If someone can’t benefit personally from intellectual property then why would anyone take the time to create IP? Of course some will do it for the love of exploration but I have doubts it would be to the same degree without that carrot to chase.
Edit: imagine developing the cure for all cancer and you don’t even get a pizza party or Friday off, much less any sort of raise or financial incentive.
Also how do we determine what to spend resources on for R&D? It would be difficult to come up with an idea, know that it will take lots of labor and know there will be no benefit to oneself or their family vs doing the absolute bare minimum and getting more time with ones kids for the same outcome.
Spend more time with the kids. It’s ok. You don’t need capitalism’s permission.
Let’s be honest here. Most corporate r&d is another flavor of soft drink. We’ll be fine without. Most actual research is autists (complimentary) pursuing their special interest. They don’t need daddy dollar to tell them their work it’s important. They feel it.
Imagine generating billions of dollars of value and you don’t even get a pizza party. Not one dime for you or your family beyond your base pay. There’s less incentive to go out of your way to produce value if it’s not going to benefit you. No reason to work hard for anything if you’ll just be paid the same either way.
Not really though. Under capitalism people are free to quit their job, and go start a company to test their idea and develop their own IP. The vast majority of founders worked for someone else Nvidia is a good example currently. Jensen Huang worked for AMD, Chris Malachowsky worked for HP, Curtis Priem worked for IBM. They had an idea, they quit their jobs and profited directly off their IP. Under a pure socialist system would you be able to quit your job? Who would you get capital from to test an idea? Also if it worked you wouldn’t get any profits from it, not even a pizza party or a Friday off even after producing billions of dollars in value. There would be zero incentive to doing anything but the absolute minimum because the compensation would be exactly the same if you did or if you didn’t. Why put in 100hr+ weeks of labor for nothing? No matter how hard you worked you and your family wouldn’t get anything, your children would be treated the same as the children of a man who put in the absolute bare minimum.
I’m cool with socializing a lot of things but we need to compensate people proportionally to the quality and quantity of value they produce.
Please don’t just downvote this. I’m open to discussion and to standing corrected. If you want to downvote then downvote with a worthwhile counter to the point at hand.
But if they wanted to they were free to start a company and profit from their IP directly, they chose not to (assuming they didn’t personally choose to sign some perpetual non-compete of which would have still been their choice). That’s different than it being illegal to do so. No one ever got rich from working hard? I’m guessing you’re unaware of most tech founders who had an idea, left the company they were at, started their own and became wealthy. Nvidia is a good example currently. Jensen Huang worked for AMD, Chris Malachowsky worked for HP, Curtis Priem worked for IBM. They had an idea, they quit their jobs and profited directly off their IP.
This story is extremely common across so many industries. Most founders once worked for someone else, had an idea, quit, and started their own company. Imagine you just work for the government, if you have an idea well cool for you we’re not funding that and you want to quit? How about no. Oh we actually let you quit and give you funding for your idea, well your pay will never increase no matter how much value you produce or how many hours you work to bring your idea to life. You work 35 hours per week or 100, same pay. You generated 10 billion dollars of value? You don’t even get a pizza party or a short day this Friday.
I’m cool with socializing a lot of things but there needs to be a way to compensate people to some degree based on the quality and quantity of their labor. There needs to be some freedom for a person to do what they want or even take out financial risk (loans) to change what they are doing aka go to school, start a company and so on.
Edit: please don’t just downvote, actually respond with a worthwhile point. I’m more than willing to concede a debate and hopefully you are as well.
I think the entire idea of free and open source software is an example of people working for something without personal benefit. We wouldn’t be talking on Lemmy right now if people hadn’t created the ActivityPub protocol and developed the infrastructure, for instance. Hell, I’ve developed software purely out of spite.
I think if you remove the carrot from the equation, most people will still do the things they love and would still need the things that they need. If I didn’t have to work 40-60 hours a week to afford things like healthcare and housing, I’d likely be working on software that improves the lives of those around me.
I can also see projects where massive achievement wouldn’t have been accomplished without some discipline in where time is spent.
One example in games is accessibility support. That is a region where indie devs are terrible, usually because it’s not inspiring to work on. Easier to just reply to your one blind user “Look, I have limited time and a long list of bugs. It’s a video game.” But AAA, and Xbox earlier in the gen, were much better about refining that experience for people.
There’s constantly memes mocking yellow tape, but that aside the improved ways in which games teach people and bring on non-players is like night and day to the old times. You can see that when you try picking up some old games for the first time.
I love Linux now on a technical level, but I probably wouldn’t have the theme I use for the UI if not for Windows, a paid product containing lots of expensive user research and telemetry-driven changes; a lot of GNOME and KDE authors were insistent about the technical efficiency of their old window setups until they finally gave up and started copying Windows - and it IS genuinely a more intuitive environment for a lot of people.
