Monthly Archives: June 2012

Update To Education

On Monday I posted on the impact of parental socioeconomic status as it pertains to their children’s educational outcomes.  In reviewing the post I failed to display 1 of 3 findings the authors made.  I think I did this because the data failed to demonstrate a point that I will be anxious to make in future posts regarding the book.

I will post now the data that speaks to kids who drop out of school only to later come back and earn their GED instead of obtaining a high school dipploma.  The graph is here:

As you can see, SES has a large impact on whether or not a child obtains a GED or stays in school to earn her high school diploma.  The wealthiest families generate graduates 9x more often than the poorest families of kids who drop out but come back to earn either their GED or diploma.

President Obama’s Executive Order

We all know what just happened.  Obama announced on Friday that he would no longer authorize the deportation of children in the country illegally:

(Reuters) – Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants who were brought into the United States as children will be able to avoid deportation and get work permits under an order on Friday by President Barack Obama.

I immediately came out in support of the policy and think that the time has long ago passed when we need to craft a better immigration policy here in America.  As I enjoyed the weekend, however, I began to look past the immediate good news of the policy and think through how we got here.

And I don’t like it at all.

The President issued an Executive Order.  By it, he simply stated that he would no longer enforce the deportation of these kids.  He did NOT change their status or any laws that speak to that status.  He just told us what he would do, or not do, with those found in violation of those laws.  I don’t think that rewrote any law or is breaking any laws in doing what he did.

However.  Think this through.

When we make it easier for Presidents to change laws based on discretion of prosecution, what’s to prevent a future President from changing tax law in the same manner:

I now declare that I am instructing my administration to stop prosecuting individuals who fail to pay more than 15% of their income in taxes.

Just like that the President can effectively change tax law without the need to involve congress.

I ask you, is this what we want?

Education: Socioeconomic Impacts – The Bell Curve

Last week I posted on the impact that socioeconomic status had on childhood poverty.  I don’t think anyone was surprised to see that children who come from parents/mothers with a lower standard of living have a greater chance of growing up poor than children whose parents/mother had a higher standard of living:

The data is hard to argue with.  The “well off-ness” of the parents seems to have a powerful impact on the chance of poverty of a child.

The book continues this investigation as it relates to education, both high school and college.

First, the authors discuss high school and the rate of drop-outs.  That is, what is the probability of a kid finishing high school?  And they took a look at this through the lens of the socioeconomic status of the child’s parents.  Again, the scale is broken into 5 parts; the median is in the middle and from the center the scale moves on by 1 standard deviation and then another.

When everything else is held constant, the probability of dropping out of school based on the socioeconomic status of the parents looks like this:

The data is striking.  Kids from poorer households dropout of high school a very higher rates than kids from wealthier households.  If you look at the extremes, the poorest kids drop out at a rate ~10x as high as the kids from the wealthiest households.

Now take a minute and consider college education and obtaining a 4 year degree.  Consider what you might expect the data to show.  If the data is consistent with our previous peeks into the impact that SES has on aspects of kids, we might make a pretty good guess.

Here’s the data:

Just as we might expect.  The role of the socioeconomic status of the parents is a powerful one for kids who wanna obtain a college degree.  Everything else being equal, there is almost no chance that a kid coming from the poorest families will achieve the the thrill of obtaining a diploma while the same kid from our wealthiest families has near a 40% of graduating.

As we close this section I’m struck by two things:

1.  Even our richest families are producing college graduates at a less than 40% clip.

2.  The wealth of a kids family continues to play a powerful role.

Immigration: Of Things Illegal And Legal

Let’s be honest here; America is a nation OF immigrants.  Not only that, but the greatness of our nation is in large part the product of the greatness of those immigrants.  This isn’t, or shouldn’t be, surprising.  After all, it is the precise individual who is willing to risk everything to come to an unknown land in order to build a better life for himself that creates the very greatness we’re discussing.

