dajafi wrote:Longer school days, expanded pre-K and after school programs all mean higher taxes.

I think there's a pretty good case to be made that this is a societal investment with high likelihood of strong return... eventually. But then, I would think that...

For people that want a more just society, this is the stuff that we should be spending money. Not $800B stimulus packages that cost $1MM per job created.

I know I'm side-stepping the question slightly, but I view taxes and spending along a continuum. There are efficient taxes that tax behavior we don't mind reducing (ie. cigarette taxes, gas taxes) and there are inefficient taxes that distort incentives and hurt the economy (high corporate taxes). With spending, there is a whole continuum of spending with varying degrees of efficacy, and it can be evaluated by how effective it is at creating the outcomes you want. Defense spending (how efficient is X program at making us safer), social spending (how effective is Y program at improving outcomes of the recipients), healthcare spending (how effective is Z program at improving health and happiness).

Werthless wrote:

SK790 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:i said they are being worked on, such as offering birth control with insurance so women have control of their cycles, their bodies and lives. paid sick leave, equal pay discrimination laws, and so on. things that will actually help people's daily lives and put them in a place to be able to get more money and be able to educate their children. but, birth control appears to be some big issue now after it used to be a settled matter. people don't appear to get that it isn't aborting anything. paid sick leave has somehow been spun into a burden on business owners when they would have less turnover if they had it. equal pay only makes sense.

1. such as offering birth control with insurance so women have control of their cycles, their bodies and lives
2. paid sick leave
3. equal pay discrimination laws

Putting aside that 1 and 3 are already the law of the land, what solution do you think these policies would bring? I'm guessing an increase in out-of-wedlock children among low-income people.

how the heck do you come to the conclusion that more out-of-wedlock children are going to be born because of these 3 things.

How would these lead to fewer out-of-wedlock children? My point is that many people are porposing solutions for one problem (ie. the difficulties that lower income people have in the workforce) that will actually lead to more of this other thing that we sort-of agree is bad for society (an increase in single-parent homes). While I agree that sick leave and equal pay are good things for a society to have, they don't decrease the incentives to have out-of-wedlock children. They either alleviate some of the costs involved with raising a child -- sick leave makes it easier to raise a child while holding down a job -- or, at best, don't affect it at all.

(I can see how free birth control would lead to lower birth rates among unmarried couples.)

@housh

in the above post werthless says that while he agrees "that sick leave and equal pay are good things for a society to have, they don't decrease the incentives to have out-of-wedlock children." so basically that sick leave and equal pay are good things but they don't help reduce the # of single family homes. to which pac replied that he doesn't see single moms as being a problem that needs to be solved.

i interpreted it as pac saying that he isn't trying to solve/prevent the problem of single moms but that he's more interested in helping those moms who find themselves in the difficult situation of being a single parent

Werthless wrote:

SK790 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:i said they are being worked on, such as offering birth control with insurance so women have control of their cycles, their bodies and lives. paid sick leave, equal pay discrimination laws, and so on. things that will actually help people's daily lives and put them in a place to be able to get more money and be able to educate their children. but, birth control appears to be some big issue now after it used to be a settled matter. people don't appear to get that it isn't aborting anything. paid sick leave has somehow been spun into a burden on business owners when they would have less turnover if they had it. equal pay only makes sense.

1. such as offering birth control with insurance so women have control of their cycles, their bodies and lives
2. paid sick leave
3. equal pay discrimination laws

Putting aside that 1 and 3 are already the law of the land, what solution do you think these policies would bring? I'm guessing an increase in out-of-wedlock children among low-income people.

how the heck do you come to the conclusion that more out-of-wedlock children are going to be born because of these 3 things.

How would these lead to fewer out-of-wedlock children? My point is that many people are porposing solutions for one problem (ie. the difficulties that lower income people have in the workforce) that will actually lead to more of this other thing that we sort-of agree is bad for society (an increase in single-parent homes). While I agree that sick leave and equal pay are good things for a society to have, they don't decrease the incentives to have out-of-wedlock children. They either alleviate some of the costs involved with raising a child -- sick leave makes it easier to raise a child while holding down a job -- or, at best, don't affect it at all.

