Archives: Reg Murphy Pubs

The Dilemma of Sociology: Science or Activism?

Written by Roscoe Scarborough on . Posted in Reg Murphy, Roscoe Scarborough.

Florida removed Principles of Sociology from the list of courses that public college students can take to fulfill their general education requirements. Many conservatives applauded the decision. Liberals, the American Sociological Association, and many in academia denounced the move. Along with other actions like defunding diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, the January decision by the Florida Board of Education was fueled by fears about liberal bias in higher education. Sociology allows us to assess the pros and cons of politicizing a discipline and the college classroom.

There is a cold war within the field of sociology. One side engages in sociology as a value-free, objective science with the goal of developing theoretical explanations of human behavior. The other side engages in humanistic, applied sociology with the goal of enacting social reforms based on a particular ideology.

Scientific sociologists are objective and apolitical. Scientific sociologists trace their epistemological roots back to early European sociologists, including Emile Durkheim and Max Weber. Durkheim advocated for a science of human behavior and pioneered modern sociological research methods. Weber, in his famous lecture “Science as a Vocation,” asserted that academics should not use their classroom as a platform to promote their own political views.

Scientific sociology advances our knowledge of human behavior. Scientific sociologists develop theories explaining why people break the law, drop out of high school, or any other behavior. Unfortunately, a lot of valuable sociological research never circulates beyond scientists’ networks of disciplinary peers. In the absence of scientists promoting their research or engaging in activism, much research on important topics isn’t put into practice and never informs public policy.

On the other hand, sociologists who do applied sociological research examine some aspect of human behavior and strive for social reforms based on their own ideological compass. These sociologists have their own intellectual grandfathers, including Karl Marx and W.E.B. Du Bois. In his “Theses on Feuerbach,” Marx wrote “The philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” Applied sociologists embrace this call for social change as a core element of their scholarship. Meanwhile, Du Bois undertook significant steps to advance sociology as a science and engaged in social activism to address racial inequalities in the U.S.

Applied sociologists are overtly political. Applied sociologists strive to apply their professional expertise outside of the classroom and often engage in activism to mitigate racism in the criminal justice system, engineer equitable outcomes in schools, or some other social reform. These efforts often aim to make the world a better place by mitigating systemic inequalities and providing a voice for marginalized groups.

Scientific activism comes at a cost; public confidence in scientists falters when science is mixed with politics.

A recent Pew Research Center report finds that people’s trust in science declines when scientists get involved in partisan politics, especially among conservatives. Politicizing the discipline of sociology has resulted in backlash like Florida’s action to remove sociology from the general education curriculum.

Sociology, as a discipline, has become less scientific and more activist in recent years. Some sociologists are distraught with the shift to progressive activism in the discipline. Conservative sociologists would prefer to see more sociology that reflects their own ideology. Conversely, scientific sociologists decry the intrusion of any politics into the discipline and promote a sociology that is free of all ideology.

In my own classroom, I teach students how to transcend an individualistic worldview and explain human behavior sociologically. Students learn to apply a sociological perspective to understand their own lives, happenings in our community, and our ever-changing world.

Additionally, I model critical thinking as I challenge students to understand the pros and cons of scientific and applied approaches to doing sociology. An introductory sociology course, taught from either a scientific or an applied perspective, provides a valuable experience for students. Skills learned in sociology can be applied in any career and foster engaged citizenship.

Roscoe Scarborough, Ph.D. is chair of the Department of Social Sciences and associate professor of sociology at College of Coastal Georgia. He is an associate scholar at the Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. He can be reached by email at rscarborough@ccga.edu.

Only (Too Much) Money Causes Inflation

Written by Don Mathews on . Posted in Don Mathews, Reg Murphy.

To repeat: many economists seem to have forgotten what causes inflation.

The explanations of the post-pandemic inflation that economists have advanced most frequently are supply chain disruptions from the pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war and rising wages driven by the tight labor market.

Supply chain disruptions and rising wages are simple, intuitive and thus appealing explanations of inflation. In fact, each is a specific case of what is commonly called “cost-push” inflation.

The notion of cost-push inflation has been thoroughly discredited numerous times over the past 250 years. Here’s why.

