Bonuses and compensation reform
Democracy Highlander
approach the problem rationally and push for reforms in the field.
First, I have to make the case why this is required because of-course
it is quite expected that the fundamentalist radical right (corporate
back lickers) will pop up with imbecile comments like "do not
interfere with private businesses".
In the second port of the post I will make a proposal of legislation
which is designed to help the US macro-economics by putting some
decent limits on the compensation and bonuses for CEOs, business
people and re-balance the wealth share between the productive/creative
and idle shareholders.
Why do we need a reform on executive compensation and bonuses
=======================================
Of course, the fanatic radical right will cry afoul at any attempt to
regulate the executive compensation but here is the deal. We are in
this crisis also because of the insane CEO bonuses.
Here is how it works. The reason for CEOs to be payed so much compared
with the average productive/creative in the company is because the
shareholders want the CEO to always be on their side and against their
own employees.
The unskilled shareholders, once they put money into a company do
nothing useful anymore, and to make the mater worst for them, if the
skilled productive can accumulate enough capital to start their own
business they can do so without the need for the unskilled idle rich.
This is the worst nightmare of the idle shareholders: to be left aside
from the economy because the productive have enough capital to produce
on their own.
In order to prevent this scenario to happen, the useless idle
shareholders need the corporate executive to do ONE thing: Maximize
the share going to the unskilled shareholders and minimize the share
going to skilled productive.
By this they achieve 2 goals simultaneously: Keep the productive
unable to go on their own AND accumulate enough capital to be able
invest in new ventures.
The only thing that prevent this goal to be achieved is the fact that
the management are there with the employees all the time, and bonds
can create between them. If the executives goes to close to workers,
he may start to side with them, give them decent wages and bonuses as
a reward for hardwork and by this undermine the useless idle. To
prevent this horror to happen, major shareholders (the rich guys)
and board of directors agree to overpay the executive, engage them in
lavish parties and lifestyles in order to create a major rift between
them and productive and also make the executive a docile puppet in
their hands. By this, the executives is guaranteed to disconnect from
the productive, if for no other reason being afraid to lose the lavish
lifestyle, and always side with the shareholders.
However, the fact that the CEOs is always a puppet for the powerful
and totally disconnected from the realities of main street is what
create huge troubles. The people having the power to make decisions,
are now shortsighted on their immediate interest and will always take
actions giving them (and shareholders too) a quick reward even at the
expense of doing harm, in the society. In time, company with company,
mishap with mishap the harm done to the macro-economic system
accumulate until a recession force them to make adjustments.
Unfortunate, in a recession the most harm is done to the workers and
not to the thieves who created the problem. They will often be
rewarded even when they trash their companies.
This explain another curious fact in corporate life. Even the CEOs who
were obviously economic illiterates and destroyed a lot wherever they
went get fired, they have no big problems to find again and again well
paying executive positions, even when proven that they are completely
idiots. Why ? Because what is important for shareholders into a CEO is
not intelligence, skills, abilities or knowledge. No, what is
important is the already CEO mindset, to be a puppy who always act in
the interest of shareholders and more important to always act against
the interest of the skilled productive. Doing harm to the productive/
creative, is the biggest result a CEO can ever achieve.
So, what the society can do
================
We need to stop the harm being done. And the easiest way to achieve
that, is to legislate maximum wages and benefits a CEO can get.
Looking exclusively at years of experience and education there is
nothing that made a CEO to be worth over the average productive with
the equivalent years/education. There only the added leadership
responsibility. And to account for that, we can apply the step metrics
used elsewhere in other corporate ladder. For example, if a supervisor
is payed twice as much as the average worker, a department manager
twice as much as the average supervisor, a unit manager twice as much
as the average dept. managers, then the CEO base salary can normally
be twice as much as the unit manager. That will limit the average CEO
pay at 16 times as the average worker. This seems quite a decent upper
limit.
Then, we must acknowledge that if you have a company where you have no
valuable workers, any CEO can not do nothing. A CEO will not coil a
motor, nor design a bridge, nor write a program, nor find out who is a
good borrower.
If you have a company going well, that happen because beside the
management you have a qualified productive workforce inside. As a
result, if the shareholders gets profit then this is due to the work
combined of ALL the people in the company CEO included as ONE of them.
And if they did great they must all be rewarded. Therefore, if a
company have good yearly results all the company workers need to get a
bonus. The structure of bonus can be a fixed sum for everybody who did
his job (the lazy and troublemakers need to be excluded, of course)
and an incremental bonus based on the base salary as reward for more
responsibility. Therefore, using the same step ladder, by any means
the yearly reward for a CEO can not exceed 16 times the average bonus
taken home by productive.
The third kind of bonuses are the individual performance bonuses. This
are to be given to individuals to exceeded expectations, came forward
with innovative things or worked extremely hard and dedicated. These
will be rewarded at management discretion for everybody else with the
exception of the CEO. For a CEO, here we must regulate it a bit to
reward long term thinking and strategic actions. The performance of a
CEO will be evaluated by shareholders on a 5 year basis, how his
actions taken 5 years ago helped the company. Then the shareholders
have the option to reward the CEO for performance at their discretion
by issuing new shares to him. Yes, by this of course, they are
diluting their own shares value a bit but that small reduction in
share values is well payed off to keep hold onto a true talent.
If the CEO is an imbecile, like the financial CEOs who played on the
derivative market then of course the shareholders can vote not to
give him any bonus for the disaster he created.
JoeTheBlogger
> Now, that the CEOs bonuses are in the lime light it is time to
> approach the problem rationally and push for reforms in the field.
the first ones that should have salaries capped are the politicians.
esp Obammy. lead by example. oh wait, dumocRATs don't do that do they.
they can't be held down by the laws that govern the rest of us. they
are toooooo impotent.
phil scott
politician salaries are a pitance, especially after taxes and
costs.... politician graft though is almost limitless...that cant be
capped because it is more or less undetectable.
the US president makes about 450k a year... after taxes thats 250k...
no cap necessary there.
On the other hand corrupt corporate interests get hundreds of MILLIONS
in bonus's even as they ruin their corporations and send work,
production and profits abroad... now ...thats an issue.
However it is just one issue.
there are many, it pays to understand them all and see the larger
picture... lacking that a person can get polarized on one fractional
aspect or the other, meaningless by themselves, and continue to get
screwed accordingly.
***
My approach has been to remain personally productive ..no investments
other than in myself, education and productivity equipment. its kept
me fit and sharp into old age, as others who sought ease have
deteriorated from a base of thin competence or no competence to some
zone markedly worse off than that.
Phil scott
Sanders Kaufman
news:ALEkl.2565$i9....@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
> the first ones that should have salaries capped are the politicians.
We already do that.
Their salaries are fixed with almost no bonuses or opportunities for raises.
Democracy Highlander
have too much to do with competency.
Neahh, just read it:
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1878358,00.html
"""
....
When Anderson and Kilduff checked the participants' work, however, a
lot of pretenders were exposed. Repeatedly, the ones who emerged as
leaders and were rated the highest in competence were not the ones who
offered the greatest number of correct answers.
...
"Dominant individuals behaved in ways that made them appear
competent," the researchers write, "above and beyond their actual
competence." Troublingly, group members seemed only too willing to
follow these underqualified bosses. An overwhelming 94% of the time,
the teams used the first answer anyone shouted out — often giving only
perfunctory consideration to others that were offered.
"""
So far for the imbecile belief that somebody became a CEO because he
is the most competent.
What is important is to fake it.
Based on this study too, we see once again that there is no solid
reason for the society to accept overpaid CEOs. The only skill to
become a leader is to be hypocrite, especially in corporate
environment. Based on this, even the proposed 16 times than the
average worker wage seems way way to much for executive compensation.
And yes, the society must step up an regulate the corporate field.
JoeTheBlogger
JoeTheBlogger
> On Feb 11, 10:35 am, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
>> Democracy Highlander wrote:
>>> Now, that the CEOs bonuses are in the lime light it is time to
>>> approach the problem rationally and push for reforms in the field.
>> the first ones that should have salaries capped are the politicians.
>> esp Obammy. lead by example. oh wait, dumocRATs don't do that do they.
>> they can't be held down by the laws that govern the rest of us. they
>> are toooooo impotent.
>
> politician salaries are a pitance, especially after taxes and
> costs.... politician graft though is almost limitless...that cant be
> capped because it is more or less undetectable.
and yet they are getting a $5000 raise this year. when was the last
time u got a $5000 raise?
>
> the US president makes about 450k a year... after taxes thats 250k...
> no cap necessary there.
that's way more than he's worth.
>
>
> On the other hand corrupt corporate interests get hundreds of MILLIONS
> in bonus's even as they ruin their corporations and send work,
> production and profits abroad... now ...thats an issue.
as long as it's not taxpayer money it's none of our business.
Democracy Highlander
> as long as it's not taxpayer money it's none of our business.
Maybe we should. For those with brains, here is a very good reading:
Han de Bruijn
> That will limit the average CEO
> pay at 16 times as the average worker. This seems quite a decent upper
> limit.
_Seems_, yes. But is it an _objective_ upper limit ? The answer is: NO.
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-1990-Ravi-Batra/dp/0440201683
I've seen many such proposals for a "decent upper limit". For example in
the book by Ravi Batra "The Great Depression of 1990" an upper limit of
10 (ten) times the lowest income is proposed. But what we really need is
something better than a wild guess, which could be 10 or 16 but why not,
say, a factor 100 or more. Upper limits should be linked to what people
really can and can not _do_, in a productive sense. Productivity should
be _measured_ in the first place. And objective standards for comparison
of productivity should be developed. Only after this "proper rewarding"
can be defined: a _scientific_ foundation for Justice.
Let me show that such measurements of "productivity" are not impossible.
When considering e.g. sports, you can compare your own achievements with
those of a champion. And it turns out to be quite interesting to do so !
It is seen that my own speed, when walking from train station to office,
is 5 km / hour, while the speed of a champion running the same distance
is 27 km / hour. Giving an upper to lower limit ratio of 5 or 6.
It is seen that my own speed, when swimming a distance of 1000 metres,
is 1,2 km / hour (Han de Bruijn). A world record, established by Inge
de Bruijn (not a relative !) at the same distance, is 6,7 km / hour.
Thus giving again an upper to lower limit ratio of 5 or 6.
It is seen that my own speed, when driving my bike over a distance of
60 kilometres, is 10 km / hour. Champions do it 4 or 5 times better, but
not more.
Can we conclude that your "decent upper limit" should not be a factor 16
but rather a factor 5 or 6 ?
Han de Bruijn
Democracy Highlander
> _Seems_, yes. But is it an _objective_ upper limit ? The answer is: NO.
> Let me show that such measurements of "productivity" are not impossible.
> It is seen that my own speed, when swimming a distance of 1000 metres,
> is 1,2 km / hour (Han de Bruijn). A world record, established by Inge
> de Bruijn (not a relative !) at the same distance, is 6,7 km / hour.
> Thus giving again an upper to lower limit ratio of 5 or 6.
Who is a better athlete and by how much:
a) Hossein Rezazadeh lifting 263.5 kg
b) Inge de Bruijn swimming at 6,7 km/h
Is Hossein 263.5/6.7 = 39.32 times better than Inge ?
What if the competition is held in US ? Then Hossein score 580.9 lb
while Inge 4.16 mph making Hossein
139.63 times better by Inge only by changing the measurements.
So, by how much is Albert Einstein better that Louis Pasteur ? Can you
compare the work of Euler with Goethe ? The irrational imbecile
conservative pundit Ann Culter wrote 43 books (by Amazon search) while
Issac Newton authored only 10 books. Can you say that Culter is 4.3
times greater than Newton ?
I am really afraid that there is no way to make a unbiased
comparison.
And for the fundamentalists fanatics of the marketplace, the reality
is even worst.The market can never be trusted to set up a proper
scale. Ever. Just an example:
The number of porn movies sold every year are thousand times bigger
than the number of books about solving differential equations. If we
are to trust the market and make school curricula by market choices ,
one hour of math per month will be more than enough while everything
else shall be sex sex sex. Clear, the "marketplace wisdom" is
something we must never take to serious in strategic decision.
So yes, there will always be bias and the selection will never be
perfect. This is the reason we shall always be able to review how a
certain decision impacted the society, and based on results tweak the
system to get better. By using this dynamic as oppose to static
stability criteria, we will achieve better results.
But, accepting the need for a dynamic control over society will be a
serious blow for the conservative mindset who are afraid of changes.
phil scott
err..thanks for the info... many of us knew this but not the
documentation of it. .. nor the extend
of the idiocy at these lofty CEO levels...into the imbicilc ranges as
recent developments in banking
and da car bidness, and govt demonstrate.
wonderful
thanks again.
Phil scott
phil scott
> phil scott wrote:
> > On Feb 11, 10:35 am, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger> wrote:
> >> Democracy Highlander wrote:
> >>> Now, that the CEOs bonuses are in the lime light it is time to
> >>> approach the problem rationally and push for reforms in the field.
> >> the first ones that should have salaries capped are the politicians.
> >> esp Obammy. lead by example. oh wait, dumocRATs don't do that do they.
> >> they can't be held down by the laws that govern the rest of us. they
> >> are toooooo impotent.
>
> > politician salaries are a pitance, especially after taxes and
> > costs.... politician graft though is almost limitless...that cant be
> > capped because it is more or less undetectable.
>
> and yet they are getting a $5000 raise this year. when was the last
> time u got a $5000 raise?
>
>
>
> > the US president makes about 450k a year... after taxes thats 250k...
> > no cap necessary there.
>
> that's way more than he's worth.
>
>
>
> > On the other hand corrupt corporate interests get hundreds of MILLIONS
> > in bonus's even as they ruin their corporations and send work,
> > production and profits abroad... now ...thats an issue.
>
> as long as it's not taxpayer money it's none of our business.
errr....no. US corporations as with any US citizen have legal
obligations not to be traitorous or criminal in their behaviors...
many have long criminal records
as corporations... and many of these criminally convicted corporations
have CEO's who sit on each others boards of directors voting each
other hundreds of
millions in bonus's even as their corporations fail or get convicted
of more and more crimes.
so you see.... it is our business... treason, fraud, and collusion
are illegal and destructive to *our national interests.
A person would do well to look at these broader issues.
Phil scott
>
>
>
>
>
> > However it is just one issue.
>
> > there are many, it pays to understand them all and see the larger
> > picture... lacking that a person can get polarized on one fractional
> > aspect or the other, meaningless by themselves, and continue to get
> > screwed accordingly.
>
> > ***
> > My approach has been to remain personally productive ..no investments
> > other than in myself, education and productivity equipment. its kept
> > me fit and sharp into old age, as others who sought ease have
> > deteriorated from a base of thin competence or no competence to some
> > zone markedly worse off than that.
>
> > Phil scott- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
maxw...@my-deja.com
<democracy.highlan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nice coincidence. A recent study also dispel the myth that the leaders
> have too much to do with competency.
> Neahh, just read it:
>
> http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1878358,00.html
Well I think it is obvious. Just look at who was president
for the last 8 years. So if you are from the right family
and go to the right school that they went to, and know
the right people, then nothing else matters.
I concur with most of what you have said. When
you consider most CEOs are only on the job on
average 3 years before moving on, how can anyone
look like a failure? Unless everything just went
the wrong way. I mean 3 years is just the amount of
time to start telling if you are actually having an
effect. The effects may not be known for years.
Some clowns point to the fact that a stock price
will go up if the right CEO comes on board. In
nearly every case I have seen his job as a
liquidator. He starts selling off parts of the company
making the bottom line look good to the stock
holders. Then when it is all complete in a 3
years he moves on and the stock price has
gone up. The company is then half of what
it use to be.
I think the majority in this NG could pass for
a CEO of a Fortune 500 for 3 years. I mean
start telling your underlings they better get
on it and not bother you while you play golf
everyday. If things don't look good then
reorg and make the bottom line look good.
At worse case you should get a golden parachute.
John Galt
> On Feb 11, 3:42 pm, Democracy Highlander
> <democracy.highlan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Nice coincidence. A recent study also dispel the myth that the leaders
>> have too much to do with competency.
>> Neahh, just read it:
>>
>> http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1878358,00.html
>
> Well I think it is obvious. Just look at who was president
> for the last 8 years. So if you are from the right family
> and go to the right school that they went to, and know
> the right people, then nothing else matters.
Geez, its worse than that. In the 04 election, regardless of how you
voted, you were going to get a graduate of Yale who was a member of
Skull and Bones.
JG
Rod Speed
> Democracy Highlander wrote
>> That will limit the average CEO pay at 16 times as the average worker. This seems quite a decent upper limit.
> _Seems_, yes. But is it an _objective_ upper limit ? The answer is: NO.
> http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-1990-Ravi-Batra/dp/0440201683
> I've seen many such proposals for a "decent upper limit". For example
> in the book by Ravi Batra "The Great Depression of 1990" an upper
> limit of 10 (ten) times the lowest income is proposed. But what we
> really need is something better than a wild guess, which could be 10
> or 16 but why not, say, a factor 100 or more. Upper limits should be
> linked to what people really can and can not _do_, in a productive
> sense. Productivity should be _measured_ in the first place.
It isnt even possible to do that with most jobs.
How the hell do you measure the productivity of a CEO ?
In spades with the CEO of an operation that sells discretionary
stuff that the consumers stop buying when they fear for their jobs ?
You cant even 'measure' the productivity of someone like a realtor.
> And objective standards for comparison of productivity should be
> developed. Only after this "proper rewarding" can be defined: a
> _scientific_ foundation for Justice.
It isnt even possible.
> Let me show that such measurements of "productivity" are not impossible.
Corse it is with most jobs.
You cant even do it with say doctors when so many persist
with stupid lifestyles that produce very high levels of obesity.
> When considering e.g. sports, you can compare your own achievements with those of a champion. And it turns out to be
> quite interesting to do so !
Thats not productivity.
It isnt even possible to do this sort of measuring with
what matters with team sports like football, who wins.
> It is seen that my own speed, when walking from train station to office, is 5 km / hour, while the speed of a champion
> running the same distance is 27 km / hour. Giving an upper to lower limit ratio of 5 or 6.
That implys that the speed matters. Not so. What actually matters
is the effect on your health and there is no point in running faster.
> It is seen that my own speed, when swimming a distance of 1000 metres, is 1,2 km / hour (Han de Bruijn). A world
> record, established by Inge de Bruijn (not a relative !)
Are you both descended from bears ?
Are you very hairy ?
> at the same distance, is 6,7 km / hour. Thus giving again an upper to lower limit ratio of 5 or 6.
> It is seen that my own speed, when driving my bike over a distance of
> 60 kilometres, is 10 km / hour. Champions do it 4 or 5 times better,
> but not more.
> Can we conclude that your "decent upper limit" should not be a factor 16 but rather a factor 5 or 6 ?
Nope, its just wanking with numbers to no useful purpose.
alexy
>Han de Bruijn wrote
>> Democracy Highlander wrote
>
>>> That will limit the average CEO pay at 16 times as the average worker. This seems quite a decent upper limit.
>
>> _Seems_, yes. But is it an _objective_ upper limit ? The answer is: NO.
>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-1990-Ravi-Batra/dp/0440201683
>
>> I've seen many such proposals for a "decent upper limit". For example
>> in the book by Ravi Batra "The Great Depression of 1990" an upper
>> limit of 10 (ten) times the lowest income is proposed. But what we
>> really need is something better than a wild guess, which could be 10
>> or 16 but why not, say, a factor 100 or more. Upper limits should be
>> linked to what people really can and can not _do_, in a productive
>> sense. Productivity should be _measured_ in the first place.
>
>It isnt even possible to do that with most jobs.
Maybe I misread. I read his post as a spoof of that idea. If not, it
was incredibly dumb.
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
umu...@gmail.com
<democracy.highlan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 12, 4:28 am,Han de Bruijn<Han.deBru...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote:
>
> > _Seems_, yes. But is it an _objective_ upper limit ? The answer is: NO.
> > ...
> > Let me show that such measurements of "productivity" are not impossible.
> > ...
> > It is seen that my own speed, when swimming a distance of 1000 metres,
> > is 1,2 km / hour (Han de Bruijn). A world record, established by Inge
> > de Bruijn (not a relative !) at the same distance, is 6,7 km / hour.
> > Thus giving again an upper to lower limit ratio of 5 or 6.
>
> Who is a better athlete and by how much:
>
> a) Hossein Rezazadeh lifting 263.5 kg
> b) Inge de Bruijn swimming at 6,7 km/h
>
> Is Hossein 263.5/6.7 = 39.32 times better than Inge ?
