Post your asides here

[dismalist]

I have a visceral objection to economic arguments that I've never quite been able to put my finger on.  This might be it: "Sure, not all individuals will do as well as the median. That's a personal problem rather than a societal problem, for we have a safety net."

These discussions seem to lack compassion, as if the economist doesn't care about who gets run over by the train as long as the invisible hand is driving.

Next time I'll include a trigger warning. :-)

[FishProf]

I have a visceral objection to economic arguments that I've never quite been able to put my finger on.  This might be it: "Sure, not all individuals will do as well as the median. That's a personal problem rather than a societal problem, for we have a safety net."

These discussions seem to lack compassion, as if the economist doesn't care about who gets run over by the train as long as the invisible hand is driving.

Next time I'll include a trigger warning. :-)

Anything to avoid the issue...

[dismalist]

I have a visceral objection to economic arguments that I've never quite been able to put my finger on.  This might be it: "Sure, not all individuals will do as well as the median. That's a personal problem rather than a societal problem, for we have a safety net."

These discussions seem to lack compassion, as if the economist doesn't care about who gets run over by the train as long as the invisible hand is driving.

Next time I'll include a trigger warning. :-)

Anything to avoid the issue...

I addressed the issue right away:  ... for we have a safety net!

[FishProf]

That's just sidestepping the question I am posing.  Why is it that economists seem to ignore the individual suffering that is part of the "correction" that is so blithely proposed as the proper functioning of the market?
Is it just not something the field considers?

[dismalist]

That's just sidestepping the question I am posing.  Why is it that economists seem to ignore the individual suffering that is part of the "correction" that is so blithely proposed as the proper functioning of the market?
Is it just not something the field considers?

Au contraire! We probably merely disagree on what a good society looks like. I've said utilitarianism plus some insurance against destitution is my picture of a good society. That pretty much corresponds to reality in rich countries. If you have a different picture, please say so.

[FishProf]

Maybe you have said that, but it isn't what you said above, to which I was responding.

And I was carefully not saying YOU, Dismalist, but commenting about the field.  A brief Google search indicates that economics is often perceived to have an empathy deficit.

So, I ask again, why is that?  Is it because the field isn't equipped to deal with individual cases?  Is it built-in so no one thinks to address it?  Are economists just heartless?

[dismalist]

Maybe you have said that, but it isn't what you said above, to which I was responding.

And I was carefully not saying YOU, Dismalist, but commenting about the field.  A brief Google search indicates that economics is often perceived to have an empathy deficit.

So, I ask again, why is that?  Is it because the field isn't equipped to deal with individual cases?  Is it built-in so no one thinks to address it?  Are economists just heartless?

The field of economics encompasses the ethics of distribution. It's not nearly all that economists do, and it's not what the press or their public want to hear.

Individual cases, multitudes of them, are dealt with through the theory of insurance, private or public.

Warm heart, cold head.

[kaysixteen]

And just what would that safety net look like, in 2023 America?

[dismalist]

And just what would that safety net look like, in 2023 America?

You'd be surprised how generous it is, as I was.

The informational difficulty is that the Census Bureau does not count as income

--food stamps, on account it's a payment in kind;
--the Earned Income Tax Credit, on account it's a tax credit, not income;
--Medicaid, on account it's a payment in kind.

This goes on and on, and there are State benefits, too.

Three economists -- left, right, and center -- collected everything, and it blew me off my perch. The book is The Myth of American Inequality: How Government Biases Policy Debate, 2022 by Phil Gramm, Robert Ekelund, and John Early. Fortunately, a review of a review is on-line that gives the major results of adding up all this stuff here

https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2022/12/calomiris-on-gramm-ekelund-and-early-on.html#more

Rather than get into all the details here, just look at the first graph [I wish it were in color, as in the book]

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgh_ttXkrYe6o1p2URDTr-aXZqOTvkztcBOffaznLbK57KPL_gHIjKxUJnuP8s40h-EQ9BlrJlxQVkA6G8v_NTaHb72SXFsL92c438Kybu4YWDswcYNZwvP-auyBS2Xkb33T749Og-D4A9D6ZiJN3_QE7fpXXHT6iySBbsQpRf9LHEPDbxhsjH9Zno/s1324/Screen%20Shot%202022-12-28%20at%208.16.07%20AM.png

The bottom 50% of households [I believe adjusted for size, I don't wanna go back to the book this late at night.] all got $50,000 in 2017, financed by the top 50% of households. The numbers are fine by my tastes.

