Unit 3 Blog 2

How Obama Is Using the Science of Change

“ ‘That's exactly what this is about," Thaler says. "If instead of the 30 pages of unintelligible crap that comes with a mortgage, you can upload it with one click to a website that will explain it and help you shop for alternatives, you make it as easy as shopping for a hotel.’ ”
This actually reminds me of glasnost, a principle used when Russia wanted government actions to become more transparent. The transparency fosters trust in difficult or strenuous operations, like Thaler’s example of home buying. The transparency also makes the industry more inviting, helping to bolster an economy.

“Cheap is alluring; easy can be irresistible.”


An appeal to those to lazy, stupid, or apathetic to do it with the word “easy” will undoubtedly boost the “nudge” effect. However, it is highly manipulative. It shows a great deal of condescension toward all parties involved. Those being manipulated are treated like cattle, dehumanized to an extent as numbers not faces, and those organizing these activities have acknowledge that they’re being manipulative, a trait American society views negatively. The whole idea start to finish borrows almost as much from Machiavelli as from Harvard scholars.

“The bully pulpit has limits — Michelle Obama has literally urged us to eat our broccoli, but she can't make it taste like fudge."

It is actually called the “bully pulpit”. That says a lot in and of itself. A bully is someone who uses coercion to control others actions, often inflicting damage emotionally if not physically. The fact that bullies are not tolerated in schools, but that they are to be tolerated from the government floors me. Even a kindergarten knows trying to control others is wrong. And of course there is a certain icky factor to the idea of the President dictating what you can and can’t eat.

In short: This article left me with an urge to bath and leave country. The idea of politicians controlling food intake, personal habits, and economic spending, no matter how subtle it’s suppose to be, sound down right creepy.



Recession Fallout: Fewer Women Having Kids


“the recession may be to blame, as women factor economic anxieties into their decision about having children”

Having a child is a huge life decision factoring in economic issues is part of any responsible parent-to-be’s planning. The better financially prepared a parent is the better chance a child has of getting more opportunities in life.

“TIME's Nancy Gibbs recently estimated that it costs parents an average of $221,000 to raise a child to age 17.”

That is a chunk o’ change, but at the same time children last a lifetime. Will they give you gray hairs and headaches? Of course, but children also give parents a greater involvement and more fulfilled feeling in society and in life. Putting a price on children is good for planning, but no one put a price on a child’s love and growth.

“further widening of the birth rate between wealthier women and the working poor”

This will be interesting to observe. It is one of those fun things to look at after a census. The rich will have few children filling fewer college spots taking fewer six-figure jobs. In a way it will be an opportunity for the middle class to gain little bits of ground here and there.

In short: I understand the reasoning behind the lowered birth rates, but as the article mentions the birth rate fluctuates with the business cycle, so it’s only a matter of time before the number starts creeping up again.