>It's inefficient to have me type or clean toilets.
>You might insist on it to ram home the point that I'm
>not better than anyone else just because I have a law
>degree, but you better think through the efficiency
>costs of making people do work that they can do but
>are not necessarily best suited to do, given what else
>they could be doing., I don't think you've done this.
Its true, aside from the fact it is merely a waste of special training, there are a couple of even bigger inefficiencies.
First of all, I should think a person who is doing work they don't have any particular ,,motivation or aptitude for, will not be very productive.
But I think perhaps the biggest inefficiency involved is the enormous inefficiency inherent in any system that MAKES people do work. The burden of administration, monitoring and policing of such a system is enormous in purely efficiency terms, never mind destructive in social terms.
>This is not a point about intellectuals. My sister is
>a union carpenter -- a skilled worker. It takes seven
>years as an apprentice to make a journeyman carpenter.
>She's a skilled tradeswoman. It wouls also be
>inefficient to make her clean toilets instead of
>having her build houses.
What I don't really follow in this debate is why it is expected that there must be someone to clean toilets. Why can't people clean their own toilets anyhow, why does it need to be someone's job?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas