in small, communal societies, people would be assigned to the tasks they’re best at. humans lived this way for millenia before industrialism and common education standards. i lived on a small commune for an internship, we had people who specialized in: maintenance, caretaking (animals), medicine, cleaning, etc
You would think, but actually there’s been some recent research that I think has interesting conclusions. The example, which is semi-related, is performance as a manager. When promoted using merit based, people tended to perform worse bcz they are promoted based on past performance in unrelated roles. When promoted randomly, the people who excelled at being a manager stayed in that position, and outperformed others who were promoted based on merit.
The point being, you don’t know who’s going to be good at something based on past performance in unrelated roles. We’ve built an entire system based on that concept, and it’s not really that surprising that it doesn’t work that well. If I can find the research article again, I’ll link it.
Market socialism maybe. Look up mutualism and anarcho-syndicalism.
But personally I don’t think we need to do that. It’s to each according to need, not to each according to ability. We shouldn’t give people less because they’re disabled or more because they’re abled.
Once we can meet everyone’s needs, then we can start talking about how to allocate the surplus. But I trust a society that takes cade of its people more than I trust us, in our current state, to have the right ideas about how that should work.
Problem is information. If you really need someone else to provide a good or service for you, then almost certainly you don’t know enough about said good or service to accurately gauge the providers skills and quality.
So by and large, we have to rely on what others say to indicate relative value. So the people most confident and/or most manipulative tend to win because they are the best at sounding good.
“Just give”. You know things don’t just spontaneously materialize right? Someone has to work to make them. Why would anyone put in effort to do that if you’ll “just give” them to someone else? That’s why all those collectivist ideas failed every time they’ve been tried.
Communism worked in Australia for 65,000 years. It was classless, stateless, moneyless. Wealth was distributed from each according to ability, to each according to need.
See, David Graeber interviewed a lot of people who work in “bullshit jobs”. Jobs that serve no useful purpose to anyone, and even the person doing the job thinks it’s pointless. People who tick boxes all day, or who look busy without doing anything, or who get a paycheck even though the company has forgotten about them.
Graeber expected the people working bullshit jobs to be very happy with how they’ve beaten the system, but most weren’t. Most were depressed. People have a fundamental need to help others; to be useful to society. If they didn’t, they would have gone extinct long ago. People who work bullshit jobs are unhappy. People who work meaningful, important, and prosocial jobs tend to be satisfied with themselves. Their moral needs are being met.
That’s the mistake capitalism makes. Capitalists think you need to scam people into working by withholding food and water and shelter. They don’t believe in human rights, they believe in using these necessities to control people. They think greed is human nature.
But Indigenous Australians have known full well for 65,000 years that people want to be good. And they have used their vast science of psychology and sociology and politics to engineer a system which makes the best use of that natural impulse, driving people to do good. That’s successful communism.
Do you have a time machine/some secret aboriginal 65000 year old journals or did you manage to figure all this out from stone tools and cave paintings?
It was classless, stateless, moneyless.
Most primitive societies were/are. If that’s communism then it only provides empirical evidence that it doesn’t work very well as it did not survive to this day and it’s been outcompeted by capitalist societies. Literally natural selection.
from each according to ability, to each according to need
This is why communism is immoral and ineffective. When you say “from each according to ability” you demand that people do what they do best and do it as well as they can, regardless of their own interests, ambitions or desires. Are you a muscular guy, sorry comrade, science division is full, you’ll fit in better at the manual labor camp. Do you like to paint and sing, too bad, society demands your talents at the nuclear research facility. You’re burned out and don’t feel like giving your 100% right now, think again, we only care if you’re able, not if you’re willing. In capitalism you get to choose what you want to do with your life, of course, the more useful that thing is to others the bigger your reward, but it’s ultimately your choice.
It also assumes that you can accurately gauge someone’s abilities and needs. If Leonardo da Vinci lived under communism he likely would have never discovered his talents in science, engineering and mathematics as he would have been forced solely into artistry after his predispositions for it manifested at a young age. Conversely, you can’t tell if someone is really unable to work and to what capacity. I can guarantee you that if all negative repercussions of it were removed, given a choice between going to work and giving it your all vs faking an illness to stay home and play videogames, a very large portion of the population would choose the latter, you don’t even need to think about it to figure it out.
“To each according to need” works great until there isn’t enough to go around, and that’s when real human nature shows itself. We are not hive animals like ants or bees who have been genetically programmed through haplodiploidy to put the good of the hive above their own. We are pack animals, we only care about the pack to the extent that it benefits us as individuals. Given a choice between the good of the pack at the expense of themselves and their family or their own and family’s good at the expense of the pack, humans will choose the latter ~90% of the time. I’m sure even those ancient aboriginal communists you made up would hide away some nuts and berries for themselves and their families instead of sharing them with the whole tribe when resources were tight.
See, David Graeber interviewed a lot of people who work in “bullshit jobs”. Jobs that serve to useful purpose to anyone, and even the person doing the job thinks it’s pointless. People who tick boxes all day, or who look busy without doing anything, or who get a paycheck even though the company has forgotten about them.
Graeber expected the people working bullshit jobs to be very happy with how they’ve beaten the system, but most weren’t. Most were depressed. People have a fundamental need to help others; to be useful to society. If they didn’t, they would have gone extinct long ago. People who work bullshit jobs are unhappy. People who work meaningful, important, and prosocial jobs tend to be satisfied with themselves. Their moral needs are being met.
People have their interests, ambitions and desires, for some it will be helping others and being useful to society and for others it will be something else of no use to anyone but themselves. There’s plenty of amateur musicians, coders, lego builders, bird watchers, chess players, bloggers, photographers, painters, sportsmen, bodybuilders, speedrunners… whose work benefits absolutely nobody but their own satisfaction, and yet they’re their happiest when they get to do those things. If people had a fundamental need to be useful to society then everyone who ever retires would be absolutely miserable and nobody would do it of their own volition.
That’s the mistake capitalism makes. Capitalists think you need to scam people into working by withholding food and water and shelter. They don’t believe in human rights, they believe in using these necessities to control people. They think greed is human nature.
Greed is human nature. We exist in the world of finite resources, we evolved in the world of finite resources to survive in the world of finite resources. We evolved to accumulate, compete for and preserve resources. That’s why laziness, theft, gluttony and greed exist. It’s literally our nature, not the only part of it, altruism and charity exist of course but it always comes second to personal benefit.
Also, you’re not withholding anything. Things don’t just materialize, you either earn them or they aren’t yours. You can only speak of withholding if someone agreed to give you something and then went back on their promise. Someone not giving you free food, water or shelter (which btw every developed country does, there’s plenty of food banks and homeless shelters and water doesn’t even need mentioning) isn’t withholding anything from you. If you want water go to a river or catch rain/dew, if you want food plant some or forage, if you want shelter build one (or pay someone more qualified to do it, you know, the capitalist way).
But Indigenous Australians have known full well for 65,000 years that people want to be good. And they have used their vast science of psychology and sociology and politics to engineer a system which makes the best use of that natural impulse, driving people to do good. That’s successful communism.
Humans are the one species not bound by natural resources. Humans evolved big brains to invent ways to change nature and improve methods of resource generation. The First Australians literally terraformed the land to make more food, without needing European style farms. You’re calling them primitive because you have no idea about their technology. You and the people who taught you just made an assumption based on the colour of their skin.
Greed is not human nature and white supremacy is pseudoscience.
Humans are the one species not bound by natural resources.
Yes we are.
Humans evolved big brains to invent ways to change nature and improve methods of resource generation.
True, it also directly argues against your previous point that “Humans are the one species not bound by natural resources.”
The First Australians literally terraformed the land to make more food, without needing European style farms. You’re calling them primitive because you have no idea about their technology.
