Author Archives: jsh54

Still More American Public Opinion.

Posted on by
Reply

What do Americans think of the Affordable Care Act (ACA)? The polls have been blurry. In March 2014, 41 percent of people approved of the ACA, while 53 percent of people disapproved. There was a big partisan break-down: 72 percent of Democrats approved it, while only 8 percent of Republicans approved it. Those figures raise their own puzzles. Why are 28 percent of Democrats opposed to the law or unsure if they approve it? If 72 percent of Democrats and 8 percent of Republicans approve the law, where do Independents stand? In another poll in May 2014, 61 percent that they either wanted Congress to leave the ACA in place or—at most—tinker with any flaws. In contrast, 38 percent of people wanted the law repealed.[1] Approval of the ACA appears to have shot up from 41 percent to 61 percent, opposition to have fallen from 53 to 38 percent. Did this mark a sea-change in attitudes toward the ACA or a polling error?

What do Americans think about race relations? In 2009, after the election of Barack Obama to be President of the United States, 66 percent of people thought that race relations were good. Then came the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. In August 2014, 80 percent of African-Americans thought that the shooting “raises important questions about race that need to be discussed.” Only 37 percent of whites agreed. Almost half of whites—47 percent—thought that race was “getting more attention than it deserves.” In December 2014, 85 percent of African-Americans disapproved of the decision by the grand jury to not indict Darren Wilson, the police officer who shot Michael Brown. Overall, 45 percent of Americans disapproved of the decision, while 48 percent approved it. By January 2015, 40 percent of people believed that race relations were “fairly good” or “very good.”[2] There is a rough similarity between the figures for those who had believed that race was getting too much attention, for those who approved the decision not to indict, and for those who believe that race relations are good.

What do Americans think about opportunity in America? In November 2014, 24 percent of people believed that the economy is “fair to most Americans,” while 71 percent think that it “generally favors the rich.” A majority—57 percent–of those who earn more than $100,000 a year agree. However, 43 percent of those who did not vote in November 2014 were African-American or Hispanic-Americans, and 46 percent earned less than $30,000 a year.[3]

What do people think about getting anything accomplished in government? In January 2015, 60 percent of Americans believed that the Congress elected in November 2014 will not accomplish any more than the previous bums. Even more, 72 percent, doubted that the Republican majority in the Senate would accomplish anything more than did the Democratic majority. Some people seem frustrated with this situation, while others are satisfied. Thus, 46 percent of people believed that President Obama should wait on action by Congress to solve the immigration issue. According to the first poll, however, most people expect that such action will not come. In contrast, 42 percent of people favored the president issuing an executive order to deal with immigration. Finally, 59 percent of people favored building the Keystone XL pipeline. This included not only 83 percent of Republicans, but also 43 percent of Democrats.[4] The president vetoed that bill.

[1] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 4 April 2015, p. 15; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 23 May 2014, p. 15.

[2] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 29 August 2014, p. 17; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 12 December 2014, p. 19; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 16 January 2015, p. 17.

[3] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 14 November 2014, p. 19.

[4] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 23 January 2015, p. 17; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 28 November 2014, p. 15.

More American Public Opinion.

Posted on by
Reply

What do Americans think about pornography? Generally, they’re against it. Only 35 percent of men regard watching porn is morally acceptable; only 23 percent of women regard it as morally acceptable. However, a big chunk of Americans beg to differ. Cell-phone porn—“intimate” photographs of self or other—can be found on the phones of 20 percent of Americans. The number is almost twice as high—39 percent—for those under 30.[1]

What do Americans think about the death penalty? In 1996, 78 percent of Americans supported the death penalty. By 2014, support had fallen, but polls differed considerably as to by how much. One poll found that it had dropped to 55 percent. Among whites, 63 percent supported the death penalty, while only 36 percent of African-Americans supported it. Another poll found that 65 percent supported the death penalty ‘for convicted murderers.” Among Republicans, 82 percent supported the death penalty, while 53 percent of Democrats supported it.[2] So, maybe this is another case of how you phrase the question.

What do people at the outer ends of the political spectrum think about opportunity in America? If you work hard, you can get ahead say 80 percent of conservative Republicans, while a mere 36 percent of liberal Democrats believe that to be true. Government programs can help reduce poverty say 62 percent of liberal Democrats, while only 21 percent of conservative Republicans believe this to be true.[3]

What do Americans think about vaccination? The vast majority—83 percent—think that vaccines are safe, versus only 9 percent who think that they are unsafe. However, young people who never saw someone walking in braces from the effects of polio or vomited all over the white dress shirt of the kid in front of him during a Christmas concert because chicken-pox picked a damned poor time to arrive are much more likely to doubt vaccination. Some 21 percent of adults under thirty believe that vaccination can cause autism. In contrast, only 11 percent of adults aged 45 to 64 and 3 percent of those over 65 believe this nonsense.[4]

What do Americans believe about climate change? Most of them believe that government should be doing something to fight it. Thus, 91 percent of Democrats, 78 percent of Independents, and 51 percent of Republicans think that government should be taking action to counter climate change. That is, a majority of people of every political allegiance believe climate change to be a reality and one that can be countered by public policy.[5]

What do Americans think about military interventions in the Middle East? Back in Fall 2013, 67 percent of Americans supported President Obama’s climb-down over air strikes against the Assad regime after it had been alleged that the government had used chemical weapons against rebels. The Russians then brokered a deal to get rid of Assad’s arsenal of chemical weapons. Scarcely a third—37 percent—favored launching air strikes if the Syrians reneged on that deal. A year later, 76 percent supported air strikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, but 61 percent opposed sending ground forces even though 70 percent thought that ISIS had the means to attack the United States itself. The legacy of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is evident: only 35 percent of the military veterans of those wars believe that both were worth fighting.[6]

[1] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 21 March 2014, p. 17; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 19 September 2014, p. 19.

[2] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 11 April 2014, p. 15; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 16 May 2014, p. 19.

[3] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 14 March 2014, p. 19.

[4] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 13 February 2015, p. 15; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 20 February 2015, p. 19.

[5] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 13 February 2015, p. 15.

[6] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 27 September 2013, p. 17; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 11 April 2014, p. 15; “Poll Watch,” The Week, 19 September 2014, p. 19.

American Public Opinion.

Posted on by
Reply

So, regardless of what the politicians say, what do Americans think about some issues?

Back in September 2014, in the wake of the Islamic State’s over-running of much of Iraq, 53 percent of Americans approved of President Obama’s strategy for dealing with ISIS.[1] However, 64 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of Democrats approved. How did those higher numbers end up with an average of 53 percent? This suggests that there is a big group of Independents who don’t like the President’s policy.

In the November 2012 elections, 68 percent of Hispanic voters supported Democrats and 33 percent supported Republicans. In the November 2014 elections, 62 percent of Hispanic voters supported Democrats and 36 percent supported Republicans.

What do Hispanic voters care about? Not immigration reform. Only 16 percent of those polled in November 2014 ranked that as their primary concern. Health care came first for 24 percent. The economy in general came first for 49 percent.[2]

Two thirds of Americans are satisfied with the current US health-care system. [That’s a blurry response. Are they satisfied with the medical care they receive or are they satisfied with how the Affordable Care Act operates or both?] A whopping 74 percent of Democrats are satisfied, but even 60 percent of Republicans are satisfied.

The “war on guns” appears to be headed in the same direction as the “war on drugs.”[3] In 2000 only 29 percent of Americans favored preserving gun-rights over gun-control. By 2013, 45 percent favored gun-rights over gun-control; in 2015, 52 percent favored gun-rights over gun-control. This included 54 percent of African-Americans, up from 29 percent in 2012.

In the immediate aftermath of the “Charlie Hebdo” massacre in Paris, 63 percent of Americans believed that it was more important to preserve free speech than to not offend religious people. Only 19 percent thought it important to avoid offending other people.[4]

In early 2015, 49 percent of Americans identified as “pro-choice,” while 47 percent identified as “pro-life.” However, 84 percent favor liming abortion to the first three months of a pregnancy. This includes 69 percent of those who identify as “pro-choice.”[5]

This is a puzzler. Does it mean that a lot of pro-life people wouldn’t have an abortion themselves, but don’t really want to proscribe abortions for other women who find themselves in a jam? Does it mean that lots of pro-choice people think that abortion is a necessary evil, rather than a categorical right to be exercised at any time?

As of early 2015, 60 percent of Americans thought that middle-class people pay too much in taxes; 68 percent believe that the rich pay too little in taxes.[6]

A huge majority of Republicans—69 percent–agree with Rudy Giuliani that President Obama doesn’t love America. A huge majority of Democrats—85 percent—believe that does too love America.

One of several bizarre things here (aside from so many Republicans agreeing with that idiot Giuliani) is that apparently 15 percent of Democrats either believe that the President doesn’t love America or they’re not sure.

[1] “Poll Watch,” The Week,” 26 September 2014, p. 17.

[2] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 21 November 2014, p. 19.

[3] Timothy Williams, “Poll Finds That More Americans Back Gun Rights Than Stronger Controls,” NYT, 12 December 2014.

[4] “Poll Watch,” The Week 26 January 2015, p. 17.

[5] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 6 February 2015, p. 17.

[6] “Poll Watch,” The Week, 6 March 2015, p. 17.

Long Term Trends 2.

Posted on by
Reply

Back in 1960, 72.2 percent of households included married couples; in 2012, 50.5 percent of households included married couples.[1] Actually, these stark-appearing numbers get a little blurry the nearer that you approach.[2] For one thing, divorce is partly responsible for the increasing number of households without a married couple. For another, there were 450,000 unmarried couples living together in 1960; there were 7.5 million in 2011. So, there are many marriages-in-all-but-name.

There appears to be some kind of reciprocal relationship between marriage and prosperity. Married people are better off financially, while people with early financial problems have trouble getting or staying married. Sharing living space and living costs allows couples to save a much higher share of their combined incomes than is possible for unmarried people. Couples often buy a house (a great investment) and save money for the education of their children. These savings compound over time.

We’re still left with a “chicken or egg” problem. Do serious people get married while frivolous people stay unmarried OR does getting married turn any bone-head into a solid citizen while economic barriers exclude willing candidates?

From one perspective, people are more or less consciously deciding to take a pass on a good thing. By one calculation, if the same share of families were married today as in 1980, “the growth in median incomes of families with children would be 44 percent higher.” In 1960 both the college educated and those with some college or less were about equally likely to marry. In 2011, 64 percent of college-educated Americans were married, while 48 percent with some college or less education were not married. Economists (other than Paul Krugman) have been explaining some of the growth in income-inequality by higher returns to more education. Thus, the decline in the marriage rate since 1970 might be taken as one of the many factors that explain the growth of income inequality.

From another perspective, however, economic difficulties for the less educated dissuade them from marriage. The decline of the old industrial base reduced the earning power of many men. At the same time, women’s liberation allowed many women to enter the labor force, often by means of a college education. As a result, marriage became less of a worthwhile investment for many women. Between 1970 and 2011 the chance that a woman in the bottom 65 percent of income earners would marry dropped by 20 percent.

So much for the fate of married couples. What about their children?[3] In 2013, 40 percent of babies were born outside of marriage. In 2014, 27 percent of children lived in fatherless homes. In one estimate, as of 2009, 35 percent of non-Hispanic white children and 41 percent of all children did not live with married parents.

If the unmarried and no-longer-married have less in the way of economic resources than do the married, then they will be less well-positioned to help their children succeed in many ways. They have less for band camp and football camp and ballet classes. They have less for books in the home and travel. They have less for college tuition assistance. They have less time and resources to shield their children from the negative effects of the culture or—in some cases—from the pull of the streets.

Is it possible for any government program or agency to substitute for a family?

[1] Andrew Yarrow, “Falling Marriage Rates Reveal Economic Fault Lines,” NYT, 8 February 2015.

[2] Kind of like a Chuck Close painting.

[3] Nicholas Eberstadt, “The Global Flight From the Family,” WSJ, 21-22 February 2015.

Yemen again.

Posted on by
1

If one adopts the currently fashionable socio-economic explanation for Islamist radicalism, then Yemen’s current problems are explained by its poverty and lack of effective government.[1] It has few natural resources (water and oil are both in short supply) and is a made-up country plastered over a tribal reality. It provided the setting for Al Qaeda Classic to bomb the U.S.S Cole in 2000; it provided the haven from which Anwar al-Awliki ran his propaganda operations from 2004 to 2011; and “Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” set up shop in 2009.

Most Yemenis are Sunni Muslims, but a minority are Shi’a Muslims. Among the latter are the Zaydis of northern Yemen. The Zaydis, in turn, are led by the al-Houthi family. It has been simpler for Westerners to describe the group as “Houthis.” Back in the 1990s, the al Houthi family, like many other people, fell out with the one-time ruler of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh. This led to a low level insurgency among the Houthis during the first decade of the 21st Century. It is entirely possible that Shi’ite Iran has been providing some aid to the Houthis in the same way that they provide aid to Hezbollah in Lebanon and to the Assad government in Syria.[2]

On top of this, in 2002 the United States opened a Yemen front in its Global War on Terror. It sent Special Forces troops to train the army of Yemen. About 100 drone strikes have killed perhaps 900 militants, but also a bunch of civilians.[3] This has created something of a problem in logic for the Houthis. On the one hand, the Houthis hate Al Qaeda because they’re Sunnis. On the other hand, the Houthis hate the United States because Americans are infidels and they also blow up things in Yemen. A problem in logic is not always a problem in reality. The Houthis adopted an eclectic “a plague on both your houses” approach.

Then came the “Arab Spring” in 2011. The Houthis joined a bunch of Sunnis tribes in the south to force Saleh out of power. Saleh’s “vice president,” Abed Hadi, took over as “president.”[4] Saleh may have hoped to return to power once things quieted down: his son commanded the Republican Guard and could topple Hadi at any time. Hadi solved this problem by disbanding the Republican Guard. Then fighting between the houthis, the Sunni tribes and the government soon started up again. In early 2015, the Houthis seized the capital city, Sana’a.

It will be difficult to do anything about this mess. Education and economic development sound good in speeches, but take time and local co-operation. As Homer Simpson said when told of a 48 hour waiting period to buy a gun, “But I’m angry now.” Saleh may have been scheming with the Houthis in hopes of getting back into power. Old Middle-East hands are probably muttering “so what else is new?” Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is roping-up support for intervention in Yemen to toss the Houthis out on their ear. Until they do, the local al Qaeda franchise is portraying itself as the only effective Sunni response to the Shi’ite power grab. Finally, there is the ISIS dimension.[5] Since the end of 2014 ISIS has been making connections with Islamist groups in Libya, where the chaotic situation differs little from that in Yemen or Syria. Yemen is likely to be next on the list. Eventually, Washington may start to see merits in a return to effective tyranny in place of anarchy. Doubtless, many American allies will heave a sigh of relief.

[1] “Yemen’s descent into chaos,” The Week, 6 March 2015.

[2] You can see why the Saudis think that Iran is a real problem. Benjamin Netanyahu is a loud voice insisting on a strong stand against Iran’s nuclear program, but he likely isn’t the only—or most important—one.

[3] Opponents of the Saleh regime purport to believe that it identified its own political opponents to the Americans as Islamist militants in need of attack. See: Phoenix Program.

[4] These terms are part of the farce that Yemen is in anyway a Western-style country.

[5] Benoit Faucon and Matt Bradley, “Islamic State Co-Opted Radicals in Libya,” WSJ, 18 February 2015.

Long-Term Trends 1.

Posted on by
Reply

The United States faces one long-term problem in how to support its existing entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid) and other discretionary spending as the “Baby Boom” takes up the rocking chair. A growing economy will more easily support these programs without drastic tax increases or spending cuts. A second long-term problem is that the national debt accumulated by many years of deficit spending has reached 75 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and is primed to go higher. This alarms some people more than other people.

President Obama is committed to stabilizing the national debt as a share of GDP at around 73 percent of GDP between now and 2025. This will a lot easier with a growing economy than with a lame one. So, how to foster growth?

As the US economy emerges from the “Great Recession” its long-term future will be determined in part by the absolute number of workers employed and the productivity-per-worker.[1] According to some measures, the US economy is in trouble in these areas.

The “labor participation rate” (the share of the population in work or looking for work) However, between 1950 and 2000, the participation of men in the labor force fell from almost 90 percent to about 70 percent. Over the same period, women’s participation rose from about 30 percent to about 60 percent. Then over-all rate fell from 66 percent (2007) to 62.9 percent (2014). The conventional explanation is that the prolonged recession dumped people into despair. Still, it is worth considering a couple of other possible factors. For one thing, the recession also coincided with the early stages of the “baby boom” taking retirement. If so, then there is a limited chance of luring them back into the labor force. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects a 62.0 percent participation rate by 2019. For another thing, the decline may reflect a cultural preference for parents to spend more time with young children in the absence of compelling incentives to try to work.

The Obama administration has proposed ways to get as much participation as possible out of the labor force that remains.[2] Increasing the labor force is one element of this strategy. The Obama administration has proposed increasing immigration in order to expand the labor force and offering expanded maternity leave in order to keep women in the labor force. Other measures would include a $500 tax “credit” for working couples. This could be used to off-set child-care and commuting costs. Perhaps that will lure stay-at-home Moms and Dads into the labor force. A separate proposal increases the child-care tax credit. A third measure would offer the Earned Income Tax Credit to workers without children. This proposal tries to draw more single men into the job market.

Increasing productivity is more of a problem. Productivity increased by about 1.3 percent/year from 1973 to 1981; by about 1.7 percent/year between 1981 and 1990; by about 2.1 percent/year between 1990 and 2000; and by about 2.7 percent/year between 2001 and 2007. Productivity gains had already begun to slow by 2004, even before the “Great Recession.” Since 2007, productivity has increased on an average of 1.3 percent per year.[3]

A bunch of these proposals have also been advanced in the past by Republicans like Rob Portman and Paul Ryan. (See: “RomneyCare.”) It will be interesting to see if the Republicans know how to take “Yes” for an answer.

[1] Greg Ip, “Economy’s Supply Side Sputters,” WSJ, 19 February 2015.

[2] Nick Timiraos, “Obama Sees 20 Rocky Years as Boomers Retire,” WSJ, 20 February 2015.

[3] There is an obvious problem with how Greg Ip slices up the periods. A full–decade average for 2001 to 2010 would both reduce the gains from 2001 to 2007 and would increase the numbers for 2007-2010.

Future Election Demographics.

Posted on by
Reply

So, America is on its way to becoming a “majority minority” country: within several decades non-whites will out-number whites. These have been traditional constituencies of the Democratic Party. Moreover, women are more likely to vote Democratic than are men. In short, the Democrats think they have the future all sewn-up. “Swimmin’ pools, movie stars,…”[1]

“Not so fast!” say a bunch of political demographers.[2] For one thing, the Democrats still have to get through the 2016 election. In 2012 President Obama won re-election while receiving only 39 percent of the white vote. No one expects future Democratic candidates to do this badly. However, the President carried white voters in northern states, while losing them hand-over-fist in the South. Can future Democratic candidates count on the same level of support in the North? Hillary Clinton, for example, lost these states to Obama during the 2008 primaries. She may be the front-running candidate for the nomination in 2016, but lots of people don’t like her. A serious “Anyone But Clinton” campaign could sink her. Moreover, it isn’t yet clear that Democrats can count on breaking back into the South. A passel of—white–Democratic candidates didn’t do any better in the South in 2014 than did the President in 2012. The Democrats have alienated many white Southerners (of both sexes) by their embrace of gun control, gay marriage, affirmative action, and internationalism over nationalism.

