Archives: Reg Murphy Pubs

How GDP Came to Be, Part 1

Written by Don Mathews on . Posted in Don Mathews, Reg Murphy.

People with a historical bent know that behind things that are often quickly dismissed as boring, tedious or mundane, there’s usually a good story. Consider gross domestic product.

Gross domestic product, which often goes by its initials, GDP, is the big kahuna of economic measures. Defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) as “the total market value of the final goods and services produced within a country in a year,” GDP is the most comprehensive measure of a country’s economic activity.

Ask an economist how big the U.S. economy is and you’ll be provided with the most recent estimate of U.S. GDP. Ask how the U.S. economy is doing and you’ll be provided with the most recent one-year percentage change in U.S. GDP.

GDP is not a topic for everyone. But before moving on or dozing off, readers in touch with their inner historian ask, “Who thought of GDP, and why?”

The story of GDP begins in Britain with William Petty (1623-1687): physician, philosopher, economist. Historians of economics credit Petty with the first systematic effort to measure not GDP but national income, GDP’s first cousin. What prompted Petty’s effort? His country was at war.

Discord over trade policies unresolved by the First Anglo-Dutch War (1652-1654) had Britain and Holland at each other’s throats again in the Second Anglo-Dutch War (1664-1667). Petty felt confident that Britain had the economic capacity to finance the war from tax revenue and produce sufficient armaments to defeat the Dutch. But he wanted reliable evidence on the size of Britain’s economy to prove it – to himself and his countrymen.

Petty devised a system for estimating national income and wealth using double-entry bookkeeping, then described his system in a work published in 1665. Petty’s use of double-entry bookkeeping established a precedent: the BEA’s National Income and Product Accounts, from which we get estimates of U.S. GDP, is a system of double-entry accounts.

High government officials found Petty’s system impressive but his underlying data, thin. The idea of measuring the size of an economy soon receded from political consideration. Charles Davenant (1656-1714) brought it back with greater effect in a pamphlet published in 1694. The inspiration for Davenant’s pamphlet is clear from its title: “An Essay upon the Ways and Means of Supplying the War,” in this case, the Nine Year’s War with France. Davenant’s purpose for estimating national income was the same as Petty’s: to empirically assess Britain’s capacity to wage and finance a war.

Small subsets of successive generations of economists spent the next 196 years arguing about what should and what shouldn’t be included in national income. Adam Smith (1723-1790) instigated much of the arguing by insisting, in his “Wealth of Nations” (1776), that a nation’s wealth is enhanced only by the production of physical commodities.

Alfred Marshall (1842-1924) ended much of the arguing in 1890 by showing, in his “Principles of Economics,” why Smith was silly to think that services contribute nothing to a nation’s wealth. Economists have found it silly to think about services the way Smith did ever since.

 The German government entered 1914 with $70 million in gold stored away for the sole purpose of financing a future war, should one arise. World War I did that summer. By 1916, a major German offensive would ring up $70 million in expenses in a day and a half. After World War I came the precarious 1920s, the Great Depression and World War II, one right after the other. The quest for GDP grew more urgent with each event. We’ll explore that in my next column.   

ICE Expands Partnerships in Georgia

Written by Roscoe Scarborough on . Posted in Reg Murphy, Roscoe Scarborough.

There has been rapid expansion of state and local participation in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s 287(g) program in 2025. ICE’s 287(g) program extends immigration law enforcement authority by delegating it to officers in state and local agencies. The 287(g) program results in more intense immigration enforcement and a higher rate of deportation for unauthorized immigrants in these jurisdictions.

ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations administers three 287(g) program models. The “Jail Enforcement Model” is designed to identify and process removeable aliens with criminal charges or pending criminal charges when these individuals are arrested by state or local law enforcement. The “Warrant Service Officer” program allows ICE to train, certify, and authorize state and local enforcement officers to serve and execute warrants on individuals who are in custody. The “Task Force Model” is a force multiplier for law enforcement agencies to enforce limited immigration authority with ICE oversight. ICE covers the cost of training, but salaries, travel, lodging, and other expenses are paid for by the partnering agency.

Donald Trump made immigration a central issue in his 2024 campaign. On his first day back in office, President Trump issued an executive order—“Protecting the American People Against Invasion”—that charges U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to partner with state and local law enforcement to enforce existing immigration laws, including identifying and apprehending undocumented immigrants.

As of June 3, 2025, 40 states have at least one active 287(g) agreement in place. Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont have no active or pending 287(g) agreements in place. California, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Oregon, and Washington have no agreements because these agreements are prohibited by state law.

State and local law enforcement agencies, largely in conservative districts, are expanding participation in the 287(g) program. In March, Governor Kemp announced an expansion of Georgia’s partnership with ICE. The Georgia Department of Corrections has participated in the Jail Enforcement Model since 2020. The Georgia Department of Public Safety is now participating in the Task Force Model. Under the Task Force Model, all 1,100 Georgia Department of Public Safety officers are to be trained by ICE on immigration enforcement and will work collaboratively with ICE to enforce immigration law in the field.

Several county-level agencies, including Glynn County Sheriff’s Office, have active or pending applications with ICE. Glynn County Sheriff’s Office is participating in the Warrant Service Officer program as of May 13, 2025, according to ICE’s website. Across the Peach State, there are 29 active agreements and 4 pending agreements.

Georgia’s participation in ICE’s 287(g) programs had been declining with Cobb and Gwinnett discontinuing their participation in the program several years ago. There were no new agreements signed during the Biden administration.

According to June 3, 2025 data on ICE’s website, 500 of 635 active agreements to participate in ICE’s 287(g) programs have been approved since January 2025. There are 88 pending agreements.

Americans’ attitudes on immigration enforcement are polarized. Enforcing immigration law is a top policy priority for a majority of Republicans, but a low priority for Democrats, according to the Pew Research Center’s Annual Policy Priorities Survey. Environmental issues are the only policy priorities with a larger divide between Republicans and Democrats.

It’s a safe bet that opinions on state and local agencies partnering with ICE through 287(g) program are split along party lines. Proponents of the program assert that enforcing immigration law should be a priority, often fueled by concerns about crime among immigrants. Detractors of the program raise concerns that the 287(g) program results in family separations, potential rifts between immigrant communities and law enforcement, and concerns about local tax dollars being squandered to support a federal program.

Roscoe Scarborough, Ph.D. is chair of the Department of Social Sciences and associate professor of sociology at College of Coastal Georgia. He is an associate scholar at the Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. He can be reached by email at rscarborough@ccga.edu.

Examining the productive potential of Americans with disabilities

Written by Melissa Trussell on . Posted in Melissa Trussell, Reg Murphy.

There has been a lot of spotlight and controversy around the current U.S. administration’s rhetoric regarding Americans with disabilities. The rhetoric has not been kind, and there have been exaggerated claims about the causes and effects of developmental disabilities, particularly autism.

Actual policymaking has been a bit more nuanced.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced this month a new partnership between National Institutes of Health and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to collect and analyze health data with the goal of better understanding causes and effects of autism. As an academic, I am always in favor of more data and more scientific discovery.

Also this month, HHS committed to funding $1.1 billion in grants to provide services to older adults and persons with disabilities through the Administration for Community Living (ACL). This is welcome news for affected groups after last month’s announcement of staff reductions and a major restructuring of ACL.

In March, disability advocates spoke out against the Justice Department’s withdrawal of 11 pieces of guidance on implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). In the Department’s defense, though, 5 of the 11 were specific to the COVID-19 pandemic, and withdrawal of administrative guidance does not negate the statute itself. In fact, in the same breath, the Justice Department encouraged compliance with ADA, reminding businesses of tax incentives available to cover costs of improving access for employees and customers with disabilities.

I want to pause on the point of businesses accommodating employees with disabilities. First, the numbers.

Currently, 8% of non-institutionalized American civilians between the ages of 16 and 64 are living with a disability. However, only 4.3% of the labor force—those working or looking for work– within that age range are individuals with disabilities. The percent of working-age Americans with disabilities who are either employed or seeking employment is 41%, whereas the rate for non-disabled working-age Americans is 78%. And within the labor force of working-age Americans, 8.8% of participants with disabilities are unemployed (i.e. actively looking for work), while only 3.7% of non-disabled participants are unemployed.