I’m calling them primitive because they were primitive, this is not an insult, it’s a stage of development. All societies were primitive at one point.
Primitive
Of or relating to an early or original stage or state; primeval.
Occurring in or characteristic of an early stage of development or evolution.
Having developed early in the evolutionary history of a group.
If you’re saying they weren’t primitive that means that they have made no meaningfull progress in the last 65k years.
You and the people who taught you just made an assumption based on the colour of their skin.
Greed is not human nature and white supremacy is pseudoscience.
You haven’t responded to any of my arguments because you have no arguments so you resort to calling me racist, classic.
Sports, kinda. It’s possible to go unrewarded with them, but it’s very hard to go rewarded without them.
If you mean economic system, not really. Capitalism rewards having capital over everything else, communism (if we ignore the flawed attempts and go for theory) rewards everyone equally irrelevant of how hard you work or what your skills are. Though being skilled in something that’s actually pleasant as a job is a reward in itself as you won’t have to work manual labour.
Don’t know about sports even. Probably at least a base level to get on the threshold of celebrity, but then they can lean on personality and antics rather than performance in their sport.
Okay, you’re right on that too. But outside of super high earning sports that have a lot of entertainment factor (mostly team sports involving balls), it really is all about your performance. You don’t get to do track and field at the Olympics based on your personality for example. Though it would be hilarious if you could!
No, because it would be up to people to assess talent/hard work/skill and people are imperfect.
Also would you even want that system? Reward a bunch of John Henrys for killing themselves when their work should be done by machines? Reward artists for art that no one can appreciate? Reward skill that doesn’t ultimately benefit anyone?
Guild Economics, where you only ascend to leadership with experience in your trade. I don’t like the idea that some kid out of university could be assigned manager of an industry they didn’t even study for. Realistically, 90% of the workforce does not need to have gone to uni and we could reorganise society around apprenticeships instead.
We can value education without commodifying it the way we’ve done. In my opinion, the current system rewards diploma mills and devalues education anyways.
I think education should be both inexpensive and completely voluntary, so that the only ‘reward’ for going to school is the knowledge you leave with.
Well if we’re imagining a better world anyways, why would anyone have three jobs?
The current system creates luxury for some at the cost of creating poverty for others. I think the best course of action would be to stop doing that - then education could be about learning instead of about earning.
in germany the apprenticeship system is very advanced and you can apprentice your way to a bachelor’s equivalent with further study to a master’s equivalent. that’s how most trades work here. apprentices do part time studying at a trade school and part time working the trade over multiple years simultaneously, with exams issued by the school and for example a chamber of industry. it’s very effective at turning students into effective workers, and if you find the right job you’ve got good prospects for a lifelong career, but obviously it does not teach you to doubt the system. of course there are also usually no “unnecessary” courses that would take away from an apprentice’s focus. i think it’s a decent balance, and you can always educate yourself on the state of the world in your free time.
That sounds really good. I didn’t have as much of a good experience with a government program, which consisted of the company giving me one example, then sending me right off to work, without giving a fuck if their products turn out well, or if I learn anything.
Still working here, still don’t know most things, because asking gets you the low-skilled tasks.
with a master’s in carpentry you can start your own carpentry business. as a bachelor you’re only allowed to work in other people’s businesses. to get there you’ll have to pass wtitten and practical exams, for example building specific things to spec
I think school itself should be a million times harder, i.e actually mean something, and university should either be easier or just not pushed onto 100% of the workforce like it is in Britain, Spain, America, Ireland and Canada et cetera.
Also second baguette fish - in my country we have “degree apprenticeships” where you go to university alongside doing work for a company, and it seems appropriate because it effectively highlights where people are even needed in this completely oversaturated made up economy.
In fact since public education is shaped by the regime (“the regime” = WHICHEVER system is in power, be it democracy, organised anarchy, monarchy, capitalism or communism), education will usually be catered towards supporting the regime in some way. If the regime does not control education at least a little bit, it leaves roo, for other pressure groups - organised minorities - to manipulate education, thus reducing Current Regime’s staying power and providing a foot-in for themselves
Wow who would have thought the research in current regime would indicate that current regime is correct! You can tell the research is unbiased because it was published by current regime. Only in current regime can research be unbiased, thank god for current regime.
This was done by Italian researchers, no affiliation with the U.S. government.
Again. Regime. Current regime, which likes organisations run by very specific people in a very particular way, has investigated itself to find that “NOBODY DOES IT BETTER!”
Well you could also ask if that’s fair. People are just born with more or less talent or skill. Nothing they can do about it. Should they be rewarded for that? Or saying it the opposite way: should people be punished for something they can’t change?
Life is never fair. not for humans and not for any living being.
If you try to make it fair by paying the person with lower skill same as skilled person, the skilled person won’t feel the need to use their skills anymore.
To make it fair you need a magic mirror that print statistics about each person (skill level, talent level, physical strength) and use these numbers to decide who used all their abilities and who pretend to be dumb to avoid using their brain/body
I think people who are naturally better at things should can and will always be rewarded for that; we make up for the discrepancy by making sure it’s not bloody torturous to live on a minimum wage job, thay there are support systems for the disabled, unemployed, and the simply unintelligent.
Reading about 1950s America it was clear that people were so comfortable that working in minimum wage jobs largrly didn’t bother them. If a capitalist country can achieve that, a well-organised country can achieve even better.
Is there any system that reward talent, hard work or skill ?
in small, communal societies, people would be assigned to the tasks they’re best at. humans lived this way for millenia before industrialism and common education standards. i lived on a small commune for an internship, we had people who specialized in: maintenance, caretaking (animals), medicine, cleaning, etc
In theory yes but in practice greedy leeches have found their way
If you try to do that you need metrics for evaluation and then you get people gaming the metrics. One example is academia.
You would think, but actually there’s been some recent research that I think has interesting conclusions. The example, which is semi-related, is performance as a manager. When promoted using merit based, people tended to perform worse bcz they are promoted based on past performance in unrelated roles. When promoted randomly, the people who excelled at being a manager stayed in that position, and outperformed others who were promoted based on merit.
The point being, you don’t know who’s going to be good at something based on past performance in unrelated roles. We’ve built an entire system based on that concept, and it’s not really that surprising that it doesn’t work that well. If I can find the research article again, I’ll link it.
Edit: found it
What’s surprising to me isn’t that the random promotion system works over the performance in past unrelated roles system…
What’s surprising to me is that you practically never see the only other logical conclusion used in the business world much.
Aptitude testing.
True I honestly find the random promotion thing to be super unintuitive, and would struggle to do it if I was in a position to make those decisions.
Market socialism maybe. Look up mutualism and anarcho-syndicalism.
But personally I don’t think we need to do that. It’s to each according to need, not to each according to ability. We shouldn’t give people less because they’re disabled or more because they’re abled.
^ this.
Once we can meet everyone’s needs, then we can start talking about how to allocate the surplus. But I trust a society that takes cade of its people more than I trust us, in our current state, to have the right ideas about how that should work.
Problem is information. If you really need someone else to provide a good or service for you, then almost certainly you don’t know enough about said good or service to accurately gauge the providers skills and quality.
So by and large, we have to rely on what others say to indicate relative value. So the people most confident and/or most manipulative tend to win because they are the best at sounding good.
Just give disabled people food and housing lmao.
I would say it would be good if everyone could at least be secure in those, but life is more than food and housing.
Oh, I mean the other meaning of “just”. I mean give us food and housing because it’s so easy. Not give us food and housing and nothing else.
“Just give”. You know things don’t just spontaneously materialize right? Someone has to work to make them. Why would anyone put in effort to do that if you’ll “just give” them to someone else? That’s why all those collectivist ideas failed every time they’ve been tried.
