The Competitive Fallacy

[Dragon]

This is something that doesn't get recognized much, but that underpins a lot of right-wing thinking, especially on economics. It's a special case, or actually two special cases, of the general fallacy of false induction -- reasoning from the particular to the general when that is not warranted. It takes two common forms, viz:

1) Doing A helps my business succeed. Therefore, for all businesses to do A helps the economy.

2) Doing B helps me (or my cousin or the kid down the street or whoever) get a good job. Therefore, if everyone does B, everyone will get a good job.

The reason why both of those are invalid thinking, and why I call this "the competitive fallacy," is because in each case, A or B is what helps the particular business or job-seeker to outdo the competition. If ALL businesses or jobseekers were to do the same thing equally well, then it would provide no competitive advantage for any one of them, and the benefit seen when just ONE business or jobseeker does it is lost. All that's left is the general effect of all businesses or jobseekers doing A or B, which may be good or bad.

Here are a couple of real-world examples not employing letters as placeholders.

1) A state provides low taxes and lax regulations to get businesses to relocate there. Businesses do so, getting a tax break and lower regulatory compliance costs. The competitive fallacy leads to the conclusion that lower taxes and lax regulations help business. But what if ALL states drop their taxes and regulations to the same level? Then no one state has any advantage over any of the others and the benefit to the state of doing this is lost -- while the cost in lost tax revenues and whatever damage the regulations are intended to prevent remains.

2) A jobseeker pursued extended education in a hot field, gets a master's degree, and improves his chances of being employed. He lands a great job. The competitive fallacy leads to the conclusion that all anyone needs to do to get a great job is go back to school and get a master's degree in that same hot field. But there are only so many job openings for holders of masters' degrees in that particular field, so if EVERY job seeker were to go back to school and get a master's degree, that degree would not provide a competitive advantage anymore for any one of them, and only three things would happen: a) the labor market for that particular job would be flooded, resulting in lower pay; b) the enrollment market for that educational specialty would become very tight, resulting in longer waiting lists and (perhaps) higher tuition; and c) we would end up with some highly educated janitors, burger-flippers, and unemployed people.

In fact, the competitive fallacy in one form or another underlies a great deal of conservative economic thinking.

 

[Photonic]

This is something that doesn't get recognized much, but that underpins a lot of right-wing thinking, especially on economics. It's a special case, or actually two special cases, of the general fallacy of false induction -- reasoning from the particular to the general when that is not warranted. It takes two common forms, viz:

1) Doing A helps my business succeed. Therefore, for all businesses to do A helps the economy.

2) Doing B helps me (or my cousin or the kid down the street or whoever) get a good job. Therefore, if everyone does B, everyone will get a good job.

The reason why both of those are invalid thinking, and why I call this "the competitive fallacy," is because in each case, A or B is what helps the particular business or job-seeker to outdo the competition. If ALL businesses or jobseekers were to do the same thing equally well, then it would provide no competitive advantage for any one of them, and the benefit seen when just ONE business or jobseeker does it is lost. All that's left is the general effect of all businesses or jobseekers doing A or B, which may be good or bad.

Here are a couple of real-world examples not employing letters as placeholders.

1) A state provides low taxes and lax regulations to get businesses to relocate there. Businesses do so, getting a tax break and lower regulatory compliance costs. The competitive fallacy leads to the conclusion that lower taxes and lax regulations help business. But what if ALL states drop their taxes and regulations to the same level? Then no one state has any advantage over any of the others and the benefit to the state of doing this is lost -- while the cost in lost tax revenues and whatever damage the regulations are intended to prevent remains.

2) A jobseeker pursued extended education in a hot field, gets a master's degree, and improves his chances of being employed. He lands a great job. The competitive fallacy leads to the conclusion that all anyone needs to do to get a great job is go back to school and get a master's degree in that same hot field. But there are only so many job openings for holders of masters' degrees in that particular field, so if EVERY job seeker were to go back to school and get a master's degree, that degree would not provide a competitive advantage anymore for any one of them, and only three things would happen: a) the labor market for that particular job would be flooded, resulting in lower pay; b) the enrollment market for that educational specialty would become very tight, resulting in longer waiting lists and (perhaps) higher tuition; and c) we would end up with some highly educated janitors, burger-flippers, and unemployed people.

In fact, the competitive fallacy in one form or another underlies a great deal of conservative economic thinking.

There are exceptions to this fallacy.

Technical degrees are always welcome.

 

[asterism]

This is something that doesn't get recognized much, but that underpins a lot of right-wing thinking, especially on economics. It's a special case, or actually two special cases, of the general fallacy of false induction -- reasoning from the particular to the general when that is not warranted. It takes two common forms, viz:

1) Doing A helps my business succeed. Therefore, for all businesses to do A helps the economy.

2) Doing B helps me (or my cousin or the kid down the street or whoever) get a good job. Therefore, if everyone does B, everyone will get a good job.

The reason why both of those are invalid thinking, and why I call this "the competitive fallacy," is because in each case, A or B is what helps the particular business or job-seeker to outdo the competition. If ALL businesses or jobseekers were to do the same thing equally well, then it would provide no competitive advantage for any one of them, and the benefit seen when just ONE business or jobseeker does it is lost. All that's left is the general effect of all businesses or jobseekers doing A or B, which may be good or bad.

Here are a couple of real-world examples not employing letters as placeholders.

1) A state provides low taxes and lax regulations to get businesses to relocate there. Businesses do so, getting a tax break and lower regulatory compliance costs. The competitive fallacy leads to the conclusion that lower taxes and lax regulations help business. But what if ALL states drop their taxes and regulations to the same level? Then no one state has any advantage over any of the others and the benefit to the state of doing this is lost -- while the cost in lost tax revenues and whatever damage the regulations are intended to prevent remains.

2) A jobseeker pursued extended education in a hot field, gets a master's degree, and improves his chances of being employed. He lands a great job. The competitive fallacy leads to the conclusion that all anyone needs to do to get a great job is go back to school and get a master's degree in that same hot field. But there are only so many job openings for holders of masters' degrees in that particular field, so if EVERY job seeker were to go back to school and get a master's degree, that degree would not provide a competitive advantage anymore for any one of them, and only three things would happen: a) the labor market for that particular job would be flooded, resulting in lower pay; b) the enrollment market for that educational specialty would become very tight, resulting in longer waiting lists and (perhaps) higher tuition; and c) we would end up with some highly educated janitors, burger-flippers, and unemployed people.

In fact, the competitive fallacy in one form or another underlies a great deal of conservative economic thinking.

Number 2 is more of a liberal view of economics, that's where all the hubub about federal student assistance comes from. Your points are valid, but it's not only conservatives that have this perspective.

 

[Dragon]

There are exceptions to this fallacy.

Technical degrees are always welcome.

No, that isn't an exception and no, they're not always welcome. They're just in short supply at this time. But what if literally EVERYONE in the U.S. had a technical degree? Can literally EVERYONE find a technical job? (That's not even considering the variance in technical aptitude and talent that makes imagining such a thing downright shudder-worthy.)

 

[Photonic]

This is something that doesn't get recognized much, but that underpins a lot of right-wing thinking, especially on economics. It's a special case, or actually two special cases, of the general fallacy of false induction -- reasoning from the particular to the general when that is not warranted. It takes two common forms, viz:

1) Doing A helps my business succeed. Therefore, for all businesses to do A helps the economy.

2) Doing B helps me (or my cousin or the kid down the street or whoever) get a good job. Therefore, if everyone does B, everyone will get a good job.

The reason why both of those are invalid thinking, and why I call this "the competitive fallacy," is because in each case, A or B is what helps the particular business or job-seeker to outdo the competition. If ALL businesses or jobseekers were to do the same thing equally well, then it would provide no competitive advantage for any one of them, and the benefit seen when just ONE business or jobseeker does it is lost. All that's left is the general effect of all businesses or jobseekers doing A or B, which may be good or bad.

Here are a couple of real-world examples not employing letters as placeholders.

1) A state provides low taxes and lax regulations to get businesses to relocate there. Businesses do so, getting a tax break and lower regulatory compliance costs. The competitive fallacy leads to the conclusion that lower taxes and lax regulations help business. But what if ALL states drop their taxes and regulations to the same level? Then no one state has any advantage over any of the others and the benefit to the state of doing this is lost -- while the cost in lost tax revenues and whatever damage the regulations are intended to prevent remains.

2) A jobseeker pursued extended education in a hot field, gets a master's degree, and improves his chances of being employed. He lands a great job. The competitive fallacy leads to the conclusion that all anyone needs to do to get a great job is go back to school and get a master's degree in that same hot field. But there are only so many job openings for holders of masters' degrees in that particular field, so if EVERY job seeker were to go back to school and get a master's degree, that degree would not provide a competitive advantage anymore for any one of them, and only three things would happen: a) the labor market for that particular job would be flooded, resulting in lower pay; b) the enrollment market for that educational specialty would become very tight, resulting in longer waiting lists and (perhaps) higher tuition; and c) we would end up with some highly educated janitors, burger-flippers, and unemployed people.

In fact, the competitive fallacy in one form or another underlies a great deal of conservative economic thinking.

Number 2 is more of a liberal view of economics, that's where all the hubub about federal student assistance comes from. Your points are valid, but it's not only conservatives that have this perspective.

After seeing the effects of public funding of schools being cut from California first hand. I realize that federal student assistance is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY.

 

[asterism]

This is something that doesn't get recognized much, but that underpins a lot of right-wing thinking, especially on economics. It's a special case, or actually two special cases, of the general fallacy of false induction -- reasoning from the particular to the general when that is not warranted. It takes two common forms, viz:

1) Doing A helps my business succeed. Therefore, for all businesses to do A helps the economy.

2) Doing B helps me (or my cousin or the kid down the street or whoever) get a good job. Therefore, if everyone does B, everyone will get a good job.

The reason why both of those are invalid thinking, and why I call this "the competitive fallacy," is because in each case, A or B is what helps the particular business or job-seeker to outdo the competition. If ALL businesses or jobseekers were to do the same thing equally well, then it would provide no competitive advantage for any one of them, and the benefit seen when just ONE business or jobseeker does it is lost. All that's left is the general effect of all businesses or jobseekers doing A or B, which may be good or bad.

Here are a couple of real-world examples not employing letters as placeholders.

1) A state provides low taxes and lax regulations to get businesses to relocate there. Businesses do so, getting a tax break and lower regulatory compliance costs. The competitive fallacy leads to the conclusion that lower taxes and lax regulations help business. But what if ALL states drop their taxes and regulations to the same level? Then no one state has any advantage over any of the others and the benefit to the state of doing this is lost -- while the cost in lost tax revenues and whatever damage the regulations are intended to prevent remains.

2) A jobseeker pursued extended education in a hot field, gets a master's degree, and improves his chances of being employed. He lands a great job. The competitive fallacy leads to the conclusion that all anyone needs to do to get a great job is go back to school and get a master's degree in that same hot field. But there are only so many job openings for holders of masters' degrees in that particular field, so if EVERY job seeker were to go back to school and get a master's degree, that degree would not provide a competitive advantage anymore for any one of them, and only three things would happen: a) the labor market for that particular job would be flooded, resulting in lower pay; b) the enrollment market for that educational specialty would become very tight, resulting in longer waiting lists and (perhaps) higher tuition; and c) we would end up with some highly educated janitors, burger-flippers, and unemployed people.

In fact, the competitive fallacy in one form or another underlies a great deal of conservative economic thinking.

Number 2 is more of a liberal view of economics, that's where all the hubub about federal student assistance comes from. Your points are valid, but it's not only conservatives that have this perspective.

