Author Archives: David Lawrence Hadaller III

About David Lawrence Hadaller III

I come from a place that's just south of nowhere U.S.A.: the town of Woodbury. Its a town that's nestled in the Catskills up around Bear Mountain; the landscape there is absolutley beautiful. Although I love to trail run and boulder up the mountains (that's rock climbing short distances without a harness), I can't picture myself living anywhere but the city.

Posts by David Lawrence Hadaller III

Economic Solution to Robots in the Service Industry

Posted on March 17, 2015 by David Lawrence Hadaller III

As was discussed in my previous post, in coming years, automation will slowly begin to encroach on service sector jobs; as the utility of robots increases to include jobs once performed solely by humans, many will find themselves bereft of employment. The issue then becomes how, if at all, do we, as a society, accommodate these technological advances.

To me, it seems there are three stances one can take on this matter; the first is a Luddite, anti-technology approach where the use of robots in the service industry is prohibited entirely by the government. Under the same clause the FCC and the FDA use to regulate and deny licensure to certain medical or communications instruments that might pose a risk to society, the federal government could easily establish a regulatory body that prohibits the sale and use of robots as replacement for human labor.

Now, while this might successfully solve the problem of humans slipping into obsolescence and loosing their jobs, it does have serious drawbacks. Since robots do not require health insurance, food, living accommodations, or compensation for loss of limb or life, their potential, in terms of economic output and GDP is incredible. Imagine a tireless work force, that can work at any hour and under circumstances where humans would never risk their own lives. So, those countries who are more apt to embrace technological developments in artificial intelligence will have a clear economic advantage. Should the U.S. adopt a Luddite-type policy, it would slowly see itself sink behind as the world pushes forward economically speaking.

The second approach to this issue is a gradualist accommodation of automated service-sector production by creation of initial restrictions which can be slowly lifted as the government scrambles to re-educate large portions of its working populous to do other occupations which are less vulnerable to obsolescence. This approach, however, also has its drawbacks; a gradualist approach necessitates huge administrative effort, not only in the areas of enforcement and regulation (as is the case with the Luddite approach), but additionally it requires  large scale education reform particularly in adult vocational schools to accommodate a massive number of people. So this method, although it allows us to enjoy the benefits of technology without causing severe economic harm to ourselves, requires the most resources of the 3 approaches.

The third method, which I will term “my solution”, involves a slightly different take on the issue. Instead of focusing recourses on government intervention, we could allow the employers to work with their employees in such a way that both parties profit from their position. That is to say, a law could be passed that makes it illegal to buy robots without specific licensure in the same way that only certain companies are qualified to buy stock directly from companies. When one buys a share of stock, there is a broker that acts as a middleman. In the same way that it is illegal to buy stock directly from a company, it should be illegal for companies to buy robots directly from resellers or manufacturers. Instead, to finance and purchase a robot, companies who wish to utilize robots for service sector work would need to distribute stock to do so. The stock represents part ownership of the lifetime labor of the robot and can only be offered to individuals who are licensed for that particular occupation i.e. company employees. So, as an example, let us say that a trucking company wishes to “hire” an automated, self-driving truck. To do that, the trucking company would need to sell stock to the drivers within the company at market value to finance the purchase. That way, the labor generated by the robots creates a secondary income, in the form of dividend payments, for the truckers. So, as the companies continually adopt a greater and greater number of robot workers, this type of financing would allow the workers of the company to effectively retain (or perhaps even increase) their income without actually working. Instead of working, they own “labor shares” which have dividends which they can subsist on.

Automated Driving and Transportation Industry Unemployment

Posted on March 12, 2015 by David Lawrence Hadaller III

Year after year, computer technology continues to become faster, more economical and more pervasive to the point of absurdity. The majority of Americans, at this very moment, have in their pockets computers more powerful than the NASA Guidance Computers used in the Apollo missions. Any American, if he were so inclined, would be able to re-create the entire roster of calculation which landed human kind on the moon.

And yet, amazingly, the pace of advancement accelerates faster still. In coming decades, many analysts foretell a future of self-driven cars and an automated workforce within our economy. Let us, for a moment, consider the impact of automated car technology on the workforce alone. Vivek Wadhwa, in his article “We’re heading towards a jobless future, no matter what the government does”, describes a future where automated vehicles “will eliminate the jobs of taxi, bus, and truck drivers” in the same way that “automobiles displaced the horse and buggy.” He imagines that benefits of a world free of drivers that might “complain, join labor unions, or get distracted” at the hiring cost equal to the “salary of an average Chinese worker”; it is an employers dream.

This technology by itself has the potential to derail large components of the American Economy. Here in New York City, 50,000 or so taxi drivers would find themselves bereft of employment, but the bigger issue is in the commercial trucking industry. Today, for 29 states nation wide, trucking is the most common occupation by far. The trucking industry employs 1,701,500 Americans directly and contributes to supplementary services like the hospitality, restaurant and automotive repair industries. Because the certification  process is not academically rigorous or costly, trucking is also a blue collar shelter industry that provides employment to individuals who come from other, less-successful, careers in manufacturing and maintenance. With this considered, it is easy to see how an immediate upgrade from conventional to driverless vehicles could endanger the income of businesses across highways all over the country as unemployed and “obsolete” human drivers strain to rebuild their careers in other industries.

Similar layoffs would likely occur for bus and taxi drivers, as well as rail operators in public transit and freight transportation. However, the issue is not so much that there will be unemployment, but that the unemployment will be functionally complete; the problem is not that jobs will be hard to find, no, like an elevator operator of yesteryear, in the future, truck drivers will simply no longer exist. Also unlike the elevator operator, employees in the transportation industries take up a large portion of the economic development in certain areas of the country. Without truck drivers, much of the midwest will find itself without an alternative means of income. So, simply allowing transport-related occupations to slip into obsolescence will likely bring with it an immense economic impact. However, one has to ask: what can possibly be done for this population of workers who, as it seems, are only educated in one trade and are perilously close to loosing it? How could the transition be anything but abrupt; truck drivers don’t have time for night classes or part-time vocational school, which might make for a smooth career change. With a median pay of  $38,200 per year, it is also likely that many do not have savings to rest on, so they could learn a new trade while unemployed. The issue is clear: transportation jobs are vital to the livelihoods of an enormous number of Americans, but at the same time retaining them when a better technology exists makes no financial sense. It is a conflict of interests that necessitates a creative solution.

 

Evidence Based, Poverty Centric Legislation: My Solution to Crime

Posted on February 27, 2015 by David Lawrence Hadaller III

It has long been known amongst sociologists that crime is both a cause and consequence of poverty. This is especially true in the United States where poorer neighborhoods often have substantially worse schools; the absence of structure and lackluster career prospects resulting from poor education often entices teens to join gangs and engage in other illicit activities. In one study, it was found that that education’s biggest impacts were on the rates of violent crime such as murder, assault and motor vehicle theft. While engaging in these high-risk activities, an offender might find himself arrested and subsequently incarcerated. After serving his sentence, the ex-offender’s prospects of attaining a “real” job are abysmal. Essentially, it becomes true that “In the sense that prison may incapacitate inmates from committing further crimes, it also incapacitates inmates in all other domains of life, including employment.” Thus, the cycle is further propagated as ex-cons are forced back into their former trades once released as they attempt to sustain themselves financially.

One innovative solution, modeled after the Robin Hood Foundation, would be to create a public grants program, whereby non-profit and not-for-profit organizations can become government contractors that act within a framework of optimal poverty reduction. Such a solution calls for New York State to enact a new administrative body: an Economic Development Council. Such an Economic Development Council (EDC) would measure success through clear cost-benefit ratio analyses and as such could direct the appropriate amount of funding (not too much to fertility clinics at the expense of education) to credible charity groups. To put it simply, such an administrative body would grant the appropriate funds to credible charities in the same way businesses gauge the value of a particular branch of a company; the greater a charity contributes to the bottom line (the reduction of long term poverty), the more preference it receives in the grants process. Charities which do not  meet the standards of efficacy and effectiveness will not receive grants whatsoever.

