It is not only about labor prices being high enough (creating consumers who can buy more). There is a significant religious component to the introduction of fixed pricing. Quakers are often credited with introducing fixed pricing in the Western world, because they felt that charging higher prices to those less able to haggle (or higher prices by age, gender, race) was immoral, dishonest in the eyes of God. They then experienced greater sales because you could send your kid to the store and trust the kid wouldn't get ripped off. It just took a layer of stress off going to the store. John Wanamaker (a Presbyterian?) I think is the one who really started a retail empire on fixed pricing. One of his main selling points was one price for anyone, and a fair return policy.
The behavioral economics here is that many people will pay a consistent (fair) price to not be surprised and not feel ripped off.
Agree that automation will engage in price discrimination whenever possible. When will we see the backlash? I have heard stories of outrage ("when I looked for airline tickets at work they were way cheaper than when I looked on my home laptop!") but we haven't seen a widespread reaction, and the moral aspect seems to be relatively overlooked at this time.
Adverse childhood experiences definitely correlate with socioeconomic status. It's possible to disentangle their separate effects on some statistical level, but very difficult on a practical level. For instance, losing your home and living with your mom in a car when you're 6 is a socioeconomic ACE.
Someone else in the discussion here made a comment that service members should be mad at this blog post, as it is essentially saying that people cause their own adverse experiences. Well, again, the US armed services tend to draw disproportionately from lower socioeconomic groups, who tend to have higher numbers of adverse experiences. It's very hard to disentangle these correlated variables when it comes to outcomes for real people. And it's a total copout to then blame servicemembers for their PTSD.
We have the language of a cycle of abuse, a cycle of poverty, a cycle of violence. People have recognized the cyclicality of this for millennia. It's good the blogpost brings that out.
The thing that disappoints me about the discussion here (and in the blog post) is that there is this relentless focus on the psychology of things. Being homeless as a child, having a parent die, having family die violently, etc all do correlate with higher rates of cardiac disease, diabetes, etc. Again, can't disentangle from the socioeconomic aspects, but you also can't blame a kid for their family member dying. The idea that "unhealthy people may be more susceptible to trauma" has some veins of validity, but is also just deeply unkind, inhuman, and inaccurate taken to an absolute. Kids in foster care, kids who experienced a school shooting, kids who had a parent die of cancer, etc -- it is immorally self-serving to say it's their own fault. You know it's not.
The blog post itself cherry-picks by focusing on PTSD and the brain, ignoring correlations between ACEs and cardiac problems and diabetes. By focusing on the brain, the author can easily imply it's made up weakness (no lab results to confront) and then move on to "just get over it", which is adjacent to "it's not my problem". I'm not a fan of over-therapizing and I don't think therapy or crystals will fix your diabetes. But don't throw the baby out with Bessel van der Kolk's bathwater.
Don't worry, it also hits birthday cards from my cousins, Christmas presents from my siblings, care packages with those favorite candies and coffees that aren't sold in the US. My sibling can't send me hand-knit items or hand-me-down kids items, items truly of de minimis monetary value.
It may be accomplishing what was intended -- but I don't think that people in the US (even those paying attention) understand what was intended. The lack of clarity in terms of regulations and collection of fees/tariffs show that it is not about efficiently collecting the $ but instead about breaking the chain of goods, from big business to small business to family ties, and cutting off flow to the USPS, supporting the privatization of the entity.
I agree that the de minimis exemption was being abused at scale.
I'm also salty that my family can't send birthday or Christmas presents, even a home-made card.
Whatever you want to say about this administration, always look one level down for the wholesale reconfiguration of supply chain and international connections that they're aiming for.
