4Play

OK, so it's been since April 18th. What's today? The seventh of May?! Hory clap. I figured it's about time I tell the two people I know that this blog is not dying. It's just adapting while I get settled.

So here's a personal update for all ye 4E knowin' types:

I'm enjoying the hell out of living in DC. I've got a job that is turning out to be pretty interesting and reasonably useful, a girlfriend that's just tops, a group of friends that are incredibly entertaining, working knowledge of almost all of the square area between Connecticut & T Street Northwest and the Capitol Building, I weigh substantially less than I did when I sat on my ass all day in Tucson, I've developed an overwhelming preference for pretentious beverages like Amber beers and Mead wine, and I've started using text messaging as an actual means of communication.

...Turns out there actually are times when text messaging is more useful and convenient than dialing the phone. Those homosexuals I knew in college were right.


Now back to business.

- Gamepaign 2008 is not dead either. As I've been thinking for months but never writing, I'm waiting for the Democrats to have a candidate. As soon as they do, there will be an endless river of my political opinions flowing into your eye sockets. Probably. Probably into your eye sockets, I mean, not probably there will be a river.

- I will return to posting stupid blog posts the minute I have slightly fewer things to do with my now-limited free time. I have to get used to this crazy 9 to 5 schedule, ya know? I mean, it's hard to get enough sleep and wake up at 7:30 in the morning when you're so used to drinking all night and waking up on the front lawn at three in the afternoon the next day. At least I would assume it would be hard.

- In the mean time, all you 4ECon Readin' Types should be reading good blogs. Some totally cute girl recently asked me for a list of my 5 favorite blogs written by people I don't know personally. Even though Foreecon's target demographic is balding, quasi-Libertarian intellectuals with
too much free time and not "totally cute girls," I've decided to publish a list of my 5 favorite blogs that I think well rounded totally cute girls (and possibly others) should be reading. Here's my most favoritest blogs in my Google Reader in no particular order:


Physics arXiv
This blog is the bitchinest piece of bitchinosity I've ever bi... read. If you don't love it, I don't like you or your bitchy attitude!

Overcoming Bias
Best statistics/philosophy/economics blog in existence. Sooooooooooo good, it blows my mind into my booties on a weekly basis. I'm serious, you will be shocked.

The Undercover Economist
Most readable economics blog in the blorld. If you don't appreciate economics and economists now, read this blog. You will appreciate economists so much that you will soon find yourself looking for one to perform fellatio on. In bed. There's your horoscope, Scorpio.

Marginal Revolution
Slightly heavier on the econ. It is fantastic. Tyler Cowen is my favorite person in existence right now, and has been for almost a year. In fact, when I grow up, I will be Tyler Cowen.

Dr. Buttery's Public Health Blog
That's actually his name. I think that's an anti-aptonym. I can't get enough of this blog for some reason - It's nice to read stuff outside of your usual field of interest, ya know? Check it out, you'll find a bunch of commentary on recent medical studies and their impact/importance/etc.

Belligerati
Incredibly rounded and well written. This has got to be my favorite variety blog. It's excellent. Absolutely excellent.


There ya are. There's my list of fivsix blogs you absolutely must be reading. Go read 'em.

---

OK, that's it. I'll see you all real soon-like. Real soon. Ish. Soon enough.

Revisiting

In March I posted this, about employment discrimination lawsuits in the U.S. from 1978 to 2006. I received a number of good possible answers from people in the "real" world, so I s'pose it's time to figure out some kind of answer to the original problem. Check the Stolen Graphs post for a refresher...

Here's an email I received from a certain "Juliana," whose last name I will omit in order to prevent internet people finding out she associates with shady Conglomerates like this one. First check out the graph from the last post:

And here's what she wrote:

First, between 1991-1998, the economy grew tremendously, no? I like the quote I found on Wikipedia from David Greenberg, a Professor of Media Studies and History from Rutgers:

"The Clinton years were unquestionably a time of progress, especially on the economy [...] Clinton's 1992 slogan, 'Putting people first,' and his stress on 'the economy, stupid,' pitched an optimistic if still gritty populism at a middle class that had suffered under Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. [...] By the end of the Clinton presidency, the numbers were uniformly impressive. Besides the record-high surpluses and the record-low poverty rates, the economy could boast the longest economic expansion in history; the lowest unemployment since the early 1970s; and the lowest poverty rates for single mothers, black Americans, and the aged."

So, it follows that on the whole people probably felt more secure in their jobs during 1991-1998 than they had during the Reagan/Bush years. Since they didn't think they'd be fired (note, single mothers, black Americans, and old people were more secure than ever), they may have been more inclined to air their grievances.

Also, they had relatively more support in terms of social policy programs. For example, a Clinton budget package included the Earned Income Tax Credit. Although it is illegal, poor and minority Americans likely had the perception that their employer would fire them indiscriminately if they complained, and that they (the poor people) would not have the resources to fight back.

Also, during a strong economy, most of these folks probably had more savings. That way, if they lost their jobs for a few months for complaining about discrimination, they were more likely to still be able cover basic expenses like heat and feeding their kids. Suddenly, they could stop worrying about survival and think about the fact that they made less than the white guy in the office next door.

Add to this a media climate that encouraged litigation and political correctness. We've also left out two important historical events that happened in 1991-1992: Rodney King and the Anita Hill hearings. These can't be left out of the picture because they altered the discourse around race and gender discrimination in the United States.

As far as the downturn in the graph, I credit that to the economic bubble bursting in 2001-2002 (tech bust, Bush tax cut for the wealthy, etc.). Suddenly, people were more worried about job security and feeding their kids again. General inequities (women making 70 cents on the dollar, for example) still mattered, but not as much on a personal level.

Very well said. So let me summarize her ideas, if I may, before I comment:

1. Higher job security meant people were "more inclined to air their grievances" with less fear.
2. The Clinton Administration provided "More support in terms of social policy programs," providing, at the very least, a psychological safety net.
3. More savings (stemming from economic growth) should have the same safety net effects.
4. A "media climate that encouraged litigation and political correctness."
5. Finally, economic stagnation helps explain the reversal in the graph.

