Archive for January 29th, 2011
From the Real News Network. You can read a transcript here (scroll down).
Kevin Drum has another very interesting post, concerning a long-term study on the effects of good vs. bad self-control:
This isn’t too surprising, but a new study that tracked over a thousand children from the age of 3 to the age of 32 has found that the long-term effects of poor self-control are at least as important as intelligence and social class origin:
Childhood self-control predicted adult health problems….elevated risk for substance dependence….less ﬁnancially planful….less likely to save and had acquired fewer ﬁnancial building blocks for the future….struggling ﬁnancially in adulthood….more money-management difﬁculties….more credit problems….more likely to be convicted of a criminal offense.
The following chart appears in the paper at the link (click to enlarge to readable size):
The authors suggest two different paths by which poor self-control creates problems later in life:
Adolescents with low self-control made mistakes, such as starting smoking, leaving high school, and having an unplanned baby, that could ensnare them in lifestyles with lasting ill effects….Thus, interventions in adolescence that prevent or ameliorate the consequences of teenagers’ mistakes might go far to improve the health, wealth, and public safety of the population. On the other hand, that childhood self-control predicts adolescents’ mistakes implies that early childhood intervention could prevent them….Early childhood intervention that enhances self-control is likely to bring a greater return on investment than harm reduction programs targeting adolescents alone.
The policy implications here remain to be worked out, but it’s yet another indication that the benefits of intensive early childhood interventions go far beyond academic achievement. Even if early childhood programs have no lasting effect on school test scores at all, they might still be immensely valuable if they improve levels of self-control. The question is, what’s the best way to do that?
Kevin Drum makes a very good point:
I think that’s correct, but that “full employment” is doing almost all the work here even while Konczal’s emotional emphasis seems to be on bargaining power. After all, if you have strong labor unions and a government that doesn’t fight for full employment, then what happens is the unions use their bargaining power to cut insider/outsider deals at the expense of the unemployed. One of the great virtues of American unions in their heyday is that they used their political muscle to push the government to fight for full employment, which was excellent and it’s a political voice we’re desperately missing today. But that’s not to say that the unions themselves are a viable substitute for full employment. A market economy is either going to operate near full employment, or else people will only share in its benefits thanks to handouts. That’s true for any given set of labor market institutions.
Sure, full employment is doing most of the work here. But that’s the point of a strong labor movement: it forces the government to fight for full employment. It fights for lots of other stuff too, and that’s the whole virtue of organized labor. It’s true that they also produce a modest wage premium for their own members, but if that’s all they did then I wouldn’t care much about them and neither would most other liberals.
Unions have lots of pathologies: they can get entranced by implementing insane work rules, they can get co-opted by other political actors, and they can end up fighting progress on social issues, just to name a few. But they fight for economic egalitarianism, and they’re the only institution in history that’s ever done that successfully on a sustained basis. That’s what makes them so indispensable to liberalism and that’s what makes them the sworn enemies of conservatism.
You just can’t pull labor and full employment apart. It’s not a matter of emphasis. A country without a strong labor movement is almost inevitably one in which economic and political power is overwhelmingly on the side of business interests and rich people, and that means you’re not going to have sustained full employment because that’s not what business interests and rich people want. It’s all about power, baby, power.