Let me ask you a simple question then 'luci…why do YOU think teachers make so little in our society, if they are so highly valued? Whats your explaination for this seeming disparity in their value vs their worth to society?
-XT
Let’s leave “cynical” aside for the time being-- too subjective for this type of debate. What is cynical to you might not be cynical to me.
Let’s look at corrupt. In what way is the system “corrupt”?
Simple for you maybe, you understand business stuff,which is, like, totally over my head. An interesting question, nonetheless, and one we might very well discuss. Sometime. Not now.
The teacher is merely an example, I attach no special importance, if you want to address my question about the value of work by way of a fireman, that’s dandy. Or a policeman, or a construction worker, or an Indian chief…
Why is “cynical” any more subjective than “corrupt”?
I think it is, but if you don’t, feel free to expand on why you think the system is both. cynical and corrupt. I was just tyring to make it easier.
Shodan already brought forth most of the arguments I was going to make. However, since we are in GD, are you not advocating policy change (which requires greater intellectual scrutiny), rather than, say, debating your own personal opinion (much better suited for IMHO, imo), especially since this is something that effects many people rather than just yourself?
Well, since we are discussing business stuff, it seems to me that you (and several others) are, in fact, taking a view founded on a position of ignorance.
Contempt may be too strong a word, but it is a little frustrating arguing a topic with people who are so adamant about a subject they don’t really understand.
I’m a little sick of hearing how teachers should be paid more as if they are the noblest profession and should be above economic forces.
Yes, teachers have an important role. So do policemen, firemen and garbagemen. However, I think it’s a little harder to find someone capable of running a multi-million or multi-billion dollar organization than teaching a third grade English class.
No one forces people to be teachers or businesspeople. You can’t go into a profession and then complain that it doesn’t pay as well as other professions. If your primary concern is money, go be a lawyer or banker. See if you would rather have summers off with less money or work 100 hour weeks for six figures.
The free market is not devoid of values. The results of the free market is nothing more or less than the results of millions of people looking after their interests and trading with one another. YOU may not like the choices other people make, but I’m fine with it. But then, I’m a libertarian and not predisposed to judging other people and holding guns to their heads to force them to work to sustain my value system.
Yeah? And how good would our education system be if we were dirt poor? This contempt for the business class is just what’s really breathtaking here. You’re happy to use the high-quality goods that come out of our factories. You’re happy to make lots of money because you get to leverage the capital investments have put up to make you more productive. But you have nothing but contempt for the people who accomplish it.
You just admitted your own ignorance. Others on your side have posted idiotic threads claiming that CEOs are nothing but glorified rubber-stampers, while making it clear that they don’t actually have even the remotest knowledge of what CEOs actually do. And when those of us who actually do know come in to correct the misconceptions, we’re treated to appeals to emotion.
You’re the equivalent of the creationists who show up to ‘debunk’ evolution while making it immediately clear that they have only a vague idea of what evolution is.
And this crap has consequences. The attitudes displayed here are what led to the collectivization of agriculture after the Bolshevik revolution. The Kulaks ran the farms, and the workers felt that it was unfair that they did all the labor, but the ‘do-nothing’ Kulaks had most of the wealth. So they rebelled, collectivized the farms, hung a lot of people, and then discovered after the fact that the Kulaks turned out to have rather a lot of specialized knowledge and ability. The result was massive starvation during a period of prime crop-growing weather.
Which ignorance is demonstrated by disagreement. Clearly, if we had any clue at all, we would see the utter clarity of your position.
Again, the ignorance is demonstrated, according to you, by a failure to agree with such experts as, well, yourself.
Let me say it just one more time, in the faint hope you might listen: teachers are only an example. One of many. Got it?
You do? Have you tried it? Other than your own presumed expertise, have you anything to offer?
I wouldn’t work hundred hour weeks for 7 figures, nor eight. No man ever died regretting not spending enough time in the office. Values, as I was saying.
I’m sure we’re all suitably grateful that libertarians refrain from enforcing thier iron will by force of arms.
You know, for a guy who’s intent on sneering at the “emotional” arguments of others, this is an entirely fact-free slur.
Case in point. “If you knew, you’d agree, you don’t agree, so you must not know” Bit of a tautology in search of a pardigm shift.
Not quite tired of ad hominem slurs, yet?
A breathtaking expanse of knowledge on display! Most especially, knowledge that has not reached me, even though I’ve spend considerable time reading Russian history, this scenario was not covered by my left-leaning Leninist teachers and authors. They consensus around the notion that collectivization led to mass hunger primarily due to the brutality and ruthlessness of Stalin and the inapplicability of “industrial proletariat” models to agricultural concerns, for instance, the folly of production quotas in a situation with so many uncontrollable variables.
And, of course, the direct parallel between Soviet collectivization and my criticism of “free market” values would be perfectly obvious, if I were not so ignorant. Alas.
Any chance we can get back to the discussion we were having about “cynical and corrupt”? I know the squeaky wheel gets the grease, but my post did precede both of those. 
Again, I though it would be easier to focus on “corrupt”, but if you want to expand on why you think the system is both cycnical and corrupt that’s fine with me. It honestly isn’t clear to me how you came to that conclusions.
That could be it, or you could be trying to shift the focus onto an issue you are more comfortable with. Since both such terms are subjective judgements, I fail to see what relevence you hope to glean from such a semantic debate. Given my long-standng political and social positions, I think it unlikely you are surprised.
“What! 'luc regards our values as cynical and corrupt! Bit of a shocker, that! Must press for details, I’m honestly quite stunned! No, really!”
At any rate, an invitation to a hijack, declined.
This is where the whole issue of living wages gets interesting. Are Americans paid too little? Honestly, no. We make enough to maintain a decent standard of living. We may not have a new car, tv, dvd player, etc, but most can afford at least a used version of the previous. But the OP asked if everyone could achieve a living wage. I think the global economy will allow that to happen within another generation.
But two major stumbling blocks I see is that first, while capital, financial and productive, and manufactured goods can easily cross borders to find the most advantageous deal, labor cannot. They are forced to work withing their local economy, not the global economy, that is they are not legally or realistically able to move to the most desired location that could enable them to find the best income for themselves, so they have to accept the prevailing market conditions of that local economy whether they want to or not. I doubt it’s physically or socially possible for labor to be as mobile as capital, and some measures of protection may be necessary to compensate for that lack of mobility. I have no idea what that protection or compensation would be.
The second major stumbling block I see is the excessive income made by those at the top. And I do not believe that income is either just or set by the market, whatever that means. It is set by the ‘old boys network’ to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone not in that network. And I have not seen any cites showing otherwise.
That income also skews priorities so that it create a market for Viagra, but not one to cure malaria. Traditional economics states that it is value-neutral and as along as Viagra creates more growth, wealth, or whatever than curing malaria, than that is where the money should go. And this is where most progressives break away from traditional economics. They believe values and human needs are a part of economics and that premise of neutrality is false. I, and most progressives I believe, have no problem with slower growth if it means we can cure malaria and other ills. I believe that our society will also be better off in the long run if do this now rather than later.
I have heard it argued that under traditional economics eventually enough wealth will be created and trickle down to cure malaria and provide Viagra. That ‘eventually’ is never quite defined though. The wealth never seems enough to allow it to trickle down to cure malaria. Instead we invent new toys and other items of conspicious consumption to squander that wealth on, and a thousand more die of malaria. I believe that as soon as the economy has the resources to cure an ill, sufficient resources should be devoted to do so. I think we have successfully done so in the past. Smallpox. The Marshall Plan. The Apollo project. Would traditional economics advocated for these choices? I doubt it.
I am currently reading The End of Poverty by Jeffery Sachs where he outlines a plan to end extreme poverty by 2025. I see no reason why that plan or similiar should not be implemented. Spending the resources to bring that population on to the ladder of development is essential to one day seeing universal living wage.
And to be clear, I do not advocate income equality, but I do think that severe inequality distorts the economy and if income limits (but not limits on wealth, which includes stock, stock options, profit sharing) are necessary to prevent that distortion, that I have no problem with them. I believe there are more than enough motivations other than income to encourage superior performance.
Unfortunately, I cannot. But isnt one of the central theses of Adam Smith - 'the division and specialization of labour is limited by the extent of the market’? I always took it to mean the extent of the population of the market, not the gross assets. A thousand participants would therefore create greater demand and thus a greater economy that an economy of ten (an economy of one isnt really an economy). And again, with a thousand participants, the gross amount will have a greater velocity than if it remained with only a few. Cant find a cite for that either, and again, Mises states that velocity doesnt matter, but I disagree. Thats a different thread also.
How do you measure opportunity costs? And the problem is not just on the demand side, but also the supply side. If the first bank/investor turns you down, how do you apply with another if they dont exist?
You are misreading the arguments - limiting income (primary compensation) is not limiting wealth (which includes profit sharing or capital gains). Joe still has an incentive to increase the assets of his business. We had tax rates of 90% in the 40’s and 50’s - I dont recall hearing any detrimental effects from them. Business kept booming. Especially business, not their managers.
Yes, you get to determine the intrinsic value. What do you want to use it for? Same with production. The intrinsic worth of labor is the cost of labor. That which business uses to decide if they should hire or not. Isnt that the whole argument against minimum wage laws? That it would make the market wage higher than what labor is worth? They are forced to pay $7/hr when they can only afford $6/hr?
I’ll see what I can find.
… as other dishonest Dopers - that’s a nice backhanded compliment. 
Well, wikipedia lists three definitions. They are all wrong? (I’m refering to #1, though the other two would be interesting to know all also.) And its nice to know that the feds are working hard trying to find a working definition. (note the date.)
I mean that people would like a slice of the pie proportional to their input.
Unless you are an executive for a Fortune 500. Yes?
Regards,
AP
Christ almighty. Since when is it a “semantic debate” to ask for clarification of a charge made wtihout any supporting information?. And I **twice **said deal with both issues if you prefer, so don’t fucking pretend like I’m trying to shift the debate.
If I start a discussion about your favored politician, and I say the guy is corrupt and cynical, I suspect you’d ask me to elaborate-- to provide details to back up that claim. At any rate, your claim is worthless since you refuse to put any susbtance behind it.
You have any kind of stats or analysis to back that up? Or is that just your ‘gut feeling’?
The current world GNP per-capita is about $7,000. That’s what everyone would get if you took the entire income generated in the world and divided it up equally. That also happens to be less than half the ‘poverty line’ in the U.S., and maybe 20-30% of what people think is a ‘living wage’.
To make matters worse for your case, most of that wealth is tied up in the first world, and of that wealth, most is invested back into the economy to create future income.
To make matters even worse for your case, the per-capita GDP average of the 3rd world is about $800. They’ve got a long, long way to go before they’re making any kind of global ‘living wage’.
To make matters worse for your case, one of the main reasons why the 3rd world income is so low is because the 3rd world is continually affected by wars and corruption. Gonna end war at the same time? Get rid of all despots?
To make matters worse for your case, anti-globalization types are currently doing everything they can to see to it that the 3rd world doesn’t have a chance to build the infrastructure it needs to lift itself out of poverty, such as protesting to have ‘sweat shops’ closed, and cutting the bottom rung off the ladder to prosperity by demanding that 3rd world nations instutute expensive 1st world health and safety practices for their workers.
To be fair, Sam, a living wage in a 3rd world country would be much less than a LW in the a 1st world country. But otherwise your points are well taken. And no way will there be LW legislation in the US in a generation, much less in 3rd world countries. A generation is 20 -25 years. Economic policy doesn’t change that much, that quickly.
That our materialist and consumerist culture is corrupt and cynical is hardly a unique observation, John, its certainly not a viewpoint you’ve not encountered before. Deeper minds than ours have made such observations. Observations like that are, as you well know, the result of sifting information and experience on a broad scale, it is not the result of a single falsifiable experiment.
Well, of course! That is a falsifiable proposition, it is provable. The redoubtable poet Spiro Agnew faced just such charges (I like to imagine if the SDMB had existed then, the kinds of learned snark that would be tossed about over phrases like nolo contendere…), and they were proven. Which specific crimes and misdemeanors would you suggest? Since, as you say, you are only trying to help me out, here. (Assistance not applied for, however generously offered.)
Please feel free to take your victory lap whensoever. And if it’s substance you’re a-hankering for, friend AgPag has offered up a slice of solid. Go get 'em, tiger!
Oh? St. Petersburg, October, 1917? A rather dramatic paradigm shift, that.
Friend AgPag has posted an argument of substance, making a number of interesting and provocative points. I am perplexed why so much ammunition is trained upon his opinion as to how much might be accomplished within narrow time constraints. If he’s entirely wrong about such a time frame, a “generation”, it hardly impacts his larger arguments.
I dont have the book with me at the moment, but Sach’s book is very specific, and his plan is also very cheap since he aims low. His goal is only to eliminate extreme poverty - and is based on the Millennium Development Goals. (slight hijack - another reason I hate the ‘war on terror’ is how it has almost completely displaced this from the headlines when this is how you fight the real war on terror - by fighting poverty and powerlessness - not bogeymen with bogus WMDs)
I think one generation to eliminate extreme poverty and then another to ensure living wages and decent standards of living is a bit pessimistic actually, considering the progress we made between 1900 and 2000.
And I agree that the anti-globalization types mucked things up back in '99 and 2000. But free trade does not mean it cannot also be fair trade. Open markets need to exist for labor as well as capital, for agriculture products as well as manufactured products.
Your other points are also addressed. I agree that many areas will require political reform before economic changes. (one reason I would rather work in Asia than Africa in the future.) Again, considering the progress made in the last century, this one should hopefully progress easier if we dont keep fucking over the middle east.
And elucidator, thanks for the thumps up. (I’m sure that will score a bunch of points too. 
)