I find that I use my economics background from undergrad an awful lot as an adult.
Of course, it's not like I'm reviewing my papers and tests about tort remedies, but I think the mindset that economics promotes is a very good thing.
For example, in my decision to forego teaching full-time 16 years ago 1, I definitely considered the opportunity costs of working; what I would be giving up if I worked full-time.
Regardless of what decision a person makes, there is always a cost.
I considered the tangible benefits/costs (more income versus more childcare expenses and fewer savings) and the intangible benefits/costs (memories with my children versus professional neglect).
A lot of times we think about costs only in terms of money, but there are lots of costs.
You know the saying, "Time is money."
But there are psychological costs and physical costs and intellectual costs (and probably a lot more).
When I canceled my gym membership in January, I didn't do it because of the financial cost ($15/month); I canceled because I wasn't going much. and it was hanging over my head--a constant "You need to do this, but you're not doing this." The psychological cost bothered me, so I canceled even though the monetary cost was minimal.
Economics is a social science that makes it a cousin of sociology and psychology, but it also has business/accounting applications, which is why it gets housed in business schools.
I actually had a higher GPA in Econ (4.0) than I did English, which is kinda funny given what my professional life has been.
As a person who has definitely run more "emotional" over the course of my life and struggled with moods, the economics side of my brain has helped strengthen what is a fairly weak "logical" brain.
One of the things I keep thinking about during the COVID-19 pandemic is the basic economic idea of perfect information.
The idea is that people make better/best decisions based on having reliable and extensive information.
People lacking information can make very poor decisions.
Part of what makes the pandemic so consequential is that we havepoor virtually nonexistent testing opportunities, which means we are having to make a lot of assumptions that may or may not be correct.
Right now people are assuming they have the coronavirus and everyone else does not OR they are assuming they do not have the coronavirus and everyone else does.
Also, there hasn't been enough time to thoroughly study the virus to know much about its transmission, who is more or less likely to be impacted, etc.
A lot of what we know about anything is learned after-the-fact.
Although I am a very risk-averse person, I am not sanitizing my groceries that are delivered to my house or that I pick up curbside.
I am avoiding in-person shopping because the risk of that appears much higher than the risk of me picking up coronavirus from my milk.
There can never be zero risk.
It is a lot like opportunity cost; it just exists although you can determine what is more or less risky.
Is there a risk that COVID-19 could enter my house from a box of lightbulbs I've ordered from Home Depot?
Yes.
What is that risk compared to the risk of me going to Home Depot with who knows how many other people who are much more likely to transmit COVID-19 to me than a cardboard box?
Heck, there is a risk to my life by getting in my car and driving to Home Depot, which is much more likely than the risk of a delivered cardboard box helping me contract the virus.
There is a risk to living, but what we are doing now is minimizing that risk to the smallest, least likely amount that I can.
I think back to a stressful episode with an invisible enemy I experienced when N was an infant. I developed mastitis while breastfeeding and then a yeast infection in my breast.
Now, this was BEFORE my anxiety medication, but fighting this invisible enemy just about did me in psychologically. I was boiling pacifiers and any plastic toys she touched. I was scrubbing everything down to kill the yeast. I used paper towels rather than washing linen ones.
I felt a lot like Lady Macbeth in her futile mad attempt to get that damn spot out.
The economic impact of the pandemic is also a place where we have imperfect information because of imperfect testing.
Without knowing the full extent of the virus in the population, we can't make good decisions about business operations.
There are at least two scenarios:
The first is what we have now; lots of unemployment in the service industry because we assume everyone has it or everyone doesn't have it.
The second is potentially worse. We assume everyone has it when everyone doesn't have it and allow businesses to open up causing huge spikes in hospitalizations and deaths.
The resulting full lockdowns and surges collapse the health care system, inducing even greater panic than what we saw the first week or so of the quarantines.
Both scenarios suck, but if I have to pick one of the two, I'm picking the option we're doing now.
Of course, it's not like I'm reviewing my papers and tests about tort remedies, but I think the mindset that economics promotes is a very good thing.
For example, in my decision to forego teaching full-time 16 years ago 1, I definitely considered the opportunity costs of working; what I would be giving up if I worked full-time.
Regardless of what decision a person makes, there is always a cost.
I considered the tangible benefits/costs (more income versus more childcare expenses and fewer savings) and the intangible benefits/costs (memories with my children versus professional neglect).
A lot of times we think about costs only in terms of money, but there are lots of costs.
You know the saying, "Time is money."
But there are psychological costs and physical costs and intellectual costs (and probably a lot more).
When I canceled my gym membership in January, I didn't do it because of the financial cost ($15/month); I canceled because I wasn't going much. and it was hanging over my head--a constant "You need to do this, but you're not doing this." The psychological cost bothered me, so I canceled even though the monetary cost was minimal.
Economics is a social science that makes it a cousin of sociology and psychology, but it also has business/accounting applications, which is why it gets housed in business schools.
I actually had a higher GPA in Econ (4.0) than I did English, which is kinda funny given what my professional life has been.
As a person who has definitely run more "emotional" over the course of my life and struggled with moods, the economics side of my brain has helped strengthen what is a fairly weak "logical" brain.
One of the things I keep thinking about during the COVID-19 pandemic is the basic economic idea of perfect information.
The idea is that people make better/best decisions based on having reliable and extensive information.
People lacking information can make very poor decisions.
Part of what makes the pandemic so consequential is that we have
Right now people are assuming they have the coronavirus and everyone else does not OR they are assuming they do not have the coronavirus and everyone else does.
Also, there hasn't been enough time to thoroughly study the virus to know much about its transmission, who is more or less likely to be impacted, etc.
A lot of what we know about anything is learned after-the-fact.
Although I am a very risk-averse person, I am not sanitizing my groceries that are delivered to my house or that I pick up curbside.
I am avoiding in-person shopping because the risk of that appears much higher than the risk of me picking up coronavirus from my milk.
There can never be zero risk.
It is a lot like opportunity cost; it just exists although you can determine what is more or less risky.
Is there a risk that COVID-19 could enter my house from a box of lightbulbs I've ordered from Home Depot?
Yes.
What is that risk compared to the risk of me going to Home Depot with who knows how many other people who are much more likely to transmit COVID-19 to me than a cardboard box?
Heck, there is a risk to my life by getting in my car and driving to Home Depot, which is much more likely than the risk of a delivered cardboard box helping me contract the virus.
There is a risk to living, but what we are doing now is minimizing that risk to the smallest, least likely amount that I can.
I think back to a stressful episode with an invisible enemy I experienced when N was an infant. I developed mastitis while breastfeeding and then a yeast infection in my breast.
Now, this was BEFORE my anxiety medication, but fighting this invisible enemy just about did me in psychologically. I was boiling pacifiers and any plastic toys she touched. I was scrubbing everything down to kill the yeast. I used paper towels rather than washing linen ones.
I felt a lot like Lady Macbeth in her futile mad attempt to get that damn spot out.
The economic impact of the pandemic is also a place where we have imperfect information because of imperfect testing.
Without knowing the full extent of the virus in the population, we can't make good decisions about business operations.
There are at least two scenarios:
The first is what we have now; lots of unemployment in the service industry because we assume everyone has it or everyone doesn't have it.
The second is potentially worse. We assume everyone has it when everyone doesn't have it and allow businesses to open up causing huge spikes in hospitalizations and deaths.
The resulting full lockdowns and surges collapse the health care system, inducing even greater panic than what we saw the first week or so of the quarantines.
Both scenarios suck, but if I have to pick one of the two, I'm picking the option we're doing now.
No comments:
Post a Comment