October 3, 2020
Virtual commuting, weather forecasting, basic science, Biden learning from Trump
Welcome to the Weekend Reccs. Today’s world is curious and cacophonous. This newsletter delivers an eclectic sample of some of the best things to read, watch, and ponder over your weekend. There’s a lot of economics and politics, but there is also so much more.
If you were forwarded this from a friend be sure to subscribe to never miss an issue. If you aren’t sure this is for you, keep reading—you’ll have another opportunity at the end!
Hi friends,
A quick apology for missing last week’s Reccs. Honestly, I didn’t have enough good material to feel it was worthwhile reading, so I didn’t want to jam up inboxes. I hope you can understand. Thanks to everyone who checked in on me — and the Reccs. (:
The Weekend Reccs
Virtual Commuting: Yet another link about Microsoft Teams! The idea of virtual commuting with a little guided meditation and form is a great idea, but as the article alludes to, it won’t fix the central issues with WFH. Pre-pandemic, I never took work home with me. Literally. Never. I would stay at the office for however many hours it took for me to finish, or I would come in early the next day, or on the weekend. I loved it. I truly felt that I was able to turn off when I got home. That paradise was, of course, shattered in March, and I’ve been unsuccessfully grasping at what the WFH version of that looks like. This is progress, but far from a fix. What I can appreciate, though, is that Teams is really trying to grapple with the issues around WFH in a model that suggests they think this reality is here to stay for many Americans.
Better Forecasts: Look, predicting the weather is hard, and climate change is making it harder and whatever, and I get that this article is about the tropics specifically. But when you take a step back and think about forecasting at large it isn’t super clear to me where the societal gains kick in from getting better than we have it in the more temperate climates, or even really in the tropics.
The article features a photo from an area that faced torrential downpours that cost lives. But would people really leave town over a forecast of rain? I’m not so sure. Flooding from rain is the result of poorly constructed infrastructure that is not resilient to the levels of inclement weather we should already expect as a part of the climate. That is a problem completely divorced from forecasting day-to-day weather.
Further, as Michael Lewis notes in The Coming Storm, many people in America don’t listen to emergency weather notifications that could save their lives when they do come. It is not clear to me that we get much further with the presented scenario with a better 21-day forecast and the same drainage system.
Past that example, though, what economic or social activity really needs that level of precision? On the margin, sure, better planning for vacations or picnics or parades or whatever and maybe somewhat better agriculture. But I haven’t seen anything compelling to suggest we haven’t captured the vast majority of the gains in the weather forecasting space. Would love to be proven wrong.
AEI the Science Guys? AEI and Larry Summers push for more federal funding of basic research; back in 2016 I made the case that an important part of that is NSF governance and freedom. A bad look in all of this: the White House wanted to slash NSF funding almost a year to the day before COVID community transmission started in the US.
What Biden can learn from Trump: This piece from Brookings suggests that if the election goes to Biden, there are many quick ways to alter the regulatory landscape. I’m going to double-down here on my request for principles of unassailable policy maneuvers.
Quick Links: Man in Boston dies from eating black licorice every day for three weeks. Participate in Katmai National Park’s Fat Bear Contest. Car seat laws may be stopping families from having a third child (s/o Benedict Brady). How the NYT’s Best-Seller List is made. Some interesting data on “social connectedness” released by Facebook.
News:
Lagniappe
I’ve been having some eyestrain due to staring a screens all day. As a part of my lifestyle changes to be kinder to my eyes, I have stopped turning on my video for calls internal to my organization and, to the degree I can easily, I schedule calls outside of my organization to be audio only. I then use the time on the call to stare out my window and/or close my eyes. It has helped on the margin with the eye issue, but also has actually increased my focus on calls. I am less likely to multitask or otherwise get distracted. I’d suggest giving it a try this week for a call or two and seeing if you like it.
Graph(s) of the week
[WSJ] It is important to remember that perceptions of the economy do not always map as cleanly to economic data as we might expect. In 2016, unemployment was at 5%, yet folks were 50/50 about whether jobs were plentiful. Historically, we only enjoyed <5% unemployment in about 6 years of the last 50.
[WSJ] One of my many soapboxes is OASDI. It rivals the National Park system as one of the greatest ideas America ever had (err, stole from Germany). There are real issues with the way we currently structure Social Security, but they are largely easy “fixes.” Discussion on Social Security “running out of money” comes from the fact that the program currently cannot pull from general revenues. That is to say, it has been so far self-sustaining. But an aging population that is living longer has put a strain on the program’s self-sufficiency. All we need to do is to treat it like any other government program and fund it through the Treasury. That's a “fix” in the most direct sense to it “running out of money”.
Past that, there are some easy ways to make it better. (1) Currently, any income made over $137,700 in a year is not taxed for Social Security. An easy move towards budget neutrality would be to remove this cap. (2) Additionally, we don’t tether Social Security adjustments to the cost of living of the elderly. Instead we tether it to the basket of goods of employed workers. This is an ok proxy, but when working-age and elderly folks buy different goods and services that have prices inflating at different rates (hint: older folks use a lot more healthcare services than younger folks), this can become a real issue. (3) Another easy one would be to change the formula for calculating benefits in the system. Currently, if you work for fewer than 40 quarters (say, you are a young spouse who leaves the workforce) none of your payments into the system count when you reach retirement age. Then, on the other end, since only your highest 35 years of salary are included, if you’re working into your retirement at a lower salary (say, you worked 25-60 and now at 61 you’re making a good deal less than you did before because you decided to work fewer hours), you don’t gain any extra benefit (but you still face the same payroll tax rate). Even if you make much more in your 60s each year, you’re only adding to your benefit insofar as your salary now is greater than the year it is “bumping out” of those top 35.
At the end of the day, OASDI has been the most effective poverty-fighting program in America. We need to protect it and strengthen it (e.g. do not cut the payroll tax that currently funds it).
[Economist] Ok, I found these two graphs incredibly difficult to follow side-by-side. But they highlight an important story: the experience of unemployment, for most, is a disequilibrating condition, but how it impact people is very different. By looking at just averages you miss some important heterogeneity. Here, we can see that long-term unemployed people either sleep much too long or much too short. The group that is getting between seven and ten hours most consistently are the employed, which may be surprising if you think that a job makes you “busier” and therefore have less time. While this does not show the same individuals going from employed to long-term unemployed, I feel confident that simply having a job helps steady one’s schedule, promoting healthy habits.
[538] This graph is from a great article about how a 6-3 conservative majority would reshape SCOTUS. I had planned to include the article above, but really this graph was all I wanted from it. This graph is doing a lot of work: it is easy to see that Sotomayor and Thomas are functionally the two poles of the court, that Kavanaugh and Roberts rule pretty similarly, that Roberts really does swing quite a bit, etc., etc. Sit with it a while.
PS: You should try to get nine hours of sleep a night, every night. It will make you smarter, happier, prettier, and healthier. How much would you pay for a drug that could do that for you?
Your friend,
Harrison
Love your tip for eyestrain. I was just thinking the other day about how much staring at screens impacts my eyes.