Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Where is the incentive to work at low paying jobs ?

Posted 2 years ago on Dec. 22, 2011, 6:14 p.m. EST by FriendlyObserverA (610)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Equal pay would provide equal financial incentive for all jobs.

213 Comments

213 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

You work to prove yourself and your value to an employer. If and when you do you get a better salary. The incentive is the pay and the promise of more.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

but than you have inequalities and before long 1% of the population owns 50% of the wealth.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

Inequality is always going to be with us, and unequal distribution of wealth isn't necessarily inequity. We all have different abilities and different potential. If you treat everyone the same you'll end up with everyone doing the same work as the least motivated worker.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

I strongly disagree.

[-] 1 points by JPB950 (2254) 2 years ago

That's not a surprise. Not that it matters, the current system is unlikely to change.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You keep saying that, with no explanation. It smells like truthiness to me.

[-] 0 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 2 years ago

Disagree with what? That inequality is always going to be with us? That's called real life kid. Life isn't fair, easy, or guaranteed. You disagree that we all have different abilities? That's shocking.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

I disagree that we would work equal to that as the least motivated.

[Removed]

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Most low paying jobs are entry level. You get experience and move up. I suppose the incentive would be working toward a raise or better job. If income were stuck at whatever entry level was there would be no incentive to work hard and improve.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

I strongly disagree.

[-] 1 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

That's your right. You asked a question I gave you my opinion.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

there are people making millions of dollars every day , does that affect your work performance ? no it does not. so why would equal pay affect you?

[-] 2 points by MsStacy (1035) 2 years ago

Who's making millions each day? Some guy kicking, bouncing, or hitting a ball? Someone in a movie? A guy investing in stocks? You're free to try all those things, if you're good enough you'll get the money too. If you're too short, slow, heavy, uncoordinated, unlucky, whatever, then you won't make it in those fields and you'll have to find something else.

The guy that drops the paper off in the morning, doesn't need to be all that skilled, if he's unhappy he'll have to work harder and get a better job. If he screws up he'll easily be replaced, and missing one day's paper isn't that big a deal. My doctor, mechanic, or plumber, need more skill and demand more money. I pay for the skill and their dedication to do a job right. I don't want them doing a mediocre job because they feel underpaid.

It's important to us that the tasks we consider important are done well and the way to make sure is to reward people well for them.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

It would affect all of us because there wouldn't be very many doctors around to take care of us in the future if people know that they're going to make the same as the guy who makes sandwiches at Panera Bread after graduating from medical school. Just one example. Why spend years of your life and hundreds of thousands of dollars gaining an education with no value, relative to an unskilled worker? If you can get paid the same to sit around answering the phone, then why suffer the pain of medical school?

[-] 1 points by biteme514 (8) 2 years ago

If Obama wins reelection you wont have to work.Everybody will be paid the same whether you work or not.

[-] 1 points by TheEqualizer (42) 2 years ago

There is no incentive in being a WAGE SLAVE. I would rather be homeless and without. I am all done working my ass off to be lucky if I can even pay my bills while the 1% live the high life. Give them back their cars, houses, credit cards and tell them to kiss your ass.

[-] 1 points by BlueRose (1437) 2 years ago

There is none. In fact, if you put a crap job on your resume, you are tainted for life, will always be victimized by employers. Don't EVER put a manual labor, cleaning, or low wage job on your resume. It is like typecasting, you will never escape that role.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I had a friend who didn't want to pay war taxes and since the state doesn't disagregate what part of your tax money it uses for what, the only way really not to pay war taxes is not to pay taxes. My friend had done hard time during WWII for draft resistance so, not only did he not want to pay war taxes, but he also didn't want to go to federal prison again. The only solution for him was to figure out how to live on so little that he wouldn't have to pay taxes, which he did.

[-] 1 points by wellhungjury (296) 2 years ago

Then I want to get equal pay as a public school crossing guard. Work for about 2 hours, twice a day, get all the government benefits, plus summers and all major holidays off. That would be sweet!

[-] 1 points by Solidsnakerules (2) 2 years ago

The CEO and management take all the profits for the minimum contribution to real work the grunts do all the work then don't get paid what is due to them. So unfair We should tax the one percent, that will help.

[-] 1 points by commonsense11 (195) 2 years ago

What would be the incentive for working a very hard, boring, dirty job if I could make the same amount working a fun and easy job?

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

Well, perhaps some jobs will be rotated so everyone gets a chance at the fun easy jobs.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

Do you ever admit defeat? you are like that Monty Python knight that kept getting his arms and legs cut off.

so everyone would have to be cross trained for both hard and easy jobs? how would you get someone working in a fun job to start working in a coal mine? how would get a bartender working in a hot NYC night club to work as a Bering Sea crab fisherman? how would you get a salesgirl at Macys to work as a maximum security prison guard in a female penitentary?

here i sa helpful clue. Pay them more money. ah, but there goes your idea. or you could force them at gunpoint.

[-] 1 points by dantes443322 (148) 2 years ago

Stop the 99 weeks of unemployment insurance and you'll have incentive.

There are no jobs....bullshit.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Would anyone disagree with me that Capitalism can produce extreme feast or famine results in wealth distribution?

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

It can produce extremes sure. So can socialism. There are not only extremes though. We seem to have a lot of people in the middle and much of the lower end isn't that bad off.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

We are discussing Capitalism, not socialism, nor any other -ism. We are discussing how Capitalism can produce extreme results. Consider this,

"The strong assumptions of rationality at the root of the theory often are used to assert that the existing system (Capitalism) is the best possible; if it could have been made better, it would have. (This is the basis for the joke about the economist who walks past a ten dollar bill lying on the sidewalk. When asked why, he says “it couldn’t have been real; if it were, someone would have already picked it up.”)"

Answer me this, "What is the goal of Capitalism?"

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

Going to be difficult to give the goals for something that doesn't even have an accepted definition. From the perspective of the business man I would say the goal is success, measured in profit.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Profits before people?

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

One way to say it, or personal or family benefit before you benefit strangers. Most of the businesses in this country are small ones, I'd see them as working for themselves first. For the large impersonal corporations it's a legal responsibility to guard the investor's capital. So your definition is better for the big ones.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

It wasn't a definition. It was a question. Hence, the question mark at the end.

I was asking if you think a dollar is more valuable than a human life?

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

I thought you were offering it as a definition, a rhetorical question. Is a dollar more important then a life, no. You've added the element of life and death to this though. That element doesn't come into play for most businesses in a capitalistic system. Most would probably place self interest above that of strangers though.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Funny, I wasn't thinking life and death at all. I had intended to compare putting the quality of human life ahead of making a dollar as the goal of capitalism. Why do we measure GDP?

Inappropriate goals: standard economic theory prizes wealth creation above all, and most often defines this goal in terms of steadily growing GDP – instead of focusing on what economies should really produce, which is human well-being, in the present and the future.

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

You may be right about what we or society or an economic system should do. Unfortunately human nature doesn't seem to run that way. We certainly need to regulate our instincts, that leaves us the problem of regulating the regulators.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

You need someone to regulate your instincts? I thought that was your job.

[-] 1 points by MichaelB (128) 2 years ago

My desire for what I consider success isn't the problem, but of course my instincts need regulation, usually that's internal thanks to the work of my parents.