Democratic victory appears to rely on getting the vote out among young people and non-whites. These are weak reeds for a number of reasons. College-educated whites and African-Americans make up two pillars of the current Democratic Party. However, North Carolina Senate candidate Kay Hagan pulled more college-educated white voters than did President Obama. What this suggests is that being a college-educated white person doesn’t mean that the Democratic Party has a lock on you if you don’t like the candidate. Democrats are going to have to do some thinking about why this might be.

Fitful turn-out for elections is another issue. Indeed, the prospect that they will turn out to vote may fire up a Republican base concerned about the division between the “makers” and the “takers.” Furthermore, Republican Congressional districts are white and rural or suburban. Minority votes don’t decide anything in these constituencies. In 2014, Hispanic-Mexican votes were not enough to shift control of the House or the Senate.[3]

However, in 2016, a Republican presidential candidate will have to pull some Hispanic-Mexican voters to win the White House. So, Republicans have a small and closing window during which to figure out what is their policy toward the issues that concern Hispanic voters. (Failing that, they will have another four years to figure it out–and work on their golf handicaps). Immigration reform is probably only one of their concerns. Republicans doubling down on repression isn’t a realistic long-term policy. Democrats betting that social and economic conservatism will not have any appeal to Hispanics isn’t a realistic long-term policy either.

The thing is, millions of Hispanics already vote Republican. Democrats—often Eastern liberals with all sorts of nominally progressive opinions—don’t actually distinguish between African-Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics. They’re just “minorities” who should be loyal to Democrats. What they anticipate is that “minority” concerns will mean “African-American” concerns. It isn’t likely to shake-out that way.

[1] See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwzaxUF0k18

[2] Nate Cohn, “G.O.P.’s Path to the Presidency, Tight but Real,” NYT, 10 November 2014.

[3] Nate Cohn, “Why House Republicans Can Ignore Latinos (for Now),” NYT, 21 October 2014.

Climate of Fear XIV.

Posted on by
Reply

In November 2014, China and the United States reached a bi-lateral non-treaty agreement on reducing carbon emissions. President Obama committed the United States to cut carbon emission by 26-28 percent below the level of 2005 by 2025.[1] President Xi Jinping committed China to reach peak carbon emissions by or before 2030. In addition, China agreed to raise its nuclear, wind, and solar energy generation to about 20 percent of the total by 2030.

The Sino-American agreement prompted diplomats negotiating the draft framework for a new international climate-change agreement to change their own approach.[2] They adopted the idea of allowing each country to commit to reducing carbon emissions without specifying how or by how much they will do so. Countries are supposed to announce during March 2015 how much they will cut emissions after 2020. No one thinks they will set ambitious targets. All 196 nations will agree to sign the new agreement in Paris in November and December 2015.

 

All well and good. What are some of the key problems for which people should be looking during 2015?

Currently, China gets about 10 percent of its energy from non-carbon sources. Experts seem to believe that China will need to deploy an additional 800-1,000 gigawatts of “zero emission generation capacity” to get to 20 percent non-carbon energy-generation by 2030. This is more than all the coal-fired power plants that exist in China today. If China is going to massively expand its non-carbon energy generation just to get to 20 percent of the total, then that suggests that China will also massively expand its carbon energy generation at the same time.

