Ironic that T Cowen is this decade's quintessential expression of a socially isolated, economically 'silo'd,' market-avoidant intellectual presence.

His is not the voice to hear regarding entrepreneurship.

Do you mean market-avoidant and all that because he's a professor?

And why shouldn't we listen to him concerning entrepreneurship?

College kids are no different from little kids in the grocery store going down the candy aisle.

The fault lies in their parents and administration "officials" giving them what they ask for instead of a no followed by a lecture if needed.

I think that because administrator jobs have become overpaid and highly desirable that those in them are more likely to treat students like Target (or other store) shoppers. I would venture students have more control (and luxury comfort!) in academia than ever.

> Do you mean market-avoidant
> and all that because he's
> a professor?

Yes.

> And why shouldn't we listen to
> him concerning entrepreneurship?

Because he doesn't create wealth.

...and the understanding that work is often uncomfortable...

Neither did Adam Smith create wealth, but that doesn't mean he didn't have keen insights and wasn't worth listening to.

I think you're wrong on this Crid.

It is hard to write a book that tells us anything new about human nature.

Pain avoidance is pretty much Psychology 101.

Most people will do what is easiest and creates the least stress in their lives.

There is no way to create faux stress to drive innovation and free enterprise.

But that is ok. Real stress comes along every few generations and drives out the trivial. Unfortunatly several million people lose their livelihood and their lives in every readjustment.

Personally I think stifling government regulations and pc culture dealing out regulatory punishment for innovators are the true drivers here.

> Neither did Adam Smith create wealth

Dood. Cowan ain't Adam Smith.

Some of these guys are mildly amusing, but many are taken far too seriously. If they were as interested in wealth as they pretend to be, they'd have created some.

> I think you're wrong on
> this Crid.

How dare you.

Take it back.

Cowen is the Tyson of the dismalists... Read all you want, he'll make more.

I'm not saying what he writes ought to be taken as the gospel, merely submitting that he has insights that your average bear does not.

You are interesting in your love/hate views of higher education.

And who's voice should we be listening to? Who's got their finger on the pulse and can tell us what's going on better?

And who's voice should we be listening to? Who's got their finger on the pulse and can tell us what's going on better?

Abersouth at March 2, 2017 7:42 AM

I find it interesting and sad, that the question asked is *who* we should be listeing to, as opposed to *what* we ought to be listening to.

Ok Isab, I'm not looking for a leader here to tell me what to think, just enjoy finding persons with insight to try and make sense of the world. I was referencing Crids first comment. Where do you look to try and understand the world and patterns of behavior that are occurring in it?

I think a great deal of humanity - those billions who live on less than $5 a day - are probably doing great just to avoid pain and find some fleeting pleasure. Finding "meaning" would be so far off their radar as to be, well, meaningless.

Talk about first world problems.

It helps a lot if people have experienced hardship. I rode a bike to work in all sorts of weather until I was 30. I've camped in the open with no tent. Hiked. Worked as a painter. But most of the kids who favor safe spaces have never even held a job, have never had any hardship. It is hard however to artificially give people hardship.
There is also the matter of expectations: if you are constantly told that it is intolerable to be offended, you will be.
There is a natural tendency for people who are well-off to become risk-averse. If you have nothing you don't have much to lose and you have motivation to endure hardship.

Ok Isab, I'm not looking for a leader here to tell me what to think, just enjoy finding persons with insight to try and make sense of the world. I was referencing Crids first comment. Where do you look to try and understand the world and patterns of behavior that are occurring in it?

Abersouth at March 2, 2017 8:33 AM

I look to history, the sciences, and my own observations of human motivators and behaviors.

The history of the world is 95 percent of humanity living in abject poverty with a tiny pecentage having unbelieveable wealth at least in relationship to the standards of the time.

(Pirate Jo you are so so correct)

We live on a world where spoiled narcissistic youth and young adults are a larger percentage of the population than ever before, but still not a majority by any stretch of the imagination.

This has mostly been accomplished through the largesse of OPM extracted by force from the productive, by the paper pushers.

When the gravy train ends, with a whimper or a bang, the tough, talented and motivated will survive, in decent numbers, and the rest will either die or return to their natural level of abject poverty.

This is the natural order.

I dont need an economist to nit pick about a journey that historically has always ended at the same destination. He's out of his area of expertise and in the weeds on this topic.

There is a natural tendency for people who are well-off to become risk-averse. If you have nothing you don't have much to lose and you have motivation to endure hardship.

cc at March 2, 2017 9:15 AM
__________________________________

On the other hand, most would agree that it's a lot harder for the poor to resist the pleasures of alcohol and cigarettes, for starters, despite the long term expenses and damage to their health, since they don't really expect to live long anyway - and while some manage to make a good honest living despite those habits, others can't.

And, from this morning:

http://www.npr.org/2017/03/02/517915510/americas-complacent-class-how-self-segregation-is-leading-to-stagnation

So he says that people are "more risk averse" and "less willing to change jobs or relocate" than ... than what? Than in the past? Than he thinks they should be?

Does he realize that if this was the 1960's, you could take a risk, start a business, change a job, relocate, and if you failed it wouldn't matter because you'd still recover?

Does he realize the penalties for failure are much harsher today?

I'm not so sure that's the way things will shake out Isab, going to the natural order.

Yes history is 95% squalid poverty and strong men.

What's interesting to me is how that pattern was broken out of via the industrial revolution (petroleum), property rights, the rule of law, and capitalism. Large portions of the globe have broken free of the Malthusian trap and I don't think we will be going back to that.

Yeah, empires rise and go bankrupt, but I don't think first world countries are going to become The Congo any time soon.

Pirate Jo

Yes, he asserts our society on the whole is more risk averse than in the past. Not as dynamic. And it has repercussions.

How do you mean penalties are harsher now?

Abersouth, here's an example - petroleum engineering was all the rage for a while. My 74-year-old mom even called me up telling me how much money people could get paid if they just majored in something smart like petroleum engineering instead of underwater basket weaving.

A lot of young people agreed with her it seems, borrowed money to get degrees in it, and then that whole sector of the economy tanked. At that point you can't just go out and borrow another $50K to get a degree in something else.

I look at my dad - he never went to college, just tried a bunch of different jobs until he found one he liked and never had any trouble supporting a family of four and having a wife who didn't work outside the home.

I'm referring to the decline of the middle class in general and the difficulties for someone who doesn't want to spend their entire lives as a debt slave. Cost of entry is already high. The penalty I refer to is the prolonged hit you will take to your standard of living if you fail.

You don't need much education to get into an oil field, if you're willing to actually do the physical work. I've worked in a few, and made good money helping their communications. An education can help, but it isn't required to do drilling. Being willing and able to move helps more (in my experience).

Yeah, empires rise and go bankrupt, but I don't think first world countries are going to become The Congo any time soon.

I'm pretty sure the Romans told that one, too. Well, ok, they said Germania and not Congo, but the sentiment is the same.

As a young woman the reason I have never started my niche small business idea is because HELL FUCKING YEAH I AM risk adverse......to owing the State of California copious amounts of money for regulatory fines. This isn't debt I can escape or fight and from what I have seen it occurs because you didn't hire the right person the right way or do the job in accordance with the regulatory laws of the State of California. All it takes is 1 inspection to ruin you financially and put you into debt you never could have imagined. This isn't debt you can fight or brush off.

Not only that but customers are sue happy for any minor infraction and the courts are more than happy to pay them whatever they want (all you have to do is ask a small business owner the lawsuits they have lost. A contract can only protect you so much).

My personal problem is my niche business idea wouldn't work in any other part of the country.

I've always liked the joke that the best way to get an MBA is start a business, have your livelihood depend on it and fail miserably.

(IMO Theories from professors only predict so much and not very well because how many do you know actually HAD to make payroll??)

So this article is just dumb to me.

I agree with PJ's overall point.

"We're clustering with people of like mind, similar income, and the same race."

This set off my bullshit factor.

This is a phenomena of human nature that has ALWAYS existed. Something even chimps do.

In fact, we can predict who you're gonna end up marrying pretty damn well.

As Ppen said, sorting by tribe is an inherent part of human nature. It's been that way for tens of thousands of years. This is nothing new.

Also, people aren't more risk adverse. The biggest issue over the last decade was the change in regulation. A big factor were the financial regulations passed after 2008. Too big to fail was deemed a national problem. So we changed the laws to effectively make it mandatory. The reporting costs are too high for any small business to support. Hence they no longer list on stock exchanges. This cuts off one source of cash they could use to grow. The banking laws were also changed so that banks had to lend to governments and big businesses and were heavily penalized if they lent to small businesses or people with spotty credit. And there went another common source of cash for new businesses. Consequently the rate of new business formation fell and never really recovered.

This is a purely government generated problem. The exact same thing happened with Jimmy Carter. Risk aversion is not the issue.

PJ, the oil industry is cyclical. With a 5 year cycle typically. It takes 4-8 years to get a petroleum engineering degree. Hence you almost always fall into a down part of the cycle if you start when things are hot.

PJ, the oil industry is cyclical. With a 5 year cycle typically. It takes 4-8 years to get a petroleum engineering degree. Hence you almost always fall into a down part of the cycle if you start when things are hot.

Ben at March 2, 2017 3:10 PM

Agreed. A degree in engineering is one of the least bad bets you can make in school. To keep the costa down, do your first two years at a community college.

When the demand for Petroleum engineers is down, use continuing ed to get a masters degree in something like industrial engineering or look for an engieering job outside the oil business. Just like any other field, the competent find jobs, the marginal workers get,laid off.

Social isolation is what these years are all about. Even idiots understand this.

Forgive any duplication of this posting. This is Take Two because Take One —while brilliantly composed and compellingly argued— seems to have been lost. I blame Amy's software. It's NOT POSSIBLE that I forgot to push the submit button before reloading the page... No... That couldn't have happened.




These comments feel brittle:

> It is hard to write a book
> that tells us anything new
> about human nature.

But Cowen, whatever his limitations, might well be describing a response in human nature to social arrangements not seen in earlier cultures.

> This is a phenomena of human
> nature that has ALWAYS existed.
> Something even chimps do.
>
> In fact, we can predict who
> you're gonna end up marrying
> pretty damn well.

Yes, exactly: We can predict more readily than ever before, and perhaps we shouldn't be so happy about that. The crushing regulatory burdens you describe might be easier for poorer- and less-educated citizens to bear if they could be supported by in-laws who are adept and empowered for dealing with such worries.... Or otherwise equipped for eliding them. I can well imagine marriages and important romances across social tiers in classrooms of the last mid-century... Whereas today, potential loves have already been demographically (and intellectually) sorted into exclusive peer groups.

> It's been that way for tens
> of thousands of years. This
> is nothing new.

I strongly disagree. A natural preference for not marrying down, however one's culture might define it, might well be eternal. But the early & irrevocable sorting of social & economic outcomes seen not only in the United States but within and across other nations as well is game-changing.

In the past year I've described this trend with links to Caldwell, Kaplan, Noonan and several others. Even torpid Biden came to understand by January... After he'd had his ass handed to him two months earlier.

Brexit is fucking BIG, okay? The election of Trump is HUGE. I'm out of links for this comment, but there's a school of thought that this blowback against encroaching technocracies is reflected even in Frankie's battles with the Curia in Rome. These forces are enormous. Statistical minority or not, the electoral majority that blocked Hillary's ascension to executive power is not a small thing.

Do not let a fashion for blasé detachment from base culture distract you from this fracture. It's global, it's personal and it will be fucking determinative for the flow of the 21st century... Whether we navigate it successfully or whether we don't.

And I'd hate to place a wager.

Trump is fucked in the head.



> Where do you look to try
> and understand the world
> and patterns of behavior
> that are occurring in it?

The free expression of ideas is perhaps the single popular ideal in which I hold essentially religious, or pornographically supernatural, faith: I am really, really not interested in telling people who they ought to pay attention to with great specificity. And as noted above, my beliefs about what's been happening politically across Western Civ have come from a number of articulate, and I think convincing, authors.

But if you needed a guiding principle, I'd say pay your last attention to those whose ideas flatter you, even incidentally. You know you're near the honey when it starts to sting.



> Finding "meaning" would be
> so far off their radar as
> to be, well, meaningless.

Yes. (You still married, Ragbrai-girl?)