How to fill an empty stadium with atmosphere

These are challenging times.

Sport has understandably been postponed as events with large crowds are discouraged if not outlawed.

Some have discussed continuing without spectators. This still risks transmission among the players and staff. However, perhaps it might be considered safe enough in a few months time.

Let’s say that behind-closed-doors sports are deemed safe but spectator crowds are not for some time. Here is my proposal:

Sports with Live Fan noise

Live music venues and support companies all around the world are struggling without any business.

Image “SCAPE” by Jaanism

There is lots of high quality PA equipment and technical experience going unused. Why not divert these to stadiums and pipe in the crowd noise to generate an atmosphere?

Where will the noise come from? The sound can come from the fans at home. Most viewing devices have microphones built-in or have a port into which to plug one.

Teams can offer their fans the option to pay for a high-quality premium feed. Those with the premium live feed could have their feedback sounds piped back into the stadium and played on the loudspeakers.

Fans could start up their old chants, cheer when their team does well and contribute to the experience as they used to. People at home might cheer much louder if they know the players and their fellow fans will hear them!

As well as additional loudspeakers placed throughout the stadium, it might be possible to hook up the existing speaker system to give an ever fuller sound.

The away teams could be given a less powerful array of speakers than the home team in order to ensure there is ‘home’ advantage.

Sports clubs would get revenue from the premium feed as well as revenue from broadcasting the games on TV or on the internet using a secondary feed.

Games could be played in a staggered way so that those without much to could watch games on the secondary feed quite a lot of the time if they are bored.

Potential downsides

There are a few things to work through.

One is the latency and delay in the feed. The whole thing would only work if the visuals and audio coming back were reasonably in synch. Too much of a delay and it be bizarre for players and fans alike. Certainly singing songs won't be possible if everyone is a few seconds out of synch from others. Hopefully by prioritising a paid premium connection getting this feed the ‘feedback’ sound would be quick enough. Maybe singing wouldn't work but cheering could. The secondary feed could of course be allowed lag without any problem.

Another is that it might be strange for the players. They will be ‘playing for the cameras and not the crowd. But who cares? Lots of football (soccer) players run to the cameras to pose for those watching when they score anyway!

A third concern is that some people might during quiet moments shout obscenities. This can happen at regular televised games of course, and hopefully the system can be designed to filter out unexpected noises (like someone new coming into a quiet living room and shouting).

Huge upsides

People miss the Camaraderie, belonging and just the distraction of sporting events. We could all do with something a bit ‘normal’ in our disrupted lives.

Watching sports teams play is much better when there is crowd noise.

I think it would be worth trialling at least, when it is possible to do so.

It would be particularly good for tennis; the crowd noise can be muted leading up to the serve!

Stay safe everyone and keep helping one another get through this!

Coronavirus response: Government secondment proposal

There is a lot of discussion about how to respond to the economic issues generated by the Covid-19 outbreak.

Governments have affirmed that they will make money available

In my previous blog I argued that a targeted job guarantee scheme would be an untargeted UBI.

Helping firms or helping the unemployed? 

A lot of firms, particularly those whose customers sit in close proximity, will be under pressure to survive an extensive period of social distancing and/or lockdown.

We will need these firms when things go back to 'normal' in the medium term. If they go bust this creates huge economic uncertainty. The people who lose their jobs will have short and long-term problems to add to their existing concerns.

Some think that bailing them out is just going to transfer money to reckless business owners and shareholders who took profits out for their own benefit but didn't plan for a rainy day. Isn't capitalism about letting the weak go to the wall?

Given the social and economic disruption we should probably help businesses, though not write them blank cheques.

Government Secondment

Building on my flexible job guarantee proposal I think government should also offer to 'second' staff from struggling firms in affected industries.

Government should pay the companies up front to take control of their temporarily unnecessary but still costly workers.

What could the seconded workers do?

There are loads of things!

• Stay home! Those with health conditions can be paid to isolate.
  Others can be paid to stay at home, perhaps being assigned a 'reserve' occupation and being taught skills in this occupation remotely 
• These reserve and part-time occupations (with full-time pay) can be: Cleaners of public spaces, hospital support staff, supermarket staff, warehousing, farming, logistics, take-away deliveries. 
• They can no only cover and assist government staff but also be provided at no cost to private employers which have a crucial role but which have lost many staff to sickness and precautionary self-isolation. Essentially, this means backfilling jobs in key industries (healthcare, food delivery) where staff there are sick or self-isolating.
• Look after children off school. Those with children could be paid to stay home with them. Given advice about what to do. Teaching children is hard. 

