[y66]

Raj Chetty's lectures from his Using Big Data to Solve Economic and Social Problems class are now available online.

Who is Raj Chetty?

[kenberg]

y66, on 2018-January-01, 22:47, said:

Raj Chetty's lectures from his Using Big Data to Solve Economic and Social Problems class are now available online.

Who is Raj Chetty?

I really like this reference. I looked at some of the slides from the first 3 lectures and then listened to about the first half hour of the 4th lecture. I plan to look at a good deal more. In this 4th lecture he "passed" my first test. He asked the audience to guess the relative chances of attending Stanford for youngsters with parents in the top 1% of incomes against those with parents in the bottom 20%.It was multiple choice with the highest number being 80 times as likely, and that was my guess. It turns out that there are about 4 times as many kids at Stanford from the top 1% as thee are from the bottom 20%, but then he goes on to explain that there are (about) 20 times as many kids from bottom 20% as there are from the top 1% so indeed the relative chances of getting into Stanford for those from the top 1% are about 80 to 1 compared with those from the bottom 1%. Actually it is a little more subtle since the bottom 20% of the parents do not necessarily have 20% of the kids, but at least it is clear that the answer is closer to 80 than it is to 4. Of course this is obvious, but you do not have to read many newspaper articles to see people make a complete hash of this.

There are of course many other caveats. Not everyone belongs at Stanford and I seriously doubt that it would be a good thing to have the same percentage of kids from the bottom income group at Stanford as there are from the upper income group. Different percentages can reflect different abilities, different choices, different many things.

But on the basis of what I have seen so far of the presentation, I think it is worth seeing more. I certainly see myself as benefiting from the opportunity for upward mobility that existed when I was young and I regard this as one of the most important things, possibly the top most, I would like to see continued/resurrected both because of the benefit to the individual and to the nation. I think we are absolutely nuts if we let this slide away. If he has anything useful to say on the topic I am more than prepared to listen.

So thanks.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-January-02, 10:05, said:

There are of course many other caveats. Not everyone belongs at Stanford and I seriously doubt that it would be a good thing to have the same percentage of kids from the bottom income group at Stanford as there are from the upper income group.

Hi, Ken,

I was wondering what brought you to this conclusion? It sounds like an argument that the wealthier are genetically superior but I am certain that is not what you meant.

[y66]

kenberg, on 2018-January-02, 10:05, said:

If he has anything useful to say on the topic I am more than prepared to listen.

Chetty will be in DC next Thursday 1/11 to discuss his new research, “Who Becomes an Inventor in America? The Importance of Exposure to Innovation.” More info here.

[WellSpyder]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-02, 10:17, said:

Hi, Ken,

I was wondering what brought you to this conclusion? It sounds like an argument that the wealthier are genetically superior but I am certain that is not what you meant.

Why not? (Unless you are using "superior" in some sort of normative sense.) It seems clear to me that there is some correlation between intelligence and income; also between parental intelligence and children's intelligence; and also between intelligence and ability to benefit from a Stanford education. Each of those correlations is a long way from perfect, of course, but they don't need to be completely correlated to support Ken's conclusion.

[Cyberyeti]

WellSpyder, on 2018-January-02, 11:39, said:

Why not? (Unless you are using "superior" in some sort of normative sense.) It seems clear to me that there is some correlation between intelligence and income; also between parental intelligence and children's intelligence; and also between intelligence and ability to benefit from a Stanford education. Each of those correlations is a long way from perfect, of course, but they don't need to be completely correlated to support Ken's conclusion.

Yup, and also educated parents tend to value education, so instill the value of it in their kids. Top 20% likely to be educated.

[jjbrr]

Similar to how I would expect you might find similar numbers if, instead of income, you had used whether or not the student learned to play violin.

[Winstonm]

WellSpyder, on 2018-January-02, 11:39, said:

Why not? (Unless you are using "superior" in some sort of normative sense.) It seems clear to me that there is some correlation between intelligence and income; also between parental intelligence and children's intelligence; and also between intelligence and ability to benefit from a Stanford education. Each of those correlations is a long way from perfect, of course, but they don't need to be completely correlated to support Ken's conclusion.

Income does not directly affect genetics. Poor nutrition can lead to poor outcomes as can poor healthcare, poor educational chances, and other miseries of the poor. These are symptoms of poverty. But is money itself the solution? No, not unless it provides adequate nutrition, adequate healthcare, equal educational access, and equality of opportunity to get into and benefit from Stanford.

The goal should be an equal entrance to Stanford with equality of results among all groups of students rather than justifying denial of opportunity.

As for income, intelligence, and education, I recommend the movie: Stand and Deliver

If you guys are arguing that these statistics bear out that this is the way it is, I would agree; however, if your argument is that this is the way it should be, I would strongly disagree.

[kenberg]

Winstonm, on 2018-January-02, 10:17, said:

Hi, Ken,

I was wondering what brought you to this conclusion? It sounds like an argument that the wealthier are genetically superior but I am certain that is not what you meant.

Suppose I said instead that I would expect that if you looked at the age at death of everyone who died in 2017 and compared it with the age at death of their parents, I would expect that there would be a substantial correlation. It's true that I would expect that, although I have not read any studies.

It would be a leap to an assertion that I think that old people are genetically superior. It's not a phrase, or a concept, that I generally use. I do think that longevity is connected to genes, so if we were to rank people by longevity and say that people who live longer are superior then I suppose you could call it genetic superiority, but I just don't talk that way.

So back to intelligence and wealth. It's tougher to measure a person's intelligence than it is to measure his age so now it all gets tricky. And with either age or intelligence there are many features other than genes that come in. I exercise fairly regularly, that's good, I am overweight, that's bad. I studied mathematics and physics on my own when I was young, that's good. I did not study poetry, even if assigned, when I was young, that's bad. Or so it was said.

I doubt we can ever precisely sort out the exact factors that lead to academic success. I do believe genetics plays a role, perhaps a strong role. I very much favor education that allows, guides, assists. a person's, any person's, development. For all sorts of reasons, this will be more successful with some than with others. We will not really know exactly how the stew is made, and it will often surprise us, but we need to provide opportunity.

I have grandchildren now, ranging in age from 2 to 25, (blended family etc) so education is often on my mind. I try to look back, as honestly as I can, at my own development and see if I have anything useful to say. The twins are 13 and this was the age when I started making a great many of my own choices, some good and some bad. It's tricky.

Anyway, I think genes matter. I am sure I can say that genes matter without speaking of genetic superiority.

Just out of curiosity, do you not believe that genes matter? I am not saying genes are destiny or anything particularly grandiose, I am simply saying that genes matter.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2018-January-02, 21:15, said:

Suppose I said instead that I would expect that if you looked at the age at death of everyone who died in 2017 and compared it with the age at death of their parents, I would expect that there would be a substantial correlation. It's true that I would expect that, although I have not read any studies.

It would be a leap to an assertion that I think that old people are genetically superior. It's not a phrase, or a concept, that I generally use. I do think that longevity is connected to genes, so if we were to rank people by longevity and say that people who live longer are superior then I suppose you could call it genetic superiority, but I just don't talk that way.

So back to intelligence and wealth. It's tougher to measure a person's intelligence than it is to measure his age so now it all gets tricky. And with either age or intelligence there are many features other than genes that come in. I exercise fairly regularly, that's good, I am overweight, that's bad. I studied mathematics and physics on my own when I was young, that's good. I did not study poetry, even if assigned, when I was young, that's bad. Or so it was said.

I doubt we can ever precisely sort out the exact factors that lead to academic success. I do believe genetics plays a role, perhaps a strong role. I very much favor education that allows, guides, assists. a person's, any person's, development. For all sorts of reasons, this will be more successful with some than with others. We will not really know exactly how the stew is made, and it will often surprise us, but we need to provide opportunity.

I have grandchildren now, ranging in age from 2 to 25, (blended family etc) so education is often on my mind. I try to look back, as honestly as I can, at my own development and see if I have anything useful to say. The twins are 13 and this was the age when I started making a great many of my own choices, some good and some bad. It's tricky.

Anyway, I think genes matter. I am sure I can say that genes matter without speaking of genetic superiority.

Just out of curiosity, do you not believe that genes matter? I am not saying genes are destiny or anything particularly grandiose, I am simply saying that genes matter.

Absolutely, genes matter. The only reason I brought it up is that your post seemed to indicate that the correlation was between wealth and intelligence - but I see it as not wealth but access to the things wealth provide that over time affects the genes and hence the intelligence.

Perhaps I am nitpicking.

[y66]

From the blurb for Achtung Baby: An American Mom on the German Art of Raising Self-Reliant Children by Sara Zaske:

Quote

From at least Emerson’s time, Americans have taken self-reliance as a national birthright. Yet as Zaske learned from raising two children in Berlin, the Germans may have a better idea than we do how to bring up kids with optimum “selbstandigkeit.” While American parents are often over-protective, Zaske found Germans more relaxed. Their hands-off approach includes letting their young children walk to school unsupervised, take the subway alone, and use sharp knives to cut their food. German parents worry less than their American counterparts and as a result, Zaske, argues, raise more confident and productive children, a conclusion supported by the data and research results she cites.

I saw an interesting example of this at the park recently in which a 3 year-old girl came in flying along on her scooter. She stopped at the edge of a drop off with a 45'ish degree downslope (a climbing hill) and looked like she was evaluating the risk / reward of going down which she decided not to do on her scooter. She dismounted and slid down feet first, pulling the scooter behind her and then got back on and kept going. Both parents who were nearby and paying close attention but definitely not hovering took all of this in stride. My impression was that at age 3, this was one very confident little kid and the progeny of two thoughtful parents. The parents happened to be German in this case but it's pretty normal in my neighborhood to see little kids on scooters whose parents are from around here. They are quite confident too.

[Winstonm]

This is shocking. When contacted, Anthony Burgess had this to say:

Quote

“Then, brothers, it came. Oh, bliss, bliss and heaven. I lay all nagoy to the ceiling, my gulliver on my rookers on the pillow, glazzies closed, rot open in bliss, slooshying the sluice of lovely sounds. Oh, it was gorgeousness and gorgeosity made flesh.”

[y66]

Tesla Model 3: The First Serious Review by Alex Roy

[y66]

From Angie Mar’s Menu: Red Meat and Respect by Tejal Rao:

Quote

After dinner service, at 1:30 in the morning, Ms. Mar and her cooks were done for the night, but they didn’t leave. Instead, they gathered in the back dining room and took turns discussing what they wanted to improve on, and what they got right — with immediate feedback from Ms. Mar.

“I need to not shut down when I make a mistake,” said Duncan Burgin, who had to return a lobe of foie gras to the heat when Ms. Mar noted that it was slightly underdone.

“I’m working on getting faster,” said Kevin Huffman, the newest cook in the kitchen, fresh out of culinary school.

“You’re definitely picking up speed,” Ms. Mar agreed. “At the beginning on a new station, you always work on getting it perfect, and then you work on getting faster. Awesome. Who’s next?”

[RedSpawn]

https://www.usatoday...axes/100483162/

IRS is cracking down!!!!!

[Winstonm]

Quote

Fox Business Outlook: World's largest retailer credits tax reform for reason they're raising their minimum wage to $11 an hour.
On the same breath that Walmart (WMT) announced that it is raising its hourly wages to $11 and giving employees bonuses due to tax reform, the world’s largest retailer also revealed it’s closing 63 Sam’s Club locations across the U.S., which will ultimately lay off thousands of workers.



The news of the exact locations was first reported by Business Insider, but later followed by a tweet from Sam’s Club’s official account.

[y66]

I enjoyed Raj Chetty's Lost Einsteins presentation which he delivered to an SRO crowd at Brookings last week. Good summary here by David Leonhardt of key points and implications for policy.

One of the panelists observed that kids who go to schools where teacher-student ratios are closer to 1:10 than 1:20 get a lot of practice having useful conversations with their teachers and that when they go to college they make good use of office hours whereas kids who don't get as much practice often think office hours are times when their professors are busy and should not be disturbed. For kids who are lucky enough to have them and smart enough to take advantage, those conversations can really light a fire. .

Chetty said his Stanford team is doing a similar analysis of lost entrepreneurs.

[y66]

From Andrew Ross Sorkin's DealBook at NYT:

Quote

Larry Fink of BlackRock is sending a letter to C.E.O.s of public companies today saying that they must show how they contribute to society, or risk losing the money-management firm’s support. More from the letter:

Quote

The public expectations of your company have never been greater. Society is demanding that companies, both public and private, serve a social purpose. To prosper over time, every company must not only deliver financial performance, but also show how it makes a positive contribution to society. Companies must benefit all of their stakeholders, including shareholders, employees, customers, and the communities in which they operate.

Without a sense of purpose, no company, either public or private, can achieve its full potential. It will ultimately lose the license to operate from key stakeholders.

The leverage: BlackRock has $6 trillion under management, making it the biggest investor in public companies in the world.

Mr. Fink’s letter pits the investment mogul “against many of the companies that he’s invested in, which hold the view that their only duty is to produce profits for their shareholders, an argument long espoused by economists like Milton Friedman.”

Jeff Sonnenfeld of the Yale School of Management told Andrew, “It is huge for an institutional investor to take this position across its portfolio.” Mr. Sonnenfeld added that he’s seen “nothing like it.”

[Winstonm]

With CHIP, children's health care and dreamers, illegal immigrants through no fault of their own, together affecting over 1 million human beings' welfare, Don Fredo is only concerned with HIS wall and a single person.

[RedSpawn]

y66, on 2018-January-16, 07:58, said:

From Andrew Ross Sorkin's DealBook at NYT:

This is very noble, but since the beginning of time, Wall Street has only cared about the profit motive. Profit before principle and profit before the welfare and well-being of the people. It's too late for us to expect Wall Street to obey his conscience and moral code. He's a manchild now!