How to: Engage With a Racist/Misogynist/Homophobe

     Something I've noticed with the polarizing effect of the Presidency and politics is a prevalence of people disconnecting from others when there are disagreements. Things like "If you think x is okay, I don't wanna be friends" - you know what I'm referring to. Instances of this that I've seen on my feed or heard about in person have gone like this:

• "I don't have the energy to educate you about insert topic here, bye Felicia"
• "Since the election, people have really shown their true colors and made it easy to unfriend/unfollow"
• "We found out Bob doesn't like lesbians, so we don't hang out with him anymore."

     I don't really get that, though. If you react in any of those ways, you recognize that there is something you want to change. Whether it's because of your tiredness or frustration, you just give up. So you've turned any possibility of change to 0%. 

     Not only that, but I think there's a serious lack of perspective when you want to quit. You gotta remember - first impressions and long-held beliefs are tough nuts to crack, and nearly impossible if you engage in some form of argument. I'm pretty certain hostility and confrontation causes us to hold even tighter onto our beliefs. So what's the appropriate way to engage?

     Sounds boring, but I think the answer is pretty simple. Eat, drink, shoot the breeze. Be open and understanding. Listen to another perspective. Over time, they'll come around - but not without nudging. Quitting on someone, though*? That's definitely not the way - you've either robbed someone of your perspective or successfully gave that person reason to dismiss your position.

     If you think it is an unwarranted burden** that you must be the one to explain, or coax, or whatever - I hate to say it, but you could be complicit in the perpetuation of whatever issue it is you want to support. In the words of Dr. King, only love can drive out hate. Not shouting down ignorant folks, or pushing them away. Love.

If you don't think this is a very good idea, I think this (short) article would be a great read for you: Guy befriends and converts 200+ Klansmen

*Don't get me wrong - I know there are plenty of folks who are absolutely intractable. You can sort out the people to invest your time in, I'm sure.

**Also, burdensome as it may feel, we are always representative of the groups we are a part of. You might not like it, but it's a fact that you have contributed, in ways big and small, to thousands of others' ideas of what it's like to be you, whether you're gay/straight, yellow/white/black/brown, etc. etc. So wear it proudly and represent your groups well. 

The Wall

     With the government shutdown about to hit the 3-week mark & with no end in sight (combined with the fact that I haven't written in awhile), I thought I'd write some about it. I think most folks get the gist of it, but I'll go over the main points anyways:

• While campaigning for the presidency, one of Donald Trump's main selling points was to build a wall along the country's southern border. (Speaking of main selling points, whatever happened to "Lock her up"?) Anyways, not only would this wall prevent all sorts of bad characters from making their way in, but Mexico would pay for it! Not 10%, or 20%, or even 50%. They would pay for all of it.
• Almost 2 years from his inauguration, the wall hasn't been built (and Hillary hasn't been locked up either, now that I think about it ... hmmm.) and Mexico won't pay for it. Since Mexico won't pay for the wall, but we need to have a wall, then we will pay for the wall. Every single dollar of the $5,700,000,000 that he is requesting. & if you're the type to believe in government inefficiency/cronyism, then you just know that price tag does not match what could eventually be spent on it (God forbid).

     While most of the country sits around wondering when the government will get it together and resume business (without paying for said wall), there are still plenty (as in millions) of Americans who clamor for the wall. In fact, there are over 3 million signatures collected here "LETTING POLITICIANS KNOW YOU WANT THE WALL." So, y'know, there's that. Oh, & about 335,000 people willing to shell out, on average, $60 (collectively, they've raised $20,000,000. Just $5,680,000000 to go!) to fund the wall. What I don't understand about these people (and everyone else who is supportive of taxpayer money going to the wall) is why they aren't upset that the President pulled one over on them? Like if someone offered to take me out to dinner and then left me with the check, I'd be pretty annoyed. Assuming a casual dinner for 2 amounts to $50, then you'd just have to scale up by 114,000,000 to match what President Trump is doing to the American people for his wall! 

     I know there are other perspectives to approach this from. Ethical, political, humanitarian, racial, whatever. But on a personal level, doesn't it bother you that the person you voted for and trust is taking you for a ride? Or maybe you're just not the type to, I don't know, have the self-respect to hold someone else accountable? Ah well, we just gotta deal for... 2 more years, maybe 6 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. 

Is There a Need for Universal Healthcare?

     I can't remember when, but I saw a post on IG saying something along the lines of "I believe in your right to insurance, but I don't believe it's your right to make me pay for it." I don't agree with this principle in concept or practice, and here's why: as a group, doctors already make an oath to - essentially - heal those that need it. So regardless of anybody else's opinion, they've essentially committed themselves to a line of action - if someone needs it, they'll fix it (this is pretty much what the emergency department is for - urgent care that requires treatment). Furthermore, they cannot turn folks away whether they are rich, homeless, or anything in between. This creates a situation where "consumers" receive a service regardless of their ability to pay (I put "consumers" in quotes because I think it's a really callous way of viewing people), creating some debt. How's this debt covered?
     Well, either the staff provide the service without charge (which they usually don't, nor would I expect them to) or everyone else gets a little bit added to the top of their bill to take care of it. Situation remedied, right? Completely. If you can't tell, though, that means we are all (already) collectively paying for that service (emergency services). As the saying goes, though, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Let's take it literally (just for the sake of the blog, there's literally no economic or medical data I am citing for this) and say that $1 in preventive care is worth $16 (16 oz. to a pound) in later, emergency costs. For 137 million emergency department visits in 2015, that cost ends up being quite hefty. Let's say the average visit costs $1,000 for scans and other treatment for some simple math - this ends up being $137,000,000,000, or 137 BILLION dollars. According to the CDC, 14% of emergency department visits (in 2012) were by people with no insurance. If the percent from 2012 applied to the number and cost of visits in 2015, then 19.18 billion dollars (14% of 137 billion dollars)  worth of care is administered to those without insurance - which is a figure that must be bore by some other entity. Lastly, if we take this figure and take 1/16th of it as the hypothetical figure for preventive care, the cost would end up being 1.2 billion dollars. So, the health care system (and by extension, all its customers) could save some ~18 billion dollars by focusing treatment on preventive care rather than emergency services. Now, is my number off? Yes, most certainly. I (admittedly) oversimplified the issue and am missing a host of considerations.
     HOWEVER, the point still stands, and hopefully you understand these ideas better:

• Everyone ends up paying for everyone else's health because hospitals cannot refuse to administer emergency services. Hopefully, you're made of the moral substance that says this is the right thing to do. If you're not, then this really isn't for you, but you don't get to go around pretending like you care about anyone else. You don't, because denying anyone emergency services is cruel and about as far from caring as you can get.
• It is more expensive to treat health when it gets to the point of being an emergency (scans, surgeries, etc. etc.) than it is to enact preventive measures (medicine, lifestyle changes, etc. etc.).
• If we are all going to pay for it when people end up being in poor health, then we might as well be cheap about it by ensuring universal access to healthcare that is preventive so as to ensure as many health problems as possible are dealt with as early as possible (before they snowball into major health issues).
• It might be counter-intuitive, but by being willing to look out for everyone else, you also serve yourself by reducing your financial burden.

My 2018 Ballot

I just submitted my ballot earlier today. I wanted to share my vote because I think it's important to have an opinion and stand by it. The teachers union has a set of recommendations that they share, so for those votes, I just put a (U) by them for Union. Otherwise, I'll have a sentence or 2 on my thinking.

Gov: Gavin Newsom (U)

Lt. Gov: Ed Hernandez (U)

Sec. of State: Alex Padilla (U)

Controller: Betty Yee (U)

Treasurer: Fiona Ma (U)

Attorney General: Xavier Becerra (U)

Insurance Commish: Ricardo Lara (U)

State Board of Equalization: Malia Cohen (U)

US Senator: Kevin De Leon - His website just sells him really well on the things I believe in and the direction I want the country to go

US House of Reps: Ro Khanna - Same goes for Ro

State Senator: Bob Wieckowski (U)

State Assembly: Kansen Chu - Is there anyone in 95132 not voting for Kansen Chu...? This vote was seriously just a name recognition one.

Superintendent of Public Instruction: Tony Thurmond (U)

ESUHSD School Board: Kristin Rivers, Frank Biehl, Manuel Herrera (U)

Berryessa USD School Board: Long Nguyen - He just had "Retired Engineer" going for him. I think public schools need a diverse set of board members and not just all former school teachers or similar. Sometimes you just need a fresh eye.

County Sherriff: John Hirokawa. Laurie Smith's been in for 20 years and seriously has no ringing endorsements. If someone worked a job for 20 years and their best quality is mediocrity, that's not saying much.

Prop 1-4: Yes; I'm just all about spending on things I like. The federal gov. already spends a ton of my taxes on things I don't believe in, I might as well authorize spending for things I can get behind.

Prop 5: No; I am for spending taxes, and to spend taxes we need taxes. All the wealth is tied up by old people, soooo I'm not tryna cut them any slack.

