7 ms·

That's how capitalism and meritocracy work unfortunately.

by Dude2018 9y ago

bantunes 9y ago
Sure - you deserve more money by virtue of merit if you work for a company that sells people's data to advertisers. I think Adam Smith and Milton Friedman were pretty clear about that.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Do you believe we live in a meritocracy? EDIT: I guess this is a bad question since it's really a matter of degrees. Perhaps a better question is: How meritocratic do you feel that our society is?
- Dude2018 9y ago
  Meritocratic enough for unequal income between skilled and unskilled labour?
  - tpallarino 9y ago
    The funniest part of this is that Facebook provides almost no value to society, while the food service workers do.
    - robocat 9y ago
      On the contrary, how we want to use our free time is the most important outcome of society, everything else is work.
    - chii 9y ago
      Facebook is providing value. They aren't providing it for free here, which is to say, they are extracting the price for said value. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is providing value, and isn't extracting the price. Therefore they rely on donations. If Wikipedia extracted their price for the amount of value they provide, I'd say they'll be one of the biggest companies in the world.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    Meritocracy is more about how we sort people into skilled and unskilled labor positions. Which is to say that a pay difference between skilled and unskilled labor is the outcome of a capitalist system but a system which gives everyone an equal shot at being skilled labor is a meritocratic one. Which is why I'm curious about your opinion of how meritocratic our society is today.
danesparza 9y ago
Nope. There are many forms of capitalism... Humanistic capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_capitalism Anarcho-capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism Democratic capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_capitalism Eco-capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-capitalism Inclusive capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_capitalism Neo-capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Capitalism ...just to name a few.
- kafkaesq 9y ago
  Then there's, you know, "capitalism in actual practice". Which is what the Dude above was referring to.
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    As long as we don't confuse what we have right now (corrupt cronyism, corporatism, blatant vertical monopolies, blatant government-backed monopsonies, etc.) with an actual free market.
    - kafkaesq 9y ago
      Yep, it's best not to confuse reality with pipe dreams, generally.
      - humanrebar 9y ago
        I'm not sure what way that sarcasm is cutting. I'll say the "design the problem away" impulse is partly what causes corporatism and monopolies. For example, regulatory capture in which the regulated industries more or less control the regulators. So I'll say the regulate-the-problem-away impulse is a pipe dream in the long run.
humanrebar 9y ago
...because non-capitalist systems like totalitarianism and communism are known for their humanity?
- vkou 9y ago
  Totalitarianism and capitalism aren't at all mutually exclusive. Likewise, there exist other isms. Democratic socialism, for one. (Although it can be argued that it's capitalism in sheep's clothing.)
  - humanrebar 9y ago
    > totalitarianism and capitalism aren't at all mutually exclusive Well, too much further discussion along these lines will turn into a semantic quagmire. However, you can draw a spectrum where "individuals decide for themselves" is on one end and "a central power decides for everyone" is at the other. In that viewpoint, capitalism and totalitarianism are at odds, regardless of whether the central authority is an officer of a government bureau or a corporate one.
acuozzo 9y ago
> capitalism and meritocracy No, this is how the market works, but the market is hardly meritocratic. On which merit do you propose we judge workers in order to determine fair compensation for their work?
- owebmaster 9y ago
  It is meritocratic, the problem is with the score system.
morugin 9y ago
That's how human morality works unfortunately. capitalism: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." meritocracy: "government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability." morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." Here's how I think about "us looking down on them": Assume both capitalism and meritocracy. Then the question becomes: How should superiors (in profit and ability) treat inferiors? That's the morality question. Try putting yourself in the cafeteria worker's shoes (i.e., you do not have ability and profit). How should you be treated? Surely things other than ability and profit should matter. We think "good" people deserve "good" things. What makes a person "good"? Is someone good if they were born with and then cultivated ability? Doesn't the low wage worker also work hard? Then the differences for ability are determined at birth. Does something determined at birth concern one's morality in the present? How about profit? Does someone's wealth factor into their morality? I do not think morality is concentrated in the powerful. I think there are immoral powerful people and moral powerless people. I think it is fair to treat a moral person with respect regardless of their power position. I cannot tell whether a person is moral by their ability and profit so, a priori any other evidence, I believe in being respectful to everyone. tldr: I judge people based on their morality and power isn't a signal. Therefore, I believe it is wrong to look down upon a person based on their power position.
- civilian 9y ago
  Your definition for capitalism is correct, but might be missing the key point: > Capitalism is the use of markets as the primary method of resource allocation within a society. http://www.americanteeth.org/2015/06/21/why-i-m-a-capitalist-and-what-does-that-mean/ http://www.americanteeth.org/2015/06/21/why-i-m-a-capitalist... I lost a game of Go to the guy who wrote this. He's a total socialist, but he _gets it_. Capitalism is just using markets, and when he and I use that word we just mean that. But when many progessive-types use that word, they mean all of the perceived evils and unjustice that coming along with that system.
  - chii 9y ago
kafkaesq 9y ago
That's how capitalism and meritocracy work unfortunately. The Dude is absolutely right and spot on with this of course -- and in any case shouldn't have been downvoted for pointing it out. Systematic social segregation and pervasive, manufactured feelings of inadequacy and inferiority aren't merely "bugs" in modern capitalism; they're among its core features. That's the "real" problem here (as other commenters have identified in this thread).
- humanrebar 9y ago
  The argument for capitalism is that feelings and inadequacy are inherent to the human condition. With that in mind, people should: 1. have property rights so they have some say (even on the vote-with-your-feet level) in how things play out 2. the human condition can be leveraged against itself for general societal improvement The counterargument is that a small group of humans can somehow design (and maintain!) a system that is somehow less susceptible to humanity.
pm24601 9y ago
Capitalism - yes. "meritocracy" is a myth. Too many people forget that they started the 10-lap race with a 9-lap headstart. I am personally very thankful for the headstart that my family gave me. Lots of others I grew up with didn't get the headstart. ...And it had nothing to do with me personally, it was an accident of lucky birth.