With that said I’ve been baffled by the resistance republicans have to immigrants and immigration reform.  Baffled for two reasons:

  1. It is the leftist that is the statist.  It’s not the lovers of Liberty that want to empower the state to dictate the whos, the whys and the whens of an otherwise free people to decide where they wanna live and work.  Building a state that controls such thing is normally the domain of the left, of the democrat; of the statist.  It distresses me that the republicans have abandoned a principle based in Liberty like this.
  2. The Latino population is not one that naturally is liberal.  The Latino is very conservative.  They are very religious, value a strong family and embrace personal responsibility in the form of a massive work ethic that not only supports the immediate family but often the extended family.  Even if that family is in another country.  By alienating the Latino, the republicans are walking away from a natural base.  And a base that is only going to grow.

All of which makes what Obama did today distressing:

(Reuters) – About 800,000 young illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children could be spared deportation under new immigration rules announced by President Barack Obama on Friday …

I’m not distressed that Obama made bad policy here, he didn’t.  Allowing immigrants who wanna live and work here the legal opportunity is absolutely the right thing.  And for this, I am in rare but enthusiastic support of the President.  Rather I’m distressed because the republicans have so utterly failed in the whole immigration debate.

This decision will garner support from the Latino vote.  And to be sure, those folks won’t suddenly turn into died in the wool leftists.  But, BUT, we know that politics is a team sport and soon, not very long to be sure, as people begin to affiliate with a “tribe” they will become a member of that tribe and we’ll find it hard to convert them back to their natural support.

Congratulations to President Obama.  Here I think he did the right thing.  And the right lost a massive opportunity to do the right thing as well.

Poverty: Socioeconomic Impacts – The Bell Curve

I’m reading “The Bell Curve” and am finding the book fascinating.  As I mentioned in my previous post on this topic:

That attaining wealth is more and more becoming reserved for the pre-existing well to do’s.

For a long time I’ve fought this belief.  I’ve fought the idea that America is not the land of opportunity.  That we’ve somehow lost the idea that if you work hard enough you can do anything.

I’ve fought it.

And now I’m reading a book, The Bell Curve, and I’ve seen some interesting data.  For example, it seems to be important where you come from if you wanna avoid poverty:

As I continue to make my way through the book, there is good data that reinforces the above statement.  Namely, where you come from, or who you are born to, impacts where you will end up.  Consider the white population:

I can only estimate the data above, the book doesn’t provide exact numbers, but you can see that as parental SES goes from 2 standard deviations below the mean to 2 standard deviations above the mean, the chance that an individual finds themselves in poverty is reduced.  In fact, if you look at the numbers, the families at the far poor end of the scale have almost three times the chance to produce poor children than the very well off families at the other end.

What if we dig deeper in the data?  What happens if we look at the probability that a child lives in poverty?  How does socioeconomic status impact that?

Well, it turns out that the data is divided.  For example, consider married white mothers:

Interesting.

It turns out that that being a married mother helps reduce the chance of childhood poverty.  Reduces but only slightly.  However, what is interesting is that the impact of a higher socioeconomic parent is magnified.  In the general public, a higher parental SES ranking meant that an adult had 1/3 the chance of ending up in poverty.  For children, it’s much more dramatic.

For a child, having parents in the lowest SES class means that poverty is ~5.5 times as likely than if that child came from parents in the highest SES rankings.  That is, kids from the most well of parents suffer poverty at rates of about 2%.  Kids from the least well off suffer poverty at rates of about 11%.

Now for the shocker.  Let’s look at single white mothers:

WOW!

Kids of white mothers that are either separated, divorced o r never married suffer massively higher rates of poverty than mothers of kids who are married.  But again, for the sake of this specific conversation, the socioeconomic ranking of the parents is meaningful.  Parents who rank at the very low end raise kids who have approximately a 39% chance of being in poverty.  Mothers who are in the top ranks of socioeconomic ranking?  Their kids only have about a 30% chance of living in poverty, almost a 33% less chance.

The data is hard to argue with.  The “well off-ness” of the parents seems to have a powerful impact on the chance of poverty of a child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Filibuster

I saw a graphic the other day that said this congress passed the fewest new laws in what, 40 years?  To some this represents “gridlock” in congress and is emblematic of the troubles we’re facing in an increasingly partisan world.  To me this is a feature.

