Comments on: The Housing Boom and Bust

By: JOE

JOE — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:36:31 +0000

I’m inclined to avoid analogies at all costs. I’d have been better off citing data that showed that black people had a default rate no higher or lower than whites which goes to show that the approval rates were just. Had their default rates been lower, it would imply a higher standard. On the other hand, Asians do show a higher approval rate than white people, also cited by the book’s author, yet not by the press.

By: Augustine

Augustine — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:16:37 +0000

Rather, the elephant in the room is why is this discussion lopsided about the imbalance of women in engineering. How about the imbalance of men in nursing, teaching, social services, etc? Instead, the humongous elephant in the room is that men and women are different and they have different inclinations, in spite of the same intellectual capacity and potential for achievements. We’d be in better shape by accepting the different talents of both genders instead of whining about the few women in engineering and natural sciences when they have an overwhelming presence in medicine and social sciences.

By: JOE

JOE — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:02:14 +0000

I am smiling, Elle. You took a tangent and really ran with it. 50/50 is close to the population split, not quite, but close. And to your point, it’s meaningless. Just as the variations in loan approval rates did not point to racism, and were not something to be fixed. I think things change, and we agree, slowly. If the mortgage studies understood what Thomas Sowell understood, along with the Smart Money article I cited, the problem, if one existed, would have been addressed quite differently.

By: Elle

Elle — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 01:06:46 +0000

This alleged 50/50 goal seems to me to be of your invention. I do not know any organization or institution that has such a goal for women in undergraduate majors or in the professions. (The elephant in the room for me BTW is the fact that I believe women now make up around 60% of all undergraduate majors. I believe I have read affirmative action for males is in place at some universities. Diversity goals and all.)

I am citing a roughly 15-year or so trend, regarding women being something under I believe 1% in engineering to some 15%. Women’s proportion grew much more quickly (achieving critical mass much sooner) in non-engineering professions. For your education.

So I trust you do agree the career interests of an entire gender can change significantly. This is the point I wanted clarified. ‘Because it sure sounded like you were not a believer in this fact of history. Smile!

By: JOE

JOE — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:05:06 +0000

I didn’t mean that (the interests of an entire gender cannot change) at all. Sometimes I have difficulty getting my thoughts in writing. I start with the premise that women are as smart as men. My engineering data was a 4 year observation. 15%. I didn’t do a deep dive into the reasons the number was low, just observed that change couldn’t be instant whether or not the goal was realistic. You are citing a 50 year trend. I am telling you that if the government in 1960 declared a 50/50 goal effective immediately, there would have been a problem. You continue to support my position (that change can’t be legislated for an immediate impact) yet claim we disagree.

I chose this example to show how a disparity in populations, whether by race or gender, don’t always imply sexism or racism. Are we not in nearly complete agreement?

By: Elle

Elle — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:21:11 +0000

Joe, there is a phenomenon in sociology called “critical mass” that argues that, if the numbers of a minority (in this case, females in engineering) are under 20%, then the minority will suffer more discrimination than if the number were say 30%. This is talked about in sociology literature. One example: The U.S. Coast Guard Academy upped its female proportion to 30% about a decade ago (dunno exactly why or how), and USCGA women’s attrition rate dropped dramatically, in fact to levels comparable to men’s. Plus you are still ignoring the dramatic increase of women’s undergraduate representation over a decade or so from the 1960s to the 1980s.

My bone to pick is your seeming contention that the interests of an entire gender cannot change. History shows indisputably you are mistaken. If you do not like the female example, take a look at the numbers for male nurses(!). They have been way on the increase as well. It is much more socially acceptable to become a male nurse, and this is in no small part because more and more people actually receive treatment from male nurses and see it as possible and realistic.

Imagine how you would be advising Jane V. 2 in the 1960s versus how you advise her today.

I do not think 50-50 representation in any of the main professions or in undergrad is the goal. The goal, societal-wise, is to get as many talented people in economically meaningful jobs as possible. Without eliminating discriminatory trends, this will not happen. (By discriminatory trends, I mean conduct that is not based on merit that tends to drive good people out.) One way to cleanse the workplace or engineering college campus of discriminatory trends is simply to increase the affected minority’s numbers above critical mass. This can be done without lowering standards.

By: JOE

JOE — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:37:31 +0000

I appreciate the comment. The example I used was a tangent to the book discussion, and I tried to show just what you suggest, that change is slow. I appreciate your 20%, but that’s up from my 15% over a 25 year period, kind of slow. Is the number growing to flatten out at 50% or some lower number? What would the impact be if the government told schools that all classes had to have spaces assigned 50/50? The how and why of home ownership goes far deeper than the book or I can cover, but if we agree that change is slow, then we likely agree that trying to effect a change with instant impact can lead to unintended consequences.

By: Elle

Elle — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 17:02:11 +0000

Joe, not to focus overly on engineering and women, but more to propose you maybe are missing the boat on some sociological phenomena: Has it occurred to you to ask why women’s proportion of engineering undergraduates has risen from close to 0% in the 1960s to around 20% nationwide (on average) today? The proportion of women getting undergraduate degrees and degrees in law, medicine and engineering, and those participating in the corresponding professions, have all skyrocketed compared to several decades ago. Consider again the experiences of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O’Connor; and former Attorney General Janet Reno (to name three celebrity figures) in law school and as attorneys (well Justice Ginsburg would point out she would only be hired as a Legal Secretary after she graduated valedictorian from Columbia Law School). Compare to what women in law school and the legal profession report today. Of course the interests of an entire gender can change.

My take: Sociology is a science. But sociology’s problems and implemented solutions are not as easy–not as black and white, for one–as those in engineering. I think it takes a different mindset to deal with sociologic problems; a mindset that recognizes that social change is slow, and that in fact history has often proved the value of social change, even if the “only” value is less hatred and less genocide. Though I prefer the glass half full view that a healthier, more harmonious society, with talent drawn from all possible sources, increases the value of my stocks.

By: Augustine

Augustine — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:41:12 +0000

Krugman is wrong in stating that subprime defaults was an exagerated factor in the bust. What he refuses to acknowledge that the housing bubble was about to pop. He can’t do that because he’s got a Nobel prize for advocating the easy credit that spawned the housing bubble. In his mind, there’s no simpler way to prosperity than government debt and printing money. Except that Brazil, Argentina and Zimbabwe are not counted among the developed nations after experimenting with such “bright” idea…

By: John

John — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:40:14 +0000

The housing market in Northern VA(30-40 miles south of DC) is hurting. I know because I bought my house for $400k in 2004. With the recent low interest rates I tried to refinance just this month. Unfortunately the house only appraised for $323k. Now I have no problem continuing to pay my mortgage, but I would have been able to get under 5% had it appraised for at least $360k(we owe $372k). Everyone else’s foreclosure’s is now taking money out of my pocket in more ways then one.