Why should anyone have more money than anyone else?

[barracuda]

I would firstly wonder about the evidence in favor of genetic predispositions towards "working long hours, or harder, or under extreme conditions" and in what sort of complex ways environment interacts with such predispositions.

Secondly, I would wonder whether such (presumed) predispositions would completely mitigate the difference between a fun and easy job and say, doing hard labor in a sweaty, dark and dangerous mine...

There are certainly persons predisposed towards mining work - some people just love to dig, for example, or agoraphobiacs who simply hate being out in open spaces. Since we're speaking in utopian terms, it might be optimal to find those persons among such a group who are also interested and love the hard work and danger which accompanies mining, and theoretically you have a demographic which is a perfect fit.

Regarding "fun and easy jobs", I would say that any job which is done by someone who loves doing it is both difficult in its process and mastery, and enjoyable in its results, if approached properly.

[American Dream]

I would firstly wonder about the evidence in favor of genetic predispositions towards "working long hours, or harder, or under extreme conditions" and in what sort of complex ways environment interacts with such predispositions.

Secondly, I would wonder whether such (presumed) predispositions would completely mitigate the difference between a fun and easy job and say, doing hard labor in a sweaty, dark and dangerous mine...

There are certainly persons predisposed towards mining work - somew people love to dig, for example, or agoraphobiacs who simply hate being out in open spaces. Since we're speaking in utopian terms, it might be optimal to find those persons among such a group who are also interested and love the hard work and danger which accompanies mining, and theoretically you have a demographic which is a perfect fit.

Regarding "fun and easy jobs", I would say that any job which is done by someone who loves doing it is both difficult in its process and mastery, and enjoyable in its results, if approached properly.

I understand what you're saying but don't you think there are jobs that are generally less liked and more liked?

Self-preservation is a basic instinct and while there certainly are people who get a thrill out of danger, might it not make sense to give better compensation to people who do really, really dangerous jobs?

By the same token might it not be fair to give extra perks for jobs that involve a lot of pain or discomfort? Or do you think we can really match all those jobs to masochists who would just love it and need no extra inducement to perform such labor?

[norton ash]

I understand what you're saying but don't you think there are jobs that are generally less liked and more liked?

Less liked: see migrants for the complete list.

[barracuda]

I understand what you're saying but don't you think there are jobs that are generally less liked and more liked?

I'm not sure. I don't disagree that there might be, but I simply don't know. Working in the water industry I've met many people who do jobs that would likely fall into the "less liked" catergory - municipal sewer repair for example. I recall a gentleman who described to me what it was like to open a sewer passage in the old part of San Jose and be suddenly swarmed head to toe by thousands of palmetto bugs seeing the light of day for the first time. And yet he was obviously proud of his nerve and expertise, and displayed a great enjoyment of his trade generally. Perhaps it could be said that he was simply and sadly submerged in his own submission to the alienation of his life and work, though.

Self-preservation is a basic instinct and while there certainly are people who get a thrill out of danger, might it not make sense to give better compensation to people who do really, really dangerous jobs?

Again, I think there are only a certain number of people who are physically and mentally disposed to perform some of those types of jobs. I'm trying to think of jobs which no one wants to do at all, yet must get done anyway, and I think the answer is that no one should have to do only that type of work, but that everyone should have to do some work which fits that description.

By the same token might it not be fair to give extra perks for jobs that involve a lot of pain or discomfort? Or do you think we can really match all those jobs to masochists who would just love it and need no extra inducement to perform such labor?

People perform tasks all the time that require great suffering and pain - athletes for instance, or those whose tasks require intense practice such as concert musicians. Is the pain of a childhood composed of the intermitable, grueling piano practice required to attain concert proficiency somehow worth more or less than the pain or discomfort of being an iron worker or a hod-carrier? It's subjective. But hod-carrying is a task, like playing the piano well, which is simply out of the realm of possibility for many folks.

Less liked: see migrants for the complete list.

Yes, we should pay migrant farm workers enough money so they will no longer be forced to move around with the crops. Wait, but then who'll pick the crops?? Maybe if that job paid enough, locals would do it. Obviously there's something systemically wrong with an industry which works in such a fashion. But I think it's important that the discussion is really about work rather than having money, because I see it as more fundamental to the problem. It is the corporations that requires people to do tasks they hate all day every day in the name of profit. If people did what they enjoyed rather than what the corporation required, thing would certainly be different. Maybe the crops would rot in the fields, and people would starve. Or maybe some other result might occur. Maybe, maybe, maybe.

[American Dream]

I understand what you're saying but don't you think there are jobs that are generally less liked and more liked?

I'm not sure. I don't disagree that there might be, but I simply don't know. Working in the water industry I've met many people who do jobs that would likely fall into the "less liked" catergory - municipal sewer repair for example. I recall a gentleman who described to me what it was like to open a sewer passage in the old part of San Jose and be suddenly swarmed head to toe by thousands of palmetto bugs seeing the light of day for the first time. And yet he was obviously proud of his nerve and expertise, and displayed a great enjoyment of his trade generally.

Your point is well-taken but I still believe that there are jobs that that are generally less liked and more liked.

Self-preservation is a basic instinct and while there certainly are people who get a thrill out of danger, might it not make sense to give better compensation to people who do really, really dangerous jobs?

Again, I think there are only a certain number of people who are physically and mentally disposed to perform some of those types of jobs. I'm trying to think of jobs which no one wants to do at all, yet must get done anyway, and I think the answer is that no one should have to do only that type of work, but that everyone should have to do some work which fits that description.

Agreed.

By the same token might it not be fair to give extra perks for jobs that involve a lot of pain or discomfort? Or do you think we can really match all those jobs to masochists who would just love it and need no extra inducement to perform such labor?

People perform tasks all the time that require great suffering and pain - athletes for instance, or those whose tasks require intense practice such as concert musicians. Is the pain of a childhood composed of the intermitable, grueling piano practice required to attain concert proficiency somehow worth more or less than the pain or discomfort of being an iron worker or a hod-carrier? It's subjective. Hod-carrying is a task, like playing the piano well, which is simply out of the realm of possibility for many folks.

Yes but the things you describe here can be attributed to some sort of internal motivation, which may be more common and stronger in piano virtuosos than, say, latrine cleaners...

[psynapz]

I think it speaks to something fairly significant that our culture has effectively destroyed the language needed to even speak about this type of politics.

Brilliant, but I would disagree only on one small point here: culture didn't destroy it, the mythmakers did.

[undead]

Barracuda,

You make valid points on the industrial farming system, but note that I said "As long as they are not taking away from others by doing the extra work, why not?". I was simply trying to point out that some people are more driven to work and produce / create something valuable. And it is possible to create valuable resources with work and creativity, without hurting anyone, and even helping the collective good in the process.

For example, take Paul Stamets, the famous mycologist (I hope he is getting more famous at this point, at least). He has several business and also holds patents. Generally I disagree with the intellectual property system, however I would not begrudge Mr. Stamets the extra income he may earn from those patents because I am confident that his intentions are in line with the common good of humanity and the planet. His process of accumulating resources for himself has a positive effect on the planet as a whole, therefore I believe his businesses should be encouraged.

I think that many people who consider themselves leftists of some variety (not anyone involved in this conversation) should examine how much their ideology is motivated by envy, jealousy, and laziness. Because these are some of the main negative stereotypes of the left, and it is a real drag when people perpetuate them. For example, in Greece there is a taxi syndicate / union. While I generally support unions, in this case I think the regulatory state is being abused for the benefit of a few people.

I don't see any reason why ANYONE with a car should be prohibited from working as a taxi driver, provided that they comply with some reasonable regulations to protect their customers. Now, there are a limited number of taxi licenses and this results in artificially high compensation for people who hold those licenses. I don't think that this is fair, because consumers pay more, and there are very many unemployed people who might be able to scrape by using their car as a taxi. Just because someone bought an expensive taxi license doesn't entitle them to have a relatively easy job providing a luxury service. Or at least it shouldn't.

Also, you said:

There are almost certainly far many more individuals who would like to work as farmers than there are jobs for those people.

I have to disagree with this. The main impediment to implementing an ecological agricultural system is that it requires many more laborers to replace all the mechanization/chemicals and keep up with the demand for food. Generally people do not want to work in agriculture because the work is very difficult. It is basically the least secure work that there is, even with subsidies. It is fashionable to express interest in farming ecologically, and this is a start, but on the whole it is not happening. At least it is not happening enough to have an impact on the agricultural field.

