2 ms·

> Programming leads to some serious concentrated rewards, while science leads only to dispersed rewards. Can you explain what you mean by this?

• UK-AL 12y ago
  He means science is a public good, everybody wins when a scientist discovers some knowledge/cure/whatever.
  • nagrom 12y ago
    But the scientist generally wins less than a programmer who has a moderately good year making a website to help people find other people who would like to walk their dog.
    • marcosdumay 12y ago
      It's almost impossible to sell a public good. A career that focus on them will inevitably get less monetary rewards than one that focus on excludable ones. A scientist gets less money than a programmer because despite creating much more total wealth on average[1], nobody needs to pay to get a share of the results, thus nobody has much of an incentive to pay. As a related concept, life ain't fair. [1] Does he really? I'm going with the common opinion, but I'd love to see data on that.