7 ms·

i've never thought about how these two things relate to each other: asymptotic productivity of work, and winner take almost all nature of capitalism. seems like

i've never thought about how these two things relate to each other: asymptotic productivity of work, and winner take almost all nature of capitalism. seems like a very succinct way of explaining why people work so damned much. i'm actually kind of embarrassed i've never connected the two. it seems to make the argument against it more clear too- if marginal hours worked grow less productive, and marginal improvement to the product is negligible in every day terms, we ought to mitigate that somehow, unless its something people are doing because they love it.

rhizome 9y ago
asymptotic productivity of work, and winner take almost all nature of capitalism. seems like a very succinct way of explaining why people work so damned much A myth of capitalism is that the donkey can reach the carrot hanging from the stick if they work harder, that "almost all" can be won by those who are being driven to work more hours. However, this doesn't take into account that there are at least as many carrots-on-sticks as donkeys, and that carrots are cheap.
- the_cat_kittles 9y ago
  i dont get what you are trying to say. something about how its easy to mislead people into working long hours?
  - rhizome 9y ago
    In this context, that "the nature of capitalism" is not evenly distributed, though the rhetoric says it is.
- jrs95 9y ago
  Well personally I've come from a family where hardly anyone make a productive decisions, where nobody had a college degree, and a tiny portion are even middle class. And now I'm 22, self-taught, and make $70k a year in the Midwest. And I did get there by working endless hours and catching the carrot, repeatedly. I think the truth of how these things go is probably somewhere between where your typical anti capitalist and your typical social Darwinist would expect it to be.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    >I think the truth of how these things go is probably somewhere between where your typical anti capitalist and your typical social Darwinist would expect it to be. What isn't between those two poles?!
    - jrs95 9y ago
      Fewer people than what would be reasonable
- pcrh 9y ago
  >A myth of capitalism is that the donkey can reach the carrot hanging from the stick if they work harder That's the myth of the "American Dream", not Capitalism per se. Capitalism is more simple, if you have capital, you have control, and with control you can profit.
  - valuearb 9y ago
    neither is true. Having capital means you will blow it a good portion of the time. Control is illusionary, just as it was for Sears, IBM, and Microsoft.
AndrewKemendo 9y ago
One of the greatest examples for this is the Astronaut program requirements [1]: 1. A bachelor's degree in engineering, biological science, physical science, computer science or mathematics. 2. At least three years of related professional experience obtained after degree completion OR at least 1,000 hours pilot-in-command time on jet aircraft. 3. The ability to pass the NASA long-duration astronaut physical. Distant and near visual acuity must be correctable to 20/20 for each eye. The use of glasses is acceptable. 4. Astronaut candidates must also have skills in leadership, teamwork and communications. Checking all the boxes on that list isn't particularly hard to do. However you aren't competing with the list. You are competing with a 29 year old Rhodes Scholar with a PhD in Chemistry, who runs Ultramarathons, ran a 40 person volunteer organization in Kenya during her gap year, and manages a 200 person 50 Million dollar research lab on pluripotent stem cells at Oxford. Now just change out anything there with whatever would be relevant for your line of work, and thats who you are competing with - give or take. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/F_Astronaut_Requirements.html https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/feat...
- WalterBright 9y ago
  The astronaut program is not an example of capitalist winner take all.
  - AndrewKemendo 9y ago
    Mostly is - specifically around hiring and work, so it's relevant to this discussion. It's a highly competitive market for talent where small incremental differences make a big difference.
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      To demonstrate something about capitalism, one should use an example from capitalism, not try to contort something from government into capitalism.
      - 9y ago
ryandrake 9y ago
Great insight! You can see this not only at the macro level (Google winning all of search by being marginally better than competitors), but at the micro level (top employee out of a team of 10 gets the bonus/promotion while everyone else gets nothing), and probably everywhere in between. What I wonder is: Is this really an intrinsic quality of capitalism? What causes this "winner take most" reward system emerging in some areas of the economy but not others? In many industries, multiple competitors can exist with stability and split market share, and in others, having multiple competitors leads to a blood bath where only one can survive, winning it all.
- the_cat_kittles 9y ago
  yes i wonder about that too. i never thought of myself as someone interested in economics, but i guess thats where you'd look for answers to why some markets are weighted towards winner take all and some aren't. my guess off the top is that it has to do with how easy it is to switch between two competing products, and how economies of scale work in the industry. if there is a big economy of scale, and its easy to switch between competitors, i think that makes for the biggest winner take all scenario.
  - kevinnk 9y ago
    I think the more fundamental connection is that when goods are perfect subsitutes for each other, under perfect information you always choose the "cheaper" good (where "cheap" is defined by whatever metric you're using). Somewhat ironically, this fact actually has connections to the concept of dual variables in constrained optimization problems, the theory of which was largely developed in the Soviet Union for use in central planning.
    - the_cat_kittles 9y ago
      very interesting! that seems to make sense. do you know of any good writing on examples?
- tenkabuto 9y ago
  I suspect that in industries with strong network effects, the winner-takes-most system is most prevalent, as say, one additional unit could mean stealing three units away from competitors in the long-term.
nickbauman 9y ago
How much of winner-take-all is due to other factors like timing, luck and self-selection-bias?

rhizome 9y ago

asymptotic productivity of work, and winner take almost all nature of capitalism. seems like a very succinct way of explaining why people work so damned much A myth of capitalism is that the donkey can reach the carrot hanging from the stick if they work harder, that "almost all" can be won by those who are being driven to work more hours. However, this doesn't take into account that there are at least as many carrots-on-sticks as donkeys, and that carrots are cheap.

the_cat_kittles 9y ago
i dont get what you are trying to say. something about how its easy to mislead people into working long hours?
- rhizome 9y ago
  In this context, that "the nature of capitalism" is not evenly distributed, though the rhetoric says it is.
jrs95 9y ago
Well personally I've come from a family where hardly anyone make a productive decisions, where nobody had a college degree, and a tiny portion are even middle class. And now I'm 22, self-taught, and make $70k a year in the Midwest. And I did get there by working endless hours and catching the carrot, repeatedly. I think the truth of how these things go is probably somewhere between where your typical anti capitalist and your typical social Darwinist would expect it to be.
- rhizome 9y ago
  >I think the truth of how these things go is probably somewhere between where your typical anti capitalist and your typical social Darwinist would expect it to be. What isn't between those two poles?!
  - jrs95 9y ago
    Fewer people than what would be reasonable
pcrh 9y ago
>A myth of capitalism is that the donkey can reach the carrot hanging from the stick if they work harder That's the myth of the "American Dream", not Capitalism per se. Capitalism is more simple, if you have capital, you have control, and with control you can profit.
- valuearb 9y ago
  neither is true. Having capital means you will blow it a good portion of the time. Control is illusionary, just as it was for Sears, IBM, and Microsoft.

AndrewKemendo 9y ago

One of the greatest examples for this is the Astronaut program requirements [1]: 1. A bachelor's degree in engineering, biological science, physical science, computer science or mathematics. 2. At least three years of related professional experience obtained after degree completion OR at least 1,000 hours pilot-in-command time on jet aircraft. 3. The ability to pass the NASA long-duration astronaut physical. Distant and near visual acuity must be correctable to 20/20 for each eye. The use of glasses is acceptable. 4. Astronaut candidates must also have skills in leadership, teamwork and communications. Checking all the boxes on that list isn't particularly hard to do. However you aren't competing with the list. You are competing with a 29 year old Rhodes Scholar with a PhD in Chemistry, who runs Ultramarathons, ran a 40 person volunteer organization in Kenya during her gap year, and manages a 200 person 50 Million dollar research lab on pluripotent stem cells at Oxford. Now just change out anything there with whatever would be relevant for your line of work, and thats who you are competing with - give or take. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/features/F_Astronaut_Requirements.html https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/postsecondary/feat...

WalterBright 9y ago
The astronaut program is not an example of capitalist winner take all.
- AndrewKemendo 9y ago
  Mostly is - specifically around hiring and work, so it's relevant to this discussion. It's a highly competitive market for talent where small incremental differences make a big difference.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    To demonstrate something about capitalism, one should use an example from capitalism, not try to contort something from government into capitalism.
    - 9y ago

ryandrake 9y ago

Great insight! You can see this not only at the macro level (Google winning all of search by being marginally better than competitors), but at the micro level (top employee out of a team of 10 gets the bonus/promotion while everyone else gets nothing), and probably everywhere in between. What I wonder is: Is this really an intrinsic quality of capitalism? What causes this "winner take most" reward system emerging in some areas of the economy but not others? In many industries, multiple competitors can exist with stability and split market share, and in others, having multiple competitors leads to a blood bath where only one can survive, winning it all.

the_cat_kittles 9y ago
yes i wonder about that too. i never thought of myself as someone interested in economics, but i guess thats where you'd look for answers to why some markets are weighted towards winner take all and some aren't. my guess off the top is that it has to do with how easy it is to switch between two competing products, and how economies of scale work in the industry. if there is a big economy of scale, and its easy to switch between competitors, i think that makes for the biggest winner take all scenario.
- kevinnk 9y ago
  I think the more fundamental connection is that when goods are perfect subsitutes for each other, under perfect information you always choose the "cheaper" good (where "cheap" is defined by whatever metric you're using). Somewhat ironically, this fact actually has connections to the concept of dual variables in constrained optimization problems, the theory of which was largely developed in the Soviet Union for use in central planning.
  - the_cat_kittles 9y ago
    very interesting! that seems to make sense. do you know of any good writing on examples?
tenkabuto 9y ago
I suspect that in industries with strong network effects, the winner-takes-most system is most prevalent, as say, one additional unit could mean stealing three units away from competitors in the long-term.

nickbauman 9y ago

How much of winner-take-all is due to other factors like timing, luck and self-selection-bias?