Options

New Comic. She's all Hat. Nov 7th.

1235

Posts

  • Options
    DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Framling wrote: »
    So people deserve to get paid whatever they get paid?

    Yeah. Because if they weren't, they'd get different jobs.
    Framling wrote: »
    Like teachers?

    Apparently they think so. They have a union. They negotiate. They agree to work at that price. That's all there is to it.
    Framling wrote: »
    No, I think it's reasonable to point out that our economy tends to mis-prioritize some of this shit. A baseball player making a quarter of a billion dollars may have to work hard to stay in form, but in terms of what the world really needs, he's not providing a quarter billion dollars worth of benefit.

    You're misusing economics. Economics is not about what anyone "needs" at all. Economics is about what people are willing and able to pay for. I don't think that baseball's really important, so I don't buy tickets or bobbleheads or give web hits to ESPN.com. So my dollars don't go to baseball. But you know, enough people DO think that baseball is worth their hard-earned money that they give their money to baseball, and the value that our hypothetical player adds is enough that teams will pay him 250 million dollars. It's not your place to declare how valuable the baseball player's services are to the world. You do get to vote in the economy; your vote is in proportion, poetically enough, to how valuable the economy considers you. You choose where your dollars go...but you don't get to declare what the baseball player is worth.
    Framling wrote: »
    He's maybe creating a quarter billion dollars worth of benefit to our society's fucked-up priorities, but I'm still going to say that in rational terms, he's overpaid. (As an aside, I always hated the whole "Oh, well they can't play for as long because they get hurt too much, so they retire earlier" argument. 1: Cry me a fucking river, I'd love to retire that early, and 2: Nothing's keeping them from going back to school and getting an accounting degree or something. "Oh, my bad knee's acting up, I can't audit this account!")

    Wait wait. Why the fuck should he HAVE to go get an accounting degree and work till he's 60? That's bullshit! He spent his youth working unbelievably hard to be an awesome baseball player, he took all the downsides of being a pro athlete, and now after it's over he should have to go work the same job as someone who merely did accounting during their youth? No. That's shit. He does something incredible, then the minute it's over, he has to go back to the old daily grind like everybody else? Fuck no, he deserves the retirement for all the extraordinary things that he did.
    Framling wrote: »
    Writers, on the other hand, by and large get paid shit.

    If you don't like it, don't be a writer. What do you want? I make roughly 40% of what I could make with my skill set because I program games instead of bank software. It's a trade I understand that I'm making. People have to suffer for their art? BFD. Now it's my turn to ask for a river of tears.

    Defender on
  • Options
    TubeTube Registered User admin
    edited November 2007
    Defender

    People are not talking in economic terms

    they are saying that they feel baseball players are paid too much

    they are not claiming this as some objective principle based on economic factors

    chill the fuck out

    Tube on
  • Options
    DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Framling wrote: »
    So people deserve to get paid whatever they get paid?

    Like teachers?

    No, I think it's reasonable to point out that our economy tends to mis-prioritize some of this shit...
    ...Writers, on the other hand, by and large get paid shit.
    Fram's got a hell of a point.

    Unfortunately, teachers do not pull in huge amounts of advertising revenue and the only way we'd ever take "children are our greatest natural resource" seriously is if they could be burned as clean, safe, renewable energy.

    Maybe someone should propose some kind of wacky system where a percentage of your personal income goes to the teachers who taught you as a child. Y'know, give them some incentive. The teachers who churned out dumb, lazy students wouldn't get anything while the good teachers and coaches would get to retire after churning out a few award-winning, highly-paid students.

    My godfather was Will Smith's eighth-grade teacher, so I guess he'd be doing OK.

    Except that's his only high-money student. Everyone else probably didn't do well because they were poor kids from, well, you know the Bel-Air theme song.

    The problem with this proposal is that it rewards educating rich kids from the suburbs who are basically guaranteed to go to college and get high-money jobs, and doesn't reward teaching poor kids in the ghetto.

    Defender on
  • Options
    DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Defender

    People are not talking in economic terms

    they are saying that they feel baseball players are paid too much

    they are not claiming this as some objective principle based on economic factors

    chill the fuck out

    Talking about how much someone is paid is pretty inherently economic.

    People who think they're overpaid don't know shit.

