And You Will Be Happy Too

January 23, 2013
Posted by Jay Livingston   

Giving money away makes you happier. 

Michael Norton has done research that shows that money, even small amounts, can indeed buy happiness  . . .  if you spend it on others rather than on yourself.  His supporting data come not just from the US or other wealthy countries but from all over the world.  The question is why?

At the Society for Personality and Social Psychology meetings in New Orleans, Norton called on “signaling.”*

One of the ways people signal they are wealthy is to give money away.

I’m not sure when the economists came up with signaling.  It seems to accompany their realization that a lot of important things people do cannot not be explained by simple economic self-interest.  Other social sciences – notably sociology – have long assumed the existence of social motives.  We didn’t even bother to come up with a single word for it. The entire basis of “symbolic interaction”– from the Mead-Cooley-James models of a the early 20th century to Goffman’s Presentation of Self –  is the assumption that we are always signaling things about ourselves, signaling both to others and to ourselves.

The signaling Norton uses seems fairly close to “conspicuous consumption,” a term coined a century ago by another economist. What’s being signaled is still wealth, not other aspects of who the person is.

Norton does acknowledge another set of sociological concepts, relative satisfaction (or deprivation) and social comparison –  the idea that what matters is not the absolute amount you have as measured on some objective scale, but how you feel about that amount.  And that feeling depends on comparing yourself with others.

We suggest that acts of generosity can also signal wealth to the givers themselves, making them feel subjectively wealthier even as money leaves their pockets,

It’s still all about money.  But is having a lot of money or feeling that you have a lot of money the only explanation? 

There are other possibilities.  For one, people feel better about themselves when they live up to the ideals of their society (or smaller social groups), and most societies preach that altruism is a virtue.  Apparently, most of us take this lesson to heart, which is why economists have such a hard time convincing the unenlightened that greed, for lack of a better word, is good and that society will be better off if we all try to maximize our own self-interest.

The rewards for altruism are not financial, they are human.  In some cases they are direct – a sincere and joyful “Thank you” or some other indication that  you like me, you really like me.  But often, it just makes us feel good to know that we have done something nice for someone else.**

Given all the evolutionary reasons for social motives, I don’t know why economists keep being surprised when people behave in unselfish ways. 


----------------------------------------

* I have not been able to find Norton’s presentation.  I am relying on this report.    Norton summarizes his earlier research on giving and happiness in his TED talk (which I highly recommend).

** I hate websites that unbidden start playing music when you open them, but I was tempted to add auto-start background music of “Make Someone Happy” (“and you will be happy too”) to this post – a Bill Evans version, of course.

Facing Off on Fascism

January 19, 2013
Posted by Jay Livingston   

Whole Foods CEO John Mackey got himself in the news by calling Obamacare “fascism.” NPR asked him about his earlier view that it was socialism.

Technically speaking, it's more like fascism. Socialism is where the government owns the means of production. In fascism, the government doesn't own the means of production but they do control it. And that's what's happening with our health care program with these reforms.

In a way, it’s refreshing to hear “fascism” used by someone on the right.  That term has usually been a favorite of the left.  LBJ, Nixon, Reagan, Bush – if you dwelt among the left, it was commonplace to hear them and their policies labeled as fascist.  The right seems to prefer “Nazi.”  Or Obama and his jackbooted thugs (why are conservatives so concerned with footwear?). 

Mackey, as the excerpt shows, was not name-calling or shouting the epithet in some irrational, emotional way.  Instead, he was being “technical,” giving a calm, reasoned definition and categorization.  If the government makes a company do something, that’s fascism.  Social Security contributions, minimum wage, non-lethal working conditions, etc., and now health care* – all fascism.

---------------------
* And, if you’re Newt Gingrich, restrictions on child labor.

More Guns, Less Data

January 17, 2013
Posted by Jay Livingston

As part of his new policy on guns, President Obama signed a directive allowing more research on gun violence and death.  For nearly twenty years, the gun lobby has shut down federally funded research on their favorite objects.   What seems to have gotten them upset was a study that concluded that a gun in the home was far more likely to kill a family member than to prevent a crime (a NY Times story from two years ago is here). 

Brad Plumer at the WaPo WonkBlog posted this chart showing how these Congressional restrictions have affected research at the National Institute of Justice.

Still, sometimes data leaks out.  Peter Norlander on his Academic Envy, Thoughtful Rage blog, posted this county analysis of gun ownership and gun deaths in New York state.

What was true for homes was true for counties. Should it come as a surprise that where there are more guns there are also more gun deaths?  Oh, right.  Guns don’t kill people. More guns, less crime and all that.

No wonder the gunslingers have tried to stop access to this kind of information. Maybe, with this new directive, more data will be coming out of the closet.

Butt Rising

January 16, 2013
Posted by Jay Livingston

“I nipped that in the butt.” 
“Don’t you mean bud?”
“I’ve been saying butt my whole life.”

A friend posted that conversation with her husband on her Facebook page.  The original metaphor is clear - you nip the bud before the problem can grow any larger.  But the husband’s version also makes sense – you give the problem a little bite in the ass as a warning to stop.*

The Easy Aces, in their 1930s radio show, specialized in this sort of  logical malapropism.  “You could’ve knocked me over with a fender,” and “They’re having trouble making ends neat,” were two that my mother remembered. 

Butt seems to be growing more acceptable, so it’s not surprising that it’s displacing similar-sounding words in these idioms.  The one I’ve noticed most is “butt naked” displacing “buck naked.”  What the hell does “buck naked” mean anyway?  By contrast, “butt naked” evokes an image you can immediately visualize.

(Click on the graph for a larger, clearer view.)

N-grams shows that buck is still kicking butt, at least in books.  But even there, the trend is buck down and butt up. 

------------------------------

* Many years ago, a student in my class wrote that someone was “cool, calm, and collective.”  I chuckled, but the meaning of the “correct” word, collected, isn’t readily obvious.   I still think of this phrase when I read people like George Will fretting about Obama (a much-mocked example is here).