Global oil is nearing peak production. This is my assertion. It's as much a wish, really, as it is founded in reality. There is no doubt that US production has been declining since 1970...the same with Mexico, Ecuador, Indonesia, Great Britain, and others. But its detrimental effect on our economy is substantiated simply as a wish. Truthfully, I wish for complete chaos, financial Armageddon, a collapse of our current way of living.
I wish for this, not for the during, but for the end result. My expectation is that we become a better people. We may well learn to sustain ourselves on our own ingenuity and our own productive efforts again, unlike the current state of affairs where we blame others for our woes, blame our economic malaise on big banks, big government, competing nations...everything but ourselves.
It has been my wish for a few years now that global peak production in oil will be the catalyst for this change, because nothing else will do it, methinks. Consider that our multinational oil companies have to venture into ever more hostile territories to get the energy us Elk Grovians need to drive to our malls to conduct our annual rituals of wanton consumption. Indeed, these environments are more hostile both physical and political every day. To understand the physical and environmental costs, travel to the Alberta oil sands. To consider the political costs, travel to the Niger Delta.
Oil costs more to produce in the exact same way that health care costs are increasing. These two components will consume a growing share of our GDP going forward, and in my opinion, as we continue to increase our dependency on both we will continue to erode our standard of living for all but the extremely wealthy. The trajectory of the price of energy is structurally up.
My hopes for a different sort of America are clear, although I really hold no expectations that they will ever materialize. I want a future America that doesn't pin its short term economic hopes on the consumptive sales of imported merchandise around the supposed birthday of a spooky, incompetent Father figure. I want a future America that values community. I want a future America that values workmanship and pride in manufacturing. I want a future America that uses only as much energy as itself produces instead of relying on a growing share of foreign resources. I want a future America that doesn't have to invade, bombard, or occupy other nations for hegemonic needs.
No. My expectation is that we will self-destruct well before we reach any of these markers, because we can't help but assume ourselves as somehow privileged, somehow exempt from the articles of natural limits. This is exactly why I hope for a total meltdown...so that we become a people who can recognize our proper place in a sustainable future. We are not there yet, not by a long shot...
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Desensitized
Do you remember how, not so long ago, $90 oil was going to kill our economy? Airlines would stop airlining. Trucks would stop trucking. Automobiles would stop mobiling.
Now that's it has gone down in price from two years ago, our memory of cruel, awful, and icky four dollar gasoline has waned. $3 bucks? Yawn...
Apparently that's the best way to desensitize Americans to their own diminishing domestic supply of gasoline -- let the price rise quickly, let it ride down slowly, then slowly raise it back up to a higher level, to where they're saying "at least it's not as bad as before."
Interestingly, three dollar gas is now the norm and we go about our daily business here in Elk Grove without much concern. Yeah, it's now sixty bucks to gas up the Pacer, but it's just another cost of suburban living. That it goes up, well, at least it's consistent with health care premiums, state university tuition, insurance premiums, airline fees, subway fares, cable TV, copper, and garbage collection services.
Gas prices and the weather -- two things two Elk Grovians strangers are wont to discuss in an elevator ride...er, scratch that...there are no elevators here in the land of single story, single use sprawl. Sorry. Just gas prices. The thing two Elk Grovian strangers are wont to discuss in the checkout lane at WalMart.
Today I will get on the bike, off to a late start due to the Winter Solstice and its later sunrise, and I will pass six gas stations on my route. I should take photos of the people filling up -- would you expect smiles on all their faces? Something they love doing? The expressions of fillers are identical to the universal expression of airport janitors
...have you ever noticed that they are all the same? 
This is desensitizing writ large.
Now that's it has gone down in price from two years ago, our memory of cruel, awful, and icky four dollar gasoline has waned. $3 bucks? Yawn...
Apparently that's the best way to desensitize Americans to their own diminishing domestic supply of gasoline -- let the price rise quickly, let it ride down slowly, then slowly raise it back up to a higher level, to where they're saying "at least it's not as bad as before."
Interestingly, three dollar gas is now the norm and we go about our daily business here in Elk Grove without much concern. Yeah, it's now sixty bucks to gas up the Pacer, but it's just another cost of suburban living. That it goes up, well, at least it's consistent with health care premiums, state university tuition, insurance premiums, airline fees, subway fares, cable TV, copper, and garbage collection services.
Gas prices and the weather -- two things two Elk Grovians strangers are wont to discuss in an elevator ride...er, scratch that...there are no elevators here in the land of single story, single use sprawl. Sorry. Just gas prices. The thing two Elk Grovian strangers are wont to discuss in the checkout lane at WalMart.
Today I will get on the bike, off to a late start due to the Winter Solstice and its later sunrise, and I will pass six gas stations on my route. I should take photos of the people filling up -- would you expect smiles on all their faces? Something they love doing? The expressions of fillers are identical to the universal expression of airport janitors
...have you ever noticed that they are all the same? 
This is desensitizing writ large.
Sunday, December 19, 2010
Buy China
I don't think there's anything to take away from last week's extension of 13-months of unemployment, the 2% SS tax cut, and the extension of the Bush tax cuts. The extension of the tax cuts booby traps us on election-eve, 2012...where Congress and the President, seeking re-election, will be so spooked and will have no choice but to extend them even further.
I think that if you were to go back to 2000-1, when Bush entered office and we were [just] running a surplus, the tax cuts were approved "because there's a forecasted $5 trillion surplus over the next ten years, so let's give that back to the American people." Instead of any projected $5t surplus, of course, we got two unfunded wars, a Fed-engineered housal unit boom and bust, associated stimulus, er, bank bailouts and now this $800,000,000,000 tax cut extension, all that will have landed us another $5 trillion in the hole -- a $10 trillion swing.
I think that if you were to go back to 2000-1, when Bush entered office and we were [just] running a surplus, the tax cuts were approved "because there's a forecasted $5 trillion surplus over the next ten years, so let's give that back to the American people." Instead of any projected $5t surplus, of course, we got two unfunded wars, a Fed-engineered housal unit boom and bust, associated stimulus, er, bank bailouts and now this $800,000,000,000 tax cut extension, all that will have landed us another $5 trillion in the hole -- a $10 trillion swing.
We've "grown" our economy on personal debt and now we're "growing" our economy on Federal debt. Based on this Federal debt pattern, I believe social security won't provide me much by the time I'm eligible -- not because I think it's going to turn up insolvent (though it might), but rather I think by then changes will be made such that my entitlement will be means-tested. The more income/assets I have, the less I'll be entitled, which is to say that because I've saved money on my own I therefore don't need quite so much.
Thus! I will accept this 2% payroll tax cut with glee! That it's not going to social security that won't provide me anything anyway, well, I have a plan for that money.
I am going to spend my ~$900 relief on shit from China, that's exactly what I'm going to do with it this year, and I will document it here on my monologues. I will go out of my way to buy Chinese...er...well, I won't really have to go out of my way, but you get the idea. What, you think I'd be stupid enough to save this? Why would I? Why should I save this social security payment relief? To have it help reduce my future social security entitlement?
No, I'll support the American dreams of millions of retail sales associates who depend on the selling of Chinese shit for a living -- a growing percentage of our workforce. I will use my American social security "stimulus" to help drive the dwindling 11% manufacturing base of our nation to 10% by year's end. Hey, I've always called for a bleak future...might as well stop blogging about it and actually do something to promote it, eh?
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Stages Of Grief
Where would we fall on the Kubler-Ross model, if we believed we (the United States economy) were a terminal patient? Everyday we progress forward with falling GDP, rising and perpetual government borrowing, rising health care costs and falling personal health standards, I wonder where we fall in the five stages of grief:
Denial -- well, most certainly we fall into this tranche 6 days a week: "The fundamentals of our national economy are just fine." "It's just a temporary slump, as all recessions have been." "Prozac and reality TV will keep our economy running, just you wait and see. You'll see."
Anger -- Maybe just two days a month we fall into this bucket: "Those fucking Indians and Chinese, stealing all our jobs!" "We need a 100% tariff on imported goods." "Why us?" "Aren't we God's chosen economy?" "Who's to blame? Goldman Sachs!"
Bargaining -- Only one day each month we try to cut a deal with said God, or as it would be, our government: "If only we could get another thirteen months of unemployment...we'll have jobs by then." "We only need another seven hundred billion more, that's all -- we get that next seven hundred billion and we'll make it out of this, just you wait and see. You'll see."
Depression -- Also only one day each month: "We'll never get out of debt, Suzy." "Our bills are just too high." "Why bother working when bankruptcy is our only option?" "We're just piling debt onto our grandchildren, they'll have nothing."
Acceptance -- So far, not a single act of acceptance has occurred: "We realize that living within our means is the correct thing to do." "Today we announce sever austerity measures that wi..."
Nope, not a single act of acceptance yet. We've still got a long way to go on our ride on the little grief trolley.
Denial -- well, most certainly we fall into this tranche 6 days a week: "The fundamentals of our national economy are just fine." "It's just a temporary slump, as all recessions have been." "Prozac and reality TV will keep our economy running, just you wait and see. You'll see."
Anger -- Maybe just two days a month we fall into this bucket: "Those fucking Indians and Chinese, stealing all our jobs!" "We need a 100% tariff on imported goods." "Why us?" "Aren't we God's chosen economy?" "Who's to blame? Goldman Sachs!"
Bargaining -- Only one day each month we try to cut a deal with said God, or as it would be, our government: "If only we could get another thirteen months of unemployment...we'll have jobs by then." "We only need another seven hundred billion more, that's all -- we get that next seven hundred billion and we'll make it out of this, just you wait and see. You'll see."
Depression -- Also only one day each month: "We'll never get out of debt, Suzy." "Our bills are just too high." "Why bother working when bankruptcy is our only option?" "We're just piling debt onto our grandchildren, they'll have nothing."
Acceptance -- So far, not a single act of acceptance has occurred: "We realize that living within our means is the correct thing to do." "Today we announce sever austerity measures that wi..."
Nope, not a single act of acceptance yet. We've still got a long way to go on our ride on the little grief trolley.
Sunday, December 5, 2010
Deficits Don't Matter
I simply cannot resolve the cognitive dissonance developed when I read this from our representatives in the U.S. Congress:
"Republicans and some moderate Democrats want all the [Bush tax] cuts extended, saying that raising taxes during an economic slump would be disastrous."
Yet, didn't these same tax cuts exist all throughout the supposed boom years between 2001-2007? And what, exactly, did those provided us, huh? An entirely hallucinated economy borrowed from the future. All the wealth created over those several years was entirely hallucinated -- this supposed wealth never existed. Every goddamn day we hear how we've lost ~$x.x trillion since the peak, but indeed, no one ever questions if this wealth was even real. It was a paper loss on wealth than never existed. My dad would say these were Chinese dollars. I would agree with that characterization.
Republicans who believe that tax cuts ought to be extended for the uber-wealthy during a slump are, in my opinion, misguided. Misguided, because there has never existed in this grand nation a greater wealth disparity than now; misguided, because I don't believe there is a true correlation between slumpy job creation and tax credits for the wealthy. Tell me -- with seven trillion in Obama stimulus over the past two years while the Bush tax credits were still in effect, why did those 7 million jobs disappear? What, it was something other than those tax cuts?
I am totally blown away with Obama's compromise this week; not because he compromised, but because all three major themes a) extension of all tax cuts, b) dropping the SS tax by 2% and c) extending unemployment benefits ALL THREE! come from borrowed money. Have we not learned one damn thing from this recession? That borrowing and spending money you can't pay back caused it? That continuing to do so is a guaranteed recipe for future disaster? The tea party? Their silence on this new $700,000,000,000 added to the national debt is deafening.
I can't tell you how much I enjoy all this political bullshit; it will keep me blogging up until the day this nation self-destructs. And it will likely occur now sooner than later -- we cannot resolve our perpetual, annual federal trillion dollar deficits; we cannot resolve our fourteen [and soon to be sixteen] trillion dollar national debt; we cannot resolve our $22 billion dollar state deficit. We cannot resolve our personal credit card and housal unit mortgage balances. I would most certainly enjoy watching this grand nation of ours implode into a bankrupt second world republic. Think of the classic traits of banana republic finance -- massive (and chronic) government debt issuance -- reckless monetary expansion to absorb it -- and economic distortions that lead all wealth to flow uphill to the top of the economic ladder. Sound familiar?
I want us to fall apart, solely for what we'd gain from the experience -- we'd become a better people, a people who'd value work over consumption, who'd value energy and learn to live in a stable, productive society that uses a fraction of the energy we currently consume. We'd reverse this trend where over half the adult population will be obese by 2025, because we'd reverse the social trends of instant-gratification and self-glorification that are (as best as I can tell) the underlying causes. We'd value neighborhoods, value our neighbors, value our relationships with them. That is, after the really bad shit we'd have to go through during the implosion.
As for these tax cuts -- I really could care less about their extension, because either way, I'm assured our elected officials will again fail to address the true causes of our problems and will never be able, politically, to suggest we take the austere road out through gasp! eliminating debt and productive effort. No -- we add another trillion on top of the trillions already borrowed to put off real reform farther down the road, to future elected officials who won't do it either. Think about it -- any elected official who even suggests that we reduce entitlements for today's populace is doomed to defeat; he/she will easily be defeated in two to four years by others who continue to push up trillion dollar deficits.
We just increased our national debt by seven hundred billion, just in one day, and you can rest assured that this will eventually rise to well over a trillion because of our fantastic accounting measures we use. I've a theory regarding why our government did what it did; our representatives cannot take the hard road because it is political suicide when the American electorate are cultural adolescents.
We have learned absolutely nothing from trying to maintain an energy intensive, consumptive lifestyle on home equity, credit cards and personal loans -- money we didn't have. We've instead shifted the borrowing to the federal government, which by itself tried to maintain two energy intensive wars along with Medicare and Social Security entitlements...all with borrowed dollars. We accept this because of our cultural adolescence -- we cannot accept we've been living on borrowed wealth.
We had thirty years of fake wealth -- thirty years of surplus sloshing around as a result of re-fis, equity lines, equity appreciation, such that there are whole segments of our nation who can live off this surplus, based on the labors of others. The 1960's counter culture couldn't have existed without all that surplus, without an underlying oil-based economy powering it. Yesterday I saw the same thing in the Telegraph area in Berkeley -- whole segments living off the slosh of surplus. Today it isn't quite so obvious but it's still all around us - with million using EBT, social security disability, on and on. People living on borrowed moneys that represent our national surplus wealth.
"Republicans and some moderate Democrats want all the [Bush tax] cuts extended, saying that raising taxes during an economic slump would be disastrous."
Yet, didn't these same tax cuts exist all throughout the supposed boom years between 2001-2007? And what, exactly, did those provided us, huh? An entirely hallucinated economy borrowed from the future. All the wealth created over those several years was entirely hallucinated -- this supposed wealth never existed. Every goddamn day we hear how we've lost ~$x.x trillion since the peak, but indeed, no one ever questions if this wealth was even real. It was a paper loss on wealth than never existed. My dad would say these were Chinese dollars. I would agree with that characterization.
Republicans who believe that tax cuts ought to be extended for the uber-wealthy during a slump are, in my opinion, misguided. Misguided, because there has never existed in this grand nation a greater wealth disparity than now; misguided, because I don't believe there is a true correlation between slumpy job creation and tax credits for the wealthy. Tell me -- with seven trillion in Obama stimulus over the past two years while the Bush tax credits were still in effect, why did those 7 million jobs disappear? What, it was something other than those tax cuts?
I am totally blown away with Obama's compromise this week; not because he compromised, but because all three major themes a) extension of all tax cuts, b) dropping the SS tax by 2% and c) extending unemployment benefits ALL THREE! come from borrowed money. Have we not learned one damn thing from this recession? That borrowing and spending money you can't pay back caused it? That continuing to do so is a guaranteed recipe for future disaster? The tea party? Their silence on this new $700,000,000,000 added to the national debt is deafening.
I can't tell you how much I enjoy all this political bullshit; it will keep me blogging up until the day this nation self-destructs. And it will likely occur now sooner than later -- we cannot resolve our perpetual, annual federal trillion dollar deficits; we cannot resolve our fourteen [and soon to be sixteen] trillion dollar national debt; we cannot resolve our $22 billion dollar state deficit. We cannot resolve our personal credit card and housal unit mortgage balances. I would most certainly enjoy watching this grand nation of ours implode into a bankrupt second world republic. Think of the classic traits of banana republic finance -- massive (and chronic) government debt issuance -- reckless monetary expansion to absorb it -- and economic distortions that lead all wealth to flow uphill to the top of the economic ladder. Sound familiar?
I want us to fall apart, solely for what we'd gain from the experience -- we'd become a better people, a people who'd value work over consumption, who'd value energy and learn to live in a stable, productive society that uses a fraction of the energy we currently consume. We'd reverse this trend where over half the adult population will be obese by 2025, because we'd reverse the social trends of instant-gratification and self-glorification that are (as best as I can tell) the underlying causes. We'd value neighborhoods, value our neighbors, value our relationships with them. That is, after the really bad shit we'd have to go through during the implosion.
As for these tax cuts -- I really could care less about their extension, because either way, I'm assured our elected officials will again fail to address the true causes of our problems and will never be able, politically, to suggest we take the austere road out through gasp! eliminating debt and productive effort. No -- we add another trillion on top of the trillions already borrowed to put off real reform farther down the road, to future elected officials who won't do it either. Think about it -- any elected official who even suggests that we reduce entitlements for today's populace is doomed to defeat; he/she will easily be defeated in two to four years by others who continue to push up trillion dollar deficits.
We just increased our national debt by seven hundred billion, just in one day, and you can rest assured that this will eventually rise to well over a trillion because of our fantastic accounting measures we use. I've a theory regarding why our government did what it did; our representatives cannot take the hard road because it is political suicide when the American electorate are cultural adolescents.
We have learned absolutely nothing from trying to maintain an energy intensive, consumptive lifestyle on home equity, credit cards and personal loans -- money we didn't have. We've instead shifted the borrowing to the federal government, which by itself tried to maintain two energy intensive wars along with Medicare and Social Security entitlements...all with borrowed dollars. We accept this because of our cultural adolescence -- we cannot accept we've been living on borrowed wealth.
We had thirty years of fake wealth -- thirty years of surplus sloshing around as a result of re-fis, equity lines, equity appreciation, such that there are whole segments of our nation who can live off this surplus, based on the labors of others. The 1960's counter culture couldn't have existed without all that surplus, without an underlying oil-based economy powering it. Yesterday I saw the same thing in the Telegraph area in Berkeley -- whole segments living off the slosh of surplus. Today it isn't quite so obvious but it's still all around us - with million using EBT, social security disability, on and on. People living on borrowed moneys that represent our national surplus wealth.
Lower Wages, Always
"City officials desire large businesses to set up shop in EG"
Headline from an edition of the Elk Grove Citizen last week. This can be read any number of ways, but the way I read it is always the same: car dealerships and large format retail. These twin economic engines will supposedly power our city for the foreseeable future.
What I find most disingenuous is our mayor's comment about small businesses: "[they] are the fabric and the foundation of our community. They always will be."
It is small business that are destroyed with the monoculture of big box retail, the monoculture supported and expanded by the city council. Old Town Elk Grove slowly hollows out as WalMarts and Targets and Kohls and Old Navies are erected near our multiple easy-access freeway interchanges. Car salesmen indeed benefit as commutes to these consolidated consumption centers are increased. Sooner or later, the only jobs in the city will be truck drivers between the Port of Oakland and WalMart, retail sales associates, stock boys, and Chinese-made Hot Wheel assemblers for the holiday crush. Yes, there will be the odd regional sales manager or two, those that will earn more than the city's AMI of $55,000, but they will be fewer and farther in between.
It isn't just about "lowest prices, always;" it's about the loss of identity, of community, of affluence, of diversity, and of the dignity of work.
We lose our identity. In a city full of the same out-of-town owned corporate big box retailers as every other city, where Folsom has the same Office Depots, etc., there is nothing to distinguish Elk Grove. Does this matter anymore? Obviously not -- but I argue that if we had a set of independent grocers, with a larger share of their products produced locally, we could hang our hats on places like these. They would likely be more expensive, yes; but the beekeeper in Wilton will still stay employed and would more likely engage you in what you do for a living.
We lose our community. In a city that has only developed the single use zone model and that has only ever approved large subdivision tract homes, where we live has lost all meaning. The Target store becomes our de-facto community center, the only place where you're apt to run into your neighbor...if you even know what your neighbor looks like. You likely don't, not when he (or she) opens the garage door remotely, drives in, and closes behind him (or her, it's hard to know). No engagement. No gossip. No shared knowledge.
We lose our affluence. There are only a few willing to discuss how the American wage-earner has been losing purchasing power over the past thirty years...coincidentally with the emergence of the same "lower prices, always" model of large format retail. You can buy a lot of really cheap shit nowadays, yes, but you have to continue to buy things as they are poorly built, negating any long term savings. We lose our affluence as a nation as the majority of new jobs exist in the support of strip retail, with their concomitant "lower wages, always." We have never seen such a concentration of wealth, and this may not bother you too much as you can always aspire to join them. The middle class is critical, however. The lower classes pull much more in services than they produce; the upper class has the ability to grift, to find waivers, to use guile and privilege to keep their wealth. The middle sustains this nation, and employs the most. As we lose more and more manufacturing jobs at the same time as we develop more and more jobs in the support of corporate or in the support of retail sales, we lose affluence. A small business in Elk Grove doesn't need a human resources department. It wouldn't need an assistant to the vice president of marketing, nor would it need project managers or coordinators. These jobs don't and never will produce anything; they are only in support of a dwindling cadre other productive employees. It isn't hard to understand that if the only job you can get is in retail sales you aren't going to be as affluent.
We lose our diversity. The beekeeper in Wilton, if he had a network of independent grocers in Elk Grove to sell his product, could do so and sell at a price that might support a modest lifestyle. His income would flow back to you as he spends his money on your service or what you make. Importantly, there would also be choice in what products were made available. This beekeeper would have absolutely no ability to fly to Bentonville to pitch his wildflower honey to corporate buyers and unless he can produce twelve million units annually at a price dictated to him, he'll never find his products in the Super WalMart. His honey can never be made available to Elk Grovian moms whose only fucking consideration when buying honey is that it's as cheap as possible -- that it's produced by Tibetian bees makes no never mind. The Wilton beekeeper can't support his passion, his craft, and has to supplement his income by stocking Target shelves on the swing shift. Product diversity is destroyed, which coincides with the loss in retail diversity.
We lose the dignity of work. "It's a job, man." That's all that counts these days. Fewer and fewer people take pride in their efforts when there's no personal attachment to the things they are trying to sell or the places they sell them at. If the Target on Center Parkway pays $.35 more an hour than the Lowe's, that may be all the incentive needed to change employers. At least, that's what it used to be back during our boom years. Today you might be a little more hesitant. "I've got a job, man." There is much less dignity, in my opinion, in assembling box after box of Chinese made bicycles than working in a local bike shop maintaining customer's quality made bikes. It's more exacting, it's skilled, it pays more, it doesn't support wanton consumerism, it keeps dollars in the community, and above all it's possibly satisfying. Where there is pride in what you do, your output is superior, regardless of what you do.
These are the things we lose as our Elk Grove city officials conduct municipal visioning studies that mandate big box retail as the greatest potential for growth -- our economic saviors. These things used to be ingrained in our collective experience, but they are increasingly no longer. Again, I see Mayor Sherman's lip service to small businesses as correct, but her actions have only worked to destroy them going forward.
Headline from an edition of the Elk Grove Citizen last week. This can be read any number of ways, but the way I read it is always the same: car dealerships and large format retail. These twin economic engines will supposedly power our city for the foreseeable future.
What I find most disingenuous is our mayor's comment about small businesses: "[they] are the fabric and the foundation of our community. They always will be."
It is small business that are destroyed with the monoculture of big box retail, the monoculture supported and expanded by the city council. Old Town Elk Grove slowly hollows out as WalMarts and Targets and Kohls and Old Navies are erected near our multiple easy-access freeway interchanges. Car salesmen indeed benefit as commutes to these consolidated consumption centers are increased. Sooner or later, the only jobs in the city will be truck drivers between the Port of Oakland and WalMart, retail sales associates, stock boys, and Chinese-made Hot Wheel assemblers for the holiday crush. Yes, there will be the odd regional sales manager or two, those that will earn more than the city's AMI of $55,000, but they will be fewer and farther in between.
It isn't just about "lowest prices, always;" it's about the loss of identity, of community, of affluence, of diversity, and of the dignity of work.
We lose our identity. In a city full of the same out-of-town owned corporate big box retailers as every other city, where Folsom has the same Office Depots, etc., there is nothing to distinguish Elk Grove. Does this matter anymore? Obviously not -- but I argue that if we had a set of independent grocers, with a larger share of their products produced locally, we could hang our hats on places like these. They would likely be more expensive, yes; but the beekeeper in Wilton will still stay employed and would more likely engage you in what you do for a living.
We lose our community. In a city that has only developed the single use zone model and that has only ever approved large subdivision tract homes, where we live has lost all meaning. The Target store becomes our de-facto community center, the only place where you're apt to run into your neighbor...if you even know what your neighbor looks like. You likely don't, not when he (or she) opens the garage door remotely, drives in, and closes behind him (or her, it's hard to know). No engagement. No gossip. No shared knowledge.
We lose our affluence. There are only a few willing to discuss how the American wage-earner has been losing purchasing power over the past thirty years...coincidentally with the emergence of the same "lower prices, always" model of large format retail. You can buy a lot of really cheap shit nowadays, yes, but you have to continue to buy things as they are poorly built, negating any long term savings. We lose our affluence as a nation as the majority of new jobs exist in the support of strip retail, with their concomitant "lower wages, always." We have never seen such a concentration of wealth, and this may not bother you too much as you can always aspire to join them. The middle class is critical, however. The lower classes pull much more in services than they produce; the upper class has the ability to grift, to find waivers, to use guile and privilege to keep their wealth. The middle sustains this nation, and employs the most. As we lose more and more manufacturing jobs at the same time as we develop more and more jobs in the support of corporate or in the support of retail sales, we lose affluence. A small business in Elk Grove doesn't need a human resources department. It wouldn't need an assistant to the vice president of marketing, nor would it need project managers or coordinators. These jobs don't and never will produce anything; they are only in support of a dwindling cadre other productive employees. It isn't hard to understand that if the only job you can get is in retail sales you aren't going to be as affluent.
We lose our diversity. The beekeeper in Wilton, if he had a network of independent grocers in Elk Grove to sell his product, could do so and sell at a price that might support a modest lifestyle. His income would flow back to you as he spends his money on your service or what you make. Importantly, there would also be choice in what products were made available. This beekeeper would have absolutely no ability to fly to Bentonville to pitch his wildflower honey to corporate buyers and unless he can produce twelve million units annually at a price dictated to him, he'll never find his products in the Super WalMart. His honey can never be made available to Elk Grovian moms whose only fucking consideration when buying honey is that it's as cheap as possible -- that it's produced by Tibetian bees makes no never mind. The Wilton beekeeper can't support his passion, his craft, and has to supplement his income by stocking Target shelves on the swing shift. Product diversity is destroyed, which coincides with the loss in retail diversity.
We lose the dignity of work. "It's a job, man." That's all that counts these days. Fewer and fewer people take pride in their efforts when there's no personal attachment to the things they are trying to sell or the places they sell them at. If the Target on Center Parkway pays $.35 more an hour than the Lowe's, that may be all the incentive needed to change employers. At least, that's what it used to be back during our boom years. Today you might be a little more hesitant. "I've got a job, man." There is much less dignity, in my opinion, in assembling box after box of Chinese made bicycles than working in a local bike shop maintaining customer's quality made bikes. It's more exacting, it's skilled, it pays more, it doesn't support wanton consumerism, it keeps dollars in the community, and above all it's possibly satisfying. Where there is pride in what you do, your output is superior, regardless of what you do.
These are the things we lose as our Elk Grove city officials conduct municipal visioning studies that mandate big box retail as the greatest potential for growth -- our economic saviors. These things used to be ingrained in our collective experience, but they are increasingly no longer. Again, I see Mayor Sherman's lip service to small businesses as correct, but her actions have only worked to destroy them going forward.
Saturday, December 4, 2010
Re-hire and Fire
I'm again on the fence regarding the re-re-re-re-re-extension of unemployment benefits. On one hand I think of how many people are staring into the abyss, but on the other, the extensions are simply augmenting familial unit income that will never be replaced.
Case in point: my co-worker's wife, who after delivering her latest baby has no intention on returning to the workforce. Indeed, once her benefits expire, she'll no longer be included in the participation rate, and as such will no longer be included in the unemployment rate. I find this notion intriguing; the day her benefits stop, the unemployment rate will also drop by one person. If there are 100 working people and 20 of them are unemployed and pulling benefits, the unemployment rate is 20%. If benefits expire for 5 of them yet they don't look for work as they weren't planning to, then the rate magically drops to 15%. Nothing has changed...but the rate is reduced.
Accounting like this is why the U3 rate, the official rate, is a rather useless indicator in my mind. It's also why mark-to-fantasy accounting is the preferred method of asset valuation at all the major banks...because it's bullshit, but it makes them appear more solvent than they would be otherwise.
My co-worker's wife -- she'll obviously draw on this for as long as humanly possible, as any of us would. The argument is that "we've already paid into it, so we feel we have the right to a return of those payments." Fair enough. But then I hear of an interesting way to keep her benefits extended:
She will "seek" employment on a ranch that her relatives own. She'll pay the rancher $3,000 to "hire" her, where she'll "work" for three months on the ranch's payroll which gets returned to the rancher. The rancher pays unemployment insurance premiums, and when he "lays her off" after those three months she skips on down to the unemployment office to file for unemployment benefits while the rancher doesn't contest it. The rancher doesn't lose anything; indeed, is able to write off her wages while the initial $3,000 covers those ancillary costs of social security wages, etc. and leaves some for himself for his efforts. She'll get a return on that $3,000 within just a few months while the benefits continue to get re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-extended by the already broke government. Obviously this won't provide for nearly the same level of benefits, but it's something. Gas money. A few dinners out. New sneakers for the kids. What have you.
I'm pretty sure I don't have the facts straight on this type of abuse, but I can be assured that many people have long ago figured out how to extract every possible dime from such government programs. It is for these people that I wouldn't mind seeing 99 weeks as the ceiling for these checks.
Case in point: my co-worker's wife, who after delivering her latest baby has no intention on returning to the workforce. Indeed, once her benefits expire, she'll no longer be included in the participation rate, and as such will no longer be included in the unemployment rate. I find this notion intriguing; the day her benefits stop, the unemployment rate will also drop by one person. If there are 100 working people and 20 of them are unemployed and pulling benefits, the unemployment rate is 20%. If benefits expire for 5 of them yet they don't look for work as they weren't planning to, then the rate magically drops to 15%. Nothing has changed...but the rate is reduced.
Accounting like this is why the U3 rate, the official rate, is a rather useless indicator in my mind. It's also why mark-to-fantasy accounting is the preferred method of asset valuation at all the major banks...because it's bullshit, but it makes them appear more solvent than they would be otherwise.
My co-worker's wife -- she'll obviously draw on this for as long as humanly possible, as any of us would. The argument is that "we've already paid into it, so we feel we have the right to a return of those payments." Fair enough. But then I hear of an interesting way to keep her benefits extended:
She will "seek" employment on a ranch that her relatives own. She'll pay the rancher $3,000 to "hire" her, where she'll "work" for three months on the ranch's payroll which gets returned to the rancher. The rancher pays unemployment insurance premiums, and when he "lays her off" after those three months she skips on down to the unemployment office to file for unemployment benefits while the rancher doesn't contest it. The rancher doesn't lose anything; indeed, is able to write off her wages while the initial $3,000 covers those ancillary costs of social security wages, etc. and leaves some for himself for his efforts. She'll get a return on that $3,000 within just a few months while the benefits continue to get re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-extended by the already broke government. Obviously this won't provide for nearly the same level of benefits, but it's something. Gas money. A few dinners out. New sneakers for the kids. What have you.
I'm pretty sure I don't have the facts straight on this type of abuse, but I can be assured that many people have long ago figured out how to extract every possible dime from such government programs. It is for these people that I wouldn't mind seeing 99 weeks as the ceiling for these checks.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Borrowed Time
I don't find it strange that it's taken our representatives over thirty six months -- as long as I've been blogging -- to even begin to address American structural indebtedness, let alone take any actions to reverse our three decades long debt fueled lifestyle.
No, I don't find it strange. We have failed to address it for almost as long as I've been gravitationally tied to this rock. There is no coincidence, as I've mentioned multiple times here, that my city government, my county government, my state government, my federal government, and the vast majority of my neighbors are all up over their eyeballs in debt.
This Simpson-Bowles commission -- I don't see it doing a damn thing. Extending the age of social security recipients out to the year 2075?
Really? What about 2005? What about 2015?
Not only doesn't this address the problems at hand, there is no way, no way, we're going to get any reduced spending/increase in taxes with a split Congress...as evidenced by our failures to get any reduced spending/increase in taxes at any time Congress was partisan. We won't do it, we won't take the haircuts we need because we know what the end result always is; we can't accept the fact that we've been living beyond our means.
This nation's constituents don't have any idea , not even close, what it means to live below their means.
For the past five thousand, five hundred days I've known what it's like to live on borrowed time; at any other time in human history I would have been dead from juvenile diabetes for that long. Every day going forward is, in some sense, borrowed. This helped shape my personal financial outlook -- live within my means, live to where I don't need insurance because I'd never qualify for it, and so on. As a consequence, I don't [yet] have the Yukon in the garage with the $6k tires/wheels.
Interestingly, during the decade long Bush tax cuts, what did we do with all that increased personal income? How is it that we are all so broke? Not only that, we have nice aftermarket rims on our social security program, on our medicare, on our medicaid, on our soldier's MRAPs, but we've not yet paid for them.
I see at least two years of paralyzing inaction by our federal government to address any of this shit. We are too polarized to compromise; we won't. We cannot accept reduced services while we cannot pay for them, and that I see portends a rather bleak future for most of us.
No, I don't find it strange. We have failed to address it for almost as long as I've been gravitationally tied to this rock. There is no coincidence, as I've mentioned multiple times here, that my city government, my county government, my state government, my federal government, and the vast majority of my neighbors are all up over their eyeballs in debt.
This Simpson-Bowles commission -- I don't see it doing a damn thing. Extending the age of social security recipients out to the year 2075?
Really? What about 2005? What about 2015?
Not only doesn't this address the problems at hand, there is no way, no way, we're going to get any reduced spending/increase in taxes with a split Congress...as evidenced by our failures to get any reduced spending/increase in taxes at any time Congress was partisan. We won't do it, we won't take the haircuts we need because we know what the end result always is; we can't accept the fact that we've been living beyond our means.
This nation's constituents don't have any idea , not even close, what it means to live below their means.
For the past five thousand, five hundred days I've known what it's like to live on borrowed time; at any other time in human history I would have been dead from juvenile diabetes for that long. Every day going forward is, in some sense, borrowed. This helped shape my personal financial outlook -- live within my means, live to where I don't need insurance because I'd never qualify for it, and so on. As a consequence, I don't [yet] have the Yukon in the garage with the $6k tires/wheels.
Interestingly, during the decade long Bush tax cuts, what did we do with all that increased personal income? How is it that we are all so broke? Not only that, we have nice aftermarket rims on our social security program, on our medicare, on our medicaid, on our soldier's MRAPs, but we've not yet paid for them.
I see at least two years of paralyzing inaction by our federal government to address any of this shit. We are too polarized to compromise; we won't. We cannot accept reduced services while we cannot pay for them, and that I see portends a rather bleak future for most of us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
