Do Voters Who Want ‘Change’ Really Care More About the Age of the Candidate Than About the Age of the Candidate’s Ideas? REALLY?
The Marco Rubio debate moment that worries Democrats: When Marco Rubio cast the election as a ‘generational choice,’ he took a page out of the Obama playbook to portray himself as the candidate of future. It could work.
— Title and subtitle of an article in today’s Christian Science Monitor, by Linda Feldman (via Yahoo Politics)
Yup. Voters are downright clamoring for a return to 1920s economic and social policies—which, point by point by point, actually is what he wants to do.
All those young voters who so enthusiastically supported Obama in 2008 are chomping at the bit, and the ones who have turned 18 since then are so gullible that they think a 44-year-old Ronald Reagan/George W. Bush on steroids is the real candidate of change because, well, y’know, he’s 44.*
So what the Democrats should do, I think, is nominate a 43-year-old Communist Workers Party candidate if one were to run.
I mean … whatever.
Maybe some major polling organization will test out this theory that the age of the candidate rather than the age of the candidate’s ideas is what matters to voters, by including a question about it in its next survey. The margin of error would be 30 years—the difference in the ages of Marco Rubio and Bernie Sanders.
Seriously, of all the asinine canards that political consultants and political journalists sell, this surely rates among the most transparently ridiculous. Although maybe it didn’t really matter after all that Obama ran in 2008 not merely as the youngest candidate but (except for John Edwards) the most progressive. Or maybe people thought John McCain was the progressive.
Yeah. That’s it. People thought John McCain was the progressive.
And they think Elizabeth Warren’s and Bernie Sanders’ ideas are old hat.
*Sentence typo-corrected 11/11 at 6:15 p.m.
ADDENDUM: Don’t miss this terrific piece by Adele Stan on the American Prospect website. (H/T Paul Waldman.)
Although she doesn’t mention Rubio’s age, so maybe it’s not such a terrific piece. Doesn’t she know that Rubio is 44 years old?
Added 11/11 at 7:03 p.m.
I take issue with you on providing support that any of those that push the age agenda actually do (THINK). I am afraid I would need to see some substantive supportive data to prove your (THINK) hypothesis.
That socialism shtick is older than Sanders himself!
Yes Warren you are correct socialism is older then Sanders. That brings up two points
1 What type of socialism is it that you are talking about?
2 Ever think the reason that socialism is still around is because it has bested the test of time as beneficial?
1. Any type — they are all based on the idea that the government will give you what someone else worked for.
2. No. Socialism is around because jealousy and laziness still around.
Excuse me, “… ARE still around.”
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
You appear to not know what Socialism is nor that forms of Socialism are used in several countries.
Here ya go to help you understand
Sanders is a type of Socialist called Democratic Socialism
“Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives.”
When you talk about lazy and giving to someone else profits from someone work that is what is practiced here in the USA. It use to be that Companies made a certain level of profits for their products. They shared it by increasing employee salaries and bonuses as well. Now it has morphed into the worker works longer hours, produces more and receives less. Thus companies owners and upper management receive higher salaries and bonuses off the work done by the average worker. That seems to be what you call socialism in reality it is called Corporate Capitalism. Seems you have your terms confused.
I got your “Democratic Socialism” right here:
Then how do you explain the fact that 1% in America have over 50% of the income? Your propaganda cartoon for low educated voters does not address that fact.
Also that employee salaries have been stagnant?
Social Democracy in reality would stop that and do away with social inequality but numerous like you do not want that, I wonder why?
Not sure what universal healthcare insurance, no tuition at public colleges and universities, and government-subsidized daycare have to do with jealousy and laziness. But I’m sure you do, Warren.
All those lazy Scandinavians, Germans, French, and only-slightly-less-free-of-jealousy-and-laziness Canadians! My, my.
What would people of your political persuasion do without the incessant crutch of mindless clichés, slogans and word games, Warren? Just wonderin’.
The problem that Warren and the rest of the GOP membership is they are restricted from having open minds or allowed to research information from other then GOP accredited and backed sources. All of the rest of the world on the Internet is just unacceptable biased information.
The most horrendous quality that an individual may have is an open mind that craves confirmation of statements via facts. That turns them white with fear!
To each their own! I prefer to research and then see where the facts take me. Been doing this for over 50 years now and what I know I have seen from the ground level up. This country currently has a problem no civics classes taught in schools and books that are being used by schools that editors print what they want to be facts, not actual facts.
The problem the GOP has their are people like myself that have lived long enough to actual see what their policies have done to this country. I can say without a doubt that the GOP has done more damage and harm to America then any foreign terrorist group has.
Nah, they were already white with fear, Ray.
I just added an addendum to my post linking to a piece on The American Prospect by Adele Stan. It’s along the lines of your last two sentences.
That is true most of them were born so scared they were white with fear from birth. I stand corrected
Ray, the top 1% do not get 50% of the income. In fact, it’s less than half that: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/2008_Top1percentUSA.png/450px-2008_Top1percentUSA.png
Have you ever considered that they get that because they are worth it? Why would an employer pay more than he has to?
Why are employee salaries stagnant? Well, they are not, actually. In general, employees salaries increase until they are in the 55-64 age bracket: https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/people/2014/p08AR.xls
How will “Social Democracy” or “Democratic Socialism” stop that? People have unequal talents, unequal drive, and yes, unequal opportunities. How will your proposed system “fix” those inequalities? Will you test children at birth, and deprive the exceptional ones of oxygen until they are normal? Will you deprive even the normal ones of oxygen so that they are no smarter than the least intelligent? Will you make the strong and fast take drugs to inhibit their motor function? After all, it is not FAIR for them to get all the money playing sports.
And how would you equalize opportunity? Will you make sports camps illegal? Will you make science camps illegal? Will you make reading to one’s children illegal? Will you make private schools and home schools illegal, and have the feral [sic] government take over the school system so they are all just as spectacular as the DC schools?
And, Beverly, public colleges. Are you really advocating the German and Scandinavian models? Do you really think the socialists in this country will accept a system that tests kids in elementary school, and if they do not pass the test (not weighted by race or ethnicity) they do not get into the college-track high school? Do you really think that the socialists in this country will accept a system that tests kids at the end of high school, and if they do not pass they do not go to college?
Those kids in German and Scandinavia earn those college entrances. Here, if you can sign up, they let you into the community colleges.
If THAT’s the system you’re proposing, I’m all for it.
What say you?
So THAT’s why I’m White. My dad’s Black friend told him it was too much light! 😀
You are a despicable person.
Combine that with the fact that you know nothing about anything and you area total waste of time.
Personally, I’ve had enough.
Right out of the gate, Trump said wages in the U.S. are too high! Noone contradicted him. They all agreed that the minimum wage should not be increased and some said there should be no minimum wage. They advocate the law of the jungle. They may have just advocated themselves out of any chance of election. How do you suppose that will fly with that group of high school educated white people who are dying early? Aren’t those the Reagan Democrats?
It is extremely annoying to watch you rage at old ideas when the academic justification for their ideas is supplied by your co-bloggers.
Liberal economists may share some of your policy preferences, but when pressed, they would all defend a set of axioms that logically entail:
1. Free trade raises real wages on both sides of the deal.
2. Wage floors reduce the number of jobs available.
3. High marginal tax rates reduce economic growth.
They may say that “tariff barriers are already extremely low” or that “$15 an hour will not cost too many jobs” or that “36% top rate is historically low”, but…
Winston Churchill asked a woman if she would sleep with him for 1 million pounds. She said she would. So he offered her 10 pounds to sleep with him.
“Ten pounds?!? What do you think I am, a prostitute?” she exclaimed.
“We’ve already established what you are. Now we’re just negotiating the price.”
Any chance you could list a couple of liberal economists that would defend all of those axioms?
“they are all based on the idea that the government will give you what someone else worked for.”
For the above to be correct “government” would have to be an entity that is completely disassociated with the governed. That is, it would be an entity that is not created, constructed of the people. The fallacy of the argument is that it always comes from the position that government stands alone and exits even if people don’t. It is an argument that treats government as a second or third person form.
Thorton Hall, it is obvious that you have not been reading here at Angry Bear long. Please read everything regarding taxation levels posted by Mike Kimel known as “cactus”. Then get back to us with that statement regarding taxation.
The problem with Free Trade, Thornton, is that it is like a Free Lunch. There is no such beast — at least not between countries.
Between the States, and between the United States and Canada, which have essentially the same basic requirements for workplace safety, workers’ rights, and no tariffs, there is free trade, and it works pretty well.
But how can there be Free Trade with countries whose workers are not free?
Years ago, I, too, bought into the Free Trade idea. But practice has not met the theoretical potential.
I also hear the Free Trade advocates say that a closed economy is a Bad Thing. But the world itself is, by definition, a closed economy. The United States, Canada, Japan, Australia, Israel, Finland, Switzerland, Norway, South Korea, New Zealand, and the European Union, essentially the “free” countries, comprise over 60% of global production. (I’m sure I’ve left a few off the list, too.)
I really see no reason that the free nations of the world should not resolve on zero tariffs between our countries, and bar trade from the others. No more cheap Chinese imports. When another country starts playing by the rules, we will consider letting them into the club.
“they are all based on the idea that the government will give you what someone else worked for.”
For the above to be correct “government” would have to be an entity that is completely disassociated with the governed. That is, it would be an entity that is not created, constructed of the people.
Nonsense. The majority simply vote to take from the minority. That’s the whole “tax the rich” meme.
Yeah, the majority certainly have been voting to “take from the rich” in this nation. I see it in the ever declining tax rates and off loading of government funding from income taxes to every other type of tax.
The assumption in your statement is that we all independently of each other garner our earning and thus wealth from our labor efforts, physical or cognitive. Your statement dismisses the idea of “unearned income” which is the IRS definition of capital gains to an individual. That is money from money.
Then again I assume you think Trump’s statement that wages are too high and everyone needs to work hard to move to the upper strata is logically sound. Begs the question: with everyone in the upper strata, were the wages to high, can they be to high?
Can a nation of 350 million people all earn enough money (individually or collectively as a family) such that they are in the upper strata earning money from money and still maintain a billionaire class or even a millionaire class? Is the millionaire wages now to high?
Ah. I was gonna respond to Hall and Warren, but I see that EMichael and Daniel Becker have taken care of it nicely.
Thanks, guys. And, EMichael, I’m looking forward to Hall’s response to your request–as well as the dates of any referenced statements.
I’m also kinda wondering why, say, Germany has such low unemployment rates even though by dint of their very strong federally mandated union participation in setting wage and salary rates and therefor doesn’t have a minimum wag because it doesn’t need one. And France, too! France has a substantially higher labor participation rate among people in their prime working years. The rate among young people is lower, mainly because students rarely work part-time there.
Seeee. I read Krugman’s blog, even if Hall does not.
“Yeah, the majority certainly have been voting to ‘take from the rich’ in this nation. I see it in the ever declining tax rates and off loading of government funding from income taxes to every other type of tax.”
I assume you are talking about the State and local governments. For the U.S. government, general revenue (in contrast to program-specific revenue such as FICA) has increasingly come from personal income taxes.
While there has certainly been a concentration of income in the last 30 years, the income tax has matched that. As you can see, in 1980, about 21% of income was earned by the top 5% in 1980, and they paid about 37% of the income taxes. Now, the 1% earn that 21%, and that 1% also pay 37% of the income taxes. Same percentage of income, same percentage of income tax. Just a smaller group earning it.
As others have pointed out, it’s not the tax system that has changed so much, but the distribution of income. The question is not how to jigger the tax system, but why has income become so concentrated and how can we reverse that?
“The assumption in your statement is that we all independently of each other garner our earning and thus wealth from our labor efforts, physical or cognitive.”
For the most part. (Union shops are, of course, an exception to that.)
“Your statement dismisses the idea of ‘unearned income’ which is the IRS definition of capital gains to an individual. That is money from money.”
Not at all. Investing one’s money IS making money from one’s cognitive efforts. Just because income is labelled “unearned” does not mean it is undeserved. The owner (stockholder) of a company is putting his money at risk. Does he not deserve some reward for that risk?
That said, I believe that all income should be taxed at the individual level, and all taxed equally.
“Then again I assume you think Trump’s statement that wages are too high and everyone needs to work hard to move to the upper strata is logically sound.”
It is in the context of foreign trade. As I have said in an earlier comment on this thread, “free trade” is impossible with countries that are not free. Our wages ARE too high to compete with China. Why the hell are we trading with China anyway? I have never been happy with our giving China “Most Favored Nation” status, and it was Bush I that did it. And if China is making the automated ordering machines for McDonalds, then our labor prices will be too high to compete with those machines, too.
With very few exceptions, those in the upper strata got there by hard work, either their own or their ancestors’.
