|
|
|
|
|
|
by skywal_l
1379 days ago
|
|
|
You are using a moral vocabulary to describe a social program. You already lost the point. I encourage you to read about the Capitol Hill Babysitting Co-op [0] which I find enlightening. It's not about pensions but about liquidity yet it is an interesting insight into why assigning moral values to what is basically an "mechanical" system made to improve the life of people is not just wrong but useless. [0] https://slate.com/business/1998/08/baby-sitting-the-economy.... |
|
|
People care about reputation, social standing, glory and their conscience. All of these can act as incentives. When we say that incentives matter non economists only hears that people respond to price signals but what economist really mean that, holding everything else constant and giving a price signal people will do it more or less of it.
Economists often focus on monetary incentives because they are observable and usually easier to change in a model. For example if we say that doctor salaries go up more people will want to be doctors. This is misunderstood that doctors are motivated by money rather than the non-monetary motives to be doctors but this really means that holding the non-monetary satisfaction of medicine constant, increasing the monetary satisfaction will make medicine more attractive relative to other professions. The clear example for this are doctors in USA and Cuba. The difference in monetary compensations is huge relative to other professions but non-monetary motives are still high enough for people in Cuba to want to endure ardous learning to be a doctor.
I fully realize it's a lost battle. The genie is out of the bottle. I'm just annoyed that it's happening. I live close to a city that 2000 years old and all that time population either managed to grew or stagnate but never this.