4 ms·

It's not depressing to see people's political attitudes change with more experience and in response to life experience and new realities. It's actually quite re

by jquery 12y ago

It's not depressing to see people's political attitudes change with more experience and in response to life experience and new realities. It's actually quite refreshing. You should be far more worried about the opposite, someone who uses ideology as a mental shortcut. > In particular, it seems to be common among hackers to be very libertarian except when they feel threatened in their jobs, then you hear them talk about unions and protectionism and regulation and so on. It seems you are in favor of open borders and ascribing extremist views--non-sovereignty of nation-states--to those who simply might not toe the liberal party line. > Again, there is to my knowledge no economist, who anyone takes seriously, who would say "The USA needs to import fewer tech workers". Since when did economists have tech worker interests in mind? All bow down at the altar of GDP, everyone else can burn.

cynicalkane 12y ago
> Since when did economists have tech worker interests in mind? All bow down at the altar of GDP, everyone else can burn. Good straw man, but most economists are left-wing academics who chose a low-paying career track despite having a very marketable degree. I don't know of a single economist, not even any Austrian nut-jobs, who seriously think GDP is more important than human welfare. But hey. Tell me, seriously, why it is good for the world to take this enormous pool of potential high-skilled workers and shut them out, leaving them in countries they don't want to be in, in places they will be less productive. Explain, in terms of the human interest you care so much about, the benefit of this. Explain how it produces more value for the world. Hint: as you correctly noted, money != wealth. In particularly, allocating more money to us does not make the world richer.
- bicknergseng 12y ago
  >Good straw man, but most economists are left-wing academics who chose a low-paying career track despite having the most marketable degree in the world. Wait. Is that a serious sentence?
  - cynicalkane 12y ago
    Surveys consistently find academic economists to average left-wing. I had thought economics degrees were also the highest-paying (at 75k if I remember correctly) but apparently this has been outstripped by a few engineering disciplines, particularly petroleum, in the last few years. I edited my post. However, having an economics degree is still a good way to make money and academia not a good way to make money. The point is people stereotype research economists as corporate shills or something, when they tend to be left-wing and most research economists consciously gave up money to work in academia.
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      >The point is people stereotype research economists as corporate shills or something, when they tend to be left-wing They tend to poll Democrat more than Republican, but that certainly doesn't mean that they're left wing or anti-corporate. Quite the opposite in fact. There is a near unanimity on the benefits of CAFTA, NAFTA and immigration, for instance. Also against government ownership of enterprise. http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/PdfPapers/KS_PublCh06.pdf http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/PdfPapers/KS_PublCh06.pdf
      - icebraining 12y ago
        There's nothing inherently right-wing about being pro-immigration or against State ownership of enterprise (or against the State in general, in fact).
        crdoconnor 12y ago
        What is right wing or left wing is a complete red herring in the context of this discussion. Both are highly subjective, ultimately rather meaningless and are subject to the issue of "shifting goalposts". What's decried is nearly communist in the US is hard-right wing for most of the rest of the world. Pro-corporate/anti-corporate is more meaningful. And yes, it is inherently pro corporate to be pro immigration and against state ownership of enterprise. Both are incredibly pro corporate stances in fact.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >Good straw man, but most economists are left-wing academics who chose a low-paying career track despite having a very marketable degree. These supposed left wing economists follow the money just like everybody else. The money in research is there, provided you provide research that is 'useful' to certain pro-corporate groups. It's somewhat like climate science in that respect, except the climate science community hasn't been corrupted by the money thrown at it to prove 'global warming doesn't exist' whereas the economist profession has been utterly corrupted by it. >But hey. Tell me, seriously, why it is good for the world to take this enormous pool of potential high-skilled workers and shut them out, leaving them in countries they don't want to be in, One reason would be because those countries suffer badly enough from brain drain as it is. Another would be because it becomes too easy to play one set of workers against another and drag down wages all across the world. Wanna know one of the political causes of massive wealth & income inequality? This.

by jquery 12y ago

cynicalkane 12y ago

> Since when did economists have tech worker interests in mind? All bow down at the altar of GDP, everyone else can burn. Good straw man, but most economists are left-wing academics who chose a low-paying career track despite having a very marketable degree. I don't know of a single economist, not even any Austrian nut-jobs, who seriously think GDP is more important than human welfare. But hey. Tell me, seriously, why it is good for the world to take this enormous pool of potential high-skilled workers and shut them out, leaving them in countries they don't want to be in, in places they will be less productive. Explain, in terms of the human interest you care so much about, the benefit of this. Explain how it produces more value for the world. Hint: as you correctly noted, money != wealth. In particularly, allocating more money to us does not make the world richer.

bicknergseng 12y ago
>Good straw man, but most economists are left-wing academics who chose a low-paying career track despite having the most marketable degree in the world. Wait. Is that a serious sentence?
- cynicalkane 12y ago
  Surveys consistently find academic economists to average left-wing. I had thought economics degrees were also the highest-paying (at 75k if I remember correctly) but apparently this has been outstripped by a few engineering disciplines, particularly petroleum, in the last few years. I edited my post. However, having an economics degree is still a good way to make money and academia not a good way to make money. The point is people stereotype research economists as corporate shills or something, when they tend to be left-wing and most research economists consciously gave up money to work in academia.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    >The point is people stereotype research economists as corporate shills or something, when they tend to be left-wing They tend to poll Democrat more than Republican, but that certainly doesn't mean that they're left wing or anti-corporate. Quite the opposite in fact. There is a near unanimity on the benefits of CAFTA, NAFTA and immigration, for instance. Also against government ownership of enterprise. http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/PdfPapers/KS_PublCh06.pdf http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/klein/PdfPapers/KS_PublCh06.pdf
    - icebraining 12y ago
      There's nothing inherently right-wing about being pro-immigration or against State ownership of enterprise (or against the State in general, in fact).
      - crdoconnor 12y ago
        What is right wing or left wing is a complete red herring in the context of this discussion. Both are highly subjective, ultimately rather meaningless and are subject to the issue of "shifting goalposts". What's decried is nearly communist in the US is hard-right wing for most of the rest of the world. Pro-corporate/anti-corporate is more meaningful. And yes, it is inherently pro corporate to be pro immigration and against state ownership of enterprise. Both are incredibly pro corporate stances in fact.
crdoconnor 12y ago
>Good straw man, but most economists are left-wing academics who chose a low-paying career track despite having a very marketable degree. These supposed left wing economists follow the money just like everybody else. The money in research is there, provided you provide research that is 'useful' to certain pro-corporate groups. It's somewhat like climate science in that respect, except the climate science community hasn't been corrupted by the money thrown at it to prove 'global warming doesn't exist' whereas the economist profession has been utterly corrupted by it. >But hey. Tell me, seriously, why it is good for the world to take this enormous pool of potential high-skilled workers and shut them out, leaving them in countries they don't want to be in, One reason would be because those countries suffer badly enough from brain drain as it is. Another would be because it becomes too easy to play one set of workers against another and drag down wages all across the world. Wanna know one of the political causes of massive wealth & income inequality? This.