3 ms·

I just dont think its economically efficient. It would seem like a huge waste of talent and potential.

by petermcneeley 8y ago

IggleSniggle 8y ago
That’s funny, seems like reinvesting to me. Better long term returns.
- petermcneeley 8y ago
  Let me put it in worker placement board game terms. If you have invested in making a worker scientist you probably want to place them on the location where you get a chance of getting a Tech upgrade. You likely dont want to place them on the location where you have a chance of upgrading another worker to a scientist worker when a much less specialized worker will do. And if you have too many tech upgrades then it makes no sense to try to upgrade normal workers to scientist workers. Anyone that plays games actually has an intuitive sense of economic calculation.
  - IggleSniggle 8y ago
    I think there’s societal level value in having normal workers with a better appreciation for and understanding of science. Something like at a particular saturation level: +10% bonus to research lab output, 25% reduction of policy update costs with presence of overwhelming scientific evidence (stacks), bonuses to population health improvement with Medical Lifestyle Research unlocks, 25% reduction of knowledge rust, 5% reduction in knowledge related production costs, faster to upgrade to scientist, 2% chance that a normal worker will automatically upgrade to a scientist worker, etc. Obviously there are opportunity costs.
abdullahkhalids 8y ago
I don't think anybody is obliged in any sense of the word to work a job that is the best return to society or themselves. Society can encourage people with certain talents to go for certain jobs, but people should be able to refuse such encouragements and instead do what makes them happy. Isn't the purpose of life to do what gives you satisfaction and makes you happy?

3 ms·

I just dont think its economically efficient. It would seem like a huge waste of talent and potential.

by petermcneeley 8y ago

I just dont think its economically efficient. It would seem like a huge waste of talent and potential.

IggleSniggle 8y ago
That’s funny, seems like reinvesting to me. Better long term returns.
- petermcneeley 8y ago
  Let me put it in worker placement board game terms. If you have invested in making a worker scientist you probably want to place them on the location where you get a chance of getting a Tech upgrade. You likely dont want to place them on the location where you have a chance of upgrading another worker to a scientist worker when a much less specialized worker will do. And if you have too many tech upgrades then it makes no sense to try to upgrade normal workers to scientist workers. Anyone that plays games actually has an intuitive sense of economic calculation.
  - IggleSniggle 8y ago
    I think there’s societal level value in having normal workers with a better appreciation for and understanding of science. Something like at a particular saturation level: +10% bonus to research lab output, 25% reduction of policy update costs with presence of overwhelming scientific evidence (stacks), bonuses to population health improvement with Medical Lifestyle Research unlocks, 25% reduction of knowledge rust, 5% reduction in knowledge related production costs, faster to upgrade to scientist, 2% chance that a normal worker will automatically upgrade to a scientist worker, etc. Obviously there are opportunity costs.
abdullahkhalids 8y ago
I don't think anybody is obliged in any sense of the word to work a job that is the best return to society or themselves. Society can encourage people with certain talents to go for certain jobs, but people should be able to refuse such encouragements and instead do what makes them happy. Isn't the purpose of life to do what gives you satisfaction and makes you happy?