Peltzman, Sam, The Happiness Crash of 2020 (March 13, 2026). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=6465460
I document a sudden, sharp and historically unprecedented decline in self-reported happiness in the US population. It occurred during 2020, the year of the Covid pandemic, and mainly persists through 2024. This happiness crash spread across nearly all typical demographics and geographies. The happiest groups pre-Covid (e.g., whites, high income, well-educated and politically/ideologically right-leaning) tend to show the largest happiness reductions. The glaring exception is marital status, which has consistently been an important marker for happiness. The already wide happiness premium for marriage has, if anything, become slightly wider. With both married and unmarried reporting large declines in happiness the country has become segregated: slightly over half-the married adults-remain happy on balance; the unmarried, nearly half, are now distinctly unhappy. I also show that across a number of aspects of personal and social capital post-Covid deterioration is the norm, including a collapse of belief in the fairness of others and of trust in the US Supreme Court.
Bill, it amazes me you promote what Tyler Cowan promotes without even a cursory search or chat with Claude.
ReplyDeleteHappiness of liberals and conservatives in different countries
Posted on October 28, 2016
by Andrew [Gelman]
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2016/10/28/30378/
Peltzman claimed to originate this theory in the 1970s but it was used to oppose the requirement of safety equipment on trains in the Nineteenth Century.[5]
A reanalysis of his original data found numerous errors and his model failed to predict fatality rates before regulation.[6] According to Peltzman, regulation was at best useless, at worst counterproductive.[7][n 5]Peltzman found that the level of risk compensation in response to highway safety regulations was complete in the original study. But "Peltzman's theory does not predict the magnitude of risk compensatory behaviour." Substantial further empirical work has found that the effect exists in many contexts but generally offsets less than half of the direct effect.[n 6] In the U.S., motor vehicle fatalities per capita declined by more than half from the beginning of regulation in the 1960s through 2012. Vehicle safety standards accounted for most of the reduction, augmented by seat belt use laws, changes in the minimum drinking age, and reductions in teen driving.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peltzman_effect
300
JANUARY 2, 2011
JOHN QUIGGIN
...
"This kind of argument has been advanced (apparently without much cross-acknowledgement) by economists of whom the most notable is Sam Peltzman, under the name ‘rebound effect’, and by geographers, including John Adams, under the name “risk homeostasis”.
"The explanation of course is that Adams and Peltzman are libertarians, and the thinktanks that back them are similarly inclined. Peltzman checks just about all the US boxes – professor of economics at Chicago, fellow of AEI, Cato. Adams isn’t such a joiner, but he is clear enough on the political implications of the argument.
...
https://johnquiggin.com/2011/01/02/300/
A critical analysis of Peltzman's "The effects of automobile safety regulation"
Robertson, Leon S.
Journal of Economic Issues
September 1977
...
"According to Peltzman, drivers respond to increased occupant crash protection by increased “risky driving” to have more time to increase earnings, thus increasing the overall crash rate and injury to pedestrians, motorcyclists, and bicyclists.The assumptions, model, and data set forth by Pelztman will be examined here, and his conclusions will be found unwarranted. Data which he does not consider support the conclusion that motor vehicle safety standards are effective in reducing fatalities and that his theory of driver behavior is not supported empirically."
https://www.iihs.org/research-areas/bibliography/ref/113
"Critique of Sam Peltzman's study - ScienceDirect
"The variables used in Peltzman's analysis were reviewed. It was concluded that some of them were arbitrarily chosen, that some were correlated, and that important factors were omitted. This may cause spurious and biased
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/000145757690004X
SD
Eh.
ReplyDelete