These words were spoken by George Bush on January 8, 2004. At the time, he was speaking exclusively about education and the No Child Left Behind act.
In broader terms, he was really speaking about how the tenets of the Democratic Party and their safety net have allowed generations of kids to skate by in life, only to turn into adept “skaters” as adults. The safety of Mom, Dad, and home has been exchanged for the federal and state governments and their various social programs.
The soft bigotry has come home to roost for low-wage earners. So has Thomas Friedman’s flat world.
As I wrote before, low-skilled and low-educated labor only garners about $.69 an hour on a global average—this has made our $5.15 an hour in high demand for the lowest rung of workers, and we wonder why Congress is reluctant to move on this issue. Even I, who haven’t made a Whopper™ burger in over 25 years, could easily re-enter the king’s domain, and here’s why:
1. Take meat/bun combination out of steamer.
2. Place bottom bun and meat (with or without 2 slices of cheese) into microwave and heat on setting “6”.
3. While bottom is nuking, smear mayo on bun top, add lettuce, 2 slices tomato, and 3 rings of onion.
4. Retrieve bottom bun/meat from the microwave, add ketchup from the outside in, top with 4 pickle slices, add top, wrap, mark if needed, and send down the chute.
Did I leave anything out?
I’m sure technology has changed since I last worked at a Burger King, so today’s Whopper assembly may have changed slightly—but not much. The same can be said for McDonald’s, Wendy’s, any other fast food joint, or any mass-market retailer. Once you’ve worked one IBM-POS register, you’ve pretty much worked them all.
In other words, anybody can do this job after watching the training video for a few minutes. This means ANYONE in ANY COUNTRY with few skills or little education can do this job, and a training video is completely optional. A lot of burger assemblers are working worldwide, and get paid a pittance for this mindless repetition.
Why should American burger assemblers or cashiers get paid more? There is no American fast food union or cashier union that I’m aware of, and the jobs don’t require specialized skills or training to get. The food certainly isn’t in high demand. So what, if anything, gives minimum wage workers the right to demand more money for an essentially valueless skill?
I can hear the shouts of “cost of living” from here, and we all know living costs are what we make of them.
Consumers are like ravens—distracted by shiny things, especially electronic ones. Parents have gone from pushing strollers to pushing Baby Einstein on their kids, in a sad attempt to raise intelligence, but all it did was teach the baby that parents can be substituted with push-button amusement. Kids went from Baby Einstein to Leap Frog, Hooked on Phonics to Nintendo, I-pods and cell phones to Blackberries. Anybody can push a button, and we’re learning how to push the correct ones at an earlier and earlier age.
Those who shuttled their kids back and forth to computer classes and camps, dance lessons, sports activities, and music lessons and recitals will likely have kids who fare better in this world, because the kids were learning specialized skills, developing talents, and how to compete at an early age. This is the modern-day replacement for sending kids to work—think of it as “pre-work training.”
Now that the realities of global competition, low expectations, and minimum standards have been introduced to our society, how does one go about overcoming them to achieve a livable wage and an above-average life?
• Raise the expectations—personal, familial, and institutional
Why did Uncle Sam have to set the bar so low that anyone can step over it? Because if he didn’t, whole generations of children would be left behind—mainly the button-pushers. Then, he knew he’d have whole new generations to support in the form of welfare, food stamps, etc., and be right back in the boat he just got out of with Welfare Reform—the correction to the liberal Democratic Party enabler.
Shouldn’t we all be ashamed that there are kids out there that can’t even clear the hurdle of mandated minimums? If this is happening in all levels of the public schools, what in the world can we expect of them as adults in the working world?
To raise expectations at home means to INSIST on better schools and higher grades, INSIST on a better diet to feed those young brain cells, INSIST on character development, INSIST on skill/talent exploration and development outside the home and away from electronic influence, and INSIST on parental involvement, hands-on if need be. Parents need to model a better way of life with higher expectations for themselves and their kids, and then actually provide the building blocks necessary to get kids to the starting line of the “global workforce” competition.
Too many parents have settled for less by falling for the status quo, and this has snowballed into a societal settling—so much so that the federal government had to set limits on how low we could go. Like the USRDA and other regulations, this No Child Left Behind act has set a MINIMUM standard for educational excellence, and we’re doing our utmost just to meet those in today’s public schools! Like those RDAs, they’ll keep someone alive, but they won’t thrive. Children should expect to grow into thriving, prosperous adults--unfortunately, neither they nor their parents have such high hopes these days. Why not blame it on off-shoring, outsourcing, and illegal immigration!
Instead of the “finish your vegetables—kids in Bangladesh are starving for them” at your parents’ and grandparents’ dinner table, today’s admonishment should be “finish your homework—kids in China are starving for your job,” just like Thomas Friedman talks about in his latest book.
If you are a low-wage parent, shame on you for settling. If you are a young adult, let this be the opportunity for a life lesson—if you can’t meet the globally-established minimum qualifications to compete in the worldwide workforce for a better job with better pay, the least you could do is not repeat the same mistake your parents made: breed outside your “expectation” comfort zone. If you aren’t realistically going to make enough personal progress through employment to live a better life yourself, then don’t bring more people into the world to follow your example. You can’t handle the increased worry or exasperation of trying to swim with the sharks and failing, and you certainly won’t want it for any kids you may have been thinking about having. The world has quite enough button-pushers, thank you.
If I can still remember how to make a Whopper after being away from fast food for over 25 years, and therefore can still compete for a burger assembly job, how far do you think you’ll go? I come with the added benefits of character, wisdom, and experience, so I’ll be able to help add to the bottom line by showing up on time, doing my job more efficiently (and probably yours too), and making suggestions to the boss for cost-cutting and streamlining store operations--putting me miles ahead of someone who barely finished high school but can obey orders somewhat. My pay would also reflect it, but luckily for you, I don’t need to go back to work. Besides, if I did, I’d qualify for something much better than a burger assembly or cashier job.
My point: button-pushers aren’t rare, or in heavy demand--they are easily replaced, sometimes by software or robots, which don’t have a mandated minimum wage attached to them. Hiring humans to push the buttons is actually a courtesy—if a robot can build a car, it can build a burger just as easily. Cashiers are already feeling the heat with self-service checkout lanes. Overseas, Mickey D’s is venturing into automated food service via vending machines, eliminating all but the production manager and machine re-stocker jobs. Be happy you have a job at all, even one paying $5.15 an hour.
Remember: button-pushers are a dime a dozen and that price gets undercut every day. Without a restoration of expectations, character, and a sense of competition, there won’t be any personal progress for current or future generations—especially if Uncle Sam has anything to say about it. He ALWAYS awards the job to the lowest bidder, because even he has lost expectations of ever getting his money’s worth, or getting the job done on time within budget.
In other words, without education, skills, talent, character, and a competitive nature, minimum wage work will always be subject to the soft bigotry of low expectations, and employees will always be the lowest bidders just by settling for the job. It’s either up or out in today’s workforce in today’s flat world. Will you allow yourself to become one of the many adults left behind?
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Celebrities Spinning Their Wheels Part II: George Clooney and the Darfur Region
You’ll remember not long ago I expounded about the futility of celebrities and the drumming up of attention to Third World plights. Apparently George Clooney didn’t get the memo.
Here’s what I said in the last denunciation of celebrity causes:
“The problem with that is getting access to those who need to be served. Tribal wars, government officials and security forces on the take, and refugees either having to move around a lot (for their own protection), or being forced to leave because someone ordered the camps closed.
There always seems to be someone in charge with their hand out, willing to trade money, goods, or favors for direct refugee access. In the Congo alone, foreign aid rake-offs make up close to 40% of their GDP.
Certain celebrities seem to think the problem lies with getting our attention, then getting us to loosen our purse strings a little more. They couldn’t be more naïve.”
Now I have a better understanding of where these uninformed celebrities come from—mostly the Land of Liberal La. Because these people are blessed with the ability to rake in tons of money for very little physical work (acting, singing, etc.), they think ALL OF US earn our money just as easily, and in comparable sums. You see, the west coast is home to Hollywood, Silicon Valley, many celebrities, and liberal environmentalists—most of which have never been off the west coast, so they aren’t aware of how the other half lives. They think we, like them, have all this excess cash just sitting around collecting interest (and dust), and cry for you to help them create a social safety net just like they have back home—only on a global scale. The Darfur region of Africa is this season’s crisis for George Clooney and others.
Even Susan Sarandon has adopted the moniker of “philanthropist” recently in ads for Macy’s. Her appearance tells me two things: 1) she has sold out to commercial interests, and 2) she is no longer a viable actress in the eyes of Hollywood. Exactly what her area of philanthropic expertise is I haven’t a clue.
I go on in my former denunciation to explain exactly why we CAN’T open our purses, lest we set off a chain of unintended consequences: “Helping starving Third World families means first getting them out of the fray they live in—they must be somewhere secure to be fed, clothed, and healed. This is easier said than done, because threats crop up in many forms every day. If “helping” was as simple as driving a truck into the middle of nowhere, and handing out money, food, or territory to the hungry, the homeless, or the power-starved, more of us would be on the ground over there. Unfortunately, protocols must be observed, risks weighed, and needs assessed/ranked, and all this takes time BEFORE we even get to amassing and airlifting goods out, hiring local security and translators, finding and loading vehicles (not to mention drivers) for delivery, setting up makeshift camps and buildings…do you see where I’m going here? More money is spent on assembling the infrastructure for aid than is actually spent giving aid to the ones who need it. What’s REALLY needed in war-torn areas is stability—in the form of secure, stable camps for refugees, a safe, secure, and reliable means for getting food, shelter, and medicine to them, and sufficient safety to maintain a steady staff to hand out goods, and administer medicine. Without the basics in place, nothing useful can follow, no matter how many babies Angelina has in Namibia, or how many chats Bono has with world leaders.
If you want to help, find out who already has an infrastructure on the ground (in your chosen area of donation interest) and back them. Whether it be UNICEF, Save the Children, Doctors Without Borders, or whomever, do your research before writing that check—make sure the organization actually does work in the area, and what kind. Otherwise, just sending checks to blanket organizations (like Red Cross or the United Way) go to fund more than you know: administrative overhead costs (i.e., salaries), subcontracting costs, navigating various layers of bureaucracy, and other things you never intended your money to pay for. Let the government contributions pay for the other stuff—the overhead, the security, the bribes and rake offs, etc.—you stick with the people on the ground handing out the food, building the shelters, or doctoring the sick.”
Going to the U.N., appealing to presidents in person, or even corralling the media in the quest for attention to alleviate some sort of suffering is much ado about nothing, especially for those of us who don’t have piles of cash sitting around, or cannot earn piles of cash by cranking out a quick movie or commercial. Talking about and filming Darfur isn’t going to make it any more appealing to the donating public, especially in light of the ongoing instability in the region and the long-term tie-up of our own military forces in the Middle East. What exactly does George Clooney want us to do—stop all activity in Iraq and Afghanistan and rush right over to Darfur? A better-looking actor doesn’t make us rush to save anyone’s hide any faster!
Isn’t it enough that we have Bill Gates and his foundation working on AIDS, and other millionaires and billionaires working in other regions of the world, silently but diligently, in support of other causes? Musicians are working in New Orleans, doctors are working in Africa, and others are doing work that I can’t even name right this minute, because they’re WORKING and not SCREAMING THROUGH THE MEDIA FOR MONEY OR ATTENTION.
ALL CELEBRITIES “should look into getting more bang for their charity and photo-op efforts, instead of relying on tabloid covers and CNN to do it for them. They should put their mouths where their money is; unless they really haven’t got a clue about the Third World Aid myth (this wouldn’t surprise me in the least!). If anyone has a way for individuals to ship bags of rice, grain, and packs of bottled water directly to, say, the N’butu or R’witi families (made-up names), please let us know. UPS won’t deliver to a constantly-shifting refugee camp that may come under occasional gunfire.”
And again, there’s no follow-up. What exactly IS George Clooney doing in the Darfur region, except waging a photo-op campaign? Is HE donating money, or supplies, or arranging for people and/or supplies to come into the region to do the actual work? If so, why doesn’t he show us THAT? What exactly does he want US to do in light of the violence, poverty, corruption, and red tape in the area?
Since having her baby in Namibia, what follow-through or follow-up has Angelina done? I haven’t heard a peep about Namibia since the baby excitement died down—come to think of it, I haven’t heard a peep about “Brangelina” either. Like her, George will move onto other things, and the Darfur issue will also die into the dust. Some new movie project will come up, and George can use his profits to hire a private army to stop the violence—that’s what it’ll take until someone discovers oil in the region.
There are plenty of kick-ass mercenaries for hire. Surely George can afford that!
There are reasons why we aren’t doing something about these issues, dear celebrities—get on the internet and find out why. The #1 reason is that we don’t throw out humanitarian aid willy-nilly, especially when we have no interests in the region, there hasn’t been a natural disaster declared (and no, genocide doesn’t count as a “natural disaster”), and the money is only going to fuel an already-corrupt regime.
You’re just going to have to get over it—sorry, George. Go hit up Richard Branson (another celebrity without a clue)—I hear he’s throwing away $3B (as in billions) to fight global warming. Not a single tree will be planted in his efforts, I’m sure!
Here’s what I said in the last denunciation of celebrity causes:
“The problem with that is getting access to those who need to be served. Tribal wars, government officials and security forces on the take, and refugees either having to move around a lot (for their own protection), or being forced to leave because someone ordered the camps closed.
There always seems to be someone in charge with their hand out, willing to trade money, goods, or favors for direct refugee access. In the Congo alone, foreign aid rake-offs make up close to 40% of their GDP.
Certain celebrities seem to think the problem lies with getting our attention, then getting us to loosen our purse strings a little more. They couldn’t be more naïve.”
Now I have a better understanding of where these uninformed celebrities come from—mostly the Land of Liberal La. Because these people are blessed with the ability to rake in tons of money for very little physical work (acting, singing, etc.), they think ALL OF US earn our money just as easily, and in comparable sums. You see, the west coast is home to Hollywood, Silicon Valley, many celebrities, and liberal environmentalists—most of which have never been off the west coast, so they aren’t aware of how the other half lives. They think we, like them, have all this excess cash just sitting around collecting interest (and dust), and cry for you to help them create a social safety net just like they have back home—only on a global scale. The Darfur region of Africa is this season’s crisis for George Clooney and others.
Even Susan Sarandon has adopted the moniker of “philanthropist” recently in ads for Macy’s. Her appearance tells me two things: 1) she has sold out to commercial interests, and 2) she is no longer a viable actress in the eyes of Hollywood. Exactly what her area of philanthropic expertise is I haven’t a clue.
I go on in my former denunciation to explain exactly why we CAN’T open our purses, lest we set off a chain of unintended consequences: “Helping starving Third World families means first getting them out of the fray they live in—they must be somewhere secure to be fed, clothed, and healed. This is easier said than done, because threats crop up in many forms every day. If “helping” was as simple as driving a truck into the middle of nowhere, and handing out money, food, or territory to the hungry, the homeless, or the power-starved, more of us would be on the ground over there. Unfortunately, protocols must be observed, risks weighed, and needs assessed/ranked, and all this takes time BEFORE we even get to amassing and airlifting goods out, hiring local security and translators, finding and loading vehicles (not to mention drivers) for delivery, setting up makeshift camps and buildings…do you see where I’m going here? More money is spent on assembling the infrastructure for aid than is actually spent giving aid to the ones who need it. What’s REALLY needed in war-torn areas is stability—in the form of secure, stable camps for refugees, a safe, secure, and reliable means for getting food, shelter, and medicine to them, and sufficient safety to maintain a steady staff to hand out goods, and administer medicine. Without the basics in place, nothing useful can follow, no matter how many babies Angelina has in Namibia, or how many chats Bono has with world leaders.
If you want to help, find out who already has an infrastructure on the ground (in your chosen area of donation interest) and back them. Whether it be UNICEF, Save the Children, Doctors Without Borders, or whomever, do your research before writing that check—make sure the organization actually does work in the area, and what kind. Otherwise, just sending checks to blanket organizations (like Red Cross or the United Way) go to fund more than you know: administrative overhead costs (i.e., salaries), subcontracting costs, navigating various layers of bureaucracy, and other things you never intended your money to pay for. Let the government contributions pay for the other stuff—the overhead, the security, the bribes and rake offs, etc.—you stick with the people on the ground handing out the food, building the shelters, or doctoring the sick.”
Going to the U.N., appealing to presidents in person, or even corralling the media in the quest for attention to alleviate some sort of suffering is much ado about nothing, especially for those of us who don’t have piles of cash sitting around, or cannot earn piles of cash by cranking out a quick movie or commercial. Talking about and filming Darfur isn’t going to make it any more appealing to the donating public, especially in light of the ongoing instability in the region and the long-term tie-up of our own military forces in the Middle East. What exactly does George Clooney want us to do—stop all activity in Iraq and Afghanistan and rush right over to Darfur? A better-looking actor doesn’t make us rush to save anyone’s hide any faster!
Isn’t it enough that we have Bill Gates and his foundation working on AIDS, and other millionaires and billionaires working in other regions of the world, silently but diligently, in support of other causes? Musicians are working in New Orleans, doctors are working in Africa, and others are doing work that I can’t even name right this minute, because they’re WORKING and not SCREAMING THROUGH THE MEDIA FOR MONEY OR ATTENTION.
ALL CELEBRITIES “should look into getting more bang for their charity and photo-op efforts, instead of relying on tabloid covers and CNN to do it for them. They should put their mouths where their money is; unless they really haven’t got a clue about the Third World Aid myth (this wouldn’t surprise me in the least!). If anyone has a way for individuals to ship bags of rice, grain, and packs of bottled water directly to, say, the N’butu or R’witi families (made-up names), please let us know. UPS won’t deliver to a constantly-shifting refugee camp that may come under occasional gunfire.”
And again, there’s no follow-up. What exactly IS George Clooney doing in the Darfur region, except waging a photo-op campaign? Is HE donating money, or supplies, or arranging for people and/or supplies to come into the region to do the actual work? If so, why doesn’t he show us THAT? What exactly does he want US to do in light of the violence, poverty, corruption, and red tape in the area?
Since having her baby in Namibia, what follow-through or follow-up has Angelina done? I haven’t heard a peep about Namibia since the baby excitement died down—come to think of it, I haven’t heard a peep about “Brangelina” either. Like her, George will move onto other things, and the Darfur issue will also die into the dust. Some new movie project will come up, and George can use his profits to hire a private army to stop the violence—that’s what it’ll take until someone discovers oil in the region.
There are plenty of kick-ass mercenaries for hire. Surely George can afford that!
There are reasons why we aren’t doing something about these issues, dear celebrities—get on the internet and find out why. The #1 reason is that we don’t throw out humanitarian aid willy-nilly, especially when we have no interests in the region, there hasn’t been a natural disaster declared (and no, genocide doesn’t count as a “natural disaster”), and the money is only going to fuel an already-corrupt regime.
You’re just going to have to get over it—sorry, George. Go hit up Richard Branson (another celebrity without a clue)—I hear he’s throwing away $3B (as in billions) to fight global warming. Not a single tree will be planted in his efforts, I’m sure!
Sunday, September 24, 2006
Job Vacancy: Crop Pickers Needed A.S.A.P.
Okay, now that I know that my URL isn't going to change, here goes:
_________________________________________________________
The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
Everyone screamed, protested, and legislated (or is about to) their way into the biggest debacle of this century: a lack of crop pickers in our burgeoning fruit fields.
This past summer, farmers had peaches die on the trees because they had nobody to pick them. This fall, apples will go unpicked because of labor shortages. Next spring, who knows what will go unpicked, unprocessed, and won’t be showing up in your stores?
Apparently, voter issue appeasement was more important than insuring a steady supply of labor for the foods we eat, especially in light of obesity and chronic disease prevention. The once-crop pickers have been either scared off the fields by enforcement or lured off by higher-paying opportunities elsewhere.
Now we’ll have an entire rung of the economic ladder that’s vacant, and no Americans seem willing to step in and help fix it—the pay isn’t exactly attractive, and neither are the working conditions. Heaven forbid we might have to bend over, or get our hands dirty, for hours at a time. It seems to me that this is a prime opportunity for homeless people to earn some money, but you don’t even see those people flocking to these jobs.
Minimum wage earners did the most screaming about illegal aliens “taking their jobs”, which meant that there was no job security at that level to begin with. I for one don’t see anybody turning around and taking the migrant jobs away from anyone, so where’s the security for the lowest of levels? If someone from another country can step in and do your job without training or education, and will do it for less, what does that tell you?
There’s no such thing as job security. Soon, machinery will be built and brought in to replace the people who once picked the fruits and vegetables. If such machinery can and does get employed, who’s to say where it will end? If machines can harvest our food, build our cars, and serve as check-out clerks, then why can’t they be adapted to do YOUR job as well? Many of the jobs in this country are but one computer program or robot away from being done by machine!
Let this serve as a warning: not only will the price of food change forever, but the whole menial job landscape as well. Guess who will end up paying the cost of these machines? We’re already paying for Farmer Brown’s high-tech planting and harvesting equipment, as well as import taxes and tariffs for foods that Farmer Brown won’t grow because of low profit margins.
Ask yourself where you and your job fit in this changing landscape. Are machines likely to chase you out of the building and off the payroll? Are you likely going to be able to find work somewhere free from machine intrusion? Do you possess the skills or education necessary to keep moving up the career ladder, staying ahead of the machines below you?
The only thing that kept people of low education and low skills employed was cheap labor—the migrant worker, cheaper than minimum wage. Now, he’s disappearing. Big Box retailers and fast food outlets will be next on the mechanization list, and eventually those jobs currently requiring a degree will become the new minimum wage jobs. Then, everybody will HAVE to start raising standards in schools and at home—future generations will depend on it. College educations will no longer be scoffed at or considered optional—the Master’s will be the new job security, and those without one will be doomed to machine-slave status: repair techs and reprogrammers, paid a global minimum wage.
It all starts in the fields—who’d have thought it? Now, imagine if we build an Israeli-like wall, or even a fence, across our southern border…after this, you have a much better understanding of the role immigrant labor plays in your life, as well as your job. THEY ARE your job security as well as your cheap food access. If the machines are allowed to win, there will be a second Great Depression in this country—a Depression full of obsolete menial workers and a government with no money or desire to bail them out. The Industrial Revolution caused the first Depression Era, and we are doomed to repeat history because of a lousy computer program for a lousy machine to replace a lousy migrant worker.
Don’t forget that it took the military industrial complex of WWII to completely erase traces of the first Depression. It may take the impending Crusade in the Middle East to make the New Depression go away, and nobody wants to go there—we don’t have the bodies to spare, even after a draft is enacted.
The much-ballyhooed “great Boomer retirement wave” won’t save us, because there isn’t going to be one—if anything, they’re creating a “gray ceiling” in the workforce because they AREN’T retiring as they should, clogging up the upper ranks, and stalling promotion potential for younger workers on their way up. They are reluctant to retire, and employers are reluctant to let them go. Apparently those younger workers eager to promote are considered lacking in skills, degrees, or experience, and that’s why Boomers will be allowed to sit in their lofty perches for as long as they can stand it.
We may as well plan on having to bury them in their cubicles.
