Sunday, February 17, 2019

A house with no walls

The right has been quick to trot out the analogy that you would never leave your doors unlocked, or have a house with no walls or a fence … so why don't you want the same for your country? This analogy is somewhat intuitive to half the country, and seems completely ridiculous to the other half, but why? What is really so wrong with it? Let me count the ways!

On a most basic level, very few people have fences for strong security. As even wall proponents will point out, the most a fence does against a motivated intruder is slow them down. Most people create a fence as part of a visual aesthetic, a privacy barrier, or a way to keep their pets and children on their property. "You built a fence, therefore you should build a wall" doesn't hold water - they address different problems. Furthermore, if my fence doesn't wrap around my entire property, the intruder will just walk to the part where there is no fence and come in there. A partial fence is useless as a barrier.

Well, but you wouldn't build a house without walls, would you? Of course not, that'd be antithetical to the point of a house: to keep the weather out. Houses are, first and foremost, a form of shelter: a defense from the elements. We put valuable things into the same houses as well and also want to protect them from the rain and freeze and scorching sun. We place windows into those walls so we can get natural sunlight and bask in our surroundings. These windows present a super weak barrier against intruders: a simple crowbar or rock will defeat the window in seconds. Motivated invaders are definitely not deterred.

Fine then, your house is basically worthless for defense. So why do you lock your doors then? I suspect this is largely for the same reason that people want a wall on the southern border: it will make them feel safer. Most doors are pretty easy to kick in, and if not, there are those windows again. Certainly depending on the neighborhood, people may walk by and try to open random doors. Locking them will deter some less-motivated intruders: the opportunists. Those who think there is something of value within, and think they can quickly come in, and get out with it, with a reduced chance of being noticed.

So, how motivated are people who are coming over the border? And what are they coming for? I hear they are incredibly motivated and are coming for our jobs. In the above analogy, the highly motivated intruder will not be kept out by the defenses presented by most homes. But, the thing they want is to intrude and then stay... which is exactly not what the home intruder is trying to do. And we know they are staying, because we're so full of illegal aliens, right?

We're talking about erecting the equivalent of proposing a nuisance fence as a serious part of a solution to the problem of motivated people wanting to come into our house and then wash our dishes and laundry and all the other things we really don't like to do. If you don't want someone else handling your undies, that's fine, but don't pretend that a single silly barrier will make the difference between them trying to come here and not. 

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Immigration chain addendum

Our chief idiot is floating that he will strike down birthright citizenship with an executive order. It's probably all hot air, and would be struck down in the courts, but it definitely stokes fears of immigrants. One of those fears is that parents will come to the USA just to have their kids and make their own path to citizenship easier.

While this is sort of maybe technically true, let's look at the details. As I've outlined in the past, the "links" in "chain immigrations" are prohibitively long. To recap, a US Citizen of age 21 or higher can petition for their parent to be given a green card. Using the anchor baby as the basis, this baby will need to live for 21 years, then petition, then wait at least 7 years, but usually 20+ (especially for those from countries that certain people tend to worry about). 40-45 years after giving birth, a mother can be reunited with their child in the USA. This is an exceedingly long play: the mom has a decent chance of not living that long, and the people worried about this abuse are even less likely to be alive by the time it happens.

Another concern is they are going to leach off American benefits. If the kid stays in the country, then yes, I suppose they will … but they will grow up in America like any other kid, will probably get a job like any other kid, etc. In other words, they'll be like any other kid and should get the same exact support. It's economically sound, and morally right. If they don't stay in the country as a minor, then they won't get any of the benefits and problem solved. 

Friday, August 10, 2018

Working on the immigration chain

"Chain immigration" is now a common topic of discussion. How does it work?
Claim: Well, anyone in America can just bring their random relative over.
Fact: The family-based visa program is limited to nuclear family: parents, children, sibling, spouse.
Fact: The family-based visa program is limited to sponsors who are already US Citizens.
Fact: The family-based visa program allows a US Citizen to _petition_ for a visa for a close family member. The applicant must be background checked, interviewed, etc. There is no guarantee they will be granted a visa.
Fact: Once approved, the family member receives a green card and can stay permanently in the USA.
https://travel.state.gov/…/family-based-immigrant-visas.htm…
Claim: Ok fine, it's limited, but then people arrive and just repeat the process.
Fact: Remember, sponsors must be US Citizens. It takes a minimum of 3 years to receive citizenship after arriving and getting a green card.
Fact: Family-based visas are limited in number (currently about 200k are given out in a year). This means there are backed up waiting lines, often in the 5-10 year range (and more for some countries). Your married child or sibling from Mexico or the Philippines would have been waiting for 20+ years to be approved today.
Fact: The only group that is approved faster (about 2 years) are unmarried minor children.
https://immigrationroad.com/vis…/visa-bulletin-by-month.php…
Claim: But the chain! They will just work around the law by getting their parent, who will get their parent, who will get their other child, who will get their child, and now the cousin is here. Also I can't do math.
Fact: I will do the math for you. It will take a US Citizen, who is at least 21, at least 7 years to get their parent in the country. That parent will then require another 3-5 years to get a citizenship. So, in 10-12 years, they can sponsor their parent and there's no guarantee it will be approved. By the time it might be approved and your grandparent immigrates and becomes a citizen, you are at least 41 and your grandparent probably isn't alive anymore. But if they are, they can try to repeat the process twice more, and 20-25 years later your cousin is here. You are at least 61 by this time. Also, these are the absolute best-case times.
Claim: Oh, I got it, instead of parent to parent to child to child, we can do parent to sibling to child. That eliminates one step.
Fact: Yay, a critical think! Now the best case is your cousin can be here in 30-35 years.
Claim: Actually it's 25 cuz the cousin will be here after 5 years, you counted 5 more years for them to get a citizenship but they're already here and have done all the crimes so nana nana nana.
Fact: You got me there. Everything I've said must be invalidated then. Unless I remind you that 7 years for the wait is the best-case, and good luck with that. For Mexico, each step will take 25 years, so by the time your cousin gets here, you'll be 100 years old and you won't even remember them.
So how does it work? It doesn't. Not in any real practical terms.

Sunday, July 29, 2018

How does society advance

We were once cavemen. We would spend our days hunting mammoth and gathering berries or whatever, and that was that. We banded together with others we could trust so that mammoth hunts would succeed, but our daily life was still this loop: find it, get it, eat it. Repeat. Occasionally fight off an intruding sabre-tooth tiger or bear or giant beaver. There was little time for anything else.

Eventually civilizations rose. Their hallmarks were governing bodies and the ability to grow and store food. Without having to worry about where calories would come from each day, people could spend their time doing other things: organizing group efforts to build structures, developing science to help with that, learning how to build tools and ride camels, etc. Society became more functional because people had more time for activities beyond basic subsistence.

Even today, the next great invention or startup or idea will materialize because someone has the time and freedom for it. We can best elevate society by removing or lowering subsistence barriers as much as possible.

Rampant deregulation flies in the face of this. It allows some who are innately aware of certain things to thrive. Suppose we don't have a guarantee of clean water. Those of us who know how to test it will take some time to do that and then go about our lives, and the rest of us will have lots of gastrointestinal or death issues. All of us will waste a tremendous amount of time either testing the water or suffering from its effects and be unable to do actually productive things.

A significant measure of society is its cumulative productivity. Productivity requires food, health, education, and a low enough baseline stress level to function. Said stress level is often related to the availability of food, health, and education.

