Thinking Too Much Like an Economist Makes You Stupid

A blogger and his best friend circa February 2010.

One of the things that I have learned to reject over the years is grand theories that purport to explain the entirety or large parts of human behavior -- see e.g. Marxism and Freudian psychology to name two.  In recent years, it seems to me that badly applied behavioral economics and evolutionary psychology have taken up this mantle, with equally dissatisfying results.  People who become overly enamored of this kind of thing tend to engage in a baffling combination of either overly-reductive thinking to explain that which is complex and nuanced, while perversely complicating things that are not that hard for living, breathing human beings to explain.  To wit: 

- I haven't picked on Yglesias for a while but this post in which he expressed skepticism over people's claims that they would not kill their favorite pet for $1 million strikes me as the response of your classic pod-person who has spent way too much time reading about behavioral economics and too little time in the company of a beloved dog or cat.   As frequent readers here know, my dog Stanley is rather near and dear to my heart.  Truly, I love that little dog and I say that without exaggeration.  Indeed, I too often contemplate his mortality and it depresses the hell out of me.  There simply isn't a sum of money on earth large enough that would tempt me to kill him and merely contemplating the question made me feel vaguely nauseous.  So nothing about this response strikes me as shocking, except maybe for the fact that there are 11% of people who claim that they would do such a thing (libertarians should not be allowed to have pets).  It seems to me that one of the most fundamental aspects of human behavior is that we form bonds that transcend this kind of transactional analysis.  People are willing to die for those that they love -- surely this is a mysterious way in which to maximize one's utility.

There are concepts of human behavior that are simply impossible to put into economic models -- for instance, notions of honor.  One can behave in a way that one finds to be so dishonorable that it literally negates the value of your life in your own eyes -- killing a small, beloved dog for money would be one of those things to me.  I literally could not allow myself to live if I did something like that.        

 - And then there is your garden-variety economic asshole type arguments like this and this, in which utterly clueless people cannot understand why we limit by statue the straight time work hours of certain kinds of employees.    Robin Hanson, the blogger in question, is yet another clown from the Economics Department at George Mason University, who needs to be given a pallet full of sixty-five pound cinder blocks and a trowel on a 95 degree day here and told to work twelve hours at straight time.  I am guessing that if he survived the ordeal, he might have some greater insight into this question.  Let's be clear -- the law does not generally require that employees not work more than forty hours in a week --  it mearely requires that if they do so they be compensated at one and a half times their normal hourly rate for these additional hours.  The purpose of this law is to fully compensate the employee for the loss of leisure time, to recognize the hardship associated with working such hours, and to encourage employers to think about hiring additional personnel to do the work, rather than working existing employees to death.  (Sometimes hours are in fact capped for public safety reasons, see e.g. truckers and pilots -- does this too shock and offend Mr. Hanson?)

I find it astonishing that allegedly smart people do not understand 1) the imbalance in power relations between employer and employee; 2) the physical toll that working long hours takes on people who do not engage in mental masturbation for a living; and 3) the fact that people value their time away from work and do not want to be compelled to spend all of their waking hours in toil without some reasonable reward for what that sacrificed leisure is worth.  Once full employment is restored in the building trades, I would happily offer Mr. Hanson a chance to spend a week doing seven-twelves for straight time to see how he'd like it.  I am pretty confident he wouldn't be back for day two. 

    

Comments

[oddjob]

I find it astonishing that allegedly smart people do not understand 1) the imbalance in power relations between employer and employee; 2) the physical toll that working long hours takes on people who do not engage in mental masturbation for a living; and 3) the fact that people value their time away from work and do not want to be compelled to spend all of their waking hours in toil without some reasonable reward for what that sacrificed leisure is worth.

I think perhaps that's because you're assuming having a superior capacity for remembering and analyzing data (of the sort that labels a person "smart" in the way that allows one to become a high school valedictorian) means one will also have superior emotional intelligence (of the sort that labels a person "wise"). If so, I think maybe you haven't spent enough time in graduate school....

;)

[Linkmeister]

I once took two classes at George Mason between my junior and senior years of high school. At the time it was four buildings surrounding an unlandscaped quad of dirt. This was 1967, when it was still being built.

Other than a couple of years ago when its basketball team made it to the Final Four, I've had no reason to mention my association with the school and a lot of reasons (Mercatus Center, anyone?) not to.

Nothing has changed my view, particularly after reading that nitwit.

[Crissa]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to assume the number of people who would answer to a mental exercise would be different than the number when actually applied.

I would give my life for a pet, but a million dollars could save hundreds maybe thousands of pets' lives. It's much like the 'would you sacrifice one passenger to save a dozen' in front of the train/spaceship dealio. I'd bet that more wouldn't choose to sacrifice more out of being locked out of a decision than would choose one way or the other.

[Paula B]

There's a reason why POTUSes often pose for photos with their pets. It shows they are (or might be) human. There probably are people who couldn't tell you one thing LBJ, Nixon, GW Bush or Obama ever did in office, but they can tell you what kind of dog they had.

[kathy a.]

stanley is just so darned handsome! and brave, and devoted.

i think dr. economist is whining that many professionals work long hours without extra pay, not noting that they have extra pay built in already -- and also not noting that some work is freaking hard. it sounds like he is arguing that if we just removed these limits on hours and safety regulations, laborers would be able to work as much as possible and thus rival professionals in status. i confess a lack of interest in pursuing his thoughts further.

[nancy]

kathy a. -- dr. economist is an utter bore and i can't imagine anyone bothering to engage him in comments. but they did. yawn.

has matt y. seen stanley? obviously not, or he couldn't pose such a question. i do however, remember from my student years as a rabbi's secretary, that a lot of jews were definitely puzzled by pets/wasps/and attachment. maybe an urban apartment-dweller thing? once, our beloved cat, happily roaming the space at hillel, where we occupied the caretaker apartment, arrived on saturday in the middle of services to *spray* the arc. rabbi was a good sport. we were frantically mortified. omg. cat later found poisoned and an omni-present nebbish had dumped him in the trash with a shovel, informing us after the fact. i still think woody allen would have done the same. (there's a sketch there somewhere).

also, sir c -- lance mannion wrote more today on the paul. he liked your earlier post and linked to it. tag-teaming. :-)

[nancy]

clarification. ark. and no one 'poisoned' the cat. he probably got into something nasty (anti-freeze is a killer) and made it home before collapsing. but the shovel thing...ay.

[Sir Charles]

oddjob,

I suppose three years of law school should have driven this home to me -- although my gut reaction is that economist to some degree make we lawyers look far more human in comparison.

Linkmeister.

I don't know when GMU decided to become the poor man's U Chicago, but it sure seems like an asshole factory these days.

(Welcome to the site by the way.)

Crissa,

The thing is, I don't love all dogs in the abstract, I love my dog. And it seems to me that this is the way that people are. I could ship the money I spent on my son's private education and help save some number of kids lives I suppose -- but again, that's not how most parents in the real world act.

Don't get me wrong -- I give money to charity and would willingly pay more taxes to try to prevent various forms of injustice. I support politics that I hope would greatly reduce the amount of suffering in the world.

But I would be lying if I claimed some uniform concern for all of the dogs and all of the kids in the world. To me, mine come first. That's generally how people are made.

kathy,

One of the things that people like Dr. Economist miss all the time is the alienation of working under the control of others, of having one's comings and goings supervised under a microscope, of being constantly subjected to scrutiny and correction. Yes, I have pulled all nighters in my job and occasionally gone a few weeks without a day off, but I never punch a clock, no one complains if I chat in the kitchen, or help myself to another free cup of coffee, or walk around aimlessly, or head out to do a couple of errands, or take a personal phone call, or email friends, or read blogs. I control my own work, the pace at which it is done, when I walk in the office in the morning and when I leave at night. That kind of autonomy is out of reach of the average worker.

nancy,

Thanks for the heads up on the Mannion link. He is very good.

Not sure on the Jews and pets thing. I can think of one Jewish friend who is as insanely devoted to her dog as I am to Stanley. Of course, when her dog visited our house he immediately urinated on our Christmas tree.

What would Bill O'Reilly say?

[nancy]

Sir C -- Your Jewish friend's Christmas-tree-homing dog might have found that Ark too. :) That's what's so funny. One's animals have a mind of their own. And embarrassing the 'owner'? -- too bad and heh. Our dog used to inspect visitors with the nose in the wrong spot. Relentlessly. No cure ever worked though for the 'world's sweetest and bestest dog'. RIP.

[Phil Perspective]

Has anyone ever asked McMegan, or any of the other Ayn Rand lovers(like those GWU econ. professors), if they have any pets? They all seem pet-less.

[Davis X. Machina]

You'd think economists would all have cats. I have two, and they're the most shameless marginal-utilizers in the world.

Human up out of the chair -- cat in the warm spot in 10 seconds, using someone else's residual calories and saving their own... one of them even climbs up on the banister and cadges human rides up and down the stairs.

[beckya57]

I believe Krugman has 2 cats. One's named Doris Lessing if I remember rightly.

I don't think libertarians have pets. That would require them to have a heart and a soul.

Stanley is appallingly cute, Sir C, but I'll put my bassets up to him any day.

"GWU is the poor man's U of C"--ouch, way to diss my alma mater Sir C. Well deserved of course....

