An Experiment in Class about Socialism

[JackWhite]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. Could not be any simpler than that. (Please pass this on) These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

[Ephiral]

If you're presenting this as an actual experiment and not just a story that conveniently doesn't have to be connected to reality in any meaningful way... citation sorely needed.

[JackWhite]

If you're presenting this as an actual experiment and not just a story that conveniently doesn't have to be connected to reality in any meaningful way... citation sorely needed.

It is a legend but I think you do get the point.

Should probably call it Communism more really.

[Ephiral]

It is a legend but I think you do get the point.

The point I get is that you're trying to assert your ideology as truth (your five summary points) on the back of something totally unconnected to reality. Exactly what real-world policy or policies do you call "Obama's socialism", and how will it perfectly level the incomes of all people? (Hint: Sustainable tax rates are not socialism.)

EDIT: Have to go now, but I'll be checking in later.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The problem with stories and legends submitted as evidence is that the result is manufactured whereas in an experiment the result is not.  Just as easily the story could end with all the students having an A, but because someone wanted the example to fail the ending was altered to that one.

[RubySlippers]

I would argue it is different if one lives in a society. First of all most socialist nations don't tolerate people not working at all they might work less hours or do something like a trade being self-employed but one generally if able do something. Most offer a strong social safety net in theory even if practice is difficult this often includes housing, food and water, medical care, education based on aptitude and yes who you know and try to be fair to workers needs.

So the everyone goes to the center is usually enforced by policy the shirkers would be forced to work likely by the state and the talented person would likely benefit from being a recognized expert in what they do, in many cases with differeing benefits. For example the medical doctor might get a better home, a car and other things the worker he treats doesn't.

And in a socialist system personal property is fine the doctor would likely have more things than the worker in the long run.

I would add what about these base freedoms the freedoms from need, what good is freedom of artistic expression if your a uneducated hungry common person with no job or support if your self-employed I would say the freedom in this case in the 1st Amendment is petty to the freedom to have a home, food, a job, health care and security from needs.

I would like you to ask them to redo the experiment but do this:

Those that score less have to do community service work based on how bad representing the state telling them they will work (say one to three hours. Then to those working more give them a benefit say they can leave class ten minutes early based on the higher grades and then see what happens. What this would try to do is instill the usually your more useful to the state over the other worker who is not focus on most socialist states with the big "S" in them.

[JackWhite]

The point I get is that you're trying to assert your ideology as truth (your five summary points) on the back of something totally unconnected to reality. Exactly what real-world policy or policies do you call "Obama's socialism", and how will it perfectly level the incomes of all people? (Hint: Sustainable tax rates are not socialism.)

EDIT: Have to go now, but I'll be checking in later.

I want to state that none of those points are mine. I saw this on facebook and thought it was worth sharing.

The problem with stories and legends submitted as evidence is that the result is manufactured whereas in an experiment the result is not.  Just as easily the story could end with all the students having an A, but because someone wanted the example to fail the ending was altered to that one.

Believe me, no such experiment will end with straight A's.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

So you state a conclusion as fact without supporting evidence and I am to believe you.  My faith is stretched enough.  Also you are missing the point that the story has a manufactured ending.  The story has whatever ending, composition and beginning the person telling the story wants there to be.

[JackWhite]

II would like you to ask them to redo the experiment but do this:

Those that score less have to do community service work based on how bad representing the state telling them they will work (say one to three hours. Then to those working more give them a benefit say they can leave class ten minutes early based on the higher grades and then see what happens. What this would try to do is instill the usually your more useful to the state over the other worker who is not focus on most socialist states with the big "S" in them.

Why would a good student or worker deserve a reward? I haven't seen that in much countries before.

[Kythia]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan".. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade"

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

Students realised that their classmates were keeping them down.  The smarter ones took personal responsibility - tutoring their classmates and explaining the more difficult concepts.  The ones who were weaker as a result of not working so hard felt bad, knowing they were actively harming their friends.  The ones weaker as a result of the wrok being too hard for them or otherwise being unable to do it raqther than unwilling did work harder, but the class accepted that they were not to blame.  Fortunately the increased grades of everyone else kept their average up.

The professor was heard to say "Maybe that story could have gone either way depending on which point I was trying to make.  Thats the problem with these types of story"

[JackWhite]

Students realised that their classmates were keeping them down.  The smarter ones took personal responsibility - tutoring their classmates and explaining the more difficult concepts.  The ones who were weaker as a result of not working so hard felt bad, knowing they were actively harming their friends.  The ones weaker as a result of the wrok being too hard for them or otherwise being unable to do it raqther than unwilling did work harder, but the class accepted that they were not to blame.  Fortunately the increased grades of everyone else kept their average up.

The professor was heard to say "Maybe that story could have gone either way depending on which point I was trying to make.  Thats the problem with these types of story"

What's the incentive for the lazy ones to do better? They do think that they can keep surfing on the success of the others. The ones that really couldn't do any better are helped with this kind of treatment but like the story said, why wouldn't the hardworking ones try the same as the ones that did nothing all along?

[Hemingway]

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

Who is this communist professor? Karl Marx? This is precisely the argument for social ownership of the means of production: The rich, the people earning the actual money, don't work for their money. Oh, some do - rushing to meetings all over, that sort of thing. Still, the system is hardly fair, or balanced. The poor are not poor because they don't work hard, but because somebody else, who isn't working hard, is taking most of the money they make for them.

[Kythia]

What's the incentive for the lazy ones to do better? They do think that they can keep surfing on the success of the others. The ones that really couldn't do any better are helped with this kind of treatment but like the story said, why wouldn't the hardworking ones try the same as the ones that did nothing all along?

The incentive for the lazy ones to do better is preceisely the same as it always has been.  They want better grades.  Ditto for the hardworking ones.  I'm, not certain I've understood your question.  Your anecdote shows that students realise that as they work less hard their grades go down.  You then ask what their incentive is to work harder?  As I say, I dont think I understand your objection.

My core point though is the same as many others are made.  This is a made up anecodte seeking to prove a particular point. 

[JackWhite]

The incentive for the lazy ones to do better is preceisely the same as it always has been.  They want better grades.  Ditto for the hardworking ones.  I'm, not certain I've understood your question.  Your anecdote shows that students realise that as they work less hard their grades go down.  You then ask what their incentive is to work harder?  As I say, I dont think I understand your objection.

My core point though is the same as many others are made.  This is a made up anecodte seeking to prove a particular point.

A lazy student gets a B and he'd get an incentive to work harder for his grade? Or a D? Both were much more than he deserves so he is twice abusing the system. As for good students. Working hard doesn't pay off for them as they get less points than what they work for.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

There is more incentive for those that perform poorly to do better in this scenario because now peer pressure is a factor.  Once the grades begin to trend downward then pressure will set in for those at the bottom to bring their scores up since those doing well and at the middle will apply that pressure.  Those performing will have incentive to assist those with lower performance, assisting with tutoring and study habits.  Therefore those that understand the material are sharing their knowledge, rather than keeping the knowledge to themselves.  As a whole the class benefits while those at the very top might suffer from a dip in their scores.  Notice might because odds are the people that would have an A might actually learn more now because tutoring and assisting others has been shown to improve one's grasp of the material.

Also, you seem to be equating low test scores with laziness, a complete inaccuracy by the way.  Some people understand and take to certain subjects better than others.  For some the material is easily understood or they have a background in that area so have an advantage.  For others the method of testing is more to their liking or familiarity.  A multitude of variables which you are assuming do not exist.

[Valerian]

I have a good guess as to why most students would keep working: people go to college to learn.  I find learning is not only useful, but fun.  Of course I also liked getting good grades, and I imagine the vast majority of my classmates did as well.  Therefore, I suspect most of them would have continued to put in the effort, albeit perhaps in slightly different directions, as with the tutoring examples mentioned above.

Also, I'm not sure why you assume that any lazy student would automatically fail.  A reasonably bright but unmotivated student might easily get a higher grade.  I rarely studied for tests, but for the record, I graduated with honors and would have had straight A's had it not been for that wretched statistics class... where I gave myself headaches studying for tests and scraped out a B.   I'm not a numbers person.  :P

Had a professor of mine introduced this sort of experiment, I would first have paused to wonder how much he was letting his own personal beliefs influence the material he chose to teach and the way in which he chose to present that material.  Then I would have sighed, reminded myself that sometimes professors just need to be humored, and continued on exactly as usual.



<staff hat>P.S. In future, it would be better to make it clear up front that you're presenting an urban legend or unsupported anecdote, rather than waiting for people to ask before explaining.</staff hat>

[Ephiral]

What's the incentive for the lazy ones to do better? They do think that they can keep surfing on the success of the others. The ones that really couldn't do any better are helped with this kind of treatment but like the story said, why wouldn't the hardworking ones try the same as the ones that did nothing all along?

Because they understand game theory, whereas you just failed the basic Prisoner's Dilemma?

[ofDelusions]

Army persons should correct me if I am talking bullshit, but don't they use systems like this (all fail or all fail) during training in armies? And AFAIK it works.

[Cyrano Johnson]

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism

Here's a good rule of thumb. Anytime you see a Facebook post that claims a "professor" believes in something called "Obama's socialism," you are dealing with bullshit. "Obama's socialism" is a phrase used to dupe marks of a bankrupt "movement conservatism" in whose pocket universe words no longer correspond to any actual meanings beyond the convenience of the moment; someone who believes in it knows nothing at all about Obama or socialism.

(I suppose someone has probably already said this; didn't realize the thread had moved quite that much by the time I posted.)

[Love And Submission]

I  have an even better question.

If we all die , then why should anyone work?  You can say that working will keep us alive longer but we're still going to die. SO what's the point of going to work?

Sure you could get rid of "Obama's Socialism"  but how are you going to get around death?


The only incentive to work would be if it  permanently prevented death from happening but since there's not, what's the point? You're just going to die anyways rich or poor.
 

[Trieste]

Army persons should correct me if I am talking bullshit, but don't they use systems like this (all fail or all fail) during training in armies? And AFAIK it works.

I have heard several anecdotes from friends and relatives who have been through basic training, and they all relate instances wherein the whole unit is punished for the failure of one or two. If the one or two continually fail, they face consequences from their peers as well as from their superiors. They then either shape up or wash out.

Military psychology is no joke.

[Kythia]

Army persons should correct me if I am talking bullshit, but don't they use systems like this (all fail or all fail) during training in armies? And AFAIK it works.

Thats because of Obama's socialist military though, I suppose.  Everyone gets the same protection from the armed forces regardless of how much tax they pay?  What nonsense.

[Funguy81]

In training, yea everyone can get punished or given "corrective training" if one person screws up. Puts emphasis for the others to shape him up, but that's mostly for minor shit like not making the bed right, get caught smoking in basic training, Uniform not in top condition, or not showing initiative during training. If the person is truly a shitbag....he would usually get the sole punishment for what he did.

At the same time you do get rewards for achievements whether as a group or as an individual. So you also have incentives to push yourself.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Pressure from peers is probably one of the single most effective social forces around.

[BadForm]

The other is probably support from peers...

But how can we argue with him? I mean, come on folks, he said he found it on FACEBOOK! Case proven, surely!

[gaggedLouise]

I  have an even better question.

If we all die , then why should anyone work?  You can say that working will keep us alive longer but we're still going to die. SO what's the point of going to work?

Sure you could get rid of "Obama's Socialism"  but how are you going to get around death?


The only incentive to work would be if it  permanently prevented death from happening but since there's not, what's the point? You're just going to die anyways rich or poor.

The traditional reply to death from people who wanted to pitch their own rule over all they could see has been that the memory of their glory and their mighty works would survive them into eternity. But does that really stand up - and what is it that's getting passed down in memory?

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.


-Percy Bysshe Shelley, ca 1820

[BadForm]

Love that poem

[gaggedLouise]

The story of the Little Red Hen - as doctored by corporate think-tanks, the version where it ends with the bread she baked getting confiscated by the government bullies and the hen then deciding never to make an effort again - makes a clearer case for what the OP was after, I think. But that one doesn't pretend to be more than a parable. So essentially, accepting its conclusions depends on whether you believe in it.

[Ack Arg]

Few things need to be clarified here.

1) Obama is no socialist. The American rhetoric is lovely but totally unrelated to reality. What American policy is and what the purpose of the narratives is are both interesting topics but probably not ones that can be fit in the thread.

2) As a thought experiment this does indeed fall into Game Theory, which is a branch of economics. Game theory can be a lot of fun but it's a less powerful description of reality than say, the worst novel you've ever read.

3) There is such a thing a socialism, which is widely practiced. Lots of things, usually called natural monopolies, are socialist. Free, democratic societies are necessarily socialist. Some people will fight wars to the general benefit. Some people are going to risk their lives to make the society just. Few reasonable people say or think things like: "Well, I don't have to take on the corrupt government or cross an ocean to be a footsoldier because someone else will do it." You don't call it socialism any more than you call your nuclear family a commune but that has a lot to do with how they work.

4) Remember what kind of society we DO live in. Lots of people get a free ride, act rationally and exploit the systems they're a part of. They're called corporations. If you were paying attention to the too big to fail banking mess you have a good case study in what kind of entities behave in this way.