That's how capitalism and meritocracy work unfortunately.

Sure - you deserve more money by virtue of merit if you work for a company that sells people's data to advertisers. I think Adam Smith and Milton Friedman were pretty clear about that.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Do you believe we live in a meritocracy? EDIT: I guess this is a bad question since it's really a matter of degrees. Perhaps a better question is: How meritocratic do you feel that our society is?

Dude2018 9y ago
Meritocratic enough for unequal income between skilled and unskilled labour?
- tpallarino 9y ago
  The funniest part of this is that Facebook provides almost no value to society, while the food service workers do.
  - robocat 9y ago
    On the contrary, how we want to use our free time is the most important outcome of society, everything else is work.
  - chii 9y ago
    Facebook is providing value. They aren't providing it for free here, which is to say, they are extracting the price for said value. Wikipedia, on the other hand, is providing value, and isn't extracting the price. Therefore they rely on donations. If Wikipedia extracted their price for the amount of value they provide, I'd say they'll be one of the biggest companies in the world.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  Meritocracy is more about how we sort people into skilled and unskilled labor positions. Which is to say that a pay difference between skilled and unskilled labor is the outcome of a capitalist system but a system which gives everyone an equal shot at being skilled labor is a meritocratic one. Which is why I'm curious about your opinion of how meritocratic our society is today.

danesparza 9y ago

Nope. There are many forms of capitalism... Humanistic capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanistic_capitalism Anarcho-capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism Democratic capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_capitalism Eco-capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eco-capitalism Inclusive capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclusive_capitalism Neo-capitalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Capitalism ...just to name a few.

kafkaesq 9y ago
Then there's, you know, "capitalism in actual practice". Which is what the Dude above was referring to.
- humanrebar 9y ago
  As long as we don't confuse what we have right now (corrupt cronyism, corporatism, blatant vertical monopolies, blatant government-backed monopsonies, etc.) with an actual free market.
  - kafkaesq 9y ago
    Yep, it's best not to confuse reality with pipe dreams, generally.
    - humanrebar 9y ago
      I'm not sure what way that sarcasm is cutting. I'll say the "design the problem away" impulse is partly what causes corporatism and monopolies. For example, regulatory capture in which the regulated industries more or less control the regulators. So I'll say the regulate-the-problem-away impulse is a pipe dream in the long run.

humanrebar 9y ago

...because non-capitalist systems like totalitarianism and communism are known for their humanity?

vkou 9y ago
Totalitarianism and capitalism aren't at all mutually exclusive. Likewise, there exist other isms. Democratic socialism, for one. (Although it can be argued that it's capitalism in sheep's clothing.)
- humanrebar 9y ago
  > totalitarianism and capitalism aren't at all mutually exclusive Well, too much further discussion along these lines will turn into a semantic quagmire. However, you can draw a spectrum where "individuals decide for themselves" is on one end and "a central power decides for everyone" is at the other. In that viewpoint, capitalism and totalitarianism are at odds, regardless of whether the central authority is an officer of a government bureau or a corporate one.

acuozzo 9y ago

> capitalism and meritocracy No, this is how the market works, but the market is hardly meritocratic. On which merit do you propose we judge workers in order to determine fair compensation for their work?

owebmaster 9y ago
It is meritocratic, the problem is with the score system.

morugin 9y ago

That's how human morality works unfortunately. capitalism: "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." meritocracy: "government or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability." morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior." Here's how I think about "us looking down on them": Assume both capitalism and meritocracy. Then the question becomes: How should superiors (in profit and ability) treat inferiors? That's the morality question. Try putting yourself in the cafeteria worker's shoes (i.e., you do not have ability and profit). How should you be treated? Surely things other than ability and profit should matter. We think "good" people deserve "good" things. What makes a person "good"? Is someone good if they were born with and then cultivated ability? Doesn't the low wage worker also work hard? Then the differences for ability are determined at birth. Does something determined at birth concern one's morality in the present? How about profit? Does someone's wealth factor into their morality? I do not think morality is concentrated in the powerful. I think there are immoral powerful people and moral powerless people. I think it is fair to treat a moral person with respect regardless of their power position. I cannot tell whether a person is moral by their ability and profit so, a priori any other evidence, I believe in being respectful to everyone. tldr: I judge people based on their morality and power isn't a signal. Therefore, I believe it is wrong to look down upon a person based on their power position.

civilian 9y ago
Your definition for capitalism is correct, but might be missing the key point: > Capitalism is the use of markets as the primary method of resource allocation within a society. http://www.americanteeth.org/2015/06/21/why-i-m-a-capitalist-and-what-does-that-mean/ http://www.americanteeth.org/2015/06/21/why-i-m-a-capitalist... I lost a game of Go to the guy who wrote this. He's a total socialist, but he _gets it_. Capitalism is just using markets, and when he and I use that word we just mean that. But when many progessive-types use that word, they mean all of the perceived evils and unjustice that coming along with that system.
- chii 9y ago

kafkaesq 9y ago

That's how capitalism and meritocracy work unfortunately. The Dude is absolutely right and spot on with this of course -- and in any case shouldn't have been downvoted for pointing it out. Systematic social segregation and pervasive, manufactured feelings of inadequacy and inferiority aren't merely "bugs" in modern capitalism; they're among its core features. That's the "real" problem here (as other commenters have identified in this thread).

humanrebar 9y ago
The argument for capitalism is that feelings and inadequacy are inherent to the human condition. With that in mind, people should: 1. have property rights so they have some say (even on the vote-with-your-feet level) in how things play out 2. the human condition can be leveraged against itself for general societal improvement The counterargument is that a small group of humans can somehow design (and maintain!) a system that is somehow less susceptible to humanity.

pm24601 9y ago

Capitalism - yes. "meritocracy" is a myth. Too many people forget that they started the 10-lap race with a 9-lap headstart. I am personally very thankful for the headstart that my family gave me. Lots of others I grew up with didn't get the headstart. ...And it had nothing to do with me personally, it was an accident of lucky birth.