That’s how it works right now. The whole world collectively works to enrich the few. Enough people are convinced they’re working for themselves.
I’d rather my hard work go to people who need it than some asshole who wants another yacht.
It’s all optics.
Yes, I also think most taxes are bullshit and a real hindrance on the human spirit of discovery and entrepreneurship.
Communism worked in Australia for 65,000 years. It was classless, stateless, moneyless. Wealth was distributed from each according to ability, to each according to need.
See, David Graeber interviewed a lot of people who work in “bullshit jobs”. Jobs that serve no useful purpose to anyone, and even the person doing the job thinks it’s pointless. People who tick boxes all day, or who look busy without doing anything, or who get a paycheck even though the company has forgotten about them.
Graeber expected the people working bullshit jobs to be very happy with how they’ve beaten the system, but most weren’t. Most were depressed. People have a fundamental need to help others; to be useful to society. If they didn’t, they would have gone extinct long ago. People who work bullshit jobs are unhappy. People who work meaningful, important, and prosocial jobs tend to be satisfied with themselves. Their moral needs are being met.
That’s the mistake capitalism makes. Capitalists think you need to scam people into working by withholding food and water and shelter. They don’t believe in human rights, they believe in using these necessities to control people. They think greed is human nature.
But Indigenous Australians have known full well for 65,000 years that people want to be good. And they have used their vast science of psychology and sociology and politics to engineer a system which makes the best use of that natural impulse, driving people to do good. That’s successful communism.
No it didn’t
Do you have a time machine/some secret aboriginal 65000 year old journals or did you manage to figure all this out from stone tools and cave paintings?
Most primitive societies were/are. If that’s communism then it only provides empirical evidence that it doesn’t work very well as it did not survive to this day and it’s been outcompeted by capitalist societies. Literally natural selection.
This is why communism is immoral and ineffective. When you say “from each according to ability” you demand that people do what they do best and do it as well as they can, regardless of their own interests, ambitions or desires. Are you a muscular guy, sorry comrade, science division is full, you’ll fit in better at the manual labor camp. Do you like to paint and sing, too bad, society demands your talents at the nuclear research facility. You’re burned out and don’t feel like giving your 100% right now, think again, we only care if you’re able, not if you’re willing. In capitalism you get to choose what you want to do with your life, of course, the more useful that thing is to others the bigger your reward, but it’s ultimately your choice.
It also assumes that you can accurately gauge someone’s abilities and needs. If Leonardo da Vinci lived under communism he likely would have never discovered his talents in science, engineering and mathematics as he would have been forced solely into artistry after his predispositions for it manifested at a young age. Conversely, you can’t tell if someone is really unable to work and to what capacity. I can guarantee you that if all negative repercussions of it were removed, given a choice between going to work and giving it your all vs faking an illness to stay home and play videogames, a very large portion of the population would choose the latter, you don’t even need to think about it to figure it out.
“To each according to need” works great until there isn’t enough to go around, and that’s when real human nature shows itself. We are not hive animals like ants or bees who have been genetically programmed through haplodiploidy to put the good of the hive above their own. We are pack animals, we only care about the pack to the extent that it benefits us as individuals. Given a choice between the good of the pack at the expense of themselves and their family or their own and family’s good at the expense of the pack, humans will choose the latter ~90% of the time. I’m sure even those ancient aboriginal communists you made up would hide away some nuts and berries for themselves and their families instead of sharing them with the whole tribe when resources were tight.
People have their interests, ambitions and desires, for some it will be helping others and being useful to society and for others it will be something else of no use to anyone but themselves. There’s plenty of amateur musicians, coders, lego builders, bird watchers, chess players, bloggers, photographers, painters, sportsmen, bodybuilders, speedrunners… whose work benefits absolutely nobody but their own satisfaction, and yet they’re their happiest when they get to do those things. If people had a fundamental need to be useful to society then everyone who ever retires would be absolutely miserable and nobody would do it of their own volition.
