There are nearly infinite studies in infinite fields on this, and despite claims here, the results are mixed at best.
Certainly not the utopia consistently predicted.
I'm sure someone will next just say it's not enough money, rather than bother to read any of the studies and whether they tried to account for this or not, or ...
I'm going to ignore those comments, since it doesn't seem like a discussion anyone wants to learn anything in.
If you want to push your preferred position, that's sort of silly. There is no winning or losing here.
If you want to actually learn something, happy to discuss it for real.
We don't? I.e. if "10% more" doesn't seem to affect anything, we should maybe try "10x more" instead, and if that doesn't do anything, then conclude there's no more relevant labor left in the pool.
This of course, falls squarely into what i wrote at the end of my comment.
Why is money the only thing to do here?
Why do you assume that is the driver, despite tons of data suggesting it's simply not the only driver?
Can you please, please, take like 10 minutes, and go read any of the 1000's of studies on this, and then make some reasoned argument that is more than just what you are doing now, which is:
A. I think money is the only thing that matters and refuse to present any evidence that it is.
B. I will also claim that we never try it, despite it actually having been tried.
C. When someone takes the time to show me that we do try it, i will simply, without any further evidence, claim we aren't offering enough.
This sort of discussion is just kind of silly to have.
You know what - great, you figured it out. The real problem is that we just aren't paying enough. That's the only problem. It's not that the qualifications are too high, or the job as is is too stressful, or anything else ....
You have, without any data, evidence, etc, figured out the one simple and true solution to a very complex problem that lots of people have spent lots of time trying to puzzle through.
You won hacker news!
Congrats!
I actually hope they offer an infinite amount of money to ATC controllers, so we stop having this particular reductive variant pop up in discussions.
It's fine if you want to argue money matters, i even believe money does matter. I just don't think it's the only thing that matters, nor do i believe you can solve a complex problem like this by just taking a single variable in that complex system and pushing it to the extreme.
The most likely outcome seems to be you increase the rejection rate from 90% (which is what it is now) to 99.99999%, given how the process actually works right now.
We do? Is there a reason you believe otherwise?
There are nearly infinite studies in infinite fields on this, and despite claims here, the results are mixed at best.
Certainly not the utopia consistently predicted.
I'm sure someone will next just say it's not enough money, rather than bother to read any of the studies and whether they tried to account for this or not, or ...
I'm going to ignore those comments, since it doesn't seem like a discussion anyone wants to learn anything in.
If you want to push your preferred position, that's sort of silly. There is no winning or losing here. If you want to actually learn something, happy to discuss it for real.
We don't? I.e. if "10% more" doesn't seem to affect anything, we should maybe try "10x more" instead, and if that doesn't do anything, then conclude there's no more relevant labor left in the pool.
This of course, falls squarely into what i wrote at the end of my comment.
Why is money the only thing to do here? Why do you assume that is the driver, despite tons of data suggesting it's simply not the only driver?
Can you please, please, take like 10 minutes, and go read any of the 1000's of studies on this, and then make some reasoned argument that is more than just what you are doing now, which is:
A. I think money is the only thing that matters and refuse to present any evidence that it is.
B. I will also claim that we never try it, despite it actually having been tried.
C. When someone takes the time to show me that we do try it, i will simply, without any further evidence, claim we aren't offering enough.
This sort of discussion is just kind of silly to have.
You know what - great, you figured it out. The real problem is that we just aren't paying enough. That's the only problem. It's not that the qualifications are too high, or the job as is is too stressful, or anything else ....
You have, without any data, evidence, etc, figured out the one simple and true solution to a very complex problem that lots of people have spent lots of time trying to puzzle through.
You won hacker news! Congrats!
I actually hope they offer an infinite amount of money to ATC controllers, so we stop having this particular reductive variant pop up in discussions.
It's fine if you want to argue money matters, i even believe money does matter. I just don't think it's the only thing that matters, nor do i believe you can solve a complex problem like this by just taking a single variable in that complex system and pushing it to the extreme.
The most likely outcome seems to be you increase the rejection rate from 90% (which is what it is now) to 99.99999%, given how the process actually works right now.
1 reply →