The thing is, this makes no sense at all, especially not here on HN, where one of our core assumptions is that people should be compensated on how productive they are, not the hours they put in. Why should anyone care about the amount of labour, as opposed to the value of the end product?
I must have missed that in the FAQ. Where is the list of things we swear we believe when we decide to hang around here?
So when it comes to PG's beliefs, I'm sure you can appreciate that I might admire Paul The Man and admire one of Paul's essays to the point of forwarding it around, even though I might disagree with it in part or even in whole.
Being specific, I see compensation as being one of many different ways we try to game people into doing good things. Some people respond to this carrot, some ignore it and are motivated by other things, and some game the system by lying or cheating their way into getting more carrots, like Mark Hurd slashing HP's R&D budget then pocketing millions for raising their profits.
A word like "should" is ambiguous. Does it mean "Should because that is Right with a capital R?" Or does it mean "Should because it is the best way to achieve some larger social goal?"
All that being said, may I offer these two statements and ask you if it is possible for someone to be an S-ist and an H-ist?
S-ists advocate a method of compensation based on individual merit
H-ists believe people should be compensated on how productive they are
So, you're saying that the currency of upmods should be distributed based on the value of what was produced, rather than the time and effort (or, "amount of labour") it took to produce it? ;)
But where's your (or Raganwald's) collection of essays on how people should be paid a standard hourly rate regardless of their actual output?
Since I don't advocate that practice, there is no need for an essay on the subject.
I cannot read your mind, but are you making certain assumptions about what I believe based on the fact that I quoted certain sections of the wikipedia article about Socialism?
Please keep in mind that my words in this essay are quite explicit in stating that my beliefs are not Big S Socialism. I state that at the top and the bottom.
FWIW reading the rest of the comments on this page I guess you'd be more like a syndicalist than a socialist.
;)
To go back to your previous argument though, I don't view agreeing with pg (or even having read pg) as a pre-requisite to fitting in on HN. Quite the opposite in fact. I think someone who blindly accepts everything that pg writes is likely to not fit in to HN. Perhaps I jumped the gun in assuming that you feel otherwise. In fact, I hope that's the case!
Who comprises this 'our' that you so easily reference, and what matter is their assumptions to the actual truth of the OP's thesis?
Cringe-inducing groupthink, in excelsis. Careful you don't lose yourself in pursuit of community.
That doesn't necessarily mean I reject those arguments; but it doesn't mean I accept them either. Given the state of the world, it makes sense that the ideology here reflects the capitalist, masculine perspectives in the Californian software industry.
I sense a strong belief in Progress and the power of logic to uncover immutable Truth.