Published on the 31st of December, 2005
Dear Economist,
My husband is a successful accountant in his early 40s but his behaviour can only be described as workaholic. He is often at the office until 8pm and always brings work home. How can I convince him to cut back on his workload and spend more time with me and the children?
Margot Hillens, London
Dear Mrs Hillens,
Although you describe your husband as workaholic, that term is ambiguous. (You may wish to consult a paper by Hamermesh and Slemrod on “The Economics of Workaholism” subtitled “We Should Not Have Worked on this Paper”.) The first possibility is that your husband is not addicted to work, he simply prefers working to being at home - or, to be blunt, he prefers accountancy to you. If this is true, the solution is to make home life more attractive: learn to cook, invest in a better haircut and spend some time on an exercise bike.
Alternatively, your husband may be desperately trying to cut down on his work and need your help. He may be wracked with guilt after every late night. If this seems more accurate, you must remove temptations and create strong barriers against relapses. Hide his BlackBerry and take him out to dinner with important guests. A final possibility is that your husband is a “rational addict”. His work is addictive in the sense that the more he does it the more he wants to do it, but his activity is rational in the sense that he has anticipated this and still decides to work…
Continued on ft.com.
Published on the 24th of December, 2005
Dear Economist,
Two friends and I have taken out a lease on a three-bedroom flat. The rooms are all different sizes. How should we decide who gets which room and the share of the rent that they should pay?
Daniel Chin, Haywards Heath, UK
Dear Daniel,
This reminds me of the cake-cutting problem: one person cuts the cake, the other chooses which piece to eat. The person making the cut knows he will get the smallest piece and will try hard to make the pieces the same size.
With two rooms you can do the same thing. The first person decides on the size of the subsidy to the smaller room. For instance, for a Pounds 1,000-a-month flat, she might declare the small room costs Pounds 400 monthly and the large room costs Pounds 600. Her flatmate decides which deal she prefers.
With three rooms in a Pounds 1,000-a-month flat, things are more complicated. The first housemate fixes the rent on one room, say, Pounds 200 for the broom cupboard. The second housemate can take that offer or make the first housemate take it.
The third housemate then decides how the Pounds 800 should be split between the two remaining rooms and whoever did not get the first room decides which one to live in.
This scheme should be fair for the same reason as cake-cutting is fair: anybody who creates an unattractive option will immediately find himself having to take it…
Continued on ft.com.
Published on the 23rd of December, 2005
Published on the 21st of December, 2005
Last week I wrote that the shortage of Xbox 360 consoles seemed inexplicable, at least to me and my fellow economists. I invited readers to provide better explanations, and you did.A reminder of the puzzle: Xbox 360s are the latest in a long line of Christmas products to suffer spectacular shortages. The shortage of supply isn’t the puzzle; the low price is. Why doesn’t Microsoft raise prices temporarily from the current floor of $300 for a basic console? Why doesn’t the company auction them all on eBay, where consoles are currently reselling for $700 and up?
If I had a dollar for every e-mail I received on the subject, I’d be able to afford an Xbox myself. Most of the suggestions I received were wrong, but a few got me thinking, and they may get you thinking, too.
Continued at Slate.com
Published on the 21st of December, 2005
On Sunday the New York Times reviewed The Undercover Economist, starting:
A funny thing seems to be happening to economics writing: it’s getting better,
and ending with
For those of you, even now, still stuck in the bookstore cafe, this is a book to savor.
You can read the whole review, including the ‘quibbles’.
Published on the 17th of December, 2005
Dear Economist,
After several years, I recently noted that I only really fancy my girlfriend after I’ve had a few drinks. Is this relationship worth pursuing?
David Pigeon, London
Dear David,
I know how you feel: I only fancy chips with mayonnaise. Sadly for my waistline, my relationship with chips has not suffered.
You are saying that like chips and mayonnaise, alcohol and your girlfriend are complementary goods. I am not sure this is a problem.
It might be a problem if your predicament were unusual. It is not. Many people have found that alcohol has aphrodisiac qualities, even if it occasionally dampens the ability to follow through. This Christmas, thousands of couples like you and your girlfriend will rediscover each other with the help of the Yuletide brandy. I’m a September baby myself, as is my father, my sister, her husband and their son. You are not alone!
Of course, it is easy to drink more alcohol than is good for you. Perhaps this is what is concerning you, but there seems to be no need for worry. The Government advises that the average man should aim to drink no more than three to four “units” of alcohol - about two pints of ordinary-strength lager - a day. Since the typical British couple claims to make love every three days or so, you should be able to lubricate yourself appropriately without putting too much strain on your liver. Just steer clear of prodigious feats of love.
It seems to me that there is one cause for concern…
Continued on ft.com.
Published on the 17th of December, 2005
At first it looked as if I would never get to have lunch with Thomas Schelling, this year’s winner of the Nobel prize for economics. When I first tried to see him, he told me to wait a week or two, so he could “get over the celebrity activity” surrounding the prize. We picked another date but then he had to cancel: “I have to be at the Swedish Embassy and the White House,” he e-mailed. “I knew I should have asked my wife… sorry to confuse you with my confusion.” Read the rest of this entry »
Published on the 17th of December, 2005
The Undercover Economist - FT Magazine, 17 December 2005
Early in the Christmas season, we received an e-mail from some hippy friends. “We have decided to have a ‘gift-free’ Christmas this year,” they began, before warning that they would not be sending out any presents, and would request none in return. Wise, charming and kooky in equal measure, the last thing this e-mail conveyed was emotional impoverishment. Yet when economists take the same attitude towards Christmas, emotional impoverishment is exactly the crime of which they are accused. Read the rest of this entry »
Published on the 16th of December, 2005
Originally published on the New York Times op-ed page, 16 December 2005.
At this week’s ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization in Hong Kong, negotiators have once again hit an impasse over how and when to open the rich world’s agricultural markets to farmers in the poorest countries. What few people have realized, however, is that poor countries don’t have to wait for the World Trade Organization. There is plenty that they can and should do to help their own farmers to trade.
Imagine a dream scenario in which the trade ministers emerge from their negotiations this weekend holding hands and proclaiming an end to all agricultural protectionism. What then?
For, say, a banana picker in the Central African Republic, not a lot. Read the rest of this entry »
Published on the 16th of December, 2005
At this week’s ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organization in Hong Kong, negotiators have once again hit an impasse over how and when to open the rich world’s agricultural markets to farmers in the poorest countries. What few people have realized, however, is that poor countries don’t have to wait for the World Trade Organization. There is plenty that they can and should do to help their own farmers to trade.
Imagine a dream scenario in which the trade ministers emerge from their negotiations this weekend holding hands and proclaiming an end to all agricultural protectionism. What then?
For, say, a banana picker in the Central African Republic, not a lot…
Continued at the New York Times, or on my favourites page.
