Jobs Statistics?

Every week, or so it seems anymore, an article is published on one of the major news sites I watch about job creation statistics. While, all throughout the week, I read about companies dropping thousands of workers, somehow there are statistics out there that regularly show that the economy is “improving” and new jobs are being created in greater number than those lost in the same time period.

What no one seems to be discussing is the parity between the jobs lost and the jobs created. What I mean by that is, as far as I can tell, no one is evaluating the overall difference in compensation between the jobs lost and the jobs created.

Using the amazing powers of observation, I could deduce, however, that there is a difference, and that it is probably pretty significant.

First, I think it is worth mentioning that I don't see a lot of “Help Wanted” or “Now Hiring” signs or ads, but when I do, the jobs I see advertised are not impressive. Places like McDonalds always appear to be hiring, probably because the bulk of their workforce always seems to be under the age of 18 and those “kids” are probably heading off to college for large portions of the year. Basically, I don't really count working a fast food joint as having a “job” unless you're at least an assistant manager, and even that doesn't pay all that great and tends to leave much to be desired on insurance and long term financial planning (such as 401k programs).

I see a lot of warehouses offering jobs as pickers / packers starting around $9 (if you take the worst-offered shift). Again, that hardly counts as a “job” if you compare it to the thousands of high-end positions eliminated over the last month at companies developing pharmaceuticals or tech gadgets.

Maybe looking at a site like monster.com yields better results for some people, but every time I look about half the listings appear to be bogus (“werk at hom and make $100,000 a YEAR!”) and most of the ones that look legitimate make about the same pay I do working in a warehouse.

So what I'm attempting to illuminate is the fact that a lot of people see jobs numbers in the positive and think things are improving, but the numbers don't tell the whole story. I think we all need to be honest with ourselves – what we observe with our senses does not always mesh well with what we are being told by the media or government. I don't see anything improving in my little corner of the world, do you?

Also, while I have the moment, I want to share a link that tries to show the volume of debt currently being shuffled around by the U.S. federal government in a graphical format. Oh, come now, in light of the credit downgrade this week, you knew I wasn't going to let that subject drop, right?

http://usdebt.kleptocracy.us/

In game or life, “There is safety... in mindfulness.”

Be well, friends.

World Debt Apocalypse

Okay folks, in light of the massive looming debt crisis here in the United States, I'm inclined to do a little writing.

Most of us have read at least a little about the 14 + trillion dollar “debt ceiling” that the idiots in Congress are arguing over of late. It would seem that there is argument over whether that's a lot of money or not, whether they should be allowed to borrow more, and what the impact would be if this limit isn't increased.

I'm not really sure that I care to get into all of that at the moment because, quite frankly, I don't see a good end to it regardless of what happens. I did, however, do a little reading on debt in general.

So, when you and I go into debt, generally there is someone to whom we owe money, and the prevailing logic would be that this person or entity has money in abundance, and thus would have little or no need to incur any debt of it's own.

Of course, this is a logical fallacy. One being able to lend money has no correlation with one's own ability to stay out of debt.

In terms of the world debt situation, there seem to be very, very few countries that have little or no debt, and those countries are, in fact, not the kind of countries anyone would flock to for a loan. Inversely, even China (the largest single holder of U.S. treasury debt) has a national debt of it's own, officially equivalent to around 400 billion dollars (although I've read some articles pegging it closer to one trillion).

If every country on the planet owes money to another (or to many others) and no single one on the planet has any actual money to pay any of them, doesn't that kinda look like a really bad scenario waiting to happen? With all of this massive debt laying around, I would think that someone out there would have to have a shit-ton of money laying around, or at least a giant, debt-free, warehouse full of IOUs. But, thanks to the inventors of fractional reserve banking, this simply is not the case.

I've posted about this sort of thing before, but I can't speak out enough about it. Here's another, easy to find but probably often ignored, link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

This system, simply put, allows for a situation to exist where there is more debt in existence than there is actual currency with which to repay it. This is what leads to what I said above – everyone owes but nobody has any!

I guess I'm not supposed to have an opinion on that, huh... I'm just supposed to shut up and go to work. Speaking of which... 

Greater Cincinnati Water Works

Or doesn't, perhaps...

In any event, I am once again subject to the whimsy of the water utility from Cincinnati, and am already being punished for it.

Last night we received our first quarterly bill from GCWW. It is a partial bill, and we were told we'd get it, so that wasn't a surprise in any of itself. For 21 days service, we were billed $44.71, which I think is extremely high but, again, I knew it would be. The icing on the cake, however, is yet to come...

The previous tenant hadn't paid HIS last bill... and GCWW tells me I have to do it.

After explaining that I do not own the house, the guy kindly informed me that it may not be my responsibility to pay it, but if I want my water to remain on, SOMEONE will have to pay it.

After doing a little research, I decided to call PUCO, the utilities commission here. Sadly, not enough research apparently because PUCO doesn't do anything with this particular water utility because it is a municipal system (I didn't realize that), but they did tell me that I can call the mayor's office and complain.

Odd, I think, that I'm calling the mayor's office of a city in which I do not live nor pay taxes to complain about a utility that I always figured was a private corporation in the first place. Surprisingly, though, the person I spoke to there seemed to want to help me, but admittedly offered no advice on how to proceed in the matter. Apparently she'll call me back. :-/

So now I'm left with calling our landlord to discuss how to handle this bill as expediently as possible. It is my hope that we'll simply agree to deduct it from my next rent payment and I can get the thing paid in full immediately. If not, while I'm not in a hurry to start a shit storm, I have to wonder if this could somehow constitute a violation of our lease on their part...

I honestly don't see how it is that anyone has the right to take a debt incurred by one person and impose it upon another in this manner, but I'm dealing with the water utility and, all kidding aside, I have never had a particularly positive relationship with any water utility...  

Two Hundred and Thirty Five Years

Using a more modern definition, one might see the United States as a sort of Empire. No, not the same manner of empire as that which was maintained by the British from circa 1580 to 1997 (a span of over 400 years) which entailed establishing colonial authorities across the globe, but one that executes it's authority via cultural, economic, and military influence without directly commanding the affairs of each individual country.

Actually, in many ways, America's “empire” is similar to that which it previously was subservient, in that, for a long time, there has been little or no real political rivalry, and we have commanded the world economy, in a manner of speaking, for decades. Problem is that we seem to be trying to copy what the British accumulated in two centuries while only being at it for less than one, and doing it without the same colonial enterprise that the British utilized.

This, combined with our lack of a King or other such solitary leader, somehow makes the United States less of an empire...

This gigantic military and economic power is precisely that which will bring about our downfall, and further, is exactly what the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution wanted us to avoid. Our President, not Obama specifically but the authority of the office, has risen to be something very similar to a King, which today can even wage limited warfare without the approval of another authority. People often credit the President with having accomplished things (or not) that are totally outside of the power of the executive branch, and in some way they are often correct simply because some manner of [probably corrupt] behind-the-scenes pressure seems to be in use to effect change. Further, the pomp and splendor of state dinners and other political and diplomatic events has certainly surpassed that to which British Kings were accustomed in the 16^th and 17^th centuries, something I believe says a lot about how detached they are from the laborers of the country – the knuckledraggers that actually do all of the work.

Fact is, the United States maintains a significant military presence in at least nine different countries, three of which are considered combat zones (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya). In Japan and South Korea also reside a heavy man-count, I presume to counter threats from North Korea. In all, nearly a quarter of our active-duty personnel are stationed in other countries, some of which today seem nonsensical, including our so-called combat zones. Mind you, Congress hasn't formally declared war on another country since our June 5, 1942 declaration on Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania during World War II. Since then, lesser designations and possibly Constitutionally-questionable military actions have been authorized and funded by Congress, but never an admission that a state of war actually exists.

In many of the most important ways, the Executive Branch today operates independently of the other branches of government, and in many other ways may pressure the other branches to bend to it's will. No one man controls the country, but the President and his administration has a number of officies that tend to function without direct oversight of any other government body. Politically, economically, and internationally, the behavior of our government is in direct opposition to the core values supposedly espoused by the founding fathers, yet many of us continue to blindly accept it based on some concept of the greater social good... a concept that wouldn't even exist had we not spent ourselves into a debt oblivion that is crushing everything in sight under it's weight.

In closing, yes, I love my country. I love it for what it was prior to World War I, for what it could have been had it held fast to principles of non-intervention and, dare I say, isolationism, and for the fact that I still have the right to speak out against it when I deem it necessary.

Of those, one (at least partially) remains. When it is totally gone, there will be nothing left of America as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, My Debt Ceiling!

All this talk about the Federal Debt Ceiling has me thinking a bit. What is the debt ceiling? In effect, it operates as the Federal Government's maximum line of credit, much like a credit card, except that Congress can increase their credit limit any time it wants to.

First and foremost, the debt ceiling that has been in the news so often really has nothing to do with the total unfunded liabilities of the Federal Government, like social security, medicare, and medicaid benefits over the next 30 years, so it is a little misleading. All of those future expenditures will require further increasing the debt ceiling, massively increasing taxes, or insane cuts to future so-called “services.”

Secondly, the debt ceiling has been increased 74 times since 1962, and I don't particularly doubt that they'll raise it again. The past tends to be an excellent predictor of the future, and the alternative is random debt defaults by the Federal Government, which would surely have damaging effects on the economy.

In any event, I can do a little fuzzy math myself, but my scenario still looks reasonable (at least in my opinion.

Hickersonia's current debt ceiling: $1,905. This is approximately 4.6% of our income for 2010, and isn't really “debt” in the classic sense. We don't owe this amount to a bank and pay it back to an account I have set up as the result of a “loan” from my wife's parents that, for whatever reason, they have been reluctant to let us repay.

So, in effect, any time that account has less than $1,905 in it, I treat it as a debt that needs to be repaid.

Right now, Hickersonia's “national debt” is $864.13, factoring out medical debts. What is this debt the result of? Vehicle maintenance. Figures, huh?

In comparison, the Federal Government's debt is currently in the realm of 14 trillion. Actual revenue, on the other hand: 2.16 trillion. How any entity can survive with debts that are around 7 times the value of their income, I will never know, but I sure can't operate that way.

As a little aside, I wanted to post the following YouTube links. They are each part of a five-video series titled “Money as Debt.” While I'm not sure I agree with every conclusion the author comes to near the end, I do believe that the basic concepts of our financial system are well represented, which should really infuriate anyone who has so much as half a brain.

Money as Debt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sanOXoWl0kc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTv1fo6sKmo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qicabStQkc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kpSbkaD4tM

And now I'm off -- to go make some of that money. Ha!

Gassy Gripe

Been quiet again for a while, I know.

The thought had crossed my mind to play an April Fools joke by posting that I was going to close down the blog, but I realized that in the off-chance that anyone read it, it would probably be 30 days before I'd post again. Probably wouldn't be very funny by then.

Anyway, I feel like griping a little.

The only real gripe I have right now is the cost of gasoline going up so dramatically over the last couple months. I can attest to a 17% or more increase in the price of gasoline since December 20, 2010. Some people tell me that we're still nowhere near Europe's prices, of which I am well aware, but this isn't Europe. This isn't a country where mass transit is readily available, or even practical if it were, for half or more of the population. Further, I've noticed a cost increase between 4-10% on everything we buy (except beer, oddly) that I believe is linked to the rising fuel cost.

The mantra I hear repeatedly is that we need to drive less, and I agree with that in principle, but I can also say that I already drive near the absolute minimum. I don't go cruising about town for fun like I did when I was a teen, and I generally only drive to and from work every day with no other stops.

Sure, I could use a bicycle for my six mile commute, but I have to admit that my fear of other drivers maiming or killing me (particularly at midnight on the return trip) dissuades me completely from the idea... that and I'm woefully out of shape for the task and a significant portion of the trip to work is an uphill climb. But really, I think I'd do it if it weren't for other drivers sharing the space with me, I'd just have to walk part way until I reconditioned my body to the biking again.

So I look at this situation as an ever-depressing downer on my otherwise stagnant internal economy, and I'm not impressed. Worst of it is, some jackass is making money off of me and I feel powerless to prevent it...

Hell, I even had one guy at work tell me that I needed to buy a more fuel efficient car because of the fuel costs. I guess he doesn't realize that first, we're bankrupt and would probably be laughed at when we try to apply for a loan, and second, the monthly car payment (even at a “good,” pre-bankruptcy interest rate on a used vehicle) would certainly be larger than the fuel costs that it would be saving.

Yes, I learned this the hard way when we bought the Escort a few years back. On paper, it looked OK, but in practice we still spent more. And then the insurance cost more too... that was nice.

Well, I guess that just kinda came out as a ramble. Not sure how best to close this, so I'll just go random. Coffee FTW! Oh, and come on Cardinals! Start winning!

Educational Debuff

Writing “Unlevel Playing Field” got me thinking, there is another issue that I believe presents a major drawback to the American people in today's global economy. As we see fewer and fewer manufacturing jobs (for a verity of reasons ranging from outsourcing to increased automation), we see an increase in the need for people to become more educated so that they can compete for a number of less physically strenuous, but more complex service related jobs. Yes, I am equating manufacturing jobs with “unskilled labor,” which seems to be a fair comparison coming from someone who works in a position that qualifies as such.

The issue isn't that I'm against education. In fact, I admit that I have a tenancy to evaluate a person's base worth to society based first on my own estimate of their intelligence, as ugly as that sounds (at least I'm honest). The problem here is that the cost of getting a decent education is prohibitively high, making it extremely difficult for people to justify the decades of student loans they will be repaying.

I have learned, however, that in some countries, a student would not be burdened by such insane costs. Of course, this could lead me to issues of constitutionality if someone wants to suggest that the U.S. federal government pay these costs, but state governments could without question, if they weren't already fiscally destitute. And yes, that too could lead me on another tangent.

So what I'm getting at with this is it would seem to me that another massive debuff on our economy is the significant lack of college educated people... arguably our high school diploma level of education is barely adequate, and many people are unable or unwilling to invest the little money they may have in what they may consider a gamble at-best. This coming from a non-college-educated person married to a woman with a four-year degree that has not been particularly helpful to her getting a job, yes I consider many college degree programs to be a gamble, and I'm too risk averse to bother with it.

So take what you will from my rambling... and maybe I'll come back soon with more to add.

Unlevel Playing Field

Best I can figure by compiling several sources, I can deduce that the workers in Chinese factories make around $1.00 per hour (this is rounded up to the nearest dollar, but sources vary from 44 cents per hour to 83 cents per hour) before overtime in factored in (whatever that means in China). Some sources make a point to state how much worse the rates are in places like Mexico or Indonesia, but being most goods I see at our local stores are Chinese, I'll pick on them specifically.

I can't say whether $1.00 per hour is considered a decent wage there, but that aside, it does go to illustrate a fundamental problem with our trade policies. Some call it free trade – that basically we put a minimal level of restrictions on what comes in or out, but I think we should have placed one huge restriction on incoming trade a long time ago. Fact is, businesses in the United States are required to pay their employees a certain “minimum wage,” and other countries may not have such a standard, or their standard is far below ours.

Now I know people can cry foul because the cost of living is simply not at high in those countries, but I simply see that as the main disadvantage we're facing today. If companies in other countries were required to pay at least the U.S. idea of minimum wage to their workers, we would probably still manufacture a great deal of these products here at a competitive price. Of course, we can't just change this now – I'm pretty sure that would spell disaster. It is important, however, to recognize a major flaw in our trade policy and remember it as we move on to the future.

I seriously believe that our nation would be in a better position today, at least economically, if we had made a few key decisions differently. In 1935, the federal government instituted the nation's first federal minimum wage standards. At that time, it is my belief that we should have insisted any company desiring to sell products in the U.S. pay that wage and prove it to the federal government in order to be permitted the right to sell it here. If this had happened, and been adhered to even half of the time, not only would we have forced the improvement of living standards in those countries, but we would have kept prices consistent with that which manufacturers in the U.S. can compete – keeping jobs here in the U.S.

I'm sure enforcing this would have been a nightmare in the 30s, but today I imagine it would be relatively easy (not that it would be without problems or cost).

Again, I wouldn't advise trying to implement this today, considering we have so little real manufacturing left in this country. What we would be left with is a bunch of super expensive import products and no American-made options. That, and our trading partners would be really pissed off.

Anyway, just thought I'd use a little lunacy to help illustrate what I think to be one of the fundamental reasons why the U.S. is hurting today in the global economy. Come back tomorrow to read the second part of this ongoing ramble.