Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality
1–10 of 96 posts
Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality
#2Isn't this sort of a capitalist's spin on Marx's Labor Power theory? In such a system, a worker's productivity is roughly equal to their "power" in the marketplace.
Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality
#3How would "productivity" be measured?
And who would measure it?
Assuming that additional government bureaucracy would be created for this (noble) purpose, what guarantee would we have that their decisions would be any more "rational" or "efficient" than the so-called "free market" system that currently exists in the US for determining salaries?
This is not a criticism of the author's underlying arguments, just a question about how he would implement the proposed remedy.
Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality
#4We'd go a long way if we simply removed disruptive children from classrooms, and ensured that poor women have access to contraception and abortion. Right now its basically impossible to expel problematic students, particularly if they are African-American. We should also remove all programs that provide handouts for having children, and entirely replace them with tax credits. Marriage needs to be more greatly promoted in poor communities.
If exposure to wealthy American culture is so beneficial, we should be encouraging diversity in other countries, by allowing wealthy American families and communities to colonise new areas, and spread their way of life - "Good Colonialism": https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/31/2/the_case_for_col...
Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality
#5How would "productivity" be measured? And who would measure it? Assuming that additional government bureaucracy would be created for this (noble) purpose, what guarantee would we have that their decisions would be any more "rational" or "efficient" than the so-called "free market" system that currently exists in the US for determining salaries? This is not a criticism of the author's underlying arguments, just a ques…
Heck, even as a software developer, which HN heavily skews to, how would we measure productivity? Many fields are very creatively driven, it's incredibly difficult to put a number on it.
Lines of code? That was shown to be a total failure years ago. Jira tickets closed? Some tickets are much harder than others. Hours of butt in seat? Well, sadly that still seems to be a bit in vongue, but is thankfully dying out.
Vlue collar jobs are easier to put a number one, but a lot of white collar jobs don't, and the USA is rapidly shifting to white collar work.
Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality
#6> I think we can have a society that rewards people for productive or otherwise socially valuable contributions while also taking care of the poor and those who can’t work. If people were paid based on performance and we removed the political advantages that certain professional elites have carved out for themselves, we’d be much better off in terms of both inequality and economic growth.
What does this actually mean? Sure, a few professions like doctors have managed to protect their high salaries by constraining supply, but programmers are paid very well in the US and have no such protections.
It's hard to think of many more examples like doctors; lawyers, for example, have definitely not constrained their own supply and it's debatable how lucrative the profession as a whole really is, despite still having somewhat of an 'elite' connotation.
Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality
#7How would "productivity" be measured? And who would measure it? Assuming that additional government bureaucracy would be created for this (noble) purpose, what guarantee would we have that their decisions would be any more "rational" or "efficient" than the so-called "free market" system that currently exists in the US for determining salaries? This is not a criticism of the author's underlying arguments, just a ques…
Heck, even as a software developer, which HN heavily skews to, how would we measure productivity? Many fields are very creatively driven, it's incredibly difficult to put a number on it. Lines of code? That was shown to be a total failure years ago. Jira tickets closed? Some tickets are much harder than others. Hours of butt in seat? Well, sadly that still seems to be a bit in vongue, but is thankfully dying out. Vlu…
Exactly. At best you can ask teammates, but as soon as this becomes an important measure, people are incentivized to back scratch. Plus, people would have radically different standards for productivity based on their own experiences.
Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality
#8Valuing productivity is already reducing U.S. inequality. Lawyers and doctors can’t prevent people from getting better educated nor can they completely bar technological advances. Sure they can take short-term measures like regulating DNA or law-tech companies, etc. But many people have an inherent desire to get higher quality health and legal help for cheaper. Regulators can’t and won’t ever completely stop the decentralization movement.
Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality
#9> I think we can have a society that rewards people for productive or otherwise socially valuable contributions while also taking care of the poor and those who can’t work. If people were paid based on performance and we removed the political advantages that certain professional elites have carved out for themselves, we’d be much better off in terms of both inequality and economic growth. What does this actually mean…
[deleted]
Re: Valuing Productivity, Not Profession, Could Reduce U.S. Inequality
#10> I think we can have a society that rewards people for productive or otherwise socially valuable contributions while also taking care of the poor and those who can’t work.
I find "socially valuable contributions" to be a disturbing phrase.
First, that implies there's some sort of authority - legal or otherwise - that determines "socially valuable."
Second, quite often society is wrong in what "it" values or finds popular.
Finally, I use "wrong" from my point of view. Obviously there are many definitions of "wrong" based on your ethics, morality, religion (or lack thereof), values, and preferences.
It sounds like yet another social credit system.. whoever runs it wins.