On intellectual inconsistency

In yesterday's Quote of the Week, I presented a line from actor Craig T. Nelson that displayed a stunning lack of self-awareness, a trend that's seemingly everywhere in our country these days. I had previously discussed this dynamic in a post on "blind spots", which hold the potential to swing elections (and the political and economic future of our nation).

In that post—which focused on a graphic that revealed that a significant percentage of recipients of government welfare programs did not consider themselves to be government beneficiaries—I wrote:

To fully appreciate the importance of these blind spots, I think it's useful to attempt to put these numbers into context. Using just the final line item, "Food Stamps"—which I think is a fairly clear and unambiguous example of a "government social program"—we see that 25.4% of food stamp (pardon me, SNAP) recipients do not consider themselves to have benefited from a government program. This is certain to impact the way they view national issues in federal (especially Presidential) elections, especially when debt and deficits are as large a story as they have currently become. 

Recall next that in several states, food stamp usage covers close to (or more than) 20% of the total population (nationwide, food stamp usage rates are at 14%). If a full 25% of people in these states do not think that they benefit from our "big government", that leaves us with 5% of that state's population—easily a big enough group to decide just about any Presidential election—believing something that is patently false.

Simply put, how can we expect voters to make intelligent and informed decisions about their political leaders when they have such blatant and vicious blind spots obscuring their view of the world (and their role in it)?

Perhaps unsurprisingly, this issue has been coming up quite a bit lately, most recently in Wisconsin, where Governor Scott Walker found himself in a bit of a weird spot with respect to the NFL's disastrous replacement referees.

Nothing brings political enemies together in Wisconsin like the Green Bay Packers. 

Following a controversial game-ending call by replacement referees that cost Green Bay a win over the Seattle Seahawks on Monday Night Football, Wisconsin officials from across the political divide united behind the Packers. 

Even Gov. Scott Walker and a Democratic state senator who were bitter opponents in the 2011 battle over Wisconsin public workers' collective bargaining rights found themselves on the same side Tuesday. 

Walker, whose union-busting efforts have made him the darling of fiscal conservatives, posted a message on Twitter calling for the return of the NFL's locked-out unionized officials. 

"After catching a few hours of sleep, the #Packers game is still just as painful. #Returntherealrefs," Walker tweeted early Tuesday... 

Walker's spokesman, Cullen Werwie, tried to spin the governor's post on Tuesday, saying it wasn't meant as a pro-union political statement. Walker's tweet was being widely mocked on Twitter in light of his push last year that effectively ended collective bargaining for teachers, nurses and most other public workers. His proposal didn't affect private sector unions. 

"I don't think this anything to do with unions, but has everything to do with refs making bad calls," Werwie said.

To be fair to Walker, there's an important difference between the role and operation of public-sector unions as opposed to private-sector unions, a difference that even FDR recognized and appreciated. Nevertheless, the more we dig into this issue, the more inconsistent Walker's analysis seems to be.

According to Sports Illustrated's Peter King, there are some fairly significant parallels between this case and the Wisconsin (or Chicago, take your pick) teachers' case:

One of the emerging and major reasons why a deal has been so elusive... is that the NFL is insisting on getting some control of the officials back that it has ceded in past negotiations with the NFLRA. This includes the league's desire to have three seven-man officiating crews in reserve with the ability to replace—either for a game or longer—underperforming current officials. 

Another source with knowledge of the locked-out officials' position said Tuesday that the NFL would not guarantee that they would work at least 15 games in a regular season. Currently, other than due to injury, an official that starts a season works the full season. The officials source said that this is the main crux of what the NFL is trying to do in these negotiations: wrest back control of the officials' performance week to week in an NFL season. I've been told that the NFL is insisting on being able to make in-season changes to crews based solely on performance of individual officials... 

There's also still the matter of the league trying to roll back the officials' pension. Over the last five years, the league has contributed, on average, about $5.3 million per year to the officials' pension plan. The league, in keeping with the current cost-cutting practice of corporations across America, no longer wants to guarantee how much each official would get in retirement, but rather tie the contributions to a 401(k)-type pension.

The ability to fire underperforming workers? Questions over the funding (and fundability) of workers' pensions? You know, this situation is starting to sound pretty familiar, which of course makes Gov. Walker's support of the referees in this situation that much more ironic.

But then, intellectual inconsistency and self-justifying behavior has become the norm in this country, especially since the financial crisis of 2008-09. As I wrote in this blog post last summer,

In the housing crisis, there were some who blamed the borrowers (i.e. homeowners) for irresponsibly using debt to live beyond their means, but the vast majority felt that the real story of the crisis was one of overly greedy and predatory bankers taking advantage of borrowers, originating loans that were destined to fail. This "blame the lenders" dynamic ultimately became the "winning" narrative in the aftermath of the crisis, hence the incredible vitriol directed at banks today. 

In today's [global sovereign debt] crisis, though, that's far from the case. Instead, we direct our ire primarily at the irresponsible borrowers, blaming the nations in question (rather than the enabling lenders) for their predicament. Instead of blaming China for consistently purchasing our national debt time and time again over the past few decades, we blame our own government for its irresponsibility (which is probably fair, just noticeably different from how we viewed the housing crisis). 