For the formerly effective charity, which may have received grants in the past, but has not met EDC demands for a brief to protracted amount of time, the grants will be revoked or diminished until the charity can reorganize itself more effectively. Of course, this is no draconian evaluation; long before grants are withdrawn, EDC advisors and inspectors would have sat with the directors of the charity to counsel them on the best methods of improving their social effectiveness.

This approach, termed Venture Philanthropy, has seen successful application throughout the charity world, but more so in New York City than anywhere else. In the years since its inception, The Robin Hood foundation-funded charities have become the largest emergency food groups in New York City, serving 5 millions meals annually, they have also become the best job placement agencies for ex-convicts with double the long-term placement rate of public institutions. Additionally, students in Robin Hood Funded charter schools consistently outperform their counterparts in non-Robin Hood schools by 10 grade percentage points. All this has been done with an administrative openness that has earned the Foundation the highest possible rating by Charity Navigator for financial efficacy, accountability and transparency. With an adequate understanding of how education and economic opportunity impacts a community’s crime, it is abundantly clear that the state government could stand to learn from organizations such as these.

 

Questions for Brenden Beck

Posted on February 24, 2015 by David Lawrence Hadaller III

The focus of this “Milk not Jails” program seems to be two-fold; firstly, to economically uplift dairy farming communities in upstate New York and secondly, to reform New York’s penal system and offer an alternative to Jail-time.

1.) My grandfather and my father each worked on a dairy farm in Idaho one point. They both cited how very much they hated waking up at 4-5am each morning to go into a smelly barn and milk cows. For that reason, as soon as my Grandfather turned 17, he joined the Navy. So, to me it seems that the obvious cause for the reduction in the number of dairy farms today as compared to 1970 (650,000-54,000) is not because the government is not doing enough for farmers, or that they need prison labor to improve business, it’s because dairy farming is hard work and it doesn’t pay well enough. If one would like to truly help dairy farmers, why not implement some sort of collective among farmers so they can work with corporations to receive larger contracts, so the money will match peoples work-investment? Instead of working against large collective farms, why not work with them?

2.) Why this solution? It seems campy. If the issue is the penal code, why not fix the penal code? If too many blacks and latinos are going to jail for crimes as mundane as marijuanna possession, why not lobby directly toward changing that body of law? In other words, why change the method of punishment, when the real problem is that these people are being punished by an unjust law in the first place?

Precinct 32 Questions

Posted on February 20, 2015 by David Lawrence Hadaller III

1. With decreasing crime all over New York City, or at least decreasing homicide rates ( recently heard the city went 12 days without a report of homicide), is police fieldwork becoming safer or is this new change only important statistically speaking?

 

2. Has the Police Department’s relationship with the Mayor’s Office seen positive development over the past year? Ever since the disagreement over stop and frisk policies in DeBlasio’s campaign, it seems that cooperation and support of the mayor’s office has not been a top priority with New York Police officers.

Policing is the Problem

Posted on February 17, 2015 by David Lawrence Hadaller III

In order to tackle this issue sensibly, it is necessary to clarify what, exactly, it means to find problems with “policing.” Must problems in the administration of justice be identified? That is to say, are we to explore issues within the realms prosecution, punishment and incarceration? Or, are we to investigate the very core of what policing aims to achieve; to encourage lawful conduct in society.

To shed some light on the difference between the two perspectives, I present an anecdote: In Sudhir Venkatesh’s book “Gang Leader for a Day: A Rogue Sociologist Takes to the Streets”, Venkatesh describes the trials of living with and studying the Black Kings, a hardened yet organized, crack-dealing gang from the north side of Chicago. In one passage he describes a police raid of a gang party:

As J.T. and I stood talking in a corner, a group of five men suddenly busted into the room, all dressed in black. One of them held up a gun for everyone to see. The other four ran to the corners of the room, one of them shouting for everyone to get up against the wall. Four of the men were black, one white. J.T. whispered to me, “Cops.”