Greed is human nature. We exist in the world of finite resources, we evolved in the world of finite resources to survive in the world of finite resources. We evolved to accumulate, compete for and preserve resources. That’s why laziness, theft, gluttony and greed exist. It’s literally our nature, not the only part of it, altruism and charity exist of course but it always comes second to personal benefit.
Also, you’re not withholding anything. Things don’t just materialize, you either earn them or they aren’t yours. You can only speak of withholding if someone agreed to give you something and then went back on their promise. Someone not giving you free food, water or shelter (which btw every developed country does, there’s plenty of food banks and homeless shelters and water doesn’t even need mentioning) isn’t withholding anything from you. If you want water go to a river or catch rain/dew, if you want food plant some or forage, if you want shelter build one (or pay someone more qualified to do it, you know, the capitalist way).
Ok, cool story bro.
Humans are the one species not bound by natural resources. Humans evolved big brains to invent ways to change nature and improve methods of resource generation. The First Australians literally terraformed the land to make more food, without needing European style farms. You’re calling them primitive because you have no idea about their technology. You and the people who taught you just made an assumption based on the colour of their skin.
Greed is not human nature and white supremacy is pseudoscience.
Yes we are.
True, it also directly argues against your previous point that “Humans are the one species not bound by natural resources.”
I’m calling them primitive because they were primitive, this is not an insult, it’s a stage of development. All societies were primitive at one point.
Primitive
If you’re saying they weren’t primitive that means that they have made no meaningfull progress in the last 65k years.
You haven’t responded to any of my arguments because you have no arguments so you resort to calling me racist, classic.
Sports, kinda. It’s possible to go unrewarded with them, but it’s very hard to go rewarded without them.
If you mean economic system, not really. Capitalism rewards having capital over everything else, communism (if we ignore the flawed attempts and go for theory) rewards everyone equally irrelevant of how hard you work or what your skills are. Though being skilled in something that’s actually pleasant as a job is a reward in itself as you won’t have to work manual labour.
Don’t know about sports even. Probably at least a base level to get on the threshold of celebrity, but then they can lean on personality and antics rather than performance in their sport.
Okay, you’re right on that too. But outside of super high earning sports that have a lot of entertainment factor (mostly team sports involving balls), it really is all about your performance. You don’t get to do track and field at the Olympics based on your personality for example. Though it would be hilarious if you could!
No, because it would be up to people to assess talent/hard work/skill and people are imperfect.
Also would you even want that system? Reward a bunch of John Henrys for killing themselves when their work should be done by machines? Reward artists for art that no one can appreciate? Reward skill that doesn’t ultimately benefit anyone?
Academia, sometimes.
That is true. Sometimes. But then again the people with the most funding get the most papers and recognition. But agreed.
Guild Economics, where you only ascend to leadership with experience in your trade. I don’t like the idea that some kid out of university could be assigned manager of an industry they didn’t even study for. Realistically, 90% of the workforce does not need to have gone to uni and we could reorganise society around apprenticeships instead.
No, don’t be anti-education. Uneducated people make easy prey.
We can value education without commodifying it the way we’ve done. In my opinion, the current system rewards diploma mills and devalues education anyways.
I think education should be both inexpensive and completely voluntary, so that the only ‘reward’ for going to school is the knowledge you leave with.
No you create such a divide. Try learning with 3 jobs
Well if we’re imagining a better world anyways, why would anyone have three jobs?
The current system creates luxury for some at the cost of creating poverty for others. I think the best course of action would be to stop doing that - then education could be about learning instead of about earning.
in germany the apprenticeship system is very advanced and you can apprentice your way to a bachelor’s equivalent with further study to a master’s equivalent. that’s how most trades work here. apprentices do part time studying at a trade school and part time working the trade over multiple years simultaneously, with exams issued by the school and for example a chamber of industry. it’s very effective at turning students into effective workers, and if you find the right job you’ve got good prospects for a lifelong career, but obviously it does not teach you to doubt the system. of course there are also usually no “unnecessary” courses that would take away from an apprentice’s focus. i think it’s a decent balance, and you can always educate yourself on the state of the world in your free time.