But if nothing else I should like to point out something to JackWhite. Students are not customers or workers. Students are students. Students work hard because they want to become something, not so they can get a mark on a paper. If you're even a little honest about being a student of something your mark should be the last thing on your mind.

I don't know what Ayn Randian troll came up with this material you've reposted but I think it's worth a little more interrogation before you take any of it seriously.

[Oniya]

The traditional reply to death from people who wanted to pitch their own rule over all they could see has been that the memory of their glory and their mighty works would survive them into eternity. But does that really stand up - and what is it that's getting passed down in memory?

Ozymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.


-Percy Bysshe Shelley, ca 1820

Gave that one to the little Oni to use for her 'daily poetry log' for school.  I have to wonder what the teacher has thought of her selections so far.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I read this thread and thought about all the people I know and similar situations that have come up.  A bonus offered to each member of the department was based on production percentages for the department.  Everyone got the same bonus.  The harder workers received the same as the slower workers.  There was much complaining.

The next challenge was the same but the bonus was distributed based on each individual's performance.  Everyone worked harder.

This is fact.  I did the numbers.


You might find an entire class that ends up not caring.  You might find a class where some care enough to help the slower students for the benefit of all. 

I think you might be more likely to find a class where students drop out and find another class to earn a grade and not want to put up with this nonsense.  Of course, it's hard to drop out of you country but then again we don't live in places like Soviet Russia was; you know, that place a lot of people defected from...or Cuba.

[Trieste]

I'm not actually all that certain what the "grade" or the "bonus" here is supposed to represent - is it health care? Taxes? Unemployment benefits?

The most obvious is health care, since that's the whole big huge thing that is looming over people. If, in fact, Obama's so-called socialism is referring to nationalized health care, then these comparisons are not apt. They are missing a few parts:

The "students" (populace) cannot survive without their "grades" (health care). They are actually currently getting "grades" only if they go up to the "bursar's office" and pay out hugely inflated values for "tuition". So in actuality only the richest "students" can even get poor "grades", and other "students" don't get their "grades" until they've reached a certain age - at which point they can get "financial aid". And then add to it that there are predatory sort of independent financial aid companies that directly profit off of the students paying their tuition and getting no grades.

Which is to say that the health care system is borked and this analogy is pretty much oversimplified nonsense if you're trying to compare it to the real world.

[Ack Arg]

Trieste:

Basically the point is to say, in principle, that people will mooch if they can. It's not really a metaphor. It's "This happened unless you ask if it happened, then we say it didn't but it could have and WE AM ARE RIGHT." Ironically, in trying to explain it as a metaphor, you end up doing more reasoning than the initial author.



Beguile's Mistress:

Russia is another topic. We should avoid it just because the risk of conflating "evil tyranny" with "practical arrangements of human activity."

There are workplaces where you get nothing for doing more than the least amount of work. That's basically every minimum wage job ever. Most of the complaints originate in the idea of "zero sum" games (more econ jargon.)

The OP seemed to have latched onto a thought experiment meant to discredit "socialist" government.

Again, not really socialist but some stuff is stuck actually being socialist and more just works well as communal: infrastucture, education, healthcare, technology, insurance, the environment. Even things that are nominally individual/market based are socialist based on how they're subsidized like food or fuel.

We can talk about how workplaces/classrooms work but I think the real idea isn't the experiment but the implied conclusions about policy and blah blah blah.

[Caehlim]

I read this thread and thought about all the people I know and similar situations that have come up.  A bonus offered to each member of the department was based on production percentages for the department.  Everyone got the same bonus.  The harder workers received the same as the slower workers.  There was much complaining.

The next challenge was the same but the bonus was distributed based on each individual's performance.  Everyone worked harder.

This is fact.  I did the numbers.

Damnit, I hate it when these conversations make me think about my job. *puts on work hat*

There is an alternative.

At my company, the total amount of incentive provided is calculated based upon the performance of the entire team. This pool is then split into shares based on individual performances against KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). The better you do, the more you make but also the better the company does the more you make. Managers earn the average bonus of everyone they supervise.

This provides motivation to work as a team and understand the broader context of your labour as well as improving your own personal performance. It really does seem to provide the best of both worlds.

Although it's my job to 'do the numbers' I can't really state how well this has worked, since my company has had this policy since its founding (long before I started working there) so I have no valid basis for comparison.

Anyway, our company's policy is based on this philosophy if you want more information.

*Throws away work hat until I need it tomorrow morning*

Oh yeah... not derailing thread's stretched and tenuous metaphor. Umm, I guess in terms of social policy this means we should seek out balanced options or something? ...Yeah, I got nothing.

[Ack Arg]

This pool is then split into shares based on individual performances against KPIs (Key Performance Indicators). The better you do, the more you make but also the better the company does the more you make. Managers earn the average bonus of everyone they supervise.

This provides motivation to work as a team and understand the broader context of your labour as well as improving your own personal performance. It really does seem to provide the best of both worlds.

Basically as soon as we start talking about incentives and jargon (KPIs, honestly) we've entered management land. Management is a series of incantations designed to confuse and distract. It's main point is to control a workforce on behalf of a boss / owner. If that wasn't the point it wouldn't exist.

If you talk to someone actually doing work about Key Performance Indicators their first reflex is to put a hammer in your head. If there's motivation to work as a team, it's that there's a bunch of people calling themselves management that make rather more than you do for telling you about your job and holding the power to define whether you've done it right.

If the best of both worlds is that management is now making bonuses for increased interference in real work, that interference is designed to create something based on short term, obvious profits then we need more worlds.

Again, the whole workplace / classroom issue from the OP was a fantasy, had no meat on the bone and was only an excuse for saying something like "obama is a socialist and socialism is unamerican, nyah."

[Caehlim]

Basically as soon as we start talking about incentives and jargon (KPIs, honestly) we've entered management land.

Well yes, I do work in a management position.

Management is a series of incantations designed to confuse and distract.

Why would you want to confuse or distract the workforce? The basic arrangement is really quite simple. The company gives you money in exchange for enduring the drudgery and humiliation of a crappy job. (That arrangement is still the same on my level though).

It's main point is to control a workforce on behalf of a boss / owner. If that wasn't the point it wouldn't exist.

Well yes, that is its designed function and intent. Rather than the boss / owner going up to every worker individually to pass on instructions they create a middle layer to pass on orders in a not unusual hierarchical command structure.

If you talk to someone actually doing work about Key Performance Indicators their first reflex is to put a hammer in your head.

I'm glad my staff work with telephones and computers instead of hammers then. This has probably reduced the amount of blunt impact trauma to occur around the office.

If there's motivation to work as a team, it's that there's a bunch of people calling themselves management that make rather more than you do for telling you about your job and holding the power to define whether you've done it right.

Well yes, I do make more than the regular staff in my workplace and spend all day defining whether they've done their job correctly. As a quality associate that's more or less my exact job description.

If the best of both worlds is that management is now making bonuses for increased interference in real work, that interference is designed to create something based on short term, obvious profits then we need more worlds.

Agreed.

But the shareholders like their short term obvious profits and don't like doing any work themselves so they need a management staff to make it happen. Based on the capitalist system, since they initially put the money into the system years ago they're now entitled to do whatever they want. If you want a job, they're the only ones giving them out, so you're stuck with their rules.

I am not a capitalist. I just like eating food without hunting down pigeons, so I've got a job. I don't pretend to like it.

Again, the whole workplace / classroom issue from the OP was a fantasy, had no meat on the bone and was only an excuse for saying something like "obama is a socialist and socialism is unamerican, nyah."

Yes, I believe that's why I called it a stretched and tenuous metaphor.

[MHaji]

ONCE UPON A TIME, a university decided to apply the principles of capitalism to the otherwise socialist, hippy-dippy environment of academia. Students would earn SCHOOLBUCKS for getting good grades on assignments. These Schoolbucks could eventually be reimbursed for tuition reductions, textbooks, or other perks.

At first, the system seemed to work well. Everyone wanted to make Schoolbucks, as tuition was very expensive and got more expensive as time went on and more classes had to be taken. This was very motivating, and got rid of the lazy people very quickly! That is the purpose of education, after all - to weed out people who don't do well and support those who play the game!

Soon, a pattern became clear. Once a student had accumulated enough Schoolbucks, they could do the following:

1) Get into a profit-maximizing class. Specifically, a class that contained a lot of painstaking but intellectually unchallenging work, with an expensive textbook requirement. If personal connections allowed a richer student to get into the class ahead of others, so much the better.

2) Get a textbook cheaply. Find someone who had already taken that class and was doing badly, then buy their textbook for a fraction of its original price.

3) Get some cheap labor. Round up a bunch of students who were desperate for Schoolbucks to pay their tuition, and could not afford to buy new textbooks or enroll in any more classes as it stood. Then, offer them the following deal:

"I'll give you all of the most boring, repetitive work for this class; I'm sure you can handle that. If you do it, I'll pay you 10% of the Schoolbucks I'm being given for these assignments. If you don't, I'll find someone who's more desperate. Remember, I can replace you, and you have no other way of getting into this class, because your previous bad decisions put it out of your reach."

(At first, the low-Schoolbucks students were offended, but it became clear that their only chance of working their way up until they could afford to enroll for their own sake was to do the tedious work. Some suggested organizing to negotiate for a better deal, but such socialistic ideas were met with fast reprisals. In the end, it was always possible to find someone to do the work.

Some argued that efficiently doing such a huge volume of "busywork" actually demanded some resourcefulness from the peons, but it was generally accepted that they were stupid and lazy. If they were so clever and industrious, why weren't they rich?)

4) Repeat. Build a labor force for multiple classes, earning a large amount of Schoolbucks by making careful decisions about whom to hire to do the work. Using the surplus of free time this generates, do even better work in more advanced classes while the peons are left working long hours doing exhausting, unrewarding assignments.

Naturally, people who started in a bad position ended up doing menial work, and were blamed for their obvious lack of ambition and know-how. Meanwhile, those who rose to the top were praised for giving their lessers so many opportunities to get Schoolbucks.

It's unclear who, if anyone, learned anything in this arrangement. But, as people grew to realize, learning was kind of a distraction, a red herring. It certainly didn't generate much in the way of Schoolbucks.

The moral of the story is: Money is a powerful motivator.

Edit: Edited to make the moral less heavy-handed and more sardonic.

[Ephiral]

MHaji, that... that is a thing of beauty. A tip of the invisible hat to you, sir.

[Ack Arg]

Caehlim:

The point is that work should be done because it's important or rewarding. The alternative to not having someone tell you how to do your job is telling yourself or talkng about it with your peers: other people doing the same job.

I can get into this but really, are we even pretending it's a capitalist system? It's a market, sure, but all that means is people are rewarded for having power. That's a bad system and not one we should just shrug and accept.

And my point isn't that it's a bad metaphor, it's not a metaphor at all. It was a lie.

I think there's a difference there but maybe I'm living on the moon.

[Trieste]

ONCE UPON A TIME, a university decided to apply the principles of capitalism to the otherwise socialist, hippy-dippy environment of academia. Students would earn SCHOOLBUCKS for getting good grades on assignments. These Schoolbucks could eventually be reimbursed for tuition reductions, textbooks, or other perks.

At first, the system seemed to work well. Everyone wanted to make Schoolbucks, as tuition was very expensive and got more expensive as time went on and more classes had to be taken. This was very motivating, and got rid of the lazy people very quickly! That is the purpose of education, after all - to weed out people who don't do well and support those who play the game!

Soon, a pattern became clear. Once a student had accumulated enough Schoolbucks, they could do the following:

1) Get into a profit-maximizing class. Specifically, a class that contained a lot of painstaking but intellectually unchallenging work, with an expensive textbook requirement. If personal connections allowed a richer student to get into the class ahead of others, so much the better.

2) Get a textbook cheaply. Find someone who had already taken that class and was doing badly, then buy their textbook for a fraction of its original price.

3) Get some cheap labor. Round up a bunch of students who were desperate for Schoolbucks to pay their tuition, and could not afford to buy new textbooks or enroll in any more classes as it stood. Then, offer them the following deal:

"I'll give you all of the most boring, repetitive work for this class; I'm sure you can handle that. If you do it, I'll pay you 10% of the Schoolbucks I'm being given for these assignments. If you don't, I'll find someone who's more desperate. Remember, I can replace you, and you have no other way of getting into this class, because your previous bad decisions put it out of your reach."

(At first, the low-Schoolbucks students were offended, but it became clear that their only chance of working their way up until they could afford to enroll for their own sake was to do the tedious work. Some suggested organizing to negotiate for a better deal, but such socialistic ideas were met with fast reprisals. In the end, it was always possible to find someone to do the work.

Some argued that efficiently doing such a huge volume of "busywork" actually demanded some resourcefulness from the peons, but it was generally accepted that they were stupid and lazy. If they were so clever and industrious, why weren't they rich?)

4) Repeat. Build a labor force for multiple classes, earning a large amount of Schoolbucks by making careful decisions about whom to hire to do the work. Using the surplus of free time this generates, do even better work in more advanced classes while the peons are left working long hours doing exhausting, unrewarding assignments.

Naturally, people who started in a bad position ended up doing menial work, and were blamed for their obvious lack of ambition and know-how. Meanwhile, those who rose to the top were praised for giving their lessers so many opportunities to get Schoolbucks.

It's unclear who, if anyone, learned anything in this arrangement. But, as people grew to realize, learning was kind of a distraction, a red herring. It certainly didn't generate much in the way of Schoolbucks.

The moral of the story is: Money is a powerful motivator.

Edit: Edited to make the moral less heavy-handed and more sardonic.

*gigglefits* <3

You know, in theory I'm already a married woman, but I think probably something can be arranged, there. . .  :-*

[gaggedLouise]

I remember hearing of a Pakistani industry mogul who had relocated to Britain and wanted his eldest son into some elite programme at Cambridge. The young man had got his entire education in the UK, at prestigious boarding schools and so on, but he wasn't super bright and didn't have the qualifications to actually get into the Cambridge college his dad wanted for him. The old man tried to buy his son a place by offering to set up a scholarship at the college of his choice, on condition that the programme he was after at that college let his son walk past the queue. The college refused, of course, and daddy was furious and said in a newspaper interview roughly: "This is racism! They are denying my son the right to excel with his great gifts, they are demeaning him and me by forcing him to wait until all those mediocre people have been tried for entry! You nwould never do that to anyone whom you consider a natural Englihman, but we have to endure it!"

The interesting thing is, it would be hard to dismiss that kind of personal peptalk and those kinds of attempts to buy your way into a top-flight spot, deny them a place in academic judging of merits and skills, if one accepts that people's choice of what to study ´(and the availability of serious study options, classes, teachers, real college funding and study grants/loans etc - the kind of stuff that makes it a realistic proposition for many of us to keep studying after age 15 or so) should only be about maximizing the student's personal profit and it's also accepted that the public realm - the state, universities, courts etc - is nothing but a mass of people's ego-driven personal interests dressed up in fine clothing. If his dad can actually pay for some other students plus his own son, shouldn't he have the right to make the college fast-forward his own boy in? Anyone saying it's warped and unfair would just be driven by their own envy, isn't that how it would appear?

[Oniya]

Actually, my question would be:  Would they allow a natural-born Englishman, with the exact same qualifications (or lack thereof) to be fast-tracked just because Daddums drops a chunk of change on the school?

[gaggedLouise]

Actually, my question would be:  Would they allow a natural-born Englishman, with the exact same qualifications (or lack thereof) to be fast-tracked just because Daddums drops a chunk of change on the school?

No, likely not, but peptalk of that kind saying "you're denying my individual RIGHTS!" and disregarding any bigger picture - that kind of talk has a way of looking good to bunches of people these days.

[Oniya]

Except that the school has a come-back.  The color of skin makes as much difference as the color of money - which is to say, none at all.

[gaggedLouise]

True, Oniya, but then of course Dad's argument isn't really aimed at the college at that point. Once they rejected his proposal, his talk is aimed at the media and at ordinary people, and he's trying to convey (that's how I read it anyway) that the school he is arguing with is in denial about their own racism and/or acting snobs against him and his son. That kind of claim - "I'm the underdog here and you gotta give me what I want, what's my right, or you are being oppressive" is not uncommon these days.

[MHaji]

The interesting thing is, it would be hard to dismiss that kind of personal peptalk and those kinds of attempts to buy your way into a top-flight spot, deny them a place in academic judging of merits and skills, if one accepts that people's choice of what to study ´(and the availability of serious study options, classes, teachers, real college funding and study grants/loans etc - the kind of stuff that makes it a realistic proposition for many of us to keep studying after age 15 or so) should only be about maximizing the student's personal profit and it's also accepted that the public realm - the state, universities, courts etc - is nothing but a mass of people's ego-driven personal interests dressed up in fine clothing. If his dad can actually pay for some other students plus his own son, shouldn't he have the right to make the college fast-forward his own boy in? Anyone saying it's warped and unfair would just be driven by their own envy, isn't that how it would appear?

As much as I agree that the profit motive is not a good driver of learning, there is a potential counterargument to that particular line of thinking.

Even if we assume people are absolutely selfish as individuals and that universities have no higher purpose, it still wouldn't make sense to allow bribes for entry because it would devalue the resulting diploma. In other words, if I can bribe school X to accept my kid, it follows that other parents can, too, until School X becomes a dumping ground for people with money but no qualifications. After that, who would recognize the diploma earned as a signal of social status/patience/obedience/skill, rather than a signal of having rich parents? If one just wanted to signal wealth, wouldn't a car be faster?

In other words, it's not that it's warped and unfair - it's that if cheating's allowed at all, too many people will do it! A person could be a totally amoral sleazebag and still believe in rules (for other people, at the very least.)

[Caehlim]

The point is that work should be done because it's important or rewarding.

Dear god yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly. Right now I'm struggling in my tiny amounts of free time to work on writing with the goal of one day quitting my job to become a professional author. I work infinitely harder at this self-directed goal than I do at work and at present with no reward or guarantee of future reward.

The alternative to not having someone tell you how to do your job is telling yourself or talkng about it with your peers: other people doing the same job.

Another thing I agree with and would love. Yet I've never found anywhere outside of volunteer work where this was an option.

I can get into this but really, are we even pretending it's a capitalist system?

It's weighted in favour of those who provide the upfront capital as opposed to the workers who provide the ongoing means of profit. Thus I would call it capitalism.

That's a bad system and not one we should just shrug and accept.

I agree, but there's no political party I can vote for in Australia that represents what I would like to see. I have no desire whatsoever to begin a political career. Short of writing a persuasive blog or blowing up buildings I don't really see how I would influence the political system to get rid of the current model.

All I can really do is keep voting left wing and hope that either the Greens or the Labour Party moves us in vaguely the direction I want my country to go. (The sex party always gets my first preference vote, but they never get enough votes for a seat).

[gaggedLouise]

As much as I agree that the profit motive is not a good driver of learning, there is a potential counterargument to that particular line of thinking.

Even if we assume people are absolutely selfish as individuals and that universities have no higher purpose, it still wouldn't make sense to allow bribes for entry because it would devalue the resulting diploma. In other words, if I can bribe school X to accept my kid, it follows that other parents can, too, until School X becomes a dumping ground for people with money but no qualifications. After that, who would recognize the diploma earned as a signal of social status/patience/obedience/skill, rather than a signal of having rich parents? If one just wanted to signal wealth, wouldn't a car be faster?

In other words, it's not that it's warped and unfair - it's that if cheating's allowed at all, too many people will do it! A person could be a totally amoral sleazebag and still believe in rules (for other people, at the very least.)

In my example, dad really offered to set up a scholarship for other students (it would probably carry his own name, right?) so he could actually say he was offering a lasting added value to the school, quite apart from his son getting a place. We might say his real aim was self-serving but he does pledge to provide for more students, so it could be argued it outweighs whatever loss it would be to the school that his son might not be the first one in line, the most deserving one based on his prior results. And someone who was in that position could argue that as long as the system isn't functioning perfectly and no corrupt practices are passing, how can you ask me not to do all that I can, using all means, to get in? Just like an old Tammany Hall boss could have said "everybody's doing a bit of pimping of the votes and offering kickbacks, so what kind of hypocrite are you to ask that we should be squealy clean if we wanna achieve something?" I think it's hard to logically throw out that kind of argument as long as one is committed to the norm that everybody should just act in their undiluted self-interest without any other yeardsticks, except when they are bound by some kind of business agreement whose conditions they have signed up to of their own free will.

And as long as people are not ltalking aloud about those diplomas suffering a wee reduction in credibility over time, the damage to any one particular student, or even the school, is going to be limited. Now who's going to act the watchdog? If everyone is acting just out of self-interest, no one will have any powerful incentives to call the bluff. Not the students who are in or who have taken their grades, they can't profit from saying their diplomas are (or will be) subpar. Not the school itself of course. It's not likely that the local media would throw the story either: to achieve that, you'd effectively have to find students or ex-students who are willing to stand up in a photo, give their names and say "my diploma isn't worth much more than dog shit" and who would do that?  ??? Plus, local papers tend to support the local schools and colleges

Not even students who are in the process of applying would stand up and call attention to the somewhat dodgy degrees. They want in and at that point no one is gonna pick a fight with the school of their choice unless they have to. At most, some of the high school students weighing where to apply might vote with their feet but that's not near enough powerful to have an impact on the academy. Especially not if other people feel "that's a good school, I've heard it's easy to glide through and their professors are not fussy or draconic about what you have to do to get a good diploma". Compare schoolbucks: people picking fairly easy classes and subjects because the only real object is to get high mean grades and fast school points, not to learn anything.

And you can't really say that an individual student or his family have freely made a deal with the academic world on by what rules their applications should be treated, or what kind of education options there are to them. The student's decision to submit applications to certain schools is a free choice he has made, yes, but he hasn't had any say in *how* the application will be judged, what kind of campus there could be, whether he can be funded, whether there are any education choices that would fit what the student is after etc.

To get back down to the school years, a student technically always has the free choice to make an effort and work hard at school no matter what he/she sees as likely rewards for their effort, but what if the only kind of school the parents can afford to put him/her in is so run-down, both in terms of staff, equipment and classroom floor realities, that it really doesn't offer any hope for long-term success? Or if the deal is that students below a certain line of family income and standard are near always outrun by those whose parents can make things easier for them, who can send them to extra classes, take them abroad to support their foreign language and history skills, have the cash to buy them good computers, nice clothes and so on? Not much of an equal deal there and at some point this vitiates the idea of everyone making an effort on the same running tracks.

[Valerian]

As much as I agree that the profit motive is not a good driver of learning, there is a potential counterargument to that particular line of thinking.

Even if we assume people are absolutely selfish as individuals and that universities have no higher purpose, it still wouldn't make sense to allow bribes for entry because it would devalue the resulting diploma. In other words, if I can bribe school X to accept my kid, it follows that other parents can, too, until School X becomes a dumping ground for people with money but no qualifications. After that, who would recognize the diploma earned as a signal of social status/patience/obedience/skill, rather than a signal of having rich parents? If one just wanted to signal wealth, wouldn't a car be faster?

In other words, it's not that it's warped and unfair - it's that if cheating's allowed at all, too many people will do it! A person could be a totally amoral sleazebag and still believe in rules (for other people, at the very least.)

As late as the early 1900's, most medical schools in the U.S. were set up in exactly this fashion.  The only qualification for entry was the ability to pay the tuition, and schools raked in the money without giving much of anything back.  Students would attend a few lectures, and in a couple of years would be presented with a diploma, no questions asked or tests taken.  They became doctors without ever doing any lab work, seeing a patient, or dissecting a cadaver.  The Flexner Report of 1910 pointed out all these abuses of the system, and that was when the long process of reform began.

During the influenza epidemic of 1918, for example, most doctors had no idea of how to handle any sort of epidemic.  Most had little idea of germ theory.  Some still believed in the old miasma theory of disease and advised patients to stay away from the 'bad air' to avoid getting sick.  Public health officials in major cities weren't required to have any sort of medical degree, but even those that did often had one from one of these diploma mills and had no training at all, for all practical purposes.

Philadelphia's public health officer at the time was a political appointee who refused to cancel a huge War Bonds parade that had been scheduled, just when the epidemic was about to peak, because he thought it would look bad and hurt morale.  Over warnings from trained physicians (many of whom had gone to European medical schools in order to get an actual education), he ordered business as usual, and in large part because of that decision, Philadelphia was the hardest-hit major city in the U.S. </historygeek>

[gaggedLouise]

Around here (Sweden) many private-run high schools receive a cut of public money, tax money, for every student they pick up - the money follows the kid - and schools can operate as straight-off profit-driving corporations or chain stores (something I understand is not allowed in most places in North America). Because of that, school fees for these schools can be kept low and there is no real limit on how many private schools can set up shop in a town with so-and-so many kids  The result, of course, has been a private schools Klondyke where new schools are shooting up like mushroom and some even offer a free laptop as a gift to any student entering. You expect every student or their parents to weigh the real value of attending such a school with long premeditation before they decide, if they are offered a free laptop and cool school t-shirts?  >:(

Last week, the national Central Schooling Board admitted that it has very limited muscle to actually control if private schools are giving out grades on terms that match the result scales and grades given by public-run high schools. Few people except teachers seemed to notice.

[Wheeler97]

I've read most of this thread, especially this second page.

Firstly, the "experiment" is decidedly bull----. I think that was established, as there is no evidence to suggest that it happened and it is also filled with fallacies or assumptions. It's a common argument and has just enough "logic" to make people believe it must be undoubtedly true.

Imagine a society where no one worried about money. We all worked for our own personal growth along with the betterment of ourselves and everyone around us. There is no famine, no poor, no greedy super-rich... Everyone has what they need to be happy and comfortable. Government is run by consensus and everyone gets an equal say and the decisions benefits all.

Does that sound BAD to anyone!? That's called Utopian Socialism/Communism. It can't really work here on Earth, yet, because we don't have a great means for achieving the political aspect of it (which is the Communism part). Anyone like Star Trek? Yeah, it's pretty much the same, aside from they got rid of money in that future (probably the smartest thing ever).

