Actually, I am not -- I use TLS to my server. However, from the RFC you linked:
"SMTP [RFC-821] servers and clients normally communicate in the clear over the Internet. In many cases, this communication goes through one or more router that is not controlled or trusted by either entity. Such an untrusted router might allow a third party to monitor or alter the communications between the server and client."...
"A publicly-referenced SMTP server MUST NOT require use of the STARTTLS extension in order to deliver mail locally."
One of the common mistakes at the heart of the matter:
"they do involve academic work that typically assumes a significant degree of privacy and confidentiality."
It strikes me nearly as tragedy that so many people see email as private and confidential. SMTP is unencrypted, most cloud services (gmail, hotmail, etc) are automatically reading every email that hits them, and I suspect the federal government either already has or soon will kick email out of the ever narrower sphere of "reasonable expectation of privacy" -- leaving it unprotected by the term "unreasonable" in The Fourth.
We (geeks, hackers, etc) did not make it easy enough for the plebs to encrypt their email, and did not make it common practice to do so. Now everybody uses postcards, even for their most intimate communications, and powerful entities get to read whatever they want.
Scarier: Give it a few more years, and I'd wager using encrypted communications will become reasonable cause for search and seizure, or used like removing the battery in a cell phone has been in court cases -- as evidence of foul intent. They won't have taken the freedoms of speech and association, we will have given them away.
This is a clear case of misogynistic representation of men and women as objects of sexual desire. If any of you filthy people have other links like that I think the best solution is for you to post them here, so we can get this problem out in the open.
> How are we supposed to fix it? The wealthy classes have all the power.
Aye -- that is a thorny question.
The first step is not to accept defeat. There have been countries in far more challenging positions than ours that have straightened out. It has happened in the United States twice -- in 1776 and again in the wake of The Great Depression. The outcome of the reaction to The Great Depression can be directly linked as a major contributing factor in our rise to superpower in the 50's and 60's. As a culture, we have shown the ability to change course.
The next step is to seek truth. As a foundation for persuasion, the truth is an extremely powerful starting point. It does not win the day in itself, but when combined with the other elements of successful guidance of the ship of state, the truth is very potent. IMO, this is the single greatest reason that those who seek to reduce income concentration fail -- most with such an objective are driven by a moral perspective which is neither empirically defensible nor shared by our whole culture. Look for the objective measure of the success of fiscal policy. Then look for the correlation between that measure and our observed fiscal policies. The empirical data holds the truth.
With the foundation in hand, the next bit is the tools of communication. The means for turning a proposal into a cause celebre. When combined with underlying truth, a lively public debate can move mountains. And what better time than the present for this? The most influential tools in the public relations arsenal today are the ones we are using right now. This is the new media, and the world is listening. Make a YouTube video, post to your blog, engage in the debates here -- whatever floats your boat, go for it.
The final piece, I think, brings us back to the beginning. Never accept defeat. The people in power want you to believe you have no power because that is how they stay in power. Congress wants you to think Congress is beholden only to lobbyists and voting is a formality. That way you will not demand accountability and they can keep feasting on the blood of our dying greatness. Don't fall for it. We own the new media. We do not suffer the blinders of baby-boomerism. We are the ones who will put their shameful, entitled butts out on their ears.
It's just a matter of how soon we do it. And the sooner the better -- the longer we fail to change course, the more unpleasant the course correction will be.
> Specifically what about American tax policy is resulting in the income distribution shift?
There are three major factors I'll address here. It is pretty complex for a forum post, but I'll hit the highlights. I'm also going to avoid going into the statistical analysis of whether this is "good" or "bad" -- that will be in the paper I'm working on -- for now I'll just address three of the major mechanisms that are causing the shift.
First is the distinction between legal and economic tax incidence -- specifically as it relates to corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. The Congressional Budget Office uses legal tax incidence, which states that 100% of corporate tax incidence falls on the shareholder. Economic tax incidence -- the math of how the money actually flows -- places the incidence according to the distribution of changing corporate revenue. That is, not 100% on the shareholder.
The problem with the CBOs misrepresentation is that it is the primary basis for our low long-holding (over 1 year) capital gains tax. Capital gains tax distribution is extremely skewed towards the top fractiles of the income curve. This results in a lower economic tax rate than the legal tax rate for the very high income range.
Second is the period from 1973 to 1983 -- the high inflation years resulting from the oil embargo and the subsequent questioning of the energy-sensitivity of the American economy. Prior to the late 80's, the tax brackets were not adjusted to match either inflation or changes in the income curve. The income curve based changes are too complex to go into here, but the inflation part is a bit more straightforward.
Inflation, or the decline of the value of the dollar, shifts everyone up the income curve. If the tax brackets are not shifted accordingly, the tax rates for a person at a given percentile in the income ranks increases. Given that from the 1950's to the early 1980's we had a very high top tax rate, this resulted in that highest tax rate shifting down from well above the top 0.5% down to the top 5% or so -- and shifting the other high tax brackets further down the income curve.
There is a table at the following link, showing the difference between 1954 dollars and 2008 dollars, which is not a perfect picture of the high impact range from 1973 to 1983, but it gets the idea across.
In addition to the inhibiting effect of the 1973 to 1983 shift (and the earlier income-curve-shift), the movement of the top tax bracket into the space of the smaller enterprise executive, entrepreneur, and high skill labor resulted in a significant backlash against income taxes by those who previously had been the "American Dream" team -- the broad upper middle class -- a phenomenon largely invented in the US. This lead to the third major element:
The third major factor is the one everyone talks about: Reduction in the top tax rate during Reaganomics. Though the income distribution shift started earlier, Reaganomics propelled the shift at a much faster rate.
Those are the key elements. Again I want to stress that I'm not saying whether it is good or bad -- just identifying three of the major mechanisms that have resulted in the observed increase in concentration.
Just to make it clear that I'm not grinding an axe, though; the empirical data shows that increasing income concentration has been both good and bad, at different times.
> US citizens see those fields as being ruined by massive offshoring and inshoring.
Another cause I have been researching -- increasing income concentration. While the common perception is that the high end of the software engineering pay scale is in the "rich" category, and hence are beneficiaries of increasing income concentration, the data speaks otherwise.
I have extracted the income data from the IRS-SOI going back to 1950. The increasing concentration since the mid-to-late 1970s (it started prior to Reagan -- initially caused by the falling dollar and the failure to adjust the tax brackets) has gone almost exclusively to the top 0.5%, and even there is skewed heavily upward. This has not only affected software engineers, but also entrepreneurs, small to medium enterprise executives, starting to mid-level investment bankers, and a whole host of others who fit the traditional perception of those who benefit from concentration.
The result, of course, is that anyone who has a sufficiently strong, broad skill set (like understanding engineering and business) has a significant financial motive to go to a fortune 500 and climb the corporate ladder. This is great for the Fortune 500s, as it increases the internal competition for promotion. It has, however, been harmful to smaller enterprises and high skill labor (like software engineers).
The complaints of a shortage of US engineers are not entirely unfounded, but it is our tax policy and the resulting shifts in income distribution -- not greater engineering skill in foreign countries -- that is causing it. Our talent can easily see where the money is and there is a direct impact on career path. For those from less advantaged countries, the engineer/entrepreneur payscale looks great, despite the fact that within our country it (along with everyone below the engineer/entrepreneur level, though I might argue that below P30 there is another factor at work -- but I digress) it has been relatively inhibited for the past 35 years or so.
Just another piece of the puzzle. Check out IRS-SOI -- great data to play with.
As for business cards, I like them. That's not what I'm here to talk to you about though.
> Each will tell me something more about the person who gave it to me than I could have known from their contact info alone.
I suspect this statement results from a lack of imagination of the scope of digital identity. Granted, contact info alone will not do it. Once you link to their identity, however, you can learn a lot more from their Twitter feed, LinkedIn CV, or Facebook page than you can from the design and content of their business card. Once you've seen my pictures from Burning Man, there's no going back -- those images will be seared into your neural network for life.:)
And, yes, my goal is to make those images public (though I'll be using Diaspora). As I think about it, I realize I want to work with and for people who think that my geodesic domes and cyclonic incinerator -- and even my cross-dressing friends -- are interesting. People who see who I am -- peculiar, hacker, geek -- as a feature, not a bug. Why would i trade my considerable skills to someone who would think less of me for such things?
Hmm, I digress, but I think that was an interesting wander.
> Owen also foresees a billing system that charges less for non-urgent data
That is frigging AWESOME! I can't wait to wire into the mind-reading system that will tell the ISP which data is urgent. Particularly when I'm running data through an encrypted tunnel.
It's also going to have to make a very good estimate of the difference between my concept of urgent and that of every other user on the same shared channel. That will be an extraordinary advance in real-time psycho-analytics.
Unless they are talking about letting me choose when to run my line at low-latency -- which would actually be pretty cool.
OK, so today the White House announced its support for two new laws. One protects citizens from predatory trade practices, the other extends the fiat monopoly powers of a corporate lobbying group. Seems like a fine opportunity for a free market and representative democracy shootout.
1. Which one will get gutted before passage? 2. Which one will be broadened before passage? 3. Which one will pass first? 4. Which one will be decried by the opposition party as unconscionable government interference in the free market? 5. Which one will be lauded as necessary government protection of the free market?
> They were part of omnibus spending bills, so refusing to sign them would have been a disaster.
The government shutting down is not a disaster. It has happened before. It doesn't last very long, and very few people die (probably a couple at VA hospitals or something, if you squint and look at it from an angle). It has happened before, and is a pretty potent political stick to get Congress to remove policy edicts from spending bills. It would be politically risky for him to do it, but I do not care if he has to risk his job to do what he promised the electorate he would do.
That is the contract of elected position -- you are supposed to do what you say you will do even if it costs you your job. It is a fundamental prerequisite of representative government; when you make an unequivocal policy statement, give the people time to deliberate on it, and they elect you, you must hold to that principle. If you do not, you make a mockery of the notion of representation.
> him not violating the constitution to get his way.
There is a big difference between doing something that you portend would be a disaster and violating The Constitution. He has the constitutional authority to veto bills.
> Could you Americans please stop trying to force us other in the world to accept your fascist corporations wishes?
With every fiber of my being I wish that what you are saying was rational. Unfortunately, we Americans are no longer represented by our government.
We decried the Bush / Neo-Con oligopoly, and forced its heir-apparent, John McCain, to try a crazy stunt called Sarah Palin as a mad grasp for electability.
We have used the soap box.
We voted for Obama, the one who promised change. Who promised net neutrality, the end of Gitmo, withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, public participation in the construction of the health care law, and a shift away from secret government in general.
We have used the ballot box.
We have brought lawsuits that have been quashed by secret national security objections. We have brandished the forces of the EFF and Groklaw to fight the courtroom battles, attempting to hold the line, in vain.
We have used the jury box.
I have deeply considered what the above statements imply. I have contemplated the LA, the Fruitvale riots, and the current events in Wisconsin. I have lay awake at night stunned at the implication of these things.
The path forward is a scary one. For me, I cannot accept it as it seems to be. I have chosen to believe that it is a failure to use the first three boxes sufficiently. Given that I cannot see how ballot or jury can overcome their state of decay, I am left with the soap box.
This post is an example. I have a lot to learn. The barriers ahead look insurmountable. And the only sure way to fail is not to try.
> hold on a sec, let me get "battle hymn of the republic" playing and i'll read again...
> (smirk)
Yeah -- truth is I do see your point. Though I felt that the counterpoint was over-the-top passion for nation (which is actually what I feel too -- though I rarely express it so viscerally).
I think my post would have been better if, instead of the "defeatist propaganda" line, I had said something like "I agree that many make false equivalencies, and that those things are as damaging to the vital self-reflection process as blind jingoism -- however..."
In all honesty, once I got rolling, I got my own muster up.:)
> The West does plenty wrong, and the West can improve, of course. But if you understand how good you have it RELATIVELY SPEAKING
Screw relatively speaking. What kind of American wants to be a little better than China or any other nation? I'm a pretty hard-core patriot. I want to be better than everyone. I want to be better today than we were yesterday, and better tomorrow than we are today. I've seriously considered the alternatives, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else on the planet -- and I still want us to do better.
I think we're the best as a result of all the time we have spent striving to be the best. America Right or Wrong! When wrong to be put right, when right to be kept right.
What kind of defeatist propaganda are you trying to spread by telling people not to reflect on our opportunities for improvement? The most important thing we can all do as patriots is constantly ask ourselves how we can be better. Even though we are the best, I want to be more best. I want to be ten times as good as the next best, not twice as good. Did Johnny Bench play it soft in the All Star game? No. Why? Because he wanted to win.
And here's your false equivalency for you (though I won't call it equivalency, because it is not, we are much better than Zimbabwe):
A guy exposed a bunch of documents that led or is leading to the downfall of five different brutal dictatorships, to be replaced with democracy. Something the entire Neo-Con army has just barely sort of managed to do in one (Iraq). He is being held in military prison, and (apparently against the advise of military psychologists) being held in the harsh (absolutely, not relatively, Zimbabwe is worse) conditions of self-harm prevention. Despite his lawyer saying he is at no risk. A very reasonable hypothesis is that they are trying to get him to break and testify that Julian Assange assisted him, so they can go after Assange on espionage charges.
So -- Zimbabwe is worse. But when our own people do what they genuinely believe is best for Our Nation, and the results are *exactly* what the Neo-Cons claim they are after (spreading democracy in place of dictatorships), we treat him better than Zimbabwe treats their dissidents. That's not a high bar to get over. We can do a helluva lot better.
I want us to be better than that. I want us to be able to say, "We don't like this stuff being exposed, and we will do everything in our power to increase security. And Pfc Manning is a patriot who was doing his duty to his nation to the best of his ability, despite the fact that we strenuously disagree with his approach. The reason we don't have to make some kind of example of him is this: Look at the evidence that was revealed -- we *are* better than everyone else, and now those brutal dictators are getting exactly what they deserve. Sometimes the truth comes out, and hinders our diplomatic agenda in the short run. And we will do everything we can to prevent such events in the future. However, when it does happen, like this time, the truth will show that we are not just better than the despots -- but that we are the best -- even while we handle far more than our share of the world's problems. Because we are that good."
> i wonder what will the senate committee say to them, in regard to their dealings with this filthy outfit.
Here's my guess: "When Blackwater got caught doing evil shit, they had to split up into a bunch of shell companies with different names so we could keep paying them enormous sums of taxpayer money to keep doing business as usual. Now you are going to have to do the same. One of the contractors from one of the new Blackwater shells who works for the CIA just got caught shooting non-combatants in the back, and we are having a motherfucker of a time keeping people from making the connection. Like that guy, we'll give you diplomatic immunity or state secrets protection, or whatever we need to do to prevent justice from being served, but it is a pain in the ass. Don't get caught again."
Of course, that's not going to be the public part.
> For, even if they do a lot of shady stuff, they do have a very strong attachment to some principles. and that's something to be respected.
That is, to me, the ultimate conundrum in a nutshell. What is better? A democratic government comprised of people selected by a process which severely inhibits principles, or a renegade cabal of vigilantes whose unity derives from a set of moderately respectable (if often conflicting and sometimes harmful) principles.
Sure, the "right" answer is a principled democratic government; but the very process of being elected and re-elected to a position with sufficient power inherently -- as a natural matter of the evolution of organic systems -- does not select for principled people.
My current thinking is that the two balance each other. At present, vigilantes are what the fourth estate is supposed to be (it, too, having been usurped as a natural systemic response to its power).
Blah, blah, blah -- mostly just posting to say I appreciate your insight and reflection on the issue.
> Freedom means you should also be able to make money and act selfishly with your distro or open source project. I really don't get why it's always such a problem for open source advocates. If you want truly free software you let everyone do whatever they want with it.
You are confusing "Free" with "Laissez-Faire". America is "free" because the government is prohibited from certain actions. The "free market" requires government inhibition of monopolies, trusts, cartels, false advertising, and various forms of payola/kickbacks/bribery (see Adam Smith, among others). Freedom of expression requires that communities be barred from passing blue laws. Racial freedom requires that stores and employers be barred from discrimination.
"Free" and "Laissez-Faire" are not equivalent. "Free" is more complex, more subtle, more difficult to achieve, and -- on the upside -- vastly more beneficial to long-term GDP growth.
>> I refuse to support what I consider a complete waste of time and computing resources.
> So can I have your/. account?
While I recognize that you were just making a joke, I do think we belittle ourselves more than we deserve.
This is a forge in which deeply rational insights on public policy are formed. While we bicker and have strong and often emotionally influenced opinions, this is also one of the most analytical and empirical debate forums I know of. I have had my poorly formed opinions corrected, and seen many others post responses conceding an opponent's valid point.
Far from useless, I see these forums as among the best examples of the promise social networking holds for advancing society. On these pages are formed perspectives baptized in the fires of passion both for one's view and for truth. That the latter, truth, holds such sway here is what sets us above many and makes this meeting place worthy of respect.
I must apologize to the other trolls, as I only have enough food for one. You're just the cutest little troll I've seen today, so here ya go, little guy:
Also worth noting: Executive recruiters referred to as "headhunters" don't actually cut off people's heads, "bullet stoppers" don't actually get shot on the job (at least not as a standard business practice), and you are not actually a cave-dwelling mythical creature of Norse mythology also referred to as a Jotunn.
"Software engineers suffer from the same basic issue. They tend to be so extremely technology oriented that they get completely lost in all the features that should be included, all the bells and whistles, and seem to regard an interface as something you paste on afterwards (inter-face, something which is the area where the user rubs against the technology), when the interface is the personification of the whole system, as well as the public face of the program and the company itself."
I think this perspective is heavily colored by the rise of software engineering as a mainstream career, and the youth-dominance of the late 90's early 00's. When I was a 28 year old code cowboy in 1998 NYC, working with other late 20's code cowboys, I would have heartily agreed with you. Now, however, those same cowboys (and I) are significantly more focused on ROI, usability, and discovering the customer's desires. Software engineering is maturing, and so are software engineers.
Frankly, I have had as hard a time -- if not harder -- getting the sales people to put together a credible revenue projection to justify a new project as with getting engineers engaged in considering value for dollar. The engineers are interested in solving the problem once you show them it is just math and measurement. The sales people want to run with their gut and tend to be optimistic (admittedly; because that is important to successfully engaging a customer) about the probable revenue.
>> Anti-drunken driving crusaders believe that almost 9,000 road traffic deaths could be prevented every year if alcohol detection devices were used in all vehicles to prevent alcohol-impaired drivers from driving their vehicles.
43,443 deaths from traffic accidents in 2005 (the worst year in the past 20). To prevent 9,000, one in five traffic fatalities would have to be due to alcohol impairment and be prevented by the system.
That may be true, I don't have the stats handy for a more precise measurement.
We must also consider cost. There are three hundred million people in the united states. If one in three have access to a car, and on average those one in three start their car once every three days (call it 100 starts per year on average), that equals (300m / 3) * 100, or ten billion starts per year.
The value of a human life (according to wrongful death suits) is about $25m. Very rough guess, of course.
What is the cost of you car failing to start? Something more than a dollar and less than -- maybe $100 -- on average. Wild-assed guess range there, so I made it broad.
250m vehicles on the road, 10 years median age, 25m new cars per year.
Device cost $25 - $100. Guessing, should be in there, including sensor, interlock, maintenance, and engineering it into the system -- once production ramps up.
9,000 deaths (perhaps an overestimate, probably not an underestimate, IMO) 10b starts per year Start value range $1-$100 $25m value per life 25m vehicles per year. Device cost $25 - $100 per unit.
$25m per life times 10k lives (rounding up) = $250b per year.
25m devices times $25 - $100 = $625m - $2.5b per year.
So the device cost portion is essentially inconsequential.
10b starts * {$1 - $100} per start = $10b - $1t start value per year.
{$10b - $1t} / $25b = 0.4 to 4.
Even if you assume $100 value per start, the device only has to make the right decision 3 out of 4 times to be worth it.
When I started this calculation, I was expecting to show numbers clearly opposed to this obvious infringement of personal liberty. I don't like the answer, but it is what it is. These numbers could be off. Given the spin I wanted to put on it, I intentionally edged the numbers in favor of the devices to mitigate the risk of being considered a charlatan.
Based on this rough calculation, it looks like the pure economic case for the devices might hold water.
Very good analysis of the fundamental principle at stake. Said that way, it is very clear that the purpose of Net Neutrality is to defend the free market from those who would bias it, not to inhibit the free market. That is exactly the sort of illumination that ought to send the anti-free-market rats scurrying.
Thank you.
If I may offer one slight modification:
"Party X should not be able to pay party Y to cause party Z to get less than what party Z paid for."
That makes the core anti-free-market agenda a bit more clear to me.
Top 1% Pay 38% of all income tax Top 5% Pay 59% of all income tax Top 10% Pay 70% of all income tax Bottom 50% Pay 2.7% of all income tax 47% of American Households didn't pay any income tax for 2009.
The way you bundle the stats is the common story, but results in misunderstanding the case. The bottom 50% earns less than $30,000. Those are the floor-sweepers and part-timers. Including their tax stats with people earning, for example, $50k - $100k makes the middle class look like shirkers (on average).
Here's some numbers looking only at people earning $50k and above:
The bottom 63% earn 34% of total income and pay 21% of total taxes. The top 37% earn 66% of total income and pay 79% of total taxes. The dividing line is $75k.
The bottom 98% earn 77% of total income and pay 65% of total taxes. The top 2% earn 23% of total income and pay 35% of total taxes. The dividing line is $200k.
The bottom 99.63% earn 86.06% of total income and pay 78.94% of total taxes. The top 0.37% earn 13.94% and pay 21.51%. The dividing line is $1m.
Note that this is only counting AGI and straight income tax -- it does not count capital gains which are extremely skewed to the top and pay a much lower tax rate.
Just some figures to noodle on. By mixing the poor non-tax-paying segment with the middle, upper middle, and entrepreneurial(*) class, the common presentation overstates the income tax progressivity. By leaving capital gains distribution and taxation out, the common presentation understates the progressivity reduction that 15% capital gains tax causes(**).
* the entrepreneurial class from $200k to $650k has been depressed relative to those above $650k over the past 30 years, just like everyone below them
** another common case presentation is that corporate tax incidence falls 100% on capital lenders and so capital gains tax is effectively higher. This is not rational assuming a relatively free-market economy like ours. Increased net revenue after taxes (if, for example, corporate taxes were eliminated) would result in that extra revenue being distributed much like the company's existing revenue is distributed (assuming that the free market has already roughly optimized the company's cashflow distribution). That is; the additional revenue incidence would skew towards income (assuming a typical corporation in which income is the largest expense line item), and hence the tax incidence is skewed towards income earners, far from 100% on capital lenders.
effects = affects... know the difference people...
The fact that most people don't know how to use those two words correctly in all situations is strongly (1:1) correlated to the fact that most people don't know how to use those two words correctly in all situations. If your comment included an explanation of the distinction that is so important to you, it might actually help remedy the problem. And in the process, you would be promoted from useless sanctimonious douchebag to useful sanctimonious douchebag.
Slashdot Mirror
>> SMTP is unencrypted
> You're doing it wrong.
Actually, I am not -- I use TLS to my server. However, from the RFC you linked:
"SMTP [RFC-821] servers and clients normally communicate in the clear over the Internet. In many cases, this communication goes through one or more router that is not controlled or trusted by either entity. Such an untrusted router might allow a third party to monitor or alter the communications between the server and client." ...
