Gee, those two votes more than any others prove we really are a pro-life state:
More likely with a higher minimum wage
…whereas increases in minimum wages are unlikely to affect all measures of public health, the preponderance of evidence from studies with at least a third-best design suggests that the increases improve three measures: smoking; birthweight; and days with health limitations, including absence from work due to illness. Illustrative estimates from the literature include the following: Among adult women, a 10.0 percent increase in minimum wages led to a 1.6 percent reduction in smoking prevalence; among pregnant mothers, a $1 increase led to a 1.1 percent decrease in prevalence of low birthweights; and among employed adults, a $1 increase led to a 16.1 percent reduction in absences from work due to illness [J. Paul Leigh and Juan Du, “Effects of Minimum Wages on Population Health,” Health Affairs, 2018.10.04].
Higher wage, healthier babies and parents. That’s nice.
Let’s zoom in on the salutary effects of higher minimum wages on babies and moms:
Our results show a consistent pattern of health improvement associated with a state minimum wage above the federal minimum…. Across all models, a dollar increase in the minimum wage above the federal level is associated with a 1% to 2% decrease in low birth weight births and a 4% decrease in postneonatal mortality.
Our results provide empirical evidence that increased state minimum wages are associated with reduced low birth weight births and reduced postneonatal infant deaths. On the basis of the findings, if all states in 2014 had increased their minimum wages by 1 dollar there would likely have been an estimated 2790 fewer low birth weight births and 518 fewer postneonatal deaths for the year [Kelli A. Komro, Melvin D. Livingston, Sara Markowitz, and Alexander C. Wagenaar, “The Effect of an Increased Minimum Wage on Infant Mortality and Birth Weight,” American Journal of Public Health, August 2016].
See? South Dakota voters really do love babies and moms. The minority in this state who opposed our higher minimum wage appear not to share that practical love.
The article is entirely useful, with or without that stat. Read the article again:
Our results show a consistent pattern of health improvement associated with a state minimum wage above the federal minimum…. Across all models, a dollar increase in the minimum wage above the federal level is associated with a 1% to 2% decrease in low birth weight births and a 4% decrease in postneonatal mortality.
The research result does not depend on the percentage Jason asks for. It subsumes that stat and says, whatever it is, the health benefits accrue for society.
Debbo
U of Minnesota economist Dr. Art Rolnick knows that a decent wage makes a difference. He operates from a markets approach and likes to apply market-based solutions to everything. However, there are some issues where markets just aren’t suitable.
“Inequality begins at birth,” Rolnick said in response to the question about what he’s working on now. “Indeed, it begins prenatal. And there is no market for purchasing parents. That is, there is a market failure.”
He says only way to provide equality of opportunity is through government mandated living wages.
Read the article here, in the Business Section of the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
How about take care of yourself, have a kid if you can afford it and leave me out of it. I hate brats of all kinds especially Porter Potty.
o
Porter, exactly, the “pro-life” party quickly becomes the pro-wealth party when protecting lives has associated costs.
Camper, you hint at a problem with “pro-life” conservatives: so many are also anti-birth control.
Debbo
I agree HC, that’s certainly the optimal plan– but we both know it’s not reality. However, the more truly “pro-life” we become as a culture, the fewer and fewer lives we’ll have to worry about and the more men and women will “take care of [themselves], have a kid if [they] can afford it and leave me out of it.”
Also, as the pro-market economist shows with his market formulas in the Strib article I linked to, taking care of parents prenatally and providing free early childhood education is very good for the economy. It gets you to where you said you want to be, out of it.
I don’t know how any of us can be counted out by not having children of our own, unless a person pays no taxes or agrees with how all of our local tax dollars are spent and cannot believe that we could spend out tax dollars better. I believe that as a civil society we best spends our tax dollars when children are young and/or prior to birth as maternal stress has an adverse impact on children, please do the research. I believe that the $109 million+ Department of Corrections budget for the state of South Dakota could be better spent prior to incarceration to help people with basic income, better health coverage, better housing, improved schools, communities, etc. If it sounds like I am a bleeding heart liberal, go ahead and think this; I think this is a better way to invest in our towns, cities, counties, country and people. This will provide them a better living, make them better employees, providing them more money for improving their lives, paying more in taxes, make them better more involved citizens. Not sure how this fits into the discussion. The idea of basic income was done in Canada in the 1973 in Dauphin, by the important measures it was a success. Thoughts? I don’t believe any of us has gotten to this point in our lives without help from tax dollars of some kind. We stand here because of others who provided a vision of what they thought was a better way and worked to that end. The situation is we need to do likewise.
What percentage of non high school non-tipped employees make minimum wage?
The article is useless without that stat.
Jason supports killing babies!
The article is entirely useful, with or without that stat. Read the article again:
The research result does not depend on the percentage Jason asks for. It subsumes that stat and says, whatever it is, the health benefits accrue for society.
U of Minnesota economist Dr. Art Rolnick knows that a decent wage makes a difference. He operates from a markets approach and likes to apply market-based solutions to everything. However, there are some issues where markets just aren’t suitable.
“Inequality begins at birth,” Rolnick said in response to the question about what he’s working on now. “Indeed, it begins prenatal. And there is no market for purchasing parents. That is, there is a market failure.”
He says only way to provide equality of opportunity is through government mandated living wages.
Read the article here, in the Business Section of the Minneapolis Star Tribune:
https://goo.gl/bbh26G
How about take care of yourself, have a kid if you can afford it and leave me out of it. I hate brats of all kinds especially Porter Potty.
Porter, exactly, the “pro-life” party quickly becomes the pro-wealth party when protecting lives has associated costs.
Camper, you hint at a problem with “pro-life” conservatives: so many are also anti-birth control.
I agree HC, that’s certainly the optimal plan– but we both know it’s not reality. However, the more truly “pro-life” we become as a culture, the fewer and fewer lives we’ll have to worry about and the more men and women will “take care of [themselves], have a kid if [they] can afford it and leave me out of it.”
Also, as the pro-market economist shows with his market formulas in the Strib article I linked to, taking care of parents prenatally and providing free early childhood education is very good for the economy. It gets you to where you said you want to be, out of it.
Drumpf’s sole contribution to white families-
https://madison.com/ct/opinion/cartoon/editorial-cartoon/image_86089582-12b7-5d22-84a8-4405e14e098d.html
I don’t know how any of us can be counted out by not having children of our own, unless a person pays no taxes or agrees with how all of our local tax dollars are spent and cannot believe that we could spend out tax dollars better. I believe that as a civil society we best spends our tax dollars when children are young and/or prior to birth as maternal stress has an adverse impact on children, please do the research. I believe that the $109 million+ Department of Corrections budget for the state of South Dakota could be better spent prior to incarceration to help people with basic income, better health coverage, better housing, improved schools, communities, etc. If it sounds like I am a bleeding heart liberal, go ahead and think this; I think this is a better way to invest in our towns, cities, counties, country and people. This will provide them a better living, make them better employees, providing them more money for improving their lives, paying more in taxes, make them better more involved citizens. Not sure how this fits into the discussion. The idea of basic income was done in Canada in the 1973 in Dauphin, by the important measures it was a success. Thoughts? I don’t believe any of us has gotten to this point in our lives without help from tax dollars of some kind. We stand here because of others who provided a vision of what they thought was a better way and worked to that end. The situation is we need to do likewise.