6: No; people who buy gas are using the roads. They are wearing down the roads. Those roads need repairing. Gas taxes repair those. Makes sense.

7: Yes; from what I've come to understand, shifting that hour back and forth causes unnecessary accidents/other bad things without even saving energy. So what the heck.

8: Yes; caps profits on dialysis centers and forces higher standards. It kills me that people seek to obscenely profit from others' maladies. It's just absolutely disgusting.

10: No; rent control doesn't help renters. Only building more housing does.

11: No; just gives breaks to corporations and not employees. Sucks.

12: Yes; just some PETA type stuff. Honestly not that invested in this measure.

Measure

A: Yes; taxes.

S: Yes; modifies procedures for city construction contracts. I think it opens up bidding?

T: Yes; funds emergency and disaster responses, infrastructure, and roads.

U: Yes; city council and mayor don't get to approve their own salaries. Duh??

V: Yes; funds housing. I'm young, poor, and need housing. Yes.

Why We Need to Look Past Labels (Republican vs. Democrat) pt. 1

     Religion and politics are similar in that, for extremists, they are extremely divisive (think "Islam is a religion of VIOLENCE!!" or "Christians are all HYPOCRITES!!"). Note: I don't believe either of those things, but I've seen the idea bandied about ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. For the rest of the population, though, there's the nice, wiiiide range of space between the extremes that we can occupy. In religious folks, this could look like people who try to live by example, make their regular appearances at the church/mosque/synagogue, and/or are welcoming of newcomers to the religion without pushing it on them. How does this apply to politics? Unfortunately, I think more people than ever are painting others with a political paint brush that's just too general (and, oftentimes, inaccurate).
     Welp, this one gets heated really quickly. Just to point out a few:

• Democrats:
•  are okay with killing babies
• want to shelter rapists
• plan to make the country Communist/Socialist 
• Republicans:
• are racist/hate Mexicans
• believe that guns are more important than kids
• don't believe in women's rights
• Russian COLLUSION!! (I like this one the most because [somehow] it's used against both Hillary and Trump, lol)

     Again, though, those are just the extremes. Not only that, but people confuse their own views with their perceived views of others. What am I talking about? Let's take 2 examples, one from each side, to be fair:

• On abortion: Democrats want to kill babies. I think people (conservatives) fail to understand that an abortion isn't something anybody is happy to do. Granted, I'm speaking without the benefit of experience, but I'm just trying to use my brain as best as I can. & something tells me that the majority (if not the entirety) of women that are compelled to abort a pregnancy do so for a variety of reasons*:
• financial hardship
• not being ready to raise a baby
• not being in a stable relationship
• following their parents' or partner's desires

      You don't see "likes to kill babies" or "hates life" on there, do you...? This doesn't even take into account the different definitions (medical/scientific vs. religious) for what constitutes a baby, and that's on purpose. It doesn't matter what your definition of a baby is - if a woman isn't going or is unable to raise a baby "right" (y'know, with all the basic needs for a healthy baby), then why force her to? What if she's another Casey Anthony? (For full disclosure, Casey Anthony was found not guilty) Would you want someone to hold off on abortion just to actually commit a gruesome murder because they hate their kid? What if a hypothetical mom subjected their child to a lifetime of abuse? The easy way to consider it is: if you wouldn't want to be the kid in that position (born to a mother that doesn't want you), why would you want someone else to be?

I know there are women who are happy that they decided not to abort, but that's not the point - not all women will end up that way, and there are also women who are unhappy that they didn't abort. So what's the deal if we can't have a one-size-fits-all solution? Welp, we leave the choice open. There are those who will choose to abort and those who will not. There are those who might regret it and those who might not, but that's just life, isn't it? Let's move on to the next example.

• On building the wall: Republicans must hate Mexicans. Again, I think people (liberals) fail to understand the concerns that some Americans bring to the table. (Granted, they are concerned about what amounts to a non**-issue***) Just humor me, though. Imagine if we took a population of 200,000 people and dropped them off anywhere in the world. Let's continue to imagine that these 200,000 are all in perfect nuclear family units of 4, and will require accommodations (whether apartments, condos, or houses) as such. Well, you'd need 50,000 units of housing for that. Where's that going to come from? Who will pay for this housing, and how? How about schools? Healthcare services? If half of the population is kids and we assigned a 30:1 ratio for educators, we'd need 3333 educators. With a 1,000:1 ratio for doctors, we would need 200 doctors (not to mention nurses, support staff, etc. etc.). Where are those going to come from, and on whose dime? 

     While I personally do not consider this an issue since the majority of Mexican immigrants are already here (and contributing), that doesn't mean people's concerns aren't real. Granted, in this case they seem to be invalid, but that still required some digging on my part (and I guarantee that most folks on either side of the "issue" haven't done even 2 minutes of Googling, let alone 5-10) to find out. 

     PHEW. With all that out the way, what am I trying to get at? Whatever your political stances are, try not to buy into the strawmen that abound in this political landscape. When you do, you fall into the thought trap of thinking that all Republicans are racist/moronic/misogynistic or that all Democrats are baby killers/rapist sympathizers/Socialists. & whether you think Russians gave Hillary $400 million (false) or that they influenced on behalf of Trump (true), the truth is that these divisive tactics by Russians are sowing division to the point where Americans can't engage in politics with the people that they need to the most - each other. So keep your head on straight, talk it out with the people you know, but do not overgeneralize. Otherwise, you've failed your country (and by extension, yourself)!

*International study on abortion

*US study on abortion

**"As of 2014, 78% [of illegal Mexican immigrants] had lived in the US for 10 years or more"

***Inflows of Mexican immigrants have already gone through a dramatic decline since the early 2000's.

   

How Much Do You Make? (The Importance of Salary Transparency)

     Something that is curious to me is that (all?) public sector employees have their salaries published for anyone to look up. Fair, right? We wouldn't want anyone entrusted with the public interest (teachers, firefighters, cops, politicians, etc. etc.) to be getting a mad overpay (where they are profiting from the position more than they are serving the public). What I take away from this policy is that there's a level of accountability there - we can all see how much you make, so don't get too wild. By having that accountability and transparency, that also creates a sense of trust. All this sounds good and nice, right?
     Then why is it that we take these principles - accountability, transparency, trust - and toss them out of the window when dealing with the private sector? The easy answer here is embarrassment: it impacts social dynamics when we put a number on ourselves. The weird thing is, we already do that when it comes to titles (e.g. POTUS > doctors > engineers > etc. etc. >...McDonald's employee). So if we already have a somewhat-established hierarchy when it comes to jobs even before considering compensation, why would people be embarrassed if that hierarchy is a tad more crystalized by concrete numbers?
     If you know me really well, you know I can have an overbearing sense of pride - I am what I am, I'm proud of it, and the amount of money I make has a minuscule impact on my sense of self-worth (if I were a better person, this impact would be nonexistent). & to be clear that I'm not dodging the issue: my salary was 55,350 last year, and I'm getting a less than $800 bump to 56,136 this year. I know most of you are private sector, and I also know that most have me beat by, at minimum, 30k/year. So why's salary transparency important for you?
     Here are just a couple issues that are enabled when salaries are kept hidden:

• The glass ceiling (pay gaps for women)
• The bamboo ceiling (pay gaps/lack of opportunities for Asian Americans)

Besides those systemic issues, hiding salary also means that that idiot that doesn't contribute to the team... can be well compensated compared to the rest of the squad, simply for having the guts to negotiate and the sweet talk to highlight (or outright fake) their contributions. Very meritorious, right...? (if you didn't catch the sarcasm, no, that's not right - it's wrong)

     Furthermore, & I hate to say this because I know y'all already make buckets more than me, but this also allows employers to suppress salaries across the board. If we look past the inequities that hold down women and minorities, there's also this issue: companies succeed when they pay their workforce the absolute minimum amount that they can. That's just a byproduct of capitalism. By keeping salaries hidden, it's possible for a company to, for example, pay their top whatever (engineer/manager/intern/coffee grunt) at a rate that isn't actually "fair."

     So, what's the dealio? Why perpetuate a system that allows you and all your coworkers to get bent over and taken for a ride by "the man"? Go forth and at least post an entry on Glassdoor. More seriously, talk to your coworkers*! That way, you can figure in your head where you stand - if you know you're worth more than someone who makes more than you, go demand it. If someone is putting in work but doesn't have the $$ to show for it, go encourage them to make their needs known. 

*How does this conversation go? Well if you're me, something like this:
Me:"Hey man, how much do you make?"
Them: "This much"
Me: "Nice!" (note: this is only if it's actually nice)  or "Dang, man! How come you don't get paid more?!"


Curious about pay for someone who works for the City of San Jose? Or do you want to see how much the top 50 (or 100, or 200, or whatever) employees get paid? Check this out - it's a table that shows pay: https://data.sanjoseca.gov/dataviews/245417/EMPLO-COMPE-PLAN-2017/ 

If you are looking for someone specific, you can go to the bottom of the table and click the magnifying glass then type in someone's last name (for instance, Liccardo for the mayor, or Garcia for SJPD Chief, so on & so forth). Otherwise, the table just shows all employees in order of highest to lowest pay (you can change the table's settings in a lot of other ways as well).

What Should We Do About Income Inequity?

     The income/wealth gap in America has been growing over the span of decades - you can seriously take your pick of resources to illustrate the point, but the bottom line is that the rich have been getting richer while everyone else has either been staying at the same level or getting a little poorer. In relative terms, though, since we're referring to a gap, then that gap has just been growing. The separation between the wealthy and everyone else grows, and it doesn't seem like that many people are concerned. Or if they are concerned, they haven't been able to come up with a solution. Fortunately for those looking for answers, I've got time on my hands and love to explain. So read on, and prepare to have your mind blown.

     In my last post, I explained how income taxes are calculated. My reasoning is that you shouldn't have an opinion on something without understanding it. So if you haven't yet, give it a read (note: it's NOT so simple as taking x% of your income - so if you think that, then you are wrong, and it is REALLY worth it to read the post). 

     Before we dig in, I'd like you to answer a couple questions:

1. As a percent, how much do you think someone who makes 50,000 should get taxed?
2. As a percent, how much do you think someone who makes 500,000 should get taxed?
3. If we throw it back 40 years to 1978, do you think people were paying more or less in taxes?

Your answers CAN'T be wrong - they're just opinions! I'm so serious about you answering these questions, I'm cutting up this entry.

Whether you write it down on a slip of paper, or jot down some answers in your "Notes" app, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. It requires you to come up with 2 percents and the word "more" or "less."

So if you're a fan of lower taxes and think that the government has just been JACKING UP tax rates lately, your answer might look something like "1. 10%, 2. 20%, 3. more" would suffice.

Or if you think people should pay their fair share and that government has been better at holding people accountable than they used to, your answers might look like "1. 20%, 2. 50%, 3. less"

YOU ARE CHEATING YOURSELF IF YOU DON'T ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS BEFORE CONTINUING.

Alright, you made it. Here's the work I did this morning - these calculations seriously took maybe 15-20 minutes of tedious number crunching, so consider yourself benefiting from my free labor. Here is a table that demonstrates how much a person would pay in  federal income taxes across the span of 4 decades. In parentheses, I include the highest tax percent for that person (as in, all the numbers in parentheses are percents).

	2018	2008	1998	1988	1978
A makes 50k	6,900 (22%)	8,900 (25)	10,700 (28)	11,700 (28)	18,900 (60)
B makes 100k	18,300 (24%)	22,000 (28)	25,900 (31)	25,700 (28)	51,600 (69)
C makes 150k	30,300 (24%)	36,000 (28)	42,500 (36)	39,700 (28)	86,600 (70)
D makes 200k	45,700 (32%)	51,800 (35)	60,500 (39.6)	53,700 (28)	121,500 (70)
E makes 500k	150,700 (35%)	153,600 (35)	176,400 (39.6)	137,700 (28)	331,500 (70)

1. What general trends do you notice?
2. What's the deal with '88?
3. How do these numbers make you feel?
4. Do you see any problems with the current situation? If so, what are the problems?

Some personal observations:

1. From '78 to '18, the tax rates fell across the board - so we all got a break, which is pretty sweet, right?
2. From '78 to '18, someone who makes 500k saw their rate fall by 35% (or cut in HALF), while someone at the 50k mark saw their rate fall by a WHOPPING 38% (cut by almost 2/3!!)
3. So while the 50k earner saved about 12k, the 500k earner saved... 180k. For millionaires, the savings are even more astronomical. 

So now would be a really good time to ask a few key questions:

• What do you think should be done about income inequity? 
• Between the four earners (50k, 100k, 200k, 500k) I presented, which ones do you think pay their fair share to society? 
• Is it worth it for you to save 12k in order for someone else to save 180k? 
• How do you expect these gaps in funding to resolve themselves?
• What government services would you like to see get cut (e.g. welfare, defense spending, healthcare, etc. etc.) since the government can't pay for what it used to?

Related reading:
Article on how tax cuts mostly apply to the 1%

Inflation calculator if you care to turn all the numbers in the table to 2018 numbers. I didn't want to give you more numbers to confuse you, though.

Tax tables used to calculate all these numbers. It's actually really worth it to check out this page - in 1963, the highest tax rate was 91%!!!! MAGA baby!!

Historical corporate income tax rate. Spoiler: it used to be way higher