1.) There's no reason to have an arbitrary $1 t limit.
2.) To the extent that you want the bill to be smaller (regardless of the validity of such claims) there's still a good case for some sort of universal payment, even if less than $1200.
One thing we know about the implementation of CARES is that it's spotty and time lagged. Lots of people who should have gotten FPUC didn't, or got it months later than they should of.
That's true of checks too! But we have the mechanisms in place to send that money out, and can learn from any problems in the CARES implementation.
I'd prefer doing something like $1200 checks again (though let's fill in the holes like adult dependents).
But if we don't do that we should still be looking into something like the $300 per person checks that the Bush admin. did in 2008.
β’ β’ β’
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The argument is that (Biden 2020 vote - Clinton 2016) vote is not normally distributed, which suggests fraud.
But:
1.) There's no particular reason for it to be normally distributed. Not every phenomena is normally distributed.
2.) Eyeballing it, it *is* normally distributed.
Oh jeez, it seems likely the "weird outliers" are entirely the result of bad data cleaning.
For example, "Pleasant Ridge" was two precincts in 2016 (691 and 670 votes for Clinton, respectively), and one precinct in 2020 (such that "Precinct 1" had 1605 votes).
I think that lots of people misconceive how state level UI replacement rates are calculated. It's not the case that states are currently just setting replacement rates at 45% and we can just change the variable.
The new @rubinreport book has a section on the gender wage gap.
It's a very tight and concise exposition, such that it has one the highest errors-to-sentences ratios I've ever observed.
Let's walk through it. 1/18
Obviously the GWG has not been debunked by "countless" economists. I'm sure there are a couple of economists who have made claims that there is no wage gap, but I suspect that number is quite small. 2/18
That a number is "aggregate" doesn't suggest that it is "pure spin". Also, I'm not sure where Rubin is pulling the 79% from, but usually the number is derived looking at full time workers (e.g. here): americanprogress.org/issues/women/r⦠3/18
I'm not following @tylercowen's argument here - I think we should expect a minimum wage and occupational licensing to have very different effects under monopsony! (1/10)