The Color of Technology

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

When I first glanced at the title of Bill Schrier’s latest blog post, “Gray, Not Green, Technology,” I thought he must be referring to green jobs. Those are the jobs in alternative energy that aren’t productive enough to sustain themselves in the marketplace, but that are supposed to be the professions of the future (if the government subsidizes them, that is). Wasting resources on jobs that wouldn’t exist in a competitive environment is antithetical to the goal of saving and conserving resources, so I would readily classify such programs as “gray” rather than “green.”

However, reading further I see that Schrier isn’t referring to any specific policy; he’s wary of technological progress in general. Here’s why he thinks green technology is a myth:

Technology contains scarce minerals mined from the earth. It uses a lot of plastic (plastic comes from oil, right?). It takes a lot of water and toxic chemicals to make electronic components. An integrated circuit or chip factory uses as much water and power as a small, not-very-green, city.

Using technology is injurious, both to the environment and to people.

I’m starting to wonder why he took the job of Chief Technology Officer for the city of Seattle!

Schrier doesn’t consider all the materials and brainpower that would be wasted if we tried to do the same tasks without the benefit of technology. For example, imagine if there were no Internet and blog posts had to be printed in newspapers. You would have to deliver the newspapers several times a day in order to deliver information as quickly as a blog. Maybe you’re thinking, “They should just print them once a day and people could do without reading blog posts as soon as they’re written.” But then you have to take into account all the resources that would go to waste because of a lack of information — all the poor decisions that could have been prevented had people known more, sooner.

Even if you accept Schrier’s premise that technology is harmful, you must admit that technology is here to stay. And, because it is, the smartest thing to do is to create more new technologies, because they are cleaner, greener, and more efficient. It’s a good thing we didn’t stop developing computers when they were the size of rooms. Let’s welcome technological innovation and the environmental benefits it’s sure to bring.

Locavore Movement Takes Too Few Factors Into Account

Posted on by Abhi Sivasailam

James McWilliams, author of Just Food, discusses in a recent issue of Forbes magazine how the practice of buying local does not necessarily support the aim of reducing environmental impact.

McWiliams begins by citing a 2006 academic study in New Zealand that determined Londoners could reduce their environmental impact by purchasing lamb imported from New Zealand rather than lamb produced in England, because factors other than transportation often play a far larger role in environmental impact.

Mcwilliams continues by discussing how economies of scale in production can positively distribute environmental costs:

To choose a locally grown apple over an apple trucked in from across the country might seem easy. But this decision ignores economies of scale. To take an extreme example, a shipper sending a truck with 2,000 apples over 2,000 miles would consume the same amount of fuel per apple as a local farmer who takes a pickup 50 miles to sell 50 apples at his stall at the green market. The critical measure here is not food miles but apples per gallon.

We’ve argued on this website before that locavore policies constitute a new form of protectionism. This is true, but likely not a very compelling line of reasoning for locavores.

In this case, the economically efficient and environmentally efficient solutions do not have to be polarly aligned. Locavores should understand how their actions may fail to uphold the values they are rooted in, because of logistics and unintended consequences that haven’t been thoroughly considered. It’s even more important to view with a skeptical eye any legislation, government purchases, or changes in trade policy based on the reasoning that local consumption equates to environmentally friendly consumption.

Minimum Wage Laws

Posted on by Abhi Sivasailam

Over at Mises Daily, Art Carden revisits the harmful effects of minimum wage laws and cites a Show-Me Institute study to do so:

Suppose that a job can be done by either three unskilled workers or two skilled workers. If the unskilled wage is $5 per hour and the skilled wage is $8 per hour, the firm will use unskilled labor and produce the output at a cost of $15. However, if we impose a minimum wage to $6 per hour, the firm will instead use two skilled workers and produce for $16 as opposed to the $18 cost of using unskilled workers. In the “official data” this shows up as a small job loss — in this case, only one job — but we see an increase in average wages to eight dollars per hour in spite of the fact that the least skilled workers are now unemployed.

I am in favor of helping the poor, but minimum wage laws — striking examples of the law of unintended consequences at work — are not the best tools to address the plight of the working class. As Carden notes, wage floors create unemployment for low-skilled workers. But earning a low wage would be better than no wage at all. Further, wage floors create deadweight losses through inefficiency, strain employer-employee relations, and foster the emergence of black markets in labor.

Wage floors are supported by people with the noblest intentions and the poorest reasoning. Proponents would do well instead to support education, skills training, and expansion of market opportunities through deregulation as better mechanisms to alleviate lower class struggles without the sting of such harmful unintended consequences.

Policy Pulse Updates

Posted on by Abhi Sivasailam

Over at our Policy Pulse portal, staff reporter Audrey Spalding has published several recent articles about education issues in Missouri.

This past week, Audrey has explored how recent school board meetings have not led to a resolution for teacher negotiations in the Lindbergh School district, how recent state legislation has affected Lindbergh’s budget, and how that same legislation threatens to choke funding to 23 St. Louis County school districts.

Please stay tuned to Policy Pulse as we continue to promote government transparency, civic participation, and policy analysis.

Blue on the Boys’ Wall, Yellow on the Girls’ Wall

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

The Panama City Renaissance School blog links to an article in the Las Vegas Sun about same-sex public education. The article quotes the usual experts for and against single-sex schooling. Then it concludes with this on-target quote from a parent:

“I don’t know if boys and girls really do learn differently — I know that’s the theory,” Curiel told the Sun as he dropped Eric off for class. “But whatever it is, it’s working.”

Experts on the both sides make the mistake of overgeneralizing. Single-sex education proponents claim, for example, that all boys should learn in classrooms painted certain colors because the average boy reacted better than the average girl to that color in a research study — never mind that wall color may not affect achievement, or that individual boys have different color preferences. On the other hand, critics of single-sex education rally against the perceived unfairness of separate classes, dismissing the fact that some students have had good experiences with single-sex schooling.

One system wouldn’t work for everyone, but it’s better when people have a choice.

Political Fix and “Saturday Night Live”

Posted on by David Stokes

I was blessed with a pretty good memory, especially for words and numbers — less so for faces. So when I read this headline at the Post-Dispatch‘s “Political Fix” blog, it instantly reminded me of this “Saturday Night Live” skit from 20 years ago. My memory had it that John Goodman was in the sketch, not John Larroquette, but other than that, I was right on.

Perhaps I confused the two because they each have a St. Louis connection. If you can tell me what that connection is in the comments, you will win my praise (but nothing else).

The Missouri Plan

Posted on by Caitlin Hartsell

John Combest recently posted a couple of articles about Better Courts for Missouri’s attempt to change the Missouri Plan, the current method for choosing justices for the state courts. The Missouri Plan, in theory, is supposed to take the politics out of the process of judicial selection: A panel, mostly comprised of lawyers, submits three nominations to the governor, who selects from those three. After a year, the judge stands a “retention” election. Better Courts for Missouri argues that this process is too secretive and heavily favors trial lawyers.

Show-Me Institute scholars have written about this topic before, discussing benefits of the Missouri Plan as measured by a few particular metrics.

Findings from the Show-Me Institute’s 2008 study of judicial selection have been misinterpreted by proponents of the Missouri Plan who have drawn broad conclusions about its positive effects on the economy based on the study’s relatively narrow, caveated data set. The authors of the study, economists Joshua Hall and Russell Sobel, stipulated that the criteria they used to determine the effects of judicial selection mechanisms on economic growth amounted to a limited methodology. They concluded that although it appeared variants of the Missouri Plan tended to correlate with better economic growth than states using partisan or nonpartisan elections, it might be possible to make minor improvements to the process, such as adding legislative oversight. Although Hall and Sobel’s data provided a useful glimpse at the effects of the Missouri Plan from one particular angle, other future studies analysing different sets of source material might arrive at somewhat different conclusions.

Hopefully, Better Courts for Missouri will take as many of these factors into account as possible as they work toward a solution that brings increased transparency to judicial selection in Missouri.

Thoughts on Liberating Learning: The Politics of Blocking

Posted on by Sarah Brodsky

This chapter of Liberating Learning describes the political process of education reform. In a nutshell, new practices like merit pay and parental choice threaten teachers’ unions, so the unions do all that’s in their power (and they have a lot of power) to prevent them from taking root. If a significant reform makes it through the political process, unions challenge its legality in the courts.

The authors stress how unions would lose out if public schools became more competitive and efficient. I think they would agree, though, that virtual schools, charter schools, and other new developments in the education market have the potential to help teachers as individuals. The catch, from the unions’ point of view, is that not all teachers would gain in the same way. Good teachers would earn more. The best would have new opportunities for career advancement; an example of this appears in the very beginning of the next chapter, “Technology on All Fronts,” where the authors tell the story of a teacher who goes into curriculum development after helping to create a successful online charter school.

Teachers would depend less on unions if schools competed to offer them better pay and benefits. They might also consider which schools would suit their teaching style — virtual vs. in person would be just one choice they could make. Instead of asking, “Will the union negotiate the best deal for me and everyone else?” teachers would ask, “Which combination of work environment and pay would be best for me personally?” Then unions would lose members, dues, and power.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging