4 ms·

> the more your job benefits your community and the planet the less you will get paid, and vice versa. It's even worse for social services. In a free market ec

> the more your job benefits your community and the planet the less you will get paid, and vice versa. It's even worse for social services. In a free market economy, this is an entirely false statement. People pay for the things they value. They more they value it, the more they pay. Compare the amount of hours spent playing video games to the amount of hours spent touring museums. It's not close. People value video games much more greatly than museums. Just because you value certain things more than others doesn't give them any intrinsic value.

9wzYQbTYsAIc 6y ago
Tragedy of the commons
fock 6y ago
well, if museums would drive the same marketing campaigns (read propaganda or simply media based manipulation), this might easily change... Also generally the amount of time you can spend in museums is somehow limited, as most don't allow you to be active (like videogames do in a sort of lobotomied way). As for your example: if you compare the amount of time people play in bands/sing in choirs (often without any direct money involved, e.g. around church or school) you've got an obvious example that people don't naturally "pay more for the things they value" (or see the need to pay or get payed at all). I value this very much and if someone was coming up and saying: pay up, I'd say - come on guys, let's do this on our own.
- linuxftw 6y ago
  > this might easily change This is a perfectly testable hypothesis in the free market. You can start a museum and market it, and see if you generate a profit. If you don't, then you have to fund it yourself (pay) or hope a handful of others value it and pay. > often without any direct money involved, e.g. around church or school There's much money involved in organizing people and having venues for whatever it is they do inside those venues. In these cases, the people paying for these organized singing events are what you would consider a patron. Churches and schools aren't free. Modern instruments cost a lot of money, lots of labor to produce. As far as just some friends getting together and signing because they enjoy it, that's obviously free. But it's not a service that someone else is providing to you, that's just something you're doing because you feel is has value. What would be more analogous would be having a civic center where people perform and.... people pay money to enter the venue and be entertained. Some people greatly value libraries and museums. I don't. Those people should pay for them. If from time to time, I might want to use their services, I would gladly pay. If there was a membership required, perhaps I would enroll if I felt the cost was worth the benefit. This happens every day for many other industries. Anyway, the root of the point was that people don't value librarians so they don't get paid as well as programmers. This is true. If it wasn't true, they would be paid more. I know this really hurts the socialist sensibilities of people on this site, but it's the cold hard truth.
  - fock 6y ago
    > Modern instruments cost a lot of money, lots of labor to produce. well, I'm not sure, how the trumpet from 1970 differs from a modern instrument (and yeah, people are still using these, where I play), but yeah, "lot of money, lots of labor" ><((((*> And btw., one of the bands I'm in plays sometimes for money, but incurs no cost for membership or anything. It's just there.
    - linuxftw 6y ago
      > well, I'm not sure, how the trumpet from 1970 differs from a modern instrument I consider a trumpet a modern instrument. How did you procure said trumpet? Did you pick it from the wild trumpet tree? No, of course not. Someone mined the copper and zinc, refined them, someone combined them into the alloy brass, someone formed that brass into a trumpet. Of course, the trumpet wasn't conceived magically, it was something that went through countless iterations and revisions as instrument building matured. Then someone had to sell the trumpet to you. Unless you were at the factor-direct trumpet store, it was shipped to a retail location or warehouse where you then purchased it. Money and labor was invested just so you can obtain the trumpet. How much labor goes into making a trumpet? Lots. Someone realized there was a market for trumpets and invested a good bit of capital to produce them. Improvements in manufacturing (aka, market efficiency) has resulted in high quality trumpets being produced cheaply, same as anything else. I'd say, the entire price structure of the trumpet (or much of anything, really) is entirely labor based. The metals exist in the ground. Digging them up is free (purchasing mineral rights notwithstanding) in terms of needed to pay the earth for them. Much like libraries, there are places you can rent musical instruments like trumpets. These are often 'required' for education purposes, so why doesn't the government just have a trumpet library same as the book library? Don't you enjoy music? Why don't you demand taxes pay for instruments for the homeless that can't afford their own instruments? They're so enriching and such. All those things exist because people voted with their money to make sure they exist. It's not because some greater good commanded their existence.
moonbug 6y ago
Everything wrong with HN, in a single comment.
montebicyclelo 6y ago
a = how much `thing` benefits community b = how much community values `thing` a != b
jefurii 6y ago
In my statement I wasn't trying to center museums particularly. The OP was asking about nature conservation and museums/libraries are the aspect of preservation of the natural world or care of people and communities that I'm most familiar with. Our capitalist society doesn't place much value on these. [Update: wording]
- cjj 6y ago
  Sustainable tourism is a good example that is helping add value to the natural world within the constraints of our capitalist society. When an animal is worth more alive than dead then local people are more likely to protect it. Gorilla Trekking in Rwanada and Uganda are examples where the tourism dollars had greatly reduced poaching in the parks. Sadly things are unravelling without tourism money coming into the country and poaching is on the rise. Unfortunately there aren't going to be many jobs in this sector currently until COVID-19 is brought more under control.
faceplanted 6y ago
The video games vs museums comparison is kinda terrible though, don't you think? I physically _can't_ just go to a museum after work like I can play a video game or watch a documentary. There's a huge number of literally free museums in my city, but I still have to cook for my family.
- jefurii 6y ago
  I don't mean to pick on video games just for being video games. The place I worked at was actually pretty great when I started: we made these great educational games but then got bought out by another business that changed our focus in a negative way. Like literature and other media, games can absolutely be a tool for good, for exploring all kinds of history and issues and raising awareness. They're also great for maintaining sanity in difficult times.
dougmwne 6y ago
Simple, black and white mental models of the world may lead a person to draw shockingly wrong conclusions about the world. The pay in non-profit absolutely sucks. It sucks for a number of reasons, not some simple econ 101 reason. It sucks because there just isn't much revenue in asking people for donations. It sucks because all the leaders making pay decision are making sacrifices and feel like everyone else should be as well. It sucks because there are always more young, idealistic people to replace the burned out, cynical ones. It sucks because most of the work is low skilled. It sucks because non-profits are somewhat divorced from competitive pressures and are not forced to pay for absolutely the most talented people. It sucks because the kind of people who take these jobs are happy to take pay cuts.
Angostura 6y ago
> In a free market economy, this is an entirely false statement. People pay for the things they value. They more they value it, the more they pay. Except this is an entirely false statement. In free market economy, there is no easy way for people to pay for many things they value, and know that they will receive the goods in return. I may value a stable climate, clean air, a stable ecosystem, but the free market alone doesn't provide a way for me to pay what would be required and know that I will get a return, because unfortunately, such things require collective action.
underbluewaters 6y ago
You're making a very broad statement here. A more specific one would demonstrate the underlying problem. Our society relies on the free market to assign value to work, and the free market values video games higher than education or improving the environment that supports us. Capitalism doesn't really support the values people would at least claim to believe in.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
xg15 6y ago
Easy solution: Put everyone under highly-addictive drugs. The addiction will ensure that people value getting more of the drug far more than anything else, so we can consolidate the complete economy into producing drugs and nothing else. It's alright, cause we're producing what people value, right?

