01 September 08 - 17:23
I recently replaced my old, crufty Staples chair with a
Herman Miller Mirra and I've got to say, this thing is amazing. Full recline mode is great for that coding-while-dangling upside down feeling.
sth - default -
-
§ ¶
25 May 08 - 09:49Why do we spend more than we earn?
Recently, there have been pieces discussing the fact that the debt to income ratio in the US is the highest its ever been. Why?
- Stagnant wages in real dollars (since the 70s)
- Union busting
- No living wage
- The decline of the dollar's value due to inflation or exchange rates
- Race to the bottom due to the Globalization of Capital
- A careless consumerist culture, which leads to a negative savings rate
Much has been said about these, but there's one more that doesn't receive as much attention: the despondency-fueled end-times "party" behavior. It
goes something like this: if you feel like everything could end tomorrow, you'd better enjoy yourself now. Many things cause the despondency. Lack of affordable health care means one accident or illness could bankrupt you and put you out on the street. Lack of affordable higher education (especially for adults who don't have anyone to pay their rent for them) means less or no opportunities for advancement. Tattered social safety nets mean that you could be one job loss from ruin. Plus all the ones indicated in the list above. Your dollar could be worthless tomorrow. We could get into a large-scale war with a number of countries. The prices of basic necessities (food, energy, shelter), beyond health and education, are skyrocketing. With the quick and easy availability of information on tragedies across the globe, it becomes easy to imagine that you could be a victim next. It's a kind of crack up boom behavior, but fueled by more than hyperinflation. It's fueled by the realization that party could stop tomorrow or in an hour. Why not spend it all? Why bother saving if it could all be taken away with one storm, one earthquake, one layoff, or one order by a belligerent government? In this way, the out of control spending starts to become understandable, even rational. How does a government and society deal with a people who've realized that the world isn't a wonderful place and the future may not have the vaunted (and often promised) prosperity?
sth - default -
-
§ ¶
09 April 08 - 14:08The Contradiction in Anarchism
A brilliant takedown of Anarcho-Capitalism and parts of Minarchism from an Objectivist.
Although I completely disagree with Objectivist economics (which are just another type of Market Fundamentalist economics), this attack on some core Libertarian ideas about government and the use force are spot on. What's funnier is just how many self-proclaimed Libertarians say that they worship Rand, when it's clear that she disagreed vehemently with them about the role of Government. Great stuff.
sth - default -
-
§ ¶
07 April 08 - 17:40US Race to the bottom end game scenarios
Let's try to envision possible scenarios for United States workers if this race to the bottom (with its attendant offshoring) continues.
Scenario 1: wages drop or stay the same, prices continue to rise
This is the most likely thing to happen. If it does, more and more people will be forced out of industries where jobs have been offshored. Manufacturing has been going for quite a while, IT has been getting murdered over the last few years, and now even R&D and some management has started to go. There are now even offshored medical jobs (like Radiologists). There will continue to be many labor market dislocations, with workers forced to change careers into service industries (food, hospitality, education, and medical) with others simply forced into unemployment or transient McJobs. Even workers
willing to compete on salary with non-domestic ones would be unable to due to living costs. You can only cut so much.
Bottom line: US workers will be forced to accept lower paying, lower-benefit, less secure (and likely less challenging and interesting) jobs along with a much lower standard of living. Basically a continuation of what we have now.
Scenario 2: wages stay the same, prices crash (partial deflation)
Very unlikely, since wages tend to crash along with prices. Additionally, there are some costs which are not likely to be coming back down to historical levels (food and energy), but this would be interesting to see.
Bottom line: don't count on it.
Scenario 3: wages drop or stay the same, prices continue to rise, anti-Globalization of Capital (AKA "Free" trade) legislation passed
Highly unlikely politically. If it did occur, there would likely be a race to the exits for domestically incorporated firms who have become dependent on cheap labor, with only small and medium companies (who are unable to offshore) with much smaller workforces. This would likely lead to even less jobs domestically.
Bottom line: politically volatile, potentially destructive. Not going to happen.
Scenario 4: wages and prices crash (fully deflationary)
Possible after a sustained inflationary run-up. Assuming US labor costs were able to come into line with non-US ones, we could be competitive internationally again. Of course, for some industries, it'd require some serious (re-)investment since many of the things used to produce have been shuttered (factories don't turn themselves back on - especially ones that have been knocked down for strip malls). It would be easier in areas like R&D and IT, however. Unfortunately, this scenario would also require a serious readjustment of our standard of living, with all of its attendant effects - gutted public services, leaner diets, and social unrest.
Bottom line: many Market Fundamentalists (like Greenspan) and fake Free Trader supporters are fans of this scenario. Decent possibility of occurring. Probably better than Scenario 1.
Scenario 5: wages drop or stay the same, prices continue to rise, relocation/retraining assistance provided
Somewhat likely, but probably useless. Akin to rearranging deckchairs on famous sinking ship. With many high paying jobs already gone, there wouldn't be a lot to "retrain" to.
Bottom line: Not particularly helpful, would wind up in Scenario 1.
Scenario 6: wages and prices rise
Not useful. Would accelerate offshoring trend.
Bottom line: would wind up looking like Scenario 1 after a short amount of time. Wage gains would be eaten by price gains, making it a wash.
The trend towards globalizing capital is likely here to stay, and will cause much misery and strife in the short to medium term. In the long run, as wages even out, immigration/emigration policies come to about parity, and standards of living become similar, maybe we could have real "Globalization of Labor". We'd also need cheaper travel costs to be able to do this sort of thing regularly (to be able to move from national market to national market) along with English being more than just the Lingua Franca of business - it'd need to be the language of domestic affairs as well. Additionally, if all this really happened, we'd likely move back towards a more domestic model anyway, since for many, or even most jobs, the gains of offshoring (aside from very specialized talent that's in short supply domestically) would be lost. In any case, as the saying goes, "In the long run, we're all dead."
sth - default -
-
§ ¶
05 April 08 - 12:13"Public/semi-Public" smoking should be illegal
What? Illegal? That's right. I'm supporter of drug legalization (all drugs), but I think smoking anything where others who cannot consent to it could be exposed should be illegal.
Unlike ingestable, injectable, absorbable, or nasally inhalable intoxicants, "smoke" is something that people are exposed to without being given a choice - without providing
informed consent. Whether it's cigarettes, Marijuana, or Crack is not relevant. In all cases I cannot provide consent, therefore being forced to inhale it is a violation of my rights - not to mention the fact that people can be flagged as "drug users" in job drug tests with enough exposure ("normal" exposure has been tested by exposing people for a period of a few hours - there are places where people smoke every single day for hours on end) and suffer the associated consequences - even though they don't do any drugs themselves. All other drugs should be legalized and regulated. They can be sold by government-regulated entities, be subject to "distribution quantity" laws, and their users can be required to take educational courses and tests to make sure that they understand the risks. If this was done, then the "War on Drugs" would make sense; it'd be a crackdown on illegal businesses rather than a moral crusade, and the guilty (dealers, distributors, etc.) would be punished for something worthwhile.
Smoking in any area where there are those who don't consent to it, however, would remain illegal. Perhaps "smoking centers" where smokers of all kinds could gather could be created. Now
that sounds like an idea for a private business.
sth - default -
-
§ ¶
18 March 08 - 10:18The Young Invincibles
I just re-read
The Young Invincibles, which profiles a bunch of people without health insurance. It's a very good article, and I recommend it. It also brings three things to mind.
- It creates a kind of "urban health defense" mindset. People who are constantly watching their back because they don't have insurance. Perhaps someone could offer courses - they'd surely be cheaper than insurance
- The Market Fundamentalist economic policies that give us a privatized health insurance system have the perverse effect of "conservatizing" society, in a way that many Social/Religious conservatives (Theocrats, idealized 1950s America fanatics, etc.) would approve of. These policies are forcing many to avoid all sorts of "risky" behavior that wouldn't be a big deal with a real public health care system; snowboarding, skateboarding, open sexual behavior, skydiving - even regular partying become serious risks to the uninsured. Additionally, it forces those who do have health insurance to stick with their current job - even if they hate it - because they need the insurance. They also helps create "Boomerang Kids" and recreates the extended family paradigm that existed in this country for so long. Since you cannot depend on society, you have to go back to depending on family and friends for "insurance". These are yet more examples of "stay in line" behavior forced on us by these policies, which would make many a Leave it to Beaver fanatic happy. Not terribly "liberating". *
- Friedman believed that unfettered Free Market Capitalism and "Freedom" were an indivisible part of the same project. If you're forced to stay with the same job to keep your insurance or pay your education debt, and hence are unable change careers (or just jobs), open a business, or pursue your art, how exactly are you more free? You aren't. "Shared risk" systems encourage risk taking, whereas privatizing risk discourages it.
The ideology (and ultimately, policies) of "Rugged Individualism" - Libertarianism - which helped birth our current Neoliberal ideology, has the perverse effect of making people less, not more independent. This flies in the face of the "every man for himself, making it on his own" idea which permeates Libertarian thought. When people cannot depend on society and government, they turn to friends and family. This is the opposite of independence.
* What makes this interesting for me personally is the fact that many of the Libertarians I know in real life would find these things repulsive. They're attracted to Libertarianism for the Civil Liberties/Government Stay Out of My Private life ideas (Social Libertarianism). They tend to be somewhat rebellious and usually sexual adventurous. Unfortunately, they don't see the very strange forces exerted by Libertarian
Economics. So while the social side of Libertarianism says "do whatever you want", the economic side says "you cannot afford to risk it". Funny, that.
sth - default -
-
§ ¶
