I'm not unsympathetic to those who would lose jobs from changes in the industry. Here's my thought: if government action that disrupts an industry then that action should be done piecemeal over several years to allow a softer transition.
Imagine not having 40,000 deaths a year, and many more seriously injured.
> Reviewing British fatality rates from previous centuries, demographer P. E. H. Hair concluded in 1971 that the “supercession of the horse by the internal combustion engine was by no means the disaster in terms of travel safety it is often supposed to have been,” and suggested that between 1840 and 1900, accidents involving horses produced an average yearly mortality rate of about five per 100,000 population
> fatality rates from horse-powered transportation occurred at a rate more than 15 times greater per mile in 1775 than from motor vehicles in 2000 (even using very conservative estimates for per-mile horse-related fatalities)
> In New York in 1900, 200 persons were killed by horses and horse-drawn vehicles. This contrasts with 344 auto-related fatalities in New York in 2003; given the modern city’s greater population, this means the fatality rate per capita in the horse era was roughly 75 percent higher than today. Data from Chicago show that in 1916 there were 16.9 horse-related fatalities for each 10,000 horse-drawn vehicles; this is nearly seven times the city’s fatality rate per auto in 1997.
Only if you've been not looking through e.g. the entire history of the NHTSA. Comparing horseless carriages under modern safety regulations to horse-drawn carriages not subject to those is a huge confounder. (And 1997-2000 sounds like a cherry-picked period; motor vehicles have been redesigned to kill significantly more pedestrians since then).
Modifiers like that don't really matter because the comment was acting like the alternative was zero deaths.
And modern safety regulations can only have so much influence on pedestrians especially.
> (And 1997-2000 sounds like a cherry-picked period; motor vehicles have been redesigned to kill significantly more pedestrians since then).
Well I'll assume if we were using carriages en masse they'd also be going through design changes to kill more people since that seems simplest and still supports my point that there would be many deaths.
Not necessarily, they could just mean many fewer deaths.
> Well I'll assume if we were using carriages en masse they'd also be going through design changes to kill more people since that seems simplest
It's not simple, there's a lot of complexity and path dependence to how we've ended up with these car designs and there's no reason to believe it would happen in the same way and the same order for carriages. But regardless, you have to average over such variations rather than picking one unrepresentative point.
> and still supports my point that there would be many deaths.
No it doesn't; you're cherry-picking the years when motor traffic was least deadly and comparing to a random time (or perhaps even the most deadly time?) for horse traffic.
Maybe but "Imagine not having" sure sounds like you remove the deaths entirely.
> you're cherry-picking the years
That's a quote of an article that only compares those years. I'll thank you not to accuse me of cherry-picking here.
> It's not simple, there's a lot of complexity and path dependence to how we've ended up with these car designs and there's no reason to believe it would happen in the same way and the same order for carriages. But regardless, you have to average over such variations rather than picking one unrepresentative point.
You wanted to consider "modern safety regulations" as a confounding factor.
I see three options here.
1. Let's assume carriages would have undergone the same evolution of safety. That means modern carriages would have a lower death rate than old ones. It also makes the possible cherry-picking matter a lot less because the increasing menace of transportation over the last 20 years would be the same either way.
2. We say it's too complex and ignore those factors.
3. We invent an entire alternate history in excruciating detail.
Option 2 is bad, of course. I think option 1 is fine. If you want option 3, you're on your own.
That's like saying it's fine to compare the cost of houses in New York and San Francisco by comparing the cost of a house in New York in 1998 to the cost of a house in San Francisco in 2009, because house prices change at more or less the same rate everywhere in the country. It's true that house prices tend to go up or down at a similar rate everywhere, but it's still a problem if you cherry-pick the two years you're making a comparison with!
https://www.accessmagazine.org/spring-2007/horse-power-horse...
You can criticize their choice of sources, you can dig deeper and provide more comprehensive data, but going post after post admonishing them for cherry-picking data that is just gauche. They didn't pick the years!
But since they are just presenting you with the most commonly available data, nothing you say will make them produce different results.
So it’s not completely welfare. The benefits offered exist for retention. The military can offer nice benefits because it is the largest employer in the world. It’s like the healthcare and other benefits you get from a corporate employer but much better. The larger the employer the better the benefits tend to get.
This sounds very stark, but it doesn’t tell the whole story.
1. O6 to O7 is colonel to general (or captain to admiral in the navy). Yes, 2% is a heavy cull. Then again, I think everyone involved sort of wants that cull for the top of the military. O7+ are essentially the equivalent of corporate executives. (Edit: just checked the numbers… I believe 2% is the number of generals expected out of a given class of 2lt. Promotion from colonel to general is a much higher percentage).
2. It’s fairly easy, if motivated and not socially, physically, or intellectually limited, to make it 20 years as an officer. Folks typically end up as majors (career-path bound or lower competence) or lieutenant colonels. Colonels tend to be solid all around, even if some of them have a tragic flaw. Folks capped at major usually retire at 20. Folks capped at lt col usually retire at 24-26 years.
3. Promotion from 2lt to 1lt is pretty much automatic around 2-3 years. Ditto 1lt to captain at around 4-6 years total. The first cull is from captain to major, but a big part of that cull is simply folks who don’t want to re-enlist. Most people who stay in plan on staying for 20 to get retirement. Some folks who want to stay in can’t, but this is relativity rare and is typically due to (lack of) need of the military of their skill, general lack of competence, medical issues, or legal issues (dui, etc.). I wouldn’t feel sorry for most of these people except the medical ones.
To get back to the original point, officers don’t quite look like the “welfare” that was being referred to.
That said, some of the jobs that veterans are able to get are absolutely middle class welfare.
Most vets in federal jobs are awesome and are good at what they do. That said, there is a small percentage of vets in federal jobs who are hellbent on being deadweight.
It's not a "welfare" program. Nobody good wants to work there.
That doesn't make it welfare.
I don't think that makes sense.
Our purest white-collar welfare system is the health insurance industry, I'd say. IIRC at one point Obama explicitly stated that a reason he didn't think single-payer and similar were viable to advance, is because they'd put too many people out of work.
The military is, obviously, our main work-required blue-collar welfare system, among other kinds of wealth-shuffling it does. Why, one can get nearly-European-standard-for-all public benefits, through that program, provided one is reasonably sound of body and mind. Healthcare, pension, housing, et c. [edit] education, too!