What Were We Thinking? • Hacker News Board

Re: What Were We Thinking?

#31

Post by n4kana » Fri, Jan 13, 2023, 1:51 PM UTC

I expect future generations will criticize today's morality due to our failure to redistribute wealth and resources among all living and non-living phenomena (think mineral deposits and natural landscape features).

A disproportionate amount of resources and attention are given to humans who can live out tremendously meaningful existences without the material waste we see today. We'll see that human suffering is an essential part of our existence and not an aberration.

However, this worldview could only gain traction through political force, and the summoning of force would undermine the initial intention of the movement. Therefore what you see (partisan politics) is what you'll continue to get.

Awakening will continue to be available to all humans. I hope access to psychedelics will cement this, and that psychedelics will escape their association with a political "side". If we're fortunate, consciousness of a cosmic oneness and associated acts of "faith" will shift the battle lines in the political arena.

Re: What Were We Thinking?

#32

Post by jfengel » Fri, Jan 13, 2023, 6:24 PM UTC

habibur wrote: post #4

Give equal reward to everyone regardless of their contribution or success, and people lose motivation for work. After a while the nation as a whole collapses. We have seen it in the communist era.

And yet open source software exists. People create lots of valuable things just for fun.

"Communism" never called for equal pay for everybody. Communism is about common control over the means of production. There are lots of ways to distribute the proceeds.

One is to say, "Here's a basic level that everybody gets. Now we'll take whatever is leftover and pay for stuff according to market pricing."

There will still be farmers and garbage pickers and hotel maids. They just make the equivalent of $200,000 per year, which is what they deserve for doing unpleasant work. Tech CEOs, sports stars, and actors will continue to be incredibly desirable jobs -- they'll just get paid little to nothing.

Some will sit around all day, and I don't really care. It takes only one farmer to feed hundreds or even thousands of people. We'll pay that farmer a million dollars a year, and it'll be a bargain. He'll use it to buy art, or video games (same thing), or travel, or whatever the hell else he wants to do -- purchased from people who are getting paid in proportion to how hard something is, rather than because they were lucky enough to be desired.

Re: What Were We Thinking?

#33

Post by theironhammer » Mon, Jan 16, 2023, 5:25 PM UTC

monero-xmr wrote: post #6

paulpauper wrote: post #3

Ah, the rehashed CEO vs. employee pay statistic. Yes, this may be true for CEOs at the largest of companies which have a lot of employees. But the vast majority of companies are not multinationals. But I agree that the vast majority of fortune 500 CEOs seem overpaid relative to what they do or skill. I'm sure it's possible to find someone who can do a equal or even better job for only $500k of compensation, not tens…

If "the vast majority" of fortune 500 CEOs are overpaid, why do boards continue to hire people that get paid so much? Why do shareholders put up with it? Couldn't they just say, "We will pay half what the current CEO makes, who wants the job?" and get an endless line of qualified applicants? Or is it that when billions of dollars are on the line, quibbling over tens of millions is far too risky? I don't know about an…

[dead]