Maybe we need to create a food voucher program for everyone, not just the needy. Remove the conditional administration overhead and just give everyone a FedFood card that reloads every month, no questions asked. If you want to buy something fancy and have the money for it? Cool, do that. Isn't that some crazy huge tax though? Math time:
  1. The USDA estimates the basic cost to feed an adult is about $50-60 per week.
  2. Approximately 12-14% of USA households are food insecure
The shortage in dollars is, therefore, at most $50-60 per week * 12-14% = $6-8 per week, or $300-400 per person. Most food insecure households have some money for food, so the actual number is significantly lower. This is how much tax redistribution, per person, it would take to make sure everyone has enough money to eat. The average tax per person should be about the $50-60 per week. For those of us who already can afford all our food, a portion of our expenses just makes a trip to FedFood via these taxes. That money is even tax-advantaged (in my hypothetical system), meaning many of us would come out net better - I get $3000 a year less in net pay, but don't pay taxes on it either. If I get it back as a tax-free spendable credit, I've come out ahead even when adding the several hundred dollars overhead to cover those in need.

We can make a similar argument for healthcare; this is a well-discussed area.

Betsy DeVos is currently trying to go the opposite route in education to make people like her richer. Instead of undermining one of our basic societal needs, she should just go stick her $1B net worth in stock market and buy a new yacht every year. We can instead spend a fraction of the $600B annual defense budget on federal teacher resource supplements: no more buying crayons for their classrooms out of their own paychecks. Or just give them bigger paychecks.

Clearly these are not carefully thought through end-to-end, but maybe there's something there. As a society, we should find the issues that negatively affect most of our members' ability to lead productive lives, and address them. Repeat.




Friday, July 13, 2018

Parallel Universes

This is not about physics. Or time. It's about lies.

When a person lies, they create a parallel universe. In this universe, some fact is different.
The person now has to take care to live in both universes: the real one with the people they haven't lied to, and the alternate one with the rest.

But don't alternate realities collapse when the main character meets themselves? In the same way Marty McFly can't let other Marty McFly see him, interactions between those in the real and alternate universes are fraught with peril. If they talk to each other and discuss their versions of the same fact, the universes become incompatible.

Every time the person lies, they create more and more parallel universes and have to maintain each one. Juggling them is hard work, eventually some will drop. The only universe that stays stable is the one with all truth. In the long run, reality wins out. Lies requires additional energy and become unsustainable.

Unfortunately "the long run" can be quite long on a human lifespan scale.



Friday, June 15, 2018

The Paul Manafort phenomenon

Paul Manafort was in deep trouble, under house arrest and investigation. Then, he decided to try and tamper with witnesses and is in even more trouble now. Why would he do such a thing? He must be very savvy to have made it as far as he has.

I think career criminals often have a risk-taking streak. They would almost have to, to justify all the risk they take to get their reward. This personality trait is just showing up, still: he sees reward in colluding testimony and has the constitution to take it.

Shouldn't he have gotten caught already? Well, no. Criminals come in all levels of capability and all different tolerances for risk. Those who succeed at the best chosen risk-reward scenarios tend to do the best. But, every act carries some odds of failure. A criminal can only fail so many times before they spend their life in prison.

There will be some criminals who aren't particularly good at what they do, but the odds happen to fall in their favor. Just because they've made it far doesn't mean they are great at what they do. 

The Warren Buffett phenomenon

I feel like I've written about this before, but a search of my blog shows no hits for any of the words in the title. No one's reading anyways, so it's cool if I repeat myself.

Is Warren Buffett the greatest investor ever? Many would say so. He certainly has a very long, proven, track record of successful investing. His Berk/A stock has risen from about $7000 a shared in 1990 to $67000 a share in 20 years ago to $287,000 today, easily outpacing the S&P 500 index has gone from $350 to $1000 to $2800 in the same time period.

Does this mean he has the most insight into investments? Not necessarily.
Investment is about taking good risk-reward positions time and time again. It's about assessing the risks and potentials, then acting. However, no one knows the future for sure so some of it is luck in how things unfold. Buffett is almost definitely a very good investor, but he may not be the best. Rather, he's the one for whom the future unfolded just right. And there is always such a person.

Warren Buffett is an illustration of how someone can rise to the top but may not be the best at their craft. This is critically important to remember when luck is involved in success. Being good improves your odds, and someone has to get the best result in a competition. Those two may not be the same.