Can people pick holes in this please?

[TangerineSteve17]

Just something that has been rattling around.

Assuming the technology arose.. if all humans were born virtually the same genetically. You could mess around with bone structure a bit and hair colour to have different looking people, but in basic terms.. height, capacity of thought, etc were the same. Starting potential was the same. Now some will get ahead due to better teaching/luck/conditions, that can't be helped.

A chip is implanted somewhere under the skin, let's say the brain (it would probably have to be) and this chip measures and monitors mental and physical fatigue, all unequivocal readings to all things like weight, height, mobility, diet, so it's all offset in results.

These results add up to what you get paid. (This all counts on it not being a total communist country/world where money doesn't exist) So in effect, the bloke sweating cleaning toilets for a living will earn a more proportionate wage to the fat lazy rocket scientist. The richest people would be those who work hard both mentally and physically, however it is that they do that. Sportsmen/women wouldn't be high earners. (Unless they contributed to something else in an intellectual capacity)

Now if we lived in a world like that.. and somebody couldn't get a job, would the right wing people still call them a scrounger? ha just kidding, no, if this was the case, and effort was truly rewarded fairly - where would the money come from?

 

[Metal Biker]

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Initially I had no idea what you were on about, and then I read your location, and suddenly it all became clear :)

 

[TangerineSteve17]

Sorry :/ is it bollocks?

It probably should've remained inside. Nothing to see here!

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Sorry :/ is it bollocks?

It probably should've remained inside. Nothing to see here!

Maybe it is , maybe it isn't.

I've often thought about a communist based system where everybody gets paid the same amount for a week's work.

Those who are rocket scientists only work, say, 1 day per week and get £x for that one day.
Those who are road sweepers work a full 5 or maybe 6 day week and get the same £x for those five days.
Everybody gets the same pay packet but the work involved in earning that packet differs from person to person dependant upon the importance of their role..
I can't see why that wouldn't work.

Pick holes in that :)

 

[TangerineSteve17]

Sorry :/ is it bollocks?

It probably should've remained inside. Nothing to see here!

Maybe it is , maybe it isn't.

I've often thought about a communist based system where everybody gets paid the same amount for a week's work.

Those who are rocket scientists only work, say, 1 day per week and get £x for that one day.
Those who are road sweepers work a full 5 or maybe 6 day week and get the same £x for those five days.
Everybody gets the same pay packet but the work involved in earning that packet differs from person to person dependant upon the importance of their role..
I can't see why that wouldn't work.

Pick holes in that :)

Well - what does the rocket scientist do 6 days a week? If he's only working 1 he aint gonna progress much, and if he's at home researching/thinking/trying to improve his science then that counts as work surely. Your system isn't fair I don't think.

I'm not drunk by the way. I only probably am.

 

[Plays By Sense Of Smell]

Part of the answer to that question Tange depends upon where we were starting from.

If we were starting from now, then assuming there were no other initiatives being implemented to redistribute wealth, then I guess it would just drain away from the people who didn't deserve to be paid as much (according to the new rules).

If this was how it all started however, if we think about it (...ahem, some more...,) then I suppose the money would do the same as it does now and would eventually do the same long term as above - accumulate with those who put the most effort in according to the rules. Someone does something for someone else and gets paid a certain amount for it. It's the same principle re: trading money for goods/services/effort, only the new system would provide a fixed and constant level of reward for everything traded or bit of effort that took place, no?

The only reason the current system is like it is is that some people have prospered through various combinations of physical and mental effort and luck. We would just be recalibrating the reward system for the effort and removing some of the luck element.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

Part of the answer to that question Tange depends upon where we were starting from.

If we were starting from now, then assuming there were no other initiatives being implemented to redistribute wealth, then I guess it would just drain away from the people who didn't deserve to be paid as much (according to the new rules).

If this was how it all started however, if we think about it (...ahem, some more...,) <-- you condescending me? :) then I suppose the money would do the same as it does now and would eventually do the same long term as above - accumulate with those who put the most effort in according to the rules. Someone does something for someone else and gets paid a certain amount for it. It's the same principle re: trading money for goods/services/effort, only the new system would provide a fixed and constant level of reward for everything traded or bit of effort that took place, no?

The only reason the current system is like it is is that some people have prospered through various combinations of physical and mental effort and luck. We would just be recalibrating the reward system for the effort and removing some of the luck element.

That's a great post, (thanks for taking the time) I couldn't get there I guess. That is all sense. Thanks.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Well - what does the rocket scientist do 6 days a week? If he's only working 1 he aint gonna progress much, and if he's at home researching/thinking/trying to improve his science then that counts as work surely. Your system isn't fair I don't think.

I'm not drunk by the way. I only probably am.

If everybody was rewarded equally, in a fiscal sense, for the work they did, the whole reason for working hard in order to get a better job would shift from a monetary bonus to a lifestyle bonus. Good job = Good/more relaxed life. We would no longer work to earn more, we would work to LIVE more.

In this new system, five/six rocket scientists accomplish the work that one scientist would have completed in the old system. Five/six brains working towards the same goal would surely be more beneficial, and possibly more efficient than just one. Wouldn't it?

I'm not stoned by the way. I only probably am :)

 

[Paul Lake's Left Knee]

Just something that has been rattling around.

Assuming the technology arose.. if all humans were born virtually the same genetically. You could mess around with bone structure a bit and hair colour to have different looking people, but in basic terms.. height, capacity of thought, etc were the same. Starting potential was the same. Now some will get ahead due to better teaching/luck/conditions, that can't be helped.

A chip is implanted somewhere under the skin, let's say the brain (it would probably have to be) and this chip measures and monitors mental and physical fatigue, all unequivocal readings to all things like weight, height, mobility, diet, so it's all offset in results.

These results add up to what you get paid. (This all counts on it not being a total communist country/world where money doesn't exist) So in effect, the bloke sweating cleaning toilets for a living will earn a more proportionate wage to the fat lazy rocket scientist. The richest people would be those who work hard both mentally and physically, however it is that they do that. Sportsmen/women wouldn't be high earners. (Unless they contributed to something else in an intellectual capacity)

Now if we lived in a world like that.. and somebody couldn't get a job, would the right wing people still call them a scrounger? ha just kidding, no, if this was the case, and effort was truly rewarded fairly - where would the money come from?

 

[TangerineSteve17]

Well - what does the rocket scientist do 6 days a week? If he's only working 1 he aint gonna progress much, and if he's at home researching/thinking/trying to improve his science then that counts as work surely. Your system isn't fair I don't think.

I'm not drunk by the way. I only probably am.

If everybody was rewarded equally, in a fiscal sense, for the work they did, the whole reason for working hard in order to get a better job would shift from a monetary bonus to a lifestyle bonus. Good job = Good/more relaxed life. We would no longer work to earn more, we would work to LIVE more.

In this new system, five/six rocket scientists accomplish the work that one scientist would have completed in the old system. Five/six brains working towards the same goal would surely be more beneficial, and possibly more efficient than just one. Wouldn't it?

I'm not stoned by the way. I only probably am :)

Touché - I had to google that special 'e'

What about people who enjoy 'working' or reading etc. For the advancement of people. That is their 'LIFE' - for some that is what keeps them searching.

The scientist point is weird! There are lots different sciences. I have no idea if some are more beneficial than others.. although I guess chemistry/medicine seems more immediatley more important, rather than rockets..

It's like a paramecium talking to a amoeba. :)

Don't take it personally, whichever is dumber - I am that one.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Well - what does the rocket scientist do 6 days a week? If he's only working 1 he aint gonna progress much, and if he's at home researching/thinking/trying to improve his science then that counts as work surely. Your system isn't fair I don't think.

I'm not drunk by the way. I only probably am.

If everybody was rewarded equally, in a fiscal sense, for the work they did, the whole reason for working hard in order to get a better job would shift from a monetary bonus to a lifestyle bonus. Good job = Good/more relaxed life. We would no longer work to earn more, we would work to LIVE more.

In this new system, five/six rocket scientists accomplish the work that one scientist would have completed in the old system. Five/six brains working towards the same goal would surely be more beneficial, and possibly more efficient than just one. Wouldn't it?

I'm not stoned by the way. I only probably am :)

Touché - I had to google that special 'e'

What about people who enjoy 'working' or reading etc. For the advancement of people. That is their 'LIFE' - for some that is what keeps them searching.

The scientist point is weird! There are lots different sciences. I have no idea if some are more beneficial than others.. although I guess chemistry/medicine seems more immediatley more important, rather than rockets..

It's like a paramecium talking to a amoeba. :)

Don't take it personally, whichever is dumber - I am that one.

Don't bet on it mate, I'm the dumbest "clever" person you're ever likely to meet :)

"ROCKET SCIENTIST" was just code for "VERY CLEVER PERSON'S JOB" - Under my new regime it's not going to earn them any more money, but if they choose to spend their "FREE TIME" in the quest to further their/our knowledge of their "SCIENCE" then that's their choice. The regime does not descriminate against people who have a vocation rather than simple employment.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

haha you've responded a few times tonight in my creation, but our own, ridiculous thread. More fool you! haha.

We do have a disagreement though. I revere intellectuals. Clever people inspire the lesser men (me, or whoever) We are born with bodies that can pull, lift push and sweat - I'd obviously like that to be rewarded proportionately. It isn't now.

The choice thing you say is interesting.

Should or shouldn't we hold choice in any regard.. Personally I do really. I see it is easy to do a days work and then get drunk/relax/or whatever. If certain people stay switched on - they should be rewarded.

In my system the rich get richer only if they put the effort in. Is that right? Dunno.

 

[Tuearts right boot]

In a system were normal market forces prevail you are generally paid what you are worth.

 

[the-ecstacy-of-eight]

Yeah, I know, I'm obviously in a crazy thread/typing mood tonight mate.

The problem I have with YOUR system is that there are still rich and poor, the finances are simply divided differently, but the wealth divides would still exist, there would still be "haves" & "have nots", and that's the major problem that I have with the current Capitalist system; in MINE there is no concept of rich and poor (not in a financial sense anyway), everybody is worth the same monetary value.

Who knows, maybe when the entire wealth is divided equally amongst the entire population, those that pull, lift, push and sweat would get a bigger share than they currently do, I don't know the numbers, but they might, then we'd both be happy, wouldn't we?

 

[TangerineSteve17]

Yeah, I know, I'm obviously in a crazy thread/typing mood tonight mate.

The problem I have with YOUR system is that there are still rich and poor, the finances are simply divided differently, but the wealth divides would still exist, there would still be "haves" & "have nots", and that's the major problem that I have with the current Capitalist system; in MINE there is no concept of rich and poor (not in a financial sense anyway), everybody is worth the same monetary value.

Who knows, maybe when the entire wealth is divided equally amongst the entire population, those that pull, lift, push and sweat would get a bigger share than they currently do, I don't know the numbers, but they might, then we'd both be happy, wouldn't we?

We would indeed matey. But it aint gonna happen under capitalism.

My point was, as now, those who happen to be born in well-to-do circumstances obviously have the advantage. Science is historically a rich mans pusuit. A silly sentence, you get me though, those that achieve the most understanding are usually born well. Put aside sport (it is weird)

But forget that. There will be rich and poor under my system (you are right) with the abscence of greed and human nature not wanting to share, it will always be so. I was trying to get at those that look at people as lazy.

I don't earn a lot, but I work hard (sweat) I don't want a mansion. I am either unambitious or content. Content really.

I wasn't proposing Utopia. Just something fairer than we have now. I don't believe Utopia is possible with humans.

Just to reiterate.. I have no problem with having less than the fit intelligent bloke next door, it seems fair, but I want to be rewarded for my efforts proportionately.

 

[Damocles]

Just something that has been rattling around.

Assuming the technology arose.. if all humans were born virtually the same genetically. You could mess around with bone structure a bit and hair colour to have different looking people, but in basic terms.. height, capacity of thought, etc were the same. Starting potential was the same. Now some will get ahead due to better teaching/luck/conditions, that can't be helped.

A chip is implanted somewhere under the skin, let's say the brain (it would probably have to be) and this chip measures and monitors mental and physical fatigue, all unequivocal readings to all things like weight, height, mobility, diet, so it's all offset in results.

These results add up to what you get paid. (This all counts on it not being a total communist country/world where money doesn't exist) So in effect, the bloke sweating cleaning toilets for a living will earn a more proportionate wage to the fat lazy rocket scientist. The richest people would be those who work hard both mentally and physically, however it is that they do that. Sportsmen/women wouldn't be high earners. (Unless they contributed to something else in an intellectual capacity)

Now if we lived in a world like that.. and somebody couldn't get a job, would the right wing people still call them a scrounger? ha just kidding, no, if this was the case, and effort was truly rewarded fairly - where would the money come from?

The problem is that income isn't based on effort but instead on the supply and demand of the services. Those are the variables in society that you'd have to control rather than the human element.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

The problem is that income isn't based on effort but instead on the supply and demand of the services. Those are the variables in society that you'd have to control rather than the human element.

Well your answer if the population stayed roughly the same? There would be peaks and low points naturally, due to lots of factors.

My idea - not ideal! is that people get rewarded for all activity.

It is unrealisitc, it was a thought experiment type question only..

 

[Damocles]

The problem is that income isn't based on effort but instead on the supply and demand of the services. Those are the variables in society that you'd have to control rather than the human element.

Well your answer if the population stayed roughly the same? There would be peaks and low points naturally, due to lots of factors.

My idea - not ideal! is that people get rewarded for all activity.

It is unrealisitc, it was a thought experiment type question only..

Not sure I explained that very well.

My issue isn't with thought experiments, in fact I love them, only that you're trying to control one section of market forces by linking it to effort. The problem is that the controller of those forces is not effort but demand. If we live in outer space and you're a super motivated/hard working welder but I'm a lazy oxygen salesman there's no way for you to replicate my income because my product is superior.

We all produce goods when we work and its the saleable price of those goods, which is controlled by the supply/demand for them, which determines our wage.

In your thought experiment where everybody is paid as much as they earn, you haven't found a way to control the market. You'd have to presume a limitless supply of resources and energy.

Under those circumstances where your robotic implants were made and we have a limitless supply of resources, the money wouldn't come from anywhere because you would have eradicated it. Money doesn't have any inherent value past its paper and ink, only the value that we assign to it as the ability to purchase resources. In a world of limitless resources which you'd need to have for an effort based market to work, there is no need for money to exist any more.

 

[TangerineSteve17]

Sorry that was unclear..

I meant.. well, (what) is your answer..

No point scoring here - there couldn't be.. just want holes picked/to be put right.