Re: What do workers compete for?

Albert wrote:

> On Fri, 14 May 2004 05:34:51 GMT
> Les Cargill <lcargill@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> <snip>
> 
>>I do not know what to say except to say that the midwife in 
>>primitive cultures was accountable for the birth. The conception
>>is reflex, the raising is the hard part. The birth is just
>>the critical section.  So midwives accepted the burden of
>>villification for a greater good. Not because they were
>>heroic, but because they like babies.
> 
> 
> A really poorly chosen metaphor.  Before the midwife, birth proceeded
> along just fine for the majority.  And in no society did the midwife get
> possession of all of the children she "helped" be born.
> 

Assuming that a higher survivial rate helps a tribe, I cannot
beleive that a midwife who's competent could be anything
other than a benefeit.

THe point is that lots of people can be creative in
goods and services, but the real struggle is identifying
op****tunity, meeting the op****tunity and making money on
it. That's the "midwifing" methaphor, and I think it's
appropriate.

General Sarnoff made TV happen because he was who he was,
because he knew how to get that sort of thing onto the
shelves and because the people he was competing with
weren't as good as he was. Ditto Edison, Gates,  Ford
and the others.

Some of this is hegemonic, but since there is clear and
definite pattern of hegemony in all technological
leaps, I can only conclude (by the anthropic principle)
that hegemony serves some value in a society.

> <snip>
> 

--
Les Cargill