Category: Uncategorized

“‘There’s a Perception That Canada Is Being Invaded’: Justin Trudeau’s government has started rejecting more refugee claims from migrants who cross the U.S.-Canada border on foot.” (Atlantic)

Canada has built a reputation for warmly embracing Syrians. But most of the newcomers are from elsewhere. At first, it was mostly Haitians in the U.S. who made the journey. Some said they were spooked by Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric and worried about losing the temporary residence status they’d been given in the U.S. following the 2010 earthquake in their native country. In recent months, Nigerians have become the most frequent border crossers. Many get visitor visas to come to the U.S., then take a bus or taxi to upstate New York, where they walk north into Quebec—straight into the arms of Canadian border guards waiting to arrest them.

The migrants are typically detained for a few hours and then bussed to an emergency shelter in Montreal, where they stay and work on their asylum applications. While they wait for their cases to be adjudicated, they can access healthcare and send their children to public school for free, just like any Canadian.

Could this be the solution to our country’s healthcare funding issues? Americans who need an expensive procedure walk across the border, ask for asylum, and then get admitted to a hospital in Montreal.

Related:

• Why accept any refugees to the U.S. if they are welcome in Canada?
• Can the refugee caravan at the U.S. border simply fly up to Canada?

Full post, including comments

“54 students are in the National Geographic Bee finals. Just 4 are girls.” (NBC News) is interesting.

First, let’s consider the cisgender-normative prejudice. How can the journalist and editors say “4 are girls”. Unless we assume that people are imprisoned in their biological genders, wouldn’t it be more accurate to say “4 currently identify as girls”? Or “4 identified as girls at the time we interviewed them”?

Leaving this hostility to transgender folk aside, the article is rich in detail regarding what Americans are willing to debate:

Fifty-four geography-loving fourth-to-eighth-graders have earned a spot in the televised, rapid-fire contest — winners of local competitions from each U.S. state and territory — but just four of them are girls. The gender gap has persisted since the competition started in 1989; of the 29 winners, only two have been girls.

The National Geographic Bee’s gender imbalance puzzles teachers, parents and students. Some say that the tournament is fair but that educators need to actively foster geographic curiosity in girls, while others think the National Geographic Society is in violation of Title IX and needs to overhaul the bee’s design to promote better results for girls.

To win this year’s New York and New Mexico State Bees, respectively, students had to know that Georgetown is the chief port city in Guyana, and that Europe’s longest ice bridge connects the island of Hiiumaa to the mainland of Estonia.

Estonia is interesting (see Estonia: Tough campaign stop for Bernie Sanders), but most Americans would visit in the summer and there be unable to use this ice road. Guyana? Google says the annual GDP is roughly $3.4 billion. That’s 1/100th the GDP of a mid-sized city in China (chart). It is supposedly a great country for bird-watching and rainforest-lovers, but Guyana last made the U.S. news in the Jim Jones era.

In the recent posting about whether open offices are bad for women, a Facebook friend commented

Journalism in 2018: Pick a situation or practice. Say that women (or minorities) are disproportionately affected. Collect thunderous applause.

This NBC article supports that with the twist that the skill described, geographic knowledge, is almost completely useless in the Internet age.

Readers: In the Google Maps and Wikipedia age, what is the value of obscure geographical knowledge?

Full post, including comments

In a spectacular example of off-topic commenting, Buf E. asked “about the EU’s General Data Protection Regulations. How would the GDPR have affected you as an entrepreneur starting a pioneering social network?” in response to “Captain Tammie is the anti-Sully”.

The GDPR (Wikipedia; 88-page PDF) certainly would seem to preclude the running of a site such as the original photo.net (described in Philip and Alex’s Guide to Web Publishing). It would have been too time-consuming to read all of the regulations and figure out how to comply. A “data protection officer” would be too expensive for a site that was started without the intention of collecting revenue. Being forced to delete stuff on user request would have been extremely burdensome for moderators and the site operator (we tried never to delete anything on photo.net if there were comments on it because then there would be cascading deletion of other users’ work).

On the other hand, the EU did not promulgate this regulation during the Great Age of Web and Internet Expansion. They promulgated it today when the trend is for 99 percent of page views to be Facebook and Google. Starting an online community in hopes of it catching on seems unrealistic when users are glued to Facebook (the way that slot machine gamblers are!).

I haven’t studied the GDPR in detail, but I don’t think it would be fair to blame the bureaucrats for making the Internet services market highly concentrated. Measured by revenue, the market was already highly concentrated as the GDPR went into effect.

