Occupy Discussion

[River]

Income inequality laid out rather starkly.

[Aravar]

I think there are a number of reasons for a high RPI, for example quantitive easing (currency devaluation). Ultra low interest rates are... problematic. They may favour some home owners, but affect pensions adversely. They are very much a poisoned chalice; an action of last resort to try and maintain a discredited fiscal system. But my major criticism at this juncture is not so much the RPI level, but how assurances made that tie the incomes of the poorest, those on 'benefits', to RPI are reneged upon. It is symptomatic of the "1%" who rule, and maintain their own greedy, vested interests. These are wonderfully wealth redistributive times... from the poor to the rich!

I agree to an extent regarding QE, and as to the shift in the RPI calculation. Howver I think this whole 1% thing is extremely arbitrary. Whether someone is greed or immoral does not depned upon an arbitrary cut off. I'm not in the top 1% in either income or capital terms, but I doubt that you could really describe my situation as peonage either.

I think there is some confusion here, but perhaps I can clarify. Yes, I do believe that an hour of a newspaper vendor's life is as worthy as an hour of a surgeon's life. I also believe that a surgeon would, most likely, gain greater satisfaction from being a surgeon than being a vendor. As such, she is already being rewarded. If the sole rationale for a surgeon being a surgeon was financial reward, I would be deeply disappointed. I think that the pursuit of 'riches', in effect being governed by Mammon, is the curse of our societies.

But this excludes the middle. I fully accept that my job is more satisfying than when I was shelf stacking. It is also much more responsble and stressful - working at M & S I never would wake up at night worrying about whether I'd put the crisps in the right place. I wouldn't do it for the shelf stacker's wage. It's not a case of one or the other: the money and the job satisfaction make it worthwhile. For me the money alone would not be enough, but nor would the job satisfaction.

Nor am I going for as much money as possible, because that would have entailed a different route in the legal profession, or going into the City, which I would not have been happy with. However I still think it would be absurd to say that the shelf stacker sohuld be rewarded equally, on an hourly basis.

If that were the case it would mean that I also souhld be rewarded equally for whatever I do with my time: so that an hour of me attempting carpentry should be rewarded equally with an hour of legal work. That would be silly. In the former case the outcome would be a pile of ill assembled wood and a visit to casualty.

Equally it would mean that if you gave me and, say Heston Blumenthal the same ingredients and an hour to make a meal the remuneration should be equal, despite the fact that one of the meals will be far more palatable than the other.

And there would always be people willing to fill the gap of those who decide to stop working at that level. Job sharing as well as wealth sharing would be another win-win...

Would there? I believe that many people overestimate the strength of the work ethic.

[Ghân-buri-Ghân]

Without veering too far from the topic (I hope), I think, Aravar, that there is a major dissonance between our positions. I, truthfully, do not think it is 'silly' to claim that an hour of a street cleaner's life has any less value, intrinsically, than an hour of a brain surgeon's life (to take extremes). I would go so far as to claim that, to the street cleaner, and hour of the street cleaner's life is more important than the hour of the brain surgeon's. Personal subjectivity trumps impersonal objectivity...

But I will concede that there is, probably, some room to play with pay differentials. For example, nurses could have some moral claim for greater remuneration than lawyers, for example...

However, I would say that nobody deserves to earn more than ten times for an hour of their life than any other person. It requires a change of mindset, admittedly, but that is no bad thing. the "Greed is Good", Gordon Gecko mindset quite obviously (I would say) needs changing...

[yovargas]

However, I would say that nobody deserves to earn more than ten times for an hour of their life than any other person.

If someone is willing to give someone else 10 times more than someone else's pay for their work, why not exactly? This mentality perplexes me. What can "deserve" possibly mean when you separate it from the actual value that real people give to someone's work?

[vison]

However, I would say that nobody deserves to earn more than ten times for an hour of their life than any other person.

If someone is willing to give someone else 10 times more than someone else's pay for their work, why not exactly? This mentality perplexes me. What can "deserve" possibly mean when you separate it from the actual value that real people give to someone's work?

That's the point, isn't it? A thing is worth what people will pay for it - not a penny more, not a penny less.

The word "deserve" doesn't belong in this discussion at all.

The issue is that some people are cheating and other people are being cheated. That some people are thieves and others are being robbed. That some people are committing fraud, are manipulating numbers, are bending rules, and are pocketing money they did not earn.

The system is set up to reward fraud and thievery and those with money and power (usually the same thing) are getting away with it. That's the "unfair" part.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'm with Ghân on this one (his bad anti-lawyer joke notwithstanding). It's all well and good to say "let the free market determine what people are worth" but that so-called free market is artificially skewed. To specifically answer your question, yov, of "why not", well, because allowing that kind of discrepancy (which is not so much caused by people being willing to give that much as it is by other people being that much better at manipulating the system) is what allows some people to have way more than they need while others starve in the midst of a land of plenty. That just plain isn't right.

