tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.comments2023-03-24T12:38:48.616-04:00Publius' Napkin has movedPubliushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11330245120362834979noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-39750463864918950432009-01-27T10:24:00.000-05:002009-01-27T10:24:00.000-05:00Still, the question remains: if the lottery in the...Still, the question remains: if the lottery in the city paid better immediate odds than the one in the countryside, why are the genes that survive today from outside the city?<BR/><BR/>Organisms only survive if they act in their genetic self-interest (circular, but true); so why were human beings, after millions of years of natural selection, fooled by this lottery into letting their genes extinguish?<BR/><BR/>Either we're missing something, or this represents a moment in time when humans were confronted with a new environment, where the 'survival tricks' that had brought them to this point were no longer advantageous.<BR/><BR/>I don't think that theory is correct.Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330245120362834979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-26436912771937373602009-01-27T09:38:00.000-05:002009-01-27T09:38:00.000-05:00I think Kling is right when he posits "Were cities...I think Kling is right when he posits "Were cities like an awful lottery that people would play when they had no other choice?" <BR/>Though i am not sure these people thought the payout for said lottery would be all that great. But i guess if they "won" they could reasonably expect their genes to last longer...Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10982542621639562225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-22587240612609200112009-01-21T08:42:00.000-05:002009-01-21T08:42:00.000-05:00glad i finally read the whole post. very interesti...glad i finally read the whole post. very interesting. I think you certainly make a good point that a comprehensive history of waste management would be a worthwhile studyPetehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10982542621639562225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-31519044953400517202009-01-06T01:15:00.000-05:002009-01-06T01:15:00.000-05:00admittedly, i've slept on your blahg.this is dope ...admittedly, i've slept on your blahg.<BR/><BR/>this is dope though.Cyrushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00409424606103369430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-67002899715162145692008-11-18T14:13:00.000-05:002008-11-18T14:13:00.000-05:00your best post ever!your best post ever!Andrew Cheesmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629393324015037840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-77496034376167654752008-10-22T10:58:00.000-04:002008-10-22T10:58:00.000-04:00my biggest concern is that i think you limit the c...my biggest concern is that i think you limit the conversation using the design/meddling distinction.<BR/>perhaps it's more useful to treat all market restraints as simply that, and to attempt to tally which perform beneficial functions or do not. it's a more qualitative assessment, but i think it's more adept and will allow a more nuanced discussion of what's being done; otherwise it'll be necessary to apply a label (design, good; or meddling, bad) to every market action which will really only be a fancied-up quality descriptor anyway.Andrew Cheesmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629393324015037840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-35017686167835863332008-10-10T11:29:00.000-04:002008-10-10T11:29:00.000-04:00thanks for the comment. i'll address your points i...thanks for the comment. i'll address your points in reverse order.<BR/><BR/>First, the problem of who aren't 'smart enough' to go to college was the subject of the post BEFORE in my mind. I strongly believe that the success of students in colleges is predicated on their earlier learning: this post should be seen as the second half of the post on primary/secondary education though, which covers that issue.<BR/><BR/>You are right that there is an elitist bias towards students who attended Ivy Leagues/elite small colleges/and the BA. The problem which I try to address in this post is how to develop an alternative means of assessing a worker’s capability, that isn’t so expensive. Other countries have turned to civil service exams (China), which I don’t think are a smart a idea. But I do think there is hope with night schools, online education, and educational-area specific testing. The challenge is to help these alternatives lose their “mail-in degree” reputations by ensuring there are very challenging programs and tests and available and that there value as a predictor of intellectual ability and future success is well articulated. <BR/><BR/>As far as the Wall Street adage on the Ivy League student – sure. Every prince’s son in the history of the world has enjoyed this same good fortune. I am less concerned with turning back this enduring trend, however, then the fact the Wall Street does not feel comfortable hiring someone without a BA. I don’t blame them, but we should take steps to address this coordination problem.<BR/><BR/>Re: “why invest in an employee who may acquire hard/soft skills at your firm only to leave for a better paying job at another firm.”<BR/>I think you understate the immense out of training that firms do “give away.” Anecdotally, most people I know are doing jobs that are only tangentially related to their schooling. Certainly, most weren’t hired on the notion they would be a productive worker the next day. The employer hired them because they believed they had the intellectual capacity, work ethic, and social skills to learn the business on the job. Even in the big money firms, the great whining sound of young employees is that they are indeed treated like apprentices … because they are.<BR/><BR/>So I look to schools to teach kids how to read, think critically, formulate coherent sentences, learn, and understand at least the basics of whatever area they are interested in.<BR/><BR/>Firms turn the young minds into workers, though.<BR/><BR/>All that said, I think the reason we don’t see firms hiring 18-year olds and training them like in India, or like they do 23-year olds, is the coordination problem I laid out in the post.Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330245120362834979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-41464880666746244912008-10-10T10:41:00.000-04:002008-10-10T10:41:00.000-04:00Overall, this is a well thought out post. However...Overall, this is a well thought out post. However, at least one question I have is how employee training program you propose (similar to those used in some parts of India) would work. Often, workforce development agencies who speak to small businesses/medium sized firms about hiring non-college grads express a common reservation: why invest in an employee who may acquire hard/soft skills at your firm only to leave for a better paying job at another firm. In short, in such a system of employer-based education/accreditation, there is a powerful incentive to free-ride (steal the newly trained, productive workers from a competitor by offering them a hire salary). Some workforce development agencies (I would recommend COWS out of the University of Wisconsin) have tried to find ways around these problems, through tax-credits and other incentives, but successes have been few and far between. <BR/><BR/>Also, this solution does not fundamentally address the problem of those who aren’t “smart enough” to go to college e.g., high school drop outs, etc. The stigma attached to certain classes of workers (or those looking for work in the labor market) are such that hiring a person with a BA in simply much easier and, given that college grads compete for employment, one assumes that employers tend to weed out the grads who coasted through college without learning how to think critically/to write from those who took their liberal arts education seriously. There’s an old (actually, I have no idea if it’s old) adage on Wall Street that says that you always hire the grads from Harvard/Yale etc because if they lose millions/billions of dollars of a large client’s money, the person who hired them can say, “what do you want from me? s/he went to (replace with Ivy League school of choice).” In short, while opening the education market to competitive forces is an important first step, real solutions would also require a fundamental cultural shift away from bias towards Ivy Leagues/elite small colleges/and the BA itself. The cultural shift would entail, amongst other things, a willingness to tackle big/powerful universities, a move away from lecture-based learning, which you outline (but which I have other issues with), a greater understanding of the barriers to education that the hard-to-employ/under-educated face, and a commitment, on the part of employers, to begin to bear some of the costs of training workers, which, given the cost of health care/other benefits, seems like a tall order. Nevertheless, the message and intent of this post is laudable and thought provoking.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11674832316215472663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-75593401607409105522008-09-29T11:01:00.000-04:002008-09-29T11:01:00.000-04:00You've raised some interesting points as well as s...You've raised some interesting points as well as some excellent criticisms of the three huge (and hugely expensive) programs currently on the table. Although there are many points to discuss here, I'll raise just one now. <BR/>One flaw I see is the false dichotomy this post presents of money spent on aid to the poor vs. aid spent combating global warming. Yes there are opportunity costs, but the idea that poverty and global warming can't be tackled together strikes me as wrong. The US spends almost twice as much in foreign aid as the next closest country (Germany). However, as a percentage of GNI, the US spends a paltry .16 of a percentage point on aid. When you look at a map of the countries that have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, it is striking that the US is the only country that has failed to ratify the agreement (the mighty- and impoverished) Lesotho and Ethiopia are 2 of the roughly six countries that have not yet decided to ratify the Protocol). Meanwhile, the 20 countries that spend a greater percentage of their GNI on foreign aid have ALL signed the Kyoto Protocol. This suggests that the US need not chose which challenge to confront. The US has the resources and capabilities to do both.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11674832316215472663noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-42674880168463016412008-09-03T16:42:00.000-04:002008-09-03T16:42:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.Andrew Cheesmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629393324015037840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-22490830928072088452008-08-18T19:36:00.000-04:002008-08-18T19:36:00.000-04:00That is likely true. Perhaps after we pour tens of...That is likely true. Perhaps after we pour tens of billions into the proposals at the BOTTOM of the list and see little to no pay off, THEN we'll figure it out...<BR/><BR/>I'd like to take another look at how he computes his numbers as well.<BR/><BR/>The sad thing is that the arguments on the "other" side of the global priorities debate are so anemic when it comes to numbers it's hard to tell where and to what extent Copenhagen Consensus err.<BR/><BR/>All that said, the numbers and the logic put forth make sense to me.<BR/><BR/>It also makes sense when I consider what proposals are most likely to have a lot more support than warranted given what I've learned about cognitive biases -- they are cookie cutter examples (e.g., most environmental proposals).<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, the proposals that Bjorn isolates as optimal are the ones that would be systematically UNDERestimated given our cognitive biases.Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330245120362834979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-10965632213022083112008-08-16T14:43:00.000-04:002008-08-16T14:43:00.000-04:00I probably should've read the main article. I thi...I probably should've read the main article. I think most people agree money spent fighting terrorism can probably be better deployed. I'd like to see how this guy came up with the $17 dollar benefit from micro-nutrients. <BR/><BR/>Interesting analysis though. But I think we'd see total privatization of the student loan market before people redeploy assets for micro-nutrients... which is probably never.