User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 31

  1. #11
    filling some space UnitOfPopulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    3,272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    Well, how do you propose to convince intelligent people to go on strike? Most of them enjoy sharing their knowledge so much that they would feel suffocated if they had to limit themselves to what they were paid to show.
    Good, old-fashioned showing the error of their ways.

    In a more (but not completely) serious way, showing that it doesn't yield the maximum profits. Giving away info can be the end by itself for some, so they can't be helped.

    Others hope to "advertise" their intellect in the hope that they get selected for a well-paying job, for example. It's like offering a free sampler. In this case, it suffices to appeal to rationality, and to point out that restricting the free give-a-ways the people are forced to pay for what they want.

  2. #12
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Santtu View Post
    What I am telling is that intelligent work, ideas and such would have a higher price sticker on them, and a greater total volume of sales, if the free sources of such intelligent creations would be abolished. This would work as a greater incentive to produce intellegent results, and a greater understanding in how intelligence would be put to use, and where it is required. Such improved system efficiency would improve most everyone's lot in the life.
    Well, now that you've reduced to market/economic terms, isn't that in essence what the United States / western culture already has -- a free enterprise system?

    Where intelligent people are able to create their own products and market their contributions to the average person, and sink or swim on their own merits?

    Essentially intelligent people are perfectly free to market themselves at whatever price they wish... and this is in fact what happens. When people go to a job interview, don't they decide either to take the job at the offered price, reject the job altogether, or counter-offer with a new salary figure? Aren't people allowed to hop jobs from one place to another, based on what salary and perks they receive?

    Right now it seems to me that your general concept is already part of the free-enterprise market, where everyone is permitted to demand whatever compensation they desire, and the market will either bear it or will reject it.

    (We all saw the results of individuals OVERPRICING their contributions in the stock-market net bursting of the late 90's).

    And if a number of intelligent people want to leave their current employment to band together to create their own products, they are free to do so. Many fail... ultimately because the value of their intelligent ideas was not as great as they originally anticipated.

    So what exactly are you suggesting as an alternative?
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  3. #13
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Santtu View Post
    Good, old-fashioned showing the error of their ways.

    In a more (but not completely) serious way, showing that it doesn't yield the maximum profits. Giving away info can be the end by itself for some, so they can't be helped.

    Others hope to "advertise" their intellect in the hope that they get selected for a well-paying job, for example. It's like offering a free sampler. In this case, it suffices to appeal to rationality, and to point out that restricting the free give-a-ways the people are forced to pay for what they want.
    That's extremely Te. Only a Te would be motivated by that. The other problem is, some wouldn't be motivated by money as much, as you admitted. Therefore, the few who wanted to charge a premium for their information would be ignored in favor of those who offer it freely. That's why people who discuss psychology rely on MBTI and Jungian theory instead of some of the tests people have to pay for, because all the data about how they work, and the forms of measurement, are freely available. Also, having something available without being allowed to see how it works inhibits understanding.

    You're talking about making knowledge like Proprietary software, which I usually oppose vehemently because it creates so much dependency on a particular company, and such an unfair lock into their demands.

  4. #14
    filling some space UnitOfPopulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    3,272

    Default

    This proposal would work on the same system, so I am not suggesting a revisal on that. I would advise anyone selling their skills to be more aggressive in their pricing, and not get soft in their price demands because they get to do "something that they like".

    In some cases, there can be a huge difference between the cost to produce a unit of resource (intelligent product) and the market price for such resource. People are good in what is known at "satisfying", i.e. finding the conditions where they are satisfied. This is detrimental to the process of getting the most of anything.

    People also hold the false conclusion that it would often be too hard to get more than what one is satisfied with, so that they stop negotiating if they are unaware that they could demand a better price.

    Think it from employer's perspective. Imagine that we have 100 nurses wanting to come to work in the hospital. Most of them are inclined to care-taking, and they have marketable skills for their position, and they have invested in getting their education. But then in the end, they give in to lower salary offers, because they like the work so much. They are emotionally attached to working in that sector, more so than the management, so that the management has more emotional and financial leverage.

    It could be argued that working in a job you like is worth more than money.

    True. However, it can further be argued that by hiding their natural interest to the work in question they could demand a better pay. Their services are ultimately needed, and if it's greatly profitable at the current level, they could bargain to have a greater share of the profits.

  5. #15
    filling some space UnitOfPopulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    3,272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    Therefore, the few who wanted to charge a premium for their information would be ignored in favor of those who offer it freely.
    It would only be possible to lift those prices that are not optimally high already. Such sales exist, like when a person accepts a job he/she likes "because s/he gets to do what they want". Even in those cases, the prices could go up by only to that amount where there is an alternative, better offer available.

    There's some slack in many prices, because of personal reasons. People don't lose their personal values by pretending to disregard them in negotiations, so why not pretend. Employers want to give us so little money as they can. I consider it fair to return the favour and to demands as much as we can.

    Same goes for giving professional advice to distant friends "because it is so easy for the one who knows". You can see what is the balance of such exchange, where person A has much transferrable knowledge and the person B has not. If the person B doesn't see it worthy to do something practical (of equal value) to person A, because it's "too much trouble", it would be better to not give that help, in the line of this proposed "strike".

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    You're talking about making knowledge like Proprietary software, which I usually oppose vehemently because it creates so much dependency on a particular company, and such an unfair lock into their demands.
    Sounds good to me. I would spend a lot less time in the net if there was no free information there, lol.

