Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

danluu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 294 posts

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#261

Post by noqc »

citrin_ru wrote: post #222
noqc wrote: post #82

The author of the marathon paper explains the phenomenon he is observing, and then goes on to "reject that explanation" without attempting to do anything to control for it. >For example, the 2013 Chicago Marathon provided pace teams for 3:00, 3:05, 3:10, 3:15, 3:20, 3:25, 3:30, 3:35, 3:40, 3:45, 3:50, 3:55, 4:00, 4:10, 4:25, 4:30, 4:40, 4:55, 5:00, 5:10, 5:25, and 5:45.T he institution of pace teams then could provid…

There is one more reason for discontinuity around 4:00 - many amateur runners make a goal to run in 4:00 or less (hard but achievable) and reduce training intensity once they finished in 3:5x - 4:00.

That doesn't explain a discontinuity, and moreover, the effect of the pace runners has yet to be controlled for, so there is no more explanation required.

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#262

Post by AnthonyMouse »

advael wrote: post #260
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it still creates a situation where a long-standing project creates stable returns for a company while decoupling the service it provides from both market forces and public accountability. But that's just a mechanism for the corruption. The contract for the design of something and its manufacture and maintenance should each be separate bids. Even each stage of the design should be a separate contract that could go t…

Yea, that does seem like a reasonable way to design less corrupt mechanisms for these processes, but I think the standard way piecemeal designs like that get rejected is by arguments to "efficiency" (Nevermind that efficiencies gained by bundling require some pretty strict discipline within a firm, mostly benefit the firm, and are easily dwarfed from the government's perspective by the inefficiencies taken on by the…

That's the "monopolies are efficient" argument. Look, see, they can amortize their fixed costs over so many more units if they have the whole market.

Claims that you can increase the efficiency of a system by reducing competition should be met with the same level of skepticism as claims that you can violate of the second law of thermodynamics.

But let's try one that should get their ears to perk up. Monopoly suppliers are systemic risk, which is a threat to national security.

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#263

Post by p_j_w »

pierat wrote: post #187
p_j_w wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This fact alone doesn't mean much. He was appointed by a Republican governor and could very easily be a liberterian ideologue to the same degree of said blog.

So you actual critique over the chart provided and the claims made therein, rather than your ad hominem? I don't care who it was. Are the claims verifiable, and are the derived claims defensible?

No, that's not my critique at all. If you go back and read the comment I was replying to and then my reply, you'll understand why I said what I said.

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#264

Post by eru »

Projectiboga wrote: post #247
eru wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The cost is fiction because it's a tax credit. The money is on both sides of the ledger. If you're making $60,000/year and your pre-credit taxes go up by $12,000 and then you get a $12,000 tax credit, you have paid an additional zero dollars in taxes. Yes, but marginal rates are important, too.

Most people miss that the 'money' will get spent. This should lead to an income multiplier. Then hopefully to a reallocation of resources moving bureaucrats from administrative work to something else.

(Fiscal) income multipliers don't really exist (ie they are one) in an economy with a competent central bank that targets eg inflation or nominal GDP.

If whatever fiscal policy you have makes overall nominal spending go up (or down), that would have an impact on inflation, so the central bank will remove money from circulation (or add money to circulation) to counteract.

Thus neutralising any multiplier, you might naively expect.

(Also keep in mind that when you don't tax some money, it also gets spend or invested etc.)

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#265

Post by eru »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #251
eru wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The cost is fiction because it's a tax credit. The money is on both sides of the ledger. If you're making $60,000/year and your pre-credit taxes go up by $12,000 and then you get a $12,000 tax credit, you have paid an additional zero dollars in taxes. Yes, but marginal rates are important, too.

> Yes, but marginal rates are important, too. Which is exactly the point. What's the "marginal tax rate" on low and middle income people of the existing benefits phase outs? The >100% marginal rates that create actual cliffs are so patently absurd that no one can look at them and find any way to justify it, but even when the combined tax+phase out rates are in the neighborhood of 80-90% of marginal income, that's sti…

Yes, you need to look at the combined effective marginal rates. That's what a lot of the discussions around UBI and welfare etc neglects.

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#266

Post by [deleted] »

advael wrote: post #214
Aerroon wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with UBI isn't so much the politics, it's the feasibility of the cost. $12k a year over 300 million people is 80% of the US government's tax revenue. A negative income tax might work out a lot better on the numbers, but it won't help the people that need it the most (the ones that can't get a job). But hey, maybe it can work. The US has a deficit spending of $1.7 trillion in 2023, $1.4 in 2022, $2.7 in 20…

This is nonsensical for numerous reasons 1. The federal government doesn't have tax revenue. It issues a currency and then taxes go toward countering inflation. The notion that a currency-issuing government needs to "balance its budget" in its own currency is a political fiction. Also, policies that benefit people at the lower end of the income spectrum disproportionately actually move money around in the economy, wh…

[deleted]

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#267

Post by eru »

truckerbill wrote: post #210
Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a wait list, the price isn't high enough

A good example of where free market ideology falls flat

How so? This doesn't have much to do with a free market.

The same applies if eg the government provides a service for a fee, or otherwise gates access to something. Eg H-1B visas to the US should arguably be auctioned off.

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#268

Post by eru »

danaris wrote: post #243
UncleEntity wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my cab driving days I hauled around a bunch of people to/from medical appointments and they talk on the phone a lot... Some people are absolute experts at navigating the bureaucracy to the point I expect they know the rules better than the people that work at the various government agencies. It was quite impressive to be honest. One example off the top of my head; this lady was talking on the phone with a friend (…

If you've got the mental bandwidth and dedication to learn these kinds of things, it can be very impressive. This is obviously a much less dramatic example, but when my wife worked for a costume wholesaler over a decade ago, she had to learn how customs regulations worked in order to design costumes that would be able to be imported without the higher duty associated with "wearable garments", and by the time she left…

> I have great respect for people who can learn to navigate government bureaucracies well enough to avoid getting caught up on all the deliberate snares and thorns—all the moreso if they can do so while also being poor, working 3 jobs, raising kids as a single parent, etc.

Yes, the latter is a very peculiar combination, because not many people with the mental skills required to navigate a bureaucracy like that stay poor (because some employers are willing to pay a lot for those skills).

Or to flip the statement: in order to fully benefit from the programs designed to help poor people, you need skills that few poor people have.

(Of course, this is all about averages and aggregates. There are certainly people who manage to be both poor and have the skills and mentality required to navigate the bureaucracy.)

My 'flipped' statement is one of the best arguments for a UBI-style simplification of means testing that I know of.

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#269

Post by Beldin »

This happens in other countries as well. An option here is to donate to a charity. It is tax-deductible, carries no risk of accidentally making you more money, and typically does some good instead of lining the pockets of the wealthy.

Do check if that would work for you before wasting money on useless put options.

Re: Suspicious discontinuities (2020)

#270

Post by danaris »

eru wrote: post #268
danaris wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you've got the mental bandwidth and dedication to learn these kinds of things, it can be very impressive. This is obviously a much less dramatic example, but when my wife worked for a costume wholesaler over a decade ago, she had to learn how customs regulations worked in order to design costumes that would be able to be imported without the higher duty associated with "wearable garments", and by the time she left…

> I have great respect for people who can learn to navigate government bureaucracies well enough to avoid getting caught up on all the deliberate snares and thorns—all the moreso if they can do so while also being poor, working 3 jobs, raising kids as a single parent, etc. Yes, the latter is a very peculiar combination, because not many people with the mental skills required to navigate a bureaucracy like that stay p…

> Yes, the latter is a very peculiar combination, because not many people with the mental skills required to navigate a bureaucracy like that stay poor (because some employers are willing to pay a lot for those skills).

Whooo boy that's a lot of assumptions there.

Sorry, but it just doesn't hold up in practice. If you're working at McDonald's, your employer has very little interest in your ability to navigate a complex bureaucracy. Especially when the manager is the manager because he's the franchise owner's nephew.

Unfortunately, in most low-level jobs, that kind of skill—and, more importantly, the initiative required to obtain the skill—is not only not valued, it is punished.

I've seen a number of people I know who are very bright, very talented people stuck in low-end jobs for exactly those reasons. (Plus the good old standbys of "can't take time off to do job interviews, too exhausted each night to spend hours sending out applications", etc.)

Post reply on HN