[ExI] retrainability of plebeians
emlynoregan at gmail.com
Thu Apr 30 05:52:44 UTC 2009
2009/4/29 Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:54 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>> No, that's not how the world works.
>> The level of reward does not equal the 'value' of the work.
>> (Now you need to get into a complex discussion about how to 'value' the work).
>> Compare the rewards of different jobs and you will quickly notice
>> strange anomalies.
>> High rewards are in the entertainment industry and anything to do with
>> celebrity. Pop stars, sports stars, hairdressers, chefs, interior
>> designers, etc.
>> The other big rewards are for the crooks in the financial industry,
>> whose reward is as much as they can get away with, without actually
>> being charged with fraud.
>> So, if your argument is based on the theoretical law of supply and
>> demand it fails in the real world that the rest of us live in.
>> (Or, the corollary, that if it is correct, then the law of supply and
>> demand produces a very poor quality of world).
> ### Acceptance of certain basic economic knowledge is indispensable
> for any discussion of economics. Since you seem to be playfully
> rejecting the basics, I see no reason to continue.
Not so. I think BillK is pointing out that our intuitive notion of
value, and the word value from the economics lexicon, are two
different things. In the economics discourse the idea that the level
of reward and the "value" diverge is wrong, because they are exactly
the same thing, whereas I think intuition says otherwise. I agree with
BillK, that value and reward are related but separate. Thus all my
banging on about voluntary vs paid activity, yada yada.
http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site
More information about the extropy-chat