Skip to main content

Bought and Paid For – and Scared

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Government, News Media. No Comments on Bought and Paid For – and Scared

I open with a tip of my hat to Andrew Coyne, whose op-ed piece in the Oct 4 Globe, titled ‘Nice little news network you got there. Pity if anything should happen to it’ inspired this post. [I will add – that’s a good headline for the article, not something I say often.]

A word about Coyne. I have been reading him since he was The National Post’s token liberal commentator, and continue to do so now that he is the Globe’s token conservative. I also watch him on CBC’s At Issue panel on Thursdays, but in truth I watch that mostly to hear what the redoubtable Chantal Hebert has to say about Canadian politics. Chantal is awesome.

Andrew has a few things that he write about regularly, from which I infer they matter to him a lot. Here are three of them, which I’m bothering to list here because they matter to me, also.

  1. First-past-the-post (otherwise known as plurality rule) electoral systems, as are used in Canada, England and in US congressional elections, are bad, and should be replaced by proportional representation systems.
  2. Much of what is wrong with current Canadian politics and governments arises because it is now necessary to have the approval of the Party leader to be nominated to run in any riding as the candidate for that Party.
  3. It was wrong and will lead to a diminishment of Canadian democracy for the federal government to set up a system for subsidizing (selected) news media outlets.

Full disclosure – I disagree completely with Mr Coyne about issue 1, but agree with him almost entirely with regard to issues 2 and 3. I am going to say nothing here about 1, it is a complex subject, one I spent a good bit of my professional career thinking and teaching about. Someday I may write a long post or three about it, but not now.

I agree with Coyne about 2, and I will at this point say only this about it. If you wonder why MPs from the Liberal Party of Canada did not long ago force their highly unpopular PM and party leader to step down, you have only to note issue 2. Those MPs rely on the leader of the party to sign off on their nomination have even the chance to run for office in their riding in the next election. They are not about to piss JT off. I say no more at this point, even though there is much more to be said.

On to 3, the topic of this post. To his credit, from the moment the idea of having ‘approved’ news media organizations receive financial subsidies from the federal government was suggested, Coyne has written piece after piece saying ‘this is a terrible idea’. The press cannot, must not, be seen to be in the debt of the federal government if they are to play their role of holding government ministers and bureaucrats accountable for their decisions. Full Stop.

That argument is unassailably correct, as far as I am concerned, but of course those subsidies are now in place anyway. The first big problem with this system is  – which orgs get such a subsidy and how much does each get? That the CBC gets a subsidy in the current regime, on top of the more than $1Billion they get directly from taxpayers, should tell you immediately that the subsidy-receivers are going to be tilted toward BIG establishment news outlets. According to CTV news (a CBC competitor, to be sure), CBC got $1.4B in the most recent federal budget, an increase of about $90million from the year before. How much of this is the ongoing subsidy they receive every year and how much is from this new, broader subsidy regime, is not clear.

Coyne’s Oct 10 piece above simply points out two more emerging consequences of the existence of this subsidy regime. One is Pierre Poilevre’s recent attack on CTV News, forbidding Conservative MPs from speaking to reporters from that org, in response to two CTV employees splicing together some video of Poilevre so as to make him seem to say something he did not actually say.

I agree with Coyne that what those CTV employees did was flat out wrong, but Coyne’s point is that CTV was over-the-top apologetic about it, issuing two separate apologies, firing the two employees, and that CTV did that – in Coyne’s view – because they know they have pissed off a likely future PM, who is going to soon be in a position to influence their subsidy.

The larger point is: how can news org’s claim to be ‘independent watchdogs’ of the government  of the day – you know, the vaunted ‘fourth estate’ – while receiving a subsidy from that government? Coyne goes on to say that political abuse of the system is already a bi-partisan matter, citing a tweet on X in which a Liberal MP says to a National Post reporter “Your paper wouldn’t be in business were it not for the subsidies that the government that you hate put in place – the same subsidies your Trump – adjacent foreign hedge fund owners gladly take to pay your salary.”

In other words – ‘what are you doing criticizing my party, you ungrateful cur. You would not have a job without the subsidies my Liberal-party-led government pays you’.

This is a terrible situation news orgs have put themselves in, and it’s only going to get worse. The Conservatives have for decades been unhappy with what they see as a CBC that is Liberal-sympathetic and antagonistic to them. I think the Conservatives are not wrong about that bias, but the point is that they will find a way to reduce its subsidy if they form a majority government. I will not be terribly unhappy if they do, but that is not the point – one must ask, will every change in government now result in a list of previous subsidy recipients being taken off the news media gravy train and replaced by others? Is that the kind of ‘free press’ Canadians want?

Coyne is right, government subsidized journalism is a terrible idea. That implies that the CBC was a terrible idea before this added subsidy regime was born, but widening the subsidies to take in more organizations makes a bad idea worse. A press that relies on government subsidies to stay in business is not, in any relevant sense, a free press.

I understand that the claimed reason for this is the inarguable fact that the news business is in bad financial shape. Few media orgs are able to make any profit in our brave new internet world, and almost no local news orgs can do so. Local radio stations and newspapers and even TV stations are closing their doors on a regular basis. However, Coyne’s concern – which I share – is that this subsidy regime represents a cure that is worse than the disease that spawned it. A better way to support local news media needs to be found.

Bought and Paid For           

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Government, News Media. No Comments on Bought and Paid For           

I open with a tip of my hat to Andrew Coyne, whose op-ed piece in the Oct 4 Globe, titled ‘Nice little news network you got there. Pity if anything should happen to it’ inspired this post.

A word about Coyne. I have been reading him since he was The National Post’s token liberal commentator, and continue to do so now that he is the Globe’s token conservative. I also watch him on CBC’s At Issue panel on Thursdays, but in truth I watch that mostly to hear what the redoubtable Chantal Hebert has to say.

Mr. Coyne has a few things that he write about regularly, from which I infer they matter to him a lot. Here are three of them, which I list because they matter to me, also.

  1. First-past-the-post (otherwise known as plurality rule) electoral systems, as are used in Canada, England and in US congressional elections, are bad, and should be replaced by proportional representation systems.
  2. Much of what is wrong with Canadian politics arises from the fact that it is now necessary to have the approval of the Party leader to be nominated to run in any riding as the candidate for that Party.
  3. It was wrong and will lead to a diminishment of Canadian democracy for the federal government to set up a system for subsidizing (selected) news media outlets.

So – I disagree completely with Mr Coyne about issue 1, but agree with him almost entirely with regard to issues 2 and 3. I am going to say nothing here about 1, it is a complex subject, one I spent a good bit of my professional career thinking and teaching about. Someday I may write a long post or three about it, but not now.

I agree with Coyne about 2, and I will at this point say only this about it. If you wonder why MPs from the Liberal Party of Canada did not long ago force their highly unpopular PM and party leader to step down, you have only to note issue 2. Those MPs rely on the leader of the party to have even the chance to run for office in their riding in the next election; thus, they are not going to do anything to irritate said party leader. I say no more at this point, even though there is much more to be said.

On to 3, the topic of this post. To his credit, from the moment the idea of having ‘approved’ news media organizations receive financial subsidies from the federal government was suggested, Coyne has written piece after piece saying it is a terrible idea. The press cannot, must not, be seen to be in the debt of the federal government if they are to play their role of holding government ministers and bureaucrats accountable for their decisions, if they are to ask those people difficult questions. Full Stop.

That argument is unassailably correct, as far as I am concerned, but of course those subsidies are now in place anyway. The first big problem with this system is  – which orgs get such a subsidy and how much does each get? That the CBC gets a subsidy in the current regime, on top of the more than $1Billion they get directly from taxpayers, should tell you immediately that the subsidy-receivers are going to be tilted toward BIG establishment news outlets. According to CTV news (a CBC competitor), CBC got a budget of $1.4B in the most recent federal budget, an increase of about $90million from the year before. How much of this is the ongoing subsidy they receive every year and how much is from this new, broader subsidy regime, is not clear.

Coyne’s Oct 10 piece above simply points out two more emerging consequences of the existence of this subsidy regime. One is Pierre Poilevre’s recent attack on CTV News, forbidding Conservative MPs from speaking to reporters from that org, in response to two CTV employees splicing together some video of Poilevre so as to make him seem to say something he did not actually say.

I agree with Coyne that what those employees did was flat out wrong, but Coyne’s point is that CTV was over-the-top apologetic about it, issuing two separate apologies, firing the two employees, and that – in Coyne’s view – is because they know they have pissed off a likely future PM, who is going to soon be in a position to influence their subsidy.

The larger point is: how can news org’s claim to be ‘independent watchdogs’ of the government  of the day – you know, the vaunted ‘fourth estate’ – while receiving a subsidy from that government? Coyne goes on to say that political abuse of the system is already a bi-partisan matter, citing a tweet on X in which a Liberal MP says to a National Post reporter “Your paper wouldn’t be in business were it not for the subsidies that the government that you hate put in place – the same subsidies your Trump – adjacent foreign hedge fund owners gladly take to pay your salary.”

In other words – ‘what are you doing criticizing my party, you ungrateful cur. You would not have a job without the subsidies my Liberal-party-led government pays you’.

This is a terrible situation news orgs have put themselves in, and it’s only going to get worse. The Conservatives have for decades been unhappy with what they see as a BBC that is Liberal-sympathetic antagonistic to them. I think the Conservatives are not wrong about that bias, but the point is that they will find a way to reduce its subsidy if they form a majority government. I will not be terribly unhappy if they do, but that is not the point – will every change in government now result in a list of previous subsidy recipients being taken off the gravy train and replaced by others? Is that the kind of ‘free press’ Canadians want?

Coyne is right, government subsidized journalism is a terrible idea. That implies that the CBC was a terrible idea before this added subsidy regime was born, but widening the subsidies to take in more organizations makes a bad idea worse. A press that relies on government subsidies to stay in business is not, in any relevant sense, a free press.

I understand that the claimed reason for this is the inarguable fact that the news business is in bad financial shape. Few media orgs are able to make any profit in our brave new internet world, and almost no local news orgs can do so. Local radio stations and newspapers and even TV stations are closing their doors on a regular basis. However, Coyne’s concern – which I share – is that this subsidy regime represents a cure that is worse than the disease that spawned it.

Occasional Dining Review #2 – The Mockingbird Cocktail Bar and Lounge

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Dining out, London. No Comments on Occasional Dining Review #2 – The Mockingbird Cocktail Bar and Lounge

For a second time since I started this blog, my intrepid Dynamic Dining group (only three of us, actually – the three most intrepid) went out to a new place for dinner of an evening, and I was so impressed by it that I feel the urge to write a post about it.

The establishment in question is called The Mockingbird Cocktail Bar and Lounge, located at 760 Dundas, and yes, that’s East of Adelaide. It’s been in business for at least a couple of years. In fact, another friend and I went to try it out some while back, but it was in a smaller space then. Having recently expanded into a vacated area in front of it, it now can hold a fair number of patrons – I would guess 40 or so, but that is only a guess.

This place is all about cocktails, the staff we talked to looove to make and talk about cocktails. Each of us had one that we thought was just excellent (ok, I had two, both very good). The great thing is that we just told the bartender what kind of cocktails we generally drink, and they suggested something we might like, and in each case they shot and they scored.

As to food, the menu is not extensive, but they do a great job on what they prepare. I had a meat-lovers pizza that was so good I ate the entire thing. My two dining companions each ordered the prosciutto grilled cheese sandwich, and they each raved about it, and finished them, also. (Ok, M gave me a taste of hers, it was indeed very good….).

It’s a funky little space, the interior doesn’t look like any other dining room in London, and we Diners think that is a very good thing. Really, though the best thing about the place was the staff. They were so intent on making sure we enjoyed ourselves, and so keen to talk about their passion, it was just a pleasure to be there.

Some other notes about the place. It is not, to be frank, in a good location. It is not far from the Ark Aid Mission on Dundas, and that place is simply scary to walk past, with people sprawled out on the sidewalk out front, some out of it, some in the process of injecting themselves or one another. I note a story on today’s (Oct 1) CBC-London website saying the general manager of the Old East Village Business Improvement Area is protesting Ark Aid getting another big pile of money from the city. Good for him, he is doing this on behalf of the business owners he represents in OEV, no doubt including Mockingbird, and they have every reason to be upset at what goes on in front of that organization. I do not buy the idea that those people cannot be made to stop doing drugs in front of the establishment. That is not helping them at all, and it is hard on local residents and businesses to have this going on constantly in their neighborhood. You know you would be deeply upset if this shit was happening down the street from your home or business. It is simply wrong. Here’s the first sentence from the CBC article:

“The head of London’s Old East Village (OEV) business district is pushing back against one of [sic] city’s largest shelter’s request for additional year-round funding as open drug use, garbage on the streets and crime is pushing customers away.”

However, you should not let this sad fact about our city deter you from being a patron of Mockingbird. It certainly will not deter us from going back. First, to not go there because of what those people are being allowed to do on Dundas Street (and elsewhere) is to let the clueless assholes who run London win, and we should not allow that. Second, the Mockingbird has plenty of good parking out back, as we discovered, so you can park there, or in a municipal lot that is practically next door, and in either case avoid having to walk through the tragedy that occurs daily out on Dundas street in front of Ark Aid.

The other thing to note about Mockingbird is that we arrived about 6pm, and were the only patrons. Other customers arrived later, and I say with pride that we were the entire time the oldest (but most intrepid) customers in the place. It’s how we Diners roll, but it became clear that folks tend to arrive late at The Mockingbird. Indeed, as we were getting ready to leave, a young woman with an electric guitar was setting up to provide some musical entertainment to the young(er) crowd that was now gathering. She said she played mostly her own compositions, and good for her. We did not leave because of that, we had just had our fill by then, and plan to go back later some night to have a listen. I applaud any restaurant or bar that is willing to give space and time to live music – good for the Mockingbird.

In summary, we had a great time at the Mockingbird, it opens at 6pm every night but Monday, is located at 760 Dundas Street, on the corner of English Street, and you can check it out here https://www.themockingbird.ca/. If cocktails and a passionate, attentive staff are your thing, you’ll have a great time.

It is now on the list of Dynamic Diners recommended venues; I can pay it no higher compliment, folks.

I Couldn’t Not Write About This

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Standards. No Comments on I Couldn’t Not Write About This

By now I’m sure you have all seen headlines or read something about this on a newsfeed, but I’ll paste in here the first paragraph of the story that was in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday afternoon, Sept 17.

BEIRUT—Pagers carried by thousands of Hezbollah operatives exploded at about the same time Tuesday afternoon in what appeared to be an unprecedented attack that authorities said injured more than 2,700 and killed eight across Lebanon.

Pagers. Exploding pagers, and not a few of them, more than 2,700 of them, exploding simultaneously. This is James Bond stuff, no, it’s not really, Ian Fleming would not have tried to sell such an outrageous idea as plausible, and even in the 007 movies, this would be a stretch. It’s more like Maxwell Smart stuff, except that in Smart’s case the pagers wouldn’t explode and the remote control that was supposed to detonate them all would blow up in Smart’s face, and 99 would have to rescue poor Max from his own folly.

How the hell does one pull this off? How does one get exploding pagers into the hands – or, I suppose, onto the belts – of 2800 of your enemies and then set them off? And, if eight people were killed by these things, they are not just devices that go bang, they are potentially lethal.

Hezbollah immediately blamed Israel, and of course they would, because 1) Israel and Hezbollah are long-time enemies, and 2) there is no other organization or state on the planet who anyone  could imagine being capable of pulling this off. The CIA, MI6, Canada’s CSIS – not a chance, especially that last one, and the CIA repeatedly failed to assassinate just one Caribbean dictator.  Supposedly with an exploding cigar, as I recall. Russia’s FSB might be good at basic murder, poison umbrella tips to kill one man, but not something as complex and audacious as this. I don’t know much about China’s Ministry of State Security, I suspect no one does, and while they may have the technical chops for this, you still have to put your money on Mossad.

Later, like the next day, radios and walkie-talkies started blowing up, even more lethally. One can easily imagine Hezbollah operatives having the fridges and washing machines removed from their homes.

Sorry, I have nothing intelligent or insightful to say about this other than – you really don’t want Israel as an enemy.

 

Union Postures, CBC Reports It – Updated

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Education, LBOs, News Media, Safety. No Comments on Union Postures, CBC Reports It – Updated

[Note: I posted this first on Sept 26, after which another article (read it here) about this appeared on the CBC website. This caused me to update/amend various bits of the post on Sept 28, which you will see below. ]

A union, any union, is just another LBO, and so those in charge do what those in charge of any LBO do – stop behaving like sensible human beings. They become organization people, whose primary mission is the maintenance of the LBO and hence, of course, their own positions.

The faculty at The University of Western Ontario are ‘represented’ by UWOFA, a local union not directly affiliated with the Teamsters or CUPE or any other national labour organization, as are some unions at Western. I think it is affiliated with CAUT, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, and I think some of one’s union dues to UWOFA get shoveled up to CAUT. This faculty unionization at Western happened in the oughts, I voted against it back then, but having seen it happen anyway, was sure that it meant the end of good working conditions at Western. In fact, it took awhile for that expected deterioration in things to happen, in large part because there were enough reasonable faculty (including a couple of my Econ Dept colleagues) who were willing to serve in important union positions (like negotiating and salary committees) to keep things from going entirely off the rails immediately.

All those reasonable folks eventually got old and retired, like me, so the Union was becoming more and more unreasonable by the time I retired. A story on the Sept 26 CBC-London website (read it here) makes it clear that UWOFA has moved into full LBO posturing mode.

If you didn’t already know, CUPE local 2361, which includes caretakers, groundskeepers and many other folks tasked with keeping UWO running, walked off the job on Aug. 30 after contract negotiations with the university broke down.  They remain on strike as I write this.

The Sept 26 story headline and sub-headline from CBC was as follows:

Western faculty flag ‘critical safety violations’ amid strike, launches complaint to province

Infractions include: Eyewash stations, safety equipment not being tested and asbestos found in old buildings

If you had read this CBC story early enough, the first thing you would have seen was the photograph below, with the caption below that:

“Some students at Western University say they have seen full garbage and recycling bins on campus since facilities employees walked off the job on Aug. 30. It’s prompted the university’s faculty association to launch a complaint with the province. (Kendra Seguin/CBC)”

So, ‘some students’ have said they have seen full trash bins, but apparently the intrepid CBC reporting team, including photographer Seguin, couldn’t find a trash bin that was actually full, so they took and published the photo above. That doesn’t look staged at all, does it?

A picture is worth a thousand words – just maybe not the words intended.

If you wondered ever if the CBC thinks we’re all fools, their publishing that photo and caption perhaps provides some evidence. However, eventually someone must have pointed out to someone at the CBC that this photo and caption was rather  embarrassing, journalistically speaking, and it is no longer part of the story if you go read it now.

There are other photos, which I will get to in a minute.

The article’s sub-title raised some questions for me, as follows –

1.How do UWOFA people know that things have not been inspected or tested? Are they going around and checking? Interesting work for faculty to be doing, if so, but even if they are, how does a professor of Sociology know if a fire extinguisher or eyewash station has been inspected or tested?

2. Who ‘found’ this asbestos in old buildings? Are UWO faculty also going around buildings removing drywall and checking for asbestos? I mean, if there is asbestos in old buildings (and there certainly is in some, including the building in which I used to work) it has been there since the building was constructed. It all was certainly there before the CUPE strike, so just what does it have to do with said strike?

Well, as to 1, there are new photos in the story, taken apparently by UWOFA members, so yes, faculty really are spending their time on this – or UWOFA is paying someone else to take them, I suppose. Here’s one below, showing a station behind a glass case that holds a fire hose and fire extinguisher.

The point being that there are initials on the red sticker dated up to July, but not August or September. So what we can infer is that no one has come by and put their initials there. What does that certify? Well, that no one has come by to check that the equipment hasn’t disappeared. You don’t ‘test’ a fire extinguisher or fire hose, right? In the case of the extinguisher, that renders it useless, and in the case of the fire hose, it makes one hell of a mess.

Here’s another photo from the new and improved CBC story:

Well, someone wearing jeans and sneakers is apparently putting a new plastic liner in a plastic garbage can. I don’t know how UWO faculty can possibly concentrate on their work knowing such things are going on, possibly in the same building in which they are working.

But wait, there’s more –

So, there is indeed an eye wash and safety shower which may have not been tested since the 16th of August. That doesn’t mean the station doesn’t work, of course, but no one has put an initial on that card since then.

[Amendment: The more recent CBC story includes the following statement from the UWO administration:

A spokesperson for the university said weekly checks of eyewash stations inside labs are the responsibility of lab staff, not CUPE 2361 employees. 

Thus, if indeed these stations are not being checked and tested, it has nothing to do with the CUPE strike. I wonder who UWOFA may have gotten into hot water over this photo?]

But wait, there’s still more. Another quote from the story:

The faculty union also said HVAC systems in student residences are malfunctioning and replacement workers aren’t wearing adequate personal protective equipment.

How does the faculty union know what is happening in student residences, and who among these dedicated faculty guardians of safety is aware of what ppe is required by workers in any particular situation?

Here are two clarifying quotes from UWOFA’s stalwart president:

“For a replacement worker, the difference between a sneaker and a safety shoe is very significant when a heavy or sharp object falls on their foot,” said UWOFA president Johanna Weststar.

Ah, of course, this is about UWOFA’s concern for the replacement workers.

She is further quoted –

“A malfunctioning eye wash station could mean blindness for faculty, staff or students who work with hazardous substances. Western works because CUPE workers do. We need them back now.”

It could, indeed. Here’s a crazy idea, but stay with me on this. Suppose UWOFA members who go into a room or lab in which there is an eye wash station or shower check to see if it is working before they begin their class or lab work. You know, turn it on, and see what happens. Now, I know that would be doing the work of a member of another union, a definite Solidarity No-No, but….it would prevent, you know, blindness from happening.

That crazy idea aside, this last quote does kinda indicate what is really going on – UWOFA is trying to put pressure on the Administration to settle with the striking CUPE members. More precisely, they are trying to get a provincial minstry to put pressure on UWO to settle. I have no doubt having CUPE on strike is a pain in the ass for faculty, but it is of course never going to happen that UWOFA tries to put pressure on the strikers themselves, or good ol’ CUPE, to settle. Solidarity, right?

So, this is posturing by UWOFA to try to get something they want – the Admin to settle with the CUPE workers. I am no friend of the UWO Admin, I think the place was and continues to be incredibly badly run, but I think UWOFA is just as badly run, and does not in any sense operate in the interests of most faculty members. It was a tossup in my last years working whether it was the Admin or UWOFA that did the most to make my working life unpleasant.

I will close with one last bit of the CBC story. Another quote attributed to UWOFA:

The faculty union said it’s “alarmed by the potential for asbestos exposure in older buildings, where water and steam leaks occur frequently and require special precautions that may not have been properly communicated to replacement contractors.”

Ah, so those ‘special precautions’ that are required ‘may not have been properly communicated to replacement contractors’. Indeed, they may not have been. Or, maybe they were, it doesn’t sound as though UWOFA actually knows, does it?

But, being fair to UWOFA, it is unlikely anyone within UWOFA actually claimed to have ‘found’ asbestos in old buildings. That wording at the beginning of the story is almost surely pure CBC, devoted as ever to accurate reporting.

[Amendment: The later CBC story includes this quote from the UWO Admin:

“There is no reason to suggest that asbestos-related hazards have increased during the current strike – and the University is not aware of any contracted employees exposed to any hazardous conditions,” said Ledgley.

As I wrote, asbestos has been known to be in some UWO buildings for years – this has nothing to do with the present CUPE strike.

Again from the UWO Admin, quoted by CBC:

“In the unusual circumstance that asbestos abatement work was necessary, it would be conducted by individuals properly trained in asbestos work with proper personal protective equipment and the worker would be monitored by Workplace Health.”]

I suspect none of this posturing by UWOFA’s leaders is going to have an impact on the Provincial Ministry of Labour, and thus on the duration of the strike, but I suppose one shouldn’t blame an LBO for trying.

[Amendment: I was just wrong on this. The more recent CBC story includes this:

The ministry told CBC News on Thursday that it received two health and safety complaints from the university on Sept. 24, and has assigned an inspector to investigate.

“The ministry prioritizes worker health and safety, enforcing the Occupational Health and Safety Act to ensure compliance. While the investigation is in progress, we cannot provide further details,” a spokesperson told CBC News in an email.

The ministry is indeed investigating. I look forward to what happens next, and whether this has any impact on the duration of the strike. I suppose I should say ‘Well played, UWOFA’, but I’ll wait to see what actually comes of all this.]

 

 

 

A Tip of My Hat to Jagmeet Singh

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Government, Language, Standards. 1 Comment on A Tip of My Hat to Jagmeet Singh

Canadians will know that Jagmeet Singh is the leader of the Federal New Democratic Party, and they can probably guess that I have nothing good to say about any of the policies espoused by him or his party.

However, I want to here and now give him a public tip of my hat for something I saw him do in a video on the CBC website, which you can also view here (you’ll have to scroll to the bottom of the page for the ‘Featured Videos’, and I don’t know how long it will stay posted).

Singh is walking near Parliament with a staffer when two dudes come up behind him, filming him with their phones, and Dude 1 says out loud ‘Would you vote a non-confidence today if it came up?”

Singh ignores him and keeps walking.

Then Dude 1 can easily be heard to say “Corrupted bastard.”

At that Singh turns around and walks back toward Dude 1, saying “Wanna say something?”

Dude 1: “What?”

Singh: “Wanna say something to me?”

Dude 1: “I didn’t say nothing.”

And it goes on like that, with Dude 1, in the manner of confronted cowards everywhere, denying that he said anything, while his buddy, Dude 2, continues to film.

Security officers were right there the whole time, but I here tip my hat to Mr Singh for turning around and calling out the asshole who was only willing to insult him while Singh’s back was turned. Bravo, Mr Singh. Had Singh smacked the guy up side the head, no jury of real people would convict him of anything. The asshole asked for it.

 

No, a Canadian Federal Election is Not Imminent

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Government, News Media. No Comments on No, a Canadian Federal Election is Not Imminent

I was going to title this post ‘Arithmetic Matters’.

Canadian politics has actually become somewhat interesting of late, which is saying something, given that Canadians – and Canadian media – generally pay more attention to US politics than to the domestic variety. However, Jagmeet Singh’s recent decision to renege on the NDP’s Supply and Confidence agreement with Trudeau’s Liberals, plus the occurrence of two by-elections on Monday, September 16 has given the chattering classes in Canada something domestic to write about.

In that vein, John Ibbitson has an op-ed in the Sept 17 Globe (read it here) with the headline With the Liberals Losing Once Safe Seats, an Election Can’t be Far Off and that title pretty much says what is the point of the column. The Liberals have indeed now lost safe seats in both Toronto and Montreal in recent months, and the NDP yesterday hung on – barely – to a once-safe seat in Winnipeg. Ibbitson thus predicts an imminent dissolution of the House of Commons and election.

Ibbitson is just wrong about this. Two facts say that is so. One, the Liberals need only one of the Bloc, The Conservatives or the NDP to support any legislation in Parliament that is a matter of confidence, to prevent the dissolution of the House. Just one.

Two, if you look at the website 338 Canada and take into account all you like the fickleness and inexactitude of polling in the 21st century, you are still left with the following numbers.

Current stated support for the major parties is as follows:

Liberals 24%

Conservatives 43%

NDP 16%

Bloc 8%

Because of the way support for these parties is distributed around the country (a key matter for the Bloc in particular), 338Canada projects that if an election were called today, the parties would win seats in the following ranges (current seats held are in () )–

Liberals 49-95 (154)

Conservatives 189-240 (119)

NDP 9-25 (25)

Bloc 31-44 (33)

Thus, even in the best possible scenario, the NDP will find itself in third place in number of seats held in a Conservative majority government, and very possibly a distant fourth, after an election held right now.

I’m sorry, Mr. Ibbitson, but while the Bloc and Conservatives might happily bring down the government tomorrow if given the chance, the Liberals need only the NDP to keep that from happening, and the NDP can read the 338Canada website, too, and so has no reason to want an immediate election, their close win in Winnipeg notwithstanding.

Happy to bet Mr. Ibbitson – or anyone else – a cold beer on this: No Canadian federal election in 2024. You read it here first, folks. Ok, maybe not first……

Two Harris-Trump Debate Related Posts

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Government, News Media. 2 Comments on Two Harris-Trump Debate Related Posts

These two articles both arose from that damnable US Presidential debate, which, against my better judgement, I did watch for the first half-hour.  I have nothing useful to add to the gazillion words that have been written about the debate itself, other than to say that I switched back to watching a baseball game after 30 minutes because I was getting depressed.

Other than arising from that one event, these posts have nothing in common.

I. The BBC and the Election

The BBC website for the US and Canada is one I check regularly, despite my belief that the BBC, once among the most reliable and fact-oriented of all news-reporting institutions, is now no better than any other, and worse than some.

On Sept 12, I found the following story posted on the US and Canada BBC News website.

What the world thought of US debate

The first showdown between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump was closely watched not only in the US but around the world.

The debate in Philadelphia featured some tense exchanges on foreign policy between the two presidential candidates.

From Beijing to Budapest, here’s how the debate went down, according to BBC foreign correspondents.

…..

What then follows are brief segments from BBC reporters stationed around the world, purporting to reveal reactions to the debate from people in the countries/regions where they are stationed. In fact, there is almost nothing, beyond one cryptic quote from Ukrainian president Zelensky and two sentences from two media outlets in Hungary, that tells you what anyone around the world, be they leader, media organization or citizen, thought of the debate. It is all what the BBC correspondents think such people thought of the debate, which makes it not reporting but yet another opportunity for said correspondents to write what they wish. Not a fact to be seen anywhere. Gathering facts, going out and interviewing foreign individuals or leaders, that takes effort, and resources, and that clearly didn’t happen. So, the piece offers the reader no reporting or news-gathering, just more reporters saying things.

More sadly, one part of the piece is much worse than that, as one correspondent takes a dip into conspiracy theory. Here is one entire section of this report, nominally about the Middle East.

White House race keenly watched in Middle East

By Paul Adams, international correspondent, Jerusalem

The two candidates did not stray much from their previously stated positions last night, even if Trump did add, with characteristic hyperbole, that Israel wouldn’t exist in two years if his opponent becomes president.

Here in the Middle East, the race for the White House is being keenly watched.

With the war in Gaza raging and a ceasefire deal still elusive, some of Benjamin Netanyahu’s critics suspect that Israel’s prime minister is deliberately stalling until after the election, in the hope that Trump will be more sympathetic to Israel than Harris.

There’s a whiff of history perhaps being about to repeat itself.

In 1980, Ronald Reagan’s campaign team was suspected of urging Iran not to release American hostages held in Tehran until after he had beaten President Jimmy Carter, saying Reagan would give Iran a better deal.

Could something similar be afoot now? Certainly Netanyahu’s opponents believe he is now the chief obstacle to a ceasefire deal.

That’s Mr. Adams entire contribution, and all I can say is – Oh, my god. As I wrote, he talked to no one, quotes no one who live in the Middle East, but then – A whiff of history? The BBC’s intrepid correspondent in Jerusalem tells readers nothing about what anyone in the Middle East actually said about the debate, and then does not mention that this suspicion (he does at least use that word) about the Reagan campaign’s interactions with the Iranian government in 1980 was investigated by two separate US Congressional committees, who found no credible evidence of its truth. Indeed, the Chairman of the House task force, a bloody Democrat, went to the trouble of publishing an editorial in the NYTimes in 1993, shortly after his investigative committee published its findings, saying there was no credible evidence to support the claims of Reagan campaign efforts to delay the hostage release, and most of the people who testified that it had occurred could not be believed. No mention of any of that in the BBC story. You can actually read the report of the Congressional Task Force here – all 998 pages of it. Yea, I know, not likely – I’m betting Mr. Adams hasn’t read it, either, but there’s no need to if your only intent is to find another bad thing to attach to Netanyahu, if only by implication.

As I said, how the mighty have fallen. A BBC correspondent reviving what can only be seen as a (rather old) conspiracy theory, in the guise of reporting on an ongoing US presidential campaign.

II. The Debate’s Impact on Two Prediction Markets

I got this idea from a blog I follow by Rajiv Sethi, called Imperfect Information. He is very interested in prediction markets, and this post is about how two such markets reacted after the debate. If you want to read his (more techy and detailed) take on this, it’s freely available here.

For those who don’t know, a prediction market refers to a platform on which you can buy a ‘share’ in the outcome of some future event. In this case, you can either buy a share that Kamala Harris will be elected president, or buy a share that Donald Trump will be elected president. This is really placing a bet, because what buying a share in, say, Kamala Harris gets you is a payment of a dollar if Harris wins, and nothing if she loses. The terms of that bet then depend on what you paid for that share. In the graph below, which I reproduced from Sethi’s blog post, the prices at which one could buy a Harris share on two different prediction markets is displayed, during the hours just before and just after the debate.

Note that on PredictIt a Harris share was priced at 50cents four hours

before the debate. That means that betting on Harris by buying a share was an even bet; you pay 50cents and get a dollar back if she wins and lose your 50cents if she loses. Someone who thinks she has better than an even chance at winning might therefore buy a share, and someone who thinks she is more likely to lose would not. On the Polymarket site, a Harris share cost only 47cents four hours before, so that would be a good bet perhaps even for someone who thought she had only a 49% chance of winning. [It’s actually a bit more complicated than this, as Sethi explains in his long post, because Harris and Trump contracts are traded separately. What I write above is close enough for a basic understanding of these markets.]

As you can easily see, the price of a Harris contract jumped on both markets right after the debate, even though they continued to be different.

Sethi’s post delves into how these two sites can offer different prices on a Harris contract at the same moment in time, and the possibilities of making money by betting on both markets when this is true. I am writing about it here just to note that both markets saw the price of a Harris share (contract) jump immediately after the debate, reflecting the fact that people trading on those markets in general thought her chances of winning went up, and this was reflected immediately in the price of a Harris share. It would also be reflected in a drop in the price of Trump shares, which are not depicted here.

This contrasts with the fact that so far, none of the opinion polls that have updated since the debate, so far as I know, have seen any change in the ‘intend to vote for’ numbers for the two candidates. This is a big difference in how prediction markets and polls, both of which can be said to ‘predict’ the electoral outcome, operate. Markets are always open, so right after the debate, or even while it was ongoing, people can go and buy and sell shares if they think what is happening has changed the probability of a Harris win. Polls have to wait until a new survey is done and compiled before they can reflect the effect of an event like the debate.

However, along with the fact that markets react more quickly to events than do polls, there is the fact that they can offer different predictions. As I say, no poll of which I am aware thinks the debate changed either candidate’s support, whereas the two markets above reflect considerable movement. I admit I don’t know what has happened since the time frame depicted on the graph, prices can change constantly on these markets.

Now, whether polls do a better job than markets in predicting outcomes is – so far as I can see – undecidable. With an event like this election, one candidate wins, and all either a poll or market tells us any time prior to that is a probability. If the market says the probability of a Harris win is 0.55 at some point in time, and Harris eventually loses, there is no verifiable sense in which the market was ‘wrong’. There was, after all, a probability of 0.45 that Harris would lose at that same point in time. Unless a poll or market states a probability is either 0 or 1, it cannot be wrong. One can of course just declare that if the prediction of something happening is greater than 0.5 and that something does not happen, then the prediction is ‘wrong’, but I think that is based on a misunderstanding of the concept of probability. Similarly, if a poll says Harris has a 50% chance of winning and at the same time a market says it is 55%, and she wins, does that mean the market prediction was ‘better’? One can declare that to be so, but again, it’s not clear to me what that really means, since both allowed that her losing was a legitimate possibility.

None the less, one can easily find people who will argue for the superiority of one over the other. Folks do like to argue.

Interestingly, it is very difficult to operate a prediction market devoted to the US Presidential election in the US itself. The SEC and other US regulators have come down hard on the ones that did exist (one of the first was built by economist George Neumann at the University of Iowa) as being unregulated trading platforms, which forced them to shut down or leave the US. PredictIt is based at The Victoria University of Wellington in Australia, and Polymarket operates on crypto currency only, and although it now seems to be operating legally in the US, it was fined $1.2million in 2022 by The Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Wikipedia (not my favourite source for credible info) claims over $700million has been wagered on the presidential election on Polymarket.

Speeding Rich People

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Government, Research. No Comments on Speeding Rich People

This post is about something interesting that I just read about in an academic paper (which you can also read here). It’s titled ‘How Do People React to Income-Based Fines? Evidence from Speeding Tickets Discontinuities’ and I know, ‘interesting’ and ‘academic paper’ are not supposed to show up in the same sentence…..

It turns out that in Finland, according to the author of this paper, the fine one pays if caught driving at more than 20km/h over the posted limit depends on your income. If your income is below a set cut-off, you pay a set fine, but if it is above that cut-off, then the size of the fine increases with your income. The paper includes the following sentence – ‘For example, in 2019, the Police assigned NHL ice hockey player Rasmus Ristolainen an income-based speeding ticket equal to approximately 120,000 euros.’

Ouch, eh? I do wonder if it was the police who set that fine or a magistrate, but either way, that’s a big speeding ticket.

One question to ask here is why Finland does that. The obvious – but still perhaps wrong – answer would be that Finland’s government operates under a pretty egalitarian ethic, which might be seen to imply that rich folks should pay more; for everything, including breaking the law. However, these economists are interested in this system not for that reason, but because a well-known theory of crime deterrence, due to now-dead economist Gary Becker, would predict that with this speeding fine structure, one should find that a lot of speeders are caught doing 19km/h or less over the limit. That is, if you bar-graphed the number of tickets given for being 1km/h, 2km/h……15km/h…..19km/h, 20km/h, 21km/h…..30km/h etc, over the limit, then the bars at 18 and 19 should be noticeably higher than the other bars. Put simply, no one wants to get dinged for doing 20 or 21 over when one could incur a much smaller fine by slowing down just a little.

Unfortunately for Becker, not that he cares now, this does not turn out to be the case, according to these researchers. One might instantly say that maybe that’s because most speeders have incomes below that cut-off, and hence don’t face that steep increase in fine if they do 20km/h+ over, but in fact these guys have really good data, including about the speeders’ incomes, so they can tell that the bunching does not happen even among drivers with incomes above the cut-off.

What they do find is that the higher income drivers who get pinched with the higher fine tend to slow down afterwards. Quoting from the paper:

“Those assigned, on average, a 200 euro larger fine are approximately 2-3 percentage points less likely to commit another traffic crime in the following 4-8 months. Compared to the average speeding behavior of the speeders who receive a smaller fixed fine, this estimate implies a 15-20 percent reduction in recidivism.”

I should stress that this is a research paper that has not yet been peer-reviewed, and I am not about to vouch for how well the statistical and data work was done.

I will, however, suggest that the Becker prediction of bunching would not be expected to hold in this instance – at least not by me – given that those who pay the higher fines are, by definition, folks with higher incomes, who therefore might be expected to be willing to pay higher fines. It is basic to economic theory that people with higher incomes have – other things being equal – a higher willingness to pay for most things, including driving fast. Indeed, one might expect that higher-income people put a higher value on their own time, which they can ‘save’ by driving fast. The author does not seem to consider this, as his behavioral model assumes that drivers may value speeding differently, but that any differences are purely idiosyncratic, and so not related to their income.

In fact, it occurs to me that all this really has nothing to do with the fines in Finland being based on income for richer folks, although that is what originally caught my eye. What Becker’s theory says is that people react to an increased fine by being less likely to speed. Since the fines for going above 20km/h over the limits are higher than for going less fast than that, people will go 19km/h over rather than 20 or 21. It doesn’t really matter that the amount of the fine is based on income, what matters is that it goes up at the 20km/h threshold.

Given that,  one could do a cleaner test of Becker’s theory in Ontario, where speeding fines are as follows:

Less than 20 km/h over: $3.00 per km/h over .

20 to less than 30 km/h over: $4.50 per km/h over.

30 to less than 50 km/h over: $7.00 km/h over.

Above 50km/h over: $9.75 per kh/h over.

(One also gets ‘demerit points’ added to one’s driving record for speeding. Those have consequences too, and the number of demerits you get depend on how fast you go – but the thresholds, for some reason, are different than for the fines. Go figure.)

Thus Ontario speeding fines depend on how fast you go, but not on your income, and there are three thresholds where the fines jump. Becker’s theory would predict bunching below 20, 30 and 50km/h over in response to this fine structure. And, doing more than 50km/h will get you charged with a second offense, ‘stunt driving’, which involves a whole additional set of penalties, including a fine of $2k to $10k (set by a judge, not your income, because if you go that fast, you have to go to court). Another reason for Becker’s theory to predict bunching under 50km/h.

