Views

Publisher's Pen: Note to City & County: Binary thinking is stinkin thinkin!

Details

Tuesday, 28 January 2025

Written by Bill Bowman

Everyone seems to be very excited about what the New Year will bring. I sure am, especially if our elected officials follow their promises of cooperation and work together for a better, more secure, and prosperous America.
Over the last two decades, America's two-party political system has deteriorated practically beyond recognition. Gradually, our government's responsibilities and loyalties to the American people have shifted to the political parties at all levels, national and local.
We must get our government back on the right track of being responsive to the people at all government levels, not to themselves. This writer believes binary thinking has plagued and infected all levels of the political process.
For those unfamiliar with binary thinking, it's "black or white" thinking that involves categorizing ideas, people, and situations into two distinct opposite groups where compromise is absent. This thinking only acknowledges two non-compromising possibilities and seldom produces positive results, with no results in many cases.
It also dramatically increases the chances of misjudging a person's true character.
As an example of binary thinking, sometimes, we use a single issue or trait of a person to write that person off. Perfect examples are "all Republicans are evil right-wing fanatics," or "all Democrats are progressive left-wing extremists."
This is not the case. People and issues are sometimes highly complex, and we need to take the time to listen, understand, and respect their perspectives. This is the opposite of binary thinking. People are different, and they have different views and insights.
As Americans, we should be more tolerant and respectful and never end up hating someone just because they don't think like we do. Just because we may feel someone's views on a particular issue or subject are terrible doesn't mean that person is terrible. All of us have different ideologies.
Just because your ideology doesn't mirror someone else's doesn't mean that person is not worthy of your friendship and respect. We must get away from this "all or nothing" mindset to benefit from all citizens' ideas, innovations, and knowledge.
Historically, this kind of "binary thinking" has plagued the City of Fayetteville and Cumberland County over the past five decades, hindering growth and prosperity, fostering poor (and sometimes corrupt) leadership, and keeping the entire Fayetteville/Cumberland County community from reaching its full potential.
Fayetteville and Cumberland County need more "critical thinking." Both have significant challenges that can be dealt with swiftly and effectively if the two governing bodies collaborate harmoniously, sharing ideas, solutions, and resources that serve and benefit all citizens.
An added benefit from this positive and cooperative relationship would be it would radiate out to all citizens. Fayetteville is a great place to live, work, and raise a family.
However, I have heard people say, "Fayetteville is its own worst enemy" way too many times. I believe that is caused primarily by two things: One: Binary thinking. We must be more tolerant and respectful of other people's views and opinions and not judge their worth on one issue or viewpoint.
Two: Fayetteville and Cumberland County do an abysmal job telling their story. We do not promote our community, local amenities, achievements, or accomplishments, nor do we celebrate our quality of life. As a result, we let others set our narrative with only negative news reaching the ears of residents and visitors. Up & Coming Weekly has been working to combat this, but we cannot do it alone.
Let this be the year our City of Fayetteville and Cumberland County elected officials and staff exert effort to stifle binary thinking and work together to face this growing community's challenges.
We are off to a great start.
Thank you for reading Up & Coming Weekly, Fayetteville and Cumberland County's community newspaper.

Do parents today need a name consultant?

Details

Tuesday, 21 January 2025

Written by Margaret Dickson

What could be fresher in the New Year than a newborn baby?
Long anticipated, maybe even prayed for, a new baby is a sign of hope, of renewal, and of family. It is a rare opportunity to fall totally and permanently in love.
Babies change everyone around them but especially their parents, who now have responsibilities they are likely to carry for the rest of their days. First among them—what are we going to name this tiny little person?
We in the South are fond of giving our babies names of others in our families, living and dead—a so-called “family name.” I carry my maternal grandmother’s name, Margaret Dawson, and I am forever thankful that her name was not Scheherazade. Not all parents are traditional. My cousin once taught a student named Chandelier, for reasons no one ever explained.
The Social Security Administration is a resource for parents struggling with just the right name for their little bundle of joy. The SSA has kept records of what Americans name our most precious possessions since 1880. Turns out baby-naming is just about as trendy as designer handbags and blue jeans with holes in the knees. It also appears, at least to this writer, that boy babies are more likely to have solidly traditional names, and that parents are more likely to be creative with what to call their girls, especially in the 21st century.
Consider this:
In 1925 the 10 most popular girl names were Mary, Dorothy, Betty, Helen, Margaret, Ruth, Virginia, Doris, Mildred, and Elizabeth. Leading for boys were Robert, John, William, James, Charles, George, Joseph, Richard, Edward, and Donald. We still see a lot of those names now, but only 1 remains in the top 10.
Top billing for girls in 2023 (2024 is not yet available) were Olivia, Emma, Charlotte, Amelia, Sophia, Mia, Isabella, Ava, Evelyn, and Luna. Boys' names were also more varied than in 1925 with the top 10 being Liam, Noah, Oliver, James, Elijah, Mateo, Theodore, Henry, Lucas, and good old William.
So what names do we have to look forward to in 2025?
Lilia Corrigan, a name consultant with Heart Baby Names, told the HuffPost that nostalgic names “like Eloise, Maeve, and Otis” are on the horizon as are names that come from diverse influences, such as “Aria, Ayaan, and Leila.” She adds that names “tied to the natural world….like River, Sage, and Aurora reflect a desire for grounding and connection in a fast-paced world.” Another consultant, Heidi Prunkl, founder of Baby Name Sunday, is expecting to see daycare centers populated with “Cleo, Bear, Gia, Arlo, Jade, Ivy, or Kai.”
Biblical names are always in style, says Sherri Suzanne, founder of My Name for Life, another name consulting firm. She told HuffPost that some Biblical names have been used for generations, but that today’s parents are opting for lesser-known Biblical figures like “Erza and Micah and Ezekiel.” She will not be surprised to meet a few Enochs and Boazes.
Corrigan also expects “cool, unisex names like Blair, Rowan, and Ellis….These names feel fresh, modern and versatile….Sterling, Palmer, Finley, and Teagan are poised to rise in popularity in 2025.”
This is a lot to ponder for those of us who have or will have buns in the oven. As a mother of three, my advice is to remember that your precious jewel will carry the name you give him or her for life, and that what sounds fabulous in 2025 might not have such a positive ring in a decade or two.
You should also know that there really was a Scheherazade growing up with me on our little two-block street in Haymount.
As we say in the South, bless her heart.

To make homes more affordable, we should build!

Details

Tuesday, 21 January 2025

Written by John Hood

In places where the regulatory climate makes it easier to build new homes, it’s easier for people to find housing at affordable prices.
No, really, please bear with me. I know my proposition sounds improbable. Could there truly be a direct link between the cost of building apartments and houses and the cost of renting or buying them? I submit the answer to this provocative question is yes.
My answer depends on two propositions for which, I argue, there is strong evidence. The first is that regulation increases the cost of building new residences. Many studies illustrate this effect, some from the industry itself and others from scholars who publish their work in peer-reviewed journals.
The following passage sums things up well. “Even where housing is allowed,” a group of economists stated, “local permitting requirements can drive up the cost of housing and contribute to the nation’s housing shortage.”
The economists pointed out that while “some permitting requirements serve an important purpose, such as ensuring structural, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical safety and environmental protection, the rise of unnecessary and onerous permitting has contributed to housing shortages and housing unaffordability across the country. Permitting requirements directly increase the cost of building new housing by increasing soft costs, administrative burdens, uncertainty, and delays.”
Some hack consultants on the take? Nah. I just quoted the Biden-Harris administration’s Council of Economic Advisors.
Now, in theory, homebuilders and developers might eat any higher costs imposed by housing and land-use regulations. That’s not what happens in practice, however. Consumers bear most of it —by paying higher prices, by renting or buying less quantity and quality of housing than they’d prefer, or by having to choose another location entirely where the housing is cheaper but other job or lifestyle amenities are less desirable.
A new study in the Journal of Political Economy-Macroeconomics quantified the relationship. For every 1% increase in the supply of housing, average rents fell by .19%. There was also an increase in second-hand units placed onto the market to rent.
This finding underlines a key mechanism to keep in mind: you don’t have to build “affordable housing” in order to make housing more affordable. That is, even a project aimed at middle- or upper-income consumers can end up serving the interest of lower-income consumers by freeing up preexisting houses or apartments.
The first house I ever purchased, in a starter-home neighborhood in Garner, was far from new. The couple from whom I purchased the home had lived in it for many years. When the husband got a raise at work, they jumped at the opportunity to buy another house closer to his office — and large enough to accommodate their growing family. Their decision, in turn, put an existing unit on the market for a young journalist living paycheck to paycheck.
Housing is an urgent and emotional issue. Policymakers have to talk about it, and at least promise to do something about it. On this matter, as on so many others, my advice is to focus on the supply side, not the demand side.
Except for poor people on public assistance, government ought not subsidize consumers of housing. Recent expansions of the standard deduction and caps on the mortgage-interest deduction have drastically reduced the number of Americans who take it. The deduction never played much of a role in boosting homeownership — countries such as Canada have comparable rates of homeowners without such a tax deduction — and mostly benefits high-income households.
And as Mark Calabria, former head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, recently explained to Reason magazine, the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac provide “not a homeownership subsidy but a home debt subsidy.” Their implicit federal subsidy can only boost the demand for mortgages, which “if you’re not doing anything about supply is only going to run up prices.”
Both the state legislature and local governments have been deregulating housing markets in North Carolina. Let’s do more of that, and soon.

Editor’s Note: John Hood is a John Locke Foundation board member. His books Mountain Folk, Forest Folk, and Water Folk combine epic fantasy with American history (FolkloreCycle.com).

Post-COVID test scores tumble in North Carolina

Details

Tuesday, 14 January 2025

Written by John Hood

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, student performance fell across much of the United States. According to a new study of 2022 math and reading scores, however, North Carolina students suffered one of the country’s biggest tumbles.
For describing cross-state differences in educational outcomes, I’ve long relied on the Urban Institute’s analysis of data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Few yardsticks are as consistent as NAEP’s reading and math exams, administered every couple of years to a representative sample of students in each jurisdiction.
Urban Institute researchers then take these test scores and adjust them for demographics, making possible valid comparisons across states that differ markedly in the share of disadvantaged students.
Before COVID, our state fared well in the Urban Institute analysis. Averaging results from the four tests included in the model — reading and math exams in the fourth and eighth grades — North Carolina ranked 7th in the country in 2019, behind (in order) Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey, Indiana, Mississippi, and Georgia. Rounding out the top 10 were Texas, Connecticut, and Maryland.
In 2022, the top 10 states in demographics-adjusted student performance were, again in order, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Georgia, Indiana, Illinois, Nevada, and South Carolina.
Alas, our state was no longer among them. North Carolina tumbled to 29th. Among previously high-performing states, only Maryland suffered a bigger drop than we did.
Now, I know readers may be tempted to slap this bad news on the back of their favorite hobbyhorses and ride them with reckless abandon. See, critics of the state legislature will insist, it was foolish to prioritize tax cuts and opportunity scholarships over more-dramatic increases in teacher pay and school funding!
See, critics of former Gov. Roy Cooper will say, it was foolish for North Carolina to keep its schools closed so long despite the lack of strong evidence schools were a major vector of deadly disease!
Might I suggest less rocking and more talking? You can’t answer complex policy questions with simple comparisons or correlations. Many factors shape academic achievement.
Only some of them can be found in the schoolhouse, and even then the effects on student performance are rarely as dramatic as the political rhetoric associated with them.
I happen to think Cooper did bungle the school-closure issue, and that this probably helps to explain why North Carolina’s test scores dropped so much. My opinion is based on research that holds other factors constant while comparing the length of closures to subsequent student performance.
But I acknowledge not all studies show large effects. I’d like to see more evidence before drawing a final conclusion on the magnitude of the harm.
Moreover, other states that kept schools closed even longer than North Carolina fared better on the 2022 NAEP tests, both in score averages and in changes from 2019. It’s possible that other policy choices by states help to explain variations in student performance. It’s also possible that NAEP tests administered in 2024 will show a different trajectory.
In the meantime, what the Urban Institute study can do is dispel certain myths that continue to pervade North Carolina’s debates on education policy.
First, no more making fun of the likes of South Carolina and Mississippi. Over the past decade, both have enacted major education reforms that changed how teachers were trained and students were taught. Their students haven’t just outperformed ours. They’ve outperformed their counterparts in such places as Connecticut, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.
Second, no more asserting that low-tax states such as Florida and Texas must inevitably sacrifice the quality of public services on the altar of fiscal conservatism. Their schools ranked well not just in the latest study but in past evaluations of NAEP data.
Meanwhile, high-tax, high-regulation, low-growth states such as New York and California don’t have better schools. They have worse schools — and, usually, worse performance in other public services.
I used to point out that North Carolina’s schools ranked higher, as well. Not anymore.