Topic: Money and people - page 3. (Read 4783 times)

There is labor, and then there is labor leveraged with human intellect, and then there is purely intellectual effort (such as writing the code for a program that makes other people's work much more efficient). Basically, the labor theory of value is pure non-sense. By itself hard work doesn't mean shit when you're a human being, it's smart work that matters. Also most people who get rich are those who learn how to save money, and invest it. This is called leverage, and they don't teach you much about it in the state education system. Socialism or any other kind of redistributive/interventionist centrally planned social schemes will only ever result in the exact thing they were meant to prevent: Chronic poverty and endless monopolies.

Speaking of monopolies, government is the entity which makes all arbitrary monopolies possible in the first place. It is the state who will point to an extremely successful and innovative business, and say look... a natural monopoly! They then punish the "guilty" party while taking their kick-backs in the process. Relevant:http://i.imgur.com/xqrgb7w.png

Think of Microsoft supposedly having a "natural monopoly" on internet browsers in the late 1990s, what a joke. The truth is there was nothing truly innovative about other internet browsers at the time, and thus no reason for anyone to use something other than IE. In fact IE 5.0 was arguably superior for it's time. Of course the fact that it was Microsoft's OS did give them an inherent advantage, but it hardly constituted the idea that they had an unbreakable monopoly on internet browsers. People think just because their product is slightly better on a technical level, that means somehow they deserve market share. Using Microsoft's browser on Microsoft's OS had it's own perks, so if competitors really wanted to grab market share they should have focused on making more dramatic & significant innovations rather than being a poor loser and running to daddy government to break up evil Mr. Gate's monopoly.

There are two definitions of monopoly, the economic version (which no one uses), and the political version (which everyone uses, and carries inherently negative implications). The truth is not all monopolies are bad, and in fact a lot of the time the reason one company will have a dominant hold on market share in any particular industry is simply because that is the very reason they are able to offer so much value to their customers in the first place. For example I would argue Intel shoving AMD out of the market is a good thing for consumers in the long run, because at the end of the day there's nothing really dramatically innovative or different about AMDs processors any more. What this really means is that software developers can now focus their efforts on optimizing their code for a single architecture, so at the end of the day the amount of relative computing power consumers will be getting per $ spent will actually be higher.

Yeah I think so that's good enough and it woulbe fair to those people that's working hard and exceeding what is expected to them and because of that he or all of them will become more motivated and more productive . It's obviously much better being equal in terms of salary also the work overtime should be counted more because of that the production sometimes will get finished earlier than the expected time and also it can be helpful for both the workers and for the industry .

for and i think for most of the people it is a general view that if a person is doing hard work he deserve to get more reward. so i will like to say that those people who are working more so they have the right to get more money. and this is the rules of the world i think.

Its not always like you get what you deserve by being hardworking but general idea is to to work more to gain more tho

yes i am also agree with you. my personal view is that p person should earn money according to the word we do. but i  think in our earning there is a part of those people who cannot do word or those who are disable.

Yeah that is a good thinking and every human should have that quality and kind heart to help such peoples without thinking of yourself and being dishonest or selfish.  So, you will be called a real child of the god !

Work and earning money is what keeps the world going, without this, the world would have crashed a long time ago.

One way around it is everyone cleans the toilet. Easy way to ensure work no one wants to do gets automated soon. Not very practical though. So maybe have universal basic income instead. Work nobody wants to do is paid very well and easier work paid less well. Ensures everyone has basic needs met and there is some equality. But allows more flexibility.

Because people who sit is more likely drain their brain cells to think. The only question here is which is more doing the complex work. The one who think or the one who do physically.

the more you work i think. but you must keep one thing in your mind that that money you earn must be used in good deeds there is a percentage of poor people in your money which must have to pay to them at the end of every eary. and this is called ZAKAT. you must take care of those people who cannot earn money because of some reason either they are disable or have some other problems.

How do you decide who works more though? For example it takes a lot more energy to work in a field for 8 hours than it does to sit behind a desk for 8 hours. Other professions, you don't work as much but every time you do, you're literally risking your life.

Well in my opinion we do not need to be equal. Our salary must depend on the work we do, how hard it is and how much time we spent doing it. I think that's the right thing that should happen. Work more and harder = more salary.

The view points of this is a bit skewed and proven everyday in front of your eyes.

A man who slaves away working hard 40hrs a week and a year goes by just paying bills.

Vs

A man who slaves away work but builds something towards an audience can scale towards life time of payments through his project.

Tip: Its the right "type" of work that should be focused on then having no focus at all.

I think , our salary should be based and depend on the work that we have done and it is not equal if those professionals are making a salary with the same amount of what the unprofessionals can make so if that can be happen why we should have to go to school study for a profession and graduate for that profession if all people has an equal salary ?

I think it's better if the more you work the more money you get, its like complimenting hardworkers that they should be given more, for all of those efforts they did. In our world things like this are happening but not most of the time because things go like this:

Higher class people who have more power has the one who make the big profit without doing anything
People that work hard but didn't have any money to build a business become the worker and being paid with salary that doesn't even worth the work they have done.

That's how things go in 3rd world countries I am living.

I think if all is equal theres no people want to have boss, dont want to clean in dirty floor, dont want to clean toilet because if they equal theyre pride is equal too. If we are equal in salary many will dont want it because their job is so hard and they salary is equal many workers will anger.

A world where everyone is equal is an impossibility. And I mean this exactly the way you understand it.
Power/money works/exists only when neutrality/equality/integrity is broken/compromised. For power/money to work, you need to have the extremely weak and the extremely strong, the extremely rich and the extremely poor. Without this gradient that allows it to flow downward, it doesn't work.
A simple but encompassing analogy would be you can't produce power/electricity from a calm lake but if you get the water flowing down from a high point, you have power.

The options listed are not the only (theoretical) systems. One could easily think of others, not saying they are necessarily good:

• behavior-based income (the more crime, the less income)
• group-based income (you share an amount with several others)
• age-based income (income distributed over age)

Well, the last one is the best I think among the choices.  You have to work to earn money.  It is the price for the people who work hard.  It is a wonderful feeling if the money you earned came in a nice and decent way. 

I think people must reciving money for smth, if we will choose way with equal amount of money, a lot of people will just wasting and don't work. Third ways is the best i think.