Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

The Value of Work

Rate this topic


TrueMaterialist

Recommended Posts

My uncle says he works hard. He works 8 hour days as a stock analyst and makes about a million dollars a year. He also goes on vacation a lot.

My best friend also says he works hard. He's an engineer He works 12 to 14 hour days. He makes 50 grand a year.

My cousin is a banker. He makes 200 grand a year. He works 9-5. He says they dont pay him enough.

My step-brother is a UPS facility supervisor. He works 10 to 16 hour days, depending on shipment volume, and is always on call. He makes around 40 grand a year. He also says he isnt paid enough.

My sister-in-law is a highschool teacher. She worked 10 hours a day, made 35 grand a year, until she was laid off 4 months ago. She had to turn off her cable to make ends meet.

All of these people are college graduates.

Uncle - master's degree in economic.

Cousin - bachelor's degree in business.

Best Friend - doctrites in mechanical engineering.

Step-brother - master's degree in business

Sister-in-law - Master's degree in philosophy, teaching credential.

My uncle says he works very hard for his money. He says he is entitled to every penny he makes. He thinks teachers are overpaid. He hates paying taxes...and thinks that the government should raise tuition rates and cut government workers earnings instead. He is fond of the moto "Those who cant do, teach." I guess he felt that his teachers contributed very little to his life, though, when I was a child, he stressed the importance of taking my education very seriously.

My sister-in-law feels broadsided by people like my uncle. Her class consisted of 40 children, which she taught for 6.5 hours a day. She says if a baysitter took care of 40 kids for 6 hours, at $10/hr/child. The babysitter would be making $2,400/day. She says she makes less (per child) than a babysitter...and a baby-sitter cant teach advanced algebra, critical thinking and english composition. She also says that people think her work is done when the kids go home. However, the rest of her day is filled with parent/teacher meetings, school meetings, lesson planning, and grading papers and tests.

My cousin thinks only lazy people make less than 100 grand a year. When the whole family is together, he is always watching Fox News on the couch, always ont the couch, while trying his best to start an argument with some one.

Yesterday, on facebook, he called the people in the Occupy Wall Street movement a bunch of bums, who rather sleep in tents in front of business buildings, than actually enter one and apply for a job.

My Friend responded to my cousin's remark on face facebook by saying, "what is it you do again?

My cousin's response was "banker."

My friend: "Then youre a bumb too. Youre a glorified beggar. You make a profit by loaning out borrowed money at insanely high interest rates...and you arent even ethical enough to give those who you borrow from a descent cut. I bet you try to sell those loans for more than they're worth too. I'm glad those people in tents are finally pulling your card. You dont even do anything tangeable. Youre really just a lowly hustler in a monkey-suit. You dont make or contribute anything tangeable."

My step brother single handedly supervises 50 driver and 22 loaders and keeps a time sensitive business (UPS) running smoothly. He is an amazing multi-tasker. He doesnt like how much he is paid, but he believes his position as supervisor looks great on a resume and has high hopes for his future. He doesnt talk about politics because he believes no one really listens to each-other anyway. He once stated "political discussions turn humans into rabid, unreasonable beasts." I dont have much insight to his point-of view, but he is a clever, persuasive man of action, nonetheless. I also remember him saying something like "thoughts are pointless, if no one actually acts on them."

To me, it is odd that a banker and a stock analyst make more money than an engineer, a teacher and a ups supervisor combined, especially when also considering that these three people work more hours than the banker and the analyst. Yet the banker and the anaylist feel entitled to their earnings and tend to be condescending and disrespectful toward those who do things that they deem unnecessary.

Rand says we should all be allowed to keep what we earn and aquire, because life is a self sustaining process, and we disserve to reap the fruits of our hard work, but how does she measure hard work? Would she say that my uncle makes a million a year, therefore he works harder and his profession is more important, or would she call his paycheck a grave injustice? What do you think her opinion would be on this matter?

Edited by TrueMaterialist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diamond-water paradox

The theory of marginal utility, which is based on the subjective theory of value, says that the price at which an object trades in the market is determined neither by how much labor was exerted in its production, as in the labor theory of value, nor on how useful it is on a whole (total utility). Rather, its price is determined by its marginal utility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so are you saying a banker is more uncommon and more in damand than a man with a doctrites in mechanical engineering?

Another point was made in a different thread about "adapting the environment." Perhaps bankers convinced the world they are more important than they actually are. Is this sort of what you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My uncle says he works hard. He works 8 hour days as a stock analyst and makes about a million dollars a year. He also goes on vacation a lot.

Uncle - master's degree in economic.

My cousin is a banker. He makes 200 grand a year. He works 9-5. He says they dont pay him enough.

Cousin - bachelor's degree in business

My best friend also says he works hard. He's an engineer He works 12 to 14 hour days. He makes 50 grand a year.

Best Friend - doctrites in mechanical engineering.

My step-brother is a UPS facility supervisor. He works 10 to 16 hour days, depending on shipment volume, and is always on call. He makes around 40 grand a year. He also says he isnt paid enough.

