Looks like an influential member of the inner circle is now promoting the site ( you know who you are...), so I figured I'd give a quick update on some recent events.
1. As mentioned previously, the stimulus continues to do its job as a stabilization policy. New home sales went up nearly 27 percent in March, as people were clearly pushed to buy by the tax credits which require a house to be closed on by April 30. My father was one of these people, buying his retirement/ eventually permanent home in central Arkansas. Of course, some d-bag banker tried to claim he wasn't credit-worhty, despite 40 years of career work, his wife having 30 more years of employment, and my father having a documented track record of 37 years of responsible home ownership. Fortunately, he found someone else in time who wasn't a power-abuser, but it reminds you how much control businesses have in these transactions, and how they have the ability to mess over people who have played the game the right way, solely because they can.
This follows the BLS stats which show that 162,000 jobs were added in March, the most in 3 years . Sure, a decent number of these are Census jobs and other temporary measures, but those people are still working, are still paying taxes, and still buying things. Given where we were a year ago (remember DOW 7000, S&P 675, 700,000 losses a month?), this is a welcome place.
Obviously the key for both of these is if this lays the groundwork for an economy that doesn't need monetary and fiscal stimulus, and that needs to happen soon. But disaster has been averted, and that point cannot be hammered home enough.
2. Tax Day came and went with a small rabble of Tea-baggers complaining about things that are at best incoherent, and at worst not true. As Bruce Murphy at Milwaukee Magazine points out, Wisconsinites' state taxes and fees rank 19th in the nation, and the state is right at the middle in spending . As Murphy brings up, while Wisconsin's income and property taxes may be comparatively high, their sales taxes are very low (at 5.0% statewide) and fees for items such as car registration are miniscule compared to places like California or even Indiana.
A lot of the reason behind the "improvement" in the tax rankings is due to expanded tax credits and other reductions authored by the Doyle Administration, which has governed as a corporate-friendly centrist group along the same lines as the Tommy Thompson regime (with some of the cronyism and penalization of the cities and UW System thrown in for good measure). The REAL reason Doyle isn't running for a third term is because liberals threatened to bolt or stay home if he did, because of his record of selling out, and he couldn't win if that happened. These are the realities, reagrdless of how angry-man radio tries to portray Doyle as some kind of left-wing job destroyer. I WISH he was left-wing like they say he was, we'd probably in a lot better shape fiscally.
3. With the tax burdens in mind, the Legslature should regret not voting to allow Milwaukee County the chance to set up an RTA. Watch for an announcement in the coming weeks about multi-million dollar reductions in services for the next 2 years on MCTS, on top of the huge reductions and fare increases in recent years. Now, Scott Walker and co. may not mind, as it "proves their point" about how things need to be overhauled (instead of maintaining what was working, God forbid these guys do that), but for real people, this will hurt a lot. It also means that property tax (and therefore County residents) have to remain the large providers of funds for the bus, and it will put pressure on the state to make up aid once the new Census figures come out in 2012, which will undoubtedly give the Milwaukee area a smalller amount of aid to operate.
You think MCTS would have a better chance of surviving if the 62,000 people that attended pro sports events in Milwaukee last night all were kicking in 0.5% of the money being spent on tickets, drinks, and food? This is especially true for the 15,000 obnoxious Cubbie fans invading Miller Park- make THEM pay for our buses and parks. Why not? They're using our streets and freeways on their trips up here.
4. Cloudy and dreary today, but after the above-average temps the last 8 weeks, including the 6th-warmest March on record in Wisconsin as well as the well-above normal temps since October, I am not going to complain. Things are great in Wisconsin as they are, but when you combine it with a rare real Spring for weather, they get even better. And forecasts say Terrace Season will be back soon enough.
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Get Bucky off WTMJ!
I just sent the following to UW Athletics. We'll see if they say anything about it, but I have a hard time believing I'm the only one that thinks this way.
"I am writing to discuss your alleged Milwaukee Badger sports afilliate- 620 WTMJ in Milwaukee. This station has consistently given short shrift to the Badgers as a priority and has consistently denigrated the university on its non-sports shows, and as a former Milwaukee resident, season ticket holder, and Badger Fund contributor, I would recommend finding another station to house Badger games in the largest media market in the state.
WTMJ has what can at best be described as an inconsistent basis for broadcasting Badger games. Badger basketball is frequently pre-empted for Bucks' regular-season games and Brewers exhibition games. Weekly Badger talk shows and coaches' programs are sent to other stations with no consistent home or broadcast, and Badger hockey (including tonight's title game, check to the left side of the link) is nowhere to be found on TMJ. Yet WTMJ constantly promotes itself as "Wisconsin's sports leader," and uses calls from Matt LePay as a key part of that branding. With thousands of UW grads and many more fans in the Milwaukee area, we deserve the ability to find our Badger broadcasts and programs on a single station and at the times that the games are occuring. The much smaller Marquette constituency has no problem locating their shows on 1130, WISN, but Badgers do not get the same luxury in a town they should have preminent status in.
In addition, WTMJ constantly denigrates this great unviersity on their airwaves. Daily shows hosted by people such as Charles Sykes and Jeff Wagner mock the university's culture and academic acheivements. Those of us that love this university and all that it is associated with are insulted when we hear a Charles Sykes promo in the middle of our Badger games, and do not need to hear those loudmouths disrupt our enjoyment of listeneing to Badger games.
Sykes and Wagner also act as a favorable front group for politicans such as Scott Walker and Glenn Grothmann, who are in favor of drastically cutting state funding to the university, which drives up to tuition to unaffordable levels for many Wisconsinites and Badger fans. TMJ talk show hosts are also are heavily associated with the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI), an institution that threatened the UW's commitment to fair and quality research by signing a contract with faculty member Ken Goldstein. WPRI further sullied the UW's reputation when Goldstein had to back out of the contract because WPRI was manipulating the results of his research to fit their anti-UW and public services agenda. This great university does not need to be associated with a station that uses itself as a platform to constantly knock down the UW.
