« The Weeds

Ask Weeds Anything...Again!

2018-06-15

Sarah, Dara and Matt answer your questions.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
We, too, how helpless lets us I see a girl. You know at a certain point, I gotta go see my son hello, welcome to another press over the weeds and a box media podcast network, not just any episode but ask the weeds anything Matthew, glaziers your darlin instead club. We are here to answer questions so without further ado, let's just let's get into it, you and ass, the first twenty Armenia loving showered with one there was for the whole group that I think is nice. Matt Bellinger asks. If you could assign one book to every journalism student, but would it be and why don't start
I'm gonna start otherwise mats going to take my actually met might not take my answer, but I know that the last time I hoped this book in a box, and ass, I had to beat multiple other vocs writers to being the wonder. I bet ghetto side by Jill of e who, as Rapporteur for the delay times for awhile and gave herself a beat of reporting on every homicide in allay essentially for several years and then came out with a book. That's a work of narrative journalism. Vit draws on the sources that she de L over that time, but is also these single best portrait of De Underpants in over policing paradox in minority communities where be cops, go it going in and arresting people in a broken windows level. Offence is gives aim. It makes me material problem for actual homicide, detectives trying to self people getting killed
those communities not only as an extremely good work of policy journalism, but her second chapter is basically a later if you like, it's very excessively written, but it's exactly the sort of structure that you'd seen and academic book, and it gives a very robust, theoretical context to stuff without her having to over explain throughout the rest of the book and screw up the narrative flow. It's really hard to do both narrative journalism, an explanatory journalism. I personally haven't master that. Yes, there is much better at it, but I would you leave recommend that as a book, it that's a model of how to do both at once time. Also gonna go with a work of narrative journalism. It's the book in the band played on by Randy's shots, which is he was a report of the San Francisco Chronicle, who covered the AIDS epidemic air in the recent I'd recommend this book is I've never found a work of narrative journalism. Preventing as this one
so entranced this book, which is like eight hundred pages long download the audio books. I can listen to it when I was commuting or when I was walking. I think it is an important book for journalism, students, because you really see how to take a real life story and turned into a really enraptured ring narrative, and I think that book is something to aspire to you as a journalist, and it was just amazing how he took reporting and unit, took the AIDS epidemic and just made it this book I could not put down so I go with an the ban, plays on the Linux. These folks are, I would say, broadly similar actually did why we're recommending them, but my choice should be Jason to Piles book american dream. This again is a book that combines really good. Narrative. Journalism is about welfare reform, and it combines really good narrative journalism about women on the old, a hefty c program, with good narrative journalism about the political.
nations within this is important with really good analytic journalism about you know statistically like what do we know about this this whole of our process. I think a lot of people more analytic. People like me, struggle to tell human stories and other people were good human storytellers really struggled to. it, provide analysis that clarifies that the significance of the stories in and he really delivers, every question that questions of exit, of this paragraph and whether we are doing it all wrong. High visitor, from Boston one time listener first time collar. Why whose two podcast about the weeds policy? If you believe that the major problems of american politics or institutional nature hack, we get people and politicians interested and advocating for institutional changes, rather than just I'll see changes some matches? I think the answer to this
that policy affects people's lives and matters to people. I think there's there is a tendency among people for whom this is kind of people, who were of a more cold and intellectual back, for whom politics and policy our interests to think that the most important question you can ask about given story is: why is this happening? What is the root of this and you know, she's kind of arrived at a route answer like oh, it's because their racists or oh, it's, because in the Philippines, has prevented Congress from making passing any real legislation and lasted several decades. That's an exaggeration that the point that they feel satisfied because they have the answer to the question that the actual changes that are made to the laws being made, the regulations being passed, the amounts of money that are being given to various people in various circumstances. What the government, is banging down your door and deporting your father in the middle of the night matter, much more than these structural conditions that created those realities.
a lot of people? So I see my others as kind of glorified service journalism. One of the most important things I can do is to make sure that people who are likely to be affected by policy, no, what that policy is and how its changing and what that means for them, and I think it's kind of incumbent on everybody else who wants to be an informed citizen to think about what government is doing through the lens of what is. truly happening to people whose lives are being shaped by this, and you know not only what are the things that I can do to affect that. But how can I be aware of policy is something that isn't just a parlor day. I like there is answer Scared does figure. I s. Interesting is interesting that, like I don't know this pike S about MIKE Roman history, its I have enjoyed listening to the horse now eminence direct question, o goody array. Dare you
this is from Stephen Gonzales when discussing policies do think much about values that might be difficult or impossible to measure compared to other costs or benefits, and one example he gives is the economic discussion of top marginal text. It could end with Perito up DE maladies are like these are real serious questions get on Facebook like picking Inequality could be treated as a Harmon of itself that should be more dramatically reduced, even if inefficient. The question that's actually being asked here. I think about it. It s an immigration reporter all the time and Answer is heck. Yes, like I often say that immigration debate facts are stalking horse for values. I really avoid writing b. No, actually, immigrants don't take your jobs, no actually, immigrants document more crimes goes, but
actually going on in those debates is that people have competing definitions of what they want, America to be and they're using policy to enact those. It's really important to examine what is the vision of America that somebody is putting forward when they endorse this point. and it's never really that intellectually honest to say. Well, if you care about this value, actually I'll see you endorse? Isn't the most efficient way to put it forward? If what saying is no, it's important for America to say make a statement about something that said. I often think that this question gets asked in the spirit of why are you as a journalist not weighing in on what the right values are Why are you as a journalist being caught up in questions of efficacy, and now imagining a more broadly what a just policy would look like and that
I think, is very dangerous territory. I tend to assume that you guys as an audience as listeners is right. There's no, what you're values are or the I'm not. The person is going to tell you what your values are, that you're gonna find that out some other ray. I thought my job is to end? My professional advantage is to help you say, okay if those are your values, what are the policies that are going to best reflect those or, conversely, if other people are endorsing policies that you don't agree with or not endorsing policies? You do agree with what are the values that are leading them to make those decisions? I think it's really important, not to kind of put it I'm on the scale and say well, regardless of what you think. This is what you should be endorsing, because this is the most just of all. Possible policies has financed. That's good answer. Everything are I'm going to ask me from Philip Thomas, why do so many liberal pundits insist on pretending that Donald
a brand and one due to a campaign based on a populist and heterodox economic message and that the key to winning and twenty he is pointing out his betrayal of that message, despite all the evidence pointing to his success bean You do a message of racial resentment and Hilary emails. That is a great question because I any beds, like a fundamental misunderstanding of what causal analysis of these campaign things tends to right. So I am a hundred percent. I am like absolutely one of thee. It was about racism, not economic anxiety, people, I'd like Britain that take I'm actually like a real hardliner on it.
