Scientific American gives up [The Panda's Thumb]

This will put a smile on your face, unless you are a creationist.  9:16:19 PM    

The Innumerate Right (Michael Barone Is an Embarrassment to the Press Corps Edition). Why can't Michael Barone count? Wonkette deals with his overall argument at the level it deserves. But I want to point out that only a truly mighty degree of innumeracy could have led Michael Barone to even make this argument in the first place: Michael Barone: The trustfunder left: a previously unidentified segment of the American electorate... a critical mass... a major force... the trustfunder left. Who are the trustfunders? People with enough money not to have to work for a living, or not to have to work very hard. People who can live more or less wherever they want.... These people... very liberal... have done nothing to earn their money... elite private or public high schools... colleges and universities... propagandized about the evils of capitalism and globalization.... Patriotism is equated with Hiterlism.... [T]hey are citizens of the world with contempt for those who feel chills up their spines when they hear 'The Star Spangled Banner.'... Where can you find trustfunders?... Places with kicky restaurants... tolerant of alternative lifestyles... art galleries... organic food stores... Starbucks competitors. The... San Francisco Bay area.... Without the Bay area's 1.15 million-vote margin for Kerry, California would have come within 82,000 votes of voting for George... [Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal]

Of course, just remember that one of Umberto Eco's 14 points on fascism is that 8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies. Conflating the 1.15 million vote margin for Kerry in the Bay Area with ostentatious trustfunder liberals (who may number 70,000 nationwide) seems like a first attempt at fulfilling point 8. Looks like it will need a lot more work, though.  4:18:24 PM    

The End of Broadband Service.

The FCC reached a decision this week that could effectively end broadband service as we know it. The order hasn't officially come out yet, but the result was leaked.

The FCC granted a petition by BellSouth to pre-empt state regulators from requiring "naked DSL." The procedural aspects are convoluted, so the effect of that action may not be clear. Here's what the FCC is saying. The local phone companies (and, although the ruling doesn't specifically cover them, cable companies) are free to force customers to pay for phone service in order to get broadband. Whether or not you use the phone company's voice service is immaterial -- you have to pay for it. Although there are a few telcos willing to sell DSL as a stand-alone service (notably Qwest), one wonders if they will continue to do so.

The FCC ruling makes broadband an extension of phone service, rather than the reverse. It ties the data applications of the future to the anchor of the public switched telephone network. That's perverse. Voice is the application, not connectivity. We'll never have real competition if the incumbents get paid even when customers want to switch to a competitor.

I want to pay someone for high-speed data connectivity, with the opportunity to use (and pay for) innovative applications on top of that pipe. To me, that's broadband service. After the FCC decision, that may no longer be available. That's what I mean by the end of broadband as we know it. For the privilege of buying broadband, I'll have to buy phone service or something else I don't need, raising the effective price. This is the way to promote broadband adoption in the US?

[Werblog]

A typically 20th Century solution. I'm willing to be that a 21st Century solution will be found, maybe something with a Wi-Fi base. It is the loss of competition that is harmful in the short term. I get a price break on DSL now because I also get phone service from the same provider. If I HAVE to have both, then why give me a price break?  4:00:53 PM    

How Everyone Can Get Richer as Per-Capita Income Falls, by Bryan Caplan.

When people argue about whether immigrants are pulling down our standard of living, they rarely notice a simple but deep arithmetical fact: Everyone in a country can get richer as per-capita income falls. Proof by example:

Suppose the residents of Country A earn $50,000 per year each without immigration, and $60,000 per year with immigration. They benefit from cheaper lawn-mowing. The residents of Country B earn $2,000 per year if they stay at home, or $10,000 per year if they immigrate to Country A to mow lawns.

Now what happens to per-capita income in Country A if immigrants double the population? Per-capita income falls from $50,000 to .5*$60,0000 + .5*$10,000=$35,000. The more immigrants come in, the more steeply per-capita income declines. "Immigrants hurt our standard of living. QED!"

Of course, nothing of the kind has happened. By assumption, immigration makes both natives and immigrants richer. But per-capita income declines, as a matter of pure arithmetic. The numbers don't lie, but they are very easily misinterpreted.

There are many applications of this simple insight. It also applies nicely to the apparent effect of rising female labor force participation on the pay of the average worker. Proof by example:

Suppose in 1950 the workforce is 90% male. Men earn $10,000, women $3000. In 1975, the workforce is 50% male. Each man now earns $12,000, and each female earns $5000. What happens to average worker earnings? They fall from $9,300 to $8500.

One last example: Average earnings can rise even when they are falling for all educational classes. Proof by example:

Suppose that in 1960 15% of workers have college degrees, 85% only high school. A college degree gets you $20,000/year; a high school diploma gets you $10,000/year. In 1980, the break-down moves to 50/50. A college degree is now worth $18,000, and a high school diploma $9,000. Average earnings before: $11,500. After: $13,500.

This doesn't prove, of course, that immigrants and women don't reduce the earnings of other groups. It doesn't prove that if incomes of all educational classes are falling, that the average is actually rising. What it shows, rather, is that evidence that seems rock-solid can actually be trivial and irrelevant. Before you take an average, you have to think about what you are averaging over.

[EconLog]

I don't often find myself on the same side of things as Econolog (often simplistic ideas) but I like reading it and they generally are very good for starting a conversation, something lacking in many things of the internet. This thought experiment is very good for demonstrating how the INCREASE in wages for a changing population can give the appearance that the average wage has dropped, even though everyone's salary has actually increased.

Of course, the real world does not really match this thought experiment. But it does represent how anyone who really wants to understand what is going on needs to examine the numbers more fully. I figure this represents less than 1% of the population. The rest are happy with the pablum that comes from the media and the politicians.  3:53:36 PM    

Looks like I'm in the center-right

Just for yucks, I took the World's Smallest Political Quiz , just to see where I fell:

Not surprisingly, I fell on the centrist-conservative line. More surprisingly, my score wasn't as close to the libertarian range as I thought it would be. I never thought I leaned towards the statist side...



Oh, well, it's just a silly Internet test. I think my results on the Political Compass had me pegged better. Maybe I'll post the results sometime...

- Orac [Respectful Insolence (a.k.a. "Orac Knows")]

I agree. The smallest political quiz does not do a good job, because it is too short to get many shade of gray inthere. Political Compass places me much closer to where i feel I am, right next to Ghandi!  3:21:50 PM