We're all lemmings

It's not a new idea and I'm fairly certain I won't read the book, but I liked this example of how people crave fame and connections to celebrities:

Cialdini asked his subjects to read a short biography of Grigori Rasputin, the notorious monk who served as an adviser in the court of Czar Nicolas II, and to give their opinion of him. The biography depicted Rasputin as a mendacioius and manipulative villain. In half the cases Cialdini had adjusted Rasputin's birthday so that it matched that of the reader. Those subjects who shared a birthday with Rasputin were ovrewhelmingly more likely to rate him positively -- as a strong and effective leader with many redeeming qualities.

As a "rational" economist, I initially scoffed when I read of the silly people who improved Rasputin's rep based solely on a shared birthday. Then I began to wonder about how I'd have done in the experiment. I can't say this for sure, but I might have fallen for it too. No, not with Rasputin (I went through a serious period of studying Nicolas' reign so I could never attribute "many redeeming qualities" to Rasputin), but I fear that I could be fall for the same "gotcha" trap in general. I'm not sure this says anything about an inherent craving for fame, but I thought it was a cool experiment.

Very busy right now, but I'll try to come up with a good post in a couple of days. Oh, if my beer bottles start exploding then I can guarantee a good rant. So I guess y'all might want to wish for an unusually high level of fermentation activity over the next few days, though I'd appreciate it if you didn't.

Oh hell no!

I log onto the internet this morning and what do I find? This disturbing story about the Major Leage Baseball "extra innings" package! According to the word on the street, MLB is on the cusp of signing an exclusive deal with Direct TV making it the ONLY provider of the extra innings package -- the package that allows me to watch almost all the Cardinals games throughout the season! In the past, the package has been available through a number of cable and satellite companies (including my DISH Network). Now, however, the rumored $700 million would put an end to that. The strangest thing about the story, though, is that no one is saying if it's true. Even though various members of Congress are asking questions, "DirecTV has never confirmed that the widely reported deal even exists." Strange, but I don't have a good feeling about this. Without my extra innings package I'll be back among the unwashed masses, dependent on ESPN and Joe Morgan to bring me my baseball. Yikes!

On another baseball note, I saw this story about someone finding a film of Don Larsen's perfect game in the 1956 World Series. Even if you don't immediately recognize his name, you've seen the picture.

Anyway, it put me in mind of my old pal Nathan's brush with fame. First, let me point out that Nathan was NOT a sports fan. Back in elementary school, his teacher got sick of Nathan's practice of hanging out with his pals Kim and Veronica every day at recess. Finally, he'd had enough and he MADE Nathan start playing football. So back to my story, ...

One night Nathan and I had gone to visit Caffeine Bro and as happens quite often, we started talking about baseball. Nathan, of course, didn't have much to contribute until suddenly he said, "So have either of you ever heard of a baseball player named Don Larsen?" After getting over the shock that Nathan knew the name of a famous old-time baseball player, we assured him that we most certainly had heard of Don Larsen and we asked how he knew that name. Turned out one of Nathan's relatives in California was big pals with Mr. Larsen and Nathan had gone frog gigging (Seriously, I think it really was frog gigging. If not, it was something equally bizarre.) with Don Larsen while on a visit out there. Nathan, though, had no idea he was hanging with a legend of the game; he just thought Don was some old guy who'd played ball at some point. Funny, huh?

Education: a growth industry

Given that I work in the industry, I often get smacked over the head (repeatedly, it's the only way to get a point through to me) with statistics showing the increase in lifetime earnings associated with having a 4-year college degree as opposed to just a high school diploma. Best current estimate: 90-95%, I think.

I have no qualm with this statistic, but I do quibble with how the statistic is used. The usual lesson drawn from this is that we simply need to make sure more young people go to college. I find that argument, in and of itself, ludicrous. In 2006, the average salary for a major league baseball player was $2.7 million. Instead of sending kids to college, shouldn't we just ship them directly to the major leagues? Of course that argument ignores the fact that not all kids can play baseball at the major league level. I'm fairly sure no one doubts that explanation, yet almost no one, it seems, wants to apply the same logic to the "more kids in college" issue.

Bryan Caplan has similar thoughts while trying to explain why college enrollments have not shot up more in response to the rising wage gap cited above. First, he tackles my point. While it's not a polite thing to say, not everyone is cut out for college.

Part of the explanation is that this "lifetime wage premium" blends the return to education with the return to ability. Clever counter-arguments notwithstanding, people who currently don't go to college wouldn't earn the "expected" return if they enrolled because they have less ability to begin with.

Second, he tackles a more novel aspect of the problem. Why even people who could "make it" in college might not go.

Why aren't more people going to college? The best explanation is one that educators - and above all college professors - find almost impossible to believe: Lots of people truly hate school. They find it insufferably boring, pointless, and pompous. Even a massive increase in the return to education isn't enough to make them willing to endure four more years of pointless, pompous boredom.

To sum up: I think no one should be denied the opportunity to go to college (or church or folk music concerts or gay bars or Klan rallies) but I don't think everyone should take that opportunity. In case you're wondering, I sometimes take advantage of 2 of the 4 parenthetical opportunities mentioned above, though I have been to one of the other two. I'll let y'all speculate.

Still busy

Somehow I've still not managed to catch up with all my work and free up time for a righteous blog rant (though I do have some topics in mind).

This past weekend I bottled my latest batch of beer (it's residing in the bath tub until I'm convinced that I'm not going to have exploding bottles) and I had to grade tests. Yesterday was a no class day (Presidents' Day), but we had professional development all day. Today I gave a stats test (this was a tough one, apparently) that will occupy my time for a couple of days. Maybe by Friday things will slow down.

In the meantime, here's a Sebastian Mallaby column on the "alternative minimum tax". Why am I linking to a column on the AMT? Well by this point in my life I've developed pretty settled opinions on many government policy issues. Sure a new issue may arise or circumstances may change so that I alter a firmly held opinion, but I tend to "believe what I believe" on most policy issues. Sebastian Mallaby, though, can make me consider changing my opinion.

See, the AMT was originally designed to punish a very few "fat cats" (fewer than 200 households according to some common estimates) back in the late 1960s who managed to get away with paying no, or almost no, income taxes. Essentially if you make over $X you figure an "alternative minimum" amount you owe. That way, even if the fat cats figure out how to be creative with deductions and such, they still pay at least this minimum amount. The problem with the AMT is that it was NEVER indexed to inflation! Thus the "fat cat" income level not applies to a majority of "professionals" and it's starting to hit teachers, contractors, etc. As nominal incomes rise with inflation over time, eventually even retail sales clerks will be computing and paying the AMT. It's a textbook example (literally) of how inflation can distort tax systems and I rail against it every semester in my "cost of inflation" lecture. Don't repeal it, but index it now! Mallaby, though, raises some interesting points.

First, unilaterally dumping the AMT precludes using it in a "tax trade". For example, "Let's scale back some of those 'permanent' tax cuts or the home interest deduction and, in exchange, we'll dump (or seriously modify) the AMT." I can recognize and appreciate that argument even without rethinking my underlying position on the AMT. It's point 2 that made me go, "Hmm..."

Second, Mallaby claims dumping the AMT would be a mistake. He correctly points out the administrative burden it imposes and he implicitly recognizes some of the "unfair" outcomes it generates, but he claims it's one of the few taxes that truly fulfills its "progressive promise" (my term):

For all its administrative clunkiness, the AMT is wonderfully progressive: 90 percent of its revenue comes from those earning more than $100,000 a year, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Last week Baucus denounced the AMT as a "monster in the tax code" -- a "Frankenstein," no less. But in an era of rising inequality, you don't slay progressive monsters casually.

Now I'm not 100% convinced I'll be rushing to defend the AMT anytime soon, but I'm amazed that one newspaper column could get me to rethink this issue at such a basic level. Again, point #1 would be an easy sell, but #2 essentially requires me to do a 180 on a matter I thought was settled. I've said it before, but I'll say it again. Sebastian Mallaby is the best popular press public policy (how's that for alliteration?) writer in America today.

Busy, busy, ...

