On 77 Cents, Adjusting for Reason

Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden are evidently throwing in the towel on their presidential campaign.

On Wednesday, at the Democratic National Convention, Biden avowed that he and Obama would “never give up until we achieve equal pay for women. That's the change we need.”

Efforting to exact equal standards and treatment in the labor market for women and men ought to be a moral compulsion for all policy-makers and employers. In political rhetoric, championing these efforts and repudiating present conditions, whatever they may be, also functions as a powerful, emotion-seizing assertion.

The implication of Biden's assertion, however, that women have not achieved equal pay, has been demonstrated to be ostensibly groundless and inapplicable to the present context. While it is true that in raw terms, the mean full-time, year-round working woman still earns roughly 77% of the average man, this superficial examination does not consider professional interest, academic background, or comparative domestic advantage. Eric Eide (2007) and Arrah Nielsen (2005) show that when accounting for academic major and/or professional experience the gender wage gap had disappeared entirely among college-educated men and women by the beginning of the decade. For an explanation of the various reasons why the gap still exists as it does in its absolute context, see Nielsen’s elucidation.

Of course, promoting economic, social, and political equality across gender is a necessary principle and should be manifested with prudent policy. Does gender inequality still exist in some form in the labor market? Almost certainly. Particularly at the highest levels of business and government, women still appear to be marginalized, intentionally or otherwise. Just look at the bigoted commentary made about Senator Hillary Clinton during the Democractic Primary election and now about Governor Sarah Palin just in the past couple of days. Nevertheless, concerns over systematically unequal outcomes of women in the American labor market are largely obsolete.

On the Conclusions of Self-Loathing Americans

Is Kobe Bryant, the reigning league MVP of the NBA, the Achilles heel of United States Men's Basketball Team?

As the United States men’s basketball team continues its quest at reasserting its global preeminence, one poorly challenged fallacy has permeated the conversation surrounding Team USA’s poor play in recent international tournaments: simply, the gap has closed between the talents of American basketball players and those of the rest of the world. This is an especially popular claim among those with dubious credentials to merit respected sports opinion –- arguably similar to my own -– and self-loathing American tendencies, such as NPR’s single sports correspondent. Even the highly qualified, America-loving Michael Wilbon has taken the position that the world has largely caught up.

Dissention to this opinion has largely rested on a defense of willful arrogance, even among some of sports journalism’s most respected members. Wilbon quotes his television sparring partner Tony Kornheiser as believing that the team’s path to Olympic victory this month is as simple as saying, “We’re back. We win.” Dan Shaughnessy reiterated this sentiment of unqualified supremacy on ESPN’s Rome Is Burning arguing that since basketball was created in America, Team USA will, therefore, win the gold medal this year.

Of course, that’s both logically and historically untrue. Since America last sent basketballers to the Olympics, they finished third, the first time the United States men’s basketball team did not return a gold medal since NBA players represented the country and only the third time in the sixteen Olympic basketball tournaments. The writing was on the wall even before the Athens Olympics, as team finished sixth in the 2002 FIBA World Championships. They also lost to Greece in the semi-final of the 2006 World Championships.

Nevertheless, this team ought to win the gold medal because has the best players in the world. Perhaps only Dirk Nowitzki, Yao Ming, and Manu Ginobili could even make the United States’ team. None would play among its starters.

Since 2004, USA Basketball has sought to address the apparent primary problem that a cast of all-stars practicing together for a month before the tournament does not constitute a team at all. It required a commitment of three years in the off-season by players in order for them to be eligible to compete in the Olympics. It sought to add players familiar with serving as backups professionally to be its own backups – in reality, though, only Tayshaun Prince fits the criterion.

The team’s performance has been generally promising hitherto, beating host China and a respectable Angola by 31 and 21, respectively, leading late in the 4th quarter of the latter by 33. But it’s clear now that if the United States’ team has any remaining deficiencies, it’s the relative advantage international teams enjoy of a familiarly shorter international three-point line (20 feet, 6 inches internationally; 23 feet, 9 inches in the NBA). Anyone who has watched either of the United States’ first two games has seen an overwhelming American performance kept close early and prevented ultimately from becoming a Dream Team-esque evisceration by the net-blazing three-point shooting of the Chinese and Angolans relative to the Americans.

After two games the United States’ team’s shooting percentage is a mere 26.7% (12-45). China and Angola combined for a 32.8% (19-58). That difference probably doesn’t sound many alarms; both China and Angola cooled off considerably in the second half. Consider, though, those stats against the teams’ field goal shooting efficiency (minus three-point shots): for the Americans, a 68.8% percentage; for its opponents, 39.2%.

Team USA’s opponents rely on what amounts to a long “mid-range” NBA jump shot, long since interred in the NBA playbook. In fact, many American coaches teach players explicitly not to take a long jump shot; rather, if they find themselves lingering beyond twenty feet, to step back behind the three-point arc and allow for a 50% return on successful attempts. The shot that is two or three steps farther forward is the international three-pointer, which players have been discouraged from taking and practicing for years. Furthermore, it would seem that, insomuch as adjusting to the international line is difficult, perhaps only Michael Redd, renowned for his “natural” shooting ability, would seem particularly suited for an agreeable transition; he is the team’s only “pure shooter” (please forgive the sports clichés). However, Redd presently averages only 13.5 minutes per game, much of which has come with the game’s outcome already determined.

That said, the team’s apparent disadvantage would be completely erased statistically if Kobe Bryant had been disallowed from taking any of the fifteen three-point attempts in the first two games. Without his shots, the team would have shot more efficiently than its opponents, 36.7% (11-30). Leaping to the assumption that this team shoots international three-pointers worse than those in the NBA may, therefore, be a bit irresponsible.

Nevertheless, it is clear that if teams with only a fraction of the talent of the United States squad will be able to defeat Team USA, this year, it will not be because they enjoy superior camaraderie and cohesion, as in prior disappointments, but because they enjoy an advantage -- systemically or on that given day -- at three-point shooting.

When Government Monopoly Works

It may come as both a surprise and a disappointment to other Thinking Men that I am not entirely ecstatic about beginning law school. Obviously there are the haunting nerves, uncertainty, and masochism that come with the first year of law school I would rather avoid. Inevitably, too, I’ll find myself comparing American with Dartmouth and lamenting the amenities of the latter that I’ve taken for granted, such as its extraordinary safety, pristine landscape, and incredibly cheap liquor. I’ve been coming to terms with the first two for a while, without having even moved to Washington yet, but today the third became painfully clear.

I was at Sam’s Club stocking up on living necessities for this coming year, when it came time to cross 'bourbon' off my checklist. Sam’s smacked me in the face with a $23 bill for a handle of Jim Beam. $23! I’m unfortunately unfamiliar with liquor prices in Florida, and in light of my evidently price inelastic preferences for average bourbon, I submitted and coughed up the cash.

The sting I felt in turning over the money derived from my accustomedness with paying $17.99 at the West Lebanon, NH liquor store the last couple of years, one of the state's 77 such stores. New Hampshire is one of 18 states where the distribution of liquor is controlled entirely by the state government. Prices are standardized throughout the state to suppress competition between stores. They do not sell any products with less than 6% alcohol, so the liquor stores do face competition from vendors of substitutable alcoholic products. Nevertheless, New Hampshire enjoys a government-controlled monopoly on the sale of liquor.

My inclination is to cringe at the thought of both a monopolized industry and one with substantial government intervention. My apprehensions with both are foremost that the prices of goods would skyrocket as a result of the government's inefficiency and the monopoly's profit-maximization, that the quality of the products would be inferior, and that the incentive for innovation would be absent. This is the doctrine of any basic microeconomics or industrial organization class.

However, in this case, not only does the government not produce the goods, but there is not much need for innovation in retail. Where it is necessary or useful for efficiency in sales, consumers can safely rely upon its development by other firms in private, minimally regulated markets. Indeed, in the presence of such an overwhelming excise (and sales) tax, even the ultra competitive, economies-of-scale wielding Sam’s Club can’t overcome the heavy tax burden and offer an equal product for cheaper than New Hampshire’s inefficient monopoly. Indeed, the prices are so alluring that the stores frequently draw in customers from neighboring states.

Consider further that the New Hampshire state liquor commission provides $100 million of tax revenue to the state annually, and New Hampshire’s setup looks like a truly preferable alternative to a privatized system. Of course, in the absence of enormous taxes, a perfectly competitive private marketplace would be ideal for consumers. But in an industry where innovation is limited and taxes are greater than the reduction in prices that competition and efficiency represent, a public monopoly is better for consumers, producers, and the government. The losers in this arrangement? Would-be owners of liquor stores. Plenty of other commodities and brands devoid of a cumbersome excise need to be delivered to consumers. If retail is truly their calling, they can fill one of those job openings.

