Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana announced his opposition to Common Core, an initiative led by 45 state governments to develop common, high standards for our nation's primary and secondary schools.
Jindal decried the "federalization" of education and pushed the state's board of education to avoid damaging the state's reputation as the second dumbest in the nation.
He urged teachers and students in the state to help "put the Low back into Low-isiana. We need Low standards, not D.C. standards." He suggested that Mississippi can pass his state in high school graduation rate if the tests asked students to write in complete sentences or do basic geometry while other states kept in place their comically low bars for high school graduation.
In comments with reporters after the press conference Jindal lamented that "we're just a bunch of dumb hicks in this state . . . let's face it, my dad grew up in India and more people understand his English than mine."
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Why are poor people dumb?
Sendhil Mullanathain and Eldar Shafir have a new book out, Scarcity: Why Having Too Little Means Much More.
The book discusses a few experiments in psychology and introduces a few pieces of jargon to help readers remember the main points:
Focus Dividend - when you don't have a lot of time, or money, etc. you economize on its use, and your mind is better able to focus on the task at hand
Tunneling - the focus you get when time, or money, etc. is short has a negative side-effect: tunneling. You can only see things that relate to your goal. If you are own a diet, for instance, you can't stop counting calories, or thinking about sweets...
Bandwidth (Tax) - bandwidth is a loose word for "computational horsepower." Doing things uses up bandwidth and scarcity--of money or time, etc.--eats up bandwidth since, for instance, dieters are using some of their bandwidth repressing urges to eat sweets
That all happens in the first two chapters. The rest of the book has a lot of applications--to poverty and other things no one will remember--but the discussion of poverty has captured most of the attention of the press, including NYTimes essayist Tina Rosenberg.
She asks whether people are poor because of bad choices or whether they make bad choices because they are poor. It's probably a lot of both, but the scarcity paradigm nudges us to acknowledge that is might be more of poverty causing bad habits than we used to think.
The strange thing about the book is that it makes no mention of meditation or mindfulness. Psychologists know how to treat deficits of attention and lack of focus. Meditation, even as little as 15 minutes a day, trains people to bring their focus back to the present. You would think it would help people avoid tunneling while still reaping some benefits of the focus dividend but the book's recommendations are about text messages, simpler forms, and default enrollment . . . which doesn't sound that different from a traditional liberal focus on changing "the system" instead of changing people's behavior.
Second, we know most of what people do is based on habits, not conscious decisions. The bandwidth tax, they have shown, lowers fluid intelligence and executive control, but how does it influence habits? Is there an interaction: rich people don't get a bandwidth tax because they know what to do by habit (draw on a credit line?) while the poor have to think about which lender, which friends to borrow from, if its worth it to fix the car this week or wait until next week? Isn't going to a payday lender also mostly a problem of habit, not a byproduct of bad decision-making when you are tunneling? (As Tina notes, most loans go to people who visit semi-monthly.) This is surprisingly under explored in the book except in passing, calling the tendency of people given abundance to waste it and end up right back in a scarcity trap the "psychology of abundance," i.e. habits.
The book discusses a few experiments in psychology and introduces a few pieces of jargon to help readers remember the main points:
Focus Dividend - when you don't have a lot of time, or money, etc. you economize on its use, and your mind is better able to focus on the task at hand
Tunneling - the focus you get when time, or money, etc. is short has a negative side-effect: tunneling. You can only see things that relate to your goal. If you are own a diet, for instance, you can't stop counting calories, or thinking about sweets...
Bandwidth (Tax) - bandwidth is a loose word for "computational horsepower." Doing things uses up bandwidth and scarcity--of money or time, etc.--eats up bandwidth since, for instance, dieters are using some of their bandwidth repressing urges to eat sweets
That all happens in the first two chapters. The rest of the book has a lot of applications--to poverty and other things no one will remember--but the discussion of poverty has captured most of the attention of the press, including NYTimes essayist Tina Rosenberg.
She asks whether people are poor because of bad choices or whether they make bad choices because they are poor. It's probably a lot of both, but the scarcity paradigm nudges us to acknowledge that is might be more of poverty causing bad habits than we used to think.
The strange thing about the book is that it makes no mention of meditation or mindfulness. Psychologists know how to treat deficits of attention and lack of focus. Meditation, even as little as 15 minutes a day, trains people to bring their focus back to the present. You would think it would help people avoid tunneling while still reaping some benefits of the focus dividend but the book's recommendations are about text messages, simpler forms, and default enrollment . . . which doesn't sound that different from a traditional liberal focus on changing "the system" instead of changing people's behavior.
Second, we know most of what people do is based on habits, not conscious decisions. The bandwidth tax, they have shown, lowers fluid intelligence and executive control, but how does it influence habits? Is there an interaction: rich people don't get a bandwidth tax because they know what to do by habit (draw on a credit line?) while the poor have to think about which lender, which friends to borrow from, if its worth it to fix the car this week or wait until next week? Isn't going to a payday lender also mostly a problem of habit, not a byproduct of bad decision-making when you are tunneling? (As Tina notes, most loans go to people who visit semi-monthly.) This is surprisingly under explored in the book except in passing, calling the tendency of people given abundance to waste it and end up right back in a scarcity trap the "psychology of abundance," i.e. habits.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Sad news from Florida
Sad cyber bullying story from Florida. Fortunately someone will be punished, although the death penalty is "unconstitutional" for teens it seems like the appropriate punishment.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Do higher minimum wages help to pay the bills?
James Surowiecki calls for a higher minimum wage, but do higher wages really help to pay the bills?
Not as much as you would think.
Part of it is because of taxes. We all know taxes get deducted from our paychecks, so when you get a raise of $2 an hour in Massachusetts you'll pay $0.11 cents an hour in higher state taxes, and $0.30 an hour more in federal taxes (most likely), and then of course contribute $31 cents toward social security and Medicare. So you only get to take home $1.28 of that $2/hour wage. If you spend the money on anything with a sales tax that is really just $1.20 since you'll have to use the other 8 cents to pay the tax.
So a $2 raise for a full-time worker (40 hours) isn't going to free up $80 in their budget, it is going to free up more like $48.
But that's not all. The real difference in take home pay is going to be far less than $1.20 in many cases because our government does a lot to help the poor--and stops doing it when people stop being poor. The $2 raise could cost you eligibility for Medicaid or reduce you subsidy for buying health insurance on the new exchange, reduce your allotment of food stamps, and shrink your Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
You'll lose $0.60 worth of food stamps for every hour you work and owe $0.32 more in federal income tax as your EITC is phased out. You'll have to pay around $0.52 cents more for your health insurance since you are more able to afford it. And you might also lose eligibility for affordable housing, Pell Grants and other scholarships for your kids to attend college or free lunch if your kids are younger.
When you add it all up it is possible (and even likely if you have children) that a $2/hour raise wouldn't net you more than $10 a week in the bank. Most of the "income" would all disappear in tax deductions, higher taxes, higher expenses for health care, housing, and food.
That is not to say a higher minimum wage wouldn't help anyone out. Some people apply for few benefits and so have little to lose and people without children generally don't get much help from the government, even if they are poor.
Not as much as you would think.
Part of it is because of taxes. We all know taxes get deducted from our paychecks, so when you get a raise of $2 an hour in Massachusetts you'll pay $0.11 cents an hour in higher state taxes, and $0.30 an hour more in federal taxes (most likely), and then of course contribute $31 cents toward social security and Medicare. So you only get to take home $1.28 of that $2/hour wage. If you spend the money on anything with a sales tax that is really just $1.20 since you'll have to use the other 8 cents to pay the tax.
So a $2 raise for a full-time worker (40 hours) isn't going to free up $80 in their budget, it is going to free up more like $48.
But that's not all. The real difference in take home pay is going to be far less than $1.20 in many cases because our government does a lot to help the poor--and stops doing it when people stop being poor. The $2 raise could cost you eligibility for Medicaid or reduce you subsidy for buying health insurance on the new exchange, reduce your allotment of food stamps, and shrink your Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC).
You'll lose $0.60 worth of food stamps for every hour you work and owe $0.32 more in federal income tax as your EITC is phased out. You'll have to pay around $0.52 cents more for your health insurance since you are more able to afford it. And you might also lose eligibility for affordable housing, Pell Grants and other scholarships for your kids to attend college or free lunch if your kids are younger.
When you add it all up it is possible (and even likely if you have children) that a $2/hour raise wouldn't net you more than $10 a week in the bank. Most of the "income" would all disappear in tax deductions, higher taxes, higher expenses for health care, housing, and food.
That is not to say a higher minimum wage wouldn't help anyone out. Some people apply for few benefits and so have little to lose and people without children generally don't get much help from the government, even if they are poor.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
Tim Scott hates entitlements
Tim Scott (R-SC) hates entitles. He opposes expanding Medicaid because "[w]e simply cannot continue to dig a hole" and argues that "increasing our entitlements [means] jeopardizing the future."
I guess that is a sensible mentality for a black conservative. He wants people to get up off their ass and work hard to make their lives better. It's hard to argue with that.
I guess that is a sensible mentality for a black conservative. He wants people to get up off their ass and work hard to make their lives better. It's hard to argue with that.
But it's also hard to get out of the entitlement mentality.
Senator Scott's press secretary put out a press release bemoaning the fact that "Senator Scott was not invited to speak at [the 50th anniversary celebration of MLK's "I have a Dream" speech]." Appearnetly, as CNN puts it, "the only black senator and is one of only eight African-Americans to ever serve in the U.S. Senate" is entitled to speak about the legacy of Dr. King.
Friday, July 19, 2013
Breaking: Tebow killed Odin Lloyd
In a shocking twist to the Aaron Hernandez murder investigation, it appears Tim Tebow is taking responsibility for the murder of Odin Lloyd.
In a press conference Tebow said he did "terrible, terrible things"to Lloyd. He claims to have erupted in rage after finding out that Lloyd had "disgraced himself and God by taking a life" by forcing his girlfriend to have an abortion. Tebow announced that he would "take full responsibility for [his] actions, and the consequences" adding that he "just want[s] to help the team win."
The shocking development clears the way for the Patriots to resign Hernandez at a discount as the Bristol County DA is unlikely to win any case against Hernandez.
ESPN's Skip Bayless bemoaned the "selfless act" saying Tebow "took a bullet for Aaron Hernandez, he is not guilty" and insisted Tebow could do more to help the team by dethroning Tom Brady as the Patriots starting QB. The rest of the world agreed that the Patriot's acquisition of Tebow has paid off handsomely.
In a press conference Tebow said he did "terrible, terrible things"to Lloyd. He claims to have erupted in rage after finding out that Lloyd had "disgraced himself and God by taking a life" by forcing his girlfriend to have an abortion. Tebow announced that he would "take full responsibility for [his] actions, and the consequences" adding that he "just want[s] to help the team win."
The shocking development clears the way for the Patriots to resign Hernandez at a discount as the Bristol County DA is unlikely to win any case against Hernandez.
ESPN's Skip Bayless bemoaned the "selfless act" saying Tebow "took a bullet for Aaron Hernandez, he is not guilty" and insisted Tebow could do more to help the team by dethroning Tom Brady as the Patriots starting QB. The rest of the world agreed that the Patriot's acquisition of Tebow has paid off handsomely.
Monday, May 13, 2013
How Doctors and Austerity Kill
David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu have an interesting op-ed in the New York Times.
They note that during economic catastrophes public health tends to worsen. More people start taking anti-depressants and more people commit suicide. People visit the doctor less and delay preventative care. When infectious disease control is cut, epidemics sometimes break out.
They argue that austerity is to blame since depressions tend to lead to decrease tax revenue and budget cuts, or austerity.
The obvious retort is that maybe the depressions themselves are to blame for high unemployment, suicides, and general misery. Maybe the lack of money and hopelessness are what gets people down, not cuts to TB control funding. But the authors . . . don't really address that issue. They assert that health declines more in countries that adopt austerity but they don't present any evidence for their claim, citing statistics from countries like the U.S. that adopted stimulus programs.
I used to think hospitals killed people. When people are at a hospital they are much more likely to die than when they are at work. But I've come to think that people go to a hospital when they are sick and likely to die. David and Sanjay probably disagree.
They note that during economic catastrophes public health tends to worsen. More people start taking anti-depressants and more people commit suicide. People visit the doctor less and delay preventative care. When infectious disease control is cut, epidemics sometimes break out.
They argue that austerity is to blame since depressions tend to lead to decrease tax revenue and budget cuts, or austerity.
The obvious retort is that maybe the depressions themselves are to blame for high unemployment, suicides, and general misery. Maybe the lack of money and hopelessness are what gets people down, not cuts to TB control funding. But the authors . . . don't really address that issue. They assert that health declines more in countries that adopt austerity but they don't present any evidence for their claim, citing statistics from countries like the U.S. that adopted stimulus programs.
I used to think hospitals killed people. When people are at a hospital they are much more likely to die than when they are at work. But I've come to think that people go to a hospital when they are sick and likely to die. David and Sanjay probably disagree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)