He and I took our places against the wall. One of them pulled out black trash bags. “Cash and jewels, I want everything in the bag!” one shouted. “Now!”

“F*cking cops do this all the time,” J.T. told me. “As soon as they find out we’re having a party, they raid it.” “Why? And why don’t they arrest you?” I asked. “And how do you know they were cops?” “It’s a game!” shouted one of the other [Black King] leaders. “We make all this fucking money, and they want some.”

Venkatesh was clearly shocked by the behavior, he wondered whether it could actually be the case that police, acting out of uniform, were using civil forfeiture law to rob gang members outright. He pressed the question on to his police contact in the local precinct:

“Yes, some of the people I work with raid the parties. And you know, sometimes I feel like I should do it, too! I mean, guys like J.T. are making a killing off people. And for what? Peddling [drugs] that kill. But it’s not for me. I don’t participate—I just don’t see the point.”

It seems this behavior isn’t some spurious case of police corruption, but instead a common practice among the police. So common, in fact, that in the case of this particular precinct, there was a weekly sign up sheet for it. Not only that, but the police who don’t participate had no qualms against it. Now, this is not an attempt to elicit sympathy for hardened criminals, however, it brings the discussion back to my point: does this behavior encourage lawful conduct in society–does this contribute to the core of what successful policing aims to achieve?

Certainly not is the obvious answer, but could better policing solve this sort of abuse of power? Even any sort of community-based or legislative policing, as is suggested by the C.O.P.S. (Community Oriented Policing Services) initiative, seems like a naive hand-wavy solution. Realistically, where can a gang member go to to complain about stolen goods? Of course, the issue is not the goods themselves, but the fact that police officers take advantage of a situation to steal thousands of dollars worth of goods, instead of appropriately and fairly administering justice. Who is going to speak out against this sort of conduct–which politician, which officer, which community director? Really, who would dare to risk being branded as a gang sympathizer ? Can such abuse of power really be prevented?

Perhaps it can’t be; at the end of the book, The Black Kings disbanded and organized crime in Chicago plummeted. Down with it went prostitution, drug sales, extortion and murder rates. What was the miraculous solution? It wasn’t a new $800 chest camera for officers, or some new and improved community engagement policy from the Department of Justice. No, the solution was much more simple than that; the legislation that provided funds for James Taylor Houses, the housing projects where the Black Kings (and a number of other gangs) were situated, was up for renewal. The governor elected not to renew the legislation and instead provided funds for the demolition of James Taylor Houses, so large luxury condominiums could be built in its place. The residents of James Taylor were then given vouchers to seek housing throughout the larger Chicago area. What this accomplished was the decentralization of gang activity. Those looking for drugs, prostitution and the like could no longer go to one area with relatively little police density to get their fix. So, any one single gang could no longer make the money it once had. Without the money to pay their foot soldiers, the lower ranks of the gangs disbanded. Soon after, the leadership separated as well.

So, once again, this brings me to my point; perhaps the problem isn’t that the police are administering their force in the wrong way, but that the police are not the correct organization to promote lawful conduct in the first place. The role of the police should be more custodial; they clean up the societal mess crime creates with investigation and pursuit of criminals. What they cannot do, by the nature of the occupation, is put into place the conditions that favor a major and long-term reduction of crime, which is what ultimately lessens incarceration rates and remedies a slew of other issues our legal system faces. So really, the problem with policing is that we are policing instead of legislating to craft conditions that would uplift formerly crime infested neighborhoods.

 

Some Additional Resources:

John Oliver, an HBO political satirist, on civil forfeiture.

Sudhir Venkatesh’s Other Works

Contact Info for Venkatesh (he currently teaches at the Columbia dept. of sociology)

Table of necessary proof for civil forfeiture by state.

