CarlShulman comments on Bayes versus Science Round Two: Battle of the Banks - Less Wrong

-7 [deleted] 25 June 2013 10:19PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (34)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 26 June 2013 04:44:22PM 2 points [-]

You didn't get to the point by the time I stopped reading the wall of text. Also I believe that empirical studies have shown that factories (or maybe it was mines) with five times the production cost of their competitors stay in business.

Comment author: CarlShulman 26 June 2013 07:00:45PM *  2 points [-]

t factories (or maybe it was mines) with five times the production cost of their competitors stay in business

For mines, that's very unsurprising: as long as the mineral resources sell for more than production costs it's worth producing. Saudi Arabia produces oil at much lower cost than the marginal well, but it still makes sense to dig new wells. By the same token, small subsistence farmers who have land but can't sell it just earn less than less productive farmers elsewhere.

But you're probably thinking of this post by Robin Hanson, and the 5:1 result is for developing countries undergoing fast catch-up growth (vs 2:1 for developed countries). And it's the worst decile of competitors vs the best, not the worst vs the average.

If you imagine that a 25% cost advantage would let your firm quickly displace all rivals, think again. Yes more efficient firms and plants eventually displace less efficient ones, but it is easy to overestimate the strength and speed of this effect. For example, in a US manufacturing industry with five plants in use, the best plant will typically produce about twice as much with the same inputs (including materials, land, labor, etc.) as the worst plant. In India and China, it will make five times as much: - See more at: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2011/06/selection-is-slow.html#sthash.WfmND8Gj.dpuf

Another robust finding in the literature—virtually invariant to country, time period, or industry—is that higher productivity producers are more likely to survive than their less efficient industry competitors. …

Aggregate productivity growth in the U.S. retail sector is almost exclusively through the exit of less efficient single-store firms and by their replacement with more efficient national chain store affiliates. …

One thing to remember about this is that sometimes lower labor productivity is rational in light of legacy capital investments. E.g. new power plants and factories might require fewer workers, but if you already have the old factory built, you can avoid spending a huge amount of labor building a new factory for a while.

Comment author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 26 June 2013 07:33:36PM 0 points [-]

I'm not sure that is what I'm thinking of; I seem to recall something more pessimistic than that, challenging the assertion that the less efficient factories really went out of business. "More likely to survive" != "Much more likely to survive", it may just be a statistically significant 'difference' (was it)?

Comment author: Vaniver 27 June 2013 07:38:32PM 3 points [-]

I'm not sure that is what I'm thinking of; I seem to recall something more pessimistic than that, challenging the assertion that the less efficient factories really went out of business. "More likely to survive" != "Much more likely to survive", it may just be a statistically significant 'difference' (was it)?

What I got from Hanson's post was that people overestimated the speed of selection acting on profitability. Even though one person might be able to produce widgets half as cheaply as the next person, it might take a much longer time than people think for the first person to displace the second person, especially if the first person's lower costs per unit are due to their particular size (such that expanding would increase their costs).

Basically, you need to be actually losing money to go out of business, and even if you're making more money than the next guy, that may not translate to you making him lose money.