We have been seeing a significant shift in economics in that labor is getting cheaper because the supply has increased.
This is not all labor, some skilled labor is still in short supply.
However unskilled or low skilled labor has become widely available as we have added foreign sources and automation.
So much labor that used to require people is now done via automation or robots.
This has led to an overall drop in wages for the unskilled who use to get good pay working in factories or warehouses.
There is a long list of jobs that used to exist and which are now either gone or much reduced.
The trend isn't new, but it has accelerated.
It also isn't finished.
So while we may be reporting low unemployment, it isn't creating the pressure on the economy it once did, since many of the jobs are low paying.
In many sci-fi movies and books, the machines end up taking over. If you visit some of our more advanced factories, the future is now.
Thursday, March 21, 2019
Wednesday, March 20, 2019
College Money
It has always been true that people with money, especially "old" money had little trouble getting their children into elite colleges. Of course it starts fairly early with elite private schools that make sure their grades and activities qualify them for admittance. Private tutors and prep courses help with the standardized tests and finally the right donation eases the final acceptance.
This is the legal if somewhat unfair way that money talks.
People who didn't start out wealthy and are faced with the issue of getting a semi-qualified child into an elite school had to find shadier, even illegal ways. Of course the legality of the system wasn't probably something they considered much, it was a fairly straightforward transaction, pay the price and get you children entrance into the world of elite colleges and the ability to hob nob with those aforementioned "old" money people.
I can't honestly speak as to whether these elite schools offer better education than say a state school. They might, they can certainly afford the best professors and equipment. Still the system they operate in gets them the students who have wealthy parents primarily, which is what makes them desirable. Getting into an elite school gives you membership into a fairly exclusive club. Whether you can calculate a profit loss ratio better than a graduate of a State School is fairly irrelevant. You will get in the door at prestigious firms, possible ones owned by your parents.
They also do of course get the best of the rest, meaning in a highly competitive competition the get to pick the students from less wealthy families who actually excel. Of course the ones that just miss getting accepted are in fact the victims of a system that accepts privileged students first.
The people caught up in the college admissions scandal wanted the best for their children who already lived a life of privilege and wealth. They are now likely to have this scandal attached to them instead of an elite degree. They aren't totally innocent unless they are in fact totally ignorant. After all, getting a scholarship for crew when you never participated in that sport, should have been a clue.
This is the legal if somewhat unfair way that money talks.
People who didn't start out wealthy and are faced with the issue of getting a semi-qualified child into an elite school had to find shadier, even illegal ways. Of course the legality of the system wasn't probably something they considered much, it was a fairly straightforward transaction, pay the price and get you children entrance into the world of elite colleges and the ability to hob nob with those aforementioned "old" money people.
I can't honestly speak as to whether these elite schools offer better education than say a state school. They might, they can certainly afford the best professors and equipment. Still the system they operate in gets them the students who have wealthy parents primarily, which is what makes them desirable. Getting into an elite school gives you membership into a fairly exclusive club. Whether you can calculate a profit loss ratio better than a graduate of a State School is fairly irrelevant. You will get in the door at prestigious firms, possible ones owned by your parents.
They also do of course get the best of the rest, meaning in a highly competitive competition the get to pick the students from less wealthy families who actually excel. Of course the ones that just miss getting accepted are in fact the victims of a system that accepts privileged students first.
The people caught up in the college admissions scandal wanted the best for their children who already lived a life of privilege and wealth. They are now likely to have this scandal attached to them instead of an elite degree. They aren't totally innocent unless they are in fact totally ignorant. After all, getting a scholarship for crew when you never participated in that sport, should have been a clue.
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
How High?
There is a lot of anticipation about the Mueller report concerning how much there was illegal coordination between a Presidential Campaign and a foreign entity.
It has already resulted in a lot of indictment, guilty pleas and some sentencing, but the big question is how high up does it go?
This has more resemblance to some old movies about tying to bring down a mafia boss than it should.
Does anyone really think that the activities were done without the knowledge of the candidate?
The only real questions are was his knowledge of what happened criminal and if so what are we going to do about it?
The last time we had something similar to this, we had a lot more independence in congress and integrity.
Even members of the same party expected a certain type of behavior from our president and presidential candidates and criminal behavior was simply beyond what could be tolerated.
Its not so obvious today.
It seems unlikely that our President would do the honorable thing and resign so it would require that the House indict him and the Senate convict him.
These crimes, if proven, are what many consider "soft" crimes. Depending on the actual behavior, some will consider it as simply an infraction of rules that might be too restrictive.
Further, in today's political world, having principles isn't all that common.
How a vote will impact you politically is generally the main concern most of them have. As long as his somewhat rabid base stays loyal voting you conscience is a dangerous thing.
Not even sure it is worth the effort since at this point the more effective strategy is probably to win in 2020.
It has already resulted in a lot of indictment, guilty pleas and some sentencing, but the big question is how high up does it go?
This has more resemblance to some old movies about tying to bring down a mafia boss than it should.
Does anyone really think that the activities were done without the knowledge of the candidate?
The only real questions are was his knowledge of what happened criminal and if so what are we going to do about it?
The last time we had something similar to this, we had a lot more independence in congress and integrity.
Even members of the same party expected a certain type of behavior from our president and presidential candidates and criminal behavior was simply beyond what could be tolerated.
Its not so obvious today.
It seems unlikely that our President would do the honorable thing and resign so it would require that the House indict him and the Senate convict him.
These crimes, if proven, are what many consider "soft" crimes. Depending on the actual behavior, some will consider it as simply an infraction of rules that might be too restrictive.
Further, in today's political world, having principles isn't all that common.
How a vote will impact you politically is generally the main concern most of them have. As long as his somewhat rabid base stays loyal voting you conscience is a dangerous thing.
Not even sure it is worth the effort since at this point the more effective strategy is probably to win in 2020.
Monday, March 18, 2019
Tribal Economics
If we lived in a society where certain basic needs like health care, secure retirement and basic sustenance were guaranteed, it would allow people to pursue their passions.
Would this release of creative energy offset the claimed decrease in economic activity posited by the pure capitalists?
How productive are people forced to work for minimum wage at jobs they detest just to survive?
I suspect not very.
Still, forcing them to need these jobs increases the labor supply and drives down wages.
However would the release of the creative forces offset this or not?
This is probably the single biggest difference between Capitalists and Socialists. The idea that everyone should be taken care of to some degree versus a dog eat dog mentality.
In our earliest societies, as best we can tell from studying indigenous peoples, we had essentially a socialist society although everyone who could was expected to contribute. Those who couldn't because of age or other infirmity were generally taken care of.
There are a few instances where this was not true, generally in the harshest environments, although even there mostly they were not abandoned unless absolutely necessary.
As our original simple structures evolved we saw more of a disconnect between members and less of a desire to share.
Can we at this point in our society emulate our earliest ancestors and treat all people equally with merit being rewarded, but not excessively?
That remains to be seen
Would this release of creative energy offset the claimed decrease in economic activity posited by the pure capitalists?
How productive are people forced to work for minimum wage at jobs they detest just to survive?
I suspect not very.
Still, forcing them to need these jobs increases the labor supply and drives down wages.
However would the release of the creative forces offset this or not?
This is probably the single biggest difference between Capitalists and Socialists. The idea that everyone should be taken care of to some degree versus a dog eat dog mentality.
In our earliest societies, as best we can tell from studying indigenous peoples, we had essentially a socialist society although everyone who could was expected to contribute. Those who couldn't because of age or other infirmity were generally taken care of.
There are a few instances where this was not true, generally in the harshest environments, although even there mostly they were not abandoned unless absolutely necessary.
As our original simple structures evolved we saw more of a disconnect between members and less of a desire to share.
Can we at this point in our society emulate our earliest ancestors and treat all people equally with merit being rewarded, but not excessively?
That remains to be seen
Sunday, March 17, 2019
Health Care Thoughts
One of the things that makes health care so expensive in this country are the tests and procedures performed for the just in case things.
Malpractice lawsuits will examine bad outcomes and find the test or procedure that may have detected that condition. It often leads to settlements or court victories but that is looking at the issue via hindsight.
Suppose certain symptoms could indicate a rare disease that only impacts 1 out of a million people and that the other 999,999 people get no benefit from being tested for it. If the test can be done as part of a routine blood work up or something similar, the cost is probably not that much. Still to find the 1 in a million possible sufferer it has to be performed 1,000,000 times.
If you are the 1 in a million person it may all seem worth it. But is it? Consider all the possible scenarios that require expensive testing on people with almost no chance of having a disease or condition.
In some cases the testing isn't approved by various insurance review boards, which is probably a good thing overall, however most people don't like that process, since they have been told by their doctor that such a test may help detect this rare condition.
The doctor, most likely, feels required to tell the patient about the test since failure to do so, could, in the event he/she does have the condition, constitute a failure to apply all reasonable care.
So we test and test and apply treatments which often have very little actual benefit.
Performing test which are not needed in order to avoid being second guessed is costly. Effectively we have to test for almost every possibility even when some possibilities are extremely unlikely.
Its costly and there has to be a better way. Maybe let doctors use their best judgment and limit second guessing. Not likely under our legal system.
Malpractice lawsuits will examine bad outcomes and find the test or procedure that may have detected that condition. It often leads to settlements or court victories but that is looking at the issue via hindsight.
Suppose certain symptoms could indicate a rare disease that only impacts 1 out of a million people and that the other 999,999 people get no benefit from being tested for it. If the test can be done as part of a routine blood work up or something similar, the cost is probably not that much. Still to find the 1 in a million possible sufferer it has to be performed 1,000,000 times.
If you are the 1 in a million person it may all seem worth it. But is it? Consider all the possible scenarios that require expensive testing on people with almost no chance of having a disease or condition.
In some cases the testing isn't approved by various insurance review boards, which is probably a good thing overall, however most people don't like that process, since they have been told by their doctor that such a test may help detect this rare condition.
The doctor, most likely, feels required to tell the patient about the test since failure to do so, could, in the event he/she does have the condition, constitute a failure to apply all reasonable care.
So we test and test and apply treatments which often have very little actual benefit.
Performing test which are not needed in order to avoid being second guessed is costly. Effectively we have to test for almost every possibility even when some possibilities are extremely unlikely.
Its costly and there has to be a better way. Maybe let doctors use their best judgment and limit second guessing. Not likely under our legal system.
Saturday, March 16, 2019
Economic vs Social Issues
What is maybe the most interesting thing about politics in America is how people who are often the most in need of Government assistance have in many cases become loyal to a party that is determined to take that assistance away.
To a large extent this has been accomplished by making politics about social issues more than economic ones.
It has coincided with the erosion of Unions in this country and the erosion of the middle class.
Things like Abortion, Gun Rights, immigration, and anti-Political Correctness have prompted many people to vote against what is clearly in their best economic interests.
Of course they are told that by helping business and giving tax breaks to big business while reducing regulations they will benefit down the road with more jobs and better economics, but that hasn't worked yet and isn't going to.
Even an issue that the Republicans have pushed for ages, free trade (which made the same promises) has somehow been turned upside down and blamed on the Democrats.
In fact, while much of the nation is finding their economics in trouble as low paying service jobs have replaced the high paying manufacturing jobs they once had, these same people have been persuaded to support the people largely responsible.
On the other hand, many of the people who have benefited the most have gone the other way.
The hard working farmer in Mississippi who sees the Democrats as the devils representatives on earth because they want to abort his kids, take away his guns and turn his children gay is supporting a party that is putting tariffs on his exports, making it harder to hire inexpensive help and making health care unaffordable.
The current economy is in a sense a false positive as workforce participation and low paying service jobs have created statistics that look good. Clearly a job is better generally than no job, but its far from the best economy ever, at least for the working man. For much of our history we had a labor shortage but now with automation and overseas production, we have a labor surplus.
We are going to need more Government services and probably a better way to pay for them.
Its something that needs to be talked about.
To a large extent this has been accomplished by making politics about social issues more than economic ones.
It has coincided with the erosion of Unions in this country and the erosion of the middle class.
Things like Abortion, Gun Rights, immigration, and anti-Political Correctness have prompted many people to vote against what is clearly in their best economic interests.
Of course they are told that by helping business and giving tax breaks to big business while reducing regulations they will benefit down the road with more jobs and better economics, but that hasn't worked yet and isn't going to.
Even an issue that the Republicans have pushed for ages, free trade (which made the same promises) has somehow been turned upside down and blamed on the Democrats.
In fact, while much of the nation is finding their economics in trouble as low paying service jobs have replaced the high paying manufacturing jobs they once had, these same people have been persuaded to support the people largely responsible.
On the other hand, many of the people who have benefited the most have gone the other way.
The hard working farmer in Mississippi who sees the Democrats as the devils representatives on earth because they want to abort his kids, take away his guns and turn his children gay is supporting a party that is putting tariffs on his exports, making it harder to hire inexpensive help and making health care unaffordable.
The current economy is in a sense a false positive as workforce participation and low paying service jobs have created statistics that look good. Clearly a job is better generally than no job, but its far from the best economy ever, at least for the working man. For much of our history we had a labor shortage but now with automation and overseas production, we have a labor surplus.
We are going to need more Government services and probably a better way to pay for them.
Its something that needs to be talked about.
Friday, March 15, 2019
Hate
Terrible news from New Zealand as misguided people decided they had the right to kill innocents in pursuit of some goal. The idea that any group of people can be treated as "targets" is dehumanizing to all of us. My heart goes out to the victims of this senseless violence.
There are people around the world preaching hate against those different from us. The problem with that is we are all people who share the same basic feelings, desires and fears. To create barriers benefits those preaching hate and who parlay that into holding power.
None of this is new. History has shown us time after time how hate mongers have succeeded in oppressing populations, and holding on to power until the bitter end.
They generally act like it is some "us" against some "them" but really in the end the only thing they care about is themselves. Whatever success they may achieve initially is often short lived leading to catastrophe for their followers.
Unfortunately we seem to fall for the hate promoters over and over again.
Its simply a lesson we need to learn.
There are people around the world preaching hate against those different from us. The problem with that is we are all people who share the same basic feelings, desires and fears. To create barriers benefits those preaching hate and who parlay that into holding power.
None of this is new. History has shown us time after time how hate mongers have succeeded in oppressing populations, and holding on to power until the bitter end.
They generally act like it is some "us" against some "them" but really in the end the only thing they care about is themselves. Whatever success they may achieve initially is often short lived leading to catastrophe for their followers.
Unfortunately we seem to fall for the hate promoters over and over again.
Its simply a lesson we need to learn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)