Please comment if you have stuff to say! As a regular commenter, I can assure you that one needn't be "substantively smart" (or a poster of shit) to contribute.
Aw, thanks! But I am in awe of other commenters' command of particular topics that really escape me - the intricacies of Congressional procedure, basically anything to do with economics or finance, really anything technical and procedure-based - are genuinely difficult for me to grasp, so I am grateful for the SB brain trust.
I am, however, peerless in my ability to wrangle an Arrested Development reference.
Thought you'd never ask. Edit: a lot of the joke also rests on Tobias as a character having this affliction, which is hard to explain concisely without watching the show.
It is essentially revealed that son-in-law Tobias is a "never-nude," which is exactly what it sounds like - he psychologically can never be naked, even alone, and so he wears cutoff jean shorts under all his other clothes at all times (no, I don't know how this is comfortable or possible, pretty sure that's part of the joke).
At one point, amidst some public shaming (I don't recall the context off the top of my head), Tobias protests that it's a perfectly valid condition, and that "there are dozens of us [never-nudes]!"
So it's brought up when someone is claiming that something very niche is in fact common, but also self-deprecatingly when someone knows their point of view / orientation / etc. is niche and is highlighting that.
I tend to use it when discussing the phenomenon of people like me who genuinely are not interested in having children, not out of financial or climate or overpopulation or other secondary concerns but as a matter of just plain not wanting to - it's exceedingly rare (as far as I can tell), and yet it's often blamed as somehow contributing to low birthrates at a population level, so I will say "there are dozens of us!" to drive home the point that this is a seriously numerically marginal group of people we're talking about.
Donated! And honestly I had to force myself to finish the entire article - I was ready to smash the donate button right after the "we must beat the bulwark folks" section. The threat of competition is surprisingly effective!
I've been subscribed for almost 18 months - first post. I've also been subscribed to The Bulwark for about the same length of time. Maybe I'm the only one, given the rivalry? Reformed Republican here, one of the minority who decided in response to Trumpism to expand his knowledge of viewpoints rather than restrict them. A few days after January 6th, the wife and I switched our party affiliation to Independent. I had been voting mostly Dem since 2016 and was embarrassed to be affiliated with the GOP, so it made sense - even if I've now taken myself out of the primary process in my state.
Anyway, I'll be donating for the underdog in the rivalry!
Yes, I very much feel that the large number of independents not voting in primaries is a big part of the reason that we tend to get such bad candidates in the general election
Of course.That doesn't apply if you are in an open primary state
1. It's a myth that 'independents' (whatever that means) are more moderate or less partisan than registered party members. In fact, there's at least some evidence of the opposite- there was a study floating around last year that states with open primaries produced *more* radical Republican candidates, not less. The real blow-up-the-system, conspiratorial crazy types don't tend to be registered members of institutions!
2. *Most* states are some degree of open primary at this point- only 10 states have truly closed primaries. Yes it's a spectrum as to how open they are, but if open primaries helped matters then America would already be in great shape
3. Trump originally won the nomination in 2016 by mostly winning the open primary states (attracting traditional Democratic voters), and mostly lost the closed primary states to Cruz. Seemingly no one remembers this factoid now
"3. Trump originally won the nomination in 2016 by mostly winning the open primary states (attracting traditional Democratic voters), and mostly lost the closed primary states to Cruz. Seemingly no one remembers this factoid now"
This I didn't know.
Either way, I remain hopeful that if we got away from only 15-20% of general election voters voting in the primary things would be better.
Re: your last sentence, I genuinely don't know. There are two contradictory models of the US electorate:
1. The rabid partisans vote in primaries; the ones who don't vote are reasonable, sensible people who are fed up with all this hyper-partisan politics nonsense, and if only we could get them to vote, we'd get decent, sensible politicians!
2. The people who don't vote (in primaries or general elections) are apathetic and poorly informed ("don't know and don't care") and if you pressured or downright forced them to vote, they would vote in idiosyncratic (euphemism for frankly stupid) ways, like "I'm pissed off about the price of gasoline, so I'll vote against whichever party is in charge" or "I saw this funny meme of Trump, so I'll vote for him, I like people who make me laugh" or "my pastor says Democrats are the spawn of Satan." Get more of them to vote, and US politics will get even worse and stupider than it already is.
