Is the data for a uselessly narrow—or uselessly broad—category of ‘actuaries’? etc.
The actuarial field has a bright line around it’s borders: if you haven’t passed your country’s standardized exams, you’re not an actuary.
So you do agree some fields are in decline!
Well yeah, I’d expect half the fields to be doing worse than median. My point was that it was unlikely that all fields I look at are in decline.
I specifically mentioned Korea because of this potential for you to just say ‘ah, but if you look somewhere else....’ See comment #1 about definitions and sizes of categories.
So.… you got me? I didn’t single out Korean ESL teachers in my OP, so I don’t think can accuse me of broadening the definition.
Your regulation points are interesting, though, but point to other possibilities: maybe the complained about decline is precisely the growth or increases—how well do you understand what the existing backpackers value or are complaining about?
So if Korea makes it harder to enter the job market, that’s bad for workers; and if Australia makes it easier to enter the job market, that’s also bad for workers?
Well yeah, I’d expect half the fields to be doing worse than median. My point was that it was unlikely that all fields I look at are in decline.
I think you’re tying yourself in circles. You can’t argue ‘every field I look at is not in decline’ and then immediately turn around and admit that some fields are in decline. More generally, your median point applies to the self-assessments too: even if self-assessment is completely random and actual field performance is random too, you’d still expect a quarter to be—by sheer luck—above the median in actual performance and self-assessed performance. So if a full quarter are optimistic and outperforming, how did you miss them?
So if Korea makes it harder to enter the job market, that’s bad for workers; and if Australia makes it easier to enter the job market, that’s also bad for workers?
Sure. Someone drowning has too much water, and someone dying of thirst in the desert has too little water; is it really so absurd to say that ‘some people need more water, and some people need less water’?
You can’t argue ‘every field I look at is not in decline’
I never said that. I said the evidence was mixed.
More generally, your median point applies to the self-assessments too: even if self-assessment is completely random and actual field performance is random too, you’d still expect a quarter to be—by sheer luck—above the median in actual performance and self-assessed performance. So if a full quarter are optimistic and outperforming, how did you miss them?
By “self-assessment” you mean forum posts and personal blogs? Well that was exactly the point I made originally. It seems the is bias that causes that vast majority of self-assessment to pessimistic, even when field performance is good.
Someone drowning has too much water, and someone dying of thirst in the desert has too little water; is it really so absurd to say that ‘some people need more water, and some people need less water’?
If I tell you “Sarah will get more water next year.”, it would be absurd to tell me that that is a good thing or a bad thing, unless you have information about how much water Sarah already has. You can’t say that Korea’s stricter laws will be a bad thing, unless you have information suggesting Korea’s. You can’t say that Australia’s more lenient laws will be a bad thing, unless you have information suggesting Australia’s laws were already optimal or too lenient.
Now maybe you have this information about Korea, but I doubt you have it about Australia. And I doubt the that backpackers have this information either, considering that they don’t even seem to know about new deregulation.
The actuarial field has a bright line around it’s borders: if you haven’t passed your country’s standardized exams, you’re not an actuary.
Well yeah, I’d expect half the fields to be doing worse than median. My point was that it was unlikely that all fields I look at are in decline.
So.… you got me? I didn’t single out Korean ESL teachers in my OP, so I don’t think can accuse me of broadening the definition.
So if Korea makes it harder to enter the job market, that’s bad for workers; and if Australia makes it easier to enter the job market, that’s also bad for workers?
I think you’re tying yourself in circles. You can’t argue ‘every field I look at is not in decline’ and then immediately turn around and admit that some fields are in decline. More generally, your median point applies to the self-assessments too: even if self-assessment is completely random and actual field performance is random too, you’d still expect a quarter to be—by sheer luck—above the median in actual performance and self-assessed performance. So if a full quarter are optimistic and outperforming, how did you miss them?
Sure. Someone drowning has too much water, and someone dying of thirst in the desert has too little water; is it really so absurd to say that ‘some people need more water, and some people need less water’?
I never said that. I said the evidence was mixed.
By “self-assessment” you mean forum posts and personal blogs? Well that was exactly the point I made originally. It seems the is bias that causes that vast majority of self-assessment to pessimistic, even when field performance is good.
If I tell you “Sarah will get more water next year.”, it would be absurd to tell me that that is a good thing or a bad thing, unless you have information about how much water Sarah already has. You can’t say that Korea’s stricter laws will be a bad thing, unless you have information suggesting Korea’s. You can’t say that Australia’s more lenient laws will be a bad thing, unless you have information suggesting Australia’s laws were already optimal or too lenient.
Now maybe you have this information about Korea, but I doubt you have it about Australia. And I doubt the that backpackers have this information either, considering that they don’t even seem to know about new deregulation.