Prices of individual goods and the general level of prices are two significantly different things. The price of any individual good is a microeconomic phenomenon; it is determined a plethora of factors, including the cost of producing the good. Supply disruptions or rising wages that increase the cost of producing an individual good often lead to an increase in the price of the good.

The general level of prices is a macroeconomic phenomenon; it is determined by the supply of money in circulation relative to real GDP, the economy’s total output of final goods and services. Only a change in the money supply relative to real GDP can cause the general level of prices to change.

An increase in the price of an individual good is not inflation. It may be a symptom of inflation, but it’s not inflation. 

Inflation is the persistent increase in the general level of prices. The only way the general level of prices can increase persistently is if the growth rate of the money supply, which is determined by the Federal Reserve, persistently exceeds the growth rate of real GDP, which is pretty stable. 

In the post-pandemic inflation, the 12-month rate of inflation rose from 1.4% in January 2021 to 8.9% in June 2022. Only a high rate of money supply growth can cause that sort of inflation.

Supply chain disruptions cannot cause anything close to that sort of inflation. Supply chain disruptions have no effect on the money supply, never mind its rate of change. And when supply chain disruptions affect real GDP growth, the effects are small and temporary.

Supply chain disruptions generally affect a small percentage of goods and services produced. They do cause production costs to increase, but not persistently. 

When the price of a good increases, buyers reduce the amount they buy. Consequently, businesses that raise prices in response to a supply chain disruption reduce production as well. Less production means less demand for the other resources those businesses use, which reduces the prices of those resources to businesses not directly affected by the supply chain disruption.

It doesn’t happen overnight, but a supply chain disruption that causes higher production costs, higher prices and less production of certain goods inevitably causes lower production costs, lower prices and more production of other goods.

Rising wages driven by a tight labor market can be a symptom of inflation, but rising wages do not cause inflation, and not only for the same reasons that supply chain disruptions don’t cause inflation.

The primary driver of rising wages is rising worker productivity. The more productive workers are, the harder firms compete for them. Rising productivity pays for rising wages.

Cost-push inflation is thus a myth. Inflation has a single cause: excessive money supply growth.

From 2000 to 2019, the U.S. money supply increased at an average annual rate of 6.2%. It then increased by 25.7% in 2020, and another 11.4% in 2021. From February 2020 to February 2022, the U.S. money supply increased by 40.4%.

That’s what caused the post-pandemic inflation.  

2024: Resolve to get involved in child welfare

Written by Melissa Trussell on . Posted in Melissa Trussell, Reg Murphy.

This past October and November, Georgia Senator John Ossoff led the U.S. Senate Human Rights Subcommittee, of which he is chair, in hearings investigating claims of abuse and negligence by the Georgia Department of Family and Child Services (DFCS). The hearings are part of an investigation that has been ongoing for nearly a year.

The hearings brought forth stories from parents who say their children died because of mishandling of their cases by DFCS and from former foster children themselves who testified they had been abused or neglected while in state custody.

The subcommittee heard testimony that millions of dollars are being spent annually to house children in hotels or in DFCS offices. And as if hoteling were not bad enough, as I followed the hearings, one of the more startling revelations to me was juvenile court judges’ testimony that DFCS Commissioner had requested to house special needs children in juvenile detention because DFCS could not find placement for them.

Ossoff describes the hearings as a step toward reform, saying, “Change starts with the truth.” But, DFCS pushed back, claiming the hearings were one-sided and that they did not adequately acknowledge the complexities of the environment in which DFCS is operating.

I, along with many of my friends and family who work or volunteer in and around child welfare in Georgia, watched closely as the Ossoff hearings unfolded. As I alluded to above, I was greatly alarmed by some of the revelations. We can do better. We must do better. I hope with Senator Ossoff that these investigations will bring about positive change.

But also, I empathize with DFCS’ rebuttal. They are tasked with housing and keeping safe tens of thousands of children, all of whom have some degree of special needs. Caring for children is hard enough in a loving, stable family. It is literally impossible for a government to do it well. Government can provide funding and resources, but government cannot provide what children need to heal and thrive: love, stability, and human connection.