Blogging has been light, as I've been quite harried of late. I did, though, want to report on the result of my DMV experiment. First, my plan was almost ruined before it began. Things came up (as they do) and I wasn't able to get away from the office until after 3:30. By that time of the day, I figured lots of folks would be off work and it would make it less likely that my "in and out quickly" plan would work. On the other hand, if I really wanted to test for a "Valentine effect" on the lines, I guess running the experiment at a normally busy time of day was the way to go. Regardless, I decided to follow through on my plan. The results?

It worked exactly as I predicted! For the first time EVER, I went to the courthouse and did not have to wait in line at all. Yes, hard as it is to believe, there were more available clerks than customers! I had one little "modification" I had to get taken care of, but even with that I was in and out in less than 10 minutes. Now I have a new Valentine's Day ritual. I'm buying my tags on Feb. 14th every year -- except for those pesky years when it falls on a weekend. All-in-all, I deemed the experiment a success.

Happy V-day

Yes, it is that time of year again. So far I've had one student bring me some candy. What's wrong with these kids? Don't they know they're supposed to bribe the teacher with sweets? Sigh.

So what big plans do I have for this day? I'll tell you. I'm going to the DMV. Y'all remember my previous run in with the folks at the DMV? Well it's time to renew my tags for the year and I hate waiting in the eternal line at the courthouse. I've tried multiple variations: end of the month, first of the month, middle of the month, morning, afternoon, etc. None has ever been totally satisfactory. This year, I hit on a new idea: Valentine's Day. I know it's stereotyping, but here's how I figure it. Many women will be rushing home to get ready for the big night out and many men will be smacking themselves on the head and rushing off to Wal-Mart, Hallmark, the florist, etc. because they realize, yet again, they've put off their shopping until the last minute. So who will be at the DMV? I'm hoping just me! I'll let you know how it goes, but I think I'm onto something. We'll see.

High dudgeon

I was offended (sorely) by yesterday's newspaper. No, not the newspaper itself, but a particular item in said paper. You already knew that, though, didn't you? So what was it that offended me so? It was one of those "10 things to do (or maybe not do) if you're ALONE on Valentines Day" lists. I saved that section, but I don't have it handy, hence I'll rant from memory.

First, the suggestions were quite nannyish and condescending. Things like, "Don't hate the holiday just because you're alone. Hate really doesn't help anything." Gee, I'd never heard that hate isn't nice. Hmm, maybe elementary school would have gone much better if I'd gotten that lesson from something like Sesame Street?!?! Then there was something akin to, "Don't attempt to drown your misery in drink." Again, same complaint as above. However,I reached my breaking point with #10.

The final tip was something like, "Start taking actions RIGHT NOW to make sure you don't find yourself in this miserable position next year!" There were all sort of helpful tips that amounted to get in shape, dress better, just put yourself out there (my perennial favorite), ... What offended me so was the inherent assumption that anybody who isn't involved in a deeply meaningful relationship must be the most miserable bloke on the planet! Why? Sure, I occasionally get tired of talking to the cats, but I do have human friends. I'll even go so far as to admit there are times I'd like to spend Friday or Saturday on a traditional date, but who gave this woman [Er, big mea culpa in order. I'll admit it; I assumed it was a woman tipster, but I was wrong. Sackcloth and ashes will be applied.] the right to assume I must be in such a state of anguish? For the most part I'm reasonably happy as a singleton, just as I think I'd be reasonably happy as part of a couple (I have been in the past). The long and short of it is I consider myself to be a reasonably happy person and that feeling is NOT tied to whether or not I have a date for some arbitrary date on the calendar!

Don't read too much into this. I haven't sworn off dates nor do I "hate the holiday". I enjoy going on (most) dates and I honestly hadn't even thought about the fact that Valentine's Day is just two days away. It honestly had made no impression on me. Actually, I'm giving a test at 8:00 on Feb. 15th! Honestly, it's not some bitter statement on my part, I just didn't realize it was that time of the year.

Seriously, though, if you feel the need to publish such a "helpful" list, this one seems much more user friendly. It actually includes suggestions for things you might enjoy doing! Gosh, what a novel concept.

Okay, my sarcasm is now holstered for another day.

UPDATE: I found a link to the list. Here's the actual text of tip #10:

10. Make plans for next year. Start doing what's necessary to bring a loving relationship into your life. Get a dating coach, join an online matchmaking service, or ask your friends to set you up (Hey, Ang, any comments on this suggestion?). If you don't take any action, you'll be in the same place next year.

Grr, makes my blood boil. Then, he follows that up with this gem:

If you're alone on the Valentine's Day, give yourself permission to enjoy life. And don't lower your standards; being alone is far preferable to being in a bad relationship.

Gee, that's not the messsage I get from the 10 tips. They seem to suggest that you damned well better find you a mate ASAP, otherwise you'll be miserable and alone FOREVER!

Welcome

Let's all offer a warm welcome to one of the United States' newest citizens. Yippee; only 52 (or 53 if you're old school like me) more days until Opening Day (yes, it is a proper noun)!!!

Good technology

Some of you may take my aversion to newfangled devices (e.g., iPods, cell phones, Blackberries, etc.) as evidence of a technology animus. That's not the case at all. I have a cordless phone and an answering machine. I love my toaster oven/microwave combo. Plus, I have TiVo (well the DISH Network version) and I cannot imagine life without it. Heck, I even have a handheld GPS receiver. No, I'm no Luddite. It's just that before I rush out and embrace some new technology, I have to be convinced that it's going to improve my life substantially. Every once in a while, though, I come across one and I embrace it whole heartedly. Such an occasion arose last night.

See, we had a function today and I was supposed to bring 3 gallons of Milo's ice [or iced; I've waded into that minefield before] tea. If you don't know, Milo's is an Alabama restaurant famous for its burgers and tea. In recent years Milo's has begun to franchise and they also sell their tea in grocery stores. I don't drink a lot of sweet tea, but Milo's is pretty good. I was appalled, however, when I discovered just how much Milo thinks of his tea. $2.50 (American) for a gallon of tea! Egad! As I had committed to the tea (and I had promised Milo's), I bit my tongue and bought 2 gallons of sweet. I drew the line, though, at paying that for a gallon of unsweet tea. I'd make that myself. I mean, c'mon. What could Milo possibly do to a gallon of unsweet tea that would add that much value?

Anywho, ... I got home last night and began to heat water for the tea when I made an unpleasant discovery. I had not a single bag of tea in the house. Much as I hated to, I headed out to the grocery store to buy some tea bags (it took 36.5 cents worth of tea bags, by the way, to make 1 gallon of tea). As I was headed to the store anyway, I decided I'd take along my bowl of change. You have one; a bowl/jar/bottle where you pitch your change when you empty your pockets. Usually I put off thinking about my jar of change until it's overflowing and then I spend a few hours rolling all the change. Then I still have to get around to doing something with it.

Within the last couple of years I've noticed these Coinstar machines at local grocery stores. You dump your change in and the machine counts it for you. The only hitch is that Coinstar charges 8.9 cents per dollar for counting. I was not going to pay that (remember, I refused to pay $2.50 for a gallon of tea), but lately I've noticed signs on the machines that led me to believe the fee would be waived if you accepted your payment in the form of a gift certificate from one of several retailers -- one of them being Amazon. I buy stuff from Amazon all the time, so I figured I'd give it a shot.

Let me just say, I'm now a HUGE Coinstar fan. I dumped in my bowl of change and got a promotion code giving me $77.87 of Amazon credit. Plus, I can go ahead and enter the code now and Amazon simply credits my account that much. It's like Christmas in February. I think I can honestly say that as long as this "tie in" remains, I've rolled my last tube of coins.

I do want to point out, though, this is not the most unusual way I've gotten rid of excess change. I mentioned that I dislike rolling coins, but I am willing to do it for quarters, dimes, and maybe even nickels. Pennies, though, are a different story. It's just too much effort for 50 cents. Hence, in years past I've had a separate penny tub where my hundreds and hundreds of pennies go. What happens to them? Usually nothing. Like nuclear waste, they simply accumulate. Once upon a time, however, I sold my penny tub in a moving sale. I wasn't trying to sell it, but a woman made an offer and I took her up on it. True, she got a "deal", but I wasn't going to roll the darned things anyway, so I felt like I'd gotten money for nothing. I know I'm not the only one, but I am proud of the fact that I once "sold money". I use that story when discussing trade in econ.

