Jonathan Klick (a co-author of mine) and Thomas Stratmann (a colleague at GMU) have written an interesting paper on abortion and risky sex among teenagers.  From their conclusion:

Incentives matter. They matter even in activities as primal as sex, and they matter even among teenagers, who are conventionally thought to be relatively myopic. If the expected costs of risky sex are raised, teens will substitute toward less risky activities such as protected sex or abstinence. In addition to modeling the decision making processes of teenagers, this insight is important in other contexts as well. Many public policies can be improved by recognizing the sensitivity of teenage sexual decisions to costs and benefits.

We study one set of policies in this paper. We show that increasing the cost of abortion for teens lowers the insurance value of abortion. This induces teenage girls to avoid risky sex, which will likely have the effect of lowering pregnancy rates, abortion rates, and birth rates among this group of individuals. While these positive effects alone might not justify parental involvement laws, they presumably should not be ignored in the debate. Behavior is not static, and claims based on the assumption of static behavior are flawed.

Charitable organizations have long made it possible to sponsor a child in a poor country.  Kiva lets you sponsor a business in a poor country.

By choosing a business on our website and then lending money online to
that enterprise, you can "sponsor a business" and help the world’s
working poor make great strides towards economic independence.
Throughout the course of the loan (usually 6-12 months), you can
receive monthly email updates that let you know about the progress
being made by the small business you’ve sponsored. These updates
include reports on loan repayment progress, photos of new capital
equipment, narratives on business growth and standard of living
improvements, and more. As loans are repaid, you will get your original
loan money back.

Kiva has recently been discovered by the web and so they are currently out-of-businesses to sponsor (which is a good sign), but it’s a great idea and I intend to sponsor a business as soon as one becomes available.

Thanks to Pablo Halkyard for the pointer.

Wages for low-wage workers have been flat in recent years but health care costs have been increasing.  For a company like Wal-Mart, which pays many of its workers modest wages but does offer a reasonable health insurance plan, this is an invitation to adverse selection.  As the value of the wage component of the Wal-Mart benefit package has declined relative to the value of the health insurance component Wal-Mart has attracted more workers who want the job for the health benefits, i.e. sicker workers.  Reed Abelson writing in the NYTimes notes:

The Wal-Mart work force reflects a growing fear of many employers that the
people who work for them are increasingly at risk for health problems. Many of
Wal-Mart’s employees are obese, the company says, and a result is rapidly rising
numbers of cases of diabetes
or heart
disease. The prevalence of these diseases among Wal-Mart employees is
increasing much faster than the national average, it says.

"The low-income population generally is not as healthy and does not engage as
much in preventive care," said Diane Rowland, executive director of the Kaiser
Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured. A risk that a company like Wal-Mart
faces, especially when it competes with smaller retailers that offer no
insurance at all, Ms. Rowland said, is attracting too many workers who want the
job primarily for the health coverage.

Wal-Mart’s health care costs are rising faster than their revenues.  Other companies are trying to shift some of the cost of health care onto their workers but Wal-Mart’s workers are already paying more than the national average so Wal-Mart may try to reverse adverse selection by adjusting their work and benefit package.  An internal memo suggests that:

…the company could require all jobs to include some
component of physical activity, like making cashiers gather shopping carts. It
also recommends redesigning and expanding benefits to appeal to a different type
of worker, someone more interested in buying a home, say, than in getting health
insurance.

Wal-Mart will probably be pilloried for this sort of thinking but you can hardly blame them when the workers are engaging in almost the identical actions in reverse.  The more fundamental problem is the tying of insurance to work, a problem for which I am afraid there no win-win solution.

Comments are open.

Addendum: Rey Lehmann offers excellent commentary.

Don’t forget that you can benefit Marginal Revolution, at no cost to yourself, by clicking on the Amazon link at the bottom of the right column or any book link and then making purchases.  Of course, if you would like to contribute directly you can do so via either the Amazon or PayPal "tip jars" at the top left.  Thanks! 

The NYTimes Magazine has an excellent article on the housing market based around a discussion of the development firm Toll Brothers.  Bob Toll the president of the firm is predicting that US housing prices will converge with those in Europe.

"In Britain you pay seven times your annual income for a home; in the
U.S. you pay three and a half." The British get 330 square feet, per
person, in their homes; in the U.S., we get 750 square feet. Not only
does Toll say he believes the next generation of buyers will be paying
twice as much of their annual incomes; in terms of space, he also seems
to think they’re going to get only half as much. "And that average,
million-dollar insane home in the burbs? It’s going to be $4 million."

Toll agrees with Glaeser et al. that the key force driving up prices is zoning and growth regulations.  In New Jersey it now takes Toll Brothers up to two million dollars in legal fees and ten years in time to get the permits necessary to build. 

Susan Wachter, a housing economist at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, has an interesting public choice insight about why zoning is worse in Europe.

European towns also have less incentive to encourage development,
Wachter says, because they generally do not, unlike their American
equivalents, depend on their local tax base to pay for education and
services, which tend to be federalized.

This implies that towns in states that reduce their reliance on the property tax – often done, as in CA, in order to "equalize" school funding or other expenditure – will soon restrict development.  Go to it graduate students.

Lots of other interesting material on the organization of the industry.