Read on Twitter
'The rules of capitalism' = Work will be rewarded to the extent that it facilitates making stuff that people enjoy enough to pay for.
To be outraged about this exchange bc your prefs are unusual is a v.entitled way of looking at the world.
https://twitter.com/kurtruslfanclub/status/1231894698081390593
To be outraged about this exchange bc your prefs are unusual is a v.entitled way of looking at the world.
https://twitter.com/kurtruslfanclub/status/1231894698081390593
Context: I've been a programmer and an artist professionally. I prefer being an artist most of the time. Though the market 'prefers' me to code (in the sense of better money compensation). Moreover, the art that I make appeals to a tiny niche only ctd.
This doesn't imply though that the market is bad at directing human resources for making art. Me and you: Our individual aesthetic/cultural preferences aren't the center of the universe. They can't be the yardstick for assessing whether the market 'works' in this regard.
It's call the *law* of supply and demand, rather than the *convention* of supply and demand, because it's non-negotiable, it's an immutable fact of human existence (not of capitalism). You can ignore it if you like, but you'll suffer.
"What a coincidence, that every professional role I take on is so undervalued!" https://twitter.com/dannycantalk/status/1231904774649335808
And it's notoriously difficult for an individual to 'beat the market', excepting the lucky ones who do so now and then by chance. Hence the existence of index funds. https://twitter.com/mechanicalmonk1/status/1231906365314084865
Difficult to continue the convo after being blocked but: My claim wasn't that markets always assign correct prices. My claim: If you're claiming t market is wrong and you want ppl to take that idea seriously you have to do better than "bc i think artists are underpaid"
And I don't mean this meme in the sense of "suck it up loser!"
rather:
"the disconnect between the market and your taste might be uncomfortable, but we non-representative-taste-havers can bear this with dignity, instead of resentment and entitlement".
rather:
"the disconnect between the market and your taste might be uncomfortable, but we non-representative-taste-havers can bear this with dignity, instead of resentment and entitlement".
How do you determine what would be 'right' to pay for a person's work, if it's not an amount you're mutually willing to sell/buy that work for? (which will natch be influenced by competition, between both workers and employers hoping to hire).
I think he genuinely doesn't see that he's doing this, and how vain it is:
"I, guided by my feelings, know better than the market does, what the correct wage for animators should be"
"I, guided by my feelings, know better than the market does, what the correct wage for animators should be"
"capitalism produces unfairness"
Capitalism allows us to enjoy many mutually beneficial trades (+ material prosperity) while we do our best to come to terms with the unfairness of the universe that was already there.
Capitalism allows us to enjoy many mutually beneficial trades (+ material prosperity) while we do our best to come to terms with the unfairness of the universe that was already there.
Hypothetical: X & Y are games jobs. Both are equal in all relevant ways, except many more people find Xing intrinsically enjoyable. So more Xers are bidding against each other to get work = lower X wages. Is this a problem? Why? https://twitter.com/pokedstudiouk/status/1231957220285349888
Then you get grinding poverty via the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism. Market prices carry information, hinder that transfer at your peril.
https://mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth https://twitter.com/pokedstudiouk/status/1231962802392379393
https://mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealth https://twitter.com/pokedstudiouk/status/1231962802392379393
A wage is a price. By price fixing you erase important information from the market. I made a cartoon with Howie Baetjer Jr. for @LearnLiberty exploring why that's a bad idea:
I don't want economic equality. Neither should you. I want people to command resources in proportion to how good they are at using them to satisfying people's wants. Capitalism tends towards this situation.
I get the labor theory of value. It was obsoleted long ago.
https://blog.georgeoughttohelp.com/exploitation-theory-was-obsoleted-long-ago/ https://twitter.com/BrookeHodgman/status/1232105773381013504
https://blog.georgeoughttohelp.com/exploitation-theory-was-obsoleted-long-ago/ https://twitter.com/BrookeHodgman/status/1232105773381013504
Hear that? It's the haunting sound of still failing to offer any alternative way of determining a 'fair' wage, or of grounding a claim that 'role X is underpaid'. https://twitter.com/joewintergreen/status/1232051154692915200
Like OP, his defenders choose to privilege *their subjective feelings* ('Poor animators!') over the outcomes of a global nexus of voluntary exchange, as a way of determining wages. You need quite a high opinion of yourself to do this. https://twitter.com/joewintergreen/status/1232054168182902785
'Entitled' is an appropriate way of describing someone who privileges his gut feelings about correct pricing over the outcomes of a global network of voluntary exchange.
