Chum Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 5 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I agree. But The Nehor clearly thinks that riches are an automatic disqualification. I wonder if he knows the cutoff? Because if I know the cutoff, I can ensure that I never have that much wealth. But if I don't know -- and I've read all the scriptures -- then how can I be saved? I don't think he does. I think he's arguing against the notion of piling on enough exceptions to change the perception of the principle.
Chum Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 13 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I wonder if he knows the cutoff? Because if I know the cutoff, I can ensure that I never have that much wealth. But if I don't know -- and I've read all the scriptures -- then how can I be saved? The principle hints that you likely can't - that not achieving salvation isn't an absolute certainty, just nearly so. Christ seems to be counseling us to avoid it.
The Nehor Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 41 minutes ago, Stargazer said: Well, don't hold us in suspense! Who was it? So, the poor can get in for being poor, then. If being rich makes it impossible, this seems to suggest that being poor has a virtue all its own. Stan. No, it doesn’t suggest that at all. It suggests that wealth makes it more difficult. It doesn’t make poverty a virtue. Most would agree that lgbt people have a harder time with the gospel but that doesn’t suggest that being heterosexual is a virtue. 1
The Nehor Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 42 minutes ago, Stargazer said: I agree. But The Nehor clearly thinks that riches are an automatic disqualification. I wonder if he knows the cutoff? Because if I know the cutoff, I can ensure that I never have that much wealth. But if I don't know -- and I've read all the scriptures -- then how can I be saved? I didn’t think that. The Savior did when his metaphor was clear it was impossible with the proviso that God can make the impossible possible. 43 minutes ago, Stargazer said: then how can I be saved? The exact same reaction the disciples had! 1
Eph2,8 Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 3 hours ago, The Nehor said: Economics only supports the statement I laughed at if you are playing with economics in the Economics 101 sense where all things are always equal (lol), externalities don’t exist (LOL), all consumers have perfect knowledge of quality of product and all alternatives (LOLOL), and people are perfectly rational (BWAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAHAHA). It is a starting point but it doesn’t work beyond that. For example in the most basic economic model money spent on advertising is wasted but real life doesn’t show that to be the case. "In a market system people are not paid by how much effort they put in, but by how much value they add. I can bust my butt every day, expending as much physical and mental effort as I can, but I will likely not add as much value as Jeff Bezos. To close the gap between our pay, one would either need to pay me more than the value I add to society and pay him less than what he adds. Both seem unjust at face value, and I'm not sure that Mr. Nibley accomplishes what he was hoping for in that quote. " I'm not saying that every penny of my wage is exactly proportional to the utility that I add to society. I am, however, saying that the market forces putting pressure on wages come from the utility added, and not from the effort expended in the job - whether mentally or physically. Nibley seems to assume the market pressure on wages is based off the effort expended during a job in his statement, which I do not believe is true. Also, when I said "to close the gap between our pay", I meant in a societal redistributive program. What does "all things are always equal" mean? I'm no expert in economics, but from my limited knowledge I've never heard anything resembling that statement. What is always equal? Second, externalities do not nullify market forces, they simply distort them. Negative externalities in the market for cigarettes does not mean that the laws of supply and demand no longer exist, just that the quantity consumed and price with the externality are not the efficient outcome. My statement was regarding the market pressure for wages. Externalities do not suddenly spring a new mechanism for wage pressure into play. They simply distort the market outcome - they're a market failure. The wages might not be as proportionate to utility as they could be, but still, the pressure comes from utility added, not effort expended. As far as the quality of product and alternatives, I'm not entirely sure how that relates to market pressure on wages. Lastly, rationality. Rational in the economic sense does not mean that people sit down and calculate the best choices in every situation, but just that they naturally act in a self-interested way. This is not an "economics 101" assumption, but instead drives the philosophy of almost all economics - exempting behavioral economics. It is an assumption that I think has a lot of validity. I still fail to see how my comment about the market forces on wages was laughable. Perhaps it was the philosophical truth at the end about it being unjust to pay me more than the utility I add, or to pay Jeff Bezos less, but I guess that's an entirely different conversation.
The Nehor Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 2 hours ago, Eph2,8 said: "In a market system people are not paid by how much effort they put in, but by how much value they add. I can bust my butt every day, expending as much physical and mental effort as I can, but I will likely not add as much value as Jeff Bezos. To close the gap between our pay, one would either need to pay me more than the value I add to society and pay him less than what he adds. Both seem unjust at face value, and I'm not sure that Mr. Nibley accomplishes what he was hoping for in that quote. " I'm not saying that every penny of my wage is exactly proportional to the utility that I add to society. I am, however, saying that the market forces putting pressure on wages come from the utility added, and not from the effort expended in the job - whether mentally or physically. Nibley seems to assume the market pressure on wages is based off the effort expended during a job in his statement, which I do not believe is true. Also, when I said "to close the gap between our pay", I meant in a societal redistributive program. What does "all things are always equal" mean? I'm no expert in economics, but from my limited knowledge I've never heard anything resembling that statement. What is always equal? Second, externalities do not nullify market forces, they simply distort them. Negative externalities in the market for cigarettes does not mean that the laws of supply and demand no longer exist, just that the quantity consumed and price with the externality are not the efficient outcome. My statement was regarding the market pressure for wages. Externalities do not suddenly spring a new mechanism for wage pressure into play. They simply distort the market outcome - they're a market failure. The wages might not be as proportionate to utility as they could be, but still, the pressure comes from utility added, not effort expended. As far as the quality of product and alternatives, I'm not entirely sure how that relates to market pressure on wages. Lastly, rationality. Rational in the economic sense does not mean that people sit down and calculate the best choices in every situation, but just that they naturally act in a self-interested way. This is not an "economics 101" assumption, but instead drives the philosophy of almost all economics - exempting behavioral economics. It is an assumption that I think has a lot of validity. I still fail to see how my comment about the market forces on wages was laughable. Perhaps it was the philosophical truth at the end about it being unjust to pay me more than the utility I add, or to pay Jeff Bezos less, but I guess that's an entirely different conversation. “All things being equal” was my less pretentious way of saying “ceteris paribus” which was a phrase I got sick of back when I minored in Econ. Every time you model what a change should do the question usually includes “ceteris paribus” to say those are the only changes and everything else stays the same. This basically never happens in real life. Economic rationality is that individuals maximize their utility. In a situation where they make an economic choice they pick the one that maximizes utility in monetary and non-monetary utility. That means the best choice for them. This also rarely happens. Externalities skew everything in economics including wages.
Calm Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 (edited) Does Economics explain Pet Rocks…because I am still baffled by that one even with my psych degree. For those too young to remember… https://abcnews.go.com/US/pet-rock-captured-moment-made-creator-millionaire/story?id=30041318 Edited January 1, 2022 by Calm 2
Eph2,8 Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 21 minutes ago, The Nehor said: “ceteris paribus" Ah, ceteris paribus. Yes, ceteris paribus literally never happens in real life. I'm an Econ major (though I'm not yet done with the program) so I hear it quite a bit too. 24 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Economic rationality is that individuals maximize their utility. In a situation where they make an economic choice they pick the one that maximizes utility in monetary and non-monetary utility. That means the best choice for them. This also rarely happens. Externalities skew everything in economics including wages. Here is where I think we are just talking past each other. I offered the definition of rationality as self interest, you offered maximizing utility. Same thing. I think it happens more often than not, but oh well. Externalities do skew everything, but like I said, they do not nullify the underlying market forces. They just skew the outcome. I think we may have drifted from the Nibley quote and my original claim. No matter. Happy New Years, I've enjoyed the conversation. Good luck with whatever resolutions or goals you may have.
The Nehor Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 2 minutes ago, Eph2,8 said: Ah, ceteris paribus. Yes, ceteris paribus literally never happens in real life. I'm an Econ major (though I'm not yet done with the program) so I hear it quite a bit too. Here is where I think we are just talking past each other. I offered the definition of rationality as self interest, you offered maximizing utility. Same thing. I think it happens more often than not, but oh well. Externalities do skew everything, but like I said, they do not nullify the underlying market forces. They just skew the outcome. I think we may have drifted from the Nibley quote and my original claim. No matter. Happy New Years, I've enjoyed the conversation. Good luck with whatever resolutions or goals you may have. Goals are just disappointments with a time delay. And on that cheerful note, best to you too. 2
Stargazer Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 10 hours ago, The Nehor said: I didn’t think that. The Savior did when his metaphor was clear it was impossible with the proviso that God can make the impossible possible. The exact same reaction the disciples had! Excellent. Well, I couldn't see how you could think that, but it sure sounded like you did.
carbon dioxide Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 Is it bad to be rich? I would not mind becoming rich and learning that question for myself. I can say for myself that the times in my life I had little money it was not filled with joy. It may be bad to be rich but it is not good to be poor. It sucks to be poor.
The Nehor Posted January 1, 2022 Posted January 1, 2022 13 hours ago, Calm said: Does Economics explain Pet Rocks…because I am still baffled by that one even with my psych degree. For those too young to remember… https://abcnews.go.com/US/pet-rock-captured-moment-made-creator-millionaire/story?id=30041318 That is marketing. No one knows how it works. It doesn’t really fit into economic models. You can sometimes smash it in but it doesn’t fit well and doesn’t behave consistently.
SkyRock Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 I have had money and I have been poor. I have had adverse economic issues that were out of my control. I also attempted a midlife career shift that failed. I have never been tempted with great riches. I currently live a very easy lifestyle and make a lot of money, but am still recovering from economic downturns from the Great Recession. I have never set my heart on riches. I am not motivated that way. I like getting paid well for helping other people. Would I like to have more money? Sure. I have experienced stressing out how to pay every bill and would rather not go back to that, so I very much appreciate my current position.
Cordelia Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 In Deuteronomy and James (and maybe others I can't think of) the Bible speaks out against not paying your hires fairly. The ultra-rich I would have issue with are those who have built their wealth on the backs of those who are producing the product but aren't making a living wage themselves. The distribution of wealth in this world is sinful, if you ask me.
Analytics Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 On 12/31/2021 at 9:30 PM, Eph2,8 said: I still fail to see how my comment about the market forces on wages was laughable. Perhaps it was the philosophical truth at the end about it being unjust to pay me more than the utility I add, or to pay Jeff Bezos less, but I guess that's an entirely different conversation. As a case study, consider these tweets that Nehor posted, that show labor negotiations happening in real time a week ago: I'll fill in some context of what I think going on behind the scenes. A computer programer--let's call him Bob, is very valuable to his firm. One of his responsibilities is to generate reports that are sent out to various states on a quarterly basis. If the reports aren't sent out on time, his firm is penalized about $50,000 per quarter (I extrapolated from the texts to estimate this total figure). From a pure marginal-value perspective, if Bob doesn't do his job, the firm must pay $200,000 a year in penalties. Thus, the firm should be indifferent between paying him $200,000 a year to generate the reports, or paying $200,000 in penalties. (His job is really worth more than that, because the clients would likely fire the firm and put them out of business if they never generated the reports). Bob probably makes less than half that--but let's assume he's paid $100,000 a year. The company gives Bob two weeks of paid vacation a year, and has a use-it-or-lose-it policy--if he doesn't use his vacation days by the end of the year, he loses them. He was planning on taking off the 5 days of December 27 to December 31, 2021. His firm said no, those five vacation days are not approved. They also says they won't roll over the vacation days to next year. They tell him he must work and forfeit the vacation days, which really means they are saying he must work these five days for free. Bob doesn't like how he's being treated, so he quits. At that point, the twitter conversation above ensues. The company desperately needs him--no other human being on the planet knows how to create these reports. Bob offers to come back if they pay him something closer to what he's worth--he says he'll come back if they pay him $160,000 a year (i.e. $80 an hour). Clearly, he is worth that much to the company. Note that from the CEO of the corporation down to this guy's boss, they've done a terrible job managing. They should have kept this key guy happy, and they should have had backup plans so they weren't reliant on one guy for this key function. But they all failed at their key responsibilities. Given that, how valuable are these guys to the firm, really? When Bob asked to be paid commensurate to the value he added, the company said no--they would rather pay fines and upset their customers rather than give this guy a raise. When he asked for $80 an hour, his boss said he was nuts--not because he didn't add $80 an hour of value to the company, but because "that's more than I make!" Note that the boss has been failing at his job and is worth less to the firm than the employee he is trying to manipulate. But he (and the entire company) don't want to pay the guy what he's worth--they want to pay according to a pay scale on some chart. Also note where the boss says the money is going to come from to pay the fines: not from the company's profits. Not from the bonus of the failed CEO and the failed manager. Rather, from the salary increases and bonuses of the other peons. What's most likely going on is that Board of Directors told the CEO that if the shareholders received $X per share in profit for the year, the CEO would get a bonus of, say, $1,000,000. Because of that real-world compensation structure, the CEO will do everything possible to hit the profit target, including not giving his employees raises or the petty $1,000 bonus they were expecting. He would lay off 20% of the workforce in order to maintain his own bonus. Also note that the board of directors represents shareholders who are making millions off of the company but aren't actually doing anything to actually contribute any value. Millions are going to the shareholders and the CEO. The CEO does a crummy job, refuses to pay a key guy what he's worth, and it is the other peons in the company that get screwed. This illustrates a valid insight of Karl Marx. Production is a function of capital and labor. They work together as a team to produce goods and services. If the pool of labor is bigger than the pool needed to maximize the value of the capital, there will be a competitive market for one of the scarce jobs, and the employees won't be paid according to the value they contribute, but rather what they can negotiate in that labor environment. The way for employees to negotiate a pay that is commensurate with the actual value they contribute is by unionizing and negotiating as a collective rather than trying to undercut each other in the labor market. The bottom line is that people make what they can negotiate, not what they actually contribute. Most workers earn less than what they contribute. Some workers earn much, much more than what they contribute. And the people who own the capital earn obscene amounts of money without actually contributing anything at all. A modern, serious book about the realities of capitalism is Capital in the 21st Century by the French economist Thomas Piketty. 3
JustAnAustralian Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 I'd be interested to know why those reports aren't automatically generated, but I guess that's a discussion for another time.
