Nice graphs of traffic fatalities, miles driven and recessions since the early 70's.

Saw this graphic in an article on why Southern cities have more pedestrian fatalities than other regions of the country.  It includes pedestrian and regular ol' traffic accidents that result in the death of someone.

Go HERE for the full analysis, but I was intrigued by the year 1974. Why the big drop-off from 1973? (I marked 1973 with the RED arrow as the high watermark for traffic fatalities).

Source: Washington Post

Here is a graph from Calculated Risk that shows miles driven over time (1971-Present). In addition it shows all the recessions, mild and severe, during that time span.

If you look at the periods of recession in this graph and line them up with the graph of fatalities above you will notice there is is dip in miles driven and traffic fatalities. The only exception is the recession in 2001-02.  Miles driven did not skip a beat.

The one I marked with arrow is the result of the Arab oil embargo that increased gas prices significantly and price controls made scarcity a problem (I remember those days as a teenager).  People were very careful in their consumption of fuel and (1) made fewer trips and (2) voluntarily slowed down on the highways to conserve even more.



I don't think this explains all of  the long term trend in decreased traffic fatalities.  There has to be more, right?

What do you think could be a contributing factor?

In terms of recent times, what correlation can you make with the leveling off of miles driven during and post-Great recession and the rapid decrease in traffic fatalities?  The recession is over so it should be trending up, right?

So many questions!  Do you have answers?

Why has the price of computers decreased but the price of broadband internet connection increased (or HAS it?). If you need an analysis for a Microeconomics class this will be helpful.

...or a Macroeconomics class as well...

The author of this blog entry (found HERE and also pasted in full below the fold at the bottom of this entry) uses a graph to show how, in the last 5 years, the price of computers (BLACK arrow) has decreased over 40%  but the price of Broadband (RED arrow) has increased (slight, but an increase).

While the blog entry is very short it suggests (explicitly and implicitly) 2 Microeconomic and 1 Macroeconomic concept that are important for students to know.

(1) In Microeconomics, two goods are considered Complements if they are used together. They are separate and distinct goods, each with their own market price and cost of producing. They are largely dependent on each other to function profitably in the market place. 

When the PRICE of one of the complementary goods DECREASES (in this case computers), the DEMAND for the other good used with it INCREASES (Broadband Internet connection).  This makes sense.  People buy more computers so they need more internet access. This could be the reason, but...

(2) The computer market is vast and their are lots of competitors.  With more competition, prices tend to gravitate closer to the actual cost of production (this is a characteristic of a "perfectly competitive firm").  In broadband "production" this is less so:

"The high, fixed costs of broadband means that there hasn’t been a big rise in competition among providers, according to Scott Wallsten, Vice President for Research and Senior Fellow at Technology Policy Institute. Indeed, most Americans don’t have more than two options when it comes to wireline broadband providers...."

High fixed costs serve as a barrier to entry in markets. It takes very large upfront investments that may take years to re-cover.  Hence competition is more limited AND the producer is able to charge a price, dictated by the market demand for the good/service, that is something greater than the cost of producing.  In other words, the producer has pricing power ABOVE the Marginal Cost of producing extra units of the good/service.  This could be the answer, but...

The Macroeconomic concept comes from one the commenter's on the blog entry in regards as to how the Consumer Price Index is calculated and its accommodation for changes in the quality of a good or service over time. 

Is the price consumers paid for broadband in 2007 the SAME broadband they pay for in 2012?

If the price of broadband (consider it just a single good/service) has increased 10% since 2007  BUT the amount of speed, quality of the connection, and places I can access it has increased, say 50% or more, am I not better off per dollar spent?

Has the BLS fully accounted for this quality change and it is built into the price change noted in the chart, so in real terms broadband has increased 10%?  This could be the reason, but...

This is why I love Economics! All three answers COULD be correct!

What do you think?  Which one seems the likely culprit or am I missing a piece of the puzzle? 

Nice graph showing the change in how we communicate and get information since 1900. We REALLY don't talk to each other anymore...

Technology is rapidly changing the way we spend time communicating with each other and how we connect to the outside world.

It shows time in hours per day Americans, since 1900, have spent engaging in the above two activities. The various categories of activities are stacked on the right side.  Notice the bottom 5 activities (from E-mail down to Social Networks) were virtually non-existent in the year 2000---only 12 years ago!

