Body blows keep coming for UBI fans. $1k/month transfers had no effect on net worth or credit access. All the money was ploughed straight into consumption, recipients actually went more into debt. nber.org/papers/w32784
For reference: most spending categories rose by similar percents: UBI recipients did NOT necessarily prioritize immediate needs. In fact, they disproportionately gave their UBI away.
Now as an aside.
The average UBI recipient here got $35,000 in total transfers.
They spent $$11,000 of it on increased spending.
They reduce work by $12,000.
That accounts for $23,000.
So their net worth SHOULD have gone up by $12,000!'
Instead it fell $1,000.
????
Did they just.... light $13,000 on fire?
Is the income decline underestimated?
Is the spending increase underestimated?
Did they invest money in terrible assets?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I do think it's worth noting that about 80% of selection on intelligence occurred exactly between 10,000 BC and 6500 BC, with with much less occurring since, and virtually none since 2500 BC.
The fact that Steppe ancestry Europeans actually had lower than Neolithic farmer Europeans is pretty striking, and the fact that PGS scores for income and schooling have been under ~66% less intense selection is also pretty striking!
I had the years off, but here's how those 3 look in comparison.
Takeaway is: pre-Neolithic hunter gatherers in Europe were maybe 15 IQ point equivalents below the Neolithic farmers who replaced them.
There was another big selection on intelligence after 2000 BC.
Mutations at the MTHFR gene are a huge cause of miscarriage.
We can reduce miscarriage due to the most common MTHFR mutation (C677) by ~60% using a decades-old medication.
Doctors don't prescribe it until after recurrent miscarriage.
Even though we can TEST FOR MTHFR.
MTHFR is an abbreviation for methofolate or something sciency like that.
But since it's a gene responsible for a huge amount of killed babies and wrecked pregnancies and sad moms, I think of it as standing for, uh, something else.
Here's the study showing how enoxaparin (Lovenox) reduced miscarriages in a randomized controlled trial of about 350 women by 60%: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
Abortions after 32 weeks are a very small share of total abortions-- perhaps 0.5%. Let's say half of those are not due to unsurvivable conditions, so 0.25% of abortions are very late + could have survived if born.
Given ~1 million abortions, that's 2500 such abortions.
There were about 23,000 homicides in the US in 2023.
If that teeny tiny share of abortions covering very late abortions of totally viable kids without lethal health issues were counted, those extremely rare abortions would compose fully 1-in-10 homicides in the United States.
In 2023, there were only 11,000 deaths of all external causes (accidents, homicides, etc) of people under age 18.
Abortions of health viable children make up 18% of all non-natural-causes deaths of children.
Using the CDC's multiple mortality data, these extremely rare late-term abortions...
... are nonetheless the second biggest cause of death among people under 18 (after congenital immaturity)
People commonly think that poor people have big families, and rich people have small ones.
They're wrong: most of the supposed high fertility of low-income people is just because of omitted variable bias, and the omitted variable is culture.
🧵🧵🧵
To understand what my point is, imagine two people. One of them wants 6 kids, the other wants 0 kids. Both currently have 0 kids.
Imagine they both win the lottery and become millionaires.
What will happen to their fertility rates?
The answer is pretty obvious: while maybe the 0-kid-wanter for some reason changes his mind to some degree, any sane person would expect that, given a huge income boost, fertility will rise much more for the person who wants 6 kids.
Continuing a recent theme: some people believe high-fertility groups will eventually create a genetic preponderance in society. This is unlikely, let's explore a basic model of why, using realistic dynamics for genetic heredity of fertility.
Here's what we know:
1) In recent cohorts, parent fertility DOES predict child fertility somewhat, and closer-related people do have correlated fertility, suggesting there IS heredity
2) In recent cohorts, 90%+ of heredity is environment-specific
That 2nd point is important. We know that the traits that are being selected for through heredity are not the same in e.g. Sweden and Australia, or the Netherlands and the UK, or Estonia and the US. We know different genes are predicting intergenerational correlations.
Yesterday I tweeted that heritability of fertility would never lead to sustained fertility increase.
My view is correct, all the people assuming a breeder's hypothesis for fertility are wrong: fertility decline further in the past does not cause high fertility.
🧵🧵🧵
Let's talk about what would need to be true for a given community of people to pass on elevated fertility rates on a time horizon long enough to demographically swamp modern populations. The math here is not terrible complex.
Imagine a society where the Normal Person (NP) fertility is 1 child each. But there's a small subset of the population (0.1%) who have 5 children each. We'll call them the Hasmormish.