People are stupid.
While this is true of all of us (myself included, and anyone else who finds it funny), it is more true of some than others. Take the GOP controlled Texas legislature's response to a common problem...
Problem: not enough money coming in from taxes due to economic slump and excessive tax cuts.
Not the smart solution: cutting funding for education.
Really not the smart solution: cutting funding for education when your state is already LAST IN THE NATION!
Education is the only thing that can make us great. It is our future. You want a strong economy in 20 years? You need a well educated population to make it. Stupid, thy name is "Texas Legislature." In all fairness, this seems to be the response of most state legislatures, but particularly ones controlled by Republicans.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Prediction...
I predict that if the Republicans take control of the House, that they will not care one bit about the deficit, but will care very deeply about cutting the taxes of the rich...and probably impeaching the president on some made up crap.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Doctor Pay
As a followup to my neat idea from the other day is medical doctors' salaries. We have very expensive health care in the US. One of the reasons is we must pay very high salaries to doctors.
People generally don't mind MD's making lots of money. But in this country MD's pretty much need to make a lot of money to justify the insane outlay that is paying for medical school.
People generally don't mind MD's making lots of money. But in this country MD's pretty much need to make a lot of money to justify the insane outlay that is paying for medical school.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Ok, Neat Idea
I think so anyway. Of course, it is mine (posted as part of a comment on this Ezra post), so...
The "problem" with quantitative easing is that it doesn't directly create jobs. It just makes money more available, and the idea is that those who have access will start spending more, which will increase demand, which means that companies will need to hire more to boost supply making nice positive feedback.
So how about doing things that more strongly encourage extra spending?
I would like to see a quantitative easing program that bought people's debt (especially student loans), then continued accepting payments as before but refunded some fraction--say 50-100%--into an account tied to a government issued debit card. The account would be cleared away each billing period, so if someone didn't spend it all, it balance would revert to the government.
Now, this isn't a dollar for dollar increase, as people could easily shift their normal spending to this account, but it has a few advantages. First, it allows people to have extra money each month, some fraction of which they are likely to sepend. Second, the account clearing out means that people will be motivated to spend more and faster so that they do not lose it. Third, and this is my favorite point, it directly helps people over banks...particularly if student loans are the purchase of choice.
On top of this, it could be done in a way to maximize spending. My student loan payment minimum is ~$350 /month, but I tend to pay it off faster than that would do. If the government plan stipulated that the accounts would only be active for one or two years, and that balances remaining would not be forgiven (i.e. you pay off the remaining debt as you would normally) then there would be an added incentive to pay it off even faster. This is true even at the expense of savings. With deposit interest rates low, I am much better off paying off extra student loan debt than I am saving extra. If the government were to buy that loan then pay me back my own payments that would become even more true. The incentive would be to pour as much money as possible into that debt, and then to spend as much of the return that I could manage. This would reduce my debt load much faster than I can afford to do now, and would also dramatically increase my spending.
The only real problems I see with this are 1) that it won't do as much to help rich people (they don't have loans because they can afford college) which I like, but the current political environment seems to equate not giving rich people more money with socialism, and 2) that it would not help many poor people (they don't have loans because so few go to college). It also doesn't help much for people that are unemployed as they don't have money to spend. Of course on those last two points: if it works well and leads to a large increase in demand, jobs would return.
These same things could be applied to other debt forms, but I have more of an issue with the fed buying people's (including my) houses than I do with them buying educations, which I think the government should provide anyway.
The "problem" with quantitative easing is that it doesn't directly create jobs. It just makes money more available, and the idea is that those who have access will start spending more, which will increase demand, which means that companies will need to hire more to boost supply making nice positive feedback.
So how about doing things that more strongly encourage extra spending?
I would like to see a quantitative easing program that bought people's debt (especially student loans), then continued accepting payments as before but refunded some fraction--say 50-100%--into an account tied to a government issued debit card. The account would be cleared away each billing period, so if someone didn't spend it all, it balance would revert to the government.
