Evidence makes a comeback

Not everything is political.

View in browser|nytimes.com Continue reading the main story January 19, 2021 People gather at the Washington Monument before marching on Constitution Avenue in the March for Science on Earth Day in 2017.Hilary Swift for The New York Times By Paul Krugman Opinion Columnist “What do we want? Evidence-based policy. When do we want it? After peer review.” That was one of the chants at the March for Science, an international set of demonstrations in April 2017. The marchers were, of course, reacting in part to the election of Donald Trump and the rise of populism elsewhere; they were concerned that governments would make bad policy decisions that ignored scientific evidence. And in the United States and the United Kingdom, where the demonstrations received the most attention, the marchers’ fears proved prescient. Both governments responded to the coronavirus pandemic by dismissing the views of epidemiologists, and the two countries have had far more Covid-19 deaths per million people than other major nations. As an economist watching this disaster, I was mainly horrified. But I couldn’t help also thinking, “Welcome to my world.” My sense is that many medical experts are still shocked to see what should be matters of science utterly politicized. But in the social sciences it has been that way all along. In fact, many people — and not just on the right — seem to assume that all economic analysis must be political. Today’s column was in part about the case for a higher minimum wage, a topic on which economists’ views have shifted dramatically over the past 25 years. When I describe that shift to lay people, I find them assuming that it must have been politically driven — a reaction to things like the Fight for 15, the movement by fast-food workers to demand higher wages. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT But that’s not what happened. The sea change in economic opinion on minimum wages was driven by, dare I say it, science: New evidence came in, and it refuted old conventional wisdom. The change started with a remarkable paper by the labor economists David Card and Alan Krueger, who had the bright idea of surveying fast-food restaurants near the Delaware River before and after New Jersey raised its minimum wage, while Pennsylvania did not. As far as I can tell, they expected to see employment declines in the former relative to the latter. But they didn’t. This result — no noticeable employment decline after an increase in the minimum wage — has since been replicated many, many times. The evidence is now overwhelming that minimum wage hikes don’t have major negative effects on employment, while they do raise workers’ incomes and reduce poverty. This isn’t a conclusion driven by politics, although at least some of the economists who still refuse to accept this evidence are being political. While the minimum wage literature is a really striking example of economists being scientific, it’s not unique. Another example, close to my heart, has been a shift of the profession toward the Keynesian view that deficit spending is good for a depressed economy. This shift was driven in large part by what happened between 2010 and roughly 2013, when some but not all advanced countries were forced into harsh austerity policies — and experienced severe economic contractions, just as Keynes would have predicted. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT If these examples may make it seem as if taking the evidence into account always pushes economists to the left, that’s misleading. It may be true on average, if only because discourse in general has been dominated by a right-leaning orthodoxy, so that new evidence usually pushes us left. But it’s not hard to find contrary examples. For example, many people would like to believe that universal health care saves money, because people get more preventive care and have less reason to visit emergency rooms. Unfortunately, that doesn’t seem to be true: Better coverage means that people get more health care, which costs money. Which is not to say that we shouldn’t guarantee health care for all! For evidence can’t actually tell us what our policies should be — that is, in the end, a political decision that must reflect values as well as science. But evidence can help us make policy. And I, for one, am thrilled that 23½ hours after this newsletter goes out we’ll have an administration that understands that. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT Quick Hits These days, Arindrajit Dube is the go-to guy for minimum wage research. David Card, who helped start this work, says that it “cost me a lot of friends.” It’s not just minimum wages: economics has gone through an empirical revolution. Coming next: the good things that happen when we help poor children. Feedback If you’re enjoying what you’re reading, please consider recommending it to friends. They can sign up here. If you want to share your thoughts on an item in this week’s newsletter or on the newsletter in general, please email me at krugman-newsletter@nytimes.com. Facing the Music Don’t worry, be happy — or maybe notYouTube Nothing to do with today’s topic, but I belatedly discovered this band and have been listening nonstop. IN THE TIMES Trump’s 1776 Commission Critiques Liberalism in Report Derided by Historians The report charges that Americans are being indoctrinated with a false narrative of the nation’s founding and identity, including the role of slavery in its history. By Michael Crowley and Jennifer Schuessler How Full Employment Became Washington’s Creed Policymakers are eager to return to the period of low unemployment that preceded the pandemic and are less concerned than in previous eras about sparking inflation and taking on debt. By Jeanna Smialek When Biden Becomes … Rooseveltian! Using a crisis to reduce child poverty and make America more truly a land of opportunity. By Nicholas Kristof Lost Passwords Lock Millionaires Out of Their Bitcoin Fortunes Bitcoin owners are getting rich because the cryptocurrency has soared. But what happens when you can’t tap that wealth because you forgot the password to your digital wallet? By Nathaniel Popper Read the full Opinion report here. Continue reading the main story Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance. You received this email because you signed up for Paul Krugman from The New York Times. To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences. Subscribe to The TimesGet The New York Times app Connect with us on: Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨：https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦：https://www.ofa86.com/

On Tech: How to make data privacy real

We need control over how our data is used. Thanks to California, there’s a promising new path.