Source: McKinsey and Company

Notice how flat (and even descending) the lines are from 1980 to 2000---pretty stagnant, then BOOM! Those technologies take-off and rapidly start to consume our time. 

What happened during this time-span to make this all possible? What are some of the economic, social and political costs and benefites to society? 

Extra credit for good answers with details.

Steve Jobs and jobs---See how he creates jobs around the world to produce the i-Pad. How would YOU do it differently?

Resources are not unlimited.

Just look at the two top countries, the US and China. If you wanted to have the technological wizardy of the  i-Pad in the marketplace for a "reasonable" price, and you had to divide up the labor to produce it, which combination of jobs would you want available for US workers? You certainly don't trade an engineering job for a production job. That would not make sense. How about a retail job for a production job? Well, can't do that either, because the retail market is in the US.  If we moved ALL(or some) those production jobs to the US, would the i-Pad be a better product? A more expensive product? LESS expensive? OR is everything basically in balance to bring you the magic that is the i-Pad...Perhaps Comparative Advantage works?



Source: The Conversable Economist

HT: The Conversable Economist

Creating "Solar Entrepreneurs" in rural areas in developing countries...Solve a local problem that has global implications AND give someone an entreprenuerial opportunity...Does it get any better than that?

I love the concept of Social Enterprise--Equipping people in developing countries with the training,tools and capital to SELL (not give away) a product and/or service that solves a local problem. Solve a problem, fill a need (or want) and create a job--free enterprise at its finest.  Here is one I just stumbled upon. Selling easy to use solar power technology in rural Africa through a network of "Solar Entrepreneurs".  The focus in on training and equipping women to sell to women in remote villages. If you are young, ambitious and want to help people to help themselves, than working for or establishing your own social enterprise of some sort may be for you. I urge you to check this one out.

Solar Sister wants to light up rural Africa: Rugged, intuitive to use, affordable solar lamps that women can sell door-to-door change lives.

""Solar Sister eradicates energy poverty by empowering women with economic opportunity. We combine the breakthrough potential of solar technology with a deliberately woman-centered direct sales network to bring light, hope and opportunity to even the most remote communities in rural Africa (see flow chart below)

Investing in women is not only the right thing to do, it is the smart thing to do. Solar Sister creates sustainable businesses, powered by smart investment in women entrepreneurs. When you invest in a woman, you invest in the future. Join us by making an investment in a Solar Sister Entrepreneur today.""....Read more HERE at SolarSister.org...

Is re-paving a road "stimulative" to the economy? Compare these two photos. Are we using 1930's policies to solve 2011 problems?

Are "infrastructure projects" stimulating to the economy like they were during the Depression?  Are we using 1930's policies to solve 2011 problems? If the goal is to implement the use of machines/capital then we are doing the right thing. Road projects are a necessity, that is clear. But to justify them on the basis that they are, in large part, going to get our economy back on track and significantly lower unemployment seems a bit of a stretch to me.  If the goal of stimulus is to employ the masses, then, well, perhaps we should ask if "shovel-ready" is a literal or figurative term. More focus should be on the jobs of the future, not of the past...Just sayin'.

Repaving a road in Louisiana in the 1930's with a mix of labor and technology/capital...count the workers relative to capital...

Source HERE


Repaving a road today in Louisiana with today's mix of labor and technology...count the workers relative to capital

Source HERE

I assume the road in the bottom picture was done in a day or so and the road in the first picture took, well, I don't know how many days (weeks?)...

Netflix customers collectively consume 30% of US bandwidth. Shouldn't they pay MUCH more for video stream?? See chart here...

I am very ignorant of how the "guts" of information technology works. Sort of like my car--I don't know HOW it works, I just want to turn the key and go.  Is the supply of bandwidth equal to the demand for it? Is supply greater than demand or can the supply be expanded with little extra cost? If I am not mistaken, this is one of the issues with net neutrality.  Can someone give me a middle-school intelligence level explanation of why I should not pay more for my Netflix subscription than I do...   

Source: Business Insider




""Netflix's streaming service is so popular that it's now consuming 30% of peak downstream internet bandwidth in North America, according to data from Sandvine, a broadband equipment company, via TechCrunch.""