In repeated posts, in response to someone identifying a problem that involves individuals suffering or struggling, your typical response seems to be "that's just how economics works. It's not a problem because it is doing what it is supposed to do". (That's obviously a paraphrase) There seems to be a disconnect between the theory and the empathy for how the individual is affected.
Maybe that's just built-in to the field. I can't tell.
In my own field, when I talk about mate choice and who mates and who doesn't, I don't worry about the sad fish who goes without. Is it just not part of the field?
Presumably that would be for the fish psychologists to consider.
And, unfortunately, that field is so underfunded that it produces very little published research. Which is why sad fish keep turning to pop newspaper and radio (and now online) columns whose advice often just makes things worse.
What does "underfunded" mean aside from saying I want more, or I deserve more, or you pay him more to make stuff I like? Hell,
I'm underfunded. That's far more important!
