It's the Demand, Stupid

July 25, 2011
Posted by Jay Livingston

It’s nice to have one’s ideas supported in unexpected places.

Last month, I speculated (here) on the reasons job growth has been so dismal. The Republicans explanation is that employers are reluctant to hire because they are “uncertain” about government regulation. My explanation was simpler: “If companies aren’t hiring, the real problem, I suspect, is not lack of certainty but lack of customers.”

The Wall Street Journal, under the capable ownership of Rupert Murdoch, is not widely known as a lefty rag. But last week, they ran an article about this same question. Here’s the lede:

The main reason U.S. companies are reluctant to step up hiring is scant demand, rather than uncertainty over government policies, according to a majority of economists in a new Wall Street Journal survey. . . .

It continues:

In the survey, conducted July 8-13 and released Monday, 53 economists—not all of whom answer every question—were asked the main reason employers aren't hiring more readily. Of the 51 who responded to the question, 31 cited lack of demand (65%) and 14 (27%) cited uncertainty about government policy. The others said hiring overseas was more appealing.

Mr. Weber Goes to Washington

July 24, 2011
Posted by Jay Livingston

George Packer in The New Yorker (here):

The sociologist Max Weber, in his 1919 essay “Politics as a Vocation,” drew a distinction between “the ethic of responsibility” and “the ethic of ultimate ends”—between those who act from a sense of practical consequence and those who act from higher conviction, regardless of consequences. . .
.

Weber’s terms perfectly capture the toxic dynamic between the President, who takes responsibility as an end in itself, and the Republicans in Congress, who are destructively consumed with their own dogma. Neither side can be said to possess what Weber calls a “leader’s personality.” Responsibility without conviction is weak, but it is sane. Conviction without responsibility, in the current incarnation of the Republican Party, is raving mad

.
The image of Obama as weak, or at least too willing to give in to the Republicans, seems accurate to me. The Republicans appear not so much as “raving mad” but as intransigent and single-minded – less spending, no tax increases, no matter what.

I suspect that they are not as inflexible on this as they claim. They had no objection to very large spending increases when they were in the White House. Reagan, with the support of Republicans in Congress, increased Social Security taxes, and his closing of some tax loopholes and shelters was designed to raise the effective income tax on those who has used them. What the Republicans seem single-minded about is gaining power, as their Senate leader has said.

Read Packer’s article. It’s short, and its context for Weber is the story of a man trying to cope with problems of unemployment and health care.

For an earlier SocioBlog allusion to Weber's essay go here.

Apostrophes

July 22, 2011
Posted by Jay Livingston
(Cross posted at Sociological Images)


Changes in language seem to just happen. Nobody sets out to introduce a change, but suddenly people are saying “groovy” or “my bad.” And then they’re not. Even written language changes, though the evolution is slower.

Last weekend, I saw this sign at a goat farm on Long Island.

(Click on an image for a larger view.)

WER'E ??

I used to care about the apostrophe, but after years of reading student papers about “different society’s,” I have long accepted that the tide is against me. It’s like spelling a few hundred years ago – you can pretty much make up your own rules.

Sometimes the rule is fairly clear: use an apostrophe in plurals when leaving it out makes the word look like a different word rather than a plural form of the original. Change the “y” in “society” to “ies” and it looks too different. “Of all the cafe’s, I like the one with lime martini’s.”

Or these:


Technically, it should be "ON DVDS." But DVDS looks like it's some government agency (“I gotta go down to the DVDS tomorrow”) or maybe a disease.

It’s not always easy to figure out what rule or logic the writer is following. The little apostrophe seems to be plunked in almost at random. Not random, really. It’s usually before an “s.” But why does Old Navy say, “Nobody get’s hurt”?


There’s a prescriptivist Website, ApostropheAbuse.com, that collects these (that’s where I found the DVDS and Old Navy pictures). They’re fighting a losing battle.

Technology matters – I guess that’s the sociological point here. The invention of print and then the widespread dissemination of identical texts herded us towards standardization. Printers became a separate professional group (not part of the church or state), and most of them were in the same place (London). They had a stranglehold on published spelling.

Starting a few decades ago, anyone could be a printer. The page you are now reading might harbor countless errors in punctuation and spelling (though spell-checkers greatly reduce misspellings), but it looks just as good as an article in the Times online, and it’s published in a similar way (and to potentially as many readers – right)  .

And now there’s texting. It’s already pushing upper case letters off the screen, and the apostrophe forecast doesn’t look so good either. But what will still be interesting is not the missing apostrophe but the apostrophe added where, by traditional rules, it doesn’t belong.

I still can’t figure out WER’E.

Bought Sex?

July 20, 2011
Posted by Jay Livingston

Did you buy sex last year?

You probably said no, even if you’re a man. But wait. First look at “The John Next Door” an article currently up at Newsweek (subhead: “The men who buy sex are your neighbors and colleagues”). It features a study by Melissa Farley called “Comparing Sex Buyers With Men Who Don’t Buy Sex”

No one even knows what proportion of the male population does it; estimates range from 16 percent to 80 percent.

Actually, a considerably lower estimate comes from the GSS.

PAIDSEX Had sex for pay last year: If you had other partners, please indicate all categories that apply to them. d. Person you paid or paid you for sex.

Here are the results since the GSS started asking this question..

(Click in the graph for a larger view.)

Not 16-80%, but somewhere around 5%.

Not to get too Clintonian, but it seems to depend on what the meaning of “sex” is. The GSS respondents probably thought that paying for sex meant paying someone to have sex. Farley’s definition was somewhat broader.

Buying sex is so pervasive that Farley’s team had a shockingly difficult time locating men who really don’t do it. The use of pornography, phone sex, lap dances, and other services has become so widespread that the researchers were forced to loosen their definition in order to assemble a 100-person control group.

So if you bought a copy of Playboy, you paid for sex. And if you looked at it twice last month, you are disqualified from the control of “men who don’t buy sex.”

“We had big, big trouble finding nonusers,” Farley says. “We finally had to settle on a definition of non-sex-buyers as men who have not been to a strip club more than two times in the past year, have not purchased a lap dance, have not used pornography more than one time in the last month, and have not purchased phone sex or the services of a sex worker, escort, erotic masseuse, or prostitute.”

I don’t have Farley’s data. If the control group of nonusers was 100, I assume that the user group n was the same – not really large enough for estimating the prevalence of the different forms of buying sex. How many had paid a prostitute, how many had looked at porn twice in a month? Some people probably think that there’s a meaningful distinction between those two. The implication of much of the Newsweek article is that they are all “sex buyers” and that they therefore share the same ugly attitudes towards women.