Words & Numbers

As the back-to-school season gets into full swing, hundreds of thousands of young people are heading back to class at their chosen college or university. On average, the simple dollar cost of tuition and fees for a four-year degree is about a quarter of a million dollars. A large majority of students will have to take on some kind student loan debt to cover these costs. But we've been told our whole lives that in order to have a good job and successful career, a college degree is both necessary and an automatic golden ticket, so it has to be worth it. Right? Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they drill down into the value of a college degree and more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes: Tuition and fees at 4-year institutions over time 30 million jobs in the US pay $55,000 per year and don’t require a college degree High paying jobs sit empty while students go to college Median income by education, 2017 (table 5) Median income by education, 1997 (table 4) Unemployment rate by e

People tend to have a strange blind spot when it comes to government. We—or a lot of us, at least—tend to assume the best of intentions from our government. Our fellow civilians garner suspicion, but our elected officials are somehow magically benevolent and altruistic. When governments misbehave and act violently, we tend to think about these actions in terms of warfare. And yes, in the 20th century alone, wars have killed around 106 million people. That's a lot and not to be discounted. But in the same timeframe, governments have killed at least that many—and probably more like twice that number—within the confines of their own borders. We forget that a government is a monopoly on the use of force, and every time we ask our government to do something, even something as innocuous as putting up parking meters, what we're really asking them to do is to bring their force—their violence—to bear on our behalf. It's a sobering thought. Join James Harrigan and Antony Davies as they dive deep into this subject and m

Gallup recently asked 1,000 people about what the most important issue we’re dealing with is in the United States. You might think that the majority answered drugs and gun control, but you’d be wrong. Instead, the survey found that drugs only received 1% of votes as being the biggest issue, and a whopping 2% for gun rights, with those numbers only going as high as 4% since January. The only time those numbers changed was in March, when the media massively promoted the gun rights debate, culminating into the already-forgotten March for Our Lives movement. As much as we criticize the media, these numbers show how much they manufacture sensationalism. Join us this week as we discuss open-ended polls and the influence of media on people’s issues with James Harrigan and Antony Davies. Show Notes: Diamonds worth $31 septillion Jeff Bezos worth $150 billion Doctors give patients seconds Foolishness of the week Congressman calls for ban on cryptocurrency Topic of the week: What’s the largest problem facing the co

There are many people in this world who like to make the argument, "Correlation is not causation." And this oft-used expression is true. Correlation is not, in fact, causation. Just because two things tend to happen at about the same time does not necessarily mean that they have anything to do with each other at all. That said, lack of correlation does mean lack of causation. So what does that mean for economic freedom and "good" social outcomes? Join James and Antony as they unpack what economic freedom indices indicate and more on this episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes: Employment rate almost full recovered from 2008 crash TSA gets immunity Foolishness of the week Starbucks’ straws Topic of the week: Economic Freedom Equality, Liberty, and Prosperity Fraser: Economic Freedom of the World Fraser: Economic Freedom of North America Heritage/WSJ: Index of Economic Freedom Cato: Freedom in the 50 States Contact us Antony on Twitter James on Twitter Words & Numbers - Backstage

Why are we debating the Supreme Court nominees as much as we are? Unbelievably, written requirements of the Supreme Court are non-existent. Where the Constitution lists age and experience requirements for both presidential and congressional candidates, only a tiny paragraph describes what the third branch of government should look like. All of those standards and regulations you think are law? None have been put in writing anywhere. In fact, judicial review, one of the most important parts of a Supreme Court Justice’s job, only started in 1803, established following the ruling of Marbury v. Madison. Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan this week as they discuss the surprising standards set for Supreme Court Justice candidates. Show Notes: North Korea executes a General for giving food to soldiers’ families The United States fines people for giving food to the poor Black men are succeeding in America Foolishness of the week Americans ask the FAA to regulate seat size Topic of the week: The Supreme Court S

What do you know about the political party you disagree with the most? Who do you think makes the group up? Is it a bunch of “libtard snowflakes” who are all union-backed? Or is it a bunch of offensive alt-right wackos with too much money to know what to do with it? Either way, those perceptions are both completely off-base—caricatural, even—and dangerous. A study, titled, “The Parties in our Heads: Misperceptions About Party Composition and Their Consequences” discusses exactly how Democrats and Republicans perceive both themselves and each other, and shows exactly how inaccurate those perceptions are. From exaggerated numbers of union-affiliated democrats to impossible statistics of Republicans who make more than $250,000 per year, join us as we discuss the dangers of political misrepresentation and more in this week’s episode of Words and Numbers with James Harrigan and Antony Davies. Show Notes: Harley Davidson moving overseas Largest U.S. nail manufacturer on brink of extinction FDA approves marijuana