Essentially "All of you are wrong, change the price to conform to my feelings" https://twitter.com/GarethFouche/status/1232207945242378241
Essentially "All of you are wrong, change the price to conform to my feelings" https://twitter.com/GarethFouche/status/1232207945242378241
I won't claim the market delivers fair prices. I don't believe there is such a thing as a fair/unfair price.
imo 'a fair price' usually means:
1 "What the market will bear" or
2 "What I would offer/ask for the thing myself, under some set of conditions"
imo 'a fair price' usually means:
1 "What the market will bear" or
2 "What I would offer/ask for the thing myself, under some set of conditions"
What the market *does* do, is coordinate the allocation of resources very efficiently (not perfectly) for satisfying human wants, through the price mechanism. That's a big deal.
humans have a finite amount of energy & time to gather, move, and combine resources.
money = tokens for manipulating resources.
i don't want economic equality bc i *want* those most skilled at allocating resources to satisfy wants to have access the the most resources.
money = tokens for manipulating resources.
i don't want economic equality bc i *want* those most skilled at allocating resources to satisfy wants to have access the the most resources.
a sensible (but imo not dispositive) objection here is that the wants people have might not be conducive to human flourishing. worse still, t wants r being created to some degree by t firms selling t products that satisfy them.
wrote more about this here: https://blog.georgeoughttohelp.com/psyop-versus-the-mutual-benefit-of-trade/
wrote more about this here: https://blog.georgeoughttohelp.com/psyop-versus-the-mutual-benefit-of-trade/
here's another frame (problematises 'marketing as manipulation therefore bad'): ads can implicitly 'sell' us a viable schelling point https://twitter.com/mechanicalmonk1/status/1264250432286871553
from @mechanicalmonk1
from @mechanicalmonk1
an arrangement that encourages persons otherwise indifferent or hostile towards you, to help you https://twitter.com/mormo_music/status/1143467733578911744
does capitalism force people to do work they don't like just to survive?
no. that's the default in the universe. Crusoe on his island was in the same situation.
what capitalism *does* do is multiply the productivity of our work. so we don't have to do as much of it to survive.
no. that's the default in the universe. Crusoe on his island was in the same situation.
what capitalism *does* do is multiply the productivity of our work. so we don't have to do as much of it to survive.
wrong claim: "workers don't voluntarily work for a boss, they have no choice!"
wrong because "I don't like any of the options they have" does not equal "they haven't voluntarily chosen"
wrong because "I don't like any of the options they have" does not equal "they haven't voluntarily chosen"
voluntarily means uncoerced. only people can coerce one another. crusoe voluntarily forages for food every day because no one is coercing him to do so.
a problem for the politics of envy is that 'the wealthy' is not an enduring group. it's a category that people pass into and out of relatively quickly.
https://twitter.com/CyberKulak/status/1282213091158233089
https://twitter.com/CyberKulak/status/1282213091158233089
"the worker is being exploited!"
Yes. and they're exploiting the employer at the same time. this is good.
Voluntary trade of anything (including labour for a wage) is *mutually* exploitative. Both parties use the other as a means to approach their ends.
Yes. and they're exploiting the employer at the same time. this is good.
Voluntary trade of anything (including labour for a wage) is *mutually* exploitative. Both parties use the other as a means to approach their ends.
bespoke: capitalism leads ppl to objectify one another ('behave like a sociopath') in some contexts & this is good
this objctfcation brings mutual benefit via trade
historical alternative to objctfying outgroup for trade is ignoring or murdering them https://twitter.com/m_ashcroft/status/1287854512200458240
this objctfcation brings mutual benefit via trade
historical alternative to objctfying outgroup for trade is ignoring or murdering them https://twitter.com/m_ashcroft/status/1287854512200458240
we need more exploitation. not less. https://twitter.com/ThCollierPerles/status/1300754895713304582
bc 'exploitation' here is just a dysphemism for: mutually beneficial satisfaction of wants. and and as long as no property rights are being violated (body ownership very much included) the more of that we have the better.
