Not your average cesspool. (windfucker/Flickr)

It seems that trash, as well as beauty, is in the eye of the beholder if two studies of New York’s street cleanliness are anything to go by. Travel + Leisure recently released a much-publicized list that found New York to be the dirtiest city in America. In an effort to try and rebut this filthy scarlet letter, the city's Independent Budget Office dug into the Mayor's Management Report, released the following week, that found 95.5 percent of the New York City's streets here are "acceptably clean."

The IBO collated information from the 2012 fiscal year, which found that the vast majority of streets in New York only have scattered litter here and there. It is a far cry from the results of the magazine’s survey, which apparently sees the place as one giant trash heap. This makes the city’s $81m investment in street cleaning measures seem pretty futile. Oh, and the other $570m spent on curbside garbage collections. The pricey debacle takes blowing money on trash to a whole new level.

Not even the technological wonders of 450 mechanical brooms could help clean up the disparity in perceptions between the two conflicting sources. Each year, the mayor's office asks community boards to rank local services in order of importance, with street cleaning coming in at 17th. This placed above the likes of services for the homeless and economic development initiatives, reinforcing just how selfless the good people of New York really are. Why spend money helping those without a roof over their heads when your taxes can go towards funding a mechanical broom? At least we can all agree on that.

A few feeble ‘explanations’ have been offered up in order to elucidate the gulf in public and municipal opinion, namely that the mayoral rating scale was drawn up some 40 years ago and probably doesn’t reflect our diminished tolerance for dirt. Let’s not forget that Donny Osmond was also acceptable in the 1970s, so that period of LSD addled disarray may not be the best indicator of contemporary opinion.  Operations staff has promised to update the system accordingly, so only time will tell if the new ratings will be as amusingly shambolic as those currently in place.

According to a third-quarter Business Roundtable survey of top CEOs, top managers expect the economy to grow 1.9 percent in 2010, down from a much rosier outlook of 2.7 percent growth three months ago.

Sixty-six percent of CEOs expect their companies' sales to increase in the next six months, down from 79 percent holding an optimistic view in the second quarter. The percentage of CEOs who expect their companies to hire more workers dropped to 31 percent from 39 percent. In one comparatively bright spot, forty-nine percent expected to do more capital spending, up from 43 percent. That last figure is perhaps unsurprising, since interest rates are low right now and so the cost of raising capital is not high.

Meanwhile, down in the economic trenches, forecasts are also getting gloomier. The Conference Board's September consumer confidence index fell to 48.5 in September from 53.2 in August. Forty-six percent of consumers said business conditions are "bad," while only 8.1 percent said business conditions are "good."

mtaylor@observer.com

Twitter: @mbrookstaylor

For instance, the survey finds that 91 percent of underwater homeowners are happy with their mortgages. Who in their right mind would be happy to owe the bank more for their house than what it's currently worth? Also, only 6 percent of underwater borrowers think it's okay to simply stop paying their mortgage, vs. 10 percent of the general population.

At his new NetNet blog, John Carney -- who typically can offer some kind of answer to any question related to finance -- doesn't quite know what to make of this:

Wouldn't you expect the self-interest of underwater homeowners to push them toward support for strategic defaults? And wouldn't you expect people who aren't in that position to be less sympathetic to walking away?

What's going on here?

The phenomenon has been discussed before in The New York Times. One academic attributes it to the naivete of homeowners, who think that they're simply not allowed to act in their financial interest, no matter how good defaulting on their loans would be. The Times offers some other, potentially more compelling, explanations for homeowners' behavior, if not their attitudes, but ultimately is still confused.

Morality aside, there are other factors deterring "strategic defaults," whether in recourse or nonrecourse states. These include the economic and emotional costs of giving up one's home and moving, the perceived social stigma of defaulting, and a serious hit to a borrower's credit rating. Still, if they added up these costs, many households might find them to be far less than the cost of paying off an underwater mortgage.

One would certainly expect people to behave altruistically toward just about anyone besides the bank that is charging them more for their house than the amount it's currently worth. One would think borrowers would see such banks as jerks who deserve to get screwed. Perhaps there is some sort of ingrained consciousness among Americans that it is a true dishonor to fail to pay your debt. Although somehow we don't think that view is shared by everyone.

“Young adults continue to be the heaviest users of social media, but their growth pales in comparison with recent gains made by older users,” explains Mary Madden, Senior Research Specialist and author of the report. “Email is still the primary way that older users maintain contact with friends, families and colleagues, but many older users now rely on social network platforms to help manage their daily communications.”

It was only a matter of time!

Granted, the social media platforms mentioned in the survey are Myspace, Facebook, and LinkedIn, so there's no need to get too worried about your grandmother stealing your mayorships on Foursquare.

And they're not just reading snuggled up on couches, either! The extreme e-reader devotees are taking the things on boats.

Since getting her Kindle last year, Leslie Johnson has been reading more often and in more places—like on a kayak. On a recent trip, the 34-year-old engineer from Albany, N.Y., settled into a science-fiction novel while her husband fished. "I put it in a waterproof cover," she says.

The article also mentions a study conducted by Jakob Nielsen, a longtime Silicon Valley researcher, that discovered that though they read more, those who choose pixels over ink also read slower. But the study had one variable could have been disruptive: it required participants to read in print, then an iPad and a Kindle, but the only author represented in the study was Ernest Hemingway. Perhaps that bare-bone prose just doesn't play out as well on these electronic gadgets, causing readers to slow down? Well, Papa would probably disapprove of the whole business, anyway.

The disparity between the state's total-calls ranking and its call-length ranking demonstrates the city's fondness for brevity—a good sign, with it being the soul of wit and everything. "The data support the idea that we have a lot to say, but we say it in a very efficient manner," Nielsen telecom CEO Jonathan Carson told the Post.

Since 1985, the Gallup poll has asked survey respondents to trade off environmental protection against economic growth. This past spring, for the first time, more people chose economic growth than environmental protection. (See Gallup graph) The data is an accurate reflection of public opinion, and there is no question that conventional politics frames the environment as an impediment to economic growth. However, in my view, this survey question taps into opinion that is based on a false premise.  The survey question not only assumes that environment and economic growth are separate concepts, but also that by focusing on one you must sacrifice the other. During an economic downturn, many trade-off questions trading just about anything against economic growth will result in a preference for economic growth. Still, this question needs to be updated and asked in a different way. The problem with the existing survey question is that as long as we draw our wealth and sustenance from the natural environment (you know, things like food, air and water), economic growth will depend on environmental quality. While our political dialogue is often built around the assumption that we can trade off one against the other, we really can’t. No biosphere = no wealth.

It is true that businesses in China and other parts of the world have generated economic growth and short-run profits by disregarding development’s impact on the air, land and water.  As we discovered in the United States, this approach is a short-run strategy. Unfortunately, the costs of clean-up will eventually need to be paid. Every time you pay your water bill, you are paying for environmental clean up here in New York. While survey researchers love the longitudinal data they can obtain when they ask the same question every year, it is not clear that people are really responding to the same question today that they answered in 1985. The issue of economic sustainability and the green economy was not discussed or understood back in the mid 1980’s.  In 2009, companies as diverse as Wal-Mart and Apple Computer have integrated green principles into their business planning. The idea of sustainable business practice was virtually unknown in 1985. Gallup’s web site provides a clear picture of public response to this trade off question from 1985-2009 (See the graph in the slide show above). 
 
It would be interesting to see what might happen if Gallup’s survey asked respondents if they believed that economic growth and environmental quality were incompatible or interconnected. It would also be interesting to see what might happen if the response of “equal priority” was given as a potential response to Gallup’s survey question. Since 1985, this answer is only coded when volunteered by the respondent. Although the question is attempting to force respondents to choose between environmental protection and economic growth, there are clearly some people who do not accept the environment-growth trade-off.  Such forced trade-offs questions are a staple of survey research methodology, but the trade-off must be meaningful for the technique to be an effective measure of real public opinion. In this case, I am not sure we know what opinion we are measuring.

Perceptions of Global Warming

Another widely reported environmental opinion indicator is Gallup’s measure of perceptions of global warming. Gallup’s question measuring perceptions of global warming asks the public to judge news coverage of the issue. The question does not ask the respondent if they believe that global warming is a serious issue. Rather,  it asks them to do two things: First, think about climate coverage in the news media; Second, judge whether or not global warming’s seriousness has been exaggerated by media coverage. If I were being surveyed, I’m not sure what I would say. I think that global warming is a serious issue, but I believe that everything in the media is exaggerated. I think that exaggeration is the media’s middle name. So I might be seen as a “climate skeptic” in this survey, because I think that the seriousness of the issue of global warming is exaggerated by the media. Does the question asked by Gallup below, measure attitudes toward global warming, or attitudes toward the media?  

The data indicates a decline in the percentage of people who believe that the media reports on the seriousness of global warming are correct, and it points to an increase in the percentage of people who think that the seriousness of the issue is exaggerated in the media.

Gallup is, of course, quite expert in measuring public opinion, and the measures in their surveys are uniformly reliable and valid. However their environmental surveys seem to be almost routinely misinterpreted by the media. Gallup’s own analyses tend to be quite precise and accurate. For example, their analysis of the question on the seriousness of global warming focuses on news coverage of the issue, and they report that most Americans accept the facts of global warming. Unfortunately, there are less objective observers.  For example, on August 10th, The  Drudge Report provided the following interpretation in their teaser:
“GALLUP: Americans Growing More Skeptical Of Global Warming...” 

Public Support for Sustainable Development

In fact, the data indicates a fair amount of consistency in the structure of public opinion on environmental protection. While issues like global warming can be difficult for people to see and feel, the American public knows it’s a real issue and is concerned about it.  Concern for more visible pollution is even stronger, with over 80% of the American public routinely expressing concern about air, water and toxic pollution.  

The media seems to be entranced by the idea that the public’s support for environmental protection declines whenever the economy falters. Some parts of the media can’t seem to shed the idea that the environment is a John Kerry, wind-surf and brie effete liberal luxury item. The fact is that most polling, including Gallup’s own, reports consistent public support for environmental protection. We are also seeing growing signs that the public understands the connection between environmental protection and economic sustainability. President Obama has put this idea at the center of his plan to revitalize the national economy, and polling indicates widespread acceptance of the policy of “green economic growth”.

I am not arguing that every effort to protect the environment adds to our wealth and creates jobs. But the argument that one must always be prepared to trade off environment for growth is outmoded. Mayor Bloomberg’s PlanNYC 2030 considers clean air, water, energy efficiency and access to park land as preconditions for the city’s continued economic growth.  A clean city provides a high quality of life and attracts new economic activity. The Mayor’s plan for New York’s future rejects the old environment-growth trade off, and so should the rest of us.