Economist WTF
-
I wrote to a respected economist. He had expressed the opinion that OSHA was unnecessary because workers aren't stupid and won't work in an unsafe environment unless they're paid more, and when you multiply it out, it costs less to have a safe workplace.
I pointed out that in the kinds of jobs which tend to be left unsafe, the average candidate that applies for the job is already unemployed, has little if any savings, and is therefore compelled to take the first job he is offered even if the compensation is unsatisfactory.
The response, from an [i]internationally recognised[/i] economist, a paragon of educated thought:
"You're ignorant because you don't know that few people accept the first job available to them."
Wait, aren't you supposed to understand all that silly stuff like logic and reason and how to support your claims?
The world doesn't make sense to me anymore. All this time, i've gotten through from day to day by saying "well, at least the economists, lawyers, and politicians know how it all works". Now... well, now, I just don't know.
-
@Respected Economist said:
workers aren't stupid
We all know that noone is exempt from being stupid, regardless whether they're "workers"
-
I think this is actually just a misunderstanding on your par. They didn't say 'economist' they said 'communist'.
-
Ooh, E-communists! They're opposed to E-commerce.
How E-lightful.
<gdr>
-
@CDarklock said:
The world doesn't make sense to me anymore. All this time, i've gotten through from day to day by saying "well, at least the economists, lawyers, and politicians know how it all works". Now... well, now, I just don't know.
Aaaaannnddd... Now you're a man, my son. :)
-
You should respond with just a single line: "No, You're Ignorant!!!!"
I'm actually baffled by what he meant by that. Is he really saying most people turn down their first successful response after interviewing? Or simply the first job available to them, which could be simply standing on the corner with the day- laborers for a one-time $50 job -- that's available to pretty much everyone. I'd agree that most people turn that down.
-
@belgariontheking said:
@Respected Economist said:
workers aren't stupid
We all know that noone is exempt from being stupid, regardless whether they're "workers"
Mr Baller here doesn't just talk the talk. He upholds this statement every day.
-
Let's not ignore the fact that OSHA regulations are not all just common sense. For example, we need things like clearly marked safety boundaries because random people entering a work area cannot be expected to know how equipment moves or where dangerous materials might splash.
-
@CDarklock said:
Wait, aren't you supposed to understand all that silly stuff like logic and reason and how to support your claims?
So you then proceeded to support your own claims, no?
-
@operagost said:
Let's not ignore the fact that OSHA regulations are not all just common sense. For example, we need things like clearly marked safety boundaries because random people entering a work area cannot be expected to know how equipment moves or where dangerous materials might splash.
Umh, you forgot the site references of people entering a work area not expecting to know how equipment moves or where dangerous material might splash.
-
strange, the standard economist reply should have been that the unemployed, no-savings, hopeless, etc, worker that "takes the first job available" values the income at a hazardous worplace more than his health, otherwise he would not have taken the job.
-
@Morbii said:
So you then proceeded to support your own claims, no?
Already had. My initial email about workers not having as much choice as he seems to think was roughly three pages long.
Now, I'll grant that my arguments may not have been sound, and an expert in the field might have readily seen that.
But as I pointed out in my next response, "you're ignorant" is not a counterargument.
-
I've watched a worker pour diesel (from a container labeled "diesel") into a machine labeled "gas only." OSHA's guidelines are strict, and their enforcement is to the letter of the law, but there's still no stopping the stupid.
-
You guys DO realize that the reason why he would say that you are just ignorant is because he does not want you disproving his theory. Often these economists may stake their reputation on these claims, and to have some "nobody" just scrutinize it so well is just an insult.
In any case why should we have 3 branches of government, obviously when one gets too powerful there will be a bloody revolution so each government will try to be minimalistic and not stir up the wrath of the masses eh? Man that argument the economist made can sure be applied to a veriety of areas...
