Sunday assorted links

Comments

6. "In 2015, women were 48% of math majors versus 28% of econ majors." So, women are interested in math but not in math in economics. Could it be that women believe the math in economics isn't actually math but something else?

Hmmm.

+1

No. Not really.

Mathematicians are about 85% men.

You’re grouping a bunch of bullshit in with “math.” The way to avoid grouping bullshit in is to look at PhDs.

But this goes back to my point of who cares? A small percentage of overall humanity is that far right on the bell curve. Their gender breakdown means nothing.

Let’s focus on the middle 70% clustered around 100. Why are they killing themselves with drugs and alcohol, and how do we get them to commit suicide in a faster way that doesn’t ruin life for everyone around them while also consuming tax dollars?

How many top PhD scientists got funding from Epstein?

Apparently MIT is a whore for dirty money, but what did Epstein get out of it?

Call me cynical but I doubt he was interested in charity.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

You were pretty good up until the last sentence when your inner psychopath reared it's ugly head.

Too bad I wasn't up above you with a mallet playing whack-a-troll.

It's ugly but that's how too many libertarians and conservatives think. How dare people get help from their government. They'd be better off dead because they are feeding off my money. Economic Darwinism is a pretty disgusting way to look at life and makes for morally bankrupt society.

We libertarians aren’t putting kids in cages, or pumping Medicaid dollars into handing out OxyContin.

We are not morally responsible for others’ self destructive behavior.

Libertarians tend to go along with the status quo. The number of libertarians that were pro-Patriot Act, pro-bailouts, and anti-immigration are quite amazing considering their supposed beliefs about the role of government.

Respond

Add Comment

Maybe, but it is also fun, and I laughed a lot reading Hmmm's post (at 1:15pm).

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

1- It doesn't necessarily hurt students when the professor leaves. It just says they start fewer (and smaller) firms. What if they just follow their advisor to a large firm?

And they might be more productive at a large firm, especially if the firm has data which is required for their AI work.

Respond

Add Comment

AI has advanced to the point of becoming students and even professors?

Respond

Add Comment

#3:. That's nothing. I have to switch my time back and forth by a whole hour twice a year.

Bonus: if you don't change your clocks, you will not be shot all to Hell with a recoilless rifle.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

how would one objectively determine the population percentage of women that should be economists ?

what would happen to society if an incorrect percentage of women were economists ?

is a fixation upon gender representation numbers in various job/occupations merely an ideological mindset ?

We must have gender parity in all occupations. I see the sexism everywhere, even under the bed. As far as I can tell, there are no women pumping septic tanks, installing roofs, driving garbage trucks, or working on the power lines in the middle of dark stormy nights. Clearly they are suffering under the thumb of the horrible patriarchy. Something must be done.

The garbage truck that picks up from my house actually does have a woman driver. It’s mechanical pick up, no crew other than the driver.

Still waiting for Bernie et al to pounce on the NBA for not “looking like America”, and discriminating against both women and those over 40.

Whatever their claims about selecting employees for these very highly paid jobs, the most basic disparate impact analysis clearly proves systematic gender and age discrimination.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Of course it's an ideological mindset, particularly when economics is supposed to be about analyzing choices. It's difficult to explain the fact that Asian women are more likely to major in economics than other groups if there's an oppressive white hegemonic patriarchy.

"Asian women are more likely to major in economics than other groups"

They're more likely to major in economics than women of any other ethnicity. But less likely than men of any ethnicity, even Native Americans.
https://www.newyorkfed.org/data-and-statistics/data-visualization/diversity-in-economics#interactive/tables

Which is what Claudia's slides are about: the under-representation of women. I'm not sure why you're trying to bring race or ethnicity into this discussion.

But it's not about the numbers anyway; they're merely the measurable result of the dumb barriers that male economists have been raising against female economists. Which I'd thought were not so bad until I glanced at EJMR.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Since risk taking is the oxygen of any development or progress, clearly the risk adverse risk weighted bank capital requirements, puts development and progress more than just at risk… it places it in clear and present danger.
https://subprimeregulations.blogspot.com/2010/10/god-make-us-daring.html

No, they don't. They help to prevent irresponsible lending and curb speculation. Capital requireme tes should be much tighter.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

I recently saw that small business loans are down 40% from 2008.

Did Basel I, II, and III risk-based (risk-weighted assets) bank capital maintenance regulations force the World's various financial and industrial institutions to issue $17 trillion in negative interest rate debt securities?

...you sure screwed this pooch. No financial and industrial institutions are issuing negative rate bonds. Those are European and Japanese government bonds. There's a trickle of neg int mortgage bonds being issued in Denmark I believe. Probably not $17T worth though.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#4 - blindfold chess - I also play a bit but get confused after about 20 moves and have to take a peek of the board on occasion. I've seen masters who play blindfold lose sight of the board, it's not easy. The current holder is below. Sometimes playing weird move orders does work to confuse the blindfolded player. Also in TC's video the patzer (lower rated player) played quite well in the beginning, making it tough. I thought Magnus was going to draw or lose. I have a signed book from a old bookstore with Kolty's signature.- RL

Feb 10, 2017 - The world record for blindfold chess has been broken by Timur Gareyev, a 28-year-old US grandmaster. He played 48 games simultaneously in Las Vegas in December, scoring 80%, wearing an actual blindfold and taking 23 hours, all the while on an exercise bike on which he rode the equivalent of 50 miles.
George Koltanowski (also "Georges"; 17 September 1903 – 5 February 2000) was a Belgian-born American chess player, promoter, and writer. He was informally known as "Kolty". Koltanowski set the world's blindfold record on 20 September 1937

This is why a GM that really wants to have a fun blindfold show will do nonsensical things too, to show that yes, they can remember the board regardless. Finegold plays a few games blindfold most days, and he does better than he has any business doing, given how much weaker he's gotten from playing random 1600 over the internet, instead of playing tournaments.

Highlights include beating a 2000 player blindfold, and when he reveals the position (as the viewers don't see the board either), then they see that he thought two consecutive promotions to a bishop were a good idea.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

1. The word "lifecycle" (as in technology lifecycle) does not appear in these documents. Okay, I only took a brief post hike glance, but here's the deal: It could be that all these guys detected was where a family of AI technologies were in 2004 and 2018.

There was a blaze of glory.

Universities were raided as what had been an academic endeavour became a business opportunity.

And then that faded.

It was no longer the hot ticket.

This is entirely normal, without the supposed causality of "missing professors."

By the way, a very fresh interview on the state of AI drops tomorrow

https://youtu.be/qv8UPKZyiZ0

Pair that interview and book with this:

https://boston.cbslocal.com/2019/09/08/video-driver-apparently-asleep-auto-pilot-mass-pike-self-driving-tesla/amp/

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

One of the value adds for our clients is workforce reduction.

We go to Fortune 100 companies and help them reduce workforce by 10-20 percent.

I’ll be very clear here. Over half of corporate jobs should Not exist. They’re zero value add. We intentionally undersell.

The future is increasing shareholder returns by streamlining workflow.

"I’ll be very clear here. Over half of corporate jobs should Not exist. They’re zero value add. We intentionally undersell."

I think if you are talking Head Office corporate jobs you are correct. But that falls off rapidly as you go down the chain. You might be able to cut 20% of jobs at an actual manufacturing or service facility, but you'd almost certainly see a medium term drop in productivity as you end up working the existing workers more hours and their marginal productivity drops.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#6 link is
http://macromomblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/women_econ_csahm_2019-1.pdf

thanks, John!

Both links should work but second link clarifies (for commenters on a goofy website) that slide 4 refers to LGBTQ+ women and "plus" in title at first link is not "plus" size women ...

frankly, I don't want my two-baby extra pounds too lead anyone to think I am less of economist ... so maybe not a mistake :-)

+1, good info

Respond

Add Comment

"Sexism, aggression, and implicit bias may discourage women from being economists"

raises a few questions:

1. Are you aware of the current status of "implicit bias" literature (hint: dubious)?

2. Why aren't other social science fields, where women collect a majority of PhDs, similarly afflicted by toxic masculinity? Surely, men used to hold overwhelming majorities across the board.

3. Why is it that among Asians and temporary residents, women are more likely to get an economics degree than men are?

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

#6) Since Dr. Sahm is an economist, I'm sure that she does not expect all graphs on Slide 2 to slope upwards due to comparative advantage, fallacy of composition, etc. I'm sure that she recognizes, for example, that saying that more women should become economists is equivalent to saying that there are too many women lawyers, doctors, or educated professionals in other fields because an educated woman that becomes an economist necessarily cannot become a lawyer or doctor. Yet, I don't see in the presentation which professions she thinks are over-represented by women. Similarly, I don't see the data that indicates other professions, say law and medicine, are relatively less sexist/aggressive/biased than economics.

Since I know that Dr. Sahm has studied the issue of women in economics so extensively, I am surprised that she does not present more data about professions that have too many educated women or that we otherwise need to discourage educated women from entering so that more of them will become economists.

Hi BC,

You’re an MR commenter who I miss talking with ...

On your point, and I’ve heard it plenty ... here was my reply on Twitter to another economist with a similar comment: https://twitter.com/claudia_sahm/status/1170780117196529666?s=21

Thanks!

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Women get almost 60% of college degrees. If you're pushing for more women in econ (or stem or anything) before pushing for more men getting degrees then you've lost the plot.

Respond

Add Comment

Claudia, nice to see you back, if only for a fleeting visit. One question, how much does the sexism in economics deter women versus their view of better alternatives elsewhere? Can you quantify this because it seems to me that all your conclusions as to why women don’t enter economics are assuming the effect is 100% due to sexism.

ChrisA,

Sexism is not the only reason that women are less likely to become economists than men. My slides have a number of links to research and survey findings, that is a good place for you to start.

I love economics but I know being an economist is not everyone's dream job. I have no issue with people (any gender identity) choosing different career paths.

I take issue with economists who encourage, tolerate, or look the other way when colleagues and future colleagues are treated and judged differently on the basis of some group characteristic.

When economics cleans up its act, then we can think harder about the 'good' reasons women (and others under-represented) go elsewhere. Until then, how do I know that 'women less interested in economics' isn't simply 'women less interested in toxic work environments'? Women are smart.

Claudia

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Women should be moms, period.

Gender gap in bearing children is huge. When are we gonna get on fixing that one, creating new humans seems kinda important.

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment

Respond

Add Comment