4 ms·

Imagine if the world's nail salon workers could spend their time curing cancer, fighting hunger or homelessness instead of the useless primping of rich people's

by czep 10y ago

Imagine if the world's nail salon workers could spend their time curing cancer, fighting hunger or homelessness instead of the useless primping of rich people's hands and feet. If we only had an economic system to allow everyone to reach their fullest potential despite circumstances of birth, and social priorities where personal vanity was not placed above the good of humanity. In 500 years time maybe we'll get there.

wolfgke 10y ago
> Imagine if the world's nail salon workers could spend their time curing cancer, fighting hunger or homelessness instead of the useless primping of rich people's hands and feet. The nail salon workers could use their free time for this purpose if they wanted. They (perhaps with some rare exceptions) don't do it. On the other hand: The fact that someone is willing to give money to the nail salon workers for getting hands/feet pimped shows that someone values this kind of work.
- rickycook 10y ago
  well, i think the point is two-fold. first, that it can be more difficult for people to get an education (and in many cases, a professional job) depending on their background and thus have a much higher barrier to "cure cancer" type work. simply saying that they could is all well and good, but it ignores some harsh realities of life. second, the fact that people value something does not necessarily make it important. so what if someone values their nails being done? who does it benefit? capital is a distribution of resources in order to maximise output. some of that output is chaff, but i'd argue that less chaff and more useful product is better for a society to prosper.
  - wolfgke 10y ago
    > second, the fact that people value something does not necessarily make it important. so what if someone values their nails being done? who does it benefit? capital is a distribution of resources in order to maximise output. some of that output is chaff, but i'd argue that less chaff and more useful product is better for a society to prosper. Markets form a democracy: Everybody can vote with their wallet what they want and consider as important.
    - tabeth 10y ago
      Perhaps if everyone started from the same point this would be true. However, not only has everyone not started from the same point, there are forces -- those who already have money -- who are spending money in an effort to brainwash those who do not into doing things that benefit them indirectly.
      - wolfgke 10y ago
        > Perhaps if everyone started from the same point this would be true. However, not only has everyone not started from the same point By deciding to have children or not (and if yes: how many?), parents vote about the distribution of the startup positions for the next generation. EDIT: In other words: Poor people should rather be angry about their parents than about the system.
        tabeth 10y ago
        I honestly don't even know what to say... 1. "Parents vote about the distribution of the startup positions for the next generation." What? 2. "Poor people should rather be angry about their parents than about the system." Are you serious? What good is that going to do? Sorry, but you must be living quite a privileged, or sheltered life if you believe these things.
        nitrogen 10y ago
        Reproduction has a very well-earned taboo thanks to the terrible eugenics trends of the early 20th century. But, this taboo prevents us from seeing some things clearly. One of those things we tend to avoid thinking about as a society is the who/when/why of parenting, and the long-term effects of those decisions (or lack thereof). The movie Idiocracy satirized one aspect of this, but it still doesn't get much discussion in terms of family planning on a societal scale -- whether to encourage or discourage childbearing, whether some groups should be encouraged more than others and the moral questions thereby raised, etc. So, acting shocked and invoking "privilege" doesn't move the conversation forward, when there is ample underexplored territory in which to do so.
  - imcoconut 10y ago
    > the fact that people value something does not necessarily make it important. I think that is precisely what makes it important. As long as as individuals in a society have freedom of choice, the only way to approximate some objective measure of importance is by looking what they value in aggregate. The things I think are important and the things you think are important are probably different. So who's right? From a practical standpoint, what makes a difference is what people think is important. As the other commenter mentioned, in capitalist society people clearly demonstrate what they think is important by spending their money. If people chose to spend their money getting their nails done, then they do think that it's important. If enough people think it's important then it becomes so, and no-one can really tell them otherwise. This is the case as long as people have freedom to chose how they make money and how they spend it.
- tabeth 10y ago
  This reasoning is flawed at best and malicious at worst. Anyone can do anything "if they wanted". So why don't they? Don't you see how ridiculous that sounds? It's as if people don't have a life and real obligations preventing them, or something. -- Homeless people can go to Harvard [1] This guy build a hotel for $9000 [2] People familiar with statistics can consistently win the lottery [3] "Anyone can do it, why can't you?" /s [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Murray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Murray [2] https://www.littlethings.com/9000-dream-home/ https://www.littlethings.com/9000-dream-home/ [3] http://www.businessinsider.com/4-time-lottery-winner-not-exactly-lucky-2011-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/4-time-lottery-winner-not-exa... * There are thousands if not millions of examples like this. Pointing to exceptions has never been a good argument. People who work in nail salons generally have a socioeconomic background that doesn't give them the privilege to be "wasting" time curing cancer. Suggesting that they can, or even should be doing this is insulting, at best.
  - battlebot 10y ago
    This is the same kind of bullcrap that goes on with entrepreneuers--extreme survivorship bias at work. Yes, all kinds of crazy non-intuitive things happen and they make the news, but they are far outliers.
tonyedgecombe 10y ago
In the UK hair dressers regularly come out as the people happiest in their work, it's not a huge leap to imagine nail salon workers are similar.
lacampbell 10y ago
Imagine if the world's nail salon workers could spend their time curing cancer, fighting hunger or homelessness instead of the useless primping of rich people's hands and feet. Rich peoples hand and feet!? Do you have any idea how much a manicure costs? I just searched online for a place near me that does one and it's 27 USD. Is someone who can afford 27 USD for something that isn't food or shelter rich to you? Do you think a high percentage of people who work at Nail salons are capable of contributing something significant to the frontiers of medical science? Or was that whole sentence just supposed to be a humorous line in a parody version of John Lennons "imagine" you're coming up with? Because if it was, it's gone completely over my head. Maybe in 500 years people will stop trying to peddle a utopian "system" that has shown time and time again to impoverish people, retard the progress of entire nations, and - in many cases - kill millions.

