Forum Post: Economics and the honey bee 2
Posted 12 years ago on April 10, 2012, 5:29 p.m. EST by jrhirsch
(4714)
from Sun City, CA
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
In a small valley live 100 bees. The bees forage for flower nectar to make into honey. 99 of the bees are speedy fliers, quickly flying from flower to flower gathering nectar, but their search is haphazard, not knowing when or where the flowers are in bloom. They work all day but only make enough honey to meet their daily needs.
The other bee is a slow flyer, but knows where all of the species of flowers are in bloom and at what time. She also works all day but is only able to make enough honey to meet her daily needs. Now the bees have a meeting and decide to form a beehive. They agree that the slow flying bee will remain at the hive, doing what she does best, directing the faster flying bees to the flowers that are in bloom, changing their once disorganized method of gathering into a very efficient one.
Using this method they doubled their production of honey, even though each bee worked the same number of hours as before. Instead of barely surviving, they now have a surplus. The bees all gathered and viewed the great stores of honey and were very pleased. Then the single bee stood up and said, "how shall we divide the surplus honey among ourselves? If it wasn't for my knowledge of flower blooming times and locations, you would still be gathering only enough nectar to survive. Thanks to me, we are rich, and because of my special talent, which none of you possess, I deserve a greater share of the honey. You should be glad I don't take it all." The 99 bees protested, "but our superior flying is just as great a talent as your knowledge and equally as important. It's because of our speed that so much honey was produced. Without us, you would barely survive."
How should the surplus honey be divided among the bees, and most importantly, why? Please take some time and think about this before you respond.
100% of the honey should be given to all the bees who worked at producing it.
If finding out when the flowers bloom is a full-time job, those bees who perform that engineering task should be considered a part of the worker bee population just like the bees gathering the nectar.
Next, we must decide how the honey produced is allocated among the workers.
Since the only economic reason for paying one bee more honey than another is to get bees to work hard, the only fair way to allocate honey is to limit differences to only what is necessary to get bees to do difficult work and give their maximum effort.
If all the jobs are of equal difficulty and require equal physical or mental effort, each bee should get paid equal amounts of honey.
If the most difficult jobs can only be filled by paying bees 4 times more than other worker bees to do that job, then the bees who choose to work that job should get paid 4 times more honey.
That is the only fair way to allocate the honey among the worker bees.
If the bees wound up like humans and were infiltrated by radical capitalists who took a book of fiction written by Ayn Rand way too seriously and convinced the queen bee to allocate honey based on how much bargaining power a bee had, instead of by hard work, which allowed a few bees at the top to use their bargaining power to unfairly take as much as 50,000 times more honey than other bees, leaving the majority of bees with too little honey, that majority of worker bees should stop working until the queen bee changed the allocation of honey back to being based on hard work.
That 1 engineering bee can only produce a surplus if the 99 work using the engineer's method. And the 99 can only produce a surplus if it uses the method developed by the 1 engineer. So the 99 are just as important to producing the surplus as the 1 engineer. That is why it is imperative that all bees work together in a division of labor that best utilizes their talents.
Before the honey is paid out to the worker bees, a portion of honey should be set aside for the bees that were born with an inability to work and for the bees that are currently injured and unable to work.
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
"100% of the honey should be given to all the bees who worked at producing it." Agree. How much to each worker bee and how much to the single bee?
"If finding out when the flowers bloom is a full-time job, those bees who perform that engineering task should be considered a part of the worker bee population just like the bees gathering the nectar." It is already stated that all of the bees work all day.
"Since the only economic reason for paying one bee more honey than another is to get bees to work hard, the only fair way to allocate honey is to limit differences to only what is necessary to get bees to do difficult work and give their maximum effort." This assumption is not correct. Each bee already works just as many hours as before. The promise of more or less pay to any bee is not relevant to this example.
"If all the jobs are of equal difficulty and require equal physical or mental effort, each bee should get paid equal amounts of honey." How can you quantify physical versus mental work? It's like comparing apples and oranges.
"If the most difficult jobs can only be filled by paying bees 4 times more than other worker bees to do that job, then the bees who choose to work that job should get paid 4 times more honey." Again, the promise of more or less pay to any bee is not relevant to this example. What is the 4X figure based on? It is arbitrary.
"That is the only fair way to allocate the honey among the worker bees." Based on an incorrect and arbitrary assumptions.
"If the bees wound up like humans and were infiltrated by radical capitalists who took a book of fiction written by Ayn Rand way too seriously and convinced the queen bee to allocate honey based on how much bargaining power a bee had, instead of by hard work, which allowed a few bees at the top to use their bargaining power to unfairly take as much as 50,000 times more honey than other bees, leaving the majority of bees with too little honey, that majority of worker bees should stop working until the queen bee changed the allocation of honey back to being based on hard work." Nothing is stated about bargaining power. It is up to you to decide how the honey should be divided based upon the facts presented.
"That 1 engineering bee can only produce a surplus if the 99 work using the engineer's method. And the 99 can only produce a surplus if it uses the method developed by the 1 engineer. So the 99 are just as important to producing the surplus as the 1 engineer." Agree.
