4 ms·

I never said capital was simply hard equipment, but I'd like to hear what your definition of capital is that "learning a new skill" falls under that? I mean, we

by zajd 11y ago

I never said capital was simply hard equipment, but I'd like to hear what your definition of capital is that "learning a new skill" falls under that? I mean, we're talking economics here so there's a level of interpretation for definitions, but I've never heard of someone claiming that skills are capital. It feels like you're going with the "Everything is capital" route, which devalues the word in the first place.

matwood 11y ago
Human capital is a standard economic term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital#Background The improved dexterity of a workman may be considered in the same light as a machine or instrument of trade which facilitates and abridges labor
hderms 11y ago
He's using the notion of "human capital" which I think is clearly different enough from ordinary capital so as to deserve a different term. Human capital can beget ordinary capital if someone works hard for many years, saving their money and reinvesting it, but your average office worker is no more a 'capitalist' than a temporarily homeless man looking for work. Human capital seems differentiated by the fact that it ultimately is traded on the market for wages and generally doesn't translate into any kind of meaningful ownership of the fruits of capital.
- jerf 11y ago
  "He's using the notion of "human capital" which I think is clearly different enough from ordinary capital so as to deserve a different term" Sort of yes, sort of no. It's important to understand that "physical capital" isn't some sort of magic pathway to wealth, either. If by some weird turn of events I suddenly came into possession of a 20-ton press, it isn't going to do me any good, and just about my only avenue to producing money from it is to sell it to some entity that does know what to do with it. A great deal of "capital" in the industrial world is relationships, organization, and the ability to apply human capital. Simplifying that to "physical goods" leads to weak thinking and bad policy.
geebee 11y ago
There is certainly an ambiguity in the word capital. We talk about intellectual capital, or human capital, or cultural capital. However, there is also a kind of discussion about "capital" and "labor" where a more narrow definition of capital is in play. This is interesting, in terms of debate. Where we're talking about "means of production", refuting the claim that workers don't have "capital" by referring to the broader use of the term capital does dip a toe into the fallacy of ambiguity. However, as a stand alone point, a related argument stating that the workers are more powerful than you'd think due to human capital they hold, yeah, I think it's a reasonable thing to point out.
jasode 11y ago
>, but I've never heard of someone claiming that skills are capital. Both the academic and business worlds acknowledge that skills in the brain are capital. Like the other poster mentioned, the academic world labels it "human capital". The business world also acknowledges it by investing in people and not necessarily factories. This business behavior refutes the other poster's point that it is "ultimately is traded on the market for wages". Wages are not the only endgame. YCombinator is an example of investing in brains, not factories. What is the "means of production" of a YC2016 company?!? The amazon AWS credits? The laptop that the programmer types on? No. The "means of production" is the programmer's brain. This is why the YC application has questions probing the founders' backgrounds and has zero questions about what gigahertz+RAM+disk of the laptops the programmers use. What is the songwriter's "means of production"? (It's not the pencil and paper.) What is the dentist's "means of production"? (It's not the reclining chair or drill.)

by zajd 11y ago

matwood 11y ago

Human capital is a standard economic term. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital#Background The improved dexterity of a workman may be considered in the same light as a machine or instrument of trade which facilitates and abridges labor

hderms 11y ago

He's using the notion of "human capital" which I think is clearly different enough from ordinary capital so as to deserve a different term. Human capital can beget ordinary capital if someone works hard for many years, saving their money and reinvesting it, but your average office worker is no more a 'capitalist' than a temporarily homeless man looking for work. Human capital seems differentiated by the fact that it ultimately is traded on the market for wages and generally doesn't translate into any kind of meaningful ownership of the fruits of capital.

jerf 11y ago
"He's using the notion of "human capital" which I think is clearly different enough from ordinary capital so as to deserve a different term" Sort of yes, sort of no. It's important to understand that "physical capital" isn't some sort of magic pathway to wealth, either. If by some weird turn of events I suddenly came into possession of a 20-ton press, it isn't going to do me any good, and just about my only avenue to producing money from it is to sell it to some entity that does know what to do with it. A great deal of "capital" in the industrial world is relationships, organization, and the ability to apply human capital. Simplifying that to "physical goods" leads to weak thinking and bad policy.

geebee 11y ago

There is certainly an ambiguity in the word capital. We talk about intellectual capital, or human capital, or cultural capital. However, there is also a kind of discussion about "capital" and "labor" where a more narrow definition of capital is in play. This is interesting, in terms of debate. Where we're talking about "means of production", refuting the claim that workers don't have "capital" by referring to the broader use of the term capital does dip a toe into the fallacy of ambiguity. However, as a stand alone point, a related argument stating that the workers are more powerful than you'd think due to human capital they hold, yeah, I think it's a reasonable thing to point out.

jasode 11y ago

>, but I've never heard of someone claiming that skills are capital. Both the academic and business worlds acknowledge that skills in the brain are capital. Like the other poster mentioned, the academic world labels it "human capital". The business world also acknowledges it by investing in people and not necessarily factories. This business behavior refutes the other poster's point that it is "ultimately is traded on the market for wages". Wages are not the only endgame. YCombinator is an example of investing in brains, not factories. What is the "means of production" of a YC2016 company?!? The amazon AWS credits? The laptop that the programmer types on? No. The "means of production" is the programmer's brain. This is why the YC application has questions probing the founders' backgrounds and has zero questions about what gigahertz+RAM+disk of the laptops the programmers use. What is the songwriter's "means of production"? (It's not the pencil and paper.) What is the dentist's "means of production"? (It's not the reclining chair or drill.)