K1 got her results from a standardized test over the summer. She did pretty well. One thing that surprised me about the report was the following:
In one sub-test she was in the 72 percentile when normed against "Independent schools" which I read as private schools. But when normed against the national norm (which I read as including public schools) she was in the 95 percentile. This tells me that the gap between the achievement of private and public school students is pretty large - larger than I had expected - which was no more than 10 percent at the 50-75 percentile range.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Power update
After two incidents of losing power within a week, we experienced another (albeit short) one today for about 15 minutes. The temprature was in the 70s with a slight drizzle. When we ventured out later, parts of Bethesda were still out. If this doesn't scream ineptitude, incompetence and a lousy power grid I don't know what does.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Parenting should not be all (or mostly) work
This article pretty much nails it:
She’s referring to the recent documentary that compares the lives of four newborns—one in Japan, one in Namibia, one in Mongolia, and one in the United States (San Francisco). “I don’t mean to idealize the lives of the Namibian women,” she says. “But it was hard not to notice how calm they were. They were beading their children’s ankles and decorating them with sienna, clearly enjoying just sitting and playing with them, and we’re here often thinking of all of this stuff as labor.”
This is especially true in middle- and upper-income families, which are far more apt than their working-class counterparts to see their children as projects to be perfected. (Children of women with bachelor degrees spend almost five hours on “organized activities” per week, as opposed to children of high-school dropouts, who spend two.) Annette Lareau, the sociologist who coined the term “concerted cultivation” to describe the aggressive nurturing of economically advantaged children, puts it this way: “Middle-class parents spend much more time talking to children, answering questions with questions, and treating each child’s thought as a special contribution. And this is very tiring work.” Yet it’s work few parents feel that they can in good conscience neglect, says Lareau, “lest they put their children at risk by not giving them every advantage.”
I overheard a conversation this morning at the check out register of Whole Foods. One of the clerks said she was the oldest of 8. I'd be willing to argue that raising 2 kids today takes more time and effort than raising 8 kids 20 years ago (especially middle and upper class).
But what do I make of this:
Martin Seligman, the positive-psychology pioneer who is, famously, not a natural optimist, has always taken the view that happiness is best defined in the ancient Greek sense: leading a productive, purposeful life. And the way we take stock of that life, in the end, isn’t by how much fun we had, but what we did with it. (Seligman has seven children.)
She’s referring to the recent documentary that compares the lives of four newborns—one in Japan, one in Namibia, one in Mongolia, and one in the United States (San Francisco). “I don’t mean to idealize the lives of the Namibian women,” she says. “But it was hard not to notice how calm they were. They were beading their children’s ankles and decorating them with sienna, clearly enjoying just sitting and playing with them, and we’re here often thinking of all of this stuff as labor.”
This is especially true in middle- and upper-income families, which are far more apt than their working-class counterparts to see their children as projects to be perfected. (Children of women with bachelor degrees spend almost five hours on “organized activities” per week, as opposed to children of high-school dropouts, who spend two.) Annette Lareau, the sociologist who coined the term “concerted cultivation” to describe the aggressive nurturing of economically advantaged children, puts it this way: “Middle-class parents spend much more time talking to children, answering questions with questions, and treating each child’s thought as a special contribution. And this is very tiring work.” Yet it’s work few parents feel that they can in good conscience neglect, says Lareau, “lest they put their children at risk by not giving them every advantage.”
I overheard a conversation this morning at the check out register of Whole Foods. One of the clerks said she was the oldest of 8. I'd be willing to argue that raising 2 kids today takes more time and effort than raising 8 kids 20 years ago (especially middle and upper class).
But what do I make of this:
Martin Seligman, the positive-psychology pioneer who is, famously, not a natural optimist, has always taken the view that happiness is best defined in the ancient Greek sense: leading a productive, purposeful life. And the way we take stock of that life, in the end, isn’t by how much fun we had, but what we did with it. (Seligman has seven children.)
Why do they say that economists know the price of everything
and the value of nothing? MR provides an example:
One thing that does annoy me is the claim that these urinals "save" 40,000 thousand gallons of water a year. Water is not an endangered species. With local exceptions, water is a renewable resource and in plentiful supply. At the average U.S. price, you can buy 40,000 gallons of water for about $80.
Of course, as noted in the comments, water is subsidized but perhaps put succinctly is the following:
1. Government subsidizes water because of interest-group politics (for the benefit of farmers),
2. Government tries to mandates use of water-saving equipment to try to avoid waste created by #1.
3. Government reverses self and forbids use of equipment in #2 because of interest-group politics (for the benefit of plumbers).
Another source of discussion is perhaps from the Scientific American.
One thing that does annoy me is the claim that these urinals "save" 40,000 thousand gallons of water a year. Water is not an endangered species. With local exceptions, water is a renewable resource and in plentiful supply. At the average U.S. price, you can buy 40,000 gallons of water for about $80.
Of course, as noted in the comments, water is subsidized but perhaps put succinctly is the following:
1. Government subsidizes water because of interest-group politics (for the benefit of farmers),
2. Government tries to mandates use of water-saving equipment to try to avoid waste created by #1.
3. Government reverses self and forbids use of equipment in #2 because of interest-group politics (for the benefit of plumbers).
Another source of discussion is perhaps from the Scientific American.
How economists argue
Mankiw's post gives the best example (emphasis mine):
I am pretty sure Paul would not find this line of argument persuasive. As far as I can tell from reading his commentary over the years, he does not believe that the distortionary effects of taxes are particularly large and so they do not figure much into his policy analysis. But many other economists (and I suspect many stimulus-skeptics like the tea-partiers) believe that taxes have significant incentive effects and can prevent the economy from reaching its full potential. Their argument seems logically coherent, even if it relies on a different set of parameter values for the relevant elasticities than Paul believes to be true.
Beliefs, beliefs, beliefs. Damn the evidence - or even better, argue that the evidence is wrong, mismeasured, or inaccurate.
I am pretty sure Paul would not find this line of argument persuasive. As far as I can tell from reading his commentary over the years, he does not believe that the distortionary effects of taxes are particularly large and so they do not figure much into his policy analysis. But many other economists (and I suspect many stimulus-skeptics like the tea-partiers) believe that taxes have significant incentive effects and can prevent the economy from reaching its full potential. Their argument seems logically coherent, even if it relies on a different set of parameter values for the relevant elasticities than Paul believes to be true.
Beliefs, beliefs, beliefs. Damn the evidence - or even better, argue that the evidence is wrong, mismeasured, or inaccurate.
Third world infrastructure
In Washington, DC. This is essentially how I would characterize the recent power outages due to "high" temperatures. From WAPO:
Outages continue: Thousands in D.C. area without power as firms work on repairs
The oppressive heat -- and now humidity -- that descended on the Washington region has spurred near-record demands for electricity. Power companies are working to repair outages caused by the spike in demand as area residents reach for thermostats.
Blah, blah, blah.
Having lived in Malaysia and visited Bangkok - countries sometimes characterized by Americans as Third World and never having experienced any power outages due to "high" temperatures I would characterize this recent "outbreak" and its response as pathetic.
Lack of capacity is not a convincing argument for the outages. Our neighborhood experienced its first this summer on July 4th for about 3 hours and then on July 7th at about 6 pm for about 13 hours. The outage affected maybe one square block - this does not sound like lack of capacity but perhaps a lack of investment in equipment to balance load.
Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic.
Outages continue: Thousands in D.C. area without power as firms work on repairs
The oppressive heat -- and now humidity -- that descended on the Washington region has spurred near-record demands for electricity. Power companies are working to repair outages caused by the spike in demand as area residents reach for thermostats.
Blah, blah, blah.
Having lived in Malaysia and visited Bangkok - countries sometimes characterized by Americans as Third World and never having experienced any power outages due to "high" temperatures I would characterize this recent "outbreak" and its response as pathetic.
Lack of capacity is not a convincing argument for the outages. Our neighborhood experienced its first this summer on July 4th for about 3 hours and then on July 7th at about 6 pm for about 13 hours. The outage affected maybe one square block - this does not sound like lack of capacity but perhaps a lack of investment in equipment to balance load.
Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Austerians versus Stimulians
Krugman's prose is inspired:
Much of what Serious People believe rests on prejudices, not analysis. And these prejudices are subject to fads and fashions. ... For the last few months, I and others have watched, with amazement and horror, the emergence of a consensus in policy circles in favor of immediate fiscal austerity. That is, somehow it has become conventional wisdom that now is the time to slash spending, despite the fact that the world’s major economies remain deeply depressed. ... This conventional wisdom isn’t based on either evidence or careful analysis. Instead, it rests on what we might charitably call sheer speculation, and less charitably call figments of the policy elite’s imagination...
