first of all, let’s level set. you must generally understand the conceptual nature of the fields of global macroeconomics and behavioral economics. that’s the buy-in or ante-up. comparative advantage requires those in your intellectual domain. comparative advantage is the economic advantage (usually cost) choice between two nations for a single product or service. for example, a corporation can choose high quality bananas from hawaii or panama, but chooses those from panama because they are cheaper to buy and ship to california.
the argument
this method by analogy can be transferred to behavioral economics. two people have equal skill sets in terms of their learning ability. they have matched intellects, matched knowledgebases, matched toolkits. how does a hiring manager choose one? there can be a comparative advantage that is unrelated to the skill set. for example, the hiring manager can pick the person who smells badly over the person who smells good.
the counterargument
unfortunately, this — among other downsides — plays into all sorts of biases that are both inherent and observed (think: racism). it’s generally viewed as “wrong” for a hiring manager to use certain personal attributes influence decision-making, especially during the hiring process. let’s say we live in a world where racism doesn’t exist (hint: it does) and said managers don’t enable it (hint: they do). then what’s the comparative advantage between person A and person B? there might not be any! the study of behavior — in a way — is a study of groups and sometimes stereotypes. let’s assume that hiring managers can use advantages but not disadvantages, just to prevent the argument from failing. fine. what’s the comparative advantage then? bribery? gifts? that gives the capitalist or the wealthier person the advantage. what else? nicer clothes? that gives the more fashionable or resourceful person the advantage.
this is a slippery slope. eventually, the person who can mold themselves into a member of the “culture” can excel.
let’s say the culture is the old boys club. all you have to do is … first be a boy … second be white … third be unscrupulously willing to trade anything for anything … ouch.
sounds like white privilege. sounds like male privilege. sounds like the privilege of the majority or privilege of the culturally elite. as all feedback loops go, so goes this one.
the answer is simple. you must suppress your morals, ethics and standards — all in exchange for your standars of living. you must intentionally become a sociopath or a psychopath. you must abandon your humanity and become a machine.
the retort
that is argumentation from a deep wellspring of emotion. it is an appeal to the righteous and the angry. it is child’s play on the field of rhetoric (did you see that? ad hominem attack).
as an individual organism, i have an evolutionary right to survive. as a self-aware entity, i have a right to thrive. my survival and my thriving require me to take the comparative advantage and game it and utilize it and economize it. i am required to get good utility out of it. therefore, i will take the bath and wear the nice clothes. however, i will not poke the bear, kick the dog, and rustle the ant’s nest. instead, i will let the bear hibernate until it is starved, i will let the sleeping dog lie, and i will pour poisoned honey on the ant’s nest.
the conclusion
our civilization was designed with you as the means of production. the future requires that you be the product. you can be a sweet tasting milk that the elite gobble up, or you can be a cow that makes sweet tasting milk. you have the choice for now. but be sure that you understand that you are not the elite and you never will be. you are the cow or you are the milk. nothing more.