Marriage builds wealth more than being single?

Sunday, January 22nd, 2006

From Marriage builds wealth more than being single?:

The study used data from surveys taken over a 15-year period involving 9,055 Americans who were between 21 and 28 years old in 1985.

Those respondents who remained single had a steady, but slow growth in wealth, from less than $2,000 at the start of the surveys up to an average of about $11,000 after 15 years.

However, those who married and stayed that way showed a sharp increase in wealth accumulation after marriage, growing to an average $43,000 by the 10th year of marriage or by about 16 percent a year.

For people who married and then divorced, there was a slow build-up of wealth during the early years of marriage and then a steady decline about four years prior to divorce.

‘Many of these people may have separated before the divorce became official, which would help explain why wealth starts falling so early,’ Zagorsky said. ‘Divorce is often a long and messy process, and you can see this in the four-year decline in wealth.’

The study also cast doubt on a common assumption that divorce is much harder financially on women than on men. In fact, it showed that women suffered financially only slightly more than men.

Should we fear the proposed Iranian oil bourse?

Friday, January 20th, 2006

I came across the same story “that Iran will construct an ‘oil bourse’ with oil priced in terms of Euros instead of dollars” as Tyler Cowen, and I dismissed its claims that such a system would “swiftly destroy the financial system underpinning the American Empire” for the same reasons:

As a first-order approximation, it doesn’t much matter whether Iran prices its oil in terms of dollars, Euros, or some other currency. At the beginning of each day, investors (including the OPEC nations) are holding their preferred bundle of currency positions. You might need to hold or receive Euros for a moment to make a transaction, but moving from the dollar to the Euro, or vice versa, can be done easily.

Currency markets are some of the most liquid markets in the world.

Myth: Schools don’t have enough money

Friday, January 20th, 2006

John Stoseel argues that it is a myth that schools don’t have enough money:

The truth is, public schools are rolling in money. If you divide the U.S. Department of Education’s figure for total spending on K-12 education by the department’s count of K-12 students, it works out to about $10,000 per student.

Think about that! For a class of 25 kids, that’s $250,000 per classroom. This doesn’t include capital costs. Couldn’t you do much better than government schools with $250,000? You could hire several good teachers; I doubt you’d hire many bureaucrats. Government schools, like most monopolies, squander money.

(Hat tip to Arnold Kling.)

Doctors claim suspended animation success

Friday, January 20th, 2006

From Doctors claim suspended animation success:

A surgeon at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, Hasan Alam, has tested the technique about 200 times on pigs, with a 90 per cent success rate.

First he anaesthetises the animal, then cuts a major vein and artery in its abdomen to simulate multiple gunshots to a person’s chest and abdomen.
As the pig rapidly loses about half its blood and enters a state of shock, Dr Alam drains its blood and stores it before pumping chilled organ preservation fluid into its system.

The animal’s body temperature falls to about 10C until it is in a state of ‘profound hypothermia’ and has no pulse and no electrical activity in its brain.

But after the blood stored earlier is warmed and pumped back into the pig’s body its heart starts beating again and it comes back to life.

‘It is still pretty awe-inspiring,’ Dr Alam said. ‘Once the heart starts beating and the blood starts pumping, voila, you’ve got another animal that’s come back from the other side.

‘Technically, I think we can do it in humans.’

He now wants automatic consent to use the technique on all patients brought to his hospital who have lost blood and would probably die with only standard care.

Notes on the Denial of Perspective

Friday, January 20th, 2006

From Notes on the Denial of Perspective:

Felice Varini paints (lines, concentric circles, triangles) on things (tunnels, castles, groovy interiors). A seemingly random smattering of elements that, viewed from a specific point in space, coalesce into a tangible planar element.

Falling back to earth, alone

Friday, January 20th, 2006

Falling back to earth, alone describes an unbelievable skydive:

In 1960, U.S. Air Force pilot Joe Kittinger flew 30km straight up into the sky using a pressurized, high-altitude balloon. This very nearly made him the first man in space.

He then jumped.

Kittinger free-fell for over twenty miles — at which point he was moving so fast he broke the sound barrier.
[...]
Luckily, there’s a film.

First Computer Bug

Friday, January 20th, 2006

The First Computer Bug was literally a “moth found trapped between points at Relay #70, Panel F, of the Mark II Aiken Relay Calculator while it was being tested at Harvard University,” back in 1945:

The operators affixed the moth to the computer log, with the entry: “First actual case of bug being found”. They put out the word that they had “debugged” the machine, thus introducing the term “debugging a computer program”.

How best to fight off a shark

Friday, January 20th, 2006

How best to fight off a shark:

Bernie Williams, a 46-year-old Australian scuba-diver, fought off repeated attacks by an 11ft (3.5m) shark by hitting it on the nose with his speargun.

As is most often the case, he didn’t see the shark coming until it bit him.

Mr Williams said: ‘It just came out from my left hand side… chomped on my arm and took me for a ride for about two metres.

‘I stabbed it on the nose with a speargun, but it was just like hitting a lump of steel. It didn’t slow down in the slightest.’

The shark retreated before making another attack on Mr Williams, giving him just enough time to hide in a crevice near the ocean floor until his diving buddies came to the rescue.

The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart

Thursday, January 19th, 2006

The Man Who Said No to Wal-Mart tells the story of how Jim Wier, CEO of lawn-equipment maker Simplicity, which acquired Snapper, elected to stop supplying Wal-Mart:

You can buy a lawn mower at Wal-Mart for $99.96, and depending on the size and location of the store, there are slightly better models for every additional $20 bill you’re willing to put down–priced at $122, $138, $154, $163, and $188. That’s six models of lawn mowers below $200. Mind you, in some Wal-Marts you literally cannot see what you are buying; there are no display models, just lawn mowers in huge cardboard boxes.

The least expensive Snapper lawn mower–a 19-inch push mower with a 5.5-horsepower engine–sells for $349.99 at full list price. Even finding it discounted to $299, you can buy two or three lawn mowers at Wal-Mart for the cost of a single Snapper.

If you know nothing about maintaining a mower, Wal-Mart has helped make that ignorance irrelevant: At even $138, the lawn mowers at Wal-Mart are cheap enough to be disposable. Use one for a season, and if you can’t start it the next spring (Wal-Mart won’t help you out with that), put it at the curb and buy another one. That kind of pricing changes not just the economics at the low end of the lawn-mower market, it changes expectations of customers throughout the market. Why would you buy a walk-behind mower from Snapper that costs $519? What could it possibly have to justify spending $300 or $400 more?

That’s the question that motivated Jim Wier to stop doing business with Wal-Mart. Wier is too judicious to describe it this way, but he looked into a future of supplying lawn mowers and snow blowers to Wal-Mart and saw a whirlpool of lower prices, collapsing profitability, offshore manufacturing, and the gradual but irresistible corrosion of the very qualities for which Snapper was known. Jim Wier looked into the future and saw a death spiral.

How to Do What You Love

Thursday, January 19th, 2006

Paul Graham explains How to Do What You Love:

Whichever route you take, if you want to end up working on something you love, it will help if you don’t have a taste for money or prestige, since (a) that’s how unpleasant jobs are rewarded, and (b) you often have to sacrifice one or both when switching fields.

Engines of Democracy

Thursday, January 19th, 2006

Engines of Democracy describes the amazingly effective GE/Durham plant:

Although engines go out the door of this plant at a rate of more than one per day, the air of calm is hardly its most unusual aspect. The plant is General Electric’s aircraft-engine assembly facility in Durham, North Carolina. Even within Jack Welch’s widely admired empire, the Durham facility is in its own league — a quiet corner of a global giant, a place where the radical has become routine. GE/Durham has more than 170 employees but just one boss: the plant manager. Everyone in the place reports to her. Which means that on a day-to-day basis, the people who work here have no boss. They essentially run themselves.

Morales’s Mistake

Thursday, January 19th, 2006

Tyler Cowen asks, What is wrong with Bolivia? and points to James Surowiecki’s Morales’s Mistake:

Neoliberalism failed in Bolivia because a macroeconomic checklist is not enough to make an economy work. Incorporating a new business in Bolivia, for instance, takes fifty-nine days, entails fifteen separate procedures, and costs twice as much as the average person earns in a year. So, according to a recent World Bank study, most of Bolivia’s businesses remain “informal,” which means that they have no legal protection, and limited access to credit markets. Corruption is rampant—a survey in 2000 found that it was a greater problem in Bolivia than in about ninety-five per cent of other countries surveyed. And the state bureaucracy has been more interested in patronage and clientelism than in good policy.

Liger

Thursday, January 19th, 2006

You may know that Napoleon Dynamite declared the Liger — the cross between a male lion and a female tiger — “pretty much” his favorite animal.

What you may not know is that ligers are big:

Ligers grow much larger than tigers or lions and it is believed this is because female lions transmit a growth-inhibiting gene to their descendants to balance the growth-promoting gene transmitted by male lions (this gene is due to competitive mating strategies in lions). A male lion needs to be large to successfully defend the pride from other roaming male lions and pass on his genes; also, in prides with multiple male adult lions, a male’s cubs need to be bigger than the competing males for the best chance of survival. Thus, his genes favor larger offspring. A lioness, however, will have up to 5 cubs, and a cub is typically one of many being cared for in a pride with many other lions. As such, it has a relatively high survival rate, and need not be huge as it will not need to look after itself very quickly. Smaller cubs are more easily cared for and fed and are less strain on the pride; hence, the inhibiting gene developed.

Male tigers do not compete for status and mates in the way lions do; a tigress only mates with one tiger when in season, so a tiger does not have the same genetic predisposition to produce large competing offspring. Also, a tigress typically has fewer cubs, and those have a much lower survival rate due to the tiger’s solitary nature, so being large and growing quickly are an advantage; there is no need for a growth inhibitor. Being the offspring of a male lion and female tiger, the liger inherits the growth-promoting gene unfettered by a growth-inhibiting gene and typically grows larger than either animal; this is called growth dysplasia.

What is your dangerous idea? We don’t know what goes on in our heads.

Thursday, January 19th, 2006

Richard E. Nisbett answers this year’s Edge question, What is your dangerous idea?, with the notion “that people are very unreliable informants about why they behaved as they did, made the judgment they did, or liked or disliked something”:

Does it matter that we often don’t know what goes on in our heads and yet believe that we do? Well, for starters, it means that we often can’t answer accurately crucial questions about what makes us happy and what makes us unhappy. A social psychologist asked Harvard women to keep a daily record for two months of their mood states and also to record a number of potentially relevant factors in their lives including amount of sleep the night before, the weather, general state of health, sexual activity, and day of the week (Monday blues? TGIF?). At the end of the period, subjects were asked to tell the experimenters how much each of these factors tended to influence their mood over the two month period. The results? Women’s reports of what influenced their moods were uncorrelated with what they had reported on a daily basis. If a woman thought that her sexual activity had a big effect, a check of her daily reports was just as likely to show that it had no effect as that it did. To really rub it in, the psychologist asked her subjects to report what influenced the moods of someone they didn’t know: She found that accuracy was just as great when a woman was rated by a stranger as when rated by the woman herself!

Joe Rogan Explains DMT

Thursday, January 19th, 2006

I hadn’t even heard of DMT until very recently, when Clifford Pickover mentioned it. Now Joe Rogan Explains DMT. And, yes, he sounds semi-profound, semi-insane.

(Hat tip to Boing Boing.)