Coal: Mining for Truth

I have mixed feelings about the purported war on coal.  I grew up in eastern Kentucky, and my father was an underground miner for over 30 years.  The coal industry is responsible for feeding and clothing me as a kid.  However, I'm also acutely aware of the environmental impact the industry has had on the region -- especially via mountain-top removal mining, or strip-mining.  Although the coal industry provides some of the best paying jobs in the region, the industry has a long history of profiting at the expense of the region's inhabitants.

I don't support the whole "Friends of Coal" movement.  I really don't care about coal, but I do care about hard working men and women who rely on coal jobs. I worry about regions that rely heavily on the coal industry for jobs.  I worry how those regions will adapt to inevitable changes in the energy industry.   

Leading up to the recent presidential election, I saw lots of vitriol directed at Obama regarding coal.  I saw posts on facebook that Obama was bad for coal and that he hated coal miners (see examples below). 

Given the mixed feelings that I have, I decided to do a little mining of my own to see if Obama really has been as bad for coal as his opponents have claimed.  I reviewed the Annual Coal Report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration for 2009, 2010, and 2011.  I wanted to see what has happened to coal mines, production, and jobs since Obama took office.  I also looked at data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for trends in wages in the coal industry. 

As you can see in the graph below, both coal production and the number of operating mines have decreased since Obama took office.  However, mining jobs have actually increased both nationally and in the Appalachian region.  Eastern Kentucky, though, has seen significant decreases in mining jobs, as well as more drastic reductions in productions and mining operations.

In the three graphs below, I broke the above data into yearly changes.  Although there have been net decreases in coal production and number of operating mines, production and mines have actually seen increases nationally between 2010 and 2011.  Again, however, you can see that eastern Kentucky has suffered more severe decreases and smaller increases than Appalachia or the nation.

 

Finally, the graph below shows changes in average annual salaries in the coal mining industry since Obama took office.  Here, I have presented averages for the nation, for the entire state, and for a selected county in eastern Kentucky.  I chose Perry County because of it's rich coal history and because that's where my father worked in the mines.  Unlike other trends, Kentucky and Perry County saw greater than average increases in wages since Obama took office.  However, mining wages in Kentucky and Perry County still lag behind the national average.

Based on the actual numbers, I don't think anyone can honestly claim that Obama has wreaked havoc on miners.  Despite decreases in productivity and mining operations, the number of miners in the U.S. has actually increased since Obama was first elected.  I think the real question for both our government leaders and for coal companies is this:  Why has eastern Kentucky suffered more decreases in coal production and employment than Appalachia and the nation?


I can't help but wonder if the data in the graph below has something to do with eastern Kentucky's negative mining trend.

Stop whining and pay your taxes

I know I've mentioned this before, but can we finally stop demonizing poor people? 

Although the election is over, the rants about our entitlement culture are still raging.  But here's a simple fact:  All Americans - regardless of social class, race, gender, or age - have a sense of entitlement.  It's part of being American.  It's also part of living in a relatively affluent country.  We all benefit from the multitude of things provided by our government - federal, state, and local.  Whether it's food stamps, public schools, libraries, or roads and bridges, we all benefit.  And every disparate group of us wants to keep benefiting in whatever ways we've become accustomed to benefiting.

For some reason, though, many folks like to place their collective ire on poor people, who they label as entitled, undeserving, and greedily sucking from the government teat.  Being naturally curious, I wanted to now how much income goes to fund programs for the poor.    

If you're curious like me, check out this Federal Taxpayer Receipt application.  Since my illegally-wed wife and I can't file joint tax returns, I entered our tax information separately then added our individual tax contributions to get our household totals.  In 2011, my spouse and I paid a total of $17,543 in federal income and payroll taxes.  Fortunately for me, I like paying taxes, because I like most of things my taxes provide to me and my fellow Americans.  I don't like everything my tax dollars support, but that's just part of the compromise required for our social contract.   Still, the nifty thing about the taxpayer receipt is that it shows you how much of your income and payroll taxes go to various programs. 

To put my tax dollars in context, I compared them to two areas of discretionary personal spending in my household -- cable TV and Indian food - to see if I'm really over-taxed.  I looked at all areas of national defense spending, and I looked at programs I think most folks would consider "welfare" programs (TANF, SSI, food stamps, WIC, unemployment benefits, and Medicaid).  

In this first chart, you can see that more of my household's hard-earned money went to national defense programs than to welfare programs or to tasty Indian food and cable. 

In the second chart, I've broken things down more. 

 
In 2011, my spouse and I spent $1,257.89 on food at our favorite Indian restaurants.  Comparatively, only $429.46 of our federal income taxes went to support various food assistance programs (food stamps, WIC, and school lunch programs).  Let me help you with that math:  we spent nearly 3 times as much on curry as we contributed to food for the poorest inhabitants of our great country.  Additionally, we spent nearly 15 times as much on cable TV as we contributed to the temporary assistance for needy families (TANF) program. 

I'm an atheist, but even I think it would be immoral of me to complain about my tax dollars funding social safety net programs when my household has the discretionary income to spend $200 a month on curry and cable.  I could not possibly feel good about my life if I begrudged the least among us access to basic needs like food and shelter. 

So, if you have the good fortune to spend money on things that you want instead of just on things that you need, I have this to say to you:  Stop whining and pay your taxes!