A major reason for sparse blogging of late is that I've been giving myself a crash course in economic sociology. What's that? you ask. For an introduction, read the resulting article, from yesterday's Boston Globe Ideas section.
If you'd like to know more, check out the websites of Mark Granovetter and Ezra Zuckerman. And if you're interested enough to spend money, order The Handbook of Economic Sociology.
The aesthetic ratchet effect has come to Dell computers, reports the A.P.'s Matt Slagle. He quotes industry analyst Roger Kay, who makes a common point: "As the market gets to be more commodity-like you need to distinguish yourself in whatever way you can."
That's inarguable, but it's not what's happening here. Dell's distinguishing characteristics are still price, customization, and quick turnaround, not design. Like USB ports or color monitors (remember when those were new?), good looks--or what Kay calls "design drama"--have simply become part of the package computer buyers expect, even in a commodity machine.
Any readers who are attending the Academy of Management meetings next month might want to check out the BPS/TIM panel, "High-tech and High-touch: Exploring the Role of Fashion and Aesthetics in Technology Markets." I'll be a discussant.
I'll be on Debbie Millman's Internet radio show, Design Matters, at 3 p.m. ET today (Friday). You can listen live (and call in) or download the show from the archives, which are full of interesting conversations with design luminaries.
I've just dipped into Ron Bailey's new book, Liberation Biology. As expected, it's proving to be a thoughtful, provocative, and well-written look at the issues surrounding rapidly advancing biomedicine. If biotech opponents are at all sincere in their frequent calls for thoughtful public discussion of what's at stake, they'll take it seriously. (Bill McKibben, for one, does.) Buy it here.
Because of a brain defect, I'm unable to spend my time surfing the Web and writing blog posts and still get any real work done. Lately I've been opting for the latter, mostly intellectually stimulating but financially impoverishing research on economic sociology (for a Boston Globe Ideas section piece) and "modern with curves" design (for a Slate slideshow essay), plus a little bit of glamour research squeezed in on the side.
I also wrote my NYT column, which looks at interesting research on child labor in developing countries. Here's the beginning:
WHEN Americans think about child labor in poor countries, they rarely picture girls fetching water or boys tending livestock. Yet most of the 211 million children, ages 5 to 14, who work worldwide are not in factories. They are working in agriculture - from 92 percent in Vietnam to 63 percent in Guatemala - and most are not paid directly.
"Contrary to popular perception in high-income countries, most working children are employed by their parents rather than in manufacturing establishments or other forms of wage employment," two Dartmouth economists, Eric V. Edmonds and Nina Pavcnik, wrote in "Child Labor in the Global Economy," published in the Winter 2005 Journal of Economic Perspectives.
Their article surveys what is known about child labor. Research over the past several years, by these economists and others, has begun to erode some popular beliefs about why children work, what they do and when they are likely to leave work for school.
Battlestar Galactica, which may very well be the best show on TV and is certainly the most philosophical, starts its second season on July 15. To catch people up, the Sci-Fi Channel is running a marathon on Wednesday, starting at 10 a.m. ET/9 a.m. CT. For the uninitiated, this LAT article provides background.
This Independence Day weekend, Steve and I are sending notes and care packages to U.S. troops in the field via AnySoldier.com. Check out the site to see how to send your own thanks and goodies.
She was the only Supreme Court justice in the Cowgirl Hall of Fame. Her Western roots showed in the rare passion she displayed in the Kelo dissent.
The House has passed an amendment prohibiting the use of federal funds to seize private property for private economic development projects. In its report on the bill, the LAT quotes the Runaway-Bride-Eyed minority leader's reason for opposing it. She said she doesn't want to withhold federal dollars "for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed I am to that decision."
This is, of course, a complete non sequitur. The Supreme Court's Kelo decision in no way said that cities must take private property or that Congress should encourage takings. It said those takings weren't constitutional prohibited. If anything, the House bill enforces Kelo, which requires legislative, rather than constitutional, protections at the federal level. Either Pelosi is an idiot or this is an ass-covering attempt to justify her support of takings by vaguely associating it with her support for Roe v. Wade.
The LAT report also mentions that "California and at least eight other states have laws on the books that forbid the use of the eminent domain power to condemn private property for economic development, except in 'blighted' areas." Does Pelosi oppose her own state's laws as well?
After a fire destroys the Biblical Arts Center in Dallas, the executive editor of D Magazine tries to explain to a dim TV reporter the difference between "priceless" and "irreplaceable." The exchange is, well, priceless. And, since this is the blogsphere, also free. (Scroll down here for background on the fire and what was destroyed.)