I’m all of those and I’m super rich
It rewards stupidness, cutting corners, lying to people. Capitalism has created an economy driven by forced/planned obsolecence of hardware, literal gambling with rich people just betting against other businesses, industries and entire nations.
Basing our world around a system that on average funnels the least empathetic, most callous, greedy and power hungry psychopaths and sociopaths to positions with the most influence surely cannot possibly backfire in a major way for the rest of us.
Capitalism rewards creating value
Lol. As if most rich people created anything. Legalized theft by wagedumping, monopolizing or runing the environment isn’t “creating value”.
Do you have money? No? fuck you
as a product of generational wealth, money is not good
…the problem is I’m allowed to think about it and bitch without any agaency…
I need more upvote power.
Is there any system that reward talent, hard work or skill ?
Academia, sometimes.
If you try to do that you need metrics for evaluation and then you get people gaming the metrics. One example is academia.
In theory yes but in practice greedy leeches have found their way
Guild Economics, where you only ascend to leadership with experience in your trade. I don’t like the idea that some kid out of university could be assigned manager of an industry they didn’t even study for. Realistically, 90% of the workforce does not need to have gone to uni and we could reorganise society around apprenticeships instead.
No, don’t be anti-education. Uneducated people make easy prey.
in germany the apprenticeship system is very advanced and you can apprentice your way to a bachelor’s equivalent with further study to a master’s equivalent. that’s how most trades work here. apprentices do part time studying at a trade school and part time working the trade over multiple years simultaneously, with exams issued by the school and for example a chamber of industry. it’s very effective at turning students into effective workers, and if you find the right job you’ve got good prospects for a lifelong career, but obviously it does not teach you to doubt the system. of course there are also usually no “unnecessary” courses that would take away from an apprentice’s focus. i think it’s a decent balance, and you can always educate yourself on the state of the world in your free time.
Genuinely curious, what would a bachelors level or masters equivalent for a carpenter be?
bro, even with education they are easy prey. There simply is no getting around the bell curve of humanity here.
Well you could also ask if that’s fair. People are just born with more or less talent or skill. Nothing they can do about it. Should they be rewarded for that? Or saying it the opposite way: should people be punished for something they can’t change?
Life is never fair. not for humans and not for any living being.
If you try to make it fair by paying the person with lower skill same as skilled person, the skilled person won’t feel the need to use their skills anymore.
To make it fair you need a magic mirror that print statistics about each person (skill level, talent level, physical strength) and use these numbers to decide who used all their abilities and who pretend to be dumb to avoid using their brain/body
I think people who are naturally better at things should can and will always be rewarded for that; we make up for the discrepancy by making sure it’s not bloody torturous to live on a minimum wage job, thay there are support systems for the disabled, unemployed, and the simply unintelligent.
Reading about 1950s America it was clear that people were so comfortable that working in minimum wage jobs largrly didn’t bother them. If a capitalist country can achieve that, a well-organised country can achieve even better.
…why did they lock Leonardo DaVinci in a tower?..fucking rhethoric…
I thought engineers and doctors were the better paid professions
Artists are incredibly well paid off you get to the top of the game, like Taylor Swift or Spielberg
Not sure why you think labourers are harder working than artists or engineers
The point is that they’re paid much worse than the C-suite who reap the benefits of other people’s hard work.
The c suite isn’t in the example, but I wonder how many executives are engineers or scientists. But if an engineer is doctor enters the c suite, do they stop being engineers or doctors
They are 100% in the example, but rather implicitly than explicitly.
And the engineer or scientists C-suite are probably a small minority. Most are business majors.
I work in healthcare. Majority c-suite at hospitals, clinics, or practices have both a science masters or doctorate AND a business degree. Same goes for directors and most managers.
Healthcare is one of the largest industries. So you’d be excluding tens of thousands in Manager and above.
My company’s CEO started was a software developer at the company…
In terms of their skillset? Probably not immediately (skills may deteriorate due to lack of use over time). In terms of what they will be doing as part of the job, and how they use their skillset? To a certain degree, I would say yes.
u think contrarians should be paid more?
Taylor Swift works hard by modern standards but she would sit in the corner and cry after a day doing the work that we make immigrants do
You are talking out of your arse
You think she’d be ok after a 15 hour nursing home shift?
Tailor Swift and the likes are more capitalism than artistry.
When does one stop being an artist and turn into a capitalist
Well if you want to be really cynical you could say “when one gets successful enough,” and that makes sense to me - at T Swift or Ed Sheeran’s level of success, the global music tours make their workday a matter of planning things out and negotiating - and they’re so successful that they have a bunch of people to do it for them already!! So it is at that point, where your workday goes from actually writing songs to just reusing what you’ve written.
Sensibly though, you could say they are both. People can be 2 things at once. One of the most famous “architects” in the world is Bjarke Ingels but he actually just owns the company; his training is in illustration rather than architectural design. He is a creative, and it informs his practice and what he actually approves, but a large part of being recognised as an architect is actually from doing the non-architect part of it.
The reason Mardukas specifically says Taylor Swift is more capitalist than musician though is something very precise to Taylor swift: her career was launched by her dad, a big finance guy, who pushed her work onto all his clients when she was just a kid. Taylor went from being marketed as a country musician to being a pop musician. He explicitly didn’t want her to have to work very hard in life and felt confident he could engineer a following for her. She must be richer than him now, so it worked better than expected.
If you earn your musician wings from having them bought for you, you have not ascended the bardic steps to stardom, but floated up in a hot air balloon instead.
Their salaries are great in America but only as good as finance professionals, who are then in the system of money manipulation (not saying they’re all crooks) and hence receive pointers on how to re-invest their wealth; Doctors and engineers on the other hand are often too busy to even think about investment, making more money from their money.
It’s greed, reckless and a total lack of conscience which is rewarded.
Maybe it reward beauty? Nah, I’m not that rich…
Capitalism rewards ability to provide perceived value measured in $. If people perceive your product/service to be of greater or equal value to them than the $ amount (the work they had to do to earn it) you’re asking for it , then they’ll pay for it.
It rewards rent seeking and private property
Being rich isn’t the greatest reward. And not feasible. Only the few can ever be rich.
Demanding a society where an economic system makes the virtuous rich is mental.
An economic system should be measured by the quality of life and productivity by the society. And it’s ability to consume said wealth. I.e. china is failing their citizens, badly. So is Germany in their psychosis of exporting.
I.e. china is failing their citizens, badly.
I mean, no? China is the single biggest driver of reduced poverty in the world.
China is among the most populus countries and your metric is susceptible to that.
Okay that’s fair, let me try that again: Even on a per capita basis China is doing pretty well for itself. You can also compare other countries here (this is basically a poverty index so the lower it is the better).
Real gdp growth is not a good metric of wealth. It’s a metric of progress(speed).
It also doesn’t punish an export economy without domestic consumption, which is what I find worrying/exploitative.
It’s a metric of progress(speed).
I mean, that’s how you get good standards of living. You can also look up its GDP per capita, which isn’t high but is definitely respectable. In that case though you can look up China’s HDI. There’s just no metric by which China is failing the majority of its citizens (emphasis on majority; of course Uighurs for example will feel differently).
It also doesn’t punish an export economy without domestic consumption
That doesn’t make sense though. Exports bring in money which can be used to import stuff or for domestic consumption. A strong export economy leads to good standards of living.
That’s not correct. E.g. Germany has consistent exported way more goods and services than it has imported. A healthy economy is not an automatism from being good at shipping stuff off shore. There is no gain from building a car if you buy the materials ship the car and have money left over. You do actually have to spend that money. There is no good in owning money. That’s how economies die and cost of e.g. housing explodes.
I mean, Germany has one of the highest standards of living in the developed world despite being weighed down by East Germany so clearly it’s working out for them. Stuff like the housing crisis is hitting the whole developed world all at once, so it’s not like Germany is special there.
But surely being rich (i.e being comfortable and having the freedom to explore new enterprises) is the best reward that society en large can give you; the best and only appropriate award that the government can provide you for your skilled labour. It has also historically been very effective at getting society to innovate and improve.
So you want neurosurgeons to be rich enough so they can stop being neurosurgeons for their deed of becoming neurosurgeons? Sure they should be well off enough. But they typically are just normal people.
Rant: Scientists aren’t fundamentally better. They just have learned how to do science. That’s not particularly hard or admirable and virtually everyone could do it.
It is being made hard due to societal decisions such as high study costs etc. but that doesn’t make them superior.
I don’t like that elitism.
Please explain where China is failing their citizens? We cannot even afford houses in the West anymore, while they have 95 % homeownership rate in China. And there are many more examples like that.
China’s domestic consumption is very low, their exports are much greater than their imports, i.e. they provide the world with goods without sufficient compensation. Their population should be doing better and being wealthier. Their consumers are using real estate as an investment vehicle creating an enormous housing bubble. Home ownership is ridiculously expensive and there are mostly very small apartments at high rates. They are famous for constructing highly speculative ghost towns.
As soon as the promise of wealth in age starts to falter china may change fundamentally. And it seems like that may be coming soon rather than later.