by czep 10y ago

wolfgke 10y ago

> Imagine if the world's nail salon workers could spend their time curing cancer, fighting hunger or homelessness instead of the useless primping of rich people's hands and feet. The nail salon workers could use their free time for this purpose if they wanted. They (perhaps with some rare exceptions) don't do it. On the other hand: The fact that someone is willing to give money to the nail salon workers for getting hands/feet pimped shows that someone values this kind of work.

rickycook 10y ago
well, i think the point is two-fold. first, that it can be more difficult for people to get an education (and in many cases, a professional job) depending on their background and thus have a much higher barrier to "cure cancer" type work. simply saying that they could is all well and good, but it ignores some harsh realities of life. second, the fact that people value something does not necessarily make it important. so what if someone values their nails being done? who does it benefit? capital is a distribution of resources in order to maximise output. some of that output is chaff, but i'd argue that less chaff and more useful product is better for a society to prosper.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > second, the fact that people value something does not necessarily make it important. so what if someone values their nails being done? who does it benefit? capital is a distribution of resources in order to maximise output. some of that output is chaff, but i'd argue that less chaff and more useful product is better for a society to prosper. Markets form a democracy: Everybody can vote with their wallet what they want and consider as important.
  - tabeth 10y ago
    Perhaps if everyone started from the same point this would be true. However, not only has everyone not started from the same point, there are forces -- those who already have money -- who are spending money in an effort to brainwash those who do not into doing things that benefit them indirectly.
    - wolfgke 10y ago
      > Perhaps if everyone started from the same point this would be true. However, not only has everyone not started from the same point By deciding to have children or not (and if yes: how many?), parents vote about the distribution of the startup positions for the next generation. EDIT: In other words: Poor people should rather be angry about their parents than about the system.
      - tabeth 10y ago
        I honestly don't even know what to say... 1. "Parents vote about the distribution of the startup positions for the next generation." What? 2. "Poor people should rather be angry about their parents than about the system." Are you serious? What good is that going to do? Sorry, but you must be living quite a privileged, or sheltered life if you believe these things.
        nitrogen 10y ago
        Reproduction has a very well-earned taboo thanks to the terrible eugenics trends of the early 20th century. But, this taboo prevents us from seeing some things clearly. One of those things we tend to avoid thinking about as a society is the who/when/why of parenting, and the long-term effects of those decisions (or lack thereof). The movie Idiocracy satirized one aspect of this, but it still doesn't get much discussion in terms of family planning on a societal scale -- whether to encourage or discourage childbearing, whether some groups should be encouraged more than others and the moral questions thereby raised, etc. So, acting shocked and invoking "privilege" doesn't move the conversation forward, when there is ample underexplored territory in which to do so.
- imcoconut 10y ago
  > the fact that people value something does not necessarily make it important. I think that is precisely what makes it important. As long as as individuals in a society have freedom of choice, the only way to approximate some objective measure of importance is by looking what they value in aggregate. The things I think are important and the things you think are important are probably different. So who's right? From a practical standpoint, what makes a difference is what people think is important. As the other commenter mentioned, in capitalist society people clearly demonstrate what they think is important by spending their money. If people chose to spend their money getting their nails done, then they do think that it's important. If enough people think it's important then it becomes so, and no-one can really tell them otherwise. This is the case as long as people have freedom to chose how they make money and how they spend it.
tabeth 10y ago
This reasoning is flawed at best and malicious at worst. Anyone can do anything "if they wanted". So why don't they? Don't you see how ridiculous that sounds? It's as if people don't have a life and real obligations preventing them, or something. -- Homeless people can go to Harvard [1] This guy build a hotel for $9000 [2] People familiar with statistics can consistently win the lottery [3] "Anyone can do it, why can't you?" /s [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Murray https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liz_Murray [2] https://www.littlethings.com/9000-dream-home/ https://www.littlethings.com/9000-dream-home/ [3] http://www.businessinsider.com/4-time-lottery-winner-not-exactly-lucky-2011-8 http://www.businessinsider.com/4-time-lottery-winner-not-exa... * There are thousands if not millions of examples like this. Pointing to exceptions has never been a good argument. People who work in nail salons generally have a socioeconomic background that doesn't give them the privilege to be "wasting" time curing cancer. Suggesting that they can, or even should be doing this is insulting, at best.
- battlebot 10y ago
  This is the same kind of bullcrap that goes on with entrepreneuers--extreme survivorship bias at work. Yes, all kinds of crazy non-intuitive things happen and they make the news, but they are far outliers.

tonyedgecombe 10y ago

In the UK hair dressers regularly come out as the people happiest in their work, it's not a huge leap to imagine nail salon workers are similar.

lacampbell 10y ago

Imagine if the world's nail salon workers could spend their time curing cancer, fighting hunger or homelessness instead of the useless primping of rich people's hands and feet. Rich peoples hand and feet!? Do you have any idea how much a manicure costs? I just searched online for a place near me that does one and it's 27 USD. Is someone who can afford 27 USD for something that isn't food or shelter rich to you? Do you think a high percentage of people who work at Nail salons are capable of contributing something significant to the frontiers of medical science? Or was that whole sentence just supposed to be a humorous line in a parody version of John Lennons "imagine" you're coming up with? Because if it was, it's gone completely over my head. Maybe in 500 years people will stop trying to peddle a utopian "system" that has shown time and time again to impoverish people, retard the progress of entire nations, and - in many cases - kill millions.