Monday, April 16, 2018

Three pieces on why work requirements won’t work [feedly]

Three pieces on why work requirements won't work
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/three-pieces-on-why-work-requirements-wont-work/

The Trump admin and their allies in Congress are trying to add work requirements to anti-poverty programs. A number of excellent sources explain why this won't work, where "work" means help poor adults move closer to self-sufficiency. Of course, if the goal is to simply kick people of the rolls, which for some legislators, I'm certain is the case…well, then I guess it could work.

First, this efficient WaPo editorial gives you the facts and the numbers behind why this pursuit of work requirements is folly, either in terms of budgetary savings or improving the poor's living standards.

Next, for a deep dive into the issue, this testimony by the Urban Institute's Heather Hahn is one-stop-shopping for granular evidence, down to the level of caseworkers, as to why work requirements are so ill-advised.

Finally, there's my piece on this in WaPo this AM, which gets into the fact that we've got better evidence than every before (see Hahn's piece, along with the links to my CBPP colleagues) that, in fact, able-bodied poor people already work. Given the nature of the stressors and labor market barriers they face, their connection to the job market often needs to be strengthened, but work requirements likely will, as Hahn shows, have the opposite effect.

My broader point is: Despite some of the best evidence we've ever had showing that neither trickle-down tax cuts nor work requirements will work, conservatives continue trying to solve the problem that the poor have too much and the rich have too little.



 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Sunday, April 15, 2018

Artificial intelligence and the new atheism [feedly]

Artificial intelligence and the new atheism
https://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/toi-edit-page/artificial-intelligence-and-the-new-atheism/

Artificial intelligence and the new atheism

April 16, 2018, 2:00 AM IST  in TOI Edit Page | Edit Page, Spirituality, World | TOI

By Jug Suraiya

Elon Musk, the driving force behind Tesla, the world's first driverless motor vehicle, is among the growing number of people who are warning us about the increasing dominance which artificial intelligence (AI), is exercising over our lives in the form of computers, robots and other devices.

Musk has said that in AI we have created more than a mere Frankenstein's monster: we have created an entity which will become an "immortal dictator" and enslave all humankind in perpetuity.

Human dictators are mortal and eventually die, liberating their subjects from oppression. But AI will be a deathless dictator from whom we can never hope to free ourselves.

In its various forms, AI already runs much of our daily lives. Time-controlled electronic appliances automatically turn our climate-control systems on and off, similarly programmed kitchen ranges cook our meals for us.

Computers can beat grandmasters at chess, can compose poetry and music and conduct conversations with us which are indistinguishable from those we would have with another human being.

In his book, '2001: A Space Odyssey', which was turned into a film, Arthur C Clarke wrote about HAL, a supercomputer which is programmed to operate a manned space mission and which turns 'rogue', endangering the lives of the spaceship's crew.

HAL had to have its memory banks disabled one by one by a computer engineer to prevent it from further mischief. But HAL's descendants have gone far beyond such human intervention.

The real watershed in the realm of AI came when computers learnt to devise new programmes for themselves without human input: they learnt to think for themselves – they gained 'self-consciousness'.

Self-consciousness implies self-determination. Our thinking machines no longer need us to tell them what to do; they will tell us what to do, or so people like Musk argue.

Such fears of our creating an "immortal dictator" have a ring of deja vu; we have been here before. The earliest humans, observing the forces of nature at work, created an AI which was responsible for all phenomena. In time, this AI came to be known by the generic name of God.

Humans created gods in their own image. In all mythologies, the early gods are like us: vengeful, covetous and jealous. Often, they cohabit with humans, and produce demigods, beings half divine and half human, like the androids being developed today.

In time, all these gods consolidated into a centralised power centre we call God, though by different names.

This God, however called, rules our lives like a not-always-benevolent, immortal dictator. In the name of God, we continue to fight wars and kill each other, as though commanded to do so by a Creator who is nothing but our creation, just as AI is.

Having created our first immortal dictator, some humans who call themselves atheists, rebelled against God and, like Milton's Lucifer, arraigned themselves in 'dubious battle' against Heaven.

Today, as religious fundamentalism of all shades gains ground, so does a counter movement of radical atheism and rationalism as represented by scientists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris.

Humankind, it seems, is condemned to create its Creators – be it God or AI – and then seek to challenge and refute their own creation. If this indeed is so, Elon Musk and others like him could represent the face of the new atheism. (Read tomorrow: 'Is God A Spiritual Liability?')



 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Is Foreign Trade the Cause of Manufacturing Job Losses? [feedly]

Is Foreign Trade the Cause of Manufacturing Job Losses?
https://www.urban.org/research/publication/foreign-trade-cause-manufacturing-job-losses

This brief, the second in a series on manufacturing's role in the US economy, shows the difference between the gross and net effects of trade on manufacturing employment. I analyze the economics of trade and how it affects domestic employment, trade and employment trends across manufacturing industries in three periods, and how many manufacturing jobs the US would have if we had no trade deficit. I find that the net effect of the US trade deficit accounts for only a small decline in US manufacturing employment and that changing trade agreements will not restore manufacturing to its past prominence.

 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Trump's Tariffs: No Longer Fresh at Project Syndicate [feedly]

Trump's Tariffs: No Longer Fresh at Project Syndicate
http://www.bradford-delong.com/2018/04/trumps-tariffs.html

Project Syndicate: TRUMP'S TAX ON AMERICA: After a year of serving as a useful idiot for congressional Republicans and their wealthy donors to push through tax cuts and deregulation, US President Donald Trump is now following through on his protectionist promises. Sooner or later, Republicans might realize that inept kleptocracy is not the best form of government after all:

"2017 was the best year for conservatives in the 30 years that I've been here. The best year. On all fronts". So said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY). "This has turned out to be a very solid, conservative, right of center, pro-business administration. And we're seeing the results of it." The same sentiments have been echoed over and over again by Republican donors over their shrimp hors d'oevres: the rollback of environmental regulations, and tax cuts for the rich. What is not to like? That Donald Trump and his family are would-be kleptocrats means that they little like the government taking what they want to be their wealth, and so are allies of all those who think America's big problem is that the distribution of income and wealth is not unequal enough. That the Donald Trump administration is incompetent—the tax cut bill was the worst drafted bill anybody can remember seeing—is not a drawback, for incompetence creates opportunities for lawyers to further enlarge loopholes.

2017 was, in the eyes of Mitch McConnell and of large Republican donors, truly the best year in the memory of man: incompetent erratic kleptocracy would appear to be the best of all forms of government for them. Who knew?

Or, at least, the best form of government until March 1, 2018.

Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS), at least, may have changed his mind about Trump:

This is not going to go down well in farm country. What's really ironic here—it's a real paradox of irony — that we have a tax reform package that's bringing a lot of benefits to the business community not the mention individuals, and this is a policy move that is contrary to that....I hope we're not seeing a trade policy that will basically result in all the benefits of the tax reform being taken away by higher manufacturing costs being passed on to consumers. The consumers are going to pay for this. All manufacturers are going to be affected by this, and they're not going to pay for it. They're going to pass that cost onto consumers, so it's a consumer tax, not a tariff. These are the people who voted for the president. These are his people. One county in Kansas even voted for him 90 percent, and they're not going to be happy at all about this...

Lindsay Wise of the Kansas City Star wrote that Roberts: "struggled to find words to describe his state of mind.... He and other Republican senators received no formal heads-up from the White House before Trump said he would impose import tariffs—25 percent on steel and 10 percent on aluminum..."

The stock market dropped 1.5% on the news.

House of Representatives Speaker Paul Ryan said: "He hoped the President will consider the unintended consequences of this idea and look at other approaches before moving forward".

The decision has been taken against the advice of and over the objections of National Economic Advisor Gary Cohn, National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, and Defense Secretary James Mattis. For it, apparently, are Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross—but it is not at all clear why, for the view from the Commerce Department sees many more who benefit and who benefit more from low steel and aluminum prices as they seek to invest than it sees those who benefit from higher steel prices. For it, apparently, is trade advisor Peter Navarro—but Navarro has not yet set out a framework by which externalities from the creation of a larger domestic steel industry are a net benefit to the economy. For it, apparently, is Special Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer—but it is really not clear why, for his reputation depends on the administration's having a successful rather than a stupid trade policy.

Perhaps America's plutocrats—and their senators and representatives—will come to the realization that wealth flourishes most under a competent rather than an erratic and incompetent government? And perhaps they may start to wonder whether plutocrats are the allies of would-be kleptocrats—or their prey?



 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Economic Update - Distorting Economic Truths - 04.15.18 [feedly]

Economic Update - Distorting Economic Truths - 04.15.18
http://economicupdate.podbean.com/e/economic-update-distorting-economic-truths-041518/

download
 (size: 107 MB )

Updates on labor strikes at Disney, home sales and prices drop sharply, Nestle profits by privatizing water, hurting the post office profits UPS and FedEx, Larry Summers wrong on taxing soda, more costs of the VW emissions scandal, the economic costs of sexual harassment. Interview with Julianna Forlano, journalist and comedian on 'being funny in times like these'.




 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Real wages for mid-wage workers actually haven’t grown much over the past couple of years. [feedly]

Real wages for mid-wage workers actually haven't grown much over the past couple of years.
http://jaredbernsteinblog.com/real-wages-for-mid-wage-workers-actually-havent-grown-much-over-the-past-couple-of-years/

We always talk a lot about wage growth on jobs day because, you know, it's jobs day. But later in the month, when the inflation numbers for the previous month are released, we should really say something about real, as in inflation-adjusted, wage growth. After all, what matters most to people is the buying power of their paychecks, right?

When the BLS real earnings report came out yesterday, I saw that Trump's economic advisers tweeted out this pat-on-the-back:

But their claims should not be taken seriously. First, these are jumpy, monthly numbers, so you want to look at the longer-term trend, and second, the bit about prices falling is particularly weird. Deflation is clearly not upon the land—that's a monthly blip.

The figure below plots the real, hourly wages for middle-wage workers: the 82% of the workforce that are production workers in factories and non-managers in services. Since around 2016, real wages have actually pretty stagnant. It's bad economics to measure trends over presidential terms, but given the CEA's tweet, note that since December 2016, the real hourly wages of middle-wage workers are up only 0.2%. These folks are working more hours per week, so their real weekly earnings did a tiny bit better, up 0.5%, but the technical term for that is bupkes.

Source: BLS

You're probably wondering what caused that unusual real-wage jump in the last recession. Real wage movements tend to be pretty smooth relative to price changes, which can be volatile when there's a shock to some commodity, often energy. In fact, energy costs tanked in 2008, and that led to a sharp decline in the price index (note: I'm mimicking BLS and using the CPI-W to deflate this wage series; not quite sure why they use this rather than the regular CPI but it doesn't affect the results).

The next figure plots nominal wage and price growth, year-over-year, showing how that big uptick during the downturn was driven by a large, negative price spike.

Source: BLS

This figure also reveals something that many of us have grown concerned about: even as we close in on full employment, we're not seeing much acceleration in nominal (and, as Figure 1 showed, real) hourly wage growth over the past couple of years. I think there are three reasons for this. In order of importance: there's still slack in the job market, productivity growth is slow, and inflation is low (faster price growth tends to correlate with faster nominal wage growth).

Real white-collar hourly pay* is up 1.4% since Trump took over (versus 0.2% for mid-wage workers; 1.7% real gains for white-collar weekly earnings, vs. 0.5% for mid-wage), so some of what's going on here may be the unequal distribution of earnings. I should also caution that the Establishment Survey data I'm using are one among many different wage series. Some, like the BLS weekly earnings series by wage percentile, show strong growth among lower paid workers, a point wage analyst Elise Gould has convincingly tied to places that raise their minimum wages.

But, as far as middle-wage workers are concerned, most series show roughly similar dynamics to the figure above. So, not a lot to crow about re the trend in real earnings for most workers. They're pretty much tracking inflation at this point, which is a recipe for wage stagnation, not pats-on-the-back.

*BLS doesn't provide this variable, but because they provide the overall average and the production worker wage, along with their employment counts, you can back out what I'm calling the white-collar wage. I've asked BLS statisticians if they consider that a legit calculation and they haven't said "no."



 -- via my feedly newsfeed

Saturday, April 14, 2018

A suspect tried to blend in with 60K concertgoers: China's AI System caught him

No way to verify this story, of course, but the AI implications are stunning. Generally speaking, central planning schemes of development get some big things done, but lead to high levels of political corruption in a world where the means of life are still scarce. But what happens when it can be statistically shown that AI managed planning and adminstrative challenges perform better than human implemented ones


A suspect tried to blend in with 60,000 concertgoers. China's facial-recognition cameras caught him. 

The 31-year-old man, wanted by police, had thought playing a numbers game would be enough to allow him to fade into anonymity.

The population of China is a staggering 1.4 billion people, give or take a few million.

More than 45 million of them live in Jiangxi province in southeast China, and 5 million of those people are concentrated in Nanchang, the province's capital.

On the night of April 7, nearly 60,000 people — or roughly 1 percent of the city's population — had gathered at the Nanchang International Sports Center for a concert by Cantopop legend Jacky Cheung.

Who could ever locate a single person in such a crowd?

And so it was there, amid the sea of faces in a packed stadium, with everyone's attention presumably turned to the stage, that the fugitive assumed he was safe from authorities.

But in the middle of an upbeat electronic song about summer romance, a pair of police officers began descending the aisles, according to footage posted on the Chinese video sharing site Miaopai. Soon, they had arrived at the row they were looking for and apprehended the 31-year-old.


Before Cheung had finished singing the refrain, officers were escorting the man out of the show.

The man, identified only by his surname Ao, was reportedly wanted for "economic crimes," according to Kan Kan News. Details about Ao had been in a national database, and when he had arrived at the stadium, cameras at the entrances with facial-recognition technology had identified him — and flagged authorities, the news site reported.

"He was completely shocked when we took him away," police officer Li Jin told Xinhua news agency. "He couldn't fathom that police could so quickly capture him in a crowd of 60,000."

Ao's unlikely capture became the latest example of China's growing use of facial-recognition technology.

As The Washington Post's Simon Denyer reported, law enforcement and security officials in China hope to use such technology to track suspects and even predict crimes. Ultimately, officials there want to create a comprehensive, nationwide surveillance system known as "Xue Liang," or "Sharp Eyes" to monitor the movements of its citizens:

At the back end, these efforts merge with a vast database of information on every citizen, a "Police Cloud" that aims to scoop up such data as criminal and medical records, travel bookings, online purchase and even social media comments — and link it to everyone's identity card and face.

A goal of all of these interlocking efforts: to track where people are, what they are up to, what they believe and who they associate with — and ultimately even to assign them a single "social credit" score based on whether the government and their fellow citizens consider them trustworthy.

Images from Denyer's visits to three technology companies showed people monitoring cars and people as they passed through an intersection. Attached to each entity were text bubbles that showed identifying characteristics: the person's gender and home town, for example.


"Surveillance technologies are giving the government a sense that it can finally achieve the level of control over people's lives that it aspires to," Adrian Zenz, a German academic who has researched ethnic policy and the security state in China's western province of Xinjiang, told Denyer.

Many have voiced their concerns about the ethical ramifications of such a system.

Human Rights Watch has a page dedicated to mass surveillance and the use of "big data" in China.

Maya Wang, a senior researcher at the group, said in February that China was aggregating data about its citizens to build policing programs in Xinjiang — and then using the information they had gathered to target ethnic minorities in the western Chinese province.

"For the first time, we are able to demonstrate that the Chinese government's use of big data and predictive policing not only blatantly violates privacy rights, but also enables officials to arbitrarily detain people," Wang wrote. "People in Xinjiang can't resist or challenge the increasingly intrusive scrutiny of their daily lives because most don't even know about this 'black box' program or how it works."

As for Ao, the man caught at the Jacky Cheung concert, he said he thought he would be safe in a crowd of tens of thousands, Kan Kan News reported. He and some friends had bought the concert tickets, and Ao had driven with his wife about 60 miles to see the show, according to the news site.

"If I had known [I would be caught], I wouldn't have gone," he said.






--
John Case
Harpers Ferry, WV

The Winners and Losers Radio Show
7-9 AM Weekdays, The Enlighten Radio Player Stream, 
Sign UP HERE to get the Weekly Program Notes.