Debunking Wage Average Meme Panel

Using GPT and IRS data from 2021, I evaluated the accuracy of a meme panel. The bottom line is that the meme panel captures the spirit of income inequality but substantially exaggerates the numbers. 

Here is the real data:



Here is the meme panel. Notice that it deducts counts of individuals, not percentages as above. This makes the meme panel less correct.



And, here is the entire calculation:



Here is the raw data:


It came from THIS PAGE.

Trump's Declared Policies 2024 and Their Consequences (spoiler: Bad)

With help from my favorite AI, I extracted specifics from this article by David French. If the people of America could somehow understand what this monster has planned, he would be run out of town on a rail.

You Want Policies? Trump’s Got Policies.

"Donald Trump’s policy initiatives for a potential second term are rife with unintended adverse consequences — which, in less charitable terms, could be described as deliberate attempts to delude the electorate."

Summary:

1. **Mass Deportation of Undocumented Immigrants**:

   - Economic disruption due to loss of labor in key industries.

     - *Example: Deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants could result in a loss of $1.6 trillion from the U.S. economy over 10 years (Peterson Institute for International Economics).*

   - Negative impact on U.S. workers' employment and wages.

     - *Example: For every one million undocumented workers deported, 88,000 U.S. native workers could lose their jobs, leading to a cumulative loss of 263,000 jobs per year (Clemens, Peterson Institute for International Economics).*

   - Reduction in consumer demand, leading to further economic decline.

     - *Example: Businesses in immigrant-heavy communities could see a drop in sales, leading to closures and a decline in local economic activity (East et al., "The Labor Market Effects of Immigration Enforcement").*

   - Social and community disruption, especially in areas with mixed-status families.

     - *Example: Deportations could lead to thousands of U.S. citizen children being placed in foster care as their undocumented parents are removed (Clemens, Peterson Institute for International Economics).*


2. **Imposition of a 10% Across-the-Board Tariff on All Imported Products**:

   - Increase in consumer prices, disproportionately affecting low-income households.

     - *Example: Tariffs could raise consumer costs by $320 for the bottom income quintile and up to $2,250 for the fourth quintile annually (Tax Policy Center).*

   - Potential for a severe global trade war, leading to further economic downturn.

     - *Example: A global trade war could result in the stock market dropping by 11.5%, wiping out $4.12 trillion in market value (Weinstein, Columbia University).*

   - Negative impact on U.S. export industries due to exchange rate effects.

     - *Example: U.S. income could be 3% lower due to the trade war, reflecting reduced competitiveness of American goods abroad (Weinstein, Columbia University).*

   - Long-term damage to global trade systems and economic efficiency.

     - *Example: The reorganization of global value chains could lead to a costly shift away from efficiency, harming long-term economic growth (Weinstein, Columbia University).*


3. **Making the 2017 Tax Cuts Permanent**:

   - Greater financial benefit to the wealthy, with minimal impact on lower-income groups.

     - *Example: Those in the top 0.1% would receive a $278,240 annual tax cut, while those in the bottom quintile would get only $130 (Tax Policy Center).*

   - Net loss for 80% of the population when combined with the effects of higher consumer prices due to tariffs.

     - *Example: A family in the bottom income quintile could face a net loss of $190 annually after accounting for a $320 increase in costs and a $130 tax cut (Tax Policy Center).*

   - Increased federal budget deficits over the next decade.

     - *Example: Trump’s tax and spending proposals could increase the federal deficit by $4.1 trillion over the next 10 years (Penn Wharton Budget Model).*


4. **Increased White House Influence Over Monetary Policy**:

   - Risk of politically motivated monetary decisions that could harm the economy.

     - *Example: Politically driven monetary policy could lead to inflation, with costs akin to those faced by Argentina, where inflation rates exceeded 50% annually during economic crises (Aaron, Brookings Institution).*

   - Potential for inflation and economic instability, drawing comparisons to historical economic crises in other countries.