The criminal justice system presents a lot of issues, the least of which is discrimination. . . despite what the public may think. Over decades, prosecutors have slowly taken power and responsibility away from the jury and into their own hands, destroying the premise of “presumed innocent until proven guilty.” Statutory immunity, legal discretion and the opaqueness of the criminal justice system are all much bigger problems than discrimination, which is, in fact, a much less negative term than we generally think. But why are these things such big issues? Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan this week with special guest, criminal justice attorney Catherine Barnard as they explore some of the biggest issues with today’s justice system. Show Notes: Cure for diabetes Republican proposal to balance the budget by cutting entitlements Proposed 2019 Federal budget Foolishness of the week Sarah Huckabee Sanders kicked out of restaurant Topic of the week: Equality under the law Catherine Bernard James and Ant on Tw

Which would you rather be, a member of the working class in America today or an 18th-century French monarch? The answer to that is almost certainly the former. A lot has changed in the last 200 years. Heck, a lot has changed in the last 20 years, for that matter, and with a few notable exceptions, those changes have been for the better. In the year 1800, 95 percent of the world lived in extreme poverty. Today, it's less than 10 percent, despite there being more than 6 billion more people living today. We carry in our pockets a supercomputer that allows us access to the sum total of human knowledge that we use to look at cat GIFs. Life is pretty amazing. So why do so few people believe that's the case? Join James Harrigan and Antony Davies as they talk about this and more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes: Iraq is getting safer Empty seats at the world cup Foolishness of the week Netflix’ 5-second rule Topic of the week: The world is getting better every day Louis CK, everything is ama

 It's a well-established fact that Social Security and Medicare are in serious trouble and have been for a while. The newest projections released last week have Social Security being insolvent in the year 2034 and Medicare in 2026. A fair amount of this trouble can be laid at the feet of the federal government and its seemingly insatiable habit of spending money it doesn't have. It's gotten to the point that there isn't really anywhere else in the world that has the amount of money the US government needs to borrow. It seemed so easy to just take that money from the Social Security and Medicare trusts at the time, but with federal spending now higher than it's ever been (regardless of whether you adjust for inflation or simply count it as a percentage of GDP), it seems very unlikely that that money will—or even can—ever be paid back. So, what's a government to do? Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they talk about this and more on this week's special live-from-FEEcon episode of Words and Numbers. Show N

The jobs report for the month of May has recently been released, and Republicans—particularly President Trump—have been very busy congratulating themselves about the rosy unemployment rate. In fairness, unemployment is currently the lowest it's been since the turn of the millennium, which is nothing to turn one's nose up at. But there's more to a healthy economy than a low unemployment rate. So, what does the May jobs report actually say? And what do those numbers really imply? Join James Harrigan and Antony Davies as they unpack the May jobs report and more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes: Dog buys food with leaves Bare-knuckle boxing Foolishness of the week Bernie Sanders says Disney needs a moral defense Topic of the week Unemployment numbers On twitter @AntonyDavies @JamesRHarrigan  

If there's something that progressives agree on, it's that inequality exists and that it's a problem. But what do we mean when we say "inequality"? Is it that some people have more "stuff" (money, goods, access to services) than others? Is it that some people are more skilled, more talented, better looking, or just plain luckier than others? In a relatively free society with fairly consistent equality of opportunity, the result is inevitably going to be inequality of outcome. And this is not necessarily a bad thing. Why is a certain amount of inequality a good thing? Should we care about numerical inequality indicators such as the Gini index? Should we take legislative action to "level the playing field"? Join James Harrigan and Antony Davies as they talk about this and more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes: Seattle’s tax on jobs France bans throwing away unsold clothing France bans throwing away unsold food Hillary Clinton wants to be Facebook’s CEO Federalist 10 Equality in the c

This week on Words and Numbers, it's all about you, the listener. Join James Harrigan and Antony Davies as they answer questions from listeners posed in the Words and Numbers: Backstage Facebook group. Don't miss out on the next opportunity to have your questions answered on air! Join the Words and Numbers: Backstage Facebook group, where the conversation continues. Show Notes: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Datasets Do we have the right to silence speech? Is there a case for progressive taxes? What is causing the youth unemployment? Why does government only grow? How can markets encourage us to use scarce resources judiciously Will prostitution ever be legal?    

Adam Smith is widely regarded as the "father of economics," but what isn't as widely known is that he never considered himself an economist. He thought of himself as a philosopher. And, indeed, in the tradition of the Scottish Enlightenment, he was one. In the Scottish Enlightenment, study was largely divided into two categories: natural science and moral science. Natural science largely explains itself, but moral science was an attempt to ground ethics and morality in as much scientific reality and fact-based reasoning as possible, and it's from that branch of study that the subject of economics bloomed. If you want to make moral statements, if your heart is in the right place, then you need to have your facts straight. And while, over time, we've seen a more and more tightly defined division of labor and specialization, particularly in academia, perhaps it's time to get back to a more holistic form of study when it comes to economics and ethics. Join Antony Davies, James Harrigan, and special guest David Sc

We are individuals, but we're also members of society. Economics generally deals with individual action whereas politics deals with the behavior of society as a whole. Economics, as a discipline, seeks to understand, explain, and sometimes predict human behavior. Politics, on the other hand, seeks to control the behavior of society at large. When we talk about freedom, what kind of freedom are we talking about? Is it the ability to decide which goods and services we purchase and from whom without restriction? Is it being able to choose who represents our interests in government and which laws they create? And which is more important? Or is either of them? Join James Harrigan and Antony Davies as they take a deep dive into what, exactly, economics and politics actually are and what freedom in those spheres might actually mean on this week's episode of Words and Numbers. Show Notes: Brain implant improves memory Oliver North named president of the NRA Foolishness of the Week The Pope doesn’t understand econo

Recently, Senator Chuck Schumer introduced a bill that would decriminalize marijuana on the federal level. He stated that the legality of marijuana should be a matter left up to individual states. This ringing endorsement of federalism might carry a little more weight if Senator Schumer hadn't spent a large part of his political career trying to micromanage Americans' behavior at the national level. Hillary Clinton is widely considered to be a staunch supporter of the LGBT community; however, she was publicly opposed to marriage equality until 2013. These are just two of the innumerable examples of politicians changing their stances on policy issues in the face of evolving public opinion. This is not a new phenomenon or exclusive to a single political party. Not only is it common for politicians to modify their positions of political principles to match changing public opinion, you'd be hard-pressed to find one who doesn't. We are dealing with political followership, not political leadership. So, what does th

In today's strange climate of political correctness, free speech exists in a weird place. Safe spaces, First Amendment zones, the attitude of victimization, and accusations that "your fav is problematic" abound. And yet, important things, challenging things, dangerous things still need to be said and are being said. One critical "loophole" for dodging the would-be censors to get these ideas out into the world is comedy. Comedians live in a peculiar kind of in-between that allows for a certain audacity in messaging that doesn't quite exist for, say, politicians or activists. Special guest Lou Perez from We The Internet joins James and Antony to talk about messaging, humor, and more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers.   Quick hits More registered voters than citizens https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/election-fraud-registered-voters-outnumber-eligible-voters-462-counties/ UK bans straws https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-chogm-plastic/britain-to-ban-sale-of-plastic-straws-in-bid-to-fight

Every year, the American people spend about $30 billion on accountants and software to file their taxes. That's on top of taxes themselves. Approximately 26 percent of the average American's income is collected, in some form or another, in taxes. This includes all forms of taxation, such as state and local taxes, as well as federal. If we look at just federal taxation, that still comes to a very respectable 16 to 18 percent (on average) of GDP. But how does that all break down when it comes to federal taxation? Are the poor really getting bent over the taxation barrel every April? Are the rich not really paying their "fair share"? And how did we even get to this point? Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss this and more on this week's Tax Day edition of Words and Numbers.   The top 1% earn 20% of all income but pay almost 40% of all federal taxes.   https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51361-householdincomefedtaxesonecol.pdf     Country comparison of tax re

Much has been said about the high cost of higher education in America. And it is, indeed, quite expensive and getting more so at an alarming rate. For all that, though, at least we can say that America gets what it pays for in that we have the best higher education system in the world. In fact, it's one of our biggest exports, totaling more than $35 billion—fully 5 percent of America's export market—as of 2015. The same cannot be said for our primary and secondary education systems, with the US consistently ranking at around the middle of the pack among developed nations in standardized test scores. The thing of it is, the average annual cost per student in an American public high school is about the same as the average annual cost per student in an American public university. With the price of educating young people being generally the same for public high schools and public universities, why is there such a huge discrepancy in the outcomes for the students? Is there any way to remedy this situation? Join Ja

There's no way to sugar-coat it. Social Security is going to fail. There are, of course, ways to possibly extend its life for a few years, or even decades, but ultimately, like all Ponzi schemes, it will collapse. By the federal government's and the Social Security Board of Trustees' own admissions, the Social Security program will be paying out more than it takes in in just 4 years. At current rates (and assuming the federal government fully pays back the more than $5 trillion it "borrowed" from Social Security's accounts), the program will be completely out of money in about 17 years. What does this situation mean for current working Americans? Is there any way to solve this problem? Join Antony Davies and James Harrigan as they discuss this and more on this week's episode of Words and Numbers.   Quick hits   Splitting up Amazon https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/29/former-walmart-us-ceo-congress-consider-splitting-up-amazon.html   National pencil day https://nationaldaycalendar.com/days-2/national-pencil-day-m

Pundits are declaring that America is a nation divided. In fairness, this is a true statement, but it's not a new phenomenon. America has been a nation divided since at least the election of 1800. That said, the division is not a dichotomous one. Recent data show that a large and growing number of Americans self-identify as neither Republican nor Democrat, but as Independent. It would appear that a large number of Americans are growing increasingly tired of the ever-more extreme stances of the two major parties, instead favoring more moderate approaches to governance. An excellent microcosmic example of this is the recent special election in Pennsylvania Congressional District 18, a district that in the 2016 presidential election voted in favor of Donald Trump by 20 percentage points. Despite its deeply red tendencies and both the President and Vice President campaigning in support of the Republican congressional candidate, PA18 narrowly elected a Democrat to represent it. A Democrat, it should be noted, who