5 ms·

I have a degree in both CS (making things) and Philosophy (making things up) and I completely agree with patio11's comment. Progressivism has nothing to do with

I have a degree in both CS (making things) and Philosophy (making things up) and I completely agree with patio11's comment. Progressivism has nothing to do with it. Majoring in Art History (where there are 12 job openings a year) and then getting a job as a barista at the local coffee shop doesn't make you the bastion of progressivism.

jacoblyles 17y ago
There are more valuable things to life than money. I challenge this reactionary view that the worth of a person's contribution to society can be measured by their salary. If a person chooses to enrich humanity's lot by providing value outside of the marketplace, it is the responsibility of society to support them. By refusing to do so, we all become poorer. Moreover, I note a trend in the fields of study that are being praised: they are all dominated by men. We praise male fields and dismiss female fields. I wonder if this doesn't reflect some deeper, troubling biases of our culture.
- CWuestefeld 17y ago
  I challenge this reactionary view that the worth of a person's contribution to society can be measured by their salary. If their contribution is greater, then why isn't somebody willing to pay them more? If there was such a trove of hidden value, you would think that some greedy capitalist would snap it up and exploit it. If a person chooses to enrich humanity's lot by providing value outside of the marketplace, it is the responsibility of society to support them. This isn't a question of differing philosophies and values. This is just objectively wrong. In the degenerate case, if we all decide to become poets, then who is going to farm the food to feed us all? This should clue you in to the fallacy of your statement above. The marginal value of an additional poet is lower than the marginal value of another farmer, or another assembly line worker, or another programmer. Moreover, there is no such thing as "outside the marketplace". There is more to the market then just financial transactions. Everything we do: how we elect to use our time, the care we invest in a relationship, everything, is a decision about how we use our limited resources (time and attention in my two examples, but the potential list covers literally everything). And we necessarily make those decisions by weighing what we expect their costs to be versus what we expect to derive from them. And that is what the study of economics is about -- money is only the smallest part of it. I note a trend in the fields of study that are being praised: they are all dominated by men. We praise male fields... Holy mackerel, what a mouthful. You've got to be trolling, but I'll bite anyway. Let's start with the fact that YOU are the one that's characterizing things as "male" or "female"; I don't see anyone else doing so. Of the three cubicles bordering on mine, two of them are occupied by females; shall I call software development a "female" field? If not, then why would I ever praise it? But your statement is its own dis-proof. You (and the rest of the "progressives") are praising what you label "female fields", and implicitly condemning the "male" ones. Doesn't this show a priori that we don't universally favor one or the other, but rather have, as a society, a diverse set of opinions? Finally, I'd like to retell an old joke from my (engineering) college: Scientists learn to ask "why does that work?". Engineers are taught to ask "how does that work?". Accountants learn to ask "how much will it cost?". Liberal arts majors are trained to ask "do you want fries with that?" It's a little cruel, but still funny, I think.
  - dgabriel 17y ago
    If their contribution is greater, then why isn't somebody willing to pay them more? If there was such a trove of hidden value, you would think that some greedy capitalist would snap it up and exploit it. You should ask a postdoc making ~30k a year to do cutting edge science the same question. They could triple that tending bar.
    - CWuestefeld 17y ago