I was thinking though of the group mentality of some of the larger corporations. Where the desire for profit and to win, whatever the perceived prize is, is greater then social responsibility. Corporations test the laws to meet the only responsibility they have, profit. If someone doesn't like profit before people then regulation would seem necessary.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Agree.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

i completely disagree. Capitaism creates great wealth and great human productivity that raises ALL such that the standard of living for all humans under capitalism increases. the variety of foods and living conditions and medical care has risen more in the past 150 years than in the past 70000 years. Yes, some are equipped to prosper in a manner unknown in human history, but the lowliest in America is better off by geometric numbers than the lowliest in other societies. African Americans have 13 times more wealth than any other subset of Sub Saharan Africans. the lowest paid Mexican Americans are kings relative to the lowest in Mexico. same with the Irish.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

How did you disagree with me? All you did was dodge the question. You never addressed the issue of wealth distribution at all.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

the richest in a capitalstic society have far more than the poorest, but the poorest in a capitalistic society are far better off than the poorest in any other system. So I accept the great difference in wealth distribution to be certain that the bottom is better off than the bottom anywhere else. Who cares if Warren Buffet is stinking rich, if our poorer citizens can riot because there arent enough $120 sneakers? America has 310 million citizens and 330 million cell phones. NO ONE in America goes hungry. 42% of our citizens are nearing obesity. Why should there be any wealth redistribution when every person owns a cell phone and 42% have too much food, not too little.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

So, despite all your sidestepping ("I completely disagree"), you ended up accepting my point and agreeing with my original question - because you know it is true.

ALERT: 'DIOGENES TRUTH' IS A FOOL WHO IGNORES TRUTH. Next.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

of course I agree there is a large difference in wealth distribution. however the system that allowed the very talented to amass unprecendented wealth, has completely eliminated poverty in America. now you answer this question, based on the worldwide standard for poverty, America and its capitalistic society has utterly eradicated poverty from the United States. the standard for poverty in the world is not having $2.50 per day per person. Answer the question.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Wise man say; when encounter a fool, counter with aloof.

[-] -1 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

since 3 billion people on the earth do not have $2.50 a day, and there is no one in America that poor, capitalism has eradicated poverty, utterly, in America. Thanks for playing. Run along, boy, there are grown ups trying to talk.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Yes, the grown up is trying to talk, that sums it up.

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

Dude, speaking as a guy who has no dog in this fight, he's (She? let's not be sexist here...) making a pretty dang valid point. I came here to be convinced of OWS's position straight from the horse's mouth, but completely ignoring his argument that the poorest Americans are much more wealthy than what the rest of the world calls "poverty," and hiding behind insults while you're at it, is not very convincing.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Answer my original question.

Would anyone disagree with me that Capitalism can produce extreme feast or famine results in wealth distribution?

If you deal straight with me, I'll deal straight with you. Diogenes Truth does not deal straight, so I will waste no time engaging with a double-talker.

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

May I straightly interpret his answer for you?

I think his answer is "it depends on how you define wealth and poor." It seems to me like he's saying "compared to the rest of the world, America has no poor. Yes there's a large difference in wealth distribution, but we have a lot more income, too, because of our capitalistic system. A 9th of an XXL pizza is more than half of a personal pan pizza. Our income is so large, because of our capitalistic system, that even the ones we call "poor" are much better off than what the rest of the world calls "poor.""

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

I identify with a social progressive point of view which means I consider myself a human being before I consider myself an American citizen. I then would have to ask why does America have so much wealth when other countries are so poor.

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

I think the answer would be the capitalistic system.

Capitalism and free market is what makes us wealthy, and what can make other nations gain wealth as well.

[-] 1 points by JadedCitizen (4277) 2 years ago

Some would argue, and have even written books, that Capitalism acts like a vulture and keeps other nations down by signing them into predatory loans they keeps them in debt. Much like what is happening to the average American.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Wow, you eat those capitalistic talking points right up don't you. I know children with more critical thinking skills than you. Did you know that obesity is not only caused by over eating but can be related to stress? A lot that ails Americans, is linked to stress. Depression and diseases hit those who are stressed out about work insecurity, food insecurity and a host of other modern sicknesses. But no, you don't research topics; you just sit on your lazy chair and pontificate like a drunken sailor. I'd rather have a secure job than a cheap, plastic cell phone any day of the week.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

obesity is caused by eating too many calories and getting too little exercise. That is it. yes I have read all the peripheral things that " might" contribute to obesity, for which there is not one shred of scientific proof. Food insecurity?! What is that? you can buy a whole cooked and seasoned chicken, a bundle of carrots and asparagus for $7 and feed a family of 4 with ease. For breakfast, a dozen eggs costs $1.30 or eleven cents an egg. 2 eggs and one slice of toast, 30c. i just layed out all the food one might need to maintain health, for $2 a day.

people are fat because they over eat and for no other reason.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

And you speak as if every American is rolling in the Benjamins. Over eating, like over consuming drugs, over betting at a casino or on Wlll street, is an addiction caused by lack of hope and discipline, all biproducts of the American Dream, ie capitalism. Again, use that noodle you were endowed with and stop regurgitating silly talking points and clueless notions. Peace, love and down with unregulated capitalism, IE feudalism

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

There are lots of factors that play into addiction. Making the claim that Americans are obese because we have no hope and are addicted to eating completely ignores other factors, such as neurological factors, genetic predispositions to addictions, not to mention diet and lifestyle.

There's not a one-way relationship here; it goes both ways. People who eat healthier and exercise more tend to become less stressed, more healthy, and generally happier. The relationship that you're talking about is more complicated than you say.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

You are right, but at least my analysis factors in more than being lazy and is backed by peer review studies. Stress is the modern day pale rider.

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

Yeah, but your analysis hyperfocuses on it. There are just as many studies - if not more - that say that exercise will help cure both of the problems you're talking about.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

From a perspective at the bottom rung, when is a single mother with four children, three part time jobs and on line courses supposed to find time to exercise? It was funny, and shows the disconnect people have in our society, when a upper-middle class family with a bumper sticker that read "Get The Gov't Off My Back," came to a gov't funded project that I was laboring for through a temp service to get gov't funded sand bags to protect their property that they ignorantly built on the side of a mountain, They had the audacity to say, well, at least you don't have to go to the gym this week.

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

People suck. It's true. And life sucks, that is also true.

From the perspective of the child of a single mother, there are solutions. Most of them involve not going it alone. Have friends or family you can rely on to help watch the kids.

Lest I offend with the audacity to actually make suggestions when I'm neither single nor a parent, is that your perspective?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Hay, I have no qualms with your assertion. You boiled it down nicely. Although, I'd add that life is a roller coaster with the sucky and the good. Cheers!

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

Wow. i didnt realize obesity stsrted in 2008, and clearly was caused by Prexident Bush and the Wall Street bailouts. i read where Americans were fat prior to 2008 but i guess i was wrong.

obesity is caused by personal lazyness and notning else. the incredible productivity that capitalism has given to mankind allows lazy fat asses to get even fatter. obexity is a product of plenty, not lack of hope. if a lack of hope was the reason, slaves should have been fat as sows. they werent.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

So you telling me in 2008 was your first realization that the american dream was on its last leg. And speaking of lazy, take your lazy ass to a book store, buy an English book, and learn how to communicate like a civilized human being. Actually, this slippery slope into serfdom began with that old kook, Reagan, and his Gov't is the problem line. But, of course, it takes a person tragedy for most to see the long term trend, and that trend is, we as a society have lost are way, and all classes have no respect for the other. I will say I am glad that you finally received the memo, telling the USA they are on their way to third world status. Keep up the good work as you learn more, but i'd suggest you go a little further back and get all the facts, dog. peace!

