How do I convince New Agers that not everybody should get the same wage?
Since beautiful women make me stupid, and since I am a bit curious, I have become involved in a local currency project. One reoccuring theme is that everybody should be paid the same wage for their labor. Doctor or bagboy, judge or record store clerk, the only fair way to do things is for everybody to get the same pay per hour. I fail to see the wisdom in this. The sentiment seems to revolve around social justice: No person is worth any other, etc. How would you suggest I argue otherwise. One option is to show that not everybody even values time equally, let alone an hour of effort. However, I'm not familiar with the research, if any, on that, and I get the impression that wages play a role in the estimation of time which would make my argument circular. Alternatively, I could just say, Do the math, and then say that people get paid what they bring in and try to impress them with a little calculus. I haven't really thought that one through too heavily. Another option I thought of is to compare Spongebob Squarepants with Squidward Tentacles--the uberfry-cook vs. the surly cashier--to show how Spongebob adds armloads of revenue, whereas Squidward produces only minimally. Then I'd try to explain why it is fair for Spongebob to be paid more. I'm sure this will backfire when someone points out some plot device from some episode that will derail the whole affair. What would you suggest? How can I demonstrate, in a relatively short period of time, that imposing equal wages isn't the best way to organize the world? __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Three Fed tools, which increases money supply over time?
I have blanked and I cannot shake it. My apologies for what seems a bonehead question. (Certainly not my first.) Old textbooks aren't helping me, either. There are three money supply tools used by the Fed. It can buy sell bonds, it can change the reserve requirement, or it can change the interest rate it charges banks on overnight loans, right? If the money supply is increasing over time, then it can't be because of the second two, since they can only go so low. Is it the first that causes money supply to grow at x% per year? How does this happen? Losing my mind, jsh __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the Signing Bonus Sweepstakes http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
Re: How do I convince New Agers that not everybody should get the same wage?
In a message dated 1/13/04 4:08:31 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: What would you suggest? How can I demonstrate, in a relatively short period of time, that imposing equal wages isn't the best way to organize the world? I used to do this all the time with my students in history classes at Iowa. I'd ask them if they really thought a ditch digger without a high school diploma should make as much as a doctor, a veterinarian, a lawyer, or someone else with at least two degrees, or I'd just ask them if they thought that after they graduate and get a job with their degree if they thought they should get paid as little as a ditch digger. I've yet to hear students say yes to either of those propositions. David Levenstam
Re: How do I convince New Agers that not everybody should get the same wage?
One line of reasoning is that people are simply different and these differences are important economically. Some people are simply better at doing certain things than others. For instance, Michael Jordan is a much better ball player than I am, and the public is willing to pay him a lot more than me to play ball. Michael Jordan is in some sense scarce, which is what makes his playing valuable in an economic sense. Not a lot of people have the ability to be excellent basketball players, but a lot of people have the ability to be excellent plumbers. This is also why diamonds cost more than pebbles. Note that this does not say anything about MJ's worth as person, or his equality before the law, and so on. The more important question, I think, is the source of the differences in people. To become a doctor, you need to spend a lot of time, money and effort. Most doctors I knew planned to be doctors when they were children, and they made many sacrifices to accomplish that goal. They spent Saturday nights studying when the rest of us were drinking beers. They were working at the lab while the rest of us were taking the literature class. Simply put, very few people would make the necessary investment to become doctors if they were not compensated for it at the end. In any case, even if the final wage-career distribution is mostly a matter of luck rather than deliberate choices about education, it is unclear whether equalizing wages is going to be a more fair arrangement. First, it's impossible to speak about fairness in a system when outcomes are determined by chance (at least as long as you admit that people have different abilities). It may be likely that the rich are paid more than they deserve and the poor less, but it is equally likely that the rich paid less than they deserve and the poor more. This is a more nuanced philosophical point, and much more open to debate. Finally, I am not sure why anyone would object to inequality it itself. Consider this scenario. You're at the bar with your buddies, and Bill Gates walks in through the door. Obviously the distribution of wealth has become more unequal. But do you really feel worse off? Dimitriy V. Masterov
The blue line
You're at the bar with your buddies, and BillGates walks in through the door. Obviously the distribution of wealth hasbecome more unequal. But do you really feel worse off?--- I'd like to know how the annoying blue line at the left gets put into email, why one would inset it, and whether onecan removeit in replying. Fred Foldvary
