Amy Phillips made me laugh out loud this morning. As I am about to have my a** handed to me in my Phil 174 final tomorrow, that is an accomplishment. Here’s what she wrote:
“American society makes a lot of arbitrary divisions between different types of animals. There are food animals, mainly distinguishable by the fact that they are privately owned and raised for the purpose of slaughter. There’s wildlife, those animals that live in unpopulated areas and are nice to look at. There are hunting animals, which live in unpopulated areas and are nice to shoot at. There are pests, mostly classified as such because they bother humans or animals that humans like. And then there are pets, animals we take into our homes and make members of our family…”
I’ve been claiming for a while now that families that can afford to do so should educate their own darn children, in part because children (and for that matter, education) are not public goods.
Today, I wandered across a study that bent my brain in that lovely way arguments do that make glaringly obvious things one hasn’t considered. Michele Boldrin and colleagues have apparently linked the existence of government pension programs such as Social Security to falling fertility rates.
If a causal relationship does exist, then it would appear that we have transformed children into a public good. Traditionally, older people would expect to be cared for by their children, so it was important to have some of your own. Social Security and Medicare make it possible to be cared for by other people’s children. These programs reduced the expected value of having children at the same that childrearing costs were going up rapidly due to educational expenses.
Of course, most people have families for reasons unrelated to their finances. But at the margin, increased costs and reduced benefits should both affect fertility. People who skip childrearing entirely and then collect Social Security are free riders.
If you haven’t already, check out this very interesting Wired article on the Flynn Effect. So that’s why kids think older folks are clueless!
In today’s New York Times, Stephen Pinker evaluates research exploring a possible link between genes and sexual orientation. He writes:
“Homosexuality is a puzzle for biology, not because homosexuality itself is evolutionarily maladaptive (though no more so than any other sexual act that does not result in conception), but because any genetic tendency to avoid heterosexual opportunities should have been selected out long ago. Perhaps ‘gay genes’ have some other compensating advantage, like enhancing fertility…”
Now, this is mostly tongue-in-cheek, but could the above analysis suggest an explanation for the widespread perception that gay men are disproportionately handsome? Perhaps the ‘gay genes’ that have survived over the centuries are the ones carried by men so pretty that women practically tackle them.
From The Economist:
“John Prescott, the deputy prime minister, chats with Mark Choueke, a reporter from the South Wales Argus:
Prescott: Where do they get these amateurs from? You’re an amateur mate, go get on your bus, go home.
Choueke: Are you too big for the regional press now John?
Prescott: Bugger off. Get on your bus you amateur.
Choueke: Is my interview over John? Because if that’s all you’ve got to say, that’s what will go in the paper.
Prescott: Ooohh, I’m scared.”
I laud Utah’s recalcitrance about the No Child Left Behind Act in Reason this week.
Yes, Iââ¬â¢m sorry Iââ¬â¢ve not been around. Iââ¬â¢ve been very busy with Cato work, and now final exams are looming. On a more positive note, Iââ¬â¢ll be in DC all summer beginning May 29th. Itââ¬â¢ll be nice to be back in town! Iââ¬â¢m sure blogging will pick up then as well.