can we fully reward hard work, creativity and innovation without superexcessive overpay [causing underpay caus

Question

causing violence [war and crime] and extinction soon

unlimited pay has sucked up 90% of world income, putting 90% of people on incomes from 10th - 1000th of world average hourly pay, generating enormous violence, endangering us all

can we find a balance between equal pay for all and superexcessive overreward for innovation, etc?

if you overpay some for innovation, you underpay others [most] for innovation

90% of people are too underpaid to become scientists, researchers, inventors, capitalists, businesspeople

letting the market decide income is unjust, because the market pays for scarcity, which is not the worker's innovation, hard work or creativity - new technology has inbuilt scarcity, which overrewards, causing underreward [for most] and stifling the global economy and human progress

new technology has high demand [everyone wants one], low supply [industry still setting up] - this is a private tax on humanity - overpay causing underpay causing violence causing ext

Answer 1

you could add sexual favors to money.

Answer 2

We can reward hard work, creativity and innovation but instead we reward productivity. We reward productivity because it is the least expensive thing to reward. By definition, a productive worker is paying for themself.

No one is paid superexcessively, if productivity is your measure since people are always making exactly how much there work is valued in the market. Obviously there are some people who are unjustly paid for work they didn't perform (CEOs of failing companies), but there are just as many examples of high paid CEOs who's pay is justified. Bill Gates isn't overpayed: he created something which made much more money than he did and has developped an international standard in software since MS-DOS.

You assume that innovation will occur without market forces. If you pay all researchers the same amount for an hour worked, you will promote inefficienies (people holding on to pet ideas, poor communication among researchers, inefficient approaches to problems, inefficient allocation of problems). The greater the reward for productivity, the more likely you will get ideas that are efficient not only creative. While there is a place for pure sciences and fundamental engineer concepts, the step from theory to feasiblity is significant. So how much was the transistor worth? $I0 billion would have been too little for the team that developped it given perfect hindsight. Do we want to wait an extra ten years for the next transistor because we don't provide the incentives.

It is fair to say that not all inovations are equally valued. Some underappriciated innovations are rediscovered years later, but most of the time people can see relative worth rather quickly.

%90 of people aren't intellectually qualified to become a scientist, researcher, inventor or capitalist or investor. Take any freshmen chemistry class and look at the grade distribution-- most of those kids have no business in science (and those are the one who made university). Of those that survive freshmen chemistry, the drop out rate for the sciences is significant. Of those graduating with undergraduate degrees in a research area, not all are qualified for graduate work and not all graduate students are successful researchers. You may get 2 or 3 potential researchers out of 100. Business school numbers aren't so bad, but the failure rate for small businesses is extremely high. Being a good capitalist is extremely difficult.

Most countries identify top students through testing, send them to university and pay them well. These countries include China, India and the former USSR... clearly identifying and paying talent doesn't lead to economic equity.

Removing incentives will lower total production which means that you have less money to redistribute. If you want to redistribute to a point where everyone in the world has a minimum income despite productivity, you aren't likely to have the total production to do that. Basically you'll be asking highly productive people to live in relative poverty so that a lower productivity person can live at the same level -- so much for peace and happiness.

The better solution is to raise the producitivity of workers in developping countries through capital accumulation and education. This will allow all workers to earn what they make creating an equality in opportunity for all people.

Answer 3

Letting the market decide pay is the only just way. Would you rather it be decided by all-powerful politicians?

The market is telling us that the US government owned, government controlled, teacher union run education system is atrocious. You are right, the market pays for scarcity. And our government controlled education system is producing a whole bunch of people that are exactly alike - low skilled and undereducated.

Don't blame the market for that.

Furthermore, before those poor people in third world countries got those low paying jobs, they were either unemployed or breaking their backs in fields.

Good job on typical overreaction and paranoia - "extinction soon"

ugh!!