McCain or Obama?

[tl8]

I can't understand how anyone couldn't care about politics. It affects the future of your country and your own future, even at the most selfish level you'd think one would care about their future.

Because, who ever you vote for, they are not the right person for the job.
We know that they lie alot (Strange thing in Oz, Johnny Howard was right about K Rudd) and don't keep promises.

And they back projects that will get them votes.

 

[tblaxland]

Because, who ever you vote for, they are not the right person for the job.
We know that they lie alot (Strange thing in Oz, Johnny Howard was right about K Rudd) and don't keep promises.

And they back projects that will get them votes.

This speech by John Faulkner is worth a read if you have the time. I don't agree with everything in there and it is a bit left-leaning (as your would expect from John Faulkner) but this bit stands out:

In the modern climate of ever-lowering expectations, apathy and disengagement are self-protective reactions to an equally powerful and dangerous current: anger. You never hear someone say as they refuse a how-to-vote on the way into a polling booth: "It doesn't matter who I vote for, someone good will get in." Politics is a valuable activity, a way to bring about real change for the better, and a means of managing substantial disagreements within a society or a community. Cynicism about politicians and our motives corrodes faith in that process.

 

[David]

I don't know what "social justice" is.

As I understand it, "social justice" is intended to denote the concept of government's being The People's agent for (domestic?) robbery.

It seems to be predicated not upon a presumption of each citizen's implicit, within a condition of civilization, Natural Right to be secure against violence, but rather, upon a desire to achieve what would arguably be a "cosmic goodness," the definition of which, would be dependent upon who controls the government (i.e. - whose agent the government is).

 

[Andy44]

It's a form of collectivism, and therefore neither social nor just.

 

[Urwumpe]

Yeah. The famous logical arguments of people, who dream about one day negotiating their salaries with only themselves...

The question is: Is it good, that the income of the 1% top earners increases by 30% per year, while the income of the lowest 20% decrease by 10%?

When looking closer at the arguments of such stone-age capitalists, you arrive at the question: Caesar conquered the Gauls. But didn't he at least have a cook on his side?

 

[GregBurch]

The question is: Is it good, that the income of the 1% top earners increases by 30% per year, while the income of the lowest 20% decrease by 10%?

Is it "good"? Of course not. Is it "unjust"? Only if the former stole their money from the latter. Did they?

 

[Ghostrider]

The question is: Is it good, that the income of the 1% top earners increases by 30% per year, while the income of the lowest 20% decrease by 10%?

It's not only bad, it's not even good capitalism. Any capitalist worth his salt knows that workers are an asset, not a burden, and that it pays to keep them content and well fed, you don't want Charlton Heston to come around and drop grasshoppers on you.

Moreover, reducing the overall wealth of the society means that you may get far less customers. What we've been seeing for some time is the monetary equivalent of intensive cultivation, which yields lots but leaves the earth barren.

 

[GregBurch]

It's not only bad, it's not even good capitalism. Any capitalist worth his salt knows that workers are an asset, not a burden, and that it pays to keep them content and well fed, you don't want Charlton Heston to come around and drop grasshoppers on you.

Moreover, reducing the overall wealth of the society means that you may get far less customers. What we've been seeing for some time is the monetary equivalent of intensive cultivation, which yields lots but leaves the earth barren.

I don't disagree with you (although I wonder whether a metaphor of comparing people -- workers -- to plants may be unsound). What you've described may be stupid. In fact, it probably is. But is it "unjust"? If so, how is this stupidity a matter of "justice"?

 

[David]

Yeah. The famous logical arguments of people, who dream about one day negotiating their salaries with only themselves...

The question is: Is it good, that the income of the 1% top earners increases by 30% per year, while the income of the lowest 20% decrease by 10%?

When looking closer at the arguments of such stone-age capitalists, you arrive at the question: Caesar conquered the Gauls. But didn't he at least have a cook on his side?

Without regard to the arrogant assumption about what people may dream, and the other attempt at personal insult, my response to your first question is: no; it seems to me that such a difference is not "good," although I don't quite understand the significance of such a comparison, since one's income is not usefully representative of a competition with someone else's income, but rather, a determinant of one's capability to achieve a specified standard-of-living (which is not to say that I am unfamiliar with the concept of envy and its implications).

Also, I have mentioned, elsewhere, that one's place in your comparative scheme, as being either among the "1% top earners" or among the "lowest 20%," is not reliably a static condition. Therefore, it may be of some sociological interest, but not necessarily relevant, to any particular person.

Furthermore, a meaningful consideration, here, is not merely whether such statistical differences as you allege, exist or are "good," but whether predatory violence is "good," as a remedy for such "not-goodness."

Predatory violence is intrinsically antithetical to a persistent condition of civilization, whereas violence in self-defense is not - which is why a government, as an institutionalized agency of violence, is ethically justifiable as being an agency of common self-defense, and perverse as an agency of selective predation (this, btw, is the argued basis for the U.S. War of Independence).


WRT your second question, I can only surmise that Caesar did have a cook, and that the cook would not have been permitted to negotiate his salary with a kitchen knife (unless, of course, he were only using it to prepare some food that would impress Caesar with his value as a cook).

 

[GregBurch]

WTR your second question, I can only surmise that Caesar did have a cook, and that he would not have been permitted to negotiate his salary with a kitchen knife (unless, of course, he were only using it to prepare some food that would impress Caesar with his value as a cook).

Ahh, but Caesar's cook was almost certainly a slave, which we may say is a matter of justice, as the slave was a person, and the rights of persons are the subject of justice.

 

[Urwumpe]

Is it "good"? Of course not. Is it "unjust"? Only if the former stole their money from the latter. Did they?

Of course they do. They created in the last years (at least in Germany), their huge bonus payments and increases in salary by a net drop of employee salaries, which made the companies more profitable. But instead of following the same cure as their employees, they thought they have done a great job that way.

of course I don't see justice in the idea of giving a line worker the same salary as a manager. But I also don't see any justification why the salary development of a high level manager should be over 50% higher as the same development of even a lower management worker, in the same company. Either, the company as whole is successful. Or it is not. Small variations are common, but such large variations are a sign that there is a decoupling between real company success and the benefits of the workers.

 

[GregBurch]

Of course they do. They created in the last years (at least in Germany), their huge bonus payments and increases in salary by a net drop of employee salaries, which made the companies more profitable. But instead of following the same cure as their employees, they thought they have done a great job that way.

of course I don't see justice in the idea of giving a line worker the same salary as a manager. But I also don't see any justification why the salary development of a high level manager should be over 50% higher as the same development of even a lower management worker, in the same company. Either, the company as whole is successful. Or it is not. Small variations are common, but such large variations are a sign that there is a decoupling between real company success and the benefits of the workers.

I'm not arguing with the example you give, nor the conclusion you draw from it. I also am troubled by the matter of how corporate governance allows what seem to be irrationally high rewards to a few people whose performance does not seem to correlate to their compensation.

But my question is how this is a matter of "justice". Are all things that are stupid or irrational or ineffective matters of "justice"?

 

[Urwumpe]

But my question is how this is a matter of "justice". Are all things that are stupid or irrational or ineffective matters of "justice"?

Of course. Any human has a sense of justice, which goes beyond only constitution and laws. As you might know, a decision of a judge is justice, but not always just.

That is the difference between social justice and the justice you are talking about. The social justice is basically self-regulation. Something which did only work well, when the knifes are already sharpened.

If you do something extremely stupid and harmful, and get rewarded, it is not just. If you perform well and work hard for the success of the company, but instead of a reward get fired for "economic" reasons, it is sure not just. No company would start firing managers before they are so deep into trouble that they have to fire workers. But the decisions of the managers are usually the cause of the problem, not the decisions of the workers.

 

[GregBurch]

Of course. Any human has a sense of justice, which goes beyond only constitution and laws. As you might know, a decision of a judge is justice, but not always just.

That is the difference between social justice and the justice you are talking about. The social justice is basically self-regulation. Something which did only work well, when the knifes are already sharpened.

If you do something extremely stupid and harmful, and get rewarded, it is not just. If you perform well and work hard for the success of the company, but instead of a reward get fired for "economic" reasons, it is sure not just. No company would start firing managers before they are so deep into trouble that they have to fire workers. But the decisions of the managers are usually the cause of the problem, not the decisions of the workers.

Well then, herein we reach the core of our disagreement, as has been obvious all along, I suppose. I just wanted to get to the heart of it in as systematic a way as possible. I conclude that notions of "justice" do not apply to every inequity in life, and every outcome for which our hearts have sympathy. To conclude otherwise, I think, stretches the notion of "justice" so far as to make it mean one thing in one set of circumstances, and another in another set of circumstances.

More specifically, to apply the concept of justice to the kinds of situations of unequal outcomes or situations in life to which you would apply it makes the concept unusable in matters of law. Either justice is something that applies to legal questions, or it applies more broadly to "life in general." I fully understand the sentiment that desires to be "just" outside the realm of law, and to use some kind of force to create more equitable outcomes in life. But once you start down that road, there is no principled stopping place, and you have thrown aside the idea of a priori ordering of human affairs through law and contract.

Hayek had a name for the road you are traveling.

 

[Urwumpe]

GregBurch: I think you try to solve with polemic, which you can't solve with rationality. If two people have the same chances, but one has success and the other not, nobody will complain about the guy who had success.

Nobody complained about Klitschko's victory in the last fight, even though he was really punishing the other guy. Both had the same chances, but only one of them used them.

Things get wrong, when people cheat. When you damage the company, and the company rewards you, it is sure not a great performance of you. You just automatically win, or even worse: Get more money for losing, as for being successful.

That is also, what makes the current crisis worse. The "guys up there", lost trust. Most people see them as greedy criminals, who played with money they don't own. In other situations, it would be easy to understand the need to help them, but not today. The bad thing is just, that it will likely also take some of the few good managers with the bad guys, when the politics start using their influence. And I would not be surprised, if more good guys have to go, than bad guys.

We had:

1. Uncritical Acceptance
2. Wild Enthusiasm
3. Deject Disillusionment
4. Total Confusion

We now have:

1. Search for the Guilty

My experience tells me, that the future will bring the following stages:

1. Punishment of the Innocent
2. Promotion of the Uninvolved

 

[GregBurch]

GregBurch: I think you try to solve with polemic, which you can't solve with rationality.

Yes, I know what a fool I am for holding on to reason with my feeble, aging fingers. As you so kindly pointed out recently, there is nothing so terrible as an old fool.

But just to try to be clear here, I am not by any means saying that something hasn't been "wrong." Something -- in fact, many things -- have been "wrong." I just question whether we get confused at a very fundemantal level when we think of these "wrong things" in terms of justice.

But have no fear. I am a dinosaur. And I see a bright flash in the sky, my small, furry friend.

We had:

1. Uncritical Acceptance
2. Wild Enthusiasm
3. Deject Disillusionment
4. Total Confusion

We now have:

1. Search for the Guilty

My experience tells me, that the future will bring the following stages:

1. Punishment of the Innocent
2. Promotion of the Uninvolved

About this, we surely agree. After all, we live in democracies.

 

[Urwumpe]

But have no fear. I am a dinosaur. And I see a bright flash in the sky, my small, furry friend.

Yes. Such flashes bring fate, but only for some dinosaurs, it is a bad fate.

Don't the Chinese use the same glyph for problems, as for opportunity.

 

[GregBurch]

Don't the Chinese use the same glyph for problems, as for opportunity.

This is one of those things I've heard all my life, but I don't know what it could refer to. The term I use for "problem" most often is this:

問題 问题 wèn tí
And the one for "opportunity" is this:

機會 机会 jī huì
It may be that there is some term in classical Chinese that has an overlapping meaning. Although the analogy isn't really very good, there's far more difference between modern and classical Chinese than there is, say between, Latin and modern Romance languages.

 

[David]

I also don't see any justification why the salary development of a high level manager should be over 50% higher as the same development of even a lower management worker, in the same company. Either, the company as whole is successful. Or it is not. Small variations are common, but such large variations are a sign that there is a decoupling between real company success and the benefits of the workers.

I don't recognize that your conclusion is reasonable, here. Benefitting workers, is not the principal concern of a business enterprise, which instead exists for the pupose of producing a product or service. General Motors, for example, does not exist for the purpose of providing people with jobs and income; it exists for the purpose of manufacturing and providing automobiles to people who might want them. Payments to workers, may represent either gratitude for their helping to do this, or an incentive for their helping to do this.

I agree with Greg; neither aspect of worker payments, represents anything to do with "justice," except in the case of a contractual obligation for payment, that was not fulfilled.

One can argue that employed workers should - as kindness, or even rationality - be rewarded for their contribution to a company's success. But this pertains not at all to how much salary, various levels of management (or other employees) within a company, would be paid, compared to one another. This would, instead, tend to represent a difference in the required incentive, to a potential employee, necessary to compete with other enterprises for whom he might, instead, prefer to work. If a CEO is paid 100 times what a lower-level manager is paid, this is likely to be due to the fact that if the CEO were not paid that much, then he would not have been able to be hired, since another company would have paid him that much; and hiring him, was regarded as desirable enough to be willing to provide, in exchange, that much money or other benefit.

I can recognize no reason for regarding this as even pertinent to any other employee - much less any reason for calling such differences in salary "unjust". One could, as well, argue that it's "unjust" that the Ferrari company gets so much more money, in exchange for its cars, than the Toyota company gets for its cars, or than the Dell company gets for its computers. If you want a Ferrari, then you must pay what it costs, without regard to what a Toyota or a Dell may cost. And if it later turns out that the Ferrari isn't as much fun as you thought it would be, then it is likely that you still have to pay for it.

 

[Urwumpe]

I don't recognize that your conclusion is reasonable, here. Benefitting workers, is not the principal concern of a business enterprise, which instead exists for the purpose of producing a product or service.

Pause the argumentation chain here. What purpose have workers? Can managers produce profits all by themselves?

A company is not there for the welfare of workers, that is absolutely correct. The workers have to do something for their salary. But can a company exist without workers?