(March 6, 2017 at 4:06 am)InquiringMind Wrote: No one actually wants an equal society.  

Definitively not the way I feel.  In fact, I hope that Hillary goes another round in 2020!!

There will never be an equal society. It won't ever, ever happen.

There are two main things that people are motivated by. 1. Greed 2. Laziness. The question is which of these motivators is the predominant one in a particular person?

I know a lot of lazy people that want this, that, and the other. They give in to the laziness and don't do what it takes to get said things.

I know people that are greedy and want this, that, and the other. They either work their ass off and get it or steal it.

I can tell you that I am a greedy fucker. I work my ass off to get what I want. Once I get what I want though, my laziness kicks in and I slow down. I could have more if I pushed more.

(March 6, 2017 at 4:06 am)InquiringMind Wrote: I have an idea.  Why has inequality in society (wealth, race, gender, etc.) stubbornly persisted in spite of many decades of efforts to alleviate it?  Why has the discussion of privilege only intensified after much work to create equality?  Here's idea: 

No one actually wants an equal society.  

How could you be rich if everyone had the same amount of money?  How could you have the best job if all jobs were equally good?  How could you be the best scientist if all scientists were equally good?  How could you have an especially attractive mate if all people were equally attractive?  If all posts on facebook were equally good, then why would it matter which ones you looked at?  

In an equal society, there is never any chance to "get ahead" because everyone is equal.  There is no such thing as "greatness" because everyone is equally good.  No one wants this.  Everyone wants the chance to "get ahead." Everyone wants a chance to climb to the top of the pyramid, to be a hero, and to be respected and admired above their peers.  

No one wants equality.  Every individual wants to live in a society where they, as an individual, are at they top of the social pyramid.  People want high status, not equality.  

What are your thoughts?

When we say we want equality, we mean we want equal rights under the law and equal human dignity. This doesn't mean everyone is going have the best job or be the richest, etc. It just means everyone has the right to strive for those things. And everyone has the right to human dignity.

---

(March 8, 2017 at 4:11 pm)Jehanne Wrote:

(March 6, 2017 at 4:06 am)InquiringMind Wrote: No one actually wants an equal society.  

Definitively not the way I feel.

Says the guy who just a few hours ago stated in another thread that if he had it his way, theists "wouldn't be allowed to be doctors, politicians, teachers, lawyers, be on juries, etc etc." 

http://atheistforums.org/post-1522098.html#pid1522098

(March 8, 2017 at 3:08 pm)Mr Greene Wrote:

(March 7, 2017 at 8:04 pm)Ben Davis Wrote: Only because of current perceptions based primarily on social class. Why shouldn't sanitation be a skilled job? Do you consider it less valuable than the so-called 'executive' roles?  Your response is unsurprising but it typifies an inequitable vocational paradigm. Would it not be better for people to earn according to their contribution rather than some arbitrary social construct?

How long does it take to train as an office cleaner, what sort of investment would you be looking at for training?
3yrs? 6mths? 1mth? less?
Compare this with managerial training programs.
Management qualifications.
This is basic economics, **** all to do with "social constructs".

Not necessarily, mate. If we were to train sanitation workers the same way we train business managers, the courses would include microbiology, chemistry, relationship management and more. Why don't we? Surely, more knowledge of, for example, bacterial behaviour, genetics and the best methods of elimination & prevention of propagation would help reduce the evolution of 'super bugs'. I put it to you that it's only social convention that has ranked sanitation 'lower' than business management when in base terms, the former is far more important to our survival than the latter. Thinking about it, business management could be a module of a proper education in sanitation as it's entirely likely that an effective cleanliness model would include teamwork.

A holistic understanding of process value identifies the equality of all parts of the process.

---

(March 8, 2017 at 3:21 am)Moros Synackaon Wrote: Relative scarcedy informs market value.

I would expect that if no one would take the job of a sanitation worker, then the market value of those workers would rise or find another source of labor.

This is true in the current model but as we see from the success of people like the Kardashians, it's not the only measure of market value: the ability to add value is of greater importance. The more that becomes apparent, the more people will realise that the current model is inequitable and that they should demand the recompense due to the value they add.

Kardashians have high market value due to their successful monetization of their brand which cannor be easily replaced.

Unfortunately you're going to have to solve the human condition before you can stop people from empowering celebrities. Thing about market value is that demand has no relation to usefulness. The Kardashians contribute nothing but they don't have to - all they need is to have people desire some part of the Kardashian brand, be it news, products or television.

(March 9, 2017 at 9:02 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(March 8, 2017 at 3:08 pm)Mr Greene Wrote: How long does it take to train as an office cleaner, what sort of investment would you be looking at for training?
3yrs? 6mths? 1mth? less?
Compare this with managerial training programs.
Management qualifications.
This is basic economics, **** all to do with "social constructs".

Not necessarily, mate. If we were to train sanitation workers the same way we train business managers, the courses would include microbiology, chemistry, relationship management and more. Why don't we? Surely, more knowledge of, for example, bacterial behaviour, genetics and the best methods of elimination & prevention of propagation would help reduce the evolution of 'super bugs'. I put it to you that it's only social convention that has ranked sanitation 'lower' than business management when in base terms, the former is far more important to our survival than the latter. Thinking about it, business management could be a module of a proper education in sanitation as it's entirely likely that an effective cleanliness model would include teamwork.

A holistic understanding of process value identifies the equality of all parts of the process.

The training described is unnecessary and simply accrues additional expenses whilst simultaneously putting the role beyond the abilities of those it currently employs.

(March 9, 2017 at 3:24 pm)Mr Greene Wrote:

(March 9, 2017 at 9:02 am)Ben Davis Wrote: Not necessarily, mate. If we were to train sanitation workers the same way we train business managers, the courses would include microbiology, chemistry, relationship management and more. Why don't we? Surely, more knowledge of, for example, bacterial behaviour, genetics and the best methods of elimination & prevention of propagation would help reduce the evolution of 'super bugs'. I put it to you that it's only social convention that has ranked sanitation 'lower' than business management when in base terms, the former is far more important to our survival than the latter. Thinking about it, business management could be a module of a proper education in sanitation as it's entirely likely that an effective cleanliness model would include teamwork.

A holistic understanding of process value identifies the equality of all parts of the process.

The training described is unnecessary and simply accrues additional expenses whilst simultaneously putting the role beyond the abilities of those it currently employs.

There are situations where training people more intensely in areas of sanitation does save lives.

I can't remember the details of this statistic so it may sound pathetic but I'm sure I heard that when hospitals trained staff to wash their hands properly it cut down deaths a significant amount, I don't remember the details but it sounded legitimate and I was shocked about it at the time I heard it.

But they didn't need to teach them a broad spectrum of chemistry and microbiology, just enough to be able to wash thier hands absolutely correctly  and how to clean using various chemicals around the hospitals.

In a sense mechanics provide a service that could result in life or death but there's enough decent mechanics out there that if my mechanic starts asking for the same sum of money as a rocket scientist due to his training in rocket science, I can just go to a cheaper mechanic.

Yeah? I told my son to learn mechanics as a trade, because you can't drive your car to Bangalore for repairs.

Value in an occupation is not solely a matter of formal education, nor solely a matter of hourly wage. It costs less to train someone to handle a broom, sure -- but you can't sweep a room online.

(March 9, 2017 at 3:24 pm)Mr Greene Wrote: The training described is unnecessary and simply accrues additional expenses whilst simultaneously putting the role beyond the abilities of those it currently employs.

That's also true for business management. Most people with degrees will end up in low or middle management jobs where they will spend almost no time using what they learned in university. Instead they'll be mostly chasing stats and hitting targets. We know this to be true because unqualified people can also hold the same role. Does that mean their vocational qualifications or degree was worthless? Of course not. It makes them better managers even if they don't get a chance to fully utilise their skills.

So if it's true for them, why not for cleaners? Because to much of society, the job is 'just scrubbing toilets', it's perceived as less valuable irrespective of its actual value in maintaining public health. Do you see?

cleaners don't have high stress jobs with lots of responsibilities. That's in most circumstances.

There are situations when cleaners have more responsabities and there probably are high paid jobs for cleaners like that out there, perhaps cleaning specialised equipment or crime scenes.

But in any standard work place I've been in the cleaner could spend half the day reading a book hiding out somewhere.
Managers jobs vary, I know managers who only get paid slightly more than cleaners per hour.
But they generally require more skills than a cleaner, people skills, multi tasking, numeracy, literacy and so on.
In my old work place none of the cleaners could actually communicate in English. Because it wasn't even required that they talk beyond a few simple words.

To an extent as far as I can tell, businesses seem to be like evolved animals. Evolution has it pretty much sorted out with admittedly some imperfections in some cases.
But I think in most cases businesses have spent a lot of time and effort calculating the value their staff is bringing to the company and do it pretty successfully. I'm not saying it's bad to think outside the box but you seem to be saying that bussinesses are basically paying their managers more than cleaners just because the people before them did and it's tradition in society.

It's kind of difficult to talk in general terms on this subject because like I said I'm sure there are cleaners who are paid lots more than managers in specialised circumstances. And managers who only get paid barely more than a standard work place cleaner.