5 ms·

It always amazes me that when the upper class is bothered by the more competitive job market the "immigrants are stealing our jobs" is fine and tolerated idea.

It always amazes me that when the upper class is bothered by the more competitive job market the "immigrants are stealing our jobs" is fine and tolerated idea. When it's the lower class its no one is taking your job, they are creating jobs. Similar discussions when people talk about IT and Indian visa holders.

btrettel 4y ago
I didn't say they were "stealing" my job, just that new graduates won't be able to compete well against more experienced folks. A PhD is a bad deal even without more immigration. Edit: I don't think your comment is fair. My recommended solution was not to cut immigration or anything like that.
- petermcneeley 4y ago
  Here is Eric Weinstein on the subject. 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... My personal view is more similar to yours. We simply dont fund science almost at all. The economy is simply dysfunctional.
  - sjg007 4y ago
    We do need a big ARPA like investment in research. Right now we depend on defense spending but we are simply not spending enough on research.
    - blip54321 4y ago
      MIT has an endowment of $20M per professor. We spend plenty on research, just inequitably, and with bizarre pyramid schemes.
      - closeparen 4y ago
        I will be very worried for the future of civilization when these hundred-year institutions that were supposed to be at least partly self-funding acquiesce to the popular demand to bankrupt themselves over not even a generation. MIT could spend that much… for 8 years. Then what?
        blip54321 4y ago
        I think you're missing the big picture. MIT's best research was 1960-2000. At the end of that period, the endowment was around 1/10th of what it is now. That's a very healthy level of funding. $2M per professor is enough that it doesn't need to worry about money, but that there aren't obscene levels flowing into odd pockets in odd ways. Once an institution is overcapitalized like that, dynamics change. There's a ton of corruption in 2022-era MIT (and peer institutions), conflicts-of-interest, and the insane level of competition leads to a lot of unethical behavior. There's so much money swishing around that it's tempting to skim off the top. Combine that with the traditional MIT rule-breaking ethic, and you've got trouble. I would love for MIT to spend 90% of its money, and be back to 2000-era endowment. I would even more love for MIT to expand it's faculty and student bodies 10-fold, and give more people an opportunity to be there. What I hate is MIT now being brand-obsessed, money-focused, hyper-competitive, and valuing high-impact and high-profit research over high-integrity research.
1123581321 4y ago
Quite an uncharitable comment, and untrue in aggregate even if this user had been saying what you mischaracterized his comment to say.
closeparen 4y ago
The only meaningful buyer of research is the federal government, and the amount of research it buys is fixed by Congress. It's not responsive to "market conditions" in the same way as e.g. software, where software engineers create a booming sector that drives demand for more software engineers.

btrettel 4y ago

I didn't say they were "stealing" my job, just that new graduates won't be able to compete well against more experienced folks. A PhD is a bad deal even without more immigration. Edit: I don't think your comment is fair. My recommended solution was not to cut immigration or anything like that.

petermcneeley 4y ago
Here is Eric Weinstein on the subject. 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... My personal view is more similar to yours. We simply dont fund science almost at all. The economy is simply dysfunctional.
- sjg007 4y ago
  We do need a big ARPA like investment in research. Right now we depend on defense spending but we are simply not spending enough on research.
  - blip54321 4y ago
    MIT has an endowment of $20M per professor. We spend plenty on research, just inequitably, and with bizarre pyramid schemes.
    - closeparen 4y ago
      I will be very worried for the future of civilization when these hundred-year institutions that were supposed to be at least partly self-funding acquiesce to the popular demand to bankrupt themselves over not even a generation. MIT could spend that much… for 8 years. Then what?
      - blip54321 4y ago
        I think you're missing the big picture. MIT's best research was 1960-2000. At the end of that period, the endowment was around 1/10th of what it is now. That's a very healthy level of funding. $2M per professor is enough that it doesn't need to worry about money, but that there aren't obscene levels flowing into odd pockets in odd ways. Once an institution is overcapitalized like that, dynamics change. There's a ton of corruption in 2022-era MIT (and peer institutions), conflicts-of-interest, and the insane level of competition leads to a lot of unethical behavior. There's so much money swishing around that it's tempting to skim off the top. Combine that with the traditional MIT rule-breaking ethic, and you've got trouble. I would love for MIT to spend 90% of its money, and be back to 2000-era endowment. I would even more love for MIT to expand it's faculty and student bodies 10-fold, and give more people an opportunity to be there. What I hate is MIT now being brand-obsessed, money-focused, hyper-competitive, and valuing high-impact and high-profit research over high-integrity research.

1123581321 4y ago

Quite an uncharitable comment, and untrue in aggregate even if this user had been saying what you mischaracterized his comment to say.

closeparen 4y ago

The only meaningful buyer of research is the federal government, and the amount of research it buys is fixed by Congress. It's not responsive to "market conditions" in the same way as e.g. software, where software engineers create a booming sector that drives demand for more software engineers.