#211: Teaching, Erecting, Farming
..............
First, we'll link to and describe three plans put forth by Democratic presidential candidates, then we'll assess.
Sen. Kamala Harris: raising teacher salaries (link)
Professional educators make less than other credentialed college graduates. On average $13,500 less.
Harris proposes that the federal government cover that gap by matching state teacher pay increases, 3-to-1, until the gap closes. Additional funding would go to teacher training and recruitment, especially in under-privileged communities.
Harris has received generally positive press, as this would address a problem (inadequate school funding) that is hard to tackle on a local level since many schools receive most of their funding from local property taxes, so poor communities have been out of luck.
Everyone knows a teacher, and teachers are a well-organized, large voting block, so this makes sense politically, as well.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar: infrastructure (link)
Amy (get used to it) recently posted her plan, whose graphics include an energetic-looking Klobuchar, in purple, above the rebuilt freeway bridge crossing the Mississippi, in her home state, Minnesota; a bridge that famously collapsed in 2007. A perfect metaphor: purple will fix it.
She proposes a trillion dollar package that would rebuild schools, ports, roads and mass transit, as well as connecting all Americans with broadband by 2022. A third of the money would be raised using a public/private fund, initially capitalized by the feds with just $25 billion.
This makes sense for her, in that it reminds us of what Trump could have done if he'd negotiated with Democrats in a bi-partisan manner. It's also a smart, non-threatening way to arrive at a Green New Deal's first step without calling it that. Retro-fits of existing buildings, code upgrades, a smart electric grid, incentives for renewable build out, etc., all resulting in good paying new jobs.
Sen Elizabeth Warren: family farms (link)
The depopulating of our nation's countryside is arguably the result of a 'get-big-or-get-out' farm policy that has unfolded over the past 70+ years. With larger farms, population plummets, towns wither away, and wealth escapes to larger urban centers. Meanwhile, corporate agriculture has become ever more adept at squeezing the profit out of farming. Much of this is done when a community has only one buyer/seller for inputs/outputs.
This monopolizing of commerce is the focus for Warren's call to break up monopolies. A recent article in the Washington Monthly by Claire Kelloway (link), lays out the case in much greater detail.
A good first step for a candidate about to visit a farm state. I say 'first step' because the truly effective, but radical, approach would be to address farm size, bringing people back to the heartland, and so creating a newly enlarged rural economy.
Contrasting Approaches
In all three cases, the approach the candidate takes gives us a feel for governing style.
Harris: address inequality and education in a popular manner. Think outside the box.
Klobuchar: dress up a progressive first step in purple bi-partisanship.
Warren: shake a fist at bloated corporate over-reach.
Which is the more likely?
Harris: Would bring out the Democratic base; but, would energize Republicans, too.
Klobuchar: Would capture independents, and is likely the best bet to actually win.
Warren: Would roll the dice on major change. A win would be most satisfying.
............................................
Late addition:
Cory Booker: Steps To Wealth Equalization
Do we want to do something about poor kids getting a real chance? If so, here it is. Booker proposes a bank account created at each poor child's birth, and added to each year until the child reaches maturity. Simple. And because it's not specifically targeted at one racial group (reparations), it's way more likely to make it through congress as a result. But, there's the price tag of course.
Sunday, March 31, 2019
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Why Does Modernity Lead To A Declining Birth Rate?
#210: We Take A Closer Look
.......................
We'll examine several factors, ranking them from least to most important. Our overall answer will be a combination platter, with surprising and profound implications for our future.
#6: Less sex, as 'getting it on' becomes a choice.
If sex is a duty, a male privilege, or in some other way decoupled from choice, regimentation means repetition, and thus more chance for conception. On a very basic level, choosing means two green lights are needed, rather than only one.
(Note: effective birth control arrived after a precipitous decline in the US birth rate.)
#5: Social norms that frown on 'singles' have disappeared.
In a village, say, with strong social conformity, even the most likely-to-be bachelors will be introduced to potential mates, usually with guidance from above. Meanwhile, in urban settings, social ties are weaker, and though individuals live in close proximity, the social integration that a more traditional village demands is missing. Decisions involving marriage and having children thus tend to be left up to the individual, which leads to many singles.
#4: Experience from a first child schools parents on just how much drudgery is required.
All babies cry; most parents experience sleeplessness. All children are immature; most parents will, occasionally, be at their wits end. Teens are inherently volatile; most parents, from time to time, feel overwhelmed. With the decline of social norms, the refrain is often 'enough of that....'
#3: We're an anthill writ large, and we can sense our world's advice: moderation.
Modern science tests for universal truths, but it has difficulty understanding the world's interconnectivity. Dreams, art, religious experience, even the natural world, can all clue us in to a necessary sustainability; that is, a doubling population over several decades will set off alarm bells. And the more educated we are, the more we hear about over-crowding, habitat destruction, unmet needs, and the conflict over scarce resources. Perhaps even the exposure to urban life itself tends to dissuade some.
#2: The financial costs that children represent are obvious and scary.
Not only does modernity require advanced parenting skills (humane treatment can otherwise lead to discipline problems), but parents must also be financially able. It's assumed that parents will express love for their offspring by buying them minimum comforts, and ideally maximum 'happiness'. The average cost in the US for years 0-18 is about $300,000, accounting for inflation. For a couple earning a combined $90,000 a year, that's about 15% of gross income. For a single parent earning a modest $40,000, a single child would eat up a shocking 30+%.
#1: Numbers don't lie; fewer people mean bigger slices of a common pie.
Sure, children are financial burdens, but...., there's more (actually, less). We intuitively learn that large families aren't as easily managed, and divided attention means less of it, as parents can't be in two places at once. Modernity has meant that we are individuals in addition to being members of groups. We know what adoring attention and specialized coaching can do for a child, because we've all been children.
And, in a broader context, we likely have a natural bias against adding more people. That's because further dividing land, for example, means less to support the wildlife we appreciate, less that's 'ours' to visit, and less to admire in its natural state. Why would we desire less of what's ours, all else being equal?
The answer, then, to our question, Why the birth rate decline for modern societies? is a combination of the above factors, each a little more important as one counts down.
And what's so surprising and profound in all this?
We usually read about the declining birth rate as it pertains to overall social balance (that link is to Trent MacNamara in the Atlantic). The argument is usually:
A. If we only have this many bread winners, who pays for all the retirees?
thus
B. We should be encouraging parents to have more children by increasing the Child Tax Credit.
Except that if our six factors, above, are correctly arranged, addressing '#2', alone, through the Child Tax Credit, won't make that much of a difference. $2,000 extra per year, for example, is only about $40,000, against that $300,000 per child 19-year burden. Given all the other factors, that isn't much of a difference.
Plus, there's a reason why we may not need additional workers. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robots have, since 1997 (link to a Kevin Drum post at Mother Jones) gradually replaced workers, especially in manufacturing. There's likely to be more of the same in the years ahead. If anything, we may have too many workers for the jobs available.
Another reason is prolonged life. Though average life expectancy has recently declined a bit here in the US, this is almost certainly due to income inequality and its depressing manifestations. In general, our lives have become longer and longer as miracle drugs treat ailments that in the past sent us to our graves. And though proponents of government initiatives to reverse the birth dearth think this makes their case, they are forgetting the many other factors on our list, above, including the sense that we as a species may be overextended.
So, if humans sense that their own species is too numerous, that we're degrading the world's environment as a result, and, besides...hey, we really don't want to have that many babies anyway, we really have only two ways forward:
*Live with it. We'll be fine. Spread wealth more evenly, remove impediments to success like racism, sexism, and lack of education, and we won't need as big a safety net. Promote strong ties with our friends abroad, make new friends, and we won't need as big a military. And, be frugal.
*Add younger immigrants who'll help balance the number of workers per retiree. This is the obvious answer. But currently, we don't encourage young people; we admit the parents of recent immigrants just as readily as we admit young refugees.
The overall mix of these two solutions is up for debate (here is David Frum in the Atlantic with advice about who we encourage to immigrate and why). The future is likely a fascinating combination. What's unlikely is for modern humans, on average, to want all that many kids.
.......................
We'll examine several factors, ranking them from least to most important. Our overall answer will be a combination platter, with surprising and profound implications for our future.
#6: Less sex, as 'getting it on' becomes a choice.
If sex is a duty, a male privilege, or in some other way decoupled from choice, regimentation means repetition, and thus more chance for conception. On a very basic level, choosing means two green lights are needed, rather than only one.
(Note: effective birth control arrived after a precipitous decline in the US birth rate.)
#5: Social norms that frown on 'singles' have disappeared.
In a village, say, with strong social conformity, even the most likely-to-be bachelors will be introduced to potential mates, usually with guidance from above. Meanwhile, in urban settings, social ties are weaker, and though individuals live in close proximity, the social integration that a more traditional village demands is missing. Decisions involving marriage and having children thus tend to be left up to the individual, which leads to many singles.
#4: Experience from a first child schools parents on just how much drudgery is required.
All babies cry; most parents experience sleeplessness. All children are immature; most parents will, occasionally, be at their wits end. Teens are inherently volatile; most parents, from time to time, feel overwhelmed. With the decline of social norms, the refrain is often 'enough of that....'
#3: We're an anthill writ large, and we can sense our world's advice: moderation.
Modern science tests for universal truths, but it has difficulty understanding the world's interconnectivity. Dreams, art, religious experience, even the natural world, can all clue us in to a necessary sustainability; that is, a doubling population over several decades will set off alarm bells. And the more educated we are, the more we hear about over-crowding, habitat destruction, unmet needs, and the conflict over scarce resources. Perhaps even the exposure to urban life itself tends to dissuade some.
#2: The financial costs that children represent are obvious and scary.
Not only does modernity require advanced parenting skills (humane treatment can otherwise lead to discipline problems), but parents must also be financially able. It's assumed that parents will express love for their offspring by buying them minimum comforts, and ideally maximum 'happiness'. The average cost in the US for years 0-18 is about $300,000, accounting for inflation. For a couple earning a combined $90,000 a year, that's about 15% of gross income. For a single parent earning a modest $40,000, a single child would eat up a shocking 30+%.
#1: Numbers don't lie; fewer people mean bigger slices of a common pie.
Sure, children are financial burdens, but...., there's more (actually, less). We intuitively learn that large families aren't as easily managed, and divided attention means less of it, as parents can't be in two places at once. Modernity has meant that we are individuals in addition to being members of groups. We know what adoring attention and specialized coaching can do for a child, because we've all been children.
And, in a broader context, we likely have a natural bias against adding more people. That's because further dividing land, for example, means less to support the wildlife we appreciate, less that's 'ours' to visit, and less to admire in its natural state. Why would we desire less of what's ours, all else being equal?
The answer, then, to our question, Why the birth rate decline for modern societies? is a combination of the above factors, each a little more important as one counts down.
And what's so surprising and profound in all this?
We usually read about the declining birth rate as it pertains to overall social balance (that link is to Trent MacNamara in the Atlantic). The argument is usually:
A. If we only have this many bread winners, who pays for all the retirees?
thus
B. We should be encouraging parents to have more children by increasing the Child Tax Credit.
Except that if our six factors, above, are correctly arranged, addressing '#2', alone, through the Child Tax Credit, won't make that much of a difference. $2,000 extra per year, for example, is only about $40,000, against that $300,000 per child 19-year burden. Given all the other factors, that isn't much of a difference.
Plus, there's a reason why we may not need additional workers. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and robots have, since 1997 (link to a Kevin Drum post at Mother Jones) gradually replaced workers, especially in manufacturing. There's likely to be more of the same in the years ahead. If anything, we may have too many workers for the jobs available.
Another reason is prolonged life. Though average life expectancy has recently declined a bit here in the US, this is almost certainly due to income inequality and its depressing manifestations. In general, our lives have become longer and longer as miracle drugs treat ailments that in the past sent us to our graves. And though proponents of government initiatives to reverse the birth dearth think this makes their case, they are forgetting the many other factors on our list, above, including the sense that we as a species may be overextended.
So, if humans sense that their own species is too numerous, that we're degrading the world's environment as a result, and, besides...hey, we really don't want to have that many babies anyway, we really have only two ways forward:
*Live with it. We'll be fine. Spread wealth more evenly, remove impediments to success like racism, sexism, and lack of education, and we won't need as big a safety net. Promote strong ties with our friends abroad, make new friends, and we won't need as big a military. And, be frugal.
*Add younger immigrants who'll help balance the number of workers per retiree. This is the obvious answer. But currently, we don't encourage young people; we admit the parents of recent immigrants just as readily as we admit young refugees.
The overall mix of these two solutions is up for debate (here is David Frum in the Atlantic with advice about who we encourage to immigrate and why). The future is likely a fascinating combination. What's unlikely is for modern humans, on average, to want all that many kids.
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
The Boondoggle Dollar Dodge --> Our DoD Pot of Gold
#209: It's Serious Money
....................
Rolling Stone magazine has published a shocking article, by Matt Taibbi, that describes the many failed attempts to economize at the Department of Defense (DoD). Not only have ice cube trays been purchased at more than twenty times their everyday cost, but all attempts to count what is spent at the DoD are quashed by foot-dragging and the throwing up of hands. Why? Because contractors, the people who own those companies, and the congress-critters who rake in campaign donations from those corporations, are all feeding at the trough.
The article suggests that despite 35 years of congressional attempts at a DoD financial audit, it'll never happen, at least not until the link between campaign contributions, congressional sleazebags, and unaccounted-for-spending is broken.
Unless..., possibly, there's another way we might fix the problem.
Here are two ideas that, along with a 2020 change in Senate control, might be enough to make a difference. They both involve a long-term effort that plugs the electorate into the decision making process using the internet.
1. Tell Congress What You Think. Using modern polling techniques, determine what constituents in a given congressional district want from their leaders. Generate enough online feedback by randomly awarding $1,000 each, in US Savings Bonds, to 100 participants, every month, in all 435 congressional districts. This would cost about $750 million a year (including money for US Representative online outreach, and for the hiring of polling firms). Then, once in place, increase the amount awarded, paying for it by reducing DoD waste. The more awarded, the greater the urge to opine about tightening the loose spending spigot. The result is a virtuous cycle that ratchets down waste. Link.
2. Add-To-Cart At The IRS. Instead of merely paying one's taxes every year, voters could indicate what government programs they favored, and which they felt should be scaled back. This would serve to cut the link between DoD profiteers and their congressional counterparts. Government waste is a very powerful issue, especially when a toilet seat is being purchased for many times its real cost; the mere threat of exposure would probably clear up a good deal of the corruption and mismanagement. Since the DoD is the only federal agency unable to pass a simple annual audit (what monies are spent for what goods), it would be easy to organize around. Link.
Most experts expect Democrats in 2020 to emphasize corruption as an issue: the appointing of lobbyists and industry executives to run agencies overseeing their employers, for example. A forceful indictment of DoD waste and mismanagement would be a logical addition to what is a profoundly disturbing list.
....................
Rolling Stone magazine has published a shocking article, by Matt Taibbi, that describes the many failed attempts to economize at the Department of Defense (DoD). Not only have ice cube trays been purchased at more than twenty times their everyday cost, but all attempts to count what is spent at the DoD are quashed by foot-dragging and the throwing up of hands. Why? Because contractors, the people who own those companies, and the congress-critters who rake in campaign donations from those corporations, are all feeding at the trough.
The article suggests that despite 35 years of congressional attempts at a DoD financial audit, it'll never happen, at least not until the link between campaign contributions, congressional sleazebags, and unaccounted-for-spending is broken.
Unless..., possibly, there's another way we might fix the problem.
Here are two ideas that, along with a 2020 change in Senate control, might be enough to make a difference. They both involve a long-term effort that plugs the electorate into the decision making process using the internet.
1. Tell Congress What You Think. Using modern polling techniques, determine what constituents in a given congressional district want from their leaders. Generate enough online feedback by randomly awarding $1,000 each, in US Savings Bonds, to 100 participants, every month, in all 435 congressional districts. This would cost about $750 million a year (including money for US Representative online outreach, and for the hiring of polling firms). Then, once in place, increase the amount awarded, paying for it by reducing DoD waste. The more awarded, the greater the urge to opine about tightening the loose spending spigot. The result is a virtuous cycle that ratchets down waste. Link.
2. Add-To-Cart At The IRS. Instead of merely paying one's taxes every year, voters could indicate what government programs they favored, and which they felt should be scaled back. This would serve to cut the link between DoD profiteers and their congressional counterparts. Government waste is a very powerful issue, especially when a toilet seat is being purchased for many times its real cost; the mere threat of exposure would probably clear up a good deal of the corruption and mismanagement. Since the DoD is the only federal agency unable to pass a simple annual audit (what monies are spent for what goods), it would be easy to organize around. Link.
Most experts expect Democrats in 2020 to emphasize corruption as an issue: the appointing of lobbyists and industry executives to run agencies overseeing their employers, for example. A forceful indictment of DoD waste and mismanagement would be a logical addition to what is a profoundly disturbing list.
Saturday, March 23, 2019
In 2020, Who's The Obama Candidate
#208: 2020 Will Be Eerily Similar To 2008
..................
It's only been twelve years since the economy was wobbly and heading for the tank; a sitting Republican president was widely viewed as one of the worst ever; and the Democrats were coming off a resounding victory in the House. Obama's rise successfully tapped into those circumstances.
In hindsight, the Obama candidacy brought several pluses to the 2008 primary season that might be instructive as we view the current field in circumstances not all that different from a dozen years ago.
We'll first list the pluses Obama brought to the table, then assign scores to our current field, seeing who comes closest to an Obama 'reincarnation'.
His pluses:
Barack Obama -- Score: 5.0
* Charisma -- especially when fresh and in good humor
* Comprehensive Issues Understanding -- he might lose some charisma, but he could go deep
* Youthful Athleticism -- I am fresh
* A Breaker Of Barriers -- enough of the white male monotony
* A Feel For Normalcy -- middle class, supportive, Midwestern
If we give each 2020 candidate one point for each 'plus' that's shared, and a fraction (between .1 and .9) for any that come close, we have, in alphabetical order:
Joe Biden 2.0
Charisma: .5 -- he's a gas when he's funny
Understanding: .4 -- he's best at simple messages, but all that experience
Youth: .1 -- he's old, but he's got a bounce in his step
Breaker: .1 -- he was Obama's pick
Normalcy: .9 -- he relates to the average Joe
Cory Booker 4.0
Charisma: .8 -- his enthusiasm runneth over
Understanding: .8 -- thoughtful, though occasionally off the mark
Youth: .9 -- he's four years older than Obama was
Breaker: .7 -- bad luck to be following Obama, but first modern, thoroughly urban president
Normalcy: .8 -- inner city, British education, Wall Street, but so personable
Pete Buttigieg 4.3
Charisma: .8 -- charming
Understanding: .5 -- (I am admittedly unsure here)
Youth: 1.0 -- the youngest contender
Breaker: 1.0 -- the first LGBTQ president
Normalcy: 1.0 -- hails from Indiana, served in military
Kamala Harris 4.2
Charisma: 1.0 -- she wows the crowd
Understanding: .8 -- just a few early errors
Youth: .8 -- dramatic flair
Breaker: 1.0 -- first female president
Normalcy: .6 -- grew up in Canada; but coastal framing
Amy Klobuchar 4.6
Charisma: 1.0 -- feminine charisma it is
Understanding: 1.0 -- knowledgeable, and careful
Youth: .6 -- though not young, she is vigorous, iron willed
Breaker: 1.0 -- first woman president
Normalcy: 1.0 -- middle America personified
Beto O'Rourke 3.8
Charisma: .9 -- a bit frenetic, but riveting
Understanding: .8 -- evolving; in the end could be 1.0
Youth: 1.0 -- Mr. Excitement
Breaker: .4 -- Hispanic nickname, speaks Spanish
Normalcy: .7 -- A younger version of the new normal?
Bernie Sanders 3.2
Charisma: 1.0 -- Takes no guff
Understanding: .7 -- Can be on the far side of the hill
Youth: .3 -- has the energy, but age is unavoidable
Breaker: .8 -- first Jewish president
Normalcy: .4 -- He supports the average working stiff
Elizabeth Warren 3.9
Charisma: .7 -- a female charisma that fights
Understanding: 1.0 -- Leading the way on various issues
Youth: .5 -- has the drive; looks younger than she is
Breaker: 1.0 -- first woman president
Normalcy: .7 -- MidWestern roots, but appeal is intellectual
(These are the top 8 candidates on Rolling Stones' Leader Board. We may update this list as the season unfolds.)
It perhaps goes without saying that the Obama model isn't everything. But it does help to see the candidates at 4.0 and above in a new light (Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Harris, and Booker), with Warren and O'Rourke easily within reach. And as the campaign unfolds, perhaps these numbers will change.
The other way to look at a list like this is to challenge a thumbs up for a candidate like Buttigieg. A mayor-ship of a mid-sized city is obviously unlikely when being considered for the presidency. So, there are obviously other factors in play.
..................
It's only been twelve years since the economy was wobbly and heading for the tank; a sitting Republican president was widely viewed as one of the worst ever; and the Democrats were coming off a resounding victory in the House. Obama's rise successfully tapped into those circumstances.
In hindsight, the Obama candidacy brought several pluses to the 2008 primary season that might be instructive as we view the current field in circumstances not all that different from a dozen years ago.
We'll first list the pluses Obama brought to the table, then assign scores to our current field, seeing who comes closest to an Obama 'reincarnation'.
His pluses:
Barack Obama -- Score: 5.0
* Charisma -- especially when fresh and in good humor
* Comprehensive Issues Understanding -- he might lose some charisma, but he could go deep
* Youthful Athleticism -- I am fresh
* A Breaker Of Barriers -- enough of the white male monotony
* A Feel For Normalcy -- middle class, supportive, Midwestern
If we give each 2020 candidate one point for each 'plus' that's shared, and a fraction (between .1 and .9) for any that come close, we have, in alphabetical order:
Joe Biden 2.0
Charisma: .5 -- he's a gas when he's funny
Understanding: .4 -- he's best at simple messages, but all that experience
Youth: .1 -- he's old, but he's got a bounce in his step
Breaker: .1 -- he was Obama's pick
Normalcy: .9 -- he relates to the average Joe
Cory Booker 4.0
Charisma: .8 -- his enthusiasm runneth over
Understanding: .8 -- thoughtful, though occasionally off the mark
Youth: .9 -- he's four years older than Obama was
Breaker: .7 -- bad luck to be following Obama, but first modern, thoroughly urban president
Normalcy: .8 -- inner city, British education, Wall Street, but so personable
Pete Buttigieg 4.3
Charisma: .8 -- charming
Understanding: .5 -- (I am admittedly unsure here)
Youth: 1.0 -- the youngest contender
Breaker: 1.0 -- the first LGBTQ president
Normalcy: 1.0 -- hails from Indiana, served in military
Kamala Harris 4.2
Charisma: 1.0 -- she wows the crowd
Understanding: .8 -- just a few early errors
Youth: .8 -- dramatic flair
Breaker: 1.0 -- first female president
Normalcy: .6 -- grew up in Canada; but coastal framing
Amy Klobuchar 4.6
Charisma: 1.0 -- feminine charisma it is
Understanding: 1.0 -- knowledgeable, and careful
Youth: .6 -- though not young, she is vigorous, iron willed
Breaker: 1.0 -- first woman president
Normalcy: 1.0 -- middle America personified
Beto O'Rourke 3.8
Charisma: .9 -- a bit frenetic, but riveting
Understanding: .8 -- evolving; in the end could be 1.0
Youth: 1.0 -- Mr. Excitement
Breaker: .4 -- Hispanic nickname, speaks Spanish
Normalcy: .7 -- A younger version of the new normal?
Bernie Sanders 3.2
Charisma: 1.0 -- Takes no guff
Understanding: .7 -- Can be on the far side of the hill
Youth: .3 -- has the energy, but age is unavoidable
Breaker: .8 -- first Jewish president
Normalcy: .4 -- He supports the average working stiff
Elizabeth Warren 3.9
Charisma: .7 -- a female charisma that fights
Understanding: 1.0 -- Leading the way on various issues
Youth: .5 -- has the drive; looks younger than she is
Breaker: 1.0 -- first woman president
Normalcy: .7 -- MidWestern roots, but appeal is intellectual
(These are the top 8 candidates on Rolling Stones' Leader Board. We may update this list as the season unfolds.)
It perhaps goes without saying that the Obama model isn't everything. But it does help to see the candidates at 4.0 and above in a new light (Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Harris, and Booker), with Warren and O'Rourke easily within reach. And as the campaign unfolds, perhaps these numbers will change.
The other way to look at a list like this is to challenge a thumbs up for a candidate like Buttigieg. A mayor-ship of a mid-sized city is obviously unlikely when being considered for the presidency. So, there are obviously other factors in play.
Saturday, March 16, 2019
Making Twitter Much More Civil -- Into The Weeds
207: Here's The In-Depth Treatment
...........................
If you want the quick take, here's the link. If you want the juicy, deep-in-the-weeds approach, keep reading.
There's perhaps nothing more disappointing than seeing the birth of our social media world--technology's promised land, uniting us all in one band of equal compatriots--ruined by losers needing to put others down in order to feel themselves. From unsportsmanlike behavior, to hypocrisy, to creepiness, all the way to out-and-out harassment, the usual depressing verdict is that there's no way to stop all but the worst foul play without violating free speech in the process.
And yet, engineering social media to take care of trolls and other assorted haters is almost certainly doable. As noted in the quick take post linked to above, Twitter is considering ways to accomplish this using algorithms, as well as the usual human admins, to catch problems. One much simpler solution briefly outlined in the above post is to add an 'un-uh' button, what I call a 'ding' button, that would be used on one's own posts (in the comments section), on Direct Messages (DMs), and on Mentions (links embedded in other peoples' posts that include you in a conversation). Retweets (where someone republishes your tweet, adding commentary) would, on the other hand, be fair game (Twitter has ways to 'mute' such encounters).
Most importantly, accounts that accumulate dings would become Red Flags for Twitter's screening process. Plus, I propose an automatic closing down of any account with a ding and no 'likes'.
And, since the harassers are simply going to sign up using a different account, I suggest that Twitter integrate Red Flags into their sign up process to weed out the haters.
Now, let's ask the questions surrounding feasibility, examining each question with common sense, and hopefully, at some point, there'll be expert opinion brought to bear here as well.
1. Stopping Repeat Offenders: Assuming a Red Flag warning (an account with three strikes--three of our dings--against it), would Twitter be able to block the user during an attempted second sign-up using a different account?
Non-Expert Answer: A hard core hater is going to have multiple devices, each with multiple accounts, so each account would be used at least once to harass. But, for the half-hearted harasser with just one device and little time to go to the trouble of setting up multiple accounts, one would think that a screening could be done, comparing a user's device with a database of terminated Red Flag accounts. One would think that this would effectively weed out a large percent of the problem.
If an immediate shut down of a dinged account could take down all accounts associated with that device/user, this would eliminate even more, including those setting up harassing accounts on the side, in addition to a normal Twitter presence. Actually, dissuading, in the form of a new rules rollout would probably be all that would be necessary in many cases.
2. Accidents: Could accidental 'hit-the-wrong-button' mistakes, misunderstandings, and sabotage possibly occur? For example, a device is stolen, hate messages posted, and a lifetime account is then in jeopardy. Or, a ding is hastily doled out due to a modest disagreement. Or, a button is hit accidentally.
Non-Expert Answer: If the 'ding' button triggered a dialog box that required 2-step activation, this would remove most accidents. Plus, dinging could conceivably be followed with an undo? question that was always actionable.
The solution to misunderstandings is also fairly straightforward: the offending comment, DM, or Mention, and its context, would be publicly accessible within a user's list of dings (just as 'likes' are easily looked at). So, a misunderstanding could be annoying, but easily explained. Plus, ideally, Twitter would deputize volunteers (those with a reputation for civility), to expunge dings that were due to obvious errors and minor misunderstandings.
And what about sabotage, when a device is stolen, and someone else purposefully accumulates dings? Allowing for accounts to be reinstated, once such an occurrence is identified and brought to Twitter's attention, would likely be sufficient.
3. Who Has Time? Who'd have time to patrol their account? And would this do any good
if harassers coordinated their attacks?
Non-Expert Answer: I'd have time, though not everyone would. But when you do have time to double-check, you'd have the power to shut the nastiness down. Psychologically, this would be considerable consolation in itself. And if Twitter could screen its sign-up process using a Red Flag database, harassment would, ideally, be a quick ticket to banishment, eventually removing all but the most persistent harasser.
As for coordinated attacks, if all fraternal accounts associated with a particular internet address were knocked out due to a three strikes policy, the problem would act to remove itself from the platform. So, short term, a nuisance; long term, good riddance.
4. Include Retweets? This is probably where ideas like this have failed, when considered by Twitter. Though a retweet is your tweet being repurposed; including retweets in this construct would be a bridge too far. Right?
Non-Expert Answer: Right. If one had to worry about retweeting the latest content, Twitter would soon be a ghost town. Leaving retweets alone means there's still room for a Wild West atmosphere--within Twitter's rules of conduct. But, importantly, merely retweeting, and adding a harassing remark, isn't going to break through to a larger audience (assuming a tweak or two to Twitter's algorithm) if the only users reading it are a harasser's fellow harassers; this, as opposed to comments and mentions, which expose harassers to everyone else. Plus, a retweet could always be reported to Twitter if it crossed a line.
Overview
So, unless my amateur's understanding is mistaken, the seemingly impossible task of monitoring billions of twitter messages in real time could be easily done simply by adding a 'ding' button, and letting users do the work themselves.
There'd have to be a gradual rollout, so that any new rules and their consequences were understood. Perhaps weed out the worst offenders, then ratchet things down to a mere three strikes with reinstatement possible in some circumstances. Maybe send a warning message after any Red Flag occurrence.
What makes the 'ding' button idea especially interesting for Twitter, if one were to consider its use on other platforms, is that Twitter posts are open to the world (unless one uses Lists, as I understand it), compared to a platform like Facebook, where content is often posted to 'just Friends', or even more intimate groups. If this is true, Twitter has both the bigger problem to fix (harassers can't get to much Facebook material), but also much more to gain. If it were to become uniformly civil, Twitter would be the broader, more exciting stage on which to tread.
...........................
If you want the quick take, here's the link. If you want the juicy, deep-in-the-weeds approach, keep reading.
There's perhaps nothing more disappointing than seeing the birth of our social media world--technology's promised land, uniting us all in one band of equal compatriots--ruined by losers needing to put others down in order to feel themselves. From unsportsmanlike behavior, to hypocrisy, to creepiness, all the way to out-and-out harassment, the usual depressing verdict is that there's no way to stop all but the worst foul play without violating free speech in the process.
And yet, engineering social media to take care of trolls and other assorted haters is almost certainly doable. As noted in the quick take post linked to above, Twitter is considering ways to accomplish this using algorithms, as well as the usual human admins, to catch problems. One much simpler solution briefly outlined in the above post is to add an 'un-uh' button, what I call a 'ding' button, that would be used on one's own posts (in the comments section), on Direct Messages (DMs), and on Mentions (links embedded in other peoples' posts that include you in a conversation). Retweets (where someone republishes your tweet, adding commentary) would, on the other hand, be fair game (Twitter has ways to 'mute' such encounters).
Most importantly, accounts that accumulate dings would become Red Flags for Twitter's screening process. Plus, I propose an automatic closing down of any account with a ding and no 'likes'.
And, since the harassers are simply going to sign up using a different account, I suggest that Twitter integrate Red Flags into their sign up process to weed out the haters.
Now, let's ask the questions surrounding feasibility, examining each question with common sense, and hopefully, at some point, there'll be expert opinion brought to bear here as well.
1. Stopping Repeat Offenders: Assuming a Red Flag warning (an account with three strikes--three of our dings--against it), would Twitter be able to block the user during an attempted second sign-up using a different account?
Non-Expert Answer: A hard core hater is going to have multiple devices, each with multiple accounts, so each account would be used at least once to harass. But, for the half-hearted harasser with just one device and little time to go to the trouble of setting up multiple accounts, one would think that a screening could be done, comparing a user's device with a database of terminated Red Flag accounts. One would think that this would effectively weed out a large percent of the problem.
If an immediate shut down of a dinged account could take down all accounts associated with that device/user, this would eliminate even more, including those setting up harassing accounts on the side, in addition to a normal Twitter presence. Actually, dissuading, in the form of a new rules rollout would probably be all that would be necessary in many cases.
2. Accidents: Could accidental 'hit-the-wrong-button' mistakes, misunderstandings, and sabotage possibly occur? For example, a device is stolen, hate messages posted, and a lifetime account is then in jeopardy. Or, a ding is hastily doled out due to a modest disagreement. Or, a button is hit accidentally.
Non-Expert Answer: If the 'ding' button triggered a dialog box that required 2-step activation, this would remove most accidents. Plus, dinging could conceivably be followed with an undo? question that was always actionable.
The solution to misunderstandings is also fairly straightforward: the offending comment, DM, or Mention, and its context, would be publicly accessible within a user's list of dings (just as 'likes' are easily looked at). So, a misunderstanding could be annoying, but easily explained. Plus, ideally, Twitter would deputize volunteers (those with a reputation for civility), to expunge dings that were due to obvious errors and minor misunderstandings.
And what about sabotage, when a device is stolen, and someone else purposefully accumulates dings? Allowing for accounts to be reinstated, once such an occurrence is identified and brought to Twitter's attention, would likely be sufficient.
3. Who Has Time? Who'd have time to patrol their account? And would this do any good
if harassers coordinated their attacks?
Non-Expert Answer: I'd have time, though not everyone would. But when you do have time to double-check, you'd have the power to shut the nastiness down. Psychologically, this would be considerable consolation in itself. And if Twitter could screen its sign-up process using a Red Flag database, harassment would, ideally, be a quick ticket to banishment, eventually removing all but the most persistent harasser.
As for coordinated attacks, if all fraternal accounts associated with a particular internet address were knocked out due to a three strikes policy, the problem would act to remove itself from the platform. So, short term, a nuisance; long term, good riddance.
4. Include Retweets? This is probably where ideas like this have failed, when considered by Twitter. Though a retweet is your tweet being repurposed; including retweets in this construct would be a bridge too far. Right?
Non-Expert Answer: Right. If one had to worry about retweeting the latest content, Twitter would soon be a ghost town. Leaving retweets alone means there's still room for a Wild West atmosphere--within Twitter's rules of conduct. But, importantly, merely retweeting, and adding a harassing remark, isn't going to break through to a larger audience (assuming a tweak or two to Twitter's algorithm) if the only users reading it are a harasser's fellow harassers; this, as opposed to comments and mentions, which expose harassers to everyone else. Plus, a retweet could always be reported to Twitter if it crossed a line.
Overview
So, unless my amateur's understanding is mistaken, the seemingly impossible task of monitoring billions of twitter messages in real time could be easily done simply by adding a 'ding' button, and letting users do the work themselves.
There'd have to be a gradual rollout, so that any new rules and their consequences were understood. Perhaps weed out the worst offenders, then ratchet things down to a mere three strikes with reinstatement possible in some circumstances. Maybe send a warning message after any Red Flag occurrence.
What makes the 'ding' button idea especially interesting for Twitter, if one were to consider its use on other platforms, is that Twitter posts are open to the world (unless one uses Lists, as I understand it), compared to a platform like Facebook, where content is often posted to 'just Friends', or even more intimate groups. If this is true, Twitter has both the bigger problem to fix (harassers can't get to much Facebook material), but also much more to gain. If it were to become uniformly civil, Twitter would be the broader, more exciting stage on which to tread.
Thursday, March 14, 2019
Fixing Twitter
#206: The Easy Way: Use Both 'Like' and 'UnUh' Buttons
.............We know that Twitter wants to make its platform 'healthy'(link).
We also know that it's doing this in a very cumbersome way:
"Twitter is testing two metrics. The first is used to measure ...“toxicity”...and is based on machine learning algorithms created by Google.
The second...is meant to measure conversational health and takes into account...civility, receptivity, and constructivity."
That's like developing software to decide who you like. Way too complicated.
Here's a much simpler way: add a negative emotion button.
Except, you only get to use your 'ding' button, I'm calling it, on a comment regarding one of your own posts, a mention, or a Direct Message sent to you. Plus, dinging removes the offending item. So, it gives the harassed the power to say 'not cool'.
And what are the repercussions, were someone to pile up dings?
1. Dings, alongside 'likes' on one's home page, would be public information, though how many had been accumulated wouldn't be immediately visible; the sorry details could be examined, however.
2. The more dings, the more likely a red flag and possible ban from Twitter.
3. Accounts that had no likes, but a first ding, would be automatically closed down.
What does this do? It gives the harassed power over the harasser. It gives Twitter a red flag to easily patrol the platform. And, it encourages civility.
Plus, by restricting dings to just comments, mentions and DMs, it allows for the usual fun-and-games via retweet.
But what about fly-by-night Twitter accounts that disappear and reappear? This wouldn't be a perfect solution, but it would take care of all but the hard core offenders, the kind that Twitter should do something about by changing its account sign-up process. Perhaps with a database that matched red flag accounts with sign-up information, this would be possible.
Update: 3/16/19: This is the initial take; I'm now writing about the in-depth questions, which will appear in my next post.
Sunday, March 10, 2019
Alert: Bernie Could Lose
#205: Which Candidates Are Riskiest?
...................
The MidWest (specifically, Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan) is likely to be where the 2020 election is won or lost. So, candidates should be speaking to voters in these states when they present themselves. This means some inspiration (see list, at end) to get out the base, but mainly it'll take a mainstream progressive approach that involves listening (cue the Sherrod Brown "dignity of work" focus) and political skill.
Things that are too disruptive, like Medicare-For-All (I explain why here), Reparations (the case against here), a Job Guarantee, or Legalized Sex Work, are almost certainly too ambitious--not that they're wrong.
What these 'rev up the engine' proposals represent, is the--usually male--tendency to focus on a future endgame, rather than the present.
The immediate present for 2020 is being pragmatic, smart and tough, like voters in the MidWest.
For the record, here are the 'traps', as I see them, most likely to trip up the Democratic field in 2020, ranked from least to most dangerous:
5: Free College Tuition. A good way to spend money, sure, but to the average voter, a radical idea; plus the price tag. And, if you look at who'd benefit, it wouldn't be voters over 50; same with those without children, plus those who can afford college, and those who aren't interested.
4: Job Guarantee. This isn't as dire a trap, due to greater enthusiasm among the base. But, though it may be where society is headed (robots taking over many jobs), it could easily be lampooned as government over-reach, and it triggers the worst emotion, politically: resentment ("they get free everything, and here I've got to work my tail off")
3: Reparations. No candidate, so far, is arguing for actual reparations. Instead, they're wanting recognition of historical wrongs, and calling for, at most, a gathering of experts to discuss the issue, and more often, government programs to help the less fortunate, including Black voters. So, this has shock value--that negative ads would exploit--but little upside, in the way of actual reparations.
2: Legalized Sex Work. This isn't #1 only because it wouldn't involve spending money. Sure, it may be a welcome idea in major cities where most voters are relatively hip, but it would immediately turn off a huge number of MidWesterners, especially those voters who are more traditionally religious.
1: Medicare-For-All. Here it's the price tag, and the disruption, and the industry opposition. Midwestern voters are much more likely to be for an incremental approach that has an affordable price tag. Asking those satisfied with their own coverage to give it up, and also pay a huge tax increase, just can't be countered with arguments over efficiency.
Any candidates promoting these ideas in the short term, beyond generalities, are in danger of losing. Luckily, I think Sen. Kamala Harris is a skillful politician and will benefit from the primary season, gradually walking back her most unlikely proposals, including legalizing sex work. Perhaps Bernie can too, though I rather doubt it, since Medicare-For-All is central to his candidacy.
And the presidential election in 2020 won't be held in isolation. There's the effect a pragmatic candidate, like Klobuchar, or idealistic candidate, like Sanders, would have on down-ballot races. Looking at the Senate, Democrats have to be competitive in: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, and North Carolina, all purple states, plus, hopefully Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, Kansas and Texas, all red. A reasonable progressive, experienced with agricultural issues, and skilled at winning red and purple votes, is much more likely to do well. An idealistic progressive will likely turn out the base, but will be attacked mercilessly for any of the five traps, above, losing a much larger percentage of votes to fear-based attacks and us/them emotions.
Turning out the base, for Democrats, with appeals to idealistic, long-term answers runs the risk of an overwhelming win in the popular vote, coupled with a very possible loss in the electoral college.
.................
Here's that list referred to above (from a previous post) that I'd consider mainstream progressive, and non-threatening to voters in purple and red states:
5. Consolidate ObamaCare, adding a Public Option
4. Fund state-run Energy Conservation plans that hire millions
3. Create Tax Incentives to boost our five environmental ways forward
2. Significantly increase the Earned Income Tax Credit
1. Normalize Child Care For All
...................
The MidWest (specifically, Wisconsin, Iowa and Michigan) is likely to be where the 2020 election is won or lost. So, candidates should be speaking to voters in these states when they present themselves. This means some inspiration (see list, at end) to get out the base, but mainly it'll take a mainstream progressive approach that involves listening (cue the Sherrod Brown "dignity of work" focus) and political skill.
Things that are too disruptive, like Medicare-For-All (I explain why here), Reparations (the case against here), a Job Guarantee, or Legalized Sex Work, are almost certainly too ambitious--not that they're wrong.
What these 'rev up the engine' proposals represent, is the--usually male--tendency to focus on a future endgame, rather than the present.
The immediate present for 2020 is being pragmatic, smart and tough, like voters in the MidWest.
For the record, here are the 'traps', as I see them, most likely to trip up the Democratic field in 2020, ranked from least to most dangerous:
5: Free College Tuition. A good way to spend money, sure, but to the average voter, a radical idea; plus the price tag. And, if you look at who'd benefit, it wouldn't be voters over 50; same with those without children, plus those who can afford college, and those who aren't interested.
4: Job Guarantee. This isn't as dire a trap, due to greater enthusiasm among the base. But, though it may be where society is headed (robots taking over many jobs), it could easily be lampooned as government over-reach, and it triggers the worst emotion, politically: resentment ("they get free everything, and here I've got to work my tail off")
3: Reparations. No candidate, so far, is arguing for actual reparations. Instead, they're wanting recognition of historical wrongs, and calling for, at most, a gathering of experts to discuss the issue, and more often, government programs to help the less fortunate, including Black voters. So, this has shock value--that negative ads would exploit--but little upside, in the way of actual reparations.
2: Legalized Sex Work. This isn't #1 only because it wouldn't involve spending money. Sure, it may be a welcome idea in major cities where most voters are relatively hip, but it would immediately turn off a huge number of MidWesterners, especially those voters who are more traditionally religious.
1: Medicare-For-All. Here it's the price tag, and the disruption, and the industry opposition. Midwestern voters are much more likely to be for an incremental approach that has an affordable price tag. Asking those satisfied with their own coverage to give it up, and also pay a huge tax increase, just can't be countered with arguments over efficiency.
Any candidates promoting these ideas in the short term, beyond generalities, are in danger of losing. Luckily, I think Sen. Kamala Harris is a skillful politician and will benefit from the primary season, gradually walking back her most unlikely proposals, including legalizing sex work. Perhaps Bernie can too, though I rather doubt it, since Medicare-For-All is central to his candidacy.
And the presidential election in 2020 won't be held in isolation. There's the effect a pragmatic candidate, like Klobuchar, or idealistic candidate, like Sanders, would have on down-ballot races. Looking at the Senate, Democrats have to be competitive in: Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Maine, and North Carolina, all purple states, plus, hopefully Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana, Kansas and Texas, all red. A reasonable progressive, experienced with agricultural issues, and skilled at winning red and purple votes, is much more likely to do well. An idealistic progressive will likely turn out the base, but will be attacked mercilessly for any of the five traps, above, losing a much larger percentage of votes to fear-based attacks and us/them emotions.
Turning out the base, for Democrats, with appeals to idealistic, long-term answers runs the risk of an overwhelming win in the popular vote, coupled with a very possible loss in the electoral college.
.................
Here's that list referred to above (from a previous post) that I'd consider mainstream progressive, and non-threatening to voters in purple and red states:
5. Consolidate ObamaCare, adding a Public Option
4. Fund state-run Energy Conservation plans that hire millions
3. Create Tax Incentives to boost our five environmental ways forward
2. Significantly increase the Earned Income Tax Credit
1. Normalize Child Care For All
Monday, March 4, 2019
'Add To Cart' At The IRS: Picking Programs To Fund
#204: Firming Up Our Body Politic
................
Ok, so we're out of shape, with some of us falling for fake news, others not even caring, let alone voting. What's our way back to a healthy 'us', aside from making voting itself more convenient?
* Reward people for finding out about the issues. I've written a lot about this. A brief recap, appears below.
* Give taxpayers various spending options at the IRS website. They can skip past, or dig deep. What are their favorite programs: Feeding kids? Mending roads? Funding the FBI? Pick a few or look even deeper.
How would a taxpayer 'add to cart' at the IRS? You'd click on the depth you wanted. Want just a choice between two budget plans (Democratic and Republican)? What about more $$ for education and less for oil company tax breaks? Would you like a video recommendation from your senator or congress member? What about the Congressional Budget Office explaining a particular spending option?
In any event, the IRS website would accumulate data on what Americans want from their government. What happens next? Our elected congressmen and -women decide what the information means. Maybe this would involve adopting popular choices. Perhaps a formula is constructed that mixes shallow and deep preferences. Polling firms could even be involved.
The important thing is that voters have access to choices they believe in, and information they can use in helping make those choices. We'll save the details for another time.
.....................
Above, I said I'd recap the first item: "Reward people for finding out about the issues". Here goes:
1. Participating Representatives post website videos that run about 5 minutes, asking constituents for their opinion on various issues.
2. Constituents watch videos, and answer multiple-choice questions.
3. Congressional offices are than informed, by outside polling firms, what the collected data say.
4. All participating constituents can opt in to a monthly drawing for their congressional district. Ten winners per month, per district, receive US savings bonds.
For all the details here is a longer article with a FAQ section.
.......................
Both ideas would have a tendency to get voters plugged into the decision making process. Information and decision making are the antidotes to 'fake news'.
................
Ok, so we're out of shape, with some of us falling for fake news, others not even caring, let alone voting. What's our way back to a healthy 'us', aside from making voting itself more convenient?
* Reward people for finding out about the issues. I've written a lot about this. A brief recap, appears below.
* Give taxpayers various spending options at the IRS website. They can skip past, or dig deep. What are their favorite programs: Feeding kids? Mending roads? Funding the FBI? Pick a few or look even deeper.
How would a taxpayer 'add to cart' at the IRS? You'd click on the depth you wanted. Want just a choice between two budget plans (Democratic and Republican)? What about more $$ for education and less for oil company tax breaks? Would you like a video recommendation from your senator or congress member? What about the Congressional Budget Office explaining a particular spending option?
In any event, the IRS website would accumulate data on what Americans want from their government. What happens next? Our elected congressmen and -women decide what the information means. Maybe this would involve adopting popular choices. Perhaps a formula is constructed that mixes shallow and deep preferences. Polling firms could even be involved.
The important thing is that voters have access to choices they believe in, and information they can use in helping make those choices. We'll save the details for another time.
.....................
Above, I said I'd recap the first item: "Reward people for finding out about the issues". Here goes:
1. Participating Representatives post website videos that run about 5 minutes, asking constituents for their opinion on various issues.
2. Constituents watch videos, and answer multiple-choice questions.
3. Congressional offices are than informed, by outside polling firms, what the collected data say.
4. All participating constituents can opt in to a monthly drawing for their congressional district. Ten winners per month, per district, receive US savings bonds.
For all the details here is a longer article with a FAQ section.
.......................
Both ideas would have a tendency to get voters plugged into the decision making process. Information and decision making are the antidotes to 'fake news'.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)