Spring Forward, Fall Back: Its All About Economics

Spring Forward, Fall Back: Its All About Economics

A friend of mine and I were politely discussing the logic behind Daylight Savings Time this evening. She argued that it originated because farmers wanted more time to harvest their crops. I reasoned that this argument is ridiculous. Farmers don't "clock" in and out! (I'm imagining a guy in overalls climbing down from his combine singing "yabadabadoo!" when the whistle blows...).

Time is simply a construct that we've invented. And any law that requires a universal clock change must be more about uniformity and getting us all on the same page than about getting our work done before the sun goes down.

Of course, it turns out to be all about economics; specifically, saving energy. Energy use and the demand for electricity for lighting our homes and for small appliances is directly correlated with when we go to bed and get up.

From this site: http://www.energy.ca.gov/daylightsaving.html

"In the average home, 25 percent of all the electricity we use is for lighting and small appliances, such as TVs, VCRs and stereos. A good percentage of energy consumed by lighting and appliances occurs in the evening when families are home. By moving the clock ahead one hour, we can cut the amount of electricity we consume each day....Studies done in the 1970s by the U.S. Department of Transportation show that we trim the entire country's electricity usage by about one percent EACH DAY with Daylight Saving Time."

The American law which, by the way, does not require one to observe Daylight Saving Time, is the Uniform Time Act of 1966. It just says that if we are going to have such a thing, it must be observed uniformly.

So why is Arizona exempt?

Maybe its those farmers in the desert....

Keywords: ECO110 and ECO120

Heisenberg's Polling Principle

The problem with polls is...well they're polls. They are attempts to measure an individual's likely voting behavior and in so doing they offer a prediction as to the likely outcome of an election were it to have been run at that moment. The problem is, the very act of trying to measure the likelihood an individual will vote, and who they will vote for, can alter the outcome. Sound familiar? Well its close to the problem physicists face when trying to measure the position and velocity of a particle. Heisenberg described this in his Uncertainty Principle:

Light can be considered as being made up of packets of energy called photons. To measure the position and velocity of any particle, you would first shine a light on it, then detect the reflection. On a macroscopic scale, the effect of photons on an object is insignificant. Unfortunately, on subatomic scales, the photons that hit the subatomic particle will cause it to move significantly, so although the position has been measured accurately, the velocity of the particle will have been altered. By learning the position, you have rendered any information you previously had on the velocity useless. In other words, the observer affects the observed.

The problem faced by pollsters is when they measure and report the intentions of likely voters, they alter the population of likely voters, and sometimes they even alter the votes of the very people they polled. For example, if the election looks to be decisive for one candidate or the other, I'll vote my true leanings (libertarian), but if the election looks close, I may vote strategically (the lesser of two evils). Still other people who are not likely to vote, will become much more likely when the polls report that the vote looks to be close, since they will feel they can influence the outcome. Sometimes this happens in predictable ways, but as Ray Fair notes in response to a reporter suggesting his prediction of Bush winning would reduce participation by Kerry supporters:

It could work the other way. If Kerry supporters see that I have made this big prediction for Bush, more of them could turn out just to prove an economist wrong.

So you can think of polls as attempts to measure two things, one would be your probability of voting, and the other would be your preference in a candidate. It seems unlike the physicists we can't even measure one of those precisely. Unlike Ray Fair some social scientists aren't willing to let the polling chips fall where they may, which is why Krugman recently penned the following:

By the way, why does the Gallup poll, which is influential because of its illustrious history, report a large Bush lead when many other polls show a dead heat? It's mostly because of how Gallup determines "likely voters": the poll shows only a three-point Bush lead among registered voters. And as the Democratic poll expert Ruy Teixeira points out (using data obtained by Steve Soto, a liberal blogger), Gallup's sample of supposedly likely voters contains a much smaller proportion of both minority and young voters than the actual proportions of these voters in the 2000 election.

But the question of who is right is an empirical one. If Krugman were honest, instead of the political hack he has become, he would point out that maybe the proportions of minority and young voters in 2000 where not unusually high, but rather part of a rising trend of increased participation for those groups? Even so, one data point does not a trend make, so the fact that Gallup is using a longer period average to weight participation does not make a conspiracy. Although you wouldn't know it from this full page ad over at Moveon.org. I don't disagree with the assessment that the Gallup polls are over stating Bush's lead, because I do believe we will see a much larger turnout among the youth and minorities, not because I believe it is a right wing conspiracy. The fact is turn out among youth and minorities is very volatile, so only time will tell who is right.

Keywords: Polls, Surveys, BUS230

More Quick Hits

A few quick links to some interesting stuff.

Time management tips by John Q. Boy I need to follow this wonderful advice.

Economists lie less than sociologists, according to this study referenced by Mahalanobis via Rasmussen.

Larry Summer's thoughts on the CA deficit. Link via Full context.

Keywords:

I (Still) Love Competition

According to a recent article, Netflix has lowered its price to 17.99 a month, due to the threat of Amazon entering the market. And in response to pressure from recent entrants Blockbuster, entering at 17.49, and WalMart. Its worth noting that just a few months ago Netflix raised its price from 20.99 to 21.99, but now it looks as though they fear marauders. Economic theory tells us easy entry and exit should keep profit down, looks like it in this case.

Competition is Great

I just got back from Subway, where for the first time they offered to toast my ham and cheese sub. I asked when they started offering to toast the subs and the sandwich artist replied "a few months ago". To which I replied, "Oh you mean about the time Quiznos moved in?". He shook his head in affirmation. I love competition.

Keywords: Competition, ECO120

Do No Harm: Perform the Transplant

While the Hippocratic oath does not actually contain the words "Do no harm", the modern version does suggest:

I will treat without exception all who seek my ministrations, so long
as the treatment of others is not compromised thereby.

So, if you have a willing patient and a willing donor, as a physician why should you care how they came to you? In this CNN story: a man was initially denied a transplant operation due to the means he used to find a transplant - a web page - matchingdonors.com. While websites like this help draw donors in, so would cash. Oh well.

One of the money quotes:

His saga highlights the plight of some 80,000 Americans who are waiting for an organ transplant. There is growing pressure to bypass the official United Network of Organ Sharing and use private services such as the Massachusetts-based Web site instead.

And another one from the ethicists:

Medical ethics specialists said going around normal channels for organs poses
risks.

Amazing. Only professional ethicists could think skirting "normal" channels to save your life was unethical.

Keywords: Organ Donation, ECO120

We Get What We Deserve

If get our political information from actors then we deserve to have crappy Presidents. Right now, across campus droves of giddy women (of all ages) are lining up to hear Leonardo DiCaprio talk about the election. This from a guy who cheated to get through high school. From his biography:

He wasn't good in class, finding it hard to focus on academic studies. Indeed, he'd take to cribbing off his peers' papers and become known as Leonardo Retardo. Instead, he concentrated on breakdancing for his peers at lunchtime, and playing practical jokes on the neighbours.

They say he was bright as a kid, although he doesn't appear to have gone to college, but apparently that doesn't matter. Of course if this woman showed up to talk about anything...I'd be there.