11–20 of 35 posts
Maybe a solution would be: JailTime = MinJailTime * Last7YearsConvicted
> Of course, evaluating whether the therapy itself was the relevant factor here is pretty messy. There’s a lot to these classes other than CBT, and on the surface it looks like a lot of these things could have impacted the results: The programs were administered by adults, who could have created a “generic mentorship effect.” Or maybe simply requiring that they show up to class week after week taught participants sel…
> Of course, evaluating whether the therapy itself was the relevant factor here is pretty messy. There’s a lot to these classes other than CBT, and on the surface it looks like a lot of these things could have impacted the results: The programs were administered by adults, who could have created a “generic mentorship effect.” Or maybe simply requiring that they show up to class week after week taught participants sel…
Maybe a solution would be: JailTime = MinJailTime * Last7YearsConvicted
This is interesting. I want to try CBT myself. I am not prone to violence (thank god) but I do have some bad habits I want to get rid of, such as procrastination.
Interesting takeaways: * They mentioned some degree of "mentorship effect", but didn't clarify how they controlled for this. * Cash handouts (ie, basic income) prevented desperate measures. The societal cost of the cash could be less than the aggregate cost of the crimes.
> The societal cost of the cash could be less than the aggregate cost of the crimes This is the idea behind a basic income. Some experiments are also finding it cheaper to just give people houses than to continue to run homeless outreach programs.
Economically, there are a lot of costs that are taken out of the system if we implement basic income, everything from means-tested support (the means testing is very expensive and prone to fraud, etc), to crime that you mention, to the terrible and yet unmeasured opportunity cost of still having the majority of the population working in jobs they hate but need to survive. Imagine a world where everyone is working on something they've chosen to do, which they can feel passionate about (and yes, I do believe people can feel passionate about any job that has a useful purpose, including picking up trash, cleaning the streets, and all those other currently low-status jobs).
The moral side is equally important, though. We live in a society where we don't need everyone to work, not even close. A great many people today work in jobs whose only purpose is to exist as jobs, which don't actually have a net benefit to society other than keeping people out of unemployment. Many others are unable to contribute to society because their skills are not in demand, thanks to automation, outsourcing, etc. Those people are currently made to feel morally guilty for not working, their self-worth as human beings is attacked, debased. This is fundamentally wrong, and is the major challenge of our generation: transforming from a society that liberally distributes shame to people who are not in a position to work for money, to a society that accepts that paid work is just one of the activities a human being might partake in in their life, and neither necessary nor the highest.
If we fail at this challenge, the cost will be unrest, perhaps revolution, probably a regression in the progress of mankind.
We have a tough few decades ahead.
Interesting takeaways: * They mentioned some degree of "mentorship effect", but didn't clarify how they controlled for this. * Cash handouts (ie, basic income) prevented desperate measures. The societal cost of the cash could be less than the aggregate cost of the crimes.
> The societal cost of the cash could be less than the aggregate cost of the crimes This is the idea behind a basic income. Some experiments are also finding it cheaper to just give people houses than to continue to run homeless outreach programs.
A system where you just pay those that don't have a job a minor income would be enough to stop desperate people from doing desperate things. The reason it makes sense is because the consequences of these desperate acts are more expensive than the payment to stop them from happening
Maybe a solution would be: JailTime = MinJailTime * Last7YearsConvicted
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The societal cost of the cash could be less than the aggregate cost of the crimes This is the idea behind a basic income. Some experiments are also finding it cheaper to just give people houses than to continue to run homeless outreach programs.
It's part of the idea behind basic income. There are two major angles I think: economic and moral. Economically, there are a lot of costs that are taken out of the system if we implement basic income, everything from means-tested support (the means testing is very expensive and prone to fraud, etc), to crime that you mention, to the terrible and yet unmeasured opportunity cost of still having the majority of the popu…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's part of the idea behind basic income. There are two major angles I think: economic and moral. Economically, there are a lot of costs that are taken out of the system if we implement basic income, everything from means-tested support (the means testing is very expensive and prone to fraud, etc), to crime that you mention, to the terrible and yet unmeasured opportunity cost of still having the majority of the popu…
I agree with the premise that there will be fewer jobs but not that basic income is the solution . Not working can be very unhealthy for most people and I imagine people doing nothing instead of being "artists and scientists".