You must log in or # to comment.
It also rewards putting words like Freedom and Liberty in the names of laws that restrict freedom and liberty.
in before some child comes, downvotes people and bullshits about how Elon is actually very clever
I’ve noticed a trend amongst most Musk defenders now and general billionaire simps. They have the emotional maturity of a13 year old, they never really grew up in high school so are so stunted developmentally they’re a decade behind at the least.
Capitalism rewards fraud. It’s the true american way.
Case in point - when imitation crab came out in the 80s it was freakin’ delicious - tasted just like crab, and dirt cheap in comparison. But over the years they seem to have beem putting in less and less of whatever actual crab material gave it crab flavor, so now it’s pretty much just nondescript fish + orange dye. A bad imitation of imitation crab. Instead of enjoying wonderful inventions like these we have to ruin them a little at a time so somebody can make a teensy bit more profit each time, until they’re crap.
This implies neurosurgeons aren’t talented
Well, it’s not rocket science…
Surely matters how we measure talent.
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.
It will be studied in the far future the way we study monarchy or the Roman Empire.
Assuming we survive the extinction event we caused.
All the laborers I know get rewarded really well.
You really should get out more.
I’m all of those and I’m super rich
an yet, you’re on lemmy with the rest of us…
fake and possibly gay
Hey, we all love you if you’re gay. Fake, however, that’s unforgivable.
Oh shit
just kidding, homie
Is there any system that reward talent, hard work or skill ?
No, because it would be up to people to assess talent/hard work/skill and people are imperfect.
Also would you even want that system? Reward a bunch of John Henrys for killing themselves when their work should be done by machines? Reward artists for art that no one can appreciate? Reward skill that doesn’t ultimately benefit anyone?
Market socialism maybe. Look up mutualism and anarcho-syndicalism.
But personally I don’t think we need to do that. It’s to each according to need, not to each according to ability. We shouldn’t give people less because they’re disabled or more because they’re abled.
Problem is information. If you really need someone else to provide a good or service for you, then almost certainly you don’t know enough about said good or service to accurately gauge the providers skills and quality.
So by and large, we have to rely on what others say to indicate relative value. So the people most confident and/or most manipulative tend to win because they are the best at sounding good.
^ this.
Once we can meet everyone’s needs, then we can start talking about how to allocate the surplus. But I trust a society that takes cade of its people more than I trust us, in our current state, to have the right ideas about how that should work.
Sports, kinda. It’s possible to go unrewarded with them, but it’s very hard to go rewarded without them.
If you mean economic system, not really. Capitalism rewards having capital over everything else, communism (if we ignore the flawed attempts and go for theory) rewards everyone equally irrelevant of how hard you work or what your skills are. Though being skilled in something that’s actually pleasant as a job is a reward in itself as you won’t have to work manual labour.
Don’t know about sports even. Probably at least a base level to get on the threshold of celebrity, but then they can lean on personality and antics rather than performance in their sport.
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.
You would think, but actually there’s been some recent research that I think has interesting conclusions. The example, which is semi-related, is performance as a manager. When promoted using merit based, people tended to perform worse bcz they are promoted based on past performance in unrelated roles. When promoted randomly, the people who excelled at being a manager stayed in that position, and outperformed others who were promoted based on merit.
The point being, you don’t know who’s going to be good at something based on past performance in unrelated roles. We’ve built an entire system based on that concept, and it’s not really that surprising that it doesn’t work that well. If I can find the research article again, I’ll link it.
Edit: found it
The point being, you don’t know who’s going to be good at something based on past performance in unrelated roles.
What’s surprising to me isn’t that the random promotion system works over the performance in past unrelated roles system…
What’s surprising to me is that you practically never see the only other logical conclusion used in the business world much.
Aptitude testing.
True I honestly find the random promotion thing to be super unintuitive, and would struggle to do it if I was in a position to make those decisions.
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.
As make educated people, because they can’t judge their education, neither before choosing nor after being formed.
We can value education without commodifying it the way we’ve done. In my opinion, the current system rewards diploma mills and devalues education anyways.
I think education should be both inexpensive and completely voluntary, so that the only ‘reward’ for going to school is the knowledge you leave with.
No you create such a divide. Try learning with 3 jobs
I think school itself should be a million times harder, i.e actually mean something, and university should either be easier or just not pushed onto 100% of the workforce like it is in Britain, Spain, America, Ireland and Canada et cetera.
Also second baguette fish - in my country we have “degree apprenticeships” where you go to university alongside doing work for a company, and it seems appropriate because it effectively highlights where people are even needed in this completely oversaturated made up economy.
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?
with a master’s in carpentry you can start your own carpentry business. as a bachelor you’re only allowed to work in other people’s businesses. to get there you’ll have to pass wtitten and practical exams, for example building specific things to spec
That sounds really good. I didn’t have as much of a good experience with a government program, which consisted of the company giving me one example, then sending me right off to work, without giving a fuck if their products turn out well, or if I learn anything.
Still working here, still don’t know most things, because asking gets you the low-skilled tasks.
bro, even with education they are easy prey. There simply is no getting around the bell curve of humanity here.
In fact since public education is shaped by the regime (“the regime” = WHICHEVER system is in power, be it democracy, organised anarchy, monarchy, capitalism or communism), education will usually be catered towards supporting the regime in some way. If the regime does not control education at least a little bit, it leaves roo, for other pressure groups - organised minorities - to manipulate education, thus reducing Current Regime’s staying power and providing a foot-in for themselves
Actually, the research says to do that
Promoting people into leadership positions based on past unrelated experience does not make better managers and leaders.
Wow who would have thought the research in current regime would indicate that current regime is correct! You can tell the research is unbiased because it was published by current regime. Only in current regime can research be unbiased, thank god for current regime.
Knock it all you want. This was done by Italian researchers, no affiliation with the U.S. government.
Edit Here’s the actual research paper It’s pretty short actually
This was done by Italian researchers, no affiliation with the U.S. government.
Again. Regime. Current regime, which likes organisations run by very specific people in a very particular way, has investigated itself to find that “NOBODY DOES IT BETTER!”
Okay, we seem to be in a bit of a loop here. I’m going to go do something else with my time. Talking to you is a waste of time.
One day you’ll understand :)
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
That’s if you force people to work. If you let them choose freely, most will align with their skills because it is the most rewarding.
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.
The capitalist country achieved that to convince people of capitalism. It was highly motivated.
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.
It’s greed, reckless and a total lack of conscience which is rewarded.
…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
Doctors can do well, but I’ve never heard of a billionaire doctor. Engineers do well, but they’re not billionaires. Both doctors and engineers work hard, but not in the same physically demanding, body-harming way that laborers work. Laborers can even be paid deceptively well, with construction labor sometimes paying something like triple the minimum wage. But the cost to the laborer is paid with body breaking down, and you can bet that job-site they’re contracted for doesn’t provide health insurance. So they accumulate injury, breaking down their body, thus limiting how much of that physically taxing job they can do. So, in effect, they’re not being paid nearly enough. Because the pay doesn’t compensate their loss of bodily function. Think of it like an NFL defensive lineman. They’re paid very well, but their body takes a huge toll. A lot of former NFL players are not doing well, despite their huge initial earnings.
Just to add in, that a CEO definitely doesn’t work as hard as their hardest working employee, and the avg. CEO pay is roughly 325 times that of their average worker.
I’m an engineer and I still can’t afford a modest house. I’m paid well but I’m far from the biggest beneficiary of capitalism.
Labourers are harder working because they typically have longer hours and work some of the worst jobs.
You, sir, are daft.
And some of the wealthiest people alive are also some of the dumbest losers I’ve ever heard open their mouths.
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 do stop being engineers and doctors, because now their job title is different? A doctor is someone that practices within their field, as with an engineer. They may still carry the qualification, and to a degree the skills necessary to be an engineer and doctor again, but that’s not their job any longer, thus not the appropriate title.
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.
I don’t think you’ve seen the majority of C-suite in hospitals and other health centers just because you work in health care.
And it’s a large industry, but it’s only one among thousands.
So this is an assumption stacked on top of an assumption.
You’ve made a false assumption I’ve only worked at one hospital. I’ve work a several and I currently work for a health tech company and regularly communicate with operational and clinical leaders at multiple hospitals. Our software is currently in 2000+ hospitals in the US. Plus several thousand surgical clinics and infusion centers.
Did I make that assumption? Where?
The point is, even if you worked at several, it’s impossible to give an accurate estimate based on your own limited observations. Like you said, it’s a huge industry. I don’t mean to offend but I think a person working in health care should at least know a bit about levels of evidence and the like.
Running your software at a lot of places also doesn’t tell me much. You’ve made a failed argument from authority. No need to double down on it.
Yes? If you stop doing engineering work, then you’re not a practicing engineer.
(Unfortunately) you don’t get paid for the work you put in, or else there’d be UBI. You only get paid for what you do, and sometimes not even that.
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.
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.
u think contrarians should be paid more?
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.
Maybe it rewards beauty? Nah, I’m not that rich…
Capitalism rewards creating value
How do the massive profits from vulture (venture) capitalism fit into this notion? They are only ever manipulating debt, bankrupting a business, selling it’s assets. What value did they create? As with CEO’s vs their workers, it’s the worker that is creating the product, thus the value, why is the CEO paid 325 times more than the person creating the product?
This is actually true. But value is objective. The value it creates is for those in power.
It rewards creating profit. Which is not the same thing as value. Just look at all the worthless piles of shit making profits.
Not seeing how creating value is rewarded. I know a lot of people who create valuable things, but for some reason, their boss is rewarded the most, without actually creating the value.
Lol. As if most rich people created anything. Legalized theft by wagedumping, monopolizing or runing the environment isn’t “creating value”.
