US unemployment rate

How The House And Senate Bills Affect Higher Ed

last week tonight with john oliver on the equifax breach

who benefits under trump and the republicans health care plan

Both Obamacare and the recent Republican replacement proposal use refundable tax credits to help people buy their health insurance. That is part of the reason the new G.O.P. bill is under fire from conservatives, who see it as a new entitlement program.

But the structure of the tax credits is really different. Obamacare calculated the credits based on the cost of insurance in a given area and how much the purchaser could afford to pay. The Republican plan hands out tax credits on a flat basis, according to age. (Both plans cut off subsidies at a certain income level, on the assumption that high earners can pay their own way.) That means that the government subsidy you might get under the different plans would depend on a number of factors – age, income, address.

Analysts at the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated these subsidies for every county in the United States across these three variables. The result, shown in the maps above, reveals stark contrasts in federal support, particularly for lower-income Americans.

The biggest losers under the change would be older Americans with low incomes who live in high-cost areas. Those are the people who benefitedmost from Obamacare.

For some people, the new tax credit system will be more generous. The winners are likely to be younger, earn higher incomes and live in areas where the cost of health insurance is low.

Obamacare's subsidies were structured to limit how much low- and middle-income Americans could be asked to pay for health insurance. Under the G.O.P. proposal, many of the people whose tax credits would fall sharply would be likely to end up uninsured. For people with few resources, a gap of several thousands of dollars between their tax credit and the cost of coverage would be impossible to make up.

That's why many policy experts believe that the new system would result in fewer Americans having health insurance.

But if you put Obamacare out of your mind, this program still represents a very large outlay of federal money to help Americans buy health insurance. Before Obamacare passed, those buying their own insurance did not receive government subsidies. And the tax credits in the Republican bill would go to people regardless of whether they even paid taxes -- another reason conservatives oppose it.

nytimes

working woman glass-ceiling index

the best and worst places to be a working woman

13 Questions to Ask Before Getting Married

When it comes to marriage, what you don’t know really can hurt you.

Whether because of shyness, lack of interest or a desire to preserve romantic mystery, many couples do not ask each other the difficult questions that can help build the foundation for a stable marriage, according to relationship experts.

In addition to wanting someone with whom they can raise children and build a secure life, those considering marriage now expect their spouses to be both best friend and confidant. These romantic-comedy expectations, in part thanks to Hollywood, can be difficult to live up to.

Sure, there are plenty of questions couples can ask of each other early in the relationship to help ensure a good fit, but let’s face it: most don’t.

“If you don’t deal with an issue before marriage, you deal with it while you’re married,” said Robert Scuka, the executive director of the National Institute of Relationship Enhancement. It can be hard to keep secrets decade after decade, and reticence before the wedding can lead to disappointments down the line.

The following questions, intimate and sometimes awkward, are designed to spark honest discussions and possibly give couples a chance to spill secrets before it’s too late. nytimes

  1. Did your family throw plates, calmly discuss issues or silently shut down when disagreements arose?
2. Will we have children, and if we do, will you change diapers?
3. Will our experiences with our exes help or hinder us?
4. How important is religion? How will we celebrate religious holidays, if at all?
5. Is my debt your debt? Would you be willing to bail me out?

6. What’s the most you would be willing to spend on a car, a couch, shoes?

7. Can you deal with my doing things without you?

8. Do we like each other’s parents?

9. How important is sex to you?

10. How far should we take flirting with other people? Is watching pornography O.K.?

11. Do you know all the ways I say “I love you”?

12. What do you admire about me, and what are your pet peeves?

13. How do you see us 10 years from now?

Fact-Check: Bernie Sanders and Detroit

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton will face off in the Michigan primary on Tuesday, at a time when the state's major cities have seen better days. Flint faces a lead-tainted-water crisis, while Detroit is still reeling from its bankruptcy.

Sanders attacked Clinton on Twitter this week, connecting Clinton's support for free trade, specifically the North American Free Trade Agreement signed into law by her husband, to the kind of blight Detroit and other cities in the Upper Midwest are seeing.

But is it that simple? We decided to try and find out.

On Thursday, Sanders tweeted, "The people of Detroit know the real cost of Hillary Clinton's free trade policies," along with five photos of dilapidated buildings. Shortly after that initial tweet, he added: "43,000 Michiganders lost their jobs due to NAFTA. I opposed that bad deal, @HillaryClinton did not."

---

The Big Question:

There's a lot going on here, so we're going to break this into two parts:

1. What does free trade (and especially NAFTA) have to do with the devastation Sanders' tweet depicted?

2. How big of a proponent of NAFTA was Hillary Clinton?

---

The Short Answers:

1. Probably not much (though it did cost some people their jobs), and

2. She supported it, though she expressed reservations sometimes. (Either way, importantly, it was signed under her husband's administration.)

---

The Long Answers:

Let's do this point by point:

1. What does free trade have to do with the devastation Sanders tweeted about?

Detroit's blight makes for striking photos, but its causes go well beyond trade policy.

"I'm pretty sure the buildings he posted were abandoned before 1993 [when NAFTA was signed]," said James Hohman, assistant director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Policy Institute, a Michigan-based economic policy think tank that describes itself as "free market"-oriented.

graph

White flight: Clearly, Detroit had plenty of problems (and abandoned buildings) outside of trade agreements. And those problems started well before, for example NAFTA or the decision to normalize trade relations with China in 2000. In the 1950s and 1960s, and particularly after the 1967 race riots, Detroit was the poster child of "white flight," as hundreds of thousands of white Detroiters fled to the suburbs.

Since then, other factors have contributed to Detroit's decline:

Auto industry problems: Threatened by strikes, some factories started to leave the city — and no other industry could fill the gap left by those factories, as the New York Times reported in 2013. Foreign competition also contributed to the decline in employment, and many argue that automation also has hurt manufacturing.

Mismanagement: Many also point the finger at a series of Detroit's mayors for problems ranging from bad fiscal decisions to outright corruption.

All of this made for a vicious cycle. A diminished population left a weaker economy and also less government revenue, which meant fewer government services, which meant a lower quality of life, which helped send more people packing.

Even in the last few years, the population continued to plummet — the Census Bureau reported in 2011 that the Motor City's population fell by a stunning 25 percent between 2000 and 2010.

"That's really not going to be NAFTA," Hohman said. "That's basic corruption and mismanagement of the city government that has made it unable to provide the basic services."

Also, there's the question of what Sanders means by "Hillary Clinton's free trade policies." It's true that she voted for some trade pacts as a senator and that she once was an advocate for TPP (more on that later), but as for NAFTA, that was signed under her husband's administration. She did promote it at one point (more on that later, too), as Sanders says, but that in particular isn't her policy.

OK. So if free trade policies like NAFTA didn't drive Detroit's decline, that doesn't mean it didn't affect the city's (or the state of Michigan's) economy. Sanders' 43,000 figure comes from a 2011 report by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning policy think tank that has produced several reports about the potential detrimental effects of trade pacts like NAFTA and TPP.

Specifically, that 43,000 number refers to the number of jobs "displaced due to trade deficits with Mexico" — and, in terms of percent change, EPI ranks Michigan as the hardest hit. Altogether, that report said the U.S. lost more than 680,000 jobs, as of 2010, to Mexico, thanks to NAFTA.

Meanwhile, the Clinton administration had argued that the pact would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. And that argument for NAFTA continues to this day. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce last year said that NAFTA "supports" millions of jobs. The idea is that opening up the U.S. to that many new markets (and new customers) sparks more economic activity.

So two different sides disagree on the direction of the employment effects of trade policy — but then, some economists believe that trade pacts simply don't bring about any major changes in the long run.

"Most analysts would agree that, and we certainly agree that, jobs were lost. It's true that jobs are lost," said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow and trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics.

He added that the auto industry was one of the hardest hit by NAFTA, as some production was shifted to Mexico. However, Hufbauer contended the net number of jobs created by a trade agreement usually balances that out.

"Any trade agreement is basically a job churn agreement," he said. "Jobs are lost, and jobs are gained, and on balance it's about zero in terms of number of jobs." (Read more about this dynamic in a fact check on TPP job gains from the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler.)

As one 2004 Congressional Research Service study — itself a review of other studies — found, NAFTA had "little or no impact on aggregate employment" during its then-10-year existence.