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05254994090538487169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-88338904275712229062008-08-06T04:26:00.000-04:002008-08-06T04:26:00.000-04:00Yeah, you are missing facebook.com. it is a websit...Yeah, you are missing facebook.com. <BR/>it is a website where i can see what friend like and put pictures up and play games and "poke" people. Which is a really cool way to flirt.Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10982542621639562225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-87816694298163978962008-08-01T07:18:00.000-04:002008-08-01T07:18:00.000-04:00didnt posting this inadvertently give away your se...didnt posting this inadvertently give away your secret identity?Petehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10982542621639562225noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-63603051435718421542008-06-30T16:33:00.000-04:002008-06-30T16:33:00.000-04:00That is a very good question, and I think the answ...That is a very good question, and I think the answer underscores my greater point.<BR/><BR/>The current GP model has evolved from the early days of the "town doctor" who was the only game in town for medical treatment. He was the surgeon, the pathologist, oncologist -- everything.<BR/><BR/>Obviously, this has changed dramatically. Now the GP serves mainly as the 'gatekeeper' for specialists. If you have a stomach problem, as I have, they talk to you for five minutes, ask you a series of yes/no questions, send you down to the lab to take your blood, and give you a referral for a gastroenterologist.<BR/><BR/>My first point is that the value-added by actually seeing the GP in this situation (over a registered nurse, for instance), like most situations, is relatively small.<BR/><BR/>Nuanced medical opinions have already been taken out of the hands of the average GP, and GPs have been instructed to send patients off to specialists.<BR/><BR/>I think the GPs do have a value to add, but they should emphasize general patient management rather than specific patient one-on-one interventions.<BR/><BR/>I'll put it this way, I want an architect who knows how to manage the workers who will properly construct my home, I don't want an architect who wastes his time hammering in nails, when any of his workers could do that at a much lower cost.<BR/><BR/>And re: computer/health care opinion, you are correct in stating that computers are a relatively low-risk investment. That said, it's relatively quick and easy to find out which computers are considered to be the best value for money, or best of class, and also the worst.<BR/><BR/>We have only begun even measuring which hospitals have the most preventable deaths, and those numbers aren't known.<BR/><BR/>So while I'm sure there are bad computer choices or book choices, I think you are underestimating just how handicapped patients are in "choosing" care providers.<BR/><BR/>It's easier to find a book I like but have never read nor heard of the author than it is to find out that my hospital is one of my region's worst for hospital acquired infections.Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330245120362834979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-30118262247906733962008-06-30T16:05:00.000-04:002008-06-30T16:05:00.000-04:00one question: why have things evolved this way if ...one question: why have things evolved this way if they're so inefficient? i'm not trying to argue that things are best the way they are simply because they are that way, but there's been a thought process here. i'd suggest that GP's pop in for the quick hello in order to minimize the amount of time that they need to spend per patient, thus maximizing the number of patients they can see. it might be a tribute to the quality of your own health that you don't need to spend more time with one, but i know that when i've been stricken with a malady, the amount of time that i've spent with a GP (or other physician) has increased.<BR/><BR/>also, the computer/health care comparison suffers one main weakness - computers are a relatively low-risk investment, and health care choices are not. i'd suggest that both the number of poor or poorly-informed computer choices and the number of issues caused by those choices are higher than you think.Andrew Cheesmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15629393324015037840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-67276491920560870502008-06-18T21:13:00.000-04:002008-06-18T21:13:00.000-04:00I guess that makes me wonder if there's a distinct...I guess that makes me wonder if there's a distinction between gut reactions and extremely fast thinking (like knowing your multiplication tables) or rote memorization. <BR/><BR/>Or if those things are different - and if so then in what ways can a person train his gut reactions to coexist with his conscious ones?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05254994090538487169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-75098277718028665852008-06-17T17:44:00.000-04:002008-06-17T17:44:00.000-04:00I borrowed the book from someone who pointed to it...I borrowed the book from someone who pointed to it as the predicate for the 'rise of the creative class' Richard Florida type books.Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330245120362834979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-85958328197669264272008-06-17T16:24:00.000-04:002008-06-17T16:24:00.000-04:00so, why go back over 15 years as opposed to his, "...so, why go back over 15 years as opposed to his, "The Future of Success: Working and Living in the New Economy?" Just wondering...Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12325580177683280969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-24510357381401163432008-06-10T22:13:00.000-04:002008-06-10T22:13:00.000-04:00Lloyd,Well put -- I'm definitely going to make an ...Lloyd,<BR/><BR/>Well put -- I'm definitely going to make an effort to distill my messages into more concentrated form, and I hope you and others keep me on track.<BR/><BR/>Re: hard sciences, I think that in one way the criticism is appropriate and in another it's overblown.<BR/><BR/>The statements of fact that we are losing our competitive advantage in science/math to China, et. al are overblown -- I can't recall the source, but I remember seeing that the Chinese numbers (for instance) were inflated by the inclusion of technical repair men as "engineers."<BR/><BR/>Yet regardless if this individual concern is overblown, the increased competition American labor faces is very real, and will only grow more intense in knowledge and learning-intensive areas, such as the natural sciences and mathematics, which, to some degree, breach linguistic and national boundaries more easily than other studies.<BR/><BR/>If anything, I think the government or other external actors should remove any incentives (such as tuition reimbursement) that discriminates against math or science, but I don't know how prevalent those are.<BR/><BR/>More important than our technical scientific and engineer know-how (which has fared pretty well, looking at the leading computer engineering and scientific research companies...), is the fact that far too many Americans are unable to communicate basic thoughts through complete sentences and/or understand basic algebra equations.<BR/><BR/>Before we can get to the "symbolic analyst" skills mentioned in this post, you need these basics. Unfortunately, these basics aren't fun to teach, and no one wants to fail a kid who doesn't know them. But while it is ABSOLUTELY essential that children learn these skills before moving on, the school system supports pushing them up the latter so that the majority graduate incapable of translating a thought into a coherent statement.<BR/><BR/>That's my chief concern that I failed to address in this post.<BR/><BR/>Re: liberal arts, this is a problem of the rich, which I believe is self-correcting. We're still trying to figure out what to do with broad-based college education, and it will take a generation or two of wasted "Medieval feminists" majors to get it straight, but I am less concerned with making college students make the "right" choice, then ensuring there are no market distortions to push them down the less economically-advantageous path.Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330245120362834979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-64084162873441311352008-06-10T20:13:00.000-04:002008-06-10T20:13:00.000-04:00Sorry it took me forever to read this. Great post ...Sorry it took me forever to read this. Great post though - and I think you really explored the alternatives very well without getting too long-winded.<BR/><BR/>Constructive criticism - is it possible for you to parse your post down into fewer paragraphs? <BR/><BR/>I think it's well written and really voices the thoughts well.. but for someone like me who wants a quick bullet of enlightenment.. the post reads less like a bullet and more like an injection..<BR/><BR/>Anyway.. that's just the criticism of one lazy man..<BR/><BR/>Also.. thoughts maybe on the latest attack on the liberal arts fad in the U.S. and how the U.S. is slipping behind in the "hard sciences"? (Math, Bio, Physics.. Engineering)..<BR/><BR/>Do you think there's something to that?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05254994090538487169noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-80255014301025009872008-06-05T22:34:00.000-04:002008-06-05T22:34:00.000-04:00http://www.layoutspage.com/userpics/layouts/thumbn...http://www.layoutspage.com/userpics/layouts/thumbnail/i1214FD7F.jpg<BR/><BR/>my favorite flounderCyrushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00409424606103369430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-17271527798957313712008-06-04T09:31:00.000-04:002008-06-04T09:31:00.000-04:00Ok, actually, put #7 at the top of the list. I am...Ok, actually, put #7 at the top of the list. I am really eager to learn how my enjoyment of an unnamed computer game is going to be applicable to my daily life.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16906928632148289903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-60608500476199913432008-06-03T10:32:00.000-04:002008-06-03T10:32:00.000-04:00Ill make my vote for #2 and/or #4 to move up to th...Ill make my vote for #2 and/or #4 to move up to the front of the queue.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16906928632148289903noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2805346514757168853.post-27481829242171639072008-05-22T19:18:00.000-04:002008-05-22T19:18:00.000-04:00Alex,I understand (and largely agree) with your po...Alex,<BR/><BR/>I understand (and largely agree) with your point, and I'll restate what Jacobs means, in a more precise, and thereby accurate, manner:<BR/><BR/>City planners have a tendency to take neighborhoods that low-income (perhaps slums, perhaps not) and to convert all housing into rent-controlled, low-income housing.<BR/><BR/>The argument is as you said -- people can't afford housing, this will make it available.<BR/><BR/>However, to live in these low-income units you have to be low-income, and so if you attain even a basic level of success, you are pushed out of the building, and quite often the neighborhood.<BR/><BR/>Jacobs doesn't object to bringing housing within the reach of the poor. The problem is when the means by which you do so prevents successful people from being able to stay in the same building or neighborhood.<BR/><BR/>By making certain housing buildings (and again, it's often not just a building but an area, as you know) "low-income" you are ENSURING that there will never be high-income people in the area.<BR/><BR/>The healthiest housing areas FOR THE POOR are mixed-income neighborhoods, and efforts to provide low-income housing have undermined that process.<BR/><BR/>The issue of gentrification which is hinted at in the plummeting of affordable housing that you bring up is a real trend, but I think the terminology (such as gentrification) and the connotations that go along with it are highly misleading, and possibly destructive.<BR/><BR/>I'll leave that for another Jacobs post though.Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11330245120362834979noreply@blogger.com