Medicine.
Startup founders.
Car designers.
Airline pilots.
Of course, all these guys have some skin in the game now. I'd argue that in all these professions, artificially increasing the penalties for failure wouldn't make the world better.
Startup founders.
Car designers.
Airline pilots.
Of course, all these guys have some skin in the game now. I'd argue that in all these professions, artificially increasing the penalties for failure wouldn't make the world better.
You feel safer if the pilot is in the airplane with you, and has his life at risk as much as yours, than e.g. if he was just remote-controlling the plane from his office
I think a lot of this depends upon whether the task calls for a rational or emotional response. For tasks that require a rational response, having "skin in the game" can cloud your judgment and make you perform worse than if you were a dispassionate observer. For tasks that require an emotional investment, you want the person's risks and incentives to be aligned with yours. (For example, you want a product designer to actually use the products they design, and you want a teacher to care about your kids as much as you care about them.)
A surgeon faces large legal risks for a botched surgery. A lawyer is likewise legally responsible for his actions. Doctors and lawyers are two of the professions with the most skin in the game!
I don't know enough about 9/11 dispatchers to say if they face liability.
On the other hand doctors have, compared to their patients, no skin in the game. If the patients health gets worse or the patient dies the doctor stays unharmed. This is partially the reason for overtreatment in medicine (the other one being the asymmetry between the rewards for positive/negative effects of treatment vs. no-treatment.)
Then what about driving ? By the same logic, car accidents should be much less. Flights are much safer due to the amount of research done in air-travel safety, in general, and also after every accident. And also because in roads you have too many cars interacting together at the same time, where any one person's small mistake can cause an accident, which is not the case with aeroplanes.
Yes, of course. But why? Why is the amount of safety research so much higher after a plane crashes compared to when a patient dies? Why are simple checklists common practice for pilotes but not for doctors even though they could save many lives [1].
As for car travel. It seems to be inherently more dangerous for the reasons you mention. But lets introduce a principal-agent problem [2] for car driving. Assume that for example taxi drivers would steer the vehicle from a save place say as a drone. Would you want to drive with such a taxi?
[1] Gigerenzer: Risk Savvy - How to make good decisions. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal–agent_problem