My personal criticism about all  this is not generosity. We can all agree or disagree on that. The problem is that benefits dwindle when one works. The marginal tax rate of the bottom 20%, probably even the bottom 40% is close to 100%. It doesn't pay to work at those rates.

[marshwiggle]

Maybe you have said that, but it isn't what you said above, to which I was responding.

And I was carefully not saying YOU, Dismalist, but commenting about the field.  A brief Google search indicates that economics is often perceived to have an empathy deficit.

So, I ask again, why is that?  Is it because the field isn't equipped to deal with individual cases?  Is it built-in so no one thinks to address it?  Are economists just heartless?

I'm not an economist, but this is partly a distinction between "liberals" and "conservatives". The former tend to focus on the individual level; the latter on the societal level. Neither one is inherently "correct"- but as anyone who has studied statistics knows, what is true at the aggregate level may not be obvious at the individual level. So, if the average income rises, that doesn't mean that no individual incomes have fallen. In a case like that, it makes sense to look at the individual cases for potential remedies, rather than to reverse the process which was responsible for the average increase.

TL;DR There are various levels of analysis possible. The level at which an economist views society and the level at which a social worker views society are different, and both will provide important and meaningful guidance on how to make things better for everyone.

[lightning]

Maybe you have said that, but it isn't what you said above, to which I was responding.

And I was carefully not saying YOU, Dismalist, but commenting about the field.  A brief Google search indicates that economics is often perceived to have an empathy deficit.

So, I ask again, why is that?  Is it because the field isn't equipped to deal with individual cases?  Is it built-in so no one thinks to address it?  Are economists just heartless?

From and for my own personal experience, I don't believe that the field and economists in general are heartless. I have worked with enough economists who use their research for the advancement of social good/public good and for forging public policy that advocates for those that are less fortunate and/or less privileged.

That being said, I can't generalize my own experience with empathetic economists, as a norm for the field as a whole, any more than I can generalize my own experience with broke-a$$ economists who can explain economics, but can't use their knowledge to better their own personal financial situation, as a norm for economists as a whole.

[dismalist]

That's just sidestepping the question I am posing.  Why is it that economists seem to ignore the individual suffering that is part of the "correction" that is so blithely proposed as the proper functioning of the market?
Is it just not something the field considers?

I had not paid proper attention to the word "correction". That's a word used when the stock market tanks [I quip how do you know it's correct now?], but I just googled it and found it to be used about house prices. Is this last what you mean?

[FishProf]

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?

[marshwiggle]

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.

[dismalist]

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?

Yeah, then the first answer I gave is correct. Have an income floor for the worst off and leave everyone else to him or herself. That's utilitarianism + social insurance. I don't think many economists would answer differently. But that's not not caring about individuals. One cares about the mean [maximize the mean] and the bottom [insure the bottom at some level].

I thought by using the word "correction" you were referring to some macroeconomic or financial phenomena. Macroeconomics can still screw up even though a Great Depression can be avoided. Examples are the 2007 financial crisis and the 2021/22 Covid inflation. This last was Europe + North America wide because the governments and central banks all did the same thing. It wasn't wrong, mind you, just too much. It's painful coming down from there [correction?], but it would be even more painful to not come down. Unsurprisingly, economics was very popular among the public in the 1960's when it looked like macro was delivering a free lunch.

But that's just macro. Economics is about incentives, and at the margin people pretty much react to them the same way, so we can aggregate and not worry too much about individuals, but rather about groups with similar members [workers and capitalists, e.g.].

And this Micro part of Economics is deeply unpopular and always has been. The reason is we explain that there are tradeoffs. Group A wanting more will cost Groups B in ways that can't be seen in any budget. Explain why relative prices are what they are and a blank stare overcomes the listener. Human beings follow their separate interests and justify them verbally to get more resources by whatever means. [Imagine the poor physicists if electrons were constantly waxing eloquent about what they were doing, or if they had human rights!] Supply and demand as concepts don't yield the moral satisfaction of "it's not fair" or "that's just greedy" that I can't get this item at a price I want.

So, I think the premise of your question is wrong.