On the Suppression of Dissent

The message and argumentation in “On the Treatment of 5th Graders” was unclear to some. One reader, Andrew, communicated his concerns in the "Comments" section beneath the post. I would like to respond to Andrew’s contentions here so that other readers of The Thinking Man’s Man do not miss my clarification.


Thank you for the comments, Andrew. First of all, I apologize if my message was unclear. Not expecting anyone to actually find this site or carefully read it, I probably didn’t shape my argument as well as I could have or should have.

However, to clarify for those who care, the point I was trying to make in my post was that it's evident to me that there does not exist a consensus or necessarily an overwhelming majority among knowledgeable individuals on both the causes of climate change and the ecological effects of a unit of human pollution. The greater point that I was trying to make was that probably the vast majority of the public is in the dark about even the existence of this debate in the first place, and that the panic in popular and political sentiment over global warming is dangerous for policy.

To illustrate this latter point I tried to provide a couple of examples where two vocal members of the Green movement irresponsibly argue the merits of alternative energy and the evidence for the existence of global warming. The claim that I was making here was that the majority of the public is unaware that there would even be value in challenging Gore’s pathetic claims or the Big Green Bus’ erroneous illustration. If global warming is undoubtedly caused by humans and if Gore and the Big Green Bus fully understand the problems, why challenge them even on their sloppy arguments? All one would get is more concrete evidence.

The purpose of the post was not to debate the merits of each or either side. In fact in the post, I disclaim any authority over the details of the debate, so your charging me as ignorant is redundant. I note that I am not a scientist and don’t pretend to be and that I likely won’t ever understand the complexities of any hard science, let alone geophysics. I also indicated that I fully believe global warming has existed since at least the Industrial Revolution.

What I don’t believe is that there is anything close to a consensus among even the most capable scientists on the effects of human activity on global warming. And to exaggerate them with hyperbolic dialogue and erroneous scientific reports will only exacerbate the present energy problems. Assuming the earth’s climate is not reaching a “tipping-point” in the short-run, the economic interests of Americans in a difficult time for consumers should trump efforts to limit human contributions to global warming until the effects are fully understood and emissions can be appropriately regulated. The most responsible approach to policy is the one that considers all arguments and facts that are as close as possible to the “truth”. In this case, the “truth” about the extent of human contributions to global warming has yet to be established.

I’m sorry that that opinion elicited so much animosity. Though I am somewhat stunned by Andrew’s causticity, as I feel that my position is as open-minded as possible, I can’t say that I’m terribly surprised. This is the dismissive derision I warned readers to expect in my original post. I questioned claims of a consensus and the integrity of the argumentation of two prominent Green activists, and Andrew excoriated me. However, Andrew’s qualms are misplaced, and I would like to address each specifically here.

To Andrew’s specific concerns:

Issue 1

First, the consensus. The IPCC's latest report represents the the published, peer-reviewed findings of more than 2,000 scientists, all compiled together. It represents one of the widest collaborations in the history of science, by some of the most respected scientists in their fields. By citing an outdated article written in 2006, you've missed the boat on the latest news. Update yourself
…
As for your study of scientists from Alberta (an oil drilling province) who disagree with global warming. Well, Alberta is probably a bastion of cutting edge science, right? That's where Harvard, and Princeton, and Columbia scientists count themselves as members? Hardly.

First, of the 2,000 individuals who composed the IPCC’s latest report, most were not scientists, as you claim, but politicians. Second, to hold as gospel the reports of a wing of one of the most corrupt institutions in world history indicates a gross dearth of even basic analytical thinking. Indeed, many of the individuals who composed the report have a financial interest in presenting evidence of substantial global warming. That it was peer-reviewed – possibly by individuals interested in promoting the Green cause – does not mean that it is without flaws or fabrications, minor or significant.

To update you on where the debate now stands, the IPCC appears to be back at the drawing board. The basic IPCC model developed for predicting weather patterns in that 2007 report has since been mathematically discredited by a recent study, which was also peer-reviewed. Problems include flaws with the computer model’s fundamental climate-predicting formulas, as well as the inability to predict the cooling of the oceans since 2003, the rise in global mean surface temperature since 1998, or the possible decline in temperature since 2001, among a host of other deficiencies. Indeed, even the polished, peer-reviewed 2007 report contained major flaws, and the IPCC has had to recant a number of the report’s claims and findings.

And as far as the scientific consensus is concerned, the entire issue of the recent July 2008 edition of Physics and Society, a quarterly journal produced by the American Physical Society, is devoted to scientific debate about global warming. In his opening commentary, the editor acknowledges:

There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S concerning that conclusion.

This is the position I have taken all along: that there is a debate worth considering and that if politicians come to false or exaggerated conclusions, unnecessarily disastrous policy could result. That there exists an extensive debate within this publication about the principal causes of global warming indicates that the issue is, by definition, still debatable within the scientific community.

I included the Albertan poll of 51,000 scientists merely to show that a very large amount, in both absolute and relative terms, of scientists do not agree with the mainstream opinion of a largely anthropogenic influence on climate. It is the only substantially large poll of scientists taken to my knowledge. While I do appreciate your highly favorable opinion of Ivy Leaguers, that these scientists are not unemployed by Ivy League universities does not mean that they are incompetent. They are professional engineers, geologists, and geophysicists. To me, those credentials merit an opinion worth considering and respecting.

Do these engineers and geophysicists have a stake in opposing the mainstream’s views? Perhaps. If an energy company is their employer, they naturally have an interest in that company’s success. However, to discredit the voice of 50,000 people simply for their residence in an oil-producing region is a bit of a stretch. Abundant coal mines exist in Pennsylvania and near Ithaca, NY, but one would be a fool to blindly disregard the opinion of physicists and geologists from the University of Pennsylvania or Cornell University merely as a result of that coincidental residence. Furthermore, the composers of the IPCC specifically commissioned to produce a model of the effects of human activity on global warming are more likely to have a directly financial stake in substantiating their opinions than the Albertan scientists.

Issue 2

The Big Green Bus' website does not suggest that all emissions from vegetable based sources are equal. If you took the time to read the site you'd realize that, like the article you chose to refute their point, they acknowledge that not all biofuels are equal - that some are bad and some are good (it depends on the process you use to make them). So, strike the validity of your 2nd point.

Again, I am afraid you are mistaken. I am not certain what you have read, if anything, but the discussion of biofuels on the Big Green Bus’ website does not include any mention of the environmental problems the resources present. Read the whole thing. The only shortcomings acknowledged are that many biofuels are economically impractical and that increased production of ethanol may have contributed to recent increases in food prices.

In fact, contrary to your assertion that “they acknowledge that … some (fuels) are bad and some good” relative to oil, the Big Green Bus’ website plainly lumps all biofuels together as being in a group less pollutive than oil:

Plants take in CO2 from the atmosphere to grow, then their carbon structures are burned to release energy. By burning the organic matter, carbon is released back into the atmosphere. This carbon is then absorbed by other plants, closing the loop. Petroleum based fuels pull carbon out of the ground and release it into the atmosphere, making more of a line.

Their claims, in print and in picture, that all biofuels are ecologically better than oil are plainly false.

Issue 3

As for the effects of global warming, you neglect to mention the really serious ones. Storms attract the headlines, but if any large ice sheets melt, sea level rise could force millions and millions of people to be inundated, creating waves of climate refugees. Thats one of the real problems, but by conveniently (or would it be inconveniently) neglecting to bring it up, you've skewed the debate.

Thank you for the explanation, but I am fully aware of the potential cataclysm of a warmer earth. With a masterful command of science, The Day After Tomorrow conveyed that to me several years ago.

You, however, are the one skewing the debate here. You don’t understand the role my reference to storms, floods, and wildfires had in my discussion. Al Gore pointed to recent storms, floods, and wildfires as evidence to rebut Tom Brokaw’s remark that there exists a debate in the scientific community about global warming. I used that comment as a piece of evidence in support of my argument that many prominent activists in the Green movement have presented intellectually irresponsible arguments in the conversation about global warming. I was not saying that the effects of a warmer earth are merely storms and wildfires; I was saying that the existence of storms and wildfires is insufficient evidence that humans influence the climate.

Gore, the Big Green Bus, and many activists like them – such as, evidently, yourself – have polluted the dialogue about global warming by swiftly denouncing any dissenting opinion and/or by contributing to the discussion in an intellectually irresponsible manner.


I hope this clarifies my position and argument in the post “On the Treatment of 5th Graders” for you and other confused readers. I welcome additional commentary.