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".

Disability coverage masks US labor force problems

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

Starting with the Bush I recession in 1990, the numbers of Americans on disability rolls has surged. The Great Recession has further accelerated the trend. Now disability spending > (food stamps + welfare combined), with 14M Americans participating (9% of the labor force).

Of course some people are truly disabled and need public assistance to survive, but many others suffer from the same "ailments" that working people have. I am not saying that these people are lazy "takers", and in fact there is a higher prevalence in southern Red states (and of course is correlated with education levels and local economic conditions). And that is kind of the point - due to structural changes in the US economy and labor force, tens of millions of Americans are now effectively unhirable in the 21st Century. Often they come from blue-collar non-desk jobs that are more physical, so it is likely that they have various pains and elements. So it is easy for a physician to approve many of them for disability. But the problem is that once they are approved and on the rolls, there is next to zero incentive for them to find a job and go through the effort of retraining. It's not like welfare and unemployment with a finite time span of benefits. And speaking of welfare - that is a driver too. "Reforms" under Clinton and Newt effectively shifted people on welfare to other programs such as disability, so it didn't really save the country much money or motivate the labor force. Probably America would get more bang for its buck if it invested in worker transition and retraining programs rather than just hide/relegate these people to the disability space (the US spends about $260B/year on the 2 major disability programs). I am not advocating kicking legitimate people off these programs, but I think it behooves us to at least perform a cost and impact analysis, and propose improvements/alternatives. Disability is just a band-aid to mask our larger labor and health care problems.

There is even a cottage industry now ("disability industrial complex") to advise and help people to get approved for disability - similar to the folks who help kids get into college or help immigrants get their green cards (one firm took in $70M in fees in 2012 alone). And some families may now see their kids as "cash cows" too, by enrolling them and collecting additional benefits. The number of kids on disability has grown 4X since 1990. Clearly medicine has improved since then, and doctors are better able to diagnose disabilities, but it is pretty much impossible to attribute that huge rise to actual increases in disability diagnoses and incidence.

Interesting interview with Sheryl Sandberg on her recent book about working women

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/11/173740524/lean-in-facebooks-sheryl-sandberg-explains-whats-holding-women-back

Book review: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/books/sheryl-sandbergs-lean-in.html?_r=0

Some opinions about her: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-facebook-sheryl-sandberg-deserves-respect-20130306,0,6928927.story

In general, I think it's not that effective when a super-successful outlier person tells everyone else, "You can be like me." Same goes for books from Obama, Jack Welch, etc. I know Sandberg isn't saying that explicitly, but she is a role model. Sandberg is an amazing story, but got a lot of help and special opportunities (and luck) along the way. Most working women will find themselves under more constraints, even if they are as sharp as Sandberg. I like the part of Sandberg's message that women shouldn't be their own worst enemy and limit themselves from their own fears. If you have a problem with something, stand up and do something about it. I think that advice applies to a lot of men too. All around us are messages and influences that say, "You can't do this, you can't do that, don't stick your neck out, just play it safe." But sometime they're right, because there isn't a 2nd chance if we take the wrong risk. And generally women have less room for error (partly due to our sexist culture). What about all the other Sandberg types who didn't make it big - maybe accidentally pissed off a boss or got pregnant at the "wrong time" or picked a bad company along the way? They had just as much potential and worked just as hard, but the truth is we often don't have much control of our destinies - even in the "meritocracy" of Silicon Valley.

To me, the irony of her message is that all the "bad" habits that Sandberg says women practice that hold them back (being humble & compromising, seeking out a mentor, second guessing - which gets a bad rap but often times saves one from a mistake!), are actually good working (and life) behaviors! Remember how Bush was seen as so much more "decisive" and "bold" than Kerry or Gore? Hitler was decisive and bold too (not implying parity among those leaders!). We know women are generally better human beings than men. It's just that the asshole men that tend to run the world don't do those civil things and take advantage/dismiss people who do. So once again, it's not "passive women" who are the problem, but ultra-aggressive/selfish/

greedy/sociopathic men and their contrived, dysfunctional professional culture. Similar to our previous emails, when it's too daunting to take on the assholes and try to change them, then the alternative (Sandberg's message) is "join 'em". I know that isn't exactly her thesis, but clearly she's not asking men to tone it down and act more "womanly." Heck Sandberg probably knows how to be a man more than I do. I am sure she understands men's contribution to the problem, though as a strong successful woman, it's unappealing to be a cliche: acting the victim and "blaming men", even if it's mostly accurate. Both sexes play a role, but instead of urging women to get more assertive, why doesn't she urge a change in workplace culture (like the Harvard article on civility) to accept and reward courteous, sensible, work-life balance women who also have great things to contribute? Why can't we figure out how to tap that resource, instead of forcing everyone to confirm to ghastly, male work expectations?

Blair Mountain: the biggest US battle you've never heard of

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=10-P13-00041&segmentID=3
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountaintop_removal_mining

When I heard the name "Battle of Blair Mountain" in West Virginia, I assumed it was some Civil War event, and in a sense it was, except that the combatants didn't wear uniforms. The year was 1921, during the industrial rise and massive profit-taking spree by America's super-rich prior to the Crash that I emailed about last time. The US labor force was struggling against the capitalists and management for fairness and rights. Coal miners in northern states had already formed unions, and southerners wanted to do the same. The US coal industry was incredibly exploitative and almost colonial in poor rural areas like WV. Coal company bosses literally ran towns, and hired professional strike breakers and private muscle to intimidate or suppress anyone suspected of standing up to them. At the time, most of WV's mines were unionized, but the southern part of the state was a stubborn holdout. In Mingo County in that area, martial law was declared, union organizers were jailed and deprived of due process, and even outside media was banned. In a show of solidarity, miners from nearby Logan County gathered what small arms they could find and marched towards Mingo to try to free their brothers.

The coal bosses got wind of this and asked the local sheriff's department and state police to stop the march. The Logan County Coal Operators Association (LCCOA) also hired mercenaries and fortified a high ground position with MACHINE GUNS along the route that the march would take (at the time, they had raised the largest private army in US history: 2,000 fighters). 13-15 thousand miners, armed with hunting rifles and untrained in warfare, marched towards that mortal danger because they were tired of being slaves in the land of the free. The battle raged for 5 days with over a million rounds fired, and was the largest civil insurrection in US history. Amazingly, only 30 died on the coal bosses' side and 50-100 on the miners' side, possibly due to their amateur training and heavy vegetation in the area. But President Harding ordered the US Army to intervene (on the coal bosses' side), and used MB-1 biplane BOMBERS to drop surplus WWI ordinance on the miners (gas and explosives). This was one of the rare occasions when the US government fired on its citizens, and maybe the first instance in history of aerial bombing of civilians (or at least non-uniformed soldiers). Obviously the coal bosses won and WV authorities imprisoned about 1,000 miners. It was a crushing blow to the United Mine Workers, and membership shriveled from 50 to 10 thousand in the coming years. Southern WV didn't fully unionize until 1935 under FDR, who also helped improve worker rights through his New Deal. The battle also served to galvanize workers and inform the public about abusive practices by the coal industry. Organizations like the AFL and CIO drew inspiration from the battle as they formed and grew.

And just because this happened almost a century ago doesn't mean the labor market is problem free now, as we all know. We probably believe that no company would dare to resort to these measures against disgruntled workers today, but it just blows my mind that they even thought they could then. Is this America? Those men hadn't committed any crimes, and were just walking in the forest with their hunting rifles. Sure they may have posed a threat to public safety considering the events in nearby Mingo County (where other civil rights abuses were taking place), but they were US citizens. What a stain on our history that the US government would be complicit and even participatory in their murders and deprivation of Constitutional rights. Today, greedy and negligent coal barons like Massey disabled safety monitoring systems and falsified documents at the Upper Big Branch Mine in WV. They put their workers in danger (and eventually killed some of them) just in the name of increased output. WV continues to be one of the poorest states with very shameful education and health statistics. Despite that, their politicians are usually ultra-pro-coal and well funded by them. Where is the trickle down of wealth that the free marketeers promised? In fact, WV's coal riches probably make the people poorer, just like the "curse of resources" in places like Nigeria and Sierra Leone. But America is hungry for abundant coal to as a seemingly cheap, easy way to power our electricity grid, so we turn a blind eye to the suffering of West Virginians and destruction of their land over the decades, and continue to side with the coal bosses.

What about the legacy of Blair Mountain? Leftist officials and academics have petitioned to make the battleground a protected US historic site. Finally in 2009, the National Parks Service did recognize it as an official Historic Place. This was especially important because in an almost ridiculously comical turn of events, modern coal companies that own the development rights to the Blair Mountain area want to destroy the battlefield as part of the largest proposed mountaintop removal coal project in US history. The coal bosses literally want to bury Blair Mountain. It wasn't enough that it was more or less stricken from the historical record and social consciousness (because labor rights are of course communistic and anti-American); now they want to destroy any physical trace of their atrocity. But under this NPS designation, Blair Mountain would be preserved for the benefit of Americans. There are even plans to turn it into a tourist and educational destination, despite its rural location. But like the original battle, the coal bosses won out again. A week after the NPS announcement, WV officials produced documents showing that now a majority of landowners in the area object to Blair Mountain becoming a historical site, so by law the NPS cannot recognize it. The conservation side fought back, and by their polling they think most local residents would support Blair Mountain becoming a park. The list of opposing parties that WV produced contained names of people that had been dead for decades. The case is still unresolved, but all the while the mining companies are getting ready to turn the area into a moonscape (see "before" and "after" photos attached of a similar mining project).

Both GOP and Dem politicians running for the open US Senate seat from WV this November support the coal industry and endorse the mining project that will bring WV a whopping 230 jobs. I bet the tax revenues will probably be meager as well due to so many corporate loopholes and write-offs. And even if the site does get preserved, who can see it? The mining industry has made the area totally unlivable with constant industrial noise, heavy equipment traffic congestion, and toxic waste release in the air and waterways. They're destroying the regional history, culture, and Appalachian way of life, and it's mostly all legal. I can understand why the US and WV governments would want to sweep Blair Mountain under the rug, but they would be hypocrites because we have acknowledged the evil of slavery, the crime of Japanese internment, and other black marks on our record. But when it comes to the hot-button issue of labor rights and corporate abuse (even corporate violence with government support), we can't go there, not even during these hard economic times where corporate abuse of worker and property rights are well known.

http://amsterdamnews.com/articles/2010/10/10/news/doc4cacd34797eae468575454.txt

Ironically, a bill to make it EASIER for banks to foreclose on borrowers just passed Congress when this news broke. Obama then vetoed it. After all the public support and patience the banks have received since 2008, how dare they. Maybe some of it wasn't malicious and just due to overwhelmed staff facing 10X more foreclosure case workload than usual, but negligence can be as harmful as greed and hate. How much more trampling of individual property rights will we tolerate? If just one citizen was improperly dispossessed of their home due to regulatory lapses, procedural errors, or outright crime, what does that say about the self-proclaimed greatest country in the world's history? And what about honest buyers who unknowingly purchased a home that was improperly foreclosed? What a can of worms. The housing market is holding back our economic recovery, and banks are already swamped with more foreclosures than they can process and price, so why cut corners to add more fuel to the fire? Were they under incentives to foreclose as many as possible, or keep up with some ludicrous pace? Foreclosures have huge socioeconomic costs on consumers and communities, and banks also lose money and man-hours on them. Why not work with borrowers as the Obama Admin. has tried to persuade them to, instead of break rules to hastily kick them to the curb? Banks' cash flows look better when borrowers are making their (hopefully reasonable) monthly payments. They get nothing if the borrower defaults and the property languishes for months. Or are they doing it as part of a major corporate land-grab and shake-down of consumers, just so they can resell distressed properties for pennies on the dollar to vulture speculators, or in some cases the investment branch of their own firm? Is this yet another method of funneling wealth from the indebted masses to the rich elite?