Look at the chart. Adjusted for "poverty rate and other demographics", the top states are red states, so it's harder to chalk it up as some sort of n=1 outlier.
What does that mean, "adjusted for poverty"? Reading level is an absolute. You're either at a third grade level or not. This adjustment seems to have no purpose other than completing a narrative that does not help solve the problem.
To be fair to gruez, the chart was made by the economist and not by them.
To be less fair to the economist, "adjusted by poverty level" is a heck of a spin, we've had many generations as a developed nation now, your state poverty level is caused by your state education outcomes. And that's without even speculating about what "demographic factors" means or implies.
You're right, but "don't blame us, we were investing our energy in oppressing the blacks" isn't really the greatest excuse for cotton belt states when it comes to their education and gdp numbers.
Teachers generally make the same in a suburb as in an inner city school. In the Des Moines area all schools get the same amount of money per student, but you still see suburbs outperforming the city schools. I don't know what the problem is, but this disproves the money is the problem theory.
>You're either at a third grade level or not. This adjustment seems to have no purpose other than completing a narrative that does not help solve the problem.
How should you measure an education system? Should you measure purely based on the student's performance? What if the students are just better at reading, independent of the school? It's not hard to imagine that even with identical teachers, that inner cities schools would have worse test scores than wealthy suburban schools, especially if the latter are rich enough to afford tutors, the family environment is more conductive to learning, etc. Recognizing this fact, it's fairly obvious that "you're either at a third grade level or not" is a terrible way of assessing how good of a job an educational system is doing.
> What does that mean, "adjusted for poverty"? Reading level is an absolute
Reading scores are SUPER strongly correlated with family income levels in the US. The fact that Alabama does a better job teaching its poorest students to read than Massachusetts does is impressive, particularly given the disparity in funding levels.
If you were comparing HS basketball coaches on the basis of how well their teams perform on the court, then you might find it useful to correct for how many tall kids went to the high schools they were coaching at.
Exactly. The State of Alabama loves to make things are difficult as possible for Democrat ran cities. But to be fair, the Montgomery Democrats usually aren't much better.
>Why should hospitals be for-profit organizations? Sounds like all the wrong incentives.
You're conflating private ownership with the organizations nominal financial structure. It has nothing to do with the structure model of the organization and everything to do with resources wasted on TPS reports. This waste has to come from somewhere. Something is necessarily being forgone whether that's profit, reinvestment in the organization or competitive edge that benefits the customer (e.g. lower cost or higher quality for same cost). The same is true for a for profit company, or any other organization.
FWIW the hospital is technically nonprofit as is typical for hospitals. And I assure you, they still have all the wrong incentives despite this.
I’m not in favor of these tariffs. At all. However, it seems that they haven’t had such an impact yet on the economy, at least regarding consumer prices. You’d expect much larger inflation given the tariffs IIUC.
My current understanding of the general consensus is that many companies have been eating the tariffs with the hope SCOTUS will strike them. If they are upheld, prices will likely rise significantly
Actually job numbers are depressed (hiring recession) and GDP numbers are still way up, both precisely due to the AI investment. More output with fewer people.
Wild take to cite a recession when last quarter growth was 4.4%.
Firstly, nobody said 'the economy' so I don't know why you're even putting it in quotation marks.
Secondly, GDP is the best measure of output / value-add we have, and it's significantly up, despite jobs being down.
Output going up with fewer people means more productivity. That's the point that was being made.
Recessions are measured in economics by tracking GDP, which the person I replied to said we're in. We're not.
Whatever concept of "the economy" you had in mind to bring more nuance and refinement to a discussion, which is possible and welcome, and which you haven't bothered to add, doesn't refute the basics above.
Fortunately deaths are only a fraction of the accidents though, and it's not even necessarily the kind of accident that bothers insurance companies the most as long as the driver only kills himself.
reply