How Do You Define Morality?

I do not feel that way. If that had been the case I would have chosen jobs/careers differently. I turned down a job with my family that would have made me quite rich. Even causing some hard feelings for a few years.
I did not want the job. The money was not even a consideration.
The two, the work and what you get for it, are not equivelent... but one must feel that the two are fairly connected.

[DanaC]

The two, the work and what you get for it, are not equivelent... but one must feel that the two are fairly connected.

Again though what constitutes a fair connection depends on your cultural relationship with currency.

[Undertoad]

Most cultures value it.



and people within those cultures exchange it for goods and services

[limey]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Do you have to make everything about you?...You keep saying it is a great idea, but have yet to SHOW it.

I choose to talk about my own experience (other posts in this thread have been criticised for talking generalities). Oh, and I have cleaned out the most appalling domestic kitchen bins full of maggots, so that's a start... I have tried to show from my own experience that I prefer a job in which I find "job satisfaction" to one which pays well, but will accept one which pays well to achieve my financial short term goals. If they were paid equally I'd choose the "worse" (to many people's way of thinking) job of washing shit off people, to sitting in a office.
I agree with DanaC that there are many people who thrive on the responsiblity/big wheel thing for the sake of it, rather than specifically for the cash. I'm not one of them.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Exactly. I would not do those jobs... I would just fail the test on purpose.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Actually, I would just leave such a place and go where people appreciate excellence.
Which is what happens to socialist nations, those who excel, the artists and inventors leave.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I do not feel that way. If that had been the case I would have chosen jobs/careers differently. I turned down a job with my family that would have made me quite rich. Even causing some hard feelings for a few years.
I did not want the job. The money was not even a consideration.
The two, the work and what you get for it, are not equivelent... but one must feel that the two are fairly connected.

in the above quotes the bold emphasis is mine. I don't mind that all these posts are about you. You are talking about your own experience.

[limey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Most cultures value it.



and people within those cultures exchange it for goods and services

Which brings us to the question of which goods and services you exchange it for ... which are necessities and which are luxuries?



and who is to decide? Or is it, if you step back a little, just common sense?

[DanaC]

Agreed Bruce. But this whole discussion of paying management the same as wokers began with a hypothetical society. I was suggesting that in such a hypothetical society the relationship between currency and culture would be different. In a culture that does measure value through currency obviously people want remuneration commensurate with their skills and workload.

Rk said he would leave such a culture and go where he is appreciated. I was saying that if he'd been born into the hypothetical culture we'd been discussing, he would relate differently to currency.

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Most cultures value it.



and people within those cultures exchange it for goods and services

Originally Posted by DanaC

Agreed Bruce. But this whole discussion of paying management the same as wokers began with a hypothetical society. I was suggesting that in such a hypothetical society the relationship between currency and culture would be different. In a culture that does measure value through currency obviously people want remuneration commensurate with their skills and workload.

Rk said he would leave such a culture and go where he is appreciated. I was saying that if he'd been born into the hypothetical culture we'd been discussing, he would relate differently to currency.

who are you responding to?

[DanaC]

What's really peculiar to my mind about the way our culture relates to the economy, is that we usually pay more for luxuries than we do for necessities. Cetainly in terms of the way we pay wages. A doctor is a necessity for the country, a footballer is not. Who do we pay more?

If financial reward is how we measure our value to society, does this mean we realy value footballers above doctors, or does it mean that we don't actually indicate value through money?

[limey]

Originally Posted by DanaC

What's really peculiar to my mind about the way our culture relates to the economy, is that we usually pay more for luxuries than we do for necessities. Cetainly in terms of the way we pay wages. A doctor is a necessity for the country, a footballer is not. Who do we pay more?

If financial reward is how we measure our value to society, does this mean we realy value footballers above doctors, or does it mean that we don't actually indicate value through money?

Good point, well put.

[Perry Winkle]

Originally Posted by DanaC

If financial reward is how we measure our value to society, does this mean we realy value footballers above doctors, or does it mean that we don't actually indicate value through money?

I think it definitely means we don't indicate value through money. It seems like evidence that supply and demand is a primary factor in how much someone is paid. Compare the number of professional footballers in the world to the number of doctors: There's your wage differential.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by DanaC

What's really peculiar to my mind about the way our culture relates to the economy, is that we usually pay more for luxuries than we do for necessities. Cetainly in terms of the way we pay wages. A doctor is a necessity for the country, a footballer is not. Who do we pay more?

Supply and demand again. There are only a handful of top footballers who entertain hundreds of millions, and the same handful of top docs can only treat a limited number of patients a day. The footballer who is not entertaining is paid less than the average doc. I can't find the inequity.

In effect in a free market, the decision of what makes life meaningful and important is made by everyone, and not by a cultured few. It is what is right for them, and it's not your business to question it. In fact one might note that if you consider it your business to reform others' choices they will be less interested in having you lead them. Thus your control becomes a matter of force.

We might next ask which cultures produce the best doctors and the most medical cures. Which ones have the most Nobel prizes for medicine? Here's the list. Do the winners come from the countries where they centrally plan what people are paid? Wow, Not At All! For the most part they come from countries that produce highly-paid footballers. Maybe there is something to this freedom to choose deal eh?

[DanaC]

oops. sorry, not sure why I wrote bruce :P thanks sky. I've amended it now :P

[skysidhe]

no appology required. It made me realize I didn't know UT's name. What IS UT's name? Hey UT what is your name? Chris? umm I have no idea.

[Undertoad]

Tony. And yours?

[skysidhe]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

Tony. And yours?

~Kat