Can everyone do that? No. You get there by having more intelligence, more talent, more drive, and, yes, more opportunity. You get there not just by working hard, but by working harder than others. Some people simply do not have the intelligence, talent, drive, and opportunities that others do. We can make a small dent in the last, and with better prenatal care for the poor, we may help the first two a little.
But again, I do not think the efforts in those areas have changed so much in the last thirty years, but the income distribution has changed significantly. I believe that it is globalization, our trading with countries where workers are living in barracks and making a dollar a day, and our mass importation of unskilled labor from Latin America, which are the prime culprits undermining the wages of unskilled labor in the U.S.
Beverly, I’m not following your argument. Germany’s labor force participation rate is lower than ours (or at least was from 2011 to 2013) 63% vs 60%. France was even lower at 56%:
Please note that I said “axioms that entail”. Because they are liberal, these economists end up scratching their heads. They don’t like the results, but they don’t reject the axioms.
Brad DeLong on Free Trade:
Such efficiency gains from increasing the extent
of the market and promoting specialization
should have produced rapid growth in Mexican
productivity. Likewise, greater efficiency should
have been reinforced by a boom in capital
formation, which should have accompanied the
guarantee that no future wave of protectionism
in the United States would close factories in
Mexico. This is the gospel of free trade and the
division of labor that we economists have
preached since Adam Smith. And we have
powerful evidence around the world and across
the past three centuries that this gospel is a
Intellectually, this is a great puzzle for us
economists. We believe in market forces. We
believe in the benefits of trade, specialization
and the international division of labor. We see
the enormous increase in Mexican exports to
the United States over the past decade. We see
great strengths in the Mexican economy:
macroeconomic stability, balanced budgets
and low inflation, low country risk, a flexible
labor force, a strengthened and solvent banking
system, successfully reformed poverty-reduction
programs, high earnings from oil and so on.
Yet success at what neoliberal policymakerslike me thought would be the key links for Mexican development has had disappointing
Brad DeLong debating Jared Bernstein–not on whether minimum wages cause job losses, but on how many jobs are lost:
Bernstein: “Even under pessimistic estimates of job-loss impacts, the number of those low-wage workers we expect to benefit from an increase will be much larger than the number who lose jobs or hours…”
DeLong: “I find myself a little bit less optimistic than Jared because of the parcellized sovereignty of the Los Angeles basin. I would have few worries that a $15 national minimum wage would be higher than optimal–that the disemployment effects would be large enough even at the margin to offset the income transfer rectangle. But with the parcellized sovereignty in the Swiss cheese geography of the Los Angeles basin you may get a lot of pointless location-churning as sub minimum wage jobs move outside the pale.”
Brad DeLong and Larry Summers on whether or not government spending can help grow an economy not in depression:
In normal times central banks offset the effects of
fiscal policy. This keeps the policy-relevant multiplier near zero.
Paul Krugman on the effects of cutting taxes:
How much do tax cuts and spending raise GDP? The widely cited estimates of Mark Zandi of Economy.com indicate a multiplier of around 1.5 for spending, with widely varying estimates for tax cuts. Payroll tax cuts, which make up about half the Obama proposal, are pretty good, with a multiplier of 1.29; business tax cuts, which make up the rest, are much less effective.
I read everything Krugman wrote for several years. Here’s why I stopped:
Here’s the head of the Duke Philosophy department agreeing with me:
1. You see why the form of your argument is identical to #notallmen, right? The existence of one economist who rejects the core assumptions underlying Neo-liberalism no more disproves their near universal acceptance by Saltwater and Freshwater alike, than the existence of one nice guy disproves the existence of rape culture.
2. What are you, my Dad? If I wasn’t reading Angry Bear 4 years ago (the last time Kimel posted), I can be summarily dismissed?
See if you can get Waldmann to claim he rejects the axioms which lead to my three conclusions.
PPS: F— you! Kimel explicitly states that marginal tax rates above 64% limit economic growth in his final post, 11/3/2011
Not for people in their prime working years, at least not for France, and I think not for Germany (or Holland or Scandinavia, either, I believe, Thornton. Standard retirement age, at least in France, and I think in the other countries, too) is younger. I think that’s true of Canada, too. And these countries have high standards of living; they’re not exactly the U.S.S.R.
High wages do not undermine employment levels.
Lordy, Thornton, who’s talking about a 64% marginal tax rate? And tax rates at their lowest levels, or nearly lowest, since before WWII haven’t worked all that well, have they?
