The Time's Room For Debate, bravely considers research by conservative think tanks that argue that taking into account "standardized tests of cognitive skill" teachers are paid "roughly 50 percent above private sector levels."
Opposing this view are Jeffrey Keefe, an associate professor at Rutgers, who argues that "comparing teachers to other workers with similar education, experience and weekly work hours... teachers are underpaid by about 19 percent" and that "a cognitive ability model that does not account for education level is meaningless, because individuals are employed in jobs that depend on the skills acquired through education" and David Z. Hambrick, an associate professor at Michigan State University, who acknowledges research that demonstrates that "measures of general intelligence are... the single best predictor of job performance across a wide range of occupations," but none-the-less asserts that "as a society" we decide to pay more critical professions more -- for example, he notes, heart surgeons are more important than electricians -- and contrasts the compensation of entry-level teachers (it comes to about $20 / hour, he calculates) and bartenders (who apparently can make double that) to argue we don't pay teachers enough.
Again, it is hard to take these academics with any seriousness. The suggestion that a master's degree in education imparts skills similar to a master's degree in physics, engineering or even business is precious. The research acknowledged by the Hambrick more or less contradicts Keefe's argument. Hambrick's argument itself is beyond foolish. Wages, of course, are determined by supply and demand (and, too often, political influence), not, as he bizarrely asserts, relative importance. And it is hard to imagine that he honestly discounts the lack (wealth) of fringe benefits, career opportunity and job stability built into a bartender's (teacher's) hourly rate.
It should be noted that Conservatives need not embrace the argument that teachers are overpaid. If not true -- if members of one of the most powerful unions in America are compensated similarly to, or even less than, equivalent non-organized private sector workers -- it would be the strongest argument against unionization imaginable.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Monday, January 2, 2012
Mis-Understanding Debt
In a column ironically titled "Nobody Understands Debt", Krugman argues that national debt is not "like a family that took out too large a mortgage, and will have a hard time making the monthly payments" for at least two reasons: "Governments don't [have to pay back their debt] -- all they need to do is ensure that debt grows more slowly than their tax base," and "an over-borrowed family owes money to someone else; U.S. debt is, to a large extent, money we owe to ourselves"
The first reason is, inescapably, the logic of a Ponzi scheme.
There is some truth to the second reason. National debt held domestically is less dangerous for the obvious reason that paying it down does not directly shrink the national economy, but also, and more importantly, because citizen-debt holders are "stickier" than other investors: If Greeks were willing and able to purchase Greek sovereign debt, it would not be in crisis now.
In any case, he clarifies this as not even being true: "Foreigners now hold... a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners." In other words, paying down the debt will shrink the national economy (unless these 89 cents worth of U.S. claims are simultaneously called in), and U.S. debt is not in (or roll-over-able into) stickier hands.
Complementing the column's hollow argument, is Krugman's habitual bombastic dismissal of opposing views. Those he disagrees with are "disconnected... from the suffering of ordinary Americans", "have no idea what they're talking about", are "repeatedly, utterly wrong" and, in case the nuance here was too subtle for the gentle reader, are guilty of "wrongheaded, ill-informed obsession." This sort of political rhetoric is, obviously, designed to minimize analysis or reflection and very effective -- taken seriously, it can tie one's sense of self-worth to particular political conviction: by aping Krugman, one demonstrates being informed and right-minded.
While there is, of course, no shortage of equivalent rhetoric on the right, Ann Coulter, for example, doesn't carry anything like the academic or intellectual pretension of Krugman.
The first reason is, inescapably, the logic of a Ponzi scheme.
There is some truth to the second reason. National debt held domestically is less dangerous for the obvious reason that paying it down does not directly shrink the national economy, but also, and more importantly, because citizen-debt holders are "stickier" than other investors: If Greeks were willing and able to purchase Greek sovereign debt, it would not be in crisis now.
In any case, he clarifies this as not even being true: "Foreigners now hold... a fair amount of government debt. But every dollar’s worth of foreign claims on America is matched by 89 cents’ worth of U.S. claims on foreigners." In other words, paying down the debt will shrink the national economy (unless these 89 cents worth of U.S. claims are simultaneously called in), and U.S. debt is not in (or roll-over-able into) stickier hands.
Complementing the column's hollow argument, is Krugman's habitual bombastic dismissal of opposing views. Those he disagrees with are "disconnected... from the suffering of ordinary Americans", "have no idea what they're talking about", are "repeatedly, utterly wrong" and, in case the nuance here was too subtle for the gentle reader, are guilty of "wrongheaded, ill-informed obsession." This sort of political rhetoric is, obviously, designed to minimize analysis or reflection and very effective -- taken seriously, it can tie one's sense of self-worth to particular political conviction: by aping Krugman, one demonstrates being informed and right-minded.
While there is, of course, no shortage of equivalent rhetoric on the right, Ann Coulter, for example, doesn't carry anything like the academic or intellectual pretension of Krugman.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Tebow Time
Tim Tebow presents an interesting rorschach test. To his detractors, he lacks the basic skills his job demands and why can't he curb the Jesus. To his defenders, his faith is a virtue, his character compensates for lack of skill, and, besides, the only true demand of the job is winning.
Those who question whether a team can win a super bowl with Tebow at QB willfully ignore the statistics. Consider the following total yardage season stats, the first three by recent super bowl winning QBs, the fourth Tebow's year to date:
Finally, to those those who would credit Von Miller, rather than Tebow, for Denver's surge, that Denver started winning only when Tebow started starting is dumb luck. More attentive observers would note, whatever else, the affect a QB tougher than Chuck Norris has on his team-mates play.
Those who question whether a team can win a super bowl with Tebow at QB willfully ignore the statistics. Consider the following total yardage season stats, the first three by recent super bowl winning QBs, the fourth Tebow's year to date:
Year Ply/Gm Yds/Gm Yds/Ply TO/Game 2000 33.6 180.3 5.4 1.6 2007 36.6 199.3 5.4 1.7 2008 34.3 194.9 5.7 1.4 2011 34.4 187.7 5.5 0.4Those who insist that Denver's rational way forward is drafting a "franchise" QB also disregard history. There are only 6 current super-bowl winning quarterbacks, and two of them, E. Manning and Roethlisberger did so with mediocre season stats displayed above. Of the remaining 4, only 2 -- P. Manning and Rodgers -- won for the team which drafted him as its the QB of the future. Brees was acquired as an unwanted-elsewhere free agent and Brady was drafted well past "of the future" territory. Similarly, looking historically at QBs taken in the first round, about a quarter developed into stars and more then half, more or less, bust. In other words, drafting a franchise QB is easier said than done.
Finally, to those those who would credit Von Miller, rather than Tebow, for Denver's surge, that Denver started winning only when Tebow started starting is dumb luck. More attentive observers would note, whatever else, the affect a QB tougher than Chuck Norris has on his team-mates play.
Monday, December 5, 2011
Friday, November 25, 2011
The Politics of Steve Jobs
Judging from Steve Job's final advice to Obama -- "that the administration needed to be more business-friendly", that "regulations and unnecessary costs" make it difficult to build factories in the United States and, crucially, that "until the teachers' unions were broken, there was almost no hope for education reform" -- his personal opinions were far more at home on the WSJ op-ed page, than that of the NY Times.
On the other hand, Apple customers areunderstood to be predominately Democratic. This is, in part, due to -- as Jobs critiqued -- Microsoft and Google being "pure technology" companies that "never had the humanities and the liberal arts in the DNA". While techies may love their gadgets infinitely customize-able, non-geeks can be confused, or even scared, by over-configure-ability, and, so, prefer technology that works simply. In other words, Apple's appeal lay, largely, in enabling -- for a premium -- the tech-phobic to pose as tech-savvy. One frequent implicit claim of this blog, is that there is an direct analogy in this to the appeal of Democratic politics.