Step-brother - master's degree in business

My sister-in-law is a highschool teacher. She worked 10 hours a day, made 35 grand a year, until she was laid off 4 months ago. She had to turn off her cable to make ends meet.

Sister-in-law - Master's degree in philosophy, teaching credential

Rand says we should all be allowed to keep what we earn and aquire, because life is a self sustaining process, and we disserve to reap the fruits of our hard work, but how does she measure hard work? Would she say that my uncle makes a million a year, therefore he works harder and his profession is more important, or would she call his paycheck a grave injustice? What do you think her opinion would be on this matter?

How many people in the world are qualified to be stock analysts, bankers, engineers, facility supervisors, teachers, etc. Scarcity of resources applies in this arena. You did not mention if everyone in your listing is employed by someone who had to make a decision of how much each resource is worth. <br>

If a company employs someone for any salary, they expect the employee to produce or provide services which exceed the salary paid, or go out of business eventually. As an employee, you cannot earn more than an employer is willing to pay. <br>

Hard work includes many things. The effort you put into doing your job is just one aspect. There is the effort in acquiring the skills required. There is also effort in determining what skills will be needed in the marketplace. <br>

Your uncle provides a service that the market is willing to pay him about a million a year. Your sister-in-law does not. <br>

How do you measure a "grave injustice"? Is there some form of force or fraud here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many people in the world are qualified to be stock analysts, bankers, engineers, facility supervisors, teachers, etc. Scarcity of resources applies in this arena. You did not mention if everyone in your listing is employed by someone who had to make a decision of how much each resource is worth. <br>

If a company employs someone for any salary, they expect the employee to produce or provide services which exceed the salary paid, or go out of business eventually. As an employee, you cannot earn more than an employer is willing to pay. <br>

Hard work includes many things. The effort you put into doing your job is just one aspect. There is the effort in acquiring the skills required. There is also effort in determining what skills will be needed in the marketplace. <br>

Your uncle provides a service that the market is willing to pay him about a million a year. Your sister-in-law does not. <br>

How do you measure a "grave injustice"? Is there some form of force or fraud here?

perhaps society values one profession over another, not because that profession is actually more benificial than another, but because the population has been conditioned to accept one profession over another without giving any thought as to why, just as society is convinced that altruism is a supreme virtue. Perhaps the method of obtaining profit, in one profession, is dishonest, but the people in that profession have managed to strong-arm society into thinking they really need them, when they do not. You have not mentioned how an employer makes his money. Do you have any regard for ethics, concerning this issue? How do you think a banker makes money? Do you know?

Perhaps society does value a banker over a teacher. Is that rational? Interesting that you would pin the banker against the teacher, but not at all suprising. Why did you not pin the engineer against the banker in this argument?

What about "Atlas Shrugged." I trust you know the plot of that novel. Since this is an Ayn Rand forum, how would you compare that book to the subject of this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to elaborate on what I mean t by my last post. Perhaps allowing a bank to borrow your money, without knowing exactly what that money is being invested in and how that money is being used and manipulated, is, in itself altruistic and therefore an act of evil. Perhaps by giving power to people who otherwise would not have it, if not for our conditioned trust in their purpose, we are being blind enablers. I mean, if we put money in a bank and they loan that money to other people at high interest rates, giving you a very small fraction of the profit from that loan, does that not make you a subjective altruist? If we, instead, invested in the scientific community, do you think we might profit more off the inventions and discoveries made in that field? What do you think? Are you disregarding objective morality in this thread, for the sake of argument?

Edited by TrueMaterialist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as the number of its adherents is not a proof of an Idea's truth or falsehood, of an art work's merit or demerit, of a product's efficacy or inefficacy—so the free-market value of goods or services does not necessarily represent their philosophically objective value, but only their socially objective value, i.e., the sum of the individual judgments of all the men involved in trade at a given time, the sum of what they valued, each in the context of his own life.

Thus, a manufacturer of lipstick may well make a greater fortune than a manufacturer of microscopes—even though it can be rationally demonstrated that microscopes are scientifically more valuable than lipstick. But—valuable to whom?

The above quote is about free market values. The salaries of a public school teachers are not determined by a free market. Neither are the salaries of bankers ever since the federal government took it upon itself to insure all deposit accounts and especially to bailout failing banks that are deemed "too big to fail".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The above quote is about free market values. The salaries of a public school teachers are not determined by a free market. Neither are the salaries of bankers ever since the federal government took it upon itself to insure all deposit accounts and especially to bailout failing banks that are deemed "too big to fail".

The above quote is about free market values. The salaries of a public school teachers are not determined by a free market. Neither are the salaries of bankers ever since the federal government took it upon itself to insure all deposit accounts and especially to bailout failing banks that are deemed "too big to fail".

Oh yes, I understand that. That's basically what I said. Did Rand herself value lipstick over microscopes? Why do you think Rand made that statement? Was this statement made merely to inform us, was she telling us to accept this, or change this? We have the power to change our environment for the better. I'm pretty sure my cousin and my uncle do not get their wages from the government. Im pretty sure my cousin makes his money off the interest of loans and the trade of those loans. I'm also pretty sure my uncle earns money trading stock for big investors. Yep, pretty sure. Do not try to drag me into la la land to make your point. Yes, some banks were bailed out at one point, but why? Have you given that any thought? While we're on the subject of bailouts, dont you think it is strange that banks borrow your money, charge heavy interest rates for loaning out that money, give loans to people who obviously cant afford them, raise the rates on those people, sell those loans to other bankers, based on a highly exaggerated speculation of profit return, so they can make money quick and aren't caught with the lemon (so to speak),like a game of musical chairs? Don't you also find it strange that, when music stops and debt is caused because the sold loans turn out to be garbage, tbankers turn around around and demand our tax dollars, blaming every one but themselves for the problems they caused?

I wonder what you value. Do you value a banker over a scientist? Do you think a bank should be able to use your money, unregulated? Are you going to spend your time overseeing every bit of money? I'm getting the feeling we're not really having a conversation because you keep trying to go out of scope, throwing red herrings into the argument.

Edited by TrueMaterialist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a good point in that people on the upper end seem to be condescending toward the lower end. I have noticed this. But you you have to admit the fact the the lower end is often also very upset at the upper end. Who is right? Neither in most cases. Let's take the example of your uncle first. He works the least amount of hours of anyone in this example. If how hard you work is equal to how long you work then he works the least hard and gets the most reward for it. I can see how this might be interpreted as an injustice. But was your uncle making 1 million dollars right out of college? I highly doubt that. He probably had many years of working his way up to the top and making connections. He probably worked a ton of hours when he was younger to get to where he is now. I disagree with him that teachers are overpaid, but he isn't alone in hating taxes, everyone hates taxes. This doesn't meant that you should lower government worker's wages though, it means you should privatize education.

Now for you Sister-in-Law: I think a teacher can be a valuable person in a child's life. She doesn't make a lot of money, but is she justified in being upset about it? Think about it this way: Not a great salary, but generally speaking, amazing pension and early and comfortable retirement, something a lot of other Americans don't have. Her job might not end when the school day ends, but it does in May or June when she probably has about 3 MONTHS of no work. 40k /y isn't a bad deal when you get a the longest summer vacation of anyone in this scenario. Also, if she wanted to make more money, than she is foolish. Why would you get a masters degree in Philosophy and be a teacher. I would love to get a philosophy degree myself, philosophy is one of my passions. But I'm not going to because it is highly impractical given the things I want to achieve in my life. You seriously can't expect to spend over a hundred thousand dollars on a philosophy degree and to come out making a ton of money, it doesn't work that way. I think she just made a poor choice in career/degree if she wanted to be wealthy. But once again, a teacher can be a very important job.

As for your cousin: He seems like an idiot, and there is not much more I can say. People who assume laziness on the part of any and all persons who don't make at least 100,000 are total jackasses. Are there people who don't work hard, or take welfare and don't attempt to improve their situation? Absolutely. But I would submit to you that those are the exception not the rule. My mother is working two jobs at the moment, and is making very little money while she has three college age children. She doesn't make 100,000 a year, but she works her ass off for my brothers and I. Anyone who would accuse a single mother of three of being lazy because of her income total is a fool. Why does he watch fox news? what a joke.

Your step-brother seems like a great guy who works hard and doesn't complain. And your best friend is your best friend so I wouldn't dare offend you haha. This has been my commentary on your scenario, I'll do my best to help with your questions now if I can.

Everyone in your scenario probably deserves every penny of what they make. And I don't think it is wrong for them to say that. If they are adequately completing a job that pays a certain amount, they should get that money. I do not think that Rand would call your uncle's earnings a grave injustice. I believe that she would view everyone has having gotten what they deserve. I agree with you that society values some professions over others, but I think you have it horribly backward. Higher salary does not mean higher respect from the population. In fact, I believe that society has been conditioned to believe that the teacher is the most valuable profession, and yet the teacher makes the least in your scenario. People hold the opinion that being teacher is a noble occupation because they are shaping the future of America and giving their time to the children etc. Why then do they make less money than the analyst. It is because value is not necessarily money. Some of it can be attributed to marginal utility. A lot of it is supply and demand. There are tons of teachers and would be teachers but not that many stock analysts with a masters in economics. Take athletes. I hear people say almost everyday that athletes are way overpaid. A friend of mine posted this a few weeks back after Albert Pujols signed with the Angels:

wow... alright Albert Pujols just signed a 10 year $254 million dollar deal.. okay lets think about this

$254,000,000 = a quarter of a BILLION dollars

$254,000,000/10 years = $25,400,000 a year

$25,400,000/ 365 days in a year = $69,589.04 a day... thats more than most people make in a year.... (average annual household income for the U.S. = $50,233.00)

Lets see.. he walked up to the plate 579 times last season..

$25,400,000 a season/579 at bats in a year = $43,868.74 every at bat..

wow. thats all i have to say. i would gladly get hit by a 90 mph fastball for $43,868.74

and im sure i could think of a thousand ways to put that money to good use. You sir, along with a lot of other athletes, make way too much money. Your job is to play a game. Seriously.

This is me talking now, not what my friend posted. How many people can do what Albert Pujols does? Basically no one. And what is the demand for someone who can do what he does? Extremely high, not only because he an almost unique skill set, but because there are baseball fans. Sports fans seem to be the people that complain about player salaries. If you watch baseball, you are contributing to Albert's huge paycheck. There probably aren't a lot of people that could do what your uncle does as well as he does it. He is more valuable because of this and gets paid to match. There are plenty of people capable of teaching a curriculum, and plenty of people that are certified and looking to, so their salary is less. I'm not saying that these are the only factors involved, but they play a vital role. I think supply and demand is a fantastic thing when it comes to a free market capitalist system, which Ayn Rand would defend to the death. To say that she would call this set up a grave injustice, I think, is pretty far off base. But I'm not an objectivist expert. Someone swoop in and shut me down if I'm wrong. But once again, society does not value a banker over a teacher, I do believe it is the other way around. And it is probably not rational.

Finally, as for Atlas Shrugged, I think it relates to the occupy wall street aspect of this thread. Atlas Shrugged is partly about people vilifying industrialists and great thinkers for making a ton of money off of them. And occupy wall street, and I'm guessing because they have no official set of grievances or demands, are vilifying wall street executives and the 1 percent of society because they simply make money. If they believe that government is dangerously mixing with business, and that the earnings of the 1 percent aren't fair because of some sort of system cheat, then they might have ground to stand upon. Other than that they seem to be mindless rabble. Just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean they are a horrible human being who doesn't work hard or deserve their money. Like wise, just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean that they earned their money either. Donald Trump for instance was born into it. People need to stop hating on each other out of misplaced anger. It isn't the people that are bad, it is the system that needs to be fixed. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think Rand made that statement? Was this statement made merely to inform us, was she telling us to accept this, or change this?

She was telling us to accept it. That was not a stand alone statement, it was a quote I excerpted from a much longer essay. Much went before and much more came after.

I'm getting the feeling we're not really having a conversation because you keep trying to go out of scope, throwing red herrings into the argument.
I do not recall ever replying to a post of yours previously, but whatever. That is sometimes the proper way to respond. Perhaps you should consider adding a postscript to your posts asking people to only respond if they agree with you completely?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To start with, Grames brings up two points I neglected as it complicates an already complex topic.

perhaps society values one profession over another, not because that profession is actually more benificial than another, but because the population has been conditioned to accept one profession over another without giving any thought as to why, just as society is convinced that altruism is a supreme virtue. Perhaps the method of obtaining profit, in one profession, is dishonest, but the people in that profession have managed to strong-arm society into thinking they really need them, when they do not. You have not mentioned how an employer makes his money. Do you have any regard for ethics, concerning this issue? How do you think a banker makes money? Do you know?

Perhaps society does value a banker over a teacher. Is that rational? Interesting that you would pin the banker against the teacher, but not at all suprising. Why did you not pin the engineer against the banker in this argument?

What about "Atlas Shrugged." I trust you know the plot of that novel. Since this is an Ayn Rand forum, how would you compare that book to the subject of this thread?

My objective in responding to your inquiry was to try and select what I considered the most relevant issue to address.

If you are going to proliferate all over the map by interjecting all the what-ifs, you will find it more difficult to discover the principles that provide the greatest illumination on the topic.

If you are interested in an entire treatise on economics, consider investigating Austrian Economics for a broad depth coverage of the topic, keeping in mind that it is at odds with aspects of Objectivism in some regards. This would give you a general overview of how employers make their money. I consider productive endeavors that involve neither force (against human beings) nor fraud (which by grasping the concept necessary means against human beings), ethical.

If you are considering the Federal Reserve as a banker, the money is made via a printing press as well as held in the form of electronic digits. (Which I consider government abetted monopolies in this realm fraudulent, but I am not interested in discussing that at this time.)

I only selected the top and bottom of your list. What I stated, I consider equally true at every strata (barring government intervention, but since we have government intervention it is certainly a factor).

I would like to elaborate on what I mean t by my last post. Perhaps allowing a bank to borrow your money, without knowing exactly what that money is being invested in and how that money is being used and manipulated, is, in itself altruistic and therefore an act of evil. Perhaps by giving power to people who otherwise would not have it, if not for our conditioned trust in their purpose, we are being blind enablers. I mean, if we put money in a bank and they loan that money to other people at high interest rates, giving you a very small fraction of the profit from that loan, does that not make you a subjective altruist? If we, instead, invested in the scientific community, do you think we might profit more off the inventions and discoveries made in that field? What do you think? Are you disregarding objective morality in this thread, for the sake of argument?

Are you asking about the sanction of the victim here? When you spend your money at McDonald's, are you aware of where any particular employee may spend their particular share and upon what? What criteria do you choose to select a bank? The availability of your funds when required? The interest rate they offer you to entice you to select them? Or do you ask them to open their books so you can review them for what you may consider to be economic or ethical anomalies?

As I sit here responding to this, my gut reaction is "Why the shot-gun approach to this. Is there a sense of bitterness about money, or the lack thereof? Is it Objectivism's stance on subjectivism or altruism that touches a sore spot?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make a good point in that people on the upper end seem to be condescending toward the lower end. I have noticed this. But you you have to admit the fact the the lower end is often also very upset at the upper end. Who is right? Neither in most cases. Let's take the example of your uncle first. He works the least amount of hours of anyone in this example. If how hard you work is equal to how long you work then he works the least hard and gets the most reward for it. I can see how this might be interpreted as an injustice. But was your uncle making 1 million dollars right out of college? I highly doubt that. He probably had many years of working his way up to the top and making connections. He probably worked a ton of hours when he was younger to get to where he is now. I disagree with him that teachers are overpaid, but he isn't alone in hating taxes, everyone hates taxes. This doesn't meant that you should lower government worker's wages though, it means you should privatize education.

Now for you Sister-in-Law: I think a teacher can be a valuable person in a child's life. She doesn't make a lot of money, but is she justified in being upset about it? Think about it this way: Not a great salary, but generally speaking, amazing pension and early and comfortable retirement, something a lot of other Americans don't have. Her job might not end when the school day ends, but it does in May or June when she probably has about 3 MONTHS of no work. 40k /y isn't a bad deal when you get a the longest summer vacation of anyone in this scenario. Also, if she wanted to make more money, than she is foolish. Why would you get a masters degree in Philosophy and be a teacher. I would love to get a philosophy degree myself, philosophy is one of my passions. But I'm not going to because it is highly impractical given the things I want to achieve in my life. You seriously can't expect to spend over a hundred thousand dollars on a philosophy degree and to come out making a ton of money, it doesn't work that way. I think she just made a poor choice in career/degree if she wanted to be wealthy. But once again, a teacher can be a very important job.

As for your cousin: He seems like an idiot, and there is not much more I can say. People who assume laziness on the part of any and all persons who don't make at least 100,000 are total jackasses. Are there people who don't work hard, or take welfare and don't attempt to improve their situation? Absolutely. But I would submit to you that those are the exception not the rule. My mother is working two jobs at the moment, and is making very little money while she has three college age children. She doesn't make 100,000 a year, but she works her ass off for my brothers and I. Anyone who would accuse a single mother of three of being lazy because of her income total is a fool. Why does he watch fox news? what a joke.

Your step-brother seems like a great guy who works hard and doesn't complain. And your best friend is your best friend so I wouldn't dare offend you haha. This has been my commentary on your scenario, I'll do my best to help with your questions now if I can.

Everyone in your scenario probably deserves every penny of what they make. And I don't think it is wrong for them to say that. If they are adequately completing a job that pays a certain amount, they should get that money. I do not think that Rand would call your uncle's earnings a grave injustice. I believe that she would view everyone has having gotten what they deserve. I agree with you that society values some professions over others, but I think you have it horribly backward. Higher salary does not mean higher respect from the population. In fact, I believe that society has been conditioned to believe that the teacher is the most valuable profession, and yet the teacher makes the least in your scenario. People hold the opinion that being teacher is a noble occupation because they are shaping the future of America and giving their time to the children etc. Why then do they make less money than the analyst. It is because value is not necessarily money. Some of it can be attributed to marginal utility. A lot of it is supply and demand. There are tons of teachers and would be teachers but not that many stock analysts with a masters in economics. Take athletes. I hear people say almost everyday that athletes are way overpaid. A friend of mine posted this a few weeks back after Albert Pujols signed with the Angels:

wow... alright Albert Pujols just signed a 10 year $254 million dollar deal.. okay lets think about this

$254,000,000 = a quarter of a BILLION dollars

$254,000,000/10 years = $25,400,000 a year

$25,400,000/ 365 days in a year = $69,589.04 a day... thats more than most people make in a year.... (average annual household income for the U.S. = $50,233.00)

Lets see.. he walked up to the plate 579 times last season..

$25,400,000 a season/579 at bats in a year = $43,868.74 every at bat..

wow. thats all i have to say. i would gladly get hit by a 90 mph fastball for $43,868.74

and im sure i could think of a thousand ways to put that money to good use. You sir, along with a lot of other athletes, make way too much money. Your job is to play a game. Seriously.

This is me talking now, not what my friend posted. How many people can do what Albert Pujols does? Basically no one. And what is the demand for someone who can do what he does? Extremely high, not only because he an almost unique skill set, but because there are baseball fans. Sports fans seem to be the people that complain about player salaries. If you watch baseball, you are contributing to Albert's huge paycheck. There probably aren't a lot of people that could do what your uncle does as well as he does it. He is more valuable because of this and gets paid to match. There are plenty of people capable of teaching a curriculum, and plenty of people that are certified and looking to, so their salary is less. I'm not saying that these are the only factors involved, but they play a vital role. I think supply and demand is a fantastic thing when it comes to a free market capitalist system, which Ayn Rand would defend to the death. To say that she would call this set up a grave injustice, I think, is pretty far off base. But I'm not an objectivist expert. Someone swoop in and shut me down if I'm wrong. But once again, society does not value a banker over a teacher, I do believe it is the other way around. And it is probably not rational.

Finally, as for Atlas Shrugged, I think it relates to the occupy wall street aspect of this thread. Atlas Shrugged is partly about people vilifying industrialists and great thinkers for making a ton of money off of them. And occupy wall street, and I'm guessing because they have no official set of grievances or demands, are vilifying wall street executives and the 1 percent of society because they simply make money. If they believe that government is dangerously mixing with business, and that the earnings of the 1 percent aren't fair because of some sort of system cheat, then they might have ground to stand upon. Other than that they seem to be mindless rabble. Just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean they are a horrible human being who doesn't work hard or deserve their money. Like wise, just because someone is wealthy doesn't mean that they earned their money either. Donald Trump for instance was born into it. People need to stop hating on each other out of misplaced anger. It isn't the people that are bad, it is the system that needs to be fixed. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

I find this to be reasonable and fair, but I do not think all rich people are bad. I do however attach wealth to power. The power to bribe, for example. Your argument is a good one, but still, it is weakened by the fact that you are leaving out the concept of economic power. You are overlooking the fact that the wealthy are more powerful than the poor, or the middle class, that a trust-fund boy with millions dollars and the keys to his father's company will always have more power than a middle class boy. This is why we call these rich kids privileged. Do you deny that these things happen in society, that big business bribes government? That unqualified people gain power simply because of what they were born with? You act as though government intrudes on big business, but do you think it is possible that the opposite is just as likely?

Remember my sister-in-law did not want to be rich. She simply wanted to teach...and make a descent living, but, as of now, she cant even do that because she was laid off. We can privatize schools, but that will only lead to a bigger sea of idiots...because many cannot afford private school, even the educated middle class parents. will school be then only for the rich? Will that also hinge on supply and demand? Privatizing schools will only provide more proof that wealth is not just luxery, but power. Power that may be in the hands of bankers, who are skilled only in the art of money changing and nothing more. do you want a society where only about 10 percent of the population can read? Ayn Rand will have a much smaller following then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To start with, Grames brings up two points I neglected as it complicates an already complex topic.

My objective in responding to your inquiry was to try and select what I considered the most relevant issue to address.

If you are going to proliferate all over the map by interjecting all the what-ifs, you will find it more difficult to discover the principles that provide the greatest illumination on the topic.

If you are interested in an entire treatise on economics, consider investigating Austrian Economics for a broad depth coverage of the topic, keeping in mind that it is at odds with aspects of Objectivism in some regards. This would give you a general overview of how employers make their money. I consider productive endeavors that involve neither force (against human beings) nor fraud (which by grasping the concept necessary means against human beings), ethical.

If you are considering the Federal Reserve as a banker, the money is made via a printing press as well as held in the form of electronic digits. (Which I consider government abetted monopolies in this realm fraudulent, but I am not interested in discussing that at this time.)

I only selected the top and bottom of your list. What I stated, I consider equally true at every strata (barring government intervention, but since we have government intervention it is certainly a factor).

Are you asking about the sanction of the victim here? When you spend your money at McDonald's, are you aware of where any particular employee may spend their particular share and upon what? What criteria do you choose to select a bank? The availability of your funds when required? The interest rate they offer you to entice you to select them? Or do you ask them to open their books so you can review them for what you may consider to be economic or ethical anomalies?

As I sit here responding to this, my gut reaction is "Why the shot-gun approach to this. Is there a sense of bitterness about money, or the lack thereof? Is it Objectivism's stance on subjectivism or altruism that touches a sore spot?"

Hi, your literary tone is pretentious.

First, do not presume to know what I have learned. second, when I go to mcdonalds, I am buying something. What am I buying at a bank? A bank is not a mall, or a food court. there is nothing tangible inside a bank, just representational paper, so your analogy doesn't fit here.

Next, ease up on the ad homonyms. My initial argument was a question of the value of work, I was not attacking wealth itself. I do not like the way many people want to misuse our currency, NOT because I DONT have money, but because I DO have money. Do you see how the opposite assumption can be equally true. I feel that our nation is collapsing not just because of the government, but also because of unregulated banks, big business, the sensasionalist media and the ignorance and gullibility of Americans. Its a group effort. I think that are people are getting poorer because they are belieivng lies...and I know that when less people can afford to buy my products, I will eventually lose money too. The only people who will make money, are those people in the position, or with the interest, to profit off of a collapsing economy, those who have enough money to exert power as the middle class loses any control it managed to obtain in the past 100 years.

Here is an economic truth:

Money is a representation. In truth, it is only paper. It is called currency because it is a concept derrived directly from the concept of "current." It is only worth something when it is moving, when it is changing hands. It is sybolism, a detachment from the things that shold be traded.

The belief that money is backed by some asset...is just that, a belief. who prints your money? The government does. You have all stated that you do not trust your government, so why do you accept this money as being worth something, knowing the source? That is a double standard, a contridiction that you have overlooked.

The truth is, for all you know, our currency is is the trade of faith. "in god we trust" haha.

I will prove to you how speculation of the value or amount of representational currency is a self fulfilling prophecy.

Take the recession for example.

One economist cries, "RECESSION. We are in debt." The man throws out an estimated number. He does not know the exact amount, but he speculates. "We are going broke" he says, but he does not give an exact number. Its too complicated and too early to tell, but we think its blah blah blah." the media gets a hold of the story.

The man is interviewed and says "the economy is tanking, stocks are plummeting, I foresee a 20 percent unemployment rate" he provides statements without evidence. People watching the news panic, they sell their stocks, companies start prepairing for downsizing, in reaction to the man's claims.

The man comes back on the news. He uses the reaction, caused by his initial warning as evidence that his initial warning was, in fact, correct. The news begins to run stories on those plummeting stocks...and what businesses plan to do to prepare for the plunge, then a horror story "Mr Jones lost his job and now he is on unemployment."

The news then runs a story speculating the amount of people who will be on unemployment, then welfare. The next story is about the amount of money the nation is losing in an attempt to support the unemployed "bums."

Those who were skeptical at first, begin to worry. They think "well, now there's evidence that I cant deny!" Soon even rational, critical thinkers are selling stocks and sitting on their money. Every one decides it is not a time for spending, but a time to save save save save and screw taxes. "Why should we pay for people who cant help themselves."

Currency stops circulating and thus loses its value..because trade that isn't traded is worthless. The value of the money drops, inflation occurs. Interest rates go up. Houses foreclose. "Blame the homeowner, but not the baks who loaned them our money. They are innocent." Political divisions become more and more apparent, people turn more radical. Political and social reform become a pressing issue. Blame the democrats, who cares if the recession hit just before Bush ended his last term. Thats nothing to be suspitious about.

We turned our nightmare into a reality simply by believeing athe nightmare will happen and we furthered the nighmare by blaming the only organization the represents us and protecting the privacy of any equally questionible organizations that do not give us representation at all.

Currency and the speculation of its amount and value, have turned us into irrational subjective fools. It just takes a couple of economist.

All you have to do is a slip em a very large sum of money. Only a rich man and some of his whore politicians, can afford to orchestrate that despicable plan. He just has to find an economist greedy enough to go along with the plan. A small group of "trustworhty" people, lying and exaggerating on tv, is all it takes.

Other economists argue against them, sure, but the argument itself will cause the damage anyway. "The economists who claim the recession isn't going to happen are liberals," says one news station. "They only believe in spending. They are not to be trusted. Their spending habits are the reason we're in this mess." Another news station yells, "The government is attempting to print more money, but that money is being printed without anything to back it," "how do you know," ask the people.

The media dances around the question. "We heard from reliable sources," they reply. The reliable sources were a few low level government workers who were simply speculating, but were taken at their word. The news loves the new stories of dread. The feed them to us all on constant loop...because...HIGH RATINGS, MAGAZINES SOLD WEBSITES VISITED. CEOs law of mass amounts of people. "We need a bailout."

If you don't believe this type of thing happens, you are in denial. If you know it can happen, I applaud you for your ability to see through the snow-screen and the white-noise.

If you think this sounds unrealistic, ask yourself what would happen if the news reported that a large, doomsday meteor is on a collion course with earth, or oil companies report that there is an oil shortage and they will need to raise gas prices until we either lower taxes or give them the freedom to drill anywhere they please, whenever they please.

Our economy is crumbling because we are being duped. Sorry, the truth hurts.

But go ahead and trust the currency supplied to you by the government that you claim not to trust...and, while your at it, stay convinced that you are against the feds. The contradiction is comical...and its funniest when you dont notice it.

Edited by TrueMaterialist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

second, when I go to mcdonalds, I am buying something. What am I buying at a bank? A bank is not a mall, or a food court. there is nothing tangible inside a bank, just representational paper, so your analogy doesn't fit here.

You are using a service. Should somebody safe-guard your money for you at no charge? Provide you a loan, mortgage, or checking account at no charge? These types of services and many more is what you go there for, they are not provided for free, and are completely legitimate ways for banks and bankers to make money. You're objections make no sense to me unless you think people and businesses should provide these services for free.

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are using a service. Should somebody safe-guard your money for you at no charge? Provide you a loan, mortgage, or checking account at no charge? These types of services and many more is what you go there for, they are not provided for free, and are completely legitimate ways for banks and bankers to make money. You're objections make no sense to me unless you think people and businesses should provide these services for free.

