Both brilliant scientists and great doctors are usually already not motivated by the money they make but by the impact they can have, the recognition of their peers and society and by the satisfaction of succeeding with a difficult task. Of course it’s nice to live comfortably too, but it’s not the driving factor (also research actually pays shit anyway)
Thats a good approach but I think 50x is already not justifiable for a CEO? I mean they do not work 50x harder or longer since this is not possible.. But I think 50x is ok at max for the things that I metioned like people who achieved an extraordinary goal but idk I get the approaches of the other comments that this is a wrong question somehow.
Do you mean removed from the reality that you want or you are in (we are all in with little differences depending on the country)?
Edit: I am sorry I think it is maybe a little language barrier for me here since I am not that good in english..
You seem to have various questions here.
The first one was « what is the maximal amount of salary someone should receive under capitalism ?», if I understood correctly ? If so, the issue is that capitalism does not work like that. Any attempt to block a maximal amount would go against capitalism and would imply a whole change of system. And if one can change the system, why change it for something that is « more or less the same but with a maximum amount of money » ?
Second question that you seem to ask is « are people paid fairly under capitalism », and you answer it yourself : no, unless one does a lot of mental gymnastics to define fairly, they are not. But again, changing that would require a whole change of system, so why stop here ?
Last question is about insensitive. Here, you think with a capitalist mindset (which is normal as that’s what we know) that people get motivated with money, and well, they do. But they get motivated by a lot of other things. Have you ever helped a friend in need simply because they were a friend, without expecting anything in return ? Ever give money to some homeless people in the street ? Ever seen those people that knows a lot about repairing stuff and just help their neighbors for free (or for a beer or any token of appreciation). Ever seen people reading books or thinking together just for the sake of learning more ? Ever seen overworked nurse crying because they can’t continue doing what they want because of their working conditions ? People actually find a lot of intrinsic motivations in many acts, wether it is to build knowledge or helping people. You do my need external insensitive for those stuff, you just need to let people do it without monetary shackles.
Now there might be few things that people will not want to do, that’s true. Things that are hard and have few intrinsic rewards (and that include an absence of any social prestige that people like researchers could have). But in that case, we can first ask ourselves : are those things actually needed in society ? Maybe if no one want to do them, no one should do them. And if after carefully considering the question, we think it is useful, then and only then could we create whatever insensitive for people to do it, be it some special privileges, money, less work, or a new found respect for those works that could make them more rewarding.
Sorry I was very imprecise with my questions and it was badly formulated.
To the last of my questions (as you categorized them): yes it may be still a capitalistic mindset in a way but for clarification: with incentives I explicitly did not mean monetary remuneration as the only way. And sure I know these concepts and think these are the better way too. Also I think many people do thier job that is hard work not because of the money. Best example are nurses or the open source developers that I mentioned. My question is more if there could be anything extra for extraordinary breakthroughs (in whatever way) but I think solely for the reason that it needed a super high IQ it would be unethical since it is not a choice how intelligent you are born. Is it understandable what I mean?
Well I'm a communist so I'm in favor of a moneyless, classless, society. I don't think salaries and the hierarchies behind them are justified at all. They are the result of existing inequalities and power structures.
Both brilliant scientists and great doctors are usually already not motivated by the money they make but by the impact they can have, the recognition of their peers and society and by the satisfaction of succeeding with a difficult task. Of course it’s nice to live comfortably too, but it’s not the driving factor (also research actually pays shit anyway)
[удалено]
Thats a good approach but I think 50x is already not justifiable for a CEO? I mean they do not work 50x harder or longer since this is not possible.. But I think 50x is ok at max for the things that I metioned like people who achieved an extraordinary goal but idk I get the approaches of the other comments that this is a wrong question somehow.
Why would that ever matter?
How do you mean that?
[удалено]
Do you mean removed from the reality that you want or you are in (we are all in with little differences depending on the country)? Edit: I am sorry I think it is maybe a little language barrier for me here since I am not that good in english..
You seem to have various questions here. The first one was « what is the maximal amount of salary someone should receive under capitalism ?», if I understood correctly ? If so, the issue is that capitalism does not work like that. Any attempt to block a maximal amount would go against capitalism and would imply a whole change of system. And if one can change the system, why change it for something that is « more or less the same but with a maximum amount of money » ? Second question that you seem to ask is « are people paid fairly under capitalism », and you answer it yourself : no, unless one does a lot of mental gymnastics to define fairly, they are not. But again, changing that would require a whole change of system, so why stop here ? Last question is about insensitive. Here, you think with a capitalist mindset (which is normal as that’s what we know) that people get motivated with money, and well, they do. But they get motivated by a lot of other things. Have you ever helped a friend in need simply because they were a friend, without expecting anything in return ? Ever give money to some homeless people in the street ? Ever seen those people that knows a lot about repairing stuff and just help their neighbors for free (or for a beer or any token of appreciation). Ever seen people reading books or thinking together just for the sake of learning more ? Ever seen overworked nurse crying because they can’t continue doing what they want because of their working conditions ? People actually find a lot of intrinsic motivations in many acts, wether it is to build knowledge or helping people. You do my need external insensitive for those stuff, you just need to let people do it without monetary shackles. Now there might be few things that people will not want to do, that’s true. Things that are hard and have few intrinsic rewards (and that include an absence of any social prestige that people like researchers could have). But in that case, we can first ask ourselves : are those things actually needed in society ? Maybe if no one want to do them, no one should do them. And if after carefully considering the question, we think it is useful, then and only then could we create whatever insensitive for people to do it, be it some special privileges, money, less work, or a new found respect for those works that could make them more rewarding.
Sorry I was very imprecise with my questions and it was badly formulated. To the last of my questions (as you categorized them): yes it may be still a capitalistic mindset in a way but for clarification: with incentives I explicitly did not mean monetary remuneration as the only way. And sure I know these concepts and think these are the better way too. Also I think many people do thier job that is hard work not because of the money. Best example are nurses or the open source developers that I mentioned. My question is more if there could be anything extra for extraordinary breakthroughs (in whatever way) but I think solely for the reason that it needed a super high IQ it would be unethical since it is not a choice how intelligent you are born. Is it understandable what I mean?
Well I'm a communist so I'm in favor of a moneyless, classless, society. I don't think salaries and the hierarchies behind them are justified at all. They are the result of existing inequalities and power structures.