When The Chips Are Down: It’s All About #1

Posted on by David Wright

I’m just going to quote this whole MR post:

QUOTE

Support for redistribution, surprisingly enough, has plummeted during the recession. For years, the General Social Survey has asked individuals whether “government should reduce income differences between the rich and the poor.” Agreement with this statement dropped dramatically between 2008 and 2010, the two most recent years of data available.  Other surveys have shown similar results.

…the change is not driven by wealthy white Republicans reacting against President Obama’s agenda: the drop is if anything slightly larger among minorities, and Americans who self-identify as having below average income show the same decrease in support for redistribution as wealthier Americans.

Here is more.  The researchers, Ilyana Kuziemko and Michael I. Norton, attribute this to “last place aversion,” namely the desire to always have someone below you in the income pecking order:

Which group was the most opposed [to an increase in the minimum wage]? Those making just above the minimum wage, between $7.26 and $8.25.

For the pointer I thank The Browser.

END QUOTE

Here’s my comment on MR:

Maybe people automatically think that “the poor” is an unemployed person (ie somebody else, most people have jobs). When times are good, you probably don’t mind risking a tax increase for the sake of supporting a cause that signals your magnanimity.

When the ship is sinking, though, @#$@ the women and children, I need to watch out for #1.

My theory of political discourse is that people affiliate with causes when they perceive it to be relatively costless for them to do so. You can yammer on about the poor all you like; actually, you can yammer on about ANYTHING you like, but as soon as shit gets real, the decision-making process changes rapidly.

Talk is cheap: this is why prediction markets are the best way of figuring out what people really think.

-=-

Following a comment exchange below, please be sure to take the title to be a bit of artistic license (ie not, strictly speaking, true).

Reality Check

Posted on by David Wright

Here is some healthy corrective:

Six hours was enough, between the 6 a.m. start time and noon lunch break, for the first wave of local workers to quit. Some simply never came back and gave no reason. Twenty-five of them said specifically, according to farm records, that the work was too hard.

So they go back to collecting unemployment or something? Yikes, that’s crazy-juice for right-leaning voters.

The thing that irritates me about ‘jobs policy’ (what a ridiculous term) is that people are not very concrete about the problem and I like to remind myself sometimes what it’s all about.

First remember that to quiet down voters we need to satisfy several apparently contradicting impulses:

People don’t want to live in rural areas.

People don’t want to do manual labor. People don’t want to work hard generally. That’s not a criticism, mind you. Who wants to be forced to do something unpleasant?

People want a better life than their parents and are happy to wait for it. And live with their parents until it arrives.

“Good jobs” allow people be lazy, urban and rich. Auto workers were the poster-children of this movement, and for good reason.

I grew up in the catchment area for the Motor City Auto industry and I’ll always remember the stories of the Temporary Part Time job contracts some kids of auto workers were granted.

This was stuff that made lazy teenagers salivate: lots of downtime, no skills required, lots of breaks, discounts on cars and $22/hour in 1998 for a 17-year-old. Absolutely outrageous. And the employment practices were no better than the most hideous nepotocracies* on earth. Insiders win.

Anyway, a complete discussion of this should match my criteria above with a picture of who is actually unemployed.

See here too. In order of predictive power, my understanding is that the characteristics go like this: poorly educated, urban, young and dark-skinned. I’m not actually sure this matters, because the unemployed have probably always come from the ranks of the disenfranchised in society.

*I wish I could put that one into the words of the day, but I googled it and found loads of instances. No such thing as a new idea, I suppose.

“Wall Street” Protesters

Posted on by David Wright

I walked by them this morning on the way to work. Hadn’t been by in a week or so. Some observations:

  • It actually smells like manure and compost in there.
  • I wonder what the point of it all is. They’re just kinda sitting there. “We’re going to live like homeless people until… um… until…”
  • What is “Wall Street”? Is that a euphemism for empowered insiders? For rich people? As I walk by in my suit I imagine they think of me as being a “Wall-Streeter” yet I find the idea ridiculous.
  • From a purely personal standpoint, the motivation can only be that they have nothing better to do and are looking for a sense of belonging. People are desperate for meaning and will do ridiculous things searching for it. Read this book.
  • People will say “get these idiots jobs” but that’s misleading. What these people really need are the mortgages, cable bills and car payments that come with having jobs. We need these people’s fear of losing their jobs to insulate us from this kind of stupidity. So yeah, they need jobs, but that’s only a means to an end.

One of my more silly pet theories is that I don’t believe in politics, only economics. Discourse is only good for signaling affiliation and escalating conflict. The only social force that matters is whether people feel they’re better off than they used to be and that means richer than they used to be.

The Allure is Near… The Pain Is Far

Posted on by David Wright

Imagine everyone you knew was telling you they wanted you to be the most powerful person in the world. And everyone you knew was certain you’d be successful in your bid. Even the weakest ego, so supercharged, would eventually overpower better judgment and the strongest of iron wills.

Enter Chris Christie, who for months has, probably wisely, said that running for president is not for him. It’s probably the most insanely stressful thing a person could ever undertake; probably worse if you win. And if you have any skeletons in that closet…

And yet: Chris Christie Performing “Due Diligence” On 2012 Run

Well, that phrase wins the prize for ridiculous euphemism of the week. Translation: “I’m raising money”. He’s so in. There’s no way the yes-men and money-men and other boosters don’t get their way now.

I shed a tear for my friends in New Jersey. By all accounts he’s a good governor and he’s lost to them now. This campaign will either destroy him or forever thrust him onto the national stage, win or lose.

On China

Posted on by David Wright

Wow, a lot to digest here.

I’m way too tired after 12 hours of driving to think hard enough to sound coherent on that piece. Instead, I’ll just list my biases about China and hopefully have the presence of mind to check back in when I’ve learned more:

  1. China is poorer than Mexico (per capita)
  2. Never take futurists or medium/long term forecasts seriously (as a test, I offer some below)
  3. Talk of China’s GDP in 2030 (or whatever) is ridiculous
  4. China has an economic growth profile that is radically different than any developed country
  5. Therefore China’s economy will undergo a radical change when it approaches developed status (was that a forecast?! Watch it, now!)
  6. Informal economic and information channels are the only reliable ones. (ie Official China is more Kafkaesque than capitalist).
  7. Chinese consumers have thus far accepted a lower standard of living than they ‘earn’ (ie high inflation and a depressed currency)
  8. Nevertheless, Living standards are rising rapidly. This makes folks feel good.
  9. In spite of their lack of control, Incumbent politicians are blamed for economic malaise. The capacity for a bloodless purge, however senseless, is of course democracy’s strength.
  10. China isn’t a democracy.
  11. And booms always end.
  12. Michael Mandel has taught me to (selectively) mistrust productivity stats and GDP figures for the USA. I chuckle at the skeptical feeding frenzy he’d have with China’s data (ie it’s possibly all complete BS and will perhaps have a Greece-style reckoning)
  13. Nevertheless, living standards have recently been rising rapidly. This makes folks feel good.

On Strange Timing and Petulant Whiners

Posted on by David Wright

CDL, LLC (owners of the The Millennium Hilton right next to ground zero) is suing the WTC developers for a bunch of money to allegedly install double-paned windows, allegedly to minimize the noise produced by the construction site.

WTF, you might ask. The construction didn’t exactly start yesterday. Why now?

Well, apparently the ground zero developers have installed new windows on “residences adjacent to the site” and CDL wants in on the action. It’s only fair.

I think there’s actually only one residential building that fits the description of “residence next to the site” and I’ve lived there. It’s an ancient one, but newly renovated since the attacks (obviously). And it’s nowhere near the size of the Millennium Hilton.

It’s like if you gave a 3-year-old a bit of your ice cream and a 600-pound gorilla got jealous and wanted 15 ice creams.

But maybe cost isn’t the problem. Is there a difference between people who live in an area and those who are only tourists? Um, yep. Tourists don’t vote.

Fundamentally, the Port Authority is a political beast and it is impossible to underestimate the political clout actual residents of the area around ground zero wield (particularly the ones that lived through the attack). They might be the post powerful polity in the country. Irritate them at your peril.

Sorry, Millennium Hilton. You probably ain’t getting windows.