In partnership with CBSSports.com
The Web's No. 1 forum for coverage and discussion of Terps sports
Visitor discussion of University of Maryland and college sports
A place for lively discussion for all other sports unrelated to Maryland athletics
Feedback for IMS and 247Sports
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Something like 3% of workers making minimum wage or over the age of 25
Thought this was another good op-ed in the Journal this morning, talking about Obama's pre-K proposals - seems like another example, like the minimum wage, of something that may be politically popular (think of the children!) but whose results are questionable at best. Last line pretty much sums up the liberal mindset as I have observed it among friends and acquaintances - the most important thing is that we make an effort to solve a problem (that makes us feel good about ourselves) by regulating or spending money. If it doesn't work, or even makes things worse, oh well, it's the thought that counts.
President Obama and his technocrats like to claim they're guided by "the science," but then what to make of his State of the Union call for taxpayer-funded preschool for "every child in America"?
A threshold cost-benefit question: If the regular public schools aren't working—the President also proposed a new program "to redesign America's high schools so they better equip graduates for the demands of a high-tech economy"—does it make sense to layer on another defective education level, except earlier in life? But never mind.
Mr. Obama claimed that "study after study" showed every dollar of pre-Kindergarten "investment" saves seven dollars later on, through better student performance, graduation rates and the like. Keep this man away from a stock portfolio, let alone the social sciences. In December, Mr. Obama's own Health and Human Services Department released an evaluation of Head Start, the 47-year-old program for low-income toddlers, and concluded that any cognitive gains disappeared by the third grade. HHS had sat on the legally mandated study for more than a year.
Most other academic studies have also found early educational intervention "fade out" and that these programs rarely achieve what they promise. Russ Whitehurst of the Brookings Institution wrote Wednesday that the available studies supporting universal pre-K were "thin empirical gruel." Researchers at the Heritage Foundation and the conservative sociologist Charles Murray have come to similar conclusions. This is about as close to an intellectual policy consensus as Washington gets.
Though Mr. Obama's universal pre-K agenda seemed to emerge from nowhere, it goes back to his 2008 campaign platform that included a "zero-to-five" education plan that "begins at birth." It's further proof that liberals measure government success not by results, but by good intentions and how much government spends.
The Wall Street Journal notes that the feds are going to educate your toddler no matter the evidence.
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by MisterNiceGuy 17 months ago
How many are Hispanic or other immigrants needing a start job to learn the language and customs of the US jobs market might be included?
And is there a link of this demographic?
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics: "About half of minimum wage workers are younger than age 25."
...which means the other 50% are 25 years or older so your 3% is way off the mark...
Here we go again…beginning January 1, 2012, eight states raised their minimum wage. The way news articles have hyped this, one would think that somehow
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by tagterp 17 months ago
Obama's studies are malarky, probably funded by teacher unions in order that untold taxpayers' money be thrown at education, to be ultimately squandered inside hundreds of BOE bureaucracies throughout the land.
No he's not. "Half of minimum wage workers being over 25" does not mean half of all workers over 25 make minimum wage.
3% of all workers over 25 making minimum wage can certainly be equal to half of the total amount of people working a minimum wage job.
Go away, KA!
But Stewie said "Something like 3% of workers making minimum wage or over the age of 25" not "Something like 3% of workers over the age of 25 making minimum wage." Maybe that's what he meant (it's not entirely clear actually - it doesn't really make grammatical sense - I assumed the "or" was a typo meant to be "are"), but it's not how he phrased it.
Pre-K isn't union though, that's my first thought too. Most pre-K stuff is private school, home day care, or church related.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by sugarmag 17 months ago
The link, which you might not have read said: "...About half of minimum wage workers are younger than age 25..."
If half of those making the minimum wage are under 25 years of age, where are the other half? ...maybe 25 years of age or over???? I suggest you review the rule of sets in math.
Stewie's data suggesting (poorly) that 3% minimum wage earners were over 25 was erroneous by a huge factor per the link.
Lautenberg out. Booker going to run?
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) will not run for reelection, he announced Thursday.
“I am not announcing the end of anything. I am announcing the beginning of a two-year mission to pass new gun safety laws, protect children from toxic chemicals and create more opportunities for working families in New Jersey,” the 89-year-old senator told the Newark-based Star-Ledger. “While I may not be seeking re-election, there is plenty of work to do before the end of this term and I’m going to keep fighting as hard as ever for the people of New Jersey in the U.S. Senate.”
Booker wins in a walk.
And Christie is safe from Booker running against him.
Booker has already announced he's running for Senate.
They should have been worried about that five years ago...
They may well be right. I just saw a moderate painted as a conservative monster, and lose the race for POTUS badly. I might as well support the guy who reflects my interests most closely, regardless of "party."
Not so fast my friend...
In The Wall Street Journal, Patrick J. Wright and Michael D. Jahr of the Mackinac Center report that the state of Michigan is now forcing independent day care providers into public sector unions, on the grounds that the subsidies the state pays for some lower income parents for day care makes the providers employees.
1. In 2011, there were 112,564,000 Americans working full-time, and 111,821,000 of those workers, or 99.4%, were earning more than the minimum wage. Only 743,000 of those full-time workers were earning the minimum wage (or less), or 0.66% of the full-time workforce.
2. There were almost 45 million workers nationwide who were paid hourly wages and working full-time (40 hours or more) in 2011. Of those full-time hourly workers, 98.3% were earning more than the minimum wage, and only 743,000 (and 1.7%) were earning the minimum wage or less.
3. There were 3,936,000 teenagers (16-19 years) working at an hourly wage in 2011, and more than 3 million (3,037,000), and 77.2%, of those hourly teenage workers were earning an hourly wage higher than the legally-mandated minimum wage.
4. For the age group 25 years and over, there were 59,490,000 hourly workers, and 57,557,000 (and 96.75%) were earning more than the minimum wage, and only 1,933,000 (and 3.25%) were earning the minimum wage or less.
The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute
The long game is for public schools to take over pre-k and even 3s, as has happened in DC. They have to widen their reach or their membership will decline with our demographics.
Didn't read it yet but it is something GOP and Democrat leaders should worry about. If they try to treat Rand Paul like they did his father the GOP could lose a bunch of followers but if that group organized I think they would attract a good deal of the moderate Dems who just want to be left alone.
On sequestration....it's a joke. Same bs cutting money from future spending they always do. They will never make the real cuts they need to until it's too late
So Congress went on break til the 25th, which means when they come back there will only be 3 days to work with for avoiding the sequester.
Given that there's nothing even close to replacing sequestration, I think we can assume it'll go through.
Yep. And the Dems recent offer didn't really give the Pubs much to think about.
Brace for impact. I think Obama may be happy to let the republicans "fall on the grenade". He will be hyper-critical of the fallout and hope to position himself to take back the house in the mid term.
Republicans need to polish their PR spin of sequestration because the metrics certainly will not show any near term economic improvement. People may not want to hear that unemployment went up, but the deficit is going down and that's a good thing for our children.
Obama will exploit this any way he can...in the words of Chet "I'm even considering making up some shit".
Yeah, obviously this is going to be made out to be the Republicans' fault, but you have to wonder how serious the Dems were in trying to avoid it, with their late, weak proposal. And no one seems to be willing to stick around to get something done.
So IMO, these are "safe" cuts for both parties. That's not to say there won't be some pain and angry constituents, but these cuts have political cover built into them in a few ways.
There's no question that Obama and the Dems will now cite to this as the reason for any and all problems with our economy going forward and the MSM will be more than happy to spin the Sequester as all the Pubs doing.
This post was edited by Bradleyfan 17 months ago
Perhaps, but I don't think it matters much. O's popularity will be slipping further, and he's never really demonstrated any coattails anyway. This is about 2014, and it's hard to see how recession + high gas prices + higher taxes + higher/worse health care will work in Dems' electoral favor regardless of media/POTUS spinning and blaming.
I was thinking about this yesterday...it seems to me that the vast majority of people in this country aren't going to be affected by the sequester at all, so all the alarmism might resonate in the DC area for obvious reasons, but most of the rest of the country won't mind it much.
GDP contracted in 4th qtr
Consumer spending down in 1st quarter, and
Industrial production slipped in January on declines in manufacturing and mining output, after the Federal Reserve found the final two months of last year were stronger than initially estimated. Industrial production slipped 0.1% in January, the Fed said, after gains of 1.4% in November and 0.4% in December. The Fed had initially estimated gains of 1% in November and 0.3% in December. Economists polled by MarketWatch had forecast a 0.2% pick-up in January output. Capacity utilization also fell in January, to 79.1% from an upwardly revised 79.3% in December
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports