Apparently some people in the educational system want to do away with summer school. I wish he'd expound on his reasons a bit more, as summer school has been shown to help even low-income students.
An interesting topic raised in one of my old classes was Good Cause employment, we called it. In parts of Europe, I think by law, someone cannot be fired without a very good reason--and poor performance isn't good enough. In the United States, someone can be fired, essentially, at will or with no cause. In Europe, therefore, hirings and firings are less frequent, it is more costly to employ people (you have to be extra careful who you hire), and salaries are relatively lower. The discussion went on to conclude that in the United States, since hirings and firings and contracts are determined by the market forces, Americans prefer the extra pay to job security.
That's a long set up for one link, I think, but according to an online poll, some educators don't feel this same way. Those teachers prefer their job security over their high salaries. Also, according to that site, most teachers have functional or better parent-teacher relationships at their school, so I think that those polls don't represent a very representative sample of educators.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Police and Privacy
This is a good op/ed piece in the Houston Chronicle about better neighborhoods having better police enforcement.
Under a truly free market system, all policing would be handled by private entities, and the poor would suffer from little to no policing. Indeed, there used to be private militias. I think most Americans agree, though, that safety should be universal, and police forces should equally protect everyone. There are certainly economic arguments to be made to this effect as well, particularly concerning the necessity of private property. If wealthier areas would like more or better police enforcement, maybe they could push for higher taxes to pay for better police wages or more officers for all. That's essentially what we do with national security, isn't it?
EDIT: Another article about the lack of police officers and how it affects other parts of an economy.
An article in PC Mag about the anonymity (or lack thereof) of internet activity.
Of course, this is an issue outside the realm of PC Mag, as people are afraid of losing their privacy. Allow me to play the devil's advocate: what are people trying to hide? In an age of the freedom of information, we learn that a more informed citizen is a more powerful citizen (and, you can substitute "citizen" for "consumer" or any other type of person). What are people doing that will harm them if their secret is revealed?
Let us assume a world in which we have no (or minimal) privacy. Let's call this a Free Information World. Everyone would have access to your phone number, your address, your name, your current location, what television shows you like, and so on. You wouldn't be afraid of stalkers. Why is that? Everyone would be able to identify a stalker pretty easily. If your current location was always known, the resident of a house would know when you were at his window. Stalking would be much more difficult. Criminal activity in general would be more difficult--which means that there would be fewer criminals, and less to be afraid of. This, of course, requires world-wide freedom of information. The system would work if it was limited to a country only if immigrants and foreign visitors were also tracked.
This Free Information World possess some practical problems with money. We wouldn't want people to be able to access your bank accounts, regardless of whether or not people knew how much money you had (it's not like you can be physically robbed, if your current location is known, and the source of "new" money is known, and so on). We'd need some high-tech DNA sampling identification system (or maybe just an ID card that stays around with you, assuming its current location is always known as well, in the event the card is lost or mistakenly picked up by someone else, or whatever).
But, your money, like all of your possessions, could be considered a private property issue in the sense that everything you own must be protected, and inaccessible by others unless you give it to them (blackmail is also more difficult, and naughty secrets are harder to keep in this world). As long as these private property issues can be resolved, this world should be a functioning society.
The only other issue I can possibly imagine is prejudice. If people know your medical history, they may be less likely to want a long-lasting relationship with you. If they know your financial history, they may be less inclined to spend time with someone outside of his socioeconomic class. I answer: you would know ahead of time what people's prejudices were. Do you want to associate with a prejudiced person? Associating with someone is a mutual thing. Also, if you knew every one's problems, then you'd likely be more understanding with people in different situations. Sure, that person may have some issue you don't like, but are you so perfect? Everyone has their issues.
Regardless, this hypothetical world is also probably futuristic enough that maybe there'd be less prejudice in the world anyways. I can hope, right?
Under a truly free market system, all policing would be handled by private entities, and the poor would suffer from little to no policing. Indeed, there used to be private militias. I think most Americans agree, though, that safety should be universal, and police forces should equally protect everyone. There are certainly economic arguments to be made to this effect as well, particularly concerning the necessity of private property. If wealthier areas would like more or better police enforcement, maybe they could push for higher taxes to pay for better police wages or more officers for all. That's essentially what we do with national security, isn't it?
EDIT: Another article about the lack of police officers and how it affects other parts of an economy.
An article in PC Mag about the anonymity (or lack thereof) of internet activity.
Of course, this is an issue outside the realm of PC Mag, as people are afraid of losing their privacy. Allow me to play the devil's advocate: what are people trying to hide? In an age of the freedom of information, we learn that a more informed citizen is a more powerful citizen (and, you can substitute "citizen" for "consumer" or any other type of person). What are people doing that will harm them if their secret is revealed?
Let us assume a world in which we have no (or minimal) privacy. Let's call this a Free Information World. Everyone would have access to your phone number, your address, your name, your current location, what television shows you like, and so on. You wouldn't be afraid of stalkers. Why is that? Everyone would be able to identify a stalker pretty easily. If your current location was always known, the resident of a house would know when you were at his window. Stalking would be much more difficult. Criminal activity in general would be more difficult--which means that there would be fewer criminals, and less to be afraid of. This, of course, requires world-wide freedom of information. The system would work if it was limited to a country only if immigrants and foreign visitors were also tracked.
This Free Information World possess some practical problems with money. We wouldn't want people to be able to access your bank accounts, regardless of whether or not people knew how much money you had (it's not like you can be physically robbed, if your current location is known, and the source of "new" money is known, and so on). We'd need some high-tech DNA sampling identification system (or maybe just an ID card that stays around with you, assuming its current location is always known as well, in the event the card is lost or mistakenly picked up by someone else, or whatever).
But, your money, like all of your possessions, could be considered a private property issue in the sense that everything you own must be protected, and inaccessible by others unless you give it to them (blackmail is also more difficult, and naughty secrets are harder to keep in this world). As long as these private property issues can be resolved, this world should be a functioning society.
The only other issue I can possibly imagine is prejudice. If people know your medical history, they may be less likely to want a long-lasting relationship with you. If they know your financial history, they may be less inclined to spend time with someone outside of his socioeconomic class. I answer: you would know ahead of time what people's prejudices were. Do you want to associate with a prejudiced person? Associating with someone is a mutual thing. Also, if you knew every one's problems, then you'd likely be more understanding with people in different situations. Sure, that person may have some issue you don't like, but are you so perfect? Everyone has their issues.
Regardless, this hypothetical world is also probably futuristic enough that maybe there'd be less prejudice in the world anyways. I can hope, right?
Monday, July 7, 2008
More interesting things
It's been a tumultuous time around the world. Zimbabwe has just been a mess! Sadly, no one decided to do anything about it until after their elections were over.
Anyways, everyone knows oil prices have been high. Iraq wanted to try to get some help producing the stuff, but I've heard that has not met much success yet. It would be nice to get higher supply now, but if the situation is anything like how Heilbroner describes in Economics Explained, then we have a rough ride ahead of us regardless, with no easy end in sight (interesting bits on pages 181 and 207, regarding the 70s).
By the way, if you think everyone's doing poorly and losing money, take a look at McDonald's and Walmart. Inferior goods are an interesting thing.
And for those curious, Business Week had an interesting article to explain why it takes so long to call a recession. They don't really explain it very well, but it's still an interesting read.
Lastly, a Newsweek article asks if the president has the power to fix the economy.
Anyways, everyone knows oil prices have been high. Iraq wanted to try to get some help producing the stuff, but I've heard that has not met much success yet. It would be nice to get higher supply now, but if the situation is anything like how Heilbroner describes in Economics Explained, then we have a rough ride ahead of us regardless, with no easy end in sight (interesting bits on pages 181 and 207, regarding the 70s).
By the way, if you think everyone's doing poorly and losing money, take a look at McDonald's and Walmart. Inferior goods are an interesting thing.
And for those curious, Business Week had an interesting article to explain why it takes so long to call a recession. They don't really explain it very well, but it's still an interesting read.
Lastly, a Newsweek article asks if the president has the power to fix the economy.
Friday, June 13, 2008
News round up
Microsoft has been trying to join powers with Yahoo for some time to try to beat market juggernaut Google--Microsoft apparently didn't offer Yahoo a good enough deal, which opened the door for Google to spread its influence even farther, and to partner with Yahoo. Interesting how joining with Google could possibly benefit both Yahoo and Google (at least, they can find an agreeable partnership for now).
More news about the economy doing better (rather than weakening, maybe stabilization); also economists seem to back up the Fed. Inflation is supposed to dip to 2.4% rather than 3.9%, which is a mixed sign. Before people start worrying too much (these numbers have been going up and down, mind you), keep in mind that the historical average is 3.42%--we're relatively close to that.
Lehman Bros reported their first negative quarter in its history, I believe, and people act like the world is ending. It likely doesn't warrant firings, but if that's what keeps the investors happy...
I always find strikes interesting, because of the economic situation that drives people to strike, and the economic consequences following the strike. Recently, in Spain, the shellfish industry is affected by striking lorry drivers.
Looks like the Fed is right to target inflation. Note Houston isn't too bad, according to the graphic. Beware Dallas.
More news about the economy doing better (rather than weakening, maybe stabilization); also economists seem to back up the Fed. Inflation is supposed to dip to 2.4% rather than 3.9%, which is a mixed sign. Before people start worrying too much (these numbers have been going up and down, mind you), keep in mind that the historical average is 3.42%--we're relatively close to that.
Lehman Bros reported their first negative quarter in its history, I believe, and people act like the world is ending. It likely doesn't warrant firings, but if that's what keeps the investors happy...
I always find strikes interesting, because of the economic situation that drives people to strike, and the economic consequences following the strike. Recently, in Spain, the shellfish industry is affected by striking lorry drivers.
Looks like the Fed is right to target inflation. Note Houston isn't too bad, according to the graphic. Beware Dallas.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
HISD policy
According to this recent article, five years ago HISD started charging out-of-district students a tuition for enrolling in HISD schools. Did the decline in enrollment really surprise them? Due to the decline in enrollment, HISD started losing money, and they're now considering getting rid of the tuition to HISD's schools.
First of all, thank goodness they're lowering barriers to education. I highly suspect that when this policy was passed five years ago, long term economics benefits were not considered--that is, making education more affordable for children now will allow them to contribute more to the economy in the future. There are high pay-offs to lowering barriers to education, but they take a pretty long time to come. Still, as a general policy, charging such tuitions at the primary and secondary education levels is probably a bad idea.
The first issue that comes to mind, however, is that there may be free riders from other districts. That is, other districts may severely lessen funding to their educational programs, and lessen their taxes, if they know their students are going to HISD for their schooling. The possible effect? Cost of living in surrounding areas goes further down, those surrounding areas reap the benefits of higher population growth (and the longer term benefits of an education populace), and depending on the elasticity they may still come out ahead financially.
Then again, transportation is a big issue, unless the surrounding areas use their educational funding to transport their children across district lines.
Side notes: The article refers to HISD schools as "elite." Pardon my skepticism. And, when evaluating the unknowns of what will happen with the policy (the article mentions a board member worried that neighboring districts will send their problem children to HISD), why not just look at the numbers from recent history (five years prior)? Look at the number or percentage of problem children (however the board member my define that term; whatever she's worried about) before and after the previous policy change. There may be none, but if there is, find out how much those extra problem children cost the district, and do a basic cost-benefit analysis. I just hope they consider longer term factors as well.
First of all, thank goodness they're lowering barriers to education. I highly suspect that when this policy was passed five years ago, long term economics benefits were not considered--that is, making education more affordable for children now will allow them to contribute more to the economy in the future. There are high pay-offs to lowering barriers to education, but they take a pretty long time to come. Still, as a general policy, charging such tuitions at the primary and secondary education levels is probably a bad idea.
The first issue that comes to mind, however, is that there may be free riders from other districts. That is, other districts may severely lessen funding to their educational programs, and lessen their taxes, if they know their students are going to HISD for their schooling. The possible effect? Cost of living in surrounding areas goes further down, those surrounding areas reap the benefits of higher population growth (and the longer term benefits of an education populace), and depending on the elasticity they may still come out ahead financially.
Then again, transportation is a big issue, unless the surrounding areas use their educational funding to transport their children across district lines.
Side notes: The article refers to HISD schools as "elite." Pardon my skepticism. And, when evaluating the unknowns of what will happen with the policy (the article mentions a board member worried that neighboring districts will send their problem children to HISD), why not just look at the numbers from recent history (five years prior)? Look at the number or percentage of problem children (however the board member my define that term; whatever she's worried about) before and after the previous policy change. There may be none, but if there is, find out how much those extra problem children cost the district, and do a basic cost-benefit analysis. I just hope they consider longer term factors as well.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Texas-related news
The Trans-Texas Corridor looks like it may get rerouted to go through Houston. As traffic is a big issue in Houston--and, a key part of our mayor's platform--I don't know if the benefit to the local market will outweigh the cost of traffic, but I'm hoping that it'd go through Grand Parkway rather than down 59 or 610.
I like the focus on commuter rails in Houston--surely a result of gas prices. It'd be nice to have a low energy-consumption society, as Paul Krugman depicts in a previously mentioned article, but I previously worried that Houston was going about this the wrong way. Dallas has a great system, with rails that parallel major highways, and according to this news report, Houston is looking to do the same. If this gets off the ground, I may not complain as much about a Trans-Texas Corridor through the city.
The IRF predicted that Houston, so far lightly hit by the credit crunch, will be hit much harder later in the year. The IRF is an essential resource in Houston, and it'd be nice if it was expanded.
Also, I would like to see statistics showing the efficacy of teacher bonus incentives that prompt such news articles regarding HISD as this.
Still, the Texas economy as a whole seems to be doing fairly decently. Fifth in the country? Not too bad. Besides that, Kiplinger says that Houston is the best city to live in the United States, with Austin also making the top 10.
In personal news, I recently got my BS in Economics, and am hoping to soon start graduate work. That's my excuse for not updating this blog very often. Maybe I'll ask Dr. Barton Smith of the IRF if I can work with him in his regional work.
I like the focus on commuter rails in Houston--surely a result of gas prices. It'd be nice to have a low energy-consumption society, as Paul Krugman depicts in a previously mentioned article, but I previously worried that Houston was going about this the wrong way. Dallas has a great system, with rails that parallel major highways, and according to this news report, Houston is looking to do the same. If this gets off the ground, I may not complain as much about a Trans-Texas Corridor through the city.
The IRF predicted that Houston, so far lightly hit by the credit crunch, will be hit much harder later in the year. The IRF is an essential resource in Houston, and it'd be nice if it was expanded.
Also, I would like to see statistics showing the efficacy of teacher bonus incentives that prompt such news articles regarding HISD as this.
Still, the Texas economy as a whole seems to be doing fairly decently. Fifth in the country? Not too bad. Besides that, Kiplinger says that Houston is the best city to live in the United States, with Austin also making the top 10.
In personal news, I recently got my BS in Economics, and am hoping to soon start graduate work. That's my excuse for not updating this blog very often. Maybe I'll ask Dr. Barton Smith of the IRF if I can work with him in his regional work.
Interesting news.
I think this is an interesting news bit that won't get enough air time, but the EU antitrust chief is apparently a fan of open standards. While he may push for open standards, the statement probably is not going to have much of an effect on actual business practices. Still, the more people who are aware of open options, the better.
I predicted before that the recession, if there was one, ended at least a month ago (not that we're recovering already, but we're probably in a trough). It's worth noting, though, that while businesses may be bouncing back or adjusting, the adjustment period is the part of the cycle that is most painful on the population. We'll feel the effects of the recession for maybe six to nine months after the recession is over (again, the numbers are my prediction). Some evidence is recently provided by Paul Krugman in his blog. And, some evidence for why I think we're in a trough rather than a recession (this is not nearly exhaustive): positive growth (more recently it's been adjusted up, too) and strong or seemingly unaffected production. And, according to recent news, the Fed and gold/commodity prices might agree with me. Note that I'm not saying the economy is doing well, just that the term 'recession' is not an accurate description of the current economy.
And, some interesting oil-related articles. Krugman, NYT, Mankiw, Forbes. I find that Forbes article particularly interesting because it mentions that Bernanke's implication that rates will rise in the future has strengthened the dollar, which in turn has lowered the cost of oil.
I thought this was interesting: Economists and their investments. They're apparently not bad.
Lastly, can I talk about economics and not politics? Yes, but it's more difficult when we're so close to elections. I'll just mention that I like Obama's economic advising staff, and it just got a boost. Obama should consider himself lucky, I think, and if this sort of thing was more publicized, Obama would have the edge on economic policy issues. Not that presidents have much control over that sort of thing, but it's one of those things people talk about.
Edit: Looks a little more definitive that Bernanke agrees with me.
I predicted before that the recession, if there was one, ended at least a month ago (not that we're recovering already, but we're probably in a trough). It's worth noting, though, that while businesses may be bouncing back or adjusting, the adjustment period is the part of the cycle that is most painful on the population. We'll feel the effects of the recession for maybe six to nine months after the recession is over (again, the numbers are my prediction). Some evidence is recently provided by Paul Krugman in his blog. And, some evidence for why I think we're in a trough rather than a recession (this is not nearly exhaustive): positive growth (more recently it's been adjusted up, too) and strong or seemingly unaffected production. And, according to recent news, the Fed and gold/commodity prices might agree with me. Note that I'm not saying the economy is doing well, just that the term 'recession' is not an accurate description of the current economy.
And, some interesting oil-related articles. Krugman, NYT, Mankiw, Forbes. I find that Forbes article particularly interesting because it mentions that Bernanke's implication that rates will rise in the future has strengthened the dollar, which in turn has lowered the cost of oil.
I thought this was interesting: Economists and their investments. They're apparently not bad.
Lastly, can I talk about economics and not politics? Yes, but it's more difficult when we're so close to elections. I'll just mention that I like Obama's economic advising staff, and it just got a boost. Obama should consider himself lucky, I think, and if this sort of thing was more publicized, Obama would have the edge on economic policy issues. Not that presidents have much control over that sort of thing, but it's one of those things people talk about.
Edit: Looks a little more definitive that Bernanke agrees with me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)