Readers who are more informed: Does this make a practical difference?

Full post, including comments

On a recent business trip I flipped the CBS Morning show on. Captain Tammie Jo Shults was being interviewed… along with First Officer Darren Ellisor, and flight attendants Rachel Fernheimer, Seanique Mallory, and Kathryn Sandoval. The flight attendants actually were the stars of the show due to their more engaging personalities (ATP stands for “A Tedious Presence”?). Captain Tammie and Southwest are apparently doing a great job in educating the media and the public regarding the crew concept.

Related:

• Southwest 1380: think about the flight attendants
• Airbus A320 certified for single-pilot operation (Captain Sully heroically battling the emergency solo)

Full post, including comments

Our town held a “remembrance and celebration” for Memorial Day.

The invocation was given by the local church’s assistant minister, a long-haired mid-50s (?) woman who had formerly identified as a man (the head minister is in a same-sex marriage, but as far as I know, neither he, his husband, nor their adopted children, are transgender). Her speech was a plea for more tax dollars to be spent so that unemployment and homelessness among U.S. veterans was reduced to 0% (i.e., every veteran would have a house and, if desired, a job). Conclusion: “religion” in our town is actually primarily “politics” (but with 99% of the parishoners voting for Hillary, is this not preaching to the converted?)

[Note that existing funding (more than $180 billion) for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs is roughly triple the total military budget of Russia and nearly as large as the total military budget of China (Wikipedia).]

Our national anthem was sung. Everyone stood up and placed hands over hearts. I tried to get people in my row to kneel with me, but was unsuccessful.

There was a moment of silence for the 6 total U.S. combat deaths in Afghanistan in 2017 (i.e., fewer than might die in one SUV crash stateside). We also remembered the roughly 20 veteran town residents who had died since Memorial Day 2017. Quite a few had served in World War II.

Each veteran in the town was invited to come up and share a story, including of battles fought in. The Vietnam vets were laconic. A former Navy pilot said “Mostly I was a danger to myself when flying.” Everyone else talked about bureaucracy, desk jobs, and enormous sums spent on preparedness for events that never occurred.

An active-duty soldier from the Massachusetts Army National Guard delivered the keynote address. She has served for five years, lives in a suburban home, and commutes to her Transportation Company office in Wellesley, Massachusetts. Although she has never been deployed overseas, she has been decorated with five medals.

Our town’s Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts were on hand to handle various tasks. At the end I asked a Girl Scout if she wanted to join the Boy Scouts now that they were simply “Scouts” and were accepting girls. She demurred. I asked two Boy Scouts if they were enthusiastic about welcoming girls. The answer was “no” and “studies show that kids learn better in single-sex environments.” They said that they were keeping their shirts, embroidered with “Boy Scouts of America”.

Our fire and police departments grilled hot dogs and hamburgers, wrapping each one in aluminum foil to keep warm. Environmentalists in town want to spend $100 million to bulldoze the existing school, park the students in trailers for three years, and rebuild a “Net Zero” school of roughly the same size and in the same location as the current building. This will pay for itself after 454 years if the current annual utility bill of $220,000 actually does go to zero (and assuming we can borrow at 0% interest). I expected these folks to scold our first reponders for their excessive use of this energy-intensive material, but was disappointed.

Readers: What happened where you live?

Related:

• Memorial Day Thoughts (2016)
• Belated Memorial Day reflection (2010)

Full post, including comments

A Bernie-turned-Hillary-supporting friend on Facebook, over “Women accuse Morgan Freeman of inappropriate behavior, harassment” (CNN):

Sigh. The good news is that these people are being outed for their abhorrent behavior. Harvey Weinstein has been arrested and charged with rape. The bad news is that we will now be waking up to years of ‘you know that guy who you used to respect, even admire? Turns out he’s another harassing asshole’ 🙁 The unbearably horrific news is that they’ve already harassed so many women out of jobs, careers, sometimes even life itself. Let’s make sure we use this moment to teach our sons to behave.

Part of my campaign to be defriended by everyone:

Me: you’re expecting your sons, once they are old enough to receive Medicare benefits, to have the same access to attractive young women that Harvey Weinstein and Morgan Freeman had?”

Him: harassment can be inflicted by anyone on anyone, be they old, young, ugly, pretty, rich, poor, powerful or powerless. So no, I was not expressing expectations of access, but rather aspirations for behavior

Me: most people don’t have the opportunity to behave the way that Roman Emperors, billionaires, and movie stars are reported to have behaved.

Him: True, but harm is done even at much lower levels of misbehavior than that…

Me: why not use an example from an ordinary person? If you are trying to teach basic manners do you cite infamous mass murderers as examples of people who fail to follow Emily Post?

Him: the famous person made himself into an example, I did not choose him … It’s exactly this behavior of publicly narrowing the scope of a woman’s value to her sexual attractiveness that is the problem in his case, and ALL heterosexual men are capable of such behavior. What needs to be taught to our sons is that it is not acceptable to carry on this way, no matter what your station in life. A famous person being taken down for behaving this way is a perfect teaching moment, because it gets people’s attention.

Me: why wouldn’t people instead learn from the Morgan Freeman example that women do not object to the behavior you decry when it is coming from someone who is middle aged, rich, and famous? But the same behavior becomes unwelcome from a man in his 15th year of Medicare? … See “20 women slept with me to get promotion” (The Sun) for example. The 31-year-old supermarket manager engages in behavior that presumably wouldn’t have worked for a differently situated man (e.g., older or no longer a manager).

Readers: Let’s assume that Morgan Freeman hasn’t changed his behavior all that much over the last 20-30 years. Suddenly, however, the behavior is publicly condemned. Is that most likely due to a change in our society’s standards of behavior or a difference between the 50-year-old Morgan Freeman’s and the 80-year-old Morgan Freeman’s ability to advance the career of women who interviewed and/or worked with him?

Related:

• The Nurture Assumption, regarding the likely success of a parent molding a son’s personality
• Considering a bold denunciation of Harvey Weinstein (taking the personal risk of attacking a celebrity whose star has faded: “Despite the risk to my career as a helicopter instructor, only slightly reduced by the fact that Mr. Weinstein likely exceeds the 300 lb. per-seat limitation of a Robinson R44, I am now thinking about going on record to express my disapproval of this unemployed guy.”)

Full post, including comments

Surveying our pizza delivery options on a recent miserable day, we found that the Just Crust had closed. “Just Crust Pizzeria Set to Close” (Harvard Crimson) explains:

Citing rising rents, Harvard Square pizzeria The Just Crust will officially close…

“With the high rent in Harvard Square that would be going up higher, we decided not to renew the lease and closed the location,” Liss-Riordan wrote. “We have enjoyed operating The Just Crust and greatly appreciate all the support the Cambridge community has given us over these past four years.”

Other local businesses have faced similar problems with high rents—assessed property values in Harvard Square have nearly doubled over the last five years.

Liss-Riordan, who is also a graduate of Harvard Law School, decided to open The Just Crust after she represented employees of the restaurant’s predecessor, Upper Crust Pizzeria, in a labor abuse case.

The Just Crust was partially employee-owned, which Liss-Riordan said at the time was a change she wanted to make after being involved in Upper Crust’s legal battle. Her new restaurant’s name and logo—of an aproned worker—stood in “poetic juxtaposition” to the Upper Crust’s logo of a “dandy man in a top hat riding a bicycle,” according to The Just Crust’s website. The Just Crust also emphasized its “

“With the high rent in Harvard Square that would be going up higher, we decided not to renew the lease and closed the location,” Liss-Riordan wrote. “We have enjoyed operating The Just Crust and greatly appreciate all the support the Cambridge community has given us over these past four years.”

Other local businesses have faced similar problems with high rents—assessed property values in Harvard Square have nearly doubled over the last five years.

Liss-Riordan, who is also a graduate of Harvard Law School, decided to open The Just Crust after she represented employees of the restaurant’s predecessor, Upper Crust Pizzeria, in a labor abuse case.

The Just Crust was partially employee-owned, which Liss-Riordan said at the time was a change she wanted to make after being involved in Upper Crust’s legal battle. Her new restaurant’s name and logo—of an aproned worker—stood in “poetic juxtaposition” to the Upper Crust’s logo of a “dandy man in a top hat riding a bicycle,” according to The Just Crust’s website. The Just Crust also emphasized its “progressive business model” where employees received shares of the profits and ingredients were sourced from regional farmers and producers.

Is pizza-with-delivery no longer a viable business in expensive cities such as Boston/Cambridge? We still have a Domino’s, but the rest of the bunch seems to have outsourced delivery to grubhub and similar (not sure that can work given that they don’t have the fancy insulated bags of a Domino’s).

Related:

• Economic injustice is profitable? (“fair-wage pizza shop” closes)
• “Uno Leaves Pizza-Sized Hole in Harvard Square” (we lost Uno in 2016)

Full post, including comments

From this weblog in November,”Where can Harvey Weinstein go for a peaceful retirement?“:

Why would a 65-year-old with money want to stick around to spend the remaining years of his life as a defendant? As a thought-experiment, if Harvey doesn’t want to stick around, where can he go?

From the Washington Post today, “Harvey Weinstein charged with rape and other abuse charges in sexual assault cases”:

Harvey Weinstein was arrested … Weinstein, 66, was charged with rape, criminal sex act, sexual abuse and sexual misconduct for cases involving two women, according to the New York Police Department. … “for forcible sexual acts against two women in 2013 and 2004, respectively,”

Readers: Given that this turn of events seemed predictable, why did he stick around? Why did he not wire his money out and stuff himself into a Gulfstream G650 back in 2017? There are a lot of great things about the U.S., but being a civil and criminal lawsut defendant and, ultimately, one of our 2+ million prisoners, does not seem like a compelling reason to prefer the U.S. to other possible places to call home.

Related:

• “Morgan Freeman Is Accused of Sexual Harassment by Several Women” (nytimes, regarding the 80-year-old best known to my friends as a type-rated Citation Jet pilot (see the FAA Airmen Registry))

Full post, including comments

A Facebook friend posted “Why open plan offices are like a nudist beach” (Washington Post):

In the #MeToo era, an open-office environment might seem like the perfect solution for fixing the sexual harassment that can take place behind closed office doors. If there are glass walls everywhere, and no one has doors or even plastic partitions to reserve any sense of privacy, groping and sexual advances might be harder to get away with.

But that hardly means it’s an office arrangement women love. Research has already shown that women tend to be more sensitive than men to the noise generated in open-plan offices, and take more long sick leaves when they work in them. Now a recently published study of a British government office showed that open-plan offices may be tougher for women in different ways — leaving them feeling more scrutinized for their appearance, subject to staring by male peers and more self-conscious about their status in the organization.

Silicon Valley women express their unhappiness:

“A couple jobs ago, I was basically a zoo animal. Incessant staring and comments on my clothes, makeup, jewelry, conversations, personal habits, food, facial expressions, everything. One guy would even stare between the monitors all day and comment while I worked.”

(Why was she wearing makeup and jewelry if she wanted to keep the lowest possible profile?)

Another reader, named only Veronica G., wrote Fast Company to say “my own office was a glass box and my desk did not have a facade – which meant, because I always wear skirts or dresses instead of pants, I had to sit with my knees together all the time to look ‘proper’ because I was visible from all angles.”

(Why not get some pants at Costco for $20? Or shop for rompers? (I learned recently from a 3rd grader that “rompers” look like a dress on top, but are divided into pants on the bottom))

What was interesting about this was the ensuing discussion:

Married-with-kids male engineer (“mengineer”?): Journalism in 2018: Pick a situation or practice. Say that women (or minorities) are disproportionately affected. Collect thunderous applause.

Male-named college undergraduate: Man, isn’t exposing the rampant sexism/racism in America just the worst? what a drag.

Engineer: In America, in the midst of rampant sexism and racism. I just spent two days in an open office environment. These women stared at me constantly and just JUDGED. I could feel it.

Undergrad: I’m confused, are you claiming to be a victim of sexism?

Engineer: I certainly am. Why not? Are you questioning a victim’s testimony?

Wag: You are not a “victim”; You are a “survivor”

Undergrad (to Wag): way to trivialize the various traumas that sexual assault survivors endure on a regular basis. It’s like you playing a game of paintball and calling yourself a war veteran afterwards.

Undergrad: Not at all, I’m sure you felt judged. But let’s take a survey. Who are your coworkers? are you in a male dominated field? you certainly were at MIT. Is your boss male? what about their boss? and, Since we know you live in the US, where the power structure (both in government and on local social levels) is incredibly male dominated, you did not experience sexism. This isn’t to say that the women in your work place made you feel uncomfortable, but while you still exist in a society that favors men over women (which is, again, certainly the case in STEM careers), sexism really ain’t your problem

Engineer: I won’t allow myself to be reduced to a data point to be compared to other data points in a heartless statistical argument. My experience and feelings are valid and incredibly important in and of themselves and it is the society’s full responsibility to ensure that I and men like me don’t ever feel judged again.

Undergrad: Yes, agreed, we should do all we can do ensure we have a safe and comfortable for all. But while you’re getting “judged” which, again, must be rough, Women are being paid less, harassed, and assaulted, all on top of being judged. But until some of these numbers are evened out, I’d say its appropriate to focus on women. NPR article with harassment data: “A New Survey Finds 81 Percent Of Women Have Experienced Sexual Harassment”

I pointed out that the article betrayed cisgender-normative prejudice by the journalists at the Post. The article was published on May 16 and a May 7 Twitter entry from Tracy Chou was cited along with a comment from “Hayley Anderson” about makeup and jewelry. Although Hayley never says “I identify as a woman,” or refers to him/herself with a female pronoun, Hayley is described as “a woman”. Why assume that someone who wears makeup and jewelry identifies as a “woman”? And even if Hayley identified as a woman on May 7, how do the folks at the Post know that she continued to identify as a woman through May 16?

I also pointed out that the “nudist beach” analogy in the headline was questionable given that a typical nude beach in the U.S., at least, is all-male. I asked “wouldn’t it be a better analogy to compare the open office to South Beach in Miami, for example, where fashionable swimwear is often displayed?”

Here are some ideas for correcting the injustice:

Should women in tech companies all be given private offices while the herd of male nerds is left to toil in an open pit? If it is tough to pay women more, for whatever reason, companies could get them closer to their fair market compensation (higher than a similarly skilled and productive man) by giving them a more comfortable working environment.

Or maybe there could be a separate parking lot, entrance, and floor for employees identifying as female?

(my favorite, due to requirement for advanced tech!) Or workers identifying as female could work in the open office, but workers identifying as male would wear special electronic glasses that turned opaque as soon as a female-identifying employee was in the field of view? If a woman spoke to a man, however, the glasses could (at her option) temporarily go transparent or translucent.

Readers: What do you think?

Full post, including comments

“Of course US birth rates are falling – this is a harsh place to have a family” (Guardian, Amy Westervelt):

The reality is, for all its pro-family rhetoric, the US is a remarkably harsh place for families, and particularly for mothers. It’s a well-known fact, but one that bears repeating in this context, that the US is one of only four countries in the world with no government-subsidized maternity leave

Have we really built a “harsh place … for mothers”? A mother who has never worked can get a free apartment in San Francisco, Manhattan, Boston, or Cambridge, free health care for herself and her children, free food (SNAP), and a free phone. This could be regarded as a “government-subsidized maternity leave” of at least 18 years and, in most cases, a lifetime (since the entitlement to public housing doesn’t go away once the kids are grown up). See Book Review: The Redistribution Recession for how eagerly Americans have adjustd their behavior to qualify for this government offer.

I think what Ms. Westervelt means is that the U.S. is a harsh place for mothers who work at middle-income jobs. The definition of “harsh” is that their incomes may yield a spending power and lifestyle that is actually inferior to what welfare mothers obtain (see Table 4 in The Work Versus Welfare Trade-Off for a calculation by state; here in Massachusetts welfare pays 118 percent of the median salary, whereas in New York it is 110 percent and in California only 96.5 percent).

(Americans who choose their sex partners and sex location carefully can do a lot better than what the government provides. See “Child Support Litigation without a Marriage” for the cash flow that can result from having sex with higher-than-median earners. Also the Massachusetts chapter for the example of a custody and child support plaintiff with an Ivy League degree who out-earns Penn classmates by 3.2X via providing part-time care for one child.)

A friend’s wife is the author of “Paying Nannies Under the Table Is the Norm” (Slate):

After I interviewed over 60 potential nannies, and despite my offering paid benefits and overtime, a surprising number declined because being paid ‘over the table’ would affect their ability to qualify for government subsidies.

(i.e., she is surprised that in a country running a $1 trillion welfare state, some people want to keep receiving welfare benefits.)

Tax supports to help families pay for this child care are woefully inadequate, and caregivers’ pay seldom reflects their vital role in our economy. Yet the costs of child care, housing, and healthcare have risen sharply for both parties.

We need to recognize and cultivate talented professional caregivers, by transforming care into a financially viable, long-term career option for the millions of women who choose it.

“We have both devalued work that is historically associated with women, and continue to devalue the lives of the women of color who do the work. Until we as a society value care work, and make sure that all workers are protected by our laws, we will continue to see inequities and crises in the industry as a whole,” said Poo.

The husband proudly posted this article as a Facebook status. Some responses:

Me: What would be awesome is if every childless American would work 90 hours/week to subsidize those of us who have chosen to have kids, but don’t want to take care of them personally.

