Consider this choice facing a smart, capable, motivated young person:
(a) Enter the corporate world and rise to a prominent position of power and wealth;
or
(b) Take additional education and enter the respected and secure world of the professions.
or
(c) Enter the world of politics and rise to a prominent position in the government.
For most young people, this is a no-brainer. Corporate executives can command people and resources to accomplish corporate objectives. Successful professionals have high civic status and a decent annual income, leading to a secure retirement. But politicians are widely hated, constantly abused, and obsessed with the task of raising enough contributions to get through the next elections. Instead of working for the public good, they are forced to focus on political survival.
One result is the lack of outstanding people willing to enter politics.Their real world career decisions mean that many elections, both primary and general, are uncontested (de facto or literally). This condition has been exaggerated by the partisan gerrymandering of Congressional districts.
The electoral process no longer provides the people a check on government -- you can throw out the incumbent bastard, it's true, but only to install the bastard from the opposite party. The public can't succeed in getting good people to elect unless those good people are on the ballot.
And by and large, they're not.
We need to overhaul our federal government. An awesome task, but the consequences of political deadlock on our children and grandchildren are unacceptable.
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Thursday, August 22, 2013
More on consumption payments
The consumption payment program (see previous post) would also:
Reduce or eliminate ordinary welfare, also SSDI (ultimately)
Since welfare is administered by the states, while consumption payments would be administered by SSA, this would tend to reduce the impact and variance of the state welfare bureaucracies. [States could continue welfare programs with state funds]
Consumption payments would be figured in in determining need for programs such as food stamps or other welfare programs.
Would provide low wage laborers a place to deposit paychecks (the bank required for direct deposit by SSA)
Would be avoided by illegal immigrants (because to be eligible, the recipient must apply for a SSAN, which includes info relative to citizenship, thereby favoring citizens at the expense of immigrants). Thus the payday loan companies would not be completely out of business.
Fraud in applying for an SSAN would carry penalties, including deportation; however the fraud would have to be proved in law (or admitted.)
Reduce or eliminate ordinary welfare, also SSDI (ultimately)
Since welfare is administered by the states, while consumption payments would be administered by SSA, this would tend to reduce the impact and variance of the state welfare bureaucracies. [States could continue welfare programs with state funds]
Consumption payments would be figured in in determining need for programs such as food stamps or other welfare programs.
Would provide low wage laborers a place to deposit paychecks (the bank required for direct deposit by SSA)
Would be avoided by illegal immigrants (because to be eligible, the recipient must apply for a SSAN, which includes info relative to citizenship, thereby favoring citizens at the expense of immigrants). Thus the payday loan companies would not be completely out of business.
Fraud in applying for an SSAN would carry penalties, including deportation; however the fraud would have to be proved in law (or admitted.)
Consumption payments
This post proposes the payment, in the United States, of a certain amount - for example $200 a month, to every individual, for the purposes of maintaining minimum levels of economic consumption. Payments would be made through the Social Security System.
Consumption payments would not be welfare, as they would be distributed equally to rich and poor.
Consumption payments would encourage every individual to enroll early in the Social Security System and to obtain a bank account, as the Social Security System prefers to make direct deposits.
With the guaranteed monthly deposits, banks would be motivated to open deposit accounts for all persons with a Social Security number.
Although not intended as welfare payments, consumption payments would nevertheless serve as an economic force to reduce poverty.
Consumption payments would be taxable as ordinary income, thereby requiring all persons receiving consumption payments to file tax returns.
With automation gradually taking away employment in the production sector, and the resulting unemployment maintaining downward pressure on wages in the service sector, consumption payments would reduce the effects of unemployment on reducing consumption in the United States, thereby benefiting landlords and retail businesses.
As enrollment in the Social Security System is a form of documentation, requiring the applicant to provide a domicile address, the consumption payment program would reduce the number of undocumented persons in the United States, thereby assisting the immigration program.
Consumption payments would not be welfare, as they would be distributed equally to rich and poor.
Consumption payments would encourage every individual to enroll early in the Social Security System and to obtain a bank account, as the Social Security System prefers to make direct deposits.
With the guaranteed monthly deposits, banks would be motivated to open deposit accounts for all persons with a Social Security number.
Although not intended as welfare payments, consumption payments would nevertheless serve as an economic force to reduce poverty.
Consumption payments would be taxable as ordinary income, thereby requiring all persons receiving consumption payments to file tax returns.
With automation gradually taking away employment in the production sector, and the resulting unemployment maintaining downward pressure on wages in the service sector, consumption payments would reduce the effects of unemployment on reducing consumption in the United States, thereby benefiting landlords and retail businesses.
As enrollment in the Social Security System is a form of documentation, requiring the applicant to provide a domicile address, the consumption payment program would reduce the number of undocumented persons in the United States, thereby assisting the immigration program.
Tuesday, July 23, 2013
Citizen Attorney General
Consider the effect of the following amendment to the Constitution:
Any citizen of the United States shall have the right to bring an action in federal court against any person, or organization, public or private, to enforce the constitution or laws of the United States. Any federal court of general jurisdiction may hear such a case, and any officer or governmental agency in the United States is required to carry out the orders of the court.
Any citizen of the United States shall have the right to bring an action in federal court against any person, or organization, public or private, to enforce the constitution or laws of the United States. Any federal court of general jurisdiction may hear such a case, and any officer or governmental agency in the United States is required to carry out the orders of the court.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Working people need an association
My wife and I are retired - haven't worked since 2000. The AARP looks out for the interests of retired people.
But who looks out for the interests of working people?
Working people include full time workers, part time workers, those who work at home, piecework workers, public sector workers, independent contractors, entrepreneurs, even bankers and elected officials.
In theory, working people are the bedrock foundation of the United States of America. But who looks out for the interests of working people?
What are the interests of working people? Primarily, to make a living. But even more, to get ahead. That's the story that made the United States great. People worked hard and got ahead. While some people will want to work several jobs, that shouldn't be a requirement. A person who works full time, that is 40 hours a week or more, should definitely make a living.
Second, working people should be protected. Accidents do happen, and if a person is unable to work for a while - or forever - due to sickness or injury, that person should be insured against loss of income until he or she can get back to work. Workers should have access to health care to keep them fit to work.
Finally, working people ought to benefit from some form of retirement pension, so that a person who works from the end of school to retirement is provided enough income and health care through the rest of life.
There are other things that might be nice, but those three major items - adequate compensation, protection against sickness or injury, and retirement benefits at the end of a working career - can be thought of as the working person's bill of rights.
But who looks out for the interests of working people?
We need an AAWP - an American Association of Working People - to look out for the interests of working people in America.
What do you think?
But who looks out for the interests of working people?
Working people include full time workers, part time workers, those who work at home, piecework workers, public sector workers, independent contractors, entrepreneurs, even bankers and elected officials.
In theory, working people are the bedrock foundation of the United States of America. But who looks out for the interests of working people?
What are the interests of working people? Primarily, to make a living. But even more, to get ahead. That's the story that made the United States great. People worked hard and got ahead. While some people will want to work several jobs, that shouldn't be a requirement. A person who works full time, that is 40 hours a week or more, should definitely make a living.
Second, working people should be protected. Accidents do happen, and if a person is unable to work for a while - or forever - due to sickness or injury, that person should be insured against loss of income until he or she can get back to work. Workers should have access to health care to keep them fit to work.
Finally, working people ought to benefit from some form of retirement pension, so that a person who works from the end of school to retirement is provided enough income and health care through the rest of life.
There are other things that might be nice, but those three major items - adequate compensation, protection against sickness or injury, and retirement benefits at the end of a working career - can be thought of as the working person's bill of rights.
But who looks out for the interests of working people?
We need an AAWP - an American Association of Working People - to look out for the interests of working people in America.
What do you think?
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
A Rising Tide
A rising tide floats the megayachts of the billionaires, the cabin cruisers of the merely wealthy, the warships of the powerful, the outboards of the plain successful, the kayaks of the up-and-coming yuppies.
But a rising tide just drowns the poverty-stricken, for they have no boat at all.
But a rising tide just drowns the poverty-stricken, for they have no boat at all.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Whither Academia?
Universities began as small communities of scholars, coming together to share the results of their study. Senior scholars became faculty; junior scholars were students.
Perhaps from the very beginnings the seeds of downfall were present: as soon as students were certificated for completion of prescribed courses of study, universities became credentialing organizations as well as centers of learning.
Whatever the history, the reality of today's universities is deplorable. Despite the immense expansion of scholarly work, there is no agreement on the need to seek truth. In fact universities sacrifice truth on the altar of power.
Universities (like other large organizations) have grown top-heavy, with ponderous committees and myriad deans, provosts, directors, and chancellors, together with assistants and associates thereof. Salaries have ballooned at the top, and the quest for money occupies the time of the leaders. Besides grants and titled chairs, universities have become professional sports empires. The search for truth is lost in the noise of power.
Students are not well-served by expensive institutions that do little to help graduates find employment commensurate with their education.
All the sadder is that politicians and businesses may buy the support of universities. Every crackpot theory of science or psychology or biology or economics can find both supporters and detractors within the halls of academe. The message to the public is -- there is no truth, just what you pay to have "supported by scientific research".
Meanwhile, human society continues to be plagued by the rampant illiteracy and innumeracy of the general public; the leading scholars of the world are incapable of seeing to the successful education of the masses.
Finally, universities, which ought to be bastions of open inquiry, do little to stand up to the predations of governments and other large and powerful organizations, which obscure the truth behind the twin veils of censorship and secrecy.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
It's not the numbers, it's the people.
