Practical Reasons to Have Kids

Children are a financial, time, and emotional drain. So why have them? That's a conversation I've been having with my brother-in-law and new daddy, Stephen Jones. I understand having a baby is not a one person decision and sometimes it's not even something two people can easily do. However, I think the non-emotional benefits of having children are underestimated. So here's a list inspired by the discussion:

1) Because of gains from trade, more people is always better.

2) It's a useful tool for retirement.

3) Underpopulation will a bigger problem than overpopulation.

4) Dedication to a child can increase dedication to others.

5) I'm glad I'm born, so I assume my children will feel the same.

6) Parenting doesn't have to be overly exhausting.

7) You get to pass on your genes.

8) It's a regular reminder that the world doesn't revolve around me.

9) Can increase your social connects, which is essential.

10) You get to pass on your last name.

11) Someone you can raise to think like you.

12) You can teach them to love the things you love (and hate).

13) Children will give you the most honest self-reflection you can get.

14) It will speed your own personal growth.

15) It will create a type of friendship that can't exist otherwise.

16) You get to relive your childhood (books, sports, etc).

17) More people regret not having children than having children.

18) It transforms a couple into a family.

19) An perfect excuse for any unwanted social commitment.

20) You can take personal days even if you personally are not sick.

21) You will stay current with culture.

22) Make you more involved with your community.

23) God says you should.

24) Here's one straight from the mouth a new father: "He smiled at me the other day and it felt like everything was right with the world."

25) Sometimes a story is better than facts. So here's a thousand word story:

my new nephew

South Carolina Politics in a Single Sentence

Whether it's trying to nullify federal law in the 1830's or Mark Sanford's recent "hiking trip", my home state is rarely seen as a hotbed for mainstream political debate. The most recent controversy is the GOP gubernatorial primary featuring an up and coming, Sarah Palin endorsed, already accused adulteress, Nikki Haley. This article describing the ugly primary quotes from an old state legislator who perfectly describes politics in the palmetto state:

South Carolina is too small to be a republic and too large to be an insane asylum.

Audio Made Visual

Floating around the blogosphere recently is the RSA animation series. Here are a couple of my favorites, with short summaries of each:

Dan Pink: Drive: Humans can sometimes have counterintuitive responses to incentives. Higher incentives can sometimes leads to worse performance when complicated cognitive skills are required. You should pay people just enough to where the issue of money is taken off the table. Is this why I've learned so much blogging compared to my formal education?




Barbara Ehrenreich: Smile or Die: There is a darker side to positive thinking, for example, the sub-prime problems. Also, it's cruel to tell unhappy people it's all in their heads and that they just need an attitude change. Optimism can take away people's initiative to improve things. The speaker doesn't want pessimism, just realism. But isn't that what all pessimists say?




Philip Zimbardo: The Secret Powers of Time
There are three main ways of looking at the world. Through the past (nostalgic), through the present (enjoying the fate you've been given), and through the future (plan so you can succeed later in life or in the afterlife). The more future oriented you are, the harder you work and the wealthier you are (for individuals and nations). One thing school tries to do is teach students to become more future oriented.



Here is a blog that has the other audio talks made visual, like one on altruism and another on empathy.

Honest Concerns About Immigration

I am unapologetically in favor of increased immigration into the United States. Of course I prefer it to be done legally, but when that option is unnecessarily difficult, I sympathize with illegal immigration. It is one of the primary reasons the American culture and economy are great. However, an important part of political debate is presenting the benefits and being honest about the costs. So here is a list of some real flaws with increased immigration:

1) If all limitations to immigration are done away with we could theoretically have billions of immigrants. Why be a poor farmer in India when you be a rich (comparably) dishwasher in America. This would very likely drive down wages for some, especially unskilled, workers. After all the only difference between unskilled Americans and the rest of the world is location. Unskilled Americans benefit that there are some jobs that have to be done domestically.

2) This would shift the world's vast inequality to America's shore. The average wage in America would go from $48,000 to $9,000, though most at the bottom would be new immigrants who would be making more than before. The evidence is unclear, but there is a real safety concern that comes with extreme rich and poor living in close quarters. Also, it's not something the poor want (since comparative wealth is what most people care about). Nor is it what the rich want (since seeing the poor is burdensome).

3) There would be an unequal amount of  one race/nationality, namely Mexico. Because of its relatively close location to America's border and it has relative poverty, there would be (and is) a disproportionate amount of Hispanic immigration. This could lead to a strong division in America. Most immigrants to America assimilate quickly because there are huge benefits to doing so. But if the numbers are large enough and your homeland is close enough, there's a chance the transition would take longer.

4) If Mexican immigrants become a significant portion of the American population, it's feasible that they would  see themselves as more Mexican than American. That is what happened 150 years ago when Mexico liberalized its immigration policy to Texas, something it later regretted. It not only creates political tension, but also racial tension. For better or worse, people prefer to be around people who are like them. Worst case scenario is somewhere between a civil war and Mexican terrorists.

5) There would be an increase cost to social programs compared to the increase in taxpayer money. Most immigrants would be poor, so they would likely take more than they give to the government. Everything from the cost of having more poor (Medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc) to bilingual education. In a nation where we want basic necessities to be had by all, this is a real concern.

Like most political changes increased immigration would not be a complete improvement in the lives of all people at all times. Anyone telling you otherwise is being disingenuous. There would be a transfer of wealth from the American uneducated and poor to the world's uneducated and poor. However, I'm confident the benefits to both current and future American citizens would be well worth the previously described costs. Our world is changing faster than it ever has before and that means more improvement, but it also means more painful transition.

Importance of Secular Counseling

Pastor Ted Haggard is well known for his scandal with a male prostitute. He is less well known for his humble and honest personal response to situation. Even going as far to publicly call himself a "a deceiver and a liar". He says he struggled for years, with small bouts of "freedom" every so often, but no real relief. In an interview he wisely describes one of his biggest mistakes:

Spiritual problems can be solved spiritually and physical problems need to be solved physically. Spirituality gives us power to address different issues but if you need an appendectomy you need to go to the hospital. If you need counseling, you need to go to a counselor... I needed counseling and I tried to pray about it and it didn't work. Counseling helped me accept me for who I am so I could get my life in order.

His counselors were professionals who happened to be Christians, not the other way around. There is a negative connotation to the going to therapy that even I have had. My wife and I had premarital counseling and I'm sure we will go to counseling in the future. Not because we have marriage-threatening problems, but because we don't want them.

Related: Ted Haggard is starting a new church, with a tithing lottery.

Red States vs. Red States

The usual mantras of the America's two major political parties are as follows: Republicans want a smaller, less intrusive government and Democrats want a bigger, more helpful government. These generalizations hold even more true when you look at rhetoric, especially economic rhetoric. But apparently it doesn't exactly hold up to the real world:

That is a map of the United States where red states represent those that get more from the federal government than they give. Blue states are the opposite. Now here's a map of the 2008 presidential election:

Apparently both red and blue states act politically opposite of their economic interests.

Takeaways from The Big Kahuna

I was recently encouraged to watch the a movie The Big Kahuna, staring Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito. Not only was the film entertaining, it was full of interesting advice. Here are my takeaways:

Don't qualify compliments. Put yourself out there and vulnerably compliment others.

The world is full of clocks, there are really few reasons to wear a watch.

It's never too early to start thinking about where you're going to end up.

People who look very official while doing their job do so because they don't actually know what they're doing. If you know what you're doing, you don't have to look like you know what you're doing.

Great men aren't those who do no wrong, they are those that can take criticism with gratitude.

Sometimes you have to chew your leg off to get out of life's traps.

Sometimes "principled" people marry another "principled" person only to find out it was their principles that married.

Love has a lot of counterfeits.

The only reason people order sophisticated drinks is to look sophisticated.

God created wives so that they could show men when their being assholes.

A man doesn't know what his soul looks like until he gazes into the eyes of his wife. If he's a decent human being he cries his eyes out, because no man should be comfortable with what he sees.

There are a lot of things in this world that are good for you, even if they're not pleasant.

There is a delicate balance between preaching the gospel and selling Jesus as a product. This is discussed wonderfully here.

When you start steering a conversation you cease being a person and become a marketing rep.

There's a difference between being honest and being blunt.

You gain character by recognizing regret. Not because you've done something worth regretting, but because you recognize you already have plenty of things to regret.

The world will spin without you.

Say I love you to people you love.

As the credits role the famous late 90's song "Wear Sunscreen" plays, which itself is full of good advice. Here is its:

One final thing I take away from this movie is that is was originally a play. I've always been skeptical of the value of live drama compared to those on the silver screen, but I'm sure the dialogue would have been more real in person. My wife and I are taking an anniversary trip to New York City this summer, what should we see?

Reader Request: Should We Boycott BP?

In the past I've been less than optimistic about the individual's ability to directly influence big institutions, be it big government or big business. Instead I've suggested the market, as a collection of individuals, is better at giving you want. So when an old college friend Lindsay, emailed me* this question, I couldn't resist:

Why are people still shopping at bp gas stations? And would it make any difference at all if everyone went some where else?

A great question. Not only for this disaster, but for any time we see corporations misbehaving. There's been examples of boycotts leading to huge social change. America's most famous protest The Boston Tea Party was the culmination of a boycott on British tea by the colonists. The Montgomery Bus Boycott of the 1950's not only gave rise to the Civil Rights Movement's greatest leader, Martin Luther King, it also ended legal support for racial segregation on public transportation. However in both situations it was government, not business that was primarily responsible.

A less famous, but more similar example is the grape boycott of the 1960's led by the César Chávez in a fight over worker compensation. Here's a summary video I show in my own US History class on the boycott. In  the video a vineyard owner very clearly states he changed his labor negotiations exclusively because of the boycott. So, with strong worker and consumer support, boycotts can work as a way to punish companies into doing what you want. That support is hard to gain and maybe more important, keep up. Within a decade of Chávez's grape success, the union he created all but disappeared along with the labor negations. This is not because of weakness on the part of boycotter's, but because of the intense strength of the market. It was always going to push toward equilibrium, no matter how hard the workers pushed back. Luckily the market is doesn't just reward good business, it punishes bad ones as well. Here's what is happening to BP's stock:





BP's stock has lost nearly a quarter of its value since the spill, totaling around $44 billion. This is some knee jerk response. If you look closely the large drop didn't happen when the spill started, but instead when the initial attempts failed. My guess is that when ever the market stabilizes, the amount lost will be fairly close to the costs incurred by BP. The market will punish BP for their huge loss of product and their clean up cost. One concern of victims and taxpayers is that the oil company may not be forced to incur the full cost. The lesson from the Exxon Valdez spill wasn't how to prevent spills, but that we should not allow politicians on the payroll of oil companies to limit their risk. I'm unsure whether the current setup does that or not:

While BP is on the hook for the clean up costs, there is a $75 million cap on an oil company's liability for economic damages, or other damages claimed by individuals or government, under the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund law. That law also established a government reserve funded through taxes on oil companies, as well as fines and penalties in the case of oil spills, to pay for cases like the current oil spill. There is currently $1.6 billion in the reserve, and this disaster could use up to $1 billion of its funds

This fund could be a quasi-efficient way to keep bankrupted companies from leaving the spill clean up to taxpayers. It could also be a way for these companies to get others to foot the bill. It's obvious that BP will suffer a lot because of this spill, whether they will suffer enough is unclear. Instead of boycotting the company, it may be a better use of your time and money to lobby politicians who hold the keys, preferably through a handwritten letter.

*If you ever have a question or suggestion please feel free to comment or contact me privately.

Costs of Economic Productivity

One is less help for strangers:

Independent field experiments in 23 large cities around the world measured three types of spontaneous, nonemergency helping: alerting a pedestrian who dropped a pen, offering help to a pedestrian with a hurt leg trying to reach a pile of dropped magazines, and assisting a blind person cross the street. The results indicated that a city’s helping rate was relatively stable across the three measures, suggesting that helping of strangers is a cross-culturally meaningful characteristic of a place; large cross-cultural variation in helping emerged, ranging from an overall rate of 93% in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, to 40% in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia. Overall helping across cultures was inversely related to a country’s economic productivity

This could be a result of the increased opportunity cost of time that comes with economic growth. It could also be the increased autonomy. Individual independence not only leads to to less empathy for strangers, but also the break down of the traditional family:

It means it's more technically feasible for men and women to live alone. That alone has reduced the marriage rate and increased the divorce rate. It also means wives have had the time to enter the workforce. That's led to more affairs - as men and women meet more often away from their spouses eyes at the workplace. And in giving women an income outside marriage, it's increased their ability to divorce their hubbies.

This, though, is not the only way in which divorce has risen, and marriage fallen, because women no longer need a meal ticket. One feature of economic growth is a decline in relative demand for physical strength and increased demand for intellectual or social skills. This too has led to increased numbers of women workers - and the more skilled among them are not marrying and having children.

A third mechanism is creative destruction. Economic growth is - in the long-run - often fastest where job destruction rates are high, as this frees up resources for more productive uses. But job loss leads to more divorce (pdf), not least because it signals to people that their spouse is no longer the meal ticket they thought.

Also, economic growth is associated (the causality goes both ways) with social and geographical mobility. This means people are less likely to meet like-minded others. That means less chance of marriage, and possibly more chance of bad marriages that don't last.

I don't believe these outweigh the huge benefits of economic growth (long life, better health, increased minority/women's rights, more leisure, etc), but helpful nonetheless.

Emptying the Bottle: Early-June '10 Links

Here is a list of the worthwhile sites I've Bookmarked recently:

• The idea that America spends a lot less on social safety nets than the Nordic countries is not true.
• Before he was president, JFK was a war hero.
• Unmade beds may keep us healthy.
• Internet nerds rescue a damsel in distress.
• Low intelligence, cohabitation, and sexual preference all predict divorce.
• A sensible discussion on the Civil Right Act, on Fox News no less [video].
• Sixteen items only sold at Chinese Wal-marts [photos].
• Chinese will probably not overtake English.
• The Pac-Man game Google put on its home page cost about $120 million in lost productivity.
• Best way to discredit a dictator? Make a fake sex tape.
• The government can't even make a short brownie recipe (earlier).
• Coastlines are counterintuitively hard to measure.

To follow live and to see comments, subscribe via Google Reader.