But what that means is that when you do a statistical decomposition of like what are the determinants of Trump voting, it means that racial resentment factors explain a lot and objective economic deprivation explains nothing right trump. One because of racial resentment is to say that, statistically speaking, what impelled people to vote for tromp was rich resentment to an extent hostile sexism, which some people see is tied up with with the emails thing. On the other hand, if you ask yourself like how is it that Barack Obama got elected president twice, right is obviously not the case that there is a majority of the electorate that is like so irredeemably racist that they wouldn't vote for a black president why'd. You have to ask what changed in the messaging environment, and if you look at survey research that I've seen experimental evidence that I've seen
most persuasive democratic party messages are messages about social security and medical, and an important thing that Donald Trump did was by abandoning the Republican Party is positions on social Security and Medicare in favour of the democratic parties, more popular positions on social security and manicure. He greatly reduce the salience of social Security and Medicare as campaign issues and allowed other things to become more salient like racial resentment right. So recent resentment is what determines who votes for trump. But if you want to know why did Donald Trump win right? It's only racism did not exist in America before twenty sixteen or even that there was no
salience to it because, like the first black president was a big deal like people, people knew that was happening. He was, in fact, quite widely discussed, but it said Democrats used to have this very poor message around such as carroty Medicare Trump tried to take it away from them, Conor Lamb, who did not running its Donald Trump, but ran against a guy in Pennsylvania who had orthodox traditional republican stances on this. He he savaged Rick's acone on their staff and he won. He won over a group of people who were very inclined to vote for them from previously said. That is why I insist that trumps economic positions mattered. Even I also insist that racism is the key factor determining move for travel. I question the I again: I've been yearning for this to come up. I was so glad it did. Thomas brain asks wants tend to highlight the: U S is relatively high healthcare spending any s? What do the host to make of the argument that this is just a function of high average income in the United
so this is an argument. I think I've seen floating around economics blogs, there's one in particular because this is a lot of charts and grass to check and share in show notes, but equally. The idea is that the american Healthcare, It's on some big mystery. It reflects the fact that we have a lot more disposable income than other countries. and that we choose to spend that disposable income on health care. kind of air, I read at least when I read versions of this argument. The upshot is like well of that we choose to spend our money than like. Why is it some big policy problem either on the particulars of that you knew it is it reflection disposable income? I think at least partly sure that if you a country where people have more money. Healthcare is something that is alluring to spend money and, if you think of all the things you could spend money on something that buys you a healthier happier life like that seems like a pretty decent investment at
same time a lot of times? I read these arguments as well. This just because we have disposable income. That's not really a problem we need to work about. This is the statistics we should have for a country where people have the can income. that we have an eye tat. I don't agree with I think one of things, that's also true in the United States, is that with a lot of inequality of wealth. So even though we very high average disposable income that masks a lot of inequality, the people have lots and lots of disposable income and the people who do not have much disposed, One come at all. If we accept it may be that it is driven by a high amount of despair will income. That's really- situation for the people at the bottom of the income distribution and, unlike other, countries, whether it be some kind of safety net, some kind of national healthcare. damn providing some kind of base level of insurance. We don't have that here in the United States, so
in a way you know the argument of either if that is true, most find the argument a bitter all events to kind of what we do and I don't see it as a reason- to write off the hook, the debate and just say our prices are high because we're here, this was one country and that's just kind of the way things are that doesn't really work when you have so much inequality, which means a lot of people can't afford those really high prices that we have ended up with a kind of cost that's reverie, everybody now sure. Ok, let's go real deep on policy. Michael Paul asks what their candy. Does the weeds crew subscribe to other than sour patch kids? So I was not here for this hour ass kids discussion and I have always been onto you if its fruit flavoured it isn't secondary or illegitimate form of candy via
Well, I guess things gonna work. I am willing to admit that I was kind of a five year old at heart, but also, if you like fruit, you should eat fruits to sweep away I can't remember very fucking salaries have not yet what I think my preferred candy would probably be paid a bars which they now have in many version in the Box Dc Office, Hugh mongers problem for the record, because it's not chocolate, so you can almost four swayed yourself. That is the theory protein, but totally not given There can be that I know we're both on seems our kid. I, like, I also enjoy raising nets which divide between child in fruit based Gooch holiest opinion that you have ever ever endorse your entire public life career. Oh, my God now risen Do so good. That's really disturbing
is texting when my wife, before the Show- and I said she asked why was at my favorite question. I said it was a candy one and she said allow and then I said, I'm gonna go for reason ads and then she said. I got tired of looking for a raised eyebrows, Margie let them for many people, find this opinion of mine to be objectionable. Tray somehow, which was another question I am a big fan of thy caramel. These canned is like chocolate word caramel, not like a particular brand, but I think there's a reason. savage kids are still my number one like Switzerland. its long distance between here and there. But I go for some kind of like chocolate requirements situation. So chasm rash wanted to know what does the policy position you hold that you think weeds listeners may disagree with fine controversial
I'm sure, there's a lotta disagreement with my my reason that stance but I'll come on I'll come up with a real answer. But what would he that cigarette that I really struggle with the staff, because I dont ten to ask myself: you know what in a vacuum, what my policy positions are much less like go to other people, does, but my go to on this tends to be the I'm more in favour of government funding a faith based initiatives than the average bear tends to be. I think that there is like a long history of religious sponsored, nonprofit work and that, given the current structure of air, how nonprofits can best serve people, government aid, tax exemptions for religious groups and be in our actual funding of groups that have certain religious requirements is ends up helping more people in more ways than would be otherwise. I think this might be somewhat controversial and something I developed only after reading a lot of research over the past few years, but I've come to be pretty opposed to maternity leave on its
which is kind of weird things, byzantine, grunts pregnant to say. But I will say it says here in September. I worry that just pursuing maternity leave is only going to exacerbate the gender wage gap and make this a bigger and bigger problem, when you're gonna pull women out of the work as for a long period of time, and that kind of sets up this divide that we see in study after study that is the moment where kind of men and women salaries, diverge and men start earning much more in women earning much less, you know it would be hard. meta- support a policy that was just maternity leave without some kind of equal or nearly equal paternity leave, because I think, if you care about the gender wage Gap- and that is something that I do care about, that you need to equalize that guaranteeing and child rearing risk, stability at some level, so nervous,
white, politically populated, persevere, maternity leave, I like take. This is me saying like ethic maternity leave is a bad idea. I've mandated maternity leave would be a great idea. I think there should also be mandated paternity leave, because think if you're not going to The assumption that women are primary caregivers eat you kind of go down a dangerous path, just pursuing maternity leave, but he got math so this This came up briefly back back during one of several infrastructure weeks, but I think that there is scope for a lot more privatisation in transportation services than we have in the United States, and that includes things like airport infrastructure pieces like that, but also with mass Transit Age
see is that I think a lot of american liberals don't realize this, but around the world a lot of them most high performing mass transit systems are structured as private enterprises, and I think that what happens in the United States when you turn these things into public entities, they tend to become sort of de facto or at least primarily jobs programmes, and only secondarily. actual services and their treated as an economic sense. They regarded like their monopolist's but in fact, like you know, metro system in DC competes with cars right it's it's not really. I mean it is technically like a subway monopoly, but the it doesn't
sabena, monopolized market, and when you allow those kinds of entities to have private ownership, that's focused on cost effective service provision. You get more rider ship, you get more utility in the. U S model, you tend to get sort of over staffed and under provision to actual services, and at that, if I were that take nobody would share. It occurs. since a confirmed people's biases, but that's what I think I've I've got another one that I think go go to anybody. This is Joshua swayed, Sir evil, mid level regulation writer, what small tweet law such rules of the? U S which implement to customers chaos. This is my very favorite question and before until about ten minutes before we came in, I was convinced that I didn't have a name,
