• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

hypothetically, would people produce without incentive?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
When I look at this question I will see myself.

I will want a world created like Leave it to Beaver where everybody is white and all the grass is green, where Mom stays home and bakes cookies and Dad goes fishing. I will play ring around the rosy in the park all day with the neighbor girls.
Which has nothing to do with the question, useless meatbag.

Most people would not. Look at most people right now. When not working they're content to watch TV. Those people would simply watch more TV. The only people who would continue to work are those that are already working for more than a living, which is a tiny majority.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
I do believe that the really earth shattering out of left field innovation that humanity has enjoyed over its history is the product of enjoyment and obsession, not profit.
Actually, many of the greatest leaps forward tend to come from conflict, if not open war.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,439
1
81
Efficient corporations, that's rich, lol.
I didn't say corporations were efficient, I said they were the most efficient way to get everyone working towards a common goal. You can't orchestrate a grandiose project like building a nuclear power plant or an underwater tunnel or a manned spacecraft without centralized oversight and a clear division of labor. Corporations have a lot of bureaucracy built in (a lot of which could be removed without the need for accountants or attorneys) but they are also significantly more efficient at organizing people to get them working towards a common goal than those people would be on their own.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,439
1
81
Most people would not. Look at most people right now. When not working they're content to watch TV. Those people would simply watch more TV. The only people who would continue to work are those that are already working for more than a living, which is a tiny majority.
What would be on TV if no actors or writers or directors or producers or people were producing any content?
 

OverVolt

Lifer
Aug 31, 2002
14,285
87
86
You need someone to take care of you when you are old and you can't always count on money to just hire someone to do it incase the economy or your retirement blows up [/thread]
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
I do think large groups would still exist.

What keeps my company together is certainly the pay, because the infrastructure that keeps the machine working costs a fortune and no one would do that for free. But if the infrastructure exists anyway (robots make manufacturing and maintenance no longer requires menial labor) people would be able to go to 'work' and only do the things they like about it. Companies (large groups of similarly motivated people) would still be around.

Of course as fun as utopian dreaming is I don't expect to ever see it.
And who would lead the group? Without a heirarchy based on profitability, everyone would want to lead and see their ideas come to fruition. Groups without leaders splinter before they accomplish anything. The larger the group the faster it splinters. Nothing would get done because everyone would end up pursuing their own groups quickly. Look how many free Linux distributions there are, and compare how it does on the desktop compared to the for profit Windows. There's a leader in that camp, but only because Torvalds retains a tight grip on the kernel. Other than that it's a free-for-all rather than an organized group, and it may never supplant Windows, even with as bad as Microsoft bungles their releases.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
What would be on TV if no actors or writers or directors or producers or people were producing any content?
Good point. Do you think those people who watch copious amounts of TV are ambitious enough to undertake projects in the absence of the boob tube?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Just something to think about, look at MMOs such as world of warcraft. No profit incentive, yet some huge organized groups of players get together in such games to defeat raid content and such. Purely done for "fun", even though many more casual players might look at raiding as anything but fun.
And look at how many doofuses inhabit those games as compared to those who take it seriously. How many serious raid leaders are there vs people who screw around and cause a wipe?
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Efficient corporations, that's rich, lol.
:rolleyes:

Wait, are you claiming that merely the act of incorporation makes a group of people inefficient? Right, because other groups of people are so much more efficient simply because they aren't legally incorporate. Government is SO much more efficient. :rolleyes: Any large enough group of humans is by nature inefficient. Small corporations are nimble. Large ones are not.

Why are Democrats so simple minded sometimes? "DUUUURRRRRRR, CORPORATION BAD!!!!!!!"

Is a corporation of one person more or less efficient than a government agency with thousands of employees?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,235
8,205
136
:rolleyes:

Wait, are you claiming that merely the act of incorporation makes a group of people inefficient? Right, because other groups of people are so much more efficient simply because they aren't legally incorporate. Government is SO much more efficient. :rolleyes: Any large enough group of humans is by nature inefficient. Small corporations are nimble. Large ones are not.

Why are Democrats so simple minded sometimes? "DUUUURRRRRRR, CORPORATION BAD!!!!!!!"

Is a corporation of one person more or less efficient than a government agency with thousands of employees?
Let's apply your own reasoning to your own statements. "Small corporations are nimble." Right, because small corporations can't be inefficient.
Why is BoberFett so simple minded sometimes? "DUUUURRRRRRR, SMALL CORPORATION NIMBLE!!!!!!!"

I was simply stating that corporations do not necessarily equal efficient. In fact, most are very inefficient.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,235
8,205
136
I didn't say corporations were efficient, I said they were the most efficient way to get everyone working towards a common goal. You can't orchestrate a grandiose project like building a nuclear power plant or an underwater tunnel or a manned spacecraft without centralized oversight and a clear division of labor. Corporations have a lot of bureaucracy built in (a lot of which could be removed without the need for accountants or attorneys) but they are also significantly more efficient at organizing people to get them working towards a common goal than those people would be on their own.
Again, take labor out of the equation. In an advanced society where replication exists and robotic AI is smart enough to do everything except innovate, very few people are needed to accomplish anything. Some people invent the new technologies and others are free to experiment putting it together. Think of a car. Thousands of individual technologies that can be put together in infinite combinations, yet one person can build a car if he had the time, and one person's car will be very different from the next's.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,235
8,205
136
What would be on TV if no actors or writers or directors or producers or people were producing any content?
People Act, Direct and produce just fine without monetary motivation. Look at youtube and give everyone unlimited access to props.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
Let's apply your own reasoning to your own statements. "Small corporations are nimble." Right, because small corporations can't be inefficient.
Why is BoberFett so simple minded sometimes? "DUUUURRRRRRR, SMALL CORPORATION NIMBLE!!!!!!!"

I was simply stating that corporations do not necessarily equal efficient. In fact, most are very inefficient.
Nor does corporation imply inefficent. And neither does government imply efficient or not.

Stop being so simple minded and black-and-white. For all the talk of Democrats being the thinking party, you sure do your best to prove that wrong.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
People Act, Direct and produce just fine without monetary motivation. Look at youtube and give everyone unlimited access to props.
And what percentage of Youtube is high quality production vs people getting hit in the groin?

Idiocracy here we come.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,699
138
106
I am confused, so you get all the basics plus some more plus these "replicators" so I can have what ever I want as long as it can be replicated?
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
78,647
11,572
126
You have positive and negative punishment, & positive and negative rewards.
Historically positive rewards are the best way to get people doing things for long term purposes. But for short term things like negative punishment can get shit done when you dont have the time or money for other methods. The problem is when you get used to doing things that way and refuse to change, you are setting yourself up for failure later on down the line.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,235
8,205
136
And what percentage of Youtube is high quality production vs people getting hit in the groin?

Idiocracy here we come.
DURRRR people don't have unlimited resources now do they? DURRRR I guess this concept is out of your reach.
 
Feb 6, 2007
16,439
1
81
Again, take labor out of the equation. In an advanced society where replication exists and robotic AI is smart enough to do everything except innovate, very few peiople are needed to accomplish anything. Some people invent the new technologies and others are free to experiment putting it together. Think of a car. Thousands of individual technologies that can be put together in infinite combinations, yet one person can build a car if he had the time, and one person's car will be very different from the next's.
Labor also includes research and design. The building blocks for making a gasoline engine didn't fall from the heavens, someone had to devote their time and energy to figuring that shit out. And countless others have improved upon that design in the past century and a half. When I say division of labor, I'm not just talking about the people tightening the bolts, I'm talking about the people who are designing the various components and figuring out how they all work together. And even if one person can build a car, I don't think you'll find anyone who will argue that one person could construct a Saturn V, command module, service module and lunar module and recreate the moon landing entirely on their own. There are some projects that are simply too big for one person to do by themselves, regardless of the number of helper robots they have.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,235
8,205
136
Nor does corporation imply inefficent. And neither does government imply efficient or not.
No shit, thanks for stating the obvious, poindexter.




Stop being so simple minded and black-and-white. For all the talk of Democrats being the thinking party, you sure do your best to prove that wrong.
You have picked the wrong thread to nitpick inane details that do not matter. It's even more laughable that you think you can then apply your useless observations to a government vs corporation debate.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
DURRRR people don't have unlimited resources now do they? DURRRR I guess this concept is out of your reach.
How did we go from a society where basic needs are met without the effort of society to unlimited resources? They two are not the same. But hey, it's a valiant attempt at trying to make me look dumb. Too bad it backfired, dummy.
 

JTsyo

Lifer
Nov 18, 2007
10,923
214
106
Some people would, most wouldn't. However, I think large scale group collaborate efforts would suffer greatly.
FTFY

Some are self motivated but many would spend their time in with unproductive activity.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,587
9
81
I am confused, so you get all the basics plus some more plus these "replicators" so I can have what ever I want as long as it can be replicated?
The idiot utopian left in this thread is changing the rules, so instead of trying to determine whether a socialist economy where everyone's needs are met can be more productive than a capitalist one, we're now saying that everyone gets everything they could ever imagine with no limits, and therefore capitalism is bad.

Yes, this forum is full of left wing idiots.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,235
8,205
136
Labor also includes research and design. The building blocks for making a gasoline engine didn't fall from the heavens, someone had to devote their time and energy to figuring that shit out. And countless others have improved upon that design in the past century and a half. When I say division of labor, I'm not just talking about the people tightening the bolts, I'm talking about the people who are designing the various components and figuring out how they all work together. And even if one person can build a car, I don't think you'll find anyone who will argue that one person could construct a Saturn V, command module, service module and lunar module and recreate the moon landing entirely on their own. There are some projects that are simply too big for one person to do by themselves, regardless of the number of helper robots they have.
People research for fun. I know it sounds crazy, even I hate researching, but some people actually find it fun. Look at A420, how much reading has he done into historical figures for zero profit?

Do you really think a small group of smart people with unlimited access to materials and information could not duplicate the moon landing?
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
27,235
8,205
136
How did we go from a society where basic needs are met without the effort of society to unlimited resources? They two are not the same. But hey, it's a valiant attempt at trying to make me look dumb. Too bad it backfired, dummy.
I don't need to do anything to make you look dumb. Look up what replication means.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY