Blogs

This Chart Shows How Sexist Silicon Valley Really Is

| Mon Jun. 22, 2015 6:05 AM EDT

Tech companies often chalk up their lack of gender diversity to a "leaky pipeline," or a surge of women leaving engineering. But a new LinkedIn analysis of its members' data suggests that the lack of female engineers working in tech can't be so easily explained away.

The report, released last week, found that the tech sector employs proportionally fewer female engineers than several other industries, including healthcare, retail, government, education, and nonprofits.

The tech sector also lags in the proportion of women taking on leadership roles, according to LinkedIn's report. The professional networking site measured the "leadership gap" in industries: the difference between female representation overall and the percentage of women in leadership roles. By this measure, the healthcare, retail, and financial services industries are doing the worst job of promoting women to top positions. But as shown in the chart below, the tech sector isn't much better: Of the nearly 31 percent of women in the tech sector overall, just 21 percent are in leadership roles.

LinkedIn

This latest data highlight some of the misconceptions associated with solving the persistent lack of women and minorities in Silicon Valley. LinkedIn's report suggests that the so-called "pipeline" isn't leaking all that much: In fact, a good number of female engineers continue to work as engineers—they're simply choosing to take their skills to industries outside the tech sector. As Karen Catlin, a former vice president of Adobe Systems, told Fusion last week, some women avoid tech because they believe they won't have opportunities to grow professionally: "Either there's a very leaky pipeline and women are leaving jobs in tech," Catlin said. "Or they are seeing they cannot have the careers they want in this industry and looking elsewhere for jobs instead."

Advertise on MotherJones.com

The Point of Democracy Is to Keep Powerful Elites From Becoming Complete Jackasses

| Sun Jun. 21, 2015 11:34 AM EDT

Daniel Bell has written a new book making the case that "Chinese-style meritocracy is, in important respects, a better system of governance than western liberal democracy." That's possible, I suppose. Tyler Cowen noodles over the arguments and tosses out a few thoughts. Here's one:

4. Most humans in history seem to have favored meritocratic rule over democracy, and before the 19th century democracy was rare, even in the limited form of male-dominated or property owner-dominated republics. It is possible that the current advantage of democracy is rooted in technology, or some other time-specific factor, which ultimately may prove temporary. That said, I still observe plenty of democracies producing relatively well-run countries, so I don’t see significant evidence that a turning point against democracy has been reached.

I know Cowen is just throwing out some ideas to be provocative, not seriously backing any of them. Still, I think you have to take a pretty blinkered view of "most humans" to throw this one out at all. It's true that humans are hairless primates who naturally gravitate to a hierarchical society, but there's little evidence that "most humans" prefer non-democratic societies. There's loads of evidence that powerful elites prefer elite-driven societies, and have gone to great lengths throughout history to maintain them against the masses. Whether the masses themselves ever thought this was a good arrangement is pretty much impossible to say.

Of course, once the technologies of communication, transportation, and weaponry became cheaper and more democratized, it turned out the masses were surprisingly hostile to elite rule and weren't afraid to show it. So perhaps it's not so impossible to say after all. In fact, most humans throughout history probably haven't favored "meritocratic" rule, but mostly had no practical way to show it except in small, usually failed rebellions. The Industrial Revolution changed all that, and suddenly the toiling masses had the technology to make a decent showing against their overlords. Given a real option, it turned out they nearly all preferred some form of democracy after all.

Which brings us to the real purpose of democracy: to rein in the rich and powerful. Without democracy, societies very quickly turn into the Stanford Prison Experiment. With it, that mostly doesn't happen. That's a huge benefit, even without counting free speech, fair trials, and all the other gewgaws of democracy. It is, so far, the only known social construct that reliably keeps powerful elites from becoming complete jackasses. That's pretty handy.

Resentment and Outrage Are All That Matter in Europe Now

| Sat Jun. 20, 2015 3:12 PM EDT

Larry Summers thinks it will be a catastrophe if Greece repudiates its debt and "financially separates from Europe." Greece will become a failed state; Europe will face a refugee crisis; and both Europe and the IMF will face huge defaults on their loans. Oh, this might not cause financial contagion throughout all of Europe, but then again, that's what everyone said about Long-Term Capital Management, subprime mortgages, and the fall of Lehman Brothers. And look what happened there.

