Mind the (age) gap

Economists love to argue about redistributive policies. The act of taking money or resources and spreading them around get to the art of many fundamental disagreements. To the libertarian, all that matters when evaluating circumstances and fairness is how individuals started. One such believer, Charles Murray, perceives that "inequalities in wealth that result from people's choices are nonproblematic." (1) Rawls, on the other hand, argues that "society is not something private." (2) From his perspective, inequalities in wealth are problematic if the general pool of resources can solve them.

These arguments are obviously made from a theoretical standpoint and there are always complications when applying them to a real live society. But to further complicate the validity of their application: when these theories talk about individuals, they really mean adults. Where do children fit into the equation?

Spending on children comprises one of the lowest federal expenses. The US government spends about 2.2 percent of the GDP on children and various services directed at them. In comparison, about 5.3 percent of the GDP is spent on the elderly.

The view from the budget is even more shocking: less than ten percent went to children; more than a third went to the elderly.

Since 1975, spending on children has only risen with inflation and Medicaid costs, whereas spending on the elderly has skyrocketed. Benefits for children — paid through their parents — have shifted away from cash payments to in-kind benefits, through initiatives like food stamps, health care and programs such as Head Start. But within the next decade, spending on children is actually expected to decline.

This seems like an unequal split when viewed with any philosophical lens. The economic state in which children live is, in nearly all cases, irrespective of the choices they themselves have made. A child's opportunities are determined by the sheer chance of where they are born and to whom. An older person, however, has had a lifetime of choice-making. Sure, everyone is entitled to a little assistance when they can no longer care for themselves, but from the libertarian perspective — perhaps they should have made better choices in their youth to ensure a more comfortable future.

From the Rawlsian perspective, why should one age bracket be given significantly more assistance than another? Where's the fairness in that? If resources are not private, but rather societal, shouldn't aid be spread around equally?

If "inequalities must work to the greatest benefit of the working poor," it doesn't seem that this particular inequality meets the philosophical bar. Subjecting children to poverty, despite the happenstance way in which they found themselves impoverished in the first place, is unfair on all counts.

_____

(1) (2) Tomasi, John. Market Democracy, chapter 6

Drawing the line

One of the first concepts taught in introductory economics is the measure of poverty. How is it decided who will receive the label and who will not? For the final exam we memorized numbers like $20,000 (for a family of four) and $10,000 (individual), but with little thought to how the numbers were derived or what they meant. The standard from which these numbers come dates as far back as the Johnson Administration, based upon a formula stipulating that the average family would spend a third of its income on food. The measure has not changed except to be adjusted for inflation in the intervening time period since.

Many argue that the measure is not only inaccurate, but makes calculating the impact of anti-poverty measures (like food stamps, housing assistance, etc.) very difficult. Based upon data gathered in this census this year, the federal government will actually retool the metric upon which we draw the poverty line. What exactly this new formula will look like is still up in the air, though that has not stopped economists from trying to postulate what it may look like.

Statistics are a fickle tool and numbers can often be tweaked, pushed and prodded to generate the results one wants to hear. Under an administration against welfare, the poverty line might be edged a little lower, whereas an administration looking to implement welfare programs, the line will be placed such that a sizable enough population falls below it to merit action.

In an art-imitates-life moment, here's an excerpt from a "West Wing" episode that explains how the poverty model was derived and how it works. The fictional Democratic administration was obviously less than thrilled that more people had become classified as poor under their watch due to inflationary adjustments, but viewed the ability to pass greater welfare reform as "good news." The show always was heralded for sticking to realistic, relevant topics.

Ethnic enigma

When we try and place ourselves on a spectrum, rate how things are going, we often use a scale of 1 to 10. But here's a new scale: South Dakota Native Americans to New Jersey Asian Americans.

According to a recent study of well-being, broken down by ethnic group and state of residence, these are the endpoints. Asians in New Jersey will live, "on average, an astonishing 26 years longer, are 11 times more likely to have a graduate degree, and earn $35,610 more per year" than Native Americans in South Dakota.

The results prove a number of shockingly wide disparities — the life expectancy of an African American is roughly equivalent to that of the average American … three decades ago.

The report also presents a number of "factoids" about well-being in America, everything from health to education to economic mobility. And here's the not-so-surprising reality: we're falling behind.

A poor child born in Germany, France, Canada, or one of the Nordic countries has a better chance to join the middle class in adulthood than an American child born into similar circumstances.




The U.S. ranks second among 177 countries in per-capita income but 12th on human development, according to the global Human Development Index, published annually by the United Nations Development Programme. Each of the 11 countries ahead of the U.S. has a lower per-capita income than the U.S., but all perform better on the health and knowledge dimensions.




The U.S. infant mortality rate is on par with that of Croatia, Cuba, Estonia, and Poland.




If the U.S. infant mortality rate were equal to that of first-ranked Sweden, twenty-one thousand more American babies would have lived to celebrate their first birthdays in 2005.




In 98 countries, new mothers have 14 or more weeks of paid maternity leave. The U.S. has no federally mandated paid maternity leave.




The United States ranks second in the world in per-capita income (behind Luxembourg), but thirty-fourth in survival of infants to age one.




The U.S. ranks forty-second in global life expectancy and first among the world’s twenty-five richest countries in the percentage of children living in poverty.




In the 2006 OECD international assessment of fifteen-year-olds, in math, the U.S. came in twenty-fourth, and in science, the U.S. came in seventeenth.




The U.S. incarceration rate is five-to-nine times greater than that of our peer nations.

So what is the greatest nation in the world to do? Accept our inequalities and move forward? Face up to them? Work to equalize the disparities that exist within our own boundaries (and then look to change the world)?

We may be providing for the Asian Americans in New Jersey, but are we failing others at the same time?

Servicing the public service

Public service is often regarded as noble work — thankless jobs for minimal pay. But perhaps the stereotypes are being turned upside down. According to recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, salaries for government workers are beginning to outpace those of private industry employees, at least as an aggregate.

Countless Brown students enter the public workforce annually — for altruistic ideals, for hopes of someday ruling the world, for the promise of loan paybacks. And obviously, we are not alone in our interest. So here's the question: Is this a good thing, because it means that public service is being adequately rewarded? Or does this explain why so many states and municipalities are drowning in debt? Are we being too generous in an attempt to reinforce the public labor force?

School daze

I recently "pondered" the high unemployment rate in youths, worldwide, but here's an interesting and complementary graph… College enrollment is higher than ever, verging on 70 percent. The numbers have been trending upward for years anyway, but some experts posit the plummeting job opportunities may have something to do with the renewed quest for higher education.

UPDATE, 5/2/2010: On the other hand, it seems college students are working less hard than they used to. An excellent message as we head into finals period.

Young, restless and ... unemployed?

New studies indicate the in the developed world, individuals under 25 are more likely to be unemployed than their older counterparts. Three times as likely, when the numbers are examined as an aggregate.

Youth who are full-time students are not counted in these numbers, meaning that countless young adults (well, not entirely countless - some reports say up to 15 million) who reside in relatively affluent countries are without a job or education. In Spain, which suffers from high unemployment across the board, nearly 40 percent of the youth is unemployed.

One reader of the Times' report on these numbers made an astute observation:

Basically all this is measuring is the effects of education on employment status. Those who are 15 to 24 are either full time students (and thus not counted in employment statistics at all), or are high school dropouts and/or those with only high school educations. It shouldn't be surprising that they find themselves unemployed at higher rates than those who graduate from college and/or have more experience in the workforce.

The value of a college education is a rarely disputed fact. But in the current economic climate, the normal laws of education and job possibilities do not necessarily apply. In countries around the world, college graduates are forced to take jobs for which they are overqualified because there is nothing else available. Consequently, those who have no college education at all -but in a vacuum would be qualified for these entry-level positions - are left without employment. This is the case in Spain, where "the risk of overeducation" has become a conscious phenomenon. Youth are opting out of college because the rewards of attending are no longer worth the time and cost. In effect, the opportunity cost of a college education has become too high - especially if unemployment is the result nonetheless.

For those with money to spare, unpaid internships have become the option. But for those without a college education or a fallback option, what do these facts mean? Is an entire generation, worldwide, being crippled by the economic crisis? If youth are unemployable and therefore unable to gain beginner experiences, how will they ever rise up? Though the numbers do not appear to exist, statistics on the employment of those aged 25-30 would be helpful for understanding the implications of this mass unemployment.

For more: a video by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development on what these statistics mean.

She works hard for the money

Today was Equal Pay Day, a holiday many assumed would be obsolete by 2010. Women still earn only 77 cents to every dollar men earn. Some argue skill, some argue education, some argue lifestyle choice, but at the end of the day — women now comprise 2/5 of the nation's primary breadwinners. So does that mean that 40 percent of households should suffer the consequences?

Equal Pay Day marks the point in 2010 where women who began working on January 1, 2009 will match their male counterpart's 2009 income.

Countless laws have been put into place — and even more have been proposed — that theoretically would eradicate the disparity. But is bridging the 23 cent divide possible overnight through legislation? Does society require a cultural shift? Can we ever expect the two genders to be treated equally in the workplace?

There is a gap everywhere. This is not just an American problem (if we think it is a problem). The 23 cent difference boils down to about 19 percent; in Belgium, the difference hovers at about 9 percent, while South Korea and Japan are flirting with a 30 percent difference. But is the middle of the heap the best we can hope for?

In countries like Sweden, government policies are put in place to work toward better income equality. State-sponsored leave (föräldraledighet) entitles every family to 480 days of parental leave — but only if both partners split the time. If only the mother takes leave, she can only have up to 420 days off, depriving the family of 60 days that could have been spent with the child. Most couples actually do split the time, fairly dividing the work and childcare responsibilities. Does a policy like this ensure greater income equality? Hard to say, but it is worth noting that Scandinavian countries, which do all have policies like this, have greater income equality between men and women.

An interesting detail of the inequality is that the gap is widest at the top — in sectors that pay the most, the disparity is greatest. It is impossible to pinpoint why this occurs. Is it because women are less likely to be promoted, or because they choose not to be for lifestyle reasons? Is leadership an inherently gender-based quality? Is society biased or are we carrying out self-fulfilling prophecies? Women are scientifically less aggressive, so does this translate to mean that they are less go-getter professionally?

As elite universities like Brown begin to tip in the other direction when it comes to gender balance, enrolling more women and fighting for male applicants, one has to wonder if our generation will be the one to turn things around. Will we prove, once and for all, that men and women are capable of reaching the same level of prosperity? Or will we serve as the ultimate validation for the gap, proving that there are just some inequalities that will never be solved for variables outside of our control?

A coffee or a child?

Today's lecture was a bit of a deja vu moment for me. As Professor Brennan questioned why students would purchase a Starbucks beverage rather than donate $2.50 to a child in need, I was reminded of a similar discussion I had in high school. I was required to take a course called "Poverty" (the class now has the more politically correct title of "Community Service"). The class touched on many of the issues examined in "Prosperity" — inequality, how inequality arises, how it is corrected, how societies are designed and with a hint of moral compulsion, what we are responsible to do to ensure equality for all.

We read an article that I have tried to relocate (unsuccessfully) that determined what the baseline level of income necessary to live comfortably was. Let's say it was $50,000. The author stated that anyone who kept money about that amount, rather than donate it to a worthy cause, was not just neglecting the dying children of the world, but in effect, granting them a death sentence. The degree of responsibility citizens of the world hold for each other is enhanced exponentially; it is the embodiment of the drowning child analogy.

For a classroom of teenagers who have been well-taken care of up until this point in life, this can be a hard argument to stomach. Does neglecting our job as "our brother's keeper" really make us his killer? Singer writes that if there is pain and suffering in Bengal and we can do something about it, we are obligated to do so. (1) But how much does "obligation" obligate us to do? What are the limits? Or rather, what is the minimum we can do in order to sleep consciously at night knowing we have done the morally correct thing?

This question of responsibility and obligation is heart-wrenching on the level of a single child, or even when examining an entire impoverished nation, but what about so-called obligation in the developed world? For months, Greece has been falling faster and faster, and newspaper headlines have questioned endlessly what this means for the European Union. How far does responsibility go when there are existing ties? Is Germany morally bound because of a promise they made? (Let's suspend all economic realities for a quick second.)

This graphic from the New York Times illustrates the circular web of European debt and it is baffling. The arrows, pretty little graphics on my computer, represent billions and billions of dollars, circulating back-and-forth.

It's a different image than the one usually accompanying this kind of debate. (That one being the skeletal child, left to fend for itself while an animal lurks nearby.) But it illustrates responsibility of a larger scale nonetheless. Where does the obligation start, and how does it end? Do we only give to those, like big European nations, who we know will pay us back? Must a country like Germany put its own citizens in danger because of a promise it made, or is that the wrong lens with which to examine this entire debacle?

Singer, in a lengthy article, concludes by saying that we must not take ourselves — and the argument — too seriously, because morals never play out exactly as intended. So perhaps the debate is fruitless, because in the end, we will buy a Starbucks mocha latte, even though we are entitled to Ratty coffee. Perhaps Europe will circulate funds amongst its own, rather than divert them to other nations. And perhaps Europe won't — and they'll make Greece learn a lesson. The question is just where we draw our lines. And here's hoping those moral lines are made of more than just sand.

_____

(1) Singer, "Famine, Affluence and Morality"

The short of it

After Thursday's lecture on exploitation, we delved into the topic further during section. We inadvertently spent nearly the entire time on one discussion, trying to unpack the facets of a … unique case. In China, an amusement park has opened that is entirely staffed by dwarves. People come to the park simply just for the sights. Is this exploitation?

Some points to consider:

— Without the park, many of these individuals might be unemployable, particularly because of the discrimination that still exists in China. Said one of the dwarves working at the park: "Before coming here, most of us faced discrimination. But here, we are equal and respected. We have our dignity."

— A community has developed among the individuals working at the park. ("We are all very happy.")

— For better or for worse, there are no other options. Though this is a negative reflection on the level of positive liberty within China, at least the dwarves are being given an opportunity of some sort. ("I feel this is our destiny.")

— The owner of the amusement park is just respecting societal norms.

— The business is extraordinarily profitable.

The amusement park garnered international attention after a New York Times article highlighted American criticism of the park, citing a disrespect for basic human rights. But is this a case where the influence of cultural context makes or breaks the argument? Though the "Kingdom of the Little People" would be deemed inappropriate on multiple levels in the United States, it is an economic boon for all involved in China. And what's more, it is not limiting freedom — it's providing a freedom that never existed before, the opportunity for gainful employment.

So are the employees of the amusement park being exploited? Yes and no. While they are being hired simply because of a trait they cannot control, they are being adequately compensated. The Kingdom pays more than many stateside entertainment businesses (which, as another example of questionable exploitation, rent dwarves as leprechauns for St. Patrick's Day). The lifestyle is, in a way, optimal for the employees — they are able to live in a community of people just like them. Though Americans might deem this segregation, for the Chinese, it is an opportunity. Americans look at this example and are appalled, but the context of Chinese societal norms must be taken into account and in this situation, define the case as acceptable. The idealistic voice within us says that such a place as the Kingdom should not exist, but until further opportunities exist for dwarves in China, in a way, it must.

T-T-T-Telephone

To keep up the fascination with cell phones in the developing world…

A UN report released this week finds that people in India have greater access to cell phones than toilets. International aid organizations have been pushing for greater technological access everywhere from Africa to Southeast Asia, heralding the societal advances that come from communication and access. But in the process, has the international community failed to keep up with basic necessities? Though prosperity and growth are being achieved in these now connected nations, does jumping a step on Maslow's pyramid come with consequences?

Girl power

Within the economics blogosphere, a debate has arisen as to whether women have more libertarian freedom now than they did in 1880. The argument originated because one argued that yes, women were freer more than a century ago. This, not surprisingly, launched a spree of reactions.

There are the obvious social comments and disputes to be made: the ability now held to cohabitate outside of marriage, more freedom to choose marriage and the elimination of arcane laws that limited women's lifestyles. There is also the question of liberty as imposed by society or as imposed by law.

So the debate becomes, is the degree of libertarian freedom across historical eras quantifiable or does it fall into the category of grass-is-always-greener nostalgia? But to even ask this question, a more basic dilemma needs to be solved: what is freedom?

Is freedom based on wealth or is freedom based on rights? Brennan and Schmidtz wrote their book, attempting to define liberty in a way that would allow them to examine "when a society is moving toward liberty or away from it, and so that we can proceed to ask a straightforward question: 'Was that move a good one?' "

If that is the lens through which we view the level of freedom in a society, then the measure immediately becomes subjective. Is it a "good" move if everyone has economic choice, or if everyone is guaranteed the same level of economic possession? The argument becomes circular because it is heavily disputed as to which theories support the greatest level of freedom, particularly when negative and positive liberties must be balanced. Is forcing someone to be free, as Berlin might suggest, a valid construct, or is it simply an oxymoron? Can we argue that women are less free now because more is expected of them? Or are they more free because so many societal barriers have been taken down?

Regardless, in some ways women are definitely more free. Though liberty is a contentious topic, I don't think anyone will argue against the constrictive nature of a corset.

No pay, no gain?

A recent New York Times article surrounding the legality of unpaid internship unleashed a flurry of responses, all debating whether ambitious college kids are being cheated of their time and money by working for free.

But the legal question is not the only facet of the debate over internships. Do unpaid internships increase or decrease prosperity in the long term? Do they stratify socioeconomic divides? Do they perpetuate an advantage already held by those who can afford to work for free?

Most argue, yes — "the less fortunate were missing out on a large swath of internship opportunities … (because of) the disparity between those who have the means to work for free and those who don’t."

The legal question rarely reaches the table because the conversation is "discussed in terms of the potential exclusion of students who don’t have rich parents from opportunities."

Nearly all internships in the federal government are unpaid, as well as those in countless industries, and the numbers are only growing as the economy worsens. It is a known fact that college internships often lead to jobs. And so a larger question that must be asked is, if unpaid internships determine the barrier to entry in certain fields, will these arenas become economically homogeneous? Are we taking a giant step backward in regard to financial opportunity?

An argument in favor of unpaid internships can just as easily be made. College students are awarded the opportunity to look inside an industry that they might not otherwise have been able to gain exposure to. The classic argument is that internships offer a "foot in the door."

In the case of government or nonprofit internships, students are helping to further a cause and work for the public good. And internships are not, by necessity, exclusionary. Many national and university-based grants exist for students with unpaid internships, with preference given to those who might not otherwise be able to afford it.

Do unpaid internships qualify under Rawls's "justice as fairness" provision?

According to one summarization, Rawls's proposal can be boiled down to the following two points:

1. Each person has an equal claim to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic rights and liberties, which scheme is compatible with the same scheme for all; and in this scheme the equal political liberties, and only those liberties, are to be guaranteed their fair value.

2. Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions: (a) They are to be attached to positions and offices open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and (b), they are to be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.

Unpaid internships clearly fail the test when the second point is brought into the conversation. Though there are no explicit barriers to the positions, opportunity cost keeps the jobs from being open to all members of society. And unpaid internships clearly are not to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. But does that mean they should be dismissed altogether?

While all students may not have the economic liberty to engage in a job where they will receive no payment, internships provide undeniable levels of opportunity. According to welfare-based principles, "material goods and services have no intrinsic value and are valuable only in so far as they increase welfare." Though there is no immediate monetary value that results from an unpaid internship, the long-term benefits in experience and networking ultimately do increase welfare. And when an intern is serving a nonprofit or the public sector, welfare for all theoretically increases as well.

So while it probably should not be legal for a for-profit company to shirk their interns — a matter the Department of Labor is already looking into — unpaid internships all across the board should not be dismissed out of hand. As long as opportunities are made available to all students, through counseling from universities, grants and stipends, unpaid internships do have the potential to further societal and personal welfare.

The games we play (and the consequences they hold) — part III

The classic game Monopoly has spawned countless variations — everything from children's versions to commemorative boards. The origins of the game may have been economic, but it and its copycats have become an American pastime, played around the fireplace or at family events.

One such spin-off, released in 2003, generated a fair share of controversy. Titled "Ghettopoly," the game is intended to show the same economic mechanisms at work — but in a caricature of the American ghetto. Properties for sale include liquor stores, a peep show and a pawn shop. Property owners can build projects and crack houses. Players navigate the board as a basketball, a machine gun, a marijuana leaf, a 40 oz. beer, a crack rock, a pimp or a "ho."

The original game box read:

Buying stolen properties, pimpin hoes, building crack houses and projects, paying protection fees and getting car jacked are some of the elements of the game. Not dope enough?...If you don't have the money that you owe to the loan shark you might just land yourself in da Emergency Room.

The game immediately incited backlash upon its release. Hasbro was upset because their copyright was being violated. Others, including the NAACP, were outraged at the racist implications of the game.

David Chang, the game's creator, argued that "It draws on stereotypes not as a means to degrade, but as a medium to bring together in laughter. If we can't laugh at ourselves ... we'll continue to live in blame and bitterness."

It was hard for activists to see his point of view. From their perspective, the game was only serving to perpetuate stereotypes about the lifestyle and economic activities of an entire race. The game's objective was explained as "become the richest playa through stealing, cheating and fencing stolen properties." Doesn't exactly sound like an ethically sound way to go, now does it?

Urban Outfitters, the retailer responsible for selling the game, immediately pulled it from its shelves. But the debate didn't end just because explicit sales did. It was clearly established that young children playing the game would be given the wrong message about how to achieve success in life, but what about the message the game conveyed about society? It seemed to say that certain economic truths were inevitable; that certain groups would never rise above the pawn shops or peep shows, and thus, were destined to live the life so crudely depicted.

In psychology, the concept of self-fullfilling prophecies has been proven true time and time again. Ghettopoly surfaces that type of worry, that children will see this game and assume that the world can be no different than it is. That change is not only difficult, but impossible.

So while Ghettopoly does not necessarily bring up the same concerns about economic legitimacy and capitalistic take-over as regular Monopoly, it generates worries of its own. Can we as a society change and grow to benefit all involved? Or is the future of our country like the toy aisle, with some destined to play the prestigious game of Monopoly and others confined to the game of Ghettopoly? Both games preserve economic liberties: players are granted property rights for the goods they attain. But that does not mean both games are fair in the sense of their implications.

Staying connected

The majority of the world's cellphone subscriptions can be found in the developing world, and while we may be using our mobile devices to organize the next big party or just tomorrow's lunch plans, cellphones are working to cure AIDS and build communities elsewhere.

On the most basic economic level, cellphones drive business. In African communities, cash is being recirculated from cellphone user to provider and back around again. It's economics 101 come true: when products are bought and sold within a community, everyone benefits. This worked in Bangladesh and is now beginning to have an impact throughout Africa.

In the Middle East and Africa, women benefit especially from the spread of cellphones. They are able to leave their homes with the aid of cellphones, but are also able to conduct business from home — alleviating the danger and wasted time of traveling.

AIDS is being fought in Nigeria and other African nations through the simple technology of cell phones. With the ability to call hotlines for medical advice and receive reminders via SMS about taking medication, many Africans have gained a better handle on their disease and its management.

“I don’t think in any of our African countries we will be able to wait to have professionals, or to have enough of those people,” said the executive director of UNAIDS. “It is time to reinforce our capacity to use the modern technology differently.”

World crises have demonstrated how Twitter can save the day. Cellphones in developing nations are further evidence of the positive effects of global technology in promoting basic development and ultimately, prosperity,

Manning up to the law

Rule of law versus rule of man

It seems like a clear dichotomy. Either your country is governed by standards that all residents adhere to willingly, or society is ruled with the iron fist of one man. And it is generally accepted that the former is far superior. With law, economies thrive. Property rights are guaranteed, the standards for trade are set and everyone follows the same compulsory guidelines. Trust and reputation matter, and they are much more likely to be found in a law-abiding, law-enforcing society.

It's indisputable — there is concrete evidence to support the belief that a greater adherence to laws leads to a higher GDP.

But what does the rule of law really mean? According to one Economist article, there is a dichotomy even within this concept. There is "thick" rule of law, the kind that is inseparable from democracy and morality, and there is "thin" rule of law, which necessitates property rights and justice, but says nothing about the mandated type of governance.

The article argues that economic growth comes more strongly when the law is thicker. In Spain, for example, tremendous economic growth was seen after the fall of the Franco regime and the reinstitution of democracy. But the direction of causality can be a little fuzzy. Take China for example. The economy skyrocketed and society is becoming more judicious — but which happened first? Could the sociopolitical climate of the nation have changed were it not for the economic growth that gave the country the monetary and intellectual resources to adapt?

On a micro level, the difference between rule of law and rule of man becomes fuzzy. Who's to say that the rule of law does not mirror the way of man? And what if that man is collective and thus his will is just as judicious and fair as the law?

In education, the debate is over rules and standards. The World We Created At Hamilton High examines the culture of one American high school and its changes and developments over the course of three decades. During that period, the number of regulations within the school grew exponentially. Once upon a time, standards were sufficient. It was assumed that everyone knew what was expected of them, how to dress and behave respectfully, what kind of conduct was assumed from a "gentleman." But as the society (well, the school community) evolved, simply having standards was not enough. Not all men followed the same rules. And so law-like rules had to be implemented. Consequences had to be laid out and regulations had to be codified.

Zooming back out to the big picture — this rules versus standards comparison can be applied to the rules of law and man and their effects on the economy. Once upon a time, standards were accepted and adhered to. But some cheated the system, others suffered and so, the expectations had to be made explicit. In the United States, the adherence to a set of codes ensures that the same standards are being applied in all arenas. Whether individuals would choose to follow these standards becomes irrelevant because now they have to. Thus, the rule of law and that of man are not always so dichotomous — in many cases, it's quite possible they have the same point of origin. It's when society becomes diversified and rebellious that the rules have to be enforced.

Blast back to the past

In the wake of today's economic recession, many worry that we are reliving the 1930s and the terror of the Great Depression all over again. Want to feel even closer to those fears? The author of this blog — "News from 1930" — reads the Wall Street Journal from the corresponding day in 1930 and summarizes it. Talk about a serious case of living in the past.

In explaining why he is keeping this blog, which he has been doing since last June, the author weaves a complicated web of optimism, a desire to predict the future and the hope of understanding the economic conditions we live in now. From his readings, he has found that to an extent, we view the past with too critical an eye. Though now we question what was going on with our government at the time, "It appears that the people in charge at the time were well aware of what was happening, and did most of the things that we're doing now to alleviate it." While it may be easy to look back and critically question the motives and effectiveness of leaders, what would a reader of the WSJ looking back 100 years from now have to say about our own little recession?

Yemen, continued

Last month, I attempted to unpack the massive poverty in Yemen. Lacking in resources and infrastructure, and floundering amid corruption, the country has its fair share of issues.

Nevertheless, the city of Sana'a is one of the fastest growing in the world (at 7 percent annually). But here's the catch: new numbers reveal that by 2017, the country will run out of economically viable water supplies and will stop profiting from oil.

John Stuart Mill wrote that eventually, all growth will end and progress will level. To him, this would be the ultimate sign that equality and prosperity had been reached. But Yemen does not fit this model, for he also wrote that "in the backward countries of the world … increased production is still an important object." (1)

Yemen is an unusual case within Mill's models. Most countries he examined were experiencing unprecedented growth, with no clear stopping point in sight. In effect, Yemen has an expiration date for its progress. With an economy based almost entirely on oil (90 percent of exports, 75 percent of government revenue), and an oil supply that is on the verge of disappearing, Yemen's "stationary state" is more than just a political construct. And what happens when Yemen reaches the point of no development in one of the world's most tumultuous regions? "For the safety of national independence it is essential that a country not fall much behind its neighbours," Mill wrote. Is Yemen doomed politically too, then?

Additionally, the breaking point make come sooner than expected. "Yemen’s crunch point will come long before the oil wells finally run dry," a local newspaper wrote. "The government currently needs to cover rising domestic consumption, as well as a fixed allocation to oil companies to cover their initial and ongoing investment costs. As production levels drop towards consumption levels, the share of crude oil sales available to support the national budget is shrinking. … High global prices place a unique strain on the national budget."

Mill advocated for international cooperation — and Yemen, though strong in pride, has expressed a need for foreign aid. This has long been the UN's solution, but is this only delaying the inevitable? Is foreign aid a permanent solution, or just a band-aid fix that will fall apart when the international economy can no longer support it?

_____

(1) Mill, John Stuart. "Principles of political economy with some of their applications to social philosophy."

News in images

In an attempt to avoid waxing poetic or restating what we already suspect to be true, I'm going to let these images speak for themselves. The summary?

(1) Men make more money than women.

(2) The US winds up, in a vicious cycle, giving most foreign aid to countries where it start wars.

(3) The more money you make, the more you idealize your job.

Disclaimer: These graphics have absolutely nothing to do with each other. They happened to all just earn a star in my Google Reader for being interesting.

How shocking.

A new French game show mimes the famous Milgram experiment, placing contestants in the hot seat and instructing them to torture an individual behind a screen (who unbeknownst to them is an actor in disguise). The tortured individual screams and writhes, as the torturer keeps applying shocks — all under the bright lights and cameras. Of the 80 contestants, all but 16 went through with the torture.

Though the results are fairly similar to those achieved by Milgram in his original test, it's hard to believe that the social pressure induced by being on film didn't change the actions of the contestants.

The games we play — part II

Some say life is just a game. And then there is the game of Life.

In 1860, Milton Bradley crafted the toy. It started at Infancy and ended in Happy Old Age. Along the way, you might find Happiness, but you also might find Ruin. The game was intended to teach its players a few moral lessons along the way too. The game enjoyed great popularity for years, before fading out of the public idea. A century later, Bradley's legacy — the toy giant — reintroduced the game. But not all was the same as it had once been. "Bradley’s game about vice, virtue, and the pursuit of happiness was reinvented as a lesson in Cold War consumerist conformity." (Sound familiar?)

The 1960s version of the game — and the basic skeleton of the version today — has each player start in a little plastic car at the beginning of their life. The first choice you make is whether or not to go to college. In somewhat realistic fashion, the player who attends is saddled with debt; the player who skips ahead to the working world has fewer career opportunities. Earlier versions emphasized wealth collection. Jobs could be traded for better ones, stocks could be purchased, insurance was advisable. Sure, a certain degree was left to chance — but hey, that's life. The game ended when someone landed on the millionaire spot. Others could gamble for a chance to get there too, but the probability of becoming bankrupt was far more likely.

Throughout the last half-century, the game has been retooled again and again. The vicious zero-sum wealth-collection mentality of the board — though fun to competitive players — led to a change at Milton Bradley. Now, the game prizes public service — awarding bonus points for trash collection or technological innovation. House purchase (complete with mortgage and insurance) is still necessitated, but you can trade up if you're not happy. "Life tiles" allow for a chance comeback — the poorest player can still come out with a win at the end. The ending dichotomy, though slightly more subtle, still produces a socioeconomic split: You can live in Millionaire Estates or Countryside Acres. The former is classier, but riskier; the latter is less exclusive, but you take fewer chances in selecting it.

The 2000s era version has less explicit competition. It also no longer mandates insurance purchasing, stock options are fewer, job training has become minimal (occupations once came with "skills") and it is quite easy to sue your neighbor. Socioeconomic divides still exist, even if they are subtler.

Is this an implied statement of what are lives have become? Is Milton Bradley trying to reflect how we live? Or is this merely a game meant to entertain children by the fireside? It's hard to claim that the moralistic undertones are entirely accidental. Even the small changes to the game are significant: the 60s convertible has become a clunky Chrysler minivan; the money has undergone serious inflation; the mortgage and home insurance card looks … different.

But on the other hand, the game is focused far less on wealth collection. Instead, there are arbitrary goals met on the way to becoming the so-called winner — a title that can be usurped if someone else happens to draw a better Life tile than you. So which was worse: the 60s version or the edition today? (*To note, many of these new changes have arisen even since the last time I played the game.)

"Like all earlier spiral race games, the Game of Life is essentially about fate, but it’s so relentlessly amoral and cash-conscious that a nineties redesign team, eager to make it less so, pretty much gave up. The new Twists & Turns game has no goal. In it, life is aimless," the New Yorker wrote, when reflecting upon the changes the game has undergone.

So why? What is the game reflecting? Does it reflect our lives and we just don't recognize it? Or has poor Milty gone off the map this time?

A cursory glance at customer reviews of the game on Amazon.com — mostly from adults who played the game when they were children — reveals that some were less than pleased with the design overhaul.

"Money isn't the way it used to be."

"The old Life game was more true to life. The new game isn't."

"There isn't as much interaction between players in this one … not true to the real world as we know it."

"There are at LEAST 9 spots to land where you're supposed to sue your neighbor and get 100,000. I have a real problem with that. Another is where you get cosmetic surgery … what?"

One woman bought the game for her daughter and as astonished at the life she "lived": "The college option is a sham; next spin had her "Engaged"; subsequent move,"Baby Girl" (each player had to pay $5,000 dollars for a new baby). By the end of the game she had 7 children, a (heavily mortgaged) mobile home, NO job & had just landed on "Congrats, You are a Grandparent." A TERRIBLE GAME."

Some still saw the underlying moral values: "I realize this game was truly a product of the 50's. You had to get a job, had to get married and buy a house. Great family game."

Not all who played the game saw it as so negative. Many felt it taught their children about "real life" and as one agitated commenter wrote, "IT'S JUST A GAME!"

Game or not, the comments can be interpreted as a metaphoric reaction to the changes that have happened in our real lives. Our values have changed — no question. Bradley's intention back in 1860 was to create a game that linked "virtue and success," a game that understood the complex relationship between "chance and judgment."

The inherent issue with the Game of Life is that, although different paths are laid out, there is only one goal, one way to achieve success. There is a disregard for Milbrath's idea that "quality in living is experienced only be individuals and is necessarily subjective." (1) In the world of Life, "consumption becomes an end in itself" (though not quite as dramatically as Monopoly) and the interactions between players on the board is minimal. (2) The concern one player expressed about isolation can be seen in society at large — today, more than 50 years ago, we live introspective lives, despite growing globalization.

Milton Bradley may have attempted to shift the game away from a solely consumerist lifestyle with the introduction of public service and a greater role for Life cards, but no matter how the game is drawn and redrawn, you still need to make the big bucks to win the game.

Paul Krugman warns about the dangers of competitiveness, and the obsession with winning that can take hold. This is more explicitly present in the earlier version of Life: the in-it-to-win-it version, the zero-sum bankruptcy-or-bust model. Today's game has eliminated much of the "mindless competition" — but now you can sue the other players, you can pull off a surprise win based on luck — and so the competition becomes more personal, more subjective. (3)

The game cannot be taken too seriously — in a board game, there has to be a winner, and there's a limit as to how far personal choice can be taken. But the Game of Life can serve as a vantage point from which to view our own lives: we take on loans, with the promise of future payback; we buy insurance (or not) because the unknown scares us; we gamble our chances at comfort for a shot at top-tier living; we often get caught up in our own lives and own choices, forgetting to interact with those living or playing around us. We question the fairness and validity of a roll of the dice — and have no choice but to live with the consequences.

The competitive nature of living has become less black-and-white, maybe less zero-sum. Life has become more complicated in the last 100 — even the last 50 — years. So what can we do? We can spin the dial, hope it lands on our lottery numbers and make the best of what Life (and life) deal us.

____

(1) Milbrath, Lester. "Rethinking the good life in a sustainable society," Environmental Values. 1993.

(2) Sagoff, Mark. "Do we consume too much?" Atlantic Monthly. 1997.

(3) Krugman, Paul. "Competitiveness: A dangerous obsession."

(Related: The game gets a brief shout-out in R.E.M.'s "The Man on the Moon.")

Seeing the unseen

A blog post details why Frederic Bastiat — the candlemakers' advocate — would have supported Obama's stimulus package. From his point of view, intervention in times of crisis is a good thing and is crucial for the forward movement of the economy, IF there has been a crisis. (To redistribute unnecessarily, he argues, would be a "ruinous hoax.")

When the stimulus package was presented, legislators on both sides referenced the New Deal — some for its successes (the left), and others for its supposed proven inability to fix the Depression (the right). Is creating work — seemingly, out of thin air — a productive economic solution?

The fundamental underlying debate is related to the argument about the boy and his baseball: Are we better off with a broken window, if it means that we get to fix it? Nearly all sides of the debate would argue against deliberately breaking the window, but the question of what to do when the window shatters because of a hurricane remains. Will the recent earthquake be good for Haitian development? Or will it set the small nation back — further into poverty than it already was?

There is the idealistic hope that the deep plummet into wreckage will bring the Haitian people together, help them to better understand each other and move forward into a more equitable society. There is the reality, presented by the United Nations, that no matter what efforts are put forth, true recovery will "take decades." And then there is the underlying cynicism (or reality), that even if the infrastructure can be rebuilt (albeit with extensive outside aid), the nation will never change unless it can alter its culture, government and values.

Fun toy!

This Google dataset compiles 54 of the World Development Indicators, everything from national agriculture production to cell phone descriptions. Plus, maps, scatter plots, bar graphs and line graphs for nearly all the variables. Where was this website back in my Model UN days?

Was life better in black and white?

The 1998 film Pleasantville opens in a typical suburban high school with a montage of teachers speaking at their students.

...For those of you going on to college next year, the chance of finding a good job will actually decrease by the time you graduate. The available number of entry-level jobs will drop 31 percent over the next four years. Median income for those jobs will go down as well. Obviously, my friends, it's a competitive world, and good grades are your only ticket through. In fact, by the year 2000…
...The chance of contracting HIV from a non-monogamous lifestyle will climb to 1 in 150. The odds of dying in an auto accident are only 1 in twenty-five hundred. Now, this marks a drastic increase…
...from fourteen years ago, when ozone depletion was just at 10 percent of its current level. By the time you are thirty years old, average global temperature will have risen two and a half degrees, causing such catastrophic consequences as typhoons, floods, widespread drought, and famine...

High school senior David is appalled at the world he lives in and longs for what he believes was a better, simpler time — the 1950s world depicted in his favorite television series. His twin sister is the embodiment of the MTV generation. Through a twisted (and obviously unrealistic) set of events, the two are catapulted into the archetypal 50s suburb: Pleasantville. David is thrilled, insistent that people "are happy like this." Jennifer could not disagree more — "nobody's happy in a poodle skirt and a sweater set."

Throughout the course of the film, it becomes apparent that no one is quite as happy as the family dinners and school dances would lead the observer to believe. Stay-at-home mothers feel confined, occupational choices are limited, students barely question the material they are learning and no one has ever left the tiny little town they inhabit. Radical ideas begin to spread among the youth, prompting censorship and punishment. The town leader insists that it is necessary to "separate out the things that are pleasant from the things that are unpleasant," raising questions of discrimination and diversity of thought.

By the end of their journey, David's perfect vision of the 1950s has been shattered. He is forced to learn that "there is no 'right' life, no model for how things are 'supposed to be.' " (1) The good old days are not quite as "good" as they seemed. Though the people were able to live unhampered by technology and in tight-knit communities, they had their fair share of problems. Choices were more limited in terms of lifestyle, employment and even in what kind of thinking was permitted.

The movie was marketed to the very MTV generation it placed under the microscope, intended to serve as "a morality tale concerning the values of contemporary America by holding that social landscape up against both the Utopian and the dystopian visions of suburbia that emerged in the 1950s." (2)

David came away from his journey to Pleasantville disillusioned by the 1950s paradise, while Jennifer, the original skeptic, opted to stay in the past rather than return to her normal life. Though the movie does advocate some degree of nostalgia, it is "nostalgia leavened with a hint of danger or risk."

