Re: Harris
William Dickens wrote: Hi Bryan, Perhaps I misread these passages, but I interpret them to mean that the culture resides in the kids' peer groups and is transmitted from parents (when they were kids) to current kids via the link of ongoing peer culture. Note the use of the wording "passed down" which implies inherited -- not imposed from above (as in "passed down from generation to generation"). Also, she says that cultures are "self-perpetuating" not that parent group cultures change child group cultures. -- Bill Hmm. The quotes seem clear enough to me, but perhaps you need the context too. How would you interpret this finding that she talks about - that it is bad for kids to be in fatherless neighborhoods, but not fatherless homes? That sounds like a clear (though unconscious) distinction between the private and social costs of one-parent family structures. -- Prof. Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan "We may be dissatisfied with television for two quite different reasons: because our set does not work, or because we dislike the program we are receiving. Similarly, we may be dissatisfied with ourselves for two quite different reasons: because our body does not work (bodily illness), or because we dislike our conduct (mental illness)." --Thomas Szasz, *The Untamed Tongue*
Re: Cafe Free riders
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000, fabio guillermo rojas wrote: Why do cafes allow people to take up space and not buy anything? Cynics answer: cafe's discourage free riders by having small uncomfortable furniture (see Starbuck's on E 53rd in chicago). Not in the Starbucks nearest my house in Berkeley. They even have a sofa and some big soft armchairs. I don't see any totally free riders there, despite its comfortable furniture. Possibly there are free riders who use the bathroom. My guess is the manager does not want to alienate customers who may have gotten food and drink and then tossed the container, but continue to use the table. It's not easy to discriminate among the users, and they do a brisk business anyway. The marginal cost of a sitter is about zero until all the tables are taken, and then social pressure induces greater density, as sitters get asked if they mind sharing a table. The free riding mostly occurs for folks getting one drink and then sitting for a long time. But as long as tables are available, it doesn't matter. Much of the business is to-go, anyway. Lap-top users get electricity at no extra charge, so free-riding has several margins. Fred Foldvary
RE: Why not develop them here?
i agree with ed's principle here. i suspect the concept of borders is more about keeping people in than keeping people out. keeping people out is just the more common consideration at present. Europe, that most xenophobic of places, is now starting to mull "importation" of people to make up for what it sees as a coming falloff in population. they, of course, would like to control this immigration. we'll see. and ed's point is also pertinent to actual frontier areas: barring actual walls (the old Berlin Wall) or military barriers (the Korean DMZ) or natural blocks (oceans, mountains, big rivers), there are no lines painted on the ground and borders are largely a matter agreed on paper. people in these places tend to pay no attention whatsoever to the "border" and there is little fretting about "immigration." (plus the trade opportunities are often enticing) etb -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Edward Dodson Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2000 1:40 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Why not develop them here? Ed Dodson with a comment... Ignoring the practical considerations for a moment, I offer the principle that because the earth is the birthright of all persons equally, we each have an unalienable right to migrate to any part of the earth we choose to. From this perspective, the concepts of the nation-state and of geo-political boundaries are difficult to defend on moral principle. That said, I fully acknowledge the many practical problems that would be associated with the free movement of people given existing socio-political arrangements and institutions.
Re: Harris
Bill, Putting aside interpretative issues, it seems that the model you ascribe to Harris is not very plausible as it implies a radical disconnect between child and parent culture. As I read you, you suggest child culture passes down from child generation to child generation and parents branch off into some other route never to be seen again. On the other hand, the model that Bryan and I see is that children are influenced by the surrounding culture which is mostly created by adults. Much more plausible, and consistent with contemporary views about the effect of advertising, television etc. on children. On a different note. I also do think that parents can have a significant effect on their children's choice of peers. Obviously, location is one big example. Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reading Recommendation with a Comment
Bill's comment was interesting. The main thing I got from Harris is that you *can* affect how much fun your kid has while he/she is around you, and how much they like you in the future. As she says, you don't spend time with your spouse in order to "mold" her, but to have fun together; why would kids be any different? -- Prof. Bryan Caplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan "We may be dissatisfied with television for two quite different reasons: because our set does not work, or because we dislike the program we are receiving. Similarly, we may be dissatisfied with ourselves for two quite different reasons: because our body does not work (bodily illness), or because we dislike our conduct (mental illness)." --Thomas Szasz, *The Untamed Tongue*
Morality and Immigration
I am giving a talk today in which I point out that virtually every moral theory implies open borders are moral and immigration controls immoral. Here are the theories I deal with. 1) Natural Rights ala Nozick, Rand etc. 2) Utilitarianism 3) Contemporary redistribute the wealth liberalism (ala the John Kenneth Galbraith quote mentioned earlier). 4) Analytical liberalism (Rawlsian veil of ignorance arguments.) 5) Christianity (kindness to strangers) I think the arguments for open borders under each of these moral theories should be pretty clear for list readers but I will spell them out if anyone is interested. My point here is that this is all very surprising. After all, these moral theories disagree on just about any other issue! Each of these moral theories, however, has a univeralist claim. That is, it takes equality seriously in some sense and does not recognize the arbitrary and accidental place of birth to be determinative in any important way which is why it supports open borders. Yet, despite the fact that these are all big-time moral theories the implications are clearly not accepted by most people - or at least most people are willing to ignore the implications. What does this tell us. 1) Moral theory counts for nothing, 2) We are still tribalist but are working away from that, 3) We have the wrong moral theory. 4) ? Alex -- Dr. Alexander Tabarrok Vice President and Director of Research The Independent Institute 100 Swan Way Oakland, CA, 94621-1428 Tel. 510-632-1366, FAX: 510-568-6040 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Why not develop them here?
Keith Burbank wrote: Perhaps not stupidity, but ignorance. I am afraid I am ignorant of the hurtful effects of sending money to help the poor and the beneficial effects of letting the poor move to a place like the United States. ... I have more trouble understanding the desire to send money over there to help them, while also hurting yourself via not helping others even more by letting them move here. I didn't say sending money hurt them; I granted it might help them some. The fact that people try hard to move here suggests it benefits them. I'd appeal to standard micro intuitions to suggests it benefits us as well. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
Re: Morality and Immigration
Alexander Tabarrok wrote: I am giving a talk today in which I point out that virtually every moral theory implies open borders are moral and immigration controls immoral. ... Yet, ... the implications are clearly not accepted by most people - or at least most people are willing to ignore the implications. What does this tell us. 1) Moral theory counts for nothing, 2) We are still tribalist but are working away from that, 3) We have the wrong moral theory. 4) ? It seems even stranger than that - people do accept moral arguments when it comes to sending aid from here to there, though they clearly don't weigh very heavily on them, since such aid is rather small. They treat the two ways of helping differently, even though the way of helping others that they avoid would actually help them as well. Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030- 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323
The Economics of the Mini-Bar
The Thursday, September 14, issue of the Wall Street Journal reports on yet another consumer anomaly . . .as if we didn't have enough holes in the once-munster-but-now-swiss-cheese body of economic wisdom. This week's anomaly of choice: The hotel mini-bar As reported: "Dave Hofert wouldn't think twice about slapping down $7 for a drink at the hotel bar. But spending anything close to that on an oversized box of MM's or a miniature bottle of Jack Daniels from the hotel-room refrigerator makes him crazy. "I just don't even go there," says Mr. Hofert, a business development manager at Sun Microsystems Inc. It isn't that the $5 sack of designer potato chips would cause trouble on the business-trip expense report. "It's the principle -- you feel like you're getting ripped off ... a hotel room beer will cost around $4 to $5 for a Bud -- and all I can think of is 'I could go buy a six-pack for $3.99.' " Business travelers will shell out double-digit bills for a half grapefruit and coffee at a business breakfast without blinking an eye. But they seem to morph into penny pinchers at the very sight of a hotel-room minibar. "There's these little psychological quirks we all have and minibars are one with me," says Neal Boortz, a radio talk-show host in Atlanta. "When you go to a hotel bar there's a level of service and atmosphere. When you walk into your room and open a cheap refrigerator, there is no atmosphere and there is no service and you wonder 'what in the hell am I paying for here?'" For beleaguered road warriors, the minibar represents just one more way to be fleeced. "It just grates on you," says Mr. Hofert. Fasten your seat belts -- it's going to get worse. Minibars are modernizing. Frequent fliers who have fooled the system in the past by taking something and then replacing it at the corner store for a fraction of the cost might want to think twice next time a Kit Kat craving strikes. That old bait-and-switch tactic won't fly with the new generation of automated, infrared minibar systems. You heard right. Infrared. Connected to the front desk. Minibar Systems, a supplier that has installed minibars in 360,000 hotel rooms world-wide, introduced a model with infrared sensors two years ago. The AutoClassic, which automatically charges the hotel room when a product is lifted from the minibar for over 10 seconds, has so far been installed in 20 U.S. hotels, including the San Jose Fairmont, Holiday Inn Wall Street and the Venetian in Las Vegas. The systems may seem sneaky to some, but the fact is hotels can't rely on guests telling the truth about their in-room snacking habits if they really want to make minibars profitable. After all, hotel guests have been known to refill Evian bottles and even miniature vodka bottles with tap water to avoid being charged. "The problem with the old honor system is there was a lot of shrinkage -- up to 18% of things wouldn't get paid for," says Richard Williams, president of food and beverage services at HVS International, a hospitality consulting company in Rockville, Md. "The automated systems bring shrinkage down to 2%." The infrared systems are much more expensive to install, but they also eliminate the labor expense of hotel staff having to physically check rooms for minibar usage. And while the majority of hotel-room minibars in the U.S. still operate on the honor system, infrared systems are the wave of the future, says Mr. Williams. Put off by high-tech junk food guards? The AutoClassic may be Big-Brotherish, but it's a lot more approachable than the old Robobar, a vending-machine model that requires hotel guests to punch in a key and lift a tab to get a product, which is then automatically billed to the room. "The vending-machine style is on its way out because it adds a barrier to the customer," says Kevin Ryder, marketing manager at Minibar Systems. "You want it to look like you can just grab it." "Grabbing it" is what minibars are all about. Stephen Roussakis, projects coordinator at the Cancer Research Society in Montreal, doesn't consider himself a junk-food junkie. Still, when he's traveling and he sees something in the minibar that looks "enticing," he says, "I'll take it." "It's like an emergency thing ... like when [there's a fire], you break the glass." He doesn't always indulge, but he always opens the door, just to see what's inside. "It's like, at home, you think about cost, but on vacation you don't." And that sense of escapism is no different for a road warrior, he says. "When I first started traveling a lot, I worried about expense reports. ... I've gotten over that." Sure, he'd rather pay less, but nowadays he has no problem with overpriced in-room binging. "I feel ripped off paying $7 for popcorn at the movies too," he says. "But I buy it anyway." [END] New York, NY
Re: Harris
Hi Alex, First, it is my contention that this is JH's view -- not mine. I've been involved in an E-mail conversation with Judy for a couple of months now about the differences in our views (I have not pulled rank in the debate with Bryan because my conversation with Judy hasn't really touched on this specific point so I can't say for sure that I've got her view on this issue right, but its getting to the point where I should probably ask her...). However, there is a very definite link between child culture and adult culture that ensures a link between them and continuity. One thing I know for certain about JH's views from our correspondence is that she is convinced that roles you adopt for yourself as a child carry over to your behavior as an adult. So if I understand Judy correctly she is saying that cultural transmission is from child's peer group to child's peer group and the link to adult culture flows from children to adults not adults to children. This is the interpretation I have been suggesting in the previous e-mails. The best evidence for her view is what happens when you throw populations from different cultures together. The parents keep separate cultures while the kids develop a unique "pidgin" culture that ultimately develops into a creole culture as they become adults (with common languages and customs evolving from disparate roots). This is certainly a better description of what happens when cultures collide than the notion that adults transmit culture to kids. Also, this fits my experience pretty well. My social culture looks a lot more like the social culture that was established by my peers during the late 60s and the early 70s than it looks like the social culture of my parents. I focus my social life around informal visits with friends where my parents socialized mainly with relatives. When my parents weren't socializing with relatives they were socializing with members of social organizations they belonged to. I don't belong to the Elks or the KoC or any organizations associated with my sons school. These are differences that were established in our youth. From what I got from talking to my parents their friends when they were young were also either relatives or were members of clubs to which they belonged. Norms about topics of discussion, use of profanity, drug and alcohol use, etc. all seemed to be established in youth and persist through adulthood. This would seem to fit Judy's view. Note that JH would reject out of hand any criticism of her point of view on the grounds that it doesn't fit well with "contemporary views" since her whole point is that contemporary views are based on extremely naive interpretations of correlational evidence that seems to evaporate when you control for genetic factors. Note also that if you can affect your kids peer groups and this can affect the rest of their lives then you have to find some way of explaining why this doesn't show up in the behavioral genetics results which suggest small effects (often vanishingly small) of family background on almost any measurable outcome as people age. I think JH would say that the only way you can affect your kids peer group is to move to a different neighborhood or send him/her to boarding school. Otherwise your kid will find his/her "peers" no matter what you do about it. At this point I think there are three differences between my views and JH's (though we are still in the process of clarifying that). Two are a matter of emphasis, but one is substantive. 1) I think that she doesn't give enough credit to parents for the work of socialization. My kid may speak the language of his peers, and if I don't teach him that language he will learn it on his own. However, in most circumstances kids learn their language (and a whole host of other cultural knowledge) from their parents. She emphasizes the determinative roll of peer culture even though the main burden of socialization is carried by parents. 2) I suspect that "small effects" may not really be that small. Evidence that differences between families only explain a small fraction of variance between adults doesn't mean that there can't be important effects of differences between families. I don't think economists need much explanation of this point -- R2 isn't a very good measure of costs an! d benefits. 3) I think that she is right about childhood culture getting carried over to adult culture, but I think she is wrong that the effects of peer group on personality are any more permanent than the effects of family. I think the best interpretation of the evidence is that most environmental variance in personality is due to contemporaneous or recent effects of environment. Thus I tend to think that there are large effects of many different aspects of environment on at least some measures of personality (IQ for example), but that they all fade over time so that what
Re: Harris
Hmm. The quotes seem clear enough to me, but perhaps you need the context too. I read the quotes in context. I have the book in front of me now. How would you interpret this finding that she talks about - that it is bad for kids to be in fatherless neighborhoods, but not fatherless homes? Again, it is my understanding that her view is that you don't want to grow up in a fatherless neighborhood because of what that signals about the genes of your peers and the culture of your peers, not because your peers fathers are missing per se. -- Bill William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens
Re: The Economics of the Mini-Bar
I think we can still reconcile this problem with convenience being a missing component. While the discussion about the same product that is in the mini-bar being available at the corner store at a lower price is true - it doesn't seem to be relevant. Arguments why they would tend to use the minibar: Business travelers are the group we are typically talking about - 1- They may or may not know where the applicable corner store is, and would also be more likely not to have low MC transportation available to get there. 2- Opportunity cost -whether framed from the perspective of time needed to finish preparing for the meeting or presentation associated with the trip, or that when all is prepared a business trip can appear to its "consumer" more similar to a paid for vacation - the convenience of the minibar could arguably be worth more to this group on the road. Now that I have said all this, it occurs to me that the question may actually be why does this group seem to have a higher price elasticity when traveling (where if anything it should be lower - if the company is covering some or all expanses for this group). Could it be that the MB of each dollar is not equal (and they have already paid prices which seem out of bounds for air fare)? My real question is not if people will whine about the prices in minibars (they will), but will their behavior change? Are the reduced shrinkage estimates mentioned in the article (due to stopping patrons from switching products) showing lower turnover for products counting the "switch" as turnover (i.e.- do these hardened criminals now purchase the items they were getting before in the same proportion)? I suspect most do not now purchase from the minibar. As to the hotel bar Vs minibar comparison - the only thing these products would seem to have in common to me is that they are both alcohol (and/or snacks). This is not a preemptive statement that one is better- just that they seem fundamentally different to me. Brian Moore ESI Corporation -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Thursday, September 14, 2000 12:50 PM Subject: The Economics of the Mini-Bar The Thursday, September 14, issue of the Wall Street Journal reports on yet another consumer anomaly . . .as if we didn't have enough holes in the once-munster-but-now-swiss-cheese body of economic wisdom. This week's anomaly of choice: The hotel mini-bar As reported: "Dave Hofert wouldn't think twice about slapping down $7 for a drink at the hotel bar. But spending anything close to that on an oversized box of MM's or a miniature bottle of Jack Daniels from the hotel-room refrigerator makes him crazy. "I just don't even go there," says Mr. Hofert, a business development manager at Sun Microsystems Inc. It isn't that the $5 sack of designer potato chips would cause trouble on the business-trip expense report. "It's the principle -- you feel like you're getting ripped off ... a hotel room beer will cost around $4 to $5 for a Bud -- and all I can think of is 'I could go buy a six-pack for $3.99.' " Business travelers will shell out double-digit bills for a half grapefruit and coffee at a business breakfast without blinking an eye. But they seem to morph into penny pinchers at the very sight of a hotel-room minibar. "There's these little psychological quirks we all have and minibars are one with me," says Neal Boortz, a radio talk-show host in Atlanta. "When you go to a hotel bar there's a level of service and atmosphere. When you walk into your room and open a cheap refrigerator, there is no atmosphere and there is no service and you wonder 'what in the hell am I paying for here?'" For beleaguered road warriors, the minibar represents just one more way to be fleeced. "It just grates on you," says Mr. Hofert. Fasten your seat belts -- it's going to get worse. Minibars are modernizing. Frequent fliers who have fooled the system in the past by taking something and then replacing it at the corner store for a fraction of the cost might want to think twice next time a Kit Kat craving strikes. That old bait-and-switch tactic won't fly with the new generation of automated, infrared minibar systems. You heard right. Infrared. Connected to the front desk. Minibar Systems, a supplier that has installed minibars in 360,000 hotel rooms world-wide, introduced a model with infrared sensors two years ago. The AutoClassic, which automatically charges the hotel room when a product is lifted from the minibar for over 10 seconds, has so far been installed in 20 U.S. hotels, including the San Jose Fairmont, Holiday Inn Wall Street and the Venetian in Las Vegas. The systems may seem sneaky to some, but the fact is hotels can't rely on guests telling the truth about their in-room snacking habits if they really want to make minibars profitable. After all, hotel guests have been known to refill Evian bottles and even miniature vodka bottles with
Re: Cafe Free riders
[ Becker's answer: the free rider makes the cafe look like the placeis crowded. People like to flock to crowded places to consumethe atmosphere. Some free riders are good for business. ] I agree with this answer, except for the "free riding" part since those who idle in the cafe "pay" by providing spillover benefits. I think this type of network externality also explains why popular nightclubs with huge lines don't justraise theircover charges. Seiji ___Seiji Steimetz Office: Social Science Tower 305University of California, Irvine Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Department of Economics Web: http://zotnet.net/~steimetz 3151 Social Science Plaza Office: (949) 824-1372Irvine, CA 92697-5100 "Every time a calf is born, the per capita GDP of a nation rises.Every time a human baby is born, the per capita GDP falls." -- Julian Simon___ - Original Message - From: fabio guillermo rojas To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2000 6:17 PM Subject: Cafe Free riders Why do cafe's allow people to take up space and not buy anything?Becker's answer: the free rider makes the cafe look like the placeis crowded. People like to flock to crowded places to consumethe atmosphere. Some free riders are good for business.Cynics answer: cafe's discourage free riders by having smalluncomfortable furniture (see Starbuck's on E 53rd in chicago).Any comments?-fluffy
