3 ms·

I do agree that when you subsidize something you get more of it. So there’s a case that in some instances like education, it’s a good thing. Most people probabl

by bumby 3y ago

I do agree that when you subsidize something you get more of it. So there’s a case that in some instances like education, it’s a good thing. Most people probably agree that a more educated society is better than a less educated one (although I agree there’s still room for debate on what that education should entail). The issue with an open-ended handout is that you don’t know what you’ll be getting more of.

eru 3y ago
> So there’s a case that in some instances like education, it’s a good thing. That's where we disagree, I guess. I don't mind education in the sense of people learning something. That's harmless enough (but doesn't need special subsidies. Just give money to the needy, and let them decide whether they want to invest it in a library membership.) What I'm against specifically is education in the sense of getting a certificate at the end. A degree etc. That sort of education has negative externalities and should be highly taxed, not subsidised. It leads to an arms race of credentialism, and is a big reason why eg a high school graduate can't get a decent job these days. (There are plenty of jobs that used to be done by high school dropouts, that haven't changed all that much. But now require a degree, if you want to be considered for an interview.)
- bumby 3y ago
  I think we actually agree largely on the education piece, that’s why I gave the parenthetical. I don't get the impression you really think a more educated populace is worse, but we may disagree on how one gets educated. There are many routes to education, and I think it’s wrong to think all people need the same route. But I think you’re committing the same error by assuming the library route works for everybody. I do also think over-credentialism is a problem, but that is largely up to the employer. All they have to do is start hiring people without credentials if they aren’t warranted and the problem is solved (for non regulated industries). But I wouldn’t go so far to say credentialism as a whole is worthless. I’m glad the food I buy is credentialed by the FDA, and the doctor I e see is credentialed as is the engineer who designed the bridge I drove across to get to work. What I do see on HN is that the crowd generally biases towards libertarian autodidacts and that colors much of their worldview.
  - eru 3y ago
    > I think we actually agree largely on the education piece, that’s why I gave the parenthetical. I don't get the impression you really think a more educated populace is worse, but we may disagree on how one gets educated. There are many routes to education, and I think it’s wrong to think all people need the same route. But I think you’re committing the same error by assuming the library route works for everybody. The library was just an example. People can use their own money and time to pursue whatever route they wish. They can attend schools (and pay the fees), they can go to the library, they can read Wikipedia, they can do an apprenticeship, etc, whatever works for them. > I do also think over-credentialism is a problem, but that is largely up to the employer. All they have to do is start hiring people without credentials if they aren’t warranted and the problem is solved (for non regulated industries). Alas, no. Employers aren't stupid (and neither are workers). Employers are paying attention to the credentials because they signal useful qualities in the prospective employee. Mostly compliance and conformity. For an individual worker and an individual company, the credential is a useful signal. Just like it's useful for an individual country to get some extra nukes. But from an economy-wide perspective, it's just an arms race. (Similarly, there's no global benefit from every country getting some extra nukes each.) > I’m glad the food I buy is credentialed by the FDA, and the doctor I e see is credentialed as is the engineer who designed the bridge I drove across to get to work. I'm not an American, but I think the FDA is pretty much useless. (But that's mostly because it's a federal agency, and the relevant authorities should probably sit at the state level at the highest or even lower. With voluntary coordination between the different states. Very similar to how traffic signs and rules are regulated and coordinated.)
    - bumby 3y ago
      I think your response is overly cynical. As the Oscar Wilde quote goes, a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. The FDA is far from perfect, but I have much more confidence buying a drug regulated by then than some pills sold at the convenient store. >Employers are paying attention to the credentials because they signal useful qualities in the prospective employee. Mostly compliance and conformity. Again, I think this is overly cynical and lacking nuance. There is debate in the economics circles on how much a college credential is signal for culture fit and how much is signal fit skills. It’s far from settled, and almost certainly a mixture of the two. I personally think employers use credentials because they are incentivized to be risk adverse. It’s easier to defend a binary credential than to accurately gauge skillset and cultural fit through a behavioral interview. HR is concerned more with reducing false positives than letting a good candidate slip through the cracks. I also disagree with the coordination piece at large scale. When societies get big enough, we don’t have the individual bandwidth to manage every interaction so we rely on institutions to shoulder some of that burden. I suspect that’s why you see a convergence on societies setting up a “council of elders” (ie govt) when they get to a certain size. Most of the people who lean into the unnuanced libertarian ideal tend to also lean towards certain troubles managing social dynamics.