Hufbauer added that he believes, on balance, that the gains from trade are positive, leading to lower prices on consumer goods and higher-wage jobs. Of course, if that's true, that still stings for the workers who loses her job at, say, a Michigan auto plant, if she isn't qualified for or can't reach the job that replaces hers.

And not everyone buys this idea. Robert Scott, who wrote the EPI report, argued that while the net-zero effect might be true in theory, it's not true in practice. He believes that, thanks to a number of factors including what economists call secular stagnation, the U.S. isn't producing those replacement jobs. And those jobs that NAFTA did create he believes tend to be lower-wage than the ones it sent elsewhere.

So NAFTA meant that some people lost their jobs as factories moved South of the border, while other jobs were created.

And it's true that employment has fallen in Michigan's manufacturing sector since the agreement was signed (though the major decline began years after NAFTA took effect).

But knowing exactly how many of those job losses (or gains in other sectors or other places) to attribute NAFTA is virtually impossible, as NPR's Don Gonyea put it in 2013, as the causes are complicated and interwoven.

Regardless of how trade affected the local economy, tying Detroit's problems to more open trade is far oversimplifying what's going on. "Detroit and Flint are suffering, largely from self-inflicted, in some cases state-inflicted, wounds," said Hohman.

2. Did Hillary Clinton support NAFTA?

Yes, though she often expressed reservations.

"I think NAFTA is proving its worth," she said in 1996.

And she told an audience at Davos in 1998, "I hope that American business voices will be heard" in promoting fast-track authority, a policy under which Congress can give trade pacts an up-or-down vote only.

However, she added that there needed to be "sensitivity to worker and environmental concerns."

In her book Living History, she characterized NAFTA as an "important administration goal" for her husband's presidency and praised the pact's potential to create jobs, despite the fact that it was "unpopular with labor unions." But over the years, she offered measured critiques. In 2000, she had called the agreement "flawed," and, in 2004, she said that while the agreement was "on balance" good for the U.S., it could have been negotiated better.

Later, when running for president, she was more explicitly critical of the agreement. "NAFTA was a mistake to the extent that it did not deliver on what we had hoped it would," she said in a 2007 CNN presidential primary debate.

Clinton's record doesn't show her to be fully in favor of or opposed to all instances of trade liberalization. While she voted for several deals as a New York senator, she also voted against the 2005 Central American Free Trade Agreement.

"Some people are generally pro-trade or anti-trade. She's case-by-case on trade," as Gene Sperling, chairman of the National Economic Council under both Presidents Clinton and Obama, told the Washington Post in 2015.

---

The Broader Context

This doesn't just matter because the Michigan primary is coming up. And it's not that Sanders is unnecessarily fixated on a 23-year-old trade deal. Rather, this is all part of a bigger fight over the Trans Pacific Partnership, the massive trade deal that the U.S. has been negotiating with Asia.

On TPP, President Obama has found himself in the unusual position of agreeing with many Republicans and the business community on TPP while alienating farther-left lawmakers, with Sanders among the most vocal critics of the deal.

As secretary of state, Clinton most famously supported the TPP when she, in 2012, told an audience that it "sets the gold standard" for trade agreements. (CNN later counted 45 instances in which she praised the deal.) And this has been one of the areas on which Sanders has been able to contrast himself most with Clinton — and therefore hit her hard. Many labor unions are strongly opposed to the trade deal as well, meaning hitting Clinton on TPP could threaten her support.

But on the campaign trail in 2015, she expressed doubts about the deal. And then in October, she made her position clear, telling PBS NewsHour's Judy Woodruff that the deal didn't meet the "high bar" she said she had set for it.

Not that Sanders is about to let this go. As Sanders Campaign Manager Jeff Weaver said on Thursday, "Election-year conversions won't bring back American jobs."

trump doesn't own the steaks, water, airline, magazine, winery and the university is a bust

It appears that the attacks on presidential candidate Donald Trump's business record seem to have touched a nerve.

Despite three more primary and caucus victories on Tuesday, Trump eschewed a traditional victory speech, adding in a press conference — and something else: a table piled high with a veritable Trump-ucopia of Trump-branded products.

"I have very successful companies," the New York billionaire told reporters at the event at Trump National Golf Club Jupiter, in Jupiter, Fla., as raw steaks, bottles of wine and vodka, and magazines stood near the man himself.

In particular, Trump appeared irked about last week's speech by 2012 GOP nominee Mitt Romney, who declared, "Whatever happened to Trump Airlines? How about Trump University? And then there's Trump magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks and Trump Mortgage. A business genius he is not."

So what's the backstory of those products Trump pitched as a sign of his success?

Trump Steaks

Raw meat — of the real and rhetorical kinds — was front and center last night.

"Do we have steaks? We have Trump steaks," Trump boasted. "If you want to take one, we'll charge you about, what, 50 bucks a steak?"

Trump did have an eponymous steak line, sold via Sharper Image. The company's website notes, however:

"Unfortunately, Trump Steaks are no longer available, but their legacy endures."

A search for "Trump" on QVC's website finds various Melania Trump jewelry products, a line of Trump mattresses and one entry for Trump Steaks. But they're not actual steaks; they're "Certified Angus Beef Steakburgers" and QVC notes, "We're sorry, this item is not available at this time."

A reporter present at Trump's press conference notes that the steaks on the table were not actually a Trump brand, but appear, ironically, to have come from a company named "Bush Brothers."

Trump Magazine

"[Romney] said Trump Magazine is out. I said, it is? I thought I read one two days ago. This comes out, and it's called The Jewel of Palm Beach, and we — it goes to all of my clubs," said Trump, before throwing a copy out to the audience.

There is indeed a magazine called The Jewel of Palm Beach published by the Palm Beach Media Group that is described as "the exclusive publication of Donald J. Trump's spectacular Mar-a-Lago Club" and other Trump properties.

Trump does not appear to own the publisher, and the magazine only comes out on an annual basis.

There was a Trump magazine, which went out of circulation in 2009. The New York Daily News reported:

"The last iteration of the luxury lifestyle mag reached a circulation of 100,000 and sold for $5.95 before it flopped. Issues are nowhere to be found online and hardcopies are likely a rare collector's item."

Trump Airline

"Well, I sold the airline, and I actually made a great deal, complicated and in really terrible times. The economy was horrible and I made a phenomenal deal," said Trump, referring to the Trump Shuttle.

NBC News recently looked back at the venture, and summarized Trump's ownership this way:

"Back in 1989, Trump pounced at the chance to buy the troubled Eastern Air Lines shuttle service for $365 million. He put the Trump name on the planes, dressed them up inside — and waited for business to boom. It didn't. But the business took on too much debt and eventually defaulted. It was sold to USAir."

Trump University

Trump launched Trump University in 2005 to help budding real-estate entrepreneurs, but it ran afoul of regulators, who noted that it was not a degree-granting institution. Former students sued, claiming they were tricked into spending tens of thousands of dollars for seminars that didn't do anywhere near what was advertised.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is also suing and claiming that Trump and his associates defrauded students of a collective $40 million. The now-renamed Trump Entrepreneur Initiative is mostly dormant.

Trump is challenging those lawsuits and says he will win and that, when that happens, he will reopen Trump U: "It's going to do very well," Trump said, "and it will continue to do very well."

Trump Winery

The table was stacked with bottles of Trump Wine, and Trump declared of the winery, "I own it 100 percent, no mortgage, no debt."

The winery's website says something different: "Trump Winery is a registered trade name of Eric Trump Wine Manufacturing LLC, which is not owned, managed or affiliated with Donald J. Trump, The Trump Organization or any of their affiliates."

Trump, who is a teetotaler, also used to sell Trump Vodka, although that venture has also been discontinued. A review described the vodka's taste this way:

"Vodka from The Donald. Nosings reveal dry, earthy scents of grain, paraffin, kid leather, jasmine, flowers, moss and soot. Palate entry displays far better than average grain focus and viscosity; at midpalate, the taste profile turns off-dry, intensely breakfast cereal-like and biscuity. Finishes oily/creamy and snack cracker-like."

Trump Water

There were also pallets of Trump Water on stage. On Trump's website, the water is touted as "one of the purest natural spring waters bottled in the world."

"I mean, we sell water, and we have water, and it's a very successful," Trump said, "you know, it's a private little water company, and I supply the water for all my places, and it's good."

So does Trump own the natural springs or bottle the water himself? According to reporters at the event who looked the label, probably not.

According to the label, Trump Water is actually bottled by this company http://www.villagespringswater.com/contents.php?subaction=showfull&id=1266607598&archive=&start_from=&ucat=& …

As Trump himself put it Tuesday night, "So you have the water; you have the steaks; you have the airline that I sold. I mean, what's wrong with selling? Every once in a while you can sell something. You have the wines and all of that, and Trump University, we're going to start it up as soon as I win the lawsuit. Does that make sense? I mean, that's it. OK." npr

The Jobs With The Biggest (And Smallest) Pay Gaps Between Men And Women

npr

What to do about it?

Obama Wants Companies To Disclose Pay Data

comprehensive auto coverage

Could Your Social Media Footprint Step On Your Credit History?

In December 1912, financier John Pierpont "J.P." Morgan testified in Washington before the Bank and Currency Committee of the House of Representatives investigating Wall Street's workings of the time.

The fascinating record produced from the testimony called him the "uncrowned king of finance" and recounted this exchange between Morgan and the committee's lawyer, Samuel Untermyer:

Untermyer: "Is not commercial credit based primarily upon money or property?"
Morgan: "No, sir, the first thing is character."
Untermyer: "Before money or property?"
Morgan: "Before money or anything else. Money cannot buy it."

Further on, Morgan also produces this financial proverb material: "A man I do not trust could not get money from me on all the bonds in Christendom."

A century later, this memory has found new life in a growing number of stories about alternative ways of calculating credit scores, apparently promoted by the co-founder of a startup called Lenddo.

It's a modern-day iteration of the idea of character as a commercial value: companies going online to try to figure out your financial potential from posts and connections from Facebook, Twitter and, yes, LinkedIn (professional contacts there are "especially revealing of an applicant's 'character and capacity' to repay," another creditworthiness startup founder told the Economist, in 2013).

The latest wave of coverage comes from a story in the Financial Times about FICO, the credit scoring company, headlined: "Being 'wasted' on Facebook may damage your credit score."

The FT says FICO is developing a way to price loans to "millions of people who have historically been off the grid" and so the firm is "looking at data on a spectrum" from credit card repayment history to information volunteered on Facebook or other social media.

"If you look at how many times a person says 'wasted' in their profile, it has some value in predicting whether they're going to repay their debt," FICO CEO Will Lansing is quoted in the FT as saying. "It's not much, but it's more than zero."

If you get the impression that FICO might use your Web posts to dock your credit scores, you're not alone. But here's a clarification from FICO spokeswoman Christina Goethe:

"The headline about social media posts created a misperception. FICO is not utilizing Facebook data, or any other type of social media data, in calculating FICO Scores. Mr. Lansing was talking generally about the fact that different types of data have different levels of predictive value."

What FICO is doing is piloting a new type of score, called FICO Score XD, which would add telecom and utility bills (from another credit reporting company Equifax) and property and public records (from LexisNexis) to its calculations to score people who can't be scored otherwise, for instance those without a credit history.

Goethe, in an email, explains how it works:

"FICO Score XD is currently designed to only score consumers that are not scorable with traditional credit data. The algorithm checks to determine if a traditional FICO Score can be generated first, and if it can, the traditional score is returned to the lender. If it cannot, FICO Score XD provides a second chance to get approved. The goal of FICO Score XD is to expand access to credit."

OK, but what if FICO, or Experian, or Equifax, or TransUnion, or their smaller rivals do decide to take social media data into account in building your file, and not just to prevent fraud? Their consumer reports can be used not just for loan and credit card decisions, but also hiring, insurance and housing.

Knowledge Is Power

The first thing to know is this: You have to be told if information from your file has been used against you.

Bob Schoshinski is an assistant director in the privacy and identity protection division at the Federal Trade Commission. He says if your consumer credit data causes a bank, an insurer or landlord to reject your application or give you worse terms than you could have gotten, they have to give you what's called an "adverse action notice."

It's the kind of notice, Schoshinski says, that explains: We rejected your application or gave you a worse deal because of your credit report or score, and here's where we got the report or score and here are the major factors that determined our decision.

Employers who want to peek in your background through a credit or consumer report have to give you even more of a heads-up with a "pre-adverse action notice," Schoshinski says, in case potential hires want to dispute anything on their report before a decision has been made.

And that's another thing you can do under the Fair Credit Reporting Act: Make sure that your information is correct, wherever it may have been collected. Consumer reporting agencies must investigate disputed information and then correct or delete things that are wrong, incomplete or unverifiable.

"Generally speaking the FCRA is neutral as to what kind of data a credit reporting agency, or a lender, or an employer uses," including social media, Schoshinski says. "You have to have procedures that assure a maximum possible accuracy of the information you're providing."

The FCRA also prohibits credit reports from including negative stuff that's more than 7 years old (for instance, arrests) and leaves no room for shady uses of credit reports: If a bank, insurer, employer or landlord doesn't acknowledge that their decision stemmed from a credit report, "then they're violating the law," Schoshinski says.

When You're Found Online Directly

Things get murkier when the social media data is collected not by consumer reporting companies, but banks/employers/property owners/insurers themselves. Those instances are not overseen by the FCRA and are guided by other anti-discrimination laws and ethics standards (for example, fair housing laws), whose relationships with social media are still getting sorted out, too.

NPR's Yuki Noguchi has delved into the thorny issue of employers sleuthing on social media accounts of potential new hires. She found hazy rules of what hiring folks can do with the information the a job seeker makes publicly available, especially given that discrimination can be hard to pinpoint when it's based on intangible and sometimes subconscious impacts of things like scanning a Facebook page.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission took on the topic in March 2014, issuing a recap press release with this note from panelists' observations: "To the extent that employers conduct a social media background check [to identify and recruit good candidates], it is better to have either a third party or a designated person within the company who does not make hiring decisions do the check, and only use publicly available information."

Spokeswoman Kimberly Smith-Brown says that workshop remains the EEOC's latest formal action on the topic of social media.

The FTC's Schoshinski says: "Our main concern is about consent. If someone wants that information to be out there and wants to put information out about themselves, through social media or otherwise, then that shouldn't be a concern.

"But if there's information that someone either doesn't know is going to be put out there or hasn't been told if they enter information here, it's going to be shared with thousands if not millions of people, then that can become a problem." npr

Where The Girls Are (And Aren't)

Consider the girls who were never born.

On average, about 105 boys are born worldwide for every 100 girls. Girls tend to make up for this difference over time because of their greater resilience and resistance to disease.

But if you look at the two biggest countries in the top seven, you'll find a very different picture.

Based on 2010 numbers from the United Nations Population Fund, China is "missing" about 24 million girls between the ages of 0 and 19. That's over 14 percent of the female population in that age range.

Since the late 1970s, China has had a one child per family policy. Many families want that child to be a son. The increasing availability of prenatal ultrasounds and blood tests for gender makes it possible for parents to abort a female fetus if they want. The uneven ratio of boys to girls born in China suggests this is happening.

A similar dynamic is at play in India, and preliminary data suggest that as access to prenatal gender tests increases there, fewer girls are being born.

India's percentage of girls missing at birth is lower than China's at 5.6 percent of the female population between 0 and 19. But because India's population is so large, India is missing 13 million girls out of its under-20-year-old female population.

Adding up the unborn girls, there are currently about 37 million fewer 0- to 19-year-old girls in India and China than the world average ratio would predict. To put that number in perspective, that's about 2 million more than the entire population of Canada.

China and India aren't the only countries that show this trend. They are just the largest.

In India and China, the birth of a son is cause for celebration. The family has gained a future asset: a child who can earn money for his parents and support them when they are old.

That's not the case for girls. "It's more expensive for a family to have girls than boys," says Charles Kenny, a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development. A boy has greater earning potential in these societies because there is a stigma against women working outside the home. And in India, when a daughter gets married, her family usually makes a generous donation of money and gifts to the groom's family.

So a daughter is seen as a drain on the family's resources. There's an Indian saying: Raising a daughter is like "watering someone else's garden." In other words, the benefits of raising a daughter will be reaped by the family the daughter marries into, not her own family.

Early marriage (often forced) along with early pregnancies are two of the biggest barriers to girls getting more education. Almost 30 percent of girls in India are married before they turn 19, and marriage often means that the girl leaves school to live with her husband or because she becomes pregnant.  npr