 

Two Questions for Oliver Libby

Posted on February 5, 2015 by David Lawrence Hadaller III

1.) This is perhaps a little uninteresting, but for a student such as myself who is interested in growth industries it is particularly relevant; how does one become a consultant in a growth catalyst firm? Also, If I may cheat and insert two questions into one, what is your everyday work like; do clients come to you, or are you forced to track down fledgling companies? How do you market yourself?

2.) With your expertise as Deputy Director of Energy Policy for the ’08 Giuliani Presidental Campaign, do you think that the lack of action on congress’ part with respect to implementing clean energy infrastructure is forcing the issue on to municipal and state legislatures? Is energy reform ever going to happen at the federal level?

Comments by David Lawrence Hadaller III

"Sorry, the link was weird. Good points all around. Yes, corruption among police officers only cheapens and subverts the efforts of more honest officers. However, is this a problem that can be really and truly solved? Institutional corruption is one of the most difficult things to deal with in large organizations of any kind. I just yesterday read an article about how U.S. Army Officers periodically lie to their superiors and subordinates. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/19/politics/army-ethics-lying-report/) Additionally, can abuse of power really be addressed? What limitations and oversight could possibly stop a warden at Riker’s island from putting someone in solitary confinement at his own discretion? It’s easy to say “they need regulating” but, I mean, in any real life scenario where an inmates view of the situation is pitted against a warden’s, the warden’s wins; if the warden says he “saw” you in that scuffle, and that you’re going to solitary confinement then that’s it. Because it’s your word against his. I’m interested to hear your response."
--( posted on Feb 20, 2015, commenting on the post Problem I – Policing )
 
"Good points all around. Yes, corruption among police officers only cheapens and subverts the efforts of more honest officers. However, is this a problem that can be really and truly solved? Institutional corruption is one of the most difficult things to deal with in large organizations of any kind. I just read an article about how , Additionally, can abuse of power really be addressed? What limitations and oversight could possibly stop a warden at Riker's island from putting someone in solitary confinement at his own discretion? It's easy to say "they need regulating" but, I mean, in any real life scenario where an inmates view of the situation is pitted against a warden's, the warden's wins; if the warden says he "saw" you in that scuffle, and that you're going to solitary confinement then that's it. Because it's your word against his. I'm interested to hear your response."
--( posted on Feb 20, 2015, commenting on the post Problem I – Policing )
 
"@Skye Wright: It seems that I hadn't put myself across clearly enough. I do not mean that police should be "taken out of the equation." What kind of world could that create? Laws without an impetus for the public to follow them are barely laws at all. No, criminals need to face the consequences of their actions, that goes without saying. What I did mean to say is that our class discussion is centered around Law Enforcement (policing) and the Judiciary Process and I think that that is the wrong approach to talking about crime altogether. In chemistry, we have something called the rate determining step; there are many factors that go into a reaction, but the rate determining step is the factor that matters the most by far. I think that Policing and the Judiciary process are not the rate determining step here. Poverty is. No amount of policing could make a dent in the James Taylor Housing Projects in the anecdote I wrote about (in my opinion policing made the problem worse, since police were integrating themselves into the gangs profit flow.) What really made the difference was economics; it was no longer profitable for drug dealers to sell drugs, so the gangs could no longer make any money. No money means less gang activity and that means less gang violence. Its that simple. So, if you make the economic conditions in poorer neighborhoods rise--that is to say, if you make it so that people can make more money and have a better status than they would if they were selling drugs and engaging in elicit activities, then crime drastically decreases. @Aychen Halim Yes, but this is not what I meant by legislation. That type of legislation is good, yes, but it only deals with the apprehension of criminals--the end of the line for the criminal. I say make legislation that deals with the problem at its source; what conditions and circumstances breed a criminal behavior in the first place?"
--( posted on Feb 20, 2015, commenting on the post Policing is the Problem )