> It may be accomplishing what was intended -- but I don't think that people in the US (even those paying attention) understand what was intended.
this is what i suspect too. most of his common supporters i interact with parrot the “america first will revitalize the economy and job market” and then when that doesnt happen they do the same with “i’m willing to deal with temporary bit of pain in order to ensure american interests are protected.” these comments are almost always framed against the Obama and Biden administrations and never stand on their own merit (e.g. “unlike biden who …”).
to be perfectly fair, I’m not entirely sure what the ultimate goal is, though. My perception of the character of the person of the president has been dim for many decades so when it’s something that he champions I immediately chalk it up to something that would serve his own self interest above that of any group of other people
If all the systems were in place and working correctly then indeed there would be no effect, but the point of the article was that many countries have entirely suspended shipments because they have not got the relevant systems in place to handle the tariffs and regulations required.
There's no goal for the privatized USPS to actually be successful, only to destroy the public good. It's government, it works, so therefore it must be destroyed. This is really how Republicans think.
I'm Canadian so I can't speak to the issues surrounding the USPS.
However, in Canada we remain in the midst of a long work-to-rule strike by the Canadian Union of Postal Workers (CUPW) against Canada Post (CP). The biggest issue in this strike is that there is a very wide gap between what CUPW is demanding (in terms of pay increases, protection of workers, maintenance of routes) and what CP is offering.
CP had been losing billions of dollars (even prior to the strike) and the situation continues to worsen as consumers lose confidence in the reliability of CP's parcel service, due to the strike. CP wants to close a lot of post offices, complete the phase-out of door-to-door postal service in favour of community mailboxes (which are already in use for more than half of households), and even reduce delivery frequency to less than 5 days per week.
I actually support these cost-cutting measures by CP because I, like many other Canadians, receive almost zero useful mail by post these days. Almost all of the mail I receive is advertising (junk mail), with the few exceptions being bills and statements from banks and the like (the latter of which ought to be phased out to fully electronic since I only bank through mobile apps anyway).
And so I'm left wondering what exactly is the public good in the postal service anyway? It seems more like a subsidy for a handful of advertisers and banks as well as a jobs program for postal workers. I send actual letters by mail so infrequently that I wouldn't mind paying $10 to send one by courier. But that isn't even within the space of proposals (shutting down CP completely)!
The most extreme proposal would be for CP to eliminate door-to-door service (community mailboxes only) and to switch to weekly delivery only, instead of daily. That would not affect the vast majority of Canadians in the slightest. The only ones who would be truly affected are those with mobility issues (disabilities or the elderly) who are unable to walk down the street to the community mailbox. Fortunately, there is already a service in place for providing mobility assistance to these people!
> CP wants to close a lot of post offices, complete the phase-out of door-to-door postal service in favour of community mailboxes (which are already in use for more than half of households), and even reduce delivery frequency to less than 5 days per week.
Honestly that sounds like some good ways to reduce costs and carbon emissions. For the elderly there would need to be some considerations made. I live in the US but in large apartment buildings here there’s a couple of mailrooms for hundreds of units, I imagine it’s significantly more efficient than delivering to each unit.
Here large apartment complexes get door delivery. For single family, unless resident is certifiably limited in mobility delivery is to communal array of postal boxes. Alternating 2 and 3 days a week. Running through a building is not too inefficient. Delivering between them is.
That still seems like a big waste of time. Having a postal worker walk door to door throughout a large building takes way longer than having them fill up the mailboxes in a single mailroom on the ground floor. I wouldn’t be surprised if it took ten times as many postal workers to deliver to apartment doors instead of mailrooms.
> it works, so therefore it must be destroyed. This is really how Republicans think
I've been living here four years and met some really wonderful Americans, both Democrat and Republican, yet I don't think I've met a single one who thinks the way you're presenting. This seems like a pretty bleak way to view your country's politics, respectfully.
What voters think is largely irrelevant. Republican politicians campaign by claiming everything government does doesn't work, and once in office they do everything possible to ensure those claims become true.
Yeah, I basically agree. The goals of republican politicians are to satisfy the wealthy elite (corporations mostly). Public services, almost by definition, do not make large profits and make it much harder for a private corporation to compete while making large profits themselves. Privatizing public services is a great way to make the rich richer.
