there are two main philosophies in life

[Treedbear]

...all men are equal and deserve equal pay for equal work

This is problematic because (as @Treedbear noted) its not necessarily true that every worker equally needs the same pay.
And because the person buying - paying for - that worker's labor ought to have an option to decide whose labor they prefer.
...

Excuse me but where did I state any opinion on whether every worker equally needs the same pay? You might have someone else in mind. I actually haven't formulated an argument either way, mainly because it would imply there's some legal means to enforce it. The best we can do so far is having anti-discrimination laws. But those only work for larger companies where patterns of behavior can be established.

The workers who were hired about five in the afternoon came and each received a denarius. So when those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’

“But he answered one of them, ‘I am not being unfair to you, friend. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the one who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’

See Matthew 20:9:15

That landowner wasn't doing himself any favors. What happened the next day? How many workers showed up early for the same pay they could have expected by showing up late? One interpretation of the parable is that God provides for his people's needs simply out of his generosity without regard for any works they perform. But employers aren't God, and they tend not to act with such magnanimous generosity. That's why we need government that will step in an provide for basic needs. Whether someone shows up for work early in the morning or at 5 in the afternoon.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

https://leanin.org/equal-pay-data-a...MIh9GMxOSK7QIVlJJbCh3NfwneEAAYASABEgKdPPD_BwE

The wage gap between women and men still stubbornly remains. And for black women, and Hispanic women, it is even worse. We get a lot of "Taxation is theft!" crap from the far right, but yet this wage theft caused by systematic misogyny and racism is acceptable to the right. Our right winged politicians in Washington, many of them loudly Christian and religious, playing to a largely Christian right wing base have never bothered to address any of this open wage theft.

 

[Lion IRC]

...where did I state any opinion on whether every worker equally needs the same pay?

Where did I actually state that you held a particular opinion?

My take on your post here was that its not necessarily true that every worker needs or deserves equal pay even if there were some theoretical entitlement.

depends on the context....no moral absolutes...hybrid system...etc etc

 

[Lion IRC]

And its NOT necessarily true that two workers - even if they are theoretically performing identical work - deserve the exact same payment. Their cost of living might be substantially different and so in REAL terms the effect/result of paying them the same amount would be unfair outcomes.

Worker A lives in Sydney where rents are high.
Worker B lives in New York where rents are low.

Why should worker B expect the same wage as someone living in Sydney?

 

[no-one-particular]

A pizza parlor waitress asks a customer if he wants the pizza cut into four pieces or six pieces or eight pieces. The customer then declares that he wants either four or six pieces of pizza “because I can’t eat eight.” Of course, the size of the pie is unchanged; the eight slices are merely smaller.

 

[Lion IRC]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/274326/big-mac-index-global-prices-for-a-big-mac/

 

[atrib]

...all men are equal and deserve equal pay for equal work

This is problematic because (as @Treedbear noted) its not necessarily true that every worker equally needs the same pay.
And because the person buying - paying for - that worker's labor ought to have an option to decide whose labor they prefer.

There's a lot of equal pay gender politics going on in sport and entertainment but I don't recall hearing those wimmin arguing that ALL female actors, singers, soccer players... should be paid the same.

If they do the same amount of the same type of work then they should receive the same pay

Why? There are no intrinsic laws of nature that make this statement true. We, as a society, decide the answers to questions like these.

Note that I am not saying that the above principle is a good or a bad principle. I am saying that we get to choose what principles to implement to build the societies we are a part of. There is no right or wrong answer, only subjective opinions.

 

[no-one-particular]

If they do the same amount of the same type of work then they should receive the same pay

Why? There are no intrinsic laws of nature that make this statement true. We, as a society, decide the answers to questions like these.

Note that I am not saying that the above principle is a good or a bad principle. I am saying that we get to choose what principles to implement to build the societies we are a part of. There is no right or wrong answer, only subjective opinions.

For the same reason we have laws against theft.
Because it is theft. It is stealing labor by not paying its true value.

 

[atrib]

If they do the same amount of the same type of work then they should receive the same pay

Why? There are no intrinsic laws of nature that make this statement true. We, as a society, decide the answers to questions like these.

Note that I am not saying that the above principle is a good or a bad principle. I am saying that we get to choose what principles to implement to build the societies we are a part of. There is no right or wrong answer, only subjective opinions.

For the same reason we have laws against theft.
Because it is theft. It is stealing labor by not paying its true value.

You didn't address my question, or the other point I raised. Value is subjective. Society gets to decide what the value of something is.

 

[no-one-particular]

For the same reason we have laws against theft.
Because it is theft. It is stealing labor by not paying its true value.

You didn't address my question, or the other point I raised. Value is subjective. Society gets to decide what the value of something is.

yes and once the value of a given amount of work has been determined then that is its value everywhere and for everyone.

The intrinsic law of nature is this: the universe does not revolve around your ego. You are not special. If you want others to respect your rights then you must respect their rights. If you want others to pay you what your work is worth then you must pay others what their work is worth. just because you feel like you are special and deserve more money for the same amount of work doesn't mean that you do. Logic and reason care nothing about your feelings.

 

[Bomb#20]

If they do the same amount of the same type of work then they should receive the same pay

Why? ...

For the same reason we have laws against theft.
Because it is theft. It is stealing labor by not paying its true value.

So you are claiming that what we should do follows from a fact about "true value". If Lion IRC were to claim that what we should do follows from a fact about "God", you would ask him if he had evidence that "God" exists, wouldn't you? So I ask you. Do you have evidence that "true value" exists?

 

[no-one-particular]

For the same reason we have laws against theft.
Because it is theft. It is stealing labor by not paying its true value.

So you are claiming that what we should do follows from a fact about "true value". If Lion IRC were to claim that what we should do follows from a fact about "God", you would ask him if he had evidence that "God" exists, wouldn't you? So I ask you. Do you have evidence that "true value" exists?

You havent been following along

For the same reason we have laws against theft.
Because it is theft. It is stealing labor by not paying its true value.

You didn't address my question, or the other point I raised. Value is subjective. Society gets to decide what the value of something is.

yes and once the value of a given amount of work has been determined then that is its value everywhere and for everyone.

The intrinsic law of nature is this: the universe does not revolve around your ego. You are not special. If you want others to respect your rights then you must respect their rights. If you want others to pay you what your work is worth then you must pay others what their work is worth. just because you feel like you are special and deserve more money for the same amount of work doesn't mean that you do. Logic and reason care nothing about your feelings.

 

[4321lynx]

You havent been following along

For the same reason we have laws against theft.
Because it is theft. It is stealing labor by not paying its true value.

You didn't address my question, or the other point I raised. Value is subjective. Society gets to decide what the value of something is.

yes and once the value of a given amount of work has been determined then that is its value everywhere and for everyone.

The intrinsic law of nature is this: the universe does not revolve around your ego. You are not special. If you want others to respect your rights then you must respect their rights. If you want others to pay you what your work is worth then you must pay others what their work is worth. just because you feel like you are special and deserve more money for the same amount of work doesn't mean that you do. Logic and reason care nothing about your feelings.

The problem is that "society's" feelings care nothing about your logic and reason. That's real life. Not a good prospect for a judge what the value of anything is.
How are you going to make them care? Like Stalin did? Pol Pot? Hitler? Castro? Mussolini? Mao? Franco? Attila? The Islamists past and present? Christianity? The Hebrews past and present? Or is it all a semantic game for you, all "blah, blah, blah and look how clever I am"?

 

[no-one-particular]

You havent been following along

You didn't address my question, or the other point I raised. Value is subjective. Society gets to decide what the value of something is.

yes and once the value of a given amount of work has been determined then that is its value everywhere and for everyone.

The intrinsic law of nature is this: the universe does not revolve around your ego. You are not special. If you want others to respect your rights then you must respect their rights. If you want others to pay you what your work is worth then you must pay others what their work is worth. just because you feel like you are special and deserve more money for the same amount of work doesn't mean that you do. Logic and reason care nothing about your feelings.

The problem is that "society's" feelings care nothing about your logic and reason. That's real life.

Well thats the problem isnt it?

Crime is "real life"? It isnt real life. Real life is perfectly capable of being civilized.

 

[4321lynx]

You havent been following along

yes and once the value of a given amount of work has been determined then that is its value everywhere and for everyone.

The intrinsic law of nature is this: the universe does not revolve around your ego. You are not special. If you want others to respect your rights then you must respect their rights. If you want others to pay you what your work is worth then you must pay others what their work is worth. just because you feel like you are special and deserve more money for the same amount of work doesn't mean that you do. Logic and reason care nothing about your feelings.

The problem is that "society's" feelings care nothing about your logic and reason. That's real life.

Well thats the problem isnt it?

Crime is "real life"? It isnt real life. Real life is perfectly capable of being civilized.

I asked you how that is to be done. May I have an answer?

 

[no-one-particular]

Democracy

 

[4321lynx]

I agree, but whose Democracy? That of ancient Athens? Jefferson's? Churchill's? Putin's? Kim Jong-un's? Netanyahu's? The Jesuits'? The Freemasons'? Gandhi's? The Chinese Communist Party's? Maduro's? Yours? 19th century Russian People"s Will as warmed-over by AOC? Remember that over 200 years of American "democracy" gave you and the world a guy called Trump.......

 

[Bomb#20]

Do you have evidence that "true value" exists?

You havent been following along

You didn't address my question, or the other point I raised. Value is subjective. Society gets to decide what the value of something is.

yes and once the value of a given amount of work has been determined then that is its value everywhere and for everyone.

The intrinsic law of nature is this: the universe does not revolve around your ego. ... Logic and reason care nothing about your feelings.

You seem to have misunderstood my question. To continue my earlier analogy, if you were to ask Lion IRC if he had evidence "God" exists, and if he were to reply "You haven't been following along. I'm talking about I AM, the Christian God, the Creator. Just because your arrogance won't let you accept Him doesn't mean He doesn't exist. Reality cares nothing for your ego.", you wouldn't find that a persuasive answer, would you?

I am asking you whether you can exhibit some empirical observation that makes the existence of "true value" more probable.

 

[Lion IRC]

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Its an abstraction. It depends on context. Market forces.

The farmer who grows tobacco might work just as hard as the farmer who grows marijuana. Who decides their income?

 

[no-one-particular]

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Its an abstraction. It depends on context. Market forces.

The farmer who grows tobacco might work just as hard as the farmer who grows marijuana. Who decides their income?

yes and once the value of a given amount of work has been determined then that is its value everywhere and for everyone.

If a farmer can make more money growing marijuana then he will stop growing tobacco and start growing marijuana. The supply of marijuana will increase and the price of marijuana will drop and so will his income.

 

[Lion IRC]

"...once the value of a given amount of work has been determined"

Determined by who?

 

[no-one-particular]

"...once the value of a given amount of work has been determined"

Determined by who?

by market forces.

Did you read the rest?

If a farmer can make more money growing marijuana then he will stop growing tobacco and start growing marijuana. The supply of marijuana will increase and the price of marijuana will drop and so will his income.

 

[4321lynx]

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Its an abstraction. It depends on context. Market forces.

The farmer who grows tobacco might work just as hard as the farmer who grows marijuana. Who decides their income?

Which brings us to the problem of Relative values. How does "society" settle every one of the problems of these to even a minority's moderate satisfaction? At the moment it is the alleged Free Market and Competition, and we know how those turned out, but they, or their perversions, at least work in a crude heartless way, which is arguably better than things not working at all, and being even more crude cruel and heartless than hereto.

 

[fromderinside]

Geez guys. I just talked about empathy cells related to learning cells in species from rat up to humans. Can't be a more obvious basis for morality than something evolving like that. No need to worry about minorities. Whole species have basis for common understanding.

Sure some might talk about survival of the fittest but they have to take into account how one also survives by serving others. How do we keep grandparents in the tribe fercheissake.

 

[Bomb#20]

Value is in the eye of the beholder. Its an abstraction. It depends on context. Market forces.

The farmer who grows tobacco might work just as hard as the farmer who grows marijuana. Who decides their income?

yes and once the value of a given amount of work has been determined then that is its value everywhere and for everyone.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQ023XyNYig&ab_channel=wootendw[/youtube]

 

[fromderinside]

For every unguarded lustful action there is a hitch causing reaction.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

only one main philosophy

1. That all men are equal and deserve equal pay for equal work and equal punishment for equal crimes
   
   
2. That some people are superior to others and deserve more money, honor, and power than the "inferior people" or "inferior races" even if they do the same work

No, those are not the "two main philosophies" people subscribe to. Basically, everyone subscribes to the first philosophy above, and no one to the second. (No one says there are "superior" people who deserve more for the "same" rather than "superior" work.)

But the first one can be worded more correctly:

corrected version: That all men deserve equal pay for equal work and superior pay for superior work and equal punishment for equal crimes.

Virtually everyone subscribes to this philosophy rather than the original two (and even this corrected version can be made more precise).

The phrase "all men are equal" has no meaning that serves any purpose here and so is discarded. The principle is the same even if someone is superior or unequal, because it's only the superior or unequal performance which is rewarded and not the worker's abstract quality of being superior.

Also, the phrase "equal work" and "superior work" has to include whatever is the employer's preference, regardless what anyone else thinks. It even has to include the "work" of having a pretty face and other qualities desired by the employer or the employer's customer. It has to include EVERY value the worker offers to those who pay the cost.

 

[steve_bank]

Democracy is a process to make choices.

Justice does not equate to democracy.

 

[fromderinside]

Democracy is a process to make choices.

Justice does not equate to democracy.

Actually

Democracy is a society where choices are regulated by institutions chosen by those in the society'

Ergo democratic justice is determined to regulate choices made by members of society

so

In a democratic society justice is determined democratically and democratic choice is regulated by democratic justice.

 

[steve_bank]

Democracy is a process to make choices.

Justice does not equate to democracy.

Actually

Democracy is a society where choices are regulated by institutions chosen by those in the society'

Ergo democratic justice is determined to regulate choices made by members of society

so

In a democratic society justice is determined democratically and democratic choice is regulated by democratic justice.

That is a representative system with leaders chosen by a democratic process, elections. In our case we are a democratic republic not a democracy.

The founders did not want democracy thinking it would lead to chaos. We got there anyway.

In a direct democracy everybody directly votes on everything.

China considers itself fair and just to its people, we do not. I agree justice is a set of cultural norms not absolutes.

 

[fromderinside]

I stand corrected.

At least we agree on something.

...and we're two boeing boys.

 

[untermensche]

That is a representative system with leaders chosen by a democratic process, elections. In our case we are a democratic republic not a democracy.

The founders did not want democracy thinking it would lead to chaos. We got there anyway.

In a direct democracy everybody directly votes on everything.

China considers itself fair and just to its people, we do not. I agree justice is a set of cultural norms not absolutes.

The term "democratic republic" means it is a democracy.

Representative democracy is a form of democracy. A perfectly valid form of democracy as long as the representative looks after the interests of all constituents and balances wants with needs and not just the interests of the rich or the interests of the military.

 

[WAB]

That is a representative system with leaders chosen by a democratic process, elections. In our case we are a democratic republic not a democracy.

The founders did not want democracy thinking it would lead to chaos. We got there anyway.

In a direct democracy everybody directly votes on everything.

China considers itself fair and just to its people, we do not. I agree justice is a set of cultural norms not absolutes.

The term "democratic republic" means it is a democracy.

Representative democracy is a form of democracy. A perfectly valid form of democracy as long as the representative looks after the interests of all constituents and balances wants with needs and not just the interests of the rich or the interests of the military.

Unter!

 

[untermensche]

There are only two forms of government.

Some form of democracy. Including representative democracy.

Or some form of authoritarianism where an elite minority rules.

People who oppose democracy in effect advocate some form of authoritarianism.

There is nothing else.

 

[steve_bank]

People use the word democracy without qualification. It is used as a slogan like this is a democracy nobody can tell me what to do on the right. On the left this is a democracy I demand social justice.

The meaning of democracy is like interpreting the bible, it ends up meaning what you want it to.

The west in general is called liberal western democracy. Liberal not meaning liberal vs conservatize, meaning rights of the individual.

People conflate democracy with justice and human rights.

We could, hypothetically, return to slavery through a democratic process. If I remember right in Athens there was not a lot of participation and oligarchs generally made decisions.

Morality is a function of culture.

 

[untermensche]

Democracy is about how those with power get that power.

Through democratic elections. Election by citizens.

As opposed to appointment by some authoritarian minority.

So a Supreme Court Justice appointment is not very democratic but a presidential election is.