This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Pay Scales and Socialism - a quandary. (People, participate in this discussion!)
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Arathanar
NOTE: This is not a "here's a hole in your argument, nyah nyah" thread. I'm not trying to disparage socialism in any way. I'm actively trying to seek a solution to a political and philosophical issue.
Though whether I'm asking in the right place remains to be seen.
The issue at hand is as follows:
Assume a purely socialist economic system with a democratic power structure, where currency has not been abolished for the multitude of global economic problems it would present if not done simultaneously in every country around the world.
In order to prevent collapse of the system from a revolution or counter-revolution, natural and artificial hierarchy in business would need to be abolished completely.
However, to incentivize intelligence and ingenuity, inventors and managers would need to be rewarded more for their efforts than, say, people who do whatever Charlie Bucket's father did in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.
Is there any way to do this? To reward the ingenuous without disparaging the unintelligent?
Also: saying "No, there isn't" is not a constructive post. If you're going to deny that a solution exists, at least back up your argument logically.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Either people are equal in every respect (under the law) or they aren't equal in every respect (under the law).
You set up the argument assuming pure socialism (the former) and bring in a problem that would only occur in a non-pure socialism.
So, yes
No, there isn't
Post by
Arathanar
Either people are equal in every respect (under the law) or they aren't equal in every respect (under the law).
You set up the argument assuming pure socialism (the former) and bring in a problem that would only occur in a non-pure socialism.
So, yes
No, there isn't
While I respect that you didn't just snakily quote me, please elaborate your definitions of pure and non-pure socialism - believe me, they are hotly debated.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
pure socialism = pure political egalitarianism = completely equal political, economic, social, and civil rights.
By rewarding people who are smarter it follows that smarter people will be richer/better off/happier/whatever. Social and economic equality has now been broken. Essentially you're saying non-smart people don't have the right to more money.
I don't think there is any debate over
pure
socialism.
Post by
Arathanar
pure socialism = pure political egalitarianism = completely equal political, economic, social, and civil rights.
By rewarding people who are smarter it follows that smarter people will be richer/better off/happier/whatever. Social and economic equality has now been broken. Essentially your saying non-smart people don't have the right to more money.
I don't think there is any debate over
pure
socialism.
Exactly, this is the problem. I
DON'T
think that smarter people should be rich/better off/happier/whatever. The problem is, without incentivizing jobs that require more effort or intellectual weight, everyone would just take a job screwing on toothpaste caps and get paid the same anyway.
However, if we throw off our misanthropism and cynicism for a moment, we can convince ourselves that portions of the populace will take these positions, either for power, goodwill, or genuine interest.
The problem is, if they totally botch it, then they still get paid the same. To fix this, we could incorporate elected officials within a company, but this in and of itself places people above others.
The solution to this, then, would be for the electors to have enough power over the elected so as to not give the elected any actual hierarchal position.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
pure socialism = pure political egalitarianism = completely equal political, economic, social, and civil rights.
By rewarding people who are smarter it follows that smarter people will be richer/better off/happier/whatever. Social and economic equality has now been broken. Essentially your saying non-smart people don't have the right to more money.
I don't think there is any debate over
pure
socialism.
Exactly, this is the problem. I
DON'T
think that smarter people should be rich/better off/happier/whatever. The problem is, without incentivizing jobs that require more effort or intellectual weight, everyone would just take a job screwing on toothpaste caps and get paid the same anyway.
Which is why pure socialism doesn't work.
Edit:
However, if we throw off our misanthropism and cynicism for a moment, we can convince ourselves that portions of the populace will take these positions, either for
power
, goodwill, or genuine interest.
The problem is, if they totally botch it, then they still get paid the same
. To fix this, we could incorporate elected officials within a company, but this in and of itself places people above others.
The solution to this, then, would be for the electors to have enough power over the elected so as to not give the elected any actual hierarchal position.
Power? in a socialist state?
Even socialists can fire people, fyi.
So the solution is to put people in possitions of power that don't actually have power....Either I have authority over Bob or I don't.
Post by
Arathanar
pure socialism = pure political egalitarianism = completely equal political, economic, social, and civil rights.
By rewarding people who are smarter it follows that smarter people will be richer/better off/happier/whatever. Social and economic equality has now been broken. Essentially your saying non-smart people don't have the right to more money.
I don't think there is any debate over
pure
socialism.
Exactly, this is the problem. I
DON'T
think that smarter people should be rich/better off/happier/whatever. The problem is, without incentivizing jobs that require more effort or intellectual weight, everyone would just take a job screwing on toothpaste caps and get paid the same anyway.
Which is why pure socialism doesn't work.
I edited the post, consider the final paragraph.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And since this editing is screwing things up I'll say this here:
You're advocating something akin to a labor union running a company. I can't see that being very productive.
Post by
Arathanar
And since this editing is screwing things up I'll say this here:
You're advocating something akin to a labor union running a company. I can't see that being very productive.
How so?
As to your "Bob" analogy:
We'll say, for sake of example, that Company X consists of 22 people.
One person, Bob, has shown is various ways (aptitude tests, corporate simulations) that he might be worthy of controlling X on a economic level.
Another person, Sue, has done the same - though she has radically different ideas from Bob.
The remaining 20 members of the company vote to decide who receives this position after being informed of their positions by a neutral third party. In this particular case, whoever wins, Bob or Sue, does not have power over those 20 people, they have control of the company as an economic entity.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
How so?
As to your "Bob" analogy:
We'll say, for sake of example, that Company X consists of 22 people.
One person, Bob, has shown is various ways (aptitude tests, corporate simulations) that he might be worthy of controlling X on a economic level.
Another person, Sue, has done the same - though she has radically different ideas from Bob.
The remaining 20 members of the company vote to decide who receives this position. In this particular case, whoever wins, Bob or Sue, does not have power over those 20 people, they have control of the company as an economic entity.
Well that's a different issue from what you were talking about earlier (toothpaste cap makers vs whatever).
When I say labor union companies wouldn't work, I mean it would essentially work like a free-market. In order to attract people to want to make toothpaste caps they'll try to offer better conditions/whatever than other places. You'd then get a competition to see who can offer the "best job" for the worker. Workers win, economy loses.
To solve this the government would have to arbitrarily (because nobody's any different from each other) assign people to jobs. Workers loose, economy loses.
And with your voting thing, you'd have people with no expertise in a certain area deciding which of the two experts are better. That's the complete opposite of the logical way most other places do it: have the experts hiring the experts based on qualification (which he can judge accurately because he's an expert). Worker kind of win, economy loses.
And here I am telling you why socialism is bad, but you haven't given one reason why socialism is good. What makes this better than libertarianism (that's me :P).
Post by
TheMediator
I DON'T think that smarter people should be rich/better off/happier/whatever.
Why? The thing is, you're supposed to feel like you need to work harder to catch up, not that they should be brought down to your level. You should be blaming yourself for not being as rich or happy as the smarter people, and then try and rise to their level.
Profit is one of the best ways to make people work harder.
Post by
Arathanar
How so?
As to your "Bob" analogy:
We'll say, for sake of example, that Company X consists of 22 people.
One person, Bob, has shown is various ways (aptitude tests, corporate simulations) that he might be worthy of controlling X on a economic level.
Another person, Sue, has done the same - though she has radically different ideas from Bob.
The remaining 20 members of the company vote to decide who receives this position. In this particular case, whoever wins, Bob or Sue, does not have power over those 20 people, they have control of the company as an economic entity.
Well that's a different issue from what you were talking about earlier (toothpaste cap makers vs whatever).
When I say labor union companies wouldn't work, I mean it would essentially work like a free-market. In order to attract people to want to make toothpaste caps they'll try to offer better conditions/whatever than other places. You'd then get a competition to see who can offer the "best job" for the worker. Workers win, economy loses.
To solve this the government would have to arbitrarily (because nobody's any different from each other) assign people to jobs. Workers loose, economy loses.
And with your voting thing, you'd have people with no expertise in a certain area deciding which of the two experts are better. That's the complete opposite of the logical way most other places do it: have the experts hiring the experts based on qualification (which he can judge accurately because he's an expert). Worker kind of win, economy loses.
And here I am telling you why socialism is bad, but you haven't given one reason why socialism is good. What makes this better than libertarianism (that's me :P).
Because I'm now on the Bizzaro World, I'll answer your last question first.
I'm purposely trying to refute my stance. If it can't stand up to criticism, it doesn't deserve to exist. That's why I'm bringing you into this. Thank you.
For your first point - workers would be assigned based on skill and interest. Workers with neither in any field (as stupid as it sounds, I at least partially believe in the "everyone is special" doctrine, so I doubt the average schmoe doesn't have at least one incredibly obscure skill) would be assigned based on choice and geographic convenience.
For your second point - this is a complete ass pull, but I'm doing it anyway. That's exactly how the general election of the President of the United States works. In all honesty, it's a pretty crappy system. However, the neutral third party, someone elected purely for this job, would explain in minute detail the points, benefits, and costs of every political and economic belief each contender has.
Post by
Arathanar
I DON'T think that smarter people should be rich/better off/happier/whatever.
Why? The thing is, you're supposed to feel like you need to work harder to catch up, not that they should be brought down to your level. You should be blaming yourself for not being as rich or happy as the smarter people, and then try and rise to their level.
Profit is one of the best ways to make people work harder.
While true, it undermines one of the core principles of a socialist system. A meritocracy is good. However, if it exists, the lower class, at best, resents the upper class, and at worst, rebels. That's what socialism is supposed to FIX.
I admit your point is valid, though "one of the best ways" is not the only way.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
For your first point - workers would be assigned based on
skill and interest
. Workers with neither in any field (as stupid as it sounds, I at least partially believe in the "everyone is special" doctrine, so I doubt the average schmoe doesn't have at least one incredibly obscure skill) would be assigned based on choice and geographic convenience.
That brings you back to where we started. Why wouldn't everyone "be interested" in the easy jobs.
For your second point - this is a complete ass pull, but I'm doing it anyway. That's exactly how the general election of the President of the United States works. In all honesty, it's a pretty crappy system. However, the neutral third party, someone elected purely for this job, would explain in minute detail the points, benefits, and costs of every political and economic belief each contender has.
There are two things at work in an election, expertise and rights. If we're electing a school janitor, the only thing that comes into play is expertise. If we're electing the president, both rights and expertise need to be represented.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
A meritocracy is good. However, if it exists, the lower class, at best, resents the upper class, and at worst, rebels.
You said yourself that everyone has some skill. So if someone's in a low class, it's their own damn fault (in a completely free market ofc).
Post by
Arathanar
For your first point - workers would be assigned based on
skill and interest
. Workers with neither in any field (as stupid as it sounds, I at least partially believe in the "everyone is special" doctrine, so I doubt the average schmoe doesn't have at least one incredibly obscure skill) would be assigned based on choice and geographic convenience.
That brings you back to where we started. Why wouldn't everyone "be interested" in the easy jobs.
Skill first. The interest part means that if you can create a cure for cancer or end world hunger, you get your pick.
For your second point - this is a complete ass pull, but I'm doing it anyway. That's exactly how the general election of the President of the United States works. In all honesty, it's a pretty crappy system. However, the neutral third party, someone elected purely for this job, would explain in minute detail the points, benefits, and costs of every political and economic belief each contender has.
There are two things at work in an election, expertise and rights. If we're electing a school janitor, the only thing that comes into play is expertise. If we're electing the president, both rights and expertise need to be represented.
Rights? I'm honestly sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. Ugh. I need to go to sleep.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Skill first. The interest part means that if you can create a cure for cancer or end world hunger, you get your pick.
And who determines skills? The person himself or the government? I may be able to type 90 words per minute, but I'll hide it if it means I'm going to have to be a secretary.
Rights? I'm honestly sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. Ugh. I need to go to sleep.
If I'm being made to delegate someone to have authority over me, I have a right to choose who.
Post by
Arathanar
Skill first. The interest part means that if you can create a cure for cancer or end world hunger, you get your pick.
And who determines skills? The person himself or the government? I may be able to type 90 words per minute, but I'll hide it if it means I'm going to have to be a secretary.
Rights? I'm honestly sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. Ugh. I need to go to sleep.
If I'm being made to delegate someone to have authority over me, I have a right to choose who.
This is probably going to be my last post for the night - the elected official doesn't have power over the workers - only over the company's economic choices.
My arguments are making less sense and I'm fully aware of it. Zzzzzz.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Skill first. The interest part means that if you can create a cure for cancer or end world hunger, you get your pick.
And who determines skills? The person himself or the government? I may be able to type 90 words per minute, but I'll hide it if it means I'm going to have to be a secretary.
Rights? I'm honestly sorry, but I have no idea what you mean. Ugh. I need to go to sleep.
If I'm being made to delegate someone to have authority over me, I have a right to choose who.
This is probably going to be my last post for the night - the elected official doesn't have power over the workers - only over the company's economic choices.
My arguments are making less sense and I'm fully aware of it. Zzzzzz.
Which is why I said that in the case of the company, expertise alone is the requirement. You'll notice I mentioned rights only when talking about the President of the US
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.