All very good, very plausible theories.

And here's an email I received from a certain "Dave," (not my alter ego) whose last name I will omit because I didn't ask if he minded if I used his email for blog fodder (...I assume he doesn't...):

I think the graph of employment discrimination cases follows the graph of all civil cases pretty closely until 1993--the start of the Clinton administration, when workplace issues and labor discrimination became part of the public dialog. It rises disproportionate to the overall graph until 2002, when people had more important things to worry about.

Basically, it was more socially and politically acceptable to sue over workplace discrimination during the Clinton's America than ever before. 9/11 changed the social, political, and legal agenda of America so that this was no longer the case.

Both of them came to somewhat similar conclusions, I think. Of course, The Other-Dave deserves credit for writing me almost a month ago with his ideas as well as for helping me form some more thorough answers in the "real world." I didn't think I'd be revisiting this post until Juliana spoke up this week, though, so I figured I'd point this out... Also - Thanks to both of you for your thoughts.

Anyhoo...

Here's my commentary:

First off, I agree with everything that both of these folks have said. There is no reason to doubt that increased public attention, the effects of economic growth, certain policies enacted by the Clinton Administration and the media's effect on culture (e.g. political correctness) would bring to light discrimination by U.S. employers.

There are, however, a few problems:

1. The beginning of the rapid growth in employment discrimination suits in the graph was around the first part of 1991. In fact, from 1991 to the beginning of 1993 (before Clinton even took office), lawsuits rose from about 8,000 to about 12,000, a 50% rise. That's pretty significant, and can't be explained by Clinton-related policies. It can, however, still be explained in part by public attention, media focus, expectations, et al.

2. These theories operate under the assumption that employer discrimination levels remained unchanged over the years. Instead of people reporting it more, it's possible that employers were actually discriminating more. Is it not likely that the rapid growth of discrimination cases from 1991 to 1998 is due in large part to the growth of business, new jobs and discrimination rather than just the growth of discrimination reporting? Take a look at total job growth from 1990 to 2007:

With such dramatic job growth, you could expect the sheer number of employment discrimination suits to rise dramatically as well, right?


3. More relevant, I think, is the type of new jobs that were being added to the economy. Technological growth and innovation was the major driver of economic growth in the '90s, and businesses in this industry were young, inexperienced and, perhaps, not focused much on proper hiring/firing practices. It's even quite possible that it took four or five years for these businesses to train and/or hire the right kind of human resources staff to prevent such discrimination. (Thanks to Other-Dave, again, for helping me formulate this idea.) To give you an idea of tech jobs growth by itself, here's some data from the BLS on the Computer Services sector:
Notice that the beginning of the curve is around the start of 1991, just as in the discrimination graph.

4. And the statistical problem: The data set is very small. If we had data from the '50s, '60s and '70s, perhaps we might discover that dramatic changes in the number of employment discrimination suits and a low correlation with civil suits are not unique occurrences. It's possible that all periods of economic growth see such dramatic rises, and we just happen to have a graph that exaggerates the effect in the '90s. Maybe.

5. But the biggest problem of all, in my opinion, is the failure of most of these theories to explain the latter part of the graph: The decrease in lawsuits from 1998, the temporary increase in 2001-2003 (during a recessionary period, no less!), and then the big drop starting in 2004.

Even an economic/business growth theory, by itself, wouldn't account for the 2000-2006 period. Here's a GDP graph to help show why:

(We could also just use the job growth graph from above.)
If discrimination suits are directly correlated to GDP growth, we'd see the decrease starting in the third quarter of 2000. In theory. Also, from Q3 2000 to the following year we'd see a consistent decrease, but that happens to be the one time in the period from 1999-2006 that discrimination cases are increasing in the graph (figured I'd post it again):

So, if I had to come up with a theory that used the fewest numbers of most-likely explanations, it would be this:

The growth of tech-sector jobs from 1990 to 2000 was the primary contributor to discrimination cases during that period, mostly due to the fact that they were new, inexperienced, operating in a non-traditional sector, and - most importantly - they sprouted up faster than the supply of trained hiring mangers/lawyers/human resources staff. Growth of these companies didn't slow in 1998, but the supply of trained human resources employees started to overtake tech-company growth around that time. The longer-term decline in discrimination lawsuits followed, as tech-sector growth was finally in line with human resources growth. When tech-sector growth started lagging behind other sectors, the number of lawsuits started to regress even more rapidly to the mean. The one blip in the graph - the small upward trend from the latter half of 2000 to the end of 2002 - can be explained by substantial job losses nationwide, from which there are bound to be a slightly increased number of wrongful firing/discrimination suits.

---

But, in reality, I think the answer might have a lot more to do with specific legal policies. As I am both lazy and obsessed with economics, though, my theory has everything to do with economics and nothing to do with things that involve reading law history.

This is a pretty good start, I think. If you combine the theories from Juliana, Other-Dave, Gretchen and myself - provided there were no specific and overly obvious legal policies that correspond precisely with the graph - then we've probably got an answer as to how to explain the employment discrimination graph.

Right?

Thank you guys, a ton, for playing along. Let me know if I've missed anything...

Miscellany

That's right, Conglomerate, we've got a new flag. In fact, it's a conglomeration of flags. Isn't that adorable?

Time for some unrelated tidbits of semi-interesting stuff:

1. Miscellaneous Correlation Theory

The attractiveness of future generations is directly proportional to the male/female ratio of the current generation.

Explanation:

More males than females in a population means males are going to be in greater competition with each other, giving females greater choice in a mate. Greater choice for females means more men toward the "ugly end of the spectrum" are going to be left out, or crowded out by the relatively more desperate good looking men.

On the flip side, more females than males in a population doesn't necessarily lead to a similar outcome. Since the choice to have children lies with the female, women on the "ugly side of the spectrum" that would otherwise be crowded out of the dating market can still reproduce via artificial insemination, unfaithful males, etc.

So, if there are more men than women, only the better looking men will be able reproduce, but with all "types" of women. If there are more women than men, the better looking women will reproduce with all "types" of men, but the not-so-good-looking women will (can) reproduce by other means. And these other means don't discriminate by appearance as much as the others...

