4 ms·

And job differences are individual decisions. We can finally stop the "women are being paid less/discriminated ...yadayada..." -horseshit. Teaching is done/fun

by illuminati1911 9y ago

And job differences are individual decisions. We can finally stop the "women are being paid less/discriminated ...yadayada..." -horseshit. Teaching is done/funded by the society in most cases and paid with tax dollars. Some jobs being "underpaid" or paid too much are problems that come from the lack of real capitalism where everybody would be paid their actual market value and we could remove the whole word "underpaid" from the dictionary. It embarrasses me to see someone not realizing this.

johnfn 9y ago
> And job differences are individual decisions. What? So you became a (I assume) programmer due to yourself alone? You didn't have any help learning how to use a computer from your parents, you didn't have any encouragement of your peers to continue, you weren't influenced at all by society and how it favors certain behaviors, no good teachers helped you learn the requisite math or science or critical thinking? It was all entirely a decision made in a vacuum? Your viewpoint is far too reductionistic.
- illuminati1911 9y ago
  I don't know why you care about anecdotes, but if you do: I became a software developer because I though computers were interesting. My friends called me a geek. My father tried to stop me because he wanted me to work in a construction industry LIKE THE REAL MEN DO. My mother wanted me to become a lawyer because it is a respectful profession unlike being a nerd. For about 10 years my parents continuously tried to prevent me from using computers and told me to "go outside and play" etc. So did I become a construction worker or a lawyer? Nope. Did I become a software engineer? Yes. How? Individual decision. I make my my own decision in life. Sometimes definitely influenced by others, but so what? If I get influenced by them it's my responsibility to handle it in the proper way and look for other opinions too. People pretend to be a weak and try to shift responsibility to other people/society deserve no pity.
sgt101 9y ago
Isn't capitalism about the use of capital to control and manage markets? If I will £5m on the lottery and then set up a company investing that money am I worth the 4% a year I should (probably would) make? The value of your teachers (or lack of value) will only become apparent over time - a long time. The value of your doctor may become absolute to you, several times over your life. God forbid that you or yours fall sick, but should your doctor be able to demand all of your worldly goods to heal you? What about farmers - should they gang together and refuse to supply food until starvation set in would that allow them to demand all of the cities wealth? If no then what is needed - is it a rule of law that enforces particular norms of behaviour?
- illuminati1911 9y ago
  While I never said societies should implement full 100% free market capitalism, all the problems that you mentioned cannot exists in that system. Free uninterrupted competition will destroy people/companies overpricing their services or force them to compete as well => lower their prices. Basically, offering poor/expensive service in capitalist system will naturally invite competition until the optimal price/value point has been reached. But like I said, that works in pure free market capitalism, which no politician would ever want to try because it would take power from them and give it to the people and markets.
  - sgt101 9y ago
    I think that your argument depends on perfect markets - perfect flow of information and 100% market efficiency (no transaction costs) and also perfect computability as in the capability for all actors to compute the optimal clearing of the optimal transaction system for the transaction at hand. I am pretty sure that teaching and medicine are the kind of good that would break these rules - political implementation, people and markets or no.
  - Joeri 9y ago
    You discount the abilities of monopolists to prevent new market entrants. They can lower prices only when there is a new player, until that player goes bankrupt, and then raise them again, discouraging others from trying again. They can lock up suppliers in exclusive contracts, preventing competition from sourcing parts. They can run massive disinformation campaigns. They can launch a series of baseless lawsuits. Etc... It's straightforward to have an abusive hold on a market without any government involvement at all, all you need is some deviousness.

johnfn 9y ago

> And job differences are individual decisions. What? So you became a (I assume) programmer due to yourself alone? You didn't have any help learning how to use a computer from your parents, you didn't have any encouragement of your peers to continue, you weren't influenced at all by society and how it favors certain behaviors, no good teachers helped you learn the requisite math or science or critical thinking? It was all entirely a decision made in a vacuum? Your viewpoint is far too reductionistic.

illuminati1911 9y ago
I don't know why you care about anecdotes, but if you do: I became a software developer because I though computers were interesting. My friends called me a geek. My father tried to stop me because he wanted me to work in a construction industry LIKE THE REAL MEN DO. My mother wanted me to become a lawyer because it is a respectful profession unlike being a nerd. For about 10 years my parents continuously tried to prevent me from using computers and told me to "go outside and play" etc. So did I become a construction worker or a lawyer? Nope. Did I become a software engineer? Yes. How? Individual decision. I make my my own decision in life. Sometimes definitely influenced by others, but so what? If I get influenced by them it's my responsibility to handle it in the proper way and look for other opinions too. People pretend to be a weak and try to shift responsibility to other people/society deserve no pity.

sgt101 9y ago

Isn't capitalism about the use of capital to control and manage markets? If I will £5m on the lottery and then set up a company investing that money am I worth the 4% a year I should (probably would) make? The value of your teachers (or lack of value) will only become apparent over time - a long time. The value of your doctor may become absolute to you, several times over your life. God forbid that you or yours fall sick, but should your doctor be able to demand all of your worldly goods to heal you? What about farmers - should they gang together and refuse to supply food until starvation set in would that allow them to demand all of the cities wealth? If no then what is needed - is it a rule of law that enforces particular norms of behaviour?

illuminati1911 9y ago
While I never said societies should implement full 100% free market capitalism, all the problems that you mentioned cannot exists in that system. Free uninterrupted competition will destroy people/companies overpricing their services or force them to compete as well => lower their prices. Basically, offering poor/expensive service in capitalist system will naturally invite competition until the optimal price/value point has been reached. But like I said, that works in pure free market capitalism, which no politician would ever want to try because it would take power from them and give it to the people and markets.
- sgt101 9y ago
  I think that your argument depends on perfect markets - perfect flow of information and 100% market efficiency (no transaction costs) and also perfect computability as in the capability for all actors to compute the optimal clearing of the optimal transaction system for the transaction at hand. I am pretty sure that teaching and medicine are the kind of good that would break these rules - political implementation, people and markets or no.
- Joeri 9y ago
  You discount the abilities of monopolists to prevent new market entrants. They can lower prices only when there is a new player, until that player goes bankrupt, and then raise them again, discouraging others from trying again. They can lock up suppliers in exclusive contracts, preventing competition from sourcing parts. They can run massive disinformation campaigns. They can launch a series of baseless lawsuits. Etc... It's straightforward to have an abusive hold on a market without any government involvement at all, all you need is some deviousness.