The Obama Administration is pressing for a non-treaty agreement because of the doubts it could pass the Senate. However, a non-treaty is non-binding on all of the signatories. Furthermore, China has always resisted international monitoring of its economy.[3] This could end up like the Kellogg-Briand Pact (1928) “outlawing war.”

Reducing the amount of coal burned will have effects on several societies as well as on the environment. As of 2012, China got 81 percent of its electricity generation from coal; India got 71 percent; Australia got 69 percent; Indonesia got 48 percent; Germany got 44 percent; the UK got 39 percent; and the US got 38 percent. Shifting some of these countries off coal-burning will require heavy investment in new technologies. There is no sign that any cheap alternative to fossil fuels is at hand. Then coal is an important export for some counties. In 2013 Indonesia exported 426 million tons of coal; Australia 336 million tons; Russia 141 million tons; and the US 107 million tons. Dissuading countries from burning coal for energy will have an effect on the incomes of these countries. If coal turns out to be too dug- in[4] to be abandoned, then attention will have to turn to “clean coal” technologies, and to emissions capture and storage.

In the absence of serious commitments to substantially reduce carbon emissions, climate scientists now believe that it will be impossible to hold back some of the effects of climate change. Glaciers will melt, sea levels will rise, and problems with drought and harvests will increase.

[1] In June 2014, EPA proposed guidelines for existing power plants that would reduce emissions 30% below 2005 levels by 2030.

[2] Coral Davenport, “With Compromises, a Global Accord to Fight Climate Change Is in Sight,” NYT, 10 December 2014; William Mauldin, “Coal Clouds Talks on Climate,” WSJ, 13-14 December 2014.

[3] “A verbal contract isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.”—attributed to Sam Goldwyn.

[4] HA! Is joke.

The Man Who Saved a Billion Lives.

Posted on by
1

In the 19th Century, a lot of Norwegians migrated to places like Minnesota, Iowa, and the Dakotas to make a living as farmers. Tough, hard-working, close-mouthed, decent people. Norman Borlaug (1914-2009) fit the stereotype. He grew up during the Depression, worked his way through the University of Minnesota to get a BA in forestry (1937). Along the way he got interested in plant diseases, so he went on and got a Ph.D. in plant pathology and genetics (1942).

Borlaug spent most of the Second World War on research work for DuPont down in Wilmington. In 1944 his old Ph.D. adviser recruited him to work on improving wheat harvests in Mexico. Borlaug spent sixteen years in Mexico developing disease-resistant strains of wheat. Along the way he had to overcome resistance from incompetent, lazy, or anti-foreign bureaucrats. He also had to persuade farmers to try something new when they were both wedded to tradition and fearful that a failed experiment would leave them to starve. He persevered. The seeds developed by Borlaug both yielded high returns of grain and resisted disease. A bunch of his developments were impossible in theory, but possible in practice. (So much for Rene Descartes.) Largely as a result of Borlaug’s work, the yield of Mexican wheat rose five-fold between 1950 and 2000. Mexico went from being a wheat-importer in the 1940s to being a wheat-exporter by the 1960s while feeding a much larger population.

In the early 1960s developing countries all over the world were struggling with rapid population growth. (See: The Population Bomb.) How were they to feed their people? Agricultural scientists in India and Pakistan got their governments to call in Borlaug. Borlaug had to overcome all the same difficulties that he had encountered in Mexico, with the added problem that India and Pakistan were at war with each other for part of the time. He persevered. As a result of Borlaug’s work, the yield of Indian and Pakistani wheat quadrupled between 1960 and 2000. Other countries in Latin America, the Middle East, and Africa then copied the Borlaug seeds. Then Asian governments applied his basic approach to producing high-yield, disease resistant rice instead of wheat. The huge increase in food production in countries that once faced the certainty of mass-death from famine has come to be called the “Green Revolution.”

In 1970 Norman Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize. When the committee called Borlaug at home to inform him, his wife said that he had already gone to work. It was 4:00 AM.