So long story short:

If our generation had significantly more men than women, we'd naturally end up with relatively better looking (more attractive in all important areas, really) children.


...Though I could be missing something important... Anyone see a flaw here?


2. Interesting Psychology

From Wikipedia:

"According to Self-perception theory, people undergo overjustification effect because by observing what they do and why they did it, the extrinsic motivation appears to be the main cause and so undermines their intrinsic motivation."

In other words, we determine our attitudes by trying to watch ourselves act from an outside perspective and rationalizing what acting implied, and doing this obfuscates the real, initial reason for the act.

Just yet another theory that makes you wonder why you really do believe the things you believe, ya know?


3. Miscellaneous Behavioral Econ/Psychology Study

From the abstract of this paper:

"In 4 studies with political and economic decision-making scenarios, it was consistently found that individuals with depleted self-regulation resources exhibited a stronger tendency for confirmatory information processing than did individuals with nondepleted self-regulation resources,"
and
"individuals with depleted self-regulation resources experienced increased levels of commitment to their own standpoint, which resulted in increased confirmatory information processing."


So what does this mean?

It means, apparently, that people with more confidence are able to be more objective. People with lower confidence (lower self-esteem, if you will...) are more stubborn. (Curtsy to Overcoming Bias for translating the psychobabble.)

If the person you're arguing with is incredibly stubborn and unable to accept your perspective in the argument, it's possible they just have low self-confidence. Maybe. Or, possibly, maybe you do.




Since I finally mentioned "curtsy," I'll give a Curtsy to our rarely-seen-these-days friend Chris Jeffords for coming up with the idea of saying "curtsy." I highly recommend that everyone adopt it immediately.

4ECon - March 2008

Ah, March. Here's the scoop:


1. I defended CEO pay against a Congress attack. Other people defended their jaded perspectives against a Dave attack. It's all in the comments.

2. I wrote a few more notes to people that certainly do exist. For the record: It's a Hertz Doughnut. You get it, right?! Maybe that joke was before your time...

3. I stole a graph and commented on it, then asked my readers to figure out an answer. While a couple of real-life acquaintances and I believe we've figured out a [way too complex] answer, only Steampower-G came back with a theory (a good one, too) in this digital world (the comments section). Shame on all you other digital people!


And that's it. Yes, my blog-post rate experienced a rapid deceleration in March, I know. It's not that I don't have a ton of useless crap to write about, it's just that I started an imaginary emu farm in the middle of the month and now I've got all these emus to care for. ...Metaphorical emus, of course. You know what I'm talking about.

- Davis

Stolen Graphs 1: Make Some Crap Up

I stole this graph from some law blog a couple months back, and now I can't remember where I got it. Regardless, I'm two-bit enough that nobody's going to sue me. Well, actually... It was a law blog...

...Oh well:
OK, the green line is all U.S. civil discrimination cases, and the black line is, as you can see, only discrimination cases against employers.

What I think is wildly interesting about this graph is that starting at the end of 1991, after 10 years of almost no change, employment discrimination cases started a massively steep climb that didn't cap out until almost 1999. So I'm thinkin' that one or more of the following must be true from 1991 to 1998:

1. Employers were discriminating more,
2. Employees were filing more discrimination lawsuits, independent of employer behavior,
And/Or
3. The small possibility that the legal system started classifying discrimination lawsuits differently.

#3 poses a problem, though: If it were true, why does this graph even exist without disclaimer (this is only mildly troubling) and, also, why was there such a steep decline in lawsuits from 1999 to 2008?

The blog I stole this from didn't have much insight into the matter, if I remember correctly, and I have only one theory (two actually, but the second is overly simplistic, I think). But, of course, my theory is entirely dependent on economics. This narrow view is usually never enough in these situations, so I figured I'd enlist some help.

So here's your challenge, dear 4ECon Readin' Types:

Make up a narrative that fits the graph. In other words, make some crap up that could possibly help explain why the black line on the graph looks the way it does. I'm thinking that pretty much any theory will help shine some light on it, so let your imaginations go freakin' wild.

More Notes to People

This time, I admit it; I'll come clean: Some of the people I write notes to don't care about my notes. Hell, sometimes they don't even respond!

Regardless -

A note to DC's local Fox affiliate News:

Economic Crisis?! Seriously? Unemployment is barely up - and just recently, no less. Housing prices haven't even really begun their [likely] precipitous fall, manufactured goods orders just hit their ALL-TIME HIGH in December, GDP rose in the most recent quarter (albeit extremely slowly...), stocks are still high (The Dow is at exactly the same level it was around this time last year, S&P down just a bit), inflation is turning out to be relatively tame (so no stagflation worry, in theory) and the Federal Reserve is being unbelievably vigilant and pumping money everywhere it sees fit.

Now I'm not saying you shouldn't start freaking out, crying and go out and buy a 10-year supply of Spam, but there is certainly no economic crisis going on right now.

Notice I said 'right now.'


A note to the Hertz Car Rental company:

I'm totally going to go buy some doughnuts and give them to you. Then, once you've assumed ownership of said doughnuts, I will go around to each of your employees asking if they want one of these doughnuts and then promptly proceed to punch each employee in the arm and laugh hysterically.

See you all real soon,
- Dave


A note to the guy sitting next to me on the flight to Arizona who was wearing a helmet and a bowtie and told me the falling U.S. Dollar is a bad thing:

Our money has been very much in demand all over the world during the past 15 years or so. Up until recently, this has been a primary contributor to our country's Current Account deficit. In other words, we've been importing way more stuff than we export, but this is mostly because our money is so valuable in other countries, and that makes everything relatively cheaper elsewhere.

This is completely natural, but it can't last forever. The Dollar has been falling the last few years, and as it does, our goods get cheaper to foreigners and they'll demand more of our stuff. This is good for our economy, not bad, as it means more domestic jobs and more money flowing in. Sure, the price of imports goes up, but the increased demand for U.S. goods and services should help balance that out.

