JayB

If we are talking about raising children in solely economic terms, in the US and other first-world countries I think it would be hard to show that they represent anything other than a net expense - where the total dollar value of inputs they require to the age of 18 amounts to something like 2-300K or something on that order, and the dollar return that they generate for the household is next to zero - so I'd say we are talking about reducing the magnitude of the losses rather than actually creating something that generates an economic return for the household that exceeds the value of the inputs. Who knows. No, of course I'm not talking about the net economic value of having children. This entire conversation has been about the net economic value of a stay-at-home parent. The entire conversation is premised on the fact that kids are already present. Duh. I really don't see how this is so hard to comprehend. People with kids do this all the time, when one spouse is contemplating going back to work. You compare how much more money it will cost to outsource the domestic duties to how much the returning-to-work spouse will be able to bring in. The amount of money it costs to pay someone else to perform the domestic duties to your satisfaction is the true economic value of the stay at home parent. My calculations show it can range between 42k/yr and 125 k/yr. Simple. What do your calculations tell you about the net economic value created by an unemployable illiterate woman who stays at home with 8 children?

There was the whole court stacking thing that he tried after the supreme court overturned some of his New Deal initiatives...

Whether or not this is a problem depends on the nature of the political pressure we are talking about. I think it's perfectly acceptable for an administration to direct the prosecutors in the justice department to elevate one set of law enforcement priorities over another so long as this doesn't favor the perogatives of any particular person or party. For example, if the political pressure amounts to "We'd like to see you spend less time prosecuting illegal immigration cases and more time prosecuting contractors who have defrauded the government over the next four years" and a prosecutor continues to allocate most of their office's time towards illegal immigration, then I think that an administration is within it's rights to replace them. If the administration is coercing them into investigating a particular political enemy, abandoning an investigation into a political ally or donor, etc - then this would be a gross abuse of the office.

If we are talking about raising children in solely economic terms, in the US and other first-world countries I think it would be hard to show that they represent anything other than a net expense - where the total dollar value of inputs they require to the age of 18 amounts to something like 2-300K or something on that order, and the dollar return that they generate for the household is next to zero - so I'd say we are talking about reducing the magnitude of the losses rather than actually creating something that generates an economic return for the household that exceeds the value of the inputs. Who knows.

Per the logic of this retarded study, we could be equally justified in engaging in the same-kind of fantasy calculations to calculate the monetary value of each routine task that we perform on our own behalf every day. -Take the average hourly wage for dental hygenists and use that to figure out how much the time that you spend brushing and flossing is worth. -Take the time you spend washing and combing your hair and multiply that by the hourly rate for barbers/stylists. -Take the time that you spend bathing and multiply that by the hourly rate for a home-health aid, etc. -That ingrown hair you removed? Take a look at the average cost-per-visit to the ER and add that to the tally. Ditto for the papercut, the shaving cut, etc. You will soon find that no-matter what your level of drive, education, initiative, the relative scarcity of your skillset relative to the effective demand - your true economic worth is well into the millions.

Four to 12? Not really that familiar with women's sizes, but what kind of a weight range does that encompass? Does either end represent an unhealthy extreme for you? I've worn the same stuff anywhere from ~160 to a few pounds north of 180, but have spent the most time in the 168-172 range.

In the midst of my voluntary Beefcake4000 liftothon this winter I found that when I got over about 182 I hit the "wardrobe limit" and most of my clothes - but especially my pants - were maxed out. I had to unbutton my pants when I sat down, and some shirts that used to fit started looking like metrosexual clubwear. At that point I ended the experiment and dropped down to around 175, and then had a couple of injuries that put the kibosh on the lifting for a while and dropped back down to the long-term set-point of 170. Since I absolutely hate spending money on clothes, and try to minimize my expenses in this area - I figure that if push came to shove my desire to avoid buying new clothes to accomodate my increased girth would keep any involuntary weight-gain in check. Anyhow - this got me wondering how much room for expansion most people have in their wardrobes, and whether this plays into anyone else's weight control regimen.

Wow. What's the source of the mileage? Most of mine is weekend/vacation driving.

The whole thing is asinine. It's like trying to compute the value of your sex life with your spouse by multiplying the frequency of intercourse times the average fee assessed by an equally attractive prostitute.

Just curious, how many "frazzled-underappreciated-supermartyr" stay at home mom's have you met? I'm not sure if I've meet any, despite the growing cadre of moms in our life now. Roughly 50%. IMO most women seem to vocalize complaints and perceived hardships way, way, way, way more than men, and tend to center their conversation on what's going on in their lives way more than men. Might be more psychologically healthy for them, definitely more tiresome for me. Always been way more interested in ideas than listening to an infinite loop of domestic/personal minutia/trivia.

"Due" in geologic timescales entails a period of time that can encompass quite a few human lifetimes.

I guess the rainbow colored triangular trailer and ooncha!oooncha!oooncha! music that are not visible, but nonetheless contained within that photo, were dead giveaways.

It's been interesting to contrast the few men that I've met that stay at home with the kids with the average woman that I've met that does the same. Didn't get any of the frazzled-underapreciated-supermartyr vibe from the dudes.

'95. 180K. Still on the original clutch.

I think I saw where that road ends when I was at Rick's a few years ago and watched heavy-set middle-aged dudes in Boeing garb serving as human-ATM machines for a some small-talk and a bit of bump-and-grindage. Not sure who to feel more sorry for. I upset my wife by voting for the dudes.

Born in Detroit?

The notion that the "hot chicks sell more coffee" strategy constitutes a novel business plan is pretty funny. This business plan seems to be especially common in areas frequented by high concentrations of dudes that work production/factory type jobs. I remember driving through one of those areas on my way to do some fishing on Valentines day and happened to roll through a coffee stand staffed by hot young women, and by 6:30AM there were already so many stuffed animals and flowers in the converted photo-mat/espresso-stand that you'd have thought they were selling teddy-bears and roses instead of coffee. Sad.

Just had time to look through the figures, but the figures in ref 3711 provide a nice schematic overview of the "tits-up-ass-out" effect that high heeled shoes have been engineered to produce.

Whatever you do, don't listen to the people who have the specialized training and expertise necessary to make a rational and scientifically sound evaluation of the evidence. It makes much more sense to go with the random conglomeration of activists chanting in the streets.

I dunno, I have pretty serious over-pronating feet. Also, it doesn't look like there is a lot of cushioning, I wonder how they'd run on concrete/asphalt? Sounds like a specious claim to me.... Back it up? Anyway, I'd love to try a pair out. Look it up yourself, I don't have the time. Basically cultures that don't wear shoes don't have foot problems...even though lots of them would be qualified as serious over-pronators. Try strengthening your ankle wuss. You muscles and ligaments are all the cushioning you need. That said, running on concrete with those shoes would take a long time to get your body used to. I can't help but wonder if part of the notion that "barefoot cultures have not foot problems" stems from the fact that people who are too poor to afford shoes have other concerns - like eating, the raging leischmaniasis that's eating away their cartilage, watching their children dying in infancy, etc - that trump "minor foot pain" on the list of health problems that they're likely to report to the odd relief-worker that happens to traipse through their village every few years.

What we need now is a flow chart that predicts the outcomes of all of the possible pairings of types one through five with their male counterparts. What happens, for example, when you combine a female histrionic with a male hippie?

Might be worth chatting with the folks who gave you the work-up and getting their take on how to get into the field. If you're already well along towards a nursing degree it might be easier to finish that up, get a masters or some other such qualification that would set-you up for a position in a sports-medicine clinic or something of that sort.

Burning fuel. Steel. Structural collapse.

Yes. What will happen here is that we will sell the roads, Everything will go to Hell. We (tax payers) will have to buy them back at 4 times what we got and then we will be taxed more to fix them. There aren't many cases where establishing a private monopoly over an existing public resource has ended well.

There's an enormous difference between an entity that exists to make a profit verses one that exists to distribute and maintain a shared public resource equitably, just as there is a difference between a 'customer' and a 'citizen'. Of course, but in the case of a road that's funded, built, and maintained with private dollars we are not talking about a "shared public resource." In the particular case of toll roads, the only rational considerations have to do with maximizing utility while minimizing costs to the public. I think that in general, with respect to highways, you maximize utility with public funding that's generated in some manner other than the direct collection of user fees. However, if you are looking at the specific case of private versus public toll roads it's not quite as clear which one is most likely to be the superior alternative. In most cases the particulars of where the road goes, what the alternatives are, and how capably and efficiently it will be maintained under private versus public ownership in a particular state have to be taken into account. If I lived in a state where the public sector tends to be characterized by integrity and efficiency, the case for public administration might be stronger than in a state like Massachussetts, where the record in not terribly strong in this respect.