What’s Wrong With (Percentages in) Mississippi

April 10, 2011
Posted by Jay Livingston

A Public Policy Polling survey asked Mississippi Republicans about their opinion on interracial marriage. It also asked how they felt about various politicians. The report concludes, “Tells you something about the kinds of folks who like each of those candidates.”

Not quite.

What’s been getting the most attention is the finding that Mississippi Republicans think interracial marriage should be illegal. Not all Mississippi Republicans. Just 46% of them (40% think it should be legal).* Does their position on intermarriage tell us anything about who they might like as a candidate? Does a Klaxon wear a sheet?

(Click on the chart for a larger view.)

It’s no surprise that Sarah Palin is much preferred to Romney. But as PPP points out racial attitudes figure differently depending on the candidate. When you go from racists to nonracists,** Palin’s favorable/unfavorable ratio takes a hit. But Romney’s gets a boost.

But does this tells us something about “the kinds of folks who like each of those candidates”? The trouble is that statement is percentaging on the dependent variable, implicitly comparing Romney supporters with Palin supporters. But the percentages actually given by PPP compare racists with nonracists** The statement is implying that candidate preferences tell us about racial attitudes. But what the data show is that racial attitudes tell us about candidate preferences. The two are not the same. From the data PPP gives, we don’t actually know what percent of Palin supporters favor laws against intermarriage. Ditto for Romney supporters.

In any case, neither Palin nor Romney is the top choice of Mississippi Republicans (especially the racists), who may be thinking racially but are acting locally and going with their own governor first and the former governor of neighboring Arkansas second.


* The sample was only 400. But the results aren’t too different from what the GSS has found. The most recent GSS I could find that included RACMAR was from 2002. In the “East South Central” region, the percent favoring laws against interracial marriage was 36%. So among Republicans, it might have been ten points higher.

**I realize that neither of these terms “racist” and “nonracist” is necessarily accurate. I use them as shorthand for, respectively, “people who think interracial marriage should be illegal” and “people who think interracial marriage should be legal.”

Stamp of Approval?

April 8, 2011
Posted by Jay Livingston

Stamps allow you to learn all about the world. That’s the sort of thing I used to hear as a kid, usually from grown-ups encouraging kids to get involved in a hobby, like stamp collecting.

Here’s the Royal Wedding commemorative stamp that New Zealand Niue issued. It’s worth 5.80 NZ dollars, but conveniently, if your letter requires less postage, you can tear the stamp on the perforation.

It reminds me of those photos (from the pre-Photoshop era) of now-divorced couples, the photo torn in half to remove a husband or wife. The New Zealand Niue stamp is like a pre-nup – we’re not saying you’re going to split up, but in case you do, this will make thing easier.


There’s a second problem, one pointed out by many others (including The Equality Myth, which is where I found this thanks to a link by Philip Cohen): Prince William is worth 3.40, Kate is worth only 2.40.

Those grown-ups of my childhood – maybe they were right. Stamps can tell you something about real world.

Academic Discplines and Labeling

April 8, 2011
Posted by Jay Livingston

In a post on the teaching of economics in the US, Brad deLong drops this aperçu

Warning labels should inform right-wing students that economics will encourage their bad intellectual habits just as labels should inform left-wing students that sociology will encourage theirs.

(Sociology faculty and students probably thought this was going to be about that other kind of labeling, an assumption that maybe illustrates Brad’s point.)

Undeserving

April 6, 2011
Posted by Jay Livingston

Jenn Lena blogs something a relative sent her, with a picture of some dogs.

This morning I went to sign my dogs up for welfare. At first the lady said, “Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare.” So I explained to her that my dogs are mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can’t speak English and have no frigging clue who their Daddy’s are. They expect me to feed them, provide them with housing and medical care. So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify. My dogs get their first checks on Friday.

Damn, this is a great country! [emphasis in original]

The relative’s ignorance extends far beyond not knowing how to form plurals in written English, and Jenn provides, point by point, actual evidence that refutes the assumptions behind this supposed satire.

A day or two earlier, I came across this in the blog of Scott Sumner, who is, inTyler Cowen’s words, a “very smart monetary economist.” He knows the difference between a possessive and a plural, and I’m sure he has sophisticated economic theories and models that justify all his policy preferences. But read his gut reasons for mistrusting the Democrats on Social Security.

Here’s why I don’t trust the Dems—I see them as the party of one marshmallow eaters.* They represent people who have less self-control. I fear they will cut my benefits, but not cut the benefits of people who didn’t save for retirement. . . . .

In my view there is nothing egalitarian about redistributing income from two marshmallow eaters to one marshmallow eaters. They’ve already had their fun when young, loading up their three car garages with all sorts of fun toys. I’ve never even had a garage. (full text here )

Sumner is talking here not about the poor but about middle income (or somewhat higher) people who spent rather than saved. Still, the same moral sentiment underlies much opposition to policies designed to reduce inequality: they take from prudent ants and give to profligate grasshoppers.** The tone is different from the dogs-as-poor-people bit of hilarity. But it’s the same song, just played in a different key.

* This is a reference to the famous Stanford “marshmallow experiment,” where four-year-olds were given a marshmallow but were told that if they didn’t eat the marshmallow now, they could have two marshmallows later.

**I wonder how these people react to Rep. Ryan’s recent proposal, which does the reverse Robin Hood thing of shrinking programs for the poor and giving tax breaks the rich. Two-thirds of his proposed budget cuts hit programs for the poor (details here). At the same time, he would lower the income tax for millionaires from 35% to 25%. The former is for the noble purpose of saving the economy by reducing the deficit. I’m not sure how the latter helps in this regard, but I’m sure Rep. Ryan has some noble purpose in mind.