Biggest D*%che in the Universe Award*
*[See, South Park, Ep. 94]
Goes to James Lindgren, a law professor at Northwestern and a VC contributor. Ever since Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination, he's been on a Quixotic quest to post the most absurd and unfounded thoughts. The latest gem is this post. For full effect, please do read the post. Try not to throw your laptop when doing so.
So here's why Lindgren is so deserving of this award.
1. No comments. Now I'm not one to give unsolicited blogging advice, but I find it curious that when VC commenters (not a liberal bunch) began to push back on his unhinged and unfounded speculations and innuendos, he solved the problem by disabling comments on his posts. Consider this post my "comment" prof.
2. Chutzpah. The guy is working on a PhD from the University of Chicago in Sociology. As a psych major, it is my duty to mock the entire field of so-easy-ology. But banter aside, don't you need to grasp like middle school level research methods to get a PhD in Soc? I have no clue who Lindgren's PhD advisor is, but I'd sure as hell have a talk with him about his basic competence if this post is any indication of his "research" abilities.
3. Providing a caricature of the "confirmation bias." The "methods" used by Lindgren are uh well they're not methods at all. It's just playing with data to get it to fit your preconceived notions. First, at best he points to a correlation. But there isn't really any evidence of a correlation either. Second, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that income tax rates and union participation in any way CAUSE higher unemployment rates. Nothing. I don't see a correlation because the data is grossly cherrypicked. Why focus on the top 6? The next states with the highest unemployment rates are: Nevada, Indiana, DC, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida. Nevada has no income tax. I'm sure Indiana is under solid GOP control. And Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida don't strike me as high taxes / high union states. Is the 10.4 unemployment rate in Nevada that much different than the 10.5 rate in Rhode Island that it warranted being kept off Lindgren's list? The larger point is, if there is any correlation, it should be formally established, and not just hinted at by selectively looking at the data only as long as they are favorable for your world view.
4. Again providing a caricature of the confirmation bias. Aside from looking at data highly selectively, Lindgren does not bother with any possible alternative explanations for the data. Again, reaching back to my LAUSD science education, I think this is a big no-no. He hints at geography as a factor for the states with the lowest unemployment. [This is of course an "uh drrrr" observation because the plains states did not have as much an increase in housing prices during the bubble, therefore they have not been touched as much by the burst]. But he ignores any alternative explanations for the high unemployment rates.
Let's look a bit closer at California as a state with high taxes and union participation. A lot of the job cuts are the result of the state budget crisis fueled in very large part by the California Republicans refusing any increase in taxes. That is, if we had raised our taxes, we would have had lower unemployment numbers. [One should not confuse this as contending that the Democrats in Sacto are effective at governing. I'd never slander their inability to get anything done.] Next up, Michigan--uh yeah I have noooooooooo idea why they have unemployment. Must be the unions!!! And to avoid an accusation that I'm doing the same thing as Lindgren, yes, years of cushy union benefits contributed to the eventual downfall of the American carmakers. But the complete meltdown of an entire industry that is the dominant economic engine of a state (see high tech in California) is an intervening cause with union memberships relegated to the sidelines. At least that's what I think just by looking at the situation. I'm not drawing absolute conclusions based on thin air. The Carolinas are suffering with the rest of the South (see Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida above). So taxes don't explain their problems. Leaving us only Rhode Island, which just generally sucks. We don't need to run an ANOVA to figure that one out.
But if Lindgren had is way, we'd slash taxes and unions and hope everyone ends up like Iowa. Seriously? Sociology PhD from Chicago? Any one in that department want to buy my rock that keeps away tigers?
5. John Edward has already won the award once.
Goes to James Lindgren, a law professor at Northwestern and a VC contributor. Ever since Obama won the Democratic Party's nomination, he's been on a Quixotic quest to post the most absurd and unfounded thoughts. The latest gem is this post. For full effect, please do read the post. Try not to throw your laptop when doing so.
So here's why Lindgren is so deserving of this award.
1. No comments. Now I'm not one to give unsolicited blogging advice, but I find it curious that when VC commenters (not a liberal bunch) began to push back on his unhinged and unfounded speculations and innuendos, he solved the problem by disabling comments on his posts. Consider this post my "comment" prof.
2. Chutzpah. The guy is working on a PhD from the University of Chicago in Sociology. As a psych major, it is my duty to mock the entire field of so-easy-ology. But banter aside, don't you need to grasp like middle school level research methods to get a PhD in Soc? I have no clue who Lindgren's PhD advisor is, but I'd sure as hell have a talk with him about his basic competence if this post is any indication of his "research" abilities.
3. Providing a caricature of the "confirmation bias." The "methods" used by Lindgren are uh well they're not methods at all. It's just playing with data to get it to fit your preconceived notions. First, at best he points to a correlation. But there isn't really any evidence of a correlation either. Second, there's absolutely nothing to suggest that income tax rates and union participation in any way CAUSE higher unemployment rates. Nothing. I don't see a correlation because the data is grossly cherrypicked. Why focus on the top 6? The next states with the highest unemployment rates are: Nevada, Indiana, DC, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida. Nevada has no income tax. I'm sure Indiana is under solid GOP control. And Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida don't strike me as high taxes / high union states. Is the 10.4 unemployment rate in Nevada that much different than the 10.5 rate in Rhode Island that it warranted being kept off Lindgren's list? The larger point is, if there is any correlation, it should be formally established, and not just hinted at by selectively looking at the data only as long as they are favorable for your world view.
4. Again providing a caricature of the confirmation bias. Aside from looking at data highly selectively, Lindgren does not bother with any possible alternative explanations for the data. Again, reaching back to my LAUSD science education, I think this is a big no-no. He hints at geography as a factor for the states with the lowest unemployment. [This is of course an "uh drrrr" observation because the plains states did not have as much an increase in housing prices during the bubble, therefore they have not been touched as much by the burst]. But he ignores any alternative explanations for the high unemployment rates.
Let's look a bit closer at California as a state with high taxes and union participation. A lot of the job cuts are the result of the state budget crisis fueled in very large part by the California Republicans refusing any increase in taxes. That is, if we had raised our taxes, we would have had lower unemployment numbers. [One should not confuse this as contending that the Democrats in Sacto are effective at governing. I'd never slander their inability to get anything done.] Next up, Michigan--uh yeah I have noooooooooo idea why they have unemployment. Must be the unions!!! And to avoid an accusation that I'm doing the same thing as Lindgren, yes, years of cushy union benefits contributed to the eventual downfall of the American carmakers. But the complete meltdown of an entire industry that is the dominant economic engine of a state (see high tech in California) is an intervening cause with union memberships relegated to the sidelines. At least that's what I think just by looking at the situation. I'm not drawing absolute conclusions based on thin air. The Carolinas are suffering with the rest of the South (see Kentucky, Tennessee, and Florida above). So taxes don't explain their problems. Leaving us only Rhode Island, which just generally sucks. We don't need to run an ANOVA to figure that one out.
But if Lindgren had is way, we'd slash taxes and unions and hope everyone ends up like Iowa. Seriously? Sociology PhD from Chicago? Any one in that department want to buy my rock that keeps away tigers?
5. John Edward has already won the award once.
Labels: Rabid Conservatives
posted by Armen Adzhemyan at 11:57 PM
15 Comments:
I think you've got a point that his selective use of data means his points are not persuasive. But he doesn't purport to apply academic rigor; he seems to treat this as a thought exercise. Take it cum grano salis, that's how I read it. And if he doesn't want to allow comments, that's disappointing, but entirely his choice. Kind of like deleting a comment if it says something you find offensive, like, oh say, maligning our troops.
But Armen, I see no need (based on this one post) to go all ad hominem. Accusations of douchery are a dime a dozen in blogs, and it certainly doesn't make your point any more persuasive.
In fact, I had to read his post, and then re-read yours, to be sure your link was to the correct post. I didn't almost throw up. But I have a strong stomach and I now live in Texas. Union-bashing and championing of low taxes is like oxygen to most Texans.
Lastly, could you elucidate on the following assertion:
"A lot of the job cuts are the result of the state budget crisis fueled in very large part by the California Republicans refusing any increase in taxes. That is, if we had raised our taxes, we would have had lower unemployment numbers."
Are you really saying that if the legislature had raised taxes higher and/or sooner, there would be more jobs in California? Do you have evidence?
If you bothered to look at the data I posted before going negative, you would have seen why I picked the top 6, rather than, for example, the top 5. I wanted to pick the top 5, but there was a tie for the 5th lowest state, so I had to include 6 states on the downside, leading me to include the same number on the upside.
You point to Nevada being next (7th highest unemployment) as if that would negate my point, but again, Nevada has one of the highest unionization rates in the country (and if there is one state that might have a special case, it would be one whose economy was based so heavily on tourism).
Jim Lindgren
Jim Lindgren
How ironic is it that he comments on THIS post but won't let others comment to his owns posts. Oh wait, no, I think hypocritical was the word I was looking for.