by bumby 3y ago

eru 3y ago

> So there’s a case that in some instances like education, it’s a good thing. That's where we disagree, I guess. I don't mind education in the sense of people learning something. That's harmless enough (but doesn't need special subsidies. Just give money to the needy, and let them decide whether they want to invest it in a library membership.) What I'm against specifically is education in the sense of getting a certificate at the end. A degree etc. That sort of education has negative externalities and should be highly taxed, not subsidised. It leads to an arms race of credentialism, and is a big reason why eg a high school graduate can't get a decent job these days. (There are plenty of jobs that used to be done by high school dropouts, that haven't changed all that much. But now require a degree, if you want to be considered for an interview.)

bumby 3y ago
I think we actually agree largely on the education piece, that’s why I gave the parenthetical. I don't get the impression you really think a more educated populace is worse, but we may disagree on how one gets educated. There are many routes to education, and I think it’s wrong to think all people need the same route. But I think you’re committing the same error by assuming the library route works for everybody. I do also think over-credentialism is a problem, but that is largely up to the employer. All they have to do is start hiring people without credentials if they aren’t warranted and the problem is solved (for non regulated industries). But I wouldn’t go so far to say credentialism as a whole is worthless. I’m glad the food I buy is credentialed by the FDA, and the doctor I e see is credentialed as is the engineer who designed the bridge I drove across to get to work. What I do see on HN is that the crowd generally biases towards libertarian autodidacts and that colors much of their worldview.
- eru 3y ago
  > I think we actually agree largely on the education piece, that’s why I gave the parenthetical. I don't get the impression you really think a more educated populace is worse, but we may disagree on how one gets educated. There are many routes to education, and I think it’s wrong to think all people need the same route. But I think you’re committing the same error by assuming the library route works for everybody. The library was just an example. People can use their own money and time to pursue whatever route they wish. They can attend schools (and pay the fees), they can go to the library, they can read Wikipedia, they can do an apprenticeship, etc, whatever works for them. > I do also think over-credentialism is a problem, but that is largely up to the employer. All they have to do is start hiring people without credentials if they aren’t warranted and the problem is solved (for non regulated industries). Alas, no. Employers aren't stupid (and neither are workers). Employers are paying attention to the credentials because they signal useful qualities in the prospective employee. Mostly compliance and conformity. For an individual worker and an individual company, the credential is a useful signal. Just like it's useful for an individual country to get some extra nukes. But from an economy-wide perspective, it's just an arms race. (Similarly, there's no global benefit from every country getting some extra nukes each.) > I’m glad the food I buy is credentialed by the FDA, and the doctor I e see is credentialed as is the engineer who designed the bridge I drove across to get to work. I'm not an American, but I think the FDA is pretty much useless. (But that's mostly because it's a federal agency, and the relevant authorities should probably sit at the state level at the highest or even lower. With voluntary coordination between the different states. Very similar to how traffic signs and rules are regulated and coordinated.)
  - bumby 3y ago
    I think your response is overly cynical. As the Oscar Wilde quote goes, a cynic is someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. The FDA is far from perfect, but I have much more confidence buying a drug regulated by then than some pills sold at the convenient store. >Employers are paying attention to the credentials because they signal useful qualities in the prospective employee. Mostly compliance and conformity. Again, I think this is overly cynical and lacking nuance. There is debate in the economics circles on how much a college credential is signal for culture fit and how much is signal fit skills. It’s far from settled, and almost certainly a mixture of the two. I personally think employers use credentials because they are incentivized to be risk adverse. It’s easier to defend a binary credential than to accurately gauge skillset and cultural fit through a behavioral interview. HR is concerned more with reducing false positives than letting a good candidate slip through the cracks. I also disagree with the coordination piece at large scale. When societies get big enough, we don’t have the individual bandwidth to manage every interaction so we rely on institutions to shoulder some of that burden. I suspect that’s why you see a convergence on societies setting up a “council of elders” (ie govt) when they get to a certain size. Most of the people who lean into the unnuanced libertarian ideal tend to also lean towards certain troubles managing social dynamics.