The new hotness

Behavioral finance? Neuroeconomics?

No.

The Markov Chain Monte Carlo method?

Old and busted.

The new hotness?

"The truth? You can't handle the truth!"

Pee-onomics.

The economics profession gives many thanks to Kerry for the breakthrough.

Comments

[EclectEcon]

1. Pretty anal compulsive to record all those data.
2. 20 - 25 minutes for type #2? Good grief!

[Kerry]

Thanks for the link, Prof. Newmark!

I've always understood what Oprah meant about her vast success when she said that she always knew she was destined for greatness. ...and so pee-onomics becomes my contribution to the world.

...and EclectEcon...Type #2 durations are as much a function of good reading material as anything else (although my mom'll tell you I don't have enough fiber in the diet).

[Jake]

My master's thesis proved that if employers would raise the height of the bathroom doorknobs by 1.5", it would decrease the door opening time by 1.2%. Thus it would save employers $18.72 per employee per year in pee time.

[JorgXMcKie]

First, I agree with Kerry that the time spent going #2 is probably a function of the quality of the reading material found there.

But, as I commented on his page, he is obviously suffering from 'false consciousness.'

"On the other hand, how much would it cost the employer if you had to 'hold it' until you got home? Even if you didn't drink anything from, say, two hours before work until leaving work, I'm betting you'd be less than conscientiously slaving away the whole work day (all that fidgeting while trying desperately not to go to the Little Boys' Room). And, you would certainly be a least minimally dehydrated late in the day, and we know dehydration decreases brain function.

So, while it may *appear* that you are making money while going pee-pee, in reality The Man is exploiting you. That is, by encouraging you to fully hydrate by 'paying' you to go potty, you are really being tricked into putting yourself in a position to work at full capacity for a greater portion of the day."

Thus, for the relatively small amount 'paid' while 'seeing a man about a horse' the employer gets much higher overall productivity.

[Kerry]

Whoa whoa whoa...

At what point did you decide I was a man?

[Danny L. McDaniel]

Typical economist, they have to impress with charts, numbers and irrelevant mind numbing hypotheoticals that have no relationship to the real world. Who makes .40 an hour in the U.S.? Alright, maybe some prison laborers in certain Southern states.

Monte Carlo method? Long since discredited!