It’s not exactly surprising that unarmed police are less likely to kill than armed police. But that’s not what the authors are saying. They’re saying that police killings inevitably happen more in countries with armed police, simply because the police are armed. They do not acknowledge that police killings are also rare in several countries that do arm their police. For instance…
The authors of the above study define police violence as “police-related altercations leading to death or bodily harm”. Of the three non-governmental databases they use to estimate the true extent of police violence in the USA, Fatal Encounters (FE) is by far the biggest. Here is more on the FE data, provided by the authors in their Supplementary Material…
Create incentives and remove disincentives for affordable housing alternatives in the private rental and owner-occupied sectors. People will resist moving out of social housing without having a decent place to move to…Overcome the potential employment disincentives created by hard income limits for tenancy. Instead, allow tenants to remain in social housing as they climb the socioeconomic ladder, setting rents proportional to the household’s income at all levels while ensuring rent increases are always much less than any increase in income. As tenants’ rents increase, they will eventually approach market-rate levels, creating an incentive for the better-off tenants to transition out of social housing.
Social housing is rental housing provided at sub-market rates and allocated according to specific rules of eligibility for prospective tenants. Most social housing developments target vulnerable communities, such as refugees, the elderly, disabled persons, and low-income households (OECD, 2020). Social housing used to be called “public housing” in the US, but that term became associated with all sorts of bad things so it’s gotten a name change. No matter what you call it, new social housing is back on the policy to-do list in many countries, especially those with a dearth of affordable housing.
Not all low-income households having rent trouble are good candidates for social housing. Some are just going through a rough patch or are young adults living on the wild side. Some are students with excellent job prospects once they finish school. Others simply wouldn’t be interested or have decent options if things really get bleak, like move back in with the folks for a year or two. The individuals most likely to benefit from social housing are those with few options, who have serious barriers to decent-paying work, such as disability, or are single parents with limited earning capacity. But social housing isn’t the only solution for these individuals. There are plenty of other safety net programs that might be a better fit for them, from food stamps to tax credits to housing vouchers. (And if I had my way, an Adult Student Basic Income. But that's another story). Social housing is an expensive and risky investment that should only be considered as a last resort for the chronically cost-burdened.
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is carried out by the US Census Bureau on behalf of the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). This annual survey collects data on violent, property, and hate crime victimizations, both reported and not reported to the police…According to the just released BJS report Hate Crime Victimization, 2005-2019, violent hate crime victimizations accounted for 1.0% of all nonfatal crime victimizations in 2019.
As it is, most US employees do not find their jobs engaging - just 36% according to a recent Gallup poll. But that turns out to be over twice as high as the global average. And US employee engagement has been rising steadily over the past decade, in contrast to what’s happening in the rest of the world, including Europe. Even in Germany employee engagement has been flat since 2001 and is now a dismal 17%, according to Gallup's 2020 survey.
Wellbeing is often described as a combination of happiness and life satisfaction, although some criticize the focus on feeling good as rather shallow , favoring instead a concept of wellbeing that recognizes the value of living a meaningful life. However, it may be too much to expect people to live both feel-good and meaningful lives. Sure, a good number do manage that trick (at least if you read their posts and obituaries) but many don’t - largely because what makes people happy or satisfied tends not to be what makes their lives meaningful. Here’s a summary of some relevant research…
I live in Alameda County California, across the Bay from San Francisco. Alameda County has the fifth largest homeless population in the US and the fourth highest percentage of homeless individuals who are unsheltered. …Clearly, Alameda County is doing something wrong – but what?
In a search for answers, I Googled “US cities where homelessness is declining” and came up with Houston, where the homeless population has more than halved since 2011.
President Biden's national “clean energy standard” aims to zero out greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the power sector by 2035. This would be mostly achieved through through a mix of renewable energy, carbon capture, and nuclear power. Unfortunately, we don’t yet have the technological know-how to make this happen.
In 2016, the American Dialect Society (ADS) recognized the word "gaslight" as the "Most Useful" new word of the year. Sure, the word had become near-ubiquitous by then, but that just made it widespread. Why did so many people find it so useful?
Spin misleads readers to impress or persuade them, often with the aid of buzz-words like “innovative”, “promising”, “unique”, “robust”, and “novel”. But spin is not just a matter of self-promoting hype – it’s a form of dishonest scholarship that undermines the scientific enterprise. Here are some examples…
Don’t make promises on the assumption it will all work out…Don’t make promises based on speculative theories that haven’t been tested…Don’t make promises on the assumption you can retract the promise later without serious repercussions…
Other than climate change, at least four factors contribute to the growing cost of weather-related events in the US: increasing density of coastal populations, exceptionally high inflation in the construction industry, rising value of assets, and changes in crop insurance.
So, what does one do with this assertion of fact? Some options: 1) investigate the claim and remain noncommittal about its truth-value until questions are answered to your satisfaction (if they ever are); 2) register the claim as a possible fact but remain noncommittal about its truth-value. Reject further investigation as too time consuming: 3) accept the claim as true or true-enough, and leave it at that: and, 4) accept the claim as plausible, which is good enough to present it as established fact in the service of some higher purpose… Reject further investigation as quibbling about details and overlooking the bigger picture.
Are the costs of weather-related damage going up because the weather in the US has gotten worse? For example:
Are hurricanes more powerful or frequent?
Are heatwaves longer or more intense?
Are droughts getting longer or more frequent?
Are high precipitation events wetter or more frequent?
The Our World in Data website has tons of data pertinent to these questions, summarized in a series of charts. First, trends in hurricane activity…
Both articles seemed to suggest that, thanks to climate change, weather-related damage is on the rise in the US and the increased cost of this damage is due mostly to changes in the weather and not to factors unrelated to the weather, such as trends in population density or the value of assets in climate-vulnerable areas. Is this actually the case?
As part of its discussion of possible climate futures, the 2021 report assesses the climate response to five illustrative scenarios called shared socio-economic pathways, or SSPs. The SSPs differ in their estimated trajectories of emissions and consequent global warming…
Trust is science is a good thing, right? Maybe, maybe not. Consider…
…But these figures are averages across all respondents and they obscure large partisan differences. For instance, 76% of Republicans/Republican Leaners indicated they had “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the police, compared to just 31% of their Democratic counterparts. Here’s more: