tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post3752843813570941628..comments2023-12-20T04:18:41.617-06:00Comments on The Hunting of the Snark: Megan McArdle's Marriage Is Now Much Less Valuable Than It Was BeforeSusan of Texashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-4769058711054194512011-06-30T15:47:33.236-05:002011-06-30T15:47:33.236-05:00"Now, economists hear this sort of argument a..."Now, economists hear this sort of argument all the time. "That's ridiculous! I would never start working fewer hours because my taxes went up!"<br /><br />Economists totally do hear this all the time! Megan would know because she is not one."<br /><br />Economists know better: it depends on where you are on the distribution, how much you depend on that income, and whether you can find something better to do. (Think Slutsky Equation.)<br /><br />Economists who study the issue usually find a second-order Slutsky effect as well: in those cases where hours worked goes down, productivity per hour increases. (Gosh, there's diminishing returns to hours worked! Whodda thunk it?)<br /><br />How that parallels marriage, which is a discontinuous function, is not clear. Unlike work, I cannot choose to be more or less married <a href="http://www.angrybearblog.com/2011/06/quinceanera.html" rel="nofollow">today</a> than I was yesterday, nor will I be more or less so tomorrow, pending a discontinuity [death or divorce].)<br /><br />So the marginal case really has to be a state change: gay marriage causes one to divorce (because it was a sham marriage anyway?) or keeps one from getting married (the "Tuscaloosa" example above).<br /><br />From a societal perspective, moving the marginal case from "gets married" to "chooses not to" is a good thing--the marginal marriage is, by definition, more likely to result in divorce. And anyone who won't marry because gay people can do the same thing isn't getting married for any reason that would keep the marriage going.<br /><br />Gay marriage should, if McMegan's reasoning is correct, reduce the heterosexual divorce rate.<br /><br />Why does McMegan prefer divorce?Ken Houghtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01440837287933536370noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-62942263329466227182011-06-27T15:11:52.103-05:002011-06-27T15:11:52.103-05:00To which, again, the other side replies "That...<i>To which, again, the other side replies "That's ridiculous! I would never change my willingness to get married based on whether or not gay people were getting married!"<br /><br />Now, economists hear this sort of argument all the time. "That's ridiculous! I would never start working fewer hours because my taxes went up!"</i><br /><br />Economists totally do hear this all the time! Megan would know because she is not one. Also I believe having something happen to you - a change in your tax rate - is not quite equivalent to something not happening to you.Substance McGravitashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04118764163822188800noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-43803948050782412342011-06-27T11:56:39.974-05:002011-06-27T11:56:39.974-05:00"could find a causality between same-sex marr..."could find a causality between same-sex marriage and the rioting in Vancouver after the Canucks lost..."<br /><br />Ah, you got me there. Obviously a direct link.Sharonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11827236343578670299noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-14277555061606462132011-06-27T11:29:45.847-05:002011-06-27T11:29:45.847-05:00Megan is a coward who attributes her own homophobi...Megan is a coward who attributes her own homophobic ideas to a fictional third party while feigning neutrality. This is a brazen lie as the entire post only presents arguments for a reactionary view of marriage (including tougher divorce laws [saying she's not <i>necessarily</i> in support of them, but...]).<br /><br />Had she not locked comments, I might have pointed out how everything in her post could be written about interracial marriage, but given the section attacking financial aid to single mothers, I think that's meant to be taken as read.<br /><br />Open bigotry is disgusting, open bigotry which claims not to have an opinion is especially vile.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-40914287004857705842011-06-27T11:14:32.908-05:002011-06-27T11:14:32.908-05:00Here in British Columbia we've had same-sex ma...<em>Here in British Columbia we've had same-sex marriage since 2003 and everything's just hunky-dory so far.</em><br /><br />I'm sure wingnuts could find a causality between same-sex marriage and the rioting in Vancouver after the Canucks lost the Stanley Cup.Tommykeyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14751182125861177379noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-70224550958844148942011-06-27T11:12:09.487-05:002011-06-27T11:12:09.487-05:00What Nony just said, which is a complete bull'...What Nony just said, which is a complete bull's eye.<br /><br />The "high school dropout in Tuscaloosa" would, if we're discussing Megan's hypothetical example, be exactly the sort of person who gets married because he (let's assume it's a man) "is supposed to" and who--because he's a high school dropout from a small Southern town--can be expected to do all the other things such dim-wits are supposed to: drink to excess, abuse his wife, smack his kids around, etc. etc.<br /><br />Which Megan must, if she's honest (stop laughing), grant. If he's not one of Megan's (and "our") set, who of course are above being dissuaded from marriage by its being available to gays, then he's one of the cohort of provincial yahoos who help give marriage a bad name by making it synonymous with entrapment, boredom, unexamined hostility, a breeding ground for patterns of violence, a lifelong sentence to suffocating misery, etc., etc.<br /><br />Whereas gays who get married <i> really want to get married,</i> and therefore embody marriage's best side. They actively embrace it, as opposed to that idiot in Tuscaloosa (don't we hate him!), who passively, grudgingly accepts it, until it gets all faggy, affording him (whew!) an excuse for dodging it. As Nony says, if anything gay marriage "strengthens" the institution.<br /><br />Thus, Megan's argument fails, no matter how much a) she claims she doesn't have one, and b) she thinks she's above it all by employing a supercilious, smug tone.<br /><br />(And "boy hunter-gatherer" is Snark Gold.)Mr. Wonderfulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-45757592657371335122011-06-27T10:58:08.748-05:002011-06-27T10:58:08.748-05:00So this is like another thing that is just too com...So this is like another thing that is just too complicated for her, and thus for anyone? Maybe she and Matt Taibbi can discuss <i>this</i> on the television too. I would watch, with popcorn.Larkspurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-32893581130041728692011-06-27T10:56:34.346-05:002011-06-27T10:56:34.346-05:00@fish
That was the part that caught my attention t...@fish<br />That was the part that caught my attention too. I have no idea what phony claim she's trying to make there.atatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-37182628829901038202011-06-27T09:00:40.685-05:002011-06-27T09:00:40.685-05:00Similarly, you--highly educated, firmly socialised...<i>Similarly, you--highly educated, firmly socialised, upper middle class you--may not be the marginal marriage candidate; it may be some high school dropout in Tuscaloosa. That doesn't mean that the institution of marriage won't be weakened in America just the same.</i><br /><br />Okay - wait a minute. I gotta stop right here.<br /><br />McArdle is arguing that there might be some "marginal" marriage cases - people who might get married but, because gay folks are allowed to marry, decide "fuck it - I'm not going to bother. Getting married is sooooo gay now".<br /><br />Okay, let me grant, for the sake of the argument, that I believe this utterly ridiculous premise and give it some weight. Now by what fucking mechanism does this then <i>weaken</i> the institution of marriage? If anything this idea should cause fewer "marginal" marriages - which should cause fewer <i>divorces</i> and stronger marriages. Stronger marriages make the idea of marriage more attractive which should then <i>enhance</i> the entire institutional idea of a marriage.<br /><br />Her premise is ridiculous to start with, but even if I grant her idea that there are people at the margins who might be affected by this, I can't see any scenario where their decision to not get married makes the institution of marriage anything but a stronger one.NonyNonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-50332951186943510812011-06-27T08:28:48.516-05:002011-06-27T08:28:48.516-05:00This ignores the fact that you may not be the marg...<i>This ignores the fact that you may not be the marginal case.</i><br /><br />You do have to concede that ME-gan is a bit of an expert on marginal cases.<br /><br /><i>Marriage is a big institution; too big for me to feel I have a successful handle on it.</i><br /><br />And that is why you can expect these long diatribes on it.<br /><br /><i>All I'm asking for is for people to think more deeply than a quick consultation of their imaginations to make that decision.</i><br /><br />Herp derp derp. Funneh how change nevar starts with teh ME-gan in teh mirror.Dragon-King Wangchuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15661002686346571531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-55969444249013611682011-06-27T08:15:18.321-05:002011-06-27T08:15:18.321-05:00What a surprise...she manages to do libertarianism...What a surprise...she manages to do libertarianism without even the minimal redeeming traits.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-40385082196765452352011-06-27T07:50:15.523-05:002011-06-27T07:50:15.523-05:00(See what happened to the inner cities between 196...<i>(See what happened to the inner cities between 1960 and 1990 if you do not believe this.)</i><br /><br />What the hell does that even mean? If she is talking about crime, the trend has been <a href="(See%20what%20happened%20to%20the%20inner%20cities%20between%201960%20and%201990%20if%20you%20do%20not%20believe%20this.)" rel="nofollow">steady to dropping since the 70's</a>.<br /><br />Teen pregnancy was trending down <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends.pdf" rel="nofollow">since the 90's</a> (until the Republicans took over). <br /><br />So yeah, facts. <br /><br />Forget about the morally bankrupt argument of depriving citizens of civil rights to preserve something or other blah blah blah. <br />I fully expect she gives up her job at the Atlantic because babies and all.fishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01522672049371678717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-77598409367910702712011-06-27T01:56:02.666-05:002011-06-27T01:56:02.666-05:00Gah, so much stupid. Can I just point and laugh at...Gah, so much stupid. Can I just point and laugh at the fact that she wrote "programme"?atatnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-35237772362206578332011-06-27T01:25:27.982-05:002011-06-27T01:25:27.982-05:00Who'd want to marry knowing they would be pret...Who'd want to marry knowing they would be pretty much Owned by their spouse, that He would have control of your money, your body, would own your children when you had them, would be legally allowed to beat you, even beat you to death? Gay marriage is an outcome of Women's Lib.Kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03176801494652946278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-16151717148719217332011-06-27T01:07:00.423-05:002011-06-27T01:07:00.423-05:00... changing the explicitly gendered nature of mar...<i>... changing the explicitly gendered nature of marriage we might be accidentally cutting away something that turns out to be a crucial underpinning...</i><br /><br />That's what happens when women are no longer completely dependent on men to the point of being <i>owned</i> by them. Take that "crucial underpinning" away from marriage, and Society, and yes, <i>everything</i> changes. Usually for the better in the long run, but conservatives are never about the "long run"- unless they're looking backwards thousands of years to find a justification for one sector of society enslaving another, be it religion, sex, skin color or wealth.Kathyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03176801494652946278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-51775719554916859222011-06-26T22:40:37.540-05:002011-06-26T22:40:37.540-05:00This should not be taken as an endorsement of the ...<i>This should not be taken as an endorsement of the idea that gay marriage will weaken the current institution. I can tell a plausible story where it does; I can tell a plausible story where it doesn't. I have no idea which one is true. That is why I have no opinion on gay marriage, and am not planning to develop one.</i><br /><br />What makes a woman turn neutral? Lust for gold? Power? Or were you just born with a heart full of neutrality?<br /><br />The one saving grace, the one streak of certainty in Megan's utter neutrality is always there, always certain, always blazingly non-neutral, and is embodied in one, glowing, ever-present idea:<br /><br />"Whatever hippies and liberals say is wrong, but about anything else I can't make a case either way, and therefore neither should they."uncertaintyviceprincipalnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-17488068672269975042011-06-26T20:48:44.685-05:002011-06-26T20:48:44.685-05:00Nonetheless, libertarians should know better. The ...<i>Nonetheless, libertarians should know better. The limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality.</i><br /><br />Funnily enough, libertarians believe their extremely limited imaginations define reality. They also believe themselves to be brilliant. <br /><br /><i>This humility is what I want from liberals when approaching market changes; now I'm asking it from my side too, in approaching social ones. I think the approach is consistent, if not exactly popular.</i><br /><br />"My side"? Funnily enough, Megan is arguing against liberalism and for conservatism in both cases. That is indeed consistent – as is her pretense of being an independent thinker. <br /><br />It's cute the way Megan concern trolls gay marriage pretty much the same way she concern trolled health care reform (and pretty much everything else). Essentially, she's arguing against gay marriage while being too gutless to come out and say so. How unsurprising that she argues for supply-side economics and the Laffer Curve in the same piece that she argues against gay marriage. And funny how she condemns the rampant individualism that she claims support of gay marriage represents, while condemning the widespread public support for investigating and prosecuting the banksters.Batocchiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02193752396025012825noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-10407455600344007682011-06-26T20:33:07.587-05:002011-06-26T20:33:07.587-05:00great post.
It's the great conservative and A...great post.<br /><br />It's the great conservative and American Libertarian flaw. They forget that society is organized for Us not Me. It's that simple.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04336286974067459325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-35139456979285826452011-06-26T18:42:44.635-05:002011-06-26T18:42:44.635-05:00No doubt McArdle would say that America is a speci...No doubt McArdle would say that America is a special case and therefore we could not posibly benefit from others' experience.Susan of Texashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00076915322771385454noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2222630007427380394.post-42643944424998138262011-06-26T18:31:07.338-05:002011-06-26T18:31:07.338-05:00I don't think the word "plausible" m...I don't think the word "plausible" means what she seems to think it means.Lurking Canadiannoreply@blogger.com