[SVMc]

(AnonT) So money, in its most basic form, is simply a representation of how much more you've given to or done for others than others have given you in return.

I wouldn’t say it is as simple as that. First money or currency (I may be mixing up terms if someone wants to clarify please feel free to do so) in my understanding originated because the barter system became too complicated to facilitate fast interstate trade, so money as a signifier of worth was developed. I would say that money in its most basic form is a symbol of how much you have in society not how much good you have done. It may also be a symbol of how many goods you have accumulated if we are using the word “goods” as in material goods and services.

That being said I would challenge the assertion that money is a symbol of how much “good” you have given other, because it is only a system of values. Various socio-economic variables over thousands of years have first created an imbalance in levels of equality to begin with and second set parameters that don’t consider all goods valuable. That does not mean that a good which is not monetarily valuable is not essential. For example the issues of child raising, generally viewed as important yet unpaid work for mothers (and increasingly fathers). There are discrepancies in salary between work done by women and that done by men. The most famous case in to my knowledge is Bell Canada which has secretaries (females) and clerks (males) who perform the exact same daily jobs and have the same level of seniority. Bell (a company which is a hundred years old) originally was able to justify this because it was assumed women would not need to support a family and would eventually leave their jobs to have a family, therefore they were not as “valuable” as workers. However, we now have dual income families, it is now supposed to be illegal to give different pay for work of equal value based on gender, sex, race etc… This becomes further problematic when you consider what are referred to as “pink” collar jobs compared to “blue” collar jobs. Often pink collar jobs require different yet equally difficult skills as blue collar, and often pink collar jobs ask for higher education credentials. However over all pink collar jobs pay less. These are some of the reasons I would disagree with the “good” assessment.

(Anon T) Paying your employees less than they deserve for the amount of work they give is dishonest. Now, a blanket minimum wage doesn't solve this problem - not all work is worth the same amount, and not all workers work as hard, so there's no reason that everyone should be guaranteed a certain amount when they may not work hard enough to deserve it.

Again I would agree with this in an egalitarian society. However I do not think this is possible at the current moment. Not that it is not desirable that we could have a society like this. We have an incredible problem with a surplus of labor and with the re-skilling phenomenon. It may be theoretically easy to say that if your job market has flooded driving down the wages then you should re-skill and find a new job. However for most people who have ever attempted this from the bottom up there are more stories of failure than success (they just aren’t featured as often). The cost of education re-skilling and support mechanisms aren’t in place for people to switch skill sets when one market becomes full. Theoretically if you are no longer in demand you use a Smithsonian idea of economics and cater to what the market is demanding, however what happens when you do not have the beginning capital to facilitate this? What happens where there are more job-hunters than jobs? If you think I’m exaggerating look outside of the USA.

Please don’t think I am summarily rejecting your idea, generally I agree however I think there are a few theoretical holes and that is what I have responded to. I really would like to know what your responses are to these questions. I think something very often ignored in these discussions is where can social conscious and economic reality connect to find real life solutions. After all I really believe both sides of the debate are interested in solutions.