Scott Adams, the author of the Dilbert cartoon, wrote an insightful piece back in 2007 entitled, "On the Other Hand", in which he extolled the skill of economists to deal with cognitive dissonance. In short, economists do not need absolute outcomes. We focus on the delicate balance between costs and benefits.
Roger Cohen had a wonderful op-ed in today's New York Times entitled, "The Meaning of Life," that beautifully illustrates this balance in questions of diet. He uses a prominent study of how diet affects monkeys to make the point that I have been making to my wife for a few years now. Sure I could give up hamburgers and soft drinks. I would probably live longer. But I wouldn't be as happy. The difficult economic problem is to find the exact balance between the costs and the benefits that maximizes two of the things I enjoy--food and longevity.
Roger Cohen had a wonderful op-ed in today's New York Times entitled, "The Meaning of Life," that beautifully illustrates this balance in questions of diet. He uses a prominent study of how diet affects monkeys to make the point that I have been making to my wife for a few years now. Sure I could give up hamburgers and soft drinks. I would probably live longer. But I wouldn't be as happy. The difficult economic problem is to find the exact balance between the costs and the benefits that maximizes two of the things I enjoy--food and longevity.
As health economist studying obesity rather extensively, I completely concur with this opinion.
S
ome obesity researchers desperately want obesity to be classified as a contagious disease so it can be brought under the umbrella of public health. Christakis and Fowler (2008), who showed that obese people are more likely to have obese friends) are often cited as evidence for this.
Baloney.
More likely, however, is that eating right and exercising cause disutility. Exercising is difficult and cake is yummy.
It's not that people are stupid either. They realize they're eating poorly and the impact it will have on their life.
In many cases, the answer is surprisingly small. In the latest article I worked on (Forthcoming in obesity), we find that overweight people have the same (or sometimes longer) life expectancy than those of normal weight.
There's caveats, of course, as overweight/obese people are more likely to be disabled in the later years of life - we're not quantifying quality here.
Nevertheless, I'm here to enjoy it. That ice cream sandwich I finished just moments ago was excellent.
My preferences are linear in food consumption and longevity. Burgers are cheap and exercise is coslty, so I eat only cheeseburgers and drink only soda. I will soon die, but my wife should be comforted by the fact that I am happy! These preferences must be embedded in my DNA because I have found that my children also have similar preferences. It seems like they also prefer to eat burgers (and play video games) to getting any amount of exercise. They may die soon too, but they will also be happy! In fact, it seems like the only one in my life that isn't happy is my wife. What's her problem?
Hey, Anonymous. You missed the entire point of my post. Tradeoffs and balance. These are they key ideas of the study of economics. Your comment deals with absolutes. You sarcastically suggest that I eat only hamburgers and drink only soda pop. This is a corner solution or an absolute. The outcome we see most often is some tradeoff or balance among preferences that are seemingly in opposition to each other. Everybody does this--even you.
Actually, the point that I am making is that children are imperfectly informed and have to learn the true costs and benefits from someone. The corner solution highlights that fact, but it is true in the interior as well. That may also be the point that your wife is making---or it may just be that she enjoys your company and would like to continue enjoying it for some time. Either way, I agree wholeheartedly with the essence of your post but calculating costs and benefits is not always straightforward.