Politicians and the Minimum Wage

Hide the costs show the benefit. 

Who pays for the minimum wage increase.  If it were a tax who would it fall on?

It clarifies things to think in terms of consumption so for the minimum wage workers to consume more who consumes less.

In the short run business owner who hire minimum wage workers will consume less.  Why do we want them to consume less rather than using a broad based tax.

In the long run consumers who consume products and services produced by business who hire minimum wage workers will consume less.  Why do we want them to consume less rather than using a broad based tax.

In the all time periods minimum wage laws tend to decrease employment so the low skilled unemployed consume less . Why do we want them to consume less rather than using a broad based tax.

A negative income tax or a basic income guaranty seems far superior  for everyone except for  the politicians. The minimum wage lets the politicians hide the costs show the benefit.

From the comments on moving bad students to "good" schools.

This is a comment by eccdogg on this blog post.


There is a pretty nice natural experiment on this with the comparison of Wake Co (Raleigh) and Mecklenburg Co. (Charlotte) schools in NC.

Raleigh for a long time has tried to balance schools by income so that the percentage of free and reduced lunch students was similar across schools.

Charlotte ended busing quite a while ago and instead uses neighborhood schools combined with increased spending on low income schools.

On the face of it it looks like Raleigh’s approach is better because Raleigh’s schools on average do better on statewide test. But that is mainly a composition error. Raleigh is richer and whiter than Charlotte. When you look at minorities and low income students they do BETTER in Charlotte than in Raleigh. Raleigh has fewer failing schools but more failing children, they just hide them amongst better performing students.

Personally I can see how upper class parent involvement could actually be to the determent of lower achieving kids. Upper achievers and lower achievers have different need and need to be taught at a different pace. An upper income parent will advocate for the school setting its strategy based on what is the best for the upper income child. I see this at my daughter’s school (in Raleigh) that is mainly upper income with lower income kids bused in. The school is great with lots of electives and an accelerated pace. This is great for my daughter, but if a kid is struggling with the 3 Rs as many low income kids are they could easily get left behind and all of us middle/upper income parents would not care in the least.

The Good Samaritan Revisited

When telling the story of the good Samaritan Jesus was speaking to the Jews.  The Jews despised the Samaritans. The good Samaritan was part of the despised group not the other way around. (It is amazing that people get this wrong but they do, I am writing this because I just read some writing about it that was wrong.) The act of love was toward the despising not toward the despised group which is more powerful and perplexing.

It is as if he said in 1950 USA, a white man traveled to a southern town and on the read he was robbed and black man came along and bought him clothes and put him up at a hotel. (That always reminds me that John Brown was saved from drowning by a black man.)

At the end of the story he says go and do likewise. I think that he means even those who despise you are your neighbors and should be treated with love!

Also note that the same Jesus said the poor will always be with and advocated some charity toward them but the Jew who was robbed in the story of the good Samaritan was not poor but a person who fell into a calamity.

The story is far more interesting that many think.

The one who gave the charity was in the despised group. The act of love was toward to despising group which is more powerful and perplexing. It is as if he said in 1950 USA, a white man was robbed and black man came along and bought him clothes and put him up at a hotel. At the end of the story he says go and do likewise. I think that he means even those who despise you are your neighbors!
Also note that same Jew said the poor will always be with and advocated some charity toward them but the Jew who was robbed in the story was not poor but fell into a calamity.
The story is far more interesting that you described it.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/a-theory-of-good-intentions.html#comment-157927121

The one who gave the charity was in the despised group. The act of love was toward to despising group which is more powerful and perplexing. It is as if he said in 1950 USA, a white man was robbed and black man came along and bought him clothes and put him up at a hotel. At the end of the story he says go and do likewise. I think that he means even those who despise you are your neighbors!
Also note that same Jew said the poor will always be with and advocated some charity toward them but the Jew who was robbed in the story was not poor but fell into a calamity.
The story is far more interesting that you described it.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/a-theory-of-good-intentions.html#comment-157927121

The one who gave the charity was in the despised group. The act of love was toward to despising group which is more powerful and perplexing. It is as if he said in 1950 USA, a white man was robbed and black man came along and bought him clothes and put him up at a hotel. At the end of the story he says go and do likewise. I think that he means even those who despise you are your neighbors!
Also note that same Jew said the poor will always be with and advocated some charity toward them but the Jew who was robbed in the story was not poor but fell into a calamity.
The story is far more interesting that you described it.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/a-theory-of-good-intentions.html#comment-157927121

The one who gave the charity was in the despised group. The act of love was toward to despising group which is more powerful and perplexing. It is as if he said in 1950 USA, a white man was robbed and black man came along and bought him clothes and put him up at a hotel. At the end of the story he says go and do likewise. I think that he means even those who despise you are your neighbors!
Also note that same Jew said the poor will always be with and advocated some charity toward them but the Jew who was robbed in the story was not poor but fell into a calamity.
The story is far more interesting that you described it.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/a-theory-of-good-intentions.html#comment-157927121

The one who gave the charity was in the despised group. The act of love was toward to despising group which is more powerful and perplexing. It is as if he said in 1950 USA, a white man was robbed and black man came along and bought him clothes and put him up at a hotel. At the end of the story he says go and do likewise. I think that he means even those who despise you are your neighbors!
Also note that same Jew said the poor will always be with and advocated some charity toward them but the Jew who was robbed in the story was not poor but fell into a calamity.
The story is far more interesting that you described it.
- See more at: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/a-theory-of-good-intentions.html#comment-157927121

The Cost of Child Birth in the USA

By ELISABETH ROSENTHALat the New York Times

From 2004 to 2010, the prices that insurers paid for childbirth — one of the most universal medical encounters — rose 49 percent for vaginal births and 41 percent for Caesarean sections in the United States, with average out-of-pocket costs rising fourfold, according to a recent report by Truven that was commissioned by three health care groups. The average total price charged for pregnancy and newborn care was about $30,000 for a vaginal delivery and $50,000 for a C-section, with commercial insurers paying out an average of $18,329 and $27,866, the report found. 


With cost like that it does not so much matter who pays. What needs to be addressed is cost. PPACA just changes who pays.

A Good Use for all those Psychology Majors?

From E. Fuller Torrey at the national review
Untreated mentally ill individuals are now responsible for at least 10 percent of all homicides and half of the mass killings such as those at Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora, Newtown, and the Washington Navy Yard.

We are graduating a huge, huge, huge number of psychology majors who could help treat these people cheaply if we allowed them to prescribe anti-psychotic drugs but we do not! It seems we must treat the insanity of our government.

I am not saying that I am sure that allowing all psychology grads to prescribe anti-psychotic drugs would have a significant positive effect, I do not know that, but I see very little downside to trying it.  It only seems right didn't they learn something in those 4 years? 

Copays and Treating People Like Responsible Adults

This article "When a Copay Gets in the Way of Health" from the New York Times rubs me the wring way.  Do we treat people like responsible adults or like children to be controlled.

If I do not change the oil in my car my engine warranty is void. Should we not allow insurers to try to keep their insureds taking high value low cost drugs, like if you did not buy the prescribed drugs each month and you have a heart attack we will not pay the full bill.

AEI Alternative to ACA

The incidental economist has an interesting post about AEI's alternative to ACA

The post talks about the criticism of the AEI's alternative that it is politically impossible and so is just a tool for thise who want to kill ACA.  I strongly disagree with this critique, IMHO the ACA to be politically advantageous to the politicians who passed it it had to be structured to fool the voters and so knowledgeable people even if they support ACA as better than nothing should be shouting how badly structured it is and how the politicians are scamming the voters.  ACA cost much more than it should, solves much less of the problems that it should.  It creates very bad incentives for employers!  It creates bad incentives for patients and it will accomplish very little in improvement in heath.  IMO Democrats are too willing to support bad very high cost legislation to get a tiny theoretical gains in some areas.  Consider CAFE standards, MIT says it costs 6-13 time more per gallon of gas saved (co2 put in the air) than a visible tax yet even knowledgeable Democrats talk it up.  You should always be pointing out how corrupt our politicians (and to a lesser extent voters) are.  Trying to lower the status of politicians.