Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ukrainian Ranger]

3. Skilled workers are not inherently more valuable. A factory would fail just as much without the manual laborers. The only reason they're payed better is because there are fewer of them, and that's not a valid reason for depriving people.

Wow... Wow... Wow...... even USSR never went that far. To pay everyone same salary no matter what skill they posses.....
I hope you'll have wonderful Soviet invention and make unemployment a crime?

Skilled workers are more valuable, one manager can make a single decision that will make 10 workers to work as effective as 30 workers without that decision... But in that kind of socialism he'll have no motivation to improve effectiveness of a factory

Also, it's not only about the level of skill but about ability to do the job right
You know what is a good reason to "deprive" people? If they are lazy, have no creativity, create conflicts, drunkards, plain stupid... By systems like that, you make others work on level of those people.

Why bother and try harder than your drunkard neighbor if whatever you do you'll get the same profit? You want to say that drunkard will not meet minimal requirement set by factory and get fired? OK, work just as good to pass the minimum "not get fired" limit. Also what to with people that can't pass whatever limit you set? To the jail? Give money for free?

Only workaholics will keep working to the max... Maybe

  One individual can't make half a factory on their own,

Yes he can, if he invents a new technology factory is based around. Or if he is genius manager who organizes that factory in a right way

[Descan]

A skilled worker is more valuable than an unskilled worker, because even though unskilled workers are required for a factory to run (excepting automation), a) unskilled means almost anyone can do the job, and b) skilled workers are fewer.

The fact that you can get more manual laborers if you lose the current ones, while it's harder to get more skilled laborers if you lose the ones you have, mean that they are more valuable. Plus the fact that if your pay doesn't go up if you put in the effort and possibly money to get skilled, there is no incentive beyond any personal inclination to GET skilled. Lower incentive = lower number of skilled workers.

[Eagle_eye]

not even USSR never went that far

The USSR was as socialist as the congo is democratic.

make unemployment a crime?

Unemployment is a good thing. We shouldn't make stuff just to make stuff: if one person wants to work, and can sustain multiple others by doing so, there's no reason that people who don't want to work should still have to.

Skilled workers are more valuable, one manager can make a single decision that will make 10 workers to work as effective as 30 workers without that decision

And a skilled slave driver can get cotton picked twice as fast. That doesn't mean they deserve more compensation, or any compensation. Telling people what to do is not work, and it's not necessary.

If they are lazy, have no creativity, create conflicts, drunkards, plain stupid...

No, those are terrible reasons. The only valid reason to make someone suffer is to prevent greater suffering. When dealing with pay, that means incentivizing productive work. You can't convince someone to become creative or become more intelligent, or, in the vast majority of cases, to change their personality, so modifying pay based on those factors has no effect. Unless you're saying that people who embody qualities you value are inherently more valuable, and not just more useful, in which case, I'd like to see how you justify that morally.

Why bother and try harder than your drunkard neighbor if whatever you do you'll get the same profit?

Right, because obviously nobody will ever notice if you're sitting around drunk instead of working. If you're that useless, you'll be voted out.

OK, work just as good to pass the minimum "not get fired" limit.

That's perfectly fine. Whatever the minimum is is what the other workers have decided is acceptable. If you're doing enough, what's the problem? Should we encourage people to slave away 24/7 until they drop dead at 60? Obviously not. Work is a necessary evil, not something virtuous.

Give money for free?

Well, yeah. Everyone is entitled to what they need to survive, regardless of how much or little they contribute to society. Allowing someone to die so that you can be a little wealthier is unacceptable.

Only workaholics will keep working to the max... Maybe

Again, we don't want people to work to the max. Working to the absolute limits of your ability is incredibly unpleasant.

Yes he can, if he invents a new technology factory is based around.

He didn't make the factory. Without people to actually construct it, he has nothing. Construction workers are just as essential as engineers.

Or if he is genius manager who organizes that factory in a right way

Again, that's nonsense. No amount of inherent talent will make a building assemble itself or spawn automata to do the physical labor. And even if you do somehow build a factory on your own, that doesn't entitle you to deprive others of the right to use it. If I grow food, I made that food. I'm still obligated to give it to someone who's starving. Property is payment for a debt that society owes you for your contribution, not a means to exploit others.

[Eagle_eye]

A skilled worker is more valuable than an unskilled worker, because even though unskilled workers are required for a factory to run (excepting automation), a) unskilled means almost anyone can do the job, and b) skilled workers are fewer.

The fact that you can get more manual laborers if you lose the current ones, while it's harder to get more skilled laborers if you lose the ones you have, mean that they are more valuable.

Skilled labor isn't scarce. Yes, there are fewer skilled laborers than unskilled laborers, but there are more of either than we actually need. World GDP per capita, adjusted for purchasing power, is 12,500 dollars, and that's WITH the ridiculous corruption and inefficiency going on in the third world. It's already at a survivable level, and it could very easily be raised to a level that could provide everyone with a comfortable life. We have more than enough production. There's no need to impoverish millions to crank it a bit higher.

Plus the fact that if your pay doesn't go up if you put in the effort and possibly money to get skilled, there is no incentive beyond any personal inclination to GET skilled.

If your only motivation is money, you shouldn't be in any sort of critical job, because you're just going to maximize the money you make without any concern for the quality of the work. That sort of motivation leads to engineers underbidding and making unsafe structures for their own benefit, leads scientists to fabricate results to get funding, leads politicians to lower taxes for their friends and then go get lobbying jobs.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

The USSR was as socialist as the congo is democratic.

USSR was partially socialist, I'd rather not see full socialism

He didn't make the factory. Without people to actually construct it, he has nothing. Construction workers are just as essential as engineers.

Man can't live both without air and without food. Even more, without air human will die much faster thus Air is more valuable than food. Air is workers here and food is engineers\managers
But we work to earn food, not to earn air because air is abundant, food not so....  You want to force a human (society) to spend same effort and resources to get air (workers) as to get food (engineers)... You are going against nature with stuff like that

Unemployment is a good thing. We shouldn't make stuff just to make stuff: if one person wants to work, and can sustain multiple others by doing so, there's no reason that people who don't want to work should still have to.

Well, yeah. Everyone is entitled to what they need to survive, regardless of how much or little they contribute to society. 

Yay! Social parasites. A lot of social parasites. 

I'd rather see them dead. Yes, man has right to life, but if he chooses to not execute that right by working to earn his own food... Farewell. (Only if human has a serious reason why he can't earn for his life needs we should care )

That's perfectly fine. Whatever the minimum is is what the other workers have decided is acceptable. If you're doing enough, what's the problem? Should we encourage people to slave away 24/7 until they drop dead at 60? Obviously not. Work is a necessary evil, not something virtuous.

Problem #1
I'll never do unpleasant job (why, if I can choose more pleasant or stay unemployed? )
Problem #2
I'll definately not choose risky or hazardous job (again, why if no reward?)
Problem #3 I'll not spend time or effort improving my skills (Another why do it if I can meet requirements already?)

If your only motivation is money

Only and important are different things.  Normal people have different conflicting motives, to not be a bastard is usually one of them. To do less work is another

That sort of motivation leads to engineers underbidding and making unsafe structures for their own benefit, leads scientists to fabricate results to get funding, leads politicians to lower taxes for their friends and then go get lobbying jobs.

Well we have laws and jails to fight this kind of greed... And in your system you'll get the same

1) Engineer will design unsafe stuff...  because he is lazy
2) Lead scientist will fabricate results to imitate reaching minimum plan ( You know, Soviet Militia arrested people just to reach the plan. Oh yes, not a socialism... All attempts to create socialism are somehow, mysteriously, make wrong socialism)

[Askot Bokbondeler]

what's wrong with making unemployment ilegal? right now unemployment is fatal, and often unavoidable. if it was made a misdeameanor punished with reduced privileges depending on the duration of unemployment it would be a lot fairer

"ancient athens was partially democratic, i'd rather not see full democracy"
systems are often badly implemented or abused, and sometimes stuff that didn't work at some point can be made to work by building upon past experiences and and newer technologies. ussr is a terrible example of socialism, the northern european countries are partially socialist

[Ukrainian Ranger]

ancient athens was partially democratic, i'd rather not see full democracy

Wrong, partially democratic is way better than total tyranny.
I am saying that as a citizen of a barely democratic country.

Partial socialism is way worse than capitalism.

the northern european countries are partially socialist

IMO, Any country that has private owned means of production can't be called a socialist country

what's wrong with making unemployment ilegal?

Mmmm... Let me think, because that sounds like a mild form slavery?

ussr is a terrible example of socialism

And Cuba, and Zimbabwe and North Korea, and... Show me good examples of socialism,please.  As I said, Northern Europe doesn't count, it has capitalists owning means of production and private banks. Both are incompatible with socialism

[Eagle_eye]

USSR was partially socialist, I'd rather not see full socialism

No, it was a planned economy. Socialism is control of the means of production by the workers. That can't be the case when a dictatorship owns everything.

But we work to earn food, not to earn air because air is abundant, food not so....  You want to force a human (society) to spend same effort and resources to get air (workers) as to get food (engineers)...

That's a terrible analogy. First of all, we have plenty of both engineers and workers. Second, I don't care about the interests of society as some amorphous single unit. I care about the interests of individuals. If the total economy is a bit smaller, that's fine, so long as people are better served.

You are going against nature with stuff like that

We've been going against nature since the first farmer realized they could force plants to grow. Nature is violent, brutal, and generally immoral. We should be going against nature.

Yay! Social parasites. A lot of social parasites. 

So? Old people are parasites too. Should they just be left to die?

I'd rather see them dead. Yes, man has right to life, but if he chooses to not execute that right by working to earn his own food... Farewell.

Oh, well then. That's absolutely disgusting. The thing about morality is that you're required to be altruistic. If you only look after your own interests, you're a terrible person. We should try to maximize happiness for all people. And you know what that means? Supporting freeloaders. If you want to let people die so that you can be a little richer, I suggest you go back to the 19th century.

Problem #1
I'll never do unpleasant job (why, if I can choose more pleasant or stay unemployed? )
Problem #2
I'll definately not choose risky or hazardous job (again, why if no reward?)

Well, there are only so many other jobs available, so unless you can show that you're better suited for those than the current occupants, you're stuck with what's left, or nothing. I don't know about you, but most people like having luxuries.

Problem #3 I'll not spend time or effort improving my skills (Another why do it if I can meet requirements already?)

Because people are far happier when they feel like they're progressing in something.

Only and important are different things.  Normal people have different conflicting motives, to not be a bastard is usually one of them. To do less work is another

Being an engineer is not easier than being a construction worker. Both require countless hours of your life sacrificed to constant exertion.

1) Engineer will design unsafe stuff...  because he is lazy

If their only motivation is to reduce their workload, they could just quit. Designing unsafe things is a far less efficient way of getting time off. There's no equivalent for money: you can't quit and suddenly get rich, unless you're a CEO, which is an entirely different problem.

2) Lead scientist will fabricate results to imitate reaching minimum plan ( You know, Soviet Militia arrested people just to reach the plan. Oh yes, not a socialism... All attempts to create socialism are somehow, mysteriously, make wrong socialism)

And why would they do that? People become scientists because they're interested in science. And citing the Soviet Union is ridiculous, because yes, it was absolutely not socialism. A dictatorship controlling a state capitalist economy and using secret police to suppress political dissent, targeting minorities, and supporting ultranationalism.. what does that sound like? Oh, right: www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism.

And there have been socialist societies that were actually, you know, socialist. Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War is probably the best example. The Paris Commune is another, though it was very short lived, as was the Ukraine during the early portions of the Russian Revolution. Then of course there are the areas under Zapatista control in southern Mexico and Kibbutzim, for more modern examples.

Finally, even if you're right and socialism is horribly inefficient, capitalism permits millions of deaths. That's absolutely unacceptable. Unless you have a better alternative, even bureaucratic nonsense strawman socialism is far, far better, even if it means that your first world comforts are going away. I doubt your concerns about efficiency and motivation would be very convincing to a starving somali child.

what's wrong with making unemployment ilegal? right now unemployment is fatal, and often unavoidable. if it was made a misdeameanor punished with reduced privileges depending on the duration of unemployment it would be a lot fairer

Because there simply aren't enough jobs for full employment to happen?

the northern european countries are partially socialist

Eh, not really. They're welfare capitalism, which, while a hell of a lot better than laissez-faire capitalism, is really only viable because those countries have access to cheap natural resources, both from their own territory, and because of horrible conditions elsewhere.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

so only you can decide what country qualifies as partialy socialist based on arbitrary rules you made up? i can do that too, socialism is incompatible with tyranny so ussr doesn't count.

what's wrong with making unemployment ilegal?

