3 ms·
Wouldn't it only be rational then for overachievers to cease efforts once they've achieved twice what a typical worker would? That'd cut out a ton of productiv
by swampthing 12y ago
Wouldn't it only be rational then for overachievers to cease efforts once they've achieved twice what a typical worker would? That'd cut out a ton of productivity.
- lifeisstillgood 12y agoYes. In the same way it would be rational for current billionaires to stop at one yacht, one Ferrari, one mistress. Rational action is like common sense - not all that common.
- swampthing 12y agoThat may be true, but if your plan depends on people working themselves to the bone for no return, good luck to you.
- DenisM 12y agoYou're the first person to bring "no return" into this conversation. I specifically advocated smaller return, and called out that no-return is counterproductive. Which is to say you are arguing against the point neither me nor lifeisstillgood were making, the point you made up yourself.
- swampthing 12y agoYour comment capped it at 2x the wealth of a typical worker - so then once someone has achieved 2x the wealth of a typical worker, wouldn't any additional work be for no return?
- DenisM 12y agoOh, that was 100 times, not 100%. My bad. :) And it's "typical" not "maximum". If a typical capitalist is 100 times richer than the typical worker, and workers outnumber capitalists 1000:1, then 90% of the of all wealth (and thus economic power) is with the workers, yet capitalists still have their incentive to work their hardest - some of them will only be 10x, and some 200x of the baseline. The key is that in this scheme capitalists are all competing with each other for the same slice of the wealth pie, instead of competing against the workers, as they do today.