Tuesday assorted links

Comments

#2. Of course, because terrorists. And the children.

Eventually, of course, it will be illegal to manually drive your own car, and we won't be having these silly discussions.

But again we are wasting mental energy on something that is decades away, if then.

Of course, because once you've yielded driving to a foreign intelligence ...

"information technology that might have an impact on law enforcement policies and procedures. "

Law enforcement isn't based on the law. It's based on policies and procedures. http://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2014/04/dc-cops-use-of-force-policy-is-secret.html

#3 belongs to the wishful thinking "Be like us and everything will be fine through unknown mechanisms" category. Feminism has demonstrably not helped Western birth rates, though immigration has prevented Western European and especially US birth rates from falling as much as it would have.

"Such cultural lags are associated with ultra-low fertility because if you force women to choose between family and career, then many will choose their career." This was demonstrably not true when careers were not the ultimate status marker. When careers are status markers and motherhood is a lifestyle choice that funges against it, you'll get careerism. When motherhood is high status and careers are just something you do if you need extra money, you'll get motherhood.

Getting from here to there is of course nontrivial, but the Economist is not even trying to construct an accurate model of reality.

My thought on reading the essay was "well argued, speculative, time will tell" but I was struck by the extreme male backlash to the article, especially the "Men will have to compete much harder if they want to attract a mate, and that surely means doing more housework" conclusion.

And here I find just that kind of backlash comment.

It is detached from reality to claim the Economist is detached from reality after writing this:
"When motherhood is high status and careers are just something you do if you need extra money, you’ll get motherhood."

Conservatives are constantly demanding the poor get jobs no matter what. Been raped and can't get an abortion, well, better have that baby and better not lose your job because welfare is dependency and even a nursing mother better earn enough to pay for a mortgage, a car, and childcare.

On the other hand, poor girls who know what its like growing up on welfare which forces them into bad schools and crime ridden housing and constant verbal attacks as for being lazy for not having high income careers, yet women who do get careers and own cars and houses are wrong not to be barefoot and pregnant.

If you argued that American conservatives need to support fertility by providing generous welfare benefits for teen mothers so they can buy cars and houses in nice areas with good schools and then get decent jobs with the flexibility to work only while kids are in school, like mothers could back in the 50s and 60s, that would reflect reality.

With wages depressed by the war on labor costs since the 80s, the only way "traditional" families could get into the middle class is by being dual earners even while having children. But the war on labor costs moved to ending the labor cost associated with being a mother like flexible schedules and unpaid time off. The reality is a dual mandate: women must work, and women must work on demand without any allowance for children or family.

I've got no dog in you labor-grievance obsession, but where does this notion come from that people "must" have a dual-worker level of income?

Whatever happened to the much trumpeted decreasing marginal utility of money?

It does seem the conservative POV of increased family size, lower wages, decreased health benefits, increased working & flexibility hours and limited family leave regulations have very contradictory goals. (And we have seen the optimal marrying age increase to 28 - 30. In reality liberals don't have a good story either...)

At this point, the global economy has going to have to deal with falling birth rates as having a large family makes a married couple less competitive. In terms of decreasing marginal utility of money really does not show up in the data until somebody earns $70K so most couples look to have two incomes.

There's no contradiction between limited family leave and large family size if you assume that women are supposed to stay home and take care of the babies.

Which Republican politicians are running on a platform of lower wages? I imagine the ones in favor of restricting immigration and also many of the ones wanting to lower corporate taxes and other regulations would say they're in favor of increasing wages overall. The closest to this I can see is that Republicans are mostly against a rise in the minimum wage, because they think that this will do more harm (decreased employment and higher prices) than good.

Are any of them running on a platform of lower workforce participation rates?

"There’s no contradiction between limited family leave and large family size if you assume that women are supposed to stay home and take care of the babies."

What happens to these big families when the man dies, becomes disabled or loses his job? The traditional answer was that the welfare state should step in yet few conservatives in the U.S. are seen "raising the status" of welfare in a way that might be appropriate given the crucial role it plays in providing basic security when all the household eggs are in the male basket.

This is leaving aside the additional security that PPACA provides to such single-earner households or the fact that PPACA now ensures that women on individually-purchased health insurance won't have to spend thousands of dollars on child birth expenses.

On the third hand, if those poor girls would just get married then they can stay home and be barefoot and pregnant AND not be on welfare. Traditional family values!

But they must marry a relatively high-earner.

With wages depressed by the war on labor costs since the 80s, the only way “traditional” families could get into the middle class is by being dual earners even while having children. But the war on labor costs moved to ending the labor cost associated with being a mother like flexible schedules and unpaid time off. The reality is a dual mandate: women must work, and women must work on demand without any allowance for children or family.
How much does a family need to live?

