Generous Unemployment Benefits During the Pandemic Disincentivized People Looking for Work

The pandemic came with the federal government spending so much money that it would have made Franklin D. Roosevelt blush. There was a lot of wasteful spending during the pandemic, whether it was the Paycheck Protection Program, "stimulus" checks, the student loan repayment pause, or the American Rescue Plan Act that greatly contributed to the inflation spike. 

Today, I would like to look at a different form of pandemic-era spending: the unemployment benefits. It was not bad enough that there was at least $60 billion in unemployment benefit-related fraud. There is the question about how these unemployment benefits affected unemployment. There is a common worry among economists that unemployment benefits exacerbate and extend unemployment. I first brought up that economic argument on my blog in 2012. 

Shortly after the CARES Act passed in 2020, I expressed concern about its extensive unemployment benefits creating greater incentive for people to stay home than to work. In the Great Recession, unemployment insurance created disincentives to find a job. The unemployment benefits in the pandemic were more generous during the COVID pandemic than in the Great Recession. It stood to reason that the magnitude of unemployment benefits on employment would be greater than that of the Great Recession. It turns out that my concerns were valid. 

New research from the American Enterprise Institute answers this question about the effects of unemployment insurance (Strain et al., 2023). In March 2021, the federal government expanded Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC), as well as extended UI benefits to the self-employed, "gig" workers, and part-time workers. 26 states opted out of at least one of these programs before they were set to expire in September 2021. This natural experiment allowed for the researchers to as which states fared better: those that opted out or those that stayed with the programs? 

If the idea was to get people back to work as soon as possible, the figure above shows that opting out of these lavish employment benefits was the right call: '

"Using CPS data, we present difference-in-difference estimates that the flow of unemployed workers into employment increased by around 12-14 percentage points following early termination. Among prime-age workers, the effect is about two-thirds the size of the unemployed-to-employed flow among control states during the February-June 2021 period...We show that state-level unemployment rates fell following earl exit from FPUC and PUA."

In layman's terms, not having those generous unemployment benefits provided the unemployed the incentive to find a job. States that kept the lavish benefits struggled more with their employment levels. Not only did taxpayers cough up billions to pay for these outrageous benefits, but the lavish nature of these benefits kept people at home and unemployed for longer periods of time. It makes sense: why go to work when you could get paid more to not work? Such myopic thinking about welfare dependency leads to a drag on the economy, which ultimately affects our quality of life. It makes me wonder how many more economic downturns it will take before the U.S. government finally learns the lesson that unemployment benefits do not pay.

Ahavnu Vidui: Why Yom Kippur Could Also Use a Confession of the Good We Have Done

Yom Kippur, or the Day of Atonement, is considered the holiest day on the Jewish calendar. The central part of Yom Kippur liturgy is the confessional known as Vidui (ודוי). This confessional is divided into two parts. The first is a summary version of one's wrongdoings called Ashamnu (אשמנו). The second is a longer list of sins referred to as Al Chet (על חטא). This confessional is so essential to Yom Kippur that it is recited ten times throughout the course of the Yom Kippur services. The purpose of this confessional is to recognize our wrongdoings from the previous year to inspire us to do better for the next year.

I grew up Catholic, which had its own forms of self-flagellation and guilt. In that respect, you would think having converted to Judaism would make the Vidui a natural fit. I have both Catholic and Jewish guilt metaphorically running through my veins. Reciting this prayer should be a no-brainer for someone with my background. At first, I did like it because it played off of both Catholic and Jewish guilt. As I got older, I confronted my perfectionism and realized how unattainable it is. As such, it became more difficult to deal with the traditional Vidui during Yom Kippur. "Why take a day out of my calendar to be hard on myself when I already do it year-round," I asked myself. I reflect on this part of my life because a friend of mine sent me something shortly before this past Shabbat began (see below).

The text above called the Ahavnu Vidui. It was written by Rabbi Avi Weiss over ten years ago. R. Weiss was well known for his activism for Soviet Jewry in the 1980s (along with other forms of activism), as well as for starting the Modern Orthodox yeshiva (seminary) called Yeshivat Chovevei Torah. Some might take one look at this confessional and think of it as frou-frou, pop psychology that has no basis in Jewish tradition. I will say that I have met R. Avi Weiss and I know that this Vidui is coming from a good place. Second, this newer confessional is based off a Vidui Ma'aser attributed to the famous R. Avraham Yitzchak Kook (more on that momentarily). 

This brings up a legal and philosophical question about what you do when you create new rituals or practices. Tevye the milkman grappled with this theme throughout the musical Fiddler on the Roof. As important as tradition can be, it's not an end-all. Plus, there was a point in time which traditions were once new. As we create new traditions, the question should be whether such a practice, ritual, or belief lines up with the overall arc of Judaism. It is a question I asked about any custom or tradition created post-Talmud, whether it is the orange on the seder plate, the electric menorah, mourning on the Omer, adding the Matriarchs to the Amidah, shlissel challah, tashlich, or wearing a kippah. 

