Myth: Under pure capitalism, people must earn their incomes.

To comment on this video, go to: http://beingism.org/community/?q=node/13

Note: This video is part of a series which debunks myths pertinent to laissez-faire capitalism. Many points not addressed in this video can be found at the above link.

http://Beingism.org

If "earning" simply means to obtain a financial reward in exchange for a service, then provided we ignore the conspicuous and massive exception of inherited wealth, this is more or less true. However, most people associate the concept of "earning" with acquiring rewards proportional to the effort involved in attaining them. For example, if two people sign a contract under which one will shake hands with the other in exchange for seven and a half million dollars, ordinarily we may not say that the hand shaker has "earned" that money. Similarly, if one person has access to all the food in an area and demands that everyone else pay their entire income in order to eat, we could not with any sense of fairness say that this food-wealthy individual has earned that income.

In the interests of motivating productivity, presumably it makes sense to allot somewhat larger quantities of status and income to jobs that are most universally regarded as unpleasant or that are difficult to get people to perform. For instance, jobs that demand greater effort, ingenuity, educational background and personal risk, or those that take place under dirty, tedious, or demeaning conditions, probably merit greater pay. Conversely, jobs with other significant benefits, such as social status, need not be paid as much. Yet even a cursory look at pay scales shows a minimal relationship between these factors and pay.

Many low-status, low pay jobs (housekeepers, factory assemblers, and construction workers, to name a few) pay relatively low amounts. Such jobs are often extremely effort intensive, and may involve juggling many tasks under relatively filthy conditions. Circumstances are demeaning, and managers often keep close watch over employees in an effort to prevent theft, drug use, or a moment of idle time in an effort to maximize worker productivity, with little or no regard for the effect on job satisfaction. The work is often tedious and difficult to find personally meaningful.

Now, there is something to be said for motivating people to be productive, and financial reward is one reasonable means of providing motivation. However, surely people will continue to produce even without the potential for such vast financial rewards that they utterly dwarf the average income — so long as they are increasingly compensated in a manner proportional to their efforts. In a society where productivity is defined by the ability to benefit society as well as oneself, and where all people are starting initially from a roughly equivilant position, a reputation as a resourceful and compassionate person would doubtless have a motivating effect as well.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• capitalism
• charity
• compassion
• conservative
• economics
• empathy
• happiness
• libertarian
• reason
• religion
• republican
• socialism

[emaster01]

Interesting videos you have, although full of fallacies. Perhaps I should hook up a webcam and perhaps youtube debate these issues?

[Beingism]

@emaster01

Feel free. A link to the most updated versions of these Myths is here: beingism [dot] org/community/?q=node/13

[thegillotine09]

@ineptsegue And wow did I overestimate you. There I was beginning an argument against enslavement of 1 person to improve the lives of many when you'd apparently enslave all of humanity.

[thegillotine09]

@ineptsegue

"Allowing"?

My stance is that you do not have the right to disallow the free transaction of goods and services between two consenting adults any more than religious fundamentalists have the right to disallow sexual intercourse between consenting adults.

[thegillotine09]

@ineptsegue

How do you determine what is fair?

And I disagree that payer preference is not the only relevant factor in determining value. The value of an object is strictly subjective. A diamond may be worth more than a bottle of water to the average person, but the water would be more valuable to someone working in the diamond mines. If someone wants to pay you a million dollars to shake your hand, then the handshake must be worth a million dollars to that person.

[thegillotine09]

Payment is not determined by effort, but rather the value of the work performed as determined by the preferences of the payer. It's probably very difficult to go out in a field and hit the ground with a sledgehammer for 8 hours a day, but I wouldn't expect to get paid much (if at all) for doing it.

[davedavedaveannoy1]

@ineptsegue Technically it would only support a theory, we have never had Pure Capitalism so we have never known the effects. I have faith that when it is established it will be a bit unstable for a few years then industry, not government, will set standards and regulations will emerge. At first the consumers will be somewhat abused by price increase and wage drops however people will fight back with boycotts and so on and eventually it will fix and stabilize itself without State assistance.

[davedavedaveannoy1]

@ineptsegue My position stands, you have your opinion and I have mine, time is the only indicator of victor.

[davedavedaveannoy1]

I still uphold Individualism, consumerism, ryanism, and capitalism. Capitalism sounds unfair, and quite frankly it is, its not fair and its certainly not equal. But under collectivism everyone is put at the same level or in other words is equal, but in reality equality (at least economically) is unfair and those that work hard are kept down while those that don't are upheld. In capitalism you have to work to get high places and jobs are VOLUNTARY, YOU sign the contract and YOU know the risks.