Netflix has been through some hard times lately, and the industry is evolving in ways that will continue to challenge their core business model. A combined deal between Redbox and Verizon has been struck in order to offer streaming video. Redbox is also buying out DVD kiosks owned by Netflix' old rival, Blockbuster, to expand their on-the-ground presence.
Netflix is already in a market with big-name competitors for streaming video - Hulu, Apple, Amazon and Walmart, to name a few - as well new outfits such as Zediva (which offered rock-bottom prices, but ran into legal troubles due to avoidance of content licensing fees). Netflix sets itself apart with the DVD mailing program, but Redbox is now well-positioned to compete on that front as well.
How to stay ahead of the curve? Netflix just introduced their first offering of original programming, Lillyhammer, with more shows planned in the next year. Now, with Netflix moving toward an "HBO model" of producing and distributing their own content, their core business will be changing.
There is some clear logic to this decision: instead of paying extravagant licensing fees to stream content (the deal with DreamWorks is estimated to place a $30 million price tag on each film) new shows can be produced internally. New exclusive content could also pull in subscribers drawn to a particular actor or show; this may explain why Netflix is rumored to be producing Arrested Development Season 4.
During the short-lived introduction of 'Qwikster', some speculated that Netflix was drifting away from its core expertise. It's not immediately clear how DVD mailing translates to streaming content. Now, the company is shifting its role once more, and one is left to ask whether film production is also part of the Netflix tool kit.
Vertical integration in the entertainment industry is hardly a new phenomenon. But, most television networks started off producing content, and then acquired more means for distributing it. Netflix got into the distribution business first, and now is trying to backpedal into producing as well.
It's unclear whether the few big-name offerings which Netflix will produce are enough to distinguish them from the other streaming services. But, facing stiff competition in both physical and online distribution channels, moving up the content production chain may be the only choice they have in order to stay relevant.
Monday, February 6, 2012
Sunday, February 5, 2012
The value of flexible labor markets
Three stories in the news today highlight the importance of labor market mobility.
The United States has had some good news lately. With job spurt, US economy races ahead of Europe:
The United States has had some good news lately. With job spurt, US economy races ahead of Europe:
Some 1.9 million US jobs have been created in the past five months, bringing the number of people working nearly back to the levels of late 2008.Those high costs are creating problems in Greece. Employed But Not Paid, Some Greeks Voice Protest:
Jacob Kirkegaard, economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said the latest developments in the labor market show the resilience of the US economic model.
"When you're a US employer, you barely hesitate to hire because you know if you take a worker for a peak in business, you can easily lay off that person if it doesn't turn out as planned," he said.
"In Italy, in Spain, in France, in Greece, the costs for that are high."
If ALTER TV laid off these workers, the owner would have to pay millions in compensation. Under Greek law, white-collar workers, for example, with 24 years on the job are entitled to 28 months of severance pay.Inflexible labor markets make economic contractions worse, and also slow the pace of recovery. Meanwhile, Canada is offering visas to Indian professionals as their economy improves. Human capital is the largest resource in any economy, so allowing movement toward higher-valued uses is essential for productivity and growth.
These days, few employers can afford that, says Vassilis Masselos, a shop owner who has been pressing the government on business reforms.
"It's not a matter of choice, it's a matter of necessity," Masselos says. "They can't find the money to pay employees. They cannot fire them. So they are locked into a sort of limbo that nobody can get out of."
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Komen Foundation Pilloried for Planned Parenthood Policy - and Rightly So
Earlier this week the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation said they'd be eliminating their grants to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings. The resulting social media uproar, however, quickly caused them to reverse that decision and issue a sickly-sweet apology press release.
I know blood in the water when I see it; my duty to the blogosphere wouldn't be met without helping to smear Komen's momentarily-vulnerable public image further. After all, it's not every day you can feel righteous while slinging mud on a charity.
The recent furor raises a broader question: how much of what the Komen Foundation does is actually getting us closer to a cure for breast cancer? According to their website, 84% is spent "on our mission." But, that "mission" is defined pretty broadly.
The screenings, research, and treatment services that Komen provides are definitely valuable, but those only make up 46% of the overall budget. That leaves 54% percent taken up by administration, fundraising and "education" (a.k.a. advertisements). Basically, for every dollar that Komen takes in, a little over half of it goes out toward seeking another dollar. It's inefficient.
Maybe "education" about the risk of breast cancer is important, and causes some people to get treatment who otherwise would not. But, there are obviously some diminishing returns to awareness. Breast and prostate cancer are the number two causes of cancer-related deaths for women and men, respectively, but breast cancer receives much more public money and attention.
A cynic would say that it's more fun to talk about breasts than the inside of men's asses, and probably be right. Some recent "sexy" breast cancer awareness campaigns help to reinforce that cynical view. While the incidence of prostate cancer has risen rapidly over the last 20 years, much faster than the rate of breast cancer, the National Cancer Institute spent twice as much on breast cancer as it did on prostate cancer in 2008.
There shouldn't have to be a fight between different anti-cancer organizations for funding. All of these diseases deserve serious study and research toward a cure. But, there also shouldn't be pseudo-political organizations like the Komen Foundation sucking up resources for runs, pink ribbons, Facebook campaigns, "awareness", and other things commonly known to not stop cancer. If you want your donation to make a difference, write a check to a research lab, not a lobbying group. With their stance on Planned Parenthood, the Komen Foundation has revealed itself to be much closer to the latter.
I know blood in the water when I see it; my duty to the blogosphere wouldn't be met without helping to smear Komen's momentarily-vulnerable public image further. After all, it's not every day you can feel righteous while slinging mud on a charity.
The recent furor raises a broader question: how much of what the Komen Foundation does is actually getting us closer to a cure for breast cancer? According to their website, 84% is spent "on our mission." But, that "mission" is defined pretty broadly.
 |
| From Komen's donation page. |
The screenings, research, and treatment services that Komen provides are definitely valuable, but those only make up 46% of the overall budget. That leaves 54% percent taken up by administration, fundraising and "education" (a.k.a. advertisements). Basically, for every dollar that Komen takes in, a little over half of it goes out toward seeking another dollar. It's inefficient.
Maybe "education" about the risk of breast cancer is important, and causes some people to get treatment who otherwise would not. But, there are obviously some diminishing returns to awareness. Breast and prostate cancer are the number two causes of cancer-related deaths for women and men, respectively, but breast cancer receives much more public money and attention.
 |
| Data source: Aminou R, Altekruse SF, Edwards BK, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review: 1975-2006. Cancer Statistics, National Cancer Institute. May 29, 2009 |
A cynic would say that it's more fun to talk about breasts than the inside of men's asses, and probably be right. Some recent "sexy" breast cancer awareness campaigns help to reinforce that cynical view. While the incidence of prostate cancer has risen rapidly over the last 20 years, much faster than the rate of breast cancer, the National Cancer Institute spent twice as much on breast cancer as it did on prostate cancer in 2008.
There shouldn't have to be a fight between different anti-cancer organizations for funding. All of these diseases deserve serious study and research toward a cure. But, there also shouldn't be pseudo-political organizations like the Komen Foundation sucking up resources for runs, pink ribbons, Facebook campaigns, "awareness", and other things commonly known to not stop cancer. If you want your donation to make a difference, write a check to a research lab, not a lobbying group. With their stance on Planned Parenthood, the Komen Foundation has revealed itself to be much closer to the latter.
Thursday, February 2, 2012
Productivity is bad for job growth?
Scanning the news feed for something worthy of being shared with Twitter, I happened across this good news/bad news article from USA Today: Unemployment benefit claims, worker productivity fall. Less benefit claims is a sign that more people are going back to work, although drops in productivity temper optimism about the speed of economic recovery.
Instead, apparently the author of this piece took it be good news/good news, claiming
In reality, productivity growth is the driving factor behind economic expansion. For economic growth to pick up, we need the inputs of production (labor, capital, etc.) to become more productive, not slow down! This allows us to both become richer and create more jobs as a society.
At the micro-level, theory predicts that a firm will not pay a worker more than their marginal product; i.e. if a machinist can produce $50 worth of goods in an hour, a company that pays him/her $51 per hour will be losing money. USA Today misses the irony when going on to claim
Lower productivity means reduced living standards for future Americans. It doesn't even rise to the level of a placebo for our current unemployment woes; generally, placebos are expected to do nothing, not make the problem worse.
Instead, apparently the author of this piece took it be good news/good news, claiming
Weaker productivity growth can help boost hiring if economic growth picks up.This argument is motivated by the lump of labor fallacy (the idea that there are only so many jobs to be done, so higher productivity will leave more out of work) and a preoccupation with firms as purveyors of jobs rather than producers of products. Both of these ideas are largely discredited among economists.
In reality, productivity growth is the driving factor behind economic expansion. For economic growth to pick up, we need the inputs of production (labor, capital, etc.) to become more productive, not slow down! This allows us to both become richer and create more jobs as a society.
At the micro-level, theory predicts that a firm will not pay a worker more than their marginal product; i.e. if a machinist can produce $50 worth of goods in an hour, a company that pays him/her $51 per hour will be losing money. USA Today misses the irony when going on to claim
consumers have been weighed down by wages that haven't kept pace with inflation.If that is occurring, it's because worker productivity hasn't kept pace with other factors in the economy. This argument is made in more detail by several recent books: Race Against the Machine by Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee, and The Great Stagnation by Tyler Cowen both explore the phenomenon of declining worker productivity, and neither are excited about that decline as a source of new jobs.
Lower productivity means reduced living standards for future Americans. It doesn't even rise to the level of a placebo for our current unemployment woes; generally, placebos are expected to do nothing, not make the problem worse.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
Collective Action Solutions for Libertarian Politics
The biggest problem for an individualistic, freedom-oriented political movement is getting each of those individuals to join any sort of movement in the first place.
Many economists wonder why anyone votes at all -- the chance of any one ballot changing the outcome is statistically zero and the cost of voting is small but positive (e.g. risk of dying in a car accident on the way to the polls), so rationally it would be better to stay home on election day. Most people vote out of a feeling of moral obligation or civic duty.
The low impact of voting helps to explain why barely more than half of the American electorate usually shows up to vote. That problem is magnified for a political party whose "base" has a strong individualist leaning; they are less likely to feel the civic obligation which pushes others to the polls.
Enter the Free State Project. Goal: collect signatures from libertarians, who will move to New Hampshire when total signatures reach 20,000. Why New Hampshire? It has low tax rates, little dependence on federal spending, and a small enough electorate that 20,000 people might be able to sway its political orientation.
In economic jargon, the Free State Project uses a pre-commitment device to solve a collective action problem. No one is asked to move to New Hampshire until sufficient signatures are obtained (as of this writing there are 11,578 participants; 8,422 to go). Any one person moving to New Hampshire in order to change its politics would bear a large cost, with uncertain chance of success. Assuming people stick to their word, the Free State Project allows each person more confidence that their action will make a difference.
Agree or disagree with the libertarian political platform, it's hard to argue about because there are few real examples of libertarian societies to reference. I hope the libertarians do succeed in taking over New Hampshire, because it will be an interesting test case for a liberty-motivated legislative majority. Even if the result is a total disaster the impact will be negligible, and the advance in knowledge for political science / public choice well worth it.
Many economists wonder why anyone votes at all -- the chance of any one ballot changing the outcome is statistically zero and the cost of voting is small but positive (e.g. risk of dying in a car accident on the way to the polls), so rationally it would be better to stay home on election day. Most people vote out of a feeling of moral obligation or civic duty.
The low impact of voting helps to explain why barely more than half of the American electorate usually shows up to vote. That problem is magnified for a political party whose "base" has a strong individualist leaning; they are less likely to feel the civic obligation which pushes others to the polls.
Enter the Free State Project. Goal: collect signatures from libertarians, who will move to New Hampshire when total signatures reach 20,000. Why New Hampshire? It has low tax rates, little dependence on federal spending, and a small enough electorate that 20,000 people might be able to sway its political orientation.
In economic jargon, the Free State Project uses a pre-commitment device to solve a collective action problem. No one is asked to move to New Hampshire until sufficient signatures are obtained (as of this writing there are 11,578 participants; 8,422 to go). Any one person moving to New Hampshire in order to change its politics would bear a large cost, with uncertain chance of success. Assuming people stick to their word, the Free State Project allows each person more confidence that their action will make a difference.
Agree or disagree with the libertarian political platform, it's hard to argue about because there are few real examples of libertarian societies to reference. I hope the libertarians do succeed in taking over New Hampshire, because it will be an interesting test case for a liberty-motivated legislative majority. Even if the result is a total disaster the impact will be negligible, and the advance in knowledge for political science / public choice well worth it.
Monday, January 23, 2012
One small victory for Privacy vs. GPS Trackers
The Supreme Court ruled today that a warrant is required for police to attach a GPS tracking device to a suspect's car. Previously, officers could use GPS to track a car's movements for suspicious activity, and then substantiate criminal charges using those findings.
Prosecutors justified this practice by saying it was no different from tailing or following a suspect. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that
How much tangible impact will this decision have on criminal investigations? Probably a very small one. Police departments will have to pay more overtime for old-fashioned surveillance on suspects, instead of using a fancy GPS unit.
Alternately, wireless technology and smart-phones have provided even better ways for law enforcement to establish location. As the BBC article on this case concludes,
Prosecutors justified this practice by saying it was no different from tailing or following a suspect. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that
The Government’s attachment of the GPS device to the vehicle, and its use of that device to monitor the vehicle’s movements, constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.It's a welcome victory for privacy rights advocates. After the controversial passage of the NDAA on Dec. 31, civil libertarians must have been hoping for some good news.
How much tangible impact will this decision have on criminal investigations? Probably a very small one. Police departments will have to pay more overtime for old-fashioned surveillance on suspects, instead of using a fancy GPS unit.
Alternately, wireless technology and smart-phones have provided even better ways for law enforcement to establish location. As the BBC article on this case concludes,
...the ruling is unlikely to have an impact on the use by law enforcement agencies of another surveillance method, mobile phone tracking software.Police, and executive agencies with support of the Obama Administration, have had no trouble requesting location data from iPhone or iPad services to aid in criminal prosecution. I'm no legal expert, but this Supreme Court decision might establish precedent for that practice to be challenged in court as well.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
The American Entertainment Industry's Death Rattle
It's obvious that the circumstances which allowed so much wealth to be accumulated in Hollywood by major record labels have changed, but the people at the top don't want to change with them. The industry's demise (at least in its current form) is evidenced by the great efforts being made to legislate demand for their products - through the SOPA/PIPA legislation in Congress, which led to a blackout of many popular sites yesterday, and today's effort to shut down Megaupload.com as a copyright infringer.
Piracy is not really the problem here, but a symptom of a larger issue: the entertainment industry wants to charge more for their products than people are willing to pay. Maybe people used to be willing to pay $15-20 for a CD, but no more. With digital distribution, artists can sell their music to fans directly, without the entertainment edifice standing in between. This is a better deal for both musicians and fans, but makes most of the music industry obsolete. The same is not exactly true in Hollywood - someone has to finance big-budget action flicks - but digital services such as Netflix Watch Instantly are changing the game there too. Why would I go pay $12 to see a movie in a theater, when I can pay $8 per month for more streaming content than I can watch in a lifetime?
Even if online piracy were eliminated completely, it wouldn't address the bigger issue facing the entertainment industry: substitution. Consumers have an increasing variety of entertainment options to choose from, many of which are free or extremely cheap. Now that online distribution is easy, there's really no need for the big industry surrounding content distribution. They can kick and scream all they want, but the entertainment industry as we know it is functionally doomed. It just doesn't realize that yet (or is trying desperately to deny the obvious).
Piracy is not really the problem here, but a symptom of a larger issue: the entertainment industry wants to charge more for their products than people are willing to pay. Maybe people used to be willing to pay $15-20 for a CD, but no more. With digital distribution, artists can sell their music to fans directly, without the entertainment edifice standing in between. This is a better deal for both musicians and fans, but makes most of the music industry obsolete. The same is not exactly true in Hollywood - someone has to finance big-budget action flicks - but digital services such as Netflix Watch Instantly are changing the game there too. Why would I go pay $12 to see a movie in a theater, when I can pay $8 per month for more streaming content than I can watch in a lifetime?
Even if online piracy were eliminated completely, it wouldn't address the bigger issue facing the entertainment industry: substitution. Consumers have an increasing variety of entertainment options to choose from, many of which are free or extremely cheap. Now that online distribution is easy, there's really no need for the big industry surrounding content distribution. They can kick and scream all they want, but the entertainment industry as we know it is functionally doomed. It just doesn't realize that yet (or is trying desperately to deny the obvious).
Friday, January 13, 2012
Paper books are a depreciating asset
...at least for a grad student.
Why? Any time I move, I have to pay to transport them. Shipping fees aren't cheap, plus packing and carrying books is a lot of work. Given that I will definitely be leaving Fairfax after graduating (cost of living is too high to stay permanently) and will likely end up moving several times after that before settling down, that's a lot of money and effort that might go into lugging paper around with me.