As simply as I can possibly put this: You don't have to worry about a "falling Dollar." The only thing that really matters is the usefulness of the products and services we produce, which really has nothing to do with exchange rates and everything to do with our skills, education, ability and so on.


A note to the guy that didn't see the 3D Dinosaur movie yesterday:

It was disappointing.

Sure, we were tired after the parade and just a little hungover from all that Irish whiskey that you forced on us the night before, but there just weren't enough 3D dinosaurs in that 3D Dinosaur movie. There were a few, but I don't think there were enough.

There were, instead, a lot of 3D shots of some paleontologist sitting next to a fossilized dinosaur footprint and looking off into the distance, thinking about dinosaurs... If only his thoughts were in 3D, it might have been a good movie...

Oh yeah, and, also, thanks for all that whiskey.

Come to think of it, I guess, maybe, in retrospect, I probably should have listened to that old adage: Don't drink a bunch of whiskey and then expect dinosaurs to solve all your problems.

Truer words are rarely spoken.

CEOs Are People Too. Rich People.

I've had just about enough of this:

CEOs Defend Their High Pay on Hill

In short, the government is holding hearings trying to figure out why CEOs are paid so much, even when their companies are failing.

Is this an intriguing topic to anyone in the Conglomerate? Is everyone thinkin', "Yeah! Why are those bastards makin' 600 times what the average worker makes?!"

I hope so, because otherwise writing about it would pointless and boring.

Here ya go:

Imagine you're on the board of a Fortune 500 company and you're looking to hire a new CEO. How do you attract the best candidate for the least amount of money?

Well, there are two variables (that are important, anyway).

1. Competition.

You and your board of directors are competing with other companies of similar caliber for CEOs. A young, talented CEO on the lookout for a job will compare your salary offer with other companies. Of course.

If your competition is paying $500,000 a year with tens of millions in stock options, you must either do the same or get a second-rate candidate. For the most difficult, most abstract, important and immeasurably stressful job in the entire company, you're going to have a hard time hiring a second-rate candidate and explaining to the stockholders that you "just don't want to pay to hire the best." Individual stockholders, for some wacky reason, don't see a problem with paying an extra million from their multi-billion dollar company's wallets to get a better-than-average candidate. Since so many competing companies are all facing the same problem with similar circumstances, CEO salaries will clearly go up fast, likely to the limit of the stockholders' tolerability level.

Clearly, stockholders can tolerate a lot of money going to their CEOs in salary and bonuses. If not, they'd vote 'em down.

2. Reputation.

If you were that top-tier CEO candidate looking for a job, would you rather work for a company that has a history of short-changing CEOs when their risky decisions turn out badly, or would you rather work for a company that pays their CEOs handsomely even when the company is failing?

Yes, it's a hilarious reality we live in, but not only does paying CEOs when they fail encourage them to make bold, sometimes risky, decisions, but it also acts as a signal to other potential CEOs. Chief Executive Officers don't work at the company forever, you know, and incoming candidates will be clearly more attracted to companies that have shown they pay for risk-taking behavior instead of punish it. Who on Earth would prefer to be punished for enacting [what you believe are] ingenious, but risky, business strategies?



That's it. That's why companies pay their CEOs so damn much. No, it's not technically fair, but they're not really, necessarily being overpaid, either. Just because the incentives are in the wrong place and somewhat hard to keep in check, and competition between companies in a great economy (ours) pushes CEO salary offers to the sky doesn't mean that it doesn't motivate individuals to work much, much harder to be more desirable to these companies. A business culture that pays CEOs millions upon millions of dollars certainly inspires people to want to be CEOs, don't ya think? The more CEOs, the more competition between CEOs, and the more and greater talent we have to choose from.

That's progress, dammit, with the bill paid by shareholders of giant companies. I see no problem here...

4ECon - February 2008

I forgot it was already March. Weehoo, that was a fast month...

As is the pointless tradition around here, it's time to remind nobody what didn't happen in February. Wait, scratch that - reverse it. Everybody, here's what did happen in February:

1. Candidates were released from Gamepaign 2008 after failing miserably (Click on the link and scroll all the way down if you want to see their histories): Rudy Giuliani, Ron Paul, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney and, of course, Mike Randolph (who didn't actually fail miserably - technically he's still in. See here.)

2. I gave John McCain some praise that he may or may not have deserved, and I totally kissed the ass of Barack Obama. There's some sort of major endorsement in that post somewhere, nestled within a bunch of rambling. Come to think of it, you know what I really like about Obama? All those xenophobic protectionists are going to be totally humiliated and red in the face when they find out Obama's been tricking them with the anti-NAFTA talk... Or so I hope...

3. I had a theory from which I might have derived an amazing algorithm for highly-efficient dating, had it not been for the fact that I'm crowded out of this market by people who actually know what they're doing. (People with computers, large databases and massive ad budgets...)

4. Part two of The Dating Game. Long story short, I didn't figure out that algorithm.

5. The MPAA lied on two separate occasions about pirates. I have proof.

6. I posted some short notes I wrote to people who exist only in a world where ceteris paribus is a phrase that everyone is not only aware of, but bored by.


And that's it. I'm fresh out of the usual [un]funny commentary that I normally put in this space. Instead, have a link to the coolest music-related thing I've ever seen in my life:

http://www.musicovery.com

Do it to it. You'll see, it's great.

- Dave

Notes to People

Here are some notes I recently wrote to various people that exist:



A note to the guy who's always complaining about being underpaid:

Of course you're underpaid. If you were overpaid, the company would lose money on you, and if somehow you were magically paid exactly what you are worth, they'd break even and then what would be the point? Sure, I get it - you're complaining because you think the company's accounting of your contributions is incorrect, but you fail to realize that your company is a much better accountant than you. I dare you to test the theory that you're underpaid by applying to other companies.

Also, you're whiny and nobody likes you. Actually, that's the real reason you're underpaid.


A note to that hot girl that asked me my opinion on Shapes for Women Gyms:

They supply a preparatory location for women who plan on transferring, once they’re in good [acceptable] shape to the "regular" gym so they can meet men.

Yes, yes, I know - not all women go to the gym to be better looking for the opposite sex… …But most do. So the way Shapes makes consistent money is exactly the same way every gym makes its money: Their customers don’t actually get anywhere with their exercise program. Don't believe me? Well, have you ever met someone that canceled her gym membership because she decided she was finally in perfect shape? Usually people quit the gym because they've decided to be satisfied with their current condition (motivated, of course, by the high cost of gym membership).

So women go to Shapes, buy a membership, go there with lower-than-expected frequency (as they would to a regular gym) and never "graduate" to the preferred level. Unfortunately, this substantially reduces Shapes' women's odds of meeting men at the gym (since there are none) and reduces men's odds of meeting nice, but somewhat self-conscious, women at regular gyms. Totally, totally unfair. To the customers of Shapes Gyms I say just stay home, meet other fatasses on Craigslist, climb the stairs and lift paint cans. It'll be cheaper and it involves far less self-deception.


A note to the guy who says immigrants took his job:

Immigrants can’t actually take your job. If you were first fired and then replaced by an immigrant it means you were over-skilled for the job (judging by the pay requested), and you can get a better job.

If you think I’m wrong about this, and if you think you were not over-skilled, then why are you asking for so much more money in wages than someone else with equal (or greater!) skills as you? You’ll say, “Well, because his (the immigrant’s) standards are lower, he’s happier with being poorer, etc…” And I’d say, well, then, it seems you’re terrible at managing your costs. Is it really fair that because you’re greedier than those immigrants you deserve to be paid more?

Besides, if we somehow prevented all those immigrants from taking your job, we'd still have to worry about all those unskilled high school dropouts. You're screwed, man. Unless, of course, somehow, some way, you learn some sort of marketable skill or something... Though that seems like a lot more work than whining and bitching and masking racism...


A note to misguided movie producers:

We need more 3D movies about dinosaurs. You know why.




If anybody knows any other people that are wrong and need to be corrected via note, just let me know.

Pirate Bashing

Not by me, of course.

I recently came across this very short statement about movie piracy among college students. It corrects some previous statistics the MPAA had released (they had significantly overstated the amount of piracy by students), but it also goes on to rant about the evils of downloading movies. I found this sentence particularly interesting:

"American workers miss out on thousands of new jobs each year and billions of dollars in earnings, in addition to the cities and towns that lose millions of dollars in tax revenue – all due to piracy."

I wouldn't be surprised if a majority of people believed this sentence. It's interesting not because the figures are exaggerated (they might be), but because the logic is wrong.

First off, there are some compelling reasons that college students might be the biggest movie pirates. They are often more interested in media, they have lower incomes, they are generally more technologically savvy and they are not as "set" in their beliefs of morality as older folks are.

When companies set their DVD prices, they are focused on their largest demographics; their biggest spenders, which most likely does not include poor college kids. In other words, college kids are "priced out" by all the higher income folks that are willing to spend $12-$20 on DVDs. The fact that college students will make the effort to illegally download/copy movies while the "recent graduates" (for example) demographic does not seems to prove the fact that the price is out of their affordable range. If piracy were suddenly impossible, these college kids would, in large part, still be priced out of the market.

This being the case, the relevant question is this: If it were suddenly impossible to pirate movies, would college kids suddenly start spending "billions of dollars" on movies? I think we've inferred already that this would not be the case, but let's just play along and assume the MPAA article is correct.

This means that there are "billions of dollars" worth of resources in one of two places. In the hypothetical world where piracy was impossible, the billions of dollars is in the hands of movie producers and sellers. In our world where piracy is possible, these billions of dollars lie in the hands of whoever sells stuff to college kids, since college kids get to retain the money that they'd otherwise spend on movies.

In short, either movie producers and DVD sellers get the money or clothing stores, the cafeteria at the student union, liquor stores and pornography site webmasters get the money.

That's what college kids spend their money on, right?

Anyway, the point is this: It doesn't matter who gets the money - the "thousands of new jobs each year and billions of dollars in earnings" will exist either way. Whether or not it's good for the economy is solely a matter of determining the incentives created by the money and how people ultimately use it.



My guess is that the MPAA article is just using a little fear mongering to draw attention away from the earlier mistake they made. They can bite me - I'm going to go download Deep Impact or Twister, or some other movie of that excellent, high-dollar blockbuster genre. God knows I'm not paying for that crap.

The Dating Game, Part Two

Here's your weekend reading assignment, 4ECon:

Three things related to pairing up that I'm going to bullsh... er, talk about, I mean, in this post:

1. People are generally unaware how to maximize their dating success - Many people are often too hopeful, decreasing their odds of a landing a successful relationship, while others are "settling" too often.

2. Your instincts on who to date must, by definition, lead you in the wrong direction.

3. There's a way, possibly, that you can override your instincts, extract brutal honesty from yourself and solve the problems in #1 and #2.



First, some background:

Without being too obvious, I'd say there's a difference between getting a date and finding a mate. Dates only require some version of some form of attraction to go forward, but pairing up for longer periods - finding a mate - will succeed or fail based on a wider variety of prerequisites: Desire to start a family, age, expectations of future dating success (desperation, really), and very importantly, your perceptions of the dating pool.

A lot of the people I know that are paired up did so with minimum conscious strategy and maximum luck - even my parents who've been married for 33 years. Almost entirely before any of the prerequisites I listed set in, they'd already started dating. As far as I know, the desire to start a family was not consciously why they initially got together. They were young, not desperate, with high expectations of both themselves and, I'm sure, their possible alternatives (the dating pool.)

So the way it worked for my parents was that they coupled, they liked each other, and the bigger reasons for staying together kicked in over time, after years of dating. This is a pretty common story, I think.

But what are the odds that relationships between these types of couples last for as long as, say, a highly calculated and formulaic match between two people with similar perspectives on things like starting a family, age, dating alternatives, etc? Well, the filtering process in the first case happens like this:

You date one person and then you break up if it doesn't work. You date another, end it if it's bad. You date another and end it if it's not "meant to last," etc. You keep dating until you find someone that either has the same perspective as you or morphs into the preferred perspective along the same time frame as you.

Filtering partners this way has a problem. I would compare it to trying to find the answer to a math problem by guessing and checking - only in this scenario checking involves significant bias. In other words, it's hard to rationally compare your current choice of mate to alternative options after you've invested so much time in him or her. ...In econospeak: the transaction costs of switching partners are high enough to prevent efficient allocation. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

But does this really mean the probability of success using this method is lower than it otherwise could be? Consider a possible second method:

You take a test, determine your personality traits, your desire to start a family, your perception of the dating pool, your level of desperation (essentially) and then a computer uses a complex algorithm to match you with a partner that should maximize your probability of long-term success. This is also known as eHarmony - though I'm not sure they come right out and ask how desperate you are (but I'd bet they can get at it indirectly).

Now how could an algorithm that knows more information about you than you'd normally release by the 15th date, that sufficiently solves the problem of getting information into a centralized location, that takes potential pairs from the largest [possible] pool and matches them possibly offer you a lower probability of success than the first method, the guess-and-check?

Well, maybe because the type of people who put themselves in the centralized database are exactly the kind of people who have given up in the real world. The type of person that has not given up in the real world is most likely young, optimistic, confident and believes (likely with sufficient reinforcement) that the real world dating options are acceptable. These are exactly the kind of people that other people want to date, and thus they have not given up on the real world - it is not incredibly obvious that your dating options are severely limited when you're getting easy dates, albeit with second rate partners. ...Not to mention the fact that people often date, and even get married, for reasons of claiming (or pinning down, if you will) the best partners, regardless of overall "fit."





So what's the lesson to be learned here, Dave?

Let's get technical. EMH - Efficient Market Hypothesis, in finance, states that prices of assets will reflect all available information and it is therefore impossible for a single person to beat the market. The same rule should apply for all markets provided there is no barrier or limit on information.

The way this applies to the dating market is that it suggests that, within the multiple realms of date-matching (the real world or online), you will be paired with someone who is equally as "dateable" as you, in theory, over the long term. If you have the same information about the dating market as everyone else, you can't really exploit the market to your advantage - or, in relevant terms - you can't trick a '10' (from our scales in Part One, and from the "general scale" too) into a long term relationship with you if you're a '5', at least for any considerable amount of time.

There are, of course, exceptions to this general rule. One of them is that as long as divorce is socially or literally expensive, we'll get distortions. This is a lot less common now than it was 50 years ago, but it's still there, obviously.

Another exception is apparently (according to Tim Harford and others) a person's perception of the overall dating market, mostly due to the size of the available dating pool. If someone perceives their options as severely limited, they will be more likely to "settle." If this isn't obvious, here's a long argument that seems to prove it. Basically, people really do respond to supply and demand in the dating marking, and they decide to date and get married using the information available to them at the time. Perfectly normal.

So this means that a '5' could conceivably trick a '10' into a longer-term relationship for some amount of time given a significant and relatively permanent imbalance of the dating pool. Provided the '10' is not aware that he or she could be dating other '10's, the relationship should and probably would continue without too many problems.

Here's the more important question, though: If your goal is a long term relationship - even marriage - is it really the best strategy to try to exploit the market? Even if a '10' is actively choosing partners from a sea of '5's, the probability that a '10' will discover his or her error at some point and try to undo the deal (AKA breakup or divorce) is substantially higher than the probability of a '6' (dating a '5') discovering his or her potential.

So, assuming that the goal is a long-term relationship, doesn't it make sense to avoid your natural instincts - to not chase the best available mate, AKA avoid people who are "above" your dateability level?

I know, I know, it's an vague idea, but there is some way to figure out whether or not you are matched with your partner in terms of overall desirability to the opposite sex.

This is, in fact, one of those things that people just know. For a small example, if you're constantly worried about your partner cheating on you then it means the odds that you've unknowingly (or knowingly) exploited a dating market loophole are quite high. It's not a sure thing, of course - you could just be completely paranoid. But then being completely paranoid is also a sign that your partner might be more well-adjusted (less crazy/paranoid), and perhaps therefore more desirable than you.


(This post's link is unrelated, like usual, but I think it's pretty interesting)


All this might be pretty obvious to you. It also might just be useless if you're happily dating/engaged/married/dying of cancer. Otherwise it just may be helpful - if you're looking for that perfect match, or if you're just really desperate for a "LTR" (See: Any Craigslist ad in a random city for women in their late 30s), taking the scientific approach - the economic approach - just might be the best strategy.

If eHarmony and other online dating algorithm-based databases can, in theory, maximize your probability of a long-term success with a partner in the second-rate online world, shouldn't there be a way to do it in real life - where the first-rate people have yet to give up - as well? If all the most desirable people are facing substantial bias and asymmetrical information about their alternatives in the real world, shouldn't there be some way to find the "perfect" match that takes into consideration your individual market circumstances?

There should be - and maybe I'll be able to make some crap up by the next excruciatingly long post.

For now, arrivederci.

The Dating Game, Part One

Boy, everything seems to be a game of some sort these days at the 4ECon, doesn't it? This one really is a game, though... of some kind... I'm not lying this time...
...For the most part...

Let's pretend you're single. I think this applies to a little more than half of my known readers, so this should be easy. If you're not single, pretend that your current partner suddenly became your ex-girlfriend or ex-boyfriend.

First, think of the last (or current) girl/guy you dated and score him or her on a scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the best of whatever it is you think you're looking for in a partner. You should put some thought into all the dimensions that define best or worst, of course. For example, If the last person you dated was the most amazing person you could imagine in terms of intellectuality or emotional stability (10 out of 10 on this scale), or something along those lines, but was also completely disgustingly physically repulsive (0 out of 10 on this scale), you could rate him or her a 5 out of 10, or weight one proportionally more than another, etc. Make sense? Average some numbers, think of all the important dimensions, make some crap up - you'll figure it out. We're basically looking to translate your opinion of your ex's overall attractiveness into a number. Remember this number.

Next, try to figure out the third-person perspective of that person. How do you think your former girl/boyfriend does on the dating market? Are other people clamoring to date this person, or are they desperately and permanently single? More importantly, how would other people rate him or her on our scale of 0 to 10? Put some thought into this. If it helps, try to think of your "average person," (of your gender) and imagine how he or she would rate your ex.

Before we continue, I should point out that it will help if you're honest. If the last girl or guy you dated was below average looking or intelligence, you should probably end up with numbers below 5. I know there's a propensity to use numbers greater than 5 on 0-to-10 scales, so just try to be honest. If your ex was an ugly moron, don't take it personally and give 'em a 2.

So, are the two numbers the same? Did you score your ex a '7' on your personal scale, but a '5' on the public perception scale, or is it reversed? Whatever your answers were, take the first number and subtract the second. (In my example, that would be 7 - 5 = 2). I'm going to call this new number your "Ex Perception Differential."


Now the hard part:

First, try to rate yourself on your personal scale. Whatever you think your obvious good parts are, or whatever the benefits of your ability to hide your flaws, rate your personality, your looks, your intelligence, your temperament, all of it on a scale of 0 to 10. Get a 7 on looks, did ya? Get a 8 on intelligence, did ya? Give yourself a 6 on honesty, did ya? It sounds like you'll end up averaging to a 7, then. Get the picture? Try to think of all the important spectra of your personal dateability, weight the ones you believe are more important higher, and figure out a number.

Second, you need to rate yourself from a new perspective: Imagine a member of the opposite sex that is gorgeous, intelligent, decent and interested in things that matter - basically, imagine a '10' on the public-perception-of-overall-attractiveness scale, especially in the looks department. Is the image of this person firmly in your head? Good - now here's the question: How would this person rate you on a scale of 0 to 10 if he or she had four minutes to meet you/get to know you? In other words, how would the best-looking and most attractive person you and your friends and family have ever seen in your lives rate you on an attractiveness scale after a four-minute speed date? Try to use averages here, if necessary, and be brutally honest.

OK, now are those two numbers the same? Wildly different? Did you rate yourself higher than or lower than the imaginary hottest-person-in-the-world did? Again, take the first number and subtract the second. If you gave yourself a '6,' for example, and your imaginary critic gave you '3', or something along those lines, you'd get a +3 for the "Self Perception Differential."





Now it's time to play with the numbers. There are a lot of blanket claims I could make, but I'm going to try to limit them (like the fact that single people are more likely to have negative differentials - or so I would say if I weren't avoiding making too many claims... Besides, I could be proven wrong by some anomalous but vocal reader.)

First, remember your Ex Perception Differential. This is the difference between how you rated your ex-girl/boyfriend and how the public does. Positive numbers mean you thought your ex had good qualities that your Average Joe or Jane wouldn't see. Negative numbers mean the opposite; that your ex was hiding her negative attributes from the public, which only become obvious after some amount of dating... (This is why I'd assume people who are actually single will get negative Ex Perception numbers and people who are just pretending to be single for the sake of the game will get more positive numbers. There is some bias, obviously, when it comes to who you are or are not stuck with.)

Now the "Self Perception Differential." A negative number (rating yourself lower than a super-attractive person would rate you) is probably pretty uncommon. I can't think of anyone who really thinks they are, personally, more attractive on "the outside" than they are "deep down." If you got a negative number on this, I'd be interested to hear your reasoning.

However, a large positive Self Perception Differential - say 2 or greater - should signal one, or both, of the following:

A) You are relatively unattractive physically and/or are extremely shy (and people know it.)

B) You are lying to yourself, at least a little, about your overall attractiveness.

...

These are my claims.

Any arguments?


(This link is relevant this time, by the way)

We'll save the implications for Part Two, after I've had some time to figure 'em out. For those who may be interested, I'm trying to figure out some sort of algorithm that'll determine exactly what kind of person you should "resign yourself" to date. In other words, some of our standards (mine, specifically) may be too high, all things considered, and maybe your standards are too low - I figured it's time to be honest with ourselves, and if we're going to be honest, we might as well include some quantitative sociology and develop some strategies, right?

If anyone can develop any kind of formula based on any sort of numerical ranking (the numbers in this post included or not) that can somehow extract honesty and determine what type [ranking] of person (based on the same scale[s]) someone "should" be dating before I do, they will get a prize. Don't worry, you can be pretty vague and make a lot of assumptions - that's how I do things.

Also, if anyone is curious, my Ex Perception Differential is -3 and my Self Perception Differential is +2. How about you?

Gamepaign 2008: Primary Vote

Well, it's Super Tuesday. According to the rules of Gamepaign, I needed to vote for the current leader (Obama, 288 Points). Unfortunately for both Arizona and Barack Obama, it is not only illegal for me to vote in Arizona's Democratic primary (as I'm registered Independent), I'm also 2,300 miles away and I'm not anywhere near a piece of paper that says "absentee" on it.

More importantly, though, is the fact that Arizona doesn't want Independents to vote for Republican or Democratic candidates in its primary. Strange, isn't it? If I had to guess, I'd say it's an attempt by the main parties to encourage voters to identify with one of 'em. ...Or maybe there's some sort of voter fraud (voting twice...?) issue... I have no idea, nor am I going to take the time to look it up and ponder it. Anybody have any clue?

I've been sittin' here watching Super Tuesday coverage all day, and I just saw that Hillary Clinton is projected to win Arizona by a large margin... You can't blame me, Obama, I don't live there. Nobody Set Up Them you.



Here is some political interestingness and relevantism:

-- Apparently, people in my current state are so antsy from the all the "Super" things in one week that they came to the polls a week too early. This seems like it should be especially embarrassing, because really - if you're not informed enough to know when to vote, how are you informed on who to vote for?


-- The NY Times has a good election guide for following the vote tallying and delegate counting for the primaries. Check it.


-- Intrade prediction markets are very interesting to watch when people have no idea what is going on. If prediction markets are our best method of getting information from the people, I'm not very optimistic for the future of people. (Just kiddin', I love 'em)


-- Mike Huckabee looks exactly like Kevin Spacey. While doing a Google image search for Mike Huckabee and Kevin Spacey photos, I came across exactly what I originally had in mind for a blog post.


-- I never figured that John McCain would be the Republican nominee - like a lot of other people, I figured he was overflowing with the old juices, and he'd give up running before he had a viable chance at winning. For those of you who don't know him too well (I don't, really, either), here's a list of policy stances and/or statements by John McCain that you might like. Or maybe you'll hate 'em, I don't know:

1. "Every time US went protectionist, we paid a heavy price." (Oct 2007)
Damn straight.
2. Free trade with any country except security risks. (May 1999)
Damn straighter.
3. "In 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state."
That's awesome, even if it's a teensy bit false.
4. "Republicans have forgotten how to control spending."
Agreed. Actually, I'd argue they honesty never knew. I was about to do a post on this.
5. "Ban on same-sex marriage is unRepublican; leave it to states."
Hey, that's a good point!
6. Affirmative action OK for specific programs, but no quotas.
That's a good stance, I'd say.
7. Close Guantanamo Bay prison; announce no-torture policy.
Rock on.
8. We need a simpler, fairer tax code, but not FairTax.
That is absolutely, absolutely correct.

There are a ton of reasons to like John McCain, especially when compared to other members of his party. There are also plenty of reasons to completely dislike John McCain. I figured I'd spread the [carefully selected] info.



-- Last, not least:
Barack Obama is a fantastic speaker. He's got great "economic logic," he's proved it during both the debates and during his speeches - he's by far the candidate with the best and most applicable knowledge of economics (Much more than Clinton, McCain and even Mitt Romney).

The idea of change is often a selling point among out-of-power party candidates that never comes to fruition, but I think this time - if we elect Barack Obama - we're going to get the most "experimental" president we could possibly imagine. I'm not positive this is a good thing for the country, but I'm also not really that concerned about screwin' things up in the interest of exploration. Exploration is good.

I'm glad that, since the Democrats are probably going to win the 2008 election, Obama has such a good chance of being the nominee.





I just saw that California is predicted to go to Clinton. Not sure how many of California's 400 or so delegates are going to each candidate.

If I had to guess right now, at 12:18 AM on UltraWednesday, I'd say we're going to see Clinton vs. McCain for the general election. Then again, maybe California is less important than I think.
Intrade contracts (higher means more likely) for Clinton and Obama at 12:17 AM.

Like I said, though, people don't have any clue what's going on - but they're our best hope for predicting the future.



UPDATE: Here's what the Intrade contracts look like at 11:30 AM on Wednesday, Feb. 6th:
Just about even, meaning that not only do people not have any clue what's going on, but they also now know that they have no clue what's going on. It took a while for the prediction market to reflect the real confusion (instead of the fake confusion from last night)...

I was trying to figure out why there was such a disparity between last night's predictions (63% likelihood that Clinton would be nominated) and today's (50/50). I figured that maybe people don't buy/sell Intrade contracts when they're asleep, but they was just silly.

I think the real reason Obama is given even chances now is that a theory from last night - that he'll get around half of the delegates - is now more of a fact:

"With most of the votes counted in an inconclusive contest, Clinton is projected to win only eight more Super Tuesday delegates than Obama, but will lead the overall race by more than 60 delegates."

This will [probably] leave the overall delegate count, if you're curious, at:

Clinton: 499 Super Tuesday delegates, 872 overall delegates
Obama: 491 Super Tuesday delegates, 793 overall

For a total difference of 79. That's about two smaller states worth of delegates. Whoever gets 2025 first wins... I presume...

4ECon - January 2008

Well, folks, it's been a Jantastic month.

Though I did spend the last few days being very sick. In fact, when I wrote that last post about the Democratic debate I was a little out of my mind with tiredness and braindeadism. Regardless, I'm sure you all appreciated my ranting.

For the record, which I'm always referring to but have never actually seen (who's maintaining this record? Google...?), January marks 6 months - a full 1/2 year - of 4EConglomeratory goodness. To celebrate this anniversarial goodness, I've decided to finally tell the story behind the 4ECon flag graphics. I know, you've all waited long enough. The time has come.

After I recap the month's postings, that is.

1. First off in January was part one of my attempt to dispute the idea that our middle class is being crunched/squeezed/destroyed/whatever. There is definitely, definitely more to be said about this - for as long as Lou Dobbs lives, Almighty God will not let me stop blogging. I even asked if I could stop and he said no.

2. Next off was The Parking Con. There is not a single website anywhere on the internet that does a better job showing parking behavior - nor has there ever been a blog post on any blog that can so easily double as a metaphor for whatever you want. Efficient Market Hypothesis? BS! This post knocked the socks off EMH! Go ahead, just try and argue! (Just kidding, don't try.)

3. Third was The War Conspiracy Game. It was supposedly a game because naming the post "The War Conspiracy" wasn't as interesting. Or would it have been? I have no falking clue. What am I, some sort of naming specialist?

4. I invented Krug Disease and I finally brought to the internet the phrase "Someone Set Up Us The Obama," (© 2005 Stephen Guzzo) . That's golden.

5. I got sick (Krug Disease?), I was bored, and I was watching the Democratic debates on CNN - in that order - so I posted my thoughts. I called it "Deblogging" because I was referencing myself from August 2007. I thought it was cool until I woke up the next morning and realized that no, no, in was not, in fact, cool at all. As we all know, though, once something is blogged, it can never be unblogged. What? Unblog is so a word.




A'ight.

And now, finally, the long awaited story behind the 4ECon flag graphics. I hope you're all wearing socks. Here goes. Finally:

I used Photoshop to turn a picture of my hand into a four because I was bored, then I put it on a flag-shaped thing and pretended that it looked like a 4 on an 'E', which is my last name in quasi-leet speak. And it's cool. The end.

And now you all finally know the story behind the über-famous 4ECon flags. Please, please, please, if you're the media, stop sending me requests for interviews about this one. Also, if you're the media, start doing a better job.

And just in case you didn't notice: Starting January 1st, you can click on the flag of any post and it'll sort all previous posts by that topic. Piratey is still my favorite brand. Try it or don't. I know, I know, it's lamer than your mom.

OK, that's enough of that.

- Dave