224665 Bullies, 3635 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 71 to 80 of 257
Page 8 of 26 FirstFirst ... 45678 910111218 ... LastLast
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. killface is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    227

    Posted On:
    8/27/2013 10:01am


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    Define properly? Cause most of us who raise kids to be productive members of society are already productive members of society.
    The point is that the work of raising children is not paid but still crucial for society.

    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    Please name free software widely used in industry that hasn't been monetized.
    What do you mean? We could hardly do anything without free software. Linux on server?

    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    Define banker and nurse. Your typical "banker" doesn't make ****. A Bank mangers salary ranges from about 40k-100k depending on the branch. Personal bankers earn roughly the same.
    Nurses also have a large pay range depending on the type of nurse they make from 20k-90k depending on once again the services they actually provide society. A nurse practinor that provides more or less Dr. level service for medicine of convince makes decent money more than most "bankers".
    Now the bankers that make the real money provide a really important role in our society these are investment bankers. What they provide is liquidity and stability to markets. So yes an investment banker who makes 10x what even a nurse practitioner does provide a bigger role to society as a whole. With out them buying say Wheat futures your grocery store would look pretty barren and you wouldn't have a clue what prices your going to be paying for every day items from one week to the next. They are the pillars of the markets you use every day. Fuel, Food, everything you see around you they have had their hand in helping to bring to the market place for your consumption. So yes I would say the guy who keeps my fuel prices stable and available has done a hell of a lot more for society easily in the 10x range than one freaking nurse. That is to not say the nurse isn't important they are in that 20-90k range important.
    Well it was only an theoretical example. The idea that usefulness for society can be measured by how much you get paid seems quite silly for me. Working in marketing is totally useless for society but you can still make some good money. A patent lawyer makes a shitload of money even-though his use for society is fishy at the best. Everything "law" is quite overrated.

    Oh and what happens when I get a pay rise. Am I magically more useful for society than before?

    I don’t agree with your understanding of investment banking but that topic is probably better served an other time.

    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    Afraid you are wrong. Money is a good representation of the time and resources people invest in. Most people earn money by trading a skill set and their time for it. As should be painfully aware to you everyone's time has a different values. Usally that value is set by someone being willing or able to do something that other people cannot and this is where their value to society comes from. If you have a skill other people can't do that society needs or wants then you end up with more money. Representing a larger chunk of societies resources.
    The problem here is that the people that earn the most money don’t do so by working harder but by letting other people work for them. Just because someone inherited a shitload of money from his parents does not make him a useful member of society.


    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    What the **** you talking about they where giving Nobel prizes which come with a hefty sum of money. Looks like society rewarded them for their achievements.
    Yeah the prize money surely helped but their average income was still quite low when you keep in mind they were one of the best in their field and very hard working. So if you would value people by income they would not look that much special, which is exactly why this approach is hopelessly naive.
  2. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,973

    Posted On:
    8/27/2013 10:07am

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by killface View Post
    The point is that the work of raising children is not paid but still crucial for society.
    He never said mothers aren't valuable, or when you switched it to parents. You changed his point to fit what you wanted to argue. He just acknowledge that raising kids is crucial, you just misunderstood his initial point and his response filled with sarcasm.

    What do you mean? We could hardly do anything without free software. Linux on server?
    I think you do not understand how a majority of free software works. We function fine and the software you get on a computer is not free.

    Yeah the prize money surely helped but their average income was still quite low when you keep in mind they were one of the best in their field and very hard working. So if you would value people by income they would not look that much special, which is exactly why this approach is hopelessly naive.
    Okay get stats because, while not rich, many of these Nobel prize winners make 100K or more. Their salaries are much better than most nurses and high school and lower teachers. Now, you may mean worldly, but they make a damn good salary, on average, in America.

    Edit:
    Hold on, I'll do it myself.
    http://open.salon.com/blog/daveintok..._laureate_make

    I'll look for better sources later and world wide.
    UCLA
    Louis Ignarro, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, 1998. 2009 salary: $380304

    UCSB
    David Gross, Nobel Prize in Physics, 2004. 2009 salary: $399062
    Salary rank at UCSB: 2

    Alan Heeger, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2000. 2009 salary: $312266
    Salary rank at UCSB: 6

    Herbert Kroemer, Nobel Prize in Physics, 2000. 2009 salary: $290928
    Salary rank at UCSB: 12

    Finn Kydland, Nobel Prize in Economics, 2004. 2009 salary: $402696
    Salary rank at UCSB: 1

    Walter Kohn, Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1998. 2009 salary: N/A
    Salary rank at UCSB: N/A

    UC Berkeley

    George Akerlof, Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences 2001. 2007 salary (higher than 2009 so I used that):$266,359
    Salary rank at UC Berkely (equiv for 2009): 73

    George Smoot, Nobel prize in Physics 2006. 2008 salary (higher than 2009): $160,650
    Salary rank at UC Berkely (equiv for 2009): 630

    UCSF

    UC San Francisco is UC's medical only campus. It's a top notch teaching hospital.

    UC San Francisco:

    Stanley Prusiner, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 1997. 2009 salary: $803617
    Salary rank at UCSF: 4
    Elizabeth Blackburn, Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2009. 2009 salary: $251,076
    Salary rank at UCSF: 480

    UCSD

    Harry Markowitz, Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences, 1990. 2009 salary: $122731
    Salary rank at UCSD: 1691
    Mario Molia, Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 1995. 2009 salary: $142393
    Salary rank at UCSD: 1245
    Now, the link is interesting because you always hear about how football coaches are grossly overpaid, I agree, but I had no clue that there was some false outrage going on. There are scientist and Doctors making high 6 and 7 figure salaries at some of those colleges. Thanks for bringing it up, I now have a new point to argue when people start griping about coaches.
    Last edited by It is Fake; 8/27/2013 10:39am at .
  3. killface is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    227

    Posted On:
    8/27/2013 10:13am


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by OwlMatt View Post
    Not to mention the more fundamental problem that such a measure is essentially a declaration that poor Joe Citizen is too stupid to make decisions for himself and needs wise mommy government to tell him what's good for him by spanking him on the wallet.
    No it is more of a declaration that you have to pay for the damage you cause. Just like we do with tobacco and many other things. Nothing special.
  4. killface is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    227

    Posted On:
    8/27/2013 10:33am


     Style: BJJ

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    He never said mothers aren't valuable, or when you switched it to parents. You changed his point to fit what you wanted to argue. He just acknowledge that raising kids is crucial, you just misunderstood his initial point and his response filled with sarcasm.
    He used sarcasm? I completely missed that part,sorry.

    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    I think you do not understand how a majority of free software works. We function fine and the software you get on a computer is not free.
    Eh,what do you mean? Most server use an free OS. Most tools for developer are free software. I could do without any proprietary software but not without free software.

    Quote Originally Posted by It is Fake View Post
    Okay get stats because, while not rich, many of these Nobel prize winners make 100K or more. No, not rich but much better than most nurses and high school and lower teachers.
    I did not claim that Nobel prize winners are all poor. I know that the Curie family was quite poor, it probably got better after they got the Nobel prize in Physics though. It was simply the first thing that came to mind when I thought about poor scientists. Also these are very high qualified people so we need to compare them with other highly qualified people in other fields.
  5. atheistmantis is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    446

    Posted On:
    8/27/2013 10:35am

    supporting member
     Style: Tang Soo Don't Retired

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by goodlun View Post
    We already do, a vist to a critical care unit is hardly free. It has a monetary value, one that suggest that a human life is worth quite a bit.
    I worked at a county facility where most couldnt pay due to lack of insurance.
  6. It is Fake is offline
    It is Fake's Avatar

    Administrator

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    33,973

    Posted On:
    8/27/2013 11:01am

    staff
     Style: xingyi

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    I'm not going to argue with you about free software. You are adding caveats. Goodlun is in that field or was, he'll explain it better.

    Quote Originally Posted by killface View Post

    I did not claim that Nobel prize winners are all poor.
    Good lord dude I have no clue why you argue in a vague fashion, then immediately become specific when challenged. Where did I say or imply you made that claim?

