Disqus - Latest Comments for JesseZ

Re: Sickened by SiCKO

JesseZ — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:01:50 -0000

I agree that the rate of innovation in our healthcare system has been one of its strong points. But I don't think that the problems that I mentioned in the insurance industry actually contribute much to technological progress. In fact, these problems may have dampened innovation, as the problems essentially transfer payments from the insuree to the insurer, leaving those who actually provide healthcare high and dry, with less resources and incentive to invest in R&D. I would bet that healthcare would be even more innovative if the insurance companies weren't sucking the system nearly dry.

Also, I don't think innovation need be sacrificed if healthcare (not just insurance) is socialized. Competition is not the only way to give people incentive to innovate and provide good products. In fact, we are probably giving competition too much credit, as it is actually monopoly profits that drives a lot of innovation in the drug sector - and it's no secret that monopolies often detract from economic efficiency and consumer well-being. One way government could push for innovation is to provide (additional) grants for research and prizes for specific innovations which would then become part of the public domain, rather than some monopolist's intellectual property. I blogged a few month's ago on Senator McCain's proposal to offer a prize for a better battery. Though many people didn't like the idea, those who are actually in that field were excited at the prospect. Perhaps it would work in the health industry as well.

Re: An Alternative to the Bailout: Mortgage Arbitration

JesseZ — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:42:25 -0000

I am almost as uncomfortable with the idea of government transfers to homeowners as I am with transferring money directly to the financial industry. Why should non-homeowners subsidize homeowners (any more than they already do)?

I think the best thing for the government to do would be to start addressing the economy's weak fundamentals that I addressed a couple of posts ago - i.e. if the government is going to get even more into debt, it should spend its resources fixing our infrastructure and investing in education and research (particularly for alternative energy). This would provide jobs for millions (particularly after the "multiplier" effect) and allow people to pay off their debt while putting our economy in a position to remain strong and competitive in the future.

Re: Attack of the Grammar Nazis

JesseZ — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:33:50 -0000

Gee thanks, professor. I'll edit out those mistakes ASAP - not! =P

Re: Attack of the Grammar Nazis

JesseZ — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 11:31:23 -0000

I have been guilty of grammatical pedantry as well.

What comes up most is what I consider the overuse of pronouns, like when somebody is talking about multiple females and then says "she" to refer to one of them. Many times, context can be used to figure out who "she" is, but it is often not clear. To try and fix the situation in my own speech, I have gotten into the habit of using a pronoun to her to the last appropriately gendered person I was talking about. For example, if I say, "Gramma baked cookies for Mother. She loves cookies," the "she" is referring to Mother. Still, even when I do this, those to whom I am speaking often need clarification, because they don't know 'bout my system , which is somewhat frustrating.

Something else I do is mentally rearrange sentences that end in prepositions so that they no longer do so. I am proud to say that I never actually corrected somebody out loud on this. However, it is an annoying habit to have. Thankfully, it has waned quite a bit - though it could be that those around me these days break this rule less =)

I am with you on the paradox of "this" and "next". And it applies to more than just weekends. Consider your driving analogy: Two friends are coming to an intersection. The driver asks, "Do I turn at this intersection?" To which the passenger replies, "No, turn at the next one." In this example "next" didn't mean "the next one they were coming to" but "the one after that" - just as is often done with weekends.

The more I think about "this" and "next" the weirder it gets. They can both indicate proximity to the current. But when doing so, "this" is restricted to proximity to the current situation, whereas "next" can be used to indicate proximity to something in the future (or down the road, or whatever). For example it wouldn't make sense to say, "turn right at the this light after the third," though it is sensible (though somewhat awkward) to say, "turn right at the next light after the third." Also, it seems that "this" is most often used to indicate the current, rather than the proximal, so "this day" refers to today, never tomorrow.

You're right, "same difference" is a weird one. Part of the annoyance might come from that fact that it is usually a response from a person who has just been corrected, but is trying to save face or something by illustrating that the correction is trivial. Though I have used it before, I'll admit that it is a pretty defensive thing to say.

Re: A Few Links

JesseZ — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 15:51:01 -0000

You're right - the statement is a bit misleading. It would have been better if the sentence read something like: "Estimates suggest that Amazonian Rainforest habitat takes 100 to 600 years to recover from clear-cutting.

By the way, awesome xkcd!

Re: To All You Pompous & Self-Important Wannabe English Professors

JesseZ — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 18:46:22 -0000

Bravo!

Your grammatically astute detractors need to give it a rest and realize that languages evolve and, as such, grammar and spelling rules are subject to change.

The only "rule" necessary for communication is that you are understood.

Re: No Limits to Growth

JesseZ — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:36:56 -0000

I have some reservations with 4 of the 5 premises, and cannot wholeheartedly accept your conclusion, Will.

Here are my thoughts on your position.

Re: AASTHO: Quarter of U.S. Bridges Need Repair, at Cost of $140 Billion

JesseZ — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:45:20 -0000

I really don't understand why troll-sympathizers, like yourself, get so uppity about these things. I will admit that trolls could serve well as a defense against terrorist attacks on our bridges. But who needs them with legislation as effective as the Patriot Act in effect? Don't you realize that it's a myth that trolls maintain bridges? If they're so great, then why didn't they keep the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis from collapsing last year????

And as far as the tech sector is concerned, trolls only serve to congest comment sections and distract those trying to engage in thoughtful, respectful online discussions. Trolls are a pest that need to be eliminated. Period.

Re: The Minimum Wage: If You Can't Scrap It, Increase It

JesseZ — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 19:34:57 -0000

You seems to be reading what I said correctly - I am concerned that the minimum wage could be influencing the young to forgo schooling.

"If you don't feel like higher education is even a possibility for you (which is very true in less privileged communities) then why finish high school?"

I have the same concern, which is why I am in favor of making job training and higher education more heavily subsidized. If students see high school as a stepping stone into these programs or if high school includes more job training, then students will have less incentive to drop out of high school.

I understand what you are saying about the demographic homogeneity of Denmark contributing to the effectiveness and/or greater political feasibility of these programs there. However, I don't think that the lack of homogeneity here is really that much of a hurdle. Sure, there is the popular sentiment that the poor are lazy, but I think this would occur in any society with different classes, regardless of how diverse the population is. also, it seems that the lack of faith in government these days is not due to the idea that other's won't utilize government services or don't deserve them, but because our politicians (and maybe bureaucrats) mismanage government.

The U.S. has a boasted a diverse population for centuries and it hasn't hurt us in the past. (You might be interested to know that some empirical studies (e.g. this one) suggest that diversity actually contributes to economic growth.)

"Those in favor of low taxes for the rich seem to genuinely feel that poor people "are just lazy." So why would these people want to give out "government freebies" to lazy people?"

These programs will give people incentive to not be lazy. (Not that they are! Some of the people who make minimum or near minimum wage in this country are among those that actually work the hardest.)

"I've always believed that the Republican ideal of giving power to the states could ultimately allow for our most ideal country."

The question regarding which level of government should have which powers is an important one. Maybe I will dedicate a blog entry (at least) to it in the future. But let me at least say that I think that these types of programs could be instituted at any level of government and be effective. Also it would definitely be more politically feasible for them to be implemented on the county or state level than the federal level.

Re: Today in Backwardsville

JesseZ — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 12:11:15 -0000

Just realized that my parenthetical remark at the end of the last reply only illustrates half the story.

Actually, those Danish policies I mentioned would also lead to an upward shift in labor demand curves as well. I must have been just focusing on the increased bargaining power and opportunity cost of working for a specific employer, without adding in the effect that each worker's marginal product would also be boosted for that employer, shifting up that employer's demand.

Re: Weekly Earnings Since 2000

JesseZ — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:37:44 -0000

I am surprised by that, since Merced has the new UC going for it. But I suppose that factored in to the decision to build so many homes out there in the first place.

Re: Today in Backwardsville

JesseZ — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:02:42 -0000

John V,

I know that Denmark is a mixed economy. But, you are right, "socialist" is a strong term and "welfare state" is certainly better. But you must admit that with socialized health care, childcare, education, job training, etc., Denmark is more socialist than the U.S.

I know that *nothing* is truly free, not even "free" social services. But "free" is what we tend to call things that have no monetary marginal cost, and (as you well know) that is what I meant.

