Bryan Caplan's Blog, page 125
March 22, 2015
My Wednesday GMU Seminar: The Selfish and Social Returns to Education, by Bryan Caplan
This Wednesday I'm presenting my preliminary work on "The Selfish and Social Returns to Education" here at the Fairfax campus of GMU. Open to the public.
Location: Carow Hall
Time: Lunch at 11:45, Talk from 12:00-1:15
I'm trying out a new system (inspired in part by Dan Klein) where I talk without interruption for the first 50 minutes, then take all questions during the remaining 25 minutes. This handles the aggravating tendency of the audience to interrupt the flow of the talk for questions that the speaker planned to address in due time.
Hope to see you there!
(0 COMMENTS)
Location: Carow Hall
Time: Lunch at 11:45, Talk from 12:00-1:15
I'm trying out a new system (inspired in part by Dan Klein) where I talk without interruption for the first 50 minutes, then take all questions during the remaining 25 minutes. This handles the aggravating tendency of the audience to interrupt the flow of the talk for questions that the speaker planned to address in due time.
Hope to see you there!
(0 COMMENTS)
March 19, 2015
Does Burning Your Money Make You Poor?, by Bryan Caplan
Does burning your money make you poor? Almost everyone responds, "Obviously." And in a sense, it is obvious. If you take all your money and burn it, you'll be hungry and homeless as a result. QED.
In another sense, though, burning money might not change a thing. How so? Suppose if you don't burn your money, you flush it down the toilet instead. Empirical researchers who look will detect zero effect of burning money on your standard of living. Why? Because your Plan B is just as impoverishing as your Plan A.
As far as I know, no researcher bothers to study the connection between burning cash and living in poverty. But researchers do study analogous issues, like: Does becoming a single mother lead to poverty? At least according to some studies, once you adjust for preexisting characteristics, women who have kids out of wedlock are no poorer than women who don't.
How is this even possible? You have to think about what single moms would have done if they hadn't gotten pregnant. Maybe they would have just spent more time hanging out with irresponsible boyfriends and partying. If so, researchers will detect no effect of single motherhood on poverty.
There's nothing literally wrong with this result, but it is easily misinterpreted. Key point: Most people who affirm that "Single motherhood causes poverty" tacitly assume a more elaborate counter-factual. Something like: "Continuously working full-time without getting pregnant." And if that's the counter-factual, "Single motherhood causes poverty" is almost as undeniable as "Burning money makes you poor." Empirical research can and occasionally does disprove common sense. But more often empirical research just addresses a different but superficially similar question.
(11 COMMENTS)
In another sense, though, burning money might not change a thing. How so? Suppose if you don't burn your money, you flush it down the toilet instead. Empirical researchers who look will detect zero effect of burning money on your standard of living. Why? Because your Plan B is just as impoverishing as your Plan A.
As far as I know, no researcher bothers to study the connection between burning cash and living in poverty. But researchers do study analogous issues, like: Does becoming a single mother lead to poverty? At least according to some studies, once you adjust for preexisting characteristics, women who have kids out of wedlock are no poorer than women who don't.
How is this even possible? You have to think about what single moms would have done if they hadn't gotten pregnant. Maybe they would have just spent more time hanging out with irresponsible boyfriends and partying. If so, researchers will detect no effect of single motherhood on poverty.
There's nothing literally wrong with this result, but it is easily misinterpreted. Key point: Most people who affirm that "Single motherhood causes poverty" tacitly assume a more elaborate counter-factual. Something like: "Continuously working full-time without getting pregnant." And if that's the counter-factual, "Single motherhood causes poverty" is almost as undeniable as "Burning money makes you poor." Empirical research can and occasionally does disprove common sense. But more often empirical research just addresses a different but superficially similar question.
(11 COMMENTS)
March 17, 2015
Where Is the School of the 3 R's?, by Bryan Caplan
What is the most prominent K-12 U.S. school - public or private - that single-mindedly focuses on reading, writing, and math?
Barring that, what is the most prominent K-12 U.S. school that single-mindedly focuses on academics - reading, writing, math, science, history, and foreign language, to the virtual exclusion art, music, athletics, "citizenship," and extracurricular activities?
Please include URLs with your nominations.
(17 COMMENTS)
Barring that, what is the most prominent K-12 U.S. school that single-mindedly focuses on academics - reading, writing, math, science, history, and foreign language, to the virtual exclusion art, music, athletics, "citizenship," and extracurricular activities?
Please include URLs with your nominations.
(17 COMMENTS)
Me at Northwood University, by Bryan Caplan
Tomorrow I'm speaking at Northwood University in Midland, Michigan on "Are We Stuck with the Great Society"? Open to the public. If you're there, please say hi.
(2 COMMENTS)
(2 COMMENTS)
March 16, 2015
Determinism and Motivated Reasoning, by Bryan Caplan
Martin Luther is near the top of my list of Utterly Wrong Thinkers I Enjoy Reading. He writes beautifully, logically, and candidly. In this revealing passage, he explains why he finds free will so emotionally threatening and determinism so emotionally comforting. From
The Bondage of the Will
:
For(7 COMMENTS)
my own part, I frankly confess that even if it were possible, I should
not wish to have free choice given to me, or to have anything left in my
own hands by which I might strive toward salvation. For, on the one
hand, I should be unable to stand firm and keep hold of it amid so many
adversities and perils and so many assaults of demons, seeing that even
one demon is mightier, than all men, and no man at all could be saved;
and on the other hand, even if there were no perils or adversities or
demons, I should nevertheless have to labor under perpetual uncertainty
and to fight as one beating the air, since even if I lived and worked
to eternity, my conscience would never be assured and certain how much
it ought to do to satisfy God. For whatever work might be accomplished,
there would always remain an anxious doubt whether it pleased God or
whether he required something more, as the experience of all
self-justifiers proves, and as I myself learned to my bitter cost
through so many years. But now, since God has taken my salvation out of
my hands into his, making it depend on his choice and not mine, and has
promised to save me, not by my own work or exertion but by his grace and
mercy, I am assured and certain both that he is faithful and will not
lie to me, and also that he is too great and powerful for any demons or
any adversities to be able to break him or to snatch me from him. "No
one," he says, "shall snatch them out of my hand, because my Father who
has given them to me is greater than all" *John 10:28 f.]. So it comes
about that, if not all, some and indeed many are saved, whereas by the
power of free choice none at all would be saved, but all would perish
together.
The Open Borders Manifesto, by Bryan Caplan
The Open Borders Action Group has prepared a short manifesto in honor of Open Borders Day. Reprinted in its entirety:
Email here to digitally sign.
(0 COMMENTS)
Freedom of movement is a basic liberty that governments should
respect and protect unless justified by extenuating circumstances. This
extends to movement across international boundaries.
International law and many domestic laws already recognise the right of
any individual to leave his or her country. This right may only be
circumscribed in extreme circumstances, where threats to public safety
or order are imminent.
We believe international and domestic law should similarly extend
such protections to individuals seeking to enter another country.
Although there may be times when governments should treat foreign
nationals differently from domestic citizens, freedom of movement and
residence are fundamental rights that should only be circumscribed when
the situation absolutely warrants.
The border enforcement status quo is both morally unconscionable and
economically destructive. Border controls predominantly restrict the
movement of people who bear no ill intentions. Most of the people
legally barred from moving across international borders today are
fleeing persecution or poverty, desire a better job or home, or simply
want to see the city lights.
The border status quo bars ordinary people from pursuing the life and
opportunity they desire, not because they lack merit or because they
pose a danger to others. Billions of people are legally barred from
realising their full potential and ambitions purely on the basis of an
accident of birth: where they were born. This is both a drain on the
economic and innovative potential of human societies across the world,
and indefensible in any order that recognises the moral worth and
dignity of every human being.
We seek legal and policy reforms that will reduce and eventually
remove these bars to movement for billions of ordinary people around the
world. The economic toll of the modern restrictive border regime is
vast, the human toll incalculable. To end this, we do not need a
philosopher's utopia or a world government. As citizens and human
beings, we only demand accountability from our own governments for the
senseless immigration laws that they enact in our name. Border controls
should be minimised to only the extent required to protect public health
and security. International borders should be open for all to cross, in
both directions.
Email here to digitally sign.
(0 COMMENTS)
March 15, 2015
The Other Cause of Immigrant Idleness, by Bryan Caplan
Happy Open Borders Day! The world remains light-years from free migration, but the intellectual case and elite support for open borders continue to build. In honor of the day, let's explore a little topic I call... "the other cause of immigrant idleness."
The global poor migrate to the First World, kiss the soil, then permanently go on welfare. Idle immigrants: Nothing short of outright criminality does more to tarnish the image of immigration. It smacks of ingratitude and parasitism. And while the prevalence of immigrant idleness is overstated, it is a very real problem, especially in Europe.
As a cosmopolitan libertarian, my first reaction is point fingers at the welfare state. If the problem is government subsidies for indefinite idleness, the solution is to curtail not immigration, but redistribution. When the law allows it, plenty of natives permanently go on welfare, too. Rhetorically sliding from the generic evils of the welfare state to the selective evils of immigrants is effective demagoguery, but fuzzy logic.
Yet on reflection, my first reaction misses a major part of the story. Countries with ample redistribution also tend to have strict labor market regulations. Despite their feel-good popularity, labor market regulations have a big negative side effect: unemployment.
This collateral damage is clearest for regulations that explicitly push up wages: If the law requires a 10% raise, employers can reduce the damage to their bottom line by employing fewer workers. But unless wages are perfectly flexible, any "pro-worker" regulation risks this disemployment effect. If the law makes employers give workers free health insurance, and workers bitterly resent offsetting pay cuts, hiring fewer workers is employers' best remaining defense.
The moral: When you see an idle immigrant, you shouldn't jump to the conclusion that he's a lazy parasite. There's another possibility: Labor regulations have priced him out of a job. He's on welfare not because he doesn't want to work, but because he'd rather go on welfare than starve.
The same logic naturally holds for natives. But the concern is especially relevant for immigrants. The workers employers decide not to hire are not randomly selected. When there's a surplus of labor, employers prefer workers who definitely won't have linguistic or cultural issues. Workers who "need a chance to prove themselves" get hired last. Furthermore, when there's a surplus of workers, the cost of outright bigotry sharply falls.* If native employers feel a hint of antipathy for foreigners, wage floors encourage employers to act on that antipathy.
All this leads to a disturbing epiphany: Labor market regulation isn't just an alternative explanation for immigrant idleness. It is a compelling alternative explanation because immigrants bear the brunt of labor market regulation's disemployment effect. And contrary to a few silly economists, involuntary unemployment is no vacation. It is a grave evil for jobless and society alike. In fact, unemployment is an even greater social evil than it seems, because it gives xenophobia a veneer of justification.
* Why not just have two-tier wages for natives versus foreigners? Discrimination laws aside, workers resent perceived horizontal inequities, leading to disruptive morale problems.
(0 COMMENTS)
The global poor migrate to the First World, kiss the soil, then permanently go on welfare. Idle immigrants: Nothing short of outright criminality does more to tarnish the image of immigration. It smacks of ingratitude and parasitism. And while the prevalence of immigrant idleness is overstated, it is a very real problem, especially in Europe.
As a cosmopolitan libertarian, my first reaction is point fingers at the welfare state. If the problem is government subsidies for indefinite idleness, the solution is to curtail not immigration, but redistribution. When the law allows it, plenty of natives permanently go on welfare, too. Rhetorically sliding from the generic evils of the welfare state to the selective evils of immigrants is effective demagoguery, but fuzzy logic.
Yet on reflection, my first reaction misses a major part of the story. Countries with ample redistribution also tend to have strict labor market regulations. Despite their feel-good popularity, labor market regulations have a big negative side effect: unemployment.
This collateral damage is clearest for regulations that explicitly push up wages: If the law requires a 10% raise, employers can reduce the damage to their bottom line by employing fewer workers. But unless wages are perfectly flexible, any "pro-worker" regulation risks this disemployment effect. If the law makes employers give workers free health insurance, and workers bitterly resent offsetting pay cuts, hiring fewer workers is employers' best remaining defense.
The moral: When you see an idle immigrant, you shouldn't jump to the conclusion that he's a lazy parasite. There's another possibility: Labor regulations have priced him out of a job. He's on welfare not because he doesn't want to work, but because he'd rather go on welfare than starve.
The same logic naturally holds for natives. But the concern is especially relevant for immigrants. The workers employers decide not to hire are not randomly selected. When there's a surplus of labor, employers prefer workers who definitely won't have linguistic or cultural issues. Workers who "need a chance to prove themselves" get hired last. Furthermore, when there's a surplus of workers, the cost of outright bigotry sharply falls.* If native employers feel a hint of antipathy for foreigners, wage floors encourage employers to act on that antipathy.
All this leads to a disturbing epiphany: Labor market regulation isn't just an alternative explanation for immigrant idleness. It is a compelling alternative explanation because immigrants bear the brunt of labor market regulation's disemployment effect. And contrary to a few silly economists, involuntary unemployment is no vacation. It is a grave evil for jobless and society alike. In fact, unemployment is an even greater social evil than it seems, because it gives xenophobia a veneer of justification.
* Why not just have two-tier wages for natives versus foreigners? Discrimination laws aside, workers resent perceived horizontal inequities, leading to disruptive morale problems.
(0 COMMENTS)
March 12, 2015
Income and Irresponsibility, by Bryan Caplan
Suppose you learn that rich and poor people get drunk equally often. Should you conclude that the poor are no more prone to irresponsible drinking than the rich?
No. You can't sensibly categorize behavior as "responsible" or "irresponsible" until you know the actors' circumstances. The greater the risk your behavior will lead to dire consequences for yourself, your dependents, or bystanders, the more irresponsible your behavior. The richer you are, the easier it is to avoid or remedy such consequences - and the less likely a given action qualifies as irresponsible.
Consider these obvious cases:
1. Spending $100 on dinner. This is extremely irresponsible if you only have $105 to your name, but fine when you're a millionaire.
2. Having unprotected sex. This is irresponsible when you're unable to support a child, but fine if you're prepared for parenthood.
The same logic holds for drunkenness. Heavy drinking has well-known health and employment dangers. The poorer
you are, the less able you are to cope with these dangers if they materialize - and the greater your obligation to avoid taking chances in the first place.
The upshot is that if behavior does not vary by income, we should conclude that the poor are more irresponsible than the rich. If the rich actually engage in less risky behavior than the poor, the true gap is bigger than it looks.
If you're outraged by this implication, note that family status works the same way. When a childless single courts danger, he risks his future. When a married parent courts danger, he risks not only his own future, but the
future of his spouse and his kids. Think about riding a motorcycle. This could simultaneously be a reasonable trade-off for a childless single and a reckless gamble for a married parent. Why? Because when you're a married parent, the total downside is much more serious.
Aren't family status and income fundamentally different? Not really. Neither depends on choices alone. Opportunities and luck both play their role. The virtuous path is not to bemoan our situation, but to act responsibly in whatever situation we find ourselves.
(4 COMMENTS)
No. You can't sensibly categorize behavior as "responsible" or "irresponsible" until you know the actors' circumstances. The greater the risk your behavior will lead to dire consequences for yourself, your dependents, or bystanders, the more irresponsible your behavior. The richer you are, the easier it is to avoid or remedy such consequences - and the less likely a given action qualifies as irresponsible.
Consider these obvious cases:
1. Spending $100 on dinner. This is extremely irresponsible if you only have $105 to your name, but fine when you're a millionaire.
2. Having unprotected sex. This is irresponsible when you're unable to support a child, but fine if you're prepared for parenthood.
The same logic holds for drunkenness. Heavy drinking has well-known health and employment dangers. The poorer
you are, the less able you are to cope with these dangers if they materialize - and the greater your obligation to avoid taking chances in the first place.
The upshot is that if behavior does not vary by income, we should conclude that the poor are more irresponsible than the rich. If the rich actually engage in less risky behavior than the poor, the true gap is bigger than it looks.
If you're outraged by this implication, note that family status works the same way. When a childless single courts danger, he risks his future. When a married parent courts danger, he risks not only his own future, but the
future of his spouse and his kids. Think about riding a motorcycle. This could simultaneously be a reasonable trade-off for a childless single and a reckless gamble for a married parent. Why? Because when you're a married parent, the total downside is much more serious.
Aren't family status and income fundamentally different? Not really. Neither depends on choices alone. Opportunities and luck both play their role. The virtuous path is not to bemoan our situation, but to act responsibly in whatever situation we find ourselves.
(4 COMMENTS)
My Ohio Tour, by Bryan Caplan
I'm speaking all over Ohio this April. Talks open to the public:
1. April 14, 6-8 PM, Bowling Green State University: "The Case Against Education"
2. April 15, 5:30-6:30 PM, Ohio State University: "Immigration Restrictions: A Solution in Search of a Problem"
3. April 16, 11:10 AM-12:30 PM, Kenyon College: "The Case Against Education"
4. April 16, 7:30-9:00 PM, Kenyon College: "Immigration Restrictions: A Solution in Search of a Problem"
5. April 17, 6:30-7:30 PM, Oberlin College: "The Myth of the Rational Voter"
The college websites should post room information a few days before the talks.
(1 COMMENTS)
1. April 14, 6-8 PM, Bowling Green State University: "The Case Against Education"
2. April 15, 5:30-6:30 PM, Ohio State University: "Immigration Restrictions: A Solution in Search of a Problem"
3. April 16, 11:10 AM-12:30 PM, Kenyon College: "The Case Against Education"
4. April 16, 7:30-9:00 PM, Kenyon College: "Immigration Restrictions: A Solution in Search of a Problem"
5. April 17, 6:30-7:30 PM, Oberlin College: "The Myth of the Rational Voter"
The college websites should post room information a few days before the talks.
(1 COMMENTS)
March 11, 2015
Leveling the Playing Field for Online Education, by Bryan Caplan
Governments at all levels annually give traditional colleges about one-third of a trillion dollars. That's roughly $1000 per American per year, a massive subsidy.
Question: Why don't cheerleaders for online education loudly call for slashing or ending this subsidy, to put traditional colleges on an even footing with the online alternative? In my experience, even libertarian fans of online education rarely make a big deal out of these subsidies - even though they are a very big deal indeed.
A few possibilities:
1. The cheerleaders want to "level up" rather than "level down." They want online education to enjoy the same generous subsidies as traditional college, not compete in a genuinely free market.
2. The cheerleaders think arguing for cuts in college subsidies is politically hopeless in the face of Social Desirability Bias.
3. The cheerleaders think online education is so awesome it can beat traditional education despite the tilted playing field.
Other stories?
(2 COMMENTS)
Question: Why don't cheerleaders for online education loudly call for slashing or ending this subsidy, to put traditional colleges on an even footing with the online alternative? In my experience, even libertarian fans of online education rarely make a big deal out of these subsidies - even though they are a very big deal indeed.
A few possibilities:
1. The cheerleaders want to "level up" rather than "level down." They want online education to enjoy the same generous subsidies as traditional college, not compete in a genuinely free market.
2. The cheerleaders think arguing for cuts in college subsidies is politically hopeless in the face of Social Desirability Bias.
3. The cheerleaders think online education is so awesome it can beat traditional education despite the tilted playing field.
Other stories?
(2 COMMENTS)
Bryan Caplan's Blog
- Bryan Caplan's profile
- 372 followers
Bryan Caplan isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
