Q: Are all minimum-salary contracts guaranteed? What happens if after Heat has all 15 players under contract a better minimum-salary player wishes to join the Heat? — Robert.

A: The contracts offered to this point by the Heat are guaranteed, with the exception of the deals for Shavlik Randolph and Kenny Hasbrouck. But, yes, a team can opt to eat such guaranteed money and sign a replacement player into such a slot. It is not unusual for teams to go into training camp with more than 15 guaranteed contracts. While teams are limited to 15-player regular-season rosters, they can carry up to 20 until the start of the season.

Q:  Do you think U.D. will still be a team captain? — Taj.

A: I think Wade and Udonis will be the team captains, based on their tenures. The Heat owes Haslem at least that much, after he took a larger pay-percentage cut than any other player on the roster.

Q: Do we really want to see some developmental player sitting at the end of this bench next season? This team needs veterans. — Fil.

A: No, this team needs chemistry, and if a team with Wade, LeBron and Bosh needs to utilize its 14th and 15th men, then something is terribly wrong.

Q: Hello Ira, would the Heat consider wings such as Rodney Carney, Damien Wilkins, Jarvis Hayes or Von Wafer? Thanks. — Daryl.

A: Sure, but possibly not with guaranteed money. It could come down to Pat Riley finding out how hungry veterans are for a final roster spot on this team. It might be the best way to stage a competitive camp. Remember, Carlos Arroyo signed on a year ago without a guarantee.

Q: Assuming the Heat choose to start the Three Kings at their natural positions, as opposed to a hybrid lineup, who do you think has the upper edge to start at point guard and center? — D.H.

A: I think the Heat want a shooter at point guard, which would give Mario Chalmers the edge, provided he makes shots. I think Joel Anthony has the edge at center, because of his defensive presence.

Education, especially female education, seems to reduce fertility.  Economists standard explanation is that women's foregone earnings are the leading cost of children.  If you raise women's education, you raise their potential income; and as you raise their potential income, you raise the cost of fertility.

This story sounds good, but economists rarely notice that there are several other plausible mechanisms for female education to reduce fertility:

1. Education changes values in an anti-natal direction.

2. Education correlates with stricter self-imposed rules for parenting.

3. Both education and fertility depend on foresight.

I addressed these stories in an earlier draft of Selfish Reasons to Have More Kids, but in the end the material seemed too wonky for public consumption.  But not for EconLog...

The Values Story

Now consider the greatest perceived triumph of Becker's approach: the fact that increasing education - especially women's education - explains much of the decline in fertility.  The facts are clear, but the best way to interpret the facts is not.  Education could affect fertility by making it more expensive to take time off from work.  Yet it could just as easily affect fertility by changing values. 

Teachers and professors often explicitly try to "broaden horizons" - to undermine students' preconceptions, and introduce them to less traditional measures of success.  In a sense, one of educators' goals is to convince students - especially female students - that there's more to life than having kids.  To some degree, educators succeed; they may be uninspiring speakers, but they do have captive audiences. 

The Self-Imposed Rules Story

Worth noting: Time diaries show that better-educated parents devote more time to childcare. (Changing Rhythms of American Family Life, p.75)  This suggests yet another way for education to reduce family size: Educated parents impose stricter rules on themselves.  Why does female education matter more?  Because women have stronger opinions about upbringing.  Dad usually gives Mom extra say on the family's self-imposed rules, as long as he's not in charge of compliance.  The best-educated moms keep their families small because the rules they choose to impose on themselves are especially tough to live by.