Value and worth

Something new occured to me which others might have seen and started a thread about so sorry about that (I didn't see that thread if it exists). Anyway it occured to me people are handing out free advice on the internet. It may be good or bad advice, most would assume bad because it's free and we all want what is best for oneself so it's likely the other would want to give bad advice so to ensure a competitor might do worse and this means cash might go to the other, that is less cash for the other means the cash needs to go someplace else. Which might be in your favor or not.

Imagine there's a big pile of money at any given moment it either goes to you and whatever group you sided with or it might go to the other side whatever is your opponent or group. So in that sense it would be logical to give good advice to those on your side and bad advice to those against your side and goals.

But my point being, the fact that it's free means it's valued wrong and people reading such things might expect people to behave the same IRL. Meaning, a person gets free advice and gets used to that and IRL or off the internet that person might assume the attitude is to expect people to help eachother for free. And then things get devalued, like a teacher getting 50 dollars an hour might spend an hour on some person and that person might value it 0 dollars and the job of teachers get undervalued and they don't get the same recognition and the job is less popular, means less people choosing teacher and then there might be a shortage. And everyone after that would have to try and change how people view such a job.

The same goes for every profession. Please discuss the implications of this here.

reply to post by spiritspeak


People are supposed to do what they are good at and what they enjoy. Some can handle a boring job and some need stimulation in form of brain activity/creativity/logical thinking. Some are people persons and like to discuss everything and some are introvert thinkers who should have a lot of time to think, since the things they will create can be amazing and out of the ordinary, if allowed to do their thing without interruption.

Material compensation is something that shall just be there and be fair for the effort it takes to do the work. The problem is not that teachers are very undervalued. The problem is that others are insanely overvalued when they are in fact doing nothing that has any real worth to society.

The worth or value of your labor should be determined by two things:

The first is the transaction between you and the employer or purchaser of your services or labor. Whatever is mutually agreed upon between the two of your is what is acceptable. NO MATTER WHAT. It doesn't matter if someone else comes along and tells you that you undervalued yourself or overvalued yourself or anything else. If one party offers and the other agrees, the contract is acceptable.

The second is what the market will bear. That basically means that whatever your skill or service is ... it is only worth as much as the next guy who can do it is willing to work for. So, yeah, you can go out and demand that someone pay you $100/hour to flip burgers, but the reality is that just about anyone with a competent pair of hands can flip burgers, and so long as the next person comes along and says "I'll do it for $30/hour" or less ... you will never be able to flip burgers for that much. The rarer your skill is or the better you are at it than the others who do it, the more value you have.

This is one of the problems with unions. By banding together, they can distort the labor market by forcing all the other workers to not accept wages less than a certain amount. While this can seem to be beneficial to the laborers up to a certain point, if they aren't careful, they actually wind up damaging the employers by distorting the cost of labor too far.

reply to post by ketsuko


Your market fixing the value only works when there is a need for workers and the wealth is somewhat distributed equally. When you have an excess of people compared to the job market (controlled by a few) then you have a spiral going down where work get less and less valued and the economy implodes since all wealth is in the hands of few that won the market/system. Why invest in progress or betterment of the poor when you make more money from people being poor and hungry by giving out salaries that people cannot live on (when you at the same time control the cost of things for your peon). Trickle economics is an illusion and you are not even allowed to know the wealth of the really heavy hitters while the media show small fries like Bill Gates as the richest man in the world.

Well this time it is the dollar and America that was the economy that will get hyper inflated and artificially destroyed by the heavy hitters. Last big one was Germany before 2nd world war. Rinse and repeat the same manipulation. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

reply to post by spiritspeak


In our world [I'm assuming], the things which are have a proven method to create a large and fast output have great value and worth.

Think of oil in Saudi Arabia. Before the industrial Age, oil was no use to Saudi Arabia, fast forward to today and controlling oil makes you rich. But if your hungry and starving its has no worth

LittleByLittle
reply to post by ketsuko

 

Trickle economics is an illusion and you are not even allowed to know the wealth of the really heavy hitters while the media show small fries like Bill Gates as the richest man in the world.

Trickle economics is just a buzz word for the ages old cost distribution to elements in the production and support end of an enterprise.

What always got me to laugh about it is that the word "trickle" reflects a certain resignation to stinginess. It should be "flowdown" economics! LOL

And what they never tell you about trickle down is that it is still subject to so many factors. Its like trickle down with somebodies hand on the spicket. Never really a natural flow. In most cases, for the wage earner to be sure, the trickle is never really merit based to any effect nor is it so much profit based i.e. workers wages reflected in the profit margin.

Another problem is worker related. These days it causes so much trouble for the employer to pay a good worker more money than the average worker! Even .50cents more an hour for a good worker can be disruptive!

Just trying to understand economics again.

Suppose I get 30 euros an hour for a wage and somebody else gets 1000 euros an hour. We both happen to be off duty or not working and happen to meet at a building and we have to use the same elevator, myself the 9th floor and the other the 14th floor just visiting.

Given a week worth' of pay even off duty there's a certain amount of pay per hour. So what happens when we talk? If the other says several words and his time is more expensive because his brain is more valuable to society according to society, do I get into debt when we talk. And when I do the talking the other listens and gives an answer or acknowledgement of what I said either false or true, do I owe that person even more? How would such an equation look like in an elevator, but also block or neighbourhood or city and state eventually country and other countries.