Miserable Corporate Mother Fucker

[Excited Penguin]

Wouldn't paying everyone too much be a problem too? You can't just start paying everyone what CEOs make, right? Money would lose it's value and we'd be back where we started.

You'll have to explain when saying paying workers a living wage meant the same as paying everyone CEO salary.

How much people get payed is not really the problem, I think - it's the means to live that need get more uniformly distributed and made available. 

Last I checked, money was the means to live.

What I'm basically saying is how current economies work is the problem, really. We should work for other reasons than making a living. It's only when this initial problem goes away that we are able to truly work, efficiently, creatively and so on.
The state should provide us with sufficient resources to lead a normal life and we should strive to make it even better or work for the community at large on our own, unincentivized by a need to feed your own family and provide them with comfort and shelter.

I like the sentiment, I do; however, I encourage you to think this through a little more.

As far as working for reasons besides money, do you think people will voluntarily clean septic tanks for the enjoyment? There are all sorts of other shitty jobs this applies to.

The state produces nothing; therefore, it cannot provide. The state can reallocate; however, this requires a mode of production to tax to begin with. That said, what you may be after is more responsible legislation where the common good is given a higher priority. Gets messy, but it is achievable.

I'm saying money should be taken out of the equation altogether. We should think of more efficient ways to function as an economical society than symbolizing and thus inherently promoting wealth.


As for the messy jobs, I'm sure people would figure something out. Maybe a system in which both volunteers and predetermined able-bodied individuals do it in shifts? That can't be such a problem, come on.

If I know anything for sure though, is that bitching about something won't make it but worse, since it merely plays on your own nerves and achieves absolutely nothing but that, and so is really counterproductive. If you take issue with a problem you should attempt to solve it other than preaching to the all-knowing[about this kind of shit] choir.

You can't both have the cake and eat it. You should prioritize. What is more important to you? The concept of money or fairness? If you choose both, you can't really tell me there's something to complain about, after all you're not only part of the system, but are also supporting it.

Money wouldn't make any sense in a fully just society. Sure, that's almost impossibly utopic, but that's how we always guide ourselves when theorizing anyway, right?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I'm saying money should be taken out of the equation altogether. We should think of more efficient ways to function as an economical society than symbolizing and thus inherently promoting wealth.

Well, the reason money came about in the first place is that it is the most efficient way to function as an economical society.

It doesn't matter what economic system you use or envision - pure Marxism, corporate fascist States, the semi-psychotic Leninist view of wealth distribution, a barter system, whatever - money is the easiest, most efficient means of valuing goods and services.  This is why your employer doesn't pay you six cattle per week, but the equivalent of six cattle per week. 

Boru

[abaris]

I wouldn't know.  What we have is an oligarchy of rich cocksuckers.

It's always the other way round. They're the ones being cocksucked royally by so called elected politicians. Otherwise they couldn't pull their shit.

[Excited Penguin]

I'm saying money should be taken out of the equation altogether. We should think of more efficient ways to function as an economical society than symbolizing and thus inherently promoting wealth.

Well, the reason money came about in the first place is that it is the most efficient way to function as an economical society.

It doesn't matter what economic system you use or envision - pure Marxism, corporate fascist States, the semi-psychotic Leninist view of wealth distribution, a barter system, whatever - money is the easiest, most efficient means of valuing goods and services.  This is why your employer doesn't pay you six cattle per week, but the equivalent of six cattle per week. 

Boru

Very imaginative of you.

What I'm saying is, we wouldn't need these kinds of equivalents to organise ourselves, if only we were all a bit smarter. All it does is complicate things needlessly. We'll get rid of it too, someday, once we reach a higher mode of functioning.

All money does is differentiate people, oftentimes unjustly. It gives power to a select few and enslaves the many.

Just think of a world where virtually everyone is responsible, both for himself, and his community. Think of a world where everyone gets what they need and can possibly want. What part would greed play? None. What part would money play in this kind of wealth distribution? Just think about it. Would it really be necessary at all? No. Society would fare far better than it does in the current state of affairs, too.

People would be far more responsible than they are now. We would need to lose the vindictictiveness and other baggage of prehistoric impulses first though.

To some this idea might seem scary, like we would be far too undistinguishable from one another and all individuality would be lost in this massive sharing of values, but one wouldn't be taking into account the price at which this illusion of uniqueness we hold about ourselves in the current chaos comes, if one were to think so.

[Cato]

I'm saying money should be taken out of the equation altogether. We should think of more efficient ways to function as an economical society than symbolizing and thus inherently promoting wealth.


As for the messy jobs, I'm sure people would figure something out. Maybe a system in which both volunteers and predetermined able-bodied individuals do it in shifts? That can't be such a problem, come on.

If I know anything for sure though, is that bitching about something won't make it but worse, since it merely plays on your own nerves and achieves absolutely nothing but that, and so is really counterproductive. If you take issue with a problem you should attempt to solve it other than preaching to the all-knowing[about this kind of shit] choir.

You can't both have the cake and eat it. You should prioritize. What is more important to you? The concept of money or fairness? If you choose both, you can't really tell me there's something to complain about, after all you're not only part of the system, but are also supporting it.

Money wouldn't make any sense in a fully just society. Sure, that's almost impossibly utopic, but that's how we always guide ourselves when theorizing anyway, right?