The Nehor Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 24 minutes ago, JustAnAustralian said: I'd be interested to know why those reports aren't automatically generated, but I guess that's a discussion for another time. Presumably there is some interaction with the system in preparing them. Not having a backup person able to provide vital functions is pretty much unforgivable. Then again I had a job once that was an overnight hourly job. It took about six hours to do my main and pretty much only job function. It was mindless. I am not much of a programmer but I built a piece of software to automate it at home because I was sick of the tedium. Someone found out and they wanted to lay me off but I told them I was the only one with the password to run the software and it was mine since I didn’t build it at work so they would have to hire someone else to do my old job. I offered to sell it to them but they balked at the price. They lost money keeping me on payroll by comparison. When I left voluntarily I gave them the password. The smart move would have been to hire someone to create a piece of software to run it and then lay me off. Anything I could create over a weekend at home wouldn’t cost much. Hard to argue leadership at that company was paid the big bucks for their keen business sense. I am guessing in that story that that is not a really big company. According to the person he put instructions in a document and no one seemed to understand them. Most likely that means there is no one else there with any technical training covering the system he was using in what appears to be a major cash cow for the organization. Pretty much putting a deadman switch on the whole thing. 1
Eph2,8 Posted January 3, 2022 Posted January 3, 2022 Clearly I should not have said anything in response to Nehor's Hugh Nibley quote. I understand that my writing is perhaps at times not as clear as I'd like and sometimes I come across in different tones than I'd prefer, but I feel that I have been straw-manned a bit. There was a lot in your response, but I picked the few things that jumped out to me the most. The point I made in my original comment is that the market pressures on wages come from value added, not effort expended. I specifically mentioned in a later post that people may not be paid the exact value that they add, but rather that the driving pressures behind wages were of value, not effort. The comment was in response to a Nibley quote which seemed to suggest that effort expended was the main justifier and force behind wages. For some reason, it seems that my comment has been interpreted that I instead made the point that every got paid the exact cent of value they added. I never said this. With this in mind, we can examine the post you made - which was very thought out and articulate, something I am not great at. Before I start, I would like to also point out that a large portion of your post was an assumption about the events and facts behind the events in the twitter thread posted. I will accept the story you provided for the sake of discourse, but we don't know that the narrative you provided is even true. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: The company desperately needs him--no other human being on the planet knows how to create these reports First, I'd like to point out that your response did not argue that the forces behind wages came from effort expended. So, it seems as though we have departed completely from the Nibley quote. That's fine. In fact, your entire post assumes and defends the position that the market forces on wages come from value added! Of course the wage will not be exactly equal to the value, but you assumed that the worker demanded more money because he recognized the value he added, not for some other arbitrary reason. Every time you suggest that the worker is demanding a higher wage because of his exclusivity, talents, or whatnot, you are suggesting that it is because of the value he brings. Now, to this quoted section above. This specific example you have given is an example of a market failure. The one worker holds a complete monopoly in this market, it is not a competitive market. Yet, that does not matter. Monopolies do not make the laws of supply and demand disappear. Demanders will substitute the product if the price is too high, in some way constraining how the monopoly can price itself. The substitution for the product could also be to not have the product... which I know seems odd. Here is my point: in the twitter thread, we see market forces even in a monopoly. The worker tries to set the price too high, and the company substitutes his labor, choosing instead to lose money from him not getting the reports sent in. You wrote this out yourself in your post. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: When Bob asked to be paid commensurate to the value he added, the company said no--they would rather pay fines and upset their customers rather than give this guy a raise. And, once again, the market force driving the worker to suggest a higher wage is the value that he would add to the company. Yes, he may not get paid exactly that, but the justification for his behavior is value added, not effort expended. So, we have two market forces at play: the value of labor and substitution. If the company would rather pay the fine... then maybe the worker did not add as much value as you are assuming he did. You mentioned that the manager was manipulative, and perhaps he was just trying to get the worker to come back at a lower wage than the worker wanted. If the entire company rode on this one worker, then I'm sure most upper level management would figure out a pay cut rather than have their pay reduced to 0. Once again, we see that maybe the value added is lower than the demanded wage, putting pressure on wages to go down. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: When he asked for $80 an hour, his boss said he was nuts--not because he didn't add $80 an hour of value to the company, but because "that's more than I make!" Again, the boss is manipulative. I'm not sure that we can trust fully what he has said as the actual reasoning of the company. I feel this is a good time to note that even if the man was payed exactly as much value as he added - this does not mean that either party is satisfied. Of course the company will want to pay him lower, and of course he will want more. That does not change the market forces at play - in fact, it could be seen as a result of them. By the way, I am not implying that you said that there were no market forces in play. I am just trying to explain my side. 9 hours ago, Analytics said: This illustrates a valid insight of Karl Marx. Production is a function of capital and labor. They work together as a team to produce goods and services. If the pool of labor is bigger than the pool needed to maximize the value of the capital, there will be a competitive market for one of the scarce jobs, and the employees won't be paid according to the value they contribute, but rather what they can negotiate in that labor environment. I found this to be an interesting addition, considering the twitter thread you are using as your case study is not at all a competitive market for scarce jobs. Per your assumption, it is a monopoly held by the worker himself, where he has a large amount of power over wage negotiations - probably more than the company. If anything, the scarcity is in the man, not the job. Nevertheless, what would probably be the main force in the Marx supposed negotiation? The value added to the company. Such is the underlying factor in the negotiation you posted. To sum up: Yes, pay is decided by a negotiation. But what does the worker use as a bargaining chip? The value he adds to the company. The main market force that drives wages in a particular direction is the value added to a company. Is every worker paid every penny of value added? No. Does this negate the market force? No. In the example provided, we clearly see a market force of value added pushing the wage upwards. We do not see a market force based on the effort expended in a job. We also see a market force of substitution at play. They are not mutually exclusive, and they are not nullified due to negotiations or a market failure (monopoly) I wish I could have responded to more of what you said. No doubt I will have some errors in my response - both in grammar and economics. I apologize if it seems scatter brained at all. I start a new semester tomorrow and am all over the place. Hope you are having a good day
BlueDreams Posted January 3, 2022 Posted January 3, 2022 (edited) On 12/31/2021 at 11:43 AM, Eph2,8 said: Nozick's theory of Justice in Holdings does not require an equal starting point, that is just what he used to most clearly articulate the idea. He was trying to object to the "hot new idea of economic equality and justice" founded by John Rawls, which was some form of distributive justice - that we must distribute wealth more equally between members of society in order to benefit the least advantaged. Nozick used the equal starting line to show that even if Rawls got his way, wealth inequality would naturally form - and maybe that's okay. You can have a society that is unequal in wealth but still say that the pattern resulting from free transfers of money is just. (If you have ten dollars and I have two, me giving you one dollar for a cheeseburger is still just) To me novick's theory becomes more and more tenuous if there isn't an equitable start. All it does is point out that technically giving money freely to a handful of people with valued talents isn't necessarily bad in and of itself. That's a very very specific point that hypothetically is not wrong...it's just missing the real-world applications of wealth that are messier than the hypothetical. It's like saying technically having a little bit of super processed food in your diet isn't that bad. That's technically true, but also wildly missing the problems associated with it. Insomuch that it may be missing the problem people have with excessive inequality in the first place. On 12/31/2021 at 11:43 AM, Eph2,8 said: As for exploitation, you're right. Exploitation is a violation of Nozick's theory, of which he readily admits. I'm curious, who is being widely exploited in the modern USA? Lastly, free giving of one's wealth to another. I'm again curious. When was the last time a non-government entity forced you to give them money? Was it the McDonald's down the street? Was it the landlord to which I willingly pay for an apartment? Did the Seattle Seahawks hold you at gunpoint until you went to their games? Yes, everyone needs food and shelter - maybe entertainment too - but I fail to see where people in the USA generally are being forced to spend their money in a certain way in the market. Maybe you could help me, since you claimed these things are "not even close" to being a reality. Exploitation probably depends on what you're picturing. There's a solid likelihood that what I will give won't fit what you picture as exploitation and therefore be dismissed which then usually leads to a loop of us defending our positions without much