What causes drug abuse and how to stop it?

http://chasingthescream.com/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/portugal-drug-decriminalization/

I saw this guy (J Hari) on Maher last night and was pretty impressed with his reporting on the Western approach to the drug war, and how we totally botched it. It's pretty well-established that the US method of heavy-handedly attacking the supply and harshly punishing the consumers is an utter, expensive failure. We need to address demand, but what is the right approach - education, medical treatment, intervention?

Hari is saying that those responses could help, but they don't get at the root cause. Drug abuse is mostly driven by psychological distress due to environmental-social factors. Racism, violence, lack of economic opportunity, low self-esteem, alienation, and other negative influences lead an individual to turn to drugs for escapism, pleasure, release, etc. If a person has a comfortable home, decent job, loving family and community, and safe/positive surroundings, there is a very low chance that they will abuse drugs (unless they happen to be the minority of us who truly have an addictive biology, but then they would likely become addicted to something legal like booze or shopping).

Why is it that US drug abuse is highest in lower-income, at-risk communities and the youth? I think Rx drug abuse (which is a much bigger problem than illegal drug abuse) could be a different story, because that might be driven by over-prescription of those drugs by our health system. And since they're synthetic compounds, it's possible that the drug companies have engineered them to be very potent (and potentially addictive). But I'm not sure. Heroin is unanimously seen as the most addictive illegal drug, yet people get it legally all the time in the form of medical morphine. Anyone who has had an operation doesn't become a heroin addict, so the drug itself is not inherently the problem.

Portugal used to be the European nation with the worst drug problem (an estimated 1% of the adult pop. using). It is also a fairly poor and underdeveloped nation by EU standards. They tried the "US way" for fighting drugs, and it failed of course. So in 2001 they decided to scrap it - decriminalize ALL drugs and use the law enf. money on rehab and social development instead. Of course the conservatives predicted that all hell would break loose. But a decade later, needle drug use was down 50%, and so were OD deaths and drug-related HIV infections. Abusers were given medical rehab, but also given access to jobs, education, housing, etc. The former abusers were treated like humans and given a life, not like American convicts who are labeled as junkies and thrown in with the murderers and rapists. The Portuguese who employed and housed addicts were compensated by the gov't. It can work. A lot of the previous detractors came around and admitted that they were dead wrong.

Look at the countries with the worst substance abuse problems:

• Iran (heroin) - crippling sanctions and a repressive, fundamentalist gov't
• Russia (booze) - huge wealth inequality, corruption, and poor life prospects for many (interestingly the UK is also a big booze abuser)
• Latin America (meth) - huge wealth inequality and gang-police violence
• Afghanistan (heroin) - war, poverty, corruption, and fundamentalism
• US (mixed) - fairly large wealth inequality, some communities with racism/violence

So maybe the solution for winning the war on drugs has nothing to do with drugs. Just fix society to be more just, inclusive, safe, and prosperous - even for the most lowly among us. Actually I think a lot of ills could be indirectly fixed with that approach.

Climate change defeatism

I know we've talked about climate change for years, and of course it's only getting worse. It has been more in my consciousness recently because I had some class projects on it, and it seems to be in my News Feed a lot.

From the little I know, unfortunately I think it's too fucking late. Many of the underlying mechanisms are positive feedback loops, so it makes it even harder to reverse them - even if we had the social consensus and investments. Deforestation, reduced food production, and more and more resources wasted on extreme weather/fire/sea level responses - it will likely be more crippling on humanity than the aging Baby Boomers. 

People in our situations will likely have decent lives in spite of climate change. We have the mobility and resources to avoid a lot of the pains. But billions of others are not so lucky, and many species will die out or be decimated in our lifetimes too. Species that never meant humans any harm. They just want to live and we took that from them.

So even though we may not suffer much directly, we will have to live with the shame that we presided over the biggest environmental calamity since the meteor that wiped out the dinos. Clearly, industrialized humans have been the worse thing for the planet. All because of the pursuit of wealth (or pursuit of happiness/survival). So future humans will look back at us the way we look at the Nazis or Crusaders. That is just pitiful to me.

Of course most of this is on the Boomers instead of the younger generations, but we weren't strong enough to overthrow those fucks and course correct. We want to be like them, that is the problem.

Do you have any thoughts on this stuff? Sorry for being so negative, but it's hard to feel upbeat about anything when you look at the various data. Sure, I do believe humans will find cost-effective ways to get renewable energy, protect coastal cities, grow food with a smaller environmental footprint, and conserve way better. But those things just make our lives more comfortable - they don't do much for the poor or the various species/ecosystems under threat.

