CDZ What are you worth?

[OldLady]

First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.

The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:

It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?

For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.

GO!!

I'm priceless.

 

[irosie91]

I recall------from way back in my LONG AGO childhood----that there was some calculation regarding the worth of a human being in terms of chemical components------back then it came to
97 cents

thats not true. melanin alone is worth $358 a gram

you wish

I know.

Melanin Synthetic, BioReagent, suitable for cell culture | Sigma-Aldrich

I got more melanocytes than do you-------where do I cash in?

You already told me you had barely any. I dont forget much.

wrong again butterfly------I have very little MELANIN in my skin but LOTS OF MELANOCYTES. My melanocytes get
activated by injury------not much by sun and not much on their own. Your brain rarely gets activated.

 

[Boss]

I understand the empirical economic implications of the question, but I also know the main reason I work is because I really love what I do. I want to achieve certain things and that I get paid to do that is the "bonus," if you will. Accordingly, I surmise I'd work about the same quantity of hours as I do now because I enjoy doing the work I do. It's not so much about what I get paid for doing the work; it's about getting to do the work I am of a mind to do. If it pays less, it does. If it pays more, again, it just does. That it's what I want to do is no different either way.

Think of it like this. Does a painter paint less or more often based on what they think they may get paid for the product they produce? I don't think so. My work is much the same. It's about what I produce as a final "product," not how many hours I spend producing it. It's about my enjoying doing certain things and there being people who want "something" they can't acquire on their own as efficiently/effectively as they can by engaging me to do produce those things/results for them. That creates the "win-win" situation whereby they get their desired outcome and I get to do the things I really enjoy doing.

To close, your question is an odd one in my mind. For example, how does one deal with volunteer work in this model? Volunteerism can occupy material shares of one's time/resources yet one receives no monetary compensation for it.

You can do all the volunteer work you want. You could also work as many hours as you want... in fact, since remuneration would be equal for all, the hours you work would become the new market driver. People willing to work more hours for their $100/day max would have a competitive advantage over others. Asclepias said earlier, he would teach for 4 hours daily... someone else may be willing to teach the same things for 6 hours a day. I gave the example in the OP of a doctor perhaps working 1 hour a day at $100, maybe a doctor who loves what he does is willing to work 2 hours or 4 hours a day for his $100?

 

[320 Years of History]

I understand the empirical economic implications of the question, but I also know the main reason I work is because I really love what I do. I want to achieve certain things and that I get paid to do that is the "bonus," if you will. Accordingly, I surmise I'd work about the same quantity of hours as I do now because I enjoy doing the work I do. It's not so much about what I get paid for doing the work; it's about getting to do the work I am of a mind to do. If it pays less, it does. If it pays more, again, it just does. That it's what I want to do is no different either way.

Think of it like this. Does a painter paint less or more often based on what they think they may get paid for the product they produce? I don't think so. My work is much the same. It's about what I produce as a final "product," not how many hours I spend producing it. It's about my enjoying doing certain things and there being people who want "something" they can't acquire on their own as efficiently/effectively as they can by engaging me to do produce those things/results for them. That creates the "win-win" situation whereby they get their desired outcome and I get to do the things I really enjoy doing.

To close, your question is an odd one in my mind. For example, how does one deal with volunteer work in this model? Volunteerism can occupy material shares of one's time/resources yet one receives no monetary compensation for it.

You can do all the volunteer work you want. You could also work as many hours as you want... in fact, since remuneration would be equal for all, the hours you work would become the new market driver. People willing to work more hours for their $100/day max would have a competitive advantage over others. Asclepias said earlier, he would teach for 4 hours daily... someone else may be willing to teach the same things for 6 hours a day. I gave the example in the OP of a doctor perhaps working 1 hour a day at $100, maybe a doctor who loves what he does is willing to work 2 hours or 4 hours a day for his $100?

If you're seeking the shortest answer I can give to your question, I'd be a $100/day worker, but I'd work as many hours as it took to earn the $100 and however many more I could work before having to stop working for pay and doing something else meaningful but uncompensated that I needed to do that day. I guess that means I'd work for pay for ~13 minutes each day.

 

[GaryDog]

I'm sure lots of people in the country get fulfillment from their jobs, and would "volunteer" more hours regardless of pay. But the fact remains that -- as Chris Rock put it -- America is a nation of "people in the middle." People in the "middle" go to work because they have to, and not because they want to. Therefore, the vast majority of people would probably not work at all, and our economy would go tumbling down. But maybe that's not as bad a thing as we all think.

