Andrey Mir on Academic Media; Rob Henderson on poverty and family structure; Faze on the sense of agency; does studying econ shift students to the right?
I'm not sure how important college metrics are but it woud be easy enough to fix by adding "receiving a child allowance" to the criteria and, of course, having a child allowance
That commenter thinks like an employee. You can’t sell your job at the end, or decide your job should be doing something different than what you’re currently doing and then just do it. Being an employee is great if that’s what you want to do, but I don’t see that as having much agency. Also, ask all the people who get laid off during a downturn or shift in trends about how big company employees aren’t affected by trends outside of their control.
Agreed. That commenter sounds like a university professor. Maybe a Google employee.
It seems worth noting that even in the best of times, not everyone is capable of running a small farm or business. Not everything applies to everyone equally.
The Amazon Prime series Clarkson's Farm documents the life of a (celebrity) farmer in the UK where he is at the mercy of the weather and various levels of zealous bureaucrats. It's pretty amusing, probably even more so if you don't have the misfortune to live under the same insane and evil rules that we do.
That being married when one has children is better for children has been known for for a couple of millennia at least.
I don't understand why Henderson writes as if he has discovered a new social continent and that there is some obvious button to press to encourage child bearing in marriage if only the "luxury beliefs" of the "elite" did not prevent them from pressing it.
You are right about the fact that only have kids when you are married has long been known, but I think you are very much underestimating how many people do not know it or appreciate the importance. Unless those 70% of lower class people with children out of wedlock know but are just entirely indifferent to the fact, at least.
So far as I know, the platitudes are still platitudes, at least among the upper 30% which is Henderson’s audience. As I said , I’m just amazed at the “reception” of Henderson and Peterson.
I guess “platitude” is, however, not the right word. There are some things that are so “just done” that no one talks about it. Henderson’s 30% does not sit around talking about how bad it is to be a single parent.
I don't think that first assertion about audience is entirely true, and I don't think it is unlikely that some of Henderson's audience has themselves an audience among the 70% in question. If Henderson goes on Joe Rogan's show, right there his audience spreads quite beyond the readers of his blog or books, for instance.
Ideas have to permeate somehow. Just assuming everyone knows them and never stating them is how they are lost.
Luxury beliefs believers live their own, above avg lives in accordance with with wisdom known for ages BUT claim, sometimes merely implicitly, that all lifestyle choices are essentially equal.
So far Rob has avoided too much behavior shaming.
Social shaming works at reducing the shameful behavior, including slut shaming. Opposing slut shaming implicitly supports slutty behavior. I call such men, like Trump and Bill Clinton (&JFK & LBJ & MLK) all slut-jerks, but society doesn’t use this or any other shameful phrase for womanizers.
Arnold and conservative guests a few months ago explicitly denied wanting to do any slut shaming.
Promiscuity leads to pregnancy & babies outside of marriage, & more abortions. All very bad for the babies, especially the fetal humans killed to avoid living as such a baby. Life is not fair, especially in pregnancy & sex.
Farmers are an interesting example because the government has created many institutions supported by policies to protect them from the fluctuations of the market, the weather, and disease. This makes it so that success in agriculture is often more dependent on adept navigation of the protective programs than on market success. When an industry is totally run through with regulations, even those that are on balance quite generous and supportive to the industry, it becomes impossible to compete without following the required procedures and forms.
I like Faze's comment and Arnold's response, but I would say first start with a clean slate, then put your Michael Strong hat on, and ask: “What do you love? What are you good at? What will the world pay for, and what does the world need?” Answers will vary, but will typically start with something like, "I prefer" or "For me it's important that," and after more reflection one might say something like, "Considering my family" or "We prefer that our children..."
Next, it helps to be economically literate, but what school of economics should you be literate in? And where should you start your economic literacy? More on this below.
The next thing to recognize is that your answers to Strong's questions will likely change over your lifetime. The world will change and your priorities will probably change. Your personal agency is an important factor to consider, but your family is probably the most important factor. Where will your children go to school if you work for that large company? Who will your children make friends with and who will they play with after school? What does your spouse prefer?
