3 ms·

Expecting individuals to hold a large organisation back from doing the things its incentivised to do solely through their personal morality is never going to wo

by lmm 2y ago

Expecting individuals to hold a large organisation back from doing the things its incentivised to do solely through their personal morality is never going to work, and killing one dude doesn't change that. The entity interprets integrity as damage and routes around it. Railing against "greed" is an easy way to avoid doing anything that might actually change things. Ever wonder why only one country has these healthcare companies making such huge profits, and it's a country whose health outcomes are so much worse than its peers? It's not because their people are greedier than others, or more alienated, or individually less moral. It's because their health system is set up to reward that behaviour. (And if you want zip code to be less of a predictive feature, maybe legalise building housing. Or let your data analysts talk honestly about race, either would work.)

wongarsu 2y ago
If such shootings became more common then they would provide an incentive for change. As a tool for punishment they are flawed, as a tool for change they are crude but potentially effective. Somebody is going to be appointed new CEO, and I think it's hard to deny that "if you produce too many bad health outcomes that reduces your own life expectancy" isn't a powerful motivator, no matter what the rest of the system rewards. Policy change would be a better tool towards that end. But even the tiniest steps in that direction like Obamacare/ACA get heavy opposition.
- lmm 2y ago
  > Somebody is going to be appointed new CEO, and I think it's hard to deny that "if you produce too many bad health outcomes that reduces your own life expectancy" isn't a powerful motivator, no matter what the rest of the system rewards. In the unlikely event that they appointed a CEO who felt sufficiently at-risk to issue orders to improve health outcomes at the expense of profit, how much effect would those orders have? Most likely the people below him would just ignore that CEO, find ways to rationalise that he didn't mean what he was saying. If necessary the board would go around the CEO and talk to the layer below him directly.

by lmm 2y ago

wongarsu 2y ago

If such shootings became more common then they would provide an incentive for change. As a tool for punishment they are flawed, as a tool for change they are crude but potentially effective. Somebody is going to be appointed new CEO, and I think it's hard to deny that "if you produce too many bad health outcomes that reduces your own life expectancy" isn't a powerful motivator, no matter what the rest of the system rewards. Policy change would be a better tool towards that end. But even the tiniest steps in that direction like Obamacare/ACA get heavy opposition.

lmm 2y ago
> Somebody is going to be appointed new CEO, and I think it's hard to deny that "if you produce too many bad health outcomes that reduces your own life expectancy" isn't a powerful motivator, no matter what the rest of the system rewards. In the unlikely event that they appointed a CEO who felt sufficiently at-risk to issue orders to improve health outcomes at the expense of profit, how much effect would those orders have? Most likely the people below him would just ignore that CEO, find ways to rationalise that he didn't mean what he was saying. If necessary the board would go around the CEO and talk to the layer below him directly.