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.

Never Before Debt Default Fallacy

Okay folks, I get it...  Everyone wants to believe that the United States has never defaulted on it's financial obligations, but this fallacy goes too far when news organizations, such as Fox News did today, perpetuate the lie in print:

(red underline added by me)

Article here:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/20/senate-republicans-show-flexibility-in-debt-debate/

Above, Fox News perpetuates this idea that the United States has a perfect debt repayment record, but a simple Google search reveals the error in this assertion.  In 1979, for instance, due to error more than anything else, the Treasury Department was late making payments on T-bills, resulting in late payments in excess of $100 million.

And of course, lets not forget the Joint Resolution To assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States, signed in 1933, which refuted the concept of the Gold Standard.  Again, Google it if you want to know more -- I've posted about it previously.

My point here is that if the media is pushing lies and misinformation such as this, they are doing more harm than good.  Use your brains and think about what they give you -- don't just accept it as truth without questioning.

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... 

Truly Sad...

I found this particular CNN poll very sad...

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/04/poll-1776-date-puzzles-some-americans/

The article reads that, of 1,003 adults polled, only "58 percent [are] aware their country declared independence in 1776." Further, only about 3/4 of those polled knew from which country the United States declared independence.

Tonight, as I fall into a drunken sleep, I can only think of how this is really sad... that these people are seriously that stupid...

If the Federal Government Shuts Down...

In the even that the Federal Government gets “shut down” by the lack of a budget bill, what will we miss out on?

Schools and colleges will still be open to “educate” us.

Utility companies will continue to provide electricity, water, and trash collection services. Even your cable TV will be unaffected.

The internet will remain online. Your precious porn will not suddenly disappear, nor will you be unable to Tweet to your friends about it.

Hospitals will not start refusing new patients. ER's will not suddenly become overcrowded (no more so than they are now, anyway), overwhelming medical services across the nation.

Banking institutions will continue to handle your credit card transactions and loan applications.

Even unemployment benefits will continue unabated, as these, while mandated by the fed, are paid for by state governments.

I understand that the unfortunate fact is that there ARE things that will indeed be affected by a so-called government shut down, and some of these services are critical to the lives of certain Americans. I'm just trying to quickly illustrate that a great deal of the services we have come to expect have nothing to do with the federal government, and I have a feeling that most Americans could live without them. Maybe that is why there is so much publicity about this – Congress is afraid that we'll realize we don't need them if they disappear for a while?

Hmm... I wonder if congresspeople, and/or the President, still get paid if this “shut down” happens...

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.

Massive Debt + Math Wrath = Insane Financial Fail.

I've heard a fair bit of conversation, and been involved in quite a bit of it myself, about the idea of the United States defaulting on its debts. I often hear it said that the United States “has never defaulted on a debt,” or that the strongest economy in the world “could never collapse” (much like the Titanic could not sink?).

No one learns about this particular subject in Civics class, but I think we all should. The United States has indeed defaulted on it's contractual obligations to pay debts, particularly as it pertains to paying them in gold, and one specific mention of such a default is the result of the Joint Resolution To assure uniform value to the coins and currencies of the United States, enacted June 5, 1933.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Gold_Repeal_Joint_Resolution

Once passed, this effectively told all creditors of the United States, most or all of whom previously had the legal right to have our debts be repaid in gold, that we repudiated the obligation to do so – that they would be paid in our national currency instead. Of course, at the time, our government (under President Franklin Roosevelt) was in the midst of the Great Depression and enacting policies that greatly devalued the US Dollar, making it an unattractive medium of exchange for investors (sound a little like what is going on today?). This resulted in lawsuits landing in the United States Supreme Court, where the law was upheld (barely), and set the stage for the complete abolition of the Gold Standard (or Gold Exchange Standard, as it might be better described after 1933) in 1971 under Richard Nixon.

Fact is, claims that the United States has never defaulted on a debt are false, and if it has happened before, it certainly can happen again. Today we see signs that the Federal Reserve is devaluing our currency (Quantitative Easing) and that, in particular, foreign investors are less interested in our currency as a major medium for trade. Of course, making your money less valuable makes sense when you owe 14 trillion dollars (not to mention the trillions of dollars in obligations that we are contractually obligated to pay over the next 50 years). Hell, our debt roughly equals our nation's Gross Domestic Product (the total market value of all goods and services produced in the country in a year). Everything I observe tells me that the United States government is not simply capable of defaulting on its debts, but that it will be forced to do so.

Financial Comedy

12 cents each. That's all, I swear!

You want 1.1 billion of them? That's great!

There is just one catch. Some random percentage of them will be defective due to faulty equipment and sloppy processes, and those will have to be destroyed and new one will need to be made, all at your expense.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/40521684/The_Fed_Has_a_110_Billion_Problem_with_New_Benjamins

That's pretty much what is happening in relation to the newfangled, so-called “high tech” $100 Federal Reserve Notes. Aparently there is a defect that will cause some number, as of yet undetermined, to be useless, and each one of these worthless pieces of “high tech” paper costs 12 cents.

I guess it is OK to waste so much money when you consider that the money used to pay for it is also worthless... but that doesn't make it sound any better when you consider all the stuff people can still, for now at least, buy with it.

I sometimes wonder if we waste more money implementing new anti-counterfeiting measures than we'd waste simply dealing with the counterfeiting directly. 12 cents doesn't sound like much, but that's 12 cents for each of 1.1 billion bank notes... totaling 132,000,000 dollars. If these were one dollar notes, each one would cost 12% of it's face value to create, but regardless of the tiny fraction of the cost involved with these $100 notes, 132 million dollars is still a lot of money to see disappear into thin air.

Of course, I'm sure they printed enough to compensate for it...   

Federal Regulations on... Bake Sales?

Alright folks, my wife brought my attention to an article that I want to make sure gets noticed by as many people as possible:

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/nation-world-news/hold-the-brownies-bill-could-limit-bake-sales-1020132.html

So, let me get this straight... there are “public health” organizations that believe that the items commonly available at fundraisers such as Bake Sales (among others) are “bad for us, mkay?” Alright, I'll bite – sure, I can't argue for any nutritional benefit to most such foodstuffs, but how does that become an issue for the Federal Government? Why does some random organization, no matter how well financed or intelligent it's members may be, have the right to forcibly interfere with my food choices?

From what language in the Constitution does the Federal Government derive the power to write any such legislation at all? If someone says the “Commerce Clause,” it serves only to illustrate just how ridiculous interpretations of the Constitution have gotten.

If a particular school district wants to enact health rules on fundraisers, by all means, let them, but tell the Fed that their help is neither needed nor desired.

Continued Appeasement of Dictators

Once again, North Korea has committed itself to reprehensible acts and the world is standing around like “wow, I cannna believe they done did that thar.”

I think one thing that we as a species should have figured out by now is that a bully, when left unchecked, will continued to be a bully, especially if he thinks he has a bigger stick with which to beat you. The North Korean regime continues to be a thorn in the side of the so-called “free world,” and after repeated acts of war it would seem that pretty much everyone is content to just let him carry on about his business of murder.

I hate the thought of committing the country to another war, and I do believe that, as it stands right now, we're clearly over our heads financially and probably cannot afford it, but that doesn't seem to be stopping Congress from spending on so many other programs and entitlements... so why not? Things like this are a major reason behind my opinion that a national health care system is unaffordable – it isn't simply that it will increase taxes (which it likely will), but that we need to use the money more on matters of being prepared for crazy people like Kim Jong-il to do evil things... or else we have to keep letting such people do those evil things with impunity.

Also, for the record, it shouldn't always be the United States that is compelled to “do something” about these people. To the rest of the world: What the hell is wrong with you people? Why won't anyone else do something about this bastard? We're kinda busy right now, could someone else stand up and take some of the work off our hands for a change? South Korea only puts up with it because the North does indeed seem to have a bigger stick than they do, and we (nor anyone else) is willing to support them fully.

The world really is a crappy place... if only it were so easy that we didn't have to make choices between letting evil people reign terror on others or putting people in harm's way to stop them.

Related Articles:

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/11/23/skorea-nkorea-fires-artillery-island/

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/asiapcf/11/23/nkorea.skorea.military.fire/index.html?hpt=T1

Business as Usual

There are times when I seriously think that companies, particularly news companies, seem to be intentionally trying to alienate their online readers through intrusive advertising. I understand they need to make money, but this has gotten to the point of lunacy – to the point where I've been experimenting with various ways of disabling advertisements and even completely boycotting sites on which ads cannot be blocked to my satisfaction.

This got started a few days ago when Fox News hit me with a new kind of ad that takes an screen-capture of the site and then uses an animation to slide the page down (like it is lying down) so that a nearly full-window ad can be played. I don't know what the ad was for (the only thing I pay attention to is the frustration in figuring out how to close it, not the content of it). The ad's “close” button was almost exactly the same color as the ad's background, so it was nearly impossible to see. Obviously, I wasn't incredibly impressed. By the time I had closed the ad, I had decided that I didn't really need to read any articles on Fox News, and have even removed the site from my bookmarks.

So I started checking out CNN and noticed they too have started using some pretty odd tactics with their ads, although nothing quite so infuriating as the Fox News example above. Most of their banner ads will expand from a tiny bar to a half-window length billboard when the page loads completely. What this means (for me, anyway) is I'm just starting to click on the link to the article I want to read by the time that the ad enlarges, moving my link out of the way and putting the expanded ad right under my cursor (meaning, I click on the ad by accident because everything has moved).

These tactics are abhorrent and clearly illustrate either how greedy they are or how badly they are hurting financially. In either case, I have found an interestingly easy little trick to kill most of the ads (including Fox News' evil in-line ads – you know, the ones that underline seemingly random words in the articles and show you ads ever if you accidentally hover your cursor over them?).

I have set my Chrome browser to disable JavaScript except on sites where I have deemed it “safe.” This list includes sites like this blog, Facebook, Twitter, and Reason, where the ads shown are done so in a tasteful manner and which I have deemed necessary for operation (Facebook doesn't work very well without JavaScript, and Twitter won't work at all), while I leave it disabled on pretty much every other site. Amazingly, Fox News and CNN's ads have gotten a lot less distracting, and in many cases have disappeared altogether.

Do I feel bad that they are going to lose a little bit of ad revenue? No, not really, especially if it means the difference between controlling the garbage content displayed on my screen or not. Fire the assholes thinking up these advertising tactics and I'll turn my JavaScript back on.

Interesting Happenings in Hickersonia...

Last night I returned home from work to find nearly a dozen law enforcement vehicles, including canine unit(s), at my apartment complex. Blue and red lights flashing all over the place and dogs barking – many of the neighbors standing outside wondering what was going on. One neighbor said something about “dey be shootin' people 'round here,” but I had to brush that off as rumor since, quite frankly, I just didn't really think that so much commotion could occur without waking my wife. That and the neighbor in question didn't sound intelligent enough to tie his own shoes let alone be aware of anything around him...

Well I come to find this morning that someone was indeed shot last night, but news sources are rather tight-lipped on details at the moment.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20101019/NEWS010701/310190024/1196/NEWS/Man-shot-in-Fairfield

http://www.fox19.com/Global/story.asp?S=13346749

I can't find much on the subject aside from the above links. I call Fail on the law enforcement and news right now because in this day and age of radio, telephone, and internet, there is simply no excuse for information to not be distributed more quickly and completely. Speaking technologically (not ethically or legally), If the police cite me for jaywalking on my way home from the Wendy's restaurant a couple blocks away, I should be able to look up the citation on that law enforcement agency's website when I get home. Basic information on something like a shooting in my parking lot should have been available to me within minutes of police responding to it -- I shouldn't have to wait until morning for half-completed blurbs.

Anyway, I hope they can find the shooter – I really hate to think that I could be walking from my car some evening from work and get shot for the 30$ in fuel money I carry or something else equally stupid...