Philly's new liberal mayor wants a soda tax, the proceeds of which go to fund (pre-K) education. Sounds nice, but there's a problem: sin taxes are regressive. In and of itself that isn't a reason not to do them. Sin taxes do serve dual purposes: more money and discouraging "bad" behavior. They are particularly useful when the funding received from the sin tax is directed toward treatment or other programs that are related (say rehab for alcoholism, or medical treatment for type 2 diabetic patients). When that funding is directed to a non-related program that will then rely on the bad behavior to be funded there is a bit of a problem.
It is much better to tax people differentially with higher taxes for wealthier individuals, however, in PA there's a bit of our constitution that prevents anyone in the state from doing progressive taxation. It seems to me like it should also prevent regressive taxation, but either it doesn't or that's harder to "prove" legally. So all our taxes are flat: income (actually wage), sales, property...
I think Gov. Wolf had a plan to make our state taxes more progressive with a bit of a work around (everyone is taxed at a higher rate, but then everyone gets an equal dollar value refund or credit or something). I would like to see something like that done: up the rate to 7% then give everyone a $2k credit and so the first ~$29k of income is effectively untaxed. Considering our current state tax rate pretty much anyone making less than $60k would get a bit of a tax break and people making more than that would pay more.
Still, not sure that the city could get away with doing something like that (the state seems to be able to stop Philly from doing pretty much anything the state legislators don't like...even if it has zero effect on them or their districts). The soda tax is not the best option out there but it may be the best option available to the city.
Tuesday, May 10, 2016
Monday, May 09, 2016
Yea, but...No
This is such a poor article that I would expect the by line to have been one of Vox's frequent contributors rather than their core staff (and Dylan Matthews at that). I certainly believe that that the studies countering the original study are valid, and that the original study is likely flawed but the conclusion drawn is not really pushed back on by the rebuttals.
First off, in straight numbers: if 10% of the population is winning 50% of the time (when there is a difference) then that is direct evidence that their share of influence is greater than their position, and it validates the other study, does not counter it. (Yes, the 0 influence of the other is countered, but winning 50% of the time when you make up a much larger fraction of the electorate is losing badly.)
Second, the methodology is questionable (possibly of the original as well, but certainly of the rebuttals). There are lots of bills that go through congress, and there may be differences of opinion on any of them, but you really want to isolate the ones that one group or another particularly cares about. Next, the top 10% probably isn't really the most relevant group here, since a big fraction are professionals who may have some issues that really focus on them, but when discussing the oligarchy you really want to focus on a much smaller subset, and it is most likely the top 0.01% that is of the most relevance. That is a group that is much more impacted by legislation pertaining to how the economy works. Finally, it is legislation pertaining to how the economy works, not even mainstream issues like taxes and social security that are the problematic issues. Focusing on "economic issues" is not really telling as the category is so broad as to be irrelevant. The way the extremely wealthy influence policy is not the big bill but the little amendment, or exclusion to law. The Trans Pacific Partnership is actually a fair thing to look at, but not as a free trade issue as much as how it is a bill to enforce US Copyright/Patent protections abroad (more than just that but good example).
There is also a bit of a point in there regarding interest groups and how they do get more of what they want, but while the original study separated interest groups into pro-business and pro-public, the rebuttals don't. Since it is through interest groups that wealthy can influence it seems odd for the rebuttal studies to group all of them together and say that the wealthy don't have much influence because influence groups do...which groups do and who controls/supports them is very relevant.
Finally, Dylan is very oddly dismissive of the points made by the original authors. Their points were along the lines above and are quite relevant. Perhaps there is an issue with their original study, but the conclusion is hardly countered by the three rebuttal studies referenced here. Statistics can tell important stores, but they can also be used to hide important truths. If the very wealthy only care deeply about 1% of issues that come up, though they will certainly have opinions on the rest, and that 1% all goes their way, then they got everything they wanted. The rest is noise that hides the important aspect of who dictates legislation.
First off, in straight numbers: if 10% of the population is winning 50% of the time (when there is a difference) then that is direct evidence that their share of influence is greater than their position, and it validates the other study, does not counter it. (Yes, the 0 influence of the other is countered, but winning 50% of the time when you make up a much larger fraction of the electorate is losing badly.)
Second, the methodology is questionable (possibly of the original as well, but certainly of the rebuttals). There are lots of bills that go through congress, and there may be differences of opinion on any of them, but you really want to isolate the ones that one group or another particularly cares about. Next, the top 10% probably isn't really the most relevant group here, since a big fraction are professionals who may have some issues that really focus on them, but when discussing the oligarchy you really want to focus on a much smaller subset, and it is most likely the top 0.01% that is of the most relevance. That is a group that is much more impacted by legislation pertaining to how the economy works. Finally, it is legislation pertaining to how the economy works, not even mainstream issues like taxes and social security that are the problematic issues. Focusing on "economic issues" is not really telling as the category is so broad as to be irrelevant. The way the extremely wealthy influence policy is not the big bill but the little amendment, or exclusion to law. The Trans Pacific Partnership is actually a fair thing to look at, but not as a free trade issue as much as how it is a bill to enforce US Copyright/Patent protections abroad (more than just that but good example).
There is also a bit of a point in there regarding interest groups and how they do get more of what they want, but while the original study separated interest groups into pro-business and pro-public, the rebuttals don't. Since it is through interest groups that wealthy can influence it seems odd for the rebuttal studies to group all of them together and say that the wealthy don't have much influence because influence groups do...which groups do and who controls/supports them is very relevant.
Finally, Dylan is very oddly dismissive of the points made by the original authors. Their points were along the lines above and are quite relevant. Perhaps there is an issue with their original study, but the conclusion is hardly countered by the three rebuttal studies referenced here. Statistics can tell important stores, but they can also be used to hide important truths. If the very wealthy only care deeply about 1% of issues that come up, though they will certainly have opinions on the rest, and that 1% all goes their way, then they got everything they wanted. The rest is noise that hides the important aspect of who dictates legislation.
Good God Not Again
Dear Paul Krugman,
Please stop saying stupid things.
Respectfully,
A Liberal
Yea, the Berniebros are pretty ignorant of facts, and I really don't get Sanders's campaign at this point (I think I read a theory on why...something about more delegates meaning having a stronger position for determining the party platform). On the other hand, the "center-left" thought the Iraq war was a good idea. They supported financial deregulation that gave us the financial crisis and lesser depression. More recently they wanted to make a deal with Republicans to cut Social Security and Medicare because grand bargain mysticism rules them. The [professional] center-left is hardly the home of "intellectual values".
Of course there are fact challenged liberals and other left wing types. The more progressive activists of the Democratic party tend to be anti-GMO, and think that organic and local = sustainable. There's also a lot of anti-nuclear [power] that tends to be more left-wing. But, fortunately I think, those types are a (loud) minority within the party. The liberal sphere of our politics is, as a whole pro-science, pro-facts, and pro-intellect. So the saying "facts have a well known liberal bias" is accurate, but the second you try and subdivide the left you leave yourself very open to the failings of whichever branch you have decided is the bearer of The Truth.
The center left has some pretty fucking horrible failings. Way out there left wing nuts may have some kooky aspects, but no one has ever listened to them...even when they have been right.
Please stop saying stupid things.
Respectfully,
A Liberal
Yea, the Berniebros are pretty ignorant of facts, and I really don't get Sanders's campaign at this point (I think I read a theory on why...something about more delegates meaning having a stronger position for determining the party platform). On the other hand, the "center-left" thought the Iraq war was a good idea. They supported financial deregulation that gave us the financial crisis and lesser depression. More recently they wanted to make a deal with Republicans to cut Social Security and Medicare because grand bargain mysticism rules them. The [professional] center-left is hardly the home of "intellectual values".
Of course there are fact challenged liberals and other left wing types. The more progressive activists of the Democratic party tend to be anti-GMO, and think that organic and local = sustainable. There's also a lot of anti-nuclear [power] that tends to be more left-wing. But, fortunately I think, those types are a (loud) minority within the party. The liberal sphere of our politics is, as a whole pro-science, pro-facts, and pro-intellect. So the saying "facts have a well known liberal bias" is accurate, but the second you try and subdivide the left you leave yourself very open to the failings of whichever branch you have decided is the bearer of The Truth.
The center left has some pretty fucking horrible failings. Way out there left wing nuts may have some kooky aspects, but no one has ever listened to them...even when they have been right.
Friday, May 06, 2016
Astronomical Scales Are Hard To Imagine
Enjoyed reading this article on Mercury, but it reminded me how difficult astronomical scales are to imagine.
This is how we are often showed an image of the solar system:
Or somewhat less obviously distorted like this:
Either of these images badly distorts the sizes of the planets, but they also badly distort the size of the sun. Even actual images of Mercury against the sun are hard to reconcile with real distances and sizes. This image makes it look like Mercury is very close to the sun (and oddly enough makes it look larger, relative to the sun than it actually is):
.jpg)
Try this image:
Those circles are orbits to scale, and the yellow dot in the center? That's the sun also to scale. The sun is huge but Mercury (black circle) orbits at a distance of 0.38 a.u., which is 41x the diameter of the sun--Venus is the gold circle, Earth blue and Mars red. Also, none of the planets are visible at this scale. The largest of this group, Earth, is .01 times the diameter of the sun, so if that sun were 100 pixels wide, Earth would be 1.
So as close as mercury is to the sun, it's still a fair distance (relative to the size of the sun), and the sun does not fill its sky (if you were on the surface of Mercury the sun would appear a bit less than 3x the diameter--9x the area--than it does here on Earth).
That last image isn't as nice to look at but our MASSIVE sun is still a tiny dot compared with the orbits of even the very close planets in our stellar system. The outer planets make these orbitals seem small, and our entire planetary system is a speck in the Milky Way which is less than a spec in the universe overall.
This is how we are often showed an image of the solar system:
Or somewhat less obviously distorted like this:
Either of these images badly distorts the sizes of the planets, but they also badly distort the size of the sun. Even actual images of Mercury against the sun are hard to reconcile with real distances and sizes. This image makes it look like Mercury is very close to the sun (and oddly enough makes it look larger, relative to the sun than it actually is):
Try this image:
Those circles are orbits to scale, and the yellow dot in the center? That's the sun also to scale. The sun is huge but Mercury (black circle) orbits at a distance of 0.38 a.u., which is 41x the diameter of the sun--Venus is the gold circle, Earth blue and Mars red. Also, none of the planets are visible at this scale. The largest of this group, Earth, is .01 times the diameter of the sun, so if that sun were 100 pixels wide, Earth would be 1.
So as close as mercury is to the sun, it's still a fair distance (relative to the size of the sun), and the sun does not fill its sky (if you were on the surface of Mercury the sun would appear a bit less than 3x the diameter--9x the area--than it does here on Earth).
That last image isn't as nice to look at but our MASSIVE sun is still a tiny dot compared with the orbits of even the very close planets in our stellar system. The outer planets make these orbitals seem small, and our entire planetary system is a speck in the Milky Way which is less than a spec in the universe overall.
Thursday, May 05, 2016
Dept. of Late Comebacks
It would have been great if she could have responded: "That's ok, I prefer to give my money to decent human beings..." Or even "Hope your don't end up requiring the aid of a liberal surgeon with your disposition."
Thursday, April 28, 2016
Valid Point, Poor Article
I kind of agree with the point of this article about smug liberalism, but the article itself doesn't do a very good job of conveying the point (and you can probably look to this other Vox article for a good reason why).
There is certainly a fair amount of smug disdain from [more liberal] Democrats toward large elements of the Republican base, but pointing out all the ways that liberals are, in fact, correct, and that liberal positions have more soundly reasoned grounds is a poor way to convey that. Further, the Kim Davis example is particularly problematic since liberal women (see; Clinton, Pelosi, Sotomayor) are quite regularly attacked for their looks.
The problem is not that liberals are right and conservatives are wrong. The problem is that the Republican party itself is not interested in governing or allowing for government to function. It isn't ideology.
The problem is that people who don't agree, broadly, with the Democratic party don't have a capable, competent party to turn to. They have to vote Republican or not at all. Small parties like the Greens and Libertarians don't have sufficient standing to really impact things.
I am quite liberal myself, but I know that, aside from questions of fact (which are real, not smugness) there are other approaches to most problems/situations that I disagree with but which certainly can be valid. There is not really a home for those positions any more.
People who don't like Democratic positions have a choice between a party they don't agree with and one that is full of extremists, reactionaries and racists, and some of those people, who may be none of those things, will nevertheless vote for that party because they see it as the lesser of two evils...which, frankly is also what a lot of Democratic voters do.
There is certainly a fair amount of smug disdain from [more liberal] Democrats toward large elements of the Republican base, but pointing out all the ways that liberals are, in fact, correct, and that liberal positions have more soundly reasoned grounds is a poor way to convey that. Further, the Kim Davis example is particularly problematic since liberal women (see; Clinton, Pelosi, Sotomayor) are quite regularly attacked for their looks.
The problem is not that liberals are right and conservatives are wrong. The problem is that the Republican party itself is not interested in governing or allowing for government to function. It isn't ideology.
The problem is that people who don't agree, broadly, with the Democratic party don't have a capable, competent party to turn to. They have to vote Republican or not at all. Small parties like the Greens and Libertarians don't have sufficient standing to really impact things.
I am quite liberal myself, but I know that, aside from questions of fact (which are real, not smugness) there are other approaches to most problems/situations that I disagree with but which certainly can be valid. There is not really a home for those positions any more.
People who don't like Democratic positions have a choice between a party they don't agree with and one that is full of extremists, reactionaries and racists, and some of those people, who may be none of those things, will nevertheless vote for that party because they see it as the lesser of two evils...which, frankly is also what a lot of Democratic voters do.
Friday, April 15, 2016
Good Post By Krugman on Sanders/Clinton
Since I've given Paul Krugman lots of shit about many of his anti-Bernie columns I feel obligated to give kudos to a good anti-Bernie column. (Yes, despite the fact that he has no idea that I've been giving him shit nor would he care if he did know.)
I pretty much got his point of view from earlier columns but they were very dismissive of any point of view that would lead someone to support Sanders over Clinton, which, frankly is what is relevant. We are not looking at these two candidates vs. Platonic forms but vs. each other, and there are perfectly legitimate reasons to select either candidate depending on your personal preferences/ideas.
I also agree with Krugman's problems with Sanders, but I'm not sure I agree so much with him on Clinton. I think it is quite possible she learned the wrong lessons from Iraq and the financial crisis...not nothing as with Republicans, but still not the right lessons.
I pretty much got his point of view from earlier columns but they were very dismissive of any point of view that would lead someone to support Sanders over Clinton, which, frankly is what is relevant. We are not looking at these two candidates vs. Platonic forms but vs. each other, and there are perfectly legitimate reasons to select either candidate depending on your personal preferences/ideas.
I also agree with Krugman's problems with Sanders, but I'm not sure I agree so much with him on Clinton. I think it is quite possible she learned the wrong lessons from Iraq and the financial crisis...not nothing as with Republicans, but still not the right lessons.
Didn't Watch But...
From what I'm hearing (and reading) the Democratic debate last night was a disaster. Hillary Clinton is almost certainly going to be the Democratic nominee, but she also looks like the weaker general election candidate (and as this has gone on, weaker Democratic primary candidate). There are perfectly logical reasons for that.
Clinton is a mainstream Democrat. She is actually to the right of most of the Democratic base, and that should position her well for a general election run. This year, however, being mainstream is a big negative. Outside of the DC political class, most people across the spectrum are not happy with the way the government is [not] working right now, and mainstream candidates are symbols of the broken system. For Republicans that means Trump and Cruz are dominant. For Democrats, who are far more diverse (demographically and with respect to their disposition) don't much go for crazy, but there is a large group of left leaning voters who want to see someone different. I suspect they would have gone ape shit for Warren, but Sanders is right there for most of them.
Aside from insider/outsider appearance, there is also the actual policy positions of Americans vs. historical party positions. Most Americans would have loved to see the big banks broken up and (ir)responsible CEO's forced to pay back their obscene salaries if not outright jailed. Clinton took huge speaking fees from them. Now pretty much everyone (at least everyone with a remotely coherent thought on the subject) knows the Iraq war was a immense mistake. Clinton voted for it, yes, but more recently she has been reliably more hawkish than many other Democrats, and far more so than the party base. These are big issues, and the former is even a big issue to Republican voters who are more likely to see Clinton as friendly to big banks than Trump (not true, but that's going to be the perception).
There is also--obviously and wrongly--a huge anti-Hillary bias among much of the population. They're mostly Republicans, but lots of independents and even a fair number of Democrats too and those latter groups are a danger: if it's Hillary vs. Trump they're the most likely group to switch sides or stay home.
Then there is the demographic issue that doesn't help Clinton come the general election. Her supporters are older, have voted regularly, and are almost certainly going to vote in November for the Democrat on the ballot. Sanders' supporters skew young, with far more who have never voted before, and they are excited by Bernie himself. If he is not on the ballot in November there is a much better chance that more of his supporters will just stay home. Clinton might not need them (especially if Cruz is the nominee) but with her other general election negatives it would definitely be better to have them.
At this point in the contest, Bernie Sanders should be helping line up his supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee in November, and continuing attacks on Hillary Clinton isn't going to do that. Clinton also needs to make nice with Sanders supporters and her going after Sanders himself isn't going to do that. This debate seems like one that should have taken place 2+ months ago, while those earlier debates which were far more warm and fuzzy should have been the one last night.
Clinton is a mainstream Democrat. She is actually to the right of most of the Democratic base, and that should position her well for a general election run. This year, however, being mainstream is a big negative. Outside of the DC political class, most people across the spectrum are not happy with the way the government is [not] working right now, and mainstream candidates are symbols of the broken system. For Republicans that means Trump and Cruz are dominant. For Democrats, who are far more diverse (demographically and with respect to their disposition) don't much go for crazy, but there is a large group of left leaning voters who want to see someone different. I suspect they would have gone ape shit for Warren, but Sanders is right there for most of them.
Aside from insider/outsider appearance, there is also the actual policy positions of Americans vs. historical party positions. Most Americans would have loved to see the big banks broken up and (ir)responsible CEO's forced to pay back their obscene salaries if not outright jailed. Clinton took huge speaking fees from them. Now pretty much everyone (at least everyone with a remotely coherent thought on the subject) knows the Iraq war was a immense mistake. Clinton voted for it, yes, but more recently she has been reliably more hawkish than many other Democrats, and far more so than the party base. These are big issues, and the former is even a big issue to Republican voters who are more likely to see Clinton as friendly to big banks than Trump (not true, but that's going to be the perception).
There is also--obviously and wrongly--a huge anti-Hillary bias among much of the population. They're mostly Republicans, but lots of independents and even a fair number of Democrats too and those latter groups are a danger: if it's Hillary vs. Trump they're the most likely group to switch sides or stay home.
Then there is the demographic issue that doesn't help Clinton come the general election. Her supporters are older, have voted regularly, and are almost certainly going to vote in November for the Democrat on the ballot. Sanders' supporters skew young, with far more who have never voted before, and they are excited by Bernie himself. If he is not on the ballot in November there is a much better chance that more of his supporters will just stay home. Clinton might not need them (especially if Cruz is the nominee) but with her other general election negatives it would definitely be better to have them.
At this point in the contest, Bernie Sanders should be helping line up his supporters to vote for the Democratic nominee in November, and continuing attacks on Hillary Clinton isn't going to do that. Clinton also needs to make nice with Sanders supporters and her going after Sanders himself isn't going to do that. This debate seems like one that should have taken place 2+ months ago, while those earlier debates which were far more warm and fuzzy should have been the one last night.
Monday, April 04, 2016
Not Really All that Different
I think the line of argument Atrios is complaining about here is a natural response to differentiating between two people who really aren't that much different. Yes, there are real (and I think significant) differences between Hillary and Bernie, but they are really quite insignificant compared with the differences between them and any Republican or them and Trump.
I think Hillary would be better at the logistics of the presidency and Bernie would be better at mobilizing [Democratic] base voters, which could move the legislative window of the possible a bit more liberal. Obviously I am more aligned with Bernie in terms of policy, particularly foreign, but I don't feel strongly enough to try too hard to persuade others...and I have strong opinions. I think the people trying to persuade are picking nits and most people don't care, so it becomes frustrating and then they lash out.
There is a caveat to not caring and it is the general election. I think lots of Democrats view a Trump nomination as gifting Dems the White House, and my concern is that Dem and Dem sympathizing voters will become too complacent. In a Trump vs. Clinton matchup, between the (irrational but widespread) loathing of all things Clinton (and, yes, Hillary in particular, and in part because she's a woman) and lots of complacency because "Oh, Trump can't possibly win" mentality I can see him winning that election.
The presidency of the United States should not be a joke.
I think Hillary would be better at the logistics of the presidency and Bernie would be better at mobilizing [Democratic] base voters, which could move the legislative window of the possible a bit more liberal. Obviously I am more aligned with Bernie in terms of policy, particularly foreign, but I don't feel strongly enough to try too hard to persuade others...and I have strong opinions. I think the people trying to persuade are picking nits and most people don't care, so it becomes frustrating and then they lash out.
There is a caveat to not caring and it is the general election. I think lots of Democrats view a Trump nomination as gifting Dems the White House, and my concern is that Dem and Dem sympathizing voters will become too complacent. In a Trump vs. Clinton matchup, between the (irrational but widespread) loathing of all things Clinton (and, yes, Hillary in particular, and in part because she's a woman) and lots of complacency because "Oh, Trump can't possibly win" mentality I can see him winning that election.
The presidency of the United States should not be a joke.
Thursday, March 17, 2016
Changing Science
I'm curious to see what the results are from Vox's asking people how they would change science. In my opinion there are lots of little things that could be better, but much of the problems faced by science today has more to do with funding and money than any other single item. In particular, I think that the common use of science departments as piggy banks for universities cuts off a lot of potential science, and hurts science education at those universities.
My solution is simple: better funding of public universities (general funds, not department specific). I submitted a [poorly organized] response to them to that end. The funding of universities (and science) is very complex, but the dramatic relative cuts in funding from states have led to the business style administrations that are more common than they used to be. Universities need a lot of money to operate. Some comes from student tuition and fees, some from private donations/endowments, some from grants and some (particularly for public/state schools) comes from government funding.
It used to be that quite a bit came from government funding (yes, I could probably find out how much but this is not a research paper), but the combination of decades of Republican tax cuts (which require subsequent spending cuts) compounded by the current lesser depression has shrunk that part down. Costs keep going up, however, and schools need to make up the difference. So tuition has risen...sharply, but that isn't enough. One of the places a university can find extra money is the grants that professors are awarded.
There are some different ways that universities get money from professor grants, but for every ten dollars of granted funds a university may get $3-5 of that. (Note: grants aren't all specified the same way. Sometimes a $1M grant means that the professor gets $500-700k, sometimes it means the professor gets $1M and the grant will pay the university whatever over that is necessary to make sure the professor gets the award total). Science grants are particularly nice ways to get money since they tend to be larger than grants in other departments/colleges. Some of this is because of the often expensive equipment necessary for science. Some of it is personnel, and some of it is, honestly, a value judgement. Most people consider science research more "wothwhile" compared to, say, humanities or fine arts research. (There is a bit of economics at play too, since there can be some financial rewards via technological advancement, but that often does not flow back to the grantor--particularly when the grantor is the government--it may, however, flow back to the university.)
The fact that science departments can be seen as profit centers for the university has some [potential] consequences. Most obvious is the publish or perish mentality, though that would probably be better reworded as "get funded or get out". While publications were once the hallmark of quality the number and quantity of grants fills that roll today. That isn't inherently bad, or it wouldn't be in a world where quality research could always find funding, but that isn't the world we live in.
Yet even accepting that there is another problem: established professors, have an easier time maintaining funding and getting new funding than those starting out. There are also "superstar" professors who have become funding juggernauts. This is easy to understand since bigger name professors tend to get higher quality students/post docs who do good work (sometimes developing that work) which further advances the name/opportunities of the professor. There are ebbs and flows and, again, this isn't by itself terrible since it can still lead to really good science, but the financial power these professors have at the universities has some downsides.
One is they often can negotiate contracts where they teach very little (sometimes not at all). Ok, yea, they are teaching their grad students/post docs but someone still needs to teach the undergrad classes/labs. That means hiring more profs, but they can also demand large salaries against a university that needs their money in part because they aren't funded well enough, and that can mean less cash for other professors, so now instead of hiring a tenure-track position, they are hiring adjuncts: basically glorified post docs that get minimal salary and poor to no benefits. PhD's teaching science as adjuncts at universities can be compensated more poorly than our under-compensated high school teachers.
Another issue with these super-profs is that their talents (mostly the one for getting lots of grant money to roll in) are in high demand. The number of senior positions available at universities is larger than ever, while the number of entry level tenure-track positions is dwindling. So while well funded big name professors can go pretty much wherever they want, aspiring researchers have to fight a lot harder just to get in the door. (Note: large private research institutions still do hire a fair number of entry levels, but getting that job a Harvard, which has always been difficult, is even harder today since there are fewer StateU positions to go around.)
I should add in: super-profs are great. They nurture talent, their labs can be sources for scientific breakthroughs, they can be good for public outreach (more of a mixed bag here but still). Were it not for universities being desperate to get more money these profs would still exist, but the universities they work at would not be so beholden to them, and more people would have the chance to find their way to that roll. Also, maybe the students would be getting better education.
My solution is simple: better funding of public universities (general funds, not department specific). I submitted a [poorly organized] response to them to that end. The funding of universities (and science) is very complex, but the dramatic relative cuts in funding from states have led to the business style administrations that are more common than they used to be. Universities need a lot of money to operate. Some comes from student tuition and fees, some from private donations/endowments, some from grants and some (particularly for public/state schools) comes from government funding.
It used to be that quite a bit came from government funding (yes, I could probably find out how much but this is not a research paper), but the combination of decades of Republican tax cuts (which require subsequent spending cuts) compounded by the current lesser depression has shrunk that part down. Costs keep going up, however, and schools need to make up the difference. So tuition has risen...sharply, but that isn't enough. One of the places a university can find extra money is the grants that professors are awarded.
There are some different ways that universities get money from professor grants, but for every ten dollars of granted funds a university may get $3-5 of that. (Note: grants aren't all specified the same way. Sometimes a $1M grant means that the professor gets $500-700k, sometimes it means the professor gets $1M and the grant will pay the university whatever over that is necessary to make sure the professor gets the award total). Science grants are particularly nice ways to get money since they tend to be larger than grants in other departments/colleges. Some of this is because of the often expensive equipment necessary for science. Some of it is personnel, and some of it is, honestly, a value judgement. Most people consider science research more "wothwhile" compared to, say, humanities or fine arts research. (There is a bit of economics at play too, since there can be some financial rewards via technological advancement, but that often does not flow back to the grantor--particularly when the grantor is the government--it may, however, flow back to the university.)
The fact that science departments can be seen as profit centers for the university has some [potential] consequences. Most obvious is the publish or perish mentality, though that would probably be better reworded as "get funded or get out". While publications were once the hallmark of quality the number and quantity of grants fills that roll today. That isn't inherently bad, or it wouldn't be in a world where quality research could always find funding, but that isn't the world we live in.
Yet even accepting that there is another problem: established professors, have an easier time maintaining funding and getting new funding than those starting out. There are also "superstar" professors who have become funding juggernauts. This is easy to understand since bigger name professors tend to get higher quality students/post docs who do good work (sometimes developing that work) which further advances the name/opportunities of the professor. There are ebbs and flows and, again, this isn't by itself terrible since it can still lead to really good science, but the financial power these professors have at the universities has some downsides.
One is they often can negotiate contracts where they teach very little (sometimes not at all). Ok, yea, they are teaching their grad students/post docs but someone still needs to teach the undergrad classes/labs. That means hiring more profs, but they can also demand large salaries against a university that needs their money in part because they aren't funded well enough, and that can mean less cash for other professors, so now instead of hiring a tenure-track position, they are hiring adjuncts: basically glorified post docs that get minimal salary and poor to no benefits. PhD's teaching science as adjuncts at universities can be compensated more poorly than our under-compensated high school teachers.
Another issue with these super-profs is that their talents (mostly the one for getting lots of grant money to roll in) are in high demand. The number of senior positions available at universities is larger than ever, while the number of entry level tenure-track positions is dwindling. So while well funded big name professors can go pretty much wherever they want, aspiring researchers have to fight a lot harder just to get in the door. (Note: large private research institutions still do hire a fair number of entry levels, but getting that job a Harvard, which has always been difficult, is even harder today since there are fewer StateU positions to go around.)
I should add in: super-profs are great. They nurture talent, their labs can be sources for scientific breakthroughs, they can be good for public outreach (more of a mixed bag here but still). Were it not for universities being desperate to get more money these profs would still exist, but the universities they work at would not be so beholden to them, and more people would have the chance to find their way to that roll. Also, maybe the students would be getting better education.
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
Journalistic Neutrality
Further my last post/comment is this Greenwald article. I think that there is another side of the coin which is journalistic objectivity, which is also probably not historically representative (especially if you go back a century or two) but which is important and is fairly rare to find today.
Objectivity and Neutrality sound like similar things--and I think the big media outlets operate as though they are the same--but they are not and they have dramatically different effects on how journalism [could] work. Neutrality is everything Greenwald describes: it is failing to say an obviously bad thing is bad or that an obviously good thing is good. Objectivity requires mediation that understands facts and counters lies.
I think Vox generally tries to be objective, and sometimes but not always neutral. CNN certainly pushes neutrality often at the expense of objectivity. MSNBC is fairly show dependent: Maddow and Hayes are fairly objective (though with a definite point of view), Matthews is neutral and not really objective (and most likely thinks of himself as such), O'Donnell and Scarborough are really neither but again they take on airs as though they are. Fox is neither neutral nor objective.
