Tuesday assorted links

1. Median wages still have not been rising in the U.S.

2. How about one proposal per year per PI?

3. “As expected, sexism was a significantly stronger predictor of voting for Trump the more left-leaning (vs. right-leaning) the voter. Not only was Clinton correct that sexism played a role in her electoral loss, but she correctly characterized sexism as endemic, an influence especially perceptible on the left.”  Link here.

4. Gita Gopinath will be Chief Economist at the IMF.

5. Scott Alexander steelmans NIMBY.

6. Scott Lincicome on the new NAFTA.

Comments

3: "played a role"

Lazy and cowardly analysis.

How about being a terrible candidate who never bothered to set foot in Michigan or Wisconsin? Did that "play a role"?

I will never get tired of these excuses. Keep 'em coming!

Speaking as someone who thought Clinton was bright and authentically motivated by public service, it would have also helped if she hadn't fallen down so much.

HAHAHA I still laugh at the idea of how much she must have fallen down when she lost the election. She probably fell into a janitor's closet and got her head stuck in the slop bucket HAHAHA that's why she couldn't make her election night concession speech.

This is clearly not JWatts

Yep, it's the impersonator again. I have to say though; this one at least makes a good observation.

Dr. in King Watts, Civil War II, minus (Silicon Valley), the ads are programmatic IO, the headline is 350,000 Amazon workers, Teslas on the page, 1200 dead in Indonesia. HELP

Gute Tag! Ich möchten genen Ihnen einen big thumbs up für die ausgezeichnete Informationen Sie haben, hier hier zu diesem Beitrag.

Ich bin Rückkehr Blog für mehr bald.

Hallo! Ich wollen geben Ihnen eiunen big thumbs up für diee great Informationen Sie haben hier zu diesem Beitrag.
Ich bin immer wiede auf Ihrre Website für mehr bald.

"authentically motivated by public service"

Paging PT Barnum....

To quote "a mediocre, self-pitying woman, without any accomplishments to call her own".

Applying a (Groucho) Marxian interpretation, I say, "I'm against it!"

And would this analysis categorize concern that Clinton might further weaponize Title IX enforcement (by reducing the few due-process protections that remain) on college campuses as "sexism"?

At a minimum it doesn't seem to consider that sexism might have worked in her favor (i.e., voters who would vote for practically any female candidate running against a male). No doubt some voted against her because of her sex, but the relevant question is, was this number greater than the number who voted for her because of her sex? Or might this possibility not be fully explored if one defines "sexism" strictly as "bias against women"?

Hillary Derangement Syndrome must be related to that brain-eating amoeba floating around in TX. Your comment shows you have at most half a brain.

Is this an attempted criticism of the paper? There are a million non-mutually exclusive things that could have "played a role" in Clinton not winning the popular vote by a larger margin or losing the electoral college outright. This paper is an attempt to test one of them. What point are you even trying to make?

Research on sexism needs to control for marital status. When you do that you often find that different behaviors simply mirror different interests.

#3. — how did the authors define sexism? Is it possible that support for Hillary was predicated on sexism (ie so called reverse discrimination) but their measure wasn’t able (or wasn’t designed) to capture that?

Precisely. I know for a fact (within my own family) there were men and women that voted for her simply BECAUSE she was a woman. Just like there were people that voted for Obama simply BECAUSE he was black.

Identity politics is the 7 headed hydra that democrats have buckled their saddle to. Some of them are starting to realize this could destroy their party.

“Some of them are starting to realize this could destroy their party.”

Tell me who. Name names so I can vote for them/contribute to their campaigns. Because some of the party are becoming unhinged.

Joe Manchin hasn't yet complained that West Virginia is too white, so you could probably include him.

Which politicians have complained that West Virginia (or any area) is too white?

+1. This is another strawman concocted by the angry, unstable followers of the "very stable" one.

Whites will be an absolute minority in America. Fewer than 50% of the people in America will be white. That’s a source of our strength.

- Joe Biden

Ironically, the GOP is just as guilty of identity politics as the left. But instead of women and people of color, the GOP has white men.

3. Can someone with access just post the criteria for evaluating sexism?

It’s impossible to judge the veracity without knowing the yardstick.

I’m still loathe to trust these after “racial resentment” turned out to be: how much do you agree with the following statement

“If you work hard in America, you can achieve success.”

Hmm. Wouldn't you think the fact that there has never been a woman president of the United States was itself and implicit recognition of gender preference?

In other words, we don't need no fancy definitions.

Since the point of the paper is to demonstrate whether sexism played a role in the 2016 presidential election, then it matters how it is measured.

Obviously.

the subtext on this page is clearly and humorously "how can anybody believe there is sexism involved in choosing presidents of the United States?"

That’s not what the paper is about.

It’s about whether / the magnitude of sexism in affecting the election outcome in 2016.

Obviously relevant to the paper is how they measured sexism.

That you immediately spin off into sweeping generalizations is your problem.

I will laugh about that for an hour.

It is a "sweeping generalization" that there has never been a female president of the United States!

That’s obviously not the sweeping generalization.

But then again, you never discuss anything, even a paper in a journal, in good faith.

Is acting ethical or antithetical?

Bale might not seem like the obvious casting choice for Cheney. He’s 44, English, and, well, Christian Bale. Cheney, meanwhile, is 77, American, and his silhouette is more Penguin than Batman.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/10/christian-bale-dick-cheney-movie?mbid=social_twitter

Suppose men and women are sampled from different distributions.

Suppose men are sampled from a distribution that is more likely to have aptitudes to be elected president or from a distribution that is more likely to have interests to pursue presidency, or both.

No sexism required.

Whoops, someone made the median versus individual error.

or either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton exemplars of any particular median?

I think it is you who is making that error. You said "there has never been a woman president of the United States". Nothing about Trump or hillary

That is a bizarre comment.

I believe contrary to biases there are probably been hundreds or even thousands of minorities who would make great presidents. They were just not considered for structural reasons.

That's true, but Hillary Clinton was clearly not one of those people.

Pause and consider, no one has ever really stuck a good rational criticism of Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. That is a damn hard job. If the best you've got is Benghazi, maybe the crazies are on that side.

Benghazi is a sideshow.

The Libya intervention itself was a disaster that she is mostly responsible for.

There you just identifying yourself as someone who cannot read Wikipedia.

Not Wikipedia. Will you accept Salon?

https://www.salon.com/2016/03/02/even_critics_understate_how_catastrophically_bad_the_hillary_clinton_led_nato_bombing_of_libya_was/

That is not a completely terrible piece, but it too ignores that the civil war came first, the UN intervention came second, and Hillary's actions came third.

Shit certainly happens in this world.

But you have to be kind of ideological nutter to think that bad outcomes driven by literally thousands of parties are the responsibility of one person.

anonymous: “Well, I guess I’ve been proven wrong, but I’ll just change the subject to the contemporary world: ‘shit happens ‘. You know, just happens on its own.”

I try to make that point every time somebody tries to blame the state of the economy on a President, but for some reason the attack ads still get air time...

Lie, mischaracterize, and commit every logical fallacy under the sun.

You truly are the liberal partisan fun house mirror version of Trump.

Come on. Anybody who reads Wikipedia learns the Libyan Civil War started as a Libyan Civil War. That is one critical piece. The next critical piece is that the entire West got involved as a United Nations initiative.

If you want to make intelligent and critical comments you can talk about nature of that Libyan Civil War, and the self-interest Western Nations might have had in the UN intervention, but this "it was all Killary" thing is pure right-wing paranoia.

You can tell that by the effort it takes to ignore the Civil War and the UN action.

Today, Mr. Friedman reaches so hard to find an ounce of control, he declares World War part II. Mr. Friedman cannot acknowledge he is not "us." Is he talking to people in steel mills? There is no sense of consciousness. What about conscience? The man is so desperate he goes on to mention the Cold War, a burgeoning middle class, and a sane republican party as assets prior to today's world.

He totally leaves out 180,000 employees at Amazon, 3,330 employees at Twitter, 25,000 at facebook (global), 88,000 at Google....paypal, buzzfeed, spotify, uber, WhatsApp....In-fact, he does not mention Silicon Valley. He cannot fathom that the US global position as accounted by dead service people or terrorism is a net gain.

Pause and consider how much of a non-sequiter that comment was.

That was fully sequitur, so to speak.

Hillary's tenure as secretary of state was pretty good once you subtract the paranoia.

That has nothing to do with anything.

In which we learn that competence at high government office has nothing to do with competence at high government office.

You somewhat pointedly haven't been able to specify any actual accomplishments she achieved as Secretary of State. More fundamentally, though, the fact that no male Secretary of State has been elected President either since perhaps Jefferson renders your sexism argument meaningless.

Madison was Sec. of State too.

*V161507: Many women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist, range: 1 = totally agree, 3 = neutral & 5 = totally disagree.

*V161508: Most women fail to appreciate what men do for them: 1= totally agree, 3= neutral, & 5 = totally disagree.

*V161509: Women seek to gain power by getting control over men: 1= totally agree, 3= neutral, & 5 = totally disagree.

*V561510: Women put men on a tight leash: 1 = totally agree, 3= neutral & 5 = totally disagree
also, -9 = refused to answer.

Did your wife check your answers? Think carefully before answering.

Did you check on your wife? Think cuckfully before answering.

Those are the indicia of sexism? They seem more like indicia of idealism versus cynicism regarding romantic relationships.

If you inherit $400 million from father, you will be a winner like me. I guarantee it!

As expected, sexism was a significantly stronger predictor of voting for Trump the more left-leaning

And they define their terms, how? In public discussion, there is no such thing as 'sexism'. It's invocation is an incantation like 'abracadabra' indicating the speaker is gaming to rule a proposition out of order without presenting any argument against it.

"In public discussion, there is no such thing as sexism".

What?

Sexism is refusing to see the individual behind their class(women). The same goes for any other type of ignorant thinking, racism is the same as sexism but with race, religious intolerance...etc.

#1 This this this is the real meat and potatoes problem within domestic economic architecture that needs to be addressed. Not the politicized "income inequality" Obama talked about. The REAL fundamentals.

#2 Hillary lost because she was a poor candidate in 2008, and in 2016 and because she is still a bad candidate. Her history of vindictiveness within the party, her well-documented lack of ethics, and her only real bonafides being her marriage to a MAN named Clinton are what got her shot down. So what, over half the women that voted against her are sexist? Garbage. Junk.

#5 I read this this morning. I liked #3 and down. Exposed some of the downsides to the just build more housing argument.

The inquality is mathematically related to the stagnation of course. It's the reason that GDP can grow so much while incomes can stagnate at the same time.

...but apparently not incel inequality. Cuckmeister...we know it's you...just admit it...be yourself...like the cuck you are.

(sigh)

Income inequality is a metric. I'm open to the idea that some people may tell fanciful stories about it, but that doesn't mean everyone does.

#1 Excellent news! It means we are keeping inflation way down even though output keeps growing! This is what happens when you have a real businessman as president.

The authors do not define "sexism". They explain how they measure it, but this is hidden in an appendix. It is by the answer to the following four questions:

"*V161507: Many women interpret innocent remarks or acts as being sexist, range: 1 = totally agree, 3 = neutral & 5 = totally disagree.

*V161508: Most women fail to appreciate what men do for them: 1= totally agree, 3= neutral, & 5 = totally disagree.

*V161509: Women seek to gain power by getting control over men: 1= totally agree, 3= neutral, & 5 = totally disagree.

*V561510: Women put men on a tight leash: 1 = totally agree, 3= neutral & 5 = totally disagree"

The "anti-sexism" score is the average of the numbers from answer to the four section. The sexism score is 5 minus the anti-sexism

I observe that this way of measuring it cannot be taken as a definition, as it uses "sexist" in its own formulation, leading to a definition with infinite regression. Basically, according to the author, a "sexist" is someone who thinks that less people are "sexist" than commonly believed. Fun and not very serious.

I'm not a psychologist (speaking as an amateur!) and so I don't know how well such questions would detect bias in an audience, but I recognize there is a trick to it. You try to get people to commit to "most women" or "more women" or "women" generalizations, and by that you capture them making generalization.

So in your opinion the sexists would be the ones giving either 5 or 1 ratings and the non-sexists would be giving 3s?

Pretty much.

I am the Anonymous mouth on the other side of the glory hole

Did they explain where they got the questions for their measure of sexism? Those certainly don't capture what I'd think of as sexism particularly well, but maybe there's some evidence somewhere linking them to stronger evidence of sexism?

Perhaps they simply assume "sexism" (whatever the frack that is) is inversely proportional to IQ. Anyone who wouldn't walk away from a quiz which had garbage like "Women seek..." as if Women are a group which can be (accurately, usefully, or practically) characterized by some gross (and absurd) generality probably doesn't have a stellar IQ. By the way, what's for dinner?

Also note that sexism is only defined as against woman. Sexism, like Racism is for SJW, is defined as only in one direction. Voting for Hillary *because* she is a woman is thus not sexist and thus not even measured.

In which being happy to end a discrimination is equal to discrimination itself.

Great, so voting for someone because of their sex is not sexism anymore. I love it.

I think you got turned around.

Someone can happily vote for someone they believe is qualified, while being happy that they are overturning a bias.

If someone comes along and says "oh you were only concerned about the bias," maybe that person has the agenda.

You seem very confused. You said that voting for someone BECAUSE they are a woman is "being happy to end a discrimination". You're wrong. It's sexist discrimination, flat-out. You voting for someone because of their genitals in no way "ends a discrimination". It perpetuates discrimination. I would challenge you to explain your "day is night" statement but I know you cannot and will change the subject with yet another hide-the-ball non sequitur

To vote is to discriminate, except when there is only one contender. You will never end discrimination in free elections. But feel free to keep trying.

These questions were the first thing I looked for when I saw this study. The wording, phrasing, and vocabulary used in these questions will strike some responders and pass right over others, and I have to wonder if that didn't affect the results.

"Women seek to gain power by getting control over men" seems like a question that might resonate more with a progressive man who is constantly surrounded by discussions about power, privilege, and marginalization, as opposed to a conservative man whose worldview doesn't think in those terms as much.

They probably should have salted those questions with one more geared towards conservatives like "A woman's primary responsibility should be her household and family". Or maybe the authors' own biases ruled these kinds of questions out right off the bat, inadvertently setting up progressives to 'fail' at the sexism questions.

Not sure about whether they key more to progressives, but for anyone with realism and life experience, you'd think a big problem would be that they are basically selecting not for "sexist" people but people's whose life experiences do match, for instance, "Most women fail to appreciate what men do for them". That would mainly selecting for men and women who know unpleasant, unappreciative women.

If you have some realism, you know there are probably about as many women who are unpleasant and unappreciative as there are men who are unpleasant and unappreciative. But authors probably implicitly assume that there are *no* unpleasant, unappreciative women... Same for their other questions, which are keyed towards controlling, authoritarian, paranoid women.

And it's probably the case that being familiar with unpleasant, arrogant, controlling, authoritarian, paranoid women did correlate negatively with voting for Hilary Clinton, among economic centrists.

Funny, I agree that a woman's primary responsibility should be her family, just as I think a man's primary responsibility should be his family. Is it sexist that I think everyone should put their kids/spouse first in their life? You got to work to live, but little Timmy/Sally is still more important.

It seems like a measure of sexism might involve how differently you answered those two questions. But more broadly, if the authors are doing something other than an ideological game, they probably need to have some evidence that these questions are meaningful evaluations of sexism. Which maybe they do--I haven't read their paper--but without that, it would be awfully easy to make up questions that correlated with being a Republican or a Trump voter independently of being sexist, and get nonsense results.

Moreover, people tend to generalize from a few experiences: A couple bad relationships, even one recent bad experience, can lead a person to answer "most people x." (Isn't that anchoring or something?) _Especially_ if there aren't alternative questions of the same form but with "some" or "there exist" instead of "most."

I voted against her because she and the likes of her have been calling me trash because I'm male for the past 30 years.

Sexism? Definitely. Hers.

5 - thinking a bit outside of the box and putting on my tin-foil hat: a 1 bedroom apartment for $3500 monthly sounds perfect for money laundering.

The rental stats are based on rental listings. It would be nice for criminals to report monthly income of $3000 for a dozen of decaying apartments. No auditor would rise an eyebrow if some landlords reports the median rent as income.

PS. it's the first time I see Sci-Hub linked from a well-read blog.

Actually, Prof. Tabarrok has mentioned it recently - admittedly, without a link, and without approval - 'In other words, the Iranians were running something like Sci-Hub, the website that some of you have probably used to bypass publisher paywalls to read articles linked to on MR that you haven’t paid for. I don’t defend such actions but neither do I want the federal attorney working tirelessly to identify you. As crimes go this is a yawner.

Indeed, since Sci-Hub is already used in Iran, one wonders how useful the additional Iranian hacking was. A few companies are also listed as targets, although they turn out to be publishers, a stock image company, two online car companies etc. A few government agencies are thrown in for good measure although that appears to be window dressing.' https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2018/03/the-iranian-cyberattack.html

#5. I especially like the analogy of comparing San Francisco to a mine or an oil rig -- with people packing themselves into even more cramped quarters than they could afford, just so they can save money and get the hell out faster. I wonder if this explains part of the Bay Area sleeping-in-cars phenomenon as well?

We have been seeing this where I live for about 5 years...a lot of $100k+ 30 somethings that took the money and ran back home where cost of living is orders of magnitude cheaper.

I wonder if this doesn't play a factor in the San Fran YIMBY thought process? E.G. We know that these young well-paid kids won't be hear forever. I'll be damned if you're going to mess with my quiet less-connected community with soaring property values" kind of thought process. It makes some sense in that regard.

Good point. People moving in temporarily instead of long-term motivating NIMBY outrage makes sense. When the "cool" part of my town was getting gentrified a few decades back, the sentiment against the new apartments and higher-density town-homes was generally expressed as "These young yuppies are going to move to the suburbs when they have kids in a few years anyway, so why should we let them uglify the neighborhood just so they can be closer to downtown now?"

Exactly. What's funny is that it's the ability of cities like SF (NY too) to draw this kind of young but transient crowd of young people and then have them leave that is precisely what drives the home values up and up and up.

The density increases, people scream bloody murder about the density and the cost and lack of housing, nothing gets done for a variety of reasons, and the housing values continue to rise because those that intended to stay can risk the sunk cost investment (captured buyer's market) to stay while those that can't, "well they were never going to stay anyway..."

It really does speak to and reinforce why land use regulations were enacted in the first place. To A) maintain the structure, character and categorization of land by existing owners and B) maintain the land's value regardless of its use. People that own and live there fundamentally don't want the city or its suburbs to change, and their values continue to go up.

Also, there is now a new addition to NIMBY and YIMBY....

BaNANAH

Build Nothing Anywhere by No one Any How

This is a big thing where I live:)

I liked: “San Francisco is unliveable, but at least we’ve made sure lots of people can live there!”

The inflation adjusted median weekly earning of $848.20 as of June is greater than the $838.82 as of the 4th quarter of 2016, therefore the statement that "average working Americans are worse off under the Trump presidency than they were under Obama's" is plainly false.

1.always love these income comparisons. Nothing says “getting at the truth” like taking a static population and comparing it to a dynamic population.

With the statistical analysis the author uses in the article you could basically tell any story you want to tell.

If he really really wanted to get “truthful” he would of taken a static population of workers at some point in time of Peak Obama and compared that same group of people through time at peak Trump.

That would of gotten us closer to the truth....

Why no criticism of this article from Tyler the way he critiqued the human capital article a few days ago?

Regardless, if you control for population changes from the end of 2016 to 2018, I’m gonna guess that people are slightly better off than they were in peak Obama, which is what the data in that article, without the control for population already kind of shows...

#5 - I suppose one place where Scott and I would agree is that the "real" problem is centralization of good jobs into just a few cities. If you could solve that, you no longer need to solve the problem of how to get more housing into those cities. The technology to enable companies to have large, distributed workforces has existed for a long time now, but cultural change has not kept up with technology.

Large companies very often do have distributed work forces, often maintaining operations centers in less pricey areas. But because the cost of living is lower those jobs also have lower salaries.

It's already less of a problem that folks here seem to imagine. Silicon Valley accounts for a relatively small fraction of the overall U.S. tech workforce. And if Bay Area prices continue to rise, the advantages to both employers and employees of locating workers elsewhere will grow. Another case of 'something that cannot go on forever will stop'.

Then there's this factor:

"Foreign citizens make up nearly three-quarters of Silicon Valley tech workforce, report says"

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/01/17/h-1b-foreign-citizens-make-up-nearly-three-quarters-of-silicon-valley-tech-workforce-report-says/

I expect these folks are *really* treating SV as mine or oil rig where they'll work briefly and get out. Especially if they're H1Bs. The fact that almost 3/4 of SV tech workers are foreign born suggests that U.S. techies may have already figured out the absurd cost of living makes it a bad deal for most of them.

#5 Scott Alexander is so reliably brilliant. So often I have my comfortable intuitions challenged convincingly by his articles.

Scott does an amazing job and zoning/urban planning is maybe the best ongoing topic at SSC -- e.g., if you own a house, how much say should you have in the surrounding neighborhood not becoming a shithole?

But this debate usually centers on San Fran, which is sounding more and more like someplace out of an old sci-fi dystopia, so it's hard to apply to other areas.

Scott Alexander gets a lot of mileage out of being confused with Scott Aronson.

They are both extremely limited intellectually, but Alexander's pretend games with psychiatric drugs (I hope they are pretend, one's heart sinks to think this guy is actually treating patients) are nicely offset by Aaronson's intense focus on logic (I am sure he is a good teacher of logic but .... ).

The McCartney and Lennon of contemporary liberalism, so to speak, or the Kirk and Spock of libertarianism. In other words, they talk a good game, but their insights do not really measure up to the reality they try to describe. (The Beatles were a fun band but only contributed a very small amount to the quantity of memorable music in the world - and we remember them fondly mostly because we heard their songs so many times, and then heard better treatments of the musical territory they made so much cash off of .... and as for Spock and Kirk, great characters, but again, just a small pair of footnotes to real science fiction).

These things may change, either one of the two may some day grow up and discuss the real world outside their college bubbles. I doubt that day is soon but I have been wrong before.

Scott Alexander would be great for a "Conversations with Tyler"

3. Keep on believing...that it's all sexism. Hey - why not run Hillary again in 2020. Go for it. Please please please...

#5. A key part of Scott’s argument is that if you Manhattanify San Francisco and make it wall to wall super density skyscrapers then you won’t actually make it cheaper because Manhattan proves that increased density can simply lead to higher land values.

However, Manhattan is a fooler. True there is high rise residential in Manhattan but it occurs in only a very few locations-Hudson yards, Wall Street and midtown. The rest of Manhattan is essentially land use regulated via historical and FAR regulations into ultra low density neighborhoods like the west village, east village, lower east side, upper west and east side and up in to Harlem.

So there’s a lot of San Franciscoism already bakes in to the NYC problem. Also it doesn’t help the affordability crisis that the next marginal attractive urban locale that competes with Manhattan is Brooklyn. A city with an even more dramatic land use-historical regulation nightmare than even most of Manhattan.

Increasing density by too much and forcing apartment sizes to shrink has an awful lot of racial discrimination of African-Americans baked in.

And the current FAR-historical land use regulatory framework used by every mega expensive metropolis world wide doesn’t implicitly say “black people away with you!”????

Is there something about the regulatory frame work for development in the west village in NYC that says “working class people of color” are welcome here???

I've walked every inch of Manhattan as a long-time mystery shopper, and I think you're underestimating the density of the nabes you mention. Much of Brooklyn though is surprisingly low density.

As a street photographer and real estate investor, I was shocked to run the numbers and find Manhattan has 10x the population density of London.

Maybe instead of the street, you should have been looking up - then there would have been absolutely no shock at all.

5. Scott paints San Francisco as this hell-hole where people move only because they have to for their career or social scene. This takes seems odd, as it leaves at that many people love San Francisco due to its weather, the beautiful scenery and proximity to other beautiful scenery, cultural amenities that go beyond just "other rationalists live here" -- and contrasting that with what makes other cities like say Chicago or Houston hell-holes (the weather).

On a visit to SanFran in 2000 I managed to be sweaty hot and shivering cold on the same day. Then there's Mark Twain's barb that the coldest winter he spent was summer in San Francisco. Tell me again how perfect the weather is.

Come to Colorado. You can be sweaty hot and shivering cold at the same moment.

San Francisco has beautiful scenery because it doesn't build high-density, multi-story housing on every available square acre.

The idea that we can make housing "affordable" by just increasing the number of 30-story apartment buildings is not rigorous thinking. There is plenty of affordable housing in Detroit. Hong Kong has plenty of high-density housing and is still enormously expensive.

What are revealed preferences? I'm guessing most economists and most commenters on this site live in single-family housing in neighborhoods with a $300K or more entry fee.

It is funny how some people are ready to ruin other people's very real neighborhoods to assure their abstract view of the universe prevail. I can not imagine such movement prevailing in my city.

1. Maybe the unadjusted wage numbers are correct (I don’t know), but can anyone verify the surprising claim that “cumulative inflation from July 2015 to December 1015 was 1.12%,” which for some reason the author adjusts down to 1.08% for the calculation in the next sentence? CPI was up 2.1% in 2017 alone.

It's irrelevant in any case. The unemployment numbers are the lowest we've seen in 50+ years. Whenever you expand the labor pull, you are adding marginal workers who will tend to be employed at the low end. Thus median wages will go down, since the denominator (employment) is growing faster than the numerator (total wages) is going up.

I think Amazon's announcement that they are going to raise their lowest wage rate to $15 per hour is a far more relevant indicator of the direction of wage growth.

Oops, I mis-typed the years. Author claims cumulative inflation July 2015 to December 2016 was 1.2%. Appears to me CPI for 2016 was 2.1%.

3. Here's the test they use to measure sexism: http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/take

Yeah, sounds scientific to me!

Christ.

The question is who is "Joe Median". He has a high school education from a low-quality public school, without any college or specialized training. He is non-union and probably not related to someone who could get him in a trades union. He is not part of the 1 in 4 that has a special license allow monopoly earnings. He has limited economic knowledge, especially about compound interest and fees, putting him in the class of people who believe debt is how to finance everything.

Other than using him as an example, the liberals don't what to improve his chances by providing economic literacy classes or firing incompetent teachers or preventing discrimination by unions or limiting occupational licensing.

I have watched environmental activist and bureaucrats block the development of desalinization in water-short So. California for 12 year while the top 10% of our societies bureaucrats, lawyers, activists, PR experts and other people with advanced education have milked a good living. Meanwhile "Joe Median" who would build, operate and maintain this facility can't get a job.

Welcome to the regulatory state where every bureaucrat can say NO and feel proud of himself while screwing Joe Median.

LOL. Trump can add tax cheat to his list of "accomplishments" along with cheating on his wife, paying off Stormy, being best friends with Kim, raising taxes on middle class aka tarffs while giving tax cuts to the rich, and taking foreign Russian, Chinese, Saudi money. Can't wait for the next shoe to drop. Fun times.

Excuse me. Another false accusation. So easy to disprove it's ridiculous.
Trump cheated on his "wives." Not wife.

The proportion of social psychologists who call themselves conservatives is even smaller than the proportion of women tech workers in Silicon Valley. Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers surveyed a large number of social and personality psychologists and found that only 6% described themselves as conservative “overall.” However, the more disturbing finding is that “[i]n decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many [respondents] said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate.” Yoel Inbar & Joris Lammers, Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology, 7 PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOL. SCI 1 (2012); see also John Tierney, Social Scientist Sees Bias Within, N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 7, 2011), http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html [https://perma.cc/S6AH-QETX].

1 is interesting. Anecdotally, I’ve noticed enormous raises in the tech sector but not so much for non-tech workers. Maybe that’s why average wages have gone up but not median ones. The stock market is showing a similar pattern where tech companies have made gains but otherwise the main indexes are flat.

It also seems that higher inflation is causing most of the fall in real median wages. This inflation is squarely due to Trump’s sanctions and trade actions, which have increased the price of oil and consumer goods with no increase in the wages of the vast majority of Americans who do not work in those industries.

If you have a high unemployment rate, which disproportionately affects low wage earners, and move to low unemployment, it means you are adding a lot of low income earners back into the pool. Median and average can both go down, while everyone is actually earning more. Take snapshot of employed wages 5 years ago and compare median to those same people today to see whether or not there really has been an improvement.

+1 This is the correct answer.

+1, my thoughts exactly.

Comments for this post are closed