> What if the competition is held in US ? Then Hossein score 580.9 lb
> while Inge 4.16 mph making Hossein
> 139.63 times better by Inge only by changing the measurements.
Sorry. But for me as a physicist, what you do here is: not very smart.
And that's an understatement. See below.
> So, by how much is Albert Einstein better that Louis Pasteur ? Can you
> compare the work of Euler with Goethe ? The irrational imbecile
> conservative pundit Ann Culter wrote 43 books (by Amazon search) while
> Issac Newton authored only 10 books. Can you say that Culter is 4.3
> times greater than Newton ?
> I am really afraid that there is no way to make a unbiased
> comparison.
A very well-known rule in physics is that you can't compare quantities
with a different dimension. Which is just what you're doing here all
the time. Are you economists really _that_ underdeveloped ?
> And for the fundamentalists fanatics of the marketplace, the reality
> is even worst.The market can never be trusted to set up a proper
> scale. Ever. Just an example:
> The number of porn movies sold every year are thousand times bigger
> than the number of books about solving differential equations. If we
> are to trust the market and make school curricula by market choices ,
> one hour of math per month will be more than enough while everything
> else shall be sex sex sex. Clear, the "marketplace wisdom" is
> something we must never take to serious in strategic decision.
I'm not talking _at all_ about "forces of the free market". I'm making
up a - somewhat artificial - comparison with sports, a laboratory case
so to speak. In order to establish what "justice" would be look like,
eventually.
> So yes, there will always be bias and the selection will never be
> perfect. This is the reason we shall always be able to review how a
> certain decision impacted the society, and based on results tweak the
> system to get better. By using this dynamic as oppose to static
> stability criteria, we will achieve better results.
>
> But, accepting the need for a dynamic control over society will be a
> serious blow for the conservative mindset who are afraid of changes.
Han de Bruijn
umu...@gmail.com
> Han de Bruijnwrote
>
> > Democracy Highlander wrote
> >> That will limit the average CEO pay at 16 times as the average worker. This seems quite a decent upper limit.
> > _Seems_, yes. But is it an _objective_ upper limit ? The answer is: NO.
> >http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-1990-Ravi-Batra/dp/0440201683
> > I've seen many such proposals for a "decent upper limit". For example
> > in the book by Ravi Batra "The Great Depression of 1990" an upper
> > limit of 10 (ten) times the lowest income is proposed. But what we
> > really need is something better than a wild guess, which could be 10
> > or 16 but why not, say, a factor 100 or more. Upper limits should be
> > linked to what people really can and can not _do_, in a productive
> > sense. Productivity should be _measured_ in the first place.
>
> It isnt even possible to do that with most jobs.
Try me. I'm a bean counter by profession.
> How the hell do you measure the productivity of a CEO ?
Has there been any of the kind lately ?
> In spades with the CEO of an operation that sells discretionary
> stuff that the consumers stop buying when they fear for their jobs ?
>
> You cant even 'measure' the productivity of someone like a realtor.
Once upon a time, there existed no negative numbers in mathematics as
well, but people succeeded in defining them as a generalization from
known numbers. But you can't do it if you don't want it.
> > And objective standards for comparison of productivity should be
> > developed. Only after this "proper rewarding" can be defined: a
> > _scientific_ foundation for Justice.
>
> It isnt even possible.
Maybe not with you in my team.
> > Let me show that such measurements of "productivity" are not impossible.
>
> Corse it is with most jobs.
>
> You cant even do it with say doctors when so many persist
> with stupid lifestyles that produce very high levels of obesity.
>
> > When considering e.g. sports, you can compare your own achievements with those of a champion. And it turns out to be
> > quite interesting to do so !
>
> Thats not productivity.
No. It's an artificial example that maybe shows some resemblance with
the real case.
> It isnt even possible to do this sort of measuring with
> what matters with team sports like football, who wins.
I've only considered examples where it _is_ possible.
> > It is seen that my own speed, when walking from train station to office, is 5 km / hour, while the speed of a champion
> > running the same distance is 27 km / hour. Giving an upper to lower limit ratio of 5 or 6.
>
> That implys that the speed matters. Not so. What actually matters
> is the effect on your health and there is no point in running faster.
Indeed. But that's not the level of abstraction considered _here_.
> > It is seen that my own speed, when swimming a distance of 1000 metres, is 1,2 km / hour (Han de Bruijn). A world
> > record, established by Inge de Bruijn (not a relative !)
>
> Are you both descended from bears ?
>
> Are you very hairy ?
Very funny. I can tell you more fun but I don't.
> > at the same distance, is 6,7 km / hour. Thus giving again an upper to lower limit ratio of 5 or 6.
> > It is seen that my own speed, when driving my bike over a distance of
> > 60 kilometres, is 10 km / hour. Champions do it 4 or 5 times better,
> > but not more.
> > Can we conclude that your "decent upper limit" should not be a factor 16 but rather a factor 5 or 6 ?
>
> Nope, its just wanking with numbers to no useful purpose.
It's _my_ purpose, not yours, obviously.
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
>>>> That will limit the average CEO pay at 16 times as the average
>>>> worker. This seems quite a decent upper limit.
>>> _Seems_, yes. But is it an _objective_ upper limit ? The answer is: NO.
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-1990-Ravi-Batra/dp/0440201683
>>> I've seen many such proposals for a "decent upper limit". For example
>>> in the book by Ravi Batra "The Great Depression of 1990" an upper
>>> limit of 10 (ten) times the lowest income is proposed. But what we
>>> really need is something better than a wild guess, which could be 10
>>> or 16 but why not, say, a factor 100 or more. Upper limits should be
>>> linked to what people really can and can not _do_, in a productive
>>> sense. Productivity should be _measured_ in the first place.
>> It isnt even possible to do that with most jobs.
> Try me.
Already did below.
> I'm a bean counter by profession.
You claim to be a physcist in another post, which is it ?
>> How the hell do you measure the productivity of a CEO ?
> Has there been any of the kind lately ?
Yep, not one of the Australian or Canadian
deposit taking banks has imploded spectacularly.
But when thats mostly because of the way banking was regulated
in those countrys, thats hardly a measure of CEO productivity.
>> In spades with the CEO of an operation that sells discretionary
>> stuff that the consumers stop buying when they fear for their jobs ?
>> You cant even 'measure' the productivity of someone like a realtor.
> Once upon a time, there existed no negative numbers in mathematics
> as well, but people succeeded in defining them as a generalization
> from known numbers. But you can't do it if you don't want it.
Waffle.
>>> And objective standards for comparison of productivity should be
>>> developed. Only after this "proper rewarding" can be defined: a
>>> _scientific_ foundation for Justice.
>> It isnt even possible.
> Maybe not with you in my team.
There is no team.
>>> Let me show that such measurements of "productivity" are not impossible.
>> Corse it is with most jobs.
>> You cant even do it with say doctors when so many persist
>> with stupid lifestyles that produce very high levels of obesity.
>>> When considering e.g. sports, you can compare your own achievements
>>> with those of a champion. And it turns out to be quite interesting to do so !
>> Thats not productivity.
> No. It's an artificial example that maybe shows some resemblance with the real case.
Nope, no resemblence what so ever. Nada, zero, ziltch.
>> It isnt even possible to do this sort of measuring with
>> what matters with team sports like football, who wins.
> I've only considered examples where it _is_ possible.
Pity thats such a tiny subset of real world jobs that says nothing
useful about what was being discussed, how people should be paid.
>>> It is seen that my own speed, when walking from train station to office,
>>> is 5 km / hour, while the speed of a champion running the same distance
>>> is 27 km / hour. Giving an upper to lower limit ratio of 5 or 6.
>> That implys that the speed matters. Not so. What actually matters
>> is the effect on your health and there is no point in running faster.
> Indeed. But that's not the level of abstraction considered _here_.
More meaningless waffle.
>>> It is seen that my own speed, when swimming a distance
>>> of 1000 metres, is 1,2 km / hour (Han de Bruijn). A world
>>> record, established by Inge de Bruijn (not a relative !)
>> Are you both descended from bears ?
>> Are you very hairy ?
> Very funny. I can tell you more fun but I don't.
Try that again in english.
>>> at the same distance, is 6,7 km / hour. Thus giving again an upper
>>> to lower limit ratio of 5 or 6.
>>> It is seen that my own speed, when driving my bike over a distance
>>> of 60 kilometres, is 10 km / hour. Champions do it 4 or 5 times better,
>>> but not more.
>>> Can we conclude that your "decent upper limit" should not be a
>>> factor 16 but rather a factor 5 or 6 ?
>> Nope, its just wanking with numbers to no useful purpose.
> It's _my_ purpose, not yours, obviously.
More waffle.
Rod Speed
>>>> That will limit the average CEO pay at 16 times as the
>>>> average worker. This seems quite a decent upper limit.
>>> _Seems_, yes. But is it an _objective_ upper limit ? The answer is: NO.
>>> http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-1990-Ravi-Batra/dp/0440201683
>>> I've seen many such proposals for a "decent upper limit". For
>>> example in the book by Ravi Batra "The Great Depression of 1990" an
>>> upper limit of 10 (ten) times the lowest income is proposed. But
>>> what we really need is something better than a wild guess, which
>>> could be 10 or 16 but why not, say, a factor 100 or more. Upper
>>> limits should be linked to what people really can and can not _do_,
>>> in a productive sense. Productivity should be _measured_ in the
>>> first place.
>> It isnt even possible to do that with most jobs.
> Maybe I misread. I read his post as a spoof of that idea.
Unlikely given that he waved Ravi Batra around previously.
> If not, it was incredibly dumb.
It is indeed.
Liberal Whisperer
How many raises have the demorats in congress voted for themselves
since taking control??
Liberal Whisperer
>
> - Show quoted text -
HUH??? They've voted themselves two raises in two years FFS !! What
are you stoopid??
Democracy Highlander
> Sorry. But for me as a physicist, what you do here is: not very smart.
> And that's an understatement. See below.
Please tell me you are a businessmen. A physicist to came with the
idea that you can _objectively_
measure unrelated achievements ? Hmmmmm are you a freshman ?
> A very well-known rule in physics is that you can't compare quantities
> with a different dimension.
Good morning, that is exactly what I tried to show you !
> Which is just what you're doing here all the time.
I was doing that to make the case that in economics there is no way to
accurately and totally unbiased compare the performance of the
accountant with the performance of the electrician. While the
electrician will make a lousy accountant who will probably bring IRS
to some of his clients, an accountant will rather make a carbonized
electrician.
You can not say, the electrician who wired 2 houses in a month is 1.3
times as productive as the accountant who filled taxes for 20 persons
in the same amount of time.
In the same way, it make no economic sense to put both to compete
against each other in both accounting and electricity and average. To
say that the accountant is 5 times as good as the electrician at
accounting, the electrician is 10 times as good as the accountant at
wiring, average
and get that the electrician is 2 times better than the accountant, is
comparing pounds with miles per hour. It doesn't make any sense.
You can not compare objectively the CEO work with the chief engineer,
so there will be some bias involved. I am sure that any engineer or
scientist will say that the chief engineer's work is way more
important than CEOs, while every businessmen will say that the CEO job
is way more important than what chief engineer is doing. The truth
will be somewhere in the middle, but WHERE EXACTLY in the middle that
is pure bias and there is no way in the world to measure that
_objectively_ .
> I'm not talking _at all_ about "forces of the free market".
I know. I just used the opportunity of that reply to present a related
issue.
I was making no reference at your idea in the second part of my
message, sorry if you believed otherwise.
> I'm making up a - somewhat artificial - comparison with sports, a laboratory case
> so to speak. In order to establish what "justice" would be look like,
> eventually.
The "justice" will definitely have some bias involved due to the fact
that we face what is called an "unobservable system" in control
theory. Since an unobservable system is not directly controllable,
what we have to do is build (imperfect) models and control it by
observing the model state. Then compare the predicted results with the
real life results and continuously update the model and controller
parameters.
I believe such an adaptive control system is the only solution to
handle supercomplex systems, as the economy.
You will never be able to calculate up-front that X is worth more than
Y, but you can assume it may be. So, you try give X a bit more than to
Y and evaluate the see how the results played out. If the overall
performance improve you keep giving more to X than to Y, if the
performance go south you reverse the course.
alexy
>On Feb 12, 3:20 pm, umum...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Sorry. But for me as a physicist, what you do here is: not very smart.
>> And that's an understatement. See below.
>
>Please tell me you are a businessmen.
I seriously doubt it. Any businessman, who has had to evaluate jobs
and the performance of incumbents in those jobs, would recognize how
naive those ideas are.
Democracy Highlander
> I seriously doubt it. Any businessman, who has had to evaluate jobs
> and the performance of incumbents in those jobs, would recognize how
> naive those ideas are.
Keep in mind that those overpaid "geniuses", those "super skilled
CEOs" and those "valuable leaders" were exactly the same nobrainers
who one by one drove their own companies into bankruptcy.
Bank after bank, financial institution after financial institution was
driven to collapse by the same animal like instinctual greed under the
"leadership" of the "respected businessmen".
Do you really expect them to be capable to think about ideas, to
evaluate anything ? LOL !
Here is how a businessman works:
====================
The businessman brain is build primary of 2 neurons, one for each side
of the nose tuned to the smell of money. Each of those 2 neurons are
hardwired into the locomotor system for left respectively right
limbs.
The locomotor limbs move at a speed directly proportional with the
signal they get from the neuron.
When there is no smell at all the businessmen stay.
When the smell is sensed equal by both nostrils, the limbs move at an
equal speed, so the businessman move ahead.
When the smell is sensed stronger into a nostril, the corresponding
limbs move faster that the other side so the businessman turn to that
direction.
If the smell remain equal in both nostrils but the intensity decrease,
the third neuron fire so businessman turn 180 degree.
When whiskers sense touch, the businessman open the mouth and eat.
This is trigger by his fourth and last neuron.
Democracy Highlander
<democracy.highlan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Here is how a businessman works:
> ====================
> The businessman brain is build primary of 2 neurons, one for each side
> of the nose tuned to the smell of money. Each of those 2 neurons are
> hardwired into the locomotor system for left respectively right
> limbs.
CORRECTION:
They are cross-wired (left to right and right to left) in order for
the businessmen to turn properly.
> The locomotor limbs move at a speed directly proportional with the
> signal they get from the neuron.
> When there is no smell at all the businessmen stay.
> When the smell is sensed equal by both nostrils, the limbs move at an
> equal speed, so the businessman move ahead.
CORRECTION:
Instead of:
> When the smell is sensed stronger into a nostril, the corresponding
Read:
When the smell is sensed stronger into a nostril, the opposite
> limbs move faster that the other side so the businessman turn to that
> direction.
> If the smell remain equal in both nostrils but the intensity decrease,
> the third neuron fire so businessman turn 180 degree.
> When whiskers sense touch, the businessman open the mouth and eat.
> This is trigger by his fourth and last neuron.
Now, the businessmen is functioning properly :-)
ro...@telus.net
wrote:
>Democracy Highlander wrote:
>> Now, that the CEOs bonuses are in the lime light it is time to
>> approach the problem rationally and push for reforms in the field.
>
>the first ones that should have salaries capped are the politicians.
They are already grossly underpaid relative to their level of
responsibility, stupid. Compare the salaries and bonuses of the CEOs
administering private firms with $100G in revenues compared to the
salaries of politicians administering governments with $100G in
revenues.
>esp Obammy. lead by example. oh wait, dumocRATs don't do that do they.
Yes, well, not paying politicians at all would guarantee that only
three kinds of people would ever pursue public office: the
independently rich, crooks, and power-lusting megalomaniacs.
And that is obviously the kind of government you want.
> they can't be held down by the laws that govern the rest of us. they
>are toooooo impotent.
The Voice of Stupidity.
-- Roy L
Han de Bruijn
> umu...@gmail.com wrote
>
>>Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>Han de Bruijn wrote
>>>
>>>>Democracy Highlander wrote
>
>>>>>That will limit the average CEO pay at 16 times as the average
>>>>>worker. This seems quite a decent upper limit.
>
>>>>_Seems_, yes. But is it an _objective_ upper limit ? The answer is: NO.
>>>>http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-1990-Ravi-Batra/dp/0440201683
>>>>I've seen many such proposals for a "decent upper limit". For example
>>>>in the book by Ravi Batra "The Great Depression of 1990" an upper
>>>>limit of 10 (ten) times the lowest income is proposed. But what we
>>>>really need is something better than a wild guess, which could be 10
>>>>or 16 but why not, say, a factor 100 or more. Upper limits should be
>>>>linked to what people really can and can not _do_, in a productive
>>>>sense. Productivity should be _measured_ in the first place.
>
>>>It isnt even possible to do that with most jobs.
>
>>Try me.
>
> Already did below.
>
>>I'm a bean counter by profession.
>
> You claim to be a physcist in another post, which is it ?
Expected this question. I'm a physicist by education. And I've become an
administrator by sheer career.
http://www.cwts.nl/cwtsbv/index.html
>>>How the hell do you measure the productivity of a CEO ?
>
>>Has there been any of the kind lately ?
>
> Yep, not one of the Australian or Canadian
> deposit taking banks has imploded spectacularly.
>
> But when thats mostly because of the way banking was regulated
> in those countrys, thats hardly a measure of CEO productivity.
>
>>>In spades with the CEO of an operation that sells discretionary
>>>stuff that the consumers stop buying when they fear for their jobs ?
>
>>>You cant even 'measure' the productivity of someone like a realtor.
Perhaps the _number_ of houses he/she mediates in selling or buying ?
>>Once upon a time, there existed no negative numbers in mathematics
>>as well, but people succeeded in defining them as a generalization
>>from known numbers. But you can't do it if you don't want it.
>
> Waffle.
There are three important issues in any economy:
1. Freedom 2. Justice 3. Efficiency
Let's start in the middle, perhaps most difficult part: 2. Justice.
So the level of abstraction employed here is "justice only". Consider
an isolated case (called "laboratory") where this can be observed, for
example sports. The following are some building blocks of our theory.
1. All humans in the sports laboratory do the SAME thing (for example
running or swimming or driving a bike)
2. Activities are considered ONLY if they can be quantified. Quantities
involved will be considered as an objective measure for productivity
(in the sports laboratory. Speed is an example of such a quantity.)
3. It is assumed that activities which can not easily be quantified in
the above manner nevertheless obey the same laws (resulting in e.g.
5 / 6 as the universal ratio between upper limit and lower limit of
the quantification of an arbitrary human activity)
4. It is assumed that _just_ rewarding is directly proportional to the
quantity which is representative for the human activity considered.
5. It is thus concluded, from a sufficient number of laboratory cases,
that just rewarding should not differ by more than a factor 5 or 6
between the highest and the lowest wage.
>>>>And objective standards for comparison of productivity should be
>>>>developed. Only after this "proper rewarding" can be defined: a
>>>>_scientific_ foundation for Justice.
>
>>>It isnt even possible.
>
>>Maybe not with you in my team.
>
> There is no team.
There is a team.
Disclaimer: English is not my mother tongue.
>>>>at the same distance, is 6,7 km / hour. Thus giving again an upper
>>>>to lower limit ratio of 5 or 6.
>
>>>>It is seen that my own speed, when driving my bike over a distance
>>>>of 60 kilometres, is 10 km / hour. Champions do it 4 or 5 times better,
>>>>but not more.
>
>>>>Can we conclude that your "decent upper limit" should not be a
>>>>factor 16 but rather a factor 5 or 6 ?
>
>>>Nope, its just wanking with numbers to no useful purpose.
>
>>It's _my_ purpose, not yours, obviously.
>
> More waffle.
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> umu...@gmail.com wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>>>> Democracy Highlander wrote
>>>>>> That will limit the average CEO pay at 16 times as the average
>>>>>> worker. This seems quite a decent upper limit.
>>>>> _Seems_, yes. But is it an _objective_ upper limit ? The answer is: NO.
>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/Great-Depression-1990-Ravi-Batra/dp/0440201683
>>>>> I've seen many such proposals for a "decent upper limit". For example in the book by Ravi Batra "The Great
>>>>> Depression of 1990" an upper
>>>>> limit of 10 (ten) times the lowest income is proposed. But what we
>>>>> really need is something better than a wild guess, which could be 10 or 16 but why not, say, a factor 100 or more.
>>>>> Upper limits should be linked to what people really can and can not _do_, in a productive
>>>>> sense. Productivity should be _measured_ in the first place.
>>>> It isnt even possible to do that with most jobs.
>>> Try me.
>> Already did below.
>>> I'm a bean counter by profession.
Thats not a profession, its a trade.
>> You claim to be a physcist in another post, which is it ?
> Expected this question. I'm a physicist by education. And I've become an administrator by sheer career.
Thats not a bean counter.
> http://www.cwts.nl/cwtsbv/index.html
>>>> How the hell do you measure the productivity of a CEO ?
>>> Has there been any of the kind lately ?
>> Yep, not one of the Australian or Canadian
>> deposit taking banks has imploded spectacularly.
>> But when thats mostly because of the way banking was regulated
>> in those countrys, thats hardly a measure of CEO productivity.
>>>> In spades with the CEO of an operation that sells discretionary
>>>> stuff that the consumers stop buying when they fear for their jobs ?
>>>> You cant even 'measure' the productivity of someone like a realtor.
> Perhaps the _number_ of houses he/she mediates in selling or buying ?
Useless, because the number sold or bought depends on what the seller or
buyer is prepared to accept price wise, and the state of the market in spades.
>>> Once upon a time, there existed no negative numbers in mathematics
>>> as well, but people succeeded in defining them as a generalization
>>> from known numbers. But you can't do it if you don't want it.
>> Waffle.
> There are three important issues in any economy:
> 1. Freedom 2. Justice 3. Efficiency
The first two have absolutely nothing to do with the economy.
> Let's start in the middle, perhaps most difficult part: 2. Justice.
Nothing to do with the economy.
> So the level of abstraction employed here is "justice only".
More waffle.
> Consider an isolated case (called "laboratory") where this can be observed, for example sports.
Nothing to do with 'justice'.
> The following are some building blocks of our theory.
Thats no theory, its just waffle.
> 1. All humans in the sports laboratory do the SAME thing (for example running or swimming or driving a bike)
Irrelevant to jobs which cant generally be measured like that.
> 2. Activities are considered ONLY if they can be quantified.
Mindlessly silly when so much work cant be.
How are you going to 'quantify' what Obummer does ?
> Quantities involved will be considered as an objective measure for productivity (in the sports laboratory. Speed is
> an example of such a quantity.)
Completely impossible with most sports. In spades with team sports.
> 3. It is assumed that activities which can not easily be quantified in the above manner nevertheless obey the same
> laws
Stupid assumption. Have fun quantifying Einstein on that basis.
Tesla in spades.
Darwin in spades.
> (resulting in e.g. 5 / 6 as the universal ratio between upper limit and lower limit of the quantification of an
> arbitrary human activity)
More utterly mindless waffle.
> 4. It is assumed that _just_ rewarding is directly proportional to the
> quantity which is representative for the human activity considered.
Terminally stupid assumption.
> 5. It is thus concluded, from a sufficient number of laboratory cases,
> that just rewarding should not differ by more than a factor 5 or 6
> between the highest and the lowest wage.
Have fun applying that to Einstein, Darwin, Tesla, etc etc etc.
>>>>> And objective standards for comparison of productivity should be developed. Only after this "proper rewarding" can
>>>>> be defined: a _scientific_ foundation for Justice.
>>>> It isnt even possible.
>>> Maybe not with you in my team.
>> There is no team.
> There is a team.
Nope. There is no one at all on your 'team'
>>>> Thats not productivity.
>> More meaningless waffle.
Your problem. Try again.
Han de Bruijn
> On Feb 12, 3:20 pm, umum...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>Sorry. But for me as a physicist, what you do here is: not very smart.
>>And that's an understatement. See below.
>
> Please tell me you are a businessmen. A physicist to came with the
> idea that you can _objectively_ measure unrelated achievements ?
Not at all ! One can only compare achievements which are related in that
they can be measured by quantities of the same dimension. But you seem
to agree with this, so why this quarrel ?
> Hmmmmm are you a freshman ?
>
>>A very well-known rule in physics is that you can't compare quantities
>>with a different dimension.
>
> Good morning, that is exactly what I tried to show you !
>
>>Which is just what you're doing here all the time.
>
> I was doing that to make the case that in economics there is no way to
> accurately and totally unbiased compare the performance of the
> accountant with the performance of the electrician. While the
> electrician will make a lousy accountant who will probably bring IRS
> to some of his clients, an accountant will rather make a carbonized
> electrician.
And you seem to be a "realist" by telling us that. But Let me tell you
that economy is by no way different in this respect from e.g. physics.
Yet in physics we have laboratories. The purpose of a laboratory is to
_isolate_ a phenomenon from its "real" surroundings and study it as on
itself. For example you can study what gravitation is like, by dropping
a feather in an vacuum tube, and dropping a piece of lead, and conclude
that both have the same acceleration of gravity, which is 9.81 m/s^2 .
The "realistic" approach would be that the feather, due to the presence
of air, is falling with an uniform speed. (And so does the lead, in the
long run) We both know that the latter "knowledge", though "realistic",
is in fact Aristotelian, out-dated, useless.
You cannot compare the activities of an accountant with the activities
of an electrician. But what you CAN do is isolate them from their dayly
work and guid them to a place where they CAN compare their activities.
A place is kind of neutral with respect to an evil and unjust economy.
It's called amateur sports. It is here that accountant and electrician
wear the same suit and do the same thing. It is in THIS laboratory that
people can compare what they are worth with the SAME measure. My claim
is that results in the sports laboratory are nevertheless relevant for
the REAL economy.
> You can not say, the electrician who wired 2 houses in a month is 1.3
> times as productive as the accountant who filled taxes for 20 persons
> in the same amount of time.
You're again comparing apples with pears. Still a long way to go before
you can even think of a decent economic laboratory experiment.
> In the same way, it make no economic sense to put both to compete
> against each other in both accounting and electricity and average. To
> say that the accountant is 5 times as good as the electrician at
> accounting, the electrician is 10 times as good as the accountant at
> wiring, average
> and get that the electrician is 2 times better than the accountant, is
> comparing pounds with miles per hour. It doesn't make any sense.
Even in physics there's an abundance of comparisons which make no sense.
The challenge is to come up with comparisons that MAKE sense. Sometimes
I have the impression that economists are just unwilling to think about
it.
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
> Democracy Highlander <democracy....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Feb 12, 3:20 pm, umum...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry. But for me as a physicist, what you do here is: not very smart.
>>>And that's an understatement. See below.
>>
>>Please tell me you are a businessmen.
>
> I seriously doubt it. Any businessman, who has had to evaluate jobs
> and the performance of incumbents in those jobs, would recognize how
> naive those ideas are.
There is nothing more practical than a good theory.
Han de Bruijn
Paulie Walnutts
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:35:51 -0500, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger>
> wrote:
>
> >Democracy Highlander wrote:
> >> Now, that the CEOs bonuses are in the lime light it is time to
> >> approach the problem rationally and push for reforms in the field.
>
> >the first ones that should have salaries capped are the politicians.
>
> They are already grossly underpaid relative to their level of
> responsibility, stupid. Compare the salaries and bonuses of the CEOs
> administering private firms with $100G in revenues compared to the
> salaries of politicians administering governments with $100G in
> revenues.
>
> >esp Obammy. lead by example. oh wait, dumocRATs don't do that do they.
>
> Yes, well, not paying politicians at all would guarantee that only
> three kinds of people would ever pursue public office: the
> independently rich, crooks, and power-lusting megalomaniacs.
>
Your Messiah spent almost a $billion on his campaign to buy the
Presidency. He may not be a billionaire but his major supporters are.
George Soros and Arab muslims. Is that the government you want?
Stray Dog
See below....at end....
On Mon, 16 Feb 2009, Rod Speed wrote:
> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 19:56:06 +1100
> From: Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics, sci.econ, alt.politics, us.politics,
> talk.politics.misc
> Subject: Re: Bonuses and compensation reform
I see that Rod Speed is up to his old habit of being one of the
buffoons, bluffers, boasters, braggers, bullies, or blow-offs with
inflated opinions of themselves (eg. Rod Speed), dogmatism (eg. Rod Speed),
responses using ad hominems (eg. Rod Speed), or hooliganism (eg. Rod Speed),
or impudence (eg. Rod Speed), or knee-jerk responses (eg. Rod Speed).
The "Rod Speed FAQ" (not written by me) might help everyone understand
him.
See below....
The "Rod Speed FAQ" read it below or at the URL for yourself.....
- - - - - - - - -
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.internet.wireless/2006-07/ms
g00462.html
- - - - - - - - - -
After its recent emergence in the thread "How to calculate increase
of home wireless router range?", readers of this group may find
this useful. [based on a post in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage]
Who or What is Rod Speed?
Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod
Speed is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered
he can enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the
big, hard man" on the InterNet.
Rod is believed to be from Australia.
Rod certainly posts a lot. Why is that?
It relates back to the point about boosting his own self esteem by
what amounts to effectively having a wank in public. Rod's
personality, as exemplified by his posts, means he is practically
unemployable which means he sits around at home all day festering
away and getting worse and worse. This means he posts more and
more try and boost the old failing self esteem. Being unemployed
also means he as a lot of time on his hands to post in he first
place.
But maybe Rod really is a very clever and knowledgable person?
Clever? His posts wouldn't support that theory. As far as being
knowledgable, well, Rod has posted to various aus newsgroups
including invest, comms, and politics. He has posted to all as a
self professed "expert" and flames any and all who disagree with
him. Logically, here's no way any single individual could be
more than a jack of all trades across such a wide spread of
subject matter.
But maybe Rod really is an expert in some areas?
Possibly. However, his "bedside manner" prevents him from being
taken seriously by most normal people. Also, he has damaged his
credibility in areas where he might know what he's on about by
shooting his self in the foot in areas where he does not. For
example, in the case of subject matter such as politics, even a
view held by Albert Einstein cannot be little more than an
opinion and to vociferously denigrate an opposing opinion is
simply small mindedness and bigotry, the kind of which Einstein
himself fought against his whole life.
What is Rod Speed's main modus operandi?
Simple! He shoots off a half brained opinion in response to any
other post and touts that opinion as fact. When challenged, he
responds with vociferous and rabid denigration. He has an
instantly recognisable set of schoolboy put downs limited pretty
much to the following: "Pathetic, Puerile, Little Boy, try
harder, trivial, more lies, gutless wonder, wanker, etc etc".
The fact that Rod has been unable to come up with any new insults
says a lot about his outlook and intelligence.
But why do so many people respond to Rod in turn?
It has to do with effrontery and a lack of logic. Most people
who post have some basis of reason for what they write and when
Rod retorts with his usual denigration and derision they respond
emotionally rather than logically. It's like a teacher in a
class room who has a misbehaving pupil. The teacher challenges
the pupil to explain himself and the student responds with "***
off, Big Nose!" Even thought the teacher has a fairly normal
proboscis, he gets a dent in his self-esteem and might resort to
an emotional repsonse like "yeah? well your *** wouldn't fill a
pop rivet, punk", which merely invites some oneupmanship from the
naughty pupil. Of course, the teacher should not have justified
the initial comment with a response, especially in front of the
class. The correct response was "please report to the
headmaster's office right NOW!"
What is a "RodBot"?
Some respondents in aus.invest built a "virtual Rod" which was
indiscernable from the "real" Rod. Net users could enter an
opinion or even a fact and the RoDBot would tell them they were
pathetic lying schoolboys who should be able to do better or some
equally pithy Rod Speedism.
Are you saying that Rod Speed is a Troll?
You got it!
What is the best way to handle Rod Speed?
KillFile!
.
Rod Speed
Trouble is that yours is nothing like that.
Rod Speed
> Democracy Highlander wrote
>>> Sorry. But for me as a physicist, what you do here is: not very smart. And that's an understatement. See below.
>> Please tell me you are a businessmen. A physicist to came with the
>> idea that you can _objectively_ measure unrelated achievements ?
> Not at all ! One can only compare achievements which are related in that they can be measured by quantities of the
> same dimension. But you seem to agree with this, so why this quarrel ?
Because the situation you proclaimed objective measurement
should be used in involves unrelated achievements.
Its never going to be possible to objectively measure the
relative achievements of the office cleaner and the CEO.
So you cant come up with a ratio for their wages.
It isnt even feasible to objectively measure two CEOs, one
running an operation like Microsoft which completely dominates
its industry, and say a CEO of an airline which doesnt.
>> Hmmmmm are you a freshman ?
>>> A very well-known rule in physics is that you can't compare quantities with a different dimension.
>> Good morning, that is exactly what I tried to show you !
>>> Which is just what you're doing here all the time.
>> I was doing that to make the case that in economics there is no way
>> to accurately and totally unbiased compare the performance of the
>> accountant with the performance of the electrician. While the electrician will make a lousy accountant who will
>> probably bring IRS to some of his clients, an accountant will rather make a carbonized electrician.
> And you seem to be a "realist" by telling us that. But Let me tell you
> that economy is by no way different in this respect from e.g. physics.
Corse it is, completely different.
> Yet in physics we have laboratories. The purpose of a laboratory is to
> _isolate_ a phenomenon from its "real" surroundings and study it as on
> itself. For example you can study what gravitation is like, by dropping a feather in an vacuum tube, and dropping a
> piece of lead, and conclude that both have the same acceleration of gravity, which is 9.81 m/s^2 .
And there is nothing like that in economics.
> The "realistic" approach would be that the feather, due to the
> presence of air, is falling with an uniform speed. (And so does the
> lead, in the long run) We both know that the latter "knowledge",
> though "realistic", is in fact Aristotelian, out-dated, useless.
> You cannot compare the activities of an accountant with the activities of an electrician.
Or the activitys of the cleaner and the CEO, so
you cant come up with a ratio for their wages.
> But what you CAN do is isolate them from their dayly work and guid them to a place where they CAN compare their
> activities.
But its completely irrelevant to the ratio of their
wages how they perform at say 100 yards sprint.
And what do you do when the cleaner does twice as well in the 100 yard
sprint as the CEO, but the CEO leaves the cleaner for dead in a marathon ?
> A place is kind of neutral with respect to an evil and unjust economy. It's called amateur sports. It is here that
> accountant and electrician wear the same suit and do the same thing.
But the results there have absolutely no relevance to what they
should be paid when doing the work you are paying them to do.
> It is in THIS laboratory that people can compare what they are worth with the SAME measure. My claim is that results
> in the sports laboratory are nevertheless relevant for the REAL economy.
And that is where you are just plain wrong. Just because the accountant
does better that 100 yard sprint than the electrician does, says sweet
fuck all about how well each of them does their respective jobs.
>> You can not say, the electrician who wired 2 houses in a month is 1.3 times as productive as the accountant who
>> filled taxes for 20 persons in the same amount of time.
> You're again comparing apples with pears. Still a long way to go before you can even think of a decent economic
> laboratory experiment.
You in spades. You cant even manage to grasp that the relative
performance in a particular amateur sport has no relevance what
so ever to how well they do their respective jobs.
In the case of the CEO, he may do rather better at a particular amateur
sport than someone else who doesnt waste his time doing that particular
amateur sport as another individual does, so he should be paid LESS
than the invididual who doesnt waste as much of his time on that sport.
>> In the same way, it make no economic sense to put both to compete
>> against each other in both accounting and electricity and average. To
>> say that the accountant is 5 times as good as the electrician at accounting, the electrician is 10 times as good as
>> the accountant at wiring, average and get that the electrician is 2 times better than the accountant, is comparing
>> pounds with miles per hour. It doesn't make any sense.
> Even in physics there's an abundance of comparisons which make no sense. The challenge is to come up with comparisons
> that MAKE sense.
And you cant do that with determining what people should
be paid when trying to decide what the ratio in pay should
be between the lowest paid say cleaner and the CEO.
> Sometimes I have the impression that economists are just unwilling to think about it.
Thinking about it doesnt help, your scheme is completely impractical.
Absolutely classic academic stuff that has no relevance to the real world.
Rod Speed
delusions about being a dog, desperately cowering behind
Stray Dog desperately attempted to bullshit and lie its way out
of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
No surprise that it got the bums rush, right out the door, onto its lard arse.
No surprise that its so pathetically bitter and twisted about it.
JoeTheBlogger
> On Feb 15, 11:52 am, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:35:51 -0500, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Democracy Highlander wrote:
>>>> Now, that the CEOs bonuses are in the lime light it is time to
>>>> approach the problem rationally and push for reforms in the field.
>>> the first ones that should have salaries capped are the politicians.
>> They are already grossly underpaid relative to their level of
>> responsibility, stupid. Compare the salaries and bonuses of the CEOs
>> administering private firms with $100G in revenues compared to the
>> salaries of politicians administering governments with $100G in
>> revenues.
>>
>>> esp Obammy. lead by example. oh wait, dumocRATs don't do that do they.
>> Yes, well, not paying politicians at all would guarantee that only
>> three kinds of people would ever pursue public office: the
>> independently rich, crooks, and power-lusting megalomaniacs.
>>
>
>
> Your Messiah spent almost a $billion on his campaign to buy the
> Presidency. He may not be a billionaire but his major supporters are.
> George Soros and Arab muslims. Is that the government you want?
probably not, but they are not smart enough to see the consequences of
their actions so that is what they got.
Han de Bruijn
>
> See below....at end....
{ .. completely superfluous stuff snipped .. ]
Yes. We all _know_ how Stray Dog and Rod Speed respond to each other.
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
Trouble is that people are not listening, just shouting to each other,
don't even want to work together, while the econ crisis is developing.
I really don't care whether a single individual finds theories proposed
by another single individual worthless or not.
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
> Han de Bruijn wrote
>
>>Democracy Highlander wrote
>>
>>>umum...@gmail.com wrote
>
>>>>Sorry. But for me as a physicist, what you do here is: not very smart. And that's an understatement. See below.
>
>>>Please tell me you are a businessmen. A physicist to came with the
>>>idea that you can _objectively_ measure unrelated achievements ?
>
>
>>Not at all ! One can only compare achievements which are related in that they can be measured by quantities of the
>>same dimension. But you seem to agree with this, so why this quarrel ?
>
> Because the situation you proclaimed objective measurement
> should be used in involves unrelated achievements.
>
> Its never going to be possible to objectively measure the
> relative achievements of the office cleaner and the CEO.
> So you cant come up with a ratio for their wages.
That's right. Therefore I send them to the sports field. Therefore I let
them wear the same outfit. Therefore I let them run the same round and I
use the same clock to measure the time they need to run that same round.
> It isnt even feasible to objectively measure two CEOs, one
> running an operation like Microsoft which completely dominates
> its industry, and say a CEO of an airline which doesnt.
You don't understand what a laboratory is supposed to accomplish.
>>>Hmmmmm are you a freshman ?
>
>>>>A very well-known rule in physics is that you can't compare quantities with a different dimension.
>
>>>Good morning, that is exactly what I tried to show you !
>
>>>>Which is just what you're doing here all the time.
>
>>>I was doing that to make the case that in economics there is no way
>>>to accurately and totally unbiased compare the performance of the
>>>accountant with the performance of the electrician. While the electrician will make a lousy accountant who will
>>>probably bring IRS to some of his clients, an accountant will rather make a carbonized electrician.
>
>>And you seem to be a "realist" by telling us that. But Let me tell you
>>that economy is by no way different in this respect from e.g. physics.
>
> Corse it is, completely different.
Sure. Yet ..
>>Yet in physics we have laboratories. The purpose of a laboratory is to
>>_isolate_ a phenomenon from its "real" surroundings and study it as on
>>itself. For example you can study what gravitation is like, by dropping a feather in an vacuum tube, and dropping a
>>piece of lead, and conclude that both have the same acceleration of gravity, which is 9.81 m/s^2 .
>
> And there is nothing like that in economics.
Of course there is. Human activities are human activities, in economics
or in amateur sports, they are just human activities. What I'm trying to
do is consider them in _isolation_. That's what a laboratory is for.
>>The "realistic" approach would be that the feather, due to the
>>presence of air, is falling with an uniform speed. (And so does the
>>lead, in the long run) We both know that the latter "knowledge",
>>though "realistic", is in fact Aristotelian, out-dated, useless.
>
>>You cannot compare the activities of an accountant with the activities of an electrician.
>
> Or the activitys of the cleaner and the CEO, so
> you cant come up with a ratio for their wages.
True. Therefore I send them both to the sports field and let them both
do things that _can_ be compared.
>>But what you CAN do is isolate them from their dayly work and guid them to a place where they CAN compare their
>>activities.
>
> But its completely irrelevant to the ratio of their
> wages how they perform at say 100 yards sprint.
The 100 yards sprint is only an indication of how people perform with
respect to each other if they are allowed to do the same thing. Problem
with economic "reality" is that the cleaner is simply not allowed to to
the work of a CEO. For whatever "good" reasons.
> And what do you do when the cleaner does twice as well in the 100 yard
> sprint as the CEO, but the CEO leaves the cleaner for dead in a marathon ?
My theory is about averages, not about incidents. On the average, a good
marathon runner should be satisfied if he ends in double the time of the
champion. But time ratios between skilled people never exceed more than
a factor 5 or 6 (even closer: 2 or 3, given sufficient training). A most
effective way to enlarge the ratio, admittedly, is to deprive people of
a decent education (which is called training in sports).
>>A place is kind of neutral with respect to an evil and unjust economy. It's called amateur sports. It is here that
>>accountant and electrician wear the same suit and do the same thing.
>
> But the results there have absolutely no relevance to what they
> should be paid when doing the work you are paying them to do.
They are an _indication_ of how people should perform if they were given
the same opportunities and put into the same circumstances.
>>It is in THIS laboratory that people can compare what they are worth with the SAME measure. My claim is that results
>>in the sports laboratory are nevertheless relevant for the REAL economy.
>
> And that is where you are just plain wrong. Just because the accountant
> does better that 100 yard sprint than the electrician does, says sweet
> fuck all about how well each of them does their respective jobs.
Give the accountant an education in electricity, give the electrician an
education in accountancy, let them switch their jobs and take a look at
their respective performances. Bet that they both will perform twice as
worse, sure, but not much worse.
>>>You can not say, the electrician who wired 2 houses in a month is 1.3 times as productive as the accountant who
>>>filled taxes for 20 persons in the same amount of time.
>
>>You're again comparing apples with pears. Still a long way to go before you can even think of a decent economic
>>laboratory experiment.
>
> You in spades. You cant even manage to grasp that the relative
> performance in a particular amateur sport has no relevance what
> so ever to how well they do their respective jobs.
>
> In the case of the CEO, he may do rather better at a particular amateur
> sport than someone else who doesnt waste his time doing that particular
> amateur sport as another individual does, so he should be paid LESS
> than the invididual who doesnt waste as much of his time on that sport.
You still don't understand what a laboratory is for.
>>>In the same way, it make no economic sense to put both to compete
>>>against each other in both accounting and electricity and average. To
>>>say that the accountant is 5 times as good as the electrician at accounting, the electrician is 10 times as good as
>>>the accountant at wiring, average and get that the electrician is 2 times better than the accountant, is comparing
>>>pounds with miles per hour. It doesn't make any sense.
>
>>Even in physics there's an abundance of comparisons which make no sense. The challenge is to come up with comparisons
>>that MAKE sense.
>
> And you cant do that with determining what people should
> be paid when trying to decide what the ratio in pay should
> be between the lowest paid say cleaner and the CEO.
Job rotating would do wonders. Being a CEO must not be difficult anyway
for a cleaner, nowadays ..
>>Sometimes I have the impression that economists are just unwilling to think about it.
>
> Thinking about it doesnt help, your scheme is completely impractical.
It _sounds_ impractical because it's abstract.
> Absolutely classic academic stuff that has no relevance to the real world.
That's precisely why there is virtually NO progress in economy.
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>> alexy wrote
>>>> Democracy Highlander <democracy....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Sorry. But for me as a physicist, what you do here is: not very smart. And that's an understatement. See below.
>>>>> Please tell me you are a businessmen.
>>>> I seriously doubt it. Any businessman, who has had to evaluate jobs and the performance of incumbents in those
>>>> jobs, would recognize how naive those ideas are.
>>> There is nothing more practical than a good theory.
>> Trouble is that yours is nothing like that.
> Trouble is that people are not listening, just shouting to each other,
Thats just plain wrong. No one believes your hare brained scheme for
determining the ratio of the lowest paid to the highest paid wage will work.
Not one.
Some consider it so hare brained that they thought you were joking/satarising.
> don't even want to work together, while the econ crisis is developing.
That never happens, even during a full revolution.
> I really don't care whether a single individual finds theories proposed by another single individual worthless or not.
You do actually.
ro...@telus.net
<hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Feb 15, 11:52=A0am, ro...@telus.net wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Feb 2009 13:35:51 -0500, JoeTheBlogger <j...@blog.ger>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >esp Obammy. =A0lead by example. =A0oh wait, dumocRATs don't do that do t=
>hey.
>>
>> Yes, well, not paying politicians at all would guarantee that only
>> three kinds of people would ever pursue public office: the
>> independently rich, crooks, and power-lusting megalomaniacs.
>
> Your Messiah
Stop making $#!+ up. I'm not even American, and would have preferred
Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, the only two major-party candidates who
were willing to talk about the real issues.
>spent almost a $billion on his campaign to buy the Presidency.
And the other guy didn't?
>He may not be a billionaire but his major supporters are.
And McCain's weren't?
>George Soros and Arab muslims.
You mean Arab muslims like the bin Ladens, who financed Bush?
>Is that the government you want?
Strawman. A major reason politicians serve the rich is that they are
so underpaid: it's the only way they can afford to run, and the only
way they can make any money. Singapore pays its elected politicians
the most of any country in the world, and is the only
non-Germanic-speaking country among the 25 least corrupt countries in
the world.
-- Roy L
Rod Speed
>>>>> Sorry. But for me as a physicist, what you do here is: not very smart. And that's an understatement. See below.
>>>> Please tell me you are a businessmen. A physicist to came with the
>>>> idea that you can _objectively_ measure unrelated achievements ?
>>> Not at all ! One can only compare achievements which are related in that they can be measured by quantities of the
>>> same dimension. But you seem to agree with this, so why this quarrel ?
>> Because the situation you proclaimed objective measurement
>> should be used in involves unrelated achievements.
>> Its never going to be possible to objectively measure the
>> relative achievements of the office cleaner and the CEO.
>> So you cant come up with a ratio for their wages.
> That's right. Therefore I send them to the sports field.
Its completely irrelevant how those two perform on the sports field.
That has no relevance what so ever to how they should be paid.
> Therefore I let them wear the same outfit. Therefore I let them run the same round and I use the same clock to measure
> the time they need to run that same round.
>> It isnt even feasible to objectively measure two CEOs, one
>> running an operation like Microsoft which completely dominates
>> its industry, and say a CEO of an airline which doesnt.
> You don't understand what a laboratory is supposed to accomplish.
Wrong, I understand that measuring how they perform on the sports
field has no relevance what so ever to how they perform as CEOs.
>>>> Hmmmmm are you a freshman ?
>>>>> A very well-known rule in physics is that you can't compare quantities with a different dimension.
>>>> Good morning, that is exactly what I tried to show you !
>>>>> Which is just what you're doing here all the time.
>>>> I was doing that to make the case that in economics there is no way to accurately and totally unbiased compare the
>>>> performance of the accountant with the performance of the electrician. While the electrician will make a lousy
>>>> accountant who will probably bring IRS to some of his clients, an accountant will rather make a carbonized
>>>> electrician.
>>> And you seem to be a "realist" by telling us that. But Let me tell you that economy is by no way different in this
>>> respect from e.g. physics.
>> Corse it is, completely different.
> Sure. Yet ..
There is no yet.
>>> Yet in physics we have laboratories. The purpose of a laboratory is
>>> to _isolate_ a phenomenon from its "real" surroundings and study it
>>> as on itself. For example you can study what gravitation is like, by
>>> dropping a feather in an vacuum tube, and dropping a piece of lead,
>>> and conclude that both have the same acceleration of gravity, which
>>> is 9.81 m/s^2 .
>> And there is nothing like that in economics.
> Of course there is.
Nope.
> Human activities are human activities, in economics or in amateur sports, they are just human activities. What I'm
> trying to do is consider them in _isolation_. That's what a laboratory is for.
Pity that how they perform in amateur sports has
no relevance what so ever to how they should be
paidwhen they are cleaners and CEOs.
>>> The "realistic" approach would be that the feather, due to the
>>> presence of air, is falling with an uniform speed. (And so does the
>>> lead, in the long run) We both know that the latter "knowledge",
>>> though "realistic", is in fact Aristotelian, out-dated, useless.
>>> You cannot compare the activities of an accountant with the activities of an electrician.
>> Or the activitys of the cleaner and the CEO, so
>> you cant come up with a ratio for their wages.
> True. Therefore I send them both to the sports field and let them both do things that _can_ be compared.
Irrelevant to the ratio of how they are paid.
AND you'll get completely different answers with particular pairs
of cleaners and CEOs anyway, so you would end up with the
situation in some companys that the CEO should be paid less
than the cleaner and in other companys more than the cleaner.
Even you should be able to grasp the problem with that.
>>> But what you CAN do is isolate them from their dayly work and guide them to a place where they CAN compare their
>>> activities.
>> But its completely irrelevant to the ratio of their
>> wages how they perform at say 100 yards sprint.
> The 100 yards sprint is only an indication of how people perform with respect to each other if they are allowed to do
> the same thing.
> Problem with economic "reality" is that the cleaner is simply not
> allowed to to the work of a CEO. For whatever "good" reasons.
So what is the point in measuring their performance in the 100 yards sprint ?
>> And what do you do when the cleaner does twice as well in the 100 yard sprint as the CEO, but the CEO leaves the
>> cleaner for dead in a marathon ?
> My theory is about averages, not about incidents.
Like hell it is.
> On the average, a good marathon runner should be satisfied if he ends in double the time of the champion.
Irrelevant to what is being discussed, now the ratio between
what the cleaner and CEO is paid should be determined.
> But time ratios between skilled people never exceed more than a factor 5 or 6 (even closer: 2 or 3, given sufficient
> training).
Irrelevant to the ratio of the wages that a cleaner gets to a CEO.
> A most effective way to enlarge the ratio, admittedly, is to deprive people of a decent education (which is called
> training in sports).
Thats just plain wrong too. The main characteristic of the best
CEOs is that they dont need any education at all, they are the
sort of people who can produce something like Microsoft without it.
In fact you can make a case that formal education is counter productive
with enterprenuers and that its the mindset not the education that matters.
Thats true in spades with cleaners where anyone who isnt actually
brain dead learn on the job and doesnt need a formal education at all.
All they really need to be able to do is read the labels on the products.
And even that isnt really necessary because they can always ask
someone else what the label says if they cant read it themselves.
Which might just by why illiterate immigrants do that sort of work.
>>> A place is kind of neutral with respect to an evil and unjust
>>> economy. It's called amateur sports. It is here that accountant and electrician wear the same suit and do the same
>>> thing.
>> But the results there have absolutely no relevance to what they
>> should be paid when doing the work you are paying them to do.
> They are an _indication_ of how people should perform if they were
> given the same opportunities and put into the same circumstances.
Wrong with work like a CEO. Its nothing like amateur sports where
your physical attributes determine what is the best you can achieve.
It isnt even true of a cleaner where it isnt the physical attributes that
matter anymore, its much more the mentality that determines how
well you perform as a cleaner now that machines do the hard work.
>>> It is in THIS laboratory that people can compare what they are
>>> worth with the SAME measure. My claim is that results in the sports laboratory are nevertheless relevant for the
>>> REAL economy.
>> And that is where you are just plain wrong. Just because the
>> accountant does better that 100 yard sprint than the electrician
>> does, says sweet fuck all about how well each of them does their
>> respective jobs.
> Give the accountant an education in electricity, give the electrician
> an education in accountancy, let them switch their jobs and take a
> look at their respective performances. Bet that they both will
> perform twice as worse, sure, but not much worse.
You're just plain wrong. Particularly with more specific trades.
Some people just dont have the mentality for jobs that involve maths.
No education is going to fix that.
Creativity and invention in spades.
You dont produce a Darwin or and Einstein by education, its
whats between their ears that they are born with that matters.
And its completely pointless seeing how well Alby performs in the 100 yards sprint too.
And you line about what ratio you get between the average and the best
performer in the 100 yards sprint is irrelevant to what ratio you see in the
real world between the worst inventor who never produces a damned thing
and someone like Tesla in spades. The ratios are nothing like similar.
Same with running a company. There is nothing like a 2 or 5 times ratio
between the best and worst performance. Between running Microsoft
and the family business that gets run into the ground by some fool that
hasnt got a fucking clue about how to run a business that he inherited.
>>>> You can not say, the electrician who wired 2 houses in a month is 1.3 times as productive as the accountant who
>>>> filled taxes for 20 persons in the same amount of time.
>>> You're again comparing apples with pears. Still a long way to go
>>> before you can even think of a decent economic laboratory experiment.
>> You in spades. You cant even manage to grasp that the relative
>> performance in a particular amateur sport has no relevance what
>> so ever to how well they do their respective jobs.
>> In the case of the CEO, he may do rather better at a particular
>> amateur sport than someone else who doesnt waste his time doing that particular amateur sport as another individual
>> does, so he should be paid LESS than the invididual who doesnt waste as much of his time on that sport.
> You still don't understand what a laboratory is for.
Yes I do. You are claiming that because you come up with a ratio
of say 2 or 5 between the best in a particular amateur sport and
the average, that says a damned thing about the ratio between
what a cleaner and CEO should be paid. Of course it doesnt.
In spades with something like Einstein or Darwin or Tesla.
You dont see anything like a 2 or 5 times ratio between
the champion and the average in a field like that.
>>>> In the same way, it make no economic sense to put both to compete
>>>> against each other in both accounting and electricity and average. To say that the accountant is 5 times as good as
>>>> the electrician at
>>>> accounting, the electrician is 10 times as good as the accountant
>>>> at wiring, average and get that the electrician is 2 times better
>>>> than the accountant, is comparing pounds with miles per hour. It
>>>> doesn't make any sense.
>>> Even in physics there's an abundance of comparisons which make no
>>> sense. The challenge is to come up with comparisons that MAKE sense.
>> And you cant do that with determining what people should
>> be paid when trying to decide what the ratio in pay should
>> be between the lowest paid say cleaner and the CEO.
> Job rotating would do wonders.
Like hell it would.
> Being a CEO must not be difficult anyway for a cleaner, nowadays ..
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you
have never ever had a clue about anything at all, ever.
With the world economy tanking very spectacularly indeed, its only someone
who knows what they are doing that can avoid the operation going bust now.
Its different in boom times when even a brainless fool can make money.
>>> Sometimes I have the impression that economists are just unwilling to think about it.
>> Thinking about it doesnt help, your scheme is completely impractical.
> It _sounds_ impractical because it's abstract.
Its impractical because its completely silly.
So silly that some even thought you were joking.
>> Absolutely classic academic stuff that has no relevance to the real world.
> That's precisely why there is virtually NO progress in economy.
Wrong, as always.
There was a hell of a lot of progress in the economy in the last century.
We even managed to work out how to completely eliminate the effect
of most infectious disease via vaccination, and managed to work out
that it isnt a great idea to shit in your drinking water supply disease wise.
And we managed to work out what DNA is about, and invent a few
useful things like transistors, integrated circuits, computers etc etc etc.
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed wrote:
> Han de Bruijn wrote
>
>>Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>Han de Bruijn wrote
>>>
>>>>Democracy Highlander wrote
>>>>
>>>>>umum...@gmail.com wrote
>
>
>>>>>>Sorry. But for me as a physicist, what you do here is: not very smart. And that's an understatement. See below.
>
>
>>>>>Please tell me you are a businessmen. A physicist to came with the
>>>>>idea that you can _objectively_ measure unrelated achievements ?
>
>
>>>>Not at all ! One can only compare achievements which are related in that they can be measured by quantities of the
>>>>same dimension. But you seem to agree with this, so why this quarrel ?
>
>
>>>Because the situation you proclaimed objective measurement
>>>should be used in involves unrelated achievements.
>
>
>>>Its never going to be possible to objectively measure the
>>>relative achievements of the office cleaner and the CEO.
>>>So you cant come up with a ratio for their wages.
>
>
>>That's right. Therefore I send them to the sports field.
>
>
> Its completely irrelevant how those two perform on the sports field.
>
> That has no relevance what so ever to how they should be paid.
Tell me what's relevant for how they should be paid. Is it what they DO
or is it what they are _capable_ to do, i.e. their competence / talent /
capabilities ?
When talking about talents, I have a nice and well known story for you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_talents
A detail in the parable which isn't emphasized much is the fact that
the _most_ talented person is no more than _five_ times (remember my
factor 5 or 6) more talented than the least talented person. The old
civilizations _knew_ what the average differences between people are,
perhaps, better than _we_ do.
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
>
> There was a hell of a lot of progress in the economy in the last century.
>
> We even managed to work out how to completely eliminate the effect
> of most infectious disease via vaccination, and managed to work out
> that it isnt a great idea to shit in your drinking water supply disease wise.
>
> And we managed to work out what DNA is about, and invent a few
> useful things like transistors, integrated circuits, computers etc etc etc.
Uhm, I meant _economy_ (: the "science" of finance / money / employment
/ trade / taxes / etc.) not technology and engineering and medicine.
Repeat. Has there been _any_ progress in economic science ? Why then are
they not capable to meet the nowadays challenge ?
Are you an economist ?
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>>>> Democracy Highlander wrote
>>>>>> umum...@gmail.com wrote
>>>>>>> Sorry. But for me as a physicist, what you do here is: not very smart. And that's an understatement. See below.
>>>>>> Please tell me you are a businessmen. A physicist to came with the idea that you can _objectively_ measure
>>>>>> unrelated achievements ?
>>>>> Not at all ! One can only compare achievements which are related
>>>>> in that they can be measured by quantities of the same dimension.
>>>>> But you seem to agree with this, so why this quarrel ?
>>>> Because the situation you proclaimed objective measurement
>>>> should be used in involves unrelated achievements.
>>>> Its never going to be possible to objectively measure the
>>>> relative achievements of the office cleaner and the CEO.
>>>> So you cant come up with a ratio for their wages.
>>> That's right. Therefore I send them to the sports field.
>> Its completely irrelevant how those two perform on the sports field.
>> That has no relevance what so ever to how they should be paid.
> Tell me what's relevant for how they should be paid.
What they do, while allowing for what its possible for them to do.
> Is it what they DO
While allowing for what its possible for them to do.
> or is it what they are _capable_ to do, i.e. their competence / talent / capabilities ?
Nope.
> When talking about talents, I have a nice and well known story for you:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_talents
Just another completely irrelevant steaming turd.
Thats just another mind fuck.
> A detail in the parable which isn't emphasized much is the fact that
> the _most_ talented person is no more than _five_ times (remember my factor 5 or 6) more talented than the least
> talented person.
That number is straight from the author's. We can tell that from the smell.
Its nothing even remotely like that with Darwin, Tesla, Einstein, Pasteur, etc etc etc.
> The old civilizations _knew_ what the average differences between people are, perhaps, better than _we_ do.
Like hell they did. Pity about Darwin, Tesla, Einstein, Pasteur, etc etc etc.
Han de Bruijn
> Thats just plain wrong too. The main characteristic of the best
> CEOs is that they dont need any education at all, they are the
> sort of people who can produce something like Microsoft without it.
Can't remember that Bill Gates has been unaware of how to write a decent
computer program.
> In fact you can make a case that formal education is counter productive
> with enterprenuers and that its the mindset not the education that matters.
Sure. And by thinking this way and let the suckers govern our society we
are just reaping the harvest we deserve.
> Thats true in spades with cleaners where anyone who isnt actually
> brain dead learn on the job and doesnt need a formal education at all.
> All they really need to be able to do is read the labels on the products.
> And even that isnt really necessary because they can always ask
> someone else what the label says if they cant read it themselves.
>
> Which might just by why illiterate immigrants do that sort of work.
We've had television program here in the Netherlands where CEO's did the
work of their "unskilled" for say half a day. Quite an eye opener. And a
good laugh (at the CEO who made himself ridiculous) as well.
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Sometimes I have the impression that economists are just unwilling to think about it.
>>>> Thinking about it doesnt help, your scheme is completely impractical.
>>> It sounds impractical because it's abstract.
>> Its impractical because its completely silly.
>> So silly that some even thought you were joking.
>>>> Absolutely classic academic stuff that has no relevance to the real world.
>>> That's precisely why there is virtually NO progress in economy.
>> Wrong, as always.
>> There was a hell of a lot of progress in the economy in the last century.
>> We even managed to work out how to completely eliminate the effect
>> of most infectious disease via vaccination, and managed to work out that it isnt a great idea to shit in your
>> drinking water supply disease wise.
>> And we managed to work out what DNA is about, and invent a few
>> useful things like transistors, integrated circuits, computers etc etc etc.
> Uhm, I meant _economy_ (: the "science" of finance / money / employment / trade / taxes / etc.) not technology and
> engineering and medicine.
Still completely wrong. We have managed to work out how to avoid depressions.
We havent seen one for 80 years. There were lots of them in the century before 1929.
> Repeat. Has there been _any_ progress in economic science ?
Corse there has.
> Why then are they not capable to meet the nowadays challenge ?
We have managed to work out how to avoid depressions.
We havent seen one for 80 years. There were lots of them in the century before 1929.
Han de Bruijn
> Thats just plain wrong. No one believes your hare brained scheme for
> determining the ratio of the lowest paid to the highest paid wage will work.
No one in these groups, which are over-populated with Americans, coming
from the places where all current evil has begun. I mean, what do _they_
know ? How to buy _everything_ on credit ? How to let money rain out of
the big blue sky ? Wow ! "No one believes .."
> Not one.
Which _one_?
> Some consider it so hare brained that they thought you were joking/satarising.
Sure. Some considered the theory of Relativity so hare brained that they
thought Einstein was joking. What's your point ? Am I so impressed that
I should crawl back into my cosy little hole ?
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
> Han de Bruijn wrote
>
>>Tell me what's relevant for how they should be paid.
>
> What they do, while allowing for what its possible for them to do.
Escapes me.
>>Is it what they DO
>
> While allowing for what its possible for them to do.
Escapes me again.
>>or is it what they are _capable_ to do, i.e. their competence / talent / capabilities ?
>
> Nope.
Okay. That's a crystal clear answer.
[ .. snip .. ]
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
> We have managed to work out how to avoid depressions.
> We havent seen one for 80 years. There were lots of them in the century before 1929.
We will watch and see.
> We have managed to work out how to avoid depressions.
> We havent seen one for 80 years. There were lots of them in the century before 1929.
We will watch and see.
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
> Its never going to be possible to objectively measure the
> relative achievements of the office cleaner and the CEO.
> So you cant come up with a ratio for their wages.
An analogy.
It's never going to be possible to objectively measure the relative
speeds of a piece of lead and a feather. Indeed, Aristotle has been
thinking this way.
> You in spades. You cant even manage to grasp that the relative
> performance in a particular amateur sport has no relevance what
> so ever to how well they do their respective jobs.
Therefore, according to Rod Speed, dropping a feather in a vacuum tube
is a laboratory experiment, not relevant for physics. Because a vacuum
on earth is not the real thing. Justice on earth is not the real thing
as well.
You don't understand that we can _make_ a vacuum a real thing on earth.
You don't understand that we can _make_ an economy, with just wages, a
real thing on earth. With the outcomes of the sports laboratory.
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>>>> alexy wrote
>>>>>> Democracy Highlander <democracy....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> umum...@gmail.com wrote
>>>>>>>> Sorry. But for me as a physicist, what you do here is: not very smart. And that's an understatement. See below.
>>>>>>> Please tell me you are a businessmen.
>>>>>> I seriously doubt it. Any businessman, who has had to evaluate jobs and the performance of incumbents in those
>>>>>> jobs, would recognize how naive those ideas are.
>>>>> There is nothing more practical than a good theory.
>>>> Trouble is that yours is nothing like that.
>>> Trouble is that people are not listening, just shouting to each other,
>> Thats just plain wrong. No one believes your hare brained scheme for
>> determining the ratio of the lowest paid to the highest paid wage will work.
> No one in these groups, which are over-populated with Americans,
Not one of the non americans thinks it will work either.
> coming from the places where all current evil has begun.
Irrelevant, they personally didnt produce the sub prime fiasco.
> I mean, what do _they_ know ? How to buy _everything_ on credit ?
Americans dont do anything like that. The majority
of them pay off their credit cards in full every month.
> How to let money rain out of the big blue sky ? Wow ! "No one believes .."
None of them who has commented on your hare brained scheme believes that.
>> Not one.
> Which _one_?
That is colloquial english which means no one.
>> Some consider it so hare brained that they thought you were joking/satarising.
> Sure. Some considered the theory of Relativity so hare brained that they thought Einstein was joking.
Nope, no one did.
> What's your point ?
That whatever ratio you get using amateur sports has no relevance what so ever
to the ratio that should be used for wages between the maximum and minimum.
Most obviously with Darwin, Tesla, Pasteur etc etc etc.
> Am I so impressed that I should crawl back into my cosy little hole ?
You could do the decent thing and just hang yourself thoughtfully.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>> Tell me what's relevant for how they should be paid.
>> What they do, while allowing for what its possible for them to do.
> Escapes me.
What a CEO of a company that is attempting to survive arguably
the worst recession we have had since the great depression is quite
different to what its possible for a CEO to do in boom times for example.
Even in the case of the cleaner, what the operation they work
for is prepared to provide cleaning machines wise is obviously
relevant to how well the cleaning work gets done etc.
>>> Is it what they DO
>> While allowing for what its possible for them to do.
> Escapes me again.
See above.
>>> or is it what they are _capable_ to do, i.e. their competence / talent / capabilities ?
>> Nope.
> Okay. That's a crystal clear answer.
> [ .. snip .. ]
Says he carefully snipping the rest of the answer.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> We have managed to work out how to avoid depressions.
>> We havent seen one for 80 years. There were lots of them in the century before 1929.
> We will watch and see.
Dont have to do that on that 80 years.
>> We have managed to work out how to avoid depressions.
>> We havent seen one for 80 years. There were lots of them in the century before 1929.
> We will watch and see.
Dont have to do that on that 80 years.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote:
>>> On the average, a good marathon runner should be satisfied if he ends in double the time of the champion.
>> Irrelevant to what is being discussed, now the ratio between
>> what the cleaner and CEO is paid should be determined.
>>> But time ratios between skilled people never exceed more than a factor 5 or 6 (even closer: 2 or 3, given sufficient
>>> training).
>>> Irrelevant to the ratio of the wages that a cleaner gets to a CEO.
>>> A most effective way to enlarge the ratio, admittedly, is to deprive people of a decent education (which is called
>>> training in sports).
Education is not called training in sports, particularly when the athlete does it himself.
>> Thats just plain wrong too. The main characteristic of the best
>> CEOs is that they dont need any education at all, they are the
>> sort of people who can produce something like Microsoft without it.
> Can't remember that Bill Gates has been unaware of how to write a decent computer program.
The point is that he didnt get that by education, he worked that out for himself.
So did I. There was no education available when I got into computing.
>> In fact you can make a case that formal education is counter
>> productive with enterprenuers and that its the mindset not the
>> education that matters.
> Sure. And by thinking this way and let the suckers govern our society
No we dont, we have stringent controls on what they are allowed to do.
They arent allowed to create monopolys, lie about what they are providing,
they have to sell safe products and services, they have to replace goods
and services which fail to do what they claimed they were selling etc etc etc.
> we are just reaping the harvest we deserve.
Nope.
>> Thats true in spades with cleaners where anyone who isnt actually
>> brain dead learn on the job and doesnt need a formal education at all. All they really need to be able to do is read
>> the labels on the products. And even that isnt really necessary because they can always ask someone else what the
>> label says if they cant read it themselves.
>> Which might just be why illiterate immigrants do that sort of work.
> We've had television program here in the Netherlands where CEO's did the work of their "unskilled" for say half a day.
There's been others that did that in britain etc too.
> Quite an eye opener. And a good laugh (at the CEO who made himself ridiculous) as well.
Irrelevant to the ratio of wages for the lowest paid unskilled and the CEO.
You'd get an even worse result if the least skilled cleaner was allowed
to do what the CEO does. No one is actually stupid enough to try that.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>> Sorry. But for me as a physicist, what you do here is: not very smart. And that's an understatement. See below.
>>>> Please tell me you are a businessmen. A physicist to came with the
>>>> idea that you can objectively measure unrelated achievements ?
>>> Not at all ! One can only compare achievements which are related in that they can be measured by quantities of the
>>> same dimension. But you seem to agree with this, so why this quarrel ?
>> Because the situation you proclaimed objective measurement
>> should be used in involves unrelated achievements.
>> Its never going to be possible to objectively measure the
>> relative achievements of the office cleaner and the CEO.
>> So you cant come up with a ratio for their wages.
> An analogy.
This isnt an analogy, its just an irrelevant wank.
> It's never going to be possible to objectively measure the relative speeds of a piece of lead and a feather. Indeed,
> Aristotle has been thinking this way.
He also claimed all sorts of other silly stuff too.
He did however contribute rather more than his cleaner did to society.
>>>> You can not say, the electrician who wired 2 houses in a month is 1.3 times as productive as the accountant who
>>>> filled taxes for 20 persons in the same amount of time.
>>> You're again comparing apples with pears. Still a long way to go before you can even think of a decent economic
>>> laboratory experiment.
>> You in spades. You cant even manage to grasp that the relative
>> performance in a particular amateur sport has no relevance what
>> so ever to how well they do their respective jobs.
> Therefore, according to Rod Speed, dropping a feather in a vacuum tube is a laboratory experiment, not relevant for
> physics.
Wrong. Its very relevant to determining what gravity is about.
> Because a vacuum on earth is not the real thing.
Irrelevant when removing the effect of air on the rate an object falls at.
> Justice on earth is not the real thing as well.
Never ever said anything like that.
> You don't understand that we can _make_ a vacuum a real thing on earth.
Odd, could have sworn I have done that.
> You don't understand that we can _make_ an economy, with just wages, a real thing on earth. With the outcomes of the
> sports laboratory.
Thats nothing even remotely resembling anything like a laboratory, its just an irrelevant wank.
You dont even get the same ratio between a good average sportsman and
the world record holder between a variety of amateur sports, so you dont
even end up with a ratio at all, let alone whether its relevant to wages.
A marthon runner who doesnt complete the course has
an infinite ratio to the world champion record holder.
Some sports have a very narrow spread between a good average sportsman
and the world record champion, others have a huge ratio. Some an infinite
ratio when the good average sportsman fails to complete the event.
So its a completely useless way to come up with a ratio.
Han de Bruijn
> Han de Bruijn wrote
>
>>Rod Speed wrote
>>
>>>Han de Bruijn wrote
>
>>>>Tell me what's relevant for how they should be paid.
>
>>>What they do, while allowing for what its possible for them to do.
>
>>Escapes me.
>
> What a CEO of a company that is attempting to survive arguably
> the worst recession we have had since the great depression is quite
> different to what its possible for a CEO to do in boom times for example.
So you finally admit that the current recesion is close to a depression,
despite the fact that you were saying all the time that current economic
science is so well developed that it knows how to avoid depressions. You
are not so certain anymore, are you ?
> Even in the case of the cleaner, what the operation they work
> for is prepared to provide cleaning machines wise is obviously
> relevant to how well the cleaning work gets done etc.
>
>>>>Is it what they DO
>
>>>While allowing for what its possible for them to do.
>
>>Escapes me again.
>
> See above.
>
>>>>or is it what they are _capable_ to do, i.e. their competence / talent / capabilities ?
>
>>>Nope.
>
>>Okay. That's a crystal clear answer.
>
>>[ .. snip .. ]
>
> Says he carefully snipping the rest of the answer.
Which is in the parent posting, as always, so who cares.
But you say that competence profiles are not relevant for wages. If so,
why then is there so much of a hype about, what's the relevance:
http://www.im.gov.ab.ca/publications/pdf/RecordsMgmtCompetencyProfiles.pdf
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>>>> Tell me what's relevant for how they should be paid.
>>>> What they do, while allowing for what its possible for them to do.
>>> Escapes me.
>> What a CEO of a company that is attempting to survive arguably
>> the worst recession we have had since the great depression is quite
>> different to what its possible for a CEO to do in boom times for example.
> So you finally admit that the current recesion is close to a depression,
Nope, just the worst recession since the great depression.
> despite the fact that you were saying all the time that current economic science is so well developed that it knows
> how to avoid depressions.
It is, you watch.
> You are not so certain anymore, are you ?
Wrong, as always.
And I have said repeatedly that even if we do end up with another
depression, it will be MUCH easier to take than the great depression
was, because we have decent modern welfare now and the worst
that we will see is what Japan saw in what they call their lost decade.
>> Even in the case of the cleaner, what the operation they work
>> for is prepared to provide cleaning machines wise is obviously
>> relevant to how well the cleaning work gets done etc.
>>>>> Is it what they DO
>>>> While allowing for what its possible for them to do.
>>> Escapes me again.
>> See above.
>>>>> or is it what they are _capable_ to do, i.e. their competence / talent / capabilities ?
>>>> Nope.
>>> Okay. That's a crystal clear answer.
>>> [ .. snip .. ]
>> Says he carefully snipping the rest of the answer.
> Which is in the parent posting, as always, so who cares.
Everyone who can see your flagrant dishonesty there.
> But you say that competence profiles are not relevant for wages.
No I didnt. I ACTUALLY said that the ratio you get between an
average competant sportsman and the world record with amateur
sports has absolutely no relevance what so ever to the ratio between
the lowest paid and the highest paid in a particular operation.
> If so, why then is there so much of a hype about, what's the relevance:
> http://www.im.gov.ab.ca/publications/pdf/RecordsMgmtCompetencyProfiles.pdf
Absolutely NOTHING to do with your hare brained scheme to use the ratio
you get between an average competant sportsman and the world record
with amateur sports has absolutely no relevance what so ever to the ratio
between the lowest paid and the highest paid in a particular operation.
One is actually attempting to measure the on the job performance. Your hare
brained scheme measures something completely irrelevant to job performance.
umu...@gmail.com
>
> Absolutely NOTHING to do with your hare brained scheme to use the ratio
> you get between an average competant sportsman and the world record
> with amateur sports has absolutely no relevance what so ever to the ratio
> between the lowest paid and the highest paid in a particular operation.
>
> One is actually attempting to measure the on the job performance. Your hare
> brained scheme measures something completely irrelevant to job performance.
A funny thing is that I didn't even make up this "hare brained scheme"
myself, a great deal. The origins of the scheme are in (well, sort of)
science fiction book from an author with nick-name <NL>Stefan Denaerde
</NL> = <NL>Stef van de Aarde</NL> = <EN>Stephan of the Earth</EN> and
the book is named <EN>Operation Survival Earth</EN> = <NL>Buitenaardse
Beschaving</NL>. It is noted that the American (EN) version is more or
less adapted to the desires of a local UFO hunter and less authentical
than the Dutch (NL) version. In the book, it is said that there exists
a Cosmic Universal Economy. And one of the properties of this economy
is, indeed, that there is an upper bound on the ratio between highest
and lowest wage, which is even more restrictive than my own proposal:
it's 2 or 3 rather than 5 or 6. And now comes the big surprise. Stefan
Denaerde is not just a third rank science fiction writer. He is a real
CEO, of a real big company. Or rather has been: he died in 1999. See:
http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/denaerde/IargaIntro.htm
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Escapes me.
>> It is, you watch.
>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>> Escapes me again.
>>>> See above.
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>> [ .. snip .. ]
Nothing funny about it. Its no news that there is more than just you that silly.
> The origins of the scheme are in (well, sort of) science fiction book
Some day even you might notice that whats in most science fiction isnt feasible.
> from an author with nick-name <NL>Stefan Denaerde </NL> =
> <NL>Stef van de Aarde</NL> = <EN>Stephan of the Earth</EN>
> and the book is named <EN>Operation Survival Earth</EN> =
> <NL>Buitenaardse Beschaving</NL>. It is noted that the American
> (EN) version is more or less adapted to the desires of a local UFO
> hunter and less authentical than the Dutch (NL) version. In the
> book, it is said that there exists a Cosmic Universal Economy.
Some day even you might notice that science FICTION is just FICTION.
> And one of the properties of this economy is, indeed, that there is an upper
> bound on the ratio between highest and lowest wage, which is even more
> restrictive than my own proposal: it's 2 or 3 rather than 5 or 6.
So its even more comprehensively silly.
And in fact that isnt that far from what quite a few communist countrys
tried, with terminal stupiditys like the best surgeons etc not being paid
more than 2 or 3 times what the hospital cleaner is paid etc.
Even you should have noticed that that didnt work very well.
> And now comes the big surprise.
Nope.
> Stefan Denaerde is not just a third rank science fiction
> writer. He is a real CEO, of a real big company.
No surprise at all. Plenty of the terminally stupid that are so stupid that they havent
even noticed that this approach was tried in communist countrys end up in jobs like that.
> Or rather has been: he died in 1999. See:
> http://hdebruijn.soo.dto.tudelft.nl/denaerde/IargaIntro.htm
So hopeless that he cant even manage to come up with an alien that doesnt just look like a disfigured human.
alexy
>There are three important issues in any economy:
>
>1. Freedom 2. Justice 3. Efficiency
>
>Let's start in the middle, perhaps most difficult part: 2. Justice.
>
>So the level of abstraction employed here is "justice only". Consider
>an isolated case (called "laboratory") where this can be observed, for
>example sports. The following are some building blocks of our theory.
This is a well-described, extremely silly argument.
>
>1. All humans in the sports laboratory do the SAME thing (for example
> running or swimming or driving a bike)
>
>2. Activities are considered ONLY if they can be quantified. Quantities
> involved will be considered as an objective measure for productivity
> (in the sports laboratory. Speed is an example of such a quantity.)
And is something that involves little or no essentially human
activity. One can have a speed race between earthworms.
>
>3. It is assumed that activities which can not easily be quantified in
> the above manner nevertheless obey the same laws (resulting in e.g.
> 5 / 6 as the universal ratio between upper limit and lower limit of
> the quantification of an arbitrary human activity)
And how out of touch with reality would one have to be to make a silly
assumption like that? Even within the sports realm, do you think that
the average person, with a little coaching, would be able to hit 1/5
or 1/6 as many major-league fastballs as the major league batting
champ? Or stop 1/5 to 1/6 as many NHL slap shots as a league leading
goalie? And those are purely physical activities. Go to sports with
more skill or strategy, and the difference (reflecting more
essentially human activity) is even greater. Or how about a mental or
social activity that is much more uniquely human than a simple speed
race. How many people do you think could win 1 out of 5 or 6 chess
games against a grand master?
>
>4. It is assumed that _just_ rewarding is directly proportional to the
> quantity which is representative for the human activity considered.
First of all, your statement calls for proportion to the HUMAN
activity, which, unless you are pretty brainless, is much more than a
foot race. Secondly, what is the basis of that assumption? I may pay
$50 to go hear an accomplished symphony orchestra. It's pretty silly
to claim that I should be willing to pay $45 to listen to an orchestra
that missed 10% of the notes.
>
>5. It is thus concluded, from a sufficient number of laboratory cases,
> that just rewarding should not differ by more than a factor 5 or 6
> between the highest and the lowest wage.
Given the strength of your argument, why not just skip steps 1-4 and
decree that you assume this to be true?
--
Alex -- Replace "nospam" with "mail" to reply by email. Checked infrequently.
Stray Dog
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, alexy wrote:
> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:50:42 -0500
> From: alexy <nos...@asbry.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics, sci.econ, alt.politics, us.politics,
> talk.politics.misc
> Subject: Re: Bonuses and compensation reform
>
> Han de Bruijn <Han.de...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote:
>
>> There are three important issues in any economy:
>>
>> 1. Freedom 2. Justice 3. Efficiency
>>
>> Let's start in the middle, perhaps most difficult part: 2. Justice.
>>
>> So the level of abstraction employed here is "justice only". Consider
>> an isolated case (called "laboratory") where this can be observed, for
>> example sports. The following are some building blocks of our theory.
>
> This is a well-described, extremely silly argument.
...especially from the viewpoint of rich/powerful people whose whole line
of argument is extremely silly from a different point of view: "Since it
is possible for me to become rich, I will thus do so by any means
possible, legal/illegal, moral/immoral, or ethical/unethical."
Or, in other words: an "entitlement" attitude.
>>
>> 1. All humans in the sports laboratory do the SAME thing (for example
>> running or swimming or driving a bike)
>>
>> 2. Activities are considered ONLY if they can be quantified. Quantities
>> involved will be considered as an objective measure for productivity
>> (in the sports laboratory. Speed is an example of such a quantity.)
>
> And is something that involves little or no essentially human
> activity. One can have a speed race between earthworms.
I saw "humans" and "do" in #1, and #2 seemed to me to be an extension of
#1, and I hardley think "sports" would be found among earthworms.
>>
>> 3. It is assumed that activities which can not easily be quantified in
>> the above manner nevertheless obey the same laws (resulting in e.g.
>> 5 / 6 as the universal ratio between upper limit and lower limit of
>> the quantification of an arbitrary human activity)
>
> And how out of touch with reality would one have to be to make a silly
> assumption like that?
I thought he was "in touch" with reality, unlike most of our CEOs today.
Even within the sports realm, do you think that
> the average person, with a little coaching, would be able to hit 1/5
> or 1/6 as many major-league fastballs as the major league batting
> champ?
It would depend on whether there was a worthwhile prize at the end.
I'd be glad to trade my house for Tiger Woods' house.
Or stop 1/5 to 1/6 as many NHL slap shots as a league leading
> goalie? And those are purely physical activities. Go to sports with
> more skill or strategy, and the difference (reflecting more
> essentially human activity) is even greater. Or how about a mental or
> social activity that is much more uniquely human than a simple speed
> race. How many people do you think could win 1 out of 5 or 6 chess
> games against a grand master?
Some of those guys make a lot of money, too.
>>
>> 4. It is assumed that _just_ rewarding is directly proportional to the
>> quantity which is representative for the human activity considered.
>
> First of all, your statement calls for proportion to the HUMAN
> activity, which, unless you are pretty brainless, is much more than a
> foot race.
The key part of the analysis has to consider the prize money subtracted
from the gate receipts to figure out how much the organizers get to take
laughing to the bank.
Secondly, what is the basis of that assumption? I may pay
> $50 to go hear an accomplished symphony orchestra. It's pretty silly
> to claim that I should be willing to pay $45 to listen to an orchestra
> that missed 10% of the notes.
People pay more than that for more defective software.
>>
>> 5. It is thus concluded, from a sufficient number of laboratory cases,
>> that just rewarding should not differ by more than a factor 5 or 6
>> between the highest and the lowest wage.
>
> Given the strength of your argument, why not just skip steps 1-4 and
> decree that you assume this to be true?
Top CEOs, every chance they get, manage to make 400 times more
compensation than average grunt peasants on the street.
Ripoff financial crooks (and some lawyers) do even better than that.
alexy
>
>On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, alexy wrote:
>> Han de Bruijn <Han.de...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote:
>>> 1. All humans in the sports laboratory do the SAME thing (for example
>>> running or swimming or driving a bike)
>>>
>>> 2. Activities are considered ONLY if they can be quantified. Quantities
>>> involved will be considered as an objective measure for productivity
>>> (in the sports laboratory. Speed is an example of such a quantity.)
>>
>> And is something that involves little or no essentially human
>> activity. One can have a speed race between earthworms.
>
>I saw "humans" and "do" in #1,
Yes, and you can see "humans" and "do" in the sentence "Humans on
earth do experience the gravitational pull of the earth" But having
those words in the sentence does not make it about essentially human
activity. Do you or do you not agree with the statement that a speed
race reflect the variability of human capabilities?
> and #2 seemed to me to be an extension of
>#1, and I hardley think "sports" would be found among earthworms.
>
>>>
>>> 3. It is assumed that activities which can not easily be quantified in
>>> the above manner nevertheless obey the same laws (resulting in e.g.
>>> 5 / 6 as the universal ratio between upper limit and lower limit of
>>> the quantification of an arbitrary human activity)
>>
>> And how out of touch with reality would one have to be to make a silly
>> assumption like that?
>
>I thought he was "in touch" with reality, unlike most of our CEOs today.
Yes, I'm not surprised that you found that argument convincing.
>
> Even within the sports realm, do you think that
>> the average person, with a little coaching, would be able to hit 1/5
>> or 1/6 as many major-league fastballs as the major league batting
>> champ?
>
>It would depend on whether there was a worthwhile prize at the end.
No, it wouldn't. In fact, it would be kinda humorous to see you try,
with the promise of untold wealth if you succeeded. If the pitcher
managed to hit the bat with one of his pitches, it would probably
knock it out of your hands.
>
>I'd be glad to trade my house for Tiger Woods' house.
I doubt if he is willing to try. But there is a good example of how
stupid this ratio is. Tiger can probably consistently beat an average
varsity college golfer by 5% to 8%, while Federer could probably beat
most college varsity tennis players 6-0 6-0. Does that mean that
Federer is thousands of times better at his sport than Woods is at
his?
> Or stop 1/5 to 1/6 as many NHL slap shots as a league leading
>> goalie? And those are purely physical activities. Go to sports with
>> more skill or strategy, and the difference (reflecting more
>> essentially human activity) is even greater. Or how about a mental or
>> social activity that is much more uniquely human than a simple speed
>> race. How many people do you think could win 1 out of 5 or 6 chess
>> games against a grand master?
>
>Some of those guys make a lot of money, too.
You are either avoiding the point, or are too thick to get it. It has
nothing to do with how much he is paid. We are looking at quantifiable
differences in human performance, and the claim that these naturally
fell in the 5:1 or 6:1 range. This is an example where the human
brain is used, and the difference is much greater.
>
>>>
>>> 4. It is assumed that _just_ rewarding is directly proportional to the
>>> quantity which is representative for the human activity considered.
>>
>> First of all, your statement calls for proportion to the HUMAN
>> activity, which, unless you are pretty brainless, is much more than a
>> foot race.
>
>The key part of the analysis has to consider the prize money subtracted
>from the gate receipts to figure out how much the organizers get to take
>laughing to the bank.
No, that wasn't part of the analysis at all. Try reading the post
again and try to find that part of the analysis. It was about the
range of human performance.
>
> Secondly, what is the basis of that assumption? I may pay
>> $50 to go hear an accomplished symphony orchestra. It's pretty silly
>> to claim that I should be willing to pay $45 to listen to an orchestra
>> that missed 10% of the notes.
>
>People pay more than that for more defective software.
Do you think "Justice" requires paying proportional to measured
performance of the symphony orchestra, or is your point about software
just a feeble attempt to avoid the question?
>
>>>
>>> 5. It is thus concluded, from a sufficient number of laboratory cases,
>>> that just rewarding should not differ by more than a factor 5 or 6
>>> between the highest and the lowest wage.
>>
>> Given the strength of your argument, why not just skip steps 1-4 and
>> decree that you assume this to be true?
>
>Top CEOs, every chance they get, manage to make 400 times more
>compensation than average grunt peasants on the street.
And do you think that means that lame arguments like this are somehow
valid?
Stray Dog
On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, alexy wrote:
> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 16:48:02 -0500
> From: alexy <nos...@asbry.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.politics.economics, sci.econ, alt.politics, us.politics,
> talk.politics.misc
> Subject: Re: Bonuses and compensation reform
>
> Stray Dog <sdog...@sdf.lonestar.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mon, 23 Feb 2009, alexy wrote:
>
>>> Han de Bruijn <Han.de...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote:
>
>>>> 1. All humans in the sports laboratory do the SAME thing (for example
>>>> running or swimming or driving a bike)
>>>>
>>>> 2. Activities are considered ONLY if they can be quantified. Quantities
>>>> involved will be considered as an objective measure for productivity
>>>> (in the sports laboratory. Speed is an example of such a quantity.)
>>>
>>> And is something that involves little or no essentially human
>>> activity. One can have a speed race between earthworms.
>>
>> I saw "humans" and "do" in #1,
>
> Yes, and you can see "humans" and "do" in the sentence "Humans on
> earth do experience the gravitational pull of the earth"
That is a different "do."
But having
> those words in the sentence does not make it about essentially human
> activity. Do you or do you not agree with the statement that a speed
> race reflect the variability of human capabilities?
1. You will have to put into quotes what part of the larger sentence you
are talking abou.
2. You will have to define what you mean by "speed race" since -- at least
-- you could be talking about a race between two beams of light, too.
>> and #2 seemed to me to be an extension of
>> #1, and I hardley think "sports" would be found among earthworms.
>>
You didn't comment on this.
>>>>
>>>> 3. It is assumed that activities which can not easily be quantified in
>>>> the above manner nevertheless obey the same laws (resulting in e.g.
>>>> 5 / 6 as the universal ratio between upper limit and lower limit of
>>>> the quantification of an arbitrary human activity)
>>>
>>> And how out of touch with reality would one have to be to make a silly
>>> assumption like that?
>>
>> I thought he was "in touch" with reality, unlike most of our CEOs today.
>
> Yes, I'm not surprised that you found that argument convincing.
I'm not either.
>> Even within the sports realm, do you think that
>>> the average person, with a little coaching, would be able to hit 1/5
>>> or 1/6 as many major-league fastballs as the major league batting
>>> champ?
>>
>> It would depend on whether there was a worthwhile prize at the end.
>
> No, it wouldn't.
Actually, it might depend on other factors in addition to the worthwhile
prize at the end.
In fact, it would be kinda humorous to see you try,
> with the promise of untold wealth if you succeeded.
You did not exclude the possibility that the average person could do other
things, and you did not forbid that "average person" from obtaining
or receiving benefits from other sources besides "a little coaching."
If the pitcher
> managed to hit the bat with one of his pitches, it would probably
> knock it out of your hands.
Hypothetical speculation based on presumed cheating by the pitcher.
P.S. the "average" guy might be smart enough to "bunt" the mis-pitched
ball, too.
>>>> 4. It is assumed that _just_ rewarding is directly proportional to the
>>>> quantity which is representative for the human activity considered.
>>>
>>> First of all, your statement calls for proportion to the HUMAN
>>> activity, which, unless you are pretty brainless, is much more than a
>>> foot race.
>>
>> The key part of the analysis has to consider the prize money subtracted
>> from the gate receipts to figure out how much the organizers get to take
>> laughing to the bank.
>
> No, that wasn't part of the analysis at all.
It really is part of the business, though.
>> Secondly, what is the basis of that assumption? I may pay
>>> $50 to go hear an accomplished symphony orchestra. It's pretty silly
>>> to claim that I should be willing to pay $45 to listen to an orchestra
>>> that missed 10% of the notes.
>>
>> People pay more than that for more defective software.
>
> Do you think "Justice" requires paying proportional to measured
> performance of the symphony orchestra, or is your point about software
> just a feeble attempt to avoid the question?
Bill Gates never thought about _justice_ unless it showed up as tons of
moola in his wallet.
>>>> 5. It is thus concluded, from a sufficient number of laboratory cases,
>>>> that just rewarding should not differ by more than a factor 5 or 6
>>>> between the highest and the lowest wage.
>>>
>>> Given the strength of your argument, why not just skip steps 1-4 and
>>> decree that you assume this to be true?
>>
>> Top CEOs, every chance they get, manage to make 400 times more
>> compensation than average grunt peasants on the street.
>
> And do you think that means that lame arguments like this are somehow
> valid?
It wouldn't matter one iota if I were one of those CEOs.
alexy
No, that would be mispunctuation. But try it, and show how you think
they need to be included.
>2. You will have to define what you mean by "speed race" since
No I won't. It doesn't take a very advanced intellect to pick that up
from context. For the challenged, see Han's paragraph 1 above.
> -- at least
>-- you could be talking about a race between two beams of light, too.
A typically insightful comment.
>
>>> and #2 seemed to me to be an extension of
>>> #1, and I hardley think "sports" would be found among earthworms.
>>>
>
>You didn't comment on this.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. It is assumed that activities which can not easily be quantified in
>>>>> the above manner nevertheless obey the same laws (resulting in e.g.
>>>>> 5 / 6 as the universal ratio between upper limit and lower limit of
>>>>> the quantification of an arbitrary human activity)
>>>>
>>>> And how out of touch with reality would one have to be to make a silly
>>>> assumption like that?
>>>
>>> I thought he was "in touch" with reality, unlike most of our CEOs today.
>>
>> Yes, I'm not surprised that you found that argument convincing.
>
>I'm not either.
>
>>> Even within the sports realm, do you think that
>>>> the average person, with a little coaching, would be able to hit 1/5
>>>> or 1/6 as many major-league fastballs as the major league batting
>>>> champ?
>>>
>>> It would depend on whether there was a worthwhile prize at the end.
>>
>> No, it wouldn't.
>
>Actually, it might depend on other factors in addition to the worthwhile
>prize at the end.
Unless that other factor was your having the reaction time and vision
of a major league hitter, no, it wouldn't depend on other factors.
>
> In fact, it would be kinda humorous to see you try,
>> with the promise of untold wealth if you succeeded.
>
>You did not exclude the possibility that the average person could do other
>things, and you did not forbid that "average person" from obtaining
>or receiving benefits from other sources besides "a little coaching."
Is there a point?
>
> If the pitcher
>> managed to hit the bat with one of his pitches, it would probably
>> knock it out of your hands.
>
>Hypothetical speculation based on presumed cheating by the pitcher.
Just saying that if you did make contact, it would be a freak
occurrence, and would probably knock the bat from your grip. No
cheating in that.
>
>P.S. the "average" guy might be smart enough to "bunt" the mis-pitched
>ball, too.
No mispitched ball. And bunting for a hit is even tougher than hitting
out of the infield for a hit. Notice how rare bunt hits are?
>>>>> 4. It is assumed that _just_ rewarding is directly proportional to the
>>>>> quantity which is representative for the human activity considered.
>>>>
>>>> First of all, your statement calls for proportion to the HUMAN
>>>> activity, which, unless you are pretty brainless, is much more than a
>>>> foot race.
>>>
>>> The key part of the analysis has to consider the prize money subtracted
>>> from the gate receipts to figure out how much the organizers get to take
>>> laughing to the bank.
>>
>> No, that wasn't part of the analysis at all.
>
>It really is part of the business, though.
Maybe you missed the point of Han's post?
>>> Secondly, what is the basis of that assumption? I may pay
>>>> $50 to go hear an accomplished symphony orchestra. It's pretty silly
>>>> to claim that I should be willing to pay $45 to listen to an orchestra
>>>> that missed 10% of the notes.
>>>
>>> People pay more than that for more defective software.
>>
>> Do you think "Justice" requires paying proportional to measured
>> performance of the symphony orchestra, or is your point about software
>> just a feeble attempt to avoid the question?
>
>Bill Gates never thought about _justice_ unless it showed up as tons of
>moola in his wallet.
That wasn't the question. Han suggested that justice required
compensation proportional to a quantifiable measure. I gave an example
and asked if that reflected justice. Your avoidance of the question is
duly noted.
>
>>>>> 5. It is thus concluded, from a sufficient number of laboratory cases,
>>>>> that just rewarding should not differ by more than a factor 5 or 6
>>>>> between the highest and the lowest wage.
>>>>
>>>> Given the strength of your argument, why not just skip steps 1-4 and
>>>> decree that you assume this to be true?
>>>
>>> Top CEOs, every chance they get, manage to make 400 times more
>>> compensation than average grunt peasants on the street.
>>
>> And do you think that means that lame arguments like this are somehow
>> valid?
>
>It wouldn't matter one iota if I were one of those CEOs.
But given that you are not, do you think that this argument is valid?
Han de Bruijn
[ .. ridicularizations snipped .. ]
You don't understand what abstract thinking is. You don't understand
what a laboratory situation is good for. You are just satisfied with
the status quo. You dismiss everything that might change it. Typical
economic "science", which, in fact, is no science at all.
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
> Yes, and you can see "humans" and "do" in the sentence "Humans on
> earth do experience the gravitational pull of the earth" But having
> those words in the sentence does not make it about essentially human
> activity. Do you or do you not agree with the statement that a speed
> race reflect the variability of human capabilities?
Stop your ridicularizations ! I've never said that. I am using sports as
a kind of _laboratory_ where it is possible to measure capabilities of
human beings, with respect to each other, in a sterile environment, more
or less isolated from the evil outside world, in the somewhat desperate
hope that we can collect some _objective_, non biased material from it.
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
Pure fantasy. You dont even get the same ratio between a competant
amateur and the world record across a variety of amateur sports.
Rod Speed
> alexy wrote:
>
> [ .. ridicularizations snipped .. ]
> You don't understand what abstract thinking is.
You wouldnt know what abstract thinking was if it bit you on your lard arse.
> You don't understand what a laboratory situation is good for.
You're so stupid that you cant even manage to grasp that you dont
even get anything like the same ratio between a competant amateur
and the world record across a variety of amateur sports.
Some 'laboratory'
Its actually a complete wank.
> You are just satisfied with the status quo.
He's got enough of a clue to realise that your hare brained scheme cant
produce any ratio between the lowest and highest paid in a particular operation.
> You dismiss everything that might change it. Typical
> economic "science", which, in fact, is no science at all.
Leaves your desperate wanking for dead, child.
Han de Bruijn
To refresh your memory, this is the posting I jumped in with:
> I've seen many such proposals for a "decent upper limit". For example in
> the book by Ravi Batra "The Great Depression of 1990" an upper limit of
> 10 (ten) times the lowest income is proposed. But what we really need is
> something better than a wild guess, which could be 10 or 16 but why not,
> say, a factor 100 or more. Upper limits should be linked to what people
> really can and can not _do_, in a productive sense. Productivity should
> be _measured_ in the first place. And objective standards for comparison
> of productivity should be developed. Only after this "proper rewarding"
> can be defined: a _scientific_ foundation for Justice.
>
> Let me show that such measurements of "productivity" are not impossible.
> When considering e.g. sports, you can compare your own achievements with
> those of a champion. And it turns out to be quite interesting to do so !
>
> It is seen that my own speed, when walking from train station to office,
> is 5 km / hour, while the speed of a champion running the same distance
> is 27 km / hour. Giving an upper to lower limit ratio of 5 or 6.
>
> It is seen that my own speed, when swimming a distance of 1000 metres,
> is 1,2 km / hour (Han de Bruijn). A world record, established by Inge
> de Bruijn (not a relative !) at the same distance, is 6,7 km / hour.
> Thus giving again an upper to lower limit ratio of 5 or 6.
>
> It is seen that my own speed, when driving my bike over a distance of
> 60 kilometres, is 10 km / hour. Champions do it 4 or 5 times better, but
> not more.
>
> Can we conclude that your "decent upper limit" should not be a factor 16
> but rather a factor 5 or 6 ?
Okay. Now take another sport, like weight lifting for example. The only
requirement being that you must have something to _measure_ objectively.
In _this_ case - surprise, surprise - that something to measure will be
WEIGHT. Are you still with us ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlifting , especially:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snatch_(weightlifting)
Now let a CEO, myself and a champion do some weight lifting. What will
be the _objective_ results then ?
<quote>The current record holder is Hossein Reza Zadeh of the Islamic
Republic of Iran who has snatched 213 kilograms</quote>
Divide this by a factor 6. Are you able, even without any training, to
"snatch" a weight of 35 kilograms ? Are you a man ? Think so, huh ..
Anyway, the bottom line is, whether you like it or not:
NO HUMAN BEING IS FIVE OR SIX TIMES BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE HUMAN BEING.
Period.
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
The ratio between a competent amateur and the world record holder is
typically a factor 2 . The lesson from this is that, given sufficient
training and / or education for _everyone_, the most competent one is
not even more than 2 or 3 times better than the average one. As soon
as the average level of competence is increasing among humans, wages
must be balanced accordingly. (Admitttedly, we still have a long way
to go before arriving at this ..)
Han de Bruijn
alexy
>Okay. Now take another sport, like weight lifting for example. The only
>requirement being that you must have something to _measure_ objectively.
>In _this_ case - surprise, surprise - that something to measure will be
>WEIGHT. Are you still with us ?
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlifting , especially:
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snatch_(weightlifting)
>
>Now let a CEO, myself and a champion do some weight lifting. What will
>be the _objective_ results then ?
>
><quote>The current record holder is Hossein Reza Zadeh of the Islamic
>Republic of Iran who has snatched 213 kilograms</quote>
>
>Divide this by a factor 6. Are you able, even without any training, to
>"snatch" a weight of 35 kilograms ? Are you a man ? Think so, huh ..
>
Okay, you've convinced me. Anytime what we are measuring is such
highly developed human capabilities as speed or brute strength, almost
everyone is within a factor of 6.
>Anyway, the bottom line is, whether you like it or not:
>
>NO HUMAN BEING IS FIVE OR SIX TIMES BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE HUMAN BEING.
>
>Period.
Apparently, you are willing to make that generalization from an
observation of strength and speed ratios. I think humans are more
complex than that, and have pointed out examples showing much greater
differential. You may reject differences based on human thinking as
anomalies "disproven" by your speed or brute strength "experiments".
But ignoring data because it doesn't fit into your theory is not very
sound scientific method.
alexy
>alexy wrote:
>
>[ .. ridicularizations snipped .. ]
>
>You don't understand what abstract thinking is.
Actually, I do. That's why I was able to offer a point-by-point
refutal of your abstractions rather than just calling them ridiculous.
But I certainly understand why you would not want to address the
objections I raised.
> You don't understand
>what a laboratory situation is good for.
I find laboratory experiments more helpful if they bear some
(hopefully great, but at least some) relationship to the real-world
situation they are attempting to explore.
> You are just satisfied with
>the status quo.
And you conclude this because I punched holes in your silly argument?
> You dismiss everything that might change it.
Dismissing mindless drivel is not the same as dismissing everything.
Requiring representation of multiple constituencies on a corporation's
BOD and prohibiting reciprocal boar representation would change things
in a real-world way.
Han de Bruijn
> Han de Bruijn <Han.de...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote:
>
>>Okay. Now take another sport, like weight lifting for example. The only
>>requirement being that you must have something to _measure_ objectively.
>>In _this_ case - surprise, surprise - that something to measure will be
>>WEIGHT. Are you still with us ?
>>
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlifting , especially:
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snatch_(weightlifting)
>>
>>Now let a CEO, myself and a champion do some weight lifting. What will
>>be the _objective_ results then ?
>>
>><quote>The current record holder is Hossein Reza Zadeh of the Islamic
>>Republic of Iran who has snatched 213 kilograms</quote>
>>
>>Divide this by a factor 6. Are you able, even without any training, to
>>"snatch" a weight of 35 kilograms ? Are you a man ? Think so, huh ..
>
> Okay, you've convinced me. Anytime what we are measuring is such
> highly developed human capabilities as speed or brute strength, almost
> everyone is within a factor of 6.
So we are getting somewhere, aren't we ?
>>Anyway, the bottom line is, whether you like it or not:
>>
>>NO HUMAN BEING IS FIVE OR SIX TIMES BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE HUMAN BEING.
>>
>>Period.
>
> Apparently, you are willing to make that generalization from an
> observation of strength and speed ratios. I think humans are more
> complex than that, and have pointed out examples showing much greater
> differential. You may reject differences based on human thinking as
> anomalies "disproven" by your speed or brute strength "experiments".
The truth is that much (NOT all) of the wealth we enjoy is produced by
such brute force. Think of house building, for example. (Designing one
is another matter)
> But ignoring data because it doesn't fit into your theory is not very
> sound scientific method.
We agree about the fact that investigating the more complex properties
is lacking in my theory so far. I'm not ignoring them. It's just much
more difficult to _quantify_ them. Let's say it's work in progress ..
However, true bean counters are not affraid of anything:
http://www.cwts.nl/cwtsbv/index.html
Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
Good enough. Have to admit that you are a more "complicated" human being
than I've assumed so far and apologize for having suggested otherwise.
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Han de Bruijn wrote
>>> alexy wrote
>>>> Yes, and you can see "humans" and "do" in the sentence "Humans on earth do experience the gravitational pull of the
>>>> earth" But having
>>>> those words in the sentence does not make it about essentially
>>>> human activity. Do you or do you not agree with the statement
>>>> that a speed race reflect the variability of human capabilities?
>>> Stop your ridicularizations ! I've never said that. I am using
>>> sports as a kind of _laboratory_ where it is possible to measure capabilities of human beings, with respect to each
>>> other, in a sterile environment, more or less isolated from the evil outside world, in the somewhat desperate hope
>>> that we can collect some _objective_, non biased material from it.
>> Pure fantasy. You dont even get the same ratio between a competant
>> amateur and the world record across a variety of amateur sports.
> The ratio between a competent amateur and the world record holder is typically a factor 2 .
Pig ignorant lie.
> The lesson from this is that, given sufficient training and / or education for _everyone_, the most competent one is
> not even more than 2 or 3 times better than the average one.
Gets sillier by the minute. Try that with Darwin, Tesla, Franklin, Pasteur,
Gates, Murdoch etc etc etc and then find a VERY large towel for your face.
You dont even get that with mechanics. In spades with fault finding.
> As soon as the average level of competence is increasing among humans, wages must be balanced accordingly.
Typical utterly mindless academic silly stuff.
> (Admitttedly, we still have a long way to go before arriving at this ..)
It isnt even possible.
Rod Speed
>> [ .. ridicularizations snipped .. ]
So much for your terminally silly claim about a ratio of 2 in that other post.
>> It is seen that my own speed, when swimming a distance of 1000
>> metres, is 1,2 km / hour (Han de Bruijn). A world record,
>> established by Inge de Bruijn (not a relative !) at the same
>> distance, is 6,7 km / hour. Thus giving again an upper to lower
>> limit ratio of 5 or 6.
So much for your terminally silly claim about a ratio of 2 in that other post.
>> It is seen that my own speed, when driving my bike over a distance of
>> 60 kilometres, is 10 km / hour. Champions do it 4 or 5 times better,
>> but not more.
Pity about a marthon when if you dont complete the course, the ratio is infinite.
>> Can we conclude that your "decent upper limit" should not be a
>> factor 16 but rather a factor 5 or 6 ?
So much for your terminally silly claim about a ratio of 2 in that other post.
> Okay. Now take another sport, like weight lifting for example. The
> only requirement being that you must have something to _measure_
> objectively. In _this_ case - surprise, surprise - that something to
> measure will be WEIGHT. Are you still with us ?
Yep, that you'll end up completely blind if you dont watch out.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlifting , especially:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snatch_(weightlifting)
> Now let a CEO, myself and a champion do some weight lifting. What will be the _objective_ results then ?
Some completely irrelevant number, as always.
> <quote>The current record holder is Hossein Reza Zadeh of the Islamic Republic of Iran who has snatched 213
> kilograms</quote>
> Divide this by a factor 6. Are you able, even without any training, to
> "snatch" a weight of 35 kilograms ? Are you a man ? Think so, huh ..
> Anyway, the bottom line is, whether you like it or not:
> NO HUMAN BEING IS FIVE OR SIX TIMES BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE HUMAN BEING.
THATS JUST PLAIN WRONG. IF YOU USE MARTHONS, THE RATIO
CAN BE INFINITE WHEN THE APE DOESNT COMPLETE THE COURSE.
> Period.
Just putting Period. there cuts no mustard.
Now try it with stuff thats much more useful than amateur sports.
Try it with what Darwin, Tesla, Franklin, Pasteur, Gates, Murdoch
etc etc etc do and then find a VERY large towel for your face.
Rod Speed
>>> Okay. Now take another sport, like weight lifting for example. The only requirement being that you must have
>>> something to _measure_ objectively. In _this_ case - surprise, surprise - that something to measure will be WEIGHT.
>>> Are you still with us ?
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weightlifting , especially:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snatch_(weightlifting)
>>> Now let a CEO, myself and a champion do some weight lifting. What will be the _objective_ results then ?
>>> <quote>The current record holder is Hossein Reza Zadeh of the
>>> Islamic Republic of Iran who has snatched 213 kilograms</quote>
>>> Divide this by a factor 6. Are you able, even without any training, to "snatch" a weight of 35 kilograms ? Are you a
>>> man ? Think so, huh ..
>> Okay, you've convinced me. Anytime what we are measuring is such highly developed human capabilities as speed or
>> brute strength, almost everyone is within a factor of 6.
> So we are getting somewhere, aren't we ?
So stupid that it wouldnt recognise sarcasm if it bit it on its lard arse.
>>> Anyway, the bottom line is, whether you like it or not:
>>> NO HUMAN BEING IS FIVE OR SIX TIMES BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE HUMAN BEING.
>>> Period.
>> Apparently, you are willing to make that generalization from an
>> observation of strength and speed ratios. I think humans are more
>> complex than that, and have pointed out examples showing much greater
>> differential. You may reject differences based on human thinking as
>> anomalies "disproven" by your speed or brute strength "experiments".
> The truth is that much (NOT all) of the wealth we enjoy is produced by such brute force.
Thats nothing even remotely resembling anything like truth.
Thats no how Gates produced his weath, or Murdoch or the queen of england etc etc etc.
> Think of house building, for example.
Fuck all of house building has anything to do with brute force either.
Only a fool digs the foundations by hand anymore.
When I wanted to put the air conditioner on the roof of my house, I hired
a huge forklift thats normally used to move containers on and off rail trucks
to do that, for peanuts. The main reason they use that is because it moves
along the roads at the same speeds and normal cars so is the tool for the job.
When I levelled the block before starting building, I used a road grader, quite literally.
When I had finished the house, I used a backhoe to move the dirt around,
because a road grader doesnt work up agains the walls of a house.
When I raised the massive great 5x3x0.5" RHS lintels that form the
entire long sides of the very long house I used a tripod and a boat winch.
> (Designing one is another matter)
One that blows your stupid ratio completely out of the water.
>> But ignoring data because it doesn't fit into your theory is not very sound scientific method.
> We agree about the fact that investigating the more complex properties
> is lacking in my theory so far. I'm not ignoring them. It's just much
> more difficult to _quantify_ them. Let's say it's work in progress ..
Its nothing like work in progress, you're just ignoring the ratios
that dont fit your silly little hare brained scheme, like Darwin,
Tesla, Franklin, Pasteur, Gates, Murdoch etc etc etc
Those are actually MUCH more important to real work than any amateur sport is.
> However, true bean counters are not affraid of anything:
> http://www.cwts.nl/cwtsbv/index.html
Not even ending up completely blind because they spend so much time with their dicks in their hands.
Han de Bruijn
A famous Dutch economist is Jan Tinbergen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Tinbergen
<quote>Tinbergen became known for his 'Tinbergen Norm', which states
that if the difference between the lowest and highest income in a
company exceeds a rate of 1:5, that will not help the company and may
indeed be counterproductive.</quote>
So here is the magic number again !
I suppose you don't find a Nobel Prize Winner "mindless academic silly".
Han de Bruijn
Beam Me Up Scotty
Actually when someone says Nobel Prize, "mindless silly" is the first
thing that comes to mind, along with "Gore and Arafat" It's an up-hill
climb for someone that tells me about a Nobel winner, when I see that I
figure they may be a liar and or terrorist-scum and then have to prove
to me that they aren't.
If you want you name linked to scum.... accept a Nobel prize.
Rod Speed
>> Pig ignorant lie.
>> It isnt even possible.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_Tinbergen
He's a fool. The communists tried that approach, with the best surgeon
in the hospital with a much smaller ratio than that over the cleaner and
that just plain doesnt work, essentially because not enough are prepared
to bother with the onorous training that a decent surgeon needs when
they dont get rewarded for doing that with a significantly better income
and so standard of living than the cleaner gets.
AND if he wasnt dead, you could rub his nose in Microsoft and Murdoch.
> So here is the magic number again !
Pity you waved the number 2 around yourself.
> I suppose you don't find a Nobel Prize Winner "mindless academic silly".
Suppose again. Plenty of them are just that, particularly on matters that they didnt get their prize for.
Pauling was always mindlessly silly about his hobby horse of gross overdoses of vitamins.
Even Einstein proclaimed that 'god does not play dice with the universe'.
There may well not be any god, but something certainly does, most
obviously with radioactive decay.
Han de Bruijn
http://www.buva.nl/uk/index.asp
Relative of mine worked there. He had to assemble <NL>kopschotels</NL>.
After one day of tough labour, he had finished 1300 of them. "Good job",
the boss said, "but I expected you should have done 3000". Exploitation
doesn't exist anymore, huh? You'd be surprised how LITTLE mechanization
there is in some factories.
>>(Designing one is another matter)
>
> One that blows your stupid ratio completely out of the water.
>
>>>But ignoring data because it doesn't fit into your theory is not very sound scientific method.
>
>>We agree about the fact that investigating the more complex properties
>>is lacking in my theory so far. I'm not ignoring them. It's just much
>>more difficult to _quantify_ them. Let's say it's work in progress ..
>
> Its nothing like work in progress, you're just ignoring the ratios
> that dont fit your silly little hare brained scheme, like Darwin,
> Tesla, Franklin, Pasteur, Gates, Murdoch etc etc etc
>
> Those are actually MUCH more important to real work than any amateur sport is.
>
>>However, true bean counters are not affraid of anything:
>>http://www.cwts.nl/cwtsbv/index.html
>
> Not even ending up completely blind because they spend so much time with their dicks in their hands.
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
>>>>> Period.
>> Thats not how Gates produced his weath, or Murdoch or the queen of england etc etc etc.
>>> Think of house building, for example.
>> Fuck all of house building has anything to do with brute force either.
>> Only a fool digs the foundations by hand anymore.
>> When I wanted to put the air conditioner on the roof of my house, I hired a huge forklift thats normally used to move
>> containers on and off rail trucks to do that, for peanuts. The main reason they use that is because it moves along
>> the roads at the same speeds and normal cars so is the tool for the job.
>> When I levelled the block before starting building, I used a road grader, quite literally.
>> When I had finished the house, I used a backhoe to move the dirt around, because a road grader doesnt work up agains
>> the walls of a house.
>> When I raised the massive great 5x3x0.5" RHS lintels that form the
>> entire long sides of the very long house I used a tripod and a boat winch.
> http://www.buva.nl/uk/index.asp
> Relative of mine worked there. He had to assemble <NL>kopschotels</NL>. After one day of tough labour, he had finished
> 1300 of them.
No brute force was involved.
> "Good job", the boss said, "but I expected you should have done 3000". Exploitation doesn't exist anymore, huh?
Nothing to do with whether BRUTE FORCE was involved.
> You'd be surprised how LITTLE mechanization there is in some factories.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys.
>>> (Designing one is another matter)
>> One that blows your stupid ratio completely out of the water.
>>>> But ignoring data because it doesn't fit into your theory is not very sound scientific method.
>>> We agree about the fact that investigating the more complex properties is lacking in my theory so far. I'm not
>>> ignoring them. It's just much more difficult to _quantify_ them. Let's say it's work in progress
>> Its nothing like work in progress, you're just ignoring the ratios
alexy
Thanks, but no apology called for; I always thought you were arguing
ideas, not personalities. But you did fall into a trap that is fairly
common here; assuming that if someone discredits your argument, they
means they must, ipso facto, take the view opposite to the one you
were trying to argue.
>
>Han de Bruijn
Han de Bruijn
> In article <v88hq4t7qk6a7ce8m...@4ax.com>, nos...@asbry.net
> says...
>
>>Han de Bruijn <Han.de...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote:
>>
>>>alexy wrote:
>>>
>>>>Han de Bruijn <Han.de...@DTO.TUDelft.NL> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>alexy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>[ .. ridicularizations snipped .. ]
>>>>>
>>>>>You don't understand what abstract thinking is.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, I do. That's why I was able to offer a point-by-point
>>>>refutal of your abstractions rather than just calling them ridiculous.
>>>>But I certainly understand why you would not want to address the
>>>>objections I raised.
>>>>
>>>>>You don't understand
>>>>>what a laboratory situation is good for.
>>>>
>>>>I find laboratory experiments more helpful if they bear some
>>>>(hopefully great, but at least some) relationship to the real-world
>>>>situation they are attempting to explore
>>>>
>>>>>You are just satisfied with
>>>>>the status quo.
>>>>
>>>>And you conclude this because I punched holes in your silly argument?
>>>>
>>>>>You dismiss everything that might change it.
>>>>
>>>>Dismissing mindless drivel is not the same as dismissing everything.
>>>>Requiring representation of multiple constituencies on a corporation's
>>>>BOD and prohibiting reciprocal boar representation would change things
>>>>in a real-world way.
>>>
>>>Good enough. Have to admit that you are a more "complicated" human being
>>>than I've assumed so far and apologize for having suggested otherwise.
>>
>>Thanks, but no apology called for; I always thought you were arguing
>>ideas, not personalities. But you did fall into a trap that is fairly
>>common here; assuming that if someone discredits your argument, they
>>means they must, ipso facto, take the view opposite to the one you
>>were trying to argue.
>>
> Awwww. Kissy kissy. But it is nice to see some civility here. Re: bonuses. Can
> somebody tell me by what rational method the size of bonuses are determined?
The whole problem is that there is _not_ such a "rational method". The
robber barons just grab what they can. For the simple reason that they
can do it. They deserve a bonus because they deserve a bonus.
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
While I have never agreed with your hare brained scheme for getting
a ratio between the highest and lowest paid in an organisation, you
can certainly make a case that at least the skilled work in an operation
doesnt need to see the grossly excessive million dollar plus remuneration.
You can make a case that say an engineer in charge of a towns water
supply should end up with a similar standard of living as say a surgeon etc.
Its hard to justify why the CEO of a bank, even a national bank, should
end up with a much better standard of living than either of those too.
Much harder with someone like Gates or Brin who end up with vast
wealth essentially thru ownership of an enterprise. I cant see how
that can ever be avoided when successful business owners like them
and Murdoch etc can end up with vast wealth, just because they own
a large chunk of what is successful.
It does superficially make sense that a job that requires quite a bit
of formal qualifications should be better rewarded than say the office
cleaner who doesnt require any, but you can also make a case that
they are rewarded with much more interesting jobs than the cleaner has.
It is however clear that the approach the communists took that senior
engineers or surgeons dont end up with much more than cleaners do
really doesnt work very well, essentially because far too many dont
bother to get qualified even tho that really doesnt make a lot of sense.
Han de Bruijn
I've _been_ sitting down before reading your post, and found nothing but
agreement in it. (_Much_ to my surprise)
Han de Bruijn
Rod Speed
Thats why you had to be sitting down, didnt want you to faint or something and hurt yourself.
Democracy Highlander
> You can make a case that say an engineer in charge of a towns water
> supply should end up with a similar standard of living as say a surgeon etc.
>
> Its hard to justify why the CEO of a bank, even a national bank, should
> end up with a much better standard of living than either of those too.
>
> Much harder with someone like Gates or Brin who end up with vast
> wealth essentially thru ownership of an enterprise.
Somebody else must be posting with Rod Speed's name.
This post is a very intelligent one, contrary to everything we've seen
before.
If this is by any chance the original RS, welcome to enlightenment.
> It is however clear that the approach the communists took that senior
> engineers or surgeons dont end up with much more than cleaners do
> really doesnt work very well, essentially because far too many dont
> bother to get qualified even tho that really doesnt make a lot of sense.
Fully agree with the fact that you need to provide serious incentive
for one to go and educate himself. If a dropout janitor do not earn
much much much
less than a scientist with 2 PhD's (and actually can retire better
because he gets a 15...20 years head-start on 401k and market work in
his favor) there is no incentive for the kids to struggle to get an
advanced degree.
However we strongly disagree about thye communism issue. You seems to
believe that the communism was an egalitarian society. Nothing more
wrong. Communism was a cleptocratic-feudalism. A very small oligarchy
of criminals stole all the wealth in the society by suppressing the
democracy, and enslaving everybody else. Yes, the janitor and
scientist earned about the same because both were the slave of the
criminal oligarchy. In ancient Rome too, one slave own about as much
as any other (aka nothing) but nobody dared to believe that ancient
Rome was an egalitarian society.
The single difference between Roman slavery and Communism was that in
ancient Rome slaves were less than 30% of the population, while in
communist countries the slaves were about 99% of the population.
But that does not make communism egalitarian, but it make it the most
un-egalitarian, the most polarized
society that ever existed on the face of the Earth.
> I cant see how
> that can ever be avoided when successful business owners like them
> and Murdoch etc can end up with vast wealth, just because they own
> a large chunk of what is successful.
It can be achieved with decent taxation legislation.
First of all, there is no sense to tax the idle income (capital gain,
dividends) less than the wages.
Of course, one should account that many people actually have their
retirement based on this kind of income, so social exception for
retirees earning less than a median wage per economy shall be made.
Then a strong progressive taxation system for top earners who have
earning way above the average for their skillset.
And third we can get some hints from nature. If a lion kill a goat he
have the food for 3 days. If he kill 2 goats at once he have the food
for 5 days because the last piece of food is decomposing. If a lion
kill 100 goats at once he have the food for 5 days because in the
sixth everything is rotten.
Yup, this means some form of taxation on excessive accumulated wealth.
Of course, we need also the retirees exception here.
So yes, there are no silver bullets, but there are ways we can
experiment with.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> You can make a case that say an engineer in charge of a towns water
>> supply should end up with a similar standard of living as say a surgeon etc.
>> Its hard to justify why the CEO of a bank, even a national bank, should
>> end up with a much better standard of living than either of those too.
>> Much harder with someone like Gates or Brin who end up
>> with vast wealth essentially thru ownership of an enterprise.
> Somebody else must be posting with Rod Speed's name.
Fraid not.
> This post is a very intelligent one, contrary to everything we've seen before.
Just how many of you are there between those ears, child ?
> If this is by any chance the original RS, welcome to enlightenment.
I've said the same thing plenty of times before and even someone as stupid as
you should be able to use groups.google to prove that for yourself, if someone
was actually stupid enough to lend you a seeing eye dog and a white cane.
>> It is however clear that the approach the communists took that senior
>> engineers or surgeons dont end up with much more than cleaners do
>> really doesnt work very well, essentially because far too many dont
>> bother to get qualified even tho that really doesnt make a lot of sense.
> Fully agree with the fact that you need to provide
> serious incentive for one to go and educate himself.
Thats always been one of the odder aspects of human
behavior tho when you'd think that enough would do that
just to get the much more enjoyable jobs than a cleaner etc.
> If a dropout janitor do not earn much much much less than a scientist
> with 2 PhD's (and actually can retire better because he gets a 15...
> 20 years head-start on 401k and market work in his favor)
Those societys didnt have those, they just got a
pension that was related to their final wage instead.
> there is no incentive for the kids to struggle to get an advanced degree.
The best of them dont 'struggle', its as easy as breathing.
In fact many of them prefer the real research to
what they end up doing later, management shit etc.
> However we strongly disagree about thye communism issue. You
> seems to believe that the communism was an egalitarian society.
Nope, never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that.
I JUST said that they did end up with a quite small range of benefits
between what a senior engineer or doctor got and what a cleaner got etc.
> Nothing more wrong.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> Communism was a cleptocratic-feudalism. A very small
> oligarchy of criminals stole all the wealth in the society by
> suppressing the democracy, and enslaving everybody else.
They were nothing like enslaved. Just didnt have the same
choices that we had in the west. Had fewer career choices
too, the state got to tell you what work you could do etc.
> Yes, the janitor and scientist earned about the same
> because both were the slave of the criminal oligarchy.
Nope, because they chose to go that route where there were
only small differences in benefits between those groups. And yes,
those at the top ended up with much better benefits than either.
> In ancient Rome too, one slave own about as much as any other (aka nothing)
> but nobody dared to believe that ancient Rome was an egalitarian society.
Never said anything about an egalitarian society.
> The single difference between Roman slavery and Communism was
> that in ancient Rome slaves were less than 30% of the population, while
> in communist countries the slaves were about 99% of the population.
There were much more important differences than just that.
> But that does not make communism egalitarian,
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
> but it make it the most un-egalitarian, the most polarized
> society that ever existed on the face of the Earth.
Thats just plain wrong too. They did mostly eliminate
the absolute dregs of society, those 'living' on the street.
Tho you can certainly make a case that their political prisoners
in gulags were much worse than we saw in the west, it was
never as bad as say the worst seen in India polarization wise.
>> I cant see how that can ever be avoided when successful business
>> owners like them and Murdoch etc can end up with vast wealth,
>> just because they own a large chunk of what is successful.
> It can be achieved with decent taxation legislation.
Nope, those just leave move to countrys that arent that stupid.
There's a reason the likes of Brin and Murdoch ended up in america.
> First of all, there is no sense to tax the idle income
> (capital gain, dividends) less than the wages.
Wrong. And much capital gain is nothing even remotely
resembling anything like idle income anyway.
> Of course, one should account that many people actually
> have their retirement based on this kind of income,
In fact almost everyone except the very poor do now.
> so social exception for retirees earning less than
> a median wage per economy shall be made.
Mindlessly silly, there's nothing special about the median wage.
> Then a strong progressive taxation system for top earners
> who have earning way above the average for their skillset.
Many of them will just move to countrys that have more of a clue about taxation.
> And third we can get some hints from nature.
Nope, humans have never operated like that.
And thats the reason humans so completely dominate nature.
> If a lion kill a goat he have the food for 3 days. If he kill 2 goats at once he
> have the food for 5 days because the last piece of food is decomposing.
And humans worked out how to refrigerate to avoid that problem.
> If a lion kill 100 goats at once he have the food
> for 5 days because in the sixth everything is rotten.
And humans worked out how to freeze to avoid that problem.
> Yup, this means some form of taxation on excessive accumulated wealth.
Pity those with that accumulated wealth will just move it to countrys that arent that stupid.
Thats what happened right thruout western europe when they were stupid enough to try that.
> Of course, we need also the retirees exception here.
> So yes, there are no silver bullets, but there are ways we can experiment with.
And we tried that and found that it doesnt work.
Democracy Highlander
> > Communism was a cleptocratic-feudalism. A very small
> > oligarchy of criminals stole all the wealth in the society by
> > suppressing the democracy, and enslaving everybody else.
>
> They were nothing like enslaved. Just didnt have the same
> choices that we had in the west.
Now you go again to speak trash just because you can.
Next, you are going to say that the slaves in any classical slavery
society
were not enslaved just had fewer choices than anybody else.
Like the choice to leave their oppressor and go somewhere else.
Many lost their lives trying to escape the communist gulag, those
who were caught were threw in jail and tortured.
Their families too were harmed. Having a relative who evaded the
gulag, meant losing
your job and being forced to take a low end, dangerous and back
breaking job,
REGARDLESS of education, skills, intelligence or achievements. They
were constantly
harassed by the political police, arrested and interrogated sometimes
under torture.
If that does not sound like slavery what in the world sound like
slavery to you?
Man, why do you enjoy to expose your ignorance in the public ? Go get
a book and read
if you have no idea about something. Do not assume idiotic things and
then paint
your lack of education all over the place.
> > Yes, the janitor and scientist earned about the same
> > because both were the slave of the criminal oligarchy.
>
> Nope, because they chose to go that route where there were
> only small differences in benefits between those groups.
You are absolutely insane !
Who told you that the people os USSR chose to lose all their freedoms,
be terrorized by Stalin or Pol Pot police, lose their possessions,
being arrested, separated by family, threw in gulag, tortured and have
to lose their life in misery and pain ? It was Lenin who made you
believe that "PEOPLE CHOOSE" to go to communism. Again, it is only
your stupid ignorance speaking right now.
> > It can be achieved with decent taxation legislation.
>
> Nope, those just leave move to countrys that arent that stupid.
>
> There's a reason the likes of Brin and Murdoch ended up in america.
This is the most imbecile myth often spewed by ignorants over the
Internet.
If the useless idle wants to leave, very well. They are welcome to do
it. Nobody will miss them.
For example Bill Gates in all his life wrote a single piece of useful
software: An interpretor for Basic language. Millions of programmers
all around the world did much much much more than that.
What BG was really good at was how to enrich himself (and few others
by association) by marketing whatever he had, in most of the cases
smashing down competition with better technology, better ideas and
much better products. In the end, he created a monopoly which today it
is the biggest brake against new innovation in the field. Better
operating systems are kept away from taking the fair share of the
market just because Microsoft have a monopoly.
The last case is the patent lawsuit against TomTom. For years
Microsoft used dominance on the market to sign deals with flash-memory
makers so they use Microsoft FAT filesystem to store data on the
memory cards instead of developing or using a third party filesystem.
As a result, if today you buy a SDcard or a thumb-drive or something
they are FAT devices, and if you want to use them to transfer data
between a particular device and general purpose computers you are
COERCED to use MS-FAT.
TomTom decided to use embedded Linux for some of their devices because
embedded Linux it is a solution way superior to anything Microsoft
have (or dream to have) on the embedded arena. Microsoft is seeing it
dreams of total domination threatened. The reason is that today the
embedded market is booming, exactly as the computer marked boomed
years ago, and Microsoft wants to dominate it too. However, Microsoft
just do not have the technology to do it. Embedded Linux is here and
it is light years ahead anything Microsoft have to offer, and is free
too. As a result, embedded Linux is the clear winner of the future and
Microsoft is scared of this. The only option they have is to scare
embedded developers from staying away from Linux and use the obsolete,
unreliable and expensive Microsoft technology.
This is what the TomTom lawsuit is all about. They can hang on the
fact that since all SDCards are FAT based (not because of any
technological merit, but because of MS marketing tactics) so the
embedded Linux used by TomTom have to use the obsolete FAT technology.
And they want to send a message to all small embedded developers: "You
are coerced to use FAT because you can not use Flash drives with
anything else, so you better pay to use for our technology or we will
force to pay way more in lawsuits if you use anything better than what
we have to offer".
That is. Today Microsoft is the biggest brake against new innovation
in information technology.
If Microsoft would disappear today, in few years we would have a much
better and much more competitive technological landscape.
The same is with Murdoch. Just go away Murdoch and take with you all
Fox News corporate sock puppets who lie with impunity and brainwash
people to accept the criminal conservative ideology.
If all these useless idle go away, US have a huge opportunity to
develop a meritocratic society where
people are rewarded based on what they create and produce not on how
much wealth they already hoarded and how much they screw others.
Remember, a successful businessman is successful based not on what he
produce but on how much they stole from the productive.
Rod Speed
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Communism was a cleptocratic-feudalism. A very small
>>> oligarchy of criminals stole all the wealth in the society by
>>> suppressing the democracy, and enslaving everybody else.
>> They were nothing like enslaved. Just didnt have
>> the same choices that we had in the west.
> Now you go again to speak trash just because you can.
> Next, you are going to say that the slaves in any classical slavery
> society were not enslaved just had fewer choices than anybody else.
> Like the choice to leave their oppressor and go somewhere else.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
Hordes who have bugger all choice arent anything like slaves, fool.
> Many lost their lives trying to escape the communist gulag,
Plenty did that from nothing like communism too, fool.
> those who were caught were threw in jail and tortured.
> Their families too were harmed.
Corse that has never ever happened in anything but communism eh fool ?
> Having a relative who evaded the gulag, meant losing your job
> and being forced to take a low end, dangerous and back breaking
> job, REGARDLESS of education, skills, intelligence or achievements.
Corse thats never ever happened in any capitalist country, eh fool ?
> They were constantly harassed by the political police,
> arrested and interrogated sometimes under torture.
Corse thats never ever happened in any non communist country, eh fool ?
Have a look at south america sometime, fool.
> If that does not sound like slavery what in the world sound like slavery to you?
Where the individual can be bought and sold, fool.
> Man, why do you enjoy to expose your ignorance in the public ?
> Go get a book and read if you have no idea about something.
> Do not assume idiotic things and then paint your lack of
> education all over the place.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> Yes, the janitor and scientist earned about the same
>>> because both were the slave of the criminal oligarchy.
>> Nope, because they chose to go that route where there were
>> only small differences in benefits between those groups.
> You are absolutely insane !
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
> Who told you that the people os USSR chose to lose all their
> freedoms, be terrorized by Stalin or Pol Pot police, lose their
> possessions, being arrested, separated by family, threw in
> gulag, tortured and have to lose their life in misery and pain ?
Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that, fool.
Even a terminal fuckwit such as yourself should have noticed that the
russians did quite effectively in WW2 once they started to get supplied
by the west with equipment. You cant do that with real slaves, fuckwit.
> It was Lenin who made you believe that "PEOPLE CHOOSE" to go to communism.
Never ever said anything even remotely resembling anything like that, fuckwit.
> Again, it is only your stupid ignorance speaking right now.
Having fun thrashing that straw man, fuckwit ?
>>>> I cant see how that can ever be avoided when successful business
>>>> owners like them and Murdoch etc can end up with vast wealth,
>>>> just because they own a large chunk of what is successful.
>>> It can be achieved with decent taxation legislation.
>> Nope, those just leave move to countrys that arent that stupid.
>> There's a reason the likes of Brin and Murdoch ended up in america.
> This is the most imbecile myth often spewed by ignorants over the Internet.
We'll see...
> If the useless idle wants to leave, very well. They are welcome to do it. Nobody will miss them.
They will miss their money, fuckwit.
> For example Bill Gates in all his life wrote a single piece of useful
> software: An interpretor for Basic language. Millions of programmers
> all around the world did much much much more than that.
Not one managed to organise the production of
what came to completely dominate the PC, fuckwit.
> What BG was really good at was how to enrich himself (and few others by association)
Hell of a lot more than a few, fuckwit.
> by marketing whatever he had, in most of the cases smashing down
> competition with better technology, better ideas and much better products.
That last is a pig ignorant lie.
> In the end, he created a monopoly
You wouldnt know what a real monopoly was if one bit you on your lard arse, child.
You cant have a monopoly when the main alternative is quite literally FREE, fuckwit.
> which today it is the biggest brake against new innovation in the field.
> Better operating systems are kept away from taking the fair share
> of the market just because Microsoft have a monopoly.
You wouldnt know what a real monopoly was if one bit you on your lard arse, child.
You cant have a monopoly when the main alternative is quite literally FREE, fuckwit.
> The last case is the patent lawsuit against TomTom. For years Microsoft
> used dominance on the market to sign deals with flash-memory makers
> so they use Microsoft FAT filesystem to store data on the memory
> cards instead of developing or using a third party filesystem.
Have fun explaining the great raft of stuff that doesnt use any MS file system, fuckwit.
> As a result, if today you buy a SDcard or a
> thumb-drive or something they are FAT devices,
Nothing to stop you formatting them any way you like, fuckwit.
> and if you want to use them to transfer data between a particular device
> and general purpose computers you are COERCED to use MS-FAT.
Bare faced pig ignorant lie. You are welcome to format them any way you like, fuckwit.
> TomTom decided to use embedded Linux for some of their devices
> because embedded Linux it is a solution way superior to anything
> Microsoft have (or dream to have) on the embedded arena.
And there is absolutely nothing MS can do about that, fuckwit.
> Microsoft is seeing it dreams of total domination threatened.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, fuckwit.
> The reason is that today the embedded market is booming,
Been doing that for a long time now, fuckwit.
> exactly as the computer marked boomed years
> ago, and Microsoft wants to dominate it too.
Wants are irrelevant, it aint gotta hope in hell of achieving that.
> However, Microsoft just do not have the technology to do it.
> Embedded Linux is here and it is light years ahead anything
> Microsoft have to offer, and is free too.
True of the PC too. Fuck all bother with it even when its free.
> As a result, embedded Linux is the clear winner of the future and
> Microsoft is scared of this. The only option they have is to scare
> embedded developers from staying away from Linux and use
> the obsolete, unreliable and expensive Microsoft technology.
Not even possible.
> This is what the TomTom lawsuit is all about. They can hang on the fact
> that since all SDCards are FAT based (not because of any technological
> merit, but because of MS marketing tactics) so the embedded Linux
> used by TomTom have to use the obsolete FAT technology.
No they dont. You can format the card anyway you like, fuckwit.
Same is true with hard drives too.
> And they want to send a message to all small embedded developers:
> "You are coerced to use FAT because you can not use Flash drives
> with anything else,
Corse you can. And hordes of them do too.
> so you better pay to use for our technology or we will force to pay way
> more in lawsuits if you use anything better than what we have to offer".
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, fuckwit.
> That is.
Nope.
> Today Microsoft is the biggest brake against new innovation in information technology.
Odd, could have SWORN that hordes use linux anyway.
> If Microsoft would disappear today, in few years we would have
> a much better and much more competitive technological landscape.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, fuckwit.
> The same is with Murdoch. Just go away Murdoch and take with
> you all Fox News corporate sock puppets who lie with impunity
> and brainwash people to accept the criminal conservative ideology.
> If all these useless idle go away, US have a huge opportunity to
> develop a meritocratic society where people are rewarded based
> on what they create and produce not on how much wealth they
> already hoarded and how much they screw others.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, fuckwit.
> Remember, a successful businessman is successful based not on
> what he produce but on how much they stole from the productive.
Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant fantasys, fuckwit.
Michael Price
> *WARNING*, its important to be sitting down before reading this post.
>
> While I have never agreed with your hare brained scheme for getting
> a ratio between the highest and lowest paid in an organisation, you
> can certainly make a case that at least the skilled work in an operation
> doesnt need to see the grossly excessive million dollar plus remuneration.
>
> You can make a case that say an engineer in charge of a towns water
> supply should end up with a similar standard of living as say a surgeon etc.
>
> Its hard to justify why the CEO of a bank, even a national bank, should
> end up with a much better standard of living than either of those too.
Well no, it's not you simply have to say "without a competent CEO
this
bank's activities would destroy, or not create tens of billions of
dollars of
value.". Now granted this assumes the CEO is competent, which is
clearly
not the case in many instances. Still the current crisis shows you
why a good
CEO is so valuable. Having this guy in charge of your bank is worth
what they
paid the other guys.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=12331057
>
> Much harder with someone like Gates or Brin who end up with vast
> wealth essentially thru ownership of an enterprise. I cant see how
> that can ever be avoided when successful business owners like them
> and Murdoch etc can end up with vast wealth, just because they own
> a large chunk of what is successful.
Well presumably it was successful because of their actions.
Microsoft
especially is worth something because Bill Gates did what he did with
his money. Not all of it good or right, but most of it his actions.
>
> It does superficially make sense that a job that requires quite a bit
> of formal qualifications should be better rewarded than say the office
> cleaner who doesnt require any, but you can also make a case that
> they are rewarded with much more interesting jobs than the cleaner has.
>
True, it's not "fair" that someone gets both a good job and good
money,
but it's not fair that someone gets both loving parents and a good
education
either. It's life.
> It is however clear that the approach the communists took that senior
> engineers or surgeons dont end up with much more than cleaners do
> really doesnt work very well, essentially because far too many dont
> bother to get qualified even tho that really doesnt make a lot of sense.
How the Soviets used their qualified people was far more of a
problem
than how many they had though. They had more than enough good
biologists and agronamists to tell them that Lysenko was full of it.
Rod Speed
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> While I have never agreed with your hare brained scheme for getting
>> a ratio between the highest and lowest paid in an organisation, you
>> can certainly make a case that at least the skilled work in an operation
>> doesnt need to see the grossly excessive million dollar plus remuneration.
>> You can make a case that say an engineer in charge of a towns water
>> supply should end up with a similar standard of living as say a surgeon etc.
>> Its hard to justify why the CEO of a bank, even a national bank, should
>> end up with a much better standard of living than either of those too.
> Well no, it's not you simply have to say "without a competent CEO this bank's
> activities would destroy, or not create tens of billions of dollars of value.".
Doesnt mean he should end up with a significantly better
standard of living that someone who can kill lots of people.
> Now granted this assumes the CEO is competent,
> which is clearly not the case in many instances.
> Still the current crisis shows you why a good CEO is so valuable.
No it doesnt. It actually show you why decent regulation of banks is necessary.
Not one australian or canadian bank imploded spectacularly or even needed to be bailed out.
> Having this guy in charge of your bank is worth what they paid the other guys.
> http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/index.php?cl=12331057
No it isnt.
In spades with the ones that have gone broke.
>> Much harder with someone like Gates or Brin who end up with
>> vast wealth essentially thru ownership of an enterprise. I cant
>> see how that can ever be avoided when successful business
>> owners like them and Murdoch etc can end up with vast wealth,
>> just because they own a large chunk of what is successful.
> Well presumably it was successful because of their actions.
Not necessarily. Gates arguably ended up stinking rich more by
good luck and fortunate circumstances than by any specific action.
> Microsoft especially is worth something because
> Bill Gates did what he did with his money.
Nope, didnt have a damned thing to do with his money.
> Not all of it good or right, but most of it his actions.
Wrong, as always.
>> It does superficially make sense that a job that requires quite a bit
>> of formal qualifications should be better rewarded than say the office
>> cleaner who doesnt require any, but you can also make a case that they
>> are rewarded with much more interesting jobs than the cleaner has.
> True, it's not "fair" that someone gets both a good job
> and good money, but it's not fair that someone gets
> both loving parents and a good education either. It's life.
Didnt say anythig about fair. Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
>> It is however clear that the approach the communists took that senior
>> engineers or surgeons dont end up with much more than cleaners do
>> really doesnt work very well, essentially because far too many dont
>> bother to get qualified even tho that really doesnt make a lot of sense.
> How the Soviets used their qualified people was far
> more of a problem than how many they had though.
Didnt say anything about how many they had either.
> They had more than enough good biologists and
> agronamists to tell them that Lysenko was full of it.
Sure, but thats got nothing to do with what is being discussed, what they should end up with standard of living wise.
Who i$ John Galt
> On Mar 6, 5:25 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> *WARNING*, its important to be sitting down before reading this post.
>>
>> While I have never agreed with your hare brained scheme for getting
>> a ratio between the highest and lowest paid in an organisation, you
>> can certainly make a case that at least the skilled work in an operation
>>
>> You can make a case that say an engineer in charge of a towns water
>> supply should end up with a similar standard of living as say a surgeon etc.
>>
>> Its hard to justify why the CEO of a bank, even a national bank, should
>> end up with a much better standard of living than either of those too.
>
> Well no, it's not you simply have to say "without a competent CEO
> this
> bank's activities would destroy, or not create tens of billions of
> dollars of
> value.". Now granted this assumes the CEO is competent, which is
> clearly
> not the case in many instances. Still the current crisis shows you
> why a good
> CEO is so valuable. Having this guy in charge of your bank is worth
> what they
> paid the other guys.
Why don't you go become a bank CEO and then with thousands of them out
of work, there value would be about $10.00 an hour.