After your family, political factors are important to consider. Who will your neighbors be? How bad is your commute? How large is your backyard? How much are your property taxes? What political tribe do your co-workers belong to? Do you like the influence of the colleges and universities in your community? In that place how much pressure is there to conform to values that are counter to your values?
Agency in your career is just one kind of the various categories of agency that we might want to consider when trying to figure out where to live and what to do. Perhaps you should prioritize where to live rather than what to do? For example, how much agency do you have in that place vs this other place? How does your agency change in moving from city to country? Do you like the zoning restrictions and architectural constraints within that community? How do you like the HOA rules in that place? Are you willing to give up certain kinds of agency in order to get something else?
As you accumulate wealth, you might ask, "Is this still the right place for us? What have I been wrong about thus far in my life? What should we change?"
And finally, you might realize that you don't know what it will be like to become something different or to move over there. Perhaps you have to "become a vampire" in order to find out what it will be like. Fortunately, most decisions in life aren't so permanent. You can try things out and make changes as needed. That cult isn't so bad that they will hunt you down.
I suppose this might help you answer the question of which school of economics to learn: learn the school that gives you freedom to make adjustments in your life, but if you choose the opposite, that's fine too -- you'll find out what that's like and maybe learn something.
"This what a system looks like when it has been thoroughly gamed."
Yes. And very inefficient. But none of this means ineffective. That is much less clear. And it is also unclear how much inefficiency can be removed without significant loss of effectiveness.
But effective to do what? Mir's outcomes don't line up very well with "discover and pass along useful knowledge". At least partially, it seems the opposite.
Interesting @robkhenderson piece. He (and you) may be interested in this too. https://hollisrobbinsanecdotal.substack.com/p/strange-bedfellows
I'm not sure how important college metrics are but it woud be easy enough to fix by adding "receiving a child allowance" to the criteria and, of course, having a child allowance
That commenter thinks like an employee. You can’t sell your job at the end, or decide your job should be doing something different than what you’re currently doing and then just do it. Being an employee is great if that’s what you want to do, but I don’t see that as having much agency. Also, ask all the people who get laid off during a downturn or shift in trends about how big company employees aren’t affected by trends outside of their control.
Agreed. That commenter sounds like a university professor. Maybe a Google employee.
It seems worth noting that even in the best of times, not everyone is capable of running a small farm or business. Not everything applies to everyone equally.
The Amazon Prime series Clarkson's Farm documents the life of a (celebrity) farmer in the UK where he is at the mercy of the weather and various levels of zealous bureaucrats. It's pretty amusing, probably even more so if you don't have the misfortune to live under the same insane and evil rules that we do.
That being married when one has children is better for children has been known for for a couple of millennia at least.
I don't understand why Henderson writes as if he has discovered a new social continent and that there is some obvious button to press to encourage child bearing in marriage if only the "luxury beliefs" of the "elite" did not prevent them from pressing it.
You are right about the fact that only have kids when you are married has long been known, but I think you are very much underestimating how many people do not know it or appreciate the importance. Unless those 70% of lower class people with children out of wedlock know but are just entirely indifferent to the fact, at least.
The paradox is that Henderson’s audience is not that 70%.
He (and Jordan Peterson) have found the way to make tons of money by courageously championing platitudes.
When a platitude becomes unfashionable,, it is no longer a platitude.
Spouting them makes you kind of icky. And isn't that how respectable opinion feels about Rob Henderson and Jordan Peterson?
So far as I know, the platitudes are still platitudes, at least among the upper 30% which is Henderson’s audience. As I said , I’m just amazed at the “reception” of Henderson and Peterson.
I guess “platitude” is, however, not the right word. There are some things that are so “just done” that no one talks about it. Henderson’s 30% does not sit around talking about how bad it is to be a single parent.
Of course not. That would be mean to the poor unfortunates who are single parents. One must not punch down.
Well, that too, but really it's kind of too obvious to be come a topic of conversation.
I don't think that first assertion about audience is entirely true, and I don't think it is unlikely that some of Henderson's audience has themselves an audience among the 70% in question. If Henderson goes on Joe Rogan's show, right there his audience spreads quite beyond the readers of his blog or books, for instance.
Ideas have to permeate somehow. Just assuming everyone knows them and never stating them is how they are lost.
Luxury beliefs believers live their own, above avg lives in accordance with with wisdom known for ages BUT claim, sometimes merely implicitly, that all lifestyle choices are essentially equal.
So far Rob has avoided too much behavior shaming.
Social shaming works at reducing the shameful behavior, including slut shaming. Opposing slut shaming implicitly supports slutty behavior. I call such men, like Trump and Bill Clinton (&JFK & LBJ & MLK) all slut-jerks, but society doesn’t use this or any other shameful phrase for womanizers.
Arnold and conservative guests a few months ago explicitly denied wanting to do any slut shaming.
Promiscuity leads to pregnancy & babies outside of marriage, & more abortions. All very bad for the babies, especially the fetal humans killed to avoid living as such a baby. Life is not fair, especially in pregnancy & sex.
Farmers are an interesting example because the government has created many institutions supported by policies to protect them from the fluctuations of the market, the weather, and disease. This makes it so that success in agriculture is often more dependent on adept navigation of the protective programs than on market success. When an industry is totally run through with regulations, even those that are on balance quite generous and supportive to the industry, it becomes impossible to compete without following the required procedures and forms.
I like Faze's comment and Arnold's response, but I would say first start with a clean slate, then put your Michael Strong hat on, and ask: “What do you love? What are you good at? What will the world pay for, and what does the world need?” Answers will vary, but will typically start with something like, "I prefer" or "For me it's important that," and after more reflection one might say something like, "Considering my family" or "We prefer that our children..."
Next, it helps to be economically literate, but what school of economics should you be literate in? And where should you start your economic literacy? More on this below.
The next thing to recognize is that your answers to Strong's questions will likely change over your lifetime. The world will change and your priorities will probably change. Your personal agency is an important factor to consider, but your family is probably the most important factor. Where will your children go to school if you work for that large company? Who will your children make friends with and who will they play with after school? What does your spouse prefer?
After your family, political factors are important to consider. Who will your neighbors be? How bad is your commute? How large is your backyard? How much are your property taxes? What political tribe do your co-workers belong to? Do you like the influence of the colleges and universities in your community? In that place how much pressure is there to conform to values that are counter to your values?
Agency in your career is just one kind of the various categories of agency that we might want to consider when trying to figure out where to live and what to do. Perhaps you should prioritize where to live rather than what to do? For example, how much agency do you have in that place vs this other place? How does your agency change in moving from city to country? Do you like the zoning restrictions and architectural constraints within that community? How do you like the HOA rules in that place? Are you willing to give up certain kinds of agency in order to get something else?
As you accumulate wealth, you might ask, "Is this still the right place for us? What have I been wrong about thus far in my life? What should we change?"
And finally, you might realize that you don't know what it will be like to become something different or to move over there. Perhaps you have to "become a vampire" in order to find out what it will be like. Fortunately, most decisions in life aren't so permanent. You can try things out and make changes as needed. That cult isn't so bad that they will hunt you down.
I suppose this might help you answer the question of which school of economics to learn: learn the school that gives you freedom to make adjustments in your life, but if you choose the opposite, that's fine too -- you'll find out what that's like and maybe learn something.
"This what a system looks like when it has been thoroughly gamed."
Yes. And very inefficient. But none of this means ineffective. That is much less clear. And it is also unclear how much inefficiency can be removed without significant loss of effectiveness.
But effective to do what? Mir's outcomes don't line up very well with "discover and pass along useful knowledge". At least partially, it seems the opposite.
Of course they don't. He only listed negatives and made no attempt to consider any positive outcomes of academic publishing.
FYI - I would add much more to his list of negatives, starting with p-hacking.