Valuenomics

Yes, it is another something-"nomics" word, but I think the ideas I'm about to post should have a lot of value to just about everybody who wants to have sustainable growth in value.

In traditional economics it is said that the price to sell at is where the supply and demand lines cross. This means that the price and number of things match for both the buyer and seller. I'm not so sure about this, and haven't been since going over it in a college microeconomics class. Something just seems off to me.

That where I come to the growth aspect of my thoughts. Sure, meeting the demand of the consumers and making money is good, but it all is too abstract to be applied too strictly. Also, it's way too narrow for my tastes. Instead, look at the value of the thing to be sold from both the buyer and seller's points of view.

If the buyer values the thing more than the seller, we have the setting for a win-win situation. Sell someplace in the middle and everybody gains. The seller is getting more than they need to continue, and the buyer is getting a bargain. Both have their limits for the deal. This is the best situation.

If they value the thing equally, there is still value to be gained. In a situation like this the value comes from being able to continue doing what you need/want to do. Workers need to eat, and farmers need workers, so they find a suitable arrangement of equal value and continue to live comfortably. This is what traditional economics says to aim for.

Obviously, if there is no value on the thing that both are willing to agree on, then there is no deal. So, let's get back to the two situations described above.

Let's compare the situations of equal and unequal, but overlapping. Farmer 1 and farmer 2 both sell apples for $5 per unit, however much that is. Farmer 1 values the unit at $5 and so do his customers. Everybody gets the items at what they value them. Farmer 2 values his apples at $4, and his customers value them at $6, meaning they all get more value return than what they gave. Get what you give and get more than what you give, not much of a comparison.

Being this is posted on a blog about game design and learning science, you might be wondering why I'm posting about economics. After all, this isn't a blog on money. However, this is a blog that covers motivation, which is where topic is heading.

See, the buyer and seller are motivated to make a deal. However, greed and "business" have pushed this to the point that the markets are in bad shape. Business to a craftsman is to sell enough at a high enough price that he can continue living, working and providing any dependents. Business to a businessman is a craft. That's fine, because the craftsman works to work some more. The money isn't important compared to the craft. However those who do a craft, rather than being a craftsman may be doing it merely as a way to make money.

Those non-craftsmen walk a dangerous path, because they seek money. That's their focus. When you seek money, it can become more important than the craft. The things money can bring can become more important than the one's duties as a craftsman. Gaining can become more important than giving.

One person is not very effective at gaining value, but can be extremely effective at giving it. Remember the situation mentioned above with both sides gaining rather than making an exchange? It's the same thing. In a video game, one might have put out 100 points of effort value and gained 15 to 20 points of currency value. Or, one could have gained 7 - 10 in currency value and 20 - 50 in reputation and other forms of value by putting half into helping others. Being helped can then increase the value gained with and without effort on your part. This is in part how social marketing works, by the assistance of others.

In an educational setting we can apply the same situation rules with levels of buy in. The student who highly values the offered education will put in more effort than those who do not. How they assign value to the offered education is not within the scope of this post, but the implications are. There is more to this than just valuing the education, because of the value of the grade.

Here we get into multiple values for the same thing. This becomes very complex ,very quickly. Reality does that. For both the education and the grade there is value, effort and return. So a student who doesn't value the education, but does value the grade, will just do what they think will help them get the grade. Another student may not value the grade, but value the education, and thus focus on learning, not passing the class. Then there are those who value them about the same and go for both equally. On top of that, there are different levels of return on the effort applied. Merely applying oneself isn't enough. It has to be applied in the right ways.

Though I wonder about some parts of this. See, if we teach people the value of work by extrinsic motivators like our work being valued by others we then try to do things that others value giving them control over what we do.

...

If we teach it though enjoying what you do people then try to find things they like to do, without necessarily giving activities that aren't immediately, and always, fun a chance.

...

If we try to go the middle road we then have to leave it up to the people to choose which out of the three options they will take.

In the end this third option seems like the best route to me. With roll models taking the working for stability and to be able to work some more route, we have social proof of the craftsman life. Interdisciplinary teams working on projects in learning environments could then work as testing grounds. Through such experiences and educating them on the value of working together, and not just for yourself, there might be some hope.

Now I guess the questions are "what do we need to share with people" and "how do we create interdisciplinary projects for them?"

Have fun, spread the word and tell me what you think,
Igen Oukan

Valuenomics

View Blog Reactions