"That is why it is imperative that all bees work together in a division of labor that best utilizes their talents." They already are.
"Before the honey is paid out to the worker bees, a portion of honey should be set aside for the bees that were born with an inability to work and for the bees that are currently injured and unable to work." Nothing is mentioned about deformed or injured bees. Irrelevant.
So how should the honey be divided?
"So how should the honey be divided?"
I explained in my comment!
100% of the honey should be given to the 100 worker bees.
And since the only economic reason for giving one bee more honey than another is to get bees to work hard, the only fair way to divide the honey is to limit differences in honey amounts paid to only what is necessary to get bees to do difficult work and give their maximum effort.
If every job is the same degree of difficulty and requires the same amount of effort, each bee should be given equal amounts of honey.
.
"How much to each worker bee and how much to the single bee?"
If the job of the worker bee is of similar difficulty and requires a similar effort as the job of the single bee then the only fair arrangement is that they should be given equal amounts of honey.
.
"How can you quantify physical versus mental work? It's like comparing apples and oranges."
That is not what I said. I said you should compare difficult work to work that is not difficult. If a job is either physically or mentally difficult, it should get paid more than a job that is not difficult. Physically difficult jobs should get paid the same as mentally difficult jobs.
.
"What is the 4X figure based on? It is arbitrary."
It is not arbitrary. If you cannot fill a job because because it is too hard and nobody is willing to work that hard for that pay, you raise the pay of that job to whatever is necessary to get people to want to do that job. The 4x is just an example. I don't know what the actual number is.
"100% of the honey should be given to the 100 worker bees." How much to each?
"And since the only economic reason for giving one bee more honey than another is to get bees to work hard, the only fair way to divide the honey is to limit differences in honey amounts paid to only what is necessary to get bees to do difficult work and give their maximum effort." Economic incentives are not relevant to this example. The surplus was already produced without any incentives.
"If every job is the same degree of difficulty and requires the same amount of effort, each bee should be given equal amounts of honey." The difficulty of either job is not stated or can be determined and is irrelevant.
.
"How much to each worker bee and how much to the single bee?"
"If the job of the worker bee is of similar difficulty and requires a similar effort as the job of the single bee then the only fair arrangement is that they should be given equal amounts of honey." Again job degree of difficulty is not mentioned or relevant.
.
"How can you quantify physical versus mental work? It's like comparing apples and oranges."
"That is not what I said. I said you should compare difficult work to work that is not difficult. If a job is either physically or mentally difficult, it should get paid more than a job that is not difficult. Physically difficult jobs should get paid the same as mentally difficult jobs." To compare difficult and not difficult work, a number must be allotted to each one to determine a fair distribution of honey. Since job difficulty can't be determined, it must be ignored, it is irrelevant to the example.
.
"What is the 4X figure based on? It is arbitrary."
"It is not arbitrary. If you cannot fill a job because because it is too hard and nobody is willing to work that hard for that pay, you raise the pay of that job to whatever is necessary to get people to want to do that job. The 4x is just an example. I don't know what the actual number is." There is nothing mentioned about raising pay to encourage the bees to work. The honey was produced without any promise of share of surplus produced.
You asked a question as to how the honey should be allocated and to explain your economic reasoning behind it. That is what I did. But then you accused me of superimposing my own economic theories.
So if you now want to know how I think the honey should be allocated and not to base my answer on my own economic theories then my answer would be to give the extra honey to bears since I like bears more than bees.
I don't understand the point of your post or your comments. lol
The question is how to divide the surplus honey based on the facts of the example, not by adding other variables as difficulty of work. The only difference between the 99 bees and the single bee is their different abilities and their numbers. It should be simple to determine what is fair.
OK since I believe the only fair way to divide the surplus is to divide it based on how hard each bee worked and since the data on how hard each bee worked is not available, my answer would be I don't know how to allocate the surplus since I don't have enough information to make a decision.
Each bee worked the same number of hours. How hard each bee worked is not available on purpose because it introduces an extra variable that is not essential in determining what is fair. Coming to a fair decision can be done without this extra variable.
I disagree. Since I believe the only way to fairly allocate production is to allocate it based on how hard you worked in contributing to that production, I think that variable is essential in determining what is fair. So coming to a decision on what is fair cannot be done without that extra variable.
Just like it is not fair to pay a surgeon the same as a floor sweeper, it is not fair to pay the bee who put in the most effort and did the most difficult job the same as the bee who did the easiest job and put in minimal effort.
Then you would pay Bush a different salary than Obama for their jobs as president?
No, I would pay them the same since they both performed the same job and put in a similar amount of effort into that job.
You assume they worked equally hard. Why can't you assume the bees did also?
I'm not making any assumptions. I know for a fact they both worked the same job. They both worked as presidents of the US. And I know for a fact that they both put in the expected effort since neither of them were fired. So they should get paid the same.
