Gerrymandering Doesn’t Give an Obvious Edge to Either Party in the US House

Jeremy HorpedahlLeave a comment

Congressional districts must be redrawn after each US Census. In fact, that is one of the main functions the Census: to determine how many seats of the US House of Representatives that each state is allotted. A related function is to give states information about the distribution of the population in their state. Even if a state doesn’t gain or lose seats after a Census, the population in their state may have grown, shrank, or simply moved around within the state. If each Congressional district is to represent roughly the same number of people, district boundaries will still need to be redrawn even absent a change in the state’s total share of the US House seats.

That much is clear. However, given that historically and still largely today Congressional districts are drawn by state legislatures, there is a temptation and a real possibility that the party in power of a state legislature will draw boundaries in a way that benefits that party. There is nothing illegal about doing this as far as the federal Constitution is concerned (that I am aware of), but it does seem a bit unsporting. But I guess much of politics might be deemed “unsporting.”

Nonetheless, sometimes the shape of districts is so obviously weird and not representing an cohesive group of citizens or communities that it gets the derisive term “Gerrymander,” which derives from a historical example of a very odd looking district. But even if a district doesn’t look weird, it may still give one party an advantage that some deem unfair, such as by diluting one party’s supporters into multiple districts so they get no seats, or alternatively cramming all the supporters into one district so they have a very lopsided victory in just one district, rather than controlling multiple districts. This practice is known as “partisan Gerrymandering,” and it will be my focus in this post today (there are other forms, such as racial Gerrymandering, which are also important but are beyond the scope of this post).

Surely this practice occurs. Some states have tried to avoid it the problem of Gerrymandering by using non-partisan commissions, though this is a minority of states (less than a dozen), and when push-comes-to-shove they don’t actually seem that committed to the idea (both California and Virginia have essentially abandoned these commissions in 2025-26 to attempt to, once again, gain a partisan advantage). But lately a particular question has come up: does partisan Gerrymandering benefit one major party more?

In total for the US House, whatever Gerrymandering at the state level that is happening seems to roughly wash out in national representation: in the 2024 election, Republicans received about 51.7% of the two-party share of votes totaled over all House elections, and Republicans have about 50.6% of the seats in the House. Perhaps you could say that the GOP effectively loses 5 seats to what they “should” have in a truly proportional sense, but this ignores many factors, some of which I will discuss below. But even so, the GOP has a slim majority in the House and they won a slim total of national House votes. It’s about right.

But that “washing out” at the national level ignores some very large disparities at the state level. In some states, one party has all the House seats, even though they got nowhere near 100% of the House vote. Many of these are states with 1 or 2 House seats, which are less interesting because either there is no possibility of Gerrymandering (1 seat) or there is no obviously “fair” division, but it is not only those small states. For examples, Massachusetts gives all 9 seats to the Democrats, even though Republicans received 31.5% of the two-party vote share. Do Republicans deserve 3 of the seats? Is the fact that they don’t have 1/3 of the seats evidence of Gerrymandering? Conversely, in Oklahoma Republicans hold all 5 seats, even though Democrats got 30% of the vote. Should Democrats get a seat or two in Oklahoma?

(Note: for all vote data, I have queried Google Gemini Pro. I found multiple errors along the way, but I am fairly confident the numbers are all correct now. Please let me know if you spot any errors).

Neither Massachusetts nor Oklahoma’s Congressional representation is an obvious case of Gerrymandering on its face. It’s possible that 1/3 opposition party support in both states is perfectly even distributed across the state, such that it would not be possible to draw any “fair” districts that give the opposition roughly 1/3 of the seats. But it could be the result of Gerrymandering, or at least an indication we should look deeper. We can tally up all of the differences across states in the following chart:

Chart 1

Continue reading →

100,000 Glyphosate Lawsuits: Why Roundup Does Not Kill Your Weeds Like It Used To

Scott Buchanan2 Comments

I don’t like wasting time bending over and pulling out weeds, one by one. Much more efficient to go squirt squirt and eliminate lots of weeds at a time. But I realized in the past year that the Roundup I spritzed on the weeds in my mulch beds and sidewalk cracks just wasn’t killing them like it used to. The weeds would shrivel a bit, but then many would bounce right back. So, when I went to Home Depot to buy some more this week, I looked at the ingredients on the label. What?? Where is the glyphosate? For decades, “Roundup” was synonymous with glyphosate.

Glyphosate has several desirable properties as an herbicide. You spray it on the leaves, and it kills the plants right down to the roots. However, it has minimal residual toxicity in the soil, so it is unlikely to kill any plants you did not spray, and you can replant quickly in a soil patch that you had cleared with glyphosate. Farmers love it, because you can buy genetically engineered strains of crops like corn that are immune to glyphosate, so you can spray your fields to kill weeds without harming standing crops.

The glyphosate story is much bigger than homeowners bending over to pull weeds. The chemical has become indispensable for current agriculture. Global glyphosate sales are about $10 billion per year, and its impact on crop productivity is enormous. A 2017 study (apparently not paid for by Monsanto) predicted dire effects of discontinuance:

World prices of all grains, oilseeds and sugar are expected to rise, especially soybeans (+5.4%) and rapeseed (+2%). The welfare impacts are mostly negative, with global welfare falling by $7,408 million per year. Land use changes will arise, with an additional cropping area of 762,000 ha, of which 53% derives from new land brought into cropping agriculture, including 167,000 of deforestation. These land use changes are likely to induce the generation of an additional 234,000 million kg of carbon dioxide emissions.

What’s not to like about glyphosate? Well, maybe it causes cancers in humans. This is a contested claim, and I don’t have the expertise to penetrate the arguments. Because glyphosate makers like Monsanto and its successors Bayer have deep pockets, lawyers on contingency have swarmed like killer bees to file lawsuits, over 100,000 of them, of which about 60,000 remain active globally.

National security issues have muddied the waters here. For instance, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. led a landmark legal case against Monsanto in 2018, securing a $289 million jury verdict (later reduced on appeal to $20.4 million) for a school groundskeeper who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after prolonged exposure to Roundup. That case energized a bazillion further lawsuits. But now Kennedy is going along with the current administration’s position that it is strategically necessary to maintain production and responsible access to glyphosate: farmers demand it, and Bayer operates the only plant in the U.S. producing significant amounts of elemental phosphorus, which is a vital material for defense and, increasingly, for lithium batteries.

Naturally, Bayer denies that glyphosate is particularly harmful. The firm continues to sell the product to farmers and landscape professionals, but it has removed it from retail bottles of Roundup you see on Home Depot shelves, in an effort to reduce exposure for further litigation.

What have they substituted for good old glyphosate? I found a brew of three other chemicals. I can report reliably that this mixture is much less effective, especially on grasses and on well-established weeds. The Internet backs up my observations. The Iowa State garden extension has a great table of the real-world effects of all common herbicides.

So, what to do? For grasses in my backyard gravel patch, I am spraying multiple times. If that doesn’t work, I may try covering that area with a black tarp for a month to kill the grass. I have considered buying a propane flamethrower weeder, but that seems only effective on the same things the current wimpy Roundup kills (small/young broadleaf weeds).

For mulched areas, I am incentivized to keep up with fresh mulch to keep weeds from growing in the first place. For larger weeds, I have now found myself bending down low, grasping them close to the ground, and actually pulling them out by hand.

On implicit numéraire

mdmakowskyLeave a comment

Just a quick thought today. When we, economist or otherwise, talk about the opportunity cost of time, the most common default is an individual’s expected wage. This ends up becoming a sort of implicit numéraire, a unit of measurement and exchange that captures value of an individual’s time.

Now, to be clear, this is a gross reduction of the complexity of opportunity cost and decision-making, but such reductionism is a necessity when observing the world on a day to day basis. People are generally, I hope, aware of this reductionism, but also understand that cognitive tractability is a necessity for getting through life. That also means, however, that there is no shortage of traps. If you reduce decision-making to a single variable equation, you can get yourself in a lot of trouble picking the wrong variable.

Which brings me back to expected wage as a single variable numeraire revealing the opportunity cost of time. Sure, such a simple model is a great way for understanding why high income CEO’s outsource and delegate so many of their “life maintenance” tasks while I, for example, do not. That same logic, however, can be a trap when looking at decision making at the other end of the income distribution. Why wouldn’t someone making minimum wage leave work to pick up their sick kid from school or bail their cousin out of jail? Their forgone wages, their opportunity cost of time, is relatively low, right?

Actually, no, it isn’t. In fact their opportunity cost of time is exceptionally high, it’s just that you’re using the wrong numeraire. The opportunity cost of time isn’t the wages foregone, but rather the additional risk that they are taking on. It is quite common for individuals to lack the precautionary savings necessary to maintain solvency and housing stability during a dip in earnings or unexpected job loss. Nobody likes asking their boss if they can leave work for two hours on no notice when they can’t afford to risk losing an extra shift, let alone their job. The opportunity cost of their time is best measured in the marginal probability of household economic catastrophe rather the explicit wages gained or lost.

A lot of economic decision-making is easy to make sense of when you get your single-variable numeraire right, but that is easier said than done. A good rule of thumb: if someone else’s decision-making looks grossly irrational to you, you probably aren’t using the right variable.

The Joke is on Humorless Brutalism

Joy BuchananLeave a comment

A good joke that went around this week:

Some people (surely none of our regular readers) don’t know what “brutalism” is. Quick primer: Brutalist architecture is a mid-20th century style (1950s–1970s) defined by raw concrete, massive blocky forms, and structural transparency. It often features rough, unadorned surfaces.

Continue reading →

The Arithmetic of Family Punctuality

Zachary Bartsch3 Comments

My children are getting more capable. They get more responsibility that comes with the independence that capability implies. Specifically, when getting ready in the morning they like to leave so that they arrive at school just barely on time. Except, when something comes up, they are rushed, flustered, short-tempered, and tardy. They lament that “if only the unforeseeable event X hadn’t happened, I would have been on time”.

It doesn’t matter what X is. Maybe they forgot to pack a lunch, or set out their clothes, or they have a flat tire on their bikes, or… whatever. The specific time-consuming event is unforeseeable. But, that *any* time-consuming event will occur is very foreseeable. What’s a Bayesian to do?

Before we even start the analysis, let’s acknowledge that being perfectly on time for some event usually involves stress and a lack of preparedness. Yes, you were ‘on time’, but given the probability of heavier traffic, difficulty finding a parking spot, or whatever, we know that tardiness is just one unforeseen event away.

Individual Punctuality

How long does it take to get somewhere? It takes both travel time and time preparing to depart. Let’s just generally call this ‘preparation’ time. Let’s assume that you complete everything that you would complete. That means that you aren’t forgoing a shower or breakfast or whatever lower priority you might choose to forgo to arrive at some obligation punctually.

Random events can occur either as you travel to work or as you prepare to depart, but let’s place the random travel events to the side and focus on what one can do to get out of the house ‘on time’. In my personal case, my children have a 30min interval during which they can arrive at school. They almost never arrive in the first 15min of that interval. That’s more of a policy choice than an accident. They don’t want to sit in a cold gymnasium for 20min if it’s avoidable. So, their planned arrival time has an effective 15min window.

Here is the problem. A time-consuming random event, X, is a right-skewed random variable. Discretely, the modal day includes X=0min. Though the most common delays are greater than 0min. See the distribution below. A 0min random event occurs 35% of the time. But, a time-consuming event happens 65% of the time. So, if you try to arrive exactly on time to your obligation, then you will be punctual 35% of the time and you will be tardy 65% of the time. That’s not a good look and not a good reputation to build – and that’s apart from building a habit of imprudence and the material consequence of not being ready for the task at hand.

Someone with just enough insight to be dangerous might say ‘Ah! Instead, leave with enough time to accommodate the expected unforeseen event’. Mathematically, that’s the weighted average. In this case, that’s six minutes. So, if you plan to arrive 6min early, then you will be punctual – on average. But even that’s not really what we’re after. We’d like to be on time for a preponderance of the days. Building in a 6-minute buffer does two things. 1) Every time that there is a 0min or 5min unforeseen event, you get to your destination 6min or 1min early. That’s good for your nerves, performance, and reputation. But, that also means that you’re late whenever there is a 10min, 15min, or 20min unforeseen event – and those occur 35% of the time!

Continue reading →

How To Blog

James Bailey1 Comment

Scott Alexander of Astral Codex Ten shares writing advice for aspiring bloggers here. He is very much worth listening to on this- he earns more from Substack subscriptions than he does as a doctor, and even that undersells his influence. He distinguishes two types of writers worth reading:

If you write brilliantly, the world will read your review of watching paint dry. If you’re a normal person, you have to content yourself with reaching the limited subset of people who are interested in your topic.

There’s one new brilliant person per year, maybe less. But dozens of bloggers – dozens! – reach the lower bar of providing value to the people who care about the same things they do. That could be you!

Here we just aim to be the second sort of writers. For me Scott is the first sort, and if that’s true for you too, you should just go read his whole 6000 word post. But many people find his writing overly long, so for you I offer a summary with highlights:

TLDR: Honesty is key. Write what you know and care about. Write what you really think. Write original by being, doing, and thinking original:

The problem with bloggers is that they read blogs. So when they want to write about their exciting new opinion, it’s probably an opinion they got from a blog.

The problem with blog readers is that they also read blogs. So when they read your opinion that you got from a blog, they’ll think “Oh yeah, I read that on that other guy’s blog last week.”

The end result is that everyone talks about the same thing over and over, hoping they can be the one to educate the last person on Substack who hasn’t heard that social priming studies don’t replicate, or that stairwell restrictions are bad housing policy….

If everything good in writing comes from contact with the world, then your goodness is proportional to how direct your contact is. Best-case scenario, you live with a Southeast Asian tribe yourself and report your results. Second-best case, you at least read the book by the guy who did that and form your own opinion. Third-best case, now you’re reading a blog post by someone who read the book, three levels distant from the world. But even that’s getting rarer. Now people are reading tweets by someone who read the review of the book by the person who met the tribe, and forming opinions based on those. At that point, almost all the work is being done by the prejudices of your sources, rather than brute facts about Southeast Asians.

You contribute to the blogosphere by injecting first-level facts about the world, or second-level primary sources by experts who have gotten the first-level facts. You draw down those contributions by playing too many games of telephone with popular topics that you got from the blogosphere itself.

Read Matt Levine:

You can write brilliantly about anything. Consider Matt Levine. I have no interest in finance. Even though I could make hundreds of thousands of dollars by understanding finance better, every time I consider doing this I bounce off the fact that all the relevant books include terms like “credit default swap” and “ergodicity”. But the first time I read Matt Levine’s finance newsletter, I thought “I am going to read this approximately every day for the rest of my life”, and I was right – even though I will never trade credit default swaps or do anything else that would make reading Matt Levine directly valuable to me.

Likewise, many discussions of Freddie deBoer start “I’m a huge fan of Freddie, even though I disagree with everything he says, and find him personally abrasive, and his topics are unoriginal and repetitive, and I hate him, and I hope he dies.” Then in what sense are you a fan? “Well, I read all of his posts.” Good work if you can get it.

I don’t think anyone wants to read our reviews of watching paint dry, but I do think we are sometimes the first to get to the bottom of something important, and I hope that’s part of what keeps you coming back:

There’s almost no topic so overdone that you can’t be the first person to do a good job writing about it…. When you demand even the flimsiest of details, nobody’s written a good blog post even on the ultra-controversial topics that everyone talks about every day.… Some of the posts I’m proudest of involved taking a topic everyone was talking about, then being (as far as I can tell) the first blogger to put in significant effort to see which side was right.

(Not the first person; often the answers are hidden in old scientific papers. But ordinary people won’t know about those papers unless someone blogs about them.)

GDP Forecasts for the First Quarter of 2026

Jeremy Horpedahl1 Comment

Forecast models, betting markets, and surveys of experts all drastically overstated the actual growth of GDP in the last quarter of 2025. They were off in the initial release, which was just 1.4 percent, but this was even further revised down to 0.5 percent. All four of the sources I track were forecasting over well over 2 percent, with some over 3 percent.

Does that mean we shouldn’t trust the forecasts? Perhaps, but last quarter was largely pulled down by government spending cuts, which the models completed missed. You can see this very clearly in the Atlanta Fed GDPNow model. Perhaps they shouldn’t have been surprised by this drop in government spending, but that is where the major error was.

So what do these forecasts think about the first quarter data for 2026, which comes out tomorrow? The two best predictors historically, GDPNow (Atlanta Fed) and Kalshi, are pretty far apart on this one, over a percentage point difference, with GDPNow being the only forecast under 2 percent:

Placebos Really Work (Sometimes)

Scott BuchananLeave a comment

This Simpsons episode has forever colored my gut response to placebos:

Crowd: We need a cure! We need a cure!

Dr. Hibbert: Ho ho ho. Why, the only cure is bedrest. Anything I give you would be a placebo.

Woman: [frantic] Where do we get these placebos?

Man: (points at truck) Maybe, there’s some in this truck!

(Crowd knocks over truck and a box of killer bees from it break out and attack the crowd.

No, but seriously – the placebo effect is real and important. If you take some pill which you believe might be efficacious (whether it is a sugar pill, or just some regular medication that happens to have no real biological, mechanistic relevance to your condition), voila, the symptoms (especially pain) may abate. This is nothing to sneer at – if you or a loved one is suffering serious pain, any relief is desperately welcome.

I think part of it has to do with our expectations of the pill itself, and part with the healing effect of another human being (doctor/nurse) expressing empathy and caring as he/she carefully dispenses the sugar pills.  Studies show that loving interactions with other people can help release endogenous opioids in the anterior cingulate cortex, which really do soothe pain. When a mother comforts her child who just fell down, or a friend listens sympathetically about your recent disappointment, there is actual brain chemistry going on.

In a placebo/drug trial, “people are exposed to an environment and procedures geared toward improving one’s health…You must visit a clinic at certain times and be examined by medical professionals. You undergo procedures or receive special medication. All this can profoundly impact how the body perceives symptoms because you feel both consciously and unconsciously that you are getting the attention and care needed to heal.”

Since I don’t think I can improve on it, here is an excerpt from an essay I prompted from Claude, asking about where placebos do and don’t work, and proposed mechanisms:

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Where the Placebo Effect Appears

The placebo effect is most robustly documented in pain management. In landmark work by Levine, Gordon, and Fields (1978), patients who received a placebo after dental surgery experienced significant pain relief — relief that was partially reversed by naloxone, an opioid antagonist. This demonstrated that placebos could trigger the release of the body’s own endogenous opioids (endorphins), producing measurable analgesia through a real biochemical pathway.

Beyond pain, placebos have demonstrated consistent effects in:

  • Depression: Meta-analyses, including the influential work of Kirsch et al. (2008, PLoS Medicine), found that a substantial portion of antidepressant response in clinical trials was attributable to placebo, particularly in mild-to-moderate depression.
  • Parkinson’s disease: De la Fuente-Fernández et al. (2001, Science) used neuroimaging to show that placebo administration triggered genuine dopamine release in the striatum of Parkinson’s patients — a stunning demonstration of expectation-driven neurochemistry.
  • Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS): A 2010 study by Kaptchuk et al. (PLOS ONE) found that open-label placebos — patients told they were receiving sugar pills — still produced significant symptom reduction in IBS, suggesting conditioning effects persist even without deception.
  • Anxiety and asthma: Both show moderate, well-replicated placebo responses, particularly when tied to elaborate therapeutic rituals.

Where Placebos Fall Short

The placebo effect is not universal. It is largely absent or clinically negligible in:

  • Objective tumor biology: While patients may report feeling better, placebos do not shrink tumors, alter cancer markers, or extend survival in oncology trials.
  • Bacterial infections: No degree of expectation reduces bacterial load or alters antibiotic sensitivity.
  • Type 1 diabetes: Endogenous insulin production is not restored by belief.
  • Bone fracture healing: Structural tissue repair proceeds independently of psychological state.
  • Vision and hearing loss caused by structural damage: Nerve regeneration does not respond to suggestion.

The distinction broadly tracks a line between subjective, brain-mediated symptoms and structural or infectious disease. The nervous system can modulate what it controls; it cannot manufacture what biology has lost.

Proposed Mechanisms of Action

Several non-mutually exclusive mechanisms have been proposed:

1. Expectation and Predictive Processing
The leading cognitive account holds that the brain is a prediction machine. When a patient expects relief, the brain updates its internal model accordingly, and downstream perceptual and autonomic systems adjust to match the prediction. Tor Wager’s neuroimaging studies (Science, 2004) showed that placebo analgesia correlated with reduced activation in pain-processing regions (anterior cingulate, insula), consistent with top-down suppression of pain signals.

2. Endogenous Opioid and Dopamine Release
As noted above, placebo responses involve genuine neurotransmitter release. Opioid pathways mediate placebo analgesia; dopaminergic pathways mediate motor and mood improvements in Parkinson’s and depression. These are pharmacologically real events, not metaphors.

3. Classical Conditioning
Repeated pairing of a treatment context with active medication can produce conditioned responses where the context alone triggers the effect — even in the absence of the drug. This mechanism may explain why open-label placebos still work (Kaptchuk et al., 2010) and why placebo responses are stronger in patients with prior treatment experience.

4. Therapeutic Relationship and Meaning
The quality of the patient-clinician relationship independently predicts outcomes. Warmth, attentiveness, and ritual amplify placebo responses. This “meaning response,” as medical anthropologist Daniel Moerman (2002) termed it, suggests that healing is partly a social and symbolic act.

References

  1. Levine, J.D., Gordon, N.C., & Fields, H.L. (1978). The mechanism of placebo analgesia. The Lancet, 312(8091), 654–657.
  2. Kirsch, I., et al. (2008). Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: A meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. PLoS Medicine, 5(2), e45.
  3. De la Fuente-Fernández, R., et al. (2001). Expectation and dopamine release: Mechanism of the placebo effect in Parkinson’s disease. Science, 293(5532), 1164–1166.
  4. Kaptchuk, T.J., et al. (2010). Placebos without deception: A randomized controlled trial in irritable bowel syndrome. PLOS ONE, 5(12), e15591.
  5. Wager, T.D., et al. (2004). Placebo-induced changes in fMRI in the anticipation and experience of pain. Science, 303(5661), 1162–1167.
  6. Moerman, D.E. (2002). Meaning, Medicine and the ‘Placebo Effect’. Cambridge University Press.

EWED cited in Top Demography Journal

Joy Buchanan3 Comments

We’ve been cited in top newspapers, such as The Financial Times, before, but this might be a first. Our blog has been cited in Demography, a top-ranked journal in the field of demographics and population studies.

The internet is fun sometimes, and that is why we are here (almost) every day. Jeremy’s work is mostly about wealth, and this paper is mostly about income:

Has Generational Progress Stalled? Income Growth Over Five Generations of Americans

I was able to download the PDF directly from the journal website linked above, so it must be open-access. Instead of trying to restate all of their finding here, I’ll just quote:

At ages 36–40, Millennials’ mean net worth was about $95,000 higher than that of Generation X. Their home equity was $30,000 higher and non­hous­ing wealth was about $65,000 higher. Thus, although homeownership among Millennials has declined, home values have increased enough among those who own homes to increase mean home equity, while their nonhousing wealth has grown as well. Our find­ings of gen­er­a­tional increases in wealth echo those pre­viously found by Horpedahl (2021, 2024).

Horpedahl, J. (2021, Sep­tem­ber 1). Who is the wealth­i­est gen­er­a­tion? Economist Writing Every Day. Retrieved from https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2021/09/01/who-is-the-wealthiest-generation/

Horpedahl, J. (2024, Jan­u­ary 24). Young peo­ple have a lot more wealth than we thought. Economist Writing Every Day. Retrieved from https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2024/01/24/young-people-have-a-lot-more-wealth-than-we-thought/

Perhaps people will forget why this finding was such a big deal in 2021. It was the opposite of what many were saying!