Birth Rates and Long-Term Growth

I brought this up as a question in class on Tuesday but I wanted to post the article here on the topic.  Essentially, it details how falling birth rates will have long-term economic implications in developed countries as the number of people who are able to join the workforce decreases, despite the short-term benefits of decreasing fertility rates.

Dropping birth rates threaten global economic growth (Nancy Strumwasser)

As a further discussion on this article, we seem to be in a moral conundrum in terms of our Earth's future.  On one hand, we cannot continue to sustain our development and destruction of the world's resources, but on the other we are causing human society a different type of long-term harm by forcing the remaining population to shoulder the economic burden of decreased economic growth. One needs to look no further than Japan and Russia to understand the strain this could possibly cause future generations once the large working-class population retires and leaves a smaller group behind.

What do you think?  Is there a way we can go beyond the birth rate problem to simultaneously allow us to lower birth rates to conserve resources while keeping our economies large enough to sustain us?  Or will we have to choose one of these two options and be left wondering which one would actually have caused less overall loss of welfare?

Population Control - More Info

It is a certainty that this Earth will eventually run out of resources for us to use. The question then becomes - How pressing an issue is it? Some will argue that humans have always found a way to adapt to our situation and create new technologies that allow us to keep procreating. Link 1 shows a study that accounts for these advances in technology, and indicates that we have still consumed more than we have produced for each year in the last 3+ decades. If we believe this, there is no question that one of two things must be done. Either we reduce consumption per person, or we reduce the number of people consuming. Because humanity does not like to revert to a lower standard of living when it has already had a taste of the higher, I'll focus on the latter option. 

Let's take it as a fact that we need to do something to mitigate the growth rate of the human population. There is a myriad of options and issues that we face. The most obvious policy would be to increase contraceptive (and information on how to use them) distribution to those that want it. The government is already involved in such "passive" population control through their funding of Planned Parenthood. Link 2 below shows a paper that has collected data on unplanned pregnancies and their proportion to total pregnancies. In each region of the world the rate of unexpected pregnancies is above 30%. Increased distribution of contraceptives and information could realistically reduce this value to 10% or even to 5%. The size of this reduction in the birth rate might be large enough to ensure the government would not have to insert itself into "active" population control.

But of course, that is where the interesting conversation is. If we decide that it is beneficial to reduce the growth rate and "passive" efforts aren't doing enough, how do we restrict the births to parents that want to have children. Certainly proposals like forced sterilization and forced abortion cannot be considered because each is a direct violation of one's right to their body. Even more realistic proposals like issuing birth credits (for more info, see Link 3), face issues, albeit with a chance at acceptable modifications. Some may scoff at this idea and suggest that we are implementing the next Chinese one child policy and that's almost exactly what it would be (more of a ~2.3 child policy, but with the same idea of restricting births). The only difference is that, if enacted in the United States, we have the ability to mitigate the problems that were discussed in the Case Study of the presentation. Instead of jailing people under the threat of forced sterilization or forced abortion, we just impose fines on those who exceed their allotment. Instead of the favoring of boys, the increased gender equality in the West would lead to a more balanced gender birth rate (although I think we still have some more work to do with regards to this). 

All in all, I think it's an issue that is coming into the foreground, not only as we have more children, but also as those children live for more extended periods of time. One day - maybe even in our lifetime - the human race will need to create policies on such an issue. By talking about it now, we can ensure that the future generations have thought through the topic and are in the best position to make their decision.

[1] http://www.pnas.org/content/99/14/9266.full.pdf+html

[2] http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/j.1728-4465.2014.00393.x.pdf

[3] http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/birth-credits-population-control

Ticket Scalping

In the group presentation there was a topic on the use of private websites like ticketmaster and stubhub that are legal to sell to the public that I thought was incorrect. If I remember correctly the group said that prices on these websites are monitored so that they is no obscene mark up for individuals to monopolize on. Well this is slightly incorrect. The New York Rangers made it all the way to the Stanley Cup Finals last year in the NHL playoffs and played against the Los Angeles Kings. The ticket prices in the two biggest cities in the United States NY and LA were no where near eachother. The average seat was nearly 3x as expensive in NY then in LA. Stubhub is simply a legal market to sell the product it doesn't prevent outrageous markup because based on the market the product is in people will pay for it. I know I was looking for tickets but saw there was no way to afford them. StubHub is a great way to sell tickets if you can't make it to a game but the markups are still there and no way to stop this process as of now. As an ex season ticket holder to the NYR I know how the prices for tickets change each round of the playoffs  but in the conference finals and Finals the average fan could not afford the markup of these tickets being resold to the public. I don't think this is a crime in any fashion. I believe it is more of an auction to see who is willing to pay to go see an event that may not happen that often. Supply and demand as they say. This was just my thoughts after seeing the presentation

Patent Law

In my discussion with the Patent Law group and Professor Tresan I came to realize that my argument was following the wrong perspective. It was not utilitarian based but rather Lockean in sense of one has the right to the fruits of his labor. In the open discussion I put forth in class there was a case of Apple v Creative Tech in which Apple took the menu program from Creative Tech and was fined 100 million dollars for it. Now obviously one has the right to protect their own creations but who wins in this case. Creative tech in a sense put down the foundation for an operating scheme of Apple's. Apple has made billions off their creation of the ipod but creative tech has no where to be found since 2006. Shouldn't Creative Tech at least have some stock in the matter, after all it was there program that was used in the ipod. Otherwise why should companies even create products for sale when they could simply just focus on what corporations need. Example like programming and networking in which companies sell individual needs/services to other companies but don't produce any good. Therefore they are always protecting themselves from copyright issues and are providing there own service and receiving pay (the fruit) for there labor.

More Information about the Netherlands' Drug Laws, et al.

Just to put forth a bit more information about the Netherlands (if anyone has a passing interest):

The drug laws (or lack thereof) passed in the Netherlands are perhaps the most lenient in the world. Marijuana is almost entirely legal, both for consumption and sale, so long as one isn't a major international trafficker. The laws themselves technically forbid the sale of cannabis, and therefore have no regulatory agencies in place to set standards for health and acceptability--but almost exclusively minor drug dealers are left quite alone. This is pursuant to a topic I mentioned briefly in class, that the country as a whole takes an entirely different approach than do America and similar countries: the government wants to create a culture and atmosphere wherein it is socially acceptable, generally, to use drugs recreationally. Even for what we probably consider a "major" or "hard" drug, cocaine, there is almost no criminal prosecution in the Netherlands, because its harmful health effects are largely unproven to be severe. Perhaps the most interesting part of these "pro-drug" policies is the lack of a normative moral component that we would be shocked to find in America. Users of hard drugs, even the most extreme a la PCP or heroin, aren't shunted into a substratum of society--rather, they are allowed to seek treatment, provided by numerous health agencies and society at large, without being judged as morally reprehensible for their actions. I'm going to copy/paste a bit here from my notes (sorry, Professor Tresan and Jarod) for some fascinating statistics:

o   “Fewer young people are becoming addicts”—this is of utmost importance

§  Average age of drug addicts continues to go up across W. Europe

o   Only .6% of people in a survey claimed to have used cocaine in the past month (or 1.2% among the 20-29 Y.O. demographic, the highest number). Compare this to 1.5% total in America

o   Apparently 60-80% of Dutch drug addicts/users are frequent visitors to specialized health services, leading to their appearing “relatively well and sound”

o   Very interesting table:

§  22% of a heroin user’s income in the Netherlands comes from non-drug crime; 43% in NYC. 18%/17% respectively for income from drug dealing. However, there is a massive spike in pimping/prostitution for the Dutch: 22%/7%. Very telling aspect: 28% in Netherlands comes from public support; 11% for NYC

o   “It has widely been observed that the Dutch drug market is relatively peaceful”

§  15 deaths from 1980-1988 related directly to drug distribution; +32 with possible ties

§  135 total criminal deaths in that period

§  Only TWO dead policemen in that time in that space—that’s outstanding

A major reason why the amount of violence is so low among drug-related offenses is simply because there is no more motivation for the introduction of aggressive tendencies in the selling of drugs. In a way, the dealers (though technically guilty of misdemeanor level crimes!) are incentivized to not perpetrate violence, because they'll be left alone as long as they stick to what they're best at. By the same token, recreational users, and even addicts, are less prone to be "swept up in the system," to quote the Drug Laws group, because of the leniency towards the small-time use of drugs--and thus a decrease in "street life" violence (if I may be so politically incorrect).

That's all I'll post for now--but there's a lot more. If anyone has any more interest in this topic, leave a comment and I'll see if I have anything pertinent to your request.

Mandatory Vaccinations furthering the point

Today during the mandatory vaccination Q & A session I could tell that there didn't seem to be much, if any, objections to mandatory vaccinations. I have this same belief, if we want society to be healthy and safe we should be using simple techniques such as vaccinations to ensure this. However I want to raise the most common objection to mandatory vaccinations which is, don't we have a right to personal liberty?

As I talked this over with Professor Tresan the other day he brought up a good point, if one individual says they aren't going to get vaccinated will that really change the outcome? And the short answer to this is no, one person choosing to not vaccinate won't effect the overall vaccination efforts. But than doesn't this lead to a slippery slope? If one person chooses not to vaccinate than why should anybody have to vaccinate? I'd love to hear what everybody else thinks about this issue...

A Defense of the Death Penalty

In this blog I will bring forward some questions and objections I had to the Capitol Punishment group's presentation. I will start off with the question of deterrence. The majority of studies that have been released on capitol punishment's ability to act has a deterrence have largely agreed that it is not an effective deterrence. However and endless amount of these studies do so by comparing the rate of capitol crimes of non Death penalty states with death penalty states. They seem to always conclude that the death penalty is no different than other forms of deterrence. But that is just it. It serves as well as a deterrence as states without it. So it may not function as a better deterrence but it seems to be at least equal when compared to other states punishments as deterrence. When this has been established it is no longer a question of which is a better deterrence but which option is the best option drawing on other reasons. One reason that comes into question is cruelty.
        The group quoted a supreme court justice as saying it is a cruel form of punishment. While this is only a small point it is worth noting that the supreme court as a whole as decided that lethal injection is not a cruel and unusual punishment. Now this decision is not final and the Court has the ability to reverse this decision. So lets look ourselves as to if we should believe that the death penalty is cruel or even cruel when compared to its alternatives. One objection was that the death penalty is often more cruel than the crimes they committed. They did this by comparing the process of capitol punishment to the murder of the victim. Saying that often the innocent didn't know they were going to die however the one being punished has to know months in advance they are going to die. And somehow this is more cruel than the crime they committed so Capitol punishment is unreasonable cruel. This line of argument I contest is absurd. The reason the crime was so awful was because it was the taking of innocent life. The idea that a person life which was wrongfully taken from them is less cruel than the legal process of punishment for that crime is not only a cruel comparison but misplaced. This idea of length of time the innocent knew of his death and the amount of horror they felt is somehow less than that of the convicted criminal is not a matter of fact but faith. The  feelings of the victim at the time of the crime should not be compared with the feelings of regret or despair that the murder feels as a result of his punishment. I would challenge anyone who truly thinks so should try and tell the proposed comparison to the victims of a murder and still think the comparison is not absurd. Furthermore i would contend that the alternatives to the death penalty are equally if not more cruel.
        The alternatives to the death penalty are life in prison with and without parole. One of their arguments were that death penalty is unnecessary for self defense and so we should save human life when we can. However if we truly want to defend human life above all else then we must isolate these murderers who are a danger to it. Often leading to life without parole and solitary confinement. Solitary confinement is one of the most cruel punishments unimaginable. It completely removes human dignity and breaks the prisoner down mentally. If we are truly concerned about cruel and unusual Solitary confinement takes the cake. Here is an relevant quote from an article on PBS and the interviewee.  

"Stuart Grassian, a board-certified psychiatrist and a former faculty member at Harvard Medical School, has interviewed hundreds of prisoners in solitary confinement. In one study, he found that roughly a third of solitary inmates were “actively psychotic and/or acutely suicidal.” Grassian has since concluded that solitary can cause a specific psychiatric syndrome, characterized by hallucinations; panic attacks; overt paranoia; diminished impulse control; hypersensitivity to external stimuli; and difficulties with thinking, concentration and memory. Some inmates lose the ability to maintain a state of alertness, while others develop crippling obsessions. “One inmate I interviewed developed some obsession with his inability to feel like his bladder was fully empty,” Grassian told FRONTLINE. “Literally, that man spent hours, hours, 24 hours a day it was on his mind, hours standing in front of the toilet trying to pee … He couldn’t do anything else except focus on that feeling.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/criminal-justice/locked-up-in-america/what-does-solitary-confinement-do-to-your-mind/

My question to the group then would be how could the death penalty be a less attractive alternative when compared to this? If we imagine a person who would be tortured day in and day out of the rest of their existence, it would be less cruel to kill them. Of course this is subjective and not based on fact but at the very least this method reduces the people in question to less than human. The constant but dull attack on the human psyche as a result of complete confinement will never leave these people and the end result of death is the same. So it introduces unnecessary cruelty to the process.  I will move on to some more quick and small questions and objections.

They briefly discussed that a mentally handicapped person was executed and that this is unfair and cruel, I agree and so does the Supreme Court. Atkins v. Virginia 2002 ruled that execution of mentally retarded was unconstitutional. However if it still happens not a point against Capitol punishment but for better regulations. 

The question of the possibility of killing an innocent is a good concern. However we have many systems in place that have similar dangers yet we do not question the legitimacy of them. We could save a couple of innocents by completely abolishing active police enforcement that sometimes results in innocent death. However we maintain it for the greater good. The same thing can be said for the death penalty. More attractive alternative than life without parole and Solitary confinement, and guarantees the safety of the vast majority. Furthermore there was only data on those released due to DNA evidence, no evidence of an innocent actually dying unjustly.  

As for the question of socioeconomic status and race. Any objection to these being used to unfairly decide for the death penalty is also true of all alternatives. Also the data was not whether or not they were convicted, but simply whether the death penalty was pursued. If we eliminate alternatives to an extent it will remove the chance of bias to an extent. Finally the socioeconomic point is no longer that strong with the recent emergence of the public defender. 

This will be my final point. There is a distinction between killing and murder.Killing is not the same as murder so the contradiction of the government for killing a murderer does not exist. We have many exceptions in our law when killing someone is permitted or permissible. War, self defense, euthanasia in some states. Our law does not specifically outlaw killing, but murder. 

I was thinking about the ticket scalping presentation today and comparing it to something I saw on the news over the weekend regarding the sale of Lilly Pulitzer goods at Target for a limited edition collection. For those who don’t know about Lilly Pulitzer, it is a high-end designer brand whose main collection typically ranges from $100-$300 per piece.  However, their partnership with Target had new dresses all available under $40. These products sold out within hours of sales on Sunday (when it hit stores/ online). However, there were major issues with people purchasing large quantities of the products and reselling them on Ebay at a much higher price.

Here is a thought on the outcome of the Target-Lilly partnership in regards to exclusivity:

“ ‘The more popular it is at Target, the worse it is for Lilly Pulitzer the brand…You see the same things happen with the outlets for some brands. Look at what happened to Coach; their outlet business went like hotcakes because you were getting Coach bags at the third of the price and, long term, it hit the exclusivity of their core business. Part of what drives high-end fashion is exclusivity.’ ”

Here is a thought on the outcome of the purchase and resale of Lilly Pulitzer brands on Ebay at significantly higher prices:

“Lee Yohn says she thinks that the collaborations are often a win-win, the designers can promote their brand and reach a different customer base while the Targets of the world can elevate their retail brand by association with the high end and exclusive. However, there is a downside to the frenzy: the reselling (and requisite marking up) of these hot-ticket items on sites like eBay. "That is less of a win for the retailer and the designer, because then it diminishes the strategy they are trying to implement."

Lee Yohn said that while it might inspire a raft of social media criticism, to protect the equity of the brand, next time, Target might want to look into setting a limit on how many items people could purchase. ‘In the long run, it might be a smarter way to do it.’”

So my questions are these:

1: Would you say this is a similar formula to what happens with ticket scalping?

2: Do you think the different industries (fashion v. entertainment/special events) make reselling better or worse for either? Does the importance of exclusivity in the fashion industry make it different from the reselling of ticket sales?

3: Do you think Target should have, as Lee Yohn suggested, set a limit on how many items people could purchase in order to prevent resale?

I’d be really interested to hear your thoughts! For more info here is the link to the article I referenced: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/245290

Here is another article specifically about reselling LP on eBay: http://www.phillymag.com/shoppist/2015/04/20/the-10-most-insane-lilly-pulitzer-for-target-auctions-on-ebay-right-now/