“Narrow view” seems unqualified without more about how the studies are actually excluding other entrepreneurs from the findings. Point of the article seems obvious just from the headline, and then there is the body of supporting text too that seems to say that entrepreneurs are not all that special in knowledge or biologically.
The obvious extension of this point is that entrepreneurs require no special treatment, favoritism, or perks in exchange for exceptional entrepreneurial traits to coax them to your territory of taxation (or whatever).
Instead you might consider developing your current population by increasing their access to capital, resources, connections and safety nets to enable new business ventures based on their proposals to meet a real need that turns a sustainable profit and creates jobs at all salary levels (not just the bottom). No need to provide additional support to just any millionaire/billionaire that will do nothing productive except seek to extract rents from those with less means.
I find utility is most beautiful. Various other interpretations of aesthetics in mathematics seem misplaced if the result is that none or a very limited number of verifiably consistent applications exist for some new construct/extension of math that is supposedly art but more or less a useless exercise of mental masturbation. Higher theoretical math is purely a construct of reasoning, and may not always produce verifiable consistency for every domain—like reflecting the real (this) universe being studied. I would prefer mathematicians study what is utilitarian and foundational, instead of yet another questionably useful offshoot of mathematics. There are a million dead ends and very few interest pieces that lead to a goldmine of new applications or improvements.
I will interpret the label of modern to mean that current science is somewhat directionless on many fronts overwhelmed with an explosion of conflicting theoretical findings that are difficult to verify or disprove or categorize their utility meaningfully—progressing at a snail’s pace as a result. Or perhaps this more accurately is post-modern science.
I have seen plenty of CS grads that can barely code or put together a real solution to a problem. There is no guarantee just because someone was able to muddle through a CS degree that they can do these things. In almost all cases, you really need to evaluate whether an individual shows the aptitude to solve your problems you need solved and crank out good well thought out practical solutions that fit the scale of the business problem. The degree paper is not all that important. I would give bonus points to a candidate if they came from an accomplished but different background than CS that shows they are capable of success/mastery in multiple areas, they are adept at learning and researching new material, and they have the matching technical prowess to spearhead a real project. For instance I have known many engineering (of the physical paradigm) types that are self-taught with no CS degree that I would trust to tackle a project over any random CS degree candidate.
I would like to add an additional layer of economic nuance here, beyond Econ 101 and BA Econ. While it is true that an economy is not necessarily a fixed “lump of labour”, you also need to take into consideration many more factors before making another blanket statement about how labour and an economy works.
There are localized crowding effects that take place at all levels of labour (bottom to the top), and various market frictions which you ignore talking about. The economy is not perfect, perfectly efficient, or perfectly distributed. I won’t even get into monopolies and monopsonies, but suffice to say that market forces can be highly skewed. Markets are typically highly constrained in relative size and don’t freely grow independently.
Adding 1000 more H1Bs this year does not mean the tech sector will grow by an additional 1500 U.S. citizens as well. Labour growth is organic and requires training and experience to grow. If most new tech positions are created for visas, citizens will never enter the field, or gain training and experience to compete.
When crowding in a market increases, the market is very slow to react and expand. This is especially true in a more mature system like the USA, where the frontier days have mostly ended, and future growth is slower and more expensive. The U.S. economy has certainly shifted (perhaps especially so around 1970) into growing the pie less, and more growing your slice.
Let’s not be naive either, because we know that visa data is publicly available. We should not rely too much on economic theory from Exon 101 when we can check the theory against what actually happens and is measured (empirics). As an experiment you should compare the annual H1B visa cap against the number of new “tech hires” in the economy. The trend you see is that every year, tech grows by ONLY the number of visas they are granted for that year. You probably think I’m pulling your leg, but please check for yourself.
Now please tell me honestly... From the data, which theory of the labour market do you think best describes the history of the tech sector in the USA? Hint, the lump of labour fallacy is not always a fallacy. Now your follow up question is, if the labour market experiences localized crowding, and citizens may be in direct competition with non-citizens for their jobs, what might happen to citizen wages that are under this competitive environment?
> The trend you see is that every year, tech grows by ONLY the number of visas they are granted.
That very strongly suggests that there's a shortage of tech workers in the United States. What's the unemployment rate for CS majors? [1]
> From the data, which theory of the labour market do you think best describes the history of the tech sector in the USA?
The data appears to describe a tech sector that cannot find enough skilled workers to fill the positions it has available. Virtually all of the CS majors are employed. There is a large pool of skilled labor abroad, however, which US tech companies would like to tap into. They have two ways to do so: getting those workers to come to the US or setting up shop where the workers are.
There seem to be a lot of protectionist-minded tech workers in the US who are convinced that their salaries would increase if there were fewer visas handed out. That's probably true in the short run. If you constrict the labor supply, you force companies to outbid one another to hire the remaining workers. But once that initial shock subsides, companies will wise up and expand their operations overseas, where skilled labor is cheaper.
I believe your interpretation is being disingenuous with the data and everything known about how H1Bs are utilized.
You seem to gloss over the fact that tech jobs don’t actually require everyone to hold a specific CS degree (in reality and practice few do if you have the skills). So once you expand your definition of skilled workers to include everyone that could adequately fill such positions, you are looking at a much larger pool of workers than just fresh CS grads. You definitely don’t need a CS degree to be a low level analyst, tester, etc. which has been a pretty popular H1B position. From the linked article, you likely also have adequate coding skills if you come from an engineering, scientific, STEM, or similar background. Then add people from bootcamps that came from outside STEM.
You also ignore that H1Bs are frequently used to replace citizens, their poor working conditions, and lower salaries. You seem to apply to another perpetual myth in economics that companies like to spout about labour shortages and skilled labour shortages. There are few if any economic studies that conclude there are actual widespread shortages of candidates with necessary skills. What you seem to ascribe to is a shortage of workers that are willing to be taken advantage of, work for lower wages, and work in poor conditions.
"Disingenuous" means "dishonest." Did you actually intend to accuse me of dishonesty?
> From the linked article, you likely also have adequate coding skills if you come from an engineering, scientific, STEM, or similar background.
The linked article discusses the fact that people with a broad range of undergraduate computer-, math- and engineering-related degrees have unemployment rates of 1.5-2% in the United States. Long-term unemployment for these groups is even lower, in the 0.4-0.7% range.
> Then add people from bootcamps that came from outside STEM.
Now you're discussing people who likely don't have the same qualifications as people coming in on H1B visas. On the other hand, you're not providing any evidence that these people have trouble finding employment in the tech sector, so I don't know what I'm supposed to make of your argument here.
> You seem to apply to another perpetual myth in economics that companies like to spout about labour shortages and skilled labour shortages.
Everything you're describing points towards a constrained labor market in tech. Unemployment for people with relevant undergraduate degrees is near 0%. Companies are desperate to increase the number of visas for tech workers. People can go to "bootcamps" for a few weeks to get basic training in programming, and then quickly find high-paying employment. If I can add to that: big tech companies are offering lavish workplace benefits (free gourmet food, free gyms, free transportation, etc.) in order to try to attract talent. This all points towards a very tight labor market in tech.
> You also ignore that H1Bs are frequently used to replace citizens, their poor working conditions, and lower salaries. [...] What you seem to ascribe to is a shortage of workers that are willing to be taken advantage of, work for lower wages, and work in poor conditions.
I've read the horror stories, just like everyone else. But in general, we're talking about people making 80k+ USD per year, many far more. Most people in America would love to be "taken advantage of" for $100k/year. It's very difficult to get behind a political call to action to exclude foreigners from the labor market in order to limit wage competition for people in the top few percent of the income distribution.
Please elaborate where there was ever a personal attack. Poster is willing debating the finer points of the topic. Debate is routinely attacking ideas; that is normal. Pointing out the trend of routine holes, inconsistencies, selectively addressing facts, glossing over arguments/facts, handwaving in the posters comments that demonstrate bias, blindspots, misrepresentation, poor judgement, dishonesty, ignorance, bigotry, sexism, racism, hate, nationalistic hate, or routinely lacking insight, experience, and informedness is not a personal attack. Those are features of settling debates instead of perpetuating misinformation, small mindedness, and uninformed/poor ideas. Please reflect on your post with the personal swipe I am to edit out, because it is not clear to me a personal swipe was made.
I feel like that is a trap criticism since the poster became suddenly offended by my highly civil, PC, and blunted expression (disingenuousness) that their ideas and treatment of the data/facts was being criticized (to the point of misrepresenting/mischaracterizing the data or being dishonest). That is not changing the topic at all, it is redirecting their evaluative skills to the facts/data they chose to not respond to and hand-wave away, and puts pressure on their reputation to explain their motives for not choosing to respond or evaluate the facts/data. That is entirely substantive in the topic debate.
Further, the poster asked for a straightforward no-nonsense opinion and clarification, which I provided them in an adult fashion without kid gloves at their own request. I would expect the same adult, civil-but-no-nonsense treatment in an adult setting if I started choosing to get offended because someone criticized/called out the way I choose to view the world/facts/data with rose coloured glasses.
Respectfully this is the internet and difficult topics should not be so difficult to discuss because someone might take an adult but civil and valid criticism of repeated questionable opinions that contradict data/facts presented to them personally.
Hacker news is an adult site that may include divisive and real world type content where there will be disagreement to carry out informed but adult, real world discussions that spread/communicate valuable information and discovery and further everyone’s understanding of the world.
If I call out someone for being a hypocrite or espousing and spreading hypocritical views/ideas, does that warrant a warning to not to call them a hypocrite? I cannot shield a person from civil but real world criticism they choose to find offensive if their offense is derived from a criticism to their questionable behavior and questionable ways they choose to carry out discussion here.
TLDR: “I believe you may be a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.”
“Did you just call me a hypocrite?”
“Yes I did. That or possibly a liar.”
“You can’t tell someone they are a hypocrite or a liar, those terms carry an air of superiority and trigger feelings of inferiority and are patronizing/condescending even if they ask you to clarify and even if they are a behaving as a hypocrite or a liar.
Calling someone disingenuous isn't "highly civil, PC, and blunted. It's a fancy way of calling them a liar, and already crosses into personal attack. Presumably that's why DiogenesKynikos responded the way they did, and I wouldn't say it was an overreaction—they asked a question neutrally.
The question was not posed naturally. They asked in an offended fashion if I was accusing them of dishonesty (well yes, selectively responding to and ignoring presented facts says “those are inconvenient truths I’d rather avoid discussing because it hurts my preferred position/views”).
No. “Disingenuous” is rhetoric used in the context of scientific debates and responses to other studies, without controversy.
Meaning the claims are not valid, not true, not representative, not correct, wrong, mischaracterizing, not genuine. It also means dishonest in science too.
FYI scientists don't use offense to a commonly used term to deflect an opposing view and facts/data. Scientists may partake in highly spirited and civil debates and may call out bias, hypocrisy, lies, and any number of things that plausibly explain opposing incongruent (claims incompatible with facts/data) positions including: idealism, politics, institutionalism, naivety, wishful thinking and so on.
This is the great thing about science and debate. Don’t take arguments personally, it’s the facts that matter. Your biggest critic may be your best friend and they are most effective at showing you where you need to re-evaluate your views/position or improve your self-evaluation and make yourself a better scientist or individual.
I think you might be jumping to conclusions. The usage of disingenuous in debates also means dishonest (see my above comment). What I communicated was that disingenuous usage in a debate is without controversy.
No one reacts by flagging/reporting a study or paper for moderation because I said your position does not honestly represent facts or data. What happens instead is positions are restated in a way that better speaks to and directly addresses the facts or data to better prove their point, or they can’t directly address those facts and the debate more or less ends there quite efficiently.
Does that make sense?
A google search result shows:
“The Economics of the Financial Crisis: Lessons and New Threats
Marco Annunziata · 2011 · Business & Economics
Yet this line of argument is in many ways simplistic, misleading and disingenuous. Economics is an imperfect science, and some of its weaknesses have been shown in an unflatteringly harsh ...”
“On the Economics of Say and Keynes' Interpretation of Say's Law - Jstor
by PO Jonsson · 1995 · Cited by 37 · Related articles
portrayal of how Ricardian economics differed from his own General Theory was best disingenuous and at worst fraudulent. Moreover, because ...”
“A Synthesis of Law and Economics - SMU Scholar
by J Cirace · 2016 · Cited by 20 · Related articles
and transfers, economists often make disingenuous statements to the effect that a " trade-off" between distribution and efficiency exists. 38 Such ...”
“Institutional Economics: Veblen, Commons, and Mitchell ...
Joseph Dorfman · 1963 · Economics
The roots of his institutional economics were planted in the disorderly ... In a homespun and often disingenuous way, he strove with dogged ...”
“A/moral Economics: Classical Political Economy and Cultural ...
Claudia C. Klaver · 2003 · Business & Economics
Economics ... "laws of the inductive philosophy" to the "abstract questions of political economy" is disingenuous given the long history of debate ...”
I had no trouble finding these somewhat general but critical examples; the rhetoric is fairly common. With some better targeted google-fu I can probably find some great examples in heated scientific debates like Einstein vs Bohr and other great controversial debates.
What I meant (and should have made clearer originally) was: if you can find usages where the word 'disingenuous' is being used in a personal context without implying dishonesty or bad faith.
Of your five examples, only #4 is personal. I can't tell what the word is implying there.
What you and most other people seem to overlook is that it's not solely about the money or skilled labor at all. H1-Bs are sought after primarily because they can be squeezed harder than American workers. This ends up forcing Americans to grind as hard as H1-B workers do to compete, which ends up being a race to the bottom. One of the great things about the living in the US is that the quality of life and protections against worker abuse is supposed to be better than other countries. When you start making hiring decisions based on how hungry your candidates are, this creates a normalization of deviation situation.
The truth might be worse than you think. Not only has QA been a popular H1B approved requisition, but so are positions that are simply listed as “Analyst” and “Business Analyst” and so on, as well as the many many variations on “Analyst” (QA or other). It might compete with “Developer” as the most common H1B position.
And again, that’s using a position of authority to dismiss new evidence on speculation rather than facts or science. Good science exercises restraint in quickness to judge new evidence, allowing time for discovery to work as needed. The opinionated orthodoxy of science doesn’t contemplate a wait and see approach, because the scientific method takes a backseat to other concerns such as politics, pride, prestige, funding, and innumerable other unscientific motivations in opinionated science.
I'm curious to hear what this guy thinks of the esoteric math in higher level economics... how base assumptions there are built and extrapolated on to ultimately guide economic policy. He would have a field day with the assumptions used in DSGE (which there are empirics to contradict those assumptions, and economists keep using those assumptions anyway).
The obvious extension of this point is that entrepreneurs require no special treatment, favoritism, or perks in exchange for exceptional entrepreneurial traits to coax them to your territory of taxation (or whatever).
Instead you might consider developing your current population by increasing their access to capital, resources, connections and safety nets to enable new business ventures based on their proposals to meet a real need that turns a sustainable profit and creates jobs at all salary levels (not just the bottom). No need to provide additional support to just any millionaire/billionaire that will do nothing productive except seek to extract rents from those with less means.