4 ms·
So what you appear to be saying is that the only thing women are good at is something they're all good at about equally and immediately. And something that the
by projektir 9y ago
So what you appear to be saying is that the only thing women are good at is something they're all good at about equally and immediately.
And something that the current system is completely unable to properly monetarily register and the system just relies on them giving it away for free while getting nothing in return.
That all sounds very convenient. It's also interesting that all of these things seem related to children. Why don't you add childbirth to the mix.
- Grustaf 9y agoI am not saying any of that, no. I'm simply explaining why nannies don't earn much. Still, they earn more than monks, who in some societies are seen as pillars of existence in a very literal sense. My point is again that income is set by supply and demand, not value in some deeper sense. The market "knows the price of everything and the value of nothing"
- projektir 9y agoWell, there's also a lot of supply of sprinters. Anyone can be a sprinter. There are far more sprinters than the world needs. Yet, nonetheless, there is value found in the Olympic sprinter. Or the NCAA sprinter. Why? Well, because a high skill in sprinting is valued as opposed to a lower skill in sprinting. It's something you can train at, get better at, and get recognized for. Something that would set you apart from all the other sprinters. Well, where are the Olympic nannies earning millions of dollars, then? If you're going to talk about supply and demand, you may want to think about why there's demand for something. Why is there demand for Olympic sprinters? Why is there no demand for Olympic teachers? That's really the question.
- Grustaf 9y agoSimple. Teaching doesn't scale, an olympic sprinter will do their thing in front of hundreds of millions of viewers.