But I will agree with you, yov, to this extent. The irrational monetary system that we still utilize inevitably leads to this result. Until we manage to find a more reasonable way of measuring worth than with money, people will continue to starve despite the fact that there is more than enough for all. And that to me is utterly absurd.

[anthriel]

Perhaps the examples of the brain surgeon and the street sweeper are poorly chosen. I can't understand why someone would not pay a brain surgeon more per hour... after all, anyone can push a broom, but that brain surgeon hopefully should know a lot more about cutting into a brain than the street sweeper.

That knowledge came with, more often than not, a huge college loan debt, and an opportunity cost of many hours spent in utter immersion in the hospital and its responsibilities. People who get that far have invested a lot into their knowledge base, and I, for one, am glad they did.

If their skill sets are interchangeable in "value" (not their value as people, but the value of their skill sets), I would propose that anyone who truly believes that would invite the surgeon to sweep a street for an afternoon, and the street sweeper to perform a few brain surgeries. I'm sure the street would be fine.

[vison]

Perhaps the examples of the brain surgeon and the street sweeper are poorly chosen. I can't understand why someone would not pay a brain surgeon more per hour... after all, anyone can push a broom, but that brain surgeon hopefully should know a lot more about cutting into a brain than the street sweeper.

That knowledge came with, more often than not, a huge college loan debt, and an opportunity cost of many hours spent in utter immersion in the hospital and its responsibilities. People who get that far have invested a lot into their knowledge base, and I, for one, am glad they did.

If their skill sets are interchangeable in "value" (not their value as people, but the value of their skill sets), I would propose that anyone who truly believes that would invite the surgeon to sweep a street for an afternoon, and the street sweeper to perform a few brain surgeries. I'm sure the street would be fine.

Yup.

Voronwë thinks we should somehow get rid of money. I don't see how that's possible, to be honest. There has to be some means of exchange - we can no longer trade our apples for flour, or whatever. And some people will gather more of the stuff, whatever it is. Wampum or gold ingots.

What is needed, and what we don't seem to have, is an honest system. I am quite happy to see a brain surgeon earn a lot, but I also want the street sweeper to earn enough to live on. It seems, right now, that wealth is gathered UP by taking it from the bottom. Squeezing and squeezing, until only the husks of workers are left.

[Frelga]

If their skill sets are interchangeable in "value" (not their value as people, but the value of their skill sets), I would propose that anyone who truly believes that would invite the surgeon to sweep a street for an afternoon, and the street sweeper to perform a few brain surgeries. I'm sure the street would be fine.

Just one surgery. On them.

As Sybil Vimes* said, "You are confusing value and worth." (the you is part of the quote and not directed at anyone in particular.)

Money measures only value. The complaint is that it does so poorly. People like me are beginning to suspect that if you switched the street cleaner and Wall Street broker, it's the Wall Street that would come out the winner. Which is possibly why no one occupies doctor's offices. Or ballparks, or Amazon headquarters.

[anthriel]

If their skill sets are interchangeable in "value" (not their value as people, but the value of their skill sets), I would propose that anyone who truly believes that would invite the surgeon to sweep a street for an afternoon, and the street sweeper to perform a few brain surgeries. I'm sure the street would be fine.

Just one surgery. On them.

OH yeah. Much better plan.

As Sybil Vimes* said, "You are confusing value and worth." (the you is part of the quote and not directed at anyone in particular.)

Exactly. I know many people raise eyebrows at my religious beliefs, but one thing our church hammers home weekly is that we are all equal in the sight of God. I believe that quite deeply.

Money measures only value. The complaint is that it does so poorly. People like me are beginning to suspect that if you switched the street cleaner and Wall Street broker, it's the Wall Street that would come out the winner. Which is possibly why no one occupies doctor's offices. Or ballparks, or Amazon headquarters.

Ballparks is an interesting example. Pro sports figures make astronomical salaries, for doing something that has less practical value than sweeping a street. (No, I'm not a big sports fan. I don't begrudge anyone their enjoyment of sports, but I don't get it, either. You know, NASCAR and all that. )

I don't see anyone fussing about the inequity of payment for sports figures, though. Perhaps people are willing to pay them more than the sweeper because they provide something that not everyone can provide? An athlete at that level is rare, and so should be compensated differently than the man taking tickets for the game? That athlete deserves to make more money??

Oh, yeah. I know I'm opening a can of worms, here.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Voronwë thinks we should somehow get rid of money. I don't see how that's possible, to be honest. There has to be some means of exchange - we can no longer trade our apples for flour, or whatever. And some people will gather more of the stuff, whatever it is. Wampum or gold ingots.

It would certainly require an evolution in the way that we see things, towards a much more abstract mode of thought. Not something that will happen immediately, but I believe necessary if the species is to survive (or rather, is to evolve to the next phase).

[JewelSong]

Ballparks is an interesting example. Pro sports figures make astronomical salaries, for doing something that has less practical value than sweeping a street.

You could say the same for any entertainer. Surely a stage musical or opera or symphony concert has little "practical value" and yet we pay to see them. Big bucks, sometimes.

Pro sports is simply a form of entertainment which requires a specific skill set that NOT too many people have.

I recently saw Wagner's "Siegfried" at the Met in NYC. It was outstandingly good...and some people had paid about $300 for their seats. (I didn't. I got standing room tix for $24. Yes, I stood for 5+ hours for an opera.) The people on stage were magnificent. They were not doing something practical...they were doing something sublime.

[anthriel]

Ballparks is an interesting example. Pro sports figures make astronomical salaries, for doing something that has less practical value than sweeping a street.

You could say the same for any entertainer. Surely a stage musical or opera or symphony concert has little "practical value" and yet we pay to see them. Big bucks, sometimes.

Pro sports is simply a form of entertainment which requires a specific skill set that NOT too many people have.

I recently saw Wagner's "Siegfried" at the Met in NYC. It was outstandingly good...and some people had paid about $300 for their seats. (I didn't. I got standing room tix for $24. Yes, I stood for 5+ hours for an opera.) The people on stage were magnificent. They were not doing something practical...they were doing something sublime.

HA!! So do you agree that the people doing the sublime singing should be making as much money as the people taking the tickets?

[JewelSong]

HA! So do you agree that the people doing the sublime singing should be making as much money as the people taking the tickets?

Of course not. Anyone can take tickets - it requires very little preparation, training, knowledge or practice.

Very few people can sing grand opera. It requires years of dedicated training, enormous preparation, extensive knowledge and a great deal of practice. And even then, you have to be very, very, very good.

(Not sure what the "HA!" was for!)

[River]

Which is possibly why no one occupies doctor's offices. Or ballparks, or Amazon headquarters.

Yes. This. These people produce something of value. We pay them money and get something in return. It makes sense.

[anthriel]

HA! So do you agree that the people doing the sublime singing should be making as much money as the people taking the tickets?

Of course not. Anyone can take tickets - it requires very little preparation, training, knowledge or practice.

Very few people can sing grand opera. It requires years of dedicated training, enormous preparation, extensive knowledge and a great deal of practice. And even then, you have to be very, very, very good.

(Not sure what the "HA!" was for!)

The "HA!" was because you were helping me make my point. Perhaps I didn't make that clear in my previous posts; I do feel like people's skill sets have different value to the people around them.

So, yes. I agree.

[yovargas]

To specifically answer your question, yov, of "why not", well, because allowing that kind of discrepancy (which is not so much caused by people being willing to give that much as it is by other people being that much better at manipulating the system) is what allows some people to have way more than they need while others starve in the midst of a land of plenty. That just plain isn't right.

Yes, that does happen and it's unfortunate. But what it also allows means is that more people strive to be doctors than to be janitors. Remove that discrepancy and what you get is less doctors and more janitors but not, I suspect, less poor people.

[Primula Baggins]

I don't think there would be any shortage of doctors. There isn't in countries where doctors make less than they do here by comparison with the median. It's satisfying work, important work, and many people feel called to do it.

[anthriel]

Well, there is actually a shortage of doctors now. And there will possibly be more of a problem getting doctors trained in the future, at least here in the US; teaching (residency) programs are expensive, and especially with all the health care funding cuts proposed, maybe too expensive.

Not to get political here, but the way the Obamacare is structured, it will create a bottleneck at the residency stage for all new doctors. Much of the costs of residency were funded by Medicare, and with the new cap on Medicare funds supporting residents, there will be fewer. American trained doctors are required to have a several year residency before they can practice. We could hope for doctor's slots to be filled by foreign-trained physicians, but they have a residency requirement here, too.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-10-0 ... nding.html

Also, money does count. Some of the least well paid specialties are some of those which have the most face time with their patients, such as geriatrics. With an aging population, this specialty would seem to be increasingly important.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

Geriatricians rank among the lowest-paid medical specialties, with a median salary of $183,523 last year, according to the Medical Group Management Association, which tracks physician pay. That sounds like a lot, but many other specialties pay two or three times more, while the average doctor graduates with $160,000 in student loan debt

It would be less likely for a new grad to be interested in a position that would make it even more difficult to pay off his/her debts. I have a friend who has been an ER doc for 15 years and is still paying off med school. It is truly a burden.

So while I agree with Prim that many will be doctors because it is fulfilling, I also feel that we will see a severe shortage of doctors in the next 10 years or so. It will get to the point that even if one's dream is to be a doctor and help people, it will be very difficult to get there.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Which is a direct result of our absurd monetary situation. If people knew that everyone's basic needs would be met and there was neither a need to "earn your way" nor this ridiculous status symbol related to who has 'mo money' than people would be free to find their own level without those dual pressures.