JK Asks: "Interesting idea. But what happens if someone you babysat grows up to be murder his wife? Do you serve some of their time for them? Do I get penalised when a student I wrote a reference for becomes embroiled in embezzlement? Barack would probably similarly argue that the murderer is as much a product of society as the builder, but the system doesn’t work both ways. Thanks for the thought provoking and welcome distraction!"
That’s the beauty of the limited liability corporation. You are just a shareholder, even if the company you hold shares in goes bust, you keep your wealth.
"More people would aid each other if we could quantify their contributions, more formally rewarding them, and thus incentivising them and internalising those positive externalities."
I would challenge this assumption, that the whole deck of cards is based on. As a mentor, for no incentive except the satisfaction I get out of helping others, I think I would be turned off if it turned into a financial transaction.
"But the countervailing notion, that no one but yourself or your family contributes to your outcome flies in the face of everything we have learned about humans who are generally not hermits, nor isolated within small nuclear families, and do instead participate in communities."
Why must it be a dichotomy? My generosity of time encouraged the beneficiary of that effort to perhaps become a mentor themselves some day.
There are an incredible web of ways that people help people and get rewarded for helping people. It doesn't need to be monetised. The person I mentor (perhaps) mentions that I have been mentoring, or suggests to someone else that they would benefit from getting in touch with me, and I turn that into a financial (or non-financial) opportunity for mutual gain.....the threads become crossed and overlapped and so complex.
It is a thought experiment. But a few comments: (1) The people who already help each other are not the issue -- it's the one's who don't but might. (2) People (especially weak connections (friend of a friend) today help each other for the social capital as much as the good feeling. (3) The reward is pretty far into the future, especially with children, or even university students, so no one is doing this to get rich quick.
Kind of like MaaS: the transaction costs will far outweigh any benefits to the system. I agree that your target is the people who do not do this behaviour (helping others), but your net would likely need to incorporate everyone. It is not clear that your first assumption stands true, but if you restate it to say there is a secondary potential group of helpers that this is targeted at getting involved, then you'd have to have another thought experiment to think about whether this would be the best approach to getting them into the fold, including estimating how many there are, how much effort and payoff would be involved (payoff in a societal sense rather than an individual income sense).
My gut feel is that there are better ways to increase the number of people who help other people, and the pool of 'don't but might' is pretty small given the impact you would expect from all this transaction cost. I agree regarding 'social capital as much as the good feeling', caught in the saying 'one hand washes the other'. So once again, a huge edifice to capture gains that already exist.
How big is the 'don't but might' group, in your opinion?
I mean who knows how big the group is until we actually do something to induce them. Stated Preference is hardly a good answer to these kinds of things. My sense though is that indifference is huge. Just look e.g. at the difference between salaried and tip-based wait staff (Australia vs. US). In the US, they are much more solicitous because their income depends on it. (To the point of being annoying of course).
JK Asks: "Interesting idea. But what happens if someone you babysat grows up to be murder his wife? Do you serve some of their time for them? Do I get penalised when a student I wrote a reference for becomes embroiled in embezzlement? Barack would probably similarly argue that the murderer is as much a product of society as the builder, but the system doesn’t work both ways. Thanks for the thought provoking and welcome distraction!"
That’s the beauty of the limited liability corporation. You are just a shareholder, even if the company you hold shares in goes bust, you keep your wealth.
"More people would aid each other if we could quantify their contributions, more formally rewarding them, and thus incentivising them and internalising those positive externalities."
I would challenge this assumption, that the whole deck of cards is based on. As a mentor, for no incentive except the satisfaction I get out of helping others, I think I would be turned off if it turned into a financial transaction.
"But the countervailing notion, that no one but yourself or your family contributes to your outcome flies in the face of everything we have learned about humans who are generally not hermits, nor isolated within small nuclear families, and do instead participate in communities."
Why must it be a dichotomy? My generosity of time encouraged the beneficiary of that effort to perhaps become a mentor themselves some day.
There are an incredible web of ways that people help people and get rewarded for helping people. It doesn't need to be monetised. The person I mentor (perhaps) mentions that I have been mentoring, or suggests to someone else that they would benefit from getting in touch with me, and I turn that into a financial (or non-financial) opportunity for mutual gain.....the threads become crossed and overlapped and so complex.
Okay, you did say it was a thought experiment.
It is a thought experiment. But a few comments: (1) The people who already help each other are not the issue -- it's the one's who don't but might. (2) People (especially weak connections (friend of a friend) today help each other for the social capital as much as the good feeling. (3) The reward is pretty far into the future, especially with children, or even university students, so no one is doing this to get rich quick.
Kind of like MaaS: the transaction costs will far outweigh any benefits to the system. I agree that your target is the people who do not do this behaviour (helping others), but your net would likely need to incorporate everyone. It is not clear that your first assumption stands true, but if you restate it to say there is a secondary potential group of helpers that this is targeted at getting involved, then you'd have to have another thought experiment to think about whether this would be the best approach to getting them into the fold, including estimating how many there are, how much effort and payoff would be involved (payoff in a societal sense rather than an individual income sense).
My gut feel is that there are better ways to increase the number of people who help other people, and the pool of 'don't but might' is pretty small given the impact you would expect from all this transaction cost. I agree regarding 'social capital as much as the good feeling', caught in the saying 'one hand washes the other'. So once again, a huge edifice to capture gains that already exist.
How big is the 'don't but might' group, in your opinion?
I mean who knows how big the group is until we actually do something to induce them. Stated Preference is hardly a good answer to these kinds of things. My sense though is that indifference is huge. Just look e.g. at the difference between salaried and tip-based wait staff (Australia vs. US). In the US, they are much more solicitous because their income depends on it. (To the point of being annoying of course).