No it doesn’t and yes, they do. I don’t think car registration is worth $700 a year, but I have to pay it if I want to own a car. I don’t think tyres are worth $100 each, but that’s also what I have to pay if I want my car to be able to drive anywhere.
Just because Bob pays $20 for X doesn’t mean he thinks X is worth $20. It means that if he wants X, he’s going to have to pay $20 whether he likes it or not.
The thing about valuation of services is that to poor people, Rover is worthless. He has no real value to them, and he does not even have any existence value to them. He can be worth a million a year to corporations, be worth a few hundred thousand a year to his law firm, and have a hard-to-quantify but significant existence value to his kid, but still be utterly worthless to poor people who need access to the law.
Hey Rover, to establish your existence value, how much would your kid trade you for? A lemon pie? A pony? How much are you really worth to her?
Muffin, again (and again and again), you are talking about a different concept than I’ve been talking about. So you aren’t disagreeing with me (even though you think you are), you are just talking at cross purposes with what I was saying. But you don’t realize that because you’re a fucking idiot.
But at least a fucking idiot who meets his professional responsibilties, unlike you.
It is not right to compare the million your company bills for your time with the 18k a line cook is paid. A better comparison would be the amount the public pays for the food prepared by the line cook in a year. Probably closer to 200k (a figure pulled straight from my ass btw). Given that the line cook probably works closer to 20 hours a week (another “Quintsass statistic”) your million dollar figure probably needs to be compared to 600k for the line cook. Finally, since the line cook’s remuneration is significantly lower than yours, it would seem that the line cook is creating more wealth than you are, and is thus a more significant and important member of society. If you would like to refute this post I can provide you with some Quintsass statistics to bolster your argument for a small fee.
But this really is just rephrasing the same argument. Pretty much by definition, if you make more money and you believe that wages are more or less in line with marginal product, then you deliver more valuable services.
The problem is that there are good reasons to suspect that wages are not in line with marginal product because monitoring is imperfect and people have an incentive to misrepresent and shirk. It’s also not completely crazy to suppose that there are other perhaps more important ways of measuring value than wage. It’s a good thing that some of the most important things in life are so cheap, otherwise people would lack things they really need.
This is because you are perhaps intentionally confusing the marginal value of your services with the actual impact of what you do with your time. The latter is very hard to quantify but that doesn’t make it any less real. Your personal charitable labor might not be spent very valuably. Spending a few hours volunteering at the church bake sale is nice. But if you worked those hours and instead cut a check to an organization that would provide potable water to a family in West Africa for a year is probably better.
Personally, I think this is a virtuous thing to do and that one ought to do good works on that account alone and for no other reason.
Here’s what I’m trying to understand. Do you think that the “right thing to do” even exists? Society has norms and conventions that are self-enforcing: it is often better to follow them because people are committed to punishing offenders. But in the absence of punishment (or even observation) what is the meaning of the “right thing to do?” And why do you think you have internalized some social norms but not the norms of your profession? I’m struggling here because I don’t see your idea of the right thing to do, as articulated, to be any more defensible in your framework than that of moral obligation.
[quote=“Rand_Rover, post:1185, topic:553132”]
[quote=“LeeshaJoy, post:1180, topic:553132”]
Ah, but in the Objectiverse, they’re one and the same, don’t you see? :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE
Let me ask you and Damuri this: say you pay $1000 for an X and $10 for a Y. What must be true about the relative value to you of X and Y? Do you normally pay $1000 for something you believe is only worth a couple hundred bucks?[/quote]
Milk costs $3/gallon, A similar amount of heroin costs about $300,000, Heroin is certainly more valuable than milk ounce for ounce but I think opinions can differ on which one is better for you.
You and I both know that people are paying for a lot more than just advice from Damuri or Rand when they pay $500/hour+ for our time. They are paying for the letterhead on the opinions we write. If you were at a different firm, you wouldn’t command those rates. Heck, you probably DON’T command those rates, tax lawyers from your firm command those rates. There are a small handful of tax lawyers that can name their price at whatever firm they are at and neither of us fall into that category.
Once again heroin costs more than milk.
And really gums up a bowl of Captain Crunch, in my experience.
Maeglin and Damuri, I think you are taking what I said for more than I meant by it and are therefore getting hung up on unrelated concepts.
Here’s a conversation to illustrate what I’m saying:
Liberal Douche: RR, you don’t do pro bono or give much to charity. That shows that you are a sociopathic parasite because all you do is take from society instead of giving anything back.
RR: when you look at what I give and take from society, you are not considering the fact that I perform services for people that they are willing to pay a lot for. Under your line of thinkinbg I would be giving more to society if I performed much less valuable services and did charity work. Therefore, your model of whether a person is only takibg from society and not giving anything back is flawed because you don’t count enough activityu in the “giving back” column.
Clients are not ‘society’. Taking fees for services rendered is not ‘giving back’.
“I gave at the office” is hardly a new excuse. You’ve just managed to convince yourself you’re not lying.
I’m ashamed to say I have actually read all of this thread. I’ll be damned if I could find where this illustrative conversation has taken place. For example, I don’t do pro bono work or give very much to charity. I doubt I’d be confused around here for being a sociopathic parasite.
I suppose I could be wrong.
FI–you are illustration my point. You look only at how much I make and chalk that up as something I take from society. But you don’t look at what I provide to society in exchange for that.
Maeglin–start advocating fiscally conservative positions and that will change for you right quick.
Providing services in exchange for a fee is not ‘giving back’ to society.
Shall I repeat myself, thus allowing you the opportunity to rpeat yourself again?
FI, let me ask you this: do you think I’m a parasite or a leech or a shirker because I make a lot of money and don’t give much to charity or do pro bono?
You seem to be confusing me with other people. I believe that you have both a professional and an “ethical” obligation to provide pro bono work, but for the purposes of this thread, it’s only the first I care about. And it’s that first one that was what you swore to when you were licensed to practice law in Illinois.
Not wanting to do pro bono work makes you lazy and probably a jerk. Not thinking you have any obligation or responsibility to do so makes you a shirker and a liar, as well.
I’m not sure that you know what positions I take on most fiscal issues. But I am really tempted to wade into some threads to the right of Beowulf and I bet I’d still not get confused for a sociopath. Or even a jerk.
I believe you think providing legal services in return for fees constitutes “giving back” to society. Am I mistaken?
My point is, if you are getting paid in return for services rendered, where is the ‘giving’? I believe that, once again, you have a unique definition for a word that is very different from the common understanding of most people.
FI–I think you are picking a fight where that isn’t one. See above for the limited point I was trying to make–if you don’t disagree with me there, the super.
SFG–OK, so wekve narrowed down the issue. You believe I have an actual obligation (my term) to do pro bono work. As I’ve demonstrated above, that’s simply not the case. I agred to uphold the rules, and the rules don’t require pro bono. The preamble to the rules just says that lawyers have a responsibility to do pro bono; however, since the rules don’t require it (and even explicitly state that they don’t require it), the rules don’t actually impose that responsibility. Therefore, the preamble is clearly referring to only a “moral responsibility” that’s out floating in the ether. So, if I don’t do pro bono, I’m not failing to fulfill a promise I made or failing to uphold rules that govern me. I’m just failing to do something that the preamble to some rules say I have a responsibility to do.
This is the thread that keeps on giving, isn’t it?