You do not need to be a socialist to observe that there is often misalignment between the most well-paid jobs and the work that is the most important to do.
“Important” by whose lights? I’m not saying our market economy always incentivizes the work I think is most important, but that’s relative to my opinion about what’s most important. I bristle a bit when I see sentences like this because they smuggle in an assumption that it’s obvious what’s most important to do. In fact, the market is providing some measure of importance, just as my opinion is, and it’s not clear if the market, my opinion, someone else’s opinion, or the aggregate opinion of the populace (however that might be measured in some meaningful way that’s different from the aggregation the market already provides) will, on reflection, result in better outcomes for what I and others care about.
In terms of allocating scarce goods, I agree that the market economy is pretty decent, but it also has known failure modes that I’m sure you’re familiar with. One of them is that certain things, such as childrearing, or work on repealing the Jones Act, are undervalued by the market because no one on the other side of the transaction captures enough of the value to pay accordingly. Angela Davis cheekily asks how much less productive our economy would be if our workers were not potty trained.
When it comes to things like reproductive labour and childrearing, I also think it’s hard to get the market to not undervalue those things without capturing them more (ie subjecting them more to market dynamics), and I don’t want them to be more captured, so there really aren’t any good moves here imo.
When it comes to repealing the Jones Act, Balsa Research is soliciting patrons.
“Important” by whose lights? I’m not saying our market economy always incentivizes the work I think is most important, but that’s relative to my opinion about what’s most important. I bristle a bit when I see sentences like this because they smuggle in an assumption that it’s obvious what’s most important to do. In fact, the market is providing some measure of importance, just as my opinion is, and it’s not clear if the market, my opinion, someone else’s opinion, or the aggregate opinion of the populace (however that might be measured in some meaningful way that’s different from the aggregation the market already provides) will, on reflection, result in better outcomes for what I and others care about.
In terms of allocating scarce goods, I agree that the market economy is pretty decent, but it also has known failure modes that I’m sure you’re familiar with. One of them is that certain things, such as childrearing, or work on repealing the Jones Act, are undervalued by the market because no one on the other side of the transaction captures enough of the value to pay accordingly. Angela Davis cheekily asks how much less productive our economy would be if our workers were not potty trained.
When it comes to things like reproductive labour and childrearing, I also think it’s hard to get the market to not undervalue those things without capturing them more (ie subjecting them more to market dynamics), and I don’t want them to be more captured, so there really aren’t any good moves here imo.
When it comes to repealing the Jones Act, Balsa Research is soliciting patrons.