If the secondees show any symptoms they should be told to stay home on full pay.

This would give employers a break in proportion to the impact on their business. It will cover one of their main (almost certainly their main) ongoing cost.

However, it doesn't provide employers with a blank cheque or prop up failing or irresponsibly run businesses.

Virus response: Guaranteed jobs or Unconditional Income?

Advocates of two radical ways to improve lot of the working class will advocate their preferred solution as a solution to the current virus crisis.

They are particularly relevant because self-isolation (whether voluntary or unenforced) will have a huge impact on some industries; hospitality and tourism in particular. If these industries employ a lot of precarious workers then they will reduce their hours or let them go. Some precarious workers may find themselves without sick pay while they recover or self-isolate. 

Job Guarantee (JG) or Universal Basic Income (UBI)? 

I tend to be in the job guarantee camp, but I think a job scheme that guarantees income but not hours of work is the best option in this scenario. 

What jobs can be done? 

• Providing a food and goods delivery service for the needy and those self-isolating is one obvious possibility.
• Supporting medical staff. Hospital portering, helping to transfer samples for testing, transferring equipment etc.
• However, I think a really useful thing would be to clean public spaces. Having an army of people going around cleaning handrails in busy locations and public transport for short periods each day could be very useful. 

The response may be that during the virus outbreak, it is sensible for people to spend as little time in busy public areas as possible.  

This seems to push towards the UBI proposal but I think it actually pushes towards an alternative form of JG. 

I would suggest spreading this extra work around between the people who have lost their work rather than an indiscriminate UBI for all. 

Rather than hire a few extra people to do the above jobs full-time (or more likely no one at all), why not give lots of people a small patch to clean each day? Or a small role in the distribution network. 

Variable hours but full pay

The amount of time they spend working might vary (and they would have a lot of freedom over when to do the task--in fact they probably wouldn't be monitored). 

In effect, those in the scheme would be 'on retainer.' 

Each would be given a little to do and kept informed and prepared in case there are other things they need to do. Would it be better to have a few of the unemployed working full-time with the rest unemployed, or, a larger number in a scheme where they work as much as needed? 

I'm tempted to think that the latter would be better as spreading the work around would reduce the chance that each would get infected, and that an infected worker without symptoms would be spreading the virus around to many others. However, I'm willing to defer to the experts on that one. If I'm wrong then there shouldn't be a UBI - there should be a BI conditional on isolation! 

Obviously if participants had symptoms of the virus they would need to isolate themselves and should be given a generous compensation (if not quite the same amount as those who make themselves available for the project). 

  

In person or arms length?

Normally for a JG proposal I would suggest that anyone could show up at the employment office in the morning and wait to be assigned a task. 

With the current virus that would be a terrible idea. Therefore, the system would have to use technology - phone and, for the most part, internet-based training and instruction. 

For simple jobs, these can be done at arms length, meaning that the programme, if well planned wouldn't require people to gather in one place. Materials could be dropped at each person's location, or they could collect them from a safe point. 

Why not just hire more people and give others a UBI?

UBI advocates might argue that those who are isolating could buy services (thus creating work) and the otherwise unemployed with the UBI could organise themselves into charitable enterprises  

The problems with UBI are that 

• it isn't targeted on the most appropriate people (in this case the self-isolating would be better off with generous sick pay, the benefit payments should go to those who have lost their precarious work) 
• it doesn't encourage productive and organised use of people's time 
• it doesn't provide people with a feeling that they are contributing/doing something useful 

Because UBI payments go to everyone you would not be able to provide as much to the above group as you can with a targeted programme. It would be giving money to the person who was going to stay home anyway. And maybe to the person who is going to go out and spread the disease. 

Further problems with applying UBI, relying on private enterprises and public charity

Will businesses go around hiring new people in the future? They might not want to take the risk on a hiring process. 

We could give people a UBI and hope they will organise charitable activities. Some have already started to organise themselves in this way. Good for them. 

I tend to think a centralised scheme will be more effective as it will be more organised. But also it can call on all sorts of additional resources - the infrastructure of the state and the army of people who might be willing to help a) if they receive pay or b) if they receive direction.  

Advantages of creating an 'anti-virus army'

There are many advantages to creating a reserve army out of those who have lost their jobs as a result of the virus.  

One is that those engaged in the task will feel they have contributed. They will have a positive role to play in society, given that their previous role may be lost for the time-being. Morale could be a big problem if jobs are lost and the future seems bleak. A smaller UBI payment wouldn't improve morale in the same way. 

And they will be able to contribute. They can be taught about best practice to keep the virus at bay and can help to put that into practice, teaching others as they go. They will be a visible sign to others that there is an organised response. 

Conclusion

I think that governments need to organise a highly co-ordinated response to the virus. Private providers and charities might not be able to cope or organise themselves effectively. 

An arms-length job guarantee scheme is a positive response which provides income, knowledge and a chance to contribute to those who suffer most from the economic storm. Giving out money in other ways likely to bleed the benefits to all sorts of other groups who are less badly off. 

Generous payments to those who are isolating for heath reasons and generous payment to those who find themselves involuntarily unemployed and willing to join the anti-virus scheme is superior to providing a smaller amount of money to everyone whether they are in either of these categories or not. 

As I say - I think UBI advocates should really be advocating some kind of 'conditional isolation payment' if they are going to argue that the state should be paying people to stay at home. UBI might seem like a good idea in response to the virus but it might not actually be the best one.

Update on 15 March

Governments are organising a concerted effort to support the economy through interest rate drops (not that they could go much lower without going negative) and a Quantitative Easing programme.

Rather than support capital owners, the focus should be on helping the precariously employed who will lose their jobs.

Train companies are asking for a bailout as they have lost business. However, it seems that train companies take profits when things go well, why should the government fully underwrite their risks? Perhaps the govt. could pay them extra for train cleaning services but otherwise should consider nationalising the railway firms for the time being.

Deliveroo vs. Job scheme
There are lots of unconfirmed briefings about the future plans in the UK. One suggestion was that anyone over 70 would be asked to remain at home and would get food delivered by the likes of Deliveroo and Uber Eats. This is a terrible idea. These apps use precarious labour and the chance of spreading the disease would be much greater if deliveries are undertaken by people with poor employment terms and no sick pay.

Not to mention the fact that these firms don't operate outside big cities - they don't exist in my small town for instance.  

Philosophers utilising hours

Sometimes I notice political philosophers mentioning things like hourly pay that play a prominent role in my hourly averaging proposal.

I thought it might be useful to list these. Perhaps I should make a similar list regarding economics too.

Rawls and Pogge

Reading Thomas Pogge's Realizing Rawls (1989) prompted this blog. He mentions leisure as a good at several points in the book. I particularly noted the following table, which considers economic systems with different hourly tax rates to illustrate his discussion of Rawls' difference principle.

Pogge here considers how many hours people with different hourly incomes would work if they faced different levels of tax.

Rawls himself discussed leisure-time after being challenged by economists. He then added leisure-time to his index of primary goods. In Justice as Fairness Rawls notes that leisure-time can be added to the index of goods much more readily than native endowments and states of consciousness. He writes (p179) that "leisure-time has a reasonably objective measure and is open to view."

Pogge (1989, p198-9) writes "the index must also include leisure time as a distinct social primary good...Leisure time must play a role in interpersonal comparisons through which the least advantaged within an existing social system are identified. Even though their annual or lifetime income is rather low, those who choose to do only a few hours of well-paid work each week cannot plausibly be considered less advantaged than others who work many more hours per week in a lower-paying job."

Marxist economics

Marx developed a theory of surplus labour value from the pre-existing labour theory of economic value. Time spent working has a key place in this theory, since workers effectively have part of their working time stolen from them each day by their employer.

I'm not convinced by theories of economic value of this kind, and Marx's position isn't really the type of thing I'm interested in here. Nevertheless, I felt it should be mentioned that hours and working time do play some role in this approach as they have historically pushed activists to consider the issue. 

The Distribution of Time 

Other authors have considered how to conceptualise the distribution of time in society. Bob Goodin's Discretionary Time and Julie Rose's Free Time consider whether people have insufficient time available to them; time in which people have autonomy or over which they have freedom.

People's wage rate will influence how much free time they have. Hourly wage rate plays a part in determining someone's dicretionary time (Discretionary Time p43-5) and their free time (Free Time p40). One of Rose's illustrations contrasts people with differing hourly rates, and the difference this creates between them.

The focus of these works is different, but within the realm of work, different hourly wages will make a difference to the time they have available.

Endowment, Talent and Economic Rent

Other authors mention hours worked and hourly income when discussing the ideal form of tax or income.

Socialist philosopher G.A "Gerry" Cohen, for instance, argues that people should be paid the same per hour, unless they have a particularly onerous job. He says as much in Why Not Socialism? (around page 19-20). He writes that "under socialist equality of opportunity income differences obtain when they reflect nothing but different individual preferences, including income/leisure preferences. People differ in their tastes, not only across consumer items, but also between working only a few hours and consuming rather little on the one hand, and working long hours and consuming rather more on the other. Preferences across income and leisure are not in principle different from preferences across apples and oranges." So /leisure/work choices can lead to different levels of consumption even in a socialist utopia.

Stuart White in his book The Civic Minimum (p79-83) considers people's responsibilities to contribute to society in accordance with his "egalitarian earnings subsidy scheme." This determines people's pay with regard to their endowment, but also the number of hours they work. The approach is designed to get around some of the most troubling aspects of endowment taxation, and while it gets around the worst aspects of endowment taxes, it does not get around all of them. While White presents his subsidy as applying for each pound the person earns, my proposal is to apply the subsidy for each hour the person works (if their lifetime average is low).

Kristi Olson's paper "The Endowment Tax Puzzle" advocates a tax on economic rents and uses hourly income to illustrate the various cases she considers. Olsen argues that both endowment taxes and earnings taxes fail to distinguish between income based on economic rents to talent and earnings from other sources.

I believe my hourly averaging scheme gets closest to capturing the rents obtained by high earners, without requiring knowledge of people's endowments and setting of tax-rates accordingly.

Olson writes (p270) "Part of this problem could be alleviated simply by altering the current tax system to take into account not only the individual’s total earnings, but also the individual’s hourly earnings, such that individuals with lower hourly earnings would be taxed at a lower rate." 

Essentially, Hourly Averaging offers a way to put these suggestions into practice as well as can be without taking account of endowment (which could lead to a "slavery of the talented").

Conclusion

I have argued that hourly averaging is attractive from a broad egalitarian perspective, as an attractive hypothetical insurance choice, and that it can be appealing to non-egalitarians too.

Perhaps if the above authors had known of my proposal they could have invoked it as a close approximation of their own ideal.

It is also worth mentioning that the thinkers above mostly do not advocate a Universal Basic Income, but rather argue that income should track, however indirectly, the number of hours someone works.

The difficult case of the Greggs bonus

Another row has developed about the flaws in the Universal Credit system. This time after purveyors of pasties and sausage rolls (vegan or otherwise), Greggs, kindly decided to pay all of its workers a £300 bonus.

Some workers in receipt of Universal Credit would receive as little as £75 of the £300 bonus, an effective tax rate of 75%. Others get a higher proportion of the bonus, but still face a bill higher than the average tax-payer despite being badly enough off to qualify for benefit payments.

Obviously low-paid workers shouldn't be paying taxes at this rate, and the case has generated a lot of media coverage, petitions, and various proposals, including one from David Linden MP not to treat bonus payments as income.

The Universal credit scheme has been beset with problems. It is a good idea in theory to have a joined-up benefit system which gives people an incentive to work, but it is fiendishly difficult to put this ideal into practice.

The problem in the bonus case is that it is a one-off payment. But the Universal Credit system is looking at short term income levels.

My Hourly Averaging proposal aims to do the same thing as the Universal Credit; to make work pay and assist the poorest in society.

Hourly averaging, however, would have no difficulties with the bonus issue. Each person has a tax-rate determined by their lifetime hourly income. A bonus of £300 isn't going to affect that lifetime calculation very much, and so the recipient will receive whatever percentage of the bonus they get for the other work they were doing. Someone whose tax-rate is 0% will receive the whole lot. Someone with a 25% will receive £225 and so on.

