How many computer programmers does society actually need?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

You often hear about how if people want to improve their job prospects and/or lives they ought to learn coding or IT or things like that. One of my oldest friends is a computer engineer so I'm not really as biased against the tech industry as I sometimes come across, but I still find this talking point a little confusing. Entirely leaving aside the fact that a great many people are simply slightly but noticeably less intelligent than average and that these people deserve to have safe and meaningful lives too, I've become increasingly curious as to how many computer programmers and IT people folks think society actually needs or can support.

P.S. I meant to post this in either IP or Economics; mods, feel free to move it to one of those boards.

[RFayette]

As many as the market demands, which is hopefully a lot in the future (CS major).

[RFayette]

Presuming the OP is referring to the effects of automation - that CS jobs displace other higher paying jobs that do not require technical skills, I think the solution would be through a UBI, guaranteed jobs program, EITC expansion or something of the sort long-term if it turns out that we will see a long-term decline in total employment or an extreme 'donut hole' in wages.  It's important to note that the tech industry has a wide range of jobs, and the improvement of integrated development environments make basic programming much easier by automating low-level systems programming tasks like memory management and pointer handling, so overall ability needed to program is decreasing as time goes on, so accessibility may not be as big of an issue as it might seem for the profession.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I think the talent bar to entry is actually a major factor in properly regulating supply vs. demand for programmers. It is hard to flood a labor market that requires substantial skills in data auditing and mathematical logic as well as many hours of practice merely to enter the field.

[RFayette]

    I think the talent bar to entry is actually a major factor in properly regulating supply vs. demand for programmers. It is hard to flood a labor market that requires substantial skills in data auditing and mathematical logic as well as many hours of practice merely to enter the field.

This is a good point, but I do tend to think the talent bar will be lowered as time goes on because:

1. Sheer availability of instructional material for programming.  There are now browser games on sites like code fights which turn learning programming into a cool video game.  This reduces the sheer level of concentration required to learn programming, which is definitely part of the bar.  Not to mention the number of programming boot camps, which graduate many people who probably couldn't have gotten a BS in Computer Science in a traditional environment (as those camps provide more support than one would typically find in an undergraduate setting).

2.  As I mentioned earlier, the improvement of integrated development environments (IDEs) over time also plays a big factor.  To elaborate on this, in the old days, people programmed on UNIX with a command-line interface and a basic text editor using a very unforgiving language like C - this requires some technical proficiency just to construct and debug a simple program.  Over time, these integrated  development environments have come about and helped greatly to debug programs.  Now, someone of any intelligence could create a "Hello world!" program in about 5 minutes just by installing Eclipse on their computer.  Also, the ability of compilers to check errors in these environments is a big factor.  In 9th grade, the IDE I used (Eclipse) very often gave cryptic bug reports that had very little to do with the actual error, but 5 years later I get much better reports, making fixing programs much easier.  Some of this is improved ability on my end, but I think there is definitely an upward trajectory on IDE quality, which definitely lowers the bar for entry, at a sheer level of visceral frustration, as anyone who had to debug C pointer errors with just a text editor can tell you.  These days, IDEs have the ability to generate code snippets themselves based on what it appears you want to do - this functionality isn't great - a la suggested messages on SMS with the iPhone, but it will likely improve over time as well.

3. Increased attention to programming skills in early years - when I went to school, I had never even heard of computer programming until high school.  Now, at the same school district, they have 3rd graders playing with Raspberry Pi kits.  Sites like "Hour of Code," along with companies like Google and Amazon, are emphasizing programming in K-12 education heavily, which I think will have a big impact down the pike.  Regardless of initial capability, early exposure to programming (just like early exposure to a foreign language!) is going to improve people's base level of proficiency.  My roommate from South Korea said that anyone who gets just below a 700 on the SAT Math would be considered one of the worst math students in the nation, despite the fact that such a score is easily within the top 5% of United States scorers.  Are South Koreans that much more capable than Americans?  Doubtful.  It's just that they required far more instructional time in mathematics than in the United States, and cram school was in lieu of extracurriculars.  The point isn't to say we should emulate South Korea, just that changes in the educational system can greatly lower the natural ability level needed to enter virtually any field.

I tend to see an increasing number of programmers as a positive thing, at least for now.  The average wage rate is quite high, so an increasing number of programmers means higher wages for a large chunk of folks.  Programmers tend to generate a lot of capital for a company  What to do concerning those whose jobs may be automated is unclear insofar as more data is needed concerning the average outcome for what happens to them.

[136or142]

136 or 142

I agree with you that mandating the teaching of coding in schools is a ridiculous and 'fad' thing to do and is a waste of valuable school time.  I suppose the difference though is that with apps, people can program useful little applications for their own personal use and that may be a worthwhile thing.

Reporter: How many people who major in the same musical vineyard in which you toil, how many are protest singers? That is, people who use their music, and use the songs to protest the uh, social state in which we live today, the matter of war, the matter of crime, or whatever it might be.
Bob Dylan: Um... how many?
Reporter: Yes. How many?
Bob Dylan: Uh, I think there's about uh, 136.
Reporter: You say ABOUT 136, or you mean exactly 136?
Bob Dylan: Uh, it's either 136 or 142.

[Blue3]

In Rhode Island, we are now making in a required skill learned in 6th-10th grades.

[Foucaulf]

I'm mostly going to discuss the "talking point" mentioned in the OP.

Any professional wage can be looked at both in terms of marginal productivity for an hour of labour and in terms of supply relative to demand.

Marginal productivity: If more output can be created from an hour of programming than using other specialized labour, then the socially optimal outcome is for people to retrain themselves and have a more productive economy in the process.

Automation is obviously what I'm referring to here, but the premium for programmers is already appearing now, before the robots all take over. Complementarities already exist between programming labour and capital investment. Any firm facing a shortage in labour are going to substitute towards capital, which is a demand shock for programmers in the short run and could increase programming productivity further in the long run.

Supply relative to demand: Obviously, the share of programmers in the U.S. remains small. More realistically it takes time to train people to know programming, so this would cause a lag between the wage of programmers observed now and the number of people actually training for it. In reality there are also good programmers and bad programmers, so the two are separated by signalling mechanisms, i.e. college, coding bootcamps and accreditation.

Already you should start thinking about splitting potential labour supply of programmers into two groups: those who have no training and need training to reach competency, and those who have the ability to attain competency, but are really investing in their signal so they get the best programming job.

When the OP's talking points get raised, it's almost always considered by the latter category - college majors or adult professionals who, to keep up with their income expectations, can't just learn how to code but need to do it well. But, even if this ends up being most of the potential programmer supply, it's still a small chunk of the US labor force.

The irony though is that plenty of people think they're really aiming the talking point at the former category, those who need training to reach competency.

Let's get real - you can talk about "accessibility" of programming all you want, but for someone who couldn't get past Algebra II more than a decade ago, on the margin programming training is not a good choice. And it's a scar on the U.S. that there are plenty of people like who I described there.



If I were actually trying to give good job advice to people in the former category, I would say very little which they or the market doesn't already know - the fastest growing industry in the U.S. if not the developed world is nursing.

Personal Care Assistants alone account for more employees than all programmers and software developers in the US combined, according to the BLS. This one group excludes all the other nurses and caretakers employed in hospitals, jails, clinics, etc.

[136or142]

In Rhode Island, we are now making in a required skill learned in 6th-10th grades.

I may be overly influenced by my inability to learn coding and programming, but this sounds like a complete waste of school time to me and is based on nothing more than a 'fad.'

I've already written why I think coding can be of value to students who want to learn it, but I remember when I was in grade two or three in 1977 or 1978 and we had a substitute teacher and there were, for some reason, a bunch of punch cards strewn about part of the school grounds (I believe around the bike racks) and one of the students took one of the punch cards in with them asked the teacher what they were, and the teacher replied "they're punch cards for computers.  We should be teaching you about them and how to use them with computers because you'll be using them when you grow up."

[Associate Justice PiT]

In Rhode Island, we are now making in a required skill learned in 6th-10th grades.

I may be overly influenced by my inability to learn coding and programming, but this sounds like a complete waste of school time to me and is based on nothing more than a 'fad.'

I've already written why I think coding can be of value to students who want to learn it, but I remember when I was in grade two or three in 1977 or 1978 and we had a substitute teacher and there were, for some reason, a bunch of punch cards strewn about part of the school grounds (I believe around the bike racks) and one of the students took one of the punch cards in with them asked the teacher what they were, and the teacher replied "they're punch cards for computers.  We should be teaching you about them and how to use them with computers because you'll be using them when you grow up.

