←back to thread

97 points surprisetalk | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.328s | source
Show context
lurk2 ◴[] No.44007988[source]
> Compensation: In addition to huge prizes—capturing a merchant vessel could make a captain wealthy for life—there was a wage system where officers were oversupplied and naval officers that weren’t at sea were kept at half pay. The unemployment pool that resulted from this efficiency wage made it easier to discipline officers by moving them back to the captains list. (Allen argues that a fixed-wage system would have led to adverse selection since captains on half pay weren’t permanently employees of the navy but would reject commissions that weren’t remunerative.)

I reread this three times and I can’t make heads or tails of what it’s supposed to mean. There is an oversupply of officers. They are kept at half pay. This affords opportunities to discipline officers. This is presumably because there are others willing to take his place, but all that is referenced is a captain’s list. Is this the list of officers on half-pay?

I genuinely can’t even understand the argument being made in brackets.

replies(4): >>44008192 #>>44008916 #>>44009866 #>>44010078 #
1. strken ◴[] No.44010078[source]
I think Allen is arguing that, if the beached officers were either on full pay and forced to accept postings by law, or no pay and forced by poverty, they would not be able to reject commissions. They would thus be forced to accept adverse postings that were bad for the navy as a whole.

They were able to reject commissions because they weren't technically employed by the navy while unassigned. Officers could turn down a posting and still draw half pay, and in fact they kept their half pay during retirement.