At first, I was hesitant about e-books. The feel of a good book in the hands is hard to replace. But, a Kindle (or other e-reader) with a cheap cover is a decent imitation, and a lot more convenient. The only real downside is inability to re-sell the book when I'm done reading.
Basically, it's time to go digital.
My new policy is to only buy paper books when (a) there's a chance I might be able to sell it later for a decent amount of cash, as is the case with a textbook or (b) the paper copy is much, much cheaper than the electronic version.
It'll be a few years before I'm moving again, but there's no time like the present to start downsizing (just don't take me out of context on that line). Right now I have around a hundred books and several years worth of National Geographic magazine. It's a paltry collection compared to some of my professors, but still more than the average person needs.
The punchline: if you want any of my books, I'll sell them cheap. Check out My Bookcase and make an offer. Even if it's low, I won't be insulted - cover the cost of shipping plus a little bit more and I'm satisfied. If you're already settled in and won't be moving soon, or don't find hauling paper to be as much of a hassle as me, then an exchange can make us both happy!
Why? Any time I move, I have to pay to transport them. Shipping fees aren't cheap, plus packing and carrying books is a lot of work. Given that I will definitely be leaving Fairfax after graduating (cost of living is too high to stay permanently) and will likely end up moving several times after that before settling down, that's a lot of money and effort that might go into lugging paper around with me.
At first, I was hesitant about e-books. The feel of a good book in the hands is hard to replace. But, a Kindle (or other e-reader) with a cheap cover is a decent imitation, and a lot more convenient. The only real downside is inability to re-sell the book when I'm done reading.
Basically, it's time to go digital.
My new policy is to only buy paper books when (a) there's a chance I might be able to sell it later for a decent amount of cash, as is the case with a textbook or (b) the paper copy is much, much cheaper than the electronic version.
It'll be a few years before I'm moving again, but there's no time like the present to start downsizing (just don't take me out of context on that line). Right now I have around a hundred books and several years worth of National Geographic magazine. It's a paltry collection compared to some of my professors, but still more than the average person needs.
The punchline: if you want any of my books, I'll sell them cheap. Check out My Bookcase and make an offer. Even if it's low, I won't be insulted - cover the cost of shipping plus a little bit more and I'm satisfied. If you're already settled in and won't be moving soon, or don't find hauling paper to be as much of a hassle as me, then an exchange can make us both happy!
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Liberal Arts Degrees as Social Signaling
The model of education as signaling for the labor marketing has been thoroughly developed by Bryan Caplan; for some examples, see here, here, and here. I think the argument is pretty convincing, but it leaves a few details unexplained. Namely, some majors - especially liberal arts - are not even very good as signals!
The highest unemployment rates for college graduates are found among architecture, art, and humanities majors. Especially given the relatively low salaries for jobs in these "industries" why go into serious debt to get a degree, when the signal is likely to be weak or even totally ineffective? While the number of liberal arts colleges has been declining over the last 20 years and business is the most popular major for under-graduates (chosen by 20% of students) the liberal arts curriculum is far from disappearing.
It could be that these students are maximizing with regard to something other than wealth, such as social status. This may accrue to either the college student or that student's parents, who get to brag about how their son/daughter will be a progressive hero and "save the world one day." Parents have incomplete control over what major their child picks, but at least some power to encourage or discourage certain fields of study.
Thinking of education as a status symbol helps to explain variation in choice of majors across countries. In the United States, the poor and middle-class can get luxury items like fancy cars, jewelry, nice TVs, smartphones etc. by using credit (Robert Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad Poor Dad" observes that this is a big reason why they do not ascend to the capitalist upper-class). Seeing someone with nice jewelry or the latest tech is no longer a good indicator of high status in America; in fact, it is often a signal of the opposite! A liberal arts degree then becomes a new status symbol, a way of displaying "yes I can spend four years doing nothing productive, and rack up debts while doing it, because money isn't important to me."
In China, by comparison, most of the affluent or middle-class people have attained that status within the last one or two generations. The rich in China display their wealth through luxury items, but parents still often discourage or frown upon liberal arts degrees (or so I'm told by someone with personal experience). Based on the social signaling theory sketched out above, one would expect that as the middle-class in China grows and expensive items are no longer limited to the nouveau riche, more will go get liberal arts degrees, instead of the focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) which is the stereotypical image of Chinese students currently.
If this model is accurate, it just further reinforces Dr. Caplan's point that we should not be subsidizing higher education as much as we are now.
The highest unemployment rates for college graduates are found among architecture, art, and humanities majors. Especially given the relatively low salaries for jobs in these "industries" why go into serious debt to get a degree, when the signal is likely to be weak or even totally ineffective? While the number of liberal arts colleges has been declining over the last 20 years and business is the most popular major for under-graduates (chosen by 20% of students) the liberal arts curriculum is far from disappearing.
It could be that these students are maximizing with regard to something other than wealth, such as social status. This may accrue to either the college student or that student's parents, who get to brag about how their son/daughter will be a progressive hero and "save the world one day." Parents have incomplete control over what major their child picks, but at least some power to encourage or discourage certain fields of study.
Thinking of education as a status symbol helps to explain variation in choice of majors across countries. In the United States, the poor and middle-class can get luxury items like fancy cars, jewelry, nice TVs, smartphones etc. by using credit (Robert Kiyosaki's "Rich Dad Poor Dad" observes that this is a big reason why they do not ascend to the capitalist upper-class). Seeing someone with nice jewelry or the latest tech is no longer a good indicator of high status in America; in fact, it is often a signal of the opposite! A liberal arts degree then becomes a new status symbol, a way of displaying "yes I can spend four years doing nothing productive, and rack up debts while doing it, because money isn't important to me."
In China, by comparison, most of the affluent or middle-class people have attained that status within the last one or two generations. The rich in China display their wealth through luxury items, but parents still often discourage or frown upon liberal arts degrees (or so I'm told by someone with personal experience). Based on the social signaling theory sketched out above, one would expect that as the middle-class in China grows and expensive items are no longer limited to the nouveau riche, more will go get liberal arts degrees, instead of the focus on STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) which is the stereotypical image of Chinese students currently.
If this model is accurate, it just further reinforces Dr. Caplan's point that we should not be subsidizing higher education as much as we are now.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
Female Infanticide Isn't a Women's Issue. It's a Human Issue.
A news article today, Female Heads of State Discuss How 'Climate Change'--But Not Sex-Selective Abortions--Hurt Women, highlights how female leaders are declining to discuss the issue of female infanticide in a current summit. When asked for a comment on the issue by CNS News, they were told
Putting aside the ethical issues surrounding abortion (I don't plan to open that can of worms) an undeniable effect is that the fetus never experiences life outside the womb. The "victims" of female infanticide never see the male-dominated world which they would be born into, so they really can't be said to suffer as a result of it. The group who really loses out are young men, many of whom by sheer arithmetic certainty will never be able to marry or start a family of their own.
In fact, sex-selective abortion may even increase the bargaining power available to women living now or born in the future. When single women become a scarce commodity, their bargaining position relative to men improves. Women can demand better conditions and treatment under marriage, because if the wife leaves her (ex-)husband will have less chance at remarriage. Paradoxically, the female infanticide which occurs under a male-dominated system may actually become that system's undoing!
Some would say that sex-selective abortion causes an increase in prostitution, which may be true. However, one would still expect prostitutes to benefit from increased bargaining power as well, when demand for their services increases. While this is probably less desirable than a world in which no women turn to the sex trade, it is also probably better than sex workers living in desperate poverty.
If CNS News had worked through the economic implications of female infanticide more thoroughly, they might have been less outraged by its omission in favor of discussing climate change. Sex-selective abortion has many negative social effects, but from a purely selfish standpoint it should really be the men who are most concerned about it - not women.
“I think the council is unlikely to take that kind of a stand,” Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland and president of the Mary Robinson Foundation – Climate Justice, responded.” It’s not that kind of a body.”Some feminists are probably outraged by this omission, but I am actually sympathetic to Mrs. Robinson's view here. While sex-selective abortion is targeted at young girls in China and India, it may be the men of those societies who are losing the most, not the women.
‘Women who have joined the council because they qualify as a former president, prime minister, or the ministerial level that Margot (Wallstrom, special representative to the United Nations Secretary General on sexual violence) chairs to empower, to support, to make visible and to listen to the voices of women.”
“And so that issue [abortion of female babies] would be more appropriate to some other kind of activist group,” Robinson said.
Robinson also said “the nearest I can come to it” is her work to combat child marriage, including the fact that “religion and tradition are often distorted to subjugate women.”
According to an Oct. 4, 2011 report by CQ Global Researcher, an estimated 160 million female babies have been killed by abortion or were killed or left to die after they were born in India, China and other Asian countries in the past 30 years.
Putting aside the ethical issues surrounding abortion (I don't plan to open that can of worms) an undeniable effect is that the fetus never experiences life outside the womb. The "victims" of female infanticide never see the male-dominated world which they would be born into, so they really can't be said to suffer as a result of it. The group who really loses out are young men, many of whom by sheer arithmetic certainty will never be able to marry or start a family of their own.
In fact, sex-selective abortion may even increase the bargaining power available to women living now or born in the future. When single women become a scarce commodity, their bargaining position relative to men improves. Women can demand better conditions and treatment under marriage, because if the wife leaves her (ex-)husband will have less chance at remarriage. Paradoxically, the female infanticide which occurs under a male-dominated system may actually become that system's undoing!
Some would say that sex-selective abortion causes an increase in prostitution, which may be true. However, one would still expect prostitutes to benefit from increased bargaining power as well, when demand for their services increases. While this is probably less desirable than a world in which no women turn to the sex trade, it is also probably better than sex workers living in desperate poverty.
If CNS News had worked through the economic implications of female infanticide more thoroughly, they might have been less outraged by its omission in favor of discussing climate change. Sex-selective abortion has many negative social effects, but from a purely selfish standpoint it should really be the men who are most concerned about it - not women.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Do higher tax rates spur more charity? I doubt it.
A few days ago I was talking with my mother about the state of the economy, income inequality, and social obligations... Typical evening conversation on any New Years, I'm sure. From life experience and observations on a (privileged) extended family, her opinion was that more charity occurred when tax rates were higher. I disagreed, and offered to present a mathematical demonstration on why that was the case. After that effort, I wanted to show the Internets the fruits of my labor.
Charitable giving is a very personal decision and the tax law surrounding it is complicated and arcane, so I start with some simplifying assumptions to make the problem more approachable. These are:
Now imagine a tax rate of 0% (and if you're a libertarian, try not to faint with excitement). An individual earns $100,000 and keeps all of it, earns $10,000 in interest before the second period, makes another $100,000 then dies and gives all of it away. Total charity given is $210,000.
One could argue that this result emerges just from the assumptions made, which is partially true. However, as long as individuals can earn a higher return on investment than the government (which is not a controversial claim) and all money is transferred upon death (a de facto necessity) then the result, qualitatively, will still be the same. If you make the example more realistic, and envision a person making money then saving and investing it for more than just two years, the difference between the two tax rates becomes even more apparent.
Charitable giving is a very personal decision and the tax law surrounding it is complicated and arcane, so I start with some simplifying assumptions to make the problem more approachable. These are:
- Money given to charity is 100% tax-deductible.
- Each person lives for two periods, then dies, and their entire stock of wealth is donated after death.
- An individual's money earns 10% interest.
- To make the problem concrete, I'll imagine a person earning $100,000 in each period, and two different tax regimes: one with a 0% tax rate, and another with 50%.
Now imagine a tax rate of 0% (and if you're a libertarian, try not to faint with excitement). An individual earns $100,000 and keeps all of it, earns $10,000 in interest before the second period, makes another $100,000 then dies and gives all of it away. Total charity given is $210,000.
One could argue that this result emerges just from the assumptions made, which is partially true. However, as long as individuals can earn a higher return on investment than the government (which is not a controversial claim) and all money is transferred upon death (a de facto necessity) then the result, qualitatively, will still be the same. If you make the example more realistic, and envision a person making money then saving and investing it for more than just two years, the difference between the two tax rates becomes even more apparent.
Of course, someone might say there are
distributional issues this exercise neglects. Maybe needy recipients of charity
are more sympathetic than the undeserving heirs of some wealthy person. Aside
from that, the general point still stands: when government takes money through
taxes, the overall social "pie" becomes smaller. When individuals can
invest it, they put money into productive activities which can generate more
wealth, making the "pie" bigger. Even if higher tax rates drive some
people to give more money to charity than they otherwise would, society in the
aggregate is better off if that money can be productively invested by
individuals instead. Charity is then a pleasant side-benefit of greater social
wealth.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
I Have No New Years Resolutions.
The New Year is a nice time, symbolically, to make a big change in life but practically it almost never works out that way. From a Boston Globe article, I learned that 80% of New Years resolutions are broken. Frankly, I'm surprised that as many as 20% are accomplished! People don't change much on the eve of December 31 to the morning of January 1 (perhaps except for the addition of a hangover) so I suspect much of the 20% accomplished are trivial ("remember to call my mom on her birthday this year") and require single actions, not sustained effort.
Resolutions are puzzling from both an economic and psychological perspective. To an economist, there's no reason why one day should be intrinsically more favorable than another to make a positive life change. If drinking less or exercising more would be a good idea, why wait until January 1st to start doing it? On the other hand, a psychologist might wonder why people set themselves up for failure so often. If 80% of resolutions ultimately amount to lying to yourself, why persist in encouraging such a mentally unhealthy activity?
The real question: if most resolutions would be good things to accomplish, why are people so bad at keeping them? It's easy to just dismiss New Years resolutions as "cheap talk" which people utter in order to sound socially acceptable and make themselves feel better, with no intent of actually following through. But, I think there's a little bit more to it than that.
In their book, Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength, Roy Baumeister and John Tierney offer a pretty good explanation for why New Years resolutions have such a short shelf-life. When someone creates a list of challenging self-improvement tasks, they are probably very optimistic about their future state of mind. But, realistically, we only have so much willpower to divide between different goals that require self-control. Willpower, in this regard, is somewhat like a muscle: when it is used lots in a short span of time it becomes fatigued, so later acts of self-control are more difficult. Creating a list of resolutions is like weight-lifting beyond the mind's capacity; it can't dedicate enough mental power to accomplish all the goals at once, so in the end none of them are met. As a result, creating a big list of dramatic changes is one of the least effective ways to actually modify your own behavior.
A better strategy is to choose one area that seems most important and focus on moderate improvements. Also like a muscle, willpower can become stronger when exercised. Picking reasonable goals gives a sense of accomplishment when they are completed, making it easier to stick with other changes in the future. In other words, build up capacity slowly to avoid a painful sprain of the willpower muscle (although if I stretch this analogy much further, I might suffer a tear in my credibility). Introducing the concept of willpower to economic thinking means we don't have to dismiss failed self-improvement projects as mere cheap talk, and can instead look more realistically at the human mind and its practical limitations.
Resolutions are puzzling from both an economic and psychological perspective. To an economist, there's no reason why one day should be intrinsically more favorable than another to make a positive life change. If drinking less or exercising more would be a good idea, why wait until January 1st to start doing it? On the other hand, a psychologist might wonder why people set themselves up for failure so often. If 80% of resolutions ultimately amount to lying to yourself, why persist in encouraging such a mentally unhealthy activity?
The real question: if most resolutions would be good things to accomplish, why are people so bad at keeping them? It's easy to just dismiss New Years resolutions as "cheap talk" which people utter in order to sound socially acceptable and make themselves feel better, with no intent of actually following through. But, I think there's a little bit more to it than that.
In their book, Willpower: Rediscovering the Greatest Human Strength, Roy Baumeister and John Tierney offer a pretty good explanation for why New Years resolutions have such a short shelf-life. When someone creates a list of challenging self-improvement tasks, they are probably very optimistic about their future state of mind. But, realistically, we only have so much willpower to divide between different goals that require self-control. Willpower, in this regard, is somewhat like a muscle: when it is used lots in a short span of time it becomes fatigued, so later acts of self-control are more difficult. Creating a list of resolutions is like weight-lifting beyond the mind's capacity; it can't dedicate enough mental power to accomplish all the goals at once, so in the end none of them are met. As a result, creating a big list of dramatic changes is one of the least effective ways to actually modify your own behavior.
A better strategy is to choose one area that seems most important and focus on moderate improvements. Also like a muscle, willpower can become stronger when exercised. Picking reasonable goals gives a sense of accomplishment when they are completed, making it easier to stick with other changes in the future. In other words, build up capacity slowly to avoid a painful sprain of the willpower muscle (although if I stretch this analogy much further, I might suffer a tear in my credibility). Introducing the concept of willpower to economic thinking means we don't have to dismiss failed self-improvement projects as mere cheap talk, and can instead look more realistically at the human mind and its practical limitations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)