So when you say that many people "would like" to work as farmers but there are no "jobs" available, what you really are saying is that many people like the idea of being a farmer, but it is too difficult to make a decent living working in agriculture. I mean, of course many people would like to own a farm and be a farmer. Owning a farm involves owning a lot - land, equipment, buildings, etc. Almost all people who work in agriculture are not farmers but laborers. The self sufficient farmer is an extremely rare species, and any of them will tell you that it is really difficult work.

So coming back to the topic of this thread, I would like to suggest that ecological farmers should have (be allowed to accumulate fairly) more money than taxi drivers, because they work harder and do more to support the collective organism. But hey, maybe I'm biased.

edited to add:

On second thought, that would never happen, ever, so what is the point of even suggesting it? Because this is a "should" conversation with very little connection to the real world, and is basically just an intellectual pissing match.

If I were to say, "People who work more or work harder should have more money than others." there would be a flurry of objections about how people who accumulate wealth must necessarily hurt others in the process. And I do not agree with this. I agree that most money is accumulated by exploiting others, but I think it is possible to create and accumulate wealth in a way that doesn't hurt anyone and actually helps the common good. So I think that is what this conversation is really about. Mac, would you like to comment on that?

[undead]

[undead]

Also, barracuda, nobody WANTS to work in a coal mine, what on Earth are you talking about?

[undead]

So I just had another idea. I also think that any job which helps preserve and repair the natural environment should come with higher pay than jobs that destroy the environment, in the interest of preventing the extinction of life on this planet. I mean, while we're talking about utopia land, why not?

[Nordic]

shit. i just wrote a brilliant response to barracuda, and my freaking blackberry lost it. damn that sucks.

okay. my main point was that filmmaking is hardly environmentally unfriendly, relative to almost all other commercial endeavors where something is actually manufactured. i mean, compare filmmaking, especially computer generated filmmaking, to, say aluminum mining, or mountaintop removal coal mining, or even the manufacture of all those giant plastic toys at toys r us. it's pretty silly to make the claim you did.

i agree with many of barracuda's points, but he's getting hung up on his apparent hatred of the movie industry and the price of tickets.

so let's pick an example of someone i can only assume is universally loved and admired here -- margaret atwood. let's say she got ten million bucks for the movie rights to "the handmaids tale". shouldn't she be entitled to this? and what if the movie version had made a billion dollars? shouldn't she have been entitled to a big piece of this?

that's what i'm getting at.

at the same time i agree with the whole notion of "from each according to his abilities, to each ac9ording to his needs". and then there are people we need to do the dirty work, and it's those people who should be well paid for their time!

[barracuda]

You make valid points on the industrial farming system, but note that I said "As long as they are not taking away from others by doing the extra work, why not?". I was simply trying to point out that some people are more driven to work and produce / create something valuable. And it is possible to create valuable resources with work and creativity, without hurting anyone, and even helping the collective good in the process.

Fair enough. But it is my opinion that activities which create valuable resources and help the collective good ought to be seen as an end in themselves, and personal profit be damned beyond the ability of people to be permitted the time and grace in this life to do something which pleases them. I am not one of those who sees wealth as the greatest motivator for progress there is. Rather, I view private renumeration above the mean as a detrimental force which ultimately rewards crime more than creativity, as we have seen in recent history. Plenty of awesome widgets are invented daily which never see the light of day and as yet, the world manages to spin on.

Everyone can think of individuals whose work they feel ought be rewarded highly. I can think of a few myself. However, I believe the ability to do what one wants to do and loves to do should be, in itself, ample reward and motivation. Living comfortably is not a reward, it is a right, imo, even to those for whom working hard is not a proclivity, a predisposition, or an inclination, as well as for those who nature has not granted talents which happen to fall into the pidgeon-holes of the marketplace.

So when you say that many people "would like" to work as farmers but there are no "jobs" available, what you really are saying is that many people like the idea of being a farmer, but it is too difficult to make a decent living working in agriculture. I mean, of course many people would like to own a farm and be a farmer. Owning a farm involves owning a lot - land, equipment, buildings, etc. Almost all people who work in agriculture are not farmers but laborers. The self sufficient farmer is an extremely rare species, and any of them will tell you that it is really difficult work.

I guess I was really more concerned with the dispossession of generations of farmers who had a traditional stake in the lifestyle which has largely disappeared. Yes, farming is hard work, and there are few guarantees. But we are talking about changing that, aren't we? If the profit made by farming wasn't tenuously tied to the artifice of the marketplace, it might be a different story.

Also, barracuda, nobody WANTS to work in a coal mine, what on Earth are you talking about?

I'm not certain that's the case. Certainly no one deserves to have to work in the coal mining industry as it is presently constitiuted, but the reasons that mining as a profession carries such onerous connotations has more to do with the shitty way in which generations of miners have been consistently mistreated by capital. Were that to change, I should expect you'd find people for whom mining was something they would be interested in, in and of itself.

okay. my main point was that filmmaking is hardly environmentally unfriendly, relative to almost all other commercial endeavors where something is actually manufactured. i mean, compare filmmaking, especially computer generated filmmaking, to, say aluminum mining, or mountaintop removal coal mining, or even the manufacture of all those giant plastic toys at toys r us. it's pretty silly to make the claim you did.

I'll happily concede you that, as I'm certain you are far better informed than I on the matter.

i agree with many of barracuda's points, but he's getting hung up on his apparent hatred of the movie industry and the price of tickets.

Oh, I think that you've taken me literally regarding what I'd hoped was a joke. But besides that - fuck 3-d. Jeebus.

so let's pick an example of someone i can only assume is universally loved and admired here -- margaret atwood. let's say she got ten million bucks for the movie rights to "the handmaids tale". shouldn't she be entitled to this? and what if the movie version had made a billion dollars? shouldn't she have been entitled to a big piece of this?

I don't think so. Maybe she should have a greater say in what ends the proceeds of such a film should go to, but why she should live in luxury for having written a good book while others starve is beyond me.

[MacCruiskeen]

Of course if we do away with money, maybe we're getting somewhere.

Thanks, Jeff - that's what I was getting at, and I didn't even realise it until you formulated it. If everyone has the same amount to live on, money itself becomes meaningless. Meanwhile, everything else [re-]acquires meaning.

I think it speaks to something fairly significant that our culture has effectively destroyed the language needed to even speak about this type of politics.

OWS is restoring the language - or, rather, proving that it hasn't entirely died out, and can be learned again by those who have forgotten it. But I think hardly anyone has actually forgotten it. They've just been taught that it's bad language, literally taboo.

Plain facts: There is easily enough food and easily enough decent housing space on this planet to feed and house even seven billion people decently. The question is obvious, but is rarely even raised, and will be laughed off as "naive" if it is ever asked: Why should anyone have to pay money for either of those things? The very idea of rent, for example, strikes me as simply obscene. And imagine what people could do if the basic tasks of securing food and shelter (against human predators) were not still (!!) their main priorities.*

*I'm not just talking "Third World" here. The same applies to 99% of us.

[Jeff]

Also, barracuda, nobody WANTS to work in a coal mine, what on Earth are you talking about?

I'm not certain that's the case. Certainly no one deserves to have to work in the coal mining industry as it is presently constitiuted, but the reasons that mining as a profession carries such onerous connotations has more to do with the shitty way in which generations of miners have been consistently mistreated by capital. Were that to change, I should expect you'd find people for whom mining was something they would be interested in, in and of itself.

[Aldebaran]

Plain facts: There is easily enough food and easily enough decent housing space on this planet to feed and house even seven billion people decently. The question is obvious, but is rarely even raised, and will be laughed off as "naive" if it is ever asked: Why should anyone have to pay money for either of those things? The very idea of rent, for example, strikes me as simply obscene. And imagine what people could do if the basic tasks of securing food and shelter (against human predators) were not still (!!) their main priorities.*

*I'm not just talking "Third World" here. The same applies to 99% of us.

This comes pretty close to something that's been rattling around in my head for the past few weeks. Which is, if we weren't in a position where we had to sell our labor to secure our basic necessities, what would the labor market look like? If we viewed work not as something we do to secure whatever we might call financial security, but just as something that needs to be done, what would we find is the actual demand for work in the world? How many jobs exist only because there are people to "work" them, people who need to work them to put food on the table (which drives down the value of their labor and makes them competitive, with say, machines)? Plus all the people who don't have work because the wage-earners hog 40+ hours of it a week. Not even a back-of-the-napkin calculation to this, but it might only take something obscene like 10 hours a week, equally distributed, to keep civilization going, what with all the automation technology we have and are likely to see in the future.

Kinda puts the whole good job/shit job dichotomy in perspective. I personally would probably not even care if I had to work in a coal mine if I only had to do it 2 hours a day.