After watching the strange theater of the forced "austerity measures" in Greece this week, I tried to imagine the proper analogy in the housing crisis. What if, instead of foreclosing on a home, banks and mortgage companies came to an individual's house and demanded that they cancel their phone service, cut down on their food intake, and sell their cars in the name of "austerity" and improving the chance that they repaid their mortgage? That sounds completely ridiculous, right? And yet, that's exactly what we're seeing here. 

Ultimately, I think that the differing responses to otherwise similar stories derives from our pre-existing notions of who is the more sympathetic party, rather than the facts of the matter. In the housing crisis, it was far easier (and incredibly satisfying) to blame the big, evil banking institutions than it would have been to accept the blame ourselves, as homeowners. 

In the sovereign debt case, it is far easier to blame one or two basket-case governments (especially when it is so fashionable right now to blame governments—in this case, THEY are the big, evil corporation relative to the smaller banks) than it would be to place the blame on the lenders, who span everyone from the European Central Bank to nearly every American who places money in a money market fund. 

It's hard to trust ourselves when we try to analyze complex situations like these, simply because our reactions are so utterly inconsistent with regard to the actual facts of the case. We all approach situations in life with inherent, trained biases, and it's exceptionally difficult to get past these and assess problems at face value.

We all like to view the world as a universe full of simple narratives, with clear villains and heroes and obvious lines of culpability when things go wrong. But the truth is always somewhere in between—both heroes and villains share some of the blame, and sometimes the heroes in one situation are in fact the villains in another. Because this doesn't fit well with the way that we like to view the world, we instead end up with bizarre and contradictory approaches to what are in fact similar situations, based simply on the role in which we place ourselves.

As a nation, if we are ever going to be able to engage in an open and honest conversation about the issues that plague our country's political and economic systems, we must first start by appreciating our own biases and blind spots, and approach these complex situations from a more detached (and less emotional) standpoint. If we can't do this, then we'll be forever destined to make poor and inconsistent decisions, and we'll all end up in an awkward spot, just like Gov. Walker.

But hey, breaking news, looks like the NFL's "real" referees are on their way back to work, after all. That's great news.... isn't it?

[Sports Illustrated 1]
[Sports Illustrated 2]

Wisconsin and Simpson's Paradox (and Krugman)

Alright, here goes... I've been silent thus far on the Wisconsin teachers' union situation, in large part because it's a nearly impossible situation in which to take sides. Almost everyone involved seems to be misrepresenting their position, resorting to thug antics, or both.

For my part, I do think that collective bargaining for public unions is a bit of a misplaced concept (a belief that none other than FDR shared), and I think that the "flee rather than negotiate" tactics employed by Wisconsin's Democratic Senators represents a cowardly shirking of their duty, and an attempt to deny the result of any vote that they don't like.

But the Democrats are certainly not the only ones who are negotiating in bad faith. Governor Walker's essential scapegoating of the teachers in this situation misses the big picture--Wisconsin's budgetary woes cannot be solved on this issue alone, any more than our Federal budget can be balanced solely by focusing on discretionary spending. The Governor's actions reek of political opportunism, seizing upon a crisis to push an agenda that is only somewhat related to the matter at hand.

Because I can't resist, Jon Stewart had a fantastic clip relating to my second point, that of political opportunism:

The Daily Show
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Alright, so what does all of this have to do with Krugman and Simpson's Paradox (which has nothing to do with The Simpsons), which I teased in the title of this post? For all of the bizarre and forced rhetoric being spewed by the politicians and protesters in question, the rhetoric in the media coverage has been almost worse. Enter Paul Krugman, my longtime punching bag.

And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average.

While he did not explicitly say so, his implied comparison of Texas to Wisconsin was clear. As pointed out elsewhere, Wisconsin's graduation rate places it 2nd out of 50, blowing Texas out of the water. Collective bargaining must be working, right Krugman?

Unfortunately, there's a fly in the ointment, as pointed out by Eric Falkenstein. It turns out that black students in Texas outperform black students in Wisconsin, white students in Texas outperform white students in Wisconsin, and Hispanic students in Texas outperform Hispanic students in Wisconsin--Texas wins in every category. It just happens that white students, on average, have higher rates of graduation than other ethnic groups regardless of geography, and Wisconsin has A LOT more white students than does Texas.

So while it may look like Texas is struggling to educate its students, it is in fact doing a better job for each ethnic group--it just has the deck stacked against it from an "average" standpoint, because of its drastically different demographics. That's an example of Simpson's Paradox, wherein the omission of an important variable gives rise to a misleading summary statistic.

Krugman, as a Nobel prize-winning economist should (and does) know better, and his laziness on the matter is at best unbecoming. Collective bargaining--or the lack thereof--is probably completely powerless to explain any of the difference in academic performance between the two states; if anything, the more descriptive categorical statistics argue AGAINST collective bargaining. That's bad news for Wisconsin's teachers--or, it would be, if anyone in this mess was actually telling the truth about their intentions.

