Food for thought from a political scientist for those who think fair=communism and believe in the myth of class warfare:
Few begrudge the right of an entrepreneur to make money. It is understood in a free market that risks deserve rewards. However, nobody makes their money on their own as they require workers to help them in the development and implementation of a good or service as well as a customer base to make use of the idea. The economic health of the business and country is more than just one man and there needs to be an underlying social contract where the entrepreneur's success is shared with others. This is all about what is fair. Companies have prospered in terms of profits to little effect on those who also contribute.
I am listing some facts concerning the myth of fairness in this country and how absurd it has gotten.
We often use the GINI index in social sciences to compare income equality across nations as it addressed ratios rather than absolute wealth. Our current ranking in income equality is the lowest in the developed world and is actually worse than Russia. We remain slightly more equal than Mexico. This has only gone up in recent years. Is it socialism or communism when the U.S. is comparable to countries famous for their have/have not demographics?
While the GDP per capita has risen steadily over the past decade, median income in the U.S. has actually dropped significantly. This means that as our economy grew, the fortunes of the person sitting at the 50th percentile of the nation has actually seen their situation worsen.
The minimum wage in 1968 was $1.60. Had this kept up with inflation alone, this would be $10.42 in 2011. Over the past 3 decades, the value of the minimum wage has severely eroded. The minimum wage was intended to be a base minimum to allow a working person to be reasonably able to support themselves. When raised from 5.25 an hour, the minimum wage was not a living wage in any county in the country.
Inflation is calculated by a miscellaneous basket of goods annually. This calculation is unable to reflect increases in fuel/energy, housing, health care and education, all of which have grown at a higher rate than inflation and much higher than personal incomes.
America was prosperous in the 1950s through 1970s with a system that featured high personal taxes and low business/corporate taxes. Today this is reversed and has fueled incentive for the pooling of money to the top rather than investment. In contrast, Canada has implemented our old tactics and has seen steady growth in recent years.
When people complain about the number of people not paying taxes, the reality is about 38% of tax units and 60% of them (nearly 24% of total) had income of under 20,000 in 2008. Instead of griping about them not paying taxes, may we ask why so many people are making so little? Do we really benefit from taxing the low income and the social security crowd?
The fair tax is a regressive tax as it disproportionately hits lower and middle classes as they must spend nearly all of their income. Such a tax would push millions more toward poverty. The wealthy, with their ability to save, pay a lower proportion despite the tax having a lower burden. Because of this fact, it is far more regressive than even the flat taxes of former communist nations in Eastern Europe.
Even in current times of the ultra-wealthy, consumption remains roughly 70% of the economy. While we focus on supply side economics and investments, consumer demand remains low. American corporations have outsourced all they could to workers in near slave conditions and given up on the American worker. Without a middle class, consumption of goods and services will grind to a halt and all will suffer.
The 99% is in the interests of the 1%. We need a fairness and a faith in the middle class to work and produce. We've never failed to support the economy and believe in the dream of hard work begetting gain. Don't turn away from us and we will work together to make a better nation.
07 October 2011
13 September 2011
Uninsured? Let Them Die says the Tampa GOP Debate Attendees
When CNN hosted a GOP debate in Tampa, there was no doubt that some of the fringe issues were abound to come out. The 2 hour sludgefest of slapping down Social Security and suggesting that the EPA would be best oversought by those 'abused' by them (you know, big oil, steel manufacturers etc). For two hours, each candidate did backflips to polish off those tea party credentials. When all was said and done though, the biggest losers were not any candidate but rather the audience, whose reactions demonstrated a lack of empathy and compassion usually only seen in sociopaths.
The question was one directed at Ron Paul in which a hypothetical situation involved a young 30 year old with a job and no health insurance befalls a tragedy and requires long term medical care. Being the most libertarian candidate, Paul's initial answer is focused on personal responsibility and bemoaning the expectation that the government would take care of him. When the moderator, Wolf Blitzer, follows up with the natural "would you just let him die?" Before Paul can even backstep and emphasize private charities' role etc, the audience can be hear loudly proclaiming "Yeah".
To put this into perspective: the audience in Tampa fell somewhere to the right of RON PAUL.
1 day after the 10th anniversary of 9-11 and the remembrance of lives lost, the vitriol directed at our fellow man returned with a vengeance at this debate and demonstrated the absolute worst in the American people. The fact that there are people who shun any degree of support for someone under the most extreme circumstances is perhaps a greater tragedy than what happened at 9-11. This kind of thinking is poisonous and frightfully infectious and is a sign of a society in decline. Given the high rate at which conservatives claim to be Christians, I urge them to go back through their New Testament and remember Jesus's stance toward compassion toward your fellow man. Even for non-Christians, the instructions to care for the infirm and be charitable should you have the means are moral lessons that transcends the boundaries of religion.
