How women's education is contributing to income inequality

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/01/29/new-academic-study-links-rising-income-inequality-to-assortive-mating/

Of course it's been overall good for society that women have gotten more education and income since WWII, but there are consequences. I couldn't find the Economist article, but they had a chart showing marriage preferences for 1960s America. Men were more likely to marry women of similar education status (which correlates to income), but there was a decent level of "mixed education" households - maybe due to childhood sweethearts, family-encouraged marriages, etc.

In the 21st Century, dual-income households and "assortative mating" has gotten much more common. Now men with HS education almost exclusively marry women of similar status, and same goes for college or grad-school educated men. I guess it makes sense, as the modern American youth is likely to meet his or her mate at school or on the job (or through online dating sites that try to match demos). And of course there are intellectual, geographic, and class compatibility issues that make it less likely for a highly educated person to marry a poorly educated one. But this is resulting in either very rich or very poor households, and it's less likely that a lower-income family can "pull a Cinderella" and increase their wealth/quality of life through marriage.

Of course I'm not blaming women for any of this. Apart from love, I think most of us would recognize the benefits of marrying a more educated/wealthy mate. So professionals marry professionals, and blue collar/service workers marry the same. When controlling for other factors, assortative mating caused the Gini coefficient (inequality metric where 1 = perfect inequality and 0 = no inequality) to rise from 0.34 to 0.43 (+26%) over 1960-2005 in this Pew study's data.

I'm not sure what can be done about this, or if anything should be done. But the IMF and others said that income inequality is the root cause of many structural social problems. Wealthy couples tend to live in better neighborhoods with better schools. Their kids will have health, safety, social, and intellectual advantages vs. lower-income children. They will succeed in college and career, and likely marry a similarly successful person. But all this suggests that overall social mobility is on the decline in the US, with no signs of improvement.

Surprisingly, the GOP presidential candidates have spoken a lot about inequality/pressure on the middle class/American Dream so far. But it's likely lip-service, as they still want to gut social services and cut taxes for the "job creators". Obama and other Democrats have also talked a lot about the minimum wage, workplace sexism, and the unfair playing field. I wonder how much of an issue it will be in 2016, and if we can do anything about the "Great Divide".

Memorial Day reminder

As our leaders, media, and propagandists try to guilt trip us into remembering and appreciating veterans this season (they bled so we can BBQ - which is just a silly claim all around), let's also remember how stupid some of our leaders were in getting us into and mismanaging certain wars. Many paid the ultimate price for the mistakes of a few. Each year when the president lays a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, they should also burn a past leader in effigy (plenty to choose from: Nixon, Bush, Cheney, Westmoreland, Custer, MacArthur, etc.).

In the vain pursuit of glory, power, legacy, etc., they eagerly put pen to paper (with little care about consequences and how to care for the wounded after the war), and changed the fates of millions of families - usually for the worse. At least in the olden days, the "best and brightest" would offer their sons to the military as noblesse oblige and expectations of their class. But with the advent of industrialized warfare where anyone could be killed suddenly (and en masse) by flying hot metal, all that changed. And with global capitalism, the powerful could grow their empires commercially, making physical conquest (and all its risks) obsolete. The 1% sent their kids to the Ivy League as the future champions of industry/politics, and the poor did the fighting and dying instead.

http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201505051000

"My younger brother, a Vietnam vet, recently died. He was haunted to the end by memories of what he witnessed in the war and of "well-meaning" friends and relatives who called him a baby killer when he returned.
Now, my grandson is fighting to recover from PTSD, hearing loss, and memories of what he witnessed during 3 tours in Iraq.
Will it never end?"

The MOVE bombing and police militarization/misconduct

Have you heard of the MOVE bombing in Philly in 1985? US gov't forces actually dropped a bomb on US civilians on US soil.

MOVE was a Panthers/Rasta-esque militant black group. They armed themselves and built a makeshift fortified compound in a residential part of West Philly. I don't know the group's history, but they probably came about in response to decades of abuse, racism, and neglect by the police and other city authorities. MOVE members allegedly killed a cop in 1978, thereby increasing hostilities.

I'm not sure what transpired in 1985, but it got to a point where the mayor (Wilson Goode, a black man) and police chief gave the OK to forcibly disarm and disband MOVE. About 500 cops descended on the compound vs. about 6 MOVE members who were barricaded inside. Like Waco, they had an ultimatum to give themselves up. Instead they opened fire on the cops, and the police returned the favor with about 10K rounds into the building. They discharged so much lead all day that they needed to call the police academy to get more ammo.

But the MOVE members remained behind their defenses. Eventually the city approved the police to drop an IED from a helicopter above the MOVE building, in the hope of creating a hole that the cops could use to enter the compound. Not making this up. The IED was some sort of gasoline/incendiary device, because it created a huge fire that eventually consumed 61 homes and 11 lives (5 kids). Only 2 people got out of the compound alive. Bystanders compared it to Vietnam. No one was fired or convicted over the decision.

And why have we not heard of this until now? There was no social media in the 1980s, and the MSM didn't want to discuss ugly race issues, police misconduct, and urban unrest (until Rodney King - which was captured on tape). This stuff can't happen in America, right? But the incident did motivate US cops to become more martial. They found that they were rendered ineffective by dug-in suspects, so that likely led to more powers for SWAT like armored vehicles with battering rams (and then 9/11-Iraq took that to another level, as we've seen in Ferguson).

---

Where was the effort at negotiations and deescalation? Is violence their only tool in the kit? Of course community policing and outreach aims to preempt such conflicts, but this was pre Rodney King.

Cops sometime remind me of Marty McFly - if you challenge their manhood, they will react very stupidly. MOVE attacked them, so now they need to be taught a lesson, regardless of the costs to the community. This is especially bad when they are authorized to use deadly force, often with little accountability.

---

Please watch the movie.  I believe it's very even handed since most of the news coverage was very biased toward the police.  MOVE, as a group, did not attack them.  This was collective punishment.  The police under Frank Rizzo's watch were notoriously racist. Philadelphia PD are still notoriously racist. 

SPOILER ALERT:

At one point, a little boy (between 3 and 5, I think) crawls out of the house as it fills with smoke.  He falls and one of the cops wanted to run and help the little boy.  The other cops told him not to do it that it was a trap.  the man's better nature got to him and he ran to save the little child.  That cop ended up losing his job in the Philadelphia PD within months after that incident.  The police wanted to leave the boy to die.  The punishment for death of one of theirs was collective-all MOVE family had to die, women and children.  Ramona Africa, the sole adult survivor of this brutal attack, was put in jail after losing her entire family.  If someone shot back from the house,(and, I'm not sure if there's any evidence of that)  was it Ramona? 

Thoughts about the Mayweather Pacquiao super fight

Guys, I am no expert but I watch more boxing than most folks sounding off on the internet now. Re: all the hating that Manny should have won and the fight was boring...

The judges got it right. This is BOXING, not FIGHTING. Boxing is actually more like the board game go. You win when you land more clean shots than the other guy. It's not about flailing wildly to wow the fans. Pacman threw a lot, but they missed badly or were blocked by FMJ. That counts for nothing. It's like soccer - do teams try to score all the time and put their defense at risk? No, they hold onto a lead when they have it, pick their spots, and feel out the opponent looking for weaknesses. 1-0 is no worse than 5-4. It's not a video game.

From a boxing skills standpoint - Manny was terrible last night. The guys he destroyed before were bums (Algieri, Margarito, Rios, Hatton, etc.) who just made him look good because they played to his strengths. Real boxers like Morales and Marquez gave him fits (and 2 losses, could have been 3). Manny is still a great boxer, but he can't beat someone with the smarts, reach, and few weaknesses like FMJ.

"Running" is essential to smart boxing - footwork wins matches, not punching. Only an idiot would just stand there toe-to-toe and trade blows (like that moron Margarito when he fought Pacman). You stick and move, like what Ali said. It's not rocket science. It also frustrates opponents and makes them take chances that you can exploit. Maybe it's not what the fans want to see, but then they should watch MMA.

And clenching , while technically not legal, is just part of the sport. Why would you let your opponent get off inside shots against you, when you can just grab his arms instead and get a breather? If you do it too much, you'll lose a point, but it's better than getting hurt. You don't get to have a 20-year boxing career by getting hit all the time. 

---


Hyped up boxing is like the Super Bowl - a majority of viewers don't know much about the sport and may have unrealistic expectations. Esp. for boxing - it's likely that 75%+ of the FMJ-Pac viewers had not watched a boxing match in the last 6 months, nor could even name 5 former opponents of each fighter (much less understand their styles and tactics).

A "great fight" can be due to action or drama, even if it lacks stars (see the Provodnikov-Bradley brawl, and of course the fights between Mickey Ward and Gatti). Or a great fight can be between 2 superstars, regardless of the content/outcome (Pac-De La Hoya was a major fight that actually sucked because it was so one-sided). I think FMJ-Pac was the latter. It was never going to be like a Rocky film, and even the swindler Arum and the morons at ESPN weren't promising that. But a lot of folks paid for the possible chance to see Floyd get loss #1, and maybe get messed up (the haters have been waiting decades to see that). Pac seemed as good of a candidate as any to deliver that, even if he was still a 2:1 dog.

A Floyd fight consists of: control the distance/pace, land from distance, block/dodge/move a lot, and clench if you get in trouble. The other top defensive great boxer in history, Pernell Whitaker, is the same. If people wanted to see something else, then they should have passed on this event.

However, Floyd is known to respond to the style of his opponent. So the blame for the "boringness" lies with Pac. Maybe due to his shoulder injury, overconfidence, age, or whatever - Manny wasn't as active (throwing like 40 punches/round when he really needed to throw 70-100 to pressure Floyd). If Manny was more active, he would have hit Floyd more, and would have opened himself up to Floyd's counters. That is probably more what the people wanted to see (the Floyd-Maidana 1st fight proves that he can trade damage and be exciting). But Manny and Roach's game plan was not like that, so they get the blame. Why would Floyd voluntarily try to go after a guy who is known to be a very dangerous, aggressive puncher, when he knows that he can beat him in a "Floyd-style" fight? That approach is what got Manny KO'ed by Marquez, and Floyd is smarter than that. A win is a win, and a painless win is even better.

Personally I thought it was an entertaining fight, but I'm biased and I appreciate Floyd's style. And there's always a chance that Manny will land the KO shot, so that keeps people at the edge of their seats. But he didn't, yet it seems everyone is blaming Floyd for the fight's disappointment.