> I imagine we agree there is no incentive to improve your luck in the
> genetic lottery...You cann't to that.
>
> That is, by rewarding genes that convey speed or felxibility or reflex
> or particular cfonceptual capacities and so on...we will not induce
> people having those genes.
Really ? :)
> So, the question becomes, what incentive is needed, and appropropriate,
> to induce people to work rather than sloth -- and to work in areas where
> they will be more productive rather than less?
Yes, that's the question I raised. But it's not just (or, perhaps, even in large part) a question of where they'll be more socially productive relative to themselves, but where they'll be more socially productive (sometimes in large part due to luck in the natural lottery) relative to others. I realize that that was really muddled, so I'll try again: it may be true that person X would be (in absolute terms) maximally socially productive in occupation Y. But it still might not be particularly important to ensure that person X goes into occupation Y (it might be that, because of the nature of occupation Y itself, people that enter it are much more productive than they would've been if they'd entered some other occupation). Rather, we'll only have an substantial social interest in getting X into Y iff a) Y is really important and b) X would be a lot more productive in Y relative to other people.
> If we remunerate effort and sacrifice we have handled the former issue,
> plainly. If I work harder or longer, I get more income -- and in the
> right amount too. We don't want to induce people to work so hard they
> are miserable to try to win immense income that won't be forthcoming --
> it can't be, for everyone who does so. Or I don't...at any rate.
Don't understand your last sentence here.
> If I can ONLY work at a balanced job complex and only earn income for
> the intensity and duration of my labors -- is it really the case that I
> have to be bribed materially to orient my work choice toward where I
> will be more productive -- and appreciated -- or will that occur
> naturally and in accord, as well, with my own preferences?
Well, yes, if men were angels no such problems would arise--people wouldn't even have to be bribed with higher esteem (i.e. be more "appreciated"). The question is whether the rewards of higher esteem and knowing one is doing the right thing are going to be incentive enough in enough cases.
> Once it is laid out [the burdens of being a doctor relative to those of
being a coal miner] -- it is so
> obviously utter inanity -- that one wonders how the example gets replayed
infinitely in our society.
If we put material benefits, social desirability, and esteem aside, I can quite honestly say that there are tons of menial jobs I'd prefer to medicine: janitorial work, dishwashing, bartending etc. etc.
-- Luke