4 ms·

I agree. We have been conditioned to use wealth - which is neatly expressed as a 1-dimensional value - as a proxy for merit. If we are asked to do something th

I agree. We have been conditioned to use wealth - which is neatly expressed as a 1-dimensional value - as a proxy for merit. If we are asked to do something that in abstract we would consider stupid or pointless, but is now accompanied by a large amount of money, we accept with the presumption that no one would offer so much money if it weren't very important. Money provides a very simple, neat way of valuing every item or service on Earth. Deceptively simple.

tasty_freeze 8y ago
> We have been conditioned to use wealth ... as a proxy for merit. I imagine this is especially true for people who have a high score on this metric. It appeals to ego and vanity.
marmaduke 8y ago
> we accept with the presumption that no one would offer so much money if it weren't very important oh boy I'd take a higher paying job to pay my mortgage or ease vacation with kids. No need to have a higher value than that.
eklavya 8y ago
> neat way of valuing every item or service on Earth Isn't that the very concept of money? :) Edit: newlines
- EADGBE 8y ago
  Yes, the problem is that people associate what you have with what you are. Which are not the same thing. And therefor, make money the root of all evil today. If we traded in goats, it'd be how many goats you have. It doesn't matter at all the medium, as long as the value is tenable.
- Firadeoclus 8y ago
  To be pedantic it's pricing not valuing. Price and value (and cost) are related but different concepts.
dingaling 8y ago
> we accept with the presumption that no one would offer so much money if it weren't very important That seems to be overthinking motivation. If a sponsor was offering $500k for someone to stand on a streetcorner and sing Weird Al songs most people wouldn't consider that was an important job but they'd still do it for the money. Because the money provides opportunity to buy or do things that are worthwhile. Money is a simple way of valuing objective time vs opportunity.
- eigenvector 8y ago
  The example I thinking of is the common counterargument to "this job/industry/company is total BS": it can't be BS, because if it was no one rational would pay someone to do it. This presupposes that everything operates in a perfectly efficient market where pay corresponds directly to utility to someone, somewhere. The 2008 financial crash, for instance, arguably demonstrated that a lot of practices in the finance industry weren't really creating value for anyone, just deceptively pushing up the value of something worthless in order to profit from it. But if you had approached someone making $500k at Bear Sterns in 2007 and said that, it would have touched off a whole string of rationalizations that basically amount to: "I'm being paid a lot of money, so this must be useful, otherwise I wouldn't be so rich" and potentially even "if you are so smart, why aren't you making $500k?" And it's not just finance. I've had a version of that conversation often with Googlers when I criticize the company's bizarre and inexplicably messaging strategy were they seem to deliberately blow up any semblance of a good product. Their argument is ultimately, "we get paid $200k+ to do this and you work in a power plant, how could you possibly know any better than us?" That's what I'm trying to get at with "money as merit".
  - rmspower 8y ago
    Not that this makes their messaging strategy any more coherent, but 200k is on the very low end of Google compensation; new grads have offers with total compensation north of that. But they're just new grads, so obviously they can't know much, right?
    - 8y ago

tasty_freeze 8y ago

> We have been conditioned to use wealth ... as a proxy for merit. I imagine this is especially true for people who have a high score on this metric. It appeals to ego and vanity.

marmaduke 8y ago

> we accept with the presumption that no one would offer so much money if it weren't very important oh boy I'd take a higher paying job to pay my mortgage or ease vacation with kids. No need to have a higher value than that.

eklavya 8y ago

> neat way of valuing every item or service on Earth Isn't that the very concept of money? :) Edit: newlines

EADGBE 8y ago
Yes, the problem is that people associate what you have with what you are. Which are not the same thing. And therefor, make money the root of all evil today. If we traded in goats, it'd be how many goats you have. It doesn't matter at all the medium, as long as the value is tenable.
Firadeoclus 8y ago
To be pedantic it's pricing not valuing. Price and value (and cost) are related but different concepts.

dingaling 8y ago

> we accept with the presumption that no one would offer so much money if it weren't very important That seems to be overthinking motivation. If a sponsor was offering $500k for someone to stand on a streetcorner and sing Weird Al songs most people wouldn't consider that was an important job but they'd still do it for the money. Because the money provides opportunity to buy or do things that are worthwhile. Money is a simple way of valuing objective time vs opportunity.

eigenvector 8y ago
The example I thinking of is the common counterargument to "this job/industry/company is total BS": it can't be BS, because if it was no one rational would pay someone to do it. This presupposes that everything operates in a perfectly efficient market where pay corresponds directly to utility to someone, somewhere. The 2008 financial crash, for instance, arguably demonstrated that a lot of practices in the finance industry weren't really creating value for anyone, just deceptively pushing up the value of something worthless in order to profit from it. But if you had approached someone making $500k at Bear Sterns in 2007 and said that, it would have touched off a whole string of rationalizations that basically amount to: "I'm being paid a lot of money, so this must be useful, otherwise I wouldn't be so rich" and potentially even "if you are so smart, why aren't you making $500k?" And it's not just finance. I've had a version of that conversation often with Googlers when I criticize the company's bizarre and inexplicably messaging strategy were they seem to deliberately blow up any semblance of a good product. Their argument is ultimately, "we get paid $200k+ to do this and you work in a power plant, how could you possibly know any better than us?" That's what I'm trying to get at with "money as merit".
- rmspower 8y ago
  Not that this makes their messaging strategy any more coherent, but 200k is on the very low end of Google compensation; new grads have offers with total compensation north of that. But they're just new grads, so obviously they can't know much, right?
  - 8y ago