I have been unclear. There is zero empirical evidence that wages have anything to do with unemployment. Zero. But you can’t pass Econ 101, as taught by Brad DeLong or Paul Krugman if you point that out.
In fact, work is measured in man/hours for a reason that escapes even liberal economists.
We’re both lawyers. We both shied away from math heavy subjects. We are both inclined to believe that good people like Krugman and DeLong (and they are good people) are more or less on the right track
But they aren’t, as I think you’ll see if you read my post linked above “change your mind and see what was always there”.
It turns out that the same skills that result in high LSAT scores enable one to look behind the curtain of economics. It’s ugly.
Gee Thornton, I was suggesting you go read a person who dedicated a lot of effort to understanding taxation, especially the rate parts. All his work is on line. No, he is not only one economist having done the math.
But that’s ok.
Not sure who you are PPS’n, but that rate of 64% I recall is not marginal. It is the effective rate. I also recall an ideal being around 58%. To get 64% effective rate you need to have the top around 75% (assuming multiple tax brackets). I believe Mike Kimel noted that in his posts. But I’ll accept my memory not being complete.
And if you read my posts on the reconstruction of the 1936 tax tables you will find that it is exactly the effective rate the top paid then. I also suggest my series looking at a lawyer’s thoughts on the purpose of taxation. Only a suggesting being your chosen profession.
I have learned one thing. #notallmen. I don’t text or tweet. So thank you. Can’t agree that it was my argument, but…ok.
@DanielBecker (and @BeverlyMann)
I have been unclear. I suspect we all share the same policy preferences. But your comment makes me sad. My point is that if you’re debating whether the effective rate should be 65% or 64% you’ve lost the game.
Kimel’s attacks on the Laffer Curve are a perfect example of my point. (Stick with me. Remember, we agree on policy.) Brad DeLong has made much the same argument. My question is this: what are they critiquing about Laffer?
The answer is “very little”. They come to a different conclusion about optimal rates, but they all accept the set up. No one questions the act of drawing the curve. They instead debate it’s shape.
The minimum wage debate: why do several construction workers watch one guy dig a hole? Because digging a hole is a “one man job” but fixing a water main takes at least 3. Those two guys watching the hole get dug can’t get fired because of wages. But economics rejects this from day one! The notion that wages affect jobs is pure speculation. But it “has” to be true based on everything we “know.”
Smart people can’t be totally wrong for 75 years? The problem is that there are several different critiques that come from different angles. The critiques are just as wrong as the mainstream, they are just wrong about different things. The boldest attack comes from Marxism, but just like Cochrane and Krugman, the Marxist (falsely) claims human behavior can be understood as a Newtonian mechanical system.
Why can’t the US be like Denmark? Economists of every stripe will argue for years. But the answer is obvious: black people. Mapping “utility” onto tribalism will never work. So the economists say: we’re assuming that away. But then what are they talking about? Not human beings, that’s for damn sure.
“Not for people in their prime working years, at least not for France, and I think not for Germany (or Holland or Scandinavia, either, I believe).”
Well, it took a bit of digging, and these numbers (OECD) don’t quite match the ones I posted earlier (Worldbank).
So let’s look at “Prime Working Age”, 25-64 (for 2014):
United States: 76.9
So you seem to be right there.
Even though we do have a higher participation rate for the 15-24 crowd, we still don’t get to Worldbank’s 16+ numbers:
OECD, Labor Force Participation Rate, 16-64, 2013:
United States: 72.8
So apparently Worldbank, which put us above France and Germany in 2013, is using a different computation. Perhaps they add in the 65+ group. The OECD site is down right now. (Ports are open, and I can connect via telnet, but no data comes through.) I’ll try to look at that later.
It could be that our having more young and old in the labor force reduces the participation rates in the middle. The young and the old are often willing to work for lower wages.
“Standard retirement age, at least in France, and I think in the other countries, too) is younger. I think that’s true of Canada, too.”
United States: 66
So, a few months or a year one way or another. Perhaps more generous retirement systems there are lowering labor force participation rates in that demographic. (Or they penalize more for “retreading” instead of retiring.)
“Do you really think that the socialists in this country will accept a system that tests kids at the end of high school, and if they do not pass they do not go to college?”
Here in the State of Washington one must pass state tests to Graduate from High School.
Washington is what you would like to call filled with Socialist by the way.
By the way one can easily argue that the French retire earlier then Americans for they currently work 35 hours a week and have 5 weeks of vacation time to boot.
Do you have to pass a test to get into High School?
Also, Washington’s (5-year) high school graduation rate is 79.7%.
That qualifies one to go to community college. (Even that requirement can be waived.)
Below-average students do not get free college in Denmark or Germany.
And check out these numbers: less than 30% of 11th graders are meeting the Language Arts standards, and less than 20% are meeting the Math standards.
I don’t think their graduation exams are setting particularly high standards.
Yes I know about the low scores. I also know that the GOP run Senate here has been found in violation of WS Constituion for not fully funding education here. The WS Supreme court so decided. Yet they still refuse to pass a budget that the WS Supreme court stated needed to be done.
To help address the problem of low test scores the voters here passed a law that reduced school classroom size. That is currently in the works here by individual school districts.
Schools here have numerous volunteers helping in schools. These people passed this for they saw the teachers were overloaded and the children needed more individual attention. It will be interesting to see the stats 3 years from now.
It would appear to me that you take little snippets out of “everything Delong and Krugman” have written and then apply insignificant numbers(64% or 65%) to show something.
“And while there are dissenters, as there always are, the great preponderance of the evidence from these natural experiments points to little if any negative effect of minimum wage increases on employment.”
I know that is not specific enough for you, but you are, imho, being way too objective in your thoughts.
The original minimum wage, set by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was $0.25, which according to CNN Money is $4.19 in 2015 dollars. http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/minimum-wage-since-1938/
So I guess Marco Rubio, Donald Trump and Thornton Hall think the minimum wage should still be $4.19. Or maybe $0.25.
You know what, Warren? Virtually all students in Denmark and Germany—and most other European countries, including most of the ones in the former Eastern Bloc, and also in Canada, graduate from high school with some semblance of an actual education. Graduating from high school there is like graduating from high school used to be “back in the day” in the major northern and Atlantic coast and Pacific Coast cities in this country.
But then, y’know, cities became impoverished, and since schools are divided in this country into “School districts” that receive their funding from property taxes, things went extremely awry.
Another huge difference is that in European countries, teaching is a prestige and relatively well-paid profession.
These things do make a difference.
“Socioeconomic inequality among U.S. students skews international comparisons of test scores, finds a new report released today by the Stanford Graduate School of Education and the Economic Policy Institute. When differences in countries’ social class compositions are adequately taken into account, the performance of U.S. students in relation to students in other countries improves markedly.The report, What do international tests really show about U.S. student performance?, also details how errors in selecting sample populations of test-takers and arbitrary choices regarding test content contribute to results that appear to show U.S. students lagging.”
We are talking past each other.
Krugman has all the right policy preferences and uses the language of economics to justify them.
Krugman’s conclusion that we should raise the minimum wage is correct.
If one takes little snippets of Krugman, specifically the snippets where he makes policy recommendations, then one will agree with you that he is fighting the good fight the best way possible.
If, however, one reads all of Krugman, and one has an open mind about economics, one will see why for every Krugman there is a Mankiw and a Cochrane. For every Stiglitz there is a Hubbard and a Taylor, and for every DeLong there is a Fama and a Sargent.
Here’s the syllogism:
1. Krugman shares my policy preferences.
2. Krugman uses the language of economics to justify his (and my) policy preferences.
3. Economics as practiced by Krugman is a valid empirical endeavor.
Do you see why 3. does not follow necessarily from 1 and 2?
Why does my point matter? The original post, that’s why.
Where do these old ideas come from? Krugman would have you believe they come from the living dead, but that is simply not true. The old economic ideas embraced by the GOP are perfectly reasonable conclusions based on the foundations of economics that Krugman would never ever challenge.
The foundations are the problem and Krugman will never ever be able to even see that, let alone lead the charge to change them.
One old idea is inflation fears:
“Virtually all students in Denmark and Germany—and most other European countries, including most of the ones in the former Eastern Bloc, and also in Canada, graduate from high school with some semblance of an actual education.”
Not quite. According to Wikipedia (take it with a grain of salt), “In 2009/10 there were 3,094 gymnasien in Germany, with c. 2,475,000 students (about 28 percent of all precollegiate students during that period)….”
Not ALL students, that 28%.
“Graduating from high school there is like graduating from high school used to be ‘back in the day’ in the major northern and Atlantic coast and Pacific Coast cities in this country.”
And ‘back in the day’ only about 28% of students graduated from High School.
“But then, y’know, cities became impoverished, and since schools are divided in this country into ‘School districts’ that receive their funding from property taxes, things went extremely awry.”
And yet, the inner-city schools spend more per pupil than do the rural areas.
In 2010-2011, DC spent $23,349 per student (http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/dc-schools-29349-pupil-83-not-proficient-reading).
Arlington, VA: $20,543
Fairfax, VA: $13,553
Alexandria, VA: $18,456
Would you rather send your children to school in DC, or in Virginia?
Kalamazoo spent $12,194 vs. Detroit’s $16,266. Which district would you rather have your kids in?
“Another huge difference is that in European countries, teaching is a prestige and relatively well-paid profession.”
So it was here, too. (Although with the higher taxes in Europe, the net pay is probably better here.) However, Education majors are now in the bottom-half of college majors when sorted by SAT scores.
Perhaps we should cut some administrative positions, increase teacher salaries, and make becoming one a bit more rigorous. The teachers unions are not helping to make teaching prestigious.
“The teachers unions are not helping to make teaching prestigious.”
Actually what does not help ( teaching prestigious) is a political party that repeatedly belittle and attack education. It is ironic that this is the same party that has made classes like Civics disappear from schools. They also support textbooks that blatantly change facts by censoring out what they do not like.
When I hear people belittling the teaching profession I ask them how long has it been since they have been in a school to volunteer to help and see what is going on? So far my personal experience has found every critic has never done this just read about it on line out their political representative or Fox news said so , thus it is the Gospel to them.
Unions for educational staff are their for the benefit of the children being taught and educational staff from heavy handed administrators. The type of administrators that have no problem say having funds shifted to build a shower by their office for they run during the day and need a shower. Then they cut hours on staff. Your educational system would be in shambles for the majority of professional, caring teachers would leave districts and many have do to all of the belittling of their profession.
By the way “Wikipedia” is not a secure source of information
Well, Ray, I was just volunteering in my daughter’s school a couple weeks ago. My wife was a reading assistant for our kids’ elementary school, and the co-ordinator for FLEx (Foreign Language Experience), which brought in native speakers to teach their languages to elementary school children. I ran the chess club there for several years, and still volunteer to run tournaments at nearby schools on occasion.
This brings up a huge disparity which money cannot correct. The suburban schools have such volunteers, and the inner-city schools do not.
When the teachers’ unions fight vouchers and school choice, they are not fighting for the kids, but for their own jobs. Administration in public schools is bloated. My son’s high school now has a part-time orchestra teacher, and wanted to cut the drama teacher to part-time. We fought back and won. I sent a letter to the principal, the SIX vice-principals, and the school board. I told them to cut a VP position, or perhaps one of the TWELVE office staff members or one of the FOURTEEN custodians, so that the Drama Teacher could be full-time.
Where was the union? Nowhere. The union does not care if it gets dues from a teacher or an administrator.
“‘Wikipedia’ is not a secure source of information.”
So if Wikipedia says it’s not a credible source, does that make it a credible source? 😀
Just as a point of disclosure, I have been a high school Math teacher, and my son is going to school now to become one.
Well then you are the first but for your information there are separate unions for janitorial, maintenance and the Teachers Union.
PS I live in an inner city school district and my children go to the schools in it. I worked prior as a Staff member for the district and was a union rep for my school. Based upon my own personal experience the schools in this area would be far worse without the union. The cases I helped with provided a vivid picture of upper Administration trying heavy handed tactics with other unprofessional acts to get their way.
I current volunteer at local elementary school. I would love for time clocks to be put in and computer logging in at home for all. Thus the public can see actual hours spent. Here in Washington it would shock people as to the number of hours spent. When I worked for the District I brought home hours of work almost every night.
So this sort of shoots your suburb theory.
I am a Veteran, in my work history I have worked numerous jobs either one for 12 hours a day,7 days a week or as many as 3 part time positions a week. I worked jobs I could find Construction various positions, nursing Home, Hospital orderly, Mortician Assistant, CIty Disabled Summer Camp and year round outings. One on One with MS student, Security Officer and Special Behavior Disability Staff Assistant to name a few oh and Walmart ICS.