View in browser|nytimes.com Continue reading the main story January 19, 2021 How to make data privacy real Shuhua Xiong By Shira Ovide The U.S. government last week settled with an app that lets women track their periods over claims that it shared its users’ health information with Google and Facebook. A photo-storage app also settled claims that it used people’s images to build a facial recognition system. These app makers got in trouble not because what they did seemed creepy — but because they weren’t upfront about it. In the United States, as long as companies don’t mislead their customers, there aren’t many legal limits on what they can do with our private information. That’s not great, is it? But California has a relatively new data privacy law that — while awkward and flawed — is starting to show intriguing ways to empower Americans to limit how our data can be used. Last week, the Federal Trade Commission said that the women’s app, Flo Health, broke its promise to its users to keep their information private when it shared sensitive data including women’s pregnancy status with other companies. According to the terms of the settlement, Flo is now required to obtain people’s consent before it shares their health information. (Flo didn’t admit it did anything wrong. The company said that it doesn’t share users’ health data without permission.) Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT People should be able to choose which companies to trust with our personal information as long as they’re honest about what they’re doing. However, it’s often an all-or-nothing, confusing choice: Either say yes to a vaguely worded privacy document, or don’t use the website or app at all. And it feels bizarre to me that if Flo just releases a new privacy policy, it then can share women’s intimate information. But that’s mostly how it works in the United States. Companies can do pretty much whatever they want concerning their users’ data if they first outline their actions in a privacy policy. The California Consumer Privacy Act, which went into effect a year ago, is starting to chart a promising alternative path. Under the law, state residents — and in some cases, all Americans — can demand that large companies show people what data they have about you and whom they’ve shared it with. People can also instruct the companies to delete and not “sell” the data they have about you. (There isn’t agreement on the legal definition of “selling.”) Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT The law isn’t perfect, and it’s complicated. People must go to each organization that might have their data to delete or restrict what it can do with it. But the California law also envisioned the possibility of “authorized agents” that would exercise data rights on our behalf. Instead of you filling out 100 forms to ask 100 companies to delete your data, you would pick a privacy assistant to do it for you. Consumer Reports last month started offering to be a privacy assistant as a test project. The most intriguing idea is that the privacy assistant might just be a web browser where you check a box once and each site you visit then gets an automated notice to prohibit the personal information collected there from being shared or sold. Think of it as a version of the telemarketer “Do Not Call” list. So far, a few websites have started to add this privacy agent feature. (The New York Times is among the organizations involved, both helping to develop the browser specifications and agreeing to implement people’s choices.) If California determines that this kind of privacy agent is legally binding, I expect this project to expand. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT These privacy ideas are just getting off the ground. But I’m intrigued by the possibility of giving Americans real power over our digital lives. If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. TIP OF THE WEEK Troubleshooting your stupid (GAHHHH!) printer Many Americans working from home during the pandemic bought printers — and with that often came cursing and screaming. Brian X. Chen, the New York Times personal technology columnist, is here to help: Printers are probably the worst technology product ever made. My first job out of college involved reviewing printers for a small tech magazine. So I know more than I ever wanted to about the machines. Here are some common problems and solutions: My wireless printing stopped working: Last week you printed that Amazon return label over your Wi-Fi network. Today you can’t. Why? Occasionally, printers go into sleep mode and disconnect from your internet network. Sometimes, restarting the printer gets it going again. Another possibility is that the printer changed its IP address — the identifying number assigned to each internet-connected device — and now your computer can’t find it. You can fix this by going into the advanced settings of your internet router and setting a static IP address for the printer. (Do a Google search for the make and model of your router and instructions on setting a static IP.) I get an error when I try to print: This is common and maddening. Often the problem is outdated software. Do a web search on your printer model to look for what are called new drivers or firmware updates and follow the instructions to update the software. I run out of ink too quickly: This can happen if you bought an off-brand ink cartridge. If this becomes a recurring problem, try switching to a different brand — preferably the ink cartridge made by the printer’s manufacturer. Another possibility is that the printer software is misfiring and the printer mistakenly states that it’s out of ink. Again, a firmware or driver update might help. Lastly, remember the golden rule of printers: When in doubt, reboot your printer and the device you’re trying to print from. That sometimes makes the issues go away. Before we go … More on a possible smoking gun in the Google antitrust lawsuit: One of the intriguing claims in a government antitrust lawsuit against Google is that the company and Facebook teamed up to help their businesses at the expense of everyone else’s. New reporting by my colleagues Dai Wakabayashi and Tiffany Hsu found that Google gave Facebook preferential treatment in computerized advertising auctions and that the two companies worried they might be investigated for reducing competition as a result. Saying you’re doing something is not the same as doing it: Facebook has said that it stopped automatically recommending people join the kinds of partisan political or social groups that sometimes steer people to extreme ideas. An analysis of some Facebook users’ news feeds by the Markup found the site did not actually stop those automatic recommendations. It’s an opportune time to wallow in nostalgia: On eBay, you can indulge in a childhood love of Sassy magazine. Hugs to this Two groups of penguins — one going to the water and the other coming back — stop for a chat. (OK, I don’t know if they’re chatting. Indulge my imagination.) We want to hear from you. Tell us what you think of this newsletter and what else you’d like us to explore. You can reach us at ontech@nytimes.com. If you don’t already get this newsletter in your inbox, please sign up here. Continue reading the main story Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance. You received this email because you signed up for On Tech with Shira Ovide from The New York Times. To stop receiving these emails, unsubscribe or manage your email preferences. Subscribe to The TimesGet The New York Times app Connect with us on: Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

歡迎蒞臨：https://ofa588.com/

娛樂推薦：https://www.ofa86.com/