I worked for the pharmaceutical industry for 10 years as a research chemist, and I've heard all the speeches about how "we're not looking to cut costs by moving to China, we just want to target the Chinese market". But it's just not true. Of course pharmaceutical companies want to sell in China, but most of their profits come from the US and Europe. Most people in China can't afford to pay the higher prices for drugs that will justify the hundreds of millions it takes to develop a new drug. The research they do in China will end up in drugs sold here - and they'll save on research costs by paying a lot less for scientists.

A few top scientists may find jobs in China. But how do you become a top scientist? By working and studying at lower levels. If the lower level jobs are all gone, there will be no path for younger scientists to become "top scientists". University research depends on a large pool of graduate students to actually do the work at the bench, but if there are no jobs at the end of road, why would students go to graduate school? We're cutting off our pipeline, and eventually our supply of "top scientists" will run out.

I don't blame China for this. They're building up their scientific infrastructure, the same way the US did 50 years ago. Right now, they're bringing in scientists from the US for the top position, but they're thinking long term. It's just a stop gap until their own scientists gain the knowledge and experience to fill those top jobs. In the meantime, we're thinking short term, cutting jobs and research here in the US because it boosts next quarter's stock price. A few of those displaced scientists will find jobs in China, but most of them will just leave science altogether. In 10-20 years, we'll look around and say "what happened to American science?" And journalists will write stories about how Americans are too lazy to study science, and miss the real story.

I think home schooling can work for younger kids. (I'm more skeptical about older kids, but you have a while before making that decision.) But I would caution you not to ignore math. I spent my childhood living overseas and going to schools that were pretty bad. Between my parents teaching me after school and my love of reading, I ended up pretty well rounded in most subjects, but when we came back to the US, I was years behind in math. And once you get behind in math, it becomes harder and harder to catch up, because each skill builds on the previous one.

Once my parents realized the problem, they spent a couple of summers sending me to summer school and force feeding me math until I was caught up. It wasn't fun and I was pretty miserable. But if I'd never learned the basic math skills that I was missing, I would never have discovered my love of science. I would never have been able to learn chemistry if I was still struggling with basic math skills, and I would have missed out on my career as a scientist.

So even though math probably isn't as fun as greek myths, it's a good idea to introduce it early and build it over time, because if your kids start getting behind in math, it's very difficult to catch up later. You can't learn calculus if you never learned how to do the basics.

I doubt the author really wants to shop at Ikea. It's as if he just went there so he could be annoyed and write an essay about it. However, for anyone else, it makes shopping much easier if you check the web site first. If you know what you want, you don't even have to go in through the display area. Just go directly to the self-service shelves. At the very least, you can get a general idea of what's available and whether it's in stock at your store.

Not everything at Ikea is great, but I've moved my Ikea stuff to four different states, and it's still in good condition.

One reason people like subsidies is that it rewards some people over others. The earned income credit is structured so it goes almost entirely to parents with children. (And you only get credit for 2 children, not more.) So it doesn't help poor people who don't have kids. A higher minimum wage would help everyone, not just people we think are "worthy". The mortgage interest deduction helps home owners over renters, since they're more worthy. (And people who own very inexpensive homes often don't get much benefit from it either - they're also less worthy).

Subsidies and tax credits are one more way the government tries to reward certain people and certain behaviors. More even-handed programs might reward people we don't think are deserving.

It's not just breast cancer. I had uterine cancer and had to have a hysterectomy. I was thrown into instant menopause at age 38. The only thing my doctor did was hand me some plastic dilators and tell me I had to insert them daily to keep my vagina from closing up. No other mention of how this might affect my sex life. The only way I got any information was by looking online and reading books. (At least breast cancer patients have support groups.) My Dad had prostate cancer and he got all kinds of information from his doctor about sex, even though he was in his late 70's at the time. But it was never mentioned by any of my doctors, even my female gynecologist.