I find it amusing that you tell me I have nothing to complain about simply because of the existence of money (money or fairness)?. You just want money to disappear with absolutely no understanding of its function nor any reasonable idea of how society would function without it. I have no problem with money in and of itself, as I don't have to arrange a direct barter of goods or service when I need groceries. Besides, whatever undeclared 'system' you devise will immediately crumble when the first person decides he/she doesn't want to do something and offers something of value for someone else to take his/her place.

The solution is political and I offered a broad principle that I think would go a long way to achieving a more just society. I am politically active. You then chime in saying I should attempt to solve a problem rather than just preach. The most striking part is that this brilliance was offered right after you waived your hands by saying "I'm sure people would figure something out". Your proposed solution of able-bodied shifts sounds as if there's a gun in the equation. How else do you enforce your proposed policy? Again, the plan fails immediately the first time somebody doesn't want to participate.

I seek justice, not fairness. There is a difference. You won't get my support for pushing some idealized egalitarian society. Some people do in fact work harder than others. Some skills are in fact more valuable to society than others, the problem is that the invisible hand has a difficult time being rational in assigning value. The problem isn't that CEOs don't deserve to make more money, it's the gross imbalance when one considers many companies pay their low level workers an amount that nobody should reasonably expect people to provide for their basic needs with.

The minimum wage should be raised across the board since it is quite obvious that most employers won't do it voluntarily.

[Excited Penguin]

I'm saying money should be taken out of the equation altogether. We should think of more efficient ways to function as an economical society than symbolizing and thus inherently promoting wealth.


As for the messy jobs, I'm sure people would figure something out. Maybe a system in which both volunteers and predetermined able-bodied individuals do it in shifts? That can't be such a problem, come on.

If I know anything for sure though, is that bitching about something won't make it but worse, since it merely plays on your own nerves and achieves absolutely nothing but that, and so is really counterproductive. If you take issue with a problem you should attempt to solve it other than preaching to the all-knowing[about this kind of shit] choir.

You can't both have the cake and eat it. You should prioritize. What is more important to you? The concept of money or fairness? If you choose both, you can't really tell me there's something to complain about, after all you're not only part of the system, but are also supporting it.

Money wouldn't make any sense in a fully just society. Sure, that's almost impossibly utopic, but that's how we always guide ourselves when theorizing anyway, right?

I find it amusing that you tell me I have nothing to complain about simply because of the existence of money (money or fairness)?. You just want money to disappear with absolutely no understanding of its function nor any reasonable idea of how society would function without it. I have no problem with money in and of itself, as I don't have to arrange a direct barter of goods or service when I need groceries. Besides, whatever undeclared 'system' you devise will immediately crumble when the first person decides he/she doesn't want to do something and offers something of value for someone else to take his/her place.

The solution is political and I offered a broad principle that I think would go a long way to achieving a more just society. I am politically active. You then chime in saying I should attempt to solve a problem rather than just preach. The most striking part is that this brilliance was offered right after you waived your hands by saying "I'm sure people would figure something out". Your proposed solution of able-bodied shifts sounds as if there's a gun in the equation. How else do you enforce your proposed policy? Again, the plan fails immediately the first time somebody doesn't want to participate.

I seek justice, not fairness. There is a difference. You won't get my support for pushing some idealized egalitarian society. Some people do in fact work harder than others. Some skills are in fact more valuable to society than others, the problem is that the invisible hand has a difficult time being rational in assigning value. The problem isn't that CEOs don't deserve to make more money, it's the gross imbalance when one considers many companies pay their low level workers an amount that nobody should reasonably expect people to provide for their basic needs with.

The minimum wage should be raised across the board since it is quite obvious that most employers won't do it voluntarily.

You're too simple minded to get what I'm saying. I won't bother explaining in detail until you lose the attitude.

[Brian37]

One really has to be jaded and living on another planet making 4k per hour while bitching about someone's pay which is not keeping up with the cost of living. Selfish asshole is the only apt description of such a person.

[Mr.wizard]

I don't understand why you think getting rid of money is the solution or even the easiest solution. Seems to me raising workers compensation to living wages would be the most logical solution and it would also provide a nice boost to the economy.

[abaris]

I don't understand why you think getting rid of money is the solution or even the easiest solution. Seems to me raising workers compensation to living wages would be the most logical solution and it would also provide a nice boost to the economy.

We're not talking about reasonable. As long as products still get sold by setting up more and more sweatshops, things won't change, since it means a few additional bucks in the pockets of the ones calling the shots. You also have less and less really privately owned companies where a person or a family holds an invested interested. It's mostly shareholder business with suits being responsibile to keep the dividends as high as possible. To get their own bonusses. So, the whole system is designed for short time gain.

That's why I answer with a loud laugh when someone talks about a free market.

[Mr.wizard]

I don't understand why you think getting rid of money is the solution or even the easiest solution. Seems to me raising workers compensation to living wages would be the most logical solution and it would also provide a nice boost to the economy.

We're not talking about reasonable. As long as products still get sold by setting up more and more sweatshops, things won't change, since it means a few additional bucks in the pockets of the ones calling the shots. You also have less and less really privately owned companies where a person or a family holds an invested interested. It's mostly shareholder business with suits being responsibile to keep the dividends as high as possible. To get their own bonusses. So, the whole system is designed for short time gain.

That's why I answer with a loud laugh when someone talks about a free market.

Yes, this is obviously the heart of the problem, I was just referring to the idea of just getting rid of money all together.