After seeing the effects of public funding of schools being cut from California first hand. I realize that federal student assistance is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY.

Not the current model, that's what has devalued Bachelor's degrees. It's no longer unique so it's not the guaranteed route to a good job. What's the purpose of having federal subsidies for fields of study not in demand? How many History majors do we need? Lawyers? MBAs?

 

[Photonic]

Number 2 is more of a liberal view of economics, that's where all the hubub about federal student assistance comes from. Your points are valid, but it's not only conservatives that have this perspective.

After seeing the effects of public funding of schools being cut from California first hand. I realize that federal student assistance is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY.

Not the current model, that's what has devalued Bachelor's degrees. It's no longer unique so it's not the guaranteed route to a good job. What's the purpose of having federal subsidies for fields of study not in demand? How many History majors do we need? Lawyers? MBAs?

Perhaps I should rephrase, we need more funding for people to get technical degrees. Engineering, mathematics, Physics, etc.

 

[ladyliberal]

I have to agree with Asterism. To me, both forms are examples of over-generalization and over-extrapolation. While I certainly do notice more when conservatives do it, that's at least partly because I disagree with them. It's not clear that this type of fallacy is more common in more conservative philosophies or persons.

 

[Douger]

Here's the bottom line. Research 500 employee companies, in the real world, and compare "profit" per employee.
When stockholders are more important than the employees, the competitive edge is lost and employment drops like a rock.
These stockholders will cheer for cheaper labor or robotics and invest like a crack head for more elimination of " human intervention" to accomplish the needed tasks if, in the long term, it will increase profits and dividends.
It's just capitalistic business.

 

[asterism]

After seeing the effects of public funding of schools being cut from California first hand. I realize that federal student assistance is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY.

Not the current model, that's what has devalued Bachelor's degrees. It's no longer unique so it's not the guaranteed route to a good job. What's the purpose of having federal subsidies for fields of study not in demand? How many History majors do we need? Lawyers? MBAs?

Perhaps I should rephrase, we need more funding for people to get technical degrees. Engineering, mathematics, Physics, etc.

Currently, yes. I remember Engineers driving taxicabs in the 1980s. There weren't many jobs for them. That said, any federal program that sets the bar that high will never be accepted by liberals. Too much math.

 

[chikenwing]

I have to agree with Asterism. To me, both forms are examples of over-generalization and over-extrapolation. While I certainly do notice more when conservatives do it, that's at least partly because I disagree with them. It's not clear that this type of fallacy is more common in more conservative philosophies or persons.

Well at least you admit,not directly,but you have a biased opinion.

What you really have described is general human nature,not politically driven thought.

 

[code1211]

This is something that doesn't get recognized much, but that underpins a lot of right-wing thinking, especially on economics. It's a special case, or actually two special cases, of the general fallacy of false induction -- reasoning from the particular to the general when that is not warranted. It takes two common forms, viz:

1) Doing A helps my business succeed. Therefore, for all businesses to do A helps the economy.

2) Doing B helps me (or my cousin or the kid down the street or whoever) get a good job. Therefore, if everyone does B, everyone will get a good job.

The reason why both of those are invalid thinking, and why I call this "the competitive fallacy," is because in each case, A or B is what helps the particular business or job-seeker to outdo the competition. If ALL businesses or jobseekers were to do the same thing equally well, then it would provide no competitive advantage for any one of them, and the benefit seen when just ONE business or jobseeker does it is lost. All that's left is the general effect of all businesses or jobseekers doing A or B, which may be good or bad.

Here are a couple of real-world examples not employing letters as placeholders.

1) A state provides low taxes and lax regulations to get businesses to relocate there. Businesses do so, getting a tax break and lower regulatory compliance costs. The competitive fallacy leads to the conclusion that lower taxes and lax regulations help business. But what if ALL states drop their taxes and regulations to the same level? Then no one state has any advantage over any of the others and the benefit to the state of doing this is lost -- while the cost in lost tax revenues and whatever damage the regulations are intended to prevent remains.

2) A jobseeker pursued extended education in a hot field, gets a master's degree, and improves his chances of being employed. He lands a great job. The competitive fallacy leads to the conclusion that all anyone needs to do to get a great job is go back to school and get a master's degree in that same hot field. But there are only so many job openings for holders of masters' degrees in that particular field, so if EVERY job seeker were to go back to school and get a master's degree, that degree would not provide a competitive advantage anymore for any one of them, and only three things would happen: a) the labor market for that particular job would be flooded, resulting in lower pay; b) the enrollment market for that educational specialty would become very tight, resulting in longer waiting lists and (perhaps) higher tuition; and c) we would end up with some highly educated janitors, burger-flippers, and unemployed people.

In fact, the competitive fallacy in one form or another underlies a great deal of conservative economic thinking.

If the net benefit to any business is greater to move to any given locale it will. If not, it will move elsewhere. Your convoluted insanity mans nothing.

Are you saying that equal credentials guarantee equal outcomes? Is there no possibility that individual effort or genius might impact outcomes credentials notwithstanding?

 

[code1211]

This is something that doesn't get recognized much, but that underpins a lot of right-wing thinking, especially on economics. It's a special case, or actually two special cases, of the general fallacy of false induction -- reasoning from the particular to the general when that is not warranted. It takes two common forms, viz:

1) Doing A helps my business succeed. Therefore, for all businesses to do A helps the economy.

2) Doing B helps me (or my cousin or the kid down the street or whoever) get a good job. Therefore, if everyone does B, everyone will get a good job.

The reason why both of those are invalid thinking, and why I call this "the competitive fallacy," is because in each case, A or B is what helps the particular business or job-seeker to outdo the competition. If ALL businesses or jobseekers were to do the same thing equally well, then it would provide no competitive advantage for any one of them, and the benefit seen when just ONE business or jobseeker does it is lost. All that's left is the general effect of all businesses or jobseekers doing A or B, which may be good or bad.

Here are a couple of real-world examples not employing letters as placeholders.

1) A state provides low taxes and lax regulations to get businesses to relocate there. Businesses do so, getting a tax break and lower regulatory compliance costs. The competitive fallacy leads to the conclusion that lower taxes and lax regulations help business. But what if ALL states drop their taxes and regulations to the same level? Then no one state has any advantage over any of the others and the benefit to the state of doing this is lost -- while the cost in lost tax revenues and whatever damage the regulations are intended to prevent remains.

2) A jobseeker pursued extended education in a hot field, gets a master's degree, and improves his chances of being employed. He lands a great job. The competitive fallacy leads to the conclusion that all anyone needs to do to get a great job is go back to school and get a master's degree in that same hot field. But there are only so many job openings for holders of masters' degrees in that particular field, so if EVERY job seeker were to go back to school and get a master's degree, that degree would not provide a competitive advantage anymore for any one of them, and only three things would happen: a) the labor market for that particular job would be flooded, resulting in lower pay; b) the enrollment market for that educational specialty would become very tight, resulting in longer waiting lists and (perhaps) higher tuition; and c) we would end up with some highly educated janitors, burger-flippers, and unemployed people.

In fact, the competitive fallacy in one form or another underlies a great deal of conservative economic thinking.

Number 2 is more of a liberal view of economics, that's where all the hubub about federal student assistance comes from. Your points are valid, but it's not only conservatives that have this perspective.

After seeing the effects of public funding of schools being cut from California first hand. I realize that federal student assistance is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY.

I don't always understand when humor is being used.

Was that a joke or are you insane?

 

[Steelplate]

After seeing the effects of public funding of schools being cut from California first hand. I realize that federal student assistance is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY.

Not the current model, that's what has devalued Bachelor's degrees. It's no longer unique so it's not the guaranteed route to a good job. What's the purpose of having federal subsidies for fields of study not in demand? How many History majors do we need? Lawyers? MBAs?

Perhaps I should rephrase, we need more funding for people to get technical degrees. Engineering, mathematics, Physics, etc.

You do realize that not all people have the ability to attain those types of degrees, right? You must also realize that there are some people out there that do not have the intellectual ability to even go to College. Those people make up a large part of our population. I am of the opinion that those types of people are not "throwaways" of our society. They should be treated with as much respect as any other citizen. They should also have a path to raise a family and have a reasonably comfortable life.

 

[code1211]

Here's the bottom line. Research 500 employee companies, in the real world, and compare "profit" per employee.
When stockholders are more important than the employees, the competitive edge is lost and employment drops like a rock.
These stockholders will cheer for cheaper labor or robotics and invest like a crack head for more elimination of " human intervention" to accomplish the needed tasks if, in the long term, it will increase profits and dividends.
It's just capitalistic business.

This is one of the more uniformed statements i've ever read.

Do your propose that a company be overstaffed, underfunded and unprofitable?

 

[Photonic]

Not the current model, that's what has devalued Bachelor's degrees. It's no longer unique so it's not the guaranteed route to a good job. What's the purpose of having federal subsidies for fields of study not in demand? How many History majors do we need? Lawyers? MBAs?

Perhaps I should rephrase, we need more funding for people to get technical degrees. Engineering, mathematics, Physics, etc.

You do realize that not all people have the ability to attain those types of degrees, right? You must also realize that there are some people out there that do not have the intellectual ability to even go to College. Those people make up a large part of our population. I am of the opinion that those types of people are not "throwaways" of our society. They should be treated with as much respect as any other citizen. They should also have a path to raise a family and have a reasonably comfortable life.

Respect, yes. But at some point it becomes a drain on the intellectual capability of our country when they are catered too.

 

[Steelplate]

Perhaps I should rephrase, we need more funding for people to get technical degrees. Engineering, mathematics, Physics, etc.

You do realize that not all people have the ability to attain those types of degrees, right? You must also realize that there are some people out there that do not have the intellectual ability to even go to College. Those people make up a large part of our population. I am of the opinion that those types of people are not "throwaways" of our society. They should be treated with as much respect as any other citizen. They should also have a path to raise a family and have a reasonably comfortable life.

Respect, yes. But at some point it becomes a drain on the intellectual capability of our country when they are catered too.

Funny how it wasn't until the escalating consequences of "trickle down" economics reared it's ugly head. Those people have been hit the hardest and continue on a downward spiral and mostly all I see from the right is them blaming THEM for their own situations.

 

[Photonic]

You do realize that not all people have the ability to attain those types of degrees, right? You must also realize that there are some people out there that do not have the intellectual ability to even go to College. Those people make up a large part of our population. I am of the opinion that those types of people are not "throwaways" of our society. They should be treated with as much respect as any other citizen. They should also have a path to raise a family and have a reasonably comfortable life.

Respect, yes. But at some point it becomes a drain on the intellectual capability of our country when they are catered too.

Funny how it wasn't until the escalating consequences of "trickle down" economics reared it's ugly head. Those people have been hit the hardest and continue on a downward spiral and mostly all I see from the right is them blaming THEM for their own situations.

Gov Jerry brown (Fuck this guy, seriously. Fucking fuck him.) Decided to cut 1 billion from California Education, at the same time as giving tax funding to illegal immigrants to go to school.

So, the left has a problem with this too.

This asshole is basically using the Education system of California like a fucking Bank. I want him GONE.

 

[Steelplate]

Well... If California was the issue, I'd agree. But it's not California alone...so your argument holds no water. The issue is the country as a whole and I really don't think that every other state has the same policy as California.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Why doesn't anyone ever question the exorbitant prices that colleges and universities charge. The rates increase every year.........yet, they always get a pass and nobody....except the students, complain. Why?

For OP's number 1. I don't see how anyone could disagree with that. Each business makes different decisions.

As for the scenario, I wouldn't move my company to a state where taxes are substantially higher. I would rather pay lower taxes, innovate my service, and hire more employees.