Losers Take All

Posted by straightlinelogic 9 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
16 comments | Share | Flag

Notice whose feelings are ignored. When rewards are equalized, there is no way to elevate the worst without devaluing the best. Bad as this is, it is merely the first step towards not equality of outcome, distasteful as that would be, but rather a world where the worst are rewarded and the best are punished, if they’re allowed to exist at all. A world characterized not by the moronic bromide: “Everybody wins!” but the barbaric slogan: “Losers Take All!”
SOURCE URL: http://straightlinelogic.com/2014/12/06/losers-take-all-by-robert-gore/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 4 months ago
    We're already there.

    On a related note, what will happen to society when production becomes so efficient as to not provide enough work to employ all capable of being employed? My current profession is productivity improvement. I consult with companies to help them become more efficient. My company insists that this not be directly at the cost of jobs, but rather to find more items to produce - but that's unrealistic in some (even many) situations. We have been able to improve productivity and bring outsourced production back in house, which keeps our clients employees at work, but reduces the employment for the outside contractor. It's impossible but an interesting thought exercise to imagine the world where things have become so efficient that one human can create all goods/services that satisfy the wants of all other humans. What would such a world look like and how would things work?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by plusaf 9 years, 4 months ago
      Robbie, that image of 'if my customer wins, some other vendor loses' was the basis of my First Law, many decades ago... "The Whole World Is A Tradeoff."

      But deciding that your customer's efficiency improvements are bad because it may cause 'suffering' when an outsourced supplier gets cut off... well... what are your views on 'competition'?

      Support the outsourced supplier at the cost of the one you're consulting for, or vice versa?

      If one human being could go to work and push one 'start' button that would supply Everyone in the world with everything they all needed (or wanted), how would that be bad? Or better or worse than what we suffer with today?

      Heinlein wrote a book where the economy enjoyed not 100% employment, but 100% employment for Anyone Who Wanted To Work. Everything was free to whomever asked for it, and supply always kept up with demand.

      Science Fiction, sure, but an interesting think piece, too...

      :)
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • Posted by Robbie53024 9 years, 4 months ago
        I'm familiar with the works of RAH, which book is that?

        I'm all for competition. In the scenario that I paint, competition has ended as there is no competitor.

        To some degree, BHO is correct that our current economy no longer has as many tellers as it used to, nor elevator operators, nor doormen, nor maids, etc., etc., etc. We all benefit from the efficiency, but we also suffer to some degree by the loss of economic activity that those lost jobs caused. Can an industrial economy maintain itself on non-industrial (services) activity? How many poets, artists, musicians, burger flippers, etc. can be supported by little production? I don't know the answers, but wonder about the consequences.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 4 months ago
    So, "Miss Congeniality" isn't good enough? Everyone has to be Miss America? If everyone wins, then no one wins. Why bother with any competition of any sort? So typically progressive it would be laughable if it wasn't so sad.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mckenziecalhoun 9 years, 4 months ago
    Our teaching system is already like that.
    They teach individual rewards on anything resembling money.
    They have token rewards, but they spread them around so no one gets left out.
    If they aren't, they avoid calling on those who know the answer to give others a chance to do the task.
    Every year, they ask how many teachers have been here twenty years, ten years, five years, four, three, two, one, and who is new - it is STUNNING to see how few teachers are older.
    Then it becomes clear - teachers who cost more due to college experience or years teaching aren't hired and if they are, are removed as soon as possible because they cost more according to agreements.

    The huge "We've got a teacher shortage" is a lie. We have a NEW teacher shortage. I've seen good teachers with years of experience hounded out of the system and replaced by new teachers who haven't finished their credential.
    I've had a retired principal tell me outright that no principal will hire someone with the amount of units and years experience I have in the public school system.

    Losers Take All - your kids are living the results of that right now.

    And don't tell me you can think of an exception - that IS the point - they are the exception. Compared to a bank, another type of business, the number of long-term employees in schools is TINY, and much of it is the conditions I have mentioned.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo