Tag Archives: Anker®

Where We Belong – Hoda Kotb

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Where We Belong

Journeys That Show Us The Way

Hoda Kotb

Genre: Self-Improvement

Price: $12.99

Publish Date: January 5, 2016

Publisher: Simon & Schuster

Seller: Simon and Schuster Digital Sales Inc.


From  New York Times  bestselling author and beloved  Today  show co-anchor Hoda Kotb—inspiring stories of people who find their life’s purpose in unexpected ways, often surprising themselves and the ones they love. Most of us wonder what we’re doing. We float around in the glass half-empty, gaze out into the world of possibilities, and wonder if we should get off of our raft and climb out. Maybe even today you asked yourself:  Is it too late to do that thing that made me so happy when I was young? Could what matters most to me finally be the center of my life? Can I really trust this yearning voice in my   head and longing in my heart? Do I feel like I’m where I belong ? In this incredible collection of stories, Hoda Kotb writes about individuals who realized their path in life was either veering off in a completely new direction or was getting too far off course from where they knew they belonged. By following their passions, their gut, and their heart, these people learned how fulfilling life could truly feel. From the investment banker who became a minister after years of working on Wall Street, to the young woman from a blue-collar background whose passion took her to Harvard Medical School, to the high-powered PR exec who found herself drawn to a pioneering residential community, to a “no-kids” guy who now helps children all over the world, the stories in Where They Belong  come from an array of ordinary individuals who have discovered the power of embracing change or fighting for a dream. Hoda also interviews celebrities, such as producer Mark Burnett and actress/producer Roma Downey, comedienne Margaret Cho, and former boxer Laila Ali, all who’ve pursued their passions to find fulfillment. With examples of perseverance, self-reflection, and new attitudes on life,  Where They Belong  is a motivating and inspirational look at exploring and finding the right path for your personal journey.  

Link to original: 

Where We Belong – Hoda Kotb

Posted in Anchor, Anker, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Where We Belong – Hoda Kotb

The Press Needs to Fight Back on Republican Tax Lunacy

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Steve Benen on the Rubio-Lee tax plan:

At first blush, it’s tempting to see Marco Rubio’s economic plan as a dog-bites-man story: Republican presidential campaign proposes massive tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, even while saying the opposite.

Benen goes on to manfully make the case that Rubio’s tax crankery actually does deserve extra special attention, but I’m not sure he does the job. Sure, Rubio’s deficit would be humongous, but so would everyone else’s. And Rubio has a helluva mountain to climb to take the top spot in the tax craziness derby. Let’s roll the tape:

The “sensible” candidate says his tax plan will boost growth to 4 percent a year. His advisors have basically admitted that this number was pulled out of thin air.
A second candidate, not to be outdone on the absurd growth front, says his plan will cause the economy to take off like a rocket, producing growth as high as 6 percent. How will he manage this? “I just will.”
Another candidate suggests we adopt a tax plan based on the Biblical practice of tithing.
Yet another candidate, apparently thinking that tithing isn’t quite crazy enough, proposes an even lower flat tax.

This is all fantasyland stuff. So why doesn’t the media hammer them more on it? Why do debate moderators let them get away with such lunacy? Good question. John Harwood tried the only honest approach in the last debate, suggesting that Donald Trump was running a “comic book” campaign—and it was Harwood who got hammered. Harwood gamely tried a second time with Trump, telling him that “you have as chance of cutting taxes that much without increasing the deficit as you would of flying away from that podium by flapping your arms.” Trump brushed him off. Harwood tried yet again with Rubio, this time citing numbers from the Tax Foundation, and Rubio brushed him off. That’s a couple of tries at mockery and one try at arithmetic, and they both had the same effect.

There’s not much left to do. If candidates want to say that brass is gold, and people choose to believe them despite piles of evidence to the contrary, you’re stuck. Eventually you feel like you have to move on to something else.

But maybe you don’t. Maybe you just keep asking, over and over. Maybe you ask every candidate the same question. Republicans will scream about how the liberal media hates them, and then they’ll trot out their pet economists to insist that tax cuts really do hypercharge the economy. The moderators will take a lot of heat over this. But it might actually turn supply-side nuttiness into a real topic that gets its 15 minutes of fame. That’s better than nothing.

Taken from – 

The Press Needs to Fight Back on Republican Tax Lunacy

Posted in Anker, Bunn, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Press Needs to Fight Back on Republican Tax Lunacy

Let Us Now Praise Baby Boomers. And Berate Them Too.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Over at the Washington Post, it’s time for some intergenerational griping. Jim Tankersley kicks things off with a piece blaming boomers for our economic woes. Really? Here’s an economic history of the past 70 years: The US economy boomed for about three decades after the end of World War II, but ever since the mid-70s productivity growth has slowed down. That’s pretty much it. It’s not the fault of any particular generation. (Also: Tankersley should replace about half of his references to “boomers” with “Republicans.” This would improve the accuracy of his piece considerably.)

Heather Havrilesky picks up the ball by blaming boomers for forcing our nostalgia on all the rest of you. Sure. I guess. I’m not quite sure how this makes boomers different from any other generation, but whatevs.

Finally, Sally Abrahms gamely tries to fight back, arguing that boomers aren’t really all that rich, or healthy, or selfish, or technophobic, or sterile.

(Technophobic? Where does that come from? We’re the generation of the IBM PC, the Apple II, the internet, and the Palm Pilot.1 Please.)

I guess this is all good fun, but you know what? Every generation has its highs and lows. The generation that freed the slaves also brought us Jim Crow. The generation that brought us the gilded age also invented the telephone. The generation that invented relativity and quantum mechanics brought us World War I.

So with that in mind, let’s take a look at the highs and lows of the baby boomers. Then I’ll apologize:

President Bill Clinton. President George W. Bush. Plus a half claim to president Barack Obama.
Endless ads for pharmaceuticals on TV. The Sopranos.
Gay rights. Angry white men.
Star Wars. Star Wars prequels.
The rise of evangelical Christians. The rise of atheism.
Protesting the Vietnam War. Starting the Iraq War.
Sex. Drugs. Rock and roll.
John McEnroe. Dorothy Hamill.
Windows. The Macintosh.
Rolling Stones. Abba.
Feminist movement. Men’s rights movement.
Collapse of labor unions. Obamacare (half credit).
Doting on our kids. Complaining about coddled kids these days.
Giving a shit. Selling out.

Seems like a draw. Just like with every other generation. That goes for all you Greatest Generation folks too, who won World War II and then elected Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon. We all have some stuff to answer for. So on behalf of boomers everywhere, I apologize for disco. Are you happy now?

1I was in a Microsoft store recently, and as long as I was there I asked about a problem I’d been having. The guy who helped me seemed knowledgeable enough, but was unable to diagnose my problem and rather blithely suggested I just blow everything away and reinstall Windows. I wasn’t too excited about this, and he gave me a look as if I were some pathetic oldster who just didn’t understand how easy it was. I felt like telling him that I bought my first Windows upgrade before he was born. (Windows 3.1. TrueType fonts!) Like military force, reinstalling Windows is a last resort, not a first option.

A day later I fixed the problem myself by deleting a directory and letting OneDrive start its initial sync from scratch.

Read this article:  

Let Us Now Praise Baby Boomers. And Berate Them Too.

Posted in Anker, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Let Us Now Praise Baby Boomers. And Berate Them Too.

This One Simple Trick Will Allow You to Make a Killing Betting on the Presidential Race

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jim Tankersley examines the presidential odds at PredictWise today and concludes that punters are probably underestimating Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning. Why? Justin Wolfers explains that it’s likely due to something called “longshot bias”:

The favorite tends to win in betting markets more often than indicated by the odds. So if the markets say she’s a 47% chance to be president, history suggests that the true odds are a bit better than that.

….There’s another way to get at this though, which is simply to ask whether the odds make sense. I think the idea that Clinton is only a 75 percent chance to win the nomination is nuts — she’s essentially the only serious candidate running, and it’s now clear that her campaign is not going to implode. With any candidate there are risks that secrets may come out, but with Mrs. Clinton, we’ve had several decades for them to surface. So my (personal!) judgment is that she is at least an 85 percent chance to win the nomination, and maybe 90 percent is a more realistic assessment.

OK. But what I want to know is why the betting markets say that Democrats have a 58 percent chance of winning the presidency, but the combined chance of all the individual Democratic candidates is 63 percent. There must be some way to arbitrage this so that you’ll make money no matter what happens. Right?

Taken from: 

This One Simple Trick Will Allow You to Make a Killing Betting on the Presidential Race

Posted in Anker, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This One Simple Trick Will Allow You to Make a Killing Betting on the Presidential Race

Scientists Say "Trust Us" on Blood Pressure Study

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The New York Times reports on a big U-turn in the study of low blood pressure:

Declaring they had “potentially lifesaving information,” federal health officials said on Friday that they were ending a major study more than a year early because it has already conclusively answered a question cardiologists have puzzled over for decades: how low should blood pressure go? The answer: way lower than the current guidelines.

….Less than two years ago, a National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute panel went the opposite direction. People had been told to aim for a systolic blood pressure of 140. But the panel recommended a goal of 150 for people ages 60 and older, arguing that there were no convincing data showing lower is better.

Given the fact that this represents a major change to a recommendation from two years ago, it would be nice to see the data. And yet, apparently it hasn’t been released. Austin Frakt is annoyed:

I have high blood pressure, so this is of more than academic interest to me. I’ve also heard plenty of horror stories of people being massively overmedicated in an effort to get their blood pressure below some magical target. So if you want me to get my systolic blood pressure down to 110 or so, you’d better have some mighty convincing data.

But of course, this is not about me me me. Frakt is right: this is just bad science, and it’s especially bad in the areas of health and nutrition, which are overrun with both crankery and constantly changing recommendations. If you have big news, release it in a reputable journal and let other experts take a look at it. Don’t announce blockbuster findings and then promise that “a paper with the data would be published within a few months.” This is not the way to do things.

Visit site: 

Scientists Say "Trust Us" on Blood Pressure Study

Posted in Anker, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Scientists Say "Trust Us" on Blood Pressure Study

Why Won’t Hillary Clinton Take a Stand on Keystone?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Rumor has it that President Obama will officially reject the Keystone XL pipeline in the coming weeks. But whatever he decides, you can be sure the issue won’t go away. All of the presidential candidates will keep on talking about it. Well, all of them except the one who’s been avoiding the topic like Ebola. Here’s where the other candidates stand:

Republicans

Most Republican politicians, just like most Americans, had never heard of the Keystone XL pipeline until climate activists started fighting it in 2011. But once that happened, the GOP rushed en masse to defend it, and they’ve been ranting and raving about its critical importance ever since, making delusional claims about its potential to create jobs and supercharge the US economy. Every single “major” GOP candidate for president—all 17 of them—supports the proposed pipeline, and many have pledged to approve it on their first day in the White House.

Donald Trump: Not only has he backed the pipeline for years, but he owns at least $250,000 worth of stock in TransCanada, the company that’s trying to build it.

Jeb Bush:

Continue Reading »

See original article here – 

Why Won’t Hillary Clinton Take a Stand on Keystone?

Posted in Anchor, Anker, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Won’t Hillary Clinton Take a Stand on Keystone?

How Much Water Are the Richest Californians Wasting? It’s a Secret

Mother Jones

Former Oakland Athletics slugger Mark McGwire Bill Chan/AP

This story was originally published by Reveal from the Center for Investigative Reporting and is republished here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

During California’s last crippling drought, baseball slugger Mark McGwire became a poster boy for water wasters.

The burly first baseman figured prominently in a 1991 Oakland Tribune investigation that showed how residents of upscale neighborhoods skirted the conservation demands facing everyday homeowners. The Top 100 users in the East Bay used 15 times more than the typical household.

That included the Oakland A’s star, who pumped 3,752 gallons a day in the summer months at his home in Alamo. “There’s no way I would waste water,” he told the newspaper.

In response to the outcry that followed the story, the East Bay Municipal Utility District demanded that its top users cut water use by 20 percent, the Tribune reported. If customers refused, the district would limit them to about 1,200 gallons a day.

Today, nearly 25 years later, while McGwire’s had to deal with more high-profile denials, California again is in the clutches of a massive drought. And the very information that has the potential to drive smart policymaking is now off-limits to the public and journalists.

Even though water agencies have precise data about every customer’s water usage, they no longer have an obligation to share this information with the public.

In 1997, state legislators voted to weaken an important open government law, the California Public Records Act. The reason: Palo Alto city officials were concerned that tech executives’ personal information would be made public, as Reveal reported last month. The move largely made individual and corporate water use private even though public agencies could have simply redacted the sensitive personal information—like home addresses and phone numbers—as they often do when releasing records.

Now, Californians are facing unprecedented water restrictions but they have no way to evaluate if these conservation measures are being implemented fairly where they live, or even if they are likely to be effective. Without specific information about top water users, Californians who have been diligently ripping out their lawns and taking two-minute showers can’t know who among them could be undermining all their conservation efforts by blithely letting the tap flow.

Back in 1991, during California’s last drought, East Bay MUD imposed what it said were tough water conservation rules on its customers. But the district refused to reveal how much its biggest residential customers were using.

The Oakland Tribune sued under the Public Records Act and got the list. It showed that one Orinda investment banker was gushing 16,405 gallons per day—a pipe was leaking into a creek—while most people in the area were using an average of 325 gallons per day. One Blackhawk homeowner, who used 10,870 gallons a day, mostly to water a three-acre lawn, told the paper: “Frankly, I don’t think that the East Bay MUD people care as long as we pay.”

The story of “profligate water use in the suburbs” outraged many customers who had been taking the district’s calls for conservation seriously, recalled Eric Newton, then the Tribune‘s managing editor and today an official with the Knight Foundation, which funds journalism and civic media projects.

After the story ran, the district toughened its conservation rules. “The information (in the water bills) was needed to make important public policy decisions,” Newton said. “It’s not just about public shaming.”

Now, in 2015, East Bay MUD is asking all of its customers to cut back 20 percent.

Later this month, the district says it will start imposing fines on residential customers who use more than 984 gallons of water per day. But the toll is just $2 extra for every 748 gallons above that amount. The district says there are between 9,000 and 10,000 households that would have to pay these penalties if their current water usage continues.

Reveal asked East Bay MUD for the names of the top 100 residential water customers today. Even though the public records law was weakened in 1997, the district can give us the information if it determines “the public interest in disclosure of the information clearly outweighs the public interest in nondisclosure.”

But the district is refusing to release the information. “For numerous reasons, including the privacy interests of our customers, EBMUD protocol prohibits the disclosure of individually identifiable consumption data of its customers,” wrote Rischa Cole, assistant to the general manager of the district, in an email.

So for now, the district’s 1.3 million customers in Alameda and Contra Costa counties who all are being asked to use less water don’t really know how much their thirstiest neighbors are using, much less who they are.

Original source: 

How Much Water Are the Richest Californians Wasting? It’s a Secret

Posted in alo, Anchor, Anker, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Much Water Are the Richest Californians Wasting? It’s a Secret

What’s the greenest megacity? Hint: Not NYC

What’s the greenest megacity? Hint: Not NYC

By on 1 May 2015commentsShare

Take Paris’s transportation system, Tokyo’s water infrastructure, Moscow’s combined heat and power supply, and Seoul’s wastewater services, and you’ve got yourself a pretty sustainable megacity. Sorry, New York — turns out you don’t bring much to the table, except maybe that can-do attitude.

That’s what a group of researchers found when they analyzed how energy and materials flow through the world’s 27 megacities (metro areas with populations of 10 million or more people). As of 2010, these sprawling metropolises housed more than 6 percent of the world’s population, and they’re only expected to grow in number and size. So in a paper published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers were all like, “Hey! Unless we want to end up with a bunch of bleak, garbage-filled dystopian wastelands, we should probably greenify these puppies.”

Here’s the big picture:

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA

The takeaway? Megacities consume a lot of resources. That’s not too surprising, given how much they contribute to global GDP. Still, when the researchers looked at each city’s unique “metabolism,” they found plenty of room for improvement.

Let’s start with New York, which definitively sucks when it comes to energy use, water use, and waste production:

Click to embiggen.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA

“The New York metropolis has 12 million fewer people than Tokyo, yet it uses more energy in total: the equivalent of one oil supertanker every 1.5 days. When I saw that, I thought it was just incredible,” the University of Toronto’s Chris Kennedy, lead researcher on the study, said in a press release.

This might come as a surprise to those of us in the U.S. who have come to know the city as somewhat of an urban sustainability darling, thanks to former Mayor Michael Bloomberg. That’s because New York the megacity is much different than New York the city. When you account for the sprawling suburbs, Kennedy said over the phone, “New York has a completely different face to it.”

We already knew that suburban sprawl led to more energy consumption due to increased transportation demand, but Kennedy and his colleagues found another reason to dislike the ‘burbs: Electricity consumption per capita strongly correlates with land use per capita. It’s pretty intuitive, when you think about it — a house in the suburbs is going to require more electricity than a tiny apartment in the city. That wouldn’t be so bad if all that electricity was coming from clean, renewable sources, but it’s usually not.

And then there’s the issue of wealth. “”Wealthy people consume more stuff and ultimately discard more stuff,” Kennedy said in the press release. “The average New Yorker uses 24 times as much energy as a citizen of Kolkata [formerly Calcutta, the capital of the Indian state of West Bengal] and produces over 15 times as much solid waste.”

The researchers report that the Tokyo metropolis, meanwhile, has a better public transportation system and is better designed for energy efficiency. The largest megacity, with a population of about 34 million people, Tokyo also has a remarkably efficient water supply system with leakages down to about 3 percent. (Rio de Janiero and Sao Paolo have leakage rates at around 50 percent.)

Moscow (pop. 12 million) stands out for its central heating system that harvests waste heat from electricity generation and uses it to service most of the buildings in the city — a more efficient way to heat a city than having a bunch of smaller systems.

London stands out as the only megacity to reduce electricity consumption as its GDP has grown. The researchers attribute this to a 66 percent increase electricity prices.

All this is to say that megacities are complicated beasts that should learn from one another. This is especially true for cities in developing countries, which have much lower “metabolisms” than their developed world counterparts due to poverty and resource shortages. These cities will surely grow. The question is: Can they get greener as they go?

Unfortunately, Kennedy said, no megacity has a master architect. “You can never start from scratch. You’ve got to work with what you’ve got and adapt and change.”

Kennedy and his colleagues plan to put out a followup paper later this year with specific recommendations for how megacities can do just that. In the mean time — Hey, NYC, you might want to glance up from your climate action plan for a minute. The suburbs are making you look bad in front of all your megacity friends.

Source:
Megacity metabolism: Is your city consuming a balanced diet?

, Eurekalert.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

sponsored post

Think you could hack it as a farmer? Read this first

Before you go buying a farm, there are a few things you need to consider.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link:

What’s the greenest megacity? Hint: Not NYC

Posted in Anchor, Anker, Citizen, Eureka, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, solar, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What’s the greenest megacity? Hint: Not NYC

Feral cats are literally eating all of Australia’s wildlife

Feral cats are literally eating all of Australia’s wildlife

By on 13 Apr 2015commentsShare

Australia wants its cats dead. But not because it’s a nation of fanatical dog people — rather, the country’s enormous feral cat population now constitutes a major threat to its biodiversity. To save the country’s native wildlife, the cats need to go.

Due to hotter days, longer dry periods, and increasingly intense bush fires caused by climate change, Australia’s biodiversity is diminishing. Despite being one of the world’s 17 “megadiverse” countries, Australia has not done a bang-up job of protecting its wildlife. As mammalian extinction rates go, Australia’s is pretty dang high: Twenty-one percent of Australian native land mammals are threatened.

But, shockingly, climate change is actually not the No. 1 enemy of koalas and kangaroos: Feral cats are the “single biggest threat” to protecting Australia’s wildlife, according to a new piece from VICE News. There are about 20 million of these little cutthroat barbarians pawing, nuzzling, and murdering (in equal measure) their way across the continent, eating three to 20 animals each day — which adds up to a loss of 80 million native animals per week.

So, in a cruel but necessary gesture to save the country’s wildlife, the Australian government has pledged $2 million to slow their biodiversity loss by 2020 by killing as many feral cats as possible. Eliminating feral cat colonies altogether won’t be possible because they reproduce at high rates and are difficult to catch, but dammit, they’re going to keep trying. Here’s more from Vice:

For now, poisoned baits are the weapon of choice for population control. The largest programs for this method use aircraft to scatter baits across Australia’s vast outback. The aircraft can drop upwards of 60,000 baits across areas of over 1,000 square kilometers.

Until a stronger solution is found, endangered animals will have to be kept alive by isolating them from the vast swathes of the country where the cats roam unabated.

An entire continent terrorized by herds of meaner, angrier house cats sounds like the plot of a David Lynch movie, but this is real life. Who knew Miss Fluffs had it in her?

Source:
One of the World’s Biggest Extinction Crises Is Being Caused by Cats

, VICE News.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get Grist in your inbox

Excerpt from – 

Feral cats are literally eating all of Australia’s wildlife

Posted in Anchor, Anker, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Feral cats are literally eating all of Australia’s wildlife

Summers: Yes, the Robots Are Coming to Take Our Jobs

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Jim Tankersley called up Larry Summers to ask him to clarify his views on whether automation is hurting middle-class job prospects. Despite reports that he no longer supports this view, apparently he does:

Tankersley: How do you think about the effects of technology and automation on workers today, particularly those in the middle class?

Summers: No one should speak with certainty about these matters, because there are challenges in the statistics, and there are conflicts in the data. But it seems to me that there is a wave of what certainly appears to be labor-substitutive innovation. And that probably, we are only in the early innings of such a wave.

I think this is precisely right. I suspect that:

Automation began having an effect on jobs around the year 2000.
The effect is very small so far.
So small, in fact, that it probably can’t be measured reliably. There’s too much noise from other sources.
And I might be wrong about this.

In any case, this is at least the right argument to be having. There’s been a sort of straw-man argument making the rounds recently that automation has had a big impact on jobs since 2010 and is responsible for the weak recovery from the Great Recession. I suppose there are some people who believe this, but I really don’t think it’s the consensus view of people (like me) who believe that automation is a small problem today that’s going to grow in the future. My guess is that when economists look back a couple of decades from now, they’re going to to date the automation revolution from about the year 2000—but that since its effects are exponential, we barely noticed it for the first decade. We’ll notice it more this decade; a lot more in the 2020s; and by the 2030s it will be inarguably the biggest economic challenge we face.

Summers also gets it right on the value of education. He believes it’s important, but he doesn’t think it will do anything to address skyrocketing income inequality:

It is not likely, in my view, that any feasible program of improving education will have a large impact on inequality in any relevant horizon.

First, almost two-thirds of the labor force in 2030 is already out of school today. Second, most of the inequality we observe is within education group — within high school graduates or within college graduates, rather than between high school graduates and college graduates. Third, inequality within college graduates is actually somewhat greater than inequality within high school graduates. Fourth, changing patterns of education is unlikely to have much to do with a rising share of the top 1 percent, which is probably the most important inequality phenomenon. So I am all for improving education. But to suggest that improving education is the solution to inequality is, I think, an evasion.

Also read Kevin’s #longread all about this stuff: Welcome, Robot Overlords. Please Don’t Fire Us?

This is the key fact. Rising inequality is almost all due to the immense rise in the incomes of the top 1 percent. But no one argues that the top 1 percent are better educated than, say, the top 10 percent. As Summers says, if we improve our educational outcomes, that will have a broad positive effect on the economy. But it very plainly won’t have any effect on the dynamics that have shoveled so much of our economic gains to the very wealthy.

The rest is worth a read (it’s a fairly short interview). Summers isn’t saying anything that lots of other people haven’t said before, but he’s an influential guy. The fact that he’s saying it too means this is well on its way to becoming conventional wisdom.

Visit site:

Summers: Yes, the Robots Are Coming to Take Our Jobs

Posted in Anker, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Summers: Yes, the Robots Are Coming to Take Our Jobs