When the IMF proposed austerity way back in the Asian crisis it was roundly ridiculed. Yet, why has there been concensus on austerity? A more straightforward statement would be that Austerity is stupid but stimulus is dangerous and we're between a rock and a hard place. Will Ireland's preemptive austerity provide any future lessons?
Despite counter-examples (HT: MR) to how contractions can cause expansions, the weight of evidence appear to be on Krugman's side:
... every few months we’re told that the bond vigilantes have arrived, and we must impose austerity now now now to appease them. Three months ago, a slight uptick in long-term interest rates was greeted with near hysteria...Since then, long-term rates have plunged again. Far from fleeing U.S. government debt, investors evidently see it as their safest bet in a stumbling economy. Yet the advocates of austerity still assure us that bond vigilantes will attack...
What’s the evidence for the belief that fiscal contraction is actually expansionary, because it improves confidence? (By the way, this is precisely the doctrine expounded by Herbert Hoover in 1932.) Well, there have been historical cases of spending cuts and tax increases followed by economic growth. But as far as I can tell, every one of those examples proves, on closer examination, to be a case in which the negative effects of austerity were offset by other factors, factors not likely to be relevant today. For example, Ireland’s era of austerity-with-growth in the 1980s depended on a drastic move from trade deficit to trade surplus, which isn’t a strategy everyone can pursue at the same time.
And current examples of austerity are anything but encouraging. Ireland has been a good soldier in this crisis, grimly implementing savage spending cuts. Its reward has been a Depression-level slump — and financial markets continue to treat it as a serious default risk. Other good soldiers, like Latvia and Estonia, have done even worse — and all three nations have, believe it or not, had worse slumps in output and employment than Iceland, which was forced by the sheer scale of its financial crisis to adopt less orthodox policies.
Much of what Serious People believe rests on prejudices, not analysis. And these prejudices are subject to fads and fashions. ... For the last few months, I and others have watched, with amazement and horror, the emergence of a consensus in policy circles in favor of immediate fiscal austerity. That is, somehow it has become conventional wisdom that now is the time to slash spending, despite the fact that the world’s major economies remain deeply depressed. ... This conventional wisdom isn’t based on either evidence or careful analysis. Instead, it rests on what we might charitably call sheer speculation, and less charitably call figments of the policy elite’s imagination...
When the IMF proposed austerity way back in the Asian crisis it was roundly ridiculed. Yet, why has there been concensus on austerity? A more straightforward statement would be that Austerity is stupid but stimulus is dangerous and we're between a rock and a hard place. Will Ireland's preemptive austerity provide any future lessons?
Despite counter-examples (HT: MR) to how contractions can cause expansions, the weight of evidence appear to be on Krugman's side:
... every few months we’re told that the bond vigilantes have arrived, and we must impose austerity now now now to appease them. Three months ago, a slight uptick in long-term interest rates was greeted with near hysteria...Since then, long-term rates have plunged again. Far from fleeing U.S. government debt, investors evidently see it as their safest bet in a stumbling economy. Yet the advocates of austerity still assure us that bond vigilantes will attack...
What’s the evidence for the belief that fiscal contraction is actually expansionary, because it improves confidence? (By the way, this is precisely the doctrine expounded by Herbert Hoover in 1932.) Well, there have been historical cases of spending cuts and tax increases followed by economic growth. But as far as I can tell, every one of those examples proves, on closer examination, to be a case in which the negative effects of austerity were offset by other factors, factors not likely to be relevant today. For example, Ireland’s era of austerity-with-growth in the 1980s depended on a drastic move from trade deficit to trade surplus, which isn’t a strategy everyone can pursue at the same time.
And current examples of austerity are anything but encouraging. Ireland has been a good soldier in this crisis, grimly implementing savage spending cuts. Its reward has been a Depression-level slump — and financial markets continue to treat it as a serious default risk. Other good soldiers, like Latvia and Estonia, have done even worse — and all three nations have, believe it or not, had worse slumps in output and employment than Iceland, which was forced by the sheer scale of its financial crisis to adopt less orthodox policies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)