On becoming a reactionary

So I see that despite the “Great Recession,” they have to pay blue collar workers $112,000/year to get them to get off their ass and go work in N. Dakota:

What has that brought to North Dakota?
Jobs, money, and people. The state now has the lowest unemployment rate in the country, at 3 percent. Its oil industry employs almost 41,000 people, plus 18,000 jobs in peripheral industries. For those working in the “Oil Patch” in the western part of the state, the average annual salary is $112,462. The only requirements to find work are a government-issued ID and a clean criminal record.

And I see that my school district is planning on tearing down perfectly good elementary schools and replacing them with new schools featuring air conditioning.

That’s right, schools not even open during late June, all of July, and all of August . . .

. . . In Massachusetts!

If you live long enough, and if you live in a society where living standards are advancing, you will eventually become a reactionary.  I don’t mean a right-winger, although that may come with it, but rather someone disgusted at how soft the newest generation has become.

I saw this happen to my dad, who was a life-long liberal Democrat.  I swore it wouldn’t happen to me.  But now I’ve become my dad.  I just found out from my daughter that the other kids at her school have iPhones. I suppose that’s no big deal, but it astounded me.

I used to let my knee-jerk reactionary tendencies affect my politics, but I’ve worked hard to overcome that problem.  Yes, the suffering from unemployment is nowhere near as bad as in the 1930s.  Yes, those “without healthcare” get better healthcare by walking into the ER than than Louis XVI had.  But there’s no reason why the way things used to be should have any bearing on how we live today.  The past is like a sunk cost, it’s irrelevant.

So when my daughter told me that in addition to a cafeteria, her new $200 million high school (which replaced a high school built in the 1970s) has a restaurant with sushi and cinnamon-apple tea, I just had to swallow hard and say “that’s nice.”

And the fact that the unemployed are not really like the 1930s version (which explains why Hollywood doesn’t even try to make films like the Grapes of Wrath anymore), is no reason to support a tight money policy.  Excess unemployment still causes suffering, and the world is better off without it.

Anyway, the world is for the young, old guys like me don’t matter.

PS.  You know those stories you hear from old people about how they had to walk 2 miles to school each day, through deep snow, in below zero temps (below minus 18 for you international readers)?  And the schools never ever closed, no matter how deep the snow?  Yup, that’s my childhood in Madison, WI.  Being a reactionary may be stupid, but it’s still very satisfying to talk about.

The internet now allows you to verify if your memories were correct.  I recall driving from Madison to New York in early 1982, leaving on a morning when it was 26 below zero (minus 33 C?)  The chill factor was minus 70. And there it is:

Screen Shot 2013-10-19 at 5.21.18 PM

 

Amazing.  And notice the mild summers–global warming really is happening.

PPS.  If the past is irrelevant, then we are equally irrelevant to the people living in 2113.  They don’t care what we think about morality, public policy, fashion, economics, or anything else.  It doesn’t matter what we “decide” about designer babies or anything else.  It’s their world.  They will view us with contempt.  Or with pity.  Get used to it.

PPPS.  I know an economist who had a tough upbringing.  Grew up in a trailer park, broken home, alcoholic dad, etc, etc.  He’s conservative.  What do I tell him about poverty to get him to change his mind about being a conservative? Do I tell him; “you just don’t understand what it’s like to grow up in a disadvantaged household?”  How well do you think that will work? Suppose that growing up he knew other poor kids who chose not to study hard.  Kids that were bullies.  How would that affect his worldview?  As a utilitarian I try to ignore all the emotional framing.  You want me to have my heartstrings pulled by some sad story of a poor person?  Fine, but then I’ll also let my friend’s story work on my emotions.  Which one will win out?

Or shall I try to blot out all the powerful emotional stories on both the left and the right?  Use reason and logic.  Declining marginal utility of consumption suggests we should do some redistribution, but the powerful effect of incentives on wealth creation suggests we need a quite inegalitarian society, even after we are done.

PPPPS.  Now I know I’m getting really out of touch:

The usually dull arena of highway planning has suddenly spawned intense debate and colorful alliances. Libertarians have joined environmental groups in lobbying to allow government to use the little boxes to keep track of the miles you drive, and possibly where you drive them “” then use the information to draw up a tax bill.


Tags:

 
 
 

37 Responses to “On becoming a reactionary”

  1. Gravatar of Pietro Poggi-Corradini Pietro Poggi-Corradini
    27. October 2013 at 10:38

    I find myself often facing a dichotomy. When making decisions at a personal level, for my family, my career, etc…I tend to let my instincts and gut-feelings take over, and I rarely can formulate logical narratives for what I end up doing. However, when dealing with macro abstract issues, such as, should the Fed loosen or tighten, or should we tax the rich, or should we open borders, etc…then I drop gut-feelings to the side and try to look for facts and logical arguments.

  2. Gravatar of F. Lynx Pardinus F. Lynx Pardinus
    27. October 2013 at 11:16

    “It’s their world. They will view us with contempt. Or with pity. Get used to it.”

    For whatever reason, I had this feeling earlier in the year while watching the movie Lockout, set in 2079. I was watching the ending, and it hit me that that Guy Pearce’s character might be a grandchild of mine, and he will have his own happy moments and sad moments and space prison gunfights, and I will not be alive to see any of it, and it was a really strange feeling.

  3. Gravatar of Brett Brett
    27. October 2013 at 11:20

    I don’t know about that “little box taxing mileage” thing. It just seems so much easier and less tamper-able to rely on a straight-up, one-time tax on gasoline at the point of sale.

    The “sushi” thing is a bit surprising, but only a bit. Sushi is pretty cheap now, with the local Smith’s selling it (and it’s usually the cheapest thing at the “Japanese sushi and steakhouse” places that have been popping up all over the place here). I’m more surprised that a school actually had that kind of fresh food.

    I’ve thought about doing the North Dakota move, but my background is in banal office work and a summer doing deliveries at a construction firm – not sure I could get one of the good jobs there. And I’ve heard that the living expenses up there get pretty brutal, especially housing (lots of people were living in trailers and their cars a year back). Still, it’s a pretty good example of how awesome things can be in a booming market with a whole ton of demand for labor.

  4. Gravatar of Brett Brett
    27. October 2013 at 11:24

    @F.Lynx

    For whatever reason, I had this feeling earlier in the year while watching the movie Lockout, set in 2079. I was watching the ending, and it hit me that that Guy Pearce’s character might be a grandchild of mine, and he will have his own happy moments and sad moments and space prison gunfights, and I will not be alive to see any of it, and it was a really strange feeling.

    I’ve had that too. I might survive to see that day, although I would be 95 years old. But there will be some other day that I probably won’t see in 2100, 2200, and 2500. That makes me sad, since I’d love nothing more than to see how humanity plays out.

    Oh, well. Things could be pretty strange down the line, so maybe that’s for the best. Not just everyone having iPads, or even the stuff everyone expects (i.e. more robots), but weird stuff like sharing memories and desire modification.

  5. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    27. October 2013 at 11:29

    Scott, why don’t you call out Jonathan Haidt

    http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/10/inquiring-minds-jonathan-haidt-tea-party

    All his research indicates is that the perfect compromises are ones where we both:

    1. Ensure and lazy asses can’t take advantage.
    2. Make sure anyone who wants to work can cover their nut.

    Friedman had NIT, you’ve got GI / CYB, get out there and push the discussion into compromise solutions.

  6. Gravatar of F. Lynx Pardinus F. Lynx Pardinus
    27. October 2013 at 11:29

    On the other hand, I could be like Rob Lowe’s character, Chris Traeger, in Parks and Recreation: “Scientists believe that the first human being who will live 150 years has already been born. I believe I am that human being.” 😉

  7. Gravatar of jknarr jknarr
    27. October 2013 at 12:07

    The US is going through a spate of over consumption, due to the world’s demand for dollars, which fund industrial development and access to oil markets abroad. Won’t last forever. Also note that a now-majority (plus public workers) in the US are now at least partially dependent on federal government benefits for this consumption.

    “I posses a device, in my pocket, that is capable of accessing the entirety of information known to man. I use it to look at pictures of cats and get into arguments with strangers.” Count me a reactionary. 🙂

  8. Gravatar of Luis Pedro Coelho Luis Pedro Coelho
    27. October 2013 at 12:17

    “Declining marginal utility of consumption suggests we should do some redistribution, but the powerful effect of incentives on wealth creation suggests we need a quite inegalitarian society, even after we are done”

    Declining marginal utility of consumption may also suggests that redistribution is less important as society gets richer.

    If some people make $2000 and others $20,000, I think you have a stronger case for redistribution than if some make $20,000 and others 200,0000.

  9. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    27. October 2013 at 12:44

    Luis, yes.

    The reason not to worry about the cost of the safety net is bc the cost of delivering it shrinks relative to growth over time.

  10. Gravatar of Morgan Warstler Morgan Warstler
    27. October 2013 at 12:45

    Instead we just focus on the productivity of the wealth transfer, and demanding the recipients work for someone elses ROI.

  11. Gravatar of benjamin cole benjamin cole
    27. October 2013 at 12:55

    In my day, kindergarten was optional…age 5. No w they insist 3-year-olds will be disadvantaged if they do not go to pre-school…but then, at the height of the Cold War one could board domestic flights without even showing ID…somehow we survived without an NSA monitoring every communication…
    Reactionary? Don’t get me started…

  12. Gravatar of Dan S Dan S
    27. October 2013 at 14:27

    “So when my daughter told me that in addition to a cafeteria, her new $200 million high school (which replaced a high school built in the 1970s) has a restaurant with sushi and cinnamon-apple tea, I just had to swallow hard and say “that’s nice.””

    And yet I doubt the sushi will do anything to make your average middle or high schooler’s time there any more or less miserable. Funny how that works.

  13. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    27. October 2013 at 14:28

    jknarr, The percentage on benefits being reported in the press is not accurate. It’s not that high.

    Luis, I agree.

    Morgan, Yes, no welfare for those able to work, but not working.

  14. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    27. October 2013 at 15:14

    Great post!

    “I swore it wouldn’t happen to me.”

    The word I use here is curmudgeon, and, unlike you, I have looked forward to the day when I could let my inner curmudgeon out for decades. I’m closing in on 50, which I think is a good rule of thumb here.

  15. Gravatar of Brian Donohue Brian Donohue
    27. October 2013 at 15:17

    Also, this was covered in The Simpsons, natch:

    Bart: Who’s that, George?

    George Bush: That’s me with Charlton Heston. He was–

    Bart: Who’s that, George?

    George Bush: Er…see, you wouldn’t know him. That’s Bob Mosbacher. He was secretary of–

    Bart: That’s a dumb name. Who’s that, George?

    George Bush: Maybe he thinks “Bart” is a dumb–

    Bart: How many times were you president, George?

    George Bush: You know, in my day, little boys didn’t call their elders by their first name.

    Bart: Yeah? Well, welcome to the 20th century, George!

  16. Gravatar of jknarr jknarr
    27. October 2013 at 16:18

    Well, here we have 108,592,000 on benefits.

    http://www.census.gov/sipp/tables/quarterly-est/household-char/2011/4-qtr/table2.xls

    There were some 101,716,000 full time workers, 16,761,000 are government with median pay of $50,267.

    http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/cpstables/032012/perinc/pinc07_2.xls

    76,031,000 full time private sector workers, with median pay of $40,965.

    Looking closely at this data, it’s no wonder they’re building a police state. Takers far outnumber makers. You can’t vote your way out of this one.

  17. Gravatar of Geoff Geoff
    27. October 2013 at 16:48

    Speaking of “soft”, I recently heard something about NGDPLT giving help to people who made mistakes.

  18. Gravatar of Daniel Daniel
    27. October 2013 at 17:00

    Yeah Geoff, because economics is a morality play.

  19. Gravatar of Dan S Dan S
    27. October 2013 at 18:04

    “And the fact that the unemployed are not really like the 1930s version (which explains why Hollywood doesn’t even try to make films like the Grapes of Wrath anymore)”

    This is an interesting comment. Seems like in the popular imagination low-income people today are not seen as a guy in a Norman Rockwell painting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Speech_(painting)) but more like a person on an episode of Cops.

  20. Gravatar of Tom Tom
    27. October 2013 at 18:09

    jknarr’s spreadsheet is so instructive as to the mindset of the loons on the right.

    Look who he includes in the group of the takers. Those on Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and our Vets.

    His post is noticeably absent of the following takers:

    Doctors
    Dentists
    Optometrists
    Lawyers
    Engineers
    Owners of “intellectual property”
    Patent holders

    And so on and so forth. And you wonder why the Republican party has a 25% approval rate?

  21. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    27. October 2013 at 18:51

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

  22. Gravatar of Steve Steve
    27. October 2013 at 18:51

    Looks like you grew up during an ice age:

    http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/clim-history/stations/msn/MSN-TS-ANN-T.gif

  23. Gravatar of jknarr jknarr
    27. October 2013 at 18:52

    Tom, sorry to say, but you may be a bit stupid.

    “One or more means-tested programs 108,592”

    You’re looking at different numbers.

    Free government cheese + lots of stupid = very popular

  24. Gravatar of Saturos Saturos
    27. October 2013 at 18:52

    Oh, and the idea that human reason can operate without emotion, or that “utility judgements” of any kind don’t inescapably depend on our emotional hardwiring, is nonsense. Rationality proceeds from recognizing that, and seeing what dialogue/self-modification is still possible.

  25. Gravatar of Tom Tom
    27. October 2013 at 18:56

    jknarr…egregious error on my part. My apologies.

  26. Gravatar of jknarr jknarr
    27. October 2013 at 19:24

    Tom, admirably made and accepted. I am curious why you consider doctors, patent holders, engineers that way. Maker/taker is politically loaded, I know, but it seems to me that those guys create a lot of useful value.

  27. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    27. October 2013 at 20:19

    jknarr, It’s interesting how many people fall for that phony data, perhaps I should do a post.

    Saturos, I agree, but one must do one’s best to avoid being biased by how issues are framed. Otherwise all is lost.

  28. Gravatar of Tom Tom
    27. October 2013 at 20:37

    jknarr,

    Let me just take optometrists as an example because I’ve recently had to get new contacts so it’s been on my mind.

    In order to legally get those new contacts, I had to go to an eye “doctor” for a prescription. If it wasn’t for the fact that government requires 8 years of schooling and a license, do you really think an optometrist could make 150k a year?

    This is an example of government redistributing wealth upwards but it’s one you’ll never hear politicians talk about.

  29. Gravatar of jknarr jknarr
    27. October 2013 at 21:14

    Scott, interesting! Want to know more.

    Tom, agreed, licensing is out of control.
    http://hbr.org/2012/04/the-overlicensed-society/ar/1

    Professionals ought to get a premium for fiduciary responsibilities, but the market and professional voluntary organizations should price that out, not big brother.

  30. Gravatar of W. Peden W. Peden
    28. October 2013 at 01:30

    “And I see that my school district is planning on tearing down perfectly good elementary schools and replacing them with new schools featuring air conditioning.

    That’s right, schools not even open during late June, all of July, and all of August . . .

    . . . In Massachusetts!”

    I’ve been to Massachusetts in summer: the summer of 2003 (mostly August) which was a very hot summer in the Boston area and IIRC New England generally. As a Scotsman, I reserve the right to complain about any weather that is hotter than 20 degrees C. Yet, as an easily-distracted school pupil, I was ploughing through books by Orwell and a lot of religious theory. (I was an awkward teen in a country where I knew literally no-one my own age.) This was in a house with no air-conditioning and at most one fan per room. A building in Massachussets would have to be extremely poorly designed to need air-conditioning outwith summer!

    However, school rebuilding & refurbishment is a good vote-winner. In the UK, one perennial problem is a lack of capacity in good schools and a lack of good schools in some areas. This makes it hard to close failing schools and to make promises of school choice into a reality. Addressing this problem is less politically profitable than satisfying existing interests, and so the last eight years or so have seen a massive rebuilding/refurbishment of EXISTING schools under the “Building Schools for the Future” capital investment programme. Now my old high school doesn’t have much (any?) more capacity, but it does have a neon sign on top of it that (a) can’t be seen from the road, (b) is only lit at night, and (c) would be totally superfluous even if (a) and (b) weren’t true. All this in an area where erosion means that some roads are very potholed and crumbling at the sides, due to a shortage of capital investment in the face of rain-erosion.

    “If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in five years there’d be a shortage of sand.” – Milton Friedman, though he could have just said ‘government’.

  31. Gravatar of Geoff Geoff
    28. October 2013 at 03:13

    Daniel:

    “Yeah Geoff, because economics is a morality play.”

    Tell that to Sumner, and yourself.

  32. Gravatar of Geoff Geoff
    28. October 2013 at 03:16

    Daniel:

    Every other blog post is a plea of what should be done, what the Fed ought to do, etc, etc, etc.

    There are few if any actual economics blos posts that describe economic reality as it must be at all times at all places. That is the science of economics.

    What you and most others are doing here is pretending you’re not in the morality play you’re putting on under the guise of science.

  33. Gravatar of libertaer libertaer
    28. October 2013 at 04:50

    Scott, there’s one thing, I always wanted you to ask.

    Taking a list of the most important issues, you mentioned lately, and categorizing them into leftwing or rightwing, based on my German understanding of these labels, but I think it’s the same understanding in the US (and I’m not talking about actual politics by Republicans or Democrats or right- and leftwing parties in Europe), I get this:

    You want to end or abolish:

    1. War on drugs (leftwing issue)
    2. Immigration restrictions (extreme left-wing issue)
    3. Bloated and dangerous military (leftwing)
    4. Costly and wasteful healthcare (depends, but in your case: leftwing, since you favor universal healthcare. You want to cut cost without cutting access for the poor. Now, our costs are their income, the medical profession likes its income and they are in bed with right wing parties, ergo: leftwing.)
    5. Unemployment (leftwing)
    6. War on terror (leftwing)
    7. Public schools (rightwing)
    8. Global warming (leftwing)
    9. Occupational licensing laws (neutral)
    10 Income taxes (rightwing, but your progressive consumption tax is leftwing)
    11. Laws restricting sexual freedom (leftwing)
    12. Low wages (leftwing)
    13. 21 drinking age (leftwing, I guess???)

    Since you are also in favor for land value taxes and less intellectual property rights and -let us not forget- NGDP targeting, this takes away the point you get for abolishing taxes on capital.

    So we end up with public school vs. school vouchers… Since left-wingers are in bed with teacher unions, I give you that one point.

    There are others points not on the list, like your opposition to minimum wages and what’s your opinion on subsidies for art and culture (museums, movies, theater, opera…)? If you oppose them too, that would bring another rightwing point.

    But even if you could score some more on minor issues, just being in favor for more immigration is so outrageous for right-wingers (even for most moderate leftists), it overshadows everything else.

    I’m even a bit more libertarian than you (no “forced pension savings” for me and no low wage subsidies either) but I would never consider myself rightwing or conservative.

    So what qualifies you as a right-winger?

  34. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    28. October 2013 at 05:15

    W, Peden, Yes it can be hot by Scottish standards, in the summer. There are about 1 or 2 hot days a year in the fall, and perhaps 3 or 4 in the spring.

    jknarr, I have a new post.

  35. Gravatar of mpowell mpowell
    28. October 2013 at 11:20

    Declining marginal utility of consumption suggests we should do some redistribution, but the powerful effect of incentives on wealth creation suggests we need a quite inegalitarian society, even after we are done.

    I tend to agree with this. Even though I consider myself a liberal, I find that this is a point many on the left don’t appreciate. I suspect it is because so many of them are academics, which is not a career you do for the money. But yeah, people need incentives. For most of us, it’s about the money.

  36. Gravatar of TallDave TallDave
    28. October 2013 at 12:03

    And notice the mild summers-global warming really is happening.

    Since 1982, yes. Since 1932… no one really knows for sure, but until the 1990s everyone agreed it got colder from the 1930s to the 1970s.

  37. Gravatar of Gordon Gordon
    28. October 2013 at 16:58

    “And notice the mild summers-global warming really is happening.” Climatologists and other scientists on both sides of the debate agree that there was warming in the 20th century. The dispute is how much man made carbon dioxide contributed to the warming. Just as you caution reasoning from a price change, similar caution is needed reasoning from a temperature change.

    Some scientists point out that there’s a stronger correlation to temperature change and the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface than there is to carbon dioxide. There are solar physicists who believe that variation in the strength of solar cycles accounts for more of the temperature change than has been recognized by the IPCC. Climatologists have dismissed solar cycle strength as a factor because they have focused on the variance of heat and light emitted by the sun between solar cycles of different strengths. Solar physicists have pushed back on this by pointing out that the strength of the solar wind affects cloud formation on Earth and it’s a mistake for the climatologists to ignore this effect.

Leave a Reply