"Schools, Skills, and Synapses"

James Heckman argues that we need to devote more resources to enriching the lives of young, disadvantaged children:

Schools, skills, and synapses, by James J. Heckman, Vox EU: America has a growing skills problem. One consequence of this skills problem is rising inequality and polarization of society. A greater fraction of young Americans are graduating from college. At the same time, a greater fraction are dropping out of high school. Trends in the production of skills from American high schools coupled with a growing influx of unskilled immigrants have produced an increasing proportion of low-skilled workers in the US workforce. More than 20% of American workers cannot understand the instructions written in a medical prescription. A further consequence of the skills problem is a slowdown in growth of productivity of the workforce.

The origin of this skills problem lies in the decline of the family in American society. Dysfunctional families retard the formation of the abilities needed for successful performance in modern society.

The importance of cognitive and noncognitive abilities

American public policy currently focuses on cognitive test scores or “smarts.” Yet an emerging literature shows that much more than smarts is required for success in life. Motivation, sociability, the ability to work with others, the ability to focus on tasks, self-regulation, self-esteem, time preference, health, and mental health all matter. In an earlier time, these traits were part of what was called “character.” A substantial body of research shows that earnings, employment, labour force experience, college attendance, teenage pregnancy, participation in risky activities, compliance with health protocols, and participation in crime are all strongly affected by non-cognitive as well as cognitive abilities. Heckman, Stixrud and Urzua (2006) show that in many dimensions of social performance, noncognitive traits are as important, or more important, than cognitive traits in predicting success.

Compelling evidence on the importance of noncognitive skills comes from the GED (General Education Degree) programme (Heckman and Rubinstein, 2001, and Heckman and LaFontaine 2008). GED recipients are high school dropouts who pass a test to certify that they are equivalent to high school graduates. Currently, 14% of US high school certificates are issued to GEDs. Previous research shows that the cognitive test scores of GED recipients and the cognitive test scores of persons who graduate from high school but do not go on to college are comparable. Yet GED recipients have the earnings of high school dropouts. GED recipients are as “smart" as ordinary high school graduates, yet they lack noncognitive skills. GED recipients are the “wise guys” who cannot finish anything. They quit the jobs and marriages they start at much greater rates than ordinary high school graduates. Most branches of the US military recognise this in their recruiting strategies. Until the recent war in Iraq, the armed forces did not generally accept GED recipients because of their poor performance in the military.

Ability gaps open up early in life

Gaps in both cognitive and noncognitive skills between advantaged and disadvantaged children emerge early and can be attributed, in part, to adverse early environments into which an increasing percentage of US children are being born. Figure 1 shows the gap in cognitive test scores by age of children stratified by the mother's education. Similar patterns are found for noncognitive skills (see Heckman, 2008, and Cunha, Heckman, Lochner and Masterov, 2006). Gaps in ability emerge early and persist. Most of the gaps in ability at age 18, which substantially explain gaps in adult outcomes, are present at age five. Schooling plays a minor role in creating or perpetuating gaps, even though American children go to very different schools depending on their family backgrounds. Test scores for children with very different family backgrounds are remarkably parallel with age.

Figure 1. Trend in mean cognitive score by maternal education, IHDP study

Note: Using all observations and assuming that data are missing at random. Source: Brooks-Gunn, Cunha, Duncan, Heckman, and Sojourner (2006).

How do these early and persistent differences in abilities arise? Is the difference due to genes as Herrnstein and Murray claimed in The Bell Curve? Evidence from the recent literature in psychology and biology suggests that the genes versus environment distinction that was once much in vogue is obsolete. Extensive recent literature suggests that gene-environment interactions are central to explaining children’s intellectual development. For example, breast-fed children attain higher IQ scores than non-breast fed children. This relationship is moderated by a gene that controls fatty acid pathways. Identical twins are affected by life experiences that substantially differentiate the genetic expression of adult twins. Further, the impact on adult antisocial behaviour of growing up in a harsh or abusive environment depends on the absence of a variant of a particular gene. A substantial literature shows that family environments play an independent role in creating adult abilities. Adverse family environments of children create problem adults.

The decline of the American family and the rise of social problems

The evidence on the importance of family factors in explaining ability gaps is a source of concern because a greater proportion of American children are being born into disadvantaged environments, where disadvantage is measured by the quality of parenting (Heckman, 2008). A divide is opening up in American society. Those children born into disadvantaged environments are receiving relatively less stimulation and resources to promote child development than those born into more advantaged families. Women who are more educated are working and earning more. Their families are more stable and mothers in these families are also devoting more time to child development activities than less educated women. Children in affluent homes are bathed in financial and cognitive resources. Those children born into less advantaged circumstances are much less likely to receive cognitive and socio-emotional stimulation and other family resources. The family environments of single parent homes compared to intact families are much less favourable for investment in children (Moon, 2008).

Enriching early environments can partially compensate for early adversity

Experiments that enrich the early environments of disadvantaged children demonstrate causal effects of early environments on adolescent and adult outcomes and provide powerful evidence against genetic determinism. Two of these investigations, the Perry Preschool Program and the Carolina Abecedarian Project, use a random assignment design and collect long-term follow-up data. They demonstrate substantial positive effects of early environmental enrichment on a range of cognitive and non-cognitive skills, schooling achievement, job performance, and social behaviours long after the interventions end. The Perry Program was administered to 58 disadvantaged African-American children in Ypsilanti, Michigan between 1962 and 1967. The treatment for this program consisted of a daily 2.5-hour classroom session on weekday mornings and a weekly 90-minute home visit by the teacher on weekday afternoons. The control and treatment groups have been followed through age 40. There is a consistent pattern of successful outcomes for treatment group members compared with control group members, even though an initial increase in IQ gradually disappeared within the four years following the intervention.

Such IQ fadeouts have been observed in other studies. Focus on cognitive skills alone misses the point. The Perry program operates primarily through improving the noncognitive traits of participants (Heckman, Malofeeva, Pinto and Savelyev, 2008). At the oldest ages tested, treated individuals scored higher on achievement tests, attained higher levels of education, required less special education, earned higher wages, were more likely to own a home, and were less likely to go on welfare or be incarcerated than controls even though their IQs were no higher than those in the control group. In the similar, but more intensive and earlier starting Abecedarian program, IQ gains were found to last into early adulthood.

An estimated rate of return (the return per dollar of cost) to the Perry Program is around 10%. This high rate of return is higher than the post-World War II return on US stock market equity (5.8%) and suggests that society at large can benefit substantially from such interventions in the lives of disadvantaged children. Interventions in the later lives of disadvantaged children, such as job training, convict rehabilitation, and reduced classroom sizes, have much lower returns (Cunha, Heckman, Lochner and Masterov, 2006).

Using an empirically determined technology of skill formation, Cunha and Heckman (2006) simulate an early childhood intervention that moves children from the bottom 10% of family resources to the 70th percentile. This intervention achieves Perry results. To achieve similar results using adolescent interventions requires spending 35-50% more in present value terms (Heckman, 2008).

Conclusion

Fifty percent of the variance in inequality in lifetime earnings is determined by age 18 (Cunha and Heckman, 2007). The family plays a powerful role in shaping adult outcomes that is not fully recognised by current American policies. As programs are currently configured, interventions early in the lives of disadvantaged children have substantially higher economic returns than later interventions such as reduced pupil-teacher ratios, public job training programs, convict rehabilitation programs, adult literacy programs, tuition subsidies, or expenditure on police. This is because life-cycle skill formation is dynamic in nature. Skill begets skill; motivation begets motivation. Motivation cross-fosters skill, and skill cross-fosters motivation. If a child is not motivated to learn and engage early on in life, the more likely it is that when the child becomes an adult, he or she will fail in social and economic life. The longer society waits to intervene in the life cycle of a disadvantaged child, the more costly it is to remediate disadvantage.

References

Brooks-Gunn, J., F. Cunha G. Duncan J. J. Heckman, and A. Sojourner. “A Reanalysis of the IHDP Program,” 2006. Unpublished manuscript, Infant Health and Development Program, Northwestern University.

Cunha, F. and J. J. Heckman. “Investing in our Young People.", 2006. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago, Department of Economics.

Cunha, F. and J. J. Heckman. “The Evolution of Uncertainty in Labour Earnings in the US Economy,” 2007. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago. Under revision.

Cunha, F., J. J. Heckman, L. J. Lochner and D. V. Masterov. “Interpreting the Evidence on Life Cycle Skill Formation,” eds. E.A. Hanushek and F. Welch, 2006. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 12, 697-812, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Heckman, J. J. “Schools, Skills, and Synapses”, Fall 2008. Economic Inquiry, 289-324.

Heckman, J. J. and P. A. LaFontaine. “The GED and the Problem of Noncognitive Skills in America,” 2008. Unpublished book manuscript, University of Chicago, Department of Economics.

Heckman, J. J., L. Malofeeva, R. Pinto and P. Savelyev. “The Effect of the Perry Preschool Program on Cognitive and Noncognitive Skills: Beyond Treatment Effects,” 2008. Unpublished manuscript, University of Chicago, Department of Economics.

Heckman, J. J. and Y. Rubinstein. “The Importance of Noncognitive Skills: Lessons from the GED Testing Program,” May 2001. American Economic Review, 91(2), 145-149.

Heckman, J. J., J. Stixrud and S. Urzua. “The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labour Market Outcomes and Social Behavior,” July 2006. Journal of Labour Economics, 24(3), 411-482.

Herrnstein, R. J. and C. A. Murray, 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life. New York: Free Press.

Moon, S. H. “Skill Formation Technology and Multi-dimensional Parental Investment,” 2008. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Chicago, Department of Economics.

Comments

[reason]

Life time education? Why are people so embedded with the idea that "you learn when you are young"?

[More Than a Trade School Network Is Needed]

"The origin of this skills problem lies in the decline of the family in American society. Dysfunctional families retard the formation of the abilities needed for successful performance in modern society."

Okay, so why is the family declining in quality? What skill set do youngsters today lack, that their parents had? Could it be that raising very young children in the public school system is causing the problem? The family started to decline in earnest around the time public schools became mandatory.

Very young children need to be around loving parents who are successfully pair bonded to learn how to pair bond. If children never learn how to successfully pair bond, of course the family unit will deteriorate over time.

A second factor is the lack of systematic moral training in the public school system. In days of yore, parents (or the church) used to try and instill virtue in children. Today, the public school system raises very young children, and doesn't bother to teach virtue. It is solely a trade school network. Children need more than math. They need to be taught successful pair bonding (by observing a successful pair bond), and children need to be taught virtue.

says...

Practicing teachers seem to have a common list of problems that need addressing. Not pie in the sky band-aids (more programs for the administrative types who soak up the class room resources).

1) Smaller class size / higher teacher to student ratios.
2) Remove children with habitual disciplinary and /or severe mental problems from the class room to special education programs or dispel them.
3) Reduce the size and role of the district administrative staff. Transfer the money to more teachers and resources in the class room.

[save_the_rustbelt]

When I started first grade (long ago) 24 kids had intact two parent homes and 1 had divorced parents. Some of the homes were not perfectly functional, some had low incomes, but the homes and the community structure provided good support for young people.

100% of the class graduated from high school, 90% on time. Our schools consolidated and our senior class of 220 had a 1% teenage pregnancy rate.

Now, a first grade class may have 50% of the kids in an intact two parent household. Maybe. Doesn't work.

[paine]

"Trends in the production of skills from American high schools "

"coupled with a growing influx of unskilled immigrants have produced an increasing proportion of low-skilled workers in the US workforce."

what if this is a reflection of trends in employment opportunity
isn't our job market growing low skill jobs ????

who sez the global wage ans salary job force
is growing toward
a higher "proportion" of skilled jobs ?????
and if not
who can claim the american job market doesn't contain
a "fair " share of these skill jobs

if all us american borns
had college degrees
what would our job market look like ???
immigrants and raw youth would fill all the skilless jobs ???
and the whole job market would be way larger
right ?????

errr

show me your model
and THE numbers ....beaver boys

[paine]

get the skill
and the corporations will hire us ...all of us

that is a part whole conflation

skills don't create jobs for themelves

[paine]

"GED recipients are the “wise guys” who cannot finish anything."

the mark of cain ???? kane ???? cane ?????

-----------

family vs social intervention

0-4 intervention wow

brave new world pre visited

for all you gene heads out there
how 'bout pre natal schoolin' eh ??
conceptual gene screens ???
brain gene check at the borders ??
not 'nough
our native stock ???

uncle's gotta get to em pre conception

[ken melvin]

"skills don't create jobs for themselves

Damn, and I thought surely they did.

Spose you're going to tell me that looking for work doesn't create jobs either.

Heck man, everything said is true and none the truth. In the best of all worlds, how many could we push through college? Pick a number.

[Denis Drew]

Fools, fools, fools,
I haven't even read the post; the title makes me mad enough.

When are the progressives of this nation going to wake up and realize that there is only one answer to the terrible outcomes of disadvantaged schools (and I shout!): PAY THE PARENTS ENOUGH TO WORK AND THE SCHOOLS WILL WORK.

The Cabrini Green housing project (before it was demolished to make way for yuppies -- suddenly the neighborhood is filled with new public construction: a beautiful new park and library, a new magnet school named after an African American icons now that their ethnic group has been moved out of sight) had an 85% proportion of families on welfare. Is it possible that the schools that served that project could work.

In the meantime the federal minimum wage had dropped from 1968's $10/hr to 1939's level.

Here is Occam's simplest, least complicated approach to returning income to 1973 SHARE levels:
***********************************

Billionaire Warren Buffet prefers to let the economy run unimpeded and then just tax the heck out of people at the end and redistribute it, according to the Times David Leonhardt’s * interview with Obama. Candidate Obama feels people would prefer to have more control in "their individual career paths, making their own life choices."

It seems incongruous that Warren who makes his living manipulating the free market -- gambling -- should not think in terms of labor resetting the power balance in America’s labor market as the surest and simplest -- path to pay and benefit resurgence -- especially given that American labor’s raw bargaining power has sunk uniquely low to missing altogether -- compared with labor power in other first world economies (and even in some second and third world economies).

Here is a cab driver Denis Dew’s three-step plan to RENORMALIZE income distribution between the oceans and below the Canadian border:
************************************
It is getting pretty well know that, since 1973, 12.5% of overall income has migrated from the pockets of lower 90 percentile earners to the pockets of the top 3 percentile (the in-between 7% about kept even with overall income growth). Globalization, automation, immigration (sounds like a rock and roll song whose title I can't remember) take the universal blame -- but Europe faces the same "ations" without the same labor impoverishing results because European labor has stayed awake behind the collective bargaining wheel.

First, double the minimum wage over three years -- with inflation adjustment guarantees for incomes under $100,000 (at a cost of 3% direct inflation and maybe 3% more -- guessing -- with other wages pushed up). RETURN "NORMALCY" TO THE MINIMUM WAGE.

Don’t worry about "impeding". Nobody is forcing anyone to hire anyone; the minimum wage merely makes a wage demand for folks with no way to withhold their labor collectively to bargain. Remember: the highest price labor (or anything else) can command should be the measure of its true utility -- not its fire sale price -- so there should be no loss of efficiency.

Doubling the minimum should chain-shift a goodly part of that 12.5% lost income share the bottom 50 percentile.

Second, establish French-Canadian style sector-wide (lite) labor agreements here (airline and super market employees would kill for sector-wide -- just mention it out loud and it would be a killer issue for the Dems -- and Canadian labor market structure should be easy to copy here) AND institute automatic union certification and de-certification elections periodically (every four years?) at every work place (no reason to fight for economic elections any more than for political elections -- also, would clean up the worst complaint against unions: entrenched and complacent or even corrupt leadership). RETURN "NORMALCY" TO THE AMERICAN LABOR MARKET.

Sector-wide labor agreements which -- depending on the version, essentially mandate everyone doing the same job in the same geographic locale to work under a single collectively bargained contract -- are the world-wide (from Germany to Norway, from Argentina to Indonesia) remedy to the race to the bottom -- the race that keeps American labor income on the down slope even while overall income (and skills) booms.

Is there enough income in the top 10 percentile for modern (sector-wide) unionization to be able to chain-shift enough income share to the next-door (roughly) 50-90 percentile to finish bringing bottom 90 percentile incomes into line with fairer 1973 shares? Most of the job seems possible: the top 10 percentile enjoying 40% of current income share -- for the rest of us to eat into with higher labor prices.

The fed would have to be brought on board to the idea of shifting income through inflation until (1973 level) normalization of income share is reached -- perhaps at that point inducing a recession to kill off inflationary expectations (small price to pay to end 35 year wage depression).

Third, (at least temporary) severely higher marginal tax rates (75% over $500,000?) might be needed to kill off too long overgrown compensation expectations on the part of ball players, news anchors and CEOs.
*********************************
You can build all the skills in the world and not escape the race to the bottom if you ignore the need to build up raw bargaining power. At the beginning of the industrial revolution British steam loom operators were as much as 100 times more productive than the individual weavers they replaced -- but they and their families ended up existing on oat cakes three times a day because they could not afford wheat bread -- all the result of a rudimentary change in the bargaining structure of their labor market: the race to the bottom.

The big question for me: Will Obama to be like JFK in 1960 who stated he wasn’t worried about whether the minimum wage was $1.00/hr or $1.25/hr? Will Obama care whether the minimum wage is $10.00/hr or $12.50/hr -- or on its way to $15.00/hr?

I know for sure that LBJ would be pushing for $15.00/hr -- at the least. LBJ's minimum wage way back in 1968 was $10.00/hr in today's buying power at merely half (!) of today's average income.

In the 1960s, Michael Harrington defined poverty as not enjoying what your society could [EASILY] provide for you if it had the will. Double the average income later, I would add the word "EASILY" to make it fit better what should be our current much richer circumstances: globalization, automation, immigration or not. "Take it easy; but take it" should be today’s number one progressive marching refrain.

*http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/magazine/24Obamanomics-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

says...

The comment stream here is relatively disappointing for its lack of depth. I am perplexed.

The graph is sobering. That is the point. From an econ standpoint, what does it mean? It means, I think, that we have a huge stake in seeing a much larger number of people through to higher levels of education so that the next generation and the one after that and the one after that may reap the gains. For if the graph means what I think it means, you can predict virtually all edu-cognitive outcomes from maternal terminal education level. If you raise that, you raise everything. Did commenters simply read past this and not get it? It really seems so.

And @Reason- the graph doesn't say as much about lifelong learning as you may be trying to peel out of it. But I would comment that if we don't teach 3-5 year olds how to learn then they don't learn as much, regardless of attempts at lifelong learning as a remedy to poor early learning. Basically, if mom does not install high level expectations at extraordinarily early ages (really, even before public school can hope to help), outcomes are not particularly pleasing from this graph. I'm not sure there's any amount of preK or 0-4 intervention that can replace raising the % of parents with higher and higher levels of education. It predicts a ridiculous percent of the variance of overall socioeconomic outcomes.

All stakeholders must demand a high level of work in school. The issue goes way way beyond things like NCLB or graduation rates alone. It's no one thing.

First we're told we're losing them in middle school. Then we are told we're losing them in elementary. I think the truth is we're losing them by age 3-4. There's a lot of work to do.

Read to your kids.

[methinks]

Some of you should read the study again. The major differences between the subjects were in non-cognitive skills. The disparity due to all-around deprivation.

[Lafayette]

High political priority

Heckman: A greater fraction of young Americans are graduating from college. At the same time, a greater fraction are dropping out of high school.

An interesting review of school system reforms is available from the OECD, here, titled WHAT MAKES SCHOOL SYSTEMS PERFORM?
SEEING SCHOOL SYSTEMS THROUGH
THE PRISM OF PISA

It is report based upon the OECD-sponsored PISA study of secondary and tertiary school systems in countries that seemed to successful.

Here is excerpted one of many interesting comments from the report, which points a finger at the single most important criteria.

CHAPTER 2 What makes school systems perform?

© OECD 2004

Reform efforts in the six reference countries

Student performance in PISA is the result of a wide range of influences from both within and outside the education system. It is impossible to give a comprehensive account of all of these factors to explain exactly how well a country is doing in PISA. However, one common factor in relatively high-performing countries is strong efforts by authorities to improve the education system,rather than taking its quality and contemporary relevance for granted.

In each of the six countries in this study, education enjoys – largely independently of the political orientation of the current government – high political priority. This is reflected in considerable efforts to reform the education system over the past two decades.

We can talk forever about our manpower skill-sets and their adequacy for this modern world of globalized labor forces. But, without a commitment from both state and Federal governments – the former in terms of implementation and the latter in terms of funding and guaranteeing uniformity across the nation – then not much is going to happen. Is it …

[Lafayette]

Typo: The link to the OECD PISA study in reference above is incorrect as posted. It can be found here.

[robertdfeinman]

Any essay which takes as its premise:
The origin of this skills problem lies in the decline of the family in American society.

is going to be short on data and long on polemics. Add to this the writer's credentials (U of Chicago libertarian economist) and you have a perfect example of academic nonsense.

There can only be one reason why stuff like this gets published, it's because the writers are paid to do it and can find venues for their material which are funded by the same backers. From the parent site:

Institutional (core) finance for CEPR is provided through grants from a variety of sources: central banks; foundations, including the Economic and Social Research Council; private-sector organizations; and financial institutions.

Is that sufficiently opaque? Places with a conservative political agenda frequently obscure their source of funding. I wonder why?

As to the "substance" of his remarks. We have a decaying working class from an economic point of view and the consequences of this are always the same - poorer social support system. So instead of blaming the parents, how about blaming those who have sucked the money out of the part of the economy that they participate in?

What hypocrisy.

[Icarus]

There's no hypocrisy here. None.

Having a child when you can't afford one is a recipe for disaster, and the question is, how/where do we manage it, if we can?

We already spend too much on schooling. $9000/student year. We already spend too much on many things...the answer isn't more taxes, more funding, more more more.

The answer is in a modicum of responsibility for those who have choice...which is every citizen. You don't have to procreate when you can only warrant a minimum wage job. Such an act is wreckless. And, to expect the rest of society to finance that poor decision is even more absurd.

People aren't just paid a 'living wage'...they have to earn it, deserve it, warrant it. If their skills are low-end, their wage will reflect that. Why shouldn't it?

The other bad news is that things will (hopefully) get worse for much of 'middle america'. Americans live in an utter state of profligacy. They consume too much, eat too much, drink too much, watch tv too much. I suspect many Americans can't even see their feet because their guts are too huge. And, yet, at the same time, they want handouts so they can raise their kids. Shameless.

What everyone is sensing is a pattern of uncompetitive behavior. There are simply other population groups, who start with even less money, who are willing to work harder, smarter, and more consistently to obtain that living wage.

The problem the US middle class has doesn't have to do with the US aristocracy. They are arbiters of a global process. The problem is that the labor market has more qualified entrants at many price points.

And raising the minimum wage is also absurd. Why should a small business pay $20/hour for a job that really warrants 1/3 of that in the market? This is a tax on labor which is unproductive. Let people earn what they deserve, and deserve what they earn.

The so called progressives on this blog seem pretty connected to pure socialist policies. Do you guys even want private property, the logic of markets, supply/demand rationale?

[anne]

"The other bad news is that things will (hopefully) get worse for much of 'middle America.' Americans live in an utter state of profligacy. They consume too much, eat too much, drink too much, watch TV too much. I suspect many Americans can't even see their feet because their guts are too huge. And, yet, at the same time, they want handouts so they can raise their kids. Shameless."

I suspect many Americans can't even see their feet because their guts are too huge.

I suspect many Americans can't even see their feet because their guts are too huge.

I suspect many Americans can't even see their feet because their guts are too huge.

[Cyrille]

"We already spend too much on many things"

Actually, only on three.
The army, agricutural subsidies (especially in that they are poorly aimed) and Healthcare (the former being only because of the absence of a universal, single payer system).

On pretty much everything else, USA don't spend nearly enough.

[Cyrille]

Anyway, generally, what a shocking, uninformed, ideological post.

[Denis Drew]

Icarus,
The true measure of the utility of labor (or anything that is for sale) should be the highest price it can command -- not the fire-sale price. If I am forced to sell you a plot of land at much less than you might otherwise be willing to pay for it because my family will starve if I don't, that does not maximize efficiency. Probably detracts in practicality by keeping my family at a lower economic level at which we are not likely to achieve our full productivity potential.

There is wage range above which employers wont pay and a range below which workers wont work. In fact, the American minimum wage had descended below BOTH (!) points some years ago -- at least if you go by the happy Mexican and (in San Francisco) Chinese face behind fast food counters -- the same happy faces year in, year out.

As of 1991, BusinessWeek reported McDonalds had a 70% turnover -- every 90 days! But when American born workers stopped showing up altogether that problem was solved.

The minimum wage is the exact equivalent of a union negotiated wage for purposes of market efficiency. To get perspective, an example of artificial intervention into the market would be raising the minimum wage much higher than workers wanted you to because of fear of unemployment. As long as you are raising the minimum in concurrence with labor's wishes, it is not an artificial -- inefficiency inducing -- mechanism at all.

[Denis Drew]

Anne,
"I suspect many Americans can't even see their feet because their guts are too huge."

Am I to take this as a personal attack against me in particular? :-)

[save_the_rustbelt]

"Read to your kids."

My parents started very young and were very poor (a condition overcome by immense amounts of hard work combined with good timing).

Neither of my parents ever had a shot at college.

Every week they spent .25 or .50 on books. We always had a house full of books. It paid off.

I am now reading some of those same books to my grandchildren, and I hope someday they will read those books to their children.

We buy and give away lots of books, hoping that other children will get some of the same benefit.

[Julio]

And the Typo of the Day goes to Icarus:

"procreate when you can only warrant a minimum wage job. Such an act is wreckless (sic)."

For once I have to agree with him.

[kthomas]

Skills? While we export skilled jobs to India and China....?

Though I would agree we don't pay enough attention to our kids (not hard to do when you work all day and commute 4 hours), and I would also agree that education is what you pay for (or don't, Prop. 13 being the best example)...this whole article seems like more Ivory Tower BS. Articles like this are used as fodder for Bill Gates and GE and IBM and thier ilk to simply import more cheap labor or send more to (pick an Indian city).

[kthomas]

anne, please save your anti-American nonsense for some other article, perhaps on the Links, it's getting old and obvious. You're the last person here to tells us about other people's guts, especially your own peoples.

[cm]

The article doesn't define what "noncognitive skills" are. Brawn? Motor coordination? Ability to navigate and leverage social hierarchies and connections?

[anne]

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/schools-skills.html#c127861642

"I suspect many Americans can't even see their feet because their guts are too huge."

This is of course a quote, and an illustrative quote, as reading would have made clear.

[anne]

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2008/08/schools-skills.html#c127861642

"The other bad news is that things will (hopefully) get worse for much of 'middle America.' Americans live in an utter state of profligacy. They consume too much, eat too much, drink too much, watch TV too much. I suspect many Americans can't even see their feet because their guts are too huge. And, yet, at the same time, they want handouts so they can raise their kids. Shameless."

An illustrative, important quote....

[Lafayette]

Nitwit notion

Icky: Having a child when you can't afford one is a recipe for disaster, and the question is, how/where do we manage it, if we can?

Still stuck on this nitwit notion, Icky? Really, you should get out more.

I doubt your mother thought two seconds about whether she could afford you.

[Julio]

kthomas:
Among the skills being discussed in this article is "reading for understanding".
Good news is: you get a Mulligan.

Denis Drew:
You obviously can see your keyboard, so no worries, you're fine.

Icarus:
"Let people earn what they deserve"
Darn, why didn't you just stop there?

[Jas Jain]

--
"America has a growing skills problem. One consequence of this skills problem is rising inequality and polarization of society."

America has been increasingly breeding dopes, but now it is breeding lazy and incompetent dopes at all levels. You need proof?

The US is in ***15 percentile*** among predominantly white nations in per capita medals at the last 4 Olympics!

Vast majority of the American kids are being BRED as undisciplined and lazy. The whole American society has a discipline problem. Indulgence masquerading as freedom?

THE RISING INEQUALITY IS PRIMARILY DUE TO MANIPULATORS TAKING A BIGGER AND BIGGER PART OF THE PIE. BANKRUPTERS AND FRAUDSTERS OF NEW YORK CITY AS WELL AS HIGHLY PAID ECONOMISTS ARE PART OF THE DESTRUCTIVE MANIPULATORS. THEY ARE PARASITES SUCKING THE FINANCIAL BLOOD OF THE WORKING-CLASS AMERICANS.

Don’t let the facts come in your way of having a high opinion of your profession, all you economists here. YOU GUYS ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM AND YOU SHOULD STOP DEVISING SOLUTIONS. I realize that it is too much to ask of a group of parasites.

God save America from econ-meisters!

Jas

[Jas Jain]

--
Forgot to add...

America breeds inequality in the name of Equal Opportunity.

NO NATION WORKS HARDER AT UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITY THAN AMERICA'S PRIVILEGED.

School segregation by wealth, no?

Crooks and evildoers, with their concentration in NYC, the propaganda capital, are in-charge of everything in America. America IS going down and it will go down very hard. McCain and Obama are inconsequential.

Jas

[zak822]

I like hearing Heckman say "we need to devote more resources to enriching the lives of young, disadvantaged children", but robertdfeinman has it right. The rest of this is just the standard anti-liberal, anti-teachers union, anti-feminist tripe.

Long on polemic, short on data.

I'd like to see an apples to apples comparison with countries whose students are doing better than hours. What's different, beyond the fact that we allow divorce here?

[harold]

The arts -- music, poetry, singing, theater, dance, cooking -- are especially important to human development and psychological well-being. They should be part of education and of life. By comodifying them and making people consumers instead of participants and creators we are committing the same kind of cultural and psychic slash and burn as we are doing to the environment and economy. When we do it to kids, it's a form of exploitation and abuse.

[anne]

Harold:

"The arts -- music, poetry, singing, theater, dance, cooking -- are especially important to human development and psychological well-being."

[John V]

The way I read the article is that the inability of government to adapt the educational system to a changing world is rearing its ugly head. And who is most hurt? The poor and disadvantaged who are supposed to be "protected" by the very system that hurts them. The results then contribute the the spiraling decline in ancillary skills and values and the problem deepens.

[Alex Tolley]

For if the graph means what I think it means, you can predict virtually all edu-cognitive outcomes from maternal terminal education level. If you raise that, you raise everything. Did commenters simply read past this and not get it? It really seems so.

No, it doesn't say that - that is your interpretation. It is equally possible to interpret it as child cognitive level is genetically determined and likely to be close to the mother's (and probably the father's) genes.

I note that the author's have no data for cognitive abilities before age 3, so they hand-wave and state that is where the problem with abilities starts. However, they have no hard evidence to support it, preferring the hypothesis that cognitive abilities can be changed by changing the early development conditions. Note that head start programs which were supposed to improve schooling outcomes is now known to be relatively ineffective, so the authors are forced to blame some vague early social problem.

However unpalatable the conclusion of genetic determinism may be, the authors have failed to remove it as the possibly major contributing factor, preferring to muddy the waters with environmental effects acting through genes, e.g. breast feeding.

[stick]

Wow! Why do sensible people loose their mind when the subject of public education rears its head?

The important point here is that American education is failing on many levels and for multiple reasons. However, research literature does point toward some rather straight-forward approaches to begin a turn around... Two quick ideas come to mind:

First, increase funding to schools... especially those that serve high poverty student populations.

Second, invest in teacher education and provide real economic incentives for entering the teaching profession [pay, teacher-student ratios, etc.].

Beyond that we need to address curriculum, assessments, critical thinking, and on... But these are not insurmountable challenges. So, why can't we talk about this like grown-ups?

[Warland]

Icarus:

"People aren't just paid a 'living wage'...they have to earn it, deserve it, warrant it. If their skills are low-end, their wage will reflect that. Why shouldn't it?"

and:

"Let people earn what they deserve, and deserve what they earn."

Seems that Icarus makes the case that receiving low pay is evidence that a worker deserves low pay. By that logic slaves, since they are paid nothing, deserve no pay. Power of course has nothing to do with it.

I'm tired of the message sent to workers: it's your fault we pay you so little.

It reminds me of when my older cousin used to hold me be the wrists and hit me with my own hands, saying, "Why are you hitting yourself?"

Warland

[Alex Tolley]

stick: First, increase funding to schools... especially those that serve high poverty student populations.

Second, invest in teacher education and provide real economic incentives for entering the teaching profession [pay, teacher-student ratios, etc.].

The US already spends a lot on education. Parents are asked to "volunteer" even more. So show us the data that demonstrates even more funding of schools and education would improve outcomes. As for teaching, there is a huge untapped pool of talent that would love to teach to give back to the community, but are prevented from doing so by the credentialing system. many of those folks would teach for free. So let's not go off on the red herring that teachers need even more incentives to teach better or the incentives need to be higher to attract better quality teachers. As to the last, in California, whenever there are teacher layoffs, you might think that would be a great time to get rid of poor quality teachers and retain teh better ones, but that is not so - seniority is what matters, not quality.

[John V]

warland,

Concerning slaves:

Had slaves not been legally allowed to be held as property, in defiance of natural law, they would not have been coerced to work for no pay. They would have been paid to work like anyone else.

[zak822]

One problem with this piece is that it implies a skills gap only at the lower end. The technology sector has screamed for years that Americans don't have the skills required by industry. We see constant pressure to increase the number of H1B visas for high-tech workers.

[John V]

So show us the data that demonstrates even more funding of schools and education would improve outcomes.

There isn't any serious data of this kind. Believing more funding is the answer is to blindly think it follows that more/less money and attention is the controlling factor. It is not. Washington DC spends an astronomical amount per pupil and with terrible results. And if by pointing to poor-modest small town Middle America that gets much better results with far less money and I get a response having to do with make-up the incoming children, the person saying this is basically just making Heckman's point.

[stick]

John V:

show us the data that demonstrates even more funding of schools and education would improve outcomes.

I gave you one quick reference... Did you check out the link?

As for teaching, there is a huge untapped pool of talent that would love to teach to give back to the community, but are prevented from doing so by the credentialing system. many of those folks would teach for free. So let's not go off on the red herring that teachers need even more incentives to teach better or the incentives need to be higher to attract better quality teachers.

Very nice... The AEI would be very proud. Again check out the link I offered.

Yes, increased funding leads to higher achievement. Yes, teacher qualifications matter... especially those who have extensive training in pedagogy, learning theory, and practicum experience. If you would care to research the subject, there is a wealth of literature on both subjects.

[stick]

Sorry that was Alex Tolley not John... my mistake.

[stick]

John V:

Looking at average expenditures is rather meaningless... Look at the funding that is actually appropriated toward instruction. Public schools in DC, for example, are crumbling. Much of the expenditures that you are talking about are spent on simply keeping out the rain. Compare apples to apples.

[Warland]

John V:

"Had slaves not been legally allowed to be held as property, in defiance of natural law, they would not have been coerced to work for no pay. They would have been paid to work like anyone else."

Yes, you are correct. Had there not been slavery, there would have been no slaves.

My point is that it is wrong to look at people's circumstances and make a determination about what they "deserve" without taking into consideration a large number of systemic factors.

Do you think that a natural law determines the wages of contemporary American workers? Would it be a defiance of such natural law to take steps to systematically raise those wages?

Warland

[John V]

Warland,

My point is that it is wrong to look at people's circumstances and make a determination about what they "deserve" without taking into consideration a large number of systemic factors.

OK. THAT was your point. Then let's leave the slave analogy aside.

But anyway, on the quote, I don't make any determinations as to what people "deserve". Barring any un-natural or extraordinary systemic impediment that may hindering a worker's ability to earn more, I generally take wages at face value as the mutually accepted rate, which the worker is free to back out of at any time. The value of labor in exchange for pay is subjective. Hence, getting into discussions about "deserving" based on some arbitrary POV is pointless, IMO.

IOW, it's irrelevant to any meaningful discussion to wonder whether the man doing $8 per house work "deserves" $8 per hour. Market information guides that general rate. At that point in time and under market conditions at that point in time, if that's the pay for that job then that's the pay for that job.

A discussion about what that man "deserves" under alternate scenarios and choices made previously doesn't matter on this point. Nobody has a set value that they "deserve". It's all a product of circumstance. And those circumstances rest in large part with the individual. Now, if circumstances could have been better had it not been for XYZ, then fine. But that's obvious. A combination of factors led to that circumstance. Where is the failure that led to this circumstance? Well, there we can point to the educational system and policies that have influenced the state in which the person in question found himself...both voluntarily and involuntarily. And on the involuntary side, was someone else voluntarily responsible? and so on.

In any event, all of this is a separate discussion from the point of "deserving". I don't mix them.

No, natural law does not determine the wages of workers. Would it be a defiance of natural law to take steps to raise those wages? Possibly. It depends on what you're doing. Either way, I don't find it helpful.

[RW]

One thing to note is that the critical debates about education almost exclusively reside within the Democratic party at this point; other than some ill-defined school choice rhetoric and the usual chiding about personal responsibility and nasty teacher unions the Republicans have nothing to offer (it is not accidental that the GOP tends to be inept when the issue is human capital). Obama's proposals seem to give some credence to Heckman's position as far as I can tell but clearly also respect research calling for improved infrastructure (where infrastructure is understood to mean not just school, human and capital, but communities).

It's worth noting that universal attendance at secondary school was not a primary impulse in the US before the 1960's so many of the memories of us oldsters about the high school experience are not particularly relevant to the current state of the institution; e.g., many children 'graduated' in the 8th grade.

It's also worth noting that, unlike the US, most developed countries have a pre-selection process that sorts students before attendance/completion of a secondary school (in the college-preparatory sense) so comparisons between US high school students and students at that level in other countries requires extreme care; e.g., if 90% of students in the US reach 10th grade and only 20% of the top students in country A are permitted to attend their version of a high school at that level then some fairly sophisticated data collection and statistical methods need to be deployed to adequately compensate for the inevitable disparity in outcomes.

Those who are genuinely interested in international comparisons should probably start at http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/international/ but be cautious as noted above. To inoculate yourself against the worst errors typically encountered when consuming educational research I recommend one or more of Gerald Bracey's texts; e.g., http://www.statlit.org/Bracey.htm

For myself I consider the growing wave of standardized testing under such programs as No Child Left Behind rather oppressive of student and teacher initiative alike and also regard a fairly large amount of the research and punditry WRT education in the United States to be misplaced or alarmist; actually in the case of many conservative critiques I'll add utterly stupid to that; e.g., the US ranks at the very top of most economic competitiveness scales based on hundreds of variables developed by agencies such as the the World Economic Forum and I am supposed to believe that only two of those variables, preliminary education and training (k-12), are the sine qua non of the U. S. economy? What horse manure.

[Alex Tolley]

stick: "I gave you one quick reference... Did you check out the link? "

Little hard to get to, don't you think?

This link suggests that school spending on outcomes is not proven by any means.

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED399654&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED399654

says...

My former small town high school just spent $4 million on sport turf grass for the football field. They play 4 homes games a year. The team has 16 players.

The graduation rate is now below 50%

In my life time, I am now starting to see third generation welfare families. 1/2 the town supports the other 1/2 and the 1/2 that supports used to be 2/3. The parasites are winning.

[Icarus]

Warland,

You refer to a time where non-market actions, that is "extra-economic coercion" structured the notion of "labor". This is not the case anymore, as we've moved into capitalist social property relations. People obtain a wage rate based on the supply and demand of their skills...basic econ 101.

The reason the poor obtain a low wage rate is simply because the replacement cost of that skill set is very low. If you sweep my floor, I don't need to pay you $30/hour, as I can replace you for much less. There is someone just outside, willing to take 1 penny less. That principle determines the wage rate set for any job. Of course, there is mischief, such as executive boards paying themselves...but, that is another story.

The poor are in states of powerlessness because of 2 main reasons...circumstance, and their decisions. Circumstance is out of their control...their decisions are not.

If you are a minimum wage laborer, and you have a child...you're screwed. You've just made life 10x more difficult, and there's little society can do to alleviate that situation. Your child will suffer, and compete poorly in relations to others. This the trajedy of poor planning.

The real option is to refrain from procreation...move up the wage ladder (however slowly), and save some money. Then, when there's a bit of financial stability, planning a family is possible.

Without such foresight, people are living in desperate states of insecurity, and no amount of welfare can alter that.

Slaves only resided in the world of circumstance. They were powerless to make significant decisions. And, there was no market to act as the arbiter of skills/wages/security.

[Icarus]

Lafayette,

Silly Frenchman. What is so nitwit about planning procreation? Do explain.

And, yes, my mother did plan. Her family induced her to plan. Her husband also planned. This is the strategic behavior of risk minimization. You don't just have children because you can...you do it when you can actually take care of them.

Do you not agree?

[kthomas]

"...it is not accidental that the GOP tends to be inept when the issue is human capital.."

Beautiful. Simply beautiful.

[Icarus]

Education is not failing the children of the US...nor is it the governent.

The true failures are the parents, who have children they cannot discipline and raise properly. As long as that continues, we will have an underclass who is perpetually tethered to low wage labor. This will be a constant, so long as people with no financial security choose to procreate.

Marx was precient when he stated this, basically. As long as the hordes replicate with reckless abandon, wage labor will fall to subsistance levels. This is an easy law to observe. No amount of welfare and handouts will change that.

[Icarus]

Says,

I think with welfare dependence, you get what you pay for. If you pay people to sit and do nothing, that's exactly what you'll develop.

3rd generation welfare recipients...that just says it all.

[Icarus]

KThomas,

Are you growing Nationalist on us? Does "Anti-American" vitriole somehow upset the little flag waving kernal of your red/white/blue soul? Does outsourcing to India demonstrate something problematic?

You may want to revisit this sense of utter Imperial Chauvanism.

People in the US have to get used to being the objects of global wrath. Too long has this country stumbled around the globe, like a clumsy bear, trampling on anything and everything. It is a nation born in violence, predicated on genocide and slavery, and which only imagines itself as the exceptional empire.

The day when this nation suffers is a great day for the rest of us. Yes, your obese population in their 10mpg SUVs will one day be unable to move, literally. They'll be stuck on the road, unable to afford gas, to fat to walk home.

[Alex Tolley]

Icarus: "Marx was precient when he stated this, basically. As long as the hordes replicate with reckless abandon, wage labor will fall to subsistance levels. This is an easy law to observe. No amount of welfare and handouts will change that."

Wouldn't that apply to everybody, janitors and managers alike?

[RW]

Funding for public K-12 education in the US has barely budged on a real, per capita basis in the past few decades and in many counties funding has actually declined in real terms along with the tax-base (the bulk of educational funding is still local folks)

Where increased per pupil funding is real it's impact can be difficult to evaluate in part because many research studies do not adequately account for differences in school and community organization -- e.g., some funding increases are simply dispensed in the absence of sufficient knowledge regarding specific school and community factors -- so it is probably more accurate to say that real, per pupil funding increases will typically have a positive impact if they are well targeted.

Additionally measuring the impact of funding or any other schooling intervention typically relies upon standardized testing but these scores tend not to change much over time for a number of reasons some of which may be related to the construction or administration of the instrument itself, some of which may be related to inappropriate instrument selection, some of which may be related to Simpson's Paradox (very common in schools with changing community demographics), and some of which may actually be related to the presumed target of the exercise, real differences in aggregate student achievement.

So which is which and what is what? That takes some fairly rigorous (and honest) analysis which pretty much leaves out virtually all pundits and politicians, any policy maker not intimately acquainted with the issues involved or any researcher not prepared to 'thicken' their study by appropriate attention to school and community variables.

Heckman is not off base here, individual student capacities matter and early intervention tends to give more bang for the buck than later on average, it is just that so much more could be said (and probably too much that should not have been said too if it comes to that).

FWIW

[robertdfeinman]

Why is it that the libertarian trolls, who have so little substantive to contribute, are the most persistent with their remarks?

Perhaps, it's an example of our poor educational system at work.

The conservatives think that the problem lies with inner city (black) children, but are too PC to say this. Actually there is pretty good data which shows that the places with the poorest educational results are those with the poorest educational investment. This means Mississippi, Alabama and other states. NY spends $13K per K-12 student, MS $6.5K.

You can't attribute the difference to just the cost of living. I won't quote educational accomplishment, but it tracks spending fairly well.

If you want some data, instead of showing off your ignorance you can browse this site:

http://www.nea.org/edstats/index.html

School costs are going up for a number of reasons: more administrators relative to teachers, high tech educational equipment, transportation and building costs, etc.

Another important factor is that schools are now required to be general social service organizations. The cost of drug counselors, psychologists, free lunches, etc. all gets subsumed under the school budget. Since real social services don't exist local governments use schools as the one place where they can interact with under served students (and sometimes parents).

Why should vaccination be a school issue and not the board of health?

Social conservatives keep blaming schools for the ills of society - ills that they caused by shortchanging social services and impoverishing the work force.

[R]

Here in California, the poor procreate with no penalty whatsoever and that's reflected in the California State budget. Very little to none is shown of what it actually is composed of. You won't see it on TV and I haven't seen it in the newspapers yet. So I went directly to the source, the State of California to see just where my taxpayer dollars were being spent. It was all that I expected it to be and worse. The Budget Summary is an easy to understand pie chart (it may not be easy to swallow, but you'll get the idea). Nearly a full 64% of the State's budget is spent on 'Pregnancy to Prison Programs'. Allow me to break it down: 31% or nearly $44bn dollars is spent on K-12 Education. 25% or nearly $36bn dollars is spent on "Health and Human Services", with most of that being Medi-Cal and Welfare. Then 7.3% is spent on "Rehabilitation and Prisons". Add it all up and it's nearly 64%! That's almost two-thirds of what our state spends it's money on! Go to http://www.ebudget.ca.gov/BudgetSummary/SUM/1249561.ht

[stick]

"That takes some fairly rigorous (and honest) analysis which pretty much leaves out virtually all pundits and politicians, any policy maker not intimately acquainted with the issues involved or any researcher not prepared to 'thicken' their study by appropriate attention to school and community variables."

Right.

[stick]

"Social conservatives keep blaming schools for the ills of society - ills that they caused by shortchanging social services and impoverishing the work force."

Right.

[Alex Tolley]

robertfeinman: "If you want some data, instead of showing off your ignorance you can browse this site:"

Can you highlight the exact reference that supports the contention that increased spending improves educational outcomes. A link to the nea site is all that helpful here.

[Alex Tolley]

to R - so only the poor use K-12 education? That's news to me. As for prisons - well that is policy that makes the the US one of the world's leading nations for per capita prison inmates. That is a choice, not the result of the poor causing more crime and being locked away. Every other western country has government run healthcare, usually considered as a benefit of a modern society, so let's not beat up on California actually trying to ensure some health care for families unable to afford premiums.

[ken melvin]

R- What should the state spend it's money on?

[Icarus]

Alex Tolley,

On the Marx comment, and your question about whether managers would fall into this pattern...perhaps.

If we increase the population to 9 billion, and there are such jobs as 'low skilled' managers, then, yes, we'd see that role attract subsistance wages.

A form of it does happen. You "manage" a fast food restaurant, you may only make $40k. You "manage" a workstream at Goldman Sachs, you make $800k/year. The word has many meanings, of course.

[Icarus]

RobertFeinman,

I haven't seen a social conservative on this blog blame schools. I'm not sure which straw man you're creating...

I, like many, blame the parents. Schools are not responsible for raising children, feeding them, disciplining them, and socializing them. Unfortuneatly, that's what they've become...soup kitchens.

Parents are the cause, source, and hope for reducing the cycle of poverty.

You can call libertarians or conservatives "trolls", but such name calling only reveals the paucity of ideas coming from the purported progressive left. Handing out money for doing nothing, and confiscating the hard earned money of the professional caste is a tired form of politics.

There must be a better way than having rapacious robber barrons hording wealth they didn't earn, or people doing nothing collecting welfare and expecting govt handouts for the cost of basic life.

The beauty of the market is that it offers many people the opportunity to actually earn a living they deserve. Now, that could mean you only get $10/hour, simply because you can't do anything worth more.
It could also mean you make $1 billion because you create/market/manufacture/sell the Ipod.

We should applaud both. And they both deserve what they got.

[Icarus]

And RobertFeinman,

To further dispell your corrlelation between spending money on education, and getting results from the institutions of education...just look at other nations.

India spends much less, even when considering PPP, on educational costs per child, per school year. I'm even just talking about middle, and upper middle class education.

Children don't need fancy and expensive tools for most learning activities. Teachers can teach with a chalk board and some discipline. Students can write on paper, and learn. They do all over the world.

Discipline is the key, and that comes from the home. Show me a disciplined child, and you'll see that such a child usually succeeds. The parent is the source of that discipline, and no educational system can subsititue for that.

Conservative (from what I've seen) don't blame schools or teachers...they blame the poor decision making of parents, and their lack of parental execution.

[anne]

"The day when this nation suffers is a great day for the rest of us. Yes, your obese population in their 10mpg SUVs will one day be unable to move, literally. They'll be stuck on the road, unable to afford gas, too fat to walk home."

"The day when this nation suffers is a great day for the rest of us. Yes, your obese population in their 10mpg SUVs will one day be unable to move, literally. They'll be stuck on the road, unable to afford gas, too fat to walk home."

"The day when this nation suffers is a great day for the rest of us. Yes, your obese population in their 10mpg SUVs will one day be unable to move, literally. They'll be stuck on the road, unable to afford gas, too fat to walk home."

Truly evil, truly vile.

[anne]

'Pregnancy to Prison Programs'
'Pregnancy to Prison Programs'
'Pregnancy to Prison Programs'
'Pregnancy to Prison Programs'
'Pregnancy to Prison Programs'

Truly evil, truly vile.

[Icarus]

I guess 'rubbish', 'evil', and/or 'vile' means that anne doesn't agree.

Of course, she never offers why. The tantrum of a child yet again.

[Lafayette]

Icky: Silly Frenchman. What is so nitwit about planning procreation? Do explain.

I think with welfare dependence, you get what you pay for. If you pay people to sit and do nothing, that's exactly what you'll develop.

These are notions constantly bantered about by know-nothings, that is, people who have preconceived ideas of how humans should behave and no understanding as to what truly motivates them.

People have children out of concupiscence. It is the nature of mankind to procreate. Get it? It is a matter of natural impulse and not calculation. Like eating food.

Also, there is no statistical basis for the notion that the poor have more children. In fact, the statistics show that rich families are larger in size than poor families but fewer in number. People DO take income into consideration when planning their families. (You’ve got this bee in your bonnet about the poor breeding more than the non-poor, and it just ain’t so. It’s just your prejudice.)

Also, there is no recorded sociological evidence that people actually enjoy being poor and living off handouts. If given the opportunity, they would rather work, earn a better revenue stream and live more decently. This too has been shown by sociological studies.

So, aside from the ad hominen (silly Frenchman), you would do well to keep your half-baked notions to yourself rather than waste bandwidth spewing them on this forum.

As for the silly French, btw, no one in France goes into debt to get an education – since it is free, gratis and for nothing, even through university. Not so silly, huh?

Also, another poster mentions that America spends more on education than any other nation, which proves nothing. Of course it does, since the cost of education is higher, due to higher professional salaries than elsewhere. If the quality were better, then perhaps fewer kids would be dropping out before graduating.

[robertdfeinman]

For those who want to see performance data, start here:

http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/National%20Highlights%20Report.pdf

Pew has other studies as well on the same site.

Notice how MS ranks near the bottom in most of the ratings and MA the top. You get what you pay for.

[Julio]

Icarus:

I guess 'rubbish', 'evil', and/or 'vile' means that anne doesn't agree.

I don't know about the metaphorical use of "rubbish".

But "evil" and "vile" you can just look up in any dictionary.

When you say things like
The day when this nation suffers is a great day for the rest of us. Yes, your obese population in their 10mpg SUVs will one day be unable to move, literally. They'll be stuck on the road, unable to afford gas, too fat to walk home.

your gleeful tone at human misery earns those well-chosen words.

[eris]

"However unpalatable the conclusion of genetic determinism may be, the authors have failed to remove it as the possibly major contributing factor" Alex Toll

The authors are talking about kids who are equally cognitively able. They have noted a performance differential aligned with environmental factors (poverty/disadvantage etc). The IQs are the same. The environments are different. Are you suggesting that environments are genetically determined? You're flattering yourself if you really think the problem with this suggestion is merely that it is 'unpalatable'.

[anne]

Notice well the vile evil:

"The other bad news is that things will (hopefully) get worse for much of 'middle America.' Americans live in an utter state of profligacy. They consume too much, eat too much, drink too much, watch TV too much. I suspect many Americans can't even see their feet because their guts are too huge. And, yet, at the same time, they want handouts so they can raise their kids. Shameless."

"The day when this nation suffers is a great day for the rest of us. Yes, your obese population in their 10mpg SUVs will one day be unable to move, literally. They'll be stuck on the road, unable to afford gas, too fat to walk home."

Notice well the vile evil, line by line.

[anne]

Notice well the vile evil:

"The other bad news is that things will (hopefully) get worse for much of 'middle America.' "

"The day when this nation suffers is a great day for the rest of us."

Notice well!

[anne]

Notice well the vile evil:

"I suspect many Americans can't even see their feet because their guts are too huge. And, yet, at the same time, they want handouts so they can raise their kids. Shameless."

"Yes, your obese population in their 10mpg SUVs will one day be unable to move, literally. They'll be stuck on the road, unable to afford gas, too fat to walk home."

Notice well!

[mrrunangun]

"Motivation, sociability, the ability to work with others, the ability to focus on tasks, self-regulation, self-esteem, time preference, health, and mental health all matter."

A social psychologis friend of mine says that what he calls 'personality organization' is an underrated aspect of human life. The traits listed above are roughly what he means by 'personality organization'. The government and the schools can probably not directly provide programmatic training in these traits. They probably need to be transmitted by an adult or older child who cares about the young child. Big Brothers and Big Sisters try to do this. Our town has a program for mentoring youthful offenders, tho I have no idea how successful it is. Government at the local level could try to help set up programs that put kids together with better organized adults if the adults already in their life are disorganized. My friend holds that educational attainment is a better measure of personality organization than of intelligence. He could cite this piece in support of his claim.

[Ryan]

You know nothing, libertarian troll, liberal moron, I know everything, obligatory anne mantra. Seems like another topic where our comments stray far from anything civil or rational.

As a cautionary, I might as well announce that I am a libertarian troll, it should spare us all some irrelevant flaming. First, what Heckman describes has long been known as EQ to those in the the human resources departments of pretty much any place that has a human resource department. What exactly employers look for when measuring EQ, of course, will differ from firm to firm, as each firm has its of culture. In this respect, I can concede some of the points made by Heckman. Even an extremely bright college grad may exhibit EQ traits that make him unfit for hire.

It would seem to me that some character traits are most definitely inherited, or at least predispositions to certain character traits exist. However, it is definitely upbringing and parenting that most effect things like work ethic, confidence, motivation, etc.

In that regard, I do not believe the gap in non-cognitive skills has much to do with schooling at all, and agree with the parenting argument. Of course, a case could be made that parents themselves may require education on child development, but when people are talking about increasing school funding, that usually isn't what they are talking about.

[Alex Tolley]

eris: You are incorrect. The chart clearly states that the scores are cognitive. They also state that other data shows a similar pattern for non-cognitive skills. There is no a priori reason to dismiss genetic factors in favor of purely environmental factors.

[RW]

"There is no a priori reason to dismiss genetic factors in favor of purely environmental factors."

Well, yes, but a more cogent observation might be to discern that there is really no compelling reason to frame the question in dichotomous terms such as these in the first place since there is nothing in the data that suggests these two poles really exist other than as linguistic/philosophical category distinctions; i.e., they may be empty of real content and there may in fact be nothing of interest in between them either.

Frankly the nature vs. nurture debate is no longer of particular scientific interest because what contemporary neurobiological and neuropsychiatric research increasingly suggests is that we need to reframe our perspective of what a person is in order to understand how that person develops within a system, educationally defined or otherwise.

That image of a person is still undergoing development but at this juncture it seems increasingly probable that the following notions are fallacious or at least flawed and should either be rejected or treated with some degree of suspicion:

• There is no Cartesian person, whose essence is a mind separate from, and independent of the body;
• There is no Kantian, radically autonomous person, with an absolute freedom and a transcendent universal reason that correctly dictates what is and isn't moral;
• There is probably no utilitarian person, for whom rationality is economic rationality – the maximization of utility;
• There is no person as posed by analytic philosophy for whom truth is a correspondence between words and the world, independent of human psychology and biology;
• There is probably no mechanistic person, a pure product of environment and genetics, who can be understood completely without reference to individual development and meaning making;
• There is probably no computational or information processing person, whose mind is like computer software, in principal able to work on any suitable structure of neural hardware;
• There is probably no postmodern person – no decentered subject for whom all meaning is essentially arbitrary, relative and historically contingent;
• There is probably no Chomskyan person, the result of a unique genetic innovation for whom language is pure syntax, form insulated from and independent of meaning, context, perception, emotion, memory, attention, action, and the dynamic nature of communication.

[Cyrille]

Robertdfeinman, you must know that Icarus is not just a libertarian troll, he is also insane.

Once you come to understand that, things get a lot less baffling.

[Icarus]

Lafayette...

It is not the number of children a person has, but WHEN they have them. The point is, you have to have children once you secure financial stability, and not before. That is the rational and safe path.

And, despite your equation of humans being animals, and thus having children like we eat...it's just wrong. We have the faculty of "Reason". We have the ability to RESTRAIN in the name of future gain.
This is what defines Human Civilization. We are not bound by our 'instinct to reproduce'.

And, Lafayette, your mighty France may not require citizens to pay for education, but obviously there are other social pathologies. Otherwise, would discontent in the Paris ghettos lead to burning cars? Would the elderly die of heat exhaustion because your nation was simply so sublime?

I'd suggest a bit of humility. There are 191 nations, and many have different social compacts, different cultures of collective behavior.

In the US, we celebrate the "right" to live in a state of profligate consumption, riddled with debt, free to incur even more debt. It is a sad state of 'freedom', no doubt. But, Americans have the choice to create the path of their own demise.
The good news (for the US) is that immigrant cultures are showing up at the shores, and often providing the brainpower and manpower required for economic production. The charm of the US lies in its immigrant population, and hopefully, one day, we'll see a Congress with minorities not just sprinkled across, but dominant.
Right now, we're still run by old white men...and that world is hopefully collapsing.

It will take time...even on this blog, you see an instinctive form of nationalism, as if jobs created in Bangalore are anathema.
When the US is run by Asians and Latinos, perhaps the demonizing which the US is so great at (to the level of Nazi Germany, I'd say), will dissapear. The optimist in me hopes so. A world where Arabs aren't seen as inherently crazed, where bombing brown people isn't tolerated, where supporting colonial powers is abhored. Of course, one never knows. Changing color doesn't necessarily change policy or attitudes. One can hope.

[Alex Tolley]

RW: Well, yes, but a more cogent observation might be to discern that there is really no compelling reason to frame the question in dichotomous terms such as these in the first place since there is nothing in the data that suggests these two poles really exist other than as linguistic/philosophical category distinctions; i.e., they may be empty of real content and there may in fact be nothing of interest in between them either.

Frankly the nature vs. nurture debate is no longer of particular scientific interest because what contemporary neurobiological and neuropsychiatric research increasingly suggests is that we need to reframe our perspective of what a person is in order to understand how that person develops within a system, educationally defined or otherwise.

Just look again at the chart, its axes labels and the plots...

The rest of your straw man argument has no relevancy to the article.

[Icarus]

Julio...

We have to keep this concept of "human misery" in perspective.

We have a 'middle class' in the US which is growing ridiculously obese, who drive cars the size of houses, and who read nothing of the world beyond People Magazine. They allow their central govt to inflict a genocide in Iraq, and yet, 99% can't even name a living Iraqi. This is the evil of indifference, the evil of willful negligence.

That they are on a path toward misery is low on the list of global priorities. We need them a bit poorer. They consume 25% of the world's energy, more of its oil. This can't last.

A bit of economic collapse may be beneficial. Their continued consumer ethic and geo-political supremacy certainly is not.

But, yes, I do have a sense of glee here. Seeing the midwest fall apart is delightful. War by other means...war by other means.

[BJ Feng]

"Yet an emerging literature shows that much more than smarts is required for success in life. Motivation, sociability, the ability to work with others, the ability to focus on tasks, self-regulation, self-esteem, time preference, health, and mental health all matter. In an earlier time, these traits were part of what was called “character.”

The evidence on the importance of family factors in explaining ability gaps is a source of concern because a greater proportion of American children are being born into disadvantaged environments, where disadvantage is measured by the quality of parenting (Heckman, 2008).

Schooling plays a minor role in creating or perpetuating gaps, even though American children go to very different schools depending on their family backgrounds. Test scores for children with very different family backgrounds are remarkably parallel with age.

The family plays a powerful role in shaping adult outcomes that is not fully recognised by current American policies."

I selected some quotes because it seems that a number of people here either didn't read carefully or aren't willing to consider the implications. There is another factor besides schooling/education that greatly influences lifetime outcomes. GOOD PARENTING IS IMPORTANT! Instilling character, and teaching beneficial values has a large positive effect. Yet for some reason, a lot of people refuse to exhibit the same outrage toward bad parents as they do bad schools. Perhaps this is due to what has to be taught in order to create a person of character. Once again I quote to remind you.

"Motivation, sociability, the ability to work with others, the ability to focus on tasks, self-regulation, self-esteem, time preference, health, and mental health all matter. In an earlier time, these traits were part of what was called 'character.'"

Basically, this paper backs up Icarus and confirms that certain values impart a huge and lasting benefit. It seems that we should find a way to increase the quality of parenting. The least costly method I can think of involves social shame and pressure. Bad parents can be vilified and criticized in public to the point where it would be as shameful and unacceptable as being a member of the KKK. People would learn parenting skills to avoid being ostracized, and perhaps poor parents might even have less children. But to do this we would have to openly criticize people who don't spend with their children. Liberals might even go as far as using government and social programs both encourage and punish people who do not at least attempt to be a good parent. Mandated parenting classes along with a penalty for any additional children perhaps. Maybe even requiring sterilization as a requirement for future aid. After all, the government has broad powers to do what it can to improve the lives of its citizens, and we can trust that officials will come up with an effective and efficient program that will adequately solve the problem without making things worse.

[Lafayette]

AT: Can you highlight the exact reference that supports the contention that increased spending improves educational outcomes.

Yes, go to the OECD PISA Report, cited above and located here, titled "What Makes School Systems Perform".

Scroll down to page 57 where is found a diagram linking the Gini Coefficient to Literacy.

In fact, read the whole document. For this debate, or any on educational performance, it is well worth doing so.

[Lafayette]

Silly notion.

BJF: Basically, this paper backs up Icarus and confirms that certain values impart a huge and lasting benefit.

Perhaps, but that is not the point in terms of economic policy.

In terms of economic policy, we must ask the question, "What if a child is born in the poorest of classes and does not have the benefit of parental guidance for educational options?" This is the challenge we face: "How to break out of the cycle of poverty".

We all agree the that any policy that furthers the establishment of a strong family kernel is well worth implementing. The family is the core structure of our society. So, let's assist it with the necessary funding in terms of both Education and Health Care.

But, that is not happening in America as much as we would like. We have neglected education for so long that it does not provide the necessary family nurturing that guaranties a life free of violence, delinquency and eventually crime.

So, what does a nation do about such a problem? Rant in a blog about how awful it is? Or, take the challenge by the horns and tackle it? Now’s the time to decide.

This latter means An Educational Plan that assures professional adequacy in teaching, school investment (in terms of bricks and mortar as well as teaching aids and even guardians, if necessary). It is obvious that the richer school districts don't need this help. But, neither are they the ones with the schooling problems.

The problems have as an origin the lower class districts, and that is where the challenge must be undertaken and met with the necessary investments.

Family nurturing children towards a decent education is an ideal theory that America unfortunately thinks happens organically.

This silly notion has proven wrong.

[Lafayette]

Misplaced melodrama

Icky: A bit of economic collapse may be beneficial. Their continued consumer ethic and geo-political supremacy certainly is not.

But, yes, I do have a sense of glee here. Seeing the midwest fall apart is delightful. War by other means...war by other means.

Please, enough of this misplaced melodrama.

The point of this discussion is not your personal glee, but Education. With a capital E, if you don't mind.

BTW, despite the melodrama, your comment was quite right. The US has got soft in the underbelly. Educational Performance and Preventive Health Care are the obvious remedies -- as you should know by now.

[anne]

Notice well the vile evil:

"I suspect many Americans can't even see their feet because their guts are too huge. And, yet, at the same time, they want handouts so they can raise their kids. Shameless."

"Yes, your obese population in their 10mpg SUVs will one day be unable to move, literally. They'll be stuck on the road, unable to afford gas, too fat to walk home."

"We have a 'middle class' in the US which is growing ridiculously obese, who drive cars the size of houses, and who read nothing of the world beyond People Magazine."

[anne]

Notice well the vile evil:

"Bad parents can be vilified and criticized in public to the point where it would be as shameful and unacceptable as being a member of the KKK.... Maybe even requiring sterilization as a requirement for future aid...."

[ken melvin]

Surely it is meant that it be a dog eat dog world.

[Lafayette]

Policy compass

KM: Surely it is meant that it be a dog eat dog world.

Interesting insight. Yes, Icky was employing a bit of tongue in cheek.

If what he meant was as you say, then what should national policy accomplish to mitigate its dangers? Delight eternally in the obviously immoral compass of the "Market Solution" – our perennial no-fix solution because it ain’t broke?

What policy compass is going to ask Americans to wake up to their over-indulgence in food that leads to obesity? Look at all the attention given to an anthrax menace and the resulting national angst. And, yet, obesity will kill hundreds if not thousands more Americans taking a toll of our lives -- larger than al Qaida could ever hope for in their fondest dreams.

What policy compass, furthermore, is going to take the bull by the horns and make sure a Moon-Mission like program is in place to enhance basic secondary school graduation rates and passage to a tertiary education (either at college/university or occupational training)? We can go to the moon, but cannot educate our children into decent jobs? That's insane.

There will be no policy compass for Education, unless a PotUS takes the lead and assures (like lead-head promised but failed to deliver) that No Child Will Be Ever Left Behind.

PS: Ditto Health Care.

[anne]

"The US has got soft in the underbelly."

"What policy compass is going to ask Americans to wake up to their over-indulgence in food that leads to obesity?"

Enough, enough. Get it?

[BJ Feng]

"We all agree the that any policy that furthers the establishment of a strong family kernel is well worth implementing. The family is the core structure of our society. So, let's assist it with the necessary funding in terms of both Education and Health Care."

If we all agree that "family values" are important, then why not also reinforce that structure through societal norms? Societal approval or disapproval has a strong effect on individual behavior, why is the left so hesitant to use this method?

[anne]

"Bad parents can be vilified and criticized in public to the point where it would be as shameful and unacceptable as being a member of the KKK.... Maybe even requiring sterilization as a requirement for future aid...."

"Societal approval or disapproval has a strong effect on individual behavior, why is the left so hesitant to use this method?"

Why not stop playing at being a monster, or is that a left sort of matter?

[Lafayette]

Media tsunami

BJF: If we all agree that "family values" are important, then why not also reinforce that structure through societal norms? Societal approval or disapproval has a strong effect on individual behavior, why is the left so hesitant to use this method?

Yes, pray tell how we should do that.

With the media constantly bombarding our lil' darling couch potatoes with messages about the latest this or that, which they cannot simply do without. Or, the dress code implemented by peer recognition at school. (Which is only a bit less dictatorial as any promulgated by the Hitler Youth Groups.)

In this debate, we are touching upon societal values that are fostered by the society in question. The inculcation of cultural values certainly must start in the home and reinforced in school.

But, as I have argued, when the home doesn't have them, who does? The church? We should depend upon "faith based initiatives" to inculcate societal values? I don't see that as a viable alternative that will touch each and every child, which is what we should aspire to doing.

Just what does a parent do facing the onslaught of a media tsunami that urges the young to join heartily in the spirit of Conspicuous Consumption? Veblen posited this phrase in 1899 ... and we still have not found a way to manage it properly.

We are deep, deep, deep into Conspicuous Consumption -- that which is founded upon discretionary income across all the social classes. Why do the poor want to be seen in Cadillacs? Why do the rich want to be seen at only the most elite restaurants/hotels/country clubs? Why are Pumas or Nikes de rigueur footwear around the globe amongst teenagers? Why does an iPhone generate lines of techno-nerds waiting outside shops to buy it? And these are perfectly honest propensities.

What instigates dishonesty and greed is the willingness of too many to trespass the rules in order to obtain the discretionary income that allows Invidious Consumption – that is, consumption uniquely motivated to provoke envy.

Look at current television publicity. Explain how Peer Envy is not a key argument prompting consumer propensity to purchase certain goods and services.

Any takers?

[Mumbai Female Escorts]

What a great post:) Thanks…..

[Traveling Escorts Agency]

Nice and a very informative website…thanks