The Daily Parker

Politics, Weather, Photography, and the Dog

What is it about 20-somethings?

More data for my analysis:

We're in the thick of what one sociologist calls "the changing timetable for adulthood." Sociologists traditionally define the "transition to adulthood" as marked by five milestones: completing school, leaving home, becoming financially independent, marrying and having a child. In 1960, 77 percent of women and 65 percent of men had, by the time they reached 30, passed all five milestones. Among 30-year-olds in 2000, according to data from the United States Census Bureau, fewer than half of the women and one-third of the men had done so. A Canadian study reported that a typical 30-year-old in 2001 had completed the same number of milestones as a 25-year-old in the early '70s.

The whole idea of milestones, of course, is something of an anachronism; it implies a lockstep march toward adulthood that is rare these days. Kids don’t shuffle along in unison on the road to maturity. They slouch toward adulthood at an uneven, highly individual pace. ...

Even if some traditional milestones are never reached, one thing is clear: Getting to what we would generally call adulthood is happening later than ever. But why? ... To some, what we're seeing is a transient epiphenomenon, the byproduct of cultural and economic forces. To others, the longer road to adulthood signifies something deep, durable and maybe better-suited to our neurological hard-wiring. What we’re seeing, they insist, is the dawning of a new life stage — a stage that all of us need to adjust to.

I'm trying to work up a theory about people born after 1980, which seems to be the cut-off for a host of behaviors and attitudes that are alien to me and my contemporaries. I'm not sure how on-point this article is, but I'm thinking about it.

They really are looking out for you

I got an odd bit of mail today, in an official USPS envelope with a handwritten address. It was a check. A check I wrote. To the State Department.

Apparently, my passport renewal check got swept up in a pile of bills and other envelopes I dropped into the local mailbox. I didn't even realize I'd mailed the check without an envelope. And I remember thinking, as I reprinted the check a couple days later, "crap, another one fell behind my desk. I'll get it later."

Thank you, anonymous Chicago postal worker, for sending my check back.

Even better, I got an email from the State Department today saying they've completed my passport renewal already. I mailed it in on the 29th, without requesting expedited service. They sent me an email when they received it on the 3rd, and now, only one week later, they're done. Huh.

Let's review. (This is especially important to you ignorant starve-the-beast neo-Hobbsians out there.) Two public-service agencies, one quasi-public and the other a de facto (and, actually, de jure) part of the U.S. Government, apparently have conscientious, hard-working employees who do their jobs better than expected.

That they do this in the face of deliberate, malicious actions by elected officials only underscores how wrong the myth of "government bureaucracy" really is. In fact, government (and postal!) workers, like any others, come in many varieties, but mostly they just want to do their jobs well.

So here's a challenge to the right-wingers who read The Daily Parker—especially the one running for public office: can you tell me how your life would, on balance, be better without government?

...

Keep thinking. I've got time. And I've got my check back, and I'll have my passport Tuesday.

How to run a parking system

Via one of my classmates, and the NPR Planet Money blog, the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority has started testing demand pricing for parking spaces:

The system will use electronic sensors to measure real-time demand for parking spaces, and adjust prices accordingly. When there are lots of empty spaces, it will be cheap to park. When spaces are hard to find, rates will be higher.

The range in prices will be huge: from 25 cents an hour to a maximum of $6 an hour, according to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Authority.

Eventually, drivers will be able to find open parking spaces by going online, checking their mobile phones or reading for new electronic signs that will be posted throughout the city.

That's how to run a parking system. Not, as some might suspect, by leasing all the meters to a for-profit company which immediately raises prices to the point where people don't park on some streets at all any more.

This isn't your father's recession

Krugman makes a succinct point about why the current recession isn't like 1981:

The 1981-2 recession was a very different kind of event from the 2007-9 recession: basically, it was a recession deliberately created by the Fed to bring down inflation. The Fed raised interest rates sky-high, causing a plunge in home construction, which was the main driver of the slump. When Paul Volcker believed that we had suffered enough, he cut rates, housing sprang back — and it was housing that mainly drove the recovery. Reaganomics was basically irrelevant.

The 2007-9 recession was driven by the collapse of a huge housing bubble, and the resulting financial fallout. The Fed couldn’t cut rates sharply, because they weren’t all that high to begin with; there couldn’t be a housing boom, because housing was already overbuilt.

The problem, as Krugman has patiently explained for months, is that anti-inflationary measures right now will bring about deflation, which is worse. If you have any debt at all, inflation is your friend. If you're a lender, deflation rocks. Three guesses why the Republicans are so eager to curb the non-existent inflation we have right now.

Note to Republicans: this is what a conservative looks like

Via Sullivan, UK Prime Minister David Cameron presents the Conservative view of gay marriage:

I know there is one other subject that the gay community is particularly interested in: marriage. As someone who believes in commitment, in marriage and in civil partnerships, my view is that if religious organisations want to have civil partnerships registered at their places of worship that should be able to happen. Last week the Equalities Minister held listening events with faith groups and representatives of the gay community, as we consider what the next steps are for civil partnerships and how we enable religious organisations to register same-sex relationships on their premises if they wish to do so. I think this is an important step forward and we will help to make it happen. But making this country a more equal, open place isn't just a job for government alone. The truth is we will never really tackle homophobia in schools, the workplace or in sport just by passing laws. We need a culture change as well.

There's no single lever we can pull or even collection of measures that we can take to make that happen. The wall of prejudice is also chipped away by high-profile role models, by public celebrations, by a positive approach to diversity. That's why I am proud that there are now more openly gay MPs in the Conservative Party than any other party. It's why I wish the upcoming Pride events – today in Leeds, all week in Brighton and on Saturday in Liverpool – every success. And it's why I congratulate everyone on this list for doing their bit to inspire and change attitudes. This is a country where people can be proud of who they are – and quite right too.

As Sullivan says, "Imagine a Republican leader doing that. Better still, imagine him or her writing this."

That's as likely right now as a Republican leader who believes we can cut the deficit by increasing spending without increasing taxes. I mention this because the Lib-Con coalition in the UK is reducing speding and increasing taxes, as that seems the surest way for the government to spend less than it takes in. Arithmetic, you see.

How freeways kill communities

Via Sullivan, Timothy Lee describes how freeway construction destroyed the center of St. Louis:

Planners in St. Louis, as in most American cities, decided that the new expressways would run directly through the cities’ downtowns. One of them (I-44/I-70) now runs North to South between the park and downtown. Not surprisingly, if you visit the park today you’ll find a light sprinkling of tourists, but nothing like the throngs of locals you’ll find in successful urban parks like New York’s Union Square, Philadelphia’s Rittenhouse Square, or DC’s Dupont Circle. Whatever “revitalizing” effects the park might have had on the rest of the city were undermined by the fact that the park isn’t really accessible to pedestrians in the rest of the city.

Planners pursued the same basic scheme in other American cities. And in almost every case, they encountered fierce resistance from people already living where the freeways were supposed to go. [Author Jane] Jacobs herself was a key player in the famous, and ultimately successful, effort to stop a proposed freeway through lower Manhattan. After decades of bitter conflict, similar plans were defeated in Washington, DC. Urbanists were partially successful in Philadelphia. They killed the Crosstown expressway, which would have cut through South Philly, but they failed to stop the Vine Street Expressway, which ran north of downtown and contributed to the destruction of Philly’s Chinatown.

In Chicago, the Eisenhower and U of I combined to destroy Little Italy; and the Dan Ryan sliced right through the principal middle-class black community, scattering black professionals to the winds.

Reaction to The Warmest May

My last post ("Warmest May in 131 years") got some reaction on its cross-posting to Facebook:

YK: 131 years is a drop in the ocean in geological time. Why is this drop so significant? Never seen any satisfactory answers to that question except maybe some looks of intimidation about how 'obvious' the answer was. Poor communication or maybe nothing compelling to communicate?

The Daily Parker: The sharp rise in global temperatures over the past 150 years is unprecedented in the planet's history. Yes, the earth has been warmer, and it's been colder—but (a) the evidence is clear that a 2-5°C rise in this short amount of time has never happened before barring asteroid impact or supervolcano eruptions; and (b) there is a statistically significant correlation between human-caused gas emissions and the temperature rise.

YK: What science can go back 4 billion years and offer that level of precision over a 150 year period of time? Sorry, I don't buy it. Show me the evidence.

TDP: That's just it: looking at 150 years over even a few million, the spike would be vertical. There have been large rises in temperature, but over millennia. We've got ice cores going back half a million years, and geological evidence for a few hundred million before that. I think we can exclude from the argument the time when the planet was a molten rock without an atmosphere through the time it had an oxygen-nitrogen atmosphere capable of supporting air-breathing life. So, for the last 500 million years, there have been swings up to 9°C, but never so fast, and never (with the exception of the K-T extinction) so devastating to life. What level of evidence do you require to recognize human-caused climate change, short of palm trees in Saskatchewan?

YK: I don't claim to be an expert in climate change, because I don't believe you can gain that 'knowledge' by reading or hearing people talk about it informally. Here is an example of something I looked for and read to learn more about it. Let me know if you can point me to something as equally well researched that can refute or at least cause me to question the observations and/or conclusions in this.

TDP: OK: UNFCCC, NASA, USGS, National Academies...again, what's the threshhold for you? What level of evidence will be sufficient to convince you?

YK: Read my article. You throw your stuff my way and don't bother to reciprocate the effort. Scientists who don't agree at least look at each other's evidence, and not just promote their own. (I write [that] with confidence because I know you couldn't have read the link I posted in 8 minutes.)

TDP: In fairness, you're right I haven't read it, but I'm downloading it now. While we're digesting each others' documents, consider this: If we shift resources to combatting climate change, for example by moving away from petroleum, reducing energy consumption overall, limiting meat production, etc., we could take a 1-2% GDP hit over the next century. Maybe 3% of GDP. If the consensus is wrong, and we've spent that 3% of GDP, we'll still have better resource use, healthier people, and fewer farting cows—all of which may very well boost GDP.

But if the consensus is right, and we do nothing, then we'll lose Miami, Bangladesh, and (truly a catastrophe) Jones Beach, Long Island.

What do you think about doing a thorough, evidence-driven risk analysis and then acting on it?

YK: If it can be proven or shown as a viable theory that we're f'ing up our planet and that we could do something to improve the situation, of course I'd be all for it. I just don't believe in any 'noble lie' scenario a la Plato. Show me the evidence or a reasoned theory and I'll come to my own conclusion on the matter. But I am against 'forcing' people to act against their will 'for their own good.' I am not a statist or a totalitarian or a believer in tyranny. If the best our 'leaders' can do is point guns at the populace to 'make them do the right thing' then I'm afraid we need to re-evaluate our status as citizens in this country.

My real reaction to the warmest May is: "Man, this May was so much more pleasant than last year in Chicago. Last year's late spring/all summer was the most disappointing in my 10 year experience living here."

The debate continues.