Drug Legalization: The Human Cost

I’ve been listening to a lot of self-described Libertarians explain their position on drug legalization. I don't mean marijuana. I mean all drugs. They frame it as a ‘liberty’ issue (obviously). To paraphrase, governments shouldn’t be allowed to set limits on personal freedom. Drugs constitute personal choice and are therefore off limits for enforcement. Cartels and gangs are powerful because of the money they make from illegal sales. This keeps them strong and violent. Making all drugs legal would remove their power and keep petty drug users out of jail.

I don't pretend all pro-legalization types are drug users themselves, but it’s disheartening when a major social crisis destroying families and communities is said to be an issue of liberty.  I’ll try to be fair because a lot of the writers I like (Kevin Williamson, Megan McArdle) support drug legalization. But nothing says insane like allowing someone to burn their house down and standing back to watch because “It isn’t my mess”.

Legalization would increase the number of addicted and add a monumental burden to social services, not to mention ruin a generation of kids. Keeping laws in place ensures a lot of people will never try them or at least not use as often. Removing the punishment removes the stigma.

Almost everyone agrees the ‘war on drugs’ feels like a loss. Not because law enforcement hasn’t had success. Drug busts and high profile arrests do happen on occasion but the sheer volume of abuse and violence tells a story of loss. The drug war will always be difficult because of the high demand for drugs. High demand means suppliers (local and foreign) rake in cash. The money creates incentive to produce more. More production means increasing security and enforcement to protect the product. The violence from street gangs and large cartels leads to turf wars, reckless killing and paying off officials. If you want a good picture of what happens when a drug economy takes hold, check out Mexico.

Libertarians will say “Mexico is a violent hell-hole BECAUSE the substances are illegal; making them legal would eliminate the violence”. But making drugs legal will only cut down on some of the crime. The violence is tied almost solely to black markets, it doesn’t matter what product or service is offered. Members of street gangs and cartels won’t suddenly apply to law school because drugs are legalized, they’ll move on to the next thing. They’re power comes from operating in an illegal environment. Mostly that means vices like prostitution, gambling, and narcotics.

Gambling is legal in a lot of states as long as you go to a casino. Yet it isn’t hard to find illegal games or unsanctioned betting. If drugs were legal they would likely operate in a similar way. They could be sold through licensed federal (or state) facilities where the quality gets approved by federal officials. But what would stop illegal sellers and cartels from undercutting official sales with unofficial lower quality stuff? What makes proponents of legalization think the black market would dry up? It goes against every historical understanding of market forces. Remember Eric Gardner who was choked on a New York street by police trying to arrest him? He was selling cigarettes (a legal product) without a license, a common practice when prices are too high.

Another justification for legalizing is in cutting down the number of prisoners in overcrowded prisons. I’m sympathetic to this argument, but large populations of prisoners should not be a reason to overturn sound policies. Tweak some things on the margins, like offering more work release and lower sentencing. My first thought when hearing we have the largest prison population in the world is, “We have a big problem with drugs”. Libertarians hear that and think, “We have a big problem with laws”.

If every action has an equal and opposite reaction, than the reaction to legal drugs would be runaway social costs. We already have a heavy social cost with illegal drugs and only a part of that is because of violence. A lot of it is just ordinary drug addiction, the kind that states spend millions on every year through rehab programs, counseling and family services. Families with addicts suffer immense pain and lose years fixing damaged health and broken lives, wrecked relationships. Pro-drug enthusiasts want to add an extra layer of destruction to the already bleak national picture. Legalization makes it more likely that others will try it and become addicted. 

Legalization is the lie of ‘choice’ gone too far. At some point your ‘freedom’ interferes with others and the mess you leave behind is what others clean up. I think at the core of legalization theory is something selfish and cruel that makes proponents tout liberty while encouraging slavery. Liberty is a wonderful thing and restrictions on personal choice should be small and measured. But drug addiction strains social welfare and destroys lives, not only for the addict but also those in his/her circle. Removing the law against it opens up a real chance that a generation of Americans (kids especially) will be lost to reckless social engineering.

    

Libertarians tend to see the individual as the highest moral authority in a society. But individuals make choices that affect others in the process of discovering their individuality. Laws against keeping a Bengal Tiger in your apartment aren’t because the predator might kill you. They exist to keep the people near you unharmed. Personal choice ceases to be ‘choice’ when your obsession gets out of control.

 In other words, your choice takes away the liberty of others. Liberty goes both ways after all.  

I Peter 2:16 (MEV) "As free people, do not use your liberty as a covering for evil, but live as servants of God".

Last Flag Flying: Review

I watched the film Last Flag Flying last night.

 The story unfolds at a bar where two former Vietnam veterans catch up on old times and past regrets. We quickly figure out the impromptu meeting has a larger purpose. “Doc” Shepard lost his son in the Iraq War recently and wants his Vietnam buddies to help him bury him at Arlington. One friend of the Doc is a preacher (Laurence Fishburn) and one is a bartender (Brian Cranston). Tension between ‘sinner’ and ‘saint’ is the subtext as the three men help an old friend discover how to deal with loss. The conflict is played for laughs despite the very real difference in spiritual maturity between Sal (Cranston) and Mueller (Fishburn).

Apparently the trio got into trouble during the Vietnam War and Doc was the fall guy. He spent a couple years in the brig for his insubordination. The guilt over the incident still affects the three men, one of their fellow marines died during the debacle. The details are sketchy but come out in drips and drabs as the movie unfolds. I didn’t realize it at the time but this film keeps the characters from a 1973 movie The Last Detail, while changing the backstories. It isn't exactly a sequel but the characters would be familiar to anyone who saw that movie. 

Last Flag Flying manages to be somber and heavy but punctuated by hilarious incidents. Like when Sal (Cranston) jokingly hints to the Uhaul sales clerk that he and buddy Mueller (Fishburn) are working with Al Qaeda. He doesn’t give a return date for the rental truck, acts coy about the reasons for the truck and pays with a wad of cash. Homeland Security gets alerted and Fishburn is taken into custody for being a suspicious ‘holy man’. 

After Doc sees his son’s body he changes his mind about Arlington and decides to take the body to his hometown Portsmouth, New Hampshire. This scene, at the airport, changes the direction of the story and Doc quickly reverts to back to his anti-authority roots. Once he discovers the truth about his son’s death, killed buying drinks at a convenience store, he becomes disillusioned with the war. The Marines told him a different, more heroic version of the truth. He agrees to let the military pay for transport to Portsmouth via train after some haggling with a cartoonishly nasty colonel.

The trio ride the train while swapping old stories and generally complaining about their war, and the current one. Old men see war different than the young. The arguments they make have been made for millennia. Like the famous scene from All Quite On the Western Front (1930) where Paul lectures his propaganda spewing professor “He tells you ‘Go out and die’ Oh but if you’ll pardon me it’s easier to say go out and die than it is to do it.”

One particular scene from the train journey shows all three men talking with a young marine (Washington) who accompanies the body to Portsmouth.  

Washington: “I’d rather be fighting them over there than in our own back yard.”

Sal: Said to Mueller sarcastically “Sound Familiar?”

Mueller: “Oh, yeah”

Sal: “See we fought the commies on the beaches of Nam so we wouldn’t have to fight ‘em on the beaches of Malibu.”

Washington: “I guess it worked”

It’s a funny line but supports a larger truth that gets overlooked in good war/ bad war debates. The merits of war are easier to sort out after the conflict ends, but what isn’t easy is figuring out what might have been. History only tells us what happened in the war, never what might have happened without the decision to engage in it. Anti-war films always describe the ugliness of battle but can’t possibly say that without war things would have been better.

The ‘commies’ never attacked the Malibu beach but they would have likely put missiles in Cuba without the blockade. What happens after that? No one knows. We may not fight them here, Red Dawn style, but other considerations come into play.  There are too many variables to consider in conflict, including threats to allies and loss of influence, an enemy with larger territory and a new front from which to conduct terrorism. Mistakes are made constantly and overreach is a frequent problem of military campaigns to be sure. Telling a story from the perspective of former Vets who ran afoul of the leadership is a little like asking former Walmart employees who got fired, what they think about the company. Their view is certainly relevant, but it isn’t the whole story either.

Anti-war movies are small and focused, small because the tragedy of loss is personal. Films like Deer Hunter and Born on the Fourth of July show loss and transformation, from patriotic to bitter and wounded. Pro war movies (if that’s even a term) like The Longest Day and the Band of Brothers series keep the larger frame of the conflict front and center. We understand the big picture, allies, leadership, geopolitical calculation, strategic maneuvers, and enemy advances. If anti-war movies are like the board game Life, than pro-war movies are chess.

I generally liked the movie. The camaraderie between the Vets is funny and proves that despite the ugliness of war, long lasting friendships survive. A telling moment is when the three men meet the mother of the soldier killed in Vietnam. For years she believed the official report that her son was killed in action. They have a chance to set the record straight with her. They were with him when he died after all. How they handle the meeting tells the viewer a lot about truth in war and why it is so hard to talk about.  

Lessons from Rocky IV

The older I get the more I appreciate Rocky IV. Not for the reasons most people think of though. The film gets criticized as American propaganda constantly. It’s easy to see why. Rocky Balboa is the best of American grit and determination, a working class hero. Ivan Drago is the opposite. He reflects a cheating Soviet Union interested in winning at all costs. He is the product of drug enhancement, cruelty and fitness tech run amok. The theme most people see from the movie is that honesty and fair play beat underhanded state influenced cheating. Or as I like to say "We kicked your ass Russia!"

Rocky IV predicted the Russian tricks that cast a pall over the Winter Olympics in 2014, accidentally of course. Their state sponsored doping program got them banned from the last Olympics. But for the obvious good versus evil messaging in the movie, it holds up today because of the conflict it imagined between technology and human achievement. This theme runs in the background like antivirus software, scanning the plot points and making sense of the Cold War.

If it’s been a while since you’ve seen it, here it is in nutshell. Rocky’s longtime nemesis turned friend, Apollo Creed, challenges the powerful Russian, Ivan Drago, to a boxing match. It takes place in Las Vegas under a garish patriotic display. The most famous image is off a muscular Creed in an American flag top hat dancing to James Brown’s “Living in America”. Creed gets beat up bad but refuses to let Rocky throw in the towel. Drago eventually kills Creed with crushing hay-makers and a total lack of emotion “If he dies, he dies.” Rocky feels responsible and challenges Drago to a match in Moscow, to avenge Creed. At this point the training begins. Rocky in the snowy mountains cut off from all technology and distractions, while Drago trains machine like in the gym/lab.

Early in the film there is a scene with Rocky’s pugnacious brother in law Paulie. Paulie complains about the butler robot rolling around the house fetching drinks and helping with basic chores. He quickly gets comfortable though. Paulie’s discomfort with the robot falls apart when he realizes the machine makes his life demonstrable easier. The inherent message is clear, technology can make life better in some ways. The question from the film that plays out is this “When does technology begin to alter human behavior?” Ivan Drago shows that it can be manipulated.

He isn’t just a tool of a merciless regime using sport for dominance. He is also part machine. Doctors, engineers and politburo officials remain a fixture in his training. His gym is a gaggle of equipment monitoring his progress, trainers injecting him with steroids, punching bags registering impact. In the character of Ivan Drago we see the dark side of technology, something used to transform human nature. Rocky is human grit; Drago is cold mechanics. The geo political framework (United States and the Soviet Union) is embedded in the plot, but the secondary plot of living with technology is more prescient. 

.

