2 ms·
> But this ultimately leads to the ATP tour being solidified and newcomers being barred from entry as now the player ranked 250 is now earning an income that th
by jgwil2 5y ago
> But this ultimately leads to the ATP tour being solidified and newcomers being barred from entry as now the player ranked 250 is now earning an income that they can afford much better training than outsiders.
No, it would make it more worthwhile to invest in promising players, who now would have the prospect of making a decent living as a top 250-ranked touring pro, rather than needing to be in the top 50 or 100 in order to do so.
I think more generally the idea is that we should focus on equality rather than equity: people should be able to live well even if they "lose" the meritocratic contest.
- hervature 5y agoThat logic is the exact opposite approach of VC investing. They invest in moonshot ideas for the chance at a unicorn, not because it makes a solid lifestyle business. Again, this doesn't solve the meritocracy problem. If the top 250 get a steady source of income, which ones do you invest in? You wouldn't bother with the moonshot talent because the expected payoff is lower. It only becomes worthwhile to invest in those that have a good chance of breaking into the top 250. That is, the well established. It doesn't follow that a flatter pay structure is fairer in any way.
- jgwil2 5y agoWell yeah, the tennis example is pretty limited as an analogy because it's the players themselves, their parents, and maybe coaches who do the investing. Also, flattening the payouts is better if you want more people playing tennis professionally, but that might not actually be a desirable outcome. I think it's mainly useful as an example to show how minor skill differences can lead to massively different outcomes. It's up to us to decide whether and how much income redistribution will lead to the kind of society we want to live in.