3 ms·

This is the ugly underbelly of capitalism: that people aren't paid based upon their "importance". They are simply paid based upon their "value" to the market. I

This is the ugly underbelly of capitalism: that people aren't paid based upon their "importance". They are simply paid based upon their "value" to the market. Is it important for Clayton Kershaw to pitch for the Dodgers? No, but it is demanded. While I understand the sentiment of wanting to help the poorest of the poor, if it's true that money isn't the be-all, end-all then does it really matter that a trader makes millions while a nurse practitioner only makes $100k? The money isn't what's important, right? And the poorest of the poor in this country are rich compared to the poor from previous generations.

yetanotherphd 13y ago
I would say that in most cases, people need to redefine importance in a way that is hard to accept. There is no need for scare quotes. The value is real, and when a person earns a certain amount, it's because the produce that much value (finance is kind of exceptional, in that there is a mix of true value and rent-seeking). Now how can it be that nurse practitioners don't produce that much value? It is because the relevant quantity is the marginal value of an additional nurse practitioner, not the average value. And why is it fair to pay people according to their marginal value, and not their average value? That is because it incentives the most efficient behavior. An additional software engineer is worth more to society than an additional nurse. The fact that getting rid of all nurses would be worse than getting rid of all software engineers (assuming this was true) is irrelevant, because as people quit the nursing profession, wages will rise. So the problem is not capitalism, but people's inability to accept that the implications of economics theory: first, that there is no ethical reason to reward people for the average value of a person in their profession, as opposed to the marginal value, and second, that frivolous things like Twitter can be as valuable as medical services (if people are willing to pay as much for either).
- frogpelt 13y ago
  Very well stated. And you're right, no need for scare quotes.

yetanotherphd 13y ago

I would say that in most cases, people need to redefine importance in a way that is hard to accept. There is no need for scare quotes. The value is real, and when a person earns a certain amount, it's because the produce that much value (finance is kind of exceptional, in that there is a mix of true value and rent-seeking). Now how can it be that nurse practitioners don't produce that much value? It is because the relevant quantity is the marginal value of an additional nurse practitioner, not the average value. And why is it fair to pay people according to their marginal value, and not their average value? That is because it incentives the most efficient behavior. An additional software engineer is worth more to society than an additional nurse. The fact that getting rid of all nurses would be worse than getting rid of all software engineers (assuming this was true) is irrelevant, because as people quit the nursing profession, wages will rise. So the problem is not capitalism, but people's inability to accept that the implications of economics theory: first, that there is no ethical reason to reward people for the average value of a person in their profession, as opposed to the marginal value, and second, that frivolous things like Twitter can be as valuable as medical services (if people are willing to pay as much for either).

frogpelt 13y ago
Very well stated. And you're right, no need for scare quotes.