(I can see how free birth control would lead to lower birth rates among unmarried couples.)

i never said it would, but i think #1 would do a lot toward it. #3 would help single income mothers make more money and be able to care for their kid better. nobody is saying it's easier to raise a kid alone than it is with a partner. we're saying that MAYBE it'd be a bit easier if single mothers made a decent salary.

see, you start out by saying that this would increase out of wedlock children. now you're saying that it wouldn't affect them(except for free birth control, but i'll just brush that under the rug at the end of my post).

based on the blog pieces, krugman seems pretty right. data never necessarily speaks for itself.

the first piece wasn't even a negative on 538…nate might have some thin skin on this one. i'm not sure what he's showing other than krugman doesn't like the new writers on the new site(when he did like the old one and him under the times).


edit: i honestly haven't been reading either silver's site lately, so i don't know beyond what i just read the past few minutes. this doesn't bring much evidence, though.

haven't seen a post that jumped out as exciting on his site yet. ill check back

Dunno about you guys but most of the articles on nates new site blow. Maybe they'll get better later

hack

Even I'm impressed at y'all's commitment to the message

i'm not even sure what message you think we're adhering to, the all important krugman presidency over all

Errol Morris rocks.

The Certainty of Donald Rumsfeld (pt. 1)

jerseyhoya wrote:Even I'm impressed at y'all's commitment to the message

what is the message?

nate's site has shitty articles so far. wasn't responding to the specific one you posted.

The Indictment Against Leland Yee Puts The Wire's Clay Davis to Shame - This is completely insane

Houshphandzadeh wrote:so why is everyone killing Werthless for the relatively tame idea that two parent families may be preferable

Hmmm, that's a tough one. Oh yeah - he's conservative.

Werthless wrote:(Also, if "the absence of entry level jobs that pay well" is the problem, then good luck with the solution. You're probably not going to earn $30k/year without marketable skills or education, unless the government distorts the labor market in a major way, creating many other problems.)

Economics. Is. Not. Physics.

"marketable skills" or "education" don't "earn" you billions a year, either.

markets "distort" markets. people make markets. people make problems. people "solve" them by changing behaviors. for example, we've created huge "market distortions" by generally assenting to the 'value' of the unencumbered commercial behaviors of the likes of steve schwartzmann.

jerseyhoya wrote:
A Brief History of Obamacare Delays - IT'S. THE. LAW.

I'm chary of bruising any delicate sensibilities unintentionally, but you do understand a foundational aspect of the law is to get people covered, and that imposing penalties is not one of the fundamental goals of the statute?

what's with reactionaries forever imagining that laws are mostly about penalties, and punishment?

Obama's speech in Belgium today was pretty fantastic

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:
A Brief History of Obamacare Delays - IT'S. THE. LAW.

I'm chary of bruising any delicate sensibilities unintentionally, but you do understand a foundational aspect of the law is to get people covered, and that imposing penalties is not one of the fundamental goals of the statute?

what's with reactionaries forever imagining that laws are mostly about penalties, and punishment?

When Republicans were looking to get a year's delay in the individual mandate as a part of the budget deal, the response was NO! IT'S THE LAW!

But it's no big deal for the administration to be like *shrugs shoulders* on whatever part they don't feel like enforcing. Because...

jerseyhoya wrote:Obama's speech in Belgium today was pretty fantastic

Read it. I like it.

My mom was raised by a single parent. Well, technically a widow since her dad died in the coal mines 2 months before she was born. They lived in what was called a "company house", essentially a 2 room shack with no indoor plumbing or furnace. Her only toys were what her uncle brought home from "work"... he was what was known as a "rag man", after being injured in the mines, he earned money by going around the neighboorhood collecting old clothes to sell as rags, junk to fix and sell, etc. Back then (1940s-50s), there were no welfare or assistance programs, so she dropped out of school after 8th grade to get a job with her mom doing "piece work" in the clothes factory at 1 cent per.

I guess I don't really have a point as she does have fond childhood memories, like the chickens they raised for food, etc.

jerseyhoya wrote:Obama's speech in Belgium today was pretty fantastic

I caught it on the teevee. Kinda sounded like he was building up support for military action (that was my impression).

Perhaps that was the point... make Pootie think twice before invading other parts of Ukranium.