Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

To the people that support redistribution of income... Watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you support the following?
    I support the redistribution of income and marks
    0.91%
    I support the redistribution of income, but not marks
    47.27%
    I support the redistribution of marks, but not income
    0
    0%
    I support neither form of redistribution
    52.73%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    They get a profit off me, don't they?

    Where's my profit? I pay for the materials needed, for the salaries of everybody including management, even for interest for money lent to the supermarket, e.g. by a bank... and for that, I get a sandwich.

    Where's the reason for the profit?
    Sure they get a profit - without the profit motive nobody would work - why would you exert any effort whatsoever if you'd be made no better in a tangible or intangible sense off for it?

    Your profit? Your profit is what you earn through whatever you do for a living. If you repair cars, your profit is what your salary is. If you manufacture toasters, your profit is the difference between your sale price and your costs.

    The reason for the profit is motivation. If you would be paid a total of £0, would you work? Of course you wouldn't.

    Equally, if everyone earnt the same - say £50,000, why would anyone do anything other than a job requiring more than a minimum level of education, exertion and skill?

    If the airline pilot earns the same as the taxi driver, the lawyer earns the same as the baker, the neurosurgeon earns the same as the postman - why would anyone choose to put themselves through years of education and work longer hours? People dislike labouring, understandably; it is not generally pleasant. It's bizarre to believe that people would exert more labour for the same reward.

    If people earnt the same amount of money for doing less work, don't you think they would? No rational person would do more work than someone else for equal pay.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    One gem is hardly a lot.

    I'm not terribly concerned with collecting green pixels; I'd much rather say what I actually think.
    It's funny you should say this, because in your post you said absolutely nothing. In a rather disingenuous fashion you have attempted to create an analogy between the two situations without actually asserting the analogy in an effort to make the default position agreement with you. If you want to make the analogy, just man up and say "What do you think of this analogy?"
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    They get a profit off me, don't they?

    Where's my profit? I pay for the materials needed, for the salaries of everybody including management, even for interest for money lent to the supermarket, e.g. by a bank... and for that, I get a sandwich.

    Where's the reason for the profit?
    For clarification, are you asserting that Tesco have a moral responsibility to sell you goods at cost? Perhaps you have misunderstood the nature of economics.

    Regardless, the issue is cyclical - when whatever company you work for pays you, they are paying for equivalent things as for when you pay Tesco. Where is the reason for your profit from your company?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Sorry, missed that - I'll answer it here.

    It's moral because I do not recognise the good of others as the reason for my existence. I do not exist to serve others; I exist to pursue my own happiness. I would never ask another man to live for my sake involuntarily, nor am I willing to live for another man against my will. Now, if one wishes to give to another, there is nothing wrong with that. But I believe that people must be free to make their own choices - people do not owe each other a better condition. So long as I did nothing to put that man in that position - I didn't steal from him, assault him, defraud him etc - I have no moral obligation to do any positive act in his favour, just as he has no moral obligation to do any positive act in my favour - the duties owed by men to one another are wholly negative, in my thinking; that is we have duties to refrain from doing things, including inter alia defrauding, stealing, assaulting, raping, killing. We have no duty to provide goods or services to others.
    You're not really being asked to provide him with a service or anything like that. You have an excess of a resource (relative to what you require for a decent quality of life) and he is dying for his lack of that resource. It is only through this man-made market system that the man is starving in the first place, under any natural circumstances he and everyone else that had been denied these resources would end up having to take them by force.

    Considering the situation is man-made, your ability to deprive him of what he needs is only possible because you have the consent of your fellow citizens.

    You can take the scenario to an even more ridiculous point to highlight the absurdity of the system you propose.

    Three men are placed in a locked room, which in this case represents the Earth. One of them, Person A, is given just enough food to survive. Person B is given absolutely nothing. Person C is given 500 years' worth. Person C has a funny sense of morality and insists he will not share any of it. To me it would be completely absurd and unnatural to expect Person A and Person B to take none of that food merely because it is Person C's "property". The same applies here. If you were Person A or Person B, what would you do?


    If you are going to make a point about how a single person would never end up having a monopoly over resources like that, feel free to imagine that Person C represents a large group of people instead.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yes we should
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    If you would be paid a total of £0, would you work? Of course you wouldn't.
    But my point is that I already paid for all their salaries, even for the interest for any money someone may have lent them.

    So where's the reason for the profit the company makes? 'The company' wouldn't work without it? But 'the company' isn't a human being, it doesn't need an incentive. The people working there do - but I'm already paying for their salaries...

    So - I'm not even arguing against any profit. I'm just saying that if people - or companies - are making one, I think it only fair when they're forced to share some - after all, it is only 'some' - of it with the people supplying the demand, so to speak.

    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    No rational person would do more work than someone else for equal pay.
    That seems to be the main problem with you. You actually think people behave in that rational, homo oeconomicus kind of way. Well they don't.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    You're not really being asked to provide him with a service or anything like that. You have an excess of a resource (relative to what you require for a decent quality of life) and he is dying for his lack of that resource. It is only through this man-made market system that the man is starving in the first place, under any natural circumstances he and everyone else that had been denied these resources would end up having to take them by force.

    Considering the situation is man-made, your ability to deprive him of what he needs is only possible because you have the consent of your fellow citizens.

    You can take the scenario to an even more ridiculous point to highlight the absurdity of the system you propose.

    Three men are placed in a locked room, which in this case represents the Earth. One of them, Person A, is given just enough food to survive. Person B is given absolutely nothing. Person C is given 500 years' worth. Person C has a funny sense of morality and insists he will not share any of it. To me it would be completely absurd and unnatural to expect Person A and Person B to take none of that food merely because it is Person C's "property". The same applies here. If you were Person A or Person B, what would you do?


    If you are going to make a point about how a single person would never end up having a monopoly over resources like that, feel free to imagine that Person C represents a large group of people instead.
    If I were person A or person B, I would offer to do something for C so that he might pay me in the form of something he has.

    Unless you think person C is infinitely talented and desires nothing whatsoever, which in the real world is quite obviously absurd, there's no reason to expect that he would not employ A or B.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elcano)
    But my point is that I already paid for all their salaries, even for the interest for any money someone may have lent them.

    So where's the reason for the profit the company makes? 'The company' wouldn't work without it? But 'the company' isn't a human being, it doesn't need an incentive. The people working there do - but I'm already paying for their salaries...

    So - I'm not even arguing against any profit. I'm just saying that if people - or companies - are making one, I think it only fair when they're forced to share some - after all, it is only 'some' - of it with the people supplying the demand, so to speak.



    That seems to be the main problem with you. You actually think people behave in that rational, homo oeconomicus kind of way. Well they don't.
    My problem is that I believe most people act rationally? :lolwut:

    Say you worked in a company producing lightbulbs, then. Say you could produce 1,000 lightbulbs per day. Your next-best coworker could produce 500. You were paid the same.

    Would you actually keep working there? If you would, I think you're insane.

    Why would you not go to a competitor, show them your abilities and say you'll work for them for some value greater than your current employer if offering you?

    He has an incentive to hire you - the added profit he can generate.
    You have an incentive to work for him - you're going to profit more from selling your labour.
    Your original employer has an incentive to offer you an increased salary - he'll lose you to a competitor if he doesn't.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    If you would, I think you're insane.
    Does anything, anything at all matter to you besides money?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Would you also support the redistribution of test scores?

    Let's take three examples:

    A earns £1,000,000 as the CEO of a company that manufactures steel.
    B earns £75,000 as an accountant in that company.
    C earns £15,000 as an office cleaner in that company.

    Do you support redistributing income from A to B?
    Do you support redistributing income from A to B and C?
    Do you support redistributing income from A to C?
    Do you support redistributing income from A and B to C?

    And now consider a different situation:

    A scores 90% on an A-level English paper.
    B scores 70% on the same paper.
    C scores 45% on the same paper.

    All the students are in the same classroom, with the same teacher, in the same school. None of the students get private tuition.

    Do you support redistributing marks from A to B?
    Do you support redistributing marks from A to B and C?
    Do you support redistributing marks from A to C?
    Do you support redistributing marks from A and B to C?

    Please answer yes or no to each of the questions above, and state your reasons.
    You're missing the point. Person who has the marks in an exam cannot use it to their advantage in tangible terms. Someone with high income can eventually sit and do nothing and still earn more than the individual with a low income and then pass that wealth on. You cannot pass high grades on or have high grades as an excuse to do nothing.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    If I were person A or person B, I would offer to do something for C so that he might pay me in the form of something he has.

    Unless you think person C is infinitely talented and desires nothing whatsoever, which in the real world is quite obviously absurd, there's no reason to expect that he would not employ A or B.
    There is also no reason to believe that A or B would consider C's ownership of all this stuff he's just been given legitimate. They're far more likely to simply take it regardless of what C says. Unless, of course, C has the guns of the state on his side....
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Say you worked in a company producing lightbulbs, then. Say you could produce 1,000 lightbulbs per day. Your next-best coworker could produce 500. You were paid the same.

    Would you actually keep working there? If you would, I think you're insane.

    Why would you not go to a competitor, show them your abilities and say you'll work for them for some value greater than your current employer if offering you?

    I have to say, you have an exceptionally naive view of the way most large companies work if you think that this is actually a realistic scenario.

