Imagine that you wanted to write a popular book on the anxiety de jour, and that this anxiety happened to be increased moral depravity. Well there’d be an easy time-tested recipe to follow. First, give some plausibility arguments for why moral depravity is a big deal. Since everyone already thinks so, weak arguments would be fine. Second, give lots of concrete examples of people and orgs affected by moral depravity, examples readers can relate to. Especially examples about high status and new things – people love to read about those. Third, mention important recent worrying trends backed up by serious research, and vaguely suggest that these trends are caused by increased moral depravity. No need for concrete arguments, you just need to show you are a serious person tracking serious trends. Finally, recommend a bunch of policies to deal with moral depravity, policies many of your readers already support, and that you
I read their previous book and wasn't that impressed with the main argument about what needs to be done, although it was still an interesting read because of the bits and pieces of information in it. That's enough for me, particularly if it's a cheap e-book.
I still need to read the new book. Are they still recommending education? It's not that education is a bad thing - greater education levels helped relatively low-skilled workers in the US do better in tandem with machines during American industrialization - but actually predicting what type of education will be needed is difficult. It's better just to try and get a strong economy, and let demand sort that out for you, just like how strong demand in the 1990s helped to create a ton of people trained with computer skills.
Finally, they offer a bunch of standard policy recommendations that they would have made anyway, even if all these trends had been the opposite.
That reminds me of Matt Yglesias complaining over the unspoken requirement for a "Chapter 7", namely a chapter explaining "What is to be done?". Sometimes you don't know what is to be done, and it might be better if authors just straight-up said that, and tried to narrow down to specifics that particular types of policy problems that might need to be solved as opposed to presenting policy "solutions".
Sort of. Cowen pushes back on the "machines taking our jobs" trend, which he thinks is false - machines will mostly be designed to integrate with human operators for maximum productivity, although some will go full-automation over time.
It's more in the veins of the "two societies" trend-meme: that there is a relatively small percentage of the population that is benefiting from the new changes in the economy, and a much larger part of the population that is going to be marginal at best, scraping together a living from odd jobs and living as cheaply as they can. He points to stuff like people moving to Texas because the cheaper housing makes up for the lower-paying jobs, and the rise of electronic entertainment to cheaply entertain and pacify people (he jokingly says something like "let them eat broadband").
Thanks for your sharing. Maybe we'll have someone to identify the problem clearly moral decline and wrote a great book.
OK, changed.
And in the most recent two posts, (forms of) "effect" where "affect" is intended.
His last two books, actually.
Would you expect more from a couple of Business profs writing for "entrepreneurs"?
I read their previous book and wasn't that impressed with the main argument about what needs to be done, although it was still an interesting read because of the bits and pieces of information in it. That's enough for me, particularly if it's a cheap e-book.
I still need to read the new book. Are they still recommending education? It's not that education is a bad thing - greater education levels helped relatively low-skilled workers in the US do better in tandem with machines during American industrialization - but actually predicting what type of education will be needed is difficult. It's better just to try and get a strong economy, and let demand sort that out for you, just like how strong demand in the 1990s helped to create a ton of people trained with computer skills.
Finally, they offer a bunch of standard policy recommendations that they would have made anyway, even if all these trends had been the opposite.
That reminds me of Matt Yglesias complaining over the unspoken requirement for a "Chapter 7", namely a chapter explaining "What is to be done?". Sometimes you don't know what is to be done, and it might be better if authors just straight-up said that, and tried to narrow down to specifics that particular types of policy problems that might need to be solved as opposed to presenting policy "solutions".
Sort of. Cowen pushes back on the "machines taking our jobs" trend, which he thinks is false - machines will mostly be designed to integrate with human operators for maximum productivity, although some will go full-automation over time.
It's more in the veins of the "two societies" trend-meme: that there is a relatively small percentage of the population that is benefiting from the new changes in the economy, and a much larger part of the population that is going to be marginal at best, scraping together a living from odd jobs and living as cheaply as they can. He points to stuff like people moving to Texas because the cheaper housing makes up for the lower-paying jobs, and the rise of electronic entertainment to cheaply entertain and pacify people (he jokingly says something like "let them eat broadband").
Does Tyler Cowen's recent book fits this pattern?
Fixed; thanks.
Anxiety DU jour. jeez. Sloppy.