Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (10804)	2/3/2006 5:29:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541559

A vivid example might be: Two guys work for a fish monger. One is paid in silver, and the other gets an equivalent value in fish. The second would be at a natural disadvantage because he would have a harder time transporting and disposing of the fish. There would also be a distinct time disadvantage to his compensation. If there is no place to sell the silver near by the guy getting the fish may have the advantage. He can eat it, or maybe sell it to the locals. But lets assume the silver is generally and advantage. Why mandate by law that someone get paid in silver? why not let someone get paid in cash, gold, fish, or tickets to a play if both they and their employer like the arrangement? Two guys work to One guy invested and the other worked. I maintain that at some level the investment and the work are both contributions but one is compensated with a much more disadvantageous arrangement. The investment has an ongoing risk that the cash payment for the work does not. But if the worker wants the risk and the possible reward he can put as much of his cash compensation in to stock or other investments as he wants to. If he already has enough to live, he can put 100% of his wages in to stock and face a situation just like an investor who made a similar sized investment. Tim

To: TigerPaw who wrote (10804)	2/3/2006 5:31:23 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541559

Two guys work for a fish monger. One is paid in silver, and the other gets an equivalent value in fish. I don't see what that has to equal opportunity. Perhaps to assure that each has the opportunity to work for fish or for silver and there is no discrimination. Compensating the fish guy for his choosing to work for fish is both unrelated to equal opportunity and silly policy.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (10804)	2/4/2006 2:57:55 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541559

Only that that is the way that you measure whether the opportunity was really equivalent. There should be a statistical - aggregate agreement if the opportunity was really equivalent. If you have a statistically significant sample AND you have controlled for all other variables which might cause inequality of results! Only then! Your two guys getting paid in fish and silver do not qualify. You have no way of quantifying either the productivity which they bring to the table, nor the immediate value of their wages.