El New York Times publica hoy un artículo de opinión firmado por David Leonhardt en el que se nos explica que la pobreza infantil en los EEUU se ha reducido drásticamente (en más de la mitad) desde principios de los noventa. Se trata, sin duda, de buenas noticias. Y, sin embargo, como indica el propio autor, los medios de comunicación no lo han publicitado lo suficiente. En cualquier caso, todo parece indicar que la reforma de las políticas de bienestar que se llevó a cabo durante la presidencia de Bill Clinton en 1996 lejos de causar una pobreza generalizada, tuvo más bien un efecto positivo, a pesar de la firme oposición de los grupos más progresistas dentro del Partido Demócrata (por ejemplo, los senadores Paul Wellstone y Daniel Patrick Moynihan... o yo mismo) en aquel entonces. No obstante, esa es solamente una parte de la historia. La otra es que las administraciones de otros presidentes han profundizado la ayuda a los grupos más pobres. O, para explicarlo de otra manera, que en realidad se aplicaron las dos políticas, la demócrata y la republicana, y parece haber funcionado:

How did this happen? The 1996 welfare law turned out to be a case study of different political ideologies combining to produce a result that was better than either side would likely have produced on its own.

Some conservative critiques of the old welfare contained an important insight, Jason told me. Poor single mothers (the main beneficiaries of welfare) were better able to find and hold jobs than many liberals expected. Over the past few decades, increased employment among single mothers has been one reason for the decline in child poverty, according to the study, which was done by Child Trends, a research group.

But the biggest cause was an expansion of government aid. And progressives were the main force behind this expansion. With welfare less generous, Democrats (sometimes in alliance with Republicans) pushed for policies to help low-income workers, such as expansions of the earned-income tax credit and food stamps. Increases in state-level minimum wages also played a role.

En fin, que al menos en este asunto parece que el consenso entre ambos partidos funcionó más o menos bien. Aunque, eso sí, como suele suceder en temas socioeconómicos, es bien difícil señalar las causas directas de cualquier problema. De hecho, lo más probable es que, junto a las políticas mencionadas, también se hayan dado otros fenómenos sociales, culturales o económicos que han contribuido a la reducción de la pobreza. Sea como fuere, es para alegrarse.

Por cierto, ya que hablamos del consenso entre grandes partidos, conviene recordar que en estos momentos prácticamente todos los observadores políticos señalan, acertadamente o no, que la polarización política es tal que el diálogo y la negociación son casi imposibles. Pero, ¿a qué se debe esta polarización? Más importante aún, ¿cómo es posible que un buen número de votantes parezcan apoyar opciones políticas que defienden intereses económicos contrapuestos a los suyos? Pues bien, de eso precisamente trata otro magnífico artículo de opinión publicado por The New York Times: Why Aren't You Voting in Your Financial Self-Interest?, firmado por Thomas B. Edsali:

Partisan prioritization of cultural and racial issues has, to a notable extent, superseded the economic conflicts that once characterized the nation’s politics, leading to what scholars call a “dematerialization” of American electoral competition.

On the right, millions of working- and middle-class whites have shifted their focus away from the goal of income redistribution — an objective Democrats have customarily promoted — to support the Republican preference for traditional, even reactionary, sociocultural values. At the same time, college-educated white voters have come to support tax and spending initiatives that subordinate their own financial self-interest in favor of redistribution and liberal social values.

El artículo ofrece varias respuestas, aunque quizá no todas lleguen a convencernos del todo. Por ejemplo, Giampaolo Bonomi, Nicola Gennaioli y Guido Tabellini, explican:

Economic shocks that boost conflict among cultural groups can also trigger a shift to cultural identity. We offer two examples: skilled biased technical change and globalization. If these shocks hurt less educated and hence more conservative voters, and benefit more educated and hence more progressive voters, they make cultural cleavages more salient and can induce a switch to cultural identity. As a result, economic losers become more socially and fiscally conservative.

Rob Henderson, por otro lado, ofrece una idea algo distinta:

His argument, in brief: “In the past, upper-class Americans used to display their social status with luxury goods. Today, they do it with luxury beliefs.” With the lost salience of luxury items, “the upper classes have found a clever solution to this problem: luxury beliefs. These are ideas and opinions that confer status on the rich at very little cost, while taking a toll on the lower class.”

En fin, el artículo ofrece otras cuantas ideas sobre el asunto. Merece la pena leerlo. {enlace a esta entrada}

El New York Times publicaba en su web hace un par de días un artículo de opinión titulado How to Argue Well escrito por Pamela Paul en el, basándose en el contenido del libro Good Arguments: How Debate Teaches Us to Listen and Be Heard, de Bo Seo, se argumenta que el problema de la polarización política y social que vemos en nuestras sociedades desarrolladas en estos momentos quizá no se deba tanto a un exceso de discusiones y riñas como al hecho de que no sabemos argumentar (ni debatir) correctamente.

