3 ms·

Let's just keep in mind that while we observe this in others we probably play the same game ourselves. Lately I have developed doubts that a system I was part

Let's just keep in mind that while we observe this in others we probably play the same game ourselves. Lately I have developed doubts that a system I was part in building up over the last few years and is generally well regarded is still necessary. It's pretty hard to admit this in public if a potential consequence may be to lose your job. I think people would be less prone to preserving problems if they wouldn't potentially lose their job and livelihood.

behringer 9y ago
Another argument for universal income.
js8 9y ago
> I think people would be less prone to preserving problems if they wouldn't potentially lose their job and livelihood. I agree with that. And I think part of the problem is the cultural notion that everything has to be "efficient". But a trade-off must be made between efficiency and robustness. I think it's a big myth that free market is efficient. No, free market is ridiculously redundant, but what actually makes it working so well is its robustness resulting from the redundancy. Hierarchical planning, like in big companies, is actually efficient. Global optimization. But being too efficient at the expense of robustness is what leads to unexpected disasters. Being ultra-efficient means no margin for failure. And unfortunately, the executives in big companies are motivated to take risk and overshoot the desired efficiency. And this idea came to public policy, where we don't want the public money to be "wasted", so we would rather have unemployment than people who are redundant for one reason or another. And that's what the basic income (as other commenter noted) debate is about, essentially. In the other comment here I also suggest 20% innovation time as a solution. It's actually the same problem - innovation time is seen as wasted, because it doesn't increase efficiency, only robustness.

behringer 9y ago

Another argument for universal income.

js8 9y ago

> I think people would be less prone to preserving problems if they wouldn't potentially lose their job and livelihood. I agree with that. And I think part of the problem is the cultural notion that everything has to be "efficient". But a trade-off must be made between efficiency and robustness. I think it's a big myth that free market is efficient. No, free market is ridiculously redundant, but what actually makes it working so well is its robustness resulting from the redundancy. Hierarchical planning, like in big companies, is actually efficient. Global optimization. But being too efficient at the expense of robustness is what leads to unexpected disasters. Being ultra-efficient means no margin for failure. And unfortunately, the executives in big companies are motivated to take risk and overshoot the desired efficiency. And this idea came to public policy, where we don't want the public money to be "wasted", so we would rather have unemployment than people who are redundant for one reason or another. And that's what the basic income (as other commenter noted) debate is about, essentially. In the other comment here I also suggest 20% innovation time as a solution. It's actually the same problem - innovation time is seen as wasted, because it doesn't increase efficiency, only robustness.