Family Crest

Family Crest
Motto: I will never forget. [ Source HouseofNames ]

HUMANITY DOOMSDAY CLOCK - Moves forward to 2125 due to election of US President trump.

Estimate of the time that Humanity will go extinct or civilization will collapse. The HUMANITY DOOMSDAY CLOCK moves forward to 2125 due to US President trump's abandonment of climate change goals. Clock moved to 90 seconds to doom at December 2023. Apologies to Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists for using the name.

PLEASE QUOTE, COPY and LINK

While this material is copyrighted, you are hereby granted permission and encouraged to copy and paste any excerpt and/or complete statement from any entry on this blog into any form you choose. In return, please provide explicit credit to this source and a link or URL to the publication. Email links to mckeever.mp@gmail.com

You may also wish to read and quote from these groundbreaking essays on economic topics with the same permission outlined above

The Jobs Theory of Growth [https://miepa.net/apply.html]

Moral Economics [https://miepa.net/moral.html]

Balanced Trade [https://miepa.net/essay.html]

There Are Alternatives to Free Market Capitalism [https://miepa.net/taa.html]

Specific Country Economic Policy Analyses - More Than 50 Countries from Argentina to Yemen [https://miepa.net/]




Translate

Saturday, February 25, 2023

Lack of Regulation Enables Child Labor in the USA


Alone and Exploited, Migrant Children Work Brutal Jobs Across the U.S. NYTimes 


Arriving in record numbers, they’re ending up in dangerous jobs that violate child labor laws — including in factories that make some of the country’s best-known products.


By Hannah Dreier and Photographs By Kirsten Luce


Hannah traveled to Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota, South Dakota and Virginia for this story and spoke to more than 100 migrant child workers in 20 states.


Feb. 25, 2023, 5:00 a.m. ET


Cristian works a construction job instead of going to school. He is 14.


Carolina packages Cheerios at night in a factory. She is 15.


Wander starts looking for day-labor jobs before sunrise. He is 13.


It was almost midnight in Grand Rapids, Mich., but inside the factory everything was bright. A conveyor belt carried bags of Cheerios past a cluster of young workers. One was 15-year-old Carolina Yoc, who came to the United States on her own last year to live with a relative she had never met.


About every 10 seconds, she stuffed a sealed plastic bag of cereal into a passing yellow carton. It could be dangerous work, with fast-moving pulleys and gears that had torn off fingers and ripped open a woman’s scalp.


The factory was full of underage workers like Carolina, who had crossed the southern border by themselves and were now spending late hours bent over hazardous machinery, in violation of child labor laws. At nearby plants, other children were tending giant ovens to make Chewy and Nature Valley granola bars and packing bags of Lucky Charms and Cheetos — all of them working for the processing giant Hearthside Food Solutions, which would ship these products around the country.


“Sometimes I get tired and feel sick,” Carolina said after a shift in November. Her stomach often hurt, and she was unsure if that was because of the lack of sleep, the stress from the incessant roar of the machines, or the worries she had for herself and her family in Guatemala. “But I’m getting used to it.”


Hearthside Food Solutions, one of the United States’ largest food contractors, makes and packages products for well-known snack and cereal brands.Credit...Kirsten Luce for The New York Times


These workers are part of a new economy of exploitation: Migrant children, who have been coming into the United States without their parents in record numbers, are ending up in some of the most punishing jobs in the country, a New York Times investigation found. This shadow work force extends across industries in every state, flouting child labor laws that have been in place for nearly a century. Twelve-year-old roofers in Florida and Tennessee. Underage slaughterhouse workers in Delaware, Mississippi and North Carolina. Children sawing planks of wood on overnight shifts in South Dakota.


Largely from Central America, the children are driven by economic desperation that was worsened by the pandemic. This labor force has been slowly growing for almost a decade, but it has exploded since 2021, while the systems meant to protect children have broken down.


The Times spoke with more than 100 migrant child workers in 20 states who described jobs that were grinding them into exhaustion, and fears that they had become trapped in circumstances they never could have imagined. The Times examination also drew on court and inspection records and interviews with hundreds of lawyers, social workers, educators and law enforcement officials.


In town after town, children scrub dishes late at night. They run milking machines in Vermont and deliver meals in New York City. They harvest coffee and build lava rock walls around vacation homes in Hawaii. Girls as young as 13 wash hotel sheets in Virginia.


