7 ms·

It's far easier to optimize for profit then theoretical ideals. The issue here isn't that they are optimizing for profit, the issue is that incentives have put

It's far easier to optimize for profit then theoretical ideals. The issue here isn't that they are optimizing for profit, the issue is that incentives have put that pursuit at odds with the university's core mission (education/community), as opposed to keeping it aligned with it. Pursuit of profit should keep you accountable for the services you provide, not detract from them.

komali2 4y ago
So it's easier to optimize for profit, so what? How can your core mission be education but "you're optimizing for profit?" Either your core mission is education or it isn't. I feel like this is the kind of goal setting miss I see businesses make all the time. They'll be doing be doing some version of the ubiquitous value setting activity, and as ideas are pitched someone will be like "wait, isn't our most basic value to just make money?" Sure, whatever, but what does that tell us? A distraction. If money is really so important, just remember the story of the new CEO of iirc a failing iron production business that repeatedly answered the board's questions on how he'll turn profit with "we're going to be the safest iron production business in America." The goal was achieved by fostering a culture of transparency, adopting new technology like emails for internal flat hierarchy communication, etc, and it did become the safest, but also highly profitable. Persuit of profit alone justifies short term behavior constantly. The firing of 20% of your workforce could be seen as justifiable when your goal is persuit of profit. Basically I think it's wrong to try to go cross eyed having "persuit of profit" always there while also trying to set some other "idealistic" goal. Just stay focused!
- WalterBright 4y ago
  The beauty of the free market is that the way to maximize profit is to maximize customer satisfaction.
  - riversflow 4y ago
    Invoking the free market in a discussion about a market as distorted as higher education is laughable. No, the way to maximize profits is to get government(s) to ensure that you are in a favorable position to earn profits. In this case, demanding that most well paying jobs necessitate tertiary education and providing free credit.
    - BobbyJo 4y ago
      Maybe the point is pointing out how distorted the market is, and maybe the distortion is the issue.
  - troops_h8r 4y ago
    Note that customer satisfaction != customer well being (i.e. heroin)
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      The heroin users believe it is in their best interests.
      - troops_h8r 4y ago
        That's my point. It doesn't necessarily mean it is in their best interest - the free market doesn't optimize for people's best interests, it optimizes for people's perception of their best interest (which is usually fine but it's not always the same thing)
        WalterBright 4y ago
        Do you think it is better for the government to decide what's in your best interests?
        troops_h8r 4y ago
        No. I'm just pointing out that the free-market isn't perfect. I think we should be open to improvement. Let me ask you something: do you think this is how we're going to run things for the rest of time? Feudalism came and went, mercantilism came and went. Probably we'll come up with something better than what we have now, some day. I admit it's hard to imagine what, though
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Let us bring forth this beauty by removing taxpayer funded loans for higher education.
    - BobbyJo 4y ago
      Or, make said funded loans being paid off contingent, to some degree, on student success? The gov-funded loans were created to solve a problem as well.
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        The only problem they were created to solve was soaking future taxpayers with debt and a devalued currency, while keeping taxes low in the past and present. The government should either fund higher education directly, or give students cash. This is the same playbook with deferred compensation like defined benefit pensions and retiree healthcare for government employees. Government avoids paying cash now so taxes are lower now, and use liberal accounting assumptions to understate the debt.
        BobbyJo 4y ago
        > The only problem they were created to solve was soaking future taxpayers with debt and a devalued currency, while keeping taxes low in the past and present. They were created to allow poor kids to fund their education with a vehicle other than government grants. > The government should either fund higher education directly, or give students cash. Maybe, maybe not. There is a cost/benefit argument to be made there, but I doubt you have the information necessary to say this with the level of certainty you are presenting. > This is the same playbook with deferred compensation like defined benefit pensions and retiree healthcare for government employees. Government avoids paying cash now so taxes are lower now, and use liberal accounting assumptions to understate the debt. There are differences in the risk, and therefore pricing of these two forms of government debt, but yes, the government, like all entities, tries to pay things off as late as possible.
  - sonofhans 4y ago
    Yeah, Mr. Bright, usually I think you’ve got your head screwed on pretty well, but this is a religious statement, not a matter of fact. 1. Find me a free market. Otherwise we’re just going to devolve into “no true Scotsman.” The USA, for instance, is light years from a free market in basically every respect. 2. In a truly free market the way to maximize profits is to create and maintain a monopoly. Nearly every large business trends towards this or explicitly attempts it. 3. Customer satisfaction only matters if the customers have true choices, and true customer choice is antithetical to profit maximization. How would you describe an economy in which customer satisfaction actually matters? Regulated free market? Free market with guard rails? Or do you really think that a 100% unregulated market is at all supportive of human benefit? I believe a 100% free market would mean the removal of all worldwide government entities and the creation of a few mega-cartels that ran basically everything.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      The closer one gets to a free market, the better it works. This is unlike socialism, where the closer one gets to it, the worse it fares. > I believe a 100% free market would mean the removal of all worldwide government entities and the creation of a few mega-cartels that ran basically everything. A free market requires the existence of government to enforce our rights and provide a mechanism to resolve disputes. > How would you describe an economy in which customer satisfaction actually matters? A free market. Qualifiers are unnecessary.
    - grugagag 4y ago
      Spot on. Just uttering the beauty of freemarket is X is quite lazy intelectually to be honest.
    - IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
      2) Monopolies usually form because of government failure, not because of free markets. What you state is true, but its only true because because its a means to an end: It is substantially easier to manipulate government into currying you favor, than it is to build innovation that sticks. The former is just dollars. The latter is dollars + sweat + luck. 1) OK. I challenge you to find a free market that has produced a monopoly company without some kind of govt helping hand. Examples of helping hands: artificially low interest rates (derisking M&A), regulatory capture, or failure to enforce laws (antidumping, antitrust). 3) That's true. And who's fault is that not all true (cheaper) choices are offered to the market ? Hint: Why so few $1000 new cars, or $200 surgeries? Its not the market that is not willing to make them, rest assured. Its that a certain large body is not allowing others to make their risk:reward choices.
  - mcronce 4y ago
    See also: Insurance, healthcare, and car dealerships, all "free market" institutions that people consistently have great experiences with /s, in case it's non-obvious
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      The healthcare market has been completely distorted by government interference. Car dealerships are another market distortion set up, again, by government interference. Health insurance, too.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - int_19h 4y ago
    It's too bad that truly free (i.e. competitive) markets don't survive capitalism for long, due to the inevitable concentration of capital that it produces in the long term.
    - WalterBright 4y ago
      Wealth is created under free markets, not "concentrated".
      - int_19h 4y ago
        I didn't say anything about wealth in general. Capital is concentrated.
        munk-a 4y ago
        I think it's generally under appreciated just how unstable free-markets are. Our historical experience with economics has shown that 100% of free-markets have devolved into a less free form and generally that devolution is violent and extremely unpleasant and it can take quite a while for a market to self-correct into a semi-free market with non-abitrary regulations. Free markets are like pretty much any element north of Plutonium - the half life is extremely short and if they are forced to exist in nature they'll quickly decay to a more stable state... often violently and sometimes with a loud bang.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        > generally that devolution is violent and extremely unpleasant Got a case history? > it's generally under appreciated just how unstable free-markets are. Freedom does require eternal vigilance, that's for sure. > the half life is extremely short The US has had one for what, 240 years now?
        komali2 4y ago
        The US economic system by my eyes has changed quite a bit in 240 years. The dissolution of slavery was a pretty big milestone, for example. There's distinctly different eras defined by very different laws, such as the gilded age or the era of the train baron. I guess if you want to call that entire 240 years "capitalism" and use that as evidence that it's, ah, more sustainable than other strategies, well that's fine, but that means free market capitalism has no mechanism preventing things like slavery or company towns. In fact it seems it continually fails to provide for anyone other than capital holders until another philosophy enters the picture, such as government regulation or worker's unions. You say freedom requires vigilance, what's that mean? When the only way to eat was to work in a company town and scrape together barely the means to a living, everyone is vigilantly aware of how shitty the situation is, so then what? History teaches us the "and then what" is strike followed by reactionary state violence followed by bloody revolution, so there's your case history of devolution to violence.
- BobbyJo 4y ago
  > Basically I think it's wrong to try to go cross eyed having "persuit of profit" always there while also trying to set some other "idealistic" goal. Just stay focused! It's a purely practical constraint. I too would love if organizations were capable of functioning in some other capacity, but in your own words: > someone will be like "wait, isn't our most basic value to just make money?" And also according to you: > Sure So, the best way to get businesses to act in the interest of others is to tie their profit to those other interests, which is the basic principle of the free market. Want resources? Do something for others such that they voluntarily give theirs to you, I.E. do something of value for your customers.
- whateveracct 4y ago
  You're talking to someone obsessed with money. Just how some people are.
janalsncm 4y ago
I don’t see how it’s relevant that profit is easier to optimize. So what? The purpose of a school is to educate.

komali2 4y ago

So it's easier to optimize for profit, so what? How can your core mission be education but "you're optimizing for profit?" Either your core mission is education or it isn't. I feel like this is the kind of goal setting miss I see businesses make all the time. They'll be doing be doing some version of the ubiquitous value setting activity, and as ideas are pitched someone will be like "wait, isn't our most basic value to just make money?" Sure, whatever, but what does that tell us? A distraction. If money is really so important, just remember the story of the new CEO of iirc a failing iron production business that repeatedly answered the board's questions on how he'll turn profit with "we're going to be the safest iron production business in America." The goal was achieved by fostering a culture of transparency, adopting new technology like emails for internal flat hierarchy communication, etc, and it did become the safest, but also highly profitable. Persuit of profit alone justifies short term behavior constantly. The firing of 20% of your workforce could be seen as justifiable when your goal is persuit of profit. Basically I think it's wrong to try to go cross eyed having "persuit of profit" always there while also trying to set some other "idealistic" goal. Just stay focused!

WalterBright 4y ago
The beauty of the free market is that the way to maximize profit is to maximize customer satisfaction.
- riversflow 4y ago
  Invoking the free market in a discussion about a market as distorted as higher education is laughable. No, the way to maximize profits is to get government(s) to ensure that you are in a favorable position to earn profits. In this case, demanding that most well paying jobs necessitate tertiary education and providing free credit.
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    Maybe the point is pointing out how distorted the market is, and maybe the distortion is the issue.
- troops_h8r 4y ago
  Note that customer satisfaction != customer well being (i.e. heroin)
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    The heroin users believe it is in their best interests.
    - troops_h8r 4y ago
      That's my point. It doesn't necessarily mean it is in their best interest - the free market doesn't optimize for people's best interests, it optimizes for people's perception of their best interest (which is usually fine but it's not always the same thing)
      - WalterBright 4y ago
        Do you think it is better for the government to decide what's in your best interests?
        troops_h8r 4y ago
        No. I'm just pointing out that the free-market isn't perfect. I think we should be open to improvement. Let me ask you something: do you think this is how we're going to run things for the rest of time? Feudalism came and went, mercantilism came and went. Probably we'll come up with something better than what we have now, some day. I admit it's hard to imagine what, though
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Let us bring forth this beauty by removing taxpayer funded loans for higher education.
  - BobbyJo 4y ago
    Or, make said funded loans being paid off contingent, to some degree, on student success? The gov-funded loans were created to solve a problem as well.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      The only problem they were created to solve was soaking future taxpayers with debt and a devalued currency, while keeping taxes low in the past and present. The government should either fund higher education directly, or give students cash. This is the same playbook with deferred compensation like defined benefit pensions and retiree healthcare for government employees. Government avoids paying cash now so taxes are lower now, and use liberal accounting assumptions to understate the debt.
      - BobbyJo 4y ago
        > The only problem they were created to solve was soaking future taxpayers with debt and a devalued currency, while keeping taxes low in the past and present. They were created to allow poor kids to fund their education with a vehicle other than government grants. > The government should either fund higher education directly, or give students cash. Maybe, maybe not. There is a cost/benefit argument to be made there, but I doubt you have the information necessary to say this with the level of certainty you are presenting. > This is the same playbook with deferred compensation like defined benefit pensions and retiree healthcare for government employees. Government avoids paying cash now so taxes are lower now, and use liberal accounting assumptions to understate the debt. There are differences in the risk, and therefore pricing of these two forms of government debt, but yes, the government, like all entities, tries to pay things off as late as possible.
- sonofhans 4y ago
  Yeah, Mr. Bright, usually I think you’ve got your head screwed on pretty well, but this is a religious statement, not a matter of fact. 1. Find me a free market. Otherwise we’re just going to devolve into “no true Scotsman.” The USA, for instance, is light years from a free market in basically every respect. 2. In a truly free market the way to maximize profits is to create and maintain a monopoly. Nearly every large business trends towards this or explicitly attempts it. 3. Customer satisfaction only matters if the customers have true choices, and true customer choice is antithetical to profit maximization. How would you describe an economy in which customer satisfaction actually matters? Regulated free market? Free market with guard rails? Or do you really think that a 100% unregulated market is at all supportive of human benefit? I believe a 100% free market would mean the removal of all worldwide government entities and the creation of a few mega-cartels that ran basically everything.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    The closer one gets to a free market, the better it works. This is unlike socialism, where the closer one gets to it, the worse it fares. > I believe a 100% free market would mean the removal of all worldwide government entities and the creation of a few mega-cartels that ran basically everything. A free market requires the existence of government to enforce our rights and provide a mechanism to resolve disputes. > How would you describe an economy in which customer satisfaction actually matters? A free market. Qualifiers are unnecessary.
  - grugagag 4y ago
    Spot on. Just uttering the beauty of freemarket is X is quite lazy intelectually to be honest.
  - IG_Semmelweiss 4y ago
    2) Monopolies usually form because of government failure, not because of free markets. What you state is true, but its only true because because its a means to an end: It is substantially easier to manipulate government into currying you favor, than it is to build innovation that sticks. The former is just dollars. The latter is dollars + sweat + luck. 1) OK. I challenge you to find a free market that has produced a monopoly company without some kind of govt helping hand. Examples of helping hands: artificially low interest rates (derisking M&A), regulatory capture, or failure to enforce laws (antidumping, antitrust). 3) That's true. And who's fault is that not all true (cheaper) choices are offered to the market ? Hint: Why so few $1000 new cars, or $200 surgeries? Its not the market that is not willing to make them, rest assured. Its that a certain large body is not allowing others to make their risk:reward choices.
- mcronce 4y ago
  See also: Insurance, healthcare, and car dealerships, all "free market" institutions that people consistently have great experiences with /s, in case it's non-obvious
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    The healthcare market has been completely distorted by government interference. Car dealerships are another market distortion set up, again, by government interference. Health insurance, too.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- int_19h 4y ago
  It's too bad that truly free (i.e. competitive) markets don't survive capitalism for long, due to the inevitable concentration of capital that it produces in the long term.
  - WalterBright 4y ago
    Wealth is created under free markets, not "concentrated".
    - int_19h 4y ago
      I didn't say anything about wealth in general. Capital is concentrated.
      - munk-a 4y ago
        I think it's generally under appreciated just how unstable free-markets are. Our historical experience with economics has shown that 100% of free-markets have devolved into a less free form and generally that devolution is violent and extremely unpleasant and it can take quite a while for a market to self-correct into a semi-free market with non-abitrary regulations. Free markets are like pretty much any element north of Plutonium - the half life is extremely short and if they are forced to exist in nature they'll quickly decay to a more stable state... often violently and sometimes with a loud bang.
        WalterBright 4y ago
        > generally that devolution is violent and extremely unpleasant Got a case history? > it's generally under appreciated just how unstable free-markets are. Freedom does require eternal vigilance, that's for sure. > the half life is extremely short The US has had one for what, 240 years now?
        komali2 4y ago
        The US economic system by my eyes has changed quite a bit in 240 years. The dissolution of slavery was a pretty big milestone, for example. There's distinctly different eras defined by very different laws, such as the gilded age or the era of the train baron. I guess if you want to call that entire 240 years "capitalism" and use that as evidence that it's, ah, more sustainable than other strategies, well that's fine, but that means free market capitalism has no mechanism preventing things like slavery or company towns. In fact it seems it continually fails to provide for anyone other than capital holders until another philosophy enters the picture, such as government regulation or worker's unions. You say freedom requires vigilance, what's that mean? When the only way to eat was to work in a company town and scrape together barely the means to a living, everyone is vigilantly aware of how shitty the situation is, so then what? History teaches us the "and then what" is strike followed by reactionary state violence followed by bloody revolution, so there's your case history of devolution to violence.
BobbyJo 4y ago
> Basically I think it's wrong to try to go cross eyed having "persuit of profit" always there while also trying to set some other "idealistic" goal. Just stay focused! It's a purely practical constraint. I too would love if organizations were capable of functioning in some other capacity, but in your own words: > someone will be like "wait, isn't our most basic value to just make money?" And also according to you: > Sure So, the best way to get businesses to act in the interest of others is to tie their profit to those other interests, which is the basic principle of the free market. Want resources? Do something for others such that they voluntarily give theirs to you, I.E. do something of value for your customers.
whateveracct 4y ago
You're talking to someone obsessed with money. Just how some people are.

janalsncm 4y ago

I don’t see how it’s relevant that profit is easier to optimize. So what? The purpose of a school is to educate.