     They're useful as a primer for what computer programming is and the kinds of thinking it requires. At the same time, nobody is going to become a computer programmer on the strength of middle school classes. I think these kinds of classes are useful as an introduction to programming as a field (something we should do more of in school, but that's another topic), but I would caution against overestimating the impact of these classes.

[muon2]

Let me frame the question by analogy. In particular let me ask this question in 1945: How many auto mechanics does society actually need?

In 1903 the Ford Motor Company was founded and in 1908 they released the mass produced Model-T. 40 years later, after WWII, the automobile exploded in use creating the suburban culture of the late 20th century. Auto mechanics was a standard high school class by the 1960's, and even if one wasn't going to be a professional, a large fraction of the population understood how to perform a number of basic auto mechanical tasks.

In 1975 Microsoft was founded and in 1981 they released MS-DOS for widespread use in the new IBM-PC. Almost 40 years later, computer use has exploded and defines culture in the early 21st century. Computer science courses are becoming common in high school as states work to define what that curriculum should mean. Extending the analogy then, I would expect that like auto mechanics a generation after WWII, in the 2030's and 40's we will see a large fraction of the population knowing how to perform basic coding tasks, even if they aren't at the level of a professional.

[136or142]

In Rhode Island, we are now making in a required skill learned in 6th-10th grades.

I may be overly influenced by my inability to learn coding and programming, but this sounds like a complete waste of school time to me and is based on nothing more than a 'fad.'

I've already written why I think coding can be of value to students who want to learn it, but I remember when I was in grade two or three in 1977 or 1978 and we had a substitute teacher and there were, for some reason, a bunch of punch cards strewn about part of the school grounds (I believe around the bike racks) and one of the students took one of the punch cards in with them asked the teacher what they were, and the teacher replied "they're punch cards for computers.  We should be teaching you about them and how to use them with computers because you'll be using them when you grow up.

     They're useful as a primer for what computer programming is and the kinds of thinking it requires. At the same time, nobody is going to become a computer programmer on the strength of middle school classes. I think these kinds of classes are useful as an introduction to programming as a field (something we should do more of in school, but that's another topic), but I would caution against overestimating the impact of these classes.

1.A computer programmer no, but my understanding is that these coding classes are about teaching kids to program apps for themselves.  I can see a value in that if the kids want to take the classes.

2.The biggest impact I think regards the loss of class time for other subjects that actually should be mandatory.  (Like critical judgment.)

3.As far as I know, auto mechanics (or shop) was always an elective course.

[Associate Justice PiT]

In Rhode Island, we are now making in a required skill learned in 6th-10th grades.

I may be overly influenced by my inability to learn coding and programming, but this sounds like a complete waste of school time to me and is based on nothing more than a 'fad.'

I've already written why I think coding can be of value to students who want to learn it, but I remember when I was in grade two or three in 1977 or 1978 and we had a substitute teacher and there were, for some reason, a bunch of punch cards strewn about part of the school grounds (I believe around the bike racks) and one of the students took one of the punch cards in with them asked the teacher what they were, and the teacher replied "they're punch cards for computers.  We should be teaching you about them and how to use them with computers because you'll be using them when you grow up.

     They're useful as a primer for what computer programming is and the kinds of thinking it requires. At the same time, nobody is going to become a computer programmer on the strength of middle school classes. I think these kinds of classes are useful as an introduction to programming as a field (something we should do more of in school, but that's another topic), but I would caution against overestimating the impact of these classes.

1.A computer programmer no, but my understanding is that these coding classes are about teaching kids to program apps for themselves.  I can see a value in that if the kids want to take the classes.

2.The biggest impact I think regards the loss of class time for other subjects that actually should be mandatory.  (Like critical judgment.)

3.As far as I know, auto mechanics (or shop) was always an elective course.

     I don't do program apps, so I am less qualified to comment on such matters. I will say that it does strike me as rather less effective in that case, since app developer is probably a much more limited field than programmer in general.

     Programming encourages the development of logical thinking, of a similar kind to what one needs for critical judgment. A visionary in pedagogy could probably develop a means of combining these two into a single class that teaches children the basics of programming and how to employ the same type of problem-solving and critical thinking in other spheres of life. Sadly I do not see that happening any time soon.

     It's not just shop and auto mechanics. There used to be classes for typing, penmanship, shorthand, household accounting, and more (these are examples I got from my grandmother's Class of 1930 high school yearbook). Obviously not all of those things are still useful, but we could still benefit from leaving these kids with more life skills. Budgeting for a household in particular is something that everyone should be skilled in doing.

[RFayette]

In Rhode Island, we are now making in a required skill learned in 6th-10th grades.

I may be overly influenced by my inability to learn coding and programming, but this sounds like a complete waste of school time to me and is based on nothing more than a 'fad.'

I've already written why I think coding can be of value to students who want to learn it, but I remember when I was in grade two or three in 1977 or 1978 and we had a substitute teacher and there were, for some reason, a bunch of punch cards strewn about part of the school grounds (I believe around the bike racks) and one of the students took one of the punch cards in with them asked the teacher what they were, and the teacher replied "they're punch cards for computers.  We should be teaching you about them and how to use them with computers because you'll be using them when you grow up.

     They're useful as a primer for what computer programming is and the kinds of thinking it requires. At the same time, nobody is going to become a computer programmer on the strength of middle school classes. I think these kinds of classes are useful as an introduction to programming as a field (something we should do more of in school, but that's another topic), but I would caution against overestimating the impact of these classes.

1.A computer programmer no, but my understanding is that these coding classes are about teaching kids to program apps for themselves.  I can see a value in that if the kids want to take the classes.

2.The biggest impact I think regards the loss of class time for other subjects that actually should be mandatory.  (Like critical judgment.)

3.As far as I know, auto mechanics (or shop) was always an elective course.

     I don't program apps, so I am less qualified to comment on such matters. I will say that it does strike me as rather less effective in that case, since app developer is probably a much more limited field than programmer in general.

     Programming encourages the development of logical thinking, of a similar kind to what one needs for critical judgment. A visionary in pedagogy could probably develop a means of combining these two into a single class that teaches children the basics of programming and how to employ the same type of problem-solving and critical thinking in other spheres of life. Sadly I do not see that happening any time soon.

     It's not just shop and auto mechanics. There used to be classes for typing, penmanship, shorthand, household accounting, and more (these are examples I got from my grandmother's Class of 1930 high school yearbook). Obviously not all of those things are still useful, but we could still benefit from leaving these kids with more life skills. Budgeting for a household in particular is something that everyone should be skilled in doing.

I think it's important we split this up.  The appropriate analog to "shop" classes would be closer to these type of app development or language classes - teaching the basics of a programming language like Python or Android, or a markup language like HTML/CSS.  In universities, these classes tend to be worth 1 or 2 units, compared to 3-5 for core computer science classes, which emphasize algorithms, data structures, low-level systems programming, etc. which tend to involve more critical thinking but are also much, much harder/time-consuming and tend to emphasize generalizable concepts rather than becoming skilled in one thing.  I tend to believe that everyone would benefit from basic language classes (learning basic HTML/CSS/Javascript, a traditional language like Java, C++, or Python to teach basic programming concepts, an "app" language for mobile devices like Android or Swift, and maybe R for data analysis).  This would also be fairly accessible, and would give people the tools to learn more on their own, if they so desire.  But it makes little sense for people who don't want to make a career in software engineering (and even then, not all the classes are useful, per se) to tackle hard-core computer science classes at the university-level, as they tend to be very time-consuming and not at all accessible to those at lower ability levels; as Foucalf noted, folks who struggle get passed Algebra 2 would have a hard time in software engineering.

[DC Al Fine]

I just want to say it's been super confusing reading a conversation between Rfayette and PiT

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I just want to say it's been super confusing reading a conversation between Rfayette and PiT

R-CAs everywhere, not a D-CA to find.

[136or142]

The answer to the original question is: as many as it takes to figure out why the chicken crossed the road.   (Sorry)

[Associate Justice PiT]

In Rhode Island, we are now making in a required skill learned in 6th-10th grades.

I may be overly influenced by my inability to learn coding and programming, but this sounds like a complete waste of school time to me and is based on nothing more than a 'fad.'

