3 ms·
The problem is that free market is not meritocracy, and in fact it cannot be. The free market cannot impose any kind of moral values on people, because it is at
by js8 10y ago
The problem is that free market is not meritocracy, and in fact it cannot be. The free market cannot impose any kind of moral values on people, because it is at its heart a symmetric game between people.
Let's say there is some job (like engineering) that society considers valuable. So the people, who do it, can be proud, because they are doing what is considered to be a valuable job. Then free market can deal with the situation in two ways:
- These people are valuable, so they should be paid more.
- These people already intrinsically prefer doing work they consider valuable, so they can be paid less.
So you see, it's perfectly symmetric; free market cannot enforce any sort of moral values that people already don't have. That's why it cannot be meritocratic, unless the underlying society is.
And in current U.S., the underlying morality is very much based on hierarchy in companies, which actually seems to be pretty default human behavior.
- xupybd 10y agoCulture can change. But more importantly you're missing supply and demand. As automation grows we are going to need more engineers. STEM grads are not increasing at a rate that'll keep pace. That might drive the free market in the right direction.
- js8 10y agoYeah, more engineers will be needed (possibly), and so also more managers, project managers, product managers etc. will be needed. So I doubt this is going to resolve the problem.
- Chris2048 10y agoI don't really understand. Can't an engineers simply go to another company, and still be doing the same kind of work that they like? Can't they threaten to move, if if they don't really want to, so not to devalue themselves?
- js8 10y agoThe problem is both parties can do that, company can simply find another engineer or can threaten with that too. It's that people have been conditioned to see the first option when they learn about free markets and not the second option.
- Chris2048 10y ago> company can simply find another engineer But then they open themselves to supply/demand of the market, and the risk of being short-staffed (the risk of being unemployed might not be as great, because a business may be in active competition, and lose opportunities). Plus, I imagine the overhead of new staff bites too; and it's not common to under-pay new staff in their probationary period. But my original point was; An Engineer who enjoys their work can avoid being paid less simply because of this fact.
- js8 10y agoThere is also a risk involved in changing jobs, though. > An Engineer who enjoys their work can avoid being paid less simply because of this fact. I think he can provided that he either: - Works for someone who is not a psychopath but a decent human being, that is, not being entirely rational in the economic sense. - Hides the fact that he enjoys it and would probably do it even for less money from the employer. (But this eventually transpires through salary raises or their absence.) Note that either of those assumptions is breaking the assumptions of the rational decision-making in the free market. I think people within the profession can do that to an extent, but for the whole profession (or a subset) it's much harder. So for example, game programmers are paid less than typical programmers, because they are enjoying it more. And programmers (software engineers) are paid less than managers because again, on average, they enjoy the job more. Or look at a typical teacher or scientist.