I know in your example not every bee is working the same job. I know there are at least 2 different jobs. If 1 job is more difficult than the other job, meaning it requires significantly more physical or mental effort, then that job should get paid more.
Is gathering the nectar and directing the workers the only 2 jobs?
Does one of those jobs require significantly more physical or mental effort than the other job?
For example, doing construction is physically difficult. Working as a cashier is not physically difficult. Working as a doctor or engineer or scientist is mentally difficult. Working as a secretary is not mentally difficult.
How many hours did each President work per week? If you don't know this, then you are assuming they both worked just as hard.
I do know they worked roughly the same hours.
The president is a salaried job not an hourly job. The president works 24/7. They are always on call all day long. Even vacations are working vacations. They are expected to get the job done regardless of how many hours they need to work.
So what is the purpose of your post? Do you just want to know how people think income should be allocated or are you trying to make some point?
How do you think the honey should be allocated?
"And since the only economic reason for giving one bee more honey than another is to get bees to work hard, the only fair way to divide the honey is to limit differences in honey amounts paid to only what is necessary to get bees to do difficult work and give their maximum effort." Economic incentives are not relevant to this example. The surplus was already produced without any incentives.
Again you leave out self evident truths. Society so ays for very unique skills and they pay accordingly. You keep conflating hard work as equal to skilled work. It isnt.
I do know the answer. CEOs should get 350 times was the lowest paid wokrer gets.
Read my simple theorem above to find the true value of each.
Wrong again. If one of the 99 were eaten by a bird, honey production would be reduced by 1.01%, hardly catastrophic. If the "CEO" honeybee were eaten by a bird, the hive would be thrown back into survival mode. The "CEO" bee should get 99% of the surplus, his/value is much more valuable than the plain worker bee.
You will argue against the clear simple math because it conflicts with all your communist notions, but I proved conclusively the value of each.
By your reasoning, as a group, the 99 are just as important as the single bee. If all 99 were eaten by birds, then the single bee would barely survive. So according to your reasoning, the single bee should receive half the surplus honey, and the 99 as a group should share the remaining half.
That s a good starting point. So the CEO is worth 50 times what ONE single worker is. Add another 100 bees and the CEO bee would still be worth 50% of the increased mass of honey, but the workers would individually be worth less. The CEO would now be 100 times more valuable.
Sounds like todays CEO income fits your hypotetical very well.So we can now put CEO to rest, its fair and equitable. Good job, hirsch!,,
In the real world the CEO takes 110% of the excess.
Your logic is flawed. And your math is wrong.
If you paid the 99 bees only 1% of the surplus, they would all refuse to work for the CEO and the CEO would get zero surplus.
So the only way to allocate the surplus is to allocate it equally.
You argue against this clear, simple fact because it conflicts with your desire to unfairly take advantage of others and exploit their labor. But I proved conclusively that you cannot do that.
Without the CEO there is no surplus. Like in humans, its ridiculously easy to to get the workers to work hard for an additional 1%, because their ONLY alternative is subsistence survival with no surplus. If they stop workimg they may DIE.
Since this is actually how it works in our economy today, your idea is wrong and easily disproven. And you did not prove my math wrong, thank you, you just said its wrong. Epic fail!
Most workers are mindless and stupid, and need to be structured by the superior intellect and ambition of the few leaders. Since we have nearly 300 years of tangible proof that workers need leaders to get them allocated efficiently, i am correct.
"Without the CEO there is no surplus"
Without the 99 worker bees there is no surplus either.
"Like in humans, its ridiculously easy to to get the workers to work hard for an additional 1%, because their ONLY alternative is subsistence survival with no surplus."
Wages working for an additional 1% equals $7.32 an hour. Working for self $7.25 an hour. Most if not all would prefer to be self employed for such a small increase in wages.
With 98 workers there is still surplus. You cant understsnd that r wont because youndesigned a model with a pre conceived reult, but I am too erudite for your silly gsme. I love crushing weak ideas.
The example is preconceived to only allow two variables. The result is up to the reader, but must be supported with reason.
No, the resut is up tp you. You designed it expecting to create an outcome. Your model is boglus but then we knew that.
It was designed to prove what is fair without a preconceived outcome.
Wow, what silly economic book did you pick up that gem from? You must be a business major. lol.
"Without the CEO there is no surplus"
Without the 99 workers there is no surplus.
"Most workers are mindless and stupid, and need to be structured by the superior intellect and ambition of the few leaders."
This is where I stop feeding the trolls.
Because you want things to be different than the way they are. You answered the question, but you didnt realize it. Or refused to acknowedge it, which is more likely.
One bee, the high intellect bee, provides as much value to the hive as NINETY NINE worker bees. 99! The loss of one of the workers hardly makes a dent in honey production. The loss of the smart bee stops honey production dead. The reality of scarcity will allocate value as it does now, that which is most scarce is valued most highly.
Unfortunately for you and every other communist, this is precisely how the world functions. Extremely beautiful women, who are scarce strictly because they are on the good side of extreme beauty, are far more valued than plain average women. Extreme athletes are far more valued than average joes. Sam Walton and his vision and ambition are valued millions of times more than a easily replaced checker at one cash register at one Walmart.