Low earners would never face a high tax bill on a small bonus because their lifetime hourly average will be low. There could be exceptions; someone who works in a low-paid job but who received a huge inheritance could conceivably have a high tax-rate, say 70% on their bonus. But that is because they are genuinely fortunate--they have gained much more than their fellow workers, in this case because of their inheritance.

As so often, when there is hand-wringing about the tax-system or benefit system it occurs to me that hourly averaging would do it much better.

One simple rule for essay writing

There is plenty of good essay writing advice out there.

However, I was thinking today how frustrating it was that some very capable students do badly in essays. In some cases intelligent and diligent students fail for wholly avoidable reasons.

My 'one simple rule' advice is to focus on the question.

Throughout the process, students should keep the essay question in the back (and often the front) of their mind. There are two aspects to this:

1. Interpret the question carefully.

There may be several ways to interpret a question, and there will always be several ways to answer it (often "yes", "no" and "it depends").

Look at the syllabus and course materials; the essay is an opportunity to show your understanding of the material covered on your course. Think about which of those readings or topics are relevant to the question and why.

The most impressive essays show understanding that there are different ways to answer the question, and explain why the answer they have chosen is better than the alternatives.

2. Avoid diversions from answering the question.

When planning and writing the essay, make sure you are always working towards answering the question.

As an undergraduate myself I was prone to go off on diversions where something interested me, or to share my thoughts on some related topic. These diversions are best put to one side, perhaps for a future essay or your own interest. You could even write them up into a blog!

I don't mean to say you should be very simplistic in answering the question. You will need to consider rival views and explain why those positions that deny your view are wrong.

Summary

There are important conventions to follow when structuring and writing essays, which are of course very important. However, if you haven't responded to the essay question then it can be very hard for the marker to give you any credit, however good your essay is in other ways.

Drinking in nature: A worldwide experience?

In so many ways I am very lucky, and it is always good to acknowledge this.

Over the festive season we’ve been exploring the surrounding area a bit more on our dog walks, heading more for the downs (hills) than the Thames valley floor. The latter has been a bit muddy (if not flooded).

A few days ago we walked around the villages of Ipsden and Hailey and along a bit of the Chiltern way and Icknield Way walks. The pictures I took really don’t do justice to the scenery.

I stopped to take some photos because a thought occurred to me during a quiet and still moment as I gazed over the hills and valleys.

The thought was that there could be millions of people over the world doing something very similar to me at that moment—appreciating the stillness or majesty of the natural world.

Others might have been on a ship the sea, on a boat on a lake or river bend, in the mountains, surrounded by trees or on a plain. But were others also experiencing that absent-minded moment taking in a scene? I expect some were.

We were no doubt in a significant minority among the global population. Maybe a few thousand, maybe a million. Certainly not more—most people would be sleeping, eating, moving, entertained, worrying, hustling; all things we must do as humans. Many people would get very little opportunity to experience that kind of quiet scene.

I imagined flipping between those different people’s views, all different but unified and connected in some unreal manner. All swapping places for a split second with one another. Flicking between our views like a rapid slideshow.

No doubt a poet could express my thought much better.

My fellows and I might have completely opposed, maybe even alien, worldviews. Our cultural and religious attitudes could be radically conflicting. We are primarily social creatures, understanding the world through our language and cultural upbringing. We are different from any other species in that respect, we rely much more on knowledge rather than instinct and knowledge is transferred by language.

However, is this experiencing of nature potentially one of those universal human experiences that completely cuts across cultural differences? Mostly universal human experiences are going to be biological functions such as eating. Perhaps laughing and loving might also cut across cultural and linguistic divides as does experiencing nature?

During the cold war the great philosopher Sting said “I hope the Russians love their children too” perhaps making the same point at a time when mass destruction was quite a live option. Nuclear war hasn’t been such a prominent concern for a while, though chances might rise if the current US President thinks it might help him avoid impeachment or losing an election.

I’m very fortunate that I live somewhere I can access quiet nature; I have the time to go for walks and we have a car to get there quickly and easily. Many others won’t be so fortunate; those in a busy city, a slum or a refugee camp might have little opportunity to get away.

But at times like these, when there are those seeking to divide us in so many ways, it is good to appreciate the little ways we are perhaps united. That we all matter and that the quiet of certain kinds of natural environments matters too.