Why does Phil Ivy deserve to make millions of dollars?

I can't see any way professional poker players add any value to the world, if anything, I can see an argument that they make the world a worse place. Professional poker players make poker games decrease in expected value for casual players, which otherwise might be a break even hobby. They take their natural intelligence and, rather than use it for anything that could be of positive utility for society, they play games.

So why does Phil Ivy deserve to make millions of dollars? You could say he has taken time to develop a set of skills and should be rewarded; however, surely there is a teacher out there somewhere who is a better teacher than Phil Ivy is a poker player, and yet the teacher is not financially rewarded for honing her craft, despite the fact that she is indisputably of more value to society.

I think it is arguably fair to say the most important job in the world is president of the United States, yet why is paid for his services less than the president of Duncan Donuts?

The income system is not based on effort nor difficulty--otherwise migrant farm workers and single mothers would be paid millions. It is not based on education or intelligence, or teachers and scientists would be paid more than ceos. I don't see how any of this can be considered ethical, how it is ethical for Mitt Romney to get paid for doing nothing in interest, where the exploited lower "class" gets paid for doing jobs that you couldn't pay the upper "class" to do.

For the most part "the market" decides the incomes of modern human beings, but I can't think of any reason to say that it is the best system, (it is certainly not the most moral), so why shouldn't we change it? Shouldn't our income system, the same as all other human collective systems strive for ideals of fairness equality and morality? These are the ideals that civilized countries are founded on, why not our income system?

What's your suggestion of a more moral system?

Every read any Ayn Rand? She believes capitalism is the most moral system ever devised. Not saying she's right, but she makes a lot of points which might cause you to question your premise.

So you think pay scales should be based on the level of importance of a position? Who do you think should judge which jobs are more or less important? Between a farmer, teacher, emergency room doctor, and inventor which job is more important and where will the money come from to pay each position? Do you think you personally have the right to determine which position is more important and which should get paid more, do you think it should be up to a democratic vote by society, or what other method? Can you think of or come up with a system that determines the importance and pay scale of jobs that would be fair to everyone?

I think if you thoughtfully go through all of these questions you will run yourself in circles and come to the conclusion that no system you come up with will be fair to everyone. Maybe if you spend a lifetime of work on it you can develop a system of government that is more fair than all existing ones. Sincerely, best of luck :-)

Our income system is founded on standing on the little guy. The rich stand on the shoulders of the poor and that's just how it goes.

Unless of course enough of the poor decide they don't want to hold up the rich any longer, and then the rich have to whatever the poor decide. The illusion of the rich majority having all the power comes from the fact that the minority of rich find ways to coerce and manipulate the weaker more gullible majority.

The problem is the word moral. It shouldn't be used for a a scientific analysis...

If you ask if there is an utility from poker players to society equivalent to dollar compensation comparable to other professions there is a simple answer:

Nature is the most efficient self correcting algo out there - capital markets emulate this. Your question is equivalent of that if lions are moral in the nature (exploitation).... National Geography would say that on average lions take only week gazelles and provide efficiency to the nature

there was actually some pretty good attempts to classify this by work time, school, innovation factor.... if I remember correctly how long you work per day was the lest significant factor vs the ratio of people that can do what you do and the market demand

People participating in serious competition serve as entertainment for people watching. This goes for all sports, and, well, every form of competition. Everyone wins. And people not caring, well... they don't have to care, and competition is almost never foced upon people.

One main point would be that, if you don't want Ivy to take your money, then simply don't play on his table.

Also "Instead of participating in society, they play games".

At first, this is wht I thought about the world. But really it depends on what you think the purpose of life is, or if you think there is one. For example, some people might think the purpose of their life is to strive at what they are good at, in which case Ivy isn't aimlesslessly going round taking money from people. He is pushing himself to the limit in what he is good at. Many people would see this as a good thing. Another thing is that "you should enjoy what you do in life (if you hav ethe opportunity to do so)". In this sense, Ivy is "doing good things", not "doing bad things".

The question is, who actually loses out from Ivy being a good poker playing and using this as his life earnings? I don't know there is anyone. Even the people who challenge him knowing that they are probably going to lose might play him in order to improve their poker skills.

In conclusion, things aren't as black and white as "play random games is bad for society". You should see things from different peoples' point of view, as well as cosely assessing what might be the aims of society as a whole.

I personally believe that we aren't just born, we live, then we die, and that we should live to maximize everything in society. The experience of living in itself is invaluable. The experience of enjoyment is invaluable. The experience of learning is invaluable

Disagree. There is no "most important" job (but there are lots of important ones). Just because there are lots of people wanting to be the US president, that doens't mean that it is an important job. Responsibilty =/= important (unless you are defining important = responsibility)

A lot of rationalization in your post. Anything that prolongs lifespan is +EV since death is the end of the game. Building efficient society from Roman Empire to modern democratic prolonged average life from 40 to 80 years. Therefore.... (you do the math)

So the problem is that OP should've asked a different question? Wat?

Obviously, without an understanding of how things work (that's what we need science for), we probably can't answer whether the income system is moral.

[?] scientific analysis
[x] implicitly assumes debatable moral claims

Whether he deserves it or not is only a problem for the small-minded. Its not a moral issue.

What is the good for society to have money from clueless gamblers be transferred to smart gamblers?

Why do you/should you have to "sign yourself up to society"? If you think that everyone should do this then this is just your point of view.

Yep, buyers and sellers freely agreeing on a price at which they both gain value, certainly sounds immoral to me.

Ideally, we want money and resources to pass from the lazy and careless to the clever and industrious. In poker you have such a transfer of money. Even if we are only talking about the rake.