3 ms·

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

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.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > To the extent that the government has some non-public information, they cannot always reveal it directly. Is that expected to be relevant here? What kind of secret jobs data would the government be keeping under lock and key for the security of the nation in a typical year? > 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. This is why adolescents have parents or, failing that, teachers and guidance counselors. > Even if the government was completely open and honest, market are not efficient unless P == NP. Markets don't have to be perfectly efficient, the only question is if they're more efficient than central planning, and the answer to that question is yes. Notice that the government also has no ability to timely perform NP calculations. > What else can be bought for the cost of a doctor? Probably like a tenth of a mile of paved asphalt. Having a few "too many" doctors is going to be worth more than the median thing the government spends money on, because trained doctors are valuable even outside the practice of medicine, e.g. as researchers or policy advisors or simply as a buffer against undersupply, since the consequences of that are so dire. Moreover, this isn't even a valid question when the size of any given graduating class is a small proportion of the total pool. If it takes 7 years post-bachelors to become a doctor and then you are one for 35, the total size of the pipeline is only 20% of the size of the pool. If the number of doctors in training is 50% too large, the total supply will only be in excess by 10% from the point you figure that out, and that's the single-year peak that only lasts for one graduating class before it starts edging downward again. It's just not a big problem for that to happen. These numbers are within the error bars for how precisely "oversupply" or "undersupply" can even be defined or agreed upon as a concept.

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.

AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> To the extent that the government has some non-public information, they cannot always reveal it directly. Is that expected to be relevant here? What kind of secret jobs data would the government be keeping under lock and key for the security of the nation in a typical year? > 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. This is why adolescents have parents or, failing that, teachers and guidance counselors. > Even if the government was completely open and honest, market are not efficient unless P == NP. Markets don't have to be perfectly efficient, the only question is if they're more efficient than central planning, and the answer to that question is yes. Notice that the government also has no ability to timely perform NP calculations. > What else can be bought for the cost of a doctor? Probably like a tenth of a mile of paved asphalt. Having a few "too many" doctors is going to be worth more than the median thing the government spends money on, because trained doctors are valuable even outside the practice of medicine, e.g. as researchers or policy advisors or simply as a buffer against undersupply, since the consequences of that are so dire. Moreover, this isn't even a valid question when the size of any given graduating class is a small proportion of the total pool. If it takes 7 years post-bachelors to become a doctor and then you are one for 35, the total size of the pipeline is only 20% of the size of the pool. If the number of doctors in training is 50% too large, the total supply will only be in excess by 10% from the point you figure that out, and that's the single-year peak that only lasts for one graduating class before it starts edging downward again. It's just not a big problem for that to happen. These numbers are within the error bars for how precisely "oversupply" or "undersupply" can even be defined or agreed upon as a concept.