[New York Times]
[Falkenblog]

The Crimson Cavalier's first (but not last?) guest post...

Since launching my blog earlier this fall, I've had it in mind to invite and allow the occasional guest post on my page. I certainly don't pretend to have a monopoly on ideas (or anger), and this being a democracy, I'm more than willing to let another voice be heard every once in a while. With over 100 posts under my belt, I decided to take a break for a bit today and let somebody else do some talking.

Am I just getting lazy on a Friday and shirking my responsibility as a blogger? Maybe. Would the President and Congress scold me for outsourcing my labor to a foreign body? Probably. Am I going to protect the guest poster by masking his/her identity and promote journalistic integrity by posting his/her words without editing (except for punctuation, where I'm a stickler)? Absolutely.

So, enjoy. You don't have to agree with the poster's words (just like you don't have to agree with mine) or his style (no cartoons or humorous pictures? What the hell!), but as I said--this here is a democracy. And if you ever feel like submitting a guest post of your own, don't be afraid to ask. I'd be more than happy to outsource some more labor. So without further ado...

FREE MARKETS 1, UNIONS 0

by "Tom Glavine"

Originally, I had my sights set on the irony (many of you wouldn't know real irony from crappy happenstance) of AARP's lauding Obamacare and being instrumental in its passage, only to reveal months later that:

In an e-mail to employees, AARP says health care premiums will increase by 8 percent to 13 percent next year because of rapidly rising medical costs.

The problem with tackling that article is that it is too easy--Obamacare is so fatally flawed that trying to attack it would be akin to slapping around a 90-year old man with Stage IV cancer who has lost most of his limbs from either sepsis or diabetes.

So instead I will be taking on the behemoth that is unionized labor (cue climactic music here... DUN DUN DAHHHH!)--in my humble opinion the prime modern-day example of a wonderfully-intentioned idea being utterly gang-raped by human nature and its proclivity towards avarice (yes I used a thesaurus to find a word that meant extreme greed).

Labor unions were formed during the industrial revolution as a response to the abuse of low-skilled factory lemmings (workers) by factory owners. Their initial mission was to maintain or improve the conditions of their employment. This was soon expanded to include more social reforms like the institution of public education and the adoption of universal manhood suffrage.

Setting aside the history lesson for a second here, the beginning of the unions in America brought about fantastic change and allowed for less slave-like conditions in some respect. However, once labor laws were enacted on a national level, we began to see the hideous transformation of unionization into the beast it has become today. Following the enactment of effective labor laws, unionized labor should have fallen by the wayside--but greed and corruption took over, and the result is horrible squeezes on corporations like you will read about below (Spoiler alert!! This story might have a happy ending, depending on which side you are on).

My muse for this story was a wonderful article in a small Midwest newspaper called the Belleville News Democrat, whose headline read "Olin to move 1,000 jobs to Mississippi (easy to spell out loud, much harder to type quickly) after union says no to new contract".

EAST ALTON (Illinois)-- After union workers employed at Olin Corp. voted against a new contract for the second time in as many weeks, the munitions manufacturer announced Wednesday that it will pull the trigger and move those jobs to Mississippi.

Now, at first blush, you may think that this is quite the tragedy--a company who has long been an employer of workers in the Midwest, leaving to head south where labor is cheaper. Or, in a second vein, one could lament the loss of 1,000 jobs at the hand of the evil corporate power. I, however, wanted to know more (unlike most Americans, who are too busy, lazy, stupid--pick one--to read more than the headline and first paragraph). So I kept going, and found this gem (emphasis mine):

Company employee Andy Lucker, who has worked at the East Alton plant for the past year and a half, said the contract that he and other union workers were presented Tuesday was the same on that they voted down over two weeks ago. He said the concessions included eliminating workers' HMOs, getting rid of a fifth week of paid vacation, a seven-year wage freeze, and a reclassification of some jobs.

This is one of those times where I wish there was a way to SUPER BOLDFACE something so that I could truly express my shock and outrage for this particular piece of text that horrified me as much as watching the Budd Dwyer suicide video (do yourself a favor, trust me, and do not look that up). FIVE WEEKS OF VACATION!! Let me express that in a different way--10% of the time that you are being paid to work, you are not working.

The article continues, explaining that the reason for the vote against the concessions--which came Tuesday via a 593-470 margin was that:

...most workers refused to accept concessions because they believe the munitions manufacturer has been profitable.

God forbid a company AND its labor union both make money! The union was merely trying to squeeze every ounce of profitability from the company and for ONCE, one of the key functions of an efficient market reared its head: PRICE DISCOVERY. The union presumed that it had more bargaining power (collective or otherwise) than it actually had. I wonder how many of these union workers thought they had Olin over a barrel.

Now they know...

I guess you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Thanks to the guest poster for nearly-unprecedented candor, anger, and just a hint of condescension. And, just for good measure... I'm gonna throw in a cartoon just for kicks.