In Defense of Mormon Happiness

I wrote the following comment in response to Will Wilkinson's critique on Mormon happiness:

Will,

I believe it is quite hubristic of you to suggest that you are so enlightened and that Mormons are "squandering their potential" by choosing to use their resources differently than others in society. In my mind nothing can be more rewarding than taking part in the development of a human being. I admit that I am Mormon, and therefore maybe I have been too “brainwashed” to know what “really matters in life.” Obviously, you think differently, and I respect your right to your opinion. However, just because others choose to locate on a different point on the production possibility frontier doesn't make them less productive nor does it make them any less rational than you would consider yourself to be.

I’d like to analyze your comments from a positive rather than a normative perspective. From an economic point of view the division of family labor actually makes quite a bit of sense. Utah has fared much better than most states in the country despite the unmeasured home production which is not included in estimates of Gross State Product. It is hard to argue against this model on efficiency grounds relative to the rest of the country. Let’s assume that a child that is raised primarily by a stay-at-home parent will grow up healthier in many ways. This may be an issue of contention, but I do not believe that there is any evidence to the contrary. (The evidence I have seen suggests that children are raised in daycare (preschool) often enter grade school perform better initially than home-raised children. However, the home-raised children quickly converge and there is some evidence that the daycare children act up more. Much remains to be done on this issue.) Given the outcome from a state like Utah with a significant portion of stay-at-home parents, I believe the anecdotal evidence should be somewhat convincing. Although no one likes to point this out, economically it makes sense in some cases to divide labor between home production and out-of-home production. To suggest that there is no trade off between the two is just bad economics. The reason why this trade off is taboo is due to the fact that the stay-at-home parent is often—if not usually—a woman.

I will dare claim that a woman will generally have a comparative advantage in child rearing. This does not suggest that they are less productive outside the home. In fact, they very well may be more productive than the man working outside the home in the majority of cases. But anyone that understands comparative advantage knows that just because one has an absolute advantage in the production of one good does not mean that it would be more efficient for him/her to produce that good. What matters is relative advantage. Let’s say that a woman generally is twice as productive as a man at rearing children. (I obviously am making this number up. In reality I do not believe the advantage to be so significant. I use this number for simplicity. But it would seem to me ridiculous to think that a woman would not have at least a slight advantage in child-rearing activities. I will admit that this advantage has possibly weakened through time due to technology, ability to formula feed, and other factors; but I still believe that there is an advantage regardless of how politically incorrect of a statement it may be.) For the woman to work outside the home, she would have to be more than twice as productive at production outside the home. Indeed, this is probably the case in some situations which is why often the father will stay at home (even in many LDS homes). However, it is less likely that women will be relatively more productive at out-of-home production, even if they are always more productive in absolute terms. The reason why it is such a prevalent choice is because total consumption and production of the father and mother is much greater through the division of labor when both spouses place a significant amount of weight on the family as part of their utility function. In short, both benefit through a voluntary contract. This to me is not “squandering potential”; rather it is self interest “rightly understood.” It puzzles me why someone who places so much value on individual freedom would act so condescending towards other individuals’ choices just because they do not jive with your own value judgments.

When teaching comparative advantage, I often use the example of John Stockton and Karl Malone. Any good basketball fan, knows that John Stockton had the scoring ability to average more than 20 points a game, possibly 25, if he reduced average in assists. Scoring would have gotten him much more individual attention, possibly an MVP award. However, he understood that it was in his and the team’s interest for him to pass the ball more since Karl Malone clearly had the comparative advantage at scoring. Was John Stockton “squandering [his] potential” or was he merely acting in his own self interest given his desired objectives?

There is significant value to what a parent produces at home. You might not think so, but do you not agree that value is subjective? So go ahead. Go to Utah, and try and convince these women that they are misguided and selling themselves short. However, I think you know that your time could be used much more efficiently elsewhere. For instance, how about fighting against the greater threat to your libertarian convictions, the Fair Pay Act, which will artificially increases the wage for women and effectively increase the opportunity cost for women staying at home. I think that we would both agree that if more women are to enter the workforce, it will be better for them to do so due to actual market conditions rather than government-induced distortions.

Sincerely,

Nathan Ashby

Chances of depression are 1 in 5

Here's Robert Barro reporting on the chances of a depression.