Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (9491)	9/26/2003 12:03:19 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793778

Jonathan Rauch's latest. Not bad. I don't know Susan Mayer's work but am suspicious of statistical manipulations as opposed to longitudinal studies. Did you post Rauch's earlier column which includes her work? If so, perhaps there are references to where her work is published. As for Sawhill, whose work appears to be the centerpiece of this analysis, my impression has been that her work is solid, that is, though she is generally assumed to be a Clinton kind of democrat, she goes where serious evidential based analysis takes her. So criticisms of her work would come from the frame and then the way the frame works its way into reading the numbers and structuring the data. Having said that, I find Rauch's piece quite interesting. Obviously, not the truth, but a strong data point in the conversation that continues about welfare. My initial comment about it is that he tends to overgeneralize, since there are a great many sources and kinds of poverty as well as different kinds of entry paths to poverty. And I would expect the means to address that would be multiple rather than the singular things he works with--subsidization or work.