How is a 60% increase in house size marginal (see my other post)
I was quoting her presentation. This 60% increase in housing size is not what the video that I linked to says. All of my points come from this and other interviews I've seen her in. If they are nonrepresentational of her views and data, then that is why, however I sincerely doubt that she would be presenting the opposite views in a presentation of about a book that she presents in the book itself.
Health insurance in 1970 didn't pay for a huge amount of things that it now pays for. For example, MRIs, viagra, birth control, etc. Far more diseases are treatable. I'd love to see her evidence otherwise.
The specific example she gives is hospital stays for childbirth. I'm out of my element here, so I will say no more about health care.
The problem her book raises is that many families take on a riskier financial profile in order to consume more
This is the opposite of what she's tried to convey in every video I've seen of her. That people are making smart decisions such as buying houses closer to good schools, which drives up prices for parents with children. That the need for a second worker leads to a riskier financial profile. She says the idea that people are fiscally irresponsible and consuming more simply isn't true.
Her data shows that costs (besides taxes) have increased less than income.
I don't know why you keep harping on income, as it just isn't the point. The additional worker is. A family needs a second worker, earning a second income, taxed at a higher rate, leaving no one to take care of children or the sick, to have the same lifestyle their parents had with only one parent in the workforce. This need for two workers makes them twice as susceptible to lost income and serious illness.
Whether she is right or wrong, I feel you are misrepresenting her argument.
I'm not attempting to represent her argument at all - I'm only relying on her data (which seems reasonably solid). I believe her presentation is representational of her views, but I believe her views are contradicted by her data. I also believe her presentation of the data is misleading (and I explained why).
The 60% number I got from a quick google search, not from her book. I didn't watch her online videos, so I don't know what she claims there. I believe the claim she gives in her book is that houses today have 1 extra bedroom/bathroom, but I don't recall her quoting square footage (the book is at home, so I can't check).
Also, as she clearly shows in her book, a family needs a second worker to have a higher standard of living (bigger house, two cars, better medicine) than their parents.
Regarding her numbers on childbirth, I truly don't understand why she would look at duration of hospital stays. Maybe if hospitals were cutting corners and performing worse it would be a bad thing. But if fewer complications requiring a long hospital stay occur, that would be a good thing. The data on maternal death rates suggests the latter is more likely: in 1970, 25.7/100,000 women died in childbirth (14.3 in 1978), compared to 13.3/100,000 in 2006 [1].
That sort of thing is why I generally ignore her opinions/viewpoints. I'm sure the data point she cites is correct, but she seems to interpret it in a really strange way.
Also, as she clearly shows in her book, a family needs a second worker to have a higher standard of living (bigger house, two cars, better medicine) than their parents.
This is not her view, nor what she argues with her data. You are certainly free and encouraged to interpret the data yourself, but it was unclear that you were giving your own view and not her's, which is what I found so confusing. This is why my approach to this conversation was one of correction, not discussion.
I tend to agree with her analysis of the data and feel that yours is misleading. I suspect that this arises from a difference in priorities or viewpoint that would be impossible to address in this space. You have, however, inspired me to read her book, so for that I thank you.
...but it was unclear that you were giving your own view and not her's,...
From my first post: "According to her data," [...] "(you need to read carefully, she plays down the tax numbers by presenting them in a confusing manner)."
From my second post: "Her raw data is great, but her presentation is really confusing. I'm rather leery of her conclusions - she is great at gathering data, but terrible at analysis."
Not sure how I could have been clearer that I was relying on her data rather than her opinion. If I cite her again, I'll be sure to use all caps.
I'm also not sure why you feel my comparisons of square footage, # of cars or maternal death rates are misleading.
I was quoting her presentation. This 60% increase in housing size is not what the video that I linked to says. All of my points come from this and other interviews I've seen her in. If they are nonrepresentational of her views and data, then that is why, however I sincerely doubt that she would be presenting the opposite views in a presentation of about a book that she presents in the book itself.
Health insurance in 1970 didn't pay for a huge amount of things that it now pays for. For example, MRIs, viagra, birth control, etc. Far more diseases are treatable. I'd love to see her evidence otherwise.
The specific example she gives is hospital stays for childbirth. I'm out of my element here, so I will say no more about health care.
The problem her book raises is that many families take on a riskier financial profile in order to consume more
This is the opposite of what she's tried to convey in every video I've seen of her. That people are making smart decisions such as buying houses closer to good schools, which drives up prices for parents with children. That the need for a second worker leads to a riskier financial profile. She says the idea that people are fiscally irresponsible and consuming more simply isn't true.
Her data shows that costs (besides taxes) have increased less than income.
I don't know why you keep harping on income, as it just isn't the point. The additional worker is. A family needs a second worker, earning a second income, taxed at a higher rate, leaving no one to take care of children or the sick, to have the same lifestyle their parents had with only one parent in the workforce. This need for two workers makes them twice as susceptible to lost income and serious illness.
Whether she is right or wrong, I feel you are misrepresenting her argument.