You seem to be confusing supply and demand with that argument. The point in Bryan's case is that there is an over abundance of bad professors to take his spot, so even if he was merely zero value his replacement would be worse, and the demand would be constant. In the case of meat eating environmentalists decreasing their demand for meat would decrease supply.
No, I don't think he has said that. I don't think the view that a system of tenured professors and public unversities is bad implies that everything resulting from that system is also bad.
For example, we're all against the federal government having Senators throw darts at a board to decide the size of the federal budget, but if this random process happens to result in my favored size of the federal budget, I don't think I'm obligated to advocate for the voiding of the result because the process was unfair.
I would guess that Bryan thinks that tenure results in unproductive tenured faculty and an unproductive rent-seeking competition among prospective faculty (clearly both true). But I think he believes that SOME tenured faculty happen to be productive, himself included.
"I would guess that Bryan thinks that tenure results in unproductive tenured faculty and an unproductive rent-seeking competition among prospective faculty (clearly both true). But I think he believes that SOME tenured faculty happen to be productive, himself included."
How nice. "I happen to think that tenure and education are both scams but there are exceptions for tenured professors, which I conveniently happen to be one."
This is obviously not convincing imo. Imagine a billionaire leftie saying "billionaires should donate 90% of their wealth but there are well-defined exceptions, which I happen to be one..."
Besides all that he has written about education (lack of transfer learning, useless credentialing etc.) would also apply to his classes. So it's not clear to me why he is an exception.
Also, he admits that his thoughts on tenure conflict with his holding such a job. He just doesn't think he's a hypocrite becasue he's not being hyperbolic when he decries tenure. Again very convenient.
<<Some will call me a hypocrite for taking part in this system, but thatтАЩs part and parcel of being a whistleblower. If I wasnтАЩt a tenured professor, who would take my critique seriously?>>
My response: You have blown the whistle. Now, GTFO.
"The oppression of taxpayers and the deception of donors need to end. If the result is that I lose my dream job for life, so be it."
My response: GTFO now, so that taxpayers are oppressed a little less.
I don't think your billionaire analogy works. Bryan isn't calling for tenured professions to resign and then exempting himself from this obligation. You can think that high marginal taxes should prevent billionaires from existing without thinking that it is evil to be a billionaire under the current system.
"Bryan isn't calling for tenured professions to resign and then exempting himself from this obligation."
Maybe he should - maybe that's a logical result of his views.
Regardless of whether he is calling everyone to resign, by his own admission, he is partaking in "the oppression of taxpayers and the deception of donors". That's enough to qualify him as a big fat hypocrite in my book.
"You can think that high marginal taxes should prevent billionaires from existing without thinking that it is evil to be a billionaire under the current system."
Buffett made a similar remark, saying how he was proportionately paying less in taxes than some of his employees and how unfair this was. Republican lawmakers rightly pressed him on this point and passed a bill allowing him to pay as much in taxes as he saw fit. Buffett hasn't paid more in taxes than legally required last I checked.
Many lefties like Hassan Piker and Bernie Sanders make similar excuses for their refusal to donate more of their wealth, given their views on wealth ineqaulity. Bryan's hypocrisy is no different.
Isn't this roughly the equivalent of telling people who complain about e.g. systemic oppression to simply end themselves, because by continuing to live they are being hypocritical? Or is it closer to telling police officers who blow whistles about police corruption that they should quit themselves because police are corrupt?
It seems like you are arguing that anyone who is in a field with many bad actors that take advantage of people must leave the field because it is impossible for any actor in the field to be good. That seems like a self fulfilling prophecy, or at least a way to ensure there are never whistle blowers.
Bryan, this is all good and well but you are a hypocrite for holding a tenured position and you should just resign from your academic position.
I believe he's discussed this before. If he resigned, he'd just be replaced by someone else and has no reason to think that would be a better outcome.
Well many Bryan accuses of hypocrisy could mount the same defense. For example, "if I don't eat this meat as an environmentalist, someone else will."
You seem to be confusing supply and demand with that argument. The point in Bryan's case is that there is an over abundance of bad professors to take his spot, so even if he was merely zero value his replacement would be worse, and the demand would be constant. In the case of meat eating environmentalists decreasing their demand for meat would decrease supply.
Again, according to Bryan, all professors are bad professors.
No, I don't think he has said that. I don't think the view that a system of tenured professors and public unversities is bad implies that everything resulting from that system is also bad.
For example, we're all against the federal government having Senators throw darts at a board to decide the size of the federal budget, but if this random process happens to result in my favored size of the federal budget, I don't think I'm obligated to advocate for the voiding of the result because the process was unfair.
I would guess that Bryan thinks that tenure results in unproductive tenured faculty and an unproductive rent-seeking competition among prospective faculty (clearly both true). But I think he believes that SOME tenured faculty happen to be productive, himself included.
"I would guess that Bryan thinks that tenure results in unproductive tenured faculty and an unproductive rent-seeking competition among prospective faculty (clearly both true). But I think he believes that SOME tenured faculty happen to be productive, himself included."
How nice. "I happen to think that tenure and education are both scams but there are exceptions for tenured professors, which I conveniently happen to be one."
This is obviously not convincing imo. Imagine a billionaire leftie saying "billionaires should donate 90% of their wealth but there are well-defined exceptions, which I happen to be one..."
Besides all that he has written about education (lack of transfer learning, useless credentialing etc.) would also apply to his classes. So it's not clear to me why he is an exception.
Also, he admits that his thoughts on tenure conflict with his holding such a job. He just doesn't think he's a hypocrite becasue he's not being hyperbolic when he decries tenure. Again very convenient.
See here:
https://betonit.substack.com/p/tenure-is-a-total-scam
<<Some will call me a hypocrite for taking part in this system, but thatтАЩs part and parcel of being a whistleblower. If I wasnтАЩt a tenured professor, who would take my critique seriously?>>
My response: You have blown the whistle. Now, GTFO.
"The oppression of taxpayers and the deception of donors need to end. If the result is that I lose my dream job for life, so be it."
My response: GTFO now, so that taxpayers are oppressed a little less.
I don't think your billionaire analogy works. Bryan isn't calling for tenured professions to resign and then exempting himself from this obligation. You can think that high marginal taxes should prevent billionaires from existing without thinking that it is evil to be a billionaire under the current system.
"Bryan isn't calling for tenured professions to resign and then exempting himself from this obligation."
Maybe he should - maybe that's a logical result of his views.
Regardless of whether he is calling everyone to resign, by his own admission, he is partaking in "the oppression of taxpayers and the deception of donors". That's enough to qualify him as a big fat hypocrite in my book.
"You can think that high marginal taxes should prevent billionaires from existing without thinking that it is evil to be a billionaire under the current system."
Buffett made a similar remark, saying how he was proportionately paying less in taxes than some of his employees and how unfair this was. Republican lawmakers rightly pressed him on this point and passed a bill allowing him to pay as much in taxes as he saw fit. Buffett hasn't paid more in taxes than legally required last I checked.
Many lefties like Hassan Piker and Bernie Sanders make similar excuses for their refusal to donate more of their wealth, given their views on wealth ineqaulity. Bryan's hypocrisy is no different.
Yes, I think this is true.
Isn't this roughly the equivalent of telling people who complain about e.g. systemic oppression to simply end themselves, because by continuing to live they are being hypocritical? Or is it closer to telling police officers who blow whistles about police corruption that they should quit themselves because police are corrupt?
It seems like you are arguing that anyone who is in a field with many bad actors that take advantage of people must leave the field because it is impossible for any actor in the field to be good. That seems like a self fulfilling prophecy, or at least a way to ensure there are never whistle blowers.
"Or is it closer to telling police officers who blow whistles about police corruption that they should quit themselves because police are corrupt? "
No. Because in theory it is possible to be a moral cop.
But according to Bryan, no one can have a tenured position at a US institution with public funding because tenure and education are both scams.
You may wish to re-read his arguments, as you definitely have a mistaken understanding of them.