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

lets see, which era prior to 2008 was better? you say things were better b/4 Reagan. f* prove it with data. prove it or leave.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

It is called reading history books, but you were too busy making that cheddar to see the whole house of cards was falling down around you. There you go again proving to me how lazy you are. You want me to do your research for you. How da hell did you make it out of high school?

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

He's not making you do his research for him. It's pretty common knowledge that the onus of proof is on the one who makes a claim.

Which history book did you get your information from?

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

I know what side of the bread my toast is buttered on. If people were really interested in learning and not just shit talking, they would not be on this forum but would be looking at data that shows the rich have been getting richer ever since the Reagan Revolution. The data is all there; the long term trend has been, considering there is only so much wealth a nation can amass, for the rich to eat everyone else's lunch. Look into it and get yourself a clue. The Reagan Revolution consisted of the middle class and the affluent class throwing the working class under the train. Fast forward to the present, and now you have the affluent class affording the middle class the same luxury. Middle america made a deal with the devil, and now he is collecting. Ain't greed great?

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

I'm wasn't disputing your argument, just how you make it.

I came here to learn. I know a lot of great places to do research for Psychology, Theology, and even know who to go to if I want a few other kinds of info as well. Economics isn't a thing that I could even start looking into by myself. I'm that person that you say isn't on this forum; I'm here to find 1) more details about the OWS position, and B) what sources they cite to back it up. Because I haven't got a daggum clue where to look for that stuff that doesn't end up being an opinion piece; I don't have access to those databases in Ebscohost, and much of what comes up on Google Scholar ends up being just an abstract of an article I can't get a hold of, if even that.

So maybe you're reading of people is right about the majority of people here. I dunno. But it's definitely not correct in all cases.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

The best place to find data is at the Congressional Budget Office. If you go up a few conversations on this thread and click on "some apples," You'll go to their site and find where I get my claim from. I'm glad to hear that you really want to understand how we got in this quagmire, and I wish you the best in your endeavors. Cheers!

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

you made a claim. back it up, or go home. i call b.s. on your claim. i think you are just a liar, plain and simple.

[-] 1 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

There you go proving my point. Here is me doing your homework for you because you are too lazy to do it yourself. But isn't that how it always is? The working class doing the heavy lifting for the capitalist. Here is your lunch, my Liège.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

that isnt peer reviewed research, its a left wing opinion piece. you need university tested science to make your point.

the US is #4 in the world in the Human Development index. no large country is even close http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_Index

we have more home ownership, we own more cars, TVs, personal computers, and radios than any other large country.

you post opinion, i post mathematics. enjoy your humble pie.

[-] 0 points by JesseHeffran (3903) 2 years ago

Wow, glad to see you have your priorities, and to go full circle with your dumb ass, I'd rather have a dignified job then have all the consumer goods in the world, considering most of the garbage you use to determine prosperity is made with slave wage labor in un democratic, banana republics. You send me to a wiki and say it is better than my site. Well, here are some apples that you can take and add to your humble pie or shove them where the sun don't shine.

[-] 1 points by homer001 (9) 2 years ago

The difference between minimum wage and welfare isn't enough for anyone to care who doesn't care already. Why do anything when you can do nothing for $0.20 less an hour, including leisure? There are so many problems, none of them easily solved. A few Trillion in unearned wealth is a start.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

There are solutions.

[-] 1 points by DYLANDIRT (44) 2 years ago

If you didn't have a rich daddy paying for an education you don't deserve higher wages for a job that you have trained at for years. Your struggle of long days at low pay providing the essentials for society mean nothing when the supply and demand system we control fails and you falter as a result. The small change you used for feeding your children you should have gambled on the market instead. I would surly pay you more but have you checked the price of tires on my Lexus. I think that kid at the tire store is ripping me off...

[-] 1 points by elpinio (213) 2 years ago

Yes, OWS should support socialism and eventually communism.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Supply and demand affects the valuation of human resources just like it affects pricing for everything else. If you have job skills that are hard to come by, skills that took you a long investment of time and money and effort to attain, then you can command a higher wage than the guy who lacks those skills. Because people with skills are more scarce than people without skills, and therefore more valuable. This is very simple economics.

[-] 3 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

Let's all chip in and buy Friendly a semester of economics classes at a community college.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

From what I can tell from his responses on this page, he would spend a lot of time in that class telling his instructor, "I disagree", with no further explanation.

The sad thing is that Colbert originally invented this term to describe right-wingers who refuse to accept science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

By contrast, on this site there are a lot of left-wingers who refuse to accept economics. I thought that it was hilarious when Colbert made fun of religious fundamentalists for their truthiness. But this just makes me sad.

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

Best case, he still wouldn't get it, but might be a little more careful expressing the idiotic things he thinks out loud. LOL.

[-] 1 points by Mattholck (51) 2 years ago

the supply of labor exceeds the demand for it

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Not in all industries, no. The unemployment rate in my industry is about 4%, which is considered full employment. My field is not the only one. There are many high-demand occupations.

The problem is that there ARE a lot of sectors with a glut of workers, where the labor supply exceeds demand. If you work n a shrinking ndustey then it's a good idea to develop marketable job skills to position yourself into a high-demand industry. That was the point of my original post.

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 2 years ago

@TechJunkie... What a complete bullshit answer. I am a professional Philosopher, it took me 10 years (4 undergrad, 2 MA, 4 PHD) 45,000 or more hours of intensive study, and thousands of dollars of investment, to qualify for the work I do. Arguably it took even longer, since I spent, say, 18 more years getting the primary and secondary education necessary before getting into university. And I am paid far less than most MBAs who have on average 5 years less education/expense/effort.

I am not any more valuable for having the skills I have than most people with BS or BA degrees. Your "very simple economics" are flawed.

[-] 1 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

Acquiring skills and education cannot guarantee that society will find thoseof value or be willing to compensate you at the level you desire......but it's a reasonable guarantee that by not acquiring skills or education, you will never receive such compensation. Are you happy with what you have acquired and believe you can/are making contributions because of this achievement?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

You're paid less than an MBA because of the demand side of the supply and demand model. If every company needed a philosopher then you would be paid more. This supply and demand thing is a very simple concept and anybody capable of earning a PhD can understand it.

I'm a software developer. Just about every company everywhere needs them, and there are very few of them because few people want to study 'hard' things. Supply is low, demand is high, so unemployment in my field is around 4% and I make six figures. I promise that this supply and demand thing is not rocket science.

[-] 0 points by HarryPairatestes2 (380) from Barrow, AK 2 years ago

What is the demand for professional philosophers?

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I wouldn't have thought that a philosophy PhD would capitalize "Philosopher". And that a Doctor of Philosophy would be capable of understanding that complaining that workers aren't valued in an occupation with low demand confirms the supply-and-demand model, rather than refuting it.

I re-read my original post, and I have to admit that I didn't explicitly say "marketable job skills in high-demand industries". My post could have been interpreted as saying that somebody will reward you with a higher salary if you put in the time and effort to learn any skill that isn't easy to come by. It didn't really occur to me to qualify that by saying "marketable skills" instead of "skills", because I originally assumed that it was obvious that the whole point of developing the skills would be to position yourself as a scarce resource. It didn't really occur to me that this wasn't an obvious thing. But there seem to be a lot of people around here who need a lot of help with incredibly simple concepts in economics. I wouldn't expect a PhD to be one of those people, though. A PhD in anything.

