‘Hansonian’ meaning it explores a change that is a funny departure from a current equilibrium, but doesn’t explain why it’s only that change which is possible, rather than changing an underlying inefficiency or a different dimension of the equilibrium?
Why have paid time off (or allowed time off) at all? Why not bid for time off, with different multipliers depending on how many are out at once? At the very least, why not measure the correlates of expense of time-off and adjust accordingly, rather than just the intuition that for some teams, one member missing has a disproportionate cost and that should be fixed by enforced scheduling.
FWIW, this post strikes me as a very characteristically ‘Hansonian’ insight.
‘Hansonian’ meaning it explores a change that is a funny departure from a current equilibrium, but doesn’t explain why it’s only that change which is possible, rather than changing an underlying inefficiency or a different dimension of the equilibrium?
Why have paid time off (or allowed time off) at all? Why not bid for time off, with different multipliers depending on how many are out at once? At the very least, why not measure the correlates of expense of time-off and adjust accordingly, rather than just the intuition that for some teams, one member missing has a disproportionate cost and that should be fixed by enforced scheduling.
Because for actual humans, doing so has huge transaction costs. I’m reminded of the reason why micropayments failed., except this isn’t so micro.
It also makes you lose predictablity—you can no longer look at a number and know that you have exactly that many days.