In many parts of the country, middle and high school teachers in English-language learner programs say it is now common for nearly all their students to rush off to long shifts after their classes end.


“They should not be working 12-hour days, but it’s happening here,” said Valeria Lindsay, a language arts teacher at Homestead Middle School near Miami. For the past three years, she said, almost every eighth grader in her English learner program of about 100 students was also carrying an adult workload.


Migrant child labor benefits both under-the-table operations and global corporations, The Times found. In Los Angeles, children stitch “Made in America” tags into J. Crew shirts. They bake dinner rolls sold at Walmart and Target, process milk used in Ben & Jerry’s ice cream and help debone chicken sold at Whole Foods. As recently as the fall, middle-schoolers made Fruit of the Loom socks in Alabama. In Michigan, children make auto parts for Ford and General Motors.


The number of unaccompanied minors entering the United States climbed to a high of 130,000 last year — three times what it was five years earlier — and this summer is expected to bring another wave.


These are not children who have stolen into the country undetected. The federal government knows they are in the United States, and the Department of Health and Human Services is responsible for ensuring sponsors will support them and protect them from trafficking or exploitation.


But as more and more children have arrived, the Biden White House has ramped up demands on staffers to move the children quickly out of shelters and release them to adults. Caseworkers say they rush through vetting sponsors.


While H.H.S. checks on all minors by calling them a month after they begin living with their sponsors, data obtained by The Times showed that over the last two years, the agency could not reach more than 85,000 children. Overall, the agency lost immediate contact with a third of migrant children.


An H.H.S. spokeswoman said the agency wanted to release children swiftly, for the sake of their well-being, but had not compromised safety. “There are numerous places along the process to continually ensure that a placement is in the best interest of the child,” said the spokeswoman, Kamara Jones.


Far from home, many of these children are under intense pressure to earn money. They send cash back to their families while often being in debt to their sponsors for smuggling fees, rent and living expenses.


“It’s getting to be a business for some of these sponsors,” said Annette Passalacqua, who left her job as a caseworker in Central Florida last year. Ms. Passalacqua said she saw so many children put to work, and found law enforcement officials so unwilling to investigate these cases, that she largely stopped reporting them. Instead, she settled for explaining to the children that they were entitled to lunch breaks and overtime.


Sponsors are required to send migrant children to school, and some students juggle classes and heavy workloads. Other children arrive to find that they have been misled by their sponsors and will not be enrolled in school.


The federal government hires child welfare agencies to track some minors who are deemed to be at high risk. But caseworkers at those agencies said that H.H.S. regularly ignored obvious signs of labor exploitation, a characterization the agency disputed.


In interviews with more than 60 caseworkers, most independently estimated that about two-thirds of all unaccompanied migrant children ended up working full time.


A representative for Hearthside said the company relied on a staffing agency to supply some workers for its plants in Grand Rapids, but conceded that it had not required the agency to verify ages through a national system that checks Social Security numbers. Unaccompanied migrant children often obtain false identification to secure work.


“We are immediately implementing additional controls to reinforce all agencies’ strict compliance with our longstanding requirement that all workers must be 18 or over,” the company said in a statement.


At Union High School in Grand Rapids, Carolina’s ninth-grade social studies teacher, Rick Angstman, has seen the toll that long shifts take on his students. One, who was working nights at a commercial laundry, began passing out in class from fatigue and was hospitalized twice, he said. Unable to stop working, she dropped out of school. 

Thursday, February 23, 2023

Billionaires = DEADWEIGHT LOSS


Billionaires: You are a DEADWEIGHT LOSS  


One should listen when an old dog barks..........Norse Proverb


DEADWEIGHT LOSS is a thing in economic theory. It occurs whenever an obstacle of some sort interferes with market forces of competition and efficiency.


DEADWEIGHT LOSS  represents the business opportunities not taken and jobs not created due to that interference. Billionaires contribute to the economic losses to the extent they prevent competition to their market position.


Such losses harm the National Security of the United States by making the economy weaker. 


Some Billionaires actively seek to harm the economy and expand our Deadweight Loss by preventing competition from new companies; yet, our economic growth requires that new companies are formed.


Many Billionaires can, and do, so direct our national political and security interest structures to serve their personal accumulation, to the direct harm of the National Security of the United States of America.


[In case you don't know about Ray Dalio and Greed Amok, some background is here


Some Billionaires may try to rationalize their greed by telling themselves that they are just the winners in a competitive game. 


But, we all know that excuse is BULLSHIT, plain and simple. 


Here is reality for many Americans: 


There is no effective Safety Net. 6 in 10 Americans don't have $500 in savings


Without a safety net, when Americans fall, we keep falling into the whirlpool of despair. The Whirlpool is always ready to suck us in; it makes us afraid.


Our Founders lived in mostly farming and rural communities where people grew their own food and had family and friends around to gather together when trouble came.


Today, we are siloed and atomized. We react to media and distant situations while we ignore what is in our sight.


The Federal Government is supposed to prevent active harm to Americans. Billionaires actively lobby to prevent the government from expanding the Safety Net.


Taken together, Billionaires concerted actions work to prevent an effective American safety net. This lack of a safety net contributes to American malaise and despair.


History instructs us that we have limited options.


Option 1: Do nothing and wait for the inevitable violent reaction; or,


Choice 2: Instruct your political minions to approve an effective Safety Net for the population you have impoverished, who are also known as 'the rest of us.


Here are links to three articles describing the situation in detail: 


1. Depression and Suicide


2. Depression Stressors


3. Nordic Experience


Billionaires acting in concert can provide a decent safety net to Americans. AND, once it takes effect the additional GDP growth will give the Billionaires even more wealth than now. 


It's very easy: Tell your minions in Congress to stop blocking any and all safety net legislation. 


As an example, Nordic countries take collective responsibility for their citizens and provide a real safety net. As a result, they enjoy peaceful prosperity, mostly paid for by taxes on Billionaires.


Monday, February 20, 2023

It’s Time to Tear Up Big Tech’s Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card

It’s Time to Tear Up Big Tech’s Get-Out-of-Jail-Free Card - Feb. 20, 2023


By Julia Angwin,  New York Times Opinion section


Ms. Angwin is a contributing Opinion writer and an investigative journalist.


I still remember the shock I felt when I was able to buy a Facebook ad aimed only at white house hunters — something the Fair Housing Act was designed to prevent — in just minutes. But even more shocking is that it took six years after my test for Meta, Facebook’s parent company, to comply with the act. As of today, the company still has not fully fixed its discriminatory ad system.


A major reason for the delay: Section 230, the notorious snippet of law embedded in the 1996 Telecommunications Act, which Meta and others have successfully used to protect themselves from a broad swath of legal claims.


The law, created when the number of websites could be counted in the thousands, was designed to protect early internet companies from libel lawsuits when their users inevitably slandered one another on online bulletin boards and chat rooms. But since then, as the technology evolved to billions of websites and services that are essential to our daily lives, courts and corporations have expanded it into an all-purpose legal shield that has acted similarly to the qualified immunity doctrine that often protects police officers from liability even for violence and killing.


As a journalist who has been covering the harms inflicted by technology for decades, I have watched how tech companies wield Section 230 to protect themselves against a wide array of allegations, including facilitating deadly drug sales, sexual harassment, illegal arms sales and human trafficking — behavior that they would have likely been held liable for in an offline context.


This week the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that could limit tech companies’ use of the legal shield of Section 230. The family of a victim of an ISIS terrorist shooting in Paris argued that Google’s algorithms should be held responsible for promoting ISIS videos. Google says it is protected by Section 230.


Big tech companies argue that any limitations to the broad immunity they enjoy could break the internet and crush free speech, while advocates for reform argue that broad immunity incentivizes tech companies to underinvest in harm reduction.


But there is a way to keep internet content freewheeling while revoking tech’s get-out-of-jail-free card: drawing a distinction between speech and conduct.


In this scenario, companies could continue to have immunity for the defamation cases that Congress intended, but they would be liable for illegal conduct that their technology enables.


Courts have already been heading in this direction by rejecting the use of Section 230 in a case where Snapchat was held liable for its design of a speed filter that encouraged three teenage boys to drive incredibly fast in the hopes of receiving a virtual reward. They crashed into a tree and died.