What strikes me is how timely this part of the story is to today, especially in sports and fitness. Former Olympic sprinter Michael Johnson has a show on Netflix investigating how trainers and tech companies are creating better athletes through science. A lot of it is gadgets like wearable sensors in clothing and monitors that track breathing or show muscle exertion. The developers are clear about the limits of their products though. They aren’t intended to take middle aged dads from TV watcher to world class Olympians, but they do think tech provides slight advantages to competitive athletes. Most of it seems unlikely to improve performance on a grand scale, but it suggests a certain comfort Americans have with altering human physical constraints.

 A company called “Halo” makes a brain stimulation device that sends electrical pulses to the motor cortex. The electrical signals supposedly increase endurance by allowing neurons to fire quicker. These gadgets are mostly unproven (internal research aside) but they could also be the beginnings of brain enhancement. Since competition at high levels requires thought control, mind altering tech isn’t that far off.

A lot of this new technology in analyzing athletic prowess is probably an attempt to sell to high end gear to the general public. Parents with kids in high school sports certainly want to stay on top of safety and performance improvements. The fact remains that innovation in wearables, and especially cognition, is seeping into competition at every level. At what point does this technology become too much? At what point does it create a person become more machine than human? We are quite a ways from creating superhumans in labs but it isn't out of reach either. The best of the new innovation for athletes is in monitoring vital functions and injury prevention, which isn’t new really. They’ve just gotten better at gauging things like muscle fatigue and oxygen levels. The bulk of research is in concussion prevention for football helmets and headbands. There is a lot focus on training to prevent injury through muscle development.

Expensive training facilities like Michael Johnson’s in Dallas offer the best of what was once exclusive to NFL teams and Olympic facilities. The ones who show promise and can pay hefty fees have advantages that high school teams have never had.

Our collective comfort with the future of sports tech will be balanced by the importance we place on competition. I am a bit pessimistic on this. I’m not against improving performance or in using gadgets to monitor vitals. The safety innovations are great also. But if improvements start to replace biology than sports become about something other than human ability. Steroids and blood doping are considered by everyone to be cheating. Tech opens up a new frontier though for new developments in enhancement and cognitive improvements that didn’t exist before. The conflict in Rocky IV is with us like it never was in 1985.

I won’t draw lines yet, but at some point we might have to.  

Sorry Not Sorry

Apologies should mean something. If they don’t reflect an inner change of heart, they aren’t genuine and most people can tell if you aren’t serious. We’ve been accustomed to the forced apology since fights in grade school got settled by teachers who wanted a quick end to the dust up. “Now say you’re sorry” was part of the deal. Anything else meant getting kicked out or suspended.

Celebrity apologies aren’t new but they’ve been taken to an absurd level. We get ‘sorrys’ via the internet more frequently than rain in spring time. The reasons are simple, a misconception exists that saying sorry gets you back in everyone’s good graces. I can’t prove it, but I don’t think it works that way. It’s frustrating to watch anyone beg forgiveness over something they did publicly when a sorry isn’t warranted. It’s even tougher to hear (or read) a forced apology from someone being coerced into saying it.

Jay Feely (former NFL player) recently apologized for posting a picture (above) with his daughter and her date on their prom night. He is holding a handgun (where is my fainting couch?) in the picture. The subtext of the photo is clear “Don’t take advantage of my little girl dude”. I guess some people were offended by the gun, and blasted him over it. He issued one of those weak kneed ‘sorry if anyone took it the wrong way’ type apologies that are practically cut and pasted from the last celebrity who wrote one.

This isn’t a real apology and he doesn’t have to give one. The picture was set up in the way all prom night pictures are, dressed up kids about to enjoy the night. He can’t be sorry for the photo, only the reaction to it. He didn’t do it accidentally. He meant to post it and he meant for it to be funny. Just because some people didn’t like it, he felt like an apology was due. It wasn’t. If you don’t like something about a particular person, a half-hearted apology won’t change your opinion of them. We know what a forced apology sounds like. Kathy Griffin held a fake bloody Donald Trump head in a now infamous magazine cover. She apologized because the backlash was so strong. But it was as forced as Jay Feely’s. CNN dumped her immediately after the shoot. I can’t imagine anyone who didn’t already like Griffin was moved by her teary apology spectacle. As disrespectful as the cover was, she should have stood by it.

Both are examples of non-apologies of pictures that were well planned. When Michael Richards (Krammer from Seinfeld) was videotaped blasting a heckler with racist tinged language he was roundly criticized. I thought his apology was genuine at the time because his reaction was something done in a moment of anger. Also, he didn’t blame the heckler for his outburst when he could have. He didn’t hedge. He still feels terrible about it. I watched a Comedians in Cars Getting Coffee episode where he talked to Jerry Seinfeld about the incident. The event still bothers him. After all these years he is still saying how awful he felt for grilling the man with racial epithets. 

One way to tell if someone is really sorry is to read (or listen) to the words they use. If the person talks about what they meant to say, or how they mischaracterized, chances are someone is making them do it. Harvey Weinstein famously talked about how ‘in his day’ or ‘I grew up in different era’ as explanations for his behavior. He opted for the explainer version, another way of saying “Sorry I got caught”.

There’s an advantage to letting famous people do what they do without remorse. It allows us to understand what type of person they are and decide for ourselves whether to ignore them or not. Fake apologies allow true scammers a pathway back to the mainstream. It allows companies who threatened to pull sponsorship a way to check a box and forget the whole thing. Instead of letting market forces drive demand, say bad TV ratings, Sponsors try to get in front of the incident by insisting on an apology. We are supposed to believe that companies are looking out for their bottom line and not wanting to lose business over an angry public. But they aren’t worried about Joe Sixpack and his opinion of some celebrity. They’re worried about activist groups bombarding them with threats. Even small motivated groups can cause a real ruckus. Public opinion matters far less than group determination.

I do understand that famous people are held to different standards (I didn’t say higher). Public access and public image is their currency. But public apologies have been cheapened worse than a nineties sitcom remake. I don’t know how much stock individuals puts in them. Corporations that sponsor TV shows or run ads for upcoming films are supposedly the first aggrieved parties. We are supposed to believe they are moved by public opinion. But the same ones who get offended over gun pictures are likely same ones putting pressure on companies to pull support because of an incident. How big a group is this exactly? Something tells me it is small but noisy.

Here’s a prescription for future apologies; if you’ve done something egregious whether in the heat of the moment or after further consideration, by all means say you made a mistake and mean it. If you do something that you don’t feel is wrong but ‘offends’ a lot of people, don’t apologize. Nothing is worse than a glib ‘if anyone was offended’ Twitter message. We aren’t buying it.  

'Like' for Limited Oversight

Facebook started out as a sharing platform for ‘friends’. We’re all familiar with the story by now. It has morphed since they were a small private startup into something otherworldly. Most people think time has come to rein them in. They hoover up user information and allow third parties to ‘share’ from their trough of data. A good portion of their income is in allowing companies access to sell everything from running shoes to bank loans to its users. It is a problem for privacy, but federal regulation at this stage is the worst option.

 There are good reasons to not regulate FB at the federal level. First, what sort of business does Facebook fall into? If it’s a tech company than it’s nearly impossible to regulate in any meaningful way. Congress doesn’t completely understand what Facebook does or how it works. How can any piece of legislation expect to fix that? Second, anything requiring new laws needs experts to help write them. Who better to write the bill than Zuckerberg and his employees? You can bet they’ll want a seat at the table when the Congress gets serious about restricting them. This would be terrible for anyone competing in the same realm even tangentially. Facebook could easily push out competitors with a few expensive (anti-competitive) measures designed to stay on top. Third, if regulation is a forgone conclusion than let the states sort it out. Illinois and California already have some pending legislation designed to ensure privacy.

The largest tech companies (Amazon, Google, Apple) have been a boon to consumers for the nearly free services they provide. Online shopping is cheap, search algorithms are more precise and iphones make daily life easier than ever. It’s easy to tell when a bank, for instance, has ripped off its customers. Check the excessive and opaque fees against the law. If they misled or lied, easy case. Most law functions this way. Social Media is different. It’s tricky to decide if a law has been broken, especially when user information is offered up freely. Facebook has opt in and opt out requirements for most of their users. It prevents third parties like Cambridge Analytica from scooping up data that hasn’t been opted in to. It doesn’t always work well and often users don’t understand that opting in often means access to portions of their friends’ page. But mostly it works as designed.

With so many people offering up info and ‘sharing’ like hippies in a beach commune, the available information to the third party grows exponentially. In this pile of shared stuff is often private, non-agreed to information. Privacy breaches make people very angry. Facebook is really a platform offered as a service in exchange for personal information. Since they’ve started shutting down websites they don’t like and disallowing certain viewpoints, they’ve moved from platform to media. Media comes with a different set of rules and restrictions. This is a lot more complicated for defining what they actually do. It would be easier for them to merely manage and sell access like they’ve done for most of their existence. With pressure to control what is written, shown and shared they’ve made themselves a target. This one is FB’s fault.

As far as experts go, only a handful of people are equipped to put regulations in place to significantly alter the social media business. A lot of them probably work for Facebook. We’ve grown up with internet connectivity being a constant tool, but few of us (me included) really understand the business enough to write laws. Questions like, who can use personal data and how can it be used, are not as simple to codify they are to say. The consequences of a heavy regulatory hand could be disastrous for companies that rely on social media to spread awareness of their services.

By limiting core functions of what FB does, it would alter the business model of thousands of online services that depend on FB for views.

Once Americans decide they want some consumer protection law, Facebook will insist on writing the details. Not directly of course. They’ll use lobbying efforts to get key pieces inserted into bills. At this point FB isn’t just concerned with staying afloat, they’ll be trying to keep rivals out. No one can compete directly in the same realm as Facebook, but startups may offer cursory services that don’t exist on the social media giant. Instagram had a great cursory service (photo sharing) for while. Facebook purchased the site because of its popularity. After regulation a likely outcome for Instagram type platforms is getting sued by FB for minor infractions or not even getting off the ground, the cost to continue too high.

I can imagine a company like Lifelock offering a social media protection plan and using it as a selling point for consumers.

If states really are the labs of democracy we will soon see how far specific measures can go. The Illinois law that limits certain facial recognition curbs what FB can do in that state. It might be poorly written and it might be overturned by an exasperated public. We don’t know yet. But going at these companies in precise ways might force them to change key structures of the business. Or, they buy companies that offer better privacy tech. There is reason to believe tech companies will go with the flow on privacy measures if the public mood shifts against them in states.

What would be better for consumers, a federal law or no federal law? Consumers benefit when regulation is loose and competition is tight. FB will grow more entrenched with federal oversight and be impossible to change if regulation gets off the ground. Facebook is miles ahead of whatever federally designed law would try to stop. The individual state laws governing consumer information will probably be enough to rein in the tech giant.

Regulation hurts small companies more than big ones.

     

Amazon's HQ2

Amazon is planning to put up a new facility. A lot of cities are vying for the affections of the top hiring company like would-be grooms hoping the prettiest girl picks them. The internet behemoth is expected to hire upwards of 50,000 employees to fill out its ranks next year. That alone is enough to make most cities give away nearly everything in tax breaks. You can hardly blame them. City governments spend a lot of their time trying to get businesses to locate within. When giant corporations call, you get in line and make the best offer.

From the letter Amazon sent out to possible locations, it certainly eliminates a few right off the top. They want cities with more than a million people (sorry Tulsa). They insist on a business friendly environment (sorry Chicago). They insist on cities with a university system, ostensibly used as a feeder for corporate talent. Some of the final cities selected are kind of on the bubble in terms of size. Raleigh, Nashville and Newark are well below the threshold of a million. But Newark is so close to Philadelphia and New York it probably doesn’t matter as much. Raleigh has great Universities, NC State is located in the city and Duke and North Carolina are just a few hours away. Nashville is the largest of the three and probably selected for its business friendly environment within the state.

Since the details of the tax proposals are private we don’t know what was offered. We can bet there were some sweet deals though. The online retailer certainly wants a workforce that is easy to replace. I don’t know how many they expect to relocate from other areas. I imagine cities would rather Amazon hire as much talent from within the state as possible. Mayors constantly work to retain talent and bring additional business to their cities. With a large group like Amazon Co. they can expect other businesses to move along with a growing population. Not to mention, the increased tax revenue from workers who’ve seen a jump in wages.

It shouldn’t make a difference to me who ultimately gets the corporate behemoth, but for some reason I’m rooting for Indianapolis, Columbus or Nashville. Tennessee has no income tax and I like to see states rewarded for their fiscal discipline. Indiana has a very low income tax which was recently reduced. Ohio has seen countless factories shuttered and a lot of workers cut loose due to offshoring.  

Nothing against cities on the costs but it seems like the New York and Los Angeles are already stuffed with high earners and the best of city life. It would be nice if something growth oriented happened in the Midwest (minus Chicago). Maybe Nashville isn’t considered the ‘Midwest’ but there are other cities on the list where Amazon could have an outsized impact. Even Raleigh and Austin are good options.

A lot of business writers think Washington DC has the advantage because of the proximity to the national government. It makes sense. The next decade will probably see some increase in regulation directed at online companies like Facebook and Amazon that don’t do enough to protect personal data. Jeff Bezos will want to lobby for smart legislation, limited in scope and oversight. They could also make it tough for other online sellers to compete through regulation. This is always the worst part of new legislation. I don’t think he needs to be located in the district to make that work though.

There is a lot of criticism of turning cities into playgrounds for companies that leave a massive footprint. Amazon will certainly cause housing prices to rise in and around the city. The well paid tech workers tend to push out lower paying city dwellers. San Francisco is famous for driving up rents to a level that makes it impossible to live there without significant income. But San Francisco is the hub for most of the major tech companies in the country. That kind of wealth creates an environment all its own. If Amazon chooses one of the smaller cities (relatively) on the list it would make a difference, but as long as the zoning requirements aren’t rigid it won’t cause a drastic change.  

Some complain about losing the ‘local character’ of an urban area. This seems silly. Most cities experience this at some point every 30 years or so anyway. Whether through immigration or career moves to other regions of the country, most cities change as economies change. New York, Philadelphia, Detroit all experienced influxes and outflows as immigration patterns moved from Western Europe to Eastern Europe and South America during the last century. Local character is a subjective measure anyway. You’ll probably miss that famous Greek restaurant in the downtown area, but jobs are more important to most people.

The retailer will make a decision this year and start hiring next year. I don’t know the timetable but it has to be soon because this kind of construction takes a while.  

Relabeling Welfare

There are no free lunches in economics, only trade-offs. A job offer in a large city like New York or Chicago comes with certain benefits. Big city life means a bigger salary and access to bigger attractions like professional sports and theaters. But the trade-off comes from the higher cost of living, the distance (potentially) from home and more competition at work for prized slots. Not everyone prefers to live in a big city and ride public transport to get around. Many do though. It’s how we self-select in a free country.

The problem with a Universal Basic Income (UBI) is it trades dignity for cash. The trade-off would create more dependency and generational poverty. For a couple of reasons this is the worst idea for leveling out ‘inequality’. It seems proponents of cradle to grave welfare have dispatched with the term ‘welfare’ and the restrictions surrounding it. At least now the system has certain quotas like work requirements. ‘Welfare’ in the United States is a term associated with laziness, so wisely they dressed it up in clever language.

“Basic” suggests a right, and “Income” suggests something earned. Both are laughably misleading but designed to draw an emotional connection to the plan. Once people think of it as a right, it becomes impossible to take away.  

Since it is just theory now, I can only explain what I’ve read. Everyone is given certain a set amount of money every month. It might be $600 bucks or more, not enough probably to live on by itself but enough to discourage full time work. This stipend acts like a cushion for periods of unemployment or underemployment. Supposedly this frees up people to have enough cash for basic allowances.

Work is critical to the individual and society. It takes many forms, a few of which are labor intensive and a few of which are managerial or intellectual. Work doesn’t have to mean muddy boots and sore joints at the end of the day. But it should be tied to individual responsibility. The worker is responsible for himself or herself, and makes choices about the amount of hours they put in and the life they live. For a lot of Americans luxury cars and boats aren’t an option, nor a primary interest. Our salaries affect the type of house we buy, the neighborhood we live in and the vacations we take. No one can change that but the worker. If riches and high living is important, figure out how to get there. Start a company or buy and sell businesses. Go back to school and study something with higher average incomes. But the choice is up to the individual.

The worst argument in favor of the UBI is that it supposedly levels out inequality. This isn’t even remotely true. By “inequality” I guess they mean in purely financial terms. The wealthy keep getting richer and so on. This ignores the first principle of economic law, giving everyone the same thing only moves the baseline of poverty up. We need to think of money in relative terms. When everyone has a Porsche its value goes down.

 Think about the TV. When color televisions first hit the market (late fifties) very few could afford them. They weren’t manufactured in great number because demand wasn’t high, expensive as they were. By 1971 roughly half of American households had a color set. Simply, manufacturing got cheaper as did the price tag allowing middle class families to afford them.

Paying everyone a stipend from the federal budget increases the price of nearly everything else, to say nothing about the inflationary problems of adding layers of cash to economy. In short, money becomes worth less than before because there is so much of it in circulation.  

A slightly less moronic argument for UBI is that if done right it could replace other hefty federal payouts like Medicare and Medicaid. By giving the subsidy allotted for low income Americans in direct payouts the shift allows people to manage their own lives. Nonsense. Their support reflects a staggering ignorance about human behavior. People manage their lives when they earn money, not when they get handouts. Besides it requires federal bureaucrats to eliminate programs they directly benefit from. This never happens. Remember when Fanny Mae was supposed to be eliminated because of poor management? It’s still there. Remember when Obamacare was supposed to replace Medicaid for seniors? It’s still there. Exim Bank (Export/Import) was slated to be cut as well, guess what? Still there.

Since the big spend on welfare programs got going in the late sixties poverty has increased ever since. Extra spending on entitlements leads to the exact opposite of its intended purpose. It adds a layer of dependence for the next generation used to its regularity. The waste in human progress is the saddest part of the whole ordeal.

It’s also the hardest to undue. Even if the savings do manifest (highly unlikely) we have increased entitlement to an incomprehensible level. This is something policy wonks will never understand. Lives get wasted, not just money. The ones left behind in the economy are the ones who can’t, or won’t, do for themselves. Who can blame them? When no expects anything from you, why put in the effort?  

The UBI movement is gaining steam due to the supposed joblessness the tech boom is likely to create. Robots might replace a lot of the jobs we do now but trying to replace income with welfare is bad for people and societies. We can’t know the future but shifting technology has always lead to disappearing jobs. From agriculture to manufacturing, we’ve been here before. Almost no one worked in software before the 1980s. Fracking for natural gas wasn’t widely used until after the 1950s. Something always comes along.

This UBI is just the latest effort to create a dependent class from ‘experts’ who don’t care about the cost of human dignity. Yes, work is dignity. Work is essential for purpose and strong communities. Whatever the numbers are that will never change. It’s a first principle rooted in societal progress.

 The trade-offs aren’t worth it.