Talk with artists about all their abandoned projects, and you can find that there’s some benefit in balancing “Do what you love” and “Ship the damn product in a complete, wrapped box”
I think we’re getting into different discussions. The jobs people don’t want to do wouldn’t evaporate. I mean unless you’re imagining a future where the majority of labor and menial mental effort is automated then yes I could definitely see people having the freedom to do whatever they desired. As of now though there are a lot of jobs that people would not want to do if there was no personal benefit in it but are still wanted or needed by society.
At least in academia people who produce valuable IP get credentials, fame, a percentage of the money it produces, and of course more money dedicated to their R&D. If for instance there was no benefit in them producing that IP it would be pretty tough to justify the sometimes overbearing work it requires.
Also I agree, value isn’t appropriately compensated currently. Money as a concept has departed from value production and it ought to be corrected.
In the past value was direct, food, medicine, clothes, tools and the sort and if one produced more value they could exchange it for more value aka trade more cows for more clothes and tools. There was no real way to fake value like there is with money.
I haven’t earned a dime from teaching music. I do it anyways because i want there to be a thriving [my instrument] community where i live. i teach something very, very specific that is my intellectual property (the dude who helped me develop the technique named it after me). you can’t exactly copyright doubletonguing on the sax, so i haven’t bothered filing for mine.
people like us exist, but damn i would enjoy earning a little money from my music now and then. i gotta earn it busking or playing other people’s music/instruments.
You are choosing to volunteer, that’s cool inside any system. Imagine putting in 100 hour work weeks, developing a product like the blue LED or lithium ion battery thus creating billions upon billions of dollars of revenue and you don’t even get a pizza party or a Friday off. You get the same base pay and your family gets no benefit no matter how hard you work so may as well not create any value and just do the minimum beyond what you’re impassioned to do for free like volunteering.
Also sidebar I am so awfully tempted to make a joke about double tonguing the sax. Like a sax on the beach type joke.
Oh I remember those hundred hour weeks. They nearly killed both me and my relationship with my wife, who was also doing hundred hour weeks at the time. Fortunately it only lasted five months, but like we saw each other awake twelve hours those months. It was hell.
And double tounging is the wall I’m hitting in sax right now. I think I’m breathing wrong or something. But yeah, sax and it’s techniques are full of double entendrés.
I’m pretty sure we’re both double tonguing these comments right now so to speak. If by chance you are being serious then I hope you were both appropriately compensated for the efforts and ultimately that the work was worthwhile. The innuendos seem endless.
If someone can’t benefit personally from intellectual property then why would anyone take the time to create IP? Of course some will do it for the love of exploration but I have doubts it would be to the same degree without that carrot to chase.
Edit: imagine developing the cure for all cancer and you don’t even get a pizza party or Friday off, much less any sort of raise or financial incentive.
Then don’t do it. We can tell when it’s a crass cash grab anyway.
Also how do we determine what to spend resources on for R&D? It would be difficult to come up with an idea, know that it will take lots of labor and know there will be no benefit to oneself or their family vs doing the absolute bare minimum and getting more time with ones kids for the same outcome.
Spend more time with the kids. It’s ok. You don’t need capitalism’s permission.
Let’s be honest here. Most corporate r&d is another flavor of soft drink. We’ll be fine without. Most actual research is autists (complimentary) pursuing their special interest. They don’t need daddy dollar to tell them their work it’s important. They feel it.
Spend time with your kids.
Imagine generating billions of dollars of value and you don’t even get a pizza party. Not one dime for you or your family beyond your base pay. There’s less incentive to go out of your way to produce value if it’s not going to benefit you. No reason to work hard for anything if you’ll just be paid the same either way.
You just described capitalism.
Not really though. Under capitalism people are free to quit their job, and go start a company to test their idea and develop their own IP. The vast majority of founders worked for someone else Nvidia is a good example currently. Jensen Huang worked for AMD, Chris Malachowsky worked for HP, Curtis Priem worked for IBM. They had an idea, they quit their jobs and profited directly off their IP. Under a pure socialist system would you be able to quit your job? Who would you get capital from to test an idea? Also if it worked you wouldn’t get any profits from it, not even a pizza party or a Friday off even after producing billions of dollars in value. There would be zero incentive to doing anything but the absolute minimum because the compensation would be exactly the same if you did or if you didn’t. Why put in 100hr+ weeks of labor for nothing? No matter how hard you worked you and your family wouldn’t get anything, your children would be treated the same as the children of a man who put in the absolute bare minimum.
I’m cool with socializing a lot of things but we need to compensate people proportionally to the quality and quantity of value they produce.
Please don’t just downvote this. I’m open to discussion and to standing corrected. If you want to downvote then downvote with a worthwhile counter to the point at hand.
I don’t have to imagine, I used to work in commercial r&d. What you are describing is the reality for almost everyone under capitalism already.
No one ever got rich by working hard. The rich got rich by exploiting the work of others.
But if they wanted to they were free to start a company and profit from their IP directly, they chose not to (assuming they didn’t personally choose to sign some perpetual non-compete of which would have still been their choice). That’s different than it being illegal to do so. No one ever got rich from working hard? I’m guessing you’re unaware of most tech founders who had an idea, left the company they were at, started their own and became wealthy. Nvidia is a good example currently. Jensen Huang worked for AMD, Chris Malachowsky worked for HP, Curtis Priem worked for IBM. They had an idea, they quit their jobs and profited directly off their IP.