In its Supreme Court brief, the Biden administration argues in favor of drawing a line between the benign algorithmic sorting that enables popular products like Google search and algorithmic manipulation that can violate the law, such as recommending terrorism-related content. “When an online service provider substantially adds or otherwise contributes to a third party’s information,” it may be held liable, the government argues.


I have seen firsthand how Section 230 enables tech companies to do little to address the harms their technologies can enable. In 2016 the civil rights attorney Rachel Goodman called to tell me that she had been trying unsuccessfully to warn Facebook that advertisers could use its ad targeting algorithms to violate the Fair Housing Act.


With Facebook’s automated ad targeting system, Ms. Goodman told me, advertisers could buy ads that were shown only to audiences Meta had identified as white without anyone being the wiser. To test her claim, my colleague Terry Parris Jr. and I decided to buy an ad. We logged onto Facebook’s ad portal and selected an audience of people interested in buying a house.


We were then offered a drop-down menu with a choice of audiences to exclude from seeing our ad. We chose to exclude three “ethnic affinity” groups: African Americans, Asian Americans and Hispanics. After 15 minutes, our ad was approved.


We immediately deleted our test. We had just witnessed the face of 21st-century discrimination: silent attributes hidden in code. There was no need for a “whites only” label in the ad. Hardly anyone but white people would ever see the ad.


Facebook responded to public pressure by adding language to its fine print notifying advertisers that they were responsible for complying with civil rights laws. It said it would build an algorithm to stop advertisers from exploiting racial categories in housing, employment and credit ads. (The company’s algorithm didn’t address other protected categories in civil rights law, such as age and gender.)


After our article was published, several lawsuits were filed against Facebook alleging violations of the Fair Housing Act. Facebook responded with claims of immunity under Section 230. Its view was that the advertisers alone were liable for any illegality. Historically, courts had agreed. In 2008, for instance, a federal court of appeals ruled that Craigslist was not liable for discriminatory housing ads posted on its website.


Less than a year after Facebook started using a new algorithm, I was able to buy another housing ad targeted at white audiences. Facebook blamed this on a “technical failure” of its new algorithmic system. Soon after, I found dozens of companies using Facebook’s ad targeting system to exclude older people from seeing employment ads. Facebook argued that age-targeting job ads were acceptable when “used responsibly,” despite a federal law prohibiting employers from indicating an age preference in advertising.


In 2019, three years after I purchased that first discriminatory housing ad, Facebook reached a settlement to resolve several legal cases brought by individual job seekers and civil rights groups and agreed to set up a separate portal for housing, employment and credit ads, where the use of race, gender, age and other protected categories would be prohibited. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission also reached settlements with several advertisers that had targeted employment ads by age.


But later that year, researchers at Northeastern University found that the new portal’s algorithm continued to distribute ads in a biased manner: “Ads for supermarket jobs were shown primarily to women, while ads for jobs in lumber industry were presented mostly to men.”


This is the problem with automated systems. They can create discrimination even when discriminatory variables are removed from their inputs because they often have enough information to make surprisingly accurate inferences.


Meanwhile, reporters at the nonprofit newsroom I founded, The Markup, identified credit card advertisements targeted by age. Facebook said “enforcement is never perfect” and that it would remove the ads we identified. Because of Section 230, Meta kept winning in the courts.


Last year, Meta agreed to yet another settlement, this time with the U.S. Department of Justice. The company agreed to pay a fine of more than $115,000 and to build a new algorithm — just for housing ads — that would distribute such ads in a nondiscriminatory manner. But the settlement didn’t fix any inherent bias embedded in credit, insurance or employment ad distribution algorithms.


And so here we are, seven years after my first purchase, and Meta still hasn’t fully fixed its discriminatory ad system, even as its revenues have quadrupled. As Judge Frank Easterbrook wrote in 2003, Section 230 makes internet providers “indifferent to the content of information they host or transmit” and encourages them to “do nothing.”


Drawing a distinction between speech and conduct seems like a reasonable step toward forcing big tech to do something when algorithms can be proved to be illegally violating civil rights, product safety, antiterrorism and other important laws. Otherwise, without liability, the price of doing nothing will always outweigh the cost of doing something.


Julia Angwin is a contributing Opinion writer, an investigative journalist and the author of “Dragnet Nation: A Quest for Privacy, Security and Freedom in a World of Relentless Surveillance.”


The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.


Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.