Most of the bigger left leaning journalistic entities are more objective than not (fairly easy since most facts align well with more liberal positions).
In the case of journalist as mediator (whether between people as in a debate or just when relaying a story managing to convey relevant facts and appropriate conclusions) objectivity is obviously quite important. For other types of journalism, namely opinion pieces, it seems like it would be less so but that isn't really the case. Even opinion pieces should be supported by facts, and claims of relevance that are both true and appropriate. It's why I have been bitching a bit about some of Krugman's recent pieces, and that's why pretty much nothing on Fred Haitt's crayon scribble page is worth the effort of reading.
Monday, March 14, 2016
One Little Problem With That
Reading through this Vox piece on the Internet's effect on politics is interesting, but I'm struck by a particular note where Timothy discusses the downsides. He states:
...Scurrilous rumors spread more easily. It's harder to hold candidates responsible for their misstatements.This is actually kind of a bad argument to make since it is the media's utter failure in halting the spread of "scurrilous rumors", particularly with respect to the Clintons and to never hold any Republican plan to light, and e.g. allowing things like climate change to be "debated" between an actual scientist and a political consultant, that has led people away from those outlets and toward more obviously biased but in some cases more accurate reporting venues (particularly on the left).
...
On the right, Republican candidates have been proposing tax plans that are several times as large as the George W. Bush tax cuts. Maybe you think big tax cuts are a good idea, but candidates like Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz have also been pledging to boost military spending and balance the budget. There's no way they can deliver on all these promises simultaneously.
Friday, March 11, 2016
This is Why I Won't Vote Clinton in the Primary
Bernie Sanders was right about US involvement in Latin America in the past 50 years. Hillary attacked him for it. The US government repeatedly did fucking awful things like supporting vicious dictators and guerrilla coups against democratically elected governments. Instead of conceding the point she decided to go after him by making it seem like he was in favor of the horrible things done by Castro in Cuba.
Tuesday, March 08, 2016
Poor vs. Wealthier, College Degree Edition
I have a feeling this is a network effect. Basically: wealthier people who get college degrees have a better network to plug into via family/family friends than do poorer people. This makes it easier to get jobs straight out of college, and that makes a big difference down the road (promotions, experience...). A college degree is nice, but it doesn't by itself get you a job. Having better connections helps a lot when it comes to finding work. The degree is just a check-mark on the resumé (more often required now).
Tuesday, March 01, 2016
Not Sure That's a Good Thing
Mark Toma links a piece talking about negative interest rates (tl;dr). I don't really care about the headline question but in the conclusion (quoted) they state:
The two big things are: it shrinks the value of debts, and (related) it encourages growth to outrun it. If we can look forward to 4% inflation then that means any debt we take on today is smaller. This means that student loans are not as daunting, and that a large mortgage will become more managable (it also encourages buying over renting, which, when not overdone, is a huge part of our potential economy). It also means that businesses have a strong financial incentive to grow and build today: debt is better taken today than tomorrow, and even for debt free businesses, their giant piles of cash losing value at 4%/year doesn't look so good and should therefore be invested.
Of course modestly higher inflation does hurt one group of people: bankers/finance types. Because of that, it's likely off the table anyway, but this reasoning will make whatever chance a higher inflation target had vanish. That's not a good thing for our economy.
The bottom line: international experience suggests that negative interest rates...will become a permanent part of the monetary policy toolkit. If that’s right, we need not worry quite so much whether a 2% inflation target is too low. [my bold]That last part bothers me a lot. From an economics standpoint the main reason that a 2% inflation target is too low may be that it does not allow enough room for monetary accommodation in the face of severe shocks. The ability to use negative rates does, in fact, ameliorate that somewhat. From a human welfare perspective, however, that makes things worse because it will allow very low inflation to no longer be seen as much as a problem. Higher inflation (not 10%+ but more like 4.5%) has benefits beyond central bank monetary concerns.
The two big things are: it shrinks the value of debts, and (related) it encourages growth to outrun it. If we can look forward to 4% inflation then that means any debt we take on today is smaller. This means that student loans are not as daunting, and that a large mortgage will become more managable (it also encourages buying over renting, which, when not overdone, is a huge part of our potential economy). It also means that businesses have a strong financial incentive to grow and build today: debt is better taken today than tomorrow, and even for debt free businesses, their giant piles of cash losing value at 4%/year doesn't look so good and should therefore be invested.
Of course modestly higher inflation does hurt one group of people: bankers/finance types. Because of that, it's likely off the table anyway, but this reasoning will make whatever chance a higher inflation target had vanish. That's not a good thing for our economy.
Friday, February 26, 2016
Then What Was WWII?
I'm not sure why it hasn't come up, but with all the criticism of Friedman's paper on the effect of Sander's proposals, this line from Christina and David Romer's work seems telling:
It's like they've given up on the prospect of a stronger economy.
The estimated demand - induced effects of Senator Sanders’s policies are not just implausibly large but literally incredible.How do they explain the growth effects of WWII spending? That happened more than a decade after the start of the great depression and followed a much stronger recovery (though still not fully recovered) but now a similar response is "literally increadible"??? I don't get it. It's like they know history and so don't want to repeat it but the part they don't want to repeat is a the impressive economic development that started with the New Deal and then surged with WWII.