Now, this isn't a dollar for dollar increase, as people could easily shift their normal spending to this account, but it has a few advantages. First, it allows people to have extra money each month, some fraction of which they are likely to sepend. Second, the account clearing out means that people will be motivated to spend more and faster so that they do not lose it. Third, and this is my favorite point, it directly helps people over banks...particularly if student loans are the purchase of choice.
On top of this, it could be done in a way to maximize spending. My student loan payment minimum is ~$350 /month, but I tend to pay it off faster than that would do. If the government plan stipulated that the accounts would only be active for one or two years, and that balances remaining would not be forgiven (i.e. you pay off the remaining debt as you would normally) then there would be an added incentive to pay it off even faster. This is true even at the expense of savings. With deposit interest rates low, I am much better off paying off extra student loan debt than I am saving extra. If the government were to buy that loan then pay me back my own payments that would become even more true. The incentive would be to pour as much money as possible into that debt, and then to spend as much of the return that I could manage. This would reduce my debt load much faster than I can afford to do now, and would also dramatically increase my spending.
The only real problems I see with this are 1) that it won't do as much to help rich people (they don't have loans because they can afford college) which I like, but the current political environment seems to equate not giving rich people more money with socialism, and 2) that it would not help many poor people (they don't have loans because so few go to college). It also doesn't help much for people that are unemployed as they don't have money to spend. Of course on those last two points: if it works well and leads to a large increase in demand, jobs would return.
These same things could be applied to other debt forms, but I have more of an issue with the fed buying people's (including my) houses than I do with them buying educations, which I think the government should provide anyway.
Wednesday, October 06, 2010
Load of Crap
Also, not presented with any meaningful commentary of course. But part of a NY Times article on Obama courting liberals is this turd:
This horseshit pushed by Third Way is largely responsible for the clusterfuck in DC. People are mostly moderate so they say so. The words "Conservative" and "Liberal" don't mean politically conservative or liberal. This is pretty easy to figure: a large majority wanted a public option, a large majority likes social security and medicare, a large majority believes the rich should be more heavily taxed than they are, a large majority believes we should pay workers honest wages and make sure their work environments are safe, a large majority believes that companies should not be allowed to pollute. Those are all "Liberal" political opinions held by people who statistically must describe themselves as liberal...and moderate and even conservative. (No, I'm not looking up all the polling data to link.)
That someone would describe themselves as conservative, while taking advantage of medicare and not wanting to see it cut should tell politicians that the political designations of conservative vs liberal are pretty fucking meaningless. Unfortunately it seems not to work that way.
People want what they want, but rather than find that out and see about giving it to them we obsess over designations that are almost completely disconnected from their meaning on another level. Probably 90% of my political beliefs fit with the majority in this country. The remaining 10% is probably 70:30 left:right, but if I were to position myself in the US Senate it would probably be about where Bernie Sanders is (way left of "center") and in the House probably between Nancy Pelosi and Dennis Kucinich (again, way left of "center"). In the U.S. as a whole, however, I'm probably at about the 65% point overall (I balance out some pretty hard left beliefs on tax policy with some pretty right ones on personal responsibility).
Third Way, an organization of centrist Democrats, produced a study showing that liberals are the smallest share of the electorate and not enough to keep Congress in Democratic hands. Citing Gallup polling data, the study said self-described conservatives made up 42 percent of the electorate, compared with moderates who make up 35 percent and liberals who make up 20 percent, a shift of several points to the right in the last two years.That, of course, has no meaning. It would be one thing if how people self-identified actually lined up with how U.S. congresscritters legislated, but it doesn't. My mom self-identifies as a moderate. She is more liberal than probably 80% of the House and 90% of the Senate. She is, however, exactly as she describes, pretty much dead center of the nation.
This horseshit pushed by Third Way is largely responsible for the clusterfuck in DC. People are mostly moderate so they say so. The words "Conservative" and "Liberal" don't mean politically conservative or liberal. This is pretty easy to figure: a large majority wanted a public option, a large majority likes social security and medicare, a large majority believes the rich should be more heavily taxed than they are, a large majority believes we should pay workers honest wages and make sure their work environments are safe, a large majority believes that companies should not be allowed to pollute. Those are all "Liberal" political opinions held by people who statistically must describe themselves as liberal...and moderate and even conservative. (No, I'm not looking up all the polling data to link.)
That someone would describe themselves as conservative, while taking advantage of medicare and not wanting to see it cut should tell politicians that the political designations of conservative vs liberal are pretty fucking meaningless. Unfortunately it seems not to work that way.
People want what they want, but rather than find that out and see about giving it to them we obsess over designations that are almost completely disconnected from their meaning on another level. Probably 90% of my political beliefs fit with the majority in this country. The remaining 10% is probably 70:30 left:right, but if I were to position myself in the US Senate it would probably be about where Bernie Sanders is (way left of "center") and in the House probably between Nancy Pelosi and Dennis Kucinich (again, way left of "center"). In the U.S. as a whole, however, I'm probably at about the 65% point overall (I balance out some pretty hard left beliefs on tax policy with some pretty right ones on personal responsibility).
Sunday, October 03, 2010
Quick Guide
Just a handy little rundown of how the left is being fucked over by the Obama administration--and some "Democrats" in the Senate (comes from this post).
Healthcare advocates are disappointed because of the lack of a a public option; women's rights advocates seethe at the very mention of the name of Stupak; environmental advocates have their own issues regarding the administration's handling of the crisis in the gulf; the LGBT community is incensed by the repeated mixed messages of a president who claims to want to end DADT, but fails to take the numerous opportunities available to him to do just that; advocates for the Latino community are disappointed about the inaction on immigration issues and the DREAM act; peace activists are dumbfounded by the escalation in Afghanistan; civil libertarians are outraged by the fact that the administration is claiming executive powers that in some cases seem to surpass those demanded by President Bush. If you have a pet issue and you lean to the left, chances are that the administration has done something to tick you off.Still no explanation as to why this is the way things are, or if people with the power really believe that punching hippies is so worthwhile that they should do it at the expense of the nation (and at the expense of popular positions).
Friday, October 01, 2010
Finally!
DOJ is going after war criminals!
...Unfortunately, they are still ignoring the (alleged) ones in the George W. Bush administration. Fortunately for all of us, they are looking for help:
...Unfortunately, they are still ignoring the (alleged) ones in the George W. Bush administration. Fortunately for all of us, they are looking for help:
How to Report a Human Rights Violator
The Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section actively seeks out information that may assist the U.S. Government in identifying human rights violators who may have entered the United States.
If you know of anyone in the United States or of any U.S. citizen anywhere in the world who may have been involved in perpetrating human rights violations abroad, please contact HRSP either by email at hrsptips@usdoj.gov or by postal mail at:
Human Rights and Special Prosecutions Section (Tips), Criminal Division United States Department of Justice, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20530-0001
You do not have to identify yourself when providing information. Please provide as much detail as possible, such as:
* the suspect's name, place and date of birth,
* physical description, and current location;
* the suspect's alleged human rights violations including the locations and dates of those activities;
* how you learned of the suspect’s alleged activities and when and where you saw the suspect.
We are unable to reply to every submission; however, your information will be reviewed promptly by HRSP.
Information on non-U.S. citizen suspects living in the United States may be provided to Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Department of Homeland Security, at 1-866-347-2423 (a toll-free call).
So do your patriotic duty (Asst Attorney General Lanny Breuer said "It's something we have to do. We owe it to our citizens and we owe it to the world.") and report Human Rights Violators. And remember: torture is a violation of human rights.
Professional Left Writer Done With Washington
How long until someone in the administration comments on what an irresponsible whiner this damn hippie is?
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Dead Animals Mean Food
Moral and health hazards abound when looking into what to eat. That we eat too much meat in this country, is not controversial. That we have a lot of industrial agriculture that is not good for the environment or for animals is also pretty well understood. It has become an increasingly commonly held belief that farm subsidies are antiquated and mostly neither a good use of money nor a producer of good results.
One of the moral issues that I tend to get prickly about is vegetarianism...particularly veganism. Our health would be better if we ate more veggies, and it would probably be better still if we were all vegetarians subsisting on legumes, whole grains, fruits, veggies, dairy and eggs. Of course, that doesn't mean that a vegetarian diet is best for the world or the environment, and certainly not one that results in no dead animals for our food. Even vegan diets are responsible for the killing of many millions of animals as the direct result of farming.
More subtle is that meat can actually be a very ecologically efficient food source. The way much of it is produced in the US, it is not, however. There are a couple reasons. One is we eat too much meat, and so need to produce too much, and the cost/time efficient methods to do so are not ecologically efficient and so we are where we are. Another reason (outline in the post, which is reviewing this book) is that we have made some of the ecologically efficient methods illegal--particularly feeding waste to pigs.
Until we fix industrial agriculture, it will be hard to determine what is the "best" diet for us to have. Still, that doesn't mean we should just keep on as is. Strong pushes to increase fruit and vegetable consumption and to reduce meat consumption are very good ideas. Moral grandstanding by vegans is probably counterproductive, particularly when done by the poorly informed.
One of the moral issues that I tend to get prickly about is vegetarianism...particularly veganism. Our health would be better if we ate more veggies, and it would probably be better still if we were all vegetarians subsisting on legumes, whole grains, fruits, veggies, dairy and eggs. Of course, that doesn't mean that a vegetarian diet is best for the world or the environment, and certainly not one that results in no dead animals for our food. Even vegan diets are responsible for the killing of many millions of animals as the direct result of farming.
More subtle is that meat can actually be a very ecologically efficient food source. The way much of it is produced in the US, it is not, however. There are a couple reasons. One is we eat too much meat, and so need to produce too much, and the cost/time efficient methods to do so are not ecologically efficient and so we are where we are. Another reason (outline in the post, which is reviewing this book) is that we have made some of the ecologically efficient methods illegal--particularly feeding waste to pigs.
Until we fix industrial agriculture, it will be hard to determine what is the "best" diet for us to have. Still, that doesn't mean we should just keep on as is. Strong pushes to increase fruit and vegetable consumption and to reduce meat consumption are very good ideas. Moral grandstanding by vegans is probably counterproductive, particularly when done by the poorly informed.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Yea, but No...
I really don't like arguments that are true, but so incomplete that they may as well be false, which is why I'm not so fond of this Orszag article in the NY Times. I think my biggest gripe is with this line (and his subsequent arguments):
I'm hardly Greenspan in terms of my views on fiscal discipline or the economy, and I don't think that ending the tax cuts would have no effect, but it is not clear to me that it would be more than a blip. If our economy is already pricing the tax cuts ending into it's behavior, then there will be no difference. If uncertainty is making things worse, then it is better to end them now (that would be more certain than a temporary extension).
Yet no one wants to make an already stagnating jobs market worse over the next year or two, which is exactly what would happen if the cuts expire as planned.The problem, of course, is that it's kind of garbage. Yes, if the tax cuts expire demand could go down a bit more, but it also might not. Savings rates have jumped dramatically, and if people are already saving as much as possible, then there might not be much cutting back to do, and ending the tax cuts will only reduce savings rates. Not that anyone has actually studied anything here. The problem is that it seems everyone takes the "ending the tax cuts will make the economy worse" meme at face value. People who want to end the tax cut point out that other stimulus would be much better.
I'm hardly Greenspan in terms of my views on fiscal discipline or the economy, and I don't think that ending the tax cuts would have no effect, but it is not clear to me that it would be more than a blip. If our economy is already pricing the tax cuts ending into it's behavior, then there will be no difference. If uncertainty is making things worse, then it is better to end them now (that would be more certain than a temporary extension).
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Capital Gains and Inflation
Stealing the title from Matt. Also commenting on that theme; this is also a followup on the last post...
Inflation is a double edged sword. Higher inflation reduces the value of any saved cash, but it also reduces the real value of any debt. Investments that hedge against inflation are, therefore, things that have a value that is linked to inflation.
