Chain of necessity or chain of distribution

0  

In a group effort there are people who contribute more than others - there are those who contribute time and those who contribute money. There are others who do one off help. We should reward all these people fairly.

YAML 想法

Imagine a community has a community farm or kitchen. The profit - the food or produce should be distributed fairly.

Everyone who contributes should receive a reward for their efforts. The people who do the majority of the work should receive the lion's share. The manual labourers in the kitchen or farm should receive the most.

We need some way to vote on the distribution of gains. A project can only succeed if it has capital owners and workers. They are both necessary for success. But the workers do more of the work.

This is like a proportional vote except we vote on percentages for returns.

I don't think Blockchain or contracts solves this problem.



(别通知) (可选) 请,登录

我更看重非创造性的工作而不是创造性的工作。 没有非创造性的工作,我们就没有水、食物或电子产品。

至少没有创意,我们仍然会有食物和水。

创造性的工作比艰苦的工作更容易。

I value the noncreative work more than creative work. Without the noncreative work we wouldn't have water, food or electronics.

At least without creatives we would still have food and water.

Creative work is easier than hard labour.



    :  -- 
    : Mindey
    :  -- 
    

chronological,

人们可以设想两种粗略的工作类别,创造性工作和非创造性的重复性劳动。创造性工作导致设计新事物。一旦创建,新的人工制品就可以被其他人重复使用。非创造性的、重复的劳动包括重复一项任务以实现一些有用的目标,但不会产生任何新的想法、技术、服务或艺术形式。为了当今社会的运转,两者都是必需的。我们的文化更重视创造性工作,体现在专利、商业秘密和竞争优势上。独角兽是基于一个创造性的新想法创建的,而工厂工人则因为一遍又一遍地重复相同的任务而获得少量工资。与重复性任务相比,新想法的价值是什么?也许智能机器人有一天会消除大多数形式的人类劳动,随着自动化程度的提高,我们正在接近这个极限。我们如何重新思考我们的奖励制度,使其成为一个公平的社会,而不是更加不平等的社会?在我看来,需要有一个普遍的基本收入来保证人类福祉的最低水平,并且可以奖励创意人员,但不能过度,因为我们一再证明富人缺乏生活在其中的情感成熟度行星边界。例如,奢侈品的整个概念,其设计具有高碳足迹并旨在吸引消费精英,无非是加剧了不平等并破坏了我们的生态系统。人们应该因为他们的创造力而获得奖励,但也应该因为他们花时间做非创造性的工作来造福他人。毕竟,时间是最宝贵的商品,如果我们用它的一部分来完成一项必要但无法完成的任务,我们应该因为放弃一部分生活而受到认可......这就是我们所做的我们从事一份不令人满意的工作,只是支付账单。

One can conceive of two rough categories of work, creative work and noncreative, repetitive labor. Creative work results in the design of something new. Once created, that new artefact can be reused by others. Noncreative, repetitive labor consists of repeating a task in order to achieve some goal that is useful, but does not result in any new ideas, technologies, service or art form. Both are needed in order for present day society to operate. Creative work is valued more by our culture, reflected in patents, trade secrets and competitive advantages. Unicorns are created based on a creative new idea, while factory worker receives a small wage for their repeating the same task over and over. What is the value of new ideas compared to repetitive tasks? Perhaps intelligent robots will one day eliminate most forms of human labor, and as automation increases, we are approaching that limit. How do we rethink our system of rewards to be a fair society and not one of even greater inequality? It would seem to me that there needs to be a universal basic income that guarantees a minimum level of human wellbeing, and creatives can be rewarded, but not excessively as we have proven over and over again that the wealthy lack the emotional maturity to live within planetary boundaries. For example, the entire notion of luxury goods, that are high carbon footprint by design and designed to appeal to the consumerist elite does nothing more than reinforce inequality and degrade our ecosystems. People should be rewarded for their creativity but also for giving their time doing noncreative work to benefit others. After all, time is the most precious commodity of all, and if we use part of it to do a necessary but unfulfilling task, we deserve to be recognized for giving away a part of our life....which is what we do when we work at an unfulfilling job that just pays the bills.


我想知道对这件事投票的公式是否是每个人百分比的平均值。

有人说 40% 另一个人说 60% 应该给钱的贡献者。平均值为 50%。

对每个贡献者重复。

I wonder if the formula for voting on this thing is an average of everybody's percentages.

Someone says 40% another person says 60% should go to the money contributors. The average is 50%.

Repeat for each contributor.


也许, bc 可以成为解决方案的一部分。它可以作为托管服务,受合同监管。在每个人都同意之前,不会释放代币。它只是一个公正的仲裁员。它的服务的确切使用方式是一个不同的主题,但它肯定会在外面使用人和其他结构。我同意 bc 本身不是解决方案,但它可以是解决方案的一部分。一组典型的解决方案可供社区遵循。

Perhaps, bc can be part of a solution. It can serve as an escrow service, regulated by contract. The tokens are not released till everyone is in agreement. It's just an impartial arbitrator. Exactly how it's services are used is a different subject, but it def would take humans and additional structure outside. I agree that by itself bc is not the solution, but it can be a part of solution. A set of typical solutions can be available to communities to follow.


语言