So what does Summers think should happen? Here's his prescription:

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras needs to do what is necessary to make reaching an agreement politically feasible for his fellow Europeans....He needs to be clear that he will accept further value-added tax and pension reforms to achieve primary surplus targets this year and next, but that he expects a clear recognition that if Greece does its part, debt will be written off on a large scale.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European authorities must do what is necessary to make policy adjustments politically tenable in Greece. That means acknowledging that the vast majority of the financial support given to Greece has gone to pay back banks rather than to support the Greek budget. They must agree on debt relief and recognize the degree of adjustment in Greek spending that has taken place: with nearly 30 percent of government workers laid off. It also means announcing their intention to accelerate economic growth throughout Europe.

In case that wasn't clear, here's a translation: the leaders of Europe are idiots. Everyone with a room temperature IQ has known for years that something like this is the deal that needs to be made. It's been discussed endlessly in meeting rooms, op-eds, scholarly papers, and conferences. Not only is it not a secret—or rocket science—it's been the obvious solution forever. But Europe vs. Greece is now like the Hatfields vs. the McCoys. Nobody cares anymore how it started, whose fault any of it was, or what the catastrophic results of continued obstinacy will be. They don't even care much about inflicting pain on their own people as long as they also inflict pain on the other side.

They are idiots. Not stupid, mind you, but idiots all the same. They know what needs to be done. They're just too committed to their own resentment and outrage to do it.

It's Long Past Time For South Carolina to Stop Flying the Confederate Flag

| Sat Jun. 20, 2015 1:04 PM EDT

As I'm sure everyone knows by now, flying the the Confederate battle flag on the grounds of the state house is hardly a longtime South Carolina tradition. In fact, it's only been up since 1961. I was googling around on a different but related subject and happened to come across this account of how it happened. It's written by Brett Bursey and based mainly on the recollections of Daniel Hollis. In 1959 President Eisenhower commissioned a national Civil War Centennial, and Hollis was named a member of South Carolina's commission to plan the state's observance of the 100th anniversary of the War Between the States.

Here's his recollection:

Hollis remembers the day the Confederate flag was hoisted over the State House to commemorate the war. The centennial kicked off on April 11, 1961, with a re-creation of the firing on Fort Sumter. The flag went up for the opening celebrations.

"The flag is being flown this week at the request of Aiken Rep. John A. May," reported The State on April 12. May didn't introduce his resolution until the next legislative session. By the time the resolution passed on March 16, 1962, the flag had been flying for nearly a year. (This explains why the flag is often erroneously reported to have gone up in 1962).

"May told us he was going to introduce a resolution to fly the flag for a year from the capitol. I was against the flag going up," Hollis said, "but I kept quiet and went along. I didn't want to get into it with the UDC [United Daughters of the Confederacy] girls." The resolution that passed didn't include a time for the flag to come down and, therefore, "it just stayed up," Hollis said. "Nobody raised a question."

....The day the flag went up, headlines in the local newspapers were full of unrest. Besides the centennial controversy, the news that week included:

  • Sen. Marrion Gressette, the head of the State Segregation Committee, created in 1951 to recommend measures to maintain segregation, was supporting a resolution condemning former North Carolina Gov. Frank Graham, who had spoken at Winthrop College defending the civil rights movement and calling for integration.
  • Thurmond was fighting in Congress to keep federal funding for segregated schools. Political sentiment against school integration was so strong that state politicians vowed to stop all funding to public schools rather than integrate.
  • The Freedom Ride with integrated bus loads of civil rights workers was on the road, and there were reports of violence along the route.
  • The major story of the week was Kennedy's executive order to end segregation in work places that do business with the government. The forced integration of South Carolina's mills outraged politicians and editorial writers.

Hoisting the Confederate flag over the State House didn't generate any controversy at the time. Perhaps those most offended by it were too busy fighting real-life battles to expend any energy on symbolic ones.

So the flag went up partly to commemorate the Civil War and partly as a fairly safe way to protest against the civil rights movement. In either case, it's hardly a legacy issue that strikes at the honor of the Palmetto State. It was originally intended to stay up for only a year, and South Carolinians would do well to remember that. The year is long since up. Take it down.

Study: Flu Viruses Travel on US Roads and Railways

| Sat Jun. 20, 2015 6:00 AM EDT

Viruses are hitching a ride with commuters on the nation's roads and railways, adding to the chaotic movement that makes seasonal outbreaks difficult to track and contain.

