Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One job in society isn't necessarily more or less important than the other. These people are fulfilling a need in society that is usually every bit as important as the next job. It's impossible to draw a line in the sand, as it would end up as a value judgment. But in short, I think that the guy that builds the roads, the schools, the dams; the janitor, the security guard, the doctor, the lawyer all fulfill an equal social need. There should be at least some reflection of that in their pay.
If you take a sample of 100 people and line them up, how many do you think are able to perform the work required to "build a road" (in this case, let's say the job is directing the traffic, in the blazing hot summer sun, while one lane is shut down during the construction). How many people in an area could do that work?
Now, take that group and attempt to select someone for a neurosurgeon position. This person will be responsible to treat brain tumors, aneurysms and other critical life and death medical issues. How many of these people will be qualified to do that work?
Should we pay both workers $50,000 a year because we value all our workers equally for their contribution to society?
Sad but true. There is no equity in the working world.
Of course, there is not equity in life also. When you go to a super market, you make sure you buy different brands of tomato sauce so every company make a profit regardless of price? I do not think you do that. You simply weight prices, quality, taste, what mom or dad or wife says she/he lifes, etc. and make a choice.
How about cars? I do not know how many cars you have bought in your life but do you pick a different manufacturer to make it equal when you buy a car?
The same with clothing. Do you make sure you buy from different brands to make sure all workers keep their jobs if no one buys from their companies? Example: Today I buy X brand of pants but the next time I buy panst I will make sure to Y brand and the same the next time so all pant companies do not go bankrupt. Is that what you do?
Do you want to dictate how much basketball players should get paid compared to a teacher? How about a bricklayer compared to a doctor? How much should that difference if any at all?
That is why the market dictates the prices based on what customers demand.
It seems to me people want to make it a moral issue when it comes to economy and the market. Capitalist countries have the higher standards of life when they allow the market dictate wages as much as possible.
I am not aware of a Union contract being negotiated with all companies collectively (where all companies are negotiating as one entity). If this happens, (and I am not convinced, yet, that it does), then I would retract my statement)
I'm a Union Tradesman and that's exactly the way it works. Each local has a collective agreement with all the Union contractors in their jurisdiction. The agreements can also be re-negotiated if a contractor needs a break on labor costs in order to win a bid.
A friend of mine who works really really hard doing really physically draining highway maintenance work is paid poorly. He comes home from work emotionally and physically drained. But at the end he is just making enough money for basic survival. Another friend of ours makes close to $100K as a Cost Accountant. The job is not too hard for him but the bosses are pleased with his work. He got the job because he studied hard in school and got a Masters Degree in Accounting and has become an expert in Cost Accounting.
But should he make three times as much sitting in an office in 72 comfort in his own office as our other friend who makes 30K for busting his butt on the highway road project in extreme weather?
That is the problem with supply and demand, its goal is not fairness. It is a system without soul.
I have gradually come to think that everybody should be paid the same amount per hour. I guess that would make many more people do for a living what they like doing. I don't know about the States, but in Europe a lot of young people study business administration because they want to earn a lot. At the same time there are too few people studying things that are the foundation and substance of enterprises.
I think much more of miners, construction or sewage workers, farmers etc. than of anybody working in an office. Pretty much at the bottom of my list are bank employees, real estate folks etc.
That is the problem with supply and demand, its goal is not fairness. It is a system without soul.
I have gradually come to think that everybody should be paid the same amount per hour. I guess that would make many more people do for a living what they like doing. I think much more of miners, construction or sewage workers, farmers etc. than of anybody working in an office. Pretty much at the bottom of my list are bank employees, real estate folks etc.
The supply and demand is about fairness, freedom, and liberty. It is fair because it is a system that allow for everybody to decide what they want to do, what they want to work on, and what the customer wants to buy when he has so many choices.
So you want everybody to be paid the same amount per hour? Let me give you an example in nature. Why do you think people pay a lot more for gold than for a simple rock?
The same with trades and professions. There are a lot more people able to lay clean offices than doctors that can do a heart transplant. Do you mean to say that a heart transplant doctor should be paid the same than someone cleaning offices?
Why do you think some basketball players are paid more than others?
Forcing people to accept the same as everybody kills incentive. Why should someone accept the same pay as somebody that produces less?
As I stated in my previous message, do you try equality in your daily life? How about you start rotating what brand of pants other clothing items you buy so EVERY brand sells? Do not buy only one brand. Buy a different brand EVERY TIME you buy pants to every brand makes a profit, not just one.
Do the same when you buy food, cars, etc. without regard of name brand. Just buy from every company so you make sure people do not loose their jobs. Do not be concerned about quality, price, performance, etc. Just worry about the workers that make those products. That is more important. You do that.
As far as I am concerned I will buy products that suit my needs and meet my budget conditions. The results as far as I am concerned? Some companies will sell less if they do not try to meet my and other customers demands. The workers will get the incentive to work harder and put more effort in the quality of their work. That is what competition through supply and demand gives and that is fair.
The type of fairness you espouse was tried by the Soviet Union and other countries including Cuba. Do you see people getting in boats to go to Cuba? No, it is the other way around. I am sure you have seen picture and movies about people risking their lives to jump over the Berlin wall. Why? To run about from a fair system you espouse? People rather prefer freedom and liberty than forced equality. People rather live poor and free than with the type of fairness they got in those countries.
Look at China. With the limited capitalist principles they have allowed they are becoming an economic power. The same with other asian countries after they were allowed. How about India? I do not question your humane feelings but in my opinion you have what I call missplaced compasion. People in the long run have fared much better under a capitalist system of supply and demand than the socialist inclinations you have and countries tried and failed. People eventually revolted. It is interesting that as bad people whine and cry we have in the US, we do not revolt to the point we want to distroy this type of system. We may complaing and complain but we must have a good enough life not to distroy what we have as compared to those countries that their people got tired of all that fairness.
