Why You're Not Necessarily Entitled to the Money You've Made

[Received]

In a society with large income inequality, there is an ever-increasing divide between ethics and market outcomes. In a perfect world, a person would be paid according to market demand, and market demand would reflect at least an approximate level of work a person puts into something. "Work" means what we instinctively understand it to mean: the amount of effort you put into something.

The market is purely about consequences. It doesn't care how much actual work or risk any person in the entire market; it pays according to demand for services or commodities.

Ethically we're bound to formulate what a person deserves as relative to the work he puts into his job. That's basic fairness. There's a passage in The Grapes of Wrath where a storekeeper has significantly raised prices because he knows his patrons have no other options; most people find fault at this because the work these patrons have put into things is diluted because of increased cost of commodities.

What happens when, as today, the market significantly diverges from the ethical domain of fairness? There must be some extra-market means to control the injustices that result. This is the ethical justification for regulation and taxation. The whole concept of income redistribution gets at this idea.

But you can't get at this idea of perfect fairness by controlling market outcomes too much, or then you end up ruining the market. The failed experiments of totalitarian socialism in the 20th century are examples of this. Which means that some degree of unfairness is going to be inherent to markets.

So the money you have is truly ethically yours only in proportion to how much cumulative effort you've put into receiving the money you have. You've truly earned it only in this way.

 

[VanillaSunflowers]

I reject eminent domain economics arguments. I believe if someone wishes to be an indentured servant to the State they should move to a country that affords that opportunity. Meanwhile, I'm entitled to every bit of compensation I work for in an equal exchange of services for monetary compensation.

 

[Received]

I reject eminent domain economics arguments. I believe if someone wishes to be an indentured servant to the State they should move to a country that affords that opportunity. Meanwhile, I'm entitled to every bit of compensation I work for in an equal exchange of services for monetary compensation.

Why?

 

[aieyiamfu]

I reject eminent domain economics arguments. I believe if someone wishes to be an indentured servant to the State they should move to a country that affords that opportunity. Meanwhile, I'm entitled to every bit of compensation I work for in an equal exchange of services for monetary compensation.

So you would agree taxes are theft?

 

[Tull]

When the idea that you didn't build/earn that finally takes hold maybe people will quit building/earning that and we will see how that works out,if what you build/earn isn't yours why bother....just go fishing.

 

[Thunder Peel]

If I put in the time and effort then I absolutely earned it. Just because someone makes more money than I do does not mean I am entitled to a penny of it, nor would I want it. There's nothing unethical about asking people to work and paying them for it. However, it IS unethical to take something that someone worked for and giving it to someone who did not do the work. I believe in charitable giving by your own volition, not by the state stepping in and forcibly taking it from you.

Competition is not only healthy but it's also natural. I want to be the best at what I do because I want to make as much as possible and I want others to know that they can depend on me to get the job done. If someone comes along who can do the job better or is willing to do it for less then the company can choose to hire them and let me go--that's the way the system works. If a person drops out of school or doesn't apply themselves then that is their decision, but they're not entitled to the benefits of others who worked harder or got a better degree.

The winning team deserves the trophy, just as a hard worker deserves what they have rightfully earned. I'm all for helping the poor and downtrodden; I'm not in favor of helping them by limiting or punishing someone else. You cannot have a functioning society where takers outnumber makers. America will learn that the hard way unless we shift course and demand that people start taking control of their own lives again.

 

[Received]

If I put in the time and effort then I absolutely earned it. Just because someone makes more money than I do does not mean I am entitled to a penny of it, nor would I want it. There's nothing unethical about asking people to work and paying them for it. However, it IS unethical to take something that someone worked for and giving it to someone who did not do the work. I believe in charitable giving by your own volition, not by the state stepping in and forcibly taking it from you.

Well, the only reason the state is justified in stepping in and helping those who need help is if charitable giving isn't sufficient to help those in need. And that's what we see.

But the question here is: why did you earn it? Say you and a person in a parallel universe work the exact same job and make vastly different outcomes in terms of cash. Did you both earn the same amount of money?

 

[Tull]

Well, the only reason the state is justified in stepping in and helping those who need help is if charitable giving isn't sufficient to help those in need. And that's what we see.

But the question here is: why did you earn it? Say you and a person in a parallel universe work the exact same job and make vastly different outcomes in terms of cash. Did you both earn the same amount of money?

Well lets cut to the chase,first charitable giving will never keep up with the creation of poverty for political reasons and we don't live in a parallel universe so what is the point ??? sounds like excuses for those riding in the cart and not pulling it.

 

[Received]

Well lets cut to the chase,first charitable giving will never keep up with the creation of poverty for political reasons and we don't live in a parallel universe so what is the point ???

The point is talking about the rules of what constitutes payment and whether these rules are fair or not.

 

[Tull]

The point is talking about the rules of what constitutes payment and whether these rules are fair or not.

And what conclusions have we arrived at ?

 

[Received]

And what conclusions have we arrived at ?

That's what I'm trying to get at by asking you the question about parallel universes. No traps here.

 

[Tull]

That's what I'm trying to get at by asking you the question about parallel universes. No traps here.

Those who have invested the most and given the most and would lose the most by walking away should receive the most,those who can walk away and lose little to nothing deserve the least.

 

[HannahT]

Well, the only reason the state is justified in stepping in and helping those who need help is if charitable giving isn't sufficient to help those in need. And that's what we see.

Except, in many cases government is enabling people to receive help - that are more than able to get it themselves. I'm not speaking of those that will always need help, because it is our moral obligation to help those in need.

Sadly, government - unlike charitable organizations - can vet those out that are in need as opposed to those that don't want to help themselves...but would rather the state do that for them.

We haven't learned to balance this yet, and the state is under an obligation to do so if they are stepping in to take money from others claiming charitable giving isn't sufficient. I see that as the rub.

I was in a rural area a couple of weeks ago that has a number of contractors in dire need of crews. The crews have a choice of getting $450/wk perks from the state, or going to work. They choose the first. That's enabling.

Then you have those that clearly can't help themselves, and need help. We have all seen examples of this. I don't think we need to give a visual of it.

Then you have groups that need help temporarily, because of life's happenings. Nothing wrong with that!

I have to wonder if the state stopped some of the enabling they do how much better off the ones in true need would be, because more funds would be available for them.

I think many have good intentions, but have issues looking into the parts that aren't working so well.

 

[Albion]

In a society with large income inequality, there is an ever-increasing divide between ethics and market outcomes. In a perfect world, a person would be paid according to market demand, and market demand would reflect at least an approximate level of work a person puts into something. "Work" means what we instinctively understand it to mean: the amount of effort you put into something.

The market is purely about consequences. It doesn't care how much actual work or risk any person in the entire market; it pays according to demand for services or commodities.

Ethically we're bound to formulate what a person deserves as relative to the work he puts into his job. That's basic fairness. .

IMO, that's where your argument falters. Ethically, we're bound to formulate what a person deserves as relative to the worth (to others) of the product.

If I work hard all day picking through the garbage dump for discarded items that can be resold, or I work hard all day producing beaded book markers or key chains, I am not entitled to the income--merely because of the arduousness of my labor--when compared to the artist who produces unique oil paintings that other people will pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for.

 

[Thunder Peel]

Well, the only reason the state is justified in stepping in and helping those who need help is if charitable giving isn't sufficient to help those in need. And that's what we see.

But the question here is: why did you earn it? Say you and a person in a parallel universe work the exact same job and make vastly different outcomes in terms of cash. Did you both earn the same amount of money?

The state doesn't make things better. All they do is take from those who have more while keeping those with less in a state of dependency. The best success stories come from hard work and perseverance, not from government assistance. Our church provides services and care for orphans, actively looking for homes for children who have nowhere else to go. Our local government hasn't found them loving families---the local church has. Our bureaucrats aren't out on the streets feeding the homeless---local churches and citizens are. Charity dries up when the money we would normally give is ripped from our paychecks and taken in by a wasteful and bloated government. They're incompetent and greedy, plain and simple.

The why is easy: because I did the work. If someone is willing to pay me more for the same work then I'll go work for them. If someone is willing to do my job for less money then my boss can hire them instead. That's how it works and it's perfectly fair. Something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. I have no doubt there are other cities where I could make much more doing what I do, just as I could find cities that would pay me far less.

 

[Received]

IMO, that's where your argument falters. Ethically, we're bound to formulate what a person deserves as relative to the worth (to others) of the product.

If I work hard all day picking through the garbage dump for discarded items that can be resold, or I work hard all day producing beaded book markers or key chains, I am not entitled to the income--merely because of the arduousness of my labor--when compared to the artist who produces unique oil paintings that other people will pay hundreds or thousands of dollars for.

Paying someone relative to the worth (to others) of the product is market reasoning, not ethical reasoning. More importantly, the demand of others is pretty much arbitrary, whereas the work someone puts into something can be estimated consistently.

