3 ms·

> They make software engineer money doing this. You say like that is a bad/surprising thing.

by cbsmith 11y ago

nickff 11y ago
My take-away from the parent post is that some people are extracting monopoly rents from 'conservation' efforts, and this waste is partially responsible for neglect of other endangered species.
- cbsmith 11y ago
  ...and so you are saying that software engineers should be extracting monopoly rents, but conservationists shouldn't? (I'm not sure I'd agree with either point.) As the article points out, this is the least of our worries.
  - nickff 11y ago
    Oh, I don't think (any kind of) engineers should be entitled to extract monopoly rents, which is why I am against all (or almost all) occupational licensing. The concern which the (great-grand-) parent brings up is that a great deal of money is being spent on 'conservation' efforts which may be a poor allocation of limited resources that could be better used (to protect a greater variety of more endagered species).
    - jonah 11y ago
      The only reason I used that turn of phrase was to say something relatable to HN'ers, not to make any judgement call as to whether it was an acceptable amount to be paying for this job or not. A couple other interesting things to note: 1) The funding for the two conservation projects I mentioned in my initial comment come from the company and military respectively and is required to be a part of the larger development project. 2) (My opinion:) Moving tortoises to a "safer" location does nothing to preserve the environment they were removed from, quite the opposite in fact, it allows it to be "developed" which will lead to the destruction of habitat for other species which weren't moved elsewhere so the overall net effect on preserved area is negative. 3) As an aside, slicing and dicing large tracts of land like the Mojave where animals have huge ranges is going to have a negative effect on the species as they would naturally move Northward as the climate changes but they'll be unable to shift out of their preserved area because it's bordered by development.
    - cbsmith 11y ago
      > Oh, I don't think (any kind of) engineers should be entitled to extract monopoly rents, which is why I am against all (or almost all) occupational licensing. Then it doesn't matter how it compares to what software engineers are paid.
      - nickff 11y ago
        >"Then it doesn't matter how it compares to what software engineers are paid." I never said (or believed) that the relative amount was particularly relevant; I had (correctly) assumed that the comparison had been made to give the HN crowd some idea of the amount those particular workers were paid without divulging exact figures.
        cbsmith 11y ago
        I had presumed (correctly) it implied something about how much these people are being paid as if that was part of the problem. It isn't.

> They make software engineer money doing this. You say like that is a bad/surprising thing.

by cbsmith 11y ago

> They make software engineer money doing this. You say like that is a bad/surprising thing.

My take-away from the parent post is that some people are extracting monopoly rents from 'conservation' efforts, and this waste is partially responsible for neglect of other endangered species.

cbsmith 11y ago
...and so you are saying that software engineers should be extracting monopoly rents, but conservationists shouldn't? (I'm not sure I'd agree with either point.) As the article points out, this is the least of our worries.
- nickff 11y ago
  Oh, I don't think (any kind of) engineers should be entitled to extract monopoly rents, which is why I am against all (or almost all) occupational licensing. The concern which the (great-grand-) parent brings up is that a great deal of money is being spent on 'conservation' efforts which may be a poor allocation of limited resources that could be better used (to protect a greater variety of more endagered species).
  - jonah 11y ago
    The only reason I used that turn of phrase was to say something relatable to HN'ers, not to make any judgement call as to whether it was an acceptable amount to be paying for this job or not. A couple other interesting things to note: 1) The funding for the two conservation projects I mentioned in my initial comment come from the company and military respectively and is required to be a part of the larger development project. 2) (My opinion:) Moving tortoises to a "safer" location does nothing to preserve the environment they were removed from, quite the opposite in fact, it allows it to be "developed" which will lead to the destruction of habitat for other species which weren't moved elsewhere so the overall net effect on preserved area is negative. 3) As an aside, slicing and dicing large tracts of land like the Mojave where animals have huge ranges is going to have a negative effect on the species as they would naturally move Northward as the climate changes but they'll be unable to shift out of their preserved area because it's bordered by development.
  - cbsmith 11y ago
    > Oh, I don't think (any kind of) engineers should be entitled to extract monopoly rents, which is why I am against all (or almost all) occupational licensing. Then it doesn't matter how it compares to what software engineers are paid.
    - nickff 11y ago
      >"Then it doesn't matter how it compares to what software engineers are paid." I never said (or believed) that the relative amount was particularly relevant; I had (correctly) assumed that the comparison had been made to give the HN crowd some idea of the amount those particular workers were paid without divulging exact figures.
      - cbsmith 11y ago
        I had presumed (correctly) it implied something about how much these people are being paid as if that was part of the problem. It isn't.