[KSagal]

First off, I agree that Rolacoy's descriptions were overly simplistic, but feel I understand what he was trying to express, as I feel it likely that others understood as well, regardless of other nuances expressed in their responses...

The simplistic definition of the rewards for all work done is evenly distributed regardless of individual input being socialistic, is reasonable in my opinion.

The simplistic definition of the rewards for all work done directly responding to the amount of individual input and effort by each singular worker to be more like capitalism is also reasonable in my opinion.

Neither is textbook accurate, but understandable.

Just to throw my own opinion into the mix, as I read the posting, I considered it reflected more more like my understanding of Marxism. The idea of each contributing to the level they were able, (with age and distractions accounted for) and each received a level that each required to make them happy (for soda and candy).

If I were the kid that did the most of the work, and did not get more of the money than anyone else, I would be unhappy. However, they did not stack the bricks in a manner that would have allowed for easy payment commensurate with individual effort. It also may have been more efficient to have one person prying with a shovel, another pulling the brick from the sand, a third transporting them to the pile area, and a fourth stacking them. All like bees in a hive, all small parts, but great things get done efficiently that way.

If I were the kid that played most of the time, but got a 2/3 share relative to the kid who did most of the work, I would be happy, but would have learned that I can play, while others work, and still get paid almost as much. That is pretty socialistic in my mind.

As far as contracts and whatnot, the rules seem to have been clear at some point in the mind of Rolacoy, but the kids all stacked in one pile, and therefore the contract required equal payment. Yet, administering this was delegated to the hard worker, who felt that equal to all was unfair, and it was. His solution was closer to his understanding of capitalism, payment directly related to what he felt each kid did. However, it was delegated, and then someone seems to have stepped on his decisions, and that also sounds communistic/socialistic to me.

I did not do the child labor law consideration at all. The church did not seem to hire these kids, a volunteer seems to have offered a prize or bonus for effort from kids. It may be contrary if it was done to their detriment, but it was not. And, they were not paid for the work they did. As I see it, three kids got more than they earned, and one got less than he earned. Since the three were over compensated relative to their work, and one got screwed, there are other labor laws that may come to play. As two got more than contracted (equal pay for all if bricks are in one pile) and two got less than contracted, again, fairness in labor laws may apply. I suppose breach of contract may be in order either way.

But, this is like giving a 3 year old a ticket for riding his bike on the sidewalk. It may be illegal, but is hardly appropriate.

Interesting debate. Thanks Rolacoy, engaging post.