These people are our future

[a500lbgorilla]

As Danny said before, to become a cleaner it requires almost no education or special skill of any kind. The reason that they don't get paid as much is because almost anyone could do it. If we decided to pay cleaner's $50 an hour, then we'd have millions of cleaners. What would happen then is their value would go down and they actually would be almost worthless to society. If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one.

This is why we don't pay cleaners their "value."

I know this is douchey replying every time with a link but

YouTube - RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

But a reward system based on you do this and you get $$$ seems applicable only to these jobs that mean more back-breaking yield more money, not the you innovate and we reward you with billions framework.

Some points I want to make but don't have time to put pretty words to:

"Anyone can do it" does not negate the fact that those who do it lift up the rest of us.

Their value is pretty cemented because they represent the bedrock of society. And is variable only based on what you build upon that bedrock.

"If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one."

UFW: The Official Web Page of the United Farm Workers of America - Titled "Take Our Jobs, Please"

So that's not true, unless you restricted their numbers and paid them to a level representing the nebulous "American Dream." But wherever there are people, there will be demand for these crap jobs which hoist up societies.

[a500lbgorilla]

I know this is douchey replying every time with a link but

YouTube - RSA Animate - Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us

But a reward system based on you do this and you get $$$ seems applicable only to these jobs that mean more back-breaking yield more money, not the you innovate and we reward you with billions framework.

Some points I want to make but don't have time to put pretty words to:

"Anyone can do it" does not negate the fact that those who do it lift up the rest of us.

Their value is pretty cemented because they represent the bedrock of society. And is variable only based on what you build upon that bedrock.

"If we restricted the amount of cleaners, everyone would complain if they couldn't be one."

UFW: The Official Web Page of the United Farm Workers of America - Titled "Take Our Jobs, Please"

So that's not true, unless you restricted their numbers and paid them to a level representing the nebulous "American Dream." But wherever there are people, there will be demand for these crap jobs which hoist up societies.

But people should always be paid less than they generate. You can guarantee yourself a raise if you prove that you've generated X revenue for the company while holding a salary of Y (X>>Y) and it provides for societal surpluses if everyone is taking less in than they create. So obviously the shit workers shouldn't be paid awesome wages, but you can't say that the rich do everything for society when the many poor take the brunt of the workload, is my point.

Again, I still don't understand how wealth is either created or destroyed and would appreciate any foundation anyone could give.

[wufwugy]

Again, I still don't understand how wealth is either created or destroyed and would appreciate any foundation anyone could give.

Economies are artificial constructs based on resources and activities of the world and people they're built around. Wealth is an artificial designation of "pricing" those resources and activities. Creation or destruction of wealth is when the artificial designation goes up or down. Some wealth is backed by real and good stuff more than others

This is actually a complicated issue I don't understand well, but that's pretty close to the fundamentals. I may not know how the variables all interact to designate wealth, but I know that it happens. Understanding the details well is PhD level stuff though

[a500lbgorilla]

Economies are artificial constructs based on resources and activities of the world and people they're built around. Wealth is an artificial designation of "pricing" those resources and activities. Creation or destruction of wealth is when the artificial designation goes up or down. Some wealth is backed by real and good stuff more than others

This is actually a complicated issue I don't understand well, but that's pretty close to the fundamentals. I may not know how the variables all interact to designate wealth, but I know that it happens. Understanding the details well is PhD level stuff though

Hmmm, I want to go deeper. I N C E P T I O N

[Numbr2intheWorld]

Hmmm, I want to go deeper. I N C E P T I O N

Money really isn't something you need a PhD to understand. It's easy to imagine what money is if you imagine what it would be like if there was none. Let's take a simple example. Let's say there's a chair maker and a horse breeder. The breeder wants chairs and the chairmaker wants a horse. They decide to trade 5 chairs for a horse.

