5 ms·

What happens if you make the stipend contingent on educating yourself somehow?

by pi18n 15y ago

randomdata 15y ago
Education is a symptom of value creation, not the cause of it. In other words, education alone brings no value to society. If there is no incentive to create value, because you are already given an income with no strings attached, that education will not be put to any meaningful use. It seems to me that the stipend would need to be based on a plan to create value for society. If some level of education is required in order to proceed with that plan, it could be granted as part of the implementation. This reasonably mirrors the way entrepreneurs operate, which is essentially what we want to duplicate. The dream always comes before the education. The education is only a means to an end.
- nickik 15y ago
  Well education by itself creats value for you and the people you talk. It not socialism, when you acctully learn something/do something you will be able to get more.
  - ctdonath 15y ago
    You have to want to create value. As a teacher, I am amazed at how many students lack the will to create, to do the work - and they fail at great cost.
chc 15y ago
Then you get a rush on Underwater Basket Weaving 101. California allows young adults to continue getting their parents' benefits until their late 20s if they're in school. This does not actually encourage people to get a useful eight-year education.
jerf 15y ago
Then it will be gamed, with whatever minimal thing will satisfy "the system". And that's the answer to pretty every other "well, what if we put this requirement in" question, because the root problem is that you've created an incentive to put whatever minimal work will make the system happy, even if it means breaking the putative formal rules. People are smart, and you can't create a system with bad incentives and then just legislate the bad incentives away, because the mass of people you're trying to legislate is smarter and has way more time than you do. I am intrigued by the question of how income would be distributed in a still-hypothetical post-industrial world, but I fear the easy answer of just giving people a certain minimal income can't be made to work, which is unfortunate because I haven't got a better answer any more than anybody else does....

What happens if you make the stipend contingent on educating yourself somehow?

by pi18n 15y ago

What happens if you make the stipend contingent on educating yourself somehow?

Education is a symptom of value creation, not the cause of it. In other words, education alone brings no value to society. If there is no incentive to create value, because you are already given an income with no strings attached, that education will not be put to any meaningful use. It seems to me that the stipend would need to be based on a plan to create value for society. If some level of education is required in order to proceed with that plan, it could be granted as part of the implementation. This reasonably mirrors the way entrepreneurs operate, which is essentially what we want to duplicate. The dream always comes before the education. The education is only a means to an end.

nickik 15y ago
Well education by itself creats value for you and the people you talk. It not socialism, when you acctully learn something/do something you will be able to get more.
- ctdonath 15y ago
  You have to want to create value. As a teacher, I am amazed at how many students lack the will to create, to do the work - and they fail at great cost.

chc 15y ago

Then you get a rush on Underwater Basket Weaving 101. California allows young adults to continue getting their parents' benefits until their late 20s if they're in school. This does not actually encourage people to get a useful eight-year education.

jerf 15y ago

Then it will be gamed, with whatever minimal thing will satisfy "the system". And that's the answer to pretty every other "well, what if we put this requirement in" question, because the root problem is that you've created an incentive to put whatever minimal work will make the system happy, even if it means breaking the putative formal rules. People are smart, and you can't create a system with bad incentives and then just legislate the bad incentives away, because the mass of people you're trying to legislate is smarter and has way more time than you do. I am intrigued by the question of how income would be distributed in a still-hypothetical post-industrial world, but I fear the easy answer of just giving people a certain minimal income can't be made to work, which is unfortunate because I haven't got a better answer any more than anybody else does....