Also Mulp consider this

1. The median family income will always afford the median home. That is true if no women work or all women work and any mixture in between.
2. The median school will always be the median school no matter the level of income or how they are funded.
3. I may be wrong but from what I have seen most of the schools called are not bad due to the schools or teacher but due to the students. This is of course debatable, but right or wrong school choose would a good thing to try for those in the few bad schools.

If fewer women work and wages continue to stagnate as they have for decades, then we will see a substantial decline in living standards. Including median income, house, car, etc. Are you saying we should regress?

If more women work without having children, won't we get the substantial decline in living standards too? How does an elderly, childless society pay back the debt, innovate, maintain the infrastructure etc.?

imagine a grim dystopia where we are forced to drive a car without bluetooth

If fewer women work and wages continue to stagnate as they have for decades, then we will see a substantial decline in living standards. Including median income, house, car, etc. Are you saying we should regress?

No, or rather only if people want to. If fewer women work in the taxed economy they will produce more for in family consumption or enjoy more leisure, so it is not really regression.

The median house may be smaller and with less amenities if fewer women work in the taxed economy (it tends to be more efficient than in home production) but it will still be the middle. I read the evidence that the quality of schools mostly depends on the quality of the students not on how much money is spent. See here.

My formatting above was messed up so reporting below:

Mulp wrote:
With wages depressed by the war on labor costs since the 80s, the only way “traditional” families could get into the middle class is by being dual earners even while having children. But the war on labor costs moved to ending the labor cost associated with being a mother like flexible schedules and unpaid time off. The reality is a dual mandate: women must work, and women must work on demand without any allowance for children or family.

How much does a family need to live?

Also Mulp consider this

1. The median family income will always afford the median home. That is true if no women work or all women work and any mixture in between.

2. The median school will always be the median school no matter the level of income or how they are funded.

3. I may be wrong but from what I have seen most of the schools called are not bad due to the schools or teacher but due to the students. This is of course debatable, but right or wrong school choice would be a good thing to try for those in the few schools that really are bad schools.

It ain't that at all: http://nailheadtom.blogspot.com/2014/09/according-to-oswald-spengler.html

OMG. The horror of a lower birth rate. Whatever will we do?

Die

That's going to happen regardless. I'm sorry I had to be the one to tell you.

Someone needs to keep selling the big lies or else who will believe them?

Just look at this fantastic British birth-rate: "It has risen from an average of 1.56 children to 1.84 in a decade." Hallelujah, our problems are solved.

Low British birth-rate wasn't a problem as such to begin.

Within the west the more feminist a woman is the less children she has, while the more traditionalist and religious the more likely. This difference is especially pronounced amongst intelligent women, exactly who you want to be breeding.

https://jaymans.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/lib-cons-tfr-30-43-iq.png

This is true even in the countries he cites (like Scandinavia) and I hardly consider Germany some sort of traditionalist bastion of misogyny (it has all the generous maternity leave programs and political correctness feminist love).

So I doubt Asian fertility is low because of a lack of feminism. More likely its low because its an incredibly crowded and urbanized environment.

Traditionalism as an explanation of fertility obscures the real driver of fertility religiousity particularly evangelical and Mormon religiousity.

Both religion and traditionalism seem to be strong indicators of increased fertility. Obviously these traits are correlated, but you can find the relationship both ways.

Mormon's really aren't enough on their own to drive up fertility rates. And the pattern I talk about is true in countries without Mormons (i.e. Sweden). Your correct though that not just any Christianity works, it has to be traditional Christianity with a strong emphasis on the old ways. Episcopalians and other liberal Christians have seen their fertility crater.

#7. Straussian? Anyway, I've seen better, like:

QQQQ

ITLDUSO

GWILICRS

IMELTNG

THEVIL 1

Saw BNGAZI last week in Oregon...

That's not how you spell HILLARY.

Even in caves, Libertarians would just blame the bears and spiders for the darkness and dampness.

5, self-citation: The confound that immediately comes to mind is number of self-authored (citable) papers. One would want to control for that. It is not quite clear, but judging from context, I think that the following bit does *not* refer to what I mean, but rather to the less-relevant proportion of papers written by men as a group:

"One theory explored by the authors -- without finding confirmation -- was that perhaps women would do more self-citation in fields in which their share of papers was larger."

The authors of the study also seem to confuse individual men and men as a group when one of them says:

"The increasing movement of women into what had previously been almost exclusively 'men’s jobs' may have led some men to cite their own work more as a way of enhancing their scholarly reputation in the face of growing competition from women."

That mechanism should work in exactly the same way for women, who face the same amount of competition.

Of course, I have not seen the original study.

>The confound that immediately comes to mind is number of self-authored (citable) papers.

I agree, and it's possible that we'd want to further control for the number of large studies resulting in several publications. I've seen lots of papers coming from large studies citing the sampling method, survey instruments, etc. 'as described in X', where 'X' was a previous publication by the same group of authors.

Shill is worried about his consulting check.

Back in the mid 80s, the VA DMW turned down my request for 'IVQ' for my motorcycle license plate. Oddly enough, this capricious exercise of state power over freedom of expression did not lead to a career in a self styled libertarian institute like IHS as a reaction. It just meant that somebody at the DMV knew exactly what those 3 letters represented.

No one else does but cool story bro

Don't you get it? It's "IQ" with the V acting as a downward pointing arrow. It's the abridged Ray Lopez story.

Thanks for sharing yet another entry in your inexhaustible litany of thirty-year-old grievances against the state of Virginia and all those who live in it

Hey don't give him too much grief. He's the Al Bundy of the internet without the High School football stardom to fall back on.

4 touchdowns in a single game. 4 touchdowns. In. A. Single. Game.

Also missing are two kids and a harpy wife. Which when you think about it is actually the saddest thing about PA- Al Bundy had a more satisfactory and successful home life.

They probably just didn't trust you with a motorcycle.

Cmon it was a Vespa. One of those with the cage on it.

4. is neat. No idea if it is particularly effective, but it should yield benefits for the post-Fitbit generations.

7. It was common (well, I did it and so did my friend Randy) when I was in high school to put a vanity plate (usually one's initials) on the front of one's car (this was long before DMV offered vanity plates). I'm not sure what I was thinking. I mean, I was driving a GTO of all things and didn't need anything else to attract attention to myself. No more vanity plates for me. And no more GTOs either - does GM still make those ridiculous muscle cars?

Yes.

http://www.chevrolet.com/camaro-zl1-muscle-car.html

http://www.cadillac.com/v-series/cts-v-sedan.html

Although the best one is a Dodge:

http://newreleasedate2017.com/2016-dodge-challenger-hellcat-price-horsepower-specs/

My two best buddies had GTOs too, one a 1964 or 1965 with tri-power (it made a great sound), another a 1967 (the best body style of the GTOs). Mine was a 1968, when the body style went "smooth". It had a 400 cubic inch engine and a large 4 barrel carburetor that drank gas. But who cared when gas was 28 cents a gallon (and I had my mother's Gulf card). Another buddy had a Shelby Mustang, a car no teenager should be allowed to drive. Ever. And another buddy had a Camaro that was all engine. I can't remember what it was called, but it had so much power for such a light car that it would leave the ground every time you shifted the gears. That our parents allowed us to drive these cars, actually bought them for us, makes me wonder what they were thinking. And that I (and my friends who rode with me) actually survived is nothing short of a miracle.

California recalled a plate issued to a teacher, PEDAGOG. Why? because it has DAGO embedded in it.

#5 might be explained by women being of relatively low status in their fields. A high-status person may self-cite more readily because their own work is part of the dominant lines of research already. A low-status person probably shouldn't because that just looks like self-promotion. I wonder how much gender gap would remain if you controlled for something like a person's rank within the profession, possibly measured by the number of other authors citing them. Maybe look at the percentage of citations that are self-citations rather than just the raw numbers of self-citations.

So sad to hear about Nate Rosenberg. What a great guy, and his work is so much more than that sad Wikipedia entry.

Here's Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=nathan+rosenberg+&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_vis=1

Thank you for that. Economic historians really push other economists. They are my econ heros.

Nate Rosenberg was a genuine gentleman and scholar of the highest order.

My contrarian takeaway from 5 is that women are always boldly pushing on to new areas of inquiry, while men are content to rehash their own prior work.

I don't like how my friend uses "Straussian" for "esoteric." (Likewise, "Straussianism" and "esotericism".)

The two related but it is worth seeing a distinction.

And once one does, one will find that most of the MR occurrences of "Straussian" ought instead to be "esoteric."

Tyler, can you please make a post that explains exactly what you mean by "Straussian"? I see it here all the time, and my googling skills have failed me.

Cowen doesn't strive for clarity; he wants to provoke, which is fine as long as you know what he is doing. (tip: look up Strauss on wikipedia. The answer is mostly there)

I have looked it up a number of times... To be honest it's the only term that's ever eluded my googling abilities.

First result from google for 'Straussian reading' -

'Straussianism is the term used to denote the research methods, common concepts, theoretical presuppositions, central questions, and pedagogic style characteristic of the large number of conservatives who have been influenced by the thought and teaching of Leo Strauss (1899–1973). Straussianism is particularly influential among university professors of historical political theory, but it also sometimes serves as a common intellectual framework more generally among conservative activists, think tank professionals, and public intellectuals. Currently, Straussianism is associated in the public mind with neoconservatism, but the precise nature of this relationship is controversial.

Least controversially, Straussianism is defined by its method within the academic discipline of political theory. Straussians engage in a “close reading” of the “Great Books” of political thought; they strive to understand a thinker “as he understood himself”; they are unconcerned with questions about the historical context of, or historical influences on, a given author; they seek to be open to the possibility that in any given Great Book from the past, one may come across something that is the truth, simply. Two things may at once be said about this approach, which resembles in important ways the old New Criticism in literary studies. First, the method is powerful, and the effort of intellectual discipline that it requires cultivates a particularly focused kind of discursive intelligence: Straussians, like the old New Critics, are often among the most penetrating readers of texts. Second, like the New Criticism, the Straussian method may be reproduced with relative facility. It does not require field research, extensive contextual historical investigations, technical skills such as paleography, or the acquisition of multiple foreign languages. All that is necessary is a properly trained mind and a Great Book. These two facts may help explain, on the one hand, the intellectual prestige of Straussians, and on the other hand, the widespread success of Straussianism as an academic “school.”' http://www.firstprinciplesjournal.com/articles.aspx?article=871

The Straussian Paradox (my invention) is that he at once promoted the historical critical method for interpreting text and (according to critics) the "noble lie" to promote a preferred political outcome. Go figure. My favorite moment in the dialogue between Cowen and Thiel is when one mentioned Gnosticism and they gave each other a knowing look (they know even if we don't).

And again that definition has nothing to do with how Cowen uses the term. You are such a smug simpleton.

Yep, because it doesnt really mean anything, Just a word Cowen tosses out to make himself think that you don't "get it" but that he does.

No it isn't because he uses the term incorrectly. And mosquitos provoke without explaining. I guess at least Cowen doesn't spread malaria. Alex T on the other hand probably does.

Strauss had no use for democracy, believing it would lead to the election of either political extremists (such as Nazis) or politicians who offer free stuff to the 47%; hence, the "noble lie" to protect the people from themselves. Those in the know (the Gnostics) understand what most of us never will. I suppose the popularity of Donald Trump proves Strauss's point. Further proof of the Straussian Paradox is that Strausians at once promote the idea that markets know better than people and certain people (themselves) know better than everybody else. Go figure.

Your understanding of Strauss is shot through with prior approval level of crankiness and error. Try not to pass your own personal crank theory as true. Strauss was basically ambivalent about markets. The idea that Strauss as some ultra-Hayekian free marketer is frankly mind boggling asanine. I take it for granted that you haven't actually read any Strauss have you at least read a book about Strauss or is this view based off some killer posts you read at DailyKos in 2004.

I may be wrong, but:

Straussian, in Tyler's world, means trying to work out what the person was thinking when they did / wrote whatever it was. So in this example, what was the DMV thinking when it rejected plates like GOTMILF or FOSAMA?

From recent Tyler posts:
- "The Straussian take on Kimmy Schmidt": What were the creators of the TV series trying to achieve?
- "Taylor Swift, Straussian?": What is she thinking in launching her own clothing line with the initials TS, also short for Tiananmen Square?
- "The new Godzilla movie": What is the real story that the movie is trying to tell?

The Wikipedia article on Strauss implies that it's about trying to find the hidden meaning in texts; and that there can even be multiple layers of hidden meaning. Tyler's usage doesn't really correspond to that: there's not much hidden meaning in GOTMILF.

Thanks so much, Andrew! It finally makes sense.

+1, good write up

#2:

Let's temporarily get past the issue of whether you want to give the police the Platonic ideal of a law enforcement override over self-driving cars. Even assuming we want that Platonic ideal, let's ask whether we want what we'll get.

So how do police take control of a self-driving car?

executive summary: If 1.1 police can control my car, so can any number of criminals.

For the police to be able to control my car, they have some sort of device or app plus code that to be useful must be available to 1.1 million people: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States#Number_of_police . There will be a file of a half billion pairings of car identifiers and the control code, available to police departments with the sophistication of the NYPD or of a police department of a hamlet with 537 residents and one full-time and one part-time sheriff. Does anyone honestly believe that we can field 1.1 million wonderful kidnapping / grand theft auto machines and not have them abused to an unacceptable extent? Furthermore, the manufacturers have to be given specs they must follow, which will be available to hackers as well, since if I want to create self driving car software I must be given access to this spec so I can honor it.

-dk

I don't understand the complaints in the Obamacare article. Basically, the exchanges will pass the expenses onto the individual. And tax vouchers should keep premiums affordable to those with lower incomes. What is the problem here? Federal taxes may have to go up, but they would go up far less than they would with a single payer system. This is the ideal compromise, shared responsibility (public and individual) for a very complex and sensitive issue.

Comments for this post are closed