Archives: Reg Murphy Pubs

Voting in Primary Elections

Written by Drew Cagle on . Posted in Reg Murphy.

As Georgia prepares for its upcoming presidential primary on March 12, the importance of participating in this electoral process cannot be overstated. While general elections typically capture the public’s attention, primary elections are equally, if not more, important in shaping the political landscape. In primary elections, voters have the opportunity to choose which candidates will represent their party in the general election. This initial step in the electoral process plays a pivotal role in determining the choices available to voters later on and, by extension, the future direction of local, state, and national governance.

In Georgia, as in many states, the presidential primary serves as a measure of public opinion and a testing ground for candidates’ policies and campaign strategies. The outcomes in Georgia often have significant implications, given the state’s diverse demographic and political makeup. It is a mini-version of the general election, giving glimpses of the broader national political climate, offering insights into issues that resonate with voters across different regions and backgrounds. Participation in these primaries is not just an exercise of your civic rights; it is a powerful means for voters to influence the political narrative.

The importance of voting in primaries is underscored by the fact that the candidates selected during this process will go on to represent their parties in the general election. The choices made in the primaries effectively shape the political agenda of each party, and maybe the nation, for years to come. When voter turnout in primaries is low, a small, and possibly unrepresentative, segment of the population ends up deciding who the available candidates in the general election will be. This can lead to the nomination of candidates who may not accurately reflect the preferences of the broader party electorate. Because of this, participation in primary elections is crucial.

Additionally, primary elections often feature races for other important offices, such as senators, representatives, governors, and local officials. These positions significantly impact governance at various levels, influencing everything from education to taxes to healthcare. The decisions made by these officeholders can have a direct and tangible impact on the daily lives of citizens.

Georgia’s upcoming presidential primary is not just an opportunity to choose a presidential candidate; it is a chance to shape the future of the state and nation. It is a forum for voters to make their voices heard, their stances clear, and their aspirations plain. High voter turnout in primaries sends a strong message about the public’s engagement and interest in the political process, encouraging greater accountability and responsiveness from political leaders.

So, as Georgia gears up for its presidential primary, it is imperative for voters to recognize the power and significance of their participation. Voting in the primary is a step towards ensuring that the democracy functions as intended, with leaders who are representative of and responsive to the electorate. It is a responsibility that goes hand in hand with the privileges of democracy. Every vote counts, and in the context of a primary election, particularly in a state decided by less than 1% in the last election, it can be the deciding factor in shaping the political future. Therefore, I encourage all eligible Georgians to participate in the March 12th election. Make your voices heard, and keep democracy going.Top of Form

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.

Cupid Economics: How and why we match with whom we match

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

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Now, let me ruin the romance for you by describing how economists view love and marriage.

Economists study and write about the “marriage market,” wherein, much like in a market for goods or services, individuals search for what they want and snag it when they find it. While prices in a marriage market are not always as explicit as those in a market for heart-shaped candies, they still do exist. In some cultures, they are, indeed, explicit, and take the form of dowries or bride-prices. In modern, western culture, the marriage price is negotiated as the terms of the relationship—who will perform what household duties, how shared bank accounts will be handled, etc.

Also like in the market for candies, preferences are important. More popular or more unique candies bring higher prices. A husband or wife who is desired by multiple potential partners is able to negotiate a better deal for themselves in marriage. They may not have to wash as many dishes as a less desirable partner.

Not surprisingly, what makes a potential partner desirable is different for each individual. Like in the market for jobs/labor, the marriage market is as much about search and matching as it is about negotiating a price and sealing a deal.

So, why do we match with the people we match with? And why do some folks choose not to participate in the matching at all? And is our matching really ideal? (If you resisted the urge to just answer “love” to these questions, you may be a budding economist.)

First, what brings us to the marriage market in the first place? Not knowing I was already writing this article, my Granny provided a great example last week. I was telling her about my really rough start to this semester: In the last five weeks, I had an infected cat bite on my hand, a head-to-toe allergic rash reaction to the antibiotic I was taking for that infection, a bout with Covid, and nasty a stomach bug. Somehow, my children have managed to stay healthy, and I am staying afloat at work, but it has been hard, to say the least. My Granny’s solution: “You need a husband.”

Granny is thinking like an economist. Marriage comes with economic incentives—a second income, a second set of hands to perform household work and childcare, and (Granny’s thought) insurance that covers your side of the work when you are sick. We come to the marriage market because life is easier with help. The data bear this out. Particularly among women, marriage rates decline as incomes and education increase, i.e., as they need less of a safety net.

But, once we are in the marriage market, with whom do we match? Contrary to the adage opposites attract, economists find that we tend to match with individuals who have similar incomes, education, political leanings, etc., to ourselves. But, our ultimate matches depend not just on our preferences but also on the pool of candidates to which we are exposed.

And, according to St. Louis Fed economist Paulina Restrepo-Echavarria, our matches are not ideal. Our matches promote the persistence of inequality in economic and educational attainment. She compares the marriage matches that would be made by an all-knowing and benevolent social planner to those we make in real life. The social planner’s guidance would lead us to matches that are both better for society and better for us as individuals than the matches we make on our own. Her conclusion is that we would do better if we simply devoted more effort to the search, widening our pool of candidates, and improving our chances of making an ideal match.

So, here’s to all the searching and match-making taking place this Valentine’s Day.

And, if you are happily matched, please don’t take this as my call for you to begin now to expand your pool. Ignore everything I’ve written; you are no doubt the exception to Restrepo-Echavarria’s findings. Maybe this just gives you something new and interesting to talk about at dinner tonight with your love.

———–

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.

Taylor Swift’s Lessons for Entrepreneurs

Written by Skip Mounts on . Posted in Reg Murphy, Skip Mounts.

Confession time: I am thinking about hiding my toaster. It is old, likely wastes electricity and probably harms the ozone yet it still makes a beautiful English muffin. The current administration wants to regulate home appliances as part of their ‘green’ agenda. While toasters are not on the list now, what about tomorrow? It will take Josh Gates of Expedition Unknown to find it after I’m done.

Another confession: I have watched too much professional football. I have loyalties to the Green Bay Packers and the Buffalo Bills. When I was nine years old, I got Coach Lombardi’s autograph at an opening of a Red Owl grocery store in Appleton, Wisconsin and the Bill’s long-time head coach, Marv Levy, was an undergraduate economics major. Being a fan is simple for me.

With the Super Bowl now in the rear view, I admit finding a curiosity with the Kansas City Chiefs. I wish the media would have just left Taylor Swift and KC tight end Travis Kelce alone. Its only football for gosh sake. Just leave them alone. Remember what happened to the relationship between Marilyn Monroe and Joe DiMaggio? (If you are thinking ‘who’, ask someone in their golden years.)

Coastal students seeking the Bachelor of Business Administration (BBA) must choose an area for extended study – a concentration. Currently, entrepreneurship is the fastest growing among the nine concentrations from which students can choose. Not only is there coursework, but entrepreneurship students are also exposed to the programs and guidance of our Lucas Center (also available to all students at the College).

I think Taylor Swift offers our future entrepreneurs a few lessons on being successful. First, the facts. In 2023 Ms. Swift’s Era Tour netted $1.04 billion. It is estimated that the tour also generated $5.8 billion in community benefits outside of the concert in jobs, hotels, local tax revenues, etc. She also paid bonuses to her employees, of which truck drivers got $100,000. This is what happens in the magic of entrepreneurship. Not only do entrepreneurs benefit themselves and their customers, but they also create external benefits to many others. This is to say, there are multiplier effects beyond the initial act of entrepreneurial creativity. Future Taylor Swift concerts will only amplify these benefits.

