Steve Ersinghaus's List: Common Issues

• But beyond the challenges in advancing such short-term programs, there is a broader and longer-term goal that is not even on the agenda: creating and sustaining a full-employment economy in the United States.
• individual’s standpoint
• crucial to an economy’s overall health
• also the best tool for fighting poverty
• has the capacity to deliver great individual and social benefits
• Karl Marx
• Milton Friedman
• economist John Maynard Keynes
• most forcefully Michał Kalecki
• The Swedes developed

• Nonetheless, those who would build a full-employment economy must address the issue of inflation. 

  Sweden is one country that did so.
• The drop in average wages since 1973 suggests the seriousness of this problem. In 2009 the average non-supervisory worker in the United States earned $18.62 an hour (in 2009 dollars)—7 percent below the 1972 peak of $20.20 per hour (also in 2009 dollars). But this is only half the story. While wages fell, average labor productivity in the  United States rose by 105 percent. In exchange for being twice as productive as they were in 1972, American workers took a 7 percent pay cut.
• Unless our policy environment changes dramatically, these threat effects will become more pronounced.
• Blinder argues that 20–30 percent of U.S. jobs (up to 40 million jobs) can be performed by workers in poor countries. He includes all manufacturing jobs as well as what he calls “impersonal service” jobs, which can be performed over the Internet—the work of, among others, back-office accountants, lawyers, engineers, architects, and laboratory technicians, as well as their support staff. This doesn’t mean that anything like 40 million jobs will actually be outsourced. The point is that the employers of these 40 million workers gain leverage over wages and working conditions from credible threats to outsource.
• Despite intense pressures from globalization in the late 1990s
• This puts lie to the increasingly vocal perspective that the current jobs crisis is a result of immigrants taking jobs
• Another misconception about unemployment is that it is increased by the trade deficit
• The problem, then, is not globalization itself but the absence of a full-employment agenda designed to address the challenges of globalization.
• At its foundation, such a policy would channel more public and private investment in the United States toward those industries that efficiently generate an abundance of good domestic jobs.
• Consider four possible areas of investment: education, the military, clean energy, and fossil-fuel energy. By a significant margin, education is the most effective source of job creation among these alternatives—roughly 29 jobs per $1 million in spending. Clean-energy investments are second, with about seventeen jobs per $1 million of spending. The U.S. military creates about twelve jobs, while spending within the fossil-fuel sector creates about five jobs per $1 million.
• These figures combine three categories of job creation: direct, indirect, and induced. Direct jobs are those created by an activity itself, such as building a wind turbine, hiring school teachers, opening a military base in Afghanistan, or transporting oil from the Persian Gulf to Houston. Indirect jobs are those generated by businesses providing equipment to support the direct activities, such as steel manufacturers supplying a wind turbine manufacturer, or a paper company providing office supplies to a school, military base, or an oil company’s corporate headquarters. An induced job is generated when people who are newly hired—either through direct or indirect job creation—spend the money they have begun to earn. This is frequently termed the “multiplier effect” of direct and indirect job creation. Small businesses, in particular, benefit from such multiplier effects thanks to the market opportunities that direct and indirect job creation can generate—think of a lunch counter at a wind-energy work site.
• What would happen if we transfer 25 percent of total spending in the military ($690 billion) and fossil-fuel ($635 billion) sectors—that is, about $330 billion per year—in equal shares to education and clean energy?
• With 4.8 million new jobs, the present unemployment rate would decrease by about one-third, from 9.6 to 6.5 percent. This kind of large-scale shift in spending will not occur rapidly enough to affect unemployment right now, but it would change the overall employment picture over the next few years. For example, assume that through some combination of normal recovery and interventions from the Obama administration and the Fed the unemployment rate would fall over the next two years to 7 percent. If a shift in spending created 4.8 million additional jobs, that 7 percent unemployment rate would fall to about 3.9 percent. Remember that when unemployment dropped below 4 percent in the 1960s and 1990s, workers also saw major gains in bargaining power and rising real wages. Poverty also fell significantly in both periods.
• Putting an end to neoliberalism will require nothing less than an epoch-defining reallocation of political power away from the interests of big business and Wall Street and toward the middle class, working people, and the poor, while mounting a strong defense of the environment.

22 more annotations...

• We are now dealing with a tragedy of the global commons.
• These behaviors make whatever benefits users derive from those resources vanishingly small.
• Now we must tackle the global-commons problem before the line on Al Gore’s global-warming graph reaches the moon.
• What would be best for this villager is if everyone else in the village showed restraint.
• There is an important and quite general feature to the commons problem—what economist Thomas Schelling called “the tyranny of small decisions.” When deciding whether to add another cow to your herd, you are not choosing to destroy a common resource in order to get a little more milk. Faced with that choice, you might refrain. The choice you see is a little more milk in exchange for a little less grass. Good deal. So, commons problems are marked by conflicts between individual and collective interests and between short-term and long-term interests. It is from this tragic dilemma that we must escape.
• ONE APPROACH to the commons problem appeals to the moral side of people and states.
• A second approach appeals to our self-interested side, offering incentives for good behavior and punishments for bad.
• It amounts to using various economic tools to privatize the commons. So nonpolluters and energy conservers get tax breaks. And polluters pay fees for the privilege. President Obama’s cap-and-trade plan for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions is a ready example. And we already see this logic in effect domestically on a small scale. Purchasers of inefficient automobiles pay a luxury tax. Tobacco and alcohol are taxed to help defray the social (medical) costs of their use. Permits are sold to regulate the use of parks and beaches. Fees (tolls) are charged for highway use, and they can be scaled so it is almost prohibitively expensive to drive during rush hour. A tax is added to downtown parking to defray costs and improve the quality of mass transit.
• cap-and-trade

  • http://www.newsweek.com/id/220523
  Add Sticky Note
• THE COMMONS problem starts at its base as a more sophisticated version of the prisoner’s dilemma
• Research has taught us that for cooperation to emerge, games must have multiple moves and the future has to matter. The logic is straightforward: if you are out to win a one-move game, defection is the dominant strategy (like the tyranny of small decisions in the commons problem). But defection will lose its dominance if what you do on your turn will affect what the other player does on his next. Thus, in attempting to produce cooperation among states to conserve the global commons, we should seek to create multiple-move negotiations in which the future matters. Make a trade agreement conditional on a greenhouse-gas treaty. Make opening one’s borders to imports conditional on refraining from overfishing. This is an argument, in short, for ongoing international entanglements. It is a way to avoid the anarchy of a global environment where no one governing body enforces all laws.
• Research also shows that even if there is no way to enforce agreements, people (and governments) who talk about the dilemma are more likely to work together than those who do not.
• What Axelrod found is that overly cooperative strategies were vulnerable to exploitation by defectors. And once a defection in tit-for-tat reciprocation begins, it is hard to avoid a vicious cycle.
• AS STATES enter these negotiating processes, leaders must also beware of “naive realism” and “reactive devaluation.” Parties to a conflict tend to think that while they see the issue “objectively,” the other side is biased. Stanford psychology professor Lee Ross dubs this psychological characteristic naive realism, and it’s not hard to see how it can lead to a negotiating impasse (“We’re being so reasonable; why are they so intransigent?”)
• We seem to assume that if someone is willing to give something up, it must be worth less than we think it is.

• AND AGAIN, as we’re creating these iterative processes not only multi-play but also multi-option games are necessary. It is a truism of negotiation that the more things on the table, the better the parties can do. With more of what you want at stake and what you don’t want on offer, the effects of reactive devaluation can be minimized. The way to make a negotiation into a non-zero-sum game is to include items that the parties don’t care about equally. If I give in on A–D, he’ll give in on E–H. Since I don’t care so much about A–D, I’ll end up in a better position than that in which I started. Since he doesn’t care so much about E–H, so will he. The way to reach a mutually beneficial agreement is for each party to give in on the things that matter more to the other party than they do to him. The more things on the table, the more likely it is that some of them will be valued differently by the various parties. And what is true logically is also true empirically. In MBA-program negotiating exercises, students get higher scores when there are, say, eight items in play than when there are only four. The negotiators—both sides—do better.