[Linkmeister]

Thanks for the welcome. I got here via Mannion, in case you're wondering.

[jimintampa]

Randians don't have 'pets,' they have emergency rations. Absence of empathy is a precondition for those folks, and there's a difference between pets and various sorts of nonhuman assistants; if someone is willing to dispatch a loved one for $1M, it's safe to say that it's not a 'loved one,' just a nonhuman adjunct. And it extends to human adjuncts as well - think "peasant insurance."

[kathy a.]

DXM, cats are very well adapted to marginal utilization. they also have some translatable social skills. which as jimintampa points out, is pretty much not true for the rand crowd.

[Linkmeister]

kathy a, I dunno. I think Randians may purr as they watch civil rights burn.

[Amanda Marcotte]

It's not just that I love my cats, but also when you take on the responsibility of caring for a pet, good people take that seriously. When my cat had to undergo expensive surgery and many weeks of antibiotics, it sucked, and love kind of left the equation because she was so mad at us and there was resentment on both sides, as it were. But my boyfriend and I dutifully wrapped her in a towel and fed her drugs against her will, because we have a cat and it's our responsibility. She returned to health and it's all been worth it, because she's our sweet, loving cat again. But if it was just a matter of utility, it would have been cheaper and easier to kill her and get a kitten. But I can't do that! It's not just that I love her; I committed to caring for her when I got her.

[Jim S]

The GMU economist/blogger seems willfully obtuse. Several posters wrote about labor law history and he ignored it. I find that no libertarian I've ever listened to understands the power imbalance between employer and employee and the fear that the thought of losing a job can engender in almost anyone. BTW, one of our dogs can best be pictured if you think of Stanley's 90 pound big brother.

[oddjob]

I find that no libertarian I've ever listened to understands the power imbalance between employer and employee

!

What power imbalance??? All you have to do is go find another job. It's easy!

(Snark.)

[nancy]

linkmeister -- researchers can't agree on what the meaning of a cat's purr is. 'all is well,' in the wild, communicated to one another within hearing range, most likely. i'm pretty sure my present female cat's purr means 'i love you, you're really warm and incredibly wonderful' and that should i expire in the middle of the night, she'd be nibbling on my arm by early afternoon at the latest, possibly purring. unlike the pooch who'd have starved to death mourning my demise.

but the exchange is still on the + side for me. i get much out of the deal. not to get all greeting cardy about it. ;-)

[kathy a.]

yes, amanda. and jim.

senior cat rules the immediate universe, including the dogs and my desk, but she is free with her love. insistent upon it. i'm still working on getting the junior cats to shed their feral distrust. one lets me pet him, but only under conditions he deems safe. the other just wants to see what's going on and score cheese, preferably brie -- no touching! they make me laugh, though. i am not the dog person around here, but the dogs are extremely loyal to my beloved in ways most humans are not. so there.

[Sir Charles]

jimintampa,

Emergency rations! Well played sir, well played. Fortunateloy I had swallowed my coffee when I read that.

Amanda,

The responsibility/routine care for pets seems to me to deepen the bond. When you lose a pet and suddenly your day doesn't begin with feeding or walking with them (not to mention waking with them as virtually every pet I've had in the last twenty years has slept in my bed) or worrying about things like locking them in the closet (cats naturally)you really feel their absence.

My last cat needed some pretty expensive surgery at one point -- about $2,500 -- and the way they did it at this vet was to have the vet talk to you about the procedure and than a tech come in and reviewed the costs, naturally with the idea that some people just couldn't come up with that kind of money. For me it was not even a question.

The day I had to euthanize that little cat was one of the saddest of my life. I couldn't get her to the vets until later in the day and I was in the midst of a really bitter internal union dispute, so I had to both sit around the house and care for her in her final moments, while also carrying on this series of increasingly vituperative conference calls. I spent the day alternately screaming and cursing at people (not really my usual lawyering style either) and crying about the cat. An awful, awful day. (Several years later I would stil like to knee that lawyer in the nuts.)

nancy and linkmesiter,

My aforementioned cat used to sleep on my arm most nights. I found her purring one of the most amazingly sleep inducing things ever. If she stopped before I fell to asleep I would try to coax her into starting again.

oddjob,

Yes, on Planet Libertarian there is always another job waiting for the deserving.

kathy,

I know cats are reputed to be standoffish, but the last couple that I've had were quite affectionate. The last one used to run to the door to greet you like a dog -- until she got deaf.

[Phil Perspective]

beckya57:
Yes, Krugman has two cats. You are correct about the name of one. The other is named Albert Einstein. It took 2 seconds of Teh Google to find it out. ;-)

[Paula B]

So, if you (and Stanley) ever decide to run for POTUS, this should be your official campaign photo.