy to the most profitable company on the planet. Their investment paid off.
That in a sense was part of my point. He was a valuable human resource who was worth more than most of the rest of us. He had a proven track record with Apple, Pixar, and Leap Frog. The board at Apple knew this and was willing to pay him millions to come back.
Someone called me “sick” for saying people have different economic value based on their skills, work ethic, and talent however I am just pointing out what is true.
i understand your point, but you could also say that the top drug dealer in America makes $1,000,000 (?) a day
the CEO has succeded - in sucking the blood from workers
both facts - both immoral
imho - the guy who buys a congressman or law damages our country more than the drug boss
GREED is dumping us into the crapper
at this point - OWS's strongest suit is COFFEE -
we are waking up Americans to the crap we have been eating
Are they really sucking the blood from the workers?
I believe workers in the US have it pretty good. We have an average wage that is more than 3 times the minimum wage. We have a 40 hour work week, weekends, holidays, vacations, health benefits, retirement plans...
You have all these things. Many do not. Statistics:
21 million people lived in working-poor families. This translates into nearly 9.6 percent of all American families living below 100 percent of poverty have at least one family member working. The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to as involuntary part-time workers) was 8.5 million. (And are not included in the number above) And don't forget that in November, the unemployment rate was 8.6 percent.
A recent NPR report states that as much as 30% of Americans have trouble making ends meet
Further statistics to take into account:
The real value of the minimum wage in 2004 was 26% less than in 1979 (The Economic Policy Institute, 2005)
Federal support for low-income housing has fallen 49% from 1980 to 2003 (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2005).
Since 2000, the incomes of low-income households has declined as rents continue to rise (National Low Income Housing Coalition, 2005). In 2009, a worker would need to earn $14.97 to afford a one-bedroom apartment and $17.84 to afford a two-bedroom apartment.
And my personal favorite:
While the poverty threshold is updated for inflation every year, the basket of goods used to determine what constitutes being deprived of a socially acceptable miniumum standard of living has not been updated since 1955.
So our poverty level is based on what was considered a necessity to own in 1955. Is it any wonder why people say our poverty numbers are understated?
if your job - unlike mine - was not shipped to India
by the Verizon CEO Seidenberg who got millions in bonuses for doing this to hundreds of employees - yes sucking the blood
I am not saying I am fond of the idea of outsourcing but I do wonder.
Do people in India do not have the right to be offered those jobs or are they a lower form of life that does not deserve an opportunity?
its not the worker in India that I resent - its the US executives who decide to put the priority of their own bonuses above the ordinary working man in America.
The Indian didn't TAKE my job - a "fellow" American GAVE it to him.
He's one of the 1%
I'm one of the 99%
There are thousands of THEM
There are millions of US
AND I VOTE
anyone in the 99 who does not vote - supports the 1%
Nobody has a problem with inequality, we just want to keep it under control.
So.... I have just finished reading much of this thread...and I must say I enjoy your discourse, and even though I think we will differ, on several points, I think you will find we agree on more...
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/50500650/yourtopia-your%20official%20final%20beginning.pdf
That links up to a book I've recently written....which will dispute your title, but only your title.
Profit is not necessarily, simply a measure of benefit to community
An extract quote which I thought was relevant....
Omnia vincit amor.
my beef is with those who earn their income in unscrupulous ways to the detriment of others, and yes that would include many lobbyists and congressman (e.g., Pelosi), doctors that over-utilize and fraudulently bill medicare, corporate officers and many on wall street... in fact, it encompasses quite a few of the people who earn the top 5% of income.
The idea of "created equal" refers to equal rights, equal chance to succeed and fairness. We don't have any of those things in the USA.
I know what the founders meant.
What I was referring to is that many believe that we should all be equal in every way. There should be no rich and we need to bring them down. People should be paid the same no matter their ability, skill, or work ethic.
Well, we've never had a system like that, so I won't condemn it. But I do think there should be some difference between what an astrophysicist and a janitor get paid (although it shouldn't be like 1000 to 1, like it is now - more like 10 to 1).
You would be surprised how little an astrophysicist makes. You do not go into that profession for the money!
I only chose that job for how skilled and difficult it is. Obviously there are some who get paid millions and don't work that hard, and of course vice versa.