    Defender on
  • Options
    KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    Or, you know

    they could just think getting paid millions of dollars to hit a fucking ball around is a little much

    Kazhiim on
    lost_sig2.png
  • Options
    TubeTube Registered User admin
    edited November 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    Defender

    People are not talking in economic terms

    they are saying that they feel baseball players are paid too much

    they are not claiming this as some objective principle based on economic factors

    chill the fuck out

    Talking about how much someone is paid is pretty inherently economic.

    People who think they're overpaid don't know shit.

    You are completely, completely missing the point.

    Tube on
  • Options
    KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    To Defender, there's no such thing as a layman. Only a moron who thinks he's an expert on something

    Kazhiim on
    lost_sig2.png
  • Options
    PkmoutlPkmoutl Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    Defender

    People are not talking in economic terms

    they are saying that they feel baseball players are paid too much

    they are not claiming this as some objective principle based on economic factors

    chill the fuck out

    Talking about how much someone is paid is pretty inherently economic.

    People who think they're overpaid don't know shit.

    You are completely, completely missing the point.

    Inconceivable!

    Pkmoutl on
  • Options
    DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Or, you know

    they could just think getting paid millions of dollars to hit a fucking ball around is a little much

    Yeah, but once again, that shows that they're stupid and/or ignorant. "Hitting a fucking ball around" is not a fair description of what they do, and if it were accurate, they wouldn't be paid millions of dollars for it.

    Defender on
  • Options
    KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    Look, defender

    nobody is going to deny that baseball players are paid what they are paid because people are willing to pay for them

    and that, if people wanted them to not be paid so much, then they could boycott baseball or whatever and the invisible thumb of the market would jam itself up the MLB's asshole until they stopped playing them so much

    but just because an imbalance is not being actively corrected doesn't mean it is justified

    Kazhiim on
    lost_sig2.png
  • Options
    SeriouslySeriously Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    Defender

    People are not talking in economic terms

    they are saying that they feel baseball players are paid too much

    they are not claiming this as some objective principle based on economic factors

    chill the fuck out

    Talking about how much someone is paid is pretty inherently economic.

    People who think they're overpaid don't know shit.

    You are completely, completely missing the point.

    I

    I thought that was on purpose.

    Seriously on
  • Options
    DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Look, defender

    nobody is going to deny that baseball players are paid what they are paid because people are willing to pay for them

    and that, if people wanted them to not be paid so much, then they could boycott baseball or whatever and the invisible thumb of the market would jam itself up the MLB's asshole until they stopped playing them so much

    but just because an imbalance is not being actively corrected doesn't mean it is justified

    It's not an imbalance. That's exactly the point.

    Defender on
  • Options
    KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    If you've got a boner for economics and economics alone, sure.

    Kazhiim on
    lost_sig2.png
  • Options
    TubeTube Registered User admin
    edited November 2007
    THUNK

    THUNK

    THUNK

    Tube on
  • Options
    DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    If you've got a boner for economics and economics alone, sure.

    How much someone gets paid IS economics. It's not your fuzzy-wuzzy feelings on whether or not some job you can't do and don't understand is worth X dollars or not.

    Defender on
  • Options
    StavrenStavren Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    It's not an imbalance. That's exactly the point.

    Economically, no. But that depends whether you think economic appeasement is universally productive.

    But that's a whole other shitcake to take a bite of.

    More money allows grander lifestyles, and some people work harder to do better things than others, and the argument is that such people deserve those grander lifestyles. That's the goddamn argument.

    Stavren on
  • Options
    DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    THUNK

    THUNK

    THUNK

    That's funny because I'm completely right and it's so fucking obvious. How much someone is paid is a purely economic issue. Feelings have nothing to do with it.

    Defender on
  • Options
    SeriouslySeriously Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    But when people feel like they are not paid enough they might go on strike.

    Seriously on
  • Options
    DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Stavren wrote: »
    It's not an imbalance. That's exactly the point.

    Economically, no. But that depends whether you think economic appeasement is universally productive.

    But that's a whole other shitcake to take a bite of.

    Look, if I consent to pay you $500 for something and you are willing to do it for $500, then it's worth $500. I don't have to argue that it's "productive" by some arbitrary third-party's definition.

    Defender on
  • Options
    KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    Goddamnit Defender

    we're not arguing how something is

    we're arguing about how something should be

    Kazhiim on
    lost_sig2.png
  • Options
    DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Seriously wrote: »
    But when people feel like they are not paid enough they might go on strike.

