zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. baddox+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-15 09:06:41
If you can’t find someone to fill a position as a police officer, I would suggest increasing the compensation or leaving the position unfilled before simply accepting anyone who might want to be a cop with no standards whatsoever.

Similar logic would apply to a position for a crane operator or a pilot. If an airline had a pattern of pilot errors, and their excuse was “if we required all our pilots to have adequate pilot training and meet stringent skill requirements, it would be very difficult to hire pilots,” would you accept that?

replies(1): >>alexas+B1
2. alexas+B1[view] [source] 2020-06-15 09:25:11
>>baddox+(OP)
I've thought of a shorter way to answer your question.

> If you can’t find someone to fill a position as a police officer, I would suggest increasing the compensation or leaving the position unfilled before simply accepting anyone who might want to be a cop with no standards whatsoever.

Let's say we decide to pay police officers 1 million/year and really raise their standards. Great! We did it!

Why don't we just do that across the board? The answer is - we have a limited number of highly capable people.

I see the shortage of highly capable people as a problem. My previous post was a way of highlighting that. One would have to think big picture to understand the point I was making.

Regarding leaving positions unfilled - I'm not sure you've thought this through. Imagine we have a shortage of doctors and your appendix burst. Would you rather a medical student try and save your life at say, an estimated 50% success rate, or simply die?

replies(1): >>zepto+iB
◧◩
3. zepto+iB[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-15 14:25:55
>>alexas+B1
I generally disagree with the impression alexashka is conveying that we can’t have higher standards ‘because humans‘. There is plenty we can do.

However, it is worth pointing out that there are around 750,000 police officers in the US. It is hard to deny that finding and or training 750,000 highly capable people is a very difficult problem.

replies(1): >>alexas+7F1
◧◩◪
4. alexas+7F1[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-15 19:15:28
>>zepto+iB
You disagree with a straw-man version of my argument while agreeing with my actual argument :)

There has to be a limit to 'higher standards' humans can live up to, I hope we can agree on that. If you agree, you can't deny that we can't have higher standards indefinitely.

We can have higher standards a little bit and we can fake achieving higher standards a lot by moving highly capable people from one set of jobs to another (from jobs X, Y, Z to police officer by paying them 1 million/year) and doing a marketing campaign that convinces the ignorant masses that real progress has been made.

My previous posts were pointing out that wanting higher standards and not having any standards for the people who create and raise new humans, are incompatible and have to be reconciled if you want to actually have higher standards, not fake higher standards via re-distribution of highly capable people.

[go to top]