Left2Right

Comments

Posted by: Simple Simon

Stephen,

You raise some interesting points, but the American Dream is still alive and well. It may be necessary to work harder and longer to get there, but it can be had. Will everyone make it? Probably not and I would not doubt the numbers of those who reach the Horatio Alger transition from rags to riches is declining. Most folks miss the point. It is joy of getting there that is the fun part.

Still, what has the Democratic Party offered lately? Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy would probably think hard about their votes today if they had to look at the state of the "Party of the People".

Posted by: Simple Simon | May 15, 2005 12:54:25 PM

Posted by: Jonathan Lundell

There's a directly relevant study from the US Dept of Education (blogged here) suggests that school performance is largely determined by factors that are already fixed at birth (parents' education, income, age, etc) and almost not at all by bootstrap-pullling.

Posted by: Jonathan Lundell | May 15, 2005 2:41:06 PM

Posted by: Sans Serfs

The fact is that the Republicans are offering at least some ideas to help with class mobiity: personal savings accounts, school vouchers, medical savings accounts, etc. Democrats are for: what? Higher taxes to support failed educational and economic programs which tend to do EXACTLY what the poster is talking about - decrease social mobility by infantilizing and disempowering the poor.

Posted by: Sans Serfs | May 15, 2005 2:43:52 PM

Posted by: Jeff Younger

Simple Simon, almost every study I'm aware of has concluded that teacher quality is the most important factor influencing student achievement in all demographics. The US Department Education publication 'Education Statistics Quarterly' (Vol. 1, Issue 1) states that "The quality of teachers is undoubtedly among the most important factors shaping the learning and growth of students. Moreover, the largest single component of the cost of education in any country is teacher compensation. But despite a longstanding recognition of the importance of teacher quality, it is, surprisingly, among the least understood issues in education."

It could be that TEACHERS are to blame for our education woes, not student demographics.

Posted by: Jeff Younger | May 15, 2005 3:39:08 PM

Posted by: Sans Serfs

Probably what is to blame for the poor quality [most] of our public educational system is it's monopoly status, tenure system, tolerance of incompetence, etc. IE it's a highly imperfect market.

BTW - this from the NY TImes about teacher pay:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/15/nyregion/15liteach.html

And here is a discussion of how much expenditures in NYC, for example, have risen recently and where the money is going:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cb_26.htm

The left's answer to education as far as I've heard is: more federal money! But paying a monopolist more money won't increase the level of service, it will probably just increase waste.

Education should be an area where everyone should be able to come together to agree that out current system is failed and doesn't deserve more financial support without wholesale restructuring.

To not face this, and has, decreased class mobility - it's the fault of those who can't, or won't, stop protecting special interest groups like the teacher's unions. For shame.

Posted by: Sans Serfs | May 15, 2005 3:56:20 PM

Posted by: Don Herzog

Stephen has already complained that "Democrats have also traditionally cast a blind eye at teachers' unions who have opposed measures such as merit pay and substantially greater teacher responsibility that, in my view, are necessary to improve public education."

And I have plugged school choice.

Posted by: Don Herzog | May 15, 2005 4:15:33 PM

Posted by: Gary Imhoff

Has the liberal political message to the poor really come down to convincing them that the "American Dream" is dead, their social mobility is limited, their individual efforts are futile, their efforts to better their lives through hard work or education are useless, and that the only way they can improve their lives is through government programs to redistribute income?

Are poor people necessarily conservative if they believe that they can better their lives and the lives of their children through their own ambition, efforts, education, and work?

If so, will liberal or conservative poor people do better in life? Which political philosophy is really in the best interests of the poor? And which political party will, over time, attract more poor people?

Posted by: Gary Imhoff | May 15, 2005 4:33:44 PM

Posted by: Sans Serfs

Good. These issues are at the heart of the problem. But the Democrats have been not just against these types of reforms, they have been largely **virulently** against them, or even just experiments in these directions.

And in terms of increasing class mobility, I think everyone will agree that improving education is far more important than trying to increase levels of transfer payments or benefits after education has failed.

Posted by: Sans Serfs | May 15, 2005 4:37:02 PM

Posted by: detached observer

"The fact is that the Republicans are offering at least some ideas to help with class mobiity: personal savings accounts, school vouchers, medical savings accounts, etc. Democrats are for: what? Higher taxes to support failed educational and economic programs which tend to do EXACTLY what the poster is talking about - decrease social mobility by infantilizing and disempowering the poor. "

Kind of funny, then, that income inequality has consistently grown under Republican administrations but not Democratic ones; and that Republican administrations have consistently been great for the upper class and not so for everyone else.

Posted by: detached observer | May 15, 2005 4:37:59 PM

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely

The problem is that the past research turns out to have been deeply flawed, and more recent research has shown significantly less, and significantly decreasing, mobility. So much so, indeed, that the Times quotes my Michigan economist colleague, Garry Solon, as saying that the argument that inequality doesn't matter because of socioeconomic mobility is not "respectable in scholarly circles anymore." A study by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, for example, found less mobility in the 1980s than the 1970s, and less still in the 1990s.

Could you link to more information, if any is readily available online, regarding the alleged flaws of the earlier studies and to some of the more recent studies showing contrary findings?

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | May 15, 2005 4:48:53 PM

Posted by: oldmountaingoat

Good post from Gary Imhoff: "Has the liberal political message to the poor really come down to convincing them that the "American Dream" is dead..."

IMO the answer is yes. If only more of the left sounded like Don Herzog, then a productive political dialog could take place. Instead we hear, "give up, all is hopeless." Fortunately there are groups, like Chinese Americans, that don't listen and continue to place hope in education. Is it the political left's assertion that education no longer provides a good economic future in America? In such a climate is it any wonder that disadvantaged people, with drive and initiative, are repulsed by the negativism coming from the left?

Posted by: oldmountaingoat | May 15, 2005 5:58:45 PM

Posted by: Frederick

D. A. Ridgely: "Could you link ..." You should just take his word for it. You can ignore the "deeply flawed" past scientific studies now and accept the new scientific studies. They can't have any flaws if arguments against their conclusions aren't "respectable in scholarly circles anymore." Especially if the respected New York Times quotes a respected scholar at the respected University of Michigan as saying so. It's all scientific and respectable. What could the 76% of low income Republicans know about their own prospects, and those of their friends and relatives? They're not social scientists. They're not even respectable now. They're just lower class people. A three-week series in the respected New York Times will explain it all to upper class people.

Posted by: Frederick | May 15, 2005 7:41:56 PM

Posted by: Josh Jasper

Ah, the lauded personal 'savings acount'. Yep, that's going to fix poor people's lives, because when you're living paycheck to paycheck, and still living beyond your means, a 'saving account' to put in whatever money you have left over is a great idea.

Except you don't have any money left over.

My answer, as a leftist to solve the states educational problems is more funding. Yep, college grants. Cheaper loans. Scholarships, and if we could manage it, free college tuition for almost everyone, much like many areas of europe has.

As for "wholesale restructuring" of the education system, I've never seen a useful right wing suggestion for that.

Posted by: Josh Jasper | May 15, 2005 7:47:06 PM

Posted by: Carl

"… much like many areas of europe has."

'Cos we all know Europe has that class problem clean licked.

I'm sorry, I support those same reforms that you do, but we shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that they can make class go away overnight.

Posted by: Carl | May 15, 2005 8:00:34 PM

Posted by: LPFabulous

Josh: We've all seen what an unqualified success European education has been. And we all know that the best way to fix a system with serious distribution and incentive problems is to give its product to everyone for free. With pretend economists like you, it's no wonder leftists are a dying breed. Keep harping, though. Your little lecture on what poor people are allowed to do with their money was particularly inspiring.

As for Frederick: be nicer to Gary Solon. He's a very good labor economist who came to the university pretty late. No ivory tower elitist, he.

Posted by: LPFabulous | May 15, 2005 8:00:50 PM

Posted by: Sans Serfs

Josh Jasper:

1. If you don't think that the poor or lower middle class are already paying into social security I suggest you take a little time to review that subject. The personal savings accounts just give them some control over the investment process. An by the way you really don't have to be remotely well-off anymore to have IRAs or brokerage accounts. That's good, isn't it?

2. The eduational problem arises a long time before the college years. I too support the ability of more educational grants in the form of vouchers for everyone so they and their families can choose where to educate themselves from first grade til 12th grade, then large loan programs for college that need to be repaid by force of the IRS/wage garnishing/etc..

3. In terms of restructuring the education system, the voucher proposals would do that through hundreds of new schools springing up, some good some bad. Through competition and selection, stronger schools would inevitably be the result.

Posted by: Sans Serfs | May 15, 2005 8:35:30 PM

Posted by: Josh Jasper

LPFabulous:

*shrug* I've *been* poor. It has nothing to do with what one *can* do with one's money. Being poor means you live paycheck to paycheck, and often supliment it with government assistance. Being poor means you're a few weeks of no-pay from loosing your place to live.

So, yeah, a free college education, at that time in my life, might have helped a hell of a lot.

I'm not a pretend economist. I'm not any sort of economist, I'm a real, non ivory tower human being who's been out in the world. I've also been to countries where educationw was a lot more subsidised than the pathetic state we have here in the US. Although I'm not an economist, I can read statistics enough to know that, europe as in America, a college degree means a huge jump in the standard of living.

Education in American is absurdly over priced, and under funded by the government as compared to the entirety of the civilized world. It's silly to pretend that this is a feature, and not a bug.

Sans Serif: An by the way you really don't have to be remotely well-off anymore to have IRAs or brokerage accounts. That's good, isn't it?

It would be, if having a savings was possible when you're poor. It's not.

Carl: an undergraduate degree won't make class go away overnight, but it will help quickly. People with at least undergrad degrees marry later, engage in family planning, and thier kids are more likley to go to college as well, and repeat the trend. It can address the more self replicating problems that the poor have: no prospects for advancement due to lack of education, large families,

Posted by: Josh Jasper | May 15, 2005 10:20:05 PM

Posted by: Bret

It's interesting that the "Federal Reserve Bank of Boston ... found less mobility ..." and is located in a blue state, while the apparently "deeply flawed" study from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas (located in a red state) finds:

Judging by a constant measure of living standards -- income quintiles of 1975 -- 39.2 percent of those individuals in the lowest income quintile in 1975 managed, by 1991, to achieve a real income comparable to that of the highest income group in 1975. Only 2.3 percent of this group remained at a living standard equal to the lowest of 1975. Of those individuals who were at the highest living standard in 1975, 69.4 percent were able to at least maintain that standard.

An absolute majority of those Americans who were in the bottom 20 percent in income in 1975 were also in the top 20 percent of 1975 incomes at some point over the next 16 years.

I guess I would like to see the links to the Boston Fed's studies so I can see what they've discovered. I'm also a little curious as to what is meant exactly by "respectable in scholarly circles anymore." Are think tanks "scholarly circles" or only certain universities.

Posted by: Bret | May 15, 2005 10:20:48 PM

Posted by: Douglas Dukeman

We'll be really lucky if the small percentage of money that we'd be allowed to invest in personal savings accounts accumulates enough interest to offset inflation, and that's just assuming we'll do as well economically in the coming years as we have in the last century. The whole savings account program itself drastically undercuts the whole system, fails to address solvency at all, and causes pretty much everybody to take a cut in their social security benefits. And if you think the "three-legged stool" of retirement is more than just social security for low-income Americans, you are kidding yourself. I don't know any of the parents of my students who have enough expendable cash to invest in IRAs or put away in savings. It's a one-legged stool, and it's all Social Security. And I've seen these my student's homes, their parents aren't wasting their money on extravagances. They are barely getting by, while living in slums that cost them an arm and a leg. It might be quite easy to work yourself from low-wage job to low-wage job, but in the end, you still haven't climbed any ladder of American success.

And oh, please someone try teaching middleschoolers in the South Bronx for a year or two, and then you can come whining to me about how my $39,000 a year is far more money than I deserve. Maybe I should be paying 50% of my salary for my slum housing rent, rather than 40%, eh? My rent is scheduled to rise faster than my salary too! I'm so excited.

Furthermore, if you think still, as an anti-tax man quoted in the NYTimes article stated, something to the effect of "those who cannot do, teach" or "those who have no brainpower for anything else, teach", then you are either incredibly naive, or are espousing some hidden agenda that sacrifices the noble efforts of countless underpaid, yes underpaid teachers to your political crusade to prove some infantile point.

Wake up, please, before your comatose state injures us all.

Posted by: Douglas Dukeman | May 15, 2005 10:25:55 PM

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely

Mr. Dukeman:

Please don't take my questions as an attack, but if you're dissatisfied with your overall compensation as a teacher (in which I would include what I take to be the personal satisfaction you derive from the job), why do you teach? Also, if the students at your school are capable of getting a good education (or, phrased differently, the school is capable of providing a good education), why don't more of those students educate themselves out of poverty. Since you are there in the trenches, as it were, I'd be interested in hearing your perspective.

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | May 15, 2005 11:10:13 PM

Posted by: goin mobile

Imhoff hit the nail on the head. Shortly after the election, the left began to ask "how can the people in Kansas be so damn stupid?" and this is part of the NYT's take on that question.

Posted by: goin mobile | May 15, 2005 11:31:00 PM

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely

An observation or two on the NYT piece, itself. Unsurprisingly, it reads like a Times piece.

Here's a nice quote: "[M]erit, it turns out, is at least partly class-based. Parents with money, education and connections cultivate in their children the habits that the meritocracy rewards. When their children then succeed, their success is seen as earned."

Well, yes. And the point is? Admitting that it is more likely that such children will develop such habits, does that gainsay the notion that it is the habits, themselves, that typically lead to success?

Also, there's one of those fun "Rank Yourself" tests. I fell comfortably within the upper 10 percent when my score for the four categories were averaged. Adjusting income and wealth figures for inflation, my parents fell somewhere around the lower 10 percent. It proves nothing, of course, but it was interesting to note.

Posted by: D.A. Ridgely | May 15, 2005 11:56:37 PM

Posted by: Coove

It's fun to watch the typical right wing response to any data that doesn't fit their world view: dismiss it as biased and wish it away.

To me, the lesson that should be learned from the NYT article today is not that the poor should give up. It's simply that they should stop buying into the rigid faith based right-wing economics that is destroying the American Dream and start supporting pragmatic politicians who understand that Democracy cannot thrive in a society with huge income disparity between the top and the bottom.

Privatizing Social Security won't do anything to fix this. Corporate tax breaks won't do anything to fix this. The way to increase class mobility is to improve education from pre-school onward...high school is too late. It's to limit the predatory lending that snares the lower classes before they have even established themsleves. It's to limit the ability of big corporate money to buy their very own house majority leaders to do their bidding. It's to recognize that in many situations governement is more efficient than markets which naturally move toward monopoly.

I don't have time to address the typical pot shots at teachers taken above. But for those of you so enamored with the free market, you should know that the way you are going to attract the best quality teachers is through highers salaries. There is a reason top students attend law school more than schools of education. It's called money.

Posted by: Coove | May 16, 2005 1:44:08 AM

Posted by: Matty

Mr. Ridgely, your question reminded me of this article from The Economist (in an issue published five months ago).

Posted by: Matty | May 16, 2005 2:07:53 AM

Posted by: Bret

Why do those poor families in Kansas vote Republican?

Though I am neither poor nor Republican, I'm not rich either, nor am I anti-Republican (it's rare, but I have voted for a Republican candidate at least once in the past), and I'd like to offer my perspective on why I prefer rather lower redistribution.

The first thing to notice is that the vast majority of the poor Republicans are parents. Once I became a parent, I very rapidly transitioned from caring about my personal well being to having far more concern for my children's future, and their children's future, etc. One thing that I've found interesting about my contemplating the correct political stance to take in order to optimize my descendants' future is that it's somewhat similar to Rawls' original position. I certainly have some influence over my children and their future, but with each successive generation, my influence rapidly dwindles. I essentially have a veil of ignorance regarding my descendants' position. As a result, assuming a static economy and world, it would make a lot of sense for me to support substantial redistribution to ensure a reasonable life for my descendants, just as Rawls argued.

But I don't assume a static economy and world. I assume that progress will happen and that people will get wealthier over time. Furthermore, I assume that various political structures can vary the rate of progress dramatically. For example, communism generated real GDP per capita growth rates several percentage points below those growth rates generated by market economies that had substantially less redistribution. Indeed, if it wasn't for market economies producing new technology that was absorbed and utilized by the communist bloc, those communist bloc countries might actually have had negative growth rates for their entire existence. In other words, it's easier to grow when you are behind and someone else is doing the developing for you.

Let's say there are two political systems A and B. Assume that A and B start with the same GDP per capita. If A has a real GDP per capita growth rate per year that's 3% higher than B, then after 100 years, A's GDP per capita will be over nineteen times larger than B's.

Now let's consider a poor Republican family from Kansas with three children and only one bread winner earning minimum wage. That's about $15,000 per year or about $3,000 per year per family member. The GDP per capita in the United States is about $40,000. Subtract approximately 40% that various government entities consume and that leaves about $24,000. Complete redistribution, assuming no costs, would make that Kansas family eight times richer – for now. But in 100 years, assuming no class mobility whatsoever, total redistribution (communism) would leave the descendants of the family with the same $24,000 per person, while a market economy would leave them with nineteen times the current $3,000 per year, or $57,000 per family member, or at least twice as well off.

The only purpose of the example above is to illustrate that small differences in growth make a huge difference in wealth when compounded over a long time horizon. There are obviously several oversimplifications, a couple of which I'll address now.

The GDP per capita growth is not distributed evenly – the rich have always received a substantially larger share than the poor and will continue to do so. This is true, but then just waiting longer still gets our Kansas family's descendants up to the $57,000 per family member. The numbers are just examples. Growth overcomes all obstacles eventually.

The comparison above is communism versus market economy – what about something in between? The problem is that the relationship is probably not linear. In other words, going half way between the market economy of the United States and communism may not halve the growth rate. It might be better than half. However, it may be much worse, with the growth being much more similar to communism than a market economy. Also, Hayek (in the Road to Serfdom) warns that as the amount of redistribution increases, it has a tendency to push the political structure toward totalitarianism.

That's why they don't vote for more redistribution.

Posted by: Bret | May 16, 2005 2:15:35 AM

Post a comment