Its so frustrating when science become politicized. Every "statistics on guns" report is either "America is less safe than Somalia" or "America gun owners are the safest people in the world". It's infuriating how politics an run math and science

There is an easy way out too: "We believe mandating the purchase of a new car may be difficult for some families and may inadvertently discriminate against the poor". Add some buzzwords like "singe mother", "working through college", and "recently laid off" and it'll be one of the easiest regulations to walk out of, assuming anyone remembers in 2030

Maybe if the US regulates hard enough, they can stifle progress and become like Europe!

No need to be condescending on a legitimate point. Inflation is influenced by a lot of factors and is a legitimate concern

He's also gamed them a few times to accidentally cover good data. Most notably when he "leaked" the low jobs numbers and CNN/NYT covered it non stop

I'm hoping more Canadians become stoners and push wages up for people with clean urine

As a Seattle-area resident who's a few years ahead of our neighbors to the north, I can tell that you're likely to be disappointed. If for no other reason than the places that drug-test typically pay less to begin with.

how exactly would having more stoners up the wages?

Smaller hiring pool leading to higher wages for the sober drones is the implied hypothesis here if I am reading it right.

> Many people enlist in the military, start companies and/or start families before 25.

You're acting like any of these are inherently good decisions. They're not good or bad. They're just big and potentially very regrettable.

Starting a family before the age of 25 is an example of GOOD decision-making??

In many cases, yes. Why would it be unconditionally bad?

Because unlike a marriage, buying a house, or moving to the big city, having kids is a colossal life decision, with life-changing consequences that you can't reverse.

You can divorce, sell your house, file for bankruptcy, or move back to your parents' basement, but you can't unhave children after having them. You can't go on a break from your children, even to take care of your own physical, mental, or economic health.

Most people at 25 don't have any of that shit figured out yet, and in the modern day and age, they don't have the support network of grandparents, that prior generations had.

Two identical candidates, but one has a criminal past, you're going to take the non-criminal record every time. As unfair as it is in the larger picture, it's hard to justify the decision to hire a criminal when it's your neck on the line

There's more going on than that. A white man with a felony has about the same employment responses as a black man with a clean record.

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/08/09/study-black-man-and-wh...

You seem to have restated the problem.

Surely the decision should be based on the likelihood of future criminal action. If a criminal past is accepted as an indicator of future criminal activity then we have rejected the concept of rehabilitation. If this is the only deciding factor we may also blind ourselves to other risks.

Consumers enjoy patting themselves on the back by feeding their children all natural food. As absurd as it is the "natural" label carries a lot of weight with suburban soccer moms (and probably others as well)

Allegedly the problem was that parents had to quit their jobs to adjust to the schedule. To me this seems easily solved by having little Jimmy walk or take the bus to school. No need for parental involvement in those cases as 12 year olds are capable of getting off and on a bus without supervision

I used to work in Boston Public Schools, so I have some context that may or may not address your point. One issue is that for the most part, Boston does not do "neighborhood schools" anymore. So a kid could easily have a 1.5 hour* walk to get to school. However, your point about busses largely stands because, at least for high school kids, the district mostly partners with public transit to bus the kids around.

* Downtown Boston is tiny. But the actual official city is pretty big, and dips much further south than many people realize.

It is more because older children can watch the younger ones after school. A 15-year old can watch the 8 year old for an hour or so after school. the 12 year old might be able to, but can definitely stay home alone. An 8 year old needs care. The later start minimises this with a "traditional" work schedule.

How many households have a 15 year old and an 8 year old?

Im sure google has precise answers and it has changed since it became a standard arguement 30+ years ago, but I do imagine plenty. 3 years between kids and having 3 kids gets you pretty close (the 8 year old would have a 14 year old sibling). I personally have siblings 6 and 11 years younger than me. The bigger issue with me answering is that not only am I 40, but I'm childless and living in a different country than I grew up in. I*m not sure what the standard family actually is right not in different parts of the country.

You may want to check out some of the neighborhoods involved before you make such a statement.