Op-ed

In what is sure to be supreme irony. My op-ed on changing the nature of the debate was cut from about 750 to around 500 words. Given that one of my main points was that we do not take time to make the complicated arguments, I think I've proved my point. As for how we change the nature of the debate? I'm at a loss. I guess we as consumers of information have to change our demands. Here is the full op-ed with links.

Changing the Nature of the Debate. 2/21/11 Taggert J. Brooks, PhD

I have to admit the last week has been quite an emotional roller coaster for me. As a state employee who will be receiving a large pay cut, my morale is low. As someone who is teaching health economics I can hardly think of a more salient example of the struggles we face with rising health care expenditures. But as an economist I’ve been infuriated by the level of debate. I’ve spent too much of my time trying to raise the level of discussion on both sides in the comments section of this newspaper, or the Facebook walls of my friends and former students.

We need to change the nature of the debate.

In December Congress moved to extend unemployment insurance benefits to another group of recipients to an unprecedented 99 months . Republicans claimed that this would only delay recipient’s job search and inflate an already high unemployment rate . Republicans were right. Unemployment Insurance (UI) artificially reduces the incentives to find work by increasing the cost of taking up employment. Larry Katz finds a one week extension typically increases unemployment duration by 0.2 weeks. This is supported by ample economic research. But Democrats cried foul. They argued that failure to extend benefits would throw thousands off UI resulting in painful decreases in their family’s income, and it would cause the ensuing macroeconomic consequences associated with falling consumption . Democrats were right too, and there is plenty of research to back their argument. Why the seemingly contradictory conclusions? The reason is unemployment insurance is a blunt policy tool.

But the debate shouldn’t be about extending or not extending UI. The debate should be about how we sharpen the blunt tool, about how we get the good things out of UI without creating the bad things? Sadly we seem far from that type of discussion. Maybe because it would never fit on a bumper sticker.

Wisconsin’s current troubles provide us with other examples of how we need to change the nature of the debate. Unions are complicated entities – and much like UI - they do both good things and bad things. Looking specifically at the K-12 teachers union, since they appear to be Governor Walker’s primary target, we hear about their resistance to change and their protection of bad teachers. Unions are blunt instruments. They are designed to protect worker’s rights, but in so doing they often protect bad behavior and bad workers. The debate should be about how we reduce the bad things that they do, and improve the good things they do. How do we sharpen the tool? The Governor’s actions have circumvented that conversation.

One of Governor Walker’s examples for wanting to eliminate collective bargaining comes from the Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association (MTEA). He decries the union’s attempt to reinstate Viagra coverage with their health insurance . The implication is that the union is defending a bunch recreational drug users. I’m quite sure there is some of that, but I’m also sure there are prostate cancer survivors in that same mix. I think we can all agree their desire to have intimate relations with their spouses is a legitimate health issue. But we can’t blame the union entirely for the bluntness of their defense, we should also blame the insurance company. Why can’t they cover the medicine for the cases we all think are legitimate, and not cover it for the cases some of us might find frivolous? We need to sharpen our tools, the debate should be about how we do that, not about avoiding the conversation. We should not abandon our teachers nor our prostate cancer survivors.

Our current health care system guarantees this will continue to be a problem. But we need to end the winner take all mentality. There is a third way. Honest discussion, debate and a willingness to wrestle with complicated ideas, that can’t be reduced to sound bites. It will take leadership on both sides. But more than that, politicians will have to become educators, because the problem really is us. We want our cake and want to eat it too. Edmund Burke had it right. Politicians should not be mere puppets for the majority of their constituents; they should be advocates for the public trust. Otherwise we are doomed to painfully oscillate between extreme world views.

Teacher Compensation

Teacher compensation data is here. Here are two plots of total average compensation (salary plus fringe) for the top 40 school districts and the bottom 40, of the 425 districts. Its important to remember that this is not starting salary, but includes all teachers, even those with 30 years of experience.

Race and Voting

Here is a discussion of a fascinating and uncomfortable conversation we might have.

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is, indisputably, an unusual piece of legislation. It does not apply, as the rest of the law does, to the whole country. Rather, it requires nine southern states and parts of another (40 of North Carolina’s 100 counties) to submit any change in voting procedure, from redistricting an entire state to moving a single polling place from one location to another, for “preclearance” by the Department of Justice or a three-judge federal court in Washington.

But is it constitutional? Maybe not.

