|
On March 30 2012 11:15 radiatoren wrote:Show nested quote +On March 21 2012 18:30 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 17:48 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 17:16 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 16:44 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 14:50 xeo1 wrote:
I'm surprised people in 2012 still put up with having to waste their precious lives having to work jobs which could be automated, in order to make money to buy life's necessities, all of which we have an abundance of. On top of that, most expenses go to services which could be self sustainable. The time hasn't come yet I guess :p Thats because people are cheaper than machines. How is that true? For some positions, yes (for now). But why would, for example, car manufacturers replace most of their workers with robots if not to maximize profits? Obviously a machine in this case is a pretty big investment to begin with, but after a few months of not having to pay a full-time worker sallary, it starts making up for itself pretty fast. Especially since 1 robot doesnt equal 1 employe. I don't have the exact numbers, but i can pretty much guarantee you that 1 robot can replace several people, especially since it can work 24/7. And your point is? Yeah, in certain fields Robots are better than Humans. In tons others not or then the Robots are just way more expensive and will be for some time. Thats why people still "waste" their live for these "stupid" tasks. I don't get what you want to say and how you even think this is argueable... I mean, it has to be a darn good robot to outproduce the 50 chinese workers you could pay instead... Now if you want to talk about human rights and all that, robots suddenly become more attractive.. But who cares about that shit as long as the Iphone (+other) production is cheap and apple (+others) can jerk of to their profits... Dude, i was just responding to your claim that people are cheaper than machines, which is clearly not true in all cases. And in the future it will probably not be true in most cases. Personally, i don't see that as a bad thing, as long as it is handled properly. I.E the money/time saved by implementing robots should not just go to some already rich share holder, but instead be used to have the general public work less without reduced living standards (or even improved living standards). The problem today however, is that when people get laid off in order to be replaced by machines the only thing that happens is that the company makes more money, and the former worker now has to find a new job or live on welfare. As for the "robots" or machines of today they definately do not live forever and some of them even takes a lot of upkeep to keep running. The fact is that it might save some people some kind of work, but at the same time you are encouraging the production of robots and people able to keep them functional. What will we produce. Well at least something to sustain life aka. medicine foods etc. That is solved in different ways, but DNA-manipulation is already starting and it will most certainly increase almost no matter what. We need people with knowledge about biological life for that and we need as broad a genepool as possible to keep discovering at a fast pace. So for now an EDUCATED WORKFORCE is the solution of tomorrows society and therefore we still will need a workforce in the future society as far as we can look into the future that is.
I agree with this to an extent. I'm thinking if we could actually get back to a high level of productivity if we got rid of art school and forced all those people to become mechanics or engineers or scientists, some sort of career that makes progress.
And w/ robot builders we can get blue collar labor back up, white collar labor to program them, etc.
|
People don't seem to understand the fact that to get a job, they need to go out and do stuff. Protesting, asking for people to give you something, and making it so that people can't do their jobs isn't helping anything or anyone. I know someone who works right now as a wall street hedge fund worker, and he has worked harder than anyone I know to get to the point where he's a hundred millionaire. All of these people work hard to get their money, you can see why they dislike people telling them they're killing america with their hard work.
|
On March 31 2012 01:55 BaconofWar wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fact that to get a job, they need to go out and do stuff. Protesting, asking for people to give you something, and making it so that people can't do their jobs isn't helping anything or anyone. I know someone who works right now as a wall street hedge fund worker, and he has worked harder than anyone I know to get to the point where he's a hundred millionaire. All of these people work hard to get their money, you can see why they dislike people telling them they're killing america with their hard work.
The problem is that there's no direct work-to-income proportion. Blue collar workers who spend their entire day doing hard work in a factory or construction site are also working hard and doing menial physical labor, yet they don't get paid well. Working harder will make you more money as long as you're only considering yourself. But working harder than someone else doesn't necessarily mean you'll be better off than them in the long run.
|
|
|
Calgary26004 Posts
On March 31 2012 02:45 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 01:55 BaconofWar wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fact that to get a job, they need to go out and do stuff. Protesting, asking for people to give you something, and making it so that people can't do their jobs isn't helping anything or anyone. I know someone who works right now as a wall street hedge fund worker, and he has worked harder than anyone I know to get to the point where he's a hundred millionaire. All of these people work hard to get their money, you can see why they dislike people telling them they're killing america with their hard work. The problem is that there's no direct work-to-income proportion. Blue collar workers who spend their entire day doing hard work in a factory or construction site are also working hard and doing menial physical labor, yet they don't get paid well. Working harder will make you more money as long as you're only considering yourself. But working harder than someone else doesn't necessarily mean you'll be better off than them in the long run.
How is that a problem?
|
Fact is, many kinds of work tend to reward people too much for too little, especially in the UK amongst civil servants and other public sector workers, leading to vast inefficiencies in the economy and as we put it, a smaller pie for everyone to get a slice from
Some people are rewarded too little for the work they do, but the nature of the free market is that above a certain point (minimum wage) one has the ability to look for other work
I chose to be a trader because my salary is 100% reflected by nothing else except my performance, and i don't have to worry about "supporting" any team or people who might not be putting in the same amount of hard/smart work as i am. I don't have to worry about office politics or my personality hindering me, because all that matters is my performance
Fact is, i fulfill a role which is both meritocratic, and which in relative terms, few people can do, due to both the constraints of mental ability + hard work, which means i get rewarded 100% fairly (if i don't make money, i get 0) for what i do.
Sounds fair no?
|
On March 31 2012 01:48 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 30 2012 11:15 radiatoren wrote:On March 21 2012 18:30 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 17:48 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 17:16 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 16:44 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 14:50 xeo1 wrote:
I'm surprised people in 2012 still put up with having to waste their precious lives having to work jobs which could be automated, in order to make money to buy life's necessities, all of which we have an abundance of. On top of that, most expenses go to services which could be self sustainable. The time hasn't come yet I guess :p Thats because people are cheaper than machines. How is that true? For some positions, yes (for now). But why would, for example, car manufacturers replace most of their workers with robots if not to maximize profits? Obviously a machine in this case is a pretty big investment to begin with, but after a few months of not having to pay a full-time worker sallary, it starts making up for itself pretty fast. Especially since 1 robot doesnt equal 1 employe. I don't have the exact numbers, but i can pretty much guarantee you that 1 robot can replace several people, especially since it can work 24/7. And your point is? Yeah, in certain fields Robots are better than Humans. In tons others not or then the Robots are just way more expensive and will be for some time. Thats why people still "waste" their live for these "stupid" tasks. I don't get what you want to say and how you even think this is argueable... I mean, it has to be a darn good robot to outproduce the 50 chinese workers you could pay instead... Now if you want to talk about human rights and all that, robots suddenly become more attractive.. But who cares about that shit as long as the Iphone (+other) production is cheap and apple (+others) can jerk of to their profits... Dude, i was just responding to your claim that people are cheaper than machines, which is clearly not true in all cases. And in the future it will probably not be true in most cases. Personally, i don't see that as a bad thing, as long as it is handled properly. I.E the money/time saved by implementing robots should not just go to some already rich share holder, but instead be used to have the general public work less without reduced living standards (or even improved living standards). The problem today however, is that when people get laid off in order to be replaced by machines the only thing that happens is that the company makes more money, and the former worker now has to find a new job or live on welfare. As for the "robots" or machines of today they definately do not live forever and some of them even takes a lot of upkeep to keep running. The fact is that it might save some people some kind of work, but at the same time you are encouraging the production of robots and people able to keep them functional. What will we produce. Well at least something to sustain life aka. medicine foods etc. That is solved in different ways, but DNA-manipulation is already starting and it will most certainly increase almost no matter what. We need people with knowledge about biological life for that and we need as broad a genepool as possible to keep discovering at a fast pace. So for now an EDUCATED WORKFORCE is the solution of tomorrows society and therefore we still will need a workforce in the future society as far as we can look into the future that is. I agree with this to an extent. I'm thinking if we could actually get back to a high level of productivity if we got rid of art school and forced all those people to become mechanics or engineers or scientists, some sort of career that makes progress. And w/ robot builders we can get blue collar labor back up, white collar labor to program them, etc.
Why would we increase productivity? Should we produce to meet demands or to throw away stuff?
And who says art doesn't give progress? And as far as I know, artists around the world produce stuff people are willing to pay for. No need to shut down that industry.
|
On March 31 2012 07:18 Zythius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 01:48 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On March 30 2012 11:15 radiatoren wrote:On March 21 2012 18:30 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 17:48 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 17:16 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 16:44 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 14:50 xeo1 wrote:
I'm surprised people in 2012 still put up with having to waste their precious lives having to work jobs which could be automated, in order to make money to buy life's necessities, all of which we have an abundance of. On top of that, most expenses go to services which could be self sustainable. The time hasn't come yet I guess :p Thats because people are cheaper than machines. How is that true? For some positions, yes (for now). But why would, for example, car manufacturers replace most of their workers with robots if not to maximize profits? Obviously a machine in this case is a pretty big investment to begin with, but after a few months of not having to pay a full-time worker sallary, it starts making up for itself pretty fast. Especially since 1 robot doesnt equal 1 employe. I don't have the exact numbers, but i can pretty much guarantee you that 1 robot can replace several people, especially since it can work 24/7. And your point is? Yeah, in certain fields Robots are better than Humans. In tons others not or then the Robots are just way more expensive and will be for some time. Thats why people still "waste" their live for these "stupid" tasks. I don't get what you want to say and how you even think this is argueable... I mean, it has to be a darn good robot to outproduce the 50 chinese workers you could pay instead... Now if you want to talk about human rights and all that, robots suddenly become more attractive.. But who cares about that shit as long as the Iphone (+other) production is cheap and apple (+others) can jerk of to their profits... Dude, i was just responding to your claim that people are cheaper than machines, which is clearly not true in all cases. And in the future it will probably not be true in most cases. Personally, i don't see that as a bad thing, as long as it is handled properly. I.E the money/time saved by implementing robots should not just go to some already rich share holder, but instead be used to have the general public work less without reduced living standards (or even improved living standards). The problem today however, is that when people get laid off in order to be replaced by machines the only thing that happens is that the company makes more money, and the former worker now has to find a new job or live on welfare. As for the "robots" or machines of today they definately do not live forever and some of them even takes a lot of upkeep to keep running. The fact is that it might save some people some kind of work, but at the same time you are encouraging the production of robots and people able to keep them functional. What will we produce. Well at least something to sustain life aka. medicine foods etc. That is solved in different ways, but DNA-manipulation is already starting and it will most certainly increase almost no matter what. We need people with knowledge about biological life for that and we need as broad a genepool as possible to keep discovering at a fast pace. So for now an EDUCATED WORKFORCE is the solution of tomorrows society and therefore we still will need a workforce in the future society as far as we can look into the future that is. I agree with this to an extent. I'm thinking if we could actually get back to a high level of productivity if we got rid of art school and forced all those people to become mechanics or engineers or scientists, some sort of career that makes progress. And w/ robot builders we can get blue collar labor back up, white collar labor to program them, etc. Why would we increase productivity? Should we produce to meet demands or to throw away stuff? And who says art doesn't give progress? And as far as I know, artists around the world produce stuff people are willing to pay for. No need to shut down that industry.
But art is for feelings and capitalism is no place for those!
|
On March 31 2012 07:34 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 07:18 Zythius wrote:On March 31 2012 01:48 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On March 30 2012 11:15 radiatoren wrote:On March 21 2012 18:30 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 17:48 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 17:16 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 16:44 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 14:50 xeo1 wrote:
I'm surprised people in 2012 still put up with having to waste their precious lives having to work jobs which could be automated, in order to make money to buy life's necessities, all of which we have an abundance of. On top of that, most expenses go to services which could be self sustainable. The time hasn't come yet I guess :p Thats because people are cheaper than machines. How is that true? For some positions, yes (for now). But why would, for example, car manufacturers replace most of their workers with robots if not to maximize profits? Obviously a machine in this case is a pretty big investment to begin with, but after a few months of not having to pay a full-time worker sallary, it starts making up for itself pretty fast. Especially since 1 robot doesnt equal 1 employe. I don't have the exact numbers, but i can pretty much guarantee you that 1 robot can replace several people, especially since it can work 24/7. And your point is? Yeah, in certain fields Robots are better than Humans. In tons others not or then the Robots are just way more expensive and will be for some time. Thats why people still "waste" their live for these "stupid" tasks. I don't get what you want to say and how you even think this is argueable... I mean, it has to be a darn good robot to outproduce the 50 chinese workers you could pay instead... Now if you want to talk about human rights and all that, robots suddenly become more attractive.. But who cares about that shit as long as the Iphone (+other) production is cheap and apple (+others) can jerk of to their profits... Dude, i was just responding to your claim that people are cheaper than machines, which is clearly not true in all cases. And in the future it will probably not be true in most cases. Personally, i don't see that as a bad thing, as long as it is handled properly. I.E the money/time saved by implementing robots should not just go to some already rich share holder, but instead be used to have the general public work less without reduced living standards (or even improved living standards). The problem today however, is that when people get laid off in order to be replaced by machines the only thing that happens is that the company makes more money, and the former worker now has to find a new job or live on welfare. As for the "robots" or machines of today they definately do not live forever and some of them even takes a lot of upkeep to keep running. The fact is that it might save some people some kind of work, but at the same time you are encouraging the production of robots and people able to keep them functional. What will we produce. Well at least something to sustain life aka. medicine foods etc. That is solved in different ways, but DNA-manipulation is already starting and it will most certainly increase almost no matter what. We need people with knowledge about biological life for that and we need as broad a genepool as possible to keep discovering at a fast pace. So for now an EDUCATED WORKFORCE is the solution of tomorrows society and therefore we still will need a workforce in the future society as far as we can look into the future that is. I agree with this to an extent. I'm thinking if we could actually get back to a high level of productivity if we got rid of art school and forced all those people to become mechanics or engineers or scientists, some sort of career that makes progress. And w/ robot builders we can get blue collar labor back up, white collar labor to program them, etc. Why would we increase productivity? Should we produce to meet demands or to throw away stuff? And who says art doesn't give progress? And as far as I know, artists around the world produce stuff people are willing to pay for. No need to shut down that industry. But art is for feelings and capitalism is no place for those!
You have a poor grasp on capitalism, then. As do most people, claiming the US is capitalistic.
Capitalism is run by supply and demand, and there will always be demand for art. 
|
On March 31 2012 06:44 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 02:45 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On March 31 2012 01:55 BaconofWar wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fact that to get a job, they need to go out and do stuff. Protesting, asking for people to give you something, and making it so that people can't do their jobs isn't helping anything or anyone. I know someone who works right now as a wall street hedge fund worker, and he has worked harder than anyone I know to get to the point where he's a hundred millionaire. All of these people work hard to get their money, you can see why they dislike people telling them they're killing america with their hard work. The problem is that there's no direct work-to-income proportion. Blue collar workers who spend their entire day doing hard work in a factory or construction site are also working hard and doing menial physical labor, yet they don't get paid well. Working harder will make you more money as long as you're only considering yourself. But working harder than someone else doesn't necessarily mean you'll be better off than them in the long run. How is that a problem?
It is a problem because your own, natural capabilities have a major impact on who you are. Not everyone has the intelligence to go to a good university and land a high-paying job. There will always be a need for a reward structure that pays the extremely intelligent/creative/(fill in whatever) more, because it raises welfare as a whole, but at some point enough is enough. The growing income disparities between the rich and the former middle class are not something to be laughed at
|
On March 31 2012 07:18 Zythius wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 01:48 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On March 30 2012 11:15 radiatoren wrote:On March 21 2012 18:30 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 17:48 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 17:16 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 16:44 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 14:50 xeo1 wrote:
I'm surprised people in 2012 still put up with having to waste their precious lives having to work jobs which could be automated, in order to make money to buy life's necessities, all of which we have an abundance of. On top of that, most expenses go to services which could be self sustainable. The time hasn't come yet I guess :p Thats because people are cheaper than machines. How is that true? For some positions, yes (for now). But why would, for example, car manufacturers replace most of their workers with robots if not to maximize profits? Obviously a machine in this case is a pretty big investment to begin with, but after a few months of not having to pay a full-time worker sallary, it starts making up for itself pretty fast. Especially since 1 robot doesnt equal 1 employe. I don't have the exact numbers, but i can pretty much guarantee you that 1 robot can replace several people, especially since it can work 24/7. And your point is? Yeah, in certain fields Robots are better than Humans. In tons others not or then the Robots are just way more expensive and will be for some time. Thats why people still "waste" their live for these "stupid" tasks. I don't get what you want to say and how you even think this is argueable... I mean, it has to be a darn good robot to outproduce the 50 chinese workers you could pay instead... Now if you want to talk about human rights and all that, robots suddenly become more attractive.. But who cares about that shit as long as the Iphone (+other) production is cheap and apple (+others) can jerk of to their profits... Dude, i was just responding to your claim that people are cheaper than machines, which is clearly not true in all cases. And in the future it will probably not be true in most cases. Personally, i don't see that as a bad thing, as long as it is handled properly. I.E the money/time saved by implementing robots should not just go to some already rich share holder, but instead be used to have the general public work less without reduced living standards (or even improved living standards). The problem today however, is that when people get laid off in order to be replaced by machines the only thing that happens is that the company makes more money, and the former worker now has to find a new job or live on welfare. As for the "robots" or machines of today they definately do not live forever and some of them even takes a lot of upkeep to keep running. The fact is that it might save some people some kind of work, but at the same time you are encouraging the production of robots and people able to keep them functional. What will we produce. Well at least something to sustain life aka. medicine foods etc. That is solved in different ways, but DNA-manipulation is already starting and it will most certainly increase almost no matter what. We need people with knowledge about biological life for that and we need as broad a genepool as possible to keep discovering at a fast pace. So for now an EDUCATED WORKFORCE is the solution of tomorrows society and therefore we still will need a workforce in the future society as far as we can look into the future that is. I agree with this to an extent. I'm thinking if we could actually get back to a high level of productivity if we got rid of art school and forced all those people to become mechanics or engineers or scientists, some sort of career that makes progress. And w/ robot builders we can get blue collar labor back up, white collar labor to program them, etc. Why would we increase productivity? Should we produce to meet demands or to throw away stuff? And who says art doesn't give progress? And as far as I know, artists around the world produce stuff people are willing to pay for. No need to shut down that industry.
But we can only support so many artists. I think it's possible to still be a decent musician or actor while getting a degree in biology. And spending five-figure sums for actually "learning" the art is bullshit. Art isn't meant to be learned after a certain point. Not to the point that you could learn a science.
And while people pay for art it's not exactly progress since we're not getting technological achievements. Just new sounds, new looks.
|
The problem is that there's no direct work-to-income proportion. Blue collar workers who spend their entire day doing hard work in a factory or construction site are also working hard and doing menial physical labor, yet they don't get paid well. Working harder will make you more money as long as you're only considering yourself. But working harder than someone else doesn't necessarily mean you'll be better off than them in the long run.
Factory jobs in particular and straight-up above the board construction jobs in general pay well. There's a reason factories are moved out of the country and people use illegal immigrants for construction; it costs much much less.
|
On March 31 2012 09:57 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 07:18 Zythius wrote:On March 31 2012 01:48 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On March 30 2012 11:15 radiatoren wrote:On March 21 2012 18:30 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 17:48 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 17:16 Rabbitmaster wrote:On March 21 2012 16:44 Velr wrote:On March 21 2012 14:50 xeo1 wrote:
I'm surprised people in 2012 still put up with having to waste their precious lives having to work jobs which could be automated, in order to make money to buy life's necessities, all of which we have an abundance of. On top of that, most expenses go to services which could be self sustainable. The time hasn't come yet I guess :p Thats because people are cheaper than machines. How is that true? For some positions, yes (for now). But why would, for example, car manufacturers replace most of their workers with robots if not to maximize profits? Obviously a machine in this case is a pretty big investment to begin with, but after a few months of not having to pay a full-time worker sallary, it starts making up for itself pretty fast. Especially since 1 robot doesnt equal 1 employe. I don't have the exact numbers, but i can pretty much guarantee you that 1 robot can replace several people, especially since it can work 24/7. And your point is? Yeah, in certain fields Robots are better than Humans. In tons others not or then the Robots are just way more expensive and will be for some time. Thats why people still "waste" their live for these "stupid" tasks. I don't get what you want to say and how you even think this is argueable... I mean, it has to be a darn good robot to outproduce the 50 chinese workers you could pay instead... Now if you want to talk about human rights and all that, robots suddenly become more attractive.. But who cares about that shit as long as the Iphone (+other) production is cheap and apple (+others) can jerk of to their profits... Dude, i was just responding to your claim that people are cheaper than machines, which is clearly not true in all cases. And in the future it will probably not be true in most cases. Personally, i don't see that as a bad thing, as long as it is handled properly. I.E the money/time saved by implementing robots should not just go to some already rich share holder, but instead be used to have the general public work less without reduced living standards (or even improved living standards). The problem today however, is that when people get laid off in order to be replaced by machines the only thing that happens is that the company makes more money, and the former worker now has to find a new job or live on welfare. As for the "robots" or machines of today they definately do not live forever and some of them even takes a lot of upkeep to keep running. The fact is that it might save some people some kind of work, but at the same time you are encouraging the production of robots and people able to keep them functional. What will we produce. Well at least something to sustain life aka. medicine foods etc. That is solved in different ways, but DNA-manipulation is already starting and it will most certainly increase almost no matter what. We need people with knowledge about biological life for that and we need as broad a genepool as possible to keep discovering at a fast pace. So for now an EDUCATED WORKFORCE is the solution of tomorrows society and therefore we still will need a workforce in the future society as far as we can look into the future that is. I agree with this to an extent. I'm thinking if we could actually get back to a high level of productivity if we got rid of art school and forced all those people to become mechanics or engineers or scientists, some sort of career that makes progress. And w/ robot builders we can get blue collar labor back up, white collar labor to program them, etc. Why would we increase productivity? Should we produce to meet demands or to throw away stuff? And who says art doesn't give progress? And as far as I know, artists around the world produce stuff people are willing to pay for. No need to shut down that industry. But we can only support so many artists. I think it's possible to still be a decent musician or actor while getting a degree in biology. And spending five-figure sums for actually "learning" the art is bullshit. Art isn't meant to be learned after a certain point. Not to the point that you could learn a science. And while people pay for art it's not exactly progress since we're not getting technological achievements. Just new sounds, new looks.
No, it's actually impossible to be a decent musician while also working a full time job. I'm not talking about a guy singing on the street with his guitar, I'm talking about a real musician, educated in the history of music and all the theories as well as having the physical practice and being able to play well.
Art and science have a history of being interwoven. There is plenty to learn about art and music, just because it's not empirical with clear right and wrong answers does not mean there is less to learn.
I have no idea how this thread degraded into people saying we would make more social progress without art. Makes absolutely no sense. The problem is with people who already have too much money and don't have to actually work, they just pay people to make more money for them without contributing anything themselves.
|
On March 31 2012 02:45 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 01:55 BaconofWar wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fact that to get a job, they need to go out and do stuff. Protesting, asking for people to give you something, and making it so that people can't do their jobs isn't helping anything or anyone. I know someone who works right now as a wall street hedge fund worker, and he has worked harder than anyone I know to get to the point where he's a hundred millionaire. All of these people work hard to get their money, you can see why they dislike people telling them they're killing america with their hard work. The problem is that there's no direct work-to-income proportion. Blue collar workers who spend their entire day doing hard work in a factory or construction site are also working hard and doing menial physical labor, yet they don't get paid well. Working harder will make you more money as long as you're only considering yourself. But working harder than someone else doesn't necessarily mean you'll be better off than them in the long run.
Their is a direct work-to-income proportion. In a free market the employer and employee agree on a wage and/or benefits in relation to productively that benefits both parties.
|
On March 31 2012 10:28 Diomedes7 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2012 02:45 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On March 31 2012 01:55 BaconofWar wrote:
People don't seem to understand the fact that to get a job, they need to go out and do stuff. Protesting, asking for people to give you something, and making it so that people can't do their jobs isn't helping anything or anyone. I know someone who works right now as a wall street hedge fund worker, and he has worked harder than anyone I know to get to the point where he's a hundred millionaire. All of these people work hard to get their money, you can see why they dislike people telling them they're killing america with their hard work. The problem is that there's no direct work-to-income proportion. Blue collar workers who spend their entire day doing hard work in a factory or construction site are also working hard and doing menial physical labor, yet they don't get paid well. Working harder will make you more money as long as you're only considering yourself. But working harder than someone else doesn't necessarily mean you'll be better off than them in the long run. Their is a direct work-to-income proportion. In a free market the employer and employee agree on a wage and/or benefits in relation to productively that benefits both parties.
That's... not a proportion, at least not the one I was talking about. I'm talking about the amount of work you put in vs. the amount of money you get. Like there's no formula that says work x constant = money or something. Different for every person.
|
Work hard to get their money, ha ha ha, what a joke that is. Even if they are working 16 hours a day 7 days a week they still arent putting in more effort and hours than 5 people working 8 hours a day 5 days a week. Yet Mr. Hedge manager makes 10x more easily than those 5 presuming they're all living in the states, 1000x more if were talking about people from the third world production companies Mr. Hedge manager probably invests in. Where does the disconnect occur when people beleive that 1 person should be worth more than 1000?
The company my father works for fired 7500 so that the CEO could get a larger perfomance bonus due to increasing the profit margins by canning those people. And now that the company is not doing as well they are constantly canning people yet upper managements salaries have not gone down a penny. The only way to stay employed is to specialize in something they feel they cant do without and unfrotunately not everyone is that specialized.
Also why do these people even need hundreds of millions of dollars, it is as if its a game of how much money can I get and the greedy ceirtanly dont see or more likely dont care about the people they screw over to buy that 5th yacht and 2nd private jet (looking at you, Roman Abromovich). Oh well thats my rant i geuss 
|
On March 31 2012 10:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +The problem is that there's no direct work-to-income proportion. Blue collar workers who spend their entire day doing hard work in a factory or construction site are also working hard and doing menial physical labor, yet they don't get paid well. Working harder will make you more money as long as you're only considering yourself. But working harder than someone else doesn't necessarily mean you'll be better off than them in the long run. Factory jobs in particular and straight-up above the board construction jobs in general pay well. There's a reason factories are moved out of the country and people use illegal immigrants for construction; it costs much much less.
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Factory-Worker.html This was done by hasty google search but it says $36 grand a year. Average salary in US is about $41 grand.
|
On March 31 2012 10:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +The problem is that there's no direct work-to-income proportion. Blue collar workers who spend their entire day doing hard work in a factory or construction site are also working hard and doing menial physical labor, yet they don't get paid well. Working harder will make you more money as long as you're only considering yourself. But working harder than someone else doesn't necessarily mean you'll be better off than them in the long run. Factory jobs in particular and straight-up above the board construction jobs in general pay well. There's a reason factories are moved out of the country and people use illegal immigrants for construction; it costs much much less.
Or we can look at the actual reality, which is that factory jobs pay extremely poorly in the western countries, and they pay even worse in parts of the world where workers' dignity and human rights are being abused on daily basis or are virtually nonexistent.
|
Or we can look at the actual reality, which is that factory jobs pay extremely poorly in the western countries
Well, no. Not in the US at least.
http://www.salaryexplorer.com/salary-survey.php?loc=229&loctype=1&job=33&jobtype=1&gender=m
http://www.simplyhired.com/a/salary/search/q-factory worker
36k - 60k a year is a solid middle-class income for an individual.
and they pay even worse in parts of the world where workers' dignity and human rights are being abused on daily basis or are virtually nonexistent
What happens in second or third world countries is not relevant to a discussion about the US or other first world countries in this context, although what you said is very true.
http://www.indeed.com/salary/Factory-Worker.html This was done by hasty google search but it says $36 grand a year. Average salary in US is about $41 grand.
Which does not prove your point, sorry. It does the opposite. That extra 5,000 a year would be a big deal to most families but 36k is not bad at all. And most families were and still are dual-income. They would be a lot better off if the country hadn't gone on a debt binge with credit cards and home refinancings and stuff over the last decade.
|
How can you say 36k is not bad at all? 36k hardly buys you anything - my mom paid almost 36k just for good health / dental / etc for me, my dad, and her last year alone
I guess if you dont want to have a family or have health insurance or a house, 36k is pretty good
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
