The Role of Education In Assigning Value to Societal Labor Sectors

[philosophygirl78]

I think talent & independant thought are more important.




You mean if everyone assumed their own responsibilities......yeah, bring it on, Anarchy forever !

The definition of responsibility must originate from 'somewhere',,, where is that somewhere?

 

[JimWagner]

The definition of responsibility must originate from 'somewhere',,, where is that somewhere?

I am certain that the answer does not lie in ivory towers.

 

[Fading Fast]

Ok ok, Moral Philosophy... Better?

In plain English: It is ignorant, manipulative and arrogant for society to treat the garbageman different than the stock manager. It is a failure of society. It is very real and if we hope to move toward a positive trend in evolution, we need to eliminate such primitive notions. I will go as far as to say something like bullying makes more sense than designating value or status based on the type of labor performed....

I don't know that society does. The garbage man and the stockbroker both get to negotiate their pay in a marketplace, both get the use of public utilities, services, programs, schools, etc. That one gets paid more than the other (although, in some towns, taking into account benefits and pensions, garbage men with many years of service make over $100k, but those are probably the one-off exceptions which is why I've read about it) is a market function of what one is willing to pay and what one is able and willing to do. (And some stock brokers make less than $100k, but I have no doubt that most stock brokers make more than garbage men.)

But because someone make more than someone else, doesn't mean society is doing something wrong or judging one as worth more or less as a human. I don't think less of a garbage man because he make less than the stock broker or more of him than the school teacher that he makes more than (in many communities garbage men make more than public school teachers). While I know some people judge people by their salary or bank account, I don't and I know many, many people who don't. Maybe I'm missing your point or getting it all wrong. Are you saying that what people earn is what society judges them to be worth? If so, I don't agree. What you make is based on a marketplace of skills; what you are "worth" as a human is up to you and every individual who knows you to make an independent decision.

I've known several garbage men in my time - liked some a lot and some not so much - and I've known several stock brokers - like some / not others. But their worth as a human, IMHO, is based on their character, not their paycheck. I'd be surprise if a large segment of our population doesn't feel the same way or am I out of touch on that? It seems most people on Fedora Lounge in other threads and at other times have expressed opinions similar to mind about how they judge a person.

 

[philosophygirl78]

It is not individual judgement that is in question... It is societal judgement. Groups as wholes... That, is what I see a problem.

 

[philosophygirl78]

I don't know that society does. The garbage man and the stockbroker both get to negotiate their pay in a marketplace, both get the use of public utilities, services, programs, schools, etc. That one gets paid more than the other (although, in some towns, taking into account benefits and pensions, garbage men with many years of service make over $100k, but those are probably the one-off exceptions which is why I've read about it) is a market function of what one is willing to pay and what one is able and willing to do. (And some stock brokers make less than $100k, but I have no doubt that most stock brokers make more than garbage men.)

But because someone make more than someone else, doesn't mean society is doing something wrong or judging one as worth more or less as a human. I don't think less of a garbage man because he make less than the stock broker or more of him than the school teacher that he makes more than (in many communities garbage men make more than public school teachers). While I know some people judge people by their salary or bank account, I don't and I know many, many people who don't. Maybe I'm missing your point or getting it all wrong. Are you saying that what people earn is what society judges them to be worth? If so, I don't agree. What you make is based on a marketplace of skills; what you are "worth" as a human is up to you and every individual who knows you to make an independent decision.

I've known several garbage men in my time - liked some a lot and some not so much - and I've known several stock brokers - like some / not others. But their worth as a human, IMHO, is based on their character, not their paycheck. I'd be surprise if a large segment of our population doesn't feel the same way or am I out of touch on that? It seems most people on Fedora Lounge in other threads and at other times have expressed opinions similar to mind about how they judge a person.

"The garbage man and the stockbroker both get to negotiate their pay in a marketplace" - I don't see how this is true... Most people don't have opportunities to negotiate anything unless they are in a strong financial cushion situation, which MOST people in this country are not... In fact, they are worse off now than say 15-20 or even 10 years ago.... And if you check out the Markets today, boy is it unnerving...

 

[Lean'n'mean]

The definition of responsibility must originate from 'somewhere',,, where is that somewhere?

Have you tried a dictionary.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It is not individual judgement that is in question... It is societal judgement. Groups as wholes... That, is what I see a problem.

Exactly. And societal judgements are a manifestation of an entire social system built upon a foundation of such judgements, going back to Og the Caveman saying to Ug the Caveman "mine's bigger than yours." It's always been a striving for prestige, whether that of aristocracies trying to promote their superiority over the peasants, that of clergy lording it over the laity, the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, or the suburbanite bragging to his neighbor over the size of his big-screen TV.

There are have always been individuals who have cried out against this institutionalized system -- they're the ones you see thruout history being crucified, thrown to lions, burned at the stake, imprisoned, or blacklisted for preaching their beliefs. The problem is that those who benefit most from that system have been all too successful convincing the victims of that system to bend their knees and bow their heads and pull that rope until.....

 

[philosophygirl78]

Have you tried a dictionary.

You mean the one written by the Institutions? HAH!!!!!

 

[philosophygirl78]

Exactly. And societal judgements are a manifestation of an entire social system built upon a foundation of such judgements, going back to Og the Caveman saying to Ug the Caveman "mine's bigger than yours." It's always been a striving for prestige, whether that of aristocracies trying to promote their superiority over the peasants, that of clergy lording it over the laity, the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, or the suburbanite bragging to his neighbor over the size of his big-screen TV.

There are have always been individuals who have cried out against this institutionalized system -- they're the ones you see thruout history being crucified, thrown to lions, burned at the stake, imprisoned, or blacklisted for preaching their beliefs. The problem is that those who benefit most from that system have been all too successful convincing the victims of that system to bend their knees and bow their heads and pull that rope until.....

I like to think we are at a point in evolution where we know a 'little bit' better. Perhaps that's just a naive notion on my part... Its been known to happen...

 

[JimWagner]

Og convinced the other cavemen that he was the strongest, most powerful of them all and in charge. Ug, not happy with this turn of events discovered that he could exert influence and gain his own power base through fear of the unknown and became the first shaman. That power split evolved into Church and State and the balance of power has shifted many times between them.

What you seem to be suggesting is that Education now wants a share of that power and influence over society because they "know better". I guess enough people have finally been through the educational mill, and had their minds moulded accordingly, that Education now feels they have the power base to form a third leg to the bipod of State and Church and create a tripod to rule us all.

You'll excuse me if I'm less than welcoming of this turn of events?

 

[philosophygirl78]

Og convinced the other cavemen that he was the strongest, most powerful of them all and in charge. Ug, not happy with this turn of events discovered that he could exert influence and gain his own power base through fear of the unknown and became the first shaman. That power split evolved into Church and State and the balance of power has shifted many times between them.

What you seem to be suggesting is that Education now wants a share of that power and influence over society because they "know better". I guess enough people have finally been through the educational mill, and had their minds moulded accordingly, that Education now feels they have the power base to form a third leg to the bipod of State and Church and create a tripod to rule us all.

You'll excuse me if I'm less than welcoming of this turn of events?

Ready to have that concept spanked by a history lesson?? Education (or more appropriately in history, the search for knowledge) existed as the defining establishment way before any form of organized church or state.... Unless we are speaking of Mystical and Magical type 'church' entities... In which case, they still revolved around the idea of search for knowledge...

 

[JimWagner]

I don't disagree about seeking knowledge. My point was that you really did seem to be implying that educational institutions, like the institutions of church and state, now want a place at the power table.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The search for knowledge and "Big Education" are not necessarily the same thing. The former is open to and available to anyone. The latter is open to those with the money or the connections best suited to perpetuating The Current System.

There is nothing on Earth less dangerous to entrenched economic power than a campus radical. Real revolutions are fought in the streets, not in the classroom.

 

[philosophygirl78]

I don't disagree about seeking knowledge. My point was that you really did seem to be implying that educational institutions, like the institutions of church and state, now want a place at the power table.

No, what I meant is that education needs reform, back to its purpose, essence, and through that be a guiding societal governance towards positive evolution.

 

[JimWagner]

I don't disagree about seeking knowledge. My point was that you really did seem to be implying that educational institutions, like the institutions of church and state, now want a place at the power table.

Sorry to quote myself, but I should have added that the title of this thread (The Role of Education in Assigning Value to Societal Labor Sectors) really does imply that positon.

 

[JimWagner]

No, what I meant is that education needs reform, back to its purpose, essence, and through that be a guiding societal governance towards positive evolution.

Governance?

Don't you think influence would be a better choice of words?

 

[philosophygirl78]

The search for knowledge and "Big Education" are not necessarily the same thing. The former is open to and available to anyone. The latter is open to those with the money or the connections best suited to perpetuating The Current System.

There is nothing on Earth less dangerous to entrenched economic power than a campus radical. Real revolutions are fought in the streets, not in the classroom.

What about the pen?

Governance?

Don't you think influence would be a better choice of words?

Yes, influence... But its a thin line... If we base it in the manner that is currently done, be it a steeple, a government law, or even a 'class' group, it appears to be a form of governance rather than influence...

 

[Fading Fast]

"The garbage man and the stockbroker both get to negotiate their pay in a marketplace" - I don't see how this is true... Most people don't have opportunities to negotiate anything unless they are in a strong financial cushion situation, which MOST people in this country are not... In fact, they are worse off now than say 15-20 or even 10 years ago.... And if you check out the Markets today, boy is it unnerving...

What I meant is that there is a competitive labor market for garbage men and stockbrokers. For garbage men, usual a union negotiates in the men's behalf with the city for their compensation plan. True, each garbage man doesn't negotiate individually, but he knows that going in and can choose to be or not be one, but by having a union negotiate on his behalf still, to me, is him negotiating his pay in the marketplace just through the construct of a union.

The stockbroker works differently as he, individually, does negotiate with his employer. Most firms today have "fixed" compensation plans, but a broker can shop his business / skills to many firms (and they switch firms from time to time when they can make a better deal for themselves). And while those plans are "fixed," there is always give and take in those negotiations. So I see that as a stock broker negotiating his compensation in the marketplace.

There are times when one side or the other will have the upper hand - the city is cutting back (city has upper hand), the city is growing in a tight labor market (union has upper hand) or (oddly) in '09 the brokers had an upper hand as firms were afraid of losing profitable businesses, but at other times, the firms have the edge.

 

[kaiser]

In a society such as the one in which we live, labor is the only thing the worker has to sell. And it doesn't matter if that labor is mental or physical -- whether you dig a ditch or program a computer, you're still a worker selling your labor for wages because you possess no other value to society than the surplus value your wage labor generates. That's the cold hard truth that concepts of "social prestige" and "social mobility" were developed to obscure.

Any of us who think we're special, indispensable, or somehow otherwise exempt from this need to ask ourselves what would happen if someone came along who was willing to do the same quality of work that we do for less money. Your relative value as an individual to the system of which you are a part depends not only on your own skills or your own merit but on your willingness to undercut someone else. The entire substructure that supports capitalist society was built and is maintained by the lowest bidders.

You might get more for each hour of labor that you sell than the person next to you, but that doesn't mean you're any less harnessed to the system than that other person is. It's all an illusion designed to make you think if you just pull a little harder, you're actually going to get a chance to eat the carrot that the driver of the cart is dangling on a pole in front of you. Or that wearing a nicely oiled and polished harness makes you less of a donkey than all the other donkeys hitched to the same cart.
​

Lizzie sums it up very well. The world has always worked in that someone has to loose inorder for someone else to make a gain.

 

[LizzieMaine]

What about the pen?

Many great revolutionaries have done time in the pen, and their time in prison has prepared them for....

Oh, wait, you mean the other kind of pen.

Absolutely, yes. You won't find a revolution since man became literate that didn't depend on a flood of pamphlets, articles, speeches, and other careful uses of language to get their points across to the people. I collect early-twentieth-century US radical literature, and one of the things I find most interesting about the 1930s labor movement is how many rough, grade-school-educated workers became militants after reading five-cent pamphlets put out by the Workers Library or similar radical publishing concerns.

There was a tremendous push for self-education in the Era. During the Depression, the Haldemann-Julius "Little Blue Books" series alone circulated millions of nickel-and-dime pamphlet editions of philosophical and economic works, and you'd be as likely to find these in the pocket of a worker's overalls as you would a cheap detective or western story magazine. People were looking for answers, and they understood the value of study -- but they didn't have either the time or the circumstances to allow extensive education. Even without that education they were able to learn and understand enough to foment what was the closest we've ever had to a Second American Revolution.