Mmmm... Let me think, because that sounds like a mild form slavery?

what makes it different from the current system? people are punished for unemployment, the difference is that it's not their fault. in a system where work is centrally distributed, refusing several job offers in a row could be penalized by reduced privileges\allowance. by not working you're forcing others to work more. you have a right to refuse something you really don't want to do, but if in the end you really don't want to do anything, you should be penalized and counselled, but at no point should your life be put in danger because of it

[Eagle_eye]

Socialism requiring worker ownership isn't an arbitrary rule. From wikipedia: "Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy."

What you're thinking of is social democracy or welfare capitalism.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

i'm replying to UkR. i'm a socialist, an advocate of planned economy and abolition of *big* property. in a system where jobs are centraly distributed work is shared by the working population, reducing the work load of each individual worker instead of creating a pool of underprivileged people with no fault

[Eagle_eye]

You should really use quotes if your reply isn't directly following the person you're responding to. Otherwise, it gets confusing.

[Askot Bokbondeler]

yeah, but ninjas...

[Bdthemag]

I find it odd in a lot of anti-socialist arguments, one of the primary (At least in my mind) reasons why people are against it are the "parasites" who will abuse the system and put in a minimal amount of work. In any given system, there are always going to be people who want to put the least amount of effort into something. I don't get however, why that means we should completely exclude the rest of the people who are working at an average (or higher) rate. The "parasites" will always be a minority, although the size of this minority can still be decently sized, this population of people won't ever get become particularly large.

[Ukrainian Ranger]

So? Old people are parasites too. Should they just be left to die?

Can you see any difference between person that can't work and person that doesn't want to work?
Oh, and if you ask, I am against age based pensions, only health based, If you want to retire earlier that's what banks are for.

oh, well then. That's absolutely disgusting. The thing about morality is that you're required to be altruistic. If you only look after your own interests, you're a terrible person. We should try to maximize happiness for all people. And you know what that means? Supporting freeloaders. If you want to let people die so that you can be a little richer, I suggest you go back to the 19th century.

Hey, Altruist, can I walk to your house and take your stuff away? No? Why? You heartless Egoist!
Don't you want to invite several dozens of homeless persons inside your house? No! Heartless!
You may call me egoist as much s you want but I will try to maximize my happiness first, then happiness of my Family first, than happiness of my friends, than happiness of my nation, only then happiness of the humanity

And don't expect that I will work to support that lazy person that want to ride on my back. It will never happen, I am not a slave

Well, there are only so many other jobs available, so unless you can show that you're better suited for those than the current occupants, you're stuck with what's left, or nothing. I don't know about you, but most people like having luxuries.

It's not like all hazardous\risky\disgusting jobs are easy, suited only for guys that can't work elsewhere...
So I can't live off unemployment benefit? No luxury? Noted. Good to know that at least unemployed will not get same benefits as working

If their only motivation is to reduce their workload, they could just quit. Designing unsafe things is a far less efficient way of getting time off. There's no equivalent for money: you can't quit and suddenly get rich, unless you're a CEO, which is an entirely different problem.

So you said that by being unemployed you  get less luxury? So why should engineer quit and lose benefits when he can just work here and do his job not in  ideal way ( and why you design something as important as safety related you need to work good)

and why would they do that? People become scientists because they're interested in science.

Yep, few of them... Various workaholics exist.  You want to base society by using guys that will work  anyway allowing others to parasite on them? Like 1% of population supporting 99%?
Besides inventing tech is the only one step, using it in practice is absolutely another

And there have been socialist societies that were actually, you know, socialist. Catalonia in the Spanish Civil War is probably the best example. The Paris Commune is another, though it was very short lived, as was the Ukraine during the early portions of the Russian Revolution. Then of course there are the areas under Zapatista control in southern Mexico and Kibbutzim, for more modern examples.

Something large and independent that built competitive economy, (and thus army), please

Finally, even if you're right and socialism is horribly inefficient, capitalism permits millions of deaths.

Socialism will be so inefficient that famines will be quite common, quite fast. Population will grow much faster than any ability to produce food.

______________________

there are always going to be people who want to put the least amount of effort into something

You mean like 99% of humans? People want to work less and get more, period. That's basic psychology, that's instincts

The "parasites" will always be a minority, although the size of this minority can still be decently sized, this population of people won't ever get become particularly large.

Nope, they will be a vast majority. Ruling majority (unless you abolish democracy and establish proletarian dictatorship of some kind)