Good news: "We can stop panicking. Things are generally getting better." That's the word from Danish political scientist Bjørn Lomborg, best known for his efforts to counter global-warmist hysteria (though he himself insists that "climate change is real and man-made"). He has a new "scorecard" out based on 21 economists' studies of "10 of the world's most bedeviling problems" from 1900 through last year and projecting ahead to 2050. The trend lines on all are favorable or flat.

One of them, though, is a bit of a head-scratcher, "6. Gender Equality." Here's Lomborg's explanation:

In 2012, women's lower salaries and exclusion from the workplace cost the global economy 7 percent of GDP, the difference between boom and bust. How did we get that figure? We looked at how much more women could have contributed to GDP if they had worked as much as men and with the same pay. Today, women earn only 60 percent as much as men and make up just 40 percent of the workforce--a significant improvement from 15 percent in 1900, but still a ways off from gender parity. Even by 2050 the gender ratio will not yet be even, and women will still earn 30 percent less than men.

Our research acknowledges that these gender dynamics may stem in part from personal choices rather than discrimination. The losses in 1900 from lack of gender inequality were a substantial 17 percent of GDP. Today, the loss is a much lower, though still substantial, 7 percent of global GDP. Projecting forward to 2050, realistic estimates suggest a 4 percent loss to the world economy.

The trouble is that "parity" is a zero-sum measure that doesn't necessarily indicate progress or economic growth. Subtract women's earnings from men's, and the smaller the number, the closer an economy is to "parity." The reductio ad absurdum helps illuminate the problem: If there were no economic activity whatsoever, the formula would yield 0-0=0. Perfect parity!

Bjørn Lomborg Associated Press

In the real world, an economy in which men outearn women can come closer to parity in two ways: through rising female earnings and through declining male earnings. If parity is a desirable outcome in and of itself, we should stop hectoring young men to "man up," stop playing videogames, and follow the example of their industrious female counterparts. The lads are doing their part to promote gender equality!

Joyce Jacobsen, the Wesleyan University economist who conducted the "Gender Inequality" study for Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus on Human Challenges, acknowledges that women's rising earnings and men's falling ones tend to move in tandem: "As women's participation rise in the work force, men tend to work less, often starting work later in their lifespan and retiring earlier." But her methodology does not account for that. Instead, it simply takes male earnings for granted and counts the earnings difference between the sexes as an economic "loss."

That's problematic for another reason: It assumes that in a society with more traditional sex roles, women contribute nothing of value. Gross domestic product measures only commercial work, not unpaid domestic (in the sense of household) work. It doesn't capture the reality that a traditional marriage--or, for that matter, its reverse, a union between a working woman and a "house husband"--is an economic unit to which the homemaking spouse makes a vital contribution.

As we've noted, Scandinavian countries have promoted "gender equality" by employing armies of child-care workers, most of them female. That is, they get paid to take care of other women's children. That counts toward the GDP figures, whereas it does not when mothers care for their own children at home. It's not immediately obvious that the Scandinavian way leaves society as a whole better off.

Another Atlantic piece touches on the point about household work, though its author, Jordan Weissmann, doesn't quite seem to realize it. He quotes from a 1992 Social Security Administration report that explained the origin of the federal poverty line, which was established in 1963 and is based largely on food prices:

When the hypothetical family cut back its food expenditures to the point where they equaled the cost of the economy food plan (or the low cost food plan) for a family of that size, the family would have reached the point at which its food expenditures were minimal but adequate, assuming that "the housewife will be a careful shopper, a skillful cook, and a good manager who will prepare all the family's meals at home."

Weissmann's purpose is merely to scoff at that assumption as "outdated," which it surely is. But another way of looking at it is that today's typical household is effectively poorer, given the same income, for lacking the contribution of "a careful shopper, a skillful cook, and a good manager"--notwithstanding that such a contribution did not count toward the GDP.

Jacobsen writes that "the attempt to calculate an estimate of the world's losses due to gender inequality provides the opportunity to conduct a fascinating what-if exercise into how a gender-neutral world might look." But absent "Brave New World"-style reproductive technology, "a gender-neutral world" would eventually look like our reductio ad absurdum above. If women behaved in every respect like men, they would not have babies and humanity would eventually die off.

