Fight, Flight, or Pause; Beyond Instincts

     Most people know the cliché/proverb -- prepare for "fight or flight" when they are confronted with an unexpected or fearful situation. A surge of adrenaline prepares the body for a quick, immediate response. If you round a pass in the woods and come face to face with a bear then those choices are probably good ones (pulling out a can of bear spray also hits a high mark). An oncoming avalanche probably gives you only one choice. There are even situations within the urban setting where the instinctual responses still may be good -- an unexpected car running a red light and across the crosswalk or a flower pot coming down from an upstairs window.
     In modern life, the options of fight or flight are often not sufficient for the situations in which we find ourselves. For example, the situation of driving on the highways and within the streets of a city or a town -- this is prone to generating great stress. Someone cuts in front of you and forces you to go into defensive driving mode. Someone is in a car behind you, at an intersection, and starts honking. Does your adrenaline start moving through your body? Probably. Should you fight or prepare for flight? Not really an option.
     Fight and flight don't work well while you are sitting surrounded with 4,000 pounds of metal and plastic -- the use of those options is often called "road rage" -- and that is not constructive. What can work? Nothing. Or, to put it more explicitly -- pause, calm, let it be. Sometimes, I find myself starting to replay scenarios in my mind. "They didn't see me when they moved over". "They can't see what I can see and they think the intersection is clear when it isn't." Perhaps, I may even reach the point of recognizing potential personal responsibility for the situation. "I may have been tailgating the person in front of me and I know the person behind me was tailgaiting and there might not have been enough space for them to safely merge."
     My contemplation of the other person and the situation, of course, might not start off quite as constructive as what I listed above. I might start by thinking what an inept, inconsiderate, socially maladroit, ignorant person they are -- or whatever short version may happen to be your favorite. I have yet to meet a perfect driver -- or be able to be one. No one is always able to ignore distractions or be able to see 360 degrees around them at all times or to anticipate strange, illegal, or other types of unexpected actions from pedestrians and cars around them. This is sometimes hard to remember when the event is occurring.
     What do you do when you are face-to-face with a person that gets your adrenaline surging? There are two variations on the situation. In the first, there is someone available to mediate -- a police officer, a neighbor, a store security officer, a manager. In the other, it is just you and the other person. The two situations are basically the same -- and almost identical if people are not willing to accept, or make use of, the potential mediator. This process is usually called "conflict resolution". The following principles are often considered to be part of conflict resolution (I add number 0 because I think it is often overlooked).

• 0. Pause. If you are confronting a situation or a scenario where it is not possible, or advisable, to directly work with another person, this may be your only possible initial response. There may be times when it is not necessary to have a reaction. Relax, pause, evaluate, let it be.
• 1. Listen to the Other Person Actively. Listening is not the same as hearing. (For the deaf, seeing is not the same as paying attention.) If you are preparing a response before hearing what they say, you are not listening. Take notes if you are concerned that you may miss a point you want to address. Be ready to echo things that you think you have heard -- they may not have meant that at all.
• 2 Think Before Reacting. Once you have listened and taken notes, it is time to think about what was said -- and what you believe you heard. Find out if what you heard is what they meant. Expand on areas in which you need more details.
• 3. Attack the Problem and Don't Attack the person. An easy trap for some to fall into but name calling doesn't help matters. It really means that you don't have a rational, logical response -- that is, they have won. Best outcome is that you both go forth from the situation as better acquaintances (maybe even friends) with the possibility of mutually solving matters about which you disagree. That cannot happen if you attack them.
• 4. Accept Responsibility. Blaming doesn't help. In a traffic accident where both vehicles are moving, it is rare for 100% of the responsibility to be with one person -- at the very least being more aware to make better defensive moves or better allowance for hazardous conditions. Assumptions often cause problems because each person looks at things from their own unique viewpoint and history.
• 5. Use "I" Statements. You don't know what they feel, or think, or meant. They are the only one who knows that -- and all feelings are appropriate for them. "I was angry when your car moved in front of me and I was scared I wouldn't have enough time to stop". "I felt angry and disrespected when you talked about the idea I had just mentioned to you before the meeting and you didn't tell anyone that I had the original idea." You know your own feelings and thoughts -- but you only know what is externally observable about the other person (and, even there, no one is omniscient).
• 6. Look for What is in Common. Is there something that you can agree on with the other person? Even if it is not all you would like, it may be a beginning from which you can do more later. Concentrating on differences is not likely to help. Everyone is different and unique. A common goal may have more than one way to be approached.
• 7. Focus on the Future and What Can and Needs to be Done. Where do you go from here? Do you have need for a future discussion -- weekly meetings? Have you achieved a common understanding that is sufficient for the time being? Is there even a need to reach a common understanding -- are you heading off in different directions and there is no real need to settle anything further?

     At one time, the "fight or flight" choices from the experience of an unexpected situation were sufficient. It is no longer sufficient -- and, in many cases, can be quite counter-productive. Decide what you want to achieve but, in the meantime, pause and consider unless in immediate physical danger (then thank goodness for the instinctual response).

    

May the Circle be Unbroken: full cycle cost analysis

     There are a lot of circles, or cycles, in life. The "Circle of Life" which moves between birth to death back to birth. The "Carbon Dioxide" cycle has CO2 arising from combustion (burning) of materials and then being trapped by living plants to strain it out of the atmosphere but providing the possibility of going back to the atmosphere when the "storage" is burned. Number three is a more "macro-" (big picture) view of recycling and reuse (as talked about in my other blog The Houseboat Philosophy). A fourth (which is the primary focus of this blog) arises from manufacturing. There are others.
     Manufacturing starts with a plan. The plan is based around a finished product. In order to complete the plan, there is a need of a list of components. Each component may be composed from individual parts, and the parts will be created from some original resource. Beyond the list of components, there is assembly/manufacturing, and then sales and distribution.
     The parts that occur between the harvesting of the raw materials and the sales and distribution are typically considered a "normal" aspect of business. A company may outsource (farm out, sub-delegate or sub-contract, etc) parts of the work but all of the parts, whether done directly by the company or not, are part of a "normal" manufacturing process. For many companies, this is the end of their process. However, it is not the end of the cycle. A cycle does not complete until everything is back to the beginning (though rarely EXACTLY the same for the next cycle).
     What does an incomplete cycle look like? With the CO2 cycle, we are seeing the effects right now. More absorbers (plankton in the ocean, trees and other plants on the land) are being displaced while historical (fossil fuels and some current biofuels and other combustibles) "fixed" carbon dioxide is being released into the air.
     In the case of a manufacturing cycle, the direct effect of not completing the cycle is pollution. If the company does not take care of it -- making it part of the product cost -- then it is taken care of by the taxpayers. This is a prevalent form of corporate subsidy -- and part of the reason why environmental laws and protection agencies are needed to prevent some corporations from offloading their costs to the general population.
     What methods are used for handling pollution? Recycling is certainly one method. Containment is another. Unfortunately, ignoring it is another common method which causes other, less direct, costs for health and medical treatment and loss of productivity for farmers, fisherpeople, and others who work within the global environment to produce food or provide recreation. Reduced fishing yields, enormous islands of plastic in the ocean, and a hazardous cycle of needing increasing amounts of pesticides/herbicides/insecticides to maintain crop production levels act as hallmarks of improperly handled pollution.
     In 1900, there was probably more pollution produced per person than there is now. However, since the population was approximately 1/5 of today's population, the total amount of pollution was less. Pollution was more concentrated around industrial areas. This created "dead areas" but, outside of the industrially concentrated sections, nature could largely handle the edge conditions and there were still areas which were able to be self-sustaining. With today's population and the spread of urban areas, there are few areas where nature is able to keep up with the demands upon the ecology.
     If a corporation is to sell products according to a full cycle cost analysis, then all must finish (for the single cycle) in as close to an original condition as possible. That extra cost is added to the price and the company takes on the responsibility for taking care of the pollution and side-effects of harvesting resources. Otherwise, the general populace pays the cost via taxes and deterioration of health and the environment. In either case, the cost exists.
     What other circles, or cycles, are important within your life? What happens if the cycle is interrupted?

Hocus Pocus: The Distance Between Magic to Science

    Arthur C. Clarke, famous science fiction and science fact writer, once said that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic".
     Although stories told about witches primarily exist from what is, in the West, often called "the Dark Ages", the underlying problem continues to exist. Someone -- especially a social loner who is doing something not considered "normal" -- has knowledge and experience beyond that of others. If it is useful, they may be allowed to exist to be used by others. That is, they allow it to be used until something bad happens and they use the target of their fear and ignorance as a scapegoat and attack them.
     Hanging on my waist, I have a device that has computational power much greater that that of a 1951/52 UNIVAC that occupied an entire room 65 years ago. If you took that same smartphone and presented it in the town of Salem, Massachusetts 325 years ago, you could look forward to being on the non-preferred side of the Witch Trials.  However, if you took the smartphone back to 1952, most of the technology would be totally unexplainable. Depending on your audience, they would declare it to be an amazing fake, a stage device, or -- yes, magic. Very few would believe that it was real but you most likely would not be subject to being burned at a stake.
      Science consists of building upon previously discovered knowledge. Any jump in knowledge is typically met with suspicion. Einstein's theory of general relativity was a jump in understanding. It took years to be accepted and the "in-between" steps are still being proven even unto this day (2017 Nobel Prize being given for detection of "gravitational waves"). Leonardo Da Vinci was sufficiently wise to keep most of his ideas and discoveries isolated within his journals. His public face was largely concerned with his works of art for the Church and the rich. Since it didn't happen, we cannot know for certain, but I suspect that if he had succeeded in building, and demonstrating, a functional flying machine it would have had, at best, very mixed reactions from the Church and public.
     The split in perception between science and magic works both directions. Something that would be considered "commonplace" within current society (even if really understood by only a small subsection of the people) would be considered "magic" in the past. When people envision things in the future, it is often classified into "science fiction" UNLESS it is some ability or behavior that does not have an obvious basis in current science. Flying cars are science fiction. Functional "spells" are magic.
     Current, scientifically acceptable, spells are called algorithms. They piece together various simple instructions into logical frameworks and decision networks and come out with a "game App" or a "streaming video App" or a "communal workspace App". All of these would have been considered magic in the past. I will make the guess that there are a lot of things, about which we speculate as magic, that will also become commonplace in the future. In order for applications (Apps) to work, however, the convenient microcomputer/smartphone must also be present. Will it be true that, in order for Harry Potter's spells to become valid that some other foundation device must be created?
     What ideas of the future would you classify as magic? Do you see scientific paths to have them realized? What ideas would be the most inexplicable if sent to the past?

Economic Interconnectivity and Big Data

     The world economy is a huge set of interconnections. One type of job depends on other types of jobs; if a job type disappears it is likely to affect many other job positions. Scarcity of resources of one type can affect the prices of many cascading products. If the world does shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources, new jobs will appear and old ones will change or go away.
     The interconnectivity also causes great fragility as the world gets larger and there are more dependencies. Imagine, if you can, people waking up tomorrow and deciding that the Internet is no longer of interest (I can easily remember when it didn't exist) -- how many products would no longer have a market, how many people would no longer have a job, how would it affect others (advertising, for example -- and printed newspapers might surge back into dominance)?
     Once upon a time, I was interviewing with Google and, as part of the telephone interview, we discussed potential projects and interests. I put forth the idea that, since Google was well designed to integrate knowledge and had such massive data storage and access, they would be well able to create an economic model of interconnected occupations and salaries. At this point in time, I would like to also add in products and localized market prices.
     Why bother with any type of tool? Why not just make the change and see what happens? The main advantage of such a tool is to have a better ability to forecast the effects of policy changes. What really happens if minimum wage is increased to a living wage? What happens if the illegal immigrants who are largely responsible for hand harvesting of our fruits and vegetables are kept away -- what will be the effects on produce prices, truckers, grocery stores, and so forth? What jobs are affected if private transportation is minimized and public transportation maximized?
      Such a project would be impossible if every individual, unique job, discrete part, and location had to be tracked. Luckily, items can be aggregated -- 500 Blue F-150 trucks should only have a quantity value change over 1 Blue F-150 truck (but, at the same time, there needs to be a way of describing Red F-150 trucks without having a fully different item). There is a lot of work to be done and it would still be a difficult project but certainly within the capabilities of many of the larger data handling companies -- Google, Facebook, Amazon, IBM, Microsoft, ... What would be the Return On Investment (ROI) for such a project? It's really difficult to know but it would be a valuable service/project that should be of use to governments and businesses around the world.
     I would suggest architecting such  a project as an iterative accretion of data. Start with something relatively small -- a loaf of bread. The loaf of bread has a set of occupations associated with it -- baker, packers, delivery people, stockers, advertising, payroll, Human Resources, etc. It also has a set of ingredients -- flour, yeast, filtered water, possibly milk, salt, and so forth. Each ingredient has an amount which acts as a ratio of strength in the links to the bread. Each ingredient has its own delivery and production chain which each have associated costs and value. It would be considerable in itself but the greatest value would be the fact that it is still small enough to be thrown away. New links and new data structure values will be discovered to be needed as the database develops. Now do it over (iterate) with those better values and links. Do it again if needed. Now add butter to the bread and continue on.
     There are also usability concerns. The bread company may start off selling only white bread and then add rye bread -- each with their own percentage of sales. How does one substitute recipe ingredients? How do you change the dependencies and the ingredient ratios? What happens if a problem ruins the rye crop for the year? If modelling an auto, how easy is it to change the model from gasoline to electric? Not only is there a substitution of an "ingredient" but the interconnections to suppliers, dealers, raw materials (batteries, possibly lithium) change. The model must be able to be changed easily because modelling the existing situation may be interesting but comparisons are what gives the most value.
     How would you address such a problem? What do you see as specific practical benefits from such an economic model? Is there some subset of such a model already in existence that could be used as the core of expansion? How are unpaid people incorporated into the model, recognizing that the system falls apart without them -- even if they are not considered to be part of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or a paid occupation?
     While I find the project fascinating just from a theoretical basis, I keep finding more and more potential uses as I consider the matter.

Pay and the Perception of Fairness

     Once upon a time, I worked for a high-tech division (Bell Laboratories) of a company. Within the company, the technical people knew what the pay scale was on a statistical basis. Each level of promotion was paid the square root of two, on average, times the average pay of the level below. Thus, my department head (the manager of my manager) would, on average, be paid twice the amount that someone at my level, on average, would get paid. This went up at least four levels. It did NOT go to the very top (more on that later) but it did go up a ways.
     There were sub-levels to which the square root of two did not apply. For example, the equivalent of a SW Engineer I versus a SW Engineer II did not connect to the ratio of the square root of two. But, in general, people knew what type of average deltas existed between levels (and even sub-levels, to a point). I keep saying "on average" because, as was (and still is) true for most companies, the monetary amount for each level was not publicly discussed -- neither the average nor the range.
     This worked well. The precise amount did not matter too much. Maybe each level could have increased by the square root of three rather than two. It couldn't be a lot more than that, however, and still be considered "fair". It was known, and understood, that each level had more responsibility than the previous but -- beyond a certain ratio -- pay ratios could get out of whack (no longer at a reasonable point). Perception of fairness depended on two things -- visibility of ratios and a translation of that to a delta of responsibilities and duties.
     How high up in the hierarchy did this pay ratio between levels apply? I don't know. As stated earlier, it made it four levels up. Beyond that, I don't know except that it did NOT apply to the highest executive levels. Thus, at some point, the ratios were discarded.
     This discrepancy, or abandonment, of fairness at the higher layers was a topic of discussion. Most of the time it was just something in the background as we were doing OK within the company and system. One year, however, the CEO doubled their salary while doing a pay freeze for the rest of the employees. That did not go down well but it was known that most of the people were there because they could do the work they wanted to do -- not primarily for the money. But the perception of fairness never returned and morale never quite made it back to the same levels.
     So, how should a CEO be paid? What is fair? If you used the formula I mentioned at the beginning here, then a CEO of a huge corporation should be paid about 16 times that of a regular worker. Is that close to the reality? Nope. Not even in Poland, where a CEO gets about 28 times that of a regular worker. If we used the (straining the "fairness" doctrine) square root of three (rather than two) ratio, it would mean that a CEO of a huge corporation would be paid 81 times that of a regular worker.
     What is it like in the United States? About 354 times that of a regular worker -- it continues to go up and up. The highest in Europe is a ratio of about 148 to 1 in Switzerland. An article with more numbers is here.
     So, once again, what is fair? More important, what meets the PERCEPTION of fair? Perception of fairness goes hand in hand with perceived mobility. If I can work hard and get that golden apple, that brass ring of the merry-go-round, that round-the-clock money mill then almost anything can be perceived as fair. Dreams of winning the lottery just don't allow reality and statistics to interfere.
     Note that there are two categories of CEOs -- those who are heads of private corporations and those who are heads of public corporations. The CEOs of private corporations often have relatively low salaries because they have large amounts of equity (ownership) and recognize that putting money back into the company (if successful) will give them a higher eventual rate of return. Taking out a lower salary allows the money to be used to actively grow the company. When I was "Vice President of Engineering" of a company that I co-founded, my salary was only a little (not even the square root of two ) higher than the rest of the employees.
     The CEOs of public corporations have salaries, perks, "golden parachutes", and so forth determined by the board of directors. They will have equity as part of their compensation but their salaries have no direct interaction with the equity. In other words, a lower salary does not translate into higher potential equity and a higher salary does not mean less equity.
     So, how is the compensation package of the CEO of a for-profit (non-profit is similar but generally has a ceiling beyond which people won't tolerate) public corporation determined? First, please note that public corporations (those which have had a successful Initial Public Offering (IPO)) are going to be beyond the small scale of most private corporations. Saying, as an example, that an average employee's compensation package (salary, taxes, benefits, physical overhead, etc.) is $50,000/year this would indicate an average U.S. CEO salary of $17.7 Million/year. Obviously, a company grossing $15 Million/year cannot pay this. Probably a company would have to start reaching a $500 Million/year gross income before their board of directors would even consider a $17.7 Million/year compensation package for the CEO.
     The above referenced study actually indicates the average CEO salary in the U.S. is approximately $12.3 Million/year (less than that $17.7 Million/year of the example calculation). I have not seen a distribution graph of CEO salaries. However, the highest paid CEO in the U.S. for 2017 is $236 Million/year. My suspicion (not verified by any hard data) is that the distribution does not follow a standard bell curve. I think that there are a lot of lower salaries from smaller companies that bring down the average from the higher paid ones. But, since the average still exists at 354 times average worker, there also has to be a lot of very highly paid ones.
     These highly paid CEOs are not really in the salaried employee category. They are Rock Stars, Professional Sports First Draft Picks, Celebrity Panelists, and so forth. Their compensation packages are based on competition between boards of directors which keep inflating compensating packages in order to "win" -- show that they have a better CEO because they are paid more. There is no tie between company performance and package and most have such extensive separation packages that someone can be hired as a CEO, do a horrible job, and leave with enough money to support 1,000 (or more) families for a year.
     Boards of directors are theoretically determined by the stockholders -- but stockholders care primarily about quarterly results and, with the mega corporations, even effective losses of hundreds of millions of dollars, don't affect the bottom line much. If that is so, does it really matter what the CEOs are paid? Some say no, it doesn't. Personally, I think (like the situation from my earlier career days) it poisons morale. And, whether it affects the stockholder's value or not, that $236 Million/year is paid for by at least $1000/employee in the one company. In other companies, it may affect the "average" employee even more. But it is still all part of the package of valuation of employees at companies -- not just the CEO's compensation package.