I don't care if you think that I am a liberal. Just know that I don't like to label myself or anybody else. To label yourself is to limit yourself. When you label others and their arguments you're being lazy, as you're saving yourself the work of understanding the difference between what that person is saying and the usual argument of some group you have in mind. All that I ask is that you do not generalize what I say with that of other people.

Thanks for asking for a clarification of what I meant by,

"As such, these policies all lower the distortions of imposing a minimum wage by lowering the number of people who would be on and outside of the margin created by the distortion."

I admit that was a bit sloppy. Here's another attempt to say the same thing:

Since these policies all increase either the marginal product and/or the bargaining power of labor, they also decrease the market distortion of instituting a minimum wage.

The idea is that these policies all increase the wages that labor would be able to successfully negotiate for in an unregulated market. With less people below any given wage level, once a minimum wage is imposed there are less people who lose their jobs (i.e. there is less distortion). (One might illustrate this as an upward shift in the labor supply curve.)

Re: Today in Backwardsville

JesseZ — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:23:53 -0000

John V claims that I am surprised at Will's evocation of Denmark in the minimum wage debate because I do not understand Will's arguments. This is untrue.

From what I have read by Will, he is in favor of instituting direct wage subsidies for low-skilled workers and getting rid of the minimum wage. Let me say that I understand this proposal and think it is actually very compelling.

What I was hoping to get at by probing Will's comment was his thoughts on adopting other Danish policies that can be thought of as substitutes for the minimum wage. Specifically, I was curious what his take was on the Danish policies of having free education (including college), free health care, free job training, and relatively generous unemployment benefits. All of these policies either lead to less unskilled workers in the economy or improve the bargaining position of labor. As such, these policies all lower the distortions of imposing a minimum wage by lowering the number of people who would be on and outside of the margin created by the distortion.

Also, John V, please know that I do not appreciate you implying that I am a liberal, social democrat, or whatever. You will never witness me implying that anybody falls under any sort of category and I expect the same treatment in return. Categorizing people and generalizing their thoughts with those of others detracts from discussion and understanding. If you ever check out my blog, you may notice that I praise and attack the ideas of all parties, regardless of their party or political-economic leanings.

Re: Today in Backwardsville

JesseZ — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 20:04:43 -0000

I am a bit surprised that you evoked the socialist state of Denmark in defense of having no minimum wage. Are you suggesting that it would be somehow better to institute Danish-style welfare policies and jettison the minimum wage, or are you in favor of a more ceteris paribis scrapping of minimum wage?

Just so you know, I am on the fence when it comes to minimum wage because the empirical literature is unconvincing (on both sides) and because it really doesn't seem to have much of an effect on macrovariables (particularly in the long-run). However, when I try to imagine the counterfactual of our society without the minimum wage, Denmark style equality is not what I see. But I am definitely open to considering the replacement of the minimum wage with other policies (like those in Denmark).

Re: Why Isn’t Everything Worse?

JesseZ — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 13:41:44 -0000

Just realized the link in my previous post is faulty. If you would like to see the the data to which I referred, go here, put a check next to the 4th item down (entitle: "Constant (1982) Median wkly earnings, Emp FT, Wage & sal wrkrs - LEU0252881600 ), and click the "retrieve data" button.

Re: Why Isn’t Everything Worse?

JesseZ — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 00:09:38 -0000

Check out this chart - median weekly real earnings in the second quarter of 2000 were $320, which is exactly the same figure as the second quarter of this year. Eight years have passed and the average person's living standards have not changed much.

And the quality and variety of products and services have not changed much in 8 years. Sure we have things like ipods and better computers now, but most of the things people buy (food, furniture, gasoline, housing, appliances) haven't changed significantly since 2000.

To say, as Will does, "living standards have improved considerably for most people since 2000," is just wrong.

Re: Why Isn’t Everything Worse?

JesseZ — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:04:05 -0000

For me, the important question is: Have living standards improved much since 2000, since we elected our president?

I doubt it.

Re: On Defining "Racism"

JesseZ — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:43:17 -0000

I like your how your definition of "racism" touches on using race as a gauge for the likelihood of being able to relate with strangers. Thanks, also, for pointing out that AA helps indirectly by giving everybody more opportnities to see minorities succeed.

And I appreciate that you are breaking down the basis of ethical orientation into goals and principles. I'm with you on thinking goals should matter more, however, what I am really curious about is whether sacrificing our principles actually hinders our goals, by way of blowback and whatnot. Perhaps it would be best not to sacrifice our principles, and really try have a society devoid of discrimination and prejudice. I would doubt that we would be able to rely on people's moral sentiments for this; we need to give people incentives to be fair. Perhaps (more) severe punishments for those guilty of racial (and for that matter, gender-based, religious, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.) discrimination would be in order. Maybe, we could have funds set aside to provide rewards to whistleblowers who point out cases of discrimination. A stronger education system would go a long way in helping, not only would it give minorities more chances to move up, but it would hopefully enlighten people and decrease the prevalence of the racist mindset.

Re: Driving Up the Opportunity Cost of Terrorism with Education

JesseZ — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 10:05:02 -0000

Did you say that the U.S. supported a curriculum of religious extremism in Afghanistan?! Wow, not only does that show the power of education, as you say, but it also provides another example of the shortsightedness of our foreign policy. One wonders what we might be doing now to foster new enemies 25 years from now.

Re: Was President Bush Trying to Be Funny?

JesseZ — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 14:10:06 -0000

What Abe said.

Re: The Goatee of the Overeager Left

JesseZ — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 14:33:50 -0000

What would have been "nice" is if the author had cited somebody who thinks that tax cuts are always bad. This shouldn't be a difficult task, since the author seems to be claiming that such sentiments are becoming ubiquitous.

I am afraid that the author could be confused about the difference between people who think that all tax cuts are bad for the economy (these people are probably few and, if they exist, in need of mental help) and people who think that tax cuts are a bad idea when government debt is ridiculously high and growing faster than ever, our infrastructure is in dire need of maintenance, and fee-based services (such as publicly-provided higher education) are becoming more expensive.

Re: On Defining "Racism"

JesseZ — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 13:22:45 -0000

Seems like we are in agreement over the definition of racism.

Thanks for bringing up affirmative action. Affirmative action is similar to defining "racism" in terms of a specific race, because both concepts seem to be aimed at minimizing the inequality between the races by discriminating based on race. Any form of discrimination is something that I feel should be examined closely to see what the overall effects are, because it seems that, as I mentioned in the original post, discrimination aimed at decreasing inequality often results in blowback from the group being discriminated against, particularly when that group has the bulk of institutional power at its disposal. Such blowback can result in even more inequality, rendering discrimination aimed at increasing equality counterproductive. I would wager that both the benefits to those who get a leg-up from affirmative action and the blowback from affirmative action are tremendous, because this is a policy that has a direct impact on peoples' lives.

These are practical concerns. Theoretically, it is quite attractive to have policies and definitions (etc.) that treat everybody the same, that do not discriminate based on characteristics people cannot control (race, sex, birthplace, etc.). One is reminded of the proverb: "Two wrongs don't make a right." But, the big question about non-discriminatory methods of increasing equality is whether they work compared to discriminatory practices, like affirmative action.

I am still on the fence with respect to many of these issues - that's a big reason for this post. I want to learn more about the issue, understand the perspectives of others, and come to a point where I feel confident about taking a particular position that I feel would contribute to the goal of eradicating racism.

Re: Was President Bush Trying to Be Funny?

JesseZ — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 15:23:56 -0000

It's funny because of all the above, although I was focusing on the fact that both the elections President Bush won were "somewhat sketchy." Next time I make a subtle point, I will do more than just italicize things ;)

Re: Starbucks is Scaling Back

JesseZ — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:40:52 -0000

I think you're right, Peter, the stores themselves may have been a medium for advertising. Having so many stores definitely helps with name recognition.

Re: PerotCharts.com

JesseZ — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 19:00:46 -0000

Very true, the retirement age should increase more than it has. It's gone from 65 years old when SS started in the late 1930's to 67 for our generation. I am sure that at 67, most of the people in our generation will be MUCH healthier and capable of work than 65 year-olds from the late 30's.