Destroys meritocracy in terms of destroying its legitimacy as a way of allocating economic resources.
Personally I think the legitimacy remains because while people can't decide to do more than they are capable of, they can definitely decide to do less. That's why communism didn't work. But that's a different justification than the one our system operates under today.
Destroys meritocracy in terms of destroying its legitimacy as a way of allocating economic resources.
Personally I think the legitimacy remains because while people can't decide to do more than they are capable of, they can definitely decide to do less. That's why communism didn't work. But that's a different justification than the one our system operates under today.
Societies need incentives, but there is no reason why they need to be monetary incentives.
Hell, while academics in our own economy are generally solidly upper-middle class, I think it's self-evident to say to the extent they are driven by external forces to continue to research and publish, it's much more the social credit of recognition by their peers than crass monetary rewards.
Right but on average people prefer monetary incentives as they are fungible. You can convert money into respect, things, security, appeal on the dating market, experiences, etc.
Allocating resources based on supply and demand is still valid. It doesn't matter why somebody is a brain surgeon, all that matters when it comes to compensation is that there are very few of them compared to the demand for their services.
Destroys meritocracy in terms of destroying its legitimacy as a way of allocating economic resources.
Personally I think the legitimacy remains because while people can't decide to do more than they are capable of, they can definitely decide to do less. That's why communism didn't work. But that's a different justification than the one our system operates under today.
Societies need incentives, but there is no reason why they need to be monetary incentives.
Hell, while academics in our own economy are generally solidly upper-middle class, I think it's self-evident to say to the extent they are driven by external forces to continue to research and publish, it's much more the social credit of recognition by their peers than crass monetary rewards.
Right but on average people prefer monetary incentives as they are fungible. You can convert money into respect, things, security, appeal on the dating market, experiences, etc.
YouтАЩve just nailed down why a communist society will likely not use money
Allocating resources based on supply and demand is still valid. It doesn't matter why somebody is a brain surgeon, all that matters when it comes to compensation is that there are very few of them compared to the demand for their services.
"they can definitely decide to do less" haha! Never thought of it in those terms before. I like it.