GETTING RID OF THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES’ CHAFF

A lot of people criticize the primaries, but I think they are absolutely essential to the education of the President of the United States. ~ Pierre Salinger 

To no one’s surprise we’re being bombarded by never-ending media accounts of the status of the 2016 US Presidential campaigns, primaries and caucuses. Most of this onslaught involves chaff rather than wheat buds. Thus, diminishing returns set in for me a while ago. This blog attempts to unearth more wheat buds rather than chaff.

The challenges facing the Democrats and Republicans – especially the Republicans – have been manifest, especially the fantasy of a “contested” convention in mid-July for Republicans in Cleveland, Ohio. Doesn’t even Cleveland deserve better?

The concept of a contested or brokered convention solely rests on none of the candidates having the requisite number of delegates needed to assure him (or her, perhaps for the Democrats) for the nomination on the first round of votes. For Republicans this magic number of delegates is 1237; for the Democrats, it’s 2382. The voting procedures and delegate rules for each political party are obscure and byzantine – probably initiated during the Crusades. Virtually no one seems to understand these rules, probably just the way each party wants it.

Currently, (Mar 31, 2016) Donald Trump, the front-runner for the Repubs, has 736 pledged delegates (501 short of the magic number). He has greatly benefited by nearly $2 billion in free media exposure so far; $400 million just in February, which is about as much as Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz received together. Hillary Clinton, the Dems front-runner has 1243 pledged delegates (1139 short of the magic number, not including the Dems’ super-delegates, who may be some politico-combination of Superman and Batman as near as I can tell, although I haven’t yet seen “Dawn of Justice,” so I remain uninformed.

My take on all the machinations surrounding the alleged Olympian importance of delegate counts and up-coming possibilities for the conventions is that they’re mostly chaff-like self-aggrandizing activities designed to promote the Dems and Repubs, the candidates, and of course the media itself.

But I’ve decided that a straightforward summation of each remaining candidate’s delegates by state can be improved to be a more insightful indicator, a wheat bud if you will, of the eventually November election. If you’re listening only to the media the election seems imminent, but it’s actually 221 days from now.

Table 1 shows the basic delegate numbers by state and candidate that I will modify below.

TABLE 1: DELEGATE COUNTS for 2016 US Presidential Election

		Number of Delegates (as of 3/30/16)**
		Democrats		Republicans
State	2012 Election Winner*	CLINTON	SANDERS	TRUMP	CRUZ	KASICH
Alabama	R	44	9	36	13	0
Alaska	R	3	13	14	0	0
Arizona	5-10R	44	30	58	0	0
Arkansas	R	22	10	16	15	0
California	D
Colorado	5-10D	28	38
Connecticut	D
Delaware	D
Washington, DC	D			0	0	9
Florida	U5D	141	70	99	0	0
Georgia	5-10R	73	29	42	18	0
Hawaii	D	8	17	11	7	0
Idaho	R	5	17	12	20	0
Illinois	D	76	73	53	9	5
Indiana	R
Iowa	5-10D	23	21	7	8	1
Kansas	R	9	24	9	24	1
Kentucky	R			17	15	7
Louisiana	R	37	14	18	18	0
Maine	D	9	16	9	12	2
Maryland	D
Massachusetts	D	46	45	22	4	8
Michigan	5-10D	63	67	25	17	17
Minnesota	D	31	46	8	13	0
Mississippi	R	32	4	24	13	0
Missouri	5-10R	34	34	25	15	0
Montana	R
Nebraska	R	10	15
Nevada	5-10D	20	15	14	6	1
New Hampshire	5-10D	9	15	11	3	4
New Jersey	D
New Mexico	D
New York	D
North Carolina	U5R	59	45	29	27	9
North Dakota	R
Ohio	U5D	81	62	0	0	66
Oklahoma	R	17	21	13	15	0
Oregon	D
Pennsylvania	5-10D
Rhode Island	D
South Carolina	R	39	14	50	0	0
South Dakota	R
Tennessee	R	44	23	33	16	0
Texas	R	147	75	48	104	0
Utah	R	6	26	0	40	0
Vermont	D	0	16	8	0	8
Virginia	U5D	62	33	17	8	5
Washington	D	9	25
West Virginia
Wyoming
Total Delegates		1231	962	728	440	143
**Winner of primary shown in bold italic.
*D=Democratic win in 2012 presidential vote; U5D=under 5% Democratic win in 2012; 5-10D=between 5 to 10% Democratic win in 2012. R=Republican win in 2012 presidential vote; U5R=under 5% Republican win in 2012; 5-10R=between 5 to 10% Republican win in 2012.
Sources: RealClearPolitics and Wikipedia.

The total delegate counts shown in the above table for each candidate are not the same as the official counts. That’s because for reasons of geographic and political efficiency I haven’t included the delegate allocations from primaries in the Northern Marianas Islands, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico or the US Virgin Islands. I offer consolation to you islanders, but we can certainly get the general drift of which of the 5 remaining candidates are doing well or not at this point without these geographically far-flung primaries. As further justification for these places’ omission, no resident of these areas can actually vote in the US presidential election. Go figure.

In case you’re wondering, the Northern Mariana Islands had their presidential primary on March 15, where the winners were Clinton and Trump. These 15 islands are officially known as the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI; Chamorro: Sankattan Siha Na Islas Mariånas) and is one of 5 inhabited American insular areas. It is one of two territories with US "commonwealth" status; the other is debt-ridden Puerto Rico. With Guam (to the South), these islands comprise the Mariana Islands archipelago, in the north-western Pacific Ocean. The capital, Saipan, is 5700 miles from San Francisco. From SFO, it takes a mere 25 hours of flying and 2 stops, to get to Saipan’s beaches. The 2010 US Census counted 53,833 people in the CNMI. So now you know.

But back to the mainland primaries. Using the information in Table 1, I ran a scenario to see how robust each party’s candidates’ delegate votes are; to mimic an actual open election. I assigned a likelihood of each of the current candidates actually receiving election-day votes in each state, based on the 2012 Presidential election results shown in the table’s second column. In this way, I weighted the delegate counts by the 2012 election outcomes to provide a clearer, wheatier sense of how close (or far) each party’s candidates are from one another.

Here are my assigned weights. I gave full weight to delegates earned by candidates in the party that won the state by more than a 10% margin in 2012, labelled D or R in the 2nd column. If the 2012 vote margin of victory was between 5% and 10% (labelled 5-10D or 5-10R), I gave a 90% weight to the winning party’s 2016 delegates and a 67% weight to the 2012 losing party’s delegates. If the 2012 vote margin was less than 5% (labelled U5D or U5R), I gave the winning party’s delegates a 95% weight and an 85 % weight to the 2012 losing party’s 2016 delegates.

Even though Hillary Clinton decisively won the Mar 1 Democratic primary in Alabama (she won 44 delegates versus Bernie Sanders’ 9 delegates), because the Democrats categorically lost Alabama’s 2012 Presidential election (by over 20%), I counted neither Clinton’s nor Sanders’ delegates in their weighted total delegate counts for Alabama. Similarly, I didn’t count Trump’s, Cruz’s or Kasich’s delegates in Hawaii, a reliably blue/Democratic state. Now look at Florida. In 2012 Florida voters gave Barack Obama a win, but the margin of victory was under 5%, so I gave a 95% weight to Clinton’s and Sander’s 2015 delegates, and an 85% weight for Trump’s, Cruz’s and Kasich’s delegates. This weighting protocol emphasizes winning delegates for the party’s candidates in states where it won (or nearly won) the 2012 election. Despite its limitations this weighting serves to “un-primary” the results and makes sense if you want to simulate possible general election results by using primary contest outcomes.

So what happens to total delegate counts for each candidate using this weighting scheme? Table 2 shows the total unweighted delegates (from Table 1) and the total weighted delegates for each candidate, using the above protocol. [If you have an alternative weighting scheme, let me know and I’ll run it in my model. It’s very easy to examine alternative weights.]

TABLE 2: TOTAL DELEGATE COUNTS for 2016 US Presidential Election

	Number of Delegates (as of 3/30/16)
	Democrats		Republicans
Total Delegates	CLINTON	SANDERS	TRUMP	CRUZ	KASICH
Unweighted	1231	962	728	440	143
Weighted	729	636	567	378	92
Difference (%)	41%	34%	22%	14%	35%

Table 2 shows that Hillary Clinton is most affected by the weighting, losing 41% of her pledged delegates. The least affected candidate is Ted Cruz, who lost just 14% of his pledged delegates. This result is mostly due to Sec. Clinton’s primary victories in 10 states that were won by Mitt Romney in 2012, the largest delegate trove from Texas. In contrast to Sec. Clinton, Sen. Sanders won primaries in 6 much less delegate-rich states that Romney won. In fact, the total delegates he won from all 6 of these states (UT, OK, NE, KS, ID and AK) represent less than 80% of the delegates Sec. Clinton won in just Texas. Thus, what seems good for gaining the nomination may not be useful for the election.

In contrast, Sen. Cruz has won delegates in states that voted overwhelmingly for his now-consort Milt Romney, so he is the least affected candidate by the weighting. His primary victory in Maine is an anomaly. The most affected Republican candidate is John Kasich for the straightforward reason that 46% of his pledged delegates to date, and his only victory, come from his home state Ohio, which voted for President Obama in 2012. Donald Trump’s total delegate count is not that affected, a 22% loss, again mostly due to his appeal in blue states and states where the 2012 election win for Pres. Obama came from a fairly small margin. Perhaps this provides some basis for his campaign’s declarations of his broader, beyond traditional GOPers’ appeal. Then again, his campaign (and certainly the candidate himself) makes so many fallacious, ever-changing assertions that it’s now impossible to believe any of them. But that’s another realm.

Based on this sensitivity assessment of the candidate’s delegates, I’d say Sec. Clinton may be most exposed and now needs to focus more on winning convincingly in blue-ish states, something Sen. Sanders has been doing since day 0 in his campaign. Gov. Kasich, who’s mischaracterizing himself as a “moderate,” needs to return to Columbus and spend some quality time watching the Buckeyes play baseball and softball. Sen. Cruz needs to keep doing his very cherry red-state thing, and not expect any victory travel to Cleveland. Let the games continue…

UPDATE to my March 31, 2016 Blog.

Shown below is the updated, May 5 version of Table 2, Total Delegate Counts by candidate that includes primary results since Apr 5 (WI, WY, NY, MD, CT, DE, PA, RI and IN).

TABLE 2B: TOTAL DELEGATE COUNTS for the 2016 Presidential Primaries

	Number of Delegates (as of 5/5/16)
	Democrats		Republicans
Total Delegates	CLINTON	SANDERS	TRUMP	CRUZ	KASICH
Unweighted	1657	1314	989	513	152
Weighted	1100	931	635	401	92
Difference (%)	34%	29%	36%	22%	39%

Sec. Clinton is now within 30% of the (unweighted) delegates needed to win the nomination on the first ballot, despite Sen. Sander’s win in Indiana. Compared to the original Mar 31 Table 2, Sec. Clinton has widened her lead in weighted delegates over Sen. Sanders as well as reduced the percent difference between the unweighted and weighted delegates, indicating she has won proportionally more delegates in states that were either won or almost won by President Obama in 2012. After Indiana and the departures of both Sen. Cruz and Gov. Kasich from the race, Donald Trump has now become the Republican’s purported candidate for President. Oh my.  

THE IRONY AGE, ONE MORE TIME WITH FEELING…

The supreme irony of life is that hardly anyone gets out of it alive. ~ Robert Heinlein

Welcome back to the Irony Age. Its very distant relative the Iron Age is thought to have first taken place in Anatolia (part of present-day Turkey) as early as 1200 BC. Although there is no precise dating of the Iron Age, archeologists believe it occurred in Europe between 800 BC and 500 AD.

In contemporary times our Irony Age is often a quadrennial period coincident with our ever-extending presidential election campaign cycle. We are now (again) living in the Irony Age circa 2015-16 and its close associate the Hypocrisy Age, with a new twist.

Along with irony, a growing number of US voters believe they’ve been experiencing life in a zero-sum game. In decision theory, a zero-sum game references a situation where one or more participants' gain (loss) equals the loss (gain) of other participants. Thus, a gain (loss) for one must result in a loss (gain) for one or more others. In more familiar terms, the American economic “pie” isn’t expanding so whatever someone else (say, the 1%ers) gain in our economy is lost by the rest of us. This feeling of loss produces plausible frustration, upset and even anger for working-class folks, who I’ll describe below. On cue, the media has been producing a wide swath of stories centering on this working-class “anger.”

Abundant evidence provides genuine foundation for such feelings: annual real GDP growth has averaged a dreary 1.1% between 2007 and 2014; real average hourly earnings increased a lackluster 0.6% per year between 2007 and 2014; and real median household income has decreased 6.5% during this 7-year period. The real median hourly wage for white men with no more than a high school diploma declined from $19.76 in 1979 to $17.50 in 2014. Zero-sum indeed. 
On the other hand, according to Harvard economist Lawrence Katz, about 13% of our GDP has been massively redistributed to the top 1%ers from everyone else. Using our current GDP of $18.15 trillion that redistribution totals $2.36T and has directly contributed to increased income and wealth inequality.  
The Irony Age was initially launched about the same time that language and politicians were created, so it's been thriving for millennia. Fredrick Douglass’ insightful 19th century statement, “At a time like this, scorching irony, not convincing argument, is needed,” equally applies today.

Several examples from recent Irony Ages include:  First, people who vocally profess to want the government to "get off my back" and "make it smaller," but still want to receive benefits of "big government," including entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, mortgage interest tax deductions and subsidies for their business. Moreover, surveys have confirmed that many Americans who deny they’ve ever benefited from a government social or economic program have received much more fiscal support than they admitted or realized.  

In my mind, the tea partyers and their brothers and sisters are notorious residents of this Irony Age. A second set of denizens of our current Irony Age includes conservatives wedded to the advantages of free-markets but at the same time strenuously oppose regulation that insures such markets actually provide benefit to consumers and our health. Conservative hypocrites oppose establishment of a carbon tax – a mechanism founded on the strength of market mechanisms – to allow fossil fuel prices to more properly reflect the considerable public (externality-based) costs associated with fossil fuel consumption. For that matter the concept of public goods, like public parks and public education, seems to be dismissed as unnecessary by all too many irony-laden Republicans.

As the aura of Donald Trump (or as John Oliver points out, Donald Drumpf) brightens and extends to fill the Republican heavens, he has not only created political gravity waves but also a tsunami of irony on the part of GOP grandees. Virtually every GOP notable has publically stated they will support Trump if he becomes the party’s nominee, despite repeatedly called him dangerous, a con man, not conservative and even worse, a former Democrat. What’s a bombaster to do? In a narrow sense, this Olympian-level irony (also with a full helping of hypocrisy) couldn’t happen to a more-deserving bunch of people. Because ever since Reagan, they have glorified political pretenders and swindlers like Sarah Palin, the gun lobby, Wall Street plutocrats and the Koch brothers in the charade of helping working-class Americans. That’s never happened and won’t now; especially if any of the Republican candidates’ tax plans were to somehow become law.

Other examples from the smorgasbord of Republican irony include: Chris Christie’s lightning-quick endorsement of Trump, where he managed to look like a 10-year old who’s been sent to the principal’s office. And Donald Trump’s straight-faced statement that his gilded Florida Mar-a-Lago club – with a membership fee of $100,000 – is “totally open to everybody,” adding that “There’s nobody that’s done so much for equality as I have.”

As Trump’s star continues to dominate the Republican firmament, the media’s coverage of our presidential primaries has offered wall-to-wall coverage of him. His competitors have complained about the disproportionate media coverage the Donald receives. The Economist estimates that Trump has “grabbed” more than 40 times as many minutes of coverage than either Senators Cruz or Rubio. With such a media tailwind, how could he help but not become high-flying? It’s hard to tell if this media focus on Trump is cause or effect. In contrast, Hillary has about 3 times the amount of media minutes as Bernie has. Donald Trump is no-one’s apprentice at gaining public attention.
Clearly, this is not a propitious time to be affiliated with the political “establishment.” This holds for Democrats as well as Republicans. 
A key irony on the Democrats’ side of the isle is that their up and coming “protest” candidate, Bernie Sanders, has won elections since 1981 (when he became Mayor of Burlington, VT) and has served in the US Congress for 26 years. How is that not establishment, even if he’s espoused strong left/socialist positions? Yet The Bern’s deft and virtually singular focus on berating Wall Street’s financial powers, together with promising “free” public college tuition and remedying income inequality has been very successful. So successful that at the last debate Hillary Clinton had to admit she wasn’t a “natural campaigner,” as if to ask forgiveness of voters in Florida and beyond for her stoic, detached approach to campaigning. Nice try, Hillary. But how come your political doctors haven’t required you to swallow 500mg empathy-enhancement pills every day you’re on the campaign trail, even if they’re not covered under your Medicare Part D plan?  If you’re afraid of Medicare’s “donut-hole” Bernie's single-payer plan will no doubt remedy it.

Back to working class folks who are a conspicuous segment of Donald Trump’s appeal. The definition of “working class” is neither precise nor fixed. Sociologists often say working class is akin to lower-middle class or to people who do not have a college degree. They’re “non-college.” As more and more people receive college degrees, they represent a diminishing slice of the broad middle class and of voters. About 30% to 35% of the US population is working class. The share of blue-collar, working-class jobs in the US economy declined from 28% in 1970 to 17% in 2010. In addition to its socio-economic decline, the working class signifies a diminishing share of voters; by 2020 they are expected to dip to just 30% of all voters. In 1980 they characterized 65% of all voters; in 1988, 54% of all voters.

Is the Irony Age lost on working-class voters? Probably. Irony be damned, many of these people are more focused on survival. These people, who feel neglected and overlooked by politicians of every persuasion, are enthralled with Trump through their gut-level instincts, not rationality. As Eric Idle said, “Nobody gets irony anymore; we are now living in the post-ironic age. Once George W. Bush gets a library, irony is dead.” 

ALICE LIDDELL AND OUR POLITICAL FANTASY

Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast. ~ Lewis Carroll 

Even in his most imaginative early mornings it’s impossible to presume that Charles L. Dodgson – more widely known by his pen-name, Lewis Carroll – would have believed the 2016 Presidential race would be featuring an eccentric 74-year old democratic socialist (formerly just a socialist, who in 1988 honeymooned in the USSR) and a 69-year old bizarre billionaire Republican (and a former Democrat).

In November 1864 Lewis Carroll wrote his manuscript, Alice’s Adventures Under Ground.[1] He gave it to Alice Liddell – the daughter of a colleague, and the protagonist of his manuscript – as “A Christmas gift to a dear child in memory of a summary day.” He later expanded the manuscript and it was published in 1865 as Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. Although the original book initially received tepid reviews, it quickly gained popularity. Carroll himself drew the original manuscript’s illustrations. The published book’s illustrations, drawn by John Tenniel, were more favorably reviewed than Carroll’s story. Attesting to its fame, the book has never been out of print.

After re-reading the manuscript, I am persuaded that our current presidential campaign has more in common with Alice’s adventures than I imagined. Hence this blog ties several aspects of the candidates’ continuing crusades towards Washington, DC with that long-ago adventure. I’ve introduced quotes from Carroll’s manuscript to guide the discussion.

               “Curiouser and curiouser…” (p. 11, Alice’s Adventures Under Ground)

As more time passes, the stranger these campaigns become. After an extended political nap, populism appears firmly resurrected for several of the presidential aspirants. The Trump and Sanders campaigns both offer considerable populist ingredients, including Mr. Trump’s “beautiful wall” that will allegedly seal the US-Mexico border and Sen. Sanders’ fierce criticism of Wall Street and CEOs.

For fervent populists, it’s been a long time coming. Some historians consider the 7th President of the US – Andrew Jackson (1829-1837) – to have been the last elected populist president, with his emphasis against entrenched political and economic interests together with his focus on the wellbeing of “common people.” Jackson’s presidency has been highly ranked (#8 overall) by both liberal and conservative reviewers.

“For you see, so many out-of-the-way things [meaning very unusual things, like falling down a rabbit hole] had happened today, that Alice began to think very few things indeed were really impossible.” (p. 7)

At this point political soothsayers have had to apologize several times for their faulty pronouncements of Sen. Sanders’ and Mr. Trump’s imminent demise. Instead, Sen. Sanders’ popularity continues to rise and Mr. Trump’s domination remains unyielding in the Democratic and Republican races, respectively. Not so ago these oracles wrote-off both these candidates as improbable at best. Despite the sages’ expectations, neither populist has fallen by the campaign wayside yet, much to the consternation of the political “establishment” in both parties. The fantasies propounded by Sen. Sanders and Mr. Trump have instead seized the hearts and minds of voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond. Impossible; no longer.

Make no mistake; many of the policies proposed by Sen. Sanders and Mr. Trump are fantasies. Sen. Sanders’ centerpiece desire to reduce income inequality, however well-intentioned, rests on actions that have little if any hope of becoming law. For example, as I mentioned before, his “free college” plan certainly sounds enticing to the young voters he’s been targeting, but if implemented (a highly unlikely prospect) ultimately will cause much letdown and disappointment. As high-school graduates overwhelm public colleges and universities with their tuition-free applications, even assuming state governments have provided their universities (especially in the 31 states that have Republican governors) with the $750 billion needed to eliminate tuition revenue, it will be a long time before these colleges are able to increase their capacity to meaningfully educate the myriad of new applicants. And what happens to the value of higher education when the supply of BA degree-holders has increased significantly?

Sen. Sanders’ distain for market-based government programs – even government-subsidized plans like student loans and low-income medical policies – will require huge increases in government funding. Economists have estimated these policies may require an additional $18 trillion in new spending, an amount equal to this year’s entire GDP. These increases will necessitate higher federal taxes. Sen. Sanders’ stump speech always mentions increasing taxes on the 1%; he doesn’t say taxes will also need to be raised for many more folks way below the 1%. More than 80% of his proposed tax increases to pay for his single-payer health plan will come from new broad-based income and payroll taxes that would apply to nearly all workers, not just the rich and wealthy. Sen. Sanders’ revolution would not only expand the role of the federal government and provide benefits to many more citizens; it would revolutionize our tax system by increasing taxes for most people. Given our current political environment, that prospect is beyond any realistic hope of implementation. This implausible possibility hasn’t at all reduced his growing appeal. Given Sen. Sanders’ increasing popularity, very few things now seem impossible, just like Alice thought long ago in wonderland.

               “Off with their heads!” said the Queen to her Knave. (p. 73)

Mr. Trump has loudly and zealously espoused many radical policies that contravene existing programs, including placing punitive tariffs on China’s exports to the US, rapidly deporting 11 million Hispanic residents, building the “beautiful wall,” pre-emptively striking North Korea and walking away from NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada). Explanations remain absent from the Trump campaign about exactly how such policies would benefit this country and its citizens, or “make our country great again.” There seems little doubt that Mr. Trump’s populist base would have little compunction about having heads of the “establishment” roll off their perches.

               “You’re enough to try the patience of an oyster.” (p. 30)

Unlike Mr. Trump and Sen. Sanders, their benighted competitors have not yet figured out how to gain the acceptance and confidence of many potential voters. Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, John Kasich and Hillary Clinton must be exasperated with their unsuccessful efforts to date. Even though they are not oysters, their patience continues to be severely tested.

“That’s very curious!” Alice thought, “But everything’s curious today.” “I know something interesting is sure to happen.” (pp. 66 and 35)

First confirmation of Einstein’s precept called gravity waves was publicized on Feb 11, 2 days after the New Hampshire primary. This may not be a coincidence. These waves have been spinning around the political firmament for months, and have reached a crescendo following the Feb 9 primary vote. Political gravity waves (PGWs) are being created by the ever-nearer circling of the 2 most-prominent political stars, Bernie16 and Donald16 in an alternative galaxy. If their event horizons ever meet, be prepared. Here’s what the possible collision of these 2 stars and the subsequent PGWs, reflecting ripples in the fabric of political space-time, may sound like. As a good friend noted, maybe that’s the sound of the unrealistic colliding with the untenable.

Alice simply woke up from her dreamed adventures in wonderland, but we may need to fasten your seat belts.  

---

[1] I have a copy of this 91-page manuscript. The Limited Editions Club of New York published Carroll’s hand-written manuscript in 1964 (100 years after it was created), when my father was a member of the club. This manuscript is copyright by University Microfilms, Inc. 1964.

AROUND THE WORLD IN 150 YEARS

If you think in terms of a year, plant a seed; if in terms of ten years, plant trees; if in terms of 150 years, teach the people. ~ Confucius.

Fasten your seat belts as I time-travel in Doc Brown‘s DeLorean to England and the United States in 1861 to see what was happening during the Industrial Revolution and beyond. After that trip I return to 2011 and confirm the considerable progress we have made in the intervening 150 years in these two countries. 

As expected, many aspects of life were quite different in 1861.[1] The United States consisted of 34 states 155 years ago; Kansas joined the nation on January 29, 1861. On Feb 8, 1861 the Confederate States of America was formed, comprising the first six break-away States in the Deep South. On Mar 4, President Abraham Lincoln took office, succeeding James Buchanan. Across the pond, Victoria had been queen of the United Kingdom for 24 years, and would rule for another 40 years, until 1901. On Apr 1, the American Civil War broke out, leading to the Lancashire Cotton Panic in England. Lancashire was a major English textile center, particularly cotton textiles, during the Industrial Revolution.

I first look at England in more detail, using the 8 varied characteristics presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Comparing 1861 and 2011 in ol’ Engla-lond*

Characteristic	1861	2011
Population of England / London (in millions)	20.281 / 2.803	53.01 / 8.17
Average value of a home (1861 states annual rent)	£2.17	£218,000
Value of currency	1 pound (£)	£612.00
Average daily income	£0.14 - 10hr day	£120.72 – 8.3hr day
Mean temperature (Greenwich-London) for January/August (degrees F)	34.2F / 64.7F	42.6F / 65.5F
Average lifespan at birth (men/women)	39 / 41 years	81 years (men and women)
Infant mortality rate (% per 1000 live births)	72.02%	0.43%
Average height of men	65.46 in.	69.06 in.

* Engla-lond was first noted as the name of what’s now called England in the late 800’s.

I am comparing the two years shown in Table 1 because the British decennial censuses of the general population started in 1801. The US decennial censuses, required under Article I, Sec. 2 of the Constitution, began in 1790. Thus, I will compare 1860 with 2010 for the US.

The population of England has grown over 260% in the 150 years ending in 2011. Victorian London was the world’s largest city in 1861; its population has grown almost 300% since then. London is now the 20th largest city in the world, with 8.54 million (M) people. The current population of the United Kingdom is 64.6M.

The British census in 1861 revealed that husbands in England amounted to 3,428,443. There were 3,488,952 wives; 1,168 of these wives were 15-19 years old, 1 was 90 or older. Of the husbands, 30 were between 15-19 years old, 1 was 90 or older. In the 10 years 1851-1860, 6,048,479 children were born in wedlock by 2,757,705 wives of the age of 15 and under 55. Unmarried women bore 423,171 children (about 13% of total births) during the same 10-year period. You can see from this table that an astonishing 72.02% of infants in 1861 England died between 0 and 4 years. This was a major reason that Englishwomen in 1861 on average had 5.5 to more than 6 children, depending on the reference source. Think for a moment about these 2 statistics; they mean that a “typical” Victorian mother (and in this case, it’s not one who lived anywhere near the Downton Abbeys of England), who bore 6 children, at most only 2 of her kids survived past age 4. Due to significant improvements in public health (e.g., installing public sewers and water systems, enhanced food safety and enriched medical knowledge and practice), British infant mortality was cut by over 150 times to 0.43% by 2011.