Contrast this to the federal government and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. First, it has very little to do with inflation. Most of the Act, around $390 billion of the $500 billion price tag, are subsidies and other incentives aimed at advancing the green agenda of battery plants, semi-conductors, processing chips, EVs, nationwide charging stations, windmill farms in the ocean, and on and on. Here, subsidy is just a word that means private businesses would not produce this stuff without the government paying them to make it. Producers of oceanic windmill farms want larger subsidies and greater liability protection from legal actions brought on the behalf of dead whales and birds. Ford has discovered that people really don’t want electric pickup trucks. Cities that bought electric buses cannot get spare parts as the producer declared bankruptcy and EVs don’t work well in cold weather plugged into charging stations that don’t work. The federal government is the only entity that can encourage the production of things that people don’t want. A subsidy funded by other people’s tax dollars usually does the trick. (My colleagues will point out things called public goods, but this is for another day.)

So, on to Taylor Swift’s lessons for our budding entrepreneurs. They are simple, obvious, and extraordinarily important. In an interview, she attributed her success to being smart (“If you fail to plan, you plan to fail/Strategy sets the scene for the tale” lyrics from her Midnights album), thinking (she buys carbon offsets for her jet so she can be net zero), hard work, and giving people what they want. Imagine that. Dedication, thinking, hard work and paying attention to consumers are Taylor Swift’s lessons. Our students need to see that it is not what they want that matters. It is what others want. Success is built around thinking of others. Taylor Swift’s impact on the world would have not been possible had she produced a concert that no one wanted to attend.

These lessons work everywhere, from a global concert tour to wherever you call home. Imagine the impact our Coastal entrepreneurs can have! Final confession: I am not just a fan of Vince Lombardi and Marv Levy. I’m totally into being a Swiftie and the entrepreneurial gifts of Taylor Swift!

Dr. Skip Mounts is Dean of the School of Business and Public Administration at the College of Coastal Georgia, a Professor of Economics, and an associate of the Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies and the Art and Lindee Lucas Center for Entrepreneurship.

How Averting Disaster Caused Inflation

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

In two previous columns, I have argued that the leading explanations of the post-pandemic inflation are wrong.

Supply chain disruptions do not cause inflation. Supply chain disruptions cause the prices of a narrow set of goods and services to increase. Inflation is when the prices of a broad range of goods and services increase, then increase some more, then increase some more, then increase some more, and so on.

Rising wages do not cause inflation. Wages increase as worker productivity increases: the more productive workers are, the more employers are willing and able to pay them. Rising productivity pays for rising wages.

Inflation has a single cause: excessive money supply growth. The post-pandemic inflation is no exception.

From 2000 thru 2019, the U.S. money supply increased at an average annual rate of 6.2%. In 2020, it increased by 25.7%, and in 2021, by another 11.4%. From February 2020 to February 2022, the U.S. money supply increased by 40.4%. That’s what caused the 12-month rate of inflation to rise from 1.4% in January 2021 to 8.9% in June 2022.

So, what caused the surge in money supply growth in 2020 and 2021?

The actions the Federal Reserve took to prevent a global financial catastrophe at the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, coupled with the actions it took to keep banks abundantly stocked with reserves through the pandemic, caused the surge in money supply growth in 2020 and 2021.

On February 23, 2020, the Italian government imposed a lock down on eleven towns in the hope of containing a massive outbreak of coronavirus. In financial markets, the news prompted panic and an immediate “rush to safety.” Investors rushed to sell higher yielding assets and rushed to buy “safe haven” assets, primarily U.S. Treasury bonds and bonds issued by the governments of Japan, Germany and the U.K.

In the last week of February 2020, the value of U.S. blue chip stocks fell by 12%, while the yield on ten-year U.S. Treasury notes fell to a record low 1.13%.

As the outbreak spread and intensified, panic in financial markets did, too. On March 9, blue chips dropped by 7.8% before New York Stock Exchange officials halted trading. The yield on the ten-year Treasury note hit 0.54%.

Then came the meltdown. As markets opened on March 16, financial institutions and investors began unloading assets, including safe haven assets, for cash. Sell orders inundated the U.S. Treasury bond market. Stock prices plunged, bond yields spiked, and short-term credit channels froze. Liquidity in the global financial system was rapidly evaporating. 

