From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Nov 30 2002 - 16:07:54 MST
Technotranscendence wrote:
> On Friday, November 29, 2002 11:20 PM Ron H. Dehede011@aol.com wrote:
>
> If what you say is so -- and, in my experience, you always find
> incompetent people at the top and lots of room for process improvement
> (I work in IT) -- then you can make a nice chunk of change either
> starting your own business and doing things right or by offering up your
> cost cutting services to others already in business. Well, have you?
>
I have been in the software business for 22 years myself. The
overall impression is that the business models that predominate
are not conducive to producing and disseminating really good
software. This is one area where the questions are much broader
than just whether merit is important to recognize and reward.
Obviously merit is important but what is rewarded by the current
economy is not necessarily merit or not all the kinds of merit
we would want to see recognized, rewarded and strengthened.
> I think the wider question, though, that Caplan addressed was whether
> people should be rewarded equally when their output is not equal. The
> belief of not a few on this list appears to be that there should either
> be some minimum -- everyone gets at least a certain basket of goodies
> regardless of what they do or who will give it to them (some variant of
> welfare statism) -- or equal -- no one should get more or less than
> anyone else (pure egalitarianism) -- level of reward regardless of what
> individuals do.
I am not altogether sure the reward model itself is not somewhat
suspect but it is a reasonable working model. I would look at a
'minimum basket" more as inheritance of a rich culture rather
than as a handout. But there is a valid question of whether
such a situation suitably rewards or strengthens the type of
competencies and dedication we need. It is obvious that a
purely egalitarian model (not just financial but respect and so
on) provides little incentive (beyond self-satisfaction) for any
great efforts. Nor does it act to divvy up whatever remains
relatively scarce to those most able to maximally use it.
However, a "minimum basket" will also strengthen the outliers -
those whose work doesn't currently have monetary rewards -
allowing them time and space to develop what might just be the
next great thing, e.g. AGI.
> Applied to any other area, this notion would seem
> absurd. For instance, one would expect a species to evolve if all
> members had equal reproductive success -- save for drift effects.
> Likewise, one would also not expect a brain to learn if all synapses
> worked regardless of input and output. Academic rewards would be
> meaningless if everyone passed the test -- especially those who haven't
> mastered the material. Why must an economic system be any different?
>
A competitive evolutionary situation results in maximizing
whatever passes the current fitness criteria. If that criteria
is not suitable or only partially suitable to what is desired
then the competition will not result in a desirable outcome, at
least in part.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:30 MST