And since hirsch chose bees, lets look at what happens when the hive is threatened. In real life, the workers go out and meet the threat by DYING to save the Queen bee.Worker bees instinctively know their value is very very low, and they commit suicide to save the powerful bee. Their actual behavior in real life proves me to be totally right and your foolish theory to be utterly wrong.
Oh, so we're communists now? Have to run to your archetypes and pander to fear-mongering once your ideas are shot down?
The loss of the leader suddenly makes all the worker bees forget how to perform the very job they've been doing the whole time? Bullshit! If anything the loss of the leader just illustrates how unneccesary he is.
There's absolutely nothing keeping the workers from continuing their work in that event.
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
[Removed]
A bee, in early spring , found it very difficult to find early flowers to gather nectar. He met a friend who told him where to find a huge display of flowers at a wedding nearby.
After gorging himself, he arrived back at the hive to spread the news.
They thanked him for the info and asked -
"but what is that cap on your head?".
"I didn't want them to think I was a wasp" :)
A little humor sure adds some fresh air to any debate.
When they all work alone it takes them all day to meet their daily needs. But when they work together they can meet their daily needs in half the time ... so By noon they are done, and the rest of the day they can blaze in the sun, sing songs , write bumble-bee poetry .. do something creative .. perhaps enjoy a little bit of Gods green earth by not having to work all day life will be great to be a bee.. be a bee .. get it !! ..be a bee :-]
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
Like it!
We work so hard, we don't have time to .."smell the flowers," said the the baby bee !
So true.
She deserves 2% so she will be paid twice the amount as a normal be but she wont over paid. The rest are paid 0.98989899%. this number is small be not so small it would not be noticeable. The change from 1% to this is not great enough to cause an up rise.
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
Why does she deserve more and why 2%?
Because with out her there never would have been a surplus. it simple management does an job that few can do that us why they are paid more
Without the 99 there would be no surplus either. So pay should be determined by rarity of skills instead of the benefit the skills provide. A world champion yodeler might be very rare, but is not compensated very well for his singing abilities. There are dozens of rock singers who are compensated much higher.
yes rarity and usefulness play that role. She is useful because she finds the honey. Then she manages how it should be done. Now there is only one of her if she dies the hive goes under because it cannot function to full production with out her. If a worker dies it can be replaced because they have a semi skilled job. its all based on how much they are needed.
This is an endless cycle such as the chicken and the egg. Both sides are useful and have a purpose. Neither can live with out the other so we must have them. If we did not pay our mangers well they would leave and join a company that does. This is why pay raises and benefits get better with the amount of time worked at company
From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.
Or has that one been taken?
I would say that if you want to keep the hive, alive, you spread enough around to keep everybody happy, some people may need more than others. But that’s where the thinking comes in.
There is a bee you forgot, what about the bee that says, my daddy left me this hive, so you own me 80%.
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
"From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."
That one has not been taken. A statement no matter how true or untrue, must be supported with reason. What is your argument for it?
"There is a bee you forgot, what about the bee that says, my daddy left me this hive, so you own me 80%."
No such bee is mentioned. Irrelevant.
as far as presenting a case the example is too abstract without inclusion of the issue of ownership
Ownership of the surplus honey is what we are trying to determine.
I understand that, and I would assume you wish to spark some discussion, on equity, but I feel for a useful discussion you have to allow for those who add nothing to the process, neither brains nor brawn but were born to the family who owns the hive like Mitt’s boys. I think the importance of this question is illustrated every time one of “how will you retire” commercials come on. This ideal that you are entitled to a living because you acquired money through luck of birth or investment is one that must be addressed I feel.
I do realize that this seems odd to even present it in this way, but that’s my job, it’s what I do, to further the cause.
Mitt and inheritance is not relevant.
Your previous statement "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs."
Can you support that statement? If you want to further the cause, then you must show the reasoning behind your convictions. That is what gives your message strength.
just for the sake of discussion do you really want me to present a defense of Marx's quote?
I suppose I could, but tend to stay away from those, if you would like to see it and think it would be useful, I would be willing to
then that's exactly what a 360 sytem would result in, so that would be my answer to your question, but it greatly understates our problems,
360 feedback is a variable that is not present in this example.
so what do you want me to just rehash the words in the example?
I want you to determine what is fair based on the example, not add variables that are irrelevant
See there you go with that irrelevant word, (rather judgemental) without the addition of thought no progress can be made here, I'll check back see if anything has developed , but my attempts to discuss this issuse seems to have failed.
I'm working on my own analysis of the example. Will let you know when it's done.
Its not luck of birth or luck of investment. Fail!
it's not? what the hell is it then shithead
Investment is luck? Really? Inheritance is luck only in the sense that you were lucky you parents worked hard.
Damn right it is, take from somebody who knows, "worked hard" yeah right, maybe six gens ago in some cases, but people like you think the Royals should get to live on what they "own" forever, well we own democracy, and we're about to cash in some blood bonds so to speak.
