3 ms·
> Those who chose an easier path, perhaps were less stressed but also didn't do or get as much. This is could be true assuming that the goal of society is maxi
by hourago 4y ago
> Those who chose an easier path, perhaps were less stressed but also didn't do or get as much.
This is could be true assuming that the goal of society is maximum production and not maximum well-being.
> But this is a luxury of being at X level to begin with and you mainly don't get there without hard work.
Most of the results of hard-work go to the owners of business, not to the people doing that extra effort. And that is also true for academia. To overwork human beings to increase profit in exchange of a fraction of the produced seems inefficient at least, evil at worst.
- snapplebobapple 4y agoWhen it comes to research maximum output is maximum well being for society (assuming the research isn't garbage, looking at you large parts of the humanities department) because that research drives productivity increases through multiple avenues. This is true because the effect of research is usually broadly applicable (i.e. a more efficient engine can save trillions in fuel and environmental damage) while the costs of overwork are concentrated on a very few that are self selecting for that lifestyle. That most of the results of hard work go to the business owner is a result of capital being scarce while labor is more likely to not be right now (this is changing but it is a slow process). This is definitely true of academia with massive phd overproduction. If you want more benefit to accrue to phds you need to end the pyramid scheme that has been massively overproducing phds for decades or create broader non teaching/research demand for phds (ideally real demand, not manufactured credential requirement inflation because that causes massive dead weight loss)