      There's no mystery here, I already gave the answer in my previous post. Quoting myself: there is no such thing as "outside the marketplace". There is more to the market then just financial transactions. Everything we do: how we elect to use our time, the care we invest in a relationship, everything, is a decision about how we use our limited resources (time and attention in my two examples, but the potential list covers literally everything). And we necessarily make those decisions by weighing what we expect their costs to be versus what we expect to derive from them. And that is what the study of economics is about -- money is only the smallest part of it. Those postdocs derive greater satisfaction from doing their science than they would by tending bar. In their own internal calculus, the rewards of their career are greater than the simple money equation. Progressives like to think they're being deep and insightful when they observe that there's more to the world than just money. But it's not news to anyone, least of all to economists. This is embodied in the concept of utility. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility : Utility is usually applied by economists in such constructs as the indifference curve, which plot the combination of commodities that an individual or a society would accept to maintain a given level of satisfaction. ... [Quoting Paul Samuelson] "Utility is taken to be correlative to Desire or Want. It has been already argued that desires cannot be measured directly, but only indirectly, by the outward phenomena to which they give rise: and that in those cases with which economics is chiefly concerned the measure is found in the price which a person is willing to pay for the fulfilment or satisfaction of his desire." Thus, in the case of your hypothetical postdoc, the opportunity to do his (or her) science is worth $60K. (I oversimplify due to things like marginal utility, but that's the gist)
      - 17y ago
- natrius 17y ago
  "I challenge this reactionary view that the worth of a person's contribution to society can be measured by their salary." Nobody said that. "If a person chooses to enrich humanity's lot by providing value outside of the marketplace, it is the responsibility of society to support them." I agree, as long as you're not forcing people to support them via taxation. "We praise male fields and dismiss female fields. I wonder if this doesn't reflect some deeper, troubling biases of our culture." Women are traditionally less responsible for earning a household's income. Few people dismiss a woman as a mate because she makes too little money. This reduces the incentive to enter a high-earning career.
- potatolicious 17y ago
  > "I challenge this reactionary view that the worth of a person's contribution to society can be measured by their salary." Nobody here has suggested this. > "If a person chooses to enrich humanity's lot by providing value outside of the marketplace, it is the responsibility of society to support them." No, it is not. I respect historians and artists as much as I do programmers and engineers, but let's be realistic - there's nothing truly noble about any of the above endeavors. They are, in the end, self-serving interests. I'm an engineer because I love building things. It makes me happy when I build stuff, and while I can rationalize and self-aggrandize by thinking about my "contributions" to humanity, the reality is that I do this because I want to. There has been no great sacrifice involved, and I would hardly think society owes me one. Similarly, I do not believe artists, historians, and other such "soft" majors are any different. They do what they do because it tickles their fancy - which is great, but let's not sit around and circle-jerk about the nobility of their cause and how everyone owes them a living. > "I note a trend in the fields of study that are being praised: they are all dominated by men. We praise male fields and dismiss female fields" This would be disturbing, but I do not see this. Do you have any links to this?
- Poiesis 16y ago
  There are more valuable things to life than money. I challenge this reactionary view that the worth of a person's contribution to society can be measured by their salary. If a person chooses to enrich humanity's lot by providing value outside of the marketplace, it is the responsibility of society to support them. By refusing to do so, we all become poorer. How is some random performance artist providing me value? And if they aren't, why should I "support" them? I they aren't providing value to me then why should I be obligated to pay them? I can understand paying for roads, schools, police--but this? There's a mechanism in place for me to determine if I wish for an artist to provide me value. It's called "I pay them." Oh, wait. I know--since you say that the contributions of these people cannot be measured by money, then clearly this "support" you mention is not money. Sure, I can do that. "Great Job, folks!"

jacoblyles 17y ago

There are more valuable things to life than money. I challenge this reactionary view that the worth of a person's contribution to society can be measured by their salary. If a person chooses to enrich humanity's lot by providing value outside of the marketplace, it is the responsibility of society to support them. By refusing to do so, we all become poorer. Moreover, I note a trend in the fields of study that are being praised: they are all dominated by men. We praise male fields and dismiss female fields. I wonder if this doesn't reflect some deeper, troubling biases of our culture.

CWuestefeld 17y ago
I challenge this reactionary view that the worth of a person's contribution to society can be measured by their salary. If their contribution is greater, then why isn't somebody willing to pay them more? If there was such a trove of hidden value, you would think that some greedy capitalist would snap it up and exploit it. If a person chooses to enrich humanity's lot by providing value outside of the marketplace, it is the responsibility of society to support them. This isn't a question of differing philosophies and values. This is just objectively wrong. In the degenerate case, if we all decide to become poets, then who is going to farm the food to feed us all? This should clue you in to the fallacy of your statement above. The marginal value of an additional poet is lower than the marginal value of another farmer, or another assembly line worker, or another programmer. Moreover, there is no such thing as "outside the marketplace". There is more to the market then just financial transactions. Everything we do: how we elect to use our time, the care we invest in a relationship, everything, is a decision about how we use our limited resources (time and attention in my two examples, but the potential list covers literally everything). And we necessarily make those decisions by weighing what we expect their costs to be versus what we expect to derive from them. And that is what the study of economics is about -- money is only the smallest part of it. I note a trend in the fields of study that are being praised: they are all dominated by men. We praise male fields... Holy mackerel, what a mouthful. You've got to be trolling, but I'll bite anyway. Let's start with the fact that YOU are the one that's characterizing things as "male" or "female"; I don't see anyone else doing so. Of the three cubicles bordering on mine, two of them are occupied by females; shall I call software development a "female" field? If not, then why would I ever praise it? But your statement is its own dis-proof. You (and the rest of the "progressives") are praising what you label "female fields", and implicitly condemning the "male" ones. Doesn't this show a priori that we don't universally favor one or the other, but rather have, as a society, a diverse set of opinions? Finally, I'd like to retell an old joke from my (engineering) college: Scientists learn to ask "why does that work?". Engineers are taught to ask "how does that work?". Accountants learn to ask "how much will it cost?". Liberal arts majors are trained to ask "do you want fries with that?" It's a little cruel, but still funny, I think.
- dgabriel 17y ago
  If their contribution is greater, then why isn't somebody willing to pay them more? If there was such a trove of hidden value, you would think that some greedy capitalist would snap it up and exploit it. You should ask a postdoc making ~30k a year to do cutting edge science the same question. They could triple that tending bar.
  - CWuestefeld 17y ago
    There's no mystery here, I already gave the answer in my previous post. Quoting myself: there is no such thing as "outside the marketplace". There is more to the market then just financial transactions. Everything we do: how we elect to use our time, the care we invest in a relationship, everything, is a decision about how we use our limited resources (time and attention in my two examples, but the potential list covers literally everything). And we necessarily make those decisions by weighing what we expect their costs to be versus what we expect to derive from them. And that is what the study of economics is about -- money is only the smallest part of it. Those postdocs derive greater satisfaction from doing their science than they would by tending bar. In their own internal calculus, the rewards of their career are greater than the simple money equation. Progressives like to think they're being deep and insightful when they observe that there's more to the world than just money. But it's not news to anyone, least of all to economists. This is embodied in the concept of utility. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility : Utility is usually applied by economists in such constructs as the indifference curve, which plot the combination of commodities that an individual or a society would accept to maintain a given level of satisfaction. ... [Quoting Paul Samuelson] "Utility is taken to be correlative to Desire or Want. It has been already argued that desires cannot be measured directly, but only indirectly, by the outward phenomena to which they give rise: and that in those cases with which economics is chiefly concerned the measure is found in the price which a person is willing to pay for the fulfilment or satisfaction of his desire." Thus, in the case of your hypothetical postdoc, the opportunity to do his (or her) science is worth $60K. (I oversimplify due to things like marginal utility, but that's the gist)
    - 17y ago
natrius 17y ago
"I challenge this reactionary view that the worth of a person's contribution to society can be measured by their salary." Nobody said that. "If a person chooses to enrich humanity's lot by providing value outside of the marketplace, it is the responsibility of society to support them." I agree, as long as you're not forcing people to support them via taxation. "We praise male fields and dismiss female fields. I wonder if this doesn't reflect some deeper, troubling biases of our culture." Women are traditionally less responsible for earning a household's income. Few people dismiss a woman as a mate because she makes too little money. This reduces the incentive to enter a high-earning career.
potatolicious 17y ago
> "I challenge this reactionary view that the worth of a person's contribution to society can be measured by their salary." Nobody here has suggested this. > "If a person chooses to enrich humanity's lot by providing value outside of the marketplace, it is the responsibility of society to support them." No, it is not. I respect historians and artists as much as I do programmers and engineers, but let's be realistic - there's nothing truly noble about any of the above endeavors. They are, in the end, self-serving interests. I'm an engineer because I love building things. It makes me happy when I build stuff, and while I can rationalize and self-aggrandize by thinking about my "contributions" to humanity, the reality is that I do this because I want to. There has been no great sacrifice involved, and I would hardly think society owes me one. Similarly, I do not believe artists, historians, and other such "soft" majors are any different. They do what they do because it tickles their fancy - which is great, but let's not sit around and circle-jerk about the nobility of their cause and how everyone owes them a living. > "I note a trend in the fields of study that are being praised: they are all dominated by men. We praise male fields and dismiss female fields" This would be disturbing, but I do not see this. Do you have any links to this?
Poiesis 16y ago
There are more valuable things to life than money. I challenge this reactionary view that the worth of a person's contribution to society can be measured by their salary. If a person chooses to enrich humanity's lot by providing value outside of the marketplace, it is the responsibility of society to support them. By refusing to do so, we all become poorer. How is some random performance artist providing me value? And if they aren't, why should I "support" them? I they aren't providing value to me then why should I be obligated to pay them? I can understand paying for roads, schools, police--but this? There's a mechanism in place for me to determine if I wish for an artist to provide me value. It's called "I pay them." Oh, wait. I know--since you say that the contributions of these people cannot be measured by money, then clearly this "support" you mention is not money. Sure, I can do that. "Great Job, folks!"