PS - maybe you saw this how Gates is telling China's mega rich to help the poor. What do you think about wealth inequality in China vs. the west? Can China's social structure survive more decades of inflation, environmental degradation, construction bubble, and a growing wealth gap?

------

From what I understand, major changes to the global climate are now more or less inevitable. Maybe I'm behind on the science, but I also thought that we can still mitigate the damage somewhat? 

Of course a lot of the damage due to climate change is senseless and was avoidable, but to the extent that it wasn't avoidable, I don't think we can be too hard on ourselves. The best we can do is mitigate it and teach our children to do better. Maybe I've gotten too cynical, but I never really expected humanity to do much about it. If you follow politics closely, it's basically just a series of leaders kicking the can down the road on hard decisions. 

The EU did that with the financial crisis, it's estimated that as a result of the German's need to "teach the Greeks a lesson," (in reality the problems had nothing to do with the average Greek citizen) millions of people have been out of work, had their soul crushed, and been made to feel worthless in Europe  and tens of thousands have committed suicide that otherwise wouldn't have: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/world/europe/increasingly-in-europe-suicides-by-economic-crisis.html?pagewanted=all

In the US, national single payer health care, if instituted any of the earlier junctures in which it was attempted to pass, would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives over the years, and even with Obamacare, lack of a truly comprehensive health care system will kill untold thousands more (http://www.pnhp.org/facts/a-brief-history-universal-health-care-efforts-in-the-us).

Poverty in the US was once thought to be possible to eradicate, and in fact we once came pretty close with the Great Society program. But thanks to Reagan, we do too little to actually fix the problem, and as a result hundreds of thousands go hungry, homeless, and lack adequate health care and social services on a daily basis. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States The estimated cost to fix this is a trivial percent of the cost of what we spent on Iraq and only a smallish sliver of our annual defense budget.

I don't bring these up to be overly pessimistic, but I guess I see these problems as much more directly impactful on society than climate change and we can't even remove vested interests from them (or only with a lot of effort, see Obamacare) to make any headway. I think climate change is one of those things where people in society feel that they can "make a difference" more than these other problems above by buying a more fuel-efficient car, recycling, etc. and of course it gets a lot of messaging on lefty blogs/news sources. And it definitely should - it is an important issue.

But at the same time I feel like there are these issues where people are suffering /now/, where society could do something, but because the people are poor or invisible, we don't do anything. And that's what really breaks my heart. 

As for China, I think the Chinese are getting more altruistic, and that's a good thing. I think that one of the ironic things about Communism was that if you wanted to survive, you, by necessity, had to look out for number one - if you cared about anyone else's survival, you might starve or really go without. That carried over after the reform era began but things are changing. A new generation is growing up that has seen the excesses of development and want to do something about it. Still, they're a ways from Western level of altruism and I think there's a lot less trust of NGOs in China than there are in the US (and rightfully so - even supposedly well run US NGOs waste a lot of their money).

------

Re: China - is there a similar tension between the 1% and 99% like we see in places like the US and Brazil? Or do the poor kind of accept that the connected elites in the Party hoard all the money too? I just don't know if there is much culture of sharing in China, as you said. Especially with the rapid transition from Great Leap to #2 economy, now it's all about "me" and conspicuous consumption, etc. Luxury brands now say that China is their key market, right? Also, Beijing gives way less foreign aid relative to its GDP vs. others in the G20. I guess you could call their projects in the 3rd world "aid" - securing resources rights by giving Congo a shitty dam or railway that is shoddy and won't add much value to the host nation (plus it's all built by immigrant Chinese, so it doesn't produce much vocational training, jobs, and economic activity for the locals - hence the resentment by the locals).

Wow, I didn't know about the Greece suicide data, that is really sad. I agree that the social problems you mentioned are more easily and cheaply fixed than climate change, and could save more lives. I also agree that we really had a chance with LBJ and the Great Society to wipe out poverty and have a more fair, humane nation. All the conditions were right, but he got sidetracked with Vietnam and then stagflation-oil embargo-Iran hit us, and the GOP got to take over and dismantle some of the progress. IMO, we'll never get such an opportunity again. It's not just you; we're all more cynical with harder hearts these days I think.

But re: climate change, I would have hoped for more traction/progress, because unlike poverty/inequality issues, it's not about "why should the rich help the needy?" Climate change is both a threat and opportunity for the rich. Do they want their kids to be subjected to superstorms and droughts for perpetuity? And those extreme events wreak havoc on the stability of global markets and their investments. Lastly, climate change is a huge opportunity too (industries to either mitigate or adapt to it). It's a trillion dollar problem with huge profits to be made for the first movers - so why haven't we seen it (apart from the impressive advances in solar, and energy efficiency for some products)? 

I forget which NYT journalist said it, but his comment was along the lines of "lightbulbs aren't going to solve climate change." There is only so much a conscientious consumer can do. Sure we can get a Prius, improve our home's insulation, and change some of our behaviors, but even if millions of us had the money/time to make those changes, it would barely affect the carbon situation. The main drivers are deforestation, agribusiness, and power generation. Huge, politically connected, int'l industries where only coalitions of governments have enough power and reach to move them (if they wanted to). Sure, consumers en masse could give up beef or boycott Indonesia until their economy stops burning rainforest - but we know it won't happen because we are addicted to carbon-intensive products and services.

Bottom line, climate change could eat up 10% or more of global GDP, and reduce crops/fish yields by 20% or more. That is freaking scary. With a growing population and more consumption in Asia, something's gotta give. All the conflicts that could arise due to climate-related problems could also eat up gov't resources, attention, and lives. So overall it's a major deadweight loss for humanity, and likely irreversible at this point.

Silicon Valley as a preview of America's future, for better or worse

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/FEDERAL-JUDGE-NSA-Program-Exposed-By-Snowden-5069183.php

First of all, is Snowden the runaway favorite for person of the year 2013? I can't think of anyone else who affected US society more (and likely for the better). A Federal judge ruled that the arbitrary, blanket collection of Americans' phone metadata is likely unconstitutional (unreasonable search, violation of reasonable expectations of privacy) and ineffective (no clear evidence it was critical to preventing attacks). Of course the WH and NSA disagree.

----

http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechconsidered/2013/12/16/251608120/exploring-economic-inequality-from-heart-of-the-tech-boom

NPR is starting a series on Si Valley as a microcosm for the changing US economy and society. We've addressed some of these issues before regarding wealth inequality and the Bay Area housing market. Apparently some protesters recently blocked a Google bus in SF, complaining that the private buses were using MUNI stops without paying the city any fees. It's clearly part of a bigger sentiment of resentment, and part of the general debate regarding who is taking more of their fair share from society. Should those being priced out of SF "get with the program" and develop the skills needed to be able to afford living there? Or should the tech elites come down from their privileged position in society and contribute their fair share to helping the less fortunate? Or both?

As a tech employee (peon status) and longtime CA resident, I am really torn by all of this. I don't want the Bay Area to become "Facebookville" or "Elysium" where droves of poor, bitter service workers support the aloof upper class minority. But then again, we depend on disruption, competition, and innovation to win in the market, or we will suffer the same fate as Detroit. I think we can innovate and win, but also spread the benefits around so that the entire region and populace is better off. Yes, the rich should be taxed more.

Disruption is a double-edged sword. A dedicated team works like hell to address an unmet need or overcome some entrenched inefficiency, so they and their investors can be paid handsomely for it. But the industry that they just rendered obsolete is made up of people with families that depend on them. Through no fault of their own, they were disrupted out of a paycheck. A generation ago, all signs pointed to machinist or travel agent being good, stable careers with great ROI for the required education. But innovation changed the equation faster than most could adapt.

Now car services like Uber are getting rave reviews from customers, media, and generating decent financials. But what if they render thousands of low-skilled immigrant cab drivers out of a job? What if the Google self-driving car renders the Uber drivers out of a job? In some cases it is a zero-sum game, even if the metrics suggest that society overall is "better off". Does one new billionaire created compensate for 1,000 families who just got the American Dream taken from them? Everyone seems to celebrate the "winners" without considering the collateral damage. Yes, we need innovation to succeed and even survive in the world. And those who succeed should be rewarded. But what about the everyday folks who, through no fault of their own, get suddenly shifted from middle class to destitution? Do the disruptors (and the traditional companies being replaced) have a social responsibility to help those workers transition to the new reality? Does the government? If so, then I think they should fund such programs from the disruptors' stock gains.

-----

Sort of related (in that it perpetuates the massive inequalities of the Bay Area) is education. M Night Shyamalan just wrote a major book on education (hopefully he doesn't write more and his natural follow-up suck strikes!), and it makes a lot of good points.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/12/m-night-shyamalan-steps-education-wars

Basically, he suggests that our education system is actually great - if you're a a white kid. Our white kids do just as well as the Nordic white kids or other European white kids. But if you're a minority (and, typically, poor), the education system sucks and really drags down our averages. There are a number of ways to address this, but:

1) They take money $$

2) And they mean de-emphasizing putting resources into already highly performing white schools

I've come increasingly to the conclusion that American politics is all about race. I'm sure many of you have seen the research that support for redistribution increases if it is perceived by the voter as going to "someone like them" - i.e. someone of the same race. 

Most people in the Bay Area don't consider themselves racist and it's probably true - in fact, the Bay Area is one of the most diverse areas of the country. But poors in the Bay Area are still "the other" - they didn't go to good schools, they struggle to get by on bad salaries, their unemployment rate is x3 higher than well-educated whites. Basically, their experience is completely alien to most of the tech gods in the Bay Area and their presence is invisible. No surprise then that the tech gods (which have actual power) use little of their capacity to help the poors.

You can imagine the national consternation and outrage by the well-educated press and electorate if the unemployment rate was 20% and transportation and housing ate up 60-70% of the budget of native-born, well educated Americans, yet this is exactly the situation facing a plurality of Bay Area residents - the poors and the immigrants. I guess it's only a crisis for those that are rich. If you're poor and face such circumstances, given the media and elite orientation, it's a statistic and at best regrettable. And the rich wonder why resentment is on the increase...

-----

Thx, J. I agree, but why are non-whites disproportionately poor? Mostly racism. The 1% vs. 99% has also been a pervasive, ubiquitous problem for centuries, but of course the power balance has varied due to historical conditions. As you said, now more than ever gov't is serving the interests of the 1% at the expense of the 99% - and that is a big effing problem that we have to tackle if we care about democracy. But even if we returned to the economic conditions of 1960 when wealth and political power were more evenly distributed, there is the underlying racial problem that Andrew mentioned. Say we repeal Citizens United, reformed the justice system, and made a bunch of other needed changes - it will still be harder for minorities to get ahead. Addressing one problem is not a distraction from the other. Both are critical, somewhat independent, and deserve to be called out separately. There are some solutions that can mitigate both issues (namely taxation and campaign/election reforms), so we could try to prioritize those.

According to this moron, the poor and middle class are doing better than ever, because we are enjoying a "golden age of TV!" So what if I lose my job and get evicted... I can still watch the latest episode of "Duck Dynasty" at the local library's PC lab. Forget the macro indicators, our amazing selection of digital entertainment options makes life more fun!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-02/who-needs-a-raise-when-you-have-tv-.html

------
 

Oh the drama of "bus-gate": http://blogs.kqed.org/newsfix/2013/12/09/google-bus-protest-most-entertaining-moment-was-staged/

Thanks, A. Good to see M. Night making a comeback of sorts, with more social value than "The Happening". Yeah it seems the path to inequality starts from grade school, and maybe even in the womb, as lower income (often minorities) generally don't have access to comparable health, nutrition, and child care as affluent whites. This could set back their development, so that even if they were lucky enough to attend America's best schools, maybe they wouldn't be fully able to take advantage of the opportunity.

It is really sad that the inequality phenomenon has such a racial component. But if a liberal dares to make that claim, you can imagine the reaction from the right (race-baiting, it's a war on white men, etc.). Roberts said that racism is over in America after all. It is especially disappointing that minorities have fallen further behind during the Obama presidency. It's not his fault and it could have been worse under a white GOP president, but Obama's heritage almost blinds America to the fact that tens of millions of minorities are not succeeding despite his meteoric, outlier success. After all, the biggest beneficiaries of US affirmative action historically have been middle class white women. The social programs that disproportionately helped the urban poor are being dismantled in the name of "budget compromise."

On a local level, I don't think the tech giants can fully celebrate their CSM and social impact, when East Palo Alto (10 miles away from FB and GOOG HQs) is still held back by the same problems it faced a decade ago. Richmond and the Tenderloin are a stone's throw away from Twitter and Salesforce. Sure the tech companies engage in their annual "day of caring" and donate millions to worthy causes, but those good works barely tip the scales vs. all the negative externalities they unintentially impose on the less privileged. I guess rather than facing the cognitive dissonance of the injustice/inequality all around them vs. their desire to make the world a better place (ostensibly for all), tech people would rather live insular lives and stick with their own kind (luxury, exclusive housing to the luxury, exclusive bus to the luxury, exclusive office to the luxury, exclusive bar, etc.). This of course is not exclusive to tech workers, and the other Bay Area professionals (doctors, lawyers, bankers) are just as susceptible, if not more. But that is the problem when achievement and career take up so much of our attention - there isn't much room left for people, especially those who are different than us.

I am not sure if it is a generational issue either. After the Baby Boomers exit the labor force, and the younger folks take the helm of the big companies, I really hope for a sea change. Douchebags aside, I think that many Bay Area yuppies would prefer a more diverse workforce and society. CA is great because it's not a stuck up East Coast cocktail party where your alma mater and family name come first. It's boring when you only work with clones of yourself who think the same way (also it's bad for business). The Valley has been successful in recruiting and naturalizing so much foreign talent, but many of them were elites from their native lands (and they tend to self-segregate in the US too). I just don't see black and Latino native residents get recruited in sufficient numbers any time soon.

Check out this slideshow from Business Insider about racial-economic segregation in SF-Si Valley: http://www.businessinsider.com/maps-show-racial-divide-in-silicon-valley-2013-9#

This issue kind of reminds me of the military crisis. When only poor people go off to war, society doesn't really notice, so our leaders may be more likely to abuse those soldiers. But in the case of WWII and Vietnam, when even some millionaire's kids and Ivy Leaguers were getting slaughtered in the field, then that changed the equation. As you said about Bay Area housing and transport costs, the privileged won't lift a finger until they feel similar pain as the poor. A more progressive income tax that funnels money to the working poor would be a start, or maybe higher property tax on richer, less diverse neighborhoods? But of course city leaders get elected by those neighborhoods, so it's a nonstarter. In France, they have a saying, "Vive l'impot!" Or a celebration of tax. It's not a dirty word like in the US. Taxes are a mark of honor, a patriotic duty to reinvest in the nation that you love. And those taxes should go to helping strengthen society from the bottom up, not further the social advantages of the elites or become giveaways to already rich special interests.

------

Part of the solutions that M. Night and other education scholars have recommended is longer school days, year round schooling, and early intervention programs like head start, universal Kindergarten, etc. Basically spending a lot of money to get poor/racial minorities with bad home environments and poor nutritional habits into a much healthier system. Of course, doing this takes a lot of money. However, school inequality is still a major issue so there are some resources that could be recaptured from rich white schools.

As you may remember from the George Packer/New Yorker article, even in the Bay Area, public schools such as Woodside and Paly have foundations that parents started to "adequately" fund their school - i.e. they have way more money than they need and marginal dollars there are not doing much good, while schools like East Paly are hurting pretty bad. And of course thanks to restrictive zoning regulations meaning no new housing ever (into which the poors/middle class might move), public schools in Woodside/Los Gatos/Atherton/Paly are only public in name only: effectively they are privatized for the rich white residents. But beyond that, it would take a massive infusion of resources into places like the LAUSD, New York Public Schools, etc. that voters haven't shown the will to spend.

I know you're fairly hopeful about the promise of the younger generation, but I'm more pessimistic. It's true that race will be less of an issue for our generation and some of the issues that the oldsters have with things like gay marriage will dissipate. However, I feel like our generation, while still well-intentioned, is even more clueless about the life and struggles of poor people than any previous generation. While J is right that the gap between the 1%ers and the rest has grown astronomically, I feel like the life experiences of the top 10% is becoming increasingly disconnected from the lives of the rest. Worldly, plugged in, well educated, financially comfortable kids on the Google buses have basically nothing at all in common with day laborers in the Mission. I don't mean that they actively seek to screw them but I think it's easy for many to not even people like that exist. The problems and life experiences of the bottom 90% have basically just don't show up on the radar of your average techie or higher.

And while the top 1% have arrogated for themselves increased power, the top 10% still can drive the political conversation in the media and online. If people don't see the problems of the rest of society or only are dimly aware of them in an abstract way, I'm not optimistic that much progress can be made.

I see where J is coming from on this - I think on matters of economic policy the 1% have the resources to really get whatever they want.

But I think one of the under-appreciated developments in American politics is that, in previous historical periods, when you had this unbalanced of an income, populists would rally the poorer classes to demand change. That's how they broke up the robber barons (see Teddy Roosevelt), and that's how the back was broken of European nobility.

What's happened this time is that many of the people that might have been expected to join this populist coalition against the rich and powerful are instead diverted by issues of "other" (i.e. race). How else do you explain the fact that West Virginia, one of the poorest states in the nation, voted overwhelmingly for Romney? Or Kentucky? They're afraid that moochers (of course, moochers from out groups; in group moochers are fine) and immigrants and gays are wrecking America.  These are precisely the people that Democrats ought to find common cause with (and previously did, against the Robber Barons and again during the Depression), yet our politics that are focused on race and religion and culture have them voting against their economic interests.

------

Thanks, A. It's ludicrous that there is any opposition to these youth programs, as the research indisputably shows that the ROI is huge. So the expenditures are actually cost saving measures in the long run. There should be no conservative opposition, but of course there is. Is it just a philosophical/political impasse (block ANY new gov't programs, even helpful ones), or is it the elites lashing out because they don't want poor, colored folks to succeed and compete on a more level playing field with their privileged kids? Sure the rich would rather have tax breaks now than more education spending, but as I said these programs save $ in the long run and make a stronger society, which will reduce the rich people's future tax burden and probably result in more capital gains for them, as these kids grow up on a better trajectory and become valuable consumers/workers.

The data suggests that Millennials are more tech savvy, more socially aware, and more into volunteerism than previous generations. As you said, they are worldly, and with the internet at their fingertips, they are on average much more cognizant of global social issues than their parents and grandparents at that age. So really there is no excuse for them to turn their back on social problems, even if they can't fully "relate" to the needy. But residential and workplace segregation is a terrible problem, because if you don't see diversity and the struggles of others each day, you are less likely to do anything about them. I believe that most young adults (and most of us on this email) would vote for policies and leaders who want to make our society fairer. The problem is no one is putting such debates up for a vote (probably because most of the political system is co-opted by the elites as J said). I think the youth are in the right place morally, but they just need a spark or a dynamic figure to lead them, like a modern day "Ask not what your country can do for you..." or "We hold these truths to be self evident..." We don't have that unfortunately. All our brightest young people are going into the private sector, where they can't "do good" because they are beholden to shareholders, and fighting for their lives against cutthroat competition. Only when they're super rich and semi-retired like Gates will they hopefully give back. Look at us; we have money and are well aware of the problems out there, but we don't have the time or courage to advocate for the causes (many self-imposed or social barriers stand in our way). We will vote the "right way" if the occasion arises, and maybe even give some money, but we aren't able to put in the hours (not to mention blood, sweat, and tears) to lead the populist charge as you said. I admire the few folks who do.

But maybe all is not lost and there are some leaders with potential. Here's a Fresh Air interview about Pope Francis, and of course the main theme of his papacy so far is social justice and critique of global wealth inequality (and the institutions that perpetuate it). Europe is a powder keg of discontent regarding gov't corruption, voiding the social contract, and widespread unemployment. I will give Obama credit too that he has raised the issues of race and inequality (maybe not by choice) more than any other president since LBJ. Maybe he hasn't moved the needle on the debate in America, but he isn't letting us sweep it under the rug. So we are seeing some top-down emphasis of the race and wealth issues, but unfortunately that hasn't manifested itself into new laws and reforms (the plutocrats can control lawmaking bodies a lot more than individual executives).

Re: the US history of populism, you are right that conditions were a lot different when labor was stronger and the working white poor were a major Dem constituency. But the party made a decision in the '60s to fight one injustice at the expense of the other. They fought against racial discrimination, which lost them the Southern white vote. And in order to make up for it, they had to go more corporate and turn their back on labor too. So the Dems are more elite than ever, even if the GOP is really struggling with key demos like single women and non-whites. But I don't think that racist whites in the US hate colored folks just because they bought into the economic propaganda of the elites. They had those prejudices already, and the elites just fueled the fire with scare tactics relating to black uprising/crime and immigrants taking jobs/services. We also have to address the non-economic drivers of modern racism (I am not quite sure what they are but I could speculate). I agree that the GOP is using religion as a wedge issue to keep its base from turning populist, which is of course ironic because Christian values are clearly misaligned with the modern GOP.

--------

As A pointed out, "But I think one of the under-appreciated developments in American politics is that, in previous historical periods, when you had this unbalanced of an income, populists would rally the poorer classes to demand change. ", I find it interesting that at that time, communication between groups was limited by lack of technology.  Now we have instant communication with anyone in the world.  You would think that it would be easy to put all of the pieces together for the oppressed to rise up.  But, these same lines of instant communication are also used to manipulate us in ways we'd never seen before, essentially keeping us divided, blaming one another for our lot in life instead of seeing the real picture.

-----------

http://www.insidepolitics.org/ps111/riseofinternet.html
http://gnovisjournal.org/2010/04/25/media-fragmentation-and-political-polarization-how-high-choice-media-environment-leads-great/

Thanks, L. Yeah media fragmentation in the US can be a big problem. Families don't tune into the same 3 info sources around the radio or TV set anymore. So of course FNC says that everything MSNBC says are lies, and vice versa (and CNN just talks about the Kardashians) - adding to distrust, misinformation, and most harmful... polarization. Plus we are blitzed with too much info now on our multiple devices (especially entertainment/time-wasting content), which distracts us from thinking, collaborating, and rising up together.

Twitter and Facebook helped the Arab Spring gain momentum, but sadly it can't really do the same for us (even though we invented those services). Well, when commercial crap like Bieber and Coke are the most liked/followed entities on social media, you know we have a problem. It seems US social media is (deliberately or not) functioning to prevent us from mass political debate and assembly, whereas it has the opposite effect in repressive/dysfunctional foreign countries (which is why their state security services try to block/monitor it)?

Is Black Friday even worth it to our society/economy?

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/-walmartfights-sparks-a-trend-on-twitter-193622540.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_%28shopping%29

As we know, scheduled promotions like "Cash for Clunkers" many not generate new transactions, but merely shift them to a specific date (i.e. I would have bought a TV for Uncle Bob at some point before Xmas, but I might as well go on B.F.). Sure, while you are frantically trekking through Walmart, the mob mentality and "holiday spirit" make you less responsible with the wallet, so you might be inspired to get some other items (which is incremental revenue), but it's really hard for businesses to measure if those purchases are totally due to B.F. With the "arms race" of fierce retail competition, and marketers whipping consumers into a frenzy (and now mobile broadband and social media make it even easier to learn about "great deals"), companies have to take a loss or break even on certain products just to earn some eyeballs (they likely will have to pay more for ads due to more competition). Of course they may only have 5 super-cheap TVs per store, but clearly they are pricing competitive items lower than they'd ideally want to, and likely below what the customer's normal willingness-to-pay is (sans B.F. expectations).

That is a risk too - customers are expecting great deals, so if they are sold out by the time they get to the shelves (even for folks who waited for hours in the cold), that will cause a lot of anger, and the retailer runs the risk of creating a detractor who badmouths them on social media. And that's if they're lucky - shortages may lead to riots and deaths, as we've unfortunately seen in the past. Imagine all the man-hours of extra associates, police, and other emergency responders needed to handle the B.F. madness and possible incidents. Imagine the carbon footprint of all the traffic jams and the utilities from the extra hours that stores are open (and it's getting earlier and earlier - some stores opened at 8PM ON THANKSGIVING... by 2020 Black Friday will be on Labor Day). B.F. may not drive many purely incremental sales, but it sure as heck will create many incremental traffic accidents, injuries, etc. The employees that have to deal with the insanity may get overtime pay, but they also will experience elevated stress and possibly employer resentment, which are documented to affect workplace productivity, personal relationships, and health (not to mention all the stress and panic behind the scenes where non-store employees have to rush to meet the B.F. related logistics, marketing, product launches, and other deadlines). I am pretty sure some folks at Sony and Microsoft would have liked a few more weeks to iron out the bugs associated with their new gaming consoles, but they had to get them on the shelves in time for B.F. And as far as I know, no one is getting B.F. or Xmas bonuses anymore for their extra efforts.

On the consumer side, the post-Great-Recession US shopper spends on avg. $400 during B.F. weekend (with 200M+ unique shoppers). People may not behave very rationally during B.F. (understatement of the year), so they may make inefficient and imprudent purchasing decisions that will have negative consequences on their economic viability (and that of their dependents). There are socioeconomic costs associated with frivolous spending: credit default, back taxes, late rent payments, etc. Some opportunists make money off things like that, but there will be preventable economic losses too. Also, the more we spend on shopping, the less we have to donate to charities (or even buy more medicine and healthier food). The fatigue, emotions, and sleep deprivation associated with B.F. shopping will affect shopper health, relationships, and productivity for weeks - especially during the winter time of bad weather and virus spreads. Adding all this up, I can imagine that the social costs of B.F. could easily top $1B in the US. I am not sure how much incremental profit B.F. generates (for scale, wiki says WM gets $5B from B.F., and it is ~3% of all US retail sales), but clearly it should be discounted if we want to make a fair, holistic value calculation.

Even Cyber Monday could have social costs by reducing workplace productivity and tying up bandwidth that could make pageload/latency times worse and important/emergency messages slower.

What the JetBlue employee meltdown says about the US workplace and society

http://news.yahoo.com/s/theweek/20100811/cm_theweek/205934_1
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201008110900

By now you've probably heard the buzz surrounding Steven Slater, the
veteran JetBlue flight attendant who was harassed by a passenger on a
flight and decided to say "F this job!" and illegally exited the plane
down an emergency chute, with beers in hand. Maybe he was living out
all our closet fantasies (and paid the price by going to jail, but
he'll get the book deal and TV circuit). I'm sure he would have
preferred to do his job (of 28 years) happily with others treating him
respectfully. Though what does that say about the state of the US
workplace and society if Slater is now celebrated as a folk hero for
breaking the law, possibly putting people in danger, and acting
against everything in his professional training? That customer must
have been an astronomical bitch because JetBlue FAs are some of the
best in the industry, and probably have very thick skins after years
of abuse and training. But honestly, I'm sure we all have a list of
people we'd like to curse out on the PA system, and many
jobs/customers that we'd like to stick it to.

I'll try to refrain from a cliched anti-society diatribe, but humor me
with this set-up. I know we tend to remember the "good ol' days" with
rose-colored lenses, but we probably weren't always this stressed out,
this nasty to each other, and work wasn't this horrible, was it? Some
things have changed since the last generation was young. We usually
don't have pensions anymore (and don't stay with 1-2 firms our whole
career), nor just one car/TV per household. Standard of living and
life expectancy have risen, but so have costs, while real wages
haven't kept up (unless you're a CEO, and in that case your wages have
ballooned). For many of us, the finer things in life are still
unaffordable without taking on dangerous debt, but we still try: total
US consumer debt is now in the trillions, our pre-recession savings
rate was negative, and savings is currently still worse than postwar
America. We have also segregated ourselves into many racially and
economically homogeneous suburban enclaves, and may not need to have
"real interactions" with strangers for days at a time (automate
everything, drive-thru everything, hurry up and be on your way).
Culturally, it's also strange now that it's accepted and almost
desirable to act like a spoiled good-for-nothing like Paris Hilton, a
cocksure idiot like Sarah Palin, or a pathologically ambitious a-hole
like The Donald. What happened to doing right by people and making an
honest buck? Sorry, I'm 30 and I sound 70.

When IBM envisioned the first computers, the designers hoped that they
would help humans by saving us time on repetitive, grunt work
calculations. But since the PC revolution, computers and mobile
electronics have only served to take time from us. Yes computers allow
us to be more productive, but now employers demand more of us (and
practically expect some workers to be on-call 24-7, plus some tech or
work-addicts even do it to themselves, checking their BlackBerries at
completely inappropriate times). An average, not even an excellent,
worker is now doing the jobs of 2-3 workers from 1960, and many
traditional US industries have vanished or relocated overseas. Gadgets
and the internet have allowed us to share ideas and access resources
like never before (for better or worse: tolerance of diversity has
increased, but so have all sorts of cyber-crimes), but also bleed us
of our precious free time (and money) with semi-pointless,
quasi-social distractions like Facebook. Families spend less time
together (maybe a good thing depending on the family), and even less
quality time. We may spend more time exhausted in front of a screen
than raising our kids.

Competition for quality education, jobs, government services, and
other basic living essentials has risen drastically. Workers are
spending more time in commute, more time in travel-heavy jobs, and
more time at work in general vs. the 1960s. The rich-poor gap has
increased, and more Americans are employed by corporations than ever
before. Executives and managers are under more pressure from
shareholders and others to cut costs, innovate, and find new ways to
boost productivity/efficiency, even at the cost of worker morale and
the law. Forget the work-life balance; for many people work is life,
which makes the personal pain of an unsatisfying job or losing a job
even harder to handle. The recession has only exacerbated these
tensions and problems.

All this creates an environment for people to treat each other badly,
and we have many pressures and incentives to do so. Our egos fall
victim to our competitive free-market culture, and we may equate
differences in wealth/achievement with differences in personal worth.
"I'm a big-shot doctor, so I can talk down to you, lowly flight
attendant! I paid my ticket and I can do whatever I want!" Worries and
threats are everywhere. Bad news on the 24-7 channels, bills coming
due, and everyone seems to try to take advantage of us, make us part
with our hard-earned money, or otherwise short-change us somehow.
Politicians are always in scandals, there is less public trust, and
therefore less trust and courtesy for each other. When anxiety is
high, we are not ourselves, or is that our true nature? We have less
time and more stress, so we're living on the edge with a shorter fuse,
and minor annoyances or injustices could cause us to blow up. And as
the many life annoyances wear us down each day, we have less patience
and energy to handle the big problems and confrontations with poise.
And it doesn't seem that this trend is going to reverse any time soon.
But no one wants to acknowledge the insanity of our predicament for
fear of appearing weak and unable to cope.

Maybe an airplane is a microcosm of our social condition. A bunch of
impatient, tense strangers, who would rather be somewhere else doing
something else, packed in an uncomfortable, artificial enclosure with
bad air. There are turbulence, crying kids, and terrorist threats, and
of course weather and technical delays. The only things keeping us all
from descending into chaos are watered-down cocktails, an LCD screen
in front of us, and Sully Sullenberger.