Accounting for selection into disadvantaged neighborhoods, the effect of neighborhood disadvantage on the likelihood of committing a violent crime is nearly nullified.
The cross-sectional effect and the causal one do not match because neighborhood effects are largely selection.
Your neighborhood's poverty and crime rates do not seem to drive your own risk of committing a crime.
The within-person results for violent crime showed a peak odds ratio (1.22) at disadvantage deciles of 6 and 9. For property crime, the peak OR was 1.09 in decile 9 and it was p = 0.05. For other crimes, it was 1.08 in decile 10 and it was marginal (95% CI: 1.01-1.16).
Account for multiple comparisons and the within-person results all disappear.
Neighborhood effects are about selection more than they're about neighborhoods affecting people.
Here's an example: Do you need three people whose job it is to tell singular cars to pass? Do you need five restaurant or grocery store workers standing around?
If you answered "yes", then you may live in Japan or South Korea.
This misuse of labor is also why I think there's a popular view that "whatever you can do, an Asian kid can do better." The videos you see of Asian kids specializing at some job to an insane degree are the result of a horrendous misallocation of valuable human capital.
The cultural distance between Japan and the West when it comes to work is staggering. Everyone should read Patrick McKenzie's essay on the topic: kalzumeus.com/2014/11/07/doi…
Here are some choice bits. First, have you heard of salaryman overtime?
The disproportionate neediness of a few people is why experiments that are plausibly pop-representative like RAND's, Oregon's, and Karnataka's generate null effects on health, and why quasi-experimental evidence on things like Medicaid expansion appears to show benefits.
In the general population, care people won't go out of their way to obtain because of cost constraints has a minimal value.
When people are given free insurance and they start going out of their way to obtain more care, it's usually superfluous and some of it's harmful!
Quasi-experimental studies that show benefits to the expansion of programs like Medicaid cannot be generalized except to similarly disadvantaged populations because their effects are driven by affecting people who are disproportionately needy.
It should be obvious that environmental and genetic correlations are dependent on the level of heritability.
It can therefore be important to obtain correct heritabilities to understand how environments operate.
I chose these parameters because they match the relationship between parental SES and children's IQs.
Those two quantities are typically related at up to 0.35 and the genetic correlation is usually around 0.72. If SES is 50% heritable and IQ is 50% heritable, then all
of the beneficial part of their relationship is due to genes because the resulting environmental correlation is r = -0.01.
If IQ were 20% heritable, the environmental correlation would be broadly good at r = 0.20.
But if it was 90% heritable, it would be very bad at r = -0.56.
Australia needed fiscal stimulus, so they let citizens pull up to $20,000 from their retirement accounts. These accounts, which are funded by a 10.5% charge on wages for all workers, are typically locked down until retirement.
When people were allowed to, they spent the cash.
Around one-quarter of people aged >34 chose to withdraw from their accounts when they were eligible. There were two waves of eligibility in which you could take out up to $10,000 both times.
I actually saw this as a poster and chortled a bit because it was the first time I had ever seen a p-value of 0.967 treated as consistent with finding an effect.
There are a few things to note about supposed cortisol effects.
Aizer, Stroud & Buka did another study of the effects of in-utero cortisol exposure.
Luckily for me, I had their dataset, so I could output results for a latent g too! I think I did the controls the same, but I used all the available data instead of a subset.
Malanchini et al. found that cortisol measures were poorly related to one another. They also found that their levels varied throughout the day in reasonably consistent ways.
There are aspects of measurement that results can hinge on!