Category: Science and Other News

There are Very Few “Deserving Poor” ― Other Than Immigrants, That Is

Most reviewers have panned the Heritage Foundation’s new immigration study. (See Keith Hennessey, for example.) Yet, Bryan Caplan notes that Robert Rector (co-author of the study) has done some excellent work demonstrating that there are not very many poor people who are deserving of our charity. For example:

The vast majority of America’s “poor” are rich by world and historic standards. 82% of poor American adults say they were never hungry during the last year because they couldn’t afford food; 96% of poor American parents say their children never went hungry because they couldn’t afford food. Half of poor Americans live in a single-family home, and 41% own their own home. Poor Americans have 60% more living space than the average European. 82% of poor Americans have air conditioning. 64% have cable or satellite T.V. 40% own a dishwasher. 34% have a T.V. that would have made billionaires drool in 1990. Materially speaking, poor Americans are doing just fine.

Furthermore, they could easily be not poor: “Most poor American adults could have avoided their situation with prudent behavior ― especially by delaying childbearing until they marry.”

[O]ver 60 percent of fathers who have children outside of marriage earned enough at the time of their child’s birth to support their potential family with an income above the poverty level even if the mother did not work at all. If the unmarried father and mother married and the mother worked part-time, the typical family would have an income above 150 percent of poverty, or roughly $35,000 per year.

But then Caplan cites Rector for lack of moral consistency. Most poor immigrants are “deserving.” Their poverty is no fault of their own.

Why You Are Fat; Or Not Fat

The hypothalamus, which monitors the body’s available energy supply, is at the center of the brain’s snack-food signal processing. It keeps track of how much long-term energy is stored in fat by detecting levels of the fat-derived hormone leptin — and it also monitors the body’s levels of blood glucose, minute-to-minute, along with other metabolic fuels and hormones that influence satiety. When you eat a cookie, the hypothalamus sends out signals that make you less hungry. Conversely, when food is restricted, the hypothalamus sends signals that increase your desire to ingest high-calorie foods. The hypothalamus is also wired to other brain areas that control taste, reward, memory, emotion and higher-level decision making. These brain regions form an integrated circuit that was designed to control the drive to eat.

Source: The New York Times.

Where Did We Come From?

Alexei Sharov of the National Institute on Aging in Baltimore and Richard Gordon of the Gulf Specimen Marine Laboratory in Panacea, Florida…concluded that genome complexity doubles every 376 million years in a sort of geological version of Moore’s Law of progress in computers.

When the researchers extrapolate the chart backward, they find the origin of life must have happened almost 10 billion years ago, long before Earth existed. Therefore life may have spent its first five billion years on a different planet and got here as bacterial spores deep inside rocks that drifted through the vacuum after some cosmic explosion.

Matt Ridley from the WSJ.

The Case for Progressive Taxation Just Vanished

Despite graph after graph depicting increasing income yielding diminishing marginal gains in subjective wellbeing, Stevenson and Wolfers have found just the opposite.

  • After analyzing multiple datasets, the new research shows that there is no satiation point, which means that each additional dollar of income does yield more happiness.
  • The results are consistent when the data is varied by time, subjective wellbeing is measured in various ways and income has various thresholds.
  •  The measures are also consistent across countries and when comparing the rich and poor people within different countries.

Daily Policy Digest review.

Myths about Austerity

Three points from Arnold Kling:

  • There is no austerity budget: As a percent of GDP, federal government spending is above the past 40 year average.
  • The only significant decrease in spending is “net interest.”
  • There has been no decrease in domestic discretionary spending.

Can Sociopaths Be Detected with an MRI Scan?

More than 100 studies of twins and adopted children have confirmed that about half of the variance in aggressive and antisocial behavior can be attributed to genetics. Other research has begun to pinpoint which specific genes promote such behavior. (More).

Before There Was Medicare There Was…

Uwe Reinhardt observes,

Sometime around 1780-70 B.C., the Babylonian King Hammurabi promulgated the now famous Code of Hammurabi, covering both civil and criminal law…Remarkably, it has echoes also in modern health policy in the United States. [Hint: it's the forerunner of Medicare.]

Among the 282 laws in Hammurabi’s Code, nine (215 to 223) pertain to medical practice:

215. If a physician makes a large incision with an operating knife and cures it, or if he opens a tumor (over the eye) with an operating knife, and saves the eye, he shall receive 10 shekels in money.

216. If the patient is a freed man, he receives five shekels.

217. If he is the slave of someone, his owner shall give the physician two shekels.

218. If a physician makes a large incision with the operating knife, and kills him, or opens a tumor with the operating knife, and cuts out the eye, his hands shall be cut off.

219. If a physician makes a large incision in the slave of a freed man, and kills him, he shall replace the slave with another slave.

220. If he had opened a tumor with the operating knife, and put out his eye, he shall pay half his value.

221. If a physician heals the broken bone or diseased soft part of a man, the patient shall pay the physician five shekels in money.

222. If he were a freed man he shall pay three shekels.

223. If he were a slave his owner shall pay the physician two shekels.

Driverless Cars: Boon or Bane?

The good: Driverless vehicles are expected to help children, the blind, the elderly and others who currently cannot safely drive themselves.

The not so good: Smarter driving will lead to more driving, because smarter driving reduces the cost per mile of vehicle usage. The end result of additional driving could be more traffic and more aggregate fuel consumption.

The economics: Fuel and wear and tear cost roughly 50 cents a mile, which is why employers reimburse employees for job-related personal vehicle usage at about that rate. At an average speed of 30 miles an hour (including stops, traffic conditions and so on), each mile takes two minutes of driver time. For those who value their time at more than $15 an hour, the time cost of the trip exceeds the combined fuel and wear and tear costs.

The behavioral response: Research has shown that cutting travel costs through reduced gas prices causes people to drive more, for example by eschewing carpools and public transportation. A driverless car should also cause people to use their vehicles for more miles, because they could use their time in the car to sleep, work, watch television, read a book and do other things they might normally do at home.

More from Casey Mulligan.

The Education Achievement Gap

The gap between rich and poor children is growing:

In the 1980s, on an 800-point SAT-type test scale, the average difference in test scores between two such children would have been about 90 points; today it is 125 points. This is almost twice as large as the 70-point test score gap between white and black children. Family income is now a better predictor of children’s success in school than race.

This is from the NYT.

The Politicization of Economic Research

Their integrity is challenged. They are belittled and humiliated. They are shunned at faculty gatherings and at professional societies. If they don’t already have tenure, they won’t get it. Their submissions to peer reviewed journals are summarily rejected. They are, in short, academic pariahs.

I’m speaking about anyone in climate science who dares to be a skeptic about the orthodox theory of global warming. (Never mind that there has been no warming for the past 15 years.) Climate science has been completely politicized for more than a decade.

Sadly the same thing appears to be happening in economics. The routine intellectual dishonesty and character assassinations one finds in Paul Krugman’s columns appear to be spreading. The target this time is the research of Harvard economists, Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff (R&R). See this very good overview of the entire controversy. Here is what R&R wrote the other day in The New York Times:

Our research, and even our credentials and integrity, have been furiously attacked in newspapers and on television. Each of us has received hate-filled, even threatening, e-mail messages, some of them blaming us for layoffs of public employees, cutbacks in government services and tax increases. As career academic economists (our only senior public service has been in the research department at the International Monetary Fund) we find these attacks a sad commentary on the politicization of social science research.