Monthly Archives: April 2017

Narrower, Deeper, Older

Posted on by

Phil Moss writes,

But the plethora of new dances comes at a cost. It increases our fragmentation. It creates a barrier to entry for both veterans (who come and go at various points in their lives) and for newbies who have to “drink from a firehydrant” in order to become regulars. For veteran non-regulars it becomes daunting to come back and see so many dances they haven’t learned. Unless one attends regularly, one becomes a stranger in a strange land instead of feeling comfortable when “coming home.”

The article is about Israeli folk dancing, which I know interests me a lot more than my readers, so I won’t say “read the whole thing.” Instead, I want to talk about the general trends I see in the way people engage with their interests. You can become engaged with any number of interests, including your religion, a sport, a hobby, your profession, a charitable cause, etc.

I want to offer some observations that apply to the entire class of interests, and I will suggest that “matching technology” (Tyler Cowen’s term) plays a role in these trends. Then I will come back to Israeli Dancing.

My central claim here is that the nature of engagement has changed over the past fifty years, in these three ways:

1. Narrower. There are fewer people casually engaged.

2. Deeper. Those who are engaged are more committed and have deeper knowledge.

3. Older. For any interest that has been around for a long time, the demographics of those interested now skews older.

For example, consider the game of bridge. A social bridge game is four friends getting together in someone’s house to play. A bridge tournament is many strangers competing against one another in a large room. In high school and college, I played a lot of social bridge. In college, I also played some tournament bridge. I then stopped playing for decades.

Fifty years ago, I believe that there were more social bridge players than tournament players. Today, it is closer to the reverse.

When I tried to get back into tournament bridge a few years ago, I found that the “barrier to entry” had gotten much higher. Players expect you to know a plethora of new tactics, which in bridge are known as “conventions.”

The other point to notice was that the median age of players at the tournament seemed to be about 70. Not many young people are willing to get past the barrier to entry.

As another example, consider people with an interest in baseball. Fifty years ago, many casual fans knew the batting averages and home run totals of well-known players. Today, there are fewer fans with that knowledge. Instead, there is a relatively small group of fans whose knowledge includes arcane statistics that did not exist when I was growing up.

Also, I think that interest in baseball skews older, in spite of marketing efforts aimed at the young. My sense is that in the ballpark it is mostly people over age 50 who are paying close attention to the action on the field. The younger people are on their cell phones and/or watching the JumboTron.

I believe that religion is becoming narrower, deeper, and older. A smaller fraction of the population is affiliated with a place of worship, but there may be an uptick among those deeply committed, such as Orthodox Jews. Otherwise, many congregations are thinning out as their populations age and die off.

I suspect that what Tyler Cowen calls “matching technology” (the Internet) plays a big role. Instead of settling for a lowest-common-denominator activity, like a game of social bridge, you can find something that really excites you and connect with people who share your excitement. With better matching technology, the total number of viable interests goes up, and the share of people who settle for activities in which they are only moderately interested goes down.

“Matching” means that any given interest draws a narrower set of people. Those people are more committed, so that the interest becomes deeper, with a higher barrier to entry in terms of study and practice. Finally, as new interests emerge, the population engaged in traditional interests gets older.
Continue reading →

A Seasteading Skeptic

Posted on by

Reviewing a new book on seasteading by Patri Friedman and Joe Quirk, Shlomo Angel writes,

there is also no particular urgency to settle the oceans, as plenty of land remains for building cities: They occupy only about 1% of the land of countries today. And it is much cheaper to build cities on land than on the oceans.

That is somewhat beside the point. All of that land is now claimed by governments, and those governments will not allow you to build a city with its own set of rules.

I hope to review the book at some point.

Interfirm Inequality

Posted on by

Timothy Taylor writes,

a rise in between-firm inequality suggests that the US and other leading economies are becoming a more economically segregated, in the sense that those with high pay and those with lower pay are becoming less likely to have the same employer. It means that the classic “American dream” success story, of someone being hired in the mailroom or as a secretary or janitor, and then getting promoted up the company ladder, is less likely to occur. Nowadays, those jobs in the mailroom or the secretarial pool or the janitorial work are more likely to involve working for an outside contractor. In that sense, some of the rungs on the bottom of the ladder of success have been sawed off.

My thoughts:

1. Perhaps there has been an increase in specialization and a decline in substitutability in labor. In the 1950s, there were a lot of good jobs around that anyone could be trained to do. Today, most of the good jobs require that you have a strong mix of training and credentials to get started. George Romney (Mitt’s father) rose through the ranks at a large automobile company. Today, his lack of formal training would make that impossible.

Note that if there has not been a decline in substitutability, then one is probably going to have a very difficult time explaining this “segregation” phenomenon using strictly economic analysis.

2. Perhaps the phenomenon can be explained in part by Tyler Cowen’s “matching” story. Even among people with equal levels of formal training, perhaps the strongest firms have gotten better at finding the workers with the greatest intangible strengths. Perhaps the ability to match in that way is what makes the strongest firms strong and what enables workers with great intangible strengths to get rewarded.

3. Perhaps what is needed and rewarded in today’s workplace is the ability to work adaptively in teams. That makes organizational culture a key determinant of success. A firm with a better organizational culture can maintain a large advantage over other firms. Such a firm can hire better workers and also reward them better.

4. Speaking of “culture matters,” I recommend Scott Sumner’s post on two Michigan cities.

The Case for Government Statistics

Posted on by

Nicholas Eberstadt, Ryan Nunn, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and Michael R. Strain write,

Objective, impartial data collection by federal statistical agencies is vital to informing decisions made by businesses, policy makers, and families. These measurements make it possible to have a productive discussion about the advantages and disadvantages of particular policies, and about the state of the economy. This document demonstrates a portion of the breadth and importance of government statistics to public policy and the economy.

Pointer from Timothy Taylor. who adds his endorsement.

Cynics who have read James Scott would mutter something about making the citizenry more “legible.”

So be it. I think that the private sector also benefits greatly from government statistics.

But are the data any good? Thomas Piketty, Emmanuel Saez, and Gabriel Zucman write,

Macroeconomics relies on national accounts data to study the growth of national income, while the study of inequality relies on individual or household income, survey, and tax data. Ideally all three sets of data should be consistent, but they are not. The total flow of income reported by households in survey or tax data adds up to barely 60% of the national income recorded in the national accounts, with this gap increasing over the past several decades.

Pointer from Mark Thoma.

The authors proceed to use this data to make dramatic pronouncements and to propose major policy changes. This is the sort of move that disturbs Russ Roberts and me. If you know that the data are too inconsistent to be allowed to speak for themselves, and you know that other methods of working with the data might yield very different results, why do you pretend to speak with the voice of divine revelation?