Assorted links


By what measure does Krugman call MA a success? It is over budget, they are cutting people off it due to the budget crisis, they want to scrap the payment system and go with a flat per patient fee because costs are out of control. As a resident of MA, maybe I get to see news that he does not, but a simple search could have enlightened him.


I guess you're part of the 21% who don't like the Massachusetts plan! You may have a case, but I think your criticisms are unfounded or unfair.

In defense of Krugman's knowledge of the issues, he obliquely mentions MA's plans to move to per-patient fees when he talks about "reducing the incentives for excessive care".

I also don't think it's fair to argue that the plan is a failure because the state is having trouble paying for it in a year when states across the nation are facing historically very large budget shortfalls.

I'm not really sure how much over-budget it is, but I haven't read any eye-brow raising numbers. Maybe you have, or maybe your eyebrows are a little lighter than mine.

If this ( is success, then I'll pass.

Is Krugman serious? Massachusetts is a disaster.

So the one kind of test that employers are not allowed to use due to "disparate impact" legislation, is the cheapest, most efficient, and most accurate way to predict job performance?


I wonder how much our economy loses each year because of that.

Elinor Ostrom may arguable be considered the mother of field work in development economics. She has worked closely investigating water associations in Los Angeles, police departments in Indiana, and irrigation systems in Nepal. In each of theseJWT sent me this book by Scott Rosenberg on blogging's first 15 years. In part one, the author (former editor of goes back to the early days of online diaries and link pages. In part two, Rosenberg tells how technological advances (e.g., the simple


"MASSACHUSETTS HAS been lauded for its healthcare reform, but the program is a failure. Created solely to achieve universal insurance coverage, the plan does not even begin to address the other essential components of a successful healthcare system"

So, the Mass. people use their failure to push for national system while the national pundits use Mass. as evidence for a successful reform. That's a sweet racket.


Readers of article 2 will likely find themselves doubting the conclusion that GMA/IQ is the best predictor.

This commentor predicts that acceptance of this conclusion positively correlates with higher GMA/IQ. Further, anecdotal or a priori comments opposing the findings of Sutton correlate with lower GMA/IQ.

Also predictable is the correlation between higher GMA/IQ and knowledge of one's own GMA/IQ scores.

Those who agree with Sutton et al are more likely to not only have higher GMA/IQ but also more likely to know their own scores.

Those who disagree are not only more likely to have lower GMA/IQ but also more likely to not know their own scores.

In addition, those with lower GMA/IQ are less likely to have previously been convinced that GMA/IQ tests accurately measure logical and problem solving ability.

Those with lower GMA/IQ are less likely to invest effort into research that would refute this comment.

Those with higher GMA/IQ are more likely to've already invested such effort, perhaps explaining why they are more likely to agree with Sutton.


Higher or lower than what? My prediction of the IQ score that represents equilibrium wrt understanding what GMA tests are measuring is IQ=128.

Is Krugman joking? The MA plan is great! Except for the fact that "lower-income workers [are] still unable to afford necessary care. And the Massachusetts plan hasn’t yet done anything significant to contain costs."

So many low-income workers can't get "necessary care", and costs are still out of control. What exactly did we accomplish here?

Is Krugman completely out of touch with modern society...."But the teabaggers have come and gone"....doesn't he know what teabaggers means? How did this make it to print?

If Krugman really believes that the MA plan is a success isn't that an argument for Federal government to get out of the way and let each state devise its own solution?

Romneycare is almost as successful as Medicare; it is now an entitlement that no one will cut - even immigrant coverage cuts, the the only group where cuts are proposed, isn't all that popular a cut, even though it targets a common scapegoat.

The reason it isn't as successful as Medicare is the lack of conservative attacks on Mass Democrats for their cost reform efforts like the attacks on Congressional Democrats for their destruction of Medicare by slashing insurer subsidies.

And if mdb thinks the system is bad in Mass, I suggest he move over the border to NH to buy in the wonderful NH individual insurance market. If I were a renter, I would definitely move to Mass, and if I were more than three years from government run universal socialist Medicare I definitely would sell and move south. And like a lot of NH residents, I've paid Mass taxes for a good part of my time living in NH.

If the table 11.2 on page 227 of Handbook of Industrial, Work and Organizational Psychology: Personnel psychology
By Neil Anderson on represents the paper that Sutton cites correctly, then Sutton is wrong.

Table 11.2 Meta-analytic predictive validity of g and a second predictor for job performance.

The column headings are

Validity (r)
Multiple R
R - r (superscript l, subscript g)

I produce the first 3 columns of the first few rows

g, .51,
Work sample test, .54, .63
Integrity tests, .41, .65
Conscientiousness tests, .31, .60
Structured interviews, .51, .63

By itself, Work sample test seems to have more validity (0.54) than g (0.51). g (0.51) ties with Structured interviews (0.51).

The article abstract is given below and the thrust of the article is not what Sutton seems to say it is.

Schmidt, F.L. and Hunter, J.E. (1998). The Validity and Utility of Selection Methods in Personnel Research: Practical and Theoretical Implications of 85 Years of Research Findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262-274.

Article abstract:

This article summarizes the practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research in personnel selection. On the basis of meta-analytic findings, this article presents the validity of 19 selection procedures for predicting job performance and training performance and the validity of paired combinations of general mental ability (GMA) and the 18 other selection procedures. Overall, the 3 combinations with the highest multivariate validity and utility for job performance were GMA plus a work sample test (mean validity of .63), GMA plus an integrity test (mean validity of .65), and GMA plus a structured interview (mean validity .63). A further advantage of the latter 2 combinations is that they can be used for both entry level selection and selection of experienced employees. The practical utility implications of these summary findings are substantial. The implications of these research findings for the development of theories of job performance are discussed.

Comments for this post are closed