[asdasdasdas5453]

On HN when people discuss CS/privacy/programming the conversation is very thorough and interesting.

When the discussion is about economics (the topic I have studied at uni) most comments are just plain wrong and show a complete ignorance about the topic.

If one wants a counter argument to "too many people for the economy" one can start here : https://www.jstor.org/stable/2523702?seq=1

"Using data from the Current Population Survey, this paper describes the effect of the Mariel Boatlift of 1980 on the Miami labor market. The Mariel immigrants increased the Miami labor force by 7%, and the percentage increase in labor supply to less-skilled occupations and industries was even greater because most of the immigrants were relatively unskilled. Nevertheless, the Mariel influx appears to have had virtually no effect on the wages or unemployment rates of less-skilled workers, even among Cubans who had immigrated earlier. The author suggests that the ability of Miami's labor market to rapidly absorb the Mariel immigrants was largely owing to its adjustment to other large waves of immigrants in the two decades before the Mariel Boatlift."

There are many causes explaining unemployment some due to macroeconomic factors such as the monetary policy, others due to regulations of the labor market, others due to the lack of innovation, ..... They have been studied in depth. But "too many people for the economy" is not one of them.

[01100011]

> most comments are just plain wrong and show a complete ignorance about the topic.

This seems to be a problem inherent to many such forums on the internet. When the discussion is controlled by a certain subset of that population, usually via comments, submissions and voting, that subset tends to self-select and alienate alternative viewpoints. Participants are rewarded with a sense of validation for things that appeal to the group but aren't necessarily true or accurate(or humane, fair, respectful, etc).

I think this topic needs a whole lot more analysis and public debate as more and more opinions are solidified in these balkanized communities. I quit reddit over these issues and am hanging on to HN by a thread. At this point I'd rather pay to hear opinions and analysis of experts than be influenced by, and participate in, internet echo chambers.

[pas]

You have to become an expert to evaluate the expertise of "experts".

The workaround is to try to get better at using methods to pool the wisdom of "experts", to evaluate their claims based on external attributes (eg. looking at the journal that published the paper, looking at other claims of the expert, looking at the methods used to arrive at the claims, examining the used statistical methods, etc.), see also how prediction markets force "experts" to support their confidence with their money - and of course these markets are not infallible either.

[eru]

> If one wants a counter argument to "too many people for the economy" one can start here : https://www.jstor.org/stable/2523702?seq=1

Or you can just point out that, well, if there are too many people, just (virtually) split the country down the middle: voila, fewer people in the country.

A more sophisticated argument brings up density. But it's usually the sparsely populated parts of a country that are poorer.

[teawrecks]

Ah the "snap" strategy.

[paulcole]

> When the discussion is about economics (the topic I have studied at uni) most comments are just plain wrong and show a complete ignorance about the topic.

Imagine how little they know about the topics you haven’t studied.

The overall quality of comments here is the same as every other niche discussion forum. OK on the original topic. Pretty poor on everything else. The only advantage is that this place at least has some moderation.

[squaresmile]

> When the discussion is about economics (the topic I have studied at uni) most comments are just plain wrong and show a complete ignorance about the topic.

I think curating a discussion board to have knowledgeable discussion about many things is a really hard task. On many professional boards, discussions about other subjects are put into an OT corner. HN doesn't split discussions into topics so I guess expectation of comments' quality carries over.

I would just make a mental note: Oh this is not about CS/privacy/programming and adjust accordingly.

I suppose it's one of the reasons one should acquaint themselves with people from a variety of backgrounds and don't run away when others are not as knowledgeable about CS/privacy/programming. Actually

[bleepblorp]

HN's issue with broad topic knowledge is considerably worse than just the difficulty of curation.

For example, I emailed the staff with regard to the prevalence of COVID-19 misinformation on HN and the response was that it is policy not to remove COVID-19 misinformation (including raving conspiracy theories) but also to allow flagging by the 'community' to remove posts pointing out that something is misinformation.

Tacitly allowing the platform to be used to give a mouthpiece to spread misinformation and allowing users to bully people for injecting some degree of factual reality does not encourage good discussion.

Facilitating knowledgeable discussion across a broad range of topics starts with attracting people who are knowledgeable in many areas, and that cannot happen in an environment where the administration allows mob bullying--through the very thin veneer of the downvote/flag system--of people who actually know things.

[imtringued]

We already have a solution to the too many people problem. It is called inflation. Inflation rewards future economic activity. It means you can't sit on your savings. You have to keep working for yourself or let someone else work by investing your money.

[nradov]

The Japanese central bank has been trying to increase the inflation rate for years, with limited success.

[kwillets]

see also: Malthus.