I do have to agree with you on this. The statement, 'We are all created equal", couldn't be farther from the truth. In reality the exact opposite is true. No 2 people are "equal" which means the same. Also telling someone, "You can be anything you want if you try hard enough." is very wrong. We all have limitations. I could train FOREVER and never have the athleticism to play professional sports. Some people just don't have the brain power to become something that involves great analytical thinking. That is exemplified in the fact that over half of all Americans were duped by an affirmative action president and feel good bumper sticker slogans. We are NOT all created "equal", but we live in a country in which there is plenty of opportunity for almost anyone who wants to strive to enjoy his or her existence.
Why do you hate the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson, and the Enlightenment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal
That made absolutely no sense. It sounded like a programmed, generic response for anyone who doesn't agree with you.
'The statement, 'We are all created equal", couldn't be farther from the truth'
We seek a society in which every stranger is like your brother or sister. If you have a disfunctional family and don't really like your siblings all that much, imagine a society in which you could trust every stranger the way you trust your best friend. That is the kind of world we seek. Of course, such a goal is a long, long way off, maybe centuries, perhaps we will never achieve it. It is nevertheless a noble vision.
In such a world you don't worry that somebody owes you money and hasn't paid you back. Everybody is family. They contribute what they can and they get back what they need.
When corporate profits are based on reducing wages and benefits to increase profit margins, in addition to, sustaining double digit yearly investment returns then eventually the middle class will speak up for themselves. People deserve a fair wage that provides for shelter, food, clothing, transportation, health care, retirement and education. The erosion of wages and benefits is not something that wasn't planned out. Our politicians have received enough financial compensation to look the other way. The word you throw in there is "equal". The word you should use is "fair".
The ability to prosper in making the American dream come true has been severely compromised to be able to accomplish it. OWS is not about getting equal pay for those who do not work for it. Most of them went to college that cost so much more then it did 20 years ago with the promise that there would be a job for them. This was ripped right out of their hands from corporate greed and now they are stuck with a student loan without a prayer of how to pay it back.
College was never meant to be a guarantee of a job. In all actuality, 20 years ago, and today although maybe slightly less, TOO MUCH consideration was given to whether a person had a "college degree". There were/are far too many instances in which the more intelligent, more capable, more personable, more motivated prospect for a job was/is passed over for a job/promotion because the other candidate has some empty degree. And I went to college so you can't say I just have a chip on my shoulder against college grads. Actually I have probably benefited from it over the years when someone with no college SHOULD HAVE bypassed me.
I will never be born into mega bucks family. I will not be a trustafarian.
The is a quote from Robert Blake that goes....
"Some are born to sweet delight, some are born to the endless night."
They should require that people going through MBA programs pass an ethics test and if they do not then they can't get a degree.
Capitalists use technology, monopoly, and corruption to become rich. The cheap American labor was available, since farming is so wonderful. The Corvettes come from Kentucky. The Japanese used American rejected theory that labor is more than a human robot, to build their empire. There's no intelectual property to your ideas if you are an employee, so forget being rewarded. Being irreplacable is near impossible in modern business. Employers have used payroll deductions to make themselves necessary to buy affordable healthcare, and to hold down individuals from starting businesses, which might compete. What's the failure rate of small businesses these days. Wonder why. The cards are stacked, and you'd be smarter to risk your nest egg in Las Vegas. I hear D.C.talk of helping small business and farmers; yeah right. Only if they are important consumers of corporations, like Monsanto. (DIE-IT)
Just a little footnote: It should be possible to quantify remunerations so we can determine if a hedge-fund manager deserves 1,300,000,000 USD a year. If an American average productive life is worth say about $3 million, based on our GDP, then we could fine tune & know what a doctor's fee should be. By the way, this may be a method to calculate the value of an OWS trying to awaken us to new possibilities.
I would assume that someone believes that hedge fund manager deserver 1,300,000,000 or they would not be paying him that.
Saying there will always be anything is almost always wrong. There wasn't always income equality, so why should we assume that it will continue indefinitely into the future, though I would agree that it will take human agency to stop it. There wasn't always a state, standing armies or a police force, so why assume they will continue indefinitely into the future. There wasn't always capitalism or limited liability corporations, so why assume that they are to only way to organize human affairs?
Well perhaps "most likely will always will be" would have been better.
There has always been income inequality in the past and there always will be. That is just an observation on the past and a opinion about the future.
Anybody who says there has always been income inequality knows little about human history and less about anthropology. There hasn't even always been income, much less income inequality. Income is a fairly new development in human history, newer even than the state. Income inequality is an even newer historical development than income.
There has been income for thousands of years and income inequality just as long. Before that there was food and goods inequality. The early kings and pharos lived a much better life than those building the structures around them. Grain and cattle were used as money and later salt was used as money. Finally it is believed that around 5000 BC metal money was introduced.
There was a time when you could not own property because you were black or a Jew. There was a time when only men could hold title to property and inherit an estate. There was a time in recent human history when slaves did not earn much of anything and were property themselves. There was a time when robber barons made fists full of income employing men women and children at poverty wages working 7 days a week for 12 hours or more. Just a few decades or less ago women made less than men in the same occupation.
Today we have a minimum wage, 40 hour week, benefits, vacation, sick time off… I would say we have come a long way. Yes there is income inequality but I believe there always will be because I am a realist.
For thousands of years, people depended on literal horse power. For thousands of years before that they didn't have it and for the last 100 years or so we've pretty much stopped using it, except lately to harrass OWSers.
I believe all things change because I too am a realist and once we get rid of this fucking system, which also is a human invention, no matter how long it has been in use, all human inventions are historical and have a beginning and therefore naturally have an end. That includes not only income inequality, but income and the state itself.
Money is one of our greatest inventions. My wife just went to the supermarket and bought potatoes, fruit, cereal, peaches, broccoli, cranberry juice, shampoo, toilet paper... Without money that would not be possible.
Without the state you are left with anarchy. Yes the state is much larger and more powerful than it needs to be but that does not me we should get rid of it.
After the revolution, with the increase in the social wage and a moral economy replacing the money economy, we'll be able to dispense with money too, though admittedly that may take several hundred years, just as it took several hundred years for capitalism to replace feudalism, but patience is a revolutionary virtue. Are you for or against OWS? If you are for it do you think the revolutionary rhetoric is serious or mere hyperbole? If it's not serious, why bother? If you take seriously the revolutionary rhetoric of OWS and its theoretical underpinnings, it's pretty clear that anarchy is exactly what we are after. Fuck the state.
That is why I laugh when some people claim they spek for the 99%.
100,000 people is 0.03125% of the population.
We're not paid what we're worth. We're loosely paid according to how much income we can generate for someone else, and oft times not even then.
We are paid what we are worth. If we make ourselves worth more we will get paid more. It is not supposed to be "even" it is supposed to be "fair". There is a difference.
I've never found it to be fair. I've normally been the number 1 man, or tied for #1 where ever I've worked. That's in terms of knowledge, ability, willingness to work and take on new responsibilities, and effectiveness. If you think you've been paid what you're worth, you've been lucky. In my experience, being able to do more the the rest has only resulted in me being expected to do even more because I could. Monetary compensation? None at all. There was one period of some years that I was actually making more money than my boss, but it had nothing to do w/ ability, just an accident.
BTW, I currently work in IT, which according to what I read is about a $65K job straight out of college. I'll tell you for a fact that's it's the least demanding job I've had, but the highest paying. I'm also struck by the fact that so many people in the field don't "know their ass from a hole in the ground".
It never appears fair when you make less. You were probably the number 1 man in a business that is not worth as much. You see the same rules that apply to the worth of a person to a business apply to that worth of a business.
It may not seem fair but it makes sense that people are willing to pay more for medical services than they are for landscaping services.
Nope, I've been in technical business' all of my life, w/ people in the same shop w/ the same JD making more. It took 13 years and the threat of working at the rate I was being paid for, plus the threat of legal action before getting paid for the job, although at a lesser rate than people around me.
You can always change your situation if you are truly valuable. I have changed my job at least 7 times in the past 25 years. Perhaps you are not as valuable as you think you are.
I'm just as valuable as I think I am, which is not at all. My income has increased over the last 30 years w/ each change in jobs description. My responsibilities, and job complexity have decreased w/ each change. Jobs are targeted to the mediocre. Which if you think of it, makes perfect sense. An employer is not going to create a job which is difficult to fill, if possible. Just because an employee is capable of performing above the requirements of a particular JD, there's no reason for an employer to reward that employee when all they have to do is hire someone else to meet the basic requirements.
