This is the sort of post I'm here for. Here's ChatGPT's counterargument: "Everyone gains" can be interpreted not as literal but as a shorthand for widespread benefits. It's an oversimplification, but it effectively communicates the overall net positive impact without denying individual losses.
When I pressed ChatGPT as to whether "net positive impact" is also a pretty lie, it said it is not... I wonder what you think, Bryan!
Not to be unkind, but can you provide a bit of a window into what goes through a person's mind before posting a ChatGPT quotation? I'm genuinely curious.
It’s not merely that economic changes have both winners and losers, it’s that often the winning is much more diffuse than the losing.
If ACME offshores production, I, as a consumer of their widgets, might save $1000 next year. This is good, though hardly life changing. But if the plant foreman loses his $100k per annum job with no other prospects in town, that’s hugely disruptive to the life of him and his family. Is that totally offset so long as at least 100 people save $1000 on widgets?
The 101 level calculus doesn’t really account for this and “everyone benefits on net” doesn’t really satisfy.
This is a problem around things like political lobbying because the $100K foreman is going to proportionately spend a lot more of his $100K gains to raise tariffs than you would spend of your $1K gain to reduce them. You could offer people $1/annum to pay for lobbying to get cheaper EVs and they wouldn't pay it. But people in car companies will pay their union a lot of money to buy politicians.
Don't you have to distinguish between free market processes that aggregate the choices of consumers and create incentives for changes that have economic winners and losers and government policies that redistribute resources and/or pick the economic winners? There is a big difference between Schumpeter's creative destruction and government industrial policy.
Yes, there is, but to the point of this piece, it seems to me the two go hand in hand. Economic upheaval brought about by "progress" is often accompanied by, or generates new, terrible policy making processes.
Ultimately, how much do you want to carry the losers, especially as some of the things you mention are changed because of markets and people have an option to shift job.
Like a lot of people who were farriers would have seen income decline because of cars, at which point, they'd have gone off and become car mechanics. The people who stuck around until the end would have been the people in semi-retirement who didn't see the benefit of investment in switching industry, plus, the reduction in people doing it would have maintained a lot of the rewards for those that were left.
I guess it’s a good thing that Bryan thinks he is right and Milton Friedman is wrong about literally fully open borders being compatible with the welfare state, because otherwise I think I would agree with EVERYTHING. HE. SAYS. - and that’s probably a bit unhealthy…
The interesting cases are those where some people don't benefit even if they do survive into the long run.
Insofar as the slogan derives from confrontation with rigid zero-sum mindsets, its existence is understandable, but it's an ironic bit of imprecision from folks who prides themselves on appreciating "no solutions only trade-offs."
Of course this is correct, to the point of being its own truism. Any disruption has costs. Any improvement I can think of has costs. Sometimes those costs might be so "light" as to be relatively inconsequential. Still, my question is in what context this matters? And how should it be assessed for policy purposes? Those craftsmen who passed away in the first lurches of the Industrial Revolution, or the many small shop owners swept aside in the Internet explosion who did not live long enough to reap its benefits, may have missed out, but to the extent that policy decisions needed to be made in those first years, to what extent should their inability to make good on the "everybody wins" be a factor in policy making? Do we simply retort "it's not true!"? And then do nothing anyway? Put another way: so ............ what?
Doesn’t everyone gain by the knowledge that X policy is conducive to a more efficient economy and society? (This definition makes no prediction on the actual material gain of the Person in question and whether said is in the immediate term or long term)
My man Brian, you can face maybe all the ugly truths except the one about yourself, which is that you are a hypocrite for being a prof while decrying higher ed.
All your defenses of this, that you do good work, that it’s good for you but not the gov and that your resignation wouldn’t change anything, are terrible as well.
It just shows how strong our personal blindspots and self-serving nature are.
Funny. He's about the only person who would ever admit that tenure is self-serving. Everyone else will rationalize tenure until they retire. Why are you holding him to such exceptionally high standards? Are you blindspot free?
Full disclosure, I'm a prof, I agree with his post re: tenure, and there's no chance I'm going to quit my job. I don't think this is hypocrisy at all. I think the system is there to benefit profs like me and I'm enjoying the benefits. It would be hypocritical if I was being inconsistent somehow.
SOMEONE'S ox is ALWAYS gored, however few or many. Problem is, they usually don't particularly deserve it. OR not.
This is the sort of post I'm here for. Here's ChatGPT's counterargument: "Everyone gains" can be interpreted not as literal but as a shorthand for widespread benefits. It's an oversimplification, but it effectively communicates the overall net positive impact without denying individual losses.
When I pressed ChatGPT as to whether "net positive impact" is also a pretty lie, it said it is not... I wonder what you think, Bryan!
Not to be unkind, but can you provide a bit of a window into what goes through a person's mind before posting a ChatGPT quotation? I'm genuinely curious.
The problem is in how one defines worse off without the context of delineated property rights.
It’s not merely that economic changes have both winners and losers, it’s that often the winning is much more diffuse than the losing.
If ACME offshores production, I, as a consumer of their widgets, might save $1000 next year. This is good, though hardly life changing. But if the plant foreman loses his $100k per annum job with no other prospects in town, that’s hugely disruptive to the life of him and his family. Is that totally offset so long as at least 100 people save $1000 on widgets?
The 101 level calculus doesn’t really account for this and “everyone benefits on net” doesn’t really satisfy.
This is a problem around things like political lobbying because the $100K foreman is going to proportionately spend a lot more of his $100K gains to raise tariffs than you would spend of your $1K gain to reduce them. You could offer people $1/annum to pay for lobbying to get cheaper EVs and they wouldn't pay it. But people in car companies will pay their union a lot of money to buy politicians.
My question would be “What did the craftsman end up doing during and after the Industrial Revolution?”
Don't you have to distinguish between free market processes that aggregate the choices of consumers and create incentives for changes that have economic winners and losers and government policies that redistribute resources and/or pick the economic winners? There is a big difference between Schumpeter's creative destruction and government industrial policy.
Yes, there is, but to the point of this piece, it seems to me the two go hand in hand. Economic upheaval brought about by "progress" is often accompanied by, or generates new, terrible policy making processes.
Ultimately, how much do you want to carry the losers, especially as some of the things you mention are changed because of markets and people have an option to shift job.
Like a lot of people who were farriers would have seen income decline because of cars, at which point, they'd have gone off and become car mechanics. The people who stuck around until the end would have been the people in semi-retirement who didn't see the benefit of investment in switching industry, plus, the reduction in people doing it would have maintained a lot of the rewards for those that were left.
Good strong finish.
“Your grandchildren will be better off.” would be another. Whether people have grandchildren or not is a separate issue.
Great post.
I guess it’s a good thing that Bryan thinks he is right and Milton Friedman is wrong about literally fully open borders being compatible with the welfare state, because otherwise I think I would agree with EVERYTHING. HE. SAYS. - and that’s probably a bit unhealthy…
The interesting cases are those where some people don't benefit even if they do survive into the long run.
Insofar as the slogan derives from confrontation with rigid zero-sum mindsets, its existence is understandable, but it's an ironic bit of imprecision from folks who prides themselves on appreciating "no solutions only trade-offs."
Of course this is correct, to the point of being its own truism. Any disruption has costs. Any improvement I can think of has costs. Sometimes those costs might be so "light" as to be relatively inconsequential. Still, my question is in what context this matters? And how should it be assessed for policy purposes? Those craftsmen who passed away in the first lurches of the Industrial Revolution, or the many small shop owners swept aside in the Internet explosion who did not live long enough to reap its benefits, may have missed out, but to the extent that policy decisions needed to be made in those first years, to what extent should their inability to make good on the "everybody wins" be a factor in policy making? Do we simply retort "it's not true!"? And then do nothing anyway? Put another way: so ............ what?
My question would be “What did the craftsman end up doing during and after the Industrial Revolution?”
> “Yes, I have a strong moral presumption in favor of overall human prosperity. Do you seriously disagree?”
Yes, I can predict when policy's harm me, and have zero trust in nation states to apply this concept equally.
In war, it maybe great if everyone stopped shooting, but all Ill let you ask of me is that Im headed away from the epicenter.
What if you say everyone has the opportunity to gain? You created a straw dog to beat up. Very dishonest of you.
Doesn’t everyone gain by the knowledge that X policy is conducive to a more efficient economy and society? (This definition makes no prediction on the actual material gain of the Person in question and whether said is in the immediate term or long term)
My man Brian, you can face maybe all the ugly truths except the one about yourself, which is that you are a hypocrite for being a prof while decrying higher ed.
All your defenses of this, that you do good work, that it’s good for you but not the gov and that your resignation wouldn’t change anything, are terrible as well.
It just shows how strong our personal blindspots and self-serving nature are.
Funny. He's about the only person who would ever admit that tenure is self-serving. Everyone else will rationalize tenure until they retire. Why are you holding him to such exceptionally high standards? Are you blindspot free?
Full disclosure, I'm a prof, I agree with his post re: tenure, and there's no chance I'm going to quit my job. I don't think this is hypocrisy at all. I think the system is there to benefit profs like me and I'm enjoying the benefits. It would be hypocritical if I was being inconsistent somehow.