[-] 1 points by buphiloman (840) 2 years ago

In philosophy we're trained to say precisely what we mean and to mean precisely what we say. Your original comment lacked sufficient clarity. Which is precisely what my comment was intended to point out to you.

By the way, if you've never seen anyone capitalize a term simply for the sake of emphasis, then you've clearly never read an academic philosophy journal. It's standard practice. Not that I am editing particularly closely here (it's just an internet forum).

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Skillful riposte, Touché! There are quite a lot of impostors, you have to understand. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

[-] 0 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 2 years ago

Here is another example for the others to understand.

If the market became flooded with software developers that were capable and willing to take less pay, it could force TechJunkie out of the market, or he would have to take a pay cut.

I worked in many aspects of IT, satellite communications, Frame relay, telecom, early web devlopment, mainframe apps, I used to make much higher pay.

Now everything is easier due to gui aplications, emulators, etc. Hardware is also dime/dozen, I used to have sales attached to my salary. I would go into company, analyze their current systems, set goals, budgets, test and implement.

I was priced out, and now that infrastructure has been established to a plug and play level - a lot of my work is gone, other things I managed were sent overseas.

I was replaced with several "contractors" that took over my job in divided tasks that could be delegated and isolated. My management tasks / supervisor duties were combined with another department.

This is kind of like what was done with every industry.

Mc Donalds workers, for example are paid low. All a couple of them know how to do is make burgers, the others use deep fryers, some are better at mopping batrooms and wiping trays, taking trash out.

The manager/asst. has leadership skills, and works umpteen hours, is bossy, has communication and customer service skills, can do and train to do all tasks in the restaurant including ordering product....He/she gets paid the most, the rest get min wage... No degree may be necessary but look at all the responsibility for the salary.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Many occupations are at risk of being eliminated by automation during the process of creative destruction, and that's why there has been a lot of talk around here about the Luddite Fallacy. (Mostly by people who are unfamiliar with the term, or that it's a fallacy.)

The way to stay ahead of this process is to work in occupations that resist automation. That's why labor markets have been reallocating low-skill workers from routine, codifiable (easily automated) jobs into service occupations since the beginning of the information age. Because service occupations resist automation.

The dividing line between occupations that can't be automated and those that can is always shifting. Five years fom now, telephone call centers might be as obsolete as elevator operators because of software developments like Apple's Siri and IBM's Watson. Your example highlights that trend.

For high-skill workers, the basic tactic is the same: stay ahead of the process of creative destruction by working in occupations that resist automation. As you mentioned, things like IT are largely being automated by the advent of cloud computing and DevOps, and low-skill 'web designers' have been replaced by web applications and authoring software. So how does the high-skill worker resist automation?

Deciding what problems to solve. Even most humans are very poor at deciding what problems to solve, because it's not what we teach our children how to do. We teach our children to work through problems that are spoon-fed to them, but we don't teach them how to prioritize which problems are worth solving. Position yourself in an occupation where the essence of your job is deciding what problems to solve, and it will be a very long time before your profession is automated by computers. The higher-level your thinking, the longer your career will resist automation.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

I've seen you on other threads .. go away.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Have you seen me behaving disrespectfully toward anybody on this web site? Ever?

Are you only interested in having conversations with people who already agree with you?

Why would anybody go through medical school if everybody were paid the same? In fact, why go to college at all? Why even bother finishing high school, if there is no benefit?

If you look at employment statistics by industry, sme of the highest-paid professions with the lowest unemployment are occupations that are either really hard, or really boring, or both. Unemployment is low for accountants, but it's even lower for actuaries. Most people don't even know what "actuarial science" means. That's because it is not only difficult and it requires a high level of education, but also because it's incredibly boring. So why would anybody go into actuarial science when they could get paid the same to answer the phone somewhere, or flip burgers?

What would you propose as a solution for everybody wanting the same easy jobs? Not everybody can get a cushy job sitting in an office answering the phone all day, but everybody is gong to compete for the simplest jobs so that they can do the least amount of work possible for their fixed paychecks. So how are you going to deal with the glut of unemployed people who are also unemployable because they were never motivated to learn any job skills?

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

I understand your concern but I disagree with your logic.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Simply saying, "I disagree", with no explanation, makes your mind set seem very similar to the "faith-based" thinking the Stephen Colbet was making fun of when he invented the term "truthiness". If you talk about evolution with a Christian fundamentalist then they might say, "I disagree." If you point out the scientific evidence that confirms natural selection, they might respond, "I disagree." they don't need to provide an explanation because believing in something based on faith means that you don't require evidence. You appear to have a faith-based belief in your proposal.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

And you appear to have a coruptive motive.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Explain? Faith tells you so? You don't seem capable of discussing economics, so you're going to try to impeach me instead of addressing my message?

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

Supply and demand ,what does this do? Shallow economists speak of this magical hand. But it really only adds up to stocking shelves , and does not create jobs or opportunity where it is needed. If that's your strongest argument against equal pay. Your wasting my time.

As for the comment regarding " everyone will seek lazy easy jobs" well everyone in the 1% certainly because that's who they are backriding freeloaders.

As for the 99%. They deserve a lot more respect than the disrespect you give them

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Your reasoning is shockingly similar to that of a creationist who simply rejects the fossil record and all other scientific evidence that shows that the Earth is far more than six thousand years old. Right-wingers don't have a monopoly on faith-based thinking, apparently. I find that to be absolutely fascinating. You reject the supply an demand model purely on faith.

Your attempts to polarize the debate into the 1% versus the 99% are par for the course around here I suppose, but the argument that most people would compete for the easiest jobs if everybody were paid the same applies to both the 99% and the 1%. I fail to see how discussing it is "disrespecting" the 99%. I'm part of the 99% also, and I'm not implying that the 99% are lazy. I'm pointing out that if the benefit from something is fixed, but the cost is variable, then obviously people will seek to minimize cost.

I get the impression that you don't have any marketable job skills, and that you're opposed to the idea of people who DO have skills getting paid more than you. But the solution is not to try to drag everybody down to your level, the solution is for you to invest in yourself and develop some marketable job skills. Economics is obviously. Ot your forte, so you might want to think about nursing school. Just a suggestion. Trying to help...

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

When I read this post a second time, I realized that my generally snarky attitude could leave the reader with the impression that I was insulting nurses. Quite the contrary. Nursing is a high-demand occupation because it's not easy. I was pointing to it as an example of another high-demand industry because I don't want to babble endlessly about the low unemployment rate in the technology sector. There are lots of other occupations with very low unemployment right now as well, and nursing was an example, not an insult to nurses or nursing school. I didn't mean to sound like I was saying, "You're dumb, so you should go to nursing school."

[-] 0 points by NewEnglandPatriot (916) from Dartmouth, MA 2 years ago

Earth and civilization as well....I know they type, many don't have a clue, only a narrow minded view - belief system driven by ego.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

Nursing school would be helpful in dealing with you.

Why are you on this site technology?

[-] 0 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I'm here for stimulating conversation with people like you who don't necessarily agree with me. This particular conversation is one that I'll probably remember for the rest of my life because it's the clearest example of faith-based thinking from a left-winger that I've ever seen. Everybody expects faith-based thinking from right-wingers, but the left likes to pretend that it's immune from that sort of fallacy.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

I have never heard of faith based thinking.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Faith-based thinking is the opposite of evidence-based thinking. A creationist will dismiss scientific evidence that shows that the Earth is more than 6,000 years old because evidence doesn't matter to him. His belief system is based on blind faith.