I am appalled that the audience acts so boorishly to a question that deserved nuance and understanding of the situation. Even if it was someone who made a choice not to purchase private insurance, it is not our place to be the judge jury and executioner. When someone's life is boiled down to mob mentality shouting, we have lost all sight of our priorities and are no better than the civilizations we thumb our noses at for their perceived barbarism.
The question was one directed at Ron Paul in which a hypothetical situation involved a young 30 year old with a job and no health insurance befalls a tragedy and requires long term medical care. Being the most libertarian candidate, Paul's initial answer is focused on personal responsibility and bemoaning the expectation that the government would take care of him. When the moderator, Wolf Blitzer, follows up with the natural "would you just let him die?" Before Paul can even backstep and emphasize private charities' role etc, the audience can be hear loudly proclaiming "Yeah".
To put this into perspective: the audience in Tampa fell somewhere to the right of RON PAUL.
1 day after the 10th anniversary of 9-11 and the remembrance of lives lost, the vitriol directed at our fellow man returned with a vengeance at this debate and demonstrated the absolute worst in the American people. The fact that there are people who shun any degree of support for someone under the most extreme circumstances is perhaps a greater tragedy than what happened at 9-11. This kind of thinking is poisonous and frightfully infectious and is a sign of a society in decline. Given the high rate at which conservatives claim to be Christians, I urge them to go back through their New Testament and remember Jesus's stance toward compassion toward your fellow man. Even for non-Christians, the instructions to care for the infirm and be charitable should you have the means are moral lessons that transcends the boundaries of religion.
I am appalled that the audience acts so boorishly to a question that deserved nuance and understanding of the situation. Even if it was someone who made a choice not to purchase private insurance, it is not our place to be the judge jury and executioner. When someone's life is boiled down to mob mentality shouting, we have lost all sight of our priorities and are no better than the civilizations we thumb our noses at for their perceived barbarism.
03 September 2011
Rick Perry Wants to Take a Sharpie to the Constitution
The moment Rick Perry (note: Not Parry with the A for IowA) entered his name in the hat for the presidential candidacy, he was immediately hailed as the darling on the right. With staunch conservative credentials and a cross on his sleeve, he was considered by many to be a fresh option in a field that has been battered by countless speech gaffs. Not waiting long to get bloodied, Perry's views have come to light and the more Americans hear the facts, the more Michelle Bachmann seems like a reasonable candidate.
For starters, Perry wants to make a few revisions to the Constitution: for someone who lauds the founding father and original intent in arguing for small government, he's quite unhappy with the constitution and effectively wants to redraw everything he finds to get in the way of his libertarian utopia. This is even better than most as he had a book come out last year co-written with not quite back from the dead politician Newt Gingrich to detail how he would take a sharpie to the constitution and remake it into a religiously libertarian utopia.
Of the most noteworthy changes would be a complete revamp of the Judicial Branch of government. In addition to ending lifelong appointment as designated in Article III, section I, he would like to permit for a super-majority (2/3rds vote) of Congress to override any decision made by the court. In fearing judicial activism, Perry and much of the Tea Party forget the reasoning for the founding fathers to establish the Court in such a manner. The reasoning, not entirely unsound, is that the role of a judge involves the interpretation and study of law in a highly controversial context. In allowing for the lifelong appointment of judges, the founding fathers sought to keep judges out of the political arena and remain capable of addressing concerns of law as scholars without the fear of repercussions. In the event of a greatly unpopular decision, Congress has always had the ability to draft an amendment to be passed by 2/3rds of Congress in addition to ratification by 3/4 of the states, rendering his argument of dealing with court actions moot. Perry's move would break that balance and hand more power to the arguably most powerful branch of government, the legislature. The federal court system would become the target of political posturing and based on the current climate turn into something dreadful.
The other change of great consequence being proposed is to abolish the 16th amendment to the constitution, best known as the income tax amendment. While this amendment was passed in 1913, it should be said that the concerns that an income tax would become necessary to deal with various national functions had been tossed around since the Civil War. Keeping in mind that in the early days of our country, states remained largely autonomous and our general stance toward isolationism limited the role of the federal government up until that point. Unfortunately with issues such as wars, the costs and complications necessitate a more centralized point of operations to perform with efficiency. From the Civil War onward we did a whole lot of fighting as well considering we were involved in the Spanish-American War, The rebellions in Philippines, Samoa and Hawaii as well as even having a presence in the Boxer's Rebellion over in China. These actions along with greater interaction in global affairs as a whole created a need for a federal pool of revenue and thus the income tax was ratified as an amendment.
Perry calls the income tax as the 'road to serfdom' with little regards to the vast improvement in the quality of life for most Americans, in part because of the taxes we all paid. The interstate highway system would have never developed with the speed and quality that it had without federal funds that ensured that cities and states would be interconnected even in areas in which building a road would not be economically feasible in the private sector. While originally intended for the movement of military equipment and personnel, it was a move that revolutionized entire regions of the country. Social spending allowed for small and/or poor communities, those that traditionally had limited access to education to have better footing. A university education became more accessible and the investment in those people proved advantageous in the rapid development of a skilled populace. And that goes without saying when you speak of the New Deal and Social Security....
Oh, he wants to get rid of that one too.
He calls Social Security a ponzi scheme and a failed social experiment. While there is a problem with the post war baby boom and subsequent baby bust from about 1965-1985, Perry uses words to portray it as a fraudulent program and wasteful. Yes, what a socialist scam to take care of your elderly in a manner that allows them to retire instead of working every day until death came as was the norm for most working class families prior to the program's establishment. Never does Perry address what he would do as an alternative for those senior citizens, many of whom live in poverty despite their meager checks. I know I am not alone in this rationale as polls consistently show the vast majority of the population (often around 80%) view Social Security as having a positive effect. Is reform needed to preserve this program for future generations? Certainly, but to say that we should eliminate the program and presumably leave the elderly to the whims of an unforgiving private market is appalling and unforgivable.
Okay, so it is socialist... does it really have to be such a negative thing when everyone benefits?
But he does remember to make mention of brushing up his religious credentials to state his wish to push through a marriage amendment to restrict who willing adults wed. He must be missing a copy of his New Testament, you know the books in which Jesus spent his life acting to the benefit of others, most notably the needy. I'm not Christian by faith, but I'm quite a fan of those who follow in his example. It's one of those lessons that should have universal appeal regardless if you think the guy is the son of God or not.
There's several others he depicts in the book he put out with Newt Gingrich (the moral god-fearing man who has left more than one wife under dubious conditions). The balanced budget amendment has already been deliberated a few days back. The repeal of the direct election of Senators is one that I find problematic, but not one that would irreparably alter the nation.
Of course, typical politician he is, has been trying to backtrack his stance on some of the things he wrote in his book. The Social Security issue has been a particular thorn in his side considering he needs to count on those senior citizen votes to win a number of states including electorate heavy Florida and Ohio. If the Pew poll is correct in that 87% of Americans consider the program to have a positive effect1 and 60%2 of Americans consider keeping benefits intact as a priority (32% said the deficit was more important), he's got a big foot to remove from his mouth. Of course, rather than being honest about his beliefs like Ron Paul (you know where he stands if nothing else), he has taken the road most traveled and use his spokesman to say how he merely wanted to put issues on the table (despite stating an outright issue with the ideology of Social Security). He's waffled on states rights concerning gay marriage in how he does not care what states such as New York decide upon while signing a document stating he would press the amendment if elected to the Presidency. It's this kind of sleezy, snake oil campaigning that galls me the most.
Listen, if you want to crumple up the constitution and begin anew, then say so. Better yet, if your state wants to be the guinea pigs for this experiment of a pure libertarian, state focused government, I'll be glad to see what Texas does. Just keep in mind it would mean no federal dollars, no asking for assistance in the event of a national disaster, and no backpedaling from explaining to countless constituents how their way of life is going to change drastically. If it works there, I'd be willing to bite. Until then, I'm calling a lot of this hot hair and showboating to show how much more conservative than thou Perry is from Bachmann or even Paul.
But don't toy with desecrating a document that was well thought out enough that it only needed 27 amendments in its time (one of which was to nullify another) and influenced the documents of many other modern democracies with petty politicking.
Link: Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich's Book, "Fed Up"
Link: Public Wants Changes in Entitlements, Not Changes in Benefits
Link: Pew Poll States 60% of Americans want Social Security Benefits Maintained
For starters, Perry wants to make a few revisions to the Constitution: for someone who lauds the founding father and original intent in arguing for small government, he's quite unhappy with the constitution and effectively wants to redraw everything he finds to get in the way of his libertarian utopia. This is even better than most as he had a book come out last year co-written with not quite back from the dead politician Newt Gingrich to detail how he would take a sharpie to the constitution and remake it into a religiously libertarian utopia.
Of the most noteworthy changes would be a complete revamp of the Judicial Branch of government. In addition to ending lifelong appointment as designated in Article III, section I, he would like to permit for a super-majority (2/3rds vote) of Congress to override any decision made by the court. In fearing judicial activism, Perry and much of the Tea Party forget the reasoning for the founding fathers to establish the Court in such a manner. The reasoning, not entirely unsound, is that the role of a judge involves the interpretation and study of law in a highly controversial context. In allowing for the lifelong appointment of judges, the founding fathers sought to keep judges out of the political arena and remain capable of addressing concerns of law as scholars without the fear of repercussions. In the event of a greatly unpopular decision, Congress has always had the ability to draft an amendment to be passed by 2/3rds of Congress in addition to ratification by 3/4 of the states, rendering his argument of dealing with court actions moot. Perry's move would break that balance and hand more power to the arguably most powerful branch of government, the legislature. The federal court system would become the target of political posturing and based on the current climate turn into something dreadful.
The other change of great consequence being proposed is to abolish the 16th amendment to the constitution, best known as the income tax amendment. While this amendment was passed in 1913, it should be said that the concerns that an income tax would become necessary to deal with various national functions had been tossed around since the Civil War. Keeping in mind that in the early days of our country, states remained largely autonomous and our general stance toward isolationism limited the role of the federal government up until that point. Unfortunately with issues such as wars, the costs and complications necessitate a more centralized point of operations to perform with efficiency. From the Civil War onward we did a whole lot of fighting as well considering we were involved in the Spanish-American War, The rebellions in Philippines, Samoa and Hawaii as well as even having a presence in the Boxer's Rebellion over in China. These actions along with greater interaction in global affairs as a whole created a need for a federal pool of revenue and thus the income tax was ratified as an amendment.
Perry calls the income tax as the 'road to serfdom' with little regards to the vast improvement in the quality of life for most Americans, in part because of the taxes we all paid. The interstate highway system would have never developed with the speed and quality that it had without federal funds that ensured that cities and states would be interconnected even in areas in which building a road would not be economically feasible in the private sector. While originally intended for the movement of military equipment and personnel, it was a move that revolutionized entire regions of the country. Social spending allowed for small and/or poor communities, those that traditionally had limited access to education to have better footing. A university education became more accessible and the investment in those people proved advantageous in the rapid development of a skilled populace. And that goes without saying when you speak of the New Deal and Social Security....
Oh, he wants to get rid of that one too.
He calls Social Security a ponzi scheme and a failed social experiment. While there is a problem with the post war baby boom and subsequent baby bust from about 1965-1985, Perry uses words to portray it as a fraudulent program and wasteful. Yes, what a socialist scam to take care of your elderly in a manner that allows them to retire instead of working every day until death came as was the norm for most working class families prior to the program's establishment. Never does Perry address what he would do as an alternative for those senior citizens, many of whom live in poverty despite their meager checks. I know I am not alone in this rationale as polls consistently show the vast majority of the population (often around 80%) view Social Security as having a positive effect. Is reform needed to preserve this program for future generations? Certainly, but to say that we should eliminate the program and presumably leave the elderly to the whims of an unforgiving private market is appalling and unforgivable.
Okay, so it is socialist... does it really have to be such a negative thing when everyone benefits?
But he does remember to make mention of brushing up his religious credentials to state his wish to push through a marriage amendment to restrict who willing adults wed. He must be missing a copy of his New Testament, you know the books in which Jesus spent his life acting to the benefit of others, most notably the needy. I'm not Christian by faith, but I'm quite a fan of those who follow in his example. It's one of those lessons that should have universal appeal regardless if you think the guy is the son of God or not.
There's several others he depicts in the book he put out with Newt Gingrich (the moral god-fearing man who has left more than one wife under dubious conditions). The balanced budget amendment has already been deliberated a few days back. The repeal of the direct election of Senators is one that I find problematic, but not one that would irreparably alter the nation.
Of course, typical politician he is, has been trying to backtrack his stance on some of the things he wrote in his book. The Social Security issue has been a particular thorn in his side considering he needs to count on those senior citizen votes to win a number of states including electorate heavy Florida and Ohio. If the Pew poll is correct in that 87% of Americans consider the program to have a positive effect1 and 60%2 of Americans consider keeping benefits intact as a priority (32% said the deficit was more important), he's got a big foot to remove from his mouth. Of course, rather than being honest about his beliefs like Ron Paul (you know where he stands if nothing else), he has taken the road most traveled and use his spokesman to say how he merely wanted to put issues on the table (despite stating an outright issue with the ideology of Social Security). He's waffled on states rights concerning gay marriage in how he does not care what states such as New York decide upon while signing a document stating he would press the amendment if elected to the Presidency. It's this kind of sleezy, snake oil campaigning that galls me the most.
Listen, if you want to crumple up the constitution and begin anew, then say so. Better yet, if your state wants to be the guinea pigs for this experiment of a pure libertarian, state focused government, I'll be glad to see what Texas does. Just keep in mind it would mean no federal dollars, no asking for assistance in the event of a national disaster, and no backpedaling from explaining to countless constituents how their way of life is going to change drastically. If it works there, I'd be willing to bite. Until then, I'm calling a lot of this hot hair and showboating to show how much more conservative than thou Perry is from Bachmann or even Paul.
But don't toy with desecrating a document that was well thought out enough that it only needed 27 amendments in its time (one of which was to nullify another) and influenced the documents of many other modern democracies with petty politicking.
Link: Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich's Book, "Fed Up"
Link: Public Wants Changes in Entitlements, Not Changes in Benefits
Link: Pew Poll States 60% of Americans want Social Security Benefits Maintained
02 September 2011
Writing Cleanup
Several posts were written in a hurried manner during breaks at work and now that I look at them, the writing is not up to my personal standard. Typically I write and revise at least twice before it goes public, but my time limitations left few options.
Going to tweak a few of them over the next couple days.
Going to tweak a few of them over the next couple days.
August Produces Statistically No New Jobs and Slipping Wages: Why Corporate America Needs to Bet on the American Worker and Stop Blaming the Government
The August national job report came in today and to say the reports are dismal is an understatement. The preliminary number is at approximately 17,000 jobs. That amounts to 350 per state. While much of the media is neglecting to report on how the numbers are a touch skewed by the Verizon strikes that involved somewhere in the vicinity of 40,000 employees (which was just resolved), it is not as though the revised numbers are bound to be impressive. And people are calling on the Fed and the President to act on it.
The only problem is that there is little the government can do.
Based on all current conditions we should be seeing an uptick in job creation. Even with the tumultuous stock market since the buildup to the debt ceiling increase, stocks have recovered much of the loss endured in 2008 and 2009 with the Dow Jones sitting close to where it was at the start of 2007, which had a rapid ramp up before busting 18 months later. The Fed has kept interest rates and nearly nothing, priming the business sector to invest and expand businesses. Congress has been reluctant to end subsidies for key industries despite the rising debt in fear that it would harm the economy. Private organizations saw record bailouts in 2008 and the states have received money to stimulate local economies. As we all know, corporate tax code is written in such a manner that highly profitable industries and companies pay a pittance of the stated rates. The health care bill has not gone into effect yet save a handful of provisions that are a minuscule impact on the industry. Company profits are up by and large and the private sector is said to be sitting on the largest quantity of cash at hand than any time memorable. Despite the attempts to create favorable conditions for job growth, the private sector has been exceptionally stingy on the matter.
It's easy to try to use President Obama as a scapegoat for such matters even if his impact on economic matters, particularly concerning the private sector, is low. Contrary to what many may believe, the Fed and Congress are most involved in economic policies and can really only attempt to create policies that encourage business production. If companies take those propitious conditions and still refuse to hire, there is little government can do to further entice them. Nor can the government force the banks to loan their money for start-up enterprises. It's a classic case of leading the horse to the trough.
The economic problems lie in the private sector and their continued emphasis on cost saving policies such as outsourcing and wage reductions/hiring at lower income levels (in the economic report, the average American wage slipped $.03 nationally in the month of August) to raise profits at the expense of the American middle class. It is understandable to see cost savings in times of hardship to preserve a greater number of jobs, but for many companies the idea has evolved to squeeze more work out of fewer workers at a lower pay so that the shareholders and top officials see increasing quarterly profits with each quarter. I am going to give one such example that I can express from a personal level to emphasize how irrational corporate cost savings have become:
I have a boyfriend who works for HP.... yes, the computer giant, through HP's acquisition of Ross Perot's company, EDS. In 2008 he saw a significant wage reduction despite making less than 25,000 a year (after 5 years) as a cost saving measure for a company that continued to post well north of 1 billion of profit per quarter. To contrast: the CEO had a compensation package that was over 33 million for fiscal year 2008. It took over 2 years and the ouster of CEO Mike Hurd for the reinstatement of most of the workers' previous wages. However, they have eliminated cost of living increases and moved toward strict 'merit' based increases. While he was one of the handful to merit a wage, most workers in his unit have not seen their wages move from 2007 levels. On an amusing note though, he was one of the few to receive a raise in his recent review when he admits that he was much less willing to go above and beyond on the job than he was prior to the wage decrease. While I never asked him, I have continued to question just how much productivity was reduced amongst his co-workers as a result of those two years. I doubt that their work confidence is returning any time soon.
This is becoming a large problem for many Americans as their wages have stagnated or the jobs they are finding on the market are largely low in compensation as there are many expenses that have increased in the past 4 years. Oil and gasoline remains volatile and rising with every concern on the commodities market. In a market that is turning back toward renting, the demand has raised the cost in many regions for units. Health care costs continue to increase in the vicinity of 10% annually with a greater portion of those costs being placed on workers. None of these things are counted when measuring inflation, meaning that even those who see those elusive cost of living increases are feeling poorer than ever. You can't eat electronics after all.
This is particularly sad given the fact that the American public have never failed to be good consumers of goods. When other countries have had concerns about the populaces saving too much and troublesome to lure out into a consumer economy, we have always been counted on to use our disposable income to the benefit of various businesses and producers. The growth of American wages through much of the 20th century, particularly from the 1950s-1970s, made us prosperous as we used our affluence to not only consume goods and services but to take our wages and invest in our own businesses and further expand the economy. At some point the tide changed and we decided that the average worker was no longer a significant player in the economy and the emphasis turned toward those already at the top of the ladder. We ended up investing in cheaper services and effectively bet against the American people.
Even more troubling is that there will become a point in which labor costs cannot be cut any further and the poor outlook of the worker, which doubles as most of the consumer market, will cause a rapid decrease in profitability that will not be easily rectified. By the time the wages have been cut and the jobs outsourced to India there will be no market left to make use of the services these companies offer. This kind of change can happen rapidly and the loss of the American market would have a devastating effect on the world market as a replacement would be needed for those corporations to continue conducting business. The development of the Indian and Chinese markets, the most likely candidates, are still uneven and the consumer classes in those countries still a small portion of their populations compared to developed countries. Cost cutting by corporations, if not held in check will eventually result in not just the shrinkage of the middle class, but jeopardize their own long term profitability by destroying their own market with 10 and 11 dollar an hour wages. Americans are currently seeing less of their paycheck and forced to re-balance a household budget to fit their dwindling purchasing power.
What needs to happen at this point is for companies to release the trillions of dollars they hold in reserves and to use it to expand the economy. This means not only job creation but readjustment in wages and compensation. The CEOs need to take some sensible risks and develop areas of their companies that have been neglected since the market crash and be willing to bet on better work conditions yielding higher profits. America needs to bet on the middle class and lure them out of their terrified state. Remember: it has never been the consumer who has failed this country. Business has always been a risk and companies have for too long sheltered themselves from any of them. In the long run we would likely see a stronger economic rebound as well as a stabilization of the stock market that has most of these people so spooked as of late.
Sure I don't make hundreds of thousands of dollars as a stockbroker, but sometimes being an outside observer has its benefits.
In the meantime, we need to stop looking to the government for answers on the private sector economic crisis. The interest rates can go no lower and we cannot afford further tax cuts that will, based on previous actions, have a major long term benefit. Sure the government could regulate, probably an action that ought to happen in some sectors, but would then open the perpetual debate of how much the government should intervene. We can't have it both ways by asking the government to make jobs when the private sector is hellbent on self-destructive behaviors. It is time to stop the misguided anger and start asking business why they have lost their faith in us.
The only problem is that there is little the government can do.
Based on all current conditions we should be seeing an uptick in job creation. Even with the tumultuous stock market since the buildup to the debt ceiling increase, stocks have recovered much of the loss endured in 2008 and 2009 with the Dow Jones sitting close to where it was at the start of 2007, which had a rapid ramp up before busting 18 months later. The Fed has kept interest rates and nearly nothing, priming the business sector to invest and expand businesses. Congress has been reluctant to end subsidies for key industries despite the rising debt in fear that it would harm the economy. Private organizations saw record bailouts in 2008 and the states have received money to stimulate local economies. As we all know, corporate tax code is written in such a manner that highly profitable industries and companies pay a pittance of the stated rates. The health care bill has not gone into effect yet save a handful of provisions that are a minuscule impact on the industry. Company profits are up by and large and the private sector is said to be sitting on the largest quantity of cash at hand than any time memorable. Despite the attempts to create favorable conditions for job growth, the private sector has been exceptionally stingy on the matter.
It's easy to try to use President Obama as a scapegoat for such matters even if his impact on economic matters, particularly concerning the private sector, is low. Contrary to what many may believe, the Fed and Congress are most involved in economic policies and can really only attempt to create policies that encourage business production. If companies take those propitious conditions and still refuse to hire, there is little government can do to further entice them. Nor can the government force the banks to loan their money for start-up enterprises. It's a classic case of leading the horse to the trough.
The economic problems lie in the private sector and their continued emphasis on cost saving policies such as outsourcing and wage reductions/hiring at lower income levels (in the economic report, the average American wage slipped $.03 nationally in the month of August) to raise profits at the expense of the American middle class. It is understandable to see cost savings in times of hardship to preserve a greater number of jobs, but for many companies the idea has evolved to squeeze more work out of fewer workers at a lower pay so that the shareholders and top officials see increasing quarterly profits with each quarter. I am going to give one such example that I can express from a personal level to emphasize how irrational corporate cost savings have become:
I have a boyfriend who works for HP.... yes, the computer giant, through HP's acquisition of Ross Perot's company, EDS. In 2008 he saw a significant wage reduction despite making less than 25,000 a year (after 5 years) as a cost saving measure for a company that continued to post well north of 1 billion of profit per quarter. To contrast: the CEO had a compensation package that was over 33 million for fiscal year 2008. It took over 2 years and the ouster of CEO Mike Hurd for the reinstatement of most of the workers' previous wages. However, they have eliminated cost of living increases and moved toward strict 'merit' based increases. While he was one of the handful to merit a wage, most workers in his unit have not seen their wages move from 2007 levels. On an amusing note though, he was one of the few to receive a raise in his recent review when he admits that he was much less willing to go above and beyond on the job than he was prior to the wage decrease. While I never asked him, I have continued to question just how much productivity was reduced amongst his co-workers as a result of those two years. I doubt that their work confidence is returning any time soon.
This is becoming a large problem for many Americans as their wages have stagnated or the jobs they are finding on the market are largely low in compensation as there are many expenses that have increased in the past 4 years. Oil and gasoline remains volatile and rising with every concern on the commodities market. In a market that is turning back toward renting, the demand has raised the cost in many regions for units. Health care costs continue to increase in the vicinity of 10% annually with a greater portion of those costs being placed on workers. None of these things are counted when measuring inflation, meaning that even those who see those elusive cost of living increases are feeling poorer than ever. You can't eat electronics after all.
This is particularly sad given the fact that the American public have never failed to be good consumers of goods. When other countries have had concerns about the populaces saving too much and troublesome to lure out into a consumer economy, we have always been counted on to use our disposable income to the benefit of various businesses and producers. The growth of American wages through much of the 20th century, particularly from the 1950s-1970s, made us prosperous as we used our affluence to not only consume goods and services but to take our wages and invest in our own businesses and further expand the economy. At some point the tide changed and we decided that the average worker was no longer a significant player in the economy and the emphasis turned toward those already at the top of the ladder. We ended up investing in cheaper services and effectively bet against the American people.
Even more troubling is that there will become a point in which labor costs cannot be cut any further and the poor outlook of the worker, which doubles as most of the consumer market, will cause a rapid decrease in profitability that will not be easily rectified. By the time the wages have been cut and the jobs outsourced to India there will be no market left to make use of the services these companies offer. This kind of change can happen rapidly and the loss of the American market would have a devastating effect on the world market as a replacement would be needed for those corporations to continue conducting business. The development of the Indian and Chinese markets, the most likely candidates, are still uneven and the consumer classes in those countries still a small portion of their populations compared to developed countries. Cost cutting by corporations, if not held in check will eventually result in not just the shrinkage of the middle class, but jeopardize their own long term profitability by destroying their own market with 10 and 11 dollar an hour wages. Americans are currently seeing less of their paycheck and forced to re-balance a household budget to fit their dwindling purchasing power.
What needs to happen at this point is for companies to release the trillions of dollars they hold in reserves and to use it to expand the economy. This means not only job creation but readjustment in wages and compensation. The CEOs need to take some sensible risks and develop areas of their companies that have been neglected since the market crash and be willing to bet on better work conditions yielding higher profits. America needs to bet on the middle class and lure them out of their terrified state. Remember: it has never been the consumer who has failed this country. Business has always been a risk and companies have for too long sheltered themselves from any of them. In the long run we would likely see a stronger economic rebound as well as a stabilization of the stock market that has most of these people so spooked as of late.
Sure I don't make hundreds of thousands of dollars as a stockbroker, but sometimes being an outside observer has its benefits.
In the meantime, we need to stop looking to the government for answers on the private sector economic crisis. The interest rates can go no lower and we cannot afford further tax cuts that will, based on previous actions, have a major long term benefit. Sure the government could regulate, probably an action that ought to happen in some sectors, but would then open the perpetual debate of how much the government should intervene. We can't have it both ways by asking the government to make jobs when the private sector is hellbent on self-destructive behaviors. It is time to stop the misguided anger and start asking business why they have lost their faith in us.
31 August 2011
When the Punchline Isn't Funny
 | |
| Not my brother... |
That said, the shirt itself wouldn't be half as bad if it was being marketed as a cheeky shirt for college girls. Except this shirt was on the market to be sold to girls from age 6-12.
Really?
For me this is particularly disheartening as I was raised in the late 80s and early 90s and was just reaching the end of general attitude that it was okay for girls to not understand math. Sally Ride was an icon for little girls as proof that a girl could accomplish any occupation. Even before we heard about the glass ceiling, we saw it cracking bit by bit.
Personally, it struck home even further given my roots in an urban poor area of Chicago with parents that failed to complete high school (my mum quit going to school regularly by about the 7th grade and is functionally illiterate) and was told on countless occasions that an education was the way to make it in today's economy. Even around 1990 everyone knew that the Iron Curtain was falling, China was growing and we would have to face an increasingly international world that would require an educated and skilled populace to compete.
Even Barbie had a job as I was growing up, rather impressive ones at that. I think I ruined her chances in the corporate world by chopping her hair into a mohawk and coloring her hair with markers, but eccentric kids seldom wait long demonstrate themselves.
 |
| Because we learned nothing from Sally Ride |
We're trying to liberate the women of Afghanistan so that they can be told that they're pretty little bimbos? It is baffling that something like this could not only be presented in a marketing meeting but approved, handed over to designers and make it as far as reaching store shelves and JC Penny's website and distributed on the internet before someone within the company sees anything wrong with the message presented?
I typically hold my tongue for the shirts bedazzled in rhinestones forming the words "princess" and the like as innocent, if misguided ideas. Of course I am increasingly seeing shirts in public such as this that seem to place value on kids who are "spoiled", "brats" etc. Pardon me for thinking that these kinds of messages might just influence a child's self perception.
I suppose it could be worse.... it could always be this one:
 |
| At least you know it's jailbait in this case |
At best this just further advocates the idea of the role of women as a sex symbol, but at worse is likely to attract the attention of the exact wrong sort of person. Pedophiles seldom are concerned about the fact a girl is underage before going after her and wearing clothing that suggests you're okay with this is just asking for a bad outcome.
Is it asking so much to have a touch of self worth? Make a crude joke amongst friends all you like, but can we at least let the kids grow up and find their own sense of personality before turning them into billboards for the anti-feminist movement. I can assure you that telling your little girl that she can work to accomplish something great is going to go a lot further than letting her out of the house with a shirt that advocates slacking off in school.
WHO Reports on Child Mortality and Health- U.S. gets a black eye.
One of the latest blurbs circulating the blogs and news reports are the recent reports by the World Health Organization concerning child health. Of the various rankings, none of which have the U.S. smelling like roses are the data concerning child mortality rates. With child mortality slipping on a global level, one of the prime indicators of child survival past age 5 has always been a nation's relative wealth and access to modern medicine. Somehow, the U.S. has managed to prove to be some form of an inversion of this or at least one hell of an outlier.
Of particular note are some of the countries that can boast a lower child mortality than us include all of the standard culprits in such health reports such as Canada, Japan, most of Western Europe, the entirely of Scandinavia etc. None of these are much of a surprise, but when looking a bit further down the list toward those countries still considered to be developing there is room for discussion. Our not really arch nemesis Cuba makes the list, as does Malaysia. After years of making jokes about "dumb Pollacks" over here, Poland somehow manages to avoid more child deaths than we do. So do most of the former communist countries currently in the EU including Slovakia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania. The per capita GDP of Poland, Estonia and Lithuania are under 20,000 and their health systems leave much to be desired, yet they are more capable of saving young lives than the supposedly best medical system in the world.
This world has gone topsy-turvy if the Poles can start mocking us.
To give an idea of where we sit, some of the countries that ranked dead even in child deaths per 1000 births included Chile and Latvia. For all of our righteous thumping about American health care, we are being eclipsed by portions of South America as well as one of the poorest and dysfunctional countries in Eastern Europe.
Already the excuses are trickling in on how certain countries record their birth rates differently so that there are different numbers as well as our being able to save problematic pregnancies and bring it to term and resulting in higher death rates. This becomes bunk considering that WHO does attempt to take data using the same criteria from its member nations. Some countries can be considered more trustworthy in their reporting than others, but given the fact that we are effectively trailing the entirety of the EU (which requires some degree of consistency in data reporting) as well as nearly every other developed country, we need to look at our health system and critically evaluate the reasons why we are unable to accomplish similar results to countries with a high comparative wealth.
This is one of those things that are far too complex to even attempt in a blog post and would actually make a good dissertation for a public policy PHD candidate.That said, it is yet another sign that we may need to be forced to shut up, stop making excuses and formulate some real solutions for our health care failures.
Link: World Health Statistics 2011
Of particular note are some of the countries that can boast a lower child mortality than us include all of the standard culprits in such health reports such as Canada, Japan, most of Western Europe, the entirely of Scandinavia etc. None of these are much of a surprise, but when looking a bit further down the list toward those countries still considered to be developing there is room for discussion. Our not really arch nemesis Cuba makes the list, as does Malaysia. After years of making jokes about "dumb Pollacks" over here, Poland somehow manages to avoid more child deaths than we do. So do most of the former communist countries currently in the EU including Slovakia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lithuania. The per capita GDP of Poland, Estonia and Lithuania are under 20,000 and their health systems leave much to be desired, yet they are more capable of saving young lives than the supposedly best medical system in the world.
This world has gone topsy-turvy if the Poles can start mocking us.
To give an idea of where we sit, some of the countries that ranked dead even in child deaths per 1000 births included Chile and Latvia. For all of our righteous thumping about American health care, we are being eclipsed by portions of South America as well as one of the poorest and dysfunctional countries in Eastern Europe.
Already the excuses are trickling in on how certain countries record their birth rates differently so that there are different numbers as well as our being able to save problematic pregnancies and bring it to term and resulting in higher death rates. This becomes bunk considering that WHO does attempt to take data using the same criteria from its member nations. Some countries can be considered more trustworthy in their reporting than others, but given the fact that we are effectively trailing the entirety of the EU (which requires some degree of consistency in data reporting) as well as nearly every other developed country, we need to look at our health system and critically evaluate the reasons why we are unable to accomplish similar results to countries with a high comparative wealth.
This is one of those things that are far too complex to even attempt in a blog post and would actually make a good dissertation for a public policy PHD candidate.That said, it is yet another sign that we may need to be forced to shut up, stop making excuses and formulate some real solutions for our health care failures.
Link: World Health Statistics 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)