Mo Jones' Political Thoughts

Health Care

2009-06-27T22:33:00.003-04:00

After hearing and participating in several debates about health care I noticed a rather pervasive trend. In nearly all of the conversations, the topic of wait times came up and the discussion usually ran in one of two ways:

Person 1: If you give everyone health care, wait times will go up.
Person 2: That's not true - wait times for emergency surgery and the like are much lower in nations with universal health care.
Person 1: So you concede that wait times are greater in non-emergency situations.

OR

Person 1: If you give everyone health care, wait times will go up.
Person 2: What does it matter if they wait longer - as long as everyone is covered.

While I find these statements to be factual, I realized that both sides viewed the argument as Person 1 framed it. In both examples - indeed in all of the discussions - the conservative provided the language of the debate, hampering the liberal viewpoint.

The most important part of this realization was that both sides talked about the wait time for scheduled surgeries. This totally misrepresents the liberal's position as it does not take into account all people who need the surgery.

Let us look at some numbers to illustrate my point:
First, let's assume that people choose to schedule surgery appointments upon diagnosis of a need. Second, let's set the average wait time for a scheduled elective surgery X in America at 6 weeks and in Canada at 12 weeks. For a discussion framed in a conservative viewpoint, this is all that is needed to prove that, for surgery X, wait times are longer.

Now, let us say that 100 people in each country are diagnosed with a need for surgery X. In Canada, all 100 people would receive surgery X, with an average of 12 weeks. In the United States, however, a different picture emerges: first, we would have to exclude the ~15 people who do not have insurance, but need the surgery; second, we would have to exclude the ~10 people who did not have insurance that covered such a surgery (the under-insured); third, we would have to exclude the people who could not afford, in time or money, the surgery (a non-zero number, but one I will not guess because I'm too lazy to dig up statistics on such people).

So, less that 75 of the Americans will receive the surgery in an average of 6 weeks, the rest will most likely spend the rest of their lives with a lower quality life due to the lack of care. Assuming that at least 25 of the people denied surgery X live at least an average of 48 weeks (less than a year) after surgery would have been scheduled, the U.S. average wait jumps to 12 weeks (and climbs while those denied live on).

Hopefully this spells out my viewpoint - the wait time from scheduling to surgery is indeed lower in America, but the time from diagnosis to surgery is not only shorter, but more inclusive, in Canada (and other nations with Universal Health Care).

Some news!

2009-01-29T19:17:00.002-05:00

First, the good news: Blackwater has been banned from Iraq!

Secondly, an observation: only 8 people have died and 500+ sickened in this peanut butter related market correction. I'm certainly glad we've relaxed our oversight standards over the past 28 years to let the market work unhindered.

Finally, a call to action: while Obama has made an excellent step forward for all discriminated people whom can afford lawyers by signing the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, we must change the way we view personal income. It is outrageous to think that any benefits of keeping one's income secret outweighs the societal advantages of publicly disclosing it.

Indiana Roads

2008-12-12T17:00:00.000-05:00

As mentioned in this post:

"Oh, and before I go, might I say that Indiana's road department is just plain bad. When you approach an intersection and see a sign saying "Begin right turn only lane," you shouldn't have to cross over a bike lane to get out of the left turn only lane that appeared instead of the aforementioned (and non-existent) right turn only lane. I would chalk this up to a mistake if this hadn't happened to me in multiple locations over the past few years. This and other experiences lead me to believe that Indiana's road department has a different person work every fifty feet of road way. Merge left after an intersection my ass."

I have proof! (click to enlarge)
Approaching an intersection with a right turn lane that merges through a bike lane:
The next intersection after that one:

Another intersection, after merging right:
So you merge through a bike lane to turn right - standard operating procedure for South Bend. It works as marked here:
But what the hell is going on here? This is the next intersection, and you have to merge through a bike lane to go straight, otherwise you will end up in the left-turn only lane:
I can't wait to be done with Indiana!

Not NPR!

2008-12-12T11:51:00.002-05:00

It turns out that NPR is going to have a $25 million shortfall this year. This calls for action! I encourage you to write a letter to your congressperson and senators!

Mine:

My name is [Mopish Jones] and I am proud to say you earned my vote in both the 2006 and 2008 elections. With the economy in trouble, the citizens of this nation and of your constituency have seen congress pass a $700 billion dollar bail-out for the financial sector and have seen the House pass a $14 billion dollar bail-out for the auto industries. With such massive sums being given to failing industries, would it be possible to find $25 million (0.18% of the auto industry bailout) to help offset the funding shortfall of one of America’s jewels, National Public Radio?

In a time of chaos, it is extremely important to keep the public informed. With an audience of 26.4 million listeners a week and, in my opinion, the best journalism available in broadcast media, I believe it would be a travesty to see any loss of service from NPR. In addition to keeping the program “Day to Day” and “News and Notes,” 64 people would be able to stay employed and a possible 21 people would be able to find new employment if the funding shortfall was offset. Finally, if congress were to approve a larger sum, subsequent improvement of obsolete equipment at NPR stations could serve as one facet of a larger infrastructure improvement program, possibly putting thousands of people around the country to work (including many people in Ohio’s sixth district).

Thank you for considering this proposal, I appreciate any and all actions you may take to ensure the continued excellence of National Public Radio.

Link

2008-11-11T19:05:00.001-05:00

I've had several arguments about this:

NEW DEAL ECONOMICS

-Mo

My letter to the Editor

2008-11-11T00:27:00.002-05:00

Unfortunately for me, my October 28th letter to the editor was not published. It deals with a recent debate over whether or not a progressive income tax/socialism is good. Here it is in full:

As far as socialism goes, I think everybody's lumping two distinct ideas together; collective control of the means of production and distribution of goods is not the same as a progressive income tax.

First of all, wanting a progressive income tax does not automatically make one a socialist (I don't think Adam Smith was a socialist – read "The Wealth of Nations" or "Overtaxed" in Oct 27^th's The New Yorker if you are short on time). Progressive income taxes built this country – during our most productive years (the decades following WWII), we had a 90% tax on the richest Americans. We weren't hurting economically then. Going from 35% to 39% on the highest tax bracket won't hurt us now.

Second, taxes are the cost of a market. National defense, enforcing the rule of law, educating the public, and providing a free flow of information are all goods paid for by taxes in the interest of streamlining the market. Those who receive the most utility from our capitalist society can afford to pay a higher percentage in order to maintain that utility (note: having a population able to participate in the market is a benefit of these goods).

Third, a progressive income tax is useful to deter the concentration of wealth. While it is illegal to have a monopoly, people with enough money can side-step the law or pay to have it changed (I'm just speaking the truth). A progressive income tax does discourage and penalize people, but it does so to protect the free market.

Fourth, liberalism is not socialism. Socialism is strictly an economic system. Socialism is not a dictatorship, it is not a democracy, it is not a tax code, and it is not a worldview. Socialism is a system of explicitly allowing everyone to participate in the decision of how goods are produced and distributed rather than through 'market forces.' In both capitalism and socialism, a person of great stature (political, wealth, etc) has the potential of altering (wrecking) the optimal system.

Fifth (and my final point), I feel it is necessary to bring these "socialist" scare tactics down to scale: if you believe every American should own stock, you're a socialist; if you believe that workers should be allowed to collectively bargain, you're a socialist; if you believe that people should be rewarded for hard work, you're a socialist (creating a direct causation is controlling the distribution of goods – we are currently operating under a slight correlative system); if you believe that CEO's should be responsible to their companies, you're a socialist; if you live in Alaska and like receiving your $3,000/year check, you're a socialist.

So, class realities and liberal/conservative worldviews aside, know what you are talking about; collective control of the means of production and distribution of goods is not the same as a progressive income tax!

One Month Later...

2008-11-11T00:26:00.001-05:00

Okay, I realize I haven't been the best of bloggers - I'll try to post something fairly regularly from now on!

Explicit Bias

2008-10-08T00:00:00.000-04:00

One of my professors mentioned this idea, and I think it is quite workable:

Have news agencies (television, radio, and print) explicitly state both the bias of the reporter / anchor as well as the sponsor of the program.

We all know that GE owns the NBC franchises, but do we really understand how this affects the news NBC puts out? We all know Bill O'Reilly is biased, but if he would admit it, maybe we could prevent a few people from viewing him as a legitimate journalist.

I don't know - I think more transparency is always a good thing in politics (I assume I don't need to explain just how interwoven news agencies and politics are).

Sorry!

2008-10-07T19:15:00.002-04:00

I apologize for not posting at all this past week - I've been busy with side projects (I'm making a card game loosely based on Rawles' 'veil of ignorance'). I'll have a post up at midnight tonight, but no guarantees for the future.

-Mo

Nuts and Bolts (9-24)

2008-09-24T09:12:00.002-04:00

This upcoming weekend I will be reviewing my blog for errors, editing and updating old posts, and making sure I haven't missed any comments. This week would be a great time to go through the archives and open a fresh discussion on past issues.

If I edit anything major, I'll keep a copy of the original on my (overly neglected) website - the address of which may change soon.

Also, 50th post!

Thanks,
Mo

School Funding

2008-09-24T00:00:00.001-04:00

I'm going to take a leap and say that you will see my socialist leanings in this post.

At least in Indiana and Ohio (both of which I've lived in for a significant time), school funding is a big issue (especially as property tax - the primary way of funding schools - has been declared unconstitutional several times in Ohio). The current system of funding schools primarily through property taxes has been under attack for some time: the system of rewarding children for living in a rich district and punishing those in a poor or rural district needs to come to an end.

My recommendation: take a look at the British National Health Service. Funding must come from the state (or federal) government, distributed to schools by need. Treat teachers like GPs (General Practitioners) and pay them appropriately - with bonuses for excellence. Look at the NHS bureaucracy - it runs efficiently with high approval ratings and manages many different types of structures (clinics, offices, hospitals, etc) effectively. Sure, everything isn't going to translate exactly: I don't expect a high school to be run precisely like an emergency care ward, but the bureaucratic structures in place have a lot that can be emulated.

At the very least, we need to get off this property tax kick and fund schools properly. Vouchers just won't do it either - they do not take into account that certain schools have a higher operating cost per child than other schools, nor do they allow faltering schools to improve (do we really want a market crash with our children's education?). Finally, while I don't do it here (mainly because I'm trying to focus on funding), we should definitely look at the models of schools that work - whether they are in other countries or types of schools in America (religious, Montessori, and home schooling all have lessons for us).

FF: Tax Credits for Volunteer Work

2008-09-19T00:00:00.000-04:00

A possible way to entice people to volunteer more could be to give them compensation (like tax credits) for volunteering.

Possible Implementation Schemes:
- Tax credit of an hourly rate on verified hours worked (like $5/hr).
- Tax credit of a specific amount per block of time worked (like $500 for 100 hours of work).
- Making volunteers eligible for discounts or bonuses in unemployment, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, or other government programs (think of a 5% bonus on social security payments for every year that a person has volunteered for 1000 hours).
- Paying volunteers outright.

Problems:
- Administration - how do we know if a person is really volunteering, will there be approved lists of volunteer organizations, and how/who would be in charge of this compensation?
- Ethics - is it still volunteering if you get compensated?
- Cost - this might cost taxpayers money for something people would do for free.
- Unfairness - tax credits only help those who pay lots of tax - not the people who most need a break from working.

Well, there you have it. Personally, I would be in favor of a proposal like this, but then again, I'm always in favor of getting people to help each other out.

Local Power

2008-09-17T00:00:00.000-04:00

Just a quick proposal:

With the fear of terrorists, the move towards renewable power, and the memory of several major blackouts in the past decade, I would like to see a move towards local power stations.

While power (probably) would not be generated as efficiently, I feel there would be several benefits to having a localized power generating system.

Less possibility for a catastrophic failure - if a station goes down for any reason, it would only affect a small area, and its output would be easier to make up.
More jobs in a local economy building and tending these small stations.
Easier to convert a community's power needs to a 'greener' system like solar, wind, or geothermal power.
Further scaling down might mean subsidized home power generators (again, more likely to be green).

I think these are decent reasons to rethink the power grid throughout America and see what we can do to break power generation into smaller parts.

Neo-Colonialism

2008-09-10T00:00:00.000-04:00

First off, sorry about spelling and grammar today, I'll edit later.

If the world community's goal is to set up sustainable democracies around the globe, I feel that a reasonable scheme would be to (re)create colonies in the unstable regions of the world. Just for the record, I'm not recommending this - just exploring it.

From an economic standpoint, a strong colonial power in a region would lower the cost for that region to participate in the world market. The resources of both the colony as well as the colonizing power would be focused on taking economic advantage of the region; building infrastructure, raising the GDP, and raising the population's standard of living over time (all of which, according to some viable theories, add to the possibility of a sustainable democracy).

From a political standpoint, the process of colonization, especially by established democracies, creates governable districts where the native citizenry is exposed to democracy. According to a theory which I just heard (and I find interesting), when a people have structure assigned to them (like counties and congressional districts) the less they associate with an ethnic or tribal group. This leads to a 'regionalism' - a kind of nationalism associated with districts (think of the states in the USA at the time of the revolution). Couple this 'regionalism' with a responsive regional government and you have a democracy with training wheels.

Finally, as discontent arises with colonial rule, the regions/districts (whose regional ties outweigh their ethnic ties) pull together and form both inter- and intranational bonds in order to throw off the colonial power. This creates a nation-state based on democracy with a strong infrastructure and a vibrant economy.

FF: Parental Pay

2008-09-05T00:00:00.001-04:00

When we considered possible ways to encourage people to raise families rather than work, the idea came up that we could pay people to have children (in order to reduce lost wages from a potential second earner). Here are some arguments:

FOR:
- This could reduce unemployment
- This could reduce abortion
- This could reduce schooling problems (having a parent at home is a huge boon to a child's education)
- This favors the poor of society - those who need a break the most
- The Earned Income Tax Credit is a successful program with similar values

AGAINST
- This might be seen as an incentive to 'pop out' children for welfare dollars
- This could cause overpopulation
- This might cause underemployment in crucial sectors
- This could have problems being applied to a single-parent household
- There would probably be a high cost to implementation and maintenance (proving that you are a parent, proving you qualify, etc)
- Should it be based per child, per parent, or per worker?

Possible implementation schemes:
- The government pays into a fund the child that can be spent on education and child-care
- The government gives parents the equivalent to 20 hours pay at a living wage (for the area) every week if the parents limit their total work hours to 60 per week (total).
- In exchange for not working in order to raise a child, the government matches your spouse's income up to a certain amount every week.

I'm sure that this isn't an exhaustive list - what other ideas (or points) do you guys have? What would you prefer (feel free to mix and match implementation schemes)?

Vocations

2008-09-03T00:00:00.002-04:00

This is (hopefully) a simple argument.

If you believe, as I do, that people have a vocation (job that they are most suited to), does it make sense that people should be able to survive doing this job?

I think so - if a person is best suited to do a specific job, it makes sense to me that they should have an incentive to do that specific job, not have to work jobs that are other people's vocations, and not starve while doing it.

Thoughts? Comments?

The Green Job Corps

2008-08-27T00:00:00.001-04:00

Assuming you remember the Job Corps:

First of all, I would like to say that my idea mirrors both the Civilian Conservation Corps and the Works Progress Administration, and will probably have the flaws of both. Also, I'd like to point out that, whenever I put an idea in writing it seems as though somebody thought of it years ago.

However, as I still think my idea goes further (with service being mandatory), and because we seem to need to 'go green,' I would like to suggest another possible policy. In addition to anything else that makes sense for the Job Corps to do, lets have them farm organically (or pastorally - which I feel is better) and build 'green' structures. Surely a national update of infrastructure is necessary - build windmills and watermills, tide-power plants, and geothermal power plants (of course, solar would be good too, but that is more technology intensive than labor intensive).

You may ask "what's the cost?" Well, if you assume that people can live at the same levels as they did during the CCC and WPA era,* one employee cost the government $1,000 annually - about $15,000 today. This obviously takes into account that people would be living in barracks (built by the occupants) and eating food that they themselves grew.

I don't think that it's a bad deal, especially if we are able to achieve energy independence.

*Not a bad assumption - the real cost of goods has actually gone down since then.

edit (prior to posting): Damn! I have to come up with a new name - I hate it when this happens.

Smart People

2008-08-25T00:00:00.001-04:00

I've always admired Isaac Asimov. Over the course of my youth I read many books* - Isaac Asimov's have proven to be the ones I remember best. He was a brilliant man and a prolific writer (the only person to write books in every category of the Dewey Decimal System) and much of his wisdom holds true today. While watching a video that I'll discuss in a moment, I came across this gem - I can't seem to find the full transcript or the part I video (which would presumably contain both part I and II), so if someone finds it, please post the link in a comment.

I found the Asimov video because it was mentioned on this series (watch all 8). I can't claim to have been ignorant of exponential growth, but this really opened my eyes to what impact it can have. It really cemented some ideas I've had in the past about creating a sustainable living environment socially, economically, and environmentally (a few of these ideas I'm sure you'll see on this blog). It's really worth the hour or so to watch the whole thing.

*Just to brag, I have always been a voracious reader; my peak achievement was completing 6 or 7 Tom Clancy novels on a two week road trip (I made my parents stop at a bookstore in Denver when I had finished the few I had initially packed). Of course, my parents and brother still make fun of me for 'missing the vacation,' but I have better memories of those books and the sights than they do.

Friday Fallout: Introductions

2008-08-22T00:00:00.001-04:00

I have noticed that my posts often lead to ideas that need to be discussed in their own right. As my current method of "replying to replies" is inadequate for longer discussions of tangential material, I will present ideas for further review on Fridays.

Anyone may refer a tangential topic to Friday Fallout in a reply: the onus would fall to me to put together a set of views regarding the topic.

Over the next few Fridays, I'll be looking at the possibility of paying people to raise children, having tax credits for volunteer work, limiting the work week, the effects of outsourcing/automation, "hiring Americans first" incentive plans, and probably more.

Again, feel free to refer an idea to Friday Fallout if you think it fits.

Immigration

2008-08-20T00:00:00.002-04:00

Here's a possible solution to the problem of 'illegal' immigration:

Open the borders and mandate documentation of workers. Simply put, people who were undocumented would want to be documented in order to receive minimum wage, due process of the law, and medical care. Because everyone would be guaranteed minimum wage, employers would (hopefully) give preference to US Citizens. Jobs would dry up for the immigrant workers and there would be less incentive for them to cross the border. Not to mention that with proper documentation, many problems (like crime) would probably decrease.

[Of course, you would have to supplant this with higher taxes on the rich (as wealth inequality brings societal destruction), 'socialized' health care (meaning single payer insurance, not what Britain has and I want), and possibly government programs that mirror great depression initiatives (CCC, WPA, etc).] This section is irrelevant, but I've left it so that the comments make sense.

I see some flak headed my way on this one. Just remember that you'll never be able to fully secure the borders.

edit 8.20.2008: Added brackets and explanation to the second paragraph.

John McCain

2008-08-18T00:00:00.000-04:00

If sunshine is the best disinfectant, why is the Senator from Arizona so dirty?

Frank Rich article

Frank Rich article 2

On Alternative Energy

On Taxes

Co-determinism

2008-08-13T00:00:00.002-04:00

A Scheme:

So, here's a model for co-determinism that could work.

Spiraling inward, clockwise from SHAREHOLDERS.

SHAREHOLDERS: Those people who own stock in the company. Elect the SHAREHOLDER SENATE.

SHAREHOLDER SENATE: A five member group elected each year by the shareholders. Representation is established proportionally. Elected at an annual shareholder meeting. Approves or vetoes legislation, appointments and charter amendments. Changes to the charter require a 4/5 vote to pass.

CEO & OTHERS: The high executives of the company. Elected by the BOARD OF DIRECTORS and approved by the SHAREHOLDER SENATE for terms in office as determined by the charter. Responsible for the execution of legislation and the appointment and direction of GENERAL MANAGEMENT. Excluded from holding any other office and voting for the BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

GENERAL MANAGEMENT: Appointed by the CEO & OTHERS, manages the company. Has six representatives on the BOARD OF DIRECTORS, two of which are elected every other year.

PLANT SUPERVISOR(S): Executes legislation and directives on the local (plant, store, etc) level. Elected by the local WORK COUNCIL for a one year term. Does not vote in BOARD OF DIRECTORS elections. Appoints and directs FOREMEN & LOWER MANAGEMENT.

FOREMEN & LOWER MANAGEMENT: Direct the day to day operation of a locality. Do not vote in BOARD OF DIRECTORS elections. May serve on a local WORK COUNCIL.

EMPLOYEES: The workers. Elect one representative to the local WORK COUNCIL every year. Have six representatives on the BOARD OF DIRECTORS, votes for two every other year. May serve on a local WORK COUNCIL.

WORK COUNCIL: A three member body at each locality (plant) elected for three year terms in staggered elections by the EMPLOYEES. Must be an employee, foreman, or lower management. Elects the PLANT SUPERVISOR every year. Is responsible for arbitrating shop floor disputes.
The collective WORK COUNCILS at all locals have a total of three representatives on the BOARD OF DIRECTORS, and vote for one every other year. They can initiate impeachment hearings on any official; impeachment is obtained with a 2/3 majority of all WORK COUNCIL members voting to impeach.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS: A fifteen member body in charge of initiating all legislation, high executive appointments (CEO & OTHERS), and charter amendments. Five members are up for election every other year (with two voted on by GENERAL MANAGEMENT, two by EMPLOYEES, and one by the WORK COUNCILS). All members serve six year terms.
Charter amendments require a 2/3 majority to pass; a veto by the SHAREHOLDER SENATE may not be overridden. Other legislation and appointments only need a simple majority to pass; vetoes by the SHAREHOLDER SENATE can be overridden by a 2/3 vote.

NOTES:
As noted by the diagram, EMPLOYEES who own stock may vote in SHAREHOLDER SENATE elections (as may any person who owns stock). If a person is elected to the SHAREHOLDER SENATE or BOARD OF DIRECTORS, that person gives up all other titles and duties for the duration of their term (but may, of course, retain stock). A WORK COUNCILPERSON who owns stock and is an employee would be entitled to vote for three representatives every other year on the BOARD OF DIRECTORS (one for being on the WORK COUNCIL and two for being an EMPLOYEE) and could vote in the SHAREHOLDER SENATE elections.

---

So, everyone gets a say. Yes it is geared towards the workers (with the WORK COUNCILS being extremely powerful), but would that be detrimental? The idea is that workers don't want to see the company fail more any more than the shareholders do - why not let them have a say in what company policy is?

edit 8.17.2008: I forgot to mention that I feel that this specific system would only be viable in big companies. It could be modified to fit a company with only one location (possibly integrate the work council into the board of directors, making it more of a committee - or something), but I don't feel this level of representation would be needed for a smaller operation. For something smaller, simply putting seats for employees on the board of directors or giving an elected official veto power might suffice.

In Defense of Job Supply

2008-08-06T00:00:00.003-04:00

Italicized text is Rory Carmichael's comment on Job Supply Part III.
Bold text is my reply. Also, bold brackets [] specify parts within a paragraph that I am responding to (as I have copied the entire text here).

Comprehensive Job Supply Rebuttal

Job Supply Summary

Raising minimum wage might shrink work pool.
Increased incentive to work (more money)... the primary goal of wages are to convince people to do something undesirable (work).
Correct

Raising them increases, not decreases, that incentive. [At best your argument applies to those people who are content with their income, which is ridiculous since your whole argument is directed at the idea that people should have more than they currently do.]
(A) This is messy; it assumes that income is the only measure of wealth (loose definition of wealth). I'm trying to make non-work time comparatively more valuable, so people feel that time spent working uncompensated (changing diapers, volunteering, being politically active) is as valuable as time spent at work.

Your "assumptions" (willing to live at current income, everyone works full time) distance your idea from the real world so much as to be completely useless for possible implementations. The simplifications invalidate your idea because they are the basis of the supports for it. You may have heard the phrase "without loss of generality". It's often applied to philosophical and mathematical arguments when people are limiting the scope of their discussion or making simplifying assumptions. The point is that the assumptions can be made acceptably because they don't ruin the argument for the real thing. I don't think you can use that phrase truthfully so your assumptions are just there to stave off legitimate objections, rather than make what your saying more easily understood.
(B) Possibly: I think that when asking a couple in a two-earner household if one would stay home if the other's wages were doubled would result in more yes answers than you give me credit for. While I admit that I am not all that decent of a philosopher (and I won't claim to be), if a quarter of households would agree to this, we would be at full employment (even if fewer did so, it still would have a significant effect).

assuming all unemployed people found jobs... the fact that there are jobs available that are not being filled right now as the economy stands there is very little you could do to convince me that all the unemployed people would find jobs
(C) So, there are jobs unfilled and laborers unemployed. This is called market failure. Fix it.

The wage cap for secondary earners...
If you assume that everyone in a co-dependent pair is going to be content with making half as much as their partner I think you weren't paying attention in feminist history class.
(D) The fact that females will probably be more likely to be a secondary earner owes itself to societal pressures, not my system. I specifically used gender neutral terms in all of the posts, as I feel strongly that women should not be marginalized.

(E) Perhaps limiting a work week for an economic group (primary plus dependents) at 60 regular hours per week (as opposed to overtime) would achieve the same result: both partners might work 30 hours a week, leaving a net gain of 20 hours that could be spent in a social setting. But that's regulating how much someone works, not how much someone earns.

Wages are a measure of a person's percieved [sic] value in society and a significant number of people would see any cap on their income as a cap on their personal value.
(F) What can we do to change this perception? Again, societal values and norms can be changed (did you know that earning a wage for a living was considered just a step above slavery - did you ever wonder why you needed to be a property owner to vote in elections during the early years of our country?). Perhaps moving to a system where your value as a person means more than your value as a worker would be a good thing. Also, a person could work at the same wages, just for 20 hours per week and have the same result.

I think that blackmailing people into community service or home life is kind of the opposite of what we want in society.
(G) Blackmailing? Really? While I do think that education and resocialization are key, providing economic incentives (or disincentives, in this 'blackmailing' case) will spur change just as well. Would you say that oil companies are blackmailing us into using greener technology?

You offer a punishment (in the sense of a societal disadvantage designed to discourage a certain behavior... being a second worker in the family) in order to force a behavior you believe to be preferable.
(H) Are fines for parking in handicap spaces or for industrial pollution that bad? How about prison sentences for criminals? They are punishments for non-preferable behavior. What if we punished spending unnecessary time away from, say, child rearing the same way? Having a parent involved with a child's upbringing creates a better civil society - why not punish parents who neglect their kids in order to inflate their self worth?

Might it not be better to provide incentives for the things you want?
(I) Yes. Paying people for raising children, having tax credits for volunteer work, and other approaches might work better. I don't believe they are within the scope of this discussion (though, you are free to concoct your own scheme).

Lower minimum wage "incentive"...
Once again you're confusing the ideas of "incentives" and "threats" which is a big part of what put me off of your idea originally.
(J) Am I really? "Incentive: a reward offered to people who change their behavior" (Krugman & Wells 2005, "Microeconomics" ). While 'disincentive' may be a better word to use for some of the plan, I am offering double the wages in exchange for one partner in a marriage staying home. I also provide an incentive to involve oneself in civic and political affairs, as selling labor to the market would be much less valuable.

(K) Also, I will take this time to mention that, while I do get sloppy with my language, the term stakeholder (referenced in your responses to April 2, 2008 Economic Dictatorship) refers to "people whose interests are affected by organizational behavior" and "among a company's stakeholders are employees, shareholders, customers, suppliers, and the government" [emphasis added] (Lussier 2006, "Management Fundamentals"). As I knew you meant 'shareholders' (a much more selective group), you knew well enough what I was getting at: disincentives for a particular behavior.

You should probably be providing more positive incentives for the things you want people to do rather than hitting them for doing things that there's nothing wrong with to convince them to go in the direction you'd prefer.
(L) What's worse: ill-compensated two worker households with high unemployment, or well-compensated one worker households with low unemployment? Name some positive incentives for moving towards the latter.

Furthermore I think that your need to set things up this way seems to be an indication that there's something wrong and artificial about your system.
(M) I'm just trying to cover my bases. Would you say that the constitution, with its veto powers, reserve powers, override powers, judicial review, etc is wrong and artificial too?

As you know I'm very fond of the idea of the job corps in and of itself but I don't see how it really changes the situation you set up with the previous job supply posts.
(N) Speaking of which, please feel free to comment with positive suggestions on the Job Corps post.

It seems more like you're throwing it on top as a good idea to bolster a much weaker one.
(O) It's half and half - both systems can stand on their own, but I figured that it would be useful to evaluate Job Supply with the added elements of domestic partnerships and the Job Corps.

Your Numbered responses:

1. We're not talking about percentage of living wage we're talking about percentage of minimum wage. Living wage would vary based on the number of dependents and several other factors because it's a measure of what's necessary to achieve a minimum acceptable quality of life. You're mixing terms instead of addressing the actual point at hand. Two people doing the exact same job at the same company would be paid substantially different wages for now work related reason, which seems unjust.
(P) Sorry about the confusion. I meant to convey that a person with a family would be paid a wage well above poverty level for the family, while a person with out a family would be entitled to stay out of poverty, but would not receive the full wage paid to a family. Call it whatever you want.

2. You create a price ceiling for secondary earners, for starters. I have no objection to insuring that families can have enough to live above the poverty line. However, I think that this could be done in any number of ways that don't result in unfair and unjust hiring and payment practices.
(Q) I was addressing your specific point comparing partnered and non-partnered primary earners. I'm sure that unfair and unjust hiring practices could be avoided in other ways - what ways would you suggest?

3. Definitely complicates hiring, and there's nothing you've put forward that would make the current complexities of the tax code unnecessary so I think your assertion that there would only be three instead of a myriad of designations unsupportable. [It seems more likely that there would be three in addition to the already myriad designations.]
(R) Possible, as I feel that the usual incompetence of legislators will shine through. However, I would hope that they would use this as an opportunity to simplify things. Really it's an implementation thing - it could make things simpler, but it might not. Simply put, as we currently operate with three definitions of "head of household" and several other definitions of "dependent" in the tax code, simply replacing all this with "partnered primary earner, single primary earner, and secondary earner" language would, in fact, simplify it.

4. You're absolutely right, marriage is public record (which I had been unaware of). However, we've abolished marriage in your system and domestic partnerships [may or may not be public record.]
(S) A conjecture after my own heart. While I don't see any reason for this to change, it may do so.

Furthermore, if marriage was directly linked to income it might be that people would want it removed from public record (especially single people) as it exposes an area of life many people value as priviledged [sic].
(T) How would people be able to determine your finances by your marital status? That's like claiming you know how much McDonald's employees make because they wear a uniform. Your income, as is the case now, would only be available to you, your employer, the IRS, and whomever you tell.

(U) Also, the idea of a wage being a 'privileged' part of life is due to employer pressures at the turn of the century. Contractually prohibiting workers from divulging how much they made to others was an effort to quiet possible outrage over favoritism, sexism, and racism among coworkers. In effect, this 'privileged information' became a social norm that promoted inequality at the workplace at the urging of business.

5. This isn't true, the demand for single people would be generated by virtue of the fact that they could be hired at lower cost, so no employer would raise wage beyond that of the primary earner minimum wage in order to attract them.
(V) Yes, that's kind of my point. If you make the assumption that there is a job 'market,' as supply of one good goes down, a substitute good becomes more attractive. If there are 100 hungry people and vendors are selling 50 "A1" hot dogs at $1 and 50 "A Plus" hot dogs at $2, the price of "A1" hot dogs would quickly rise to $2; it would be stupid to sell any hot dogs at $1 because people are willing to pay the $2.

By your argument illegal immigrants would all be paid at least minimum wage, which is patently untrue.
(W) You are, of course, assuming there is a legal, informed, and competitive market for undocumented workers. As it is, undocumented workers give up wages to participate in the marketplace. It's called a black market: if cocaine were legal, the price would fall dramatically - the difference takes into account both punishments (jail time, etc) as well as the price for market entry. I might also mention supply and demand: the supply of undocumented workers far outstrips the demand - not enough employers are willing to break the law to employ them (the principle of elasticity also helps to explain this phenomenon). This rebuttal to my "patently untrue" argument is about as relevant as a house plant.

I think I've put together a rather cogent and convincing argument against your proposed program. I've shown that your argument's assumptions invalidate it in the context of the real world. I've addressed the rebuttals you made to my initial objections.
(X) Being stubborn, I direct you to my above rebuttals.

I'd also like to point out at this time that you haven't touched on my point about the increased burden of life for a single person.
(Y) Really? It's more of a burden to be single than married (possibly with children). I apparently don't talk to the right people. Being provided with a minimum wage that keeps one out of poverty seems to be better that what we have now. Also, if we follow your previous logic (that employers will strictly hire single people), they'll be making so much more than their married counterparts that it will more than compensate for their 'glut' of house chores.

Furthermore, I think I've pointed out several further flaws with the way you are going about achieving your (admirable) goals of reducing the financial burden on families and reducing unemployment. [You might have been better served by arguing that an increase of the minimum wage to the level of the living wage would be beneficial for everyone.]
(Z) Yeah, I was headed in that department. My initial thought was "if everyone made a living wage, fewer married people might work because they wouldn't have to work to put food on the table." I then got on a complicated "how do we make sure people don't get greedy" policy rant.

I look forward to any and all comments. In order to facilitate comments, I have included letters - there is no need to comment on all of them if you do not wish to do so.

I've been out of it...

2008-07-30T00:00:00.000-04:00

Sorry about the delays, I've been busy with school, work, and my band (wow, me - in a band?). Here's a piece of meat that might tide you all over:

What is the average intelligence of a group of people?

For example, when you ask an individual person for a decision on something (i.e. do you want $20 now, or three payments of $7), one can assume that the answers would mirror the average intelligence (an IQ score of 100). However, it seems that when you ask a group of people for a decision on something, they choose a less intelligent answer. Whether it is voter trends or collective bargaining agreements, it seems as if you should just let the 'smart guy(s)' speak for you instead of collectively determining something.

This kind of shakes the idea of democracy - if people cannot determine the best choice collectively, why should they be allowed to decide? I mean, if you could get leaders who made choices inside the positive 2nd sigma range (IQ= 120-140, I think) wouldn't that be better than collective decision?

This is a problem I've been wrestling with for some time. Really, I would like to see data on the rational decision making abilities of groups as opposed to individuals (so I can set aside my uninformed perceptions) - do groups act like children (I want it NOW!) or do they act like the average adult? Finally, is there any way to get groups to act in a more intelligent way?

Sign it.

2008-07-29T12:00:00.000-04:00

Sign it now.

kucinich.us

-Mo

Zimbabwe

2008-07-20T00:00:00.002-04:00

Really? A Z$10,000,000,000 note? Mugabe needs to get out of there.

For those of you who don't know, Zimbabwe's troubles stem from two main sources: the struggle against South African apartheid and subsequent corruption.

Briefly, because South Africa supported a pro-apartheid anti-communist campaign (backed by the US) the possible leaders for an independent Zimbabwe (at one time a colony of Portugal) were reduced to factional resistance leaders. South African policies of assassination and terrorism destroyed both human resources and infrastructure. When the struggle for true independence was won in Zimbabwe, cronyism took over, and corruption ran amok.

While things wouldn't necessarily be better if Mugabe was unseated, at least it would be a step towards getting the corruption out of the system.

Interesting...

2008-07-17T00:00:00.000-04:00

I was doing some research for a presentation I'm doing in class about the current banking problems and possible buyouts. I came across this article, with the following paragraph:

"The nation’s banks are in far less danger than they were in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when more than 1,000 federally insured institutions went under during the savings-and-loan crisis. The debacle, the greatest collapse of American financial institutions since the Depression, prompted a government bailout that cost taxpayers about $125 billion."

1980s, early 1990s, and now? It sounds like during the Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II years, our banking system has been in crisis. What, you may ask, prompted these crises? They are widely associated with market deregulation.

I'll refrain from bashing these three "free-marketeers," but I must say that this is all awfully suspicious.

Missed it.

2008-07-09T21:48:00.002-04:00

I've been busy with a paper that should be easier than it is turning out to be. Sorry for missing my midnight deadline.

Read this in my absence.

-Mo

A Management Timeline

2008-07-02T00:00:00.003-04:00

In the Principles of Management class I am currently taking, we've recently gone over different styles of management as they have come into fashion. Briefly:

1900-20: Scientific Management - labor was an input to be regulated, labor worked best when strictly controlled. Incentive rates, efficient/assembly line work, and no regard for worker safety were the norm.

1920s: Military Model of Management - have supervisor to laborer ratios, management is a teachable skill.

1930s: (during the labor movement) Human Relations - studies find that work group norms affect productivity more than managerial control. People tend to work only as hard as they feel they should given their compensation rates.

1940s: Math Model Managing - computers and mathematical formulas proved more reliable and more efficient than human based strategies.

1950s: Theory X and Theory Y management styles are conceptualized - Theory X says that workers are lazy and in need of constant supervision, Theory Y says that workers respond well to trust and are generally self motivated.

1960s: Job Redesign - jobs are made more ergonomically correct, work is branded as an enriching and creative function rather than an input into production.

1970s: Revisit Theory X & Y - findings show that the approaches work well in different environments (X is great for getting things done on a deadline, Y is great for innovation, etc).

1980s: Corporate Culture and Quality Management - Again, work group norms are found to be the primary factor in determining productivity so managers work to create a culture of hard work at work (with bonuses for innovation and walk-in office policies). The Six-Sigma movement arrives, which stresses talking with employees (by their own volition) to find out how to run an operation better. Talking with employees about how to boost quality nets higher productivity and higher quality.

1990s: Team Culture - building on Corporate Culture and Six-Sigma methods, self directed teams take on tasks and work as a small group inside of an organization.

2000s: Servant Leadership - in order to get the most out of their employees, management should listen and serve. Instead of compelling workers to do their jobs, managers should organize employees' efforts (and direct their actions) in a way that is both profitable for employer and employee.

Why do I bring this up? Because in the 1930s and 40s the labor movement pushed to have a voice in the workplace. Laborers wanted to have a say in production - being denied a voice, they created unions and began to strike, trading a voice in the workplace for tangible benefits like pensions and health care.

Basically, had labor demands been met in the beginning, we could have skipped at least to the '80s (when management theory first started promoting listening to employees). Giving employees a voice is now considered one of the best ways to increase productivity (this is according to my very anti-union professor).

It's kind of ironic that many firms, in order to make more money for themselves, did not implement systems that would make their firms more productive and innovative - and now those firms are falling behind the curve when they compete against firms that did give their workers a voice.

Just one more reason we should keep this post in mind.

The Center for Union 'Facts'

2008-06-25T00:00:00.001-04:00

I was dismayed to learn that, of the sponsored links to the right, one linked to a site called the Center for Union Facts. I visited this site (I promise that I didn't violate the terms of my Google Ads account) and found that it was completely and utterly biased and presented, for the most part, partial and skewed stories of union wrongdoing. I will attempt to take a look at some of these so called 'facts' that they present.

Item 1.

On the 'Unfair Labor Practices' page, they report a 'disproportionately high number of allegations of wrongdoing' against unions as compared to those filed against unions. Citing that in 2005, unions faced a total of 6,381 allegations (82% filed by individuals), they claim that unions are far more likely to discriminate and engage in other forms of unfair labor practices.
They do not mention the number of allegations against employers, nor the amount of employers who were filed against. Their 'disproportionately high number' more than likely is a result of the fact that one union represents more than one workplace: if you calculate automakers, ten grievances against the UAW could be equally weighted with fifty grievances against Ford, GM, Chrysler, Toyota, and Honda - the facts skewed to say that the UAW received as many allegations as each of the automakers when it really received one fifth. If you were to do this math using all grievances against unions versus all grievances against employers, the employers would have a much lower average.
Also, the fact that these grievances are filed by individuals undercuts their case: a class action lawsuit of one and a half million people (like the one against Wal-Mart) would be counted as one lawsuit by their math. Basically, they are claiming that 5,000+ individual people's lawsuits count more than millions of people's combined lawsuits.

Item 2.

Political Money: while I do agree that less money should be spent in politics, the 'CUF' makes it sound as if unions have no right to pursue a political agenda. While I do think their examples of abuse of the system should be punished, I do not think that unions, who are outspent by big business on labor issues 11:1, should stop supporting strong labor candidates. The fact is, money wins elections: money spent by unions is meant to be used for the betterment of the working class. Should businesses not support candidates their workforce disagree with?
Also, their examples on this page are shoddy and blown out of proportion.

Item 3.

