In any case, I think Block did a pretty good job answering your points. The first being low-skill earners – the women of the house have other priorities other than just working, as you have also pointed out. The question I have for you is, why would the family burden only hurt high skill workers? If I have a 50lb weight on my back while I walk and someone else doesn’t, who’s going to walk faster? Now, a more appropriate comparison would be to compare females without a family to working men. I don’t have the statistics off the top of my head, but I’m going to take Block at his word and say they’re even.

The second Block doesn’t answer directly, but it’s not hard to find big problems with your statistics (or lack thereof). Annual reviews can be, and most likely are, subjective. Not to mention, highly variable, and subject to the same claims of sexism. What would stop a sexist employer from understating a female’s performance? Even with all my complaints, I’d still be interested in seeing how the statistics corroborate to the evidence, so if you have it please post. But again, this leads me to believe that still, the more appropriate comparison is to compare single working woman to their male counterparts.

Anyway, if Block doesn’t convince you how about Milton Friedman’s take?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZA1Q_1t1E0

In any case, I think Block did a pretty good job answering your points. The first being low-skill earners – the women of the house have other priorities other than just working, as you have also pointed out. The question I have for you is, why would the family burden only hurt high skill workers? If I have a 50lb weight on my back while I walk and someone else doesn’t, who’s going to walk faster? Now, a more appropriate comparison would be to compare females without a family to working men. I don’t have the statistics off the top of my head, but I’m going to take Block at his word and say they’re even.

The second Block doesn’t answer directly, but it’s not hard to find big problems with your statistics (or lack thereof). Annual reviews can be, and most likely are, subjective. Not to mention, highly variable, and subject to the same claims of sexism. What would stop a sexist employer from understating a female’s performance? Even with all my complaints, I’d still be interested in seeing how the statistics corroborate to the evidence, so if you have it please post. But again, this leads me to believe that still, the more appropriate comparison is to compare single working woman to their male counterparts.

Anyway, if Block doesn’t convince you how about Milton Friedman’s take?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZA1Q_1t1E0

In any case, I think Block did a pretty good job answering your points. The first being low-skill earners – the women of the house have other priorities other than just working, as you have also pointed out. The question I have for you is, why would the family burden only hurt high skill workers? If I have a 50lb weight on my back while I walk and someone else doesn’t, who’s going to walk faster? Now, a more appropriate comparison would be to compare females without a family to working men. I don’t have the statistics off the top of my head, but I’m going to take Block at his word and say they’re even.

The second Block doesn’t answer directly, but it’s not hard to find big problems with your statistics (or lack thereof). Annual reviews can be, and most likely are, subjective. Not to mention, highly variable, and subject to the same claims of sexism. What would stop a sexist employer from understating a female’s performance? Even with all my complaints, I’d still be interested in seeing how the statistics corroborate to the evidence, so if you have it please post. But again, this leads me to believe that still, the more appropriate comparison is to compare single working woman to their male counterparts.

Anyway, if Block doesn’t convince you how about Milton Friedman’s take?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZA1Q_1t1E0

I was a black swan in TV news. They carved me up and served me for dinner.

You get my point though.

And you’re still missing the point, that plunder doesn’t pay.

Perhaps to make it fair for all, all investments in people (from the cradle) should be left to an unbiased entity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAzkQWgIEbU

I accept some fundamental, essentially natural rights, like an individual’s right to life, certain parental rights and particular individual liberties. I also sympathize with the Lockean propriety of a laborer’s dominion over his direct product, but Ken Lewis’ unchecked right to consume income from Bank of America is not remotely in this category.

Lewis’ entitlement to consume is the furthest thing imaginable from a “natural” right in my way of thinking. Nature offers nothing like it outside of human culture. It is plainly an artifact, and it is furthermore an artifact of statecraft, of gaming the decrees of central authorities.

I am the only communicator I know that had 40 hours of hard sciences and calculus on the transcript. (Transferred out of Geology to Broadcast Journalism. Long story.)

Just not to the United Way…you know that almost 2/3 of the money they get goes to admin expenses and salaries…talk about a con.

Vouchers is a government solution to a government created problem to begin with.

I agree that the first step is to build them schools and give reduced price access to fruit and formula — but the last step is socialism. There is no “fair” distributor of wealth other than a market based approach. Charities should take the place of the government activities / fiats that you’re advocating. And, given that my approach all but eliminates most taxes, I have a hard time believing that charities wouldn’t be the beneficiary of at least some of that excess cash.