4 ms·
>Inequality of outcomes is a requirement for incentives to improve. What proof do you use?
by windows_tips 8y ago
>Inequality of outcomes is a requirement for incentives to improve.
What proof do you use?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- RhysU 8y agoI claim this is self-evident. What counterproof do you propose?
- ajtulloch 8y agoAre you unironically claiming that having an inequality of economic outcomes is the only way to motivate/incentivise human behaviour?
- RhysU 8y agoNo, "inequality of outcomes" . If you are motivated by status, then inequality of status outcomes. If you are motivated by helping your siblings, then inequality of your siblings' well being. If you are motivated by glitter, then just how much glitter you get. Money is but one dimension... I am saying it is self-evident that there must be some non-trivial gradient in at least one direction.
- tormeh 8y agoTo be fair, it's not completely self evident in the sense that monetary inequality is the only incentive to improve. There are other kinds of inequality. Social status, for instance, rewards improvement, although it's very different.
- windows_tips 8y agoIf it were self-evident, it would not need to be stated. Imagine the game monopoly. Then, imagine a house rule that says all players receive $300 at the start of each turn.
- barrkel 8y agoThat's not the only source of income in Monopoly though.
- windows_tips 8y agoYes, but the incentives improved equally.