"A publicly-referenced SMTP server MUST NOT require use of the STARTTLS extension in order to deliver mail locally."
Thanks for playing though.
One of the common mistakes at the heart of the matter:
"they do involve academic work that typically assumes a significant degree of privacy and confidentiality."
It strikes me nearly as tragedy that so many people see email as private and confidential. SMTP is unencrypted, most cloud services (gmail, hotmail, etc) are automatically reading every email that hits them, and I suspect the federal government either already has or soon will kick email out of the ever narrower sphere of "reasonable expectation of privacy" -- leaving it unprotected by the term "unreasonable" in The Fourth.
We (geeks, hackers, etc) did not make it easy enough for the plebs to encrypt their email, and did not make it common practice to do so. Now everybody uses postcards, even for their most intimate communications, and powerful entities get to read whatever they want.
Scarier: Give it a few more years, and I'd wager using encrypted communications will become reasonable cause for search and seizure, or used like removing the battery in a cell phone has been in court cases -- as evidence of foul intent. They won't have taken the freedoms of speech and association, we will have given them away.
> http://eyebleach.com/
This is a clear case of misogynistic representation of men and women as objects of sexual desire. If any of you filthy people have other links like that I think the best solution is for you to post them here, so we can get this problem out in the open.
That was a world-class rant. I laughed, I cried, it moved me. Thank you for your perspective!
> How are we supposed to fix it? The wealthy classes have all the power.
Aye -- that is a thorny question.
The first step is not to accept defeat. There have been countries in far more challenging positions than ours that have straightened out. It has happened in the United States twice -- in 1776 and again in the wake of The Great Depression. The outcome of the reaction to The Great Depression can be directly linked as a major contributing factor in our rise to superpower in the 50's and 60's. As a culture, we have shown the ability to change course.
The next step is to seek truth. As a foundation for persuasion, the truth is an extremely powerful starting point. It does not win the day in itself, but when combined with the other elements of successful guidance of the ship of state, the truth is very potent. IMO, this is the single greatest reason that those who seek to reduce income concentration fail -- most with such an objective are driven by a moral perspective which is neither empirically defensible nor shared by our whole culture. Look for the objective measure of the success of fiscal policy. Then look for the correlation between that measure and our observed fiscal policies. The empirical data holds the truth.
With the foundation in hand, the next bit is the tools of communication. The means for turning a proposal into a cause celebre. When combined with underlying truth, a lively public debate can move mountains. And what better time than the present for this? The most influential tools in the public relations arsenal today are the ones we are using right now. This is the new media, and the world is listening. Make a YouTube video, post to your blog, engage in the debates here -- whatever floats your boat, go for it.
The final piece, I think, brings us back to the beginning. Never accept defeat. The people in power want you to believe you have no power because that is how they stay in power. Congress wants you to think Congress is beholden only to lobbyists and voting is a formality. That way you will not demand accountability and they can keep feasting on the blood of our dying greatness. Don't fall for it. We own the new media. We do not suffer the blinders of baby-boomerism. We are the ones who will put their shameful, entitled butts out on their ears.
It's just a matter of how soon we do it. And the sooner the better -- the longer we fail to change course, the more unpleasant the course correction will be.
> Specifically what about American tax policy is resulting in the income distribution shift?
There are three major factors I'll address here. It is pretty complex for a forum post, but I'll hit the highlights. I'm also going to avoid going into the statistical analysis of whether this is "good" or "bad" -- that will be in the paper I'm working on -- for now I'll just address three of the major mechanisms that are causing the shift.
First is the distinction between legal and economic tax incidence -- specifically as it relates to corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. The Congressional Budget Office uses legal tax incidence, which states that 100% of corporate tax incidence falls on the shareholder. Economic tax incidence -- the math of how the money actually flows -- places the incidence according to the distribution of changing corporate revenue. That is, not 100% on the shareholder.
The problem with the CBOs misrepresentation is that it is the primary basis for our low long-holding (over 1 year) capital gains tax. Capital gains tax distribution is extremely skewed towards the top fractiles of the income curve. This results in a lower economic tax rate than the legal tax rate for the very high income range.
More in tax incidence here, with a section near the end on corporate tax incidence:
http://economics.about.com/od/incometaxestaxcuts/a/economic_inc.htm
Second is the period from 1973 to 1983 -- the high inflation years resulting from the oil embargo and the subsequent questioning of the energy-sensitivity of the American economy. Prior to the late 80's, the tax brackets were not adjusted to match either inflation or changes in the income curve. The income curve based changes are too complex to go into here, but the inflation part is a bit more straightforward.
Inflation, or the decline of the value of the dollar, shifts everyone up the income curve. If the tax brackets are not shifted accordingly, the tax rates for a person at a given percentile in the income ranks increases. Given that from the 1950's to the early 1980's we had a very high top tax rate, this resulted in that highest tax rate shifting down from well above the top 0.5% down to the top 5% or so -- and shifting the other high tax brackets further down the income curve.
There is a table at the following link, showing the difference between 1954 dollars and 2008 dollars, which is not a perfect picture of the high impact range from 1973 to 1983, but it gets the idea across.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Revenue_Code#Progressivity_of_the_1954_Code
In addition to the inhibiting effect of the 1973 to 1983 shift (and the earlier income-curve-shift), the movement of the top tax bracket into the space of the smaller enterprise executive, entrepreneur, and high skill labor resulted in a significant backlash against income taxes by those who previously had been the "American Dream" team -- the broad upper middle class -- a phenomenon largely invented in the US. This lead to the third major element:
The third major factor is the one everyone talks about: Reduction in the top tax rate during Reaganomics. Though the income distribution shift started earlier, Reaganomics propelled the shift at a much faster rate.
Those are the key elements. Again I want to stress that I'm not saying whether it is good or bad -- just identifying three of the major mechanisms that have resulted in the observed increase in concentration.
Just to make it clear that I'm not grinding an axe, though; the empirical data shows that increasing income concentration has been both good and bad, at different times.
> US citizens see those fields as being ruined by massive offshoring and inshoring.
Another cause I have been researching -- increasing income concentration. While the common perception is that the high end of the software engineering pay scale is in the "rich" category, and hence are beneficiaries of increasing income concentration, the data speaks otherwise.
I have extracted the income data from the IRS-SOI going back to 1950. The increasing concentration since the mid-to-late 1970s (it started prior to Reagan -- initially caused by the falling dollar and the failure to adjust the tax brackets) has gone almost exclusively to the top 0.5%, and even there is skewed heavily upward. This has not only affected software engineers, but also entrepreneurs, small to medium enterprise executives, starting to mid-level investment bankers, and a whole host of others who fit the traditional perception of those who benefit from concentration.
The result, of course, is that anyone who has a sufficiently strong, broad skill set (like understanding engineering and business) has a significant financial motive to go to a fortune 500 and climb the corporate ladder. This is great for the Fortune 500s, as it increases the internal competition for promotion. It has, however, been harmful to smaller enterprises and high skill labor (like software engineers).
The complaints of a shortage of US engineers are not entirely unfounded, but it is our tax policy and the resulting shifts in income distribution -- not greater engineering skill in foreign countries -- that is causing it. Our talent can easily see where the money is and there is a direct impact on career path. For those from less advantaged countries, the engineer/entrepreneur payscale looks great, despite the fact that within our country it (along with everyone below the engineer/entrepreneur level, though I might argue that below P30 there is another factor at work -- but I digress) it has been relatively inhibited for the past 35 years or so.
Just another piece of the puzzle. Check out IRS-SOI -- great data to play with.
As for business cards, I like them. That's not what I'm here to talk to you about though.
> Each will tell me something more about the person who gave it to me than I could have known from their contact info alone.
I suspect this statement results from a lack of imagination of the scope of digital identity. Granted, contact info alone will not do it. Once you link to their identity, however, you can learn a lot more from their Twitter feed, LinkedIn CV, or Facebook page than you can from the design and content of their business card. Once you've seen my pictures from Burning Man, there's no going back -- those images will be seared into your neural network for life. :)
And, yes, my goal is to make those images public (though I'll be using Diaspora). As I think about it, I realize I want to work with and for people who think that my geodesic domes and cyclonic incinerator -- and even my cross-dressing friends -- are interesting. People who see who I am -- peculiar, hacker, geek -- as a feature, not a bug. Why would i trade my considerable skills to someone who would think less of me for such things?
Hmm, I digress, but I think that was an interesting wander.
> Owen also foresees a billing system that charges less for non-urgent data
That is frigging AWESOME! I can't wait to wire into the mind-reading system that will tell the ISP which data is urgent. Particularly when I'm running data through an encrypted tunnel.
It's also going to have to make a very good estimate of the difference between my concept of urgent and that of every other user on the same shared channel. That will be an extraordinary advance in real-time psycho-analytics.
Unless they are talking about letting me choose when to run my line at low-latency -- which would actually be pretty cool.
OK, so today the White House announced its support for two new laws. One protects citizens from predatory trade practices, the other extends the fiat monopoly powers of a corporate lobbying group. Seems like a fine opportunity for a free market and representative democracy shootout.
1. Which one will get gutted before passage?
2. Which one will be broadened before passage?
3. Which one will pass first?
4. Which one will be decried by the opposition party as unconscionable government interference in the free market?
5. Which one will be lauded as necessary government protection of the free market?
Ready... Race!
> [Gitmo is Congress's fault]
> They were part of omnibus spending bills, so refusing to sign them would have been a disaster.
The government shutting down is not a disaster. It has happened before. It doesn't last very long, and very few people die (probably a couple at VA hospitals or something, if you squint and look at it from an angle). It has happened before, and is a pretty potent political stick to get Congress to remove policy edicts from spending bills. It would be politically risky for him to do it, but I do not care if he has to risk his job to do what he promised the electorate he would do.
That is the contract of elected position -- you are supposed to do what you say you will do even if it costs you your job. It is a fundamental prerequisite of representative government; when you make an unequivocal policy statement, give the people time to deliberate on it, and they elect you, you must hold to that principle. If you do not, you make a mockery of the notion of representation.
> him not violating the constitution to get his way.
There is a big difference between doing something that you portend would be a disaster and violating The Constitution. He has the constitutional authority to veto bills.
> Could you Americans please stop trying to force us other in the world to accept your fascist corporations wishes?
With every fiber of my being I wish that what you are saying was rational. Unfortunately, we Americans are no longer represented by our government.
We decried the Bush / Neo-Con oligopoly, and forced its heir-apparent, John McCain, to try a crazy stunt called Sarah Palin as a mad grasp for electability.
We have used the soap box.
We voted for Obama, the one who promised change. Who promised net neutrality, the end of Gitmo, withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan, public participation in the construction of the health care law, and a shift away from secret government in general.
We have used the ballot box.
We have brought lawsuits that have been quashed by secret national security objections. We have brandished the forces of the EFF and Groklaw to fight the courtroom battles, attempting to hold the line, in vain.
We have used the jury box.
I have deeply considered what the above statements imply. I have contemplated the LA, the Fruitvale riots, and the current events in Wisconsin. I have lay awake at night stunned at the implication of these things.
The path forward is a scary one. For me, I cannot accept it as it seems to be. I have chosen to believe that it is a failure to use the first three boxes sufficiently. Given that I cannot see how ballot or jury can overcome their state of decay, I am left with the soap box.
This post is an example. I have a lot to learn. The barriers ahead look insurmountable. And the only sure way to fail is not to try.
> hold on a sec, let me get "battle hymn of the republic" playing and i'll read again...
> (smirk)
Yeah -- truth is I do see your point. Though I felt that the counterpoint was over-the-top passion for nation (which is actually what I feel too -- though I rarely express it so viscerally).
I think my post would have been better if, instead of the "defeatist propaganda" line, I had said something like "I agree that many make false equivalencies, and that those things are as damaging to the vital self-reflection process as blind jingoism -- however..."
In all honesty, once I got rolling, I got my own muster up. :)
> The West does plenty wrong, and the West can improve, of course. But if you understand how good you have it RELATIVELY SPEAKING
Screw relatively speaking. What kind of American wants to be a little better than China or any other nation? I'm a pretty hard-core patriot. I want to be better than everyone. I want to be better today than we were yesterday, and better tomorrow than we are today. I've seriously considered the alternatives, and I wouldn't want to live anywhere else on the planet -- and I still want us to do better.
I think we're the best as a result of all the time we have spent striving to be the best. America Right or Wrong! When wrong to be put right, when right to be kept right.
What kind of defeatist propaganda are you trying to spread by telling people not to reflect on our opportunities for improvement? The most important thing we can all do as patriots is constantly ask ourselves how we can be better. Even though we are the best, I want to be more best. I want to be ten times as good as the next best, not twice as good. Did Johnny Bench play it soft in the All Star game? No. Why? Because he wanted to win.
And here's your false equivalency for you (though I won't call it equivalency, because it is not, we are much better than Zimbabwe):
A guy exposed a bunch of documents that led or is leading to the downfall of five different brutal dictatorships, to be replaced with democracy. Something the entire Neo-Con army has just barely sort of managed to do in one (Iraq). He is being held in military prison, and (apparently against the advise of military psychologists) being held in the harsh (absolutely, not relatively, Zimbabwe is worse) conditions of self-harm prevention. Despite his lawyer saying he is at no risk. A very reasonable hypothesis is that they are trying to get him to break and testify that Julian Assange assisted him, so they can go after Assange on espionage charges.
So -- Zimbabwe is worse. But when our own people do what they genuinely believe is best for Our Nation, and the results are *exactly* what the Neo-Cons claim they are after (spreading democracy in place of dictatorships), we treat him better than Zimbabwe treats their dissidents. That's not a high bar to get over. We can do a helluva lot better.
I want us to be better than that. I want us to be able to say, "We don't like this stuff being exposed, and we will do everything in our power to increase security. And Pfc Manning is a patriot who was doing his duty to his nation to the best of his ability, despite the fact that we strenuously disagree with his approach. The reason we don't have to make some kind of example of him is this: Look at the evidence that was revealed -- we *are* better than everyone else, and now those brutal dictators are getting exactly what they deserve. Sometimes the truth comes out, and hinders our diplomatic agenda in the short run. And we will do everything we can to prevent such events in the future. However, when it does happen, like this time, the truth will show that we are not just better than the despots -- but that we are the best -- even while we handle far more than our share of the world's problems. Because we are that good."
> To follow your line of thought then, this new fourth estate will too become corrupted.
Very agreed -- thanks for adding that.
> i wonder what will the senate committee say to them, in regard to their dealings with this filthy outfit.
Here's my guess: "When Blackwater got caught doing evil shit, they had to split up into a bunch of shell companies with different names so we could keep paying them enormous sums of taxpayer money to keep doing business as usual. Now you are going to have to do the same. One of the contractors from one of the new Blackwater shells who works for the CIA just got caught shooting non-combatants in the back, and we are having a motherfucker of a time keeping people from making the connection. Like that guy, we'll give you diplomatic immunity or state secrets protection, or whatever we need to do to prevent justice from being served, but it is a pain in the ass. Don't get caught again."
Of course, that's not going to be the public part.
> For, even if they do a lot of shady stuff, they do have a very strong attachment to some principles. and that's something to be respected.
That is, to me, the ultimate conundrum in a nutshell. What is better? A democratic government comprised of people selected by a process which severely inhibits principles, or a renegade cabal of vigilantes whose unity derives from a set of moderately respectable (if often conflicting and sometimes harmful) principles.
Sure, the "right" answer is a principled democratic government; but the very process of being elected and re-elected to a position with sufficient power inherently -- as a natural matter of the evolution of organic systems -- does not select for principled people.
My current thinking is that the two balance each other. At present, vigilantes are what the fourth estate is supposed to be (it, too, having been usurped as a natural systemic response to its power).
Blah, blah, blah -- mostly just posting to say I appreciate your insight and reflection on the issue.
> Freedom means you should also be able to make money and act selfishly with your distro or open source project. I really don't get why it's always such a problem for open source advocates. If you want truly free software you let everyone do whatever they want with it.
You are confusing "Free" with "Laissez-Faire". America is "free" because the government is prohibited from certain actions. The "free market" requires government inhibition of monopolies, trusts, cartels, false advertising, and various forms of payola/kickbacks/bribery (see Adam Smith, among others). Freedom of expression requires that communities be barred from passing blue laws. Racial freedom requires that stores and employers be barred from discrimination.
"Free" and "Laissez-Faire" are not equivalent. "Free" is more complex, more subtle, more difficult to achieve, and -- on the upside -- vastly more beneficial to long-term GDP growth.
>> I refuse to support what I consider a complete waste of time and computing resources.
> So can I have your /. account?
While I recognize that you were just making a joke, I do think we belittle ourselves more than we deserve.
This is a forge in which deeply rational insights on public policy are formed. While we bicker and have strong and often emotionally influenced opinions, this is also one of the most analytical and empirical debate forums I know of. I have had my poorly formed opinions corrected, and seen many others post responses conceding an opponent's valid point.
Far from useless, I see these forums as among the best examples of the promise social networking holds for advancing society. On these pages are formed perspectives baptized in the fires of passion both for one's view and for truth. That the latter, truth, holds such sway here is what sets us above many and makes this meeting place worthy of respect.
I must apologize to the other trolls, as I only have enough food for one. You're just the cutest little troll I've seen today, so here ya go, little guy:
Cowboy coding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboy_coding
Also worth noting: Executive recruiters referred to as "headhunters" don't actually cut off people's heads, "bullet stoppers" don't actually get shot on the job (at least not as a standard business practice), and you are not actually a cave-dwelling mythical creature of Norse mythology also referred to as a Jotunn.
"Software engineers suffer from the same basic issue. They tend to be so extremely technology oriented that they get completely lost in all the features that should be included, all the bells and whistles, and seem to regard an interface as something you paste on afterwards (inter-face, something which is the area where the user rubs against the technology), when the interface is the personification of the whole system, as well as the public face of the program and the company itself."
I think this perspective is heavily colored by the rise of software engineering as a mainstream career, and the youth-dominance of the late 90's early 00's. When I was a 28 year old code cowboy in 1998 NYC, working with other late 20's code cowboys, I would have heartily agreed with you. Now, however, those same cowboys (and I) are significantly more focused on ROI, usability, and discovering the customer's desires. Software engineering is maturing, and so are software engineers.
Frankly, I have had as hard a time -- if not harder -- getting the sales people to put together a credible revenue projection to justify a new project as with getting engineers engaged in considering value for dollar. The engineers are interested in solving the problem once you show them it is just math and measurement. The sales people want to run with their gut and tend to be optimistic (admittedly; because that is important to successfully engaging a customer) about the probable revenue.
>> Anti-drunken driving crusaders believe that almost 9,000 road traffic deaths could be prevented every year if alcohol detection devices were used in all vehicles to prevent alcohol-impaired drivers from driving their vehicles.
How to Measure Anything is an awesome book.
43,443 deaths from traffic accidents in 2005 (the worst year in the past 20). To prevent 9,000, one in five traffic fatalities would have to be due to alcohol impairment and be prevented by the system.
That may be true, I don't have the stats handy for a more precise measurement.
We must also consider cost. There are three hundred million people in the united states. If one in three have access to a car, and on average those one in three start their car once every three days (call it 100 starts per year on average), that equals (300m / 3) * 100, or ten billion starts per year.
The value of a human life (according to wrongful death suits) is about $25m. Very rough guess, of course.
What is the cost of you car failing to start? Something more than a dollar and less than -- maybe $100 -- on average. Wild-assed guess range there, so I made it broad.
250m vehicles on the road, 10 years median age, 25m new cars per year.
Device cost $25 - $100. Guessing, should be in there, including sensor, interlock, maintenance, and engineering it into the system -- once production ramps up.
9,000 deaths (perhaps an overestimate, probably not an underestimate, IMO)
10b starts per year
Start value range $1-$100
$25m value per life
25m vehicles per year.
Device cost $25 - $100 per unit.
$25m per life times 10k lives (rounding up) = $250b per year.
25m devices times $25 - $100 = $625m - $2.5b per year.
So the device cost portion is essentially inconsequential.
10b starts * {$1 - $100} per start = $10b - $1t start value per year.
{$10b - $1t} / $25b = 0.4 to 4.
Even if you assume $100 value per start, the device only has to make the right decision 3 out of 4 times to be worth it.
When I started this calculation, I was expecting to show numbers clearly opposed to this obvious infringement of personal liberty. I don't like the answer, but it is what it is. These numbers could be off. Given the spin I wanted to put on it, I intentionally edged the numbers in favor of the devices to mitigate the risk of being considered a charlatan.
Based on this rough calculation, it looks like the pure economic case for the devices might hold water.
Very good analysis of the fundamental principle at stake. Said that way, it is very clear that the purpose of Net Neutrality is to defend the free market from those who would bias it, not to inhibit the free market. That is exactly the sort of illumination that ought to send the anti-free-market rats scurrying.
Thank you.
If I may offer one slight modification:
"Party X should not be able to pay party Y to cause party Z to get less than what party Z paid for."
That makes the core anti-free-market agenda a bit more clear to me.
Top 1% Pay 38% of all income tax
Top 5% Pay 59% of all income tax
Top 10% Pay 70% of all income tax
Bottom 50% Pay 2.7% of all income tax
47% of American Households didn't pay any income tax for 2009.
The way you bundle the stats is the common story, but results in misunderstanding the case. The bottom 50% earns less than $30,000. Those are the floor-sweepers and part-timers. Including their tax stats with people earning, for example, $50k - $100k makes the middle class look like shirkers (on average).
Here's some numbers looking only at people earning $50k and above:
The bottom 63% earn 34% of total income and pay 21% of total taxes. The top 37% earn 66% of total income and pay 79% of total taxes. The dividing line is $75k.
The bottom 98% earn 77% of total income and pay 65% of total taxes. The top 2% earn 23% of total income and pay 35% of total taxes. The dividing line is $200k.
The bottom 99.63% earn 86.06% of total income and pay 78.94% of total taxes. The top 0.37% earn 13.94% and pay 21.51%. The dividing line is $1m.
Note that this is only counting AGI and straight income tax -- it does not count capital gains which are extremely skewed to the top and pay a much lower tax rate.
Just some figures to noodle on. By mixing the poor non-tax-paying segment with the middle, upper middle, and entrepreneurial(*) class, the common presentation overstates the income tax progressivity. By leaving capital gains distribution and taxation out, the common presentation understates the progressivity reduction that 15% capital gains tax causes(**).
* the entrepreneurial class from $200k to $650k has been depressed relative to those above $650k over the past 30 years, just like everyone below them
** another common case presentation is that corporate tax incidence falls 100% on capital lenders and so capital gains tax is effectively higher. This is not rational assuming a relatively free-market economy like ours. Increased net revenue after taxes (if, for example, corporate taxes were eliminated) would result in that extra revenue being distributed much like the company's existing revenue is distributed (assuming that the free market has already roughly optimized the company's cashflow distribution). That is; the additional revenue incidence would skew towards income (assuming a typical corporation in which income is the largest expense line item), and hence the tax incidence is skewed towards income earners, far from 100% on capital lenders.
effects = affects... know the difference people...
The fact that most people don't know how to use those two words correctly in all situations is strongly (1:1) correlated to the fact that most people don't know how to use those two words correctly in all situations. If your comment included an explanation of the distinction that is so important to you, it might actually help remedy the problem. And in the process, you would be promoted from useless sanctimonious douchebag to useful sanctimonious douchebag.