    Here's what you said:
    Yeah the prize money surely helped but their average income was still quite low when you keep in mind they were one of the best in their field and very hard working. So if you would value people by income they would not look that much special, which is exactly why this approach is hopelessly naive.
    I don't agree with goodlun's theory, but these guys aren't always low income in America.
    Also these are very high qualified people so we need to compare them with other highly qualified people in other fields.
    No, this is an entirely different argument. Being underpaid, compared to your peers, is different than "their average income is still quite low." Especially when we put it into the context of the Curie Family being poor example, which you have used twice.
  7. OwlMatt is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    890

    Posted On:
    8/27/2013 11:49am


     Style: aikido

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by killface View Post
    No it is more of a declaration that you have to pay for the damage you cause. Just like we do with tobacco and many other things. Nothing special.
    I don't like this kind of thinking. Yes, it's technically true that my health affects others, but if you follow this reasoning to its natural conclusion you have a justification for putting government in charge of every decision I make about my own health.

    Quote Originally Posted by doofaloofa View Post
    You say Nanny State, I say prudent economic planning
    Economic prudence has been the justification for all kinds of horrible things. Our education system has been gutted in the name of economic prudence. Do you really want a government that is in the business of telling you what to eat and punishing you for not eating what they think you should eat?
    Last edited by OwlMatt; 8/27/2013 11:54am at .
  8. OwlMatt is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    890

    Posted On:
    8/27/2013 12:43pm


     Style: aikido

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by doofaloofa View Post
    I think you are mistaking prudence for austerity
    I think you are making an artificial distinction.

    That sound like an argument for decriminalising drugs.
    The difference between drugs and sugar is that one can argue that the mind-altering and addictive properties of drugs actually cause a loss of free will and judgement. But I actually do think some drugs should be decriminalized.
    Besides, these kinds of mesures don't prohibit any set of negative behaviors, only encorage positive behaviors.
    Punishment of a negative behavior is not encouragement of positive behavior. By the way, who says the consumption of sugar is a negative behavior?
    No one is saying Joe Citizen may not eat sugar, only charging him in advance for the enevitable health consiquences of thier consumption
    Except you're not just charging the unhealthy people who eat sugar in excess. Everyone eats sugar; you're charging everyone.
    Are you against Insurance companys chargeing more for Health/Life insurance to smokers
    Health insurance companies aren't governments. I did not elect my health insurance provider as a representative.
  9. RurikGreenwulf is offline

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    ROU
    Posts
    1,239

    Posted On:
    8/27/2013 12:46pm


     Style: Humbleness

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Time to learn I guess

    What do you people think the role of the state should be in?

    What is wealth and how to measure it ?


    I hope you make your grand-grand-grandfather proud with your answers!


  10. goodlun is online now
    goodlun's Avatar

    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ramona
    Posts
    5,079

    Posted On:
    8/27/2013 1:37pm

    Join us... or die
     Style: BJJ

    1
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Quote Originally Posted by OwlMatt View Post
    Not to mention the more fundamental problem that such a measure is essentially a declaration that poor Joe Citizen is too stupid to make decisions for himself and needs wise mommy government to tell him what's good for him by spanking him on the wallet.
    I tend to agree that keeping the government out of things is a good idea expect when their is an obvious need to govern.
    according to the CDC the
    Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are obese: 35.9% (2009-2010)
    Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are overweight, including obesity: 69.2% (2009-2010)
    These stats are rising and clearly show you something is going on and the ability for the average to take charge of this area of their life is difficult. It can be a combination of ridiculous addictive ingredients, constant psychological warfare(in the form of adverts) and an education system that glosses over science and other foundations that allow people to make informed decisions. Thus maybe its time for the government to take steps.
    Quote Originally Posted by killface View Post
    The point is that the work of raising children is not paid but still crucial for society.
    Wrong there is a monetary value to raising children its you see it two forms paid help in doing so Nanny and daycare s and you see it in opportunity cost of stay at home parents that is a real cost. Are you telling me the stay at home mommy is contributing more to society than the one that works and takes care of their kids you know like most families in America? My wife is a stay at home mother she contributes to this household, she doesn't contribute to society at large. We can also suggest that part of my contributions to society are also a part of hers but we cannot really make an argument her staying at home is helping you out at all now can we?

    Quote Originally Posted by killface View Post
    What do you mean? We could hardly do anything without free software. Linux on server?
    Red Hat Revenue $1.13 billion (2012) tell me more about this "free" software you speak of.

