Quote:
Originally Posted by limey
That's where we differ, I think. I like to have a job that facilitates a lifestyle I want.
I did the $100,000/p.a management-thang to earn enough to buy a house where I want to live. I then did (and preferred) the $22,500/p.a job (care assistant in an old folks' home) to pay the bills here. I now sell soap for a living, which pays a little better than that; but if all jobs paid equally, I'd rather be providing personal care to old people in a residential home than doing what I'm doing now.
If all jobs paid equally, wouldn't it be glorious to have the freedom to choose what you want to do, rather than what you have to do for the bucks?
|
Actually that sounds like hell to me. What do you do with the jobs no one wants to do?
What do you do with artists and inventors? Steal their products? They don't get to say what the value of their inventions are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaC
The two jobs are equally valuable as long as both are necessary. If two people do two jobs, one skilled, one unskilled but both are necessary to the company then why is one valued by the company more highly than the other? That doesn't mean both are equal in prestige though. It doesn't mean the skilled person can't be recognised and respected for their contribution.
|
And how, exactly, do you do that?
I can't help but see the denial of freedom as an illness. It is against nature.
If communism is so awesome someone would actually be doing it and people would be in line waiting to get into that nation, end of story.