Fouling the Air With Numbers
If you are a careful reader of this newspaper--and, of course, you are--most likely you are aware that a large industry now exists in this country whose sole purpose is to generate numbers for public consumption. There are numbers for the unemployed, for babies with colic, for millionaires who own yachts in excess of 50 feet in length.
We are consoled by these numbers. That’s why newspapers print them every day. They are comforting to see on the page, so removed and dispassionate, and they suggest we are in control of the problems that surround us. If we can count it, surely we can do something about it.
We are so fond of numbers that, as with breakfast sausage, we rarely inquire about the origin. That is probably a mistake, both with sausage and with numbers. So today, bear with me. We are going to check the ingredients that went into one number and see where it leads us.
As numbers go, this one did not make a big splash. You had to look for it, down at the bottom of yesterday’s Metro page. Nonetheless, this number forecast a lot of pain for many who live in the Los Angeles Basin. It seems a Pasadena research firm has predicted that our newly revised, get-tough plan to cut air pollution in the South Coast Air Basin will cost us 350,000 jobs.
There, that’s the number: 350,000. It’s sizable, far larger than any prior estimate, and initially seems a little frightening. Three hundred and fifty thousand people is about the size of Oakland. So this study is saying that we are about to take enough people to fill Oakland and throw them into the welfare lines for the sake of clean air.
Such a number clearly has political implications. It suggests that the social tinkerers at the Air Quality Management District maybe have gone too far. And it implies, indirectly, that clean air may just be too expensive.
But where did the number come from? Let me introduce Joseph E. Haring, the chief economist at Pasadena Research Institute and the creator of the number. Haring did not generate this number to satisfy his own curiosity, of course. He was retained for that purpose by a private group with the sweet, innocuous name of the Community Air Quality Task Force.
And who makes up the task force? It turns out to be an industrial group of local companies and labor unions who do not favor the clean-air plan. In effect, these companies and unions were asking Haring to find out how hard they would be squeezed by the plan.
So here’s what Haring did: First he calculated the number of jobs that contribute to air pollution within a given industry. Then he assumed that the industry, in the face of the new rules, would discard 50% of these jobs or relocate them to friendlier spots like Tijuana.
This technique yielded some dramatic figures. If Haring had assumed that some companies would choose to adapt their operations and comply with the rules, the numbers would have been much lower. He did not do that.
Finally, Haring called the companies to confirm his impressive count. Keep in mind, these companies were roughly the same crowd that hired Haring in the first place and had good reason to exaggerate the impact. Sure enough, the companies confirmed the calculation.
Voila! 350,000 lost jobs.
A couple of questions to ponder: Why did Haring assume that the industries would sacrifice 50% of the affected jobs, rather than one-fourth or two-thirds? Because, Haring says, he thought 50% sounded about right. It was, he says, a “conservative” figure.
And what about the possibility that the clean-air plan would also create new jobs? Other studies have put this figure as high as 334,000 jobs, a number that, if correct, would virtually wipe out the Haring deficit.
No, Haring says, no new jobs were included in his calculations. Potential new employers would go elsewhere, he says, for the same reason the old ones skedaddled: the air pollution rules. Perhaps the new guys will go to Tijuana, too.
In short, the Haring number has some grave difficulties, all of which raises the last question: If a number will not stand up to scrutiny--and this one looks shaky on its feet--why create it in the first place?
The answer has to do with the way we conduct government these days. Soon there will be hearings on this plan and industry will plunk this study on the table and cry doom. In the midst of a hearing, no one asks questions about methodology. They, like we, just look for the numbers.
Of course, there will be opposing studies showing that the clean-air plan will have minimal impact on jobs. One says that 3 million new jobs are expected here over the next 20 years, clean-air plan or no. And where did that number come from?
Don’t ask.
