Leauki: Your solution is the fairest but also the most destructive to society. Whenever you take society's producers out of commission it's not good for society so it should be done as a last resort.

In my opnion, the ideal but impossible to do solution would be to have the fine be calculated based on the how much someone makes per hour of labor.

So speeding might represent say 8 hours of labor. If someone makes $100 an hour, that's $800. Someone who makes $10 an hour it's $80.

But that way, you're not punishing the guy who simply works more while the lazy guy gets off easy.  It would be impossible to enforce because how do you figure out how many hours people work?  This time of year, I work 70 to 90 hours a week. But in the Summer I only work 40 to 50.

which is probably why they simplified it into a fixed fine... as long as fines are rare, making them based on how much you earn is sensible, as it works as an actual deterrent. Get too fine happy though...

So covering differences in hours worked in my example is completely ignoring that?!

You seem to have ignored what I wrote however, since MOST of the point of a fine is to deter people from doing it again. Meanwhile I'd be fascinated to see figures that show the difference in income inequality wrt income per hour and hours worked in the US after excluding parents (in case you're wondering why, parents will have higher essential costs since they're having to provide for their children as well as themselves, meaning that a $500 fine has a far greater impact on them than a single person with the same income, since the single person has more cash available to spend that isn't going on essentials. Furthermore it stands to reason that you are more likely to work part time if you have children, since the children will restrict your ability to work). In fact I'd be interested to see what you're using to back up your assertation that most income inequality is due to hours worked itself, since you seem to be using this to completely ignore the other side of it, that some people earn more per hour than others.

The benefits of the income based system are only heavily reduced when everyone earns an incredibly similar wage per hour. Once you have meaningful differences, then the equality benefits quickly emerge. Or is it just that it's fine for a poor person to have to work many more hours than a rich person in punishment, but it's a completely different thing when it's 'unfair' on the rich person?

 

Well if you punish them with a fine that is of an equal punishment level to them, they get punished the same amount, but the community benefits far more, since the amount of money they earn per hour from their job will be more than the value of any community service they do. That is, if I'm a super-rich person earning $1000 an hour, wouldn't society benefit more from saying 'we'll take 20 hours of your job's income' than 'go clean up some streets for 20 hours'?

It's the same with charity work - why go and volunteer to do some free charity work to help out others if you could work at your job for that same length of time, donate it all to the relevant charity/people, and have a far bigger impact on their life? Or in the case of a story I heard about in Italy, why distribute siezed caviar to the homeless when you could sell it and distribute the money to the homeless instead (making a far greater positive impact)?

personally i never liked the idea of fines. Fines give the state an incentive to make up crimes.

For example, red light cameras, there is a big scandal because the minimum SAFE period for a yellow light has been determined. But many counties are installing red light cameras, and setting the yellow light below the safe minimum, resulting in a 95% increase of rear end collisions in those intersections. (but also a great increase in their fine income)

If a crime is REALLY severe (mass murder, etc): death

If a crime is major / not 100% certain about a really severe crime: life in prison

If a crime is medium (graft, etc): imprisonment...

And for minor crimes either very short stints in jail (aka, a few days for a speeding), or corporal punishment (aka, a few lashing for vandalism) depending on the NATURE of the crime. (jail is appropriate for speeding, lashing is appropriate for vandalism, but not vice versa... actually I don't think anything other than vandalism should warrant a lashing)

Yes, a week in prison for a "great producer" is more detrimental for a non producer in the abstract. But if they keep on commiting crimes than they are not such great producers are they? If speeding resulting a few days in jail, regardless of your money or status. I doubt you would see bill gates in jail, often or at all.

Firstly, he could have a professional driver, so he cannot speed.

And secondly, he KNOWS the value of his time and will just not speed.

...

 

 

...

 

Quoting was messed up again. Trying to fix...

...

Everyone has some free time. They can either spend it doing what they like or working off a fine.




Hm...




What about mandatory prison time?




Most people are employed or work on contract basis. The problem is that contractors make a lot per hour but are not working all the time. So this still wouldn't work.

I think the simplest and fairest way is to treat everyone the same. And it that is a problem because some people are richer than others, take their time, not their money. Everyone has the same amount of time, except those who collect unemployment benefits who have more time and should thus have to do double time.

Only if the state gets to keep the fine.

Considering how little interest the western world has in giving aid to Africa (rather than Gaza), distributing any such fines to the world's hungry would not give the state an incentive to make up crimes.

 

I am strictly against the death penalty within the context of the legal system for any crime.

And you are forgetting an entire category of crimes. Even mass murder does not necessarily challenge the foundations of the legal system. Open rebellion is worse than mass murder.

 

No corporal punishment. We are not Saudi Arabia! Our governments do not have permission to physically hurt us except when it has to to stop us from hurting others.

 

doesn't matter what country you are in. Vandalism is a sign of a severe and deeply ingrained immaturity and lack of respect towards another's property. It is not THEFT, there is not a single benefit to the vandal. They simply get to destroy something. The solution for such a thing is a beating. This is the ONLY crime I can think of that warrants a beating.

Why are you against the death penalty? And also... Don't give me things like "10 years waiting period and costs" since those are not inherantly part of the death penalty, but rather problems with its implementation in the USA. I am also against the faulty implementation of the death penalty that we have, but I Am for it in general for very severe cases.

Yes, but they obviously do get to keep the fine. I have never heard of any fines anywhere ever in human history where the state did not keep it.

And even if it went to someone else, there is still an incentive to fine more (ex: to increase charity funds, lets raise the fines)

why not?

A crime should be, by definition, hurting others. If a crime is something that hurts noone than that government is tyrranical.
So either they are NOT a tyrannical government, in which case physical punishment is appropriate FOR CRIMES because crimes are hurting others. Or they are tyrannical in which case they don't care.

Or do you mean stop us from hurting others as in... stop us IN THE ACT rather then prevent us from repeating the act? aka... if you are holding a hostage you can be hurt, but if you already commited the crime and was cought you cannot be further hurt to deter repetition of said crime? 

Besides all of these... isn't incarcaration and capital punishment "hurting" someone? Fines are the ONLY punishment form that does not hurt you.

Indeed, one of my general objections has to do with speeding laws at all.

It's such an arbitrary thing. Give tickets/fines/whatever for reckless driving enforcing an arbitrary speed obnoxious.

Like you said, punishing people for doing things that don't hurt anyone is tyranny.

that is taking it one step further, but yes, a lot of the driving regulations are regulations for regulation sake... or for making money for the district since they DO keep the fines.

The counter is that speeding IS reckless driving and could lead to deadly accidents. But I seriously doubt there has been much research to determine the "safe" speeds for different zones. I could be wrong though, maybe this is one of those things the government did NOT muck up and is all based on scientific research of the amount of accidents happening at different speed limits.

So if you have more info I welcome it

There has been research on the difference in stopping distances based on your speed, and the likelihood of hitting someone being fatal at different speeds. This has then factored into speed limits, meaning that speed is restricted around residential areas. It's not perfect, but it's much better than letting people speed around as fast as their cars allow them to on roads with schools. Speed limits are there for a reason - speed kills.

I just wish driving regulations were actually enforced - there have been a number of times now I've almost been killed because of some reckless driver ignoring the laws of the road and almost smashing into me - maybe they decide that the red light doesn't apply to them, and they'll just race through it without caring for the poor pedestrian crossing the road, or the vehicle crossing their path. Maybe they'll just decide to reverse out onto the main road without bothering to check that actually there's someone there who they'll hit. Maybe they drive at reckless speeds meaning that should something unexpected occur they'll likely kill someone. Maybe they'll get impatient and decide to overtake me by driving on the other side of the road (i.e. the wrong direction) when I'm about to turn down a road. Maybe they'll suddenly overtake me and execute a sharp turn infront of me without warning forcing me to slam on the brakes and hope I don't hit them (in that case I did hit them and was lucky to escape with only minor injuries). In fact even if you do kill someone chances are you can get away with it - just drive off straight away and you've a good chance of escaping, and even if you do get caught you needn't worry about facing a life sentance for killing someone else. A few months in jail coupled with good behaviour and you'll be out on the streets again.

I phrased that badly.. I am sure there is research, I mean I don't think our great representatives at washington are basing their decisions on scientific research. They never do in any field, so why would they in traffic safety? I think the speed limits are based on the uncorroborated opinions and knee jerk reactions of our elective representatives without taking research into account.

There, much better.

 

Speaking of almost getting killed... in the US you can do a right on red, it is legal. When a pedestrian has a green light to cross the road, the traffic to their left can do a right on red, both of them performing a legal manuever. I almost got run over by an 18 wheeler like that.

My main grief with speed limits is on high ways. that's where I tend to have a lead foot.

I have a better idea regarding punishing irresponsible behavior in society's member. And this idea is not about criminal behavior, but dangerously irresponsible. What do I qualify as dangerously irresponsible?

1) Druken Driving (and drugged, etc..)

2) Any overly dangerous driving habits (like 80 kmh in a residential area, 200 kmh on highways, road-rage)

3) Hit and Run

What don't qualify as irresponsible behavior, but rather as criminal behavior is theft, assault, rape, etc... those should be dealt in other ways than my idea.

Irresponsible behavior is not born out of the desire to do harm, but merely on the lack of forethoughts for their fellow human beings (and themselves). They aren't bad people, they just act stupid. When a children do something wrong (usually because he hasn't thought it through), you have to punish him. A good way of upbringing your children should encompass various methods of punishing/rewarding. Punishment can be qualified into those three categories: taking away his toys (fine), grounding him (restrain), or spanking (corporal punishment). You might think of others, and you are welcomed to include them if they are relevant to the current situation.

Now, the situation we are talking about isn't like punishing a kid because he have done something downright evil (it's not retribution), but because you want him to stop doing so for his own good (and other people's). See of it as "educational" punishment. You want the peoples who acts irresponsibly to think about it twice the next time they have the opportunity to do such wrong.

The current punishments are usually either jail or fine (or driving license suspension). But as talked in this topic, it's not always fair. A 400$ fine to man A might be completely devastating to his budget, while man B while shrug it away without a second thought.

Taking away the driving licence then might seems to be the best action. I am not so sure. Some people can do away without their car just fine, but others absolutely rely on it for various reasons (profession and social). One person can actually loose his job because having his driving license taken away (delivery man, taxi driver, or just far suburb resident), while the other one can simply take urban transit system. It's not fair.

Jail time. Now, the USA seems to have noticed that Jail time isn't the solution to all problem. It's costly to everybody, the recidivist rate is horrible, and people seems to get out of it worse than they came in. ESPECIALLY if the offense wasn't a criminally-minded one. The man acted stupid, and he will get in jail near the actual criminals because of it. Do you think that will make him a better man?

Also, jailing is very bad for the family of the punished man. A jailed man's family loose one income. The kids are away from their father.

What remains? Corporal punishment. (I am thinking of the Whip). Many people will think of it as barbarian and cruel, but think of it for a second:

1- Everybody feels it equally. A rich man or poor. A white or black. A man or woman. Old man or a youth.

2- It's instantly. If you have a doctor standing by the whole time the punishment is administred (and first aid is immediatly administred right after - but not for the pain), he can make sure that there won't be lasting injuries that will impede the punishee for the rest of his life.

3- You don't impede his capacity to work as a productive member of the society. You don't even fine him, you don't take away his driving license, you keep the whole sentencing/punishing secret. Only the offender and the justice system will know, and that's ennough.

Please note, corporal punishment as kids is often frown upon because... Well, because many parents abuse it. It's the "easy" solution in their stupid mind, and many of them only use it to enforce a sentiment of superiority over their kinds. Which is why it can get out of hand. But a good parent will never completely dismiss the option. When it comes to the situation of having the governement doing it, we have to be careful about remembering: It's not exacting retribution on the man that commited the fault. It's about making him remember never to do it again.

Do you think the man will remember his lashing the next time he is about to get into his car while drunk? You haven't broken his life into pieces. You haven't destroyed his budget. His family will still have the father/mother. And you might have made him a more councious citizen about his fellow beings. The only damage you done to him was temporary damage to his body.

I'd say, it's less cruel than potentially destroy a man's life, wallet (or anus).

Cikomyr I have to completely agree with everything you said, this is exactly my point on the issue.

I would like to elaborate: taking away his toys (fine), grounding him (restrain), or spanking (corporal punishment) are indeed the three general punishments for a child / non criminal offense. The problem with an adult (or an extremely problematic child due to bad parenting), is that taking away the toys or grounding is not only unfair but extremely ineffective. You should avoid overusing corporeal punishment, but don't rule it outright. Many adults can go their entire lives without ever commiting an infraction that justifies such a punishment. But many badly raised "adults" require more drastic measures to rectify the chronic lack of discipline by their parents.

quote]MOST income inequality in the United States is due to amount of hours worked. Not differences in per hour.[/quote]

That's at the heart of this, isn't it?  If people get paid different because they have different jobs, then pay is more about status and pie-slicing.  If they get paid different because they have different hours, then pay is more about work effort.

At first glance, it seems unlikely that hours worked is the main cause of income inequality because hours only vary from 20 to 80 per week and there is much more than 4x inequality in income. 

At second glance, it seems like a bogus correlation because lower-income jobs tend not to be able to change their income through hours worked -- from Wal-Mart's 32-hour hires to McDonald's straight 40 hour, no overtime, to my mandatory overtime.  Whereas higher-level jobs have salaries, "allowing" them to work more hours per week.  Not that I've ever seen someone's income increase by working long hours for salaried jobs either.  I really think 90% of the meritocracy in America takes place in the 90th percentile and above.  Down here I just don't see it.

 

How many hours does a McDonald's worker spend outside work studying and preparing for his job?

I spend about an hour every evening and most of Sunday learning and preparing for my work.

 

I have. Ever since I started spending lots of time studying for work my income has gone up and I am now at more than twice what I was at 5 years ago.

 

I think there is a point where one starts seeing it. What do you do on your weekends?

 

Research indicates it doesn't increase... cutting down hours you get the exact same amount of work, because workers care more and are less tired.

It doesn't matter that much though - there are not enough hours in a day to be able to explain away much of the difference in earnings by hours worked alone, even if including 'preparation time' as hours worked.

Realistically you're not going to be able to work more than 16 hours a day (and even that is a big stretch) - you need some time to sleep, eat, get to work etc., and if you start going below a certain level you'll negatively impact on your productivity. Simple maths then shows that even if you worked that unrealistic level of hours you're not going to be rich.

Pay is typically based on ability rather than hours worked. You can demand a high salary/wage if you have skills that few other people have which are valuable, meaning that firms want to pay lots of money to get you. Hence low skilled jobs are low paying, high skilled jobs are high paying. A university graduate can expect to earn significantly more on average than someone without a degree, and that's not even differentiating between those getting good grades in good subjects. Your typical job is also a 9-5 type one - you'll have part time workers and overtime factoring in, but your typical person will be working those sorts of hours. In fact with some jobs (such as salary based ones) you won't even get paid any extra for working longer hours.

 

Also consider that quite a few rich people get income from savings/wealth (involving next to no hours worked yet a hefty income) - you could work as much as is physically possible yet not manage to get even close to the same income that they get without lifting a finger.

look, its not A or B, its A AND B.

money = time worked x money made per hour.

It is that simple. Saying its all one or the other doesn't make any sense because its A x B = C.

That's if you ignore what I said about income going up if you have learned more.

Generally, I found, income goes up if you work longer hours and/or if you invest more time in becoming better at what you do.

40 hours per week for 10 dollars an hour gets you 400 dollars.

50 hours per week for 10 dollars an hour gets you 500 dollars.

And this is where you continue with the calculations, at some point arriving at a point where you run out of hours, I assume.

But that's not it.

50 hours per week for 10 dollars an hour plus 10 hours a week work-related study gets you 500 dollars.

But a year later they will pay you 20 dollars an hour, and you can go back to 40 hours per week plus 10 hours for study.

And that's where most people seem to fail. It's between the "more hours now, more money now" and the "more hours now, more money later" part of the plan that any people fail. Draginol would call this the "delayed gratification" effect and he explain to you why some people are able to work hard and delay gratification (i.e. success or payment) while others cannot.

Personally, I am bad at delaying gratification. But I have two other factors to play with that allow me some success career-wise. Most things I want are either more expensive than I can afford or so cheap that I can buy them and still come out ahead. That's one trick that allows me to move forward without delaying gratification. The other trick is that I actually like my job and enjoy learning for it. Hence investing those extra hours do not take away from my "gratification time".

Either way, income differences have to do with how much time one invests in working. It's just that that isn't all.

But a McDonald's worker who also spends a few hours every week doing something else that is productive will eventually make more money, including per hour.

 

 

That's not strictly true. Research shows you get diminishing returns.

But a person working 60 hours a week still gets more done on average than someone working 40 hours per week.  It's just that it's not a linear progression.

he MIGHT, he might not...

I had worked at a job where there was noone directly supervising me before (from home). Originally I replaced a team of 3 people... I kept on inventing new time saving methods. I started off doing 7 hours a day. I ended up doing triple the work in under 2 hours. Since all the bosses saw was me handling more work, and not how many hours it TOOK me to do the work, it was smooth sailing, and I had a huge incentive to efficientize myself.

That's the best kind of boss. He looks at how much work you achieve, not how much hours you are at your workstation.