Category: Policy

Homelessness and Gentrification

jamescaud

Charge:

Homelessness is not a choice. There may be a small amount of people who experience homelessness and enjoy it, but the overwhelming majority are suffering. After university I lived out of my truck as I wandered the nation, it was part necessity, part desire — a desire to see and understand the people of my nation, how they live, what they do, and how they think. While out, I experienced some of the common difficulties faced while homeless. Talking to homeless people in parks, libraries or on the streets of San Francisco has opened my eyes to one of the biggest social atrocities affecting our nation: the fundamental lack of a holistic support system for our poorest and most vulnerable citizens.

I’ve been putting off writing this post for so long because of the way it makes me feel. Homelessness is one of the most heart-wrenching, unethical side-effects of wealth inequality. Every time I read more about it, or talk to somebody on the street, I feel a heavy societal guilt. Someday I will do a formal rant on the centuries-old failures of greed and capitalism, but first I need to pay my respects to our neglected communities.

There are two lines of questioning that get asked when I tell people I’m researching homelessness. The first, always asked by non-homeless, starts, “How did they get there?” The second, always asked by homeless people yet rarely by housed, sounds like, “How do we fix it?” I’ll go ahead and answer both in this post. But for future reference, one of those questions is far more important.

 

Definitions and Statistics:

Homelessness is best defined as the state of an individual without permanent housing who may live on the streets; stay in a shelter, mission, single room occupancy facilities, abandoned building or vehicle; or in any other unstable or non-permanent situation. [Section 330 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C., 254b)]

Gentrification is a small cause of homelessness I want to touch on because I am unwillingly an accomplice to it in San Francisco. I won’t harp on it too much in this post, but know that it’s a whole ‘nother beast in itself. Here’s the definition: “the process of renewal and rebuilding accompanying the influx of middle-class or affluent people into deteriorating areas that often displaces poorer residents.” [Merriam-Webster]

Types of Homelessness:

Chronic

  • “Persons most like the stereotyped profile of the “skid-row” homeless, who are likely to be entrenched in the shelter system and for whom shelters are more like long-term housing rather than an emergency arrangement. These individuals are likely to be older, and consist of the “hard-core unemployed”, often suffering from disabilities and substance abuse problems. Yet such persons represent a far smaller proportion of the population compared to the transitionally homeless.”

Transitional

  • “Transitionally homeless individuals generally enter the shelter system for only one stay and for a short period. Such persons are likely to be younger, are probably recent members of the precariously housed population and have become homeless because of some catastrophic event, and have been forced to spend a short time in a homeless shelter before making a transition into more stable housing. Over time, transitionally homeless individuals will account for the majority of persons experiencing homelessness given their higher rate of turnover.”

Episodic

  • “Those who frequently shuttle in and out of homelessness are known as episodically homeless. They are most likely to be young, but unlike those in transitional homelessness, episodically homeless individuals often are chronically unemployed and experience medical, mental health, and substance abuse problems.”

Size of Homeless Community:

Getting an understanding of the size of this community is difficult because point-in-time counts really don’t capture all stages of homelessness. Individuals hiding away in sub-optimal living spaces like cars can easily be missed. The department of Housing and Urban Development releases a point-in-time count each year for most urban municipalities by walking the streets and accessing shelter numbers. This year was the first year since the housing crash that homelessness rose. The report said 554,000 people were without permanent or adequate residence on a night in January 2017.

However, this count does not show the entire picture. In order to get a more appropriate number, some estimates must be made. From my research I’ve found most sources referencing a number from 1.7 million to 3.5 million. This is the total number of people who experience any stage of homelessness at some time throughout the year. That’s 1% of our entire population. Even though 1% sounds like a small number, I urge you once again to realize the insurmountable suffering endured by these 3,500,000 American human beings. Then, realize that you will probably never understand their immense pain. Then remember that I’m only talking about Americans. Homelessness is not a uniquely American phenomenon.

Overall, the United States ranks fine compared to other civilized nations, but that is for two reasons. First, many other European nations are accepting hundreds of thousands of Syrian refugees that have nowhere else to go because they own nothing. Second, the number we report is bogus. Regardless of the numbers, it’s obvious that we are experiencing a homelessness crisis in America. The main cause for this crisis is due to the way we have historically approached the issue: through a failed plan called homelessness management — more on this later.

Demographics of Homeless Community:

To get a picture of the different types of people experiencing homelessness, I’m going to run through the percentages.

Homelessness disproportionately affects men. Overall, sheltered and unsheltered, men account for 61% of the homeless population. Women account for 29% and less than 1% identify as LGBTQ+. The total unsheltered ratio is even more skewed with 71% being male.

The gender ratio has always been heavier on the male side, but the ratio that has changed recently is the number of young people on the street. In the most recent point-in-time survey it was found out that 33% of homeless people are experiencing homelessness as a family. Young people account for approximately 30% of the homeless population, with 20% aged 0-18 and 10% aged 18-24. These statistics have never been this bad in all of American history; not even the Great Depression matches this unprecedented amount of homeless youth.

More saddening statistics are that 9-13% of the total homeless population are veterans, which has increased in the last few years. Around 25% of homeless are affected by at least one severe mental illness. 38% are dependent on alcohol and 26% addicted to at least one hard drug.

Finally, where are the largest populations of homeless located? Overall, two states stand out the most. California with 26% of the total homeless population and New York with 16%. But there are three main urban localities that account for those numbers: New York City, Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Bay Area.

 

How did they get there?

This video does an incredible job in quickly highlighting the common ways individuals find themselves entrenched in homelessness. There are many avenues, but the most common are poverty and lack of affordable housing.

Poverty

In 2016, nearly 13% of Americans lived below the poverty line. Growing income inequality and debt have made life difficult for many Americans. It’s no surprise that anybody can fall into homelessness when 62% of Americans have less than $1,000 in their savings account. For those people, living paycheck to paycheck is an unfortunate fact of life. And when you are in that circumstance, costly emergencies, the loss of a job, or the loss of a spouse could spell disaster. Even though unemployment is at its lowest in 18 years at only 3.9%, the quality of life hasn’t really changed. Jobs simply aren’t paying enough. Graduates are finding themselves marginalized and underemployed at a staggering rate. It’s not just young people either, in upwards of 46% of seniors are dependent on social security to pay 90% of their expenses. Anyone is susceptible to homelessness, it just takes one crisis to lose all of your money and hope. Hell, getting a parking ticket, or your car towed can mean you miss your next month’s rent, putting you in danger of eviction.

Affordable Housing

In places like San Francisco and New York City, the two most expensive cities to live in America, affordable and available housing is obviously in short supply. But since the housing crash in 2007, it’s been more than just the urban areas that have been feeling the effect. Renters are at an all time high, and over 25% of households are paying over 50% of their income to housing.  The Department of Housing and Urban Development states: families with only one full-time worker making minimum wage can’t afford rent for a two-bedroom market-priced apartment anywhere in the country. Ever since the Reagan administration and the defunding of the Housing and Urban Development department, subsidized contracts to construct and maintain public housing have nearly vanished. And there is no sign of this changing soon.

This is where gentrification comes into play. Large urban areas like the San Francisco Bay Area are booming with highly lucrative industries, mostly due to consistent advancements in technology. These industries attract highly skilled workers from all over the world, and they expect to be paid well for their qualifications. Wealthy landowners and real estate corporations will recognize this influx of highly paid workers and move to revitalize their properties and eventually raise rents. This process forces out long standing residents who may already be living in poverty and cannot afford to pay the new rates. I live in a studio apartment in arguably the roughest district in the city, and the rent is $1,850 a month. You can’t find a place for any less than $1,700 if you tried. Families whose income is less than $60,000 a year (which is the national median) would be paying half of their income just to have a place to stay. This growth is unsustainable, and we are heading towards an inflation disaster. There is no reason for all these companies to be in the same 100 mile radius, and soon I expect to see a max exodus.

Social System Failures

Other factors play a key role in the rise of the homelessness epidemic. Deinstitutionalisation in the late 20th century, an abundance of foster care children with poor, inadequate or lacking families, a criminal justice system which incarcerates and releases with no continued support, the proliferation of cheap and highly addictive street drugs like crack cocaine and meth, veterans returning home from war without adequate support, and the rising costs of health care all contribute to this intractable problem.

One of the most frustrating things I hear when talking to housed individuals is, “Why can’t they just get off their ass and get a job?” As if they know anything about the difficulties these people face. How is someone expected to get a job when they don’t have access to a shower, clean clothes or any modern amenities? Homeless people are more worried about getting robbed, beaten or murdered than the format of their resume. They have to think about whether or not this alcove in a rat infested alleyway is going to provide enough shelter from the elements, not to mention getting something to eat that day, or finding a place to drink clean water and use the restroom.

You can’t even easily qualify for state/federal aid if you don’t have an address to receive it at. The “system” we have in place to support homeless individuals is broken, and actually perpetuates the problem.

How do we fix it?

Homelessness management is a methodology for housing these vulnerable neighbors that enlists temporary shelter housing, coupled with publicly funded hospitals and prisons to get these people off the streets and out of danger every night. And it’s costing the American taxpayer a fortune. Not only that, but it’s not working. Billions of dollars have been spent thanks to the McKinney-Vento grants to aid these support centers, but the numbers haven’t changed. Why? Because there isn’t motivation to create a holistic support system that takes into account all the difficulties faced by these people. We bucket funding into nodes in the network, but nobody seems to realize that in order to make change they need to work together.

A blog post similar to this one by Sam Davis of UC Berkeley highlights this flawed methodology and known working alternatives. The one thing that absolutely improves the quality of life for these individuals is a notion called ‘housing first’. The idea is: in order for progress to be made in a homeless person’s life, their main struggles need to be provided for. As I mentioned earlier, homeless people are not worried about going to the doctor or getting sober. Their primary concern on a day-to-day basis is where can they get food, water, shelter and safety. Their lives are exclusively survival-based. And until they have a reliable source for the necessities of life, they can’t get any better.

Supportive Housing

Instead of spending loads of money on contracted services that have no communication with one another, and only dedicate small portions of funding to the actual housing of these people, we should fund and develop supportive housing. Supportive housing is the development of subsidized permanent residences where individuals can not only live, but have easy access to the help they need. Within the residence there would be a point of contact who would be similar to a resident adviser on college dorms. This person or group would work with the residents and make sure they are seeking the right help and following up on their plan to well-being. The housing would connect people with the proper health services, mental health services, drug counselling, job training, and anything else these people might need.

This approach is designed to cater to the individual experiencing homelessness, and their progress could be tracked and managed by the support group at the housing facility. One note that Sam brings up in his post is that we don’t want these to feel institutional. Many of these individuals suffering don’t want to feel homogenized and labeled. Even more so, they should feel integrated in the greater community. This requires a change in mindset among citizens, something that definitely won’t happen overnight.

Temporary Housing

Even if the federal government stepped up their game and orchestrated these programs on a grand scale across the nation, there would still be a delay of support. We need not solely focus on the best long-term approach, but also improve our current temporary support network. By building out better shelters, having individuals working to manage the support these people are getting, and continuing a societal campaign to change the mindset of current residents in these neighborhoods, we can provide a structured support system in the meantime. Our current homeless management system is barely a system at all. If we integrated some of the services the people and taxpayers would be benefited greatly. So until affordable housing projects are publicly funded on the federal level again, these band-aid solutions can actually do some good.

Alternative housing ideas such as encampments, shipping crates, and tiny homes should not be ruled out of consideration either. Localities should spend time and resources finding places within their respective borders to provide both long-term and temporary housing improvements. This plan in general can be replicated in all municipalities, but the approach needs to be catered towards the land and space available, environmental considerations, and public approval. This is where all of us come in.

What can you do about it?

The problem of homelessness isn’t going away any time soon. As we see our economy continue to drive more and more people into dire circumstances, and less and less is done to aid our poorest citizens, it’s obvious this problem isn’t going away. So what can any one person do to affect change? It’s a hard question to answer.

For starters, if you are in a position to donate to some of these organizations working tirelessly to alleviate the difficulties faced by homeless people, please do: National Coalition for the Homeless, National Alliance to End Homelessness, or find a center near you to support. Many of the citations are credited to them, and not only do they help homeless assertive networks, but they all do good work advocating for policy change in government.

Another way to help is by donating your time. Shelters across the nation are in need of temporary and continued volunteer service and would gladly take any help they can get. This is especially important for my next point.

Stop ignoring these people. Each person you see on the street is another human being. The idea that they probably got themselves into this situation and should be left alone to figure out how to get out of it is morally horrific and logistically absurd. We as a society need to to hold ourselves collectively responsible for getting these people the help they deserve. In many developed nations across the world, each citizen is allotted basic human rights such as a shelter, health care, and education. It’s not communism, it’s basic respect for the well-being of our fellow human beings. Our nation is extremely wealthy and we still can’t afford that common respect for humanity. We should be smarter about how we spend our time, money and effort, and that starts with the individual.

When you see a homeless person on the street, whether they are asking for money, shooting up heroin, or just laying down on the sidewalk, give them the common decency of eye contact. Look at them, see their pain, and respect their humanity. If you can only do that, you have no idea the effect it will have on them and yourself. Just don’t look away. If after a while you can muster the strength to have a conversation with some of them, please do. You shouldn’t be afraid of homeless people any more than anyone else. Nobody deserves to feel ignored, alone, and left to rot.

If we can all just do this, we will start to love these people and care for their well-being. We will become upset, not at them, but at the fact that nobody in power is doing anything about it. And our collective outrage at the failure of our current system will drive political change. Then maybe, with considerate legislation and well managed programs, we can end homelessness once and for all.

The Geriatric Crisis, Assisted Suicide, and Euthanasia

jamescaud

Charge

America is facing a crisis unmet by any previous society. A crisis that is coming to fruition across the globe in many of the most highly developed nations. However, we as Americans are seemingly doing all that we can to make matters worse, whereas other nations have recognized the issue and are moving towards viable solutions. I’m coining this problem: the geriatric crisis. We as a society need to find pragmatic solutions to this appending bombshell of negative ethical consequence. In this post I highlight my ideas and propose both short term and long term solutions.

This topic has been at the forefront of my thought since arriving at my parents house. Both my maternal grandmother and paternal grandparents are apart of the original baby boom. They are struggling, and the support system we as a society have in place for them is grossly ill-equipped to deal with the majority of problems they face. It saddens me beyond comprehension the scale of suffering being felt by our elderly populous. We must do something about it.

 

Evidence of Crisis

As with every issue, research is important to understand and familiarize with the data. Along with statistics, I researched important microcosms of American society to appreciate the magnitude of the appending crisis. Below are stats and stories that damn our society and showcase unintentional cruelty.

 

Birth Rates, Death Rates, Life Expectancy, and Average Age

There are a few statistics America keeps on its citizens that are vital to understanding the state of our aging nation. These statistics are birth rates, death rates, life expectancy, and average age. There are many different names for these statistics, such as natality, crude birth/date rate, mortality rate, and other combination metrics such as rate of natural increase. Since throwing too many numbers at your face is not my intention, I will stick to speaking in generality and link the true statistics for further personal investigation. But trust me, the numbers aren’t pleasing.

Google has an awesome tool to visualize trends in each of these metrics and more, I highly recommend you check it out here. You can also compare nation and world populations.

The big picture is this: birth rates are going down, death rates are going down, average life expectancy is slightly going up, and average age is going up. This has tremendous implications on the effectiveness of the social welfare programs we have in place. More on this below.

The causes are many, but it’s obvious that better medicine and technology has given us a better capability to live longer, healthier lives. On the other side of the spectrum, birth rates could be decreasing due to a more steady involvement of women in the workplace. (thanks capitalism) Other things such as reliable birth control and economic highs and lows affect birth rates as well.

My main point for this subsection is that in the past we have had difficulties handling the aging populous, but never before has it been this big to be called a crisis. For an example look to the trends of imprisoned Americans.

 

Imprisoned Elderly

It is said that living a life behind bars ages you faster. By many approximations, those who have served considerable time in a state or federal penitentiary are mentally and physically ten years older than their birth date reads. This has caused a considerable amount of unforeseen difficulties that prisons have had to work around. If you’re down to ball your eyes out, I have a report or video you can check out.

As much as I’d like to critique the rotten judicial and criminal system/structure that often perpetrates racist ideologies, I’ll save that for another post. This problem of a growing elderly population in prison is a direct result of the movement in the 70’s towards a strong “tough on crime” stance. That coupled with insane sentencing minimums and a budding idiotic war on drugs placed America in the number one spot for percentage of citizens incarcerated amongst developed nations. Not to mention the ever present “for-profit” prisons.

This microcosm of American society can shed light on the crisis we are starting to face because it is supposedly ten years ahead. If you skipped out on the video or report let me fill you in on the conditions that these elderly are facing: they are abhorrent. Not only are many of them suffering from multiple ailments, most have no hope of ever being free. They will die behind bars, alone, afraid, and in incredible pain. Sadly, even if they are allowed back into society, many have no one to pick them up. They are doomed.

Many prisons have started to implement an inmate sourced support system where inmaes are paid measly amounts to care for and assist the aged through daily activities such as clothing, bathing, eating, and using the bathroom. These able individuals are their biggest advocates and many times their only friends.

But of course this isn’t just a social well-being problem, it also carries financial consequences. Taxpayers are paying for these individual’s medications and treatments, and the costs are staggering. Letting them out of prison only solves one of the problems. Unfortunately, they will be thrown into the just-as-broken welfare support system free citizens face. But how bad is it?

 

Lack of Support System

There are a few avenues of financial support available for the retired and aging population in America. Personal/family wealth, long-term privatized insurance, social security, and medicare. Most Americans don’t have enough saved to afford a full retirement. And not enough people are investing in long-term care insurance.

So most people are relying heavily on the government programs we have in place. Programs designed in an age where there were up to thirty workers paying taxes to cover one elderly. These systems have yet to experience nearly such an obstacle, one graph tells it all: The Population Pyramid.

This graph shows the percentage of total population per 5 year age group in 2018. To understand why these near century old programs are failing, you must examine the progression over time.

A steady shift towards an equilibrium of shared percentage is obvious, but our welfare programs are not the slightest prepared. The baby boom is the first tidal wave in the gif, and all of them are about to hit 65 and up. This will destroy the systems we have in place. There are now less than 3 workers to 1 beneficiary, social security needs extreme reform. Medicare needs a huge overhaul, for that I agree with my dude Bernie.

Even with perfect government welfare programs, there will be prolonged unnecessary suffering. Many old people at some point, whether they are terminally ill or fading fast, want to end their life. Yet their government forbids it, only 6 states and DC currently have death with dignity legislation. I believe that the laws already in place are useful, but could go a step further in the future. More on this later.

 

Long Term Fixes

The separation of long and short term fixes are based on the longevity of the solution. Some fixes could enable healthy and happy aging for all future generations, others simply alleviate some pressure right away. The difference does not however take into account the timeline for enacting policy of the sort. It’s safe to say that in our current state all policy decisions are going to be stifled with inaction and ignorance. As the issues become more and more pervasive the public will demand justice for their most deserving elder population. Here are the ways I see to solve this geriatric crisis.

 

Medicare and Social Security Re-hauls

My favorite president is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, without his leadership during a time of great instability we would be nowhere. He was one of the main reasons we exited WW2 as the top economic power, that and the fact we weren’t bombed to shit. His presidential cornerstone was the creation of social security. The Social Security Act was passed in 1935 as a main component of The New Deal. Many new deal policies failed miserably, but this one succeeded tremendously. It has been the most reliable government agency since inception, but it’s fundamental idea is only now becoming challenged beyond belief. It won’t make it to its 100th birthday.

I truly believe that it is time for a new, new deal. All these social issues I am constantly thinking about will be apart of it. But universal health coverage will be at the forefront. It’s frankly sad to see that we are the last developed nation to offer basic coverage. Just like holding on to the broken imperial unit system, we may never switch due to fear and cost concerns. America needs to go back to the days where they would take risks when it was the ethically right thing to do.

Now, there are a ton of changes that need to be made, and many more that could be changed. If I talked about them all I would bore you to death. Instead I will link you to some of the potential fixes. My grandma says young people need to pay more, I say we need to transition everyone to a single payer system that modifies benefits based on your age group. Another solution is providing a supplemental program to increase government earnings. The solution is NOT to get rid of it. But it is about time that seriously drastic changes be considered.

The agency will be continually failing on its payments in future years. So something needs to be done. Think we will ever have as progressive a congress?

 

Increased Incentives for Geriatricians

Medicare is strapped for cash, and they don’t pay recipients enough for good long term coverage. This is directly at odds with privatized insurance because of the doctors. Young students pursuing their M.D. don’t want to work on old people. It’s often considered unglamorous and unrewarding. Unrewarding both financially and mentally. Most people would intrinsically save a youth’s life over an elder’s if they had to chose. This is backed up with economical bias, geriatricians make less on average than any other profession requiring an M.D. Compared to a radiologist’s $473,000 average salary, a geriatrician’s $184,000 is shit. This is because Medicare is broke and private insurance is rich.

Not only are other areas of medicine far more lucrative, they are more often taught. During schooling many programs cycle the soon to be doctors through different areas of medicine to give them the opportunity to try things out and find what they like. Geriatrics is almost never a mandatory cycle. After all, schools want their students to go out and get high paying jobs so they can pay their way out of debt then pitch back earnings to their alma mater.

The need for geriatricians and geriatric nurses is outrageous.

“By 2030, the need will grow to an estimated 30,000 geriatricians. To reach this number, 1,200 geriatricians would need to be board-certified each year for the next 20 years. Twelve hundred may not seem like a huge number, but consider this: In 2010, only 75 medical residents entered geriatric fellowship programs across the United States, down from 112 in 2005, according to the American Geriatrics Society. The geriatrician is becoming an endangered specialty.”

Holy shit, we’re fucked, unless things change now. Start paying these doctors more, start mandating cycles in university, and remove the stigma of old lives being less important. Easy right? Nope, but otherwise we’re fucked. And when I say “we’re” I really mean your grandparents and parents. They will suffer insurmountable pains due to this lack of support personnel.

This is an area that needs more people sooner than we can get them. We need to incentivize retraining of doctors and recently unemployed to become geriatric doctors and nurses. This will provide the needed support for the geriatricians. Otherwise, suffering will ensue.

 

More Regulated Re-Population Schemes

The last long term solution is a bit more controversial in today’s social landscape. As shown earlier, the population will soon be equally spread amongst the age groups. This is a general trend towards an natural equilibrium. However, the graphs can’t predict the future. As we have seen in the past, people will have children for different reasons, and certain times have been dominated by intense breeding. These imbalances lead to ripples of population growth that challenge social welfare systems.

The best way to solve this problem is a more regulated re-population scheme. I’m not calling for eugenics, I just want the government to insure that another baby boom or baby drought doesn’t happen again. That could mean not going to war or it could mean actually regulating financial institutions to disallow another recession. I will leave eugenics and parental licensing for another post since that isn’t what this one is about. Just know that my opinion is that the government should not only track the population statistics, but actively encourage a steady re-population rate.

This steady rate will increase planning capabilities and insure the full payment of benefits to every citizen. The better we are at predicting the health of our population, the more prepared we are to support them.

 

Short Term Fixes

Suicide is a touchy subject. It is engulfed in negative connotations stemming mostly from religion. Nowadays it holds a direct link to mental health stability, and often drug/alcohol/gun abuse. After contemplating it myself and saving others from ledges I’ve developed a philosophy that is: Humans should have the right to choose how, when, and where they die. This post will talk primarily about the terminally ill and near death individuals whose deserve this option, but I firmly believe in availability to all citizens within reason.

 

Assisted Suicide

Assisted suicide, or more aptly called medically assisted dying, is currently legal in 6 states and D.C. The idea is simple, if a person is terminally ill or near death, they have the capability to sign a few papers and be prescribed a lethal dose of some barbiturate. Now, this is an obvious oversimplification. In reality there are waiting periods, multiple doctor approvals, and consent statements and requests. Needless to say, it’s not easy or quick. And only a few illnesses qualify per state.

I’ve already linked a few testimonials as to why this is morally righteous, but I have also experienced this first hand. These laws need to be widened to allow for more people to qualify. Too many people have to wait for their death when their body and mind have already given out. No person should have to face weeks, months, or years of pain because their government doesn’t think they qualify for a dignified death. We need to get over this “life at all costs” mentality, it’s often life-insensitive.

The will of humanity is great, if a person wants something badly enough, they will do whatever it takes to get it. One reason why Planned Parenthood is worth funding. This idea is also at play when it comes to the ending of one’s life. Whats worse, medically assisted death or suicide by cop? Pretty obvious answer I’d say. But what about the other major ways? Shooting yourself in the head? Drinking yourself to death? Or overdosing on some other drug? I think you’d be an idiot to say that anything other than assisted suicide is best or more moral. It surely is the least messy.

With all this being said, the requirements for request and verification are a gray area. And we haven’t had these laws around long enough for there to be conclusive evidence for the best practice. For now, not even enough people know about them, so education on options is more necessary.

 

Euthanasia

One major problem with assisted suicide is that it doesn’t cover individuals who are unable to grant consent. Say for instance your grandmother has dementia, perhaps caused by Alzheimer’s. She is unable to recognize you, and doesn’t even know her own name. With the current assisted suicide laws she can’t consent, therefore must lay to waste away until her time is up. This has enormous consequences for your family and most importantly her. She is gone, her life consists of waking up confused about where she is, forced feeding, then often medically induced sleep. Does that sound fun to you? It’s not. The only thing she wants is peace, but can’t express it because her mental capabilities have deteriorated so much. You want her to be at peace as well, but chances are, you have to let her suffer until natural death.

Pretty fucked up right? This is happening everywhere, and the moral repugnance is a stench that clouds America’s ethics. When your dog is 21, blind, and unable to stand, you put it down. It’s lived a great life and the last thing you want to do is force it to endure any further suffering. Why the fuck are humans any different? If anything, it’s more immoral for humans because they have lives of even greater value, and deserve more rights than the dog.

One way to offer these benefits without forcing loved-ones to make the hard decision is something like a do not resuscitate contract. As one gets older, it becomes more important to have a will drafted. If an individual wants to be cut short of life in the case they become unresponsive or terminally ill, they should have the capability to consent to a doctor beforehand in the will. This gives the power back to the individual and ensures the following of their wishes.

 

Potential Abuse

Most of the arguments against these treatment options focus on the potential abuse of insurance agencies or doctors. I’m less worried about doctors because they are almost always looking out for the best interests in their patients. What is definitely more scary is insurance companies pushing for a certain treatment or not. It’s important to keep in mind, that as long as we are a capitalist society, insurance companies are making money off of people’s faults and imperfections. If they stand to earn from a certain treatment and not others, they will coerce the buyer into choosing the more cost effective option.

This could mean a number of horrible things. First, these companies might attempt to withhold information on all treatment options and their timelines. (which is already happening) This means that they may put pressure on a person to start a treatment option without fully understanding all of the options. Second, they may limit coverage for certain treatments forcing poorer people to choose the option that would least negatively affect their family members. Thirdly, as seen with the explosion of opioid addiction in recent years, we can’t trust that pharmaceutical companies will not bribe doctors into over prescribing.

All this means that the government would have to eliminate edge cases and truly crack down on offenders. This should be coupled with a FDA overhaul in my opinion, but I’ll save that for another post. Most of the already existing policies have elements stating the pressure of an individual to make a decision of treatment vs. death be a felony. Regardless, the government needs to ensure the rights of the patient are not taken advantage of.

 

Closing

As I’m finishing writing this piece my grandfather has just passed away. His kidney’s were failing, he was entering dementia, and he decided to decline treatment. He was uncomfortable for weeks as he waited for his death. His wife, now alone, has lost nearly all her motor functions and memory. She also has declined treatment and is waiting for her turn to die. This is sad, not because death is scary or unfortunate. This is sad because they are forced to suffer until their bodies finally give up. They are citizens of Florida, a state without any dying with dignity policy.

If you haven’t experienced this sadness yet, you will. Death awaits all of us. We have no say in how we’re born, but we should at least have a say in how we die. We need to reform our social welfare landscape before the crisis financially cripples us.

Finally, I hope you consider how you want your end of life experience to be. Your perspective grants you empathy. And your empathy saves lives.

“Funny, the day you’re born, that’s really your death sentence.” – Donald Glover

Gun Violence and the Media

jamescaud

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. -2nd Amendment

This may just be one of the most outdated and antiquated amendments in the whole 27, right after the third amendment outlawing the quartering of troops. Most people shorten it to “the right to bear arms”, yet the first begets the second. In order to understand this amendment, it’s important to think through the perspective of the early Americans back in 1789. At the time, the military was very weak, and slow to deploy. They had no speedy transportation, and literally had to march anywhere if there were a battle waging. Also at this time Americans were under threat from native tribes, since they sorta kicked them off their land and killed their families.With these two things in mind, the extreme infancy of an organized military/police force and the constant threat of attack, citizens were all but encouraged to own weapons and know how to use them. A whole community of men could form a militia to defend the rest of the community and act as a supplementary force to the aforementioned organized troops. Not only this, but the framers were afraid of tyrannical governments. Allowing citizens to have the same access to the weapons the military did ensured a fair fight if they wanted to revolt. This was necessary back then, yet has become completely unnecessary now.

Today, due to technological advancement, we have automatic rifles, handheld explosives with incredible potency, and nukes. I can assure you the framers did not anticipate these sort of arms. So why then am I not allowed to keep and bear a thermonuclear warhead? If I have the cash for it, assuming. Because that’s nonsensical, nobody needs that. Needless to say there are many restrictions on this amendment, similar to libel and the first amendment, you can’t have any weapon you want. Yet honestly, it seems that there are more laws governing blades then there are governing firearms. In this post I will dive deep into the very American culture surrounding guns, what policy decisions got us here, and what we can do about people unnecessarily dying to firearms. Lastly I will talk about mass shootings and the media, then conclude with recognition for alternative killers of the American people.

 

America the Gun Toting Nation

There are more guns than people in America. This fact alone is pretty bonkers. Nearly half of all households own at least one weapon. There are many common day reasons for owning a firearm but the two most popular are sport and protection. When people refer to sport shooting like hunting, they often are referring to rifles and shotguns. When referring to protection, most people think handguns. This isn’t always the case, but is a general consensus. Compared to other nations, not only do we own WAY more guns, but we also have WAY more gun deaths: who would have thought? Many people have been quoted saying gun violence is a developing epidemic in America, however I am forced to dispute. When looking at the data, gun related deaths on the decline, but mass shootings are increasing. (Which I’ll talk about more later) And to be honest, most deaths are suicide. There is a lot of speculation as to why this is the case, but its just that speculation. The real question is not whether it’s becoming an epidemic, just whether or not it’s a public health issue. I think it is undoubtedly a public health issue, due alone to the incredible rise in mass shootings the the recent decade. So why does it seem like there is so little formulated data on incidents? Well, that’s where a complicated series of policy decisions come into play. By complicated I mean contradictory, special interest infested, and loophole generated. The general trend towards looser gun policy does not match the consensus of the populous.

 

A Messy Gun Policy Landscape

We already know about the second amendment, but what other laws and regulatory agencies have their hands in this complicated mess of gun policy? Let’s start with the players then dive into the rules of the game.

Players:

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

The ATF or ATFE as it is commonly referred as is the main federal enforcer of all laws passed regarding these four items. It sits under the Department of Justice, and has two major jobs relating to firearms. The first is to issue FFLs (Federal Firearm License) to authorized manufactures and sellers of guns. There are different levels of this license, but essentially it means they are a legit seller of guns. You don’t necessarily need a FFL to sell guns, which is something I’ll talk about later. The second main thing this organization does is investigate illegal firearms activity. In the past there has been many horrible incidents of failed stings and illegal searches, so lately it seems there has been a real back-off. They also create initiatives to protect the public and enable law enforcement to track weapons through a newer gun tracing program.

Their mission is simple when it comes to guns, “ATF recognizes the role that firearms play in violent crimes and pursues an integrated regulatory and enforcement strategy”. So they’re here to help us, they are the good guys. But they don’t get to make the laws, congress does.

Congress

Both federal and state congresses pass laws regulating or deregulating guns in America. Sometime’s they are at odds with each other, nothing new here. Many bad laws have been passed by past federal congresses, especially due to the second largest political advocacy group behind AARP, the NRA.

National Rifle Association

This is a nonprofit organization who lobbies congress, endorses candidates and organizes voters who favor gun-owner sided policy. I choose my words wisely here, because they don’t necessarily want looser gun laws. They simply want to enable voters with the knowledge they need on policies and issues relating to guns. They are all for safety, provided gun safety courses and marksmanship classes. However, over the years, they have sponsored bills that I believe have provided loopholes for criminals and been to the detriment of the American public.

Center for Disease Control and the Department of Health and Human Services

I put the CDC and DHHS in here because they often are in charge of researching public health hazards. Yet, their funding for gun violence research was stripped in 1996 due to NRA lobbied Jay Dickey removing budget considerations for them. This dramatically restricted any data collection and not until 2012 did they start research on gun violence again. SMH

Supreme Court

These 9 old judges don’t often play a large role in this game, but have in the past. Striking down just about any state or federal law that tries to cross the second amendment. Because, you know, strict interpretation of the constitution works so well 230 years later…

Civilians

I can’t leave out the most important players, the actual people who buy, sell, and use guns. Whether they are FFL certified sellers, private sellers, private buyers, straw purchasers, or criminals: guns don’t kill people – people kill people with guns.

Rules of the Game:

Many laws have contributed to this complicated gun policy landscape, but I am going to focus on the two most important. There is also a few court cases, but I’ll just highlight one that sort of got us to where we are today.

Gun Control Act of 1968

This law was passed after many huge public figures were assassinated in short time. It charged the ATF with distributing and authorizing distributors of firearms with the FFL. The law was then bolstered in 1993 when the Brady Act was passed requiring all FFL holders to background check each purchaser. The main purpose of this bill was to disallow the capability of mail ordering weapons, which even the NRA agreed to at the time. (Since they mailed the gun that killed JFK) It initially tried to require by law all weapons be nationally registered and have all owners be nationally licensed, but that wouldn’t make it into the final law. Those are still managed per state, and some states are far more lackadaisical.

In many people’s opinion this was a huge mistake, ripping the second amendment open – bordering on tyranny. But honestly, it fell short of its aspirations, then was practically destroyed by the next law. Also, the text of the law only required businesses dealing weapons to own a FFL, not private 2nd market sellers. It also mandated FFL licensed dealers to sell exclusivley at the address listed on the FFL, but this wouldn’t last for long.

Firearm Owners Protection Act

So this was a major de-regulation law. Not only did it give FFL holders the capability to sell at locations other than their listed address, it extremely loosened the definitions for a business dealing arms. Essentially it yanked a lot of authority from the ATF, since they were kinda going crazy at the time, and “gave the power back to law abiding, gun-owning, citizens”. But it opened up a huge loophole for criminals to exploit! (I’ll talk about this loophole in the next section)

DC vs Heller

This supreme court decision ruled in favor of Heller stating that DC’s handgun ban violated the individual’s right to own and bear arms. Essentially, this formally stated that the right to own and bear arms as stated in the second amendment was an individual right as opposed to a right reserved to a person in a militia. (LOL K) This did so much more than just recognize the fact that individuals have the right to own weapons for self-defense, it also reclassified handguns as legal arms and allowed guns to be stored loaded. These were all strikes to previous laws passed by congress, trending heavily toward loose regulation of guns. It however did not challenge any state jurisdiction, since DC isn’t technically a state. A later case asserted the federal authority, McDonald vs Chicago.

 

How Criminals Get Guns

First off, I want to reiterate, a majority of gun related deaths are suicide. While these are no longer deemed crimes, it’s still a very difficult societal matter. After all, we don’t want people killing themselves, with guns or meds or anything. So if we want to drop these gun death numbers, we should seriously consider a whole new approach to mental illness. I’ll save that for another post.

So there are a few ways criminals can get their hands on guns both legally and illegally through loopholes.

The most common way criminals get guns is through a second hand market. A private “seller” can basically say “they didn’t seem to be a criminal or mean any negative intent” and legally sell the gun. I put “sell” in quotes because it could just be given to them, no trade made. This is the way that most guns get into criminals hands, but who are the people selling them these guns? Who makes the initial “legal” purchase? It could be just about anybody honestly.

With the “Gun Show Loophole” any private seller can say the same thing at a large event where both FFL certified and uncertified vendors sell guns. They don’t have to background check, they don’t have to request identification, they don’t have to do anything but make a sale. (Capitalism at its finest) Even FFL certified sellers can do this if the specific weapon was transferred to personal ownership at least a year ago, I wonder if anybody forges documents in this industry? What I’m saying here is that even a convicted felon could walk into a gun show and purchase a weapon. Apparently the ATF reports that anywhere from 50-75% of sales are made from FFL certified dealers. Also, if you want to buy anything but a handgun, you don’t even have to be a citizen of the state! And from what I can tell from a few hidden camera videos, even that is rare, if you have the cash, they won’t ask for ID. These legal private sales are why so many gang members in California and Mexico have semi-automatic assault rifles, because they legally purchase them and smuggle them over state/national borders. The best part about this, the seller is almost never liable. Unless the buyer says “I am a felon/fugitive/minor/dishonorable discharge/mentally ill” the seller can legally claim ignorance.

Straw purchasers are another sub-problem. Remember that underage kid asking you to buy them beer? Yeah that’s what a straw purchase is. If a criminal wanted to get a gun through a FFL certified authority, they could get a legal purchaser to buy it for them. Then as you know, the second hand market is always a black one. However illegal this is, it’s almost untraceable and can be very easily ousted by that “good guy” claim.

 

How to Prevent Crime and Death

I often try to find corollaries when attempting to understand new topics. When looking at guns I couldn’t help but to think of cars. After all, they are items owned by individuals that aren’t inherently evil, can can easily become so. There are different kinds of guns and cars that require different licenses to own and operate. They both require a certain level of aptitude in order to operate. The only difference is that the right to drive isn’t in the bill of rights, damn. But seriously, so many restrictions on guns are shot down because it’s seen as a right. (No pun intended)

Realistic Policies

Whenever a pro-gun advocate says “they want to take away our guns”, I sorta laugh. There is no way guns will ever be completely outlawed, its practically impossible. Like I mentioned, there are more guns than people in america. Not only that, but people can legally make their own guns, and now people can even 3D print their own weapons. It would be complete nonsense to even attempt to round up all the weapons in american. We tried that with alcohol one time, and it had far more severely negative consequences. What we need to do is come up with sensible regulation and policy to curb this budding national health hazard. Here is what I think would work.

Licensing

13 states and DC require a license to own/purchase a firearm. Only one of them requires aptitude tests, my home state of California :). It’s honestly shocking that there is no federal mandate for states to require this sort of licensing for guns. After all, the DMV licensing program did a hell of a job at curbing vehicle deaths which were on the rise at the time. The license would cost a flat fee and would expire after a set time, just like a driver’s license. The gun owner would need to verify that they can pass a background check, and are not participating in illegal re-sale of firearms. There would be different license levels for different guns, accompanied by different tests to verify aptitude. Someone who knows how to shoot a handgun, doesn’t necessarily know how to operate a semi-automatic rifle, or shotgun. Sure, the triggers are similar, but so are gas pedals in sedans and 18-wheeler trucks.

In my mind, this is a no brainer. If an individual is caught with a gun and doesn’t have the appropriate license for it, it can be confiscated and the individual fined or jailed (semantics up to the state to determine). This is done to an extent somewhat with concealed carry and open carry licenses, but there is no clear consensus across states. If the federal government passed a law to mandate this, it would go a long way to preventing wrongful ownership of firearms.

Gun Titles/Registration

When you sell your vehicle, you have to fill out a vehicle ownership title transfer. Commonly referred to as a pink slip, you aren’t the legal owner of the vehicle until you get one. In my opinion, every gun should be registered to an individual, even after the first sale. This makes tracing gun transfers so much easier, and narrowing down on the offending seller of guns to criminals. If a gun is confiscated at the scene of the crime and the last owner isn’t involved, they will be partially liable for the crime, because they failed to fill out the proper paperwork to transfer ownership, or cloned it stolen through the police. This will encourage sellers to use the title transfer system for fear of liability. If multiple guns are found in crimes with the same final dealer, that should be considered a felony as they are obviously intentionally distributing guns to criminals.

Gun registration doesn’t have to cost much or even be re-purchased every year like car registration. Unless an argument is to be made that guns need to be smogged or something similar. This system would only be in place to determine ownership of firearms. There would be no limit on the amount of firearms you could own, like cars. A searchable database would be available to authorities to verify the legal ownership of a specific gun, or you would have to prove the owner has given you permission to hold it for them. Very similar to cars. If a car is unlicensed that’s a crime, so if a gun has its serial number removed, it’s illegal. Easy peasy.

Mandating NICS and Harsher Enforcement

The final piece of the puzzle to close the loophole is to require a National Instant Criminal Background Check System verification on every gun title change. Also, give ATF and local law enforcement more power to prosecute any illegal sale. Over 90% of the american population favor this legislation, the only reason it hasn’t been enacted is because of the NRA lobbying against it. This means that the test needs to be made available to private sellers. This provides a few problems. For one, sellers will have to self identify, maybe by being a gun owner with a license, you are assumed to sell privately, then being allowed to use the service. Or, you could have to apply for a seller designation on your license. It also will increase the demand for the check, which could be a technical problem, or just a man-power problem that the FBI would have to double down on.

More Research and Data

The CDC and NHHS need to be allowed to do more research on the affects of certain policies and crime rates. Having definitive information on what actions cause or correlate with others will give us a better understanding of the way guns are used. Similar to what needs to happen with marijuana, the more we relax these policies, we need to do more research on the affects of them. Like the 6% drop in opioid addiction cases since the legalization in Colorado. More data is almost never a bad thing, making informed decisions and policy DEFINITELY is never a bad thing. It’s shocking that for so long this was the case. Even Jay Dickey realized that before his death this year.

 

Mass Shootings and the Media

This section is admittedly going to be far smaller than the entirety of the rest of the post. Not because it doesn’t deserve the same attention, but because it’s a lot more opinionated that fact based. If you hadn’t noticed, mass shootings have been on the rise lately. The most recent big media hit was the Las Vegas shooting. The aforementioned proposals may help in not allowing this to happen again, but there is a far bigger perpetrator at play, the american media.

Sensationalizing crime for viewership has been a common occurrence since the origins of the police car chase. In fact, many entire shows popped up glorifying crime on TV. Violence sells, and the media outlets know that. Even worse, exclusive coverage sells. So unless all stations agree to not blast a story with national coverage, they are going to show what their competitors are showing to get a share of the views. (Once again, capitalism at its best) But this creates a huge problem when it comes to mass shootings.

“What we believe may be happening is national news media attention is like a ‘vector’ that reaches people who are vulnerable”, said Sherry Towers who is researching the rise of mass shootings in America. After racking the data, mass media coverage of mass shootings follow a contagion like model. Meaning: mass shootings are infectious if widely displayed on media. So what do we do? We stop blasting this on national news for weeks on end! This video says it better than I ever could. Maybe the government needs to get involved, but damn, we need to stop this nonsense before more people die needlessly.

 

Suicide

Mass shootings only account for 1% of gun related deaths. 65% is suicide. As mentioned earlier, that’s not okay. Something needs to be done about this, but the policy opportunities are slim. This is more of a social issue that we need to address as a society of people. Breaking the stigma of depression is a good place to start, but there is so much more to be done. I will post in the future about the state of mental health education and awareness in america. For now, just know that this is a huge deal for me. I hate when people kill each other, but I am far more affected by the fact that people kill themselves. Being in the situation myself, I can understand and empathize. Don’t expect this administration to give a shit about this issue. Try again in a few years, meanwhile almost 100 people kill themselves everyday… So, 100,000 people will commit suicide by the time we even get a chance to fully replace this trash administration.

AI Driving Unemployment – A Cause for Concern

jamescaud

*The title of this post is an intentional pun, however unfunny the topic.*

 

Overview:

Autonomous vehicles are a hot topic in today’s technical, economic, and social landscape. Over 30 separate companies are actively pursuing some form of autonomous driving application, some more advanced than others. Regardless, with the consumer market biting at any sort of auto-piloting system available, there’s an argument to be made that fully autonomous vehicles are a plausible inevitability. With the gears of capitalism in full torque, it’s more a question of when, than if.

With that in mind, planning for the transition is an unpleasant task for those who wield political power. Unfortunately, not many are actively considering possible avenues of support for those to be affected by this appending unemployment wave. Now, before I go any further, it’s important to realize that predicting timelines for nascent technologies is almost never accurate. For instance, Google predicted its driverless software to be marketable this year (obviously it’s not), probably fueled by some Kurzweil ideology. Nevertheless, this is something we can see coming, and yet the government seems to favor a more reactive approach. Maybe that’s because they’re slow, or maybe it’s negligence. Either way, if no action is taken proactively, we could see 2% of the U.S. workforce wither into the tech induced graveyard. Luckily, some people are researching this very topic.

In March of this year, just six months ago, the Center for Global Policy Solutions (CGPS) released an exhaustive report on the state of AI driving affairs. There is no way I could paraphrase this magnificent piece, so instead I’ll link you and urge a read of the relatively short executive summary. Report

I agree with most of the report, the only thing I believe lacking were more fleshed out alternatives to the potential jobless drivers. After dwelling on the issue myself for many weeks and reading countless opinion pieces as well as statistics, I have a few of my own recommendations. Some coincide with this report, others are stolen from technoeconomists. (I made that word up) Alas, any new idea I thought I had ended up being something that already existed, but would take major alteration to apply to this issue on a grand scale. Okie dokie, enough preface, lets jump right in.

 

Scary Statistics:

Whenever anyone starts putting numbers to people, I get really sick. If I took anything away from watching The Big Short, it’s that increased unemployment means more than just human suffering, it means death. The figure in the movie is a bit exaggerated and in reference to the world economy. The real figure for american lives lost due to a 1% raise in unemployment is more around 1,500. You may think, “wow that’s only .0005% of our population”, but I think, “Imagine every person you know dying, times 3”. Needless to say, it’s imperative that as a society we do our very best to ensure a graceful transition to a driver-less nation. (Also, I am only focusing on America for many reasons: 1. The report did too, 2. Driving is way different around the world, 3. I have no idea how half of the other nation’s governments even work 4. Starting “small”)

Big picture statistics provided by CGPS estimate that 4.1 million individuals are employed in driving occupations. This includes: 78% delivery and long haul trucking, 14% bus drivers, and 8% taxi/chauffeurs. Of that 4.1 million, 88% are men and 12% are women. Even more terrifying, 97% don’t have a college degree. This proves to be the most challenging statistic because in order to find employment, most drivers will need re-training. Whether that is getting a degree, or learning a new trade, that will be time and money they may not have.

What will most likely happen before any completely autonomous agents are roaming the roads is autopiloted systems with a driver present. This provides a unique opportunity for drivers to learn/re-train and work at the same time. Depending on the quality of the autopilot system, they may be able to spend most of their time watching lectures of some sort. Leaving the refueling, maintenance, and approach/docking procedures to the driver. More on this later.

The report also mentioned specific states that would be at risk, holding a larger percentage of their workforce in the industry. As much as I think this is helpful for state legislatures to make decisions, I’m not going to highlight it here. Many of my recommendations work for both the federal and state level of governance, but I will speak almost exclusively of the benefits reaped from total federal adoption. Sometimes I think the states are more at odds with DC than they should be, seems like they were designed to work together and often do the opposite.

 

Possible AI Incapabilities:

After consulting with a few truckers (yes I sought out and talked with those to be affected) they all mentioned a few duties they thought would be difficult to automate, ensuring their job security. These included as already mentioned: refueling, delivery to storefront, maintenance, docking/loading/unloading items. One trucker even mentioned a sort of highway robbery scenario where bandits would stand in the road expecting the system to auto-brake and then bust into the truck to steal all the goodies. As much as I agree with these insider opinions, it’s arguable that these tasks are no more difficult than driving itself.

Hopefully, all these new autonomous vehicles will be electric. And “refueling” could mean one of two things: recharging or a battery swap. Wireless charging has been around for many years, but it’s not awesome. (Apple seems to have flip-flopped with their new X device) Tesla, one of the leaders in the field has been designing autonomous wired charging bots and I’m sure will deliver more robust solutions in the future.

So, the car will be able to recharge itself, what about maintenance? This is by far the more challenging obstacle. Ideally all maintenance is done before each trip at the departure location which could be done by either one person, or maybe someday an automated robot. But, many issues may arise along the road that AI drivers could not possibly anticipate. Emergencies like tire blowouts would seemingly have to have some human interaction.

For delivering/docking/loading/unloading, these would be interesting engineering feats to automate, but I believe a lot of ground could be covered if the processes were redesigned with the autonomous car in mind. Say you’re a keg delivery man; instead of having to get out of the truck, open the door, unload the keg and wheel it to the storefront or whatever, the truck was packed so that each keg came out in order of delivery and could be set in a predetermined location. Of course this is a gross over estimation, but reasonable negotiations could be made per industry I imagine.

Lastly, for the highway robbery case, I would suggest something like a lock-down protocol that called the authorities immediately after recognizing` a threat. Maybe the shell of the truck would become magnetized or electrified. I don’t know, it’s a crazy thought in the first place.

 

Plausible Inevitability:

As I mentioned earlier, it’s safe to say that this technology will come to fruition. It’s our duty to provide assistance to those who will be affected by this change. Something else to consider is the other industries that may be affected. Many people think car ownership will drop dramatically since we will be able to hail cars, so does that mean all car salespeople will be out of jobs too? This is one aspect of the CGPS report that was mostly neglected. It’s important to think of the secondary industries that can be hurt by this appending transition to autonomous vehicles. The 4.1 million jobs may be a gross underestimation if all the affected industries were accounted for. I could speculate, but I’m not fully aware of the implications and the numerous other secondary industries. Other authors mentioned aftermarket part installers, parking clerks, and insurance dealers. It’s hard to say what the full effect will be.

Needless to say, something needs to be done about the issue. When I thought about possible solutions I came up with 6 major categories of possible support methods, they are:

  1. “Make New Jobs”
  2. Outlaw/Regulate the Technology
  3. Wealth Refactoring
  4. Workforce Redistribution
  5. Better Federal Social Support Systems
  6. Fundamentally Redefining Work

I will discuss each in detail in the following section.

 

Alternatives:

“Make New Jobs”

I put this in quotes because it’s something many economists preach as the best solution to tech induced unemployment. In the past decades this has certainly been true, and will somewhat be in the near future. But the important thing to realize is the rate of creation. Currently job creation has stagnated. And after witnessing the mass unemployment wave in 2008, it should be obvious that it’s not always easy to get a new job. Most new jobs are in small technology based firms or self-employed entrepreneurs. The report mentions the necessity for entrepreneur education in secondary school. This, along with many other things, would be important to teach to our youth. Maybe some day I will write a post on the necessary changes to America’s education system, but for now I don’t think it will be enough.

New jobs nowadays most often require a college education, which is something these drivers don’t have. What I think this should mean is expanding the workforce in a few select industries, construction being one of them. It will be a while until we automate the building and repairing of our domestic infrastructure, ensuring job security. Of course, this still requires a targeted skill set that the drivers may not have. But instead of relying on new jobs to spring out of nowhere, we should target markets that are currently experiencing worker deficits. More on this later.

 

Outlaw/Regulate the Technology

An obvious way to ensure these individuals won’t lose their jobs is to completely outlaw the technology. Not only is this morally repugnant, this is counterproductive to any policy ideology. When visiting Oregon I was disgusted to find out that a law passed in 1951 prohibited me from pumping my own gas. This law has two main justifications, safety and jobs. That’s bullshit. Not only has nozzle/pump technology been greatly advanced in the past 60 years, but those jobs hurt the economy more than help. Costing citizens extra pennies at the pump to pay for a service they can 100% do themselves.

In general, a law should never be passed to protect jobs, only to create more purposeful ones. So, outlawing the technology to protect these jobs is bad practice, but regulation is a necessity. Similar to how there are pump regulations ensuring safety, these AI systems need to be strictly regulated in order to insure public safety. Extensive field tests are necessary, and an independent committee should be formed to create them. Manufactures and the public should be consulted to find an agreeable form of autonomous driving regulation. Let’s make sure this is as bi-partisan and unbiased as possible. After all, vehicles are the most deadly weapon we’ve ever made based on the sheer numbers.

So yeah, I know government is already way to big, but we need another agency. ADC, Autonomous Driving Committee, or something, to police these up and coming tech giants, create comprehensive regulation and administer the tests and data collection of these systems. Luckily, it’s on the list of things to vote on, but missed the summer recess. Hopefully they hash things out when they return.

 

Wealth Refactoring

This without a doubt will need to happen. Now I’m not asking to abolish capitalism for socialism, but think about the increased profit to be expected by these trucking/taxi companies. Trucking companies spend around 30% paying their employees, that would mean an immediate 30% profit boost. Not to mention the increased hours of operation allowed by the technology, boosting the total profits even more. Companies like Uber take around 20% from their drivers. With autonomous agents, that would be a 500% profit increase. Not only should these companies pay for necessary infrastructure updates (if any), they should expect to be taxed more. Those returns should go directly to those programs dedicated to helping the recently unemployed. I’m not suggesting gutting their profits to match pre-AI figures, but a fair percentage should be agreed upon.

 

Workforce Redistribution

As mentioned in the Outlaw/Regulate section this is a must. The important questions are how, where, and when. (who, what, why is obvious at this point) I haven’t thought of all the possible industries, nor all possible avenues of opportunity. These are merely my thoughts and ideas after reading many books on the subject and consulting with some of the data.

Instead of looking at the workers first, lets look at the job shortages in america. Its important to look at job necessity trends as well as current need to properly estimate the lacking job markets in 20-30 years. But most economists agree across pretty much all developed nations that the three things we will need more workers in are construction, engineering/manufacturing, and caretakers. The workers should have all the choice in what they want to do, but the government should entice these industries in some form. Not only that, but we especially don’t want workers going into programs that will waste their time and money getting a degree that doesn’t award them an income.

Construction workers are needed because a much of our infrastructure is decaying. Engineers and manufacturers are needed because we need to keep developing solutions to scientific and technology based problems. And care takers because of all the soon to be very old people. The government can sponsor work placement programs that host educational content and guidance on the importance and usefulness of these careers.

Next up is to think of how to do this, Jerry Kaplan, an optimistic economist, (yeah they exist) had the idea of a job mortgage. Companies would agree to hire an individual if they passed some educational qualifier, and the individual would take out a loan against their future paycheck. Thiscould be a financial tool for the individual and a motivator for qualification programs to create a competitive learning environment. The companies get tax write-offs, the banks get interest, the workers get a new job: somehow everybody gets paid.

The report mentioned an increase in apprenticeship, which wouldn’t be too bad. But what I think their best suggestion was, and this is something quite controversial, lowering the cost of a college education. The government pays more for not only these workers who want to gain a degree, but young individuals too. After all, those are the groups facing harshest unemployment. Fuck it, even if they study music, at least they are able to contribute to society again. It’s of dire importance to find another ‘thing’ to do, even if it is not going to give them income (I have a solution to this later). Because the data for middle aged unemployment is already getting scary.

Last is when, and this question varies the most due to the proposed timeline being so fuzzy. In my opinion, I believe that there will be a period of regulation and testing amounting to at least 5 years before the government deems them safe enough to be truly unmanned. This may have already started. Even after that, the companies may stick with a driver is they choose to do so. Not for long I bet, maybe 15 more years until human driving is outlawed entirely (in America). So after a truly revolutionary and complete level 5 autonomous application is developed, 5 years with a mandated driver, then 15 years after humans are not allowed. I truly expect a 20 year cycle from driver to driverless. In the 5 years of a mandated diver, the workers should spend time thinking about potential exit strategies, and maybe even start introductory courses in the subject of their choosing. Many things can be learned online today, and if the driver was only needed for a fraction of the time, they could listen to lectures/watch videos when they could spare the opportunity. This would greatly soften the blow to the transition. Then hopefully immediately after they get laid off by the company, they can start pursuing their new career path. Or maybe the companies work with the employees to transition immediately on a scheduled date.

 

Better Federal Social Support Systems

The report mentioned the need for automatic enrollment in services like unemployment insurance and medicaid. As of now, these programs also need a massive funding increase. Today in America, only 25% of those who applied and qualified for UI were given it, pretty messed up right? We pay so much in taxes, yet so much of it goes to useless purposes, and year after year budgets get cut for the most important services.

I propose the need to change dramatically the way we provide for the old, poor, sick and defeated. First off, nobody should have to live in squalor. Nobody should be denied a service they qualify for and need. Americans should have a standard of living higher than any other nation. How do we do this? We re-imagine social support provided by the government.

Social security is probably the greatest thing that America has ever implemented, in fact it’s also the most reliable. The fact that it is still helping people 80 after its inception is frankly remarkable. But it’s failing. The baby boomers are growing older, and birth rates have been at all time lows for decades. This means there are no longer enough workers to pay for all the recipients, and people are growing older than ever before. My grandma suggests taking more from workers to compensate, I suggest we do something completely different. The first thing you can do is remove the income cap, which always sounds downright illegal. The second is progressive basic income (PBI).

Before you puke on your screen, and cast me aside like the socialist I am, heard me out. Progressive basic income is very similar to social security, and would not replace it, but instead be supplementary to the service. Slightly different than universal basic income, which grants every individual the same monthly benefits, progressive basic income is a calculated needs based government supplement. It would never be enough to live off of exclusively, however nor was social security but over 33% of its recipients make it so. When it comes to the very poor and maybe homeless, rich people say “get a job”, then I say, how can they do that without X. PBI could give these people the opportunity to get that X, whether it transportation, clothes, or food. The reason I favor progressive vs. universal is because many people don’t need this, and their share of UBI could go towards the PBI share of the very unfortunate. PBI, automatic UI, and modified Medicare/Medicaid would cushion any job loss, not just those lost due to trucking.

 

Fundamentally Redefining Work

This section is reserved for the last because it is the most radical and least time sensitive. I’ve many a time imagined a world where less than the majority of people work a conventional job as we know it today. Would half of our population be on the streets? No, because at this point we would have enacted many of the above policies and probably more. Nevertheless people still need something to do, and should be compensated in some form for whatever it is. So what could a solution for this be?

Community service crowd-sourced income. Sites like JustServe and GiveGab sort of offer the services I’m talking about. My ideology is that the government would run a service like this in which every non-profit and interested person could make an account. Normally the government is crap at hosting online services like this, but I can imagine a day where they hire more software developers to create and maintain a platform like this. Or maybe they’ll just contract it out. Either way, this would be a way for people to do things on a day to day basis, get them involved in their community and provide small monetary sustenance. Where’s the money come from you ask? I had the same question when looking at these already existing services. The service providers aren’t themselves non-profits right? It mainly comes from organization membership fees, which in turn means it comes from government stimuli to the non-profit, and donations. If the government took out the middle man, they could charge organizations less, and also pay the workers a bit.

I know it’s odd, community service for money, but you have to realize the difference between volunteer and community service. One of which you usually get a reward other than that “good feeling”. It may be far-fetched, but this would pay huge dividends for public good and increased quality of life. Communities would be safer and more happy. The logistics would need to be discussed and argued about, but the main idea seems pleasant to me. Say its 2040, I’m unemployed and receiving welfare checks that pay for my modest lifestyle. But I want to get more involved with the people around me and make some extra money because I want to start a new hobby. If a popular service was in place, I could wake up in the morning, sign up for an event, work a shift and get a slight increase on my next month’s check. An app would track this for me, and have all the tools for my welfare need. I say slight increase thinking a few dollars, but it would all depend on the job. Organizations could set all sorts of settings on the app for who could do the work and for how much, and the service would automatically grant or deny the job opportunity based on the percentage of total budget allotted to the organization over a specific period. Remember, this is when more than a majority of capable workers are unemployed.

Conclusion:

I may not have covered all my bases, but I hope I’ve at least convinced you of the importance of this problem. The need for solutions is there, and time is always ticking. We as a society need to recognize the issues involved with transitioning to a driverless nation and demand that our governments act proactively to solve them. From regulation to worker redistribution, this issue needs a compilation of efforts to ensure gracefulness. If done correctly, the building blocks could be set in place for other potential AI induced industry disruptions. Lets try not to have another recession, let’s take care of our people. Comment below your curiosities and arguments.