    99 times out of 100, said competitor would not even give that person the time of day, let alone give them opportunity to demonstrate their skill... and to actually offer them a job? You'd be shown the door if you even got through it in the first place. Is that "right"? No, probably not, but it's the way it is. I could go into literally over 20 local competitors where I know that not only are there staff who are not as good at their job as I am - there are staff who are downright incompetent. Who are DEFINITELY losing money for their companies. If I were to go in offering them my services in exchange for a pay rise... to be frank, they'd think I'd had some sort of mini-stroke.

    So yes, "insane" or otherwise, in most cases the person in your example would have to keep working there. I'd argue that it's not insane, given that the *realistic* immediate alternative is unemployment.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bhumbauze)
    I have to say, you have an exceptionally naive view of the way most large companies work if you think that this is actually a realistic scenario.
    You, sir, are right.

    That's the whole problem with the homo oeconomicus approach: it leaves out every single factor except money, and it always works with extremely simplified situations which are in no way even similar to what you'd get in reality.




    Btw and completely off topic: The Guy makes for a nice avatar... ^^
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    My problem is that I believe most people act rationally? :lolwut:

    Say you worked in a company producing lightbulbs, then. Say you could produce 1,000 lightbulbs per day. Your next-best coworker could produce 500. You were paid the same.

    Would you actually keep working there? If you would, I think you're insane.

    Why would you not go to a competitor, show them your abilities and say you'll work for them for some value greater than your current employer if offering you?

    He has an incentive to hire you - the added profit he can generate.
    You have an incentive to work for him - you're going to profit more from selling your labour.
    Your original employer has an incentive to offer you an increased salary - he'll lose you to a competitor if he doesn't.
    Suppose we have a couple who live together (whether they're married or not or have kids or not doesn't really matter for the sake of argument) and both work full time jobs, but one earns a salary of £40,000 and one £20,000. By your logic, them pooling their incomes and spending on a more or less equal basis from that pool would be 'insane' from the perspective of the higher earner. Yet I challenge you to find a couple that doesn't do that.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    If I were person A or person B, I would offer to do something for C so that he might pay me in the form of something he has.

    Unless you think person C is infinitely talented and desires nothing whatsoever, which in the real world is quite obviously absurd, there's no reason to expect that he would not employ A or B.
    So basically you're just assuming that you have some skill Person C would be willing to pay you for.

    What if the only skill he's willing to pay you for is a humiliating sexual favour?

    In any case, I guess your answer betrays a flaw in your perspective. Not everyone is employable. What if in this scenario you're just one day away from death, or you've got no legs, or you've got Down's syndrome, or you're uneducated or you don't speak the same language as Person C? What if Person C represents a group of people who can completely satisfy each other's desires without any need for anything from you or Person B?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    ..
    You are so wet behind the ears it's terrifying. Do you have any life experience at all???
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    Risk is but one component in a matrix of factors that determine the level of remuneration one receives.

    One's level of production is the overriding determinant factor.
    Indeed. What could be more productive than sitting on your arse all day in an office. Certainly not actually mining raw materials or making things in a foundry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Redolent)
    Still waiting for you to tell me why it's right that the starving man in my scenario should be left to die, Aspiringlawstudent.
    Hello,

    This kind of thing isn't allowed to happen though is it? Here in the UK, we do receive free healthcare and I am certain any citizen seeing a dying/ill person on the road would instantly call an ambulance.

    At the hospital they would receive food too of course - and plus if they are homeless the Government legally has to provide you with accomodation.

    There are also a range of benefits/welfare to ensure people are not completely penniless so they can maintain a standard of living, a sustainable one at that.

    I am interested in knowing what exactly it is you would like the state to be like - every body on equal pay, salary cap, what?

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Indeed. What could be more productive than sitting on your arse all day in an office. Certainly not actually mining raw materials or making things in a foundry.
    Hello,

    Why do you think that the Office person is now sitting in an office doing 'nothing' all day? Unless you buy a company one doesn't magically fly to the top and become a CEO, you work your way up - in most companies anyway. In order to have gotten a job there in the first place they would have had to be good enough for the job right? - Experience, Qualifications...


    The people working in the mines/foundry/cleaners aren't exactly in a high skilled profession are they? They can easily be replaced but it would be a bit harder to replace say, a Dr. in Physics right?

    Although I believe their pay should be a bit higher it doesn't mean that people in each in every profession 'deserves' the same amount of pay. If it was a state owned business I could at the least understand but who are we to say what a privately owned business pays its employees as long as employees aren't obviously being taken advantage of?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kibalchich)
    Indeed. What could be more risky than sitting on your arse in an office all day? Certainly not working with boiling hot metal in a foundry or mining ore.
    Let me think... someone in your company messes up and the media get hold of it. You're suddenly in the spot light and you're forced to fix the problem or get sacked. How many CEO's have been in the paper recently for being sacked because someone else did something wrong?

    A cleaner does something wrong and gets a little slap on the wrist from their manager.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.