The take-away point of the nostalgia in Pleasantville is that one cannot make a value judgment as to who was happier: the teenager in the 1950s or the teenager in 1998. The differences are plentiful, but they span the gamut in both the positives and the negatives. Which is better (or worse): blatant discrimination and segregation or the stress and pressure of the college admissions process? Will innocent hours spent in the library or time passed on YouTube make us happier? Make us smarter? Make us more well off?

The movie's lesson is that even trying to make the comparison is imperfect. David envied the lifestyle of a Pleasantville teenager, but the Pleasantville teens had just as many complaints about their lives as he did. And with the experiences of a 90s kid, he could not appreciate all of the elements on Pleasantville — and quickly became disillusioned by the picture-perfect world.

Standard of living may have increased, health care may be better and information may be more acceptable, but it is impossible to state — objectively — if we are happier than we might have been in the 1950s (and vice versa). The best we can hope for is that we have learned from our mistakes — like the confinement of the Pleasantville social structure — and that we work toward improving the "unpleasant" aspects of life today. Like Billy Joel sang, "the good old days weren't always good and tomorrow ain't as bad as it seems."

_____

(1) McDaniel, Robb. "Pleasantville (Ross 1998)." Rev. of Pleasantville. Film and History May-June 2002: 85-86

(2) Beuka, Robert A. SuburbiaNation: Reading Suburban Landscape in Twentieth-Century American Fiction and Film. 1st ed. New York: Palgrave Macmillian, 2004. 14-15.

The implications of shopping period

Brown's Open Curriculum epitomizes the expansion of decision making. Forty years after the implementation of the curriculum, we have the ability to choose everything about our course load. While some schools have distribution requirements or a core set of required classes, Brunonians run free, picking and choosing what they would like to take.

For students at other universities, who are confined to more rigid tracks of courses, this complete freedom to make choices can be enviable. As a freshman, I spent hours putting classes into my Mocha shopping cart, much to the amazement of a friend at another school in a highly specialized program with little choice.

So our divergent curriculum — arguably at comparable institutions — beg the question: which one of us was happier?

While Brown's open curriculum encourages individuality and choices, for the confused student, this can be an overwhelming task, inducing questions of interest and identity. Our educational futures are placed in our hands and it can be a daunting burden — we are entirely responsible for the outcomes. There are even courses on self-discovery and decision-making for those of us who are just too conflicted to make up our minds.

The question of confirmation bias becomes dangerous in a requirement-free setting. For students who come to Brown, biased against math, the ability to avoid it all together both confirms and validates their dislike. Maybe this is not a bad thing — the social efficiency model of education would argue that students should specialize as early as possible in those subjects most relevant to their futures. And it is not 100 percent foolproof: pre-med students are required to take a writing course and most social sciences come with an attached statistics requirement.

And perhaps Brown is retreating from the free choice model a bit (to the chagrin of many students). Just today it was announced that the writing requirement will now be enforced for all students. Though it would be nearly impossible to go four years without demonstrating proficiency in writing, it is the perceived limitation on freedom that is upsetting to the liberal-minded student body. Brennan and Schmidtz wrote that "we can be mistaken about whether we are choosing," and in this situation, it's hard to know whether this will actually change the academic path of any students.

Choice is one of Brown's selling factors to applicants, but is too much choice a bad thing? Do we just need more guidelines? Or are we already making the best possible choices because only we, as 20-something individuals, know what is best for ourselves?

Being choosy

In a paper using complex formulas, one of the columnists at the NY Times' "Freakonomics" blog proves what many of us already suspected to be true: the more income we have, the more choices we expect to make and the greater variety we demand. The increase in choice is heavily influenced by a greater attainment of education: as we become more aware of our options, we long to diversify.

Brainteaser

Income inequality can be a difficult concept to stomach and turns out, it can be pretty difficult to compute mentally too. Evidently, "the reward centers in the human brain respond more strongly when a poor person receives a financial reward than when a rich person does.” No wonder reading the newspaper can give you a headache.

Happiness is...

I must be experiencing the Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon (I had to dig deep into my memories of Psych 1 to remember that one), but ever since writing about happiness, I have come across innumerable articles identifying the variables that affect our choices, our wealth and our subsequent happiness.

First: Religion. In discussion section, we argued (and were unable to agree) as to whether religion is an absolute or religious need. Do people require faith in absolute terms, or do they desire to belong to a religious group because their neighbor does? What sacrifices are made in the name of religion?

A recent study examines the breakdown of wealth in America by religion — and finds distinct variation between groups.

The article provides minimal analysis, but does raise a number of interesting questions, particularly the begging question of causation versus correlation. Jewish wealth is often traced back to the Middle Ages when people of all other faiths (well, Christian-derived faiths) were prohibited from entering the banking profession. Even if those historic roots are able to account for current wealth distribution, how can the other breakdowns be explained? Is it a reflection of the ties to race and ethnicity that religion have? Do different faiths place different values on work and leisure?

Second: Education. Studies point to the affirmative — YES, education does make us happier. (Comforting news to the college student currently in the library.) But, there is a growing consensus arguing a somewhat contrary position: that we are overeducating our children.

Though having a bachelor's degree may correlate to a certain level of happiness, is this really the best route for everyone? It's a viewpoint Americans are reluctant to express — we're supposed to be ever dreaming upward —but in other countries (Spain, for example), the "risk of overeducation" is a more widely expressed opinion. Because a college education does not necessarily guarantee a better occupation or lifestyle, students I met while studying abroad there put much more thought into whether or not to attend university. Comparatively, my friends and I stateside just viewed college as the automatic, the next step. Choosing not to go was never an option most of us considered. So although Brown is the happiest school in the country, are we actually happier because of the choice we made?

And if the quantifiable factors aren't satisfying for you, here's an article proving that happiness can be generated just by imagining how awful your life would be without the positive things you already have.