This is not an argument against ideology. Ideals, grand narratives, and stubborn persistence can all feed the engine of positive change. What tips ideology into a force for awful is the concentration of power and silencing of other voices.
Money holds the promise of future satisfaction. Purchases hold the promise of fading excitement. So at least in some contexts, money may be worth more than what you can buy with it. Which doesn’t mean the economists are wrong. Only that intuitions sometimes speak to truths that economists don’t care much about.
The challenge of housing the chronically homeless is how to do it without breaking the bank, distorting the local housing market, or incentivizing dependency.
I put this snapshot together, because the original report goes on and on, making it hard to see the forest through the trees. Part of solving a problem is organizing your information into relevant facts. One of the problems I’d like to solve is how to fix chronic homelessness without creating serious problems elsewhere. This is a beginning of that project.
Researchers and zookeepers know their animal charges need enriching environments to be happy in their species-typical way. Per Wild Welfare, enrichment is about “creating choices for animals so they feel more in control of their environment.”
“The problem with free speech is that it’s hard, and self-censorship is the path of least resistance. But once you learn to keep yourself from voicing unwelcome thoughts, you forget how to think them – how to think freely at all – and ideas perish at conception.” George Packer, Mute Button /The New Yorker.
Responsive government is like a doctor treating a patient: sometimes 'wait and see' is the way to go and sometimes active intervention. Either way, the best doctors know how long to give the current approach a chance and when to cut one's losses and try something else. Above all else, the best doctors are not burdened by ego, former convictions, or the tyranny of past investment. They let go.
Free speech is essential for moving closer to the truth of things. That’s enough for me, but I’ll add that free speech is also good for problem-solving, good governance, and democracy. Apparently, that’s not enough for some people. It’s not so much that these folks have fully articulated arguments for limiting the right to speech. It’s more that they have ways of thinking that minimize its value and justify restricting speech. Here are a few examples: …
The inspiration for these thoughts was a recent paper, “Techno-Optimism and Farmers’ Attitudes Toward Climate Change Adaptation”, in which the authors initially define techno-optimism as “the belief [in industrialized societies] that human ingenuity, through improved science and technology, will ultimately provide remedies to most current and future threats to human well-being”.
Psychology is implicated in everything humans do, think and feel - as in all humans…. But “psychology” is not independent of reality. Things are rarely “in our heads” or “in the world”. Pointing out that a belief serves a psychological need (a “use-value”) says nothing about whether that belief is correct (it’s “truth-value”).
Being at the mercy of another person means feeling one cannot get away from them, because they have something one wants badly and that something is not readily available elsewhere.
Opportunity quickens desire and power creates opportunities. And so the dream of absolute power continues to beckon.
To simplify the authors’ argument:
“There are a few standard explanations for unequal outcomes. But those explanations do not explain all the variance in outcomes. Therefore, unobservable facts reflecting systemic barriers explain the rest and they are the ultimate cause of injustice. Elimination of these barriers will require fundamental change in the nature of our society.”
Categorizing and calculating healthcare waste is an excellent first step to fixing the problem of waste. The next step is figuring out who’s responsible, and why.
In 2017, US health care spending reached $3.5 trillion, or $10,739 per person, in 2017 - 17.9% of the US gross domestic product (GDP). Per the JAMA study, as much as $935 billion of that spending was wasted.
The program was funded by the city of Chester and had previously been managed by a local non-profit - rather poorly it would seem, given its dismal job placement and dropout rates. My employer - Associates for Research in Behavior - took over the city’s contract with the promise of improving outcomes by applying the principles of motivation to the business of training adult students. The main principles were: …
Bottom line: this is doable. Rental income covers the developer’s costs and profit and the ongoing building management and rental subsidy cost per resident is just $1103 a month. A few years ago, the average cost of supportive housing in San Francisco was $17,353 a year per person. Given Bay Area inflation rates, let’s say it’s $24,000 now, or $2000 a month. The above scheme is a lot cheaper. Now if only local politics would align with my vision.
Straight off the street, no money, get a totally subsidized 8x10 SRO, with bathrooms down the hall. Those with at least $600 for monthly rent could get a studio. Couples with at least $600 for rent each would qualify for bigger studios or a small one-bedroom apartment. All in the same building, as an incentive for individuals to aspire for something better, something that is within reach, and with help available (e.g. completing benefit paperwork, arranging monthly rent transfers).
I’m starting this What If thought experiment with a What Is. Specifically, what is the current breakdown of US electricity generation by source, amount, and share? Glad you asked…
Here’s what the Audubon Society has to say about Working Lands:
“Working lands represent one of the best hopes for conservation. These parcels of forests, ranches, and farms add up to roughly a billion acres—or about half the land in the entire Lower 48 states. Audubon collaborates with landowners, land managers, government agencies, and private industry across the hemisphere to increase the quality of habitat on privately managed lands to benefit 20 flagship bird species. Audubon also helps landowners and land managers apply bird-friendly practices on their lands and develop market-based solutions to build economic incentives that have the potential to engage many more landowners.”