We are all one species, homo sapiens, all of us are people. We're not 47% and we're not $5.3 trillion. We're flesh and blood; we live and breathe, work and play, talk and listen, marry and have children, get sick, grow old and die. All of us.
Our governments, it seems, insist on thinking of us as numbers. And our leaders often appear to deny their relationship to the rest of us people.
We can't escape from one another, although some of us try. We ride first class and drive luxury cars and live on the right side of the tracks, in gated and guarded communities, with all the amenities of success. We make reservations in restaurants and hire publicists and trainers and bodyguards.
A genealogist knows the truth - we are all related, with common ancestors revealed by public records and DNA. Perhaps some of us think of others of us as black sheep, but we're still kinfolk.
We can't be codified - we insist on being considered on a case-by-case basis. Rules are meant to be broken, not people.
The root of the word 'democracy' means 'power to the people.' To live up to its promise, democracy must be accountable to the people. Elections merely enable politicians to compete for the favor of the electorate; accountability means the grievances of all individuals must be heard and adjudicated. But we deny equal justice to all, and thereby we deny democracy. "And how much justice can you afford?" is not just the caption of a New Yorker cartoon, it is a shocking revelation of the truth.
We all owe an obligation to humanity; we can't escape it by shielding ourselves behind the trappings of power. We may never have visited a prison or a slum but our fellow humans are there. It's all very well for the powerful to assert the blessings of rugged individualism; but if those blessings end up accruing merely to the few, it's not democracy, it's aristocracy, or brahminism, or outright tyranny.
Government is not about jobs or schools or taxes or deficits or laws or security or farms or filibusters or banks or markets. It's about people.
The next time you read something filled with numbers ask yourself if those numbers merely serve to obscure the faces of unsuccessful humans. Ask yourself how those numbers relate, not just to you (whoever you may be) but to everybody else.
Our governments, it seems, insist on thinking of us as numbers. And our leaders often appear to deny their relationship to the rest of us people.
We can't escape from one another, although some of us try. We ride first class and drive luxury cars and live on the right side of the tracks, in gated and guarded communities, with all the amenities of success. We make reservations in restaurants and hire publicists and trainers and bodyguards.
A genealogist knows the truth - we are all related, with common ancestors revealed by public records and DNA. Perhaps some of us think of others of us as black sheep, but we're still kinfolk.
We can't be codified - we insist on being considered on a case-by-case basis. Rules are meant to be broken, not people.
The root of the word 'democracy' means 'power to the people.' To live up to its promise, democracy must be accountable to the people. Elections merely enable politicians to compete for the favor of the electorate; accountability means the grievances of all individuals must be heard and adjudicated. But we deny equal justice to all, and thereby we deny democracy. "And how much justice can you afford?" is not just the caption of a New Yorker cartoon, it is a shocking revelation of the truth.
We all owe an obligation to humanity; we can't escape it by shielding ourselves behind the trappings of power. We may never have visited a prison or a slum but our fellow humans are there. It's all very well for the powerful to assert the blessings of rugged individualism; but if those blessings end up accruing merely to the few, it's not democracy, it's aristocracy, or brahminism, or outright tyranny.
Government is not about jobs or schools or taxes or deficits or laws or security or farms or filibusters or banks or markets. It's about people.
The next time you read something filled with numbers ask yourself if those numbers merely serve to obscure the faces of unsuccessful humans. Ask yourself how those numbers relate, not just to you (whoever you may be) but to everybody else.
Tuesday, January 1, 2013
On Robots and Work
In regard to the books and articles about "the way robots are taking our jobs away from us."
Thinking about the huge number of jobs that used to be performed by humans that can now be performed better and perhaps cheaper by robots, we should have a wide-ranging discussion.
At least one of the threads which should be explored should be, "well, maybe humans should work less." But instead, the typical book or article on the subject goes right into "well, what other kinds of jobs might humans do?"
I've been trying to understand the reasons for this myopia and I've come up with at least two: (1) Calvinism is not dead; and (2) economic models have enthralled us.
For the first, I guess people (even Chomsky seems to go this way) assume people want to "work" although Chomsky thinks they shouldn't do slave labor for wages or salary. But Chomsky doesn't seem to think about people playing instead of working. Not that play can't be serious, but one suspects that Chomsky himself is too much caught up in Calvinist philosophy; he himself has been "working" harder than ever since his wife died.
Leaving aside the need to make money, I guess the Calvinism implies that the kind of "work" people "ought" to do consists of activities that will benefit others, activities that are not selfish, and that "play" is "frivolous" and not of use or value to society. What about art - is it work or play? But of course if there are lots of robots to do things, people might be free to play a great deal of the time.