Do it, but I totally do go which one of the things that's one of the legal issues that come up in the fight over the travel ban is this thing called the doctrine of Consular, not a review ability, which is that if you get denied and application for a visa to come to the? U S, you can't just say I don't think this application should have been denied. I'm gonna take you to court. The executive branch has pretty unlimited, although not totally unlimited authority in rejecting particular views as if you got rid of doctrine and allowed people to just infinite the appeal individual visa rejections, you would cause absolute chaos, because there will be a lot of standing questions about who gets just you? There would be a lot of in a things that are currently maybe a little bit questionable if they were held a constitutional standards lake. Is it really ok to say that single woman from Vietnam is going to be a flight risk. If she comes to the United States and Europe
totally totally swamp the courts so you're getting rid of concern. I review ability would be salute havoc. Do you have right man, oh yeah, so I was concerned. I think that if you, if you think about the filibuster world that we have in the United States Senate, imagine applying that to stake what's to fight so that you would have the same kind of endless, really odd I've already granted that there exists everywhere. You know you get it just acts degree more chaos in basically every state, and I don't have that fully qualifies as a Mig love or regulation writer, but I think, port inferred structuring how we have I think about these things, especially as these days. You know, I've been a lot of weeds listeners, glad that the democratic Senate minority can filibuster staff- and you know I'm off in a cloud of that to on a sort of case by case level,
but it's like it's a decision rule that nobody would ever consider like applying elsewhere in neutral circumstances. Right like if you really know, nobody sincerely thinks that there should be sixty percent super majority requirements for decision making like that's, why no groups operate that way. State legislatures operate. That way like it's, it's a downright here. It's all do our health care. One out of this is like the most chaos writ large, but the most cares you could cause in health care that definitely belong to a mid level. Regulation writer is banning a practice that has been known as silver loading and requiring what we known as by voting, so silver loading started to happen when the trumpet stray got rid of those sharing production subsidies, these subsidies that go to low income Americans, who would get help paying for their debt, balls and copy meant the Trump administration and basic
stop paying those because there are some legal challenges that should have driven premiums up pretty significantly for a lot of people insurance company, understandably, said: well, we're not going to get this subsidy from the government. We will just get that money, consumers. But a lot of states did something kind of freely it a kind of work around where they put all the premium increase, as they told insurance companies. Ok, we know you need to increase your premiums. Put it off, on your silver mid level plans, because these are the plans that Obamacare subsidies are tied to when premiums go up and over plans. The amount of subsidy people get goes up so premiums twenty percent subsidies go between percent sudden, a lot of Obama care shoppers, heavy, more money to spend on health insurance. Taken by that a plan that got jacked up. They could, maybe even by a more generous gold plan because they have all this extra money, they make it a bronze plan for free, so that actually worked up pretty.
Secondly, while last year, the first year these subsidies weren't around one thing Trump Administration is thinking. One thing that but assigned to a mid level, nation writer is to end their prey since they all the premiums increases, have to be the same across all your plans. You can't just put it in this one place to draw down more subsidy, that would create a lot of chaos for Bombing Karen Release, it would drive a premiums or a lot of people would create a lot of chaos for insurance. Come these that have already started submitting the rate filing. So, if you wanted to like really meant who, though, Bobby guarantee real serious way. That is they thing I would do Matt. I want to ask you a question or gay: let's do what policies do you think? The? U S, Congress could pass to make housing more equitable and affordable throughout the country. That's from Zack Lebowski man, so many good policies
You know the first thing to remember. Reading the federal housing policy right is that, as a senior artificial once told me by far the most important federal housing policy, the United States is in the tax code, whether anything that- overseas ride. So the generous mortgage interest tax deduction encourages a lot of individual homeownership that should probably be scrapped in favour of some kind of flat housing assistance to everybody that could be used for rental or for homeownership, and that would be given to people on an equitable basis, rather than the way mortgage interest. Induction works, which are you are in the bigger your house The more subsidy you're getting belatedly Fanny main fretting MAC intervene very aggressively in in the market to effect subsidize mortgages for
while I you know which is good is it? Is a nice benefit for for the middle class, but involves a lot of sort of hidden risk? I would get rid of that. The budget treatment of it is a little fuzzy, but you would want to put those kind of resources into helping state in city governments build mixed income housing projects for people rather than
The June list can a home purchases then last, but importantly, right now. The way federal transportation funding works. Basically, is that states get money in proportion to how much gasoline tax revenue is collected from those states? I so that, basically like states where we will drive a lot they get on money back. I think federal transportation money should be given to states on more of a forward looking basis, so a state that is expected to have a lot more people. Ten years from now, like Arizona should get a disproportionate amount of money to meet its growth needs outwards. Estate, like Massachusetts or Illinois. That's growing very slowly should get less money because are not taken new people, and that would give states an incentive of fiscal incentives to encourage population growth, which right now does not exist
I am sure that that would be like like a huge game changer, but in general of you think like what is the federal interest in providing transportation revenue at all read some of it is just like a job creation thing, but then it is a matter where it goes, but he should go to places that are attracting people right. Now, that's a certain number of sunbelt states, but it could very much be high income coastal states if those states wanted to create more housing- and this should be incentivize to do it. I have two questions on ass. Their own example, I'm going to ask is whether a short either. This is starfish our calling from Cambridge Massachusetts when a somewhat silly and not at all policy related question, an avid listener of both worldly and the weeds, and my level shows it drives me crazy that there appears to be no consensus that talks about how Missus Lynde pronounces her name, some hosting DORA, somehow say Dara. As someone who has had his name mispronounced their whole life, I would so appreciate
answer once and for all as it Dara or is it DORA at least one inquiring mind wants to know thanks so much. They loved this question because I do not have an answer to it, which is the most frustrating thing. I think that I think matters and as belt personally embarrassed unnecessarily. You and we did, though live weeds last fall and the amounts pronounced differently and Matt went oh, my gosh and pronouncing in IRAN for several years. The story here is that I grew up in Ohio, but my parents are both new Yorkers to a certain extent, my mother, it's better adult life there. My father grow there. I so vague named me, Dara, like the asian cat or an apple and really fine. You it's an unusual name, but people can handle it. The thing is that only people from the New York area can consistently do that or think of that is a natural way to pronounce someone's name So most everyone else splits. Fifty fifty between Dara Andorra, neither of which is the way my parents say it. So I grew up kind of being kind of
What are you about it saying? No, my name's Dara! I was so he child actress not like in any if Syria sense, but was daylight, came in the theater and stuff and at some point in middle school back to me that I hadn't gotten apart, because the director had assumed I hadn't attitude because of the way corrected her pronunciation of my name on the audition at which, when I just kind of decided that it wasn't worth it, learn to roll with it. At this point, I legitimately don't notice how people pronounced my name. I was told that my voicemail message pronounced two different ways. At one point, I've been with my partner for over years now, and I cannot tell you how he pronounces it. So Unfortunately, that is not a good answer for people who are like trying to you no actual without gray but its, but it's a much easier way to go through life than just being mad at everybody all the time for not being able to reproduce phoning. That, apparently, is specific to the York area like big water. Ok, ok. That was, though, those my first question
if you look up the Wikipedia article on vow mergers before Interpol, could such a good discussion of this phenomenon. It often comes I've been working towards Mary, Mary and Mary, which those the New York area pronounces three distinct vowels, but many people have only to obey. Here is a question of easier for you: can't immigration policy be de federalized. Yes, that's nice. The question is, though this usually comes up in the context of states saying we would like to admit more. Illegal immigrants are often to work in particular industries. In that context, I understand where it's coming from its a fine idea, but nine times out of ten the actual problems that people bring up is like. Oh states should be able to deal with this rather than the federal government. The problem isn't that the federal government has control. The problem is that people
on work. Visas are beholden to particular employers, and that is a big problem for mobility for meeting demand. Arguably fur employee rights bet it's very difficult for me to imagine a world where allowing states to issue visas rather than the federal government, while still having people beholden to those particular employers actually solves the problem. There dissolve the other direction that this can go in, though, is how you treat. Immigrants were already there and We are already seeing a little bit of effort on this. Unlike immigration enforcement with attempts to you know, obligate local officers to enforce immigration law. That seems to me to be the hardest way to do things, because immigration law is extremely complicated and asking in oh eight. Cop being trafficked, stop to know when somebody's DE portable is not something that is very easy or a realistic to do, but I do think that there
already. Some efforts that have been made in will probably see more in terms of what public benefits to immigrants on various statuses get what rights to immigrants on various statuses have. I would be surprised if we didn't see a serious effort at allowing unauthorized immigrants to vote in local and in a city like New York in the next decade, you know, I think it's a leave. It can happen, but the thing I would flag for people who see this as a way to you know improve immigrants. Rights is that it's not likely that it's only gonna happen in one direction. It's it's going to be read. States restricting the extent to which, like green card holders or legal immigrants who aren't permanent, who don't have a permanent path to citizenship, can have public benefits, preventing people from renting to unauthorized emigrants a lot of that stuff and I'm not sure from a inner utilitarian perspective. If there's enough that blue states in cities can do to expand rights, that's going to
meet the extent to which read, states and cities can restrict them. I say we got so many single, particularly that others do I am even understand how we have we learnt them altogether. but I m. So I think you wanted to day together. Sean Matthew asks whether if we take it as a given, these sanders slash canadian model of healthcare other their different when not be tenant. Above for the United States, what countries mental health care would be most pray, nickel and Natalie Snyder must know what could be the most negative consequences of single pair health care. So I guess these are what started shill neoliberal complicate. This can come up with some,
dutch nonsense, probably I was even go german and dutch work under the same exactly so. To kind of take these the other, the Natalie question kind of goes to the premise of Sean's question. I think that one of the biggest challenges single pair is the amount of disruption that it would cause in this system. That would be a really really big shift to move from a system that has very privatized, very much dependent on private insurers. waste, a sum that is run by you know if we're going with the cinders model, the National Guard, never going with Katy one the Bay state or provincial level government. I don't say it can't be done. Does I, who knows, and maybe that's possible, but I no, I think, back to when cancellation notices went out to a few million people whose policies we're not renewed under Obamacare and is just like a huge mass police, D, you know the Obama's region and to back off a certain
Obama care delay them a little bet. I think of that for three hundred and fifty million people, I think that's, really challenging obstacle to overcome and maybe there is There- there are a lot of different plans are now that have different glide path. So maybe there is one that works, but I think that is one of the big challenges and one of the possible negative consequences. So if we're going to say that doesn't work for Us met my thoughts on this too, but I can't think of a system like that german or swiss systems as the ones that are most plausible. to see in the United States? These are basically really title: regulated private insurance market. So the government is not running health, insurance, it is doing a lot of price setting work and it is telling insurance companies what they have to cover and how much they pay for. things, and then it is very, very strictly managed competition and Obamacare took us some level you know in in this direction.
and it mandated a certain set of benefits at on turns companies have to cover, for example, it did not do any sort of price regulation. It did require insurance companies to spend eighty percent premium dollars on actual medical care, verses, profits, administration and other things. They spend money on so Obamacare definitely moved in that direction, and so, when I think of you know all the country there that we think of as Universal universal coverage, Countries I think of one like Germany or Switzerland. as the model that might be easier to import into the United States. That's gonna, get that. I don't know I've changed my mind about this a lot, but I think that, given the political potency of Medicare as a single pair system for people over the age of sixty five, I think has become
that like Democrats are not going to give up on that vision where it like? They are not going to strike a deal for Paul Ryan type plan to privatized Medicare, because it already exists so against AIDS and feasible and its super popular. So you want to keep one it and it's like its popular, its efficient and well liked by its customers that there's no good reason to give it up. But at that point, you're saying what does it make two forever have a fragmentary system which will create like a german style hybrid, and then you turn sixty five and you like hop onto the single payer system and, like that's a little weird too. I mourn more think that,
when, if like Medicare for all starting next week is not like a law that you can ever pass, that taking a program that exists and is popular and expanding it through some set of political guenaud argumentation is actually a reasonable kind of idea that, like the easier had not happened, tried like if there had been a law that, to cite made, I don't know. Do you even just like a lowered Medicare to sixty are something that you could just see a continual sort of gradual process, and I think that's where we're going waves, I give more candidates running automatic care for our slogan. I don't think that means like in twenty twenty one that bill will pass, but that they will pass something that moves in the direction of the goal they ve laid out. Ok, this actually plays into a question that I want to ask you guys cause. I don't have a good answer to it. This is from Fergus Mckenna
if you were a billionaire, what would be your cunning strategy to wield your influence and get all the policies you liked implemented? All of them over the them a big number. But I, would focus my donations. Incredibly heavily on local politics. So terms of I'm not gonna. Take this by issue but like where I would spend my money because again, you know going to mats point earlier airy and you do not have the gridlock of Congress in local politics in state houses and city councils, but they actually do Do a lot of stuff, there's a lot of stuff going on in states in cities and costly money to be really influential in those places. So, if, up to me. If I were a millionaire and I had a lot of policy goals to pursue, I would really focus on unduly
like trying to dominate certain states. Are cities, verses, training of for Congress, where there's gridlock and a lot more money competing with my billionaire money. Here I mean this alone like a specific strategy, but I guess I guideposts rider, like you, want to put money in where there isn't a lot of money, so that means local races, overstate races over federal races. It means giving the first ten thousand dollar track. Two like an issue topic rather than finding the most important issue that there's already fifty million dollars into the other thing. I would say that I think is something like a little under played is like. I would try to influence Republicans. You don't like if the issue with something at the very hard core, rather you're, not gonna, get Republicans to want abortion to be broadly legal or for rich people
pay lots of taxes. But I think there is in some ways more flexibility than people might imagine unkind of specific things and they are and try to build constituencies Atley inside that circle. Last but not least, I just think like spread your bats right like it's. It's easy to overestimate your own judgment and be like here's. The one thing and I'm gonna put my money into it and that's gonna be my cause and two instead try to say: look, here's fifty reasonable ideas and I'm gonna put some money behind all of them
hope that something you know catches fire in and goes there and that sea in part just about you know, spreading your work, but it's in part about having a little bit of humility about like, what's really feasible and and what's really important, and that the more you spread your eggs, the more likely you are actually accomplish something. Your question: that's not about policy at all. Tyler hell asks all of us. What is the last piece of media Book Movie TV show song, etc that you consumed, and what did you think of it? I may have stuck the deck on this one by deliberately listening to dirty computer virginal,
nay, all the way through again before coming in here, so that I could say that is my answer. I am not the first person to tell you all this, but it is a terrific pop album and its also really astounding, to see a black queer woman who hasn't done super straightforward. You know: bubble gum, sounding e pop in the past. Do that as an assertion that, like black, where women can have fun little bubblegum pop storylines to its, not just that there is a lot of stuff going on there. There is no accompanying kind of visual album with its also excellent, but that's probably going to be the only new album that I listened to for the next five years. If passed, trends are any indication, so you should get on it now. I've been waiting and was reading. Before before I came to work, Karen Boys is book, my european family, I say I apologize if I've totally butcher that name she's swedish and I have no idea how you pronounce swedish names.
