Last week, there were a couple of Supreme Court rulings of major interest. The most interesting, and polarizing, one was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
In brief (pun intended), the court struck down the contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It further ruled that closely held for-profit corporations could be exempt from a law they religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest.
As expected, this ruling sent progressives into a tizzy. The basic themes were 1) corporations are not people, and 2) now every employer will be able exempt itself from federal laws by saying they have a religious objection.
Anyone who looks back at this blog knows that I generally side with the socially liberal viewpoint. I even posted an entry about the self-righteousness of some groups opposing the mandate. And yes, it does seem crazy that 5 Catholic males on a court could make far-reaching decisions that affect only women. (On second thought, not only does that seem crazy, it IS crazy.)
However, anyone who looks back at this blog will also know that I generally side with fiscally conservative capitalism. While there's nothing specifically fiscally conservative about this ruling, generally speaking, I don't believe that employers should be federally mandated to provide medical coverage of any kind.
So, I'm having a hard time getting worked up about the Burwell ruling. While I disagree with it, I also think the one absolute problem with the ACA is the employer mandate. While everything else about the ACA may turn out just fine, including the individual mandate, the employer mandate is dumb.
Regardless of whether it's the 'job-killer' conservatives want to believe it is, employers (and other related third-parties) should not be in the health care business. The ACA should mandate that employers NOT provide coverage, instead of the other way around. Employers will then have to compete for quality employees solely on the basis of pay. (I've just solved the minimum wage issue, too!)
Let the people be responsible for getting their own coverage, as with other forms of insurance. If that sounds like it discriminates against the poor, that's why we have Medicaid. (I know, I know, this attitude means taxpayers like me might be paying for more indigent medical care. But on balance, I think it would still be no worse, and probably better, than it is now.)
Suffice it to say, I think the Burwell ruling is illogical, and anti-female, but I don't think it's the end of the republic. Corporations surely aren't people, but even corporations should have some protections from the law, e.g. tort reform. Too bad Hobby Lobby didn't focus on that.
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women. Show all posts
Monday, July 7, 2014
Friday, April 18, 2014
Swimsuit Power
When I was around 10 years old, my parents acceded to my request to subscribe to Sports Illustrated magazine. In those days, this was one of the only ways to get national sports information beyond a daily paper or local newscast, plus get good photos illustrating the action.
Even back then, once a year in February, SI published a swimsuit edition. There really wasn't much to it then, in the 1970s. Kind of a boring issue, really, until 1978, when Cheryl Tiegs and her fishnet top created a controversy that would quickly go viral by today's standards. Short-term, this meant a lot of canceled subscriptions for SI; long-term, it meant that annual edition would become a cultural icon.
This past February, SI published its 50th anniversary swimsuit edition. I just bought it this week. (While I stopped subscribing to SI several years ago after a run of about 30 years, I've always purchased the swimsuit issue -- to keep up on the pop culture of it!) Because of the anniversary, SI had photos of the cover models it made famous over the past 50 years, along with their comments about how being on the cover changed their lives.
Here's the gist: Many of the models mentioned how SI not only launched them to supermodel status, but also how they were able to parlay that fame and fortune to help others. Not only was this done through charity work, but also by the way SI empowered them -- they felt their success helped other women know they could be successful in their endeavors.
I loved reading this. So many times over the years people would criticize SI for how the swimsuit issue 'exploited' women. I received that comment many times from others for just owning that particular magazine. But my reply was basically always the same, which was to assert that these women are the opposite of exploited. They are willing and wealthy and healthy, and how could that be a bad thing for other women?
Maybe I'm not able to comprehend the gender-specific argument, but you can bet if I get that exploitation argument anytime soon, I'll be using the 50th anniversary swimsuit edition to be its own defense.
Even back then, once a year in February, SI published a swimsuit edition. There really wasn't much to it then, in the 1970s. Kind of a boring issue, really, until 1978, when Cheryl Tiegs and her fishnet top created a controversy that would quickly go viral by today's standards. Short-term, this meant a lot of canceled subscriptions for SI; long-term, it meant that annual edition would become a cultural icon.
This past February, SI published its 50th anniversary swimsuit edition. I just bought it this week. (While I stopped subscribing to SI several years ago after a run of about 30 years, I've always purchased the swimsuit issue -- to keep up on the pop culture of it!) Because of the anniversary, SI had photos of the cover models it made famous over the past 50 years, along with their comments about how being on the cover changed their lives.
Here's the gist: Many of the models mentioned how SI not only launched them to supermodel status, but also how they were able to parlay that fame and fortune to help others. Not only was this done through charity work, but also by the way SI empowered them -- they felt their success helped other women know they could be successful in their endeavors.
I loved reading this. So many times over the years people would criticize SI for how the swimsuit issue 'exploited' women. I received that comment many times from others for just owning that particular magazine. But my reply was basically always the same, which was to assert that these women are the opposite of exploited. They are willing and wealthy and healthy, and how could that be a bad thing for other women?
Maybe I'm not able to comprehend the gender-specific argument, but you can bet if I get that exploitation argument anytime soon, I'll be using the 50th anniversary swimsuit edition to be its own defense.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Be Careful What You Wish For
Assuming I labeled my posts properly, I went the entire calendar year of 2012 without an entry on religion. Hard to believe, because it isn't as if there weren't religious controversies worth blogging about.
Regardless, that streak is over. Some news today pushed me over the edge, that being a new proposal from the Obama administration that would allow religious groups to opt-out (sort of) of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) mandatory contraceptive coverage.
Religiously affiliated groups, especially the Catholic Church, have been going nuts over this mandate. When this topic was at its hottest this past summer, and preachers were crusading against the mandate during church services, an acquaintance of mine had a letter published in the Des Moines Register that complained about those tactics. After all, she wasn't going to church to hear those white men telling her what she should believe about her reproductive health care. The next thing you know she was getting letters from strangers, telling her how wrong she was to feel that way.
Here's the problem with all of this. The outrage of those religious leaders and their followers over the contraceptive coverage mandate, while somewhat understandable, would have a lot more credibility it it weren't for at least two really big things:
1) Religiously affiliated groups, and here again especially the Catholic Church, completely supported the passage of Obamacare. I'm sure much of that support was at least indirectly financial, via PAC contributions. Then once the rules were written, and they realized the rules apply to them, snap! they suddenly wanted to be excepted from a major part of Obamacare.
2) It's laughable to see the outrage of so-called religious leaders over this issue, when it is a fact that many of the organizations they oversee have been including contraceptive coverage in their health care plans for many years. Apparently, they think all of the young female teachers in their schools are using abstinence as their birth control method. Classic old white men group-think.
Who knows if this new 'opt-out' rule will pacify the mandate-haters. It probably won't. But that has more to do with the out-of-touch religious hierarchy, and its culture of thinking they can and should govern themselves. (Ask any former church pedophile victim how well they think that self-governance thing has worked out.)
Regardless, that streak is over. Some news today pushed me over the edge, that being a new proposal from the Obama administration that would allow religious groups to opt-out (sort of) of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) mandatory contraceptive coverage.
Religiously affiliated groups, especially the Catholic Church, have been going nuts over this mandate. When this topic was at its hottest this past summer, and preachers were crusading against the mandate during church services, an acquaintance of mine had a letter published in the Des Moines Register that complained about those tactics. After all, she wasn't going to church to hear those white men telling her what she should believe about her reproductive health care. The next thing you know she was getting letters from strangers, telling her how wrong she was to feel that way.
Here's the problem with all of this. The outrage of those religious leaders and their followers over the contraceptive coverage mandate, while somewhat understandable, would have a lot more credibility it it weren't for at least two really big things:
1) Religiously affiliated groups, and here again especially the Catholic Church, completely supported the passage of Obamacare. I'm sure much of that support was at least indirectly financial, via PAC contributions. Then once the rules were written, and they realized the rules apply to them, snap! they suddenly wanted to be excepted from a major part of Obamacare.
2) It's laughable to see the outrage of so-called religious leaders over this issue, when it is a fact that many of the organizations they oversee have been including contraceptive coverage in their health care plans for many years. Apparently, they think all of the young female teachers in their schools are using abstinence as their birth control method. Classic old white men group-think.
Who knows if this new 'opt-out' rule will pacify the mandate-haters. It probably won't. But that has more to do with the out-of-touch religious hierarchy, and its culture of thinking they can and should govern themselves. (Ask any former church pedophile victim how well they think that self-governance thing has worked out.)
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Women Are Better Than Men.....At Investing
Here's a controversial thought: Men and women are different.....in terms of how they invest.
A variety of studies have been done on gender-based financial behavior. The 2007 Sharebuilder Women and Investing Survey finds that women tend to be more involved in the family balance sheet. Just over 60% of women manage the household checkbook; 58% pay the bills; 44% (versus only 23% of men) oversee the budget.
Yet only 15% of married women take primary care of the family investments. This in spite of the finding that, when it comes to choosing investments, women tend to be more diligent, spending almost twice as much time researching mutual funds before investing. This could be due to greater caution on the part of women, or, depending how you look at it, greater confidence on the part of men. Whatever the cause, it pays off for the ladies. Finance professors Brad Barber and Terrance Odean find that—though women hold less risky portfolios than men, pursuing (and expecting) lower returns—after adjusting for differences in risk, women achieve better returns.
Before women take a victory lap, note that there is a larger, gender-neutral point: Overconfident investors trade too much. Barber and Odean take pains to assure us that gender is but a convenient statistical tool for the real factor at work – overconfidence. Psychology researchers have long held that men are more prone to overconfidence, so we'd expect them to trade more aggressively. We'd also expect this trading to increase costs, which in turn will reduce performance. To test this, the authors set out to determine if the population that is naturally overconfident earns lower average returns than the population that isn't. (See? It's not about men and women at all!)
The professors analyze a huge database of brokerage accounts from the 1990s. They find that married men trade 45% more than married women and earn annual risk-adjusted net returns that are 1.4% lower. Moreover, the differences widen when the sample isn't married people: Single men trade 67% more than single women and earn annual risk-adjusted net returns that are a full 2.3% lower. Worse still, the men have average turnover (a measure of trading frequency) of 77% per year, while the women have average turnover around 53% per year. (Both of those percentages are high – maybe both groups need advisors instead of commission-paid brokers!)
If you believe the stereotypes, these results shouldn't surprise you. Men are supposedly brought up to embrace competition and risk. This translates into winning short-term sprints, not waiting out marathons in broadly diversified strategies. Sure, research is great, but guys don't like to ask for directions. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to avoid knife-fights, or take a flyer on some dicey investment. The research shows they're also more likely to seek out data and expert help, and to take their time – perhaps too much time – before committing assets.
In the final analysis, it’s best for both genders to avoid the pitfalls of emotional investing, the symptoms of which are frequent trading and/or improper asset allocation. Successful investing requires a mixture of confidence and caution, along with a healthy dose of objectivity, patience, and knowledge. These traits will make better investors of both men and women.....and there’s nothing controversial about that.
A variety of studies have been done on gender-based financial behavior. The 2007 Sharebuilder Women and Investing Survey finds that women tend to be more involved in the family balance sheet. Just over 60% of women manage the household checkbook; 58% pay the bills; 44% (versus only 23% of men) oversee the budget.
Yet only 15% of married women take primary care of the family investments. This in spite of the finding that, when it comes to choosing investments, women tend to be more diligent, spending almost twice as much time researching mutual funds before investing. This could be due to greater caution on the part of women, or, depending how you look at it, greater confidence on the part of men. Whatever the cause, it pays off for the ladies. Finance professors Brad Barber and Terrance Odean find that—though women hold less risky portfolios than men, pursuing (and expecting) lower returns—after adjusting for differences in risk, women achieve better returns.
Before women take a victory lap, note that there is a larger, gender-neutral point: Overconfident investors trade too much. Barber and Odean take pains to assure us that gender is but a convenient statistical tool for the real factor at work – overconfidence. Psychology researchers have long held that men are more prone to overconfidence, so we'd expect them to trade more aggressively. We'd also expect this trading to increase costs, which in turn will reduce performance. To test this, the authors set out to determine if the population that is naturally overconfident earns lower average returns than the population that isn't. (See? It's not about men and women at all!)
The professors analyze a huge database of brokerage accounts from the 1990s. They find that married men trade 45% more than married women and earn annual risk-adjusted net returns that are 1.4% lower. Moreover, the differences widen when the sample isn't married people: Single men trade 67% more than single women and earn annual risk-adjusted net returns that are a full 2.3% lower. Worse still, the men have average turnover (a measure of trading frequency) of 77% per year, while the women have average turnover around 53% per year. (Both of those percentages are high – maybe both groups need advisors instead of commission-paid brokers!)
If you believe the stereotypes, these results shouldn't surprise you. Men are supposedly brought up to embrace competition and risk. This translates into winning short-term sprints, not waiting out marathons in broadly diversified strategies. Sure, research is great, but guys don't like to ask for directions. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to avoid knife-fights, or take a flyer on some dicey investment. The research shows they're also more likely to seek out data and expert help, and to take their time – perhaps too much time – before committing assets.
In the final analysis, it’s best for both genders to avoid the pitfalls of emotional investing, the symptoms of which are frequent trading and/or improper asset allocation. Successful investing requires a mixture of confidence and caution, along with a healthy dose of objectivity, patience, and knowledge. These traits will make better investors of both men and women.....and there’s nothing controversial about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)