You know why they can give you those services right? Because they are using other people's money to do it. I am exploring why we think we even need this type of currency. Why dont we do this thing right? Free market!!!! You are a fake because banks are a form of socailsim. Its a place where you pool your money, so that it can be used by others for their own personal gain...and your only profit is protection because you are too scared and insecure to guard it yourself. Do you know who controls a socialist state? Whoever regulates the currency. Funny that you trust the banks. Why? Ha. you just play at this, dont you. youre not really serious about it. This is the source of my aggression. You dont really want individualisma or a free market, you just want our system to work in your favor, so do yourself a favor and dont be hypocrite. Admit what you are.

Edited by TrueMaterialist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know why banks can give you those things right? Because they are using other people's money to do it. I am exploring why we even need this type of currency at all. Im strong enough to make it on my own, but are you? Why dont we do this thing right. Free market!!!! You are a fake because banks are a form of socailsim, just another collective, sharing more qualities with the government than with Rands ideas. it is socialist behavior to pool money, to make it possible for an ornanization to use that money in their own interest, loaning it out for frofit that you will never see, for the sake of "protection," and pretty, little check-book for you to write your name on, so you can say, "look at me, I belong to a bank." its funny how you are forced into this situation with the threat of not being able to own a house, or get a job, if you dont have a bank account. Do you know who controls a socialist state? Whoever regulates the currency. Banks regulate currency more than the government.

Ha. you just play at this, dont you? your not really serious about it. This is the source of my aggression. You dont really want individualism or a free market, you just want our system to work in your favor. Well, do yourself a favor and think about it. Dont be a hypocrite. bye.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My initial argument was a question of the value of work...

The salaries of a public school teachers are not determined by a free market. Neither are the salaries of bankers..

That's right. The problem is, public school teachers aren't paid according to their ability. They are paid based on the number of years they've worked. As long as they put in a certain number of years at a school, they are guaranteed a job until retirement. If they're "not fitting in" or not performing up to par, they're just transferred to another school in the district.. but they are not fired. (That is saved for new teachers who don't have seniority.) This is different than, say, computer programmers, who have a measurable quantity of work to complete. Comments, documentation, style, and changes/new implementations are all important and contribute to the overall quality of a programmer and their work. Surgeons can also be "rated" based on measurable aspects, such as the number of patients who survive/die, the number of people they operate on each day, the difficulty of the operations, etc. There has to be a (monetary) incentive for your employees to work harder if you actually want them to. And there has to be an objective measure to rate work, which will differ depending on the job. That's the main argument for privatizing education.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this to be reasonable and fair, but I do not think all rich people are bad. I do however attach wealth to power. The power to bribe, for example. Your argument is a good one, but still, it is weakened by the fact that you are leaving out the concept of economic power. You are overlooking the fact that the wealthy are more powerful than the poor, or the middle class, that a trust-fund boy with millions dollars and the keys to his father's company will always have more power than a middle class boy. This is why we call these rich kids privileged. Do you deny that these things happen in society, that big business bribes government? That unqualified people gain power simply because of what they were born with? You act as though government intrudes on big business, but do you think it is possible that the opposite is just as likely?

Remember my sister-in-law did not want to be rich. She simply wanted to teach...and make a descent living, but, as of now, she cant even do that because she was laid off. We can privatize schools, but that will only lead to a bigger sea of idiots...because many cannot afford private school, even the educated middle class parents. will school be then only for the rich? Will that also hinge on supply and demand? Privatizing schools will only provide more proof that wealth is not just luxery, but power. Power that may be in the hands of bankers, who are skilled only in the art of money changing and nothing more. do you want a society where only about 10 percent of the population can read? Ayn Rand will have a much smaller following then.

I don't deny the connection between government and business, and I don't deny the fact that there are undeserving wealthy. I don't recall you mentioning either of those points in your original post which is why I didn't discuss them, but yes I acknowledge those points. I disagree with the privatization of schools leading to a "bigger sea of idiots" or that "school be then only for the rich". If you privatize schools, they will compete for students, and cost would likely go down not up. If you get the government out of the equation, and treat it like a business transaction, then it would be in the best interests of private schools to attract their target student by having competitive tuition. I think the level of education would increase, and it would save us a lot of money. We already do this with many private colleges and universities, why not extend it to elementary education? I also don't understand where you get the 10% statistic about the reading in the population. Most children, in my experience, begin elementary school already knowing how to read. They learn to get better at it, but literacy generally begins before the classroom does. I seriously think you are taking it too far when you say that privatizing education would lead to a 10% literacy rate in among American citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no value in just working. It is in production that there is value. A bank can be very productive and produce a lot of wealth.

Absolutely true.

And it is also true that anything is worth what it will bring in a free market. Though the US labor market is not completely free, it is at least approximately free, except at the extreme low range where a government imposed minimum wage distorts the market significantly.

All goods and services are worth what the market will bear. That is all that matters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...