Reg Murphy Pubs Archive

Beware of Weaponized Statistics

Written by Roscoe Scarborough on November 8, 2023. 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 October 25, 2023. 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 October 18, 2023. 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.

Climate Policies that Stick

Written by Heather Farley on October 11, 2023. Posted in Heather Farley, Reg Murphy.

In November 2023, nearly 200 nations will gather in Dubai for COP 28, the world’s primary climate decision-making conference. COP 21 in 2015 led to the Paris Agreement, aiming to limit global temperature increases to 1.5C (2.7F) by 2100.

Meanwhile, young activists have been taking legal action against some of these same nations. For example a recent case by six young Portuguese individuals was brought against 32 countries, including all EU members, for insufficient progress on the Paris Agreement. Similar lawsuits are emerging in the United States, reflecting impatience with governmental climate action.

Think tanks such as the International Energy Agency (IEA) have outlined key strategies for achieving the 1.5C target. Solutions such as “ramping up renewables, improving energy efficiency, cutting methane emissions and increasing electrification with technologies available today” are central recommendations. But the report emphasizes that these kinds solutions must be implemented through well-designed policies at all levels of government.

But how are these kinds of policies adopted (or not) at a national, state, and local level? Where do the ideas come from? While there are plenty of policy innovation think tanks to offer recommendations, we know that policymakers prefer not to “reinvent the wheel” and often turn to other nations, states, or localities for ideas. This is the idea of policy diffusion, a concept that evolved from US Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis in 1932. He described states as ‘laboratories of democracy’ where state policymakers can observe the politics and impacts of policy in other states and can take the ideas they like for their own governments.

In the area of climate policy, this means that effective strategies can spread from one country, state, or city to another. For example, Sweden’s pioneering carbon tax inspired similar initiatives in Norway and Finland, creating a cascade effect. Likewise, British Columbia’s carbon tax inspired other regions, including California and several Canadian provinces, to implement similar mechanisms.

However, the process of policy diffusion has its challenges which may account for the slow rate of progress those young Portuguese claimants are concerned about. Some argue that policies adopted without consideration of local context and capabilities may fail. What works well in one country may not be suitable for another due to differences in geography, culture, and socioeconomic conditions. For instance, a carbon pricing mechanism that works effectively in a densely populated urban area will almost certainly not be suitable for a rural economy. Moreover, it is possible that the policy diffusion process can lead to a homogenization of climate policies, promoting a “one-size-fits-all” approach that can limit the development of new technologies and strategies.

Another concern is the speed at which policies are adopted. The desire to align with global trends can sometimes lead to hasty decisions, resulting in unintended negative consequences such as job losses in certain sectors, increased energy costs for low-income families, or even environmental trade-offs. We have seen this play out in the US as we attempt to determine the best pathway for renewable energy development without putting millions of Americans out of work who are in fossil fuels industries.

Political considerations also play a role. Policies that are adopted due to international pressure may face domestic opposition, as has been the case with the U.S. and the Paris Agreement. Many in Congress view the accord as incompatible with America’s domestic policy priorities, leading to a lack of commitment to its goals.

As countries grapple with the urgent need for climate action, the sharing of successful policies will, and should continue. However, policy diffusion should be approached thoughtfully, recognizing the importance of local adaptation, and acknowledging that not all policies are universally applicable. Policymakers should carefully assess how policies can be adapted to suit their nation’s unique circumstances, taking into account factors like political landscape, economic conditions, and public opinion. One way to facilitate this would be to incentivize innovation and creativity in our trade schools and higher education institutions allowing innovation to take on the local flavor that will fit the region and lead to policies that stick.

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 are those of the author and do not represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.

What’s in a Percentage Change?

Written by Don Mathews on October 4, 2023. 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.

Understanding is Required for Civil Discourse

Written by Roscoe Scarborough on September 27, 2023. Posted in Reg Murphy, Roscoe Scarborough.

My new colleague, Dr. Drew Cagle, wrote his first From the Murphy Center column a few weeks ago. His charge to readers was to restore civility in politics. Anyone who has followed politics in our nation knows that civility has fallen out of favor. Many Americans root for a political party like their favorite sports team and treat the other party as a hated rival. Incivility is the new norm. Dr. Cagle suggested that we must proactively seek out a diverse range of opinions, remain open-minded, and find common ground.

I wholeheartedly endorse this call for civility, but partisan politics and siloed media don’t make it easy. If you only watch Fox News or CNN, it’s hard to understand the perspective of the other side. Similarly, our social networks tend to be composed of like-minded folks. Many people don’t engage regularly with those who hold dissimilar worldviews. Thus, it’s easy to stereotype or vilify a group that we do not understand.

Students in my Introduction to Sociology course are challenged to understand those dissimilar from themselves, a skill that can be applied to promote civility. Sociologists note that our ethical and social standards reflect our own cultural context. If we want to understand the behavior of “the other,” we need to understand their values, beliefs, and cultural practices. Understanding the reality of a group or the complexity of social phenomena should be prerequisites to judgment or action. This can be applied cross-culturally or to groups within our own communities, including to supporters of political parties.

There’s plenty of intolerance and closed-mindedness on both sides of the political aisle. Stereotyping “Trump supporters” or “the woke left” will not lead to civil discourse. Conservatives often fail to understand the perspectives of certain groups, including undocumented immigrants, transgender persons, and marginalized populations. Similarly, liberals often fail to understand the perspectives of those who voted for former President Trump, gun enthusiasts, and rural Americans. Folks on both sides of the aisle can benefit from understanding the beliefs and values of those aligned with the other political party. Understanding how others see the world and why our fellow Americans support particular policies can promote civil discourse.

Beyond promoting civility in politics, understanding those dissimilar from ourselves is necessary to address real-world social problems. Understanding why someone wants to own an AR-15 or why someone uses illegal drugs should be a prerequisite to developing relevant public policy.

Another of my Murphy Center colleagues, Dr. Heather Farley, wrote a column recently on combatting homelessness in the Golden Isles. Blanket stereotypes are often imposed on those who are homeless due to a lack of understanding; homeless persons are labeled as lazy, substance abusers, or mentally ill. The reality of homelessness in the U.S. is a lot more nuanced. Most homeless people are not choosing a lifestyle of homelessness. In fact, most who are homeless are experiencing homelessness temporarily, often as the result of an adverse life event. For many single moms, the precarious financial reality of balancing paid employment and childcare leads many mothers and their kids to end up homeless. I could go on. One should understand the lived reality of a group and the dynamics of a phenomenon before developing public policy. How can you fix something that you don’t understand?

Just as there are a multitude of reasons one might experience homelessness, there are a host of reasons why people make political decisions. Understanding leads to knowledge and empathy, which allow us to find common ground and develop useful public policy.

Understanding the cultural practices of those dissimilar from ourselves is a prerequisite to civil discourse in politics. Further, understanding the perspectives of those entangled in social problems is necessary to change behavior and mitigate public issues that plague our nation.

We are addicted to our opinions, and it shows.

Written by Melissa Trussell on September 6, 2023. Posted in Melissa Trussell, Reg Murphy.

Last week for this column, our new colleague Dr. Drew Cagle wrote about the dangers to democracy of today’s increasing incivility in politics. This brought to mind a relevant article I wrote during the height of election campaigning in 2018. I have updated that article for a re-run below:

Hanging in my office is a map of the world oriented such that the south pole is at the top and the north pole is at the bottom. At first glance, the map seems to be hanging upside down. But upon closer inspection, it is clear the country names, ocean labels, etc., are all legible and right-side up. The map was made to be displayed this way. And when you think about it, isn’t it funny that we think of it as upside down? The earth is a ball floating in space. From space, its top and bottom are completely arbitrary and are only a matter of perspective.

My favorite part of the map is the Anaïs Nin quote beneath it: “We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.” There is no correct or true orientation of a map of the earth, but the map on my wall seems upside down because of the observer’s orientation.

In the summer of 2018, I attended a conference where I heard a presentation describing the economic theory of opinion formation. The presenter was Dr. Steven Albert of Monterey Peninsula College in Monterey, California. His paper essentially describes with symbols and equations what Anaïs Nin described in the words quoted above.

Albert builds on a decades old theory of human capital. An individual’s human capital is all her accumulated knowledge, skills, and experiences. In the 1970’s economists Stigler and Becker devised a theory of human capital that explains behavior they called “addiction.” Their model showed that the more human capital one accumulates in a specific area, say, music education, the lower the cost of continuing to add capital in that same area. In other words, the more you learn about playing an instrument, the easier—and more desirable— it is for you to become even better at that instrument. And, as you become better and better at music, you become less and less likely to change your hobby or career from music to sports. You would have to start all over accumulating sports human capital, when you already have a sort of momentum working for you in music. You are “addicted” to music.

Now, apply this theory to human opinions. Your opinion on a given topic is a function of time and what Dr. Albert calls your opinion human capital. Opinion human capital is all the possible opinions you could hold given your accrued knowledge about the subject. The more knowledge you accrue supporting your opinion on a particular issue, the easier and more desirable it becomes for you to continue to hold that opinion, even if you are later faced with contrary information. You are addicted to your opinion, and theory predicts that at some point, you will begin to avoid contrary information altogether.

With election season fast approaching and party debates heating up, I find it interesting that economic theory supports what we know about many of our friends and perhaps even ourselves. We choose to believe news or ads that support the opinions we already hold, and we avoid or quickly dismiss contrary information, regardless of how founded it might be.

We have to be intentional to break this cycle, following Dr. Cagle’s advice from last week’s column: “proactively seek out a diverse range of opinions, be open-minded, and choose to find common ground.” Otherwise, our opinions become more and more polarized, and civility becomes harder to achieve.

“We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.” – Anaïs Nin

———–

Navigating Political Conflict: Restoring Civil Discourse

Written by Drew Cagle on August 30, 2023. Posted in Reg Murphy.

People don’t always see eye to eye. We might not agree on where to grab a meal, what to watch, or which team will clinch the championship. Sometimes, these differences can actually be beneficial. Initial disagreements can lead to healthy discussions that find some middle ground, especially in politics. In fact, many aspects of our government and its Constitution were shaped by compromises among the framers with differing ideas.

However, if you’ve been scrolling social media lately, you know that political disagreements in the United States have taken a turn for the worse. Gone are the days of constructive debate, replaced instead by name-calling, mudslinging, and political theatrics. This lack of civil conversation not only falls short of being helpful but is also incredibly frustrating for many Americans.

According to a recent survey conducted by Georgetown University’s Institute of Politics and Public Service, a staggering 90% of voters express worry about the conduct of politicians. As if that number isn’t alarming enough, 83% believe that the primary objective of politicians should be finding common ground.

So, what’s happened to American Politics? A study from Stanford University discovered that incidents of incivility have increased by 23% over the past two decades.

Rewinding, disagreements are natural. They’re going to happen. When the Framers were crafting the U.S. Constitution, our blueprint for a free democratic nation, they overcame numerous disagreements to reach an eventual consensus. The Bill of Rights itself was born out of contentious yet civil and productive cooperation. The Framers were able to put aside their differences to reach a conclusion.

Fast-forwarding to the age of the internet, it’s evident that something has gone terribly wrong. Now that politicians can reach into our homes, pockets, and lives instantaneously, thanks to social media, the incentive for debate and cooperation seems to have faded. In fact, anyone can now engage in politics from behind a keyboard, perhaps anonymously, adding another layer of complexity. Likes, retweets, and popularity now seem to trump finding common ground. We have forgotten that democracy requires cooperation and respectful dialogue along with competing ideas.

The public seems remarkably self-aware of this. In a 2023 survey conducted by Baldwin Wallace University’s Community Research Institute, 87% of people blame news media and social media as the primary cause of increasing incivility.

The consequences of this shift in civil cooperation are numerous. The U.S. is supposed to be the “marketplace of ideas,” where we work together to do what’s best for everyone. However, when discourse becomes rude, individuals, particularly those not already strongly attracted to politics, are less likely to consider different viewpoints or participate in politics AT ALL. It may not be surprising, then, that incivility, combined with other factors like wealth and socioeconomic status, depresses voter turnout.

We have got to address incivility in politics. Democracy doesn’t work if everyone does not feel welcome to contribute ideas to public discussion. Of course, everyone isn’t going to agree on everything; it would be weird if they did. But, we can demand that political discussions remain civil from the top down. It starts with we the people. We must proactively seek out a diverse range of opinions, be open-minded, and choose to find common ground.

Restoring civility is not about giving up on our differences; It’s actually about using those differences constructively. Our greatest strength is our ability to work together, even when we believe different things. Our democracy and our country deserve our best.

We must disagree, but we must do so constructively and with kindness.

Combatting Homelessness in the Golden Isles

Written by Heather Farley on August 23, 2023. Posted in Heather Farley, Reg Murphy.

In early August, clergy from various faith denominations gathered at Brunswick City Hall to call on the City of Brunswick to halt a lawsuit against the homeless day shelter, The Well. The press conference brought to mind a series that my colleagues at the Murphy Center and I did in late 2021 around the causes and issues related to homelessness. Two years later, those issues remain complicated and grave.

During the press conference, Drew Thompson, pastor of Union City Church stated, “This community is expending precious energy on trying to rid our city of homeless people instead of learning ways to combat homelessness.”

Indeed, the lawsuit filed by the city cites public nuisance as its main basis. Given the challenges that business owners and residents have reported, largely around public safety concerns, it may not be a surprise to those who frequent downtown that the city is trying to do something in response. As Pastor Thompson suggests, the “something” they are trying is to use the court system to reduce the presence of homeless people around neighborhoods and local businesses rather than develop policies aimed at reducing the conditions of homelessness.

What would a shift in that policy approach look like if the city were to address the causes of homelessness instead? There are a few central areas where they might focus, but I want to highlight one, in particular. A common misconception is that homelessness is typically the result of personal failures, addiction, or mental illness. The root causes of homelessness, however, are deeply intertwined with economic disparities, inequalities among certain populations, and a severe shortage of affordable housing.

Housing is an area I see hope for policy redirection and an area the Mayor of Brunswick has publicly stated he wants to focus energy.

At the heart of this issue is a crisis of affordability. As Brunswick news reporter, Taylor Cooper wrote earlier this year, “the city of Brunswick has a “staggering” challenge when it comes to affordable housing… close to 85% of Brunswick’s total housing stock, 4,800 dwelling units, was built before 1970 and 20% of houses are ‘almost uninhabitable’.” Likewise, my Murphy Center colleague, Don Mathews, explained in a 2022 article (How Did Affordable Housing Become Unaffordable?) that “we’ve been digging the housing hole we’re in for decades. It’s deep.” That hole comes from a combination of minimum lot size restrictions, single-family-only zoning, a slow rate of new housing starts, and limited small home construction. In short, growing demand and sharply restricted supply have made affordable housing unaffordable.

According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, in Georgia a full-time worker would need to make $19.42/hour (working 40 hrs/wk and 52 weks/yr) to afford fair market rent for a two-bedroom rental home, a figure far beyond the reach of many low-income families. In the Brunswick metropolitan area, for instance, the median renter household income is $28,560 or approximately $14.88/hr. This leaves 44% (6749) of renter households in Brunswick with cost burdens (spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs) and 21.9% with severe cost burdens (spending more than 50% of their income on housing costs). With such high rates of cost burden, a single emergency or loss of work hours can lead to eviction and homelessness.

Addressing these root causes requires a concerted effort from policymakers, community organizations, and individuals. But homelessness is not an insurmountable problem.

Over the past decade, meaningful progress has been made in our community and our state to reduce homelessness. For instance, 60 new tiny homes are now ready for move-in at the Grove at Correll Commons. These fully furnished units are built and maintained by Hand in Hand of Glynn as permanent housing solutions for Glynn county’s unhoused citizens. The Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. has a goal to create or preserve 5,600 units of affordable and workforce housing by 2030. As of June of this year, they have achieved 3,177 affordable units through partnerships, affordable housing dashboards, and renters resources. Other methods of prevention have also been successful in the state. The Georgia Legal Services Program offers eviction prevention services outside of metro Atlanta and has served thousands of Georgians facing homelessness. Rapid rehousing programs have been largely successful in the state as well.

As for The Well, they are a piece of the puzzle required to secure the root cause of income insecurity by offering a way for those who are unhoused to eat, get laundry done, secure personal documents, and look for work and housing as a means of exiting homelessness. Closure is not the only solution to the concerns “downtowners” have expressed.

The problem is real. The city’s remedy may help but only in the short term, at best. If we really want to fix this problem, it will take collaboration between local government agencies, nonprofits, and the private sector that create solutions that address the needs of our homeless community.

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.

U.S. Economy Cruising Despite Interest Rate Hikes

Written by Don Mathews on August 16, 2023. Posted in Don Mathews, Reg Murphy.

An extraordinary economic performance is going all but unnoticed. Consider the U.S. economy over the past 19 months.

In January 2022, the economy was behaving strangely.

The labor market recovery from the pandemic showed no signs of letting up. While workers continued to return to the labor force at a brisk clip, employment continued to grow at an even brisker clip. The unemployment rate was down to 4.0 percent.

Yet production was falling. Real GDP fell at an annualized rate of 1.6 percent in the first quarter of 2022.

More problematic was inflation. In January 2021, inflation, as measured by the consumer price index, ran at a slow and easy 1.4 percent annual rate. By January 2022, it was running fast and hot at 7.6 percent.

In February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. In March, China imposed the most drastic of its pandemic lockdowns.

Something else happened in March 2022. The Federal Reserve started tightening.

As we all recall, the economy tanked in the initial months of the pandemic. The prospect of a pandemic-severe recession tandem prompted the Fed to move, with great urgency, to boost the economy. It did so the only way it can: it pumped money into the economy. It did so, aggressively and persistently, through the rest of 2020 and all of 2021. Other central banks around the world did much the same.

The aggressive monetary policy succeeded in preventing a severe recession. The price of that success was inflation. Inflation is ultimately a monetary phenomenon. Pump gobs of money into an economy month after month for twenty months is as surefire a recipe for inflation as there is.

The only way to reduce inflation is to do the opposite of what causes inflation. So, in March 2022, the Fed began attacking the inflation caused by its persistently aggressive expansionary policy with persistently aggressive contractionary policy.

Fed policy manifests itself in two obscure but key interest rates: the IORB (interest on reserve balances) rate and the fed funds rate. The Fed tightens by pushing the two rates up. The more it tightens, the higher they go.

Since March 16, 2022, the Fed has pushed the IORB rate up from 0.15 percent to 5.4 percent, and the fed funds rate range up from 0.0-0.25 percent to 5.25-5.5 percent. That is full-throttle contractionary policy.

And how has the U.S. economy performed since March 2022?

Since slipping by 0.6 percent (annualized) in the second quarter of 2022, real GDP has increased in each of the last four quarters. The increases have been solid, ranging from 2 percent to 3.2 percent.

Contributing to the real GDP growth of the last three quarters is a surge in private investment – meaning construction – in manufacturing, technology and green energy facilities.

The U.S. labor force has increased by 2.8 million, employment has increased by 2.9 million, and the unemployment rate has fallen from 3.6 percent to 3.5 percent.

Even more impressive – and more telling – are the labor force participation rates for people age 25 to 54 years. The participation rate for all 25 to 54-year-olds is now 83.5 percent, the highest level since May 2002. The participation rate for 25 to 54-year-old men is now 89.4 percent, the highest level since January 2020.

The labor force participation rate for 25 to 54-year-old women exceeded 77 percent for the first time ever this past February. It has remained above 77 percent every month since.

Inflation, which peaked at 8.9 percent in June 2022, is now 3.3 percent.

Such a stellar performance in the teeth of such tight monetary policy is extraordinary.

Archives: Reg Murphy Pubs