4A - Wednesday, December 9, 2009 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily:com E-MAIL ROSE AT ROSEJAFF@UMICH.EDU I e Atic4,6,oan 3at*lm ROSE JAFFE Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 420 Maynard St. Ann Arbor, MI 48109 tothedaily@umich.edu ROBERT SOAVE COURTNEY RATKOWIAK EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MANAGING EDITOR I400ril KOW P . -js{ o tvic co ha NOWHEP9- H-'Ily.. v -.ye's... Bt5 is kec(Om:'11o ve-ra,vImt,sn~slv frelvler1 .-- GARY GRACA EDITOR IN CHIEF Unsigned editorials reflect the official position ofthe Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views ofttheir authors. Clearing the air Michigan legislature must pass indoor smoking ban Most people are familiar with the negative health risks associated with smoking. To improve the health of workplace environments, 37 states have enacted some sort of statewide ban on indoor smoking in public places. While the Michigan legislature has repeatedly taken up this issue, leg- islators have been too stubborn to compromise and approve a bill. With the state Senate likely to take up the issue again later this week, legislators must finally agree on and pass a version of the bill that will protect the health of workers and make reasonable exceptions for certain businesses. - ' - ? : - . _ .. - Tom; 4 --ss t r/ f fr , J ., s , a '°' r ' I x k "1 Expect the unexpected Bills to ban smoking statewide aren't new to the Michigan legislature. Last year, a bill that would have banned smoking in public areas like restaurants and bars died before it reached the governor's desk. Ultimately, the Senate and House of Representatives couldn't agree on exempting some busi- nesses from the law. The bill that the legis- lature takes up later this week will likely be similar, and will face a similar debate over whether to make exceptions for businesses like cigar bars and casinos. The dangers of secondhand smoke are the primary reason a smoking ban should be enacted. According to the Centers for Dis- ease Control and Prevention, 1,300 people die from smoking-related causes every day in the United States. Complications from secondhand smoke are thought to be respon- sible for 11 percent of these deaths. Most peo- ple can lessen their risk by avoiding smokers, but those who work in smoke-filled environ- ments don't have that option. A smoking ban would create environments free of health risks for emnployees of restaurants and bars who currently have no choice but to risk sec- ondhand-smoke exposure to keep their jobs. Critics of a ban have said that it would hurt businesses, driving away custom- ers who smoke. But the opposite may be true. Smoke-free environments are attrac- tive to potential customers. Non-smokers could frequent establishments that they may have previously avoided, as there are far more non-smokers than smokers. And evidence from states that have passed simi- lar laws is good news for the ban. Tax rev- enue and demand for liquor licenses, for example, increased in New York after the implementation of a similar indoor public smoking ban. That said, some exemptions to the ban are understandable. It's probably unreasonable to expect businesses that exist for the sole purpose of smoking and tobacco use - like cigar shops and smoke bars - to close their doors to smoking. Losing the ability to let their customers smoke would be tough for them, and Michigan's economy can't afford to lose any more small businesses. And it could be expected that people who choose to work in these establishments are aware and accepting of the consequences of sec- ondhand smoke. If these exemptions are what this bill needs in order to pass, the legislature shouldn't mind them. Michigan workers in bars and restaurants need the protection that this bill will offer them. State legisla- tors must not fail - once again - in their obligation to protect employees from the dangers of secondhand smoke. t is hard for me to listen to our president and members of his economic team talk about finan- cial matters with- out laughing. I understand that they see the econ- omy in the same way that many University students see the world - as a machine that should only be operated by those VINCENT who understand it PATSY best. They believe that matters of eco- nomic consequence can only be trusted in the hands of an elite group of policymakers, and they label the rest of us with terms like "capitalists" or the "labor force." For them, our job title is our sole contribu- tion to the overall economy. This view is wrong. People are not inanimate objects or cogs in some economic machine. Everyone is a capitalist, a laborer, a consumer and a producer at the same time, and their preferences simply can't be predicted by even the most intelligent experts in President Barack Obama's Cabinet or in University lecture halls. Economics, as a science, deals with the fact that all people make deci- sions that affect the world around them in order to survive. Every per- son has goals and some sort of idea to achieve them. Economics does not deal with how to attain these goals or what these goals are - such topics are covered by psychology, philoso- phy and other disciplines. No matter what you do, you are making an economic decision. Every decision to buy this food or that, hang out with this friend or not or watch a certain TV channel counts as an eco- nomic decision. We subconsciously order these preferences based on their subjective value to us. In other words, whatever you are doing right now, (reading this column, for exam- ple) ranked higher on your value scale than other possible options (like reading the lead story on the front page). obviously, your preference only becomes obvious after the fact. I can't predict what you were going to do. I can only hope that by writing an excellent column, I can attract read- ers. I have no ability, no matter how keen my insights into your mind, to predict every action you make, and therefore, I can't plan an econobmy around you. Of course, it makes sense that most mainstream economists - and cer- tainly the ones who have the presi- dept's ear - do not stress this view. Like many people, they don't want to confess their limitations by admitting the personal nature of economics. These economists focus on deter- mining if this or that political policy would be better or worse. What is lost is the key nature of economics, namely that the field is largely based on individual preferences that can't be planned. For example, if the supply of a good falls, we don't know precisely how much the price will fall because we can't know consumers' subjec- tive values. All we know is that laws of economics exist that drive the price downward. Economic laws tell us direction and tendency of price movements, not what the final num- ber will be. Inevitably, because they can't accurately predict the market chang- es, economists focus on long-run equilibrium. The problem is that they study a wholly unreal situation. The world as it is today is one of con- stant change. You don't know if later today you will run into an old friend or if you will be hit by a car. Prices of goods, such as the stock market, are constantly moving and changing in an unpredictable manner.tBecause the real world is difficult to model mathematically, economists make concessions and assumptions before developing equilibriums. This is what is studied in Econ 401 and 402 at the University. Economists can't predict human behavior. For these economic models to work in real life, we would need to live in the world of Bill Murray in the movie "Groundhog Day," constantly repeat- ing the same actions over and over again. Every person would need to keep buying the same goods, walking in the same shoes, spending each day doing the same homework while lis- teningto the same music, etc. But this isn't the world we live in - nor one we would ever want to live in. In the real world, people can't be treated as variables in an equation that the state can manipulate to serve some societal goal. This is the funda- mental point of economics that most experts either don't understand or won't admit. - Vincent Patsy can be reached at vapatsy@umich.edu. 0I 0 EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS: Nina Amilineni, Emily Barton, Jamie Block, William Butler, Ben Caleca, Nicholas Clift, Michelle DeWitt, Brian Flaherty, Emma Jeszke, Sutha K Kanagasingam, Erika Mayer, Edward McPhee, Harsha Panduranga, Alex Schiff, Asa Smith, Brittany Smith, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Van Gilder, Laura Veith SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU Student right to question Come on, people. Let's get creative. Ritan Ingali underage drinking laws LSA "enio" TO THE DAILY: I commend Brian Hurd's astute reasoning in Climate c Conf ce his viewpoint on Monday (G.L Joe deserves a beer, 12/07/2009). He nicely outlines the prin- isgoodfort environment cipal problem behind lowering the drinking age: That states' hands are tied if they want to pave their roads. TO THE DAILY: I have an idea for disentangling the drink- I am proud to know that my fellow University ing age from highway funding, though it would students, faculty and alumni are in Copenhagen admittedly take some aggressive lobbying of at this moment for the United Nations COP15 Washington. Have all states announce their Climate Change Conference (University group intention to lower the drinking age back to 18 headed to Copenhagenfor Climate Change Confer- by 2020. ence, 12/07/2009). Students on campus in a wide Each state's highway funding budget is cut range of groups have been deeply involved in the by 10 percent, but the federal government can youth climate movement this year, and the large use that extra revenue to form a fund that pro- youth presence in Copenhagen is a testament to vides grants, tax incentives and low interest our strength and commitment. loans for states to develop robust public trans- While a legally binding treaty is very unlikely portation infrastructure. We can call it the to come out of the conference, Iam excited about "Let Our Roads Grow Potholes, but At Least the progress made today by the United Sates. We Can Drink Without Having to Drive Act," Environmental ProtectionAgency Administrator which will create the "Beer for Buses (and Lisa Jackson released her agency's long-awaited Trains) Fund." Endangerment Finding, officially declaring glob- An alliance between advocates of lowering al warming pollution a threatto public health. It the drinking age and advocates of develop- places the EPA in a position to regulate green- ing better public transportation would be far house gas emissions and gives President Barack more than just a marriage of convenience. It Obama the ammunition he needs to promise could be a symbiotic relationship that creates real emissions reductions while he is at the UN just enough synergy to actually get something climate negotiations in Copenhagen. I earnestly done. hope that Obama will show true leadership and Maybe Michigan could even be the pilot announce his support for science-based