Hacker News Reader

Comment by Vinnl | Hacker News Reader

> If the median worker isn't responsible for the increased productivity, are they entitled to a share of the work of other people?

I usually turn this question around: as a programmer, I'm responsible for a greater share of productivity than some people in different functions who are paid less. However, I do not work harder, do not sacrifice more, do not hate my job more - more likely the opposite, even. Why am I entitled to a larger share of profits than other people?

(I understand that the system generally "works better" this way. However, since we're talking about being entitled to something, I wonder if there's a moral argument that can be made.)

View on HN

imagine a laborer who works double the hours you work, exhausting his mind and body more in a single hour than you do all day. but all this mind and back breaking work is to create ugly mud sculptures, unwanted by all but the most eccentric connoisseurs. do you think he is entitled to even greater compensation than you, because he works harder? would you find it fair if he were compensated exactly the same as you?

No, I don't think he's entitled to greater compensation than me - because I don't have a good rule for determining how much either of us should be entitled to earn. In a moral sense, that is - I understand that me receiving better compensation helps to prevent ugly mud sculptures from being created. That doesn't make me feel entitled to my compensation, though.

> I don't have a good rule for determining how much either of us should be entitled to earn.

I don't have an objectively provable rule, but I do have one that makes a pretty good starting point: if you create something valuable, you should be able to capture most (or even all) of that value.

of course, no one just creates things from scratch. they use tools designed by other people, they use resources extracted from the earth, their productivity might be multiplied if directed by a good team leader, etc. if you take the final product and subtract all the tools, resources, and infrastructure used, you have your personal contribution. I think we should strive for a system where the worker keeps as much of their contribution as possible. some people's contribution will be much larger than others', depending on their skills and the type of work they do, but I don't think this is inherently unfair if you have first accounted for all the external things they have benefited from.

But what about people unable to work? What about the elderly, the disabled, or, as more and more gets automated, those no longer able to provide more value than robots? If our moral code is limited to "you are entitled to the value you create", then those people would be left out - and I think that's inconsistent with the rest of my moral code.

You're entitled to your compensation because someone of your skill level is needed to get the job you do done. Yes, others may suffer more but the result is what creates value, and the results of their work are less than that of yours. And if your work required more suffering, it would probably pay more too.

Basically, your compensation is based on the face-value of the results of your work, as well as the difficulty necessary in order to be capable of doing such work. So for other positions that require more work-per-hour, they get less usually because a greater population is capable of that same work. (and so, someone somewhere can be found to do it cheaper)

I think that seems to be missed a lot in discussions of this nature, the value of training and the scale of populations with given skills and how more training generally means less people and therefore less who are desperate and will take a lower than standard wage. (while with unskilled positions, it's automatically a race to the minimum)

Well, that's a direct connection between someone producing value and receiving it, and why we're running the system this way, but that doesn't quite cut it for me as a moral code. For example, if one is entitled to the value they produce (to the extent that that can be properly measured), why would we take care of the disabled, or the elderly?

Because empathy (one day we will be elderly too), and because they did contribute value throughout their lives. In return for that, they earn respect and care. On some level, it is a selfish empathy (if I help this old person, it helps normalize that helping old people is a thing we should do, and then I can cash out on that when old), but maybe all empathy is anyways...its ok if its selfish internally if the result is consistently positive.

It doesn’t matter how “hard” you work, but the value of the work - and value is 100% determined by how much people will pay for your output, and that price is determined by the scarcity of your product.

A guy that digs gold out of the ground is going be able to sell that gold at a higher price than a guy digging worms; while working at exactly the same “hardness.” There are those that would suggest that both should be paid the same, which is ridiculous as that suggests a pound of worms is as valuable as a pound of gold.

Sure, that's how the system works, and why it works well in order to make sure gold gets dug out of the ground rather than worms. That makes it a justification for doing things this way, but it's not a justification for me, personally, feeling entitled to the money I receive.

> Why am I entitled to a larger share of profits than other people?

You aren't entitled to profits at all. Profits come after cost. You're cost. You cost more because the demand for your labor versus the supply of your labor raises the price of your labor.

Don't assume this will go on forever, the next bust may well wipe out the huge wage advantage of today's tech workers.

Sure, I'm not assuming this will go on forever. The main point of asking my question was to get a grip on a moral framework for justifying... I don't know, private property?

1) No one treats everyone else's property as well as their own (tragedy of the commons).

2) The fact that you are paid more ensures that society's demand of your kind of labor is met, resulting in a more efficient allocation of resources. If everyone instead was paid the same, there would be less incentive to get better training or to perform undesirable work, resulting in less efficient allocation of resources.

Yes, that's the reason we're doing things this way, but that's not a moral reasoning. If it were, that would mean being opposed to e.g. being taxed to take care of the disabled. I'm wondering whether there's a way to reconcile those two in the same moral framework.

> Yes, that's the reason we're doing things this way, but that's not a moral reasoning.

It is moral to allocate resources more efficiently, as it increases well-being and reduces waste.

> If it were, that would mean being opposed to e.g. being taxed to take care of the disabled.

Not at all. A society which allocates resources more efficiently has more resources available to deal with such problems. It is also in the self-interest of every individual to be taken care of, should they become disabled.

The (im)morality of using taxation to this end (as opposed to voluntary charity and private insurance) is a separate debate altogether.

> I'm wondering whether there's a way to reconcile those two in the same moral framework.

They're already reconciled.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com