All of which brings me to the point of I know by living it what it is like to work low paying jobs for that was all that was hiring. My motto is if someone bases their opinion on anything other then actual life experience, pertaining to wages and quality of life. Then the opinion expressed is not fully knowledgeable.
Thus as the Native Americans say, rough translation here, “You do not know what it is like for someone else until you have walked a week in his moccasins.”
Trust me, I am not unique.
An your anecdotal example does not “shoot [my] suburb theory.” Fortunately, we do not have to rely on anecdotes:
“Laurence Steinberg, a psychology professor at Temple University in Philadelphia who has studied parental involvement in schools nationwide, said children whose parents spend time in their school tend to have higher self-esteem and grades. But Professor Steinberg said only 20 percent of parents venture into schools on a regular basis. Of those, he said, the vast majority are wealthy suburbanites.”
I, too, have worked at low-wage jobs — even BELOW minimum wage. (State institutions are not bound by the federal Minimum Wage.) The work was there, and I took it of my own free will. It was good experience that got me better jobs later on.
And I, too, worked many extra hours after school. My wife still does. (But don’t tell anyone, she is technically not allowed to do it. Of course, all teachers do anyway. They have to.)
“[If] someone bases [his] opinion on anything other [than] actual life experience, pertaining to wages and quality of life, [then] the opinion expressed is not fully knowledgeable.”
I would say that, if someone bases his opinion solely on his own life experience, on anything, then the opinion expresses has no application outside that person’s life. Any fool can learn from his own mistakes. A wise man also learns from the mistakes of others.
I don’t know what’s worse.
Listening to people cherry pick thoughts, experiences(I won’t comment on whether I think they are real) and numbers on education or dealing with someone for whom something like pi = 3.14 is not specific enough.
Rough couple of days for Angry Beat.
Does the 3.14 bit refer to me?
If we have any luck at all, there’s a disruption coming in the future that will shake up the cognitive biases that cause to to be constitutionally incapable of reading what a wrote. When it happens, do something nice for the next person you meet and think of me.
Let me know when a write your disruption, and I will try to ignore my cognitive biases and make some sense out of it.
Unless of course it is just a reiteration of this:
“The modeling of complex systems does “leave things out”, but in a way that is self-conscious and under constant scientific scrutiny. The methodology of complexity research requires the scientist to study the consequences of leaving things out and to investigate the best ways to correct for this known problem. These scientists construct multiple models of the same system and compare the–sometimes quite different–results. They also go out into the world to observe reality and look for causal relationships that will improve the models. Economists, on the other hand, don’t consider “debates about methodology” to be part of the actual practice of economics. Going out into the field to observe causation? That is simply outside the realm of discussion.”
What’s wrong with that? Weather modeling is science; DSGE is a fantasy world? Is that even debated?
That’s far from what I consider to be my core insight. But I think it’s a pretty clear instance of the way other fields are forced to confront reality while Econ uses ceritus paribus clauses to wave it away.
I think we both like where Krugman lands. But how does he get there? Scientists predicted the path of Superstorm Sandy by running many models and taking their collective results seriously. Krugman also gets it right, on, say inflation. He’s got a lot of talk about ISLM and textbooks (and he believed it), but it’s ad hoc modifications that do all the work. He gets the right answer by applying the history of Japan. Models are totally superfluous. But by keeping them around he gives the opposition all the ammo they need to make the exact opposite policy recommendations.
My core insight is this:
Economics and its critics are all stuck in a world where Newton shows the way for rendering the world understandable. The problem is that Newton is actually limited to physics and in every other empirical endeavor Darwin is the proper guide. As long as economics grad school attracts physics majors and rejects biologists, it will continue to remain a safe distance from actual reality.
That’s why we have economists, Thornton — to make the weather forecasters look good! 😀
Basically your core insight is that economics is not a 1 + 1 question.
Who’d thunk it?
My brother was told that Sandy would devastate his city in South Jersey. It missed.
Shame on you. Seriously. Why keep posting if you refuse to question your conviction that I am an idiot?
3 day forecasts are as accurate today as one day forecasts 50 years ago. That may seem like nothing, but it’s not. It’s a fact. And I know that you know that economics can say nothing comperable because they never ever get it right. Then it’s off to the races… All models are wrong, ceritus paribus, something exogenous blah, fucking blah, fucking blah. Then they say, grumpily, “Policy makers don’t do ‘exactly’ what we say, anyway.”
Well, I didn’t think you were an idiot. Before now anyway.