4 ms·

> no society that underemploys some large fraction of its populace will effectively compete against an equivalent one with efficient workplace participation. B

> no society that underemploys some large fraction of its populace will effectively compete against an equivalent one with efficient workplace participation. But this is not necessarily a good thing. Labor participation of an enslaved group is surely higher and they work more hours per day... Nor is it clear that other ethical practices outgrow societies that don't practice those ethics, e.g. China (and many other examples) and democracy. Nor would you want to entrench a non-ethical viewpoint when it comes to nuclear warfare ( first strike / nonproliferation) / climate change.

renewiltord 6y ago
The word 'efficient' is intended to be significant in the quoted sentence. Efficient labour participation is different. It means that a guy who can become a lawyer performs law. It means that a guy who can operate as a bricklayer lays bricks. And it means that a guy whose peak is unskilled labour is only going to perform unskilled labour. If you put your lawyers into ditch digging and your bricklayers into coffee delivery you can get 100% labour participation without efficient workplace participation. This is commonly the flaw with Arab nations' use of their workforce of women. They are all working a lot of the time. It's just a huge waste of what they're capable of. Slavery is similar. You just flatten everyone into unskilled labour. You lose. People will better fall on to the curve where they can participate the best in a free society than a slave society.