Disqus - Latest Comments for Half Sigma

Re: Buying a House vs. Renting a House

Half Sigma — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:31:14 -0000

I know lots of home owners who pay more money each year in real estate taxes than I pay in rent. And that's not including landscaping, maintenance and repairs, expensive furniture to fill the expensive house.

I don't buy into the idea that buying a house now, at what may be the peak of a housing bubble, makes any kind of sense.

Re: Stocks Are For Suckers?

Half Sigma — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 13:09:39 -0000

"most of those who invest in the stock market arenâ€™t buying real ownership, they are mostly buying a tiny portion of shares discarded by those closer to the company. The only real investment is buying a material percentage of a company"

This kind of sounds like something I wrote about recently in my own blog about overpaid CEOs. Yes, the CEOs and other execs and insiders make more money than you do by buying a tiny percentage of the company.

But for the astute contrarian investor who knows what he's doing, there's a world of money to be made by investing in stocks. Although I'd agree that people who buy individual stocks and who don't know how to read a balance sheet, those people are suckers.

Re: Happiness? Equality? What?

Half Sigma — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 18:17:47 -0000

But sometimes it just FEELS GOOD to stick it to the rich bastards. Doesn't it?

Re: Happiness? Equality? What?

Half Sigma — Wed, 08 Jun 2005 18:53:06 -0000

Will Wilkinson's trackbacks don't seem to be working, so check out the post I wrote in response to this.

Re: Minimum wage stuff

Half Sigma — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 07:17:14 -0000

ELASTICITY OF DEMAND

The demand for low wage workers has very low price elasticity. So just as we saw little change in the demand for oil when the price doubled, we see little change in the demand for low wage workers when the minimum wage is raised.

Re: Minimum wage stuff

Half Sigma — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 07:21:12 -0000

And read my much more detailed post about this topic where I explain how a minimum wage does indeed benefit the class of people (low wage workers) that it's intended to benefit:

http://www.halfsigma.com/2005/04/does_a_minimum_.html

Re: When Does Inequality Matter?

Half Sigma — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 07:23:46 -0000

The most important thing to the vast majority of people is their place in society, and not a comparison of their current standard of living to that of someone living 100 years ago.

This is basic human nature. This is how we are genetically programmed to think.

Re: When Does Inequality Matter?

Half Sigma — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 11:09:27 -0000

Gary: "After all, why should I care about what the top 1% are doing; why should it bother me? ... Further, I know of no compelling study showing that inequality inhibits growth."

This is an existentialist question that has no answer. Furthermore, why should we care about growth? Why should a guy in the bottom 10% care about the growth of the top 1%? Why have children? Why have sex? Why shouldn't we all just jump off a bridge and kill ourselves?

Let's face the reality of human nature that people DO care about their place in society and they DO care about what the top 1% or doing, and nothing is going to change that.

John Dewey: "Do you think we're also genetically programmed to eventually accept our place in life?"

Maybe. Most revolutionaries are young, aren't they?

Don Boudreaux: "People routinely move from small towns to big cities. Why?"

People are complicated, and desire for status is always an important motivator of behavior but not the only motivator, and people don't necessarily think logically about it. New York City is a high status place to live, so perhaps people think they are increasing their status by moving to New York City, and perhaps they are.

How people view their status isn't strictly based on the other people living within a five mile radius. For example, we all watch the same television commercials no matter where we live in the U.S., so the guy living in a small town in Kansas still feels the pain of not being able to buy the stuff he sees advertised on TV even if the other people in town also can't afford it.

Re: When Does Inequality Matter?

Half Sigma — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:41:40 -0000

John Dewey: "Keys to happiness turn out to be companionship, health, intellectual challenge, and, for many, spiritual growth."

Based on the fact that the majority of Americans carry a high amount of credit card debt, it would seem you are in the minority, the acquisition of material goods seems to be the primary motivator.

Forbes: "Umm, what is advertised on TV that the guy in Kansas, along with the other people in his small town, can't afford?

A Cadillac SUV, a flat screen plasma TV?

And he feels pain?"

It should be obvious that the purpose of the TV ads is to create a desire among the people watching them to own what's being advertised. And they must be successful too, otherwise, companies wouldn't pay for the ads!

Re: Minimum wage stuff

Half Sigma — Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:47:53 -0000

Stefan: "However, were the minimum wage raised to the level in France, roughly $10 per hour, then higher unemployment would certainly follow."

Yes, this is a way of saying that the elasticity of demand for unskilled labor increases as the price for such labor rises. Whether or not $10 is the magic price where suddenly demand will decrease resulting in unemployment, I cannot say for sure. But my guess is that if we could reduce the pool of unksilled labor by kicking out all the illegal immigrants and restricting legal immigration, then I think we could support a higher than $10/hour minimum wage without causing unemployment.

Re: When Does Inequality Matter?

Half Sigma — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 08:49:58 -0000

Rising income relative to others in society brings happiness. Rising income relative to some point in the past does not. There was a research study.

I wrote a blog post about this, here is the link:

http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/02/pew_study_of_ha.html

I think I may need to write another blog post.

Re: Minimum wage stuff

Half Sigma — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:11:04 -0000

You people are confusing several issues. Like whether a rise in the mimimum wage causes any unemployment at all, and if so, how much? Do minimum wage workers receive a net benefit from a rise in the minimum wage even if a tiny percent of their class wind up being unemployed? Do we really care about poor people at all, and even though a minimum wage helps them it's better off not to? These are all different questions.

First of all there is the price elasticity of demand issue. There are many items that have extremely low price elasticity of demand. Why not try to identify them and then figure out what they have in common with low wage labor.

Most people's goal when buying something is to pay as little as possible. If there are two gas stations selling gas, a fungible good, and one charges $1/gallon, and the other charges $2/gallon, where will I buy the gas? Obviously from the $1/gallon retailer. But what if every gas station is charingi $2/gallon? I will buy just as much, because my total budget for gas is a pretty tiny part of my disposable income, and in fact I probably receive $5/gallon of economic benefit from each gallon of gas, I'm just lucky that the cost of producing gas is so low that I can buy it for $2.

When one compares minimum wage workes to the rest of the labor force, only a tiny fraction of total employment dollars is spent on minimum wage workers, so like a rise in the price of a gallon of gas, a rise in the minimum wage doesn't deter much consumption of labor.

Monopolists always benefit by selling LESS of a good than the market will bear, but they gain economic benefit from a higher price. How many more copies of Microsoft Office could be sold if the price were lowered? Microsoft doesn't care, they'd rather sell less at the high price.

In the same manner, minimum wage workers would benefit by jointly demanding a higher price, which is exactly what Microsoft does.

Society receives some benefits from a higher minimum wage. Employees earning a higher minimum wage may consume less taxpayer funded public assistance resources. There may be some people who see no point in working at $5.15 who would be brought into the labor force if the wage were $7, and this would increase our national productivity. Instilling a better work ethic in poor people would be a good thing not a bad thing. Higher wages would discourage turnover, resulting in better labor productivity because people new to a job don't perform it as well as people with experience doing it.

There could be a net benefit to the economy by raising the minimum wage, you really need to learn to think about more about what's going on and how everything is interconnected.

Re: When Does Inequality Matter?

Half Sigma — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:28:00 -0000

Well, I wrote a post about this at my blog, here is the link:

http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/03/happiness_evolu.html

But I forgot to write about religion and happiness.

Re: Which Economist Do You Trust?

Half Sigma — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:18:22 -0000

Well, if Krugman's point is that smart people only hang out with other smart people so they don't realize how stupid the average person is, then it's a good point.

However, the biggest problem with our healthcare system is that there are no free market incentives. People are unable to decide how much healthcare they want to purchase, providers have no incentive to offer lower prices, or better service for higher prices.

Re: Minimum wage stuff

Half Sigma — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:35:51 -0000

Seems to me like the comments are just bringing up the same points over again. "Minimum wage causes unemployment, blah blah blah." This is just a gut feeling that's not based on any evidence. The evidence to me is that it doesn't because there's a low price elasticity of demand.

Furthermore, a little bit of unemployment isn't necessarily a bad thing. Unemployment can't be completely eliminated there is usually a period of unemployment when people leave one job and start another. If someone finds a job too quickly it probably means they've shortchanged themselves by accepting too little salary.

Also, there was something written about bleeding heart liberals--hey, I don't care about the poor at all except that I thank God I'm not one of them--I'm just looking at this analystically and I don't see how the minimum wage hurts the poor any more than Microsoft is hurt by charging too high of a price for Office.

Have you considered that a high minimum wage combined with no welfare state would force the poor to learn to be productive enough to earn the minimum wage otherwise they'd die from starvation? Might be a benefit to society. Ever think of it that way?

Re: A blogoff on inequality

Half Sigma — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 06:45:22 -0000

Your WSJ post is strictly focused on absolute measures of wealth relative to a baseline in the past, but as I've pointed out a zillion times in the comments here, what people care about his how they are doing compared to their contemporaries.

Another issue is whether people feel they have a reasonable chance of rising in status, and if there is a huge gap separating regular people from the rich, then the answer is no they don't. Then that means the "American Dream" is dead.

Re: Which Economist Do You Trust?

Half Sigma — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:44:03 -0000

Krugman's point is that health care can't be bought like a new shirt, because there is a gulf of expertise between the doctor and the patient. This gulf doesn't exist with regard to shirts. This asymetrical distribution of information strongly disadvantages consumers in their health-care "negotiations" and may make "consumer-driven" healthcare essentially meaningless.

The same could be said about getting your car repaired. Hell, I KNOW I'm getting ripped off there, but I have no idea when I'm being ripped off and when the mechanic is being honest and charging me a fair price.

Re: A blogoff on inequality

Half Sigma — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 11:52:44 -0000

johngaltline: "If you look more closely at the rich man's wealth, you'll see that most of it goes unconsumed, creating jobs for the rest of us."

One could argue that the cost of capital has been TOO low, resulting in dumb investment in stuff like "pets.com," the result being an inefficient allocation of resources.

Rich people also give money to dumb charities. For example, some rich guy gave $115 million to the University of Arizona College of Law. Does the U.S. really need a $115 million law mecca located in Tucson Arizona? I think not.

Re: Minimum wage stuff

Half Sigma — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:00:43 -0000

Dennis: "If everyone gets a raise, the cost of production goes up, which raises prices, removing any benefit of the initial raise."

Minimum wage labor is only a very tiny percent of total U.S. labor costs, so raising the minimum wage has only a tiny effect on overall price levels.

Re: Riffing on Wealth Inequality

Half Sigma — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 06:42:31 -0000

Don Boudreaux "For the record: Of course I do not believe that we should "redistribute" wealth for any reason"

Publicly funded education is a redistribution of wealth from rich to poor children. So you are opposed to publicly funded education. Without such education, the poor children would wind up illiterate and unable to contribute to a modern society.

Based on how awful things would be without publicly funded education, I have to conclude that well thought out wealth redistribution is a good thing (as opposed to poorly thought out, such as "here is your monthly stipend rewarding you for having a kid out of wedlock").

Re: Are Real Estate Agents Overpaid?

Half Sigma — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 08:44:56 -0000

Real estate sales is a "winner takes all" activity. The majority of real estate agents don't do all that well, but the most successful ones make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, a ridiculous amount of money. They are able to achieve such a high salary because they are not only getting rewarded for their own work, but also the work of many other real estate agents who aren't making much.

Like most sales people, they spend the bulk of their time FINDING customers; the task of actually HELPING customers is a lesser part of the job.

Clearly, yet another example of INEFFICIENT markets.

Re: Riffing on Wealth Inequality

Half Sigma — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 11:30:44 -0000

John Pertz: "That is the funniest thing that Ive read on this blog is a while. Publicly funded education as a force for social good within the United States, tell that to the 12th grade kid with first grade reading skills who was the focus of a John Stossel special report on public schools in America."

I'm a product of public schools, and while it wasn't the best education, it's better than being illiterate.

I was careful to write "publicly funded education" and not "public education," leaving open the option that there are other acceptable models of education besides government operated schools, but they do require funding.

The illiterate 12th grade was failed by (1) a mother who doesn't care about education; (2) peers who don't care about education; (3) liberal political correctness that prevent teachers from telling the kid that the values being taught to him by his mother and his peers are wrong values.

Re: Riffing on Wealth Inequality

Half Sigma — Tue, 14 Mar 2006 06:57:53 -0000

"Most education majors at ou colleges and universities spend more time learning about 'diversity' and how not to offend students than they do about science, math, and reading."

You seem to be agreeing with my point. Kids need to be "offended" if their values are wrong.

The education professors are left-wing liberals. Teachers themselves are regular middle-class people often not especially political except to the extent that they've been brainwashed by the teacher's union to oppose educational reform. But otherwise, they just to the job they're told to do.

Re: Liberal Values and Mandates

Half Sigma — Wed, 15 Mar 2006 05:11:10 -0000

I think that letting homosexual males adopt babies is a bad policy for reasons having nothing to do with belief in Catholicism. There are plenty of heterosexual married couples who are unable to adopt.

That said, if the Catholic organization receives most of its operating money from the state, it's a state actor and has to follow all the other rules of state actors.

I'm not a big fan of these "faith based initiatives."

Re: Liberal Values and Mandates

Half Sigma — Thu, 16 Mar 2006 10:39:58 -0000

"I think the NAACP should advocate the advancement of all people, not just colored people"

I disagree, there's nothing wrong with a private group advocating for its own members.

Re: On Sprawl

Half Sigma — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:28:25 -0000

There would clearly be LESS sprawl were it not for restrictive zoning regulations which prevent high density contstruction that the market obviously demands (based on higher prices for real estate as one moves closer to the core of desirable cities like New York or Washington).

It's ironic that it's usually liberals who compain about sprawl, but then the support the very "anti-growth" zoning that causes sprawl to be created.

Re: Liberal Values and Mandates

Half Sigma — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 05:30:53 -0000

Well the NAACP has a broader view of its consistency than just paying members.

Nevertheless, I find it hard to get worked up about a private group advocating for stuff.

Re: On Sprawl

Half Sigma — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 09:23:04 -0000

eddie: "If people are fleeing the cities, wouldn't the cities start falling in price?"

People flee bad cities like Detroit and flock to good cities like New York and Washington.

cb: "I don't know anybody that would rather live in a high rise over a house on a piece of land."

I, for one, prefer the high rise. It's a lot more convenient. People (most people) do value their own piece of land, but people also value the company of other humans and being close to work.

In a desirable city like New York or Washington, no developer has EVER had a problem filling an empty apartment or selling a new condo, even though they are outrageously expensive. New York City won't let more development go up in Manhattan. And DC has some weird law which prohibits the heights of buildings throuhought the district.

Someone said that big city living isn't necessarily more efficient, and I agree that this may have some merit, I blogged about it, but people who value the benefits of the cities are willing to pay extra. Unfortunately, zoning makes it cost a lot more extra than it has to.

Ayn Rand was a big fan of New York City. Read The Fountainhead, a novel about architects who design skyscrapers (among other things).

Here's a link to my blog post about cities being economically inefficient:

http://www.halfsigma.com/2005/10/are_dense_citie.html

Re: On Sprawl

Half Sigma — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 12:28:35 -0000

Mjr,

The raw land would be worth more per square acre with less zoning, but it's the house that's built on the land that's really worth a lot of money. Because the number of houses in desirable areas around DC increase much more slowly than the number of people wanting to live there, the prices skyrocket. People who own houses have a greedy self-interest in keeping the zoning restrictive.

I think that the DC area is one of the most messed up places in the country from a land use perspective. Suburban homeowners have the biggest amount of NIMBYism I've ever seen, and although the city of DC is in the center of the area, the stupid height restriction in the District prevents it from becoming a real big city like New York, so a lot of exurbs have popped up to meet the area's growing demand for office space, creating traffic jams as people have to drive ridiculous commutes around the Beltway.

The whole problem could be fixed easily by allowing a bunch of forty story skycrapers go up in DC.

Re: On Sprawl

Half Sigma — Fri, 17 Mar 2006 14:48:49 -0000

"If the users of mass transit paid for their trains and buses, I would have no problem whatsoever. But they do not."

Mass transit is paid for with a combination of taxes and fares. Roads are also paid for with taxes. It seems pretty equivalent to me.

Re: On Sprawl

Half Sigma — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 07:23:45 -0000

I wrote a very long essay on this topic at my blog:

http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/03/why_republicans.html

All of the most recent comments are at Cafe Hayek have to do with mass transit. First of all, I am in agreement that dense cities create transportational and space inefficiencies. In other words, yes, mass transit systems are less economically efficient than people driving in their cars.

HOWEVER, mass transit is necessary when the populatio density is too high to allow efficient use of personal automobiles.

Now the arugment some are making is, if mass transit is expensive, then too bad, let's do without it and without dense cities. However, that's ignoring the hidden but very powerful economic BENEFITS of dense cities. The evidence that these benefits exist is obvious when one looks at how expensive cities are yet people CHOOSE to live there and businesses CHOOSE to locate there.

Mass transit is paid for with a combination of fares and taxes on people who live in the geographic area that is served by the mass transit. And that seems pretty FAIR to me. No one is being forced to live in New York City.

I don't believe mass transit to be a government intereference in the economy any more than roads are an interference.

Re: On Sprawl

Half Sigma — Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:52:45 -0000

" suburban America will not give up their excellent schools, their large backyards, and their freedom from all the ills that accompany high-density housing."

As Ronald Reagan once said, there you go again.

"Excellent" suburban schools are an artificial creation of government, not the free market. School districts were zoned so that there was no poor people housing in the district. Without poor children, the school seem excellent.

One could do the same thing with dense living. Create a school district that is zoned only for "luxury" high rise buildings that poor people can't afford and you'll have the same excellent schools in the city.

The schools are one of the major methods with which government has created an artificial incentive for people to live in suburban "sprawl" rather than in high rises.

Re: On Sprawl

Half Sigma — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 06:29:05 -0000

"Were you around in the 60's and 70's when first urban crime and then forced busing in many cities drove half the urban population out of metropolitan school districts?"

Exactly my point, forced busing is a government policy. Government policy created bad schools in the cities. Government policy prevents the creation of urban school districts without poor people.

Crime is also caused by poor people, and once again that's a government policy creating areas where poor people can't live.

If there was actually a free market, poor people would live far away from the city where land is cheaper, leaving the more desirable short commute time areas to richer people.

Re: On Sprawl

Half Sigma — Mon, 20 Mar 2006 08:52:36 -0000

John,

I'm sure we both agree that the personal automobiles made suburban living more economically efficient than before such transportation existed, and this opened up rural areas to suburbanization.

I also have no doubt that urban living causes you a great deal of personal disgust, and it's surely your right not to be forced to live in an environment you don't like.

The point of my argument has never been that suburbs make no sense at all, but rather that more people live in suburbs than otherwise would were it not for government interferences that favor suburbs over city. This seems to be the opposite of your contention that cities would not exist at all were it not for liberals forcing people to live there. It's not true that all people hate urban living, you are presuming that everyone else has the exact same likes and dislikes as you do.

Re: Framing the 'Trade Deficit'

Half Sigma — Tue, 21 Mar 2006 19:00:14 -0000

If U.S. (via its citizens or the government) are trading capital for consumer goods, how is this good for the long term future of the U.S.?

Re: Corrected for Inflation

Half Sigma — Fri, 24 Mar 2006 11:59:50 -0000

Going up in price: housing, healthcare, education, the very basic stuff you need.

Going down in price: mountain bikes, TV sets, frivolous consumer goods you don't need.

Re: Corrected for Inflation

Half Sigma — Mon, 27 Mar 2006 07:19:46 -0000

"The problem in both medicine and education is the third party payer problem."

This is even worse than that in education, becaues the "free money" to pay for the education is often not actually free but a student loan that can't even be discharged in bankruptcy.

Re: Corrected for Inflation

Half Sigma — Tue, 28 Mar 2006 05:29:59 -0000

"the cost of education has never been lower."

The value that society places on a certification has NEVER BEEN HIGHER.

Abraham Lincoln was considered a great lawyer, and he never even graduated high school. Today, one needs to have four years of college plus three years of law school in order to be legally allowed to practice law, and unless you attended a top law school, good luck convincing a major law firm to hire you.

I think it's a sad indictment of society that self-learning has so little value, yet that's the case.

The cost of getting certified has never been higher, partially because formal education requires high wage labor and the cost of high wage labor is increasing faster than the rate of inflation.

Third party financing of education contributes becuase there is no incentive for a college to lower costs.

And student loans hurt the average college student more than they help, because people who have no business going to college in the first place are being saddled with debts.

18 year old kids, who society perceives as not having sufficient wisdom to drink a beer, are nevertheless given the opportunity to shackle themslves with debt that can't even be discharged in bankruptcy.

Re: Corrected for Inflation

Half Sigma — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:18:02 -0000

Nathan, your point was that people can learn stuff for free, and I didn't ignore it, I agree 100%, and explained that society only values the knowledge gained from expensive formal education.

Re: Mental Experiment

Half Sigma — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 04:24:33 -0000

I think it's bad for mankind if the world's most powerful nation is a totalitarian state and not a democracy.

Re: Mental Experiment

Half Sigma — Wed, 29 Mar 2006 06:37:40 -0000

Nazi Germany had a powerful economy. There is no guarantee that a powerful Chinese economy will mean more freedom for Chinese citizens. But a powerful Chinese economy does guarantee a more powerful Chinese military.

Re: Corrected for Inflation

Half Sigma — Thu, 30 Mar 2006 05:35:08 -0000

I said that formal education is important to "society." Part of it is because laws and political correctness make uncustomary and maybe even ILLEGAL to use objective tests as a means to hire people, so college and graduate degrees are heavily relied on instead. This is a tremendously inefficient use of resources to make people spend 4 years in college and more years in graduate school just to demonstrate they have a high IQ.

Re: Are 'Illegal' Immigrants Illegal?

Half Sigma — Sat, 01 Apr 2006 07:02:23 -0000

What a stupid exercise in semantics! The dictionary says that illegal means "not according to or authorized by law : UNLAWFUL, ILLICIT; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)."

"Illegal aliens" are living here without the proper legal authorization, so they most definitely are legitimately labeled as "illegal."

Re: Running out of oil?

Half Sigma — Mon, 03 Apr 2006 11:24:59 -0000

Peak oil only refers to conventional oil. Extracting uncoventional oil like oil sands is more like mining than it is like conventional oil drilling.

Re: Immigration Economics

Half Sigma — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 09:23:34 -0000

"Has the tripling of women in the workforce over the last 50 years reduced wages or the standard of living in the United States?"

The answer is YES, because just today I blogged about how median income for men aged 25-44 has DECLINED since the 1970s.

http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/04/median_income_f.html

Re: Immigration Economics

Half Sigma — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 10:01:51 -0000

It's a stat that's been ignored, because I read a lot of blogs and always read economic related article in the NY Times, yet I was completely surprised to discover that the typical man aged 25-44 is worse off today than in the 1970s, which was supposedly a decade of economic malaise.

It's telling us something important.

Re: Immigration Economics

Half Sigma — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 11:52:20 -0000

"so we shouldn't allow anything that might affect one segment of a population even if it's a benefit to the larger group"

Most progress has negatively affected certain parts of the population. For example, mechanization of farming negatively affected farm laborers, but we are much better off today on account of mechanization. So yes, we don't want to stop progress because not everyone benefits.

But it's not clear that immigration provides a net benefit to current U.S. citizens, either in the short run or the long run. The only clear beneficiary of of immigration are the immigrants themselves; they obviously see a benefit or they wouldn't be coming here.

Re: Immigration Economics

Half Sigma — Wed, 05 Apr 2006 13:41:04 -0000

John Pertz: "How exactly does median income data taken at two different time points in a non static environment definetively prove the large generalization that male workers between 25 or 44 have a worse or better standard of living just because the median income data is going up or down?"

According to the CPI-U-RS, their standard of living is going down. So your argument is basically that the CPI-U-RS is wrong and is overestimating inflation.

Furthermore the cost of housing is increasing even faster than inflation as measured by the CPI-U-RS. Thus your argument is that even though a young man today has to live with his parents when a generation ago he could have afforded his own place, he is better off because he has high speed internet, a computer, DVD player, Xbox, iPod, and cell phone.

It's my opinion that all those gadgets are BS, it's much better to be able to afford your own place to live, and for that reason the CPI-U-RS is understimating inflation.

Re: Waste Expo!

Half Sigma — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 05:32:20 -0000

Expos tend to be an example of negative sum rent seeking behavior. Waste expo indeed.

Re: Waste Expo!

Half Sigma — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 07:22:01 -0000

I couldn't resist the pun. Sorry.

Re: Waste Expo!

Half Sigma — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:19:17 -0000

I said I was sorry, I just thought it was punny to point out how the expo was a "waste."

We live in a marketing economy, and companies prosper not by having better products, but by creating the PERCEPTION that they have better products.

Re: Having the Constitution for Lunch

Half Sigma — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 12:22:50 -0000

FDR appointed nine justices to the Supreme Court, and every single one of them voted his way on the Interstate Commerce Clause issue.

Re: Having the Constitution for Lunch

Half Sigma — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:54:54 -0000

"under what Constitutional provision does Uncle Sam find the authority to pay for school lunches"

Don, this comes from the "Spending Power" in Article I Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

Re: Spin

Half Sigma — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:58:48 -0000

Along the lines of what bbartlog said, creating actual quality is one of several ways to create the perception of quality, but it's the perception which drives the sale, not the actual quality.

Re: Spin

Half Sigma — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:12:25 -0000

Actually, my original quote was "better products," I don't know where "quality" came in; quality is only one feature of a product, although it is a feature especially susceptible to marketing because often consumers are unable to judge the quality themselves.

Supposedly Betamax had better quality than VHS, but it's hard to say it was the better product overall because VHS recorded for an extra hour on a tape and the price was lower, perhaps making VHS the better product for most consumers.

Re: Spin

Half Sigma — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:22:40 -0000

And furthermore, the issue is the comparison of products being sold in competition with each other and not the overall increase in quality with improving technology.

I'm certainly in agreement that technological advancement has allowed certain types of products to improve greatly in quality at little additional cost to the manufacturer.

However, when the consumer is in Best Buy choosing between two DVD players, he may buy the Sony for $90 instead of the no-name brand for $30 because Sony has the perception of being better, but who knows?

Re: Spin

Half Sigma — Fri, 07 Apr 2006 04:44:09 -0000

"Sony's brand name does not command a premium (solely) because of advertising but because Sony has established a reputation of quality by long years of producing quality products."

Let's look at the track record:

Sony notebook computer: stopped working after two years.

Sony desktop stereo (cost me $300): stopped ejecting CDs after two years.

Sony Wega TV: wavy picture, not exactly what I'd call premium quality

Sony digital camera: returned to Sony repair, came back with different stuff broken, sent back again.

Why do I keep buying this Sony junk? They must have brainwashed me somehow.

Re: More on immigration and wages

Half Sigma — Mon, 10 Apr 2006 11:38:11 -0000

"They think that, even within the same skill category, immigrants and natives need not be perfect substitutes, pointing out that the two groups tend to end up in different jobs. Mexicans are found in gardening, housework and construction, while low-skilled natives dominate other occupations, such as logging."

This logic is ridulous because laborers ARE substitute goods for each other, so if all the Mexicans went back to Mexico, the salary of gardening jobs would rise, attracting more non-Mexicans, which in turn causes the wages for all unskilled labor to rise.

I mean, come on, this is basic supply and demand. There is an issue of burden of proof here. If someone is trying to argue that immigration doesn't affect wages, then they have the burden of proving their case, otherwise we need to assume that supply and demand work as we expect them to.

Re: More on immigration and wages

Half Sigma — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 05:25:19 -0000

Patrick: "The immigrants increase labor supply, but they also increase labor demand"

It should be obvious that immigrants have only a small impact on labor demand in the U.S. because they earn very small salaries compared to Americans, they send some of their money back home, and a lot of the stuff they buy is manufactured in other countries.

And the food they eat is practically free because our government pays farmers not to grow stuff because there's so much of it. Hell, increased demand for food might decrease demand for labor because farmers wouldn't have to devote so much effort to limiting their production.

Re: Not Third World Yet

Half Sigma — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 06:09:26 -0000

What exactly is an anecdote about some company in St. Louis hiring a few people for $30,000/year--which is BELOW the mean income--supposed to prove?

Re: More on immigration and wages

Half Sigma — Tue, 11 Apr 2006 14:17:16 -0000

Swagy: "there are enough laws on the books right now to enable effective control of the problem the real issue is the will to enforce the laws already in place."

If by this you mean that an elite cabal within our government favoring open borders conspires behind the scenes to not patrol our borders, deport anyone, or punish any employers of illegals, then yes this has got to change.

Re: More on immigration and wages

Half Sigma — Wed, 12 Apr 2006 07:30:03 -0000

Patrick: "Like we were able to prohibit the consumption of alcohol in the Roaring 20s"

Both are cases where the perceived benefit of cheating was greater than the perceived chance of getting caught times the percieved cost of getting caught.

If the potential illegal immigrant perceives that there is a good chance he will get found out and deported, and he has to pay thousands of dollars to get smuggled in because we built a fence along the border with Mexico, and he is a lot less likely to find work here because of a crack down on employers, then he will be a lot less likely to try it.

Re: The Reddest of Red Herrings

Half Sigma — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:13:44 -0000

"I have seen it alleged, that of the cost of produce you buy at the grocery store, 5% actually makes it's way back to the farmer."

That sounds believable. Because we live in a marketing economy and the cost of most of the stuff you buy in stores goes to marketing expenses.

Re: Fogel on Life-Expectancy

Half Sigma — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 12:25:37 -0000

"I think an interesting issue is the modern evolution of human height"

The "secular trend" of increasing height has actually mystified researchers. Nutrition, the answer commonly given, doesn't really account for it.

Maybe tall people are having more children? Women, at least, seem to strongly prefer tall men, meaning that short genes are culled from the gene pool.

Re: The Reddest of Red Herrings

Half Sigma — Mon, 17 Apr 2006 14:34:28 -0000

Produce brokers probably also make a decent amount of money.

Re: A Brief Note On Oil Industry Profits

Half Sigma — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 06:22:38 -0000

I agree 100% with the original post.

Regarding CEO pay, I don't see why the CEO pay should rise with increasing profits--any moron could increase profits when the commodity the company sells goes up in price.

The windfall belongs to neither the government or the CEO's--it belongs to the shareholders, the real owners of the company, the people who had the foresight to invest when prices were low.

Re: A Brief Note On Oil Industry Profits

Half Sigma — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:33:46 -0000

In response to John Dewey's defense of overpaid CEOs,

My point was that whether or not the CEO is a moron, the big boost in oil company profits directly the result of rising prices for the commodity has nothing to do with the CEO, so the CEO has no more right to claim a share of the "windfall" as the government. The CEO is no better than Chuck Schumer, he is trying to steal money that belongs to the shareholders.

Having been an investor in this industry for many years, I've seen a lot of dumb CEO decisions, like overpaying for acquisitions, losing huge amounts of money by forward selling oil and gas when the prices were low. I'm not that impressed.

I'm more impressed by the geologists who interpred the 3D seismographic data. That's impressive stuff. Those guys are probably getting paid less than they deserve. The guys who do the real work never get the rewards.

Re: A Brief Note On Oil Industry Profits

Half Sigma — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 11:38:53 -0000

"Managing the world's largest corporation..."

I don't even understand why Exxon and Mobil had to merge to create the world's largest corportation. I just don't see the synergies. If you want to invest in an oil company with growing production, you invest in a small company. That's why the small producers have much higher valuations than the large companies. Conoco Philips has an especially low valuation due to negative sentiment regarding the boneheaded acquisition of Burlington Resources at the worst possible time for Conoco Philips.

The Exxon-Mobil mearger obviously has negative synergies in the political arena, drawing unwanted attention to the industry and ruining it for everybody.

Yes, the oil company CEOs waste all their efforts doing pointless deals that actually reduce shareholder value. They don't deserve to make any more than I do.

Re: A Brief Note On Oil Industry Profits

Half Sigma — Wed, 26 Apr 2006 13:31:42 -0000

During times of plentiful supply, the price of a commodity will sink to the level of the marginal cost of production for high cost producers. Which means that in times of plentiful supply, the high cost producer is losing money.

But then a shortage occurs, and until production increases all producers will be making big profits, because profitability is highly leveraged to the price of the commodity.

Right now we are in a time of shortage, so oil production that was breaking even when oil was $30/barrel is now making lots of money.

The big companies like Exxon-Mobil are "integrated," meaning they make money from both upstream and downstream activities. In the U.S. market, there is also a shortage of refined product on account of hurricane Katrina taking out the refineries, as well as the fact that no new refineries have been built in a long time, so downstream profitability has increased as well.

The CEOs didn't cause Hurricane Katrina and they didn't cause the worldwide shortage in oil, so if they are taking advantage of the higher prices to give themselves raises then they are stealing money from the shareholders just as Chuck Schumer is stealing money from.

As a voter I have no say in who is running the country, and as a shareholder I have just as little say in who is running the company. The big mutual funds, operated by the same companies that seek investment banking business from the CEOs, are the ones who control the CEO's salary.

Re: A Brief Note On Oil Industry Profits

Half Sigma — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:17:57 -0000

Dewey: "Well, let's just look at the results.

The Exxon Mobil merger was announced in 1998. From January, 1998, through April, 2006, Exxon shareholders realized a 110% increase in the value of their stock. Compare that with the 42% increase in the DJIA or the 31% increase in the S&P 500."

Why you are comparing XOM to the general market? The proper comparison is other oil and gas companies, and XOM has underperformed. The XOI index, composed of big oil companies, is up 145% since Jan 1 1998, XOM has clearly lagged it's peers, but its peers have sucked too compared to smaller and more nimble companies.

Anadarko Petroleum is up 256% in the same period. Occidental Petroleum is up 238%. Denbury Resources, a company I've invested in, is up 244% since Jan 1 1998.

So I fail to see why the guys running XOM are getting paid anything at all since they apparently have destroyed shareholder value.

xteve: "Half Sigma, if you really believe what you're saying, why don't you sell your shares?"

Because it's a positive sum game so it's profitable even though management is stealing more than their fair share.

Re: A Brief Note On Oil Industry Profits

Half Sigma — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 11:55:16 -0000

"They are concentrated in the exploration and production end of the total energy business."

Perhaps there was even more money to be made downstream. Independent refiner Valero Energy, up 716% since Jan 1, 1998. Damn, that's a good return.

Another company I invested in, Canadian Natural Resources, up also 716% since the stock began trading in 2000.

Your point was the Exxon-Mobil management deserves to make a lot of money because of the great job they are doing, but in comparison to other oil and gas companies, whether huge or tiny, they come up short.

Re: Immigration and Assimilation

Half Sigma — Tue, 23 May 2006 12:41:11 -0000

Should the white people in Zimbabwe have been concerned that they were a minority? The answer, of course, is yes.

Re: Immigration and Assimilation

Half Sigma — Wed, 24 May 2006 12:26:55 -0000

"But why should I care if America is more Hispanic in the coming years?"

The reason is obvious Russell. If Hispanics believe that they have aggregate interests different than other Americans, they'll vote their interests, and this can transform the nature of our government.

Based on what's going on in the rest of the Americas south of Texas, Hispanics seem to favor leftist governments.

Re: What determines wages

Half Sigma — Thu, 25 May 2006 09:00:30 -0000

I don't understand this box and forehead dichotomy. Why aren't the rules of supply and demand sufficient to explain wages? Why do we need boxes and foreheads?

If the worldwide demand for chemists is high relative to worldwide supply, then a Haitian program to create more chemists would slightly lower the worldwide salary of chemists but increase the wealth of Haiti.

Re: What determines wages

Half Sigma — Thu, 25 May 2006 09:03:42 -0000

And now thinking about Walmart, Walmart by being so big has created more bargaining power for the enterprise so is able to enhance profits for shareholders (the capitalist class) by supressing wages for the workers.

Pre-Walmart, a low wage worker might have made $10/hour, but post-Walmart the same worker makes only $8/hour with the $2 difference enriching the capitalist class.

Re: What determines wages

Half Sigma — Thu, 25 May 2006 12:29:33 -0000

"Who is this "capitalist class" you refer to? Does it include all the participants in pension plans and 401K's?"

No, it does not, because the average 401K plan participant's income from stock holding is tiny compared to his earnings from working.

When a majority of a person's income comes from capital and not labor, then he has finally reached the capitalist class.

Re: What determines wages

Half Sigma — Fri, 26 May 2006 11:45:10 -0000

response to liberty:

The reality is that skilled workers who lose their occupation because their skills are no longer needed are screwed. It may have taken them their whole life to get as skilled as they are. They will never recoup the lost income.

This doesn't mean that we should halt progress. I don't want to go back to a world where everyone was a farmer. I'm just saying that people should stop pretending that it doesn't suck to be a victim of change, or that these people will ever recover because they probably won't.

Re: What determines wages

Half Sigma — Fri, 26 May 2006 12:51:50 -0000

"It is why wages in manufacturing are higher then wages in the hospitality industrty"

Manufacutring is unionized. The unionized workers have more bargaining power, so they are able to bargain for themselves higher wages.

Re: What determines wages

Half Sigma — Tue, 30 May 2006 07:55:15 -0000

Increasing worker productivity obviously, in the short run, reduces demand for workers and thus lowers wages. Workers don't get the benefit.

Imagine that a worker is a gallon of gasoline. There is a new invention that makes each car drive twices as many miles on a gallon. Each gallon of gas becomes twice as productive. But this new invention will cause the price of gasoline to decline because drivers won't need to buy as much.

But the imagine that all the producers of gasoline get together and decide that they will only sell gasoline at a price 100% greater than the pre-gasoline price. People will then be forced to pay the higher price. This is equivalent to workers forming a union.

Now the producers getting together to "fix" prices is considered illegal, while the workers getting together to fix their wages is endorsed by statues. Whether it's right or wrong for the law to favor one and not the other is besides the point--the point is that unions DO benefit the workers just as price fixing benefits any industry.

Re: Fake Science on Rage

Half Sigma — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 06:19:24 -0000

Are you saying that laissez faire competition in the phramceuticals industry is producing BAD RESULTS that HARM SOCIETY?

Hmmm, interesting. I thought you were a libertarian. I guess not.

Re: Fake Science on Rage

Half Sigma — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 12:50:16 -0000

"People should be free to waste their money on medicine that quack scientists have sold them on, certainly."

It's amazing how stupid people are. I know someone who insists upon a highly bogus diet because she's convinced it's for her health, and nothing I do can talk her out of it.

I think there is a huge negative externality when people make money by getting other people to do stuff that actually HARMS their health.

Re: Motives

Half Sigma — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 10:07:09 -0000

"I don't understand progressive taxation."

The unequal distribution of wealth in this country is such that people in the bottom half really don't need to pay any taxes at all, because they don't have much to contribute anyway.

And those in the bottom half have a much greater marginal utility for their money, so "progressive" tax creates a more efficient allocation of resources.

I'll have to write about this at my blog one day, but you can read my post about why we should keep the estate tax, which basically explains that there's a general principle that tax is paid whenever money is transferred from one party to another, and I don't see why one particular transfer, from a dead person to a living person, should be exempt from the general principle.

http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/why_we_should_k.html

This doesn't mean that I'm not in partial agreement with Don Boudreaux that the government spends too much money.

Re: Motives

Half Sigma — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 13:00:20 -0000

"Why would buying lottery tickets and adding a fourth tatoo be a more efficient allocation than building small businesses and investing in corporate equities?"

The tatoo is art for the poor man. So whereas a wealthy man will pay tens of millions of dollars for a Van Gogh, the poor man will get just as much enjoyment from a tatoo. Thus the greater marginal utility of money for the poor man.

Re: Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite (and Mr. Smith, and Ms. Jones, and Mr. Williams, and…..)

Half Sigma — Tue, 20 Jun 2006 06:22:15 -0000

This is ridiculous. Paul is just the lucky victor of a winner-takes-all contest. If he didn't exist, someone else would have taken his place at the top, so Paul didn't do anything at all to deserve $1.5 billion.

Re: Kelo Turns One

Half Sigma — Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:03:55 -0000

I think you (and others opposed to Kelo) or focusing too much on the "public" issue.

If the state were to use eminent domain to build a public housing project, that would clearly fall under the public use requirement.

But I think it's FAR BETTER to have private housing developmetns as opposed to public housing projects.

Re: Kelo Turns One

Half Sigma — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:15:01 -0000

"Those that are enumerated in the Constitution must be upheld by every branch of government."

Actually, the original doctrine of the rights in the Bill of Rights is that they only apply to the federal government. See Barron v. Baltimore.

Re: Kelo Turns One

Half Sigma — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:39:42 -0000

The 14th Amendment arose to help Congress pass laws to protect the free slaves.

It wasn't until many decades later that the Supreme Court magically discvoered stuff in there which had never been there before.

In Hurtado v. California (1884), the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the Bill of Rights does not apply to the states.

Re: More on Commerce in Kidneys

Half Sigma — Mon, 03 Jul 2006 08:53:42 -0000

I'm in favor of a free market for bodyparts.

This would solve the whole minimum wage issue, because poor people could make more money selling body parts than working, and employers would be forced to raise salaries.

But then American poor people would face competition for third world poor people selling body parts. There are probably people in third world countries who would voluntarily sacrifice their life for a few hundred dollars to give to their family.

The solution is high tariffs on imported body parts to protect American donors.

Re: More on Commerce in Kidneys

Half Sigma — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 19:34:36 -0000

"A simple solution to the lack of organ donotaions is to incentivize people to become donors."

Yes, and the best incentive of all is money.

Re: Principles and Pragmatism

Half Sigma — Sun, 23 Jul 2006 06:28:35 -0000

It seems to me that the ideal society as envisioned by some anarcho-capitalists disregards human nature almost as much as the ideal society envisioned my Marxists.

Re: Men Not Working

Half Sigma — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:43:22 -0000

As I said at my own blog: "I respect these guys who are enjoying their leisure instead of working. They haven't let themselves be brainwashed by conventional middle class values which say that every man has to work otherwise he's a loser."

Re: Men Not Working

Half Sigma — Mon, 31 Jul 2006 15:13:18 -0000

John Dewey: "My guess is that the percentage of women in that age group who are working has increased by far more. Despite all you hear to the contrary, it is possible for couples to survive on one income."

That demonstrates a double standard. If a man works but his wife doesn't, that's the American Way and Traditional Values. But god forbid a woman works and her husband doesn't, the the poor guy is condemned as a big loser who's not living up to his manly responsibilities.

Re: Poor, Ordinary Americans

Half Sigma — Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:35:02 -0000

The McMansions are a result of restrictive zoning which doens't allow builders to build as many houses as people would like to buy.

Indeed, restrictive zoning has done serious damage to the standard of living of those who didn't own a house before the huge increase in prices began in 1995.

Re: Poor Poor Pitiful Me

Half Sigma — Fri, 25 Aug 2006 12:41:49 -0000

The Yankees (notice the plural) are making LOTS and LOTS of money.

What you all mean is that the owners of the residual profits made a bad deal with the employees and other stakeholders.

Re: Demand Slopes Downward

Half Sigma — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 11:42:21 -0000

Metro fares are surely very inelastic.

But when I lived there, I never rode it to work because of the exurbanization of the DC area. The Metro only works if you work in DC, but all the jobs were in stupid places like Tyson's Corner and the place with the big I-395 highway interchange.

Re: Clipping the Hedge

Half Sigma — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 07:00:09 -0000

"Don't they realize that investors realize that hedge funds are risky?"

If investors truly understood what the hedge fund was doing, they could just do the same thing themselves and avoid paying the hedge fund manager 20% of the profits.

This is NOT a call for regulation, just a comment.

Re: Clipping the Hedge

Half Sigma — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:44:35 -0000

Regarding the change in the net worth requirements to invest in hedge fund. This just plain makes no sense. Who is to say if someone with $2.5 million in assets is any smarter than someone with only $1 million?

So Paris Hilton is qualified to invest in a hedge funds, but not a poor person with a degree in Finance from Wharton?

Someone above suggested that investing in individual stocks is also very risky, and yes, it's scary that someday the government may prohibit poor people from investing in invidual stocks. How are you supposed to get rich in the first place if you're not allowed to invest your money?

I think that there are legitimate MACROeconomic concerns regarding a very small minority of large hedge funds using extreme leverage.

The majority of hedge funds are nothing but mutual funds with looser rules about what they can invest in and that charge outgrageously high management fees (which generally make them a pretty bad investement).

Re: Minimum-Workforce Legislation

Half Sigma — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 06:15:54 -0000

Why doesn’t government require each employer to hire a minimum number of full-time employees? If, as the proponents of modest increases in the minimum-wage argue...

Straw man argument. A "minimum workforce" has absolutely nothing more to do with a minimum wage than does the solar minimum.

Re: Minimum-Workforce Legislation

Half Sigma — Tue, 02 Jan 2007 09:47:14 -0000

There's no way for the government to determine how many employees an employer SHOULD have. Forcing employers to hire people they don't need is wasteful featherbedding.

The minimum wage has the opposite effect. At a higher minimum wage, you can be sure that the businesses truly need all of those employees.

The idea is so dumb I didn't even bother to explain it before, but it seems that some people don't get it.

And for those waiting for W to veto the minimum wage law: don't count on it, W won't veto anything unless it involves stem cells.

Re: Minimum-Workforce Legislation

Half Sigma — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 10:24:05 -0000

"the point here is that there is no way for a government to determine how much an employer SHOULD pay."

Minimum wage is a pretty easy law to administrate. You may not like it, but it's easy to implement and administrate.

Minimum workforce laws would be a nightmare of administration, and companies would avoid it by merging, and it would essentiall make small businesses with a single employee illegal.

So it's like we're comparing apples to gigantic 500 lb fruits fall from the sky and killing people.

Re: Minimum-Workforce Legislation

Half Sigma — Wed, 03 Jan 2007 18:08:46 -0000

"True, but the quality of thinking behind both schemes is comparable."

More than 50% of the population think that transferring wealth from the rich to the poor is a good idea. I leave that to others to determine whether this really is a good idea.

But given that society has determined that some transference is going to take place, minimum wage laws seem to me to be a good way to transfer wealth. It has only a minor impact on the economy so long as the minimum wage isn't raised by some idiotically high amount. Minimum workforce laws, on the other hand, would be an incredibly dumb way to transfer wealth.

So no, the quality of thinking is NOT comparable.

Re: Minimum-Workforce Legislation

Half Sigma — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:05:35 -0000

"The minimum wage is simply a tax on the employment transaction."

No, tax is money you pay to the government. Minimum wage can be best described as a government created cartel of the least skilled workers. Cartels work very well in enriching the members of the cartel so long as members of the cartel don't cheat.

"Have you wondered which 50% of the population thinks transfering wealth from the rich to the poor is a good idea?"

Primarily poor people who will benefit and the rich people who feel guilty about being rich.

Re: Minimum-Workforce Legislation

Half Sigma — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 09:13:07 -0000

"And that is really the root issue: you won't say if you think it's [wealth transfer] a good idea."

Actually, for me the root issue is that I get mad when I see sloppy reasoning and analysis. I'm fine if Don Boudreux says that he's morally opposed to wealth transfer (even though he would be slightly hypocritical saying so because he has a cushy government job, a transfer of wealth from hard working Virginia taxpayers).

Re: George Will nails it

Half Sigma — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 12:38:16 -0000

Just about everyone with something to sell can make more money if they can form a monopoly or an anti-competitive cartel.

Minimum wage is a government created cartel of low skill workers. It's as if all the workers got together and agreed that none would work for less than $x/hr. If the low skill workers had the organizational ability to to this themselves it would be a very sensible strategy.

I don't know why you think that the rules for unskilled workers are different than for other every other product.

Re: George Will nails it

Half Sigma — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:05:06 -0000

"Roberts and Bourdreaux aren't thinkers."

They have a philosophy that the government should NEVER interfere with the free market, which is an interesting philosophy, but the problem is that they will make any argument, no matter how dishonest, to support their anti-government philosophy.

One of these dishonest arguments, that they repeat over and over, is that minimum wage laws somehow HURT the low wage workers, which I don't buy. If the minimum wage rises by 40% but 1% of minimum wage employees lose their jobs, that's a darn good deal for the class.

Re: Trade and Romance

Half Sigma — Mon, 08 Jan 2007 06:02:00 -0000

I think this is a misogynist post which denigrates women to objects of sexual gratification who are "won" or "lost" by men.

Re: What Galileo Must Have Felt

Half Sigma — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 05:26:09 -0000

This has nothing to do with Galileo. That the sun revolves around the earth is a scientific fact.

Whether free trade is "good" or "bad" is a matter of values, and values aren't subject to scientific proof.

To be like Galileo, you need to write about the importance of IQ differences.

Re: Where Externalities Lie

Half Sigma — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:07:00 -0000

I'm with you on this.

Re: Do Windfall-Profits Taxes Apply to Politicians?

Half Sigma — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 10:38:19 -0000

The money doesn't go to Obama personally, it's only to be spent on his campaign.

However, I'm in favor of taxing all donations to organizations just the same as if they were profits generated by a for-profit business.

Re: Where Externalities Lie

Half Sigma — Mon, 09 Jul 2007 11:19:32 -0000

No, "you" meant Don Boudreaux, the author of the original blog post. The link is to a blog post explaining why it doesn't serve any sound policy objectives to reduce our gasoline consumption.

Re: Where Externalities Lie

Half Sigma — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:20:43 -0000

Hi mk. To respond to point (4) above, oil is mostly used as a transportation fuel, and there's no good substitute for it. No one has inveted an alternative fuel airplane. And alternative fuel cars don't make economic sense unless gasoline would cost at least $10/gallon, and maybe even more than that.

Even if Congress passes a law that said that no car could be sold unless it got at least 40mpg (so everyone is forced to drive around in tiny aluminum cars), it's not clear to me how this would change our policy in the Middle East.

Re: Where Externalities Lie

Half Sigma — Tue, 10 Jul 2007 08:25:38 -0000

And to respond to Person: yes, I read your post at the top of the commens, and you make very good points, similar to my old blog post.

Re: Tolstoy on Hayek

Half Sigma — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:39:44 -0000

If leaders don't matter, then why do you support CEOs getting paid hundreds of millions of dollars?

Re: Scalping

Half Sigma — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 08:42:53 -0000

Most baseball revenue comes from TV revenue. In order to keep the blue collar fans loyal TV viewers, they need to preserve the illusion that attendance at the Big Game is egalitarian and open to everyone.

Re: The Politics of Prohibition

Half Sigma — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 10:20:36 -0000

It's well known that women's suffrage led to prohibition, as other commenters above have already noted.