Lots to digest in this summary of evidence on the effects on children of increased home computer availability. Two key points:
- Mathematics and reading test scores drop a little with the growing use of home computers
- Introduction of broadband internet widens racial and socioeconomic development gaps
As the study says, the skills highlighted in reading and mathematics tests may not be as valuable in the workplace as others learned with home computing.
Big question: how to track whether this effect is present as we roll out computing and the internet to all (which I am still fully in favour of, by the way). We must avoid digital engagement that leads to societal exclusion or leads to digital inclusion that is slightly damaging for the included.
Tableau public feels like crosstabs on steroids. Should be brilliant for open data visualisation and analysis.
I very much agree with Bagehot. While the BBC does cause some interesting competitive issues, it is so much better than what the competition in the UK is providing and astonishingly much better than the output in most other countries. I’m willing to pay my £150 subscription for it. Especially when I think that I pay Mr Murdoch four times this much for SkyHD. Funny that no-one ever seems to make this comparison, eh?
I’m glad that the whole antioxidant / happy bacteria / green tea industries are being not-so-gently proscribed by the EU. If the directive has been in preparation since 2006 and the more clinical trials needed take three years, then why haven’t they done any, rather than whingeing about how long the trials will take? Oh yes, because there won’t be any effect.
FYI none of these statements are true:
- apple cider vinegar can improve bowel movement
- the horsetail plant (Equisetum arvense L.) can help maintain
normal hair
- green tea is good for blood pressure, cholesterol levels,
bones, teeth and eyesight or that it works as an antioxidant
- cranberry juice can reduce the risk of urinary tract infection
in women
- the probiotic Lactobacillus plantarum supports the immune
system
- sugar-free chewing gum can reduce dental plaque
- glucosamine can reduce the risk of osteoarthritis
I have been back and forth on the issue of whether the public sector has it better or worse than the private sector (at average wage levels, not the high end).
Whatever it means, the median wage has been consistently higher in the public sector. How exactly to measure this and what it means overall is difficult to clarify.
During the debate about the additional cost of pensions to the Treasury rising. The note by Stephanie Flanders brings some fascinating addtional thinking to the debate. Firstly, the cost to the Treasury is not the target: it can be reduced by increasing the size of the civil service, for example. The important piece appears to be the promises we are making to the public sector and the cost to the country of making them.
What the OBR is saying is that every year we, as taxpayers, are giving the five million or so people who work in the public sector rock-solid guarantees of future pension payments which, on the open market, would cost them at least £26bn a year.
In exchange for those promises, the individuals themselves are contributing £4.4bn, and their government employers are contributing £12.6bn – meaning a net subsidy by the Treasury of at least £10bn a year.
Ask the average employee in the public sector how much his pension is worth, he or she is unlikely to say that it is worth another 30-40% of their gross salary. But that is almost certainly what it would cost a private-sector employer to offer a pension on the same terms.
That does seem amazingly generous given the number of ways in which the environment might get more challenging: fewer people in work means the non-funded pension system will creak as in France; higher interest rates may require greater subsidy.
Thought-provoking figures on income redistribution in the UK. Some factoids:
- Income inequality hasn’t changed much in the last decade (which means that more redistribution has been taking place)
- The richest fifth earn 15 times more than the poorest fifth before tax and benefits. The figure is only four times once tax and benefits have been taken in to account.
- The poorest 40% of the population receive 56% of the cash benefits each year. So the middle class do quite well out of benefits (20% of the income of the middle fifth). NB this includes pensions.
It does look like there are swathes of universalised benefits going to 40k+ income households that aren’t necessary. Bring on means testing! (Confession: my loft has been insulated for free thanks to Boris and Islington. Oops.).
Fascinating look at the regular reconfigurations of Whitehall departments. I particularly enjoyed the spoof one.
Fascinating but depressing article from John Robb. The global economic system has co-opted many of the functions of the nation state to its own ends. Look at the support given to banks, the ability of BP to stifle reporting on the Deepwater Horizon oil leak.
My take on it is this: in any sector (not just banking) the global economy will tend to route around any regulation governments put in. This will lead to bubbles and crashes. The governments of the day will feel obliged to protect their citizens from any ill effects. Plus ça change.
Robb’s question is if we can continue to live peacefully in a world where:
You are on your own. You are in direct competition with everyone else in the world, and your success or failure is something you alone control.
At the very least, this suggests that we will see a reduction in the standard of living in the developed world as resources flow to the developing world.
Great guide to reading statistics from the House of Commons (PDF).
The summary questions given in the title are spot on: all journalists should answer these questions on our behalf before running with any statistic-based news item.
I think that is what most people expect, no?
No party to have overall majority.
Conservative party to have overall majority
