🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3pgfuv$pbo@kocrsv08.delcoelect.com>,
Alan Anderson <aranders@kosepc01.delcoelect.com> wrote:
>c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com (rex i beard) writes:
>>[...]
>>on down to me on my phone bill. If I think it costs too much I'll find
>>another way to communicate. How else can we decide if a venture is worth
>>while? By political decree?

>system, certain ventures WILL have to be done by decree.  Of course, my
>personal opinion is that we SHOULD change the system.  In this case, the
>enormous burden of regulatory paperwork required to launch something into
>space must be removed and replaced with something rational.

I absolutely agree. We need a few market reforms for space: Deregulation,
and some form of property rights.

>
>>[...] Again, the number of humans is *FINITE*!!!!
>
>This is simply irrelevant.  If there's a market for something, it will
>be produced.  It only took "two guys in a garage" to jumpstart the whole
>computer revolution.  There are fewer people producing food today than

Yes, but today and for the foreseeable future we need more than "two guys
in a garage" for the computer industry. We *need* all those farmers.
and we *need* all the people to build cars. *Some* of them can be replaced
by mechanization. But I ask you, "Why aren't they replaced right now?
The answer, It costs *more* to mechanize these jobs than it costs to
have people doing them. The reason we don't have elevator operators all
over is because human beings are valuable and they are better used some
place else.

>>[...]
>>Now, the even bigger fallacy. One person can do a job just as well
>>as another. This is untrue. The vast majority of the people who are
>>unemployed have *fewer* valuable skills than the people who are employed.

>The replacement won't be able to do the job as well IMMEDIATELY.  You are
>confusing skill with experience.  The vast majority of unemployed people

No, I think you are. Every person *is* more skilled than another. And if
we lose one of more skill and replace them with another of lesser skill
we lose value.

>are not less CAPABLE than the vast majority of the employed, they just do
>not necessarily know how to do the job YET.  They can learn.

On *average* they really are.

>>So, the person who replaces our mythical "One" will (on average) be less
>>qualified and produce less. And who will replace the position our
>>replacement use to have?
>
>Your arguments do not convince me.  There are PLENTY of capable people
>who can fill each position you mention.

OK, let's pretend IQ is a good measure (on average it is). Let's kill
off everyone with an IQ over 120. Won't the people who replace them
be less qualified?

>>Imagine a convention of the top 500 Physicist in the world. Imagine
>>some tragedy (a bomb) killing them all in one swoop. Now sooner or later

>Bad example.  A lot of "junior physicists" would probably consider this
>event to be VERY GOOD for physics in general, because it would quickly
>sweep out the "old guard" and its unintended but very real bias against
>new ideas.  We might lose a couple of truly important genius-level ideas,
>but we'd probably find it a net gain to have the "fresh blood" in place.

You really think this would be economically a plus???

A lot of the "junior physicists" hired would be people who were *passed*
over the first time. Have you ever been in a position to hire people?
I have, frequently you find 1 person who is awesome that applies. A few
that are probably OK, A few that are probably not and a few that are utter
Bozos. Now your analysis of these people might be wrong (but usually it
is reasonably accurate) - Don't you think it would be best to higher the
person at the top of the list? And if you can't get him/her then go to
the next highest?

I've seen hired the person at the top of the list and one that was
dead in the middle. You know what. The person who was in the middle
was no where *near* as good as the one on the top. The one at the top
was worth 2, 3 or even 4 of the one in the middle. Even better, If
I'd had 3 or 4 like the one in the middle I would have been spending
too much time putting out fires that their inadequacies caused.

-rex-
-- 

Work phone: (317) 451-0358  (8-322-0358)
Internet:   c2xrib@kocrsv01.delcoelect.com   (Ick. It's suppose to be ahw.)