Or, to put it more modestly: "If women had been working more in paid labor in 1900, the world might well have begun demographic transition down to replacement-level birthrates much sooner (since we know that higher rates of female labor force participation in the formal sector are strongly related to smaller family sizes)." That's Jacobsen, acknowledging another limitation of her methodology: It ignores the effect of higher female labor-force participation on fertility.

The replacement-level birthrate--the number of children the average woman must bear in her lifetime to keep the population constant--is understood to be 2.1. There is no reason to think that the "demographic transition" will stop when the birthrate has declined to that level, and many industrialized countries already have birthrates well below replacement. That has serious implications for long-term economic growth. A child born today will be 36 in 2050. If a woman today forgoes motherhood for paid employment, the prospective workforce in 2050 will be smaller than it otherwise would be--and so will the GDP.

None of this is to suggest that rigid sex roles are the key to prosperity; if that were the case, the Taliban would have made Afghanistan wealthy. But it is also a mistake to think, as Lomborg and Jacobsen seem to, that the optimum level of "gender inequality" is zero. In the abstract preceding her study, Jacobsen explains her central assumption: "The main cost [of inequality] is considered to be the inefficient underutilization of women in production." Women's "utilization" in "production" is far from a sufficient measure of their contribution to the human enterprise.

Selective Tolerance

"Bringing new attention to harsh punishments in schools, federal officials Wednesday urged educators across the country to move away from practices that suspend students for minor infractions and disproportionately affect minorities," the Washington Post reports:

"The need to rethink and redesign school discipline practices is frankly long overdue," said Education Secretary Arne Duncan, speaking in Baltimore alongside Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. as the two leaders unveiled what were described as the first national guidelines on school discipline. . . .

"Too often, so-called zero-tolerance policies, however well intentioned they might be, make students feel unwelcome in their own schools; they disrupt the learning process," Holder said. "And they can have significant and lasting negative effects on the long-term well-being of our young people, increasing their likelihood of future contact with the juvenile and criminal justice systems."

This column has been chronicling the absurdity of zero-tolerance policies for years, so we sympathize with the thrust of the Holder-Duncan effort. But we're skeptical that federal guidelines are a good idea. One reason is that these guidelines actually aren't the first: The Department of Education mandates that all schools--elementary, secondary and higher--police sexual conduct between students, even off campus.

Among the results, as we've noted, are college kangaroo courts that expel male students on bogus assault charges and accusations of "sexual harassment" against small boys--all in the name of making female students feel "safe."

We'd be more comfortable with guidelines from Washington if there were any reason to think the federal government were concerned with sensible and just policies, as opposed to policies designed to make favored identity groups happy.

Nobody Goes There Anymore, It's So Crowded

"Although smoking is becoming less popular in many parts of the world, the total number of smokers is growing, global figures reveal."--BBC website, Jan. 7

Worst Appeals to Authority

"The increasing risk of extreme weather events due to climate change has been acknowledged by President Obama."--Mary Robinson (former Irish president), Puffington Host, Jan. 9

Metaphor Alert

"Dan Demeritt, [Maine Gov. Paul] LePage's former communications director, agrees with that assessment. 'LePage seems like the kind of guy who will poke the establishment in the eye, bite the hand that feeds him and refuse to carry water for anybody,' he says. 'That's created a very stable core underneath him, but also a hard ceiling in terms of the political support he can rally.' "--Politico magazine, Jan. 8

Fox Butterfield, Is That You?

"The White House has been notoriously silent despite its apparent involvement in unfairly targeting 501(c)(4)s and other political civic action committees aligned with the Tea Party."--Frances Martel, Breitbart.com, Jan. 8

"RPT-Despite Recovery, Fiscal Restraint Urged in California Budget Plan"--headline, Reuters, Jan. 9

"Marijuana Rationing Begins in Colorado, Big Demand in Spite of High Prices"--headline, TheStreet.com, Jan. 9

Out on a Limb

"Will 'Bridgegate' Damage Christie? Maybe."--headline, Commentary website, Jan. 8

We Blame George W. Bush

"Unreal: Obama Administration Blames Record Cold on Global Warming"--headline, GatewayPundit.com, Jan. 8

"Weather Blamed for Erie Casino's December Slot-Machine Revenue Decrease"--headline, Erie (Pa.) Times-News, Jan. 9

We Blame Global Warming

"J. Crew's Bridal Jumpsuit Is the Hottest New Wedding Trend of 2014"--headline, StyleList.com, Jan. 8

Generalissimo Francisco Franco Is Still Dead

"Chris Christie Still Faces Crisis of Confidence"--headline, NationalJournal.com, Jan. 9

A Simple Plan

"The Best Solution to High Unemployment? Keep Companies From Laying Off Workers"--headline, NationalJournal.com, Jan. 9

Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo

"Carville: Less Washington, More Buffalo"--headline, TheHill.com, Jan. 8

Life Imitates the Onion

"Destiny's Child Referred To as 'Feminist Icons' With Straight Face"--headline, Onion, May 30, 2001

"Michelle Obama and Beyoncé: Friends and Feminists?"--headline, Washington Post, Jan. 8, 2014

We Shall Overcome

"Ancient Sea Monsters Were Black, Study Finds"--headline, LiveScience.com, Jan. 8

'Does This Look Like "Gun" or "Gub"?'

"Alleged Bank Robbery Foiled When Teller Can't Read Holdup Note"--headline, Breitbart.com, Jan. 8

Because Mum's the Word

"Why We Can't Talk About Breastfeeding"--headline, Guardian (London), Jan. 8

First Thing Tomorrow, We Promise

"To Stop Procrastinating, Look to Science of Mood Repair"--headline, The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 8

Hey, Kids! What Time Is It?

"Maybe It's Time to Find a New Word for 'Reform' "--headline, Puffington Host, Jan. 8

Answers to Questions Nobody Is Asking

"Trademark Office Says No to 'Redskins Hog Rinds' "--headline, Associated Press, Jan. 8

" 'Of Course Fracking Doesn't Cause Your Sex to Change' Writes Jane Delingpole"--headline, Daily Telegraph website (London), Jan. 9

Question and Answer--I

"Why Sonia Sotomayor Doesn't Wear Dentures"--headline, Washington Post, Jan. 9

"Carb-Loading Rotted Ancient Hunter-Gatherers' Teeth, Study Says"--headline, NBCNews.com, Jan. 6

Question and Answer--II

"Is the World Gonna End in 2014?"--headline, Jewish Daily Forward, Jan. 10 issue

"Antisocial Behaviour Bill Is Not the End of the World"--headline, Guardian (London), Jan. 8

Look Out Below!

"Bridge-Spat Emails Pose Questions for Christie"--headline, The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 9

It's Always in the Last Place You Look

"Cuomo Searches for a New Political Center in the Post–De Blasio World"--headline, New York magazine website, Jan. 8

Breaking News From 2009

"Great News for Obamacare: Americans Are Bored With It"--headline, Washington Post website, Jan. 8

News You Can Use

"Video: How to Freeze--and Defrost--a Frog"--headline, ScienceMag.com, Jan. 8

Bottom Story of the Day

"Obama Picks His First Asian American Deputy Secretary of Cabinet Department"--headline, Washington Post website, Jan. 8

Demencia Fria

"The most severe cold snap in the U.S. in 20 years . . . has some people questioning whether the Earth's climate is in fact warming," reports National Geographic News:

But climate scientists say the weather does not invalidate prevailing climate models, and one says that reactions to this week's polar vortex suggest that "people have forgotten what cold is like."

The story never names the source of that quote, but it does remind those of us who've been suffering through temperatures as low as 6 degrees that it could be worse:

Over the past few days, some parts of the Midwest dipped to nearly -40°F (-40°C)--with windchill, -60°F (-51°)--and states as far south as Alabama and Georgia experienced colder temperatures than they've had in years.

If people have forgotten what cold is like, they have a serious impairment of short-term memory.

Follow @jamestaranto on Twitter.

Join Fans of Best of the Web Today on Facebook.

Subscribe to the Best of the Web Today email with one click.

Click here to view or search the Best of the Web Today archives.

(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Eric Jensen, Jared Silverman, Dan Schwartz, Pat Rowe, Jim Bell, Rod Pennington, Matthew Reiff, Tim Clark, Steve Tuso, Bruce Goldman, Chris Wenk, Ethel Fenig, Rebecca Billings, Irene DeBlasio, John Williamson, John Schoenecker, Rick Wiesehan, Joe Bacon, Zack Russ, Tristan Pinnock, Mark Zoeller, Michele Schiesser, Michelle Schoolcraft, Miguel Rakiewicz, Daniel Mullen and Kevin Howley. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)