Showing posts with label East Hampton Star. Show all posts
Showing posts with label East Hampton Star. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 18, 2020

PANDEMIC | The Economic Impact of the Virus



Kristi Hood loads up groceries for a self-quarantining
family. This is a new service of  the Springs
General Store. Photo by John Tepper Marlin.










































PS. Here are some followup stories in the East Hampton Star. As a public service, the newspaper has a free alert on the coronavirus as it affects the Town of East Hampton and Suffolk County generally:

Suffolk Hospitals Face "Herculean" Task as Virus Numbers Grow (March 24, 2020).

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

HARVARD | Admissions, The Asian Quota (Comment)

Harvard Yard, 18th century.
A NY Times op-ed today, "Is Harvard Unfair to Asian-Americans?" by Yascha Mounk suggests that the answer to the question is yes, Harvard is unfair, or at very least opaque.

Based on the circumstantial evidence that Asians are a flat share of undergraduates for 20 years, despite the fact that Asians are "the fastest-growing racial group in America", there seems to be a quota for Asian applicants at Harvard.

If so, it would be reminiscent of the quota in place for Jews in the 1920s-1950s.

The topic of the admissions process to Ivy League colleges is of intense interest to Americans. The most-read article in the history of the New Republic was one in July this year on this subject, questioning the process.

The op-ed takes us back to Harvard President A. Lawrence Lowell, who warned that the "Jewish invasion" of Harvard College in 1922 (when Jews were 21.5 percent of freshmen, three times the rate at the turn of the century), would "ruin the college." He wanted the Jewish quota to be 15 percent.  The faculty objected, so he imposed a de facto cap on Jewish admissions by taking sports and character (and geographical distribution) into account in the admissions process that was pursued into the 1950s.

I wrote a letter to the East Hampton Star about this two years ago, where I noted the changes that had taken place in the 1950s. Catholics may have been very briefly favored as the Kennedy family rose in importance. Portsmouth Priory (now Abbey) School, with a senior class then of 35 boys, had seven alumni in the Harvard Class of 1962–more than twice the number of African Americans in the class. (Portsmouth also had an exceptionally qualified headmaster, Fr. Leo van Winkle, an atomic scientist with a Yale doctorate.)

Our Harvard class elected the first African American Class Marshal–Haywood Burns. Affirmative action for Catholics, if that is what occurred, was overtaken in the 1960s by a realization that Harvard should participate in affirmative action for African Americans. This in turn was overtaken by the huge upheaval when women pressed for equal status. The Harvard Class of 1963 was the first to offer Radcliffe students a Harvard diploma. The same objections to women were raised that had been raised about Jews. The quota today, I suggested in my letter, was applied to Asians.

The op-ed by Mounk accepts that the admissions process does not lend itself to "one right answer" to the problem of allocating spaces in elite schools. The author simply asks for more transparency about the process...

Comment

I frankly doubt we will voluntarily get much more transparency about the process currently in place– the choices are too difficult and controversial–but we might get more transparency about the past and about the process, which will be helpful in addressing the issues being raised today.

Meanwhile, an advocacy group has filed a law suit against Harvard for discriminating against Asians. The Economist doubts it will win, but if it makes a good case it may lead to changes in policies of Harvard and other Ivy League colleges–if not changes in the selection criteria and process, then perhaps more disclosure of the criteria.

Saturday, August 18, 2012

JOBS | Suffolk County (Postscript Feb. 3, 2016)

August 18, 2012–Rep. Tim Bishop's challenger has sent out a glossy flyer repeating in bold face the canard that "Long Island has lost more than 30,000 jobs since Tim Bishop became the Congressman". This is weaker than saying he "chased away" the jobs. But it is still an error and unfair. It remains on Mr. Altschuler's website on August 18. (Postscript Feb. 3, 2016: It has since been removed.)

On August 6 I sent a second letter to the East Hampton Star noting the continued error. The letter was published on August 16.

Five Pinocchios

Springs, August 6, 2012

To The Star: On June 28, I wrote protesting the economic data coming from the Altschuler campaign, which said that Congressman Bishop has “chased away thousands of jobs” from Long Island. I noted that during the past year Long Island has in fact gained 12,000 payroll jobs. 
  
So now I see a press release dated today from this campaign. It now takes a longer view. It says that “Long Island has lost more than 30,000 jobs since Tim Bishop became the Congressman.”
 
  
There was a time at the end of the George W. Bush presidency, when the deregulated financial system was shedding jobs. But this is 2012. I checked the record. The latest number for payroll jobs on Long Island is June 2012, 1,275,000 jobs. This is from the New York Department of Labor. Subtract the base of 1,238,200 in June 2002, when Congressman Bishop was first elected.

The difference is a 36,800-job gain, while Congressman Bishop’s opponent reports a 30,000-job loss. That’s a gap of 66,800 jobs. 

As the late great Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.” Or, he might have added, his or her own arithmetic. 
  
One can understand a rounding error or a seasonal adjustment mistake. But when the direction of the data is reversed for a number that has already been publicly questioned, it rises to a reckless disregard for facts. If the previous error deserves two Pinocchios, this one deserves five.
JOHN TEPPER MARLIN

The Altschuler campaign seems have gotten the message. The references to the 30,000 loss of jobs has been deleted in several places, as it should be–but not in every place. It's good that he has removed some of the erroneous statements. But what would an ethical person do to make restitution for the wrong facts in all the flyers that were sent out? How about a public admission that the statement was wrong?

Meanwhile, a new claim is being made on the website (Postscript Feb. 3, 2016: This site has been taken down).
Nearly 40,000 more people on Long Island are unemployed today than they were when Tim Bishop was sworn into Congress almost ten years ago.
This is a very different statement. It's now about the number of unemployed people and not about the number of jobs. This shifts the focus from the comprehensive payroll jobs report that the BLS collects from 400,000 employers, to the Current Population Survey.  Mr. Altschuler might not have cited the number of unemployed in the way he did if he knew these five facts about the survey: 

1. It's a small sample. A national sample of about one in every 1,250 households is conducted once a month to determine the number of employed persons and the number of unemployed and other characteristics of each household.  In the case of New York State, the monthly sample size is 3,730 households out of a population of 19.5 million. For Long Island, it implies a sample size of about 544 and for Suffolk County alone of 287.
2. Unemployment is an active mode. An interviewer contacts the head of household and finds out which members of the household are working and how many are not working but are actively seeking work.People are classified as unemployed if they are available for work and have taken specific actions during the previous four weeks to look for work. So when the number of unemployed goes up it could mean something positive, i.e., a greater confidence in the future of the economy, leading those who are without work to take active steps to apply for a position.
3. The BLS is properly nervous about how the data will be used. The original purpose of the Current Population Survey is to produce a national unemployment rate. The latest metro numbers (for June) are marked  preliminary. The user is warned that the numbers are "controlled to statewide totals" and inputs may be "revised" and "re-estimated". Because of the small sample at the county level, the data are not seasonally adjusted. 
4. Employed people may have more than one job. That is one way that the job numbers and the civilian employment numbers can be reconciled.
5. The number of unemployed needs to be related to county population and employment growth. Of the 100,000 growth in Long Island's population during the 11 years following the 2000 Census, approximately 10,000 were in Nassau County and 90,000 were in Suffolk. The First District of New York that Mr. Altschuler aspires to represent is in the eastern end of Suffolk County. 

Stay tuned.

Saturday, April 14, 2012

Credit Card Absurdities

A story in The New York Times yesterday ("Consumer Bureau Declines to Resist Upfront Credit Card Fees, April 13, p. B1) expressed disbelief that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is proposing to allow credit card issuers to charge fees before borrowers' accounts are opened.

That's the kind of ripoff that The Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights, signed early in President Obama's presidency, ought to prevent.

Chi Chi Wu, an attorney at the National Consumer Law Center, describes an  example of what is going on:
First Premier [Bank of South Dakota] began charging a $95 processing fee before the card account was opened, as well as a $75 annual fee. Yet the credit limit on the card was $300.
Comments on the Bureau's proposal are due by June 11.

Meanwhile, James Monaco, writing "Guestwords" in the East Hampton Star yesterday, suggests that credit card companies haven't gone far enough, and that there are still untapped opportunities for gouging consumers. He suggests the following innovative fees:

No-call fee. $9.95 a month for no calls from credit card companies.

Automatic deductions.  $12.95 for each charge.

Paper billing fee. To get a paper bill, pay $17.76 a month, or $24.95 to include a return envelope for payment by check.

Unredeemed fee.  For each month you delay redeeming your frequent flyer miles, $19 per 10,000 points.

These fanciful suggestions are unfortunately not much worse that the reality. Banks for quite a few years have been making more money from fees than from interest rates.