Comments on: Gender Tax

By: Discrimination Is Good | Take A Stand

Discrimination Is Good | Take A Stand — Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:32:00 +0000

[...] day, the corporate, academic, and journalistic world daily espouse the fact that discrimination is a terrible thing. We need more diversity in the workplace, in our schools, on television. Commercials must include [...]

By: briarandbramble

briarandbramble — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 04:00:20 +0000

“And what does that say about how much economic theory influences economists’ policy conclusions?”
It says that this kind of economic reasoning is very plastic and can be twisted to support a wide range of conclusions, and generally will be used to support whatever is most expedient for the author. When you read these papers, you need to be wary of every step.
One trick which is often used is for the author to mention a few assumptions explicitly. This is done in order to distract you from all the other assumptions they are implicitly making but not mentioning.
For example, let’s suppose there is an emasculation factor e which causes disutility to the man and increases as his wife’s wage rises. That could change the conclusion of the paper, but I don’t see this factor in any of the equations.
Or, assume there is a p(a|acw) (propability of adultery occuring given presence of attractive co-worker) that increases as a function of market participation rate. I don’t see that in the equations either.

By: Gray Area

Gray Area — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 21:57:17 +0000

It seems the problem is the statistical definition of “endowment.” Endowment is a causal concept, it refers to things that ’cause good fortune.’ Presumably we ought to spend the research effort into figuring out direct causes of good fortune, rather than wasting time taxing wealth correlates which may or may not have a causal basis.

By: Shakespeare's Fool

Shakespeare's Fool — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:47:15 +0000

Juliet:
O Romeo, Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?
Deny thy father and refuse thy name;
Or if thou wilt not, be but sworn my love
And I’ll no longer be a Capulet.

Romeo:
[Aside] Shall I hear more, or shall I speak at this?

Juliet:
‘Tis but thy name that is my enemy:
Thou art thyself, though not a Montague.
What’s Montague? It is nor hand nor foot,
Nor arm nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O be some other name!
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other word would smell as sweet;
So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes
Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name,
and for thy name, which is no part of thee,
Take all myself.
Romeo And Juliet Act 2, scene 2, 33–49
http://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/o-romeo-romeo-wherefore-art-thou-romeo

“According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, more than 25,000 people died of
starvation every day in 2003, and as of 2001 to 2003,
about 800 million people were chronically undernourished.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation
As of 6:16 PM EST Tuesday December 18, 2007.

And, Robin, knowing this (or at least its statistical equivalent),
you argue for taxes on height and subsidies to beauty?
Subsidies to beauty for the richest, freest, most over-nourished
women in the history of the world?

(And if you tell me that this is not about “subsidies to beauty”,
you miss the point again. The names you put on these taxes
and subsidies is not what matters. The categories you put them
in — if not “equality of results” or “subsidies to beauty” or
whatever you wish to call the categories – is not what matters.
The harm this meddling will do is what matters. The distraction
from the good that can be done is what matters. )

By: Pseudonymous

Pseudonymous — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:24:07 +0000

Conchis gets this exactly right: in universes where a woman tax is justified, men are disadvantaged, and people on the side of the oppressed will support a woman tax.

Dr Zeuss, in this universe, short people are disadvantaged. So why are the people on the side of the oppressed not supporting a tall tax?

Personally, I think it is because there is not as yet such a thing as the Campaign for Equal Heights.

By: Unknown

Unknown — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:32:39 +0000

To answer Robin’s question, what this illustrates is that economic theory has very little influence on the policy recommendations of economists.

This is not surprising. In general, moral theories have very little influence on people’s actions. Their actions are not determined by moral theory, but by their desires, whether or not these desires are in accord with their theories. And in the same way, economists propose a policy on account of their desires, not on account of economic theory, whether or not their desires and economic theory are in agreement.

By: Hanson's Secret Admirer

Hanson's Secret Admirer — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 17:25:16 +0000

“Fool, this is not at all about equality of results.”
Posted by: Robin Hanson | December 18, 2007 at 08:25 AM

I am going to print that out and frame it on my wall.

By: Larry D'Anna

Larry D'Anna — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 15:20:04 +0000

Robin, does your economic model take into account the vast effort people would make fighting random attribute taxes if we thought there was any chance they might be enacted?

By: conchis

conchis — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 13:08:28 +0000

Robin, then the example illustrates the rather trivial point that theory interacts with other, extra-theoretical values. Is there supposed to be something wrong with that?

By: Robin Hanson

Robin Hanson — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 12:25:12 +0000

Zeuss and Conchis, the economic theory used here has little to do with whether women are “oppressed.”

Fool, this is not at all about equality of results.

rukidding, most random policies are not well supported by economic theory.