3 ms·

Sort of. I think it's more nuanced than that. Communism rebalances the relative worth of people in society. I.e. my grandfather, an engineer, earned less than

Sort of. I think it's more nuanced than that. Communism rebalances the relative worth of people in society. I.e. my grandfather, an engineer, earned less than a factory worker. An average or passing artist could earn a decent living in the Soviet Union, compared to having scraps today (in relative terms). I notice this calculus as I have an artistic career and a software career. I would like to pursue the artistic career (and am actually pretty good at it), but I would make many multiples less than I currently do in software. This is partly because of how we've financialized/structured the economy (i.e. software monopolies should have been broken up, taxes imposed, etc), not because the work is actually worth less in some sense.

bequanna 3y ago
Right, this is the kind of seductive but ultimately unrealistic kind of thinking that ropes in the vulnerable. Shouldn't people be incentivized to pursue work that they are good at, enjoy AND which society actually demands? If good art is rare and in higher demand, good artists will be able to demand higher pay. If good art is in high supply because many people prefer the artist lifestyle, artists will not be able to demand as high of pay. Both of these situations seem perfectly reasonable to me.
- medvezhenok 3y ago
  Sort of, but not really. There is a prisoner's dilemma here. People would like [better public transit, more art, you name it], but what's actually produced (and rewarded) doesn't completely overlap with what people want. It overlaps mainly with what _rich_ people want, which is different. The reason investment bankers are paid well is that they make money _for rich people_. If you look at any professions, the closer you are to the money source and to the rich, the more you make. Rich people want to stay rich in relative terms, not in absolute terms - something people always forget (because that makes them able to command other people's time and make other people "dance" for them, not buy gadgets or luxury goods which don't matter anyway). I.e. I would argue that a lot of things that command a high income in the U.S. are actually net-negative for society overall (if we look at the value not in $ value, but in human value). Extracting monopolistic rents, for example. Slumlording. Speculating in Bitcoin. The list is long if you want to really make it.
bequanna 3y ago
> not because the work is actually worth less in some sense. It depends on how you define value. If you mean value in terms of how much money you receive, you actually need other people to agree that what you're doing is worthwhile. If you only care about the feelings that YOU get from doing the work (which is totally OK) your work is still valuable, but don't expect others to provide you value in the form of money when you provided them nothing. In other words, I'm cool with you being an artist. But you can't force me to pay you for your art if I don't want it.
- medvezhenok 3y ago
  You're not paying for my software engineering either, at least not directly. In fact, you don't have a choice about it. It's included in the markup of the products you purchase - in all of them. In fact, if you had a choice, if we sold software services the way we sell art today, software salaries would go way down (in fact, someone could increase revenues for a company by making it impossible for you to unsubscribe. If that's not anti-value, I don't know what is. In fact, it's so bad that we even have to pass laws to outlaw it). Same for medicine and many other things - the financialization and obscurity of the actual source of the money is part of what allows this whole thing to continue.
  - medvezhenok 3y ago
    My point is that money is a very imperfect proxy for what people find valuable - frequently the things we spend the most money on are not a free market. And the closer you look, the more imperfect it gets. Someone would happily buy a house that's half the size of most on the market (or less) - unfortunately, such houses are prohibited by regulation. So they are forced to choose between buying twice the house at twice the cost or renting. It sort of works when you're comparing product A to product B at the store. When you're comparing parts of the economy, there are much greater forces and distortions at work.
int_19h 3y ago
An average artist who toed the party line. Let's not forget about "degenerate art" and all the other censorship.

bequanna 3y ago

Right, this is the kind of seductive but ultimately unrealistic kind of thinking that ropes in the vulnerable. Shouldn't people be incentivized to pursue work that they are good at, enjoy AND which society actually demands? If good art is rare and in higher demand, good artists will be able to demand higher pay. If good art is in high supply because many people prefer the artist lifestyle, artists will not be able to demand as high of pay. Both of these situations seem perfectly reasonable to me.

medvezhenok 3y ago
Sort of, but not really. There is a prisoner's dilemma here. People would like [better public transit, more art, you name it], but what's actually produced (and rewarded) doesn't completely overlap with what people want. It overlaps mainly with what _rich_ people want, which is different. The reason investment bankers are paid well is that they make money _for rich people_. If you look at any professions, the closer you are to the money source and to the rich, the more you make. Rich people want to stay rich in relative terms, not in absolute terms - something people always forget (because that makes them able to command other people's time and make other people "dance" for them, not buy gadgets or luxury goods which don't matter anyway). I.e. I would argue that a lot of things that command a high income in the U.S. are actually net-negative for society overall (if we look at the value not in $ value, but in human value). Extracting monopolistic rents, for example. Slumlording. Speculating in Bitcoin. The list is long if you want to really make it.

bequanna 3y ago

> not because the work is actually worth less in some sense. It depends on how you define value. If you mean value in terms of how much money you receive, you actually need other people to agree that what you're doing is worthwhile. If you only care about the feelings that YOU get from doing the work (which is totally OK) your work is still valuable, but don't expect others to provide you value in the form of money when you provided them nothing. In other words, I'm cool with you being an artist. But you can't force me to pay you for your art if I don't want it.

medvezhenok 3y ago
You're not paying for my software engineering either, at least not directly. In fact, you don't have a choice about it. It's included in the markup of the products you purchase - in all of them. In fact, if you had a choice, if we sold software services the way we sell art today, software salaries would go way down (in fact, someone could increase revenues for a company by making it impossible for you to unsubscribe. If that's not anti-value, I don't know what is. In fact, it's so bad that we even have to pass laws to outlaw it). Same for medicine and many other things - the financialization and obscurity of the actual source of the money is part of what allows this whole thing to continue.
- medvezhenok 3y ago
  My point is that money is a very imperfect proxy for what people find valuable - frequently the things we spend the most money on are not a free market. And the closer you look, the more imperfect it gets. Someone would happily buy a house that's half the size of most on the market (or less) - unfortunately, such houses are prohibited by regulation. So they are forced to choose between buying twice the house at twice the cost or renting. It sort of works when you're comparing product A to product B at the store. When you're comparing parts of the economy, there are much greater forces and distortions at work.

int_19h 3y ago

An average artist who toed the party line. Let's not forget about "degenerate art" and all the other censorship.