So, if you can't find anyone to buy your change, give Coinstar a try. Make sure, however, that you use one of the machines with the gift certificate option.

P.S. I have switched to the new blogger software and I hate it. It's not a technology that I willingly embraced. I'm having lots of trouble with comments so I'm sorry if you try to comment and it doesn't go through. On a related note, I'm also having trouble posting comments on other blogs. Melusina -- if you read this, I tried to assure you that I'd help out with your baseball "jones", but I couldn't get it to work. I accidentally ended up posting my comment twice and then neither one actually showed up in your comments section. Grrr!

It's Super

Yes, it is Super Bowl weekend. This year, surprisingly, I find myself unexcited by the Super Bowl. Oh I'm going to watch, but I really don't care about the outcome. The same thing started happening with basketball a few years ago and now I can't even tell you the last basketball game I watched. Could the same thing happen with football? I hope not because I genuinely like watching football. Still, I feel I should say something about the game. Well, I guess I'm pulling for the Colts. I like the Bears and I naturally pull for the underdog, but I would like to see Peyton win the "big one" so we can all stop talking about Peyton not winning the "big one". In reality, though, I'd just like it to be an exciting game.

My lack of excitement about the game got me to thinking of a couple of memorable Super Bowl weekends from the past few years. Back in 2004 I spent Super Sunday at the movie theater watching The Station Agent. It's a wonderfully quirky little film and if you haven't seen it, I suggest you do so at your first opportunity. C'mon, a dwarf inherits an abandoned train station in backwoods New Jersey -- what's not to like? I also found out that Super Sunday is a wonderful time to go to the movies. You can get a great parking place, you don't have to worry about disruptive patrons, and you never have to stand in line. I'm actually considering going to see Children of Men this year.

My most memorable Super Bowl weekend, though, may have been last year. You remember last year? That's when I took my little plunge into Caney Creek. Sigh, good times.

Anyway, hope y'all enjoy the game and the commercials. I'm trying to get a test made out today so I can enjoy the day tomorrow. Go Colts!

Olio

Random thoughts on a chilly Thursday.

First, I'd like to borrow a feature from the guys over at Marginal Revolution. On occasion, one of the writers will share the "best sentence I've read today." So, from my former UAH department chair, talking about a philosophy job candidate who is weighing his offers:

Somehow I think its a sign of social health that a philosopher has multiple job offers with which to tangle.

Second, I feel sorry for Merle Haggard. Now I know most folks don't feel sorry for entertainment stars and such, but bear with me. Over the past several years, almost all the old country stars have had their moments in the sun. The American Recordings and Walk the Line revived Johnny to the point where people who had no idea what "Luther played" suddenly went nuts over Johnny. Van Lear Rose (and Jack White) returned Loretta to the spotlight, Dolly's gotten some mainstream attention, Willie (of course) has just been Willie, even Buck Owens got some attention after he died. Merle, though, has been sort of under the radar. Why? His body of work is just as impressive as any of them -- even Johnny. [Yes, I believe that.] I heard an interview with Kristofferson, or someone like that, who pointed out what a shame it was that Merle was left out of The Highwaymen project. I agree.

While I'd really like to see Merle cash in on the country nostalgia movement, I'm not sure Untamed Hawk will help. It's a 5 disc box showcasing 133 tracks of his "early" recordings. Is there really a need for 133 of Merle's early recordings? Isn't the passage of time supposed to help pick out the gems from the ordinary? There can't be 100+ unknown "Silver Wings" (his best song EVER) out there. Of course this is just my standard opinion toward "deep cuts" boxed sets. For the most part, I figure there was a reason the songs weren't released before. On the other hand, I haven't heard Untamed Hawk, and for $127.49 I'm not likely to. Still, I wish some modern day "cool rocker" would adopt Merle and get him some modern day popularity.

Other than that, ... Well, I got to skip my morning class today. Weather conditions prompted a 1 hour delay in CCC's day and that meant my morning class didn't meet. I know it makes no sense, but I still LOVE a snow day (or hour). I've got no time for those "grown ups" who yammer on about how they'd rather not have to deal with schedule disruptions and such. Maybe I've just got a much higher rate of
time preference. Sigh, I never was good at those "discounting" problems.