That sounds really good. I didn’t have as much of a good experience with a government program, which consisted of the company giving me one example, then sending me right off to work, without giving a fuck if their products turn out well, or if I learn anything.
Still working here, still don’t know most things, because asking gets you the low-skilled tasks.
Genuinely curious, what would a bachelors level or masters equivalent for a carpenter be?
with a master’s in carpentry you can start your own carpentry business. as a bachelor you’re only allowed to work in other people’s businesses. to get there you’ll have to pass wtitten and practical exams, for example building specific things to spec
I think school itself should be a million times harder, i.e actually mean something, and university should either be easier or just not pushed onto 100% of the workforce like it is in Britain, Spain, America, Ireland and Canada et cetera.
Also second baguette fish - in my country we have “degree apprenticeships” where you go to university alongside doing work for a company, and it seems appropriate because it effectively highlights where people are even needed in this completely oversaturated made up economy.
As make educated people, because they can’t judge their education, neither before choosing nor after being formed.
bro, even with education they are easy prey. There simply is no getting around the bell curve of humanity here.
In fact since public education is shaped by the regime (“the regime” = WHICHEVER system is in power, be it democracy, organised anarchy, monarchy, capitalism or communism), education will usually be catered towards supporting the regime in some way. If the regime does not control education at least a little bit, it leaves roo, for other pressure groups - organised minorities - to manipulate education, thus reducing Current Regime’s staying power and providing a foot-in for themselves
Actually, the research says to do that
Promoting people into leadership positions based on past unrelated experience does not make better managers and leaders.
Wow who would have thought the research in current regime would indicate that current regime is correct! You can tell the research is unbiased because it was published by current regime. Only in current regime can research be unbiased, thank god for current regime.
Knock it all you want. This was done by Italian researchers, no affiliation with the U.S. government.
Edit Here’s the actual research paper It’s pretty short actually
Again. Regime. Current regime, which likes organisations run by very specific people in a very particular way, has investigated itself to find that “NOBODY DOES IT BETTER!”
Okay, we seem to be in a bit of a loop here. I’m going to go do something else with my time. Talking to you is a waste of time.
One day you’ll understand :)
Nah, I briefly looked through your post history. You’re just kind of an unpleasant person.
Well you could also ask if that’s fair. People are just born with more or less talent or skill. Nothing they can do about it. Should they be rewarded for that? Or saying it the opposite way: should people be punished for something they can’t change?
Life is never fair. not for humans and not for any living being.
If you try to make it fair by paying the person with lower skill same as skilled person, the skilled person won’t feel the need to use their skills anymore.
To make it fair you need a magic mirror that print statistics about each person (skill level, talent level, physical strength) and use these numbers to decide who used all their abilities and who pretend to be dumb to avoid using their brain/body
True I’m not saying it’d be the best option or anything. Just something to think about. Should live be fair or not? Also, it’s not black and white.
That’s if you force people to work. If you let them choose freely, most will align with their skills because it is the most rewarding.
I think people who are naturally better at things should can and will always be rewarded for that; we make up for the discrepancy by making sure it’s not bloody torturous to live on a minimum wage job, thay there are support systems for the disabled, unemployed, and the simply unintelligent.
Reading about 1950s America it was clear that people were so comfortable that working in minimum wage jobs largrly didn’t bother them. If a capitalist country can achieve that, a well-organised country can achieve even better.
Very true. That’s a way to deal with it for sure. Social safety nets are an important part of developed civilisation.
The capitalist country achieved that to convince people of capitalism. It was highly motivated.
Capitalism =/= People getting reimbursed for work. Capitalism =/= the existence of a monetary system