The 50's Are Returning; For Unexpected Reasons

As it stands, mothers would like to work, but are returning to be stay at home moms. Not because the economy is stable, and traditional values are triumphantly returning, but because the economy is worse.

In 1999, 23% of mothers stayed at home, today, 29% of mothers stay at home.

The image we hold of stay at home mothers as people who stay at home because their husbands make enough is actually much smaller than we expect.
Most moms who stay at home do so because they can't find jobs, or have enrollment in schools/cultural preferences.

This isn't to say that the amount of women working has decreased to a low amount again, actually quite the opposite. The amount of working women has increased dramatically, currently at 73%.

There is speculation that America is one of the only countries to not offer paternal leave for men or women for being parents. Many other countries offer benefits to workers in labor who have children.

It's interesting, and potentially disastrous, that mothers are staying at home for reasons that are bad for the economy. I'm personally afraid that people will consider this rising number a positive thing.

Stay-at-home moms are on the rise

by Annalyn Kurtz, CNN

April 8th, 2014

Conneticut raises minimum wage to 10.10

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/26/news/economy/connecticut-minimum-wage/index.html?iid=SF_E_River

Conneticut passed a bill to raise the minimum wage, incrimently into 2017, where it will reach it's value of 10.10.

This makes Conneticut the first state to reach the minimum wage Obama has been pushing for a national standard, it also is the highest minimum wage of any state. The largest current wage is 9.32 in Washington.

This is a push and invitation towards all other states to contribute towards the idea of a higher minimum wage, Obama is confident that Congress will inevitablely make 10.10 a national minimum.

College Debt Is Hig- Oh Wait, There's A Graduate School?

At this time in our lives, high school students are looking ahead one step at a time, and college is as far as most people think to look. We even are confused as to what we should do when we make it to college, and after that we are left with crippling debt.

But what if none of that happens, you escape debt and all is dandy with a degree in hand. And what if you can't get a job? Well, most people go to graduate school to grab a few more credentials for their resumes to hopefully have a better shot at employment, and that's when the select few face the cold experience of debt.

"The jump in graduate school borrowing is bigger than I thought it was going to be," said the report's author Jason Delisle, director of the Federal Education Budget Project.

The problems with our economic stability and education system are getting more and more tangled as we explore them it seems. According to the article, roughly one trillion dollars comprises total student debt. Fourty-one percent of that is graduate school debt. 

This situation is a lot like a slow website, where people who frequent the site blindly expect it to run smoothly. When the site slows and encounters problems connecting, people ping the servers with rapid refresh requests and mouse clicks out of frustration (come on, we all do it) in an attempt to somehow make the site work. The economy is slowing down and getting choked up, so when it doesn't work correctly by offering enough opportunities for college graduates, people "click" more by requesting MORE loans to pay for more education, so they can get a job they "deserve" because they took the steps to attend college and get a degree.

This is getting repetitive, but again, we need to reboot the education system. People attend college because they are expecting a job, not because they want to develop skills and knowledge.

If people wanted knowledge and skills, most would realize that college is too expensive to accommodate those needs.

------------------------

Graduate Student Loans Are Ballooning

CNN

March 25th 2014

by Jennifer Liberto

Bill Gates: Robots Will Be Taking Your Jobs; Better Job Replacements, Though

Bill Gates, the Leonardo da Vinci of software. We've all certainly heard of him. Many people are not aware of his anthropology and kindness for humanity, however. In this article, the love Bill Gates has for humans is defined clearly, I think.

Sci-fi has shown us the product of automation and the year of the robot. Terminator, The Matrix, and other dystopian future films show the horrific possibility when robots become more than just servants. This seems like a drastic vision that is mere non-sense to us.

Bill Gates says that robotic undertaking is closer than we think, and it is alarming. 

"Software substitution, whether it's for drivers or waiters or nurses … it's progressing. ...  Technology over time will reduce demand for jobs, particularly at the lower end of skill set. ...  20 years from now, labor demand for lots of skill sets will be substantially lower. I don't think people have that in their mental model."

Furthering this discussion, is the effects on the economy that will occur, and the steps that will have to be taken to accommodate this change in work demand.  Gates believes that tax codes will need to be changed, removing income taxes completely. Alternatively, the minimum wage should not be raised (most of us would turn to this as the 2nd solution), because companies will take this as an incentive to purchase automated robots and systems, an alternative to the more expensive wages (resulted from the increased minimum wage) and responsibilities of hiring someone.

This is very concerning for youth, -teenagers and young adults who have to collect experience and income to start their careers- because the lowest rungs of the Opportunity Ladder will be taken away in the future. This puts more pressure for career choice on students at an earlier stage than usual. Kids will be sweating about what they want to be when they turn 15. 

We will need to start finding solutions, and for that, we need to escape the surreal aspect of robots becoming a commodity. Because it is a thing, and when it happens, it will sweep a lot of people under their feet.

POSITIVE NEWS:

I'm willing to bet, that there will be a greater priority for art, design, and other creatively demanding jobs that robots can't do. Ultimately, people will be happier with their jobs as well, because they will be actively engaged and participating in something that they would have to (most likely) be good at. Weigh the pro's and con's yourself, but I think this will be a shaky transition that will bring a great sigh to society.

Source:

Bill Gates:People Don't Realize How Many Jobs Will Soon Be Replaced By Software Bots

by Julie Bort

Business Insider

Low Graduation Rates: Not From Slackers

College, I love it. And so does Eduardo Porter. Just kidding, it’s a mess.

            The article opens by talking about colleges (bleh) and the price, supply, and availability of them. Right now in America, we have slow graduation rates for college. Slow-building rates that just aren’t impressive enough. We like to root these low rates to affordability, and financial aid factors. Porter raises a new factor in the equation however: Is there enough “college” to go around?

            It’s referenced as supply. And that term is very generally applied for a reason, it encompasses many areas of that definition: the supply of actual institutions, the supply of classes and majors, the supply of teachers. We like to talk about financial and student success as issues for the lack of college completion, and that rates would go up for graduation naturally because colleges desire to meet those needs.

Porter disagrees, there is a lack of interest in colleges to create more opportunities for higher education. From the article:

“John Bound of the University of Michigan and Sarah Turner at the University of Virginia tracked college education through the second half of the 20th century. They found that when states had a large college-age population, public spending per student declined and graduation rates suffered.”

So there is a concern here, that part of the problem with lack of graduation is the lack of colleges to graduate from. As well as lack of actual institutions, there is a lack of space in the institutions available for students who are accepted. So as well as occupying ourselves with solutions for mandatory education, there are some things that need to be addressed with higher education and it’s increasing rates of unreliability.

Article: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/why-college-supply-matters/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Business%20Day&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

Title: Why College Supply Matters

Author: Eduardo Porter

Not Blog Post #1: Social Influence on Economies

The Rationality Debate, (A prominent component in most arguments daily) in general discusses two points: Are people by nature just irresponsible coincidentally, or are world governments just really bad at understanding and managing human nature?

The two questions sound extremely abrasive and condescending, but they are honestly true. It's hard to tell (As shown by the word debate in the title, and not the word conclusion), if economies fail because people suck, or because governments suck. Informally, this is the main point of the article by Robert J. Shiller. There is a lot that is expanded on in the debate itself between three different social scientists who represent a set of common opinions, including Shiller, and the other two Nobel economists, Eugene F. Fama, and Lars Peter Hansen; Those opinions dealt with three different approaches to economies: Mathematically, (You know, numbers and statistics, things that aren't people) Historically, and Socially.

Fama had a speech on his opinion of economics, which Shiller wrote in his article as being based around Mathematics; The strict relationship between stock prices and graphs and the well being of the economy. In Shiller's words,  Fama explained "that interest rates 'contain rational forecasts of inflation'."

Hansen had a lecture on the subject as well, as I have already mentioned as being described Historically based. This is not entirely true, in fact, I'm not sure how to categorize it and I'm sure Shiller feels the same way. It's described that Hansen talked about "distorted beliefs," (I'm assuming he means from the common citizen) of the financial market and how it operates. Essentially, that is the statement that implies that people simply are not observant enough by nature to let economies work their magic. The "People might just suck and that's the way it is" statement I summarized earlier. Shiller also mentioned that Hansen talked about animal spirituality and overconfidence, which I won't go into detail about because it sounds more of a personal problem than an economic one.

Shiller quite simply remained neutral, and trusted the free market's system of allowing people to make the correct decisions unanimously. (Not much to elaborate on there.)


A nice point in this article (Suprised I didn't say Shiller's article, aren't you?) is that the problem becomes more difficult than just economics, because people have to then argue about the meaning of the word "rational" itself before they can argue economic issues. So there is a complicated amount of involvement in personal issues in religion, and politics. Which we should know is not new to society, or more specifically these days, America.


There is an important and completely valid point in using interest rates and stock markets to determine the rise and falls of economies. But that's just it, a definition that we have an issue. And that eureka moment is what spawned this discussion at square one. "Do not pass Go! Do not collect $200!"
This is an issue with all arguments most of the time, "Are we really arguing to find an answer, or is this just verbal glove slapping?"

Really, we should just define priorities amongst our current knowledge, because three Nobel prize winning economists are three Nobel prize winning economists for a damn good reason. 

1. Fama made an excellent point, that by using the stock market, we can have a "doppler radar" for the economy. Essentially a tool for understanding if the economy is working or not, but definitely not a solution. 
2. Hansel talked about the lack of understanding amongst citizens about the economy, which is true. Have you seen that video on Jimmy Kimmel where they made up a new bill for the constitution, and people pretended to understand as if it was a real thing? People don't pay any attention to the government! (Except when it's on the news) But at that point, that becomes an education issue. Our education system is not working, and I strongly agree that it's having an influence on the economy.
3. Shiller is correct that it's important to have social freedom in economies, because people are social and economies are social. You can't put mathematic boundaries on personal beliefs or opinions. As I mentioned in the point above however about education, democracy only works when people a.) care. and, b.) attempt to understand and fix issues in an active manner. We may need to shift our goals however, because people generally define success as wealth. Supply and demand may be causing some business aficionados to bask in their own economic debauchery, which in the whole of the economy, is unhealthy and damaging for the less money oriented individuals. 

To sum up, my point is that we have many great understandings already that can lead to a solution.

  But the Powerpuff Girls up here need to combine their Nobel prize winning minds into saving the world from disastrous economies, instead of arguing about who got a bigger slice of cake. 

Article:

The Rationality Debate, Simmering in Stockholm by Robert J. Shiller

Author:

Robert J. Shiller

Date:

January 18th, 2014