5 ms·

I don't like posting acrimonious comments, but it is hard to find any sympathy for the author. The reasons are similar to the contempt held for people who decry

I don't like posting acrimonious comments, but it is hard to find any sympathy for the author. The reasons are similar to the contempt held for people who decry the manipulation of public opinion, while our high-aptitude graduates decide to work for advertisement companies in the Bay Area in chase of the Almighty Dollar. It is sexy and high status, until more people consider the utility (or disutility) that these people bring to society. It sounds like the author is really lamenting a loss of status. I recall a seminar given a few years back by an astronomy PhD graduate who was talking about career prospects outside of academia, and naturally all of them were 'data science' related. The speaker's first remark was something like 'I don't mean to say that data science is just marketing, but...' and then proceed to describe their career as a person 'with statistics and scripting experience'... working in marketing. In journalism, it is said that you can always find employment if you join the dark side, which is public relations. I think less people fool theirself in thinking that PR serves the public interest. We can speculate about why we are hemorrhaging scientists to marketeers, but for the self-interested individual, it's rational. I've always thought that teachers and scientists do not have as high status as they should for the contributions that they provide to society, but perhaps we shouldn't want to attract people to those fields who are in it for the riches and glory.[†] [†] (of course, it's more nuanced than this)

bumby 6y ago
I agree with you but think you may be slightly conflating status and pay. They often go hand-in-hand, but there are many times they do not. Capitalism generally pays for one’s contributions to the economy, not their contributions to society.
- cft 6y ago
  In the USSR for example, scientists often where paid more than CEOs. The end result of that alternative to capitalism was not competitive.
  - bumby 6y ago
    I’m not trying to make an anti-capitalism case. I’m also not an economist but would venture to guess there’s more at play in the c failure of the USSR than pay structure. However, I do think there is room for regulating areas where the incentives of the economy and society are misaligned. What’s best for the economy isn’t always what’s best for society and vice versa. When they are at odds, I would favor some guardrails.
Ar-Curunir 6y ago
> riches and glory I think most would settle for living wages and reasonable career progression prospects.
bluepoint 6y ago
I am really fond of your vocabulary.

bumby 6y ago

I agree with you but think you may be slightly conflating status and pay. They often go hand-in-hand, but there are many times they do not. Capitalism generally pays for one’s contributions to the economy, not their contributions to society.

cft 6y ago
In the USSR for example, scientists often where paid more than CEOs. The end result of that alternative to capitalism was not competitive.
- bumby 6y ago
  I’m not trying to make an anti-capitalism case. I’m also not an economist but would venture to guess there’s more at play in the c failure of the USSR than pay structure. However, I do think there is room for regulating areas where the incentives of the economy and society are misaligned. What’s best for the economy isn’t always what’s best for society and vice versa. When they are at odds, I would favor some guardrails.

Ar-Curunir 6y ago

> riches and glory I think most would settle for living wages and reasonable career progression prospects.

bluepoint 6y ago

I am really fond of your vocabulary.