Universal Basic Income thread

[PsychoSerenity]

The question is should unpleasant work be paid more or paid less? and the same for enjoyable work? why should a pub landlord be paid more than the pub toilet cleaner when the advantage to his office in terms of perks are so much greater?

There is no "should." It's all about what one person is willing to pay another to do X. Why should a computer cost less than window draperies in the house? I have no idea. There is no should. It's just supply and demand.

And can supply and demand never be wrong?

[JimC]

In large, well organised institutions, there is often some form of level playing field instead of the purist "supply and demand" when it comes to wages. For example, the teaching industry in Victoria has somewhat of a shortage of senior maths and physics teachers, of whom I am one. However, I get the same wage as any other teacher, which I am perfectly happy about, since I do not wish to be raised above my colleagues. The supply issue can hopefully be dealt with at the level of teacher training instead.

[rainbow]

Potty mouth.

[Forty Two]

In large, well organised institutions, there is often some form of level playing field instead of the purist "supply and demand" when it comes to wages. For example, the teaching industry in Victoria has somewhat of a shortage of senior maths and physics teachers, of whom I am one. However, I get the same wage as any other teacher, which I am perfectly happy about, since I do not wish to be raised above my colleagues. The supply issue can hopefully be dealt with at the level of teacher training instead.

Well, that's typical in government run and union run organizations. However, if there is a shortage of senior math and physics teachers, then that means such teachers are in short supply. This puts upward pressure on price. Right or wrong - good or bad -- like the sky being blue, that's what happens. By artificially requiring that the price not shift in that situation, you are eliminating the mechanism that gets more people to become senior math and physics teachers. If the price goes up, prospective teachers will see that and perhaps lean toward the market need and away from the areas where teachers are more plentiful.

I am not sure why you would not want to be raised above your colleagues in pay. Making more money is good, not bad. What's wrong with that? If you are providing a service that is scarcer than the services they provide, then that is a rational justification for paying you more.

When I was a young pup, I was hired about three months after a friend of mine for the same job. Literally, exactly the same job. Same duties. Same boss. Same office. Same field. Some job description. Same job requirements. Literally the same advertisement was used when they were posting publicly for someone to fill they positions. We were the same age (within 6 months of each other in age), and we went to the same school, and neither of us had prior work experience in the field. We used to laugh, because we literally had substantially the same resume. When I was hired three months after him, however, I obtained a salary earning 20% more than him. I learned of this some time after being hired, because the office manager handed me the wrong paycheck (this was in the days when people still got paper paychecks with stubs twice a month). 20% more was not peanuts, either, since we were both making above-national average salaries even though we were young.

Now. why did I get more? Like Trump says - negotiation. Art of the deal. I asked for more. I subtlely implied that I was interviewing elsewhere, and had offers. I asked lots of questions about the job. And, I did not immediately accept their offer, etc. I also took a chance by demanding more money - they could, of course, have said no. So, I was ahead of my colleague. But, good, right?

[laklak]

Had this discussion with a friend a while ago, she's an intelligent woman except in the realm of politics, where she's an idiot. She was going on about how much my nephew (who she knows well) is going to make as a cardiac surgeon and how "unfair" that was, because she and her husband work just as hard. She just didn't understand it. Not much you can do to explain that a total of 10 years of university and 5 years of low-paid residency plus an IQ in the range of 150 and the unbelievable self-discipline it requires isn't something everyone can do, and that if you're going to put that much effort into it you expect a large financial return.

[pErvinalia]

I could do it. Don't need no fucken degree.

[laklak]

If I ever need an emergency amputation I'd trust you, rEv. Pass me that bottle of rum and a leather belt to bite on and get on with it.

[pErvinalia]

It'd be cheap surgery, if nothing else...

[Forty Two]

Had this discussion with a friend a while ago, she's an intelligent woman except in the realm of politics, where she's an idiot. She was going on about how much my nephew (who she knows well) is going to make as a cardiac surgeon and how "unfair" that was, because she and her husband work just as hard. She just didn't understand it. Not much you can do to explain that a total of 10 years of university and 5 years of low-paid residency plus an IQ in the range of 150 and the unbelievable self-discipline it requires isn't something everyone can do, and that if you're going to put that much effort into it you expect a large financial return.

And, and how hard a person works is not the only factor that goes into what is paid, and it may not even be the most important factor. One important factor is the value of the services TO THE PERSON PAYING. So, like, if a store owner is hiring someone to work the deli counter (cutting meat, making sandwiches, cleaning up, general duties, etc.), that deli counter worker may work fucking hard as hell -- customers all day, one after the other - doing a great job - volunteering for overtime work, etc., but there is only so much that job is worth to the store owner. If the wages go up too high, then the sandwich prices go up too high, and that price hike means the downward pressure on demand for the products. That is made worse if the competition can keep their prices down. Large places like Wal-Mart can use economies of scale to keep prices down, and so when you artificially raise wages the smaller employers are effected more dramatically than the larger places. That's why you tend to see some large retailers in favor of minimum wage increases.

I can sort of understand how people can conclude that job X should pay the same to any person who holds job X (even though I disagree with that view, I can sort of see it as making sense for people), what I can't understand is how people can think that it's "unfair" that job X pays more than job Y. There is nothing unfair about it. Person A is willing to pay person B to do job X, and person A is willing to pay a certain amount. Person B is either willing to accept the terms, or not. There is nothing unfair about it. It's called freedom.

[PsychoSerenity]

So not only are market prices always correct, they are now also the very definition of fair?

[Svartalf]

yeah, right, I failed to buy new clothes this very morning because the store I went to had nothing within my buying power... it was all branded stuff of course, but now I'm just wondering where I can buy more of those clothes at decent prices (and branndless versions too)

[Scot Dutchy]

So not only are market prices always correct, they are now also the very definition of fair?

No.

[Forty Two]

So not only are market prices always correct, they are now also the very definition of fair?

There is no "correct." So, no, market prices are not always correct. They are never "correct," but neither are prices set by fiat or majority vote "correct" (much less "always" correct).

And, they are certainly at least as "fair" as prices arbitrarily set by fiat, rather than in accordance with an arms-length transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller? Unless there is some information that some government body or individual third parties have that the folks engaged in the transaction don't have, I think you'd be hard pressed to explain how you think the government/outside third party declaration of a wage is more fair than the price set by the persons involved

[Forty Two]

yeah, right, I failed to buy new clothes this very morning because the store I went to had nothing within my buying power...

so, there are lots of stores that are not within my buying power. There are lots of stores within my buying power, too, and if a person wants significantly reduced prices, then there are thrift stores Goodwill, Salvation Army, and the like. I'd love to buy my wife a Tiffany's necklace, too, but they don't have much, if anything, within my price range. So? What's that, unfair?

[pErvinalia]

I can sort of understand how people can conclude that job X should pay the same to any person who holds job X (even though I disagree with that view, I can sort of see it as making sense for people), what I can't understand is how people can think that it's "unfair" that job X pays more than job Y. There is nothing unfair about it. Person A is willing to pay person B to do job X, and person A is willing to pay a certain amount. Person B is either willing to accept the terms, or not. There is nothing unfair about it. It's called freedom.

That's a non-sequitur. Freedom doesn't imply fairness.