Well what if the breeder doesn't want chairs? Then the chair maker has to trade his chairs for something the breeder wants. Here's where money comes into play. People essentially exchanged their chairs, horses, pigs, cigarettes, etc, for a synthetic thing that represented what they are worth. So the chairmaker went to the bank and asked for money for his chairs. But the bank doesn't want to deal with selling chairs, or horses, or pigs. So instead, they say they'll give the chairmaker money = to the value of his chairs. And now he buys a horse, and once he sells his chairs to someone else he pays back the bank. This allows the chairmaker to buy a horse without spending weeks trying to sell his chairs for something the breeder wants.

Money is just a chair, horse, or pig. If we win $100 in poker it's the exact same thing as winning two pigs, actually it's a lot better cause I don't want to pigs nor do I want to find someone who wants them. This is why we pay banks (through interest) to give us currency.

Wealth is created by producing a good or a service. Wealth is destroyed when someone uses that good or service.

In terms of the "If we grow a tomato, it means we're not growing a cucumber" thing, you're still creating a tomato. The only zero-sum possibility of this event is if we grow nothing at all.

[a500lbgorilla]

Money really isn't something you need a PhD to understand. It's easy to imagine what money is if you imagine what it would be like if there was none. Let's take a simple example. Let's say there's a chair maker and a horse breeder. The breeder wants chairs and the chairmaker wants a horse. They decide to trade 5 chairs for a horse.

Well what if the breeder doesn't want chairs? Then the chair maker has to trade his chairs for something the breeder wants. Here's where money comes into play. People essentially exchanged their chairs, horses, pigs, cigarettes, etc, for a synthetic thing that represented what they are worth. So the chairmaker went to the bank and asked for money for his chairs. But the bank doesn't want to deal with selling chairs, or horses, or pigs. So instead, they say they'll give the chairmaker money = to the value of his chairs. And now he buys a horse, and once he sells his chairs to someone else he pays back the bank. This allows the chairmaker to buy a horse without spending weeks trying to sell his chairs for something the breeder wants.

Money is just a chair, horse, or pig. If we win $100 in poker it's the exact same thing as winning two pigs, actually it's a lot better cause I don't want to pigs nor do I want to find someone who wants them. This is why we pay banks (through interest) to give us currency.

Wealth is created by producing a good or a service. Wealth is destroyed when someone uses that good or service.

In terms of the "If we grow a tomato, it means we're not growing a cucumber" thing, you're still creating a tomato. The only zero-sum possibility of this event is if we grow nothing at all.

Yeah, I understand money as the irreducible unit of trade, but the "if we grow a tomato we aren't growing a cucumber" isn't accurate. It means we're drawing all the bits and pieces of light, minerals and water that it takes to make a tomato from something. Wealth is created when you coax order (according to us) out of something. The tomatoes are only grown through the ordering of all the light, minerals and water used in their growth. It wasn't wealth until they were combined appropriately (according to us).

[Lyric]

Economies are artificial constructs based on resources and activities of the world and people they're built around. Wealth is an artificial designation of "pricing" those resources and activities. Creation or destruction of wealth is when the artificial designation goes up or down. Some wealth is backed by real and good stuff more than others

This is actually a complicated issue I don't understand well, but that's pretty close to the fundamentals. I may not know how the variables all interact to designate wealth, but I know that it happens. Understanding the details well is PhD level stuff though

An island with two men on it is an economy. Economy is the word we use to describe creation and exchange of wealth. On an island the entire economy would be two men exchanging their wealth -- food, medicine, shelter, and tools. They would be creating these things and exchanging them, creating a two man island "economy."

It is only complicated if you look at millions of people at one time.

[wufwugy]

An island with two men on it is an economy. Economy is the word we use to describe creation and exchange of wealth. On an island the entire economy would be two men exchanging their wealth -- food, medicine, shelter, and tools. They would be creating these things and exchanging them, creating a two man island "economy."

It is only complicated if you look at millions of people at one time.

