from the world's big
How can felons be rehabilitated when prison labor is good for big business?
Until the use of prison labor is banned, many stakeholders will be incentivized to prevent felons from being rehabilitated.
- The Thirteenth amendment prohibits slavery in the U.S. except as punishment for a crime.
- A considerable number of public institutions, private companies, and individuals benefit from prison labor.
- Is true prison reform possible when some many stand to gain from this legalized form of slavery?
The Thirteenth Amendment was ratified on December 6, 1865, abolishing the practice of slavery in the U.S. — for the most part. In fact, what the amendment really served to do was to sweep slavery under the rug. Section I of the amendment reads, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime for which the person has been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to its jurisdiction."
That quick statement, "except as punishment for a crime," has simply changed the setting where slavery occurs.
Who stands to gain from prison labor?
Sixty-one percent of people in prison have jobs, which pay on average about 63 cents per hour. This is already de facto slavery, but in Texas, Georgia, Arkansas, and Alabama, prisoners are offered no wage whatsoever. A common counter argument is that prisoners are free to choose to work or not, unlike actual slaves.
First, this is not true for every state. Many states, such as Arizona, require all able-bodied prisoners to work. Second, this ignores the dynamics of prisons that force most prisoners to work. Unless they are receiving money from the outside, prisoners need to work to supplement their poor diets, to talk to their families, and to pay for legal fees.
In an interview with Big Think, former inmate Shaka Senghor explains how this system works:
"When I was in prison, I worked for $0.17 an hour; that was my starting rate working in the kitchen. But there are also big corporations who invest in prison labor because they can get this labor for $1.50 an hour. … Everything in prison has inflated costs. It costs us — inside prison, when I was inside — anywhere between $3 and $15 for a 15-minute phone call. We don't have to pay that out here in free society. . . . And so there are so many ways that the prison is exploited: the cheap labor, the cost of services and goods, and it's a model that, sadly and unfortunately, has affected a large segment of our society."
Private companies earn money off of prison labor in a variety of ways. First, there's the Federal Prison Industries, a corporation owned by the U.S. government more commonly referred to as UNICOR. According to UNICOR's most recent (as of 2019) annual report, the corporation made roughly $500 million in net sales in 2018.
The majority of these sales were to other government agencies, but UNICOR also sells to private entities. In fact, UNICOR encourages private entities to purchase services ranging from electronics assembly, textile manufacturing, metal fabrication, agricultural work, and others. Products bought from UNICOR are also eligible for the "Made in America" tag — though, this fails to mention that these products are made from slave labor.
Many private companies also contract prison labor. For instance, Whole Foods has used prison labor to farm tilapia and produce goat cheese, McDonald's has used prison labor to sew their uniforms, and AT&T used prisoners in a call center.
In addition, you may own shares in companies directly supporting prison labor, particularly those of CoreCivic and the GEO Group. These two private prison companies are publicly traded, and their shares can be found in the index funds and ETFs of many people's portfolios, even without their knowledge. Vanguard, Blackrock, and Fidelity are the biggest investors.
Can we reduce recidivism with these incentives in place?
If the federal government, private companies, and individual citizens of the U.S. are benefitting from prison labor, what incentive is there to rehabilitate prisoners? U.S. recidivism rates are exceptionally high: 68 percent of ex-felons were re-arrested within three years, 79 percent within six years, and 83 percent within nine years.
Few businesses are willing to hire former convicts, exacerbating the difficulties of their re-entry into society. Many landlords, too, are unwilling to lease to felons. As a result, the formerly incarcerated are 10 times more likely than the general population to become homeless. The system may not have been deliberately designed encourage recidivism — but that doesn't change the fact that many people benefit from a large and consistent prison population.
Support for felons exiting prison has been slim, but new developments are encouraging. Former U.S. President Barack Obama introduced a pilot program called the Second Chance Pell Grant that offered Pell grants to incarcerated students. Since obtaining an education is widely recognized as one of the best ways to avoid recidivism, this could be a powerful tool to keep people out of prison.
Congress is currently considering the Restoring Educating and Learning (REAL) Act, which would take this grant out of the pilot phase, though it appears to have little chance of being enacted into law.
President Donald Trump has also signed the First Step Act into law, which reduces mandatory minimums and works against recidivism by improving residential re-entry centers (i.e., halfway houses), incentivizes prisoners to participate in programs, and supplies vocational training among other features.
But, as its name implies, the First Step Act is just one of many urgently needed reforms. Until our society changes its attitude regarding the humanity of felons, our criminal justice institutions will continue to be incentivized to give ex-convicts as many opportunities to return to prison as possible.
Join us at 2 pm ET tomorrow!
Construction of the $500 billion dollar tech city-state of the future is moving ahead.
- The futuristic megacity Neom is being built in Saudi Arabia.
- The city will be fully automated, leading in health, education and quality of life.
- It will feature an artificial moon, cloud seeding, robotic gladiators and flying taxis.
The Red Sea area where Neom will be built:
Saudi Arabia Plans Futuristic City, "Neom" (Full Promotional Video)<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="c646d528d230c1bf66c75422bc4ccf6f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N53DzL3_BHA?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span>
Coronavirus layoffs are a glimpse into our automated future. We need to build better education opportunities now so Americans can find work in the economy of tomorrow.
- Outplacement is an underperforming $5 billion dollar industry. A new non-profit coalition by SkillUp intends to disrupt it.
- More and more Americans will be laid off in years to come due to automation. Those people need to reorient their career paths and reskill in a way that protects their long-term livelihood.
- SkillUp brings together technology and service providers, education and training providers, hiring employers, worker outreach, and philanthropies to help people land in-demand jobs in high-growth industries.
Source: McKinsey Global Institute analysis [PDF]<p>Work in understanding the skills at the heart of the new digital economy is leading to novel assessments that allow individuals to prove mastery to faithfully represent their abilities—but also to give weight and stackability to the emerging ecosystem of micro-credentials that make education more seamless across time and education providers. And we are seeing the beginnings of a renewal in the liberal arts, focused on building human skills in affordable ways that are accessible to many more individuals and far more effective.</p><p>Amidst these dark times, there is much opportunity to refresh the nation's education and training solutions to support the success of individuals and society writ large.</p>
Do we really know what we want in a romantic partner? If so, do our desires actually mean we match up with people who suit them?
- Two separate scientific studies suggest that our "ideals" don't really match what we look for in a romantic partner.
- Results of studies like these can change the way we date, especially in the online world.
- "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there," says Paul Eastwick, co-author of the study and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology.
Do we really know what we want in love or are we just guessing?<span style="display:block;position:relative;padding-top:56.25%;" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="204859156383d358652fda6f7eadda0f"><iframe type="lazy-iframe" data-runner-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vQgfx2iYlso?rel=0" width="100%" height="auto" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" style="position:absolute;top:0;left:0;width:100%;height:100%;"></iframe></span><p>More than 700 participants selected their top three qualities in a romantic partner (things like funny, attractive, inquisitive, kind, etc). They then reported their romantic desire for a series of people they knew personally. Some were blind date partners, others were romantic partners and some were simply platonic friends.</p><p>While participants did experience more romantic desire to the extent that these personal connections of theirs (people they knew) had the qualities they listed, there was more to the study. </p><p>Paul Eastwick, co-author and professor in the UC Davis Department of Psychology <a href="https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-07-romantic-partner-random-stranger.html" target="_blank">explains</a>: "You say you want these three attributes and you like the people who possess these attributes. But the story doesn't end there." </p><p>The participants also considered the extent to which their personal acquaintances possessed three attributes nominated by some other random person in the study. For example, if Kris listed "down-to-earth", intelligent and thoughtful as her own top three attributes, Vanessa also experienced more desire for people with those specific traits. </p>
Does what we want really match up with what we find?<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8yMzQ0NDA4Ni9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTU5NjM3NzY5OX0.gdUo-UbjYhKUDOL39BDZseRynbwaK2H5dfJtbV0nw8Y/img.jpg?width=980" id="ff376" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="7c1e3a1bb9d576872ef5dce39b2e8e80" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image" alt="illustration of a man and woman matching on a dating app" />
What we claim to want and what we look for may be two separate things...
Image by GoodStudio on Shutterstock<p>So the question became: are we really listing what we want in an ideal partner or are we just listing vague qualities that people typically consider as positive?</p><p>"So in the end, we want partners who have positive qualities," Sparks explained, "but the qualities you specifically list do not actually have special predictive power for you." </p><p>In other words, the idea that we find certain things attractive in a person does not mean we actively seek out people who have those qualities, despite saying it's what we want in a love interest. The authors of this study suggest these findings could have implications for the way we approach online dating in the digital age. </p><p>This isn't the first study of its kind to suggest that what we find in love isn't really what we were looking for. The evidence suggests that we really are consistent in the abstract of it all: when asked to evaluate what you want on paper, you are more likely to suggest overall attractiveness in accordance with what you've stated are important ideals to you. But real life isn't so similar. </p><p>According to <a href="https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/meet-catch-and-keep/201506/when-it-comes-love-do-you-really-know-what-you-want" target="_blank">Psychology Today,</a> who covered a 2015 study with similar results, initial face-to-face encounters have very little effect on our romantic desire. "When we initially meet someone, our level of romantic interest in the person is independent of our standards."</p><p>While you might have no immediate interest in John, he may fit your criteria of being kind, loyal, and intelligent. Similarly, someone may be attracted to Elaine even though she doesn't have any of the qualities they originally said were important to them. </p><p><strong>What does this all mean? </strong></p><p>The authors of both the 2015 and 2020 studies say the same thing: give someone a chance before writing them off as a poor match. If your initial attraction is independent of the standards you've set out, the qualities which you've listed as important to you, the first time you meet someone may not give you enough information to make an informed decision.</p><p>"It's really easy to spend time hunting around online for someone who seems to match your ideals," said Sparks, "But our research suggests an alternative approach: Don't be too picky ahead of time about whether a partner matches your ideals on paper. Or, even better, let your friends pick your dates for you." </p>