Whew.
9 years ago
Sunday, November 24, 2013
Washington 69 [!], Oregon State 27
No one saw this one coming ... and the score makes the game look closer than it was because Oregon State scored a bunch during "garbage time" against Washington's second and third string players. Amazing.
Iowa 24, Michigan 20
Turns out, this year's Michigan team is just not that good, particularly the offense.
The game against Ohio State this coming weekend is going to be an awkward one I suspect.
The game against Ohio State this coming weekend is going to be an awkward one I suspect.
The value of education
The fact that I liked this (though I would change some of the emphases and might argue that the cold war was actually a bigger challenge than the current generation will face) may be a sign that I am getting old and sentimental.
Hat tip: Lynne Kiesling on Facebook.
Hat tip: Lynne Kiesling on Facebook.
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Assorted links
1. Obama is in trouble when he has lost the New Yorker.
2. When the government does not want to be called the government (legal humor).
3. An interview with Nobel economist Lars Peter Hansen (whose class I took many years ago).
4. Signs you're are reading bad criticisms of economics.
5. An entertaining meditation on frequent flyer programs.
#1 and #2 via instapundit. #4 via MR.
2. When the government does not want to be called the government (legal humor).
3. An interview with Nobel economist Lars Peter Hansen (whose class I took many years ago).
4. Signs you're are reading bad criticisms of economics.
5. An entertaining meditation on frequent flyer programs.
#1 and #2 via instapundit. #4 via MR.
Monday, November 4, 2013
Paid maternity leave
As far as I can tell - and I have a good student working on this topic who has gone looking for such things - this is the first serious attempt at a full social cost-benefit analysis of paid maternity leave:
What Is the Case for Paid Maternity Leave?
Gordon B. Dahl, Katrine V. Løken, Magne Mogstad, Kari Vea Salvanes
NBER Working Paper No. 19595
Paid maternity leave has gained greater salience in the past few decades as mothers have increasingly entered the workforce. Indeed, the median number of weeks of paid leave to mothers among OECD countries was 14 in 1980, but had risen to 42 by 2011. We assess the case for paid maternity leave, focusing on parents' responses to a series of policy reforms in Norway which expanded paid leave from 18 to 35 weeks (without changing the length of job protection). Our first empirical result is that none of the reforms seem to crowd out unpaid leave. Each reform increases the amount of time spent at home versus work by roughly the increased number of weeks allowed. Since income replacement was 100% for most women, the reforms caused an increase in mother's time spent at home after birth, without a reduction in family income. Our second set of empirical results reveals the expansions had little effect on a wide variety of outcomes, including children's school outcomes, parental earnings and participation in the labor market in the short or long run, completed fertility, marriage or divorce. Not only is there no evidence that each expansion in isolation had economically significant effects, but this null result holds even if we cumulate our estimates across all expansions from 18 to 35 weeks. Our third finding is that paid maternity leave is regressive in the sense that eligible mothers have higher family incomes compared to ineligible mothers or childless individuals. Within the group of eligibles, the program also pays higher amounts to mothers in wealthier families. Since there was no crowd out of unpaid leave, the extra leave benefits amounted to a pure leisure transfer, primarily to middle and upper income families. Finally, we investigate the financial costs of the extensions in paid maternity leave. We find these reforms had little impact on parents' future tax payments and benefit receipt. As a result, the large increases in public spending on maternity leave imply a considerable increase in taxes, at a cost to economic efficiency. Taken together, our findings suggest the generous extensions to paid leave were costly, had no measurable effect on outcomes and regressive redistribution properties. In a time of harsh budget realities, our findings have important implications for countries that are considering future expansions or contractions in the duration of paid leave.
I hope the authors have their armor on ....
What Is the Case for Paid Maternity Leave?
Gordon B. Dahl, Katrine V. Løken, Magne Mogstad, Kari Vea Salvanes
NBER Working Paper No. 19595
Paid maternity leave has gained greater salience in the past few decades as mothers have increasingly entered the workforce. Indeed, the median number of weeks of paid leave to mothers among OECD countries was 14 in 1980, but had risen to 42 by 2011. We assess the case for paid maternity leave, focusing on parents' responses to a series of policy reforms in Norway which expanded paid leave from 18 to 35 weeks (without changing the length of job protection). Our first empirical result is that none of the reforms seem to crowd out unpaid leave. Each reform increases the amount of time spent at home versus work by roughly the increased number of weeks allowed. Since income replacement was 100% for most women, the reforms caused an increase in mother's time spent at home after birth, without a reduction in family income. Our second set of empirical results reveals the expansions had little effect on a wide variety of outcomes, including children's school outcomes, parental earnings and participation in the labor market in the short or long run, completed fertility, marriage or divorce. Not only is there no evidence that each expansion in isolation had economically significant effects, but this null result holds even if we cumulate our estimates across all expansions from 18 to 35 weeks. Our third finding is that paid maternity leave is regressive in the sense that eligible mothers have higher family incomes compared to ineligible mothers or childless individuals. Within the group of eligibles, the program also pays higher amounts to mothers in wealthier families. Since there was no crowd out of unpaid leave, the extra leave benefits amounted to a pure leisure transfer, primarily to middle and upper income families. Finally, we investigate the financial costs of the extensions in paid maternity leave. We find these reforms had little impact on parents' future tax payments and benefit receipt. As a result, the large increases in public spending on maternity leave imply a considerable increase in taxes, at a cost to economic efficiency. Taken together, our findings suggest the generous extensions to paid leave were costly, had no measurable effect on outcomes and regressive redistribution properties. In a time of harsh budget realities, our findings have important implications for countries that are considering future expansions or contractions in the duration of paid leave.
I hope the authors have their armor on ....
Saturday, November 2, 2013
Assorted links
1. Mission creep (and dodgy law) at the IRS or, what do H & R Block and a dead horse have in common?
2. California encourages firms to substitute capital for labor. Would you like an empty cup with that?
3. The Daily Mail reports on a survey of wedding night behavior. No hint, of course, as to how they found the respondents, what the response rate was, etc.
4. Yet more reasons to miss Bill Clinton.
5. Venezuela continues to be beyond parody.
Hat tip on #1 to Adam Cole and on #3 to #5 to Charlie Brown.
2. California encourages firms to substitute capital for labor. Would you like an empty cup with that?
3. The Daily Mail reports on a survey of wedding night behavior. No hint, of course, as to how they found the respondents, what the response rate was, etc.
4. Yet more reasons to miss Bill Clinton.
5. Venezuela continues to be beyond parody.
Hat tip on #1 to Adam Cole and on #3 to #5 to Charlie Brown.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
