Subject:
|
Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 10 Aug 2004 20:10:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2243 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
| |
And if your holeful yard increases the value of my
property, then perhaps (hypothetically) I’d be willing to compensate you
for your diggery.
|
But suppose you’re not?
|
In a market-ruled society the same would be true of any essential task that
no one wanted to perform.
|
Sure, sure... that’s the free rider problem. The pat answer solution is to
figure out how to price the task into the costs borne by those to whom it is
essential. (note: government is the most common, but not only, mechanism for
doing that pricing)
| |
| |
It’s not INHERENT worth here, it’s EXTRINSIC worth that matters. I posit
that some work is worth more than others because it’s judged useful by more
people. I further posit that it’s more efficient to let the market determine
worth than it is to have a Soviet do it.
|
Knowing your preference for “outcome” versus “intent,” I would speculate that
the years of training are, in the end, irrelevant to your assessment of the
value of the skill/task/service.
|
I agree. However, they are not irrelevant to the process that the person had to
go through to get them (saving, hitting daddy up for a loan, writing an essay to
win a scholarship, being zapped by Orbital Mind Enhancement Lasers(tm), etc.)
| |
Here’s a different thought experiment:
Guy A works for fifteen years as student, intern, resident, etc. to become a
brain surgeon of skill level X. At the end of those 15 years he asserts that
“My skill, won through 15 years of effort, justifies my choice to set my
price-for-service at Y,” and the market may accept or reject his assertion at
its whim.
Guy B sits on his butt for fifteen years before being struck by an alien
brain-o-ray that in one swoop grants him all the skill and knowledge re:
brain surgery that Guy A worked so hard to achieve. Guy B then asserts “My
skill, acquired through effortless means, justifies my choice to set my
price-for-service at Y,” and the market likewise may accept or reject his
assertion at its whim.
If Guy A and Guy B have identical skill and ability, would you say that it is
reasonable for both to set their price at the same level?
|
Yes. As you said, it’s not the acquisition that sets the price, it’s the value
of the skill. However there’s a knock-on effect. If there are a lot of Guy B’s
running around, in future there may be less Guy A’s willing to scrimp and save
for 15 years to put themselves through medschool. (meaning, less willing to pay
now for income later). Is that a good thing or a bad one?
If Guy B is benefiting from an actual new technology, the initial price point of
that new treatment ought to be pretty easy to sustain close to what that 15
years cost (in Net Present Value terms). But over time it will decline. Thus, a
good thing.
If Guy B is benefiting from some miracle that’s not sustainable, it may send a
bad message to the market, though... people will wonder why bother with
Medschool if I can just get lucky... bad money chasing out good. Thus, a bad
thing. (c.f. Cargo Cults)
| |
Doe the ability
itself matter more than the effort that it took to acquire that ability? Or
does the effort justifiably play into the worth of the service? Or do you
set aside individual choice and let the market itself decide?
I’m not a big believer in “fairness” as an actual force in the universe. But
IMO it nonetheless strikes me as objectionable that one who achieves a goal
through no effort should be rewarded equally as the one who achieved that
goal through substantial effort.
|
It may not be the most fair appearing thing but it nevertheless happens.
Here’s another thought experiment:
Guy C works hard all his life, and by the time he hits 65, he has saved a
million dollars thanks to scrimping (buying Tercels instead of Lexuses, if you
like, and so forth).
Guy D just skates by, but on his 65th birthday he buys a lottery ticket that
hits the jackpot, giving him a million after tax.
Should they be taxed equally on the interest or the inheritance when 6 months
later C and D headon and total C’s Tercel and D’s Lexus and both die? Should we
value both of these people equally?
The answers you give should have bearing on how you feel about state sponsored
lotteries and what message they’re sending the labor market.
| |
That’s why, to me, the notion of “let the market decide” has only limited
value in the real world because it grants unassailable favor to those who are
well-placed by happenstance of birth. A kid with no skills can grow up to be
President, hypothetically,
|
Or not, as it happens. :-)
| |
because he is rich and well placed. And how can
the market, which is vastly more succeptible to manipulation by the
well-placed than the not-well-placed,
|
Why is the free market “vastly” more susceptible? What exactly enables this
manipulation? Is it part of a free market or part of a partly free one?
| |
be trusted to dole out the rewards to the well-place and not-well-placed?
|
What does it mean to say that the market doles out rewards? I do not understand
that concept. The market itself has no will and makes no value judgements. The
information comes from the participants, and they’re not giving rewards, they’re
exchanging value for value, aren’t they?
| |
| |
Do not get me wrong, I chose Tercel on purpose, as I consider Toyota about
the finest car company extant in terms of reliability and suitability to
purpose. But their higher end products are better than their lower end
ones... Better fit, better finish, more thoughful design, more accessories,
more power, etc etc.
And surely you’d agree that if I had a Lexus and you had a Tercel, I had
“more” than you did?
|
I’d be forced to ask why “more” is preferable.
|
I told you why! A Lexus is a better car. I like nice cars. What’s wrong with
liking nice things? (cue “You kids never let me have nice things...”)
| |
Why is it not enough to have
“enough?”
|
How much is enough? Is a radio enough? Is a TV? How many channels? Does everyone
have to have internet connectivity? What is a necessity and what is a luxury
changes over time. Is a car without seatbelts good enough? How about airbags?
How about one without GPS? without OnStar or its ilk?
I predict 20 years (or less) from now most people will see GPS as a necessity in
a car, without really even considering (unless they get contemplative) that once
it was a luxury, and not too long before that, it was science fiction that a car
would be able to know where it was and tell you where to turn.
| |
And if we all had “enough,” wouldn’t that reduce the urge to
screw(1) one’s neighbor for the sake of getting “more?” I know, I know--Who
has the “right” to say that someone else has “enough?”
Are we, as a culture, so shallow that we are more concerned with acquiring
“more” for ourselves than we are with ensuring that others have “enough?”
|
I’m not sure I agree that it is necessarily shallow to be self interested, or
that it’s a zero sum game we are engaged in here. Bill Gate’s enrichment has
enriched me as well because he’s improved my productivity immeasurably.
| |
That speaks pretty poorly of our chances at longterm survival as a species.
|
I’m not sure I follow that.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) …and I predict that in 20 years time the technology will be obligatory as it will be used for road pricing! Scott A PS Ubiquitous perhaps. I doubt GPS will ever be a "necessity" as long has humans still drive; I don't even normally carry a map (...) (20 years ago, 11-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Preaching to the Choir
|
| (...) In a market-ruled society the same would be true of any essential task that no one wanted to perform. (...) Knowing your preference for "outcome" versus "intent," I would speculate that the years of training are, in the end, irrelevant to your (...) (20 years ago, 10-Aug-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
113 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
