The Curmudgeon Speaks

The federal minimum wage is presently $7.25. The states in this grey and white fix the state minimum to the federal minimum (map source). The $7.25 was established in 2009. Wikipedia offers some interesting analyses related to the positive and negatives estimated to result from raising the minimum to $15.

In 2021, the Congressional Budget Office released a report which estimated that incrementally raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour by 2025 would benefit 17 million workers, but would also reduce employment by 1.4 million people. It would also lift 0.9 million people out of poverty, possibly raise wages for an additional 10 million workers, and increase the federal budget deficit by $54 billion over ten years by increasing the cost of goods and services paid for by the federal government.

Based on a 40 hour week and say a 50 week year, the $7.25 wage would generate an income of $14,500. The poverty level according to the federal definition appears in the following table.

Various federal assistance programs use these values to determine eligibility and are based on 130-150% of these values (see the link above).

One way to think about this is that businesses that pay the minimum wage are usually relying on taxpayers to subsidize the basic living expenses of their employees. For example, the Affordable Care act provides some subsidy to those making less than 400% of the poverty wage.

Any adult familiar with the cost of food, housing, transportation, medical care, child care, etc. should understand how limited an income of $14,500 a year really is. As a reality check, the following data represent state-by-state estimates of child care costs. Roughly half of the states require more funds to pay for the care of one child than an adult would make at the minimum federal income.

Google is sponsoring a startup called Jigsaw that proposes to shape the Internet as a force for good. Among the priorities of this group is a focus on online toxicity. Jigsaw makes the case that online services are working on this problem (maybe), but it is focusing on its own products that can be made available to providers and users.

This means that you and I can try out what the company is working on. They offer a chrome extension called Tune that is an effort to take advantage of AI to reduce the toxicity of what you experience when using familiar social media services (e.g., Twitter, Facebook). If you are interested, visit the Chrome store and search for Tune. You may want to check out other sources describing this venture (PCMag, Perspective API).

Tune offers two ways users can adjust their experience. The first is a knob that allows the user to set the level of toxicity they are willing to tolerate and the second allows the selection of areas of toxicity they don’t want to deal with.

I have read reviews that are critical charging that Tune relies on a simple list of keywords. I cannot verify this is the case and even if it were true some may find this an improvement.

What is it that makes you feel like you have a sense of agency, a feeling of power? It is important we all feel some sense of control in our lives.

Cindy sent me this from a Facebook site she follows.

I have been growing tomatoes in my office using a hydroponic gardening setup and I know exactly how this feels. Power to the people – especially the gardeners.

I am playing Phil Collins all day in honor of his 70th birthday. I checked Last.FM which keeps a record of nearly every song I have listened to since 2006 and Phil came in at 56 (just behind Paul Simon and Three Dog Night). I was a little surprised. By the end of the day, he should move up a few places.

When I was still working as a professor, I didn’t spend much time in the university library. I worked in my office or at what might seem strange to some in a campus coffee shop that was just across the street. I continue to do this even after I have retired.

My wife never complained about my coffee shop thing even though when we are staying in lake country I sometimes I now drive about 10 miles to my shop. “I have to go to work,” I say. It turns out that there is actually some benefit to this habit. I happened across this article describing what some call the coffee shop effect. It appears that the benefits of low-level noise and distraction seem a benefit to the creative process, but might not be the best environment for learning. Somehow, this makes sense to me.

Here are the abstracts from a couple of studies cited in the article. 

Mehta, R., Zhu, R., & Cheema, A. (2012). Is noise always bad? Exploring the effects of ambient noise on creative cognition. Journal of Consumer Research, 39(4), 784-799.

This paper examines how ambient noise, an important environmental variable, can affect creativity. Results from five experiments demonstrate that a moderate (70 dB) versus low (50 dB) level of ambient noise enhances performance on creative tasks and increases the buying likelihood of innovative products. A high level of noise (85 dB), on the other hand, hurts creativity. Process measures reveal that a moderate (vs. low) level of noise increases processing difficulty, inducing a higher construal level and thus promoting abstract processing, which subsequently leads to higher creativity. A high level of noise, however, reduces the extent of information processing and thus impairs creativity.

Nielsen, E. G. (2015). The coffee shop effect: investigating the relationship between ambient noise and cognitive flexibility. (thesis)

This work suggests that noise may be beneficial for creativity but not for learning. Further research is needed to clarify the effect that ambient noise has on cognitive flexibility as it applies to other, non-learning-based tasks

Take the last trail to Markville and I will meet you at the station.

With my apologies to the Monkees who in 1966 had a hit with Last train to Clarksville.

Some are born to greatness, some achieve greatness, but some have greatness thrust upon them. 

I opened the Curmudgeon Hall of Fame nearly 10 years ago now. My goal was to recognize true greatness among my fellow curmudgeons.

My standards are extremely high and as the only member of the nomination and membership committee, I could come up with only one individual worthy of recognition as being at the pinnacle of our kind.

I spotted what until yesterday was the only member of the HOF while walking the streets of Kona, Hawaii. Yes, I have traveled extensively in pursuit of those deserving of membership. “Surf Shop Guy” as he will always be known to me exhibits the characteristics of the ideal curmudgeon. You can just tell at a glance.

Yesterday, I was watching the inauguration of President Biden. The camera panned the crowd and then I saw him. I knew in an instant I had found the second member of the Hall of Fame. Everything about this image shouted extraordinary curmudgeon.

Quickly I called the nomination and membership committee into session and I made a decision. I introduce the incomparable curmudgeon, Bernie Saunders, and I bestow on Bernie hallowed membership in the Hall of Curmudgeon Fame.

Writing blog posts can result in the strange paranoia experienced by every creative. Will there ever be another interesting idea to write about? Whether you consider what I write about interesting or not, I am describing the personal fear no ideas I find interesting will jump into my head.

I have learned that the world is interesting enough to fuel ideas forever so you just have to relax and sooner or later – whoomp, there it is.

Ham hocks

You may be aware of the concern many have that their social media is spying on them. That their devices – Echo or Siri or whatever – are watching and listening.

We had ham hocks and beans for dinner last night. We purchased a hog to help out a farmer in the early days of the pandemic and we are getting down to some of the components we don’t eat and never purchase. Cindy found these ham hocks buried in our freezer and found a recipe she prepared. The ham hocks and beans were great.

This morning I find this in my news feed. This simply seems too weird. I did not search to help Cindy find a recipe and we each have our own technology equipment. There must be some connection here I don’t understand.

Anyway, I have been shouting random things at the Echo when I get bored with what I am watching on television. Snickers! Mint and chocolate chip ice cream! Let’s see what will show up tomorrow.

Social media services have been blamed for many things. In my way of thinking, it is important to different the privacy/manipulation of what is viewed issue from the inappropriate content issue. Section 230 is most directly about the second issue.

The problem with inappropriate content is that the government and individuals want to have someone to blame when inappropriate content appears. It is easy to blame the social media companies as they are there and associated with what folks see. However, the source of the inappropriate content is not the social media company, but the individuals who have posted the content. Presently, these individuals are difficult to identify and this anonymity allowing freedom from legal responsibility is the core problem. It seems there are two possible remedies; a) a system that only allows content posts from authenticated users or b) some system of moderation.

I assume both systems are necessary. Anonymous posts allow individuals who believe they must remain anonymous to post without identification. A spouse hiding from someone intended them harm is a common example. Individuals persecuted by a government is another. Potentially, systems could be created such that the social host service could still require authentication, but not reveal this information to the public or to governments. There are reasons not to trust this option as perfect, but many cases could be covered in this manner.

Moderation implies that a representative of the social service reviews content before it is posted to the public. The size of this task in some companies and the willingness of companies to take on this responsibility are legitimate barriers. This would seem a task with a predictable failure rate that means it would require funding beyond the labor involved to cover legal fees and payments in the cases a judgement goes against the company. I see two options – perhaps the cost of moderation could be paid by users. This would require prepayment that would be drawn to compensate reviewers. The second alternative would be for the companies to make a reasonable financial allotment for moderation and the content requiring moderation would be addressed at the pace these individuals could get to the material.

Are these perfect solutions and would the solutions allow equitable access? No and not completely. Speed of presentation would be an issue. Addressing the funding issue would be a great job and service creator. Companies wanting to offer authentication services could be created. Moderators could be hired.

Authentication as a service exists. For example, any of us wanting to fly must take the responsibility for authentication. Participation in social media may appear trivial in comparison, but it seems likely some action will be mandated. To repeat something I keep saying – don’t expect free.