In a recent post considering what core belief makes conservatives and liberals different, I argued that change is the best measure. Liberals embrace change and conservatives are weary of it. It resulted in a great discussion that ended with the question of whether this idea is practically helpful. Taking that as a challenge, I found a clear example of where the conservative/liberal views of change are both true and helpful, in marriage.
It is a fairly common understanding that women are more liberal than men, by a margin as wide as 12%. If we then apply the preferences for change, it helps explain common marital disagreements. Pop culture and my own marital experience confirm the idea that women are more satisfied in marriage when things are improving. For example, for my wife, our marriage is doing well if we are regularly dealing with our problems. If we aren't fighting, we probably aren't growing. For me, I feel like our marriage is doing well if we don't fight at all (my wife has taught me the folly of this idea, hence this earlier post).
Women, who are on average more liberal, are optimistic about the change the next fight will bring. Men, who are on average more conservative, are worried about the change the next fight might bring. I think both perspectives can be true. For many couples fighting leads to future baggage and more fights. For others fighting leads to dealing with past baggage and less (or at least healthier) fights. I'm curious, have other couples seen this to be true?
Burqa Ban Limits Liberty 7/29/2010
Economics of Wedding Photography Startups 7/28/2010
For my wedding anniversary last year good friend, Erin Scott, took some pictures of me and my bride around D.C. I like this one so much it made my Facebook profile:
You can see the rest here at ErinScottPhotography.com. Starting a small business is a tough task for anyone and photography startups are no different. You don't want to charge too much, you are relatively new after all. You don't want to charge too little, people will assume you're not very good. You can't shadow another local photographer without them worrying about competition. So here's a unique suggestion from economist Tim Harford:
You really have two options. One is to take photographs at friends’ weddings. You don’t need permission from a rival photographer, you just need permission from a friend.
But I have a more radical suggestion. To win business you need to demonstrate confidence in your expertise. Tell prospective clients that you will pay them for the privilege of taking photos at their wedding, and that you’re confident you’ll make money anyway because they will want to buy your prints. Not only does this scheme give them some compensation if you prove to be an amateurish snapper, but more importantly it sends a signal of your self-confidence. A true incompetent would never be able to afford such a deal. I only hope you are as good as you say you are.
And as you can tell, Erin is as good as I say. Thanks again Erin and happy anniversary Traci!
Why I'll Probably Never Vote for a Republican 7/27/2010
Last year I explained why American liberal's fear of markets will probably keep me from voting for most Democrats. However, as Obama's approval rating is plummeting, I'm actually growing more frustrated with American conservatism. Though the words liberal and conservative have muddled definitions, there is a clear difference in my understanding of them, how they view change. Liberals embrace the hope of the future, expecting that there will be improvement. Conservatives, embrace the successes of the past, worried about the repercussions of that change*.
The situation in America is uniquely convoluted. If conservatives are afraid of change, then the Founding Fathers were liberals. However, they set up a conservative Constitution meant to keep national policy stable. Both ideologies are perfectly logical, but the pessimistic conservative worries me more. Though some change has been harmful, most of American history has been positive change. Conservatives are afraid to roll the dice, worried that the change will be harmful. But by attempting control and not allowing some risk, we miss out on the great things that change can bring. It is that control that worries me most about conservatives. Coercion of others is one of the great threats to our humanity.
Conservatives, because they fear change, are less likely to tolerate things they don't prefer (think immigration and drugs). They need more categories for things they dislike and things they find morally reprehensible. Sadly, this is also true for many American liberals (think environmental laws and gun restrictions). But it is the conservative distrust of the new and different that can lead to social division like nationalism and racism. Although conservatism is useful in dealing with situations we don't fully understand, it also limits growth by being afraid of new things. The liberal argument fails when things are fine the way they are. The conservative ideology fails when our current path continues to be beneficial. I believe both of those are true, so I'll continue to be weary of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans.
*Economist F. A. Hayek's essay Why I Am Not a Conservative was helpful in the formation of several ideas articulated here.
The situation in America is uniquely convoluted. If conservatives are afraid of change, then the Founding Fathers were liberals. However, they set up a conservative Constitution meant to keep national policy stable. Both ideologies are perfectly logical, but the pessimistic conservative worries me more. Though some change has been harmful, most of American history has been positive change. Conservatives are afraid to roll the dice, worried that the change will be harmful. But by attempting control and not allowing some risk, we miss out on the great things that change can bring. It is that control that worries me most about conservatives. Coercion of others is one of the great threats to our humanity.
Conservatives, because they fear change, are less likely to tolerate things they don't prefer (think immigration and drugs). They need more categories for things they dislike and things they find morally reprehensible. Sadly, this is also true for many American liberals (think environmental laws and gun restrictions). But it is the conservative distrust of the new and different that can lead to social division like nationalism and racism. Although conservatism is useful in dealing with situations we don't fully understand, it also limits growth by being afraid of new things. The liberal argument fails when things are fine the way they are. The conservative ideology fails when our current path continues to be beneficial. I believe both of those are true, so I'll continue to be weary of liberal Democrats and conservative Republicans.
*Economist F. A. Hayek's essay Why I Am Not a Conservative was helpful in the formation of several ideas articulated here.
Answering My Own Questions, Third Edition 7/26/2010
Here's part one and two and here are some more interesting questions with interesting answers:
1) How many people have walked on the moon?
Twelve. All men, all Americans, all between 1969-1972.
2) How much can wrongly convicted criminal get?
Recently in NC a man received almost $1.5 million for being falsely imprisoned for 19 years.
3) Why do public restrooms have a gap in the front of the toilet seat?
Wikipedia suggests that it might has once been required by OSHA in the early 1970's. It could also be to prevent standing men from urinating "dribbles" on the seat. Another suggestion is that the gap prevents genitalia from touching the seat, which could spread disease.
4) How many presidents have served more than one term?
From Washington to Bush, 20 out of 43 served more than one term.
5) Which American owns the most land?
Ted Turner owns 2 million acres in 12 states. That's as big as Rhode Island and Delaware put together. He also created the show Captain Planet.
1) How many people have walked on the moon?
Twelve. All men, all Americans, all between 1969-1972.
2) How much can wrongly convicted criminal get?
Recently in NC a man received almost $1.5 million for being falsely imprisoned for 19 years.
3) Why do public restrooms have a gap in the front of the toilet seat?
Wikipedia suggests that it might has once been required by OSHA in the early 1970's. It could also be to prevent standing men from urinating "dribbles" on the seat. Another suggestion is that the gap prevents genitalia from touching the seat, which could spread disease.
4) How many presidents have served more than one term?
From Washington to Bush, 20 out of 43 served more than one term.
5) Which American owns the most land?
Ted Turner owns 2 million acres in 12 states. That's as big as Rhode Island and Delaware put together. He also created the show Captain Planet.
Improv and Sightseeing in New York City 7/25/2010
As I mentioned a while back, this weekend I head to NYC. I'll be performing in the 12th Annual Del Close Marathon. Marathon is not a exaggeration, it's a name. The festival runs from Friday to Sunday in three locations with shows day and night. Here are my performance slots:
The 708: Sat 12:00 pm at Hudson Guild Theatre
Mister Diplomat: Sun 2:30 pm at UCB Theatre
If you're in the area ticket information will be released soon on the website. Also, my wonderful wife has agreed to accompany me. Any non-improv touristy suggestions for us?
The 708: Sat 12:00 pm at Hudson Guild Theatre
Mister Diplomat: Sun 2:30 pm at UCB Theatre
If you're in the area ticket information will be released soon on the website. Also, my wonderful wife has agreed to accompany me. Any non-improv touristy suggestions for us?
Emptying the Bottle: Late-July '10 Links 7/24/2010
Here is a list of the worthwhile sites I've Bookmarked recently:
- Apple's control issues could hurt it in the long run, again.
- 151 positive traits of ADHD (earlier).
- Social benefit of the Sabbath (this is important).
- Ten ways movies get you into a fantasy world.
- Man chases disc golfers with a chainsaw at my alma mater.
- Watch this video of a Hallmark card, then watch the NAACP's reaction.
- Relationship between loving ourselves and loving others [graph].
- Number of birds killed by BP compared to cars, cats, and wind farms.
- When your opinion is not respected, focus on asking good questions.
- Feeling okay about being a consumer Christian, at least for now.
- Review of modern recession economics (highly recommended).
Don't Fear China, Celebrate with It 7/22/2010
I've posted before on why trade deficits are actually investment surpluses and why Chinese government subsidies actually benefit us. However, after reading this mediocre argument for why we shouldn't fear China, I've decided eradicating fear isn't enough. America should not only not fear China, it should celebrate the amazing progress its made in the last decade. Here's Tyler Cowen first on how far China has to come:
CHINESE labour is still pretty cheap, at least by Western standards. To give an example, the minimum wage in Shenzen—a very active economic area—is still only $160 a month and in other parts of China it runs even lower. It’s not that all Chinese wages are so low but overall China is a much poorer country than most people think. It’s not even close to having the average wages of, say, Mexico.And here he his again on why we should look forward to more gains:
If Chinese wages are rising, it is because Chinese workers have shown that they are more productive. All the capital investment in China is yielding dividends in terms of greater output per worker and that’s good for virtually everyone.We benefit from increases in Chinese production in the same way they benefit from production in the US. China is now going through our Gilded Age. Huge national economic growth that will eventually bring up even the poorest citizens. Progress will happen faster for them thanks to the developed world leading way. As I've mentioned before, they are predicted to catch up around 2048. Good for them, good for us.
Moral Math 7/21/2010
In yesterday's explanation for why I'm weary of corporate charity and how we can improve it, I hinted at something that has bothered me for a while. When people do one good thing, they often let themselves off the hook for other good things. Not until I came across this article did I have the vocabulary to articulate what I meant:
The academic name for such quizzical behavior is moral licensing. It seems that we have a good/bad balance sheet in our heads that we're probably not even aware of. For many people, doing good makes it easier -- and often more likely -- to do bad. It works in reverse, too: Do bad, then do good.We see everyday when people pull up to their organic food store in a Hummer or when we feel better about leaving energy efficient light bulbs on longer. But it also has less innocent repercussions like:
a study showing that voters given an opportunity to endorse Barack Obama for president were more likely to later favor white people for job openings.In another experiment shopper were give the option to shop at either:
online stores that carry mainly green products or mainly conventional products. Then they played a game that allowed them to cheat to make more money. The shoppers from the green store were more dishonest than those at the conventional store, which brought them higher earnings in the game.This is connected to my skeptical attitude toward charitable giving in general. It seems the best way to avoid this mental trap is either to account for everything you do, so you can accurately weigh the costs and benefits, or simply make your kind acts second nature so they stop being accounted.
Where Charity Meets Profit 7/20/2010
The Dirty South Improv Theater, where I perform and teach, is well known for supporting the local community of Carrboro-Chapel Hill. From the annual Y Laugh fundraising campaign to special shows for non-profits like a used-bicycle collective and a youth mentor-advocate program. For all of this month, 20% of the ticket sales will go to the local Boys and Girls Club. The reason behind any business doing this is two fold: 1) as a form of advertising and brand image, 2) support causes the boss feels are worthwhile.
I've always questioned both of those motivations. The first feels like a deceptive way to convince the public your product is valuable. For example BP recently announced it would donate any revenues from collected oil in the Gulf to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Any energy spent making it seem like your company is good, is energy not spent actually making your company good. The second motivation also makes me uncomfortable because if the bosses want to donate money, they should pay themselves more and do it. Why involve the company, the employees, and the stock holders?
My question was recently answered when Tyler Cowen shared an interesting research finding. When customers at an amusement park were asked to buy pictures of themselves on a roller coaster only 0.5% paid the $12.95 asking price. Next they allowed customers to pay what they wanted. Sales went up to 8.4%, but the average payment was only $0.92. Later they were told that half of the $12.95 went to charity. This barely changed the amount of payers. Finally, the two ideas were put together. Customers could pay what they wanted, but half would go to charity. Suddenly, 4.5% of the customers bought a photo, nine times the original number, each paying an average of $5.33.
Charitable donations increased and so did profits. Not counting any loss due to consumer guilt, it was a net gain for all. Businesses made more and looked good doing it. Charities got more and people felt better giving it. This also allows the boss to give to his desired charity with a positive impact on his company. Until I can convince theater owner Zach Ward to change the pricing, you can still go see shows all this month and donate any extra at the door. This weekend marks the end of our two special sketch shows, Harvey Wallbanger and We Need A Hero.
I've always questioned both of those motivations. The first feels like a deceptive way to convince the public your product is valuable. For example BP recently announced it would donate any revenues from collected oil in the Gulf to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Any energy spent making it seem like your company is good, is energy not spent actually making your company good. The second motivation also makes me uncomfortable because if the bosses want to donate money, they should pay themselves more and do it. Why involve the company, the employees, and the stock holders?
My question was recently answered when Tyler Cowen shared an interesting research finding. When customers at an amusement park were asked to buy pictures of themselves on a roller coaster only 0.5% paid the $12.95 asking price. Next they allowed customers to pay what they wanted. Sales went up to 8.4%, but the average payment was only $0.92. Later they were told that half of the $12.95 went to charity. This barely changed the amount of payers. Finally, the two ideas were put together. Customers could pay what they wanted, but half would go to charity. Suddenly, 4.5% of the customers bought a photo, nine times the original number, each paying an average of $5.33.
Charitable donations increased and so did profits. Not counting any loss due to consumer guilt, it was a net gain for all. Businesses made more and looked good doing it. Charities got more and people felt better giving it. This also allows the boss to give to his desired charity with a positive impact on his company. Until I can convince theater owner Zach Ward to change the pricing, you can still go see shows all this month and donate any extra at the door. This weekend marks the end of our two special sketch shows, Harvey Wallbanger and We Need A Hero.