In the same way, you can dismiss the entire field of economics because you just simply don't believe in it. Your belief system is not based on evidence. You reject the supply and demand economic model without regard for what economists tell you, because you just refuse to believe it. Supply and demand apparently conflicts with your world view, so you reject it because you have faith in your belief system. Exactly like a fundamentalist Christian.

Liberals tend to look down on conservatives because they feel that many conservative political positions are based on faith instead of science. The left ridicules the right for their truthiness, and they consider themselves superior partly because of their reliance on evidence-based reasoning and their willingness to adjust their belief system as they learn new things and as science uncovers new discoveries. They make fun of creationists for continuing to believe that humans coexisted with dinosaurs, bound by an inflexible and unchanging belief system based entirely on faith.

It's just fascinating to see the same fallacy from the far left. It kind of makes sense that the far left might employ faith-based thinking with regard to economics, rather than religion.

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

Apology accepted! It sometimes takes a bit of work to find clear, factual materials and sometimes YouTube comes up with the best from the most unusual sources.

Besides all that I'm always willing to 'walk in other's shoes' no matter how strange to see if I can glean any good morsels of truth vs. 'truthyness!'

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

There's also alot of misunderstanding 'out there' with respect to meaning/definitions. Many do not know the difference between forms of government nor do many Americans know what the true design of US Government is but once they have even a basic understanding they clearly recognize the corruption that has taken up residence in US Government, Wall Street and, through the fractional reserve banking system-The World.

Here, for all to get the basics is a very nice outline of what America was founded to be. If we would only study the Constitution, The Bill of Rights and The Federalist Papers to solidify the foundation, the numbers of OWS participants by acting in the interest of the original ethical ideals would make major headway! http://www.occupywallst.org/forum/americadefinitions-of-principles-helpful-in-exposi/ Forum Post: America:Definitions of Principles helpful in exposing the corruption of US govt. and Wall Street

Posted 5 hours ago on Dec. 25, 2011, 2:33 p.m. EST by economicallydiscardedcitizen | edit | delete This content is user submitted and not an official statement

Thanks to YouTube there is a synopsis of what America as a nation is supposed to be as setup by the founders along with the true definition of capitalism when practiced without the corruption (obscene concentration of wealth and economic manipulation of US government and the world through the fractional reserve banking system)we are seeing now and rightfully railing against.

The great thing about this series is it allows a quick educational overview of the principles and form of government America was founded on and through clear definitions allows the viewer to see the pros and cons of each type of government in comparison.

PS:And when you have time you can read the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and Federalist Papers.

John Birch Society - Overview of America - Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_ciT1psaPc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

John Birch Society - Overview of America - Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsoIR2BlCH8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

John Birch Society - Overview of America - Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPr0ujS2kyc&feature=youtube_gdata_player

John Birch Society - Overview of America - Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szbLKeQIZCk&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

The John Birch Society asserts that socialists are infiltrating the US government as a secret fifth-column conspiracy. It's a far-right extremist group. That's just FYI, for anybody who might be interested in the above post.

It's pretty funny to see a left-wing Constitutional fundamentalist and a right-wing Constitutional fundamentalist posting on the same page.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

That's insulting.

[-] 0 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

I'll never forget listening to a professor explain why and how 'blind faith' can coexist within the minds of even the most highly intelligent human beings:irrationality like microbes doesn't discriminate and never forget, believe is a word with 'lie' in the middle of it.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I agree that even the most intelligent people are susceptIble to this fallacy, including potentially myself. And as we can see demonstrated here, do are people at every point on the liberal/conservative political continuum. Truthiness is not the sole domain of the far right.

[-] -1 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

I was unaware the John Birch Society was still around since the founder Welch died but when I ran across the video series giving an outline of America's founding principles and history that was relatively short and sweet I thought I'd pass it along since it takes a bit more time to study The Constitution, Bill of Rights and Federalist Papers.

While the John Birch Group has a history of its own brand of fundamentalism, the video that somebody made for them is plainly factual and could be used as a sound educational tool.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

I apologize for branding you a right-wing Constitutional fundamentalist. I can see that I was wrong on that.

[-] -1 points by JonFromSLC (-107) from West Valley City, UT 2 years ago

You've probably never heard of thinking at all. Just repeating what you hear on MSNBC or from some Union leader.

[-] 1 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

I will defend the Union leaders, I work with a lot of union leaders and I have found them to be very smart and focused on producing gains for their companies and therefore, their workers. Most of the understand the basics of competition, as they live it everyday, and know they must have growing companies to survive.

The really smart ones are now competing amongst themselves to add workers from other unions who have become bloated and non responsive to their members.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21400) 2 years ago

OWS is not about everyone getting equal pay. That is just nonsense.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

actually it will be one hour-coin for one hour work for all ..

[-] 0 points by owsinlove (83) 2 years ago

Plz look at my idea the Hugback it could bring world peace.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

Work the shitty job, until you get a better job. When you have a better job, take it. When a better job comes along, apply for it. If you get the job tell your former cheap ass boss you're heading down the road. When he offers you more wages to stay, tell him to kiss off, and pay people a decent wage the day they walk through the door. Keep doing this. Have no mercy on outfits that pay shit wages and benefits. give an employer like that a kick in the ass when heading out the door.

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

You're ignoring the culture you live in. The rich do not WANT to work. The entire class structure of rich VS Poor is based upon rich people having slaves do their work for them. If the rich were forced to work: they would lose their elite status as slave owners and slave drivers and bosses etc.

You are locked into the slave mentality which assumes that you must work work work your life away in slavery.

The rich are locked in the master mentality that says they should never work or do as little work as possible.

The only way rich assholes who are disgusting filth keep their upper class status is by oppressing, robbing and cheating and swindling everyone they possibly can in their worship and lust for MONEY.

Take away their money and they would kill themselves and commit suicide. Take away their elite status and mansions and expensive cars and they would commit suicide. Money is he only thing which keeps them alive.

You solve this social [problem by opting OUT of the entire master/slave system and become self-sufficient. By people intelligently creating and founding your own culture of equality and cooperation between equals: you can easily have a wonderful life with no work and lots of fun and happiness and excitement and challenges.

But in order to do this: you must first develop SELF-DISCIPLINE and train yourself not to think or act or FEEL like a slave,.

When you opt out of the entire slavery system and become self-sufficient: you will DESPISE not only the filthy rich assholes but you will also despise ALL SLAVES for their slave mentality and their passive culture of willingly WILLINGLY wanting to work for their slave masters.

Once you work for yourself: you will become too independent and too intelligent to DEMEAN YOURSELF and DEGRADE yourself into willingly becoming anybody's obedient slave.

Your movement against the rich has not even begun to create this kind of intelligent cooperation between equals who refuse to work for anyone but themselves.

Once you recognize that working for MONEY is just a sly way of fooling you into the idea that you're not an actual slave, once you stop using money and become self-sufficient and can live without money: then you will become a strong healthy intelligent individual who does not think or behave or feeel like an oppressed slave.

Once you get rid of your slave culture and your slave mentality and your slave behavior and your addiction to money and all the shit that money buys: you will understand what I am telling you is the actual truth.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

If you are talking about the 1% I would wholeheartedly disagree with you. Most of those people worked very hard, got advanced degrees and most importantly took immense risk with capital.