Thus one could test Becker’s deterrence theory in Canada without any need for data on the incomes of the speeders. (You’d have to take into account the effect of the demerit point thresholds, too. Complicated.) Which would be good for anyone who set out to do this, because I’m pretty sure that, unlike in Finland, such data does not exist. The Finns (and the Danes, I think) seem to be happy with their government collecting all kinds of data on them, whether they speed or not. Canadians and Americans, not so much.

So far as I know, Becker’s theory has not generally done all that well when confronted with data about actual criminal behavior. A couple of economists did a review in 2014 of the empirical (that is, data-driven) research on criminal deterrence, and this is from the Abstract of the paper they wrote about what they found in their review (which you can download here):

“While there is considerable evidence that crime is responsive to police and to the existence of attractive legitimate labor market opportunities, there is far less evidence that crime responds to the severity of criminal sanctions.”

That response is central to Becker’s theory, and a theory that predicts behavior that does not seem to occur out in the world is what is known as a bad theory. That does not prevent it from being quite famous, however – among economists, at least.

 

Loose Ends and Random Bits

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Uncategorized. 2 Comments on Loose Ends and Random Bits

Since starting this blog, I find myself saving all kinds of things that I come across in my actual and virtual travels, storing them in my ‘blog material’ file, saying to myself ‘I bet I can use that in a future post’.

Herein a collection of such things which seem(ed) to me to be interesting or amusing and which have not been used in any previous posts.

* I walk about in my neighborhood a lot, and regularly walk past a yard that has this sign attached to the surrounding fence.

 * I was looking online for restaurants in a particular town and came upon this on a restaurant’s website:

 

 

 

* I did not keep a record of where I found this online, but…..

This just in –

Anthropologists have found what they believe to be Jimmy Buffett’s lost shaker of salt. It was declared missing in 1977, and some folks claim there’s a woman to blame.

 

* Here is an actual headline from a Wall Street Journal article of some while ago. I put it in my ‘can’t make this shit up’ file:

Migrants Entering U.S. Illegally Complain About Government’s Border App

 

* It does nothing good for one’s opinion of the human race to read the comments people write about articles in online newspapers like The Globe and Mail or The Wall Street Journal. Yet, sometimes I do….

This is from a comment on an article that Gary Mason of the Globe wrote about COP28, the UN climate change gathering that was held in Dubai 30 November to 13 December 2023:

By 2027, Thwaites (the “doomsday glacier”) will have buckled and the oceans will start rising by 2 to 9 feet. Coastal cities will drown. Millions of people will die or be displaced.

 

* Another piece of wisdom I picked up online, the provenance of which I did not record:

When seconds count, the government is only minutes away

 

* From one of my credit card bills –

At your current rates of interest, if you only make your Minimum Payment by its due date each month, it will take approximately 39 year(s) and 2 month(s) to repay the account balance shown on this statement.

 

* A headline from an article in Popular Mechanics (yea, that’s right….)

Humans Will Soon Go Extinct Unless We Can Find 5 More Earths

We’re basically in the days of the dinosaurs, according to Stanford scientists

 

* Finally, another one from my ‘can’t make this shit up’ file. This is a headline from an article in Vice:

Scientists Find Link Between Wolf Attacks and Far Right Politics

The reemergence of wolves to Germany “has been accompanied by electoral gains for far-right parties,” a new study reports

And that’s a wrap, until I accumulate another pile of these.

Municipal and Hospital Spending – At Your Service?

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Government, LBOs, London. No Comments on Municipal and Hospital Spending – At Your Service?

This article was triggered by my reading a story in the Aug 12 Freeps that had the following sub-headline:

Two city politicians want their colleagues to pull $3 million from municipal savings to slightly reduce the relatively large tax increases that will hit Londoners over the next three years

In the story itself one then finds the following:

“The new motion proposes pulling $1 million from a city reserve fund each year from 2025-27. This amount would cut next year’s property tax increase by 0.13 per cent (from 8.7 to below 8.6), which [Councillor] Pribil acknowledges isn’t much.”

No, Jerry – not much, but I know we ratepayers appreciate the gesture.

In case any of you Londoners haven’t been paying attention, the current and future property tax increases in the multi-year city budget are:

  • 2024: 8.7 per cent
  • 2025: 8.7 per cent
  • 2026: 5.7 per cent
  • 2027: 6.7 per cent

The two years at 8.7% represent greater increases than I can remember seeing in my 40+ years of living here. I do wonder how they arranged things so that the percentage increase in every year was x.7. Someone at City Hall believes in lucky 7?

However, we Londoners are not alone. A report from the Fraser Institute called Municipal Dollars in Ontario – Where did the Money Go?, dated April 2024, reports the following:

“Municipal budget season in Ontario recently ended and the evidence reveals some fairly substantial tax increases around the province. For example, Waterloo Region approved a property tax increase of 6.9 per cent while Toronto passed an increase of 9.5 per cent. Hamilton ultimately saw an increase of 5.8 per cent after fears of a double-digit tax increase were unveiled in the fall while Kingston saw one of the lower increases coming in at 3.5 per cent.”

Note that London’s 2024 increase came in second to only that of Toronto, at least in this group.

What I found most interesting in the report was the discussion of how the increased tax revenues are being spent. Again quoting from the report:

“So, pulling everything together, here’s the story that emerges. Municipal operating expenditures in Ontario over the period 2000 to 2022 have grown 2.5 times faster than general inflation and double that of population. They have also grown a bit faster than the province’s output.”

“The increase in spending is driven by spending on wages and salaries but not in the manner one might think. Average salaries in the municipal sector for those making more than $100,000 annually since 2000 have grown by only 8 per cent but the number of individuals making those salaries has grown in the thousands of per cent. Within the broader public sector, in 2000 municipal employees accounted for 6 per cent of individuals on the salary disclosure list whereas by 2022 they accounted for 23 per cent.”

So municipalities are not necessarily employing very many more people, as one might think they must to serve increasing populations, but rather they are paying the people they employ much better.

Now, to be fair, this could be because they are employing people with different sets of skills than they did in the past. More folks with university degrees or highly specialized (and highly remunerated) training. Another factor left out of the report is the extent to which Ontario municipalities have shifted from having services provided by city employees to having them provided by private firms that bid for the city contracts. To the extent this happens, it will reduce the number of city employees, and – I suspect – reduce most the number of relatively low-paid employees. A municipal sanitation division is going to employ a lot of low-wage workers and a few managers, so if you contract out garbage pickup to a private contractor, that takes a lot of low-wage jobs off the city books, but only a few better-paid managerial positions. The cost of the contract with the private provider then does not come under the heading of ‘employee compensation’, but rather ‘payments for goods and services’. I suspect that has happened a good bit over the last 20 years, but can’t find any data on it: the Fraser report is silent on this possibility.

If you’re wondering how much of municipal spending goes to employee compensation (and you know you are) the Fraser folks have the answer for you:

“The composition of major expenditures is revealing: 37% of operating expenses are in employee compensation, another 28% are from the purchase of goods and services to run municipal operations, and 20% are expenses associated with fixed capital-consumption costs.”

So, yea – employee wages are kinda driving the expenditure bus, but as noted above, not because municipalities are employing more people to serve you better; they’re just paying the people they employ better. Or, putting it another way, they’re just employing more people who are better-paid.

I’d guess that will not surprise anyone who has tried to get any kind of service out of London City Hall. So far as I and those around me can tell, no London City employee ever answers their phone if they know (and they do) the call is coming from outside the building. ‘Your call is very important to us, please leave a message.’

Well-Paid Bureaucrats

We live in the Age of The Well-Paid Bureaucrat. This is not just a government phenomenon. I would suggest that all LBOs (Large Bureaucratic Organizations), whether government, non-profit or for-profit, see over time an increase in the proportion of their employees who are highly paid; say $150k+.  As an org grows, it tends to increase its employment of senior management types faster than its general increase in employees. (This is absolutely inarguable for universities….) Why? Wish I knew……

An illustration of this general principle shows up in another article published in the Freeps over the weekend. London Health Sciences Centre, the administrative monster that is now being run by an ‘interim chief executive’ brought in to reorganize it (and deal with a looming $150 million deficit), has let go two of its senior administrators. According to the Freeps, the administrators are

  • Brad Campbell, corporate hospital administration executive, was in charge of overseeing the presidents of University Hospital, Children’s Hospital and Victoria Hospital
  • Sandra Smith, who was regional vice-president for the southwest regional cancer program at LHSC

The title ‘corporate hospital administration executive’ is suitably vague, and his job was ‘overseeing three presidents’. Well, that clarifies his duties, right?

For this he was paid, according to the Freeps again –  ‘$475,423 in 2023, a significant raise over the $217,007 he made in 2022’. Significant raise, indeed, but what the heck did he do to earn such a salary? What does ‘overseeing presidents’ entail, exactly? (Smith made a modest $244k in 2023. I don’t know what a regional VP does, either.)

Sadly, as high as those salaries are, eliminating them from the LHSC budget is no more than a drop in the $150 million bucket.

Of course, LHSC is not a City of London operation, and I suspect (but don’t know) that there is no one in the London City administration making the lofty salary that Mr. Campbell did in 2023 – at least I hope not. But the general principle remains. As amalgamation turned three hospitals into one giant org, the number of senior administrators – and the salaries they earn – went up, and just kept going up. It takes a lot of highly paid people to run a LBO – just ask those highly paid people, they’ll tell you its true.

A worthy research project, if one could get the data – and I bet one could not – would be to look at a large set of LBOs of all types and see how the number of highly paid senior administrators has changed relative to total employment over, say, 20 years. My hypothesis obviously is that proportion has gone up over time, but I wonder in which type of org it has gone up the most. Non-profits, universities,  for-profit corporations, government bureaucracies? It would be interesting to see if there is any discernible pattern. My money would be on universities as the leaders, but that’s probably because I saw it happen in one of those first hand over the last 20 years.

But I betcha $100 no LBOs of any type would give one the data one would need to find out.

PostScript

Just as I was about to post this, a story popped up on the CBC-London website, saying that LHSC had just fired 5 more senior administrators. To quote the CBC story:

“Five executives with a combined tenure of over 20 years, and a combined 2023 salary of over $1.6 million, are no longer with the organization, Musyj said. They are:

  • Abhi Mukherjee, CFO, who joined LHSC in September 2022

  • John French, clinical diagnostic executive, who joined LHSC in September 2022

  • CJ Curran, corporate health disciplines executive, who joined LHSC in September 2022

  • Dipesh Patel, capital redevelopment and environmental operations executive, who joined LHSC in July 2013

  • Jatinder Bains, corporate academic executive, who joined LHSC in April 2021

‘….combined tenure of over 20 years’? C’mon, CBC, only one of them has been around more than three years, the other four are all very recent hires. CBC did not give their salaries (I suspect the public broadcaster is a little sensitive about executive salaries these days), but you could look them up on the sunshine list. I think I know what a CFO does, but the other titles? Like, ‘corporate academic executive’? Surely they just made that up.

Let me quote once more from the article.

“Dr. Jackie Schleifer Taylor, the former CEO, left this past spring after a seven month medical leave. Her salary in 2023 was almost $804,000. ”

“During Dr. Schleifer Taylor’s tenure, president positions were created, one at each Victoria, University and Children’s, replacing the former structure which had just one one[sic] president for the entire hospital system.”

So, now we know what the afore-mentioned Brad Campbell did to earn his big salary. When Schleifer Taylor created three presidential positions where there had previously been only one, she of course had to create a fourth position – held by Campbell – to oversee those three. Now that is bureaucratic thinking par excellence.

What Does a 226% Improvement Smell Like?

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Research, Standards. 4 Comments on What Does a 2264 Improvement Smell Like?

Let me first express my thanks to Andrew Gelman of Columbia whose blog (see above) first brought this to my attention, so I can bring it to yours.

This is another of those ‘if it seems too good to be true it probably is’ research papers that I so love. The paper is titled ‘Overnight olfactory enrichment using an odorant diffuser improves memory and modifies the uncinate fasciculus in older adults’ and it was published in Frontiers in Neuroscience in July of 2023.

It reports on a study in which participants – all elderly, like me – were given scent diffusers to take home and use for two hours each night, starting when they went to bed – the diffusers automatically shut off two hours after they were started. The participants were given cognition tests and a functional MRI (that’s where the uncinate fasciculus bit in the title comes from) before they started the experiment and again six months later, after they had used the diffusers for that period of time.

The ‘treatment group’ got a set of 7 genuine essential oils to use in their diffusers, while the control group got ‘de minimis amounts of odorant’ according to the researchers. (Do you suppose those in the Control Group noticed that their diffusers produced no scent? But I digress.)

In the end there were a total of 43 participants in the two groups, and the headline result of this research was, quoting the paper,

“ A statistically significant 226% improvement was observed in the enriched group compared to the control group on the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test….”

Pretty impressive, eh? Six months of smelling essential oils for two hours/night at bedtime, that’s all it took to get that huge improvement in Auditory Verbal Learning.

Anyone smell anything?

Here are some facts about this ‘controlled’ experiment. First, 43 participants? A bit more than 20 in each group? That is what statisticians call a small sample. But wait, there’s more. If you look at the flow chart of how they recruited and screened participants for this study, you find that 132 subjects passed the initial screening. Of these, only 68 were included in the Control and Treatment groups that were used in the statistical analysis of the results, and of those 68, 25 dropped out during the study. That leaves the 43 whose results are reported on, of the 132 who passed the screen.

Smell anything yet? Why did those 25 people drop out? That’s 36% of the 68 whose results were analyzed and reported. What does that drop out rate imply for the credibility of the results? People don’t drop out randomly, they do it for reasons.

And, as one of the readers of the Gelman blog pointed out, that 226% improvement claim comes from the control group scoring on average 0.73 points worse post-treatment than pre-treatment on a particular test, while the treatment group scored 0.92 points better on average. So you have a difference of 1.65 points in the two groups’ average ‘improvement’ on the test, and 1.65 is 2.26 times 0.73.

Interesting arithmetic. I think Gelman’s reader is right, as that 226% number doesn’t come up anywhere else in the paper. However, note that 1.65 being 2.26 times 0.73 is not the same as 1.65 being a 226% ‘improvement’ over 0.73. The latter would mean that it was more than three times greater, and it is not. Neuroscientists don’t do a lot of basic arithmetic, I guess. That detail aside, just looking at the difference in average scores for the two groups – what does a ‘point’ mean in this context, anyway? Is it big? How ‘big’ is a 1.65 point improvement on this test? What does that actually translate into, memory-wise? The researchers do not say.

One last thing. At the end of the paper there is a section called Funding, under which is written ‘This research was sponsored by Procter and Gamble.’

There, now you smell it, eh?

I know nothing about the journal Frontiers in Neuroscience, but if their editors did not stop and wonder about that 226% claim, well, I don’t think I’ll subscribe. Actually, it’s an open access journal so I can read it for free, as I did this smelly article. But I won’t. Read the journal, I mean. Unless maybe I’m looking for something else to write about here.

What the Google Just Happened?

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Government, LBOs, News Media. 1 Comment on What the Google Just Happened?

Much of the material I write about in this blog is taken from the news media, obviously, but sometimes I write about the story or issue that the media piece is covering, while other times I am writing about the media piece itself. This article is going to be of the second type.

You have likely read or heard that the US Department of Justice brought an antitrust case against Google (four years ago, actually), and that the judge presiding over this case has just recently found against Google. Most headlines say something like ‘Google found guilty of being a monopolist’. This is an oversimplification. The DoJ accused Google of violating a rather specific US antitrust statute, and the judge found that it did. In this case (you can read the judge’s decision here) it was Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and here is what the judge himself had to say about that statute in his decision:

“Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a firm to ‘monopolize.’ ….The offense of monopolization requires proof of two elements: (1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market and (2) the willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or historic accident.”

Thus, it is indeed true that the DoJ had to show that Google has ‘monopoly power’ in the search engine market (arguing that aspect of the case is where a bunch of economists made big consulting fees, you can bet). However, it also has to show that Google did something willful to acquire or maintain that monopoly power. Being a monopoly due to, say, selling a superior product, implies no harm, no litigation.

From what I have read, it is Google’s agreements with other companies – like Apple – to make Google the default search engine on the devices they sell in return for a payment from Google that were found to violate part (2) above. For example, Google paid Apple $20B (yea, that’s a B) for making Google the default search engine on every iPhone’s Safari browser.

A lot has been written about the consequences of this decision for average Joes and Jills like you and I. How, if at all, will it change what happens on the internet, particularly in searching the web?

I haven’t read everything written about this, and there has been a lot, but I did come across an article on the National Post website, posted on August 9, written by one Matt Stoller, with the title:

Landmark decision means Google’s control of the web is ending

Wow. I am aware that Mr. Stoller almost certainly did not write that headline for his article, but a note to whoever did – this case was about Google’s search engine only, and if you know anything about Google, you know they have plenty of other operations on ‘the web’ (the parent company, Alphabet, owns Youtube, just to name one). In any case, it is a bit much to talk about Google’s ‘control of the web’. (If any firm could be said to ‘control the web’ my money would be on Microsoft, but that’s a blog for another day).

However, the rest of the article I have to credit to Mr Stoller, and he has some remarkable things to say about this just-issued decision. For example, he writes: ‘So there we go, Google’s control of the web is ending.’

Ah. So, maybe he did write that headline.

Then there’s this –

‘The implications of this decision will have ripple effects across the internet, the law, and big business for generations.’

Generations. One senses a taste for hyperbole in Mr. Stoller’s writing, no?

Here are two facts about this case that seem relevant to understanding how important it will turn out to be for average internet users.

  1. Google has already said it will appeal the judge’s ruling.
  2. The judge’s decision is the final step in what is only the first stage of this trial, which is called the ‘liability’ phase. What now follows is the ‘remedy’ phase.

Regarding point 1, some of you may recall that in the early 2000s the US brought a case based on the same Section 2 of the Sherman Act against good ol’ Microsoft, accusing it of monopolizing the market for personal computer operating systems. The government won that case too, but it was then overturned by the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. So, it’s a bit too soon to be counting any chickens, and the judicial appeal process could drag on for some time.

Stoller ignores my point 1 in his article, but not point 2, since he writes the following:

“This part of the trial was what is called the liability phase, which is to determine whether Google broke the law. Judge Mehta found that it did. The next stage is called the remedy phase, during which the court will hear arguments about what to do to address the bad conduct.”

What to do, indeed. A company the size of Google, even just its search engine division, is an incredibly complex organization. It is fair to say that no one working in Google’s search engine division – including the person at the top – is aware of everything that happens within it. It’s just too big and complicated. So, what do you suppose are the chances that the DoJ and the judge, who agree that Google has behaved badly, but know approximately nothing about running a tech company, can figure out what remedy is needed to force Google to behave better in the future?

They can, presumably, do the obvious thing of declaring illegal Google’s contracts with Apple and others regarding the Google search engine’s status as the default search engine on their installed browsers. But it will still be true that Apple et al are going to choose some search engine to be available on the devices they sell. Do we really believe that Google can find no other way to persuade those companies that Google’s search engine is the one they should have as the default on their installed browsers? Given that (according to the Financial Times) Google currently handles more than 90 per cent of online queries  and that ‘google’ has become a synonym for ‘search for’, why indeed would all the companies with whom Google currently has agreements not leave it as their default search engine? It’s already the one most people use. What can the learned judge and assorted lawyers and economists working for the DoJ possibly come up with to change that simple fact?

Finally, a comment on the Stoller article’s most hyperbolic paragraph:

“What about the rest of business? Well, this decision means monopolization law is back. Exclusive contracts and arrangements are pervasive in American commerce, and until recently, executives could reliably exploit such deals without fearing that they might face any legal liability. But that era is over. This case is in the headlines, which means every single competent executive in America in any firm with market power is going to get a memo from their antitrust or general counsel on what they can and can’t do going forward. And they will likely begin changing their behaviour to avoid being brought to court for monopolization.”

So Stoller thinks the case will trigger memos from counsel all across the corporate universe. Well, maybe not. Even if this Google decision is not reversed on appeal, and even if the DoJ and judge come up with some way to actually reduce Google’s ongoing share of the search market, it is simply not true that any Google executives are going to face ‘legal liability’. Google might have to pay a fine, and it might be a whopper. However, for any person within Google to face a legal sanction, the DoJ would have had to bring a criminal case against Google (and its executives) under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The DoJ can do this, but they did not in the Google case, and in fact they almost never do. What they did was sue Google, a very different matter. The reason for this is simple; the DoJ can only win a criminal case against Google or any of its executives if it proves its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s a much higher standard than the standard of proving one’s case by a preponderance of the evidence, which is what is required in a civil lawsuit. The DoJ wanted to win this case and change Google’s business practices, so they filed a lawsuit, not a criminal case. Google executives might get fired by their company, but legal liability is not on the table.

The only antitrust violations that are typically prosecuted as criminal cases in the US (Canadian law and practice are similar in this regard)  are those of price-fixing or bid-rigging, which violate  Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In such criminal cases executives can indeed be fined or even imprisoned if the government wins the case, but again, this is not what happened in the US vs Google case.

Going forward, there is perhaps some reason to think executives of other companies need to worry about ‘legal liability’ for entering into exclusive contracts that violate Section 2, but only because in 2022 the DoJ announced that they would start pursuing more criminal cases under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The Department has in fact filed two Sherman section 2 criminal cases in the last 50 years, one in 2022 and the most recent in 2024. However, they didn’t pursue a criminal case against Google, and the two recent cases in which criminal charges were brought were against executives of relatively small companies.  So, if other executives have reason to be worried about legal liability, it does not arise from the judge’s decision in phase one of this case against Google.

If executives in other companies got memos about what to do or not do from their legal counsel, it would have happened after the DoJ’s 2022 announcement, not after judge Mehta’s recent decision in this case. And….did those memos cause executives in other companies to change their behavior? No way to know, really, until and unless more criminal Section 2 cases actually are brought – and maybe not then.

So maybe ‘….monopolization law is back’ is a bit premature. However, it is not fair to be too hard on the enthusiastic Mr. Stoller. If you go to the Financial Times article on this case, available here, you will find other worthies waxing equally hyperbolic about the meaning and significance of this still-incomplete case.

Peeps are gonna believe what peeps wanna believe.

 

 

An Ex-Mayor and an Editor Walk into a Bar

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Government, News Media, Standards. No Comments on An Ex-Mayor and an Editor Walk into a Bar

A tip of the hat to The Wall Street Journal for putting this in their Notable and Quotable column. The Journal’s Editors don’t comment on whatever appears in this column, they just publish it for their readers to see. Having seen it, I have a comment or two.

As background, Keisha Lance Bottoms is a former mayor of Atlanta, Georgia, a city with a population of about 500,000, which is the centre of a metropolitan area of some 6 million. Not a small job.

Ms. Bottoms has a different job now, something in the commentariat business. After the Biden-Trump debate, she was interviewed on MSNBC, and here is the WSJ’s report of part of that conversation –

Former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms speaks with MSNBC host Chris Jansing, July 1:

Ms. Jansing: Your hometown paper the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is among those saying it’s time for President Biden to pass the torch. The editorial board wrote, “This wasn’t a bad night. It was confirmation of the worst fears of some of Biden’s most ardent supporters.” . . .

Ms. Bottoms: Let me just say I was very disappointed with the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. We have talked about making sure we’re protecting elections and making sure there’s no undue influence. This was undue influence by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution or an attempt to influence. I think voters should be able to make decisions the same way they did in the primaries.

Ms. Jansing: But isn’t that what editorial boards are supposed to do?

Ms. Bottoms: Editorial boards are supposed to honor fair elections. I don’t think it’s fair when an editorial board with 10 people sitting in a room are trying to influence an election.

– There you have Ms. Bottoms’ take on the role of newspapers in the 21st century.

I’ll first just say that this is a good example of the tendency for supposedly knowledgeable people to say things that would have – even 20 years ago – been considered laughable.

Note the use by Ms. Bottoms of the terms ‘undue influence’, ‘protecting elections’, and ‘honor fair elections’. This is typical cant for most members of what passes for an intelligentsia in the 21st century. There is a list of unquestionable and unpardonable sins, like colonialism and oppression, ready and waiting to be attached to anything one is against. ‘Election influencing’ is another such sin – although I suspect only when practiced by the wrong people to influence elections in the wrong way.

Beyond that – what is it about the ‘10 people sitting in a room’ that is unfair? Would 5 people be fair, or would a thousand be more fair? Is it the fact they are sitting in a room at all that makes it unfair? Would it be fair if they were standing, or – kneeling?

And the sentence ‘I think voters should be able to make decisions the same way they did in the primaries.’ is beyond the pale. Does Ms. Bottoms believe that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Editorial Board did not publish any commentary on the candidates in the primaries when those were being held? Or, perhaps they did not write those when sitting in a room.

It has become the sole job of virtually all political operatives, be they candidates, office-holders, advocates, activists or spin doctors, to quote talking points. Never mind a reasoned analysis, god forbid you should explain why you disagree with the Editorial Board’s position. Just get in your words – ‘honor fair elections’ – and retreat from the field claiming a score.

As I say, someone 20 years ago who said what Ms. Bottoms said above would have been laughed at. Today, I’m sure she has been favourably quoted by other, similar, political operatives.

Young and Rogan, Again

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Culture, London, Popular attitudes. No Comments on Young and Rogan, Again

London, Ontario has a number of outdoor musical events each summer, one of which is known as Rock the Park. When the line-up for this festival was announced a long time ago, it was regarded as quite the coup to have scored Neil Young and Crazy Horse as a headline performer. I’m not sure booking any 78-year-old rocker should be regarded as a major coup, but what brought this all to mind was the very recent announcement, just weeks before the event is to occur, that Young and the band have cancelled their appearance.

I wrote a post awhile back about Neil Young’s recent return to Spotify, thereby abandoning his principled position that what was being said on Joe Rogan’s podcast (streamed on Spotify) was false and harmful.

My focus there was on the fact that Young had shown, in my view, a meaningful commitment to a principle by taking an income hit as a result of pulling his music from Spotify, but that he had, in the light of Rogan’s new, wider streaming contract decided that he would not pay an even higher price by pulling his music from other platforms.

There is another, separate issue this raises, which I want to write about here. Why did Young do what he did back in 2022, rather than other things he could have done in response to what he saw as Rogan’s spread of false information? As I noted in my previous post, pulling his music from Spotify was undoubtedly costly to Young, but it seems likely it cost Spotify very little, if anything. I just don’t imagine that many people dropped their Spotify subscriptions in response to Young’s 2022 departure. But even if a significant number did, why do that?

One could imagine that Young anticipated that his departure from Spotify would indeed lead to the cancellation of many Spotify subscriptions, and that, seeing this, Spotify would in turn terminate their contract with Rogan. I really don’t believe Young anticipated that, but suppose he did. That would mean that Young’s purpose was to eliminate Rogan’s platform for disseminating ideas that Young disliked – that, to quote him, “I am doing this because Spotify is spreading fake information about vaccines—potentially causing death to those who believe the disinformation being spread by them.” (I’m taking this quote from the original WSJ article, so am assuming it is accurate.)

This seems to me a very 21st century instinct. If someone is saying/writing things to which one objects, one should do what one can to shut them up. Stop them from saying those objectionable things. Now, the Young quote goes on to assert that if people hear these objectionable things and believe them, they could potentially die.

Certainly, preventing people from dying is a noble goal, but that is not what Young’s move would have done, had it been successful in getting Rogan off Spotify. It would have stopped people from hearing what was said there (ignoring for the moment possible other platforms), but I don’t see how one can really assert that would have saved lives. That only follows if one views exposure to what is said on Rogan’s podcasts as a disease itself, which kills people. In fact, what happens, is that people listen to it, they think about it – or not – then they take what they heard, along with all the other things they have ever heard that they think might be relevant, and they go on with their lives. They make decisions, including, presumably, whether or not to get vaccinated. Even if someone who goes through all this decides not to get vaccinated, it does not follow even probabilistically that they will die.

This is not an unusual line of thinking, however. A similar perspective leads most auto commercials these days to have written in fine print on the bottom of the TV screen the words “Trained driver on a closed course. Do not try this yourself.” Just seeing a driver put his Nisan Rogue into a four wheel drift on TV is like a drug, and viewers who are exposed to this commercial will thus be induced to drive to a spot where they can do the same, if they are not warned away from this.

What seems odd about this to me, even on its own terms, is the belief that people are not clever enough to realize that putting their Rogue into a high-risk manoeuvre might get them hurt, but that they are clever enough to pay attention to the warning in tiny letters at the bottom of the screen not to do that. What fundamentally lies underneath this is a view that people will do foolish things unless they are instructed appropriately – by, you know, us smart folks. Or Neil Young. [I am also well aware that this is to some extent driven by lawyers, trying to prevent their employers from getting sued successfully.]

The attitude is that people who roll their Nissan Rogue over doing four-wheel drifts and get injured or die have been inescapably driven to do that by seeing a commercial, just as people who listen to Rogan’s podcasts are driven to not get vaccinated and thus will die.

It’s a very 21st century perspective on human behavior, and I have no use for it. People have, and deserve to be given, agency. They gotta decide how to live their lives, and if they decide to go out and roll their Rogue over, that’s on them.

Here’s a different thing Young could have done. He could have mounted an info campaign to counter the ‘fake information’ that he felt Rogan was disseminating, in an effort to keep people from being swayed by it. His quote suggests he is quite confident that said information is ‘fake’ so he is presumably in a good position to explain to listeners what is fake about it, and, as the WSJ article says, he had 2.4 million followers on Spotify in ’22 before he left. That’s a decent audience. Of course, Young might well think his followers were not the audience that needed to have Rogan’s info countered, but as a famous rocker with plenty of resources (i.e., wealth), Young could surely have come up with many other ways of reaching people. Hell, tell Rogan you want to come on his podcast and have it out with him and his dangerous views. I suspect Rogan would have jumped at that opportunity if Young had offered it.

So, if it was true that Young was hoping to get Spotify to drop Rogan, then my point is that seems childish to me. Stand up and confront the guy if he’s so dangerous. That’s a response to perceived misinformation I could support.

That all being said, I don’t really believe that was Young’s motivation. According to the WSJ article

“Rogan’s show has been Spotify’s most listened to podcast for the last four years, according to the company.”

Young’s no fool, he didn’t expect to get Rogan’s podcast terminated, but if not that, what? What was Young trying to do?

People in the 21st century often talk of ‘taking a stand’, which I take to mean stating in public that they find something odious…or admirable, as the case may be. An overwhelming example of this can be found in all the demonstrations going on regularly around Canada about the Israel-Hamas war. The people who are engaged in these on both sides do not, I hope, think for a minute that their shouting and carrying signs around in Canada will have any impact on the decisions being made by the leaders of Hamas or Israel. And, if they think they can influence the government of Canada to change its position on the conflict in some way, then I again hope they don’t think any change in Canada’s official position on the war will influence anyone in Gaza or Tel-Aviv.

But, they clearly think it important to ‘make their voices heard’, to ‘call out____’ or ‘show their support/outrage’. Such declarations are another 21st-century fixation, one I suspect is facilitated by the existence in wealthy societies like those of Canada and the US of too many people with too much time on their hands. I mean, do the people in the UWO campground really believe they have moved forward some good cause by chanting in the face of a class of Ivy grads? Really? People like that could do some actual good in the world. London is chock full of people who are struggling, with poverty, addiction, poor health. If any of those campers were to sign up to work for Meals on Wheels, or volunteer to drive seniors who live alone to their medical and other appointments, they would make the world – locally – a better place in a clear and concrete way. But no, they find it a more valuable use of their time and energy to camp out and chant slogans about something that is happening thousands of miles away.

Coming back to Young, whichever of these two motivations might have lay behind Young’s 2022 move, neither seems one an adult should follow. If he thought to shut Joe up, I find that an admission of contempt for one’s fellow humans’ thinking. If you think Joe is full of shit, do something to convince folks of that. If, on the other hand Young just wanted to ‘call out Joe (or Spotify)’, to say ‘That is wrong’, then ok, I guess. It’s your time and energy (and money) to use as you like, Neil, but I can in turn think of no reason to change what I think about anything because you did that. As I said in my first post on this, the fact that Young took a financial and artistic hit to make that statement does convince me that he is sincere about it. And so what? Many people have sincere beliefs about many things.

Nonsense

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Education, Language. 1 Comment on Nonsense

There are certain phrases one hears over and over again, and that are never challenged, despite the fact that they are clearly nonsense.

A minor instance of this is the expression: ‘That’s the exception that proves the rule.’ To say that an exception to a rule proves the validity or truth of that rule is just nonsense. If there is an exception to a rule, then it is not a rule. It is a rule with exceptions – i.e., it ain’t really a rule. Now, I have read that in fact the original statement of this was ‘That’s the exception that preuves the rule.’ The word preuves (a word I have not seen elsewhere) means ‘tests’. I have no idea if that was indeed the original statement, but that an exception might test a rule is at least not nonsense.

However the phrase of this sort that has set my teeth on edge for eons is of arguably more import in the contemporary world. I read it most recently in the following quote from an opinion piece in The Harvard Crimson by Lawrence Bobo, Harvard’s Dean of Social Science.

“The truth is that free speech has limits — it’s why you can’t escape sanction for shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.”

That is simply wrong. That you cannot escape sanction for shouting fire in a crowded theatre is only true if in fact there is no fire. If there is a fire, you damn well better shout it, and pull the alarm while you’re at it. This is a sanction against lying, or causing needless panic. It has nothing to do with free speech or limits on it.

I suppose it is too much to expect the Dean of Social Science at Harvard to understand this.

 

People Can Disappoint You; Bureaucrats, Almost Always

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Education, LBOs. No Comments on People Can Disappoint You; Bureaucrats, Almost Always

In my post of June 2, ‘People can Surprise You’ I had a number of complimentary things to  say about a statement put out by the University of Western Ontario’s president, Alan Shepherd, regarding the protest encampment on the university campus. I said at the end of my post that I would wait with hope to see if the university would actually put into action the principles put forward in that statement.

I expected to be disappointed, frankly, and I am.

First, included in the President’s statement was this:

“These commitments – to the extent that they are new and not already in place – are contingent upon organizers agreeing to dismantle the encampment and not return, and to not disrupt Western’s convocation ceremonies out of respect for their fellow students.”

And this:

“What’s more, individuals participating in the encampment have several times crossed the line. They are intimidating visitors including high-school students on campus tours. They are harassing our campus community members, including students and caretaking staff. They are committing acts of vandalism. And some have even engaged in assaultive behaviour towards our staff.

This is unacceptable and cannot go on.”

UWO’s convocation ceremonies are about to wrap up, and the encampment remains. I suppose that all the first quote above requires is that whatever ‘new commitments’ the University had made might now not be honored.

Further, there was a photo (no story) in the  June 21 London Free Press with the following caption:

“GRADUATES FACE PROTEST: Western University graduates are met by about 200 loudly chanting pro-Palestinian protesters in front of the Ivey school of business during convocation ceremonies Thursday afternoon.”

The photo shows two security personnel walking from the left side of the picture toward the right, where the protestors can be seen chanting into the faces of the graduates walking along in their graduation gowns.

As I said, there is no story beyond the quoted caption in the Freeps, and I do wonder why not.

So, here on June 21, the encampment remains, graduates – and I expect others – are being harassed, the Free Press appears to have no interest in reporting this beyond a photo caption. I fully expect that next week the encampment will remain and people on campus will continue to be shouted at by the campers.

I have to conclude that all of this is in fact perfectly acceptable to the UWO Admin, despite their noble words.

I am disappointed, but not surprised.

 

Smiling – and Paying – for the Camera

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Government, London, News Media, Safety. No Comments on Smiling – and Paying – for the Camera

A short article by Scott Kitching appeared on the June 11 London News Today website letting us know that London City Council has authorized adding another 15 redlight cameras to the 10 that are already operating around the city. Our illustrious Mayor was quoted:

“More Red Light Cameras help limit dangerous driving behaviours at more locations in our City, and address a widespread community concern,” Mayor Josh Morgan said in a statement released by the city.

This statement can of course be used to justify putting a red light camera at every intersection in London, so stay tuned, folks.

Kitching also included some ‘statistics’ – reportedly provided by ‘the city’. That’s all the detail regarding the source of said stats we get. Quoting from the article:

“Since the red light camera program began in 2017, the number of collisions at intersections with signals has fallen by between eight and 11 per cent, according to the city. The number of collisions involving injury or death is down by 40 per cent over the same time period.”

Ok, the first stat seems like it is perhaps relevant to understanding the impact, if any, of the 10 existing redlight camera set-ups. Nothing is said about controlling that 8 to 11 percent drop for changes in the volume of traffic through intersections with signals, but there is a more important issue with it. That is an 8 to 11 percent drop ‘at intersections with signals’. Not  at intersections with red-light cameras, but rather all signaled intersections.

So; does this mean there has been a general trend down in collisions at signaled intersections? If so, that cannot possibly be attributed to the 10 (out of hundreds) of intersections that have the cameras. What we need to know here is what has been the trend in collisions at the camera intersections compared to the trend over the same time frame at all the other (non-camera) signaled intersections. The stat as quoted tells us precisely nothing about the impact of the cameras on collisions at signaled intersections.

As to the second sentence in the quote, I have no idea what that tells us. The number of collisions involving injury and death is down 40% – is that throughout the city overall? At signaled intersections generally? At signaled intersections with cameras only?

That second stat as stated tells us nothing about anything related to the impact of existing or planned red light cameras on traffic injuries or fatalities in London.

Ah, but who needs evidence, really? According to a CBC.ca London article on this City initiative, these cameras make money (for the city, not you fine folks). CBC London quoted London’s Director of Transportation and Mobility, Doug MacRae, thusly:

The cost of operating the new red light cameras for one year is approximately $1 million, MacRae said, but notes that they pay for themselves through the fines issued.

Per Inspector Brackenreid: Follow the money, Murdoch.

The impact of strip clubs on sex crimes

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Government, Research, Standards. No Comments on The impact of strip clubs on sex crimes

I ended a post back on April 25 with the following question:

Does the presence of bricks-and-mortar adult entertainment establishments have a positive, negative, or no effect on the commission of sex crimes in the surrounding neighborhood?

I then asked you to consider what sort of data would be required to provide credible evidence as to what is the correct answer to that question.

Fair warning, this is going to be a longish article, but I would suggest that a credible answer to the first question above has some social value. And, full disclosure, this post is part of my ‘Studies show’ inoculation campaign.

‘Swat I do.

I do think the answer to this question is of more than passing interest.

If the presence of adult entertainment establishments (aee’s, henceforth) like strip clubs and such could be shown to reduce the incidence of sex-crimes like sexual assault and rape, this might be counted as a reason to allow them to operate. If, on the other hand, they are associated with an increase in such crimes, then that is a reason to ban them entirely. The ban/allow decision for aees is of course complex, and other factors may also be important (e.g., links to organized crime, drug use). Still, the answer could be a significant input into city policy-setting on such places.

More disclosure, this is not a very original post. I got wind of all this reading Andrew Gelman’s Statistical Inference blog back when. However, he didn’t dig into the details much.  I have, and I think it is another nice illustration of an important principle: if it sounds really good, be skeptical.

Ok, then – our story begins with a paper by two economists titled “THE EFFECT OF ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS ON SEX CRIME: EVIDENCE FROM NEW YORK CITY”,

which was written by Riccardo Ciacci and Maria Micaela Sviatschi and published in 2021, in The Economic Journal, a well-respected outlet in my old discipline.

The following sentence from the Abstract of their paper lays out what they find –

“We find that these businesses decrease sex crime by 13% per police precinct one week after the opening, and have no effect on other types of crime. The results suggest that the reduction is mostly driven by potential sex offenders frequenting these establishments rather than committing crimes.”

Trust me, if true, that’s a big deal. A 13% reduction on average, and in the first week after the aees open.

Social scientists rarely find effects of that size attributable to any single thing. That’s huge. One might even venture to say – unbelievable.

It is not surprising that The Economic Journal was happy to give space in its pages to publish these results. And, coming back to what I wrote above, what city politician could ignore the possibility that licensing aees in their jurisdiction might reduce sex crimes by 13%?

To dig deeper we return to the ‘extra credit’ question I posed on that post of April 25 – what kind of data would one need to answer the question?

Well, you need to be able to make a comparison of sex crime numbers between areas where aees operate, and areas where they do not. An obvious possibility is to find two political jurisdictions such that one contains aees, and the other, perhaps due to different laws, does not. Then you can compare the incidence of sex crimes in those two jurisdictions and get your answer.

That approach is just fraught with difficulties, all following from the fact that the two jurisdictions are bound to be different from one another in a whole host of ways, any one of which might be the reason for any sex-crime difference you find. Demographics, incomes, legal framework, policing differences, the list goes on and on. You can try to account for all that, but it’s very difficult, you need all kinds of extra data, and you can never be certain that any difference you find can actually be attributed to the presence/absence of aees.

The alternative is to look at a single jurisdiction, like NYC, and find data on where aees operate and where they do not. Now NYC is a highly heterogeneous place – it’s huge, and its neighborhoods differ a lot, so it sort of seems like we’re back to the same problem.

However, suppose you can get data on when and where aees open and close in NYC. Then, you have before and after data for each establishment and its neighborhood. If an aee started operating in neighborhood X on June 23, 2012, you can then look at sex crime data in that area before and after the opening date. You still want to assure yourself that nothing else important in that neighborhood changed around that same time, but that seems like a doable thing.

This is pretty much what our economists did, as we will see, but there is still another issue; data on sex crimes.

All data on criminal activity carries with it certain problems. Data on arrests and convictions for crimes is generally pretty reliable, but crimes are committed all the time for which no arrests are made and/or no convictions occur. Still, the crimes occur, and for the purposes of this question, you want data on the occurrence of sex crimes, not on arrests for them.

We’ll come back to the crime data below, but I’ll start with the data on aees.

The authors note that if you are going to open a strip club in NYC there is a bureaucratic process to go through, and the first thing a potential operator of such has to do is register the business with a government bureau.

To quote directly from the paper:

“We construct a new data set on adult entertainment establishments that includes the names and addresses of the establishments, providing precise geographic information. We complement this with information on establishment registration dates from the New York Department of State and Yellow Pages, which we use to define when an establishment opened.”

So, the researchers know where each aee opened, and they know when, but do note for later, that for the ‘when’ bit they use the date of registration with the NY Department of State.

The location that they get from the Dept and the Yellow pages then allows the researchers to determine in which NYPD precinct the aee is located, and that is going to allow them to associate each aee, once it opens, with crime data from that precinct.

So, what crime data do they use? As I’ve noted, such data always has issues.

Here’s one thing the economist say about their crime data.

“The crime data include hourly information on crimes observed by the police, including sex crimes. The data set covers the period from 1 January 2004 to 29 June 2012. Since these crimes are reported by the police, it minimises the biases associated with self-reported data on sex crime.”

Ok, hold on. ‘Crimes observed by police’? What does that mean? How many of the people arrested for or even suspected of a crime by the police had that crime observed by the police? Speeders, stop-sign ignorers, perhaps? But burglars, murderers, and – the point here – sexual assault or rape? How often are those crimes observed by police?

The vast majority of crimes come to light and are investigated by police on the basis of a report by a private citizen. In the case of sex crimes, most often a victim is found somewhere or comes to the police after the crime has occurred, inducing police to begin an investigation.

This sentence from the paper clears things up….a bit.

“We categorise adult entertainment establishments by New York Police Department (NYPD) precincts to match crime data from the ‘stop-and-frisk’ program.”

Ah. You may remember NYC’s (in)famous ‘stop and frisk’ program of several years (and mayors) ago. NYPD officers would stop folks on the street and – chat them up. Ask questions of various kinds, and then fill out and turn in a card that recorded various aspects of the encounter. As we will see below, virtually none of these s-a-f encounters resulted in a report of a crime or an arrest.

So….’crime data’? From stop and frisk encounters? Need to know a lot more about how that data was used.

And we shall, but let’s go back to the other key bit of data – where and when aees opened in NYC. The date used for the aees ‘opening’ is, according to the quote above, the date on which each establishment was registered  with the NY Dept of State.

Can you think of any establishment that needs a city or health or any other license to operate, that actually starts serving customers the day after it files the licensing paperwork?

To be sure, I have never operated a business, but I don’t think that can possibly be how it works. For one thing, how many different licenses do you suppose a strip club needs to operate at all? A health inspection, a liquor license, a fire inspection, building safety certificate….?

This is not a detail, because the BIG Headline this paper starts with is that a strip club reduces the number of sex crimes in the precinct in which it is located in the first week of operation. If the researchers are using the date of registration to determine when was that first week – there’s a problem.

 Ok, time to let the rest of the cats out of the proverbial bag. I mentioned above that I came on this research through a post on Gelman’s blog in which some folks expressed considerable skepticism about the economists’ findings. Those skeptics are, to give credit where due:

Brandon del Pozo, PhD, MPA, MA (corresponding author); Division of General Internal Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital/The Warren Alpert Medical School

Peter Moskos, PhD; Department of Law, Police Science, and Criminal Justice Administration, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York

John K. Donohue, JD, MBA; Center on Policing, Rutgers University

John Hall, MPA, MS ; Crime Control Strategies, New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Department

They lay out their issues with the paper in considerable detail in a paper of their own titled:

Registering a proposed business reduces police stops of innocent people? Reconsidering the effects of strip clubs on sex crimes found in Ciacci & Sviatschi’s study of New York City

which was published in Police Practice and Research, 2024-05-03.

This post is already quite long, so I am going to just give you the two most salient (in my opinion) points that are made by the skeptics in their paper.

First, as to the economists’ ‘sex crime’ data:

“The study uses New York City Police Department stop, question and frisk (SQF) report data to measure what it asserts are police-observed sex crimes, and uses changes in the frequency of the reports to assert the effect of opening an adult entertainment establishment on these sex crimes. These reports document forcible police stops of people based on less than probable cause, not crimes. Affirmatively referring to the SQF incidents included in the study as ‘sex crimes,’ which the paper does throughout (see p. 2 and p. 6, for example), is a category error. Over 94% of the analytic sample used in the study records a finding that there was insufficient cause to believe the person stopped had committed a crime….In other words, 94% of the reports are records of people who were legally innocent of the crime the police stopped them to investigate.”

And then, for the data on the openings of aees:

“This brings us back to using the date a business is registered with New York State as a proxy for its opening date, considering it provides a discrete date memorialized by a formal process between the government and a business. However, the date of registration is not an opening date, and has no predictable relationship to it, regardless of the type of business, or whether it requires the extra reviews necessary for a liquor license. New York City’s guidance to aspiring business owners reinforces the point that registration occurs well before opening.”

I close with the following. It turns out our four skeptics sent a comment to The Economic Journal laying out all their concerns about the original research, the Journal duly sent said commentary on to the authors, Ciacci and Sviatschi, and those authors responded that they did not think these concerns affected the important points in their paper. So, the journal not only did not retract the paper, it declined to publish a Commentary on its findings by the four skeptics. (Econ Journals do publish such Comments from time to time. Not this time.)

I mean, that would just make the original authors – and the Journal – look bad, no? The skeptics did, as we saw, eventually get their concerns into the public domain via a different publication – one read by pretty much nobody who reads The Economic Journal, I’m thinking.

Again – if it seems too good to be true…Objects in mirror may be smaller than they appear.

People can surprise you

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Education, LBOs. 2 Comments on People can surprise you

Those not living in a hermitage over the last several months will be aware of the protests and – in many cases – encampments that have occurred on university campuses across North America. So far as I can tell, all of these have been generated by people – students or otherwise – who wish to support the Palestinians in Gaza in what has become known as the Israel-Gaza [see addendum below]*war. They have called for the universities in question to do a variety of things, from divestment of university endowments in weapons manufacturers to the ending of all academic or other relationships the university has with Israel, Israeli universities, or in some cases, any organization that is thought (by the protesters) to be linked to Zionism, however they define that.

Universities have responded to these protests in a variety of ways, and while I cannot claim to have investigated every such occurrence, my impression is that universities have only rarely been willing to refuse to accede to the demands of the protesters, and have even less often been willing to use law enforcement to remove encampments that are, by any reasonable definition, illegal. At minimum, these encampments entail trespassing on university property, and in some cases, according to reports, the people in the encampments have been seen to be harassing members of the university community going about their daily business.

Many of the university responses – such as at U of Toronto – have featured the setting of repeated deadlines to abandon an encampment, deadlines that have been moved forward in time each time the previous one is violated. Here are the opening lines of a Globe and Mail article of June 2 about the U of T encampment:

“Convocation ceremonies for graduating University of Toronto students begin Monday against the backdrop of a pro-Palestinian encampment that has remained on campus for weeks despite a trespass notice and looming legal action.

More than 30 ceremonies are scheduled to take place through June 21 and the university says all events will proceed as planned with ‘extra precautions.’”

This particular encampment has been in place since May 2, and U of T has gone to court seeking an injunction order to clear it. Stay tuned….

Not surprisingly, the UWO campus is also home to an encampment located near what has always been referred to as ‘the concrete beach’ just outside the University Community Centre; a high people-traffic area. There have been ongoing discussions/negotiations between representatives of those in the encampment and UWO’s senior administration regarding the dismantling of said encampment, which has been there at least since May 3. (That was the last time I was on campus, and it was there on that date.)

I am writing this blog about the UWO situation because I got an email in which the administration of my former employer set out their response to the situation. You can read this at this link. – it’s public. However, going to that url will confront you with a whole series of dated updates and statements, and what I want to call your attention to is the one titled:

“Responding to calls from the Western Divestment Coalition – May 29, 2024”

I am about as far from being a fan of UWO’s current senior administration as you will find on planet earth, but I am writing this post because I read the above statement, and was pleasantly surprised by (most of) its content.

In particular, I direct you to the following statements in this response:

“There are also roles we do not – and should not – play.

For instance, with few exceptions throughout history, universities do not take unilateral stances on political or social issues. Why? Because by our very nature, universities do not speak with one voice. To do so would be antithetical to our mission as a place where all are welcome and where diverse ideas can be openly and respectfully debated and explored.

With this mission in mind, universities have historically not taken up wholesale calls for boycott, divestment, and sanctions – and Western University is no different.”

To be sure, there is wiggle room in the last sentence in particular. They write that universities have ‘historically not taken up’ calls for boycott, rather than ‘Western will not take up a call for boycott, divestment and sanctions”. Only time will tell whether what UWO does varies from what they say universities have done ‘historically’.

Later in the administration response one reads:

“But the larger point is that, as an institution of higher learning, our role is to make room for the broadest range of views.

With that in mind, our investment policy is driven not by political motives or any institutional position on particular global affairs, but by a fiduciary duty to ensure the University is financially equipped to carry out its mission in support of all students, faculty and staff – today and well into the future.”

Later on there is this:

“Our goal is to end this unlawful encampment safely and soon. We are seeking a peaceful resolution, and we hope to continue engaging with our students to do so.

“Students should not fear repercussions simply by speaking with us and negotiating on behalf of their peers.

That said, any individual who chooses not to respect the bounds of peaceful and lawful protest cannot be guaranteed amnesty.”

And, as my final quote from the Admin response, there is this:

“These commitments – to the extent that they are new and not already in place – are contingent upon organizers agreeing to dismantle the encampment and not return, and to not disrupt Western’s convocation ceremonies out of respect for their fellow students.

The protracted occupation of the popular gathering place outside the University Community Centre is not only unsafe and unlawful but is making it impossible for Western to fulfil our promise of creating inclusive spaces across our campus for all our community members.

What’s more, individuals participating in the encampment have several times crossed the line. They are intimidating visitors including high-school students on campus tours. They are harassing our campus community members, including students and caretaking staff. They are committing acts of vandalism. And some have even engaged in assaultive behaviour towards our staff.

This is unacceptable and cannot go on.”

Once again I note that there is a rather large hole in this quote, through which one could drive almost anything. The last sentence says nothing definite about what will happen if this ‘unacceptable’ situation does go on until convocation. More negotiation, more statements, another deadline….? I do not want to see a confrontation between the protesters and law enforcement on the UWO campus. But I agree that what is described as happening there is ‘unacceptable’, and that word has no meaning without a willingness to bring it to an end.

Still, I write here not to bury the UWO Admin but to praise them. I am not happy with every word in the UWO Admin’s response – I should not expect to be – but the quoted statements lay out principles that align with my own principles regarding the mission of a university, and the bounds of what is acceptable behavior within them. That is not something I have said often about statements coming from that source, so I am tipping my hat to them, for one of the few times in my life.

What remains to be seen is the extent to which said Administrators are willing to take what will be  unpopular (with some) actions in order to uphold these principles. I wait to see what happens with admitted doubt in my heart, but hope in my soul.

*In fact, it is more often referred to in the media as ‘the war in Gaza’ or ‘the Israel-Hamas war’. My bad.

Debt, Taxes and Tails Wagging Dogs

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Government. No Comments on Debt, Taxes and Tails Wagging Dogs

A short, non-path-breaking post today –

I am more than old enough to remember when Canada’s GST was born, a great (or not) new source of revenue to fund government programs. A fact about Canada that it shares with the US but no European advanced economies is that Canada’s federal government gets almost exactly half of its revenues from the personal income tax. Same for the US, but the Europeans get much less than that, relying more on consumption taxes and VAT.

Well, the most recent Liberal government budget breaks some new ground, apparently. From The Hub –

For the first time in 12 years, government debt costs will surpass GST revenue

  • Projections from budget 2024 now show both revenues from the GST and public debt charges match each other at $54.1 billion.
  • The federal government could spend as much as $64 billion on charges for public debt by the end of the decade.
  • In future years, the government estimates GST revenues won’t cover its public debt charges. In 2028-29, the GST is projected to generate $61 billion in revenue. Meanwhile, public debt charges will reach $64 billion.

In case you’re not familiar with government-speak on budgets, ‘public debt charges’ refers to the amount the government pays out in interest on what it has previously borrowed. So, know that when you pay the GST on anything you buy, those dollars are going to people (or banks, more likely) who bought Canadian government bonds at some point in the past.

It is not at all fashionable in most Western countries these days to worry about government deficits. Government borrowing is thought to be a perfectly sensible means of providing important government programs that do good things for people. However, the above figures point out that there is one eventual consequence of this policy. Continuing deficits add to the total amount of government bonds outstanding, bonds which must be redeemed or rolled over down the road and the interest on them paid out, also using government funds. Thus, ‘servicing the public debt’ becomes a larger and larger line item in total government spending, until, as noted, one must raise increasing amounts of revenue (or further increase borrowing) in order to pay off the previous borrowing. Eventually the spending on servicing that debt can become the tail that wags the dog of government spending. It necessarily makes it harder to spend on other government programs.

Pipers must be paid, either with more borrowing, higher taxes, or reductions in other spending. …or, governments can always print money, but that’s a topic for another day.

It’s Getting Hot Out: The Efficacy of Heat Warnings

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Government, Health Care, Research. No Comments on It’s Getting Hot Out: The Efficacy of Heat Warnings

 

Summer’s about here, and we can look forward to more of that Environment Canada staple – The Heat Warning. You know, the alerts about high temps and humidity you see on your favourite source for weather info.

I never think much about them, figuring people are pretty good at understaning when it’s hot out and what to do about it. It turns out some local researchers got to wondering if these alerts did any measurable good.

Their work was written up in the Freeps some while back, in an article headlined:

Do hot-weather alerts help? No, not really: London researchers

– published on Aug 22, 2022.

The tag line below the title reads “Those heat alerts telling us to be careful when temperatures spike? Turns out they do little to keep people overcome by heat out of hospital, say London researchers calling for changes to make the warnings more effective.”

The Freeps reporter has the research right in this case. In the research article you will find the following two paragraphs –

“The researchers compiled data on patients with heat-related illnesses who showed up in emergency rooms from 2012-18 and looked at whether their numbers dropped after the harmonized heat warnings kicked in.”

Then later –

“While there did appear to be a slight drop in heat-related emergency room visits after the provincial warning system was introduced, particularly in children and adults with chronic conditions, the results were not statistically significant, Clemens said.”

I went and read the research paper, published in The Canadian Journal of Public Health in 2022 (I’m a geek; you can read it too, here, although you will have to get past the paywall). That is indeed what the researchers say in the paper.

This research paper strikes me as reporting on potentially useful research. The Freeps article notes that “In southern Ontario, heat alerts are issued amid daytime highs hit 31 C or higher, lows of 20 C or when the humidex reaches 40.” You want to put off digging that garden to another, cooler, day. Old coots like me are particularly aware of this.

But setting aside my own instincts, I am all in favor of research to determine whether government initiatives are having their hoped-for effect. My unease about the research arose from the following lines in the Freeps article, in which the lead researcher is quoted –

“This research points to the need to raise awareness of heat-related illness. I’d like to see this translate into more education and physician-level awareness . . . ,” Clemens said. “As an endocrinologist, (I) could help inform or prepare my complex patients to better protect themselves.”

Huh? Exactly how does this research point to that? These research findings say the current warning system had no impact on heat-related emergency-room visits. What is the logic leading from that useful finding to the first sentence in the quote above? And as to the second quoted sentence, by all means, go ahead and inform and prepare your patients, but what does “this research” have to do with that?

Then, at the very end of the paper, we find this:

What are the key implications for public health interventions, policy or practice?

  1. More heat alerts were triggered in Ontario between 2013 and 2018, and many cities spent more days under heat warnings. The implementation of a harmonized HWIS appeared to reduce rates of ED visits for heat-related illness in some subpopulations, but at a provincial level, the change was not statistically significant.

 

  1. Given HWPs are a main policy tool to protect populations against heat, we suggest ongoing efforts to support effective HWP in our communities, with a particular focus on at-risk groups.

 

The journal itself probably has a requirement – since it is a public health journal – to include in any published paper a final statement on the public health implications of the research. However, point 1 is not an implication of the research findings. It is just a restatement of the fact that the research found the warnings had no impact. However it is entirely misleading to say that the HWIS ‘appeared to reduce rates of ED visits…’ and then immediately say ‘the change was not statistically significant’. All social science research operates with the knowledge that there is a lot going on in the world that we can’t identify, or even know about, and so any difference we see in data (like differences in ER visits) might be due to random chance. Researcher can’t just say something ‘appeared’ to be different when in fact the difference was statistically insignificant.

So, why cling to the ‘ we found this, but it wasn’t significant’ language? Why not just say ‘we found no impact’? That is a useful thing to find, indeed, and researchers should expect to find exactly nothing much of the time. Finding nothing advances our knowledge about the world, it is very useful to learn ‘well, that doesn’t seem to have any impact’.

Then, in implication 2 above, they write “…we suggest ongoing efforts to support effective HWP in our communities….”

C’mon folks, you just found that HWPs are ineffective in reducing ER visits, so in what way is an implication of that finding that we should support effective HWPs? Particularly since nothing in your research tells anyone what an effective HWP might look like.

Having hung around with social science researchers nearly all my adult life, I will bravely put forward a hypothesis about motivations, here: there is nothing that would have induced the researchers to write, instead of the two misguided points above, this implication of their research: –

Our research suggests that the HWIS program and its associated HWPs be ended, and the resources involved be directed toward programs for which there is evidence of effectiveness.

That sentence never stood a chance of appearing in their paper.

 

 

Immigrant Discrimination and the Freeps

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in London, News Media, Research. No Comments on Immigrant Discrimination and the Freeps

The media these days like to publish stories about academic research but as a rule, they do a bad job of it, and that is particularly true of my hometown paper, The Freeps.

An article published in the Freeps on July 31, 2023, headlined:

‘Alarming’: Study reveals hostility toward immigrants in London, region’

illustrates well what I mean.

The line under that headline read: “The study, funded by the London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership, surveyed the experiences of 30 London and Middlesex County immigrant and racialized people.”

Now, hold on. What can one possibly conclude about anything that might be happening in London-Middlesex after talking to 30 people? The immigrant population in the areas is, according to Stats Can figures reported in the actual study (more on it below) was around 90,000 in 2016, no doubt higher than that now. 30 is a laughably small sample of that population. However, reading on, the article goes on to say that this was ‘….a followup to a survey conducted by the same team that found about 60 per cent of those who identified as immigrants in Southwestern Ontario said they experienced some level of discrimination or racism in the last three years.’

Ok, so this suggests that at least two studies were done, a survey plus interviews of 30 local immigrants. The writer for the Freeps claims that 60% of immigrants reported discrimination in that survey. I determined to go find the actual studies to sort all this out, partly due to my reading this sentence further down in the article:

“A group of Western University researchers led by Esses heard newcomers say they were overlooked for promotion and their work was underappreciated.”

Ok, how many of your peers report being overlooked for promotion,  or underappreciated at their job? Maybe everyone? What makes that discrimination?

My curiosity fully aroused, I found the two studies on the website of the sponsoring organization mentioned above. You can, too, at this link

The first study, which surveyed 829 L-M residents in March of 2021, is written up in the paper dated August 2021. The second is indeed a report on interviews with 30 immigrants from the L-M region, and is dated March, 2023. This is the study mentioned in the tag line, and it is worth noting that all of the 30 people interviewed for that study reported being immigrants  and reported experiencing discrimination. Anyone who did not report those two things when first contacted to be interviewed, was not in fact interviewed. So the rate of reported discrimination among the interviewed group was 100%, by design.  That’s not what the article’s tag line would have you think but…ah, details.

As to the first, much larger survey, that’s where the Freeps reporting gets worse and the research gets, well, interesting. The 829 respondents to the survey were contacted by a hired polling company that used random-telephone-number dialing to collect its sample of respondents. Those who were actually given the survey to respond to were put into three groups, which the researchers titled Immigrants and Visible Minorities, Indigenous Peoples, and White Non-Immigrants.

Now, if one is trying to understand discrimination experienced by immigrants living in London-Middlesex, it seems very odd to include Indigenous Peoples in the survey. If anyone is 180 degrees different from being an immigrant, that would be indigenous folks.

On the other hand, including a set of White Non-immigrants in the survey makes sense. Whatever you learn about discrimination among immigrants is pretty meaningless without a point of comparison: the White Non-Immigrants can be considered the analog to a Control Group in a drug study. It’s like if someone tells you that The Bismarck displaced 41,000 tons when it was built, that doesn’t tell you it was one huge battleship unless you also know how big were other ships of the era.

Below are the self-reported rates of discrimination of these three groups – that is, the percentage of survey-takers in each group who reported being discriminated against – you can find these numbers on p.20 of the 2021 report:

Immigrants and Visible Minorities: 36.7%

Indigenous Peoples: 61.6%

White Non-immigrants: 44.4%

Which brings us back to the Freeps writing that “…60 per cent of those who identified as immigrants in Southwestern Ontario said they experienced some level of discrimination or racism in the last three years.”

Clearly that’s just wrong. Inaccurate. (See why I love the Freeps?) Indigenous peoples most certainly do not identify as immigrants. Count on it. The self-reported rate of discrimination among the immigrant group was 36.7%, which is way less than 60 in anyone’s arithmetic.

So the Freeps got the facts wrong, and they erred in the direction in which the Freeps always errs, in my experience. The Freeps has become The London Alarmist, always making things seem as bad as possible, so here they report the biggest, baddest number, even if it’s the wrong number.

However, I cannot let the researchers off free on this one, either. The word ‘Alarming’ in the headline is accurate, in that researcher Vicki Esses did use that adjective in describing the stories they heard in the interview study. But, of course, in the 2023 interview study the interviewees were pre-selected for saying they had been discriminated against. The earlier 2021 survey study could then be viewed as an attempt to understand how representative those stories are of the general experience of immigrants in the area.

But here’s the thing, which you alert readers likely have already noticed. White non-immigrants reported being discriminated against at a higher rate than the immigrants. As my foul-tongued friend Hugo might say – WTF?

The Freeps reporter did not question Esses about this finding from the survey, and I would bet a buck said reporter did not read either report. I mean, who has time to learn about the things one writes about? I would bet a lot more than a buck that had Ms. Rivers turned in a story to her editor headlined ‘Immigrants less discriminated against locally than white non-immigrants’ she would not have gotten her byline into The Alarmist.

A final note on the research, specifically the survey report. As the researchers write on p. 51 of the 2021 report – “Nonetheless, because participation was voluntary, it is likely that interest in the topic had some influence on whether or not eligible individuals participated, leading to some inevitable potential biasing of the samples.”

Yea. Likely, indeed. They note that the use of random-phone-dialing to get initial respondents helps work against bias, and that is only partly true. The researchers don’t tell us much about that respondent recruiting process, and were this study being presented in a seminar, here are just a few of the questions I would ask:

Did the phone-calling include cell phone numbers or just land-lines?

Was there a set text the callers used to screen potential survey-takers, and if so, what did it say?

Given that the survey involves unconfirmed self-reporting (the results from which should always be taken with a grain of salt) what reason is there for confidence that the reports of discrimination correspond to actual discrimination?

The reasoning behind the first two questions is simple: if only land-lines were called, as used to be the case, a whole swath of Canadians, mostly younger, who have no landlines anymore, is left out of the pool of potential survey-takers. How that might bias the results I cannot say, but it seems it must to some extent, so this is important for understanding the survey results.

And, if the callers doing the recruiting let out the fact- or even the possibility – that they were asking people to participate in a survey on discrimination, then my Spidey sense goes into full vibration mode. This will attract people who feel discriminated against disproportionately, and renders the ‘% experiencing discrimination’ statistic unrepresentative of what happens in the general L-M population. It is not reassuring that the researchers say so little about the respondent recruiting process.

The third question is prompted by the fact that White non-immigrants reported more discrimination than Immigrants. This makes it very difficult for me to believe that these responses tell us much about discrimination against immigrants.

To go back to the Random-Controlled Drug Trial analogy above, if the group you gave the drug to (the white non-immigrants) is more likely to get the disease the drug is supposed to cure than the group that did not get it (the immigrants), your drug does not work; indeed, it’s bloody dangerous.

That finding should have the researchers questioning just what the survey responses actually tell them, if anything. Do they believe that white non-immigrants are actually more likely to experience discrimination than immigrants? If so, are they seeking research funding to look into discrimination against white non-immigrants? I rather doubt the answer to either question is yes, but that’s the implication of their survey results if they want to insist that the survey responses tell us something about actual discrimination.  And that ‘Alarming’ thing kinda suggests they do.

 

 

Boycotting Loblaw’s

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Popular attitudes. No Comments on Boycotting Loblaw’s

A friend of mine mentioned in an email that there was a boycott of Loblaw’s going on. News to me, but hey, there’s that internet thing, so I started searching, and sure enough, there is. A Reddit group called r/loblawsisoutofcontrol is pushing a boycott of all Loblaw’s owned retail outlets in May.

Here’s the statement on the Reddit site:

“Our community has taken the time to organize a movement which aims to boycott Loblaw stores until prices can be reduced.

Since it’s founding, our community has seen hundreds of ridiculously priced goods, dumb deals, rotten produce and more. Loblaw, and other major grocers in Canada enjoy the benefits of a monopoly on an essential service, and force us to pay utterly ridiculous prices. Canadians are facing a cost of living crisis, and grocers are a major contributor to this. Vunerable populations such as seniors, persons with disabilities, and those on fixed incomes are left further behind. Food banks across the country are seeing a drastic increase in demand.

In response, our team has organized a boycott of Loblaw stores and demand action in order to provide relief to Canadians.”

The first thing I wondered about this was – why Loblaw’s, and not, say Metro or Sobey’s? If the group believes that prices are generally higher at Loblaw’s outlets than at those other places, then a campaign to buy from the other places rather than Loblaw’s is what used to be called ‘shopping’. Buy low is a good strategy, I reckon, not a movement in need of a reddit group.

On the other hand, the statement also says “Loblaw, and other major grocers in Canada enjoy the benefits of a monopoly on an essential service, and force us to pay utterly ridiculous prices.”

If there is more than one grocer, then nobody has a monopoly on anything, but it is true that the grocery industry in Canada is pretty concentrated, by which I mean that a few corporations sell most of the goods.

Below, courtesy of CBC, is a look at how revenues in the grocery industry in Canada are distributed. What that graphic doesn’t make clear is whether the Loblaw’s share of 29%, the largest, included sales of all the outlets the company owns. That is, are grocery sales from Shoppers and The Real Canadian Superstore, etc, included in the Loblaws number, or are those sales in the Other category.

Anyway, even if the ‘other’ category really is other, it seems that Loblaw’s, Metro, Costco and Sobey’s are the four big guns, and an industry in which the four largest sellers earn 72% of all sales revenue is pretty damn concentrated. An oligopoly, for sure. This is, btw, a problem in many industries in Canada, and one that has been commented on constantly by smarter people than me. Banking, airlines and other industries are also highly concentrated in Canada, and more importantly, perhaps, they have been becoming more so in the last decade or so. This trend toward higher concentration extends to our neighbours to the south, also.

Economists say many complicated things about competition, but on the ground it is about choices. If you, as a consumer, have a lot of choices as to where to buy something, that market is competitive, and so the more concentrated is an industry, the less competitive it is, on that measure. By the same measure, it was surely a mistake for the Canadian Competition Bureau to let Loblaw’s buy up most of Shopper’s Drug Mart back in the day, and more recently for Sobey’s to be allowed to buy Farmboy, just as it was a mistake to let ScotiaBank buy up Ing bank and turn it into Tangerine.

Of course, the grocery business could be worse: there isn’t actually a monopoly seller.  If Loblaw’s were that, no boycott would be possible and a monopoly Loblaw’s really would have control of an essential service.

There is also no doubt that grocery prices have risen faster than prices in many sectors in the recent inflationary period – that you can look up. One explanation for this could be as follows. We got inflation in Canada (as in the US and other countries) from 2022 forward in part because the Government threw piles of money at people during the pandemic, but there wasn’t a lot to spend it on during lockdowns. Once those were lifted, folks had lots of savings they wanted to spend, and firms’ attempts to meet this increased demand were somewhat stymied by supply-chain difficulties. So, you get good-old demand-pull inflation. The supply chain issues by now are mostly gone, but it is still true that increasing the supply of food in response to increasing demand can’t happen fast: crops, produce and cattle don’t come to market in a day, so there are still demand-pull issues in groceries. So, grocery prices are still rising faster than other prices.

I wouldn’t stake a million bucks on that explanation, but it’s not implausible, either.

Which returns me to the Loblaw’s boycott and my original question: why them? Is it a fact that prices have gone up more at Loblaw’s than at Sobey’s or Metro? If so, then we are back to ‘shopping’ and I’m not going to argue against shopping for lower prices. But if not, if prices have risen over the last two years about the same amount at all the major grocery stores, then I will hypothesize that Loblaw’s is the target largely because Galen Weston is so much in the news. Galen maybe needs to keep a lower profile.

A final note. Crack economist Jagmeet Singh was quoted recently in The National Post as follows: “We know the major driver that is driving up the cost of living is corporate greed….” (ellipsis in the original NP article).

Based on Singh’s deeply insightful analysis, reducing inflation in Canada shold not be hard. Just replace all our corporation heads with the ones that were on the job before 2022, as those folks were clearly not greedy – inflation in all sectors was microscopic back in those good-old days.

Don’t you love simple answers?

 

Fast-food pricing I can’t explain   

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Dining out, London. No Comments on Fast-food pricing I can’t explain   

Time to talk burgers again, folks.

Two facts to start with: One, I almost never eat at fast-food restaurants, and two, I used to teach two different econ courses – Managerial Economics and Industrial Organization – in which I tried to teach students the underlying motivation for a host of different pricing strategies by sellers. The basic lesson was easy: pricing strategies are implemented because they result in higher profits. The interesting part is figuring out why the various pricing strategies could, despite surface appearances, increase a seller’s profits.

A week or so ago I went into the old building to attend a workshop in my old Department from noon to 1, and afterwards, having not managed any breakfast, I was hungry. The student centre just next door has a variety of fast-foody outlets, so, knowing I planned to be around until 5pm to attend another event, I figured I should break my usual no-fast-food habit and go get a burger.

There is an outlet there called The Fixx that sells burgers, poutine and side dishes. I went to their counter and ordered a burger and some fries to take back to my office. I was asked if I wanted a beverage, I said no. When I went to pay, the nice cashier lady looked at my slip and said ‘this is going to cost you more than if you ordered a drink, too, and made it a combo. Do you want to go back and get a drink?’

I said no thanks, seeing no good reason to be induced into consuming things I don’t want. However, assuming the cashier was correct, and she should know, I am struggling to explain this pricing by The Fixx.

I am aware that fast-food outlets love combo pricing, but I assumed that meant that if I ordered the drink with my burger and fries, combo pricing meant that the drink added less to the cost of my meal than the stand-alone price of the same drink. So long as the seller makes any revenue above the cost to them of the drink, this adds to their profits.  Fine, easy-peasy. I get it.

However, the cashier’s statement says that The Fixx makes more money from me if I don’t add the drink to my order: they get more revenue from me, and they save the cost of providing the drink.

How does this combo pricing increase their profits? That is, why do they want to induce me to add a drink to my order with a pricing scheme that earns them more profit if I don’t buy the drink?

One possibility is that this strategy is actually designed to induce me to add an order of fries to a drink-and-burger-only order. I don’t know that the price of a burger and drink is higher than the ‘combo’ price of burger, drink and fries. If not, then the combo pricing may just be targeted at burger-and-drink buyers, and if there are few burger-and-fries buyers like me, that could perhaps still be profitable for the Fixx.

Another possibility lies in the fact that, unlike many of the outlets in the Student Centre food area (e.g. Subway, Starbucks) The Fixx is a UWO-developed food outlet. According to this report from 2018,

“A concept developed in-house, The FIXX prepares burgers made from 100-per-cent Canadian seasoned ground beef – gluten-free and with no fillers, additives or hormones. Located where Harvey’s had been for 21 years, The FIXX is where customers can choose from a variety of toppings including guacamole, pico de gallo, caramelized onions, sautéed mushrooms or even a fried egg.”

So, perhaps the simple explanation is that Hospitality Services at UWO is not interested in profits; rather, they badly want people to drink more fluids. I kinda doubt that, but I have no evidence that it’s not true.

However, if profit-making fast-food outlets do the same kind of combo pricing I experienced at The Fixx, I am back to Square One in looking for an explanation. If anyone can tell me if that is so out there in the wider burger-franchise world, I would appreciate it; as I said, I don’t eat at fast-food restaurants much.

I certainly do not plan to go over to The Fixx again and order just a burger and drink to find out if my first explanation is plausible, either –  which brings me to the second thing I (re)-learned on my burger mission.

Staffing and quality

As the above-quoted Western Snooze piece notes, the burger predecessor to The Fixx in the Student Centre was a franchise outlet of Harvey’s. It, along with the other franchise operations on campus are not like the off-campus franchises in (at least) one important way. They use the company logos and offer (mostly) the same menu as off-campus outlets of each company, but are not staffed by pimply-faced young folk being paid the minimum wage.

When UWO decided many years ago to get rid of most of their own food preparation services and instead have franchises provide food in the Student Centre, they made a deal with the union that represented their own food operations workers. Specifically, that its union members would staff those franchise outlets that opened up on-campus.

So, I presume Harvey’s was paid some percentage of the profits or revenues of the on-campus outlet, along with perhaps an annual fixed fee. However, my long experience on campus indicates that staffing by relatively higher-paid union members results in lower quality food and service than one gets in an off-campus outlet of the same company. The burgers  put out by the Harvey’s on campus were lukewarm and chewy, as were the fries. The reason for this is clear – they cooked the burgers most of the way through, let them sit around in a warming pan, then threw them back on the grill briefly when you ordered one. Similarly, fries were mostly cooked, left lying about, and then thrown back into the fryer when ordered. (My first-ever job was at McDonald’s a hundred years ago, I know how this shit works.) This results in shorter wait times for your order, the need for fewer workers (important), and low-quality food.

This always raised for me the following question: was Harvey’s getting paid sufficiently by the university to compensate it for the bad press it was getting from the crappy food being sold in its student centre operation? These food outlets on campus have a local near monopoly – ‘near’ because there is The Wave, an undergrad restaurant and The Grad Club, which both sell somewhat better (non-franchise) food. However, students, faculty and staff do go out to eat with their families off-campus, and those people could not have a good impression of Harvey’s if they ever get food from the on-campus outlet. That’s like 30,000 opportunities for bad publicity for Harvey’s due to this low-quality on-campus franchise.

The explanation here may simply be that the people who might – unlike me – get a meal at an off-campus Harvey’s location understand that their experience at the on-campus location is not a reliable predictor of what it will be like to eat at an off-campus location. If so, there perhaps isn’t much of a bad reputational effect for the off-campus Harvey’s outlets, but in a market (i.e., franchised restaurants) in which it is said ‘uniformity across outlets’ is all-important, this is still a bit surprising to me.

What is not at all surprising to me is that the burger and fries I got from the in-house The Fixx last week were just as lukewarm and chewy as Harvey’s used to put out. I recognized the woman behind the grill who was mistreating my burger as having performed the same service for the Harvey’s outlet back in the day. No worry about off-campus reputational effects here, there are no off-campus Fixx outlets.

So, same poor-quality food at The Fixx as at its predecessor Harvey’s,  but only The Fixx is willing to pay me to drink pop. I think.

 

Sample-based bullshit

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Education, Standards. No Comments on Sample-based bullshit

Standards in general, and in academia in particular, are a keen concern of mine, and I will be writing about them frequently here. This post is about an open letter written by a faculty member in the Department of Computer Science at the University of Regina to the Head of the Department, a letter which he shared in a publication to which I subscribe.

The letter concerns an email sent to all CS students and faculty at UR on August 30, 2023, in which the following sentence appears – “In an effort to provide timely feedback on student work, some of our courses will be moving to a sample-based marking approach.”

The email goes on to explain what that means – that when a student turns in an assignment or test, not all of it will be marked. The parts to be marked will not be revealed until after the marked work has been returned to the students, and their grade will be determined only by that which is marked. So if a test consists of 6 problems, perhaps only three will be marked and feedback provided; the same three for all students.

The reason given for this is the increase in the size of CS classes, driven in turn by an increase in the number of CS majors, said to be nearly 1000 in the email.

The faculty member wrote his open letter to the Head of his Department (Computer Science) decrying this new grading approach, and explaining why he thought it would lead to a decline in academic standards.

I will first just record here that ‘sample-based marking’ as described, is in itself a reduction in academic standards. When I taught at University my assignments and tests were conceived as a whole, different parts of it designed to test different parts of the material, but also different abilities. Some questions could not be answered well without having the ability to write clearly and concisely about something complex, while other questions were designed to test one’s ability to deal with more formal logical or technical issues. To mark or provide feedback on only some aspects of the work is to ignore some part of what the course is about.

I understand well that the idea behind this is that, because the students don’t know up-front which parts of their work will be marked, they still have an incentive to work hard learning all of it. This does not change the fact they will get no feedback on some of their work, a primary point of marking. But in addition, anyone who knows students knows this will lead to a cottage industry in figuring out which parts of work any given instructor is likely to mark, which is not in any way part of what higher education is supposed to teach students.

This policy is, in the end, a further piece of evidence as to what University administrators’ goal is. Get as many students through to a degree as possible, at as low a cost as possible. So far as I can tell, their political masters in Canada are perfectly in agreement with this goal.

This is why sample-based marking is being implemented, rather than the solution suggested by the CS faculty member who objected to it; hiring more faculty to accommodate the growing number of students. Faculty are expensive. And, note that the letter did not indicate that CS students would be seeing a discount on their tuition bill to accompany this sample-based marking initiative.

Imagine a McDonald’s franchise-holder, or local restauranteur, who found themselves with a (delightful) increase in patronage, and responded by filling only part of all food orders, rather than hiring more workers, while charging for everything ordered.

One final note. The original email laying out how this scheme is envisioned working at UR also says that the parts of any student work that are not marked will none the less have solutions posted for the non-marked parts, or they will be gone over in class so as to provide students with the correct solutions. So, there’s your all-around feedback, eh?

Right. In a university atmosphere in which students feel free – indeed, are encouraged – to argue for higher marks for most any reason they can think up, this will open up a whole new area of student appeals. To wit: “ I got the parts of the exam you did not mark nearly perfect, according to your own solution key, so I deserve much more than the 63 I received, which is based solely on the parts you did mark.”…followed by the ever-popular ‘This isn’t fair.’

 

 

Ask Yourself: Do I Feel Lucky? Well, do you…..?

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in News Media, Research. No Comments on Ask Yourself: Do I Feel Lucky? Well, do you…..?

 

Bad luck and trouble, two of my best friends – Sam (Lightnin’) Hopkins/Mack McCormick

You can spend a lot of time reading about things that seem social sciencey, but are in fact pure politics. One example of what I’m talking about is the following non-question: what matters more in life, luck or talent?

It’s not a scientific question because 1) luck is impossible to measure, 2) talent is only measured approximately, at best, and 3) there is no scale on which one can put a life to decide the ‘more’ part of the question.

However, political types, by which I mean politicians, advocates, activists and ‘experts’ are happy to go on and on about which matters more, and they are all quite sure they know the answer.

An Opinion piece showed up in the Feb 21 Report on Business section of the Globe on this non-question, titled Rich and successful? It’s likely you’re just lucky. Written by Mark Rank, said to be a Professor of Social Welfare at Washington University in St Louis, the piece is labelled as being ‘Special to the Globe and Mail’, which I think just means that Rank is not on the staff of the Globe.

It was a very annoying article.

Let me explain.

In his piece Rank weighs in on the side of luck in this debate, and I’m not writing to argue against that position; as I wrote, it’s a pointless argument. I’m writing because Rank badly mis-characterizes a piece of academic research in supporting his position. He writes:

“Take the case of who becomes wealthy and who experiences poverty. It turns out that the random factor is very much in play. In a fascinating research article titled Talent Versus Luck: The Role of Randomness in Success and Failure, mathematical physicist Alessandro Pluchino and his colleagues were able to empirically quantify the relative importance of talent versus luck in terms of acquiring great wealth over a 40-year working-age lifespan. What they found was that the most talented people almost never reached the peaks of economic success – rather, the ones most likely to achieve the pinnacle of wealth were those with more average talents but who happened to catch a couple of lucky breaks.”

Before I explain what is wrong here, I doff my hat to Professor Rank for apparently citing some actual research, and for including in his article a link to the paper he is citing. That happens all too rarely.

The above paragraph makes the research of Pluchino and colleagues seem like it is about real people, living ’40-year working-age lifespan(s)’, right? And, it seems that for these ‘people’ it turned out that the ‘most talented people’ were not generally the ones to achieve ‘the pinnacle of wealth’. Rather it was those people with good luck who did well.

That could hardly be further from the truth of what the Puchino article does.

To start with, his statement that Pluchino and colleagues “…were able to empirically quantify the relative importance of talent versus luck…” is flat out wrong. The adjective ‘empirically’ says that they observed people and recorded what they observed to support their ‘luck matters more than talent’ claim. [Merriam Webster – empiric: capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment; originating in or based on observation or experience.] They observed no one, they gathered no data about anybody.

In fact, what the Pluchino et al paper does is report on the construction of a mathematical model, in which the authors interpret their purely mathematical result as demonstrating that luck matters more than talent.

However, none of this ‘talent’ they write about is embodied or observed in actual people, nor do they observe the amount of good or bad luck that any real people experience.

Puchino and friends build a model in which the ‘people’ are theoretical entities who do nothing. In the model they are assigned varying levels of theoretical talent by the researchers, and then they are bombarded with theoretical good or bad luck. They do not respond to what happens to them in any way. In fact, in the model, they are not allowed to make any decisions or take any actions – they are automatons. The researchers give these automatons varying levels of ‘talent’, but the same ‘wealth’ (also theoretical) to start out with, then run them through forty fictitious instances of good or bad luck. Having performed those mathematical operations, they observe how much wealth each automaton ends up with. (These forty hits of theoretical good or bad luck is what Rank refers to as a ’40-year working life span’. No one works in the model, either – good or bad things just happen to them. 40 times.)

In addition to this, there is no interaction between the various fictitious automatons. What happens to automaton no. 12 has no influence on, nor is it influenced by, what happens to any other automaton. You know, just like in the real world, where people go through their lives in perfect isolation.

I repeat, there is no actual data about anything collected or observed by these researchers. Thus, there is nothing whatsoever ‘empirical’ about this research, and I leave it to you to consider what this fictitious world of automatons might tell us about luck vs talent out in the real (empirical) world. (Note that because the automatons don’t do anything, the role of diligence, effort, or good decision-making doesn’t have even a theoretical place in this research.)

Puchino and company do discuss other research papers they say provide evidence that luck matters more than other things. These other papers are duly referenced, and the interested reader can go read them and judge for themselves how convincing any of them are. I have not done so, and there is no indication Rank has, either.

The point here is that Puchino and his colleagues provide no empirical evidence that luck matters more than talent, only that it does in their theoretical model, and Rank is wrong to say they do. Professor Rank has mis-used their research in trying to support his own view on this matter in his op-ed column. As a Professor of Social Welfare, I am not surprised that Rank believes luck matters more than talent, but there is no evidence in his article or the Puchino paper to support that view.

Sadly, academics tend to believe that any press is good press, so I doubt Puchino and friends are upset by Rank’s complete misrepresentation of their research in his article.

I was.

 

That Unfriendly Law Thing

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Government, LBOs. No Comments on That Unfriendly Law Thing

Over lunch one day, a friend of mine said to another friend of mine – ‘The law is not your friend’. I am not always in agreement with Friend 1, but in this case I could only say ‘Amen’.

But never mind what I say, the Globe and Mail featured a story on April 12 titled:

 ‘Foreign landlord fails to pay taxes, CRA goes after tenant’

that is eloquent as hell on this very topic.

The story is as appalling as it is instructive. A tenant in Montreal had a landlord who was an Italian resident for tax purposes, and that landlord did not pay the Canadian income taxes owed on the rents he received from said tenant. If ya earned it in Canada, ya gets taxed in Canada. The CRA, noble institution that it is, told the tenant he was on the hook for the unpaid taxes, because he was supposed to withhold 25% of his rent for that purpose. You know, just like you do when you pay those Swedes at Ikea for that sofa you purchased, or pay for that pack of Slim Jims at Mr Kim’s Convenience.

The tenant took the CRA to court over this – Tax Court, natch – and lost.

Here’s my favourite part. Really. Quoting directly from the Globe article, now –

The judge acknowledged “the harsh consequences,” in her decision, but still held the “resident payer,” or renter, liable.

The tenant’s lawyer pointed out that there was no reasonable way for the tenant to even know his landlord was not a Canadian resident for tax purposes. That, of course, was deemed to be no excuse.

My second favourite part is the last line of the G&M piece on this:

The CRA did not respond to requests to comment.

Really? No comment?

However, I am not kidding about my ‘favourite part’, as the judge’s attitude is a perfect illustration of The Central Fact about Large Bureaucratic Organizations (LBOs) – and our legal system is one Really Large BO. Those who are in such an org can always justify to themselves and to the world treating people in any way that is consistent with The Rules of the Org, however inhumane such treatment may be.

The judge could acknowledge harshness, could even shed a tear, perhaps, but, ya know – the law is the law. And, as my friend said, it is not your friend.

 

Following the Hot Hand of Science

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Research, Standards. No Comments on Following the Hot Hand of Science

Anyone vaguely familiar with basketball has heard of the ‘hot hand’ phenomenon. Someone on the team gets a hot shooting streak going, they can’t seem to miss, and their teammates start looking to get the hot-handed player the ball. I played backyard hoops a lot in my youth, and there were (very few) times when it happened to me; every shot I threw up seemed to go in – briefly.

Well, academics got wind of this long ago also, and decided to investigate whether there was anything to it. Yea, sure, players talk about experiencing it, or seeing it, but it could easily be just a matter of perception, something that would disappear into the ether once subjected to hard-nosed observation and statistical analysis.

The canonical paper to do this analysis was published in 1985 in Cognitive Psychology, authored by Gilovich, Tallone and Tversky. The last of this trio, Amos Tversky, was a sufficiently notable scholar that young economists like me were told to read some of his work back in the day. He died young, age 59, in 1996, six years before his frequent co-researcher, Daniel Kahnemann, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. The work the Nobel committee cited in awarding the prize to Kahnemann was mostly done with Tversky, so there is little doubt Tversky would have shared the prize had he lived long enough, but Nobels are, by rule, not given to the dead.

Now, as a research question, looking for a basketball hot hand is in many ways ideal: the trio used data on shots made and missed by players in the NBA, which tracks such data very carefully, and beyond that, they did their own controlled experiment, putting the Cornell basketball teams to work taking shots, and recording the results. Good data is everything in social science, and the data doesn’t get much better than that. Well, bear with me here, this is most of the Abstract of that 1985 paper:

“Basketball players and fans alike tend to believe that a player’s chance of hitting a shot are greater following a hit than following a miss on the previous shot. However, detailed analyses of the shooting records of the Philadelphia 76ers provided no evidence for a positive correlation between the outcomes of successive shots. The same conclusions emerged from free-throw records of the Boston Celtics, and from a controlled shooting experiment with the men and women of Cornell’s varsity teams. The outcomes of previous shots influenced Cornell players’ predictions but not their performance. The belief in the hot hand and the “detection” of streaks in random sequences is attributed to a general misconception of chance according to which even short random sequences are thought to be highly representative of their generating process.”

That is, a player who hits a shot expects he is likely to hit the next one, too. When he does, he files this away as ‘having a hot hand’, but the actual frequency with which he hits the second shot is not actually higher than when he had missed his previous shot. Standard ‘cognitive bias’ causes the player – and fans – to see it that way, that’s all. They remember when the second shot is made more than they remember it being missed.

Damn scientists are always messing with our hopes and dreams, right? No Easter Bunny, no extra-terrestrials in Mississauga, and no hot hand. Is nothing sacred?  Other researchers went looking for evidence of a hot hand over the ensuing years, but it became known in academic circles as ‘the hot hand fallacy’, the general consensus being that it did not exist in the real world of basketball.

33 years later

But wait, it’s now 2018 and a paper by Miller and Sanjurjo appears in Econometrica, the premier journal for economic analysis involving probability and/or statistics. It’s title is “Surprised by the hot-hand fallacy? A truth in the law of small numbers”

Here’s some of what their Abstract says:

We prove that a subtle but substantial bias exists in a common measure of the conditional dependence of present outcomes on streaks of past outcomes in sequential data…. We observe that the canonical study [that is, Gilovich, Tallone and Tversky] in the influential hot hand fallacy literature, along with replications, are vulnerable to the bias. Upon correcting for the bias, we find that the longstanding conclusions of the canonical study are reversed.

It took over 30 years for two economists to figure out that ‘the canonical study’ of the hot hand did its ciphering wrong, and that once this is corrected, it’s findings are not just no longer true, they are reversed. The data collected in 1985 do provide evidence of the existence of a hot hand.

Think about this. In 1985 some very clever academics showed there was no such thing as a hot hand in the real world of basketball, and the academics who peer-reviewed their work agreed with them. Thirty-plus years later, some other clever academics realized that first set had gotten something wrong, and that fixing it reversed the previous findings – and the academics who peer-reviewed their work agreed with them.

Ain’t social science wonderful? A question for which there is excellent data, a situation rarer than hen’s teeth in social science, is investigated and a conclusive answer arrived at, and thirty years later that answer is shown to be not just wrong but backwards.

No one did anything shady here. There was no messing with data, the 2018 guys used the same data used in 1985. A mistake, a subtle but significant mistake, accounts for the turnaround, and it took 33 years to discover it. One can hardly blame the 1985 researchers for not seeing the mistake, given that no one else did for such a long time.

The Lesson?

So, in case my point is not yet obvious, science is not a set of settled facts. Those do exist – sort of – but anyone who understands the process of science even a little understands that settled facts are settled only until they are overturned. And if that is true for such a clean research question as an investigation of a basketball hot hand, think about a more typical social science question in which two things are almost always true. One, the data is not at all what the researchers need, so they make do with what they can actually gather. Two, the right way to analyze that data – among endless possibilities – is a matter of disagreement among respectable social scientists. Following that kinda science will make you dizzy, my friends.

A teaser: think about this social scientific question. It is arguably of more importance than basketball shooting.

Does the availability of bricks-and-mortar adult entertainment establishments have a positive, negative, or no effect on the commission of sex crimes in the surrounding neighborhood?

Whaddya think is the right answer?

For extra credit: what kind of data would a researcher need to gather to answer that question?

Now that’s real (i.e., messy) social science.

Stay tuned, because a couple of economists set out to investigate the question above, and I’ll have a go at what they did and their findings in a future post.

 

 

Streaming service warnings, or…..huh?

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Culture, Language, Standards. No Comments on Streaming service warnings, or…..huh?

A pervasive feature of the 21st century in North America is the deterioration in the quality of written language. Words with a quite precise meanings, like ‘phone’, ‘mail’, ‘email’ and ‘text’ get replaced with the coverall ‘reach out’.

I have access to exactly one internet streaming service, and it provides one of the more amusing examples of language abuse in the warnings it attaches to the previews of the films that one can watch on it.

Now, some of these warnings are easily understandable: Nudity, Sex, Violence – the Classics. Attaching any of these to the preview of a film is particularly useful to any teens or pre-teens who live in the household. I have experience from an earlier era. In my pre-teen years my good Polish Catholic parents subscribed to The Catholic Chronicle, a weekly paper put out by the local diocese. This featured a lot of boring stuff I never read, but it also provided ratings of all the movies that would be shown that week on the 5 or 6 TV stations available in our town. Those ratings told me which channel to put on when I stayed up past my parents’ bedtime on Friday or Saturday night. I was most grateful to the Bishop for this service, even though nothing on TV in that era was actually all that scandalous. It doesn’t really take much to get a 12-year-old boy excited.

However, contemporary warning words beyond that Big Three are rather more mysterious to me.

One warning is Language. Not Profanity, not Cussin’, not even Bad Language, just – Language. That seems to suggest that the characters in the film are going to talk, but there is also another warning of Pervasive Language. I suppose it is useful for some people to know there will be a lot of talking, so they should pause the stream if they have to go to the bathroom.

There is also a warning for Smoking, which I presume is due to our enlightened age realizing that all it takes is for some young’n to see someone smoking in a film to provoke them to go out and steal some smokes and try it themselves.

However, there is also a distinct warning about Historical Smoking. Clearly this would be attached to a film set in the past in which people smoke. What is not clear to me is whether the distinction is made because seeing past smoking is more or less harmful than seeing current smoking. Whichever way it is, why is there not then a warning about Historical Nudity (Adam and Eve?) or Historical Violence (Conan the Barbarian?) or, really – Historical Sex; you know, before people knew how to do it right like we do.

Undoubtedly, the biggest mystery to me is when a film preview comes with this warning:

Some Thematic Elements

Whatever in the hell does that mean? I can’t even make a joke about it.

One might think that, whatever the environment, posting a warning whose meaning is unclear would be a terrible idea. Do we want Environment Canada putting out Alerts that say Something Might be Coming? [I admit, EnvCan’s Special Weather Statements are pretty close to that.]

However, here in the 21st century, when offence lurks around every corner, it may be that posting a warning on a film the meaning of which no one understands has value.

Consider this scenario – a subscriber phones up or texts the customer service dept of the service.

Subscriber: “Hey that movie had a blonde-haired woman chasing a blue aardvark around with a flyswatter, that was appalling, I had no idea me and the kids  would be exposed to that. What is wrong with you people?”

Customer Service: “Ah, but Madam, we did make it clear the movie contained Some Thematic Elements.”

Who needs experts – and who needs Al?

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in News Media, Research. No Comments on Who needs experts – and who needs Al?

I had planned to follow up my post on the Freeps printing a ‘news’ article in which the only news was a set of comments by one person (link), with one on the use of ‘experts’ in media more generally. Before I could, a regular reader pointed me at a piece in a site called The Hub that covered the same ground. Having read Howard Anglin’s piece carefully, and enjoyed it much, I’ve decided the best thing for me to do is just provide my own readers with a link to it (link).

I can’t see me writing anything better than he did….at least not yet.

Op-Eds in News Clothing

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in London, News Media. 1 Comment on Op-Eds in News Clothing

In the mainstream news media, it has long been common practice to distinguish between articles that are reporting news and opinion pieces. However, something that I see turning up with increasing frequency in news outlets are articles that are not labelled as Opinion, but are in fact mostly that. An example of this came up last year in the local London Free Press (aka The Freeps).

The article is titled “Western accused of trying to push aside women’s hockey concerns”, which appeared on page A2 of the Nov 11, 2023 paper edition of the Freeps that landed on my porch that morning. The byline is Jane Sims, a regular reporter for the Freeps.

The story out there in the world that this article refers to is the fact that the UWO women’s hockey team went through a kerfuffle involving the University’s strength-training coach (who worked with all the university’s athletes, apparently) and the team’s own coach. There was an investigation which resulted in the strength coach being dismissed but the coach of the hockey team staying on. Reports in previous editions of the Freeps indicated that not all of the hockey team players were happy with this outcome. This article of Nov 11 occupies 24 column-inches in this edition of the Freeps, making it the longest article in the paper’s Section A not covering some aspect of Remembrance Day. There is some re-stating of what had happened previously in the matter, some other material (e.g., that about 20 players were on the ice for the last practice) that may be new to readers, but what is undoubtedly new in the article is a series of quotes from Garrett Holmes, who is said to be the founder of The Canadian Student-Athlete Association. The website for this organization states the following:

The Canadian Student-Athlete Association is a non profit unincorporated association founded by Western University student-athlete Garrett Holmes on July 20, 2020.   

It serves as the only independent voice for Canadian university and college athletes. 

The article notes that Holmes had written two letters to the UWO president criticizing the university’s handling of this matter, and quotes him repeatedly.

I am citing this article not because I find what Holmes has to say about all this objectionable, but because the article is presented as news, when in fact it is to all intents and purposes an opinion piece that presents the opinions of one person regarding this matter – Garrett Holmes. There is nothing in the article to suggest that Holmes has any more information about what happened than would anyone else who had been reading about it in the Freeps. He has not interviewed anyone at Western so far as we know, nor has he any inside information not available to others. He has an opinion about what happened, as might you, but you didn’t get quoted in the Freeps. The Freeps simply inserts his opinions – and no one else’s – into what is supposed to be a news article. Indeed, the article headline – not typically written by the reporter – suggests that Mr. Holmes’ views about what happened are the entire point of the story.

So I ask, why Mr Holmes’ views, and his views only? Did Ms Sims contact anyone else to get their, possibly differing, views? Did she contact the UWO Prez, or John Doerksen, or the coach herself, or any players? Is there something about Mr. Holmes that makes him uniquely qualified to have his views aired in London’s only newspaper?  He is indeed the founder of the CSAA, and you can visit that org’s website here (link). It lists Mr Holmes as founder, has some info about him, and you can also read there its two-page constitution, and note that it’s Board of Directors is ‘coming soon’ – just as it has been since the Freeps article appeared last year. The constitution’s last line is “This constitution may only be amended by a unanimous vote of the Board.”

There is a larger point here, that ‘news’ articles in many outlets include a lot of what is said or written by ‘advocates’, ‘activists’ and ‘experts’ . If Mr Holmes is an ‘expert’, the standards for that designation by the Freeps seem kinda low to me.

Moreover, if a media outlet is going to quote such people, the outlet has to choose which of the many available ‘experts’ to quote, and doing so necessarily inserts what are most typically no more than opinions into a news article.

By the usual conventions, this article is news rather than opinion because it does not include the opinions of Ms Sims, or anyone else who works for the Freeps, such as the Editorial Board. But quoting one and only one other person’s opinions moves the article into opinion none the less, in my view. Consider that if she wanted, Ms Sims could insert her opinions into any article just by finding an ‘expert’ or ‘advocate’ whose opinions she shares and quoting only them. I’m not saying this is what happened here, but still, this news story is really mostly opinion, because it mostly ‘reports’ the comments of one person.

One response to this might be – ‘Really, all you’re complaining about is the Freeps being a bit hazy about the line between news and opinion? People can tell the difference between the facts reported in the article and Holmes’ opinions. No big deal, get over it.’

I think it’s a deal. Why did the Freep do this? Why did they not just report on the latest developments in the matter, and leave any comments from Mr Holmes or others to the Op-Ed page? There are always many motives that can be dreamt up to explain any behavior you might observe, but I will hypothesize a particular one in this case.

News media outlets, and the Freeps in particular, want controversy in their news stories, they want to report that people are upset, outraged, deeply concerned, that they are ‘calling out’ other people. Mr Holmes’ comments got in the article, on my hypothesis, because he accuses the university of treating the athletes badly. He is quoted ‘I think it’s clear that some players, if not all, don’t feel it’s a safe environment….’(ellipsis in the original)*.  Mr Holmes cites safety concerns, and that is the great contemporary trigger – there is nothing worse you can accuse a person of in the 21st century than being unconcerned about safety. However Ms Sims came to know about Mr. Holmes and his views, I’m betting that he would have found himself ignored and un-quoted had he commended the UWO admin for its actions in this matter.

*(pseudo-footnote): I would never let my students back in the day get away with a sentence that starts with ‘I think it’s clear that….’ – a topic for another post.

 

Surge Pricing Burgers and the Importance of Reading the Whole Post

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Education, News Media. No Comments on Surge Pricing Burgers and the Importance of Reading the Whole Post

Wendy, Wendy what went wrong? – Brian Wilson and Mike Love

Some weeks back a news story made the rounds that Wendy’s CEO had announced in a call with investors that the company was planning to institute ‘surge pricing’ in its restaurants. You can read a somewhat outraged story about it in the NY Post here, if you missed it. Surge pricing in this case would mean that what you pay for items on their menu would vary with the time of day, as does the amount of business at Wendy’s – busy times would see higher prices. The technology to do this is the installation of menu boards at the drive-thrus on which prices could be changed electronically whenever desired. Presumably the same would be true for the in-store menu boards, also.

