Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.bush
Subject: Re: why progressive tax rates (was Re: Clinton's
From: sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 18:37:47 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of Chicago

  This thread is getting really jumbled.  In order to try and keep it clear,
I'm going to delete a lot of junk.  If I accidently delete something you
wanted me to comment on, just repeat it.

In article <1992Aug20.145241.5284@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.224214.19889@midway.uchicago.edu> sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu (Patrick Sugent) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug19.182455.27303@sequent.com> bfish@sequent.com (Brett Fishburne) writes:
>> Also, we
>>did see large increases in funding to education in the 80s, so maybe
>>it wasn't terribly clear until very recently that more funding would not
>>be sufficient to solve the problem and that we really needed
>>more fundamental reform.   What do you think?
>
>I wish I had statistics, but my impression is that funding is rather recent
>(last 2-3 years, not really in the '80s).  Additionally, as was pointed out
>to me by Alan Carroll the education funding remains less than 3% of the 
>budget.  Furthermore, most of the education funding comes from the states.

  Well, these stats were from a previous post.  I don't have any others
on hand, but I do believe the increase was steady.  If you can prove 
me wrong, feel free to do so.  Additionally, I see no problem
with the money coming from the states.  After all, it all comes
from the people one way or another anyway.  I think giving 
control of the schools to the federal government is a big mistake.

  The best successes we've seen in turning around schools have had
less to do with money than to do with giving control of the school
to less central powers. (Such as the Harlem example which also
involved school choice.)

  Anyway, here are the stats.  Sorry, but I lost the attribution
of the original author.

>>> Education expenditures per pupil, grades K-12, in 1991 dollars
>>> 	1977-78:  $3,889			1991-92:  $5,578
>>> 
>>> Average teacher salary in 1991 dollars
>>> 	1977-78:  $30,289			1991-92:  $34,413
>>> 
>>> Average SAT scores (combined math and verbal)
>>> 	1977:  899					1991:  896
>>> 
>>> It's good to see that throwing money at education is helping.


>
>Beyond that general analysis, I have recently become aware of reductions in
>the Head Start program and the Pell Grant program supported by the "education"
>president, George Bush.

  Head Start is incorrect.  Bush has been responsible for the largest
_increase_ in the Head Start program.  Pell Grant, what can I say.  He
screwed up.  Actually, we really need a better system in this regard, but
just cutting the program (at least in relative terms to number of students)
is a mistake. :-(  

  Recently, Bush re-increased aid to college students.  So, he is back on
the right track in this regard.  Although, I certainly wouldn't scream
if you shouted "election action."


>>  I would like to point out (once again) Mr. Bush's America 2000 plan.
>>He hasn't pushed it hard enough for my taste, but _I_ consider it
>>a positive fundamental change in our education system.  (You may not,
>>but remember Mr. Clinton supported the general idea until the teachers'
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>unions slapped his wrist.)
>
>I was not aware of Mr. Clinton's support for America 2000. 

  What I was referring to (and sorry for the confusion) is Clinton's
support for choice among private and public schools.  I did not mean
to imply that he directly supported America 2000.  He would never do
that for political reasons.  He backed off of his support for choice
among public and private schools after he was slapped on the wrist by
the teachers' unions.

>
>>  Well, glad to see I have some support on the education issue!  I'll
>>leave it to you to decide about who has better education plans.  Certainly,
>>Clinton's rhetoric has been solid in this regard, however his backing down
>>from the teachers' unions has left me less than certain that he will do
>>little more than the status quo.
>
>Take a look at the status quo:
>
>Federal budget declined by 50% in the 80's, percentage of local school budgets
>coming from federal funds declined "dramatically," Head Start only serving 36%
>of those eligible, bilingual education bill cut 47%, worker training budget
>down 26%, and vetoed a bill to allow interest on college loans an income tax
>deduction. (all excerpted from Clinton's speech before Los Angles College on
>5/14/92)

  Look at the above statistics.  Clinton is (of course) giving his spin
on current events.  We have increased funding for education.  We spend
twice as much per student as Japan.  Funding alone is clearly not
the answer.  

  Note that all Clinton talks about above is funding.  Sounds like
he is a mouthpiece for the status quo special interest to me.  They
always cry for more funding, but little to no fundamental change.

  Do you know where he stands on testing?  He was adamantly for it.
I wonder if he backed off of that too.

>
>>When you have 20 million new jobs (or so)
>>you have a lot of new entrants.
>
>Then why is it harder then ever for college graduates to get a job?  What is
>happening is that people are taking pay cuts or getting laid off and having
>to take lower paying "new" jobs.  Right?

  Well, you aren't citing overall statistics just your impression based
(probably) on media fed rhetoric.  It was _not_ harder for college
students to find new jobs while those 20 million new jobs were being
created.  You are referring to the past recession.  During recession,
of course jobs are scarcer.  Your comparisons are anachronistic and not
part of my point about the 20 million new jobs in the 80s.