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

Wrong. You are speaking about a very low tier of the rich: the newly rich. They do not have one tenth the accumulated wealth which the top 1% has. All of the top1% wealth is INHERITED. This is why they do not like inheritance tax The richest family fortunes in the world and their children do not work for their money. Read Eustace Mullins books about the dynasties of the robber barons and how they got their filthy money from the opium trade in Hong Kong. From the rum running smuggling in the roaring 20's and 30's, They are the new rich. The older robber family dynasties are 1,000 times richer than these new comers and it is proven. When JP Morgan died: he was believed to be the richest man in America. When his will was opened and examined: they found out that he only owned 20% of the holdings in his own name, and that 80% of his wealth was actually owned by the Rothschild bankers in England, and that all his life: he had only been a subservient lieutenant to the older richer robber barons of Europe and England, and that the American holdings are mostly owned and controlled by European robber baron dynastic families.

NOBODY KNEW THIS until he died and his will was opened. It was kept a deep dark secret from everyone except the few people at the top of the power structure who are in control.

This has not changed. Everything you know about the top 1% is after-the-fact. You don't know one millionth of what they are doing and what they are conspiring to do because they don't tell ANYONE.

Just like the Jekyll Island conspiracy and plan to establish a private bank cartel to control and rip off the entire American national economy under the guise of being a federal bank by OWNING the money it lends to the national govt and LENDING that money to the US treasury for interest was not known of until 1963 when Eustace Mullins blew the lid off the secret facts about the Federal Reserve.. and even then his books are still not read and no major corporate store or publisher will sell them to this day.

You haven't done your research. Because you don't do your own reading you will never be able to educate yourself. The top wealthiest families in the world are not on the Forbes 500 list. Their wealth is kept totally secret. To this day there is no estimate of the accumulated wealth of the Rothschild family fortune. It is a total secret. No historian or financial expert can even venture to GUESS at how much money they actually have and how much they actually own. That is how secretive they are.

The point is you don't want to admit you're owned and you don't want to admit you're slave. The point is you think like a slave. You assume the ultra rich had to work for a living. They didn't have to do a fucking thing. George Bush Jr was the dumbest idiot of his class: and yet he still graduated from Yale and Harvard because his family had money, and he didn't have to attend the National guard exercises: he was marked as present: His drinking was covered up; the fact that he was too stupid and incompetent to fly a military aircraft was covered up. The fact that he failed in all of his business ventures was covered up, the fact that in everything he did he went bust and had to be bailed out by his daddy's rich oil billionaire buddies was covered up. The fact that his political term as governor in Texas were so blatantly corrupt that the only other example of that level of political corruption which Bush Jr was responsible for was the corruption of Tammany Hall in New York City during the roaring 20's before they were finally driven out and the head kingpin ' Boss Tweed was convicted and jailed jailed for stealing 300 million dollars from the tax payers of New York and died in jail serving his jail sentence. George Bush Jr has been whitewashed from the day he was born and will continue to be whitewashed of all his crimes and sins till the day he dies by the corrupt media.

AS WAS EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN IN HISTORY and as they all are being whitewashed and will continue to be whitewashed

ALL OF THEM were corrupt. There are no exceptions to this fact.

The most corrupt ones are the ones which your propaganda media idolizes the most. The bigger the myth: the bigger the lie.

What you don't realize is that your entire life and education and information has been 100% a pack of lies and cover-ups and reversals of the facts. Almost everything you have ever read, every history book every web site every book, every conventional account of history is a total lie.

If you ever start to do some serious reading and WANT to educate yourself: read 'The Robber Barons' by Mathew Josephson... read it 10 times. Then compare the facts to what you knew before you read it and what you believed before you read it.

[-] 1 points by Confusedoldguy (260) 2 years ago

Meds, Turak, meds. Your blood pressure is dangerously high.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

So you saying that the money has been dispersed to all of these rich families and their descendants so then no one person controls the money and no one person spends the money since the amount of people there is to share the money is always growing?

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

100% false There are no curse words in my post You are obviously hallucinating Until you apologize for lying I will have nothing more to do with you.

PS: the reply button of your last post is malfunctionng: just like your brain is malfunctioning

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Ha, ha you like that edit button.

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

You are a troll: hiding under multiple handle Your handle 'kicked in the nuts' and your other handle 'Jflynn64'. Is now exposed since these two false identties now synchronize with each hother. You post lies and do not apologize for posting your lies. You are a congenital coward and a congenital liar: Both of your false identities have been excommunicated by me

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Sorry only one handle and guess what, this is my real name. I don't hider under some fake name. I dont need to,

Now who is the coward ? Are you getting angry?

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

a liar and a troll: exact same time: synchronized:

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

Trouble passing English, yeah 7th grade was hard for me to but I persevered.

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

troll copier you copy every thing I post too late

[Deleted]

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

You want me to be your history teacher:

I charge 20$ an hour.

Your first assignment is to buy or go to your nearest major library and take out Eustace Mullins book about the Federal Reserve and read it 3 times.

Your second assignment is to buy or take out from your local library the book by Mathew Jacobson called "The Robber Barons' and read it 5 times.

Your term paper will be to write a synopsis in your own words explaining what these two books are about and how they are connected to each other and why they are connected to each other and what the connections are..

Your paper will be graded by me and you will be notified by me whether you passed or flunked the course.

You will be graded on your level of comprehension of the material, and your ability to understand what you have read.
You will be graded on your ability to write legible prose.
You will be graded on your critical thinking skills.
You will be graded on your ability to make logical conclusions and deductions from the books you have read and your ability to uphold your statements by giving your reasoning for them by using the verified facts found jn these two books, plus any other verifiable sources which you must list which can be verified.
You will be graded on your organizational skills.
You will be graded on your sentence structure,and your ability to use paragraphs correctly.
You will be graded on your ability to write coherently so others can understand what you are trying to say.
You will be graded on the logic of your arguments.

If you have not been able to reach any conclusions on your own or form any opinions of your own without copying them from some other source, you will automatically flunk the exam and be given an "F" for failure.

I will do this for you at 20$ an hour. To be paid in advance.

PS: Money is not 'disbursed. It is stolen. "disbursed' means spread around. That is the opposite of what these families do; they concentrate money into the fewest hands possible by stealing it from you: which is why they are called Robber Barons.

[-] 0 points by Jflynn64 (337) 2 years ago

You can't control yourself to speak without a curse word?

Wealth that is passed down does not go into the fewest hands as possible, it goes to as many hands as there are children, and when this happens both the money and the decision making authority is disbursed.

You make some pretty big claims in your diatribe, which frankly are backed up by an evidence much less logic.

How old are you, If I may ask and have you been using recreational drugs?

[-] 0 points by Kickinthenuts (212) 2 years ago

I do work for myself. I'm self sufficient. I have no desire to live in a little commune. I love making money. I enjoy being around the rich. It's another way to learn how to be rich also.

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

If you like being around the rich so much: what are you doing here sucking up to people who are against the rich and despise them? What a pathetic troll.

[-] 0 points by Kickinthenuts (212) 2 years ago

Actually, I'm sucking up to no one. I've had many great discussions and debates with folks on here.

However you are not one of them. I'm really not sure what you are. You bluster. You're profane, mean spirited, and try to bully people. All of which I despise.

On top of all that you are on here promoting your fictional musings while attempting to pass it off as factual research. I like a good fictional story as much as anybody. However, attempting to pass it off as research is just lying.

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

You are an anit-OWS troll, a liar, a hypocrite: you have been excommunicated by everyone who has anything to do with you.

[-] 0 points by Kickinthenuts (212) 2 years ago

Mmmmm, not. If you had an open mind and were willing to pay attention, you'd be surprised at much we agree. However, your continued profane bullying makes it impossible. Have anyone ever been able to have a sane conversation with you? Were you sane in an earlier life?

[-] 0 points by turak (-812) 2 years ago

you like being around the rich: hypocrite liar ]you have multiple handles liar you're here day and night 24 hrs a day You against the Occupy movement DUH

[-] 0 points by Kickinthenuts (212) 2 years ago

You speak gibberish, duh.

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

A surgeon getting the same pay as a burge flipper. Brilliant!

[-] 0 points by Kickinthenuts (212) 2 years ago

I was thinking a surgeon and a meat butcher. Evidently according to observer, they have similar skills. :)

[-] 0 points by Farleymowat (415) 2 years ago

Good point.

[-] 0 points by KingVegetax (51) 2 years ago

Yep and you could be extra lazy and economically worthless while I bust my ass and earn my pay. Why would I want equal pay with you if I am a better worker???

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

The lowest paying jobs are currently the hardest working jobs.

[Removed]

[-] -1 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

You're right, the welfare state does take away incentive. It allows you to live off of your neighbors no matter how little you contribute.

But if everything did pay the same, everyone would want the simplest, laziest job they could get. And those will more ambition would simply look to leave. I, for one, would never allow you to live off of me.

Learn something about economics. Seriously, you must have a community college nearby. That way, you could figure out how stupid you are and then at least you might stop saying the things you think out loud.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

But if everything did pay the same, everyone would want the simplest, laziest job they could get

I strongly disagree.. in fact I believe the good people will rise to the top with equal pay.

[-] 1 points by Frizolio (80) 2 years ago

maybe you should lay off da weed because that is just a pipe dream. Most good people would leave and find a Capitalist country.

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

If you believe that, that's ok. But it totally goes back against the incentive argument you're making.

If all jobs pay equally, where's the incentive to take anything but the simplest, laziest job?

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

there have been studies presented ..regarding incentive ..

Why do people volunteer .. for no pay .. ?

the good people will rise to the top .. with equal pay ..

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

Not all incentive is monetary. That's why people volunteer for no pay.

Volunteering and pro-social behavior has a lot to do with emotional incentive. You see a crappy thing, and because humans are empathetic creatures, it makes you feel crappy. You have an incentive to make the crappy feeling go away, so if you can make the crappy thing better, you do. The more empathetic a person you are, the more likely you are to engage in helping behavior.

Also, if you're a male, you're significantly more likely to engage in helping behavior if the person you're helping is an attractive female. Remember kids - law #4 of social Psychology is that men are pigs!

Not to mention that there are other incentives that are attached to each individual circumstance. There may be a political or social benefit to volunteering. There may be tax benefits. Volunteering provides experience which you may later use on an application for school or for a better paying job.

Unless you add some of these non-monetary incentives to some jobs, then you're likely to get a bunch of people who want the least effort job for the same amount of pay. Sure, you'll get some people who do the super needed jobs, like working in the ER, or being a Lawyer, or designing the latest technology, but without pay as an incentive, the number of people who will do that job will drastically decrease in favor of flipping burgers for the same paycheck.

The other major flaw is that pay isn't a thermostat; it's a thermometer. People are willing to pay more for a service or for labor that is worth more, and when regulations from outside the business start artificially setting the prices, things get messed up.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 2 years ago

shift 8italshift 8 I can't figure out bold

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

Oh, now I understand. Thanks! ^_^

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

I strongly disagree.

But I challenge you to prove your argument.

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

Things that influence pro-social behavior (That aren't money):

*Emotional incentives; the Empathic Joy Egoistic theory (Smick, Keating, and Stotland) - Negative State Relief Theory (Piliavin, Cialdini)

*Situational Influences; Diffusion of Responsibility (Latane and Darley in the 1970's) - How much of a hurry you're in (Darley and Batson 1973)

Those are just from my notes in social psychology. The other studies I referenced in my post are probably in my text book if you want me to go find those researchers as well.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

social psychology.

equal pay is an experiment never been tried.

here is an example.. of psychology..

most people when asked about traffic circles disagree with the idea and vote no. but once they actually try the circles and drive through them studies show they change their opinion.

can you explain why?

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

So, I didn't get this when I got home; I've been pretty busy having my inlaws over this weekend.

Any way, Equity Theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_theory

I found abstract after abstract in the APA's PsychNET dealing with Equity theory, all of them saying their results supported the theory, but none of them were the original which doesn't already assume that we know what Equity Theory is.

And basically it's this, people will tend to seek balance between what they're putting into their work (loyalty, skill, dedication, time, effort, etc.) and what they're getting out of it (pay, security, reputation, praise, benefits, etc.). They judge what that balance is based on what they see others getting paid for their work.

So, the research suggests that if a person sees some one get the same amount of output from a job where the employee puts less into it, they'll be less motivated to put more into it without getting more out of it.

Meaning that if a high school graduate sees some one going to school for a long dang time and get the same amount of pay and benefits as some one who goes to flipping burgers right out of high school, they'll be significantly more likely to go flip burgers right out of school.

Without higher reward, the more difficult and important jobs will not be filled, and those who do fill them will not do their job as well as a burger-flipper does his.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

I totally disagree. Interest is a much stronger motivator than financial incentive. But the real important concern is the outcome. In today's society many students will choose a career based on wealth. But with equal pay than wealth will not be a factor in their decision. And this creates a totally new concept.

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

Well, you're totally free to disagree.

But I challenge you to prove your argument. ;-)

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

The proof is self evident. Equal pay will provide a level playing field and most importantly an equal distribution of wealth. Money supplies us with material needs but it doesn't provide us with personal happiness. Unless you believe wealthy people are happier than poor people. Social psychology should give you some idea where happiness comes from and to a certain level money is important but it is only a small piece of the happiness pie. Of course you will consistently disagree.

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

I do agree with you to a point. It's absolutely true that money doesn't supply us with happiness. Studies support this idea time and time again.

But we're not talking about happiness.

It's absolutely true that wealthier people aren't always happier than poor people. In fact, wealth in the absence of things that truly bring happiness tends to be correlated with unhappiness.

But we're not talking about happiness.

We're talking about incentive, and happiness is just a small piece of the incentive pie. Granted, salary is also just one piece of the incentive pie, but it's a pretty large one. Like you said, most students go to college to get a better paying job. People are willing to put out hard work, lots of money (even debt), and years of their life to get a better paying job, so salary is clearly a bigger part of incentive than it is a part of happiness.

The studies suggest that people aren't looking for a level playing field; they're looking for a fair one. They expect more reward when they do more work, or when they have a more important position, and when that expected reward doesn't come to them, they put in the amount of work they think fits the reward they're getting.

Of course, you will consistently disagree. I love your ideals, man, that every one should have what they need. I agree wholeheartedly, but there's just an overwhelming amount of data that says your plan will be more of a hindrance to that goal than a means. And suggesting that the proof is self evident in spite of this data is either a contradiction of terms, or just plain silly.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

Actually happiness mat seen like a small piece but it is the largest piece. It trumps all others. Happiness is the whole pie.

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

Is that also "self evident," or do you have support for that statement?

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

Why would you exclude happiness from the equation? Do the studies you point to also exclude happiness ?

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

I didn't exclude it. If you read my post, I said "We're talking about incentive, and happiness is just a small piece of the incentive pie." and "...so salary is clearly a bigger part of incentive than it is a part of happiness."

The problem is you're either equating happiness with incentive, or you're assuming that happiness is all the incentive people need. Both are incorrect.

[-] 1 points by RobPenn (116) 2 years ago

The data doesn't explain anything except for what happened.

If I had to take a guess, I'd say it's cognitive dissonance or something to do with social norms. Cognitive dissonance basically meaning the process by which a person becomes OK with something they've just done, and the social norms meaning they only say they dislike it at first because it's something that's different.

More on the equal pay experiment when I get home.

[-] 0 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

No one could be this stupid.

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Obviously lots of people are aggressively stupid, as demonstrated by innumerable examples on this web site. Sad but true.

[-] -1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago
[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

after reading your long speech on another post, girlfriday, I thought you were against inequalities? make up your mind young lady ..

[-] 1 points by flip (5406) 2 years ago

i am mostly with you on this one - there could be rather small differences for those who want to do more work or educate themselves more but pay should be equalized. the argument by the others is a false one for sure - the shit jobs pay the worst - the nicest jobs are those people would choose to do even for less pay - do you want to clean toilets or sit in a nice clean office telling others what to do. any thinking person knows this. the other problem here is that we should all be working less - we have enough stuff - we could spread out the work and have plenty of free time and all that we need - the profit system is driving us all to a bad end! the original israeli kibbutz is a good model - doctors were paid the same as nurses and each took turns emptying the bed pans - read orwell's "homage to catalonia" - very interesting about how an anarchist society worked - briefly!

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

Pretty cool idea. Surgeons should get paid the same as dishwashers. Of course, then surgeons couldn't get sued for malpractice!! So if a surgeon removed the wrong kidey, tough luck. Perfect!

[-] 1 points by TechJunkie (3029) from Miami Beach, FL 2 years ago

Well, there would be few surgeons. What would be the point of going through the pain of medical school if there were zero benefit? Advanced education would be a liability because of the time investment. Everybody else would be earning their fixed salaries while you're not working because you're in school, so professions that require higher education would actually be de-incentivized. This proposal would benefit losers and penalize our best and brightest. All because people with no skills are jealous of the idea of people with skills getting paid more.

[-] 1 points by flip (5406) 2 years ago

no law suits in a kibbutz - probably no doctors stupid enough to take out the wrong kidney but who knows - you are thinking is capitalist terms - pretty new system in historical terms - can't imagine anything else? wonder what malpractice looked like in greece 500 bc - open your mind mr truth - a bit arrogant don't you think?

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

no one, not even one OWSer, would go to med school for the same pay as a dishwasher. no one would mine coal or working on a drilling rig. no one would do cimmercial fishing. no one would be a cop.

BTW kibbutz are now capitalistic, so pick a better example, please.

[-] 1 points by flip (5406) 2 years ago

that is your opinion - now it needs to be supported by facts - can you do it? so if that is the case then how did work get done before your beloved capitalism - do you know the history of humans - there has always been work to be done - tell me oh great wise one. the fact that most of the kibbutzim are capitalist has nothing to do with what i said - use that thinking cap - i know you have one somewhere

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

My opinion? I am supported by centuries of proof. prior to capitaism life was short, brutish, and hellish. work got done thru slave labor. there were kings and there were subjects. the life of a sobject was at the whimsy of a king. in literally 100 years capitlism harnessed science to make life insanely easy. in the 150000 years of modern humanity, the 20 have brought man to a place where pure leasure is for all.

[-] 1 points by flip (5406) 2 years ago

you know very little about history - too bad. who says it was brutish and short - you do - think again - look to the firsthand accounts of the sick and stupid europeans when they landed in the new world - they could not believe how healthy the indians were. and the europeans were sick - teeth and hair falling out - they were dumping their shit in the streets of london - the romans had sewage systems in 800 bc. poor stupid capitalists. read first hand accounts of those same europeans who were captured by indians and lived with them - most did not go back to your capitalist paradise because life was so much better with the indians. now let's see - you think capitalism harnessed science -nice - and what did your greeks use to build their wonderful structures - yes i know - they learned the science from the africans who were building pyramids - structures that cannot be duplicated today. come on jim, fossil fuels give us what we have today - not capitalism. do some reading - i could help you - guide you to some books - don't be so cocky when you are not so smart. be nicer and people will help you learn. don't want to learn - like you silly ideas - fine - tell them to your stupid friends or go to glen becks site or the cato inst where everyone is ignorant.

[-] 0 points by DiogenesTruth (108) 2 years ago

I am clearly far more well educated than you. you have a room temperature IQ and for that I feel empathy for your dogged plight. i am the most intelligent person on the earth and I can help misfits like yourself, truly.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverA (610) 2 years ago

thanks flip

I think if we actually had a system of equal pay , and someone suggested more pay for certain jobs , a lot of people would argue against it. equal pay is a fair system that will provide a peaceful existence amongst us all.

[-] 1 points by flip (5406) 2 years ago

what we are witnessing is a few hundred years of propaganda - all sorts of interesting stuff written about the invention of capitalism - people were very happy to hunt a deer and live off it for a few weeks and not work in the "dehumanizing" factory (their words). they had to be forced into wage slavery ( by the enclosure acts etc). all the athletes we watch in all sorts of sports would and did play for next to nothing years ago - now they are paid like kings - people will do the work that is needed just because it is needed. having said that you can see what you are up against - it is probably best to move in small steps but who knows how this is all going to shake out. we are heading for a big crack up - the system is unsustainable - how it comes into balance is the question - one way or the other we are heading for a different world - if you look at peak oil or peak copper or peak water or anything we are running out of all the things we need to survive - keep at it - you will never know what pushes things over the edge!

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I am against inequality. The incentive to work at low paying jobs is the no paying job and that is what we are up against. You know it. I know it. E're body knows it.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

Exactly right, GirlFriday. That's why Republicans don't mind a poor economy as long as they don't get blamed for it. Lots of stuff gets cheaper, including the price of labor. The wealthy make out like bandits. You have to be insane or rich to vote Republican.

[-] 1 points by Frizolio (80) 2 years ago

You just have to be insane to vote Democrat. I vote Independent and I think its about time people see the one party system for what it is. Dems and Repubs are just controlled opposition known as the dialectic process. They all party, snort coke and golf together and laugh at the American people as they take special interest money for what dirty deed is being asked of them.

[-] 1 points by CriticalThinker (140) 2 years ago

Nailed it. The Hegelian dialectic. There is NO difference between the two parties except where they sit. Some exceptions exist, but few and far.

[-] 1 points by 53PercentDude (29) 2 years ago

Like Coke and Pepsi. They both taste about the same but have different labels. Most Democrat and Republican politicians drink from the same trough. Most of them are bought and paid for by corporate special interest lobbyists. Most all of them are crooks, including our current campaigner-in-chief and his predecessor! Do you get it now - Coke vs. Pepsi.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

That's crazy. That's like saying there's no difference between Eric Cantor and Elizabeth Warren. You have to be certifiable to believe that.

[-] 1 points by Frizolio (80) 2 years ago

No its called being realistic and facing reality. Something you obviously don't do. Its called being brainwashed to think otherwise.

[-] 1 points by HitGirl (2263) 2 years ago

You can ignore history if you like, but there are two parties and they are different.

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Yep. It also means that this entire thread is a big joke.

[-] -1 points by earnyours (124) 2 years ago

I think that captures OWS really pretty well. LOL.