Which of these models is closer to reality? I wish I could be confident it's 1, but I have a sinking feeling that it's 2.
I'll add a 3rd related point, my understanding is that the most politically engaged tend to think the worst about the other side, and thus succumb to flight 93 thinking. If the other side wins, it's the end of America... etc
These people are hyper aware of all of the worst sins of the other side, and clearly show what the other side is all about. But IF they even acknowledge sins from their own side, those are limited one offs.
I challenged some of my family members on this recently.
Name 10 (or even 5) things that the other side gets right, and then another 5 that your side is wrong on.
If you have a hard time doing it then your partisanship is blinding you.
I feel like the "open primaries" that mean "registered partisans + independents" are bad. One of the few things I think California does better than other states is the jungle primary. I didn't like the way Adam Schiff juiced the Republican's campaign in the primary to make the general easier for him to win, but it's less bad than the alternative versions of primaries.
California's Top Two system is atrocious. We regularly see a leading Democratic candidate prop up a Republican into #2 so the general will be uncompetitive. Top 4 or Top 5 states can point to some moderating successes like Alaska/Murkowski; in California, the primary remains the real election with meaningfully different incentives compared to a closed primary in a lopsided state (Republicans vote for a Republican that will lose, Democrats nominate the winner, regardless of ideology). At the district level, you will occasionally get 2 Democrats in the general, but not statewide.
Kamala Harris had to beat Loretta Sanchez. I agree that Democrats juicing the Republican's campaign to make the primary the only real election is bad, but it sure doesn't seem worse than it was before.
It's something I've wrestled with. My biggest takeaway from the "Trump experience" is that devotion to one party is dangerous, so I've deliberately chosen to be neutral. But I also recognize that my participation in the process is limited by not choosing a party.
Wish the headline had been "One Billion American Centipennies". Also happy to know Matt is against Pascalian wagers. Strong beliefs, strongly held - no wonder he's a natural with tweets and punditry! Even lives his beliefs in charity, with a moderate bipartisan coalition of blogs lined up.
I have no receipt to prove this, but would like to mention that the one and only time I literally found a $100 on the floor at work, it did indeed get donated - to my store's <s>Strategic Feminine Products Reserve</s> petty cash slush fund. No one saw me pick it up, I totally could have pocketed it. Direct super even offered to let me take it after no one came to claim it for a few days. But honour and the marginal utility of someone else's money demanded I do the right thing. Someone at the store gave up that money, so it was only right it get paid back to the store writ large. And I'd also like to blame the 90s cartoon Recess, for that one episode where the kids find $100 on the ground, and fantasize about being rich, but ultimately also return the money. Who says children's television can't be educational?
All this to say that those minimums are too high for me - half a whole posttax paycheck, or four times that to get my 3rd(?) ever mailbag question - but I'd donate if I could. Someday if we really do get "tariff rebate checks" or student loan jubilee, SB's yearly donation drive seems as good a DAF as any to deposit into. I'm glad you guys do this.
"All this to say that those minimums are too high for me - a whole OOM above my pretax takehome, or four times that to get my 3rd(?) ever mailbag question - but I'd donate if I could."
I totally hear you, and it sucks to feel excluded. Husband and I are well-off now, but if I saw those figures back in my grad school days, I'd be like "wow, must be nice to afford this much!" Good for you for donating that $100!
It is because of Slow Boring that I give a monthly recurring donation to RC Forward, the Canadian partner of Give Directly. Perhaps next year you can include Give Directly's international partners in the rivalry!
I often do include the processing fees but wonder if they are the same for a bank transfer as a card and if they are less, why more sites do not request that.
Has anyone appraced the card companies about giving, say, Giving Tuesday payments a discount on their regular fees?
Even in countries that have long had instant bank transfers seamlessly integrated in their banking app there's a weird hurdle between the vendor and the payment that often requires the customer to copy & paste bank id, account id, account name, amount, and some invoice number or reference from one app to another. Which is error prone but also introduces lag and friction into the entire purchasing experience. Especially on a phone. Switching 10 times sucks, especially if the OS/mobile app decides you've been away too long and resets things.
When I lived in Vietnam paying by bank transfer was universal because credit cards are almost non existent (no credit agencies, easy for people to disappear and leave debts) and most merchants required you to take a screenshot of your bank transfer and send it to them via Zalo (a messaging app similar to WhatsApp).
A few bigger merchants (like convenience stores) had invested in newer POS systems that would generate a QR code with all the details. Customer scans the QR code (which the bank apps all support) and then the POS system had hooks to the bank to poll waiting for the payment to appear in a few seconds. US banks are loathe to offer those kind of APIs. And outside of large merchants paying for a new POS system like that was uncommon.
This friction also introduces scope for fraud. It is common for customers to send a fake screenshot and a small, harried merchant to ship a product rather than switching to their banking app and trying to reconcile things.
The whole credit card ecosystem and purchasing experience is just much more mature.
ACH transfers (i.e. bank transfers) are super cheap actually. Credit cards, PayPal and the like would take a percentage but ACH is normally a low flat fee.
The technology is great, but the user experience is crap. And the security of a single magic bank account number that lasts for decades isn't great (though virtual account numbers are pretty cool)
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with account numbers that last for decades. I've lived in two different countries where it works just fine. The American problem is that (because of checks) knowing the account number lets any random person withdraw money from that account. That's not how it works in other countries.
You are a good person, Matt Yglesias. Thank you for doing this!
My one criticism is that the picture at the top of the article should have been Dr. Evil holding his pinky to the corner of his mouth. "One... million... dollars!"
Have to say, matching funds are so nice. I only donated $20 of my own money, but between the Slow Boring match and my employer's match, they're getting $50.
Donated. So now I get to respond to “declining marginal utility”, which is used to justify progressive taxation.
I don’t “need” that next $100 so I should be made to hand over a big chunk of it. But if I don’t need that next $100, then I don’t need to earn it in the first place. So, my interpretation of “marginal utility” is that marginal tax rates should decline as income rises in order to keep potential high earners motivated.
"Will it be replaced?" and "could it be replaced at lower cost?" are different questions. The premise of the poster is that we need to reduce taxes on "potential high earners" in order to keep them motivated. I am asking for something in that "potential high earning" realm that is so immune to competition from AI that tax breaks (as opposed to just survival instincts under conditions of competition) are required to "motivate" these super-valuable "earners" . The seemingly most obvious arena is human acting or musical performance, of which a small fraction is high-earning, but I'm not really convinced even that is immune. Within 5 years there will be convincing enough AI generated performing artists to create meaningful competition even there. There was a time when we scoffed at low bitrate streaming music, then the iPod convinced people that the low cost and convenience were worth the ear trash.
I like The Bulwark. They play an important role in the media landscape and the fight against Trump. It's also great that they're participating.
But the "slow boring of hard boards" audience just can't lose to the "pro-democracy" audience on this one. Let's show them what we got!
I hesitate to root against "pro-democracy"
Yeah probably the wrong phrasing there. You get what I’m saying!
Sorry. In my case, you picked the wrong opponent!
I almost never comment on the substacks, mostly because the rest of you are either substantively smarter than I am or better shit posters than I am.
But I’m breaking with my usual practice to say I donated. I’m wishing a very sincere happy second place to the bulwark.
I am right there with you. This board is intimidating in the best way! Also donated.
See my non-intimidating comment above. Please don't be intimidated!
Please comment if you have stuff to say! As a regular commenter, I can assure you that one needn't be "substantively smart" (or a poster of shit) to contribute.
Being both mediocre at substantive smartness and shit-posterness, I wholeheartedly agree!
Don't sell yourself short, you posted lots of excellent comments here!
Aw, thanks! But I am in awe of other commenters' command of particular topics that really escape me - the intricacies of Congressional procedure, basically anything to do with economics or finance, really anything technical and procedure-based - are genuinely difficult for me to grasp, so I am grateful for the SB brain trust.
I am, however, peerless in my ability to wrangle an Arrested Development reference.
Help me out here. What’s the background on the dozens of us meme? I’ve never seen the show.
Thought you'd never ask. Edit: a lot of the joke also rests on Tobias as a character having this affliction, which is hard to explain concisely without watching the show.
It is essentially revealed that son-in-law Tobias is a "never-nude," which is exactly what it sounds like - he psychologically can never be naked, even alone, and so he wears cutoff jean shorts under all his other clothes at all times (no, I don't know how this is comfortable or possible, pretty sure that's part of the joke).
At one point, amidst some public shaming (I don't recall the context off the top of my head), Tobias protests that it's a perfectly valid condition, and that "there are dozens of us [never-nudes]!"
So it's brought up when someone is claiming that something very niche is in fact common, but also self-deprecatingly when someone knows their point of view / orientation / etc. is niche and is highlighting that.
I tend to use it when discussing the phenomenon of people like me who genuinely are not interested in having children, not out of financial or climate or overpopulation or other secondary concerns but as a matter of just plain not wanting to - it's exceedingly rare (as far as I can tell), and yet it's often blamed as somehow contributing to low birthrates at a population level, so I will say "there are dozens of us!" to drive home the point that this is a seriously numerically marginal group of people we're talking about.
Tempted to donate the $2000 and then ask about Matt's position on pitbull breed bans . . . .
Only one way to find out :)
Donated! And honestly I had to force myself to finish the entire article - I was ready to smash the donate button right after the "we must beat the bulwark folks" section. The threat of competition is surprisingly effective!
I've been subscribed for almost 18 months - first post. I've also been subscribed to The Bulwark for about the same length of time. Maybe I'm the only one, given the rivalry? Reformed Republican here, one of the minority who decided in response to Trumpism to expand his knowledge of viewpoints rather than restrict them. A few days after January 6th, the wife and I switched our party affiliation to Independent. I had been voting mostly Dem since 2016 and was embarrassed to be affiliated with the GOP, so it made sense - even if I've now taken myself out of the primary process in my state.
Anyway, I'll be donating for the underdog in the rivalry!
Yes, I very much feel that the large number of independents not voting in primaries is a big part of the reason that we tend to get such bad candidates in the general election
Of course.That doesn't apply if you are in an open primary state
(Grouchy poly sci guy has joined the chat)
1. It's a myth that 'independents' (whatever that means) are more moderate or less partisan than registered party members. In fact, there's at least some evidence of the opposite- there was a study floating around last year that states with open primaries produced *more* radical Republican candidates, not less. The real blow-up-the-system, conspiratorial crazy types don't tend to be registered members of institutions!
2. *Most* states are some degree of open primary at this point- only 10 states have truly closed primaries. Yes it's a spectrum as to how open they are, but if open primaries helped matters then America would already be in great shape
3. Trump originally won the nomination in 2016 by mostly winning the open primary states (attracting traditional Democratic voters), and mostly lost the closed primary states to Cruz. Seemingly no one remembers this factoid now
"3. Trump originally won the nomination in 2016 by mostly winning the open primary states (attracting traditional Democratic voters), and mostly lost the closed primary states to Cruz. Seemingly no one remembers this factoid now"
This I didn't know.
Either way, I remain hopeful that if we got away from only 15-20% of general election voters voting in the primary things would be better.
Re: your last sentence, I genuinely don't know. There are two contradictory models of the US electorate:
1. The rabid partisans vote in primaries; the ones who don't vote are reasonable, sensible people who are fed up with all this hyper-partisan politics nonsense, and if only we could get them to vote, we'd get decent, sensible politicians!
2. The people who don't vote (in primaries or general elections) are apathetic and poorly informed ("don't know and don't care") and if you pressured or downright forced them to vote, they would vote in idiosyncratic (euphemism for frankly stupid) ways, like "I'm pissed off about the price of gasoline, so I'll vote against whichever party is in charge" or "I saw this funny meme of Trump, so I'll vote for him, I like people who make me laugh" or "my pastor says Democrats are the spawn of Satan." Get more of them to vote, and US politics will get even worse and stupider than it already is.
Which of these models is closer to reality? I wish I could be confident it's 1, but I have a sinking feeling that it's 2.
Great points.
I'll add a 3rd related point, my understanding is that the most politically engaged tend to think the worst about the other side, and thus succumb to flight 93 thinking. If the other side wins, it's the end of America... etc
These people are hyper aware of all of the worst sins of the other side, and clearly show what the other side is all about. But IF they even acknowledge sins from their own side, those are limited one offs.
I challenged some of my family members on this recently.
Name 10 (or even 5) things that the other side gets right, and then another 5 that your side is wrong on.
If you have a hard time doing it then your partisanship is blinding you.
I'm in Kentucky, which is closed. And, it's Kentucky, so I'm not sure that even participating in its primaries matters much.
I'd definitely say I'm on the moderate end, but what you state in #1 makes sense.
I feel like the "open primaries" that mean "registered partisans + independents" are bad. One of the few things I think California does better than other states is the jungle primary. I didn't like the way Adam Schiff juiced the Republican's campaign in the primary to make the general easier for him to win, but it's less bad than the alternative versions of primaries.
California's Top Two system is atrocious. We regularly see a leading Democratic candidate prop up a Republican into #2 so the general will be uncompetitive. Top 4 or Top 5 states can point to some moderating successes like Alaska/Murkowski; in California, the primary remains the real election with meaningfully different incentives compared to a closed primary in a lopsided state (Republicans vote for a Republican that will lose, Democrats nominate the winner, regardless of ideology). At the district level, you will occasionally get 2 Democrats in the general, but not statewide.
Kamala Harris had to beat Loretta Sanchez. I agree that Democrats juicing the Republican's campaign to make the primary the only real election is bad, but it sure doesn't seem worse than it was before.
Yes there is a good reason to live in Montana even while trying to figure out how to afford housing and subsisting on the scenery.
It's something I've wrestled with. My biggest takeaway from the "Trump experience" is that devotion to one party is dangerous, so I've deliberately chosen to be neutral. But I also recognize that my participation in the process is limited by not choosing a party.
Wish the headline had been "One Billion American Centipennies". Also happy to know Matt is against Pascalian wagers. Strong beliefs, strongly held - no wonder he's a natural with tweets and punditry! Even lives his beliefs in charity, with a moderate bipartisan coalition of blogs lined up.
I have no receipt to prove this, but would like to mention that the one and only time I literally found a $100 on the floor at work, it did indeed get donated - to my store's <s>Strategic Feminine Products Reserve</s> petty cash slush fund. No one saw me pick it up, I totally could have pocketed it. Direct super even offered to let me take it after no one came to claim it for a few days. But honour and the marginal utility of someone else's money demanded I do the right thing. Someone at the store gave up that money, so it was only right it get paid back to the store writ large. And I'd also like to blame the 90s cartoon Recess, for that one episode where the kids find $100 on the ground, and fantasize about being rich, but ultimately also return the money. Who says children's television can't be educational?
All this to say that those minimums are too high for me - half a whole posttax paycheck, or four times that to get my 3rd(?) ever mailbag question - but I'd donate if I could. Someday if we really do get "tariff rebate checks" or student loan jubilee, SB's yearly donation drive seems as good a DAF as any to deposit into. I'm glad you guys do this.
"All this to say that those minimums are too high for me - a whole OOM above my pretax takehome, or four times that to get my 3rd(?) ever mailbag question - but I'd donate if I could."
I totally hear you, and it sucks to feel excluded. Husband and I are well-off now, but if I saw those figures back in my grad school days, I'd be like "wow, must be nice to afford this much!" Good for you for donating that $100!
Yeah, I had to use the "other" button to participate because I'm more comfortable donating a lower amount.
It is because of Slow Boring that I give a monthly recurring donation to RC Forward, the Canadian partner of Give Directly. Perhaps next year you can include Give Directly's international partners in the rivalry!
RC Forward should count as a DAF (Donor Advised Fund) under the "check or DAF" clause.
I often do include the processing fees but wonder if they are the same for a bank transfer as a card and if they are less, why more sites do not request that.
Has anyone appraced the card companies about giving, say, Giving Tuesday payments a discount on their regular fees?
Even in countries that have long had instant bank transfers seamlessly integrated in their banking app there's a weird hurdle between the vendor and the payment that often requires the customer to copy & paste bank id, account id, account name, amount, and some invoice number or reference from one app to another. Which is error prone but also introduces lag and friction into the entire purchasing experience. Especially on a phone. Switching 10 times sucks, especially if the OS/mobile app decides you've been away too long and resets things.
When I lived in Vietnam paying by bank transfer was universal because credit cards are almost non existent (no credit agencies, easy for people to disappear and leave debts) and most merchants required you to take a screenshot of your bank transfer and send it to them via Zalo (a messaging app similar to WhatsApp).
A few bigger merchants (like convenience stores) had invested in newer POS systems that would generate a QR code with all the details. Customer scans the QR code (which the bank apps all support) and then the POS system had hooks to the bank to poll waiting for the payment to appear in a few seconds. US banks are loathe to offer those kind of APIs. And outside of large merchants paying for a new POS system like that was uncommon.
This friction also introduces scope for fraud. It is common for customers to send a fake screenshot and a small, harried merchant to ship a product rather than switching to their banking app and trying to reconcile things.
The whole credit card ecosystem and purchasing experience is just much more mature.
ACH transfers and credit cards both suck and everything should be done with debit cards with super low fees. Thanks for coming to my TED talk.
ACH transfers (i.e. bank transfers) are super cheap actually. Credit cards, PayPal and the like would take a percentage but ACH is normally a low flat fee.
The technology is great, but the user experience is crap. And the security of a single magic bank account number that lasts for decades isn't great (though virtual account numbers are pretty cool)
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with account numbers that last for decades. I've lived in two different countries where it works just fine. The American problem is that (because of checks) knowing the account number lets any random person withdraw money from that account. That's not how it works in other countries.
Then promote those!
Q. Some debitcards have lower fees than others?
You are a good person, Matt Yglesias. Thank you for doing this!
My one criticism is that the picture at the top of the article should have been Dr. Evil holding his pinky to the corner of his mouth. "One... million... dollars!"
Does anyone know of charities that are trying to step in where DOGE killed USAID support?
Yes: https://blog.givewell.org/2025/11/24/help-us-respond-uncertain-future-for-global-health/
Probably the usual suspects: Unicef, Doctors Without Borders.
Have to say, matching funds are so nice. I only donated $20 of my own money, but between the Slow Boring match and my employer's match, they're getting $50.
Apropos of today’s post, I initially misread “bibimbap” as “Bibi map”.
Bibi map is less tasty.
Reverse Dr. Evil moment?
It's convenient to have a regular time of year to think about this stuff, so thanks for that. Donated.
Donated. So now I get to respond to “declining marginal utility”, which is used to justify progressive taxation.
I don’t “need” that next $100 so I should be made to hand over a big chunk of it. But if I don’t need that next $100, then I don’t need to earn it in the first place. So, my interpretation of “marginal utility” is that marginal tax rates should decline as income rises in order to keep potential high earners motivated.
Most companies compensate their workers like 70% with money and 30% in abstract social status. Humans are weird.
Motivated to do what? Name something that can't be replaced by lower marginal cost AI within 5 years...
Lifeguarding.
To motivate all the "potential high earning" lifeguards out there?
Your question was about which jobs won't be replaced by AI in five years.
So you think every facet of work in our society will be replaced by AI in the next 5 years? Literally everything?
"Will it be replaced?" and "could it be replaced at lower cost?" are different questions. The premise of the poster is that we need to reduce taxes on "potential high earners" in order to keep them motivated. I am asking for something in that "potential high earning" realm that is so immune to competition from AI that tax breaks (as opposed to just survival instincts under conditions of competition) are required to "motivate" these super-valuable "earners" . The seemingly most obvious arena is human acting or musical performance, of which a small fraction is high-earning, but I'm not really convinced even that is immune. Within 5 years there will be convincing enough AI generated performing artists to create meaningful competition even there. There was a time when we scoffed at low bitrate streaming music, then the iPod convinced people that the low cost and convenience were worth the ear trash.
Everyone is a potential high earner though.
Interesting article on Vox about Mackenzie Scott’s giving philosophy: https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/470404/mackenzie-scott-amazon-trust-based-philanthropy-explained
This basically seems like a MacArthur grant for charities. Aren’t those also no strings attached.
Good article. She still seems really dumb, naive, or both.
Also done. I love the competition aspect. The urge to beat someone in a competition is always stronger than the urge to do some charitable act!