Real estate is an inflation hedge because if inflation happens, my house gets more expensive in dollar terms, even if it's "value" remains the same, but the amount that I paid for it and my monthly mortgage payment so long as I have one don't change a bit.
The downside of inflation is that the cash I have stashed in the bank is worth less.
Inflation is a double edged sword. Higher inflation reduces the value of any saved cash, but it also reduces the real value of any debt. Investments that hedge against inflation are, therefore, things that have a value that is linked to inflation.
Real estate is an inflation hedge because if inflation happens, my house gets more expensive in dollar terms, even if it's "value" remains the same, but the amount that I paid for it and my monthly mortgage payment so long as I have one don't change a bit.
The downside of inflation is that the cash I have stashed in the bank is worth less.
Taxing Capital Gains
I'm pretty sure that I understand capital gains tax arguments in exactly the opposite way that they tend to be presented--i.e. that low cap gains tax stimulates investment thus spurring the economy. The way I see it, the higher the cap gains tax is the more an individual must invest to have the same dollar return on investment, and it is the dollar return that people want and need. The percentage is only relevant to the extent that larger percentage returns equal more dollars.
I agree much more strongly with the idea that it is largely people who live off capital gains (i.e. the rich) who want who want lower cap gains taxes, and this is because at that level of wealth, there is a pretty good chance that near 100% of wealth is already tied up in investments and that no additional diversion (or at leas not a substantial one) can be made to offset higher capital gains taxes.
Basically: higher capital gains taxes should create more investment (from working people saving for retirement), boosting the economy, and that it will come at the expense of people who are living off of capital gains.
I agree much more strongly with the idea that it is largely people who live off capital gains (i.e. the rich) who want who want lower cap gains taxes, and this is because at that level of wealth, there is a pretty good chance that near 100% of wealth is already tied up in investments and that no additional diversion (or at leas not a substantial one) can be made to offset higher capital gains taxes.
Basically: higher capital gains taxes should create more investment (from working people saving for retirement), boosting the economy, and that it will come at the expense of people who are living off of capital gains.
New (to me) Idea from a Politician!
Interesting proposal here. Similar to cramdown (bankruptcy modification of a mortgage to a lower principle value) but with an added benefit to banks to help them offset the immediate loss. I think it will work in places where people would like to stay but can't afford. It wouldn't work so well in places where there are no jobs and people want to relocate.
As an aside, however, I would like to say that upping the duration of a mortgage from 30 to 50 years really doesn't help much. For a $150k mortgage at 5.25% interest the mortgage payment on a 30 yr loan is $828.31, at 50 years it only goes down to $707.82. Now an extra $100 a month is a fair amount to a lot of people, but the extra 20 years it takes to pay off is, to me anyway, much bigger. The main reason is that interest alone is $656.25, so if you got a 10,000 year loan you would still be paying $656.25 per month.
For very long term loans a small increase in the payment can make a large difference in the time to pay it off. In the example above, an extra $50 per month on the 30 year loan would reduce the total time to pay off by nearly four years.
As an aside, however, I would like to say that upping the duration of a mortgage from 30 to 50 years really doesn't help much. For a $150k mortgage at 5.25% interest the mortgage payment on a 30 yr loan is $828.31, at 50 years it only goes down to $707.82. Now an extra $100 a month is a fair amount to a lot of people, but the extra 20 years it takes to pay off is, to me anyway, much bigger. The main reason is that interest alone is $656.25, so if you got a 10,000 year loan you would still be paying $656.25 per month.
For very long term loans a small increase in the payment can make a large difference in the time to pay it off. In the example above, an extra $50 per month on the 30 year loan would reduce the total time to pay off by nearly four years.
President Obama = Charlie Brown
And he just keeps thinking that Lucy isn't going to pull the football away. At least, that's the message I get from this.
The White House is struggling with whether to propose ideas that would appeal to Republicans, and thus get support on Capitol Hill—such as tax cuts—or whether to promote ideas that officials believe could have more economic impact but might hit political resistance, such as more aid for states and more infrastructure funding.It's really simple, and I thought Obama was supposed to be smart: he can send the most right wing bill in the world to congress and he will receive ZERO Republican votes for it. They don't care what's in the bill. They are fighting him.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
Iraq War Over...Still Killing Troops and Civilians In Afghanistan
So now that we pacifists have won the day and no more war evah*, I just wanted to put a handful of links to various retrospectives.