Their 'crime and corruption' page is woefully irrelevant. Their site states that in 2005 there were 97 convictions of union officials for embezzlement and such, resulting in $23 million in restitution money. An average of about $240,000 a case. What, I wonder, were the conviction rates and restitution amounts in the business sector? While I think that any publicly elected official should be held to a higher standard, acting like this is a smoking gun of rampant corruption is just not working. Their failure to provide even skewed data for the business sector makes me wary.

Item 4.

The violence problems. First of all, they present these people as upstanding citizens who just want to work. The 'greed' argument works both ways here. Secondly, while I don't approve of the violent means allegedly employed by the unions, one has to realize that the people who broke the picket lines were endangering the success of the strike and therefore the livelihoods of the strikers. In an atmosphere already filled with tension, the littlest spark can prove deadly.

Item 5.

According to the CUF's special documents, there were 13,815 discrimination complaints against unions since 2000. First of all, how many complaints were filed against employers? Also, how many of these were filed both against union and employer (I know several people who decided to file against both, in hopes that a win in one arena would right the wrongs)? As to these racist roots, while I think they are a grave injustice, I haven't seen them in my studies or my personal experiences. Two examples hardly provide the smoking gun they think they have. Finally, the CIO (the other half of the AFL-CIO) was the most ardent supported of equal wages for men and women of all colors and creeds.

Item 6.

"When Voting isn't Private" is nothing more than propaganda. Using dirt found on a single union, they paint a picture of the entire labor movement. If I were to say that every company used accounting practices like Enron, I would be labeled a liar and an idiot. I will gladly apply that label to the CUF.
Also, to defend the card-check system, it was implemented as a way to prove that workers wanted an election. Many companies recognized that if 90% of their workforce signed cards wanting to have a representation election, more than likely the election would result in unionization. So, rather than pay for an election, the company would just recognize the union - a shortcut that became a standard way of doing things.

In conclusion, propaganda like this only causes problems - people are misinformed and misled and make bad choices because of it.

Job Supply Part III

2008-06-18T00:00:00.001-04:00

This is the final part of a three part series.

Briefly, in Part I we set up the idea of reducing unemployment by providing incentives for a spouse not to seek employment. In Part II, we looked at the three types of designations people would have for tax and income purposes. Now let’s add a third element: the Job Corps.

This added element brings with it two very complicated ideas to rectify: a large labor force filled of cheap laborers (which affects supply curve) and a 'free' minimum standard of living. Basically, adding the Job Corps to the equation almost negates what taking the spouses out accomplished. But note the ‘almost’ – quantitatively, supply goes up – qualitatively, the demand for skilled jobs would most likely increase as well.

When you add in the Job Corps, several things occur: cost of living goes down, the labor force becomes a skilled labor force, and ‘undesirable’ low paying jobs are taken off the market. What you end up with can be fit into our little scenario. A partnered primary earner would make a living wage for his or her family doing a job that is more skilled in nature. A non-partnered earner would be guaranteed sustenance (through the Job Corps) as well as a minimum wage, but the minimum wage would be low, as that person would not be providing for a secondary earner (I didn’t mention this explicitly earlier – single parents would be considered primary earners ‘in a partnership’ with their children, as children can count as a secondary earners). Finally, a secondary earner would have no wage floor and would be heavily taxed on any income exceeding 50% of the primary earner’s (again, all secondary earners would be counted together) thereby creating a situation where one of the partners would have an incentive to stay home, allowing a different primary earner to get a job.

To conclude, I’m just trying to figure out a system where the 23 million people who are in two earner households that live above the poverty line (with many well above it) could step aside to let the 7 million unemployed people find jobs. It's just an idea, feel free to comment.

The Progressive Income Tax

2008-06-13T00:00:00.000-04:00

Just to make you wait for 'Job Supply Part III'

Many people have questioned the need for a progressive income tax (indeed, many question the need for any tax at all). In the past, I have argued that a tax is the price you pay to live in a civilized society and that redistributive (progressive) taxes are a good in and of themselves. However, this rarely convinces anyone of the need for progressive taxation.

Then I realized that taxes keep a market running. Instead of being looked at as a market inhibitor, taxes should be looked at as a market provider.

Taxes, in any form, account for the cost of a market place. From defending citizens and enforcing the rule of law (thereby establishing a trading community) to providing education and the free flow of information (thereby streamlining the trading community) taxes are a good thing. A visible example of this is the service fee for using an online stock broker; it is the cost of using the marketplace (paypal is another good example). This fee is a tax - it reduces an individual's purchasing power to provide a communal benefit. Taxes paid to the government serve in a similar fashion.

So, we need taxes - but why a progressive income tax? Simply put, it reduces the chance of a market failure due to monopolization. In addition to all the societal benefits, progressive income taxes prevent the concentration of wealth in a few individuals' hands - which is the first step on the road toward monopolization. As a brief reminder, once an individual has enough wealth to control an entire industry (through purchase or intimidation), it is likely that that individual has a few politicians in his or her pocket. A monopoly creates an ineffiecient market.

To review: taxes are necessary to to create an efficient marketplace; progressive income taxes are necessary to maintain an efficient marketplace.

Job Supply Part II

2008-06-11T00:00:00.003-04:00

This is the second of a three part series.

In Part I we looked at the possibility of having no unemployment, a living wage for a primary earner, and no minimum wage for secondary earners. Now let’s add a little spice.

Maybe you remember this post about abolishing marriage and going for only civil unions (though, I’ve come up with a term I like more: domestic partnerships). We treat people living together as a family as a business partnership. Now pick one of the partners and designate that one the ‘primary earner.’ Apply the groundwork laid in Part I and we’ve got ourselves a neat little economic unit. The labor of the primary earner has a price floor on it, but once the primary earner has sold his or her labor, the secondary earners can sell their labor at a market determined price up to 50% of the primary earner’s wages (after that, the wages are taxed heavily). This way, the market has a bit more flexibility, but it won’t cause people to starve in the streets.

Finally, as an incentive to form a partnership (and not have two ‘single’ people living illegally), non-partnered people would have a minimum wage 30-40% of the minimum wage paid to a primary earner.

To sum up: being a ‘primary earner’ guarantees you a living wage for a family, being a single person guarantees you a minimum wage, but not as high as a primary earner, and being a secondary earner does not guarantee any wages – you might be better off volunteering.

You may anticipate Part III.

edit 6.17.2008: I forgot to mention this - single parents would be considered primary partnered earners for this purpose: because children can technically be secondary earners. There may have to be some laws in place to prevent abuse of the system (as with anything).

Job Supply Part I

2008-06-09T00:00:00.002-04:00

This is the first of a three part series.

I would like to take a look at one of the possible effects of raising the minimum wage: a dearth of workers. Very simply, my logic is this: selling your time (working for a wage) is an undesirable act, therefore raising wages could possibly cause worker shortages because people would work less and still make the same money.

I know, it’s probably not the most well thought out idea, but it is something to ponder.

If I am reading my Census Bureau data correctly, about half of all married couples (about 60 million people / 30 mil couples) are part of a two-earner household (both the husband and wife are employed).*

So, let’s look at some numbers.

For this, we’ll work with two assumptions: that all workers work full-time and that all workers are willing to live at their current household income (not true, but I’ll get into incentives in a minute). In a two earner household, at current minimum wage, household gross income should be about $25,000. There are approximately 900,000 two-earner couples living at or below this income level (with approx. 7,368,000 total couples living at or below).

If you were to double minimum wage for one of the workers, with the specified parameters, the spouse would discontinue working. In other words, for the same total cost, 900,000 workers would discontinue searching for employment. If a similar ‘event’ occurred across the board (we’ll get into this), a possible tenth of the population (30 million people) would discontinue working – driving unemployment to zero with no added cost (also causing 23 million unfilled jobs – assuming that all the unemployed people found jobs). Now, I don’t think that people will be content at their current household income, but bear with me.

This can be looked at in two lights: raising the minimum wage may create an incentive to live off of a single income; or having a spouse that earns enough to live off of reduces the incentive to sell one’s labor. Either of which reduces the quantity of labor available.

So, what can you do to achieve this? I think that you could designate a ‘primary earner’ in each household. The minimum wage for the primary earner would have to be at or above a ‘living wage’ which would be both federally mandated and locally adjusted. The rest of the household would have any income above 50% of the primary earner’s income taxed at 95% (with no minimum wage). With a choice between making only a little money or being involved in the larger community, I hope that people would pick being involved.** The primary earner could be designated every year with the new filing of taxes. Hopefully, this would create a situation where a family could live off a single income, the kids could have part time jobs (if they wanted), and one of the parents would be home or involved with the larger community (possibly volunteering).

I'll leave it at this for today - feel free to comment. Brace yourselves for Part II.

*An interesting note: about 65% of married couples between the ages of 25 and 54 are in two-earner households.

**I would be interested in seeing the comparison between working for money or working at home – I assume they are substitute ‘goods.’

A few links.

2008-06-08T19:45:00.002-04:00

Just to keep you busy at work or wherever.

Interesting business.

Creativity report.

And just for fun.

Enjoy!

Feel free to comment.

Let's Talk Turnpike.

2008-06-04T12:00:00.000-04:00

This is more of a complaint than anything else, but I think there's still some value in it.

I have a lot of experience driving across the country and would say that I have seen the best of roads and the worst of roads. I would like to take this time to air my complaints about the Indiana toll road (I-80).

In my trips between school and home I spend five hours driving - one in Indiana and four in Ohio. Of these five hours, four and a half are on the toll road (I-80). While Indiana's toll way has always been a bit worse than Ohio's, the disparity has recently increased significantly. The fact that the Indiana's toll way was just privatized may contribute to this, however, I will not claim it is causal (me not blame private industry for once? scandalous). I have five major problems with Indiana's toll road:

Police presence is not obvious. While some may say this is a good thing, I feel that the drivers on Indiana's toll road would be a bit less reckless if the police were more obvious. Driving in Ohio, when somebody passes me at 90 mph driving recklessly, I will see them pulled over a few minutes later a significant percentage of the time. In fact, I and my friends have been pulled over for speeding on a few occasions - the officers in Ohio seem to be doing their jobs - not attending broken down vehicles (as in Indiana). (this has always been true, not just since the privatization)
Construction in Indiana always interrupts traffic. While I have been in jams in Ohio, construction does not always cause a jam. In Indiana, if there's any construction at all, I come to expect a jam. This is especially true since the privatization - construction zones seem to be set up 'efficiently' instead of with common sense. Why would you set up a zone so that three lanes have to merge at one point? If such a situation arises where only one lane is open in Ohio, the workers 'step' the merges for a few miles out. Also, I never see Indiana workers at night. On the Ohio Turnpike, if a major project needs to be done that would interrupt a lot of traffic, the work is done at night (and the workers have several weeks' notice). Finally, Indiana's lack of three lane roads bugs me - but I can understand that it can be cost prohibitive.
Since privatization, the Indiana toll road has changed its cards from displaying rates, exits, and rest stops to a bar code with some exits listed. With no rates, people can't pay with exact change unless they know what the toll will be ahead of time. This decreases efficiency. Ohio's turnpike has always had exits, rest stops, and tolls (for all classes of vehicles) on an easy to read card. There is always a long line at the gates going east out of Indiana, but there is rarely a line going west out of Ohio (with similar traffic amounts before hand).
Since privatization, the rates have gone up more than 60%. I don't have a huge problem with rate hikes - but I want to know where that money is going and I'd like some heads up that it happened. If it weren't for a friend informing me that the trip to Indiana's border would cost $1.60 more, I don't know if I would have had the cash to pay (I normally have a ten, two ones, and three quarters ready for my trips for easy payment). Had my friend not told me, I would not have known until I left the toll way - remember, the cards are not marked.
Finally, since privatization, Indiana's toll road incessantly advertises its 'I-Zoom.' I don't have a problem with advertising, but the way they do it really bugs me. They have been using those light up signs that alert travelers of upcoming construction to advertise. This creates three problems for me: (1) upon seeing these signs from a distance, I start to prepare for possible bad traffic - only to find I have been deceived; (2) I fear that people will stop paying attention to these signs - like the boy who cried wolf; and (3) having these signs out on the road means that they cannot be rapidly deployed in the event that something comes up - the time it takes to get the sign, bring it back to the station, reprogram it, and send it to the area it is needed could be better spent working or preventing a traffic jam.

Again, this is more of a 'vent' session, and I will refrain from making too much of a case against privatization. I will also refrain from lambasting the PA turnpike and extolling the NY turnpike (free internet at rest stops? amazing). If you have thoughts, feel free to comment.

Oh, and before I go, might I say that Indiana's road department is just plain bad. When you approach an intersection and see a sign saying "Begin right turn only lane," you shouldn't have to cross over a bike lane to get out of the left turn only lane that appeared instead of the aforementioned (and non-existent) right turn only lane. I would chalk this up to a mistake if this hadn't happened to me in multiple locations over the past few years. This and other experiences lead me to believe that Indiana's road department has a different person work every fifty feet of road way. Merge left after an intersection my ass.

A Short Post

2008-05-28T00:00:00.002-04:00

I know, I'm cheating - this isn't a real post. But here are some very interesting and important links for everyone who has a stake in health care (everyone).

One from Krugman

One from Uhlmann (OK, not about health care - but still important)

Another from Krugman

And a Frontline special

I've just been busy (and have really been reading a lot lately). We'll see if I can't get a real post in over the weekend.

Oh, and feel free to comment on any of these links. I'll respond... eventually.

A Proposal to Strengthen the Unions

2008-05-21T00:00:00.001-04:00

If you were to ask a corporation such as GM what its largest expense is, it would claim that legacy costs were dragging it into bankruptcy. In other words, health care/insurance and pensions are the largest expenses GM and other major corporations face.

If you were to ask a union like the UAW what its biggest problem is, it would tell you that lagging membership is hurting it the most. Why is membership lagging? People don't see any benefit to being in a union.

I have a solution to both of these problems: have the unions 'buy' health care and pensions. The health care and pension liabilities would have to be offset by something - namely, concessions by the firm. The two concessions I would like to see are lower executive pay and higher worker pay.

So, let's set up an example, working with big, round numbers. A firm has 500 high salary workers (executives), 1,500 low salary workers and 3,000 hourly workers. The hourly workers have an average pay of $50,000/yr for a total payroll of $150 million per year. The 1,500 lower salary workers have an average pay of $100,000/yr for a total payroll of $150 million per year. Finally, the top 500 salary workers have an average pay of $300,000/yr for a total payroll of $150 million per year. This leads us to the conclusion that $450million/yr is spent on payroll.

We'll also postulate that there are as many retirees as there are workers, and that they receive 2/3 the average pay in pension, bringing us to $300 million paid to pensioners per year (with $180 million going to retired hourly workers). Finally, for simplicity's sake, let's assume that the company spends $50 million every year in paying for everybody's (retired and active) health insurance (this averages to $5,000 in health insurance per year). This all brings us to $0.8 billion going out for wages, pension, and health insurance.

If the company was not doing too well, it would look to cut insurance costs and withdraw pensions - saving a possible $350 million per year (of course, this would be very bad for the legal and social standing of the company, but it is theoretically possible). A better plan could be the following:

Give the pension liability of the hourly workers to the union, along with $1.8 billion over ten years* and the current amounts paid for retirement (the money collected off the paycheck that will be used in the future for retirement). This way, the company loses some asset money (what has been paid into retirement accounts) as well as $180 million/yr for ten years, but will not be held accountable for hourly worker's retirements after 10 years.
Give the health insurance responsibility of the hourly workers to the unions, along with $300,000 and either transferring current policies or giving 3/5 of the total insurance money collected to the union.
Raise hourly pay to an average of $100,000/yr gradually over the next ten years (again, working with round numbers). This would bring the cost of hourly labor to $300 million per year. With no money paid for pensions or health care, this would save the company over $30 million per year.
Lower the average executive (high salary) pay. If the average pay scale were: hourly-100k, low salary-100k, high salary-200k, the other changes made, and health insurance still at $5,000/yr (for salary), the company would save about $65 million/yr after ten years.

The union, in turn, would have to do the following:

Raise dues in order to pay for the retirement costs and insurance costs.
Run its own health insurance as a non-profit. While this will be a laborious and political process, it will save about 20% (possibly more) in insurance costs (about $6 million). Also, because there would be an incentive for workers to stay with the firm (and thereby the union), investing in preventative medicine would show better results than what we see today.
Deny the workers who chose not to be unionized health insurance and pensions (they would have to pay for their own).

These changes would both save the company money and the union would see a surge in membership (due to having a tangible effect on the workplace). Also, legacy costs would no longer be a scapegoat for bad executive policies. These are changes that are more easily adopted in our current system than universal health insurance (although I support universal health insurance, but that's another post) because it would not be "the government interfering in our lives" that many 'conservatives' despise.

Finally, I apologize for making so many odd and made-up numbers. If there is a demand for it, I might do some research to look up specific costs for a specific company (though you must remember that I am lazy).

*I am assuming that employees retire at age 65 and the average age of death is 75. Hence 10 years makes sense. If this is incorrect, it can be adjusted.

Economic Incentive

2008-05-14T00:00:00.005-04:00

It has been said by many - and rightfully so - that a disparity in income is a powerful incentive to work harder.* The generally accepted idea is that people will work harder if there is a reward guaranteed for their extra effort. This has been used time and time again to 'defeat' many of my more socialist ideas (which usually involved rewards above and beyond what we currently have - just not rewards in the same fashion. Different equals bad for many people). I hope to take a closer look at the system this 'people won't work (or innovate, etc) if they aren't paid' ideology supports.

Again, this 'hard work gets rewards' attitude is often used to defend our current set of institutions. This makes two key assumptions: namely that we are currently in a meritocracy and that socialism cannot be a meritocracy. It also fails to set bounds on what a person can realistically accumulate before greed - which is a social ill and has detrimental effects on a community - sets in. As you may have guessed, I do not believe that we are in a meritocracy (at least, the merits we most reward are also known as sins), I do believe socialism can easily be a meritocracy, and that rewards need to be capped when they start to be detrimental to society.

1) We are not in a meritocracy.

We all grew up with the belief that, in America, if you work hard, the sky's the limit. Unfortunately, this is not true. The truth is that your family's income while you grow up will likely determine where you end up when you raise a family of your own. Are you the son (yes, gender specific) of a millionaire or billionaire? Good, chances are you can buy your way into the boardroom of a corporation. Want a congressional seat? 90% of congressional seats are won by the wealthier candidate. Was your father in the Forbes 400 (or close to it)? There's a very good chance you'll be there too. Do your parents live in the inner-city? You'll probably have been in jail at least once. Is your school system poor? Even the top scorers in your class will do worse than the low scorers in rich school systems.

I realize these are a bunch of scenarios (supported by facts) and not the best indicators that hard work pays less - but how about the following: since 1973 worker productivity has risen 35% while median wages for workers have not risen at all. The wages for having a college education have only increased 17% (still not meeting average productivity). Household wages have risen 16% since 1973, but this is a bit unrepresentative, as there are more two-earner households - looking at only men's wages, there was no increase (and looking at a specific subset of men - aged 35-44 - to account for the amount of baby boomer unskilled labor in 1973 versus the amount of baby boomer skilled labor in 2005, wages have fallen 12%). In other words, for the majority of the population, being more productive has not translated into rewards.**

I could go on about how people that work hard with their hands are not rewarded as much as people that know the right people (can anyone honestly say that our current president earned his way into the presidency?), but I will move on for now.

2) Socialism can be a meritocracy.

One of the largest stereotypes I hear about socialism is that it depresses individual initiative. While I was thinking about this statement, I realized there were two ways to defeat this idea: past action and theoretical possibilities.

When people talk about socialism, they often mean soviet-era Russia, China, or the major Scandinavian countries. So, when they say socialism stifles initiative, they often refer to one of these areas. Unfortunately, most people are unable to point to systems in place to stifle invention in these systems (for examples of stifled inventions in our system, check out the history of the DeLorean and Studebaker's Avanti). In fact, in the USSR, it was encouraged (with government funds!) that an injured tank driver use his design skills to build the famous (or infamous) AK-47. I'm not going to make a case for the whole system, but I do believe that a system which encourages low-end workers to innovate using government money is a better system than one that leaves the innovation to the 'professionals.' The amount of innovation in computer technology, health-care, and other fields coming out of the Scandinavian countries and China (the pacemaker is a great example from Sweden) certainly do not show a damper on innovation. I will, however, qualify this section by saying that money and power were still incentives in all of these systems - and that with their excessive share of elites, Soviet-era Russia and China could hardly be called truly socialist.

I think, however, there is one institution that can be a model for competition without a misdistribution of wealth: the Olympics. People train all their lives, competing in amateur (unpaid) venues, all for the chance of going to the Olympics to represent their country and possibly win a medal. Sure, a handful of winners get major advertising contracts, but can you say that money motivated the majority of contestants? I don't think so. I believe that it is in the Olympics that we find a model for a socialist meritocracy.

For a better meritocracy, we would need to reward hard work better - the best mechanic at a factory should be rewarded for their ability. Whether this is through pay increase, awards/medals, or some other mechanism, it should be available (unlike now, where you are encouraged to lie about how long you have worked in order to have some free time and keep your job). Factories in the same industry should engage in friendly competition - simple rewards like a free steak dinner for all the workers in the factory that produces the most widgets per capita in a year encourages higher productivity while discourages worker abuse (definite, simple rewards allow workers to decide how much 'work harder' attitude they will take before they won't work any harder). Finally, for workers that show exceptional skill, I would like to see job Olympics. Something simple and regional will do fine - with contests like remaking a room (for hotel workers) or fixing an engine (for auto mechanics) with judging on time, quality, and cost efficiency would be a simple way to encourage good workers to become great workers. This is all easy to implement in a socialist society.

I will also mention that in a socialist society as I've advocated for before (see the 'Job Corps' article) having artists and inventors die from starvation or poor medical care would not happen (also, people like Tesla could have spent more time inventing and less time working to feed himself).

3) Rewards must be capped.

First of all, let me clarify what I mean by rewards – I specifically mean the increase in one’s share of the distribution of material wealth and resources. Here in the United States, pay for the average CEO is more than 400 times what we pay the average worker. Also, CEOs receive material benefits above and beyond what are available to the workers (the power to increase their own salaries by appointing friends to their compensation committees or to buy legislation which benefits themselves or their corporations is intolerable). I believe this is excessive – far above and beyond the compensation necessary for the responsibility a CEO holds (cabinet-level civil servants manage bureaucracies and projects above and beyond the average CEO and have far less pay).

So, what should we do? It would be difficult to pass legislation to this effect, but I think that a large enough intra-corporation movement could force management to cap pay at 40 times average worker pay (why 40x? It’s the rate that the average CEO receives in Germany – a country most people would consider to be very productive and innovative – we could go much lower). Simply, workers could force management to write an amendment to a company’s charter that no employee can be compensated more than 40 times the compensation of the average worker (alternatively, 40x the median compensation package might work as well). Of course, because of the regulation of commerce clause in the Constitution, congress could pass laws to this effect – but it would encounter plenty of resistance.

Of course, I would like to see non-material rewards be valued more than they are now – “employee of the month” should be more distinguished, awards and merits should be based on performance, and all those other things I’ve mentioned should be incorporated into this system. The fact that hard work does not guarantee success needs to be erased and we must value the contributions of every productive member of society – not just those that can advertise it.

*For this discussion, I believe it is inappropriate to delve into whether or not this incentive is 'human nature' or because of socialization (again, the process of becoming part of society, not the economic system).
**This information taken from P. Krugman's excellent book The Conscience of a Liberal, as well as other sources.

News!

2008-05-13T22:40:00.002-04:00

Check out these American Public Media (Marketplace) links (1... 2... 3...). I think they add an interesting perspective to both past and forthcoming discussions.

-Mo

The Primaries

2008-05-07T00:00:00.004-04:00

Now that we're coming to the end of most of the primaries, I think it's about time to talk about how they could be corrected.

There are several things I find wrong with primaries/caucuses as currently practiced: they take too long, they cost too much, there is too much discrepancy, and they give disproportionate weight to the states at the beginning of the 'season.'

To fix these problems I suggest the following method, with four variations.

We pick a month (I favor May). On the first Tuesday of the month, 10 states have their primaries. Every Tuesday after the first, 10 more states have primaries - so the primary 'season' lasts four weeks (with five primaries). I will naturally plug my idea of the National Election Channel here to level the playing field, but even it's not necessary. Finally, all the primaries would have to mirror the general election in style (i.e. no caucuses), at the very least because they serve as elections in and of themselves (often, school levies and other local proposals find their way onto primary ballots), but also to lessen confusion and promote fair election practices.

As to the four variations:

Variant 1 - OLDEST FIRST.

Have the primaries occur in order of signing the constitution. Therefore Delaware and the other 9 states that signed first would have their primaries on the first Tuesday; Alaska and Hawaii (along with the territories) would have their primaries on the last Tuesday.

Variant 2 - SMALLEST FIRST.

Have the primaries occur in order of population, smallest to biggest. This way, states with less say in the general election due to lack of votes would have a larger say in the primaries. This would serve to be a 'check' on the bigger states' usual dominance of politics.

Variant 3 - BIGGEST FIRST.

The primaries would occur in order of population, biggest to smallest. Instead of looking at the country in terms of 'big states' and 'small states,' this approach consults what should be a representative sample of the population first, then looks to the rest of the population to break ties as the 'season' continues.

Variant 4 - EAST TO WEST, REGIONALLY.

Split the country into 5 regions* and conduct primaries accordingly. Compared to the other methods, this approach has less to offer in terms of balance, but for candidates, it would prove easier to campaign regionally rather than worrying about New York, Texas, and California being in the same primary.

All in all, I think this method, with any of the variations, would help parties to achieve what I perceive to be their primary goals during the primary season, namely: to pick the best candidate and to expose their candidate to the largest audience possible.

edit 5.13.08: I realized three things I should have touched on: 1) I think that it would be possible to work a rotation system into several of these. This would work best with the regional system (for years 1-4, Region 1 starts, for years 5-8, Region 2 starts, etc); 2) the difference between open and closed primaries. I have heard both sides, and I think it should be up to the state to choose; and 3) that the Federal Government would have no authority to make this change. I think that putting these rules in place and then saying that no government official can hold a job in the government if they don't follow these rules would produce the desired results.

*How I'd split the country:
Region 1. ME, VT, NH, NY, MA, CT, RI, PA, NJ, DE
Region 2. NC, TN, SC, GA, AL, MS, FL, AR, LA, VA - with DC tagging along.
Region 3. MD, OH, MI, IN, KY, WI, IL, IA, MO, WV
Region 4. MN, ND, SD, NE, KS, OK, TX, WY, CO, NM
Region 5. MT, ID, WA, OR, CA, NV, UT, AZ, AK, HA - with all territories tagging along.
This isn't set in stone, but I feel this creates a fairly compacted electorate that is easily reachable by candidates.

The Job Corps

2008-04-30T00:00:00.006-04:00

Well, here it is. After a week's wait... the 'Job Corps.'

My idea for the Job Corps is, as previously mentioned, a two-year mandatory program for citizens. Ideally, the two years would be served in service to our country either in the Job Corps, in the military, or in the Peace Corps. Citizens between the ages of 16 and 30 would have to work building and maintaining infrastructure, doing labor-intensive work (i.e. farming), or working in the bureaucracy that keeps the Job Corps running.

The Job Corps would (hopefully) do the following things:

Support the citizenry and provide for a minimum standard of living.
Create millions of new jobs.
Create a way for all citizens to contribute to our society.
Help modify people's views on society.

Let us now expand on each of these.

1) Support the citizenry and provide for a minimum standard of living.

The idea is that these two years of service would produce a large amount of very cheap (free if subsidized) goods and services. Schools, roads, parks, jails, houses for the homeless, and other public infrastructure could be built and maintained with this cheap labor - in addition, the barracks in which the Job Corps workers would live would be built and maintained by the Job Corps. Farming would also fall under the purview of the Job Corps. The modern factory farm is very labor efficient, but not resource efficient - a pastoral farm using modern equipment will not produce as much of one resource, but the net output will be greater (and, in most cases, healthier). By using Job Corps laborers, farms could return to the pastoral model and not suffer from lack of labor. Also, food grown in these farms would be used to feed both Job Corps workers and the needy. The Job Corps could also expand into the janitorial, waste collection, day-care and other service jobs that do not provide a living wage but are essential to society.

Of course, this would lead to other benefits: a farmer (or other business owner) who was amenable to the Job Corps taking over the farm (all actions like this would depend on the consent of the owner) could continue to work the farm as a supervisor paid a supervisor's wage (think of an officer in the military). In this fashion, people with experience could be brought on board and given both a good wage and secure retirement. Also, because there would be the limited ability to choose your job, people would be able to start learning trades (like carpenter, mechanic, electrician, etc) without the cost of going to a technical school. Finally, people who are physically disabled (but still want to work / are able to work) would be able to find a job working with the paperwork in the system (and thereby avoid the embarrassment of joblessness).

2) Create millions of new jobs.

This doesn't only apply to the jobs created by the Job Corps itself. After the first few years of the Job Corps, a large group of skilled and semi-skilled laborers would be entering the market. Small businesses, community based industries (i.e. civic theater, a city orchestra, etc), and other organizations would have well-adjusted, productive workers with a reserve of liquid income (remember that they would have been given a base standard of living and could expand their productivity horizontally - into other fields of work - instead of concentrating on getting enough money to feed themselves). With the creation of more mid-level jobs (the low level ones being covered by the Job Corps), the median income would raise, and the economy would benefit.

3) Create a way for all citizens to contribute to our society.

I know, plenty of people claim that everyone would rather sit back and be lazy rather than contribute. However, I have met very few truly lazy people - most people would rather do something they love rather than do nothing at all. Whether this is being a business tycoon or reading all the books about cellular reproduction, people are productive. As a society, we only reward a few types of productivity; child rearing, educating oneself, and creative creation are very rarely on that list. By having one standard way of contributing to society (service in Job Corps, Peace Corps, or the Military) and rewarding everyone equally for having contributed in this way, we open the door for later, 'unorthodox' contributions to our society.

4) Help modify people's views on society.

We live in a 'dog-eat-dog' world. Or, so we've been told. You know that if you give a dollar to a homeless person you have lost a dollar. You know that if you take a year off of school to take a mission trip you have lost money. You know that if you help a coworker on a presentation, you are helping them get a promotion over you. But really, should helping our fellow human be considered a self inflicted wound only to be undertaken when we have the time? I think not.

One of the most radical aims of the Job Corps would be to resocialize our citizenry (as in, to change the views we hold because of our society). In the Job Corps, just as in the military, team work would be rewarded. People of all races would be working and living together. Physical labor would not be seen as something 'below you,' as people would find out how fulfilling it truly is. Education would be available (I envision voluntary lectures being held in the barracks by nearby instructors). And most importantly, community values would be promoted.

It is my opinion that putting people together is the best way for them to share their opinions and learn more about themselves. By having a place where people live, work, and bond, we create an environment that fosters selflessness and charity. Each person is working to benefit themselves, their bunkmates, their barracks-mates, and by extension, everyone.

The Structure

I envision a structure similar to the military. People coming in for the first time would take a job-aptitude test and choose an occupation for 6 months (with secondary and tertiary choices listed, as positions may be filled by people with higher test scores). They would then go through training specific to that job and begin work. If they perform well, they would be awarded merits and commendations, if they performed poorly, demerits would be in order. After 6 months, these laborers would be allowed to choose again, this time with the new merits/demerits and the earlier test taken into account (hopefully this would allow people who were passed over for a job the first time to get into it now). Again, a few weeks of training would be in order for anyone who was switching jobs, with merits/demerits awarded as needed during the 6 months.

After the second set of 6 months, the laborers would be evaluated. If someone was found to have too many demerits, their contribution would be nullified, and another year would be added to their service. The laborers would take a second job-aptitude test, and, with these results and merits/demerits taken into account, they would choose an occupation for the second year (preferably one of the two already held, although exceptions could be made). The (hopefully) few who chose jobs they had not had before would go through training, and the rest would work for one year at the chosen occupation. They would then be 'graduated' from the program.

During the two years of service, laborers would receive food, shelter, job-appropriate clothing, and a small stipend (maybe $100/month). With merits, a laborer could increase his/her pay, with demerits the stipend would be decreased. During the second year, the worker would act as an adviser to the first-year laborers - the 'permanency' of the second year laborers would help to offset the influx of new laborers at the 6-month mark.

After 'graduation,' if a laborer decided to stay on, he or she would receive pay as a normal government employee, with two years credited toward their retirement. That person would act as a supervisor (supervisor being a loose term, more like supervisory co-worker) in whatever field they were employed, and with sufficiently high peer-reviews, could move up into the administration of the Job Corps. No one would be refused a supervisor job; if there were to be an overabundance of workers, the Job Corps would expand. Also, importantly, anyone who had been working a job that the Job Corps now employs people to do (i.e. truck maintenance) would be allowed to work as a supervisor.

The Job Corps would be split both regionally and by department (for example, there might be the Mid-West Roadway Corps and the Mid-West Agriculture Corps, with truck maintenance and dairy subsections respectively). Again, as the military, a bureaucracy would be created to manage the whole thing - with peer reviews, laborer surveys, and some elected offices to provide accountability.

The day-to-day operation may vary depending on job, but generally I imagine a 40-hour work week being adopted, with curfews on nights before workdays (some jobs, like farming or late-night road repair would have to figure out their own system, but this generally works). I've also kicked around the idea of passes needed for leaving the barracks, but I think that would be a bit much. Lectures and community events (plays, art shows, band performance) would be available to the laborers and they would be encouraged to attend as much as possible. Weekends would be as free as possible, with transportation to religious services available.

In conclusion, serving in the Job Corps (providing goods and services for our citizens), serving in the Peace Corps (building an international community), or serving in the military (protecting ourselves and the world) should be a compulsory duty for all citizens. It should not be looked at as the government forcing a citizen to work, but rather, as the price of admission to a great civilization.

The Robot Slave (and Human Dignity)

2008-04-23T00:00:00.008-04:00

edit 5.13.08: Please make sure to read the comments on this post. When you are reading this, please realize that part one is an attack of the idea that people have to work to survive and that part two is a plan to have everyone contribute and benefit.

I have often heard that people need to produce in order to be allowed to survive. In other words, in order to receive food, clothes, and shelter, a person needs to contribute an equal amount back into society. While technically 'fair,' this is just a bit too cold-hearted and counter to my understanding of Human Dignity and the idea that a person is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for me to accept. However, I find myself defending the idea that nobody should be starving or malnourished or lacking a roof - even those who do not contribute to the economy.

[It should be noted that, in economic terms, this issue is called the 'free rider problem.']

To expound upon my view I would like to posit the following scenario: for every person on this world, there is one equally capable, self-sustaining robot: for every CEO, there is a CEO-bot; for every plumber, there is a plumber-bot; for every artist, there is an artist-bot. So, there are 300 million robots and 300 million people in the United States.

Now, each robot begins to do the job that its human counterpart once did, in fact, humans are banned from being productive. Among humans, there is 100% unemployment; but the same amount of goods and services are produced (and, to reiterate, the robots require no maintenance or power, consuming nothing). According to some of my friends' philosophical leanings, in this scenario human beings would not be entitled to receive anything that is produced - they cannot contribute anything to society. Humans would eventually starve and die out.

Does this sound logical? I didn't think so. {As I understand it, humans are of infinite worth. In my mind, this means humans are of 1) equal spiritual worth and 2) equal material worth.} If robots were to output the same goods and services as humans without being a drain on the system, humans should be allowed to receive equal amounts of these goods and services free (absolutely, 100%, without work, free). In a summarized form: humans are entitled, merely by existing, to receive a basic level of goods and services as society is able to produce it. So, if a person were to sit around all day, that person would still be entitled to food, clothes, shelter, and other basic necessities as society saw fit. {Although I hold the unpopular belief that the perfect society for which we should strive would distribute all resources equally, I will defer to the popular view that people should receive in proportion to their contribution for the next few paragraphs.}

The big worry I encounter when I present this view is: 'people would stop working altogether and the few people that did work would have to subsidize those who stopped.' While I believe this is preposterous (people would continue to work because it is psychologically soothing and because it allows them to attain above a basic level of goods), this concern does need addressed satisfactorily rather than dismissively. To prevent a complete breakdown of society, I believe a 'Job Corps' could be created. Every citizen would have to contribute two years of service between the ages of 16 and 30 (preferably 18-20, with deferrals for education) to either the 'Job Corps' or the military.

The 'Job Corps' would put the citizens to work on low paying maintenance and labor-intensive projects such as: farming, road maintenance, infrastructure construction, trash collection, janitorial services, and so on. It would use the workers that farmed to feed the other workers, the construction workers would build housing for the others, and so on down the line so that it would be self-sustaining. The excess labor would be directed at improving the life of the less fortunate, and then distributed equally among the other citizens. The cost of living would be reduced drastically, and people would no longer need to work as hard to live comfortably - family and political organizations would benefit greatly from the time people could spend away from work. Finally, like the military, if someone enjoyed doing their job, they could stay on and make a career out of public farming, road maintenance, or any of the other jobs.

To sum up, people should be allotted enough to survive just because they exist. This should work fine in our current economic structure (assuming, of course, the structure is accountable to the public), but for good measure, a labor force could be created to reduce (eliminate) the economic strain this allotment of resources may cause.

If you were interested in the Job Corps, you'll be pleased to know that I'll explore it in depth next week.

edit 4.26.08: Added text bracketed by {} marks.

A pause.

2008-04-16T00:00:00.002-04:00

This is a pause to let you digest what's been written so far.

That's my official reason anyhow - the fact that I'm busy isn't helping!

edit 4.21.08: For the next few weeks, I'm only going to promise one update a week. I'll shoot for Wednesdays at noon. Finals, final projects, and summer break are going to get in the way. If you see an update on another day, Wednesday's will still be coming.

A Lebanese Constitution

2008-04-14T00:00:00.001-04:00

Lebanon, unlike many middle-eastern countries, has two things: a history of democracy and a large mix of faiths. Since its independence in the 1940s until the civil war in the 70s, Lebanon was a pillar of strength in an unstable region. Regional influences (such as the influx of Palestinian refugees and terrorists) have caused a decrease in legitimacy in the government and a reversion to the pre-independence mafia style clan rule.

Why should we care? Because Lebanon could very easily be the 'Switzerland of the Middle East' again. They want democracy, they want governance, and, unlike many other countries, they've had it and can afford it. If we work to promote democracy there, we'll see democracy in other countries.

The question we have to ask is "why has the government of Lebanon lose its former legitimacy?" The simple answer is: because the legislator was apportioned by religion based on a 1932 census. This census listed Maronite Catholics as the largest group in Lebanon and allotted them a majority of seats. This does not sit well with the current, obvious Muslim majority.

What can we do to get Lebanon back on track? I think Lebanon needs to rewrite its constitution to reflect the times - but also to allow religious sentiment to influence the government (to reject religion in any middle-eastern nation would be foolish). This is my proposal:

Have a two chamber legislator. The lower house would be styled after the German lower house, with half of its members elected in single member districts, and half its members apportioned by party. Religious parties would be banned from this house. Finally, this house would have the power of the purse, the power to form a government, and all legislation would have to originate here.

The upper house would be a 50-person chamber of clerics. People would specify their religions during voting procedures and this house would be apportioned to reflect the religions of the people. Each religion would receive one seat for every 2% of the vote it receives, with the religion to specify who is to fill these seats (no government officials would be allowed to be a member). Any religions receiving more than 20% of the vote would be given a vice president in the cabinet formed by the lower house.

Most importantly, the upper house would have a 'veto' power over the lower house. If the upper house doesn't approve of legislation, they would vote to voice their dissent. A bill, if it has been vetoed by the upper house, returns to the lower house for a re-vote. The lower house would have to pass the bill with one percent more yes votes than veto votes if they wanted to override the veto (i.e. the upper house votes 62% against a bill, the lower house has to vote 63% or higher to override).

What good does this do? 1) It stops the move towards theocracy. Instead of giving clerics of one religion extreme power, it gives them political franchise, but not too much. 2) It assuages the common middle-eastern fear of a secular government, but again, in moderation. 3) It represents the actual people of Lebanon, and thereby rebuilds legitimacy in the government.

Is this really necessary? No. But I think it will help build good governance in a region that desperately needs it.

Corporate Environmental Responsibility

2008-04-13T00:00:00.001-04:00

I had a neat idea about how to get corporations to care more about the environment: raise their taxes.

If you didn't know, pollution is a problem. Companies generally like to have lower prices, so they overlook problems they cause to the environment. What ends up happening is best expressed in the proverbs: "A stitch in time saves nine," "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure," and "by not addressing environmental problems during the manufacturing stage, companies push the more expensive clean-up and health-care costs onto the government and citizens."*

Lets say you have a company which owns a factory-farm with thousands of caged animals. It is very expensive to make an ecosystem accept the tons and tons of manure that comes out of these animals. Instead of dealing with it properly, the company digs a hole and pours in the fecal matter. This leeches into the soil, contaminating it and the ground water, killing wildlife and causing major health problems for nearby communities. The ensuing clean-up, treatment, and health costs (and ensuing problems with bad health like poor education) are much more than what the company would have had to pay for a treatment plant. The company only has to pay a fraction of what it would have to pay for the treatment plant in lawsuits - the rest of the burden falls on the government and citizens (taking care of a disabled child is a cost that cannot be calculated in dollars). This occurs every day around the world.

What do we do? Well, currently the government places a slap-on-the-wrist fine on companies that don't follow proper regulations (which, by the way, are lenient to begin with). Instead of a fine, I think we should make environmental damage cost more than prevention does. I think the EPA should compile a list of bad environmental practices and weight them as low, medium, or high in relation to their environmental impact (the quantity would have an effect too). An independent organization would then inspect conditions both at home and abroad. For each low level problem that a company has (each factory is counted separately), the sales tax is increased .25%; each medium level problem adds .5%; each high level problem adds 1%. The total amount of extra sales tax is tabulated and added to the cost of products from that factory when they leave that company's possession (for retailers, the cost would be added to all the products per store). This means that a company with a factory breaking 100 high level regulations would be selling its product at double its original cost.

[Interestingly, if quantity were taken into consideration, a tax could be levied like this: .25% increase for every X tons of manure improperly dealt with per month. Therefore, cutting the amount of manure improperly dealt with would cut the tax somewhat - which is more incentive to change than a pollute or don't pollute attitude.]

Hopefully, this will do two things: 1) make corporations put preventative measures in place and 2) allow smaller companies that follow environmental regulations to compete with larger companies that currently have lower costs due to breaking environmental regulations.

I know it's a lot of work, but I think our health is worth it.

*not actually a proverb

Greed

2008-04-11T00:00:00.002-04:00

Note: I realize I skipped Wednesday. I might update Saturday or Sunday to correct this.

How much is too much? This is a question that has been asked for a long time; its implications on morality, society, and taxation still cause problems today. Let's explore.

Each of these scenarios is based on a single provider for a family of four.

Scenario 1: A person makes $20,000 a year. This is right around the poverty line for a family of four in America. This person is having trouble getting the basic necessities to live in the area in which his/her family resides.

Scenario 2: A person makes $40,000 a year. While this is double the poverty line for a family of four in America, this person is having trouble affording the things that make life easy. A/C, cable, car insurance, and other common American expenses are difficult to afford, but attainable. While food is often bought in bulk or at fast-food restaurants, the family isn't hungry.

Scenario 3: A person makes $500,000 a year. This, after taxes, is more than enough to pay for food, clothes, transportation and many different 'needs' they have. They own three cars, a nice house, and a boat - while they might not have the 'best' of everything, they do tend to own name-brand items.

Scenario 4: A person makes $2,000,000 a year. The house is a mansion, the car is a Rolls-Royce, and everything they need is taken care of. They employ several house-keepers.

Now, which person - if any - is greedy?

It's not as easy as I wish it was. It really all depends on the person. If the person in scenario 1 was stealing cars to feed a drug habit while the person in scenario 4 started and chaired a commission to build thousands of free homes for low-income families, certainly the person in scenario 1 is much more greedy. While many of us (including myself) look at the excesses of the rich and condemn them as greedy, some of them are looking to better their family's lives and make a difference in society.

How do we distinguish who is greedy from who isn't? We might all agree that throwing a party where an ice sculpture of Michaelangelo's 'David' pisses vodka is excessive*, but what about owning three TVs? When does A/C become a luxury? What about having more than one car? It's really hard to tell who is working hard to better their lives (and has earned cable) and who isn't.

Our tax legislation has taken the easy route: if you are making a lot of money, you need to pay more of it back than those who aren't making as much (although in recent years this attitude has changed to 'if you make a lot of money, keep it - we'll tax the middle class'). While I do support redistribution, critics on the right correctly claim that this can unfairly punish those who have worked hard for what they have. On the other hand, going to a flat tax or some other right-supported policy allows the 48% of the "Forbes 400" - who inherited $50 million or more - a free ride on the backs of taxpayers. Neither position takes into account who is greedy and using the money solely for personal benefit and who feels that they can best use the money for charitable institutions.

An idea I think might help to solve this problem is a 'wage cap' of $1 million per year (with no taxes on this amount). This allows someone a very high standard of living while putting a damper on excess and ends the brutality of lower and middle-class taxation. In addition to the 'wage cap,' allow any money made beyond this point to be 1) taxed at 95% or 2) be put into a fund for charity from which pays the earner 10% of money disbursed (effectively a 90% tax if all the money was disbursed in the year it was put in) or 3) mixed between the two. This would also apply to inheritance, although I think I'd start the 'cap' at $10 million.

With this second part, a person like Bill Gates, who earns an estimated $176 million every year, could: let the government use $166.25 million and collect $9.75 million (this is option 1), put $175 million in a charitable institution (like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation) and earn a possible $18.5 million if the institution used this whole amount in one year (option 2), or take $101 million (which is taxed down to $6 million) and give $75 million to charity (earning a possible $7.5 million) for a total income of $13.5 million on the year. This provides an incentive to work and an incentive to give to charity.

Finally, while I like this idea due to its social justice aspect (and because I thought of it), I don't know if I like the idea of legislating morality. Greed is a sin. Charity is a virtue. Making them tax incentives makes them feel like obligations to the state, not to God. While this would form a 'more perfect union,' I feel that it could both sever our relationship with God and allow the legislation of other, less equal laws (like anti-gay marriage - see earlier post) that, while morally clear, are not acceptable in our democracy.

short edit: My fears of legislating morality have been lessened somewhat - extreme polarization of wealth leads to a breakdown of democracy. The closer everyone's income is, the less corruption and the more democratic participation. Therefore, legislating against greed is not just a moral duty, but a civic one as well.

* I really wish I had made that up - feel free to Google 'Kozlowski'.

An Election Holiday

2008-04-07T00:01:00.000-04:00

Hey all, this is a short one so that I'll have time to do homework, study, and procrastinate by answering your comments.

I really think that our election should be a national holiday for several reasons:

It would evolve some inclusive festivities.
It would allow those who work excessive hours to participate.
It would allow for last minute voter discussions - having a day to discuss the candidates and vote immediately thereafter would be beneficial.
It's always nice to get a day off.
I believe that some other countries have had some promising results by making election days holidays (although I can't remember which ones and am too lazy to look them up).

As with Unitary governments, this is something I'm not really worried about. Just think about it when the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November rolls around.

In Defense of Unions

2008-04-04T17:00:00.004-04:00

I've come under attack on several occasions due to my pro-union stance in an increasingly anti-union society. I always seem to hear the same arguments repeated over and over, with 'argument-ending' examples provided by people who've had no more contact with the union-corporate relationship than the Republican rhetoric they hear on Bill O'Reilly (or similar shows). It is for this reason I will defend unions point-by-point.

Arguments against unions:

Unions are corrupt.
Union workers are lazy - or become lazy.
Union workers are overpaid.
Unions are a strain on the economy.
Unions cost a company too much.
Unions are a strain on a worker's paycheck.
Union working conditions are the same as non-union working conditions.

My response:

Yes, some unions are corrupt. Also, some companies are corrupt. Also, some governments are corrupt. While any corruption spoils a system, the fact that there's a 'fire break' that needs to be corrupted before major damage can be done is a good thing. I don't think throwing democracy and worker representation out the window is a solution to corruption.
What workers aren't lazy? If given the choice to read a book and get paid or fix a road and get paid, what would you do? This is why there are foremen - to keep workers on task. The only difference in a union shop is that the foreman can't get away with verbal or physical harassment in order to make an employee do their job.
By what standard? By Chinese standards, we're all being overpaid (hell - I don't even have a job and I make money). By non-union shop standards, union workers can be considered overpaid. But, by union standards, non-union shops are being underpaid. Finally by executive standards, everyone is being underpaid.
The only thing that isn't a strain on the economy is slavery. Also, unions allow workers to make enough money that they can contribute back into the economy by being an effective consumer.
Yes, a company could cut costs by not providing health care, using unsafe working conditions, unfair wages, and treating workers abusively. It worked for Egyptians, Romans, Southerners, and other slave holders - but cost effectiveness at the expense of human dignity is not a road I want to travel.
I'll split this in two: 1) While union dues may take a chunk out of a worker's paycheck, how much would a worker receive if they weren't in a union?* 2) Safe working conditions, non-abusive working conditions, health care, and other benefits far outweigh the price-tag indicated on a paycheck.
Absolutely incorrect. I've heard stories and read books about the differences in working conditions, but the most telling experience is the difference between my work history and a friend's. We both had jobs working on trucks and various equipment. I was at a union shop (Teamsters), he was not. I had access to an air-conditioned break room, a heated garage (which didn't matter, because it was summer), and mandatory breaks every two hours; he had a heated break room and a short lunch. My summer wages equaled his starting wages; the wages of people starting at the same experience level at my shop were 150% of his wages (and equal to the highest wages he could receive). He was constantly harassed by his employer to work harder (this guy is a hard worker to begin with), and was told to do jobs halfway in order to decrease turn-around time (jobs like checking to make sure wheels don't fall off semi-trucks were routinely encouraged to be ignored). This is not an exhaustive list of what happened, but it gives you an idea. While I admit this is a specific series of events, it corroborates everything I have heard and read.

So there you have it, some common arguments and my rebuttals. If you have more, or have a problem with one of my rebuttals, feel free to comment.

*I wanted to put this after the story in #7: My pal made $10/hr with an upper limit of $16. For the exact same job people in my shop started at $16/hr and could work up to $25/hr.

Economic Dictatorship

2008-04-02T18:00:00.005-04:00

I have a problem that, in our 'democracy-loving' country, many (most?) of our population is under the control of dictatorships and oligarchies. What? How could this be? It's easy, lets see if you can guess which system is being used:

1. A person (or persons) has complete control over all facilities and systems under their command and can dictate policy, especially to those who are at the bottom of the ladder.

2. There is a group of people that were not elected to their position, but rather obtained their positions through heredity, merit, having major possessions, or garnering power over significant portions of the population. Out of this group, one member is elected (or alternatively, has garnered more power than most of the groups' members) to control the policies pursued with the collective power of this group.

3. The people using the facilities and systems by which they are governed elect representatives in order to establish policy. In effect, the population uses this body to govern itself.

Now for a graphic. The red is the policy making body (with red arrows as rules), the green is the disenfranchised population, the blue is the eligible electorate (with blue arrows as votes).
So, are you ready for the answers?

If you said that one is a dictatorship, you'd be wrong. It's our 'model' company - with the owner exercising full control over his/her workforce.

If you said that two is an oligarchy, you'd be wrong. This is our 'ideal' corporation - with shareholders and the board of trustees electing (or not electing) a CEO to control the workforce.

If you said three is a democracy/republic, you'd be wrong. This is the 'epitome of evil' - the socialist, co-determination corporation where the employees have a say in their careers.

[It should be noted here that you can conceive of a government and a company as the same thing, just in reverse: a government uses a portion of its citizens' incomes to provide them with goods and services - whereas a company uses a portion of its workers' goods and services and provides them with income.]

Now Mo, you may say, everybody knows that our 'traditional' business models are much more efficient. Why would we want to abandon them? Well, dictatorships and oligarchies are indeed more efficient than democracies. For example, it took the United States nearly 50 years to fully industrialize, whereas the Soviet Union took maybe 10.* But, I think everyone can agree that in general, history has shown dictatorships to be less concerned with human rights than democracies. So why do we tolerate economic dictatorship? (I'm not sure myself!)

Well, what else is there? There's communism**, but everyone is afraid of that (and to properly carry it out, one would need to re-educate people so they respected one another) because very few people actually understand it. There's Socialism, but again, our population is afraid of the government controlling major businesses. Finally, there's co-determination. While unions have attempted to make companies listen to the workforce (and have been demonized for doing so), co-determination puts representatives of the workers in a position to affect policy.

But alas, it will never work. People have said this to me time and again. Making companies responsible to their workers is inefficient and will ruin the company. This is why my friends believe this system won't work. However, you might have heard of three little companies that, by this logic, obviously cannot compete in today's market: VW, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz.*** That's right, because these companies are German, they must follow a co-determinist model.

"Lastly, the 1976 Co-Determination Act (Mitbestimmungsgesetz) covers all standard forms of company normally employing more than 2,000 employees. This provides for equal numbers of representatives from the employee side and the company side on the supervisory board, which consists of 12, 16 or 20 members according to the size of the company."****

Where do we go from here? I honestly don't know. I would say we need to pass a similar law, but I know that many companies have their corporate headquarters in a P.O. Box in Bermuda - thereby avoiding US tax and other laws. I would say that unions need to go on strike, but that would probably raise more anger against unions and wouldn't affect the corporations that are the worst offenders.*****

So, I don't know what to do. All I can say is that you should think about it, hopefully agree with me, and spread this idea.

I guess I'll leave you with this: who supervises the supervisors? We only trust the government with the powers we - the people - give it. Why should it be any different for companies?

*These are not solid numbers, as I am merely remembering key facts from history class. If I remember correctly, the US took a long time to go from a mainly agricultural economy to a mainly industrial economy (anti-trust laws, taxes, and humane working condition laws slowed the process significantly) whereas the USSR went from a pre-WWII agricultural economy to a post-WWII industrial economy with the aid of Stalin's five-year plans.
** Not Stalinism! I mean what Marx wrote about. Also see the Bible - Acts 2:40-47.
***I am - unfortunately - making an assumption that these companies are working under German law. Because I didn't feel like doing too much research, I cannot be sure this is true. However, I am sure that there are some large, international companies based in Germany which use co-determination.
****http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/emire/GERMANY/CODETERMINATION-DE.htm
*****WAL-MART!!!!! How many hundreds of discrimination, abuse, harassment and other lawsuits were filed this year alone? (Don't count the bogus 'I slipped on some milk' lawsuits)

Experience: Homelessness, Poverty, and Abortion

2008-03-31T14:39:00.010-04:00

Instead of an argument today, I'm going to reflect on an experience I had recently. It has three parts, so please bear with me.

I
I have to start where it all began. I was in my usual hangout, talking with some friends. After a while, it came down to just me and a couple (for the sake of this post, J&A) with whom I am good friends. Somehow we ended up on the subject of abortion.

Now, J, A, and I have similar views on abortion (we are both staunchly pro-life; from natural conception to natural death), and we generally see eye-to-eye. This day we were discussing what measures to take to decrease abortion.

To sum up J's position: abortion should be illegal in all forms and eliminated through legislation. A generally agreed.

To sum up my position: abortion is a systemic problem and should be gradually phased out through education - with legislation to follow. The only way to stop bad choices is to make people responsible for their actions.*

After some quibbling over details, I made the mistake of defending abortion by saying that it was a device used to allow the poor to opt-out of taking care of children that they couldn't afford. This was immediately followed by J's statement (backed by A) that the poor people in this country weren't truly poor - many have TVs and pay for cable instead of food. Also, A made a statement (without citation) that the majority of the people undergoing abortions were middle-class white girls. I was unable to adequately defend my position that there are truly poor among us. I therefore felt that I had 'lost' this debate (a perfect opportunity to reform my views!).

After some thought, I decided that J's position was the equivalent of the 'war on drugs' which the United States is currently fighting (and, in my opinion, losing). To ban something without properly educating and socializing the population is a bad idea. Put some economic crisis 'icing' on top and the ban becomes a black market. Also, another friend of mine, CT, told me that Planned Parenthood was a fundamentally racist organization with several serious studies backing this claim up (again, without citation). While I'm not going to form an opinion without the facts, I have always been wary of Eugenics.

So, with all this in mind, I reconsidered my position and have a somewhat modified stance on abortion (to be written later). However, the thing that really bothered me was the fact that I couldn't convince J&A that there were people who were truly poor in America.

II
A few days later, a group of us (including J&A, my girlfriend, and another good friend, CL) went to a local pub to unwind for the weekend. We had some fun, played some scrabble and generally enjoyed the evening. A little while after J&A had left, CL, my girlfriend, and I decided it was time to leave too. As we were leaving the pub and beginning to walk to my car, a shabby looking black man approached us. He asked us politely if we would stay and talk to him for a little bit. We, knowing it was the least we could do for this man, stood in the February cold and listened as he told us his story.

His name was Willy. He was homeless and he had a wife and kids. He told us about how he wanted to work but was considered undesirable by many employers. Because he couldn't get work, he didn't have a house, clean clothes, or even good food (and consequently, because he didn't have these things, he couldn't get work). The homeless shelters had filled up pretty early this year, so he wasn't able to get a warm place for his family to stay during the winter. He was still suffering from a bad leg after he was attacked by some teenagers just 'having a good time,' and he still had three bullets in him from a similar incident. He wanted to work, just no one would hire him because of his homelessness.

Now, I've heard these things before. I've heard the horror stories of people being injured in work accidents and becoming homeless because it was cheaper for the company to stonewall lawsuits than pay out insurance (from a man called 'Grasshopper' in Youngstown who was injured in a semi-truck loading accident). I've also heard hopeful stories about people opening their homes to the homeless and helping them get jobs (a shower, an address, and some nice clothes will go a long way). These experiences and more allowed me to understand what Willy was going through.

Did he ask us for money? Yes. Was he happy about doing it? I don't think so. Could he have been lying? It's possible, but the three of us are pretty good at seeing people's true intentions. This man was obviously pained by the fact that he had to rely on others for his survival, a situation no one wants to be in. Even if we hadn't given him a little money, I think he was glad that someone listened to his story without judging him before hand.

III
The car ride home was very quiet. While I thought about what had happened, I had two major revelations. The first was a bit selfish; I wished that J&A had been with us to see this man. He wasn't one of the working poor or the overspending poor. He was in true poverty.

My second revelation was a little more altruistic - I began to think about how I could help people like Willy and Grasshopper. I came up with a few ideas at first, followed by a small flood of them. They helped answer questions like: How could I give the poor a voice? How could I put a roof over their head? Food in their stomachs? And most importantly, how do I teach them to provide for themselves?

So, being a 'poor' college student, how can I help those in need? I have started writing down my ideas and posting them on this blog - where someone with more power than I have can see and use them. I've worked on some big charity events. Lastly, I've donated money to Kiva (just a little, but I think it will help).

I hope this reflection on some of my recent experiences will help motivate you to 'take the next step.' Whether it's spreading the word, donating money, or helping at a homeless shelter, there's so much you can do to help those who have become overlooked and marginalized to regain their basic human dignity.

And trust me, if you can't come up with some ideas, I've got plenty coming soon.

*1- I don't mean through negative reinforcement like jail time and 2- this is a generally applicable solution that will be a recurring theme throughout my posts.

The Abolition of Civil Marriage.

2008-03-28T23:41:00.004-04:00

Hey all, sorry for the delay. While I hate to admit it, you'll probably have more delays than posts.

Also, I'm in a creative drawing mood - not a creative writing mood. Today's post will be a short one.

I think that the institution of marriage should be taken out of the public sphere. Why? Because it's broken. We need to return it to a church-only affair.

A few short points about the current state of civil marriage:

Civil marriage only started in the late 19th century in Germany (it's relatively new).
It is primarily used for tax and inheritance purposes.
As far as creating lasting relationships, the divorce rate speaks for itself.
It is being used by politicians to discriminate against homosexuals.*
Divorce settlements, alimony, and other divorce 'incentives' have become ridiculous.

Instead, I think that many problems could be solved if 'marriages' were limited to church ceremonies and couples were treated as a business partnership. Civilly, treating a couple as a partnership would prevent tax problems and legal status problems (a divorce would be treated as breaking up a partnership), as well as creating a common-sense approach to couples in today's individualistic, hedonistic society. Also, living wills would help take the legal guess work out of the system.

Of course, I would prefer that the family would return to being the base economic unit (instead of individuals); however, because our society has rejected this model, we must take the next step in ensuring everyone's civil liberties.

Hopefully this all makes sense. If I need to clarify something, add a comment.

*Note: While I personally feel that homosexuality is inherently disordered, I cannot condone the discrimination that law-abiding homosexual couples face due to the legal maneuvering of politicians.

Easter

2008-03-25T15:23:00.001-04:00

Wow, Easter Break really threw that plan for a loop. I'll try to have something worthwhile posted by tomorrow night.

Nuts and Bolts

2008-03-19T17:01:00.002-04:00

As a bit of a side note, I've compiled a list of about fifty arguments that I'd like to explore on this blog. Seeing as I have a tendency to go on a spree and write a whole lot, I'm going to limit myself to adding a single argument on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays. Hopefully this will spread out my arguments and stop me from failing out of school.

I'll try to keep on that schedule, but who knows what will happen. I'll post an argument or proposal later today.

As far as posts like this, I'm sure they'll show up more often.

The Multi-Member District

2008-03-18T22:11:00.008-04:00

Another gripe I often hear is that the choice of candidates at any time is "bad or worse." I've heard all sorts of suggestions to fix this - from taking tests to throwing monkeys out of airplanes - but few actually set about solving the problem.

In a nutshell, we need more choices.

How do we get more choices? We need to introduce the multi-member district.

Currently, most of our elected offices are selected in single-member districts. These are any election where you vote a single person into a single office (President, Senator, Representative, Governor, Mayor, etc). Often it's just a Democrat and a Republican running, but if you have a popular independent, problems arise. The following scenario might occur:

40% of the electorate votes for the Republican candidate.
35% of the electorate votes for the Democratic candidate.
25% of the electorate votes for the Independent candidate.

In our current system, the Republican would win, even though 60% of the electorate voted against him or her. The Republican now represents 100% of the population of this district, although s/he only has 40% support. Although this is unavoidable in the Presidential and Senatorial races, a solution could be applied in races for the U.S. House of Representatives.

In short, if we were to make each state a multi-member district instead of a group of single-member districts, people would be better represented. A multi-member district is where the electorate casts votes for a group of people (usually a political party) in order to fill several similar offices. Lets run through another scenario, using parties, in order to better illustrate the multi-member district.

The State of Bliss receives 10 seats in the US House of Representatives. It holds an election which results in the following:

42% - Democrat
36% - Republican
14% - Libertarian
8% - Green

If the State of Bliss was made of ten single-member districts, there would be 10 Democrats in the US House of Representatives (although, if gerrymandering occurred, this number might be less). However, being a smart state, they use the state as one multi-member district. The following would occur: the Democrats, winning 42%, would send four representatives to the US House of Reps; the Republicans would send four as well; the Libertarians would send one; and the Greens would send one. This way, 100% of the electorate would be represented. Here are some of the benefits:

Gerrymandering (the illegal drawing of district lines in order to favor a political party or ideology - like racism) would be eliminated - the districts would be the states.
All political parties would have a say in government proportional to their popular status (governed by the will of the people).
A lot of the problems associated with money could be eliminated - instead of supporting one rich person that can win a district, people will have to support a party in order to win a majority in a state.
'Third' parties would be allowed into the system. With this comes a strengthening of ideals and platforms. Introducing competition into a marketplace is generally a good idea.
Parties could be short-lived and goal specific. If there was a national movement to invade Canada, an 'invade Canada' party could be established, win support, declare war, and dissolve when the war was over. (Obviously, I'm not suggesting invading Canada; just that a popular movement - like re-doing taxes - could get things done in congress).

There are a couple of notes I'd like to point out before moving on. First, this is specifically for the US House of Representatives - there are other, better proposals to fix the single-member district problem with the Presidency and Senate. Secondly, the use of parties is strongly suggested, but not required (local, union, and other elections sometimes do a 'fill in your top three' system, where people are weighted by preference). Finally, I believe that all it would take to change to a multi-member district would be an amendment to a state constitution. I could be wrong, but it should be pretty easy from a legal standpoint.

For the sake of keeping it 'short,' I'll refer you to my website for a possible amendment (with commentary!) that could be used to introduce multi-member districts.

Unitary Governments

2008-03-18T21:58:00.004-04:00

This will be a short one.

I've always wondered why the states (except Nebraska) ended up with a bicameral legislator. This doesn't make sense to me. The states are all Unitary Governments - their counties do not have reserved powers. I think it would be much more efficient for the other 49 states to drop their senates and start governing more efficiently.

So, to clarify for any non-political science majors:
The Federal government has a bicameral legislator consisting of the House of Representatives (based on population) and the Senate (2 Senators per state). This way, the states can exercise power on their own, and can continue to uphold the reserved powers. (This is why we still have small states like Delaware and New Jersey)
The State governments do not guarantee counties (or cities, parishes, townships, whatever) reserved powers. Any and all power that the local governments have is given to them by the State. Therefore, it does not make sense to have an upper house (usually senate) for the representation of local governments because they exist at the will of the state.

This is one of my off-the-wall suggestions. I don't feel too strongly about it.

National Election Channel

2008-03-18T20:44:00.009-04:00

Everyone seems to complain about there being 'too much money in politics.' It seems as if the 'little guy' really doesn't have a chance to compete with the more moneyed politicians (how many of you didn't vote for Kucinich or Ron Paul because they "just couldn't compete?"). To this end, I have the following proposal:

Make television and radio advertisements illegal.

Crazy? Yes. Insane? No.

Instead of having political candidates finance advertisements out of pocket and air them on TV and radio (where money buys time to catch voters), I propose that we adopt a National Election Channel. The following rules would apply:

If you gathered enough signatures, you would gain air time based on the office you are running for.
All candidates for the same office would get equal air time.
Local, State, and National candidates would have access to this channel (think 'weather on the 8s' for local and state).
As long as an advertisement was not obscene, it could be aired.

With these (and possibly other) rules, the following scenario could result: Six hours of programming that was repeated four times a day with four hours allotted for local and state politicians (mayor, council-person, state rep, US rep etc.) and two hours allotted for national politicians (senators? and the president). This way, a person could tune in to the election channel, knowing that the democratic presidential candidates would be airing advertisements from 6pm to 7pm (random times) and hear arguments and advertisements from each of the candidates.

I feel that this would open our democracy up to qualified candidates that are often overlooked. Also, this would help 'the little guy' point out problems in other candidates platforms.

This also opens up the idea of an independent debate where all the candidates have to answer the same questions in allotted time. This is something that I found lacking in the past few presidential debates. In the earlier scenario, you could add two hours of debates, and repeat three times a day (6X4=24, 8x3=24).

As a final note, print media (and web pages) would still be private. Why? I feel that people who search advertisements (and articles) in print media are better informed and would be less inclined to react to obvious attack ads.

Introductions

2008-03-18T20:37:00.002-04:00

OK, so I have to set you straight. My real name isn't Mo (imagine that!). While Mo Jones could technically be a real name, it's not mine. Figured I'd let you know.

What I'm going to try to do is give previews of my arguments for your consideration and comments. My full arguments will be available at mopishjones.googlepages.com - yes, I'm using Google to the fullest extent I can. They are not there yet, and probably won't be for some time. Hence the choice of 'Mopish' - I'm rather lethargic.

Well, now to get to work!

Site Created!

2008-03-18T19:54:00.000-04:00

I just created this blog.

We'll figure out where to go from here. Hopefully, I'll post something relevant soon.