>
>>  Remember, I am talking about the 80s expansion in this case.  I tell you
>>what, if you are interested I will type in part of an article from
>>_The Economist_ in this regard.  It is pretty good.
>
>Please do!  I'm very interested (believe me, I would like to be wrong, but I
>just don't see the job market getting better).

  Ok, I'll try to type it in later.

>
>>  Also remember, we went from having 97.6 million employed Americans to 
>>117.7 million employed Americans.  (From 1980 to 1990.)  That was a 20%
>>increase when there was only a 10% growth in population.  That is
>>about 20 million new entrants.
>
>Maybe I don't follow here.  What was the population (From 1980 to 1990)?
>Say the number is 130 million, just for argument.  10% growth implies that
>there will be 13 million more, of which a large percentage will be babies.
>Say that percent is 50%.  That means 6.5 million immigrants which would
>fill about half of the new jobs.  Say another couple of million are just 
>coming of age, etc.  That still doesn't work out to 20 million new entrants.
>What's more, how many of those jobs were taken by green card holders?

  Huh?  I think we are talking around one another.  I am talking about
20 million _more_ employed Americans.  This really doesn't seem
difficult to follow to me,  but judging by the above, I must not be
saying something clearly.  The 20 million is an _absolute_ number
of _new jobs_.


>
>>  What you say about "20/20" and "60 minutes" may be true, but I have
>>seen little evidence that this happened on a wide scale. If you have
>>a more complete analysis, I'd love to see it.
>
>Sorry, I don't.  I'm not willing to believe that it accounts for all of the
>"new" entrants, but I'll bet that it is a non-trivial percentage.  That is
>going to be really hard to quantify, so I'll drop it as an argument.

  OK.  
   Not to harp on you, but it does bother me somewhat that the media takes 
isolated incidents and tries to turn them into the big picture trends.
If it is happening in the big picture (and I have no information that it
has), I would appreciate it if the media would make a better case.

  You can always find "down" examples in an "up" economy, just as you can
always find "up" examples in a down "economy".  The media, too often,
acts as if an example is the whole trend.  And, we all know that the
media prefers "down" examples to "up" examples.  For some reason,
"down" sells better than "up".  Don't ask me why.

  Actually, while I'm slamming on the media, I'd like to take the time
to slam on that _Fortune_ article that was quoted in this thread earlier.

  The _Fortune_ article said:

  "Just how serious is the job drought? Serious.  Focus on the expansion
of the 1980s and leave aside the past few recession-marred years,
which would make the numbers look even worse."

 
   Now, this is (at best) just intellectually dishonest.  The study
(for the most part) covers the years 1979-1989.  Now, this was a lot of
how Krugman started the "poor got poorer" in the 80s bit.  By including
the recession years of 1979-1982 (which were disastrous), it wholy
biases the statistics.  And to think, _Fortune_ said that it wanted
to "Focus on the expansion of the 1980s".  If it had really wanted
to do so, its study would have included 1983-(mid) 1990.  Obviously,
the article was more interested in making a point than providing
legitimate analysis.  

  (BTW, Krugman has since backed off of his "poor got poorer" stance,
per a previous posting of mine.)

>
>
>>but basically what it [a graph] shows is that the
>>number of employees on nonfarm payrolls peeked in about mid 1990.
>>It then dropped steadily until April of 1991 and then has started
>>to slowly rise since about April of 1992.  
>
>Aren't unemployment figures also on the rise?  Doesn't this suggest that new
>openings can't keep up?

  Well, actually, they are falling again.  Down to 7.7% from 7.9%.  You
see, unemployment is a lagging indicator.  This means that as the economy
grows it, for a short time, still increases.  This is because the
discouraged re-enter the work force.   Personally, I've always
considered "unemployment" a truly goofy and difficult to use statistic
because it is so influenced by odd things.  I really only find it useful
in comparing it to itself and how it behaved in prior similar times.

>
>
>This is a productive discussion and I think it may hit on some core issues  for
>the upcoming election.

  Issues don't matter in elections.  They may matter to you and I and
may be worth discussing, but every study of elections I've seen points
out that they are largely irrelevant.  'Tis sad.  If people voted on
issues instead of whatever it is they normally vote on, candidates
may be better and actually address them.

  As it stands, I think it is safe to say that I have no real idea of
what Clinton will do on Education when he gets into office (besides
spend more and probably not alienate the teachers' unions.)  We have
a better idea of what Bush would like to do, but no idea of how hard
he will really push for it.  If issues matter, both of these two would
really have been pinned down on this by now.

Pat
-- 
Patrick Sugent				"Cry 'Havoc!' and let slip   
sug6@usite-next.uchicago.edu		 the Hogs of Peace."
(708) 447-1771				 --P.J. O'Rourke
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion,alt.politics.bush