     - *Example: The U.S. could experience severe economic instability, potentially resulting in double-digit inflation and high unemployment rates similar to those seen in the 1970s (Aaron, Brookings Institution).*


5. **Cutting Off Federal Funding to Schools with Vaccine or Mask Mandates**:

   - Increased risk of outbreaks of preventable diseases in schools.

     - *Example: Cutting federal funds could lead to a resurgence of diseases like measles, which had a 90% infection rate among unvaccinated individuals exposed during outbreaks (Skocpol, Harvard University).*

   - Potential public health crisis, leading to higher child mortality and disrupted education.

     - *Example: School outbreaks of preventable diseases could result in the deaths of hundreds of children and widespread school closures, disrupting education for millions (Skocpol, Harvard University).*

   - Deepening divisions within communities over public health measures.

     - *Example: Communities could become polarized, with heated conflicts over school health policies leading to social unrest and deteriorating public trust (Skocpol, Harvard University).*




We need another two million illegal immigrants each year to keep our society healthy.

Someone replied to my appreciation of Kamala with disparaging comments about "millions of illegal aliens". Even at first blush, this is this simply silly. There are only around 500k net illegal immigrants, coming and going, each year. But more importantly, we *want* lots and lots more immigrants and, in my view, the illegal ones are the best kind.

This analysis by the Wharton School (link below) shows why. The problem is that Americans are not reproducing enough to support us in the future. You can read it if you want but the bottom line is the ratio of old people to young people will go bad. Then we will not have enough young people working to keep the entire society operational.

Since immigrants are overwhelmingly young people, Wharton goes on to calculate how many immigrants we need to restore the ratio of young to old to the correct value (they explain how they figure out 'correct'). The report has many details but the bottom line is:

Immigration quotas need to increase by a factor of 3.5. Presently, the quote is around a million people per year. They calculate that we need 3.5 MILLION IMMIGRANTS PER YEAR.

The second part of this story is my opinion alone. Legal immigration favors people who can afford a plane ticket. That is, relatively rich people. In my experience, relatively rich people are lazy and feckless. They do not tend to value hard work, contribution to society and the importance of mutual reliance in community.

On the other hand, people who are willing to risk everything by taking a dangerous and arduous journey that includes a terrifying hike through a desert, show the kind of grit, energy, courage and determination that I think America needs more than anything.

America was built by immigrants but by immigrants that more closely resembled today's illegal kind that the legal ones. To get here in 1900 meant a horrible journey in a disgusting ship. It meant arriving in a place with essentially no services, a ton of discrimination and being absolutely cut off from any support or comfort from home. It took enormous courage to immigrate then as it does for illegal immigrants today.

Those are the kinds of people America needs. Today we have one million rich people and only 500k poor ones coming here. We need another two million illegal immigrants each year to keep our society healthy.

https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2024/3/22/us-demographic-projections-with-and-without-immigration

The Second Amendment is as Dangerous as the First

Reason Magazine is usually wrong and it is in this case, too. People do not want "fewer rights". I don't even think they want to censor views they do not like. Much like they do not actually want to take your gun away, people see that the first and second amendment are dangerous because they enable terrible new capabilities based on modern technology.. 


Polls consistently say that guns with high capacity for murder should be banned. They don't want guns banned, they want the ability to have and use them make sense.


Nobody yet does a poll that asks if anyone should be able to tell lies to tens of millions of people a hundred times a day for free but, if they did, they would find that protecting this is where people think the first amendment goes too far.


They don't want free speech banned but they do not want society to be destroyed by billionaires able to flood the information space and corporations providing the free ability for any asshole to manipulate millions without any consequences.


High capacity guns. Free internet reach to millions. The second amendment in the lunatic view of the 'originalist' Supreme Court has led the way to an absolutist view on the first amendment that is equally dangerous.


And that doesn't even mention the 'freedom of religion' clause that has been interpreted to mean religious people get to use modern institutions and technology to force religion on the rest of us.


https://reason.com/2024/08/03/more-than-half-of-americans-think-the-first-amendment-provides-too-many-rights/

In TRUMP v. UNITED STATES, the United States loses

In the suit, TRUMP v. UNITED STATES, the Supreme Court decided against the United States. The decision (HERE) is a calamity.

Though it does not actually say the president cannot be charged with a crime, it sets a ridiculously high bar for doing so: "The President must therefore be immune from prosecution for an official act unless the Government can show that applying a criminal prohibition to that act would pose no 'dangers of intrusion on the authority and functions of the Executive Branch.'"

Since the entire purpose of a law is to 'intrude on the authority and function' of a criminal, it's almost a tautology. If the president does it, it's not a crime.

It's made worse, though, because this bunch of corrupt assholes leaves a loophole. Despite their absolute-sounding language, they say that it might be okay to interfere with a president. And they say that they will decide, based on no expressed principles, when that occurs. Would this court find a prosecution less likely to interfere with the "authority and function" of a Democratic president? Could be.

Actually, the court says that the presumption of immunity does not apply to unofficial acts. I guess that might mean that a president could, after being out of office, be charged with theft if he left a restaurant without paying. Whether that's the case, however, would also be decided by the new king-makers of the court.

And they make clear that it's very unlikely that a president is ever unofficial. They explain that talking to the public is presumed to be official. If a government official is involved, it's official. They make clear that it really would have to be theft in a restaurant and not much more.

For good measure, they also categorically exclude official acts (determined by them) as evidence of a crime. The example in the dissent is, a bribe having been received, the discussion with the government person implementing the purchased activity is official and cannot be brought into evidence.

The dissent reminds us that the Framers were explicitly clear that the president is subject to law. They saw no reason to think that the president should not do his or her job with a clear eye on what is legal or how this could reduce the effectiveness of governance.

The majority says that it is important that a president need never fear pernicious prosecution for fear of political retribution, i.e., what Trump wants to do. The dissent observes the obvious fact that every prosecution has to get past a judge and for a president, there would be grand juries, interlocutory appeals out the ass, trials, appeals, all of the structure of justice that would stand in the way of abuse.

Justice Barrett, who is showing signs of decency, concurs with the decision but disagrees with its main conclusion. She would, instead, create a premise for pretrial appeal (interlocutory judgment) to determine if charges were applicable to the president. She doesn't discuss the majority premise, "must be immune," but she disagrees with the prohibition on using evidence derived from official acts and that makes me think she might be choosing not to rock the boat in a decision where her vote is not dispositive.

Justice Sotomayor is outraged and brings us to the conclusion that I think is correct: "The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority's reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution.

Orders the Navy's Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority's message today."

I dissent.


Dangers of Universal Camera Surveillance

I found this excellent analysis of The Dangers of Surveillance. 

The following AI written list of harms that could result from universal camera surveillance matches my understanding from reading the article:


  • Severe chilling effect on behavior and intellectual freedom: People would likely alter their public behavior and activities, knowing they are constantly being watched. This could stifle creativity, free expression, and the development of diverse or unconventional ideas.

  • Erosion of privacy in public spaces: Universal camera observation would effectively eliminate the concept of privacy in any public area, fundamentally changing the nature of public life and social interactions.

  • Increased potential for abuse of power: With access to comprehensive visual data on citizens' movements and activities, the government would have unprecedented power to track, profile, and potentially manipulate individuals.

  • Risk of selective enforcement and discrimination: The vast amount of visual data could be used to selectively target certain individuals or groups for law enforcement or other government actions.

  • Threat to anonymous speech and association: Universal observation would make it extremely difficult for people to engage in anonymous political or social activities, potentially undermining democratic participation.

  • Creation of a permanent, searchable record of public life: This could be used for retroactive surveillance or investigation, creating a chilling effect even for past actions.

  • Potential for data breaches or misuse: The massive database of visual information could be vulnerable to hacking, leaks, or misuse by government employees.

  • Normalization of surveillance: Ubiquitous government cameras could lead to greater acceptance of surveillance in general, potentially opening the door to even more invasive forms of monitoring.

  • Inhibition of intellectual privacy in public spaces: People might feel less free to read certain materials, have sensitive conversations, or engage in intellectual exploration in public areas.

  • Psychological impact: The constant feeling of being watched could lead to increased stress, anxiety, and self-censorship among the population.


    • Never Talk About God in Public, Part 2

    You know how I could get in trouble if I were to go up to a woman at work and start talking about how lovely her tits are? That's not because her tits aren't lovely or that I mean anything nasty. It's just that so many men have complimented women on their bodies in ways that are demeaning or threatening that most women are immediately repelled if you say something nice about their tits.

    Also, you are feeling kind of creeped out because I used the word 'tits' three times and, even though it is a perfectly fine contraction of the word 'teats', common usage has made in an uncomfortable word.

    Your Messiah (and pretty much all the religions at one time or another) is like that for a lot of people. So many people have conducted Inquisitions and witch burnings and justified taking away women's reproductive autonomy while talking about their god that it has become creepy. Even when they weren't doing violence, they were telling all of us we were going to hell, a lot.

    So, your public expressions of religion are, like the word tits, are tarred by the brush wielded by your co-religionists.

    But with religion, it has another important facet. Your assertions about the glory of God, as benign as you mean them to be, are also, intrinsically because of the very definition of 'god' an assertion that the God I worship is not real, or right, or allowable.

    You, being you, don't intend that. One reason that I don't really object to your protestations anymore is that I know you are just kind of going on about it without any real intention toward the rest of us. The problem is, just as with my perfectly kind observations about tits, that ship has sailed.

    As you said, I "already got that message from somebody else." It's been said enough that, when you bring it up, you may as well be saying it.

    Further, religious assertions are always as much an assertion that my religious assertions are wrong as they are anything else. Religious kindnesses are creepy and inappropriate because it is talking about a person's intimate feelings. Think about how you felt when I did my rap above talking about the falsity of your God. That's how everyone feels if they are paying attention when someone else proclaims a different religious belief.

    I do not want it banned, any more than I want talking about tits banned. I want it to be formally disallowed. I talk about Debbie's tits all the time, often in lurid terms (she's got great ones!). It's fine. She has given me permission. But, if I talk about some young woman's tits at work, she can sue me, not for the word, for creating a hostile workplace. In a restaurant, not for the word, but for harassment.

    I think talking about religion should be like that. I think that talking about religion should be considered to be as sensitive as talking about the virtues of a woman's body. It is my view that having to listen to religion in the workplace (I had a coworker once, don't get me started) should be grounds for hostile workplace action. I think talking to a person about religion with their active consent, should be actionable as harassment.

    I am completely enthusiastic about your desire to enjoy your religious views. I want you to go to church and, with all the people who have agreed to talk about it, go crazy. I just don't want to hear it and I think society would be much, much, much better off if we took it out of the public conversation.

    Never Talk About God in Public

    It is the nature of gods and belief in them, to assert their 'rightness'. You think your 'god' is *the* god. All the good religions assert that their god is the only one and that failing to adhere to dogma is blasphemy.

    Christians and Moslems think that having beliefs in a different god is a crime, based on the idea that expressing said different beliefs is heresy. This is premised on the idea that me claiming that I have the *only* God is exactly the same as saying that *your* god is not real. Your claim about your god reciprocates.

    Which is to say that you making the claim about the supremacy of "THE awesome G-d" is also a statement that *my* God is false. I think saying that is rude and inappropriate. That it is often couched in the former, sneakier, phrase makes no difference.

    In fact, I claim that it's worse. On the one side, you are attacking and undermining my God. On the other, you are trying to take me away from it, too.

    See it this way. When I say that my God is the opposite of your god and that it is a supernatural fantasy responsible for a huge amount of negative results in the world from the Inquisition to the abuse of gay people, you want to fight me. You think I am using the word 'god' as a cover to attack your belief.

    And you're right. It's my view that talking about one's god is *always* an attack on the beliefs of people who have a different view. Always and intrinsically. That's why I take such a harsh attitude about religiosity in public I find it deeply offensive.

    Taylor Gets the Treatment, Again

    And so, Taylor gets the treatment again. Two years after her previous one, she releases a new album, Tortured Poets Department, and, again, the poopy meta analysis begins. Too this. Too little that. So much. So soon. So so so. Couldn't she just be less?

    Here's what I think: Her fans love it. That's all that matters and, if you're not a fan just shut the hell up. The NY Times puts this on the front page. More negative click bait.

    The first time I listened to the album, it felt long. The second time, less so. Then a friend noted four tracks she liked and I listened to them several times. And here's the thing about Taylor Swift, each time I listened to them, I liked them more. I've listened more to others since.

    Previously, I wondered, are any of them going to be caught in my head on repeat like Love Store or Blank Space do? Each time I listened, I noted an interesting little hook. Felt the frisson as I recognized a moment where she had captured another subtle idea in a sweet turn of phrase.

    She will tell you herself that her most important art form is lyric. I think that's fair. I don't think she's ever going to be compared, on a strictly music level with, say, Lennon/McCartney, Irving Berlin or Brian Wilson, people who were innovators in music style and structure, per se. But, listen to the song Fortnight a couple of times and I don't believe anyone who loves music can come away with anything short of delight and a tune stuck in your head, on repeat.

    This article is bullshit. The songs, one by one or in a group, are lovely. Taylor is a force of nature. I consider having discovered her from a fan perspective to be a huge gift to my life. I have another thing to enjoy and she is good.


    Joanna Newsom

    James,

    So, I dug into Joanna Newsom and am thrilled. It reminds me of when I discovered Katherine Ryan and was astonished to find this brilliant person who is a big deal just a little bit out of my sight. That I have never, ever heard of Newsom before shows how difficult it is to know what's going on even in a fully connected world.

    I listened to a bunch of her music and then some interviews and then a charming ten minute vid of her husband, Andy Samberg (as you doubtless know) talking about how much he loves her and how cool she is. All made me love her, too. She will now always be on my attention list.

    All that said, it's pretty easy to understand why she isn't extremely popular. Her music is mostly pretty weird. On the first couple of vids I watched, I couldn't understand anything about what she was doing. I couldn't understand the words (I later learned that she is often doing a sort of beat poetry and, once I learned not to interpret in sentences, it worked better for me). Her music is very spiky and unconventional. Also, and this is trivial, her facial contortions as she forms her very strange vocal style is hard to interpret.

    Fortunately, she came with your recommendation so I kept at it and learned enough to begin to understand what she is doing, to understand the semantics of her style, build enough familiarity that I could start to categorize and feel in ways that build meaning for me. I learned and conclude that she is free, innovative, expressive beyond belief. Her music is unusual but interesting as hell and, often, once I got used to it, lovely. Not only that, she's not talking about the commonplace crap that most are.

    As much as I admire Taylor Swift, she is speaking a truth that resonates with her audience, like her and the audience are matched tuning forks. Her virtue is (partly) the accuracy and cleverness with which she evokes the experiences of a young women in America.

    Joanna, of course, is not part of any kind of resonance system. She seems intensely determined to avoid the road most traveled, less Robert Frost, more Alan Ginsburg, in her lyrics. I'm not musically literate enough to to make a similar comparison for music but it's there. Her tunes are often arhythmic and melodies disjoint and surprising. I think she might be the most creative musician I know about. Hell, the most creative person.

    As I write this, I am listening to her tunes. During that last paragraph, I was especially charmed by the song. It was a little more melodic (which is good for me) and the lyric pronounced a little more clearly (most of her songs I need lyrics on to know what she says) and, as I wrote, I thought, Gotta look at the song title after I finish this paragraph. Amusingly, it was named Emily.

    Anyway, thanks for the reference. Made for a fine Saturday night and great addition to my playlist.