[iugtmkbdfil834]

<< Why does the fact that there isn’t enough funding for the PhDs that exist imply we should produce fewer of them?

In most of the world, most humans have to move within the realm of available resources. One could easily say that if a manager of US sees too many PhDs, it is natural to conclude that since there is not enough resources to go around, adding more resource consumers is silly. We can argue all over whether it is a good policy, or whether the allocation makes sense, or whether the resources are really not there, but, how is is this a difficult logic gate?

[janalsncm]

The need for things exists independent of the standalone economic viability of those things. That is the entire point of public funding of various resources, including scientific funding. The “available” resources is a political decision.

Further, reduction in funds for public resources or increase in misery for scientists are not in and of themselves evidence that those resources were over-funded or too cushy. For the research discussed in the article it is quite clearly a political decision, not directly grounded in a need for less medical research.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

<< The “available” resources is a political decision.

It invariably always is.

<< The need for things exists independent of the standalone economic viability of those things.

Sure, but there is only so long that can go on funding studying of rather pointless stuff[1] ( added UK example to not be accused of hating on anything in particular US-wise ).

[1]https://web-archive.southampton.ac.uk/cogprints.org/5272/1/g...

<< Further, reduction in funds for public resources or increase in misery for scientists are not in and of themselves evidence that those resources were over-funded or too cushy.

I am not suggesting that. I am literally saying: there is only so much money. That is it. And if push comes to shove, studies of whether chicken finds humans pretty take a back seat to more pressing matters.

[janalsncm]

There is a (perhaps apocryphal) story of Michael Faraday showing his new invention of an electric motor to a politician in 1821. He had invented it after investigating strange twitching of a magnetic compass needle.

After seeing the motor, the politician asked “what good is it?” and based on what I can find Faraday either said “what use is a newborn baby” or “one day you’ll be able to tax it”.

So two points: One, you don’t always know things will have a high ROI from the start. Sometimes you just have to be curious. And two, politicians care about the next election in two/four years, not planting trees that won’t bear fruit for 30 years.

[danaris]

We have vast amounts of resources. More than enough to supply the basic needs of everyone in the country.

The US is currently choosing to divert absolutely staggering amounts of those resources away from things we have traditionally valued—science, art, infrastructure, taking care of the least fortunate among us, etc—and using them instead to enrich the already-wealthy, in the most blatant and cruel ways.

There is no possible way this can be spun as being about "available resources". The grift is utterly, 100% transparent.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

<< There is no possible way this can be spun as being about "available resources". The grift is utterly, 100% transparent.

Eh, I mean if you put it that way, I suppose all those budgets are just a show and not at all an indication of how utterly fucked we are as a country unless we both:

a) massively reduce spending b) massively raise taxes

In very real terms, there is only so much money. Some additional money can be borrowed, but we a slowly ( but surely ) reaching a breaking point on that as well.

The issue is: no one is willing to sacrifice anything. And I am sympathetic, but if hard choices are not made now, they will be kinda made for us anyway.

[danaris]

Yes we have to massively raise taxes.

We need to claw back billions and billions and billions of dollars from people for whom it will make zero difference in their daily lives, so that we can spend it on people for whom $100 can change their month, and $10000 can change their life.

[iugtmkbdfil834]

Lol. No. We have to massively raise taxes JUST to keep this country afloat financially. The poor people are still fucked. I know it is exactly massively popular to say, which is why you don't see major proponents sans rando online like me.

[danaris]

Or, y'know, maybe the reason is more this:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47058280

[iugtmkbdfil834]

Hardly, my advice is real, would have a long term positive impact, while, admittedly, inflicting a lot of pain in the process. If there is any benefit to it, it would be that at least the pain would be shared equally across the board allowing for some form of 'misery loves company'.

On the other hand, your advice, at best, is happy clappy populist advice that will, temporarily make some people happy, but will not change the trajectory of the country resulting in the exact same spot only few years from implementation; and that is assuming it can be done in a way that is not immediately subverted..

If anything, I am giving you a real good reason for not just being a cynic, but being a cynic, who can make a change that lasts.