"in general, people should get proportionately rewarded for how much total value they generate for others"
- strong agree46.4%
- slight agree37.7%
- slight disagree9.6%
- strong disagree6.2%
3,475 votesFinal results
Conversation
Replying to
If there was a "much more than proportionally" option, that would just be capitalism
2
3
Show replies
Replying to
depends. like in general or for certain tasks? like factory workers and people who work at stores 100%. their job just feels like they want to pay as little to them even tho they are the reason for any money flow. even with certain tasks i agree, but they seem to already.
1
Replying to
in general people should be rewarded in the way that promotes as much value creation as possible. rewarding good behavior incentivises that obviously, but strictly proportional rewards will not necessarily maximize this.
2
3
28
Replying to
I chose slight disagree because a competitive market rewards according to marginal value...
5
Replying to
Not to get all epistemologically sophist here, but who defines and measures «value»? What units could be used to compute this hypothetical proportion? If were to "generate [it] for others" in expectation of reward, is that simply transactional? Are such transactions valuable?
1
9
Replying to
In our society yes, because it leads to good incentives, but in a post-scarcity society, no (seems like "in general" includes that scenario)
1
2
Replying to
I'm curious if it would be possible to craft a poll that splits the agree/disagree cohorts along the lines of how much value they think they're generating.
maybe "my job is a net positive to society" / "people should get proportionately rewarded ..."?
1
Replying to
Strong agree. Caveats:
1. this is about rewards, not basic needs.
2. Linear proportional
3. "Value generated" does explicitly *not* only mean monetary value.
4. Value generated is counted at the point of creation, i.e. the worker, not the CEO (though they generate value)
1
9