Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

wyclif.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 163 posts

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#51

Post by whimsicalism »

ashtonkem wrote: post #50
whimsicalism wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the type of person who tends to browse HN has a problem with latching on to phrases or ideas that "sound interesting" and then never doing any further research. I think it's where a lot of the rhetoric around 'elite overproduction' comes from. > Colleges are really just real estate speculation businesses that also incidentally give you a degree in dentistry or whatever. Why would that incentivize colleges to…

You can disagree with the podcast without attacking me.

I'm attacking myself as much as you, I have this problematic tendency to latch onto interesting sounding ideas.

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#52

Post by 13415 »

greenail wrote: post #14

Maybe the incentives for universities are all wrong. In the early 1900's only 4% of the US went to university. There ended up being a big push to get more people into college with the assumption that it would benefit society. Eventually we ended up with a notion that everyone should go to college and this has been buttressed with government support but what if this idea is wrong? What if the incentives created lots o…

Can you give me an exact definition of "benefitting society"? That sounds a lot like the "real value" of things that salon communists talk about all the time. Count me a skeptic. Opinions about what benefits society differ vastly, and I'm not sure there could be a compelling "objective benefits" theory in this area. Society is what people make of it and how they and elected representatives shape the future.

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#53

Post by TheOtherHobbes »

Game_Ender wrote: post #37
bregma wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But everyone knows you can only get rich by working in STEM. Have you ever heard of a musician worth millions? Or a writer? Or an actor? Or an athlete? Fashion designer?

What percentage of writers, athletes, actors, or musicians are worth millions? Compare that to the number of STEM graduates. It’s not that you cannot, it’t about the likelihood.

The humanities also include law, politics, and economics [1].

What percentage of laywers, politicians, and economists are worth more than STEM graduates?

How much relative power does each sector have?

[1] Technically a social science, certainly not a hardcore STEM subject.

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#54

Post by whimsicalism »

billytetrud wrote: post #18
grahamburger wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is basically my feeling as well. I would prefer that we (at least in the U.S.) focus on making high school much much better, to the point that fewer people have any need to go to college/university. And then, if we still need to, figure out what to do about University. (Saying this as someone who never finished college/university, largely because I was trying to pay for it myself and couldn't make it work.)

Elementary and middle school is far more important than high school. The earlier you go, the more important it is.

If we actually wanted to improve education in our schools, we would just finish desegregating them.

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#56

Post by whimsicalism »

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #53
Game_Ender wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What percentage of writers, athletes, actors, or musicians are worth millions? Compare that to the number of STEM graduates. It’s not that you cannot, it’t about the likelihood.

The humanities also include law, politics, and economics [1]. What percentage of laywers, politicians, and economists are worth more than STEM graduates? How much relative power does each sector have? [1] Technically a social science, certainly not a hardcore STEM subject.

Economics is not in the humanities, political science is not in the humanities, and law is not typically considered in the humanities.

It kinda sounds like you don't know what the humanities are.

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#57

Post by tartoran »

kapuasuite wrote: post #40
tartoran wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Have we reached a state of elite-overproduction? I don't see that as a bad thing. Of course they won't be elites when overproduced but its output, when looking at the big picture, will be positive. If you're so with your view why stop at universities then? Why educate the masses at all? Why not have classes of educated and uneducated people?

There are tradeoffs, though - the resources that are poured into higher education are resources that cannot be spent on other vital things.

Yes but there are tradeoffs everywhere. I'd look at the big picture instead. Are we better off than, say, 100 years ago?

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#58

Post by SketchySeaBeast »

whimsicalism wrote: post #56
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The humanities also include law, politics, and economics [1]. What percentage of laywers, politicians, and economists are worth more than STEM graduates? How much relative power does each sector have? [1] Technically a social science, certainly not a hardcore STEM subject.

Economics is not in the humanities, political science is not in the humanities, and law is not typically considered in the humanities. It kinda sounds like you don't know what the humanities are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanities#Law_and_politics

Just to be clear, you're both kind of right, but I take objection to your overly aggressive stance on this where you rebut and accuse without providing any sort of evidence.

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#59

Post by carapace »

To me it's pretty obvious that the social "sciences" are science in name only. Operationally they are more akin to astrology or numerology than physics. They serve a social function of allowing people to believe that we know more about the world, that we have have more predictive power, than we do. They let our governments pretend that they are more powerful and effective than they really are. It's frightening to think that e.g. the Fed (Federal Reserve) doesn't know what they are doing ( https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/greenspan-admits-flaw-to-c... ) so we all pretend that that they do despite clear evidence that they do not. (Taleb's "Black Swan" effect: we immediately forget that we were so sure black swans don't exist, and carry on as if we had known all along.)

I have no idea what, if anything, to do about this.

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#60

Post by rmah »

ashtonkem wrote: post #44
greenail wrote: post #14

Maybe the incentives for universities are all wrong. In the early 1900's only 4% of the US went to university. There ended up being a big push to get more people into college with the assumption that it would benefit society. Eventually we ended up with a notion that everyone should go to college and this has been buttressed with government support but what if this idea is wrong? What if the incentives created lots o…

A podcast I listen to[0] had a throwaway line that’s stuck with me. I’m not sure if it’s actually correct, this isn’t an area I’m an expert in, but it’s interesting nonetheless. > Colleges are really just real estate speculation businesses that also incidentally give you a degree in dentistry or whatever. If that’s true, wouldn’t it explain why colleges do things that don’t make sense for education? 0 - Well There’s…

The idea that real estate speculation being the baseline goal of universities is funny but doubtful.

Instead, consider that survival is almost always one of the main goals of any larger organization. That happens for a variety of personal, individual reasons: job security, reputation halos, personal networks, etc. But in the end, it translates into organizations taking actions simply to survive. And since one of the best ways to survive is to grow, taking actions to grow.

This is true for everything from charities that take care of the poor and sick to for-profit corporations to government agencies. And, of course, universities.

So why does a university spend a ton of money on renovating their football stadium? Simple, it makes alums happier (more donations), it looks better on televised games (enhanced reputation), etc. It helps the university survive.

Post reply on HN