This story is extremely common across so many industries. Most founders once worked for someone else, had an idea, quit, and started their own company. Imagine you just work for the government, if you have an idea well cool for you we’re not funding that and you want to quit? How about no. Oh we actually let you quit and give you funding for your idea, well your pay will never increase no matter how much value you produce or how many hours you work to bring your idea to life. You work 35 hours per week or 100, same pay. You generated 10 billion dollars of value? You don’t even get a pizza party or a short day this Friday.
I’m cool with socializing a lot of things but there needs to be a way to compensate people to some degree based on the quality and quantity of their labor. There needs to be some freedom for a person to do what they want or even take out financial risk (loans) to change what they are doing aka go to school, start a company and so on.
Edit: please don’t just downvote, actually respond with a worthwhile point. I’m more than willing to concede a debate and hopefully you are as well.
I think the entire idea of free and open source software is an example of people working for something without personal benefit. We wouldn’t be talking on Lemmy right now if people hadn’t created the ActivityPub protocol and developed the infrastructure, for instance. Hell, I’ve developed software purely out of spite.
I think if you remove the carrot from the equation, most people will still do the things they love and would still need the things that they need. If I didn’t have to work 40-60 hours a week to afford things like healthcare and housing, I’d likely be working on software that improves the lives of those around me.
I can also see projects where massive achievement wouldn’t have been accomplished without some discipline in where time is spent.
One example in games is accessibility support. That is a region where indie devs are terrible, usually because it’s not inspiring to work on. Easier to just reply to your one blind user “Look, I have limited time and a long list of bugs. It’s a video game.” But AAA, and Xbox earlier in the gen, were much better about refining that experience for people.
There’s constantly memes mocking yellow tape, but that aside the improved ways in which games teach people and bring on non-players is like night and day to the old times. You can see that when you try picking up some old games for the first time.
I love Linux now on a technical level, but I probably wouldn’t have the theme I use for the UI if not for Windows, a paid product containing lots of expensive user research and telemetry-driven changes; a lot of GNOME and KDE authors were insistent about the technical efficiency of their old window setups until they finally gave up and started copying Windows - and it IS genuinely a more intuitive environment for a lot of people.
Talk with artists about all their abandoned projects, and you can find that there’s some benefit in balancing “Do what you love” and “Ship the damn product in a complete, wrapped box”
I think we’re getting into different discussions. The jobs people don’t want to do wouldn’t evaporate. I mean unless you’re imagining a future where the majority of labor and menial mental effort is automated then yes I could definitely see people having the freedom to do whatever they desired. As of now though there are a lot of jobs that people would not want to do if there was no personal benefit in it but are still wanted or needed by society.
If the “carrot chase” IRL wasn’t so blatantly rigged, I would tepidly agree with some aspects of your thesis.
At least in academia people who produce valuable IP get credentials, fame, a percentage of the money it produces, and of course more money dedicated to their R&D. If for instance there was no benefit in them producing that IP it would be pretty tough to justify the sometimes overbearing work it requires.
Also I agree, value isn’t appropriately compensated currently. Money as a concept has departed from value production and it ought to be corrected.
In the past value was direct, food, medicine, clothes, tools and the sort and if one produced more value they could exchange it for more value aka trade more cows for more clothes and tools. There was no real way to fake value like there is with money.
I haven’t earned a dime from teaching music. I do it anyways because i want there to be a thriving [my instrument] community where i live. i teach something very, very specific that is my intellectual property (the dude who helped me develop the technique named it after me). you can’t exactly copyright doubletonguing on the sax, so i haven’t bothered filing for mine.
people like us exist, but damn i would enjoy earning a little money from my music now and then. i gotta earn it busking or playing other people’s music/instruments.
You are choosing to volunteer, that’s cool inside any system. Imagine putting in 100 hour work weeks, developing a product like the blue LED or lithium ion battery thus creating billions upon billions of dollars of revenue and you don’t even get a pizza party or a Friday off. You get the same base pay and your family gets no benefit no matter how hard you work so may as well not create any value and just do the minimum beyond what you’re impassioned to do for free like volunteering.
Also sidebar I am so awfully tempted to make a joke about double tonguing the sax. Like a sax on the beach type joke.
Oh I remember those hundred hour weeks. They nearly killed both me and my relationship with my wife, who was also doing hundred hour weeks at the time. Fortunately it only lasted five months, but like we saw each other awake twelve hours those months. It was hell.
And double tounging is the wall I’m hitting in sax right now. I think I’m breathing wrong or something. But yeah, sax and it’s techniques are full of double entendrés.
I’m pretty sure we’re both double tonguing these comments right now so to speak. If by chance you are being serious then I hope you were both appropriately compensated for the efforts and ultimately that the work was worthwhile. The innuendos seem endless.