Interesting MIT Economist research on 99%

[kandrathe]

I stumbled across (on twitter) this paper published today.

Skills, education, and the rise of earnings inequality among the “other 99 percent” by David H. Autor

What is interesting is how it unpacks the impact that educational attainment has in looking at earnings.

Although there is no “remedy” for inequality that is as swift or cheap as eyeglasses, prosperous democratic countries have numerous effective policy levers for shaping inequality’s trajectory and socioeconomic consequences. Policies that appear most effective over the long haul in raising prosperity and reducing inequality are those that cultivate the skills of successive generations: excellent preschool through high school education; broad access to postsecondary education; and good nutrition, good public health, and high-quality home environments. Such policies address inequality from two directions: (i) enabling a larger fraction of adults to attain high productivity, rewarding jobs, and a reasonable standard of living; and (ii) raising the total supply of skills available to the economy, which in turn moderates the skill premium and reduces inequality.

Highlights by me in the last sentence there.

I was thinking about this very topic on my long commute this morning; "Why don't we focus more on maximizing the utility of every productive worker, rather than creating a rats maze of risk, red tape and frustration in enabling our able bodied workers, work that they are empowered and motivated to do?"

[Taem]

Im on my phone and can't quote correctly, however I wanted to comment that I found the similarities between your last paragraph and FITs logic on the ideal society to be uncanny.

[FireIceTalon]

Im on my phone and can't quote correctly, however I wanted to comment that I found the similarities between your last paragraph and FITs logic on the ideal society to be uncanny.

Erm, how so?

Kandrathe is a Libertarian, I am a Marxist. You cannot really get much more different then that. Sure, we both loathe the state (although we both have a very different understanding of what the state actually is, and what its origins and role are), and we both understand there is definitely a problem with the way things currently are. However, we both have very different views on what the roots of these problems are, and how and why they should be eliminated (or if they should be eliminated at all in some cases). We also, ultimately, have a very different vision on how society should be organized. If you look at our views superficially, yes, there are similarities, but on a more fundamental level we have little in common when it comes to both politics and economics. Not trying to pit myself against him, or the other way around, just stating things as they are. Jester is probably the "closest" person here to having my views, but even ours are radically different from one another; quite opposite on many levels in fact. Again, a liberal and a socialist have little in common (besides having a few peripheral similarities) even though many people today somehow think they are the same thing.

[DeeBye]

Im on my phone and can't quote correctly, however I wanted to comment that I found the similarities between your last paragraph and FITs logic on the ideal society to be uncanny.

I was thinking the same thing. This just goes to show that in the end we all really want the same things - well paying jobs, an educated populace, and quality healthcare. The difference in ideology is in the details - the implementation.

"Why don't we focus more on maximizing the utility of every productive worker, rather than creating a rats maze of risk, red tape and frustration in enabling our able bodied workers, work that they are empowered and motivated to do?"

I think that we should focus more on giving everyone chocolate ponies carrying pints of beer. I too can dream.

[kandrathe]

I'm on my phone and can't quote correctly, however I wanted to comment that I found the similarities between your last paragraph and FITs logic on the ideal society to be uncanny.

I was thinking the same thing. This just goes to show that in the end we all really want the same things - well paying jobs, an educated populace, and quality healthcare.

I think I've said it before that FIT and I are usually in close agreement on the issues, and 180 degrees opposed on the solutions.

Although, what I said was not exactly this. What I see is that in general, even if you are well skilled, and there are employers who want to hire people with your skill set, it is usually perseverance and chance that determines whether the yin finds the yang in this case.

I do find the whole "supply and demand" model a bit callous and too serendipity when we are speaking of people needing employment to feed their families. People end up taking the first thing that comes along, and possibly changing upwards when possible -- which leads to instability for the employer as well. It's not very efficient, and is probably a big source of unhappiness for both workers and employers. I don't have a good solution, and it sure as heck wouldn't be better by having a central commissar in government command employment.

The difference in ideology is in the details - the implementation.

