Children as 'investment goods'

Two Italian economists have a new study that asks why birth rates are falling in more developed countries. They look at an Italian policy change that decreased expected pension income for a lot of people, and found that couples with a bigger drop in future income prospects were significantly more likely to have a child. They conclude that children are more likely seen as "a source of future financial support for their retired parents, as opposed to the traditional 'consumption' motive which suggests that a reduced pension income should lead to a reduction in parents' consumption and, therefore, fertility." In other words, one way to see kids is as a future source of financial support (investment) or a drain on one's budget (consumption). I assume that the connection to lower birth rates in developing countries in general is that as people have higher incomes and better standards of living, there is less of a concern about having that future financial support.

Even if this makes sense, I have to say that it's stuff like this that makes people think we economists have no heart...

Troubled

I know I've been neglecting this blog the last several weeks but I hope you will forgive me and read on because I could use your input. Tonight I find myself deeply troubled, and I'm wondering if I'm not alone. It's partly the financial meltdown, which I have been following closely, probably more closely than the average person, trying to understand what's going on and why. But even with a Ph.D. in economics, I'm not really sure I get it and it's gotten to a point where I'm not sure I even want to know anymore. The headlines are starting to feel unreal and if I let myself think about it too carefully, I'd probably panic, which is exactly what I know we all need NOT to do.

Another part of my feeling troubled is the presidential campaign. I've been following that pretty closely too, watching the debates and reading a lot of the spin. For a while now, I have been really disappointed in John McCain, a man I once considered voting for, because I feel like he is just not the same man he was even a year ago. But the nastiness that has been evident at his (and even more, at Sarah Palin's) recent rallies, goes beyond disappointing - it's just plain scary. David Gergen was on the Colbert Report last night and I think he summed it up well when he said (of McCain): "He needs to rein it in. He is a better man than that." I know there are plenty of nut jobs in this country, not to mention perfectly sane people who happen to be racist bigots; but the truly scary thing is that "leaders" like John McCain are condoning their hate.

Utlimately, maybe that is what's at the root of my troubled heart tonight: a fundamental lack of leadership, and therefore a lack of trust in our government. I am praying that Obama, who inspires me more than any politician has since Clinton in 1992, will be able to stop this downward spiral but given current rhetoric, I also fear for his life if he actually wins. The thing is, for the last eight years, Americans have seen our civil liberties eroded and our standing in the world deteriorate. I think many in my particular socioeconomic class have not been personally affected and so we have watched it all with a sort of detached horror - intellectually, we know all the things Bush has done are awful but it's not clear what we could/should do about it. But if Obama loses, or is assassinated before taking office, I honestly wonder if we are all aware of how bad it could get...

I hate to be such a downer (those who know me know that this is not my usual m.o. at all). So help me out - am I being too pessimistic? Or do you feel the same frustration? How are you dealing with it?

In praise of singletude

I started the week with all kinds of good intentions to write something about it being Unmarried and Single Americans Week. Unfortunately, this semester is seriously kicking my butt so the week is over but I still wanted to take at least a few minutes to pay tribute to the fact that according to the Census Bureau, over 40% of the population 18 and over is unmarried (that includes never married, widowed or divorced). I thought it was interesting that the week was originally National Singles Week, intended "to celebrate single life and recognize singles and their contributions to society" but the Census website says it is now generally known as 'Unmarried and Single Americans Week' to acknowledge that "many unmarried Americans do not identify with the word “single” because they are parents, have partners or are widowed." Which leads me to ponder once again: what does 'single' mean to you?

I've also been thinking about the term single because I've come across some twists on the word that strike me as cool attempts to de-stigmatize singlehood. There's obviously Quirkyalone, the inspiration for the title of this blog. I also like Singular, which is the name of a new magazine for singles in L.A. But my favorite is singletude, as in Singletude: A Positive Blog for Singles. The rest of the tagline reads: "a positive, supportive blog about life choices for the new single majority. It's about dating and relationships, yes, but it's also about the other 90% of your life--family, friends, career, hobbies--and flying solo and sane in this crazy, coupled world. Singletude isn't about denying loneliness. It's about realizing that whether you're single by choice or by circumstance, this single life is your life to live." Amen to that.

Well put

At the risk of sounding like part of the 'intellectual elite', I really liked this post from Russell Korobkin at the Volokh Conspiracy:

The problem with Palin on a national ticket is not her lack of experience, per se. Few governors have much, if any, direct foreign policy experience, and we elect them President quite often. Specific experience can be quite overrated, and if you blindly use it to reinforce rather than challenge your prior beliefs and prejudices it can be downright harmful. The problem is that it isn't clear that she even pays much attention to the newspapers or has had, prior to this week's airplane flight to Alaska with McCain staffers, any in-depth conversations or even in-depth thoughts about the critical issues that have faced the country over the last several years. The Palin interviews with Charlie Gibson over the past two days have provided definitive proof that she lacks the intellectual heft that she will sorely need if she ever were to find herself having to weigh and choose between competing arguments made by advisors about complicated policy questions.

She's in way over her head. Worse, if you believe what she told Gibson about her lack of hesitation when McCain offered her the position, she doesn't even know it.

Add in McCain morphing from someone I once considered voting for to someone who flat-out lies, and I just donated money to a politician for the first time in my life.

Random thoughts about Palin

I've been completely caught up in my classes for the last couple weeks but like a good little feminist Democrat, I've been accumulating some links about Sarah Palin that I want to share so here are some worthwhile links and a few thoughts:

snopes.com: Alaskans' Opinions on Sarah Palin
This email, from a woman in Palin's hometown, has been making the rounds but when I first got it, I thought it must be fake. However, when I checked Snopes.com (which I encourage everyone to do before sending on any kind of chain-y emails!), it turns out that it's real. The letter is critical but not in a scathing way - the author originally sent it just to friends and family, a couple days after Palin was announced, simply to give them more information.

Mixed Race America: Post convention thoughts
This is one of my new favorite blogs (and not just because it's written by a 30-something professor named Jennifer). She just says a lot of stuff I wish I'd said, like: "I would like people to recognize that women, just like men, are complex creatures. And that just because you are a woman does not mean that you can speak for all women or are in favor of what, politically, we refer to as "women's rights." Same thing goes for being African American--Barack Obama does not speak on behalf of all African Americans. He does not "represent" black American. He is not running for president of the American "black diaspora." He is running to be President of the United States."
I agree 100%. But what bugs me is that the McCain campaign seems to want to use Palin to get the support of women but then anytime someone actually mentions she is a women (in a negative way), they jump all over that as sexist. Can't have it both ways...

The Daily Show: Sarah Palin Gender Card
That hypocrisy is really what bugs me most about the coverage of Palin, and I'll admit Democrats are engaging in it too - people on both sides are saying things about her that they would never say about someone in their own party. Not that this is anything new in politics but for some reason, it seems more obvious this time. And Jon Stewart makes that point brilliantly!

The Volokh Conspiracy - Should We Hold Belief in Creationism Against Candidates for Political Office?
Given my tendency to over-analyze everything, I feel like it's becoming increasing rare for someone else to make a reasonable point that truly makes me go, "hmmm..." but this post really did. The author wonders why we (i.e., the media and liberals) make a bigger deal about someone believing in creationism than believing other, equally unprovable religious ideas (like the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc.). I will say that I think part of the difference lies with what people do with those beliefs - you just don't see people pushing to teach the virgin birth in sex ed classes or the resurrection in history or biology classes - but I think it's a good point.

When does 'dressing the part' become simply 'dressing'?

Classes start next week which means I've started my annual August ritual: staring into my closet wondering, "What am I going to wear when I teach?" Before anyone thinks that this really should be the least of my worries right now, let me point out that I've been working at my computer for the last three weeks, pretty much straight, stressing about getting my classes put together, so taking a break to stare at my closet isn't me being shallow, it's me trying to avoid carpal tunnel and the need for bifocals!

Actually, I hadn't really started thinking about my wardrobe until I saw a post on Stepcase Lifehack about work and style that is part of their summer giveaway. Part of the reason it caught my attention is that this IS something I think about every year. I've always 'dressed up' to teach; of course, in academia, 'dressing up' could mean simply not wearing a tee-shirt and flip flops, but for me, it usually means wearing nice pants or maybe a skirt, shoes with at least a little bit of heel, and a tailored sweater or top. I'm a Banana Republic/Ann Taylor kind of girl anyway, so it's not like this is a big stretch, but given my druthers, I'd still rather wear jeans or capris.

