3 ms·

If "shareholders of big corporations" aren't going to see the monetary benefits, then why would they even pursue the research? Put another way: if the financia

by delinka 12y ago

If "shareholders of big corporations" aren't going to see the monetary benefits, then why would they even pursue the research? Put another way: if the financial beneficiary of increased efficiency is NOT they who invested, why would those investors make the investment?

amelius 12y ago
Perhaps you missed the word "non-proportional" (=disproportionate)
- delinka 12y ago
  I don't think I did. What's a proportionate distribution? Proportionate to what and for whom? The whole "market" or "system" of innovation is driven by "disproportionate" distribution. If people don't have the potential to get rich creating a New Thing or Efficient Method, what's to encourage them to even consider Something Better?
  - amelius 12y ago
    > If people don't have the potential to get rich creating a New Thing or Efficient Method, what's to encourage them to even consider Something Better Let me give an example. In academics, as pointed out here before, smart young people have to survive for a long time on relatively low pay, and without a real prospect of making a lot of money in the long term. In other words, they do this work because they like to do it, and/or for idealistic reasons. If we can (somehow) change the system such that smart and idealistic people get in charge instead of greedy people, that could be a step forward. Again, I'm just giving an example, to show you my line of thinking. I don't claim that this is the correct approach.
    - delinka 12y ago
      "In other words, they do this work because they like to do it, and/or for idealistic reasons." I'd like to see a study on this. In my experience, this is not the case. My peers and I, while in college, did this work because one day it would pay off. If we'd been told that our pay would always be meager, and still continued to do the work, perhaps one could attribute it to idealism or simply liking the work. Most likely, however, we'd have relegated the work we liked to hobby status while we pursued something that would pay better.

by delinka 12y ago

amelius 12y ago

Perhaps you missed the word "non-proportional" (=disproportionate)

delinka 12y ago
I don't think I did. What's a proportionate distribution? Proportionate to what and for whom? The whole "market" or "system" of innovation is driven by "disproportionate" distribution. If people don't have the potential to get rich creating a New Thing or Efficient Method, what's to encourage them to even consider Something Better?
- amelius 12y ago
  > If people don't have the potential to get rich creating a New Thing or Efficient Method, what's to encourage them to even consider Something Better Let me give an example. In academics, as pointed out here before, smart young people have to survive for a long time on relatively low pay, and without a real prospect of making a lot of money in the long term. In other words, they do this work because they like to do it, and/or for idealistic reasons. If we can (somehow) change the system such that smart and idealistic people get in charge instead of greedy people, that could be a step forward. Again, I'm just giving an example, to show you my line of thinking. I don't claim that this is the correct approach.
  - delinka 12y ago
    "In other words, they do this work because they like to do it, and/or for idealistic reasons." I'd like to see a study on this. In my experience, this is not the case. My peers and I, while in college, did this work because one day it would pay off. If we'd been told that our pay would always be meager, and still continued to do the work, perhaps one could attribute it to idealism or simply liking the work. Most likely, however, we'd have relegated the work we liked to hobby status while we pursued something that would pay better.