Why Bother With a Monitor?

Ok, sure, I know there are some people who require the much better resolution for work (graphical design, programming...), and for workplaces you can probably fill an office 17" monitors for a song, but for most [home] users, a dedicated computer monitor is a pretty dumb purchase.  For generally less money you can get a television, that can do the same things as a monitor, but also has built in speakers and doesn't require any extra hardware to play television/cable.  Since most computers/laptops now days have HDMI output, it's even a better proposition.

TV plus computer is a much better entertainment option than TV in one place, computer and monitor and speakers in another.  It's also a much better web entertainment option than web-enabled TVs or even Xbox/PSx--apparently these are better, but I can put a keyboard in my lap and a mouse on the sofa and use a computer online much easier. My only real complaint is Netflix: on the computer is seems more laggy and lower res, on the PS3 the interface is shit.

Minimum Wage and Jobs

It's one of those things that seems to be taken more on faith than evidence: higher minimum wage means fewer jobs.  But the evidence just doesn't seem to be there.  It seems like it should so people assume it does, but cities, states, and countries with higher minimum wages than the US just don't generally show higher unemployment (there are other social welfare issues that change and probably do lead to fewer jobs).

This article discusses states and cities in the US, referencing side by side county comparisons.  I wish I could find the link, but Austrailia has a much higher minimum wage than us, and pretty damned low unemployment.

Pure economics wouldn't get you here, but maybe a bit more thought does.  Higher minimum wage means more impetus to work, plus more income for those who do.  More workers making more money will then spend more money meaning an increase in the demand for goods and services, which must be provided by employing more people.  Moreover, if you have a business you want to succeed, you can't just fire everyone because their wages must go up.  You can't succeed with zero employees.  Maybe you can pass on some of the cost to customers, but only in a colluding society can that be guaranteed to work.  Most likely the people on top (owners, executives) will end up with less profits, which, I suspect, is the real reason that business leaders oppose raising the minimum wage.

[Note: I would actually guess* the lower profit thing to be an immediate effect in terms of total $ and long term in terms of % profit.]

*Not an economist, and not doing the maths...which in this case are hard even for economists--too many variables--which I further suspect to be one of the reasons why they all "know" that higher min wage reduces jobs: that's what their maths tell them.

Arizona GOP: Anti-Math...I'll Assume Pro-Barbie

A state senator that doesn't know algebra isn't as surprising as I'd like it to be, but that he would state his ignorance so directly...

It's Not the Brackets, It's the Breaks

First, what Atrios said:

Getting rid of tax brackets does not make the system "dramatically simpler."

Taxes are actually pretty simple for lots of people: anyone who files the 1040 EZ or just takes the standard deduction, and don't have dependents or mortgage or other deductions and credits to put in there.  Even for people with common deductions, tax filing isn't all that complex.

The main reason that taxes get complex is that we spend hours trying not to pay them, and politicians have put in hundreds of breaks that are available to different people and businesses in different cases.  Anyone who wants to simplify the tax code actually has a pretty simple job: eliminate all deductions and credits.  You would probably want to adjust rates (and brackets) along with that, but that's really it.  You made $85k?  go to table, pull up your tax number, that's what you owe.

Right now someone who makes $85k likely pays taxes as though they made $70k, and may get credit for non-tax activity toward that.  That's why taxes are complex.  Between tables and computers, no one actually calculates their taxes.  The calculations are all done on deductions and credits.  We could have 100 brackets, or even a continuum and it would not make anything more complex.

Yes, Student Loan Debt is a Problem [Part the Infinity]

Another article, and another day that nothing is going to be done about this.  I still think that a student loan forgiveness by the Fed buying up all the debt and torching it and free college going forward would be the best fix.  One quick note that was in there was about mortgage requirements:

especially under new mortgage rules that limit total debt for a would-be borrower to 43 percent of their annual income.

I did not know that.  I'll be getting married this year, and apparently we wouldn't qualify for a mortgage after that due primarily to student loans (boo debt!).  Good thing I've already got one (hooray debt!?!).

Another Must Read

Really, just about everything Matt Taibbi writes, but this one is the latest.  Depressing, but stuff that everyone needs to know if we're to have any hope of stopping the next global financial meltdown.

Actually, You Kind of Do...

