4 ms·

> We do it all the time with lawyers and PhD scientists of all stripes. Why should doctors receive special treatment? We shouldn't do that with lawyers and PhD

by tivert 2y ago

> We do it all the time with lawyers and PhD scientists of all stripes. Why should doctors receive special treatment? We shouldn't do that with lawyers and PhDs either. Why must everything be a race to the bottom?

OutOfHere 2y ago
The free market philosophy dictates that we absolutely should do it, and it's a good philosophy to follow.
- tivert 2y ago
  > The free market philosophy dictates that we absolutely should do it, and it's a good philosophy to follow. Sorry, it's never a good idea to base real life policy on ideological dogma. The "free market philosophy" has some good ideas, as well as a lot of bad ones. We shouldn't blindly follow its "dictates." In my experience, the people who dogmatically preach the free market frequently have an oversimplified understanding or use circular logic to conclude the free market is good by redefining good as whatever the free market does.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - rvba 2y ago
    Most of the "free market" people dont understand that many markets can be cornered and oligopolies (or duo- or even mono-) can form. A lot of the stuff assumes that it is 1850 and everyone can buy land and farm potatoes. With "unlimited" land and tens of thousands conpetitors. No barriers of entry too. And Im pro market.
  - eru 2y ago
    > In my experience, the people who dogmatically preach the free market frequently have an oversimplified understanding or use circular logic to conclude the free market is good by redefining good as whatever the free market does. There are bad arguments for good conclusions, yes.
- friendzis 2y ago
  No, it does not. In fact, student emerging on the other side and being met with "sorry, no job for you" is a clear proof of free market *not* working. Free market is not "everyone can do anything", that's somewhere between laissez faire and anarcho-capitalism. "Free market" is a theoretical model where goods, services, and, crucially, information flows freely. Or in more textbook definition, there exists perfect information symmetry. In a functional "free market" a student would know their employment prospects before they even submit application. EDIT, addendum: If we are talking doctors, the training takes 10 years (6 if you don't include specialist training), but that's a long time. So long that the environment itself could change dramatically, for whatever reason. Free market being free, could distort itself so much that perfect information symmetry does not translate over time. So how do you ensure that the information which was true before training remains true after training period even if the free market mutated itself and invalidated the information? Surprise, surprise, you get government to uphold the "freedom" of the market.
  - eru 2y ago
    You have some weird straw man definition of 'free market'. Perhaps you should update the Wikipedia entry with your wisdom? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market What anonymous text books are you mentioning? Under certain circumstances it makes sense to study a model of markets with perfect information symmetry. But that's a very different (and much more restricted) term than 'free market'.
    - friendzis 2y ago
      Let's read TFA, shall we? In "Criticism" section we find: > Critics of the free market also argue that it results in significant market dominance, inequality of bargaining power, or information asymmetry, in order to allow markets to function more freely. Clicking "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power" shows right at the introduction: > Inequality of bargaining power is generally thought to undermine the freedom of contract, resulting in a disproportionate level of freedom between parties, and that it represents a place at which markets fail. One could click on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry#cite_note-11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry#cite_not... , to find: > Information asymmetry is in contrast to perfect information, which is a key assumption in neo-classical economics.[11] But that would require one more click to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics: > Neoclassical economics is an approach to economics in which the production, consumption, and valuation (pricing) of goods and services are observed as driven by the supply and demand model. > Under certain circumstances it makes sense to study a model of markets with perfect information symmetry. But that's a very different (and much more restricted) term than 'free market'. Again, that's exactly what "free market" is. Market that functions *solely* on interparty contracts is laissez faire. The key difference is that in laissez faire price equilibrium is a defining property, whereas in a free market price equilibrium is an expected emergent property if perfect information symmetry is maintained.
- ben_w 2y ago
  The free market has the assumption of perfect information. In this case, perfect information of what the world will look like on the other side of an unusually long training course (how long depends on what you're training for exactly), so long that the opportunity cost can be life changing even if there was no direct cost for the course itself. This breaks the assumption, making government intervention useful.
  - friendzis 2y ago
    > This breaks the assumption, making government intervention useful. Not useful, but rather required. The fixpoint of a ruleset allowing free markets to exist is not free market, but rather somewhere between laissez faire and anarcho-capitalism.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Government intervention would only be useful in that case if the government had some non-public information on what the supply and demand for doctors will be by the end of the training program. But if they had that information they could just publish it instead of trying to prohibit people from going to medical school, and people could decide for themselves if they still want to go given what the job market is expected to look like by the end of the training program. More to the point, nobody actually knows this exactly, not even the government, but given the choice between too many doctors and not enough, the first one is obviously better. If you have too many doctors then some of them can become researchers etc. If you don't have enough, people die.
    - ben_w 2y ago
      > Government intervention would only be useful in that case if the government had some non-public information on what the supply and demand for doctors will be by the end of the training program. But if they had that information they could just publish it instead of trying to prohibit people from going to medical school, and people could decide for themselves if they still want to go given what the job market is expected to look like by the end of the training program. To the extent that the government has some non-public information, they cannot always reveal it directly. Sometimes this backfires, e.g. the UK politicians blaming the EU for all the things the UK politicians wanted to do anyway but needed a scapegoat for. Most of the people beginning this training have only just reached adulthood, and have no reason to be politically sophisticated. I sure wasn't, at that age. Even if the government was completely open and honest, market are not efficient unless P == NP. > More to the point, nobody actually knows this exactly, not even the government, but given the choice between too many doctors and not enough, the first one is obviously better. If you have too many doctors then some of them can become researchers etc. If you don't have enough, people die. Yes, when resources are effectively unbounded. Even more than that, I would even argue that (owing to what I've heard on the grapevine in the UK about overtime) training more doctors and nurses would lower the cost to the taxpayer. But resources are not unbounded, and governments have other priorities besides this. What else can be bought for the cost of a doctor? Sometimes those other things are also measured in lives, other times they're measured in the economic cost that could pay for two doctors.
- comte7092 2y ago
  Free market philosophy is more of a dogma that it is an empirical fact.
throwup238 2y ago
Because a ton of people want to dedicate their lives to advancing justice and human knowledge. Who are any of us to deny them that pursuit if they are competent and committed enough to pass the Bar or defend a novel thesis? I’m pretty much the opposite of a libertarian, but I find the very idea of restricting education and denying competent people professional certification on the grounds of limiting supply to be perverse.
- tivert 2y ago
  You need to meet some lawyers who were never able to practice because of oversupply, or hopeful PhDs that found themselves trapped in the adjunct precariat. There's no good accomplished by letting people waste their time, money, and talent on training they won't be able to use; and which they are counting on using to support themselves.
  - throwup238 2y ago
    I’ve got a family member who’s been an underpaid postdoc their entire professional career going on 30 years and another stuck in banking for a decade after a physics PhD. I’m intimately familiar with the reality. Neither of them regret their education or the effort they put in. There’s no good accomplished by restricting education and professional certification to artificially restrict supply. All it does is create perverse incentives and harm the public good.
    - tivert 2y ago
      > I’m intimately familiar with the reality. Neither of them regret their education or the effort they put in. The people I know in similar situations regret their choices, or are at least are a little bitter. > There’s no good accomplished by restricting education and professional certification except to destroy peoples dreams for the sake of a lucky few. Let me put it this way: if their dreams are going to be destroyed, it's best to do that as soon a possible. Putting that off makes things worse, not better.
      - 2y ago

by tivert 2y ago

OutOfHere 2y ago

The free market philosophy dictates that we absolutely should do it, and it's a good philosophy to follow.

tivert 2y ago
> The free market philosophy dictates that we absolutely should do it, and it's a good philosophy to follow. Sorry, it's never a good idea to base real life policy on ideological dogma. The "free market philosophy" has some good ideas, as well as a lot of bad ones. We shouldn't blindly follow its "dictates." In my experience, the people who dogmatically preach the free market frequently have an oversimplified understanding or use circular logic to conclude the free market is good by redefining good as whatever the free market does.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rvba 2y ago
  Most of the "free market" people dont understand that many markets can be cornered and oligopolies (or duo- or even mono-) can form. A lot of the stuff assumes that it is 1850 and everyone can buy land and farm potatoes. With "unlimited" land and tens of thousands conpetitors. No barriers of entry too. And Im pro market.
- eru 2y ago
  > In my experience, the people who dogmatically preach the free market frequently have an oversimplified understanding or use circular logic to conclude the free market is good by redefining good as whatever the free market does. There are bad arguments for good conclusions, yes.
friendzis 2y ago
No, it does not. In fact, student emerging on the other side and being met with "sorry, no job for you" is a clear proof of free market *not* working. Free market is not "everyone can do anything", that's somewhere between laissez faire and anarcho-capitalism. "Free market" is a theoretical model where goods, services, and, crucially, information flows freely. Or in more textbook definition, there exists perfect information symmetry. In a functional "free market" a student would know their employment prospects before they even submit application. EDIT, addendum: If we are talking doctors, the training takes 10 years (6 if you don't include specialist training), but that's a long time. So long that the environment itself could change dramatically, for whatever reason. Free market being free, could distort itself so much that perfect information symmetry does not translate over time. So how do you ensure that the information which was true before training remains true after training period even if the free market mutated itself and invalidated the information? Surprise, surprise, you get government to uphold the "freedom" of the market.
- eru 2y ago
  You have some weird straw man definition of 'free market'. Perhaps you should update the Wikipedia entry with your wisdom? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market What anonymous text books are you mentioning? Under certain circumstances it makes sense to study a model of markets with perfect information symmetry. But that's a very different (and much more restricted) term than 'free market'.
  - friendzis 2y ago
    Let's read TFA, shall we? In "Criticism" section we find: > Critics of the free market also argue that it results in significant market dominance, inequality of bargaining power, or information asymmetry, in order to allow markets to function more freely. Clicking "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inequality_of_bargaining_power" shows right at the introduction: > Inequality of bargaining power is generally thought to undermine the freedom of contract, resulting in a disproportionate level of freedom between parties, and that it represents a place at which markets fail. One could click on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry#cite_note-11 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry#cite_not... , to find: > Information asymmetry is in contrast to perfect information, which is a key assumption in neo-classical economics.[11] But that would require one more click to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoclassical_economics: > Neoclassical economics is an approach to economics in which the production, consumption, and valuation (pricing) of goods and services are observed as driven by the supply and demand model. > Under certain circumstances it makes sense to study a model of markets with perfect information symmetry. But that's a very different (and much more restricted) term than 'free market'. Again, that's exactly what "free market" is. Market that functions *solely* on interparty contracts is laissez faire. The key difference is that in laissez faire price equilibrium is a defining property, whereas in a free market price equilibrium is an expected emergent property if perfect information symmetry is maintained.
ben_w 2y ago
The free market has the assumption of perfect information. In this case, perfect information of what the world will look like on the other side of an unusually long training course (how long depends on what you're training for exactly), so long that the opportunity cost can be life changing even if there was no direct cost for the course itself. This breaks the assumption, making government intervention useful.
- friendzis 2y ago
  > This breaks the assumption, making government intervention useful. Not useful, but rather required. The fixpoint of a ruleset allowing free markets to exist is not free market, but rather somewhere between laissez faire and anarcho-capitalism.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  Government intervention would only be useful in that case if the government had some non-public information on what the supply and demand for doctors will be by the end of the training program. But if they had that information they could just publish it instead of trying to prohibit people from going to medical school, and people could decide for themselves if they still want to go given what the job market is expected to look like by the end of the training program. More to the point, nobody actually knows this exactly, not even the government, but given the choice between too many doctors and not enough, the first one is obviously better. If you have too many doctors then some of them can become researchers etc. If you don't have enough, people die.
  - ben_w 2y ago
    > Government intervention would only be useful in that case if the government had some non-public information on what the supply and demand for doctors will be by the end of the training program. But if they had that information they could just publish it instead of trying to prohibit people from going to medical school, and people could decide for themselves if they still want to go given what the job market is expected to look like by the end of the training program. To the extent that the government has some non-public information, they cannot always reveal it directly. Sometimes this backfires, e.g. the UK politicians blaming the EU for all the things the UK politicians wanted to do anyway but needed a scapegoat for. Most of the people beginning this training have only just reached adulthood, and have no reason to be politically sophisticated. I sure wasn't, at that age. Even if the government was completely open and honest, market are not efficient unless P == NP. > More to the point, nobody actually knows this exactly, not even the government, but given the choice between too many doctors and not enough, the first one is obviously better. If you have too many doctors then some of them can become researchers etc. If you don't have enough, people die. Yes, when resources are effectively unbounded. Even more than that, I would even argue that (owing to what I've heard on the grapevine in the UK about overtime) training more doctors and nurses would lower the cost to the taxpayer. But resources are not unbounded, and governments have other priorities besides this. What else can be bought for the cost of a doctor? Sometimes those other things are also measured in lives, other times they're measured in the economic cost that could pay for two doctors.
comte7092 2y ago
Free market philosophy is more of a dogma that it is an empirical fact.

throwup238 2y ago

Because a ton of people want to dedicate their lives to advancing justice and human knowledge. Who are any of us to deny them that pursuit if they are competent and committed enough to pass the Bar or defend a novel thesis? I’m pretty much the opposite of a libertarian, but I find the very idea of restricting education and denying competent people professional certification on the grounds of limiting supply to be perverse.

tivert 2y ago
You need to meet some lawyers who were never able to practice because of oversupply, or hopeful PhDs that found themselves trapped in the adjunct precariat. There's no good accomplished by letting people waste their time, money, and talent on training they won't be able to use; and which they are counting on using to support themselves.
- throwup238 2y ago
  I’ve got a family member who’s been an underpaid postdoc their entire professional career going on 30 years and another stuck in banking for a decade after a physics PhD. I’m intimately familiar with the reality. Neither of them regret their education or the effort they put in. There’s no good accomplished by restricting education and professional certification to artificially restrict supply. All it does is create perverse incentives and harm the public good.
  - tivert 2y ago
    > I’m intimately familiar with the reality. Neither of them regret their education or the effort they put in. The people I know in similar situations regret their choices, or are at least are a little bitter. > There’s no good accomplished by restricting education and professional certification except to destroy peoples dreams for the sake of a lucky few. Let me put it this way: if their dreams are going to be destroyed, it's best to do that as soon a possible. Putting that off makes things worse, not better.
    - 2y ago