Labor Pains

The Washington Post published a piece contrasting stagnant wages against rising inflation and America’s current bout of economic growth. My favorite takeaway is here:

The lack of wage growth has befuddled economists and policymakers, who hoped that after job openings hit record highs and the unemployment rate dipped to the lowest level in decades, employers would give beefy raises to attract and retain workers. But so far, gains have been slight, and small recent increases are being eclipsed by rising prices.

I’m not sure why economists are confused by this, really. 

The recession taught businesses that they didn’t need to have a full staff to run a business. People would still use the business because they had little or no alternative. (IE, why Walmart and Target have no cash registers open whenever you go there.)

It also taught businesses that raising wages is counterproductive because they can get by with fewer people in the first place. Businesses aren’t going to raise wages when all wages are low because what are workers going to to, suddenly become skilled? No, they’re going to take the jobs offered them. 

This is common sense. 

America’s service economy is going to mostly be made up of jobs that anyone can do. And, when anyone can do them, there’s no reason to try to attract workers. There’s no where else for them to go. 

Rejecting The Future, Demagogue Style

Political spectators had a rare treat over the last eight years to view the types presidential candidates fall into. Since 2008 we’ve seen three personalities emerge: The Leader, the Demagogue, and the Pragmatist.

The Leader offers us hope and a vision. The Leader will stand in front of us and tell us the truth. But that truth is offered alongside a vision. Bad news cannot stop us and good news means we’re soaring to new heights.

“We will succeed,” the Leader says, “because that is who we are.”

The Demagogue offers a type of hope, I guess. There’s certainly a vision. A fearful vision. A distorted vision of the present and a horrifying view of the future.

“We are failing,” the Demagogue tells us, “because that is what they want for us. We won’t succeed unless we upend society. They’ve stacked the deck against you and I’m the one to flip the table over. For you.”

                                                       

Of course, the Demagogue can’t do that. The Demagogue loses if the table flips because the Demagogue helped stack the deck. The Demagogue may change things but it won’t help the Demagogue’s followers.

Make no mistake, though. The Demagogue has created an “other” to face blame and those poor people will surely suffer. Getting rid of the scapegoats won’t solve the problems, of course. Maybe reality will set in among the Demagogue’s followers. More likely, the Demagogue will just change to some other unfortunate people and the cycle will begin again.

This is how the Demagogue stays in power.

Finally, we have the Pragmatist. The Pragmatist is honest and truthful. The Pragmatist will stand before us and tell us what is happening. While the Pragmatist lacks a soaring rhetoric, there is a vision. That vision and the Pragmatist’s passion are tempered, though, by a realistic plan.

In lieu of hope, the Pragmatist offers diligence. A Pragmatist will dream of things that never were and, instead of asking “Why not?” will ask “How can that come to be?” The Pragmatist wants to create that roadmap.

In 2016 we saw a Demagogue narrowly beat a Pragmatist. Despite my excitement for the first Madam President, I’m willing to admit Hillary Clinton rarely spoke to my heart. Hillary Clinton told us the truth. Despite popular opinion, she talked to us about jobs. She told us how she wanted to build jobs. She set out a roadmap for that future.

Unfortunately, some of us didn’t want that future. Instead, they bought a miracle cure from a Demagogue. Donald Trump offered us a miracle elixir to preserve the status quo.

“This oil doesn’t just cure the status quo,” he said. “No, this elixir will reverse history.”

Donald Trump went to coal country and sold a snake oil cure for change. He went to the rust belt and offered a magic pill that would claw jobs back from overseas and undo automation. He would undo history.

He sold us this cure for the future based on outrageous lies. He lied about the economy, he lied about crime, and he lied about Hillary Clinton. Most of all, he blamed every demographic group—except white people—for our faults and the coming catastrophes.

Demagogues can’t undo the past and there’s no remedy for the future. Only a Leader and a Pragmatist will plan for the future instead of pretending it won’t happen.

Change marches to the beat of profit margins. When history keeps unfolding and his followers are left behind, what will they do? They were spared the wrath of the Demagogue before. But a Demagogue leads through fear.

Eventually, his eye will have to turn somewhere.

Let's Talk Electors

Alright, Ezra Klein posted a link to this Vox post by Andrew Prokop the other day and this immediately caught my eye. 

As I wrote recently, this effort was “almost certainly doomed” and “essentially a call for destroying American democracy.” I also argued that despite the high-minded rhetoric about what the Founding Fathers would have wanted, it was also “essentially an attempt to steal an election that Trump fairly won.”

No way is this a fair assessment. 

First, it is a fact that Hamilton defended the Electoral College as a firewall between a candidate that won based on showmanship, empty rhetoric, or cheating. Or, 

Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union[.] (The Federalist Papers No. 68)

Based on what we've learned of Trump's cabinet, we know that his rhetoric was empty. We know he has no intention of fulfilling the promises he made to his voters. 

We also have a high degree of confidence that Trump was aided by a foreign government through espionage and a psy-ops campaign against his opponent.

We know that Trump has a ludicrous number of conflicting interests. He will almost certainly be violating the constitution on his first moment of office. We also know that his conflicts of interest include interests in the country that likely compromised our election. 

To say that Trump won fairly despite getting almost 3 million fewer votes than his opponent is to admit he gamed the electoral college. If you admit the electoral college is picking the winner despite the votes, you have to look at the reason for the electoral college. 

It might sound pedantic but it's hardly "high-minded." American democracy is a combination of a popular vote and a group of undemocratically chosen electors. Calling on the electors to consider and deliberate on their choice is part of American democracy.

Religious Freedom Ridiculousness Acts

Indiana becomes the latest state to pass a "religious freedom restoration act," laws ostensibly needed to protect people's sincerely held religious beliefs. 

These laws are good and bad. For instance, development on sacred grounds or a prohibition on using hallucinogens in religious practices is unacceptable. But when those laws open the door for discrimination or irresponsibility in one's profession the become a serious issue.

So, in Indiana, we supposedly have shock and surprise from lawmakers at the backlash the law has garnered. 

Well, no shit. The law is broadly worded in a landscape where religious freedom has joined States' Rights as a magic word allowing people to bypass federal and state laws. And, apparently, social norms. 

I get it. You're a florist or baker opposed to gay marriage on principle. You're a pharmacist that sincerely believes that Plan B is tantamount to abortion. You're a doctor opposed to abortion in any circumstance. I respect those beliefs and I'd hope any of those people would respect my beliefs as sincerely.

Here's the issue. You've chosen to open your bakery or flower shop to the general public. You've entered into a social contract that requires civility and a modicum of respect for others.

If a church chooses not to perform gay marriages, that's a well-defined boundary. A church is a private, faith based organization. By definition it exists to promote and adhere to a set of morals and virtues. 

But a doctor is (rarely) a pastor. A pharmacist is rarely ordained. 

Plan B is not abortion, full stop. The best medical literature has not found any evidence that Plan B is tantamount to an abortion. Pharmacists are in a profession based on that science. Despite a belief to the contrary, a pharmacist is obligated to act on that neutral, scientific evidence. 

A doctor is bound not only by the same scientific principles but the Hippocratic oath. Since scientific literature is not necessarily clear on the biology of all aspects of abortion, I am perfectly willing to accept an exemption for elective abortions. 

However, in a life or death situation, a doctor has to rely on the wishes of their patient or revert to triage. The patient most likely to survive takes precedence. 

For a tl;dr, once you choose to operate in a public, secular environment your operations and actions are no longer governed by faith-based convictions. 

Wal Mart and the Paupers

Today the Nation Labor Relations Board sided with workers against Wal Mart employees trying to take a stand against Wal Mart's anti-labor practices. 

In its statement, the NLRB explained: “During two national television news broadcasts and in statements to employees at Walmart stores in California and Texas, Walmart unlawfully threatened employees with reprisal if they engaged in strikes and protests on November 22, 2012.” It also ruled that “Walmart stores in California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Washington unlawfully threatened, disciplined, and/or terminated employees for having engaged in legally protected strikes and protests.”
http://www.thenation.com/article/177254/labor-board-sides-workers-walmart-cant-silence-employees-any-longer

This is a major victory for everyone. Wal Mart workers are pushed onto Medicaid and Food Stamps because if the chains abysmal wages. Taxpayers are literally footing the bill for Wal Mart's low prices.

If we want a market based economy, it's time we actually stood up and held the free marketeers accountable for their actions. 

Otherwise, allow the government to subsidize private employees. Of course, that would require that we stop slashing spending to SNAP and TANF benefits. 

Reports Of Your Insurance Plan's Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

There’s something I have to get off my chest.

Human interest stories about people whose insurance costs are "skyrocketing" under the ACA are starting to blossom. These articles are at best misstating what’s going on or--at worst--deliberately misleading consumers about the Obamacare changes. If I may:

1) Most Americans--including me--are insured by their employers who, in turn, get tax incentives to subsidize their employees' insurance. In my case, I pay about 20% of my premium. My employer covers about 80% of my total plan's cost. That's pretty typical. 

My cost is going up by about $20 next January. Is that annoying? Yes. Is it good for me? Yes! To comply with the ACA my insurance has to change to cover pediatric care (including vision & dental); emergency services and hospitalization; maternity and newborn care; lab services; rehabilitative care; preventative care including free screenings and physicals; mental health and substance abuse treatment; and prescription drug coverage. 

Plus! There's no lifetime cap on benefits and they can't terminate or change my plan suddenly if, say, one of us got sick. Or it's possible my son will need treatment for dyspraxia. Before the ACA, there was a lifetime cap on how much treatment my insurance would pay for. Or consider someone with a chronic disease. Now that person can't exhaust their benefits. 

I mention this because it's the insurance most people are familiar with. About 80% of people with insurance have policies subsidized by their employers. So, when they see stories about rising premiums and see their own premiums increase, like mine, they're undoubtedly concerned. 

There's a second type of market, though. Individual plans for the self-employed or for people who don't have an employer-provided plan. 

Importantly, this market hasn't been "in the light," so to speak. A lot of the complications and changes that are getting media attention are simply things on the individual market seeing the light of day.

Which brings me to...

2) The policies being cancelled are mostly limited to the individual market. A lot of them are low premium, high deductible plans with low lifetime caps. For instance, some plans might be $56 a month. But they cover, essentially, nothing. If a person with a catastrophic plan like that gets sick they're shit outta luck. Their insurance might pay, say, $10,000 (being generous) and the rest of the $200,000 falls on the patient's shoulders. 

The policies are being cancelled because they don't meet the minimum requirements under the ACA. Those plans have to actually, you know, provide benefits. These junk plans are grandfathered if they existed before March, 2010 and haven't changed since. 

So, I understand the sticker shock and I get the frustration when people see premiums go from $70 a month to maybe $300 or more. 

On the other hand, the ACA offers a federally funded expansion of Medicaid for low income families, children, and the elderly. Almost all Democratic state legislatures have expanded the coverage and are accepting the additional funds. Some Republican-controlled states like Ohio have expanded Medicaid and are accepting the funds. Most Republican states have not. So their residents are going to be stuck between getting Medicaid and getting help paying for a private plan. 

Which is another major point. Depending on someone's income, the sticker price of a private plan isn't what someone would actually pay. Someone getting a $400 a month plan might qualify for subsidies that lower their monthly total to $80 a month. Much easier to handle. 

Still an extra cost? Yes. But, much cheaper than betting against getting sick, having a child, needing medication, or having an accident. Statistically speaking it's like betting red on a roulette table with only four red spots.

Don't get me wrong. I understand the concerns. And even the idea that you should be "free" not to buy insurance and take that bet. But, if you do, you're only making everyone else's bills higher.

It's frustrating that the headlines are *technically* correct but extremely misleading. They don't mention those expanded benefits. They don't point out that insurers canceling plans or raising costs exponentially are private insurers padding their bottom lines. Or, in some cases, trying to defraud their customers (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/insurance-companies-misleading-letters-obamacare).

End rant.

A reference to Syria

I think this post from The People's View is a good read on Syria. (http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2013/09/spend-money-at-home-instead-and-theres.html?m=1)

I'm generally against war and the suffering it brings. But I'm not a pacifist. Military force can be justified when there is a defined reason and a stated outcome. 

The 2003 Iraq war did not have either of those. It was completely open-ended and there was no clear mission. Afghanistan slowly slid into an endless morass without a clear outcome. 

Intervention in Syria is not the same. We began with a clear rationale backed by evidence from the international community with a clear and limited goal. Punish the use of nonconventional and heinous weapons. 

I respect and appreciate the liberal opposition to intervention in Syria and I believe it's completely valid. 

As for myself, I've come to the conclusion that there must be consequences for the use of weapons that target combatants, innocents, women, and children indiscriminately with unimaginable pain and suffering.