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

131–140 of 163 posts

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#131

Post by legulere »

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…

Access to universities was even less based on merit than it is today I think. Also I think that we’re actually hindering progress by trying to limit research to topics that have direct use following out of it.

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#132

Post by notJim »

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…

> 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?

I think the problem with this line of thinking is that since the US is a highly-developed country, we depend on having a well-educated, highly productive workforce in order to maintain our economy. The US is no longer a place where you have large numbers of people working in huge low-tech factories, for example, because the productivity of those factories does not afford the living standards of a highly-developed country. Instead, developed countries perform R & D and need highly-skilled workforces. To the extent we have manufacturing, it tends to be highly-automated advanced processes. Again, automation is enabling high worker productivity here.

It seems like the issue may be misallocation of the education being produced, not too much education in general.

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#133

Post by ajmadesc »

Aunche wrote: post #69
kapuasuite wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think the better question is why exactly are we pouring so many resources into higher education? Most of my classes were taught by lecturers making at best $80 an hour teaching a class of a hundred. The real work is done by the TAs who make at best $15 an hour. Where is the rest of the money going to?

"Administration", "outreach", "development"

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#134

Post by ajmadesc »

rmah wrote: post #60
ashtonkem wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Drexel university is spearheading the gentrification of west Philadelphia.

They paid tens of millions for a dirty old tire shop.

They require the first three years of your degree to be spent in overpriced uni owned housing.

The chancellor makes one of the highest salaries in the us.

That's the only example I can really think of

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#135

Post by baq »

bluedino wrote: post #74
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.)

>> focus on making high school much much better Meanwhile we're lowering standards and just passing every kid we can, for 'fairness'

Not passing a kid sets them back 10 years of life (yeah I made up that number but it’s what I’d expect to happen when you end up in a negative feedback loop like this). Education doesn’t have a binary outcome.

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#136

Post by closeparen »

eunoia wrote: post #129
gknoy wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you study history, philosophy, or ethics, then? Those classes covered things which I have never encountered in my _trade_, but which formatively affected my views on how one should treat others (or treat oneself). I feel like the stereotypical "liberal arts" education, in which one studies things that are not just focused on your trade, has an intrinsic value which is hard to articulate.

“You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library” Of course not everyone is autodidactic so the path is not for everyone, but it is indeed quite possible to acquire this kind of knowledge/humanity outside of the university structure. Alternatively: everyone should read the classics.

Missing:

- Someone who knows those books to explain and lead discussions about them.

- A place to hold those meetings.

- Some kind of accountability for actually doing the readings, writing the papers, and internalizing some understanding.

That costs a little more than $1.50 but it has no right to cost $150k. It's not like graduate student wages are expensive.

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#137

Post by scroot »

taneq wrote: post #126
scroot wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a richness to life that has nothing whatsoever to do with money. To the technocratic mind that would confuse this fact, what is "useful" can only ever be presented in the terms of the economics profession. Under such guidelines it is quite "useless" to, say, spend a decade studying Akkadian. But our understanding of the past would be so much poorer without people willing to engage with Assyriology. I'd like…

Well yeah, it's nice to be independently wealthy and spend your life studying whatever takes your fancy, and if you can afford to do so then good on you.

I think the point is that everyone should have such an opportunity without having to be independently wealthy in the first place.

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#138

Post by taneq »

scroot wrote: post #137
taneq wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yeah, it's nice to be independently wealthy and spend your life studying whatever takes your fancy, and if you can afford to do so then good on you.

I think the point is that everyone should have such an opportunity without having to be independently wealthy in the first place.

I think we agree on the fact that it's nice to have nice things, and it'd be nice of the government paid for more nice things?

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#139

Post by wahern »

closeparen wrote: post #136
eunoia wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library” Of course not everyone is autodidactic so the path is not for everyone, but it is indeed quite possible to acquire this kind of knowledge/humanity outside of the university structure. Alternatively: everyone should read the classics.

Missing: - Someone who knows those books to explain and lead discussions about them. - A place to hold those meetings. - Some kind of accountability for actually doing the readings, writing the papers, and internalizing some understanding. That costs a little more than $1.50 but it has no right to cost $150k. It's not like graduate student wages are expensive.

Interestingly, my neighborhood public library in the Outer Richmond district of San Francisco offers free Great Books-style discussion groups. I never attended a session but always noticed the schedule on the bulletin board. Googling it just now, it's apparently led by members of the Great Books Council of San Francisco (https://www.greatbooksncal.org/).

When my children get old enough I hope to attend with them. I had the great fortune to experience a Great Books program for 2-3 years in high school (a pet project of a teacher who fought tooth and nail to fund that class) and consider it a formative experience.

Re: Incentives in economics are wrong, but how?

#140

Post by eunoia »

closeparen wrote: post #136
eunoia wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“You wasted $150,000 on an education you coulda got for $1.50 in late fees at the public library” Of course not everyone is autodidactic so the path is not for everyone, but it is indeed quite possible to acquire this kind of knowledge/humanity outside of the university structure. Alternatively: everyone should read the classics.

Missing: - Someone who knows those books to explain and lead discussions about them. - A place to hold those meetings. - Some kind of accountability for actually doing the readings, writing the papers, and internalizing some understanding. That costs a little more than $1.50 but it has no right to cost $150k. It's not like graduate student wages are expensive.

Yeah to be clear I don’t mean to say a liberal arts education is literally only worth $1.50. I personally place immense value on learning.

Just to point out that much like working at a high level in tech, a degree is actually not a hard pre-requisite to having an understanding of the humanities, ethics, etc.

Also just like STEM, many will absolutely benefit from the structure of a university setting.

I just couldn’t resist the Good Will Hunting quote.

Post reply on HN