In the U.S., you are legally permitted to sell your blood plasma for money, but it's called "donation".
In recent years, the numbers of places set up for donations has skyrocketed, and the amount they're compensating donors has followed suit.
Let's dig in.
Most of the visitors to these donation centers are highly local (A)
People are also more likely to visit donation centers in census block groups (CBGs) that are marked by poverty (B)
Why?
In surveys, donating plasma is predicted by being poor, Black, male, married, having kids, being a student, etc.
In short, people who could really use an extra $150 twice a week for a minimal inconvenience are more likely to donate.
We know this is true because we also have survey data indicating people's stated reasons for donating. Few people are donating altruistically. The top categories by far are about money!
Take a look:
Now, before getting to the juicy result, I want to show one more thing: the impact of COVID stimulus checks on plasma donations.
When the checks went out, the number of visits to plasma donation centers cratered. Donations plummeted because people had the cash they needed.
Now here's the kicker: When plasma donation centers open up, local inquiries into predatory payday and installment loans falls off.
People are seeking credit and donating blood might be how they get it.
If we stratify these trends by age, we see that those with ages less than or equal to 35 - the less well-established - are the ones deciding to use blood plasma donations to offset the need for quick, dangerously high-interest cash, not those greater than 35 years old.
When you look at payday transactions rather than inquiries alone, you get the same picture, albeit with more noise.
Young people really do seem to be defraying the need for credit by selling (sorry, donating!) their blood plasma.
The reasons people sell their are also, evidently, not just to cover essentials.
One of the clearest-cut impacts is that entertainment establishments see an increase in visits after blood plasma donation centers open up.
That last part clarifies something: people would prefer not to get risky, high-interest loans, and they really want a little bit of extra cash. So while they will seek out those loans if push comes to shove, they're more likely to frivolously pursue blood donation.
And that's good! We need blood plasma donations, so if paying people a bit of money makes that possible, so be it.
If we take away that possibility, we can also see that it would make people's lives worse.
How far can we take this? Maybe we can learn from Iran.
In the U.S., about 0.5-1% of the federal budget goes to dialysis:
In Iran, there is a legal, regulated market in selling kidneys and it's such a good deal that the government even pays for the operations. It beats paying for dialysis!
People are more than willing to sell their bodies in different ways that help their fellow citizens, from selling their blood plasma to pawning off a kidney.
Given so many people want to do that, and so many people would benefit from it, the question is, why not?
Frankly, I think we should just do it. The blood plasma donation model has been such a success and it's more than evident that organ payments could be too.
On the left, you can see a map of corruption indexed by the number of mob crimes per 100,000. On the right, you can see corruption indexed by how much people steal from the public purse.
And in the middle, a map of inbreeding.
Clannish people do clannish crimes.
Though it's noted in the image, I want to reiterate that the corruption measure on the right is reverse-coded, so higher values indicate lower corruption.
The correlations with consanguinity are 0.65 and -0.52, and they hold up splitting the country in half and in other specs.
Outside of Italy, in the wider world, corruption perceptions also relate to consanguinity.
The correlation is high, and far from perfect, but both measures contain error, so keep that in mind.
The largest price-fixing operation in U.S. history took place when @tevapharm hired a woman to do "price increase implementation."
Through LinkedIn & Facebook, she organized a multi-billion dollar cartel, singlehandedly increasing generic drug prices.
There are lessons here🧵
When the cartel started, the companies in question started filing ANDAs, the FDA's "Abbreviated New Drug Applications" to start selling a generic version of an existing drug.
You can see that the involved parties started filing and getting approvals en masse.
When the log(price) hikes are stratified across markets, we see that the cartel was either better able to or more greatly desired to keep prices elevated in smaller markets.
Which makes sense! When the drug is rare, it's easier to successfully collude.
It's well-known that a very small portion of the total criminal population is responsible for the overwhelming majority of all crime.
A new study shows that this is also true of prison misconduct:
Just 10% of prisoners are responsible for more than 70% of misconduct in prisons!
The above numbers were for males. Here are the numbers for female prisoners.
The numbers are eerily similar.
Misconduct overrepresentation holds adjusting for time served in prison, and being a high-misconduct prisoner is predicted by being younger, Black, having a more extensive criminal history, being a violent criminal, being in a state facility, using drugs, and mental disorders.
I used to like this chart, but now I think it's too misleading and we should leave it behind in 2024.
🧵
The key issue is how household size is adjusted for.
In the OP image, they divide by the square root of household size. This is problematic because it means Gen Z incomes are being inflated to the extent they live with their parents.
Generally, when I hear that the younger generations are more successful, what I think is that they're more successful in the stereotypical ways:
They've got relatively better jobs, relatively bigger homes, relatively faster cars and all that.