Генетические основы структуры зарплат

[vit_r]

Ещё цитата из статьи по эволюционной психологии

Anthropologists Kim Hill and Hillard Kaplan, in their study of the Ache,[23] discovered an interesting pattern: Individuals were identified as good or bad hunters and good hunters had substantially greater reproductive success, more surviving offspring, than bad hunters. Their explanation was that, despite the apparent egalitarianism of the sharing of meat—which provided the bulk of the calories consumed—good hunters were still rewarded. Membership in foraging bands was fluid. In order to make sure that the good hunters went with a particular band it was necessary for other band members to offer them rewards for doing so—in the form of better care for their children, more sexual access to women in the band, and the like.

While the individual foraging band lacks the formal hierarchical structure of a modern corporation, the situation is in other respects one familiar to us. Most employees in a modern society, like hunters in an Ache foraging band, have no ownership claim over the particular goods or services they produce. Their reward still depends on their productivity, but through a more indirect mechanism. Firms that pay employees less than they are worth risk losing them to other firms. Foraging bands that under reward good hunters may find that, next time around, the good hunters go with other bands. Just as in the case of individual exchange, there is an implicit price, just one linked to the services provided rather than directly to the goods produced.