Against the Stream

I'm Back -- and Mac

Well, it's been a while. Where have I been? Well, for 10 days, I was travelling in Turkey. For the past several days, I've been trying to get over a bad case of jet lag. Add to that the last couple of weeks of class and a misbehaving iPod, and you've got one busy Scott.

Ah yeah. The iPod. Man, if there's someone out there in blogland who can help me with this, I'd be much obliged. For the past several days I've been trying to get the iPod to synch up with my Windows XP machine, but to no avail. They've simply stopped talking to one another. They won't even be seen in the same room together. I'm contemplating very expensive therapy, but if anyone else has a solution, I'd be happy to hear.

On another note, and this isn't what I meant by therapy, I've finally decided to convert. That's right -- I'm switching from Windows to Mac. Truth be told, I've always been a Mac person at heart. My first real computer was a Mac. But like a fool I took the easy path in the 1990s and bought Windows machines, and then got so caught up I didn't think I could go back. But the truth is, I'm must tired of Windows. Let's face it, Mac is easier to use, and it's a cooler machine with better system architecture and a more creative interface. I'm saving box tops as we speak, and expect to be fully Mac-friendly by the end of the summer.

Maybe this will be the therapy that gets my iPod up and running again, but who knows. That's a separate issue.

Ok, back to real blogging in the morning.

Just What IS the Matter With Kansas?

Since the Kansas School Board is currently debating whether to have actual science in their science classes, I thought it might be a good idea to reflect on just what's at stake in the question of whether to make Intelligent Design part of the biology curriculum in the public schools. Here's a tidbit from the good folks over at The Panda's Thumb:

What is the ID argument? Science is ignorant as to how X happened, thus X is complex and specified (specification is a trivial issue in biology) and thus we should accept that X was designed. Ignoring for the moment the somewhat esoteric meaning of ‘design’ and the major flaws in using an eliminative approach, it should be self evident that Dembski is promoting through his explanatory filter, an argument from ignorance. While at the same time adding nothing to scientific knowledge…

Bill Dembski and I both went to Princeton Theological Seminary, and I know several folks who know him and admire his intelligence (anybody who can get a Ph.D. in Mathematics and another in Philosophy is nobody to be trifled with!). But here is a situation where, instead of using his intelligence to try and actually engage in scientific inquiry, he begins with the conclusion he wants to reach (i.e., that "God created the universe" is scientifically demonstrable, or at least, inferrable), and crafts and argument that seems to establish that conclusion. But as the quote above demonstrates, it does nothing of the sort. It sounds good, and it's very complex and nuanced (often involving math and stuff), and so it can cow those of us who aren't as smart as Bill is in those areas.

Luckily, a lot of actual scientists are able to look through the smoke screen and see Intelligent Design for the load of codswallop that it is.

The Politics of Inequality

Kevin Drum has a series of interesting posts at Political Animal on the differences between Democrats and Republicans on the subjects of prosperity and equality. His conclusion: The democrats are better for the country both in terms of making everyone richer, and in terms of making the country more equal. Now, it shouldn't be a surprise that Kevin would think so, or that I would agree with him. But he's got numbers to back him up. Below are some samples of the argument.

First:

The first thing Bartels did was break down economic performance by income class. The unsurprising result is shown in the chart on the right.

Under Democratic presidents, every income class did well but the poorest did best. The bottom 20% had average pretax income growth of 2.63% per year while the top 5% showed pretax income growth of 2.11% per year.

Republicans were polar opposites. Not only was their overall performance worse than Democrats, but it was wildly tilted toward the well off. The bottom 20% saw pretax income growth of only .6% per year while the top 5% enjoyed pretax income growth of 2.09% per year. (What's more, the trendline is pretty clear: if the chart were extended to show the really rich — the top 1% and the top .1% — the Republican growth numbers for them would be higher than the Democratic numbers.)

In other words, Republican presidents produce poor economic performance because they're obsessed with helping the well off. Their focus is on the wealthiest 5%, and the numbers show it. At least 95% of the country does better under Democrats.

But if people tend to vote their pocketbooks ("values" issues aside), why aren't the democrats, so to speak, kicking ass? The argument continues:

If 95% of the country does better under Democrats, and if economic performance is the most important factor in most presidential elections, then how do Republicans ever get elected? The most common hypothesis — spelled out in detail in last year's What's The Matter With Kansas? — is that cultural issues often override economic considerations. But Bartels proposes a surprising alternative explanation illustrated in the two charts below.

The top chart shows income growth during non-election years, and it displays the usual characteristics: under Democrats, income growth is strong overall and the poor do a bit better than the well off. Under Republicans, income growth is weak overall and is tilted heavily in favor of the already prosperous.

But now look at the bottom chart. It shows economic performance during election years and it's a mirror image of the top chart: Republicans produce better overall performance, and they produce especially stupendous performance for the well off. Democrats not only produce poor overall performance, they produce disastrous performance for the well off, who actually have negative income growth.

In other words, voters aren't necessarily ignoring economic issues in favor of cultural issues. Rather, Republicans produce great economic growth for all income classes in election years, and that's all that voters remember. They really are voting their pocketbooks.

Finally, if everyone is getting richer, well, are we getting more or less equal in the process? It turns out that, with the exception of Jimmy Carter (!), Democratic presidents enact policies that distribute that increased wealth more equally, while Republicans enact policies that tilt the benefits of the riches toward, well, the rich:


This graph displays income inequality under Democratic and Republican presidents since 1947. Bartels uses a very simple measure of inequality: the income of the 80th percentile family divided by the income of the 20th percentile family (raw data here). From 1947 through 1969 this ratio was steady at about 3:1, but since then it's risen to about 4:1.

But the graph also shows something else: Democratic presidents tend to promote policies that either keep income inequality in check or lower it a bit (Jimmy Carter is the exception), while Republican presidents pursue policies that make income inequality worse. The upper and lower lines are guesstimates of what income inequality would be if we had followed only Republican policies or only Democratic policies since 1947. Pure Democratic rule would have produced a slight decrease in inequality, while pure Republican rule would have produced a staggering increase in the ratio to 6:1.

This is important because it's at the heart of the difference between liberal and conservative views of what's good for the economy. I won't try to pretend that I can prove this, but I believe pretty strongly that the single most important economic indicator you can look at is the health of the working and middle classes, the (approximately) middle 60% of the country. Why? Because if unemployment is low and middle class incomes are growing, then everyone wins. The poor win because a healthy middle class is more likely to support safety net and anti-poverty programs, and the rich win because a healthy middle class drives overall economic growth.

Conservatives drive up income inequality because they focus primarily on the well off, which benefits only the well off. Liberals keep income inequality in check because they focus (or should focus) primarily on the working and middle classes, which benefits everyone. And that's the underlying reason that Democratic presidents are better for the economy than Republican presidents. If you keep the unemployment level low and middle class incomes growing, the rest of the economy will pretty much take care of itself.

Ok, so I'm partisan, so this is both unsurprising to me, and also an unambiguously good thing. I specify that last because it's not something you can take for granted that a more equal society is a better society.

I'm expecting to receive a book in the next few weeks called The Efficient Society, about the social conditions in Canada. The thrust of the book is that Canada has made some social decisions that have contributed to making it a much more livable society than the United States is, and that these decisions are based on the idea that a society ought to reflect its values. In Canada, they value a greater degree of equality; they value universal health care; they value a high quality of public education, etc. In the United States, we say we value these things, but then declare that our hands are tied to actually achieve these things by our commitment to capitalism and an efficient society. But these aren't givens. We aren't ruled by an economic model. We choose economic models that we then enact as policy.

It's not socialism to suggest that there is a level of inequality that hurts society, and a level of equality that creates a more optimal set of social circumstances. By the same token, I'm not advocating complete equality here. I'm rawlsian at least to this exent: I think that there are reasons to provide incentives for people to perform certain social tasks that they might otherwise decide aren't worth the effort. To the degree that inequality provides those incentives, it's both necessary and desirable. But only to that degree. Beyond that, it's unjust. Democrats tend to recognize that and embrace it (at their best). Republicans don't agree with that, and embrace a different set of values (rooted, I suppose, in the idea of individual achievement and merit). Even at their best, Republicans embrace a set of values that I don't. I guess this is why I vote democratic. On the other hand, if I met a Republican that convinced me that he honestly shared my values, I'd vote for him with little difficulty. (I did, after all, vote for Lowell Weiker for Senate a long time ago).

So, when people talk to you about values. It's worthwhile to ask them to specify the values they have in mind. On economic matters, Democrats and Republicans have embraced different sets of values, and it's up to us to decide which set we find more attractive.

Krugman

As I seem to be pressed for time (and a bit for inspiration) these days, I'm going to link to somebody smarter and more inspired than I. Here's a clip from Paul Krugman's column today:

Hell hath no fury like a scammer foiled. The card shark caught marking the deck, the auto dealer caught resetting a used car's odometer, is rarely contrite. On the contrary, they're usually angry, and they lash out at their intended marks, crying hypocrisy.

And so it is with those who would privatize Social Security. They didn't get away with scare tactics, or claims to offer something for nothing. Now they're accusing their opponents of coddling the rich and not caring about the poor.

Well, why not? It's no more outrageous than other arguments they've tried. Remember the claim that Social Security is bad for black people?

Before I take on this final insult to our intelligence, let me deal with a fundamental misconception: the idea that President Bush's plan would somehow protect future Social Security benefits.

If the plan really would do that, it would be worth discussing. It's possible - not certain, but possible - that 40 or 50 years from now Social Security won't have enough money coming in to pay full benefits. (If the economy grows as fast over the next 50 years as it did over the past half-century, Social Security will do just fine.) So there's a case for making small sacrifices now to avoid bigger sacrifices later.

But Mr. Bush isn't calling for small sacrifices now. Instead, he's calling for zero sacrifice now, but big benefit cuts decades from now - which is exactly what he says will happen if we do nothing. Let me repeat that: to avert the danger of future cuts in benefits, Mr. Bush wants us to commit now to, um, future cuts in benefits.

This accomplishes nothing, except, possibly, to ensure that benefit cuts take place even if they aren't necessary.

And, just to be clear on what the numbers mean:

Suppose you're a full-time Wal-Mart employee, earning $17,000 a year. You probably didn't get any tax cut. But Mr. Bush says, generously, that he won't cut your Social Security benefits.

Suppose you're earning $60,000 a year. On average, Mr. Bush cut taxes for workers like you by about $1,000 per year. But by 2045 the Bush Social Security plan would cut benefits for workers like you by about $6,500 per year. Not a very good deal.

Suppose, finally, that you're making $1 million a year. You received a tax cut worth about $50,000 per year. By 2045 the Bush plan would reduce benefits for people like you by about $9,400 per year. We have a winner!

As Deepthroat once said, "follow the money."

Juggling

Michael Bérubé (who, by the way, helpfully told me how to make the little accents appear above his name, though I find cutting and pasting from his site easier), has a post today on the joys of being an academic parent of a young child. I have to admit, it's a bit of a relief.

The one thing I've found in a year and a half of being a father to be invariably true is that whatever your schedule requires of you, your child's needs will require something else. Gotta teach today? Ah, but the child has a fever and has to stay home from daycare. Need to finish writing that article? The child has a doctor's appointment. Don't get me wrong. I'm glad to do it, but it definitely cramps one's academic style. I'm a pretty fast writer (which compensates for my tendency to procrastinate). I'm very lucky that for most of the time since she was born, my wife and I have been able to arrange our schedules so that one or the other of us could take care of her.

Now that my wife works full time, things become a bit more challenging. Nevertheless, after reading of Michael's woes, having to split childcare with his wife between running to classes, with no babysitter available till the afternoons, I'm feeling very lucky again. Frankly, if it weren't for the flexibility of my schedule, I think Amy and I would go mad trying to do both our work and our parenting. Summer can't get here too fast!

Don't Panic!

My little mini-review of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy? Mostly Harmless.

OK, that was kind of obvious (plus, I think I stole it from another reviewer, but I'm too tired to look it up right now). Essentially, I agree with everything Lindsay says, but would add a few things:

1. She notes that Mos Def turned in a "bland" interpretation of Ford Prefect. I would choose a different word. I would choose a word, like, say ... zombie-like (OK, it's a compound word, but I stand by it). Other reviewers have given him good reviews, and maybe there were some good elements to his performance, but he seemed to be rushing through his lines like he was in a "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Speed Reading Competition." Really didn't like it.
2. She notes that Arthur Dent's movie persona was more likable than his literary persona. I don't think I agree. Because they didn't have any good mechanism to communicate the characters' inner states of mind, it was difficult for me to get into Arthur's head on any subject other than Trillian. He communicated befuddlement alright, but not the sheer abject horror of having your planet blown up and being forced to travel the galaxy in your pajamas while discovering that your planet was a multi-dimensional mouse-commissioned meaning question discovering project and the girl you find attractive prefers the company of loud-mouthed two-headed louts. Yeah. I didn't quite get that.
3. I do agree that Trillian was badly served. One of my lasting memories of my first reading of the Guide at age 13 was Trillian's line: "after all with a degree in math and another in astrophysics what else was there to do? It was either that or back to the dole queue on Monday."
4. And speaking of phrases like "dole queue," my biggest beef with the movie is that, apart from Arthur, the movie just damned isn't British enough! Along with Monte Python, Hitchhiker was my introduction to the droll deadpan tradition of absurdist British Humor (or is it humour?). Kept alive today by Eddie Izzard, it really shaped my understanding of what made funny funny.
5. In line with that, what this movie really needed was Terry Gilliam (who, though not British himself certainly should be considered an honorary Britain.) Had Gilliam's quirky style been brought to bear on the subject, he could have captured the spirit of the novels perfectly.
6. Finally, Lindsay gives Bill Nighy the award for best performance. It's a close call, but I'd have to give it to Alan Rickman as the voice of Marvin. I never much liked Marvin in the old BBC series. He just didn't capture Marvin has he existed in my imagination. Rickman, however, gets him just right. As did the folks who designed Marvin's look for the movie.

With luck, they'll come to their senses and get Gilliam for Restaurant at the End of the Universe, but meanwhile, I wouldn't dissuade you from going to see this one. Be forewarned however, that it inhabits, and indeed defines that area of artistic endeavor known as "the book was better."

Social Security? No. Welfare!

As many have pointed out already (see, for example, here, here, and here), Bush's Social Security plan, as laid out in his speech the other night, is pretty much bad for everyone. It changes the rate of growth in the program from being indexed to wages to being indexed to inflation, which rises more slowly, thus creating a massive cutback in the entire system. Additionally, if you're among the poorest of the poor, at best your benefits stay the same. If you make more than $20,000 a year, you're benefits will be cut. Let me state that again: If you make more than $20,000 a year your benefits will be cut. The claim is that by doing this, it will help shore up the solvancy of the system (which isn't nearly as insolvant as conservatives keep screaming). But by including an insistance on private accounts in the plan, Bush brings in another element: that of making the whole system untenable for anybody but the super-poor. As per Brad DeLong:

What Bush is not telling you is that, under the Bush plan, if you divert $1000 from your Social Security to private accounts, that amount is clawed back--charged to an account associated with your normal Social Security benefit, that amount is then compounded at 3% per year plus the rate of inflation, and then after you retired deducted over time from your normal Social Security benefit.

If you are 45 and if Bush's plan were available today...

Follow George W. Bush's advice, divert $1,000 into your private account, invest it in TIPS, and at the 1.85% per year interest rate you will indeed by able to collect an extra amount worth $10.11 a month in today's dollars when you retire at 65...

But the clawback would reduce your normal Social Security benefit by $14.16 a month. You're $4.05 a month behind.

"Building a nest egg." Feh!

This is certainly a great way to make a plan unpopular among the vast majority of people.

What would the result of this be? Why, a welfare program for the poor, rather than a social insurance program for everybody. And we all know how much the Republicans love welfare programs! As per Max Sawicky:

How stupid do you have to be to buy Bush's line that benefits should increase faster for the poor than for everybody else? This is accomplished by slowing down the 'everybody else' part. Once you reduce everyone to a welare benefit, you know what happen to welfare programs.

Converting Social Security into welfare is a set-up for the old dependency bullshit. I can just hear it now. How, my tuxeedoed friends, do we wean shiftless workers off their dependency on government-supported old age pensions? Let us free them from this cruel myth, that destroys families and fosters a culture of depravity -- too many weekend barbecues, not enough 60 hour work-weeks. Keep those old geezers in the workforce, shoveling McBurgers or whatever. Don't sacrifice our income tax revenues for the sake of Trust Fund debts. What debts? Ha ha! Do it for the children!

After all the blather about rates of return, what do you suppose PPI would do for the middle-class worker's rate of return? Pound it into dust, is what. Under the current program, benefits grow to reflect the worker's standard of living at retirement. The Lowest Deep explained it here and here and here a while back.

You know, it's one thing to have a serious policy debate over whether we want to get rid of social security in the name of a welfare program for the elderly. It's another thing to pretend that's not what we're doing, and then create such a program, with the long-term aim of destroying it.