This leads me to a plea. I know pleading is uncharacteristic of a Murphy Center article, but this one is not only critical on a human level but is also of great policy significance, as highlighted by Senator Ossoff, and is ultimately an economic issue, as the welfare of today’s children becomes the welfare of tomorrow’s workforce.

As you craft your New Year’s resolutions, consider how you might get involved to make our child welfare system work better for the children and families it serves.

We are in dire need of foster and adoptive homes. In Georgia, there are over 11,000 children in foster care and only about 4,500 foster homes. There are close to 3000 children in Georgia waiting for adoptive homes. Here in Glynn County, we have around 100 children in care, and many of them are residing outside our county due to lack of available foster homes in our area. Will you say yes to a child in need of a home in 2024? For more information on becoming a foster parent in Georgia, call 1-877-210-KIDS.

If you cannot foster or adopt, will you commit to supporting others who do? Fifty percent of foster homes close within the first year of fostering, but 90% say they would remain open if they had support. Will you make a meal, provide respite childcare, or simply write an encouraging note to make it possible for someone else to say yes to a child in 2024? If you need a place to start, two local organizations that have served me well in my fostering journey are Hope 1312 Collective (hope1312co.org) and Haven Retreats (havenretreatsinc.org).

As Senator Ossoff is uncovering, our child welfare system is broken and needs an overhaul. And as anyone involved in the current system will tell you, that overhaul can begin with you. Here’s to new beginnings in the New Year – for our children.

And happy 3rd adoption anniversary this week to my precious son.

———– Dr. Melissa Trussell is a professor in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia who works with the college’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. Contact her at mtrussell@ccga.edu. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.

Holiday Rituals Reaffirm Our Connections to Others

Written by Roscoe Scarborough on . Posted in Reg Murphy, Roscoe Scarborough.

“The best way to spread Christmas cheer is singing loud for all to hear.” – Buddy the Elf

The Christmas movie Elf ends with a crowd in New York City’s Central Park singing Christmas carols, which generates the “Christmas spirit” that’s needed to save the day. While Buddy the Elf might not be a leading theorist on group solidarity, he’s on to something. Engaging in holiday rituals engenders feelings of belonging and builds community.

About a hundred years before Buddy’s declaration in the 2003 movie Elf, the French sociologist Emile Durkheim asserted that rituals serve an important function to unify groups. Taking part in religious or secular rituals reaffirms common values and deepens our social bonds with other ritual participants.

Rituals often focus on symbols or totems, which represent a group’s shared values. According to Durkheim, rituals produce “collective effervescence” or shared feeling of excitement from participating in rituals together. Engaging in rituals with likeminded folks produces a sense of belonging. Durkheim was analyzing “the elementary forms of religious life,” but his theory can help us to understand how holiday rituals bring people together.

Christmas is a time for connecting with others through holiday traditions. At some point in November, the Christmas music comes on the radio and the multicolored lights appear around the neighborhood. Christmas caroling, watching beloved holiday films, hanging Christmas lights, buying and decorating a Christmas tree, eating meals with loved ones, exchanging gifts, listening to Christmas music, and other holiday rituals allow us to reaffirm our connections with others.

Many Christians attend church services on Christmas Eve to sing “Silent Night,” light candles with other parishioners, and maybe watch children perform a Nativity play. Parents may take the kids to see Santa, leave out milk and cookies for the big guy, and watch for him on Christmas Eve. Each family has their own favored traditions.

Gift exchanges are one of the most common Christmas traditions. Excluding presents that Santa leaves under the tree for good children, most Americans exchange gifts reciprocally. In other words, one who receives a Christmas gift is expected to give a gift back to the original giver. Gifting becomes an endless cycle of giving and receiving. This ritualistic exchange builds and sustains relationships. These mutual obligations keep us connected us to our family and friends.

In both religious and secular rituals, we connect with loved ones and reaffirm shared values. Holiday traditions provide a mechanism for folks to connect and celebrate underlying values of togetherness, family, faith, and generosity. These same values are celebrated as key themes of many popular Christmas songs and films.

Unfortunately, Christmastime stressors can turn the best of us into a grinch. Overextended budgets, limited free time, travel stress, and conflicts with family can dim our Christmas cheer. Others lament the commercialization of Christmas and its modern focus on consumption and the accumulation of material goods. Dr. Seuss reminds us that “maybe Christmas doesn’t come from a store.” Embracing Christmas traditions with others in our community can redeem the grinch in each of us.

Much like Dr. Seuss’s Grinch, many Americans are starved for meaningful connection. Christmas and other holidays provide an opportunity to forge or maintain relationships with others. Gathering with loved ones on Christmas Day, watching your favorite Christmas movies together, and other holiday rituals are not just empty traditions. Participating in holiday rituals meets our psychological need for connection, reaffirms our shared values, and generates belonging in our families, relationships, and community. Roscoe Scarborough, Ph.D. is chair of the Department of Social Sciences and associate professor of sociology at College of Coastal Georgia. He is an associate scholar at the Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. He can be reached by email at rscarborough@ccga.edu.

Gerrymandering in Georgia: A New Chapter in Redistricting

Written by Drew Cagle on . Posted in Reg Murphy.

Thomas Hofeller, a Republican strategist, once said: “Usually, the voters get to pick the politicians, but in redistricting, the politicians get to pick the voters.” A recent court ruling has brought this the issue of partisan redistricting to light in Georgia. The decision, which mandated the state legislature to redraw its political map, marks a significant development in the state’s ongoing struggle with fair representation.

Gerrymandering, the practice of drawing electoral district boundaries to favor one party over another, is not new. It’s a political tool that has been wielded by both Democrats and Republicans throughout American history. However, the recent court ruling in Georgia signifies a growing concern over the fairness and integrity of the state’s electoral process.

The case in question revolved around allegations that Georgia’s legislative map was drawn in a manner that diluted the voting power of certain demographics, particularly minorities, in favor of the Republican Party. Critics argued that this not only undermined the principle of “one person, one vote” but also marginalized communities whose interests and voices are already underrepresented in the political arena.

In a landmark decision, the court sided with the plaintiffs, finding that the map did indeed violate certain principles of fair representation. As a result, the state legislature was ordered to redraw the map in a manner that more accurately reflects the demographic makeup of the state. Consequently, Governor Kemp called the State Assembly in a rare December Special Session to address the ruling.

This ruling is significant for several reasons. First, it sends a clear message that egregious partisan redistricting that disenfranchises certain groups is not to be tolerated. This is particularly important in a state like Georgia, where the demographic landscape is rapidly changing, with an increasing number of minority voters who could significantly influence the political direction of the state.

Second, the decision underscores the importance of judicial oversight in the redistricting process. In an era where partisan politics often dominates the conversation, courts serve as a critical check on legislative overreach. By stepping in to correct what it saw as an unfair and unconstitutional map, the court has reaffirmed its role as a guardian of democratic principles.

However, the ruling also opens up a Pandora’s box of political and legal challenges. Drawing district maps is its own beast, complete with its own controversies. The legislature must now walk a tightrope, balancing the court’s mandate with the interests of various stakeholders, including politicians, community leaders, and voters themselves. The process of redistricting is not just about drawing lines onto a map; rather, it’s about designing the balance of political power.

Moreover, the decision has reignited the debate over how redistricting should be conducted. Should it remain in the hands of elected officials, who may have inherent conflicts of interest, or should it be entrusted to independent commissions? This question is now at the forefront of discussions about electoral reform in Georgia.

As the state embarks on this redistricting journey, it’s important for Georgians to remain engaged and informed. The new map will not just impact the next election cycle; it will shape the political landscape of the state for years to come. It’s an opportunity to create a more equitable and representative system, but it’s also a process that requires vigilance and advocacy from all corners of the state.

In conclusion, the recent court ruling on gerrymandering in Georgia is more than just a verdict on a map. It’s a reflection of the broader challenges facing our democracy. As Georgia redraws its political boundaries, it also redraws the lines of power and representation. This is a chance to build a more inclusive and fair political system, and it’s a task that requires the commitment and participation of every Georgian.

Drew S. Cagle, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Political Science in the Department of Social Sciences at College of Coastal Georgia. He is an associate scholar at the Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. He can be reached by email at dcagle@ccga.edu.

What Causes Inflation?

Written by Don Mathews on . Posted in Don Mathews, Reg Murphy.

Apparently, most economists have forgotten what causes inflation. This unnerves me.

Perhaps it shouldn’t. Some forgetting is natural. For good reason, we instinctively focus our attention on pressing problems at hand. Once a problem at hand is resolved, we move on. The once pressing problem fades away and becomes history. And once it’s history, it’s history – as in ignored. Few people care about history. For most, the present is where it’s at.

This might be why most economists seem to have forgotten what causes inflation. Until the post-pandemic inflation, the last significant inflation in the U.S. was 1973-1982. (Inflation averaged 9% a year during those years.) The 1983-1991 stretch of choppy but moderate inflation was followed by the remarkable 1992-2020 stretch in which inflation averaged 2.2% a year and was steady to boot.

Twenty-nine consecutive years in which inflation is not an issue, never mind a problem. Out of sight, out of mind. A person might forget.

Except, how does an economist forget that the fundamental cause of any significant inflation is always, and can only be, rapid growth of the supply of money?

The lesson that significant inflation – significant being consistently greater than 5% annually – can only be caused by rapid growth in the quantity of money in circulation is one of the oldest and most important lessons in economics. Historians of economics credit the French political philosopher, Jean Bodin, for describing it first – in 1568.

Unrelenting inflation was a pressing problem in 16th century Western Europe. In a tract published in 1568, Bodin argued that the source of the European inflation was the persistent influx of gold and silver that Spain was mining in Peru, shipping home, minting into currency and exchanging for goods in trade with France, England and the rest of Europe.

In short: the primary cause of significant inflation is rapid growth of the supply of money.

Since Bodin’s tract, economists have devoted much thought and ink to the relationship between prices and the money supply. It’s a fluid and at times blurry relationship. But what Bodin described in 1568 has been observed in every significant inflation since and before, wherever it occurred: rapid growth of the money supply preceding significant inflation.

The negative also holds: significant inflation does not occur without rapid money supply growth.

Now, consider this. U.S. inflation was 2.4% in 2018, 1.8% in 2019 and 1.2% in 2020.  2021 began with inflation at 1.4%. In March, it bounced to 2.6%; in April, to 4.1%. In December, it hit 7.2%; in June 2022, 8.9%.

Any economist with a well-maintained cerebral toolbox of important lessons learned knows where to look first to figure out what caused the post-pandemic inflation: the money supply.

What unnerves me is that I have yet to find an analysis of what caused the post-pandemic inflation that even mentions money supply growth. The Federal Reserve’s Monetary Policy Reports don’t even mention money supply growth.

Let’s buck the trend.

M2 is the Federal Reserve’s broad measure of the U.S. money supply. M2 includes currency held by the public, checking deposits, savings deposits, CDs, money market deposits and retail money market funds. 

From 2000 thru 2019, M2 increased at an average annual rate of 6.2%. In 2020, M2 increased by 25.7%. In 2021, M2 increased by 11.4%. From February 2020 to February 2022, M2 increased by 40.4%.

Yet again: rapid growth of the money supply preceding significant inflation.

The Federal Reserve began its tight monetary policy in July 2022. Since July 2022, M2 has decreased by 4.4%. That helps explain why inflation has fallen to 3.7%.

We’ll take this up again next column.

Beware of Weaponized Statistics

Written by Roscoe Scarborough on . Posted in Reg Murphy, Roscoe Scarborough.

A couple of weeks ago, my colleague Dr. Don Mathews published a From the Murphy Center column on the deceptive qualities of percentages when it comes to understanding inflation. In his column, he noted that the same percentage change will mean a small numerical change if the initial value is small and a large numerical change if the initial value is large. Dr. Mathews encouraged readers to look at the initial value to avoid being “deceived” by a percentage. I hope to build on his sage advice.

We are bombarded by statistics all the time on the economy, crime, public health, and other social problems. Americans tend to privilege quantitative evidence (statistics) as objective facts about social phenomena. However, all statistics are social constructions; statistics are the products of organizations and individuals who create them.

In his book, Damned Lies and Statistics, Dr. Joel Best asserts that activists, reporters, experts, officials, and private organizations have their own reasons to promote particular social issues. Best coins the term “problem promoters” to emphasize that people and organizations deliberately construct social problems. Problem promoters often choose one statistic over others to shape our opinions about social phenomena. We must remain vigilant not to be duped.

Weaponized statistics often take the form of percentages, absolute numbers, or comparisons. A problem promoter often chooses a statistic to “prove” their point and sway our opinions on public policy. Consider how statistics on US overdose deaths are weaponized to shape our perspectives on this social problem.

A May 18, 2023 press release from the National Center for Health Statistics offers insight into US overdose deaths: “Provisional data show that the reported number of drug overdose deaths occurring in the United States decreased by 2% from the 12 months ending in December 2021 to the 12 months ending in December 2022.” This indicates that we may have turned a corner in the opioid crisis. Alternatively, if one accounts for delays in reporting, the NCHS projects a 0.5% increase in overdose deaths for this same time period. This statistic leads one to conclude that the opioid epidemic is worsening. Without knowing the initial value, it’s hard to determine whether any significant change has occurred.

Absolute numbers are often used to highlight the severity of phenomena. After adjustments for delayed reporting, the projected number of drug overdose deaths in the US in 2022 was 109,680, according to the NCHS press release referenced earlier.

Additionally, comparisons are used to sway our opinions. A July 12, 2023 press release from the White House states, “As the Biden-Harris Administration works to fully implement President Biden’s National Drug Control Strategy, US is seeing continued progress after a full year of flattening overdose deaths, halting [a] period of rapid increases from 2019-2021.” This statistic celebrates plateaued overdose deaths in 2022-2023 compared to rising overdose deaths in 2019-2021. Comparisons can be based on quantitative or qualitative data.

Organizations and individuals with a particular political agenda weaponize one statistic over others to shape our attitudes about overdose deaths in the US. These statistics color our attitudes about drug use, the opioid crisis, and related public policy.

We experienced statistics weaponization amid the COVID-19 pandemic. Medical experts, government officials, and media personalities shared statistic on COVID-19 deaths, survival rates, and vaccine efficacy data to shape individual behavior and public policy.

Reflecting on weaponized statistics can lead one to nihilism or cynicism. Alternatively, I challenge readers to be critical consumers of all quantitative or qualitative evidence. Be mindful about how problem promoters present their statistics as percentages, absolute numbers, or comparisons to influence uncritical readers.

Dr. Joel Best offers some additional advice. He challenges us to ask three questions of any statistic: Who created this statistic? Why was this statistic created? How was this statistic created? These questions help us to sort out good statistics from bad statistics.

Roscoe Scarborough, Ph.D. is chair of the Department of Social Sciences and associate professor of sociology at College of Coastal Georgia. He is an associate scholar at the Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. He can be reached by email at rscarborough@ccga.edu.

Nobel Laureate’s life work affirms my life experience

Written by Melissa Trussell on . Posted in Melissa Trussell, Reg Murphy.

I am a mom. When I open my Google calendar, my screen lights up like Christmas with colorful little blocks representing healthcare appointments, school conferences or events, volunteer commitments, playdates, etc. Overlay that with the Outlook calendar that reminds me of my classes, meetings, office hours, and research deadlines, and you’ve really got a work of art.

In this busy season of life, I am grateful to be working in a career that allows schedule flexibility. I hold regular class times and office hours. But, there are days when I also spend hours of daylight attending school events or meetings for my child or taking him to and from appointments. On those days, I spend the early evenings making sure everyone is fed both physically (meal time) and emotionally (family time), and I am finally able to sit down to catch up on my work after his bedtime.

It’s a routine that works for my family and me, and it is a characteristic of my job that I value almost above all else.

According to Claudia Goldin, this year’s Nobel Laureate in Economics, I am not alone in this. Goldin, whose life work has been devoted to studying women in the labor market, writes that women’s labor force participation has been tied to the ability to work flexible hours and/or to work from home since before the beginning of the industrial era, when women’s labor force participation dropped with the shift to factory and office work.

Economists call this a preference – women prefer work flexibility. But, as one who lives this truth, I think a better word might be need. It is not often my preference to write articles at midnight because I left work early to take my son to the dentist, but out of necessity, it is often where I find myself.

In my case, a single mother, it is obvious on whom the dentist burden will fall. But, data show the burden of childcare falls disproportionately on mothers, regardless of their marital status.

According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, on weekdays, women spend an average of 2.13 hours engaged in household activities and 0.92 hours caring for others, while men spend only an average of 1.32 hours on household activities and 0.42 hours caregiving.

Among parents, fathers spend an average of .94 hours per day and mothers 1.69 hours per day caring for and helping children in their household. Where the youngest child is under age 6, average daily hours spent caring for household children are 1.47 for fathers and 2.59 for mothers.

It stands to reason, then, that women sort into jobs allowing more flexibility. Goldin finds that this sorting, along with women’s tendency to exit the labor force for extended periods when they cannot find the flexibility they need to work and care for children, are largely responsible for the gender pay gap, around 20 cents per dollar.

Economist Steven Dubner said in a recent Freakonomics podcast on Goldin’s work, “In some ways it’s a self-inflicted wound — women make choices that lead to smaller monetary returns. On the other hand, society is set up in such a way that those choices are often not really very optional. So, what’s to be done about it?”

And Goldin provides some guidance here, too. First, she advocates for government provision of childcare for school aged children and younger. Then, employers, if a job can be done anytime and anywhere, then let it be so. But if not, Goldin says most firms could use technology to make even high-level employees substitutable for one another, reducing the need for a single worker to be always available. For example, if an electronic database contains all the information needed to make most company decisions, then one executive mom can go home in the evening to be with her kids while another tucks her kids in and takes over the work. Goldin calls this eliminating the “part-time penalty,” or the devaluing of workers just because they work fewer or more flexible hours.

Or we could work on changing the workplace and family values of a whole nation, but that’s too big a lift for a midnight article. I’m going to bed.

———–

Dr. Melissa Trussell is a professor in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia who works with the college’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. Contact her at mtrussell@ccga.edu. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.

Getting Involved in Civic Engagement

Written by Drew Cagle on . Posted in Reg Murphy.

Recently, my colleagues and I at the Murphy Center presented a broad, diverse look at civility and the need to restore civil discourse. Here, I turn towards another area of our society in need of some reinvigoration: civic engagement.

In an era saturated with digital distractions and a relentless news cycle, community participation in civic governance seems to have faded. However, it remains a cornerstone of any democracy, an invaluable tool in our pursuit of progress. The Golden Isles stand as a prime example of the importance of individual contributions in shaping the direction of local, state, and even national affairs.

Civic engagement is the active participation of individuals in their community and the political process. This can take numerous forms, from voting and attending town hall meetings, to volunteering or even running for office. It is a way for everyday people to voice their concerns, influence decisions that affect their lives, and forge connections with fellow citizens.

The Golden Isles, like many communities throughout rural Georgia, thrives when its residents take an active interest in its affairs. Our coastal city has faced its share of challenges. From concerns about local development and environmental preservation to broader socio-economic issues to a racially motivated crime that captured worldwide attention, this region is no stranger to adversity. By participating actively in local forums, town meetings, or council hearings, the residents of Brunswick have the power to steer the course of their community’s future.

And this is where the magic happens. Imagine a community where residents take ownership of their surroundings, where they feel a part of and responsible for the welfare of their community. This is not just about policy or politics – it’s about creating a sense of belonging, a shared identity. It’s about taking pride in one’s home and actively contributing to its improvement.

Georgia, as a whole, offers a unique perspective on the importance of civic engagement. Our state’s history, intertwined with historic moments of the civil rights movement, was deeply affected by individual voices collectivizing for change. The fight for voting rights, the quest for social justice, and the ongoing endeavors for environmental and economic reforms all rely on active involvement of local constituents. The lesson is clear: change is a collective endeavor, and everyone has a role to play.

In places like Southeast Georgia, the effects of civic participation are evident. Local programs initiated by citizens, community-led beautification projects, and partnerships between the city and its residents have transformed areas and improved the quality of life for many. The development of parks, better infrastructure, and community-driven educational programs are just a few examples of what can be achieved when citizens decide to be a part of the solution.

Civic engagement, however, goes beyond just attending meetings or casting votes. It’s about building relationships with neighbors, understanding their concerns, and working together for the greater good. It’s about fostering a community spirit that can overcome challenges and celebrate successes. It’s about teaching the next generation of neighbors the importance of coming together for the common good and collective well-being.

In today’s lightning fast world, it’s easy to become detached from our immediate surroundings and focused on national issues. But if we step back and invest time in our community, the rewards are immense. For the residents of Southeast Georgia, and the wider Georgia community, the message is clear: your voice matters. Your involvement can shape the future.

As we reflect on our role in society, let us remember that civic engagement is not only a duty but a privilege. In shaping the narrative of our community, we also shape our legacy. And in the heart of the Isles, as in every corner of Georgia and the country, that legacy is waiting to be written by its people.

Drew S. Cagle, Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor of Political Science in the Department of Social Sciences at College of Coastal Georgia. He is an associate scholar at the Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. He can be reached by email at dcagle@ccga.edu.

What’s in a Percentage Change?

Written by Don Mathews on . Posted in Don Mathews, Reg Murphy.

While dining with my wife and four friends recently at Reid’s Apothecary in downtown Brunswick, a question and insight came my way.

“Why is inflation measured as a percentage?  Percentages are often deceiving.”

  The question and insight are serious, as is the person who delivered them.  The person – let’s call her “Jeannie,” to protect the names of the innocent – is a top-flight number-cruncher who can solve calculus problems in her head while juggling chainsaws.

She continued.  “Take someone who was spending $100 a week on groceries.  Soon, she’s paying $10 more for the same groceries.  From $100 to $110 is a 10% increase.

“Soon, she’s paying another $10 more for the same groceries.  From $110 to $120 is a 9.1% increase.

“To economists, the decrease in the percentage increase means inflation is falling.  But to our grocery shopper, whose bill went up by $10, and then another $10, inflation isn’t falling.  Are you going to tell her she’s wrong?”

Now, this is my kind of dinner conversation.

The idea of percentage change was prompted by this question: when the numerical value of something of interest – prices, blood pressure, bowling score, etc. – changes over a stretch of time, how can we gauge whether the change is large or small?

Consider.  Suppose “Jeannie” wants to know how much real GDP – the inflation-adjusted value of U.S. production – changed from 2021 to 2022.  She retrieves the figures: $21,408 billion in 2021 and $21,822 billion in 2022.

She immediately notices a paradox.  The $414 billion increase in real GDP means the U.S. economy produced $414 billion more in goods and services in 2022 than it did in 2021.  $414 billion is a lot of goods and services.  But a change from $21,408 billion to $21,822 billion appears less impressive.

The second part of the paradox is what percentage change is about.  A percentage change expresses the change from an initial value relative to the initial value itself.  The calculation is: ((more recent value minus initial value) divided by initial value) times 100.

$414 billion is a big number, but it’s a modest 1.9% increase from $21,408 billion.  (Note: the average annual growth rate of U.S. real GDP over the past 20 years is 2.1 percent.)

Percentage change has properties that can, indeed, make it deceptive.  The same percentage change will mean a small numerical change if the initial value is small and a large numerical change if the initial value is large.  The same numerical change will mean a large percentage change if the initial value is small and a small percentage change if the initial value is large. 

The key: pay close attention to the initial value.

Now, to “Jeannie’s” question at Reid’s.  Inflation is measured as a percentage change because it’s the clearest, most straightforward way to measure inflation.  Inflation is a persistent increase in prices in general.  Measuring prices in general requires constructing a price index, such as the Consumer Price Index (CPI).  Constructing the CPI is a complex process.  See for yourself at bls.gov/opub/hom/cpi/.

The process culminates in a new CPI.  The most recent CPI, for August, is 306.269.  The CPI for August 2022 is 295.320.  The increase of 10.949 means prices in general were higher in August 2023 than they were in August 2022.  That’s inflation.

We could leave it at that.  But that would leave us with an unanswered question: how much inflation is that?

This much: (10.949 divided by 295.320) times 100 equals 3.7%.

That’s down from the June 2021 to June 2022 post-pandemic peak of 8.9%.  The decrease in inflation means prices are still increasing, but not as much as they were.