And let's not forget the long-standing tradition of adding prayers and blessings to the siddur (prayer book) over time, including Ein Keloheinu (9 c.), Unetaneh Tokef (11 c.), Aleinu (12 c.), Yigdal (14 c.), Lecha Dodi (16 c.), Modeh Ani (16 c.), and Yedid Nefesh (16 c.). While confession has its origins in the Torah, the Al Chet was not formalized until the 8th century. The more elaborate form of Ashamnu that we know now came about sometime in the Middle Ages. Trying to dismiss the Ahavnu Vidui by saying that it is new would ignore centuries of tradition in terms of making the prayer book longer and longer with more prayers. 

I understand having the traditional Vidui with the Ashamnu and Al Chet as part of Yom Kippur liturgy. Only focusing on our good aspects could lead to haughtiness, self-absorption, an inflated sense of ego, and virtue signaling. I would surmise that is why Jewish tradition places such emphasis on wrongdoing during a time such as Yom Kippur. If we are not aware of our wrongdoings and shortcomings, how can we fix them? Ignoring our flaws is contrary to the underlying premise of personal development. It is why I do not advocate for removing the traditional Vidui. 

Conversely, I think that having an Ahavnu Vidui is a good idea. This is in part because our foibles and flaws are not a complete view of ourselves. We have a tendency to be our own worst critics. There is a need for balance. Maimonides went as far as saying that everyone should view themselves as an exact balance between guilt and acquittal (Mishnah Torah, Hilchot Teshuvah, 3:4) in order to make sure that that next action in life was a good one. There is also a negative psychological effect of all negative all the time. To quote R. Avi Weiss:

Repetitive Vidui can also have an opposite effect: it can bring one to despair, to loss of confidence, even to loss of belief in one's capacity to do. After so many Ashamnus, one may be left overwhelmed, wondering, "Is there anything I've done right? Do I have the capacity to make positive contributions to the world?"   

R. Kook did believe in having a more positive Vidui. He said that "a person should also be joyous concerning the good they have done and being able to confess one's good deeds (Commentary to Mishnah Ma'aser Sheni 5:10). The catch with R. Kook's version is that he was the opinion that a positive Vidui should only be recited twice every seven years. The reason to recite the positive version less frequently is to "avoid smugness and complacency." 

I understand the need to avoid those negative tendencies. I also have to ask if twice every seven years is adequate. A researcher named Marcial Losada conducted mathematical modeling on the number of positive to negative interactions necessary to make a corporate team successful (Losada and Fredrickson, 2005). The Losada ratio showed that about three positive statements was needed for one negative statement to maximize productivity. This research did come under scrutiny, including the retraction of that specific Losada ratio. In 2013, a Harvard Business Review article pointed out that the ideal ratio between praise and criticism is about 5.6:1. 

It is tough getting at an exact praise-to-criticism ratio because human beings have a wide range of personalities in which a one-size-fits-all approach is not the best. What might be an acceptable ratio for me might not be for you. We each have our own tendencies, traits, strengths, and flaws. Regardless of whether there is some magical ratio, one thing that is clear is that you need both constructive criticism and praise if you want to be a better person. 

That is not only for professional relations, but also for our spiritual lives. If we solely keep focusing on our wrongdoings, we will not find the confidence or the motivation to mitigate our shortcomings. If we solely focus on our positive aspects, we get off on our hubris while potentially having our flaws get more flawed. What the exact ratio is I cannot say. Like with any recipe, it is about proportions. What I can say is that having the traditional Vidui alongside with a newer Vidui in the spirit of R. Weiss would help us in a more holistic spiritual practice in which we can truly be our best selves.

9/21/23 Hodgepodge: Paper Straws, Train Privatization, and Italy's Latest Windfall Tax

Sometimes life tires us to the point where we cannot fully do what we expect of ourselves. That is how I feel half-awake after working for 10 hours, but I still wanted to post something. Rather than do a full-on analysis of a single political topic, I decided to go with the hodgepodge option of some articles I came across in recent weeks:

• Italy's windfall tax. A windfall tax is when the government decides to impose a surtax when a certain company or sector has large and unexpected profits. Last month, Italy imposed a one-time 40 percent windfall tax, which is capped at 0.1 percent of the bank's assets. According to an analysis from Tax Foundation, this tax will cost €9.2 billion to affected firms, which is three times of anticipated tax revenue. A windfall tax suppressing economic growth does not surprise me. A report from the International Monetary Fund shows that a windfall tax on the fossil fuel industry would boost the renewable energy sector (Baunsgaard and Vernon, 2022).
• Paper Straws Are Bad for the Environment. Last month, a study from the journal Food Additives and Contaminants was released (Boisacq et al., 2023). The authors found that paper straws contain higher levels of poly- and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These "forever chemicals" mean that it takes longer for paper straws to break down in nature than their plastic or steel counterparts. In short, these PFAS could mean that paper straws are worse for the environment. Another reason to add to my list of why plastic straw bans are a bad idea. 
• Florida and Private High-Speed Rail. This week, Florida is unveiling its new high-speed rail from Miami to Orlando. The libertarian Reason Magazine published an article using Florida's high-speed rail as a success story of privatization in high-speed rail, as well as point out that California's high-speed rail is a boondoggle in spite the massive federal subsidies the state has received. You can read the Cato Institute's handbook on Amtrak and how privatization helps with rail here. 

Arguing That "Refusing to Date a Trans Person Is Transphobic" Is Entitled, Perturbing, and Homophobic

A key component of a pluralistic, democratic society is being able to express views and opinions that others are going to disagree with. As long as we wish to have that type of society, we have the right to criticize and scrutinize anyone and everyone. It does not matter whether it is coming from the Left or the Right, the religious or the secular. Stupidity, hypocrisy, and generally bad ideas should be scrutinized. That is an important lesson that the TV series South Park has taught me. 

I have held to that idea as I have blogged over the years. In 2015, I wrote a piece on why we should criticize Islam along with everything else. I have let the woke Left have it more than once, whether it is about perpetuating racism, cancel culture, or calling everything they do not agree with racist. I have illustrated how Trump's tariffs and immigration policies are harmful. Guess who is not exempt from criticism? The trans activist community. 

Before I continue, I want to say this is not a piece against trans people. I have stated before that we should treat trans people with dignity and respect because they are human beings. I have also criticized transgender bathroom bans and the transgender military ban. I am okay with an adult getting gender reassignment surgery as long as there is informed consent. I recognize that trans people go through certain challenges that others either do not face or do not encounter in the same way. Conversely, I can also recognize that there are trans activists who have powerful allies that are going beyond the "live and let live" approach that made the gay rights movement so successful by trying to force their views onto others.

Today, I want to address a specific argument that is pushed by trans activists. It is an argument you can find in such media outlets as Advocate, the BBC, Medium, and the Spectator. Essentially, their line of argumentation is that if you prima facie decide that you do not want to sleep with, date, or be in a relationship with a transgendered person, that makes you a transphobic bigot. Their reasoning is that "cisnormativity," preconceived notions about transgender people, and negative stereotypes dissuade people from dating trans people. In short, it is merely ignorance and misconception that keeps people from dating trans people. Now is the part where I scrutinize where this argument goes awry. 

First and foremost, let us start with the fact that dating is a discriminatory and exclusionary process. Only 2 percent of people on the planet live in polygamous households (Pew Research), The vast majority of people on this planet are looking for one person to date and eventually marry. A romantic relationship is a specific type of relationship that entails certain criteria for attraction, chemistry, and compatibility. For almost everyone out there, that includes physical and sexual attraction (more on that later). 

There are numerous reasons and factors as to why people decide not to date, sleep with, or marry someone. For me, some people on the Left I tried dating have rejected me solely because of my political beliefs. Others did so because I was Jewish and either did not want to be with someone who was more religious or because they wanted to be with someone of the same religion. I did not think they were full of hate and malice because they did not want to date me. Or as a trans author at the intersectional publication An Injustice! brought up, being aware of and acknowledging one's priorities, desires, and needs in a romantic relationship is not a phobia of any kind. 

There are many reasons that people decide that they do not want to date someone else. You know what? That's okay. Like a good libertarian, I believe that it is their life and they have preferences and priorities for the type they want to live. As long as they are not harming anyone vis-à-vis the non-aggression axiom, I do not care. "Different strokes for different folks," as the saying goes. Yes, having a romantic relationship is a nice plus in life. Nevertheless, no one is entitled to a romantic relationship and nobody has a right to force someone else to be in a relationship with them. 

If we need a reminder on why this line of argumentation is perturbing, let us travel back in time to last decade when there was the #MeToo Movement. The whole premise of this movement was that violating another's bodily autonomy in a sexual context is wrong and that "no means no." Could you imagine if Harvey Weinstein bemoaned that women rejecting his advances was anti-Semitic, or if Bill Cosby ended up arguing in court that not wanting to sleep with him was racist? Trying to coax someone into sleeping with you or dating you when they are not attracted to you is morally wrong, and the argument of "refusing to date a trans person is transphobic" is not an exception. Plus, it is a recipe for a disastrous relationship because what sort of basis is that type of browbeating for a romantic relationship? 

There is another movement that the Left has historically been in favor of: the gay rights movement. The gay rights movement had the laissez-faire attitude of "live and let live." Going back to a piece I wrote in May 2023, the point of the gay rights movement was that "sexual [orientation] is a personal matter that is not beholden to anyone else's wishes or expectations." Guess what? That includes the wishes and expectations of trans people. 

This segues into the topic of sexual orientation. I came across a notable study that showed that 90 percent of people would not be interested in dating transgender people (Blair and Hoskin, 2019). To break down the findings, 5 percent of heterosexuals would be interested, as opposed to 12 percent of gay men, 29 percent of lesbians, or 50 percent of bisexuals. On the one hand, the fact that the percent is higher among gay men and lesbians suggest that greater exposure to trans people does open one's mind to the possibility, although there could be some social desirability bias in these numbers. Women have a more fluid sense of sexuality than men, so lesbians having a higher rate than gay men does not surprise me. On the other hand, the bisexuality finding is telling. Why? Bisexuals have a sexual attraction towards both male and female (hence the "bi-" in bisexual). You would think that figure would be closer to 100 percent, yet here we are. 

This gets at another salient point. More people on the Left, particularly on the Far Left, do not care for the term "homosexual." It has nothing to do with the potential for it to be a slur. It has to do with what the word means. The prefix "homo-" means "same." The word "sexual" has to with instincts and physiological processes connected with physical attraction. Put the two together and you get Oxford's definition of "a pattern of sexuality in which sexual behavior and thinking are directed towards people of the same sex." The Far Left's objection to the word is in acknowledging that sexual attraction and same-sex attraction are realities. 

There are trans people who complain about "being reduced to genitalia," but here's the thing. Gay men and straight women are sexually attracted to penises, testicles, the whole package (pun intended). Lesbians and straight men are sexually attracted to breasts and vaginas. For the vast majority of people on the planet, sexual attraction is an entry-level requirement to initiate a romantic or sexual relationship. 

A gay man who refuses to date straight women is not being a misogynist; he is simply being gay. Straight men who refuse to be with a gay man are not being homophobic. Dating someone of the opposite sex is simply what it means to be heterosexual. People are not sexually attracted to gender identity. Sexual attraction is about biological sex. What a concept! 

If that is not convincing enough, let's time travel back to another time when organizations on the Religious Right were trying to use so-called conversion "therapy" to try to turn gay people into heterosexuals. The overall premise of conversion "therapy" was that the same-sex desires or attraction were wrong and had to be changed. Not only was such "therapy" harmful to the recipients, but it did nothing to change their sexuality. Why? Because whether it is genetic, chemical, neurological, or a combination thereof, sexual attraction is immutable and involuntary. 

You would think that we would have settled the argument of "is sexuality a choice," but it looks like it is subtly rearing its ugly head once more. Again, being a gay man means having an attraction towards other men, which includes not being sexually attracted to vaginas. Lesbians are not into penises because they are women who are sexually attracted to other women. What happens when you lob the "not dating a trans person is transphobic" at a gay person? 

Making this argument against gay people denies who they are, their experiences, and what they desire in a relationship. Even if the intention is different, the end-result is not all that different from what so-called conversion "therapy" was seeking to accomplish: gay erasure. Homosexuality is based on same-sex attraction. As such, arguing that "not dating a trans person is transphobia" undermines the basis of gay tolerance and acceptance, which is its own form of homophobia. 

Arguing that someone should select a romantic partner according to your sexual attraction and orientation as opposed to their own is neither inclusive nor tolerant. 

I want to start my conclusion by asking this question: 

How entitled do you have to be to think that someone owes you sex or a romantic relationship? Yet that is an underlying premise of arguing that "not dating a trans person is transphobic." 

As long as it is with a consenting adult, whoever someone decides to date, marry, or sleep with is no one's business but their own. That is part of being in a free society. What makes a romantic relationship so nice is that it is voluntary and based on mutual respect and attraction. They say that there is someone out there for everyone, and I believe that includes trans people. 

I imagine that dating as a trans person comes with its unique challenges and I hope they can find true love and happiness. As the aforementioned survey data indicate, there are people who are sexually and/or romantically interested in trans people. Trans people should seek those people who can love them for who they are. Instead of chasing someone who cannot fall in love with you (which is a bad idea for anyone), the focus should be on finding those who are attracted to trans people because it will best lead to a genuine, loving relationship. As transgender writer and video blogger Libby DownUnder brings up: 

Is it 'love is love', or is it 'love is conditional love'? When I was in the dating game after my gender transition, I was upfront and honest before getting intimate, and yes, that meant a general lack of interest in me due to my transsexual background. But with transparency (no pun intended) and patience, I eventually found someone whom I'm still with to this day, no strings attached from either of us. Love is love, right? 

All of this is to say that maybe, just maybe, woke people should find better things to do with their time than policing how people decide to live the sexual or romantic aspects of their lives. 

Looking at U.S. "Housing First" Initiatives: Why Fixing Homelessness Is Not As Easy As Buying the Homeless Houses

Homelessness is hardly a new issue. What is new is how the public encampments and street disorder caused by the homeless ramped up since the pandemic. It is one of those problems that is going to get worse before it gets better. One possible solution that has been thrown around is "Housing First." It sounds like a rallying cry for people who care genuinely care about the downtrodden. At its core, Housing First is simple. It is a policy that provides unconditional, permanent housing as quickly as possible. It is not uncommon to provide support services afterwards to ensure continuity and stability for those housed. 

The assumption made by Housing First proponents is that the root problem is not having a home. For these proponents, the substance abuse and mental health issues that the homeless have are a byproduct of not having a home. Once they have a home, they can find a job, tackle their underlying problems, and stabilize, or so goes the argument. 

I do agree that homelessness creates instability in one's life. Having shelter is one of the essential physiological needs under Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. A roof over one's head is going to make life easier than living on the street. Providing housing also can offset other costs of the chronically homeless, e.g., arrests, emergency room use, shelter use. That being said, Housing First is an inadequate policy. As I pointed out back in 2014, housing policy is more complex than "give the homeless homes and that will solve everything."

A May 2023 briefing paper from the Cato Institute covers the Housing First policies in Salt Lake City, Utah; the state of California; and Houston, Texas. In Salt Lake City, much of the success was likely due to methodological reporting issues. As for California, the homeless population grew along with the funding for Housing First. Cato points out that Housing First worked in Houston, but its success was "partly attributable to the low cost of housing and elastic housing supply in that city." Better coordinated efforts over a smaller city, along with a nonprofit at the helm and "compassionate enforcement" policies, seemed to attribute to Houston's success. Given the adverse effects of land-use regulations and rent control, I cannot say that I am surprised. Removing such harmful policies would create greater housing supply, thereby decreasing the prevalence of homelessness. 

A 2020 report from the Manhattan Institute creates even more doubt of Housing First's legitimacy. To quote the report, "Claims made on behalf of the campaign to tend homelessness - that Housing First has ended veterans' homelessness, chronic homelessness, or homelessness at he community level - are not based in "evidence," as the term is normally understood." 

What is more from the Manhattan Institute report is that "there is no evidence-based proof of Housing First's ability to treat serious mental illness effectively, or drug or alcohol addiction." Reason Magazine provides intuition for that finding: "Placing mentally ill people and those with substance abuse problems unsupervised in housing units doesn't provide them with the help they need. As one homeless expert told me, it mainly results them dying alone in a room." As a 2020 Heritage Foundation report illustrating the flaws of Housing First shows, taking a "Treatment First" approach provides a preferred alternative. 

It is praiseworthy to want to help the homeless. However, what we are seeing play out in the United States is that cities most heavily relying on the Housing First thinking have some of the worst homelessness problems in the United States. This post is not meant to be a treatise to solve all homelessness. Even so, removing government regulations that constrict housing supply and making sure that there are services that target substance abuse and mental health issues among the homeless. As an additional note, intensive transitional housing is preferable to permanent housing for all except the most vulnerable. That way, we can help the homeless be more self-sufficient in the long-run. What is for certain is that using taxpayer dollars to pay for unconditional, permanent housing does not put an end to or mitigate chronic homelessness.

How Is It That Abortions Increased Since the Supreme Court Restricted Them with Dobbs?

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization conferred that abortion is not a constitutional right. The Dobbs case effectively reversed Roe v. Wade, which meant that the question of abortion's legality has since been determined by the states. The anti-abortion side thought of it as a win for fetuses everywhere and an affirmation of life over death. The pro-abortion side lamented because they viewed it as an essential part of reproductive health being eroded. Regardless of which side of the abortion debate you are on, it seemed that this court case would have resulted in fewer abortions. 

It makes economic sense that there would be fewer abortions. When you legalize something, you get more of it. When you ban something, you get less of it. In states where abortions have been limited or altogether illegal, it becomes harder to procure an abortion. Roe was lax abortion law to begin with, so it makes sense that Dobbs would definitionally be more restrictive. In May 2022, I wrote a piece about a month before the Dobbs ruling about what would happen if Roe were reversed. I highlighted some abortion projections in the event of a Roe reversal, which predicted fewer abortions. I then walked through the intuition of why the number of abortions would go down, but more modestly than many on the pro-abortion side thought. My reasons ranged from the inelastic demand for abortion services to such workarounds as traveling to another state or the increased prevalence of abortion pills. 

Regardless of the magnitude, I was expecting that the number of abortions would have decreased in a post-Roe America. In spite of best predictions, the unpredictable happened since Dobbs became law: the number of abortions increased. Last Thursday, the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute released a new dashboard showing monthly abortion data. In the dashboard, it shows that the number of abortions in the first half of 2020 were 465,000. For the first half of 2023, that figure was 511,000. What that means is that 46,000 abortions were performed in the first half of 2023 than in the first half of 2020.  

Given the economics of bans, this finding is perplexing at first glance. An economic ban restricts supply, which means fewer goods or services. Punishments for violating a ban deter some, whereas others are deterred by the cost and/or travel to another state where abortion services are legal. Especially since abortion rates were declining (see Pew chart below) in large part due to contraceptive availability, it makes me all the more curious about this uptick in abortion services. 

That is the catch with counterintuitive realities. I am fond of saying that something is only counterintuitive because we do not understand it. By digging deeper, we can make sense of the paradox that lays before us. Once the logic and understanding is laid out, it ceases to be counterintuitive. Here are a few theories as to why there was such a difference between 2020 and 2023:

1. COVID lockdowns. This one seems plausible. Shutting down large swathes of the economy resulted in lower consumer spending and lower GDP. If people were cautious to meet up in person, it would stand to reason that this would apply to women seeking abortion providers. However, if we look at the CDC's most recent Abortion Surveillance report (Table 1), we see that abortion services only decreased from 629,898 in 2019 to 620,327 abortions in 2020. It is technically a decrease. However, its lack of statistical significance suggests that lockdowns are likely not the major culprit. 

2. Increased abortion clinics in border states. In response to Dobbs, states with legal abortion opened 16 new abortion clinics. Much of these clinics came into being to absorb patients traveling from states where abortion is illegal. This does not create additional demand nearly as much as it acts an imperfect substitute. Why imperfect? Because there are some women in states where abortion is banned who cannot travel far enough to have the procedure. While there are some women who live in the state where is legal and would have an abortion because there is a closer clinic, it is doubtful that it would cause that much of a shift. Plus, the Guttmacher data show that some of the largest increases come from two non-border states: California and New York.

3. Telehealth and the FDA. In December 2021, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allowed for abortion medication to be prescribed via telemedicine. By removing this barrier, the FDA made it easier to access abortion medication, especially for those who lived far away from an abortion clinic or a doctor's office. I was unable to procure market data for abortion pills, but it makes sense that removing such a restriction would increase supply, which would increase the quantity of [chemical] abortions performed. Conversely, this NPR report illustrates some of the legal grey areas that can hinder some of that increase in access.

4. Are more people having sex or getting pregnant? An abortion is not something you can buy en masse and stockpile in your house. It's not even a service you can use frequently, such as Uber, getting a massage, or going for a mani/pedi. You cannot have an abortion if you're simply feeling in the mood. You cannot go up to a cashier and order 20 abortions for yourself in a single day. It does not work like that.

An abortion is a procedure is in response to pregnancy. Pregnancy only happens to women of a certain age who have their eggs fertilized by sperm. It is not something that happens often in life. Most women who get an abortion are having their first abortion (Pew), which indicates how rare of a procedure it is. Abortion is something that cannot be done by anybody. It is something a certain group of people can do under specific circumstances. 

That is why I have to ask if more people are engaging in the act that results in pregnancy. Contraception usage among women has remained steady between 2017 (CDC) and 2022 (KFF). If it declined, I could see how that would cause an uptick in pregnancies, and by extension, abortions. If it were demand-based, you would think that it is because more women are getting pregnant. 

At least for teens, the HHS data show that teen pregnancy has been on the decline. What is interesting is that since 2008, there has been a rising rate of those under 35 who have not had sex in the past year (Institute of Family Studies). 

If that is not interesting enough, a study from the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that the percent of American adults having weekly sex decreased from 60.4 percent in 2000-2002 to 40.7 in 2016-2018 (Ueda et al., 2020). Assuming the aforementioned trends continued or the rates stayed steady, then sexual activity rates would not be an explanation. Neither contraceptive usage rates nor sexual activity frequency explain the rise in abortion services.

5. Is it because fewer people want children? It is true that fewer people want to have children. However, the United States has had a declining birth rate since before Roe v. Wade became law (World Bank). Especially since fewer people are having sex, there would need to be a drastic shift to justify a huge shift in abortion over such a short period of time. 

Conclusion: Such demand-drivers as sexual activity, desire to have children, or contraceptive usage do not seem to be driving abortion services. The border state theory seems to be minimal at best. Lockdowns did not play a big role since the numbers did not greatly vary from before the pandemic. 

If any of the theories make sense, it is the increased prevalence in chemical abortions. The percent of abortions induced by medicine have increased since mifepristone and misoprostol were approved by the FDA in 2001. By 2020, a majority of abortions were reported to be medication-based (see Guttmacher data below). The FDA approving this medication being prescribed in telehealth services served to accelerate the supply of abortion goods and services, thereby increasing the quantity of abortions performed. 

This acts as a reminder that markets are not static and based on one determinant, but rather dynamic systems. There are many moving parts in a given market or in the economy as a whole. That is another discussion for another time about economics. But here is another economic argument to consider. Regardless of whether a ban on abortion exists, there is a demand for abortion services. As I mentioned when writing about a ban on TikTok and a menthol cigarette ban, bans can be circumvented and it is often not easy putting the kibosh on something like abortion. For the anti-abortion/pro-life side, this means that there is a lot more work to be done. For the pro-abortion/pro-choice side, providing abortion services is more complicated, but you should feel some solace knowing that abortion is not going anywhere. If one thing is clear, it is that the abortion debate in this country is far from over.

Why We Should Be Skeptical and Critical of Climate Change Fear-Mongering

Blog entry #1,200! Amazing how time flies! I wanted to muse a bit on the importance of critical thinking. I always have believed that a healthy dose of skepticism not only makes for a great freethinker, but a keen intellect that helps us remain objective. As is illustrated below, skepticism is a balance that is based on evidence. This moderate view falls between gullibility and straight-up denial, both of which are forms of being incapable of understanding and accepting the world the way it is. The importance of skepticism and critical thinking skills are especially important when it comes to climate change in no small part due to the ubiquitous nature of climate change and the numerous public policy implications. 

You would have to be living under a rock to not know that there is a fight against climate change. What is at the basis of the arguments for climate change advocates? Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have been burning fossil fuels. Those fossil fuels emit a considerable amount of greenhouse gases (GHG). These emissions have increased over time with increased economic production, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries. GHG emissions are generally believed to be harmful for the environment. 

Unless something is done to reduce those emissions quickly and sharply, there will be catastrophic global warming sometime within the next century that will cause a global armageddon. This doomsday scenario has been used to justify and advocate for a variety of public policy choices, including water heater efficiency standards, carbon taxes, using regulations to encourage electric vehicles, and gas stove bans. Is such a heightened reaction warranted? 

The debate is obfuscated with the very vague question of "do you believe in climate change?" Yes, I believe that climate changes. Almost everyone does. Most people also recognize that there is at least some human contribution to rising GHG emissions. The extent to which humans contribute to climate change versus natural phenomena (e.g., solar trends, cloud chemistry, ocean cycles) is up for debate. I am not here to say that there is going to be zero impact from the rise in GHG emissions because there will be costs and benefits, much like there is with anything else in life. What I can tell you is that climate change is not the crisis that advocates make it out to be. As I have brought up before, those advocating for drastic policy change have to rely on low-probability models fraught with tenuous assumptions in order to reach the apocalyptic scenario they think will happen but probably will not. Here are a few other points to consider.

The High Costs of Net Zero. Many activists talk about the need to global average temperatures less than 1.5° C of what they were in the pre-industrial era. Exceeding that figure would mean armageddon...that is, if you listen to the activists. Very few talk about what would actually need to take place to reach that goal. Last month, I took a look at what implementing Net Zero would entail. There would need to be a huge cut in fossil fuels, as well as a major ramping up of renewable energy and electric grids.

Not only would it be nigh impossible to achieve, but such an attempt would be tantamount to collective suicide. Making such radical shifts in a low-probability scenario makes little sense to me, but neither did letting fear and panic guide the decision to harmful COVID lockdowns instead of a cost-benefit analysis or standard risk assessment. The one-sided obsession with the harm of COVID ignored the harm caused by COVID regulations. Rather than repeat history, we really need to ask whether the benefits of climate action exceed the cost? The lack of forethought on Net Zero suggest that this sort of fear-based thinking has not left us as a society since the pandemic.  

How does one measure global warming? This is something I touched upon while discussing heat waves last month because the U.S. has only been gathering global surface data since the late 19th century. It is hard to pull definitive historical trends from average global temperature data, especially when the data collection process began at the end of a mini Ice Age. Even the low-resolution data we have from beforehand indicate that the global temperatures were warmer than they are now (this includes the Medieval Warm Period of 900-1300 CE), which would imply that this planet has survived worse.   

Fossil fuels are still popular. Fossil fuel consumption continues to rise globally. Furthermore, China remains the largest emitter of GHGs (Oxford). China continues to build more coal plants. In addition to China, southeast Asia, India, and Africa are using more coal. 

Plus, here is another question: what evidence do we have that three decades of climate conferences have actually made a difference in lowering GHG emissions? France is one of the only countries that consumes less than 60 percent of its energy from fossil fuels. That is because France is a major consumer of nuclear power. Many climate change activists oppose nuclear power, even though it is the only carbon-neutral energy source that can meet global energy demand. 

A Need to Look at Facts Versus Sensationalism. In the past year, I have examined hurricanes and heat waves on this blog. It turns out that in both instances, the media was exaggerating prevalence and magnitude because "if it bleeds, it leads." We should be asking whether a) there is an increase of natural disasters, and b) whether these trends show a correlation or causation with increased GHG emissions. This all points to the reality that the environmentalist movement historically has a habit of exaggerating threats, whether it was the Great Barrier Reef, polar bears, acid rain, deforestation, or nuclear winter. Decades of failed eco-doomsday predictions make me as wary as I would with a cult leader who continues to make lousy predictions about the Apocalypse. 

