Joe Machi offers a good perspective

I happened to catch a part of Last Comic Standing while Joe Machi was on. He offers a perspective that I have offered many times, but you just don’t hear enough. Start watching at 1:28 into the video.

It starts:

My married couple friends said, “Joe, we don’t want to bring a child into the world, the way the world is now.”  And I’m like, “What do you mean, the way the world is now? The best it’s ever been in history? Two hundred years ago, people were having 15 kids. Most of them would die. Most of your life was having kids, then watching them die. Then you would die…of something they prevent now by washing your hands.”

When people ask, “How are you doing?” I often reply, “Much better than my hunter-gatherer ancestors.”

Better than charity

I agree (2nd to last paragraph), somewhat, with Google founder Larry Page: Give money to capitalists instead of charity (via Carpe Diem).

Where I disagree is that you don’t need to give them money. Rather, invest in them. Invest in entrepreneurship. Maybe get kids diddling less time away chasing college scholarships to play sports heavily subsidized by taxpayers and more time creating stuff of value.

Here’s more from me and Richard Branson on the subject.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Middle class is okay

One sign of lackluster American education is that politicians who use the shrinking middle class prop get votes instead of laughs.

Post title from Carpe Diem: “Today’s new homes are 1,000 square feet larger than in 1973, and the living space per person has doubled over last 40 years”

Weathermen are smart enough to look out the window to make sure that what they see with their own two eyes matches with their models and instrument.

If you believe the shrinking middle class myth, I suggest spending more time looking out your window and paying attention. Not only have house sizes grown, but middle class homes also include many more amenities than even 15 years ago such a bathroom (or at least bathroom sink) for everyone, walk-in closets, jetted tubs, three car garages, finished basements and the new trend, outdoor living spaces, to name a few.

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Great Stagnation: Evidence in “Back to the Future?”

At lunch yesterday, a friend said that he has been watching the Back to the Future movies with his children and commented on how much he missed in those when he watched them as a kid.

I had the same experience a while ago when I watched them with my kid. I was amazed at how the makers of the film captured the differences in the times. Things like how the desirable subdivision that was being built in 1985 in an open field on the outskirts of town had gone down hill by 2015. Or, how absurd it seemed, even to a brilliant scientist, that a b-list actor in 1955 could become president by 1985.

While we enjoyed those movies as kids, we hadn’t been around long enough to witness the changes through the decades and see how well that was captured.

However, one comment at lunch got me to thinking. One friend laughed about what the film makers thought 2015 would look like. It was a bit too futuristic.

Could this be evidence for Tyler Cowen’s Great Stagnation?

The movie makers did a great job of capturing differences between 1955 and 1985, even 1885 (gritty water and food with buck shot) and 1985. Those time periods had already happened, so that was easy. You just needed some folks who understood the changes and progress that had been made.

Those time periods happened mostly during the time that Cowen contends standards of living improved faster because there was a lot of “low hanging fruit.”

Now, consider the film makers in the 1980s trying to project what life would be like in 2015. The only template they had to guess was how much life had changed in the previous 30 – 100 years.

Could it be that they thought similar advances would be made? Could the fact that we don’t yet have hover boards be evidence that Cowen is correct and that growth stagnated in the 70s and haven’t yet recovered? Is anybody developing a hover board? If so, let me know.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Bad cause-and-effect

I just caught a TV news snippet comparing leisure time now to sometime in the 1950s or 60s.

Apparently, we spend 42 hours a week on leisure activities now compared with 36 hours back then. They said something like: We spend more time doing whatever we want now. What has caused this? The rise in the number of part-time jobs.

My guess is that is a result, not a cause.

I’d also guess that we have more leisure time now because we can afford more. We trade work for leisure because things have gotten better and we can afford to — or we can work less to have the lifestyle we prefer.

The rise in part-time jobs may have resulted from being able to afford to choose to work less.

What if we discovered that the average family takes more vacations than they did in the 1950s? What caused this? The rise in the places to go on vacation.

Update: Thanks to ColoComment for the link to the BLS leisure time study press release.

Let’s add this to the curriculum

(HT: The Last Embassy)

I wish this video of the Tommy Lee Jones look-alike would have been part of the curriculum when I was in high school.

Shrinking middle class prop

Two non-pathetic economists, Don Boudreaux and Mark Perry (one has bought me beer), write in the Wall Street Journal today that the shrinking middle class is a nothing more than a political prop.

You should read their criticisms of cost and wage measurements. But, here are a few points that are more compelling to the average joe. First, the basics have never cost us less:

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, spending by households on many of modern life’s “basics”—food at home, automobiles, clothing and footwear, household furnishings and equipment, and housing and utilities—fell from 53% of disposable income in 1950 to 44% in 1970 to 32% today.

Second, gadgets of prosperity are available to all:

Today, the quantities and qualities of what ordinary Americans consume are closer to that of rich Americans than they were in decades past. Consider the electronic products that every middle-class teenager can now afford—iPhones, iPads, iPods and laptop computers. They aren’t much inferior to the electronic gadgets now used by the top 1% of American income earners, and often they are exactly the same.

Finally, a true measure. Would you trade what you earn and have today with someone from the 1950s or 70s?

Even though the inflation-adjusted hourly wage hasn’t changed much in 50 years, it is unlikely that an average American would trade his wages and benefits in 2013—along with access to the most affordable food, appliances, clothing and cars in history, plus today’s cornucopia of modern electronic goods—for the same real wages but with much lower fringe benefits in the 1950s or 1970s, along with those era’s higher prices, more limited selection, and inferior products.

I can’t believe anyone buys the shrinking middle class barb. For those of us that have been around for more than a couple of decades, we don’t need economists to point out that the suburban blossom of mcmansions and the roads becoming clogged 4×4 family passenger trucks occurred during this period where the middle class supposedly shrunk.