At 3 days ago, Slizor wrote:
Two, the story is predicated on a simplistic understanding of "reward". It assumes, following usage in the status quo, that what you receive for a service/product is "earned" - that you have a moral right to it on the basis of deserving it. However, the world is replete with examples of people who get a high salary but actually do very little - investment bankers being a good example.
You don't have the slightest idea what you are taking about. An investment banker has to make extremely difficult and risky decisions about what companies to accept as clients, whether their securities are marketable and how to make them so, and deal with a whole other slew of complicated financial instruments.
Equally, people who do do useful things - factory workers, for example - often see very poor returns for the provision (and fruits) of their labour.
You're fundamentally confused about the concept of "value." It is not the amount of calories or muscles used, or whether the end product is something real, like a house, as opposed to something abstract like financial advice, it's about how replaceable you are. I'm sure many factory laborers work pretty hard, but the fact is that there are a hell of a lot more people who can operate part of an assembly line than can keep track of the latest financial regulations or trends and use them to build securities. The market for employees functions the same way as the market for goods. Especially skilled or uniquely capable individuals will get paid more than those who blend in with everyone else.
As such, to suggest that in Capitalism people are given their due "reward" is fundamentally not in line with how capitalism has operated. Also, to link reward to hard work in capitalism is just plain fucking stupid
Not true. You're just forgetting that hard work applies to young adults as well. The people who bungle through high school, don't care about learning, or who only do the minimum necessary to advance to the next grade aren't going to be in a good position to get a college education. The poor but dedicated student has far more potential than the rich, uninspired slacker. The US spends hundreds of billions of dollars each year for just this purpose through community and state colleges, scholarship programs, and subsidized financial aid, not to mention what's spent at the federal level to support primary education.
Operating under its implicit definition of socialism, the government, even if it takes all the "reward" can not take away the inate pleasure of crafting something, or of enjoying your work.
Every failed socialist system spent considerable resources trying to convince people that this was the case. It didn't work, so instead the government just punished anyone who publicly said otherwise.