Socialism fails because of greed, in the most simple of my opinions (< key word). When we hold our own success and wants (not needs!) above those of everyone else, it creates a competition where there are always going to be winners and losers. When there is only so much in the world, those who get "more" do so at the cost of others getting "less." This problem is a lot simpler in Star Trek as their Replicators can build most of anything a person *needs* and it uses matter, which for all intents and purposes means there's an unlimited supply available to a space-traveling society (then you hit the rarer stellar materials and get wars :P). Hmmm... I've realized, as well, that the bad guys of the Federation are usually the ones taking advantage of the system for power/position/fame (all greed!!!).

Okay, I'll stop with the Star Trek analogies...

Anyhow, to comment on my opinion of the current state of U.S. or global economics, I'll suggest a short video that does a great job of simplifying things.

Look up "Wealth Inequality in America" on Youtube.

Short story? We don't need Socialism, and we don't even need the "Ideal" that most Americans believe the income disparity should be. If only the disparity were as bad as people *think* it is, everyone would be more satisfied than the actuality. The top 5% would be a little worse off, but still have far more than their needs, and just as much more than their actual work effort justifies.

Thanks for indulging me.

[OutoftheDust]

I have heard several anecdotes from friends and relatives who have been through basic training, and they all relate instances wherein the whole unit is punished for the failure of one or two. If the one or two continually fail, they face consequences from their peers as well as from their superiors. They then either shape up or wash out.

Military psychology is no joke.

No joke indeed, I can vouch for this personally. I bumbled around training, especially PT, in my first week, and the ones that motivated me to do better were my equals, not my superiors. Nothing makes you feel worse than knowing you've let someone down, and nothing's more rewarding than being part of a whole when you've got that whole indoctrination machine running in your subconscious mind, day in, day out. An instructor of mine used to refer to it as "The Chain of Consequences," rather than the Chain of Command. Something to the tune of "In the Army, the [expletive] flows uphill, downhill, sideways, and back where it came from, all at the same time." The idea was that everyone is accountable for everyone. It creates a chain with fewer weak links.

Smart working philosophy, but very high stress.

[mia h]

Like other people have said anything that includes the phrase "Obama's socialism" is complete crap and really should either be ignored.
The morons that came up with little fable mistake socialism with equality of outcome, which is something that never happened even in Communist Russia as miners took home higher wages than doctors. If "Obama's socialism" is about anything then it's about equality of opportunity so it needs a bit of a rewrite :

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never had a class where hadn't failed 50% of a class for being below average, but recently he had a class where more than 50% of the students passed. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and it was a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan. Instead of grading on a curve with extra marks being handed out for the size of the
donations your parents have made to the college, and will have to keep making to the college if you don't want kicking out, you'll be graded on the work that you actually do."

After the first test there was a real shock, the students with rich parents all got F's because they weren't used to studying having previously bought their A grades. The students with poor parents also didn't do that well, they weren't used to studying either because they knew from previous experience that no matter how hard they worked they'd still get an F. The students with middle income parents, well instead of them all fighting amongst themselves over who got a C or a D grade they got all kinds of results ranging from A to F, it all depended on how hard they worked and their aptitude for economics.

When the results for the second test rolled around the students with parents on middle incomes still got a wide range of results. The students with poor parents saw that there was a chance they could pass and so they all worked harder, some grades improved some stayed the same. The students with rich parents all still got F's, because instead of studying they bitched and moaned about how the college was taking their parents money and then still expected them to learn something.

Then it came to the third and final test, something remarkable happened, students from all income brackets got all kinds of grades from A to F, 60% managed a passing grade. The poor and middle income students realised that when there was a level playing field what they could achieve was only limited by their talent and work ethic, the rich students realised the same thing and those that failed went off to try and buy a work ethic.

[Vekseid]

I want to state that none of those points are mine. I saw this on facebook and thought it was worth sharing.
Believe me, no such experiment will end with straight A's.

If you actually applied Marx's logic in such an experiment, everyone, in every such experiment, would end up with the maximum possible grade, every single time.

This is because pure Marxism only works when the cost of sharing is near-zero, and a classroom setting is just such a case. Marx himself acknowledges this.

Elliquiy works the same way. The marginal cost of someone participating on E is about twenty-five cents a month (not counting my, but that's a different matter). But that's only because the cost is largely fixed. Move to a new server, population could expand thirty-fold, and the marginal cost becomes about 1 cent per person. Of course, there is a problem - not everyone can pay that in a matter that makes it worth it. Most payment services charge a base of 30 cents or so per transaction, plus a percentage fee.

Meaning, going with a 'for pay Elliquiy' makes zero sense economically, even ignoring that members add value for Elliquiy's donors simply by contributing. If I charged 50 cents a month, I wouldn't even break even, as more than half my revenue would be lost by transaction fees. It costs so little to take someone on - why not? Maybe they know someone, or contribute something that convinces someone to donate. And if they don't, maybe one of their friends will. I do want to do some sort of value-added service, eventually, but something that I'm not budging on is people have to be able and happy to spend time here, for free.

[Kythia]

If you actually applied Marx's logic in such an experiment, everyone, in every such experiment, would end up with the maximum possible grade, every single time.

This is because pure Marxism only works when the cost of sharing is near-zero, and a classroom setting is just such a case. Marx himself acknowledges this.

With caveats.  It does require that the product is perfectly sharable though.  That is, that I as the brightest student in the class can perfectly transfer my knowledge to you as the weakest and that there is no, errrr, no barrier to that.  The most obvious one being that weaker students may not be able to understand the concepts.  I'd water your statement down to "the maximum grade that individual is capable of achieving" rather than "the maximum possible grade"

[Vekseid]

Was what I intended to mean by maximum possible, but you'll also often end up in situations where student A knows one answer and student B another, so you'll get better results than the brightest student. We also call these things 'team exercises'. There are certainly slackers in those situations (don't we all know...) but they tend to get bit more often than they succeed.

[OutoftheDust]

And I think anyone, anywhere, who wants to bring up Marxism will have to immediately differentiate the politics and ethics supported in a work like Das Kapital or the Manifesto from the dumbed-down epithet that labeling someone a "Marxist" has become. I don't pick sides on politics often, but it's discouraging to me when half of the population uses a word they clearly don't understand to describe, denigrate, and dismiss an entire half of the political spectrum without any reasonable debate to be had. Gotta love buzzwords. They're handier than critical thought.

I think Vekseid and Kythia's comments pretty much sum it up. The theory of trickle-down economics doesn't work in reality, and its application in hypothetical chain-emails about the classroom setting is even questionable. The hardest working among us don't often get to the top: ask anyone you know who trims hedges or lays brick if they sweat for their minimum wage like the speculator does for his eight figures, or the banker.