 

[Boss]

If you're seeking the shortest answer I can give to your question, I'd be a $100/day worker, but I'd work as many hours as it took to earn the $100 and however many more I could work before having to stop working for pay and doing something else meaningful but uncompensated that I needed to do that day. I guess that means I'd work for pay for ~13 minutes each day.

Well of course you'd be a $100/day worker, everyone would... that's the new law. The question was, what service, product, talent, etc., are you going to produce and how many hours daily and days weekly you will work for your $100/day. You say ~13 minutes... but what are you doing for ~13 minutes at $100? I hope it is something really great.

 

[oldsoul]

Well, I guess sense capitalism is dead, and I am assuming that Socialism has become the economic structure of the day, I would sit on my couch as much as I could. I would work only as much as I had to, which in a truly Socialistic land would be none. See I know that no self respecting socialist would let me starve so I guess I would simply live off of YOUR work. Hahahahahahaahaha. PARTY TIME!!!!!!!

 

[320 Years of History]

If you're seeking the shortest answer I can give to your question, I'd be a $100/day worker, but I'd work as many hours as it took to earn the $100 and however many more I could work before having to stop working for pay and doing something else meaningful but uncompensated that I needed to do that day. I guess that means I'd work for pay for ~13 minutes each day.

Well of course you'd be a $100/day worker, everyone would... that's the new law. The question was, what service, product, talent, etc., are you going to produce and how many hours daily and days weekly you will work for your $100/day. You say ~13 minutes... but what are you doing for ~13 minutes at $100? I hope it is something really great.

It's the same thing I do now...management consulting.

 

[Boss]

It's the same thing I do now...management consulting.

Great... so we can put you down for 13 minutes per day of management consulting.

So far, it seems we have 4 hours and 13 minutes of productive labor committed and several who don't seem to really have anything to offer or don't know what they would offer. We'll give this a little more time but I think a pattern is starting to become obvious here in this thought experiment. Anyone want to talk about it?

 

[presonorek]

First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.

The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:

It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?

For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.

GO!!

I'm pretty worthless. I'd probably work for 16 hours a day for 6 days. I'd probably find some kind of work helping people figure out how to make it on $500 a week. A lot of people would need my help so I would work longer hours.

 

[presonorek]

I never went to college or did criminal acts. I made my money the hard way, I earned it. I have no debt and house paid for and never inherited one penny or accepted one penny of government assistance and never gamble. My net worth today is $750,000 today including house, a tidy sum but not rich in any sense of the word.

I have heard an alternate definition of rich that would include you.

 

[Boss]

I'm pretty worthless. I'd probably work for 16 hours a day for 6 days. I'd probably find some kind of work helping people figure out how to make it on $500 a week. A lot of people would need my help so I would work longer hours.

Okay, so you're going to work 16 hrs/day for 6 days providing more consultation. We have a teacher and two consultants so far. I'm afraid we're going to need more to make an economy work. Where are the laborers? Who is going to clean septic tanks? Who is going to pick up dead animals on the roadway? Who is going to collect the garbage? Come on guys, let's step up the game here!!

 

[presonorek]

Anyone want to talk about it?

I think some of us do.

 

[presonorek]

I'm pretty worthless. I'd probably work for 16 hours a day for 6 days. I'd probably find some kind of work helping people figure out how to make it on $500 a week. A lot of people would need my help so I would work longer hours.

Okay, so you're going to work 16 hrs/day for 6 days providing more consultation. We have a teacher and two consultants so far. I'm afraid we're going to need more to make an economy work. Where are the laborers? Who is going to clean septic tanks? Who is going to pick up dead animals on the roadway? Who is going to collect the garbage? Come on guys, let's step up the game here!!

I didn't know where the demand was. If there was a great need for septic tank cleaning, dead animal pick up or garbage pick up wouldn't someone let me know? I can be persuaded to leave my post as the financial planner/adviser dude. Does someone need me to spend my 16 hours per day in a more productive way. I could plant some corn or take care of chickens used for eating.

I don't think higher wages or shorter hours are the only way to express demand. Guilt could be used as a recruiting method for some of the unpleasant but necessary jobs. I have been conned into things by the use of guilt trips on many occasions. Guilt would probably be a strong motivator in the economy that you have described.

 

[JoeMoma]

Would there also be a minimum pay per day? If solving wealth inequality is the issue,then there needs to be a minimum pay ear day greater than zero. We don't want those that are disabled to starve to death.

 

[MarathonMike]

The OP did have not a cap of $500 per week. A couple of examples he gave resulted in more and less than $500 per week. Regardless, the problem with a $100 dollar per day flat salary is that the hard workers would work far more hours and dilute their effective hourly pay. My wife does this all the time as a professor and I point out how she is diluting her value putting in crazy hours for no pay.

 

[yiostheoy]

I am worth 180 accurately fired 5.56x45 cartridges and 30 45ACP cartridges.

After that I am not worth much anymore.

 

[LoneLaugher]

First let me say, this is a sociological test and there are no right or wrong answers. It is merely intended to open a conversation on the idea of "living wages" and/or "guaranteed minimum incomes" or whatever the latest term being used to articulate a change in the current way incomes are determined in the US.

The specific hypothetical scenario is as follows:

It's some time in the distant future.... The US has just passed a federal law that every person will be paid a maximum $100 per day regardless of the job they perform. Since jobs are all different, requiring different talents and skill sets, different education levels and expertise, we need to determine what each person brings to the table in terms of value or worth. In a couple of paragraphs (no more than three) please explain how many hours per day (and number of days per week) you will be working and what you will be offering for the $100 max pay you will receive?

For example, if you are a doctor, maybe you'll work 1 hr. per day at $100, 5 days per week.Perhaps you're a brain surgeon who will work 20 minutes per day for $100, 3 days per week? Maybe you are a cashier who will work 5 hrs. a day for $20/hr ($100), 6 days a week. Or maybe you want to work 4 hrs per day at $25/hr., 4 days a week? It's entirely up to you... You are the best judge as to what you're worth.

GO!!

I never went to college or did criminal acts. I made my money the hard way, I earned it. I have no debt and house paid for and never inherited one penny or accepted one penny of government assistance and never gamble. My net worth today is $750,000 today including house, a tidy sum but not rich in any sense of the word.

Holy shit. Nobody believes you and nobody cares.

 

[Asclepias]

It's the same thing I do now...management consulting.

Great... so we can put you down for 13 minutes per day of management consulting.

So far, it seems we have 4 hours and 13 minutes of productive labor committed and several who don't seem to really have anything to offer or don't know what they would offer. We'll give this a little more time but I think a pattern is starting to become obvious here in this thought experiment. Anyone want to talk about it?

You see something? What do you see?

 

[Boss]

Would there also be a minimum pay per day? If solving wealth inequality is the issue,then there needs to be a minimum pay ear day greater than zero. We don't want those that are disabled to starve to death.

Well no, read the OP... The new federal law doesn't mandate a minimum pay, just a maximum amount you can earn per day of $100. If you don't want to work you can depend on benevolence from others, that's up to you. We've not really discussed taxation and how we would pay for running government and providing social entitlement programs or disability. Perhaps we'll have a consumption tax?

An 8-hour day at $100 comes to $12.50 per hour. Obviously, certain jobs would be of greater value than $12.50 per hour so you'd work less hours depending on competition for those jobs. The time you worked per day or how many days per week would become the driver as opposed to amount per hour as it is now. Maybe there is an easy job that lots of people can do and some will say... I'll work 10 hours at $10 per hour instead of 8 at $12.50.

We obviously can't pay people to do nothing, no one wants to do that. Would you like to pay me to do nothing? If so, I'll gladly send you my Paypal information through PM. Paying people for doing nothing is not solving wealth inequality, it's simply paying people to do nothing. This plan pays everyone $100 per day maximum. You can make up to $700 per week and your hours per day and days per week are what is negotiable depending on what you'll do and the market for your particular service. As you can see. if everyone is capped at $700 maximum, we have no inequality in wealth, the problem is solved. This is why the fictional future government passed this law.

So we've solved the inequality in wealth problem but now we seem to be running into some problems with people being motivated to actually do productive work that needs doing. We've had only one person in the thread who stated he is willing to work 16 hrs per day to do whatever needs to be done. Now if we just had about 149,999,999 more people that committed, we would have something going on. Unfortunately, most people don't seem to want to work for $6.25 per hour and 112 hours per week.