You're equivocating scales. There's a reason why physics is broken up into different paradigms, and it's the same reason it is false to compare a two man economy with a million man one. The models themselves are fundamentally different

[a500lbgorilla]

You're equivocating scales. There's a reason why physics is broken up into different paradigms, and it's the same reason it is false to compare a two man economy with a million man one. The models themselves are fundamentally different

The reason why physics is broken up into different paradigms is, for me, a terrible analogue for anything else.

[wufwugy]

The reason why physics is broken up into different paradigms is, for me, a terrible analogue for anything else.

It fits just fine when the point is scales. Any topic can be used, but physics is easier to understand semantically.

In fact, you cannot find a single topic that is semantically designated in broad terms that doesn't change paradigm based on scaling

[Lyric]

You're equivocating scales. There's a reason why physics is broken up into different paradigms, and it's the same reason it is false to compare a two man economy with a million man one. The models themselves are fundamentally different

I don't agree. Would you like to offer some examples or suggestions for why a two man island is fundamentally different than a larger island?

[Lyric]

Again, I still don't understand how wealth is either created or destroyed and would appreciate any foundation anyone could give.

If you walk into a forest and build a house from the trees, you have created wealth -- the house is worth more than the trees. If the house burns or is destroyed, the wealth you created is gone.

If you grow tomatoes in your back yard, harvest them and create a pasta sauce, you have created wealth. If you eat the sauce, the wealth is destroyed.

This is how money is created -- when a home is built, tomatoes are grown, or when anything of value is created or discovered. All of these things bring new money into the world and make the world a more comfortable place.

[a500lbgorilla]

If you walk into a forest and build a house from the trees, you have created wealth -- the house is worth more than the trees. If the house burns or is destroyed, the wealth you created is gone.

If you grow tomatoes in your back yard, harvest them and create a pasta sauce, you have created wealth. If you eat the sauce, the wealth is destroyed.

This is how money is created -- when a home is built, tomatoes are grown, or when anything of value is created or discovered. All of these things bring new money into the world and make the world a more comfortable place.

I like this. Both that order yields wealth and consumers destroy it.

Of all the combinations of the trees, a house is better than a mishmash of lumber like a pile, or a tall stack of wood.

But the idea that new money is created doesn't make sense to me. If the tomatoes are grown, that means that something else isn't grown, and beyond that something is taken from the world to create those tomatoes, so even their wealth creation is coupled with some negative wealth in some sense.

[a500lbgorilla]

I like this. Both that order yields wealth and consumers destroy it.

Of all the combinations of the trees, a house is better than a mishmash of lumber like a pile, or a tall stack of wood.

But the idea that new money is created doesn't make sense to me. If the tomatoes are grown, that means that something else isn't grown, and beyond that something is taken from the world to create those tomatoes, so even their wealth creation is coupled with some negative wealth in some sense.

Unless wealth is born only to be destroyed. Hmm, I'm liking this more and more as I think on it.

Whatever it takes to make the tomatoes, to make the sauce, to make the meal that you enjoy at Restaurant XYZ, it builds in "value", in "order", until you finally destroy it all for a fee.

But that still means that wealth is a zero sum game, we just hope the wealth created is in Man's hands and the wealth destroyed is shouldered by infinite reservoirs.

[IowaSkinsFan]

Unless wealth is born only to be destroyed. Hmm, I'm liking this more and more as I think on it.

Whatever it takes to make the tomatoes, to make the sauce, to make the meal that you enjoy at Restaurant XYZ, it builds in "value", in "order", until you finally destroy it all for a fee.

But that still means that wealth is a zero sum game, we just hope the wealth created is in Man's hands and the wealth destroyed is shouldered by infinite reservoirs.

This sounds very buddhist, they always talk about how the duality of nature.