In David Atkins' post "Serfdom Either Way" he references the report discussed here about the wage gap between college grads and high school grads.  He doesn't say much about it, in fact most of what he does say is:

Do I really need to comment here? The insanity speaks for itself.

I think I know what he is talking about: either go into massive debt or get a shitty job.  But you really do need to comment about it, because the implication of the price premium for college grads is that it is, in fact, worth it to go to college, even when it means incurring debt.  Now I certainly think that college should be much more affordable--in fact free to everyone--but so long as we have this capitalist fantasy about everything, it not only makes sense that college tuition has gotten high, this report clearly implies that the high cost is entirely justified.  Because the gap has been spreading it also implies that the value (and the cost) should grow faster than GDP.

If a college degree means an extra $17k/year (for life!) then it sure as hell is worth paying $30k/year for 4 years to get one.  Now this isn't the math that most students (or their parents) do, and the nature of student loans is borderline predatory, but it isn't "insanity" it's perfectly rational capitalism.

(Note: I hope this isn't a trend of him becoming increasingly irrational, because this follows a post of his from yesterday, that was mostly fine but that very oddly stated "Bill Gates isn't exactly an innovator"...I'm not sure what he would call Bill Gates, but innovator, at the least, is pretty damned appropriate.)

No More Brand Loyalty

I think the article should have made clearer that this is really only true of consumer goods, and maybe small businesses--large corporations/businesses have lots of brand loyalty on the items they buy (sometimes for good reason, other times not so much).  Still, broadly, this is a good thing for society.

What Atrios Said

I think may be scariest when it comes to gun nuts (for whom it undoubtedly holds true).

USPS Banking - I Like It

This is a great idea (it actually sounds familiar, but not so much that I'll admit to having heard it before).  Also, while payday lenders and the like would be the biggest losers, and while [big] banks mostly don't seem to want small depositors, I am most curious to know what the effect would be on banks.  There's a lot of inertia in banking, but the USPS has some serious advantages over the big banks even for people not in banking deserts.

People who currently have banks, but only a couple thousand $ in savings, at most, are mostly being screwed over if that money is in a bank.  Switching to credit unions broadly makes sense, but not all credit unions are equal, and many people who won't switch offer as reason credit unions' (and small banks') shortage of locations/ATMs.  USPS clearly doesn't have that issue.

It's Called Social Security

What a weird proposal this is.  Mandatory 6% savings of workers going into a retirement account.  Weird because we already have this thing and it's called Social Security.  Up the percentage from 6.2 to 9.2 (and matching employer--also, too, eliminate the cap) and then adjust SS payouts accordingly.  That has the potential added benefit of immediately boosting current SS recipients' incomes.

The Harkin proposal, on the other hand, is a pretty crappy not-even-second best.

Good Analogies

I really wish more people saw things in this way.  One thing I noticed reading the article that I'm surprised wasn't mentioned explicitly was poverty reduction as a benefit to the wealthy.  It is actually hinted at when he writes:

Taxation is a legal construction in exactly the same way as personal property rights are, and they are enforced using the same legal system that protects personal property rights. It is not reasonable to refuse to pay the membership fee for the country where you choose to live, while expecting the legal system of that country to protect your property from the desire of others to take it from you.

He could have easily pointed out at this point that taking care of the needs of the poor is a service to the rich expressly because it prevents them from becoming so destitute that stealing is a rational economic choice.  This directly throws a wrench in the argument that the rich get out less than they put in, because things like poverty reduction, crime prevention, and incarceration can actually be seen to benefit wealthy people much more than poor or middle class (they have more "stuff" to take).  

Optimism vs. Pessimism: "Ready Player One"

I finally read Ready Player One and thoroughly enjoyed it.  I was and am bothered, however, by an oddness in the book.  The future it paints is far more bleak than hopeful, but there is a very real and strong optimism throughout.  The oddness is that, while the pessimistic side of the book seems real enough to be prescient: I wouldn't be surprised if a world like that exists several decades into the future (though I think/hope it is further off than in the book), the optimistic side is...well, another matter.

At one level the optimism is individual in nature and I very much share it.  In order for it to have a greater (global) presence, however, it relies on some institutional (governmental and corporate) footings that--in our real world--are already eroding, and even gone and which seem far more likely to be anachronisms in the future (in particular the absolute privacy enjoyed in OASIS).  It feels like a throwback to the 80's even more in this way: the characters are able to enjoy a level of privacy that was much closer to reality 30 years ago.

I hope I'm wrong, but as things are today, IOI is the reality we are going to face.  GSS--no matter how well intended people may be--is a fantasy.

Income Mobility

Since the news came out that income mobility in this country, while crappy, has actually been pretty bad for a while, there's been some changing to the inequality debate.  Mostly not in a good direction.  It shouldn't need to be pointed out that mobility and inequality are very different issues.  It is possible to have very high mobility with simply insane inequality.  Imagine a country where the .01% owned 99% of the wealth, and everyone else was pretty much equal.  There could be a lot of mobility (it could be very easy for someone to move from the 10th to the 85th percentile if it only took an extra 20% of income to get there), but that level of inequality is still a major problem.

So these are two different issues and should be addressed as such.  It's great if people have the same chance as ever of making it to the top tier in this country, but it is pretty disgusting for that top tier to be so far separated from normal people (even upper middle class) as they are.  Two separate issues.  Not really even linked.

What Atrios Said

I wasn't particularly enamored with the Clinton administration (though the insane behavior of Republicans toward him made me take a more favorable view of him at the time).  I thought then--and do more so now--that by shifting so far to the right they were leaving a large swath of the public behind to gain the support of people (and businesses) who were broadly at odds with Democratic ideals which are quite popular.

Obama's rhetoric was good to hear, but his politics are in many ways even worse (i.e. more conservative).  In the end Clinton was more liberal than Reagan.  Obama really isn't.  I don't have high hopes for the upcoming State of the Union or what it will mean going forward.  Even if he sounds more populist, I just don't see any evidence that his policy positions will move that way.

Lab Created Organisms

Right now it's more thought than reality, and I'm not sure it's a whole lot different than extreme GMO but, like GMO's it has the potential to dramatically improve human welfare.  It also (again like GMO's) has the potential to be a huge boon to the companies that make them while doing little to help other people.

Not Doing it Right

I like coins, and keep a lazy person's collection (those I've gotten as change and think are cool), so at some level I'd be a little stoked to see a brown nickel (I'm guessing copper).  Really though, we should kill the nickel (along with the penny), up production of $1 coins and add $2 coins.

Elizabeth Warren is Awesome

I'm not really sure it's anti-government left so much as anti-establishment left, as she--and her supporters--is a very big supporter of government (to regulate, equalize, level the playing field...).  She just thinks it's currently broken.

Interesting Historical Note

England had, for a brief period of time, something much resembling a basic guaranteed income.  It seems like it worked quite well, though it had some issues--mostly to do with how it was implemented, though other marginal ones as well.  It was then and is now the moralistic argument against this that seems to resonate strongest and it is one that isn't easy to push back against rhetorically--experience, on the other hand pushes back nicely, but people like anecdotes over data and you can always find the anecdote that proves your side right.

I Hate CNN Money

Their personal finance is slanted so heavily to advice for people in much better shape than the general populace that I get pissed every time I read anything on it (which is very rarely).  This article on advice to a couple wanting to retire early is a fair example.  The couple sounds like a normal couple--early 40s, middle class jobs, couple kids--but they have $50k cash (seems like ~$150k in other investment), a $2000 monthly surplus and pensions (pensions!).  These are people who don't need advice.  They are so far ahead of the curve that most people should be asking them.  They don't have financial problems.

Most of the advice is fine, so far as it goes, though I'm a bit disgusted with the idea that anyone would think that $300k set aside to send kids to college was reasonable (actually, there's at least a fair chance the adviser doesn't find it reasonable, just necessary, but since they thought publishing advice to people who don't need it was a good idea, I'm not so generous here).

So few people in this country have pensions, that giving this couple advice in the personal finance section of Money is kind of like giving a millionaire advice: even if it's good, it doesn't really help real people.  If they really wanted to help out people then they would advise people in their mid-to-late 50s without pensions, with $80k in 401k's, and with $200k+ left on a mortgage, or people in their 20's and 30's with $60k of student loan debt, no assets, and income of $30k/year.  There's a lot more of them, and they need a lot of help.

...I suppose that, if I'm going to be fair, a fair chunk of readers of that site have a level of financial security more like the one in the article.