For the second reason, the mystique of economic models, I guess that most people assume that if we didn't work for money then we wouldn't have any money. But manifestly this is not so. One has only to look at a country like Kuwait which plows a lot of oil money back into various social welfare projects (I'm not advocating moving to Kuwait). Money can be channeled (and is channeled) to people who don't work via government grants (viz., unemployment, welfare) and private charity. The problem here, of course, is that recipients of charity are DEEMED TO BE insufficient citizens because of their failure to work.
To a mathematician, all of this is so much balderdash. If 90% of the work could be done by robots, people could "work" 10% of the time in return for 100% of the salary (so there was enough money flowing to keep the economy flowing). Alternatively, if money was made equivalent to the labor of robots and it was made illegal to hire people to work for money, then human work, as we know it, would cease to exist, and we would rely on volunteer human activities to keep the robots busy.
The real issue is, how highly do we value having rich and poor people?
I think the rich value it a lot, because what they really want is implicit power over the poor, not just nice things for themselves. Status counts for a lot of power. So I think the rich will push for Calvinism and push for the existing economic model and force the poor to earn less and less and at the same time damn the poor for accepting welfare or charity, and struggle to get even richer and to help their children be rich, too.
That last paragraph delineates the problem that must be solved first, before we worry about the effects of smart machines. It is of course, a moral problem, and it is defined in human terms, not in dollars.
Thinking about the huge number of jobs that used to be performed by humans that can now be performed better and perhaps cheaper by robots, we should have a wide-ranging discussion.
At least one of the threads which should be explored should be, "well, maybe humans should work less." But instead, the typical book or article on the subject goes right into "well, what other kinds of jobs might humans do?"
I've been trying to understand the reasons for this myopia and I've come up with at least two: (1) Calvinism is not dead; and (2) economic models have enthralled us.
For the first, I guess people (even Chomsky seems to go this way) assume people want to "work" although Chomsky thinks they shouldn't do slave labor for wages or salary. But Chomsky doesn't seem to think about people playing instead of working. Not that play can't be serious, but one suspects that Chomsky himself is too much caught up in Calvinist philosophy; he himself has been "working" harder than ever since his wife died.
Leaving aside the need to make money, I guess the Calvinism implies that the kind of "work" people "ought" to do consists of activities that will benefit others, activities that are not selfish, and that "play" is "frivolous" and not of use or value to society. What about art - is it work or play? But of course if there are lots of robots to do things, people might be free to play a great deal of the time.
For the second reason, the mystique of economic models, I guess that most people assume that if we didn't work for money then we wouldn't have any money. But manifestly this is not so. One has only to look at a country like Kuwait which plows a lot of oil money back into various social welfare projects (I'm not advocating moving to Kuwait). Money can be channeled (and is channeled) to people who don't work via government grants (viz., unemployment, welfare) and private charity. The problem here, of course, is that recipients of charity are DEEMED TO BE insufficient citizens because of their failure to work.
To a mathematician, all of this is so much balderdash. If 90% of the work could be done by robots, people could "work" 10% of the time in return for 100% of the salary (so there was enough money flowing to keep the economy flowing). Alternatively, if money was made equivalent to the labor of robots and it was made illegal to hire people to work for money, then human work, as we know it, would cease to exist, and we would rely on volunteer human activities to keep the robots busy.
The real issue is, how highly do we value having rich and poor people?
I think the rich value it a lot, because what they really want is implicit power over the poor, not just nice things for themselves. Status counts for a lot of power. So I think the rich will push for Calvinism and push for the existing economic model and force the poor to earn less and less and at the same time damn the poor for accepting welfare or charity, and struggle to get even richer and to help their children be rich, too.
That last paragraph delineates the problem that must be solved first, before we worry about the effects of smart machines. It is of course, a moral problem, and it is defined in human terms, not in dollars.
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Middle class politics
Consider a broad central spectrum of the middle class - say the middle 60% of the people, or from the 20th to 80th percentile. According to census data for 2011, these are families with annual household income from $20,262 to $101,582.
My wife and I base our observations of the middle class on the people we meet in our travels around the United States. We seldom meet the rich or the poor; our contacts are generally with middle America. To us it seems as if there are some very strong political trends among these middle class people.
They are enormous advocates of economic freedom. Whenever their family arrived in America, they came primarily for the economic opportunity, which was so much better than the country they left. They are certain that they can prosper in America by virtue of hard work.
At the same time, they are worried about their security in old age. They understand that these household income levels - roughly $20,000 to $100,000 a year - are insufficient to allow them to save for retirement. They know they will live a long time, they know that social security will not pay them enough to retire, and so they must rely on some retirement plan or package, and they know that they won't make as much in retirement as they do while working.
So this central middle class in America is motivated by both income opportunity and income insecurity. They want to do it themselves, but they are worried about being able to afford to retire.
As a result, this middle class strongly favors lower taxes, to enable them to stretch their current income and to save for retirement. And they are strongly opposed to public welfare, which they see as taking away their hard-earned money and giving it to the lower 20%. They believe they can advance their position economically and grow into the upper 20% through hard work and savings, so they are not opposed to getting rich - in fact they hope for that to happen. In short, the American middle class tend to be quite conservative economically.
In many Western European countries, on the other hand, there is a strong economic safety net for retirement; there the central middle class feels that public pensions are adequate, and that they only need to accumulate modest savings to have an enjoyable retirement. In other words, there is much less income insecurity than in America. As a result, the middle class in Western Europe is more liberal.
In the 1960s and 1970s American politicians made an effort to provide greater economic security for the middle class: the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was conceived during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and passed into law during the Nixon and Ford administrations. The intent was to provide a reliable network of private pensions which would adequately fund the retirement of the middle class.
But we all know that the promise of private pension plans in America is illusory. Towards the lower end of the economic spectrum, many employers simply do not offer private pension plans. Also, many Americans in the lower middle class rely on part time jobs with no fringe benefits. ERISA did not require companies to use independent financial firms to finance their retirement plans, so when a company fails, the retirement plan may also fail. ERISA did not require companies to contribute significant amounts to 401(k) plans, so the amounts accumulated towards retirement are usually insufficient. Finally, ERISA did not prevent Americans from withdrawing funds from their retirement plans, so frequently the retirement package never grows large enough to support a secure retirement. As a result, the retirement insecurity persists in the new millenium.
Social Security is frequently an unloved program for no other reason than its social insecurity - it fails to provide an adequate retirement for the middle class.
The simple economic realities described above, namely the strong motivation in favor of economic freedom and opportunity, coupled with the feeling of economic insecurity as retirement age approaches, leads to an American middle class that will continue to support a conservative economic political agenda, with low taxes and low welfare payments.
My wife and I base our observations of the middle class on the people we meet in our travels around the United States. We seldom meet the rich or the poor; our contacts are generally with middle America. To us it seems as if there are some very strong political trends among these middle class people.
They are enormous advocates of economic freedom. Whenever their family arrived in America, they came primarily for the economic opportunity, which was so much better than the country they left. They are certain that they can prosper in America by virtue of hard work.
At the same time, they are worried about their security in old age. They understand that these household income levels - roughly $20,000 to $100,000 a year - are insufficient to allow them to save for retirement. They know they will live a long time, they know that social security will not pay them enough to retire, and so they must rely on some retirement plan or package, and they know that they won't make as much in retirement as they do while working.
So this central middle class in America is motivated by both income opportunity and income insecurity. They want to do it themselves, but they are worried about being able to afford to retire.
As a result, this middle class strongly favors lower taxes, to enable them to stretch their current income and to save for retirement. And they are strongly opposed to public welfare, which they see as taking away their hard-earned money and giving it to the lower 20%. They believe they can advance their position economically and grow into the upper 20% through hard work and savings, so they are not opposed to getting rich - in fact they hope for that to happen. In short, the American middle class tend to be quite conservative economically.
In many Western European countries, on the other hand, there is a strong economic safety net for retirement; there the central middle class feels that public pensions are adequate, and that they only need to accumulate modest savings to have an enjoyable retirement. In other words, there is much less income insecurity than in America. As a result, the middle class in Western Europe is more liberal.
In the 1960s and 1970s American politicians made an effort to provide greater economic security for the middle class: the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) was conceived during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and passed into law during the Nixon and Ford administrations. The intent was to provide a reliable network of private pensions which would adequately fund the retirement of the middle class.
But we all know that the promise of private pension plans in America is illusory. Towards the lower end of the economic spectrum, many employers simply do not offer private pension plans. Also, many Americans in the lower middle class rely on part time jobs with no fringe benefits. ERISA did not require companies to use independent financial firms to finance their retirement plans, so when a company fails, the retirement plan may also fail. ERISA did not require companies to contribute significant amounts to 401(k) plans, so the amounts accumulated towards retirement are usually insufficient. Finally, ERISA did not prevent Americans from withdrawing funds from their retirement plans, so frequently the retirement package never grows large enough to support a secure retirement. As a result, the retirement insecurity persists in the new millenium.
Social Security is frequently an unloved program for no other reason than its social insecurity - it fails to provide an adequate retirement for the middle class.
The simple economic realities described above, namely the strong motivation in favor of economic freedom and opportunity, coupled with the feeling of economic insecurity as retirement age approaches, leads to an American middle class that will continue to support a conservative economic political agenda, with low taxes and low welfare payments.
Sunday, December 16, 2012
Wrong debate
I think the media is presenting the wrong post-election debate. They're
going on and on about electoral constituencies according to race,
religion, ethnicity, etc. I don't think a successful presidential
candidate needs to win the Hispanic vote or the Catholic vote or the
Asian vote or whatever.
Instead, I think the issue really is economic class. I think Obama won because a lot of lower and lower-middle class voters voted for him because they absolutely could not identify with Romney. It's true that Romney was seen as other, but not primarily because he was white male. People are accustomed to being ruled by white males, and are perfectly willing to vote for white males (arguably Obama himself is a white male). Romney lost, I think, because he lost too much of the lower economic spectrum.
So I think the problem for the Republican party is this: They have built an enormous platform about one key issue: lowering taxes. But for a lot of Americans, lowering taxes isn't the issue - it's having enough money to worry about taxes - it's having a job - it's getting a living wage - it's getting off unemployment, getting off the dole, and not being afraid of ever going back on the dole again.
And Romney (with his infamous 47% remark) told all those out-of-work or part-time-work people that HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THEM. Moreover, the Republican party is telling the bottom economic classes that THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THEM.
And because of the rising INCOME INEQUALITY, the lower economic classes are becoming MORE AND MORE IMPORTANT POLITICALLY.
The Republican Party has put itself in the untenable position of TRYING TO KEEP POOR PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE VOTING BOOTH.
And that, I believe, rather than the Hispanic or whatever vote, is what is going to kill the party.
The Tea Party members are all middle class people. They have jobs and they think they're well paid. But they mistakenly think that most Americans are like them - regard themselves as solidly in the middle class WITH NO FEAR OF FALLING INTO A LOWER ECONOMIC CLASS.
The people with this fear will choose to vote for the party they perceive will allay that fear. Right now that's the Democrats.
Put another way, the Republicans have failed to demonstrate that cutting taxes will create jobs.
Instead, I think the issue really is economic class. I think Obama won because a lot of lower and lower-middle class voters voted for him because they absolutely could not identify with Romney. It's true that Romney was seen as other, but not primarily because he was white male. People are accustomed to being ruled by white males, and are perfectly willing to vote for white males (arguably Obama himself is a white male). Romney lost, I think, because he lost too much of the lower economic spectrum.
So I think the problem for the Republican party is this: They have built an enormous platform about one key issue: lowering taxes. But for a lot of Americans, lowering taxes isn't the issue - it's having enough money to worry about taxes - it's having a job - it's getting a living wage - it's getting off unemployment, getting off the dole, and not being afraid of ever going back on the dole again.
And Romney (with his infamous 47% remark) told all those out-of-work or part-time-work people that HE DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THEM. Moreover, the Republican party is telling the bottom economic classes that THE REPUBLICAN PARTY DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THEM.
And because of the rising INCOME INEQUALITY, the lower economic classes are becoming MORE AND MORE IMPORTANT POLITICALLY.
The Republican Party has put itself in the untenable position of TRYING TO KEEP POOR PEOPLE AWAY FROM THE VOTING BOOTH.
And that, I believe, rather than the Hispanic or whatever vote, is what is going to kill the party.
The Tea Party members are all middle class people. They have jobs and they think they're well paid. But they mistakenly think that most Americans are like them - regard themselves as solidly in the middle class WITH NO FEAR OF FALLING INTO A LOWER ECONOMIC CLASS.
The people with this fear will choose to vote for the party they perceive will allay that fear. Right now that's the Democrats.
Put another way, the Republicans have failed to demonstrate that cutting taxes will create jobs.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Learning
American students are doing poorly in schools; test scores are low relative to other developed nations. Although we spend more per capita on education than other countries, we're not getting the results.
At the same time access to knowledge has never been easier: the internet is loaded with facts and information - Wikipedia is the main example, but far from the only one. It would seem that education should be thriving with all this free learning at hand.
The problem, I learned fifty years ago as a new teacher, is a disagreement about the goals of education. "The knowledge," I said, "is free. You pay for the credential."
I find it disturbing that employers put so much stake in credentials and so little stake in knowledge. Years ago, many individuals practiced professions with no formal training at all. They were self-taught. Today a self-taught professional is a museum piece.
Yet the primary characteristic of a credential is that the holder has submitted to the rules, regulations, and requirements and, yes, paid the bills, to obtain the credential.
In seeking the social causes of poverty in America we need look no further than lack of education - both in terms of credentials and knowledge.
Through hundreds of years of institutionalized schooling, most of us have lost our regard for learning. We have given our decision making into the hands of experts, and the average citizen cannot readily be heard, no matter how much he or she knows.
As ordinary citizens we could do little better than encouraging everyone to study and seek the truth. Besides helping us adapt to a complex modern society, we might encourage a more cooperative approach to our politics.
At the same time access to knowledge has never been easier: the internet is loaded with facts and information - Wikipedia is the main example, but far from the only one. It would seem that education should be thriving with all this free learning at hand.
The problem, I learned fifty years ago as a new teacher, is a disagreement about the goals of education. "The knowledge," I said, "is free. You pay for the credential."
I find it disturbing that employers put so much stake in credentials and so little stake in knowledge. Years ago, many individuals practiced professions with no formal training at all. They were self-taught. Today a self-taught professional is a museum piece.
Yet the primary characteristic of a credential is that the holder has submitted to the rules, regulations, and requirements and, yes, paid the bills, to obtain the credential.
In seeking the social causes of poverty in America we need look no further than lack of education - both in terms of credentials and knowledge.
Through hundreds of years of institutionalized schooling, most of us have lost our regard for learning. We have given our decision making into the hands of experts, and the average citizen cannot readily be heard, no matter how much he or she knows.
As ordinary citizens we could do little better than encouraging everyone to study and seek the truth. Besides helping us adapt to a complex modern society, we might encourage a more cooperative approach to our politics.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Powerful People
Despite sensational news coverage, we should understand that powerful people have always worked hard to keep their power. It was true last year, a hundred years ago, a thousand years ago, and in prehistoric times. Whether by force or persuasion or bribery or extortion or campaigning and advertising for elections, the "ins" want to stay "in." And usually they do.
So we should reserve our surprise for those rare occasions when a powerful person willingly leaves the corridors of power for a peaceful quiet retirement. That would be news!
So we should reserve our surprise for those rare occasions when a powerful person willingly leaves the corridors of power for a peaceful quiet retirement. That would be news!
Friday, September 14, 2012
Anyone seen a quadruple?
My wife and I play a game while driving.
We keep an eye out for a string of trailers, each of a different means of transportation.
We got the idea when we saw an RV pulling a jeep behind, and riding on the back of the jeep were four bicycles. We called that a triple, although of course the jeep wasn't actually towing the bikes.
Now we're on the lookout for a quadruple. Maybe a truck towing a big boat which has a small rubber dinghy attached, containing a skateboard. Or perhaps a fifth wheel with a motocross bike and a kid's scooter. You get the idea.
Lots of our recreational pursuits involve means of transportation - hang gliders, snow boards, zip lines, ice skates, air boats, hot rods, tricycles (for young and old). And they're all out on the highways of America.
Send us a photo of your favorite - special mention for a quadruple!
We keep an eye out for a string of trailers, each of a different means of transportation.
We got the idea when we saw an RV pulling a jeep behind, and riding on the back of the jeep were four bicycles. We called that a triple, although of course the jeep wasn't actually towing the bikes.
Now we're on the lookout for a quadruple. Maybe a truck towing a big boat which has a small rubber dinghy attached, containing a skateboard. Or perhaps a fifth wheel with a motocross bike and a kid's scooter. You get the idea.
Lots of our recreational pursuits involve means of transportation - hang gliders, snow boards, zip lines, ice skates, air boats, hot rods, tricycles (for young and old). And they're all out on the highways of America.
Send us a photo of your favorite - special mention for a quadruple!
Justice for the poor
It's a sad truth of our system of law that the harshest penalties are dealt out to the poor. The rich can always hire lawyers, raise bail, and appeal to juries and judges; the poor lack both the means and the social finesse to protect themselves from the harshest judgments and sentences. Wealthy corporations often settle cases before the investigation leads to criminal charges in court, paying money without admitting liability to have the criminal investigation stopped.
My idea of accountability is that those in the highest positions of wealth and responsibility owe the highest duty to be law abiding and ethical in all that they do; for if such individuals err, they set a bad example for all of society. In my view, the rich should generally receive the harshest penalties and be denied the ability to buy off the system by negotiating a bargain.
In fact the situation is the opposite, and it's hard to be proud of a system that punishes the poorest and weakest citizens the most harshly.
My idea of accountability is that those in the highest positions of wealth and responsibility owe the highest duty to be law abiding and ethical in all that they do; for if such individuals err, they set a bad example for all of society. In my view, the rich should generally receive the harshest penalties and be denied the ability to buy off the system by negotiating a bargain.
In fact the situation is the opposite, and it's hard to be proud of a system that punishes the poorest and weakest citizens the most harshly.
Eternal Remembrance
After retirement, my wife and I took up genealogy. As we expanded our database to over 11,000 relatives, we understood on a visceral level that all humans are related, and that history begins with an understanding of people and families. Now as travelers we are always aware of the contributions of individuals to communities.
But we've discovered that the tools of our trade as genealogists are eroding. Censuses no longer compile detailed personal information on individuals that is valuable to their descendants; local newspapers no longer publish (and even index) long newsy columns of personal information about residents and their friends and families; families today seldom pay for purchasing a cemetery plot and erecting an expensive polished granite monument.
We live in a throwaway world, and it's depressing to think of us throwing away the details of the lives of so many worthwhile and interesting human beings.
Memories need stimulation; one appreciates that obvious truth as one ages. I wish that we would return to the kind of permanent human records that used to characterize our society, and imparted such a human dimension to history.
So in a way it's pleasant to see the frequent memorials erected along our highways to remember the victims of highway accidents. No doubt the highway departments hope to encourage safe driving by reminding us of the perils of the roads, but the brilliant floral embellishments to these roadside markers testify to the love of those left behind.
The start of history is our remembrance of people, family and friends who are no longer living.
But we've discovered that the tools of our trade as genealogists are eroding. Censuses no longer compile detailed personal information on individuals that is valuable to their descendants; local newspapers no longer publish (and even index) long newsy columns of personal information about residents and their friends and families; families today seldom pay for purchasing a cemetery plot and erecting an expensive polished granite monument.
We live in a throwaway world, and it's depressing to think of us throwing away the details of the lives of so many worthwhile and interesting human beings.
Memories need stimulation; one appreciates that obvious truth as one ages. I wish that we would return to the kind of permanent human records that used to characterize our society, and imparted such a human dimension to history.
So in a way it's pleasant to see the frequent memorials erected along our highways to remember the victims of highway accidents. No doubt the highway departments hope to encourage safe driving by reminding us of the perils of the roads, but the brilliant floral embellishments to these roadside markers testify to the love of those left behind.
The start of history is our remembrance of people, family and friends who are no longer living.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
The Machine Revolution
It was more than 50 years ago that I first realized that machines were going to take over the world - by which I mean that almost all the jobs that humans do would soon be done by machines.
I formed that opinion because as a mathematician I understood that a lot of our most difficult intellectual tasks could readily be accomplished by computers. Sure enough, for example, a computer became the world's best chess player.
But what really brought the revolution home recently was the understanding that machines were "driving" cars on the roads of the U.S., that is to say, there are driverless cars (put there by Google) in operation today, even as I write this. Wow!
If you browse around the internet a bit, you'll soon discover a marvelous world of robots, drones, automata, and other ilk of truly wonderful machines. It is no exaggeration to say that machines are capable of doing virtually anything that humans now do.
I think I'll save the implications of the machine revolution for a later post. Meanwhile, you think about it.
I formed that opinion because as a mathematician I understood that a lot of our most difficult intellectual tasks could readily be accomplished by computers. Sure enough, for example, a computer became the world's best chess player.
But what really brought the revolution home recently was the understanding that machines were "driving" cars on the roads of the U.S., that is to say, there are driverless cars (put there by Google) in operation today, even as I write this. Wow!
If you browse around the internet a bit, you'll soon discover a marvelous world of robots, drones, automata, and other ilk of truly wonderful machines. It is no exaggeration to say that machines are capable of doing virtually anything that humans now do.
I think I'll save the implications of the machine revolution for a later post. Meanwhile, you think about it.
Monday, September 3, 2012
Security hawks
The United States overreacted to 9/11. We federalized the TSA, established the Department of Homeland Security, and diverted federal law enforcement assets to anti-terrorist duties. Public buildings which used to be freely accessible to the public they serve are now surrounded by barriers and screening detectors.
Of course any security agency can be counted on to tell you that you need to pay more attention (and devote more assets) to security. If you follow their recommendations slavishly, soon security will be the biggest chunk of the discretionary budget.
Al Qaeda wanted to disrupt our economy on 9/11. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, chiefly because we shifted assets that should have been used for economic growth to security activities. We should have said, "We'll carry on as usual and not let some crazed terrorists disrupt our excellent society and our excellent economy and our excellent trust of our citizenry."
We need to reclaim our country from the security hawks, who would continue to increase our country's expenditure on security, and continue to erode our fundamental freedom.
Of course any security agency can be counted on to tell you that you need to pay more attention (and devote more assets) to security. If you follow their recommendations slavishly, soon security will be the biggest chunk of the discretionary budget.
Al Qaeda wanted to disrupt our economy on 9/11. They succeeded beyond their wildest dreams, chiefly because we shifted assets that should have been used for economic growth to security activities. We should have said, "We'll carry on as usual and not let some crazed terrorists disrupt our excellent society and our excellent economy and our excellent trust of our citizenry."
We need to reclaim our country from the security hawks, who would continue to increase our country's expenditure on security, and continue to erode our fundamental freedom.
Half mast
The American flag is frequently flown at half mast from certain public buildings. This is clearly done to express official observance of an individual or event. Why should this observance be kept secret from the public? Effectively it is - have you ever asked, "Why is the flag at half mast?" and received an unsatisfactory reply? And what of those who are curious but don't know who to ask?
I have no immediate solution to offer, but it seems to me the lack of public awareness when a flag is flown at half mast symbolizes the weakness of the interaction between government and the people.
I have no immediate solution to offer, but it seems to me the lack of public awareness when a flag is flown at half mast symbolizes the weakness of the interaction between government and the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)