> Yes, that is a problem. However, the capacity limits you mention don't disappear when we just say, "Open University of California to the whole planet". The only real solution is to build up more top-quality universities in Missouri and Alabama.
That's unrealistic, otherwise there would be a top-quality university in Missouri and Alabama. Our existence is one of constraints.
> Once you've committed to making Missouri and Alabama more productive, the process helps itself along, so it's actually nowhere near miraculous.
Education is the immediate antithesis of productivity -- we're on hacker news and you know that pair programming is either a code-quality, knowledge-sharing, or bug-avoidance issue, and specifically never a means for immediate gains nor all three. You can't throw cash at university and get smarter students -- I went to a top 50 school where the top administration is compensated better than the top 10.
> Actually, the last place I worked, everyone earned the same salary. We functioned pretty well.
What about now? Do you ask junior QA if you can give them the earning difference? If you oppose this notion based on separation of duty, do you think union politics would be better at making this differentiation?
> Because you can't enjoy things when you're dead, and we've seen in history that inheritance leads to aristocracy, social instability, and mass destruction.
You avoided the issue of removing inheritance being untenable. If I die, my nephew gets all of my wealth and I hope it brings him happiness and fulfillment. If you try to legislate that, I will simply route around you.
What mass destruction? What social instability? My partner comes from a communist nation and his/her (not interested in disclosing sexual details) experiences add color to the reality that political dispensation of resources is a terrible machinery.
Socialism/communism does not result in a more "equal" society. If hard numbers don't do it for you, find the nearest Chinese/Russian emigrant area and buy an older person a drink and ask if it's alright to pick his/her brain.
> Is it in your interest to defect in a one-shot prisoner's dilemma? Was it in the interest of Marie Antoinette to say, "Let them eat cake"? Your long-term rational interest can differ from short-term selfishness.
I have no obligation to your kids, will always pick my own kids over yours, and it's not a prisoner's dilemma -- if you try to tax me to the extent that I'm providing luxury for others, that changes the moral algebra for resources that I very well could shield from taxation.
>That's unrealistic, otherwise there would be a top-quality university in Missouri and Alabama.
Are you really claiming it's impossible to have good educational institutions anywhere except where we already do? This sounds like an overly-general claim: "anything that can be accomplished, already has been".
That's unrealistic, otherwise there would be a top-quality university in Missouri and Alabama. Our existence is one of constraints.
> Once you've committed to making Missouri and Alabama more productive, the process helps itself along, so it's actually nowhere near miraculous.
Education is the immediate antithesis of productivity -- we're on hacker news and you know that pair programming is either a code-quality, knowledge-sharing, or bug-avoidance issue, and specifically never a means for immediate gains nor all three. You can't throw cash at university and get smarter students -- I went to a top 50 school where the top administration is compensated better than the top 10.
> Actually, the last place I worked, everyone earned the same salary. We functioned pretty well.
What about now? Do you ask junior QA if you can give them the earning difference? If you oppose this notion based on separation of duty, do you think union politics would be better at making this differentiation?
> Because you can't enjoy things when you're dead, and we've seen in history that inheritance leads to aristocracy, social instability, and mass destruction.
You avoided the issue of removing inheritance being untenable. If I die, my nephew gets all of my wealth and I hope it brings him happiness and fulfillment. If you try to legislate that, I will simply route around you.
What mass destruction? What social instability? My partner comes from a communist nation and his/her (not interested in disclosing sexual details) experiences add color to the reality that political dispensation of resources is a terrible machinery.
Socialism/communism does not result in a more "equal" society. If hard numbers don't do it for you, find the nearest Chinese/Russian emigrant area and buy an older person a drink and ask if it's alright to pick his/her brain.
> Is it in your interest to defect in a one-shot prisoner's dilemma? Was it in the interest of Marie Antoinette to say, "Let them eat cake"? Your long-term rational interest can differ from short-term selfishness.
I have no obligation to your kids, will always pick my own kids over yours, and it's not a prisoner's dilemma -- if you try to tax me to the extent that I'm providing luxury for others, that changes the moral algebra for resources that I very well could shield from taxation.