Month: June 2023

Speed Limit Signs – a History of Speeding in the US

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.roadtrafficsigns.com/speed-limit-signs-history

Graphic:

Excerpt:

The debate between those demanding the freedom to travel at high speeds in an unregulated environment and others citing the need for greater security and increased regulation (e.g. signs) was common in the 20’s and 30’s. For certain communities, “too slow speeds” were also an issue. As reported in the June, 1925 Lyle Sign Post, the chairman of the Maryland State Roads Commission, John Mackall, “advises substitution of the maximum speed limit with a minimum speed limit, to speed up traffic. Mackall also suggested slow-moving vehicles be barred from main streets during peak hours”.

Many states did not require drivers licenses. As part of the author’s own family lore, there is a wonderful story of two strong-willed daughters, Lydia and Mary, traveling from their home in North Dakota to visit their father, Senator Langer, in Washington, DC. With little experience, other than on farm machinery and certainly no license, they ended up in Washington in record time. Speed limits (and the few Speed Limit Signs) were proudly ignored.

For more discussion, see the excerpt below on fixed speed limits: “Should there be Fixed Speed Limits?“. Even in the 30’s and 40’s, speed limits were not uniform. Should speed limits change, depending upon the weather conditions, road conditions and time of day (for example, during school hours)?

Publication Date: accessed 7 Jun 2023

Publication Site: RoadTrafficSigns.com

State Variation in Underreporting of Alcohol Involvement on Death Certificates: Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Fatalities as an Example

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3965684/

Graphic:

Abstract:

Abstract

Objective:

We used motor vehicle traffic (MVT) crash fatalities as an example to examine the extent of underreporting of alcohol involvement on death certificates and state variations.

Method:

We compared MVT-related death certificates identified from national mortality data (Multiple Cause of Death [MCoD] data) with deaths in national traffic census data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Because MCoD data were not individually linked to FARS data, the comparisons were at the aggregate level. Reporting ratio of alcohol involvement on death certificates was thus computed as the prevalence of any mention of alcohol-related conditions among MVT deaths in MCoD, divided by the prevalence of decedents with blood alcohol concentration (BAC) test results (not imputed) of .08% or greater in FARS. Through bivariate analysis and multiple regression, we explored state characteristics correlated with state reporting ratios.

Results:

Both MCoD and FARS identified about 450,000 MVT deaths in 1999–2009. Reporting ratio was only 0.16 for all traffic deaths and 0.18 for driver deaths nationally, reflecting that death certificates captured only a small percentage of MVT deaths involving BAC of .08% or more. Reporting ratio did not improve over time, even though FARS indicated that the prevalence of BAC of at least .08% in MVT deaths increased from 19.9% in 1999 to 24.2% in 2009. State reporting ratios varied widely, from 0.02 (Nevada and New Jersey) to 0.81 (Delaware).

Conclusions:

The comparison of MCoD with FARS revealed a large discrepancy in reporting alcohol involvement in MVT deaths and considerable state variation in the magnitude of underreporting. We suspect similar underreporting and state variations in alcohol involvement in other types of injury deaths.

Author(s): I-Jen P Castle, Ph.D.,a,* Hsiao-Ye Yi, Ph.D.,a Ralph W Hingson, Sc.D.,b and Aaron M White, Ph.D.b

Publication Date: March 2014

Publication Site: Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, National Library of Medicine

Why You’re Losing More to Casinos on the Las Vegas Strip

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-youre-losing-more-to-casinos-on-the-las-vegas-strip-73f6f3ab?st=x02m0zq2rrmv5sj&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink&fbclid=IwAR22FpxvLhFtnRbQ0YaEwFgHqN764ULdkADv9QXOGc-PKpeTbds8nUrIUs0

Graphic:

Excerpt:

Casinos on the Vegas Strip are making it costlier to play and harder to win.  

Payouts are lower for winning blackjack hands. Bets on some roulette wheels are riskier. And it is taking more cash to play at many game tables.

Blackjack players lost nearly $1 billion to casinos on the Strip last year, the second-highest loss on record, after 2007, according to data from the Nevada Gaming Control Board. 

Some Las Vegas casinos cut back the number of blackjack tables with dealers, raised minimum bets during busy times and lifted their advantage over players in some games—doubling-down on a prepandemic practice of making subtle changes that favor the house, according to industry executives, researchers and gamblers.

….

Blackjack, a fast-paced card game, historically paid out a ratio of 3:2 when a player hit 21 on the first two cards. That means a gambler wins $15 for every $10 bet. Now, many blackjack tables on the Strip pay out at 6:5, which means that same $10 yields only $12.

John and Kristina Mehaffey, owners of gambling-news and data company Vegas Advantage, have been cataloging these changes since 2011, walking miles-long routes through casinos to record the number of blackjack and roulette tables set outside of VIP areas.

According to the Mehaffeys’ data, more than two-thirds of blackjack tables on the Strip currently offer 6:5 payouts, as opposed to 3:2.

….

Las Vegas visitors on vacation might not notice—or might not care—about the casinos’ increased advantage, says Bill Zender, a casino consultant who focuses on table-game management. But casinos risk losing business over time, he says. 

“If you go into a casino and gamble, and you lose your money fairly quickly, almost every time, you don’t feel you’re getting the bang for your buck,” Zender said.

Author(s): Katherine Sayre

Publication Date:29 May 2023

Publication Site: WSJ

Excess mortality and life expectancy

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://ulflorr.substack.com/p/excess-mortality-and-life-expectancy

Graphic:

Fig. 1: Annual values of life expectancy in Germany with fit (blue). The fit did not respect the values for 2021 and 2022.

Excerpt:

Life expectancy is relatively difficult to calculate. The mortality risk has to be determined from death and population figures for each individual year of life. A hurdle is that data are often only available in age cohorts. So the missing values have to be interpolated. Using the mortality risks, a fictitious newborn cohort is projected forward year by year until all have died. A weighted average value is calculated from those who died each year in this modeled time series, yielding the life expectancy.

Life expectancy in Germany increased for many years until 2020, allthough this trend seemed to be gradually approaching a saturation point, which might be around 82 years (Fig. 1).

Author(s): ULF LORRÉ

Publication Date: 30 Mar 2023

Publication Site: Demographic Data Analysis

Paying more for less

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://allisonschrager.substack.com/p/paying-more-for-less

Excerpt:

Between the controversies at Disney, Bud Light, and Target, I think we need a return to shareholder primacy.

In 2019, many of the biggest American CEOs signed a manifesto declaring the end of shareholder primacy and embracing a new stakeholder model. With shareholder primacy, the main objective of a corporation is to maximize profits, both long- and short-term profits, because that is what boosts share prices and dividends, and shareholders like that. With the stakeholder model, a corporation has many other objectives: worker well-being, the environment, and the good of society. That may sound nice, but often, these stakeholders have competing objectives, and choosing who gets priority is a question of values.

When Milton Friedman argued for shareholder primacy, he said that a CEO should not forgo profits to exercise his personal values. It is not his money to spend, and not everyone shares his values, nor should they. And worse, I blame the multi-stakeholder model  for making everything feel more political.

Now, I realize even before 2019, companies were getting more political, but it got ramped up several notches in 2020. And now, everything you buy feels like a political statement. And even innocuous well-intentioned marketing campaigns that aim to give visibility to marginalized groups are taken as an explicit endorsement of a more divisive political agenda. I think shooting Bud Light cans in protest is stupid. But I get that people feel frustrated that everything is political and often not their politics.

And even if corporations mostly did pursue profits after 2019, and the stakeholder manifesto was a cynical ploy to appease young workers, get ESG capital, or avoid regulation, rhetoric matters. Before 2019, people could shrug at corporate pandering because it all seemed like a marketing ploy, and who can argue with selling lawn chairs and beer to the trans community? It is a growing demographic.

But in the context of announcing that you are doing it to make the world a better place, it strikes a different tone. And since stakeholder capitalism is about choosing between competing values, it is political. And now everything is worse for profits and society, since it adds to division and rancor.

Milton Friedman was right; shareholder primacy is better for corporations and society.

If CEOs really want to save the world, they should do the brave thing: announce an end to stakeholder capitalism and go back to just worrying about profits.

Author(s): Allison Schrager

Publication Date: 5 Jun 2023

Publication Site: Known Unknowns at substack

ESG tug-of-war leaves taxpayers shortchanged

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/4028654-esg-tug-of-war-leaves-taxpayers-shortchanged/

Excerpt:

The whole ordeal picked up steam years ago with efforts initiated by progressives in states like California, which has repeatedly imposed politically motivated restrictions on its largest pension funds, CalPERS and CalSTRS. In 2000, the state forced the funds to divest from tobacco companies, a move that cost nearly $3.6 billion in investment earnings. The pension funds have faced frequent — and occasionally successful — demands from activists and legislators on the left to divest of other progressive bogeymen, like firearms, oil and gas, and private prisons.

These politically motivated demands to place social goals above the fiduciary responsibility to pensioners persist, not just in California but also in Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and many other blue states. At a time when many state pension funds are facing enormous fiscal imbalances, these policies are worsening the problem and shifting massive burdens onto taxpayers, who will have to foot the bill for the progressive aims of policymakers.

Indeed, research shows that putting social policies ahead of fiduciary responsibility can come at a hefty cost. A study found that public pension funds with ESG investment mandates have investment returns that are 70 to 90 basis points lower than those that do not — meaning retirees are financially hurt by these investment strategies.

Not to be outdone, conservatives in red states have been fighting back with anti-ESG policies of their own. Unfortunately, rather than establishing an environment that ensures taxpayers are best served, many of these policies elevate conservative cultural preferences above fiscal considerations. Like the pro-ESG policies of the left, these anti-ESG policies have cost taxpayers considerably.

Author(s): Brandon Arnold

Publication Date: 1 Jun 2023

Publication Site: The Hill

Can States and Cities Dig Themselves Out?

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.city-journal.org/multimedia/can-states-and-cities-dig-themselves-out

Excerpt:

David Schleicher: Yeah, absolutely. There’s an old joke that says, “The federal government is an insurance company with an army.” But anything you actually touch, can physically touch, any infrastructure of any sort, or services you consume and need to care about in one way or another are almost all directly provided by the state and local governments. They’re often funded sometimes with money from the federal government, but they are directly private and partially funded by state and local governments. The fiscal health of state and local governments is extremely important to, say, the question of state capacity in America.

Allison Schrager: It seems like we don’t talk about it until you’re Illinois or if you’re a municipality, Detroit, but it seems like we’ve been talking about this big shoe to drop on state municipal bankruptcies for a while and it doesn’t come, but that doesn’t mean we should be complacent.

David Schleicher: Yeah, absolutely. Two things. One is that it definitely would’ve come in the last couple of years had the federal government not dropped a ton of money on state and local governments. The pandemic created huge fiscal problems for a number of jurisdictions. The federal government responded by providing a huge amount of aid. The effect of that is that has had benefits and costs, which I’m sure we’ll talk about, but you can’t just look through the defaults or absence of defaults, to ask the question of “Are states and cities in fiscal trouble?” State and fiscal budgets are very procyclical. We end up cutting really important things during recessions and spending too much during non-recessions. Then we have the question of federal bailouts.

Allison Schrager: Yeah, it’s a very complicated issue, so what to do about this. But you have a very sort of organized, clean way to think about it. You describe it as this trilemma.

David Schleicher: Yeah. When a state or city faces a fiscal problem, fiscal crisis, take New York City in the 1970s or Detroit, or Puerto Rico or whatever it is. We’ve had, over the course of American history from Hamilton’s assumption of state debts, we’ve had a series of state and local fiscal crises. We have a lot of governments and some of them are going to have crises. The question is, what should the federal government do? Well, the federal government has three things it would like to achieve, which are, it doesn’t want to have too severe cuts during recessions, because that creates even bigger recessions. It doesn’t want to encourage state and local governments to think that the federal government will always stand behind them, a problem we call moral hazard. It wants federal state and local governments to be able to continue to borrow because state and local governments need to borrow to build infrastructure.

Author(s): David N. Schleicher, Allison Schrager

Publication Date: 2 Jun 2023

Publication Site: City Journal

The real reason State Farm won’t sell home insurance in California anymore

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/courage-strength-optimism/the-real-reason-state-farm-wont-sell-home-insurance-in-california-anymore?utm_source=deployer&utm_medium=email&utm_content=&utm_campaign=Beltway+Confidential&utm_term=

Excerpt:

I spoke to Rex Frazier, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, who cited several policies that no doubt contributed to State Farm’s decision to stop issuing policies, including various price controls that prevent insurers from raising prices to meet surging costs without the written approval of the California Department of Insurance.

“California is the only state in the country that doesn’t allow insurers’ rates to be based upon actual reinsurance costs,” Frazier said. “California’s regulations employ a legal fiction that each insurer uses its own capital to serve customers. As reinsurance costs go up, insurers cannot have their rates reflect those higher costs.”

Author(s): Jon Miltimore

Publication Date: 2 Jun 2023

Publication Site: Washington Examiner

Why Insurers Are Fleeing California

Mary Pat Campbell

Link: https://www.wsj.com/articles/state-farm-homeowners-insurance-california-2a934a22?st=0vc5cbqwbedf0b2&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink

Excerpt:

State Farm General Insurance Co. last week became the latest insurer to retreat from California’s homeowners market. The culprit isn’t climate change, as the media claims in parroting Sacramento talking points. The cause is the Golden State’s hostile insurance environment.

The nation’s top property and casualty insurer on Friday said it won’t accept new applications for homeowners insurance, citing “historic increases in construction costs outpacing inflation, rapidly growing catastrophe exposure, and a challenging reinsurance market.”

In other words, State Farm can’t accurately price risk and increase its rates to cover ballooning liabilities. Other property and casualty insurers, including AIG and Chubb, have also been shrinking their California footprint after years of catastrophic wildfires, which are becoming more common owing to drought and decades of poor forest management.

Author(s): Editorial Board

Publication Date: 30 May 2023

Publication Site: Wall Street Journal