Social Sustainability – can’t we all just get along?

The focus of sustainability almost always seems to be environmental sustainability. This is perhaps the most important dimension because if we destroy our environment we could all be dead. But there is more to it than that.

The way our culture seems to be going, we need to focus a little bit of our attention on social sustainability. Think about it.

Politics: Didn’t our politicians used to get together when there were really big problems to solve and work together? I know there have always been conflicts, controversies, and other sources of purely partisan gridlock. There are even some great stories about conflicts among our Founding Fathers. But when push came to shove, they got together. Now it seems like many of our political leaders, while sometimes liking individuals on the other side on a personal level, hate the other side politically and are unwilling to talk, let alone compromise. How could Senator DeMint publicly hope that health care is Obama's "Waterloo"? He should be hoping that Congress and the President can craft some health care reform that works. And he should be helping out in the process.

Media: The recent passing of Walter Cronkite really highlights how the news media has changed. Our leading journalists and news anchors had credibility with politicians and citizens on both sides of the aisle. Now, it seems like all we have are extremist demagogues like Bill O’Reilly and Keith Olbermann who have lost any sense of civility. I think I have blogged on the research that shows that this kind of coverage really hurts the general public’s ability to respect their leaders.

The town hall meetings over the health care debate are good illustrations of what we have to look forward to unless some major changes are made. This is really scary. Sarah Palin’s comment that a “death panel” would have decided if her Down syndrome son Trig merited treatment is just irresponsible. And shouting down the Senators and Representatives trying to host these town halls is not just rude but counterproductive to positive debate. But I suspect that is not the shouters’ true purpose anyway.

I call this social sustainability because I see us on just as much of a downward slope in our civil discourse are we are with global climate change. At the pace we are going now, the environment could be so far gone in 10-20 years that we won’t be able to stop it without significant pain and suffering. I am afraid that the same thing is happening in society. Something has got to give.

How do YOU define a crisis?

Dean Kamen (the incredibly successful and therefore wealthy inventor) has a great comparison. In the health care debate, the $260 billion we spend on pharmaceuticals (including marketing and profit) is called a "crisis." But we also spend $409 billion on professional sports and $121 billion on soft drinks. Everything is relative.

Charlie Crist's turnaround shows what is wrong with DC

Charlie Crist used to be a free thinker who did what he thought was right. As Florida Governor, he didn't feel constrained to follow the Republican platform. He did what was best for Florida.

Now he is running for Senate on the GOP ticket. It is amazing how fast he has changed. He switched from supporting Sotomayor to opposing. He switched from supporting cap and trade to opposing. And on and on.

Regardless of what you think about these policies, the fact that he reversed 180 degrees on them all when he decided to run for Senate is a great illustration of what is wrong in Washington. Governors have some latitude. The special interests are somewhat less entrenched and governors do not have to conform to the party leadership to get anything done. They don't have to be independent thinkers, but at least they can be.

But in the Senate, this entrenchment and top down leadership style is suffocating. Both parties do it. It is the heart of what is wrong with US politics and why I have become very cynical about the government's ability to get anything positive and productive accomplished over time.

Pigouvian taxes for obesity?

I have always been a supporter of Pigouvian taxes (to replace other kinds, not in addition to them). The basic idea is that you tax things that have negative externalities to compensate society for the extra costs. If a company emits greenhouse gases, you can either fine them directly for the amount of the cleanup (if you can calculate it) or indirectly as a carbon tax. If someone smokes, you can tax their cigarettes based on what you expect them to cost society in added health care costs (i.e. Medicare). The added benefits of this approach is that people are discouraged from doing these things, so you get less smoking and less emissions.

Some recent debates have got me thinking about how to apply the idea in reality. There has been a lot of debate lately on curbing obesity because of the $150 billion per year that obesity costs the US healthcare system. Can we use Pigouvian taxation? We would have two choices.

