|
|
|
|
|
|
by rcoveson
2306 days ago
|
|
|
> This is a terrible example... ...and then you go on to describe the reason it's a great example. I'm contending with the belief that somethings "worth" is determined by the effects it has, specifically the effects on the profits of a corporation. As you've pointed out regarding my "move $1000 example," the effects something has can vary in scale from the actions that brought them about. The cost of moving an object of a certain weight a certain distance with certain security measures is pretty stable. The secondary effects, on the other hand, could be massive. Employment is the same way. One is paid to do a task in proportion to how much others who are capable of it would do it for. That amount is almost totally disconnected from the profits (or losses) the employer reaps from having that task completed for them. |
|
|
This suggested that they had added a thousand dollars of value, whereas you presumably meant no such thing? Your example gave me the impression that we were in direct disagreement.
Continuing the discussion, now that I understand what you were saying; having recognised that what people are paid is disconnected from what value they bring to a company (and thus that someone could be worth millions to a company, but paid peanuts [0]), is it right that recompense is "almost totally disconnected from the profits (or losses) the employer reaps from having that task completed for them"? This is something of a moral judgement and we stray into different grounds; the great god Market is very popular hereabouts.
[0] Some argue that by defintion, what someone is paid is what they are worth. Fortunately, because that is presented as a simple definition, we can discard it as easily as it is presented.