The author: Women are sole, primary or co-breadwinners in 2/3 of American households. The overwhelming majority of our workforce, that fuels and drives our economy that benefits all who live here, have the need for childcare to be able to work. It’s an economic imperative to make childcare affordable and accessible. … And 80% of women have children.

The author: There’s another side to this argument, it’s not just about the working families but the caregivers that are currently relying on subsidies in many cases to afford basic life-support (housing, healthcare, etc.) Those subsidies come from tax dollars. Nearly half of the domestic workers are immigrants, and working under the table perpetuates the generational cycle of poverty. When domestic workers age and don’t have enough savings in their elder years nor have they amassed social security benefits (despite how small that is) to qualify for social security offsets to medicare plans, their adult children (whether or not they have children of their own) and/or other social safety nets (i.e. welfare) pick up the tab to support their need to live.

Me: I am sure that you are right, but if people with children overall pay less for something, doesn’t that mean people without children will be the ones who have to subsidize them? Where else does money come from ?

The author: … As a whole, our society needs high rates of employment to function. High rates of employment are threatened when the population can’t afford childcare which enables them to work – or if caregivers can’t afford to be caregivers if that makes sense. This disproportionately affects women’s ability to succeed and ascend in the workforce and also on the caregiver side disproportionately affects women and minorities. …

Deplorable: [gently suggests that maybe the real problem is that not working in Massachusetts can pay up to $100,000 per year, tax-free]

The author: Although I understand your point, I don’t believe that the government is doing a ‘good job’ of subsidizing the needy. And frankly, people who work demanding full-time jobs plus overtime hours, should be able to afford to live in or near the cities they work in. The market rates for childcare givers, like jobs in almost every other industry, haven’t moved up to address inflation. Many of us (myself included) make salaries that haven’t changed much while the cost of living has gone up dramatically. This makes the availability of a subsidy not just attractive for some but essential (especially if they have themselves or a family member with a serious illness/requiring heavy health care needs.) It’s complicated, messy & really not serving anyone (or society for that matter) the way it exists today.

The part that I put into bold face ties into the recent Seattle homeless housing plan posting. As the U.S. heads for a population of 400 million and does not build any new cities where people want to live, there has to be a lot of competition for apartments located in walkable pleasant neighborhoods. If government central planners fill up one third of these apartments with people who don’t work then the remaining supply is going to be out of reach for workers like the journalist (since those apartments will be snapped up by people who work in more lucrative fields, such as health care and finance).

The Europeans have dealt with this by limiting housing subsidies for welfare recipients. The result is that they can afford apartments only in undesirable suburbs. Anyone who wants to live in a prime center-city neighborhood in Europe has to work or be married to someone who works (the UK is an exception; a brief marriage or having sex with a high-income partner can lead to child support and/or divorce profits that will enable a non-working citizen to enjoy central London; see this chapter on International family law).

I’m wondering if this drumbeat of articles about how working mothers don’t get enough government cash is an example of how the middle-class portion of the U.S. economy needs to be centrally planned as well. The focus seems to be on “mothers” rather than “women”. This would make sense if the above hypothesis is true because it is “mothers” who can most easily benefit from welfare programs. For example, a woman with no children who applies for a free government-provided house may be placed on a 10-year waiting list.

So if we accept the following assumptions:

• a woman, regardless of income, wealth, or any other factors, should be able to have as many children as she desires
• no child should live in poverty
• every child should live with his or her mother
• people on welfare as equally entitled to live in America’s most sought-after neighborhoods

then a woman will derive essentially no economic benefit from working at a medium-income job. All that she will do is suffer a loss of leisure time. Therefore, though she would likely never phrase it this way, she will demand to have a spending power and quality of life that exceeds what her non-working welfare counterpart enjoys. Because she is competing with the government to buy or rent an apartment in a desirable neighborhood, the only way that “fairness” can be restored is if the government somehow gives her extra cash. Because it is primarily women with children who can get welfare, the extra government cash should somehow be tied to her status as having custody of children.

Readers: What do you think? Is this a middle-class anti-welfare rebellion in disguise? Instead of the expected revolt against paying higher taxes to fund more lavish welfare, though, what we’re seeing is middle-class Americans saying “I also want to be on welfare”?

[Separately, maybe the observed decline in birth rate is due to the higher population density of the U.S.? “Population Density Key Factor in Declining Human Fertility” says “we find a consistent and significant negative relationship between human fertility and population density. Moreover, we find that individual fertility preferences also decline with population density”]

Full post, including comments