Twins

The Problem with Twin Studies.

And here is Richard A.:

The Body-Mass Index of Twins Who Have Been Reared Apart

We conclude that genetic influences on body-mass index are substantial, whereas the childhood environment has little or no influence. These findings corroborate and extend the results of earlier studies of twins and adoptees. (N Engl J Med 1990; 322:1483–7.)

IOWs, the reason why white kids of today are much fatter than white kids of the 50s and 60s is due to genetic influences and environment has little or no influence

This shows that the twin studies are flawed.

Because genetic changes are far less than can explain the changes in weight.

But remember that the changes in weight are a result of small changes in behavior 10 lbs of steady state weight comes from just 150 calories extra per day. Thats 10 minutes walking. 3 oreos, one coke? Seems small too, and maybe a small drift on a single gene can achieve that end?

For the average american male every 1 point of BMI is about 3.2 kg, or about 7 pounds. Since 1970 we have probably added about 3 points to our average BMI, but maybe less for the median. So we are trying to explain 21 lbs.

Changing Behavior

I think I've mentioned that recessions as deep and long as the one we experienced can have lasting effects on behavior. These changes might very well be temporary, but some might be more permanent for this age cohort. From the NYT on Walmart:

Company executives and analysts said consumers seemed to have changed their ways during the recession, and that has persisted into the sluggish recovery. New shopping habits, like using less credit, relying more on month-to-month cash and buying in smaller packages, have hampered Wal-Mart’s ability to climb out of the sales slump.
...
In the fourth quarter of 2010, the problems stemmed from several areas. Toy sales were down in American stores, though Wal-Mart had aggressively promoted prices and added back toys to its aisles. Apparel continued to be a problem.

And in consumables — basics like toilet paper and soap — Wal-Mart said its prices and sizes were a problem for shoppers who continued to be on tight budgets.
“It’s not a case that we’re not correctly priced,” Mr. Holley said. For example, he said Wal-Mart’s price-per-ounce for laundry detergent was usually lower than competitors’, but competitors like dollar stores often sold smaller bottles or boxes that were cheaper.

“Some of our customers at the end of the month may have only a fixed amount left,” he said, “and even if it’s more per ounce, if the price point is more attractive at a competitor, at the end of the month that’s all they can spend.”

It seems to be a liquidity/financing problem for their customers.

The Enemy

The enemy is US.

Those Darn Polls

Rasmussen Reports released a new poll the other day, which found:

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 48% of Likely U.S. Voters agree more with the Republican governor in his dispute with union workers. Thirty-eight percent (38%) agree more with the unionized public employees, while 14% are undecided.

The wording can be found here.

1* How closely have you followed news reports about the Wisconsin governor’s effort to limit collective bargaining rights for most state employees?


2* Does the average public employee in your state earn more than the average private sector worker in your state, less than the average private sector worker in your state or do they earn about the same amount?


3* Should teachers, firemen and policemen be allowed to go on strike?


4* In the dispute between the governor and the union workers, do you agree more with the governor or the union for teachers and other state employees?


5* Would you favor or oppose reducing your state government payroll 1% a year for 10 years, either by reducing the number of state employees or by cutting the pay of state workers?

As Nate Silver points out that it probably suffers from and order bias due to the question framing in prior questions.

The issue is clearest with the third question, which asked respondents whether “teachers, firemen and policemen” should be allowed to go on strike. By invoking the prospect of such strikes, which are illegal in many places (especially for the uniformed services) and which many people quite naturally object to, the poll could potentially engender a less sympathetic reaction toward the protesters in Wisconsin. It is widely recognized in the scholarship on the subject, and I have noted before, that earlier questions in a survey can bias the response to later ones by framing an issue in a particular way and by casting one side of the argument in a less favorable light.

The Rasmussen example is more blatant than most. While many teachers have been among the protesters at the State Capitol in Madison, obliging the city to close its schools for days, there have been no reports of reductions in police or fire services, and in fact, uniformed services are specifically exempted from the proposals that the teachers and other public-sector employees are protesting. So bringing in the uniformed services essentially makes No. 3 a talking point posed as a question.


As an analogy, imagine a survey that asked respondents whether they believed the Democrats’ health care overhaul included “death panels” before asking them whether they approved or disapproved of the bill over all.

Randomizing the order of questions can address this issue, or working harder to ask questions which use language free from this type of bias.The AFL-CIO had their own poll here.