pianoforte611 comments on Rationality Quotes Thread April 2015 - Less Wrong

7 Post author: Vaniver 01 April 2015 01:35PM

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

Comments (69)

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

Comment author: pianoforte611 20 April 2015 12:52:48PM 2 points [-]

Af first I thought you doing that Redditesque sarcasm, in which you argue a straw man of the outgroup in a mocking way, which made me disappointed since the goal is signaling rather than discourse.

However perhaps you are being serious? Are social services a valid means of feeding a baby, rendering the original quote not applicable in countries where social services exist? I think the answer is obviously yes, in that if social services are available, people are going to use them. Whether the should exist is a separate discussion.

Comment author: James_Miller 20 April 2015 02:43:07PM 3 points [-]

I was being serious. Abstractly, if my doing X requires Y, but I don't have Y but I'm confident that if I do X the government will give me Y, then my lack of Y isn't much of a reason to forgo X.

Comment author: IlyaShpitser 20 April 2015 05:59:36PM 0 points [-]

I think it's a law that if you fund something you get more of it. Serious discussion of safety nets, etc. already assumes some parasite response from the "ecosystem," takes it into account, and argues safety nets are still a good thing on net.

Comment author: Lumifer 20 April 2015 06:07:03PM 1 point [-]

I think "unintended consequences" is a better analysis framework than "parasite response from the ecosystem".

And speaking of, there is a recent paper discussed on MR which claims to show how safety nets drive down the decline in labor force participation and, in particular, that "the Clinton-era welfare reforms lowered the incentive to work".

Comment author: HedonicTreader 21 April 2015 07:49:16AM -1 points [-]

I think "unintended consequences" is a better analysis framework than "parasite response from the ecosystem".

It certainly sounds less cynical, unless we use strong charity and see it in the most technical way possible.

I think the most plausible use case for government-funded incentives to have extra kids is a wide consensus that a society doesn't have enough of them at the time, according to some economical or social optimum.

But even this requires a level of cynicism in seeing kids as a means to an end.