[e12e]

> Isn't that largely why the Soviet Union wasn't competitive?

The backwater pre-industrial, post-war torn nation that beat the US to space? No, I don't think that was why they couldn't compete.

As far as I recall, pay is a pretty poor motivator -- while low pay is a pretty strong "de-motivator". So if you give people interesting challenges and make sure they can meet their basic needs, people are likely to preform.

But, even if competing for exceptional wages was a great motivator, no-one is saying that you couldn't do that in such a system -- you might have to limit it to fewer "exceptional" people, and there might be a higher risk of being demoted -- but I can't see why it wouldn't be possible. I don't think it would be a good idea, however.

All that aside, a household income of 80.000 USD sounds pretty good for most of the US (never mind 120.000) ?

[jcnnghm]

The backwater pre-industrial, post-war torn nation that beat the US to space? No, I don't think that was why they couldn't compete

Pretty amazing what you can do when you're willing to spend your country into insolvency and collapse.

So if you give people interesting challenges and make sure they can meet their basic needs, people are likely to preform.

It's not like 50% of workers in the USSR admitted to drinking on the job, or 40% held second jobs to make more money, right? I guess if you're not motivated by a strong aense of community and bullshit pay, the gulags and purges might help.