by russell
Donald J Who? I'm tired of that human trainwreck sucking all the air out of the room. Let's take a short break from the clown show and talk about something else.
Stumbled across this and thought it was a combination of interesting, accurate, and dire. What is it like to be a young person trying to find your way into something like a life, nowadays? If you're not a tech whiz, a quant, or some other form of bright flaming comet streaking across the sky?
What if you're just… kind of normal? But you still want to make a living, and live someplace other than your parent's house or with five room-mates until you're 30 years old?
What are the practical effects of wide divergences in income and wealth? What kind of society do we want to live in?
The author has some ideas for how to make things better. Some of them might even make sense.
The floor is open. Talk about You Know Who if you must, but remember – it's not obligatory. We all know he's an ass.
In case you don’t follow the link through from the cited article, let me call this out:
From Long-Term Trends in Deaths of Despair (a white paper title for the ages):
And it goes on from there.
The markets are roaring!
In case you don’t follow the link through from the cited article, let me call this out:
From Long-Term Trends in Deaths of Despair (a white paper title for the ages):
And it goes on from there.
The markets are roaring!
This seems to confuse money with wealth. If the very rich had to turn their wealth into money, much of it would turn into vapor.
This seems to confuse money with wealth. If the very rich had to turn their wealth into money, much of it would turn into vapor.
I’m pretty sure this is what most safety manuals and training would tell you to do.
I’m pretty sure this is what most safety manuals and training would tell you to do.
And yet, in spit of payroll taxes, US taxes are more progressive than most first world democracies.
And yet, in spit of payroll taxes, US taxes are more progressive than most first world democracies.
russell’s article is a mixed bag. Another quote is this:
“Suicides spiked with the onset of the Great Depression, but they were rising steadily throughout the 1920s. The declines after 1915 and 1938 are partly attributable to World Wars I and II. These drops do not so much reflect the substitution of war-related deaths for suicides: suicide fell among women during these periods too, and the declines began before Americans entered the conflicts. Rather, as Emile Durkheim first posited, the likely explanation is that wars promote social integration, which reduces despair.”
If true, is this an argument for war? I think I’d rather have despair.
russell’s article is a mixed bag. Another quote is this:
“Suicides spiked with the onset of the Great Depression, but they were rising steadily throughout the 1920s. The declines after 1915 and 1938 are partly attributable to World Wars I and II. These drops do not so much reflect the substitution of war-related deaths for suicides: suicide fell among women during these periods too, and the declines began before Americans entered the conflicts. Rather, as Emile Durkheim first posited, the likely explanation is that wars promote social integration, which reduces despair.”
If true, is this an argument for war? I think I’d rather have despair.
This seems to confuse money with wealth.
Perhaps a less… mechanically literal reading is called for here.
If true, is this an argument for war?
Um, my guess is no. It’s an empirical observation, and a hypothesis about the effects of social disintegration.
There are better paths toward a cohesive society than war. I suspect the authors would prefer those.
This seems to confuse money with wealth.
Perhaps a less… mechanically literal reading is called for here.
If true, is this an argument for war?
Um, my guess is no. It’s an empirical observation, and a hypothesis about the effects of social disintegration.
There are better paths toward a cohesive society than war. I suspect the authors would prefer those.
Let’s throw money at old ways of doing things in the hope they’ll still work in a changing world.
Let’s throw money at old ways of doing things in the hope they’ll still work in a changing world.
Why not, if the new ways don’t do the job?
Why not, if the new ways don’t do the job?
This is as much of as in spite of Trump, trade wars, etc, as because of him.
“By nearly every measure today, we are living in a magnificent time for the American economy. There is a booming stock market fueling trillions of dollars of wealth gains, record low unemployment, 3 percent to 5 percent wage gains, and seven million unfilled jobs. So the recent headline for a CBS report seemed to strain all credulity when it declared, “Two years after Trump tax cuts, middle class Americans are falling behind.” Huh?”
Contrary to what the media reports, middle class Americans are surging
This is as much of as in spite of Trump, trade wars, etc, as because of him.
“By nearly every measure today, we are living in a magnificent time for the American economy. There is a booming stock market fueling trillions of dollars of wealth gains, record low unemployment, 3 percent to 5 percent wage gains, and seven million unfilled jobs. So the recent headline for a CBS report seemed to strain all credulity when it declared, “Two years after Trump tax cuts, middle class Americans are falling behind.” Huh?”
Contrary to what the media reports, middle class Americans are surging
Why not, if the new ways don’t do the job?
The government-backed student loan bubble is over a trillion dollars. The easy to get loans bided up the cost of university education. Throwing more money at universities is unlikely to do much to alleviate current problems.
Why not, if the new ways don’t do the job?
The government-backed student loan bubble is over a trillion dollars. The easy to get loans bided up the cost of university education. Throwing more money at universities is unlikely to do much to alleviate current problems.
median household income, meaning the middle class, has gained about $5,000 of income in just three years
That’s 2 1/2% a year. Which puts it about one-half-of-one-percent ahead of inflation over the same period.
After being flat for something like 40 years.
And all of that said, the thrust of the piece is about the prospects of younger people, who are starting out. And who are (the author claims) being squeezed out of access to things like education and housing due to competition for those goods from wealthier and/or otherwise more exceptional peers.
If you need $100K to go to school for four years (which is not, remotely, unusual) $5k over three years of household income is not going to change your world.
median household income, meaning the middle class, has gained about $5,000 of income in just three years
That’s 2 1/2% a year. Which puts it about one-half-of-one-percent ahead of inflation over the same period.
After being flat for something like 40 years.
And all of that said, the thrust of the piece is about the prospects of younger people, who are starting out. And who are (the author claims) being squeezed out of access to things like education and housing due to competition for those goods from wealthier and/or otherwise more exceptional peers.
If you need $100K to go to school for four years (which is not, remotely, unusual) $5k over three years of household income is not going to change your world.
Emile Durkheim first posited, the likely explanation is that wars promote social integration, which reduces despair.”
If true, is this an argument for war? I think I’d rather have despair.
I think Durkheim missed something critical. It isn’t that wars promote social integration directly. It’s that building a big army to fight one does. So it’s not that we need a war. It’s that we need something like a draft which enlists some substantial part of the population from across all classes and incomes. IMHO, eliminating the draft may have been the worst public policy error of my lifetime.
Doesn’t even have to put people in the military as we normally envision it — something like the CCC during the Depression, or like the Peace Corps, would do fine. Just so it dumps a lot of people together with others from outside their usual environment. And has them forced together to accomplish something for the general good. Or at least for something beyond their personal benefit.
Emile Durkheim first posited, the likely explanation is that wars promote social integration, which reduces despair.”
If true, is this an argument for war? I think I’d rather have despair.
I think Durkheim missed something critical. It isn’t that wars promote social integration directly. It’s that building a big army to fight one does. So it’s not that we need a war. It’s that we need something like a draft which enlists some substantial part of the population from across all classes and incomes. IMHO, eliminating the draft may have been the worst public policy error of my lifetime.
Doesn’t even have to put people in the military as we normally envision it — something like the CCC during the Depression, or like the Peace Corps, would do fine. Just so it dumps a lot of people together with others from outside their usual environment. And has them forced together to accomplish something for the general good. Or at least for something beyond their personal benefit.
It’s that we need something like a draft which enlists some substantial part of the population from across all classes and incomes.
So, involentary servitude is OK if government does it?
It’s that we need something like a draft which enlists some substantial part of the population from across all classes and incomes.
So, involentary servitude is OK if government does it?
I’m not against stuff like the CCC etc but I’m not sure that’s even what is necessary.
IMO it would be sufficient if people saw modest but tangible goals to be within their reach. Get an education that gives you a path to meaningful employment without incurring six figures of debt. Be able to afford to live close enough to where you work to not have to spend 2 or 3 (or more) hours a day getting to and from. Not have to work two jobs just to get by.
Be able to afford to have a kid before you’re 35. Be able to buy a place to live before you’re 40. Save enough money over the course of your life that you don’t have to work until you’re 75 years old.
Stuff like that.
The markets are roaring, but most people don’t own a piece of the market. At least not a big enough piece that their lives are materially better or worse due to the roaring.
The Hill piece Charles links to trumpets the increase in household income. $5K in three years!!
Let’s spell the numbers out again. Median household income is about $63k. That’s household, not individual. $5k is right about 8% of that. Over three years, that’s about 2.6% per year.
Inflation over the same period is about 2% a year. So the roaring markets have brought the average household an increase of one half a percent, per year.
A half of one percent of $63K is $315. Our middle class family can replace 3 out of 4 of the tires on their car. Or maybe everybody gets a new pair of shoes.
The Hill finds this brag-worthy.
I’m not against stuff like the CCC etc but I’m not sure that’s even what is necessary.
IMO it would be sufficient if people saw modest but tangible goals to be within their reach. Get an education that gives you a path to meaningful employment without incurring six figures of debt. Be able to afford to live close enough to where you work to not have to spend 2 or 3 (or more) hours a day getting to and from. Not have to work two jobs just to get by.
Be able to afford to have a kid before you’re 35. Be able to buy a place to live before you’re 40. Save enough money over the course of your life that you don’t have to work until you’re 75 years old.
Stuff like that.
The markets are roaring, but most people don’t own a piece of the market. At least not a big enough piece that their lives are materially better or worse due to the roaring.
The Hill piece Charles links to trumpets the increase in household income. $5K in three years!!
Let’s spell the numbers out again. Median household income is about $63k. That’s household, not individual. $5k is right about 8% of that. Over three years, that’s about 2.6% per year.
Inflation over the same period is about 2% a year. So the roaring markets have brought the average household an increase of one half a percent, per year.
A half of one percent of $63K is $315. Our middle class family can replace 3 out of 4 of the tires on their car. Or maybe everybody gets a new pair of shoes.
The Hill finds this brag-worthy.
The Hill finds this brag-worthy.
When your ideological position can’t be convincingly justified by reality, you’re stuck with smoke and mirrors. What else can they do? Admit that their ideology doesn’t work as advertised in the real world?
The Hill finds this brag-worthy.
When your ideological position can’t be convincingly justified by reality, you’re stuck with smoke and mirrors. What else can they do? Admit that their ideology doesn’t work as advertised in the real world?
“In this book, we show how neighborhood participation in the housing permitting process exacerbates existing political inequalities, limits the housing supply, and contributes to the current affordable housing crisis. Participatory institutions like planning and zoning boards invite comments from neighbors on proposed housing developments. While neighbors with all viewpoints are welcome, we show that the individuals who choose to participate hold overwhelmingly negative views of new housing—far more negative than their broader communities—and are socioeconomically advantaged on a variety of dimensions. Using land-use institutions, these individuals—who we term neighborhood defenders—are able to raise concerns that lead to lengthy delays, high development costs, and smaller projects. The result is a diminished housing stock and higher housing costs.”
Neighborhood Defenders: Participatory Politics and America’s Housing Crisis
“Boston University’s Katherine Levine Einstein explains the dysfunctional politics behind America’s housing crisis.”
The Weeds: Neighborhood Defenders (PodCast)
“In this book, we show how neighborhood participation in the housing permitting process exacerbates existing political inequalities, limits the housing supply, and contributes to the current affordable housing crisis. Participatory institutions like planning and zoning boards invite comments from neighbors on proposed housing developments. While neighbors with all viewpoints are welcome, we show that the individuals who choose to participate hold overwhelmingly negative views of new housing—far more negative than their broader communities—and are socioeconomically advantaged on a variety of dimensions. Using land-use institutions, these individuals—who we term neighborhood defenders—are able to raise concerns that lead to lengthy delays, high development costs, and smaller projects. The result is a diminished housing stock and higher housing costs.”
Neighborhood Defenders: Participatory Politics and America’s Housing Crisis
“Boston University’s Katherine Levine Einstein explains the dysfunctional politics behind America’s housing crisis.”
The Weeds: Neighborhood Defenders (PodCast)
Throwing more money at universities is unlikely to do much to alleviate current problems.
“Throwing money at” is a wording that makes it easy to ignore crucial distinctions, as is discussing only universities and ignoring the part about junior colleges and trade schools.
If the money is going to opening new schools rather than pushing even more money into the ones that exist, it’s not bidding up the cost of education. It’s increasing the supply. I thought increases in supply, ceteris paribus, pushed prices down.
Throwing more money at universities is unlikely to do much to alleviate current problems.
“Throwing money at” is a wording that makes it easy to ignore crucial distinctions, as is discussing only universities and ignoring the part about junior colleges and trade schools.
If the money is going to opening new schools rather than pushing even more money into the ones that exist, it’s not bidding up the cost of education. It’s increasing the supply. I thought increases in supply, ceteris paribus, pushed prices down.
“Using land-use institutions, these individuals—who we term neighborhood defenders—are able to raise concerns that lead to lengthy delays, high development costs, and smaller projects. The result is a diminished housing stock and higher housing costs.”
So, involuntary servitude for individuals in established neighborhoods is OK if local governments decide to abolish public input into land-use decisions?
“Using land-use institutions, these individuals—who we term neighborhood defenders—are able to raise concerns that lead to lengthy delays, high development costs, and smaller projects. The result is a diminished housing stock and higher housing costs.”
So, involuntary servitude for individuals in established neighborhoods is OK if local governments decide to abolish public input into land-use decisions?
So a Ukrainian passenger jet manufactured by Boeing crashes after take off from Iran, killing all on board.
During this week of all weeks, those three proper nouns find themselves side by side in the news?
The markets love it, and if the markets love it, then I love it too and I hope it happens again and again and again.
To make up for all of the conservatives who hate Trump, but can’t bring themselves to vote for any Democrat in 2020, because a few more Americans might get health insurance and taxes might be raised, just as they couldn’t compromise their insufferable fucking standards to vote for Clinton in 2016 but rather threw their vote away to a third-party jasper who might ask today “What’s a Boeing .. and where is this Ukraine you speak of .. and Iran? Never heard of it”, I’m voting for Trump in November.
It’s the least I can do to balance out the stupid in America and bring the killing, butchering, and slaughtering that is coming to the conservative movement in America and around the world a little closer to goddamned reality.
So a Ukrainian passenger jet manufactured by Boeing crashes after take off from Iran, killing all on board.
During this week of all weeks, those three proper nouns find themselves side by side in the news?
The markets love it, and if the markets love it, then I love it too and I hope it happens again and again and again.
To make up for all of the conservatives who hate Trump, but can’t bring themselves to vote for any Democrat in 2020, because a few more Americans might get health insurance and taxes might be raised, just as they couldn’t compromise their insufferable fucking standards to vote for Clinton in 2016 but rather threw their vote away to a third-party jasper who might ask today “What’s a Boeing .. and where is this Ukraine you speak of .. and Iran? Never heard of it”, I’m voting for Trump in November.
It’s the least I can do to balance out the stupid in America and bring the killing, butchering, and slaughtering that is coming to the conservative movement in America and around the world a little closer to goddamned reality.
IMO it would be sufficient if people saw modest but tangible goals to be within their reach. Get an education that gives you a path to meaningful employment without incurring six figures of debt. Be able to afford to live close enough to where you work to not have to spend 2 or 3 (or more) hours a day getting to and from. Not have to work two jobs just to get by.
Be able to afford to have a kid before you’re 35. Be able to buy a place to live before you’re 40. Save enough money over the course of your life that you don’t have to work until you’re 75 years old.
I like these goals, but getting there seems extremely complicated.
To take a couple of them:
Get an education that gives you a path to meaningful employment without incurring six figures of debt.
Education is (IMO) important in itself, but not as a means to employment. Most employment requires specific knowledge and job training. In so many ways, education is a luxury and a status symbol. I say this as someone who would like to insist on education for as many people as want it, because I think it is intrinsically a good thing, so the price of college is absurd. So we need cheaper college, but we also need more egalitarian hiring practices. (The internship phenomenon is an example of what’s wrong.)
Be able to afford to live close enough to where you work to not have to spend 2 or 3 (or more) hours a day getting to and from.
How many urban centers have been successful at making policies to address this? Post-WWII has some wonderful models, but their acceptance in our society seems to have been premised on racist implementation.
Etc. Wealth inequality is a huge problem. Heavily taxing the rich, and spreading money around fairly directly, is the main way to solve it. Health care
So, involuntary servitude for individuals in established neighborhoods is OK if local governments decide to abolish public input into land-use decisions?
This is a subject that I find extremely problematic. Everyone has a NIMBY issue of some kind. Some land use schemes are extremely intrusive and unsuccessful at the same time.
IMO it would be sufficient if people saw modest but tangible goals to be within their reach. Get an education that gives you a path to meaningful employment without incurring six figures of debt. Be able to afford to live close enough to where you work to not have to spend 2 or 3 (or more) hours a day getting to and from. Not have to work two jobs just to get by.
Be able to afford to have a kid before you’re 35. Be able to buy a place to live before you’re 40. Save enough money over the course of your life that you don’t have to work until you’re 75 years old.
I like these goals, but getting there seems extremely complicated.
To take a couple of them:
Get an education that gives you a path to meaningful employment without incurring six figures of debt.
Education is (IMO) important in itself, but not as a means to employment. Most employment requires specific knowledge and job training. In so many ways, education is a luxury and a status symbol. I say this as someone who would like to insist on education for as many people as want it, because I think it is intrinsically a good thing, so the price of college is absurd. So we need cheaper college, but we also need more egalitarian hiring practices. (The internship phenomenon is an example of what’s wrong.)
Be able to afford to live close enough to where you work to not have to spend 2 or 3 (or more) hours a day getting to and from.
How many urban centers have been successful at making policies to address this? Post-WWII has some wonderful models, but their acceptance in our society seems to have been premised on racist implementation.
Etc. Wealth inequality is a huge problem. Heavily taxing the rich, and spreading money around fairly directly, is the main way to solve it. Health care
So, involuntary servitude for individuals in established neighborhoods is OK if local governments decide to abolish public input into land-use decisions?
This is a subject that I find extremely problematic. Everyone has a NIMBY issue of some kind. Some land use schemes are extremely intrusive and unsuccessful at the same time.
Oops. “Health care” randomly appears in my comment. I was about to go on and on, but apparently decided to spare everyone.
But, yeah, health care. We need it. Everyone needs it, and there are good models for providing it to everyone.
Oops. “Health care” randomly appears in my comment. I was about to go on and on, but apparently decided to spare everyone.
But, yeah, health care. We need it. Everyone needs it, and there are good models for providing it to everyone.
Most employment requires specific knowledge and job training. In so many ways, education is a luxury and a status symbol.
A four-year degree is a signal to potential employers that you’ll do what you’re told, work hard and not make trouble. Job knowledge may be secondary.
Most employment requires specific knowledge and job training. In so many ways, education is a luxury and a status symbol.
A four-year degree is a signal to potential employers that you’ll do what you’re told, work hard and not make trouble. Job knowledge may be secondary.
Education is (IMO) important in itself, but not as a means to employment. Most employment requires specific knowledge and job training. In so many ways, education is a luxury and a status symbol
First, “education” doesn’t necessarily mean four years of college.
Second, for much if not most work other than unskilled or trades labor, you need a college degree to apply. Whether that degree is directly relevant to the job skill set or not. Depending on what you want to do, it is neither a luxury, nor a status symbol. It’s what opens the door.
So, I disagree with this.
There is a broad range of work folks can do that does not require a college degree, although it could require professional training of other kinds. But a very broad range of work does require it.
How many urban centers have been successful at making policies to address this?
I don’t know.
I’ve lived in or near NYC, Philly, and Boston. In Philly I lived right in town, so I just took the subway, bus, or walked.
In NYC and Boston, I got to work mostly by car – as I do now – and it was and is dead normal to spend two-plus hours a day getting to and from. If I took the train from where i live now, to where i work now, it would take longer. If I commuted at rush hour, it would be three hours a day, period.
And I live / lived within 15 miles of downtown Boston.
A lot of people live really far from where they work. Some of that may be the legacy of race-based or -influenced policy, but most of it is just about money. It costs a lot to live within 20 miles of Boston, so if you don’t make a lot of money and you work in the city, you’re going to spend a lot of time on the road.
My understanding is that it’s the same in lots of places.
Always been like that to some degree, the degree to which it is so is just larger now.
Education is (IMO) important in itself, but not as a means to employment. Most employment requires specific knowledge and job training. In so many ways, education is a luxury and a status symbol
First, “education” doesn’t necessarily mean four years of college.
Second, for much if not most work other than unskilled or trades labor, you need a college degree to apply. Whether that degree is directly relevant to the job skill set or not. Depending on what you want to do, it is neither a luxury, nor a status symbol. It’s what opens the door.
So, I disagree with this.
There is a broad range of work folks can do that does not require a college degree, although it could require professional training of other kinds. But a very broad range of work does require it.
How many urban centers have been successful at making policies to address this?
I don’t know.
I’ve lived in or near NYC, Philly, and Boston. In Philly I lived right in town, so I just took the subway, bus, or walked.
In NYC and Boston, I got to work mostly by car – as I do now – and it was and is dead normal to spend two-plus hours a day getting to and from. If I took the train from where i live now, to where i work now, it would take longer. If I commuted at rush hour, it would be three hours a day, period.
And I live / lived within 15 miles of downtown Boston.
A lot of people live really far from where they work. Some of that may be the legacy of race-based or -influenced policy, but most of it is just about money. It costs a lot to live within 20 miles of Boston, so if you don’t make a lot of money and you work in the city, you’re going to spend a lot of time on the road.
My understanding is that it’s the same in lots of places.
Always been like that to some degree, the degree to which it is so is just larger now.
Education is (IMO) important in itself, but not as a means to employment. Most employment requires specific knowledge and job training. In so many ways, education is a luxury and a status symbol
And yet I consider what happened here half a century ago. The California Master Plan for Higher Education in 1960 included things like tuition free education at the University of California for the top 12.5% of high school graduates. And at the California State Colleges for the top 1/3. Plus 2 year community colleges for anyone who could benefit from it. And we implemented it.
It may, of course, be entirely coincidental that California’s economy boomed for half a century, while the generation that benefited (all us Baby Boomers) worked. And that Silicon Valley is where it is. Etc., etc., etc. But I don’t think I really believe in coincidence to that extent.
Education is (IMO) important in itself, but not as a means to employment. Most employment requires specific knowledge and job training. In so many ways, education is a luxury and a status symbol
And yet I consider what happened here half a century ago. The California Master Plan for Higher Education in 1960 included things like tuition free education at the University of California for the top 12.5% of high school graduates. And at the California State Colleges for the top 1/3. Plus 2 year community colleges for anyone who could benefit from it. And we implemented it.
It may, of course, be entirely coincidental that California’s economy boomed for half a century, while the generation that benefited (all us Baby Boomers) worked. And that Silicon Valley is where it is. Etc., etc., etc. But I don’t think I really believe in coincidence to that extent.
Just did some quick research on education inflation as it relates to my personal history. I started the Masters program at University of Texas at Austin in 1986, at which time out of state tuition+fees was a little under $1300 per semester for a full load (9 hours/3 courses), which inflation adjusted to today would be $3000. Actual current tuition today is listed at $9400. One semester I was a TA for 2 classes, which qualified me for in-state tuition, which was around $350 then/$830 inflation adjusted to today. Current in-state is right about $5000. I did not investigate the amount/availability of scholarships/Pell grants/financial aid then vs. now, which conceivably could put a small dent in the difference, or also cut the other way.
On UT’s handy Cost of Attendance calculator there’s an option for “Texas Resident living with parents”, of whom there are probably a not-insignificant number, given the rise of housing costs in Austin. The last three years I lived there (88-91), I shared an old 1916 two-story house with a mostly revolving cast of characters, at least 3, more usually 4-5 of us at a time. Rent was $620/month and did not increase during my tenure, the place was owned by a couple who ran a local head shop in addition to being student-ghetto slumlords.
At some point the house was sold and renovated to some degree, may have been returned to a single-family residence for a while. When I visited in 2002 for my one long-time roommate’s wedding, I swung by the old San Pedro Arms, as we called it, and judging by the back yard littered with plastic cups and some beer kegs, the place had reverted to student housing. It was beginning of July and there was a For Rent sign, so I guessed that the occupants had held a moving-out party of large proportions.
By then the rent had increased to $1300+. Couldn’t find a current price, but one has to assume it has increased a bit in 18 years.
By the way, those 1986 tuition rates were about triple what they had been the year before, the oil bust had put a hurting on the University’s reserves, so they jacked up the rates. $400/semester for out-of-state would have been sweet.
Just did some quick research on education inflation as it relates to my personal history. I started the Masters program at University of Texas at Austin in 1986, at which time out of state tuition+fees was a little under $1300 per semester for a full load (9 hours/3 courses), which inflation adjusted to today would be $3000. Actual current tuition today is listed at $9400. One semester I was a TA for 2 classes, which qualified me for in-state tuition, which was around $350 then/$830 inflation adjusted to today. Current in-state is right about $5000. I did not investigate the amount/availability of scholarships/Pell grants/financial aid then vs. now, which conceivably could put a small dent in the difference, or also cut the other way.
On UT’s handy Cost of Attendance calculator there’s an option for “Texas Resident living with parents”, of whom there are probably a not-insignificant number, given the rise of housing costs in Austin. The last three years I lived there (88-91), I shared an old 1916 two-story house with a mostly revolving cast of characters, at least 3, more usually 4-5 of us at a time. Rent was $620/month and did not increase during my tenure, the place was owned by a couple who ran a local head shop in addition to being student-ghetto slumlords.
At some point the house was sold and renovated to some degree, may have been returned to a single-family residence for a while. When I visited in 2002 for my one long-time roommate’s wedding, I swung by the old San Pedro Arms, as we called it, and judging by the back yard littered with plastic cups and some beer kegs, the place had reverted to student housing. It was beginning of July and there was a For Rent sign, so I guessed that the occupants had held a moving-out party of large proportions.
By then the rent had increased to $1300+. Couldn’t find a current price, but one has to assume it has increased a bit in 18 years.
By the way, those 1986 tuition rates were about triple what they had been the year before, the oil bust had put a hurting on the University’s reserves, so they jacked up the rates. $400/semester for out-of-state would have been sweet.
russell’s article is good, and pretty much self-evidently true, it seems to me.
I am electing not to read Long Term Trends in Deaths of Despair however.
russell’s article is good, and pretty much self-evidently true, it seems to me.
I am electing not to read Long Term Trends in Deaths of Despair however.
“A four-year degree is a signal to potential employers that you’ll do what you’re told, work hard and not make trouble.”
Who needs involuntary servitude to government when we so easily volunteer it, and our right to free speech, to the highest bidder in the private market?
“A four-year degree is a signal to potential employers that you’ll do what you’re told, work hard and not make trouble.”
Who needs involuntary servitude to government when we so easily volunteer it, and our right to free speech, to the highest bidder in the private market?
A four-year degree is a signal to potential employers that you’ll do what you’re told, work hard and not make trouble.
Here I always saw it as a signal that you are capable of learning new stuff. Even if your degree happens to be in something pretty far removed from what the employer does, if you can learn you can be trained.
A four-year degree is a signal to potential employers that you’ll do what you’re told, work hard and not make trouble.
Here I always saw it as a signal that you are capable of learning new stuff. Even if your degree happens to be in something pretty far removed from what the employer does, if you can learn you can be trained.
First, “education” doesn’t necessarily mean four years of college.
Second, for much if not most work other than unskilled or trades labor, you need a college degree to apply. Whether that degree is directly relevant to the job skill set or not. Depending on what you want to do, it is neither a luxury, nor a status symbol. It’s what opens the door.
Sure. I guess I wasn’t clear. A college degree is a luxury and a status symbol which, because of hiring practices (which favor hiring elites), is what opens the door. In other words, status is what actually opens the door. My guess is that if the applicant presented some other emblem of status (Dad is rich and famous), door would often open for that as well.
As to living in or near a city, and having to fight traffic: yes, but I don’t know what that means. I grew up in the burbs of Washington, DC. My middle class parents would not have been able to afford a similar home in the city. (They bought a brand new house in the ’60’s for under $30,000, which was sold recently for almost $700,000.) However, anyone who lives in that burb (which back in the day was a far-out burb, but now is a relatively close one, with a Metro station) has an hour commute to DC. People who can’t afford a $700,000 house live much further out now, and can have a much longer commute. What you describe, russell, is typical in major cities, and getting more so in smaller ones.
None of this is news. Tell me what housing policies have prevented this. Tell me what housing policies should be pursued. Many housing policies have been implemented. Rent control. Zoning. Subsidized housing. Public housing. There are new problems with every solution.
Philly has affordable housing in the city, as does Richmond, VA (for now) (although this article discusses the struggles of poor people living in Philly). There are a lot of neighborhoods where old homes are occupied by lower income people, for whom it’s difficult financially to renovate and improve. Landlords want a return on their investment if they do it. People like to maintain the character of the city, but doing that is expensive.
I’m not saying we should quit trying, but people haven’t come up with a way to live in a neighborhood in San Francisco or Boston or Washington DC, where we can walk to work and restaurants and bars for a low price. One way to make affordability happen is to build communities outside major cities. That means employers have to move there, skilled people have to move there, and everyone has to build cultural centers there. A lot of work, and a lot of buy-in.
First, “education” doesn’t necessarily mean four years of college.
Second, for much if not most work other than unskilled or trades labor, you need a college degree to apply. Whether that degree is directly relevant to the job skill set or not. Depending on what you want to do, it is neither a luxury, nor a status symbol. It’s what opens the door.
Sure. I guess I wasn’t clear. A college degree is a luxury and a status symbol which, because of hiring practices (which favor hiring elites), is what opens the door. In other words, status is what actually opens the door. My guess is that if the applicant presented some other emblem of status (Dad is rich and famous), door would often open for that as well.
As to living in or near a city, and having to fight traffic: yes, but I don’t know what that means. I grew up in the burbs of Washington, DC. My middle class parents would not have been able to afford a similar home in the city. (They bought a brand new house in the ’60’s for under $30,000, which was sold recently for almost $700,000.) However, anyone who lives in that burb (which back in the day was a far-out burb, but now is a relatively close one, with a Metro station) has an hour commute to DC. People who can’t afford a $700,000 house live much further out now, and can have a much longer commute. What you describe, russell, is typical in major cities, and getting more so in smaller ones.
None of this is news. Tell me what housing policies have prevented this. Tell me what housing policies should be pursued. Many housing policies have been implemented. Rent control. Zoning. Subsidized housing. Public housing. There are new problems with every solution.
Philly has affordable housing in the city, as does Richmond, VA (for now) (although this article discusses the struggles of poor people living in Philly). There are a lot of neighborhoods where old homes are occupied by lower income people, for whom it’s difficult financially to renovate and improve. Landlords want a return on their investment if they do it. People like to maintain the character of the city, but doing that is expensive.
I’m not saying we should quit trying, but people haven’t come up with a way to live in a neighborhood in San Francisco or Boston or Washington DC, where we can walk to work and restaurants and bars for a low price. One way to make affordability happen is to build communities outside major cities. That means employers have to move there, skilled people have to move there, and everyone has to build cultural centers there. A lot of work, and a lot of buy-in.
A college degree is a luxury and a status symbol which, because of hiring practices (which favor hiring elites), is what opens the door. In other words, status is what actually opens the door.
Is it worth noting that, in order to be that kind of status symbol, a college degree has to be restricted? And high price is one way to achieve that.
Make it once again affordable, and it ceases to be a luxury good. Then its worth reverts to being the worth of the education itself. (Those who care mostly about the status can go back to only caring about degrees from Harvard, etc.)
A college degree is a luxury and a status symbol which, because of hiring practices (which favor hiring elites), is what opens the door. In other words, status is what actually opens the door.
Is it worth noting that, in order to be that kind of status symbol, a college degree has to be restricted? And high price is one way to achieve that.
Make it once again affordable, and it ceases to be a luxury good. Then its worth reverts to being the worth of the education itself. (Those who care mostly about the status can go back to only caring about degrees from Harvard, etc.)
“Why we need to stop wasting public funds on education
Despite being immensely popular–and immensely lucrative―education is grossly overrated. In this explosive book, Bryan Caplan argues that the primary function of education is not to enhance students’ skill but to certify their intelligence, work ethic, and conformity―in other words, to signal the qualities of a good employee. Learn why students hunt for easy As and casually forget most of what they learn after the final exam, why decades of growing access to education have not resulted in better jobs for the average worker but instead in runaway credential inflation, how employers reward workers for costly schooling they rarely if ever use, and why cutting education spending is the best remedy.
Caplan draws on the latest social science to show how the labor market values grades over knowledge, and why the more education your rivals have, the more you need to impress employers. He explains why graduation is our society’s top conformity signal, and why even the most useless degrees can certify employability. He advocates two major policy responses. The first is educational austerity. Government needs to sharply cut education funding to curb this wasteful rat race. The second is more vocational education, because practical skills are more socially valuable than teaching students how to outshine their peers.”
The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money
“Why we need to stop wasting public funds on education
Despite being immensely popular–and immensely lucrative―education is grossly overrated. In this explosive book, Bryan Caplan argues that the primary function of education is not to enhance students’ skill but to certify their intelligence, work ethic, and conformity―in other words, to signal the qualities of a good employee. Learn why students hunt for easy As and casually forget most of what they learn after the final exam, why decades of growing access to education have not resulted in better jobs for the average worker but instead in runaway credential inflation, how employers reward workers for costly schooling they rarely if ever use, and why cutting education spending is the best remedy.
Caplan draws on the latest social science to show how the labor market values grades over knowledge, and why the more education your rivals have, the more you need to impress employers. He explains why graduation is our society’s top conformity signal, and why even the most useless degrees can certify employability. He advocates two major policy responses. The first is educational austerity. Government needs to sharply cut education funding to curb this wasteful rat race. The second is more vocational education, because practical skills are more socially valuable than teaching students how to outshine their peers.”
The Case against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money
I disagree that the educational system is a waste of time. I wish it weren’t so expensive. It’s one of our international treasures though – people want to attend American colleges because they’re excellent to those who value formal education.
But whether one has to have a degree to have many of the jobs that require one is a different issue. And if we remove the prestige of college by making it free, , will advanced degrees, or expensive certifications be required? Obviously, for some disciplines, it makes sense to require deeper formal knowledge to, say, teach, or hold oneself out as an expert. This doesn’t apply to most jobs which require training and hands-on experience.
Part of the problem is “weeding out”. What do you do when you have a lot of smart people, all of whom are qualified for a job? You create weeding mechanisms. I don’t know how to fix that.
I disagree that the educational system is a waste of time. I wish it weren’t so expensive. It’s one of our international treasures though – people want to attend American colleges because they’re excellent to those who value formal education.
But whether one has to have a degree to have many of the jobs that require one is a different issue. And if we remove the prestige of college by making it free, , will advanced degrees, or expensive certifications be required? Obviously, for some disciplines, it makes sense to require deeper formal knowledge to, say, teach, or hold oneself out as an expert. This doesn’t apply to most jobs which require training and hands-on experience.
Part of the problem is “weeding out”. What do you do when you have a lot of smart people, all of whom are qualified for a job? You create weeding mechanisms. I don’t know how to fix that.
This seems to confuse money with wealth.
but further down the thread you explicitly equate a bubbly stock market with wealth (creation)…but you buy stock with money…so i remain mystified.
If the very rich had to turn their wealth into money, much of it would turn into vapor.
What? The wealth or the money? Financial assets, including cash, are simply claims on wealth (i.e., productive capacity and/or ability), or the future stream of wealth derived from the ownership of said capacity.
This seems to confuse money with wealth.
but further down the thread you explicitly equate a bubbly stock market with wealth (creation)…but you buy stock with money…so i remain mystified.
If the very rich had to turn their wealth into money, much of it would turn into vapor.
What? The wealth or the money? Financial assets, including cash, are simply claims on wealth (i.e., productive capacity and/or ability), or the future stream of wealth derived from the ownership of said capacity.
So, involentary servitude is OK if government does it?
If it is OK in the private sector, why not in the public sector?
So, involentary servitude is OK if government does it?
If it is OK in the private sector, why not in the public sector?
but further down the thread you explicitly equate a bubbly stock market with wealth (creation)…but you buy stock with money…so i remain mystified.
But, on paper(on a computer?), a stock can be worth a lot more than the dollars the stockholders paid for it.
What? The wealth or the money?
The wealth. If Bill Gates tried to liquidate a not even significant portion of his Microsoft holdings, it would scare the crap out of the other stockholders and the price of Microsoft stock would crash.
If it is OK in the private sector, why not in the public sector?
I don’t know of any case where private actors will send armed henchmen for you if you don’t show up for your servitude. About the only current instance of private use of involuntary servitude I can think of is the private use of prison labor which is facilitated by governments.
but further down the thread you explicitly equate a bubbly stock market with wealth (creation)…but you buy stock with money…so i remain mystified.
But, on paper(on a computer?), a stock can be worth a lot more than the dollars the stockholders paid for it.
What? The wealth or the money?
The wealth. If Bill Gates tried to liquidate a not even significant portion of his Microsoft holdings, it would scare the crap out of the other stockholders and the price of Microsoft stock would crash.
If it is OK in the private sector, why not in the public sector?
I don’t know of any case where private actors will send armed henchmen for you if you don’t show up for your servitude. About the only current instance of private use of involuntary servitude I can think of is the private use of prison labor which is facilitated by governments.
None of this is news. Tell me what housing policies have prevented this.
Ok, I think I understand your point better now. Thank you for expanding on it, and for your patience.
There are lots of issues that contribute to people having to live far from where they work. Some of those reasons are related to the issues raised in the article, and some are not.
Among the issues related to the article is the phenomenon of very large amounts of money chasing finite and scarce available real estate. In markets where that is typical, working people get crowded out, often way out, sometimes way, way out.
That’s the case in NY, DC, Boston, San Francisco. It’s becoming the case, increasingly, in other places. It’s not so much the case in Philly, because I guess because of the mix of industries there.
In some markets, a lot of newer development is luxury stuff that people buy and never even live in, just to have a safe place to park their cash.
None of this is news. Tell me what housing policies have prevented this.
Ok, I think I understand your point better now. Thank you for expanding on it, and for your patience.
There are lots of issues that contribute to people having to live far from where they work. Some of those reasons are related to the issues raised in the article, and some are not.
Among the issues related to the article is the phenomenon of very large amounts of money chasing finite and scarce available real estate. In markets where that is typical, working people get crowded out, often way out, sometimes way, way out.
That’s the case in NY, DC, Boston, San Francisco. It’s becoming the case, increasingly, in other places. It’s not so much the case in Philly, because I guess because of the mix of industries there.
In some markets, a lot of newer development is luxury stuff that people buy and never even live in, just to have a safe place to park their cash.
But, on paper(on a computer?), a stock can be worth a lot more than the dollars the stockholders paid for it.
But to realize that “wealth” you sell and get…..money. LOL.
The wealth.
So, wealth = money? And the government creates money. Interesting concept there, Chas.
I don’t know of any case where private actors will send armed henchmen for you if you don’t show up for your servitude.
ah…ridiculous. Not worthy of a reply.
But, on paper(on a computer?), a stock can be worth a lot more than the dollars the stockholders paid for it.
But to realize that “wealth” you sell and get…..money. LOL.
The wealth.
So, wealth = money? And the government creates money. Interesting concept there, Chas.
I don’t know of any case where private actors will send armed henchmen for you if you don’t show up for your servitude.
ah…ridiculous. Not worthy of a reply.
“Is college worth it? As the cost of American higher education soars, inequality widens, and wages stagnate, millions of Millennials and Gen Zers have asked themselves that question. The answer, at least from economists, has remained a resounding yes. One study found that college graduates earn nearly twice as much as their peers without a college degree.
But what if those earnings are no longer translating into financial security and long-term prosperity? A new study by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis suggests that might be the case. College still boosts graduates’ earnings, but it does little for their wealth.”
The College Wealth Premium Has Collapsed: Younger folks have come of age during an era of consumer debt.
“Is college worth it? As the cost of American higher education soars, inequality widens, and wages stagnate, millions of Millennials and Gen Zers have asked themselves that question. The answer, at least from economists, has remained a resounding yes. One study found that college graduates earn nearly twice as much as their peers without a college degree.
But what if those earnings are no longer translating into financial security and long-term prosperity? A new study by researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis suggests that might be the case. College still boosts graduates’ earnings, but it does little for their wealth.”
The College Wealth Premium Has Collapsed: Younger folks have come of age during an era of consumer debt.
Among the issues related to the article is the phenomenon of very large amounts of money chasing finite and scarce available real estate. In markets where that is typical, working people get crowded out, often way out, sometimes way, way out.
There are places where real estate really is that kind of finite. Manhattan. Parts of San Francisco. Singapore. Hong Kong.
But there is plenty of real estate within easy commute distance of even those. Except, in the US (not sure about elsewhere), use is artificially constrained by zoning laws. If you insist that every half acre (or maybe even full acre) have only one, single family, dwelling — no apartments — then lots of money chasing those limited acres can send prices thru the roof. But if, for example, we were willing to build Manhattan densities elsewhere, the problem of unaffordable housing and extreme commutes disappears.
Among the issues related to the article is the phenomenon of very large amounts of money chasing finite and scarce available real estate. In markets where that is typical, working people get crowded out, often way out, sometimes way, way out.
There are places where real estate really is that kind of finite. Manhattan. Parts of San Francisco. Singapore. Hong Kong.
But there is plenty of real estate within easy commute distance of even those. Except, in the US (not sure about elsewhere), use is artificially constrained by zoning laws. If you insist that every half acre (or maybe even full acre) have only one, single family, dwelling — no apartments — then lots of money chasing those limited acres can send prices thru the roof. But if, for example, we were willing to build Manhattan densities elsewhere, the problem of unaffordable housing and extreme commutes disappears.
“If Bill Gates tried to liquidate a not even significant portion of his Microsoft holdings, it would scare the crap out of the other stockholders and the price of Microsoft stock would crash.”
Hmm, this is not borne out by behavior in the markets, particularly in bull markets.
Read any market commentator who tracks insider stock purchases and stock sales. The unanimous boilerplate is that insiders sales do not matter to the market; insiders can sell for any old reason; it’s nothing to do with company prospects.
Insider buying, however signifies overwhelming bullishness by insiders.
It’s self-fulfilling.
Add in that insider buys are happily touted and insider sales are tut-tutted, even by the sellers.
Now, if you would like to couch your claim within the context that stock market commentariat, with few exceptions, are steadfastly bullish at all times and work overtime knocking down any whiff of negativity in order to always support share prices, and squeezing the shorts whenever possible (I never short; what am I, a Commie?), in other words the every day grift of Wall Street’s eternal sunny-side up bullshit, because they will be fired if they are not cock-eyed, predatory, prosperity gospel optimist kudlowist purveyors on the sell side, then I might find agreement with you.
But libertarian dogma applied across the board has little to do actual human behavior.
“If Bill Gates tried to liquidate a not even significant portion of his Microsoft holdings, it would scare the crap out of the other stockholders and the price of Microsoft stock would crash.”
Hmm, this is not borne out by behavior in the markets, particularly in bull markets.
Read any market commentator who tracks insider stock purchases and stock sales. The unanimous boilerplate is that insiders sales do not matter to the market; insiders can sell for any old reason; it’s nothing to do with company prospects.
Insider buying, however signifies overwhelming bullishness by insiders.
It’s self-fulfilling.
Add in that insider buys are happily touted and insider sales are tut-tutted, even by the sellers.
Now, if you would like to couch your claim within the context that stock market commentariat, with few exceptions, are steadfastly bullish at all times and work overtime knocking down any whiff of negativity in order to always support share prices, and squeezing the shorts whenever possible (I never short; what am I, a Commie?), in other words the every day grift of Wall Street’s eternal sunny-side up bullshit, because they will be fired if they are not cock-eyed, predatory, prosperity gospel optimist kudlowist purveyors on the sell side, then I might find agreement with you.
But libertarian dogma applied across the board has little to do actual human behavior.
“I don’t know of any case where private actors will send armed henchmen for you if you don’t show up for your servitude.”
Sure you do.
People are regularly fired and visited minutes later by private armed henchman, told to empty their desks, or worse, to leave everything, including family pictures, behind with no hope of return of their private property, and escorted to the sidewalk.
The employee’s voluntary servitude, which they wish to continue under their own free will, is denied them. They are forced to NOT show up for their servitude, and their health insurance is canceled by fucking force.
Are you a bubble-boy, or what?
I like Kramer’s gambit in Seinfeld: “Oh, you can’t fire me, I don’t even work here,” as he is escorted from the desk he had commandeered as a squatter, while of course filing regular reports with the higher-ups.
“I don’t know of any case where private actors will send armed henchmen for you if you don’t show up for your servitude.”
Sure you do.
People are regularly fired and visited minutes later by private armed henchman, told to empty their desks, or worse, to leave everything, including family pictures, behind with no hope of return of their private property, and escorted to the sidewalk.
The employee’s voluntary servitude, which they wish to continue under their own free will, is denied them. They are forced to NOT show up for their servitude, and their health insurance is canceled by fucking force.
Are you a bubble-boy, or what?
I like Kramer’s gambit in Seinfeld: “Oh, you can’t fire me, I don’t even work here,” as he is escorted from the desk he had commandeered as a squatter, while of course filing regular reports with the higher-ups.
The logical nest step would of course be to automatically make the employer the creditor for the student loan debts of his employees (the loan selachii holding them originally would become just initial caretakers for a reasonable fee). That would establish a proper system of volontary servitude (peonage) without (formally) violating the constitution or libertarian principles.
The logical nest step would of course be to automatically make the employer the creditor for the student loan debts of his employees (the loan selachii holding them originally would become just initial caretakers for a reasonable fee). That would establish a proper system of volontary servitude (peonage) without (formally) violating the constitution or libertarian principles.
i learned a lot of things i would have never learned on my own, in college. and i learned a lot of stuff that i quickly forgot (fluid dynamics has never come up in my programming career. but discrete math has been pretty handy)
maybe some of y’all got ripped off.
i learned a lot of things i would have never learned on my own, in college. and i learned a lot of stuff that i quickly forgot (fluid dynamics has never come up in my programming career. but discrete math has been pretty handy)
maybe some of y’all got ripped off.
But what if those earnings are no longer translating into financial security and long-term prosperity?
Aha!! The penny drops.
Except, in the US (not sure about elsewhere), use is artificially constrained by zoning laws.
if, for example, we were willing to build Manhattan densities elsewhere, the problem of unaffordable housing and extreme commutes disappears.
I’d say Manhattan is not a good example of this, especially as regards affordability. Even commute time – if you don’t have large dollars in Manhattan, you live in Washington Heights, and are once again spending lots of time getting to and from if you work downtown.
In some markets, money is simply chasing people out. Like, for instance, Boston. Developers replace affordable residential units with luxury condos, because money. People who live god knows where buy the units with no particular intention to live in them, because money. Very very very wealthy people don’t really have a good use for their money because they have so fncking much of it, but they don’t want to lose it, so they turn it into a condo that nobody lives in, displacing people who can no longer afford to live in their own neighborhood.
It’s not like that everywhere, but it is like that here.
Lather rinse and repeat for a million different things, ranging from seats at a ball game to concert tickets to a college education. A small number of people have such an extraordinary amount of money that it crowds access for everyone else out.
If the solution to that is something along the lines of packing everyone into something like Manhattan density, I’m not sure that counts as a solution.
Median price for homes sold in my county is $420K, according to Zillow. Median household income is $76K. So you are going to pay 5 1/2 times your household income for a house.
How does that math work, for most people?
We are moving toward a society sequestered by income. Social and economic mobility is declining. If you don’t already have a lot of money, many opportunities that once would have been available to you, are increasingly not available to you.
You get a cool phone, a swanky TV, and a shitload of debt. And a drinking problem.
Not a good future.
But what if those earnings are no longer translating into financial security and long-term prosperity?
Aha!! The penny drops.
Except, in the US (not sure about elsewhere), use is artificially constrained by zoning laws.
if, for example, we were willing to build Manhattan densities elsewhere, the problem of unaffordable housing and extreme commutes disappears.
I’d say Manhattan is not a good example of this, especially as regards affordability. Even commute time – if you don’t have large dollars in Manhattan, you live in Washington Heights, and are once again spending lots of time getting to and from if you work downtown.
In some markets, money is simply chasing people out. Like, for instance, Boston. Developers replace affordable residential units with luxury condos, because money. People who live god knows where buy the units with no particular intention to live in them, because money. Very very very wealthy people don’t really have a good use for their money because they have so fncking much of it, but they don’t want to lose it, so they turn it into a condo that nobody lives in, displacing people who can no longer afford to live in their own neighborhood.
It’s not like that everywhere, but it is like that here.
Lather rinse and repeat for a million different things, ranging from seats at a ball game to concert tickets to a college education. A small number of people have such an extraordinary amount of money that it crowds access for everyone else out.
If the solution to that is something along the lines of packing everyone into something like Manhattan density, I’m not sure that counts as a solution.
Median price for homes sold in my county is $420K, according to Zillow. Median household income is $76K. So you are going to pay 5 1/2 times your household income for a house.
How does that math work, for most people?
We are moving toward a society sequestered by income. Social and economic mobility is declining. If you don’t already have a lot of money, many opportunities that once would have been available to you, are increasingly not available to you.
You get a cool phone, a swanky TV, and a shitload of debt. And a drinking problem.
Not a good future.
maybe some of y’all got ripped off.
I hope I was clear that I was not ripped off, and that I don’t think higher education (or advanced higher education) is worthless. I would recommend it to anyone, want it to be available to everyone, and have had many discussions here where I’ve taken that view.
However, I’m not sure that what’s learned there translates easily to employment skills (although there are people who believe that). In my experience, people who are intellectually curious and creative have made good coworkers. Even people who don’t have those qualities, but are dedicated, honest and focussed have made excellent coworkers. It depends on what they’re doing but a college degree isn’t necessary for every type of work. It does seem to be necessary now in order to get hired for many types of work.
Additionally, most people are interested in pursuing advanced degrees sacrifice in order to do that (at least in the short term). I have nothing but respect for them.
Just wanted to make that clear.
Except, in the US (not sure about elsewhere), use is artificially constrained by zoning laws.
That’s why, even though zoning laws improve the quality of life for a lot of people and contribute to making cities beautiful, they are problematic in many ways. Some are more necessary than others.
Among the issues related to the article is the phenomenon of very large amounts of money chasing finite and scarce available real estate.
That phenomenon does exist, but it’s not the only problem, and the answer to that is not so easy. Finite and scarce, especially coupled with useful, convenient and chic, equals expensive. That happens in all categories. Well-meaning people have tried to figure out how to make it better for low income people with very limited success. The answer is (IMO) to distribute employment opportunities, and build more cultural centers.
maybe some of y’all got ripped off.
I hope I was clear that I was not ripped off, and that I don’t think higher education (or advanced higher education) is worthless. I would recommend it to anyone, want it to be available to everyone, and have had many discussions here where I’ve taken that view.
However, I’m not sure that what’s learned there translates easily to employment skills (although there are people who believe that). In my experience, people who are intellectually curious and creative have made good coworkers. Even people who don’t have those qualities, but are dedicated, honest and focussed have made excellent coworkers. It depends on what they’re doing but a college degree isn’t necessary for every type of work. It does seem to be necessary now in order to get hired for many types of work.
Additionally, most people are interested in pursuing advanced degrees sacrifice in order to do that (at least in the short term). I have nothing but respect for them.
Just wanted to make that clear.
Except, in the US (not sure about elsewhere), use is artificially constrained by zoning laws.
That’s why, even though zoning laws improve the quality of life for a lot of people and contribute to making cities beautiful, they are problematic in many ways. Some are more necessary than others.
Among the issues related to the article is the phenomenon of very large amounts of money chasing finite and scarce available real estate.
That phenomenon does exist, but it’s not the only problem, and the answer to that is not so easy. Finite and scarce, especially coupled with useful, convenient and chic, equals expensive. That happens in all categories. Well-meaning people have tried to figure out how to make it better for low income people with very limited success. The answer is (IMO) to distribute employment opportunities, and build more cultural centers.
If the solution to that is something along the lines of packing everyone into something like Manhattan density, I’m not sure that counts as a solution.
That is one part of the solution for large cities.
The article you cited, russell, mentions taxing real estate transactions. That’s another possible part of the solution.
I did have some quibbles with the article. For example, the fact that a large number of properties are owned by LLC is not really an indicator of shady intent. Instead, it suggests that the properties might (not necessarily) be intended as rental properties, or are owned by more than one unrelated person who are investors. There’s nothing wrong with investing in rental property per se. I doubt that a large percentage of the properties mentioned are standing vacant. It would be great if everyone lived walking distance from their workplace, but how is that going to be rationed? Company town situations could ease some people’s commute situations, but that would come with the same kind of problem as health care – you lose your job, you lose your house.
This problem has been with us for a long time – to a lesser extent, perhaps. My parents faced it. People make more money working in a city, but they pay more in living expenses or live in substandard housing, so they commute. The answer is to distribute jobs elsewhere, allow telecommuting, etc.
If the solution to that is something along the lines of packing everyone into something like Manhattan density, I’m not sure that counts as a solution.
That is one part of the solution for large cities.
The article you cited, russell, mentions taxing real estate transactions. That’s another possible part of the solution.
I did have some quibbles with the article. For example, the fact that a large number of properties are owned by LLC is not really an indicator of shady intent. Instead, it suggests that the properties might (not necessarily) be intended as rental properties, or are owned by more than one unrelated person who are investors. There’s nothing wrong with investing in rental property per se. I doubt that a large percentage of the properties mentioned are standing vacant. It would be great if everyone lived walking distance from their workplace, but how is that going to be rationed? Company town situations could ease some people’s commute situations, but that would come with the same kind of problem as health care – you lose your job, you lose your house.
This problem has been with us for a long time – to a lesser extent, perhaps. My parents faced it. People make more money working in a city, but they pay more in living expenses or live in substandard housing, so they commute. The answer is to distribute jobs elsewhere, allow telecommuting, etc.
I notice that my skills at self-editing are steadily diminishing. Sorry about that. Hope you get my drift.
I notice that my skills at self-editing are steadily diminishing. Sorry about that. Hope you get my drift.
One impact on housing cost is wealthy Chinese nationals looking for places to park some of their wealth in case things go sideways in China. Trump’s trade war has put a crimp in some of that.
“China, meanwhile, topped all other countries for the seventh consecutive year, with $13.4 billion in home purchases, but that was down a whopping 56% from the prior year, NAR said. About half those sales were all cash, down from 58% a year earlier. The next largest international buyers – Canada, India and the United Kingdom – also had big drops, but they represent smaller shares of the market.”
Chinese buyers pull back from U.S. housing market, hurting home sales
One impact on housing cost is wealthy Chinese nationals looking for places to park some of their wealth in case things go sideways in China. Trump’s trade war has put a crimp in some of that.
“China, meanwhile, topped all other countries for the seventh consecutive year, with $13.4 billion in home purchases, but that was down a whopping 56% from the prior year, NAR said. About half those sales were all cash, down from 58% a year earlier. The next largest international buyers – Canada, India and the United Kingdom – also had big drops, but they represent smaller shares of the market.”
Chinese buyers pull back from U.S. housing market, hurting home sales
First, thanks much for changing the subject.
I am with CWT for the most part. I’ll approach it like this: Professor Galloway’s grades are consistently in line with the quality of his analysis, i.e. about what you’d expect from a mediocre intellect whose thoughts runs largely to ideological bullet points.
Consider these two brilliant ideas:
Tax K-12 private schools and reinvest the proceeds in public schools. We are barreling toward a caste system, sequestering kids by income, which cuts at a key ingredient to capitalism: empathy.
Leaving aside the illiberality of labeling private education something on the order of a public nuisance if not enemy, all taxing those schools would do is increase the cost and therefore the demand and make them even more exclusive. Brilliant. Further, the proposition that paying the currently underperforming coterie of educational professionals more money will somehow convert them into more competent performers with a better student outcome across the board is unproven at best and contrary to experience in many respects.
Eliminate capital gains and mortgage tax deductions. Both are transfers from the young and middle class to the old and rich.
This is just stupid. No one is going to risk their capital on a start up if the gain is subject to taxation, as Galloway would have it, up to 50 or even 70%–and no one is going to do it if they are taxed at 37 or 40% either. If he wants to make sure there are no jobs for new entrants into the employment market, just take away the incentive to start or expand businesses. Like I said, brilliant. Nothing grows an economy and creates more opportunity than the gov’t shaving off the top 40 or 50% of the economy’s net production. It’s like an ironclad law of economics. If Prof. Galloway is reading this, I’d better clarify and note that the last two sentences are “sarcasm.”
As for eliminating the “mortgage taxes”, this is simply further proof of why Galloway was a poor student with a mediocre intellect. There is no “mortgage tax” deduction. What a shithead.
There is a “mortgage interest” deduction and a “real estate tax” deduction, but they are two very different things, the latter being capped at 10K per taxpayer and being tied the to value of one’s property in almost all instances.
Both of these deductions make it easier and not harder for middle class people to buy their own homes. Like I said, he really isn’t that smart.
Capping the property tax deduction was a red state slap at blue state policies. I live in a red state and I’m glad I do. However, I visit NJ 3-4 times a year and, from my limited viewpoint, NJ provides a lot of nice amenities for its citizens that seem to be paid for, at least in part, by local taxes. That’s the beauty of federalism: the states, through the electorate, get to pick how much they pay into the state treasury in exchange for what services. As a matter of policy and preference, I’m offended that blue stater’s have to pay much of the SALT with after tax dollars. It’s government–the feds in this instance–deciding winners and losers. I don’t like it when lefties do it. I’m equally against it from the right.
Further evidence of his marginal intellect is his assertion that the wealthy paid taxes at rates of 70%, then 47% and now 23%. He is mixing capital and earned income rates. It’s either dishonest or stupid. I’ll go with stupid given the other items I’ve noted.
As to the larger point: how do we provide broad and meaningful opportunity to the NextGen?
Let’s begin by examining the premise that this is something that gov’t can actually do. As an aside, in the last 9 months, I’ve had repeated encounters with the Feds (FAA, SS Admin, Post Office), and even given the decades they’ve had to get it right, they have managed to get worse, not better, over time. So, we have a beginning issue of whether there is sufficient centralized competence to accomplish this task.
The second question is: just how much can be done for Galloway’s “unremarkable’s”? Particularly if the Unremarkable’s he is talking about are those of mediocre ability. Galloway engages in a bit of definitional sleight-of-hand when he refers to “grit, luck, talent, and a tolerance for risk.”
In reality, what makes the difference is ambition, hard work, deferring gratification, prudence coupled with risk tolerance and intelligence.
You can’t make someone smarter nor, with few exceptions, can you make someone better or more inspired. My success rate at motivating people to move out of their comfort zone and really get to the next level is less than 10%. Over the last 40 years, I’ve been one of an “employer group” numbering between 1 and 5. I’ve spoken directly to hundreds of subordinates, pointing out strategies, actions etc that would better their chances of advancement. Having thought about it a bit further, I’m downgrading my 10% to 5%. Most people are content with their job, with doing what they’re told to do and taking life as it comes.
But, even if everyone suddenly turned into a self-starter on steroids, given the hugely complex nature of modern America, most people–and this will get worse over time and not better–being “average” will find it more difficult to find success, particularly in an urban setting.
What is killing people is the cost of living space and transportation in our urban areas. That isn’t going away. Scarcity causes higher prices. That’s immutable absent a command economy. People pay more for proximity (and higher taxes, Prof. Galloway).
Ms. McKinney and I have short commutes, but we downsized significantly for that opportunity. When we ultimately retire in what is objectively a not-bad golf community, our all-in cost is well under 1M because it is a one hour drive minimum to downtown Austin.
IOW, we made a huge trade off to get more cake with much less access to the urban amenities we really like in Houston.
Bottom line: if gov’t is going to try to impact the future for millions of people, it has to come up with a way to disperse the economy throughout the country, which drives down commute times and cost of living space. However, all of the incentives work to concentrate the economy in exponentially and increasingly costly urban areas. I’m not holding my breath.
Thanks again for changing the subject. This was fun.
First, thanks much for changing the subject.
I am with CWT for the most part. I’ll approach it like this: Professor Galloway’s grades are consistently in line with the quality of his analysis, i.e. about what you’d expect from a mediocre intellect whose thoughts runs largely to ideological bullet points.
Consider these two brilliant ideas:
Tax K-12 private schools and reinvest the proceeds in public schools. We are barreling toward a caste system, sequestering kids by income, which cuts at a key ingredient to capitalism: empathy.
Leaving aside the illiberality of labeling private education something on the order of a public nuisance if not enemy, all taxing those schools would do is increase the cost and therefore the demand and make them even more exclusive. Brilliant. Further, the proposition that paying the currently underperforming coterie of educational professionals more money will somehow convert them into more competent performers with a better student outcome across the board is unproven at best and contrary to experience in many respects.
Eliminate capital gains and mortgage tax deductions. Both are transfers from the young and middle class to the old and rich.
This is just stupid. No one is going to risk their capital on a start up if the gain is subject to taxation, as Galloway would have it, up to 50 or even 70%–and no one is going to do it if they are taxed at 37 or 40% either. If he wants to make sure there are no jobs for new entrants into the employment market, just take away the incentive to start or expand businesses. Like I said, brilliant. Nothing grows an economy and creates more opportunity than the gov’t shaving off the top 40 or 50% of the economy’s net production. It’s like an ironclad law of economics. If Prof. Galloway is reading this, I’d better clarify and note that the last two sentences are “sarcasm.”
As for eliminating the “mortgage taxes”, this is simply further proof of why Galloway was a poor student with a mediocre intellect. There is no “mortgage tax” deduction. What a shithead.
There is a “mortgage interest” deduction and a “real estate tax” deduction, but they are two very different things, the latter being capped at 10K per taxpayer and being tied the to value of one’s property in almost all instances.
Both of these deductions make it easier and not harder for middle class people to buy their own homes. Like I said, he really isn’t that smart.
Capping the property tax deduction was a red state slap at blue state policies. I live in a red state and I’m glad I do. However, I visit NJ 3-4 times a year and, from my limited viewpoint, NJ provides a lot of nice amenities for its citizens that seem to be paid for, at least in part, by local taxes. That’s the beauty of federalism: the states, through the electorate, get to pick how much they pay into the state treasury in exchange for what services. As a matter of policy and preference, I’m offended that blue stater’s have to pay much of the SALT with after tax dollars. It’s government–the feds in this instance–deciding winners and losers. I don’t like it when lefties do it. I’m equally against it from the right.
Further evidence of his marginal intellect is his assertion that the wealthy paid taxes at rates of 70%, then 47% and now 23%. He is mixing capital and earned income rates. It’s either dishonest or stupid. I’ll go with stupid given the other items I’ve noted.
As to the larger point: how do we provide broad and meaningful opportunity to the NextGen?
Let’s begin by examining the premise that this is something that gov’t can actually do. As an aside, in the last 9 months, I’ve had repeated encounters with the Feds (FAA, SS Admin, Post Office), and even given the decades they’ve had to get it right, they have managed to get worse, not better, over time. So, we have a beginning issue of whether there is sufficient centralized competence to accomplish this task.
The second question is: just how much can be done for Galloway’s “unremarkable’s”? Particularly if the Unremarkable’s he is talking about are those of mediocre ability. Galloway engages in a bit of definitional sleight-of-hand when he refers to “grit, luck, talent, and a tolerance for risk.”
In reality, what makes the difference is ambition, hard work, deferring gratification, prudence coupled with risk tolerance and intelligence.
You can’t make someone smarter nor, with few exceptions, can you make someone better or more inspired. My success rate at motivating people to move out of their comfort zone and really get to the next level is less than 10%. Over the last 40 years, I’ve been one of an “employer group” numbering between 1 and 5. I’ve spoken directly to hundreds of subordinates, pointing out strategies, actions etc that would better their chances of advancement. Having thought about it a bit further, I’m downgrading my 10% to 5%. Most people are content with their job, with doing what they’re told to do and taking life as it comes.
But, even if everyone suddenly turned into a self-starter on steroids, given the hugely complex nature of modern America, most people–and this will get worse over time and not better–being “average” will find it more difficult to find success, particularly in an urban setting.
What is killing people is the cost of living space and transportation in our urban areas. That isn’t going away. Scarcity causes higher prices. That’s immutable absent a command economy. People pay more for proximity (and higher taxes, Prof. Galloway).
Ms. McKinney and I have short commutes, but we downsized significantly for that opportunity. When we ultimately retire in what is objectively a not-bad golf community, our all-in cost is well under 1M because it is a one hour drive minimum to downtown Austin.
IOW, we made a huge trade off to get more cake with much less access to the urban amenities we really like in Houston.
Bottom line: if gov’t is going to try to impact the future for millions of people, it has to come up with a way to disperse the economy throughout the country, which drives down commute times and cost of living space. However, all of the incentives work to concentrate the economy in exponentially and increasingly costly urban areas. I’m not holding my breath.
Thanks again for changing the subject. This was fun.
“No one is going to risk their capital on a start up if the gain is subject to taxation, as Galloway would have it, up to 50 or even 70%–and no one is going to do it if they are taxed at 37 or 40% either.”
Wow, no start ups in the 50’s, when the marginal tax rate was 90%? I guess that decade was some sort of depressed economic hellscape.
“No one is going to risk their capital on a start up if the gain is subject to taxation, as Galloway would have it, up to 50 or even 70%–and no one is going to do it if they are taxed at 37 or 40% either.”
Wow, no start ups in the 50’s, when the marginal tax rate was 90%? I guess that decade was some sort of depressed economic hellscape.
all taxing those schools would do is increase the cost and therefore the demand and make them even more exclusive
not all: improving public schools with the money is the point.
all taxing those schools would do is increase the cost and therefore the demand and make them even more exclusive
not all: improving public schools with the money is the point.
Wow, no start ups in the 50’s, when the marginal tax rate was 90%? I guess that decade was some sort of depressed economic hellscape.
If you’re going to snark, you should have something to snark with. The cap gains rate in the 50’s was 25%, not 90%, which was something entirely different. Here’s a link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States
Do you understand the difference between tax rates on earned income vs capital gains?
This is why Prof. Galloway’s article resonates. People don’t always know as much as they think they know, and for the most part, people with progressively more progressive views on the economy, and free market capitalism in particular, have mostly a theoretical understanding of starting and running a business. This is particularly the case when it comes to running a business large enough to fall under all of the federal regulatory regimes.
Galloway writes as if there are magic wands to be waved and predictable changes which will ensue. Like I said initially, he’s not very smart.
Slightly off topic, another federal agency I’ve had the pleasure of encountering with starting our new firm is the DOL. We have a 401K for our employees with a 5% match. How hard can that be? An employee makes 100K a year and we put 5K in that employees account regardless of the employee contribution. The document I had to sign creating our 401K is over 600 pages long. The foreplay leading up to the signing was roughly 50-60 hours of personal attention by either me, my wife or my principal law partner.
I asked my broker why this was the case. It’s all to comply with a needlessly, foolishly, ridiculously complex regulatory regime. If you don’t have to do it yourself, it’s not a big deal. If you ever do, you’ll start to appreciate why people like Galloway sound like idiots to people like me.
Wow, no start ups in the 50’s, when the marginal tax rate was 90%? I guess that decade was some sort of depressed economic hellscape.
If you’re going to snark, you should have something to snark with. The cap gains rate in the 50’s was 25%, not 90%, which was something entirely different. Here’s a link:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax_in_the_United_States
Do you understand the difference between tax rates on earned income vs capital gains?
This is why Prof. Galloway’s article resonates. People don’t always know as much as they think they know, and for the most part, people with progressively more progressive views on the economy, and free market capitalism in particular, have mostly a theoretical understanding of starting and running a business. This is particularly the case when it comes to running a business large enough to fall under all of the federal regulatory regimes.
Galloway writes as if there are magic wands to be waved and predictable changes which will ensue. Like I said initially, he’s not very smart.
Slightly off topic, another federal agency I’ve had the pleasure of encountering with starting our new firm is the DOL. We have a 401K for our employees with a 5% match. How hard can that be? An employee makes 100K a year and we put 5K in that employees account regardless of the employee contribution. The document I had to sign creating our 401K is over 600 pages long. The foreplay leading up to the signing was roughly 50-60 hours of personal attention by either me, my wife or my principal law partner.
I asked my broker why this was the case. It’s all to comply with a needlessly, foolishly, ridiculously complex regulatory regime. If you don’t have to do it yourself, it’s not a big deal. If you ever do, you’ll start to appreciate why people like Galloway sound like idiots to people like me.
Further, the proposition that paying the currently underperforming coterie of educational professionals more money will somehow convert them into more competent performers with a better student outcome across the board is unproven at best and contrary to experience in many respects.
Interesting. One could say much the same about paying the current coterie of corporate executive professionals less, no?
I’m skeptical about things like CEO salaries myself, of course, but skepticism about the idea that you get what you pay for, or that there’s a straightforward correlation between pay and performance, does set you apart from many other conservatives. Congrats!
(A more sincere objection: I’m not sure where you’re getting your ‘contrary experience’, but my own understanding is that it’s actually quite well established that well-funded schools — e.g., the ones in well-off areas with plenty of tax revenue — do predictably perform substantially better than neglected schools in depressed or marginalized areas. It’s not *just* the money that makes the difference, to be sure, but it’s not exactly unimportant.
This effect plays quite a large role in the education policy success that was busing, and the story of why we should bring it back.)
Further, the proposition that paying the currently underperforming coterie of educational professionals more money will somehow convert them into more competent performers with a better student outcome across the board is unproven at best and contrary to experience in many respects.
Interesting. One could say much the same about paying the current coterie of corporate executive professionals less, no?
I’m skeptical about things like CEO salaries myself, of course, but skepticism about the idea that you get what you pay for, or that there’s a straightforward correlation between pay and performance, does set you apart from many other conservatives. Congrats!
(A more sincere objection: I’m not sure where you’re getting your ‘contrary experience’, but my own understanding is that it’s actually quite well established that well-funded schools — e.g., the ones in well-off areas with plenty of tax revenue — do predictably perform substantially better than neglected schools in depressed or marginalized areas. It’s not *just* the money that makes the difference, to be sure, but it’s not exactly unimportant.
This effect plays quite a large role in the education policy success that was busing, and the story of why we should bring it back.)
i learned a lot of things i would have never learned on my own, in college. and i learned a lot of stuff that i quickly forgot (fluid dynamics has never come up in my programming career.
I also found Anthropology, which I had never previously heard of. I got interested enough to get a Masters in the subject. And while I never worked in the field, I have found the insights from it extremely helpful when dealing with coworkers from multiple cultures.
And I, too, never used fluid mechanics (MS in Mechanical Engineering) in my programming career. (How ever did we end up with two people in this small group who studied what has to be a really obscure field??? 😉
i learned a lot of things i would have never learned on my own, in college. and i learned a lot of stuff that i quickly forgot (fluid dynamics has never come up in my programming career.
I also found Anthropology, which I had never previously heard of. I got interested enough to get a Masters in the subject. And while I never worked in the field, I have found the insights from it extremely helpful when dealing with coworkers from multiple cultures.
And I, too, never used fluid mechanics (MS in Mechanical Engineering) in my programming career. (How ever did we end up with two people in this small group who studied what has to be a really obscure field??? 😉
I asked my broker why this was the case. It’s all to comply with a needlessly, foolishly, ridiculously complex regulatory regime. If you don’t have to do it yourself, it’s not a big deal. If you ever do, you’ll start to appreciate why people like Galloway sound like idiots to people like me.
I don’t think Galloway is an idiot.
I do think that some regulatory schemes are counterproductive, although I don’t have the knowledge to judge 401K set-ups, which is a program that I would expect to be complicated for somebody (although maybe the complicated parts should have been made into a turn-key decision for businesses). In other words, I’m not sure why you, your wife and your law partner were the ones tasked with going through the mire of the regulatory issues involved, but since the concept involves investments, securities, etc., I would expect it to be highly regulated.
At various times, I’ve wanted to engage in small-scale enterprises, and have been hindered by regulations. Usually, though, the regulations themselves make sense. Compliance could be made easier in many cases.
Speaking of compliance, taxes could be made easier. The federal government has all of the information it needs to figure out most people’s taxes. It should provide a draft tax return for everyone, with room for amendments. People could start from scratch with their own return if they thought the draft was way off base. Elizabeth Warren has a preliminary plan for this.
I asked my broker why this was the case. It’s all to comply with a needlessly, foolishly, ridiculously complex regulatory regime. If you don’t have to do it yourself, it’s not a big deal. If you ever do, you’ll start to appreciate why people like Galloway sound like idiots to people like me.
I don’t think Galloway is an idiot.
I do think that some regulatory schemes are counterproductive, although I don’t have the knowledge to judge 401K set-ups, which is a program that I would expect to be complicated for somebody (although maybe the complicated parts should have been made into a turn-key decision for businesses). In other words, I’m not sure why you, your wife and your law partner were the ones tasked with going through the mire of the regulatory issues involved, but since the concept involves investments, securities, etc., I would expect it to be highly regulated.
At various times, I’ve wanted to engage in small-scale enterprises, and have been hindered by regulations. Usually, though, the regulations themselves make sense. Compliance could be made easier in many cases.
Speaking of compliance, taxes could be made easier. The federal government has all of the information it needs to figure out most people’s taxes. It should provide a draft tax return for everyone, with room for amendments. People could start from scratch with their own return if they thought the draft was way off base. Elizabeth Warren has a preliminary plan for this.
a college degree isn’t necessary for every type of work. It does seem to be necessary now in order to get hired for many types of work.
I agree. But what I see is a broken HR process. That is, jobs are posted with “requirements” for a college degree, not because the hiring manager said he needs someone with a degree, but because HR routinely puts that it unasked. Not sure whether they felt the need for a way to do triage on applications in fields that they knew nothing about (pretty much all of them) back when unemployment was high and so they got lots. Or maybe there was some other motivator.
a college degree isn’t necessary for every type of work. It does seem to be necessary now in order to get hired for many types of work.
I agree. But what I see is a broken HR process. That is, jobs are posted with “requirements” for a college degree, not because the hiring manager said he needs someone with a degree, but because HR routinely puts that it unasked. Not sure whether they felt the need for a way to do triage on applications in fields that they knew nothing about (pretty much all of them) back when unemployment was high and so they got lots. Or maybe there was some other motivator.
JL, several points.
1. I think you mean “corporate executives” and not “corporate executive professionals” because in most instances, the corporate executives are not degreed professionals except in the legal and accounting/tax departments.
2. Whatever your view of how well compensation in the private sector lines up with performance, the cost of same is not born by the public purse. Galloway proposes increasing taxes to pay more for public education without offering any evidence that more money makes a mediocre teacher better.
3. My brief review of available articles on the relationship between spending and outcome shows that you can get whatever answer you want. I suspect a lot of the writings are driven by skewed stats that get the author wherever the author wants to be. Spending in DC, I have read many times, does not correlate to outcomes, ditto the Dakotas. However, my point is: where is the evidence that spending more in Houston, for example, will make HISD teachers better or will produce better student outcomes?
JL, several points.
1. I think you mean “corporate executives” and not “corporate executive professionals” because in most instances, the corporate executives are not degreed professionals except in the legal and accounting/tax departments.
2. Whatever your view of how well compensation in the private sector lines up with performance, the cost of same is not born by the public purse. Galloway proposes increasing taxes to pay more for public education without offering any evidence that more money makes a mediocre teacher better.
3. My brief review of available articles on the relationship between spending and outcome shows that you can get whatever answer you want. I suspect a lot of the writings are driven by skewed stats that get the author wherever the author wants to be. Spending in DC, I have read many times, does not correlate to outcomes, ditto the Dakotas. However, my point is: where is the evidence that spending more in Houston, for example, will make HISD teachers better or will produce better student outcomes?
i learned a lot of things i would have never learned on my own, in college. and i learned a lot of stuff that i quickly forgot (fluid dynamics has never come up in my programming career.
And, you learn a lot of stuff that you think you won’t need but in fact comes in very handy. Algebra and geometry come up frequently (and indirectly) in litigation as well as running a business (weird, but if you are updating or building out space, having a sense of geometry makes planning a lot less complicated).
The concept of a liberal education is to produce an intellectually well-rounded person. I’m a big fan of trade and other specialized schooling, but I’m also a big fan of a base-level, core exposure to a general understanding of history, literature, civics, etc.
i learned a lot of things i would have never learned on my own, in college. and i learned a lot of stuff that i quickly forgot (fluid dynamics has never come up in my programming career.
And, you learn a lot of stuff that you think you won’t need but in fact comes in very handy. Algebra and geometry come up frequently (and indirectly) in litigation as well as running a business (weird, but if you are updating or building out space, having a sense of geometry makes planning a lot less complicated).
The concept of a liberal education is to produce an intellectually well-rounded person. I’m a big fan of trade and other specialized schooling, but I’m also a big fan of a base-level, core exposure to a general understanding of history, literature, civics, etc.
Galloway proposes increasing taxes to pay more for public education without offering any evidence that more money makes a mediocre teacher better.
Maybe the point is not to get so many mediocre teachers in the first place. (Not that I’ve come across many, if any, in my experience, but I imagine they must exist.) Or to get resources to schools that most severely lack them, rather than spraying money around indiscriminately.
No, money poorly spent won’t help. But improving things effectively will cost money.
Galloway proposes increasing taxes to pay more for public education without offering any evidence that more money makes a mediocre teacher better.
Maybe the point is not to get so many mediocre teachers in the first place. (Not that I’ve come across many, if any, in my experience, but I imagine they must exist.) Or to get resources to schools that most severely lack them, rather than spraying money around indiscriminately.
No, money poorly spent won’t help. But improving things effectively will cost money.
(although maybe the complicated parts should have been made into a turn-key decision for businesses). In other words, I’m not sure why you, your wife and your law partner were the ones tasked with going through the mire of the regulatory issues involved, but since the concept involves investments, securities, etc., I would expect it to be highly regulated.
You would think. It should be turn-key, but it isn’t. There are a bunch of i’s and t’s that, to my small mind, seemed entirely pointless and my broker/advisor had no good answer either. The investment part is, in practice, very simple: you pick an outfit like Fidelity or Vanguard which offers a decent selection of funds ranging from conservative to somewhat risky (capital growth type funds) and the employee allocates by percentage among the available funds. In practice, it’s all pretty straightforward. But, that doesn’t keep the DOL from covering us ups with BS.
(although maybe the complicated parts should have been made into a turn-key decision for businesses). In other words, I’m not sure why you, your wife and your law partner were the ones tasked with going through the mire of the regulatory issues involved, but since the concept involves investments, securities, etc., I would expect it to be highly regulated.
You would think. It should be turn-key, but it isn’t. There are a bunch of i’s and t’s that, to my small mind, seemed entirely pointless and my broker/advisor had no good answer either. The investment part is, in practice, very simple: you pick an outfit like Fidelity or Vanguard which offers a decent selection of funds ranging from conservative to somewhat risky (capital growth type funds) and the employee allocates by percentage among the available funds. In practice, it’s all pretty straightforward. But, that doesn’t keep the DOL from covering us ups with BS.
No, money poorly spent won’t help. But improving things effectively will cost money.
The logic is infallible if we could only find that recipe for “effectively improving things.”
My point is: there is no compelling evidence that, under current practice, more money will produce a better outcome on a macro basis.
Inner city schools carry a different demographic. Students are often raised by a single, economically and educationally challenged parent–usually the mom–. They have much higher discipline issues. Motivation and attention at home are issues. This is much less the case in school districts in which the student population has a relatively high number of students from 2 parent families who are more engaged with their children’s education.
It isn’t money. It’s methodology. Whatever we are doing today, it isn’t working. So, before raking in a bunch of money with no clear idea what we are going to do with it, someone needs to find out what that “effective improvement” consists of.
No, money poorly spent won’t help. But improving things effectively will cost money.
The logic is infallible if we could only find that recipe for “effectively improving things.”
My point is: there is no compelling evidence that, under current practice, more money will produce a better outcome on a macro basis.
Inner city schools carry a different demographic. Students are often raised by a single, economically and educationally challenged parent–usually the mom–. They have much higher discipline issues. Motivation and attention at home are issues. This is much less the case in school districts in which the student population has a relatively high number of students from 2 parent families who are more engaged with their children’s education.
It isn’t money. It’s methodology. Whatever we are doing today, it isn’t working. So, before raking in a bunch of money with no clear idea what we are going to do with it, someone needs to find out what that “effective improvement” consists of.
“You probably think you know which states have the best and worst education systems in the country. If you regularly dip into rankings such as those published by U.S. News and World Report, you likely believe schools in the Northeast and Upper Midwest are thriving while schools in the Deep South lag. It’s an understandable conclusion to draw from those ubiquitous “Best Schools!” lists. It’s also wrong.”
Everything You Know About State Education Rankings Is Wrong: Minds and dollars are a terrible thing to waste.
“You probably think you know which states have the best and worst education systems in the country. If you regularly dip into rankings such as those published by U.S. News and World Report, you likely believe schools in the Northeast and Upper Midwest are thriving while schools in the Deep South lag. It’s an understandable conclusion to draw from those ubiquitous “Best Schools!” lists. It’s also wrong.”
Everything You Know About State Education Rankings Is Wrong: Minds and dollars are a terrible thing to waste.
Galloway proposes increasing taxes to pay more for public education without offering any evidence that more money makes a mediocre teacher better.
I haven’t heard anyone argue that more money will make mediocre teachers better. But I have definitely heard the argument that low salaries result in potential good teachers deciding to do something more rewarding instead of teaching.
That is, while higher salaries won’t improve individual teachers, they will improve the quality of those in the teaching profession overall.
Galloway proposes increasing taxes to pay more for public education without offering any evidence that more money makes a mediocre teacher better.
I haven’t heard anyone argue that more money will make mediocre teachers better. But I have definitely heard the argument that low salaries result in potential good teachers deciding to do something more rewarding instead of teaching.
That is, while higher salaries won’t improve individual teachers, they will improve the quality of those in the teaching profession overall.
given the hugely complex nature of modern America, most people–and this will get worse over time and not better–being “average” will find it more difficult to find success
Leaving Galloway’s specific suggestions – not all of which I agree with, either – to the side, what you’ve said here was pretty much my takeaway from the piece.
That, and the disturbingly grim fact that the Congressional Joint Economic Committee finds it appropriate and relevant to identify “Deaths of Despair” as a thing and track them accordingly.
That’s Mike Lee, (R) UT on the byline, BTW, not any ivory tower liberal coastal elitist. And that’s appropriate because a lot of damage done by economic and social disparities shows up in rural areas.
About 40K people die from firearms in the US, and about 60% of those are suicides. Lotta old white guys out in the sticks blowing out their own brains.
Which brings me to this, from McK, which seems inarguably correct, to me:
Bottom line: if gov’t is going to try to impact the future for millions of people, it has to come up with a way to disperse the economy throughout the country, which drives down commute times and cost of living space.
And improves not just commute times and cost of living space, but breathes new life into a lot of communities that have been left behind by the FIRE sector and the tech industry.
I do know that tech, specifically, is beginning to branch out from CA and MA to places like Salt Lake City, Denver, Austin, and others. All of which is a good thing.
About time.
Thanks again for changing the subject. This was fun.
My pleasure, believe me.
given the hugely complex nature of modern America, most people–and this will get worse over time and not better–being “average” will find it more difficult to find success
Leaving Galloway’s specific suggestions – not all of which I agree with, either – to the side, what you’ve said here was pretty much my takeaway from the piece.
That, and the disturbingly grim fact that the Congressional Joint Economic Committee finds it appropriate and relevant to identify “Deaths of Despair” as a thing and track them accordingly.
That’s Mike Lee, (R) UT on the byline, BTW, not any ivory tower liberal coastal elitist. And that’s appropriate because a lot of damage done by economic and social disparities shows up in rural areas.
About 40K people die from firearms in the US, and about 60% of those are suicides. Lotta old white guys out in the sticks blowing out their own brains.
Which brings me to this, from McK, which seems inarguably correct, to me:
Bottom line: if gov’t is going to try to impact the future for millions of people, it has to come up with a way to disperse the economy throughout the country, which drives down commute times and cost of living space.
And improves not just commute times and cost of living space, but breathes new life into a lot of communities that have been left behind by the FIRE sector and the tech industry.
I do know that tech, specifically, is beginning to branch out from CA and MA to places like Salt Lake City, Denver, Austin, and others. All of which is a good thing.
About time.
Thanks again for changing the subject. This was fun.
My pleasure, believe me.
The concept of a liberal education is to produce an intellectually well-rounded person. I’m a big fan of trade and other specialized schooling, but I’m also a big fan of a base-level, core exposure to a general understanding of history, literature, civics, etc.
Aha, something on which I think most of us can agree!
Inner city schools carry a different demographic. Students are often raised by a single, economically and educationally challenged parent–usually the mom–. They have much higher discipline issues. Motivation and attention at home are issues. This is much less the case in school districts in which the student population has a relatively high number of students from 2 parent families who are more engaged with their children’s education.
Aha, back to business as usual!
The concept of a liberal education is to produce an intellectually well-rounded person. I’m a big fan of trade and other specialized schooling, but I’m also a big fan of a base-level, core exposure to a general understanding of history, literature, civics, etc.
Aha, something on which I think most of us can agree!
Inner city schools carry a different demographic. Students are often raised by a single, economically and educationally challenged parent–usually the mom–. They have much higher discipline issues. Motivation and attention at home are issues. This is much less the case in school districts in which the student population has a relatively high number of students from 2 parent families who are more engaged with their children’s education.
Aha, back to business as usual!
So, before raking in a bunch of money with no clear idea what we are going to do with it, someone needs to find out what that “effective improvement” consists of.
I don’t know why anyone would argue otherwise, even mediocre Galloway. I also, not being an expert in education, would assume that there are such experts who have myriad ideas about how to improve things after studying at length the problems that exist.
I bet people have written theses and dissertations and other papers on such things. Some of them might be tried under a program of some sort with a source of funding.
Mediocre Galloway is probably more familiar with these things than you and I are.
So, before raking in a bunch of money with no clear idea what we are going to do with it, someone needs to find out what that “effective improvement” consists of.
I don’t know why anyone would argue otherwise, even mediocre Galloway. I also, not being an expert in education, would assume that there are such experts who have myriad ideas about how to improve things after studying at length the problems that exist.
I bet people have written theses and dissertations and other papers on such things. Some of them might be tried under a program of some sort with a source of funding.
Mediocre Galloway is probably more familiar with these things than you and I are.
Inner city schools carry a different demographic. Students are often raised by a single, economically and educationally challenged parent–usually the mom–. They have much higher discipline issues. Motivation and attention at home are issues. This is much less the case in school districts in which the student population has a relatively high number of students from 2 parent families who are more engaged with their children’s education.
I can see a correlation there. But also (as several of us have noted) other correlations. Causation, however, is far from established.
Inner city schools carry a different demographic. Students are often raised by a single, economically and educationally challenged parent–usually the mom–. They have much higher discipline issues. Motivation and attention at home are issues. This is much less the case in school districts in which the student population has a relatively high number of students from 2 parent families who are more engaged with their children’s education.
I can see a correlation there. But also (as several of us have noted) other correlations. Causation, however, is far from established.
Some of them means some of their ideas for improving education. I don’t want to try the people or the papers they’ve written.
Some of them means some of their ideas for improving education. I don’t want to try the people or the papers they’ve written.
I’d pay more heed to all of these radical education reformists if a single one of them had ever spent meaningful time as a K-12 teacher, but they are almost always either business and entrepreneurship types or are people who dropped out of teaching in the first three years thinking that they know better.
But the narratives that they spin about education reform (which is almost always pitched as an opportunity for innovation (read “privatization” or “public/private partnership or techno-woo) ignore all of the research done by researchers looking at the nations and systems that actually succeed at doing what we claim to want to do. Like Finland.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
And more recently:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/how-finland-is-fighting-inequality-with-education-andwinning/article29716845/
Stop treating teachers as childcare and stop paying the profession as if it is the fallback career for students who cannot make it in their academic major. Start with knowledgeable candidates and put them through a full professionalization program organized by actual teachers with pedagogical expertise. Then pay them like the professionals that they are so that you can retain them in what is an extremely demanding profession.
Or go back to your free market homilies and begging the question.
I’d pay more heed to all of these radical education reformists if a single one of them had ever spent meaningful time as a K-12 teacher, but they are almost always either business and entrepreneurship types or are people who dropped out of teaching in the first three years thinking that they know better.
But the narratives that they spin about education reform (which is almost always pitched as an opportunity for innovation (read “privatization” or “public/private partnership or techno-woo) ignore all of the research done by researchers looking at the nations and systems that actually succeed at doing what we claim to want to do. Like Finland.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
And more recently:
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/education/how-finland-is-fighting-inequality-with-education-andwinning/article29716845/
Stop treating teachers as childcare and stop paying the profession as if it is the fallback career for students who cannot make it in their academic major. Start with knowledgeable candidates and put them through a full professionalization program organized by actual teachers with pedagogical expertise. Then pay them like the professionals that they are so that you can retain them in what is an extremely demanding profession.
Or go back to your free market homilies and begging the question.
Funding for free preschool would be one thing to try (more of) in the most disadvantaged districts. Early education pays great dividends.
Funding for free preschool would be one thing to try (more of) in the most disadvantaged districts. Early education pays great dividends.
Parental leave and/or community childcare are both good ways to help with the early stages of education and integration into a community. Relieving food insecurity is another.
Good luck with either of these in the modern GOP.
Parental leave and/or community childcare are both good ways to help with the early stages of education and integration into a community. Relieving food insecurity is another.
Good luck with either of these in the modern GOP.
Fascinating Atlantic piece on Finland, nous. Given the inevitable ripostes, I was particularly interested in this:
But the number of foreign-born residents in Finland doubled during the decade leading up to 2010, and the country didn’t lose its edge in education. Immigrants tended to concentrate in certain areas, causing some schools to become much more mixed than others, yet there has not been much change in the remarkable lack of variation between Finnish schools in the PISA surveys across the same period.
Fascinating Atlantic piece on Finland, nous. Given the inevitable ripostes, I was particularly interested in this:
But the number of foreign-born residents in Finland doubled during the decade leading up to 2010, and the country didn’t lose its edge in education. Immigrants tended to concentrate in certain areas, causing some schools to become much more mixed than others, yet there has not been much change in the remarkable lack of variation between Finnish schools in the PISA surveys across the same period.
1. I think you mean “corporate executives” and not “corporate executive professionals”.
But that would have ruined the word play…
2. Whatever your view of how well compensation in the private sector lines up with performance, the cost of same is not born by the public purse.
I’m not sure what difference that makes. Salaries either correlate with competence or they don’t. And if they do, and government needs to hire a chemist, say, then they need to pay enough to get a competent one. There’s no ethical principle saying taxpayers have to put up with incompetent service because the government is required to be miserly.
Galloway proposes increasing taxes to pay more for public education without offering any evidence that more money makes a mediocre teacher better.
Well, to start with, what HSH said: stop conflating ‘more money for education’ with ‘more money that will all go to exactly the same existing teachers’.
Things like textbooks, computers and facilities matter too. Even the more limited phrase ‘more money for teachers’ doesn’t mean more money to the *same* teachers, it usually means, as above, *more* teachers — maybe both more and better trained ones.
And that last part should give you a clue as to how this might work: more teachers mean smaller class sizes. And a smaller class might allow even a mediocre teacher do a much more passable job for their remaining students. (At the very least, fewer students in their care will limit the damage.)
3. My brief review of available articles on the relationship between spending and outcome shows that you can get whatever answer you want. I suspect a lot of the writings are driven by skewed stats that get the author wherever the author wants to be. Spending in DC, I have read many times, does not correlate to outcomes, ditto the Dakotas. However, my point is: where is the evidence that spending more in Houston, for example, will make HISD teachers better or will produce better student outcomes?
To be clear, my point was not necessarily that pouring more money into a system from the top will improve things. It’s difficult draw conclusions about funding and outcomes by looking at it across entire states, cities or even districts. There are just too many confounding factors — administrative incompetencies, political or demographic constraints, weird nooks and crannies where money collects, etc. (And DC, of all places, is probably more idiosyncratic than most.)
What I think is less controversial — possibly to the point of being obvious — is that putting a little more money into a particular school will, all else equal, help students in that school do better. Another teacher, a new computer lab, whatever. Doubly true if that school is already underfunded relative to peers and lacks those things.
Yet inequality of that sort is something that US school systems struggle with, largely because of local funding. School A does fine, but School B — 10 minutes down the road — gets a third as much money, and is, rather unsurprisingly, crap.
Fixing that doesn’t even necessarily mean spending more money overall. (Although often will, in practice, since you otherwise can’t equalize funding between school A and B without robbing from B — and then someone at B would holler.)
Here’s a little white paper which sort of gets at this: Texas Education Funding. From the Reason Foundation, of all places, yet I find myself largely in agreement with most of the analysis and conclusions (with some hefty caveats around charters).
It looks like in some ways Texas is ahead of the game already: there’s an infrastructure to (try to) provide funding fairness via state-level redistribution. But it’s inflexible and over-complicated, and still allows at least some major intra-, if not inter-, district inequalities. See the part where they talk about how schools in ‘good’ areas generally get their pick of the best, most expensive, teachers, for example.
1. I think you mean “corporate executives” and not “corporate executive professionals”.
But that would have ruined the word play…
2. Whatever your view of how well compensation in the private sector lines up with performance, the cost of same is not born by the public purse.
I’m not sure what difference that makes. Salaries either correlate with competence or they don’t. And if they do, and government needs to hire a chemist, say, then they need to pay enough to get a competent one. There’s no ethical principle saying taxpayers have to put up with incompetent service because the government is required to be miserly.
Galloway proposes increasing taxes to pay more for public education without offering any evidence that more money makes a mediocre teacher better.
Well, to start with, what HSH said: stop conflating ‘more money for education’ with ‘more money that will all go to exactly the same existing teachers’.
Things like textbooks, computers and facilities matter too. Even the more limited phrase ‘more money for teachers’ doesn’t mean more money to the *same* teachers, it usually means, as above, *more* teachers — maybe both more and better trained ones.
And that last part should give you a clue as to how this might work: more teachers mean smaller class sizes. And a smaller class might allow even a mediocre teacher do a much more passable job for their remaining students. (At the very least, fewer students in their care will limit the damage.)
3. My brief review of available articles on the relationship between spending and outcome shows that you can get whatever answer you want. I suspect a lot of the writings are driven by skewed stats that get the author wherever the author wants to be. Spending in DC, I have read many times, does not correlate to outcomes, ditto the Dakotas. However, my point is: where is the evidence that spending more in Houston, for example, will make HISD teachers better or will produce better student outcomes?
To be clear, my point was not necessarily that pouring more money into a system from the top will improve things. It’s difficult draw conclusions about funding and outcomes by looking at it across entire states, cities or even districts. There are just too many confounding factors — administrative incompetencies, political or demographic constraints, weird nooks and crannies where money collects, etc. (And DC, of all places, is probably more idiosyncratic than most.)
What I think is less controversial — possibly to the point of being obvious — is that putting a little more money into a particular school will, all else equal, help students in that school do better. Another teacher, a new computer lab, whatever. Doubly true if that school is already underfunded relative to peers and lacks those things.
Yet inequality of that sort is something that US school systems struggle with, largely because of local funding. School A does fine, but School B — 10 minutes down the road — gets a third as much money, and is, rather unsurprisingly, crap.
Fixing that doesn’t even necessarily mean spending more money overall. (Although often will, in practice, since you otherwise can’t equalize funding between school A and B without robbing from B — and then someone at B would holler.)
Here’s a little white paper which sort of gets at this: Texas Education Funding. From the Reason Foundation, of all places, yet I find myself largely in agreement with most of the analysis and conclusions (with some hefty caveats around charters).
It looks like in some ways Texas is ahead of the game already: there’s an infrastructure to (try to) provide funding fairness via state-level redistribution. But it’s inflexible and over-complicated, and still allows at least some major intra-, if not inter-, district inequalities. See the part where they talk about how schools in ‘good’ areas generally get their pick of the best, most expensive, teachers, for example.
Funding for free preschool would be one thing to try (more of) in the most disadvantaged districts. Early education pays great dividends.
Fine. Preschool. Early education. Is there a consensus on what this should consist of? How it should be taught? Is there a consensus, supported by objective evidence, of an approach/method that will noticeably enhance out-year performance?
We continue to spend boatloads of money, and do a shitty job of most of the non-transfer spending, and that doesn’t deter us in the least from finding new stuff to buy, like we’ve somehow gotten smarter.
The above is my last comment on this sub-topic because I’m thread-jacking. The issue is how–realistically, how, not theoretically how–to shift the paradigm to broaden opportunity for the average person. Regardless of spending priorities or confidence in gov’t as a solution, it’s hard to argue against increasing opportunity. Finding new and betters ways to cram more people into the same space seems problematic to me because there has to be an end point at some point and then what?
I like the idea of moving out of the cities, but other than tax incentives, I’m not sure how, short of a command economy, you make it happen.
Funding for free preschool would be one thing to try (more of) in the most disadvantaged districts. Early education pays great dividends.
Fine. Preschool. Early education. Is there a consensus on what this should consist of? How it should be taught? Is there a consensus, supported by objective evidence, of an approach/method that will noticeably enhance out-year performance?
We continue to spend boatloads of money, and do a shitty job of most of the non-transfer spending, and that doesn’t deter us in the least from finding new stuff to buy, like we’ve somehow gotten smarter.
The above is my last comment on this sub-topic because I’m thread-jacking. The issue is how–realistically, how, not theoretically how–to shift the paradigm to broaden opportunity for the average person. Regardless of spending priorities or confidence in gov’t as a solution, it’s hard to argue against increasing opportunity. Finding new and betters ways to cram more people into the same space seems problematic to me because there has to be an end point at some point and then what?
I like the idea of moving out of the cities, but other than tax incentives, I’m not sure how, short of a command economy, you make it happen.
Funding for free preschool would be one thing to try (more of) in the most disadvantaged districts. Early education pays great dividends.
There are studies indicating that any advantages gain from preschool is largely lost by the second or third grade. Better to let kids play than an early start on hammering square pegs into round holes.
And the pressure to make kindergarten more academic leaves not only the kids crying.
“Increased academic pressure and testing in kindergarten are bringing everyone to tears—including the teachers.
When Dr. Peter Gray wrote a piece for his Psychology Today blog about kindergarten teachers in Brookline, Massachusetts, protesting dwindling recess time and mandated 90-minute reading and writing blocks, he received a virtual cubby full of comments from kindergarten teachers across the country at just about the end of their jump rope.”
Government Standards Are Making 5-Year-Olds and Kindergarten Teachers Miserable: “I’m retiring earlier than I had planned because I just can’t be a part of this any longer.”
Funding for free preschool would be one thing to try (more of) in the most disadvantaged districts. Early education pays great dividends.
There are studies indicating that any advantages gain from preschool is largely lost by the second or third grade. Better to let kids play than an early start on hammering square pegs into round holes.
And the pressure to make kindergarten more academic leaves not only the kids crying.
“Increased academic pressure and testing in kindergarten are bringing everyone to tears—including the teachers.
When Dr. Peter Gray wrote a piece for his Psychology Today blog about kindergarten teachers in Brookline, Massachusetts, protesting dwindling recess time and mandated 90-minute reading and writing blocks, he received a virtual cubby full of comments from kindergarten teachers across the country at just about the end of their jump rope.”
Government Standards Are Making 5-Year-Olds and Kindergarten Teachers Miserable: “I’m retiring earlier than I had planned because I just can’t be a part of this any longer.”
Inner city schools carry a different demographic. Students are often raised by a single, economically and educationally challenged parent–usually the mom–. They have much higher discipline issues. Motivation and attention at home are issues. This is much less the case in school districts in which the student population has a relatively high number of students from 2 parent families who are more engaged with their children’s education.
Even if we were to suppose this was actually the problem, what’s the fix? It can’t be just to curse the, ahem, darkness.
Nothing is going to entirely replace having a stable home life and educated, involved, high-income parents. But, to mitigate the challenges students without those advantages are facing, a school *could* do things. Have better meal programs, hire extra teams of counselors and one-on-one tutors, maintain an extra high teacher-student ratio to cope with in-class discipline, give teachers and adminstrators extra training, etc.
In other words, it seems to me those students have a lot of needs. And as the Reason paper suggested, money should follow students and their needs. Clearly, we should be putting far more money into poor, inner-city schools than we do into wealthy suburban ones.
But. Which set of schools do we actually put more money into? Let me just check my notes…
Inner city schools carry a different demographic. Students are often raised by a single, economically and educationally challenged parent–usually the mom–. They have much higher discipline issues. Motivation and attention at home are issues. This is much less the case in school districts in which the student population has a relatively high number of students from 2 parent families who are more engaged with their children’s education.
Even if we were to suppose this was actually the problem, what’s the fix? It can’t be just to curse the, ahem, darkness.
Nothing is going to entirely replace having a stable home life and educated, involved, high-income parents. But, to mitigate the challenges students without those advantages are facing, a school *could* do things. Have better meal programs, hire extra teams of counselors and one-on-one tutors, maintain an extra high teacher-student ratio to cope with in-class discipline, give teachers and adminstrators extra training, etc.
In other words, it seems to me those students have a lot of needs. And as the Reason paper suggested, money should follow students and their needs. Clearly, we should be putting far more money into poor, inner-city schools than we do into wealthy suburban ones.
But. Which set of schools do we actually put more money into? Let me just check my notes…
a project overseen by people who are skeptical of the whole thing, and are constantly threatening to upend it all if measurable results can’t be shown at every stage, is the kind of project that’s going produce things like academic testing of kindergardeners.
a project overseen by people who are skeptical of the whole thing, and are constantly threatening to upend it all if measurable results can’t be shown at every stage, is the kind of project that’s going produce things like academic testing of kindergardeners.
jack lecou‘s link:
The Solution to Trenchant Inequity in Texas Public Education: A Funding System that Puts Students First (pdf)
jack lecou‘s link:
The Solution to Trenchant Inequity in Texas Public Education: A Funding System that Puts Students First (pdf)
There are studies indicating that any advantages gain from preschool is largely lost by the second or third grade. Better to let kids play than an early start on hammering square pegs into round holes.
I agree with you about such programs being too academic, but that doesn’t mean they’re unimportant.
Studies show the benefits of ‘early education’ programs aren’t about academic performance a couple of years later. They’re about lifelong increases in stability and happiness.
So they DO work, just maybe not quite the way they say on the tin. It’d probably be better if we just re-branded them as free child-care. Which would also argue for an expansion to even younger, entirely pre-academic, ages — preferably far enough to meet a correspondingly more generous parental leave policy in the middle. Comprehensive early health and nutritional interventions also wouldn’t go amiss.
There are studies indicating that any advantages gain from preschool is largely lost by the second or third grade. Better to let kids play than an early start on hammering square pegs into round holes.
I agree with you about such programs being too academic, but that doesn’t mean they’re unimportant.
Studies show the benefits of ‘early education’ programs aren’t about academic performance a couple of years later. They’re about lifelong increases in stability and happiness.
So they DO work, just maybe not quite the way they say on the tin. It’d probably be better if we just re-branded them as free child-care. Which would also argue for an expansion to even younger, entirely pre-academic, ages — preferably far enough to meet a correspondingly more generous parental leave policy in the middle. Comprehensive early health and nutritional interventions also wouldn’t go amiss.
What nous said.
Also, early concentrated parental attention, rather than early ‘education’ counts for a great deal. How government might make much of a difference here is… complicated.
Also, and easier, better early years TV:
https://mosaicscience.com/story/childrens-tv-education-sesame-street-teletubbies-kids-videos/
(Genuinely interesting.)
What nous said.
Also, early concentrated parental attention, rather than early ‘education’ counts for a great deal. How government might make much of a difference here is… complicated.
Also, and easier, better early years TV:
https://mosaicscience.com/story/childrens-tv-education-sesame-street-teletubbies-kids-videos/
(Genuinely interesting.)
Which would also argue for an expansion to even younger, entirely pre-academic, ages —
Be careful how far you extend this. Or, in a couple of generations, people will be arguing that, without free child-care, toddlers wouldn’t learn how to walk.
Which would also argue for an expansion to even younger, entirely pre-academic, ages —
Be careful how far you extend this. Or, in a couple of generations, people will be arguing that, without free child-care, toddlers wouldn’t learn how to walk.
what if we just… installed air filters ?
what if we just… installed air filters ?
Be careful how far you extend this. Or, in a couple of generations, people will be arguing that, without free child-care, toddlers wouldn’t learn how to walk.
Really?
Fine with me though. Babies take about a year, maybe a year and a half to get on their feet. Still can’t run from predators on their own at that stage, but close enough.
So let’s call it fifteen months of paid parental leave?
Be careful how far you extend this. Or, in a couple of generations, people will be arguing that, without free child-care, toddlers wouldn’t learn how to walk.
Really?
Fine with me though. Babies take about a year, maybe a year and a half to get on their feet. Still can’t run from predators on their own at that stage, but close enough.
So let’s call it fifteen months of paid parental leave?
Stop treating teachers as childcare
Start with that.
Some communities – places where parents and care givers don’t have the option of not working – need childcare. Provide childcare, other than the school system.
The “inner city school demographic” is people who live in cities but don’t have enough $$$ to send their kids to private school. So, poorer people, living in crowded places where public services are generally overstressed.
It shouldn’t surprise anybody that those are environments that present challenges to educators.
Not much different than poor rural communities.
Stop treating teachers as childcare
Start with that.
Some communities – places where parents and care givers don’t have the option of not working – need childcare. Provide childcare, other than the school system.
The “inner city school demographic” is people who live in cities but don’t have enough $$$ to send their kids to private school. So, poorer people, living in crowded places where public services are generally overstressed.
It shouldn’t surprise anybody that those are environments that present challenges to educators.
Not much different than poor rural communities.
One way to combat the death by despair rate: pay people more.
One way to combat the death by despair rate: pay people more.
Better to let kids play than an early start on hammering square pegs into round holes.
Who said anything about hammering square pegs into round holes or not letting kids play while at preschool?
And the pressure to make kindergarten more academic leaves not only the kids crying.
Who said anything about this? Do you have a cardboard cutout of me that makes arguments you’d prefer to engage in rather than the ones I actually make?
My kids went to a Montessori preschool and kindergarten. The basic premise of the Montessori method is that different children learn at different paces and in different ways, and that children should be left to find their own ways of learning with only gentle guidance from teachers. And they get to play.
I think loading kids up with homework and constantly testing them is idiotic. Let the fncking teachers teach.
Better to let kids play than an early start on hammering square pegs into round holes.
Who said anything about hammering square pegs into round holes or not letting kids play while at preschool?
And the pressure to make kindergarten more academic leaves not only the kids crying.
Who said anything about this? Do you have a cardboard cutout of me that makes arguments you’d prefer to engage in rather than the ones I actually make?
My kids went to a Montessori preschool and kindergarten. The basic premise of the Montessori method is that different children learn at different paces and in different ways, and that children should be left to find their own ways of learning with only gentle guidance from teachers. And they get to play.
I think loading kids up with homework and constantly testing them is idiotic. Let the fncking teachers teach.
Montessori is so wonderful. I think it gives kids a permanent desire to work at learning. Your kids are lucky hairshirt. I so wish that all children had the opportunity to be excited about learning.
Montessori is so wonderful. I think it gives kids a permanent desire to work at learning. Your kids are lucky hairshirt. I so wish that all children had the opportunity to be excited about learning.
For what it is worth, veteran (master) teachers are almost unanimous in believing that homework is out of control and that art and play are important. All of the pressure to load on homework comes from the DoE down and the parents up, with some teacher buy-in mostly from teachers who began their career after high-stakes testing became ubiquitous.
I’m not at all convinced by the assessment and quant research, either. I’ve seen the sausage being made and it’s full of assumptions that support the narrative that the careerists and innovators doing the studies want.
Learning defies standardization and teaching is an art, not a science.
Try it yourself if you doubt.
For what it is worth, veteran (master) teachers are almost unanimous in believing that homework is out of control and that art and play are important. All of the pressure to load on homework comes from the DoE down and the parents up, with some teacher buy-in mostly from teachers who began their career after high-stakes testing became ubiquitous.
I’m not at all convinced by the assessment and quant research, either. I’ve seen the sausage being made and it’s full of assumptions that support the narrative that the careerists and innovators doing the studies want.
Learning defies standardization and teaching is an art, not a science.
Try it yourself if you doubt.
It was almost an accident that our kids went there. When my oldest was 4, we wanted to get him in some kind of preschool or learning-oriented daycare, even though we had family who could watch him while we were at work. Then if only to get him used to being in a school environment, socializing with kids his age. We didn’t even really know what Montessori was.
We visited a couple preschools/daycares before visiting the Montessori school that happened to be very close by. As soon as we visited the Montessori school, it was no contest. We were sending him there. The other three in succession right behind him.
My wife ended up working there part time as a teacher’s assistant for a couple years while our youngest was there and still does story-time/library once a week, even though all our kids have “graduated.” (Two years of pre-K and kindergarten is all that particular school does.)
It was almost an accident that our kids went there. When my oldest was 4, we wanted to get him in some kind of preschool or learning-oriented daycare, even though we had family who could watch him while we were at work. Then if only to get him used to being in a school environment, socializing with kids his age. We didn’t even really know what Montessori was.
We visited a couple preschools/daycares before visiting the Montessori school that happened to be very close by. As soon as we visited the Montessori school, it was no contest. We were sending him there. The other three in succession right behind him.
My wife ended up working there part time as a teacher’s assistant for a couple years while our youngest was there and still does story-time/library once a week, even though all our kids have “graduated.” (Two years of pre-K and kindergarten is all that particular school does.)
Visiting a Montessori classroom is like having meditation time. That’s me, speaking as an adult. The kids seem more than okay. I’ve known kids who went through some elementary grades using the system. The classrooms are three age groups together, so 1st-3rd, 4th-6th. Kids are encouraged to help each other learn. Grown kids who reminisce on the system describe it as being like college seminar classes – they feel responsible and engaged.
I’m sure Montessori isn’t the only path to early childhood education, but it’s certainly great. Why our society isn’t putting everything we have to promote learning for kids of all incomes (including immigrants, whatever legal issues their parents face) is beyond me. It’s so inspiring to see kids loving to learn.
Visiting a Montessori classroom is like having meditation time. That’s me, speaking as an adult. The kids seem more than okay. I’ve known kids who went through some elementary grades using the system. The classrooms are three age groups together, so 1st-3rd, 4th-6th. Kids are encouraged to help each other learn. Grown kids who reminisce on the system describe it as being like college seminar classes – they feel responsible and engaged.
I’m sure Montessori isn’t the only path to early childhood education, but it’s certainly great. Why our society isn’t putting everything we have to promote learning for kids of all incomes (including immigrants, whatever legal issues their parents face) is beyond me. It’s so inspiring to see kids loving to learn.
Amazing what happens when you treat people like humans, rather than commodities.
Amazing what happens when you treat people like humans, rather than commodities.
A bit more about why I am suspicious of a lot of academic assessment. I’ve been a part of several assessments and am also constantly having the curriculum within which I teach assessed. I was also a corporate data and process analyst for a few years before going into academia.
Good assessments start generally start with a lot of qualitative assessment (interviews, focus groups, observations) to get an idea of the theory behind a curriculum and how that curriculum is actually taught and notes differences in classroom style and emphasis. And it tries to understand when, where, and why the curriculum is excepted or abandoned if the teacher feels that the curriculum is not working as intended.
Not many assessments actually do this because it is time consuming and requires cooperation from teachers who have to be either compensated for their extra work or solicited for their good will. Absent these things, all qualitative assessment is seen as a time sink and an intrusion and is treated with suspicion. This is more true the more contingent the teacher’s position.
Without a preliminary qualitative assessment driving the quant side to determine how best to measure outcomes, the assessment usually falls victim to either poor assumptions about what is actually being done, or to messy numbers. The messy numbers are then solved either by throwing them out and using more assumptions, or by imposing curricular changes aimed at producing less ambiguous results, which means more standardization and a less conceptually challenging curriculum that leaves students less able to adapt and think laterally.
I’ve read the reports that have come out of some of the assessments that I have been a part of. The good ones are brilliant and helpful. The bad ones are self-justifying and walllpaper over the cracks with their own biases.
Those bad assessments are great for careerists, though, and for people wanting assurances that their money is being used efficiently. Horrible for actual teaching and learning that thrives on the judicious use of ambiguity and messy borders to provoke growth situations.
Worst of all, the institutional pull is towards the bad, top-down, clear cut assessment on the cheap because the top of the institution is laden with careerist.
A bit more about why I am suspicious of a lot of academic assessment. I’ve been a part of several assessments and am also constantly having the curriculum within which I teach assessed. I was also a corporate data and process analyst for a few years before going into academia.
Good assessments start generally start with a lot of qualitative assessment (interviews, focus groups, observations) to get an idea of the theory behind a curriculum and how that curriculum is actually taught and notes differences in classroom style and emphasis. And it tries to understand when, where, and why the curriculum is excepted or abandoned if the teacher feels that the curriculum is not working as intended.
Not many assessments actually do this because it is time consuming and requires cooperation from teachers who have to be either compensated for their extra work or solicited for their good will. Absent these things, all qualitative assessment is seen as a time sink and an intrusion and is treated with suspicion. This is more true the more contingent the teacher’s position.
Without a preliminary qualitative assessment driving the quant side to determine how best to measure outcomes, the assessment usually falls victim to either poor assumptions about what is actually being done, or to messy numbers. The messy numbers are then solved either by throwing them out and using more assumptions, or by imposing curricular changes aimed at producing less ambiguous results, which means more standardization and a less conceptually challenging curriculum that leaves students less able to adapt and think laterally.
I’ve read the reports that have come out of some of the assessments that I have been a part of. The good ones are brilliant and helpful. The bad ones are self-justifying and walllpaper over the cracks with their own biases.
Those bad assessments are great for careerists, though, and for people wanting assurances that their money is being used efficiently. Horrible for actual teaching and learning that thrives on the judicious use of ambiguity and messy borders to provoke growth situations.
Worst of all, the institutional pull is towards the bad, top-down, clear cut assessment on the cheap because the top of the institution is laden with careerist.
What nous said, again.
Much of the assessment in the UK is seriously sub par and counterproductive.
What nous said, again.
Much of the assessment in the UK is seriously sub par and counterproductive.
I think we’ve lost the ability to make judgements about quality that aren’t based on numbers.
I think we’ve lost the ability to make judgements about quality that aren’t based on numbers.
I think we’ve lost the ability to make judgements about quality that aren’t based on numbers.
I admit to not knowing how education results should be evaluated. When I was extolling Montessori, I also know that the kids I know who experienced that system know grammar and math concepts extremely well, can write coherent essays, and have gone on through public school, colleges, and grad schools, and have ended up doing interesting and respected work. So not only did the kids enjoy the classroom, but they were able to manage the performance evaluators. They did well on standardized tests, for example. Then they grew up and were self-supporting (with a lot of help from parents who were able to provide for them in the meantime).
I know that’s a shallow measure, but I have no idea what the measure is supposed to look like, whether kids are “succeeding” in learning, and whether classrooms are delivering that opportunity, without measures such as testing (which can’t be completely objective, but, again …).
I have friends who are or have been teachers, people completely dedicated to kids, who have been frustrated at many levels. I have no idea whether they are actually good teachers or not. I know instinctively that some teachers are good, because I’ve seen them interact with students, and I know about their own knowledge and curiosity.
I don’t know what the answer is, so I stay out of it, other than to vote for local politicians who support education funding (because schools and teaching materials aren’t cheap, even if we do underpay teachers), and try to listen to people (teachers, parents and students) who have things to say. Unfortunately, my experience with my peers is that we don’t always see eye to eye about what is good for kids, other than basic love, safety, nurturing and enrichment – and there’s not really common ground in defining those things. So I mind my own business and let people who provide those basic things have at it.
I think we’ve lost the ability to make judgements about quality that aren’t based on numbers.
I admit to not knowing how education results should be evaluated. When I was extolling Montessori, I also know that the kids I know who experienced that system know grammar and math concepts extremely well, can write coherent essays, and have gone on through public school, colleges, and grad schools, and have ended up doing interesting and respected work. So not only did the kids enjoy the classroom, but they were able to manage the performance evaluators. They did well on standardized tests, for example. Then they grew up and were self-supporting (with a lot of help from parents who were able to provide for them in the meantime).
I know that’s a shallow measure, but I have no idea what the measure is supposed to look like, whether kids are “succeeding” in learning, and whether classrooms are delivering that opportunity, without measures such as testing (which can’t be completely objective, but, again …).
I have friends who are or have been teachers, people completely dedicated to kids, who have been frustrated at many levels. I have no idea whether they are actually good teachers or not. I know instinctively that some teachers are good, because I’ve seen them interact with students, and I know about their own knowledge and curiosity.
I don’t know what the answer is, so I stay out of it, other than to vote for local politicians who support education funding (because schools and teaching materials aren’t cheap, even if we do underpay teachers), and try to listen to people (teachers, parents and students) who have things to say. Unfortunately, my experience with my peers is that we don’t always see eye to eye about what is good for kids, other than basic love, safety, nurturing and enrichment – and there’s not really common ground in defining those things. So I mind my own business and let people who provide those basic things have at it.
Educational results are so massively cohort dependent, and the results of any particular interventions can take years to show up at the school level, that even knowing what to measure is not a simple problem at all.
The best numbers can sometimes be something you didn’t intend to measure (as my TV story, which I again recommend, indicates):
https://mosaicscience.com/story/childrens-tv-education-sesame-street-teletubbies-kids-videos/
… By the late 1960s, most US households owned a television set, but whether they could watch Sesame Street depended on where they lived, because in some areas it was broadcast on Very High Frequency (VHF) channels, in others on Ultra High Frequency (UHF) channels. UHF signals were weaker, and some TV sets couldn’t receive them, which meant only around two-thirds of Americans had access to Sesame Street.
“Just the act of being exposed to the show and watching it routinely increased school performance among the children who were able to view it,” Levine says, citing the results of a study he and Melissa Kearney at the University of Maryland published. Yet the study found that children who watched Sesame Street were more likely to be academically on track, and less likely to be held back, than those who didn’t. Crucially, access to a VHF signal wasn’t contingent on parents’ wealth or education – factors which might have affected children’s later school performance. In fact, the study showed that children growing up in “economically disadvantaged” communities benefited the most from watching Sesame Street….
Educational results are so massively cohort dependent, and the results of any particular interventions can take years to show up at the school level, that even knowing what to measure is not a simple problem at all.
The best numbers can sometimes be something you didn’t intend to measure (as my TV story, which I again recommend, indicates):
https://mosaicscience.com/story/childrens-tv-education-sesame-street-teletubbies-kids-videos/
… By the late 1960s, most US households owned a television set, but whether they could watch Sesame Street depended on where they lived, because in some areas it was broadcast on Very High Frequency (VHF) channels, in others on Ultra High Frequency (UHF) channels. UHF signals were weaker, and some TV sets couldn’t receive them, which meant only around two-thirds of Americans had access to Sesame Street.
“Just the act of being exposed to the show and watching it routinely increased school performance among the children who were able to view it,” Levine says, citing the results of a study he and Melissa Kearney at the University of Maryland published. Yet the study found that children who watched Sesame Street were more likely to be academically on track, and less likely to be held back, than those who didn’t. Crucially, access to a VHF signal wasn’t contingent on parents’ wealth or education – factors which might have affected children’s later school performance. In fact, the study showed that children growing up in “economically disadvantaged” communities benefited the most from watching Sesame Street….
…but discrete math has been pretty handy)…
I have been disappointed for years — make that decades — by how hard it is to get people outside of a few majors exposed to discrete math.
…but discrete math has been pretty handy)…
I have been disappointed for years — make that decades — by how hard it is to get people outside of a few majors exposed to discrete math.
I think we’ve lost the ability to make judgements about quality that aren’t based on numbers.
I don’t think we’ve lost the ability. But we are out of practice. Combined with having decided that we shouldn’t make anything but quantitative evaluations.
Mind, moving towards more frequent use of measurement was a needed corrective, back in the day. But, as so often, we over-corrected. Plus, we ended up embracing the idea of measurement, without (all too often) any understanding of how to select which metrics might be appropriate.
I think we’ve lost the ability to make judgements about quality that aren’t based on numbers.
I don’t think we’ve lost the ability. But we are out of practice. Combined with having decided that we shouldn’t make anything but quantitative evaluations.
Mind, moving towards more frequent use of measurement was a needed corrective, back in the day. But, as so often, we over-corrected. Plus, we ended up embracing the idea of measurement, without (all too often) any understanding of how to select which metrics might be appropriate.
having decided that we shouldn’t make anything but quantitative evaluations
And thus, my point, more or less.
having decided that we shouldn’t make anything but quantitative evaluations
And thus, my point, more or less.
…Students are often raised by a single, economically and educationally challenged parent…
Speaking as a single parent, I say that the single-parent aspect is in itself irrelevant.
Having time for your children matters. Valuing scholarship matters. Financial security helps.
…Students are often raised by a single, economically and educationally challenged parent…
Speaking as a single parent, I say that the single-parent aspect is in itself irrelevant.
Having time for your children matters. Valuing scholarship matters. Financial security helps.
Agreed – single parenthood is a common but inaccurate label for childhood neglect.
While it is true that there is some correlation between the two things, it is more likely that single parenthood is the consequence or symptom of, rather than the cause of a chaotic family situation.
The single most significant damage done to a child’s educational prospects is early years neglect. In cases of severe neglect, the damage is often intractable, however well resourced subsequent intervention might be.
And neglect happens in families with one or two parents.
Agreed – single parenthood is a common but inaccurate label for childhood neglect.
While it is true that there is some correlation between the two things, it is more likely that single parenthood is the consequence or symptom of, rather than the cause of a chaotic family situation.
The single most significant damage done to a child’s educational prospects is early years neglect. In cases of severe neglect, the damage is often intractable, however well resourced subsequent intervention might be.
And neglect happens in families with one or two parents.
Conversely, given good parenting in the first two to three years, kids are (within reason) pretty resilient to whatever might come after that.
Conversely, given good parenting in the first two to three years, kids are (within reason) pretty resilient to whatever might come after that.
having decided that we shouldn’t make anything but quantitative evaluations
And thus, my point, more or less.
Sorry, inaccurate, and too snotty by half.
Please allow me to try again:
Yes, your statement of it is better. We haven’t lost the ability, we’ve chosen not to.
having decided that we shouldn’t make anything but quantitative evaluations
And thus, my point, more or less.
Sorry, inaccurate, and too snotty by half.
Please allow me to try again:
Yes, your statement of it is better. We haven’t lost the ability, we’ve chosen not to.
Estimates of how badly we’re failing on CO2 mitigation goals:
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-global-energy-years.html
Needless to say, the re-election if Trump would not help matters.
One potential game changer is the lithium/sulphur battery, where researchers recently demonstrated what looked like a commercialiseable architecture . At three to four times the energy density of current batteries (for a similar or lower cost), this would make an enormous difference to what are currently quite pessimistic forecasts.
Estimates of how badly we’re failing on CO2 mitigation goals:
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-global-energy-years.html
Needless to say, the re-election if Trump would not help matters.
One potential game changer is the lithium/sulphur battery, where researchers recently demonstrated what looked like a commercialiseable architecture . At three to four times the energy density of current batteries (for a similar or lower cost), this would make an enormous difference to what are currently quite pessimistic forecasts.
Back on the topic of education….
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/the-miseducation-of-the-american-boy/603046/
there is no difference between the sexes’ need for connection in infancy, nor between their capacity for empathy—there’s actually some evidence that male infants are more expressive than females. Yet, from the get-go, boys are relegated to an impoverished emotional landscape. In a classic study, adults shown a video of an infant startled by a jack-in-the-box were more likely to presume the baby was “angry” if they were first told the child was male. Mothers of young children have repeatedly been found to talk more to their girls and to employ a broader, richer emotional vocabulary with them; with their sons, again, they tend to linger on anger. As for fathers, they speak with less emotional nuance than mothers regardless of their child’s sex. Despite that, according to Judy Y. Chu, a human-biology lecturer at Stanford who conducted a study of boys from pre-K through first grade, little boys have a keen understanding of emotions and a desire for close relationships. But by age 5 or 6, they’ve learned to knock that stuff off, at least in public: to disconnect from feelings of weakness, reject friendships with girls (or take them underground, outside of school), and become more hierarchical in their behavior…
Back on the topic of education….
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/01/the-miseducation-of-the-american-boy/603046/
there is no difference between the sexes’ need for connection in infancy, nor between their capacity for empathy—there’s actually some evidence that male infants are more expressive than females. Yet, from the get-go, boys are relegated to an impoverished emotional landscape. In a classic study, adults shown a video of an infant startled by a jack-in-the-box were more likely to presume the baby was “angry” if they were first told the child was male. Mothers of young children have repeatedly been found to talk more to their girls and to employ a broader, richer emotional vocabulary with them; with their sons, again, they tend to linger on anger. As for fathers, they speak with less emotional nuance than mothers regardless of their child’s sex. Despite that, according to Judy Y. Chu, a human-biology lecturer at Stanford who conducted a study of boys from pre-K through first grade, little boys have a keen understanding of emotions and a desire for close relationships. But by age 5 or 6, they’ve learned to knock that stuff off, at least in public: to disconnect from feelings of weakness, reject friendships with girls (or take them underground, outside of school), and become more hierarchical in their behavior…
Jim Webb expresses far better than I did what most troubles me about the Iran thing…
When did it become acceptable to kill a top leader of a country we aren’t even at war with?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-iran-crisis-isnt-a-failure-of-the-executive-branch-alone/2020/01/09/cc0f3728-3305-11ea-9313-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html
Jim Webb expresses far better than I did what most troubles me about the Iran thing…
When did it become acceptable to kill a top leader of a country we aren’t even at war with?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-iran-crisis-isnt-a-failure-of-the-executive-branch-alone/2020/01/09/cc0f3728-3305-11ea-9313-6cba89b1b9fb_story.html
Also not at all unrelated to what we’re talking about, a terrific (and long) article on attachment theory in practice:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/10/psychotherapy-childhood-mental-health
Also not at all unrelated to what we’re talking about, a terrific (and long) article on attachment theory in practice:
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2020/jan/10/psychotherapy-childhood-mental-health
Nigel, I have long felt that Sesame Street was a rare unalloyed force for good in the world; I am so glad to read the piece you linked that confirms this!
Nigel, I have long felt that Sesame Street was a rare unalloyed force for good in the world; I am so glad to read the piece you linked that confirms this!
Strangely enough, to those of us it utterly bemused, so is Teletubbies…
Strangely enough, to those of us it utterly bemused, so is Teletubbies…
Though I think that is because it appeared when my kids were already slightly too old for it.
Though I think that is because it appeared when my kids were already slightly too old for it.
Mind, moving towards more frequent use of measurement was a needed corrective, back in the day. But, as so often, we over-corrected. Plus, we ended up embracing the idea of measurement, without (all too often) any understanding of how to select which metrics might be appropriate.
It’s not even really about whether the metrics are appropriate or not. No matter how correct a metric is in the abstract, once you make it important, by using it to directly drive decisions, especially high stakes decisions like school funding or teacher advancement, it’s going to bump hard up against Goodhart’s Law.
So catch-22. We could measure things much more reliably — even with relatively imperfect measures — if only we relied on the results less.
Mind, moving towards more frequent use of measurement was a needed corrective, back in the day. But, as so often, we over-corrected. Plus, we ended up embracing the idea of measurement, without (all too often) any understanding of how to select which metrics might be appropriate.
It’s not even really about whether the metrics are appropriate or not. No matter how correct a metric is in the abstract, once you make it important, by using it to directly drive decisions, especially high stakes decisions like school funding or teacher advancement, it’s going to bump hard up against Goodhart’s Law.
So catch-22. We could measure things much more reliably — even with relatively imperfect measures — if only we relied on the results less.
Since we segued past affordable housing (I think), you all might find this of interest.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2020/01/10/opinion-grand-jury-housing-investigation-shows-density-is-our-destiny/
The Santa Clara County** Civil Grand Jury undertook a nine-month investigation of this issue with an objective to provide recommendations. It seems to have come up with some useful ideas, demonstrating that the problem is not insoluable, if we can get past our various ideological blinders. Here’s hoping they get tried out, and not just in the one county.
** aka Silicon Valley, for those who don’t live around here.
Since we segued past affordable housing (I think), you all might find this of interest.
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2020/01/10/opinion-grand-jury-housing-investigation-shows-density-is-our-destiny/
The Santa Clara County** Civil Grand Jury undertook a nine-month investigation of this issue with an objective to provide recommendations. It seems to have come up with some useful ideas, demonstrating that the problem is not insoluable, if we can get past our various ideological blinders. Here’s hoping they get tried out, and not just in the one county.
** aka Silicon Valley, for those who don’t live around here.
They’re disappearing to Texas and other states.
They’re disappearing to Texas and other states.
Texas should raise taxes and then it wouldn’t have to suffer the unintended consequence of all of those out-of-staters bringing rush hour traffic to a standstill in its urban corridors, not to mention rising rents.
Get Reason Magazine on the job.
Texas should raise taxes and then it wouldn’t have to suffer the unintended consequence of all of those out-of-staters bringing rush hour traffic to a standstill in its urban corridors, not to mention rising rents.
Get Reason Magazine on the job.
They’re disappearing to Texas and other states.
This is the market-driven version of McK’s suggestion upthread.
One of the places they’re going – especially Californians – is Phoenix AZ. Drives my sister and her husband nuts.
Phoenix was such a quiet and manageable place when they moved there from Long Island, 40+ years ago.
I guess word got out.
They’re disappearing to Texas and other states.
This is the market-driven version of McK’s suggestion upthread.
One of the places they’re going – especially Californians – is Phoenix AZ. Drives my sister and her husband nuts.
Phoenix was such a quiet and manageable place when they moved there from Long Island, 40+ years ago.
I guess word got out.
a lot people leave because the big popular cities are full, not because people really want to live in East Asscheek GA. housing is too expensive (too much demand), commutes from affordable housing is murder (too much demand), so they move to where houses are cheaper.
they’re not chasing tax rates – they’re running away from the high prices that come with popularity.
a lot people leave because the big popular cities are full, not because people really want to live in East Asscheek GA. housing is too expensive (too much demand), commutes from affordable housing is murder (too much demand), so they move to where houses are cheaper.
they’re not chasing tax rates – they’re running away from the high prices that come with popularity.
When traveling to distant locales, the residents of East Asscheek will usually tell people they’re from “Atlanta”, as in “I live in Atlanta, it takes me an hour to get to Atlanta.”
When traveling to distant locales, the residents of East Asscheek will usually tell people they’re from “Atlanta”, as in “I live in Atlanta, it takes me an hour to get to Atlanta.”
One of the places they’re going – especially Californians – is Phoenix AZ. Drives my sister and her husband nuts.
Last time I looked at migration data, substantially more Californians were going to Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington (in aggregate) than were going to Texas. Those five states together have about the same current population as Texas. Historians at the University of Colorado have talked about the “California Diaspora” for at least 30 years.
One of the places they’re going – especially Californians – is Phoenix AZ. Drives my sister and her husband nuts.
Last time I looked at migration data, substantially more Californians were going to Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, and Washington (in aggregate) than were going to Texas. Those five states together have about the same current population as Texas. Historians at the University of Colorado have talked about the “California Diaspora” for at least 30 years.
Thus we have the term Californication….
Thus we have the term Californication….
“New York, California, and Illinois have been hemorrhaging residents. Almost 3.2 million more people left those states for elsewhere in the U.S. than arrived from other states, from 2010 through 2019, according to population estimates released last week by the Census Bureau. Nine other states saw net out-migration of more than 100,000 people over that period, but none really came close to the big three.”
Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois. Hello … Where?: The three states have seen an exodus, but it’s not all to Texas and it’s not all about taxes.
“New York, California, and Illinois have been hemorrhaging residents. Almost 3.2 million more people left those states for elsewhere in the U.S. than arrived from other states, from 2010 through 2019, according to population estimates released last week by the Census Bureau. Nine other states saw net out-migration of more than 100,000 people over that period, but none really came close to the big three.”
Goodbye, New York, California and Illinois. Hello … Where?: The three states have seen an exodus, but it’s not all to Texas and it’s not all about taxes.
“Californication”: how California maintains its population in the face of emigration to other states. 😉
Specifically, how welcoming international immigrants results in population growth, even when natives (who remain in the state) exhibit declining birth rates.
[We return you now to your regularly scheduled serious discussions….]
“Californication”: how California maintains its population in the face of emigration to other states. 😉
Specifically, how welcoming international immigrants results in population growth, even when natives (who remain in the state) exhibit declining birth rates.
[We return you now to your regularly scheduled serious discussions….]
In today’s episode of “What is up with Deaths of Despair”…
A friend of ours works as a marketing strategist in the medical industry. A woman who works part-time for her current employer as a nurse was involved in a horrific automobile accident this week.
She lost her eight-year old child in the accident. Subsequently, she lost her husband to complications of his injuries. She herself has been through six surgeries so far, and was lucky to survive them. She was very, very lucky to keep all of her limbs, she may lose one or two yet. Various parts of her internal anatomy have been re-arranged. Unclear when, or if, she’ll be able to work again, or in what capacity.
She was informed that, because her husband died, she was no longer covered by his insurance. She was only part-time, so none was on offer at her own employer. Some of her friends and co-workers are trying to organize a GoFundMe to cover her medical expenses.
My wife and I are gonna kick in a few bucks. What we can afford to contribute will probably be 1/10,000 of what she will need. Ain’t gonna be 9,999 other people kicking in to her GoFundMe.
I get a couple of these a month.
There’s a meme going around about how, if you have hard times coming up, and think that other people who have hard times should just suck it up, because you got through it and came out all right, then you probably didn’t actually come out all right.
The United States is that guy, at national scale. I love America, and will never ever be anything other than an American no matter how many man bags and hacking knots and arugula salads I have going on.
But this is one cruel heartless bitch of a country, and make no mistake about it.
People drink themselves to death, and snuff themselves with Oxy OD’s, and blow their brains out in lonely ranch houses and double-wides, because we don’t give enough of a shit about each other to make sure unlucky people don’t get ground to fncking dust. And I by God can tell you of examples of each of those things, more than one of some, from my own personal experience. People I know.
You can try to tell me it’s not so, but I have eyes in my head and I see it every day.
Root hog or die, says fucking cruel bitch America. God-damn.
If you live somewhere else and were ever thinking of moving here, think twice. We’re friendly, but we’re not particularly good.
In today’s episode of “What is up with Deaths of Despair”…
A friend of ours works as a marketing strategist in the medical industry. A woman who works part-time for her current employer as a nurse was involved in a horrific automobile accident this week.
She lost her eight-year old child in the accident. Subsequently, she lost her husband to complications of his injuries. She herself has been through six surgeries so far, and was lucky to survive them. She was very, very lucky to keep all of her limbs, she may lose one or two yet. Various parts of her internal anatomy have been re-arranged. Unclear when, or if, she’ll be able to work again, or in what capacity.
She was informed that, because her husband died, she was no longer covered by his insurance. She was only part-time, so none was on offer at her own employer. Some of her friends and co-workers are trying to organize a GoFundMe to cover her medical expenses.
My wife and I are gonna kick in a few bucks. What we can afford to contribute will probably be 1/10,000 of what she will need. Ain’t gonna be 9,999 other people kicking in to her GoFundMe.
I get a couple of these a month.
There’s a meme going around about how, if you have hard times coming up, and think that other people who have hard times should just suck it up, because you got through it and came out all right, then you probably didn’t actually come out all right.
The United States is that guy, at national scale. I love America, and will never ever be anything other than an American no matter how many man bags and hacking knots and arugula salads I have going on.
But this is one cruel heartless bitch of a country, and make no mistake about it.
People drink themselves to death, and snuff themselves with Oxy OD’s, and blow their brains out in lonely ranch houses and double-wides, because we don’t give enough of a shit about each other to make sure unlucky people don’t get ground to fncking dust. And I by God can tell you of examples of each of those things, more than one of some, from my own personal experience. People I know.
You can try to tell me it’s not so, but I have eyes in my head and I see it every day.
Root hog or die, says fucking cruel bitch America. God-damn.
If you live somewhere else and were ever thinking of moving here, think twice. We’re friendly, but we’re not particularly good.
If you live somewhere else and were ever thinking of moving here, think twice. We’re friendly, but we’re not particularly good.
What’s rather appalling about the world is the number of places where things are so much worse that people there will brave incredible obstacles to try to get here.
There’s a lot of “less bad” space out there for us to occupy, compared to some of the alternatives. We could do better, without even a whole lot of effort — and there are multiple places which are doing so that we could swipe ideas from. And we should do better.
Yet somehow, a lot of us seem to find the idea offensive. My diagnosis (admittedly just spitting in the wind here) is that there are a lot of people who are sufficiently comfortable that they can afford to cope without help. (At least so far.) And something in their upbringing/ideology has convinced them that anyone else could have done the same if they’d only tried. “Isolationist” in a different sense.
If you live somewhere else and were ever thinking of moving here, think twice. We’re friendly, but we’re not particularly good.
What’s rather appalling about the world is the number of places where things are so much worse that people there will brave incredible obstacles to try to get here.
There’s a lot of “less bad” space out there for us to occupy, compared to some of the alternatives. We could do better, without even a whole lot of effort — and there are multiple places which are doing so that we could swipe ideas from. And we should do better.
Yet somehow, a lot of us seem to find the idea offensive. My diagnosis (admittedly just spitting in the wind here) is that there are a lot of people who are sufficiently comfortable that they can afford to cope without help. (At least so far.) And something in their upbringing/ideology has convinced them that anyone else could have done the same if they’d only tried. “Isolationist” in a different sense.
Hard to argue with a word you say, russell, so I won’t. Except your last sentence. Some of you (lots of you) are really good, and you’re a perfect example. But the system, ah the system is majorly flawed, and it produces too many stories as terrible as the one you detail. It is enough to make one despair, sure enough.
Hard to argue with a word you say, russell, so I won’t. Except your last sentence. Some of you (lots of you) are really good, and you’re a perfect example. But the system, ah the system is majorly flawed, and it produces too many stories as terrible as the one you detail. It is enough to make one despair, sure enough.
But the system, ah the system is majorly flawed, and it produces too many stories as terrible as the one you detail.
Yes. But it really is a stain on our collective character that we can’t seem to fix the system.
But the system, ah the system is majorly flawed, and it produces too many stories as terrible as the one you detail.
Yes. But it really is a stain on our collective character that we can’t seem to fix the system.
Let us prey.
Suffer the little children to get the fuck away from me, but hand over their money to my ministry before you leave.
Here’s how the grifting subhuman conservative fucking cruel bitch ratfucking anti-American republican prosperity gospel operates:
You give me money. I pray for you. I buy a BMW. I incorporate my ministry because taxes are theft and slavery. You die.
It’s a five-step program. It would be even cheaper and more efficient if we skipped the first four steps and moved forthwith to the final step, but I need a BMW, and there is that gold-plated license proclaiming that Jesus saves, but not in a gummint-insured account.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/health/christian-health-care-insurance.html
The Republican Party is merely one big ComeFundMe root hogging grab-all-you-can bag.
The Republican Party and the conservative movement are America’s pre-existing conditions.
Don’t cover it. Kill it.
Russell, if you wish to tell us the details of the GoFundMe account for your friend, I’ll pony up too.
Let us prey.
Suffer the little children to get the fuck away from me, but hand over their money to my ministry before you leave.
Here’s how the grifting subhuman conservative fucking cruel bitch ratfucking anti-American republican prosperity gospel operates:
You give me money. I pray for you. I buy a BMW. I incorporate my ministry because taxes are theft and slavery. You die.
It’s a five-step program. It would be even cheaper and more efficient if we skipped the first four steps and moved forthwith to the final step, but I need a BMW, and there is that gold-plated license proclaiming that Jesus saves, but not in a gummint-insured account.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/02/health/christian-health-care-insurance.html
The Republican Party is merely one big ComeFundMe root hogging grab-all-you-can bag.
The Republican Party and the conservative movement are America’s pre-existing conditions.
Don’t cover it. Kill it.
Russell, if you wish to tell us the details of the GoFundMe account for your friend, I’ll pony up too.
russell — check your email.
russell — check your email.
What’s rather appalling about the world is the number of places where things are so much worse that people there will brave incredible obstacles to try to get here.
Yes, but the thing is, we’re rich. Stupid, stinking rich.
We have no excuse.
It behooves me to say that the woman in question does have access to insurance in the form of extending her husband’s policy via COBRA. So, it’s not strictly accurate to say she has “no access to medical insurance”.
She just has to pay a shitload for it. And then pay for whatever it doesn’t cover.
I’m sure all of this seems bizarre to ObWi readers who live in countries where health care is a given. In the US, if you lose your spouse and child in a car accident, and you yourself need extensive medical care to not die, you may be obliged, upon waking from the anasthesia to find yourself suddenly utterly alone in the world, to beg for the funds to pay for it.
I’m sure that, given the circumstances, it’s toward the bottom of her list of sorrows. But nonetheless.
Really, I can’t tell you how ashamed I have become, of my own country. For this, and so many other reasons.
Land of the free.
What’s rather appalling about the world is the number of places where things are so much worse that people there will brave incredible obstacles to try to get here.
Yes, but the thing is, we’re rich. Stupid, stinking rich.
We have no excuse.
It behooves me to say that the woman in question does have access to insurance in the form of extending her husband’s policy via COBRA. So, it’s not strictly accurate to say she has “no access to medical insurance”.
She just has to pay a shitload for it. And then pay for whatever it doesn’t cover.
I’m sure all of this seems bizarre to ObWi readers who live in countries where health care is a given. In the US, if you lose your spouse and child in a car accident, and you yourself need extensive medical care to not die, you may be obliged, upon waking from the anasthesia to find yourself suddenly utterly alone in the world, to beg for the funds to pay for it.
I’m sure that, given the circumstances, it’s toward the bottom of her list of sorrows. But nonetheless.
Really, I can’t tell you how ashamed I have become, of my own country. For this, and so many other reasons.
Land of the free.
thank you Janie, so very much appreciated.
thank you Janie, so very much appreciated.
Don’t cover it. Kill it.
This is what must be done. The sooner ‘libruls’ realize this, the sooner we have some kind of chance at doing what needs to be done to save the world, much less just us.
They are a disease.
Not being nice, you say? WELL, WHY THE EFF SHOULD WE BE NICE?.
Don’t cover it. Kill it.
This is what must be done. The sooner ‘libruls’ realize this, the sooner we have some kind of chance at doing what needs to be done to save the world, much less just us.
They are a disease.
Not being nice, you say? WELL, WHY THE EFF SHOULD WE BE NICE?.
“New York, California, and Illinois have been hemorrhaging residents….”
One of the most statistically dishonest articles I have ever read.
“New York, California, and Illinois have been hemorrhaging residents….”
One of the most statistically dishonest articles I have ever read.
you want to talk about something different? well, how ’bout this: the only way to tackle global climate change is for rich countries to pay poor countries to find a way to curb carbon emission while still raising their standard of living.
All the hand-waving about miracle technological measures are simply spitting in the wind and massively delusional.
what!???? you say??? lower our “standard of living”???? so here….you want to be poor or do you want to be dead…
PICK.
Get serious. Just once. OK?
you want to talk about something different? well, how ’bout this: the only way to tackle global climate change is for rich countries to pay poor countries to find a way to curb carbon emission while still raising their standard of living.
All the hand-waving about miracle technological measures are simply spitting in the wind and massively delusional.
what!???? you say??? lower our “standard of living”???? so here….you want to be poor or do you want to be dead…
PICK.
Get serious. Just once. OK?
…but we can have self driving cars…ANY TIME NOW. JUST WAIT!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL….
for f*ck’s sake.
…but we can have self driving cars…ANY TIME NOW. JUST WAIT!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL….
for f*ck’s sake.
No, we can and should do the first, and maybe we can have self driving cars sometime in the future.
As for handwaving about miracle technologies – without remarkable and very real developments in renewables and storage, we don’t get to do the first thing at all.
No, we can and should do the first, and maybe we can have self driving cars sometime in the future.
As for handwaving about miracle technologies – without remarkable and very real developments in renewables and storage, we don’t get to do the first thing at all.
lower our “standard of living”????
The thing is, we do so many things in wasteful ways, we can probably make a huge dent in resource consumption (of all kinds) without giving up all that much in terms of standard of living.
lower our “standard of living”????
The thing is, we do so many things in wasteful ways, we can probably make a huge dent in resource consumption (of all kinds) without giving up all that much in terms of standard of living.
probably worth a thread of it’s own, but:
waste in energy
waste in food
similar for water, etc
probably worth a thread of it’s own, but:
waste in energy
waste in food
similar for water, etc
Also not at all unrelated to what we’re talking about, a terrific (and long) article on attachment theory in practice:
Nigel, I just read the article. I am skeptical:
Anxious, avoidant and disorganised attachment styles develop as responses to inadequate caregiving: a case of “making the best of a bad situation”.
I don’t doubt that this is true to some extent (for example, the article begins with an example of an adult who had been abused by her mother – a trauma that would contribute to later mental health issues). However, for so long, psychologists have blamed mommy for everything, when really the picture is a lot more complex, including the possibility of hardwired personality disposition in humans. Notice too that the article dwells on an infant’s attachment to the mother. Is a cooing father similarly supportive of psychological health?
The article rubbed me the wrong way as a blast from the past regarding attachment disorders (mommy wasn’t attentive enough) being the sole cause of subsequent problems in adults. Mental health issues are more complicated, and I wish the article had stressed attachment disorder as a possible contributing factor rather than a solid cause.
Also not at all unrelated to what we’re talking about, a terrific (and long) article on attachment theory in practice:
Nigel, I just read the article. I am skeptical:
Anxious, avoidant and disorganised attachment styles develop as responses to inadequate caregiving: a case of “making the best of a bad situation”.
I don’t doubt that this is true to some extent (for example, the article begins with an example of an adult who had been abused by her mother – a trauma that would contribute to later mental health issues). However, for so long, psychologists have blamed mommy for everything, when really the picture is a lot more complex, including the possibility of hardwired personality disposition in humans. Notice too that the article dwells on an infant’s attachment to the mother. Is a cooing father similarly supportive of psychological health?
The article rubbed me the wrong way as a blast from the past regarding attachment disorders (mommy wasn’t attentive enough) being the sole cause of subsequent problems in adults. Mental health issues are more complicated, and I wish the article had stressed attachment disorder as a possible contributing factor rather than a solid cause.
Most of the resource consumption in the US has peaked, leveled off or is declining. The same thing is occurring in the UK and likely other post-industrial countries.
“In 2015, Ausubel published an essay titled “The Return of Nature: How Technology Liberates the Environment.” He had found substantial evidence not only that Americans were consuming fewer resources per capita but also that they were consuming less in total of some of the most important building blocks of an economy: things such as steel, copper, fertilizer, timber, and paper. Total annual U.S. consumption of all of these had been increasing rapidly prior to 1970. But since then, consumption had reached a peak and then declined.”
The Economy Keeps Growing, but Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy: Good news! We’re getting more while using less.
Most of the resource consumption in the US has peaked, leveled off or is declining. The same thing is occurring in the UK and likely other post-industrial countries.
“In 2015, Ausubel published an essay titled “The Return of Nature: How Technology Liberates the Environment.” He had found substantial evidence not only that Americans were consuming fewer resources per capita but also that they were consuming less in total of some of the most important building blocks of an economy: things such as steel, copper, fertilizer, timber, and paper. Total annual U.S. consumption of all of these had been increasing rapidly prior to 1970. But since then, consumption had reached a peak and then declined.”
The Economy Keeps Growing, but Americans Are Using Less Steel, Paper, Fertilizer, and Energy: Good news! We’re getting more while using less.
“As I detail in my book, longstanding federal government policies are themselves responsible for massive amounts of food waste. For example, Perdue’s own agency is responsible for causing massive amounts of food waste under its National School Lunch Program, farm subsidy programs, and the USDA’s inane system of food grading. Seafood regulations implemented by the Commerce Department cause similar waste on the high seas.”
The Feds Want To Tackle Causes of Food Waste, Except Their Own: We don’t need more government to reduce food waste. Instead, we should be moving to eliminate the regulations that promote it.
“As I detail in my book, longstanding federal government policies are themselves responsible for massive amounts of food waste. For example, Perdue’s own agency is responsible for causing massive amounts of food waste under its National School Lunch Program, farm subsidy programs, and the USDA’s inane system of food grading. Seafood regulations implemented by the Commerce Department cause similar waste on the high seas.”
The Feds Want To Tackle Causes of Food Waste, Except Their Own: We don’t need more government to reduce food waste. Instead, we should be moving to eliminate the regulations that promote it.
no matter what, it’s the government’s fault.
and Reason magazine is always there to explain how and why.
I’m sure that federal and other government regulations create some of the inefficiencies that lead to waste. So does the fact that millions of people drive themselves and only themselves to work, and back, every day, in big metal boxes that weigh ten or twenty times what they do.
And that, of course, is *also* the government’s fault, because of zoning rules. Which, of course, those nasty governments passed, in spite of what all of the people who live under those governments actually wanted.
It’s a shame that the only participant in our public life that has any agency whatsoever is that nefarious government. If we all just went about our individual business, with no external interference at all, all of these problems would just resolve themselves.
no matter what, it’s the government’s fault.
and Reason magazine is always there to explain how and why.
I’m sure that federal and other government regulations create some of the inefficiencies that lead to waste. So does the fact that millions of people drive themselves and only themselves to work, and back, every day, in big metal boxes that weigh ten or twenty times what they do.
And that, of course, is *also* the government’s fault, because of zoning rules. Which, of course, those nasty governments passed, in spite of what all of the people who live under those governments actually wanted.
It’s a shame that the only participant in our public life that has any agency whatsoever is that nefarious government. If we all just went about our individual business, with no external interference at all, all of these problems would just resolve themselves.
all of these problems would just resolve themselves.
they kindof would… because there would be far fewer resources, which would all cost more, and we’d have to spend our time fighting each other for survival.
all of these problems would just resolve themselves.
they kindof would… because there would be far fewer resources, which would all cost more, and we’d have to spend our time fighting each other for survival.
For those who want to avoid such massive “food waste”, take a good look at Sinclair Lewis’ book “The Jungle” for step-by-step instructions.
Bon Appetit!
For those who want to avoid such massive “food waste”, take a good look at Sinclair Lewis’ book “The Jungle” for step-by-step instructions.
Bon Appetit!
Regarding the low income housing crisis, and how it looks in Charlottesville, the city will shortly be holding hearings on something called form-based coding.
So far, most people speaking at public hearings object to it. It would be interesting to see what people here who are low income housing advocates think of this template for redevelopment. Obviously, a lot of study and some familiarity with the precise situation in Charlottesville would be necessary for a truly informed opinion, but most people don’t have the luxury of that kind of study (or assessment of externalities) even if they live in an area. Even trying to assess a particular plan’s affect on a specific person is difficult when the plan remains general, and no one is actually proposing a project.
So what do people think, just as a first impression?
Regarding the low income housing crisis, and how it looks in Charlottesville, the city will shortly be holding hearings on something called form-based coding.
So far, most people speaking at public hearings object to it. It would be interesting to see what people here who are low income housing advocates think of this template for redevelopment. Obviously, a lot of study and some familiarity with the precise situation in Charlottesville would be necessary for a truly informed opinion, but most people don’t have the luxury of that kind of study (or assessment of externalities) even if they live in an area. Even trying to assess a particular plan’s affect on a specific person is difficult when the plan remains general, and no one is actually proposing a project.
So what do people think, just as a first impression?
Russell,
Please check your email. I sent you a message to what may be an old address.
Russell,
Please check your email. I sent you a message to what may be an old address.
So what do people think, just as a first impression?
At a quick skim, I see one big plus for “form based zoning.” The zoning I am familiar with segregates business and residential areas. Which means, it’s hard to shop without a car. The places you want to shop aren’t close enough to make walking (possibly multiple trips) feasible. Unless you can somehow carry everything on public transit, you need a vehicle.
Also, it weakens the neighborhood if you no longer are doing business with people who live and work near you.
Finally, it appears to open up the possibility of apartments. Rather than insisting, as current zoning tends to, on single family houses. Which only result in “affordable” housing with serious government intervention. At least around here.
I don’t know that it’s a great solution. That would depend on how it gets implemented. But it appears to have some opportunities to do better than currently.
So what do people think, just as a first impression?
At a quick skim, I see one big plus for “form based zoning.” The zoning I am familiar with segregates business and residential areas. Which means, it’s hard to shop without a car. The places you want to shop aren’t close enough to make walking (possibly multiple trips) feasible. Unless you can somehow carry everything on public transit, you need a vehicle.
Also, it weakens the neighborhood if you no longer are doing business with people who live and work near you.
Finally, it appears to open up the possibility of apartments. Rather than insisting, as current zoning tends to, on single family houses. Which only result in “affordable” housing with serious government intervention. At least around here.
I don’t know that it’s a great solution. That would depend on how it gets implemented. But it appears to have some opportunities to do better than currently.
Thanks for looking at it, wj. I agree with you. The low income residential community seems skeptical, which is understandable given how many land use experiments have backfired to their detriment.
Thanks for looking at it, wj. I agree with you. The low income residential community seems skeptical, which is understandable given how many land use experiments have backfired to their detriment.
I skimmed it, too. wj makes some good points.
Based on the wikki entry, the classic look and feel of Parisian residential buildings is a result of a similar approach. Under other circumstances it is called “planning”….which, alas, can be in the eye of the beholder. R1 zoning in urban areas is a particularly bad example of land use “planning”.
I skimmed it, too. wj makes some good points.
Based on the wikki entry, the classic look and feel of Parisian residential buildings is a result of a similar approach. Under other circumstances it is called “planning”….which, alas, can be in the eye of the beholder. R1 zoning in urban areas is a particularly bad example of land use “planning”.
Under other circumstances it is called “planning”….which, alas, can be in the eye of the beholder.
Indeed.
Euclidean zoning, the system most in use now, became the standard in the early 20th century. The landmark case, Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) provides an interesting history lesson, not only on the origins of zoning law, but on what was important to early urban planners.
Under other circumstances it is called “planning”….which, alas, can be in the eye of the beholder.
Indeed.
Euclidean zoning, the system most in use now, became the standard in the early 20th century. The landmark case, Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) provides an interesting history lesson, not only on the origins of zoning law, but on what was important to early urban planners.
Just to follow on my earlier comment, the early 20th century Supreme Court was not about protecting the rights of workers (see Lochner) or otherwise encouraging economic fairness, it did strike down a blatantly segregationist zoning ordinance as early as 1917 (Buchanan v. Warley).
Just to follow on my earlier comment, the early 20th century Supreme Court was not about protecting the rights of workers (see Lochner) or otherwise encouraging economic fairness, it did strike down a blatantly segregationist zoning ordinance as early as 1917 (Buchanan v. Warley).
The term Euclidean zoning somehow conjures up something completely different. 😉
Does not apply to the abodes of eldritch abominations, I presume.
The term Euclidean zoning somehow conjures up something completely different. 😉
Does not apply to the abodes of eldritch abominations, I presume.
Does not apply to the abodes of eldritch abominations, I presume.
That zone is way, way out in the burbs!
Yes, although I first read the City of Euclid case many years ago, the term “Euclidean zoning” still conjured images of geometric shapes on a map (which is somewhat accurate.
This is a smart critique of form-based zoning. I find this subject endlessly fascinating, so forgive my repeated comments on a topic that isn’t inspiring much conversation. I do think that as we complain about what’s happening to our cities and our environment, it’s important to look at how our management of city space has contributed to what we are seeing. Should we rethink zoning practices, or rethink zoning entirely when the “nuisances” we are avoiding are actually social behaviors that make us uncomfortable?
Does not apply to the abodes of eldritch abominations, I presume.
That zone is way, way out in the burbs!
Yes, although I first read the City of Euclid case many years ago, the term “Euclidean zoning” still conjured images of geometric shapes on a map (which is somewhat accurate.
This is a smart critique of form-based zoning. I find this subject endlessly fascinating, so forgive my repeated comments on a topic that isn’t inspiring much conversation. I do think that as we complain about what’s happening to our cities and our environment, it’s important to look at how our management of city space has contributed to what we are seeing. Should we rethink zoning practices, or rethink zoning entirely when the “nuisances” we are avoiding are actually social behaviors that make us uncomfortable?
repeated comments on a topic that isn’t inspiring much conversation.
actually, and FWIW, I very much appreciate your sharing this stuff. little comment from me because i’m trying to digest and understand it. my first time encountering concepts like “new urbanism” and “form based coding”.
thanks sapient
repeated comments on a topic that isn’t inspiring much conversation.
actually, and FWIW, I very much appreciate your sharing this stuff. little comment from me because i’m trying to digest and understand it. my first time encountering concepts like “new urbanism” and “form based coding”.
thanks sapient
repeated comments on a topic that isn’t inspiring much conversation.
Well, I think it’s more that it’s getting discussion, rather than rants. It’s good to have a few non-rants occasionally. Even if we do need to rant now and then to take the pressure off.
repeated comments on a topic that isn’t inspiring much conversation.
Well, I think it’s more that it’s getting discussion, rather than rants. It’s good to have a few non-rants occasionally. Even if we do need to rant now and then to take the pressure off.
Thanks for the positive feedback. It is nice to learn about different ways that people of good will are trying to make things better, even if they haven’t settled on a solution.
Thanks for the positive feedback. It is nice to learn about different ways that people of good will are trying to make things better, even if they haven’t settled on a solution.
Interesting. This part was the key for me:
I was having trouble figuring out what the heck form-based codes actually were, why I don’t remember ever hearing about this thing that is apparently a thing, how they fit into my own concept of ‘New Urbanism’, or how public participation (and the criticism thereof) figured in to it.
That quote makes me think one of the big ideas is basically to front load the (local) public participation component, rather than dribble it out in an interminable series of ad-hoc veto points. Cutting the public out of the review process is a feature, not a bug.
I think that makes a lot of sense. It’s sort of like writing down a diet plan up front, rather than letting your lizard brain make its own decision every time a donut crosses your path.
I would imagine it also helps align incentives a bit better: the major (new urbanist) criticism of the sort of hyperlocal community planning processes the quote above is pining for is that those overprivilege tightly concentrated inconveniences against far larger, but more diffuse, benefits.
For example, it’s very easy* to show up to one meeting every couple of years — just the project in your neighborhood — and complain about the noise or imaginary parking problems it will create. Much harder, as an affordable housing advocate, major employer, or other city leader, to show up to hundreds upon hundreds of such meetings and convince people that this or that particular smallish project in their backyard is critical to solving the city’s systematic housing supply shortage.
But those diffuse beneficiaries *could* arrange to be better represented in a more up front process that lays out general goals and vision for the area. That part of form-based code, at least, seems like a good idea.
(And in that light, I’m not sure how some of Inniss’ critique makes much sense. She criticizes ‘charrette’ processes for being unrepresentative, serving entrenched power structures, and potentially failing to capture city- or higher level concerns, like infrastructural and environmental impacts. But these are all problems with existing structures, and, aside from the incentive issues, which goes unmentioned, she’s just reiterating New Urbanist criticisms of *those*. Even as she seemingly portrays New Urbanists themselves as variously confused species of bright-eyed Utopian, and existing planning structures as being somewhat well-justified. Maybe I’m still not getting something, because it’s kinda weird.)
Interesting. This part was the key for me:
I was having trouble figuring out what the heck form-based codes actually were, why I don’t remember ever hearing about this thing that is apparently a thing, how they fit into my own concept of ‘New Urbanism’, or how public participation (and the criticism thereof) figured in to it.
That quote makes me think one of the big ideas is basically to front load the (local) public participation component, rather than dribble it out in an interminable series of ad-hoc veto points. Cutting the public out of the review process is a feature, not a bug.
I think that makes a lot of sense. It’s sort of like writing down a diet plan up front, rather than letting your lizard brain make its own decision every time a donut crosses your path.
I would imagine it also helps align incentives a bit better: the major (new urbanist) criticism of the sort of hyperlocal community planning processes the quote above is pining for is that those overprivilege tightly concentrated inconveniences against far larger, but more diffuse, benefits.
For example, it’s very easy* to show up to one meeting every couple of years — just the project in your neighborhood — and complain about the noise or imaginary parking problems it will create. Much harder, as an affordable housing advocate, major employer, or other city leader, to show up to hundreds upon hundreds of such meetings and convince people that this or that particular smallish project in their backyard is critical to solving the city’s systematic housing supply shortage.
But those diffuse beneficiaries *could* arrange to be better represented in a more up front process that lays out general goals and vision for the area. That part of form-based code, at least, seems like a good idea.
(And in that light, I’m not sure how some of Inniss’ critique makes much sense. She criticizes ‘charrette’ processes for being unrepresentative, serving entrenched power structures, and potentially failing to capture city- or higher level concerns, like infrastructural and environmental impacts. But these are all problems with existing structures, and, aside from the incentive issues, which goes unmentioned, she’s just reiterating New Urbanist criticisms of *those*. Even as she seemingly portrays New Urbanists themselves as variously confused species of bright-eyed Utopian, and existing planning structures as being somewhat well-justified. Maybe I’m still not getting something, because it’s kinda weird.)
I’ve got to say that I’m struggling with how “residents articulate what they want their neighborhood to look like” constitutes “cuts the public out of the development review process”. Huh???
I’ve got to say that I’m struggling with how “residents articulate what they want their neighborhood to look like” constitutes “cuts the public out of the development review process”. Huh???
It’s sort of like writing down a diet plan up front, rather than letting your lizard brain make its own decision every time a donut crosses your path.
Damn it! I knew I was doing it wrong.
It’s sort of like writing down a diet plan up front, rather than letting your lizard brain make its own decision every time a donut crosses your path.
Damn it! I knew I was doing it wrong.
Houston dispensed with zoning altogether and has apparently not turned into a hellhole.
Houston dispensed with zoning altogether and has apparently not turned into a hellhole.
my lizard brain keeps telling me to lie down on that rock.
my lizard brain keeps telling me to lie down on that rock.
Houston dispensed with zoning altogether and has apparently not turned into a hellhole.
Houston does have regulatory ordinances though some of which pertain to land use.
I haven’t been to Houston much as an adult, but I do recall finding it strange to see a cow walking around a lot that seemed to be otherwise urban, so there’s that.
Houston dispensed with zoning altogether and has apparently not turned into a hellhole.
Houston does have regulatory ordinances though some of which pertain to land use.
I haven’t been to Houston much as an adult, but I do recall finding it strange to see a cow walking around a lot that seemed to be otherwise urban, so there’s that.
my lizard brain keeps telling me to lie down on that rock.
Seems worth listening.
my lizard brain keeps telling me to lie down on that rock.
Seems worth listening.
Is it a nice warm rock? Those are the best rocks.
Is it a nice warm rock? Those are the best rocks.
I haven’t been to Houston much as an adult, but I do recall finding it strange to see a cow walking around a lot that seemed to be otherwise urban, so there’s that.
This occurs a lot in Texas because property owners don’t have to pay property taxes on property that’s kept in agricultural production. Just a tax on production I think. About a mile from where I live there’s a herd of Llamas surrounded by a suburban landscape. And about a quarter of a mile away there’s a herd of horses.
I haven’t been to Houston much as an adult, but I do recall finding it strange to see a cow walking around a lot that seemed to be otherwise urban, so there’s that.
This occurs a lot in Texas because property owners don’t have to pay property taxes on property that’s kept in agricultural production. Just a tax on production I think. About a mile from where I live there’s a herd of Llamas surrounded by a suburban landscape. And about a quarter of a mile away there’s a herd of horses.
This occurs a lot in Texas because property owners don’t have to pay property taxes on property that’s kept in agricultural production.
So. tax law being used to achieve something that, in other places, would be done via zoning.
This occurs a lot in Texas because property owners don’t have to pay property taxes on property that’s kept in agricultural production.
So. tax law being used to achieve something that, in other places, would be done via zoning.
The tax law is a state law that applies to property in Texas regardless of whether it’s in suburban, urban areas or not. And the property can be zoned for, say, single-family housing if it’s ever developed.
The tax law is a state law that applies to property in Texas regardless of whether it’s in suburban, urban areas or not. And the property can be zoned for, say, single-family housing if it’s ever developed.
This occurs a lot in Texas because property owners don’t have to pay property taxes on property that’s kept in agricultural production.
AFAIK, many states give those kind of tax advantages for land in agricultural use. Oregon for example. If urban agriculture is actually unusually common or extensive in Texas, I’m not sure that explains it.
Many cities do have strict regulations about keeping livestock though. Often under the heading of animal (and/or disease) control, rather than zoning.
This occurs a lot in Texas because property owners don’t have to pay property taxes on property that’s kept in agricultural production.
AFAIK, many states give those kind of tax advantages for land in agricultural use. Oregon for example. If urban agriculture is actually unusually common or extensive in Texas, I’m not sure that explains it.
Many cities do have strict regulations about keeping livestock though. Often under the heading of animal (and/or disease) control, rather than zoning.
When the suburbs bump up against farmland in states without an exemption and the municipality annexes it, the property owners have to develop the land or sell it to someone who will. Otherwise, unless they’re wealthy, they wouldn’t be able to pay the property taxes. That’s how you end up with square miles of unbroken suburbs and other development. In Texas and states like it, you can have open spaces in the middle of large developments.
Some pros and cons.
What impact, good or bad, does Texas’s agricultural land property tax exemption have on suburban communities?
My neighborhood. (Google Maps)
When the suburbs bump up against farmland in states without an exemption and the municipality annexes it, the property owners have to develop the land or sell it to someone who will. Otherwise, unless they’re wealthy, they wouldn’t be able to pay the property taxes. That’s how you end up with square miles of unbroken suburbs and other development. In Texas and states like it, you can have open spaces in the middle of large developments.
Some pros and cons.
What impact, good or bad, does Texas’s agricultural land property tax exemption have on suburban communities?
My neighborhood. (Google Maps)
It occurs to me to mention that finding something else to talk about besides the (sub) human train wreck engineer who has disabled the brakes, switched all signals to full speed ahead and ordered all bridges ahead dynamited, while all of us are actually ON the train that is careening through the unlit tunnels, running lights dimmed, and entering a curve with the port side wheels off the track as the abyss approaches, seems like a bit of whistling past our own open graves, but I get it.
It occurs to me to mention that finding something else to talk about besides the (sub) human train wreck engineer who has disabled the brakes, switched all signals to full speed ahead and ordered all bridges ahead dynamited, while all of us are actually ON the train that is careening through the unlit tunnels, running lights dimmed, and entering a curve with the port side wheels off the track as the abyss approaches, seems like a bit of whistling past our own open graves, but I get it.
When the suburbs bump up against farmland in states without an exemption and the municipality annexes it, the property owners have to develop the land or sell it to someone who will.
Like I said, most states have such exemptions.
In fact, this page says every state has them. And that, as a family, their whole raison d’etre is to protect farmland from the encroachment of development and rising property valies in exactly the way you’re describing:
I’m not saying Texas ain’t special somehow, but whatever that somehow is, the bare existence of a farm tax exemption isn’t it.
Maybe there’s something unusually lenient about eligibility for farm status in Texas (your quora link insinuates that many so-called ‘farms’ aren’t really). Or maybe it’s something else entirely.
When the suburbs bump up against farmland in states without an exemption and the municipality annexes it, the property owners have to develop the land or sell it to someone who will.
Like I said, most states have such exemptions.
In fact, this page says every state has them. And that, as a family, their whole raison d’etre is to protect farmland from the encroachment of development and rising property valies in exactly the way you’re describing:
I’m not saying Texas ain’t special somehow, but whatever that somehow is, the bare existence of a farm tax exemption isn’t it.
Maybe there’s something unusually lenient about eligibility for farm status in Texas (your quora link insinuates that many so-called ‘farms’ aren’t really). Or maybe it’s something else entirely.
Texas (your quora link insinuates that many so-called ‘farms’ aren’t really).
I think that’s probably the case with some of the open spaces near me. The property owners lease to or hire someone to plant and harvest grain every year to maintain the land’s agricultural status. I doubt they’re making much, if any, profit off it. But they’re likely saving 10’s or 100’s of thousands of dollars in taxes.
Texas (your quora link insinuates that many so-called ‘farms’ aren’t really).
I think that’s probably the case with some of the open spaces near me. The property owners lease to or hire someone to plant and harvest grain every year to maintain the land’s agricultural status. I doubt they’re making much, if any, profit off it. But they’re likely saving 10’s or 100’s of thousands of dollars in taxes.
whistling past our own open graves
Well why not? It’s not like whistling is any less likely to stop the train than weeping and gnashing our teeth.
whistling past our own open graves
Well why not? It’s not like whistling is any less likely to stop the train than weeping and gnashing our teeth.
Nice pad, CharlesWT.
Nice pad, CharlesWT.
There are agricultural breaks where I live too, and I might actually be able to finesse one of them, but I would need to try harder to sell stuff that I produce. Avoiding taxes is a full time job! Mostly, I’d rather just pay them (although a friend of mine made a bad mistake with her IRA – yikes).
There are agricultural breaks where I live too, and I might actually be able to finesse one of them, but I would need to try harder to sell stuff that I produce. Avoiding taxes is a full time job! Mostly, I’d rather just pay them (although a friend of mine made a bad mistake with her IRA – yikes).
Nice pad, CharlesWT.
If you’re referring to the marker on the Google Map, it marks the offices, weight room, etc. of the apartment complex I live in.
Most of this area was still farmland just a few decades ago. Many of the remaining open spaces are owned by the original farm families.
Nice pad, CharlesWT.
If you’re referring to the marker on the Google Map, it marks the offices, weight room, etc. of the apartment complex I live in.
Most of this area was still farmland just a few decades ago. Many of the remaining open spaces are owned by the original farm families.
Most of this area was still farmland just a few decades ago. Many of the remaining open spaces are owned by the original farm families.
Albemarle County, where I live, was also farmland fairly recently. Farmland goes away as soon as famers (especially when they get old, or they die and their kids don’t want to farm) make more money selling their land to developers. Not sure how this is different in Texas.
Most of this area was still farmland just a few decades ago. Many of the remaining open spaces are owned by the original farm families.
Albemarle County, where I live, was also farmland fairly recently. Farmland goes away as soon as famers (especially when they get old, or they die and their kids don’t want to farm) make more money selling their land to developers. Not sure how this is different in Texas.
I’m sure small landowners did sell to developers. But several of the large landowners still have large tracts of land that haven’t been developed yet.
I’m sure small landowners did sell to developers. But several of the large landowners still have large tracts of land that haven’t been developed yet.
The town I grew up in on Long Island was farms about 25 years before I grew up there. Still a couple of farms left, last I was there, 30-odd years ago.
Probably all gone now.
I have friends who have the last working farm in Salem, MA, as far as I know. 2 acres. Their main product is pickles.
They’re good pickles.
but I get it.
My secret plan: ignore him and maybe he’ll go away.
The town I grew up in on Long Island was farms about 25 years before I grew up there. Still a couple of farms left, last I was there, 30-odd years ago.
Probably all gone now.
I have friends who have the last working farm in Salem, MA, as far as I know. 2 acres. Their main product is pickles.
They’re good pickles.
but I get it.
My secret plan: ignore him and maybe he’ll go away.
The property owners lease to or hire someone to plant and harvest grain every year to maintain the land’s agricultural status.
I meant more like ‘just sign this form that says its a farm. they never bother to check’.
But what you’re describing pretty much makes them actual farms. As long as it’s planted in soybeans *now*, I doubt the state knows or cares about whether the owner secretly thinks it’d be the perfect place to plant a Costco *someday*, once the demand rises enough.
Doesn’t sound like they’re necessarily even losing money, in an accounting sense (maybe in an economic one, with opportunity costs, but that depends on how saturated the area already is with Costcos).
The property owners lease to or hire someone to plant and harvest grain every year to maintain the land’s agricultural status.
I meant more like ‘just sign this form that says its a farm. they never bother to check’.
But what you’re describing pretty much makes them actual farms. As long as it’s planted in soybeans *now*, I doubt the state knows or cares about whether the owner secretly thinks it’d be the perfect place to plant a Costco *someday*, once the demand rises enough.
Doesn’t sound like they’re necessarily even losing money, in an accounting sense (maybe in an economic one, with opportunity costs, but that depends on how saturated the area already is with Costcos).
But what you’re describing pretty much makes them actual farms.
My impression is that they may be just going through the motions. They often wait too long before cutting and baling the grain. They don’t bother to combine it anymore. Then they may leave the bales in the field exposed to the weather for months before hauling them away.
But what you’re describing pretty much makes them actual farms.
My impression is that they may be just going through the motions. They often wait too long before cutting and baling the grain. They don’t bother to combine it anymore. Then they may leave the bales in the field exposed to the weather for months before hauling them away.
But several of the large landowners still have large tracts of land that haven’t been developed yet.
Holding out for a buyer willing to pay a premium for a big contiguous plot?
If there’s anything different about Texas, I imagine it could be the sheer size and number of such parcels. If they all hold out for top dollar, it could be awhile before enough buyers come along to make them disappear.
Otherwise, the dynamic doesn’t sound so different from any other rapidly expanding suburban area in the last 60 years or so.
But several of the large landowners still have large tracts of land that haven’t been developed yet.
Holding out for a buyer willing to pay a premium for a big contiguous plot?
If there’s anything different about Texas, I imagine it could be the sheer size and number of such parcels. If they all hold out for top dollar, it could be awhile before enough buyers come along to make them disappear.
Otherwise, the dynamic doesn’t sound so different from any other rapidly expanding suburban area in the last 60 years or so.
Some of the parcels that I’m aware of have been surrounded by development for decades. Even over fifty years. From time to time a section may be sliced off for housing or other development.
Some of the parcels that I’m aware of have been surrounded by development for decades. Even over fifty years. From time to time a section may be sliced off for housing or other development.
Trump Winery is in Albemarle County, along a road which is still mostly farmland. Trump bought it from the Kluges.
There are a lot of wealthy estate owners here.
I’ve been doing some reading. Everywhere you throw a stone around here is a former Lewis property (as in the Meriwether Lewis family – mostly the grandfather, who owned much of what exists hereabouts). The Lewis descendants still live around here. Some are moderately wealthy, and live on some of their ancestral land. The ones I’ve met are incredibly nice and interesting people, with politics that are similar to mine. They grow grapes and apples.
About the ancestors: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/01/12/york-slave-lewis-clark-expedition/
Charlottesville City (not big) is struggling with zoning issues, as I mentioned. The University of Virginia owns a huge amount of acreage, not all obviously used for educational purposes. In future hobby reading, I need to figure out how UVA allocates its land usage.
Trump Winery is in Albemarle County, along a road which is still mostly farmland. Trump bought it from the Kluges.
There are a lot of wealthy estate owners here.
I’ve been doing some reading. Everywhere you throw a stone around here is a former Lewis property (as in the Meriwether Lewis family – mostly the grandfather, who owned much of what exists hereabouts). The Lewis descendants still live around here. Some are moderately wealthy, and live on some of their ancestral land. The ones I’ve met are incredibly nice and interesting people, with politics that are similar to mine. They grow grapes and apples.
About the ancestors: https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/01/12/york-slave-lewis-clark-expedition/
Charlottesville City (not big) is struggling with zoning issues, as I mentioned. The University of Virginia owns a huge amount of acreage, not all obviously used for educational purposes. In future hobby reading, I need to figure out how UVA allocates its land usage.
Most of the places in my county (Essex County MA) that have survived development, have done so because they’re either publicly owned or are owned by land trusts or land banks of some kind. Some of the larger agricultural holdings fall into the land bank category, where a non-profit owns the land and they license it to somebody to farm.
I live very near – like, within a mile – to a number of smaller chunks of open land – 5 or 10 or acres, up to 25 – but most of those have been left open because they’re unbuildable, either because they’re ledge or they’re swamp or they’re estuaries. The “25 acre” parcel around the block from me is probably 50% water. It’s a great place for bird watching or just to take a walk, I’m glad to live near it.
There are towns in my general area where lots of a quarter or even half acre are normal, but where I live specifically a quarter acre is a really big lot. Unusually big. My house and every house in my neighborhood is on 1/8 acre. There are a couple of areas near me where there are houses on larger lots, but those are really really expensive, like multiple millions of dollars.
The real estate in my area has basically been accounted for – carved up, parcelled out, and developed for one purpose or another – for a really long time. Hundreds of years in some cases. The zoning laws are in many cases also quite old, and in MA require a supermajority to change if I’m not mistaken. There are some areas that are building up – many of the larger homes and a lot of the commercial real estate in downtown Salem has been converted to condos, and quite a lot of it was built as multi-family in the first place. Beverly (next town up the coast) has a lot of multi-story construction going on in the downtown.
In Salem, they just tried to change the zoning by-laws to allow for accessory housing, which basically means something like in-law apartments – a separate, secondary living area, carved out of the primary residence or perhaps an out-building like a garage. It has a lot of support in the town, because a lot of old-school townies are getting priced out and they’d like to try to figure out a way to stay in Salem. It got a majority, but not a super-majority, of the town council, so it did not pass.
Zoning laws in this area are generally the province of local government, which is often run by the fairly small number of people who actually show up for things like town meetings or who actually bother to run for city council or similar. My town still runs on town meeting, has done since 1639. We have about 20K population, if 1,000 people show up for town meeting I’d be surprised.
It’s really expensive to live here. It seems normal to us, but then when we talk to people who live elsewhere, it can kind of freak you out. When my wife and I were looking for houses, we once went to an open house where there was a couple who were relocating from North Carolina. The woman was crying, right in the middle of the living room, because she was so upset at what the options were for their price range.
I do, personally, know a small, but not insignificant, number of people who are literally homeless. Working people, responsible people, with kids. Just not enough money.
It’s a thing.
Most of the places in my county (Essex County MA) that have survived development, have done so because they’re either publicly owned or are owned by land trusts or land banks of some kind. Some of the larger agricultural holdings fall into the land bank category, where a non-profit owns the land and they license it to somebody to farm.
I live very near – like, within a mile – to a number of smaller chunks of open land – 5 or 10 or acres, up to 25 – but most of those have been left open because they’re unbuildable, either because they’re ledge or they’re swamp or they’re estuaries. The “25 acre” parcel around the block from me is probably 50% water. It’s a great place for bird watching or just to take a walk, I’m glad to live near it.
There are towns in my general area where lots of a quarter or even half acre are normal, but where I live specifically a quarter acre is a really big lot. Unusually big. My house and every house in my neighborhood is on 1/8 acre. There are a couple of areas near me where there are houses on larger lots, but those are really really expensive, like multiple millions of dollars.
The real estate in my area has basically been accounted for – carved up, parcelled out, and developed for one purpose or another – for a really long time. Hundreds of years in some cases. The zoning laws are in many cases also quite old, and in MA require a supermajority to change if I’m not mistaken. There are some areas that are building up – many of the larger homes and a lot of the commercial real estate in downtown Salem has been converted to condos, and quite a lot of it was built as multi-family in the first place. Beverly (next town up the coast) has a lot of multi-story construction going on in the downtown.
In Salem, they just tried to change the zoning by-laws to allow for accessory housing, which basically means something like in-law apartments – a separate, secondary living area, carved out of the primary residence or perhaps an out-building like a garage. It has a lot of support in the town, because a lot of old-school townies are getting priced out and they’d like to try to figure out a way to stay in Salem. It got a majority, but not a super-majority, of the town council, so it did not pass.
Zoning laws in this area are generally the province of local government, which is often run by the fairly small number of people who actually show up for things like town meetings or who actually bother to run for city council or similar. My town still runs on town meeting, has done since 1639. We have about 20K population, if 1,000 people show up for town meeting I’d be surprised.
It’s really expensive to live here. It seems normal to us, but then when we talk to people who live elsewhere, it can kind of freak you out. When my wife and I were looking for houses, we once went to an open house where there was a couple who were relocating from North Carolina. The woman was crying, right in the middle of the living room, because she was so upset at what the options were for their price range.
I do, personally, know a small, but not insignificant, number of people who are literally homeless. Working people, responsible people, with kids. Just not enough money.
It’s a thing.
Not worrying at all…
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-climate-paris-goals.html
New climate models show carbon dioxide is a more potent greenhouse gas than previously understood, a finding that could push the Paris treaty goals for capping global warming out of reach…
Not worrying at all…
https://phys.org/news/2020-01-climate-paris-goals.html
New climate models show carbon dioxide is a more potent greenhouse gas than previously understood, a finding that could push the Paris treaty goals for capping global warming out of reach…
I was curious about russell’s description of the Salem situation, so I googled and got this.
I am not sympathetic to zoning boards lately.
I was curious about russell’s description of the Salem situation, so I googled and got this.
I am not sympathetic to zoning boards lately.
A lot of farms in New Jersey (and I’d guess many other similarly situated places) are more like farm-themed amusement parks, particularly in the fall.
“Hey, let’s go out barely, kind of not really, into the country with the kids, along with a thousand other people who decided to do the same thing. It’s fall!”
Every family spends between $50 and $200 on hayride tickets, pumpkin picking, apple picking, buying gallons of cider and dozens of apple cider doughnuts, cute little farmy knick-knacks, jarred preserves, etc. Those places are gold mines, I tell ya. They’re raking it in hand over fist.
Millionaires in beat-up pickup trucks.
A lot of farms in New Jersey (and I’d guess many other similarly situated places) are more like farm-themed amusement parks, particularly in the fall.
“Hey, let’s go out barely, kind of not really, into the country with the kids, along with a thousand other people who decided to do the same thing. It’s fall!”
Every family spends between $50 and $200 on hayride tickets, pumpkin picking, apple picking, buying gallons of cider and dozens of apple cider doughnuts, cute little farmy knick-knacks, jarred preserves, etc. Those places are gold mines, I tell ya. They’re raking it in hand over fist.
Millionaires in beat-up pickup trucks.
Here in Plano, TX the city recently changed the zoning for single-family properties to allow the building of detached dwellings if the lots are large enough. This would make it easier for empty nesters to remain in the neighborhoods they raised their families in. And generally, make housing more flexible and efficient.
Here in Plano, TX the city recently changed the zoning for single-family properties to allow the building of detached dwellings if the lots are large enough. This would make it easier for empty nesters to remain in the neighborhoods they raised their families in. And generally, make housing more flexible and efficient.
I am not sympathetic to zoning boards lately.
I’m assuming the Salem zoning board is elected locally. I am not sure I agree with Sapient. For the reasons below, the decision is not irrational at all. But even if it runs counter to local sentiment, at least the matter is LOCAL (assuming my assumption is correct), it only affects local citizens and, most importantly, there is a reasonably viable and democratic remedy.
Now, imagine if the decision was made nationally, and not by congress, but by an administrative agency within HUD. What would be the local homeowner remedy? None as a practical matter. Moreover, local homeowners lack the means to lobby a federal agency. That privilege is reserved to the largest, deepest pockets.
What I find somewhat problematic about the ruling is that, as people age and retire, they still have to pay property taxes. Having a tenant could go a long way toward defraying property taxes. OTOH, there is a solid argument to make for retaining the character of a single family neighborhood and no one wants a registered sex offender living in the next door neighbor’s garage apartment. Once the state gets into trying to spell who can and cannot be excluded from a rental market, all kinds of other issues are implicated and if property taxes are hard on the elderly, try paying for a lawsuit from beginning to end.
IOW, it’s not an easy call, but at least it can be addressed within the community with some realistic prospect of being heard as opposed to federal rule making.
Above, Russell laments the cynicism Charles WT and I bring to faith in government. In fact, there are reasons for our antipathy to government and particularly a centralized, administrative state, making decisions for those of us in the hinterlands. That specific reason is that government repeatedly shows itself to be incompetent, e.g. the VA, the US Post Office, DOL (I showed my work with our 600 page 401K form that addresses 20 employees–just stupid, no other word for it), FAA are either notorious or I have had personal and recent experience with them and the experiences were crappy.
Not only are incompetence, lethargy and lack of accountability hallmarks of the state generally, the larger and more diffuse the entity, the more compounded the problem is. Has anyone been fired by the FAA over the 737 Max disaster? When was the last time a VA employee got axed for incompetence/nonfeasance? It just doesn’t happen.
Add to this that no one even makes a pretense of wanting to overhaul an agency or a department to try to make it better. When I hear “Medicare for All”, I think “VA” plus “Ok, and what’s left for everything else, including Climate Change?” plus “It will be screwed up and it will be the only game in town, immune from meaningful change”.
So, more cowbell, so to speak, is not a self-evident argument for adding new and different federal tentacles.
I am not sympathetic to zoning boards lately.
I’m assuming the Salem zoning board is elected locally. I am not sure I agree with Sapient. For the reasons below, the decision is not irrational at all. But even if it runs counter to local sentiment, at least the matter is LOCAL (assuming my assumption is correct), it only affects local citizens and, most importantly, there is a reasonably viable and democratic remedy.
Now, imagine if the decision was made nationally, and not by congress, but by an administrative agency within HUD. What would be the local homeowner remedy? None as a practical matter. Moreover, local homeowners lack the means to lobby a federal agency. That privilege is reserved to the largest, deepest pockets.
What I find somewhat problematic about the ruling is that, as people age and retire, they still have to pay property taxes. Having a tenant could go a long way toward defraying property taxes. OTOH, there is a solid argument to make for retaining the character of a single family neighborhood and no one wants a registered sex offender living in the next door neighbor’s garage apartment. Once the state gets into trying to spell who can and cannot be excluded from a rental market, all kinds of other issues are implicated and if property taxes are hard on the elderly, try paying for a lawsuit from beginning to end.
IOW, it’s not an easy call, but at least it can be addressed within the community with some realistic prospect of being heard as opposed to federal rule making.
Above, Russell laments the cynicism Charles WT and I bring to faith in government. In fact, there are reasons for our antipathy to government and particularly a centralized, administrative state, making decisions for those of us in the hinterlands. That specific reason is that government repeatedly shows itself to be incompetent, e.g. the VA, the US Post Office, DOL (I showed my work with our 600 page 401K form that addresses 20 employees–just stupid, no other word for it), FAA are either notorious or I have had personal and recent experience with them and the experiences were crappy.
Not only are incompetence, lethargy and lack of accountability hallmarks of the state generally, the larger and more diffuse the entity, the more compounded the problem is. Has anyone been fired by the FAA over the 737 Max disaster? When was the last time a VA employee got axed for incompetence/nonfeasance? It just doesn’t happen.
Add to this that no one even makes a pretense of wanting to overhaul an agency or a department to try to make it better. When I hear “Medicare for All”, I think “VA” plus “Ok, and what’s left for everything else, including Climate Change?” plus “It will be screwed up and it will be the only game in town, immune from meaningful change”.
So, more cowbell, so to speak, is not a self-evident argument for adding new and different federal tentacles.
Japan seems to have made nationwide zoning work. Probably wouldn’t work here even if it were constitutional. I’m always wary of one size fits all approaches to anything.
“According to the Journal, the Japanese capital of nearly some 13 million people saw the construction of 145,000 new housing units started in 2018—more than New York City, Los Angeles, Houston, and Boston combined. The country as a whole has managed to add close to the same amount of new housing as the U.S., despite having about half the population.
All this new housing construction has kept rents relatively flat, with the average cost of renting a two-bedroom apartment in Tokyo hovering at $1,000 a month for the past decade. That’s well below median monthly rents for the two-bedroom apartments in, say, Los Angeles ($1,750), New York City ($2,500), or San Francisco ($3,110).”
NIMBYs Argue New Housing Supply Doesn’t Make Cities Affordable. They’re Wrong.: Tokyo is a shining example of how free-market housing regulations can keep even big, growing cities affordable.
Of course, a two-bedroom apartment in Tokyo might be smaller than an efficiency here.
Japan seems to have made nationwide zoning work. Probably wouldn’t work here even if it were constitutional. I’m always wary of one size fits all approaches to anything.
“According to the Journal, the Japanese capital of nearly some 13 million people saw the construction of 145,000 new housing units started in 2018—more than New York City, Los Angeles, Houston, and Boston combined. The country as a whole has managed to add close to the same amount of new housing as the U.S., despite having about half the population.
All this new housing construction has kept rents relatively flat, with the average cost of renting a two-bedroom apartment in Tokyo hovering at $1,000 a month for the past decade. That’s well below median monthly rents for the two-bedroom apartments in, say, Los Angeles ($1,750), New York City ($2,500), or San Francisco ($3,110).”
NIMBYs Argue New Housing Supply Doesn’t Make Cities Affordable. They’re Wrong.: Tokyo is a shining example of how free-market housing regulations can keep even big, growing cities affordable.
Of course, a two-bedroom apartment in Tokyo might be smaller than an efficiency here.
I’m assuming the Salem zoning board is elected locally.
It was actually city council that 86’d the proposal, but city council is locally elected, so your point holds.
The basic issue of housing in Salem, and in Essex County in general, is pretty much a function of median cost of housing vs median income.
The Census says median household income in Salem is about $65K, median owner-occupied home value is $347,200. Zillow’s take on median home value in 01970 is $410K.
So, order of magnitude, it costs 5 or 6 times your annual salary to buy a house in Salem.
Median rent is about $1200, which sounds not so bad, but it won’t get you much.
It costs more to live there than most people make. And, a lot of the people that live here come from families that have lived here for, like, ever. Many, many generations.
Salem’s attractive because it’s only about a half hour from Boston on the train, it’s a compact and walkable small city, and there’s a lot going on here in terms of arts and food and culture, at all economic levels. You can easily live there without a car. Younger folks like the social environment.
So, townies and young families get priced out.
I could maybe see the NIMBY argument if Salem was some kind of bucolic suburban town, but most of the downtown is multi-family already. Either commercial / industrial space that’s been converted to condos, or big old houses that have been converted to condos, or block after block of good old New England triple deckers.
So, probably not a good move by the council. And, as McK points out, one that will probably factor into the next election cycle.
And that’s the news from Salem.
As far as whether and how badly government sucks, I’m happy to go toe to toe with most folks as far as dumb-ass annoying or even sheerly incompetent interactions with government actors. Any time you try to fit a set of rules around reality, you will fail in ways large and small. Any time you evolve an organization with more the 20 people and / or a budget bigger than maybe $100K, you are going to be pulling a dead-weight ton of inefficiency and inertia, uphill both ways.
It costs my wife and I something like $700 a year to have our taxes prepared. It takes my wife a solid week to assemble all of the various bits and pieces that go into it. And we don’t actually have all the complicated a financial picture. I work for a salary, on a W-2. It used to be worse, when my wife was working, because she was self-employed and claimed her home office.
It’s true, government sucks. It’s an intrusive, annoying, inefficient beast.
The absence of government is worse.
My position as regards government is : it’s not going anywhere, it’s a thing that humans do, have always done, always will do. Best to quit bitching and try to make it as good as you can.
I’m assuming the Salem zoning board is elected locally.
It was actually city council that 86’d the proposal, but city council is locally elected, so your point holds.
The basic issue of housing in Salem, and in Essex County in general, is pretty much a function of median cost of housing vs median income.
The Census says median household income in Salem is about $65K, median owner-occupied home value is $347,200. Zillow’s take on median home value in 01970 is $410K.
So, order of magnitude, it costs 5 or 6 times your annual salary to buy a house in Salem.
Median rent is about $1200, which sounds not so bad, but it won’t get you much.
It costs more to live there than most people make. And, a lot of the people that live here come from families that have lived here for, like, ever. Many, many generations.
Salem’s attractive because it’s only about a half hour from Boston on the train, it’s a compact and walkable small city, and there’s a lot going on here in terms of arts and food and culture, at all economic levels. You can easily live there without a car. Younger folks like the social environment.
So, townies and young families get priced out.
I could maybe see the NIMBY argument if Salem was some kind of bucolic suburban town, but most of the downtown is multi-family already. Either commercial / industrial space that’s been converted to condos, or big old houses that have been converted to condos, or block after block of good old New England triple deckers.
So, probably not a good move by the council. And, as McK points out, one that will probably factor into the next election cycle.
And that’s the news from Salem.
As far as whether and how badly government sucks, I’m happy to go toe to toe with most folks as far as dumb-ass annoying or even sheerly incompetent interactions with government actors. Any time you try to fit a set of rules around reality, you will fail in ways large and small. Any time you evolve an organization with more the 20 people and / or a budget bigger than maybe $100K, you are going to be pulling a dead-weight ton of inefficiency and inertia, uphill both ways.
It costs my wife and I something like $700 a year to have our taxes prepared. It takes my wife a solid week to assemble all of the various bits and pieces that go into it. And we don’t actually have all the complicated a financial picture. I work for a salary, on a W-2. It used to be worse, when my wife was working, because she was self-employed and claimed her home office.
It’s true, government sucks. It’s an intrusive, annoying, inefficient beast.
The absence of government is worse.
My position as regards government is : it’s not going anywhere, it’s a thing that humans do, have always done, always will do. Best to quit bitching and try to make it as good as you can.
Best to quit bitching and try to make it as good as you can.
Well, we don’t have to grow it. We can actually insist that it fix its current problems before giving it more access to our personal and professional lives.
We can do that. No one, from left to right, is actually proposing that we do so, but it is theoretically something that can and should be done. The current situation is why I am not warm to more stuff.
Best to quit bitching and try to make it as good as you can.
Well, we don’t have to grow it. We can actually insist that it fix its current problems before giving it more access to our personal and professional lives.
We can do that. No one, from left to right, is actually proposing that we do so, but it is theoretically something that can and should be done. The current situation is why I am not warm to more stuff.
there is a solid argument to make for retaining the character of a single family neighborhood and no one wants a registered sex offender living in the next door neighbor’s garage apartment.
Perhaps things are different in Texas. But in California (if I’ve understood the law correctly) state law already bars registered sex offenders from living in proximity to a school. Which, in practical terms, means suburbia is closed — there are just too many schools scattered around.
Also, I’d be interested in hearing just what those solid arguments are for retaining “single family neighborhoods”. Assuming I’m correct that you don’t include a) apartments (even if rented to families) and b) neighborhood stores.
there is a solid argument to make for retaining the character of a single family neighborhood and no one wants a registered sex offender living in the next door neighbor’s garage apartment.
Perhaps things are different in Texas. But in California (if I’ve understood the law correctly) state law already bars registered sex offenders from living in proximity to a school. Which, in practical terms, means suburbia is closed — there are just too many schools scattered around.
Also, I’d be interested in hearing just what those solid arguments are for retaining “single family neighborhoods”. Assuming I’m correct that you don’t include a) apartments (even if rented to families) and b) neighborhood stores.
The current situation is why I am not warm to more stuff.
Without necessarily agreeing about how all of the implications of that play out, I can certainly understand your point of view here.
The current situation is why I am not warm to more stuff.
Without necessarily agreeing about how all of the implications of that play out, I can certainly understand your point of view here.
Well, we don’t have to grow it [government]. We can actually insist that it fix its current problems before giving it more access to our personal and professional lives.
It might be noted that part (only a part, but definitely part) of the problem with government comes from people who dislike it on principle trying to “starve the beast”. Something like the VA suffers, among other things, from being required to provide services beyond what they have budget for. If you don’t have enough people, or money to afford competent people, well to some extent you get what you are willing to pay for.
All that’s over and above the problems you see in any large organization. Problems which, obviously, are not due to it being government per se.
Well, we don’t have to grow it [government]. We can actually insist that it fix its current problems before giving it more access to our personal and professional lives.
It might be noted that part (only a part, but definitely part) of the problem with government comes from people who dislike it on principle trying to “starve the beast”. Something like the VA suffers, among other things, from being required to provide services beyond what they have budget for. If you don’t have enough people, or money to afford competent people, well to some extent you get what you are willing to pay for.
All that’s over and above the problems you see in any large organization. Problems which, obviously, are not due to it being government per se.
All this new housing construction has kept rents relatively flat, with the average cost of renting a two-bedroom apartment in Tokyo
aren’t houses in Japan commonly torn down when the lot changes hands? the house itself has very little value after a couple of decades, as opposed to the land which is always valuable.
All this new housing construction has kept rents relatively flat, with the average cost of renting a two-bedroom apartment in Tokyo
aren’t houses in Japan commonly torn down when the lot changes hands? the house itself has very little value after a couple of decades, as opposed to the land which is always valuable.
The VA:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5215146/
An earlier survey:
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/17/va-hospitals-earn-high-patient-satisfaction-scores.html
Conservative trump clowns are not interested in improving the VA, they want to destroy it, as it conflicts with their ideology, which is to reward the conservatives who bankroll the republican party.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/10/17/former-va-secretary-details-dysfunction-chaos-within-the-trump-administration/
https://www.businessinsider.com/david-shulkin-shadow-government-undermined-him-planned-his-ouster-2019-10
The FAA and the 737MAX:
https://www.dcreport.org/2019/11/08/boeing-737-max-how-deregulation-kills-people/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/faa-saw-737-max-flight-control-system-as-non-critical-safety-risk-11557831723
More articles from multiple sources:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=FAA+handed+over+regulation+of+the+737MAX++to+Boeing
Including:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/business/boeing-737-messages.html
Boeing executives and engineers, like VW and Wells Fargo executives whose corruption was minimized (it was the fault of those lower down and the regulators who were deceived and lied to to protect the almighty bottom line, not the management who directed the corruption, we were told by conservatives on these pages at the time) given wide latitude to regulate themselves and the safety of their products lied and covered up the problems with the 737 MAX in their communications with regulators at the FAA.
and:
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/26/773675393/boeings-cultural-shift
After Boeing’s merger with McDonnell Douglas years ago, the engineering contingent at the company, proud of their product and its safety, were hamstrung and gagged regarding their doubts regarding the plane by the McDonnell Douglas leadership who assumed control of management at the company solely for bottom-line reasons and the contempt they share with regulation-adverse conservatives, who should be fired en masse, or worse, for the murder of hundreds of passengers and crew for government regulation.
If you are against regulation and cheer deregulation, you are the problem in this instance.
The U.S. Post Office: What precisely is the problem?
DOL: No one likes paperwork and 600 pages is excessive. The regulators in this case dot every “i” and cross every “t”. When they do, they get flack; when they don’t, and opportunistic Americans take advantage of the oversight, we want them fired.
Firing Federal Workers:
https://work.chron.com/can-fired-civil-service-jobs-19492.html
To permit the Federal Government to fire at will would result in a corrupt spoils system in which politicians would plant their families, their friends, their donors, and whatever corrupt know-nothing hangers-onners curry favor throughout the government, which is how it worked before laws were passed to stop the practice.
The Trump Administration and the Republican Party have nevertheless instituted their own spoils system throughput the bureaucracy by hook and by crook.
They have created a truly, malignant and corrupt Deep State.
It will be overthrown violently.
I would think regulators who don’t regulate (shouldn’t they be given the Medal of Freedom for their private sector friendliness, rather than fired?) would be almost as good as no regulators at all for those against regulation across the board, but I’d be naive to think such a thing.
The VA:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5215146/
An earlier survey:
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/04/17/va-hospitals-earn-high-patient-satisfaction-scores.html
Conservative trump clowns are not interested in improving the VA, they want to destroy it, as it conflicts with their ideology, which is to reward the conservatives who bankroll the republican party.
https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2019/10/17/former-va-secretary-details-dysfunction-chaos-within-the-trump-administration/
https://www.businessinsider.com/david-shulkin-shadow-government-undermined-him-planned-his-ouster-2019-10
The FAA and the 737MAX:
https://www.dcreport.org/2019/11/08/boeing-737-max-how-deregulation-kills-people/
https://www.wsj.com/articles/faa-saw-737-max-flight-control-system-as-non-critical-safety-risk-11557831723
More articles from multiple sources:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=FAA+handed+over+regulation+of+the+737MAX++to+Boeing
Including:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/09/business/boeing-737-messages.html
Boeing executives and engineers, like VW and Wells Fargo executives whose corruption was minimized (it was the fault of those lower down and the regulators who were deceived and lied to to protect the almighty bottom line, not the management who directed the corruption, we were told by conservatives on these pages at the time) given wide latitude to regulate themselves and the safety of their products lied and covered up the problems with the 737 MAX in their communications with regulators at the FAA.
and:
https://www.npr.org/2019/10/26/773675393/boeings-cultural-shift
After Boeing’s merger with McDonnell Douglas years ago, the engineering contingent at the company, proud of their product and its safety, were hamstrung and gagged regarding their doubts regarding the plane by the McDonnell Douglas leadership who assumed control of management at the company solely for bottom-line reasons and the contempt they share with regulation-adverse conservatives, who should be fired en masse, or worse, for the murder of hundreds of passengers and crew for government regulation.
If you are against regulation and cheer deregulation, you are the problem in this instance.
The U.S. Post Office: What precisely is the problem?
DOL: No one likes paperwork and 600 pages is excessive. The regulators in this case dot every “i” and cross every “t”. When they do, they get flack; when they don’t, and opportunistic Americans take advantage of the oversight, we want them fired.
Firing Federal Workers:
https://work.chron.com/can-fired-civil-service-jobs-19492.html
To permit the Federal Government to fire at will would result in a corrupt spoils system in which politicians would plant their families, their friends, their donors, and whatever corrupt know-nothing hangers-onners curry favor throughout the government, which is how it worked before laws were passed to stop the practice.
The Trump Administration and the Republican Party have nevertheless instituted their own spoils system throughput the bureaucracy by hook and by crook.
They have created a truly, malignant and corrupt Deep State.
It will be overthrown violently.
I would think regulators who don’t regulate (shouldn’t they be given the Medal of Freedom for their private sector friendliness, rather than fired?) would be almost as good as no regulators at all for those against regulation across the board, but I’d be naive to think such a thing.
Why has Lockheed Martin not been fired for its F-35 disaster?
Why has Lockheed Martin not been fired for its F-35 disaster?
When will Mark Zuckerberg take some personal responsibility for the depredations of his company?
When will Mark Zuckerberg take some personal responsibility for the depredations of his company?
We can actually insist that it fix its current problems
Maybe that’s just an unfortunate turn of phrase, but as written it suggests a pretty deep disconnect with how stuff actually happens. It’s the equivalent of crashing a car, and then declaring “I’m not going to tow that stupid thing to the mechanic until it fixes its current problems.” That’s just not how this works. It’s not how any of this works.
It might be noted that part (only a part, but definitely part) of the problem with government comes from people who dislike it on principle trying to “starve the beast”.
Some of the other parts of the problem come from associated attitudes those same people often hold, the kind of people they then elect to make decisions, and the way those electeds set up and run our institutions of government.
We can actually insist that it fix its current problems
Maybe that’s just an unfortunate turn of phrase, but as written it suggests a pretty deep disconnect with how stuff actually happens. It’s the equivalent of crashing a car, and then declaring “I’m not going to tow that stupid thing to the mechanic until it fixes its current problems.” That’s just not how this works. It’s not how any of this works.
It might be noted that part (only a part, but definitely part) of the problem with government comes from people who dislike it on principle trying to “starve the beast”.
Some of the other parts of the problem come from associated attitudes those same people often hold, the kind of people they then elect to make decisions, and the way those electeds set up and run our institutions of government.
Conservatives love incompetent government and encourage it.
The better to kill it.
I’m convinced.
I’m going to kill it.
Conservatives love incompetent government and encourage it.
The better to kill it.
I’m convinced.
I’m going to kill it.
I look forward to the time of resource wars, massive coastal flooding, heat waves forcing tens of millions on the march, unimaginable weather extremes, crop extinctions, the death of the oceans, etc., as another extinction event sweeps across the globe taking its toll on life.
Librul: This does not look good. Maybe we should do something about this.
conservative: THIS IS THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS!!! When are you haters going to get a fucking clue!!!!!
Yup. Can’t wait.
I look forward to the time of resource wars, massive coastal flooding, heat waves forcing tens of millions on the march, unimaginable weather extremes, crop extinctions, the death of the oceans, etc., as another extinction event sweeps across the globe taking its toll on life.
Librul: This does not look good. Maybe we should do something about this.
conservative: THIS IS THE BEST OF ALL POSSIBLE WORLDS!!! When are you haters going to get a fucking clue!!!!!
Yup. Can’t wait.
My house in the east side of City of Atlanta proper is on 0.2 acres, which I thought of as more or less the norm for this part of town and the contiguous City of Decatur further east. Just looked at Zillow and there’s a little more variation than I thought, from 0.1 up to around 0.6, though most are not at the extremes. The incentives now for developers are such that they will buy older houses on the small lots and “renovate” by tearing down the house to the frame or one wall so they can be grandfathered in to older building codes and zoning (think zero lot line development) and putting as much square footage as possible.
There is also a fair amount of in-fill development, where lots that have been undeveloped have completely new houses built on them. One example around the corner from my house is a 3390 sq. ft. house on 0.1 acre that went on the market late last March for $799,000, sold a month later for $805,000. I will celebrate 20 years in my house in September, good thing I got it then, I could not afford to buy in my neighborhood now. My house itself was originally built in 1920, I should throw it a 100th birthday party now that I think of it.
My house in the east side of City of Atlanta proper is on 0.2 acres, which I thought of as more or less the norm for this part of town and the contiguous City of Decatur further east. Just looked at Zillow and there’s a little more variation than I thought, from 0.1 up to around 0.6, though most are not at the extremes. The incentives now for developers are such that they will buy older houses on the small lots and “renovate” by tearing down the house to the frame or one wall so they can be grandfathered in to older building codes and zoning (think zero lot line development) and putting as much square footage as possible.
There is also a fair amount of in-fill development, where lots that have been undeveloped have completely new houses built on them. One example around the corner from my house is a 3390 sq. ft. house on 0.1 acre that went on the market late last March for $799,000, sold a month later for $805,000. I will celebrate 20 years in my house in September, good thing I got it then, I could not afford to buy in my neighborhood now. My house itself was originally built in 1920, I should throw it a 100th birthday party now that I think of it.
Conservatives who hate non-polluting regulators of industry pollution, both the competent and incompetent ones, replace them with polluters.
Conservatives who hate non-polluting regulators of industry pollution, both the competent and incompetent ones, replace them with polluters.
New York, California, and Illinois have been hemorrhaging residents.
That sir, is what is commonly called pure unmitigated crap.
New York, California, and Illinois have been hemorrhaging residents.
That sir, is what is commonly called pure unmitigated crap.
This is really quite simple: Conservatives love a government that gives them all the goodies.
This is not complicated.
This is really quite simple: Conservatives love a government that gives them all the goodies.
This is not complicated.
Well, we don’t have to grow it. We can actually insist that it fix its current problems before giving it more access to our personal and professional lives.
I’d give that a second thought the moment the incessant demands to click on “I agree” cease.
Well, we don’t have to grow it. We can actually insist that it fix its current problems before giving it more access to our personal and professional lives.
I’d give that a second thought the moment the incessant demands to click on “I agree” cease.
Tokyo is a shining example of how free-market housing regulations can keep even big, growing cities affordable.
In contrast (to local zoning regulations) Japan sets housing regulations at the national level.
And that, my friends, is the rest of the story.
BRING ME THAT 600 PAGE REGULATION—NOW!!!!!
Tokyo is a shining example of how free-market housing regulations can keep even big, growing cities affordable.
In contrast (to local zoning regulations) Japan sets housing regulations at the national level.
And that, my friends, is the rest of the story.
BRING ME THAT 600 PAGE REGULATION—NOW!!!!!
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/2-gorgeous-countries-with-high-quality-health-care-where-you-can-live-on-less-than-2500-a-month-2020-01-14?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Conservative high-earners leave America during Democratic Administrations because they don’t want to pay taxes. Oddly enough, conservatives don’t keep track of the numbers leaving during Republican Administrations.
All other classes of Americans leave America (Costa Rica, Spain, Portugal, Italy) during all administrations because they can’t afford health insurance and the standard of living in this country.
If they happen to like going without affordable health insurance, they leave America and head for Texas.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/2-gorgeous-countries-with-high-quality-health-care-where-you-can-live-on-less-than-2500-a-month-2020-01-14?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Conservative high-earners leave America during Democratic Administrations because they don’t want to pay taxes. Oddly enough, conservatives don’t keep track of the numbers leaving during Republican Administrations.
All other classes of Americans leave America (Costa Rica, Spain, Portugal, Italy) during all administrations because they can’t afford health insurance and the standard of living in this country.
If they happen to like going without affordable health insurance, they leave America and head for Texas.
The U.S. Post Office: What precisely is the problem?
Perhaps that it was privatized years ago…?
The U.S. Post Office: What precisely is the problem?
Perhaps that it was privatized years ago…?
I’ve been quite satisfied with most government services. I’m uneasy with zoning regimes regulating housing uses because they seem to have promoted inequality and segregation, even when the intentions of the planners were benign.
(McKinney, your suggestion that the house in the backyard could be inhabited by a registered sex offender is interesting, given that the most notorious registered sex offender of recent times lived here, among other lavish residences. )
The Salem ordinance may or may not be popular with the people who vote for city counsel. My experience with local government is that people who are interested enough to inform themselves about local issues are those who have a grievance, and people who want to build an accessory in their yard are probably outnumbered by those who are worried about the riff raff who may live in the one next door. Local government is vastly more corrupt (from my experience) than national government (maybe with the exception of recent Republican administrations).
There are many ways to protect the “character of the neighborhood”. Restrictive covenants come to mind, for example. The “character of the neighborhood” has very little bearing on the health and safety of the citizens, which is what the police power of the state or municipality is there to protect.
So, although I’m not completely against zoning that protects people from pollution, or industrial hazards, or even traffic problems, zoning that protects citizens from encounters with other people isn’t the way to go. Go live in a gated community where covenants are in place requiring architectural committees and neighborhood associations to approve accessory buildings.
I’ve been quite satisfied with most government services. I’m uneasy with zoning regimes regulating housing uses because they seem to have promoted inequality and segregation, even when the intentions of the planners were benign.
(McKinney, your suggestion that the house in the backyard could be inhabited by a registered sex offender is interesting, given that the most notorious registered sex offender of recent times lived here, among other lavish residences. )
The Salem ordinance may or may not be popular with the people who vote for city counsel. My experience with local government is that people who are interested enough to inform themselves about local issues are those who have a grievance, and people who want to build an accessory in their yard are probably outnumbered by those who are worried about the riff raff who may live in the one next door. Local government is vastly more corrupt (from my experience) than national government (maybe with the exception of recent Republican administrations).
There are many ways to protect the “character of the neighborhood”. Restrictive covenants come to mind, for example. The “character of the neighborhood” has very little bearing on the health and safety of the citizens, which is what the police power of the state or municipality is there to protect.
So, although I’m not completely against zoning that protects people from pollution, or industrial hazards, or even traffic problems, zoning that protects citizens from encounters with other people isn’t the way to go. Go live in a gated community where covenants are in place requiring architectural committees and neighborhood associations to approve accessory buildings.
Why has Lockheed Martin not been fired for its F-35 disaster?
A fine question. Let’s consider some possibilities.
– If they spec’ed the actual expected cost of the real-time high-reliability software, no one would buy it?
– Buying four or five separate fifth-generation mission-specific designs would be an even bigger disaster?
– We’d also have to fire Boeing over the KC-46, and the only two US suppliers of military aircraft would likely be bankrupt?
Why has Lockheed Martin not been fired for its F-35 disaster?
A fine question. Let’s consider some possibilities.
– If they spec’ed the actual expected cost of the real-time high-reliability software, no one would buy it?
– Buying four or five separate fifth-generation mission-specific designs would be an even bigger disaster?
– We’d also have to fire Boeing over the KC-46, and the only two US suppliers of military aircraft would likely be bankrupt?
city council I meant [arghhhhh]
city council I meant [arghhhhh]
And I thought we were a traditionalist society….
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/478243-kansas-man-asks-judge-to-let-him-engage-in-sword-fight-with-ex
And I thought we were a traditionalist society….
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/478243-kansas-man-asks-judge-to-let-him-engage-in-sword-fight-with-ex
Yeah that, and this:
https://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432
I was fishing on that one, because I doubt that the complaint is that junk mail arrives right on time, rain or shinola.
Republican filth did this to deliberately hamstring the U.S. Post Office, Constitution be fucked, and get it ready, willing, and financially disabled for privatization to their donors’ highest bidders.
The U.S. Park Service has a $10 billion dollar maintenance backlog for which republicans have withheld funding with my tax dollars, against my wishes as a citizen, purposefully in abeyance so that they can privatize campgrounds and the maintenance issues.
Under corrupt vermin subhuman Trump, they transfer perfectly competent Park Rangers and Superintendents, for political reasons, to bad locales, hopefully forcing then to retire, so they face no opposition to handing out the campground and other privatization prizes to their republican donors, while considerably raising fees (inflation anyone?), thus creating mere playgrounds for only those who can afford to use all Americans’ public lands.
Go ahead, do that, fuckers.
This is how I’m getting around it. Even though I hold a Senior Pass to the National Parks, I plan on never entering through the gates again in a National Park.
It’s easy.
Furthermore, I’ll camp where I fucking please in the parks, because I don’t require pool tables, consumer entertainment, and WIFI in the wild.
If a legitimate Federal employee ranger wants to roust me out, I will go peaceably with them to my punishment, but if some underpaid private sector honcho enforcer on contract wants to fuck with me, they’d better be carrying more than bear spray.
Militant resistance.
We saw what happened to the Saguache National land when laissez faire fuck republicans shut down government funding and left the parks to the ravaging depredations of ever-so conscientious private Americans.
I didn’t see the fucking Bundys, all of whom should be executed, in there taking potshots at the rampaging free lunch tourists wrecking the land.
The F-35 sucks. You can make a waffle in the cockpit but the thing won’t start in cold weather. Take $10 billion from that and allocate it to the perfectly competent and conscientious employees of the U.S. Park Service to maintain the Parks, like they have for more than a hundred years.
Yeah that, and this:
https://www.cnbc.com/id/45018432
I was fishing on that one, because I doubt that the complaint is that junk mail arrives right on time, rain or shinola.
Republican filth did this to deliberately hamstring the U.S. Post Office, Constitution be fucked, and get it ready, willing, and financially disabled for privatization to their donors’ highest bidders.
The U.S. Park Service has a $10 billion dollar maintenance backlog for which republicans have withheld funding with my tax dollars, against my wishes as a citizen, purposefully in abeyance so that they can privatize campgrounds and the maintenance issues.
Under corrupt vermin subhuman Trump, they transfer perfectly competent Park Rangers and Superintendents, for political reasons, to bad locales, hopefully forcing then to retire, so they face no opposition to handing out the campground and other privatization prizes to their republican donors, while considerably raising fees (inflation anyone?), thus creating mere playgrounds for only those who can afford to use all Americans’ public lands.
Go ahead, do that, fuckers.
This is how I’m getting around it. Even though I hold a Senior Pass to the National Parks, I plan on never entering through the gates again in a National Park.
It’s easy.
Furthermore, I’ll camp where I fucking please in the parks, because I don’t require pool tables, consumer entertainment, and WIFI in the wild.
If a legitimate Federal employee ranger wants to roust me out, I will go peaceably with them to my punishment, but if some underpaid private sector honcho enforcer on contract wants to fuck with me, they’d better be carrying more than bear spray.
Militant resistance.
We saw what happened to the Saguache National land when laissez faire fuck republicans shut down government funding and left the parks to the ravaging depredations of ever-so conscientious private Americans.
I didn’t see the fucking Bundys, all of whom should be executed, in there taking potshots at the rampaging free lunch tourists wrecking the land.
The F-35 sucks. You can make a waffle in the cockpit but the thing won’t start in cold weather. Take $10 billion from that and allocate it to the perfectly competent and conscientious employees of the U.S. Park Service to maintain the Parks, like they have for more than a hundred years.
And I thought we were a traditionalist society….
Serve him right if the opposing attorney insists on using medieval European broad swords (since he’s claiming British trial by combat) rather than Japanese swords. And then turns out to be an SCA type who actually knows how to use them. Be careful what you wish for….
And I thought we were a traditionalist society….
Serve him right if the opposing attorney insists on using medieval European broad swords (since he’s claiming British trial by combat) rather than Japanese swords. And then turns out to be an SCA type who actually knows how to use them. Be careful what you wish for….
What’s the position of the National Sword Association on this guy’s request?
What’s the position of the National Sword Association on this guy’s request?
No one likes paperwork and 600 pages is excessive
Yes, and arguably yes.
The thing is, setting up a 401k plan for your employees means handling their money, and hiring other people to also handle their money for them. So, some degree of caution seems advisable.
And when things get written down, they can be interpreted in a variety of ways. So, to avoid misinterpretation, rules that get written down often get written down at length, and restated using the 10 or 12 different historical terms of art that the same basic set of concepts have accumulated like barnacles over the decades and centuries.
If it starts with “whereas…”, it’s not going to be concise.
I don’t really know how many pages are too much. 600 does seem like a lot. Somebody is going to take some of your employees money, invest it on their behalf, and then 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years later, give it back to them. And keep track of whatever needs to be kept track of so that the tax stuff all adds up right. And makes whatever guarantees need to be made about acting in their best interest, or not, under what conditions. And make whatever disclosures are needed so that everyone understands the risks involved. And makes whatever allowances need to be made for things like your firm going away, or the investment company going away, or whatever else can happen in 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years.
All of the rules about what has to be spelled out, and in what language, and who has to agree to and sign off on what, are definitely imposed by law and by regulation.
Which ones should we go without? What’s the right balance between being concise, and being precise and explicit?
If people would just be honest and fair without being made to be so, we wouldn’t need all of this crap.
No one likes paperwork and 600 pages is excessive
Yes, and arguably yes.
The thing is, setting up a 401k plan for your employees means handling their money, and hiring other people to also handle their money for them. So, some degree of caution seems advisable.
And when things get written down, they can be interpreted in a variety of ways. So, to avoid misinterpretation, rules that get written down often get written down at length, and restated using the 10 or 12 different historical terms of art that the same basic set of concepts have accumulated like barnacles over the decades and centuries.
If it starts with “whereas…”, it’s not going to be concise.
I don’t really know how many pages are too much. 600 does seem like a lot. Somebody is going to take some of your employees money, invest it on their behalf, and then 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years later, give it back to them. And keep track of whatever needs to be kept track of so that the tax stuff all adds up right. And makes whatever guarantees need to be made about acting in their best interest, or not, under what conditions. And make whatever disclosures are needed so that everyone understands the risks involved. And makes whatever allowances need to be made for things like your firm going away, or the investment company going away, or whatever else can happen in 10 or 20 or 30 or 40 years.
All of the rules about what has to be spelled out, and in what language, and who has to agree to and sign off on what, are definitely imposed by law and by regulation.
Which ones should we go without? What’s the right balance between being concise, and being precise and explicit?
If people would just be honest and fair without being made to be so, we wouldn’t need all of this crap.
FWIW, the private sector ain’t much better.
Every year I have to watch several hours of videos to make sure I understand that I shouldn’t steal stuff, hand my password out like candy, or be rude to people at work. My last job, I had to pee in a cup.
To write code.
Some of that noise is government related, but most of it is private sector CYA. It’s checking pointless boxes so that you can say you did.
I put the boundary at 20 people and a budget of $100K. Once it gets bigger than that, the BS kicks in. Doesn’t matter much what kind of organization, and if you think private industry is uber-efficient I beg to differ.
If we want a small, manageable government, that only does things that make sense, we need a small country, where everyone agrees about what “makes sense” means.
FWIW, the private sector ain’t much better.
Every year I have to watch several hours of videos to make sure I understand that I shouldn’t steal stuff, hand my password out like candy, or be rude to people at work. My last job, I had to pee in a cup.
To write code.
Some of that noise is government related, but most of it is private sector CYA. It’s checking pointless boxes so that you can say you did.
I put the boundary at 20 people and a budget of $100K. Once it gets bigger than that, the BS kicks in. Doesn’t matter much what kind of organization, and if you think private industry is uber-efficient I beg to differ.
If we want a small, manageable government, that only does things that make sense, we need a small country, where everyone agrees about what “makes sense” means.
“If people would just be honest and fair without being made to be so, we wouldn’t need all of this crap.”
If everyone in America had McKinney’s integrity chops, ten pages would be enough.
But we have liar and cheat and thief Donald Trump, for whom a million pages in triplicate wouldn’t be enough, as an example to all businessmen in America how far you can rise by lying, cheating, and thieving without breaking a sweat.
“If people would just be honest and fair without being made to be so, we wouldn’t need all of this crap.”
If everyone in America had McKinney’s integrity chops, ten pages would be enough.
But we have liar and cheat and thief Donald Trump, for whom a million pages in triplicate wouldn’t be enough, as an example to all businessmen in America how far you can rise by lying, cheating, and thieving without breaking a sweat.
Anyone who asks to get into a traditional duel with his ex is not going to get a sword. Mixed gender judicial duels were fought with the man in a waist deep hole holding a club the length of his sleeve. The woman was on foot and armed with a 4 lb. rock wrapped in a sheet of fabric again about as long as her arm. Both were unarmored and wearing the equivalent of modest undergarments.
The Talhoffer Manuscript of 1467 outlines several different martial approaches to fighting such a duel.
https://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/trial_by_combat/combat_man_and_woman.htm
No thank you.
Anyone who asks to get into a traditional duel with his ex is not going to get a sword. Mixed gender judicial duels were fought with the man in a waist deep hole holding a club the length of his sleeve. The woman was on foot and armed with a 4 lb. rock wrapped in a sheet of fabric again about as long as her arm. Both were unarmored and wearing the equivalent of modest undergarments.
The Talhoffer Manuscript of 1467 outlines several different martial approaches to fighting such a duel.
https://www.aemma.org/onlineResources/trial_by_combat/combat_man_and_woman.htm
No thank you.
Combination Judicial Duel and Beckett play.
Sam or Thomas, take your pick.
Combination Judicial Duel and Beckett play.
Sam or Thomas, take your pick.
If people would just be honest and fair without being made to be so, we wouldn’t need all of this crap.
This.
Blaming government for 600 pages of triplicate or whatever is silly.
The root problem is trust. If everyone could trust everyone else not to rip them off, everything would be great. Handshake deals and contracts on napkins, no problem.
But, seeing as we share a society with a bunch of greed-is-good aholes who put the malevolent loophole-finding genies from the stories to shame, we can’t. Someone is going to rip someone off. There are a bunch of people out there trying to figure out new and better ways to — completely legally — rip people off as we speak.
And not being able to trust people in your society is fundamentally an expensive PITA. No getting around it.
A regulatory state is one of the cheaper ways to keep the problem in check.* Not perfect, but workable.**
——
* Courts and contracts have their place too, but using them for everything is a libertarian fantasy. Either the transaction costs alone kill your civilization dead, or you’ve set up a system with enough common law judicial precedent or whatever that it’s a regulatory state in all but name — or aspirations to representational fairness.
** Of course, it’d be a lot more workable if the ripoff artists weren’t still, as ever, plotting away in the corners.
There are the extra clever ones who will see the threat to their business model coming, and try to make the regulation miss the mark a little. That takes a lot of clever obfuscation, couple hundred pages minimum. (All the better for later complaints about the excessively complicated regulations they have to deal with.)
Then there are the extra, extra clever ones who go all meta and try to write in completely new ways to rip people off – couple hundred more.
After all of which, you gotta hope that someone honest comes along, sees what’s going on, and adds a couple hundred on top of all that, to try to get the whole thing back on track.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t, but either way, that’s where your 600 pages comes from. Blame the ripoff artists.
If people would just be honest and fair without being made to be so, we wouldn’t need all of this crap.
This.
Blaming government for 600 pages of triplicate or whatever is silly.
The root problem is trust. If everyone could trust everyone else not to rip them off, everything would be great. Handshake deals and contracts on napkins, no problem.
But, seeing as we share a society with a bunch of greed-is-good aholes who put the malevolent loophole-finding genies from the stories to shame, we can’t. Someone is going to rip someone off. There are a bunch of people out there trying to figure out new and better ways to — completely legally — rip people off as we speak.
And not being able to trust people in your society is fundamentally an expensive PITA. No getting around it.
A regulatory state is one of the cheaper ways to keep the problem in check.* Not perfect, but workable.**
——
* Courts and contracts have their place too, but using them for everything is a libertarian fantasy. Either the transaction costs alone kill your civilization dead, or you’ve set up a system with enough common law judicial precedent or whatever that it’s a regulatory state in all but name — or aspirations to representational fairness.
** Of course, it’d be a lot more workable if the ripoff artists weren’t still, as ever, plotting away in the corners.
There are the extra clever ones who will see the threat to their business model coming, and try to make the regulation miss the mark a little. That takes a lot of clever obfuscation, couple hundred pages minimum. (All the better for later complaints about the excessively complicated regulations they have to deal with.)
Then there are the extra, extra clever ones who go all meta and try to write in completely new ways to rip people off – couple hundred more.
After all of which, you gotta hope that someone honest comes along, sees what’s going on, and adds a couple hundred on top of all that, to try to get the whole thing back on track.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t, but either way, that’s where your 600 pages comes from. Blame the ripoff artists.
Fun stuff. The Post Office was not privatized. Our mail, at home and at the office, is frequently mis-delivered or not delivered at all. When we ask for an explanation of why no mail, or why it takes a week for a letter to get from one side of town to another, we get gibberish. We need a decent mail service. We pay for a decent mail service. We are not getting a decent mail service.
I am not a zero government theorist. I want intelligent, useful regulation. Pollution limits are essential. OSHA’s Construction and General Industry manuals are full of intelligent and necessary safety regs. They are both single volume documents, shorter than my 401K. There is no reason for a 600 page document to manage investments. No one can read it. No one does read it. It is stupid, mindless rule making.
We do not have a regulatory culture that does any kind of meaningful follow up to see if regs are efficacious or a big waste of time or ‘not bad, but need tweaking here and there’. CFR grows almost exponentially.
I get the frustration with the F-35. The concept was sound: build one chassis that can be tweaked for all three air arms. It was a bridge, maybe several bridges too far. Let’s note that many lefties have no problem finding fault with
defense spending, but seem to lose their voice on the domestic front. Let’s also note that, in years past, the same lefty voices criticizing the F-35 said the same things about the Abrams main battle tank, the F-14, 15, 16 and 18, yet each of these, in their time, were outstanding ground/air superiority platforms.
Good, effective regulation, when and where needed is a definite plus. One example: our highway standards in TX have been upgraded significantly. Our new highway construction is an awesome drive with all kinds of safety and damage mitigation features. Our Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has evolved hugely since the late ’90’s and almost all for the better.
The Feds don’t lack for money. They have plenty. Whether they allocate it intelligently may be another thing entirely. There is plenty of room between employment-at-will and a lifetime sinecure for all practical purposes. Accountability is definitely not a feature of our administrative regime.
My point is and remains: before we further extend the role of government in our lives, let’s require basic competence, basic ability to self-evaluate and the capacity to course correct. Unfortunately, that isn’t even a part of the discussion which is one of the many reasons why I don’t care for either party.
Fun stuff. The Post Office was not privatized. Our mail, at home and at the office, is frequently mis-delivered or not delivered at all. When we ask for an explanation of why no mail, or why it takes a week for a letter to get from one side of town to another, we get gibberish. We need a decent mail service. We pay for a decent mail service. We are not getting a decent mail service.
I am not a zero government theorist. I want intelligent, useful regulation. Pollution limits are essential. OSHA’s Construction and General Industry manuals are full of intelligent and necessary safety regs. They are both single volume documents, shorter than my 401K. There is no reason for a 600 page document to manage investments. No one can read it. No one does read it. It is stupid, mindless rule making.
We do not have a regulatory culture that does any kind of meaningful follow up to see if regs are efficacious or a big waste of time or ‘not bad, but need tweaking here and there’. CFR grows almost exponentially.
I get the frustration with the F-35. The concept was sound: build one chassis that can be tweaked for all three air arms. It was a bridge, maybe several bridges too far. Let’s note that many lefties have no problem finding fault with
defense spending, but seem to lose their voice on the domestic front. Let’s also note that, in years past, the same lefty voices criticizing the F-35 said the same things about the Abrams main battle tank, the F-14, 15, 16 and 18, yet each of these, in their time, were outstanding ground/air superiority platforms.
Good, effective regulation, when and where needed is a definite plus. One example: our highway standards in TX have been upgraded significantly. Our new highway construction is an awesome drive with all kinds of safety and damage mitigation features. Our Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices has evolved hugely since the late ’90’s and almost all for the better.
The Feds don’t lack for money. They have plenty. Whether they allocate it intelligently may be another thing entirely. There is plenty of room between employment-at-will and a lifetime sinecure for all practical purposes. Accountability is definitely not a feature of our administrative regime.
My point is and remains: before we further extend the role of government in our lives, let’s require basic competence, basic ability to self-evaluate and the capacity to course correct. Unfortunately, that isn’t even a part of the discussion which is one of the many reasons why I don’t care for either party.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t, but either way, that’s where your 600 pages comes from. Blame the ripoff artists.
I’d like to see some evidence for this assertion. There is not a legal way to steal from a 401K. There never has been. I’ve been the fiduciary on 401K’s since the early 90’s, or whenever they first come into service.
A regulation that *effectively* prevents a real risk is a fair regulation. No argument there. Dismissing criticism of the regulatory regime and refusing to accept that maybe, just maybe, real improvement is not only possible but desirable doesn’t advance the ball. It’s just defending the status quo and, inferentially, the lefty affinity for regulation.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t, but either way, that’s where your 600 pages comes from. Blame the ripoff artists.
I’d like to see some evidence for this assertion. There is not a legal way to steal from a 401K. There never has been. I’ve been the fiduciary on 401K’s since the early 90’s, or whenever they first come into service.
A regulation that *effectively* prevents a real risk is a fair regulation. No argument there. Dismissing criticism of the regulatory regime and refusing to accept that maybe, just maybe, real improvement is not only possible but desirable doesn’t advance the ball. It’s just defending the status quo and, inferentially, the lefty affinity for regulation.
There is not a legal way to steal from a 401K.
That’s kind of missing the point on a couple levels.
First, a 401(k) is not a thing that exists in the first place without, well, section 401(k) — and however many additional pages of supporting legislation and agency rulemaking and interpretation, and financial industry contracts.
Saying there’s no legal way to steal from that… well, maybe, but that’s because someone’s written all those pages of formalized structures and procedures already.
If you want to say there’s no way to steal from an agreement that consists of, “hey, how about you give me some money, and then I’ll give you a bunch more back when you want to retire” + a handshake. Well, we wouldn’t really be on the same page, ’nuff said.
Second, if they’re not there either for CYA purposes, or to take advantage of someone, what exactly *is* your operational theory about how all those pages come into being? Are there just a bunch of mad dark monks chained in the Capitol basement writing them for kicks?
Dismissing criticism of the regulatory regime and refusing to accept that maybe, just maybe, real improvement is not only possible but desirable doesn’t advance the ball.
Whew! It’s a good thing we’re instead advancing the ball by trying to form an operational theory about the causes of regulatory dysfunction then!
There is not a legal way to steal from a 401K.
That’s kind of missing the point on a couple levels.
First, a 401(k) is not a thing that exists in the first place without, well, section 401(k) — and however many additional pages of supporting legislation and agency rulemaking and interpretation, and financial industry contracts.
Saying there’s no legal way to steal from that… well, maybe, but that’s because someone’s written all those pages of formalized structures and procedures already.
If you want to say there’s no way to steal from an agreement that consists of, “hey, how about you give me some money, and then I’ll give you a bunch more back when you want to retire” + a handshake. Well, we wouldn’t really be on the same page, ’nuff said.
Second, if they’re not there either for CYA purposes, or to take advantage of someone, what exactly *is* your operational theory about how all those pages come into being? Are there just a bunch of mad dark monks chained in the Capitol basement writing them for kicks?
Dismissing criticism of the regulatory regime and refusing to accept that maybe, just maybe, real improvement is not only possible but desirable doesn’t advance the ball.
Whew! It’s a good thing we’re instead advancing the ball by trying to form an operational theory about the causes of regulatory dysfunction then!
Has anyone been fired by the FAA over the 737 Max disaster?
I’m sure there are FAA employees who would be glad to take the fall for $60 million or so.
That payout is sickening.
Seriously, I’ve read a few comments like this lately, and find it amazing that the Boeing disaster is being blamed on government regulation being too tight, or incompetent, or something.
Anyone whose first thought about the 737-Max disaster is that it’s an example of government incompetence has something wrong with them.
Has anyone been fired by the FAA over the 737 Max disaster?
I’m sure there are FAA employees who would be glad to take the fall for $60 million or so.
That payout is sickening.
Seriously, I’ve read a few comments like this lately, and find it amazing that the Boeing disaster is being blamed on government regulation being too tight, or incompetent, or something.
Anyone whose first thought about the 737-Max disaster is that it’s an example of government incompetence has something wrong with them.
if they’re not there either for CYA purposes, or to take advantage of someone, what exactly *is* your operational theory about how all those pages come into being? Are there just a bunch of mad dark monks chained in the Capitol basement writing them for kicks?
Actually that is, as far as I can tell, exactly the view of the more enthusiastic libertarian/conservatives. That is, they really do think that there are indeed people who are writing regulations because they believe regulation, as such, is a positive good — without regard for whether it accomplishes what it is supposed to or anything at all. Really, listen to some of the folks here discussing regulations.
Not to say that we don’t have plenty of badly written regulations. Some because of simple ignorance/incompetence on the part of those writing them. Some because someone found it profitable to get the rules written in a way that they could take advantage. But that is actually a rather different thing from arguing (which McKinney isn’t, once he steps back and takes a deep breath anyway) that the vast majority of regulation is irredeemably flawed.
if they’re not there either for CYA purposes, or to take advantage of someone, what exactly *is* your operational theory about how all those pages come into being? Are there just a bunch of mad dark monks chained in the Capitol basement writing them for kicks?
Actually that is, as far as I can tell, exactly the view of the more enthusiastic libertarian/conservatives. That is, they really do think that there are indeed people who are writing regulations because they believe regulation, as such, is a positive good — without regard for whether it accomplishes what it is supposed to or anything at all. Really, listen to some of the folks here discussing regulations.
Not to say that we don’t have plenty of badly written regulations. Some because of simple ignorance/incompetence on the part of those writing them. Some because someone found it profitable to get the rules written in a way that they could take advantage. But that is actually a rather different thing from arguing (which McKinney isn’t, once he steps back and takes a deep breath anyway) that the vast majority of regulation is irredeemably flawed.
Hackers stealing from 401K accounts is a problem, I’ve read recently.
Hackers stealing from 401K accounts is a problem, I’ve read recently.
The mail, and email, I don’t want arrives promptly.
The mail I want …. not so much.
The mail I wish I was receiving from a former lover never arrives, but I don’t think that is a delivery problem.
The mail, and email, I don’t want arrives promptly.
The mail I want …. not so much.
The mail I wish I was receiving from a former lover never arrives, but I don’t think that is a delivery problem.
The Post Office was not privatized
Correct.
The PO was, and is, required to carry out a profoundly uneconomic service, and to do so while paying its own way.
The USPO will deliver a letter up 3.5 oz in weight, absolutely anywhere in the US, for 55 cents. And they’ll sell you a stamp for that price and honor it even if the price goes up by the time you send your letter.
You tell me if Fedex or anybody else will do anything similar.
I have, over the years, done some trade in musical instruments. Buying, selling, trading. Not as a business, just as a way to get good instruments, stuff you won’t find in neighborhood retail or online stores.
My preference is always USPO. Fedex costs the earth, UPS beats stuff up. USPO usually takes about one day longer, but everything arrives in one piece.
God knows I have my own public sector war stories to share, but by and large my interactions with the public sector are good. They deliver. Nothing fancy, no bells and whistles, but useful stuff gets done.
Maybe the government is just better where I live. Not making any judgements about other places, I just can’t relate to the negative vibe about the public sector. In my world, they do a pretty good job. I appreciate it.
let’s require basic competence, basic ability to self-evaluate and the capacity to course correct.
These all seem like worthwhile goals. Let’s work toward them.
The Post Office was not privatized
Correct.
The PO was, and is, required to carry out a profoundly uneconomic service, and to do so while paying its own way.
The USPO will deliver a letter up 3.5 oz in weight, absolutely anywhere in the US, for 55 cents. And they’ll sell you a stamp for that price and honor it even if the price goes up by the time you send your letter.
You tell me if Fedex or anybody else will do anything similar.
I have, over the years, done some trade in musical instruments. Buying, selling, trading. Not as a business, just as a way to get good instruments, stuff you won’t find in neighborhood retail or online stores.
My preference is always USPO. Fedex costs the earth, UPS beats stuff up. USPO usually takes about one day longer, but everything arrives in one piece.
God knows I have my own public sector war stories to share, but by and large my interactions with the public sector are good. They deliver. Nothing fancy, no bells and whistles, but useful stuff gets done.
Maybe the government is just better where I live. Not making any judgements about other places, I just can’t relate to the negative vibe about the public sector. In my world, they do a pretty good job. I appreciate it.
let’s require basic competence, basic ability to self-evaluate and the capacity to course correct.
These all seem like worthwhile goals. Let’s work toward them.
they really do think that there are indeed people who are writing regulations because they believe regulation, as such, is a positive good
It’s worth looking at the history of the various regulatory agencies. There really aren’t that many examples of the feds – or much of anybody – greedily imposing regulation on an unwilling public. In most cases, governments had to be dragged into the regulatory role, and it typically took really freaking egregious behavior on the part of somebody or other to make that happen.
Don’t take my word for it, go look it up. Pick any regulatory area you like, and go look at the history of how the feds got involved.
It’s eye-opening.
they really do think that there are indeed people who are writing regulations because they believe regulation, as such, is a positive good
It’s worth looking at the history of the various regulatory agencies. There really aren’t that many examples of the feds – or much of anybody – greedily imposing regulation on an unwilling public. In most cases, governments had to be dragged into the regulatory role, and it typically took really freaking egregious behavior on the part of somebody or other to make that happen.
Don’t take my word for it, go look it up. Pick any regulatory area you like, and go look at the history of how the feds got involved.
It’s eye-opening.
Part of the problem is that Congress, not wanting to take responsibility for anything, pass vague, ill-defined laws and leave it to the federal agencies to fill in the blanks. And they often find exceeding small blanks to fill in.
Part of the problem is that Congress, not wanting to take responsibility for anything, pass vague, ill-defined laws and leave it to the federal agencies to fill in the blanks. And they often find exceeding small blanks to fill in.
Part of the problem is that Congress, not wanting to take responsibility for anything, pass vague, ill-defined laws and leave it to the federal agencies to fill in the blanks. And they often find exceeding small blanks to fill in.
That’s a rather perplexing thing to say.
If ‘the problem’ is an ever growing mound of legalese, and a culture of government that abhors flexibility and experimentation, I’m not really sure “make Congress hash out the details even more interminably” would be my first stab at a solution.
It kind of seems like what you’d end up with is an order of magnitude more corrupt/ass-covering legalese — but enshrined in the federal code this time — and then it would take *another* such herculean act of Congress to fix anything (if somewhere down the line it were to happen that a loophole was found, or an approach was not working and needed slight adjustment).
Even if Congress were a much better functioning body than it is, I’m not sure how much such work it is even logistically capable of taking on. I suppose a go of it could be made if you also proposed increasing the size of the combined House and Senate to roughly the same order of magnitude as the federal rule-making bureaucracy. I’m all in favor of bringing the citizen-congressperson ratio down a bit myself, but even I think that would be a mite extreme…
The complete opposite would probably have better results:
Let Congress pass extremely simple laws that specify as few details as possible. “Here’s X billion dollars. Try to keep Americans from going hungry/cars from killing people/banks from crashing. We’ll check on your progress periodically.” Then turn it over to a staff of professionals* to work out the detailed solution and iterate on it, with as little political interference as possible.
Part of the problem is that Congress, not wanting to take responsibility for anything, pass vague, ill-defined laws and leave it to the federal agencies to fill in the blanks. And they often find exceeding small blanks to fill in.
That’s a rather perplexing thing to say.
If ‘the problem’ is an ever growing mound of legalese, and a culture of government that abhors flexibility and experimentation, I’m not really sure “make Congress hash out the details even more interminably” would be my first stab at a solution.
It kind of seems like what you’d end up with is an order of magnitude more corrupt/ass-covering legalese — but enshrined in the federal code this time — and then it would take *another* such herculean act of Congress to fix anything (if somewhere down the line it were to happen that a loophole was found, or an approach was not working and needed slight adjustment).
Even if Congress were a much better functioning body than it is, I’m not sure how much such work it is even logistically capable of taking on. I suppose a go of it could be made if you also proposed increasing the size of the combined House and Senate to roughly the same order of magnitude as the federal rule-making bureaucracy. I’m all in favor of bringing the citizen-congressperson ratio down a bit myself, but even I think that would be a mite extreme…
The complete opposite would probably have better results:
Let Congress pass extremely simple laws that specify as few details as possible. “Here’s X billion dollars. Try to keep Americans from going hungry/cars from killing people/banks from crashing. We’ll check on your progress periodically.” Then turn it over to a staff of professionals* to work out the detailed solution and iterate on it, with as little political interference as possible.
Part of the problem is that Congress, not wanting to take responsibility for anything, pass vague, ill-defined laws and leave it to the federal agencies to fill in the blanks
That is not a problem (Chevron deference which see). The problem is those who insist it is a problem.
Part of the problem is that Congress, not wanting to take responsibility for anything, pass vague, ill-defined laws and leave it to the federal agencies to fill in the blanks
That is not a problem (Chevron deference which see). The problem is those who insist it is a problem.
My point is and remains…
No, it does not. Having personally watched the Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, George Bush, GWB, and Trump administrations in action, I can positively assert (just like you) that conservatives are hell bent on changing government….for the worse.
My point is and remains…
No, it does not. Having personally watched the Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, George Bush, GWB, and Trump administrations in action, I can positively assert (just like you) that conservatives are hell bent on changing government….for the worse.
Dismissing criticism of the regulatory regime and refusing to accept that maybe, just maybe, real improvement is not only possible but desirable doesn’t advance the ball.
Man, the stink of burning straw is just too much at times.
Dismissing criticism of the regulatory regime and refusing to accept that maybe, just maybe, real improvement is not only possible but desirable doesn’t advance the ball.
Man, the stink of burning straw is just too much at times.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2020/01/14/assassinating-our-own-ambassador-it-would-be-wrong-thats-for-sure/
Those tax cuts will make anyone suck a little murderous dick.
America is in grave danger.
https://www.balloon-juice.com/2020/01/14/assassinating-our-own-ambassador-it-would-be-wrong-thats-for-sure/
Those tax cuts will make anyone suck a little murderous dick.
America is in grave danger.
Dismissing criticism of the regulatory regime and refusing to accept that maybe, just maybe, real improvement is not only possible but desirable doesn’t advance the ball.
And neither does assuming that less regulation is always better regulation.
Dismissing criticism of the regulatory regime and refusing to accept that maybe, just maybe, real improvement is not only possible but desirable doesn’t advance the ball.
And neither does assuming that less regulation is always better regulation.
conservatives are hell bent on changing government….for the worse.
America is in grave danger.
Yes. Not sure what it will take for the “pox on both their houses” crowd to wake up and start fighting for the country.
The problem with “talking about something” else is that it’s easy to become complacent that policy discussions can be about what well-meaning people want to do to make things better for Americans. If it was ever about that, it’s not anymore.
The Republican regime is one of mobsters, and they’re not going away until we make that happen.
conservatives are hell bent on changing government….for the worse.
America is in grave danger.
Yes. Not sure what it will take for the “pox on both their houses” crowd to wake up and start fighting for the country.
The problem with “talking about something” else is that it’s easy to become complacent that policy discussions can be about what well-meaning people want to do to make things better for Americans. If it was ever about that, it’s not anymore.
The Republican regime is one of mobsters, and they’re not going away until we make that happen.
Let’s note that many lefties have no problem finding fault with defense spending, but seem to lose their voice on the domestic front.
“defense” is more than half of all US discretionary spending. it’s 25x as big as what the federal govt spends on education; 50x as big as what we spend on ‘energy’.
and for what?
so we can go dick around in a new ME country every few years and entangle ourselves so much that it takes trillions of dollars and decades to extract? all the while making new enemies and closing opportunities?
it’s a self-perpetuating scam that bleeds taxpayers in the service of looking “tough”.
of course “conservatives” lvoe it.
Let’s note that many lefties have no problem finding fault with defense spending, but seem to lose their voice on the domestic front.
“defense” is more than half of all US discretionary spending. it’s 25x as big as what the federal govt spends on education; 50x as big as what we spend on ‘energy’.
and for what?
so we can go dick around in a new ME country every few years and entangle ourselves so much that it takes trillions of dollars and decades to extract? all the while making new enemies and closing opportunities?
it’s a self-perpetuating scam that bleeds taxpayers in the service of looking “tough”.
of course “conservatives” lvoe it.
“defense” is more than half of all US discretionary spending.
I believe in a strong military, and fair treatment for people who serve. Under Republicans, it becomes a money laundering operation for whatever Republican scam is going. Dick Cheney and Haliburton. The Republican Children’s Iraqi Internship Program. The Wall. Now it’s a mercenary force for Donald Trump’s murderous friends.
Just a few examples.
“defense” is more than half of all US discretionary spending.
I believe in a strong military, and fair treatment for people who serve. Under Republicans, it becomes a money laundering operation for whatever Republican scam is going. Dick Cheney and Haliburton. The Republican Children’s Iraqi Internship Program. The Wall. Now it’s a mercenary force for Donald Trump’s murderous friends.
Just a few examples.
Goin’ back to Houston, Houston, Houston…
Goin’ back to Houston, Houston, Houston…
Congress doesn’t provide enough detail, but the ACA was too many pages.
Congress doesn’t provide enough detail, but the ACA was too many pages.
Congress doesn’t provide enough detail, but the ACA was too many pages.
Right?
Also, lefties love complicated regulation.
Which I guess is why one of their headline policy proposals right now is to cut out about a million labyrinthine, dysfunctional pages of healthcare regulation and replace it with a (by comparison very simple) eligibility adjustment to one existing program.
And conservatives hate regulation.
Which is why they’re almost certainly going to fight tooth and nail to preserve as much of that regulation as possible — and probably add uncountably more twisty little epicycles to it in the process — in order to carve out profitable refuges for the vested interests that benefit from the existing system.
Congress doesn’t provide enough detail, but the ACA was too many pages.
Right?
Also, lefties love complicated regulation.
Which I guess is why one of their headline policy proposals right now is to cut out about a million labyrinthine, dysfunctional pages of healthcare regulation and replace it with a (by comparison very simple) eligibility adjustment to one existing program.
And conservatives hate regulation.
Which is why they’re almost certainly going to fight tooth and nail to preserve as much of that regulation as possible — and probably add uncountably more twisty little epicycles to it in the process — in order to carve out profitable refuges for the vested interests that benefit from the existing system.
Seriously, I’ve read a few comments like this lately, and find it amazing that the Boeing disaster is being blamed on government regulation being too tight, or incompetent, or something.
Bernard, I haven’t seen where the Max disaster is being laid solely or even primarily at the FAA’s doorstep. Absolutely, Boeing takes the hit for this. The 60M payout is BS, but that’s outside the public purview. No, the problem with the FAA and Boeing is that someone at the FAA–one would think, I may be wrong–either needs to explain how Boeing got the reduced training/disclosures by the FAA or where the FAA’s regs fell short. Boeing needs its ass whipped separate and apart.
As a Max-former frequent flier trial lawyer who makes his living off of horrible accidents, I’m pretty f’ing pissed that there was undisclosed corner cutting on the training/disclosure side. I don’t love flying and unless I have work at the end of the trip, I have one pre-flight cocktail and then two or three more depending on the length of the flight. I look at the flight crew for signs of impairment or fatigue. Years ago, I got a confidential medical record on a commercial pilot in which someone in the pilot’s life complained that the pilot was a domestically violent alcoholic. It was an interesting quandary: patient confidentiality vs public safety. I went with public safety but I’m not discussing what I did.
I’ve flown over a million air miles easily. I’ve had seven aborted landings, six on commercial flights, one on a private charter (not my nickel, I was a guest). I’ve had at least two in-flight equipment malfunctions that caused diversions. I’ve had one mid-air collision with a goose in a commuter flight, and we hit jet wash once on final coming into DFW which made the plane do all kinds of weird and unpleasant stuff. The foregoing is the human element to flying. I’m leaving weather out of my list of shitty air experiences. The point is that I’m not a fan of flying and my expectations for what the plane manufacturer and the airline owe me are very, very high. Even when it’s done right, other shit can happen. As it happens, I’m wheels up in 4 hours for Denver on business. There will be vodka.
Bottom line: You won’t hear me making nice with the Boeing’s of this world.
I look to agencies like the FAA to represent me and people like me when Boeing rolls out a new plane or someone starts a new airline or charter service. When something like the Max happens, I expect everyone involved to be held accountable. I’m not seeing it on the FAA side of things.
Seriously, I’ve read a few comments like this lately, and find it amazing that the Boeing disaster is being blamed on government regulation being too tight, or incompetent, or something.
Bernard, I haven’t seen where the Max disaster is being laid solely or even primarily at the FAA’s doorstep. Absolutely, Boeing takes the hit for this. The 60M payout is BS, but that’s outside the public purview. No, the problem with the FAA and Boeing is that someone at the FAA–one would think, I may be wrong–either needs to explain how Boeing got the reduced training/disclosures by the FAA or where the FAA’s regs fell short. Boeing needs its ass whipped separate and apart.
As a Max-former frequent flier trial lawyer who makes his living off of horrible accidents, I’m pretty f’ing pissed that there was undisclosed corner cutting on the training/disclosure side. I don’t love flying and unless I have work at the end of the trip, I have one pre-flight cocktail and then two or three more depending on the length of the flight. I look at the flight crew for signs of impairment or fatigue. Years ago, I got a confidential medical record on a commercial pilot in which someone in the pilot’s life complained that the pilot was a domestically violent alcoholic. It was an interesting quandary: patient confidentiality vs public safety. I went with public safety but I’m not discussing what I did.
I’ve flown over a million air miles easily. I’ve had seven aborted landings, six on commercial flights, one on a private charter (not my nickel, I was a guest). I’ve had at least two in-flight equipment malfunctions that caused diversions. I’ve had one mid-air collision with a goose in a commuter flight, and we hit jet wash once on final coming into DFW which made the plane do all kinds of weird and unpleasant stuff. The foregoing is the human element to flying. I’m leaving weather out of my list of shitty air experiences. The point is that I’m not a fan of flying and my expectations for what the plane manufacturer and the airline owe me are very, very high. Even when it’s done right, other shit can happen. As it happens, I’m wheels up in 4 hours for Denver on business. There will be vodka.
Bottom line: You won’t hear me making nice with the Boeing’s of this world.
I look to agencies like the FAA to represent me and people like me when Boeing rolls out a new plane or someone starts a new airline or charter service. When something like the Max happens, I expect everyone involved to be held accountable. I’m not seeing it on the FAA side of things.
I expect everyone involved to be held accountable. I’m not seeing it on the FAA side of things.
the FAA is part of DOT, which is headed by Elaine Chao, cabinet Secretary to Trump and wife of McConnell.
sounds pretty Republican, to me.
i’d start the accountability by getting rid of all three and electing people who care about this stuff. even if it means they will write new regulations to make the FAA better at doing what it’s supposed to do.
I expect everyone involved to be held accountable. I’m not seeing it on the FAA side of things.
the FAA is part of DOT, which is headed by Elaine Chao, cabinet Secretary to Trump and wife of McConnell.
sounds pretty Republican, to me.
i’d start the accountability by getting rid of all three and electing people who care about this stuff. even if it means they will write new regulations to make the FAA better at doing what it’s supposed to do.
I look to agencies like the FAA to represent me and people like me when Boeing rolls out a new plane or someone starts a new airline or charter service. When something like the Max happens, I expect everyone involved to be held accountable. I’m not seeing it on the FAA side of things.
But who? Unless you’re just talking about throwing a few people under the bus for appearances sake, we should figure out who precisely should be held accountable.
I find it pretty hard to fault the low-level engineers. A lot of them *did* scream and holler about various problems, when they were able to find them, only to be overruled by high-level managers who didn’t want to hurt Boeing’s schedule.
Other stuff was just delegated almost entirely to Boeing. Including the MCAS, the details of which it was not especially forthcoming about. And the specific pair of FAA engineers overseeing the system — a system which was, according to info from Boeing, relatively unimportant and low risk — were also fairly inexperienced.
Which — full circle again — was in part because the FAA had been experiencing a long term problem attracting high quality engineers. Budget cuts meant they couldn’t pay very well. Morale problems meant experienced veterans were leaving. It was a whole thing.
But that was no problem for the remaining engineers, because they could just delegate review of more and more stuff back down to Boeing, like the upper bosses kept pushing them to do.
So what about those upper bosses? Usual story of industry capture. Working for Boeing, working for the FAA, working for the industry to lobby congress for laxer regulation of the industry, go back to work at the FAA. That kind of thing.
They’re all shady as shit, and I’d be fine with throwing a few of them under the bus.
BUT.
AFAIK, they didn’t actually have specific knowledge of the problems with the MCAS system. Naturally they wouldn’t, because the staffing issues and culture of deference to the ‘client’ meant such problems wouldn’t be found. Mission accomplished.
So not specifically guilty. Were they generally complicit in creating those issues and that culture? Absolutely. But so was Boeing, Congress and at least two or three successive presidential administrations. It was policy. A policy based on ‘regulation bad, government spending bad, private industry good.’
Who we gonna blame for that?
I look to agencies like the FAA to represent me and people like me when Boeing rolls out a new plane or someone starts a new airline or charter service. When something like the Max happens, I expect everyone involved to be held accountable. I’m not seeing it on the FAA side of things.
But who? Unless you’re just talking about throwing a few people under the bus for appearances sake, we should figure out who precisely should be held accountable.
I find it pretty hard to fault the low-level engineers. A lot of them *did* scream and holler about various problems, when they were able to find them, only to be overruled by high-level managers who didn’t want to hurt Boeing’s schedule.
Other stuff was just delegated almost entirely to Boeing. Including the MCAS, the details of which it was not especially forthcoming about. And the specific pair of FAA engineers overseeing the system — a system which was, according to info from Boeing, relatively unimportant and low risk — were also fairly inexperienced.
Which — full circle again — was in part because the FAA had been experiencing a long term problem attracting high quality engineers. Budget cuts meant they couldn’t pay very well. Morale problems meant experienced veterans were leaving. It was a whole thing.
But that was no problem for the remaining engineers, because they could just delegate review of more and more stuff back down to Boeing, like the upper bosses kept pushing them to do.
So what about those upper bosses? Usual story of industry capture. Working for Boeing, working for the FAA, working for the industry to lobby congress for laxer regulation of the industry, go back to work at the FAA. That kind of thing.
They’re all shady as shit, and I’d be fine with throwing a few of them under the bus.
BUT.
AFAIK, they didn’t actually have specific knowledge of the problems with the MCAS system. Naturally they wouldn’t, because the staffing issues and culture of deference to the ‘client’ meant such problems wouldn’t be found. Mission accomplished.
So not specifically guilty. Were they generally complicit in creating those issues and that culture? Absolutely. But so was Boeing, Congress and at least two or three successive presidential administrations. It was policy. A policy based on ‘regulation bad, government spending bad, private industry good.’
Who we gonna blame for that?
When something like the Max happens, I expect everyone involved to be held accountable. I’m not seeing it on the FAA side of things.
Couldn’t agree more.
It is happening on the Boeing side of things, but mostly through not being able to sell a bunch of planes, and also having their reputation shredded. And, correctly so.
Speaking as an alleged ‘lefty’, I’m fine with making some heads roll at the FAA as well, if there was negligence there. It is their job to enforce safety standards.
My only comment about all of that is that there are two basic options about things like this:
You have to pick. You can’t have both, except in some imaginary world where “just the right balance” is struck.
Conservative policy has been, consistently and emphatically, in favor of the second, for as long as I’ve been on this planet and for decades if not centuries before that.
Thus, the 737 debacle and things like it.
I, and most people like me, are more than fine with strong public regulation of pretty much anything concerning public safety. We aren’t the problem here.
I completely agree that there is a problem. I’m just calling attention to the right place to look for the sources of the problem.
When something like the Max happens, I expect everyone involved to be held accountable. I’m not seeing it on the FAA side of things.
Couldn’t agree more.
It is happening on the Boeing side of things, but mostly through not being able to sell a bunch of planes, and also having their reputation shredded. And, correctly so.
Speaking as an alleged ‘lefty’, I’m fine with making some heads roll at the FAA as well, if there was negligence there. It is their job to enforce safety standards.
My only comment about all of that is that there are two basic options about things like this:
You have to pick. You can’t have both, except in some imaginary world where “just the right balance” is struck.
Conservative policy has been, consistently and emphatically, in favor of the second, for as long as I’ve been on this planet and for decades if not centuries before that.
Thus, the 737 debacle and things like it.
I, and most people like me, are more than fine with strong public regulation of pretty much anything concerning public safety. We aren’t the problem here.
I completely agree that there is a problem. I’m just calling attention to the right place to look for the sources of the problem.
You can have clear and strong public safety standards and solid support for their enforcement
You can have a generally hands-off public posture and rely on private actors to do the right thing
I think you can have both, and should have both. I have to run, so I’m going to do this quickly and broadly: when the universe of actors consists of competent adults and the activity does not present an objectively colorable risk to life, health, etc and that is not already addressed by, e.g. traffic laws or the penal code, there should be minimal to no regulation.
When activities involve minors, the infirm, the elderly, the mentally incompetent (perhaps to include the chronically inept), gov’t needs to set some rules.
When the activity is movement in the public domain, reasonable rules/regs applicable to and guided by the relative risk are necessary.
So, I tie the need for government involvement to risk of harm.
You can have clear and strong public safety standards and solid support for their enforcement
You can have a generally hands-off public posture and rely on private actors to do the right thing
I think you can have both, and should have both. I have to run, so I’m going to do this quickly and broadly: when the universe of actors consists of competent adults and the activity does not present an objectively colorable risk to life, health, etc and that is not already addressed by, e.g. traffic laws or the penal code, there should be minimal to no regulation.
When activities involve minors, the infirm, the elderly, the mentally incompetent (perhaps to include the chronically inept), gov’t needs to set some rules.
When the activity is movement in the public domain, reasonable rules/regs applicable to and guided by the relative risk are necessary.
So, I tie the need for government involvement to risk of harm.
An argument for an NGO approach to certification of aircraft.
“Part of the fall-out from the Boeing 737 MAX crashes and several other problems has been increasing congressional criticism of the long-standing global practice of aviation safety regulators delegating certain aircraft certification responsibilities to experts at the companies that manufacture the aircraft. The practice is called Organizational Designation Authorization (ODA). Indeed, the National Transportation Safety Board identified shortcomings in the ODA process used to certify the 737 MAX. Congress has increased the scope of ODA over the decades, expanding it as recently as the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.”
Aviation Policy News: What If Congress Bans Delegation of Aircraft Certification?
An argument for an NGO approach to certification of aircraft.
“Part of the fall-out from the Boeing 737 MAX crashes and several other problems has been increasing congressional criticism of the long-standing global practice of aviation safety regulators delegating certain aircraft certification responsibilities to experts at the companies that manufacture the aircraft. The practice is called Organizational Designation Authorization (ODA). Indeed, the National Transportation Safety Board identified shortcomings in the ODA process used to certify the 737 MAX. Congress has increased the scope of ODA over the decades, expanding it as recently as the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018.”
Aviation Policy News: What If Congress Bans Delegation of Aircraft Certification?
So, I tie the need for government involvement to risk of harm.
I’m pretty sure everyone does…
So, I tie the need for government involvement to risk of harm.
I’m pretty sure everyone does…
So, I tie the need for government involvement to risk of harm.
I’m pretty sure everyone does…
Agreed.
So, I tie the need for government involvement to risk of harm.
I’m pretty sure everyone does…
Agreed.
So, I tie the need for government involvement to risk of harm.
I’m pretty sure everyone does…
Of course, for some the risked harm is that they might end up with fewer tens (hundreds) of millions coming in each year than otherwise. Listen to some of the ultra-wealthy, and the PACs they support.
So, I tie the need for government involvement to risk of harm.
I’m pretty sure everyone does…
Of course, for some the risked harm is that they might end up with fewer tens (hundreds) of millions coming in each year than otherwise. Listen to some of the ultra-wealthy, and the PACs they support.
This
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap200115.html
is just stunningly beautiful.
This
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap200115.html
is just stunningly beautiful.
When the activity is
movementJUST ABOUT ANYTHING in the public domain, reasonable rules/regs applicable to and guided by the relative risk are necessary.Ah, grasshopper…so just who gets to decide what is “reasonable” or assess “risk”, eh?
We await with great expectation your 600 pp single spaced regulatory screed regarding transgenders going to the bathroom.
And what Jack L. said. He hit the nail on the head.
When the activity is
movementJUST ABOUT ANYTHING in the public domain, reasonable rules/regs applicable to and guided by the relative risk are necessary.Ah, grasshopper…so just who gets to decide what is “reasonable” or assess “risk”, eh?
We await with great expectation your 600 pp single spaced regulatory screed regarding transgenders going to the bathroom.
And what Jack L. said. He hit the nail on the head.
Thanks, wj.
This should be interesting!
Thanks, wj.
This should be interesting!
It was policy. A policy based on ‘regulation bad, government spending bad, private industry good.’
This.
The racism, sexism, and xenophobia aside, the one the only prime directive of today’s Bolshevik ‘conservative movement’ is this: Privatize the profits, socialize the costs.
Climate change which see (cough, cough)
It was policy. A policy based on ‘regulation bad, government spending bad, private industry good.’
This.
The racism, sexism, and xenophobia aside, the one the only prime directive of today’s Bolshevik ‘conservative movement’ is this: Privatize the profits, socialize the costs.
Climate change which see (cough, cough)
Only around half a century…..
What are its chances if the dispute over the ratification deadline gets to the ratfnckers in the Supreme Court, sapient ?
(My wife still has an ERA lapel pin her mother wore in the early 70s….)
Only around half a century…..
What are its chances if the dispute over the ratification deadline gets to the ratfnckers in the Supreme Court, sapient ?
(My wife still has an ERA lapel pin her mother wore in the early 70s….)
I’m wondering if the Democrats might not be better off is the ERA is held to have expired.
It’s pretty clear that it’s coming eventually. And it might give them an additional lever to attract female voters. Running against state legislators who won’t vote to ratify the next time around. The Democrats really need (IMHO) to pay more attention to state legislative races. This might be a way to push that.
I’m wondering if the Democrats might not be better off is the ERA is held to have expired.
It’s pretty clear that it’s coming eventually. And it might give them an additional lever to attract female voters. Running against state legislators who won’t vote to ratify the next time around. The Democrats really need (IMHO) to pay more attention to state legislative races. This might be a way to push that.
Less good news from Virginia.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/939b3y/virginia-declares-state-of-emergency-after-armed-militias-threaten-to-storm-the-capitol?fbclid=IwAR0Cxeg702voa_gr0hcsMqCtTpybylYHp0NGCTFUFGExB7H5jmvZFiM7PnM
Less good news from Virginia.
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/939b3y/virginia-declares-state-of-emergency-after-armed-militias-threaten-to-storm-the-capitol?fbclid=IwAR0Cxeg702voa_gr0hcsMqCtTpybylYHp0NGCTFUFGExB7H5jmvZFiM7PnM
(My wife still has an ERA lapel pin her mother wore in the early 70s….)
Warms my heart!
As to the question, I think it will be awhile before the question arrives at the Supreme Court. I haven’t studied the legal issues except for reading a couple of articles and having a general idea. Obviously, the R’s will be R’s. But with all of them proclaiming how feminist they are with regard to hiring women clerks, etc., I think this one is hard to know. I might as well be hopeful.
Less good news from Virginia.
Yes. This is a warning to all of us about what happens when they lose.
(My wife still has an ERA lapel pin her mother wore in the early 70s….)
Warms my heart!
As to the question, I think it will be awhile before the question arrives at the Supreme Court. I haven’t studied the legal issues except for reading a couple of articles and having a general idea. Obviously, the R’s will be R’s. But with all of them proclaiming how feminist they are with regard to hiring women clerks, etc., I think this one is hard to know. I might as well be hopeful.
Less good news from Virginia.
Yes. This is a warning to all of us about what happens when they lose.
(McKinney, your suggestion that the house in the backyard could be inhabited by a registered sex offender is interesting, given that the most notorious registered sex offender of recent times lived here, among other lavish residences. )
I quote myself, from above, but would like to invite discussion on the idea that someone who builds an accessory unit in their backyard, or rents out a small home somewhere else, or that affordable housing in general, is occupied by sex offenders (not that we shouldn’t also have a discussion about sex offender registries). I guess that I can find lots to rant about, even non-Trump related issues, but this got stuck in my craw.
(McKinney, your suggestion that the house in the backyard could be inhabited by a registered sex offender is interesting, given that the most notorious registered sex offender of recent times lived here, among other lavish residences. )
I quote myself, from above, but would like to invite discussion on the idea that someone who builds an accessory unit in their backyard, or rents out a small home somewhere else, or that affordable housing in general, is occupied by sex offenders (not that we shouldn’t also have a discussion about sex offender registries). I guess that I can find lots to rant about, even non-Trump related issues, but this got stuck in my craw.
The sex offender registries are a sad farce. They have everyone from unredeemable sex offenders to teenagers having consensual sex with underage teenagers or engaging in underage sexting.
The sex offender registries are a sad farce. They have everyone from unredeemable sex offenders to teenagers having consensual sex with underage teenagers or engaging in underage sexting.
The people I know who handle rental property (for themselves or family, not as part of a property management company) run background checks on prospective renters.
The people I know who handle rental property (for themselves or family, not as part of a property management company) run background checks on prospective renters.
In 2017 Seattle pass a law banning landlords from conducting criminal background checks. It was struck down by a court in 2018.
Last year, Minneapolis passed a law prohibiting landlords from checking tenants’ criminal history, credit score or past evictions.
In 2017 Seattle pass a law banning landlords from conducting criminal background checks. It was struck down by a court in 2018.
Last year, Minneapolis passed a law prohibiting landlords from checking tenants’ criminal history, credit score or past evictions.
McKinney,
I expect everyone involved to be held accountable. I’m not seeing it on the FAA side of things.
How wide a net are you prepared to cast? If the FAA failed, should we just fire some engineers there, or look for systemic reasons that led to that failure. If we want accountability, and we should, then let’s talk about reasons the FAA failed, which might, just might, have to do with deregulatory fanaticism, inadequate budgets, or a host of other matters which the agency lacked control over.
The 60M payout is BS, but that’s outside the public purview.
I’m not so sure it’s outside the public purview. If our corporate governance systems operated in accord with the capitalist ideal of shareholder control, pay packages that size might not exist. We don’t have that, and to be blunt, conservatives, even “free-market” types, generally fight like tigers against any moves in that direction.
The fact is that corporate governance in the US is a broken system, with results like Muilenburg’s obscene payout.
We could change that, if we wanted to.
McKinney,
I expect everyone involved to be held accountable. I’m not seeing it on the FAA side of things.
How wide a net are you prepared to cast? If the FAA failed, should we just fire some engineers there, or look for systemic reasons that led to that failure. If we want accountability, and we should, then let’s talk about reasons the FAA failed, which might, just might, have to do with deregulatory fanaticism, inadequate budgets, or a host of other matters which the agency lacked control over.
The 60M payout is BS, but that’s outside the public purview.
I’m not so sure it’s outside the public purview. If our corporate governance systems operated in accord with the capitalist ideal of shareholder control, pay packages that size might not exist. We don’t have that, and to be blunt, conservatives, even “free-market” types, generally fight like tigers against any moves in that direction.
The fact is that corporate governance in the US is a broken system, with results like Muilenburg’s obscene payout.
We could change that, if we wanted to.
what Bernard said, both times.
what Bernard said, both times.
I’m loathe to move in the direction of discussing You Know Who, but I have to say, where do they find these people? Every new character is more bizarre than the last. Robert Hyde. Boggle, the mind does.
I’m loathe to move in the direction of discussing You Know Who, but I have to say, where do they find these people? Every new character is more bizarre than the last. Robert Hyde. Boggle, the mind does.
many people are saying it’s the Best People. you wouldn’t believe. so great.
many people are saying it’s the Best People. you wouldn’t believe. so great.
“NGO reform of Boeing”?
Sure. All close relatives of someone who died in a Boeing 737MAX crash gets to take one free .45 caliber shot at anyone who was on the Boeing board, or their C-level execs, as of the date that they rolled out the 737MAX.
Accountability: It smells like gunpowder. And it certainly would concentrate the minds of surviving aircraft execs.
“NGO reform of Boeing”?
Sure. All close relatives of someone who died in a Boeing 737MAX crash gets to take one free .45 caliber shot at anyone who was on the Boeing board, or their C-level execs, as of the date that they rolled out the 737MAX.
Accountability: It smells like gunpowder. And it certainly would concentrate the minds of surviving aircraft execs.
The linked article in the OP includes “abolish tenure” as a tactic. Interestingly, the word “research” does not appear once. The big commercial research labs are all dead and gone. The national labs have quite limited charters. The top tiers of research universities (50? 100? 200?) have become the backbone for science and engineering research in the US. Tenure is a critical part of that.
The linked article in the OP includes “abolish tenure” as a tactic. Interestingly, the word “research” does not appear once. The big commercial research labs are all dead and gone. The national labs have quite limited charters. The top tiers of research universities (50? 100? 200?) have become the backbone for science and engineering research in the US. Tenure is a critical part of that.
“All 50 states have sex offender registries, and the U.S. Justice Department combines them in a single national database. The information, which is available online to the general public, covers nearly 1 million people, whose crimes run the gamut from streaking to rape. In addition to the stigma imposed by that electronic pillory, registration comes with a panoply of restrictions that dictate where people can live and work, when and where they are allowed to travel, and even whether they’re allowed to pick up their own children from school or take them to the park.
…
The crimes that will land someone on the list vary by state, but they include not just assaultive crimes such as rape and child molestation but also nonpredatory offenses such as public urination, promotion of prostitution, and possession of child pornography. Children as young as 9 have to register in some places. A handful of states require people convicted of any sex offense to register for life—and even after death.”
Sex Offender Laws Are Broken. These Women Are Working To Fix Them.: Standing up for the rights of a widely reviled group isn’t for the faint of heart.
“All 50 states have sex offender registries, and the U.S. Justice Department combines them in a single national database. The information, which is available online to the general public, covers nearly 1 million people, whose crimes run the gamut from streaking to rape. In addition to the stigma imposed by that electronic pillory, registration comes with a panoply of restrictions that dictate where people can live and work, when and where they are allowed to travel, and even whether they’re allowed to pick up their own children from school or take them to the park.
…
The crimes that will land someone on the list vary by state, but they include not just assaultive crimes such as rape and child molestation but also nonpredatory offenses such as public urination, promotion of prostitution, and possession of child pornography. Children as young as 9 have to register in some places. A handful of states require people convicted of any sex offense to register for life—and even after death.”
Sex Offender Laws Are Broken. These Women Are Working To Fix Them.: Standing up for the rights of a widely reviled group isn’t for the faint of heart.
Talking about something else (kinda):
there’s a nice piece in today’s NYT by Chesley Sullenberger, a childhood stutterer and an anointed American hero, rebuking Lara Trump for mocking Biden’s stutter, and by implication rebuking much else about that assorted bunch. Towards the end there’s an excellent remark (on phone so cannot give exact quote) to the effect that it’s a lot easier to fix a speech defect than a character defect. Quite.
Talking about something else (kinda):
there’s a nice piece in today’s NYT by Chesley Sullenberger, a childhood stutterer and an anointed American hero, rebuking Lara Trump for mocking Biden’s stutter, and by implication rebuking much else about that assorted bunch. Towards the end there’s an excellent remark (on phone so cannot give exact quote) to the effect that it’s a lot easier to fix a speech defect than a character defect. Quite.
So there IS sex after death?
Or is it merely the judgemental condemnation that continues into the afterlife?
How American, that.
No tenure for scientists and academics, natch, but a sort of eternal tenure for streakers and pissing in public, unless of course, in both cases, you are an elite, conservative Supreme Court nominee.
So there IS sex after death?
Or is it merely the judgemental condemnation that continues into the afterlife?
How American, that.
No tenure for scientists and academics, natch, but a sort of eternal tenure for streakers and pissing in public, unless of course, in both cases, you are an elite, conservative Supreme Court nominee.
From the somewhat overworked department of WTAF…
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/militia-richmond-virginia-gun-rally.html
Despite the rhetoric about gun confiscation and governmental overreach, most of the measures proposed by Democrats are widely supported by Virginians. A December poll indicated that universal background checks, one of the first measures that will be enacted, are supported by 86 percent of Virginia voters. A bill that would allow courts to temporarily prevent the dangerously mentally ill from having access to firearms, the so-called “red flag” law, enjoys the support of 73 percent of Virginians, and similar measures have been passed in seventeen states and D.C., including Florida, Nevada, New York, and Colorado.
Concerned about rising tensions and false statements online, Northam, in an unprecedented move, used his annual State of the Commonwealth Address to the joint assembly last week to assure Virginians that “no one is calling out the National Guard. No one is cutting off your electricity, or turning off the internet. No one is going door-to-door to confiscate guns.” That effort has not, however, stemmed the tide of controversy. Even Liberty University President, Jerry Falwell, Jr., has gotten into the act, stating that the Second Amendment is “sacred” and that the state is “going to be faced with civil disobedience, not just by citizens but by police officers. And I think it’s what they deserve.”
From the somewhat overworked department of WTAF…
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/01/militia-richmond-virginia-gun-rally.html
Despite the rhetoric about gun confiscation and governmental overreach, most of the measures proposed by Democrats are widely supported by Virginians. A December poll indicated that universal background checks, one of the first measures that will be enacted, are supported by 86 percent of Virginia voters. A bill that would allow courts to temporarily prevent the dangerously mentally ill from having access to firearms, the so-called “red flag” law, enjoys the support of 73 percent of Virginians, and similar measures have been passed in seventeen states and D.C., including Florida, Nevada, New York, and Colorado.
Concerned about rising tensions and false statements online, Northam, in an unprecedented move, used his annual State of the Commonwealth Address to the joint assembly last week to assure Virginians that “no one is calling out the National Guard. No one is cutting off your electricity, or turning off the internet. No one is going door-to-door to confiscate guns.” That effort has not, however, stemmed the tide of controversy. Even Liberty University President, Jerry Falwell, Jr., has gotten into the act, stating that the Second Amendment is “sacred” and that the state is “going to be faced with civil disobedience, not just by citizens but by police officers. And I think it’s what they deserve.”
via Eschaton:
https://mobile.twitter.com/CameronYardeJnr/status/1218128025520410625
Remember when summing up the reality of the situation was ironically funny, but now is cause for violent revolution.
via Eschaton:
https://mobile.twitter.com/CameronYardeJnr/status/1218128025520410625
Remember when summing up the reality of the situation was ironically funny, but now is cause for violent revolution.
Today, the Navy announces that its latest aircraft carrier will be named after an enlisted man.
https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=111881
One assumes the President’s opinion was not solicited. (That or he was told the alternative was USS Obama. 😁)
Today, the Navy announces that its latest aircraft carrier will be named after an enlisted man.
https://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=111881
One assumes the President’s opinion was not solicited. (That or he was told the alternative was USS Obama. 😁)
Music for your holiday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CILIBlQ2D0Q
Music for your holiday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CILIBlQ2D0Q
More music.
That song is almost 50 years old now. Could be written today, seems to me.
Today I give thanks for the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr, who saw a path forward for us, a path founded on love, respect, dignity, and justice.
He saw the promised land, and told us all what it could look like. He knew he would not enter in with us.
We all are, somehow, still standing at the doorway, looking in. But we can hardly blame him for that. He did his best for us.
Still a long way to go. Members, don’t get weary.
More music.
That song is almost 50 years old now. Could be written today, seems to me.
Today I give thanks for the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr, who saw a path forward for us, a path founded on love, respect, dignity, and justice.
He saw the promised land, and told us all what it could look like. He knew he would not enter in with us.
We all are, somehow, still standing at the doorway, looking in. But we can hardly blame him for that. He did his best for us.
Still a long way to go. Members, don’t get weary.
Murder by extradition, of a man who is almost certainly entirely innocent:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/27/the-fight-to-save-an-innocent-refugee-from-almost-certain-death
Murder by extradition, of a man who is almost certainly entirely innocent:
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/27/the-fight-to-save-an-innocent-refugee-from-almost-certain-death
Finally, a solution to the invasive worldwide infestation of conservative nationalism:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/01/eating-invasive-species/605215/
Finally, a solution to the invasive worldwide infestation of conservative nationalism:
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/01/eating-invasive-species/605215/
Talking about other things, this is an interesting thesis.
What do people think ?
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2019/09/korea-japan-and-end-of-65-system-part_24.html#more
It didn’t have to be this way. The United States could have demanded from Imperial Japan the same level of historical self-reflection it demanded from Nazi Germany. The US could have excluded the leaders of the Japanese Empire from the positions of power, rather than elevating them back to the top levels of the government. It could have compelled Japan to engage in a more honest accounting of the damages caused by its imperialism and war, and pay due reparations to its neighbors with unqualified apologies. With the true resolution of the historical issues, there was no reason why northeastern Asia could not have developed like western Europe. Just as much as Germany became the centerpiece of the European Union that today forms a healthy block of liberal democracy and free trade, Japan could have been the centerpiece of eastern Asia that could have linked Korea, Taiwan, southeast Asia and beyond.
The United States never did that. We can have a long debate on the many possible reasons, such as the exigencies of the Cold War and the different extent of Soviet advances in western Europe versus northeast Asia. But the ultimate reason is straightforward: the United States never took Korea seriously….
Talking about other things, this is an interesting thesis.
What do people think ?
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2019/09/korea-japan-and-end-of-65-system-part_24.html#more
It didn’t have to be this way. The United States could have demanded from Imperial Japan the same level of historical self-reflection it demanded from Nazi Germany. The US could have excluded the leaders of the Japanese Empire from the positions of power, rather than elevating them back to the top levels of the government. It could have compelled Japan to engage in a more honest accounting of the damages caused by its imperialism and war, and pay due reparations to its neighbors with unqualified apologies. With the true resolution of the historical issues, there was no reason why northeastern Asia could not have developed like western Europe. Just as much as Germany became the centerpiece of the European Union that today forms a healthy block of liberal democracy and free trade, Japan could have been the centerpiece of eastern Asia that could have linked Korea, Taiwan, southeast Asia and beyond.
The United States never did that. We can have a long debate on the many possible reasons, such as the exigencies of the Cold War and the different extent of Soviet advances in western Europe versus northeast Asia. But the ultimate reason is straightforward: the United States never took Korea seriously….
Why I love Test cricket – another instance:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jan/21/nadkarni-maiden-epic-cricket-dull-boredom-pleasure-india-england
…Finally, just after three in the afternoon, Nadkarni was five balls through what would have been his 22nd maiden when the man at mid-on misfielded and the batsmen stole a single. And, just like that, Nadkarni’s captain took him out of the attack, “as if”, the Times noted, he was all of a sudden judged “altogether too expensive” to carry on. Nadkarni was still annoyed about it 50 years later. He had bowled 131 consecutive dot balls. It is one of those records that will likely stand as long as they’re playing the game. South Africa’s Hugh Tayfield once bowled 137 in a row but they were spread across two innings.
The Chennai Test was a draw. So were nine of the 10 other games they played on that tour, including all the other four Tests. It was one of the most stultifying boring series ever played and yet it pulled in a total of over a million spectators….
Why I love Test cricket – another instance:
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jan/21/nadkarni-maiden-epic-cricket-dull-boredom-pleasure-india-england
…Finally, just after three in the afternoon, Nadkarni was five balls through what would have been his 22nd maiden when the man at mid-on misfielded and the batsmen stole a single. And, just like that, Nadkarni’s captain took him out of the attack, “as if”, the Times noted, he was all of a sudden judged “altogether too expensive” to carry on. Nadkarni was still annoyed about it 50 years later. He had bowled 131 consecutive dot balls. It is one of those records that will likely stand as long as they’re playing the game. South Africa’s Hugh Tayfield once bowled 137 in a row but they were spread across two innings.
The Chennai Test was a draw. So were nine of the 10 other games they played on that tour, including all the other four Tests. It was one of the most stultifying boring series ever played and yet it pulled in a total of over a million spectators….
Nigel, the denazification of Germany as far as personnel went was rather superficial. And even the war criminals (and all the “blood judges”*) that got sentenced to jail under US supervision were freed after ridiculously short periods and often re-instated (after the US looked away). Many never got prosecuted at all and had successful post-war careers in public service while those connected to resistance against the regime were inofficially still treated as traitors.
In public opinion the Nuremberg trials were seen by most Germans at the time as ‘victors’ justice’, i.e. at least partially illegitimate.
It took decades to remedy all of that and most of it was by the ‘natural biological solution’ (i.e. the guys dying of old age). It took those born after the war to honestly come to terms with the past for the country.
It’s still an open debate whether this was the only choice to keep the peace and successfully rebuild or just shameful cold war opportunism.
*i.e. the ones that dealt out death sentences en masse under the pretense of justice.
Nigel, the denazification of Germany as far as personnel went was rather superficial. And even the war criminals (and all the “blood judges”*) that got sentenced to jail under US supervision were freed after ridiculously short periods and often re-instated (after the US looked away). Many never got prosecuted at all and had successful post-war careers in public service while those connected to resistance against the regime were inofficially still treated as traitors.
In public opinion the Nuremberg trials were seen by most Germans at the time as ‘victors’ justice’, i.e. at least partially illegitimate.
It took decades to remedy all of that and most of it was by the ‘natural biological solution’ (i.e. the guys dying of old age). It took those born after the war to honestly come to terms with the past for the country.
It’s still an open debate whether this was the only choice to keep the peace and successfully rebuild or just shameful cold war opportunism.
*i.e. the ones that dealt out death sentences en masse under the pretense of justice.
RIP Terry Jones. Not only a splendid Python, but the director of films which have been observed to make watchers become completely incoherent with laughter, a rare talent indeed.
RIP Terry Jones. Not only a splendid Python, but the director of films which have been observed to make watchers become completely incoherent with laughter, a rare talent indeed.
RIP Terry Jones.
And Neil Innes just gone, as well.
Those guys put a lot of smiles on my face.
🙁
RIP Terry Jones.
And Neil Innes just gone, as well.
Those guys put a lot of smiles on my face.
🙁
Yes. How like John Cleese to say “Two down, four to go” (the two being Chapman and Jones – Neil Innes was not actually a Python, despite his wonderful musical and other contributions – “I’ve suffered for my music. Now it’s your turn”).
Yes. How like John Cleese to say “Two down, four to go” (the two being Chapman and Jones – Neil Innes was not actually a Python, despite his wonderful musical and other contributions – “I’ve suffered for my music. Now it’s your turn”).
You can hear this Neil Innes singing background vocals on this wonderful cover by Aimee Mann of Harry Nilsson’s “One”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgN0VTl03Yk
Later, live, sans Nilsson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc6WbTHRq9c
Innes, on his own:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-DgIU4E9Mo
You can hear this Neil Innes singing background vocals on this wonderful cover by Aimee Mann of Harry Nilsson’s “One”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgN0VTl03Yk
Later, live, sans Nilsson:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wc6WbTHRq9c
Innes, on his own:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-DgIU4E9Mo
I meant sans Innes, but now of course we are sans too many great ones.
I meant sans Innes, but now of course we are sans too many great ones.
Arghh!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJFLiW10ZrE
It’s not like there are TOO many actual Beatles left among us, that a fifth one has to die too.
Arghh!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJFLiW10ZrE
It’s not like there are TOO many actual Beatles left among us, that a fifth one has to die too.
Maybe not an actual Beatle, but certainly an actual Rutle (“the Rutles – a legend in their own lunchtime”)
Maybe not an actual Beatle, but certainly an actual Rutle (“the Rutles – a legend in their own lunchtime”)
How much music do you listen to that you don’t want to listen to before you come up with this such good music?
How much music do you listen to that you don’t want to listen to before you come up with this such good music?
https://www.newsweek.com/reagans-solicitor-general-says-all-honorable-people-have-left-trumps-cabinet-he-capable-1483292
Kill, and butcher and slaughter.
I have no brief for Fried.
He’s late to the game. He’s like the Mafia accountant who happens to be explaining the funkiness of the numbers on a spreadsheet, because they don’t comport with generally accepted accounting principles, to the vermin thugs at the back of the restaurant when the gunmen enter.
Fuck him. But thanks for the warning. Now fuck you.
Trump is merely the means to the fulfillment of Fried’s long-standing vermin conservative movement ideology.
But he finds these particular means unsound, does he?
At this late date? Fuck his mouth.
Kill and butcher and slaughter the worldwide conservative movement on every street, in every country, on every continent.
If a trace of trump conservative ideology is detected in crevasses on distant planets, kill and butcher and slaughter it.
Nuke. Kill.
There is no rule of law.
Disobey with savage violence all conservatively imposed law.
https://www.newsweek.com/reagans-solicitor-general-says-all-honorable-people-have-left-trumps-cabinet-he-capable-1483292
Kill, and butcher and slaughter.
I have no brief for Fried.
He’s late to the game. He’s like the Mafia accountant who happens to be explaining the funkiness of the numbers on a spreadsheet, because they don’t comport with generally accepted accounting principles, to the vermin thugs at the back of the restaurant when the gunmen enter.
Fuck him. But thanks for the warning. Now fuck you.
Trump is merely the means to the fulfillment of Fried’s long-standing vermin conservative movement ideology.
But he finds these particular means unsound, does he?
At this late date? Fuck his mouth.
Kill and butcher and slaughter the worldwide conservative movement on every street, in every country, on every continent.
If a trace of trump conservative ideology is detected in crevasses on distant planets, kill and butcher and slaughter it.
Nuke. Kill.
There is no rule of law.
Disobey with savage violence all conservatively imposed law.
Hurrah for Judge Stanton.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/01/read-fiery-dissent-childrens-climate-case/605296/
In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response—yet presses ahead toward calamity. It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.
My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary. On a fundamental point, we agree: No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists. But a federal court need not manage all of the delicate foreign relations and regulatory minutiae implicated by climate change to offer real relief, and the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution.
Plaintiffs bring suit to enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction. So viewed, plaintiffs’ claims adhere to a judicially administrable standard. And considering plaintiffs seek no less than to forestall the Nation’s demise, even a partial and temporary reprieve would constitute meaningful redress. Such relief, much like the desegregation orders and statewid e prison injunctions the Supreme Court has sanctioned, would vindicate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights without exceeding the Judiciary’s province. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent….
Hurrah for Judge Stanton.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/01/read-fiery-dissent-childrens-climate-case/605296/
In these proceedings, the government accepts as fact that the United States has reached a tipping point crying out for a concerted response—yet presses ahead toward calamity. It is as if an asteroid were barreling toward Earth and the government decided to shut down our only defenses. Seeking to quash this suit, the government bluntly insists that it has the absolute and unreviewable power to destroy the Nation.
My colleagues throw up their hands, concluding that this case presents nothing fit for the Judiciary. On a fundamental point, we agree: No case can singlehandedly prevent the catastrophic effects of climate change predicted by the government and scientists. But a federal court need not manage all of the delicate foreign relations and regulatory minutiae implicated by climate change to offer real relief, and the mere fact that this suit cannot alone halt climate change does not mean that it presents no claim suitable for judicial resolution.
Plaintiffs bring suit to enforce the most basic structural principle embedded in our system of ordered liberty: that the Constitution does not condone the Nation’s willful destruction. So viewed, plaintiffs’ claims adhere to a judicially administrable standard. And considering plaintiffs seek no less than to forestall the Nation’s demise, even a partial and temporary reprieve would constitute meaningful redress. Such relief, much like the desegregation orders and statewid e prison injunctions the Supreme Court has sanctioned, would vindicate plaintiffs’ constitutional rights without exceeding the Judiciary’s province. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent….
Finland has gone beyond handwaving.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/MtJYmYFONq/finland_carbon_neutral_in_15_years
Finland has gone beyond handwaving.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/extra/MtJYmYFONq/finland_carbon_neutral_in_15_years