tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post4438533278504038871..comments2024-03-28T03:16:14.104-04:00Comments on Noahpinion: Why Kevin Williamson is wrong about poverty and bad behaviorNoah Smithhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-55871410214776015772020-07-23T01:26:04.861-04:002020-07-23T01:26:04.861-04:00Noah 97.5, Kevin 2.5
And anyway, we're lookin...Noah 97.5, Kevin 2.5<br /><br />And anyway, we're looking at cumulative causation of various kinds, so most of what's discussed gives us clues but not much more. We're not hypothesising about planets here, but whole eco-systems in which the players have agency. Nicholas Gruenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08979019731787830666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-58016542931497599022019-08-13T08:59:07.726-04:002019-08-13T08:59:07.726-04:00"The relevant question is P(relative poverty ..."The relevant question is P(relative poverty | absolute bad behavior)"<br />No, it is not. The relevant question is P(relative poverty | do(absolute bad behavior)). If you try to answer a causal question, you have to articulate it using causal operators.<br />In plain English, what you want to know is "what would be the poverty rate in US if it had no bad behavior (or the level of bad behavior of another country, say Japan)”. Both you and Williamson are not addressing properly that question.<br />(Almost) everyone would agree that bad behavior, all other things being equal, can only increase poverty rate but the true question is by how much. Of course Williamson article is written with astonishing bad faith. He takes whatever fact goes his way, and sometimes even just make things up. However your points are suggestive that it is more complicated than that but don’t go much further.<br />A purely statistical approach (which you did in implicitly) cannot answer that question, even controlling for confounding variables. You need a causal model.<br />XLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00076139420257844126noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-15495359146881170672019-08-10T01:53:52.111-04:002019-08-10T01:53:52.111-04:00 Blaming the poor for their poverty absolves us fr... Blaming the poor for their poverty absolves us from having to understand it or do anything about it and makes us feel we earned our rewards. It is about feeling good, not about understanding. It is the stale slab of conventional understanding, sloppy thinking, and tedious writing...Lordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06747994571555237739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-79211597106634487552019-08-07T09:42:20.328-04:002019-08-07T09:42:20.328-04:00This was meant to be a response to Noah's comm...This was meant to be a response to Noah's comment above (time stamped 3:36 PM)robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-76411005382781475832019-08-06T12:07:17.593-04:002019-08-06T12:07:17.593-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-59273104139270130602019-08-06T11:54:47.571-04:002019-08-06T11:54:47.571-04:00OK, could I answer the question "How much d...OK, could I answer the question "How much does smoking change my chances of falling into the lower percentiles of lung health?" by comparing countries with different levels of smoking ?<br /><br />Lets say that in both countries 80% of smokers fall into the bottom half of lung health measures, but in one country 20% smoke and in the other only 5% smoke. The data would be consistent with (but would not prove) the statement "Smoking significantly increases my chances of falling into the lower percentiles of lung health". As far as I can see the relative smoking rates are totally irrelevant to this. <br /><br />Am I missing something obvious here ?<br />robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-89091785132593924562019-08-05T16:03:10.603-04:002019-08-05T16:03:10.603-04:00Of course. But do you think cash transfers can hel...Of course. But do you think cash transfers can help stop them? Your Japan analogy is a good rebuttal of the conservative argument that bad behavior causes poverty...and also of the liberal argument that poverty leads to bad behavior. So on social breakdown etc. Williamson is on stronger ground.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-41543578511689690872019-08-05T15:36:47.399-04:002019-08-05T15:36:47.399-04:00Sure, no one is saying that drugs, violence etc. a...Sure, no one is saying that drugs, violence etc. are good for society.Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-49370520957555269652019-08-05T15:36:14.186-04:002019-08-05T15:36:14.186-04:00then comparing a country with lots of bad behaviou...<i>then comparing a country with lots of bad behaviour to one with not much is not going to answer that question.</i><br /><br />Yeah, it really is. <br /><br /><i>Take a society with lots of poor, badly behaved people. They become aware of this and stop being badly behaved. Consequently many of them rise up the relative income scale. This country used to look like the US and ends up being like Japan.</i><br /><br />You mean...a poorer country, with similar levels of relative poverty??Noah Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09093917601641588575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-11750569457067310832019-08-05T10:25:43.523-04:002019-08-05T10:25:43.523-04:00For part 9, there’s also the possibility that redu...For part 9, there’s also the possibility that reducing poverty with cash transfers won’t stop the bad behavior, and we should be finding ways to reduce that too, or life in the American underclass will still be pretty miserable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-88384651649316707702019-08-04T10:06:35.635-04:002019-08-04T10:06:35.635-04:00If one wants to answer the question: "How muc...If one wants to answer the question: "How much does bad behavior change the chances of individuals falling into the lower echelons of my developed country?" then comparing a country with lots of bad behaviour to one with not much is not going to answer that question. <br /><br />Assume the answer is "bad behavior increase the chances of being in the lower echelons a great deal". Take a society with lots of poor, badly behaved people. They become aware of this and stop being badly behaved. Consequently many of them rise up the relative income scale. This country used to look like the US and ends up being like Japan. <br /><br />There would however have to be a fallacy involved to compare the society when it looked like the US to the same society at a later point in time when it looked like Japan and conclude 'this disproves the theory that bad behavior causes relative poverty' when it was this very fact that drove the change. <br /><br />robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682517711551179057noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17232051.post-55869838833817145732019-08-03T18:07:41.230-04:002019-08-03T18:07:41.230-04:00I have two thoughts. First, compared to you, Will...I have two thoughts. First, compared to you, Williamson is relatively innumerate. He sees a relative poverty measure, so he criticizes it not considering whether the same relative poverty line corresponds to more severe absolute poverty in Japan. He says you can't infer anything about the rates of bad behavior among the poor by looking at national averages without doing the arithmetic and seeing that, even if all Japanese misbehavior is committed by the poor, they still behave better (by his standards) than the average American.<br /><br />As is typical of US conservatives, he considers current policy in the USA to be way lefty because it's moved left since 1932. If he compared the huge US antipoverty efforts to the huger efforts in other developed countries he wouldn't make the silly argument he makes. Also I would exclude old age pensions (not related to dealing with the sort of poverty he denounces) and healthcare (not counted as income and not appearing in poverty rates). If you looked at means tested assistance other than Medicaid (or NHS or whatever) the USA would stand out more.<br /><br />Yes on Medicaid not counted. As is typical of those who say we fought a war on poverty and poverty won, he ignores all of the actual battles. If one measures poverty with pre tax cash income, one will conclude that all the money going to the EITC, SNAP and Medicaid was wasted. This just because none of it is considered when calculating the meaningless traditional poverty rate. In fact, as you note, anti poverty spending is correlated with a reduction in poverty.<br /><br />Also causation and correlation. Poverty is correlated with welfare program participation. That's true by law. But that doesn't mean that welfare causes the culture of poverty. In fact, the evidence suggests welfare spending promotes independence decades later. I am thinking of food stamps (introduced at different times in different counties) and an index of economic independence (high school graduation, not getting pregnant before 20, not getting welfare, having a job, and not being convicted of a felony). The evidence is food stamps for one's family about when one is born promotes self reliance 20 years later (not super strong and as usual for girls not boys who are just hopeless (as we know having been boys)).<br /><br />https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/LR_SNAP_BHRSW_042919.pdf<br /><br />But there is similar evidence about the EITC, Medicaid and widows pensions (the first huge national welfare program in the USA).<br /><br />Another question is what about the morals and culture of non college educated whites changed. William Julius Wilson would say that when good jobs vanish, breadwinner norms soon follow. He said that about truly disadvanted African Americans, but his hypothesis implies that that which was true of blacks would become true of whites with automation, increased import competition and weakened unions. And that's what happened. There is a comprehensible even testable relationship between economics and morals which tends to support historical materialism. In contrast, the stories starting with morals don't fit the data. If the decline in religion is the problem, the Sweden would be a hell hole. But it isn't.<br /><br />I really shouldn't pile on. You can handle Williamson while typing with one hand tied behind your back. But piling on is fun.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14455788499385673507noreply@blogger.com