If you know your opponents reasoning is basically right, giving the impression that he isn’t because he failed to lay out his reasoning in a specific way is just cheap one-upmanship.

That sounds about right. In some of his earlier essays, when discussing the economic nonsense that non-economists take seriously, Krugman would often point out that believing the nonsense was very convenient for all involved. The nonsense appealed to the sensibilities (or wallets) of powerful people, and pleasing powerful people benefited the purveyors of nonsense. In recent years, Krugman seems to have decided to stop fighting this dynamic and instead put it together to serve his own political ends.

I always thought that if a number on TBQ would rise up and smite me it would be the prime number 57.

I’ve done enough modeling to know that you should be careful not to discount those small-effect variables. Their effects may be much larger, but it just so happens that another variable in the model is a better proxy for it and drowns it out — making it look less important. Income inequality, for example, could be a better proxy for state transfers.

Nobody.Really as usual presented a very interesting vantage. But, as I reread his comment, one word in particular resonated with me: prospect-less.

What does “prospect-less” mean functionally? To remain within proper context, we’re speaking of the prospects (specifically, the lack thereof) available to teenage women between the ages of thirteen and nineteen. Granted, the viable options increase considerably the higher you go within age spectrum, but then again, you could also use that same logic to circumvent the syllogism propelling the notion that having a child now is more advantageous to a teenage mother.

Typically, prospects for a young woman would consist of a career, school, a combination of both, and perhaps finding a husband. The aforementioned caveats I have stated withstanding, at any point is the option to have a child at such an unprepared age in American society truly logical?

I don’t know. . . .

Completing a degree at a university typically requires four years of full-time study, but that needn’t be the only avenue. There are community colleges, and vocational schools that offer shorter (less expensive opportunities), and flexible schedules to accommodate a multitude of demographics seeking to attain training or retraining. On the other hand. . . a child could cost as much (if not more) than tuition to an institute of higher learning, and also doesn’t equip you with the intangible set of skills or the tangible piece of paper that qualifies you for a number of other opportunities which could potentially recompense you for your investment in the long-term. Not to mention it takes eighteen years to raise a child.

Does becoming a mother award you with intangible skills, or learned abilities? I suppose so, but I don’t believe there are many extant (nor lucrative) jobs that demand a requisite knowledge of teenage motherhood, and beyond that, I don’t know of any clause within affirmative action that confers preference to mothers or fathers over single men and women.

Gaining employment offers similar training, and experience with the added benefit of not having to pay tuition. Not only that, but if you are preparing to become a mother, aren’t you icing your cake by having an existing income, and supplementing it with the societal amenities mentioned by Nobody.Really? Moreover, couldn’t this be compounded further by the acquisition of a husband, making this trek possibly the most appealing?

All-in-all, I don’t understand the choice of teenage motherhood to be the most logical decision, which by default compels me to postulate that perhaps it is some sort of noumena that compels these young women to believe accruing another burden is tantamount to being successful?

I’m unsure. My thinking-cap may be broken.

But, according to a blog entry by Paul Krugman sometime ago, American teenage pregnancy rates are actually declining, which would stand as evidence to substantiate the claim that either society is learning, or teenage motherhood is in some other way less desirable than in the past.

Link: http://www.childtrendsdatabank.org/sites/default/files/14_fig02.jpg

1) As with health care stats, it seems cross-sectional analysis is complicated by the heterogeneity of the US population. Here the authors acknowledge it’s largely a southern (and particularly Hispanic) ‘problem’, yet I see no good comps for that.

2) “We conclude that women with low socioeconomic status have more teen, nonmarital births when they live in higher-inequality locations, all else equal”.

So this seems to be another application of the idea that relative wealth disparities *per se* are a problem; in this case, people feel less “marginalized and hopeless” when everyone else is equally poor, than where there may be examples of the possibility of improving one’s station in life? The authors acknowledge their thesis doesn’t explain the declining trend in recent decades, but even if true, do we best design policy to counter or entrench such psychology? Seems like a dangerously self-fulfilling presumptive leap from “most” to “all”; at a minimum, childbirth would seem to *ensure* the women in question remain on the same low trajectory. Of course the authors don’t actually offer policy alternatives to create more motivating “perceptions of opportunity” to overcome ‘cultural’ barriers / norms. They indicate that if anything *decreasing* transfer payments reduces births at the margin, and as a minor measure suggest more college aid, but is anyone who is *prepared* for college really currently precluded from going? (Well maybe if they have kids…) Beyond that they merely say it’s hard to know what to do and whatever we do may involve large costs. Thus in the end the ‘self-selection’ thesis comes across as “they’re simply screwed”. And the idea that there are no LT economic consequences of childbirth seems at odds with the ‘disillusionment’ thesis, since being disillusioned implies that you gave up something of potential value.

That’s highly probable, seeing as Paul Krugman is more or less brilliant.

Really, I must confess that I find it most disheartening to know Dr. Landsburg is critical of Paul Krugman. Then again, it is quite expected, seeing as their avowed goals are different: Dr. Landsburg is an unremitting proponent of truth, while Paul Krugman is somewhat a quixotical liberal.

Regardless, though, I find them both interesting. Too, Bob Murphy has made it to my very short favorites list (the guy is hilarious).

Something tells me Landsburg is a low-key Bob Murphy fan.