but there's a book about ancient DNA research which swedish researchers, what one of the main leaders in and it sort of mixes like personal story of of researching her own genealogy and the historical development of of this new science, which is like telling us an enormous amount about human origins and the trajectory of of the overall global human population. Either we didn't know about before it is a very interesting subject- has no discernible relationship to the weeds or my work, which is great. So I listen to an album by the ban, jukebox the ghosts called after the races, it's their newest, album, and I have nothing We have to say I just really enjoyed the other, so perhaps you might as well a values. Who's got another question man. I had something else that I wanted to ask man. Oh oh man. This is from Nick Bentley our campaign finance laws effectively discouraged.
non wealthy people from running for office. You I mean, I think that they are, I think, there's something weird if you think about what you people worry about about the campaign finance system like what we worry about is that rich people can like by two. inflow swayed and clearly the rules we haven't place do not stop that from happening right, everybody knows the coat brothers have clout in politics. I re knows the Tom style has a lot of Clayton politics. At the same time,. As you can be as rich as you want right leg, you can be Jeff Pieces and the most money you can give to a politician is like two thousand seven hundred dollars right. So if you want to put like a ton of work into developing some like vast, complicated donor network and like a super
where you have a whole staff like and your billionaire like. You can do that and become a political puppet master. But if you just like happened to come across like a young state rap who you think is like the shit and you just want to say, like hey I'm gonna cut you a check for twenty million dollars and you go like do your thing like be a political hero. You you can make a contribution, great. So the only way you can get your political career up and running like you want to run for house right, you need to be able to phone up like several dozen people who will cut you a check for a thousand dollars red till. I get your two even get on the radar of national ideological political organisations, this what they call. It is called friends and family money in the business, and it basically means that to run for office, you need to know which people and they measures one rich. That right like you, need to know a diverse
array of affluent the people- and that means that basically, you have to be an affluent person, a minute that isn't like a formal requirement but like a practical sense like you need to be like a rich lawyer who can call on other rejoys or at least to have gone to a fancy law school or had some other kind of connections like that and smart, that a more deregulated system uninjured will finance would like suddenly have tons of people from poverty running, but it would make it at least easy her to get a system where people who don't have sort of well, and connections can come and also a more regulated system in which you had more generous public financing would do that, but we ve currently parked ourselves in this sort of like dead zone with, is no easy way to get a campaign going unless you know like a whole
bunch of affluent people, and that's not like, as is that good son, a good feature of the the current draft. I want to pick up on that because we then we're working in excess of the impact right now. It is all about local policy experiments and won. The ones were looking at it. it deals with this exact issue. Its policy in Seattle called democracy vouchers where they gave three Seattle resident a hundred dollars to donate their campaign of their choice. This is the only sitting world. As far as I know, that gives people free money to donate to candidates, and is a talk to one of the candidates who ran and democracy. archers and really Convinced me a lot of mats answer, so she you know, is the woman who ended up right wing hang wham. Her name was trees, tourism, a skater she's, thirty six latina she's, a renters. She saw a student loans. She been in Seattle politics for a while, but never considered running, because she does not have a lot of friends
family? You would each give her a thousand dollars and the democracy about your programme really seem to change that, for You know, I think, a lot of people who worked on this programme, part of it they thought, was you know, everyone should be able to dominate, and this is a good thing for civil. Engagement. That kind of thing is I've been reporting. This episode, which will come out in the fall, is that the big thing it seem to do is really change that type of people who ran, because you can just go door to door collecting these public donations. You didn't really need to know all these people who would give you a thousand dollars each, and I think that- You know, at least in this case in Seattle. Only done this one elections, I go, it's the only city doing it, so we don't have a ton of data, but it seems to suggest that, like the more robust public financing that really judges who actually decides to there had in the ring and that possibly leads to a more diverse set of candidates- and I think this would you go import,
the lowest level of politics. I did because, like that's part of fingers, once you're on the Seattle City Council, like no matter what your personal background as you like, an official important person in Seattle and like anyone who might be inclined to donate money to any body like become impressed by you and Bob Bob. It's like right now, if you're not in Seattle, if, like you're, a blow income person or lower middle class person- and so is immoral, you know like how do you on that? First I don't think anyone else run in any city that wasn't Seattle, basically aspiring politicos, who don't know wealthy people should move to Seattle has said, thats the policy on air the dream. I mean Seattle, great, it's everyone's move to Seattle, yeah, ok, what else we got because I see our questions. Degree of Asia questions. Ok, I gotta question for free. Our ad nauseam unifil self, conscious about it pronounce your name in this area. We just sit in that area is trumps. Why
uniquely susceptible to leaks, because Trump is a bad manager? Yes, I know it's bad actually like things I ate is this the Straits The very did its is a car proposition, but it seems very self apparent to me, like Donald Trump, runs a White House where everyone, constantly trying to be the last person to talk to Donald Trump about something so they're, always throwing elbows at each other. There always trying to game whose you know who has most influencing the do. They agree with me and if not, how do I make them? Look worse in trump size, and also Donald Trump doesn't like being briefed policy, like legitimately, he stops being attention into complicated policy briefings. So, whether you are a White House official or you or a policy maker in the executive branch, the easiest way to get Donald Trump attention is to get something on fire.
And frightened, because everybody knows that he watches Fox in France every morning. So I think that there is absolute in no way to get a leak, proof Trump White House if Donald Trump is only listening to things after they ve been linked to the press Ok, we do have a Seattle question. We realise poring over our know it. So we were going to stay in the most interesting city in America, joy Kirkland asks what are your thoughts on the proposal to institute a tax of five hundred dollars per employee per year? and medium and large businesses, those with revenues exceeding twenty million dollars a year to build about five hundred two thousand affordable housing units per year as a means of mitigating homelessness in Seattle. I believe this policy just passed through the Seattle City Council, that we were discussing jazz Matt, but you got so I one level. I think this is a sort of terrible idea right if you
you think about it. Just in operational terms, where, like one big thing that this encourages you to do, if you are a big company in Seattle, is to outsource your own work. Cried so companies face a question of like we'll: do we employ janitors or do we contract out to a general services company, so few taxing accompany not based on its like revenue or its land consumption, or anything like that? You just taxing a base of its head count. You have this like incredible incentive to play like dumb games about what is your actual headcount Amazon, which I think is like the main target of this proposal said that you now in response to this, they may stop expanding in the city, which, I think is not great outcome for the city of some satellites may make like. It
That said, I've come to understand why Seattle is proposing this, and the reason is that Washington, State Supreme Court has decided that an income tax violates the state constitution of Washington and there's apparently like a durable political consensus around this and Washington State Democratic Party doesn't want to challenge it. If you look, the richest man in the world lives in Seattle and the second richest man in the world. Also, lives in Seattle and so probably see have an income tax and those who, like aren't the only rich people, there's like Paul out is also. There are no see bomber celeron, thereby lay as yet this. I got a lot of really rich people in Washington, so there's a few different moving parts to this head tax idea right and so look one.
is Seattle needs more housing read? So if you ve ever heard me too, Anything you will know. This is primarily a zoning issue, in my mind, see while the majority of the land area in Seattle is set aside for single family detached homes, they should change that is legalise accessory dwelling units. Legal eyes, warehouses and town houses. They should probably impose a five or ten percent inclusion, rezoning mandate on big apartment buildings that are, you generate housing, but you want specifically to take care of homeless people. Rights of Thomas people. Take the usual. Don't have any money right. Do you need do need to spend money on them, see need revenue at the way you re. His revenue in a modern society is with an income tax. You could even Sweden in the pot like you could reduce your sales tax. Others there's a lot of good things. You can do with
income tax but usually may super rich state, that's home to like multiple giant incredibly successful companies as long as Washington doors and do the hat. They are stuck doing weird work around like the idea here is to stick to Amazon? I take it right, but like just like makeshift pieces pay taxes, so it gets, is really trades. Now there were into Washington state lack of income tax. It creates all sorts of like bizarre terrible situate. Like one another, one is Washington: there's a totally Democrat controlled legislature. They wanted create an individual mandate, but there income tax, select, pull that mandate farm, so they're, just kind of like a little bits to a crate. It does not like. It leads to a lot of weird Paul
see outcomes when you decide that you're gonna go income to excellence, us out, there's also my friend, who works in Portland but lives just across the border that lodging again, then the lack of sale right in Oregon, there's no sales tax and in Washington there's no income tax. So she does all her shopping near work in Portland, as it should basically is like the ultimate freeloader, and it's it's frankly appalling. but I mean you can't blame the individual's exit really stuff, so Generally, I saw speaking earlier this week. He addressed many policy topics, but not this ridiculous aspect of his home state. They can have a carbon That's a good idea but like come on. You know. Another kind of carbon using tax on carbon based lifeforms with attacks, rich people use another one. That's right, o Leary wants to know what other pod casts. You listen to what are they the last time and are thus ain't even more by guests
I just finished slate. Slow burn and it was excellent- is a recounted that seven episode recount of Watergate. In the more like that the whole Nixon scandal and neighbours resignation. I learned a lot from aunt. I really really enjoyed it. You're standing as they're doing the Clinton impeachment next, which I'm pretty excited for so that's kind of everything I listen to you lately is a slow burn. I just obsessive, really listen to the US. Reclined show I did I cut out. There is the question. That is an ox cart, we're understand. Over and over again I know you miss Azra glad failure, even when he is, it is otherwise things yeah,
no the another brick ass, I was to do a lot is called an accidental tech by cast. It is about tack and decisive, like dad's talkin about stuff, that's not politics as a dad and as someone who talks about politics for living, I really enjoy that, and you know it's just like is a cool break from things out of weeds listeners would enjoy it, but maybe would I do, I had to listen to tat. Pass was really worried about this desire, honey. I don't know about how do you know what cutting internet mattresses to buy up from the day I slammed on occasion, but, like I mean the thing, is they were all I much? I learned the city where there is a mass transit systems. I can read things a community urban. Don't you walk in my palace and something else. I ain't! No man, I am basically. I also show the way
I lay out for a few minutes, which happens occasionally if I'm right something I can just go back and reread it's much harder with upon podcast, so I often tend to feel like I've lost about half of it, our yeah, I'm really terrible. First wow, you know it's a loud, I think, to lie on a package to come up with something like a friendship spills it on road trips, my partner and I do occasionally listen to stuff. You missed in history class, which is very fun like half hour along takes on the sort of things that either history classes dont cover because they deal with women are people of color or the history classes. Dont cover cause they're, just like weird little episodes that mattered. So I would recommend that if you're a social history nerd that call so of applying to promote your friends work. Joseph Zulu, wants to know how cross linked or intermingled does the world of political journalists. Do you guys know people have slain and politico, I worry about the more highly
logically opposed outfits like an hour or the boys or in other Cato Institute and just hang out, and you think that this influence influences. The reporting that you do in terms of topics covered were narrative frame. I feel like this complicated. I think stare hasn't saves. I outsiders are we getting go? We're gonna, so Really, the answer is it's pretty intermingled, at least like you know, I think of it on the beat specific space I think I know most people who report on health care in Washington after doing this for nearly a decade. At this point You know, I know them, because we all go to the same press briefings. We were all on capital held together when you know there is the original bombing. Not all you know. People come in and out of this, but in twenty ten and again and twenty seventeen. When you have these, I'm in here debates you just and a running into these people a lot because they're going to the same press events that you're going to it
a lot of places. I think it is one thing that has happened. It's me is that at least in my experience is that it somewhat am certainly competitive and people are trying to break news and trying to do the do the best they can, but it also ends up being somewhat but if you know I've had other reporters from other outlets share note. With me? You know I'm not very good at reporting in the house, because there's over four hundred people and cement, it s going to the reporter hey, who is that guy? Who is just giving interviews and usually other reporters are pretty friendly telling me those facts or meat, I've pass call in numbers for press conferences that, for some reason someone is excluded two on, but at other outlets, because I think it's just Dick move that their excluded and they should be included. I think you know think about, like ideologically posed outfits think I know most the healthcare reporters at a pretty wide spectrum of
says I ve been part of that. You know some of the alleged mentioned here. You know, don't actually have it voted healthcare correspondent. So you know some of it is kind of like what those publications choose to cover. I think indefinitely influence says the reporting. We do it like what we re doing. I think a common thing that happens when you are porter is your editor messages you and says: hey. Did you see this story and outlet acts? Are we gonna do something on this and then I'll fuck like I'm? Not I don't have that story or like they already got it. So I think it's last summer and that's out of the question is less because I know these people personally and its more because the people who manage me are: reading? What all my competitors are doing and our very you knew what it thinks, it's kind of about being a journey. As you know exactly like what everyone else who works on the same thing as up to- and I think, there's often an urge if someone else's writing about something, and they have determined that this is important enough to write about that. That kind of trickles out too
who other newsrooms who either their decisions, will be influenced by that interesting. I personally think that the biggest thing I have to watch for in as someone who like interacts with journalists socially, whose sinner the people I'm following on twitter, largely journalists is actually kind of they
in verse of that there's, because all of us literally need to follow the news for a living, and so we are kind of being paid to care. It can often be really hard to know when something is going to blow up the issue of their people, who aren't professionally invested in this are going to decide its important. Often that's not because it's the first time it's happened, it's just because, for whatever reason, this is the time that it stuck, and it can be really hard to have a good sense of that whenever one I'm talking to his also following things intimately, it can also be really hard to use the people who aren't on my be as a good proxy for what stories on my beat are interesting to other people. I think that in a people in DC have a certain image of what an interesting immigration story looks like. This is often orthogonal to what people who are really interested in immigration that aren't professionally working on it think is an interesting story and is often also worth
also what lay people who don't really know or care that much about immigration. But sometimes they do like what stories are going to seek their interests. So it can be a little bit tricky to kind of step back and go all right. I know I me I know I know a bunch. I know the people I'm talking to know a bunch, but if I weren't would this be a big stories I took this spirit of this question is slightly differently from that an end. You know, I guess my answer would be that like yes, like, for example, like I knew Dara before she came to words Tran bags, and I knew learn again
who's. My editor before she came to work at box and I knew case Tiger who sits next to me before she came to work at box and that's not just because vocs hired exclusively people who I knew before we started here. It's because I knew personally, a very large share of the roughly similarly aged people in Dc Journalism, and particularly when I was younger right when I like did not have children and socialized, for I socialized a lot with other people in the same line, work. Add sometimes at would be Ex colleagues of mine, a war ex colleagues of crime. Colleagues at and things like that it does change. You know like life changes as you age and you'd like see, fewer people do less. This does.
but, like you know, prettily, when I was in my twenties, I mean I don't know if you as the bill, if there was a very fluid boundary between did social and professional aspects, yeah, that's my life and work, and so people who sit outside of DC and say There's like this incestuous universe and like hidden lurking alliances and conflicts of interest, are not entirely mistake. And then I sometimes look across the divide at the stridency of some of the takes that emanate, or from Brooklyn, and I think the problem is that these people don't like actually know what They don't know anybody and they don't really know what's going on and you, trying to reason about politics from first principles rather because, like I am like the least shoe leathery person in Washington, journalist but still like I've like to things and spoken to people and seen them. Unlike Noah
going on and I feel like a lot of the outside stuff is Harry, like Deacon text realised and, unlike MRS, are a lot of what's happening, but then I also think like that. Cheek from the outside it what's going on inside is not mistaken. You know There is a real difference between your rid of like an ambiguously worded bad take from somebody you ve never met and, like somebody who's barbecue, you ve, been to your inclined to be more generous reader of people. You know, even if they're, not like dear friends of yours, just like a friend of her friend by you're gonna be more like. Ok Secondly, in oil, around sensible person is therefore edited badly buoyant right. That headline. Just like my reading this raw, you know I'd like to do so. Much like of twitter is like,
see. Somebody say selling in here like what's the most ungenerous, I think you and people you know in real life like you do the opposite for and I think it's a real thing for good or for ill. You know if you think that, like the big problem in the discourse is that people are too generous to each other, I think you will also think that DC journalism is two interconnected. You know that. Is another view. I agree with all that, but in the spirit of being honest but unhelpful, I want to point out that, because I was not a full time, professional journalists before coming to Vocs a totally did get hired pizza into all of you, avenue another weapons they wanna earn as mad. This question on this is from Logan Weeder offer on both a pause in personal level. What would you do? What? What do you see or what would you like to see as an alternative to the thirty year, fixed mortgage, the home, buying process? More generally, that wouldn't be more corrosive
or have all the problems that all to a or other non conforming mortgage products tend to have what are all day mortgages out even know. It's like between prime and sub prime medium. Yeah a basic. I know so. Ok the thing about the thirty year for X, ray mortgage that is unusual and has policy origins, is not the thirty year duration or the fixed interest rate. Really it's that its we financed simple right, so you can take out a thirty year mortgage and then, ten years later, if interest rates are much lower than they were, you can pay back your mortgage early and get a new loan at the new lower rate right. So that's fun for you as a homeowner, but it's weird from a bank
second right. It's like why would the evil bank that, like praise people and devastate lives for fine, may make this like one sided bat right where, if industries go up, they lose the bit of interest rates, go down there, they also lose weight and that's because the government is holding the tale risk. So that's a kind of a benefit to middle class people, but it is like a strange when it's a gets very oddly struck It is incredibly non transparent and everything is like a big problems, and we bore fundamentalists about this, but in an ideal world I think we would just like not do that in exchange, people would not be as inclined to go into debt to buy homes, because the terms will not be as favourable and it would be more rental housing, and if we wanted to mobilise whispering capacity to build housing, we would say well we're gonna put it behind mixed income. Mixed use, housing development.
something tat would be more socially beneficial, more ecologically sound. I know some people like really into this as like a subject. It doesn't seem like that big a deal to me, but it is true that, like this is one of the reasons why America is much higher in single family home ownership than like Germany, Org other similar affluent countries. I guess it's an ideal world like I would change. This would not be. Super duper duper high on my list, because I I think it's not a big deal.
although it is an interesting conservatives, used to claim to believe that the existence of Fanny May and Freddy MAC was the cause of the two dozen a financial crisis, and because they claim to believe this, they had various proposals to change. Fanny man, pretty MAC since actually taking office, is completely stop talking about us and their Doug just doing banking regulation. I find it to be an interesting phenomenon that their governing the country and simply not at all, addressing what they claim to believe is a huge source of potential economic risk and maybe someday, though, be proven right. Ok, I have a question for Sarah from Cullen. Martin, HU, I identify strongly with as someone who knows much less about health policy than the average member of the weeds Facebook group. After all, the Asia repeal attempts I've lost track of whether anything actually changed. Was it a complete waste of time,
It is also a great question to aspirate before theory goes on maternity leave because, as we know from history, Republicans are going to try to repeal the Asia again. No, the interesting question is usually what it's I'm out of town, but this is the odd situation where I'm not working, but I'm in D c. So who knows what happens Lizzie the individual man now that nothing jobs, if not in our own. I know I'm saying to like what happened this summer. So yes, things change, but I think also that's what I've been reading some interesting political science research around this that I want to talk about. So in terms of actual policy be affordable, Act is still standing, Obamacare still exists, the law is, Firstly, there except does Matt mentions the big changes through the tax bill which repealed the requirement to carry the insurance and that actually hasn't taken effect. Yeah that'll start on January first twenty nineteen. Does the insurance companies put out their rates right now and those are the first set of insurance premiums that take into account the fact that people are not real.
To buy insurance and generally working across the board. Premiums are going up because of that. I think one of the things that change has been so I came across some interesting survey. Research from the common will foundation, which found generally evincing a shift that the uninsured rate went up and They seventeen, which was a little bit surprising, because no power they actually changed and twenty seventeen there was this big debate happening, but at the end of the day, nothing was really different in terms of what laws on the books in the common fund funding dug into this a little bit more and they found that the uninsured rate for Democrats remained pretty cons, and it was the uninsured rate for republic hens- that been rising and there's some pursuing political science, research and space train understand what the relationship between government benefits programme and your political.
use and the handful of studies that have been done. They suggest that guess they should be super shocking. But a bomb occurs. One of the really good testing grounds for this, because it is such a partisan subject that ear little views of a benefit programme? They affect your interest or willingness to sign up for that benefit programme. So you too, and Collins asks. Was it a complete waste of time I think no because you had the mandate repeal, but also no, because this job You know in this constant focus on how bad Obamacare is and what it is after it is, it seems to have changed, willing, two in role in a bomb care programmes among those who are done. If I as republic it- and so I think, that's kind of one of the interesting on expect. good outcomes of this debate, that, by hitting it again
and again so negatively and having that come from a republican Congress and come from republican President that one of the effects of this debate of even not repealing Obamacare it could be driving up the uninsured rate, among Republicans, because of how it may change how they perceive the law so there without. To what extent can the Trump administration alter the demographic trajectory the United States? and this is a great question. I dont know if Yogi Barrow actually better. If this is just some like sub yogi, bear a thing that became apocryphal like the problem with predicting the futures. It hasn't happened yet for them that we ve seen
it is really hard to actually trace the demographic trajectory of the? U S, even without Trump add the census. Bureau keeps like pushing back the data which it thinks the. U S is going to become a majority minority in our countries, because Valentino Birth rate has fallen there and they expect there's that there they just made and adjustment a couple of months ago, that pushed back in part because they had overestimated the extent of latina immigration into view. Ass is so. Immigration is part of it in. I think that there are very difficult questions about. How do you change the social safety net so that people feel comfortable having children? That probably would be the bigger driver of the demographic trajectory? If you could, you know if you are going to have a big impact on the non white birth rate, one way or the other, but as far as immigration is concerned, I don't actually think that there is a tonne that can be done
because the things that are most likely to change the macro demographics are latino family based immigration, which is not a thing that the Trump Administration has really shown a willingness to try to cut back on, at least in terms of people entering the Eu S. I do think, though, that there are a couple of levels on which demographics become a proxy for other things. A lot of the question of our demographics destiny in the political sense is due to this assumption that, as the population of the EU, s gets less weight than the electorate will also get less way, and I think that we have seen that, over the last several electoral cycles, that there are a lot of things that legislators can do to change in a voting access so that they have
deuce the extent to which people who are less likely to vote, which are often younger and non white people have a harder time showing up to the poles. So I think that there are things that can be done at the federal and state levels that are going to exacerbate that problem and continue to split the color of the electorate from the color of the. U S, population. The other thing that I think is relevant is that when we are talking about in a race in particular, because races socially constructed, there's a history of people who were once considered non white getting, hence it are white in american history and in some cases, going the other way around. I think it's now not super controversial does
like? Cubans and Egyptians are both to groups that are not considered white now or, as they would have been considered white. At other points, the more that D Trump Administration have doubles down on this careless conflation of immigrants, unauthorized immigrants, criminals, people of color. I e that the trump himself does that in rhetoric that could go one. If she weighs right, you could have. You're feeling that they are being made non white by how other people are treating them and therefore treating barely latino identity or their muslim identity as a more salient aspect of their. I daddy, I don't think we are going to have a good sense of that. I think, unfortunately, its we're gonna have to wait for the historians to tell us whether it has changed kind of the social aspect of demographics. But those are the levers. Tat, I think, can be pulled much more than how much can from control who comes in order is born in the? U S
you do on my yeah: do you have any more for the whole group whose I'm hungry of one laughed with our group? Oh ok, I, this is Rebecca, currently essential Josie. I have a question that bit controversy. Also, I apologize had a time if it causes rifts in any friendships. Does pineapple belong on pizza know? Now I was really tempted to be a contrary about this, but I really shouldn't have an opinion to them. Doesnt tell her words you we'd like Non GM speech. I have not cross that Rubicon, yet I will still, if I need you eat, like one slice of cheese pizza and then take a good Gillian lack days. Just like a piece of flat bread for some Fuckin Pineapples Other things grow is right. I guess I was Easy like I mean a ban on raising concerns, risen, that's a reasoned tat, omega choices.
how is it that I admitted I dont wasn't upon costs and I still had only the second worst opinion. Residents are great written answer son mad, all your isn't that yes, yes, I can never once asked me Republican Play pensions. I have a question about Publican pensions must guide is our last question. This is a line from northern California. Do pensions make being a government worker policemen or teacher a sweet deal over the course of a lifetime, or are they just a small compensation for salaries that are well below the private sector average? Also they really wrecking see local finances. You know super sweet deal, I know there is a good way of putting it right, because if, if you make your critique of public sector pensions, like wow these teachers ever sweet deal like the natural or post is like. Actually, the guys working at hedge funds have a ways sweeter deal and then we're just two:
tales in circles. Owning a better question is is like, however, my for money. You want to pay teachers right, Mozilla question of like how should you pay them? It could be that, like the first day you shop to school, you get a giant bag of money, and then you get no more money across your whole career right, but it does obviously a bad idea because people might teach for one here and then quit run off with a bag of money. So, like that's really dumb pension is like the opposite right. It's like you, give people a very Blair kind of salary for like twenty or thirty years, and then they compared to people in the private sector like a pretty big bag of money. And the point isn't that, like the bag is so giant or whatever, but relative to their compensation right, like teachers are making less money than a normal person word year in and year out, but they have like a bigger pot of gold waiting for them after decades of service,
and it will do question is like. Why would you want to structure somebody's compensation that way like? Is it really terrible to have teachers with eleven years of experience, decide they wanted switch jobs? I think is no evidence that that level of Your continuity is particularly valuable. We see that, like very new teachers, don't do as well as somewhat more experienced teachers but like in a most jobs like after a certain amount of time. You like can figure out what you're doing and like it's it's fine to keep working if you're dead. casting about it, but back loading, the compensation it makes people who may be. burned out, it gives them a strong incentive to stay, which is not a great idea. It makes it hard for teachers to move right like, as you might think, like literally every town in America needs teachers, but because of pension type stuff, it's like more difficult than you think it might be to switch around, which is not great and then last eat really
is a problem for state budgets, because the reason why you do this back loading compensation right is you're gonna, like an official and you're sitting on the bargaining table with teachers union representatives, and they would like money because that's reasonable, like that's, that's it. They therefore they dare to ask for some favours, but you don't want to. raise taxes. So what you do is you agree that, like in the future, they're gonna get this pension money, which is like win win for everybody? Who is at that? ball, but it means that many states in cities in America really are in a situation where, in the past, people were given future promises of money so that you now have a situation where you are paying off. Essentially, oh that's right, which is fair, I mean, if you look at it from the public place standpoint. It's like you know they are. They asking for, is what they were promised, which is fair enough, but it means if you, came from a taxpayer standpoint. It's like your pain
higher taxes, then people in summer. states are, but you are not receiving commensurately higher quality of services. So that's great The solutions are not incredibly obvious, but I think this actually like an important dynamic in America right that, like Illinois has substantially higher taxes, then a more conservative southern state might, but it doesn't have like fabulously, better public services and a major reason for that is that they're paying off old pension obligations and that's like a real millstone around the neck and not like a fake Meda problem. It's true that, like that still leaves you with the question How do you address it, but it's an issue and also an issue is I know what the telling need to listen to more podcast about
I do. I listened evokes media about guess. I can't answer around her husband's true. Yes, he got check him out. Take up today explained everyday, explaining which now we ve gotta figure. Staying, tat grand words pop culture podcast. Of course he has declined to begin a new season. The impact is, can we come in come in the file, its awesome, something to look forward to something to live for? Instead of Darras hate and the reason is that such this reference, I might go by some reason- it's on my way home just to justice bring him into our eating reasoning to own the live. Ok, ok. Thank you. Jar producer, Brigitte Armstrong to our engineer, Griffin, Tanner, we'll be back in your thanks to everyone for this gives, meaning to all of you submitted the questions of all those came through our Facebook group. The weeds Facebook group, if you are not already there. You should join us. You can tell us what you think about.
genes, are what you think about raising that we will be back in your feeds on Tuesday,
Transcript generated on 2021-09-12.