On a darker note, there is more then a touch of nihilism, in the sense of beauty mixed with cruelty, surrounding Jobs, his products and, perhaps, his customers.
On the other hand, Apple customers are
On a darker note, there is more then a touch of nihilism, in the sense of beauty mixed with cruelty, surrounding Jobs, his products and, perhaps, his customers.
Monday, November 7, 2011
Sexual McCarthyism
After a number of anonymous, and unspecific, allegations of sexual harassment, were leveled against Herman Cain, one Sharon Bialek has come forward with a specific allegation. Her claim contains a corroborated un-serious allegation and an un-corroborated serious one.
The un-serious claim is that Cain made an "unwanted physical advance." As she relays it, he telegraphed his intent clearly and well in advance -- "upgrading her room at the Capital Hilton to a grandiose suite" and rather than, as initially suggested, meeting for coffee, taking her out to dinner and drinks -- and she chose to not clarify her intent. As soon as she did, in her own telling, he stopped and took her back to her hotel.
More serious is the implication that he would have given her a job had she slept with him. While she provided no corroboration, if true, it is unlikely an isolated incident. It will inevitably come out if there are other women to whom Cain made similar offers. Perhaps Politico will now dig up every woman hired during Cain's tenure at the NRA, and ask if they slept with him.
Cain's talk of "lynching", and comparison with Justice Thomas, is not entirely off-base. Was Cain not conservative, the responsible media would be reminding us -- justly -- of the legacy of racism with which this sort of sexual McCarthyism resonates.
The un-serious claim is that Cain made an "unwanted physical advance." As she relays it, he telegraphed his intent clearly and well in advance -- "upgrading her room at the Capital Hilton to a grandiose suite" and rather than, as initially suggested, meeting for coffee, taking her out to dinner and drinks -- and she chose to not clarify her intent. As soon as she did, in her own telling, he stopped and took her back to her hotel.
More serious is the implication that he would have given her a job had she slept with him. While she provided no corroboration, if true, it is unlikely an isolated incident. It will inevitably come out if there are other women to whom Cain made similar offers. Perhaps Politico will now dig up every woman hired during Cain's tenure at the NRA, and ask if they slept with him.
Cain's talk of "lynching", and comparison with Justice Thomas, is not entirely off-base. Was Cain not conservative, the responsible media would be reminding us -- justly -- of the legacy of racism with which this sort of sexual McCarthyism resonates.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Cultural Capital
David Brooks, I suppose, fancies himself conservative for writing things like:
Structurally, these arguments take some factor which is correlated to cultural capital (e.g.: home ownership, college education), latch on to any tenuous rationale arguing the relationship is causal (People take better care of things they own! College graduates have wider social networks!), push expensive government programs with inevitable unintended consequences that, equally inevitably, fail because wishful thinking cannot turn correlation into causation.
Von Hayek taught that the natural, evolutionary, processes of free societies tend to increase cultural capital. More traditional conservative teaching would accentuate the role played by community. In either case: A government which governs least expands opportunity best.
it is easier to talk about the inequality of stock options than it is to talk about inequalities of family structure, child rearing patterns and educational attainment. But the fact is... it’s not nearly as big a problem as the tens of millions of Americans who have dropped out of high school or college. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the 40 percent of children who are born out of wedlock. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent... If your goal is to expand opportunity, then you have a much bigger and different agenda.
He is certainly correct up to a point: cultural capital matters -- big government policies that disregard that are doomed to fail. He, and others, however, imagine that there are other, smarter, big government policies which can, taking cultural capital into account, succeed.Structurally, these arguments take some factor which is correlated to cultural capital (e.g.: home ownership, college education), latch on to any tenuous rationale arguing the relationship is causal (People take better care of things they own! College graduates have wider social networks!), push expensive government programs with inevitable unintended consequences that, equally inevitably, fail because wishful thinking cannot turn correlation into causation.
Von Hayek taught that the natural, evolutionary, processes of free societies tend to increase cultural capital. More traditional conservative teaching would accentuate the role played by community. In either case: A government which governs least expands opportunity best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)