Babies born to Unmarried women - 40% in 2007

This was a hard-to-believe statistic I learned from the latest Data Brief issued by the National Center for Health Statistics. Of all babies born in 2007, 40% were to unmarried women. The percentage is rising among all age groups, not just teens; it's rising even in women 25 years of age and older. For example, the birthrate for unmarried women between 30 and 34 years old was 21 per 1000 births in 1980. By 2006 it was 55 per 1000 births.
That doesn't mean that Daddies aren't around, of course. But is it the Brangelina effect; or is it the greater economic independence of women and reluctance of men to have children; or is it the continued existence of a marriage tax that is undermining the institution of marriage?
I'm not sure how bad this is for society, if at all. Just don't know the evidence to comment. But it sure did surprise me.

Just took the new Alzheimers 5 min test & passed!

Hooray -- no nursing home for me this week. British Medical Journal just reported on a new 5-minute test for Alzheimers, just 2 pages long. It's supposedly much more sensitive than other tests. Here's a link to the test on-line. It's biased in favor of Brits and against Americans because of one cultural question. So, don't freak over that one. Haven't found the scoring system yet but will post when I do. Best for you to answer every question successfully. That way you'll have a perfect score and know that you, too, will stay in the community for a while, at least.

The "brilliant" Larry Summers

Yes, it's Larry Summers time again. This time it's a piece in the New York Times on the workings of Obama's West Wing economics team. Here are the main descriptions of our Bad Boy in that article :

• the brilliant but sometimes supercilious Mr. Summers
• Mr. Summers, given his prickly personality,
• His argumentative style
• under Mr. Summers, meetings became “endless debating sessions,”
• “Larry Summers is one of the world’s most brilliant economists,” said Mr. Orszag,
• He enriches any discussion he participates in,
• "....pretty good at making the case against anything.’
• The arguments became so heated that Mr. Summers stormed from one meeting,
• “incredibly inclusive” and “listens to the economic arguments"

So, there, amidst the questionable traits, and some good traits, is the ubiquitous "brilliant" description. Why do economists and the press that covers them continue to describe this man as "brilliant?" I'm sick of it. The man was instrumental in fostering public policies that led directly to the immensity of our current "Great Recession" (as we're now calling it). And, he has never owned up in public to his role in it.

So, can we now start referring to him as " the inclusive and argumentative, but mentally challenged, Mr. Summers?"

I'd feel so much better if the press would stop lipsticking the pig.

Robert Reich on GM, bailouts, productivity and US.

My prolific reader friend Lupi sent me link to three pieces by Robert Reich(Labor Sec'y under Clinton) on the future of our economy, as seen through the prism of the GM bailouts. (ReichPartI; ReichPartII; ReichPartIII). She knew I would like them. Reich always makes sense to me, but his sensible ideas never seem to make it into policy.
We really DO need a new political party in this country -- the Common Sense Party? -- the Centrist Party? My advisors tell me I'm a dreamer to imagine that the grass-roots power of the internet could bring about such a thing. I'd follow Reich if he announced such a move.
Turns out Reich has a blog where he posts wonderful stuff on all manner of public policy issues. Check it out here: Reich Blog. I'll put a link to it in the list of blogs here (scroll down to bottom in left column), so you can always find it. Or, just add it to your own Favorites list.

What it's like to be a Public school HS teacher at end of year

Early this week I learned in the Washington Post that students in a local suburban high school are waging a campaign to allow cell phone use in school.
At lunch, at the very least, they say. And today a Post editorial actually endorsed the change. (If that happens, all the more reason to send your kids to private or parochial schools.)
Now our "Teaching Stories" author (Ynonymous) has sent along another description of her life as a high school science teacher in a local suburban public school district. Issue 3- End-of-School-Year Thrills helps to put the state of the adolescent mind into perspective. Why would we want to enable students to self-distract any more than at present? Read it. You'll feel like you're there in the classroom, but you'll be glad it's she and not you!

Do workers need a week of guaranteed sick leave?

Now that we're through taking ownership of the company that makes the cars that we refuse to own, time to turn to improving working conditions for those of us who still have jobs. The Dems (101 of them) in the House have introduced legislation (HR 2460) to require every employer with more than 15 employees to offer 1 hour of paid sick leavefor every 30 hours worked, up to a total of 7 days per year. Read all about it in an informative About.com article. Sen Kennedy says that 89% of low-wage workers (low-wage undefined in article) are without any paid sick leave.
On the face of it, this sounds like a good idea. (Who wants coughing/hacking co-workers at the MacDonalds?) But Lupi R, who has close-up experience with small businesses that compete with low-cost producers in other countries, points out that it will put further strain on those firms struggling to make it in this economy. She believes that workers will be inclined to "use up" their sick leave every year, whether sick or not. Businesses that need to keep running will have to pay other workers time and a half to make up the difference. (As a retired Fed who hoarded sick leave, but only up to the point that I couldn't carry it over into the new year, I'm afraid she may be right. When it's use-or-lose, let's face it, we're gonna use!)
If you accept the labor economists' argument that total compensation is what employers pay (TC= wages + benefits), then greater benefits means higher TC. That makes us even less competitive than we already are. Or, more likely, employers will adjust wages downward to keep TC about the same as before. Of course, not every employer will do this right away, but the more competitive the sector, the more necessary such downward adjustment will be. Some employers will hire fewer workers and squeeze more work out of 'em. (How can that be? Aren't we a bunch of cellphone slaves as it is?) Some might demand higher cost-sharing for health coverage (oh, joy). Things have a way of working through the system. And, if they don't squeeze wages down, that's just more unemployment due to our even more evolved inability to compete globally.
Bottom line for me is that it's better to keep things as they are. If we want to subsidize workers without such benefits, we can do it through the myriad programs we already have to augment their incomes (earned income tax credits; subsidy programs; unemployment benefits, etc.) Mandates on employers, especially small businesses, are not the way to go right now, and perhaps right ever.
Do I sound like a Republican? Jeez! Either way you come out on this, you can weigh in with your congressman in minutes. Here's how.

Health Reform and the "Public Plan" option

The political energy in Washington has centered on two issues of late:

1. Whether there should be a "public plan" option (think Medicare fee for service) along side private insurance companies
2. Whether employers that offer health insurance should be able to deduct those costs as business expenses (a 35% tax subsidy if the company is making money). If so, should the deduction be capped in some way?

Number 2 -- that's important, and maybe I'll figure it out. (I'm not betting on it.)

Number 1- I don't have to figure it out. Victor Fuchs, the dean of health economists, figured it out for me in this week's New England Journal of Medicine. Here's the free link to his article in NEJM. Bottom line: public-schmublic...it's not going to matter that much. It's no panacea for the problems we've got, and it won't kill private insurance. The latter I'm not so sure about. The former -- based on all we know about how ineffective Medicare has been these past 50+ years in controlling costs or assuring quality -- is a slam dunk.