I have no need to change my situation. I make more than I need. All I'm doing is refuting your statement that people get paid what they're worth. I'm saying I've rarely seen it happen. That it's not the norm.
People get paid what they are worth. All I am saying is they don't always feel that way. They think they are worth more but in reality they are not.
My dad used to tell me "When you get older, for every good job out there there will be 100 people trying for it. Average is not going to get that job for you and you will have to settle for the average job." I tell my son the same thing. He will do fine. He is 13 and programming game mods and has over 33,000 downloads for his new game mod.
If you mean that people get paid what they're worth to the employer, I agree w/ you. What I mean is that it doesn't matter how far above expectations the employee performs usually. Also, if you mean by "in reality they are not", that to an employer you're a replaceable cog. I'd also agree.
It makes no difference to the average employer how good you are as long as you meet the standard. If you do better, fine, but you're easily replaceable and one person is as good as another. They may throw you a bone in the form of a token bonus once in awhile, but really don't care how good a job you do, as long as you get the job done.
I could often get a job done in 15 minutes that someone else would take days to finish. I could also work on anything. I was qualified to work in all areas of electronic and mechanical calibration. I worked controls for test stands, automated test equipment, NDI equipment, CNC etc. etc. There were no areas of control that I couldn't work. Previously, I worked as a design engineer, hardware and software for process control. I also worked as a DBA on Oracle and SQL server database systems. I also worked as a network administrator, system administrator on Microsoft and NetWare networks. I was solely responsible for maintaining the electronic systems for a depot level detachment for helicopter transmission and blade repair. Like I said, there's nothing I can't fix.
What am I worth? nothing at all.
I disagree that it makes not difference as long as you meet the standard. The folks that excel and actually care about their work and the company are valued higher. Employees need to sell themselves to management. I watched and a young man who took over a scheduling position saved the company money, reduced raw material inventory, and in turn increased working capital. He went and sold himself to management and got himself a $20k raise. He had to bargain hard but made his case.
As far as your history I would say you are worth a lot. You need to sell your skills on a job interview or your contribution to the bottom line or future of the company when requesting a raise.
Your example just illustrates my point. You're not paid what you're worth, you're paid based on the perception of what you're worth, and being able to negotiate from a position of strength.
Life is what we perceive it to be. If you keep all your accomplishments to yourself how is management going to know about them. You need to put yourself in a position of strength and sell yourself.
I believe these feelings that it should be automatic stems from the fact that we are now the generation of “everyone gets a trophy” at soccer, even the losing team, no more dodge ball at school because someone might get hurt.
My accomplishments certainly weren't kept to myself. Management was well aware of them. I suspect that part of the problem w/ current management, is that most are just "bean counters". Very few have much awareness of the process' that they manage. Not like in the old days when you started on the floor and worked your way up.
I also disagree that life is what you perceive it to be. Personal reality IS a function of perception, but it often differs from general reality.
I'm way too old to have been part of that generation. I saw the early 50's. Besides, expecting compensation for what you do is completely different from being rewarded simply for participating. Again, my experience is that the more you do, the more you're expected to do. My preference has not been team activities, but individual ones where you don't have to depend on "weak links". I agree w/ you that the "you're Ok, I'm OK" attitude was damaging.
Most people are more valuable than they think they are.
That happens too and they don't ask for more because they are afraid. I think for the most part on this board it is the other way around.
It appears many here believe that a person who stocks shelves at A&P should make almost as much as the store manager who should make almost as much as much as the district manager who should make almost as much as the regional manager...
Always is a very long time. It makes sense what you say in our current monetary economy. But the current model is not sustainable, mostly because technology is catching up with us. And human labor become more and more insignificant. Only our creative minds will matter eventually. And lets face it, we are creative because it gives us pleasure. Not for monetary gain.
This post (and possibly the OP) is the modern version of Pangloss as he whispered his optimism ( sarcastic tone) "all is for the best in the best of all possible worlds". But eventually Candide climbs above the tripe handed out by Pangloss and decides "we must cultivate our garden". (Satire by Voltaire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide ).
Since many of the posters here may not be familiar with the work of Voltaire, a contemporary version would be Grima (Wormtongue) in Lord of The Rings. However, there is no sarcasm in Grima's demoralizing whispers.
