Kakistocracy Problem in Modern Employment and Society

 

There is a joke in Russia: 

A professor examines a student and increasingly does not like what the student telling him. Eventually he interrupts the student and asks him a question. They say exam is a dialogue between two smart people. What happens if one of them is an idiot. Then the other one will fail the exam, replies the student.

Professor did assume that he is the smart one. However, the student was of different opinion.

However, the situation in a joke happens in real life all too often. If a person encounters something smarter than their own intellectual capacity allows them to comprehend, they often dismiss it as stupid.

If such stupid people are in authority and charged with making decisions, they will be unable to tell a smart person from a stupid one. If such a person works in HR for example, they will miss on real talents in favor of hacks and so on.

Because of that there are a lot of smart people who are unable to get ahead in life simply because people in authority are too stupid to understand their genius.

That is detrimental to a broader society as well. Stupid people, selected by equally stupid HR or managers, would not be able to come up with good solutions and deliver the best possible outcomes for businesses or society.

Thus, a kakistocracy only recreates itself if left to its own devices. 

Society in theory champions meritocracy. However, is it able to actually achieve it in practice. If people making decisions are not smart enough, then meritocracy de facto devolves into kakistocracy. 

Most people who work in HR do not possess any special education and skills. Yet they serve as gatekeepers to employment for many people. This situation leads to reality of modern kakistocracy.

In addition to kakistocracy there could also be a simple bias where HR people simply select people, they like for roles these people unable to fulfill based on subjective personal likes and dislikes. They in turn would simply turn down people they dislike, no matter how qualified they are.

To solve this problem, companies have to rely on more objective methods of selecting and recruiting candidates. Modern technology can easily allow to test applicants' aptitude and ability to perform certain tasks. Such tests would allow people to hire based on merit instead of subjective opinion of an unqualified HR personnel.

This is particularly important in technical, engineering and scientific spheres where lack of knowledge makes person completely useless. It is useful in management, logistics and many other fields as well. 

Sure, some fields such as marketing rely on a lot on ability to appeal to subjective feelings. However, with some originality you can test abilities to make a compelling ad campaign as well.

In our current society meritocracy is under threat of creeping invisible kakistocracy of unqualified HR personnel. We need changes to restore meritocracy and hire to positions of authority people who truly deserve it.

Simple Example of the Reasons Why Wars Happen

Many people like to think and say that wars are senseless and pointless. That waging them is stupidity.

Reality cannot be further away. Wars happen over land and other valuable resoures. There is one episode of Tom and Jerry that illustrates just this question.

Here dog, cat and mouse agreed on peace. At first, they worked together took care of each other and help each other against enemies. 

However, things changed when they got their hands on a big piece of meat. At first, they tried to divide meat fairly, but soon found out that their idea on what would be fair distribution of mean greatly differ from each other. Then when the dog decided to just divide based on his own measures, unsatisfied cat, who only got a piece of bone, stuck a fork into the dog's paw. After that they tried to steal meat from each other, until their infighting led towards losing it altogether. Despite meat being gone, they blamed each other for that and continue fighting afterwards.

It just like it happens in real life. Just instead of meat they divide land and resources. For example, before WWII they wrote various treaties to divide spheres of influence, limit weapons production and so on. Then shortly before the beginning of the war they even had a conference on the fate of parts of Czechoslovakia. Chamberlain even returned with the "peace of our time" agreement. However it all fail Hitler decided to grab the big piece, France and UK were not willing to concede and the war begun.

Just like in cartoon 6 years into war few even remember how the war even begun. After its ended, US and UK almost went to war with USSR over disagreements over the future of Germany.

Here is the map of division of Europe, if Germany would have won the WWII. On this map Germany is twice the size of what it is now. Many other countries have different borders as well, giving a stake in favor or against this division. For example, Croatia is twice as large and Serbia twice as small.

Finally, after the war winners write history and describe themselves in fancy epithets like valiant knights and losers as warmongers and beasts. If Germany would have won, we would learn how Germans valiantly defeated and then Germanized violent, aggressive and barbaric Poles to make them more peaceful and civilized. Just something to think over.

How Type of Accommodation You Live in Affects Mentality

 

People who own their own detached home with a plot of land tend to vote conservative. One reason for that is that they are more well off than those who live elsewhere. However, there is more to it than just that. 

A house with a plot of land is a microcosm of conservative individual responsibility reality. This reality leads to conservative mindset of those who live like that.

Reality of living in a home is fundamentally conservative. Why? Because you have entire home entirely for yourself and have great deal of control over it. It's your home, it's your lawn, stuff in your home and on your lawn is also yours. Your lawn has a fixed size and have a fence around it to divide it from your neighbors' lawn. You do whatever you want on your plot, your neighbor on his. Simple.

This mindset created by this homeownership reality is then applied to other things. For homeowners it's only natural that business owners should run their business as they see fit. Foreign countries should run their societies as they see fit. And so on. Various arguments on why this or that is not fair simply crash against this this ironclad logic of my vs others territory. 

People like this do not like "big government" interfering with their homes for this simple my territory reason. Of course, reality is that electricity, water and other utilities are provided by the government or big companies out there. Without these things life in such a detached home would be nigh impossible. However, these things are invisible, so homeowners underestimate the government's irreplaceable role in what they have.

In contrast to that there is an apartment block. In apartment blocks everyone is more visibly connected to the system. Sure, you still have your own space, you can lock with the key. However, place has common lawn if any, common entrance, stairs, lifts and so on. If any of that is in poor shape or repair, it affects everyone.

However, apartment block is not your house where you can fix it yourself. Fixing lifts for example needs technical knowledge. You have to report broken lift to someone and hope they will fix it. Same with lawns and other public spaces. Shaping lawn to your liking or corridor is pointless as others are free to use it as they see fit. All you have is just the apartment, the rest is under common control.

In apartment block it's as clear as day that there are a lot of things beyond your control. However, if they are beyond your control, then who should control them. Most will think that it's unfair that some managers or owners would run it as they see fit. Instead, they would think that everyone who lives there should have a say in building's management.

This produces a more collectivist left wing mindset. You do not think that building managers should be free to run their apartment as they see fit like a homeowner would. Instead, you think that building management should answer to and be accountable to the people who live in the apartment block.

Just as you think that about your apartment block, you also think this way of other things such as government and business. After all both government and business do things that affect everyone. Because of that they should be accountable to everyone.

Homeownership produces individual responsibility as well. After all your lawn and your home is as good as much care you put in it. If you mow the lawn, its clean and pleasant. If you do not, its overgrown and messy. You have what you do, work hard and get result or do nothing and get nothing. Reality of homeownership makes this principle true.

However, it does not work this way in the apartment block. Your lift and stairs are shitty because you drank neighbor peed in there when he was drunk and vomited there as well. Even if you clean it yourself, he will just do it again next weekend. Not to mention why you should clean something that is not yours and that everyone else uses as well. A reality of powerlessness. You can only hope or petition that building management will do something about it. By extension this reality produces a mentality of expectations from the government. After all, just like only building management can fix lifts, only government can fix the country.

In this dichotomy renting fundamentally works even worse than apartment block. Even if you rent an entire house for yourself, if not your house and you have not vested interest in improving it or even keeping it in good repair. Landlords still control what you can or cannot do with their property. Its maybe a house, but it's not your house. 

In a way it's even more powerless than owning an apartment as in apartment block there is at least a space you actually own.

Renting produce transience and indifference as you will be elsewhere in short time and what happens here does not matter. Grab something good, while you can, use it and move on. It makes you think in short term benefits as short term is all you have.

In contrast homeownership makes you think long term. Every improvement you make to your home are there to stay for good after all.

There are also hotels and caravans, but I will not analyze these, at least not now.

Some might say that you choose where you live. However, if your neighborhood looks like that, there is not that much choice there.

As our population increases, more and more people will live in apartment blocks and not in detached homes with plot of land. Our governance and mindset should also adapt to this reality. 

Politicians too should increasingly live in apartment blocks to better understand this reality. It's not enough to simply live in the neighborhood, they should live like majority lives.

Why Putin's Russia Must Be Defeated

Russia is mafia run kleptocracy, run by people with more than 5000 murders on their hands. They routinely use slave labor and will sell your organs on black market if you give them a chance.

Ukraine is aspiring democracy that is on its way to be as nice of a place to live in as any European Union member state.

I think it's pretty clear who is the good guy here.

A country that does such cruelties to its conscripted soldiers is a true evil incarnate and must be destroyed. After that Russia has to be reformed and transformed. All dedovshina must be removed, military conscription forbidden in constitution. Other spheres of life such as military, police, public service and education also has to be reformed. No one who worked in military, police or public service under Putin should be allowed to do so in new Russia. Country should be transformed as much as Germany was denazified after WWII.

On Aircons

In the last 50 or so years Aircons became a near universal appliance in the hot countries. Nearly everyone uses them nowadays to beat the heat. This near universal adoption however led to a rather peculiar and hard to notice problem.

Most appliances generate heat when they are working. Anything from laptops to car engines produce heat. Aircons are no exception, to make room cold an even greater among of heat must be produced. Of course, clever engineers designed aircons to disperse this heat outside: that while unit with fan is what responsible for dumping excess heat into the air. The uniqueness of aircons make this heat a problem

When it was designed no one thought the excess heat would be problem. The reasoning here was that rooms are small and outside is vast. Because of that that excess heat will not make a difference, much like a grain of sugar will just melt in a teacup and the taste will not change in any noticeable way. 

However, people kept buying and running aircons more and more, so now we have countless aircons running at the same time, all dumping their exhausted heat into the air. In our current quantities this heat makes a difference and makes temperatures outside much hotter than they would be without aircons. To make matters worse the exhaust air is stuffy, and it makes it even more unbearable than normal air.

In suburban areas where density is not that high is not that noticeable. However, in CBD with its Highrise buildings it does make a difference. When I used to live in suburbs, I could do all summer without aircon. In CBD however aircon became a necessity. That is because of population density and everyone running aircons at the same time.

So, what we can do to fic the problem. Sure, just banning aircons would be too radical of a move. That will not solve problem of heat from other sources either.

However, a more comport friendly solution is possible. Aircon heat can be removed from residential areas using pipes, like how sewage is removed. Air does not have to go too far as its not toxic as sewage, just nearby part will do. That is of course a lot of work, but new areas and high-rise buildings can be design with that in mind.

Something simpler is another solution. High rise buildings should be mandated to have a centralized cooling system instead of everyone using individual units, the exhaust should be placed on the roof to prevent exhaust heat from affecting temperatures on street levels. Since exhaust air is hotter than normal air it will not fall to the street level.

These two solutions can make cities much more livable than before and make everyone much happier.

Ultimate How to Vote Guide

Nowadays people are increasingly disillusioned with major parties and look out for small parties that better represent their individual views. There are many single-issue parties that cater for that as well as few catch all discontent parties that attract votes from anyone who is fed up with something. 

Despite that however these small parties fail to get enough votes. Because of that, to avoid your vote being wasted, you have to decide who of the major parties you will prioritize ahead of the others. After all voting for purple to prevent beige from winning is valid and important consideration if all prime ministers and cabinet members ever came from either of these two parties.

If values and principles of either of the major parties do no ring anything in you, then you should vote based on one thing everyone agrees on: money. Each party has extensive plans for a budget money on how they intend to spend or not spend it. Depending on your own financial situation you will benefit from one or another approach to spending.

I will use Australian parties and incomes as an example. Here is the simple breakdown:

If you earn less than $40,000 annually you should vote Greens

If you earn between $40,000 and $130,000 annually, you should vote Labour

If you earn between $130,000 and $500,000 you should vote Liberals

If you earn more than $500,000 you should vote Nationals

 As simple as that.

It a rule of thumb thing and in certain cases individual circumstances might make it more beneficial to vote LIbs if you only make $119,000, or Labour if you make $139,000, but overall, these rules work.

Now I will explain why:

Below $40,000

If you make this much then you either unemployed or doing some casual pay next to nothing work. If you have rental, you struggle to pay rent. If not, you live in a basement, in a car coach surf or homeless. Money you make cannot pay for good things other people have such as cars, mortgage, vacation, private health or school. All you can afford is food, cloth, public transport and some basic stuff.

Because you cannot afford a car, a home or expensive things, a party that is willing to spend most on various free stuff is the best for you. A party that will spend most on free public housing, free public transport, free health care, schools. 

It does not matter if such party has reckless policies that can endanger the economy. Your poverty is a proof that economy does not work for you personally, so it does not matter if it also broken to those who are more well off than you. Neither it matters if they tax cars, fuel, homes, high income and so on. With this kind of money, you will not be able to afford a driving license, much less a car. All these only apply to people who are more well off than you. Some of these might even give you notices to leave and other such nasty things. You might as well want to screw them off.

Tax does not matter either. On amounts less than $40,000 its either nonexistent or just a token amount. Free stuff that taxes of those who are richer than you will help afford things you can benefit from.

Because of that you can bravely vote for a party that promises to spend billions on free housing, free buses, bikes and so on. If you cannot have a car, at least get a free bike from Greens rather than highbrow lecture about respecting private property on cars of those fancy car owners.

In Australia the Greens is the most pro poor populist party out there. I do not know their inner working, but their policies are the most generous of all major parties. Greens are the party for those at the bottom of income gap.

Between $40,000 and $130,00

Now we are in a frugal comfort territory. You are not as bad as the group above but not as good as those who prat about taxes. Unlike the actual poor, you likely have a real full-time job with super benefits and other important attributes of labor voting working class. With the better money you make, you can afford a car and a basic home in mortgage or a good rental that you can comfortably pay.

All that makes you not as desperate to vote for reckless and untried Greens. After all you have good job and do not want to lose it to some screw up.

However, you are not so well off to splurge on things like private health or school. If you do, you likely struggle to afford such things. Because of that, services provided by the government are still important for you and you want government to spend on hospitals, nurses and schools.

Taxable amount becomes more substantial, but still not that large. With income like that you will likely spend more on private school and health insurance than pay in tax to maintain public services.

All in all, a moderate and responsible pro-spend party is your best choice. In Australia its Labour.

Finally, if you work in the unionized industry or in general an employee rather than a manager, you best option could be voting Labour regardless of income. Better labor law is something your workplace can benefit from.

Between $130,000 and $500,000

No finally we are with the income bracket that can afford a good home in a posh suburb such as Vaucluse, private school, private super premium all included health insurance with indefinite dentist visits, Bora Bora vacation several times a year, expensive car, possibly a small recreational watercraft that some might call yacht or another such expensive hobby item.

It's a live those above could envy and wish to have. However, since you live in a posh suburb where everyone else is just as well off as you are, you do not see yourself as rich. Instead, you think that you struggle with high taxes and wasteful government spending. Of course, for you a new yacht is sure more important than some poor people not dying from starvation or being able to afford healthcare. If I had the same money you have, I would be the same.

Because of the above your best bet is to vote Liberals. Tax cuts will allow your watercraft to be 5meters longer and you will never even see people who will be homeless or die from these cuts as they live in suburbs like Inala or Redbank.

But there is more. You likely also own an investment property or a stock market portfolio. Because of that you need economy to prosper so that value of these things keeps increasing. So, voting for a party that prioritize Moodys rating to everything else if equally important. Libs get you covered here as well.

Finally, if you a manager or business owner, then a Liberal rather than Labour style labor law. Labour law that gives more power over employees to managers will benefit you as well. You can achieve your objectives without having to consider wellbeing of your subordinates. Not to mention you will feel like a boss and not an administrator constrained by rules.

So confidently read Murdoch press and vote Libs. It's a party for your income bracket. Just wander clear of Inala or Redbank as people there might want to stab your rich ass to death for doing this to them.

More than $500,000

I do not think there are salaries above $500,000 but 1% true upper class clearly makes more than this per year from large businesses they own, investments and so on. Some of them are public figures such as Gina Reinhard or Rupert Murdoch but there are many more people who own just as much and are as wealthy as these two.

With their numbers are so few yet their wealth is so high, it matters most whom they give money for campaign than who they vote for.

As for the manager of the medium size business who is not as rich and influential as Rupert Murdoch, yet far richer and more important than those in Vaucluse category above, then they might as well vote Nationals. A real true tories, unlike their watered-down version in Liberals.

Government Should Nationalize All Rental Properties

I wrote about this topic before, proposing some measures to make rental market work for tenants. I recommended tax on unoccupied properties as well as strict ethics code for real estate agents.

Now I think these would not be enough. I think government should cease full control of all rental properties and then rent them out to tenants. People should only be allowed to own their own home, one property and that is it.

Investment properties should only be allowed for properties still under construction and 20 years after the completion of the building investor must be mandated to sell his investment property to the state.

Home is a basic human right, yet out current reality turns real estate into a major speculative asset. A few robber barons, rich enough to own multiple properties put lives of millions of renters in precarious situation for their selfish gains. Renters right to have a home is more important than profits of the few real estate tycoons. 

It is clear current system cannot safeguard this right. Therefore, a sweeping reform is needed to fix rental market and prevent society from sliding into neo-feudalism. Exploitative landlords together with their loyal real estate agents abuse tenants worse than Medieval Barons abused their villeins. Tenants must deal with substandard and overpriced properties for the sake of eking more billions for landlords.

Theoretically competition between landlord for prospective tenants would force them to improve their properties and provide better services, but reality is that there is no competition between landlords. Instead, there is a competition between tenants for available properties. This competition forces tenants to accept ever worsening living conditions to avoid being homeless.

There is a clear dependency of tenants on rental properties and landlords exploit it. 

Similar situation happened before with utilities, schools, public transport and many other industries. In all these instances government chouse to nationalize these industries to guarantee provision of services to citizens. Time has come for rental market to be nationalized as well.

Government control of rental market can take two forms. One is nationalization. Government would simply buy our every single investment property and will be the only landlord in the country. 

Second option is to instead create a Rental Authority that will control rental properties on behalf of the owners This is already happening with traditional real estate agencies, however the difference here would be that Rental Authority will have full control over the property and beneficiary owners will have no say in property management. 

Mandatory Rental Authority will rent property from the owner for government approved affordable rental rate and then rent it out to tenant for equally affordable rate. That will make sure that owner do not suffer directly if their property is occupied by bad tenant. Meanwhile Rental Authority can absorb losses from few bad tenants with sheer scale of their operations. 

People who do not rent to Rental Authority will be penalized with high property tax on unoccupied or privately rented properties.

There can also be a combination of first and second method. Some properties will be nationalized and managed by Rental Authority and others would be managed by Rental Authority on behalf of the owners.

That way government can make sure that everyone can have access to rental properties and prevent landlords from evicting or otherwise exploiting tenants. 

Of course, Rental Authority would be instructed to prioritize housing as many people as possible and avoid any eviction with exception of extreme circumstances.

Housing crisis long went out of control with as many as 50 prospective tenants competing for the same rental property with each other. We need to put an end to it as soon as possible.