Lessons to be learned from the Kavanaugh Hearing

[The Great Zaganza]

Sure I have. I've advocated for a system where people can get rewarded based on their performance. (colorblind, sex blind meritocracy) You and others have suggested that meritocracy somehow involves giving up all you've earned after your life, or not being able to share or gift things to others. (insane?)

I'm not quite sure how that is even possible. But whatever.

That is not a Meritocracy - read up on it.

 

[River]

That is not a Meritocracy - read up on it.

Can you answer this basic question?

Participation trophies given to all participants in a contest? Trophies given to top 3 in descending sequence?

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I don't have a concept of meritocracy, since it is obvious that Merit is a useless term.

In America, merit is defined as 'how much money you make'.

I've advocated for a system where people can get rewarded based on their performance how much money they make.

ftfy.

Rockefeller was a saint, Truman was a grifter.

 

[xjx388]

Can you answer this basic question?

Participation trophies given to all participants in a contest? Trophies given to top 3 in descending sequence?

Here's the thing though; our society is not a contest. Our society is and always has been a cooperative effort. I am not for moving further away from the basic cooperative spirit that has made America such a great country.

While I do agree on a basic level that if you work hard and contribute more, your reward should be more, this does not mean that it's ok to leave everyone else withering in the dust -we need everyone else to be happy and health too.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Can you answer this basic question?

Participation trophies given to all participants in a contest? Trophies given to top 3 in descending sequence?

Your question has nothing to do with Meritocracy, but then, Meritocracy has nothing to do with this thread, so ok:

Parental fads change as often as diets - and most are stupid. "Participation trophies" are a way for schools to avoid confrontation with parents - they usually have no positive or negative impact on kids, since kids know very well where they stand in comparison to their peers.

Clear feedback, negative or positive, is the only way to tell if you are improving - the message should always be that today, you should strive to do better than you did yesterday: your only competitor should be your past self.
But such constant assessment and coaching requires more, better trained and better paid teachers.


In the meantime, if trophies allow a school to function without too much parental interference I don't mind them too much.

 

[River]

Your question has nothing to do with Meritocracy, but then, Meritocracy has nothing to do with this thread, so ok:

Parental fads change as often as diets - and most are stupid. "Participation trophies" are a way for schools to avoid confrontation with parents - they usually have no positive or negative impact on kids, since kids know very well where they stand in comparison to their peers.

Clear feedback, negative or positive, is the only way to tell if you are improving - the message should always be that today, you should strive to do better than you did yesterday: your only competitor should be your past self.
But such constant assessment and coaching requires more, better trained and better paid teachers.


In the meantime, if trophies allow a school to function without too much parental interference I don't mind them too much.

We are drifting way off topic here, so I'll leave it after this reply.

I disagree that participation trophies are not related to meritocracy, and disagree that they are not negative in any way. We do agree in most of the concept. Incentives, coaching and training can all lead to better performances. Those that will put in the effort to achieve those things, and devote the resources to make them happen will achieve better results then they would without those assets. However, this does not mean that someone without those assets cannot achieve the same results, or even better results.

When we base a society on performance rewards, and capitalism -- anyone can succeed to the level of millionaire with the right concepts and efforts. (many examples out there of this happening) That does not mean everyone achieves those same results. Why?

(we know why, but the variables are so many, and so diverse that it is unpredictable in that you could not choose someone at birth that from a poor family that would become a millionaire)

The entire point is; it's possible and not just on the millionaire level -- but on the everyday middle class level for everyone with the right efforts and positive lifestyle.

Will everyone make those choices? Nope. But those that do make the right choices, and put in the right effort in this country -- can succeed beyond what most can accomplish elsewhere in the world. There is a reason why the USA is the most desired destination for potential immigrants. Hint: it's not because it's racist here.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Capitalism doesn't reward performance - it rewards the appearance of performance.

 

[River]

Capitalism doesn't reward performance - it rewards the appearance of performance.

This is false.

I'll give an example: Two sales agents work the same amount of hours per week, put in the same amount of phone calls, same amount of traveling and same amount of work time wise in the same areas, and physical effort wise.

One of the sales agents makes 8 sales in 5 days, where as the other makes 32 sales in 5 days. Which sales agent earned the company the most money? Which sales agent earned more wage?

What some have been suggesting here is paying both equally based purely on their time or effort, not the actual performance of their task. (which is basically more common in socialism or communism than capitalism)

If those two sales agents continue the trend for 5 years, should the one making 8 sales be upset hes not getting paid as much as the one making 32 sales? They are working the same area, the same hours, the same physical effort. Why is one not making as many sales? (insert real life variables, like talent, intelligence, strength, communication skills, etc etc including how they are groomed or present themselves)

Anyhow, enjoyed the discussion. Thanks.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

This is false.

I'll give an example: Two sales agents work the same amount of hours per week, put in the same amount of phone calls, same amount of traveling and same amount of work time wise in the same areas, and physical effort wise.

One of the sales agents makes 8 sales in 5 days, where as the other makes 32 sales in 5 days. Which sales agent earned the company the most money? Which sales agent earned more wage?

What some have been suggesting here is paying both equally based purely on their time or effort, not the actual performance of their task. (which is basically more common in socialism or communism than capitalism)

If those two sales agents continue the trend for 5 years, should the one making 8 sales be upset hes not getting paid as much as the one making 32 sales? They are working the same area, the same hours, the same physical effort. Why is one not making as many sales? (insert real life variables, like talent, intelligence, strength, communication skills, etc etc including how they are groomed or present themselves)

Anyhow, enjoyed the discussion. Thanks.

what you are describing is any employer-employee relationship throughout time: it could apply to a medieval guild, a renaissance manufacture or a mercantilist trading company. It is not a specific characteristic of Capitalism.


Capitalism is about increasing the Market Value of your invested wealth: it considers employees only inasmuch as they increase said market value.
A salesman who, through lies and tricks, lands a huge customer will increase the perceived value of the company dramatically, even if internally it becomes clear that said customer will leave as soon as possible.
But in the meantime, the owner of the company can sell it for more than before the fake gain.

 

[TomB]

What some have been suggesting here is paying both equally based purely on their time or effort, not the actual performance of their task. (which is basically more common in socialism or communism than capitalism)

No.

What some have suggested is more akin to giving both of them cell phones to conduct their business as opposed to only the one with rich parents having a cell phone while the other is limited to using a payphone located on the street corner outside the office.

I don't think anyone is saying that less productive employees should be paid or advance the same.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I still get carded occasionally as an ego boost. It doesn't make the law different for someone based on race does it? Neither does voting, or requiring ID for it. We require ID for much less important activities in this country, and we should absolutely require it for one of the most important activities in this country. If you feel like it's too much to ask, don't vote.

Just so we're clear: having an ID is not required to buy alcohol. And yet you like to lie and say it is. Cool.

 

[River]

Just so we're clear: having an ID is not required to buy alcohol. And yet you like to lie and say it is. Cool.

That is up to the server to ask in my state, but you must prove you are over 21 with an official id (ie drivers license). In some states it's required to ask all persons buying alcohol for ID. Example.

Tennessee made national headlines in 2007 when it became the first state to make store clerks card everyone who bought carry-out beer. The carding requirement was expanded on July 1 to include liquor and wine as part of the new wine-in-grocery-stores bill.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

That is up to the server to ask in my state, but you must prove you are over 21 with an official id (ie drivers license). In some states it's required to ask all persons buying alcohol for ID. Example.

More lies. See if you can spot the lie when we add a little more info:

Tennessee made national headlines in 2007 when it became the first state to make store clerks card everyone who bought carry-out beer.

 

[River]

More lies. See if you can spot the lie when we add a little more info:

Tennessee made national headlines in 2007 when it became the first state to make store clerks card everyone who bought carry-out beer.

Yeah, the very next line is:

The carding requirement was expanded on July 1 to include liquor and wine

 

[Lurch]

If the capitalistic US is representative of a desirable, meritorious society, then why is wealth disparity increasing at a frightful pace? The rate at which wealth is accruing to the 1% (nay, the 0.1%!) is accelerating geometrically. A chart of the distribution is a truly obscene asymptote. The middle class is being truncated, with ever more people shifting to the poor class.

In such a scheme, with already some 80% of treasure controlled by only 20% of the populace (or is it worse than that?), and the trend worsening, merit for the majority is a phantasm. It's really a dog eat dog system, where only a comparative few can claw their way up. It's the robber barons all over again. And like in '29, the bubble is going to pop.

The current job numbers mask a depressing reality. And that is that an increasing number of positions are low paying, part-time service industry toiling that requires to hold two or three in order to make ends meet. Where in times past it was mostly one person = one job, these days it's too much of two or three persons = one job. A good way to keep 'unemployment' figures low. And pass on even more of the wealth to the monied class. While personal and national debt soars.

It seems like no one can learn from the past. Or the 'leaders' of society have decided to get while the gettin's good, our progeny be damned. I see great pain on the near horizon. And we're all asleep at the switch while the train hurtles toward that collapsed bridge...

 

[Dr. Keith]

That is up to the server to ask in my state, but you must prove you are over 21 with an official id (ie drivers license). In some states it's required to ask all persons buying alcohol for ID. Example.

The first highlighted means ID is not required. Which is consistent with my experience as an old fart.

The second highlighted contradicts the first and is not at all consistent with my experience for the last 15 years at least. My bald ass head and dad jeans have been plenty enough to convince all servers and check out people of my age, I have not had to prove anything with an official ID.

Again, lying about such petty things while trying to make an argument undermines the rest of your argument. I know you didn't create that lie, but why would you rely on someone who did?

 

[River]

The first highlighted means ID is not required. Which is consistent with my experience as an old fart.

The second highlighted contradicts the first and is not at all consistent with my experience for the last 15 years at least. My bald ass head and dad jeans have been plenty enough to convince all servers and check out people of my age, I have not had to prove anything with an official ID.

Again, lying about such petty things while trying to make an argument undermines the rest of your argument. I know you didn't create that lie, but why would you rely on someone who did?

And of course you ignore the very next line which supports the statement saying:

Tennessee made national headlines in 2007 when it became the first state to make store clerks card everyone who bought carry-out beer. The carding requirement was expanded on July 1 to include liquor and wine as part of the new wine-in-grocery-stores bill.

But lets argue about having to show ID for alcohol more. It's totally on topic.

 

[Dr. Keith]

And of course you ignore the very next line which supports the statement saying:

Do you live in Tennessee? I don't. Are all alcohol sales carry out in Tennessee? Nope. I bought many beers in Tennessee a few months ago and never had to show ID.

Your graphic is lying. Intentionally.

Do you want to move to the next lie or stick with this one?

But lets argue about having to show ID for alcohol more. It's totally on topic.

Stop posting lying graphics and it won't be relevant.

 

[Cabbage]

But lets argue about having to show ID for alcohol more. It's totally on topic.

What an odd thing to say. I mean, after all, you're the one that brought it up.

 

[theprestige]

Capitalism doesn't reward performance - it rewards the appearance of performance.

In an epistemological sense, sure. But the only really sustainable way to maintain the appearance of performance is to actually perform. And capitalism brings evolutionary pressures to perform that other systems do not.

For example, capitalism expects profit from investment. It's possible to perpetrate fraud in order to produce the expected profits, but the profits must be produced somehow. Government agencies, on the other hand, don't have to be profitable, so there's less evolutionary pressure to improve efficiency or effectiveness. You can even wave your hands and say that we measure performance according to factors unrelated to profitability.

Then you have systems like communism, which have historically valued the appearance of ideological performance so highly as to undermine practical performance.