(no subject)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

How do we quantify how hard someone works?

Let's eliminate the notion of MONEY for a minute. Let's simply think about LABOR. Is it harder to work to be a brick-layer or a brain surgeon?

I would venture that being a brain surgeon is tougher than being a brick layer. More nuance required, more training, more precision. Not to say that the brick-layer isn't working, or even working hard, but I'd venture a guess that the brain surgeon had to work harder to get there than the brick-layer did. So while the brick-layer definitely needs compensation for his work (building buildings is an important activity and ought be rewarded!) we can imagine that the compensation for the brain surgeon might be bigger.

But this is a simple example.

How would we compare the work of a schoolteacher and a firefighter? Or a customer service rep vs a janitor? A stage technician and the actor who goes on said stage? Or a CEO and a truck driver? An airplane pilot and a manager at McDonalds?

All of the endless comparisons we could make, I find, baffling. I don't quite understand how we could quantify the difficulty of certain labors.

Yet I'm gonna go ahead and ignore that difficulty for just a minute. Let's return to our world, where we have money.

I [feel like] I work hard. I have a full time job. I work 45-50 hours most weeks. I'd say that usually about 3-4x a year I work seven day work-weeks, sometimes for two weeks in a row. Those paychecks are definitely better than my average paycheck, and yet, I'm still pulling in under 30K a year.

please explain to me how ANYBODY ON THE PLANET works 1,000 times as hard as I do.

Cause, ya know, all those rich folks, they worked hard for their money. That's why they deserve it.
They deserve to earn more in a year than I will in a lifetime. That's because of their hard work.

So:

A) how do you quantify the difficulty of labor?
B) how does someone work 1000x as hard as a hard working school teacher*?


*I am not a school teacher, but both my parents were teachers, my sister was a teacher for a short time (now on her way to becoming a veterinarian) and i dated a NYC school teacher for a year [hot for teacher!], so while school teachers make more than me, they don't make all that much, this much i know

The risks of bioenergy

[airiefairie.livejournal.com]

http://worldcarbondatabase.org/news/?p=1822

Last month the conservation organisation WWF presented its second report on Living Forests. It contained some really grave warnings about a potential risk from the too aggressive introduction of biofuels. Some strong measures are needed to counter the negative effects from the unsustainable use of bioenergy crops.

Generally, bioenergy comes from wood, sugar-cane, corn and seaweed (plus some crops like rapeseed), and it is often considered a viable alternative to fossil fuels. A number of governments around the world have already started ambitious programs to cut the carbon emissions by mainly shifting to alternative fuels like bioenergy crops. But the WWF warns that without solid guarantees for alternative crop production, the rising demand for bioenergy could cause major destabilisation because of the rampant deforestation and the increased competition between fast-growing crops and food crops and pastures that have a high conservation value.

The analysis they used was designed to investigate the consequences on the agricultural land, and the report also set two goals: stopping deforestation by 2020 and meeting 100% of the world's energy needs from renewable energy sources alone, by 2050. That may sound too idealistic at this point, but the model indicates that the forests could be protected, and most industrialised countries could indeed shift to renewable energy sources by that deadline. But not if we are working the way we are now. The way bioenergy sources are being used at the moment would cause more harm than good, especially if biofuel crops are being introduced into the energy mix directly as they are now.

( The more realistic solution )

Pick a GOP-er!

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

As you all know, the Republicans are trying to pick some guy. Most likely to be president or something.[Poll #1789040]

[edit] Apologies for leaving out Michele "I'm Try'na Be Crazier Than Sarah" Bachman. You may consider her in the last option, though!

I can't give you what you want...

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

This post is going to be a little scattershot but it ties in with enders_shadow's recent post and the monthly topic.

I've mentioned in a few threads that I have been writing a Science-Fiction novel with my friend Chris. The story is set in the near future and focuses on the developement of the first true (sentient) AIs. A recurring (perhapse central) theme is the question of "What is wealth?", and "How do you negotiate with someone who's wants, needs, and frame of mind are utterly alien to your own"

The more I think about it, the more I have become convinced that goods or labor have no absolute value. Thier value is entirely dependant on how badly someone wants them.

If the government were to demand that you pay for the air you breathe they'd be a laughing stock and large-scale noncompliance would be the norm. But in an orbital colony the man (or woman) who controls the O2 supply controls everything. We may see the same phenomena among AIs trading for bandwidth or electrical power.

This is why Marx's idea's are unworkable, food that nobody eats is equal in value to no food at all, no matter how much labour goes into producing it.

This is why The libertarians/Gold-Standard crowd is wrong, "Fiat Currency" is the only way to accurately model a system where-in the value of everything, even the currency itself, is negotiable.







Don't worry, Chris is acting as my editor so the novel (should it ever be completed) will be easier to read than most of my posts.