Why not ban all advertising? Isn't that the discussion we should be having?
If we're going to accept that advertising is an ever-existing industry in our lives, then shouldn't the conversation be not about what kinds of advertising we should ban, but media awareness in general?
Bans should be reserved for the most egregious, such as products that kill (tobacco) or explicit incitements to violence, for example.
Not sure what you're referencing re: explicit intentional policy?
Re: Bad policy - certainly there is policy that was crafted to benefit industry at the cost of society, the environment, surely lacking good policy. Like why is VAT in existence in ~160 countries around the world but not in the US? Do you consider that lacking of policy? That's more regulatory capture leading to politicians being elected who protect the interests of those who helped pay to get them voted in.
I'm talking about NAFTA and other trade deals like it. You referenced automation as taking jobs from Americans, when in reality trade deals arguably had much more of a role in doing that. I misread the second point, but I'm not sure what VAT has to do with anything here.
How exactly do you think she will execute that plan?
Voter ID laws have been enshrined in some states through ballot measures voted on by the public, for example.
Not only that, turnout and money in politics are arguably more of a priority to tackle, in that they would make addressing voter ID laws or gerrymandering much easier.
Overall I'm not sure her "plans" to solve these issues goes far enough, or gives enough detail of how they would be executed.
Restoring the full Voting Rights Act would be a good start.
SCOTUS essentially said "this is out of date, therefore unenforceable." Then challenged congress to pass an updated one, but they have not. Some of the stuff going on was illegal under the VRA for the states it touched. I'd like to see them pass an updated one that impacts all 50 states equally, it would be much harder for SCOTUS to find it outdated then.
> How exactly do you think she will execute that plan?
Like most Presidential plans, it requires Congressional support, but beyond that it's not unusually difficult; while the feds can't do it for all elections easily, Art. I S4 gives Congress the power to make or alter regularions for House elections superceding state rules and Congress can also adjust the safe harbor rules for considering Presidential electoral votes properly given to use Presidential elections as a hammer, and states are unlikely to separate out qualifications for different offices to limit the effect of such federal regulations, because it would radically increase the administrative complexity of elections.
There's the most power on the level of federal elections where congress has the power to dictate the "time, place, and manner" at any time (Article 1 Section 4). So for the whole of Congress they have pretty full and broad powers to make whatever they want happen. To get similar things at the state levels there's the ever useful strategy of just dangling a large pot of money for states. And ballot measures aren't completely binding they can be modified by the legislature of the individual states.
I do think money in politics is a big issue but with Citizens United it's hard to do anything about that since "spending money is speech" means there's very very little wiggle room in the 1st amendment for putting a stopper on the geyser of corporate money. [1]
[1] Is a real messy problem. Personally I think corporations getting the full rights of citizens is a bit bonkers and I wish there was an easy way to draw a line between people collectively pooling their money for speech and a corporation doing the same thing. Maybe some test around profit making or something to tamp down on the feedback loop of companies spending money to make way more money in return from legislative changes.
Yeah I imagine that's part of the calculus too that it would be easier to use the same rolls, machines and rules but getting them to reform the district drawing process would be somewhere our hypothetical Warren admin would probably have to incentivize with money.
This is a super valid question given all the obstructionism that's likely to come out of any attempt to reform the system - that said I'd take a politician who recognizes the importance of this over one who is happy to wallow in the corruption any day.
Yea - I must have missed the "who have cleared any debts and fines outstanding" clause following the reinfranchisement of felons.
I know there is a large partisan divide, but one of these parties is for enfranchisement and the other one is trying their hardest to keep all those felons from voting.
> Yea - I must have missed the "who have cleared any debts and fines outstanding" clause following the reinfranchisement of felons.
Apparently they have to complete all terms of their sentences:
> > No. 4 Constitutional Amendment Article VI, Section 4. Voting Restoration Amendment This amendment restores the voting rights of Floridians with felony convictions after they complete all terms of their sentence including parole or probation.
This is a very cynical and broad statement that enforces the common myth that people on welfare are somehow lazy or don't want to work. Also a general disregard of people who are working and receive said benefits to make ends meet.
Whaoh! I apologize if I gave that impression. I certainly did not mean to imply that everyone on welfare does those things, or even a majority. I was only pointing out that there is a motive, and that it is an action that some people take. I grew up on welfare as my mother was just one of those "working poor" you mention. I would never want to disregard the plight of people like my mother, and certainly did not intend my comment to do so.
It doesn't appear to me that the parent implied that these salaries come from thin air. It seems much more obvious that this person is pointing out just how disproportionate it is compared to other very crucial professions, with no obvious labor differences for why this is.
Chalking it up to it being the "market rate" sort of ignores how the market has failed for these other professions. They have to deal with the cost of living just like people in tech. The issue with the new grads, as the parent pointed out, is the attitude. Most could care less about this. That deserves critique.
I should also add that this dynamic does play out in other parts of the country. In other states in the US with much lower costs of living, nurses and teachers for example still have an average salary that is much lower than that of those in the tech industry, especially software development.
> with no obvious labor differences for why this is
One difference that stands out to me is that the supply of people who can perform the job is constrained.
Other professions may be crucial - indeed, the truck drivers who deliver supplies to all stores from which we purchase daily goods are crucial - but that job in particular can be performed by almost anyone with minimal training.
Words like "crucial" don't have much meaning as far as determining job compensation: it's a supply/demand interaction. If the supply of people who can perform the job is not constrained, because the job is relatively easy to get into, then that will suppress the compensation.
It's difficult to obtain a computer science degree and perform at the level required to solicit job offers from the kind of companies that pay new graduates $200k. Imagine for the sake of argument that these jobs require an IQ of 125 or higher: then only about 5% of the population will be capable of performing at that level. (This is just an example. I'm not saying that I think programming has a particular IQ requirement.)
This is also reductive. If market value was the sole driver for selection of profession, we would suffer a critical lack of specialists in a variety of fields.
tbf, I think far more people can do jobs where they talk to people and teach (teachers) and take care of people and nurture (nurses), than jobs where you look at a screen all day, do abstract symbol manipulation and spend most of your focus inside your head building structures of code and programs.
I showed my relatives how you 'follow the line of execution' in a program running down all the instructions. They sat back in shock, thinking how alien that job would be and how so few people are probably able to do that, and that i should be lucky (?) to have the skills to think that way.
As someone who has done both professionally, I think you're severely underestimating how hard teaching is. I think it's much harder to teach well than to code well.
Don't forget, too, that good teachers are experts in the subjects they teach. Teaching computer science or math well requires the same facility with "abstract symbol manipulation" that working as a software engineer does.
But it isn't really required that teachers teach well. If I were to try and give an honest assessment of the teachers (specifically primary school both public and private) I've had I would say maybe 5% were good teachers, 5% were genuinely bad and the rest just kind of coasted by having students do rote memorization.
I didn’t mean to single out teachers specifically — as parent was using them as example — but I meant that in general , professions where you have more human interaction is more desired by the majority of the human population .
If you have done both professionally, then by definition, you can code. I think your parent poster's point is that too few people can. They are not saying that teaching is easy.
It's almost as if it didn't matter how crucial the work you do is, and instead what you make is determined by how much leverage you have and perhaps in part by how close to the money you are.
Thank you for elegantly saying what I was trying to say. You were able to put a much finer perspective on it that appears to be more digestable than my comment.
Honest discussions and reporting around anything involving China is quite difficult to come by these days. I would very much recommend everyone take any Western reporting with a grain of salt, especially from obvious pro-U.S. sources. Much of the coverage of the situation in HK can be seen as evidence of this. On this topic specifically, Wired's recent article over this was a breath of fresh air[1] for the overall state of news reporting when it comes to China.
Some clarification: First, when I talk about this slant in reporting Chinese affairs, it's not from a pro-CCP or pro-China position. Discussions about Chinese media and bias are still essential to have, but has nothing to do with the point I'm making here. Next, this issue isn't limited to just US media. There is arguably an observable bias even when it comes to Western academics that study or cover China in some capacity.
I'm sure aspects of this system in China earns a healthy dose of criticism and skepticism. However, it's important to consider the way this may be reported in the West, especially as tensions heat up between China and the US. Just think, for example, that it would not be very difficult to cover the US's credit score system as authoritarian, racist, or Orwellian. In fact, such cases have been made in the past and have some weight to them.
> Wired's recent article over this was a breath of fresh air.
I agree that this article is pretty good. Ironically, Wired's first article about China's social credit system generated a lot of misinformation about the social credit system in the first place. Nothing was factually incorrect, but most of the article was pure speculation and then everyone on the internet treated that as fact.
Real estate is a very poor example considering countless cases of landlords neglecting repairs and maintenance. In some states in the US, there's little or no accountability for this.
If we're going to accept that advertising is an ever-existing industry in our lives, then shouldn't the conversation be not about what kinds of advertising we should ban, but media awareness in general?
Bans should be reserved for the most egregious, such as products that kill (tobacco) or explicit incitements to violence, for example.