[BobbyJo]

> The counterargument is that no, we aren't, and optimising for market exploitation is both an effort in frustration and anathema to human wellbeing

I don't see how an argument that agrees with the parent is counter argument. They literally said we all need to look out for our own well being, and a part of that is managing our participation in voluntary exchange.

> We aren't all totally independent actors competing in a ruthless market to maximise profits.

I missed the part where the parent said that. Where was it?

[beaconstudios]

The model that the parent is positing is that we are all totally independent actors competing in a labour market and our primary goal should be to optimise our behaviour in said market.

While that's an accurate description of neoliberal economics, I'm arguing that it's neither natural, nor necessarily productive, nor conducive to human wellbeing to mould one's behaviour to fit that system. Or to be more concrete: you're wasting your life studying the labour market for opportunities, learning new disciplines to increase your wage, reading through employment contracts looking for advantages (obviously you should check for big fuck-you statements in contracts, just for self-protection). Not only is the market irrational, such that behaviour based on a rational model of the market is a poor guarantee of positive outcomes, but that living such a life based on market rationality is pretty immiserating and misaligned with what actually makes people happy.

[BobbyJo]

> The model that the parent is positing is that we are all totally independent actors competing in a labour market and our primary goal should be to optimise our behaviour in said market.

Parent never said totally independent, just that the assumption is the most useful operating mode. "Don't jump in a pool expecting a life guard" is good advice whether there is a tower nearby or not.

They also never said optimizing our participation should be a primary goal, but that our participation needs to be managed with our actual goals in mind. It's like he told everyone they should exercise and the counter argument is "Not everyone should quit their jobs to be a fitness model". It's nonsense.

[beaconstudios]

I think it's a matter of differing interpretations. When I hear "you are a company of one, and it's your job to manage your labour in the market and your investments to get the returns you want", it sounds to me like the commenter is saying that you should view yourself as a company operating in the marketplace and act accordingly. How do companies act in the market? They optimise for profit, they interact transactionally as opposed to through social and communal relations, and they hire specialised labour (or in the analogy, develop specialised skills) to fulfill their fiduciary and legal requirements. Your interpretation may differ, but that's the nature of perspectives.

[BobbyJo]

The entire comment is him explaining exactly how to interpret the you are a company statement, elaborating on the ways in which he intends the metaphor to be used. Extending it with your own biases and arguing against those biases is reactionary and not super useful.

You could have phrased much of your statement as "this should not be extended to mean...", or "If you are also implying X then Y", and it would have been totally valid. The counter argument framing is the issue, because it's just not a counter argument.

[beaconstudios]

I just went back and reread it to see if I missed something, but aside from the profit-centered angle (which I've already conceded was a misreading on my part), nope, it still appears to be entirely market focused. I couldn't say if that was intended or if the author just over-extended the analogy (obviously I inferred the former), but the whole comment was framed around operating effectively within the market economy. That's explicitly what it says.

[BobbyJo]

> but the whole comment was framed around operating effectively within the market economy. That's explicitly what it says.

Exactly. So where does all of this other stuff about being a robot and only optimizing for profit come in? The topic is work, and he's telling you how to think about work, not how to think about relationships with colleagues, hobbies, life goals, etc.