Well, gold and rocks and clothes etc. are just things, not people. Thus your post is basically irrelevant regarding my opinion on this topic. I have never believed in the system you are promoting here, and I never will.
And no, I don't think a surgeon deserves more than a cleaning lady. Money is the wrong motivation in my view. If someone doesn't want to save lives, there are lots of egoistic professions to choose from...
Well, gold and rocks and clothes etc. are just things, not people. Thus your post is basically irrelevant regarding my opinion on this topic. I have never believed in the system you are promoting here, and I never will.
And no, I don't think a surgeon deserves more than a cleaning lady. Money is the wrong motivation in my view. If someone doesn't want to save lives, there are lots of egoistic professions to choose from...
Looks like you missed the point on the example on rock and gold. The point was that the less a commodity or a skill is readibly available the more valuable it is. With this in mind skills do vary in value so the supply and demand will dictate the value of that labor so it is relevant. Now, if you do not want to accept that logic, fine.
Well, if you mean that a surgeon does not deserve more pay than a cleaning lady, good luck. You are going against the fair pay for the demand of a skill or commodity.
Money can be the wrong motivation. Many people see money as a means to good goals and causes. What does saving lives has to do with the supply and demand principle?
Your view has provent to fail badly. People revolted on systems that promote equal pay regardless of trade or profession. I as you will never agree to the system you are promoting.
I notice you did not show any logic as to why the system I promote is worse than yours. I gave you my logic on why it is better.
Notice, I am not saying it is the best or perfect. I simply it has proven to be better. Look around the world and see how people tend to fair better under a system that promotes opportunities to fair better in life.
As soon as the pilgrims moved to the New World they started to us a free market and compited with other countries of the world by growing tobacco. The results? They ended up being a society that had healthier people, they actually grew taller than the country they left behind, grew more economically, etc. The same trend is with countries that not promote your idea but a free market. You seem to lump everybody with greed and not care for human life. That is not true. There are very humanitarian and philantropic people that made their fortunes and donate to people in need because they amazed wealth in the free market.
And no, I don't think a surgeon deserves more than a cleaning lady. Money is the wrong motivation in my view.
Money is only a partial factor in terms of it being "motivation." The concept that is relevant here is COMPENSATION based on market conditions and value.
I personally don't want to live in a place where some overseer doles out my stipend and other entitlements on a per captia basis, i.e., I am an individual in the society and we all get the same things. That means a government must administer. That's an archaic principle. Although everyone is entitled to their own set of beliefs.
I can't read this thread anymore. IMHO, it's too bizarre for me to grasp some of this thinking.
Well, gold and rocks and clothes etc. are just things, not people. Thus your post is basically irrelevant regarding my opinion on this topic. I have never believed in the system you are promoting here, and I never will.
And no, I don't think a surgeon deserves more than a cleaning lady. Money is the wrong motivation in my view. If someone doesn't want to save lives, there are lots of egoistic professions to choose from...
Ok, make every job pay the same.
I will be the wine taster and beauty contest judge. Oh, and I want to be a surfer too.
You get to shovel manure.
My mentally slow cousin LOVES planes, I think he get's to be an air traffic controller.
Where you are confused is that you are equating pay with the dignity of labor as to ones own abilities.
P.S. Supply and demand is incredibly fair and is not a system, it's a PHENOMENON. Even in centrally planned socialist systems or small scale communes it still exists.
Looks like you missed the point on the example on rock and gold. The point was that the less a commodity or a skill is readibly available the more valuable it is. With this in mind skills do vary in value so the supply and demand will dictate the value of that labor so it is relevant. Now, if you do not want to accept that logic, fine.
Well, if you mean that a surgeon does not deserve more pay than a cleaning lady, good luck. You are going against the fair pay for the demand of a skill or commodity.
Money can be the wrong motivation. Many people see money as a means to good goals and causes. What does saving lives has to do with the supply and demand principle?
Your view has provent to fail badly. People revolted on systems that promote equal pay regardless of trade or profession. I as you will never agree to the system you are promoting.
I notice you did not show any logic as to why the system I promote is worse than yours. I gave you my logic on why it is better.
Notice, I am not saying it is the best or perfect. I simply it has proven to be better. Look around the world and see how people tend to fair better under a system that promotes opportunities to fair better in life.
As soon as the pilgrims moved to the New World they started to us a free market and compited with other countries of the world by growing tobacco. The results? They ended up being a society that had healthier people, they actually grew taller than the country they left behind, grew more economically, etc. The same trend is with countries that not promote your idea but a free market. You seem to lump everybody with greed and not care for human life. That is not true. There are very humanitarian and philantropic people that made their fortunes and donate to people in need because they amazed wealth in the free market.
You have a great day.
El Amigo
I did get your point, but I just don't believe in supply and demand, especially when you apply it to humans instead of some dead material. I only evaluate and judge people on their morals and the actions resulting from them. Certainly not on their education, job skills, etc.
I don't know of any system where people earned the same regardless of their jobs, even in Russia some people earned a whole lot more than others, same in China. Thus one cannot say that same pay would now work.
Since you mentioned it, neither do I believe in economic growth, wealth, etc., I think it is the wrong way. I started a thread on that the other day, but naturally nobody was interested in it. People these days have a very narrow horizon, they can't really think beyond what they are used to, I guess they are afraid of big changes, of slowing down, of cutting back and limiting themselves.
I used to be a Buddhist for decades, and although I no longer am because of religious reasons, I still am regarding the material aspects, i.e. I believe in minimalism and modesty, morals, etc.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