    I must emphasize that it's not probable for this shift in society to occur, to say the least

  6. #16
    Dhampyr Economica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,054

    Default

    Oops. I previously reacted only to the title of the thread. I see now that the content of the OP deviates from what I assumed.

    However, Blackwater said what I would have said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Blackwater View Post
    anybody can say that they are intelligent so they have to show it in order to prove it and that involves freebies
    Information is a good of, uh, so-called asymmetric information ; the seller (sometimes) knows what the information is worth, but the buyer (usually) does not. That is why information is not traded as efficiently as, say, wheat.

    To illustrate...

    Quote Originally Posted by Santtu View Post
    When their boss would announce a business plan with fundamental flaw in it, the intelligent person would sell their information to the company, instead of of announcing it in the meeting.
    ... How exactly do you propose to do this? Stand up and announce "I see a fundamental flaw in this plan - give me x amount of money and I will explain it to you"? If they pay you first, they run the risk of being suckered; if they pay you after, you run the risk of being suckered.

  7. #17
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Santtu View Post
    True. However, it can further be argued that by hiding their natural interest to the work in question they could demand a better pay. Their services are ultimately needed, and if it's greatly profitable at the current level, they could bargain to have a greater share of the profits.
    Again, don't they already have the ability to do this built into the current system? Because you continuing to push the issue, I am going to assume that you feel that they do not -- or at least the ability to do so is hampered in some way.

    So what exactly are you suggesting, specifically (not just theoretically)?

    - Should nurses have a union? (I think some actually do.)

    - Do hospitals themselves make money enough to pay nurses more? (I don't think they do, but I could be naive; still, my mother's been a nurse all of her life, and my understanding is that the pharmaceutical companies is where the money goes, and most doctors prefer private practice if possible).
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  8. #18
    filling some space UnitOfPopulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    3,272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Economica View Post
    Information is a good of asymmetric information; the seller (sometimes) knows what the information is worth, but the buyer (usually) does not. That is why information is not traded as efficiently as, say, wheat.

    To illustrate...

    ... How exactly do you propose to do this? Stand up and announce "I see a fundamental flaw in this plan - give me x amount of money and I will explain it to you"? If they pay you first, they run the risk of being suckered; if they pay you after, you run the risk of being suckered.
    That would be done by establishing a profession of information arbitrators, a neutral party who would evaluate what worth an idea would hold. People could choose their arbitrators according to whom they think will do the job best. Obviously there would be lot of after-thought and analysis to judge all the "information sales" to see, what went wrong (or right).

    This would put pieces of information a barrier to entry. Only such pieces of information could be effectively traded, where there is profit from the information transaction. The profits would be divided to three parties, too, but I guess it's unavoidable.

  9. #19
    Dhampyr Economica's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    2,054

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Santtu View Post
    That would be done by establishing a profession of information arbitrators, a neutral party who would evaluate what worth an idea would hold. People could choose their arbitrators according to whom they think will do the job best. Obviously there would be lot of after-thought and analysis to judge all the "information sales" to see, what went wrong (or right).
    ... Kinda like the neutral economic planners in communism who in the absence of market mechanisms figure out the prices that should prevail and the transactions that should be made?

  10. #20
    filling some space UnitOfPopulation's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Posts
    3,272

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Again, don't they already have the ability to do this built into the current system? Because you continuing to push the issue, I am going to assume that you feel that they do not -- or at least the ability to do so is hampered in some way.

    So what exactly are you suggesting, specifically (not just theoretically)?

    - Should nurses have a union? (I think some actually do.)

    - Do hospitals themselves make money enough to pay nurses more? (I don't think they do, but I could be naive; still, my mother's been a nurse all of her life, and my understanding is that the pharmaceutical companies is where the money goes, and most doctors prefer private practice if possible).
    I took that example, because I've recently thought that nurses were already compansated adequately in here, and then noticed that case wasn't so. The topic has been in major news quite often lately, and it was brought to spotlight in our recent parlamentary election. I suggested the example because I thought that their desire to take care of people and sacrifice themselves in order to help the sick is what keeps their salary relatively low in our country.

    They are not completely badly paid, just low paid compared both to amount of education they have done, the value of their work and the salary that they could demand if they were convinced of that possibility.

    The national healthcare funds have been tightened in here during the last 2 decades. Many nurses are people who know that the funds aren't getting to be improved, so they don't collectively expect to have a greater salary. This kind of thinking perpetuates to decrease the average wages in the sector in comparison to average purchasing power of educated professionals.

    In short, the system is fooling the nurses who volunteer part of their job due to their care for humanity, which the management (and the larger system as a whole) is happy to exploit.

    This is a parallel topic, here the people are giving (part of) their emotional efforts away for free, for the love of utilizing the relevant skills and the desire to put them into practice. Again, it's being exploited by those who can.

Similar Threads

  1. What if everyone had a gun?
    By Azure Flame in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 122
    Last Post: 09-04-2013, 11:50 PM
  2. What if everyone had a trust fund?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-19-2013, 08:53 AM
  3. What if your hands could go through each other?
    By Idec Sdawkminn in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-22-2011, 06:38 AM
  4. Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-02-2010, 10:56 PM
  5. What if Ns weren't allowed on the internet?
    By 527468 in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 05-25-2009, 11:53 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO