5 ms·

I really like the article but I feel like ignoring incentives always costs something. Only people who can afford the cost get to look principled, which turns ha

I really like the article but I feel like ignoring incentives always costs something. Only people who can afford the cost get to look principled, which turns having money into looking like having character. Everyone he praises in the article has/had a safety net: Sumner was a Harvard-educated senator with inherited standing, the writer himself still had a career after dropping his uni title. The fish metaphor has the same issue. The people dying on the sidewalk outside his conference have seen worse than he has, they don't lack moral clarity but rather the freedom and capital to rebuild their lives around it. His essay treats seeing the fish and acting on it as a single moment when the acting part requires you to have capital/social safety net.

boxed 2mo ago
I usually go around saying to anyone who will listen "incentives are dangerous". Like... you can't avoid them as people are sneaky bastards and will find what the incentives are even if you didn't design any on purpose, but you should be on the lookout always and be damn careful if you ever get the bad idea to introduce any.
- hackable_sand 2mo ago
  I can't imagine having that kind of free time/boredom
  - boxed 2mo ago
    You should be saying that at your job imo.
- antonvs 2mo ago
  > I usually go around saying to anyone who will listen "incentives are dangerous". Sir, this is a Wendy’s
shuwix 2mo ago
I think author jumps from high horse of only fortunate should survive to high horse of saving 8 billion people with magic wand. You can't save the heroin addict with incentives. You can't feed & cure all people in Africa with incentives because then in 20 years, the problem will tripple in dimensions. Incentives in people which enables those people to "repay the debt" to create wealth for incentives to other people works. Incentives for handicapped enables them to live better life, and decrase burden on their relatives (which enables them to create more). Incentives in science sectors which don't have immediate "business vector" works. Incentives are good, if they are supplemental in degree that's necessary ... and addressed precisely. Otherwise they are waste of resources created through higher taxes (penalty for everyone).
dchftcs 2mo ago
This is consistent with his premise. See, the title says it: incentives are for losers. If you're already a winner you can escape from incentives. No contradiction.
seles 2mo ago
It is true that privileged people can sacrifice more to do the right thing simply because they have much more than they need to survive. But most people of all levels of privilege can do better, and it's not a competition where you are only a success if you do the most good. Good is good even in small quantities regardless of if you ever have a statue made after you.
- augment_me 2mo ago
  If the article writer had this perspective it would perhaps be more rounded and grounded instead of calling people who follow the incentives losers, dummys and schmucks.
  - seles 2mo ago
    Agreed, it is a flaw of the article, but I think their point is still correct (that we should all stand for something beyond what is easiest for us and not use incentives as a free pass for everything).
rozumem 2mo ago
> the acting part requires you to have capital/social safety net Not really. If you go back in history, many figures did not have the capital / social safety net to follow their principles. Diogenes comes to mind. Buddha shunned his princely life. Epicurus. The OP did not say it would be easy.
- augment_me 2mo ago
  Buddha was as you say a prince, renouncing wealth is a move only available to someone who has wealth, and he could have gone back. Epicurus owned a garden and the leisure to sit in it. Diogenes I can kind of buy about but he still lived off a slave-owning city that had surplus to spare. Also none of them had kids or other dependents to take care of.
  - rozumem 2mo ago
    We have more food surplus now than ever before. But we also have more distractions than ever before. Buddha: he survived without a safety net, that's my point. Having kids and dependents makes it harder, but not impossible. You may have to leave them. Again, OP never said it would be easy.

boxed 2mo ago

I usually go around saying to anyone who will listen "incentives are dangerous". Like... you can't avoid them as people are sneaky bastards and will find what the incentives are even if you didn't design any on purpose, but you should be on the lookout always and be damn careful if you ever get the bad idea to introduce any.

hackable_sand 2mo ago
I can't imagine having that kind of free time/boredom
- boxed 2mo ago
  You should be saying that at your job imo.
antonvs 2mo ago
> I usually go around saying to anyone who will listen "incentives are dangerous". Sir, this is a Wendy’s

shuwix 2mo ago

I think author jumps from high horse of only fortunate should survive to high horse of saving 8 billion people with magic wand. You can't save the heroin addict with incentives. You can't feed & cure all people in Africa with incentives because then in 20 years, the problem will tripple in dimensions. Incentives in people which enables those people to "repay the debt" to create wealth for incentives to other people works. Incentives for handicapped enables them to live better life, and decrase burden on their relatives (which enables them to create more). Incentives in science sectors which don't have immediate "business vector" works. Incentives are good, if they are supplemental in degree that's necessary ... and addressed precisely. Otherwise they are waste of resources created through higher taxes (penalty for everyone).

dchftcs 2mo ago

This is consistent with his premise. See, the title says it: incentives are for losers. If you're already a winner you can escape from incentives. No contradiction.

seles 2mo ago

It is true that privileged people can sacrifice more to do the right thing simply because they have much more than they need to survive. But most people of all levels of privilege can do better, and it's not a competition where you are only a success if you do the most good. Good is good even in small quantities regardless of if you ever have a statue made after you.

augment_me 2mo ago
If the article writer had this perspective it would perhaps be more rounded and grounded instead of calling people who follow the incentives losers, dummys and schmucks.
- seles 2mo ago
  Agreed, it is a flaw of the article, but I think their point is still correct (that we should all stand for something beyond what is easiest for us and not use incentives as a free pass for everything).

rozumem 2mo ago

> the acting part requires you to have capital/social safety net Not really. If you go back in history, many figures did not have the capital / social safety net to follow their principles. Diogenes comes to mind. Buddha shunned his princely life. Epicurus. The OP did not say it would be easy.

augment_me 2mo ago
Buddha was as you say a prince, renouncing wealth is a move only available to someone who has wealth, and he could have gone back. Epicurus owned a garden and the leisure to sit in it. Diogenes I can kind of buy about but he still lived off a slave-owning city that had surplus to spare. Also none of them had kids or other dependents to take care of.
- rozumem 2mo ago
  We have more food surplus now than ever before. But we also have more distractions than ever before. Buddha: he survived without a safety net, that's my point. Having kids and dependents makes it harder, but not impossible. You may have to leave them. Again, OP never said it would be easy.