Whatever the case, there is the belief that much of this inability to pass laws is as a result of the republicans penchant for the filibuster.  The procedural requirement that a bill obtain 60 votes to allow it to be voted on.  In other words, the bill really requires not a majority of the senate, but what can be construed as a SUPER majority.

Personally I’ve never been much of a fan of the filibuster.  The idea that a group of individuals can hold up the workings of the senate seems to me to be rather — well, childish.  The feeling i have for the filibuster is the same I felt as we watched Wisconsin play out.  First the democrat fled the state, escaping the reach of the law by the way, so as to prevent a vote on Governor Walkers budget bill that would have stripped the public unions of much of their ability to collectively bargain.  Then we watched as the state’s democrats forced a recall election for each senator and the governor.

Babies all.

So I resonate with the dislikers of the filibuster.  And I even acknowledge the increase in use of the procedure since Obama has take office and the republicans are in the minority.

What I don’t know is how often THIS happens:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday blocked Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) from attaching an amendment to the farm bill that would withhold U.S. aid to Pakistan.

Reid asked for unanimous consent Tuesday to consider a batch of five amendments to the farm bill, the Agriculture Reform, Food and Jobs Act of 2012 (S.3240), but Paul objected, arguing that his amendment on withholding aid to Pakistan should also be included.

In response, Reid performed a procedural move called “filling the tree,” or taking up all the amendment space, to keep Paul’s amendment from being considered.

Now, this is pretty “inside baseball” and even THIS whole series of events is questionable.  However, that’s how work gets done in the halls of the senate.  And if the Leader is going to prevent a silly procedure by the use of another silly procedure then he should not be surprised, or outraged, when THAT silly procedure is counter by the silly procedure we call the filibuster.

 

If You Wanna Stop A Thing From Happening….

Then stop doing that thing:

A white student at a Riverside high school has returned a $1,000 scholarship intended for black students.

Jeffrey Warren of Martin Luther King High School received the scholarship from the Martin Luther King Senior Citizens Club at a school awards night last month, prompting laughter from the audience.

Jeffrey later returned it. The teen, who graduated last week, says he applied for 27 scholarships and won three others.

The Riverside Press-Enterprise says the 17-year-old never saw a cover letter for the award that was sent to high school counselors and specified it was for black students.

The application itself said only that African-Americans were encouraged to apply.

The scholarship has now gone to a black student. The senior club says it will change next year’s application language.

I get the point.  A group of people wanna help members of that group of people.  But the overall complaint seems to be that when the wrong groups of people help their own groups, that’s seen as bad.

Grocery Barons: If Medical Care Delivery Were Like Food Care Delivery

Just got back from the grocery store.  It was 11:10 PM here in North Carolina.  I just finished working out at the YMCA.  I stopped to have a bite to eat and a beer at the local tap room and then decided I needed to pick up some things from the food store.

It was open.  Would be until tomorrow; they sell food 7×24.

The place was well lit, air conditioned and pleasant.  Music even.

Imagine, a warehouse that sells virtually anything you could wanna eat.  7×24.  On your way home.

Then I saw this:

Biscuits and eggs.  Taters and juice.  This would last my family of 4 two whole breakfasts.  That means for $6.99 I feed 4 people twice.  Or, if you carry the 1, eight people for seven bucks.

That’s less than $1 a meal.

Can you imagine what it would be like if we could sell medical care like we sell food?

Capitalism: What It Is Not – Wage Theft

Capitalism Is Evil

I often hear how capitalism is a system that rewards the greedy.  That by use of it, corporations enslave their workers, funnel money from the poor and working class to the rich.  The continuous chants against the system grew especially loud during the growth of the #OccupyWallStreet movement.

To be sure, there are people in this world that have “more.”  There are folks who have become very wealthy at the same time other folks struggle to put food on the table or a roof over their head.  And it’s tragic.  However, when faced with conditions of inequity, it’s an easy escape to simply fall back and blame the system.  Even our President falls victim to that trap.  He’s continually castigating the wealthy, railing against the system and calling for capitalists to distribute their wealth.

