3 ms·

> Says who exactly? Where do you see that competition is beneficial? Consider just one example: competition in the labor market. Businesses need to hire compe

> Says who exactly? Where do you see that competition is beneficial? Consider just one example: competition in the labor market. Businesses need to hire competent people that have the skills required for the job, otherwise they won't be able to function. That means pitting candidates against each other in a form of competition and sorting them during the interview process, in order to find who are the best at what you're hiring for. Without this one example of competition and sorting, hiring good people would be a roll of the dice and I'd even say that our whole economy wouldn't be able to function. There's countless other similar examples throughout the economy where competition and sorting are necessary, but I think that one example should suffice. > What kind of prosperity, and for who? Everyone is better off with it, because without it we'd all be in desperate poverty, since the economy wouldn't function.

jokoon 5y ago
> Without this one example of competition and sorting, hiring good people would be a roll of the dice and I'd even say that our whole economy wouldn't be able to function. It's difficult to prove. Where is the philosophy in that? Where is the theory about competition? How do you evaluate if a person is competent by the way? How do you really "pit" themselves against each other? I would say, let people candidate for the jobs they want to work, just put some simple requirement, and roll the dice. If those people are not happy with those jobs, they'll quit. > Everyone is better off with it, because without it we'd all be in desperate poverty, since the economy wouldn't function. I heard that argument thousands of time, without proof or arguments. I mean there are alternative but if all you say is that "There are no alternative, we do things this way because we don't know a different way so we're stuck", it's hard for me to be convinced.
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  You're proposing that we hire people either at random or if they merely claim that they can do something? That won't work. You're a C++ programmer. As you know, very few people know anything about C++, a lot of the people that claim they're good at C++ aren't, and the number of true C++ experts are very few and far between. If you select a person at random for a C++ job, either from the general population or the population of people that simply put C++ on their CV, you're probably going to get a bad hire, and if you do this for all your hires, you'll almost certainly fail as a business. > I heard that argument thousands of time, without proof or arguments. If you think that a business can function without sorting candidates through interviews or some other filtering process - which is a competition - then I believe you're the one with the burden of proof, not me.
  - jokoon 5y ago
    > You're proposing that we hire people either at random That was your idea. People are generally pretty well aware of their skills. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_abolitionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_abolitionism I never talked about business, and your example of C++ programmers is very very specific.
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      No, it wasn't my idea. My idea is the same as the idea held by literally every business (and indeed, virtually every org) in existence - interview lots of candidates, sort them by virtue of estimated competence for the role, then pick the best one and reject the others. You're the one that said "let people candidate for the jobs they want to work, just put some simple requirement, and roll the dice." > C++ programmers is very very specific. My C++ example was an explanation of why your idea won't work by bringing it into a domain that you're familiar with. You call it "very very specific" but it's the same anywhere in the business world. Change C++ engineer to Java engineer or salesperson or anything else, and my argument is identical. So no, my argument is not very specific. It is general. If you hire people without filtering/interviewing/reviewing N candidates and selecting the best N/5 or N/10, you are going to fail as an organization. That's just a well accepted fact and if you're going to deny that then you have a large burden of proof that you haven't satisfied. If you don't deny that, then you accept that competition is necessary for the functioning of the labor market and therefore of the economy/society. > I never talked about business. We're talking about the functioning of the economy. That's the topic of discussion. If the labor market can't function because people are ideologically opposed to sorting candidates, then the economy can't function.
      - jokoon 5y ago
        you said > hiring good people would be a roll of the dice and I'd even say that our whole economy wouldn't be able to function. > That's just a well accepted fact Says who? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc https://medium.com/@20manikandanad/why-competition-is-not-as-beneficial-for-society-as-people-might-think-4c5de8a7207c https://medium.com/@20manikandanad/why-competition-is-not-as... https://www.quora.com/Why-is-competition-often-seen-as-important-in-today-society https://www.quora.com/Why-is-competition-often-seen-as-impor... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism

jokoon 5y ago

> Without this one example of competition and sorting, hiring good people would be a roll of the dice and I'd even say that our whole economy wouldn't be able to function. It's difficult to prove. Where is the philosophy in that? Where is the theory about competition? How do you evaluate if a person is competent by the way? How do you really "pit" themselves against each other? I would say, let people candidate for the jobs they want to work, just put some simple requirement, and roll the dice. If those people are not happy with those jobs, they'll quit. > Everyone is better off with it, because without it we'd all be in desperate poverty, since the economy wouldn't function. I heard that argument thousands of time, without proof or arguments. I mean there are alternative but if all you say is that "There are no alternative, we do things this way because we don't know a different way so we're stuck", it's hard for me to be convinced.

fighterpilot 5y ago
You're proposing that we hire people either at random or if they merely claim that they can do something? That won't work. You're a C++ programmer. As you know, very few people know anything about C++, a lot of the people that claim they're good at C++ aren't, and the number of true C++ experts are very few and far between. If you select a person at random for a C++ job, either from the general population or the population of people that simply put C++ on their CV, you're probably going to get a bad hire, and if you do this for all your hires, you'll almost certainly fail as a business. > I heard that argument thousands of time, without proof or arguments. If you think that a business can function without sorting candidates through interviews or some other filtering process - which is a competition - then I believe you're the one with the burden of proof, not me.
- jokoon 5y ago
  > You're proposing that we hire people either at random That was your idea. People are generally pretty well aware of their skills. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_abolitionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_abolitionism I never talked about business, and your example of C++ programmers is very very specific.
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    No, it wasn't my idea. My idea is the same as the idea held by literally every business (and indeed, virtually every org) in existence - interview lots of candidates, sort them by virtue of estimated competence for the role, then pick the best one and reject the others. You're the one that said "let people candidate for the jobs they want to work, just put some simple requirement, and roll the dice." > C++ programmers is very very specific. My C++ example was an explanation of why your idea won't work by bringing it into a domain that you're familiar with. You call it "very very specific" but it's the same anywhere in the business world. Change C++ engineer to Java engineer or salesperson or anything else, and my argument is identical. So no, my argument is not very specific. It is general. If you hire people without filtering/interviewing/reviewing N candidates and selecting the best N/5 or N/10, you are going to fail as an organization. That's just a well accepted fact and if you're going to deny that then you have a large burden of proof that you haven't satisfied. If you don't deny that, then you accept that competition is necessary for the functioning of the labor market and therefore of the economy/society. > I never talked about business. We're talking about the functioning of the economy. That's the topic of discussion. If the labor market can't function because people are ideologically opposed to sorting candidates, then the economy can't function.
    - jokoon 5y ago
      you said > hiring good people would be a roll of the dice and I'd even say that our whole economy wouldn't be able to function. > That's just a well accepted fact Says who? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc https://medium.com/@20manikandanad/why-competition-is-not-as-beneficial-for-society-as-people-might-think-4c5de8a7207c https://medium.com/@20manikandanad/why-competition-is-not-as... https://www.quora.com/Why-is-competition-often-seen-as-important-in-today-society https://www.quora.com/Why-is-competition-often-seen-as-impor... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_fundamentalism