In a study published Thursday in PLOS Pathogens, researchers at Emory University tracked genetic variations in two strains of influenza between 2003 and 2013. They concluded that states highly connected by ground transit tended to have similar genetic variations of the flu, and they matched their findings with illness case data that showed closely timed epidemic peaks in those states. The researchers believe ground transit connectivity may be a better indicator of where a disease is likely to spread than air travel connections or even geographic proximity, though they say both remain important factors.

The US Interstate Commuter Network shows the number of people traveling daily between states for work. Courtesy of Bozick, CC-BY

Modern transport networks complicate the movement of viruses: In the past, contagion moved person to person and village to village, resulting in "wave-like patterns" of genetic variation that correspond to geographic distance, the report says. But with 3.8 million people in the United States taking ground transportation across state borders each day and 1.6 million doing so by air, the spread of illness has become far more chaotic: Transcontinental flights help foster bicoastal outbreaks, while well-traveled commuter corridors between Kansas and Missouri may mean those states share illnesses as neighboring areas go unscathed.

Researchers found that "commuting communities," divided into colored regions, tended to span state borders. Travelers carried influenza along with them. Courtesy of Bozick, CC-BY

The researchers hope their study, which they believe to be the first of its kind at the scale of the continental United States, will help epidemiologists better understand influenza's seemingly unpredictable spread.

Finally, Conservatives Begin To Back Away From the Confederate Flag

| Fri Jun. 19, 2015 5:38 PM EDT
The Confederate flag with the dome of the South Carolina capitol in the distance.

The death of nine innocent worshippers may achieve what decades of civil rights activism failed to do: Force South Carolina to remove the Confederate battle flag from grounds of its capitol building.

The Confederate battle flag flew over the capitol dome in Columbia, S.C., from 1962, when the legislature hoisted it as a symbol of defiance against integration, to 2000, when huge protests convinced state lawmakers to move it elsewhere. But it didn't go far: The flag has flown over a Confederate soldiers' memorial on the capitol grounds ever since.

The shooting in Charleston is leading to new calls to take down the Confederate flag for good, including one from the mayor of Columbia:

Now we've also seen some tentative hints that figures on the right may actually be willing to let that happen:

 Nikki Haley

The South Carolina governor infamously called a non-issue during her re-election campaign last year because she "had not had one conversation with a single CEO about the Confederate flag" during calls with business leaders. She also rejected at least one previous call by the NAACP to remove the flag.

But during an interview on Friday with Reuters, Haley seemed open to re-examining the deal that moved the Confederate flag to its current spot

"If they want to have this conversation again, they will," Haley said of the state legislature. "They had it 15 years ago. They came to [a] consensus, that's where it was. I think they'll have another conversation, and we'll bring people together."

Lindsey Graham

Many people, including us, blasted the South Carolina senator and Republican presidential candidate when he told CNN on Friday morning that the flag is "part of who we are" in his state. But he also said he was open to changing the capitol's awkward compromise on the flag.

"It's time for people in South Carolina to revisit that decision," he said. "It would be fine with me."

During the 2012 GOP primaries, Graham called the use of the flag at the Confederate War Memorial a "bipartisan" solution and advised candidates to avoid the topic altogether. “Any [candidate] who brought that up wouldn’t be doing themselves any favors," he said to The Hill.

The National Review

Writers at the conservative magazine—which firmly backed the South's mantra of states' rights during the civil rights era—debated the use of the flag on Thursday. Executive Editor Reihan Salam came out firmly against it:

It could be that the Confederate battle flag has come to mean something entirely different in 2015 than it did in the mid-1950s, when it was closely tied to resistance to federal desegregation efforts. But is its value such that we ought to continue giving it quasi-official status, even when doing so alienates the descendants of enslaved southerners, who have just as much claim to deciding which symbols ought to represent southern heritage as the descendants of Confederate veterans? I don’t believe so.

Others were more skeptical: Ian Tuttle argued that "objections to [the flag] are not raised in good faith" but rather for political gain. But even he then acknowledged that the flag can cause serious harm and offense.

One can recognize, understand, and sympathize with the revulsion symbols of the Confederacy occasion in some quarters, particularly among black Americans — and a compromise should be possible. If reducing the visibility of these symbols would offer relief to those genuinely hurt, and would remove an object of contention keeping persons of different races from cooperating to advance true racial justice, that is something supporters of Confederate symbols should be able to do.

Charlie Baker

The pro-choice, pro-marriage equality Massachusetts governor is hardly an arch-conservative, but his experience on Thursday shows how the shock of the shooting may be acting on politicians. Baker told Boston's WGBH early on Thursday afternoon that while he was against the flag personally, it was a "tradition" of South Carolina. "My view on stuff like this is that South Carolinians can make their own call," he said.

Within hours, Baker was backtracking hard. "What were you thinking?" was the message he received from friends, he told the Boston Globe that evening. “I just want to be clear: I abhor the symbolism and the history of that flag as much as anybody, and I am more than cognizant of the fact that literally millions of Americans died over what it represents in the Civil War,” he said. “I think they should take the flag down."

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Families of Charleston Shooting Victims: "We Forgive You"

| Fri Jun. 19, 2015 4:50 PM EDT

As Dylann Roof, the gunman accused of killing nine people inside a church in Charleston, South Carolina, appeared in court on Friday to formally hear the charges against him, representatives of the victims' families came forward to deliver a powerful message of forgiveness.

"You took something very precious away from me,"  a family representative for Ethel Lance, the 70-year-old grandmother who died in Wednesday's massacre, told Roof on behalf of Lance's loved ones. "I will never talk to her ever again. I will never be able to hold her again. But I forgive you and have mercy on your soul. You hurt me. You hurt a lot of people, but I forgive you."

Some of the victims' family members also invited Roof, who attended his bond hearing through a video conference, to join them in bible service to repent and to "change your ways no matter what happened to you."

Felicia Sanders, who survived the shooting by pretending to be dead, also spoke about losing her son in the attack. "Tywanza was my hero….May God have mercy on you.” Another family member, Bethane Middleton-Brown, whose sister was killed on Wednesday, told Roof, "For me, I’m a work in progress and I acknowledge that I’m very angry. We have no room for hate. We have to forgive. I pray God on your soul."

On Thursday, Chris Singleton, the son of victim Sharonda Coleman-Singleton, responded to the tragedy by expressing gratitude for those who reached out to him since his mother's murder.

"Love is always stronger than hate, so if we just love the way my mom would, then the hate won't be anywhere close to where love is," Singleton said. "We've come together as a community to try to get past these things. A tragedy has happened, but life is going to go on and things are going to get better."

"This church is such a family," he continued. "'ve been going there since sixth grade when I moved here. Feels like they're all older than me, but it's like I'm everybody's grandson."

Roof, who appeared emotioneless during the hearing, was charged with nine counts of murder. His bond is set at $1 million.

Friday Cat Blogging - 19 June 2015

| Fri Jun. 19, 2015 2:55 PM EDT

This is our latest horror story. For reasons unknown (and they're always unknown, aren't they?) Hopper has decided that it's great fun to jump up on the second-story bannister and walk around. We can't think of any way to stop her from doing this, but one of these days she's going to set a paw wrong and go flying off the wrong side. Being a cat, maybe it won't hurt her. But it's a twelve-foot drop, and some of it is onto a hardwood floor. We have visions of splat going through our heads.

What do we do? Put up a net, like those ones they have on the Golden Gate Bridge to catch jumpers? Get rid of the quilts and install razor wire? Put cat-size exercise weights on Hopper's feet so she can't jump so high? There's got to be an answer.

No Matter How You Slice It, Obamacare Reduces the Federal Deficit

| Fri Jun. 19, 2015 2:40 PM EDT

We now live in the blessed era of dynamic scoring, something that Republicans have lusted over for decades. When the Congressional Budget Office makes economic projections, it can no longer just look at spending and taxes and subtract one from the other to get deficits. No siree. First they have to pay homage to the Laffer Curve and acknowledge that lower taxes will supercharge the economy and higher taxes will tank the economy. Then they recompute how much tax revenue they're really going to get.

Anyway, CBO is now required to do this, so here's their projection about how Obamacare will affect the federal deficit. Under the old-fashioned method, it will lower the deficit by $118 billion in 2025. But using the sleek new dynamic scoring system insisted on by Republicans, the truth becomes evident and Democratic evasions are exposed for all the world to see. Obamacare will, um, still reduce the deficit. But only by $98 billion.

In truth, this stuff is so open to interpretation and assumptions (and future congressional action) that neither number means much. Still, if you want to know if Obamacare pays for itself using our best estimates, it does. Even using dynamic scoring, it pays for itself. That's more than Republicans ever do with their programs.

Cell Phone or Porsche? Cable TV or First Class Travel? Quien Es Mas Macho?

| Fri Jun. 19, 2015 1:35 PM EDT

Via Brad DeLong, I see that Matt Bruenig has finally taken on a question that's bugged me for years. The question, in a nutshell, is this: Adjusted for inflation, would you rather live today with an income of $30,000 or back in the 1980s with an income of $60,000?1 Would the extra income be enticing enough to persuade you to give up 300 channels of high-def TV, cell phones, and universal access to the internet?

Now, the reason for asking this question usually has something to do with how we measure inflation. If you answer no—that is, you'd prefer today's world even with a lower income—it suggests that our inflation measures are inadequate. I mean, you're saying that $30,000 today buys more satisfaction than $60,000 in 1980 even though these are real, inflation-adjusted numbers. In other words, people today are quite a bit better off than official figures suggest. Officially, if your income had dropped in half over the past three decades, you'd be in dire shape. But in fact, this thought experiment suggests you're actually happier. So maybe income hasn't dropped in half in any practical sense.

This becomes meta-meta-economic very fast, so it's best not to get wound up in it right now. Because the thing that's always bugged me about this question is not so much its philosophical implications, but that it asks someone today what they'd think of living in the past. But that's rigged. I grew up in the world of today. I'm accustomed to all the gadgets at hand. The idea of giving them up naturally sounds horrible.

But that's not the only way to think of it. How about if we asked someone in 1980 about their preference. Would you rather have twice your current income, or would you rather have better TVs, portable phones, and instant access to all the information in the world? Well, these folks aren't accustomed to all that stuff. Sure, it sounds cool, but jeez, would I really use it much? Hmmm. I think I'll go with the extra income.

In other words, it's all a matter of what you're accustomed to. If you've been sleeping on the ground all your life, you have no trouble sleeping on the ground. Who needs a bed? If, like me, you've been sleeping on a bed all your life, you'd become a wreck trying to sleep on the ground. You'd pay a considerable sum of money just for an air mattress and a blanket.

Now, if you're still reading this, you may be nodding along a bit but nonetheless thinking that it's all just dorm room BS. We can't go back in time and ask people about the internet and cell phones, so what's the point of bringing it up? There are two reasons. First, I just wish more people realized that asking this question of current consumers stacks the deck and therefore doesn't tell us nearly as much as we think it does. Second, Matt Bruenig has come up with a clever way that kinda sorta does allow us to go back in time and ask people this question.

As he points out, we have a group of people who did indeed lead adult lives in the 80s and are still with us: senior citizens. And they can decide which technologies they want to use. So what do they choose?

Using smartphone adoption as a proxy for these people's technological preferences, it's clear that the people who actually lived as adults through both technological periods overwhelmingly prefer older technologies:

Judging from these people's preferences, you'd have to conclude that, in fact, older technologies are preferable to newer technologies. You don't need a hypothetical to determine whether living in the past was better: these are people who lived in the past and the present and clearly prefer the way they lived in the past, at least when it comes to the technologies that are supposed to have made life dramatically better (as incomes stagnated).

Now, this is obviously not a bulletproof comparison. Maybe old people just get stubborn, and that's all there is to it. Or maybe cell phones are a bad comparison. Even (or especially) senior citizens would probably be unwilling to go back to the medical technology of 1980. Plainly this is not the final answer to the tech vs. money question.

Still, it's an interesting approach, and it would be interesting to try to extend it. Behavioral economics tells us that people respond to losses much more strongly than gains, so asking people to give up something they like really is stacking the deck—especially if they have little conception of what the extra income in 1980 would gain them. People will always react far more intensely to a sure loss than to an offer of something new.

Anyway, more like this, please. For example, how about turning this around. Which would you prefer: (a) a doubling of your income right now, or (b) a world with driverless cars, internet chips implanted in your brain, and vacation flights to the moon? For a lot of people, this would not be an obvious choice at all.

1Note that this question is normally asked with bigger numbers: say, $50,000 vs. $100,000. I lowered it because I think it makes a difference. $30,000 really starts to make you think, doesn't it?