#public policy

[politijohn]

Source

Source

[thelastmemeera]

"The pandemic is over"

[racefortheironthrone]

how do you feel about gen ed requirements in college majors?

Oooh, that's a good question, because I feel genuinely conflicted about it.

Cards on the table, I should say that I picked my undergraduate university precisely because it had a broad core curriculum of literature, philosophy, art, music, and science (and because it didn't require math) for all majors.

As a freshman, I had very wide-ranging interests and wasn't sure what I wanted to do for my major when I started, even though I started taking as many history electives as possible starting in my second semester. But even though I didn't need much time to "find myself," I still feel that the "well-rounded" education I received was good for my intellectual development, my ability to participate in society, and so forth.

And then there's the fact that my grad school career was entirely dependent on history classes being used as gatekeeping requirements for poli sci, communications, and sociology majors, which generated a steady demand for TA labor. So I do recognize that gen ed requirements are absolutely essential to the economics of many disciplines, and universities would have to rethink how they fund departments if they got rid of gen ed requirements altogether.

That being said, I do recognize that these kinds of requirements can also be really bad for students who are quite different from myself. As generations of students forced to take Physics for Poets or English for Engineers can testify, it can be legitimately frustrating for people who have a strength and an interest in an area that they want to develop that they can't specialize and instead have their academic success depend in part on their weakest subjects. Moreover, given the rise of tuition prices and student debt, every additional class a student has to take is more of a burden on their shoulders.

This is where I see a symptoms/cause long-term/short-term thing going on. Because of increasing competition, credentialism and credential inflation, and the increasing uncertainty about whether rising educational costs will be requited with secure employment at a professional income, I totally understand those people who want to make the college experience shorter and more specialized as a way to save money.

At the same time, if we ask ourselves why we provide education as a society (as opposed to making employers pay the bill for the training of their workforce), I go the other way. In order for modern democracy to function effectively, we need the population to have a baseline of quantitative reasoning so that they can tell when someone is lying with statistics, to be able to close-read texts so that they can tell when someone is lying with rhetoric, and to be sufficiently media-literate to spot propaganda and misinformation.

That being said, if we are going to say to young people that they have to acquire all these skills, the quid-pro-quo is that we have to provide education as a de-commodified public good, and guarantee a job to everyone, so that the economic incentives pushing us towards shorter, more specialized higher education no longer exist.

[illegal-prime]

Normalize updating laws and regulations that are no longer fit for purpose.

Normalize working with powerful enemies to find a solution where everybody wins.

Normalize mutual compromise.

Normalize collaboration over opposition.

Normalize civil discourse on divisive issues.

Normalize good faith and the principle of charity.

Normalize discussion of specific social, political, and economic issues.

Normalize advocacy for specific and implementable policy reforms to to tackle said issues.

Normalize imperfect solutions.

Normalize civic engagement.

Normalize public sector action.

Normalize incremental success.

Normalize improving society instead of destroying and rebuilding it from the ground up.

NORMALIZE PROGRESS!!!

[k-wame]

and each one of these is public policy entered in the records

[afutureworththinkingabout]

My New Article at WIRED

Tweet

So, you may have heard about the whole zoom “AI” Terms of Service  clause public relations debacle, going on this past week, in which Zoom decided that it wasn’t going to let users opt out of them feeding our faces and conversations into their LLMs. In 10.1, Zoom defines “Customer Content” as whatever data users provide or generate (“Customer Input”) and whatever else Zoom generates from our uses of Zoom. Then 10.4 says what they’ll use “Customer Content” for, including “…machine learning, artificial intelligence.”

And then on cue they dropped an “oh god oh fuck oh shit we fucked up” blog where they pinky promised not to do the thing they left actually-legally-binding ToS language saying they could do.

Like, Section 10.4 of the ToS now contains the line “Notwithstanding the above, Zoom will not use audio, video or chat Customer Content to train our artificial intelligence models without your consent,” but it again it still seems a) that the “customer” in question is the Enterprise not the User, and 2) that “consent” means “clicking yes and using Zoom.” So it’s Still Not Good.

Well anyway, I wrote about all of this for WIRED, including what zoom might need to do to gain back customer and user trust, and what other tech creators and corporations need to understand about where people are, right now.

And frankly the fact that I have a byline in WIRED is kind of blowing my mind, in and of itself, but anyway…

Also, today, Zoom backtracked Hard. And while i appreciate that, it really feels like decided to Zoom take their ball and go home rather than offer meaningful consent and user control options. That’s… not exactly better, and doesn’t tell me what if anything they’ve learned from the experience. If you want to see what I think they should’ve done, then, well… Check the article.

Until Next Time.

Tweet

Read the rest of My New Article at WIRED at A Future Worth Thinking About

[thebsideofthings]

"It’s not just the larger American audience that misinterprets the meaning of Juneteenth. Across the diaspora the message gets distorted, reflected in how most Juneteenth event flyers often have the colors of the Pan-African movement instead of Juneteenth’s actual colors. The official Juneteenth colors are red, white, and blue. The presence of the patriotic colors symbolizes the American flag, serving as a poignant reminder that slaves and their descendants were, and continue to be, an integral part of the United States."

- Shelby Stewart in "As Juneteenth Becomes Co-Opted, Don't Forget Its Texas Roots" for Okayplayer

[amaditalks]

Today the EPA finalized rules that fully ban the use of asbestos in the US. This is a massive step forward for the safety of American workers and American consumers. Asbestos is linked to more than 40,000 deaths every year, not just from lung and laryngeal cancer and mesothelioma, but also from ovarian cancer.

This is yet another instance where who resides in the White House matters. This was a part of the Biden policy regarding preventing, treating and curing cancers brought to fruition.

Donald Trump is a big supporter of asbestos and asbestos products, and wanted to increase its use in the US despite its risks and harms being well-known for a half century. If re-elected Trump will undoubtedly do his best to undo today’s rule, and he and the far right caucus of congressional Republicans would like to eliminate the EPA altogether.

(It is probably just a giant coincidence that the majority of asbestos in the world is produced in Russia by oligarch-owned companies. Probably.)

[noteitnoteit]

Yes, Public Policies can make a different.

Top 3 Points:

The numbers of suicides are at their lowest during winter (December, January, February). It is not clear why, but they tend to peak in spring and early summer.  “If you are depressed, your brain and body react differently to the increase in exposure to sunlight. It may make you suffer more from insomnia, for example. You become more restless, anxious, so the level of anxiety increases and it may worsen your depression."

Drinking culture is strongly correlated with suicidal rates. “Our suicide rate has gone down at the same rate that our drinking has gone down. So it’s strongly related. And now when, especially the youth, [people] don’t drink that much any more, of course they don’t have that many suicides.”

The suicide rate fell 51% from 1990 to 2022. In 2022 Finland recorded 1,512 deaths by suicide, according to the THL, in what was then a population of just under 5 million. By contrast, in 2022 Finland had 740 suicides, in a population of 5.6 million – more in line with (though slightly higher than) the EU average.

[draper-claire]

Are you running for office in a city like NYC? Do I have practical fixes for you, that I personally would like to see implemented!

Requisite needle and med drop off at every pharmacy and hospital

Covered benches at every bus stop

Compost drop off at every subway

Free public transit

Painted curb no parking at bus stops

Painted curb no parking fire hydrant

Libraries open 24/7

More public restroom (business incentives for public restrooms)

More public transit stops and shorter time between pick ups

Free healthcare

Free college courses, only pay for use of credit towards degree

Required narcan and cpr training for all able tax payers

Landlord penalization for extended vacancies on residential and business properties

Extended park hours

Better street lighting

Better park lighting

All public resources in multiple languages available digitally and physically

365 KN95 masks and 52 covid tests to each resident of the city delivered annually for free. Additional available upon request.

Free handbook on waste disposal and recycling updated yearly and mailed to all addresses, additional available upon request

Green energy is standard for all electric and gas companies, with no up-charge for converting from traditional energy offering

[omegaphilosophia]

The Impact of Extreme Wealth on Society: Unraveling the Complex Web

In the 21st century, the issue of wealth inequality has reached unprecedented levels. The ultra-rich, a minuscule fraction of the global population, possess a staggering amount of wealth, often equivalent to that of entire countries. While wealth accumulation isn't inherently problematic, the concentration of extreme wealth in the hands of a few has far-reaching consequences for society. In this blog post, we'll explore how the ultra-rich have contributed to many of the problems we face today.

Wealth Inequality: Perhaps the most obvious consequence of extreme wealth is the exacerbation of wealth inequality. The gap between the richest and the rest has grown to alarming proportions. This inequality can lead to social unrest and hinder economic growth by limiting opportunities for the majority.

Economic Disparities: Extreme wealth often translates into disproportionate economic power. This can result in monopolistic practices, which stifle competition and innovation. Smaller businesses struggle to compete, leading to fewer choices for consumers.

Social Issues: Wealth inequality contributes to a host of social issues, including reduced access to education, healthcare, and housing for marginalized communities. It also perpetuates cycles of poverty that are difficult to escape.

Power and Influence: The ultra-rich have outsized political influence. They can shape public policies to their advantage, often at the expense of the common good. This undermines the democratic principles upon which many societies are built.

Corporate Dominance: Many of the wealthiest individuals are tied to large corporations. Their influence over these entities can lead to decisions that prioritize profits over environmental responsibility or workers' rights.

Political Lobbying: Lobbying efforts by the ultra-rich can influence legislation in their favor. This can result in tax breaks for the wealthy, further exacerbating wealth inequality.

Tax Evasion: Some of the ultra-rich engage in tax evasion schemes, depriving governments of revenue needed for essential public services. This places a heavier burden on ordinary taxpayers.

Public Policy: The ultra-rich can use their influence to push for policies that benefit them financially, such as reduced regulations or favorable trade agreements. These policies may not align with the best interests of society as a whole.

Poverty Alleviation: While philanthropy is common among the wealthy, it often falls short of addressing systemic issues. Charity, while commendable, cannot replace comprehensive government programs aimed at poverty alleviation.

Social Responsibility: Extreme wealth can lead to a detachment from the daily struggles of ordinary people. This lack of empathy can hinder efforts to address pressing social and economic challenges.

The impact of extreme wealth on society is a multifaceted issue. While it's crucial to acknowledge the positive contributions of wealthy individuals, it's equally important to scrutinize the consequences of concentrated wealth and power. Addressing these issues requires thoughtful public policy, increased transparency, and a commitment to a more equitable society. By recognizing the challenges posed by extreme wealth, we can work towards a more just and inclusive future for all.

[reasonsforhope]

Please ignore the US-centric and negative slant in the headline--tumblr doesn't let you edit link previews anymore!

But this is good news!

A majority of the world's countries now offer paid paternity leave.

"Sixty-three percent of countries around the world provide guaranteed paid parental leave for fathers, according to a report out Tuesday morning from the World Policy Analysis Center.

Why it matters

Though support is growing for paternity leave, there's still a stigma attached to men who take time off to care for their children. Yet, studies find numerous benefits for the economy, for fathers, and for their partners.

"There is widespread recognition that we don't solve gender equality without dads getting leave," says Jody Heymann, founding director of the policy center and a UCLA distinguished professor of public health and public affairs.

The big picture

Back in the 1990s, only 46 countries had a paid leave policy for fathers, largely high-income nations, per the policy center's data. Now the number is nearly three times as high."

-via Axios, 2/28/23

[racefortheironthrone]

Which federal laws and policies would you get rid of or modify in order to help the American labor movement.

I was looking through the labor law tag on my blog and your ask reminded me I haven't actually written a comprehensive post about this on Tumblr. (Indeed, you'd have to go back to my old, old policy blog from 2009...it's been a while.)

One silver lining of the Sisyphean struggle to restore American labor law that's been going on since the 1970s is that the labor movement and their allies in Congress, academia, think tanks, and progressive media have been thinking through this very issue of "what reforms would make a real difference" for a long time. I'm not going to say it's a solved question, but the research literature is pretty robust.

For the purposes of this post, I'm going to focus on the three most recent reform packages: the Employee Free Choice Act that was the main vehicle during the Obama years, Bernie Sanders' Workplace Democracy Act (which was introduced repeatedly between 1992 and 2018), and the Richard L. Trumka Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act) that is the current proposal of the Democratic legislative caucuses. There's going to be quite a bit of overlap between these proposals, because it's very much an iterative process where allies in the same movement are trading ideas with one another and trying to stay abreast of new developments, but I'll try to tease out some of the similarities and differences.

EFCA

While EFCA contained a number of provisions that sought to close various loopholes in U.S labor law, the three main provisions largely target the flaws that have made it extremely difficult to win a union through the National Labor Relations Act process devised in 1935 that has turned into a Saw-style gauntlet thanks to the professionalization of union-busting and the Federalist Society's strategy of death-by-a-thousand-cuts:

"Card check." Probably the most common pattern of union-busting in the workplace today is a war of attrition by management waged by an industry of specialized law firms. Generally what happens is that the union files for election with a super-majority of ~70% workers having signed union cards, then management delays the vote as long as possible to give their hired "union-avoidance" firm to systematically intimidate, surveil, propagandize, and divide workers, up to and including illegally firing pro-union workers pour encouragez les autres. Over several months, what happens is that the initial 70% of pro-union support starts to erode as workers decide it's just too dangerous to stick their necks out, until the vote happens and the union loses either by a squeaker or a landslide.

Card check short-circuits this process by just saying that if the union files with a majority of cards, you skip the election and the union is recognized. And for all the pearl-clutching by the right, this is actually how labor law works in many democratic countries, because the idea of a fair election that lets management participate is an oxymoron.

Arbitrated first contract. In the event that enough workers keep the faith and actually vote for a union, management's next move is to draw out collective bargaining for a year or more. After a year, the original vote is no longer considered binding and employers can push for a "decertification" vote, which they usually win because workers either give up hope or change jobs. So this provision says that if the two sides can't reach an agreement on a first contract within 120 days, a Federal arbitrator will just impose one, so that at least for two years there will be a union contract no matter what management wants.

Strengthening enforcement. As I said above, one of the problems with existing labor law is that there are basically no penalties for management knowingly breaking the law; companies literally just budget in a line-item and do it anyway. This provision would allow unions to file an injunction against employers for unfair labor practices or ULPs (at present, injunctions are only required for violations done by unions), and would add triple back pay for illegal firings and fines of $20,000 for each ULP. This would make union-busting much more expensive, because companies routinely rack up hundreds and hundreds of them during a campaign.

Workplace Democracy Act

Sanders' proposal includes the main proposals from EFCA, and adds a bunch of additional reforms, like mis-classifying workers as independent contractors, banning captive audience meetings, making "joint employers" liable for labor law violations by franchisees, legalizing secondary boycotts, and requiring employers to report to the NLRB on all anti-union expenditures during a campaign and barring anyone convicted of an unfair labor practice from being hired for anti-union campaigns and making "union-avoidance" consultants liable for fines for ULPs (which would kill the "union-avoidance" industry, because they commit ULPs for a living).

PRO Act

The PRO Act is very much an updating of the previous efforts we've talked about. It bans captive audience meetings, allows for secondary strikes and boycotts, massively increases fines and allows for compensatory damages, ends mis-classification, speeds up the election process, etc.

It also contains a couple new and ambitious proposals:

it allows unions to sue management in court instead of having to complain to the NLRB, which opens management up to a very expensive legal proceeding and discovery.

it bans "right-to-work" as established by the Taft-Hartley Act.

it requires that any worker who's fired for pro-union activity be immediately reinstated while their unfair labor practice process or civil lawsuit is going through the process. This would be enormous just on its own, because it changes the entire veto structure of illegal firing. As it stands, employers fire people and maybe maybe have to pay some back wages in a couple years when the worker has found another job and is unlikely to come back. This would reverse the balance of power, such that the worker is immediately back and other workers can see that they can speak up without getting fired, which makes illegal firings a giant waste of time and money for management.

In terms of stuff that's not on this list that I would add, I would say that an enormous difference could be made by simply making it illegal for management to lock-out their workers or hire scabs. You do that, and unions can win almost every strike.

[femmefatalevibe]

Hi! Hope you’re doing great!

I love all of your advice :), it’s so helpful.

I’m currently in college and I would love to work for the EU or UN one day (fingers crossed?). How could I be in spaces that’ll lead me there - even though I’m a student? And how could I prepare for those spaces and pioneering for advocacy for the “voiceless?”

Thanks so much!

Hi love! Thank you so much.

I actually know a couple of women who interned/worked for the UN! So, from what I know, here are some important skills and experiences you should consider acquiring to work at these types of organizations:

Become as fluent in English and French as possible. Bonus points for additional languages including German, Spanish, Italian, etc.

Study and focus on gaining internship/volunteer experience in public policy, international relationships, political science, sustainable development, nonprofit management, pre-law/environmental science, and ethics

Consider applying for a volunteer, internship, or study abroad opportunity with the UN (I don't know anything about working with the EU, but that sounds so cool!)

Intern/volunteer with an NGO or another international nonprofit (Women for Women is a great organization!)

Visit or attend events at local international embassies

Volunteer, intern, or work in some capacity for events hosted by influential international figures (foreign ambassadors, global human rights activists, etc. – I met one of these women at a Fashion Week event a few years ago, so think outside of the box. Consider what events draw an international crowd in your area and go from there)

Leverage your university's and professors' resources to help get into clubs, networking events, internship opportunities, and informational interviews with people working at these organizations or the same/adjacent fields

Hope this helps xx

[kp777]

By Jake Johnson

Common Dreams

Jan. 9, 2024

"Almost nobody says we should have the richest pay the least. And yet when we look around the country, the vast majority of states have tax systems that do just that."

Nearly every state and local tax system in the U.S. is fueling the nation's inequality crisis by forcing lower- and middle-class families to contribute a larger share of their incomes than their rich counterparts, according to a new study published Tuesday.

Titled Who Pays?, the analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) examines in detail the tax systems of all 50 U.S. states, including the rates paid by different income segments.

In 41 states, ITEP found, the richest 1% are taxed at a lower rate than any other income group. Forty-six states tax the top 1% at a lower rate than middle-income families.

"When you ask people what they think a fair tax code looks like, almost nobody says we should have the richest pay the least," said ITEP research director Carl Davis. "And yet when we look around the country, the vast majority of states have tax systems that do just that."

"There's an alarming gap here between what the public wants and what state lawmakers have delivered," Davis added.

In recent years, dozens of states across the U.S. have launched what the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recently called a "tax-cutting spree," permanently slashing tax rates for corporations and the wealthy during a pandemic that saw billionaire wealth skyrocket and company profits soar.

A report released last week, as Common Dreamsreported, showed ultra-rich Americans are currently sitting on $8.5 trillion in untaxed assets.

According to ITEP's new study, tax systems in just six states—California, Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont—and the District of Columbia are progressive, helping to reduce the chasm between rich taxpayers and other residents.

Massachusetts, which has one of the more equitable tax systems in the nation, collected $1.5 billion in revenue last year thanks to its recently enacted millionaires tax, a measure that improved the state's ranking by 10 spots in ITEP's Tax Inequality Index. Minnesota has also ramped up its taxes on the rich over the past several years while expanding benefits for lower-income families, ITEP's study observes.

"The regressive state tax laws we see today are a policy choice, and it's clear there are better choices available to lawmakers."

But the full picture of U.S. state and local systems is grim. In 44 states, tax laws "worsen income inequality by making incomes more unequal after collecting state and local taxes," ITEP found.

Florida has the most regressive tax code in the U.S., with the richest 1% paying a mere 2.7% tax rate while the poorest 20% pay 13.2%.

Florida is among the U.S. states that don't have personal income taxes, which forces them to rely on consumption and property taxes that are "nearly always regressive," ITEP notes in the new analysis.

"Eight of the 10 most regressive tax systems—Florida, Washington, Tennessee, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana—rely heavily on regressive sales and excise taxes," the study says. "As a group, these eight states derive 52% of their tax revenue from these taxes, compared to the national average of 34%."

Aidan Davis, ITEP's state policy director, said that "we've seen a lot of states shift their tax systems to become even more regressive in recent years by enacting deep tax cuts for the wealthiest."

The report points to Kentucky's adoption of a flat tax and repeated corporate tax cuts, which "delivered the largest windfall to families in the upper part of the income scale and have been paid for in part through new or higher sales and excise taxes on a long list of items such as car repairs, parking, moving services, bowling, gym memberships, tobacco, vaping, pet care, and ride-share rides."

Davis said that "we know it doesn't have to be like this," arguing there is a "clear path forward for flipping upside-down tax systems and we’ve seen a handful of states come pretty close to pulling it off."

"The regressive state tax laws we see today are a policy choice," said Davis, "and it's clear there are better choices available to lawmakers."

[ivygorgon]

Embrace Civic Engagement with Resistbot

📱 Text RESIST to 50409 for FREE!

Resistbot inboxes: Apple Messages, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram

💡 Check out my work

💘 Q'u lach' shughu deshni da.

🏹 "What I say is true" in Dena'ina Qenaga

Growing up and becoming politically active in today's internet-connected, densely populated United States was initially intimidating. Balancing daily life with political awareness seemed daunting, especially beyond the presidential elections. It often felt like engaging as a citizen was beyond reach, considering the demands of everyday life.

Discovering Resistbot a few years ago was transformative. It provided a streamlined approach to engagement, helping me identify causes that resonated with me and offering a convenient way to contact my representatives. More importantly, it reignited hope for overwhelmed individuals to connect meaningfully with the world around them without feeling engulfed by it.

However, I've noticed that despite its power, Resistbot's impact remains limited due to low engagement. That's why I'm reaching out to you. I urge my family, friends, and even strangers to experience this incredible tool. I hope it inspires you as it did me, prompting action on causes that may seem distant but are worth fighting for. Whether it's using this tool to participate in elections or advocating for important issues, every action matters.

Please take a moment to test this bot. Contact your officials in just two minutes by texting 50409 and initiating Resistbot. Alternatively, you can interact via Apple Messages, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, WhatsApp, Instagram. Simply respond to the bot's prompts, and within minutes, you'll have reached out to your elected officials. There are various keywords available for contacting officials, voting, and accessing other resources like vaccines.

Let's embrace our role as active citizens and harness the potential of tools like Resistbot to effect positive change. It's your civic responsibility; use it or lose it. Resistbot social medias: Discord, Mastadon, Substack, TikTok, Threads, Twitter

💡 Check out my work!

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW IVYPETITIONS to 50409