The Fragility of Life

     Growing up, I was not in the very bottom of the the U.S.'s income classes but, as discussed in my blog on Democratic class structures, we were in the lower income region. This basically meant that we survived but we never quite knew how we were going to survive. Each day was a recognition that my father might not have a job after the end of that day, my mother might be heading out again to find yet another service job, and that it might even mean moving once again. But, in comparison to many, I was still lucky and blissfully ignorant of how bad it might be -- I always had food, shelter, clothing and, although I was aware of those who did not have such, since I had always had them, I still mostly felt that I would continue to have them.

     This stays with me, on a daily basis, as part of my individual psyche. Each day when I go to work, I recognize that I might not have a job when I come back. When I spend money I am concerned as to whether I am saving enough -- do I REALLY need that item -- or should it go into savings? But, if I put it into investments or savings, is it really safe? Should I, instead, live fully with my income as it is and just live with the reality that it might go away at any moment?

     Life is insecure. Life is fragile.

     My children haven't faced that environment and it is both good and bad. They don't have the fears and they do have a feeling of security. On the other hand, it is hard for them to really understand how others can be so concerned about their ability to live into the future. Empathy is also more difficult when you have always had store-made shoes in which to walk.

     Life is fragile. It can be fragile because you are aware that a job is something that not everyone has and which you might not have after the end of the day. Some groups face something even more directly tangible -- you might be dead because someone feeling anger, fear, or hatred decides to kill you as you walk along the street.

     Recognizing that life may end at a moment's notice affects the way people live. You live each day as best as you can -- or you give up (either option is possible with, in addition, complex mixing of both). You embrace family while, at the same time, you cherish them each day because either you, or they, may be lost before tomorrow. Or you reject family -- afraid of the pain that will occur if you lose them. You may live life loudly -- shouting instead of speaking -- out of joy of life. Or you may retreat into your own world drawing up the blanket to hope that the angels of death and misery will pass you by. Everything may be met with a laugh, perhaps your best shield against the pain and fear. Or there may be a blank face to the world trying to never give offense, never be noticed.

     In regions of the world where war and poverty are more prevalent on a daily basis, life is seen as ghostly. You don't name your children until they are one or two years old because the chances are good they won't live that long. Material objects become meaningless (or everything) because a bomb may take them away as you are sleeping. Knowledge becomes more important because, most of the time, that cannot easily be taken. At the same time, the ability to survive may be paramount and leave no time or energy for seeking out knowledge that is not able to be immediately put to use.

     Daily awareness, conscious or subconscious, of life's fragility molds the way many of us live our lives on a day to day basis. We may fight for greater opportunities and equality of treatment. Or we may take the other end of the teeter-totter and hold tight to what we have and denying others out of fear of loss of our own -- the fear of scarcity. We may look around and decide to blame others for our situation. Or we may look around and recognize what we do have and embrace that.

     As difficult as being aware of life's fragility may make life -- lack of awareness, in my opinion, is much worse. No fear for the future because it exists as a tantamount right and anything done to stay on top of the mountain is as natural as water running downstream. Everyone else deserves to be in an inferior, lesser, position, because the divine right of ownership and leadership belongs to oneself. If you have the power to do what will benefit you then you use it for such. More is never enough because you are entitled to it all.

     I don't have any decent arguments that indicate that reincarnation is a reality -- but it is something in which I WANT to believe. Each of us is placed in life with certain obstacles (even being rich can be an obstacle depending on the definition of the goal) and we struggle forward. Wouldn't it be nice to have further chances with newer, possibly less difficult, obstacles as we give it another try?

Equal opportunity -- that fragile illusion

     Most people think that everyone should have equal opportunities -- opportunity for financial success, opportunity for professional success, opportunity to be and do what they want, opportunity for happiness (in whatever way it is defined). There are those few who feel that they can have what they want only by denying others -- but I believe that most feel that equal opportunity is a good goal.

     There are also people who state that they believe that this is reality -- that there truly is equal opportunity for everyone. If someone is poor, it is because they just haven't worked hard enough. If someone doesn't have health care, it is because it wasn't really important to them to achieve. If someone has not achieved the professional and career level that they want, it is because they aren't good enough and/or haven't worked hard enough.

     As is often true of perceptions, there is a bit of reality mixed in. All the above COULD be true -- maybe the person did not work hard enough, maybe they weren't good enough, maybe something wasn't important enough for them to choose -- they chose something else of equal cost that was of more immediate importance for them. But the idea of equal opportunity is that each person has EQUAL access to the opportunities that allows them to succeed in whatever definition that may be.

     As I said earlier, most people think this should be and there are some who feel that that is the way that it is. It is a fragile illusion and is just not true for most people. Obstacles exist and not everyone has the same obstacles, or the same amount of obstacles, or the same ease of working through obstacles. While it is still possible for someone with many, many, obstacles to achieve "success" they may need to work many times harder AND encounter rare opportunities that many in their situation do not encounter (that is, they have to have "luck") as opposed to another person who has to work very little and have many opportunities presented.

     At heart, there are a number of different areas which present these uneven obstacles. Although I will present them in categories, they might fit into multiple categories or be "properly" classified in a totally different category. I won't argue about such -- what I am presenting is the idea that, because of all of these obstacles which are not the same for all people, equal opportunity is an illusion and, in order for the chance of "success", sometimes outside help is needed. Some of these areas include:

• Nutrition. We presently have young children in Flint, Michigan growing up having had excess levels of lead in their drinking water. This will affect them all their lives. With continuously deteriorating infrastructure, including water lines and treatment plants, this is not unique to Flint even though it presently gets the headlines.
  
  Although few starve in the United States, malnutrition still exists (see previous blogs on nutrition and economics) because good nutrition requires good food and time to prepare and the poor often do not invest in this. With malnutrition, the full individual potential is difficult to achieve.
  
• Income. Income facilitates many things. It allows access to better schools and teachers. It allows more time to be spent on activities for learning and relaxation rather than for survival. It provides access to networks of people who also have easy access to facilities and opportunities which can make a huge difference.
  
  Even though general attributes which may lead to success exist independent of wealth, or pigmentation, or ethnic history, income does help, and always has helped, to eliminate obstacles and ease the road to opportunities.
  
• Prejudices. Opportunities can be explicitly denied to others because of the prejudices of those with the power. While prejudices can also exist on the part of the less powerful, those with power have the ability to "close the door" to others. Prejudices may be from most recent nationality ("Irish need not Apply", "No Chinese allowed", "Wetbacks not admitted", ...). They may be based on "race" (usually applied based on skin pigmentation, speech, or body patterns). They can be based on gender (male, female, trans-sexual, etc.). They can be based on religion, or ethnic background, or any other aspect that can be used as a separating label.
  
  Whatever prejudice exists, it can be used by those with power to limit opportunity and often has, both in the past and in the present.
  
  
• Health. "People have diabetes because they choose a bad lifestyle." Sorry, but I did not choose my mother or my grandfather. Perhaps I could have eaten, or lived, in a manner that would have lessened my chance to get diabetes --  but I have no control over my genetic history, the preservatives, hormones, pesticides, insecticides, food additives, or other aspects of our environment which are now leading to rising cases of diabetes.
  
  People do not choose to be born blind, or deaf, or without use of some of their limbs. While there are many strong, courageous people who have overcome such obstacles -- they are still obstacles that others do NOT have to combat and, thus, prevent equal opportunity.
  
  In addition to birth conditions and genetically-inclined diseases, people encounter other health issues through their lives. With proper health care, most can be worked with, but many people in the U.S. do NOT have full access to proper health care. Some health issues can arise out of personal choices (smoking, drinking, illegal and legal drugs, ...) and some feel that others should not help support them in the consequences from these deliberate choices. But there are many other choices that are NOT deliberate and even the deliberate bad choices are made from an environment of unequal possibilities.
  
• Appearance. OK. It shouldn't be this way but a taller person is more likely to be elected to office. A more fit person is more likely to be offered an opportunity that interacts with the general public. Societal views of "attractiveness" gives an advantage, or disadvantage, in the getting of jobs and of the likelihood of getting raises.
  
• Access. I talked about the aspect of income of giving access to opportunities. However, there are also physical access aspects. Currently, there is debate about getting rural access to broadband Internet -- it costs more to provide such but there is reluctance to charge rural people more (similar to the issues involving landline telephone access in the early and mid 20th century).
  
  If you live an hour from the closest library and cultural centers, it will make a difference. If your local town, or neighborhood, has limited possible choices and you cannot go elsewhere, it will make a difference.
  
• Education. Beginning with the time of Benjamin Franklin, and before, the idea of public education has been an important one to improve the chances of equal opportunities. Funding has always been a handicap to providing equal education but the struggle has continued with parents and teachers advocating for better, and more equal, public education.
  
  The "successful" -- even those who have been able to make use of private education -- have equally made use of public education to provide the workers needed for them to achieve their goals. Public education is needed to provide for the various types of workers needed within a society. Debate exists about how far along financial help should be provided for education -- but educated people are needed by society and, in my opinion, society should pay for what society needs. It is certainly an area to debate but it is true that the rich cannot exist without public education even if they do not directly make use of it.
  
• Role Models. Sometimes the use of language for various positions is made fun of as being "politically correct". However, if a postal carrier is always referred to as a mailman then people WILL think of a "man" in the role -- even though the gender has nothing to do with it. Similar to a congressperson. It would be possible to refer to people as congressmen and congresswomen but, in reality, gender has nothing to do with the role and it is both easier, and more accurate, to refer to them as congresspeople.
  
  On the visual side, if people see people who come from similar ethnic or religious heritage in a particular role, they will think that that is a role in which they might find themselves at some time. If a CEO that is pictured is a woman as often as a man, then the term will become non-genderized. People find it much easier to imagine themselves in a specific role if others who remind themselves of themselves can be seen in those roles.
  
• Physical Environment. A home is much more than a house, or apartment -- but having someplace stable to call home is important to people. It is important to their sense of stability and of being able to make plans for the future. In a similar fashion, it needs to be a safe place -- no rats coming out of the toilet or patches of plaster falling off the ceiling in the middle of the night. It needs to be sufficiently warm in winter and bearable in summer so that they can study, think, and relax.
  
• Home Environment. A final (for this blog) category of obstacle is that of the home environment. This is in addition to the physical environment. Are there people to talk to? People to encourage and help? People to comfort and aid when things don't go wrong? Is there an environment of angry survival or hopeful loving comfort and support? While there is not that much, in isolation, that society can do to help in this -- it CAN be helped with the removal, or minimizing, of the other obstacles that people encounter.

     These are just a few types of obstacles that can stand in a person's way to the path of opportunities. What others come to mind for you? What are the best ways to make obstacles more even and allow something closer to "equal opportunity"?

Hunger and appetite -- the lost relationship

     "Eat your vegetables." "Clean up your plate." "Don't you know that there are starving children in XXX and YYY who would love to have that food?" It may not be quite as true for children in the United States as it was 50 years ago, but I suspect many of the same statements are heard around the table. Of course, the last question of food distribution is more of a political issue than an economic or nutritional one.

     On the positive side, I was not allowed to become a "picky" eater. If it was cold, I ate it. If it was spoiled, I ate it. If it was burned, I ate it. If I hated it, I ate it. (If I loved it, I ate it but might, or might not, have more.) I remember one time when I refused to eat something and I was required to stay at the dinner table until I cleaned my plate. As I recall, that was at about 4 in the morning. I possibly could have (and maybe not) "toughed it out" and "succeeded" in not eating it but I reached the point of realizing that I might win that battle but I would lose the ongoing struggle.

     On the negative side, there was no control over portion size or what I ate. In fact, on those rare occasions when we ate out, I was not only expected to clean my plate but my mother seemed to feel that I was there as a garbage collector to clean her plate as well ("the growing boy needs his food and we are not going to waste any"). Any relationship between hunger and eating was burned out of me.

     As a result, it is probably not a surprise that I had problems controlling my weight. My older brother was "blessed" with a more active metabolism and didn't gain weight until after his metabolism changed when he was about 30. He stayed skinny. I did not. It wasn't until I was away from home and had direct control over my eating that I succeeded (with the help of a swim class and a mile of swimming per day) in getting my weight under control.

     That success did not carry over to the basics of appetite and portion control. I still had no correlation between how much my body needed and how much I ate. So, over the years, I regained the weight. During this same period (from the 1960s on), portion sizes at restaurants started on their continual gradient  (see my "Supersizing" blog about the economics behind that trend) -- and "fast foods" became more of a daily reliance than an occasional treat.

     The relationship between need and consumption is still not encouraged by the economic system of the U.S. Consumption is increased by various methods: commercials and general media as well as additives within the food. Addition of sugar adds to the calories, reduces the nutritional balance, and takes advantage of the "swallow reflex" to cause the body to want to eat beyond any (now ignored) response of fullness. Extra salt and/or MSG is added to enhance the other flavors to make it more appetizing without the need for careful preparation or more expensive ingredients.

     It is possible to escape the cycle of eating without need (in the areas of the world where food is not in shortage) but it is "swimming up stream". First thing to do is to set portion control. I now have the mantra of "to waste or to waist" -- meaning that I may waste extra food but it is not going to add to the inches around my waist. It is still difficult for me to actually throw food away so leftovers come back to the house (adding to landfill contents and, often, still being thrown away when there is no opportunity to actually need it for a meal). And people in the U.S. (not such a problem elsewhere) expect larger portions for the prices that are paid.

     After portion control (which can be done by mathematics rather than recovering one's ability to feel full) comes a deliberate reduction (or attempted elimination) of refined sugar and carbohydrates in the diet as well as the artificial sweeteners and substitutes which are, most likely, no better for your body (and possibly a lot worse). Not eating out gives much more control but processed foods are more accessible and more economic than home-prepared foods. I can buy grated cheese for less than I can buy block cheese and grate it myself (economics of scale, packaging, and distribution). In other words, a significant change in lifestyle as well as ignoring the economic, commercial, and media pressure to do otherwise is needed. Very difficult.

     Another item which can help is to take time with meals -- both in preparation and in consumption. My wife talks about the 10 minutes that we get to spend with our sons at the dinner table before they head back off. In many countries, and societies, that is a half-hour or more. The average amount of work hours in the United States is so high that various other non-work activities are cut down. And one of the dominant areas of reduction is in meal time.

     I am still fighting (at almost 60) to regain a relationship between need and consumption -- hunger and satiation. I make some progress but it is not easy -- society has evolved to make it undesirable for it to be easy. When you reach for the next bite of food, start asking yourself (this will slow down your eating also) whether you really want it. You may be surprised at the answer.

Automation, employment, and UBI: how do they interact?

     In the early 1800s, groups of English craftspeople banded together (in a loosely organized fashion) into groups called Luddites. They were primarily home workers who did piecemeal weaving and other hand work which was in the process of being displaced by automation. In this case, it was a matter of large mills being set up with machinery that allowed much more work to be done with many fewer people. Their existing livelihoods were threatened and they rebelled -- destroying equipment and damaging factories until they were brought under control by continuously increasing violence on the part of the shop owners and government. This was the foundation of displacement by automation -- local retraining and dispersement of labor.

     In the world today, a first phase of economic displacement has occurred because of unequal labor laws across the world. Some areas pay low wages in comparison to where the products are sold (sometimes the wages are not that bad in comparison to other wages local to the workers). Some bypass, or do not have, environmental laws or labor laws which prevent the more severe abuse of workers in the region and/or move the burden of cleaning the environment to the general society. In this first phase, the manufacturing base is still trying to do more with less; in this first phase, it is done by moving the work to places where they can make use of people who are valued less.

     In the original Luddite period, automation came in and workers had to be retrained but the work and the labor remained local. Overall employment was (eventually) retained by retraining and by increasing the product market (increased consumerism and the rise of the "middle class"). In the first phase, production was moved to other locales to take advantage of the discrepancies of laws, working conditions, and attitudes toward general workers.

     We are now entering the second phase.  In this second phase, the cost of automation starts becoming less expensive, and more efficient, for the business owners than even that of outsourced labor and sub-component manufacture. In this second phase, it is still possible to have retraining but even with increased general education and increased consumerism it is not possible to fully compensate for the need of fewer workers per manufactured widget.

     As the tip-over occurs, the global amount of unemployment will steadily rise. There are, of course, various options. Some philosophical/economic groups feel there is no obligation by society to care about the poor -- so those without employment are free to starve or scrape by in any way they can (except by attacking the privileged, of course). Other groups recognize this economic trend and have started to set up a stabilizing economic foundation so that, as automation continues to shift and replace the existing workforce, people have the ability to live at a sustenance (ability to house, feed, and educate themselves) level.

     This concept of an economic foundation is called Universal Basic Income (UBI). It replaces various per-situation social supports (in the U.S., projects such as "welfare", "food stamps", "subsidized housing", and so forth) and allows for everyone to start off at a basic level no matter their circumstances. As they are able, and have opportunity, they add on top of this economic foundation to allow for "better" scales of living -- more space, fashionable clothes, less common foods, etc. The foundation exists for them to survive.

     As is true for the various per-situation social supports, there are questions of need versus misuse. One of the concepts behind UBI is that, since everyone is entitled to the benefit, there is no actual potential of misuse. It does require a reorientation of attitudes of social responsibility. It has the very significant advantage of being a simple concept -- although the actual implementation would require a huge shakeup of our economic structures.

     It also requires answering basic questions that are difficult and controversial. Is the ability to survive a basic human right? There is no overall consensus on this question. Should the right to have an unlimited number of children be universal or is this an extra right that must be earned beyond the foundational level of sustenance? What are the minimal needs for survival? Food, shelter, heat (where needed), and minimal clothing can probably be agreed upon but what about items such as Internet access, cell phones? Is education a universal right? To what level might it be provided by the general society?

     There are many other questions that must be resolved about UBI -- assuming that society decides that this is part of our overall social responsibility. There are social "experiments" in the process of being attempted right now and they should provide some ability to understand how various shifts change the economic interactions in society and the problems that surface.

I am not getting older, I am acquiring a new layer

     I have the privilege of turning 60 years of age this year. It is indeed a privilege but I cannot truly claim that I feel like I have been growing older -- it's just that more and more of the people around me are growing younger each year. While there are indeed parts of this body that are not running as well as they used to, there are a (too) few parts that run better than ever. I am, indeed, the same person that I used to be but, like a tree with its tree rings, I keep accumulating layers.

     Perhaps an analogy to a Matryoshka nesting doll might be more appropriate. Someone from the outside notices only the outside layer but I have access to all of the layers down to the first one that became self-aware. (That seems to vary from person to person -- some even claiming to recall their birth.)

     That doesn't mean that all of the layers are intact or equally accessible. As is true for most people, there are periods of my life that didn't go so well -- or had outside events happening that prevented (or accelerated) growth during that time. In this situation, perhaps tree rings are a better analogy; growth rings get wider or narrower depending on existing conditions for the year. Perhaps, like the view of light in physics, the layers can be seen differently depending on what is being observed.

     This view is not symmetrical -- people on the "outside" first see the outside layer of the nesting doll. And, frankly, people are not very good at observing those layers. Due to wonderful inheritances from my parents and grandparents, I got my first white hair at age 11 and was largely bald by age 30. A teenager gave me my first senior discount at age 38. (I didn't ask for it but who was I to embarrass them by refusing it?) It works in my favor now, however, as people start saying how young I look for my age .

     I say that people first see the outside layer -- but once people start getting to know others those layers start peeling away. I have an advantage, of course, because I already know what is underneath my own layers. Younger people may have more difficulty finding my layer that is parallel to theirs. One has to be a bit careful in "behaving one's age" if, for that day, you actually feel that 21-year-old within you trying to peek back out.

     One of the exercises of advancing age is to keep de-nesting the layers of the doll. If a situation calls for the attitudes of a 21-year-old then do so (tempered by the (hoped-for) wisdom and experience of your later layers). It is important to not let the layers get stuck together because there is so much that was learned and times when the attitudes and approaches of each age are the most appropriate.

Comparison shopping: When no choice seems to be a good one.

     I am a consumer. I admit it. I also try to make conscious choices -- picking products from companies that are less harsh to the earth, that work constructively with their employees rather than against them, and so forth. These are characteristics of the companies that are important to me that lead me to consider products in the first place.

     But, beyond that, I want to pick the product that seems to be the "best" to me. In order to do that, I need to understand what qualities I want, or feel that I need. Once I understand that, I check reviews and product comparisons to see what products best match to my desires. It is a logical process but it can drive people around me totally nuts if this is not the way they approach purchasing items. (The way they approach evaluations also drives me nuts -- it is an equal opportunity situation 😄 )

     In what is referred to as a "free market" situation, it is possible to make decisions solely upon the perceived qualities of a product. Qualities can include appearance, durability, price, features, societal responsibility, and so forth. Note that the perception is what counts. If a societal section decides that orange is the most beautiful color for eyeglasses then that is it. If a tall person is looking for a car then the head and leg room of the driver's seat area will be of great importance and value. If a short person is looking then they will consider a completely different selection of cars based upon their own needs -- probably for seat adjustment and ease of access to hand and foot controls. Each person has different needs and, thus, different sets of qualities.

     Some qualities should be more objective. A new tire with a lifetime of 50,000 miles should be considered to have better wear than another tire that has a lifetime of 20,000 miles. Of course, there may be other qualities that are more important than lifetime -- such as the ability to handle wet roads in Seattle (which may be of no interest in the Sahara).

     But what happens when you have only two choices of tires -- one that has a lifetime of 20,000 miles and one that has a lifetime of 15,000? All other qualities equal, people choose the tires that last 20,000 and the manufacturer of the 15,000 mile tire goes back to their labs and tries to develop a tire that lasts 25,000 miles. This is called constructive competition. The end result of such competition is the development of better products and lower prices for consumers. This is the ideal situation for the consumer.

     What happens when there is only ONE (1) supplier of tires for a region? They sell 20,000 mile tires for a while and then they decide to start selling the 20,000 mile tires for a higher price and selling a 15,000 mile tire for the same price as they used to get for the 20,000 mile tire. This is called a monopoly situation and is not a good one for the consumer or the quality of products. Monopolies can either be established by "natural" restriction of access to resources (all of the widgets are found only in areas controlled by a company) or by economic leverage (all of the competitors are under-priced until they go out of business or are purchased by the larger company). Laws can be created to control this situation to improve the situation for the consumer and for the improving qualities of the product -- but sometimes no laws are created and the monopoly continues to exist and degrade quality and inflate prices.

     By definition, there cannot be a monopoly with more than one company in active competition. But there can be private agreements between two or more companies that allow both, or all, to expand their profits at the expense of the consumers and which produce no constructive competition. This group of two or more companies can be called a "cartel". Although no single company within the group is a monopoly, they are able to control access to resources and to the consumers so that other companies that are not part of the cartel cannot compete. Laws can be devised to restrict this but they are much more difficult to monitor and enforce -- and, once again, it is possible that no law will be created.

     Finally, it is also to the advantage of each company to restrict comparisons. This can be done by restriction of the movement of information (control of media access, for example). It can also be done by creating "brand loyalty" -- such that the consumers directly identify with the product of the company rather than the qualities of the product. With sufficient brand loyalty, a company has a base of consumers for which it needs to provide neither quality nor value.

     So, on to the title of the blog. What happens when no choice seems to be a good one? In a free market situation new companies will arise if adequate constructive competition does not take place among existing companies. Old companies die away if they cannot maintain satisfaction of their consumer base. This can only happen in a truly free market and a truly free market can only exist with regulation and supervision. Otherwise, monopolies, cartels, and other restrictions penalize the consumers and the quality of the products in favor of the profits of the companies.

     I used tires as an example of a product. In reality, anything that people choose (or do NOT choose) is a product. This may include political candidates, or services (education, for example), or resources (water, for example), as well as manufactured products. Within any product marketing situation the free market allows consumers the best options. Giving the illusion of a free market while actually controlling the choices of the consumer favors the producers. It is a continual struggle as the needs of each are weighed against each other.

Elections: Why does Money Matter?

     In the United States, we have just finished a major election cycle but elections never actually end. There are "special elections" which are held to fill positions that are vacated -- whether from causes of illness or death or that of being shifted to another position, either elected or appointed. There are local elections and state elections and special issue elections. And, there is the continuous preparation for the next election cycle.

     During any of these, unless you are remarkably successful at making yourself invisible, you will be approached by one campaign or another (sometimes both sides, or multiple candidates) to make a donation. And, if you do make a donation, you may feel assured that you will be approached again ... and again ... and again. In the age of electronic distribution of information, this may well often take the form of social media postings and/or electronic mail. Always a crisis. If the polls are "up" then this is a time to solidify the lead. If the polls are "down" then it is desperate for more money to combat the positions of the other candidates or supporters or opposers of issues.

     Money, money, money. Why in the world does it matter? It certainly should NOT matter -- an election should not go to the highest bidder within a democracy. Yet, except in a relatively small portion of elections, the person/issue that spends the most money is likely to win. Why should this be so?

     To delve into that answer, we first need to remember that what we call a "democracy" is almost always actually a "representative democracy". In other words, we do not vote on bills, or articles of government (we sometimes do get to vote on issues or referendum) -- we vote for people whom we trust to represent us. These people are supposed to have similar views and opinions to the majority of the voters who elected them.

     This is not easy. Even in the 1800 United States Census, there were counted as being 5,308,483 people (including slaves) in the United States. With 106 Representatives, that means that each Representative, on average, was to present the points of view of 50,080 individual people. (Of course, not all of those 5,308,483 people could vote -- but they were still supposed to be represented.) There were sixteen states, so there were 32 Senators -- giving a ratio of an average of 165,890 people represented by each Senator.

     So, we see that, even in 1800, there were too many people per representative for the people to know them well. (This is also true about the Electors who were appointed or elected to represent the people at the Electoral College -- another potential blog.) So, how to know? (Note also that, at present, each Representative represents approximately 740,000 people and each Senator an average of 3.2 million people -- so the ratio has not improved over time.)

     There are two basic needs for someone to be considered appropriate to represent people. The first is clear, although not necessarily obvious, and that is that her, or his, name must be known and recognized for which to vote. The second is that there must be a perceived agreement of values and judgement such that this person would be whom we would choose.

     On the first area, the requirements of the present are similar to that of 1800. Their names are known because they are talked about. George Washington, John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson were probably "household names" due to participation in the various needs of the drive for Independence. Later Presidents (and the opposing candidates) were not necessarily known from the American Revolution but they were known for various events (wars, other political matters, etc.) that appeared in newspapers, or the neighbors talking about someone who knew someone who knew them. The media spread their names and the neighbors spread the opinions and discussions.

     Within the present day, the media has become much more important -- including what is referred to as the social media. Unfortunately (in my opinion), full and frank discussion with neighbors is much less likely. These are methods of spreading the name.

     They are also methods for providing information about the candidates. Not necessarily truthful information but information. There are two general methods of getting information -- "push" and "pull". When people are being "push"ed information, they are receiving information from others who are interested in you receiving it. On the other hand, if you are "pull"ing information, you are in control of what information you want to receive and also you are in control of the sources. While it is completely possible that information that is "pull"ed from an information source is not accurate or truthful, there is control by the recipient both in the type of information and the various sources of information (and there should be multiple sources).

     OK. Now, what about money? Isn't that the core of this blog? Information is spread by the media. The media chooses to spread information because they think that people are inherently interested or because they are paid to do so. The first is called "free publicity" and every candidate attempts to get it (some are vastly more successful than others). Some, however, must be paid for -- bumper stickers, yard signs, lapel pins, and so forth. In addition, they may have either live (people -- sometimes paid and sometimes volunteer) or automated ('bot) banks of telephone lines to call people to pass the information they want to send. There are also events to which the candidates may travel to pass their words along "directly" to people. Note these are all "push" types of data transfer. And "push" rules the day in the case of elections. Sometimes, the amount of information becomes a bombardment with so many (often contradictory) items of information coming that the receiver just stops listening.

     What about "pull" information? Well, most candidates have campaign offices and campaign websites (presently -- none existed in 1800) and this lists the official positions of the candidates. However, like the "push" information, this is information that the candidates want you to have (truthful, not truthful, or in-between and misleading). In order to get information that the candidates do NOT want you to have, it is necessary to go on other websites and check other sources of information. When a claim is made, check that claim from multiple other sites. Check the government records for recorded votes on issues. Don't be particularly surprised if you find that the candidate's position on various issues differs from the way they vote.

     Is it surprising that most of the information spread by the candidate is of the "push" variety (only a limited amount of "pull" information publicly accessible to interested people)? Unfortunately, it should not be -- candidates want you to absorb (and believe) information that they want you to have. The only way that you can increase your chances of getting accurate information is to "pull" the information from many different sources. This takes time. This takes energy. And, most importantly, this takes an open mind -- which is often very difficult to maintain after all of the bombardments of the "push" information.

     So, in summary, most of the money goes for "push" information. The exact expenses include administrative, equipment, events, media, payroll, strategy & research, technology, travel, and others. The emphasis on "push" information means that they want you to base your decisions on the information that they give to you (including the information that their opposing candidates produce on them). It is not good to rely solely on "push" information but it is the reason that money makes such a huge difference -- the majority of people who vote rely mostly on this "push" information and money allows this to reach as many people as possible and as often as possible.

     If most people did their own research, then money needs would be limited to name recognition, "pull" sites for information, and a small amount of "push" money to allow people to see/hear/touch the candidate to make that closer feel. But "push" information rules -- and so does money.
   

The Puritan effect: Why are U.S. jails so full?

     In the United States, our incarceration rate is number one among the larger countries (The Seychelles have a slightly higher rate but with many fewer people). So, why does the U.S. have so many people in prison? Are U.S citizens just natural crooks?

     And should we care? Well, the greater the number of people there are in jail, the fewer there are paying taxes and participating in constructive contributions to society. In addition, a person in jail costs the community/state/federal government from $70,000/year to $200,000/year. Personally, I would much prefer to use that kind of money on improving education, infrastructure, child care, and other public benefits. Remember that, even though there is no such thing as a "free lunch", we SHOULD be able to determine how our tax money is used.

     The reality is that the incarceration rate varies for all countries depending on various factors -- some of which fluctuate because of political and economic events. In the U.S., we had a very low rate of imprisonment in the 1930s and 1940s -- possibly because the U.S. economy could not support that many people in the prisons so it was primarily the violent offenders that remained there. In the 1960s, the U.S. had a "world average" of imprisonment and it has continued to rise until, today, it is about the highest in the world with around 700 people in prison for every 100,000 citizens. In contrast, Cuba has about 500, Russia has about 450, Costa Rica has about 350, and the United Kingdom has about 150.

     People are basically the same all around the world. Some are jerks. Some are criminals. Some are saints. Some are lazy. Some are hard-working. Some are poor. Some are rich. Some are smart. Some are not smart. And so forth. External aspects don't make much difference -- skin color, gender, religion, nationality, et cetera. There are some cultural influences on how important studying may be or how much physical activity is praised and rewarded but, at heart, everyone is in the same human pool.

     So, why does the U.S. presently have such a high prison rate? A large part of it has been the slide of income inequality as (true in every country) there are a higher percentage of poor people in prisons than there are of rich people (once again, NOT because poor people are more likely to be criminals). Keep in mind that a "crime" means that a law has been determined to have been broken. Thus, something may be a "crime" in one country, or by certain people, or at a certain time -- and NOT a "crime" in a different country, or when done by different people, or at a different time.

     But, specifically, there are a number of factors (not firmly listed in order -- but perhaps in order of most easily changed):

• For-profit Prisons. This makes absolutely no sense within a capitalistic society. Capitalism operates (loosely) on Supply and Demand as well as profit margins. In order to increase profits per inmate, a prison will work to reduce expenditures which is likely to increase the chance of the criminal coming back. Also, it is to their interest to INCREASE the number of criminals and they do this by heavily lobbying for increased sentences for a greater number of newly created "crimes". A profitable prison means a greater and greater number of criminals every year.
  
  
• The Pilgrim Effect and Vice Crimes. The Pilgrims were a small group of settlers within the United States -- very small in number in proportion to all of the other immigrants (all in the U.S. are immigrants -- even First Nation). But their effect on the national psyche is enormous. Or, at least, that is the way I refer to it.
  
  The Pilgrims felt that they should control how every individual behaved and thought on a daily and minute-to-minute basis. Politicians in the U.S. make use of this desire to control others by creating laws (and, when laws are created, so are crimes and criminals) that are aimed at the thoughts and behaviors of citizens THAT DO NOT AFFECT OTHERS. These are also called "vice" laws. There are lots of them -- and a huge difference between the U.S. and other countries in longer governed countries. Laws about drugs (including alcohol), gambling, sexual behavior, and so forth.
  
  One problem with these laws is they do NOT work. The "vices" continue to happen. Secondly, they do succeed in increasing the profits of those who are involved with these activities -- causing additional corruption and organized, highly profitable, criminal businesses both within and without the U.S. The U.S. attempted "Prohibition" of alcohol with the 18th Amendment. After giving the Mafia, and other organized crime, a huge boost in the U.S with attendant increases in murder and other violent crimes, the 21st Amendment reversed it but much of the damage to the country remained.
  
  A side-effect of "vice" laws and increasing their profit margins is that people who feel the need or desire for these substances/behaviors have a greater need for money to participate. This causes a multiplying effect when robberies, assaults, and other property crimes are done to be able to afford the law-enhanced prices.
  
  
• Income Inequality. There are a higher percentage of poor people in prison than there are of rich people. Some of this is similar to the predicament of Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman in the recent movie version) in Les Miserables -- turning to crime to feed their families when they are desperate. By definition, the rich are almost never desperate except in non-economic situations.
  
  Secondly, most of the laws are written BY the rich and FOR the rich. In the federal government, most members are millionaires and it is unlikely to be coincidental that the longest sentences and greatest number of "crimes" are created for actions more likely to be done by the poor and the lightest sentences and fewest "crimes" are created for actions more likely to be done by the rich. The income discrepancy lessens as one moves down to state and local levels but still exists and makes a huge difference.
  
  
• Recidivism and Employment. When "Antman" gets out of prison for a non-violent, capital property crime he gets (with his high-tech degree) a service job from which he is fired once they find out he was convicted of a "felony". While this may be a bit out-of-place (high-tech people are less likely to be discriminated against) the general attitude, and situation, is NOT. It is as if a "felon" is given a lifetime sentence as they are forever actively prevented from being a positive economic or societal force. They may literally have "no choice" but to get sent back to being taken care of in jail.
  
  In addition to permanent economic retribution, ex-prisoners (especially from the for-profit prisons) may not have improved their ability to get a job (assuming anyone will let them have one) and be sent back to the same economic and societal environment that left them feeling that "crime" was their best option.
  
  
• Racism. J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI from 1935 to 1972, was a fervent racist and implemented dual-prong attacks to help keep blacks, in particular, from achieving greater opportunities. He instigated additional drug sales into poorer neighborhoods while, at the same time, blackmailing and pressuring Congress into passing laws making use of those same drugs to be a crime. What didn't use to be a crime -- now was. And what didn't use to be a problem in those neighborhoods -- now was.
  
  Prior to the various Civil Rights laws and, once again, since the Supreme Court decided (on June 25, 2013) to remove the ability to enforce many of those Civil Rights laws, many laws were put into place where they applied ONLY to people of certain definitions -- usually of certain skin colors or of more recent non-Anglo heritage.
  
  
• Unequal Enforcement. Related to income inequality in that there are different laws defined to be more likely oriented towards the rich as to the poor. However, even within the same category of laws, certain groups are favored over other groups. These groups include "whites", the rich, males, and other majority (or formerly majority)-oriented groups.
  
  A poor person may get 10 years of prison for a $10,000 theft. Meanwhile, a rich person may get 6 months probation for stealing $10 million from a group of people. The punishments are actually reverse proportionate. Discrepancies get even greater when corporate crime is committed, with no one actually getting punished at all (and only a mild discomfort when any fines are passed along to the employees and stockholders). This is a broken Justice System.
  
  Note that, in the United States, there is the notion of a "jury of our peers". This should mean that poor people should be judged by poor people and rich people judged by rich people -- but doesn't always quite mean that. However, poor people are more likely to be harsh with other poor people. I believe it is an attitude of "I had to struggle so hard to survive without having to commit crimes, how dare you take an easier route".
  
  
• Alternate Punishments. Of course, one method of reducing the number of people in prison is to have alternate punishments. It is possible to have periods of public work labor. It is possible to have a separate "withholding" of parts of a paycheck(s) to pay back damages or theft losses.
  
  The idea of alternate punishments is to address the damage(s) caused by the "crime" while retaining the ability for people to continue to contribute to society. This is normally only possible for non-violent crime. In some countries, prison is avoided by increasing the frequency of the death penalty -- which I don't recommend because it is so difficult (impossible) to correct mistakes (which do happen on a regular basis).
  

     In summation, the U.S. could quickly reduce the number of people in prison. Eliminate for-profit prisons. Eliminate laws that are about "crimes" that only affect the individual -- the "vice" crimes. AND make it retroactive such that all who have been convicted under such laws are released and their records eliminated. Make it a requirement to have a reason-produced court order to obtain criminal records of job applicants.
     Other aspects of imprisonment imply a direct change to culture and society that may end up taking many years -- but still are worthy of effort for change.

Language: Translations of Thought

     I have always loved language. So far, in decreasing order of proficiency, I have studied English, French, Russian, German, Spanish, Farsi, Mandarin, and Italian (currently working within Mandarin). But don't expect me to be able to immediately respond in anything but English (and, perhaps, French) as I have never been in the situation of actively using languages other than English on a daily basis so, over my 60 years of language learning, there are some parts that will need an archaeologist to unearth. That doesn't stop my love of languages or my desire to understand.

     It is sometimes still a puzzle for me to move between what language indicates and what it means but I still love it. I cannot stand euphemisms, however, because I feel like they steal from the language. They are, in my opinion, the "anti-language" whose purpose is to create confusion and make communication more difficult. I will tackle them in another blog, as they deserve their own piece.

     A lot of people like to categorize -- and I confess to being part of that group (in case you have never been able to tell from my blogs). Languages can fall into two general groups -- "natural" and "created" languages. Natural languages develop from the first grunt up into a sequence of complex sounds and structures that are unique in relation to the world. Created languages are devised by communicating individuals for specific purposes, with specific goals and (usually but not always) specific audiences.

     Natural languages do not appear only within the human world. I have recently read an article about the creation of a bottlenose dolphin dictionary. Jane Goodall, within her works with chimpanzees, has used modified sign language (a composite of natural and created language forms) to communicate with the groups of chimpanzees -- but the chimpanzees do start with their own language directly suited to the needs of their environment. To the best of my knowledge, created language remains within the world of tool-manipulating sapients but not necessarily just humans.

     Created languages include those to communicate with machines and those used for specific purposes. For example, Semaphores are coded forms used with sight and hearing to allow simple translations of existing meaning into a form that can be transported over a distance. Within the world of computers, there is machine language which is composed of "instruction sets" which are directly acted upon by the components of the processor. These are built upon by assembly language which is a more readable -- but directly substitutable -- form of machine language. And upon this lies the "high level" computer languages which translate into reproducible larger sets and structures of assembly/machine language.

     Within high level computer languages, the designers have the opportunity to use the language as "shorthand" for things they want to be able to accomplish with fewer commands. SNOBOL is oriented towards manipulating "strings" -- such as sentences or word patterns. FORTRAN was developed primarily for executing mathematical FORmula TRANslation. 'C' is sometimes called the most low level high level language there is because it allows the greatest direct equivalencies to assembly language (even allowing direct insertion of assembly language within a program) without directly using the structures of the processor.

     Other created languages have been formed for social reasons. Esperanto was designed to be a universal human language. There is now an active Klingon language (prior to discovery of physical Klingons) based on the ingenuity of enthusiastic fandom. Pidgin, or "trade" languages, have been created as a merging of the dominant language of the traders and the local language of the people with whom they want to trade.

     Natural languages arise first out of the physical environment. If you live in the Arctic region, then snow and ice are important aspects and need, and deserve, different words variant on the type, use, method of creation, and other characteristics of the frozen water. On the other hand, if you live in the middle of a desert, words for frozen water may not appear very soon but words for types of heat, sand, and moving terrain would be more useful. Vocabulary from life in the high mountains would be different from that of the lowland tropical forests. Your language must first reflect the world around you.

     Beyond the physical environment comes the social, cultural, political, and religious world. In the Russian world and environs, where a central authority has been in control for more than a thousand years, the language reflects a directive authority towards the larger population. People do not do things -- things happen to people. German acts as a "push down" language where many concepts, items, identifiers, and actions may be present and kept as part of the overall context until the sentence has been completed -- at which time all of the parts of the sentence interact. In the early forms of some languages such as Japanese, there are two languages co-existent based on what can be done, and thought, within different social classes.

     An acquaintance pointed out how well suited the ideographs of Asian language are for empires and acquisitions -- the written language acting as a common foundation under many different verbal variants. In addition, the written Chinese language puts together thought concepts into more complex ideas that then take different forms within context. This is very different from written language which reflects the phonetic (sounds) aspect of a spoken language. In the one case, if you can read you can speak. In the other case, if you can read and write you can move concepts from one group to the other without any commonality of the spoken language.

     The recent movie "Arrival", based on the short story, by Ted Chiang, "The Story of Your Life". In this story/film the language is independent of time and, in turn, allows the mind that understands it to be free of the constraints of linear time. Although this may appear to be beyond likelihood of reality, it is true that language gives structure, and constraints, to thought while thoughts are difficult to express without a means to express ideas held in common between two, or more, people.

     Language is a reflection of the history, culture, and story of a people and there is loss when the languages are lost. Translations can be approximate but not exact. But, like with the ideograph, it is possible to create a meta-language that is a concept-based set of structures to allow better translation from one language to another -- which is one approach that current Artificial Intelligence (AI) programs take. No matter what is done, languages open many doors.

Income: the class structure of democracy

     There are a number of topics that tend to make people uncomfortable to discuss. Among these is the reality that there is a class structure within democracies. Some of the original voluntary immigrants to the U.S. were seeking the mobility of opportunity without requiring to be born within the right hereditary class of their society. Democracy is one of the "great equalizers" with one person -- one vote. Unfortunately, it isn't quite that straight-forward -- I'll tackle that within a future blog. But, whether we want to acknowledge it or not, income forms distinct classes within democratic society.

     It is generally recognized that there are three broad categories of income. These are Upper income, Middle income, and Lower income. Sometimes the word "class" enters into descriptions of "upper class" and "middle class" -- it is rarely used with lower income. I would propose that these three categories can be summarized as Survival, Stability, and Search for Purpose. Each of the three primary categories can be broken into three sections: bottom, central, and top. These are categorized by emotions of fear, complacency, and hope; there is fear of dropping from one category to the next lower, a complacency of "deserving" to be in a category, and hope of rising to the next category.

     People have the greatest knowledge of the income sections that they have directly experienced. They can also "glimpse" into sections that are adjacent to those within which they have lived. It is indeed very difficult for people to "walk in another person's shoes" without having lived that life and, thus, there is great difficulty for people to truly understand the lives of those two sections away from what they have experienced (which is an excellent thing to recognize when voting).

     For example, someone who has lived their life within the central upper income section doesn't know, and cannot directly understand, the lives of those in the middle or lower income categories. In a different fashion, someone who has lived at a bottom lower income level can only fantasize about being in the middle or upper income categories. Very occasionally (and less and less frequently), those fantasies become dreams and those dreams become reality. But they always remember (sometimes with fear and sometimes with compassion) where "they came from".

     There is also a comfort level that is felt within the economic section in which one grows up. Consider the "Beverly Hillbillies" U.S. TV show where they become rich but still want to live the way they did. This is a story that is often told about many people who have become rich (performing stars, sports celebrities, etc.). Of course, it goes the other way also -- where people who have lost their wealth can never be content or comfortable at a lower income level. This has an inadvertent side-effect on those who win at lotteries -- they are neither comfortable with, nor are able to properly use or invest, their additional moneys and often end up losing it all.

     During the Great Depression, there were photos taken, and articles written, about wealthy people who committed suicide after having "lost all they had". The reality was that they had usually lost 70 to 90% of what they had -- plummeting them down three or four income sections. The amount they had left would have been considered adequate, or even attractive, to someone in the middle income category but, to them, it was a fate that could not be contemplated.

     My mother was born in 1930 and my father in 1933. They were fortunate that they were born into farming families -- away from the center of the effects of the Dust Bowl. They had food and didn't lose their housing. However, my father was three years old when he lost his own father due to pneumonia and so his early life was also a matter of surviving through the Great Depression. This experience provided a foundation to their life and, indirectly, provided a foundation to mine.

     My father completed ninth grade in high school when he left home. My mother finished tenth grade. Both were hard workers and did well in school but the needs of the family meant that continuing school was not the most immediate priority. As I was growing up, we vacillated between "top lower income" and "bottom middle income" income classes. As I did complete high school and college, I would probably be considered to now be in the "top middle income" region. So, I have either lived, or been able to "glimpse", six income sections. It is a core part of my self-image and relation to my economic life. Each week I am grateful for having a job, somewhat fearful of potential loss (to which I react by saving), and continuing to recognize the daily situation of those in the income sections below my current one.

     My children have only known central middle income and top middle income -- about which I am occasionally sad because they have no direct knowledge, or understanding, of people who have lived within the lower income sections. They do have plans to help join a summer work program to help within a bottom lower income community this year -- perhaps they will gain some insight at that time. The Peace Corps, and similar programs, require people to live at an income level close to that of the communities within which they serve -- perhaps that should be a requirement for all people who wish to run for public office.

     Each of these sections can be categorized by particular behaviors and challenges. However, this particular blog is becoming a bit on the long side. If you are interested in more detail, please tell me so.

Spillover: When trickle-down meets the dam of unregulated income

     About three years ago, I wrote a blog about the "trickle-down" economic concept (Trickle Down Pyramid blog). In that blog, I talked about the difference between the advertised behavior of how the concept is supposed to behave and how it behaves in reality.

     However, at that time, I did NOT talk very much about how this split between concept and reality occurs. I will try to go into some of the aspects of how lack of regulation and proper progressive redistribution (whether via taxes or other method) makes this inevitable.

     Trickle-down seems to make sense (see the first distribution table from my earlier blog) as a concept. The idea is that you give resources (labor/money/etc.) to a set of people who can, and will, make use of it to increase productivity and the general welfare. In this process, they distribute the resources to a second "tier" of people who do the same thing by passing along to a third tier, and so forth. Thus, the resources are funnelled through the top of the pyramid and "trickle-down" to the rest of the population.

     This theory is not actually unique to capitalism. The same theory holds for many other economic philosophies. The differences lie in how the group is chosen to start the distribution and the rules of distribution. In the case of capitalism, the idea is that the people who have accumulated the most capital are the best at making use of the capital. In unregulated capitalism, these people are allowed to disperse the resources/labor/money as they see fit -- with the underlying expectation that, having previously used capital in such a manner to increase it, they are best qualified to continue to do so. Remember that money is only a symbol of resources -- so by increasing money supply they are, in theory, increasing the amount of resources (food/labor/clothing/health/etc.) I will use the world capital in the rest of this blog as a shorthand term for money/food/resources/clothing/health/etc.

     Looking at the above definition and reasoning, a number of potential problems are apparent. It is also true that, IF the person or group is competent and trying to distribute, and increase, resources that deviation from unregulated capitalism is not needed. Alas, that is very rarely the case (similar to the idea that an intelligent, benevolent, dictator can be the most effective and efficient -- but such people are very scarce and almost never succeed in continuing the system beyond the life of the original).

     The first potentially erroneous assumption is that the people who have accumulated the most capital are the best at making use of the capital. This is true only in the cases where they have demonstrated that they have these skills by starting with very little capital (perhaps only their own labor and ideas) and building it up by the proper use thereof.

     Note that, even in these cases, they are not using ONLY their own capital -- they are making use of lots of public capital (roads, energy supplies, education systems, health systems, safety systems, etc.) However, these people do demonstrate that they can make use of their own capital, in combination with public capital, to increase and accumulate. They do so with an inherited debt to the public for the contributions of the public capital.

     Can those who inherit capital have the skills? Yes -- but it is impossible to demonstrate or be certain of it. At the best, it is a different set of skills to those that are used from building up from initial levels. At the worst, it is a completely parasitic relationship -- where they are taking from the capital base and actually decreasing the distribution and use. It is "unearned" income and, arguably, undeserved. Possessing inherited capital does not indicate any ability to properly use it for the sake of the general population and should be limited as much as is possible within the system.

     The second potentially erroneous assumption is that they will make use of the capital (resources/money/labor/etc.) in a manner such that it will create MORE capital. This is the second aspect of "trickle-down". Capital has to move and be used. As in the previous blog, it cannot be held onto; it cannot be kept without circulation. Furthermore, it must be distributed to others who will ALSO be using it to create more capital. This is what creates the additional "tiers" which allow trickling to take effect.

    In summary, trickle-down runs into three specific problems. These problems are of inappropriate allocation and inheritance, retention, and lack of leveraged distribution.

     We will go into further detail as to how capital is properly distributed in another blog. However, if a group or individual is displaying a "lavish lifestyle" then it is NOT being properly distributed. As described in my blog of three years ago, the retention and personal use of excess income distorts and damages the economy.