McArdle

Recently, I started to write a bit about the websites linked under the blogroll label to the lower right and we'll continue with another one today.

Megan McArdle is a new addition.  She was on my original blogroll but left the Atlantic and went on hiatus.  Megan's recently returned and is now writing for the Daily Beast and Newsweek (who knows how long the new gig will last as both are bleeding cash).

She writes on a wide variety of public policy issues from a somewhat libertarian perspective and the three things I like best about her writing is that her take on issues cannot usually be predicted in advance (unusual for a blogger), you can actually see her thinking through an issue as she writes about it (also unusual) and she's pretty good at staying away from setting up strawman arguments that she can then easily disassemble. Plus, she usually attracts some pretty interesting, and challenging, comments and she's not afraid to rethink based on them.

If you're too lazy to scroll down to the blogroll, here's the direct link.

And this is the beginning of a recent posting on why the size of the American economy makes some things that work in smaller European companies not viable here and, for that matter, why some of our approaches would not work for them.

"A couple of months ago, I gave a talk about entrepreneurship and innovation in America.  At the end of the talk, a very smart fellow journalist asked a very good question.  Germany, he said, doesn't do high-growth innovation industries.  But they have lots of vacation and a good quality of life.  Why would we say that they should emulate us, instead of the other way around? 

A few minutes later, I heard a Dutch audience member make a similar, if stronger, point.  The average American, he said, is much worse off than the average Swede.  Why can't America be more like Sweden?  

I actually don't think that the latter point is true; if you plucked an average American (mean, median, or modal) out of Kansas City or Aurora, and plopped them down in the middle of Gothenburg, the average American would be very unhappy.  Yes, they'd have generous social benefits and lots of vacation, but they'd also be crammed into a small apartment in a very small country.  They wouldn't be able to afford services that average Americans take for granted, like lots of restaurant foods and extremely high levels of customer service, which means they'd spend a lot more time doing basic housework, childcare, and so forth.  They would find it very expensive to fuel their car, and the insular, almost formal culture would make them crazy.  

This is also true the other way, by the way; the average Swede would not be happy living in America.  Sure, they'd have a huge house, filled with cheap consumer goods, and they could drive their car everywhere, particularly to their incredible array of dining options.  But they'd miss their vacation and find America's looser safety net both terrifying and inconvenient.  They would hate the inefficiency of our government services, and miss their cozy circle of friends and family."

There's an interesting side note raised by the question from the Dutch person "The average American, he said, is much worse off than the average Swede.  Why can't America be more like Sweden? "

Certainly the comparison can depend on what metrics you are using.  But there is an interesting statistical phenomenon also at work.  If you compare economic or living conditions between various countries and the United States you will find that, on average, some of those countries perform better than the U.S.  However, if you compare those countries with the subset of American citizens who emigrated or are descendants of emigrants from those same countries you will find that the U.S. citizens of that particular national background are doing better than their counterparts from their country of origin whether they are Swedes or Chinese or from anywhere else.

The statistical explanation for these seemingly contradictory results can be found in Simpson's Paradox which should not be confused with Homer Simpson's Paradox.