Other demographic characteristics of Victorian England include expected lifespans (at birth) of 39 years for men and 41 years for women. If someone born in England from 1861-70 survived until age 10, their average expected lifetime was 64 years (men) and 60 years (women), again illustrating that a child’s first years were perilous. During the 150 years from 1861 to 2011 average lifespans in England doubled to 81 years, due to factors mentioned above. Table 1 also shows that the average height of men increased more than 3.5 inches. Despite being a bit taller, I doubt British men can see Russia from the cliffs of Dover.

The monthly mean temperatures for January and August collected at the Royal Greenwich Observatory (RGO) show that it was over 8 degrees colder in January 1861 than in 2011. Brrrr. The RGO’s description of 1861 weather states it was dry year, with the mean temperature close to average. January was a notably cold month (5.6F below the 1971/2000 average) while October was warm (3.8F above average). The mean temperatures for August 1861 and 2011 are virtually identical. Meteorological data began to be collected at RGO in 1859. Beyond temperatures, since the late 19th century the RGO is the historic source of the Prime Meridian of the world, Longitude 0° 0' 0''. The world prime meridian marks the divide between the eastern and western hemispheres and runs right through the observatory. It was an essential place marker for maritime and land navigation.

Next, I present several economic characteristics of 19th and 21st century England including the value of the currency and average income. One British pound sterling (£) in 1861 is now worth £612.00, meaning that English general prices have risen 612 times during the past 150 years; about 4% per year. In 1861 an unskilled laborer’s daily wage was £0.14 (or 24 pence; at that time there were 240 pence per pound). Ten-hour days, six days a week was the standard. This daily wage corresponds to £42.84 per year. £0.14 is equivalent today to £90.30 (or $127.63). Annual wages in England and Wales in 1861 for other workers varies considerably: agricultural (ag) workers, £36.04; teachers, £93.76; barristers and solicitors (lawyers), £1600 and the highest listed income. Like the US in 1860, ag workers were the single largest component of England’s labor force. In the US 58% of all laborers were agricultural workers in 1860. England’s ag workforce was at least as prominent a share of its labor force because US agriculture was becoming mechanized more rapidly than in England. For some chronological perspective, the 2011 per capita British income was £28,128 per year, or £120.72 per workday – for an average 8.3 hour day. This is equivalent to $175.08/day. The 2011 average daily wage represents a 41% gain from 1861’s average daily wage in real terms. A 41% increase in real daily salary over 150 years is not at all impressive.  

Finally, in 1861 you could rent a home in England for £2.17 annually. By 2011 you could buy of an average British home for £218,000 ($320,500), nearly 100,000 times more than the 1861 rent. Wow!

I now head west around the globe to the United States. I examine the same statistics for the US in Table 2 that are presented for England in Table 1.

Table 2: Comparing 1860 and 2010 in the United States

Characteristic	1860	2010
Population of the US / New York City (in millions)	31.44 / 0.814	308.7 / 8.18
Average value of a home (New York City / Philadelphia)+ 2010 US Median Home Value	$5,631 / $2,540	$812,300 / $142,500 $179,900
Value of currency	1 dollar ($)	$24.28
Average daily income	$0.98 - 10hr day	$135.46 – 9.3hr day
Mean temperature (Philadelphia) for January/August (degrees F)	33.5F / 75F*	33.2F / 79.0F
Average lifespan at birth (men and women)	42 years	78.7 years
Infant mortality rate (% per 1000 live births)	41.4%	0.61%
Average height of men	66 in.	69.7 in.

+  Unlike the 2010 US Census, the 1860 Census has no national average value for homes, only for New York City and Philadelphia.

*  These temperatures are from 1846, courtesy of Charles Pierce.

The US population in 1860 was 31,443,321, an increase of 35.4% over the 23,191,875 persons enumerated in the 1850 Census. This was the first census where the American Indians officially were counted, but only those who had “renounced tribal rules.” The figure for American Indians living in the US was a suspiciously-round 40,000.

New York City’s population, the largest city in the nation in 1860 (and 2010), was 813,669. Philadelphia was 2nd with 565,528 and San Francisco was 15th largest with 56,802 folks. The US’s fecundity was on display by 1860, when the US population was already 55% larger than England’s. This is reflected in the 1860 US fertility rate of 7.6 children per woman. By 2015 the US and UK fertility rates tumbled to 1.87 and 1.89 children, respectively. By 2010 the US population had increased almost 10 times to 308,745,538. New York City’s population in 2010 was 8,175,133, more than 10 times as large as in 1860. Currently, New York City is the world’s 21st largest city with a population of 8.491M. The current US population is 322.951M (ranked 3rd, behind China and India).

The US infant mortality rate was a frightfully lofty 41.4% in 1860, although this rate was about 30% lower than the 1861 English rate mentioned above. It meant that less than 5 of the almost 8 children born of an “average” mother survived past early childhood. Interestingly, in 1960 the US infant mortality rate was 2.6%, according to World Bank data; the UK rate in 1960 was 2.3%. As in England, by 2010 the US infant mortality rate shrank dramatically – a 99% reduction – to 0.61% as public health vastly improved; and improved over 4 times in just the past 50 years. However, this improvement seems to have stalled, perhaps due to our high pre-term birth rate; in 2015 the US infant mortality rate was 0.59% (57th lowest rate in the world).

Average US lifespan at birth for men and women improved almost 90% between 1860 and 2010, from 42 years to almost 79 years. As in England, the average height of men did increase in the US – almost 4 inches (about 6%) – during the 150 year timespan, to 69.7 inches in 2010. Englishmen and their American counterparts, on average, are as tall as each other. I guess the bangers and mash and BigMacs may cancel each other out rather nicely.

As shown in Table 2, the mean January and August temperatures in Philadelphia in 1846 were not that different than those measured in 2010. These historical weather statistics were studiously gathered each month by Mr. Charles Pierce, who published them in his detailed journal, “A meteorological account of the weather in Philadelphia, from January 1, 1790, to January 1, 1847, including fifty-seven years; with an Appendix.” I could not find a source for temperatures anywhere in the US for 1860. Mr. Pierce mentions that Aug 1846 “was a month of great humidity.” Having grown up in Philadelphia, I can fully attest to the all too impressive (and oppressive) summer humidity in the City of Brotherly Love. 

The mean January temperatures in Philadelphia – 164 years apart – are within one-half of a degree F of each other, just above freezing. The August 1846 temp was but 4 degrees lower than the 2010 Aug temp (79F). This set of similar mean temperatures over a long period of time can’t be used as evidence for climate-change deniers, but it does create a bit of ambiguity.

Now I characterize the US economic setting in 1860 and 2010. As shown in Table 2, one dollar in 1860 was worth $24.28 in 2010 (and $26.34 in 2015). This change in our currency value is far less than the implied inflation than occurred in England during the same 150 year period. Daily income for a laborer in 1860 was $0.98 when he worked 10 hours a day 6 days a week, as in England. By 2010 US laborers received on average $135.46 on a daily basis, when they worked 9.3 hour days over 5 days a week. Other professions received more pay in 1860, as they do now. Blacksmiths earned $1.78 per day, machinists earned $1.58/day and carpenters received $1.82/day the highest-income of workers in 1860 that I found wage data for. According to the Dept. of Labor, in 2014 machinists received $159.76 per day; carpenters earned $157.04/day, and construction laborers earned $136.80/day. In 2014 the average work-day for American employees was 9.3 hours, among the highest in advanced Western democracies. That is one hour more per day than English workers. By comparing the increase in average daily income between 1860 and 2014 (larger by at least a multiple of 85x) with the multiple of the dollar’s value (24x), we can conclude over the past 150 years labor income has increased greatly, in real (inflation-adjusted) terms.

As expected, the average value of homes since 1860 has risen significantly. The 1860 Census contained total value of real estate in both New York City and Philadelphia. After trawling through other sections of this census (It’s 551 pages long, and ends with a table of oyster production - $1.41M worth of oysters – together with employment and capital investment by state in oyster fisheries.), I found the number of dwellings in both cities as well. Thus Table 2 shows the average 1860 dwelling value for the 2 largest cities in the US; $5,631 in New York City (NYC) and $2,540 in Philadelphia, that was less than half the value of homes in NYC. The 2010 average values for a home in these cities are $812,300 and $142,500 in NYC in Philadelphia respectively. New York City homes’ value increased 6 times, after adjusting for inflation; Philadelphia’s homes rose more than 2.5 times in real terms. The 2010 average home value in the US was $179,900; in Alameda County CA, where I reside, was $484,200. Although significant, this increase in US real home value hardly offers an 1860 home-owner a noteworthy return over the past 150 years, due in large part by the volatility of home prices throughout our history.

So my demographic, meteorological and economic comparisons across 150 years of English and American history has documented we are far healthier and economically better off, as expected. Surprisingly, the weather for these 2 places and points in time isn’t that much different.

---

[1] But not all things are different. Here’s a surprising story commemorating the continuing effectiveness of a mousetrap made in 1861, that’s still doing its thing today.