Anyway, this generated a mostly predictable amount of outrage from mostly predictable quarters, but I am writing about this not because of the pricing itself, or the outrage, but rather about what happened next. On February 28 the Globe ran an Associated Press article with the headline “Wendy’s says it has no plans to raise prices at busiest times at its restaurants”. Similarly, CNN’s website (a place I rarely go) ran an article on Feb 28 titled “Wendy’s says it won’t use surge pricing’.

To its credit, CNN also provided a link to the blog post in which Wendy’s supposedly backtracked from its CEO’s original statement to investors about this. You can read that post here also, if you like.

However, what convinced me this was worth writing about myself, was an Opinion article that appeared in my print edition of The Globe and was headed up thusly:

Surge pricing for burgers? Wendy’s was wise to reject it

Woonghee Tim Huh and Steven Shechter

Special to The Globe and Mail – Feb 29, 2024

Woonghee Tim Huh is professor and chair of the operations and logistics division at the UBC Sauder School of Business and the Canada Research Chair in operations excellence and business analytics.

Steven Shechter is a professor in the operations and logistics division at the UBC Sauder School of Business and the WJ VanDusen Professor of business administration.

****

You can read the online version of this Globe article here. In it, the UBC guys explain, sort-of, why it was wise of Wendy’s to back off from their original surge pricing plan.

No doubt Bus School profs have superior insight into firm pricing than do I, but it seems to me that it behooves all of us to read what the firm in question has to say about what they are doing before analysing what they are doing. Professors Huh and Shechter do quote from Wendy’s ‘backtracking’ blog post, in the paragraph below, quoted directly from the Profs’ G&M article:

So, on Wednesday, Wendy’s said its dynamic pricing plan would not raise prices during busy times. The plan, the company said, would only “allow us to change the menu offerings at different times of day and offer discounts and value offers.”

Point one: learn to use ellipsis if you only quote part of a sentence. Here is the full sentence from the actual Wendy’s blog from which the good Professors’ partial quote is taken:

“Digital menuboards could allow us to change the menu offerings at different times of day and offer discounts and value offers to our customers more easily, particularly in the slower times of day.”

Point two: everything that is important about the actual sentence posted by Wendy’s is the underlined part of it at the end which the Professors left out of their own quote. Had they included it, they might have felt compelled to explain how ‘raising prices during peak times’ differs from ‘offering discounts during slower times of day’, and that would be a truly difficult task, because there is no difference.

Back when I taught price discrimination strategies in my Managerial Econ class, I would start with something familiar to everyone – Seniors pricing. You know, you walk into the movie theatre and find something that looks like this:

Admission: $15.00

Seniors (55+): $12.00

(Sidebar: I would ask my students why so many businesses offer lower prices to seniors, and get lots of responses about corporate altruism and Seniors being on fixed incomes. It was fun then to show them that this pricing increased profits for the firms, no altruism needed.)

But I digress.

My point is that one does not see this sign in a theatre:

Admission: $12.00

Under 55: $15.00

There is no bloody difference in the price anyone pays for a theatre ticket with the two different signs, but the second one just seems so mean, while the first one seems nice.

Well, it’s the same with Wendy’s pricing: offering discounts at slow times seems nice, adding a premium when it’s busy, well that’s just mean, and Wendy’s would never do that. They said so, after all.

Minor point: If Wendy’s actually had, in some alternate universe, backtracked from surge pricing, I can’t say there is anything in the Sauder School authored Globe article that convinced me that backtracking would have been wise, the headline notwithstanding. However, since Wendy’s did not backtrack, that point seems not worth pursuing.

Not so minor point: Since it is clear from their own blog post that Wendy’s is going to install these quick-price-change menu boards, the following scenario becomes possible. The drive-thrus already have cameras focused on the cars in the queue, so it would be easy to build a data base of licence plate numbers at each store, or even across stores, so the store could determine, for example, how regular a customer they were serving. If Wendy’s corporate strategists have kept up with what goes on at insurance companies, they could then program their menu boards to show higher prices to frequent drive-thru-diners.

I used to teach students about that sort of ‘disloyalty pricing’, too, because insurance companies do employ it – they call it ‘price optimization’, and last I read, some US States were trying to ban it.

Shattering illusions, that was always my mission.

Coda: Before this post went to press, the WSJ published another article on surge pricing and other restaurant strategies. A quote from that article:

While some consumers tend to resent surge pricing, as Wendy’s discovered last month, they like happy-hour discounts and other deals at slow times, industry consultants said.

Whatever would the world do without industry consultants?

 

Attitudes on Peace, Order and Citizens’ Rights

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Government, News Media, Popular attitudes. No Comments on Attitudes on Peace, Order and Citizens’ Rights

At this point I have lived 63% of my life in Canada (nearly 81% of my adult life), but I was born in the US of A. It is common among my friends – wherever they were born – to argue about the differences, or lack thereof, between Americans and Canadians. Like all general comparisons, they are at best approximations, and not very precise ones, at that. Still, it’s a generally amusing exercise, and it gives us all something to argue about over beer.

However, sometimes things pop up on my radar that seem like they might reveal something useful about such differences. One example appeared in a letter to the Editor of the Globe and Mail just after the Federal court ruling that the Liberal Government of the time was not justified in invoking the Emergencies Act during the trucker convoy protest in Ottawa. It’s hardly surprising that this decision prompted a lot of folks to write to the G&M, but the letter below caught my attention –

Letter to the Editor, G&M print edition, Jan 25, 2024

Re: “Invoking Emergencies Act wasn’t justified and infringed on Charter rights, Federal Court rules” (Jan 24).

Really? What is wrong with this country?

We watched as a collection of bullies occupied Ottawa, breaking parking and noise bylaws and generally being inconsiderate to the local inhabitants. The federal government is now being censured for its decision, which solved the problem with no blood spilled.

We as polite Canadians seem to be at the mercy of individuals who claim that their right to cause mayhem trumps our right to peace, order and good government.

Signed, etc.

—

I immediately wrote a (sarcastic, I admit) reply to this letter and sent it to the G&M Editors, which of course they did not print. I mean, really – the three sins of the protesters you can name are breaking parking and noise by-laws and being inconsiderate, and that to you is sufficient grounds for the government to invoke the Emergencies Act and start demanding banks turn over account information? Really?

I suspect if you asked 100 Canadians and 100 Americans whether they agreed with the letter-writer’s position, you would get a higher percentage agreeing among the Canadians than among Americans, but I’m not confident that the difference would be all that large. My suspicion is that 21st-century citizens of all the advanced democracies are on average more concerned with peace and order than with any threat to their rights as citizens. That is, to be sure, no more than a hunch, based on being on the planet a long time. If anyone knows of good research on Can-Am differences in attitudes about such matters, I would love to get references.

Young, Rogan and the Cost of Principles

Written by Al Slivinski on . Posted in Popular attitudes, Standards. No Comments on Young, Rogan and the Cost of Principles

Came across an article in the Wall Street Journal last month headlined as:

Neil Young Will Return to Spotify After Two-Year Boycott Over Joe Rogan

Singer-songwriter says he had no choice but to return to streaming platform due to wider distribution of Rogan’s podcast

March 13, 2024 Gareth Vipers

For you non-WSJ subscribers who may have forgotten what this is all about, here’s a quote from the WSJ piece:

Young penned an open letter to his manager and label in 2022 asking them to remove his music from the platform, saying it was spreading fake information about Covid-19 vaccines through Rogan’s show.

The article explains that in fact, “…Young’s label legally has control over how and where his music is distributed…” but Vipers claims that they had reason to honor his request. The piece does not say if they actually did, and if they did not, then this would seem to have been a rather empty gesture on ol’ Neil’s part.

Anyway, the point of this piece was that Rogan had since 2022 made a very lucrative deal to have his podcast more widely streamed, including on Apple and Amazon, and in light of that, Young was going to start letting his musical recordings be distributed on Spotify again. [I am inferring from that piece of info that Warner Bros did indeed pull his stuff from Spotify in ’22.]

I am a fan of Young’s music. Hearing Cinnamon Girl blasting out of a pair of car speakers was one of the great thrills of my youth, and one of the few truly wonderful musical moments on the old Saturday Night Live show was when Young and Crazy Horse brought down the house with a searing version of Rockin’ in The Free World. The man was a serious rocker, and he wrote some great songs.

One of my favourite Neil Young moments was in 1988, when he put out an album titled This Note’s for You. It was a blast at other musicians who allow their music to be used to sell shit. One of my (admittedly costless to hold) convictions is that musicians (or actors or other performers) who have made serious money in their career and then allow their output or their selves to be used to sell shit – any shit – are putzes who I wouldn’t trust if I ever ran into them.

As one example, I was depressed a couple of years ago to hear the Who’s Eminence Front – one of their best recordings – being used to sell Nissans. From the movies we have Samuel L Jackson, Danny DeVito, Rob Lowe, Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner and on and on….one sees them more often in ads than in movies.

[I would like to think there is a special place in hell for celebs who accept money to promote online gambling sites – Gretzky, McDavid, Matthews, Jamie Foxx, etc. But I’m sure there’s not.]

These people are not needy. I’m an economist, I get it, no one thinks they have enough money, but I happen to think there ought to be some things one will not do for more. And no, I am not saying that celebrities or people with more wealth than some specified number should be prohibited from selling other people’s shit. They all have a perfect right to do what they are doing. I’m really only saying I think less of them for doing it –  which troubles them not the least, I know.

So back to ol’ Neil. His original move to pull his music from Spotify had two characteristics. One, it harmed Spotify – maybe. Spotify operates a subscription model in which folks pay a monthly fee for the right to listen to music from its catalog, including Young’s. So, it would appear that Young’s move hurt Spotify only to the extent to which people cancelled their Spotify plans, either out of sympathy with Young, or simply because they would no longer be able to listen to his tunes on the platform. I don’t know if that happened (though I rather doubt it), but more important to me is the second characteristic, which is that Young paid a price himself for doing that. He lost his share of that revenue, too, and about that there is no doubt. To me, that speaks to a level of integrity in Young. I don’t mean to say I agree with Young’s apparent position that Rogan is evil. I’ve never listened to one of Rogan’s podcasts, and don’t know what was said on them that upset Young. My point is only that incurring a cost yourself over a principle signals integrity. Anyone can run around bashing others, imposing costs on others, people can do that just for amusement. Taking a hit yourself says something, it says you mean it. Similarly, Young’s apparent past refusal to let his music be used to sell shit cost him real $. Someone would surely have paid him to use his music to sell cinnamon or something, back in the day.

Of course, the corollary to all this is that Neil could have reacted to the recent news of the now-wider distribution of Rogan’s podcast by asking Warner Bros to pull his music from Amazon and Apple, too. That would be even more costly to Young, and would leave me even more impressed with his integrity and commitment. What he has actually done by, according to the article, allowing his music back on Spotify (along with leaving it on the other platforms) says to this observer that Young was not willing to pay that high a price for his principles.

And, to be clear, in ‘price’ I am not pointing only to the money he would lose from streaming payments. He’s a musician, composer and performer, and having people hear his music has been his life’s work. Losing that is a serious price to pay, even were no cash involved.

I judge Neil Young not, and I still thank him for putting out the This Note’s for You album and writing and recording Cinnamon Girl. I merely point out that everything has a price, and we all have to decide which prices we will pay and which we will not, and I continue to believe that those who pay a price to adhere to a principle deserve my respect, if not necessarily my agreement. And – those who have made millions, become famous and then go on to accept money to sell other people’s shit deserve my contempt.

Btw, if I’m right that Young’s original move in 2022 cost Spotify nothing, it raises another question: what was ol ‘Neil trying to accomplish? Topic for another post, perhaps.

 

Sci-fi in aid of Science

Written by Editorial Team on . Posted in Education, Research, Standards. 1 Comment on Sci-fi in aid of Science

I was a pretty big fan of science fiction in my younger days, and still read some from time to time. I think Frank Herbert’s  Dune is a great novel (the sequels not so much), enjoyed reading works by Heinlein, Le Guin and Asimov.. 

One of the genre’s leading lights back then was Arthur C Clarke, who wrote the novel 2001: A Space Odyssey (in 1982) [not true, see below] on which the film was based. I was not a Clarke fan, don’t remember that I read any of his stuff. However, he made an interesting contribution to the culture beyond his books themselves, when he formulated three ‘laws’ regarding technology that have come to be known as Clarke’s Laws. He didn’t proclaim these all at once, and in any case it is the third law that is most cited, which so far as I can determine first appeared in a letter he wrote to Science in 1968. [If anyone has better info on the third law’s original appearance and antecedents I’d love to hear it.]

Clarke’s Third Law is: ‘Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.’

That strikes me – and many others, apparently – as a perceptive statement. Think of how someone living in 1682 anywhere in the world would regard television or radio. 

As with any perceptive and oft-repeated assertion,  this prompted others to lay down similar edicts, such as Grey’s Law: “Any sufficiently egregious incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.”

[I cannot trace Grey’s law back to anyone named Grey – if you can, let me know.]

Note that there is a difference, as Clarke’s law speaks to how something will be perceived, whereas Grey’s points at the consequences of incompetence vs malice. If you are denied a mortgage by a bank despite your stellar credit rating, the impact on you of that decision does not depend on whether it is attributable to the credit officer’s incompetence or dislike of you. 

On to Science, then, and what I will call Gelman’s Law (although Gelman himself does not refer to it that way). 

Most non-academics I know view academics and their research with a somewhat rosy glow. If someone with letters after their name writes something, and particularly if they write it in an academic journal, they believe it. 

It does nothing to increase my popularity with my friends to repeatedly tell them: it ain’t so. There is a lot of crappy (a technical academic term, I will elaborate in future posts) research being done, and a lot of crappy research being published, even in peer-reviewed journals. What is worse is that as far as I can tell, the credible research is almost never the stuff that gets written up in the media. Some version of Gresham’s Law [‘bad money drives out good money’] seems to be at work here. 

A blog that I read regularly is titled Statistical Modeling, Causal Inference and Social Science (gripping title, eh?), written by Andrew Gelman, a Political Science and Stats prof at Columbia U. I recommend it to you, but warn that you better have your geek hard-hat on for many of the posts. 

Although I often disagree with Gelman, he generally writes well and I have learned tons from his blog. One of the things that has endeared it to me is his ongoing campaign against academic fraud and incompetent research. 

He has formulated a Law of his own, which he modestly attributes to Clarke, but which I will here dub Gelman’s Third Law: 

“Any sufficiently crappy research is indistinguishable from fraud.”

I think this law combines the insights of Clarke’s and Grey’s. The consequences of believing the results from crappy research do not differ from the consequences of believing the results from fraudulent research, as with Grey. However, it is also true that there is no reason to see the two things as different. If you are so incompetent at research as to produce crap, then you should be seen as a fraud, as with Clarke. 

I will be writing about crappy/fraudulent research often here, in hopes of convincing readers that they should be very skeptical the next time they read those deadly words: “Studies show…”

I will close this by referring you, for your reading pleasure, to a post by Gelman titled:    

 It’s bezzle time: The Dean of Engineering at the University of Nevada gets paid $372,127 a year and wrote a paper that’s so bad, you can’t believe it.

It’s a long post, but non-geeky, and quite illuminating. (Aside: I interviewed for an academic position at U of Nevada in Reno a hundred years ago. They put me up in a casino during my visit. Didn’t gamble, didn’t get a job offer.) You can read more about this intrepid and highly paid Dean here. His story is really making the (academic) rounds these days. 

You’re welcome, and stay tuned. I got a million of ‘em….

p.s. Discovered this since I wrote the above, but before posting. One of many reasons this stuff matters, from Nevada Today

University receives largest individual gift in its history to create the George W. Gillemot Aerospace Engineering Department 

The $36 million gift is the largest individual cash gift the University has received in its 149-year history 

Anyone care to bet on whether this Dean gets canned?

 Corrigendum: An alert reader has pointed out that Clarke’s novel was not written in 1982 – indeed, the film came out in 1968. In fact the 2001 film was based largely on one of Clarke’s short stories from 1951: The Sentinel. Clarke did write a novel called 2010: Odyssey Two, in 1982, and a not-so-successful movie was based on that, in 1984.

 

Uses and Abuses of Statistics – MLB Edition

Written by Editorial Team on . Posted in Culture, News Media. No Comments on Uses and Abuses of Statistics – MLB Edition

If you watch a lot of sports as I do, you cannot fail to be aware of the so-called ‘Analytics Revolution’, a phenomenon that has wormed its way into sports broadcasting. Whatever professional teams may be doing with the reams of game and performance data they now collect, one cannot miss how much sportscasters talk about it, before, during and after each broadcast. 

As someone whose happiness would greatly increase if said sportscasters would just shut up, I cannot say all this statistic-centric chattering is welcome, but sometimes it is interesting. A frequent use of stats in a broadcast is when one of the commentators cites a statistic that they think is directly relevant to what is happening in the game. For example –  

Hockey team x scores the first goal of the game, and the commentator says ‘The team that scores first wins the game z% of the time.’

Baseball team y goes into the 6th inning trailing by 2 runs and the commentator says ‘Teams that trail by 2 or more runs in the second half of a game have only a Z% chance of winning.’

Now, there is no mystery as to where these statements come from. For the first one, you just look at the last 10 years (say) of all NHL games and see which team scored first and which team won. The percentage of the games in which it is the same team gives you z in the statement. 

A particular example of this occurred during the second round of last season’s MLB playoffs, when two teams were playing the third game of a best-of-five series, tied at one win each. The commentator said ‘The team that wins the third game in this situation goes on to win the series 70% of the time.’

Once again, it’s clear this statement comes from looking back at previous MLB best-of-five series in which the teams split the first two games, but in this case I had an immediate reaction to this stat: that seems too low. 

My immediate no-pencil-and-paper reaction was not that he was quoting a mistaken actual statistic, but rather that I thought the 3rd-game-winning-team would win the series more  often than that. I got out my pad and pen, and here is what I came up with. 

What would simple probability calculations predict for the probability in question? Imagine team A has won the third game against team B, so it is leading the series 2 to 1 with two possible games to go. Assume also, just as a starting point, that because this is the playoffs, these are two evenly matched teams. Thus, absent any specific information about each team in each game (who is pitching, injuries, weather, etc) one would expect the probability that either team wins is ½. 

Given that, you can calculate the probability of team A going on to win the series (having won game three) by noting that the series after game three can go only one of three ways:

  1. A wins game four and the series
  2. A loses game four but wins game five and the series
  3. A loses both games four and five and loses the series. 

This is the whole universe of possibilities, and it is easy to calculate the probability of each one.

  1. The probability is ½ under our assumption that 1/2 is the probability A wins any single game
  2. The probability A loses game four is ½ and the probability A wins game five is also ½, so the probability of those two events happening is ½ times ½ which is ¼. (The probability-aware out there will note that I have assumed that the probability of winning in each game is independent of what happens in the other game. I will come back to that below.)
  3. The probability A loses each game is again ½, so again the probability it loses both is ¼. 

Note that these three probabilities do add up to 1, so we have covered everything, but we have also found that the probability that either i or ii happens – the two cases in which A wins the series – add up to ¾, or 75%. 

So, on this account, my instincts were right, 70% is lower than 75%. 

However, when a calculation comes out differently than an actual number from the world, it is the calculation that must be re-thought. My first thought along those lines was the following: if A wins game three, then it has won two of three games against B, and although that is a small sample, it does point to the possibility that maybe team A is somewhat better than B, and that should be taken into account. 

For example, maybe in this scenario the probability A wins either of games four or five should be 0.55 and the probability B wins only 0.45. 

This is not helpful in reconciling the data with the calculations, however, as if one re-does the calculations for the probability of each of the three outcomes above, one now gets:

  1. 0.55
  2. 0.45 x 0.55 = 0.2475
  3. 0.45 x 0.45 = 0.2025

and the predicted probability of A winning the series is now up to 79.75%, even further away from the empirical 70%. 

Huh. 

So, one has to look at something else, and my preferred culprit would be the assumption built into all these calculations that the outcome of each game is independent of what happened in previous games. In particular, I suspect that a team that has won two of the three first games takes it a little easy in the fourth game. Not just that Team A’s players might ‘relax’ a bit, but also that team A’s manager might save his best pitcher for game five if he is needed, hoping that if they win game four his ace will be available for game one of the next round. In that scenario, the probability team A wins game four is less than 0.5, not more. You all can probably think of other explanations. 

In any case, it was clear that what the sportscaster who said this last autumn wanted us fans to think is ‘whoa, winning game three is really important’, when in fact there is something more interesting to be said: why don’t winners of game three do better than they do in a five-game series?