    Quote Originally Posted by killface View Post
    Well it was only an theoretical example. The idea that usefulness for society can be measured by how much you get paid seems quite silly for me.
    We get that you think its silly. Also I didn't say what you get paid I said your ability to generate money. A Dr Volunteering his time is doing something good for society. He isn't making money doing so. However that time has a value = the market rate for his service. That market rate is a good indication of how much good he is doing for society.

    Quote Originally Posted by killface View Post
    Working in marketing is totally useless for society but you can still make some good money. A patent lawyer makes a shitload of money even-though his use for society is fishy at the best. Everything "law" is quite overrated.
    Now your just being stupid. Marketing obviously holds a huge value in society online ad spending alone topped 100 billion dollars. Guess what pays for the site your using right now in part Ads bought by people doing marketing. Guess what pays for the news and virtually everything else that is "free" yep marketing peoples.
    Seriously are you going to say protecting Intellectual property is fishy at best? So an inventor of a product should have no protections? So basically you want only the biggest firms to succeed. This is what happens without patents guy in his basement comes up with a really novel product. He then takes it to the market place. Mega Corp sees the product and goes cool we can make that for less and steal the product. Mega Corp wins the basement guy looses now his sounds like it in itself would be good for society as Mega Corp can make it cheaper but the drive for innovation or more aptly the drive to take innovation to the market place is seriously diminished hurting society.

    Quote Originally Posted by killface View Post
    Oh and what happens when I get a pay rise. Am I magically more useful for society than before?
    Yes, well not magically. You have gotten your raise assuming for performing better at your job. It could be a cost of living adjustment which just means your being brought back in line with what your value to society should be.

    Quote Originally Posted by killface View Post
    I don’t agree with your understanding of investment banking but that topic is probably better served an other time.
    Got it you don't understand economics but you want to argue about them.

    Quote Originally Posted by killface View Post
    The problem here is that the people that earn the most money don’t do so by working harder
    How cute you think hard work has anything to do with the value someone adds to society.
    Also define hard work. Who works harder a Manger, Project Manager, Construction Worker, Engineer, Doctor, Retail Clerk?
    Also don't discount how hard managers do work that **** isn't easy.

    Quote Originally Posted by killface View Post
    Just because someone inherited a shitload of money from his parents does not make him a useful member of society.
    You seem to be confused I never said its how much money someone has but how much they can earn.


    Quote Originally Posted by killface View Post
    Yeah the prize money surely helped but their average income was still quite low when you keep in mind they were one of the best in their field and very hard working. So if you would value people by income they would not look that much special, which is exactly why this approach is hopelessly naive.
    The reason they where special is because the won the prizes. If they didn't do prize winning work they wouldn't be special at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by killface View Post
    I did not claim that Nobel prize winners are all poor. I know that the Curie family was quite poor, it probably got better after they got the Nobel prize in Physics though. It was simply the first thing that came to mind when I thought about poor scientists. Also these are very high qualified people so we need to compare them with other highly qualified people in other fields.
    Ones qualifications doesn't exactly equate to ones contributions to society. Results are what contribute. Once again noble prize, grants, actionable research all result in money changing hands. Just getting a PHD does nothing.


    Quote Originally Posted by atheistmantis View Post
    I worked at a county facility where most couldnt pay due to lack of insurance.
    It is quite common but the services provided still have a price tag and a high one. Heck even with insurance a trip to the ICU can hurt you in the pocket book. Someone ends up paying for it in the end. The staff still get paid, the drugs still get used, the cost associated are all still there.

    Quote Originally Posted by RurikGreenwulf View Post
    Time to learn I guess

    What do you people think the role of the state should be in?
    That is a damn good question. One to answer properly would take a long answer. A short answer is to help keep a level playing field by doing their part to prevent abusive and negative behavior out of people/organisations. Defining negative behavior becomes tricky.


    Quote Originally Posted by RurikGreenwulf View Post
    What is wealth and how to measure it ?
    For me its free time. We only have so much time on this earth so the more of it I can spend on me and mine the better. I am happy that I only work a 30 hr week and my wife doesn't have to work at all so I get to spend a lot of time with my family. Of course free time without having one needs meet would suck. So I will throw that out their free time after the rent/mortgage has been paid, food is on the table and the ability to not fret over money too much.


    I
Page 8 of 26 FirstFirst ... 45678 910111218 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.