global state. The bidding war that could result warming pollution cuts. We have a long way to between developers who want to construct go, but this is a start and Iam optimistic. the infrastructure might attract businesses and perhaps even provide a much-needed job Hannah Clark surge. Public Policy senior LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor. Letters should be less than 300 words and must include the writer's full name and University affiliation. Letters are edited for style, length, clarity and accuracy. All submissions become property of the Daily. We do not print anonymous letters. ,iend letters to tothedoily umich.edu. The Daily is looking for a diverse group of strong, informed, passionate writers to be columnists for the winter semester. Columnists write a 700-800 word column every other week on a topic of their choosing. If you are an opinionated and talented writer, consider applying. E-MAIL RACHEL VAN GILDER AT RACHELVG@UMICH.EDU FOR MORE INFORMATION. 0 ALEX BILESI College too costly? Blame gov't 6 Economic issues typically don't resonate with us college students, as many of us are insulated against the burden of taxes, unemployment, outsourcing of jobs and even gas prices. But one issue that unequivo- cally affects college students is the ever-increasing cost of tuition. The best explanation I have heard for the phenomenon was delivered in a few, simple words: No government inter- vention in education means no inflat- ed tuition. Before World War II, most Ameri- cans didn't attend college. For indi- viduals who did, it was inexpensive relative to today's figures. In many cases, the student worked for a few years before or during school to save up enough to pay for college and grad- uated without debt. This rarely happens today due to the existence of an exorbitant num- ber of government-guaranteed loans and grants available to students. The problem with such a system is the development of an educational-indus- trial complex in which individuals become slaves to debt who are forced to pay off loans long after graduation. The benefactors of the scheme aren't the students but rather the banks, universities and politicians. Tuition data for the University's Law School show the effect of gov- ernment intervention. Adjusted for 2009 values, yearly tuition at the Law School in 1950 was $1,884 for state residents and $4,037 for out-of- state students. In 1950, the inflation- adjusted, median personal income was $18,103, meaning that students would have earned enough to pay off a year of tuition less than three months. Fast forward 60 years: tuition for the Law School is currently $41,310 and $44,310 for in-state and out- of-state students, respectively. The median personal income is approxi- mately $25,000. Today, the average American would have to work more than 18 months to afford a year of tuition. What caused the difference? Before World War II, there were no govern- ment loans or grants. When these things did not exist, college was inex- pensive and affordable. Government intervention in education has caused costs to skyrocket. Besides driving up the cost of education, the government is driv- ing down its value. Since fewer indi- viduals went to college before World War II, people didn't stay in school very long before they joined the work force. Today, however, with guar- anteed loans, droves of Americans obtain college degrees. Thus, the value of the degree has diminished. This is basic supply and demand. To stand out, a student must obtain a graduate degree or Ph.D. These stu- dents spend more years in college, accumulate more debt and delay their entrances into the work force, where they can actually make money. Today, anyone who wants to go to college has access to a loan co-signed by the government. Students then bid and compete against one another for spots at universities with government money. There is no restraint on the demand, which causes an increase in prices. Universities love this, as it enables them to increase admission costsknowing that the gover ment will guarantee the debt. If anything, college tuitions should be decreas- ing. We are currently in a recession and demand for highly skilled work- ers has diminished. Unemployment is high, and incomes and the economy are shrinking - yet college prices continue to rise. Could colleges afford to charge $30,000 a year if government loans did not exist to support this artifi- cially created demand? The answer should be obvious. These programs mean that colleges have no incentive to bring down costs. Let's examine a hypothetical'sce- nario. If the government announced that it would eliminate educational aid programs for the next fiscal year, there would be a drastic decline in enrollment. Most people wouldn't be able to afford outrageous tuition prices. Would this mean that colleges would continue to operate with empty classrooms or shut their doors and go out of business? Of course not - cql- leges would adapt by slashing outlays to lower operation costs, which would subsequently make attendance more affordable for students. Instead of having people go to col- lege for a devalued degree and grad- uate with 25 years of future debt, students can work for a few years after high school and gain valuable real-world experiences before choos- ing to obtain degrees for significantly lower costs. The benefits of reconsid- eringmisguided federal aid programs, which have jacked up the price of a college education while devaluing it in the process, are crystal clear. Ale plies is an LSA junior.