6 ms·

You are missing the argument. It is the same one that RAND https://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF194.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF19

You are missing the argument. It is the same one that RAND https://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF194.html https://www.rand.org/pubs/conf_proceedings/CF194.html gave when commissioned by congress to determine whether their was a “STEM shortage.” If there was a STEM shortage, wages would rise. Since rising wages aren’t observed, the situation is that the employers complaining of a shortage don’t want to pay the market rate. Instead they want extra-market forces (political programs to push workers into STEM training) to lower the market rate for them.

macspoofing 7y ago
>Since rising wages aren’t observed The crazy wages that tech companies pay aren't a data point? One of my co-op student got offered a position in the States with starting salary north of $120k - straight out of university and not even by one of the big 5 or even a Fortune 500 company. The guy was good and he'd have done well in the market, but not that good. >Since rising wages aren’t observed, the situation is that the employers complaining of a shortage don’t want to pay the market rate. Again, I'm having a hard time parsing this. Employers would always like to hire more people for less money. Employees would like to work less and make more money. You're correct in that technically there are never any shortages of anything ever, because you could always pay more money as supply dwindles. Even Venezuela, if you're willing to pay exorbitant prices with hard currency, I'm sure you could get anything you want. That's not what is meant by a 'shortage' though. >Instead they want extra-market forces (political programs to push workers into STEM training) That is such a weird way to phrase it. Every industry always tries to market itself to kids and students as a great career option. I'm not worried about the fact that companies in IT want more kids to go into IT. I'm getting a 'rent seeking' vibe in this thread. It seems like people here want to kick out the ladder after they climbed it into their career choice so as to reduce the supply of future professionals so that they can be the beneficiary of that reduced supply.
- fucking_tragedy 7y ago
  > One of my co-op student got offered a position in the States with starting salary north of $120k Where? If it's NYC/SF/LA etc, then look at the price of homes in that city. Then look at the CoL. Then see if engineer compensation has kept up with CoL.
- hyeonwho4 7y ago
  I think part of the issue is that tech salaries are insane in SF and NYC, everywhere else and every other field salaries are not increasing. I was looking at engineering postdocs and the typical salary is 50k. For bio postdocs it's 35k. You can make more than that as a farmhand.
- eesmith 7y ago
  One data point - a co-op student of yours - is not reflective of STEM as a whole. As this Sydney Morning Herald article points out, STEM includes fields like biology, which don't have crazy wages. As an analogy, consider someone fresh out of high school who plays for a professional sports team and is paid $5 million per year. That 'crazy wage' for a 19 year old does not mean that all professional athletes are well paid. What do you think "shortage" means? Because my understanding agrees with bloomer's. There is no shortage of Volvo V60s simply because new ones aren't available for $10,000. But the calls for STEM training sound very much like that sort of complaint. While it's true that (nearly) "Every industry always tries to market itself", those are market forces. "Extra-market forces" would be like the government including two years of plumbing training for all high school graduates. That's a non-market way to drive the cost for normal plumbing jobs down. (Note that this means other topics would be covered less.) Similarly, the government might greatly increase the number of $10,000 scholarships for CS majors. This would almost certainly result in relatively more people with CS training, compared with other fields. The prediction is that this results in a higher supply of programmers relative to demand, and thus a lower salary. A market solution is to have companies including training as part of hiring new employees. Companies don't like this because it places the expense on them. It also increases risk in two ways. First, someone may decide after 9 months that this isn't the career for them. They still get paid for those 9 months. Second, after the training is over, the employee may decide to take that training and go elsewhere for better wages. Calls for increased STEM funding can reasonably seen as a way to push the risks onto the student, and onto the government ("socialized", rather than "free market"). There is no need to reference rent seeking for this interpretation, which I believe is also the standard interpretation.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >As this Sydney Morning Herald article points out, STEM includes fields like biology, which don't have crazy wages. Correct. The comment was clearly directed at the programming profession. >That 'crazy wage' for a 19 year old does not mean that all professional athletes are well paid. That's true but unlike professional athletics, programmers are paid well on average. >"Extra-market forces" would be like the government including two years of plumbing training for all high school graduates. That's a non-market way to drive the cost for normal plumbing jobs down. I really don't understand this argument. Government isn't trying to get people into STEM in order to drive down STEM wages. That is not how government works. That is not how politics works. This is not a good metaphor to understand the motivation. Governments will always have programs and policies to move people into specific industries or move people out of specific industries. That usually stems from good-intentions, values of the population (Armenia loves Chess, and therefore teaches Chess to kids in primary school), and maybe for some economic, ideological or political reasons. >Similarly, the government might greatly increase the number of $10,000 scholarships for CS majors. This would almost certainly result in relatively more people with CS training, compared with other fields. And that would be preferable to what the US (and Canadian) government is doing - mainly underwriting huge loans (or subsiding tuition) for majors that have low probability in resulting in a good paying job. Trust me, if government wasn't involved in post-secondary education, you would see an even larger move to CS because no bank would ever underwrite a student loan for a 4-year history degree. >The prediction is that this results in a higher supply of programmers relative to demand, and thus a lower salary. OK. This is basic econ. Having said that, the math isn't so straight forward. Sometimes increasing the pool of engineers can also increase the market for engineers because more companies relocate to the area, or more companies get started by those engineers. >Companies don't like this because it places the expense on them. All employees need some training because no business is identical. But OK, I understand the point you're making though I think it is nonsensical. For example, you're not seriously expecting a business to provide a 4-year degree program to train their engineers? That would be like building a house by grabbing a guy off the street and training them on how to build a house. If a company needs programmers to work on their software they will advertise for professionals with those skill-sets. This is why they pay good money for those professionals.
- systemBuilder 7y ago
  You need some perspective you are completely screwed up! $120k at FAANG is like minimum wage in the Bay area; the poverty rate in San Jose is $95k for a family of four. We with $120k you can look forward to renting a 1-bedroom apartment all your life ... The bay area is like living in Tokyo...
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    This individual wasn't going to the Bay area or to work for 'FAANG'. I think you need to get some perspective. For one thing, in no universe is $100k 'poverty rate' anywhere. I can guarantee those that are making this salary are not poor. To even suggest it is delusional (and I will grant that this was probably a joke).
    - systemBuilder 7y ago
      Sorry, it's $85k, not $95k. The point is, local cost of living variances can be extreme. https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/22/in-costly-bay-area-even-six-figure-salaries-are-considered-low-income/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/22/in-costly-bay-area-ev...
- intended 7y ago
  Tech salaries are bimodal.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    That would surprise me. There may be enough people working for the big tech employers and financial industry in high cost of living areas in the US to be a mode. But the rest pretty much spans the gamut from entry level sys admin jobs in manufacturing and retail up through well-paying but not FAANG level development, architects, etc. throughout the US. Bio dale would imply you have well-paying jobs and poor-paying jobs with not much in between and nothing in my experience suggests that’s the case.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  >> Instead they want extra-market forces (political programs to push workers into STEM training) > That is such a weird way to phrase it. Every industry always tries to market itself to kids and students as a great career option. I'm not worried about the fact that companies in IT want more kids to go into IT. Well if you wanted to work in science without insane competition and crap wasted that was possible in the US until industrial policy made supply of scientific labour high and wages cheap. Sometimes employers get what they want. https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/how-why-government-universities-industry-create-domestic-labor-shortages-of-scientists-high-tech-workers https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/how-why-gove...
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    You do realize the glut of PhDs is a global problem, not something confined to United States policy. The article you cited is too much of a conspiracy theory for me to take seriously (Eric Weinstein is fun to read and listen to but he's crazy, and I wouldn't put any stock in his social commentary). Nobody orchestrated a secret plan to lower wages for science majors.
- DebtDeflation 7y ago
  >The crazy wages that tech companies pay aren't a data point? One of my co-op student got offered a position in the States with starting salary north of $120k Why is $120K a "crazy wage"? Perhaps labor in general, and particularly highly specialized labor, is underpaid across the board. It's not uncommon for traders or investment bankers to earn 7 or even 8 figures yet I don't hear anyone claiming there's a shortage of speculators and financiers. We just seem to have this built in cognitive bias that doctors, lawyers, and bankers are "supposed to" be highly paid but that it's somehow a "problem to be solved" for engineers and scientists to be paid similarly.
  - macspoofing 7y ago
    >Why is $120K a "crazy wage"? ... it's somehow a "problem to be solved" for engineers and scientists to be paid similarly. Bless your heart. I don't begrudge anyone a salary they earned or advocate for lower salaries. $120k/year is a very good starting salary for a kid straight out of a 4 year university degree. It is also twice the household median income so let's recognize the fact that programmers are paid very well for the work they do. My comment was also a response to the notion that somehow wages haven't risen in response to a shortage.
    - cannonedhamster 7y ago
      Only some programmers get paid that and it usually depends heavily on the location you live. Here's a generic software developer payscale for Boston which comes in lower. Boston isn't exactly a low cost city. While I'm sure there are plenty of devs making more, this is a good example of what I've seen. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/boston-software-developer-salary-SRCH_IL.0,6_IM109_KO7,25.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/boston-software-developer...
- systemBuilder 7y ago
  I think a lot of people in commonwealth countries have no understanding of how productive and valuable a young male worker is. I got this from an itinerant professor who was educated in the UK and practiced in the United States. In commonwealth countries they bleed young males dry and tax most of their salary away to pay for social programs like medical care for the elderly single mother care for the single mothers, free or mostly free education for the masses, and early retirement for everyone! These high tax rates further depress the salaries of the young engineers! who wants to give 75 cents of every dollar to the government?? In the United States we don't do that BS and the salary 100% pays for retirement, healthcare, education, etc that part is not something skimmed by the governement! This is why our young workers supposedly make the big bucks: because they are more responsible and are held accountable by the economy.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    I think you don't know how "productive and valuable" a young female worker also is. "medical care for the elderly" - which includes many once-young males. "single mother care for the single mothers" - and paid paternity leave for the fathers, and single father care for the single fathers. (At least in the more feminist of countries.) "free or mostly free education for the masses" - of which about half will become young adult males "early retirement for everyone" - including those once-young males "who wants to give 75 cents of every dollar to the government - what Commonwealth country are you talking about? I don't think any of them even have that high a rate for the upper tax bracket. "we don't do that BS and the salary 100% pays for retirement ..." - We certainly do! Let me introduce you to payroll taxes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#United_States . Sure, it's not directly part of your paycheck, but it lowers your effective salary, and it pays for Social Security ("retirement"), Medicare ("healthcare"), and unemployment. "they are more responsible and are held accountable by the economy" - ROFL! https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/12/17/baby-boomers-average-savings-for-retirement.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/12/17/baby-boomers-aver... - "roughly half of all baby boomers have set aside only $100,000 or less" and 37% have less than %50K. GenX isn't doing all that well either.
skookumchuck 7y ago
The only time there's a shortage in a free market is when the government fixes the price. Then you've got alternating shortages and gluts. In a free market, the price moves until supply=demand, i.e. no glut and no shortage.
- eesmith 7y ago
  Emphatically not true. There's a shortage of passenger pigeon meat - okay, complete lack of what used to be a common and cheap meat. Yet the government did not fix that price. Indeed, its belated attempts to fix the price through laws to protect the pigeon were not successful. Similar observations can be made about many ecological situations, like the nuts and wood from the American Chestnut Tree. Some few survive, but not enough that the line "Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire" resonates with the general American Christmas experience. More generally, you should expect to see oscillations any time there's a delay in the feedback in coupled systems. This comes naturally from the predator–prey equations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equatio... . There's no need to require government price fixing for that to happen.
  - skookumchuck 7y ago
    What you're observing here is the "Tragedy of the Commons". Nobody owned the passenger pigeons, so people hunted them to extinction. This is not free market. For example, despite all the pigs, cows, and chickens being eaten, there is no shortage of them and no threat of them going extinct. That's because people own those resources, they are not in the Commons. Oscillations are not shortages. For example, when there's a natural disaster, people load up their pickups with gas and water and rush in to sell it at high prices. I.e. the shortage promptly disappears. People get mad at the high prices and pass laws to prevent that (i.e. price fixing), with the predictable result of shortages while they wait for FEMA to get around to delivering supplies.
    - eesmith 7y ago
      So there are no shortages of chestnuts from the American Chestnut? Note that a large number of those trees were privately owned. How do you explain that as a "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario? Your example of "shortage promptly disappears" does not explain the situation in Puerto Rico.

macspoofing 7y ago

>Since rising wages aren’t observed The crazy wages that tech companies pay aren't a data point? One of my co-op student got offered a position in the States with starting salary north of $120k - straight out of university and not even by one of the big 5 or even a Fortune 500 company. The guy was good and he'd have done well in the market, but not that good. >Since rising wages aren’t observed, the situation is that the employers complaining of a shortage don’t want to pay the market rate. Again, I'm having a hard time parsing this. Employers would always like to hire more people for less money. Employees would like to work less and make more money. You're correct in that technically there are never any shortages of anything ever, because you could always pay more money as supply dwindles. Even Venezuela, if you're willing to pay exorbitant prices with hard currency, I'm sure you could get anything you want. That's not what is meant by a 'shortage' though. >Instead they want extra-market forces (political programs to push workers into STEM training) That is such a weird way to phrase it. Every industry always tries to market itself to kids and students as a great career option. I'm not worried about the fact that companies in IT want more kids to go into IT. I'm getting a 'rent seeking' vibe in this thread. It seems like people here want to kick out the ladder after they climbed it into their career choice so as to reduce the supply of future professionals so that they can be the beneficiary of that reduced supply.

fucking_tragedy 7y ago
> One of my co-op student got offered a position in the States with starting salary north of $120k Where? If it's NYC/SF/LA etc, then look at the price of homes in that city. Then look at the CoL. Then see if engineer compensation has kept up with CoL.
hyeonwho4 7y ago
I think part of the issue is that tech salaries are insane in SF and NYC, everywhere else and every other field salaries are not increasing. I was looking at engineering postdocs and the typical salary is 50k. For bio postdocs it's 35k. You can make more than that as a farmhand.
eesmith 7y ago
One data point - a co-op student of yours - is not reflective of STEM as a whole. As this Sydney Morning Herald article points out, STEM includes fields like biology, which don't have crazy wages. As an analogy, consider someone fresh out of high school who plays for a professional sports team and is paid $5 million per year. That 'crazy wage' for a 19 year old does not mean that all professional athletes are well paid. What do you think "shortage" means? Because my understanding agrees with bloomer's. There is no shortage of Volvo V60s simply because new ones aren't available for $10,000. But the calls for STEM training sound very much like that sort of complaint. While it's true that (nearly) "Every industry always tries to market itself", those are market forces. "Extra-market forces" would be like the government including two years of plumbing training for all high school graduates. That's a non-market way to drive the cost for normal plumbing jobs down. (Note that this means other topics would be covered less.) Similarly, the government might greatly increase the number of $10,000 scholarships for CS majors. This would almost certainly result in relatively more people with CS training, compared with other fields. The prediction is that this results in a higher supply of programmers relative to demand, and thus a lower salary. A market solution is to have companies including training as part of hiring new employees. Companies don't like this because it places the expense on them. It also increases risk in two ways. First, someone may decide after 9 months that this isn't the career for them. They still get paid for those 9 months. Second, after the training is over, the employee may decide to take that training and go elsewhere for better wages. Calls for increased STEM funding can reasonably seen as a way to push the risks onto the student, and onto the government ("socialized", rather than "free market"). There is no need to reference rent seeking for this interpretation, which I believe is also the standard interpretation.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >As this Sydney Morning Herald article points out, STEM includes fields like biology, which don't have crazy wages. Correct. The comment was clearly directed at the programming profession. >That 'crazy wage' for a 19 year old does not mean that all professional athletes are well paid. That's true but unlike professional athletics, programmers are paid well on average. >"Extra-market forces" would be like the government including two years of plumbing training for all high school graduates. That's a non-market way to drive the cost for normal plumbing jobs down. I really don't understand this argument. Government isn't trying to get people into STEM in order to drive down STEM wages. That is not how government works. That is not how politics works. This is not a good metaphor to understand the motivation. Governments will always have programs and policies to move people into specific industries or move people out of specific industries. That usually stems from good-intentions, values of the population (Armenia loves Chess, and therefore teaches Chess to kids in primary school), and maybe for some economic, ideological or political reasons. >Similarly, the government might greatly increase the number of $10,000 scholarships for CS majors. This would almost certainly result in relatively more people with CS training, compared with other fields. And that would be preferable to what the US (and Canadian) government is doing - mainly underwriting huge loans (or subsiding tuition) for majors that have low probability in resulting in a good paying job. Trust me, if government wasn't involved in post-secondary education, you would see an even larger move to CS because no bank would ever underwrite a student loan for a 4-year history degree. >The prediction is that this results in a higher supply of programmers relative to demand, and thus a lower salary. OK. This is basic econ. Having said that, the math isn't so straight forward. Sometimes increasing the pool of engineers can also increase the market for engineers because more companies relocate to the area, or more companies get started by those engineers. >Companies don't like this because it places the expense on them. All employees need some training because no business is identical. But OK, I understand the point you're making though I think it is nonsensical. For example, you're not seriously expecting a business to provide a 4-year degree program to train their engineers? That would be like building a house by grabbing a guy off the street and training them on how to build a house. If a company needs programmers to work on their software they will advertise for professionals with those skill-sets. This is why they pay good money for those professionals.
systemBuilder 7y ago
You need some perspective you are completely screwed up! $120k at FAANG is like minimum wage in the Bay area; the poverty rate in San Jose is $95k for a family of four. We with $120k you can look forward to renting a 1-bedroom apartment all your life ... The bay area is like living in Tokyo...
- macspoofing 7y ago
  This individual wasn't going to the Bay area or to work for 'FAANG'. I think you need to get some perspective. For one thing, in no universe is $100k 'poverty rate' anywhere. I can guarantee those that are making this salary are not poor. To even suggest it is delusional (and I will grant that this was probably a joke).
  - systemBuilder 7y ago
    Sorry, it's $85k, not $95k. The point is, local cost of living variances can be extreme. https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/22/in-costly-bay-area-even-six-figure-salaries-are-considered-low-income/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/22/in-costly-bay-area-ev...
intended 7y ago
Tech salaries are bimodal.
- ghaff 7y ago
  That would surprise me. There may be enough people working for the big tech employers and financial industry in high cost of living areas in the US to be a mode. But the rest pretty much spans the gamut from entry level sys admin jobs in manufacturing and retail up through well-paying but not FAANG level development, architects, etc. throughout the US. Bio dale would imply you have well-paying jobs and poor-paying jobs with not much in between and nothing in my experience suggests that’s the case.
barry-cotter 7y ago
>> Instead they want extra-market forces (political programs to push workers into STEM training) > That is such a weird way to phrase it. Every industry always tries to market itself to kids and students as a great career option. I'm not worried about the fact that companies in IT want more kids to go into IT. Well if you wanted to work in science without insane competition and crap wasted that was possible in the US until industrial policy made supply of scientific labour high and wages cheap. Sometimes employers get what they want. https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/how-why-government-universities-industry-create-domestic-labor-shortages-of-scientists-high-tech-workers https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/how-why-gove...
- macspoofing 7y ago
  You do realize the glut of PhDs is a global problem, not something confined to United States policy. The article you cited is too much of a conspiracy theory for me to take seriously (Eric Weinstein is fun to read and listen to but he's crazy, and I wouldn't put any stock in his social commentary). Nobody orchestrated a secret plan to lower wages for science majors.
DebtDeflation 7y ago
>The crazy wages that tech companies pay aren't a data point? One of my co-op student got offered a position in the States with starting salary north of $120k Why is $120K a "crazy wage"? Perhaps labor in general, and particularly highly specialized labor, is underpaid across the board. It's not uncommon for traders or investment bankers to earn 7 or even 8 figures yet I don't hear anyone claiming there's a shortage of speculators and financiers. We just seem to have this built in cognitive bias that doctors, lawyers, and bankers are "supposed to" be highly paid but that it's somehow a "problem to be solved" for engineers and scientists to be paid similarly.
- macspoofing 7y ago
  >Why is $120K a "crazy wage"? ... it's somehow a "problem to be solved" for engineers and scientists to be paid similarly. Bless your heart. I don't begrudge anyone a salary they earned or advocate for lower salaries. $120k/year is a very good starting salary for a kid straight out of a 4 year university degree. It is also twice the household median income so let's recognize the fact that programmers are paid very well for the work they do. My comment was also a response to the notion that somehow wages haven't risen in response to a shortage.
  - cannonedhamster 7y ago
    Only some programmers get paid that and it usually depends heavily on the location you live. Here's a generic software developer payscale for Boston which comes in lower. Boston isn't exactly a low cost city. While I'm sure there are plenty of devs making more, this is a good example of what I've seen. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/boston-software-developer-salary-SRCH_IL.0,6_IM109_KO7,25.htm https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/boston-software-developer...
systemBuilder 7y ago
I think a lot of people in commonwealth countries have no understanding of how productive and valuable a young male worker is. I got this from an itinerant professor who was educated in the UK and practiced in the United States. In commonwealth countries they bleed young males dry and tax most of their salary away to pay for social programs like medical care for the elderly single mother care for the single mothers, free or mostly free education for the masses, and early retirement for everyone! These high tax rates further depress the salaries of the young engineers! who wants to give 75 cents of every dollar to the government?? In the United States we don't do that BS and the salary 100% pays for retirement, healthcare, education, etc that part is not something skimmed by the governement! This is why our young workers supposedly make the big bucks: because they are more responsible and are held accountable by the economy.
- eesmith 7y ago
  I think you don't know how "productive and valuable" a young female worker also is. "medical care for the elderly" - which includes many once-young males. "single mother care for the single mothers" - and paid paternity leave for the fathers, and single father care for the single fathers. (At least in the more feminist of countries.) "free or mostly free education for the masses" - of which about half will become young adult males "early retirement for everyone" - including those once-young males "who wants to give 75 cents of every dollar to the government - what Commonwealth country are you talking about? I don't think any of them even have that high a rate for the upper tax bracket. "we don't do that BS and the salary 100% pays for retirement ..." - We certainly do! Let me introduce you to payroll taxes - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payroll_tax#United_States . Sure, it's not directly part of your paycheck, but it lowers your effective salary, and it pays for Social Security ("retirement"), Medicare ("healthcare"), and unemployment. "they are more responsible and are held accountable by the economy" - ROFL! https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/12/17/baby-boomers-average-savings-for-retirement.aspx https://www.fool.com/retirement/2016/12/17/baby-boomers-aver... - "roughly half of all baby boomers have set aside only $100,000 or less" and 37% have less than %50K. GenX isn't doing all that well either.

skookumchuck 7y ago

The only time there's a shortage in a free market is when the government fixes the price. Then you've got alternating shortages and gluts. In a free market, the price moves until supply=demand, i.e. no glut and no shortage.

eesmith 7y ago
Emphatically not true. There's a shortage of passenger pigeon meat - okay, complete lack of what used to be a common and cheap meat. Yet the government did not fix that price. Indeed, its belated attempts to fix the price through laws to protect the pigeon were not successful. Similar observations can be made about many ecological situations, like the nuts and wood from the American Chestnut Tree. Some few survive, but not enough that the line "Chestnuts Roasting on an Open Fire" resonates with the general American Christmas experience. More generally, you should expect to see oscillations any time there's a delay in the feedback in coupled systems. This comes naturally from the predator–prey equations - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lotka%E2%80%93Volterra_equatio... . There's no need to require government price fixing for that to happen.
- skookumchuck 7y ago
  What you're observing here is the "Tragedy of the Commons". Nobody owned the passenger pigeons, so people hunted them to extinction. This is not free market. For example, despite all the pigs, cows, and chickens being eaten, there is no shortage of them and no threat of them going extinct. That's because people own those resources, they are not in the Commons. Oscillations are not shortages. For example, when there's a natural disaster, people load up their pickups with gas and water and rush in to sell it at high prices. I.e. the shortage promptly disappears. People get mad at the high prices and pass laws to prevent that (i.e. price fixing), with the predictable result of shortages while they wait for FEMA to get around to delivering supplies.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    So there are no shortages of chestnuts from the American Chestnut? Note that a large number of those trees were privately owned. How do you explain that as a "Tragedy of the Commons" scenario? Your example of "shortage promptly disappears" does not explain the situation in Puerto Rico.