Such a move away from WTMJ could give a serious boost for UW sports and in how it is portrayed in local Milwaukee radio. There are two other Milwaukee all-sports stations that would love to have Badger sports full-time in WSSP (1250AM) and WAUK (540AM). Both already carry Badger sports as the secondary home for Bucky when WTMJ pre-empts Badger programming for professional sports or their daily talk shows. In addition, both have commitments to other teams that can be described as minor at best (1250 has the Admirals), and both would probably be willing to make those commitments secondary to taking a full load of Badger football, basketball, and hockey.
Either station may pay more than WTMJ in order to establish itself as a Badger station, especially given that those listeners would then continue to listen to their stations when the Badgers are not on the air. In addition, 1250 or 540 would not have talk show hosts who denigrate the university like WTMJ does today, so I believe a move to one of these stations would be a win-win for the university, the station, and the grads and fans that closely follow Bucky in the Milwaukee area. It is not coincidental that WTMJ's station ratings rise in Fall, when Badger and Packer football is in full swing. Radio consumers stick with the station that they get their sports or other key programming from, and there is little doubt that many Badger fans do the same with WTMJ. This means that station is still on WTMJ when their talk-show hosts come on during the day and spew their anti-UW and Madison agendas.
In closing, I would recommend making WTMJ pay for their second-class treatment by UW by looking elsewhere for its Milwaukee affiliate, and am curious to know when Badger Sports Properties' contract expires with WTMJ. I have little doubt that there are thousands of Badger alums and fans such as myself that would like to see a permanent home for Bucky in Milwaukee, and away from a station that rips it whenever the games aren't on.
A double alum, football season ticket holder, and lifetime Badger,
Jake ******"
P.S. Another reason to get Bucky off WTMJ. Journal Broadcast Group has given nearly $15,000 to Walker this election cycle already . In addition to being patently unethical (how can reporters cover Walker fairly when the bosses are giving him cash?), Scotty boy's the one without the college degree. You think he'll care about the UW or any other type of higher education when he's in office?Edit: Capper notes that it's a refund of previous ads of Walker's on TMJ that never ran. But that reiterates the point, because radio stations make money on selling ads, and you don't want to piss off your clients.
"I am writing to discuss your alleged Milwaukee Badger sports afilliate- 620 WTMJ in Milwaukee. This station has consistently given short shrift to the Badgers as a priority and has consistently denigrated the university on its non-sports shows, and as a former Milwaukee resident, season ticket holder, and Badger Fund contributor, I would recommend finding another station to house Badger games in the largest media market in the state.
WTMJ has what can at best be described as an inconsistent basis for broadcasting Badger games. Badger basketball is frequently pre-empted for Bucks' regular-season games and Brewers exhibition games. Weekly Badger talk shows and coaches' programs are sent to other stations with no consistent home or broadcast, and Badger hockey (including tonight's title game, check to the left side of the link) is nowhere to be found on TMJ. Yet WTMJ constantly promotes itself as "Wisconsin's sports leader," and uses calls from Matt LePay as a key part of that branding. With thousands of UW grads and many more fans in the Milwaukee area, we deserve the ability to find our Badger broadcasts and programs on a single station and at the times that the games are occuring. The much smaller Marquette constituency has no problem locating their shows on 1130, WISN, but Badgers do not get the same luxury in a town they should have preminent status in.
In addition, WTMJ constantly denigrates this great unviersity on their airwaves. Daily shows hosted by people such as Charles Sykes and Jeff Wagner mock the university's culture and academic acheivements. Those of us that love this university and all that it is associated with are insulted when we hear a Charles Sykes promo in the middle of our Badger games, and do not need to hear those loudmouths disrupt our enjoyment of listeneing to Badger games.
Sykes and Wagner also act as a favorable front group for politicans such as Scott Walker and Glenn Grothmann, who are in favor of drastically cutting state funding to the university, which drives up to tuition to unaffordable levels for many Wisconsinites and Badger fans. TMJ talk show hosts are also are heavily associated with the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (WPRI), an institution that threatened the UW's commitment to fair and quality research by signing a contract with faculty member Ken Goldstein. WPRI further sullied the UW's reputation when Goldstein had to back out of the contract because WPRI was manipulating the results of his research to fit their anti-UW and public services agenda. This great university does not need to be associated with a station that uses itself as a platform to constantly knock down the UW.
Such a move away from WTMJ could give a serious boost for UW sports and in how it is portrayed in local Milwaukee radio. There are two other Milwaukee all-sports stations that would love to have Badger sports full-time in WSSP (1250AM) and WAUK (540AM). Both already carry Badger sports as the secondary home for Bucky when WTMJ pre-empts Badger programming for professional sports or their daily talk shows. In addition, both have commitments to other teams that can be described as minor at best (1250 has the Admirals), and both would probably be willing to make those commitments secondary to taking a full load of Badger football, basketball, and hockey.
Either station may pay more than WTMJ in order to establish itself as a Badger station, especially given that those listeners would then continue to listen to their stations when the Badgers are not on the air. In addition, 1250 or 540 would not have talk show hosts who denigrate the university like WTMJ does today, so I believe a move to one of these stations would be a win-win for the university, the station, and the grads and fans that closely follow Bucky in the Milwaukee area. It is not coincidental that WTMJ's station ratings rise in Fall, when Badger and Packer football is in full swing. Radio consumers stick with the station that they get their sports or other key programming from, and there is little doubt that many Badger fans do the same with WTMJ. This means that station is still on WTMJ when their talk-show hosts come on during the day and spew their anti-UW and Madison agendas.
In closing, I would recommend making WTMJ pay for their second-class treatment by UW by looking elsewhere for its Milwaukee affiliate, and am curious to know when Badger Sports Properties' contract expires with WTMJ. I have little doubt that there are thousands of Badger alums and fans such as myself that would like to see a permanent home for Bucky in Milwaukee, and away from a station that rips it whenever the games aren't on.
A double alum, football season ticket holder, and lifetime Badger,
Jake ******"
P.S. Another reason to get Bucky off WTMJ. Journal Broadcast Group has given nearly $15,000 to Walker this election cycle already . In addition to being patently unethical (how can reporters cover Walker fairly when the bosses are giving him cash?), Scotty boy's the one without the college degree. You think he'll care about the UW or any other type of higher education when he's in office?Edit: Capper notes that it's a refund of previous ads of Walker's on TMJ that never ran. But that reiterates the point, because radio stations make money on selling ads, and you don't want to piss off your clients.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Hoops, baseball and our economy
That was a tremendous NCAA basketball tournament that wrapped up. It had everything you wanted- tons of close games decided late, some shocking upsets, an amazing run by a small school in Butler, and a classic final game that was decided with the last shot in the air.
I consider March Madness the greatest annual sporting event in America, and it works in a way much like how what we would like to believe our country works. There are many more areas in the country that have teams get into the tournament, and many people can relate to some college that is playing, even if they don't care about basketball itself. If you win your little conference title, you get your chance on the floor against the big boys, and sometimes the little guys get the job done. And the title isn't determined by some fixed formula that gives massive benefits to the big boys and makes it near impossible for the lower-resource schools to get through- you gotta earn that spot on the court. Most often, it is not the team with the most individual talent that takes the title (i.e Kentucky, Roy Williams' Kansas teams), but it's the team that can combine its assets the best to be the best team out there. Sure one or two guys mightbe superstars, but often it's glue people like Nolan Smith or Brian Zoubek that play within their roles that take the team to the next level. Duke's students may be overwhlemingly trust-funders that don't have to work hard to end up on top, but their basketball team did, and deserved the title they got (as much as it pains me to say that).
But perhaps it is fitting that Major League Baseball started up yesterday, because in many ways, MLB works much like how our country REALLY works. MLB features some distribution of revenues between teams, but the revenues a Yankees or Red Sox can generate through local radio and television deals overwhelms the amount of revenue a team like the Brewers or the A's can get. Given that all of the teams in MLB are in the same labor market for players, and that players can move relatively easily from team to team once they hit free agency, small-revenue teams have to pay every bit as much as big-market teams to get the same caliber of player, regardless of the differences in items such as cost of living or room for advancement This will help to explain how an arbitrator could legitimately give an average player like Corey Hart a salary near $5.0 million- because other teams have paid the same amount to the same level of player. In fact, a players' lower chances of off-field revenue or on-field success may mean that smaller-revenue teams have to pay MORE for the same player- Wickett and Russell on 1250 AM call it "the Milwaukee tax.".
But it goes deeper than that when comparing baseball's economic structure with the overall economic one. A major advantage the big-revenue teams have is the ability to be wrong. They can offer an extra year or two of guaranteed salary or overpay for a player coming off an injury because if that player doesn't pan out, it's still a small amount of their payroll, and they can cast off the excess baggage with no major hurt to their team. Smaller-revenue teams can't afford to be tied down with a risky long-term contract because it is much more damaging to have to hold on to a dead asset, and their flexibility to right the mistake is greatly compromised.
The same holds true in our greater society. People with money and resources have a much greater ability to take chances and have more confidence in being able to make their moves because they can AFFORD TO LOSE. Poorer people are often locked into their job with their substandard health care and lame town because they can't afford to end with nothing for any amount fo time. Therefore, they become a lot less likely to go back to school, move into a different career, or relocate to a better community- coming up short is far too great a risk to take, so they remain in their current, losing situation instead of making the move that would be more likely to end up with a better outcome.
This is why safety nets like national health care, unemployment, and available student loans are so important, because it expands (or maintains) the choices that remain available to the average citizen, and lessens the chance that they get forced into a substandard result due to their options being limited. And our overall society suffers as well, since you now have individuals taking employment and productivity below what they should be doing, just like how financial constraints keep a number of teams from even trying to compete with the big-revenue clubs. In MLB, you see interest being depressed in numerous markets (think KC, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Milwaukee under the Seligs), and understandably fans and even players see no major reason to care a lot, since trying hard does not lead to a much different result. It also leads to a 2-tier league where the groups are clearly on different levels of play and expectations....much like what we see in America today.
And the remarks from the winners and losers are much the same, too. Check out Yankees President Randy Levine chiding Brewers owner Mark Attanasio for mentioning the Yankees' huge payroll and budget advantage over the Brew Crew. To an extent Levine's correct, the Yankees are doing what they can to have the best chance of winning under the current system. This includes paying anything they want to free agents and bidding millions to unknown foreign-league players, which are luxuries that smaller-makret teams can't take advantage of for every available player that comes down the pike. This is a lot like how a trust-funder gets extra connections to colleges and employment that open a lot more doors than it does for the average schmoe. Maybe we should give a bit of credit for the trust-funder if they reach a level of success after going through those doors, but Levine's comments are much like trust-funders and othber elites asking "Well, why should you punish my success?"
The bottom line is, 1. a healthy system is the only reason you'd have a chance for that success in the first place, and if the system falls apart and there's less nationwide interest in the game, you'll probably lose too, and 2. You really aren't showing that you're any special, you just ended up doing what you probably should be able to do- win a game that favors you. You should appreciate the advantages that you've been given, and if you really cared about the game, you'd work to make it possible for more people to have a chance to win. Not only does this spark more interest and competition, it makes any success you do have on the more level playing field a real accomplishment, instead of a medicore outcome. Maybe you'd even become worthy of your high self-opinion.
These folks naively think they'll never be the ones that could lose, Losing teaches you limits, and people lose a lot bigger when the rich are allowed to be richer at the expense of everyone else, so more people see the limitations now more than ever. Maybe it's the Midwesterner in me, but I think it's a good thing to find out, as maybe it forces you to recognize what CAN be done, and achieve those realistic goals. Unfortunately, not enough people learn that lesson of limits, and continue the hubris of throwing their weight and opinions around at the great expense (and resentment) of everyone else. In MLB, many of the big-revenue teams and a lot of members of the players union don't want what's best for the game- because they want to stick with what makes them rich and successful. Understandable but still weak, because it shows a lack of vision, and a lack of caring about the game that gave you the opportunities that you owe your success to in the first place. This holds true in baseball, and in American life today.
I consider March Madness the greatest annual sporting event in America, and it works in a way much like how what we would like to believe our country works. There are many more areas in the country that have teams get into the tournament, and many people can relate to some college that is playing, even if they don't care about basketball itself. If you win your little conference title, you get your chance on the floor against the big boys, and sometimes the little guys get the job done. And the title isn't determined by some fixed formula that gives massive benefits to the big boys and makes it near impossible for the lower-resource schools to get through- you gotta earn that spot on the court. Most often, it is not the team with the most individual talent that takes the title (i.e Kentucky, Roy Williams' Kansas teams), but it's the team that can combine its assets the best to be the best team out there. Sure one or two guys mightbe superstars, but often it's glue people like Nolan Smith or Brian Zoubek that play within their roles that take the team to the next level. Duke's students may be overwhlemingly trust-funders that don't have to work hard to end up on top, but their basketball team did, and deserved the title they got (as much as it pains me to say that).
But perhaps it is fitting that Major League Baseball started up yesterday, because in many ways, MLB works much like how our country REALLY works. MLB features some distribution of revenues between teams, but the revenues a Yankees or Red Sox can generate through local radio and television deals overwhelms the amount of revenue a team like the Brewers or the A's can get. Given that all of the teams in MLB are in the same labor market for players, and that players can move relatively easily from team to team once they hit free agency, small-revenue teams have to pay every bit as much as big-market teams to get the same caliber of player, regardless of the differences in items such as cost of living or room for advancement This will help to explain how an arbitrator could legitimately give an average player like Corey Hart a salary near $5.0 million- because other teams have paid the same amount to the same level of player. In fact, a players' lower chances of off-field revenue or on-field success may mean that smaller-revenue teams have to pay MORE for the same player- Wickett and Russell on 1250 AM call it "the Milwaukee tax.".
But it goes deeper than that when comparing baseball's economic structure with the overall economic one. A major advantage the big-revenue teams have is the ability to be wrong. They can offer an extra year or two of guaranteed salary or overpay for a player coming off an injury because if that player doesn't pan out, it's still a small amount of their payroll, and they can cast off the excess baggage with no major hurt to their team. Smaller-revenue teams can't afford to be tied down with a risky long-term contract because it is much more damaging to have to hold on to a dead asset, and their flexibility to right the mistake is greatly compromised.
The same holds true in our greater society. People with money and resources have a much greater ability to take chances and have more confidence in being able to make their moves because they can AFFORD TO LOSE. Poorer people are often locked into their job with their substandard health care and lame town because they can't afford to end with nothing for any amount fo time. Therefore, they become a lot less likely to go back to school, move into a different career, or relocate to a better community- coming up short is far too great a risk to take, so they remain in their current, losing situation instead of making the move that would be more likely to end up with a better outcome.
This is why safety nets like national health care, unemployment, and available student loans are so important, because it expands (or maintains) the choices that remain available to the average citizen, and lessens the chance that they get forced into a substandard result due to their options being limited. And our overall society suffers as well, since you now have individuals taking employment and productivity below what they should be doing, just like how financial constraints keep a number of teams from even trying to compete with the big-revenue clubs. In MLB, you see interest being depressed in numerous markets (think KC, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, Milwaukee under the Seligs), and understandably fans and even players see no major reason to care a lot, since trying hard does not lead to a much different result. It also leads to a 2-tier league where the groups are clearly on different levels of play and expectations....much like what we see in America today.
And the remarks from the winners and losers are much the same, too. Check out Yankees President Randy Levine chiding Brewers owner Mark Attanasio for mentioning the Yankees' huge payroll and budget advantage over the Brew Crew. To an extent Levine's correct, the Yankees are doing what they can to have the best chance of winning under the current system. This includes paying anything they want to free agents and bidding millions to unknown foreign-league players, which are luxuries that smaller-makret teams can't take advantage of for every available player that comes down the pike. This is a lot like how a trust-funder gets extra connections to colleges and employment that open a lot more doors than it does for the average schmoe. Maybe we should give a bit of credit for the trust-funder if they reach a level of success after going through those doors, but Levine's comments are much like trust-funders and othber elites asking "Well, why should you punish my success?"
The bottom line is, 1. a healthy system is the only reason you'd have a chance for that success in the first place, and if the system falls apart and there's less nationwide interest in the game, you'll probably lose too, and 2. You really aren't showing that you're any special, you just ended up doing what you probably should be able to do- win a game that favors you. You should appreciate the advantages that you've been given, and if you really cared about the game, you'd work to make it possible for more people to have a chance to win. Not only does this spark more interest and competition, it makes any success you do have on the more level playing field a real accomplishment, instead of a medicore outcome. Maybe you'd even become worthy of your high self-opinion.
These folks naively think they'll never be the ones that could lose, Losing teaches you limits, and people lose a lot bigger when the rich are allowed to be richer at the expense of everyone else, so more people see the limitations now more than ever. Maybe it's the Midwesterner in me, but I think it's a good thing to find out, as maybe it forces you to recognize what CAN be done, and achieve those realistic goals. Unfortunately, not enough people learn that lesson of limits, and continue the hubris of throwing their weight and opinions around at the great expense (and resentment) of everyone else. In MLB, many of the big-revenue teams and a lot of members of the players union don't want what's best for the game- because they want to stick with what makes them rich and successful. Understandable but still weak, because it shows a lack of vision, and a lack of caring about the game that gave you the opportunities that you owe your success to in the first place. This holds true in baseball, and in American life today.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Not the Amercian Recovery but the American Stabilization Act?
Tuesday marks an important 1-year anniversary. On March 9, 2009, the S&P 500 closed at 676.53, marking its bottom from a 17-month decline that began in October 2007. Since that bottom, the S&P has risen 68% under our "socialist" president to its current standing at 1,138.69. And while a lot of this is still somewhat bubblicious due to the unaccountable Wall Street bailouts and return of speculation money, it still is noteworthy, as the freefall that was evident a year has clearly stopped.
However, the clear lagger is employment, where the American economy continues to shed jobs and the resulting lack of demand threatens a serious recovery. But here, we also see clear signs of stabilization compared to where we were a year ago. (read the official BLS release yourself off to the right of this page)
Oct. 2009- Feb. 2010 - 556,000 jobs lost (93K a month).
Oct. 2008- Feb. 2009- 3.918 million jobs lost (653K a month, more than what was lost the last 6 months combined).
Let's also compare it to the last president who took over in a declining economy. And I won't even compare it to the 6 months after 9/11, as that's an extraneous event that no president should be blamed for.
Oct. 2009- Feb. 2010- 556,000 jobs lost
Mar. 2001- Aug. 2001- 608,000 jobs lost. Still higher.
Productivity continues to zoom ahead as well, going up by an estimated 6.9 percent in the 4th quarter of 2009. The textbooks and right-wing think tank world would tell you that high productivity and increased stock prices should drive hiring due to the comparatively high returns for adding labor, and that capital gains lead to reinvestment. But when comparing the stock market and the jobs market, the clear message is that rich folks are deciding to plow money into equities over employment and expansion. This is despite a number of reports I've heard and seen that indicate suppliers continue to fall behind on orders, mostly because they are feeling no retribution for their delays. Action needs to be taken to make these people do the most positive thing for our economy at this point- hire and continue to make things.
Does anyone else think higher cap. gains and reduced payroll taxes are the way to go in the face of this data? The last decade has proven once and for all that lower cap.gains do NOT get reinvested, but instead are hoarded for personal use and put back in to other forms of legalized gambling. This is not a way for an economy to sustainably grow.
It's also worth mentioning that we are now just over a year since the passage of the stimulus package, officially known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Now, lots of people have pointed to the contuinued decline in jobs to say it hasn't worked and was a waste of money. But there's no doubt that the stimulus and other moves have stabilized our economy, as well as avoided even larger fiscal disasters at the state and local levels. As it is, state and local governments have lost a seasonally adjusted 165,000 jobs in the last year despite an increase in demand for services due to the increased unemployment and continued increases in enrollment for many universities. As I've mentioned before, government may be the only industry where we the amount of employment and scope of service is cut when demand goes up. How bad would it look without the billions from Uncle Sam in the stimulus?
Private sector employers have refused to hire, either due to a belief in low demand or a belief in keeping profits for themselves, so the public sector has had to be the one to pick up the huge slack in the economy. Numbers don't lie here, and while more is need to be done to reign in health insurance costs and other threats to hiring and our ultimate economic recovery, it is beyond doubt that the stimulus has succeeded as a stabilization policy. The biggest mistake made with the stimulus was its name- it should have been called the American STABILIZATION and Reinvestment Act. Because that's what it really was, it was an attempt to stop the bleeding that was in our economy in early 2009. AND IT WORKED.
We are nowhere near out of the woods, but we're in a lot better place than we were a year ago, and people better take a step back and realize it. Because if we go back to where we were a year ago, I don't know if we ever get back to a decent economy for most people in the real world.
However, the clear lagger is employment, where the American economy continues to shed jobs and the resulting lack of demand threatens a serious recovery. But here, we also see clear signs of stabilization compared to where we were a year ago. (read the official BLS release yourself off to the right of this page)
Oct. 2009- Feb. 2010 - 556,000 jobs lost (93K a month).
Oct. 2008- Feb. 2009- 3.918 million jobs lost (653K a month, more than what was lost the last 6 months combined).
Let's also compare it to the last president who took over in a declining economy. And I won't even compare it to the 6 months after 9/11, as that's an extraneous event that no president should be blamed for.
Oct. 2009- Feb. 2010- 556,000 jobs lost
Mar. 2001- Aug. 2001- 608,000 jobs lost. Still higher.
Productivity continues to zoom ahead as well, going up by an estimated 6.9 percent in the 4th quarter of 2009. The textbooks and right-wing think tank world would tell you that high productivity and increased stock prices should drive hiring due to the comparatively high returns for adding labor, and that capital gains lead to reinvestment. But when comparing the stock market and the jobs market, the clear message is that rich folks are deciding to plow money into equities over employment and expansion. This is despite a number of reports I've heard and seen that indicate suppliers continue to fall behind on orders, mostly because they are feeling no retribution for their delays. Action needs to be taken to make these people do the most positive thing for our economy at this point- hire and continue to make things.
Does anyone else think higher cap. gains and reduced payroll taxes are the way to go in the face of this data? The last decade has proven once and for all that lower cap.gains do NOT get reinvested, but instead are hoarded for personal use and put back in to other forms of legalized gambling. This is not a way for an economy to sustainably grow.
It's also worth mentioning that we are now just over a year since the passage of the stimulus package, officially known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Now, lots of people have pointed to the contuinued decline in jobs to say it hasn't worked and was a waste of money. But there's no doubt that the stimulus and other moves have stabilized our economy, as well as avoided even larger fiscal disasters at the state and local levels. As it is, state and local governments have lost a seasonally adjusted 165,000 jobs in the last year despite an increase in demand for services due to the increased unemployment and continued increases in enrollment for many universities. As I've mentioned before, government may be the only industry where we the amount of employment and scope of service is cut when demand goes up. How bad would it look without the billions from Uncle Sam in the stimulus?
Private sector employers have refused to hire, either due to a belief in low demand or a belief in keeping profits for themselves, so the public sector has had to be the one to pick up the huge slack in the economy. Numbers don't lie here, and while more is need to be done to reign in health insurance costs and other threats to hiring and our ultimate economic recovery, it is beyond doubt that the stimulus has succeeded as a stabilization policy. The biggest mistake made with the stimulus was its name- it should have been called the American STABILIZATION and Reinvestment Act. Because that's what it really was, it was an attempt to stop the bleeding that was in our economy in early 2009. AND IT WORKED.
We are nowhere near out of the woods, but we're in a lot better place than we were a year ago, and people better take a step back and realize it. Because if we go back to where we were a year ago, I don't know if we ever get back to a decent economy for most people in the real world.
Friday, February 26, 2010
A word about furloughs
Lots of stuff in the news about layoffs and furloughs, most recently where Milwaukee's county board formally signed off on adding another 10 days of furlough for many unionized county workers, bringing the total to 22 for all of 2010. In previous jobs I've had as well as academic work, I've examined the efficacy of balancing whether to reduce salary expenses through reducing positions (layoffs) or keeping the positions are reducing paid days of work (furloughs).
Outside of the political questions that arise with these choices, the decision on which direction to choose comes down to three big variables: 1. How necessary is the job that is being performed (essential, optional, or excess) 2. How many people are required to perform the duty at the desired level of service? 3. What are the benefit costs to keeping employees? For example, if number 3 is a high number, maybe it makes layoffs the more likely choice (due to the current and future benefit costs being cut by job losses). But if the answer to No. 1 is "absolutely essential" and No. 2 is "the amount that is currently working" (or, as in the case of many government agencies. "more than you currently have."), then the answer is more likely to be to impose furloughs.
As the article notes, furloughs create a major problem for operations at a place like the Milwaukee County Zoo, which is open every day of the year with an inelastic need for care of animals. Reducing the number of people available for this means that some areas have to be closed at various times, as the manpower is not there for needed cleanings and supervision of animals. If this is an unacceptable outcome for running a zoo, you probably don't want to do furloughs, and find some place or way to reduce expenses.
But Milwaukee County's case makes no sense. The County is now giving 22 unpaid days off to many of its workers, which accounts for almost 8% of 5 days of work a week throughout the year (approximately 260). Now to those 22 days, add another 7 or 8 for holidays and an average iof 12 for vacation, and you're past 40 days of work that each employee is not actually performing his or her job- 15% of their days at work. This means that for every 7 workers in each of these units, the County does not get the equivalent services of 1 of these workers for the entire year.
Instead of cutting every worker by the 8% of reduction that the furloughs result in, why not just cut 4 or 5% of the workers in those areas? This would probably get you the same monetary savings when you combine salary and benefit costs (remember, benefit amounts DO NOT CHANGE with furloughs- those workers still get what's coming to them), and you don't have the long-term costs that go into providing retirement and medical benefits for these workers in the future.
From a pure money standpoint, there is only 1 reason you do not make those cuts- because the furloughed workers are needed, and the needed services break down by reducing staff (and/or revenue), to a point that it is well beyond the reduced costs and workers. And that is the hidden thing the privatization freaks don't want to bring up. That clearly these workers perform a valuable, needed service at a reasonable price, or else smart economics would say they should just be laid off or have the services sold off to an taxpayer-unaccountable bidder.
The fact that Scott Walker and co. don't do this, or are relatively unsuccessful in selling things off without having increased taxpayer costs or unacceptable levels of service, tells you that they don't believe their rhetoric that "the public sector doesn't work." It clearly does work, and the reductions given to County employees is done as a short-term, vegeneful way to get retribution on people they don't like- folks who do things that Gordon Gekko wouldn't go into business for. And it certainly does nothing to solve the long-term problems that continue to multiply with the broken county budget.
Outside of the political questions that arise with these choices, the decision on which direction to choose comes down to three big variables: 1. How necessary is the job that is being performed (essential, optional, or excess) 2. How many people are required to perform the duty at the desired level of service? 3. What are the benefit costs to keeping employees? For example, if number 3 is a high number, maybe it makes layoffs the more likely choice (due to the current and future benefit costs being cut by job losses). But if the answer to No. 1 is "absolutely essential" and No. 2 is "the amount that is currently working" (or, as in the case of many government agencies. "more than you currently have."), then the answer is more likely to be to impose furloughs.
As the article notes, furloughs create a major problem for operations at a place like the Milwaukee County Zoo, which is open every day of the year with an inelastic need for care of animals. Reducing the number of people available for this means that some areas have to be closed at various times, as the manpower is not there for needed cleanings and supervision of animals. If this is an unacceptable outcome for running a zoo, you probably don't want to do furloughs, and find some place or way to reduce expenses.
But Milwaukee County's case makes no sense. The County is now giving 22 unpaid days off to many of its workers, which accounts for almost 8% of 5 days of work a week throughout the year (approximately 260). Now to those 22 days, add another 7 or 8 for holidays and an average iof 12 for vacation, and you're past 40 days of work that each employee is not actually performing his or her job- 15% of their days at work. This means that for every 7 workers in each of these units, the County does not get the equivalent services of 1 of these workers for the entire year.
Instead of cutting every worker by the 8% of reduction that the furloughs result in, why not just cut 4 or 5% of the workers in those areas? This would probably get you the same monetary savings when you combine salary and benefit costs (remember, benefit amounts DO NOT CHANGE with furloughs- those workers still get what's coming to them), and you don't have the long-term costs that go into providing retirement and medical benefits for these workers in the future.
From a pure money standpoint, there is only 1 reason you do not make those cuts- because the furloughed workers are needed, and the needed services break down by reducing staff (and/or revenue), to a point that it is well beyond the reduced costs and workers. And that is the hidden thing the privatization freaks don't want to bring up. That clearly these workers perform a valuable, needed service at a reasonable price, or else smart economics would say they should just be laid off or have the services sold off to an taxpayer-unaccountable bidder.
The fact that Scott Walker and co. don't do this, or are relatively unsuccessful in selling things off without having increased taxpayer costs or unacceptable levels of service, tells you that they don't believe their rhetoric that "the public sector doesn't work." It clearly does work, and the reductions given to County employees is done as a short-term, vegeneful way to get retribution on people they don't like- folks who do things that Gordon Gekko wouldn't go into business for. And it certainly does nothing to solve the long-term problems that continue to multiply with the broken county budget.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Healthy reality check
Just in time for today's health care summit, I wanted to relay the story of my friends Steve and Tracy. They are a brilliant couple with extensive backgrounds in IT-related jobs, and would be well worth to have on most companies' payrolls. Steve has had debilitating back pain for several years (at the ripe old age of 35), and it had degenerated to the point that he could not work, and required spinal fusion surgery. Sad and unfair enough, but nothing compared to their treatement by our health care system.
See, Steve's condition left him basically uninsurable either through his former job or Tracy's. They don't have kids, so BadgerCare Plus or any similar subsidiary doesn't help them, and Medicaid won't cover an "optional" surgery like spinal fusion, despite the fact that Steve's back was keeping him from leading any sort of decent lifestyle or contributing any significant amount of work. So, in order to allow Steve to live anythng resembling a normal life, they checked the Internet listings and decided to go ahead with the spinal fusion surgery...in one of the only places they could remotely get it- Malaysia.
The trip required almost full-day plane trips in Steve's debilitated condition, but they finally got halfway around the globe in absurd conditions, and were able to have the surgery, which has greatly relieved Steve's back pain. However, all of the reclining positions exacerbated blood issues Steve had from the compressed pain, and led to blood clots in his leg and groin, which knocked him back another week in Malaysia. A few weeks after the surgery, Steve's leg is still swollen from the clots, and he struggles to walk around as a result.
They took one more all-day trip back to the States, and are presently back in Verona, but Steve is still far from OK, due to the clots and recovery time. They took him to a doctor this week to draw blood, and he promptly passed out from the bodily stress. Tracy estimates the total out-of-pocket for this ordeal at nearly $55,000, and they are not finished yet. I went over to their place to drop off some supplies for one of their friends, and noticed a "for sale" sign outside of the home, and I don't think they were planning to relocate out of town. I'm not going to ask them if it's related to the medical bills, but it's not like they're loaded with money, and you can't help but believe it's related.
Now think about this in terms of our current health care situation. There is an estimated eight health care lobbyists for every member of Congress at an estimated 2009 price tag of $1.2 billion. That's $1.2 billion that could have gone toward medical breakthroughs, expanded coverage, or lower premiums for consumers. Explain to me how guaranteeing Well Point's board of directors their 8-figure salaries over covering our people is something remotely productive for our economy?
How has our health care system helped Steve and Tracy? How has pricing them out of the market and preventing them from getting the coverage and treatment they deserve helped our economy in any way? Isn't it better to have people healed and working instead of being 1. infirmed at home and/or 2. indebted due to the foreign travels they've had to make to.
The health care companies and the insurance whores in Congress get to get paid at the expense of people like Steve and Tracy every day. I'm getting very close to stepping up, and making the execs and other scumbags find out just how good their medical coverage really is. Making them feel the pain may be the only way they do anything to lessen ours, and get our economy off the disastrous track that our country's unregulated health insurance leads to.
I'd like to go into things further, but it sickens me too much. RECONCILE THIS BILL NOW, single-payer health care as soon as possible, and cut the costs for all other groups of real people in the process (heck, it'll also cut your property taxes at the local level. Government worker medical care and low-income Medicaid comes from somewhere, doesn't it?). This is real life with real problems, and I' very tempted to make anyone who tries to lie about the way things really are have to get some health care of their own.
See, Steve's condition left him basically uninsurable either through his former job or Tracy's. They don't have kids, so BadgerCare Plus or any similar subsidiary doesn't help them, and Medicaid won't cover an "optional" surgery like spinal fusion, despite the fact that Steve's back was keeping him from leading any sort of decent lifestyle or contributing any significant amount of work. So, in order to allow Steve to live anythng resembling a normal life, they checked the Internet listings and decided to go ahead with the spinal fusion surgery...in one of the only places they could remotely get it- Malaysia.
The trip required almost full-day plane trips in Steve's debilitated condition, but they finally got halfway around the globe in absurd conditions, and were able to have the surgery, which has greatly relieved Steve's back pain. However, all of the reclining positions exacerbated blood issues Steve had from the compressed pain, and led to blood clots in his leg and groin, which knocked him back another week in Malaysia. A few weeks after the surgery, Steve's leg is still swollen from the clots, and he struggles to walk around as a result.
They took one more all-day trip back to the States, and are presently back in Verona, but Steve is still far from OK, due to the clots and recovery time. They took him to a doctor this week to draw blood, and he promptly passed out from the bodily stress. Tracy estimates the total out-of-pocket for this ordeal at nearly $55,000, and they are not finished yet. I went over to their place to drop off some supplies for one of their friends, and noticed a "for sale" sign outside of the home, and I don't think they were planning to relocate out of town. I'm not going to ask them if it's related to the medical bills, but it's not like they're loaded with money, and you can't help but believe it's related.
Now think about this in terms of our current health care situation. There is an estimated eight health care lobbyists for every member of Congress at an estimated 2009 price tag of $1.2 billion. That's $1.2 billion that could have gone toward medical breakthroughs, expanded coverage, or lower premiums for consumers. Explain to me how guaranteeing Well Point's board of directors their 8-figure salaries over covering our people is something remotely productive for our economy?
How has our health care system helped Steve and Tracy? How has pricing them out of the market and preventing them from getting the coverage and treatment they deserve helped our economy in any way? Isn't it better to have people healed and working instead of being 1. infirmed at home and/or 2. indebted due to the foreign travels they've had to make to.
The health care companies and the insurance whores in Congress get to get paid at the expense of people like Steve and Tracy every day. I'm getting very close to stepping up, and making the execs and other scumbags find out just how good their medical coverage really is. Making them feel the pain may be the only way they do anything to lessen ours, and get our economy off the disastrous track that our country's unregulated health insurance leads to.
I'd like to go into things further, but it sickens me too much. RECONCILE THIS BILL NOW, single-payer health care as soon as possible, and cut the costs for all other groups of real people in the process (heck, it'll also cut your property taxes at the local level. Government worker medical care and low-income Medicaid comes from somewhere, doesn't it?). This is real life with real problems, and I' very tempted to make anyone who tries to lie about the way things really are have to get some health care of their own.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Government is not an IPOD
You knew this was coming. Scott Walker's low-tax "leadership" leads to an attempt to give mid-year paycuts to County employees under contract.
Read some of the comments below. You can spot the clueless ones when they start saying "In tough times, all parties should tighten their belts, just like the private sector." The problem with that thinking is that government services do NOT have lower demand when the economy suffers, because people still use the parks, people still need law enforcement on the street, and there is an added amount of people in need of financial assistance due to higher unemployment and lower wages. In the private sector, expenses and hiring occurs when demand for a product is high, why isn't it the same for the public sector if they should treated the same...RIGHT?
Of course, that last part is in jest, as people don't like to see taxes go up when they're struggling, but it proves the flaw in the "run it like a business" argument. Government is NOT a business. It delivers services that might not be cost-effective to improve the choices available to citizens, and improve the chances of businesses succeeding. It delivers services like education to children, health care, food stamps, green space, and transportation that private operators would never offer due to cost-effectiveness reasons, but are requirements for a functioning society and any sort of improving quality of life. And government has an extra layer of accountability to the taxpayer that profit-driven corporations will never have, and therefore requires that its provision of services be looked after in a closer manner, and operated more responsibly than their private sector counterparts.
There's no question Milwaukee County workers have some benefits that are out of whack with what many people get in their jobs. But they also give up some of the pay that would come with it, and do thankless jobs like social work that the majority people are too unqualified and uninterested in doing, but are requirements for the world we live in. Walker could have shown legitimate leadership by negotiating in good faith, and offered items such as required contributions to employee pensions and lowered benefits in the future (or an encouragement of early retirement).
This is what Tom Barrett did in the City of Milwaukee for the 2010 budget (I know, I was there), and got the needed concessions out of most City workers with fewer furlough days, and no major holes in the budget deficit. Now, the City still has structural issues in its budget, but they were lessened in this latest round of negotiations, because THE MAYOR'S OFFICE DECIDED TO NEGOTIATE AND GOT SOME OF WHAT THEY WANTED. Walker has decided to score political points with suburb boys instead of work with the unions, and the County workers have rightfully told him to shove it. The Milw. County union's act is no different than corporations shopping their facilities to local communities, trying to score any tax break they can at the expense of everyone else in that town. Strangely, angry white man radio ignores those people who work for the best deal, I suppose because they have money and white collars, while dumping on people who perform real work and have blue collars that are trying to do the same thing.
I agree that unions have to understand they can't have it all, just like corporates should. But demonizing your workers and trying to play games with their jobs is not the way to get anything done as an employer, and a very telling sign of the type of disaster someone like Walker would be as the head of a McDonald's (if he ever had a private sector job), and he's worse of being head of something we DO need, like government services.
Read some of the comments below. You can spot the clueless ones when they start saying "In tough times, all parties should tighten their belts, just like the private sector." The problem with that thinking is that government services do NOT have lower demand when the economy suffers, because people still use the parks, people still need law enforcement on the street, and there is an added amount of people in need of financial assistance due to higher unemployment and lower wages. In the private sector, expenses and hiring occurs when demand for a product is high, why isn't it the same for the public sector if they should treated the same...RIGHT?
Of course, that last part is in jest, as people don't like to see taxes go up when they're struggling, but it proves the flaw in the "run it like a business" argument. Government is NOT a business. It delivers services that might not be cost-effective to improve the choices available to citizens, and improve the chances of businesses succeeding. It delivers services like education to children, health care, food stamps, green space, and transportation that private operators would never offer due to cost-effectiveness reasons, but are requirements for a functioning society and any sort of improving quality of life. And government has an extra layer of accountability to the taxpayer that profit-driven corporations will never have, and therefore requires that its provision of services be looked after in a closer manner, and operated more responsibly than their private sector counterparts.
There's no question Milwaukee County workers have some benefits that are out of whack with what many people get in their jobs. But they also give up some of the pay that would come with it, and do thankless jobs like social work that the majority people are too unqualified and uninterested in doing, but are requirements for the world we live in. Walker could have shown legitimate leadership by negotiating in good faith, and offered items such as required contributions to employee pensions and lowered benefits in the future (or an encouragement of early retirement).
This is what Tom Barrett did in the City of Milwaukee for the 2010 budget (I know, I was there), and got the needed concessions out of most City workers with fewer furlough days, and no major holes in the budget deficit. Now, the City still has structural issues in its budget, but they were lessened in this latest round of negotiations, because THE MAYOR'S OFFICE DECIDED TO NEGOTIATE AND GOT SOME OF WHAT THEY WANTED. Walker has decided to score political points with suburb boys instead of work with the unions, and the County workers have rightfully told him to shove it. The Milw. County union's act is no different than corporations shopping their facilities to local communities, trying to score any tax break they can at the expense of everyone else in that town. Strangely, angry white man radio ignores those people who work for the best deal, I suppose because they have money and white collars, while dumping on people who perform real work and have blue collars that are trying to do the same thing.
I agree that unions have to understand they can't have it all, just like corporates should. But demonizing your workers and trying to play games with their jobs is not the way to get anything done as an employer, and a very telling sign of the type of disaster someone like Walker would be as the head of a McDonald's (if he ever had a private sector job), and he's worse of being head of something we DO need, like government services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)