You arent going to do shit. The inheritance tax is hated by an overwhelming number of citizens. Its candidate death to even discuss it.
You're funny.
it is for now, that all depends on how many hear the truth, that's what scares you
In the example. it seems all add to the process, so they should receive, "wages", I do not feel that all wages must be the same, even among the 99, the best system I saw, the one I like the best was what was called 360 review, where every person you interacted with on a regular basis was ask to give a review. I liked that method, management didn’t pretty quick though at least where I worked.
Even among the 99, whose work hours and job is identical, they should not be paid the same?
sure, pay'em the same, why not?
maybe to your example but it the most relavant issue in America today
The issue of what is fair distribution of wealth is difficult, but even with this most basic example, with just two variables, most people cannot come to decision on what is fair, or reasons to support it. In the real world the variables are much more numerous and the reasons to support the distribution of wealth seem vague, unless you search out it.
I did. You ignored it.
I did notice that you have been hinting at a decision. But not one person has stated it directly with the reason to support it.
[Removed]
I do think it is a worthy goal, and realize I came off a bit obtuse, gave some better comment above.
From each according to his ability/performance but to each according his ability/performance.But what they are to be payed in.Not in contemporary money but in a way that ranks the people as per their sociableness for example by their contribution to social work and culture as well at least.To each according to need only if they are sick(physically) or handicapped or orphaned.
What you describe are judgments none of us can make, in truth it must be and will be according to what is needed for the system to continue.
The greatest problem with the example is that it does not account for the biggest problem we face, that of how to reward those who “own” things. Mitt Romney, by his own admissions has done nothing to earn the 40 million he received over the past two years, until we look at that question we cannot find effective answers.
please read again below and please ask questions.
What I mentioned is methods not judgments.If one works hard why should not he/she be paid more.But what I want to convey is that the hard worker should be paid more but not necessarily in terms of money/money only.Human being is a social being therefore ones contribution to society is as important as one cares about him/herself.Therefore, incentives should not necessarily be in terms of money/money only but in such terms which are prohuman and prolife like points of appreciation converted into the points of piority.Like wise distribution system must not be based on 'money tags/money label' only but on 'dual tags' that is money(which does not depreciate or appreciate) and the 'tag of points of priority'.The later tag gives preference to say a hard worker,intelligent,dedicated,sociable=one who does social work (not chatter box-the one who educates others anyhow is not a chatter box),scientist,artistic,environment friendly etc. over the one who is not as hard worker... or as good in the mater of distribution.
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
How about you divide the honey into 100.3 parts. She gets 1.3 parts and the rest get 1 part? Therefore, she gets a modest increase over the others for her "special skills" but not a greedy amount that leaves them with crumbs.
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
Do you mean that the single bee should receive 30% more? What is that figure based on? That would mean each of the other 99 bees would receive .3% less to pay her bonus.
Why is a different skill a "special skill"?
You are right, she doesn't deserve 30% more. How about 5% more. And, I'm assuming we're in America right? Most Americans would never go for all labor being compensated equally, no? I'm just being realistic.
Why does she deserve 5% more? That is the heart of the entire story. To justify with a solid argument any extra honey received.
Well, basically because equal pay for different skills will lead to resentment among most people. Most people see absolute equality as oppressive (not saying that I do, but I'm being realistic here) Her skill did help them all to get more honey, so, in the spirit of appreciation, without her they would not have as much overall and it can be fairly argued that she deserves a little more. She may decide to share her excess with others, maybe with some bees who are older or sick. Wouldn't that be nice?
But she does get a " little bit more" , when they all work together her supple doubles ..just like everyone else's .
In a combined effort all should be paid equally.
And since the slow bee was guiding the others she probably didn't have to carry any honey at all.. she just hung around the flower bed all day pointing out the nectar ! so her day became easier, while all the others must have had to flown back and forth to the hive twice as many times to gain double the honey ! So she , the single bee, had an easy day , doubled her supply, and the others worked twice as hard , and yet she now thinks she should have more than the rest .. wtf !!! on her own she was only as able as the rest to make her daily needs .. there is nothing special about her .. except that she is slow and greedy.. and can smell honey [money] . Interesting how even a bee can be greedy.. whats the world to do ? She should have kept quiet and thought it through.. now there will be resentment in the garden .. up until this point there was no discrimination or racism .. but now the others have been insulted and feel betrayed .. trouble will brew in the hearts of the other bees .. trouble caused by one bee .. ..So ... she brought some good skill to the hive with her ability .. and she also brought trouble with her cunning ideas ! I suppose she could try to take a little bit more , but there are 99 of them and only one of her .. .. hey I have an idea , let them vote on it ! LOL
edit: and you think this evil little bee will will redeem herself by sharing her wealth with a few of the sick and elderly .. reminds of a " hat on a pig" idea.. it's still a pig.
Hearty laughing, here. Well said, FriendlyObserverB. I think your idea to let them vote on it is a good one. Unfortunately, most Americans want to think they are special, or that they could be one day, and would not like the idea of equal pay and I'm guessing they'd vote against it. In that case we would need to determine how much more she deserves. I'd argue, not much.
Thanks beautifulworld, nice to seee you laughing again !
I had added another comment.. check this one out !
[-]1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1181) 28 minutes ago
Here is another thought:
Let's say she does take more .. because after all her talent was very valuable .. and all the other bees were happy to have her talents . But as time went on the other bees became to resent the special bee and felt it wasn't fair that the one bee was getting more honey .. after all it looked like she wasn't even working, just hanging around the flower bed pointing out the nectar while all the other bees had to now work twice as hard .. So they became resentful and decided to slow down their pace .. and not work so fast .. But in doing so they discovered when they work slow they too could smell the nectar !! so the secret talent of the slow bee was to work slow and than you could smell the nectar !! and soon word spread around the hive.. and they had a meeting about this.. they decided they would all take turns working slow .. a couple each day would point out the nectar .. while the others worked .. and all the honey would be divided evenly .. And the hive was happy once more !
ps. there may also be a lesoon in the fact the slow bee becomes the manager .. and the hard workers are assigned all the work.. seems to correlate with todays management worker set-up. Or am I the only one to notice managers usually are quite inept.
Many Managers would not be the slow bee who spotted more nectar and directed others to it, but instead would be riding on the back of a subordinate bee who was doing the spotting then take the credit.
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
..with a scornful eye no doubt .. thanks DKA, I hadn't thought of how far removed the top really is from the actually job itself.. and what about those investors !!
Bloated and floating in the reservoir pool of honey, needing others to care for them as they can no longer do it themselves.
floating in a pool of honey .. " the land of milk and honey !"
lol
Yep and Executive management has their nose in the trough ( reservoir ) at the distribution point sucking up as much profit as they legally can and thereby insure a weak economy as fewer and fewer people have money to spend on non-essentials the bare basics of survival.
"nose in the trough" paints such a clear picture .. the thought disgusts me. These are the same people back-riding and "living high of the hog".. while exploiting all of mankind they possibly can .. wanting more .. more more..
I can never give up this fight !
We have only just started - we are starting to see some progress. I think this will be a very entertaining year - and the 1st of many more.
Especially as awareness spreads on unity in success.
LOL. Very funny. We all should take time out to smell the honey. The American economic system has stripped Americans of this ability. Very sad, indeed.
The concentration of wealth provides some benefit, but when it falls into the hands of con men it works against us, instead of for us, we see that all over the place.
When applied by those who truly “earn” it, as in the example, the advantages can be compounded, perhaps if we just outlawed “passive” investment, it would take care of quite a bit. The fairness argument yields an equal, but low income for all in the world, the efficiency argument, puts all income into the pockets of Buffet, Gates and Jobs what works lies somewhere in between.
I think that the valuation of labor is not black and white. There does not have to be huge gulfs between various laborers wages (i.e. the mailroom clerk and the CEO), nor does everyone have to be paid exactly equally.
I think you have an understanding that exceeds the example, I think the example is an easy and false setup for the "porfits to the smart" positition, but I don't recall offhand if or where I've seen it.
Yes. Too black and white...and...he's trying to bait us all into saying we're socialists. LOL
Gave him solution of "360 review" he said "not in example" like you couldn't even introduce an agreement between the parties.
It's silly. He's trying to bait us that's why he has so many rules. LOL
The 99 bees skill also benefited the single bee with more honey and should be considered just as important. Are you saying because the single bee's skill is relatively rare, it should be more highly rewarded?
Yes and she can train others. You are trying to get us all to say that we are socialists, that labor should be compensated equally across the board regardless of education, skill level, etc. This is America we're applying this to, right? I'm being realistic.
Training other bees is not a consideration in this example.
I'm trying to get you to determine what is fair.
It is up to the reader to provide an argument based on reason, not by what economic culture they have been raised in or by which one they favor.
You are not trying to determine what is fair. You are trying to peg us as socialists. The culture within which an economy operates is of great importance and needs to be considered when valuing labor.
I am not trying to label anyone. Economic fairness is a key issue in the Occupy movement and if it is to be implemented, it must be supported with sound arguments, not just because it seems right. Supporting a cause backed with a firm foundation will succeed. Without a foundation, it will be blown about by the wind.
The bees culture is not stated. It is another unnecessary variable.
Thats exactly correct. You want to ignore scarcity or rare skils. You cant. A doctor has a rare skill. The janitor has a common skill. If the janitor is removed, finding another to replace is easy. If a surgeon is removed, a replacement is far harder to find.
OWS is all about highly rewarding common skills which will never happen, cept in this fantasyland. To get highly paid, earn a rare, needed skill.
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
Can you pleade answer my quextion as to what happens to this mythical hive if one worker bee does and if the smart bee dies? Please?
No bees have died in this example. The variable of death is not relevant.
What if a bee died? The ONLY way to value a particular bee is to run the model without a bee and see the result.
my theorem is the only true answer.