A July 2021 supplement to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Current Population Survey allowed respondents who reported having disabilities to give more details on their labor market participation decisions. Those who were working age and either not in the labor force or unemployed reported several barriers to employment besides their own disability: lack of education or training, lack of job counseling, lack of transportation, loss of government assistance, need for special features at the job, and employer or coworker attitudes.

It is striking to me how many of those barriers could easily be removed by employers or communities if we more highly valued not only the humanity of our neighbors with disabilities but also their willingness and ability to contribute as employees.

They want to work. More than a quarter of unemployed working age Americans with a disability report having taken advantage of at least one career assistance program.

They can work. Among employed individuals of working age and with disabilities, 42.6% report no difficulty completing their work duties, and only 7.2% report severe difficulty.

Their work benefits us all. The AbilityOne Program is a federal program funding the employment of individuals who are blind or have significant disabilities. A 2023 study on the economic impact of AbilityOne found that every dollar spent on the program resulted in a $2.66 return to society. And, as icing on that cake, being employed cuts by more than half the likelihood that a working age American with disabilities will use financial assistance programs.

In my From the Murphy Center column in February, I wrote about the necessary and effective work of accommodating students with disabilities in America’s public schools. Especially when we do that work well, many individuals with disabilities are a promising source of untapped productive potential in the labor market. We can change that by removing barriers to their employment.

———–

Dr. Melissa Trussell is a professor in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia who works with the college’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. Contact her at mtrussell@ccga.edu. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.

Imports Do Not Subtract from U.S. GDP

Written by Don Mathews on . Posted in Don Mathews, Reg Murphy.

The notion that exports and trade surpluses are good and imports and trade deficits are bad for the economy is one of the oldest and most egregious fallacies in economics. The fallacy is perpetuated each time the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) releases a new estimate of U.S. gross domestic product (GDP).

The source of the problem is a thing called the production-expenditure identity. The production-expenditure identity is fundamental to the national income and product accounts, the set of accounts, maintained by BEA, that provides a detailed picture of the U.S. economy as a whole. The production-expenditure identity expresses GDP, the market value of final goods and services produced in the U.S. in a year, in terms of expenditures. In short, the identity is meant to indicate the amount of domestic production purchased by households, businesses, governments (federal, state and local) and foreigners. 

A splash of nerdiness is necessary at this juncture. For convenience, the production-expenditure identity is written: GDP = C + I + G + X – M, where C stands for consumption, as in household spending on final goods and services; I stands for investment, as in business spending on capital goods plus goods in inventories; G stands for government purchases, as in federal, state and local government spending on final goods and services (as in tanks and fire trucks, not subsidies or social security); X stands for exports; M for imports.

That splash of nerdiness has unleashed a world of mischief and nonsense. It still does. People read all sorts of things into the production-expenditure identity. Some use the identity to bolster arguments that have been shown to be bogus many times over, such as the fallacy that exports and trade surpluses are good and imports and trade deficits are bad for the economy.

The fallacy has several variants. Exports create jobs, imports destroy them; exports increase the demand for domestic output, imports reduce it. There are others. What’s crucial is the plus sign in front of exports (X) and the minus sign in front of imports (M) in the production-expenditure identity. The common translation of those two signs is: exports increase GDP; imports reduce GDP. A small step leads to a related translation: trade surpluses (when exports exceed imports) increase GDP; trade deficits (when imports exceed exports) reduce GDP.

What perpetuates the exports good-imports bad fallacy with each new BEA estimate of GDP is a similar misinterpretation. Ever encounter a statement along the lines of: “U.S. inflation-adjusted GDP would have been higher if imports hadn’t increased. Imports, of course, subtract from GDP.”?

With each new BEA estimate of GDP, “Imports, of course, subtract from GDP” is blasted out to every electron-compatible speck of the media-verse. That’s unfortunate, because the minus sign in front of imports in the production-expenditure identity does not mean “imports subtract from GDP.”

By reading BEA’s literature on how it estimates GDP, one learns that BEA estimates expenditures on final goods and services by households (C), businesses (I), governments (G) and foreigners (X) without regard for where the purchased products were produced. Consumption, investment, government purchases and exports thus comprise spending on both domestic products and imports, which means the sum of consumption, investment, government purchases and exports equals the value of domestically produced products – GDP – plus imports.

To get GDP, BEA subtracts its estimate of imports, which it obtains through a different process, from the sum of consumption, investment, government purchases and exports. That’s the reason for the minus sign in front of imports.

The next time you hear or read “imports subtract from GDP,” remember: they don’t.

The Moral Foundations of Political Division

Written by Roscoe Scarborough on . Posted in Reg Murphy, Roscoe Scarborough.

Many Americans don’t see eye to eye when it comes to what they believe is right and wrong. Americans hold polarized opinions on deportations of undocumented persons, tariffs, access to abortion, and a host of other social and political issues. Moral foundations theory can help us to understand why liberals and conservatives hold different views of what’s right and wrong.

Moral foundations theory comes out of social psychology. Jonathan Haidt and collaborators first published the theory back in 2004. The most recent version of the theory contends that humans evolved to possess six moral intuitions that shape moral judgments: care for the vulnerable, fairness in how people are treated, loyalty to in-groups, respect for authority, reverence for the sacred, and safeguarding individual liberty. A growing body of research shows that liberals prioritize care and fairness foundations, while conservatives value all six foundations.

Social scientists have applied moral foundations theory to a broad range of issues, including crime control, policing, abortion, prayer in schools, and other contentious culture war issues. For example, liberals’ focus on care for the vulnerable leads to hostility toward police use of force. Conservatives’ focus on respect for authority leads to supporting law and order, including police officers’ use of force. Different “moral foundations” lead conservatives and liberals to maintain incongruous views of what’s right and wrong.

Haidt and collaborators claim that the six moral foundations are innate psychological systems at the core of our intuitive ethics. As a sociologist, I am often suspect of evolutionary theories. The capacity to possess moral foundations is likely a product of our evolution, but a sociological critique is that our morality is largely a product of our socialization. The individuals and institutions in our lives shape our morality. Parents, teachers, and friends shape our views on what’s right and what’s wrong. Media, church, and schools do as well. Sociologists theorize that our idiosyncratic experiences shape our moral worldviews.

I have my doubts that Haidt’s moral foundations are universally applicable to all groups and all contexts. Across all the cultures and groups of the world, there are a plurality of views on what’s right and wrong. Social factors, including our class, race, and gender shape our moral worldviews. Context matters too. The social structures, power dynamics, and cultural norms of our society shape our morality. Those who are in poverty and those who are wealthy have different views on the morality of welfare programs. Similarly, there are patterned differences in attitudes toward affirmative action programs across different racial groups. As a sociologist, I would contend that these differences are not biological, but result from how we are socialized.

Some have argued that moral foundations theory could be used to justify and perpetuate existing social inequalities by framing these moral differences as innate or natural. Support for loyalty and authority can be used to support hierarchical social structures.

Even if Haidt and colleagues have not identified the timeless foundations of human morality, their work has value. Moral foundations theory gives us the tools to research and better understand moral differences. In our era of identity-driven politics, moral intolerance is on the rise. Bipartisan cooperation and civility have fallen out of favor. Being a liberal or a conservative is no longer about political values and approaches to governance, but these have become group identities that place one group in opposition to the other. I am optimistic that moral foundation theory provides us a way to understand “the other.” Our neighbors’ understandings of right and wrong might just emphasize different foundations of morality than our own. Instead of vilifying the other, we can find opportunities for compromise and collaboration.

Roscoe Scarborough, Ph.D. is chair of the Department of Social Sciences and associate professor of sociology at College of Coastal Georgia. He is an associate scholar at the Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. He can be reached by email at rscarborough@ccga.edu.

Aaron’s Story: How grown up failures lead to adolescent crime

Written by Melissa Trussell on . Posted in Melissa Trussell, Reg Murphy.

Gang violence is not new to Brunswick. In recent months, though, local law enforcement report an increase in the rate of youth arrests, many of which are gang related.

I know families affected by gang violence, and I know a child who was arrested and charged in a gang-related incident here in the last year. His story highlights numerous egregious failures in state and local systems that research suggests are directly correlated with increased adolescent gang activity.

Before he became part of our “gang problem,” Aaron (a pseudonym) was no stranger to our local systems. He was not an under-the-radar kid. In fact, he was all over every radar we have for identifying at-risk children.

Early in his life, Aaron came onto the radar of the Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS), who eventually removed him from his mother’s care. His mother requested Aaron be placed with willing friends in their neighborhood. But, by state policy, DFCS prioritizes placement with biological family. Aaron was taken from his home community and placed with a relative who physically and psychologically abused Aaron. Isolation and abuse in childhood are known by social science researchers to be strongly correlated with adolescent gang activity. But DFCS had moved Aaron to the fringes of their radar.

Aaron’s mother, to her great credit, worked her DFCS case plan and regained custody of Aaron. But, her plan had focused on compliance over healing, and Aaron returned home to a parent whose best intentions were not enough. When a parent regains custody of their child, our systems essentially leave them helpless. DFCS aftercare is extremely limited both in time and scope. There is little consideration for the long-term impact of what both parent and child have endured, and there is no systematic support for rehabilitation beyond reunification. Aaron’s childhood continued to be marked by chronic trauma. But DFCS had cleared Aaron from their radar.

Soon, Aaron appeared on the radar of the juvenile justice system (DJJ). With very little interaction between DJJ and DFCS, the family dynamics that led to Aaron’s delinquent behavior were not addressed. Aaron would eventually serve time in a youth detention center (YDC). At the end of that time, DJJ returned Aaron to live with his mother. Georgia’s DJJ Office of Reentry Services emphasizes the importance of reentry supports, including healthy family and living arrangements. The literature on juvenile recidivism emphasizes the word “healthy.” Returning Aaron to his unhealthy home environment meant returning him to the streets where he had already begun to flirt with gangs. Ignoring his statistically sky-high risk of recidivism, DJJ had cleared Aaron from their radar.

Within months of returning home, Aaron re-appeared on a radar he had frequented throughout his childhood– that of the Glynn County School System (GCSS). This time, it was for non-attendance. When confronted, Aaron’s mother signed a letter of intent to homeschool. Many families homeschool well. But they would tell you that in Georgia, it is very easy to homeschool very badly. By state law, that letter of intent, filed with the state Department of Education, is the only documentation required to be submitted to any regulating body. There are rules about teaching and testing, but record-keeping is up to the parent. Georgia has virtually no accountability for homeschooling families. Nevertheless, homeschool was presented as an acceptable solution to the problem of truancy from GCSS, for a child who had also been on the radars of DFCS and DJJ. They all simply cleared Aaron from their radars.

Mere months later, Aaron became one of the juvenile offenders on all of our radars through local media reports of increased gang violence. We are asking local law enforcement to crack down on our children when we should be demanding accountability from the adults in the systems that are failing them. We must get serious about understanding childhood trauma, and we must commit to doing the hard work of healing wounds that are our responsibility even if they are not our fault. We must stop passing the buck, shifting children from one radar to the next.

———–

Published with permission from Aaron’s family.

Dr. Melissa Trussell is a professor in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia who works with the college’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. Contact her at mtrussell@ccga.edu. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.

Tariffs Won’t Change the U.S. Trade Deficit

Written by Don Mathews on . Posted in Don Mathews, Reg Murphy.

The current administration claims that the U.S. trade deficit is proof that most of the world is ripping off the U.S. through bad trade deals or unfair trading practices. Swindlers are easily flagged: any country running a trade surplus with the U.S.

The last year the U.S. ran a trade surplus – which, the administration insists, should not be interpreted as proof that the U.S. is ripping off most of the world – was 1975. The fact rankles the administration bigly. To settle accounts, it is turning to its favorite blunt instrument: tariffs.

The choice is unsound. Imposing tariffs to reduce a trade deficit is like taking a shot of turpentine twice a day to get rid of freckles. Turpentine is poison, ingesting it won’t get rid of your freckles, and there’s nothing wrong with freckles, anyway. 