Bo Seo, a 28-year-old two-time world debating champion, says the problem of polarization isn’t so much that we disagree but rather that “we disagree badly: Our arguments are painful and useless.” We spend more time vilifying, undermining and nullifying those we disagree with than opening or changing their minds. If more people took their cues from the world of competitive debate, he argues in a recent book, it would be easier to get people to reconsider their views or at least consider those of others.

Let’s consider his argument. In his book, “Good Arguments: How Debate Teaches Us to Listen and Be Heard,” Seo, now a second-year student at Harvard Law School, says what we need is to disagree more but to do so constructively. In debate, he writes, rebuttal — arguing back — is “a vote of confidence not only in ourselves but in our opponents, one that contained the judgment that the other person was deserving of our candor and that they would receive it with grace.” Approaching arguments with reason, logic, respect and empathy can help people handle opposing views.

Las recomendaciones de Seo, según el artículo, son las siguientes:

First, know when to engage. Arguments, Seo reminds us, are “easy to start and hard to end.” For a dispute to go well, it should be real, important and specific. You need to have a point to make, not just an emotional conflict or complaint to air. If someone has hurt you, figure out why; that becomes a real basis for argument.

Next, pause to consider how important that point is and whether it’s worth arguing over. Finally, stick to the specific dispute at hand so that the argument doesn’t expand or spiral. If the disagreement really is over the dishwasher (and look, there’s often cause), don’t let it become a referendum on your marriage.

Once you’ve decided to argue, Seo says, know what it is you’re arguing about. To begin, determine the fact, judgment or prescription that you would like someone else to accept. Let’s say it’s “Jen is a team player.” In order to make that claim, add the word “because” and give your reason (“because she involves everyone in the department”). From there, you offer substantiation and evidence to back it up. (“She always goes around the room.” “She checks in with her crew weekly.”) That’s making your case.

Importantly, showing how someone else is wrong isn’t the same thing as being correct yourself. In debate, tearing down the other team doesn’t necessarily prove your team is in the right, nor is it likely to persuade anyone who didn’t agree with you in the first place. “No amount of no is going to get you to yes,” one of Seo’s coaches once told him.

Finally, never let a bully dictate the terms of debate. If faced with a brawler — someone whose aim is, as Seo puts it, “not to persuade but to silence, marginalize and break the will of their opponents” — your only hope is to restore the structure of the debate. In other words, see above.

No tengo yo tan claro que el problema de fondo sea debido a una falta de habilidad para debatir. Pero, no obstante, las recomendaciones de Seo suenan bastante razonables. {enlace a esta entrada}

Echando un vistazo a las noticias, me encuentro con una titulada Soaring energy costs could threaten future of electric cars, experts warn, publicada en la web del The Guardian que bien merece una mención aquí. La parte central de la noticia puede resumirse en los primeros párrafos:

Soaring energy costs are threatening the future of the electric car, industry bosses in Germany have warned.

A rise in electricity prices as well as in raw material costs and availability, a chronic shortage of parts, and a widespread reduction in disposable income are having a considerable impact on the production and sales of cars.

If the trend continues, there is also concern that there will be a knock-on effect on investors who will lack incentives to build charging facilities, making electric cars less attractive – because they would be more impractical – to run.

Until recently ownership of electric cars had been gaining in attractiveness as the cost of petrol rose. But since recent rises in electricity prices – in Germany of around a third compared with a year ago – the price differential has shrunk.

Electric car owners, whether charging their cars at home or through contracts with charging operators, have seen price rises of 10% or more. Further price rises are expected, owing to the fact that the price of electricity is linked to that of gas, which has become ever scarcer since Russia turned off its gas supplies to Germany almost two weeks ago.

O sea que, como suele suceder, la solución milagrosa que nos iba a sacar del hondo pozo en que se encuentra sumida nuestra civilización industrial ahora resulta que no es sino un parche que ni siquiera llega a evitar la salida de aire, una mera tirita barata mientras seguimos desángrandonos. Yo destacaría la parte de la noticia en que se explica sin cortapisas que se esperan mayores incrementos de precios debido "al hecho de que el precio de la electricidad está vinculado al del gas". O, para explicarlo de otra forma, que los coches eléctricos contaminan igualmente. Quizá en menor medida y en otro punto (el de producción de la energía, en lugar de su consumo), pero siguen contaminando. Como se decía antes, ¡para este viaje no hacían falta tantas alforjas!

A mí, siendo ya un veterano en esto de la vida, lo que me llama la atención es el hecho de que no parecemos aprender nada de nuestra propia experiencia como sociedad. La sociedad moderna tiene una fe ciega tan profunda en la ciencia y la tecnología que siempre pensamos que algún invento va a venir a sacarnos las castañas del fuego. Luego, cuando llega y se extiende, nos damos cuenta de que lo único que hacemos es mover el problema de un lugar a otro. Pero nunca aprendemos la lección de fondo, es decir, que la raíz del problema somos nosotros y nuestro derrochador estilo de vida. {enlace a esta entrada}