I'm in Canada

For only the second time, I'm in Canada ... this time in Edmonton (the first was Quebec City at the fish meetings a few years ago) for an all work, sports economics-style (with Bruce Johnson, see below), no play adventure.

Some travel notes (feel free to compare to I'm in Alaska):

1. WiFi in the Greensboro airport (PTI) is $6.95, and it works. In O'Hare, $6.95 gets you 11 Mbps, and that doesn't work.
2. Free WiFi in the hotel next to the UofA campus. It's a business suite so don't tell me the story about business-hotel-for-pay-WiFi makes good economic sense to separate business travelers with lower elasticities, etc. Sometimes it makes sense for a business firm to price a freebie at zero marginal cost for the sake of goodwill, right?. When we get to come back next year [!], I'm asking for the same hotel.
3. On the plane from Chicago to Edmonton I'm in the back row by myself. My seat won't recline but I can stretch out and my computer bag isn't on my feet. So the flight attendant comes back to check the luggage before takeoff and notices that my back is inserted vertically instead of horizontally, protruded about 2 inches from under the seat. "Oh" she says (paraphrasing), "you'll need to put that bag in better. If there is an emergency you might trip and fall trying to get out. Chances are you'll get trampled." I did as I was told, while wondering what the chances were of getting trampled from the back row. 

Here's some sports econ from Reasononline (Sense on Stadiums):

A sports team can always hire consultants to claim that if only the city or state would help them build a new stadium, there would be a multi-million dollar payoff in tax revenues, jobs, and other public goods. Independent economists, on the other hand, have generally found such projects to be more boondoggle than home run.

According to a recent study by the economists Bruce K. Johnson of Centre College in Kentucky, Michael J. Mondello of Florida State University, and John C. Whitehead of Appalachian State University, the public recognizes this as well. The researchers used the “contingent valuation method,” which surveys people to estimate economic values for things they aren’t directly buying themselves. Many economists argue that this method often overstates people’s willingness to pay for public goods such as sports team spillovers. Yet the study discovered in the case of Jacksonville’s Jaguars—won by the Florida city at the cost of at least $121 million in stadium renovations—that the locals value the presence of the team and the alleged public goods it generates at only $25 million.

Other economists have conducted similar studies of hockey in Pittsburgh and football in Minnesota, and found similar gaps between what governments are willing to spend on the people’s behalf and what people would really want to pay to gain or keep a pro team. Some cities seem to be following this sentiment and rejecting subsidized stadiums: Both the St. Louis Cardinals and the New York Jets have recently failed to get the public funds they demanded. 

I never imagined I'd be in Reason.

Dual posted on Hypothetical Bias.

A sports team can always hire consultants to claim that if only the city or state would help them build a new stadium, there would be a multi-million dollar payoff in tax revenues, jobs, and other public goods. Independent economists, on the other hand, have generally found such projects to be more boondoggle than home run.

According to a recent study by the economists Bruce K. Johnson of Centre College in Kentucky, Michael J. Mondello of Florida State University, and John C. Whitehead of Appalachian State University, the public recognizes this as well. The researchers used the “contingent valuation method,” which surveys people to estimate economic values for things they aren’t directly buying themselves. Many economists argue that this method often overstates people’s willingness to pay for public goods such as sports team spillovers. Yet the study discovered in the case of Jacksonville’s Jaguars—won by the Florida city at the cost of at least $121 million in stadium renovations—that the locals value the presence of the team and the alleged public goods it generates at only $25 million.

Other economists have conducted similar studies of hockey in Pittsburgh and football in Minnesota, and found similar gaps between what governments are willing to spend on the people’s behalf and what people would really want to pay to gain or keep a pro team. Some cities seem to be following this sentiment and rejecting subsidized stadiums: Both the St. Louis Cardinals and the New York Jets have recently failed to get the public funds they demanded. 

I never imagined I'd be in Reason.

Dual posted on Hypothetical Bias.