What if everyone intelligent would go on strike

[Ghost of the dead horse]

..and not say or do anything intelligent unless paid for? These people would just perform to average standard in everything, and they would be like an average person for practically every purpose.

Nobody would participate in the strike by witholding those skills that they are already paid to use. If someone is underpaid, they would underperform while in strike.

When hearing that someone is starting their business in a pyramid scheme, they would withold their criticism, and let the soon-to-be-entrepeneur fail miserably.

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.

When some of our acquintances would not know how to install their latest software, we would refuse to give advice for free.

Intelligent persons would not use their free time to arrange information in the internet for anyone to use freely.

When a national leader is being voted for, and there's a choise between a popularizing numbnut and a sensible person, they would vote for the numbnut.

In short, intelligent people would stop satisfying their needs for expression (which is why they give their intelligence away) and they would start thinking about the bottom line.

What on earth keeps them from doing that? Why do intelligent people flood the world with their economically valuable "products" that they give for free or for reduced price? WHat could justify such economically idiotic behaviour? It's not all just charity. Is it lack of knowledge? Is it the desire for self-expression? Is it because of the lack of selling skills?

One practical example: I was applying for a job as a computer specialist. I came to know that in that company,(during the last boom 'bout 7-8 years ago) people worked for 12 hours a day, for their 8 hour salary. Oh my oh my why they do so? They were so interested of their job, in an impractical way, that they give huge amounts of their work effort for free!!! What on earth could make a person behave in such impractical way? It was detrimental for my career development, because I did not enter the IT sector at the time. I thought that everyone giving their work for free was fucking nuts. By doing that, they diluted the value of their work. I was surely going to be paid less from my efforts, because the value of unit of work had declined. The said persons would have been employed anyway, even though they all had done just 8 hour work day.

So, bottom line, why don't intelligent people unite and stop giving their intelligence away for free?

Disclaimer: this post includes factual elements, but also elements presented in other than strictly factual purpose. Finding the style of each of the element is left as an exercise to the reader. The author takes no responsibility for failed interpretations. /end disclaimer

 

[substitute]

I don't mind giving my intelligence away for free, because money isn't the main thing I work for, it isn't the main condition.

Now, I might consider going on strike, not demanding better pay, but demanding less inverse-snobbery. You know, the part where everyone relies on your intelligence, and yet resents you for it, giving you a wide berth because of their distrust of your intelligence, and then attributing your aloofness from the crowd to you being snobbish on account of your higher intelligence. If I were to strike, I'd simply wipe the existence of anyone who called me a snob based purely on the fact that I used a 'big word' or pointed out that someone was wrong, etc., from my reality/acknowledgement, and refuse to do anything with, for or involving them.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

I hate those double standards as well.

 

[Economica]

Two words: Atlas Shrugged.

The main conflict of the book occurs as the "individuals of the mind" go on strike, refusing to contribute their inventions, art, business leadership, scientific research, or new ideas of any kind to the rest of the world. Society, they believe, hampers them by interfering with their work and underpays them by confiscating the profits and dignity they have rightfully earned. The peaceful cohesiveness of the world requires those individuals whose productive work comes from mental effort. But feeling they have no alternative, they eventually start disappearing from the communities of "looters" and "moochers" who bleed them dry. The strikers believe that they are crucial to a society that exploits them, and the near-total collapse of civilization triggered by their strike shows them to be correct.

Edit: ... And my standard disclaimer:

Essay about the benefits and hazards of reading Ayn Rand:

(Ayn Rand) used to say to me, "I don't know anything about psychology, Nathaniel." I wish I had taken her more seriously. She was right; she knew next to nothing about psychology. What neither of us understood, however, was how disastrous an omission that is in a philosopher in general and a moralist in particular. The most devastating single omission in her system and the one that causes most of the trouble for her followers is the absence of any real appreciation of human psychology and, more specifically, of developmental psychology, of how human beings evolve and become what they are and of how they can change.

 

[Blackwater]

anybody can say that they are intelligent so they have to show it in order to prove it and that involves freebies

 

[Totenkindly]

And who is an "average person" again, and who is an "intelligent person"?

Most of the "intelligent people" I know by the apparent definition here stink in areas of life where the "average person" excels.

And what of all the tasks an "intelligent person" doesn't know how to perform, or doesn't CARE to perform?

I think withholding one's talents from society because society doesn't deserve them really sounds more like a lack of understanding on the "intelligent person's" part about how much of their current lifestyle is dependent on the "average person's" knowledge and efforts.

To put it another way, people do not exist in vacuums, especially in a modern technological society where specialization is necessary and no one is self-sufficient any longer.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

And who is an "average person" again, and who is an "intelligent person"?

No-one needs to be concerned about the definitions of intelligence in this scenario. I am only concerned about the marketable intelligence which brings value to the system, as decided by the market value of intelligent creations in a free market. A price paid is a proof of marginal increase in utility for the purchaser with the assumption of rational marketplace.

Most of the "intelligent people" I know by the apparent definition here stink in areas of life where the "average person" excels.

If someone feels that they can get a better price on whatever skills they excel in, I welcome them to do just that.

And what of all the tasks an "intelligent person" doesn't know how to perform, or doesn't CARE to perform?

Then such skills can't be marketed in an efficient marketplace. The knowledge of such skills might be, tho.

I think withholding one's talents from society because society doesn't deserve them really sounds more like a lack of understanding on the "intelligent person's" part about how much of their current lifestyle is dependent on the "average person's" knowledge and efforts.

I was talking about the net effect intelligent people give to society, and I was seeing it from an economical perspective. There has been examples where previously freely distributed commodity have got a price tag attached to it, and it has led to better utilization for said commodity, plus profits for the supplier. This proposition of mine does not require (or benefit from) a collapse of the system. You have also not proposed a mechanism which would enable the "average" to capitalize on their possibilities.

I think it's evident why it is so. By the definiton, average are average and hence do not have a leverage against the average, in average

To put it another way, people do not exist in vacuums, especially in a modern technological society where specialization is necessary and no one is self-sufficient any longer.

Yes, that is exactly why the intelligent would have the bargaining power to get a better price for their efforts. You see, I wouldn't have the intelligent to withhold their contributions in situations where they get a good price for them in return. If some price wouldn't be paid of their contributions, in the absense of free, public good, obviously the skills being marketed wouldn't be that valuable.

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.

 

[still water]

And again, what's considered "intelligent" by some may be considered "drivel" by others.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

And again, what's considered "intelligent" by some may be considered "drivel" by others.

Read point 1 in my response to jen.

I laugh when people try to think an issue away by pointing out difficulties in definition.

 

[Athenian200]

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.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

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.

 

[Totenkindly]

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?

 

[Athenian200]

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.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

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.

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

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".

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

 

[Economica]

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:

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...

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.

 

[Totenkindly]

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).

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

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.

 

[Economica]

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?

 

[Ghost of the dead horse]

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.