0 sats \ 11 replies \ @TNStacker 2 Jul \ parent \ on: Robert Reich’s Blind Spots: The Elephant in the Progressive Left’s Room econ
But you are projecting your situation onto others. Using your example, I know many mathematicians who are software engineers. But I guess you can deny it. It is still true.
I'm saying that "incorporating" economics into a program does not make those who finish it economists.
He's not a trained economist and he's not a professional economist. I'm not sure in what sense I'm supposed to think that he is an economist.
He seems like a political scientist or public policy expert who specializes on labor. That's a similar profession to labor economist, but it isn't the same thing.
reply
Agree to disagree. However, I now understand and respect that your position is personal.
reply
That's pretty dickish. You're normally more respectful than that. I'm telling you how someone from within the profession you're talking about thinks about its boundaries. I'm not sure why that's to be disregarded as "personal", rather than representative.
If you could show that he's either received formal economic training (not a masters degree that touches on economics) or has held a position as an economist, I would gladly admit to having been mistaken.
We can have different definitions here, but I'm not even sure what yours is. The reason there are separate departments for public policy and economics is because they are not the same thing, even if there's overlap and collaboration.
reply
I didn't mean that in any negative way. I thought I was stating an understanding of your perspective. Guess not.
Your argument fails the examples I have provided for engineering. I don't see the PhDs in Engineering who work with the PhDs saying they are not engineers.
This my perspective is different than yours, and I suppose your colleagues.
Your feeling disrespected is on you. Why do you think that was rude? I think because you are personalizing. I could be incorrect and not disrespectful.
reply
My bad if I misinterpreted your intent. If I did, then you're right that it's on me.
Like I said before, I wasn't expecting this conversation to take on the depth that it did. Who is or is not a member of a particular specialty is not always clearcut. You can be one without formal credentials and you could have the credentials without being one.
My first approximation of a definition is that you either have the training or do the work. Neither of those criteria are perfectly clean and they differ by discipline. Few engineers have PhD's and many work as engineers with Bachelors degrees. PhD economics training is very different from undergrad training, or even masters training, which is why there are very few economists who do not have PhD's in economics.
To my knowledge Reich has neither the formal training in economics that would be recognized in the profession, nor has he ever been employed as an economist.
Is there a more nuanced case that he's an economist by some other definition? Maybe. Like I said, I'm not that familiar with his work and I have yet to see such a case.
reply
His profile page at Goldman School screams economics if you ask me
reply
That's not my reaction. He looks like a public policy professor to me. Again, these are related fields that often study the same things, but they approach them differently.
Economics is about decision making under conditions of scarcity. We study it through causal inference, which can be done with econometric methods that address the endogeneity present in economic data or through economic experiments or through theoretical deduction.
Public policy approaches are generally more descriptive than causal and more macro than micro.
To be clear, I have no problem with people studying things in this way. Different approaches have different merits and different shortcomings. Undisciplined is a reference to the value I attach to looking outside your field and being open to other methods.
reply
Dig into his research, pull a few titles and check out abstracts.
If you can't tell, I work in the academy. I personally know mathematicians and engineers working as economists without the econ degree, which is why I disagree with your perspective.
Also see this about how to become an economist without an economics degree.
reply
I don't know why you keep framing my view that way, when I said that if you work as an economist then I consider you an economist.
My first approximation of a definition is that you either have the training or do the work.
I'm not a credentialist type of person, but we do use words to mean specific things.
reply
I think I missed that. I've been driving the last few hours.
Love the engagement. Thanks for clarifying and being patient with some of my abrupt responses.