9wzYQbTYsAIc 6y ago

Tragedy of the commons

fock 6y ago

well, if museums would drive the same marketing campaigns (read propaganda or simply media based manipulation), this might easily change... Also generally the amount of time you can spend in museums is somehow limited, as most don't allow you to be active (like videogames do in a sort of lobotomied way). As for your example: if you compare the amount of time people play in bands/sing in choirs (often without any direct money involved, e.g. around church or school) you've got an obvious example that people don't naturally "pay more for the things they value" (or see the need to pay or get payed at all). I value this very much and if someone was coming up and saying: pay up, I'd say - come on guys, let's do this on our own.

linuxftw 6y ago
> this might easily change This is a perfectly testable hypothesis in the free market. You can start a museum and market it, and see if you generate a profit. If you don't, then you have to fund it yourself (pay) or hope a handful of others value it and pay. > often without any direct money involved, e.g. around church or school There's much money involved in organizing people and having venues for whatever it is they do inside those venues. In these cases, the people paying for these organized singing events are what you would consider a patron. Churches and schools aren't free. Modern instruments cost a lot of money, lots of labor to produce. As far as just some friends getting together and signing because they enjoy it, that's obviously free. But it's not a service that someone else is providing to you, that's just something you're doing because you feel is has value. What would be more analogous would be having a civic center where people perform and.... people pay money to enter the venue and be entertained. Some people greatly value libraries and museums. I don't. Those people should pay for them. If from time to time, I might want to use their services, I would gladly pay. If there was a membership required, perhaps I would enroll if I felt the cost was worth the benefit. This happens every day for many other industries. Anyway, the root of the point was that people don't value librarians so they don't get paid as well as programmers. This is true. If it wasn't true, they would be paid more. I know this really hurts the socialist sensibilities of people on this site, but it's the cold hard truth.
- fock 6y ago
  > Modern instruments cost a lot of money, lots of labor to produce. well, I'm not sure, how the trumpet from 1970 differs from a modern instrument (and yeah, people are still using these, where I play), but yeah, "lot of money, lots of labor" ><((((*> And btw., one of the bands I'm in plays sometimes for money, but incurs no cost for membership or anything. It's just there.
  - linuxftw 6y ago
    > well, I'm not sure, how the trumpet from 1970 differs from a modern instrument I consider a trumpet a modern instrument. How did you procure said trumpet? Did you pick it from the wild trumpet tree? No, of course not. Someone mined the copper and zinc, refined them, someone combined them into the alloy brass, someone formed that brass into a trumpet. Of course, the trumpet wasn't conceived magically, it was something that went through countless iterations and revisions as instrument building matured. Then someone had to sell the trumpet to you. Unless you were at the factor-direct trumpet store, it was shipped to a retail location or warehouse where you then purchased it. Money and labor was invested just so you can obtain the trumpet. How much labor goes into making a trumpet? Lots. Someone realized there was a market for trumpets and invested a good bit of capital to produce them. Improvements in manufacturing (aka, market efficiency) has resulted in high quality trumpets being produced cheaply, same as anything else. I'd say, the entire price structure of the trumpet (or much of anything, really) is entirely labor based. The metals exist in the ground. Digging them up is free (purchasing mineral rights notwithstanding) in terms of needed to pay the earth for them. Much like libraries, there are places you can rent musical instruments like trumpets. These are often 'required' for education purposes, so why doesn't the government just have a trumpet library same as the book library? Don't you enjoy music? Why don't you demand taxes pay for instruments for the homeless that can't afford their own instruments? They're so enriching and such. All those things exist because people voted with their money to make sure they exist. It's not because some greater good commanded their existence.

moonbug 6y ago

Everything wrong with HN, in a single comment.

montebicyclelo 6y ago

a = how much `thing` benefits community b = how much community values `thing` a != b

jefurii 6y ago

In my statement I wasn't trying to center museums particularly. The OP was asking about nature conservation and museums/libraries are the aspect of preservation of the natural world or care of people and communities that I'm most familiar with. Our capitalist society doesn't place much value on these. [Update: wording]

cjj 6y ago
Sustainable tourism is a good example that is helping add value to the natural world within the constraints of our capitalist society. When an animal is worth more alive than dead then local people are more likely to protect it. Gorilla Trekking in Rwanada and Uganda are examples where the tourism dollars had greatly reduced poaching in the parks. Sadly things are unravelling without tourism money coming into the country and poaching is on the rise. Unfortunately there aren't going to be many jobs in this sector currently until COVID-19 is brought more under control.

faceplanted 6y ago

The video games vs museums comparison is kinda terrible though, don't you think? I physically _can't_ just go to a museum after work like I can play a video game or watch a documentary. There's a huge number of literally free museums in my city, but I still have to cook for my family.

jefurii 6y ago
I don't mean to pick on video games just for being video games. The place I worked at was actually pretty great when I started: we made these great educational games but then got bought out by another business that changed our focus in a negative way. Like literature and other media, games can absolutely be a tool for good, for exploring all kinds of history and issues and raising awareness. They're also great for maintaining sanity in difficult times.

dougmwne 6y ago

Simple, black and white mental models of the world may lead a person to draw shockingly wrong conclusions about the world. The pay in non-profit absolutely sucks. It sucks for a number of reasons, not some simple econ 101 reason. It sucks because there just isn't much revenue in asking people for donations. It sucks because all the leaders making pay decision are making sacrifices and feel like everyone else should be as well. It sucks because there are always more young, idealistic people to replace the burned out, cynical ones. It sucks because most of the work is low skilled. It sucks because non-profits are somewhat divorced from competitive pressures and are not forced to pay for absolutely the most talented people. It sucks because the kind of people who take these jobs are happy to take pay cuts.

Angostura 6y ago

> In a free market economy, this is an entirely false statement. People pay for the things they value. They more they value it, the more they pay. Except this is an entirely false statement. In free market economy, there is no easy way for people to pay for many things they value, and know that they will receive the goods in return. I may value a stable climate, clean air, a stable ecosystem, but the free market alone doesn't provide a way for me to pay what would be required and know that I will get a return, because unfortunately, such things require collective action.

underbluewaters 6y ago

You're making a very broad statement here. A more specific one would demonstrate the underlying problem. Our society relies on the free market to assign value to work, and the free market values video games higher than education or improving the environment that supports us. Capitalism doesn't really support the values people would at least claim to believe in.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

xg15 6y ago

Easy solution: Put everyone under highly-addictive drugs. The addiction will ensure that people value getting more of the drug far more than anything else, so we can consolidate the complete economy into producing drugs and nothing else. It's alright, cause we're producing what people value, right?