I understand your point but wealth still cannot possibly be a zero sum game. We are all much wealthier because of free trade than we would be if we were fending for ourselves, this is very clear right? In a non zero sum game I imagine things can still be destroyed. Also, if a tomato is more valued than squash than you create more wealth by growing a tomato, more than the wealth lost by growing a squash.

Also, I think if you think of something besides food it makes more sense. For example, if I decide to spend that day as someones personal assistant I have created wealth. Would you consider sitting on my ass and doing nothing instead destroying it?

[a500lbgorilla]

This sounds very buddhist, they always talk about how the duality of nature.

I understand your point but wealth still cannot possibly be a zero sum game. We are all much wealthier because of free trade than we would be if we were fending for ourselves, this is very clear right?

Super clear, but that doesn't mean my view is wrong. If we enjoy all the value while the negative value is shouldered by the sun, soil and some sweat, it can still be a zero sum game.

Also, I think if you think of something besides food it makes more sense. For example, if I decide to spend that day as someones personal assistant I have created wealth. Would you consider sitting on my ass and doing nothing instead destroying it?

I see how being a personal assistant for a day is creating wealth because you're creating some sense of "order" but you're also destroying certain wealthy things, not that you could have been curing cancer in the same time, but that you're consuming water, salts, minerals, fats, proteins, all things taken to fuel your "order" creation, all drain on the possible total wealth of the world.

Does that make sense? I guess a logical question I'd like to ask is: Is there a maximum amount of value that we could possibly create on Earth?

[Lyric]

But the idea that new money is created doesn't make sense to me. If the tomatoes are grown, that means that something else isn't grown, and beyond that something is taken from the world to create those tomatoes, so even their wealth creation is coupled with some negative wealth in some sense.

The most common error in economic thought is assuming that there is a limited amount of wealth in the world.

99% of the raw material for the tomatoes comes from the air. The plant uses the sun's energy to break carbon dioxide into its basic parts -- oxygen and carbon. It then builds its body and fruit from the carbon and exhausts oxygen into the atmosphere, where it is used by animals to breath.

1% of the tomato plant material comes from the soil, and that is replaced when the animals that eat the plant shit on the ground.

The tomato is produced using the energy of the sun (at near 100% efficiency!), which is also never lost; the energy is simply transferred into the tomato plant and can be used by animals as food calories, where food is chemically burned to yield energy for muscles.

[a500lbgorilla]

The most common error in economic thought is assuming that there is a limited amount of wealth in the world.

I firmly stand, based upon what I've learned today, that there does not exist an infinite amount of wealth in this world.

99% of the raw material for the tomatoes comes from the air. The plant uses the sun's energy to break carbon dioxide into its basic parts -- oxygen and carbon. It then builds its body and fruit from the carbon and exhausts oxygen into the atmosphere, where it is used by animals to breath.

1% of the tomato plant material comes from the soil, and that is replaced when the animals that eat the plant shit on the ground.

Or when the animals die, rot, and become ground.

The tomato is produced using the energy of the sun (at near 100% efficiency!), which is also never lost; the energy is simply transferred into the tomato plant and can be used by animals as food calories, where food is chemically burned to yield energy for muscles.

Awesome, but still means it's a zero sum game. The positive is yielded by us, the negative is shouldered by an unimaginably huge, unimaginably powerful energy generator, imaginably far way.

[Lyric]

I firmly stand, based upon what I've learned today, that there does not exist an infinite amount of wealth in this world.

Correct, there is only infinite potential for the creation of wealth.

[Lyric]

Awesome, but still means it's a zero sum game. The positive is yielded by us, the negative is shouldered by an unimaginably huge, unimaginably powerful energy generator, imaginably far way.

In the end when the universe collapses in upon itself, it is a zero sum game. Here on earth, as we build and create products that we value, we have a limitless potential to create more and more things that we value.

More buildings, cleaner air, tastier food, safer cars, better medicine and health care, better computers, faster airplanes, space travel, etc. It can go on and on forever because we won't ever run out of power to transform into wealth until the universe (or we) die.