Scott examines why young people feel economically hopeless despite economists saying things are fine, testing various explanations like housing costs and wages, and concluding the truth involves both real factors (harder competition, expensive cities, recent mortgage spikes) and media-driven negativity. Longer summary

Scott Alexander investigates the 'vibecession' - the paradox where economic indicators show improvement but consumer sentiment is terrible, particularly among young people who feel permanently locked out of opportunity. He systematically examines various proposed explanations including declining wages, housing costs, inflation miscalculation, inequality, and debt, finding that none fully explain the phenomenon. His analysis suggests the crisis may be partly real (increased effort required for same outcomes, concentration of jobs in expensive cities, recent mortgage increases) but also partly driven by increasingly negative media coverage and changing consumption patterns toward more conspiratorial sources. Shorter summary

Scott presents evidence that COVID-19 did kill approximately 1.2 million Americans, addressing skeptics by analyzing excess death data and addressing common counterarguments. Longer summary

In response to skeptics questioning the official COVID-19 death toll, Scott Alexander presents evidence supporting the 1.2 million deaths figure. He shows excess mortality data from multiple sources indicating 500,000-700,000 extra deaths in both 2020 and 2021, closely matching reported COVID deaths. He addresses various counter-arguments, including the 'died with vs of COVID' distinction, the role of treatments like ventilators, and the common experience of not personally knowing COVID victims. The post demonstrates how the data supports COVID being the primary cause, and explains why personal experiences might not reflect the true scale of the pandemic. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander critiques Adam Grant's article on gender differences in tech, arguing Grant misrepresents evidence and ignores key factors like innate interest differences between men and women. Longer summary

Scott Alexander critiques Adam Grant's article on gender differences, arguing that Grant misrepresents scientific evidence and ignores important factors like interest differences between men and women. Scott presents alternative explanations for gender imbalances in tech and other fields, emphasizing innate differences in interests rather than discrimination. He expresses concern about the hostile climate developing in tech around these issues. Shorter summary

Scott argues against Vox's proposal for drug price controls, citing studies that such policies would significantly reduce pharmaceutical innovation and potentially cost millions of life-years long-term. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to Sarah Kliff's Vox article about drug pricing, arguing that her proposal for price controls on brand-name drugs would significantly decrease pharmaceutical innovation. He cites multiple economic studies suggesting price controls reduce R&D and new drug development. Scott argues that while price controls might lower costs in the short-term, they could cost millions of life-years long-term by reducing new drug creation. He suggests focusing on increasing generic drug competition and reducing unnecessary prescriptions of expensive brand-name drugs with cheap generic alternatives as better solutions to high drug prices. Shorter summary