  But, alas, this recommendation comes with a caveat: what is true logically and empirically is not true psychologically. The participants may do better, but they feel worse, because they leave the negotiation thinking about all the things they gave up. As psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky have captured with “prospect theory” (for which Kahneman was awarded a Nobel Prize in economics), losses hurt more than wins help. “Sure, I gained on items A–D, but I lost on items E–H. Four losses. Disaster!” If each thing you give up hurts more than each thing you acquire, the feeling of loss multiplies more than the feeling of gain does. So you conduct a successful, complex deal and you feel like a failure. All you can think about is what you left on the table.
• Thus we’re left at something of an impasse. Complexity means everyone can win, which is good. But it also means that everyone can lose, which, for psychological reasons, is bad. Perhaps the thing to do is not worry so much about the future attitude of negotiators who are stung by what they gave up in the last round. You can always bring in fresh negotiators, who are not carrying that psychological baggage, to the next one.
• The same findings from psychology that speak to relations among states also address the obstacles faced when dealing with individual behavioral change.
• The same is true for individuals. As economist Robert Frank has observed, people, like states, care more about their relative position in a social or economic hierarchy than they do about their absolute position.
• And sacrifice must be shared in a way that is publicly verifiable because people, like states, care about fairness.
• The Obama vegetable garden by itself isn’t going to change how Americans eat. But many social phenomena are susceptible to what Duke economics and political science professor Timur Kuran describes as “informational cascades.” Someone out there who won’t take the lead in using cloth bags is almost ready to do so. Just one example will tip that person’s behavior. And once there are two adherents, other people, whose “tipping threshold” is a bit higher, will come on board.
• And in yet another bit of psychological tweaking, we can focus on what will be lost, not what will be gained. Remember prospect theory. Losing $100 makes people feel more than twice as bad as winning $100 makes people feel good. Kahneman and Tversky also showed that it is relatively easy to induce people to think of the same decision as involving gains or losses by manipulating the way in which the decision is framed: we aren’t gaining clean drinking water by conserving, we’re losing it by polluting; we aren’t saving lives by ridding the air we breathe of contaminants, we’re killing people by not doing so.

• A focus on vivid particulars has another advantage as well. Though there is less disagreement among experts about our ecological future than some would claim, the problem is that the dire forecasts are still probabilistic rather than certain. People do not think well about uncertainty, especially in the midrange between “can’t happen” and “must happen.” However, if the events in question are vivid, probabilities recede in importance. As long as it “can happen,” and it involves a vivid particular, people respond to potential calamities as if they are certain. We can then leave the fight about probabilities to experts while citizens do what they can to save the beaches for their children.

  It helps, too, to make the dialogue about welfare, not wealth. Kathleen Vohs, a professor at the University of Minnesota, and her colleagues have shown in a series of experiments that when money is introduced into the picture, even in subtle ways (e.g., a computer screen saver with currency floating around), it makes people more individualistic, less social and less amenable. If cooperation is what saving the global commons needs, focus the arguments on welfare rather than wealth. Get money out of the picture. This might mean downplaying the economic consequences of threats to the global commons, and highlighting the human consequences. Doing this will not only suppress the tendency of people to go it alone but it will also moralize conserving the commons.
• ABOVE ALL, if we’re going to save the global commons, as individuals and as a nation, we have to give up the doctrine of American exceptionalism.
• Ninety percent of people think they are above-average drivers. Ninety-nine percent of newlyweds think they will not be in the fifty percent of married couples who divorce. Eighty-five percent of college professors think they’re better than the average teacher. And in international negotiations, the United States always thinks it is better than everyone else—more reasonable, more generous, more concerned with justice.
• I know, I know. America really is exceptional. We are entitled to drive Hummers. We need those tanks because the safety of our kids is more important than the safety of anyone else’s. This feels right and true, so I understand how it might govern the attitudes and behaviors of most people (in America). But then I remind myself of the phenomenon of naive realism. Everybody, everywhere, has exactly the same feelings as we do.

24 more annotations...

• these extraordinary scenes in Inglewood,   California yesterday provided a sobering reminder of exactly why President   Barack Obama is trying to reform the US system.
• In America,   the offer of free healthcare is so rare, that news of the magical medical   kingdom spread rapidly and long lines of prospective patients snaked around   the venue for the chance of getting everyday treatments that many British   people take for granted.
• And the residents who had flocked for the free medical care, courtesy   of mobile charity Remote Area Medical, bore testament to the human cost of   the healthcare mess that President Obama is attempting to fix.
• Along the hall, Liz Cruise was one of scores of people waiting for a free eye   exam. She works for a major supermarket chain but can't afford the $200 a   month that would be deducted from her salary for insurance. "It's a   simple choice: pay my rent, or pay my healthcare. What am I supposed to do?"   she asked. "I'm one of the working poor: people who do work but can't   afford healthcare and are ineligible for any free healthcare or assistance.   I can't remember the last time I saw a doctor."
• Many of those   who have jobs can't afford coverage, and even those with standard policies   often find it doesn't cover commonplace procedures. California's unemployed   – who rely on Medicaid – had their dental care axed last month.
• I don't have a passport
• The packed bleachers in the LA Forum tell a different story. The mobile clinic   has been organised by the remarkable Remote Area Medical. The charity   usually focuses on the rural poor, although they worked in New Orleans after   Hurricane Katrina. Now they are moving into more urban venues, this week's   event in Los Angeles is believed to be the largest free healthcare operation

  

    in the country.

5 more annotations...

• There is the one reported by the US press, a place where the Mexican president is fighting a valiant war on drugs, aided by the Mexican Army and the Mérida Initiative, the $1.4 billion in aid the United States has committed to the cause. This Mexico has newspapers, courts, laws, and is seen by the United States government as a sister republic.
• "Those sons of bitches do whatever they want. Go ahead. Good luck."

• The problem is that those funds are dedicated almost exclusively for new investments instead of supplementing existing operating funds. Alas, even while states and cities are laying train tracks and buying new buses, they are being forced to cut bus routes and raise subway fares.
• it is especially problematic
• Community organizers in low-income communities in San Francisco say that many of the people they work with would be trapped in poverty by having service cuts in their bus lines prevent them from getting to work or community college.

  • A sample of effects.
  Add Sticky Note
• says Robert Puentes, a transportation expert at the Brookings Institution
• Efforts to get the federal government to spend stimulus dollars to keep trains and buses running where they are needed most has been frustratingly fitful and only partially successful.
• That's a helpful start, but it is not enough to cover the shortfalls this year, never mind in years to come.
• Transportation for America
• And, if the economy does not rebound immediately, declining tax revenues could cause worse transit budget shortfalls for years to come. "2011 will be as bad or worse as 2010," frets Peter Benjamin, first vice chairman of WMATA. "Tax revenues for local jurisdictions lag the recovery. If you get a recovery in 2011 you may not have enough money for 2012 because you spend money collected this year next year."

6 more annotations...

• Most people are not aware of what design is or how it influences their lives every day.”
• Americans continue to find many of the most common and important documents we interact with in our daily lives extremely, well, perplexing.
• Most people are not aware of what design is or how it influences their lives every day.”
• Charmed by the graphic perfection of Switzerland’s currency and the elephants and rhinos bursting forth from South Africa’s, Bierut thinks it’s time for a currency overhaul in this country.
• Sixty percent of respondents rated mortgage documents as being “difficult to understand.”
• people often didn’t (and still don’t, as they attempt to rework those flawed mortgages) understand what they were getting into. Much of the crisis was, quite simply, based on poor information.
• “This is where the interaction between design and policy comes in.”
• Integral to the success of health care reform, Tunstall argues, is clear understanding of what’s to be gained. (Interestingly enough, Republicans recently issued this horrendous example of information design as a means to argue against the Democrats’ health care plan.)
• Why exactly do we need a design policy?
• Design touches all sectors of our daily life, and increasing awareness of that reality can result in tremendous benefit for all.
• Design can save time, money and one’s sanity. It can simplify use, enhance enjoyment, and keep us safe and well. I believe the National Design Policy can help to tangibly illustrate design’s value and help to keep it from being reduced to an afterthought, that “denim patch on a satin dress” Beirut is talking about.

  • The reasons why.
  Add Sticky Note
• One of the Design Policy summit’s immediate action steps was to propose a holistic design award encompassing all the design disciples — and it’s a great place to start. We’ve seen what decades of piecemeal planning and stopgap measures have done to vital parts of our country, from infrastructure to environmental policy. Designers as a group have a greater affinity toward interdisciplinary collaboration, and accordingly, could help push for a more participatory process in decision-making. The current sort of ivory-tower-ish obliviousness to what the guy down the hall is doing has got to change. De-silo-izing departments and disciplines can, I believe, result in more comprehensive policy making decisions.
• A more integrated design approach could result in a community designed around walkability, public transit and self-sufficiency. It could mean that the proposed health care reforms might actually include forms one could understand and health care facilities that focus on encouraging wellness rather than fixing illness. It could do something as straightforward as relaying the consequences of speeding (like this signage created for the Elm Grove Police Department in Wisconsin).
• What does frustrate me about the whole notion of a U.S. Design Policy is that the country needs one at all. It feels weird to have to defend design’s importance, yet also completely necessary.

  • Nice statement of the problem.
  Add Sticky Note
• A national design policy could also help to bolster American competitiveness at a time when we can use all the help we can get in that arena.

13 more annotations...