moorhosj

Every barrier we can out in place will result in fewer bullies making it through the funnel. It’s like a marketing funnel in reverse.

==This ecosystem has made Silicon Valley what it is today.==

I assume this is referring to the technological innovation and corporate profits of Silicon Valley. I would ask you to consider, from a broader perspective, what Silicon Valley is today. Specifically, in relation to elevated levels of depression [1], suicide [2] and inequality [3].

Isn't it worth exploring whether the same working conditions that benefit the top 10-20% are having a negative effect on the other 80-90%?

[1] https://money.cnn.com/mostly-human/silicon-valleys-secret/

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/12/the-sil...

[3] https://fortune.com/2018/10/16/silicon-valleys-income-inequa...

==then why have far older and desirable professions like law and medicine continued to be incredibly well paying?==

These are actually two perfect examples to illustrate my point. Both industries are represented by organizations that systematically make it harder for more people to enter the profession (AMA for medicine and Bar Association for legal). They have eschewed the free market in favor of regulatory capture in order to maintain their market advantage.

==Software is hard, humans have a hard time doing hard things, that's why we get paid more.==

Same could have been said of building cars and planes 50 years ago.

No goalposts were moved. I questioned the premise of OP's comment on whether unions can exist in a world where employees choose to switch jobs every 2-3 years.

You responded with an authoritative answer backed up with zero evidence or supporting data. That it was about unions is an embedded assumption based on that fact that the entire discussion is about unions.

==Do people actually think that software engineering is going to become a job that isn't skilled, and isn't sought after?==

I'm not sure why you would be so sure it wouldn't. Are the software engineers of today truly that different from the machinists of yesterday?

If you believe in the free market, then it is elementary that more people will flood into these careers which will lower the wages and diminish the bargaining power of existing software engineers.

Unions could help in each of these case, so you haven't answered the question or provided any evidence.

==We can form a union when we need to form a union.==

In my 35 years of life, it has become harder to start a union, so it isn't out of the question that it becomes harder and harder to start a union when software engineers "need to". There's no guarantee that what exists today will exist tomorrow.

But not all tech workers are programmers. To compare to another union, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) represents machinists from Boeing and Harley-Davidson, distribution center workers at IKEA, and also wood, pulp and paper workers.

> https://www.goiam.org/

The vagueness is how the American legal system has worked since inception. I don’t see it changing now.

Society changes faster than representatives can legislate.

I think the point is that once the cat is out of the bag it’s hard to put it back. For example, at first more people were helped by opiates than harmed. As time passed, by the time we realized that relationship had changed, we already had a bunch of addicted citizens.

It isn’t too much of a stretch to imagine an authoritarian government using our own surveillance video for nefarious purposes.

I think we read the same book. I don’t really think of Middletown as a Rust Belt city. It’s a town of 50,000 people. I am talking about big cities like Detroit, Milwaukee, Chicago, Cleveland and smaller ones like Youngstown and Erie.

As someone who lives in one of those cities, it seemed like a clear correlation could have been made. It was chance to unite a rural and an urban problem across race and I thought it was a missed opportunity. I still enjoyed the book, but think it is even more powerful when read in tandem with a book like Evicted [1] that views the problem from another perspective.

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Evicted-Poverty-Profit-American-City/...

I think his biggest miss was failing to connect the region to the rest of the country. He could have easily compared Appalachia to Rust Belt cities facing urban decay but never made the connection. It could have made the story of the region more approachable to more people. It seemed so obvious to me how the areas are linked by economic circumstances, environmental degradation, poor education levels, distinct culture and problems with drug addiction.

You kind of hand-waved 70 years of economic history/decisions. How does “US jobs decline” match with an historically low unemployment rate?

I would love to dive a little deeper on these strategies. How can I reach out?

They have all the data to be able to make a relatively simple change like this. They don't want to, likely because it "drives engagement".

You could simply add the number of distinct users replying. Seems like a pretty simple fix.

==for the same reasons they fail to draw a line between their current insurer's negotiated rates and cost of care.==

Insurance companies are not subject to FOIA requests like the government. People tie Medicare to the Government, why would this be different?

==A single negotiator will likely only make pricing more opaque==

Not sure it's possible to be more opaque than today. All of the other country's who do it this way have far more transparent pricing than the US, so I'm not sure I buy this reasoning.

==I'm interested to know why you think the government is incentivized to negotiate the best pricing for citizens.

I can think of two. First, so they can spend the money on other things they want (military, social security, education, etc.). Second, is so they can get re-elected by those same citizens.

==There is no way to tell if the price we are paying is at all good value for money compared to what it could cost.

We could look at the dozens of other developed countries who work like this, should give us some clues.

I took the argument to mean that it is better to regulate bad things in a way that might be ham-fisted, but allow for future improvements than to do nothing about a known problem.

The idea people seem to be repeating is that this will be ineffective. It seems to me that GDPR provides a pretty strong framework to learn from and build off. Europe effectively launched version 1.0, so now we can implement the best parts and eliminate or improve the weakest parts. We aren't starting from scratch or searching in the dark.

In reality, we can never know the full impacts of new legislation until it's released into the wild. You said yourself that "legislate first, fix later" makes you incredulous because you feel it is never fixed later.

I am suggesting that the perfect bill which requires no future fixes is non-existent. Thus, advocating for this solution is the equivalent of advocating for nothing. Just as building a product and showing it to nobody is functionally the same as not building a product from the rest-of-the-world's perspective.

True, but the lack of a proposed alternative to government regulation is the equivalent of taking that position. Using the CFPB, as you suggested, is still government regulation.

==The parent was suggesting to regulate first==

The assumption is that introducing a bill to regulate dark patterns is the same as "moving fast". This bill hasn't even made it to committee [1] and darkpatterns.org was started in 2010 [2]. I think an argument could be made that the US government is actually moving pretty slowly on this topic. GDPR has been in place for over a year, so there is significant data to understand the implications of this type of regulation.

==and fix broken regulations later.==

How is this different from a software product releasing an updated version? Microsoft Excel is on v16 and I don't think anyone is accusing that product of moving fast and breaking things. I wish we spent more time adding features and fixing bugs from past legislation.

[1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/s1084

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_pattern

I’m not sure anyone is suggesting that policy, but “do nothing” seems equally bad, if not worse.

The question you are raising is really: Should we build government policy around promoting startups/ new business or protecting consumers?

==But now that it's getting more popular, it seems to me the value of it being unique would get washed out fast.==

Or, the prices will rise and Cameo revenue will increase. Each celeb has only so many hours in a day, so there is an upper-bound on the number of Cameo's they can realistically record.

From Crain's Chicago [1]: "On average, customers are paying $62 per video, nearly triple the amount just 12 months ago. Cameo keeps 25 percent."

==Like being able to invite them to parties, or events, and pay them for an actual true "cameo." It would obviously come with a price, but to me, that would be much more innovative.==

Isn't this idea basically the Fyre app? It seems like Cameo took a solid route, it will be interesting to see where this round takes them.

[1] https://www.chicagobusiness.com/john-pletz-technology/cameo-...

==My sister, a public interest DV attorney, and her husband, a local journalist, bought their first house there; as you might imagine, neither are wealthy.==

And I have two different co-workers and my tech company who have moved there in the past 5 years. These anecdotes aren't data, but show how personal experience drives perception.

==I think anyone who lived here in the 1990s would recognize pretty much the same Chicago in 2019, modulo the wifi in the cafes==

I think the data disagrees with you. Today, 39% of city residents have college degrees, in 1990, it was 19% [1]. The city has a higher percentage of residents with a college degree than larger, metro Chicago, the first time that has ever been the case. Other ways this can be observed is through the disappearance of the "Chicago accent". As more Big Ten graduates have migrated to the city from around the Midwest, the city's make-up has changed [2].

It relates to crime in the way these people have migrated. If the city was 1/3 working class, 1/3 middle class and 1/3 upper class 30 years ago; today it is more like 2/5 working class, 1/5 middle class, and 2/5 upper class. This mirrors what we have seen across the US economy. It reminds us of the quote, "Chicago is the most American of American cities."

This change has meant that previously working class neighborhoods have lost jobs, residents and investment. Those are the things that lead to increased levels of crime/violence. If we look at any Rust Belt city, we see high murder rates [3]:

>Out of the five metropolitan areas with the highest per capita murder rates, according to CBS News, four are deindustrialized cities: St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit and Cleveland.

Chicago has managed to avoid much of the population loss and economic collapse of these cities, but still saw both happen over the past 40 years.

==Neighborhoods are gradually gentrifying, sure. That's incompatible with the idea that neighborhood flight is worsening crime.==

Except there are 77 neighborhoods, so 25 can be gentrifying and seeing lower crime while 5 are facing de-population and increased crime. It's pretty obvious when you look at the 3 most violent neighborhoods (community areas) of Austin, Garfield Park and Englewood. They are each seeing population decrease and together account for 25% of murders in the city.

[1] https://danielkayhertz.com/2019/05/15/out-of-state-college-g...

[2] https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/04/why-city-accents-are-fa...

[3] https://www.nytimes.com/paidpost/cbs/why-are-murder-rates-so...

It’s possible that pulling the plug was still the right move.

==None of this has anything to do with crime in Chicago.==

Sure it does. As working/middle-class jobs leave, neighborhoods who overwhelming relied on those jobs fall into a spiral of dis-investment, de-population and crime.

==the middle class northwest and bungalow belts==

I think this is the part you are missing. Neighborhoods like Portage Park, Jefferson Park, Old Irving Park, Norwood Park and Avondale on the northwest side are not the same middle-class neighborhoods they were 15 years ago. They have become upper-middle class neighborhoods filled with young families.

The traditional city workers who made these strong middle-class communities are getting priced out. The residency requirements are pushing them to other neighborhoods on the west and southwest side. This trend, along with future immigration may be the best hopes for revitalizing these neighborhoods.

==with one possible change being that the 1990s gang crackdowns atomized the gangs and amplified the violence. ==

Yes, breaking up the larger gangs has led to less-structured, block-by-block affiliations. That said, the homicide rate is lower today than it was in the 1990s.

Demographics aren't just white, black, brown iot runs deeper than that. In Chicago's case, the city's workforce is growing younger and more educated at a rapid clip. Here's an article written today about it, "Chicago’s new demographics: ‘A third San Francisco, two-thirds Detroit’":

==His analysis of U.S. Census Data found that between 2005 and 2017, the city of Chicago’s 25-39 year-old age cohort grew 15.7 percent, while falling dramatically in the rest of Cook County (7.2 percent drop) as well as the metro area outside of Cook County (5.9 percent decline).

==In addition, between 2005-17, Chicago’s population of 25-44 year-olds with a bachelors degrees or additional advanced degrees grew 42 percent. As Saunders wrote in a Twitter thread sharing his findings, “An older, less educated, manufacturing-oriented populace is being replaced by a younger, more educated, knowledge-economy populace.” Chicago now has a higher share of college educated workers than the surrounding suburbs.

This phenomenon is dragging down the already depressed neighborhoods the most. The jobs their residents relied on are disappearing. The residents with means are typically moving out (to the suburbs or Sun Belt cities), leaving behind the most at-risk residents.

>https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/6/24/18691792/chicago-econom...

Right on time: Chicago’s new demographics: ‘A third San Francisco, two-thirds Detroit’

>His analysis of U.S. Census Data found that between 2005 and 2017, the city of Chicago’s 25-39 year-old age cohort grew 15.7 percent, while falling dramatically in the rest of Cook County (7.2 percent drop) as well as the metro area outside of Cook County (5.9 percent decline).

>In addition, between 2005-17, Chicago’s population of 25-44 year-olds with a bachelors degrees or additional advanced degrees grew 42 percent. As Saunders wrote in a Twitter thread sharing his findings, “An older, less educated, manufacturing-oriented populace is being replaced by a younger, more educated, knowledge-economy populace.” Chicago now has a higher share of college educated workers than the surrounding suburbs.

==https://chicago.curbed.com/2019/6/24/18691792/chicago-econom...