However, by some point in the semester, 'nice pants' does usually mellow out to include my dark jeans (note to any guys who are confused reading this: dark jeans are still dressier than regular jeans), and I get a little less anal about what I wear. What I've realized is that each year, that point - the point where I decide it's OK for me to dress a little less nicely - gets earlier and earlier. And this year, I'm not really sure that I even care. That's not saying that I intend to go to class next week in shorts and a tank top. But the main reason I've always dressed up to teach is that I think it helps me to establish my position of 'authority'. That is, since I look younger than I am, I've always worried about students not taking me seriously as a professor, and dressing up is one way I can make it clear that I am not 'one of them'. But as I get older, I seem to be worrying less about that. Duh, you're thinking, that only makes sense, since as I get older, I must look older so there's less to worry about. But I think it's more that as I get older, I am more confident and more comfortable being a professor. I feel less need to 'dress the part' because it's no longer a 'part' I'm playing, it's simply who I am. The upshot is that what I wear isn't about looking older or more authoritative, it's about looking like the competent professional that I am. Who happens to wear a lot of Banana Republic...

Related posts:
When do you become middle-aged?
Managing social media and multiple personalities

The Hirabayashi lie

I'm going to depart from the usual content of this blog to comment on something that is extremely important to me. In my profile description over there in the right-hand sidebar, I mention that I am 4th-generation Japanese-American, or yonsei. That means my great-grandparents came to the U.S. from Japan (in the JA community, 1st-generation, or Issei, refers to the generation that come over, not the first born here). For those who can do the math, my grandparents were born well before World War II and yes, my family went through the internment (and if you don't know much about the internment, I've written a short summary here). I've often thought that the ironic absurdity of the internment is exemplified in the fact that my mother was born in Mississippi, where my grandfather was doing his Army training. When he went off to fight with the 442nd in Europe, my grandmother went back into camp, since she didn't really have anywhere else to go. It's simply beyond comprehension that there were men fighting and dying for a country that was essentially treating their families like prisoners.

Of course, there are many things about the Japanese American internment that are appalling but yesterday I read something that reinforced just what a shameful period that was. Eric Muller has written a paper about Hirabayashi v. United States, a key case in which the Supreme Court basically said that the racially-based curfew imposed on Japanese Americans was allowable because of the severity of the threat of an invasion of the West Coast. Muller presents new evidence that the government lawyers lied to make their case. I'll let the abstract speak for itself:

While the government's submissions in Hirabayashi maintained that the curfew was a constitutional response to the serious threat of a Japanese invasion of the West Coast, new archival findings make clear that military officials foresaw no Japanese invasion and were planning for no such thing at the time they ordered mass action against Japanese Americans. Even more disturbingly, the archival record demonstrates that at the time that Justice Department lawyers filed their brief in Hirabayashi emphasizing a threatened invasion, they knew this emphasis was false.

The Article seeks to understand what might have led otherwise ethical Justice Department lawyers to present such a big and consequential lie, suggesting that the then-prevalent racial schema of the "Oriental" as an invading horde may have overpowered the lawyers' evaluation of the facts. And perhaps more importantly, the Article demonstrates that the Hirabayashi decision - which has never been repudiated in the way that the more famous Korematsu decision has been, and which remains a potent precedent for race-conscious national security measures - deserves to be installed in the Supreme Court's Hall of Shame, alongside Korematsu, Dred Scott, and the Court's other biggest mistakes.

There are many who want to believe that the internment was somehow justified, that the government must have had some reason to believe that the Japanese American community posed a threat to national security. But there is simply no evidence that that was the case; on the contrary, the only people who spied for Japan during the War were all white, there wasn't a single incident of sabotage perpetrated by Japanese Americans, and the 442nd, comprised entirely of Japanese Americans, is one of the most decorated military units in history. For reasons that should be obvious, I think it is particularly crucial that we keep this history in mind today...