[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.

[beaconstudios]

Well I didn't make the robot comment, but I think it's valid to say that promoting people trying to operate rationally in the market can be pretty robotic if that's your primary motivation. However, given I withdrew that contention, having realised the OP was not talking about making market optimisation and profiteering your primary goal but just talking about how the labour market works, of course the robot thing isn't relevant anymore either.

[BobbyJo]

My bad since that wasn't you. These threads tend to get long in both content and time between messages, and it gets easy to mix up statements.

I do think people should always try to operate rationally in the market as, even though it isn't perfect, it will generally produce the highest likelihood of success.

In any case, I appreciate the engagement!