[Ephiral]

On a related note to what Dust said: The first cry you tend to hear about 'socialism', as exemplified by the OP, is "Freeloaders!" Well... what do you call somebody who lives primarily off of passive income, made by shuffling money around and adding no real wealth to the system? (Ask Spain about the difference between money and wealth sometime. It learned that lesson the hard way about four hundred years ago.)

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The Freeloaders argument always seems so baseless.  People often comment about how hard work puts people forward in the United States, but often times I see people working multiple jobs just to put food on the table.  Research has shown that the average work time of a citizen in the United States has increased while the wage gap between rich and poor continues to increase as well.  If working hard meant making more money and success, then the gap should be shrinking.  People inside the United States work harder and for relatively less money.  During the 1950s a single income household could provide for a house, car and stable source of food and entertainment.  Now a two income household works longer hours to provide below that standard of living. 

What people do not realize about Capitalism is that the system becomes rigged.  People judge their wealth based on what others around them have and so wealth becomes relative.  More is always wanted because the person beside has more.  So in order to stay on top and keep amassed wealth, barriers are put into place to keep others from rising to the top.  Trick down economics lead to a similar problem because people at the top do not get there by spending money unwisely.  The money received at the top stayed there because those business owners and entrepreneurs then invested the money into things like research (particularly automated systems to replace the workers trick down economics is supposed to help) and into outsourcing projects.  Poor people get a tax return and go buy a nice dinner or splurge for a television because this is a rare luxury.  Rich people take their money and invest to make more; they do not run out to buy an expensive dinner they already enjoy.

[RubySlippers]

May I ask this say we have a society of ten million adult citizens and I decide to focus on being the best poet I can be, I write one poem a month and recite it in the town to other citizens. In return I get a small place to live and basic support, lets say I get from gratuities $500 a month so I get some extras (a small apartment, medical care and access to affordable mass transit).

Why would my work be not valuable to society even if to many its on the surface minimal work labor hours or easy to monitor economic value?

[Kythia]

May I ask this say we have a society of ten million adult citizens and I decide to focus on being the best poet I can be, I write one poem a month and recite it in the town to other citizens. In return I get a small place to live and basic support, lets say I get from gratuities $500 a month so I get some extras (a small apartment, medical care and access to affordable mass transit).

Why would my work be not valuable to society even if to many its on the surface minimal work labor hours or easy to monitor economic value?

I'm sorry, Ruby, I haven't a clue what you're asking.  From the above set up your work clearly is valuable to society.  That's why, you know, they're paying you.  $500 plus extra a month.  That seems like its pretty much the definition of valuable to society, in that its a service society is willing to pay for.

Have I misunderstood you?  Your question seems to be "Lets say I have this job that society values, why would that not be valuable to society?"

[RubySlippers]

Because that seems the mindset of the Right you can be the poet, make $500 but try to live on that when its clear you can't without help and they want to remove the "help". In fact any work can fall into that where its not important. That is the ideal of socialism the society would provide for the poet who in turn contributes to society creating poetry. Everyone contributing what they can and getting back what they need.

Lets go extreme her Bob the Poet makes one poem a year and in return he expects the government to provide a basic level of support since his profession is a poet, would he be of value if the government provided say benefits at the poverty line plus Medicaid for this work?

[Kythia]

Because that seems the mindset of the Right you can be the poet, make $500 but try to live on that when its clear you can't without help and they want to remove the "help". In fact any work can fall into that where its not important. That is the ideal of socialism the society would provide for the poet who in turn contributes to society creating poetry. Everyone contributing what they can and getting back what they need.

Lets go extreme her Bob the Poet makes one poem a year and in return he expects the government to provide a basic level of support since his profession is a poet, would he be of value if the government provided say benefits at the poverty line plus Medicaid for this work?

I am really unclear where you're going with this.  In your first example, the poet received a wage.  Fine.  Clearly someoen values his work or he wouldn't be getting one.

Your second example though, I don't understand.  Bob writes one poem a year and expects government benefits for that.  Well, OK, Bob can expect whatever he wants but thats not the issue.  I'd suggest we're using "profession" differently - in your second example the only income he gets is from the government so he's clearly, to my definition, not a professional poet. He earns no money from poetry.  Is your question "Is poetry of value to society?" because thats kinda the only one I can tease out.

I get that analogies and examples can be illuminating but honestly in this case I think they're just obscuring something and I can't for the life of me tell what. 

[RubySlippers]

Under a classic socialist model society gives to the person what he or she needs and in return he or she gives what they are able. In that case Bob the Poet would produce masterworks of his art say ten poems in his lifetime and participate as a poet in society promoting poetry and in return the society would provide for Bob the Poet freeing him to be a poet. 

Its not obscuring Marx leads to that as does most if not all socialist theory. So I would say the very experiment was flawed since no one would have to participate at all especially under the writings of Paul Lafargue work would be passé for ones passions the scientist would be one not for money but they enjoy it, the cook would enjoy cooking and so forth with technology taking over for dangerous and drudgery.

[Randall Flagg]

I think there would need to be terms in place as to the value of one's work and then that person would be rewarded for that value.

I believe that everyone should be valued equally, but what they do should not... rather, it should not just be up to the individual to state what their value should be.

Bob the Poet can't just say, "Well I think my poetry is soooo good that I should only have to work for 15 minutes and spit out some verse and then not have to worry about things for the rest of the year."
Well good for Bob for thinking so highly of himself. I don't really share his value. In fact, I don't really like ol' Bob's poetry at all, because all Bob does is re-hash Lord Byron. 

See what I'm saying? This line of thinking is subjective. Yeah, I get it... it's hard to put a value on conceptual things like poetry, writing, and art. I don't know how to solve this problem either. I mean who gets to decide that value?

[RubySlippers]

There is no reason we should be forced to work much if we focus on essential needs and let microbusiness fill wants, people should get by on very part time hours the goal should be to use automation and technology to end the need for work free society to focus on things they want to do. So Bob the Poet would just have to go over here and get a meal from the cook-o-bots, could go to bed in a free housing unit and do poetry that is what he does and pick up an outfit at a commissary.

The ideal end of true communism is to end want and free humanity to enjoy existence.

[Randall Flagg]

woops.

My bad, I thought we were discussing things that are possible in the here and now.

What you are talking about doesn't exist.

[RubySlippers]

But pure socialism leads to Communism in the end many Post-Marxist theorists think work should be passé for what people choose to do. Why should in the end people have to work but if they must society needs to only produce enough goods to meet needs and a small free market could provide wants, but it would mean a shift from a Consumer society to a new model I would call one of Equilibrium. Maybe some surplus in some areas for some choices and to save goods fore emergencies.

And such societies did exist most Pacific Island nations before the West ruined them had a good balance work to meet needs and leisure time ample as well.