Assorted links

Comments

A link in a link list to another link list containing links to link lists?

I didn't read the Hawthorne effect paper, but its abstract...

'The "Hawthorne effect," a concept familiar to all students of social science, has had a profound influence both on the direction and design of research over the past 75 years. The Hawthorne effect is named after a landmark set of studies conducted at the Hawthorne plant in the 1920s. The first and most influential of these studies is known as the "Illumination Experiment." Both academics and popular writers commonly summarize the results as showing that every change in light, even those that made the room dimmer, had the effect of increasing productivity. The data from the illumination experiments, however, were never formally analyzed and were thought to have been destroyed. Our research has uncovered these data. We find that existing descriptions of supposedly remarkable data patterns prove to be entirely fictional. There are, however, hints of more subtle manifestations of a Hawthorne effect in the original data.'

... reads a lot like this abstract:

'The "Hawthorne effect" has been an enduring legacy of the celebrated studies of workplace behavior conducted in the 1920s and 1930s at Western Electric's Hawthorne Plant. This article examines the empirical evidence for the existence of Hawthorne effects using the original data from the Hawthorne Relay Assembly Test Room. Allowing for a variety of other factors, the author assesses whether experimental changes, variously defined, had a common effect that could be regarded as a pure result of the experimentation. The main conclusion is that these data show slender or no evidence of a Hawthorne effect.'

Robert Murphy makes so many bad arguments it's hard to know where to begin.

He criticizes Krugman's estimates from MIT and the EPA about Waxman-Markey, and then offers instead the IPCC report, which didn't estimate the WM bill because it was published several years ago before Waxman-Markey was conceived. Why would you criticize one estimate and then respond with an even less accurate one?

He says that government revenue is overestimated as a benefit because of government inefficiency in spending that revenue, but he doesn't estimate the extent that Obama's welfare kickback would cause government inefficiency, nor does he state total government revenue in the MIT/EPA/IPCC estimates, and compare that to total costs.

He uses the 2050 figure from Knappenberg's study, and ignores that almost everybody else is worried about global warming between now and 2100. Knappenberg's figure from 2100 is right there in the study. But why would anybody be surprised that changes in a country that consists of less than 5% of the world's population wouldn't single-handedly solve the problem?

He also mistates Krugman's position. Krugman's position on Obama's stimulus was that it was better than nothing, but could've been better. Murphy claims Krugman thinks the Geithner plan is inadequate, and therefore shouldn't be implemented. Krugman doesn't think that. Krugman thinks the Geithner plan is completely wrong.

LL have done it again-great stuff. The Jones article cited by Lemmus above is also cited by LL as showing the relay data does not hold either.

No one has ever uncovered these illumination data. Kudos to those guys.

Funny, not so long ago Feldstein was pimping his idea for a cap-and-trade system (i.e., rationing with trade allowed) for gasoline. But now, he's suddenly concerned abot imposing costs on citizens for no good reason. Does he really think nobody's got a memory span of more than 5 years?

So, Rhode Island inadvertently decriminalized indoor prostitution in 1979. Since then, streetwalking and the associated disruption to neighborhoods has disappeared, tourism to the state has increased, and 30 new businesses pay taxes in the state. Now why is RI trying to make prostitution illegal again?

How good that I included the caveat about not having read the Levitt-Lott paper!

"Thelonius: I guess you missed the part about recent raids that proved there was considerable forced labor in these establishments. The "workers" are suffering in ways that we should care about."

I rather suspect there was forced labor and suffering taking place when prostitution in RI was outdoors as well. That there is now a physical address for the police to raid, and incentive for legalized prostitution businesses to abide by the law if they want to keep operating, has likely resulted in a new reduction in misery.

I re-read the article carefully and it does not mention raids proving there was forced labor, although it does mention that such a thing was rumored:

"Then, in 2003, as brothels posing as massage parlors opened around the city amid reports that Asian women were being forced into prostitution, the Providence police raided four of these “spas.†"

Presumably the women were found not to have been forced into the work as the article goes on to say that the police charged the women with prostitution, only to have the charges dismissed by the judge. The article did not further address the issue of forced labor.

Everything I have written is based strictly on the information presented. If you find my opinion uninformed, please provide links to other sources.

Comments for this post are closed