Another point to consider is that weather-related deaths have dropped precipitously in recent decades. This would imply a resilience in which we can better weather what Mother Nature throws at us. We should focus on policy alternatives that continue to build that resilience, not on uprooting our lives as a form of secular self-flagellation. It is for that reason and more that I am firmly opposed to the extreme policy recommendations made by climate change activists. 

I do not consider myself a climate denier, but rather a climate thinker. Facts should dictate our opinions and emotions on climate change or any topic, not the other way around. We need to think about climate change in a leveled fashion. Having such an exaggerated take on the problem is how people take the radical proposal of Net Zero. I am sure that climate change will come up as a topic again. For now, what I will say is that I prefer skepticism over the media's fear-mongering about climate change any day of the week.

Did COVID School Closures Exacerbate Chronic Absenteeism? It Is Looking More and More Likely.

Another Labor Day weekend means that schools across the country are back in session. You would think that with a school year starting, it would mean a whole lot of students would be attending school. However, that may not be happening as much as you would think. Last month, the Associated Press reported that students have been absent at record rates since schools reopened during the pandemic. In the United States, schools went from 15 percent of students missing at least 10 percent of school pre-pandemic to 25 percent. What could have caused such an increase in absenteeism in such a short time? A preprint paper released last month from Stanford education studies professor Thomas Dee shows how bad that chronic absenteeism became. An increase of 13.5 percentage points (which is a 91 percent increase), or to put that in another way, 6.5 million more chronically absent students between 2018-19 and 2021-22. 

What is interesting about Dee's analysis is what we could not blame since there was a lack of correlation in the data. One was mask mandates in schools. This is important because an argument from the maskaholics during the pandemic was that mask mandates kept students in school. This Stanford preprint study indicates they did no such thing. Another one is that "private and charter schools are stealing students from public schools." This study did not show that demographic shifts in people moving or a crowding out effect from private and charter schools are not responsible either. The Brownstone Institute took some of Professor Dee's raw data on the research and showed a different possibility that the Professor did not discuss in his paper. 

Above is the correlation data between the length of school closures with chronic absenteeism. What we see is a modest relation between the two. Since the decisions to close schools were made on a district level, it is hard to extrapolate too much from these state-level data. This also keeps in mind that historical data on chronic absenteeism are limited and it would be nice to see district-level data. I hope more research is done on the topic. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that states with longer school closures have greater issues with chronic absenteeism. 

For those of us who had the foresight to see the larger issue with COVID school closures, this correlation is not a surprise. In mid-2020, I pointed out that it did not make any sense to close schools because children were not superspreaders and the costs would be great. It turns out that I sadly was correct. In my 2022 analysis of how COVID policy affected children, I covered school closures once more. I came across multiple costs covered in the academic literature that ranged from lowered academic achievement to lower GDP and lower lifetime earnings. 

COVID school closures exacerbating chronic absenteeism makes sense when you think about it. Trying to get students to learn at home and sit in front of a screen all day severed the capacity to focus on or care about school. Students struggled with mental health during the pandemic. We can thank lockdowns and school closures for increased depression, anxiety, isolation, suicidal ideation, and sleep deprivation. Or to quote the CEO of Attendance Works (which focuses on addressing chronic absenteeism), "the pandemic really, really broke down connections between kids and schools."

We have to remember that it was not COVID that shut down the schools. Viruses can make people sick and kill them from infection. Viruses are physically incapable of shutting down schools. School closures were an active policy choice, one that was rejected by European schools, American private schools, and a few red states. Teachers unions peddled fear to keep schools and multiple school districts prominently under Democratically governed jurisdictions capitulated. 

And yes, this was a major faux pas among much of the political Left in the United States. The New York Magazine and The Atlantic, both of which are prominent Left-leaning media outlets, pointed out the abysmal failure coming from the Left on school closures. The effects of school closures disproportionately affected minority students, which is even more embarrassing given how much those on the Far Left clamor for greater equity. The fear of COVID in many enclaves of the political Left superseded the damage COVID restrictions caused to students. If this article from libertarian Reason Magazine is indicative of anything, it is that various COVID school closure components, including American Federation for Teachers President Rand Weingarten, would rather whitewash history and wash their hands of the damage they caused children. 

A theme I will keep repeating until I get blue in the face is that policymakers, politicians, and other decision-makers need to learn from the past mistakes on such policy debacles as school closures. Tough questions need to be asked about what policy decisions transpired during the pandemic because without that understanding, we are opening ourselves to letting fear get the better of us once again and making the same policy mistakes for when the next pandemic comes.