Later on, from 1984 on, Borlaug taught at Texas A&M University.[1]

Critics have found much to dislike in the effects of Borlaug’s work. They denounce the shift from subsistence farming to single-crop agriculture because it makes people dependent on the capitalist market. They denounce the reliance on scientifically-bred seeds and fertilizers and tractors and irrigation systems because it creates profits for American corporations. They dislike genetically-modified foods because it seems unnatural.

Borlaug replied that “They’ve never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they’d be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things”

Borlaug was a tough, hard-working, close-mouthed, decent man. It has been estimated that about a billion people didn’t starve to death because of his work.

[1] The “A&M” stands for “Agricultural and Mechanical.”   Once upon a time, we had a different vision of education.

American Union, stay away from me uh.

Posted on by
5

The percentage of American workers belonging to a union peaked in 1954 at almost 35%, almost all of them in the private-sector.[1] Today, only about 7% of private-sector workers belong to a union. How this came to be is a complex story.

On the one hand, private-sector union membership soon began a steady decline that continues into the 2010s. The 1970s marked an important watershed. First, beginning in the 1970s foreign competitors exerted steady pressure on American producers. Japanese and German cars, steel, and electronics, and Asian textiles all penetrated the American market to an unprecedented degree. Second, companies were racked by strikes that disrupted production and forced up wages: there were 381 major strikes in 1970 and 187 major strikes in 1980. These hard-pressed companies responded by cutting costs, including the high labor costs of unions.

Beginning in the 1980s, companies moved production from pro-union Northeastern and Mid-Western states to anti-union Southern states; or they began the process of off-shoring their production in low-wage Asian countries. High-wage unionized labor got left behind as the non-union jobs created elsewhere paid lower wages. In a sense, unions priced themselves out of jobs.

Then foreign competition combined with new technology to just eliminate many other jobs in previously unionized industries. Between 1974 and 1999 employment in the American steel industry fell from 521,000 people to 153,000 people.[2] The experience of the United Auto Workers has been even more disastrous than that of the United Steel Workers. Many jobs were lost to foreign competition. When foreign companies did build auto plants in the United States, they located them in Southern states. Union membership fell from a peak of 1.5 million in 1979 to 540,000 in 2006 to 390,000 in 2010. Overall, private-sector employers got what they wanted: a lower-cost, more flexible, less disruptive work force.[3] Employers in other industries have worked hard to keep out unions to avoid the fate of cars and steel.

Another key factor is the corporate mismanagement shown by the massive bureaucracies of the car companies and their incompetent response to the “oil shocks” of the 1970s.

However, American businesses have created a lot of good jobs in the high-tech industries at the same time that jobs were disappearing from the low-tech sector. Unions have failed to unionize these sectors. The reasons for this failure are complex. In essence, most of the workers have non-traditional concerns or are educated people who don’t want yet another boss.

In contrast, public sector union membership grew steadily. Today, 31% of federal workers, 35% of state workers and 46% of local workers belong to unions. Moreover, the numbers of people employed by state and local government rose from 4 million workers in 1950 to 16.6 million in 2009. In 2009 there were more people in public sector unions (7.9 million) than in private sector unions (7.4 million). Even the good news is bad news. To prevent the disruption of basic services, governments granted good pay and promised generous pensions. They didn’t ask if future generations would be able to support their promises. It isn’t clear that those pension promises can actually be made good.[4] Another disaster looms for unions.

[1] The absolute number belonging to a union peaked in 1979 at an estimated 21.0 million.

[2] However, what is true in America is true in every other steel-producing nation. Over the last quarter of the 20th century, the world steel industry cut its work force by more than 1.5 million people. Some countries were hit harder even than the United States: Japan was down from 459,000 to 208,000; Germany was down from 232,000 to 78,000; Britain was down from 197,000 to 31,000; Brazil was down from 118,000 to 59,000.

[3] There were only 11 major strikes in 2010. That is a 97% drop from the 1970 peak.

[4] See the many articles by Mary Williams Walsh in the NYT over the past decade.