So your theorem bases their share of the surplus on each bees benefit provided?
yep, and that s based on the unique nature of talent.
Really the only way out of your dilemma is to realize, that once such self-awareness develops, the only real solution is a totally different domain of activity. In other words, there is no 30% or 5% solution (as you were intuiting) that will ever be non-arbitrary.
The only thing the works is to create a separate system (a knowledge network) with it's own currency to complement the physical network and recognize that you've shifted/evolved into a whole other type of species.
It's similar to the evolutionary story in the biological sciences: once a certain level of crisis/trust/love/awareness developed in the wars of single-cellular life (the maxxing out of resources or "end of growth"), the only way forward was into a totally new domain -- multi-cellular life! This required something much more radical than a simple delegation of resources.
The extremely complex coordination of multicellular life (like that found in mammals, e.g.) requires a complete shift of consciousness, toward trust and collaboration rather than individuality and independence.
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
Give the slow bee triple what it gathered originally and distribute the rest equally among all of the other bees. Everyone comes out ahead but the critical individual gets more.
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
How do you come up with triple the honey for the slow bee? The point of this example is to determine why.
Double would mean that the critical bee got no more than any of the others whose productivity is increased. But the critical bee increased the productivity of all. Giving the critical bee triple would be a worthwhile reward but would have negligible effect on the other 99 who would still get very nearly double their original amount.
Here is another thought:
Let's say she does take more .. because after all her talent was very valuable .. and all the other bees were happy to have her talents . But as time went on the other bees became to resent the special bee and felt it wasn't fair that the one bee was getting more honey .. after all it looked like she wasn't even working, just hanging around the flower bed pointing out the nectar while all the other bees had to now work twice as hard .. So they became resentful and decided to slow down their pace .. and not work so fast .. But in doing so they discovered when they work slow they too could smell the nectar !! so the secret talent of the slow bee was to work slow and than you could smell the nectar !! and soon word spread around the hive.. and they had a meeting about this.. they decided they would all take turns working slow .. a couple each day would point out the nectar .. while the others worked .. and all the honey would be divided evenly .. And the hive was happy once more !
ps. there may also be a lesoon in the fact the slow bee becomes the manager .. and the hard workers are assigned all the work.. seems to correlate with todays management worker set-up. Or am I the only one to notice managers usually are quite inept.
The slow bee is working full time. The 99 swift bees are continually unloading nectar, receiving instructions, then flying out again.
They are all working full time , but the slow bee's work became easier while the rest of the 99 had to fly back and forth double-time.. for the 99 it did not get easier .. it got harder.
thanks jrhirsch, I enjoy these types of questions ;-]
The slow flyer bee should be respected and allowed to have MORE children and given enough share for the children.Mind children should not be discriminated.What I mean is that the human situation is much more complicated.(capitalists are not slow flying bees but parasites).
Capitalists only suck as much blood as we allow them.
It is good to use analogies and stories as the above one but one should always keep it in mind that conclusions/implications from analogies are not 100% applicable to a particular situation. here we are analyzing capitalistic economy.We are going to not only stop capitalists suck our blood but also render them obsolete,ineffective and powerless.
Beez in a trap, beez in a trap...lol
I just learned that this is the top song in America right now, lol,
Liberatum Retardos!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anDUZZiwo50
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
Definitely off the "Bee" side.
You create a knowledge network to balance your effort network and call it the Internet. See pangaia.sf.net.
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
Bees can't type.
This reminds me of the valid concept (proven countless times every day) that "two people working together can produce more than two people working separately." And therefore should divide the 'spoils' equally, just as in your example. I find it interesting how almost everyone answering this post over-complicates it with irrelevant details. Kind of like the real world, eh?
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
Thanks. I'm clicking on it as we speak.
Yes, a simple example should result in a simple solution.
Economics does not tell you how it should be divided, just that each person's share depends on a few factors - the specialty of skill or knowledge requires, the scarcity of the said skills/knowledge, risks (personal or the organization) involved in the job and the undesirability of the job. It does not tell you whether it should be 5%, 30% or 100%, just that compensation differentials would exist and compensation would depend on the principles of demand and supply.
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
Supply and demand, undesirability of the job, and risk, are not stated. There are only two variables. The number of bees and the skills of the bees. The question is what you think is fair, as an independent observer.
again what I or you think is fair hardly matters because that would fall in the realm of morality. Morality tells us how thing ought to be. Economics shows us how things really are. Besides morality is subjective. And this case is way too simplistic.
What you and I think is fair in economics does matter. We make these choices of fairness every day. Morality is the standard we (some) apply to insure fairness. That trade is equally beneficial to both parties.
Economics is the nuts and bolts study of how we trade our labor. It's by receiving a fair value for what we buy and sell that economic justice exists. When we don't receive fair value, economic injustice reigns.
The example is made simple on purpose, yet few are willing to say what they believe is fair and the reasons that support it. If they can't discern what is fair in this simple example, how can they promote a cause at the very core of the Occupy movement that is far more complex and provide the required reasoning that must support it?
Dude, there is hardly any morally 'fair value' for you labor. It the market determined rate that we consider fare. As simple as that. What is the fair value of the service rendered by the body guards of the President of United States who are ready to take a bullet for him? I don't know we can argue to the end of the world on that. Which is why I would rather use the market determined value.
"Market determined value." Supply and demand.
When a woman is payed less than a man for the same job is that fair trade? Is it immoral? Society has indoctrinated women with the idea that they are not worth as much, so instead of refusing to work for unfair wages, cutting the market supply, they accept the lower wages.
The market doesn't determine what is fair, it determines what people will accept. And until people stand up and demand fairness, they will continue to receive economic tyranny.
Yes, what people accept is also a part of the 'demand and supply' equation. Besides the example of women earning less is a case of discrimination. Not the same thing. Sure, the women can stand up and they should.
"Supply and demand" discriminates against all who sell their labor short.
If you are selling yourself short then bad for you. It simply shows that you are misinformed. If my company hires me as a product manager and pays me half of what every other product manager is earning and I accept it, it means one of two things
Fairness has nothing to do with economics. Value isnt defined by fairness, its defined by scarcity and uniqueness. You want people to come up with what is fair but thats impossible, because fair isnt part of any economic model.
We will use FriendlyObservers nutty "cap" on profits. Virtually everything we buy today is discretionary, we do not need it to survive. Food, clothing and shelter would be considered mandatory purchases, but those are all very very inexpensive. And yes, basic shelter is inexpensive. Now everything that falls into the realm of discretionary spending, food at a diner, buying an Itunes acount, the computer on which you type this forum, cigarettes, liquor, a flat screen TV, an Ipad, golf clubs, a boat, vacations, are all voluntary. If you buy an Ipad, something no one needs to live, you must judge that the $700 or so is "worth" it or why buy it? If you go to a great steakhouse and order a $52 ribeye, you must judge you got good value, or why buy it?
In your above example, judging fairness is utterly subjective. The only way to determine value is to see what happens to the mythical hive by removing one worker bee and then replacing it and remove the " finder" bee. I know where you are going, you want to see if we can place value using a fairness model but that model does not exist. Is todays CEO worth 343 times the wages of a low level worker, I dont know. I assume he or she is or they wouldnt be paid that much. Do I care, not in the least. These companies are publicly traded and as such, if the Board overpays, the company stock tanks and the stock options that most CEOs use to generate those high salaries are worthless. If I dumb enough to buy the stock of a poorly managed company, I am the fool.
As a collective they produced Double. This is a very important lesson.
I think in practice what would happen is that the other bees agree that alright, since Slow Bee is so special, she can have a double share. Then the next year, Slow Bee says, "look, I have all the honey I need, so I think I'll sit this one out." The other bees, not believing in forced labor, but wanting double the honey, gulp, say, "well gosh your majesty, what must we offer so that you might help us?" And this time she wants half of all the extra honey. But the next time, and the next, well, each time the workers say, "well, it's still better for us to get something extra than nothing", until year after year each receives only some token morsel of the honey to show for their superior organization. But that doesn't really end things - after a while, the well-fed bees rear many new larvae, until what limits the honey collected is not the number of workers but the number of flowers, and meanwhile, Slow Bee has used her capacious stores to buy up the rights to every one. Then the bees realize that, hey, these workers are just waste products really, we scarcely need half of them. So they compete so very, very hard to be that bee who still collects enough honey to be worth allowing to work in Slow Bee's flower bed; those bees are permitted to take what they need to survive, and the others, well, are encouraged to fly off and seek shelter somewhere outside of Slow Bee's real estate. The bees talk among themselves and pretend that there are flowers out there in the deep blue sea, or else try to ignore it, like we try to ignore the poverty and misery throughout the world.
Here are some more ideas about fair wages
http://occupywallst.org/forum/economics-and-the-honey-bee-3/
Why should the slow bee receive a double share? The thoughts and motives of the bees are not relevant. The decision is up to you and must be supported with reason.
Give it all to the slow bee, then allow her to dole out as much as is needed to keep as many fast bees alive and working as the slow bee wants honey, based on desire, room to store that sort of thing, no reason to keep excess fast bees alive.
[Removed]
The greatest problem with the example is that it does not account for the biggest problem we face, that of how to reward those who “own” things. Mitt Romney, by his own admissions has done nothing to earn the 40 million he received over the past two years, until we look at that question we cannot find effective answers
They were all related to the "industrialized bees".
They got sick on pesticides from Monsanto and died.
The members of the honey producers sued them, but lost. They didn't have enough money to spend on lawyers, because WallStreet sold off all their stock and reinvested it in Monsato.
End of story. End of bees.
Pesticides are not mentioned and are irrelevant to the story. How should the honey be divided?
Just trying to inject a little reality into a poor analogy, that has little to do with the social life of bees.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/11/scientists-call-for-global-ban-on-bee-killing-pesticides/
Read my simple theorem above to express the true value of each. Its conclusive.