Does anyone else get the feeling that the rest of Lindgren's co-bloggers, most of whom are reasonable, thoughtful people, must be terribly embarrassed to be associated with his rantings?
And what exactly is the point of being the ultimate troll if you are too much of a coward to permit comments?
Florida has no state income taxes. Tennessee only taxes dividends and interest income (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_income_tax).
And looking at Lindgren's unionization table, Florida has a low unionization rate (7.9%), as does Tennessee (6.6%). Indiana also has low taxes (3.4%) and moderate unionization (13.7%).
So, ties for fifth aside, there clearly was cherry-picking going on here. Why not just run a correlation with all 50 states and come up with more rigorous data? Computers can do amazing things these days.
But more than that, why not start this little study with the hypothesis that is most reasonable? Look at correlation of unemployment to housing price increases and foreclosures, or correlate unemployment with states that rely on certain types of industries. But start with tax rates and unionization? Why? (The answer, of course, is to reach the conclusion, before looking at the evidence, that taxes and unions are bad.)
Also, Lindgren's post attempts to collapse unionization and tax rates into one data point for comparison to unemployment. They obviously are two distinct data points, and should be treated separately. Check unionization against all 50 states, then separately check tax rates. But don't try to mush the two together as though they are somehow related.
Prof. Lindgren,
Nevada is a great example. Are the unemployment numbers so high because of "high unionization" or because as you point out it depends on a) tourism b) tourists dumping loads of cash when they arrive and c) a ridiculous housing bubble around Metro Las Vegas? Is MGM-Mirage on the verge of bankruptcy because the pit boss is in a union?
I already explained how California would have had lower unemployment numbers if we passed a timely budget that included increased taxes. [Calligi, this year, far worse than any other years, except in early 2000s, the Legislature failed to pass a timely budget. This resulted in a lot of layoffs of government employees at all levels. The budget that ultimately passed included a 1 point increase in the sales tax, but no increases in income tax. To reach the budget numbers, more government workers (and I'm talking about like teachers, not the lazy bums at the DMV) have to be let go.] I will also add that construction jobs and real estate related work accounted for a lot of the state's economy these past few years. I think I have like 12 cousins who at one point or another worked as "real estate agents." These jobs are all gone because of the burst bubble. Does this have anything to do with high taxes and unionization rates? I don't know, but that's not the conclusion that jumps out at me.
Sadly, I don't know too much about our neighbor to the north, but what little I know is they too have been hit hard by the loss of construction jobs. As has the entire South.
Relatedly, the plains states are predominantly agribusiness and they did not have a boom in housing. Thus they are the only part of the country that seems immune from the terrible economy. They also have relatively smaller economies than say California and Michigan. Any downturn is not likely to affect them as much as states with larger economies. Is there any reason to exclude any of these alternative explanations for the data? Again, I understand that it's just a blog post, but it's not a terribly honest one.
The sad thing is that a quick check on technorati shows the meme spreading. Damn unions and high taxes.
Just saw 10:00 AM's post. Good points.
I can't even read their blog anymore. The place seems to have degenerated into a formula for the John Galt Law School:
Mix 2 parts stories about obscure middle schools in Missouri restricting speech + 4 parts GUNS!! + Dartmouth is mean! + 2 parts Obama-is-a-socialist + 1 part "don't blame economic libertarianism for this mess even though this view has become incompatible with, you know, reality = the VC these days.
10:20, I couldn't agree more. Just thinking about the daily VC menu leaves me feeling exhausted.
(Except the gun stuff. That's awesome.)
Patrick: best comment of the year. Yay guns!
10:00 absolutely killed Lindgren. I'd like to see him respond again.
Also, Armen - please leave Rhode Island alone. Lil' Rhody never did anything to you.
It did give us Family Guy and Buddy Cianci...TWICE (for both).
Ha! Thank you, Armen. Immediately before surfing over to N&B, I was reading Lindgren's posts and becoming increasingly angry (with his absurd arguments) and frustrated (with his not allowing comments). It was a joy to arrive here and find that others were noting that Lindgren is painfully pathetic (and is bringing down the VC).
After long experience reading Lindgren's incoherent posts, I have to agree with Armen... he's a douchebag. That designation is not because of a disagreement with his ideology or writings... it is fully a disparagement of Lindgren as a person. He adds nothing to the debate beyond the hallucinations of a bitter old man. Yes, that is an ad hominem attack, and in this instance it is fully merited.
No, THIS MAN is the Biggest Douche in the Universe":
http://www.flickr.com/photos/christoum/3704411688/
Post a Comment
<< Home