Recently an article in the NY Times was talking about a new school being assembled. The particular thing about this school is the salaries teachers will receive; around $125,000 a year “two and a half times as much as the national average for teacher salaries”.
The idea is to have the best teachers available and the means to do it is by offering a big incentive: 2.5 TIMES THE AVERAGE SALARY OF OTHER TEACHERS!
So, will this guarantee success? Who knows, but certainly they have managed to get VERY good teachers, who knows if this really will translate into top notch education.
That is precisely the point about incentives. Human systems are complex structures and when you create an incentive you disrupt the “natural order” of things and create sometimes unpredictable outcomes. Here is an example:
I believe the US society has a plethora of negative role models from professional sports (as exemplified in the List of professional sportspeople convicted of crimes). Some football, basketball and baseball players earn immense sums of money, they have big houses and luxurious cars, but they also have encounters with the law, they lack education, and some are bound to self destroy. It all traces back to incentives!
A kid from high school gets selected for a top school based on their athletic ability, not their level of education (first incentive). They have lower requirements from the school and eventually get drafted into a professional team. The first round pick in NFL for this year will get “$41.7 million in guarantees” for a six year contract. What is a 21 year old kid supposed to do with over $40 when he turns 27? Furthermore what kind of example is he setting for other kids who look up to him? Is he prepared to be a role model?
All this brings us back to the incentives on Greentech. Are they well designed? will we get the consequences we desire from these “disruptions”?
Greentech needs a hand to compete with existing technologies, energy sources and to change consumer behaviors. But we must be very wary of the potential outcomes of the incentives we propose.
Here are some responses from last week’s Are these environmental goals any good?:
“I am disappointed in the new standards. My VW Jetta 2000, gives about 30.x mpg during summer and 28.5+mpg during Winters in the metro Boston area. My Toyota Corolla 2007 gives about 34mpg.
If the SUVs and Trucks had say, 35mpg in 2016 and sedans to have a minimum of 50mpg, then that would have been a better goal to push for true innovation and energy use reductions by 2025. It would take atleast 8-9yrs. after the 2016 standard to have replaced a majority of vehicles on the road”
“After reading your blog, I have to admit that the "tough rules and regs" doesn't make a lot of sense. If we already have the technology for 50mpg, and Obama's only pushing for 35.5mpg, that takes away from the drive to go for better mpg than 35.5”
“I think like much policy that comes from Washington, it's flawed, but a step in the right direction”
“The best, and in my opinion, only effective way to promote alternate technologies is to ensure gasoline is priced in the range of $5.00 per gallon. That, in my opinion is the way to go. Legislating fuel economy standards may help, but think about it - for every new 35 or even 45 MPG car on the road - how many dozens are out there (think older cars or SUVs)at 20 MPG or less. Then lets think about diesels”
“If oil companies have their way it will become another reason for higher fuel and oil prices. In my view, the Feds have to take seriously the task of forcing automakers to switch over to hydrogen engines and other clean tech, along with forcing the grid energy suppliers to do the same. “
“What 'O' bases his assumptions on are Al Gore's global warming scandal of man-made C02, and other gas emmissions, so we started off wrong to begin with. With the banking crisis killing most other industries, esp the automotive industry, I believe this is a bad time to further destroy the industry”
“Give people something that is better and they will buy it. We can discuss the pros and cons of global warming and political agendas "until the cows come home" yet from where I sit on the other side of the world to you; I see a strategy that should galvanise the community to embrace change”
“I think they should be much tougher.... It is ridiculous that Americans continue to drive gas guzzling cars at 55 mph. The management of American car makers have failed to respond to the energy crisis, produce terrible cars and then want bail outs when they can't sell them”
“Considering the concept of sustainability, I think that 35.5 MPG is definitely high enough. Remember, this is CAFE, the average fuel economy for all of the vehicles a company manufactures, up to 10,000 lbs GVWR. So, while we may have the capability of manufacturing vehicles that will perform at 50+ MPG, there would still be a need for work trucks and vans that simply would not be useful with such a high fuel mileage.”
“I agree with you that the goals are unambitious but if the political pragmatism is that it is a modest goal that passes to law versus no change, then it is better to get the ball rolling.
By the way the US National Academy of Science has just published a free book that illustrates to the US what is happening in its own backyard. Copy available at http://tinyurl.com/qdfwyd”
“I predict that in 2 years we'll all be in agreement that it would have been better to just let Chrysler and GM go out of business”
“Obama so called tough rules are only decades too last due to the Big Three in the past always claiming excuses so that they did not have to upgrade CAFE mileage. They sure used lobbyists' a lot back then.”
“The new standard for cars efficiency by President Obama was long awaited and it is a great news. However, cars in many parts of the world (including China) are more efficient.”
Until next time: SHALOM!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment