FeedBurner makes it easy to receive content updates in My Yahoo!, Newsgator, Bloglines, and other news readers.
You don’t see how emotion can (and/or does) fit into bargaining and agreement?
We have an entire cultural narrative built up around the idea that labor–because there is “more of it” (itself a misconception)–is less valuable than capital. Ergo, those who possess capital, specifically the financial capital which is supposedly representative of social value (this is how money works amongst us exchange-and-trust humans), are more valuable than labor, which can be performed in varying degrees by people as much as horses, donkeys, oxen, and machines.
Labor is physical and concrete, and therefore far easier to envision substitutes for. Capital is representational and abstract, and subject to the same kind of emotive social discussions which we have about everything that involves our own imaginations.
The first tweet that you post seems extremely misleading. I read the piece and it never mentions the term “caused” once. What the piece does is use the terms “may,” “may be,” and “seems.”
Also given the word limits in opinion pieces and that they are aimed for a very general audience, I wasn’t at all bothered by some of the terminology in the Fox piece. What I found surprising is that there was a link in the piece to a much more detailed discussion of the regressions and all the data and sources were provided. How many op-eds do you find that much detail for?
I don’t myself see how gratitude or any other emotion fits into markets. We bargain, we agree or not, and the state enforces our contract for a fee we call taxes. Then what? The seller splashes around in his pool filled with currency like Scrooge McDuck, and the buyer begins the experience diminishing returns on consumption or else, if selling her labor, has to start working. Is there anything else to this story?
Interesting. Now we have to look at the data after a new treatment – water with less lead. Of course lead may have a long lasting effect on women’s health and ability to carry healthy babies to term. There must be scads of data on animal experiments with various levels of lead. There is an interesting history of the introduction of lead in gasoline back in the day.
Given a very basic, but I think plausible and highly intuitive framework this result leans entirely on performance review. Indeed, the excerpt from the book shows why.
If you control for occupation (here we can think of that as role, location, level and perhaps tenure) and you see no effect then what you are missing is that a high paying occupation is the “reward” for being male.
But, if it’s just a reward for being male, rather than being fully qualified (where fully qualified is defined as what a woman would need to get the same occupation) then men should perform worse than woman.
Yet, when we control for measured performance we get no wage differential. What this is saying is that measured performance (relative to actual performance) is biased upward for men.
Interestingly, I don’t think this has to imply that the performance reviewer is biased towards men. It could simply be that reviewers dislike giving bad scores. Because bad performance (relative to the occupational cohort) is more likely to be male, male scores are biased up.
A result of this very basic model is that reviewing on a curve (and thus forcing someone to get a bad score) could lessen gender discrimination.
I’ve not gone through the Florida details, but many EVs (including Tesla) have more potential battery capacity than advertised because of charging issues. It’s hard to charge the last little bit of a Li-ion battery, for a variety of reasons, and not good to drain completely. The “official” capacity takes such issues into account. In extremis you can drain more than normal, at some cost to battery life. So I wonder whether Tesla will reverse the capacity boost.
Does price discrimination have any relation to R&D incentives? Any model or real world research i could peruse?
adding on to your example…
if the company is able to sell more product due to price discrimination, then, all other things being equal, it will feel less of a need to reduce production costs (via R&D or other means) to stay profitable.
If there more detailed models that account for how the benefits of price discrimination are spread, I’d love to learn about it. It often seems that price discrimination benefits the shareholder and not the consumer. Sometimes it seems i confuse price discrimination with rent seeking behavior. I know they are not mutually exclusive, but I don’t know a quick way to mentally run and compare both models in my head. … any ideas?
Another way for me to state my concern. In the real world or in a model, how can I figure out how the benefits of price discrimination are handed out? “real world” seems hard to figure out b/c once money goes into an account any analysis of where the money went can be fooled by varying accounting practices.
Interestingly, originally Tesla put different sized batteries in the cars. However, I think the demand for the 60kWh battery wasn’t high enough to justify the extra production hassles of the option. So, instead of revoking the option altogether, they moved to software limiting the larger battery.