Carefully read Chapter 3, ³Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?

´, ofFreakonomics by Levitt and Dubner. In a blog post, address the following questions in a clear, concise, and organized manner. 1. Summarize the argument or thesis of the chapter. 2. Find four supporting statistics in the chapter. 
 

List them, along with page numbers. Explain how these statistics are important to telling the chapter¶s story. For instance, is the order important? What about the way they discuss the statistics before and after it is given?

I would like to begin with the statement that Freakonomics by Levitt and Dubner is a fantastic book. I recommend anyone (economist or not) read it purely so they can better understand how connected the economy is with their everyday lives. This post is an analysis of how the authors present data in Chapter three (the one which relates to crack dealers living with their moms (I know there are some of you who have stumbled upon this relatively undiscovered blog)). The chapter itself starts with a discussion of conventional wisdom, breaks down into some examples of how conventional wisdom is shaped by the architects or journalists and experts and then rallies into a riveting discussion of why crack dealers still live with their moms (the title of the chapter). Its ultimate goal is to prove that conventional wisdom can be, will be and often is incorrect and should be tested. One thing this book does so well is maintain the attention of the reader (a difficult task when you consider the fact that the reader is internalizing a large sum of facts and statistical economic information with each chapter he or she reads). The authors write the book like a horror movie; first analyzing the audience (which in this case is the everyday man and not the soulless, selfish economist), and then plays off the audiences interests and (more importantly) expectations. After the introductory montage of a horror movie (which can be anything), I can guarantee a couple of things about the beginning of the bulk of the movie. First, everyone is happy, comfortable. Second, there is some strange, indirect, and relatively malevolent topic mounted in fear strewn throughout the conversation. And third, there is a beautiful girl (there s always a beautiful girl) who ends up being the only one brave enough to discover and face the dark evil that was previously hinted at (think about the Blair Witch Project, Exorcism of Emily Rose, The Ring, even The Skeleton Key is mounted in this and that s not really even a horror film). When Levitt and Dubner present the initial facts of this chapter, they start exactly the same way. They speak first about the relative definitions of conventional wisdom; leading them into a conversation of how to keep the attention of the reader (or write something worthwhile). They say that, if you can ask a question something that people really care about and find an answer that may surprise them that is, if you can overturn conventional wisdom then you may have some luck learning something worthwhile. They then lead into discussion of some of the basic, yet slightly dull, conventionally known

T. the media loves lies.facts that have been introduced and overturned. All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy ) is a discussion about police in Atlanta. Long story short. What a job. is an Indian man by the name of Sundhir Venkatesh. they actually are cold and hard). even higher chance of getting shot. Hell. and slightly malevolent topic). they share a couple beers. Of course. the most interesting facts of the chapter. indirect.T.). The lowest people in the organization earned $3. This fact should be surprising to the reader. everyone knows that drug dealers earn a decent sum of money. My question now is simple. The metaphoric beautiful girl. radically underreporting crime since the early 1990s in order to appear safer to the world when the Olympics came in 1996.30 an hour and had a 25% average death rating. goes into a bad neighborhood with the survey question.500 a month (only one thousand more dollars a month than J. The combined salary of everyone below him (approximately 53 people) had a combined salary of $9. Then they hit you with the cold hard facts (and in this case. with their minds still relatively fresh with the Watergate scandal and Nixon resignation. . but not to surprising. I ll bet some of you who haven t read the book just made a joking comment in your head or to another about how you should go deal drugs now. People lie all of the time. Sundhir (or Sid). How do you feel about being black and poor? The gang members he is asking don t respond kindly. (portrayed as a seemingly nice fellow who has attended college and graduated) earned about $100. no one is surprised by the fact that there was some expert back in the early 1980s who wanted to help out the homeless. kidnap him. telling lies only to later expose them and exploit the pain of the individual who originally introduced the lie is a large money making tactic for the media. another could argue that there wouldn t be gangs if we removed the restrictions of drug trafficking. Tell me your thoughts. They carry on with these relatively comfortable stories. what would happen if we legalize drugs (all drugs hard and soft) and abolish the minimum wage? Would that fix the issue of the high death rates of these gang members? Right now one could argue that the lack of cheap jobs and the illegal markets created by restricting drug trade has created the optimal market to reduce the population of gang members. Just by the introduction of this section (if not by the title of the Chapter) you know that this is where the authors seek to destroy some aspect of conventional wisdom. The leader of the gang J. to me. I m sure the people of the 1980s weren t even all that surprised. As a matter of fact. and at the very end of the story (the monster is vanquished) and Sundhir is handed the personal financial accounts of the gang. For example. and lied on their behalf. or the moment the wife picks up the paper that reads. despite the high chance of dying. Here are. Why would crack dealers live with their mothers? The large lead up (consider it a dark hallway. but the hidden goal of this particular induction of facts is to hint at a deeper unknown (to relate to the strange.000 tax free a year. The kicker is that these people are still willing to do these jobs. and then they begin speaking of drug dealers. and the ridiculously low wage. They keep everything calm and comfortable.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.