Someone who was right.
Someone who was wrong and admits it.
Someone else who was wrong and admits it (longer winded).
Someone who was wrong and is trying to excuse it.
Along with someone who is calling that bullshit.
As for me. I was pissed as hell back in 2002-3 that the entire of our government and the vast majority of media was so gun-ho to go to war in Iraq. I wasn't entirely up on the history of the region, I didn't care for Sadam, and I was even willing to concede that he maybe had some chemical or biological weapons. I still thought it was a bad idea, a distraction, a waste of money, and likely to cause a great deal of suffering. Mostly, I was pissed at how my opinion was deemed fringe and wrong by so many "Serious People" who were wrong wrong WRONG!
Now many of those who were right back then are pretty keen to get the hell out of Afghanistan, while many of those who were wrong and have since admitted it are pretty keen to...get the hell out of Afghanistan. Of course, we aren't going to do that, because the "Serious People" in government, even those, like Obama, who thought Iraq was wrong, think that we must stay in Afghanistan...I guess because there are people there who don't like us that we haven't killed yet or something.
*by "evah" I mean we will constantly be at war for the rest of my life, but we are going to pretend that we are a peaceful nation because we have (probably) stopped killing people in Iraq.
Someone who was right.
Someone who was wrong and admits it.
Someone else who was wrong and admits it (longer winded).
Someone who was wrong and is trying to excuse it.
Along with someone who is calling that bullshit.
As for me. I was pissed as hell back in 2002-3 that the entire of our government and the vast majority of media was so gun-ho to go to war in Iraq. I wasn't entirely up on the history of the region, I didn't care for Sadam, and I was even willing to concede that he maybe had some chemical or biological weapons. I still thought it was a bad idea, a distraction, a waste of money, and likely to cause a great deal of suffering. Mostly, I was pissed at how my opinion was deemed fringe and wrong by so many "Serious People" who were wrong wrong WRONG!
Now many of those who were right back then are pretty keen to get the hell out of Afghanistan, while many of those who were wrong and have since admitted it are pretty keen to...get the hell out of Afghanistan. Of course, we aren't going to do that, because the "Serious People" in government, even those, like Obama, who thought Iraq was wrong, think that we must stay in Afghanistan...I guess because there are people there who don't like us that we haven't killed yet or something.
*by "evah" I mean we will constantly be at war for the rest of my life, but we are going to pretend that we are a peaceful nation because we have (probably) stopped killing people in Iraq.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
I Don't See Any There There
I know that Democrats generally love pointing out when some GOPer or other right-winger fights hard against something but then, after it gets through anyway, takes advantage (lots of US Reps that voted against stimulus at ribbon cuttings paid for by stimulus, and now the Koch brothers).
I understand a level of frustration with that, but I don't really think it's terribly wrong. Frankly, with zero GOP support, there was no real reason for Dems to have any of the stim funds go to GOP districts (to the extent that funds could be diverted). It would have been wrong, but so was the unified GOP opposition. As for the Koch brothers? I oppose the mortgage interest tax deduction, but I will certainly get all of my tax refund that results from it. I would be very happy if it were to end, or at least be limited, but I will take full advantage while it exists.
Taking advantage of a system that you don't like is not, necessarily hypocritical. It's fair. I would be perfectly happy paying higher taxes, but only if everyone else is subject to the same tax system. What is done with tax dollars has some lesser relevance.
I neither feel obligated to disregard advantages that I don't like, nor do I see anything wrong with that sentiment, in myself or others.
I understand a level of frustration with that, but I don't really think it's terribly wrong. Frankly, with zero GOP support, there was no real reason for Dems to have any of the stim funds go to GOP districts (to the extent that funds could be diverted). It would have been wrong, but so was the unified GOP opposition. As for the Koch brothers? I oppose the mortgage interest tax deduction, but I will certainly get all of my tax refund that results from it. I would be very happy if it were to end, or at least be limited, but I will take full advantage while it exists.
Taking advantage of a system that you don't like is not, necessarily hypocritical. It's fair. I would be perfectly happy paying higher taxes, but only if everyone else is subject to the same tax system. What is done with tax dollars has some lesser relevance.
I neither feel obligated to disregard advantages that I don't like, nor do I see anything wrong with that sentiment, in myself or others.
Sunday, August 29, 2010
Thinking of Siding With Global Warming Deniers
Not because they are remotely correct, of course, but more because we are unlikely to be able to ameliorate global climate change in any way shape or form. There is just too much CO2 in the atmosphere to counter in a meaningful time frame.
Things are most likely going to get bad. 50 years from now it will be better to be on the "we wanted to do something about this but you wouldn't let us" side than it will to be on the "we got our way and the shit still hit the fan" side. Seriously. At this point it's really about who will have the better "I told you so" argument in several decades.
I'm still pro-conservation and pro-renewable energy, but those are good ideas no matter what the earth's climate does. We don't have unlimited fossil fuels, so we're best off weaning ourselves from them even though it won't actually reduce CO2 or cause global warming to be thwarted. I'm also not a big fan of waste, so reducing, reusing, and recycling play well with me. I'm also kind of cheap so a house that is more efficient to heat and cool is a winner as far as I'm concerned.
So global warming is a real and increasing threat to humanity, but since we aren't going to do anything that will substantially change that, I would at least like the opportunity to say "told ya so" within my lifetime, so fire up the burners!
Things are most likely going to get bad. 50 years from now it will be better to be on the "we wanted to do something about this but you wouldn't let us" side than it will to be on the "we got our way and the shit still hit the fan" side. Seriously. At this point it's really about who will have the better "I told you so" argument in several decades.
I'm still pro-conservation and pro-renewable energy, but those are good ideas no matter what the earth's climate does. We don't have unlimited fossil fuels, so we're best off weaning ourselves from them even though it won't actually reduce CO2 or cause global warming to be thwarted. I'm also not a big fan of waste, so reducing, reusing, and recycling play well with me. I'm also kind of cheap so a house that is more efficient to heat and cool is a winner as far as I'm concerned.
So global warming is a real and increasing threat to humanity, but since we aren't going to do anything that will substantially change that, I would at least like the opportunity to say "told ya so" within my lifetime, so fire up the burners!
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Chamber of Commerse is Full of Idiots
At least that's the rough reading of this post.
The very frustrating aspect of reading through is that he isn't entirely wrong, but he fails to address the latent bias that produces the various choices men and women make differently. It is stated as though it is just the status quo and tough shit.
First, while it is not entirely clear, it does not seem the post is talking about women choosing low paying fields (like elementary school teacher) while men choose high paying ones (like rocket scientist) which would be a really bad argument, and is the tack taken by some of the critics I read. Rather, it is alluding to women making "life choices" that reduce their pay--like fewer working hours due to children.
I'll admit I mostly agree with that sentiment, particularly as someone who has made job choices not designed to maximize my earning potential. I think that men are more fixated on making money than are women. I think that fixation (or "fetish") does lead to making more money. I also think that we live in a society that discourages women from fixating on making more money. There are a whole slew of ways to look at this and to approach it.
The Chamber Post is essentially saying that the choice is wholly owned by women and men and that if women make less it is the fault of the women. I think that the choice is foisted on women (and men) by societal norms and that women make less because our society has deemed that women shouldn't be the moneymakers.
So long as all people are happy with whatever result may be I don't see as how it matters much. But some people are really unhappy with the status quo. Others don't care so much. My problem is that it becomes extraordinarily difficult to price out the type of choice I am referring to, and, even more difficult to figure out how to price that out in such a way that we can still factor in women and men whose choices are in larger part owned by societal norms.
The closest I've seen was something I discussed a while back. The paper concluded (among other things) that the "real" pay gap was ~$0.05. That is women make $0.95 for every $1.00 men make if the playing field is completely leveled--including choices like who works more hours and first choice spouse...at least as I understand it.
So there is only one pay number that can be generated without much extra effort (the 77 cents on the dollar one) and without charging into controversy headlong. The problem is that the controversy avoided still exists and is real.
I do not believe that a woman's pay aggregate number will ever be equal to a man's for the simple reason that women and men will never have identical roles in society. I could be wrong, I would like to be, but I don't see the perception of women having a more important role in the family and household going away any time soon.
To restate: it doesn't matter if men and women have full equality, and are perceived entirely as equals in the workplace, women will not ever make as much as men if women are yet perceived as more important than men at home.
The very frustrating aspect of reading through is that he isn't entirely wrong, but he fails to address the latent bias that produces the various choices men and women make differently. It is stated as though it is just the status quo and tough shit.
First, while it is not entirely clear, it does not seem the post is talking about women choosing low paying fields (like elementary school teacher) while men choose high paying ones (like rocket scientist) which would be a really bad argument, and is the tack taken by some of the critics I read. Rather, it is alluding to women making "life choices" that reduce their pay--like fewer working hours due to children.
I'll admit I mostly agree with that sentiment, particularly as someone who has made job choices not designed to maximize my earning potential. I think that men are more fixated on making money than are women. I think that fixation (or "fetish") does lead to making more money. I also think that we live in a society that discourages women from fixating on making more money. There are a whole slew of ways to look at this and to approach it.
The Chamber Post is essentially saying that the choice is wholly owned by women and men and that if women make less it is the fault of the women. I think that the choice is foisted on women (and men) by societal norms and that women make less because our society has deemed that women shouldn't be the moneymakers.
So long as all people are happy with whatever result may be I don't see as how it matters much. But some people are really unhappy with the status quo. Others don't care so much. My problem is that it becomes extraordinarily difficult to price out the type of choice I am referring to, and, even more difficult to figure out how to price that out in such a way that we can still factor in women and men whose choices are in larger part owned by societal norms.
The closest I've seen was something I discussed a while back. The paper concluded (among other things) that the "real" pay gap was ~$0.05. That is women make $0.95 for every $1.00 men make if the playing field is completely leveled--including choices like who works more hours and first choice spouse...at least as I understand it.
So there is only one pay number that can be generated without much extra effort (the 77 cents on the dollar one) and without charging into controversy headlong. The problem is that the controversy avoided still exists and is real.
I do not believe that a woman's pay aggregate number will ever be equal to a man's for the simple reason that women and men will never have identical roles in society. I could be wrong, I would like to be, but I don't see the perception of women having a more important role in the family and household going away any time soon.
To restate: it doesn't matter if men and women have full equality, and are perceived entirely as equals in the workplace, women will not ever make as much as men if women are yet perceived as more important than men at home.
43% People are "Single"...not Single
I really don't like hairs split like this. I realize that, for purposes of taxes and some legal definition, there has to be a legal event that removes a person's single status, but, really, based on that definition the vast majority of gay people are single (all of them are by federal law...I have faith that this is not going to be the case in 2-9 years) and lots of people in long term, committed relationships are "single".
I am aware that the article later explains and even goes on to separate out the "living alone" numbers from that, but the picture and the opening line would imply that nearly half of the country is not involved in a relationship.
As an aside, the last bit--88 single men to 100 single women--is way off the actual split and would imply that the number of "singles" that are elderly is quite large. In the US M:F under 65 is close to 1:1--and actually ~1.02:1--while over 65 that ratio goes to 0.75:1. Incidentally, I do like the CIA world fact book.
I am aware that the article later explains and even goes on to separate out the "living alone" numbers from that, but the picture and the opening line would imply that nearly half of the country is not involved in a relationship.
As an aside, the last bit--88 single men to 100 single women--is way off the actual split and would imply that the number of "singles" that are elderly is quite large. In the US M:F under 65 is close to 1:1--and actually ~1.02:1--while over 65 that ratio goes to 0.75:1. Incidentally, I do like the CIA world fact book.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)