    Yes, there is often a struggle of some sort where there is disagreement over what something is worth. I used the dot-com boom as an example of when something was over-valued. There can also be examples of something being under-valued. But like 99% of the time, people get a reasonably fair price.

    Defender on
  • Options
    StavrenStavren Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    Stavren wrote: »
    It's not an imbalance. That's exactly the point.

    Economically, no. But that depends whether you think economic appeasement is universally productive.

    But that's a whole other shitcake to take a bite of.

    Look, if I consent to pay you $500 for something and you are willing to do it for $500, then it's worth $500. I don't have to argue that it's "productive" by some arbitrary third-party's definition.

    Man, I edit my posts way too slow. I always think of something to add right after hitting the "Submit Reply" button.

    Does this make me a douche (y/n)

    Stavren on
  • Options
    DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Goddamnit Defender

    we're not arguing how something is

    we're arguing about how something should be

    Yeah but you're not right about how it "should" be. You're arbitrarily complaining that someone else is paid the wrong amount, and you are demonstrably wrong 99% of the time.

    You want to talk about bullshit overpaid jobs? Minimum-wage work at MacDonald's. That's fucking overpaid, and you know why? If there weren't a law about it, people would be willing to do that job for even less money. The law forces the employer to overpay the employee up to a certain minimum value.

    The counterpoint, of course, is that we somewhat-democratically agreed that people should just get X amount of money per hour...but it's still true that we're paying them more than they're really earning, or we're restructuring business to work around the disadvantage of overpaying workers.

    So there's an irony; it's actually the lowest-paid people who are overpaid.

    EDIT: This is where we get "DEY TOOK OUR JERBS!" It's that they were willing to do the job for what it's really worth, not some inflated bullshit price.

    Defender on
  • Options
    ZombotZombot Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    I gotta say, I completely agree with what Defender is saying here.

    Zombot on
  • Options
    KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    Goddamnit, Defender.



    Goddamnit.

    Kazhiim on
    lost_sig2.png
  • Options
    SeriouslySeriously Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    So it looks like Ness might just be an assist if he's in the game at all.

    Seriously on
  • Options
    StavrenStavren Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Defender wrote: »

    Yeah but you're not right about how it "should" be. You're arbitrarily complaining that someone else is paid the wrong amount, and you are demonstrably wrong 99% of the time.

    It's bullshit that no-one believes there is any room for subjective position in determining the worth of a person's production. You can say that third-party opinions are bullshit, but they're not. You can say you don't have to argue with it, and you don't. It's subjective. No-one expects to change anything with their commentary, and though economics are a democratic process when it comes to capitalism, it is not, as you say, a universally correct system, since democracy is often wrong.

    Stavren on
  • Options
    DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Stavren wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »

    Yeah but you're not right about how it "should" be. You're arbitrarily complaining that someone else is paid the wrong amount, and you are demonstrably wrong 99% of the time.

    It's bullshit that no-one believes there is any room for subjective position in determining the worth of a person's production. You can say that third-party opinions are bullshit, but they're not. You can say you don't have to argue with it, and you don't. It's subjective. No-one expects to change anything with their commentary, and though economics are a democratic process when it comes to capitalism, it is not, as you say, a universally correct system, since democracy is often wrong.

    Yeah, but how I want to spend my money isn't wrong, it's inherently based on my personal tastes and preferences. Thus, it IS democratic by nature. Things which satisfy my desires are worth money based on how valuable I am to the economy.

    Defender on
  • Options
    StavrenStavren Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    Stavren wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »

    Yeah but you're not right about how it "should" be. You're arbitrarily complaining that someone else is paid the wrong amount, and you are demonstrably wrong 99% of the time.

    It's bullshit that no-one believes there is any room for subjective position in determining the worth of a person's production. You can say that third-party opinions are bullshit, but they're not. You can say you don't have to argue with it, and you don't. It's subjective. No-one expects to change anything with their commentary, and though economics are a democratic process when it comes to capitalism, it is not, as you say, a universally correct system, since democracy is often wrong.

    Yeah, but how I want to spend my money isn't wrong, it's inherently based on my personal tastes and preferences. Thus, it IS democratic by nature.

    Read the post.

    Stavren on
  • Options
    AbracadanielAbracadaniel Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    THUNK

    THUNK

    THUNK

    Tube are you feeling alright?