The republican politicians then have to craft a message that will get enough normal, not rich people to vote them into office. So they talk about hot-button culture war issues, selecting the positions they must take to get numbers they need (abortion, gun rights, "freedom of speech," gay marriage, immigrants, vaccines, etc etc), all the while reminding their base that the government (except the military and police) is bad.
So that is say, normal people who vote republican can be very nice and reasonable, and they have one or two things that strongly motivates them to vote for a terribly harmful platform.
All you have to do is look at all of the impositions that republican administrations and politicians have placed on USPS and the heaps of denigration they've piled on it to see the truth of the matter.
From forcing them to fund all future retirement funding in a way that no other government agency is (the PAEA) to all of the attacks on it around "mail-in vote fraud," to the constant attacks on the budget issues that they created, it's plainly apparent that the Republicans desire USPS failing and being privatized.
Many of them have also literally said as much. AEI and Cato are big proponents of privatization, Trump has talked about it many times, Wells Fargo has created some proposed frameworks, etc., and the worse it performs as a public entity the better they can make the argument for privatization.
When Alibaba first became big I remember ordering stuff from there and it taking about one month and a half to arrive in Brazil. Turns out they packaged a lot of shipments together into a single cargo container and then distributed them internally within Brazil.
IMO it should go back to been that way. It is ridiculous to ship these small packages by air. I am not in favor of tariffs, but the shipping needs to be included in the bill.
A public good is a good that is both non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Establishing a federal monopoly doesn’t turn the product of that monopoly into a public good. Likewise, a public good can be provided by a non-government entity.
Jokes aside, I getting hung up on that term in this context feels unnecessary, it was quiet clear what kaitai was talking about from the text he wrote.
It’s disingenuous to confuse the meaning of the term “public good” in order to justify government monopolies. Everybody knows that part of the role of the government is to provide “public goods”, but that’s based on how the term “public good” is defined, so it’s dishonest to use that to justify establishing a government monopoly over a non-public good.
Have you looked at your mail lately? The USPS is mostly shipping around recycling, like ads. I would happily pay $7 to send a letter 1 time a year if it meant I would see half as much spam.
Surely you see how the spam is subsidizing letters, and then “public good” isn’t so obviously black and white. I mean we could ban spam, tax to pay $6.50 of every $7 letter to enable wedding invitations be $0.50 to mail… but why?
Id rather get the spam and pay $1 for letters. Then lower income people have access to the public good, subsidized by industry. Otherwise sending mail becomes something only rich people do.
My mom lives out-of-state, and she sometimes sends little presents to my kid. My kid then draws a little picture on a postcard and sends it to his grandma.
Energy independence. The US fought wars for oil before fracking. Supply chains are complex and disruptable. Dependence on Russia for fuel leads to... dependence on Russia. Or Iran. Or Saudi. Whatever country it may be, it's dependence, and dependence can always be weaponized. This is pure geopolitics. "You can just buy oil" is deeply foolish.
I was absolutely impressed/puzzled by the Leningrad Cowboys as a kid.
In the mid-2000s, J. Karjalainen (a Finnish musician) put out a concept album called Lännen-Jukka. If you like Blues, it's worth checking out. YLE, the Finnish media network, put out a documentary on it. Karjalainen travels through the US including significant time in Upper Michigan, where many Finns settled a hundred years ago (and more recently).
Another thing I remember is that while here, Karjalainen & his bandmates were detained by the TSA at Minneapolis St Paul airport and treated rather poorly. Apparently TSA thought they were gonna overstay their visas in the US and try to "make it big in music". It was very bizarre.
At the VA medical system, they word-searched for "consulting" and cancelled contracts for.... surgical equipment sterilization, medical waste removal, stuff related to air quality that's required for hospital accreditation, and local burial services for people who die in the hospital.
Then a lot of those had to be reinstated because you simply can't operate a hospital without sanitation.
Just like they had to scramble to hire back the folks at the National Nuclear Safety Association.
Yeah, efficiency is great. But this is like ordering tacos and getting... a used tire and some dirty diapers...?
Breast density affects the imaging you get from x-rays. It is well-known that denser breast tissue results in x-rays that are "whiter" (I'm talking about the image of the tissue, in white, on a black background, as x-rays are commonly read by radiologists). Denser breasts are associated with less effective screening for breast cancer via mammogram. A mammogram is a low-dose x-ray.
When using a chest x-ray to look for pulmonary edema, for instance, I would be unsurprised if breast tissue (of any quantity) and in particular denser breast tissue would make the diagnosis of pulmonary edema more difficult from the image alone.
Also, you seem to have conflated a few things in your second sentence. Deep in the article, they did have radiologists try to guess demographic attributes by looking at the x-ray images. They were pretty good at guessing female/male (unsurprising) and were not really able to guess age or race. So I'm super interested in how the AI model was able to be better at that than the human radiologists.
To give you some TL;DR from personal-ish experience, women have historically been excluded from medical trials because:
* why include them? people are people, right?
* except when they're pregnant or could be pregnant -- a trial by definition has risks, and so "of course" one would want to exclude anyone who is or could get pregnant (it's the clinical trial version of "she's just going to get married and leave the job anyway")
* and cyclical fluctuations in hormones are annoying.
The first one is wrong (tho is an oversight that many had for years, assuming for instance that heart attacks and autism would present with the same symptoms in all adult humans).
The second is an un-nuanced approach to risk. Pregnant ladies also need medical treatment for things, and it's pretty annoying to be pregnant and be told that you need to decide among unstudied treatments for some non-pregnancy-related problem.
The third is just a difficult fact of life. I know researchers studying elite performance in women athletes, for instance. At an elite level, it would be useful to understand if there are different effects of training (strength, speed, endurance) at different times in the menstrual cycle. To do this, you need to measure hormone levels in the blood to establish on a scientific basis where in the cycle a study participant is. Turns out there is significant heterogeneity in how this process works. So some scientists in the field are arguing that studies should only be conducted on women who are experiencing "normal menstrual cycles" which is defined by them as three continuous months of a cycle between 28-35 days. So to establish that then you've got to get these ladies in for three months before the study can even start, getting these hormone levels measured to establish that the cycle is "normal", before you can even start your intervention. (Ain't no one got $$ for that...) And that's before we bring in the fact that many women performing on an elite level in sport don't have a normal menstrual cycle. But from the sports side, they'd still like to know what training is most effective.... so that's a very current debate in the field. And I haven't even started on hormonal birth control! Birth control provides a base level of hormone circulating in the blood, but if it's from a pill it's varying on a daily basis, while if it's a patch or ring it's on a monthly basis (or longer). There's some question of whether that hormonal load from the birth control is then suppressing natural production of some hormones. And why does this matter? Because estrogen for instance has significant effects on cardiovascular health, being cardioprotective from puberty up to menopause. (Yeah, I didn't even get started on perimenopause or menopause.)
Fine, fine, it's just data analysis & logistics. If you get the ladies (only between 21-35) into the lab for blood samples frequently enough and measure at the same time of day every time to avoid daily effects and find a large enough group that you can dump all the ladies who don't fit some definition of normal & anyone who gets pregnant but still get the power for your study, it's all fine, right? You've just expanded medical research to incorporate, like, 10% more of the population....!
Had the same problem (with MIT among others). Somehow I heard farmland was treated a bit more generously (a recognition that you can't just sell the land to pay for college & remain a going concern). For a small biz with 4 employees, though, the math was impossible. Good thing Caltech was cheaper.
s1artibartfast below is saying that it seems intentional. But how can someone with a small business sell the assets, eliminating their own income in the process, and provide for the remaining children/themselves/etc? Sacrifice is one thing; killing the job you created is another and far too short-sighted.
The behavioral economics here is that many people will pay a consistent (fair) price to not be surprised and not feel ripped off.
Agree that automation will engage in price discrimination whenever possible. When will we see the backlash? I have heard stories of outrage ("when I looked for airline tickets at work they were way cheaper than when I looked on my home laptop!") but we haven't seen a widespread reaction, and the moral aspect seems to be relatively overlooked at this time.