Desperately need a drink of politics thread

by **dajafi** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 00:24:23

Or to go back to the original argument in a different way... for individuals, I'm utterly certain that the absence of postsecondary educational attainment--at the least, an industry-recognized credential or associate's degree, going up to a bachelor's, master's, or professional degree--is now almost a total disqualifier from steady employment and family-supporting earning power.

We're in a knowledge economy; education matters a hell of a lot. The data bear out that we have too many less educated people chasing low-skill jobs, and too few college graduates, particularly in the sciences, to fill projected vacancies.

by **Werthless** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 01:03:30

Two point, one on each post.

First, it's tempting to want to draw conclusions on smaller governments (comparing states) and scale upward (comparing nations), but I fear the dynamics are too different. With nearly free immigration between states, and the umbrella of the national government and institutions, the conditions are not easily comparable. When a wave of educated people move to NYC after getting their MBAs, does that mean that their education caused the economic growth, or the economic growth caused the most credentialed to follow the growth? With no immigration constraints, as there are between states, it's hard to say. With how easy it is more highly educated people to move to job centers (NYC, Bay area, etc), it is difficult to say whether the growth differentials are caused by California's educational system, or whether the whole United States system is sure to have created a tech hub and it happened to be in CA.

Also, I meant to say economic growth pre WWI, pre income tax, pre New Deal, etc. So not "through the 20th century," but "into the 20th century." Apologies.

Secondly, it's also tempting to want to extrapolate the education premium of individuals to the educational boost provided to GDP. I'm not sure that's going to hold, although the literature is mixed. That's why I cheekily pointed to the situation where if everyone pursued phds; the premium to holding a phd would obviously shrink.

Recent research has actually shown that the income boost of certain credentials may be a mirage. As you well know, we cannot easily separate the effect of intelligence (not just measured by IQ, but also emotional intelligence, work ethic, etc) and educational attainment on future income. It's quite certain that those with higher educational attainment also register higher on these other factors. This is why it's so interesting when we get these natural tests, such as when we compare students who got admitted into elite institutions and decided not to go with students who decided to go. Only low income students get an income boost from attending the elite institution, presumably from network effects and other factors. These other students succeed (as measured crudely by income) because of their other factors. Another natural test is a comparisonof 3 groups: high school dropouts, high school dropouts who got GEDs, and high school graduates. Who do the GED holders look most like? Studies have recently shown that while this group is as smart as high school graduates, as measured by IQ, they earn like high school dropouts who didnt get the GED. This suggests that the educational level is not as an important factor as emotional intelligence, work ethic in economic success. I know dajafi is more familiar with this study than I am, but others may find the above link interesting if you have not read about that study.

These two studies suggest that the income boost from higher education may be more of a sorting hat identifying those that would be most likely to succeed/earn high incomes than a driver of higher incomes. (Credentialing still plays a role, so education is still necessary under the current state of education)

Hopefully now, even if you disagree with my conclusion, my argument is clear. America's economic future does not depend on graduating as many people as possible with bachelor degrees and above. It depends on maintaining our economic freedom, continuing to promote a good work ethic, and a freer immigration system. Education is very important in the current situation, where employers often rely on credentials to identify hard workers (that's why I got my masters), but the system does not have to be that way. And pushing for more education is not going to fix our long-term economic growth problems.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 01:05:45

Wheels Tupay wrote:And, yes, it should be illegal. That is the point of having a checks and balance system. So Obama (or any other president) can't just kill someone because they feel like it.

Of Course President Obama Has Authority, Under Some Circumstances, to Order Lethal Force Against a U.S. Citizen on U.S. Soil (and a Free Draft Response to Senator Paul for John Brennan)

by **Werthless** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 01:13:13

Man, I hate myself when I write long posts like that.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 02:04:00

Werthless wrote:
td11 wrote:
Werthless wrote:But do they make for more effective government? Do they result in societies that codify laws protecting freedom? I doubt there is any relationship, causal or even observational, between education (above a certain minimum level) and increasingly effective government.

i want 2 preserve these sentences 4ever

dajafi wrote:And like doc, I'm intrigued to hear more about werthless's version of America's rise to economic greatness, and the contributions of our low-information, low-participation, how-can-these-dumbasses-even-feed-and-dress-themselves voters...

Education<>IQ.

dajafi, I thought you would have picked up on that, considering I repeatedly referred to education above a "certain minimal level." Perhaps I sould have been more explicit: I can see the gains to having a literate populace, but it's not clear that higher economic growth will ensue if everyone pursues phds. The high growth rates of the 18th and 19th century in this country occurred even with much more limited institutional educational systems.

doc, I know he reads what he wants to read. And td11 probably didnt realize I was referring to quantifiable relationships in some sort of regression or multivariate time series framework.

Presumably, MonkeyBoy was not lamenting that democracy would be more effective if everyone was smarter, and had higher IQs. So we look to educational attainment, or scholastic achievement. And while scholastic achievement is only a borderline predictor of economic growth since 1975 (Some studies show a positive correlation [Lynn and Vanhanen (2002, 2006)], others show none [Chen and Luoh (2010) ], it's likely that the causal link heads in the other direction. Flynn (1984, 1987) and Lynn and Hampson (1986) argue that IQ is a consequence of prosperity, schooling, or other environmental factors that prevail in highly developed countries. So the increase in IQ and also formal education is likely a result of economic wealth, and not the other way around. This is one reason why we're rapidly growing a more educated population without seeing increasing economic growth.

All of this is to say that it's not formal education that drove American prosperity from the 18th century through the beginning of the 20th century. We had our highest growth rates in this time, and education was much less robust than it is today, as we limp along with a long-term growth path of 2-3%. Our economic growth through the 20th century has been driven by a combination of a system centered on economic freedom, over-abundance of natural resources, a culture of work ethic, and an open immigration system. And each of those 4 pillars is slowly eroding.

Preserve those last 2 sentences 4ever.

hey, hey, hey, around here, the tangential-to-incoherent rambling franchise is mine, pal

by **Phan In Phlorida** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 03:53:46

Werthless wrote:All of this is to say that it's not formal education that drove American prosperity from the 18th century through the beginning of the 20th century.

True. It was driven by the exploitation of those that could not attain a formal higher education (slaves, immigrants, the vast underclass). The murders of steel mill workers on the command of capitalist icon Andrew Carnegie's second in command (Frick) is just one example. Fostering embattlement amongst the underclass ("No Irish Need Apply") is another. In those days, higher education was attainable only to the privilaged (the wealthy or patrons of the wealthy). For the middle class, a high school diploma was the dream. For the underclass, not starving was the dream. Without stuff like unemployment compensation, welfare, minimum wage, etc., the vast underclass had two choices... obey and endure laborious 18 hour work days at poverty wage or eat out of trash cans. The quintessential "be glad you have a job" scenerio is what American prosperity of the 18th to early 20th century was built on.

by **drsmooth** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 07:37:13

jerseyhoya wrote:Of Course President Obama Has Authority, Under Some Circumstances, to Order Lethal Force Against a U.S. Citizen on U.S. Soil (and a Free Draft Response to Senator Paul for John Brennan)

(One can even imagine the use of drones in self-defense if the resistance were sufficiently robust and dangerous.)

The kind of imagination this guy has, has been subject to involuntary medication in some jurisdictions.

Couple that with his reverent use of terms like "the homeland", and, well, you can keep your HimmlerJr

Help me with the point of this kind of academic exercise

by **dajafi** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 08:59:22

Fair enough to make the assertion about growth "into" the 20th c. rather than through it. But then you're talking about an agrarian-into-industrial economy, which we've gone far beyond. And to PiP's point, I hope we'd all agree that the larger societal changes since then are a very good thing.

As to the Heckman study, I respect his work very much (and he's a god on pre-K) and think it's an important point. But I also think the difference probably has to do with the socialization and networking opportunities inherent to formal/traditional education, and I'm not sure that the GED-vs-HSD argument extends upward through the hierarchy of educational attainment.

by **td11** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 09:40:58

Phan In Phlorida wrote:
Werthless wrote:All of this is to say that it's not formal education that drove American prosperity from the 18th century through the beginning of the 20th century.

True. It was driven by the exploitation of those that could not attain a formal higher education (slaves, immigrants, the vast underclass). The murders of steel mill workers on the command of capitalist icon Andrew Carnegie's second in command (Frick) is just one example. Fostering embattlement amongst the underclass ("No Irish Need Apply") is another. In those days, higher education was attainable only to the privilaged (the wealthy or patrons of the wealthy). For the middle class, a high school diploma was the dream. For the underclass, not starving was the dream. Without stuff like unemployment compensation, welfare, minimum wage, etc., the vast underclass had two choices... obey and endure laborious 18 hour work days at poverty wage or eat out of trash cans. The quintessential "be glad you have a job" scenerio is what American prosperity of the 18th to early 20th century was built on.

Thank you

by **Werthless** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 09:48:24

td11 wrote:
Phan In Phlorida wrote:
Werthless wrote:All of this is to say that it's not formal education that drove American prosperity from the 18th century through the beginning of the 20th century.

True. It was driven by the exploitation of those that could not attain a formal higher education (slaves, immigrants, the vast underclass). The murders of steel mill workers on the command of capitalist icon Andrew Carnegie's second in command (Frick) is just one example. Fostering embattlement amongst the underclass ("No Irish Need Apply") is another. In those days, higher education was attainable only to the privilaged (the wealthy or patrons of the wealthy). For the middle class, a high school diploma was the dream. For the underclass, not starving was the dream. Without stuff like unemployment compensation, welfare, minimum wage, etc., the vast underclass had two choices... obey and endure laborious 18 hour work days at poverty wage or eat out of trash cans. The quintessential "be glad you have a job" scenerio is what American prosperity of the 18th to early 20th century was built on.

Thank you

Thank you both for agreeing with me.

by **td11** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 11:06:25

i think we completely disagree on the importance of education. i was just thanking PiP for bringing up the fact that what drove america's growth and prosperity into the 20th century" was largely the free labor of slavery. obviously, comparing anything today to that time period is apples and oranges, imo.

by **td11** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:33:23

i don't care about this story at all, but since jerz probably won't post this

The Hooker Who Wasn't There

My new Slate piece looks at the "sex scandal" involving Sen. Bob Menendez, which is turning out to look more like a thrilling conspiracy, by opening the Pandorica of conservative media.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:43:53

drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Of Course President Obama Has Authority, Under Some Circumstances, to Order Lethal Force Against a U.S. Citizen on U.S. Soil (and a Free Draft Response to Senator Paul for John Brennan)

(One can even imagine the use of drones in self-defense if the resistance were sufficiently robust and dangerous.)

The kind of imagination this guy has, has been subject to involuntary medication in some jurisdictions.

Couple that with his reverent use of terms like "the homeland", and, well, you can keep your HimmlerJr

Help me with the point of this kind of academic exercise

Nazi allusions, very good! Always helpful and persuasive.

There has been a debate over if/when the federal government has the legal right to use lethal force against American citizens abroad using drones, and if so, whether the federal government has the legal right to use lethal force and/or drones within the country's borders. This debate has even made its way from Washington DC onto the pages of this fair website. This academic exercise is an attempt at answering these questions, and explaining why the administration has not foresworn the use of drones within the US. There are a narrow set of circumstances the administration hopes would never come up that where their usage may be helpful and necessary.

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:44:30

td11 wrote:i don't care about this story at all, but since jerz probably won't post this

The Hooker Who Wasn't There

My new Slate piece looks at the "sex scandal" involving Sen. Bob Menendez, which is turning out to look more like a thrilling conspiracy, by opening the Pandorica of conservative media.

dajafi posted the Washington Post article two days ago

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:46:39

td11 wrote:i think we completely disagree on the importance of education. i was just thanking PiP for bringing up the fact that what drove america's growth and prosperity into the 20th century" was largely the free labor of slavery. obviously, comparing anything today to that time period is apples and oranges, imo.

The free labor of slavery was not what drove America's growth and prosperity into the 20th century. The north was much more economically advanced than the south.

by **Roger Dorn** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:52:53

drsmooth wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:Of Course President Obama Has Authority, Under Some Circumstances, to Order Lethal Force Against a U.S. Citizen on U.S. Soil (and a Free Draft Response to Senator Paul for John Brennan)

(One can even imagine the use of drones in self-defense if the resistance were sufficiently robust and dangerous.)

The kind of imagination this guy has, has been subject to involuntary medication in some jurisdictions.

Couple that with his reverent use of terms like "the homeland", and, well, you can keep your HimmlerJr

Help me with the point of this kind of academic exercise

Agreed. I also don't understand why several "small-government" types have no reservations about giving the executive branch a legal recourse to kill American citizens. And yes I'm aware we have suspended the writ of habeus corpus in our history but we have also detained an entire ethnicity for the duration of a war as well. Excuse me if I'm leery on having the Executive branch continually usurp power.

by **td11** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 12:56:26

because of industrialization, which depended on super cheap labor, no? 9 year olds worked in factories!

werthless and you don't think education is an important issue today, i think it's one of the most important issue (as far as cheap access to higher ed). you can't compare education today to pre-twentieth century times, it doesn't make sense.

by **td11** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 13:00:01

jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:i don't care about this story at all, but since jerz probably won't post this

The Hooker Who Wasn't There

My new Slate piece looks at the "sex scandal" involving Sen. Bob Menendez, which is turning out to look more like a thrilling conspiracy, by opening the Pandorica of conservative media.

dajafi posted the Washington Post article two days ago

just doing my due diligence!

by **Werthless** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 13:13:55

td11 wrote:i think we completely disagree on the importance of education. i was just thanking PiP for bringing up the fact that what drove america's growth and prosperity into the 20th century" was largely the free labor of slavery. obviously, comparing anything today to that time period is apples and oranges, imo.

If slavery was the main driver of America's economic growth, why didn't all of the other countries with slavery grow as fast, especially the ones that abolished slavery after America? America grew faster than these other slave nations (Russia abolished at the same time as the US, African nations and the Ottoman empire and China all continued to allow slavery into the 20th century).

Interestingly, the highest decade of economic growth in US history was the 1880s... While the endpoints of decades are arbitrary cutpoints, the point is that economic growth did not decline with the abolition of slavery. This doesn't jive with your assertion that slavery was the primary factor leading to economic growth, if economic growth surged after we got rid of slavery.

What facts lead you to believe that slavery leads to economic growth?

by **jerseyhoya** » Wed Mar 06, 2013 13:19:14

td11 wrote:
jerseyhoya wrote:
td11 wrote:i don't care about this story at all, but since jerz probably won't post this

The Hooker Who Wasn't There

My new Slate piece looks at the "sex scandal" involving Sen. Bob Menendez, which is turning out to look more like a thrilling conspiracy, by opening the Pandorica of conservative media.

dajafi posted the Washington Post article two days ago

just doing my due diligence!

He also included a shot for it not being posted already when he posted the link. It's good to know you guys think about me.

Archived

Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread

Re: Desperately need a drink of politics thread