TakeYouToTasker Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 But of course, I just failed an IQ test, so what the !@#$ do I know... How does that happen? Did it come back negative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 How does that happen? Did it come back negative? A wonderlic for a prospective employer. The recruiter for that position came back and said that based on my score they decided not to interview me. I'm calling that "not passing an IQ test." It's funnier that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 A wonderlic for a prospective employer. The recruiter for that position came back and said that based on my score they decided not to interview me. I'm calling that "not passing an IQ test." It's funnier that way. Hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 In a society where people are afforded the freedom to attempt to choose their own career path, preoccupations, and quality of life, it is incumbent upon them to obtain, as they can, the wherewithal to do so. There are no guarantees of outcome, no guarantees of success. It may take many attempts for an individual to succeed, however they choose to define success. The concept of a living wage is to my mind, anathema to an individual's success. We all possess talents and abilities in unique measure, and some will need to work much harder to achieve success than others will. Attempting to set an equality of outcome is foolish in my mind as it requires holding achievers back, not improving the output of underachievers. We don't need government or a helping hand from society for that - people just need to accept the responsibility for taking care of themselves. There's nothing selfish in that. A person should be paid their worth, and that worth should be based on the value of the work they perform, as well as the quality of that work. In other words, the wage of a marketable skill. A person must be prepared to move to another city, sometimes frequently. They may have to change professions or go back to school. That's probably more true now than ever before, and I don't see anything wrong with that. The first bolded we disagree on in that the assumption that equalities of outcome necessarily lead to holding productive individuals from performing at capacity. I see no reason why that should be the case if we're talking about the best of our society in the first place; the reward being the esteem from holding an important, difficult occupation and the positive impact that position has on society, rather than discrepancy of income. Just a change of perspective. The second bolded is the age old question of how to evaluate a person's worth. Your claim here is the value of their work, which if taken in the following sentence's context I believe would be the wage they earn? A circular argument, really. By paying a minimum guaranteed salary (or even everyone the same amount) your valuation of an individual is simply their existence, something a truly egalitarian society would generally take for granted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 The first bolded we disagree on in that the assumption that equalities of outcome necessarily lead to holding productive individuals from performing at capacity. I see no reason why that should be the case if we're talking about the best of our society in the first place; the reward being the esteem from holding an important, difficult occupation and the positive impact that position has on society, rather than discrepancy of income. Just a change of perspective. Honorifics aren't currency, and have zero value in and of themselves. No one, or close enough to no one to make any difference whatsoever, has interest in doing the hard work you describe without commensurate reward. The sacrifices made are too great. The time spent away from family, away from doing the things that you love, in favor of lonely nights on the road, weeks on end, 70+ hour work weeks... The second bolded is the age old question of how to evaluate a person's worth. Your claim here is the value of their work, which if taken in the following sentence's context I believe would be the wage they earn? A circular argument, really. By paying a minimum guaranteed salary (or even everyone the same amount) your valuation of an individual is simply their existence, something a truly egalitarian society would generally take for granted. Existence is not meritorious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Honorifics aren't currency, and have zero value in and of themselves. No one, or close enough to no one to make any difference whatsoever, has interest in doing the hard work you describe without commensurate reward. The sacrifices made are too great. The time spent away from family, away from doing the things that you love, in favor of lonely nights on the road, weeks on end, 70+ hour work weeks... Existence is not meritorious. Actually, I was advocating from a more extreme position, that instead of basic guaranteed income everyone was paid the same salary across the board. It would, theoretically, remove the concept of commensurate reward and redefine 'value' as being your labor's positive impact on your fellow man and society, as opposed to the money you derive from it. Not meritorious, certainly, but it's as good a baseline as any. Do you really want to live in a society where your value as a person is tied to your salary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) Actually, I was advocating from a more extreme position, that instead of basic guaranteed income everyone was paid the same salary across the board. It would, theoretically, remove the concept of commensurate reward and redefine 'value' as being your labor's positive impact on your fellow man and society, as opposed to the money you derive from it. Not meritorious, certainly, but it's as good a baseline as any. Do you really want to live in a society where your value as a person is tied to your salary? No, it's not "as good a baseline as any". It's a lousy baseline which attributes zero value to human motivation. To the other: Absolutely. Capitalism and freedom of exchange is naturally forced altruism. I am required to produce something others want or need if I am to have the ability to acquire the things that I want and need; and the more I am able to produce things which others want and need (benefiting society) the greater my value. And at the same time, this system uniquely encourages innovation and production where other systems do not. Edited June 7, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 No, it's not "as good a baseline as any". It's a lousy baseline which attributes zero value to human motivation. To the other: Absolutely. Capitalism and freedom of exchange is naturally forced altruism. I am required to produce something others want or need if I am to have the ability to acquire the things that I want and need; and the more I am able to produce things which others want and need (benefiting society) the greater my value. And at the same time, this system uniquely encourages innovation and production where other systems do not. How do you put a value on motivation? It's certainly not as easy to quantify as existence. Your assumption that things others want and need benefit society is where the argument loses steam. I can cite countless examples of people producing things and accumulating extraordinary wealth that are of either marginal or negative benefit. I'm of the belief that the system you promote only encourages innovation and production up to a certain point, beyond which it stagnates to the detriment of its greater population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) How do you put a value on motivation? It's certainly not as easy to quantify as existence. Your assumption that things others want and need benefit society is where the argument loses steam. I can cite countless examples of people producing things and accumulating extraordinary wealth that are of either marginal or negative benefit. I'm of the belief that the system you promote only encourages innovation and production up to a certain point, beyond which it stagnates to the detriment of its greater population. Given that the system I advocate is responsible for nearly ever single innovation in human history, you're wrong. And it's not a value placed on human motivation, it's that your philosophy completely disregards the things that motivate humans. I can tell you, with 100% certainty, that without the earnings potential my career path has provided, I wouldn't have been in any way interested in the work. Neither would anyone else I know. I'd have been perfectly content to take the path of least resistance, and being paid to do something easy, while you paid me as much as the next guy to simply exist. Edited June 7, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 A wonderlic for a prospective employer. The recruiter for that position came back and said that based on my score they decided not to interview me. I'm calling that "not passing an IQ test." It's funnier that way. Hey, maybe it came back too high and management doesn't want you taking over the place. ...Or, you scored really low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 The first bolded we disagree on in that the assumption that equalities of outcome necessarily lead to holding productive individuals from performing at capacity. I see no reason why that should be the case if we're talking about the best of our society in the first place; the reward being the esteem from holding an important, difficult occupation and the positive impact that position has on society, rather than discrepancy of income. Just a change of perspective. The second bolded is the age old question of how to evaluate a person's worth. Your claim here is the value of their work, which if taken in the following sentence's context I believe would be the wage they earn? A circular argument, really. By paying a minimum guaranteed salary (or even everyone the same amount) your valuation of an individual is simply their existence, something a truly egalitarian society would generally take for granted. How can you possibly guarantee equality of outcome without setting a limit on achievement? The only other way would be to supplement all but the single highest wage-earner's incomes to match that of the highest. Do you really believe that an individual's dignity justifies paying a busboy an hourly wage equal to that of an attorney? Again, it's about learning and developing a marketable skill. Esteem has nothing to do with it. If people were not unique individuals; if there was no such thing as talent or work ethic, then maybe this issue could be addressed from the standpoint of equality in an egalitarian society. The problem is that we are individuals, each with their own talents, skills, and ethics. How we choose to earn our money and live our lives are our choice as individuals, but we are also each responsible for not being a burden on our fellow citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 How can you possibly guarantee equality of outcome without setting a limit on achievement? The only other way would be to supplement all but the single highest wage-earner's incomes to match that of the highest. Do you really believe that an individual's dignity justifies paying a busboy an hourly wage equal to that of an attorney? Again, it's about learning and developing a marketable skill. Esteem has nothing to do with it. If people were not unique individuals; if there was no such thing as talent or work ethic, then maybe this issue could be addressed from the standpoint of equality in an egalitarian society. The problem is that we are individuals, each with their own talents, skills, and ethics. How we choose to earn our money and live our lives are our choice as individuals, but we are also each responsible for not being a burden on our fellow citizens. He's a communist. He's said as much in prior posts. You're not arguing against his argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 He's a communist. He's said as much in prior posts. You're not arguing against his argument. I'm just trying to correct his misinterpretation of my words, which I thought were pretty simply stated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Hey, maybe it came back too high and management doesn't want you taking over the place. ...Or, you scored really low. Or they learned he has over 50,000 (38,527 are of him calling people idiots) and quickly withdrew their interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Hey, maybe it came back too high and management doesn't want you taking over the place. ...Or, you scored really low. They were probably reading his memes on the Harvard freshman website. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 A wonderlic for a prospective employer. The recruiter for that position came back and said that based on my score they decided not to interview me. I'm calling that "not passing an IQ test." It's funnier that way. like my MRI on my brain showed nothing? so you were told you just aren't Taco Bell material? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 so you were told you just aren't Taco Bell material? Which was embarrassing, since the only reason I applied was because I was told "You're not Red Lobster material, why don't you try Taco Bell?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grinreaper Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 A wonderlic for a prospective employer. The recruiter for that position came back and said that based on my score they decided not to interview me. I'm calling that "not passing an IQ test." It's funnier that way. I hope this helps. http://mentalhealthdaily.com/2013/04/24/11-ways-to-increase-your-iq-score-intelligence-quotient/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Which was embarrassing, since the only reason I applied was because I was told "You're not Red Lobster material, why don't you try Taco Bell?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted June 7, 2017 Share Posted June 7, 2017 Well you could put a good portion of those people in government jobs having them figure out what the right COL is in each part of the country and administering the program. A new giant gov't arm for a new system to game. Then you could also have a subsidized program to re-train the displaced to maintain the robotics and diagnose/maintain the AI. But then again, if all those people are either employed by the government to administer the new program or trained to work within the new technology, then the program would cease to be necessary. I'm only being half snarky here. I understand the potential need for UBI, but I also see that it will create a whole new cottage industry of making, administering, and collecting handouts. you're snarkiness is in the right direction though, a better mechanism is to have a job guarantee program. There are all kinds of services that people can perform and "earn" a minimum guaranteed income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts