Spreadin' Love 580

~ Laura

That moment when you look at the clock and it’s 1:45 already. Crap.

Had a packed morning, so I’m going to throw out some links. I hope to write a proper post later the afternoon.

Hipsters are fighting other hipsters.

Lessons from Christmas specials.

Inequality is driven by greed, not technology.

Should you shame bad behavior on social media? I’m tempted right now. A local community group, organized around stopping an apartment building development plan, tried to publish the names and phone numbers of all the special ed parents in town, so that they could be harassed for costing the school district too much money.

Lots of drama for Nigella Lawson.

Published by Laura

42 thoughts on “Spreadin' Love 580”

  1. I do not have an opinion as to whether bad behavior should be shamed on social media. We’ve seen enough public-shaming hoaxes recently that people might be skeptcial of even believing the behavior being shamed. But the situation you describe bothers me, without reference to whether it is a proper candidate for shaming. How could such a group even get access to a formal list of such familes? I would think that information should be treated confidential by the school district, immune from even the freedom of information act. Or have they put a list together through supposition, by analyzing who speaks out at the board of eduction meetings and obtaining informal information from their own children?

    Like

  2. I can be somewhat conflicted over the concept of public shaming. In general, I believe people should be called out for their behavior. If the bad behavior is the result of the anonymity of certain places (say, airports, internet forums), the goal of public shaming is to decrease the shamable behavior, not just by that individual but by others who might worry that, say, their grandmother/mother/friends will be aware of their behavior.

    But, public shaming has nothing to do with listing the names of “special needs parents” (whatever that might mean, exactly) on the internet. They haven’t engaged in any shamable behavior. Even if you go to extremes (say, consider not putting up holiday lights shamable), the mere status of being a special needs parent isn’t engaging in any behavior that I think anyone would consider shamble. Listing their names is just a violation of privacy for a political goal.

    Like

  4. Ah, I see that ML & I might have made the same mistake — you’re not suggesting that listing special needs parents is “public shaming.” Are you wondering whether listing the names of individuals involved in the anti-development effort would be unacceptable, or acceptable “public shaming.”

    Well, if done accurately, I’m all for it — I’m pretty sure that there’s some violation of the law involved in listing names of parents with children with special needs in a district, and I would totally want to shame anyone involved in such an effort.

    Like

  6. I would do it, too, within my power. But, admittedly, I’m not very good with privacy on these questions. My political, ideological, and religious leanings are usually well known to anyone who knows me even slightly, and I wouldn’t expect any privacy in taking a position on any political question. So, I don’t tend to think of , say, who one votes for for president as being a secret (though it is private information). Political contributions aren’t, and neither are initiative signatures, after court cases on both.

    Personal lives were damaged in CA, say, after the release of contribution records on Prop 8 (constitutional ban on gay marriage) on the internet: http://projects.latimes.com/prop8/.

    (Fascinating list, really).

    But, I find the release of the information perfectly reasonable.

    Like

  7. I do resent the implication that I thought this post was about public shaming of special needs parents. I do not, and never did. I took no position on whether there should be a shaming of the committee that was going post the names of such families. I thought my post made it clear that I was bothered that a group of people was even able to identify such families. If it was not, then I apologize for any confusion that was created.

    Like

    1. Sorry ML. I guess it was just me, not thinking that public shaming of special needs parents would be OK, but as an example of what some people might think a reasonable extension of public shaming. The article in Laura’s link is an example of public shaming gone awry, into harassment.

      Like

  8. I mean, there have been judicial cases on whether permitting students to exchange papers with each other for the purpose of grading them violates the students’ privacy rights under the laws applicable to schools. I find it hard to believe that a parent would be able to legally obtain an official list of special needs families. I do not dispute that such information could be obtained through surrepetitious means.

    Like

    2. Although it certainly seems like it could be actionable for the school to make this information available to others, in a small community, people could be personally aware of particular special needs children. It would be immoral to post the information for the purpose of harassing individuals, and potentially a violation of privacy rules, but I think the clear lines about when news becomes a privacy violation is difficult.

      Like

  9. The problem with blaming the increase in inequality on greed rather than technological change is that you can’t explain a variable with a constant. As far as I know, human beings have always been greedy, so that doesn’t get you anywhere.

    BTW, I’m open to non-economic, or non-materialist, or whatever changes, e.g., that the increase in inequality is due to increased individualism, or that it is due to breakdowns in traditional sexual morality among the bottom half of the population. In fact, I am more persuaded by those explanations than by the theory that technological changes is the driver. But just saying “greed” doesn’t get you anywhere.

    Like

    1. Why is it “greed” vs. “technology” anyway? Surely a desire for profit drives the push for more technology?

      We are in the middle of a sort of post-Industrial Revolution in which a great many traditional professions have become or are becoming obsolete (when did you last use a travel agent or deal with a bank teller?). The original Industrial Revolution was no picnic, either, in terms of disruption and poverty, but it eventually produced a huge increase in general wealth and well-being. I don’t think it’s Pollyanish to think that there is a great deal of hope that eventually things will even out. Even now, lots of poor people carry around in their pockets enough computing power and information-gathering power and communication power to make Newton and Kepler and Edison (not to mention Captain Kirk) envious. The question is what to do in the in the interim. There’s also the demographic problem of dealing with an aging population at the same time that so many would-be workers find themselves superfluous in our current economy.

      I would say that our biggest current problem is not that workers are being exploited–the problem is they are not being exploited. We have so much labor potential that is not being used right now.

      Like

    2. The “you can’t explain a variable with a constant” thing reminds me of Man, the State, and War, which reminds me of pointless social science theorizing in general.

      Anyway, income growth after adjusting for inflation has been nearly flat for three decades for all but the top 5%. There’s not enough net sexual immortality since 1980 to explain that. Greed may be constant, but tax policy has shifted and had very real effects on inequality. Also, we’re in the fifth year of a recession with on party forcing a fiscal contraction while demanding monetary contraction. Just saying “less effectively checked greed” gets you most of the way there.

      Like

      2. That’s a very real thing that’s been bothering about the Obamacare debate, relatively wealthy elders getting free government medical care screaming about somebody else getting it. Or the Congress members supporting farm subsidies but not food stamps.

        And things are so pronounced at the top 10%. I mentioned “top 5%” deliberately. The benefits have been going to the very top, not even so broad as 10%. If you look at this, you see the big benefits kicking in a $350,000 a year. That’s something like the top 2.5% of less.

        Like

      3. “Anyway, income growth after adjusting for inflation has been nearly flat for three decades for all but the top 5%.”

        Certain categories have gotten really cheap during that time: clothes, food, toys, basic house stuff (textiles), electronics, etc. Basic mass-produced consumer goods are very cheap now and Americans famously own mountains of them. Labor, on the other hand, is expensive (like daycare or healthcare) as is stuff like a house in a nice school district. Prices have not changed uniformly across all categories.

        In 1950, Americans spent 34% (!) of household income just on food, which is a pretty shocking number today. We also spent 12% of income on apparel, which is an amazing number. That number would have a household of today with a $2,000 a month income spending $240 a month just on apparel, which I suspect would be highly unusual (my very upper-middle class family spends somewhat less than that on clothes and shoes every month, and I have a serious Lands End habit). Likewise, 12% on apparel would mean a household making $4,000 a month spending $480 a month on apparel and a household making $6,000 a month would be spending $720 a month on apparel. In our economic context, 12% a month on apparel would be some pretty high living.

        http://visualeconomics.creditloan.com/100-years-of-consumer-spending/

        Like

      4. 12% a month on apparel would be some pretty high living

        My spending habits are apparently much more in line with people from the 50’s than people today because clothing and food are my two biggest expenses. We pay relatively little in rent and live in a much smaller place than do other families with incomes similar to ours.

        Like

  10. Have you actually examined the statistics on divorce and illegitimacy trends since 1980? That actually isn’t my main point: what I see happening is increased individualism and nonconformity. Some people express themselves by breaking free of traditional marriages: they become single mothers, poor but true to themselves. Others express themselves by becoming CEOs and BSD bond traders: they become atomized individuals, but rich ones.

    Like

  11. The thing about the horrid community group would make a good intro for an Atlantic article on debates over school funding. But it would probably be best covered by a local or regional newspaper, which sadly there are fewer and fewer of. (I would never let a student get away with a sentence like that…) Our local NPR station sometimes has commentaries by community members – seems like that might be a good option. A sort of “it’s a serious and difficult issue but look at how horrible and extreme people get when they address it” approach.

    Like

  12. Greed is a bad title for the phenomenon described in the article. The graphs show the effect of public policy decisions. The two that stick in my mind are GINI coefficients before and after government decisions (taxes, public transfers, etc.) — Germany, say, is higher than the US before transfers, but lower after. Same goes for Finland. Both those countries have made proactive choices in government that reduce income inequality. The graph on post-tax income growth at different income levels under Democratic & Republican presidents also shows choices in government. The government and how we fund it and what services and we provide and how we regulate the rights of workers are part of the economic inequality equation.

    I think a more appropriate title would have been “Income inequality is driven by government policy.”

    Like

  13. I couldn’t care less whether or not Nigella Lawson had a drug habit.

    I would tend not to believe anything her former assistants say–defrauding one’s employer for years makes the employer the injured party, in my book. Theft approaching $1 million makes one an unreliable witness. (I’m a bit unclear as to how claiming to be a blackmailer is supposed to lend credibility to allegations.) And a bitter ex-spouse who’s already been photographed attacking his ex-wife in a public space is also not a reliable witness.

    Although I must repeat, I don’t care what her private habits are. The reports in the British press look like a great deal of Schadenfreude to me. Also, if the spending levels are accurate, it would be unusual for the supposed drug user to have the lowest monthly tally on an unlimited expense account.

    Like

  14. On nigella, wouldn’t using cocaine affect your ability to smell and taste things? Wouldn’t that be a liability for a chef?

    Like

    1. I have no idea. I think it would be hard to prove a negative, that is, that one did not have a drug habit, if the assertion was made by one’s personal assistants. If there’s no record of the purchases–“oh, we were protecting her.” If the assistants had their own drug habit (which looks more likely, comparing photos of the people involved), “we were buying for her.” They (presumably) had access to her computer, the spending accounts went to her husband, they may have been able to sign her name to documents.

      I’m more interested in the British belief that the accusation of cocaine and prescription drug use would be deadly for her in the American market. As far as I can tell, the theory seems to be advanced by people, “experts”, who all likely represent other media personalities. I’m interested when people just don’t “get” the other nation, “separated by a common language.” Personal use of marijuana has been legalized by referendum in several states. About 10% of the US population uses prescription medication for psychiatric conditions. Also, people sort of expect celebrities to have some sort of bad habit.

      I’m more shocked that no one seems to have been keeping tabs on the assistants’ spending. As the credit card accounts seem to have gone to the husband’s accountant, who was keeping an eye out for embezzlement?

      Like

      1. “I’m more interested in the British belief that the accusation of cocaine and prescription drug use would be deadly for her in the American market”

        I thought that was silly, too, and seemed to be based more on some mythical concept of the prudery of Americans than any reality about the marketing of Nigella. They kept sticking to the hypothesis in the article, too, even with the counter-examples of Martha (a felon, who served jail time) and Bourdain (a known drug user who talked extensively of his use).

        If I were hiring Nigella, it would concern me if she is a current drug user — I don’t think many people can successfully use cocaine consistently and be productive in a high pressure business. But, I don’t think past drug use would be a significant variable in whether she would be marketable in the US.

        (now the work visa issue is an issue — people can get caught up in those bureaucratic loops).

        Like

      2. bj said:

        “I don’t think many people can successfully use cocaine consistently and be productive in a high pressure business.”

        Or not for long.

        One of the really iconic Housing Bubble stories that I haven’t been able to find recently was about a mortgage broker who was making something like $300k a year on the loans he was making. He was also a methamphetamine addict, which no doubt helped a lot with boosting his productivity. Stamp-stamp-stamp-stamp!

        Like

      3. I was in a bar talking to a guy. He mentioned his bankruptcy/foreclosure and that he worked for a mortgage broker (or something like it, I’m not big on remembering those terms). I was a bit surprised that you could have those events on your record and still work making loans, but he told me that so many of the people in his field went broke after 2008 that they could hardly find experienced people otherwise. His income, for the same job, went from something in the six figures to something where he was looking to move out of Squirrel Hill to be able to afford a one bedroom (probably up to $700 a month now, but still).

        Like

  15. One of the big reasons for really poor people working for crap wages is labor surplus. If you suspend the usual categories Reeps and Dems and instead categorize Richs and Poors, it seems to me one of the insights is Richs like nearly unlimited immigration, yielding docile maids and yard workers and chicken pluckers and burger flippers. Poors do better in a supply where there are fewer other semiskilled workers bidding down the wage.

    So: Richs would include Pelosi, McCain, Schumer, Feinstein, and the whole libertarian crowd advocating open borders from their academic perches. As Shrek said, “That explains a lot!”

    Like

      1. Actually, no. Poors who shop at Walmart benefit way more from free trade than do riches who buy hipster-made $5 bars of soap. The poorer you are, the bigger benefit you get from the fact that the price of basic items has gotten lower.

        Like

      2. The less education you have, the more likely that free trade has resulted in your job being exported. Everybody gets the cheap goods, but the job losses were very much concentrated in certain segments of society, including those that weren’t poor very recently but are poor now.

        Like

  16. One argument for free trade is that we can’t get other countries to admit our goods unless we admit theirs. (It would be fine, at least from one perspective, if we could export but prevent other countries exporting to us, but that just isn’t politically feasible.) Immigration, in contrast, is pretty much of a one-way street.

    Like

  18. “In 1950, Americans spent 34% (!) of household income just on food, which is a pretty shocking number today.”

    The 1940 census is on-line. I was able to find my mother’s family, a family of six living in an apartment near NYC. I was struck by the percentages spent on food (around 30%) and housing (around 10%), which were roughly flipped from comparable percentages that might be expected today.

    Like

    1. I recently read a piece about 50’s interior design that posited that it was the time period when people switched from favoring (or being forced to live) a public life to a private one. People didn’t spend as much on housing prior to the 50’s because they didn’t spend as much time in their homes but as wealth increased and typical homes became more luxurious, it became more common to think of one’s house as the place where you spend the majority of your time.

      Like

Comments are closed.