It's like they've given up on the prospect of a stronger economy.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Really Wish Krugman Would Stop This Shit
Krugman publishes a comparative plot. Here's another plot that looks a lot different than his, under which 5% growth doesn't look even a little crazy. Which should be used? Well that depends a lot on how you view the models/policies, probably how long a president is in office for, and the timing for effects of said policies (which will not be implemented). Again, Krugman should know better, which is the real problem with his anti-Bernie posts. He argues that Sanders (and/or his supporters) are not facing reality then he turns away from reality himself.
I don't even really care who wins the Democratic primary. I, personally, can't vote for Hillary Clinton because I am very opposed to her more militaristic foreign policy which, despite her protests, is very well represented by her vote for the Iraq war. Bernie has lots of flaws and certainly wouldn't be my first choice for a not-Hillary candidate but that's who's left. Krugman's continued insistence that Bernie Sanders supporters are thoughtless dreamers who don't care about reality just really pisses me off.
At this point it seems reflexive on his part: "People disagree with me so I must be on to something, let me repeat it!"
I really don't like being a Sanders shill (because, again, don't actually care much who wins) but lots of the dickish behavior of Clinton supporters pisses me off as much as the Bernie-bros, and it particularly pisses me off when it comes from someone like Krugman on the pages of the NYT. The Bernie-bros are bigger assholes but they don't have the institutional megaphone that Clinton backers have (because Clinton has all the institutional support, much of which has treated Sanders as a joke from the start).
So, to supporters of both Democratic candidates:
Your preferred candidate does not have all the answers and supporters of your preferred candidate's opponent are not deluded robotic simpletons without capacity for thought. Stop fucking treating them as such.
(Note to supporters of any GOP nominee: Sorry, but your preferred candidate really is either stupid, a yuge asshole or, likely, both.)
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Yes, They Should All Be Available...
...Probably to everyone but definitely to researchers. It actually does impede scientific progress for relevant research to be hidden behind paywalls. Sure, some people/groups can afford to pay, but not all. I'd add that there is so much research out there that may seem relevant when looking at title/abstract but if you read the actual paper you find that the details are not actually relevant at all (this may or may not be due to a poor abstract).
Yes, in most cases you can contact an author and get access (not always...I don't have ready access to all my publications; I can get them, but it would take some effort...'course I'm not the PI), but that doesn't always help, and even if it does it dramatically increases the amount of time it's going to take to get all the relevant publications. I hope her site stays up and that more research becomes available through it.
Tuesday, February 16, 2016
Tribalism
I'm not terribly sure that it isn't as prevalent on the left, just different associations. I am quite sure that most of the GOP base doesn't actually care about (or even like) most of the actual GOP platform. I thought that GOP party officials actually understood that but I guess not.
People who vote for Democrats want democratic policies enacted: tax the rich, improve social security, get everyone helth care, curb pollution... People who vote for Republicans mostly just don't like people who vote for Democrats. Oddly, though, they do like a lot of Democratic positions: they like social security and medicare, they have no problem with taxing the hell out of rich people, most of them don't really even care about stopping the gays from marrying or women from having control of their bodies beyond the fact that gays and womenfolk are more liberal and "fuck the librulz."
I've wondered in the past whether the continued rightward movement of "centrist" Democrats like Clinton would eventually lead to some Republicans taking over the liberal positions left behind (confiscatory taxing of the rich, and more generous social security/medicare, jailing the heads of corporations who destroy communities/environments). Trump actually kind of does this. To be fair his positions on the issues aren't exactly clear, but it doesn't matter because he hates on the libturdz and the corporate GOP both and his supporters love him for it.
People who vote for Democrats want democratic policies enacted: tax the rich, improve social security, get everyone helth care, curb pollution... People who vote for Republicans mostly just don't like people who vote for Democrats. Oddly, though, they do like a lot of Democratic positions: they like social security and medicare, they have no problem with taxing the hell out of rich people, most of them don't really even care about stopping the gays from marrying or women from having control of their bodies beyond the fact that gays and womenfolk are more liberal and "fuck the librulz."
I've wondered in the past whether the continued rightward movement of "centrist" Democrats like Clinton would eventually lead to some Republicans taking over the liberal positions left behind (confiscatory taxing of the rich, and more generous social security/medicare, jailing the heads of corporations who destroy communities/environments). Trump actually kind of does this. To be fair his positions on the issues aren't exactly clear, but it doesn't matter because he hates on the libturdz and the corporate GOP both and his supporters love him for it.
Kill the Penny (and Nickel)
I know most people don't really care, but this shouldn't be difficult. The continued existence of the penny is purely the result of lobbying by the only group (industry) that profits. Everyone else loses and legislators should fix it. Maybe Elizabeth Warren can champion the issue in the senate?
Then we can kill the nickel and dollar bill and start minting $1 and $2 coins like a civilized nation.
Then we can kill the nickel and dollar bill and start minting $1 and $2 coins like a civilized nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)