While I accept that it might not be so bad once you get used to it, I really can't imagine any reason that it could be a good thing.
The government could also compulsorily publish photos of everybody's genitals every year. Again, you'd probably get used to it, and it probably wouldn't be as bad as it sounds, but I can't see any upside to it.
> I really can't imagine any reason that it could be a good thing.
It means that anyone who's interviewing for a job at a company can look up what everyone else at the company makes, so they don't have to waste time interviewing with companies that pay too little, and it gives them better negotiating leverage.
In general, it pushes the labor market toward being an ideal liberal market. Marx thought that would result in the wages of labor falling to just above its cost of production, i.e. just enough to feed and clothe you. It looks like he was wrong.
Marx had a labor theory of value, just like adam smith which is entirely wrong. The cost of a good is determined by the value it provides to the consumer. The consumer will not pay more than the value it provides the to them. In Marx's view the cost of a good is determined by how much it cost to produce.
I have the impression that the standard economic doctrine was that the cost of a good was determined by where the supply curve intersects the demand curve — which is to say, the point at which the amount it costs to produce it is equal to how much value it provides to the consumer.
This in itself doesn't contradict Marx's point (and what Marx thought the real value of things was is irrelevant). The point where he got it wrong was apparently in equating the cost of keeping a laborer alive with the cost of their labor.
To elaborate, if you're not familiar with these ideas of supply and demand curves, the idea is that as you produce more and more of something, the cost to produce it eventually starts to go up forever.
For example, working 20 hours a week might have a negative cost, working 40 hours a week means you don't have a lot of socializing time, working 80 hours a week means you have no leisure time unless you have someone else to cook and clean for you, working 100 hours a week means you're sleep-deprived and have time for neither leisure nor cooking and cleaning, working 168 hours a week is invariably fatal within a few months, and working more than that is impossible.
On the other side, the incremental value to the consumer diminishes after some point, ultimately reaching zero. A single fork per person is useful every day, six forks per person is useful only when they invite friends over or want to postpone doing the dishes, thirty forks per person is useful only if you're doing funky art projects by bending forks, and 300 forks per person would be valuable only as scrap metal, i.e. the labor that went into making them produced zero or even negative value.
The theory is that these two curves must intersect in at least one point, and that's the market equilibrium. It's commonly assumed that they intersect in only one point because they're monotonic, but that's probably not true.
The consumer will pay at most the value that it provides them; however the producer will charge at least the cost to produce the item.
If the former is less than the latter, obviously there is no sale. If the latter is less than the former, then the price will be somewhere in between these points - exactly where is the interesting thing.
> It means that anyone who's interviewing for a job at a company
> can look up what everyone else at the company makes, so they
> don't have to waste time interviewing with companies that pay
> too little, and it gives them better negotiating leverage.
It also means you can see how much your co-workers are making. This can create resentment if two people doing the same job with the same experience make different amounts of money.
Ironically, this seems to be where the US is headed, if its ever-growing income disparity is any indicator. If you are paid $50k/yr, that's enough to feed and clothe you and then some, and those at the top are free to pocket the excess.
It will be interesting to see if Norway's new law causes workers to value their labor more highly.
Edit: apparently this is old news! I wonder what effect is has had...
It would force a flattening out of the pay structure in the US. It is up for debate whether or not its a GOOD thing. But that is what it would accomplish because envy is so disruptive in the workplace.
Try cutting wages on middle/lower tier workers if they know exactly how much upper mgmt makes. Tough to look a man in the eye while trying to extract some value out for yourself.
When tax time came around I received papers from the government with a completely filled out tax form based upon all of my public information. If everything was OK I would sms a code back to them and my taxes were done.
Same thing in Finland. If I remember correctly, there's even a number you could text the full name of any tax payer and get his income in the previous year.
Well, news from 2009. Not surprising as this has been well known for years.
You can also look up anyones name from a phone number, and anyones address from a name ;)
Wouldn't that be a deterrent for anyone who wants to establish a business in Norway?
Look at the quotes : "Actress and director Liv Ullmann, for instance, earned $17k ... Pioneering women's long-distance runner Grete Waitz, a nine-time New York City Marathon champion, earned $13k"
Either their best and brightest are dirt poor or they prefer earning and keeping their money abroad.
If that was the objective of the law, it's a success.
I looked up the New York City marathon prize. Apparently the winner (men's and women's) gets $130K for winning the first time, or $200K if a repeat winner. So she should have amassed something approaching two million dollars in marathon prize money alone by now. Sounds like she's keeping it somewhere other than Norway.
Yes. Actually, the public information is not the income or value of property, but the amount of tax paid on these, which means that the numbers splashed all over the internet are estimates (for instance, people with zero-income dependants are taxed at a lower rate).
You really think a world-class actor and directory is going to make serious money in a market of 4.8 million people? I think Ullman's business abroad is motivated by other things.
I don't think you can do it. Technically, the lists are available (for a short time if I am not mistaken) for perusal at a tax office; in practice, they are released to the media (e.g. major news outlets), who give you access to search by name plus league tables and aggregated statistics by year of birth, postcode etc.
Actually, the article is a "contrast and compare" statement. Norway is relatively open in its treatment of money and government, witness their handling of taxes. Alternatively, the US is relatively opaque, witness the article. I am not sure that I support either over the other. I had hoped to spur a conversation on the issue. I failed. It isn't the first time. Probably won't be the last. Perhaps because I am new to this process of posting and commenting, I failed to understand that it is necessary to draw the line. My apologies.
That I did get. Not only did I not get a discussion going,(not for the points--but for the discussion) but at least two people were honestly confused by the post. What I have yet to learn is how deeply to comment if I should comment at all. I'd really like to contribute. But its clear that I would do well to stick to the reading unless its really, really in my field.
The government could also compulsorily publish photos of everybody's genitals every year. Again, you'd probably get used to it, and it probably wouldn't be as bad as it sounds, but I can't see any upside to it.