We can be proactive by taxing foods that the best science tells us lead to obesity. But this gets tricky for several reasons. First, is the science reliable enough to tell us? Nuts are very healthy in moderation, but not in excess. Should we tax those? Second, what about skinny people who enjoy a Big Mac and never get fat? Why should they have to pay taxes for externalities they never create? My biggest fear is that lobbyists would have a field day influencing Congress on which foods to tax (or not to). McDonalds v the pork industry v Coke v Hostess . . .

The second option is retrospective. We can charge higher insurance premiums for people who are obese and use the extra money to pay for the externalities that these individuals create. This is more direct and therefore more fair economically. But of course there would be a huge debate as to whether this is discrimination. We would have to have very accurate actuarial data on the increase in costs. The second problem with this approach is behavioral. It would not be nearly as effective in reducing obesity because it is unlikely someone would push away from the McDonalds counter because of the fear of future increases in insurance premiums. A tax right then and there would be more salient.

Despite all these challenges, I suspect that either one is better than using income taxes to raise the money that pays for obesity related costs. But because of the complexity, I have this nagging feeling that Congress would find a way to make it worse.

Congress, please stay out of executive pay

There are several reasons why the government should not get involved in executive pay .

1.From a purely philosophical point, the government has no business interfering with private contractual agreements between people or groups of people. With the bailout funds, they have some excuse for this limited set of companies. But otherwise, it’s simply not their job. I agree that encouraging companies to switch to long term goals for bonuses is a good idea, but it’s not for Congress to mandate.

2.Even if you disagree with #1, the government has competing objectives. You can’t expect any bill coming out of Congress to be effective because they would be trying to serve way too many masters in constructing the bill and it would turn into a mess.

3.Even if #2 didn’t happen at first, in order to get anything passed the legislation authors would have to do enough horsetrading to make a small mess into a big mess.

4.Even if the legislation turned out OK, the private sector is excellent at finding loopholes. This is how we got into the current financial mess in the first place. By discouraging executive salaries, Congress encouraged the use of stock options. These are easier to give out, so companies gave out more of them.

5.Even if none of the above happened and the legislation started out effective, Congress can’t react quickly to changes in the marketplace. So over time, it would get outdated. The harm it could cause in our unknown future is likely to be greater than the short term benefits we see in the present.

So given all this – please Congress, please stay out of executive pay except in very limited circumstances (temporary limits on TARP recipients maybe).

Racial profiling is not that complicated an issue

I have blogged before on what profiling really is, but I think in light of Gates-gate we need a refresher. The funny thing is that profiling really comes down to three components that we all agree on. The problem is that when we talk in general or don’t think about the facts, it’s easy to let emotions or our own assumptions get in the way. So here are the three factors to consider about profiling and the easy solution to keep it straight.

1.It is a simple statistical fact that some demographic categories (gender, age, race, religion) commit some crimes more than other demographic categories. This information can be used in law enforcement to facilitate their investigations.

2.The statistical relationships between demographics and crimes are small. This means if you use demographic profiles too much, you do more harm than good. So investigators can consider demographic profiles along with lots of other data in their investigations, but should definitely not use them too much.

3.Even if demographic categories are associated with certain crimes, we can choose not to use them for purely philosophical reasons (in the interest of creating a race-blind society for example). We need to recognize that this would reduce the speed and effectiveness of investigations, but if we are willing to make that tradeoff, that is a decision we can make as a society.

So, here is the action plan:

1.Decide if we want to use demographic categories to assist in law enforcement in situations where the statistics show a link.

2.Analyze the data to quantify what the links are and how strong they are.

3.Develop law enforcement procedures and training to make sure investigators use profiles no more and no less than warranted.

4.Monitor law enforcement to make sure they are following #3. If they use profiles too much or too little, retrain.

5.Continuously monitor the statistics and update the demographic-crime links accordingly.

It’s not that complicated. The only emotionally hard part is #1. The only practically hard part is #3.