And as the last Space Shuttle is wheeled to its final storage, so the dream of President Kennedy and the nation, for manned exploration of space comes to an end. I feel for the employees of NASA and all the subcontractors who have spent their lives building this program only to see it end with no real plan for the future. They gave us so much more than travel to space, they gave us hope and dreams of a future. How many of us didn't at some point drink Tang and hope to be an astronaut also? Hopefully some future generation will revive the program.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/02/final-10-mile-trek-for-space-shuttle-atlantis/1676727/
Friday, November 2, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
What It Will Take to Restore Health to Our Economy
(SPOILER ALERT - This does not involve any political discussion so if you are looking for politics, keep looking elsewhere as there is none here today! Otherwise I hope you enjoy the discussion on the economy and at least find it thought provoking).
In America's economic system, money spent is what fuels our economy. Money spent creates demand which in turn creates jobs which creates money and thus the cycle goes on. If the cycle is interrupted, as it is in a recession, for whatever reason, then the cycle reverses itself. Fewer jobs mean less money and less money spent means less jobs and fewer jobs mean less money and ... you get the idea. Ok, enough of basic economic thought.
An important fact in our economic system is that we have three primary sources of money in our economic system: (1) the Consumer, (2) Businesses, and (3) The Government. A quick look at these three sources of income.
(1) The Consumer - that's you and me. We the people are the ultimate source of all spending. When we don't spend, businesses don't have money to spend. When we don't spend, government tax income is significantly reduced. In the past, it is the consumer that has helped keep the economy afloat. A look back at economic history will show instances when the consumer spending is credited with keeping the economy going when other aspects were faltering.
(2) Business - Big or small business, business is business. Business spending for materials and supplies creates jobs for those manufacturers. Spending by businesses is an important part of our economy, at least in the past it has been. Of late, businesses more and more,as we all know, are sending jobs overseas. the issues is that businesses do not care about america or any other country. Businesses are apolitical. Businesses function to please their stockholders and ensure their own survival. Businesses truly have no interest in economic recovery other than how it affects their own business.
(3) The Government - Our government, unlike many others, exists to provide for the well being of its people. Sounds easy but go watch the move "Bruce Almighty". There is a scene where God's fill-in (Jim Carey) discovers he can't please everybody, one person prays for no rain when they go on a picnic while another person prays for rain for their crops in a drought. You get the idea. Likewise, it is virtually impossible for the government to please everybody at any given moment. We are a vast cross section of humanity with a wide variety of beliefs and values - and that is part of what makes this country great.
The government collects money from the people and redistributes it via various channels of programs ranging from the military to highway funding or funding for various education programs. The government also has the unique power to create money which can be a dangerous thing. Witness the rise of Adolf hitler prior to WWII. Germany was undergoing inflation such as we can only imagine, the price of bread was changing so fast daily that signs were never current. The problem was the government was "solving the problem" by printing more money. The faster they printed money, the faster inflation rose because each day, the Mark was worth less and less. (The more there is of something, the less valuable it has). America's Federal Reserve system regulates the amount of money supply through interest rates and other means. This power to regulate money is not a direct cause and effect power as the Fed can raise interest rates but if consumers and businesses continue to borrow money at even higher rates, the desired effect of the Fed is not realized.
So let's discuss what it will take to get the 2012 economy turned around. It was consumer spending that helped alleviate the initial impact of the 2007 -2009 (?) recession. Consumers spent on credit. And business liked it. Businesses today often make a better profit off their credit card operations than they do their merchandise. think about the last time you went to a store and the sales associate offered you a credit card. One major retailer charges 26.99% on their credit card!! No wonder they want customers to get one. They don't have to ship or handle returns on credit cards, only collect the money each month. (By the way, don't get mad at the poor clerks, they are only trying to keep their jobs and meet insane quotas the companies have laid out). Credit cards are great profit makers.
But as the value of homes dramatically declined, and jobs were either lost or became insecure, consumer spending slackened. People looked at those credit card charges and wisely decided to pull in on their spending. And so one of the three main sources of spending in this country dried up. And it will remain dried up until people have worthwhile jobs, not the part time, no benefit jobs far too many are stuck with today. Far too many people have jobs with no vacation, no health insurance, or any other of the benefits we have enjoyed during previous periods of prosperity.
So with no consumer spending, where is the economic stimulus going to come from? Ah-ha you say, business, business, big business will fuel it with their spending. First this runs contrary to previous recoveries as small businesses have led the way out as individuals / entrepreneurs and small companies take chances and start up. Individuals tired of trading their time and lives for the companies money decide to do something they have a passion for and start new companies creating new jobs.
But still, won't big business with all that money be a significant factor in the economic recovery? Sadly no. If there is any evidence of it, nobody has seen it to date. Large corporations are sitting on vast sums of cash and are unwilling to spend it. During discussion of the Federal Deficit Limit this past spring, it was announced that Apple Corporation (no longer named Apple Computer) has more cash than the United States Government! Are they spending that money on crating jobs and prosperity in this country, the country they were founded in and are headquartered in? NO! They spend their money in third world countries hiring people to work in conditions this country would not allow. Some say people in this country are not willing to take certain jobs. Perhaps true to a degree but many jobs have been sent overseas because they could not exist in this country.
Again businesses really don't care about economic recovery other than the impact it makes to their bottom line and the stockholders. Currently they are not spending to acquire skilled employees and train them but instead are shipping our jobs overseas to be conducted in substandard conditions to allow for more profit. That said, is there any reason to believe that there will be any sudden generosity or outpouring of patriotism and thus spending at the business level to create jobs and prosperity in this country?
NOTE: When we export out jobs overseas, we import their poverty. Don't believe it? Think about how many times you have called a company on the phone only to have somebody from India answer. Look at the improvement in their economy while ours gets worse every day.
NOTE: When businesses lay off their employees, they are also laying off their customers. A corollary to this is that when businesses refuse to hire full time employees, they are stifling their customer base. How many retailers currently have employees that do not qualify for a credit card with the company because of the amount hey are paid? I know of many people with good credit ratings who cannot qualify for a company credit card because their pay is so low.
So if the consumer is exhausted and broke, thus unable to contribute significantly any longer to the economic recovery and business are unwilling to spend and hire (at least in this country). Where is the spending for economic recovery coming from? The only option left - The Government. While some consider the government an evil thing, it is still necessary for the well being of the people. And it is government spending that will have to lead us in this recovery just as it has so many times. A quick look back at economic history will show that major economic recoveries tend to occur due to government spending. Look at the Great Depression, many economists agree that FDR's programs helped maintain the economy and kept it from degenerating even more but the major cause of economic recovery from the Great Depression was WWII and the government spending on planes, tanks, and bullets that created jobs and prosperity.
The opposite side is seen in our withdrawal from the Vietnam war. President Nixon had stated that withdrawal from the war would have a economic impact on our country and it did. As we withdrew from the war, the early 70's recession started. Just at the war ended in approximately 1973, the recession was nearing its peak. And just like today, the recovery was slow in coming even after the recession "officially ended".
Back to the positive side of government spending and recovery. The United States had its greatest increase in the National Debt under President Ronal Reagan (1981 - 1989) Under President Reagan, the debt increased 189%!! What were the causes of such a huge debt increase? Basically, Government spending. President Reagan spent money, especially on the military, building it up. We stared at eh Russians eyeball to eyeball and they blinked. President Reagan gave his famous statement, " Gorbachev, tear that wall down!" and the Soviet Union did. Why? Because we out spent them plain and simply. We spent more on our military and we flat out spent them to the point they were broke and could not sustain their posture anymore.
Unfortunately that type of spending is unsustainable by any government and we too had to back down and significantly reduce our spending with the resultant recession once again. Go ask President Bush about the economy. A popular phrase during his administration was "Its the economy Stupid!" In the end President Bush had been dealt a bad hand to start with. We had to back off on our government spending and the took over just as it began. Forces far beyond Republican and Democratic policies and plans acted to once again put our country into a recession or significant economic downturn.
So when you hear people bad mouthing the government and how e have to cut government spending, realize that cutting government spending is exactly what is not needed at the current moment. In the short term we have to have increased government spending to fuel job creation but it must be carefully monitored to prevent fueling inflation. In the long term, government spending must be decreased as we cannot maintain continued growth of the national debt. But it has to be done slowly. We got into this mess over a long period of years. It is naive to think we will get out of it quickly. It will not happen in the next administration of even the one beyond that but it must be done. And so we are left in a situation akin to having a snake pop up in your car while crossing a bridge. You want to put one foot on the gas to hurry up and get off the bridge so you can get out of the car and you have one foot on the brake as you need to stop now! The days ahead require sound economic judgement in our leadership. We need increased government spending for now but decreased government spending in the long term future.
In America's economic system, money spent is what fuels our economy. Money spent creates demand which in turn creates jobs which creates money and thus the cycle goes on. If the cycle is interrupted, as it is in a recession, for whatever reason, then the cycle reverses itself. Fewer jobs mean less money and less money spent means less jobs and fewer jobs mean less money and ... you get the idea. Ok, enough of basic economic thought.
An important fact in our economic system is that we have three primary sources of money in our economic system: (1) the Consumer, (2) Businesses, and (3) The Government. A quick look at these three sources of income.
(1) The Consumer - that's you and me. We the people are the ultimate source of all spending. When we don't spend, businesses don't have money to spend. When we don't spend, government tax income is significantly reduced. In the past, it is the consumer that has helped keep the economy afloat. A look back at economic history will show instances when the consumer spending is credited with keeping the economy going when other aspects were faltering.
(2) Business - Big or small business, business is business. Business spending for materials and supplies creates jobs for those manufacturers. Spending by businesses is an important part of our economy, at least in the past it has been. Of late, businesses more and more,as we all know, are sending jobs overseas. the issues is that businesses do not care about america or any other country. Businesses are apolitical. Businesses function to please their stockholders and ensure their own survival. Businesses truly have no interest in economic recovery other than how it affects their own business.
(3) The Government - Our government, unlike many others, exists to provide for the well being of its people. Sounds easy but go watch the move "Bruce Almighty". There is a scene where God's fill-in (Jim Carey) discovers he can't please everybody, one person prays for no rain when they go on a picnic while another person prays for rain for their crops in a drought. You get the idea. Likewise, it is virtually impossible for the government to please everybody at any given moment. We are a vast cross section of humanity with a wide variety of beliefs and values - and that is part of what makes this country great.
The government collects money from the people and redistributes it via various channels of programs ranging from the military to highway funding or funding for various education programs. The government also has the unique power to create money which can be a dangerous thing. Witness the rise of Adolf hitler prior to WWII. Germany was undergoing inflation such as we can only imagine, the price of bread was changing so fast daily that signs were never current. The problem was the government was "solving the problem" by printing more money. The faster they printed money, the faster inflation rose because each day, the Mark was worth less and less. (The more there is of something, the less valuable it has). America's Federal Reserve system regulates the amount of money supply through interest rates and other means. This power to regulate money is not a direct cause and effect power as the Fed can raise interest rates but if consumers and businesses continue to borrow money at even higher rates, the desired effect of the Fed is not realized.
****
So let's discuss what it will take to get the 2012 economy turned around. It was consumer spending that helped alleviate the initial impact of the 2007 -2009 (?) recession. Consumers spent on credit. And business liked it. Businesses today often make a better profit off their credit card operations than they do their merchandise. think about the last time you went to a store and the sales associate offered you a credit card. One major retailer charges 26.99% on their credit card!! No wonder they want customers to get one. They don't have to ship or handle returns on credit cards, only collect the money each month. (By the way, don't get mad at the poor clerks, they are only trying to keep their jobs and meet insane quotas the companies have laid out). Credit cards are great profit makers.
But as the value of homes dramatically declined, and jobs were either lost or became insecure, consumer spending slackened. People looked at those credit card charges and wisely decided to pull in on their spending. And so one of the three main sources of spending in this country dried up. And it will remain dried up until people have worthwhile jobs, not the part time, no benefit jobs far too many are stuck with today. Far too many people have jobs with no vacation, no health insurance, or any other of the benefits we have enjoyed during previous periods of prosperity.
****
So with no consumer spending, where is the economic stimulus going to come from? Ah-ha you say, business, business, big business will fuel it with their spending. First this runs contrary to previous recoveries as small businesses have led the way out as individuals / entrepreneurs and small companies take chances and start up. Individuals tired of trading their time and lives for the companies money decide to do something they have a passion for and start new companies creating new jobs.
But still, won't big business with all that money be a significant factor in the economic recovery? Sadly no. If there is any evidence of it, nobody has seen it to date. Large corporations are sitting on vast sums of cash and are unwilling to spend it. During discussion of the Federal Deficit Limit this past spring, it was announced that Apple Corporation (no longer named Apple Computer) has more cash than the United States Government! Are they spending that money on crating jobs and prosperity in this country, the country they were founded in and are headquartered in? NO! They spend their money in third world countries hiring people to work in conditions this country would not allow. Some say people in this country are not willing to take certain jobs. Perhaps true to a degree but many jobs have been sent overseas because they could not exist in this country.
Again businesses really don't care about economic recovery other than the impact it makes to their bottom line and the stockholders. Currently they are not spending to acquire skilled employees and train them but instead are shipping our jobs overseas to be conducted in substandard conditions to allow for more profit. That said, is there any reason to believe that there will be any sudden generosity or outpouring of patriotism and thus spending at the business level to create jobs and prosperity in this country?
****
NOTE: When we export out jobs overseas, we import their poverty. Don't believe it? Think about how many times you have called a company on the phone only to have somebody from India answer. Look at the improvement in their economy while ours gets worse every day.
NOTE: When businesses lay off their employees, they are also laying off their customers. A corollary to this is that when businesses refuse to hire full time employees, they are stifling their customer base. How many retailers currently have employees that do not qualify for a credit card with the company because of the amount hey are paid? I know of many people with good credit ratings who cannot qualify for a company credit card because their pay is so low.
****
So if the consumer is exhausted and broke, thus unable to contribute significantly any longer to the economic recovery and business are unwilling to spend and hire (at least in this country). Where is the spending for economic recovery coming from? The only option left - The Government. While some consider the government an evil thing, it is still necessary for the well being of the people. And it is government spending that will have to lead us in this recovery just as it has so many times. A quick look back at economic history will show that major economic recoveries tend to occur due to government spending. Look at the Great Depression, many economists agree that FDR's programs helped maintain the economy and kept it from degenerating even more but the major cause of economic recovery from the Great Depression was WWII and the government spending on planes, tanks, and bullets that created jobs and prosperity.
The opposite side is seen in our withdrawal from the Vietnam war. President Nixon had stated that withdrawal from the war would have a economic impact on our country and it did. As we withdrew from the war, the early 70's recession started. Just at the war ended in approximately 1973, the recession was nearing its peak. And just like today, the recovery was slow in coming even after the recession "officially ended".
Back to the positive side of government spending and recovery. The United States had its greatest increase in the National Debt under President Ronal Reagan (1981 - 1989) Under President Reagan, the debt increased 189%!! What were the causes of such a huge debt increase? Basically, Government spending. President Reagan spent money, especially on the military, building it up. We stared at eh Russians eyeball to eyeball and they blinked. President Reagan gave his famous statement, " Gorbachev, tear that wall down!" and the Soviet Union did. Why? Because we out spent them plain and simply. We spent more on our military and we flat out spent them to the point they were broke and could not sustain their posture anymore.
Unfortunately that type of spending is unsustainable by any government and we too had to back down and significantly reduce our spending with the resultant recession once again. Go ask President Bush about the economy. A popular phrase during his administration was "Its the economy Stupid!" In the end President Bush had been dealt a bad hand to start with. We had to back off on our government spending and the took over just as it began. Forces far beyond Republican and Democratic policies and plans acted to once again put our country into a recession or significant economic downturn.
****
SO what does this mean for us today? To Summarize, the consumer is drained financially and emotionally. Business are not willing to spend to create jobs and recovery (at least for the moment). So the burden is upon the government to spend to create jobs. But the danger is they cannot spend too freely or they run the risk of fueling inflation again. It is a delicate balance of spending without sending inflation rates through the ceiling. Also complicating the issue is that we are a world wide economy more than ever before. Witness how events in Greece and Spain among other countries have had significant impact in this country.So when you hear people bad mouthing the government and how e have to cut government spending, realize that cutting government spending is exactly what is not needed at the current moment. In the short term we have to have increased government spending to fuel job creation but it must be carefully monitored to prevent fueling inflation. In the long term, government spending must be decreased as we cannot maintain continued growth of the national debt. But it has to be done slowly. We got into this mess over a long period of years. It is naive to think we will get out of it quickly. It will not happen in the next administration of even the one beyond that but it must be done. And so we are left in a situation akin to having a snake pop up in your car while crossing a bridge. You want to put one foot on the gas to hurry up and get off the bridge so you can get out of the car and you have one foot on the brake as you need to stop now! The days ahead require sound economic judgement in our leadership. We need increased government spending for now but decreased government spending in the long term future.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
A Continuing discussion of the Economy.
The other day I commented about the economy and I wanted to continue that discussion. For those that missed the article (July 18th) here are some figures concerning unemployment.
"A word about job creation for those that don't appreciate the numbers. It is generally acknowledged that it takes between 200,000 and 250,000 new jobs EVERY MONTH to offset immigration and graduates entering the work force. A quarter of a million new jobs every month JUST TO BREAK EVEN! So when the news reports that last month the economy grew by 115,000 jobs, we are falling further and further behind. It takes 225,000 new jobs to break even and even more to recover those who lost jobs and graduates of the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 classes. (Yes, I could have simply said 2008 - 2012 but I wanted to list them for the effect of how long a time frame we have to recover.) I can only guess what the new jobs figure would have to be to recover those lost people within the next two years while more new graduates continue to enter the economy but it is a safe bet that we won't hit anything close to the required numbers for a long time. "
One thing I failed to mention in that discussion is that the number of graduates is about to skyrocket as many college graduates are "hidden out" in graduate school working on Master's and PhD's hoping the economy will somehow be miraculously better when hey get out in two or three years. But many of those are not having to get out of school and enter the job market anyway and the economy simply cannot take the impact at the current time with the current conditions.
Now some further analysis of the economy. The question is, how are people surviving? The answer, They Aren't!
Retirement Savings raided by 35% of laid off workers.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/story/2012-07-18/401k-retirement-loan-withdrawals/56280996/1
"Making matters worse, many who have lost their jobs have defaulted on 401(k) loans, causing taxes and penalties to further deplete their retirement savings. .... Displaced workers in their 40s and 50s have median household retirement savings of only $2,300, the Transamerica study says. ....
For example, if a displaced worker defaults on a loan of $6,542, it would drain $9,934 from his retirement savings, because of taxes and penalties, Singer's report says."
Their advice to go back to school or move to another less expensive city is meant well but they obviously are not in the same boat and those the article discusses. For a worker 50 - 60 years old, four years of school puts them at 55 - 65 and many firms are not hiring people that age. Yes there are laws against age discrimination but that hasn't helped anybody yet, there always seems to be "another official reason."
Even if they are fired, they most likely will be in a low paying job as all to many have discovered. To many skilled experienced workers are relegated to entry level jobs even though their life experiences more than qualify them for better position.
Also, consider the issue that no matter what job they get, after raiding their savings for whatever time to survive, they will most likely not be able to recover that lost savings and as a result will be force to continue working long after. Our economic business model is built upon older workers retiring and spending their savings enjoying life and as they leave those jobs, room is made for people to be promoted and the younger people to enter the work force. Now we are faced with the harsh reality of older workers continuing to work well pas their 65th birthday in lower paying jobs making it difficult if not impossible to "retire". As they stay in those lower paying jobs longer, they effectively block younger people from moving into the workforce.
One issue I see the author fails to mention is how many people who are not laid off or "unemployed" but are in the great mass of people who are "significantly under employed" are also raiding their savings to make it another month. Too many people are "off the radar" in unemployment figures but are existing in low paying part time jobs that do not pay sufficient wages to live on. Don't say, "They just have to live within their means." Too many jobs now are Part TIme with wither no health or other benefits or benefits that are entirely inadequate. But for now lets focus on making that living. Typical job at a major retail store chain - Store Manager and a hand full of Supervisors are Full time, everybody else is Part-Time paid approximately $8 and hour and allowed to work only 24 hours a week. $8/HR for 24 hours a week!!! Let's see that works out to $192 a week BEFORE Taxes! Of course taxes will be low as they make so little. That comes to $9984 a year! Try living on that without dipping into savings! Try living like that for long dipping into savings! Unless you have accumulated a very nice savings account, most people are looking at a bleak future.
The solution? For now, if you are in a management level position, take a long hard look at what you are paying people and remember one important thing, the workers you pay are also you customers. If your workers can't qualify for a store credit card at your store because of what you pay them, what does that say about what you pay them. Could survive on what you pay your workers? Probably not.
We need to start paying people a decent wage and quit exporting our jobs overseas. Whenever we export a job, we import that countries' poverty.
"A word about job creation for those that don't appreciate the numbers. It is generally acknowledged that it takes between 200,000 and 250,000 new jobs EVERY MONTH to offset immigration and graduates entering the work force. A quarter of a million new jobs every month JUST TO BREAK EVEN! So when the news reports that last month the economy grew by 115,000 jobs, we are falling further and further behind. It takes 225,000 new jobs to break even and even more to recover those who lost jobs and graduates of the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 classes. (Yes, I could have simply said 2008 - 2012 but I wanted to list them for the effect of how long a time frame we have to recover.) I can only guess what the new jobs figure would have to be to recover those lost people within the next two years while more new graduates continue to enter the economy but it is a safe bet that we won't hit anything close to the required numbers for a long time. "
One thing I failed to mention in that discussion is that the number of graduates is about to skyrocket as many college graduates are "hidden out" in graduate school working on Master's and PhD's hoping the economy will somehow be miraculously better when hey get out in two or three years. But many of those are not having to get out of school and enter the job market anyway and the economy simply cannot take the impact at the current time with the current conditions.
Now some further analysis of the economy. The question is, how are people surviving? The answer, They Aren't!
Retirement Savings raided by 35% of laid off workers.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/retirement/story/2012-07-18/401k-retirement-loan-withdrawals/56280996/1
"Making matters worse, many who have lost their jobs have defaulted on 401(k) loans, causing taxes and penalties to further deplete their retirement savings. .... Displaced workers in their 40s and 50s have median household retirement savings of only $2,300, the Transamerica study says. ....
For example, if a displaced worker defaults on a loan of $6,542, it would drain $9,934 from his retirement savings, because of taxes and penalties, Singer's report says."
Their advice to go back to school or move to another less expensive city is meant well but they obviously are not in the same boat and those the article discusses. For a worker 50 - 60 years old, four years of school puts them at 55 - 65 and many firms are not hiring people that age. Yes there are laws against age discrimination but that hasn't helped anybody yet, there always seems to be "another official reason."
Even if they are fired, they most likely will be in a low paying job as all to many have discovered. To many skilled experienced workers are relegated to entry level jobs even though their life experiences more than qualify them for better position.
Also, consider the issue that no matter what job they get, after raiding their savings for whatever time to survive, they will most likely not be able to recover that lost savings and as a result will be force to continue working long after. Our economic business model is built upon older workers retiring and spending their savings enjoying life and as they leave those jobs, room is made for people to be promoted and the younger people to enter the work force. Now we are faced with the harsh reality of older workers continuing to work well pas their 65th birthday in lower paying jobs making it difficult if not impossible to "retire". As they stay in those lower paying jobs longer, they effectively block younger people from moving into the workforce.
One issue I see the author fails to mention is how many people who are not laid off or "unemployed" but are in the great mass of people who are "significantly under employed" are also raiding their savings to make it another month. Too many people are "off the radar" in unemployment figures but are existing in low paying part time jobs that do not pay sufficient wages to live on. Don't say, "They just have to live within their means." Too many jobs now are Part TIme with wither no health or other benefits or benefits that are entirely inadequate. But for now lets focus on making that living. Typical job at a major retail store chain - Store Manager and a hand full of Supervisors are Full time, everybody else is Part-Time paid approximately $8 and hour and allowed to work only 24 hours a week. $8/HR for 24 hours a week!!! Let's see that works out to $192 a week BEFORE Taxes! Of course taxes will be low as they make so little. That comes to $9984 a year! Try living on that without dipping into savings! Try living like that for long dipping into savings! Unless you have accumulated a very nice savings account, most people are looking at a bleak future.
The solution? For now, if you are in a management level position, take a long hard look at what you are paying people and remember one important thing, the workers you pay are also you customers. If your workers can't qualify for a store credit card at your store because of what you pay them, what does that say about what you pay them. Could survive on what you pay your workers? Probably not.
We need to start paying people a decent wage and quit exporting our jobs overseas. Whenever we export a job, we import that countries' poverty.
A Comment on the economy and unemployment. (No presidential remarks )
One of the most influential people on the US economy has spoken. Not the president, but the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Ben Bernanke. Like his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, Bernanke has great influence with well chosen words. He understands the power, limitations, and authority of each of the government branches as well as the federal Reserve System.
You won't find comments on either presidential candidate here, incumbent or the challenger, but rather a discussion on the economy and Congress. Many people blame the president for just about everything from the price of gas to the traffic jam they are stuck in while the reality is that the president simply does not have that much power. The people that make the changes that affect us are found in other groups, primarily Congress. The recent health care legislation was not passed by the president but Congress. It was the inability of Congress to act in a civilized manner and cooperate in a non-partisan manner that cost this country its valued AAA credit rating as Congress played party politics instead of resolving the major issues to adjust the debt ceiling and have a viable budget.
Breaking news now is that Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve indicates that if Congress fails to act quickly , the US economy is likely headed back into another recession (I thought we were still in one based upon the current economy and job situation).
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/07/18/2218402/bernanke-recession-likely-if-congress.html
"If Congress doesn't take action by the end of the year, a package of tax cuts adopted during George W. Bush's administration expires, while deep spending cuts kick in. If that happens, the economy would go over a "fiscal cliff." { Note that it was the administration i.e. Congress, not the president.}
Note that Bernanke recognizes the limits on authority on both the Federal Reserve System and Congress. " Bernanke stopped shot of telling Congress how to proceed. He challenged them to think broadly. 'Congress in in charge here, not the Federal Reserve,' he said."
From other sources, " Bernanke noted what the Congressional Budget Office has warned: A recession would occur, and 1.25 million fewer jobs would be created in 2013.
A word about job creation for those that don't appreciate the numbers. It is generally acknowledged that it takes between 200,000 and 250,000 new jobs EVERY MONTH to offset immigration and graduates entering the work force. A quarter of a million new jobs every month JUST TO BREAK EVEN! So when the news reports that last month the economy grew by 115,000 jobs, we are falling further and further behind. It takes 225,000 new jobs to break even and even more to recover those who lost jobs and graduates of the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 classes. (Yes, I could have simply said 2008 - 2012 but I wanted to list them for the effect of how long a time frame we have to recover.) I can only guess what the new jobs figure would have to be to recover those lost people within the next two years while more new graduates continue to enter the economy but it is a safe bet that we won't hit anything close to the required numbers for a long time.
As we approach the elections, it is imperative that we vote wisely for people who will speak their conscience and vote according to the issues. All too often today we see votes at both the Federal and State level split along party lines. THAT is what upsets me so greatly. We the people (Nice phrase) voted for representatives to represent US, not a particular party. I am not aiming this at either political party but rather at both. Both sides consistently fail to carry out their sworn duties to represent the people.
Ben Bernanke clearly recognizes that it is on the back of Congress to secure the future of this country. The problem is that Congress is failing at their job. They are so wrapped up in their efforts to have their particular party prevail that they ignore the needs of the people they represent.
Now is the time for people to put serious effort into voting not for one party or another but for people who will vote to represent their people, no matter what the party says. It does happen and I greatly respect those who do so even when I disagree with them.
If we continue voting in party politicians, we have only ourselves to blame for the continuing mess we find ourselves in.
[Note: While I welcome and encourage discussion on both sides, all comments are moderated and political comments in reference to Obama or Romney will not be published so don't bother going there. This is about the economy and Congress.]
You won't find comments on either presidential candidate here, incumbent or the challenger, but rather a discussion on the economy and Congress. Many people blame the president for just about everything from the price of gas to the traffic jam they are stuck in while the reality is that the president simply does not have that much power. The people that make the changes that affect us are found in other groups, primarily Congress. The recent health care legislation was not passed by the president but Congress. It was the inability of Congress to act in a civilized manner and cooperate in a non-partisan manner that cost this country its valued AAA credit rating as Congress played party politics instead of resolving the major issues to adjust the debt ceiling and have a viable budget.
Breaking news now is that Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve indicates that if Congress fails to act quickly , the US economy is likely headed back into another recession (I thought we were still in one based upon the current economy and job situation).
http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/07/18/2218402/bernanke-recession-likely-if-congress.html
"If Congress doesn't take action by the end of the year, a package of tax cuts adopted during George W. Bush's administration expires, while deep spending cuts kick in. If that happens, the economy would go over a "fiscal cliff." { Note that it was the administration i.e. Congress, not the president.}
Note that Bernanke recognizes the limits on authority on both the Federal Reserve System and Congress. " Bernanke stopped shot of telling Congress how to proceed. He challenged them to think broadly. 'Congress in in charge here, not the Federal Reserve,' he said."
From other sources, " Bernanke noted what the Congressional Budget Office has warned: A recession would occur, and 1.25 million fewer jobs would be created in 2013.
A word about job creation for those that don't appreciate the numbers. It is generally acknowledged that it takes between 200,000 and 250,000 new jobs EVERY MONTH to offset immigration and graduates entering the work force. A quarter of a million new jobs every month JUST TO BREAK EVEN! So when the news reports that last month the economy grew by 115,000 jobs, we are falling further and further behind. It takes 225,000 new jobs to break even and even more to recover those who lost jobs and graduates of the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 classes. (Yes, I could have simply said 2008 - 2012 but I wanted to list them for the effect of how long a time frame we have to recover.) I can only guess what the new jobs figure would have to be to recover those lost people within the next two years while more new graduates continue to enter the economy but it is a safe bet that we won't hit anything close to the required numbers for a long time.
Ben Bernanke clearly recognizes that it is on the back of Congress to secure the future of this country. The problem is that Congress is failing at their job. They are so wrapped up in their efforts to have their particular party prevail that they ignore the needs of the people they represent.
Now is the time for people to put serious effort into voting not for one party or another but for people who will vote to represent their people, no matter what the party says. It does happen and I greatly respect those who do so even when I disagree with them.
If we continue voting in party politicians, we have only ourselves to blame for the continuing mess we find ourselves in.
[Note: While I welcome and encourage discussion on both sides, all comments are moderated and political comments in reference to Obama or Romney will not be published so don't bother going there. This is about the economy and Congress.]
Friday, June 29, 2012
What's Wrong with the Affordable Health Care Act
Oh I have tried to ignore the political things and keep focused on the more interesting things to make "Comments on Life" about but I fear I must venture forth into the political realm. Let it be known that I am non-political, I care for neither side of the spectrum. The book, "Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America" is an excellent resource to begin an understanding of current political affairs. But to today's discussion, "What is wrong with The Affordable Health Care Act".
To analyze it, we must take three main perspectives.
1) The Business Owner - Two main problems of the Act in terms of the business owner.
First, the government allowed exemptions for businesses to not provide coverage. The problem is that it was meant to address places like McDonalds that hie a lot of teen-agers. Instead, every major corporation applied, and apparently got, the exemption. While I cannot be absolutely sure, I strongly suspect that this is a major reason businesses will not hire pull time employees anymore other than managers and supervisors. Besides the obvious payroll saving, having the exemption allows the business to not provide benefits. Bottom line: by obtaining the exemption, the business avoids providing health care.
Second, the government did not require health care coverage but instead set penalties (taxes, whatever you want to call then, that is not the point). In doing so, it allows the businesses to simply choose to pay the penalty tax without providing health care coverage to the employees. It will be cheaper for companies to pay the penalty than to provide health care coverage. Bottom line: by paying a small penalty tax (small compared to the cost of insurance), the business avoids providing health care.
2) The Insurance Industry - The main issue here is that insurance companies are in the business to make money, as any business is. They make money by charging based upon statistical averages and charing accordingly. this is why individual policies are always much more expensive than group insurance which spreads the liability out and is more statistically meaningful. The current Affordable Health Care Plan requires / demands that the insurance companies provide coverage of everyone even though they have pre-existing conditions. Traditionally insurance companies allow pre-existing coverage if there has been no lapse in coverage from the previous policy for more than 30 days. The liability is traded off from one company to another and in the end it works out for all the companies. BUT NOW, a person can find out they are sick with some serious (expensive) illness and get coverage. This is akin to applying for flood damage as the television station reports on hurricane force winds and flooding three blocks away. Currently insurance companies would not provide that coverage but under the current law, they would have to in terms of health care coverage.
b) The government says they cannot raise rates significantly (more on this in a moment). If you owned health care insurance company and you were faced with these demands, what would you do? How long would you expect to stay in business? The business model demanded by the current health care act is not sustainable by businesses. They will have to raise rates significantly or go out of business ( a distinct possibility).
(Side note: A complicating factor is that people tend to be less healthy as they get older and currently the Baby Boomers which are the largest block of our population are just now turning 64'ish. Demands upon the health care system are about to be the greatest they have ever been! Back to the question, would you want to own a health care insurance company under these conditions?)
3) The Individual - Many issues here. First, Cost have to be covered somewhere, if not by the insurance company, then the patient. we all laugh or groan about how much doctors and hospitals make. We have all heard the stories about the $50 aspirin but if you think like a business person instead of a patient, consider how you pay somebody to receive the shipment on the loading dock, un-package the boxes, distribute the aspirin to various locations, maintain inventory controls and monitor status. All that has to be figured into the cost of the aspirin. Plus there are the miscellaneous charges like janitorial staff and other things that have to be covered in the final bill. We have all seen this at the auto repair shop as they charge various miscellaneous charges for "rags and cleaning materials" or some such charge. Is is simply a way of tracking expenses. Consider how stores offer "Free Shipping" Its not free, its covered somewhere (likely advertising) but it is not free and is built into the cost of the product in some way.
The point I am driving to is that costs have to be covered in some manner. If insurance companies cannot raise their rates (supposedly) then those costs will have to be addressed by the patients when the insurance companies disallow certain costs as they exceed preset limits.
Second - The Act does not say insurance companies cannot raise rates. It says to the effect they cannot raise rates excessively and there is no precise definition of what that means. In other words, they can raise rates. To be realistic, they have to the minute they have to cover everybody with pre-existing conditions. Expect health care rates to rise. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "Define excessively."
b) The costs of the sick has to be amortized over the entire group, meaning the healthy help cover the cost of the sick. That is nothing new as that is the way it is today, that is what group rates are all about. But now we will have a lot of sick coming on-board. You may ask, what about the healthy, won't those that don't have coverage now but have to come on board and even things out? Not really. The healthy tend to be the younger people in our society (not always but usually). They also tend to be those without well paying jobs or have priorities that are on other things than health and life insurance. (Hey, young people never get sick, hurt, or die right? So they think.)
Third - The Act does not necessarily provide ADEQUATE health care coverage. I have held jobs that offered health care coverage (especially seen in part-time positions) that are woefully inadequate. Having health care is one thing, having adequate health care is a completely separate issue. I know many people who have health care but with deductibles and co-pays so high that the coverage is almost worthless unless they are seriously hurt in an accident of something.
Fourth - What will be the impact on availability of quality health care if insurance companies tell hospitals and doctors they won't pay the high rates they currently cover. ( I think we can all agree rates are way too high.) Hospitals will lower coverages and eliminate units to maintain efficiency. Students in med school or even prior to that may choose to enter a different profession. If doctors and nurses cannot eventually cover the high costs of medical school, who would choose to enter that profession?
Fifth: What will low income people (most of what used to be called the middle class) do? Well, the Act does not actually require insurance coverage. It simply charges a penalty tax for not having it. The penalty is something like $450 in 2014, $950 in 2015, and $2100 in 2016. Considering that the cost of individual health care with adequate coverage and decent deductibles and copays cost in the area of $700 - $900 a month (yes a month) it will be cheaper to simply pay the penalty tax. than buy coverage. Remember that most people that don't have it lack it because they can't afford it. BTW, i sued to have a friend who had individual health care coverage and when Conseco discontinued writing individual coverage policies (see insurance companies do quite writing policies) he had to get a Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and his rates were $1500 a month! (yes a month!) Another friend in the military couldn't afford to get out as his wife as his wife has serious health issues and he couldn't afford the outside world.
Summary: So what's wrong? The Act actually does not require businesses to provide coverage. They have two ways out, the exemption and the penalty tax ( or whatever you choose to call it). It will be cheaper to not provide coverage than to provide it. They will simply continue to have part time employees instead of dedicated full time workers and will pass the costs of penalties along to the consumer. With rising demand and lower coverage on insurance, hospitals and the medical profession will have to pass along those extra costs to the patient (you and me). Also, no matter what you hear, expect insurance rates to rise, significantly. For the individual, we will should expect higher rates. Also expect those higher rates to come with significantly lower coverage via higher deductibles and higher co-pays. (Read inadequate health care coverage). There is no free lunch, even if the government requires it. People will pay penalty taxes because they don't have insurance instead of buying the things they need in this on-going recession.
Let's see, business will be paying more taxes, individuals will be paying more taxes, people will have no better coverage than before, potentially less and the government rakes in lots of money!
Solution: I have always been taught that you shouldn't identify a problem without having a solution. So here is mine. (At least a stab at it).
First do we need health care? Yes! Cost have gone through the ceiling literally and it is insane and criminal that in America, one of the world's leaders and political powers, that we have people suffering due to the lack of adequate health care. Other countries outshine us in taking care of their citizens and that is a national disgrace to our country.
The solution? Try the Nixon Health Care Plan. I know Democrats will hate it because a Republican thought it up just like the Republicans hate the current plan that Democrats thought up and it will never see the light of day due to partisan politics but it is a good start. Not familiar with it? Here is the link to the article, " Nixon's Plan for Health Reform in His Own Words".
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2009/september/03/nixon-proposal.aspx
Something needs to be done. The Affordable Health Care Act (Obama Care) has serious issues as discussed above. I am sure there are those wingnuts (see above reference) that say nothing should be done but I would hope that some sane and rational educated thought would prevail rather than the emotional rhetoric that is all too prevalent. What happens next is up to us as we go about electing our representatives in Congress.
To analyze it, we must take three main perspectives.
1) The Business Owner - Two main problems of the Act in terms of the business owner.
First, the government allowed exemptions for businesses to not provide coverage. The problem is that it was meant to address places like McDonalds that hie a lot of teen-agers. Instead, every major corporation applied, and apparently got, the exemption. While I cannot be absolutely sure, I strongly suspect that this is a major reason businesses will not hire pull time employees anymore other than managers and supervisors. Besides the obvious payroll saving, having the exemption allows the business to not provide benefits. Bottom line: by obtaining the exemption, the business avoids providing health care.
Second, the government did not require health care coverage but instead set penalties (taxes, whatever you want to call then, that is not the point). In doing so, it allows the businesses to simply choose to pay the penalty tax without providing health care coverage to the employees. It will be cheaper for companies to pay the penalty than to provide health care coverage. Bottom line: by paying a small penalty tax (small compared to the cost of insurance), the business avoids providing health care.
2) The Insurance Industry - The main issue here is that insurance companies are in the business to make money, as any business is. They make money by charging based upon statistical averages and charing accordingly. this is why individual policies are always much more expensive than group insurance which spreads the liability out and is more statistically meaningful. The current Affordable Health Care Plan requires / demands that the insurance companies provide coverage of everyone even though they have pre-existing conditions. Traditionally insurance companies allow pre-existing coverage if there has been no lapse in coverage from the previous policy for more than 30 days. The liability is traded off from one company to another and in the end it works out for all the companies. BUT NOW, a person can find out they are sick with some serious (expensive) illness and get coverage. This is akin to applying for flood damage as the television station reports on hurricane force winds and flooding three blocks away. Currently insurance companies would not provide that coverage but under the current law, they would have to in terms of health care coverage.
b) The government says they cannot raise rates significantly (more on this in a moment). If you owned health care insurance company and you were faced with these demands, what would you do? How long would you expect to stay in business? The business model demanded by the current health care act is not sustainable by businesses. They will have to raise rates significantly or go out of business ( a distinct possibility).
(Side note: A complicating factor is that people tend to be less healthy as they get older and currently the Baby Boomers which are the largest block of our population are just now turning 64'ish. Demands upon the health care system are about to be the greatest they have ever been! Back to the question, would you want to own a health care insurance company under these conditions?)
3) The Individual - Many issues here. First, Cost have to be covered somewhere, if not by the insurance company, then the patient. we all laugh or groan about how much doctors and hospitals make. We have all heard the stories about the $50 aspirin but if you think like a business person instead of a patient, consider how you pay somebody to receive the shipment on the loading dock, un-package the boxes, distribute the aspirin to various locations, maintain inventory controls and monitor status. All that has to be figured into the cost of the aspirin. Plus there are the miscellaneous charges like janitorial staff and other things that have to be covered in the final bill. We have all seen this at the auto repair shop as they charge various miscellaneous charges for "rags and cleaning materials" or some such charge. Is is simply a way of tracking expenses. Consider how stores offer "Free Shipping" Its not free, its covered somewhere (likely advertising) but it is not free and is built into the cost of the product in some way.
The point I am driving to is that costs have to be covered in some manner. If insurance companies cannot raise their rates (supposedly) then those costs will have to be addressed by the patients when the insurance companies disallow certain costs as they exceed preset limits.
Second - The Act does not say insurance companies cannot raise rates. It says to the effect they cannot raise rates excessively and there is no precise definition of what that means. In other words, they can raise rates. To be realistic, they have to the minute they have to cover everybody with pre-existing conditions. Expect health care rates to rise. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "Define excessively."
b) The costs of the sick has to be amortized over the entire group, meaning the healthy help cover the cost of the sick. That is nothing new as that is the way it is today, that is what group rates are all about. But now we will have a lot of sick coming on-board. You may ask, what about the healthy, won't those that don't have coverage now but have to come on board and even things out? Not really. The healthy tend to be the younger people in our society (not always but usually). They also tend to be those without well paying jobs or have priorities that are on other things than health and life insurance. (Hey, young people never get sick, hurt, or die right? So they think.)
Third - The Act does not necessarily provide ADEQUATE health care coverage. I have held jobs that offered health care coverage (especially seen in part-time positions) that are woefully inadequate. Having health care is one thing, having adequate health care is a completely separate issue. I know many people who have health care but with deductibles and co-pays so high that the coverage is almost worthless unless they are seriously hurt in an accident of something.
Fourth - What will be the impact on availability of quality health care if insurance companies tell hospitals and doctors they won't pay the high rates they currently cover. ( I think we can all agree rates are way too high.) Hospitals will lower coverages and eliminate units to maintain efficiency. Students in med school or even prior to that may choose to enter a different profession. If doctors and nurses cannot eventually cover the high costs of medical school, who would choose to enter that profession?
Fifth: What will low income people (most of what used to be called the middle class) do? Well, the Act does not actually require insurance coverage. It simply charges a penalty tax for not having it. The penalty is something like $450 in 2014, $950 in 2015, and $2100 in 2016. Considering that the cost of individual health care with adequate coverage and decent deductibles and copays cost in the area of $700 - $900 a month (yes a month) it will be cheaper to simply pay the penalty tax. than buy coverage. Remember that most people that don't have it lack it because they can't afford it. BTW, i sued to have a friend who had individual health care coverage and when Conseco discontinued writing individual coverage policies (see insurance companies do quite writing policies) he had to get a Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and his rates were $1500 a month! (yes a month!) Another friend in the military couldn't afford to get out as his wife as his wife has serious health issues and he couldn't afford the outside world.
Summary: So what's wrong? The Act actually does not require businesses to provide coverage. They have two ways out, the exemption and the penalty tax ( or whatever you choose to call it). It will be cheaper to not provide coverage than to provide it. They will simply continue to have part time employees instead of dedicated full time workers and will pass the costs of penalties along to the consumer. With rising demand and lower coverage on insurance, hospitals and the medical profession will have to pass along those extra costs to the patient (you and me). Also, no matter what you hear, expect insurance rates to rise, significantly. For the individual, we will should expect higher rates. Also expect those higher rates to come with significantly lower coverage via higher deductibles and higher co-pays. (Read inadequate health care coverage). There is no free lunch, even if the government requires it. People will pay penalty taxes because they don't have insurance instead of buying the things they need in this on-going recession.
Let's see, business will be paying more taxes, individuals will be paying more taxes, people will have no better coverage than before, potentially less and the government rakes in lots of money!
Solution: I have always been taught that you shouldn't identify a problem without having a solution. So here is mine. (At least a stab at it).
First do we need health care? Yes! Cost have gone through the ceiling literally and it is insane and criminal that in America, one of the world's leaders and political powers, that we have people suffering due to the lack of adequate health care. Other countries outshine us in taking care of their citizens and that is a national disgrace to our country.
The solution? Try the Nixon Health Care Plan. I know Democrats will hate it because a Republican thought it up just like the Republicans hate the current plan that Democrats thought up and it will never see the light of day due to partisan politics but it is a good start. Not familiar with it? Here is the link to the article, " Nixon's Plan for Health Reform in His Own Words".
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2009/september/03/nixon-proposal.aspx
Something needs to be done. The Affordable Health Care Act (Obama Care) has serious issues as discussed above. I am sure there are those wingnuts (see above reference) that say nothing should be done but I would hope that some sane and rational educated thought would prevail rather than the emotional rhetoric that is all too prevalent. What happens next is up to us as we go about electing our representatives in Congress.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Life is Funny - Dealing with Socks
A little light hearted but in a way serious thoughts tonight. I was out walking my dogs the other night and talking about things as we walked. I thought about how they walk in bare feet whereas people walk in shoes, a much more preferable way.
But they looked up at me with a puzzled look as if to ask, "if shoes are so comfortable, why do you wear socks?" So I explained that the socks are to help our feet feel better as the shoes protect us form the rock and things on the ground, the socks protect our feet from the roughness of the shoes.
But they looked at me as if to ask, "Is this like those commercials on television where the medicine causes more side effects than the disease?" They gave me that look that made it clear, "If socks are so good, why to you have to wear the rough hem side inside against your feet and the soft smooth part on the outside where not only does it not make you foot feel good but nobody can see it anyway?"
We hear people say, "Its a dog's life." usually meant in a negative way but as I reflect, they don't worry about bills or money, they don't have to worry about where they left their iPhone charger or rechargeable batteries. They eat, sleep, play and all they ask for is a belly rub and some love with an occasional walk. Yep, they sure have it rough.
But they looked up at me with a puzzled look as if to ask, "if shoes are so comfortable, why do you wear socks?" So I explained that the socks are to help our feet feel better as the shoes protect us form the rock and things on the ground, the socks protect our feet from the roughness of the shoes.
But they looked at me as if to ask, "Is this like those commercials on television where the medicine causes more side effects than the disease?" They gave me that look that made it clear, "If socks are so good, why to you have to wear the rough hem side inside against your feet and the soft smooth part on the outside where not only does it not make you foot feel good but nobody can see it anyway?"
We hear people say, "Its a dog's life." usually meant in a negative way but as I reflect, they don't worry about bills or money, they don't have to worry about where they left their iPhone charger or rechargeable batteries. They eat, sleep, play and all they ask for is a belly rub and some love with an occasional walk. Yep, they sure have it rough.
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Father's Day Gift Ideas - 2012
A few comments before I get started. I have noticed that "Comment on Life" has been negative at times and so I will take a more positive approach.
Second - No, I get no kickback for this, I merely want to pass along some ideas that I have enjoyed and might help others out as Father's Day approaches.
So, let me set the stage so to speak. I used to use the standard aerosol shaving cream , like most men. The problem is as it runs low, it gets more and more watery. I have also used the gel shaving aerosol. I find it too slippery and too easy to slide off my hand. Also, you never get any warning that you are about to run out. Where the standard aerosol gets watery, the gel aerosol simply and suddenly quits.
So what is a man to do? I remembered using a shaving brush and shaving soap many years ago and so I began to look at it again only this time I didn't get the cheap drugstore brush. There are two kinds of better brushes - Bagger hair and Boars hair brushes. After some looking around, I decided upon this one.
Deluxe Boar Bristle Shaving Brush with Rosewood Handle & Free Shaving Brush from Parker Safety Razor.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004DEXE48/ref=pe_175190_21431760_cs_sce_dp_1
Next I needed so shaving soap. So I started out with Col. Conk Bay Rum Glycerine Shave Soap
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002JKSP38/ref=pe_175190_21431760_cs_sce_dp_2
So the $64,000 question, How did I liked it? Simply put, I have requested more indifferent fragrances for this Father's Day as I am almost out. Why do I like it so over the "traditional aerosol soaps?
1) It feels better. On those occasions that I have had to go back to aerosol when I travel and don't take my shaving soap, I have found that aerosol shaving creams feel sticky and unpleasant.
2) I love getting a hot shaving cream on my face. After soaking the crush in hot water, I have a hot shave. Sometimes I "treat myself" to a second shave by merely tipping the brush back in the hot water and lathering up again. Sort of a skin relaxer?
3) I can tell when I am about out with no side effects - i.e. no sudden loss of cream or going watery.
Why did I go boar's hair instead of bagger hair? Cost mainly but I love the boars hair brush. Do get a stand as you don't want to set it down with the hair upward when you are though.
Other kinds of soap? Plenty of choices out there. Experiment.
While you are out there, get the shaving cup for the soap also. I improvised with an old mug but it is a little too deep so this year I am asking for the shaving bowl. http://www.amazon.com/Kingsley-Shave-Soap-Bowl-Natural/dp/B00161BEO8/ref=pd_sim_hpc_1
Some may say it is like going back to your grand-gfather's days. Yep. A nice hot relaxing shave. Takes no longer and is always hot. What did I do with the unused aerosol shaving cream cans? They are for when I travel. And they make me appreciate the brush and mug every time I use them.
By the Way - I photography article I read recommend the boar's hair brush for brushing off a DSLR when out in the field. Adorama and B&H Photo even carry one in their photography section.
Adorama - http://www.adorama.com/CPDB.html
B&H
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/61515-REG/Visual_Departures_DB1_Dewitt_s_Boar_Bristle_Brush.html
Second - No, I get no kickback for this, I merely want to pass along some ideas that I have enjoyed and might help others out as Father's Day approaches.
So, let me set the stage so to speak. I used to use the standard aerosol shaving cream , like most men. The problem is as it runs low, it gets more and more watery. I have also used the gel shaving aerosol. I find it too slippery and too easy to slide off my hand. Also, you never get any warning that you are about to run out. Where the standard aerosol gets watery, the gel aerosol simply and suddenly quits.
So what is a man to do? I remembered using a shaving brush and shaving soap many years ago and so I began to look at it again only this time I didn't get the cheap drugstore brush. There are two kinds of better brushes - Bagger hair and Boars hair brushes. After some looking around, I decided upon this one.
Deluxe Boar Bristle Shaving Brush with Rosewood Handle & Free Shaving Brush from Parker Safety Razor.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004DEXE48/ref=pe_175190_21431760_cs_sce_dp_1
Next I needed so shaving soap. So I started out with Col. Conk Bay Rum Glycerine Shave Soap
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002JKSP38/ref=pe_175190_21431760_cs_sce_dp_2
So the $64,000 question, How did I liked it? Simply put, I have requested more indifferent fragrances for this Father's Day as I am almost out. Why do I like it so over the "traditional aerosol soaps?
1) It feels better. On those occasions that I have had to go back to aerosol when I travel and don't take my shaving soap, I have found that aerosol shaving creams feel sticky and unpleasant.
2) I love getting a hot shaving cream on my face. After soaking the crush in hot water, I have a hot shave. Sometimes I "treat myself" to a second shave by merely tipping the brush back in the hot water and lathering up again. Sort of a skin relaxer?
3) I can tell when I am about out with no side effects - i.e. no sudden loss of cream or going watery.
Why did I go boar's hair instead of bagger hair? Cost mainly but I love the boars hair brush. Do get a stand as you don't want to set it down with the hair upward when you are though.
Other kinds of soap? Plenty of choices out there. Experiment.
While you are out there, get the shaving cup for the soap also. I improvised with an old mug but it is a little too deep so this year I am asking for the shaving bowl. http://www.amazon.com/Kingsley-Shave-Soap-Bowl-Natural/dp/B00161BEO8/ref=pd_sim_hpc_1
Some may say it is like going back to your grand-gfather's days. Yep. A nice hot relaxing shave. Takes no longer and is always hot. What did I do with the unused aerosol shaving cream cans? They are for when I travel. And they make me appreciate the brush and mug every time I use them.
By the Way - I photography article I read recommend the boar's hair brush for brushing off a DSLR when out in the field. Adorama and B&H Photo even carry one in their photography section.
Adorama - http://www.adorama.com/CPDB.html
B&H
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/61515-REG/Visual_Departures_DB1_Dewitt_s_Boar_Bristle_Brush.html
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Rights of Bicyclists on the Road
Perhaps an old on-going issue but as I sat and read the comic strip Frazz today (and the past several) they have delay with bicyclists. (Link to GoComics and the Frazz strip. you can click the left arrow at the top to see previous days of the strip).
So the question is, do you feel bicyclists should have the rights of the road? I would say yes only if they obey ALL the rules. My biggest irritation is that bicyclists tend to "be a vehicle" when they want and "not be a vehicle" when it becomes convenient. In the Frazz strip, the group of bicyclists are blowing through a stop sign, apparently because they are "only a bicycle". Bicyclists want to ride on the sidewalks and do other things vehicles of the road cannot do (motorcyclists start to fall in this group as they and bicyclists both will weave between cars to get to the head of the line at a stoplight.)
Are all bicyclists bad? No! There are good ones and bad ones just as there are good vehicle operators and bad ones. Sometimes the problem is that the roads are simply not built to accommodate bicycles. In the photo above, there is not enough room for two cars and a bicycle side by side and the cars on this road tend to travel about 55 mph (limit is 50 I think).
As I type this I realized that even I have made a distinction between bicyclists and vehicles, on the road they should all be the same.
Are all bicyclists bad? No! There are good ones and bad ones just as there are good vehicle operators and bad ones. Sometimes the problem is that the roads are simply not built to accommodate bicycles. In the photo above, there is not enough room for two cars and a bicycle side by side and the cars on this road tend to travel about 55 mph (limit is 50 I think).
As I type this I realized that even I have made a distinction between bicyclists and vehicles, on the road they should all be the same.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Made in China a problem? Whose fault is that?
I am in a position to oversee returns at my job. In the course of the day I have noticed some returns being made solely because of their point of origin, in particular, China. "Made in China" is a sore point for some it appears. I do not want this to be taken as a China bashing post but rather a post asking the American public to look at themselves and their values that drive the market. I have reflected upon that fact and in my musings, I would like to make some observations.
- If made in China is a problem for somebody, why don't they check the point of manufacture BEFORE buying the product and not after?
- How do you survive without products made in China? It seems a large preponderance of products, especially electronics are made there. Either entire assemblies or major components or subassemblies come from there. No televisions are made in North America anymore. Curtis Mathis in Canada ceased operations years ago. and this leads me to the real question -
_ Why did it happen? Why did China become the major manufacturer of so many of our products especially electronics? Many will jump on the cheap labor and the slavery conditions allowed there and in other countries overseas and various economic policies But I want to look at the side of the coin so to speak that nobody really wants to acknowledge.
The reason the Chinese have taken so many of our jobs (as well as other countries) is that the American public / consumer cares about price over all else. I know we are in the midst of a long hard recession and that especially makes consumers look for the biggest bang for their buck but the recession is world wide. One way to help this country is to stimulate jobs in this country. Part of the problem is that the CEOs and Boards of Directors have exported our jobs overseas in order to maintain the greatest return for their stockholders. Greed is the appropriate word for it. Remember, "Every time we export our jobs, we import their poverty."
But the problem is also in part due to the American public's desire to get something "cheap". We want the best looking but not the best value. Artificial Christmas decorations are made in China. Why, because they are cheaper. I am thinking of a company whose name whose name I cannot mention that seems to make a lot of Christmas decorations and other electric products that don't seem to hold up well sand I see a lot of returns. Their products are made in China. I saw one return of a Christmas lights decoration that the consumer wrote on the box, "MADE in CHINA - Give Me a Break!" Couldn't that decoration have been made in America? Sure. Considering the cost of overseas shipment and import duties etc, it seems it could have been made in America at less cost (but not necessarily 'cheaper') with a better quality and have been very competitive with the "Made in China"product. But its not. I am sure somebody will point out start up manufacturing cost etc that make this prohibitive but my point is, we want what we buy cheap and in the end, we will buy at the lowest price whether it be Christmas lights or iPads made under labor conditions that are currently drawing media attention.
We cry out over human rights and work conditions but only so long as the price of our consumption does not go up. Several companies have tried to go the "Buy American" route (Wal-Mart comes to mind) but it doesn't seem to stick. The demand for cheaper goods rules as king over all.
Basically China is becoming a major manufacturing force because that's what the American public wants, the cost be damned. For the moment China needs us desperately. They are building a hydro-electric facility that is capable of supplying electricity far beyond any current or near term needs. News commentators have discussed how it seems intended for a developing manufacturing explosion. China needs us for the moment to buy for them so they will have money. As their manufacturing base is established and grows, their own population will have better jobs and more money and they their need for us will greatly diminish. They are on their way to becoming an economic superpower.
Why? Because the American public wants it. The American public wants the cheapest goods. That pressure is felt at the highest levels as CEOs and Boards of Directors approve using Chinese products to ensure profitability of their products. The GM tracker used to be built in Canada with a Chinese built engine. Chevy didn't advertise that fact too loudly in the midst of Mom, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet commercials.
The bottom line? Made in China is a way of life and the only way to change it is for the American public to change their values. Americans need to be willing to pay a little more for American goods. Forget tariffs, tariffs are band-aids, not solutions. the solution is for the American public to demand quality and made in America and I mean as more than a slogan on a wall or a 10 minute advertising commercial It needs to be our way of life because in the end, what is at risk is our way of life.
If you want to see America be the major economic force in the world that it used to be, then we need to demand American quality. We need to be willing to sacrifice the way Americans sacrificed to win the big wars. After all, we are at war right now, a war fought not with tanks and bombs but dollars and yen - and currently, America is losing and the future is not encouraging. It is up to the American public, not the government and politicians to ensure victory.
- If made in China is a problem for somebody, why don't they check the point of manufacture BEFORE buying the product and not after?
- How do you survive without products made in China? It seems a large preponderance of products, especially electronics are made there. Either entire assemblies or major components or subassemblies come from there. No televisions are made in North America anymore. Curtis Mathis in Canada ceased operations years ago. and this leads me to the real question -
_ Why did it happen? Why did China become the major manufacturer of so many of our products especially electronics? Many will jump on the cheap labor and the slavery conditions allowed there and in other countries overseas and various economic policies But I want to look at the side of the coin so to speak that nobody really wants to acknowledge.
The reason the Chinese have taken so many of our jobs (as well as other countries) is that the American public / consumer cares about price over all else. I know we are in the midst of a long hard recession and that especially makes consumers look for the biggest bang for their buck but the recession is world wide. One way to help this country is to stimulate jobs in this country. Part of the problem is that the CEOs and Boards of Directors have exported our jobs overseas in order to maintain the greatest return for their stockholders. Greed is the appropriate word for it. Remember, "Every time we export our jobs, we import their poverty."
But the problem is also in part due to the American public's desire to get something "cheap". We want the best looking but not the best value. Artificial Christmas decorations are made in China. Why, because they are cheaper. I am thinking of a company whose name whose name I cannot mention that seems to make a lot of Christmas decorations and other electric products that don't seem to hold up well sand I see a lot of returns. Their products are made in China. I saw one return of a Christmas lights decoration that the consumer wrote on the box, "MADE in CHINA - Give Me a Break!" Couldn't that decoration have been made in America? Sure. Considering the cost of overseas shipment and import duties etc, it seems it could have been made in America at less cost (but not necessarily 'cheaper') with a better quality and have been very competitive with the "Made in China"product. But its not. I am sure somebody will point out start up manufacturing cost etc that make this prohibitive but my point is, we want what we buy cheap and in the end, we will buy at the lowest price whether it be Christmas lights or iPads made under labor conditions that are currently drawing media attention.
We cry out over human rights and work conditions but only so long as the price of our consumption does not go up. Several companies have tried to go the "Buy American" route (Wal-Mart comes to mind) but it doesn't seem to stick. The demand for cheaper goods rules as king over all.
Basically China is becoming a major manufacturing force because that's what the American public wants, the cost be damned. For the moment China needs us desperately. They are building a hydro-electric facility that is capable of supplying electricity far beyond any current or near term needs. News commentators have discussed how it seems intended for a developing manufacturing explosion. China needs us for the moment to buy for them so they will have money. As their manufacturing base is established and grows, their own population will have better jobs and more money and they their need for us will greatly diminish. They are on their way to becoming an economic superpower.
Why? Because the American public wants it. The American public wants the cheapest goods. That pressure is felt at the highest levels as CEOs and Boards of Directors approve using Chinese products to ensure profitability of their products. The GM tracker used to be built in Canada with a Chinese built engine. Chevy didn't advertise that fact too loudly in the midst of Mom, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet commercials.
The bottom line? Made in China is a way of life and the only way to change it is for the American public to change their values. Americans need to be willing to pay a little more for American goods. Forget tariffs, tariffs are band-aids, not solutions. the solution is for the American public to demand quality and made in America and I mean as more than a slogan on a wall or a 10 minute advertising commercial It needs to be our way of life because in the end, what is at risk is our way of life.
If you want to see America be the major economic force in the world that it used to be, then we need to demand American quality. We need to be willing to sacrifice the way Americans sacrificed to win the big wars. After all, we are at war right now, a war fought not with tanks and bombs but dollars and yen - and currently, America is losing and the future is not encouraging. It is up to the American public, not the government and politicians to ensure victory.
Saturday, February 11, 2012
Why the quality of jobs is suffering.
As I write this, I know the jobs report says unemployment is decreasing just a little bit (hey, its better than going up!). But, I struggle with those reports as they ignore the quality of the jobs people are getting. Far too many people are working part time jobs, in many cases multiple part time jobs. In talking to various people, a lot of us are questioning why people can't get over 24 hours a week. I think I have the answer.
An acquaintance of mine is working part time the same approximate 24 hours a week mentioned above. Recently he was asked if he wanted some extra hours. Wanting the hours and pay and also to show he was a team player, he agree. Later when the schedule came out, he still had 24 hours that week!! In talking to his supervisor, he was told that if they let him get over 24 hours, Obama Healthcare regulations would kick in. I am not well versed in the particulars of Obama Health Care and I don not want this to turn into a political war but it amazes me that the government is trying so hard (supposedly) to create jobs for people (voters) and they have these regulations that are keeping people from getting a Decent job!
So the current situation is employers are hiring people but only for 24 hours a week. BUT they want you to be available 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. They don't care if you have a second job (as if anybody can survive on 234 hours a week) but THEY want to be top priority over the other employer!!
Meanwhile I myself work 40 hours week at a seasonal job 4 days a week (no benefits, its seasonal) and approximately 18 hours week the other three days (until they cut hours about two weeks ago!!). Again, no benefits.) OK, there is a heath care plan for PT employees but ask anybody that cares about heath care and is PT and they will tell you PT health care plans are worth the paper they are written on - high deductibles, low coverage.
Bottom line, the corporations have made an end run around the health care plan and have circumvented it and in the process kept people from getting a decent job. We have better heath care options when there was no government heath care.
Solution: Fix or eliminate the health care plan but as is it is killing this country. It is keeping people from getting jobs (decent ones at least).
An acquaintance of mine is working part time the same approximate 24 hours a week mentioned above. Recently he was asked if he wanted some extra hours. Wanting the hours and pay and also to show he was a team player, he agree. Later when the schedule came out, he still had 24 hours that week!! In talking to his supervisor, he was told that if they let him get over 24 hours, Obama Healthcare regulations would kick in. I am not well versed in the particulars of Obama Health Care and I don not want this to turn into a political war but it amazes me that the government is trying so hard (supposedly) to create jobs for people (voters) and they have these regulations that are keeping people from getting a Decent job!
So the current situation is employers are hiring people but only for 24 hours a week. BUT they want you to be available 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. They don't care if you have a second job (as if anybody can survive on 234 hours a week) but THEY want to be top priority over the other employer!!
Meanwhile I myself work 40 hours week at a seasonal job 4 days a week (no benefits, its seasonal) and approximately 18 hours week the other three days (until they cut hours about two weeks ago!!). Again, no benefits.) OK, there is a heath care plan for PT employees but ask anybody that cares about heath care and is PT and they will tell you PT health care plans are worth the paper they are written on - high deductibles, low coverage.
Bottom line, the corporations have made an end run around the health care plan and have circumvented it and in the process kept people from getting a decent job. We have better heath care options when there was no government heath care.
Solution: Fix or eliminate the health care plan but as is it is killing this country. It is keeping people from getting jobs (decent ones at least).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)