I've already written why I think coding can be of value to students who want to learn it, but I remember when I was in grade two or three in 1977 or 1978 and we had a substitute teacher and there were, for some reason, a bunch of punch cards strewn about part of the school grounds (I believe around the bike racks) and one of the students took one of the punch cards in with them asked the teacher what they were, and the teacher replied "they're punch cards for computers.  We should be teaching you about them and how to use them with computers because you'll be using them when you grow up.

     They're useful as a primer for what computer programming is and the kinds of thinking it requires. At the same time, nobody is going to become a computer programmer on the strength of middle school classes. I think these kinds of classes are useful as an introduction to programming as a field (something we should do more of in school, but that's another topic), but I would caution against overestimating the impact of these classes.

1.A computer programmer no, but my understanding is that these coding classes are about teaching kids to program apps for themselves.  I can see a value in that if the kids want to take the classes.

2.The biggest impact I think regards the loss of class time for other subjects that actually should be mandatory.  (Like critical judgment.)

3.As far as I know, auto mechanics (or shop) was always an elective course.

     I don't program apps, so I am less qualified to comment on such matters. I will say that it does strike me as rather less effective in that case, since app developer is probably a much more limited field than programmer in general.

     Programming encourages the development of logical thinking, of a similar kind to what one needs for critical judgment. A visionary in pedagogy could probably develop a means of combining these two into a single class that teaches children the basics of programming and how to employ the same type of problem-solving and critical thinking in other spheres of life. Sadly I do not see that happening any time soon.

     It's not just shop and auto mechanics. There used to be classes for typing, penmanship, shorthand, household accounting, and more (these are examples I got from my grandmother's Class of 1930 high school yearbook). Obviously not all of those things are still useful, but we could still benefit from leaving these kids with more life skills. Budgeting for a household in particular is something that everyone should be skilled in doing.

I think it's important we split this up.  The appropriate analog to "shop" classes would be closer to these type of app development or language classes - teaching the basics of a programming language like Python or Android, or a markup language like HTML/CSS.  In universities, these classes tend to be worth 1 or 2 units, compared to 3-5 for core computer science classes, which emphasize algorithms, data structures, low-level systems programming, etc. which tend to involve more critical thinking but are also much, much harder/time-consuming and tend to emphasize generalizable concepts rather than becoming skilled in one thing.  I tend to believe that everyone would benefit from basic language classes (learning basic HTML/CSS/Javascript, a traditional language like Java, C++, or Python to teach basic programming concepts, an "app" language for mobile devices like Android or Swift, and maybe R for data analysis).  This would also be fairly accessible, and would give people the tools to learn more on their own, if they so desire.  But it makes little sense for people who don't want to make a career in software engineering (and even then, not all the classes are useful, per se) to tackle hard-core computer science classes at the university-level, as they tend to be very time-consuming and not at all accessible to those at lower ability levels; as Foucalf noted, folks who struggle get passed Algebra 2 would have a hard time in software engineering.

     This goes back to what I was saying earlier about coding boot camps vs. university programs. The former is quicker and easier, drilling you on the specific hard skills you need to get some kind of job in programming. Computer science departments go into much greater theoretical depth, developing not only the hard skills but also the broader understanding to really appreciate what is going on and thrive in the most intense programming jobs. The investment is greater, but so is the payoff. On some level it might make sense to think of these as separate but related industries.

[RFayette]

    This goes back to what I was saying earlier about coding boot camps vs. university programs. The former is quicker and easier, drilling you on the specific hard skills you need to get some kind of job in programming. Computer science departments go into much greater theoretical depth, developing not only the hard skills but also the broader understanding to really appreciate what is going on and thrive in the most intense programming jobs. The investment is greater, but so is the payoff. On some level it might make sense to think of these as separate but related industries.

The interesting question will be where both groups of people end up in the future.  As an aside, I remember I saw a data science Coursera online "boot camp," and in this 9 month module, we covered the vast majority of the material within it for two 10-week quarters in a fast-paced 3 unit class (and another 4-unit one) at my university.  Apparently, people have been hired in data science based on that certification, which to me is quite surprising given how limited the material was.  Because much of the tech industry is so new, and the number of job openings greatly exceeds the number of people who have specifically studied the subject in college, we see a lot of variety of backgrounds of people entering the field, especially in newer areas like machine learning.  How both groups (those from a more traditional university environment vs. less traditional ways) progress throughout their career will take more time to see, but I suspect (for the reasons you noted above) the former will be more successful.  

[Associate Justice PiT]

    This goes back to what I was saying earlier about coding boot camps vs. university programs. The former is quicker and easier, drilling you on the specific hard skills you need to get some kind of job in programming. Computer science departments go into much greater theoretical depth, developing not only the hard skills but also the broader understanding to really appreciate what is going on and thrive in the most intense programming jobs. The investment is greater, but so is the payoff. On some level it might make sense to think of these as separate but related industries.

The interesting question will be where both groups of people end up in the future.  As an aside, I remember I saw a data science Coursera online "boot camp," and in this 9 month module, we covered the vast majority of the material within it for two 10-week quarters in a fast-paced 3 unit class (and another 4-unit one) at my university.  Apparently, people have been hired in data science based on that certification, which to me is quite surprising given how limited the material was.  Because much of the tech industry is so new, and the number of job openings greatly exceeds the number of people who have specifically studied the subject in college, we see a lot of variety of backgrounds of people entering the field, especially in newer areas like machine learning.  How both groups (those from a more traditional university environment vs. less traditional ways) progress throughout their career will take more time to see, but I suspect (for the reasons you noted above) the former will be more successful.  

     I think it also helps that these fields lean so heavily on these sorts of hard skills that can be learned and subsequently demonstrated, whereas most traditional fields (except for the trades) do not. It makes it much easier for someone to pick up programming, put in the time to learn, and enter these fields. I work with two programmers in my unit, neither of whom have traditional backgrounds. I also do some programming (though it is ~5% of my job duties), and I have only limited experience with it in the university environment.

     I agree though that the people with formal training will probably be more successful overall. There are details of computer science I know that my coworkers don't, which have proven useful at times. If I have to learn a new language from scratch, thinking about the relations of objects in logical terms helps. Indeed, it may be improper to talk about learning any programming language from scratch once you know one.

[President of the great nation of 🏳️‍⚧️]

I just want to say it's been super confusing reading a conversation between Rfayette and PiT

     Indents are your friend.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Because i have a Physics degree, i have been employed as a C#.NET developer.

But i prefer geology and geophysics so i can travel.

In terms of the 'bar', it is very high, and you meed people who can solve and finish jobs 100%.

If you code up a layered web application, you need to make sure that out of the 450,000 characters you just planned and put together, they all work together.

It takes a very different type of person to be so meticulous and clean.

The number of people who have this quality with an ethos for hard work is amazingly low in the market.

So to answer your question, a lot more really good ones.

[Gustaf]

You often hear about how if people want to improve their job prospects and/or lives they ought to learn coding or IT or things like that. One of my oldest friends is a computer engineer so I'm not really as biased against the tech industry as I sometimes come across, but I still find this talking point a little confusing. Entirely leaving aside the fact that a great many people are simply slightly but noticeably less intelligent than average and that these people deserve to have safe and meaningful lives too, I've become increasingly curious as to how many computer programmers and IT people folks think society actually needs or can support.

P.S. I meant to post this in either IP or Economics; mods, feel free to move it to one of those boards.

"Need" as defined by whom? Because it sounds like you don't mean the aggregated population via their consumption choices. If you mean "how many programmers do I think people should be allowed to have based on what I think their preferences ought to be" no one else can really answer that.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Nobody has come anywhere near understanding the point of the question so I'm locking the thread.

I'm appalled that I have to spell this out, but what I meant was "if we as a people were making honest choices about what society, qua society, should orient itself around, would we really decide that computers and IT should be the only real growth industry, into which everybody else should be 'retrained'?"

I literally could not care less about expressing social needs or the common good as a function of what people "choose" to "consume", especially given the sorry set of options available.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Update:

And to answer your new question...
1. Not everyone is being retrained to the IT industry
2. Neither "should" everyone be retrained to the IT industry

Well, obviously, but you wouldn't know that from the way some of these Silicon Valley tech-progressive types and their liberal centrist politician handmaidens talk about labor market issues, which was my motivation for starting the thread.

If you insist on continuing this discussion, which I don't agree was productive (I also don't agree that my initial question was in any way unclear but that an inability to think outside the confines of neoliberalism made it so), I'll just unlock the old thread.

Anyway, sorry for flouncing (and for still being such a pill about this now tbh).