All of it comes down to your core belief. If you are gullible you will buy into "this is the best of all possible worlds". If you have determination and moral fiber you will quickly recognize that "we create our own reality."
We certainly do create our own reality. At every moment we make decisions that determine our future reality. In fact I think I will make a decision to get off of here and go take the dog for a walk.
what if you are a pot smoking intellectual who is repugnant when it comes to giving his labor to a crooked system. i'll make minimum wage any day then be a pill popin' hypocrite.
"pot smoking intellectual"? "who is repugnant"? Now that's funny.
Nobody GIVES their labor to anything. You keep on with this line of thinking and you will be making minimum wage and you will be a " pill popin'" hypocrite.
i took the time to pick the right words for my sentiment towards your hypocritical statements. I was born into minimum wage servitude and I'll stay loyal to that faction. Cheers!
Bully for you mate.
Priorities and values...we could turn this around and ask, how much is a Mother Teresa worth? For that matter how much value does a mother have?
What about the guy who pumps out the septic system or works in the sewage treatment plants?
It isn't human value that is the issue, it's the perceived value of a human's contribution that is.
You could easily get by without the guys playing football, but the guy who takes care of making sure your toilet flushes is pretty darned important several times a day.
Mother Teresa was worth a lot to those she helped. While she intentionally chose to be financially poor I would say that she was rich in a different sense.
The guy who pumps my septic system out is worth $200 - the cost of getting rid of the sludge, filling his truck with gas, paying for maintenance on the truck... Why? Because that is what he charges. If he charges more I will go to the guy who charges less.
No one forces people to watch football.
It's quite a commentary on our views on our conveniences vs our 'wants'...
While we could survive without a septic tank, it would be inconvenient to not have one or one that is in working order, yet the guy who helps make sure it remains in working order has a rather low value, vs the guy who plays football, which is simply entertainment for those watching.
As I said previously, priorities and values.
It is really more complicated than that. I only get my septic pumped every two years. There are football games every weekend. People actually do pay a lot less to watch football than they do to get their septic pumped. The difference is that there is only one customer for the septic tank and 30,000 people at a football game.
You can use the same skill and effort to make a web site about pin cushions and another about baseball. The latter will most likely make you more money.
conservative vs. liberal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETr9O0x5gi4&feature=related
"people are resources" ----
do you really think we are more than 50 years away from
SOYLENT GREEN
as joethefarmer said, even if you were in some backward social system people still had some value - the one with unusual strength, speed, and ability to survive and bring food to the table will always be looked upon favourably. in return for the effort, females, whose youth and reproductive gametes are in limited supply, will offer her childbearing ability for food and security.
in a small tribal community, young men would risk their lives in a hunt in order to signal to the other members of the community that they were strong, fearless, and capable of great things. many, of course, would get killed. by sheer ability or luck, some will survive; if they continue doing so, they may take a wife or two, and someday even become leaders and elders, given great respect and many offerings in return for favours and assistance.
in some pre-currency barter economic system, where without divisible units of currency the value of trades were often lopsided, someone with charismatic talents could easily sway a negotiation in his favour, gormless traders would often wind up with a poor deal. then of course, in the dating/mating scene, without any "financial" security, they don't quite have the bargaining power to ensure that he can find someone to carry on his family name into the future.
in the middle ages men were even more disposable - wars were often fought, a young soul seeking coin, adventure and a beautiful maiden's hand would gamble on his mettle by signing up to fight. many died from dysentry, cold, malnutrition, rather than being slaughtered on the battlefield. women and children, because of their scarcity and potential, stayed at home. in fact, historical records point towards an extremely imbalanced male to female ratio in this period. no matter, a single man's sperm can always be regenerated - a single woman had a limited number of eggs in her lifespan, and would usually deplete by age 45.
i've spoken at plenty about humanity's desire to propagate. indeed, this is the most confusing need of humanity - why should parents spare so little effort to ensure that their children, who will most likely earn more than them, get better education than them, and have more opportunities in the economy, succeed in life, when they could be spending their effort on themselves? but this is the sad fact of nature - some people, children, women, capable men, will always have some intrinsic, even if not monetary, value over others.
People are resources under any system. Even in a hunter gatherer system.
What about priorities? Basketball players make millions of dollars, are they worth more than those who teach? Is the ability to drive the lane more important than the ability to teach children? In a lot of ways, I agree with what you're saying. I just think we need to rethink these values and better maximize the worth of everyone and not just the Michael Jordan's, who by the way is taking some heat over his ownership role in the NBA lockout negotians, in essence 'making it to the top and then pulling the ladder up behind him'. Just my thoughts about it.
If 20,000 people are willing to pay $25-$75 to watch some men play one game of football, that makes those men worth more. You can say that is not fair but no one is forcing people to pay that money. If management refuses to pay them a large portion of that money they have a right to refuse to play the game.
Yes, this is how our society is. I get it. But I think you missed the point I was trying to make about values. We have the power to change our value system as a country. We can change what we place priorities on. It is a matter of what kind of society we want to be going forth, rather than a snapshot of how it is right now, which I think most would agree the country needs change of some kind or another.
People are resources in a society. - that is a sick way of looking at a human being. it is the way capitalists look at people - the term human capital is a disgusting way of talking about people! I will never sing like Whitney Huston, or play basketball like Michael Jordan, or invent things like Steve Jobs. you are correct here - i would add one more thing - you will never think like noam chomsky or howard zinn - i could go on but read them maybe you can learn a bit
From an economic perspective people are resources. We all have to work for a living. It is not a sick way of looking at a human being, it is just a fact. It has nothing to do with capitalism. Even Karl Marx realized that when he said "Everyone according to their ability"
The only thing that can change your value from an economic perspective is hard work. That means studying, practicing, training, working and proving yourself. If you work hard you are worth more because people are willing to pay you more for your skills. I would pay a doctor a lot of money to fix me. I would because he has proven by graduating from Columbia University that he is capable. I would be willing to pay him a lot because my life is valuable to me. I would not go to a crack head in the park for that service.
much of what you say is true. no matter what economic system (and the contrast here is not marx and adam smith but smith and an american indian society in 1491). i would go to someone who knows something rather than someone who does not - i would want a good and competent helper no matter what i am doing (hunting buffalo or building an internet company). i am all for people educating themselves and working hard - when need be - but that is one point - when need be! this economic system is sick and therefore the way it looks at people is sick. it forces people to work hard to buy the food needed to survive then it encourages them (through all sorts of twisted mind games) to buy things they do not need etc etc - i assume you know the story (the pr industry says it's goal is to create "artificial wants and needs"). not sure i am making my point very well but the bottom line is this - From an economic perspective people are resources. We all have to work for a living. It is not a sick way of looking at a human being, it is just a fact. It has nothing to do with capitalism - an indian in 1491 would wonder what you are thinking - for all of human existence (100k years or more depending on who is human) that statement would not be understood. people were valued for who they were not what they could do - if you were a great hunter but a complete asshole you did not become the chief or even lead the hunt. so anyway - i hope i made myself clear - i do agree to some extent with what you are saying but the whole idea of the puritan ethic is a shame in todays society - we are all working too hard and not living enough!
Unless you are lucky wnough to like your work.
i am! i teach tennis - i would do it for nothing - having said that doing it for money changes the whole dynamic. any old time zen master or martial arts teacher would understand what i am saying - the old timers would not take payment since that interfered with their teaching!
Joe you do realize the title of your post is .. pessimistic .. and perhaps a bit arrogant ..to predict the future of all mankind.
Joe the farmer , you have a wealth of knowledge !
The idea of a safety net ..yes good idea .. where no man gets left behind . " unfortunately that's not what we have , not even in the greatest country in the world .
What exactly is "created equal" ment to mean?
I believe it must have ment , and could only have ment, we all have equal rights to life liberty and happiness?
The idea of being paid unequal .. sounds more and more disturbing though .. especially the end result.
and as for harry potter books .. I don't know ... some of the stuff on here is far more intelligent.
Okay, I can see where you are coming from. What think you then of removing money from politics, that is, instigating reform on campaign finances and lobbying. When certain businesses have far more power to influence government, which in turn can influence opportunity, then there is unlikely to be a level playing field. Returning a degree of autonomy to our society should be the first step to striving towards a society of equal opportunity, do you agree?
The key is figuring out how to do that. The first amendment states that we have the right to petition congress. So how do we decide who can an cannot do this?
Well to start we need good politicians, this means finding a way of getting around moneyed interests in campaigns. That is what I would look at first, as the immediate step necessary.
Excellent post. Great point,you get to the very heart of the matter. Liberals have a hard time excepting these facts.
Social justice and equality of out come are the persistent mantra of the Left and no matter how they fuck things up with legislating/regulating moral and ethical and financial behavior they will never learn it doesn't work and they only make things worse. Trying to substitute Govt. regulations for the apparent poor upbringing and choices people make to somehow bring about equality of outcome and financial/moral social justice is ONE of the major reasons why we're in this fucking mess right now.
You know what the sad thing is?
Social justice and equality should not have to come from legislation at all, they should come from the heart. You want one major reason why the world is such a mess? Greed, another? Intolerance.
It's really too bad we live in a world where those things actually need to be legislated away, cause it wasn't that way prior to the arrival of Europeans, and it has a lot more to do with culture than human nature.
Spoken like a true believing Utopian. What is really sad,is that people like you keep believing that somehow life can be made to be cradle to grave fair,just and equal. This is not possible in theory or practice. Human nature is what it is. There will always be good and evil.
You can not completely legislate away "those things". For example,it's against the law to kill a another human being. Are people still being killed? Yes. Why? Because regardless of legislation and regulation human nature is such that it can't be totally changed. If it were possible it would have been successfully done already. To believe that "prior to the arrival of Europeans" Natives living in future America had no such feelings of greed or intolerance is childish and naive. The problem here is the propaganda and lies being told to you and your fellow acolytes to make you believe in something so far removed from reality and for you to be so closed minded as to not consider anything that does not jibe with this Leftist mantra.
Your understanding of native culture is quite poor in that case; the problem is 10% human nature, 90% culture. The same culture which would come over here, exploit resources like they were going out of style, and offer money for people bringing in Indian scalps as if they were gofer tails.
Indians recognize the simple fact that were are all related, to each other, to the earth, and to everything that inhabits the earth; and the societies were enlightened far beyond America in 2011, notwithstanding being technically primitive.
If American children were taught that in their homes and schools instead of competitive materialism, things would be much different.
If you would rather give up with a lame excuse like your post above, and buy into the culture of greed as the only way; that's too bad.
Its absolutely possible to change human nature, you want an example? Haight Ashbury, San Francisco in 1967... the last real social revolution, and what was behind it? A drug which attenuates the function of the human ego, and leads to something that can be described as a real spiritual experience.
What happened after? Massive government backlash, stifling of all academic debate, media propaganda, flood of arrests, and a 40 year ban on scientific research.
Thanks for clarifying your position for me: Drugs and Injuns. If we could all just do drugs and be like Injuns the world would be a better place? Wow,I'm so not stunned.
I'm sorry, I thought Injuns fought wars among themselves and perpetrated all sorts of barbaric atrocities. I'm sorry, I thought they killed and slaughtered one another over territory and hunting grounds and even committed crimes within their own tribes. I guess I was wrong. I should probably watch more fiction to get my head on straight.
You are wrong, that's the American version. If you actually care which I doubt, check out a cute little book called Return to Creation by a fellow named Medicine Story.
And yes, take a look at the history. The 1960s were a fundamentalist christian conservative generation... and you see in a very short period of time, millions of white middle class youth dropping that lifestyle like a hot potato for another lifestyle that is very similar both spiritually and culturally to the one their ancestors destroyed. And it scared the shit out of the government.
Why not? People take drugs for all kinds of things, ego problems should be on the list; plus its spiritually rewarding and fun.
Read about the "Feast of the Flaying of Men," a joyous celebration in Aztec civilization. I especially like the part about wearing the skins that had been removed from the live human victims. So stylish.
OMG! White people would NEVER do these atrocities (sarcasm)
the europeans never went to war territory or hunting grounds!
HA!
the europeans NEVER commiteed crimes in their own tribes!
HA!
The europeans were perfect christians who were never greedy and never took advantage of their fellow man, never lied, never decieved, never took advantage, never killed anyone in jealousy or for revenge or over resources.
HA!
HA!!!!! I never said or implied that White people/Europeans were not innocent of any wrong doing. Put down the bong for awhile and spend more time at reading comprehension and control the knee jerk.