More would be better. To the extent that the benefits of increasing the number of employees outweigh the costs of increasing the number of employees, it is better to increase the number of employees.
- That doesn’t mean “you better put it all in.”
Figure Problems
- Benefits and costs are portrayed as inversely correlated, but that’s not always the case.
- Initially, costs were envisioned as a constant graph.
- Implicitly, “the cost of adding one more case is constant.”
- [Difference between “leave no one behind” and “leave as many people behind as possible” focuses on changing costs
- This one implicitly assumes that benefits are constant.
- Implicitly, “the cost of adding one more case is constant.”
The “more is better” and “all is better” groups do not agree on the goal they are aiming for, but they can cooperate because they agree on “more” up to the halfway point.
- If it matches halfway there is something to gain on the pathway., you can pivot where it no longer matches.
OLD TITLE more is better, but not all.
-
- Abstraction because it is not limited to people.
People who consider 100% of the vote in a democracy to be ideal.
- If you are not interested in the color of the bike shed, you should not participate in the bike shed color discussion. - every little detail - I follow fads for nothing, I follow morals for serious matters, I follow myself for art.
- Let those who want to discuss the bike shed
This page is auto-translated from /nishio/増えた方がいいが全部ではない using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.