Hi! I am going to try to move to @interfluidity@econtwitter.net

My un-CW-ed political posts have annoyed some fosstodonians. I love fosstodon.org! but CW-ing a large proportion of my posts would I think annoy many of the people I converse with, and feel isolating. So with regret, I'll try moving to a server with less apolitical norms. Hopefully, my follows and followers will migrate with me. It's my first time. We'll see!

@vl3 (it was a sardonic comment about some news story, probably some Tesla thing, but only 20d later i have no context for my own remarks.)

in reply to @vl3

is countertransference as a megastructure.

@jgordon memories of the future is the real product opportunity.

in reply to @jgordon

when Trump claims to be “an innocent man” and his followers believe him, i don’t think the meaning of that is to deny that he did what he is accused of. instead the claim is that, by virtue of being Trump, by virtue of his nobility and the nobility of his intentions, his doing this does not constitute a crime where it might if others did the same. 1/

in the conservative imaginary, the protection offered by the state must be about persons rather than actions. it is futile, naive, to try to prevent or deter crime. we must catch and punish criminals. there are good guys and there are bad guys, and the edifice of law is a pretext by which we get the bad guys. going after the good guys, unless what they’ve done shocks the conscience in its harm to other good guys, is always a miscarriage of justice. /fin

in reply to self

either we are integrating or we are disintegrating.

@poetryforsupper 🥺

on getting a locally run LLM up and running. blog.dshr.org/2023/06/a-local-

@Alon @SteveRoth @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper I’m very sympathetic to “hysteresis” arguments that suggest the long-term effect of recessionary economies is sluggish demand, lower growth and productivity that might have emerged in a “run the economy hot” counterfactual, where people would spend more securely and full employment / rising wages create incentives for labor-augmenting innovation.

in reply to @Alon

@Alon @SteveRoth @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper There’s just a very mechanical short-term effect. Business’ capacity to produce does not fall linearly with the marginal workers fired. So the immediate effect of a recession is a productivity increase, once demand comes back towards capacity. I don’t at all claim it’s a good thing overall.

in reply to self

@Alon @SteveRoth @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper since that early 1990s recession, the stylized fact is “jobless recoveries”. fast GDP growth not matched by employment growth. growth itself does not imply productivity. the question is what labor “produces” (it’s really just a ratio) that growth. 1/

in reply to @Alon

@Alon @SteveRoth @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper at the end of a recession is when labor markets are loosest. you might argue then that this is exactly when you’d expect growth to be a function of recruiting labor. but that’s not what happens. “productivity” happens. growth picks uo much faster than labor. /fin

in reply to self

@Alon @SteveRoth @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper i’m not sure what the dispute is? here’s (mobile-scale) US labor productivity by the most common measure. note how it pretty reliably spikes by the end of recessions (including 2020), as businesses fire workers and do less with more (degree to which that’s a result of working them harder vs selection effect of who gets fired is arguable).

in reply to @Alon

This comment on economists' and policy makers' betrayal of welfare economics by adopting "cost-benefit analysis" (or the potential-Pareto criterion) is fabulous. downloads.regulations.gov/OMB- via @SteveRoth

@SteveRoth (The pedant in me can't help but point out that even *with* compensation, we must impose as a normative matter interpersonal comparison of welfare in order to make claims of welfare improvement. Absent unanimous agreement to a policy — with which or without reasonable compensation, will rarely be forthcoming, as people have idiosyncratic attachments or play holdup games — even with compensation we can't "scientifically" know the compensation is adequate.)

in reply to self

@Alon @SteveRoth @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper In a world where employers perceive high costs to finding employees and so hold onto employees through the business cycle, measured productivity declines overall. during periods of lower demand, labor hours are expended for the nontransactional benefit of maintaining relationships, which does not appear in GDP, reducing apparent productivity. 1/

in reply to @Alon

@Alon @SteveRoth @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper In a world where employers fire very freely, we see the morally counterintuitive result that productivity rises in recessions. Businesses fire employees whose hours contribute least to revenue generating transactions, raising the average of revenue per hour. Plus they can work those they retain harder, as "the sack" becomes a very credible threat. 2/

in reply to self

@Alon @SteveRoth @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper Treating productivity as we measure it as an unmitigated virtue is perilous. Yes, we want to maximize welfare generated per hour worked. But productivity doesn't measure welfare, it measures GDP, the macro analog of revenue. There are obvious wedges between welfare and revenue when firing someone doesn't much hit revenue but condemns a person to penury. /fin

in reply to self

@Alon @SteveRoth @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper (The better matching you describe in boom periods could counter to some degree my claim of lower measured productivity over the cycle, but to the degree there are matching gains to be had from job-switching, there might be tensions between the worker scarcity and so security “labor hoarding” yields, encouraging switching, and the relationship-building attached to that, discouraging it even in booms.)

in reply to self

it would be a scandal if government agencies could not have information available for purchase by every other stalker and marketer. if you don’t want the government to have surveillance data, regulate it to prevent it from becoming a commodity for sale on the open market.

@SteveRoth @Alon @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper i think this is maybe restating @Alon’s point, but one conjecture would we are experiencing a labor bargaining power hangover. “labor hoarding” is the phrase the US press uses, but what it means is that businesses perceive labor relations as precious, potentially hard to replace or scarce, rather than disposable and replaceable on demand. so they err on the side of retaining workers, rather than dismiss and rehire them. 1/

in reply to @SteveRoth

@SteveRoth @Alon @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper this would be a pro-employment result of the US’ extraordinary fiscal support during the pandemic. over the last few years, workers experienced getting by without current work — it became thinkable — and they accumulated savings that, even for a while after supports ended, meant “take this job and shove it” remained on the table. 2/

in reply to self

@SteveRoth @Alon @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper thanks to state support, workers were (qua @Alon / Meidner) perceived as having wings, rather than hiding desperately under shells praying for the beneficience of employers. 3/

in reply to self

@SteveRoth @Alon @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper in the stupid Econ 101 imagination, there is only price and quantity, and labor supports can only shove the supply curve outward, reducing quantity employed. 4/

in reply to self

@SteveRoth @Alon @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper but it is policy that determines the *character* of labor as an economic commodity. in a Dickensian world, labor is disorganized, disposable, a burden you take on only when needed and shed as quickly as possible. 5/

in reply to self

@SteveRoth @Alon @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper in a civilized world, labor is people, employment is a relationship, employers who become available then unavailable, “sleep around” looking to replace you, are employers workers can and do avoid. 6/

in reply to self

@SteveRoth @Alon @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper for the first time in 50 years, from 2021, US employers have got a taste of a civilized labor market. even as household employment declines (gig workers find it harder to hire themselves), employers retain the relationships they’ve established, are less likely to let go. 7/

in reply to self

@SteveRoth @Alon @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper in a civilized world, what that leads to is a profits recession, not a labor recession at all, profit margins (i think still near double historical norms) normalize while workers remain employed and employable. 8/

in reply to self

@SteveRoth @Alon @jamisonnbishop @ryanlcooper it remains to be seen how civilized our country is willing to be. what if the stock market declines even while employment is tight and interest rates are steady? is that even thinkable? /fin

in reply to self

the whole pronoun thing will blow over once they realize theirs are brah/brah.

@kim_harding one step might be to adopt electoral systems more likely to reward decent people, and not likely to reward negative partisanship. much wider use of approval voting might be a good start.

in reply to @kim_harding

“The novelist Upton Sinclair observed, ‘It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.’

Well, the opposite is true, too.”

from @BCAppelbaum nytimes.com/2023/06/10/opinion

Chilling on a summer day in Constanța.

@ Teatrul National de Opera si Balet - Oleg Danovski

@DetroitDan i agree with the bit you quote, but i find Hudson mostly discredits himself throughout that interview by offering very caricatured and implausible takes on eg the Biden Administration. his description of the changes to food stamps is just inaccurate. i don't think you can look at the totality of the Biden Administration, including the ambitious and humiliating BBB drama, and write the whole thing off as a cynical game of good cop in cahoots with bad-cop Republicans.

in reply to @DetroitDan