Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

what can policy do to limit inequality? The answer is, it can operate on two fronts. It can engage in redistribution, taxing high incomes and aiding families with lower incomes. It can also engage in what is sometimes called “predistribution,” strengthening the bargaining power of lower-paid workers and limiting the opportunities for a handful of people to make giant sums.

We can see this in our own history. The middle-class society that baby boomers like me grew up in didn’t happen by accident; it was created by the New Deal, which engineered what economists call the “Great Compression,” a sharp reduction in income gaps.

Obamacare provides aid and subsidies mainly to lower-income working Americans, and it pays for that aid partly with higher taxes at the top. That makes it an important redistributionist policy — the biggest such policy since the 1960s.

If you doubt that we live in a winner-take-all economy and that education is the trump card, consider the vast amounts the affluent spend to teach their offspring.

This power spending on the children of the economic elite is usually — and rightly — cited as further evidence of the dangers of rising income inequality.

But it may be that the less lavishly educated children lower down the income distribution aren’t the only losers. Being groomed for the winner-take-all economy starting in nursery school turns out to exact a toll on the children at the top, too.

Residential poverty tends to be concentrated, and successful school integration requires either a district with enough socioeconomic diversity within its boundaries or a group of neighboring districts which, when combined, have enough diversity to facilitate an interdistrict integration plan.

Economists are trying to measure a home computer’s educational impact on schoolchildren in low-income households.

little or no educational benefit is found. Worse, computers seem to have further separated children in low-income households, whose test scores often decline after the machine arrives, from their more privileged counterparts.

few children whose families obtained computers said they used the machines for homework. What they were used for — daily — was playing games.

Teaching is a professional craft. Thinking that any high-scoring college student could come in and excel demeans it as a profession. No one would consider letting smart English majors perform surgery on low-income patients, or allowing cum laude math majors to do legal work for poor clients.

Stuffing under-prepared rookies’ ears with confidence and sending them into the fray doesn’t have a net neutral impact on our students or our national conversation on education.

A Guide to Statistics on Historical Trends in Income Inequality

For American teenagers, it really is harder to get into Harvard — or Yale, Stanford, Brown, Boston College or many other elite colleges — than it was when today’s 40-year-olds or 50-year-olds were applying. The number of spots filled by American students at Harvard, after adjusting for the size of the teenage population nationwide, has dropped 27 percent since 1994.

The share for any individual college is minuscule, of course. In 2012, about 33 out of every 100,000 American 18- to 21-year-olds were attending Harvard, down from 45 per 100,000 in 1994. These changes in the share tell you how much harder, or easier, admission has become for American teenagers on average. Between 1984 and 1994, it became easier at many colleges. The college-age population in this country fell during that time to 14.1 million in 1994 from 16.5 million in 1984, and the number of foreign students was relatively stable.

For students from the Northeast applying to elite colleges in the region, college admissions have probably become even more difficult in recent decades than these statistics suggest. Not only have colleges globalized, they have also become less regional, admitting more students from states like North Carolina, Texas and Washington.

In Dennis Burgess article ‘ObesityPproblem stems from Laziness’, he adresses the root cause of obesity. Burgess claims the root of obesity to be laziness. He argues that America does not have an ‘obesity problem’, rather a ‘laziness problem’. More specifically, Burgess makes mention of the correlation between children and parents concerning obesity. ‘As a child, I would go outside and “play”. This involved getting up off the couch and exerting myself. But many of today’s children don’t participate in this type of play. And many of today’s parents sit on the couch right next to them’ (Dennis B. Burgess). Burgess makes the correlation by stating that the parents often times discourage active play by not setting the example. Parents would rather sit with their kids on the couch than take the initiative and go outside with their kids and take a walk or play ball. Parents do indeed play a role in their children’s health and ultimately have some effect on their children’s health. Healthy kids most often have healthy parents who encourage their kids good health by setting the example well and partaking in activity with their kids.

Andrea Freeman addresses the issue of fast food in her article ‘Fast Food: Oppression Through Poor Nutrition.’ Freeman considers fast food in respects to low- income families. ‘Fast food has become a major source of nutrition in low- income, urban neighborhoods across the United States’ (Freeman, pg. 1). Less privelaged families must make do with their current financial situation. The easiest most convenient food source for low- income families is that of fast food. Therefore, parents have a direct effect on their children’s health.

federal policy needs to look beyond access to encompass student success and work for all students in the 21st century, including working adults, low-income students, first-generation students and students of color

Analyzing General Electric's Debt And Risk

1. Total Debt = Long-Term Debt + Short-Term Debt

2. Total Liabilities

look at economic trends

it is becoming more apparent that we may be entering a time when low wage jobs dominate and home prices remain sluggish for a decade moving forward.

looking at the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing program, growth of lower paying jobs, baby boomers retiring, and the massive amount of excess housing inventory we start to see why Japan’s post-bubble real estate market is very likely to occur in the United States.