Study linking broadband, job creation shows need for coherent US policy

Increased adoption of broadband has led to an increase in the number of available jobs, according to research by the Sacramento Regional Research Institute. The findings reflect a greater need for a more complete broadband policy in the US.<BR><BR>Read More

 

[Nagumo]

Help desk isn't a job, it's a nightmare! -- View image here: http://episteme.meincmagazine.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif --

 

[Basquiat]

ATT&T and broadband? That's an oxymoron.

 

[torok]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">showed a strong correlation between broadband growth in California and the number of new jobs available, forecasting that even small increases in broadband use could substantially affect the state over the next 10 years </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>So long as correlation continues to imply causation, and in the direction you happen to put the words. It's not like a well-employed tech sector would demand good broadband access or anything...

 

[mmtroute]

Right and P2P networks caused CD sales to slump...

 

[death_to_novell]

Did the people who authored this never sit through Statistics 101?

 

[erwos]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JasonF:<BR>Did the people who authored this never sit through Statistics 101? </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Statistics is the best math - unlike the other branches, it always gives you the answer you want!<BR><BR>But, yeah, correlation != causation. It is entirely possible that increased job growth caused increased broadband growth. Saying "broadband creates jobs" is, at best, unsupported.

 

[kaddar]

Agreed, and the funny thing is we can all think of very obvious third factors. (Densely populated areas would obviously have both broadband and more jobs, nondense but wealthy areas would have more service jobs)<BR><BR>Sometimes sociology is common sense and I don't understand how people make these logical errors.

 

[xoa]

Well, I in turn certainly understand that correlation is not causation and all that, but I don't get all the comments on a site like Ars instantly putting this down as a possibility. It is clear that information transmission is the fifth major piece of basic infrastructure, and as with the others it is perfectly sensible to work to ensure near-universal access to at least a decent level of it. That's one of the whole points of a modern society.

 

[erwos]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xoa:<BR>Well, I in turn certainly understand that correlation is not causation and all that, but I don't get all the comments on a site like Ars instantly putting this down as a possibility. It is clear that information transmission is the fifth major piece of basic infrastructure, and as with the others it is perfectly sensible to work to ensure near-universal access to at least a decent level of it. That's one of the whole points of a modern society. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>You demonstrate very well why we put down dumb studies. You're using bad "science" (logic/math, really) to go off and justify your own agenda. That's exactly what we don't need more of. I'd prefer that we nail down the math/logic to figure out what the appropriate course of action is.<BR><BR>That is to say, you clearly want some sort of univeral broadband access. You then used a shaky finding (being generous on the "shaky") to justify it. We should be working in the reverse of how you are - we prove that broadband causes job growth, and thus we decide to invest in broadband.<BR><BR>Any idiot can run some stats and find interesting correlations. Until causation is proven, if it ever can be, they are basically worthless correlations in terms of social policy.

 

[icrf]

Well it appears I don't have to mention how the decrease in the number of pirates have increased the average suface temperature of our planet. When the "science" is this bad, but you still feel like reporting on it, at least report it honestly like the non-story it is. I've come to expect more out of Ars. This kind of crap gets pointed out when the popular spin is contrary to your own, please don't stoop to that level.

 

[Ozy]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by erwos:<BR>You demonstrate very well why we put down dumb studies. You're using bad "science" (logic/math, really) to go off and justify your own agenda. That's exactly what we don't need more of. I'd prefer that we nail down the math/logic to figure out what the appropriate course of action is.<BR><BR>That is to say, you clearly want some sort of univeral broadband access. You then used a shaky finding (being generous on the "shaky") to justify it. We should be working in the reverse of how you are - we prove that broadband causes job growth, and thus we decide to invest in broadband.<BR><BR>Any idiot can run some stats and find interesting correlations. Until causation is proven, if it ever can be, they are basically worthless correlations in terms of social policy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR>And how exactly do you think causation is discovered? First, someone notices a correlation, then one proposes a mechanism for causation (which the poster you slammed did)...and then one does studies controlling for various variables to see if your hypothesized mechanism holds up.<BR><BR>Yes, we get it, correlation != causation, but it's often the first step to finding a causal link.<BR><BR>Just how do you guys think it's supposed to happen?

 

[Artuero]

Even if the study were correct it didn't appear to be correlating broadband policy with job creation.

 

[xoa]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by erwos:<BR>That is to say, you clearly want some sort of univeral broadband access. You then used a shaky finding (being generous on the "shaky") to justify it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>erwos, how the hell do you get from "it's a possibility that more broadband might mean more job creation", for some sectors at least, to saying that I am in any way endorsing this study or using it to justify anything? I certainly do neither, I was merely commenting on the slant of comments which far from calling for more investigation strongly appear to deny even the possibility. I support <em>near</em>-universal broadband for various reasons that are unconnected to job growth per se, so this would merely be a subject of interest. I specifically said that I understood that correlation and causation aren't <em>necessarily</em> related, in an attempt to make clear that much further serious study would be needed to make any serious results out of this. But I have worked in various research labs for a number of years, and as Ozy said often the first step of a set of real experiments is noticing some correlation. Obviously, that's only step one, and figuring out hypothesis, valid experiments, etc all must come after and be done well to get useful information. But the motivation must start somewhere, even if it doesn't pan out (and there isn't anything wrong with that). People who simply put down the possibility deny future investigation, and that is not the same thing as being neutral about the subject. I find your presumption of my goals and motivations from such a limited context gross and offensive sir.

 

[Acidtech]

I believe it goes "The simplest answer is ussually the correct one". Don't remember whos maxim that is but I think it applies here. So we have two possibilites before us. Broadband some how is creating new jobs or Broadband use increased because an area has more jobs(eg: more people with money). Which do you think is the simpler explanation?

 

[erwos]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by xoa:<BR>I find your presumption of my goals and motivations from such a limited context gross and offensive sir. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>_That_ offended you? You gotta get some thicker skin, man. "I worked in a lab" doesn't impress me much, either - I used to do R&D over at NASA on novel guidance systems in a lab, too. I also did more than my fair share of statistics (econometrics) back in school, too.<BR><BR>I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but you didn't provide very much context for what you said. It was an honest misunderstanding, but that misunderstanding also gave me a chance to illustrate my point. It wasn't meant as a personal attack on you. I'd have to care what you think before I bothered with one of those.<BR><BR>Do you need correlation before proving causation? Duh, of course. But this is a case where that causation hasn't been proven, and the correlation itself was released in order to confuse the public and policymakers into funding more broadband growth. That's a gross misuse of statistics, and we don't need people justifying it. Bad science, bad statistics - two things we need less of, IMHO, and we should spend less time excusing them and more time attacking them.<BR><BR>I was only trying to warn the "universal broadband for everyone" crowd on Ars to avoid using this as justification for their pre-held positions. That is all.

 

[xoa]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by erwos:<BR>I'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but you didn't provide very much context for what you said.<BR>[...]<BR>I was only trying to warn the "universal broadband for everyone" crowd on Ars to avoid using this as justification for their pre-held positions. That is all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>Fair enough. I too apologize if my response was in turn too harsh. I certainly admit that my first post was very short and didn't go into much detail. I do agree with you that this study isn't any sort of justification for anything, it merely might point to an area that deserves more study. In some ways perhaps our goals were somewhat the same, in spirit? You wanted to give a perfectly fair warning to the "universal broadband for everyone crowd", but in the same way I wanted to address the "anti-universal broadband for everyone" crowd. Thank you for your reply at any rate.

 

[CARLINI]

Job creation is obvious and I have been talking about this for almost two years now. Simply put, economic development equals broadband connectivity and broadband connectivity equals jobs. And in next year's elections - jobs equal votes.<BR><BR>Broadband connectivity is a MUST HAVE for corporate site selections. It is one of the top criteria and if it is not there, they simply move on to another geographic location.<BR><BR>There are many examples of this where having the right network infrastructure translates into winning a data center or other corporate facility that creates new jobs in an area.