    Abracadaniel on
  • Options
    DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Stavren wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Stavren wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »

    Yeah but you're not right about how it "should" be. You're arbitrarily complaining that someone else is paid the wrong amount, and you are demonstrably wrong 99% of the time.

    It's bullshit that no-one believes there is any room for subjective position in determining the worth of a person's production. You can say that third-party opinions are bullshit, but they're not. You can say you don't have to argue with it, and you don't. It's subjective. No-one expects to change anything with their commentary, and though economics are a democratic process when it comes to capitalism, it is not, as you say, a universally correct system, since democracy is often wrong.

    Yeah, but how I want to spend my money isn't wrong, it's inherently based on my personal tastes and preferences. Thus, it IS democratic by nature.

    Read the post.

    I read it. I'm saying that it's correct in being democratic because it is inherently based on personal taste.

    Defender on
  • Options
    StavrenStavren Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    Stavren wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Stavren wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »

    Yeah but you're not right about how it "should" be. You're arbitrarily complaining that someone else is paid the wrong amount, and you are demonstrably wrong 99% of the time.

    It's bullshit that no-one believes there is any room for subjective position in determining the worth of a person's production. You can say that third-party opinions are bullshit, but they're not. You can say you don't have to argue with it, and you don't. It's subjective. No-one expects to change anything with their commentary, and though economics are a democratic process when it comes to capitalism, it is not, as you say, a universally correct system, since democracy is often wrong.

    Yeah, but how I want to spend my money isn't wrong, it's inherently based on my personal tastes and preferences. Thus, it IS democratic by nature.

    Read the post.

    I read it. I'm saying that it's correct in being democratic because it is inherently based on personal taste.

    I see your point, and shall spend six sleepless nights agonizing over another one of my philosophies being torn apart before awakening and bursting into the world with a brighter and happier step

    Truly, Defender, you are the healer.

    Stavren on
  • Options
    DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    OK good, glad to help.

    Defender on
  • Options
    KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    I, just

    I mean, I could try and explain that viewing things solely through an economic perspective is staggeringly ignorant of the Grand Scheme of Things (TM)

    but what's the point

    Kazhiim on
    lost_sig2.png
  • Options
    ZombotZombot Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Man all this talk of economics makes me glad I just finished reading Atlas Shrugged.

    Zombot on
  • Options
    StavrenStavren Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    I, just

    I mean, I could try and explain that viewing things solely through an economic perspective is staggeringly ignorant of the Grand Scheme of Things (TM)

    but what's the point

    Sometimes it is better to appease than contend.

    Stavren on
  • Options
    AbracadanielAbracadaniel Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    I, just

    I mean, I could try and explain that viewing things solely through an economic perspective is staggeringly ignorant of the Grand Scheme of Things (TM)

    but what's the point

    Dude it's Defender. Just let it go.

    Abracadaniel on
  • Options
    KazhiimKazhiim __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2007
    Defender is not an immovable object, goddamnit

    Kazhiim on
    lost_sig2.png
  • Options
    StavrenStavren Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    Defender is not an immovable object, goddamnit

    "Climb the mountain because it's there" sort of thing, huh?

    Stavren on
  • Options
    DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited November 2007
    Kazhiim wrote: »
    I, just

    I mean, I could try and explain that viewing things solely through an economic perspective is staggeringly ignorant of the Grand Scheme of Things (TM)

    but what's the point

    OK so two things:

    1) Yeah if I viewed my WHOLE LIFE in purely economic terms, sure. But "how much should this job pay?" is not my whole life, and it's not the grand scheme of things. It's a simple matter of economics and nothing more, and therefore it's entirely appropriate to look at it in economic terms.

    2) Actually, a lot of things in life can be viewed in economic terms. A recent example that I used was dating; a man who wants a woman can get one, but the quality of the woman he can get is based on his own value. In this sense, "value" takes into account all factors which affect dating. Everything from income to sexual fidelity to sense of humor to physical appearance to interesting skills and so on and so forth. I don't have a formula that spits out a number, and there are always "compatibility" issues that might mitigate "value" either in favor of a couple or against them, but basically that man can get what he wants as long as it's not incompatible with him or way too good for him. I, for example, have no shot whatsoever at Jessica Alba. She's way too hot and makes way too much money. I'm not a totally shitty guy to date; I won't hit you and fuck your sister and pawn your TV for heroin money...but Alba is way out of my league.

    Defender on
This discussion has been closed.