Yes. This is it. From the article Dr. Auter listed;

• excellent preschool through high school education;
• broad access to post secondary education; and
• good nutrition,
• good public health, and
• high-quality home environments

Number one is a given, and there is ample evidence to show that pre K and funding all day kindergarten is a great investment. Some parents are very good at preparing their kids for school, however with a growing population of dual earners -- more and more kids are subjected to the variability of pre K offered by their day care provider. On #2, our society is in a food crisis. Most people don't have access to good nutritional food, and too many of us rely on over processed crap filled with too much sugar, fat, salt, and chemicals. #3, I note does not say health care, or health insurance. Yes, they help the unhealthy and can be preventative, but one reason for our soaring cost of health care, and thereby health insurance is that we are very unhealthy. Our out of control health care costs are not due to too much preventative care. Rather, it is due to too many unhealthy people. And, for #4, a healthy home environment is one where parents care for and are involved in helping form healthy, happy, well adjusted children. I don't see that happen very often. I see children getting lost in our hustle bustle rat race and squeezed in for some quality time between homework, and dinner, then off to bed. For a large part of our population due to divorces they get ping ponged on weekends from one parent to the other. I'm a big advocate for a "family first" approach to society.

Kandrathe is a Libertarian...

I'm really not sure. I'm not really as much of an ideologue as most of those I've met. In a recent political thing I went to, some guy was asking whether we needed laws regulating drugs and prostitution, and I found myself saying, "yes, probably". I was thinking that ideologically, if consenting adults in their homes wanted to get high, or have sex for money, then why would the government be involved. But, pragmatically, and realistically, what we see in certain issues is a highly manipulative form of exploitation targeting the most vulnerable people in our society. For prostitution, it's the too young, recent immigrants, or sex slaves imported from other countries who are mostly imprisoned. I don't hear a clamor of disgruntled Americans calling for the right to sell their bodies.

With drugs, yes there is some level of recreational use, but by and large the most destructive part of the trade is in forming a market of dedicated addicts. So, while I'm not against the "individuals freedom", I see issues of coercion and exploitation when it is married to commerce. It certainly doesn't lead to a healthier society. I see no reason that government should want to make it easier to get high, but also should work to minimize the costs which means a compromise. I would say that compromise would be that the individuals (e.g. prostitutes and addicts) are more likely the victims who should not be punished, while the people earning the money (commercializing it) would be the ones we should discourage by regulating or imprisoning.

[FireIceTalon]

Prostitution is one of the most horrible things women have had to endure historically as an exploited or "other" identity. In capitalist society it is particularly bad because it effects women negatively in two very fundamental ways. The first, and most obvious, is that it reinforces stereotypes that women who participate in such activities are "whores", "sluts", etc. It also has a class element of course, in that most women who engage in prostitution are usually working class. Secondly, they are further degraded by the state when their "job" (which is already an extremely dangerous and undesirable one, yet often economically necessary) is made illegal by said agency. This further reinforces the first way, and is an economic attack on poor and working class women. And it becomes a never ending cycle in the capitalist matrix.

Drugs work in a similar manner I believe. Although there is recreational use, again, I think even this use is due (in many instances) to the pressures that many average people experience from living under a capitalist system. Whether it is working a crappy job for crappy pay and experiencing alienation, or in a more social context such as discrimination or being bullied. Growing up in a broken home. Or any other variety of factors that come along with the system. For a lot of these people the drugs are like a crutch or band aid, to try and make an insane world seem more livable. Now, I'm not advocating or even justifying the use of drugs - it is pretty obvious that they are, by and large, very bad for your health and do nothing to actually solve our problems other than to make us forget about them temporarily. I believe the solution of course lies in eliminating the factors that make many people want to do drugs to begin with. As far as legalizing them goes, it is difficult for me to take such a position one way or the other under a capitalist system. The reason is because keeping them illegal isn't going to stop people from doing them, yet legalizing them isn't going to fix the problems that are the root cause as to why people do them in the first place.

Just my 2 cents.

[kandrathe]

In capitalist society...

Just my 2 cents.

Which it seems has always been and remains a worldwide force. World's oldest profession and all. Sure, some people are very judgmental and bigoted/childish/moralists. Prostitution has existed forever, and probably will forever since supply and demand remain.

About drugs... When I was young I drank because my friends did, and I liked the buzz. I tried pot, and it was not really that bad either. I was very shy, and I used them to help me "come out of my shell". It had nothing to do with me trying to escape the shackles of capitalism and escaping my desperate life. I did it because it was fun, and I was a stupid kid.

Then, I grew up and realized I didn't need recreational drugs, or booze to have fun or be fun. And, from that perspective now I think they tend to be a negative force in our society, and often used irresponsibly -- and lead to numerous accidents and deaths. However, I prefer to have people stay out of my life, and in turn I do the same.