maryellenmarkA look at some of the photography of Mary Ellen Mark.

When it comes to attraction and age, men really kind of are dogs.

How costs, regulations, the economy, and more are killing the starter home.

It’s a clear statement of… something… that after years and years of using taxes to incentivize the purchase of electric and hybrid cars, we’re complaining about the taxes they aren’t bringing in.

The Guardian has a couple of articles on the privitization and gating of cities. Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry looks at private cities. The whole concept makes me think of this article on post-democracy.

Pluto is too a planet, says Philip Metzger.

New research suggests that Buffy the Vampire Slayer – and even her more scantily-clad counterparts – really is good for empowering women. More on gender identity norms.

This stands to reason: If your job is routine, there’s a good chance it’s going to disappear.

Adam Ozimek continues his sysiphean quest to make the point that no, government assistance to low-wage workers are not employer subsidies (except possibly the EITC)… even though in his view (as in Oren Cass’s) we should structure things so that they kind of are. My own view is actually expressed pretty well by Coyote here, though without the first-hand perspective.

This is pretty cool: Things that foreigners like about America.

It’s like a pimple that showed up on the planet earth, except it’s an 800C pit of fire.

Here is a handy article on where states get their revenue.

A battle of stars versus lawns: astrologers and the maker of robotic lawnmowers are going at it.


Category: Newsroom

About the Author


8 Responses to Linkluster Lexington Millionaires

  1. Oscar Gordon says:

    Private cities link goes to electric car link

  2. government assistance to low-wage workers are not employer subsidies

    Given that we’ve ended lifetime welfare on demand, even with various types of state support, one still has to work to survive in America. In theory, the support from SNAP, Medicaid, Section 8, EITC and other supplemental programmes does supplement the low wages of what somebody working at a low wage employer would earn, but for all intents and purposes, if those programmes went away, employers short of government regulations would have little incentive to improve their wages because the employees would be even more desperate for work. That’s already the situation for many childless adults who don’t receive any benefits as the current system is rigged for single mothers and nobody else.

    FWIW, unlike the article, there’s a part of me that understands why these jobs exist, but I’m not as delusional as those on the right of the ability of those holding those jobs to magically gain skills and earn higher income.

    • trumwill says:

      if those programmes went away, employers short of government regulations would have little incentive to improve their wages because the employees would be even more desperate for work.

      Exactly. Which is why the people arguing that they’re employer subsidies don’t actually support getting rid of them. They know that they’re not really employer subsidies (for the most part). It’s for the workers.

      Your comment also touches on the problem I have with the “every wage should be a living wage… living wages vary between individual. You can’t have a sliding minimum wage because employers would favor the childless. And it doesn’t make sense to force employers to pay everyone the wage that a single mom with two kids needs to get by. These are things you can target with government benefits and not a minimum wage.

      • These are things you can target with government benefits and not a minimum wage.

        As a liberal, I’d actually argue that giving more benefits to single mothers is probably the worst incentive we have for creating more single mothers. If anything, we need to get over our contempt for “lazy people”, and simply permit singles to secure the same benefits that single mothers get. While it wouldn’t do much for the women that use motherhood as an emotional tool, it would trim the numbers that use it to move out of their mother’s home.

        Plus, given how the tax code works, the single adult has more of their income taken up by tax, but food, rent, and other expenses do not magically go away, especially in high cost of living locations.

        • trumwill says:

          The incentives question is a good one. As a non-liberal, though, my solution falls short of “pay everyone as though they made life decisions that you don’t want to punish their kids for.”

          Not yet, anyway.

      • Which is why the people arguing that they’re employer subsidies don’t actually support getting rid of them.

        I think with most liberals, it’s more so a disgust at seeing a large firm like Wal-Mart or McDonalds making billions* in profits while the base of the employees earns low incomes. So they really do feel that the profits should be trimmed in order for the workers to earn more, and not be on government support, hence the theory that they’re being subsidized.

        Mind you, these arguments popping up at blogs of the political right aren’t exactly filled with people willing to pay for a full blow welfare state to substitute for the minimum wage.

        *I’d also note that while the margins are thin compared to say, pharmaceuticals, it’s the raw numbers ($750M in profits) that upsets people.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

If you are interested in subscribing to new post notifications,
please enter your email address on this page.