coming from it. to me that's not very productive. So I'll give you what I'm picturing and you're welcome to note at least what you picture as exploitation. But I hope we can avoid said scenario. This is the definition I got from google: "the action or fact of treating someone unfairly in order to benefit from their work." funny enough a few defs that I looked for all noted a really obvious one: immigrant/migrant workers. There's a greater tendency, though, to violate code or treat employees unfairly in general when they're in the lower wage categories. While googling I found a long survey/paper about this very thing https://www.nelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/BrokenLawsReport2009.pdf . It noted varying groups more likely to experience some form of worker exploitation...these included foreign-born, women, latino/black, less education, shorter times working for a person/company, etc. It also noted at one point noted that nearly 26% of those surveyed had had a minimum wage violation that week before taking the survey. Exploitation happens in just about any field of work and by varying degrees. For example, my husband works in software engineering and purposely avoided video game designing because they are well known for overexpending their employees to meet deadlines. There's amazon workers having too short of breaks. There's meat industry assembly workers having increased likelihood of injury due to standard (exploitative) practices that put high output over worker safety. These are just a few that come to mind. If I wanted to google more I could find more...it's not too hard to do. And this is NOT including forms of community exploitation, where business practices put the health of neighboring communities at risk in order to make more (think oil refineries in houston) or cutting corners to save money in order to increase profit margins at community risk (think recent texas blackout due in large part from not winterizing power equipment). Or the sackler family and the opioid epidemic. On free giving, that's more complicated. Obviously some genuinely free giving happens. I don't remember the last time I bought McD's food because I choose not to go there. Same with seattle seahawks. But at times free giving becomes "free giving" because the choices have become severely limited due to business circumstances outside my control. Rent's actually a good example of this. I could "choose" to find some cheap rent with major cuts to my household autonomy by having 6 roommates to a small old house. But to choose a small apartment for my own living was near impossible on my single income. This wasn't really a free choice to give. I could point the same with my daughter's medications...she is a recipient of something called and "orphan drug." Her medication is impossible for 99% of humanity to pay for out of pocket. I'm not exaggerating. It's paid for largely by insurance...though somewhat reluctantly and insurance companies are picky because it costs them a fortune, smaller insurance companies often can't pay it. There are exactly 2 medications that can treat my daughter's condition, 1 of them has more side effects and is less easy for young ones to take. So Because of this we have to first ask about health insurance plans with potential job changes. Certain jobs my husband enjoys are simply off limits because of it. Meanwhile my daughter is a glorified cash cow for big pharma. Trust me, if I could choose otherwise, I would. It wasn't a choice of want but need and best care for our child. At some point certain companies and business practices can get so big and so pre-dominate that choosing otherwise becomes near impossible. In which case I'm basically forced to choose things I may not actually want. On 12/31/2021 at 11:43 AM, Eph2,8 said: Again, Nozick's theory is about the initial point of transfer. If people justly transfer ten billion dollars to me and it stays in my family for three generations, there is nothing unjust because the original transfer was made in a just way. In fact, taking the wealth and distributing it would be unjust because it interferes with the original, just transfer of wealth. The system is "fair" in the sense that it respects the individuals ability to choose what happens with his/her money. John Rawls - who Nozick was rejecting - used the word "fair" very differently, which is probably the way you are using it. Fair to Rawls meant that everyone is better off because of the organization of the institutions. Fairness to Nozick meant respecting choice and just transfers. You are absolutely right, it does assume that the money was accumulated according to a just transfer, which may not always be the case. Contrary to your assertion, I would assert that transfer in the US is mostly just. That's a big assertion and hard to prove/define. I assume by the above it would be apparent I disagree. I'm not sure what definition I'm using as fair. In either one, I have qualms with describing many practices in the US as such. On 12/31/2021 at 11:43 AM, Eph2,8 said: Speaking historically, I think that the checks on just market transfers are a lot more attainable and realistic than systems with heavy forms of redistributive wealth. Again, i'd probably fall in between. I think there is place and value in both within reasonable balance. And that there would need to be solid regulations and means for redress to actually keep a market just. Markets designed to focus on profit, will focus on profit. And inevitably veer towards harm/exploitation in order to do so. On 12/31/2021 at 11:43 AM, Eph2,8 said: I agree completely with most of that. When you say "our current system", are you referring to the USA? I can point to societies that are vastly more equal in wealth, and vastly more impoverished, full of suffering, and unnecessary death. Equality in wealth does not correlate to economic well being. From what I have seen, if you'd like to look at a system which has lifted more people out of poverty and done more to solve all the problems you've listed, the capitalism and just transfers of wealth of western countries is a good place to start. Probably better than most systems around the world today. Perfect? No. I appreciate the discourse! Hope your day is going well. on underlined: yes I am. I never assumed that only equality in wealth is enough to determine a healthy society. Likewise pointing to 1-2 economic factors in limited circumstances seems way too simplistic to me. And yes, it's been a good day. And several busy ones at that. Thanks. With luv, BD Edited January 3, 2022 by BlueDreams 1
Analytics Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 On 1/2/2022 at 7:55 PM, Eph2,8 said: Clearly I should not have said anything in response to Nehor's Hugh Nibley quote. I understand that my writing is perhaps at times not as clear as I'd like and sometimes I come across in different tones than I'd prefer, but I feel that I have been straw-manned a bit. There was a lot in your response, but I picked the few things that jumped out to me the most. The point I made in my original comment is that the market pressures on wages come from value added, not effort expended. I specifically mentioned in a later post that people may not be paid the exact value that they add, but rather that the driving pressures behind wages were of value, not effort. The comment was in response to a Nibley quote which seemed to suggest that effort expended was the main justifier and force behind wages. For some reason, it seems that my comment has been interpreted that I instead made the point that every got paid the exact cent of value they added. I never said this. With this in mind, we can examine the post you made - which was very thought out and articulate, something I am not great at. Before I start, I would like to also point out that a large portion of your post was an assumption about the events and facts behind the events in the twitter thread posted. I will accept the story you provided for the sake of discourse, but we don't know that the narrative you provided is even true. First, I'd like to point out that your response did not argue that the forces behind wages came from effort expended. So, it seems as though we have departed completely from the Nibley quote. That's fine. In fact, your entire post assumes and defends the position that the market forces on wages come from value added! Of course the wage will not be exactly equal to the value, but you assumed that the worker demanded more money because he recognized the value he added, not for some other arbitrary reason. Every time you suggest that the worker is demanding a higher wage because of his exclusivity, talents, or whatnot, you are suggesting that it is because of the value he brings. Now, to this quoted section above. This specific example you have given is an example of a market failure. The one worker holds a complete monopoly in this market, it is not a competitive market. Yet, that does not matter. Monopolies do not make the laws of supply and demand disappear. Demanders will substitute the product if the price is too high, in some way constraining how the monopoly can price itself. The substitution for the product could also be to not have the product... which I know seems odd. Here is my point: in the twitter thread, we see market forces even in a monopoly. The worker tries to set the price too high, and the company substitutes his labor, choosing instead to lose money from him not getting the reports sent in. You wrote this out yourself in your post. And, once again, the market force driving the worker to suggest a higher wage is the value that he would add to the company. Yes, he may not get paid exactly that, but the justification for his behavior is value added, not effort expended. So, we have two market forces at play: the value of labor and substitution. If the company would rather pay the fine... then maybe the worker did not add as much value as you are assuming he did. You mentioned that the manager was manipulative, and perhaps he was just trying to get the worker to come back at a lower wage than the worker wanted. If the entire company rode on this one worker, then I'm sure most upper level management would figure out a pay cut rather than have their pay reduced to 0. Once again, we see that maybe the value added is lower than the demanded wage, putting pressure on wages to go down. Again, the boss is manipulative. I'm not sure that we can trust fully what he has said as the actual reasoning of the company. I feel this is a good time to note that even if the man was payed exactly as much value as he added - this does not mean that either party is satisfied. Of course the company will want to pay him lower, and of course he will want more. That does not change the market forces at play - in fact, it could be seen as a result of them. By the way, I am not implying that you said that there were no market forces in play. I am just trying to explain my side. I found this to be an interesting addition, considering the twitter thread you are using as your case study is not at all a competitive market for scarce jobs. Per your assumption, it is a monopoly held by the worker himself, where he has a large amount of power over wage negotiations - probably more than the company. If anything, the scarcity is in the man, not the job. Nevertheless, what would probably be the main force in the Marx supposed negotiation? The value added to the company. Such is the underlying factor in the negotiation you posted. To sum up: Yes, pay is decided by a negotiation. But what does the worker use as a bargaining chip? The value he adds to the company. The main market force that drives wages in a particular direction is the value added to a company. Is every worker paid every penny of value added? No. Does this negate the market force? No. In the example provided, we clearly see a market force of value added pushing the wage upwards. We do not see a market force based on the effort expended in a job. We also see a market force of substitution at play. They are not mutually exclusive, and they are not nullified due to negotiations or a market failure (monopoly) I wish I could have responded to more of what you said. No doubt I will have some errors in my response - both in grammar and economics. I apologize if it seems scatter brained at all. I start a new semester tomorrow and am all over the place. Hope you are having a good day I do agree with you that value added is a force towards what someone will be paid. However, there are many, many other factors that also come into play, and often completely dominate marginal value. Warren Buffet has made the point that if he would have been born in almost any other time in human history, he would have been eaten by a tiger or something at a young age, and otherwise lived an unremarkable life of poverty. In a sense he has added a lot of marginal value by having some skills on how to allocate capital, but it's important to remember that this would have been impossible without a huge endowment from the rest of society in terms of culture, infrastructure, laws, etc. Without the rest of society supporting him, he couldn't have earned massive wealth. Given the contribution that society makes and the winner-take-all nature of so much of the modern economy, I'm not sure if attributing marginal value to a specific individual even makes sense. 1
bluebell Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 I watched Schindler's List this weekend with my 17 year old son, who is interested in WWII. He had never seen it before and I felt he was ready for that kind of a movie. One of the things that struck me as I was watching it at the end was that it was Schindler's wealth (often gotten in ways that we would not consider moral) that enabled him to save the over 1000 Jewish people that he did. As everyone knows, by the end of the movie he has nothing left but a car and a gold nazi party pin, and he cries that he didn't think to use those items to save a few more people. In context with this thread, I can't help but think about how money can be power. Christ in the NT says to make friends with the powerful people of the world because they can be used to do much good. Likewise, we can often increase our power to do good when we have such resources. I think we need to use all the ways that we can to better the world, and money is sometimes one of the ways that we do that. 3
rodheadlee Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 There are times that I felt guilty because I didn't manage my money better and I would have been able to help people live better. 1
dougtheavenger Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 On 12/22/2021 at 2:19 PM, Fether said: I saw this topic brought up on another thread, felt it would be a good topic on its own. The typical premise is “No one needs a billion dollars, so why not donate it?” I am under the impression that that is a fairly short sighted view. Should a billionaire give away their $1,000,000,000? Or would it be better to continue to grow their wealth and consistently donate 5% of their wealth every year for the rest of their life and then pass that wealth to their family and have them continue to donate that 5% every year? I’m not a Billionaire, but I intended on amassing some amount of wealth in my life and I have an idea of how money is used, stored, and spent. From what I have gathered, Billionaires don’t have rooms full of gold and cash Scrooge McDuck style. Rather, the vast majority of it is invested in their own businesses, other businesses and other entities. That money is then used to grow other industries that provide jobs for others. People with insane wealth are also incentivized to donate to charity for tax write off purposes. I would imagine a single year of a billionaire’s donations would exceed that of anyone normal person’s life time donations. Additional questions I would ask: - How much money is too much money? - Should rich people just give all their money away? Is that the best thing to do? - Is this a problem about maximizing the good someone can do? Or is it about there being some moral limit on how much someone should have? Or perhaps is it just jealousy? I have yet to see a single billionaire give all their money away. A couple have formed organizations which they control that use their money in dubious ways.
dougtheavenger Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 All billionaires are not evil, but on the whole they do more harm than good. If they all dropped dead tomorrow, the world would be a better place.
BRMC Posted January 4, 2022 Posted January 4, 2022 2 minutes ago, dougtheavenger said:If they all dropped dead tomorrow, the world would be a better place. Or unemployed 1
Recommended Posts