I think a big part of the problem is people are recognizing that many modern economic theories and models are kind of trash and failing to make accurate predictions today. Challenging popular economic theory will often get someone labelled a crackpot, regardless of how good or bad their models and predictions are. And the field and players that are in play and have some power to influence or change policies are deeply embroiled with political dogma and will fight tooth and nail against anything that might make their previously established beliefs and education obsolete or god forbid show they were just straight up wrong from the start.
The collapse of the econ PhD job market
351–360 of 386 posts
Re: The collapse of the econ PhD job market
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Economists work from assumptions All models start with givens…
Sure, that does not mean all models are equal. Economics both describe and prescribe, so those models should be evaluated on their predictive power and on whether they have actually done any good.
> that does not mean all models are equal
Sure. Nobody claimed that. I’m just pointing out that being upset that a model makes assumptions is nonsense.
Re: The collapse of the econ PhD job market
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
PhDs are probably the leanest degree for a research school to support. They don't attend classes after ~2 years, mostly operate independently besides consulting with their advisor, don't take anywhere near a professor's salary, teach or TA classes, act as lab technicians, and bring in money through grants. The costs are mostly upfront in the form of providing the necessary research facilities to attract research-orie…
>PhDs are probably the leanest degree for a research school to support. In America the students at the undergraduate and masters levels pay to pursue their degrees, while the PhDs are paid by the school. As these students do not directly generate revenue, the PhD programs will be first on the chopping block and the admin who make the 'tough decisions' to keep the ship afloat will be off at their next jobs by the time…
PhD students are typically only paid by the university if they provide labor in the form of being a teaching assistant for undergrads, guiding lab sessions and grading assignments and exams. Alternatively they're paid through their advisor's grants, in which case the student brings in revenue in the form of the large overhead cut the uni takes.
The alternative would be hiring dedicated employees to help with grading and lab sessions, and they won't tolerate the $30k/yr a PhD student does. This would have immediate impacts too, as there's no way a lone professor can keep up with grading for the class sizes in early undergrad.
Re: The collapse of the econ PhD job market
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I can tell, Austrians believe that analyzing based on individual preferences and actions is the key. I haven't made it very far into Mises Human Action, but I gather that was the starting point and Mises developed many theorems based on that. So if you say that allowing individuals to maximize their preferred choices given the constraints around them is "the market" and artificially restricting those choice…
If I were to summarize the insights of economic schools of thought, then we get: 1. Keynesianism: "Your spending is my income, so when there's not enough spending, the government needs to step in". 2. Monetarism: "The monetary supply directly controls the economy and is the primary reason for economic phenomena". 3. Austrian economy: the market god, the market is king, all hail the market. The first two approaches pr…
As an American, all economic discussion I've ever seen has been posturing as #1 or #2 while desperately pretending you aren't just trying to justify #3.
The Capitalist Market is the One True God of America. All the math and waxing philosophic are just set dressing to make that idea less obviously absurd.
Re: The collapse of the econ PhD job market
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Difficulty is not value. Extremely talented people are doing arbitrary waste work. Grants are hard, not because of admin/paperwork, but because coming up with a novel idea is hard and convincing others to fund it is harder. The people leading the grants are the ones creating and guiding the ideas. They set the agenda. A tech CEO doesn't spend their days coding minor bug fixes, in the same way a PI doesn't spend thei…
> convincing others to fund it is harder. Yes, we are in agreement. That's why promoters are so valuable. > in the same way a PI doesn't spend their days doing lab work. This large workforce of Phd's protecting the time of the PI also represents a massive allocation of young intelligent talent, and that's part of my concern. > an excess of PhDs is not a collapse, it is a boon. It's difficult to talk about demand for…
I think our impasse is for some reason you have this idea that PI's hate their work / are gaming the system. I just don't understand where you are coming from. Maybe that's true sometimes, but most all PIs I have worked with are not gaming the system. They are just working on a decades-long line of inquiry.
>I am aware of researchers who use a technique where they get funding for a project that is basically finished, and use the funds for more speculative research. Their sources of funding expect more predictability than they can realistically provide. Wouldn't you say that represents a gap in the public's visibility?
Their grant is public record. Their oversight during that grant is public record. Their regulatory approvals are public record. Their publications are public record.
"Basically finished" is not finished. It is not finished unless it has been published. Your statement is like saying "its wrong for a baker to buy an oven if he already has the flour and sugar. The cake is basically finished. He is just putting future costs into this current cake".
Most grant applications include prior work, current work, and future work. A program officer will make site visits and assess current work and upcoming work. Funding of a grant is not "do X thing and publish, end of project and money:. It is the pursuit of an idea. If task 1 is "basically finished" the PO will push for publication of that and moving on to the next aim.
In many cases having an aim "basically finished" is a good thing. It shows that prior work is successful and future work can produce similar success. Most grants have multiple aims and several sub-aims. If one aim is finished, they move on to the next. If all the aims are complete, the grant usually indicates next steps. The PI and PO will have discussed the next steps long before they are carried out.
If the PI chooses use some funds from a grant to carry out speculative research. Good. GOOD. That is what scientific inquiry is meant for. Not all research can be speculative. Not at research can be mainstream. It is a mix, based on opportunity and expertise.
This is grants 101. Please, again, I'm not lecturing you on software development, because it is not my expertise. Please understand scientific funding before lecturing me about it.
>Name calling doesn't sound intellectual to me. I choose not to reciprocate.
Its not name calling to call out your anti-intellectualism. You are contributing to the decline of American science, and I will not stand for it.
Re: The collapse of the econ PhD job market
#356Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I were to summarize the insights of economic schools of thought, then we get: 1. Keynesianism: "Your spending is my income, so when there's not enough spending, the government needs to step in". 2. Monetarism: "The monetary supply directly controls the economy and is the primary reason for economic phenomena". 3. Austrian economy: the market god, the market is king, all hail the market. The first two approaches pr…
Abusive monopolies without the imposition of violence (either by the government or the company) lasting for a long time horizon? Yes, that would seem implausible in a free market. For example, if someone controlled the water pipes and charged a $1000 for a cup of water, then someone would find a way to bring in water for less and would start contracting to build their own pipes, maybe locking in long term contracts w…
> Abusive monopolies without the imposition of violence (either by the government or the company) lasting for a long time horizon?
Example: Google. It happened all by itself in an essentially unregulated area, without any real government action.
> Compare the 1920 economic downturn (hands-off government, rebounds quickly) to the 1929-1940s economic depression
The 1920 downturn was _stopped_ by the government intervention. You're confusing the cause and the effect.
Want another example? Look at 2008. The US went with a tepid Keynesian approach of fiscal stimulus and quantitative easing. So the economy recovered to pre-recession levels in 2 years. Europe went with the Austrian approach of austerity and tight monetary supply (they RAISED the interest rates!), and it took 11 years for them to claw back to the pre-recession levels.
And what is the conclusion of Austrians? That there was not enough austerity!
Re: The collapse of the econ PhD job market
#357Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, I did one of my two majors in Econ, and from that my politics moved left. Single payer is more about better results for less money than "giving something away". The income multiplier, the additional circulation to money for the 12 months after it was received. For the bottom 60 % the money gets spent quickly and locally. Give extra to a multimillionaire they will be in much less of a hurry to spend it, and they…
Isn't single payer just a cop-out? A way to allow government (and every economist hopes: they personally) to simple force outcomes on both medical providers and consumers? Because that will destroy medical care rather than save it. Just look what's happening in Europe (the waiting lists, and the game of attempting to force neighboring countries to carry the costs of training medical personnel)
As opposed to what? Access being limited to those who can afford exorbitant prices, and medical tourism?
Re: The collapse of the econ PhD job market
#358Earlier quoted context omitted.
> convincing others to fund it is harder. Yes, we are in agreement. That's why promoters are so valuable. > in the same way a PI doesn't spend their days doing lab work. This large workforce of Phd's protecting the time of the PI also represents a massive allocation of young intelligent talent, and that's part of my concern. > an excess of PhDs is not a collapse, it is a boon. It's difficult to talk about demand for…
I think our impasse is for some reason you have this idea that PI's hate their work / are gaming the system. I just don't understand where you are coming from. Maybe that's true sometimes, but most all PIs I have worked with are not gaming the system. They are just working on a decades-long line of inquiry. >I am aware of researchers who use a technique where they get funding for a project that is basically finished,…
> you have this idea that PI's hate their work / are gaming the system.
That’s actually not what I said.
> If the PI chooses use some funds from a grant to carry out speculative research. Good. GOOD. That is what scientific inquiry is meant for.
My claim is not about good or bad. My claim is that there is a gap between how science is done and how it is presented to the public.
> This is grants 101
You seem to agree such a gap exists, you just think it’s a good thing or a matter of business.
> because it is not my expertise
So notice when I bring up correct information, I’m told I don’t have the experience/expertise to do so despite my academic union card.
Please do share opinions about software. We have no professional organization. People argue with ideas.
> You are contributing to the decline of American science, and I will not stand for it.
you seem to identify intellectualism as a group of people or an organization.
I think that’s a mockery of truth and ideas.
Yes American science as a family of organizations deserves scrutiny and critiques. Funding these organizations is not an absolute public good.
Re: The collapse of the econ PhD job market
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
Matter is not continuous and yet we don’t need atoms to predict how a metal sheet will bend. There are a lot of sound theories about how to deal with discontinuity, and how the problem solves itself when numbers get large enough. Or think of it like weather and climate: we cannot predict that there will be a thunderstorm on a given day 2 months from now, but we can be fairly confident that in x years, the average glo…
> Matter is not continuous and yet we don’t need atoms to predict how a metal sheet will bend. At sufficient detail atomic structure has a huge impact on how a metal sheet bends. Metallurgy seriously investigates at this level. Hand waving details is fine when discussing with friends, it’s not a sound foundation for serious academic research. Also, the degree to which the weather is unpredictable 2+ weeks out is some…
> At sufficient detail atomic structure has a huge impact on how a metal sheet bends. Metallurgy seriously investigates at this level.
I know, it’s my job. But as much as we like to obsess about the mechanisms for dislocations climbing and solute interactions, nobody cares when they are designing an aircraft. They have macroscopic laws they put in their finite elements code. These are perfectly adequate to describe most known modes of failures of industrial alloys. Nobody is going to model all the atoms in a macroscopic widget, ever. It’s beyond pointless.
Re: The collapse of the econ PhD job market
#360Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep, I did one of my two majors in Econ, and from that my politics moved left. Single payer is more about better results for less money than "giving something away". The income multiplier, the additional circulation to money for the 12 months after it was received. For the bottom 60 % the money gets spent quickly and locally. Give extra to a multimillionaire they will be in much less of a hurry to spend it, and they…
Isn't single payer just a cop-out? A way to allow government (and every economist hopes: they personally) to simple force outcomes on both medical providers and consumers? Because that will destroy medical care rather than save it. Just look what's happening in Europe (the waiting lists, and the game of attempting to force neighboring countries to carry the costs of training medical personnel)
You don’t have to wait for care in America??? Wow!