Say you have person in world A who works his entire life investing in a product, working 12 hours a day and many times weekends, and ends up striking it rich because the crowd in this world digs his product. Whereas a person in world B works the exact same amount of incredible labor creating the exact same product, but ends up filing for bankruptcy because there ends up being no demand for his product.

Why do you think person A deserves his success but person B doesn't?

 

[Received]

The state doesn't make things better. All they do is take from those who have more while keeping those with less in a state of dependency. The best success stories come from hard work and perseverance, not from government assistance. Our church provides services and care for orphans, actively looking for homes for children who have nowhere else to go. Our local government hasn't found them loving families---the local church has. Our bureaucrats aren't out on the streets feeding the homeless---local churches and citizens are. Charity dries up when the money we would normally give is ripped from our paychecks and taken in by a wasteful and bloated government. They're incompetent and greedy, plain and simple.

The why is easy: because I did the work. If someone is willing to pay me more for the same work then I'll go work for them. If someone is willing to do my job for less money then my boss can hire them instead. That's how it works and it's perfectly fair. Something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. I have no doubt there are other cities where I could make much more doing what I do, just as I could find cities that would pay me far less.

Government intervention isn't limited to benefits, and it's a huge leap to say that all types of benefits confer dependency and limit work. For one, how do you know that it isn't the government that's conferring dependency, but rather a desolate market with no upward mobility that makes a person rely more on government handouts than get a job? IOW, what evidence do you have that a family wouldn't starve if they didn't accept government benefits and that any realistic amount of work they put into finding a job would be fruitless or, if they found a job, would still keep them at the verge of starvation?

I'm right there with you in cleaning up benefits programs that enable laziness, but I think you're looking way too superficially at the problem. People prefer cheap government handouts because psychologically they sense (the vast majority of the time rightly) that their chances at making a reasonable income are basically nil given the market's lack of demand for their skills. You can't just (lazily) call it laziness if a person settles for benefits when they really knew they could be making significantly more if the market reasonably rewarded their skills. It's the market in a globalized society that's at least as much to blame as government benefits that seek to ameliorate these market failings for unskilled labor.

"Something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it." That, as my post above attempts to point out, makes value completely arbitrary. We work on these two systems all the time: a person gets credit for the hard work he put into something (labor), and gets a payoff for demand for his services (market demand). You're idealizing demand and giving no credit to labor. Well, what would happen if all types of labor except that provided by the super-rich yielded a reasonable income? Say 90% of society gets paid enough to toe the line of starvation whereas the other 10% make unprecedented amounts of money -- would you then still say that the worth of your labor is only what another person is willing to pay for it? At what point would you say the game is rigged?

As for moving to where the work is, what do you think would happen if everyone moved to the places where they were paid more?

 

[Tull]

Paying someone relative to the worth (to others) of the product is market reasoning, not ethical reasoning. More importantly, the demand of others is pretty much arbitrary, whereas the work someone puts into something can be estimated consistently.

Say you have person in world A who works his entire life investing in a product, working 12 hours a day and many times weekends, and ends up striking it rich because the crowd in this world digs his product. Whereas a person in world B works the exact same amount of incredible labor creating the exact same product, but ends up filing for bankruptcy because there ends up being no demand for his product.

Why do you think person A deserves his success but person B doesn't?

Person A had a better idea,there are no guarantees in life of anything,what are we to do ? finance failure and bad ideas or force people to purchase the results,excellence comes from competition and in competition somebody wins and somebody loses,guranteed outcomes where everybody gets a participation medal creates mediocrity and failure all the way around.

 

[Received]

Person A had a better idea,there are no guarantees in life of anything,what are we to do ? finance failure and bad ideas or force people to purchase the results,excellence comes from competition and in competition somebody wins and somebody loses,guranteed outcomes where everybody gets a participation medal creates mediocrity and failure all the way around.

Person A and B had identical ideas.

 

[Tull]

Person A and B had identical ideas.

Then A had better marketing or business skills,on the subject of "fairness" God creates human being and if he wanted them all to be the same and have the same amount of success he would have made everyone with same talents and skills,no more,no less.

The fact that we are all born into a situation we didn't create where one man sinned thousands of years ago and we pay the price doesn't seem fair why don't each one of us get the chance to start out sinless in paradise and get the same opportunity Adam and Eve had to get it right or wrong,indeed much of life falls in the category we like to call unfair....in the end it will all make sense,now not so much.