Economists have long known that tariffs do not affect a country’s trade balance. Several were on to this in the latter 1600s. These economists noticed something peculiar. When a country placed tariffs on imported goods, imports fell, but so did exports, and the trade balance didn’t change. A country’s trade balance seemed to be determined by larger, more fundamental factors. In the mid-1900s, economists identified them: domestic saving and investment.

The idea is this. A country’s trade balance is determined by the difference between domestic saving and investment. If domestic saving exceeds investment, the country will run a trade surplus. If investment exceeds domestic saving, the country will run a trade deficit. 

Let’s clarify the terms. Domestic saving is private saving – that of households and businesses – plus public saving – that of federal, state and local governments. A government has positive saving if it has a budget surplus, negative saving if it has a budget deficit. Investment consists of businesses’ purchases of capital goods, change in inventories and residential investment. Exports and imports are of goods and services.

The relationship between saving and investment is crucial. To finance investment, businesses must draw from retained earnings, issue bonds or stock, or borrow from banks. Whichever way, the funds to finance investment come from domestic saving – and, if necessary, foreign saving.

Here’s how it works. The U.S. routinely posts a low household saving rate, large federal budget deficits, and sizeable investment. Exceptions are few. Consequently, domestic saving is routinely less than investment. That is, domestic saving is routinely insufficient to finance investment. Routinely, with respect to domestic saving and investment, translates to the past 49 years.

When domestic saving is insufficient to finance investment, businesses must offer greater returns on financial assets to attract funds. Foreign savers jump.

To buy U.S. financial assets, foreigners must first buy U.S. dollars on the foreign exchange market. That drives the foreign exchange value of the dollar up, which in turn makes U.S. goods more expensive for foreign buyers and foreign goods cheaper for U.S. buyers. U.S. exports fall and U.S. imports increase, leaving exports less than imports. That’s a U.S. trade deficit, and it’s equal to the difference between domestic saving and investment.

What if the U.S. imposes a tariff on imports? Prices of imports increase; U.S. buyers purchase fewer imports. Fewer import purchases means fewer U.S. dollars supplied to the foreign exchange market. The dollar appreciates; U.S. goods become more expensive for foreigners, foreign goods become cheaper for Americans. U.S. imports fall, U.S. exports fall.  No change in the difference between saving and investment; no change in the trade deficit. Tariffs harm the country that imposes them, they won’t change a country’s trade deficit, and there’s nothing wrong with a trade deficit, anyway.

Teen Mental Health Remains Poor

Written by Roscoe Scarborough on . Posted in Reg Murphy, Roscoe Scarborough.

Teen mental health in the United States is dismal. Recent data show that four in ten teens experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, two in ten seriously considered attempting suicide, and almost one in ten attempted suicide.

These statistics are from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey, 2013-2023. Every two years, data are collected from a nationally representative sample of U.S. high school students. The survey includes questions on sexual behavior, substance use, experiences of violence, and mental health.

Most indicators of adolescent health and well-being deteriorated between 2013 and 2023. Declining rates of substance abuse and high-risk sexual activity are some of the positive trends in the report. Condom usage, HIV testing, experiences of violence, mental health, and suicidal thoughts and behaviors worsened significantly. I’ll focus on the data on teen mental health in this column.

40% of high school students experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness in 2023, down from 42% in 2021. 29% reported experiencing poor mental health with no change over the past two years. 20% seriously considered attempting suicide, down from 22% in 2021. 16% made a suicide plan and 9% attempted suicide in 2023, down from 18% and 10% respectively in 2021. 2% were injured in a suicide attempt that had to be treated by a doctor or a nurse in 2023, down from 3% in 2021. It is encouraging that two-year changes show modest improvements in teen well-being.

Unfortunately, longitudinal data show that teen mental health is far worse than it was a decade ago. Nearly all indicators of poor mental health and suicidal thoughts and behaviors worsened among teens between 2013 to 2023, including increases in the percentage of teens who experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness, seriously considered attempting suicide, made a suicide plan, or attempted suicide.

Teen girls are at greater risk of poor mental health and suicidal behaviors than boys. For example, 13% of girls reported attempting suicide in 2023, compared to only 6% of boys. Rates for all measures of mental health and suicidal thoughts and behaviors were at least 75% higher among girls than boys in 2023.

LGBTQ+ teens experience extremely high rates of poor mental health and suicidal behaviors, compared to cisgender teens. In 2023, 65% of LGBTQ+ teens experienced persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness. 53% of LGBTQ+ teens reported experiencing poor mental health. 41% of LGBTQ+ teens seriously considered attempting suicide. 32% of LGBTQ+ teens made a suicide plan, 20% attempted suicide, and 5% were injured in a suicide attempt that had to be treated by a doctor or a nurse in 2023. On all measures, rates for LGBTQ+ teens were at least 100% higher than those found among cisgender teens in 2023.

Looking at the modest improvements in teen mental health between 2021 and 2023, it’s clear that pandemic-era stressors were not the primary causes of our teen mental health crisis. The pandemic just exacerbated existing mental health challenges among teens. Data show that things were heading in the wrong direction long before COVID-19.

Social media and smartphone usage get a bulk of the blame for teens’ poor mental health. Yes, many teens are doomscrolling their way to depression. It’s what they’re not doing that might be more significant. Teens are spending less time with each other than previous generations. Social isolation and the atrophy of teen social life are key drivers of the U.S. teen mental health crisis. Other contributing factors include poor access to mental healthcare, problems associated with poverty, and challenges at school.

It’s not all doom and gloom for our teens. As I mentioned earlier, two-year trends show modest improvements across most mental health measures. Additionally, several high-risk sexual behaviors and many substance use indicators are heading in the right direction. Unfortunately, there’s much work to be done to address the teen mental health crisis.

Roscoe Scarborough, Ph.D. is chair of the Department of Social Sciences and associate professor of sociology at College of Coastal Georgia. He is an associate scholar at the Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. He can be reached by email at rscarborough@ccga.edu.

Serving students with disabilities in American public schools

Written by Melissa Trussell on . Posted in Melissa Trussell, Reg Murphy.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC), approximately 17% of children 3 to 17 years old have one or more developmental disabilities. These include intellectual disabilities, hearing loss, ADHD, autism spectrum disorder, Down syndrome, and a host of other conditions classified as developmental disabilities by the CDC.

In the 2023-24 school year, 7.9 million public school students ages 3 to 21 received special education or related services. This was an increase of greater than 3 percent from before the coronavirus pandemic and represents the highest number of special education students ever served in our schools.

Nationally, in 2023-24, 15 percent of all public school students ages 3 to 21 received special education services for disabilities. In Georgia in the same year, 13.3 percent of public school students in grades K-12 were served in special education. And in the Glynn County School System, 16.3 percent of K-12 students were enrolled in special education. The most common category of disability served in public special education is specific learning disabilities (e.g. dyslexia, auditory or language processing disorders, etc.), which characterizes over 30% of all special education students in the U.S.

The U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights is currently responsible for enforcing the three major federal laws protecting students with disabilities in schools:

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, authorizes federal grants to local school systems to fund programs supporting disadvantaged students.

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by any program or activity receiving federal funding. Applied to schools, Section 504 both prohibits discrimination and requires accommodation (e.g. accessible facilities, extra time on assignments, preferential seating) for students with disabilities. Around three percent of public K-12 students in the U.S. receive accommodations only under Section 504. The majority of public school students with disabilities are served also under a third major statute, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

IDEA requires that all students with disabilities are afforded free and appropriate education (FAPE). Under IDEA schools provide specialized instruction through Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) to students whose disabilities limit their ability to access the general education curriculum. Under IDEA, students are kept with their non-disabled peers as much as possible and given additional supports as needed.

Special education staff are the boots on the ground implementing these protections to ensure that every student’s individual needs are met and that each one receives FAPE. Their methods are guided by student data and delivered with care. And, what they do works. A study of over 575,000 students in New York City showed that for students with specific learning disabilities, educational gains are significantly greater when they receive special education services, and achievement is greatest when they begin to receive services earlier in their education.

When I hear politicians talk about defunding or dismantling the U.S. Department of Education, these are the students I worry for most. My concerns are increased by the hurried and chaotic way in which the current administration has made other recent changes to federal agencies. The U.S. DoE does not tell states or districts what to teach or not to teach, but it does mandate and fund education for students with disabilities. Dismantling the Department without carefully considering, planning, and codifying what other entities would be responsible for enforcing and funding IDEA, will leave school systems powerless to provide the specialized instruction required for children with disabilities to flourish in schools and beyond. Our children will suffer the consequences. And, in a future column, we will look at how our labor force and greater economy may also suffer.

———–

Dr. Melissa Trussell is a professor in the School of Business and Public Management at College of Coastal Georgia who works with the college’s Reg Murphy Center for Economic and Policy Studies. Contact her at mtrussell@ccga.edu. The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the College of Coastal Georgia.

Glynn Economy Turns in a Remarkable 2024

Written by Don Mathews on . Posted in Don Mathews, Reg Murphy.

The conventional way of evaluating the performance of the Glynn County economy in 2024 is to compare Glynn’s 2024 economic numbers to its 2023 numbers. The Glynn economy’s 2024 performance looks pretty good if evaluated that way.

Evaluate that performance by considering features of the world in which it happened, and the performance of the Glynn economy in 2024 looks nothing short of remarkable. 

First, the conventional approach. 2023 was a big year for the Glynn economy. For that matter, so was 2022.  2024 was a slight variation of the two.

Preliminary estimates indicate that from December 2023 to December 2024, Glynn’s labor force increased by 1.1%, Glynn employment increased by 0.6%, and the difference in the two percentages nudged the county’s unemployment rate up from 2.5% to 2.9%.    

As one-year percentage changes go, labor force growth of 1.1% is strong, and employment growth of 0.6% is respectable. An unemployment rate below 4% is terrific, below 3% is exceptional. 

Hospitality and tourism activity in fiscal year 2024 was off by a mere 0.2% from a booming, record-shattering fiscal year 2023. The dip in hospitality and tourism activity was partially offset by a 0.2% increase in inflation-adjusted retail sales in 2024. Building permits for residential construction increased from 786 in 2023 to 910 in 2024, while the valuation of those projects increased from $251.7 million to $278.3 million. The Port of Brunswick turned in a monster year in 2024, with 22% jump in auto and machinery units processed from 2023.

On that basis, the Glynn economy posted a pretty good performance in 2024.

That performance happened in a world shaped by February 23, 2020, when Italy attempted to contain a massive outbreak of coronavirus by locking down eleven towns. The news caused a global financial panic, which became a global financial meltdown when markets opened on March 16. Financial institutions and investors buried markets in sell orders in a mad rush for cash; liquidity in the global financial system all but evaporated.

To stem the meltdown and fortify banks through the pandemic, the Federal Reserve and other central banks purchased trillions of dollars in securities. From late February to mid-July 2020, the assets on the Fed’s balance sheet increased from $4.17 trillion to $7.13 trillion. The figure reached $8.95 trillion in April 2022.

Meanwhile, the pandemic raged.     

From 2015 thru 2019, the U.S. money supply increased at an average annual rate of 5.6%. The Fed’s emergency measures to stem the meltdown caused the U.S. money supply to increase by 26.5% from February 2020 to February 2021, and 10.9% from February 2021 to February 2022, which tallies to an increase of 40.4% from February 2020 to February 2022. That caused the 12-month rate of inflation to increase from 1.4% in January 2021 to 9.1% in June 2022.

The Fed responded to the inflation with aggressive monetary tightening, raising its key interest rate from 0.15% to 5.4% in a series of steps between March 2022 and July 2023. It held the rate at 5.4% for the next 17 months. In years past, monetary tightening of that magnitude would all but guarantee a recession.

In short, the features of the world we might want to consider in evaluating the performance of the Glynn economy in 2024 are: the deadly pandemic, the surge of inflation, and two-plus years of aggressive monetary tightening, all back-to-back-to-back within a span of five years. For the Glynn economy to deliver, in the teeth of all that, the year it delivered in 2024, is nothing short of remarkable.