41 ms·

The problem is that sports competition is zero-sum: it doesn't really matter whether the fastest run takes 4 minutes or 3:59, but it does matter whether you're

The problem is that sports competition is zero-sum: it doesn't really matter whether the fastest run takes 4 minutes or 3:59, but it does matter whether you're a second faster than your competitor. This quickly generates a "race to the bottom" where everyone has to pay absolute costs for relative advantages. This is less desirable outcome than is ideal, which is why there's room for making everyone better off through enforcement of norms against PEDs. It's a question of what everyone must do in order to be competitive. That said, there should be a conversation about whether the cure is worse than the disease. If PEDs are safe enough, the costs of enforcement and allowing the cheaters who make it through the screens to win will outweigh the benefits of having the bar for competition lowered.

addicted 9y ago
"This quickly generates a "race to the bottom" where everyone has to pay absolute costs for relative advantages." I really like this framing. You've expressed something I've felt intuitively but never really been able to articulate (either to myself or others).
- ThrustVectoring 9y ago
  As a side note: this framing is why I oppose subsidizing college in the US. Having a college degree is mostly a relative advantage, especially outside of STEM. We only need so many firefighters, so if we preferentially hire applicants with college degrees and subsidize college, it's kinda pointless. Better is making sure that economic opportunities remain available for those without degrees, when possible. Make it illegal to discriminate against those without college degrees unless it's a bona-fide occupational qualification.
  - greglindahl 9y ago
    Why can't we do both? Poor kids who would get a great benefit from college deserve as much help as poor kids who wouldn't benefit from college but would benefit from vocational training. If the object is to effectively help everyone, only doing half is a bad thing.
    - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
      Because there's a limited number of "slots" for the sorts of white-collar professional careers that a college degree gives you preferential treatment for. Putting another student through law school does not make law firms hire more lawyers. It means that the average quality of hired lawyers goes up while one more person with a law degree fails to get employed in the field. The analogy would be more clear with sports - putting more effort into youth basketball training won't make more NBA players, it will just make NBA players better.
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        This is the "lump of labor" fallacy. The NBA has a finite number of teams and only adds to them slowly. Having more good white-collar professionals often means that companies can expand and make more money. Even if there were a finite number of "slots", not funding smart poor kids to go to college is a dumb idea. Having smarter/better candidates for the "slots" is better.
        ThrustVectoring 9y ago
        Of course, different professions have different amounts of "get a bigger piece of the pie" versus "make the pie bigger". The trades are more obviously positive-sum: if people get better at making houses, more houses end up getting built for people to enjoy. Things like patent trolling are negative-sum: when a patent-trolling office expands, they do so at the cost of putting others out of work at a greater rate. However, this isn't the point that the "free college for everyone" crowd is aware of, let alone considering. It's straight equivocation between "college degree holder earns on average $X more" and "an extra college degree is worth $X more to society as a whole".

addicted 9y ago

"This quickly generates a "race to the bottom" where everyone has to pay absolute costs for relative advantages." I really like this framing. You've expressed something I've felt intuitively but never really been able to articulate (either to myself or others).

ThrustVectoring 9y ago
As a side note: this framing is why I oppose subsidizing college in the US. Having a college degree is mostly a relative advantage, especially outside of STEM. We only need so many firefighters, so if we preferentially hire applicants with college degrees and subsidize college, it's kinda pointless. Better is making sure that economic opportunities remain available for those without degrees, when possible. Make it illegal to discriminate against those without college degrees unless it's a bona-fide occupational qualification.
- greglindahl 9y ago
  Why can't we do both? Poor kids who would get a great benefit from college deserve as much help as poor kids who wouldn't benefit from college but would benefit from vocational training. If the object is to effectively help everyone, only doing half is a bad thing.
  - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
    Because there's a limited number of "slots" for the sorts of white-collar professional careers that a college degree gives you preferential treatment for. Putting another student through law school does not make law firms hire more lawyers. It means that the average quality of hired lawyers goes up while one more person with a law degree fails to get employed in the field. The analogy would be more clear with sports - putting more effort into youth basketball training won't make more NBA players, it will just make NBA players better.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      This is the "lump of labor" fallacy. The NBA has a finite number of teams and only adds to them slowly. Having more good white-collar professionals often means that companies can expand and make more money. Even if there were a finite number of "slots", not funding smart poor kids to go to college is a dumb idea. Having smarter/better candidates for the "slots" is better.
      - ThrustVectoring 9y ago
        Of course, different professions have different amounts of "get a bigger piece of the pie" versus "make the pie bigger". The trades are more obviously positive-sum: if people get better at making houses, more houses end up getting built for people to enjoy. Things like patent trolling are negative-sum: when a patent-trolling office expands, they do so at the cost of putting others out of work at a greater rate. However, this isn't the point that the "free college for everyone" crowd is aware of, let alone considering. It's straight equivocation between "college degree holder earns on average $X more" and "an extra college degree is worth $X more to society as a whole".