The Federal Reserve had been adding liquidity to financial institutions since February 23. On March 16, it opened the floodgates. It purchased hundreds of billions of dollars in Treasuries that the institutions were frantic to sell. It announced it would continue to purchase assets in large amounts until credit markets functioned smoothly again. It also set up funding facilities to provide short-term credit until frozen short-term credit channels thawed. 

The meltdown ceased. By July, credit markets functioned smoothly. With no end to the pandemic in sight, the Fed opted to reduce its asset purchases rather than end them, to further fortify banks.

In preventing a global financial catastrophe and in keeping banks abundantly stocked with reserves through the pandemic, the Fed increased its holdings of Treasury securities and other assets from $4,170 billion in February 2020 to $7,128 billion in June 2020, and to $8,934 billion in February 2022. Banks turn reserves into loans, and loans increase the money supply – in this case by 40.4% from February 2020 thru February 2022. And that, as we’ve discussed, caused the post-pandemic inflation.

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.

Reflecting on Martin Luther King Jr.’s Vision for Education: A Critical Thinking Imperative

Written by Heather Farley on . Posted in Heather Farley, Reg Murphy.

As events ramped up this week around the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, I found myself reflecting on what the Reverend’s legacy means to me as an educator. Dr. King’s most well-known speeches centered on the topics of civil rights, racial equality, and nonviolent protest. However, his advocacy for freedom of speech, expression, and the pursuit of knowledge were equally moving and resonate with me as I enter the classroom for another semester.

In February of 1947, at the age of 18, King wrote an article in the Morehouse College paper, The Maroon Tiger, entitled “The Purpose of Education.” You may be thinking he wrote this article as a first-year freshman at Morehouse – what could he possibly have understood about the purpose of education at that point? In fact, at just 15 years of age King skipped two grades and was accepted to Morehouse College graduating at age 19 in 1948. The young scholar’s remarks on education continue to be relevant in 21st century America from the K-12 classroom to the College lecture hall.

In his article, King issues a warning to educators: “We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character—that is the goal of true education.” The message is salient today as we think about the role of education in the lives of students. Indeed, the national discussion around the value of higher education questions whether the investment in college is worth the return.

Is our aim academic achievement alone? In “The Purpose of Education,” King argued for an education that fosters critical thinking and moral integrity. He warned against the dangers of an education that stops at efficiency, producing individuals with intellect but no moral compass.

King argued for an education that goes beyond knowledge acquisition. He envisioned an educational system that teaches students to discern truth from falsehood, to think intensively and critically. He explained that, “a great majority of the so-called educated people do not think logically and scientifically. Even the press, the classroom, the platform, and the pulpit in many instances do not give us objective and unbiased truths. To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction.”

As educators we are teaching in an era of misinformation and now even AI-generated propaganda. While we want our students to have the practical skills they will need to be successful in their careers, we are also responsible for helping them to become expert consumers of information. They must learn to sift through the huge amounts of information they have access to and find the data and reporting that is most reliable. In doing so, they become adept at seeing the world not in a single way, but in a multidimensional way. They learn to weigh information rather than take it all at face value.

At College of Coastal Georgia, these issues are at the heart of our teaching. We want students to be problem-solvers. We want them to become curious critical thinkers. We do this by asking students to think beyond a single set of “answers” and instead to creatively explore issues in business, public administration, environmental science, economics, and so forth, so they can find solutions and spur innovation. This was part of the vision King had in mind.

King ends his article with a further warning: “If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. Be careful, “brethren!” Be careful, teachers!” As we celebrate King’s birthday and reflect on his contributions, it is clear that his views on education are not just historical artifacts but living principles that continue to guide us. What a gift he leaves behind.

Dr. Heather Farley is Chair of the Department of Business and Public Administration and Associate Professor of Public Management at the College of Coastal Georgia. She is an associate of the College’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies and an environmental policy scholar. The opinions found in this article do not represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.

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.