FeedBurner makes it easy to receive content updates in My Yahoo!, Newsgator, Bloglines, and other news readers.
So there’s a new study out that apparently has a good PR team, since I saw all sort of articles with such headlines today:
A minimum-wage worker can’t afford a 2-bedroom apartment anywhere in the U.S. https://t.co/05sfZfk60P
— Wonkblog (@Wonkblog) June 13, 2018
Well that’s alarming…except it’s likely not true, unless you define “afford” as “can’t rent a place that’s more expensive than 40 percent of similar places without spending more than 30 percent of your income.” (The 40th percentile thing seems to come from how HUD calculates “fair market rents.”)
Anyway, I rant about it more here:
Anywhere? Are you sure? Because, not gonna lie, my backup plan for when I get sick of the world is to go take a minimum wage job and live…
…and yes, I’m mad about forgetting to put a title on the article and don’t want to talk about it.
Apologies if you’re expecting something totally serious, but come on, it’s Saturday…
I recently wrapped up a work thing, so I’ve been poking around regarding new opportunities…obviously, in the course of doing so I’ve had to update my LinkedIn, resume/CV, etc., and the reality is that if you look closely it becomes clear that I took…well, not a complete sabbatical, more like a half vacation. This is in part because I don’t just put “HEY I WAS WRITING OK LEAVE ME ALONE” as a job title, but also partly this:
so how do I post this as an addendum to explain gaps in my resume pic.twitter.com/AWCkjw8vqg
— Jodi Beggs (@jodiecongirl) June 9, 2018
Some backstory: I was a competitive figure skater as a kid, but (being realistic here) I wasn’t really good enough for it to be worth it to forgo educational opportunities and such for the sake of a sport. I hadn’t skated in about 15 years until the world figure skating championships took place literally across the street from me- I pulled a few strings and got to be all official and such:
(yup that’s a bathroom selfie I apologize for nothing) At the event, I got to talk to reps from all of the skate manufacturers and such,and you will be pleased to know that ice skate technology has progressed pretty considerably in the last 20 years. That said, skating is still hard and takes a lot of work, but one of the upsides is that there’s an amazing community of adult skaters who are serious about their sport but also have jobs and such. For example, my friend Sarah both runs the nuclear reactor lab at MIT and makes her own pretty dresses, because why not.
I stupidly thought that I would at least be the only economist on the scene, but…no. This guy’s going to be a professor in the fall:
(I’m not giving more info because, in rather depressing news, he doesn’t talk about skating a lot because he’s afraid he won’t be taken seriously in academia. *primal scream*) I consoled myself with the fact that I’m still only at N=2, but then I had the following conversation at a competition dinner:
friend: did you know that one of the men in the dance event has a Nobel Prize in economics?
me: *nods politely, assuming friend must have gotten her facts wrong* oh that’s really interesting
me, googling later: OMG SHE’S RIGHT HOW DID I NOT KNOW THIS
(I really don’t know how I didn’t know this, given that it’s even in his Nobel Prize bio.) So yeah, I’m by far not even the most impressive economist in the adult figure skating world, and it’s not even obvious that I’m the most impressive figure skater in the econ world. (yes, I know that “adult figure skating” sounds like porn, just let it go) But I guess our existence makes graphics such as these make a little more sense:
Now that you’ve read this far, please indulge me and allow me to give what I feel is an important piece of advice: find a hobby that you can be passionate about. No really- I get that work and family take up a lot of time, but it’s important for a number of reasons. Among them:
Seriously, if Josh Lerner can have a donkey farm, you can do the hobby thing too. Sometimes you’ll even find gear that allows you to combine your interests:
I’m not quite sure why this is in the news again now (there was a paper critique I can read ok), but it is so let’s take a look at it. Here’s the setup:
In 2005, she [Warren], along with David Himmelstein, Deborah Thorne and Steffie Woolhandler, published a paper in the journal Health Affairs documenting a memorable statistic: More than 40 percent of all bankruptcies in America were a result of medical problems, they wrote. In 2009, they updated that research with an even more startling number: Medical bills were responsible for more than 62 percent of all American bankruptcies.
One main problem here is the may that “medical problems” or “medical bills” is conveniently defined, but let’s put that aside for the moment. Logically, these statements mean that the study authors claim that medical bills cause bankruptcy. If you look at the methodology, however, you’ll see that the researchers get to this notion of causality by only looking at those people who declared bankruptcy, and…well, that’s definitely not how causality works.
To see why, let’s consider a logically equivalent situation that has the benefit of being far more obviously absurd. Namely, I could claim that having two legs causes bankruptcy because most people who declare bankruptcy have two legs. (I said most do not start with me) In this scenario, your brain’s knee-jerk reaction is probably “hey wait, but most people who don’t declare bankruptcy also have two legs, so this makes no sense.” And your brain is not wrong! For some reason though, people aren’t primed in the same way to conjecture that a large chuck of people have medical bills, not just those who declare bankruptcy. (I think the bill threshold to be counted in this context was $1,000, and really, who among us…)
We see this principle get abused and debunked in a legal sense all the time- and by that I obviously mean on Law and Order. IIRC, there’s an episode where a defense attorney argues that video games lead to murder because the murdery kid played video games and Jack McCoy is all “but what about all of the kids who play video games and don’t kill anyone?” I’m pretty sure Jack won the case, and we all learn an important lesson about holding ourselves to this standard of logic even when the bad conclusion is not intuitively absurd.
But wait, there’s more…my commentary on the matter led to this tweet from a friend of mine:
Putting the specific issue aside… if there is a strong causal relationship, surely that changes things. If you wanted to study how many people with gunshot wounds to the chest die within 1 hour, would you really need to study a same size sample of people who were not shot?
— Louise Auerhahn (@LAuerhahn) June 7, 2018
My initial reaction in a nutshell:
In this case, my lizard brain was temped to answer no, since, well duh. But, technically speaking yeah, you need a counterfactual group of people who don’t get shot (maybe not exactly the same size) to see how many of them die within an hour. I guess the thing here is that we generally know enough about human robustness to conclude that the chances of randomly kicking the bucket in the next hour without getting shot is negligibly small. (*knocks on wood*) But even then, I’m implicitly assuming that people who get shot aren’t systematically close to death anyway…which, I’m pretty sure this is just a different episode of Law and Order. (that link is a pretty good test of whether law school is for you tbh)
So what have we learned from this? Yes, in general, to establish that X causes Y, you need to look at both people who experience X and don’t experience X. (That said, I think you could rule out the possibility that X causes Y by only looking at people who experience X if they don’t also experience Y.) BUT, we can sometimes make do by only looking at people who experience X if we have a good read on what would happen if people didn’t experience X. Be careful though, since this only works if the people who experience X resemble the overall population, since otherwise selection bias bites us in the ass.
This shortcut, if you will, is more than just a thought exercise- in pharmaceutical trials, for example, it’s supposed to be the case that half of subjects get a placebo rather than the treatment being tested. This is ethically fine when the treatment is, say, Viagra, but what if it’s a cancer treatment? The ethics of denying people a potentially successful treatment for the sake of the pure scientific method is far less clear, especially when we’ve previously learned what happens when people don’t get the treatment. (spoiler: they die)
Note, however, that none of this “domain knowledge,” loosely speaking, allows us to conclude that X causes Y by only looking at people who experience Y. You could get closer by establishing that people who don’t experience Y generally don’t experience X (i.e. people who don’t declare bankruptcy don’t have medical bills), but even then you’ve only established correlation, and correlation does not imply causation.
Coming back to the original study and the ensuing debate…I can’t help but be annoyed with Elizabeth Warren here (even though in general I like her quite a bit), specifically because she’s stamping her academic credentials with information that is either poorly thought out or in bad faith. And for what purpose, even? Medical bills aren’t a problem only because they can result in bankruptcy, bankruptcy just happens to be an outcome that is enticingly easy to observe. In a way, they’re overcomplicating things, since a $10,000 medical bill imposes a cost of $10,000 on a household, full stop, and that matters in the amount of, wait for it, $10,000. Focusing on bankruptcy as the dealbreaker outcome even kind of gives the impression of “oh, you’re medical bill didn’t result in you lying in a ditch somewhere? You’re fine then!” which is, well, probably not fine…but I know someone who might think otherwise:
So here’s something that sounds kind of boring:
Freedom of Information Act | Privacy & Security Statement | Disclaimers | Customer Survey | Important Web Site Notices
…but hear me out. In the last few years, people have been talking about how the “gig economy”- i.e. Uber drivers, Task Rabbits, etc.- is taking over and how the future of work is going to look significantly different from the status quo. As it turns out, these gigs are a subset of “alternative employment arrangements,” and this particular set of data hasn’t been collected since 2005- 12 YEARS! (the data here is from 2017, I swear my math is not that bad) I’m sorry but that’s at least a little exciting.
Except…it’s kid of not. Contrary to the intuition of a lot of economists and other assorted individuals, the numbers don’t show the explosion of the gig economy that we were convinced is happening, at least not as far as workers’ primary source of employment is concerned. If you don’t feel like wading through the official document, here’s a good summary:
Defying expectations, the first official survey of “alternative work arrangements” since 2005 shows that nontraditional employment has become less common.
Of course, we don’t know what happened between 2005 and 2017, nor is “gig economy” defined particularly precisely in the context of this survey. If we really do think that the future of work is trending in the gig direction, perhaps we should be tracking it more frequently and precisely, especially since economists have gotten different numbers with similar-seeming methodology. (Duh, I know.) In the meantime, I have a hypothesis- the number of people in these alternative employment arrangements hasn’t changed that much overall, but such arrangements have become more directly consumer facing and consumers have explicitly been made aware of the employment circumstances of the people they’re transacting with. (In other words, there could be, say, gig manufacturing happening all over the place- and I’m told that this used to happen a lot way back when- but you likely wouldn’t ever come in contact with it.)
Anyway, yeah, that’s what we’ve been waiting 12 years for…economists are apparently quite a patient bunch.
A quick google image search reminds me that “Helicopter Ben Bernanke” is a nickname that he’ll never live down:
The consensus is that the name came about as a result of a speech he gave in 2002, in which he said:
Each of the policy options I have discussed so far involves the Fed’s acting on its own. In practice, the effectiveness of anti-deflation policy could be significantly enhanced by cooperation between the monetary and fiscal authorities. A broad-based tax cut, for example, accommodated by a program of open-market purchases to alleviate any tendency for interest rates to increase, would almost certainly be an effective stimulant to consumption and hence to prices. Even if households decided not to increase consumption but instead re-balanced their portfolios by using their extra cash to acquire real and financial assets, the resulting increase in asset values would lower the cost of capital and improve the balance sheet positions of potential borrowers. A money-financed tax cut is essentially equivalent to Milton Friedman’s famous “helicopter drop” of money.
Given this, I have questions…first, since “anti-deflation” and “inflation” are essentially the same, I’m not sure why this is terribly controversial, at least as far as economic effects are concerned. (hint: printing money generally leads to inflation in the long run) Second, why is it “Helicopter Ben” and not “Helicopter Milton?” At the risk of sounding like a cranky 5-year-old, he started it:
Let us suppose now that one day a helicopter flies over this community and drops an additional $1,000 in bills from the sky, which is, of course, hastily collected by members of the community. Let us suppose further that everyone is convinced that this is a unique event which will never be repeated.
To be fair, I’m pretty sure Friedman only intended for this to be a thought exercise, not an actual means by which to increase the money supply and stimulate the economy, whereas subsequent economists have taken it somewhat more literally. In case it’s not clear, Federal Reserve policy usually operates by buying and selling stuff from banks with newly created money, so the difference with the helicopter thing is that people and not banks pick up the money and spend some of it, which starts a virtuous cycle of economic activity. (This is how it eventually got the name “quantitative easing for the people.”)
If we take the helicopter thing less literally, Bernanke would likely argue that Keynes started it:
Keynes, however, once semi-seriously proposed, as an anti-deflationary measure, that the government fill bottles with currency and bury them in mine shafts to be dug up by the public.
I guess, in a way, sure…but what sort of sadist was Keynes? (happy birthday sir, by the way) “We could do a monetary expansion by just handing cash to people, OR…how about if we take the effort to package it and distribute it in the most annoyingly labor intensive, uncertain, and potentially dangerous way possible?” But I digress…
Back to Ben…I’m willing to keep doing the “Helicopter Ben” thing if we can get a Kickstarter funded for this:
Also, I think we finally found where Ben’s helicopter drops take place:
The most exciting monetary policy travel moment you'll ever have! pic.twitter.com/VO21HVaJCD
— Greg Caskey (@barspittercask) June 4, 2018
*plans road trip* Who’s with me????
Update: Apparently I have good timing, since here’s some Bernanke talking about quantitative easing from, like, right now.
So I have a confession…for some reason that I can’t really explain, I thought that the jobs report comes out on the second Friday of the month when the first of the month falls on a Friday. Anyway, I was wrong, and as a result I slept through the jobs report coming out at 8:30am, and I woke up to my Twitter feed of economists going absolutely nuts over this tweet:
Looking forward to seeing the employment numbers at 8:30 this morning.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 1, 2018
I had a general intuitive understanding that it wasn’t cool to talk about the jobs numbers until after they were released to the public, but I wasn’t aware that there was an actual rule against it, since it had never really been an issue before. Thanks to the irate economists, however, I now know more about this than I probably ever need to…and by extension, so will you:
So here’s a tweet that seems fairly uncontroversial on the surface…
I wrote a thing for Medium again…the general idea is that I got annoyed because I was seeing headlines of the form “latest Supreme Court decision outlaws worker class-action lawsuits,” which isn’t really what happened, so I felt the need to write up an explainer. As a bonus, I also ventured into discussing why protecting workers’ rights to collectively sue is crucial for efficient employer/worker relations, complete with a reference from Office Space.
I’m seeing a lot of commentary along the following lines…
So I tweeted a thing:
I guess I should also point out that dropping insurance coverage is not "denying access" to birth control for a lot of people.
— Jodi Beggs (@jodiecongirl) October 7, 2017
(If you click on the tweet, you’ll see it’s part of a larger thread that also didn’t go over terribly well.) I then thought that my need for semantic precision didn’t get me yelled at on the internet *quite* enough, so I wrote a thing. It’s mostly a rant about words, but I swear there’s at least one economic point at the end.
Okay, get ready for some real talk. I’ve been hearing a lot about birth control in the last few days- understandably so, given that it’s…
In related news, you’re probably not shocked to know that I’m pretty into homonym humor:
— You Had One Job (@_youhadonejob1) October 7, 2017
You’re welcome, nerds.
I feel like we can all use some humor today, but I worry that I’m kind of doing it wrong…
I thought this was the whole business model behind the InfoWars store? (My affection for freeze-dried fruit has led me to know more about the survivalist part of the internet than I care to admit.) Seriously though, it’s both interesting and depressing to think about how people’s views on the future of society (reasonable or not) manifest themselves in the economic world- we usually consider such “animal spirits” at a macro level, but they affect not only how much people make and buy but what they make and buy. In related news, gun stocks are up today. Sigh.