We Support Individual Liberty

The concept of  individual liberty, the idea that there are certain rights that flow to each of us from either the divine or form nature, is fundamental to the concept of the market.  It is the bedrock that forms the basis for the system that best produces optimal results.  When a man is free he will labor for his own self-interest, he will trade with another in order that his lot becomes better than it otherwise might have been.  From the concepts of liberty and inalienable rights comes the concept of the right to property.  It is where these values, these beliefs are most held in high esteem that we find the society rich and successful.

And so it must be that we protect the right of liberty and of property.  That when one man produces wheat, that wheat is his own.  To keep, plant, eat, hoard trade or sell.  If a man becomes skilled in building a house, the property that he acquires as a result is his to dispose of as he desires.  In order to protect that liberty, that property, we erect and enact laws preventing fraud and abuse.

And where those cases involving fraud are found, they are properly seen as diametrically opposed to liberty, to the rights of property; to capitalism itself.  The unlawful seizure of another man’s labor that is the OPPOSITE of capitalism.  It is NOT the desired state of it.

Wage Theft In North Carolina

When two individuals enter into agreement, or contract, we expect that contract be enforced.  If you agree to sell me milk in exchange for money, I expect a gallon of fresh milk and you the appropriate sum of money.  Perhaps I trade you corn for your milk.  You would properly expect me to provide a bushel of corn.  Should either of us try to break that contract, say I by adding stones to the wheat basket or you by adding water to the milk, we would be perpetuating fraud.  We would be acting AGAINST the tenants of capitalism, of individual liberty.

And milk and corn are not the only commodities that are available to us to trade.  We are also able to trade our labor.  Commonly we call this a job.  We agree to trade our labor, our expertise our skills in exchange for compensation.  So it is that when one of us breaks that bargain, that contract is broken and again, fraud has been perpetuated:

WASHINGTON — – For nearly a year, unemployed home health worker Leslie Gilbert of Grand Rapids, Mich., has fought to get more than $400 in unpaid wages from her former employer.

After months of promises that the money would be in her “next paycheck,” Gilbert filed a complaint in October with the state. Officials told Focus Care Home Health of Southfield, Mich., to either pay Gilbert by June 1 or face a formal hearing.

Gilbert still doesn’t have her money.

I can see the protests in the street, “Corporations are evil and greedy!  Capitalism is the root of all evils.”  But this isn’t a fair account of the market, a free exchange of commodities or an example of freedom, or of liberty.

More On Airlines Saving Money

Last I spoke about airlines I discussed the fact that we are seeing such problems is because we consumers are what folks often call “greedy.”

 Now I’m sure that we’re gonna get the usual hand-wring about greedy airlines and all sorts of nonsense about corporate profits.  But what we DON’T point out is the insatiable greed of the consumer.  It’s the consumer that has this never ending desire to find the absolute cheapest fare on the internet.  What with Orbitz, Amazon, Expedia and everything, the consumer is driving the airlines to produce the lowest possible basic fare so that they appear near the top in search windows.

Airlines are trying to make a buck in the same way that all companies are trying to make a buck.  Your company tries to make a profit.  The company you work for tries to make a profit.  Heck, even you as a family unit tries to make a profit.  You hope that your income is more than your expenses.  And one way to do this is to reduce your expenses.

Turns out that airlines are doing just that.  Doing that by getting rid of the old and ushering in the new: via Carpe Diem

Singapore-based Scoot Airlines is ripping out aircraft entertainment systems weighing more than two tons to save fuel, and instead offering Apple iPads to passengers, loaded with movies, music, games and television shows. It eventually intends to have users access content via a wireless system onboard planes.
Offering iPads helped the carrier cut 7% off the weight of planes and cope with fuel prices that have jumped about 36% in two years. The budget carrier will  offer the iPads free to passengers in its business-class seat and  will charge economy passengers $17 per trip to rent the tablets.

By saving money the airline is actually saving the consumer money AND increasing their inflight experience.