Then there’s the declining birth issue: globally speaking, industrialized countries have negative birthrates (ours included), and there will continually be fewer people to replace the older generations—this will set off a wave of global migration from Third World countries, who still have overpopulation problems, and will continue to do so. If we (and other nations) don’t let them in to pick our peaches (or perform other menial labor), it could very well cause a global economic slowdown the likes of which we’ve never before seen.
Do you still want to pass on this job opening? Ask yourself this when you take your next bite of food: would you rather pick peaches in America now, or be drafted later to kill jihadist suicide bombers in the Middle East?
_________________________________________________________
The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
Everyone screamed, protested, and legislated (or is about to) their way into the biggest debacle of this century: a lack of crop pickers in our burgeoning fruit fields.
This past summer, farmers had peaches die on the trees because they had nobody to pick them. This fall, apples will go unpicked because of labor shortages. Next spring, who knows what will go unpicked, unprocessed, and won’t be showing up in your stores?
Apparently, voter issue appeasement was more important than insuring a steady supply of labor for the foods we eat, especially in light of obesity and chronic disease prevention. The once-crop pickers have been either scared off the fields by enforcement or lured off by higher-paying opportunities elsewhere.
Now we’ll have an entire rung of the economic ladder that’s vacant, and no Americans seem willing to step in and help fix it—the pay isn’t exactly attractive, and neither are the working conditions. Heaven forbid we might have to bend over, or get our hands dirty, for hours at a time. It seems to me that this is a prime opportunity for homeless people to earn some money, but you don’t even see those people flocking to these jobs.
Minimum wage earners did the most screaming about illegal aliens “taking their jobs”, which meant that there was no job security at that level to begin with. I for one don’t see anybody turning around and taking the migrant jobs away from anyone, so where’s the security for the lowest of levels? If someone from another country can step in and do your job without training or education, and will do it for less, what does that tell you?
There’s no such thing as job security. Soon, machinery will be built and brought in to replace the people who once picked the fruits and vegetables. If such machinery can and does get employed, who’s to say where it will end? If machines can harvest our food, build our cars, and serve as check-out clerks, then why can’t they be adapted to do YOUR job as well? Many of the jobs in this country are but one computer program or robot away from being done by machine!
Let this serve as a warning: not only will the price of food change forever, but the whole menial job landscape as well. Guess who will end up paying the cost of these machines? We’re already paying for Farmer Brown’s high-tech planting and harvesting equipment, as well as import taxes and tariffs for foods that Farmer Brown won’t grow because of low profit margins.
Ask yourself where you and your job fit in this changing landscape. Are machines likely to chase you out of the building and off the payroll? Are you likely going to be able to find work somewhere free from machine intrusion? Do you possess the skills or education necessary to keep moving up the career ladder, staying ahead of the machines below you?
The only thing that kept people of low education and low skills employed was cheap labor—the migrant worker, cheaper than minimum wage. Now, he’s disappearing. Big Box retailers and fast food outlets will be next on the mechanization list, and eventually those jobs currently requiring a degree will become the new minimum wage jobs. Then, everybody will HAVE to start raising standards in schools and at home—future generations will depend on it. College educations will no longer be scoffed at or considered optional—the Master’s will be the new job security, and those without one will be doomed to machine-slave status: repair techs and reprogrammers, paid a global minimum wage.
It all starts in the fields—who’d have thought it? Now, imagine if we build an Israeli-like wall, or even a fence, across our southern border…after this, you have a much better understanding of the role immigrant labor plays in your life, as well as your job. THEY ARE your job security as well as your cheap food access. If the machines are allowed to win, there will be a second Great Depression in this country—a Depression full of obsolete menial workers and a government with no money or desire to bail them out. The Industrial Revolution caused the first Depression Era, and we are doomed to repeat history because of a lousy computer program for a lousy machine to replace a lousy migrant worker.
Don’t forget that it took the military industrial complex of WWII to completely erase traces of the first Depression. It may take the impending Crusade in the Middle East to make the New Depression go away, and nobody wants to go there—we don’t have the bodies to spare, even after a draft is enacted.
The much-ballyhooed “great Boomer retirement wave” won’t save us, because there isn’t going to be one—if anything, they’re creating a “gray ceiling” in the workforce because they AREN’T retiring as they should, clogging up the upper ranks, and stalling promotion potential for younger workers on their way up. They are reluctant to retire, and employers are reluctant to let them go. Apparently those younger workers eager to promote are considered lacking in skills, degrees, or experience, and that’s why Boomers will be allowed to sit in their lofty perches for as long as they can stand it.
We may as well plan on having to bury them in their cubicles.
Then there’s the declining birth issue: globally speaking, industrialized countries have negative birthrates (ours included), and there will continually be fewer people to replace the older generations—this will set off a wave of global migration from Third World countries, who still have overpopulation problems, and will continue to do so. If we (and other nations) don’t let them in to pick our peaches (or perform other menial labor), it could very well cause a global economic slowdown the likes of which we’ve never before seen.
Do you still want to pass on this job opening? Ask yourself this when you take your next bite of food: would you rather pick peaches in America now, or be drafted later to kill jihadist suicide bombers in the Middle East?
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Interstate 5: The Road to Serfdom (L-O-N-G)
The book “The Road to Serfdom” was written back in 1945, and I do believe I’ve located that road on the map: Interstate 5, running from Baja California to Canada along our west coast. You might know these as the “better than thou” states.
F.A. Hayek’s book was a well-written tome: a post-war warning to the nation about government-centralized planning and wholesale surrender of individual rights and freedoms to it. He earned a Nobel Prize in economics for this work.
The states that reside on Interstate 5 are California, Oregon, and Washington, or as I call them, the “Liberal Trifecta.” I have lived in two of three “trifecta” states, so I don’t speak out of reference—I was born and raised in California, and married and moved to Washington, where I lived for seven years.
Living there among the serfs-to-be was heaven: decent weather, decent people, and decent life benefits as long as we kept Democrats in power (which we did pretty regularly). We were all thoroughly entrenched in getting something for nothing, even if it was off the backs of other taxpayers. The way we saw it, we were helping to drain the swamp that was D.C. and Capital Hill. We paid our (outrageous) taxes, and we wanted our money’s worth!
Environment had become Church, and Mother Nature was on the cross. Ann Coulter (gaaack!) named it correctly with her latest book, and profits handsomely from it.
Then I grew up and moved east. I ran headlong into other accents, other religions (or religion as a whole), other ways of thinking, and other politics. As I grew and learned, I became aware of just how much of a nanny state I was raised in. The foggy wool had been over my eyes but good!
Now that I’m much older and wiser, especially about money, it occurs to me that the states on Interstate 5 are all liberal-minded, would-be slave-makers. Others see it as Utopia, and cannot keep up the illusion without generous doses of taxpayer money and heaping helpings of pseudo science to verbally corral the inhabitants. Utopia also needs power for control; so of course, the inhabitants will be required to surrender themselves to the support of an ideal. Utopia would own their minds, their wallets, and their souls.
Liberal Utopians think they have a better plan for us and our money. In their land, there is no such thing as free markets, personal responsibility, choice, alternatives, or saving for a rainy day—how could they afford to? Their motto is “No need to worry—The State will take care of us.” They want clean air, clean water, clean gas, clean ethics…basically a sanitized world wrapped in a bow and hand-delivered to them—they don’t want to have to get their hands dirty making a cleaner world for themselves or anyone else.
Heard this before? I certainly have, and with the sound of jack-booted goose-stepping in the background. Trouble is, most of today’s liberal idealists weren’t around then, and college professors (and others) are doing their utmost to glamorize Socialism and Communism by painting it as “a humanitarian cause.”
In Oregon, you can’t even pump your own gas—heaven forbid, you might hurt yourself, or worse, put someone out of a job. The State will take care of you at full-service prices.
Absolutely nobody does the math. In fact, math and science have been unofficially deemed as “evil” because those subjects demand a single correct answer, and that’s hard to come by in the land of Soft and Fuzzy. If anyone did, they’d find out quickly just how much it costs to maintain this public safety net, right down to the price per gallon at the pump.
The cries of resurrected feminists are heard from time to time, such as in Linda Hirschman’s and Barbara Ehrenreich’s latest books—cries of “Save the Worker!” and “Save Social Security!” Lately, it’s been drowned out by cries of “Save the Illegal Immigrant!” from surreptitiously-interested parties for political gain. Save them from what, I ask—competition, or maybe themselves? Tell me, please.
Anybody who might have an inkling as to getting something from nothing has their ear to the illegal immigration issue, including the illegal immigrants themselves. Most everyone else there believes wholeheartedly in doing right by these people, no matter what the cost. Is it any wonder the entire west coast has the worst illegal infestation of any other states? Even THEY know a good thing—something for nothing—when they see it!
Giving away the store costs us all, and I’m quite tired of paying into the bill. Today, it’s tax money; tomorrow, it’s freedoms “for the good of everybody.”
There is little competition in the west—even Bill Gates and the demoralized Democratic Party have walked away from their respective empires. Activists are being discovered as fraudulent one-trick ponies, and one by one, their horses are bucking them off through sound scientific evidence to the contrary (Al Gore immediately comes to mind). The shroud of illusion is slowly being pulled away to reveal the little man and the switches, only the little man is out of money and ideas of how to keep the Utopian illusion alive. Fear and panic have left the building, much like any hope of the Democratic Party rising to power once again.
The “serfs” have been sitting around on their laurels, collecting dust, just like Hurricane Katrina victims—only in the form of regulation, legislation, and socialization. The bill is coming due, and they have no way to pay it. Repossession is usually the result of people who can’t pay their bills, so expect it. De-regulation, overturning legislation, and Social Security reform are just the beginning—wait for another round of welfare reform, a worker’s comp revamp, and an eventual resetting of the educational standards (hopefully much higher). Medicare is already being means-tested. Even ethanol is looking like a short-lived social experiment, because of the unintended consequences of water shortages and crop wars. Those precious planet-saving hybrids will give way to a better, more sensible technology, and they will be sorry for jumping the gun with their better-than-thou Priuses and Accords.
Thank God the west coast’s (and other Utopian state’s) real estate has risen to such lofty levels—it will serve as a barrier to keep normal, logical people from moving there. Ah, the effect of unintended consequences again—didn’t think of that one, I bet. That’s what regulation did for business, and that’s what it will do to their real estate market.
I would suggest trading in the hybrid car for a pair of bootstraps, and getting used to washing one’s hands a lot more frequently—with antibacterial soap, if it makes it easier to bear.
*Note: I am aware of other such bastions of Liberal Utopia, like the New England states, and others not connected to either coastal cluster—Colorado, for instance.
F.A. Hayek’s book was a well-written tome: a post-war warning to the nation about government-centralized planning and wholesale surrender of individual rights and freedoms to it. He earned a Nobel Prize in economics for this work.
The states that reside on Interstate 5 are California, Oregon, and Washington, or as I call them, the “Liberal Trifecta.” I have lived in two of three “trifecta” states, so I don’t speak out of reference—I was born and raised in California, and married and moved to Washington, where I lived for seven years.
Living there among the serfs-to-be was heaven: decent weather, decent people, and decent life benefits as long as we kept Democrats in power (which we did pretty regularly). We were all thoroughly entrenched in getting something for nothing, even if it was off the backs of other taxpayers. The way we saw it, we were helping to drain the swamp that was D.C. and Capital Hill. We paid our (outrageous) taxes, and we wanted our money’s worth!
Environment had become Church, and Mother Nature was on the cross. Ann Coulter (gaaack!) named it correctly with her latest book, and profits handsomely from it.
Then I grew up and moved east. I ran headlong into other accents, other religions (or religion as a whole), other ways of thinking, and other politics. As I grew and learned, I became aware of just how much of a nanny state I was raised in. The foggy wool had been over my eyes but good!
Now that I’m much older and wiser, especially about money, it occurs to me that the states on Interstate 5 are all liberal-minded, would-be slave-makers. Others see it as Utopia, and cannot keep up the illusion without generous doses of taxpayer money and heaping helpings of pseudo science to verbally corral the inhabitants. Utopia also needs power for control; so of course, the inhabitants will be required to surrender themselves to the support of an ideal. Utopia would own their minds, their wallets, and their souls.
Liberal Utopians think they have a better plan for us and our money. In their land, there is no such thing as free markets, personal responsibility, choice, alternatives, or saving for a rainy day—how could they afford to? Their motto is “No need to worry—The State will take care of us.” They want clean air, clean water, clean gas, clean ethics…basically a sanitized world wrapped in a bow and hand-delivered to them—they don’t want to have to get their hands dirty making a cleaner world for themselves or anyone else.
Heard this before? I certainly have, and with the sound of jack-booted goose-stepping in the background. Trouble is, most of today’s liberal idealists weren’t around then, and college professors (and others) are doing their utmost to glamorize Socialism and Communism by painting it as “a humanitarian cause.”
In Oregon, you can’t even pump your own gas—heaven forbid, you might hurt yourself, or worse, put someone out of a job. The State will take care of you at full-service prices.
Absolutely nobody does the math. In fact, math and science have been unofficially deemed as “evil” because those subjects demand a single correct answer, and that’s hard to come by in the land of Soft and Fuzzy. If anyone did, they’d find out quickly just how much it costs to maintain this public safety net, right down to the price per gallon at the pump.
The cries of resurrected feminists are heard from time to time, such as in Linda Hirschman’s and Barbara Ehrenreich’s latest books—cries of “Save the Worker!” and “Save Social Security!” Lately, it’s been drowned out by cries of “Save the Illegal Immigrant!” from surreptitiously-interested parties for political gain. Save them from what, I ask—competition, or maybe themselves? Tell me, please.
Anybody who might have an inkling as to getting something from nothing has their ear to the illegal immigration issue, including the illegal immigrants themselves. Most everyone else there believes wholeheartedly in doing right by these people, no matter what the cost. Is it any wonder the entire west coast has the worst illegal infestation of any other states? Even THEY know a good thing—something for nothing—when they see it!
Giving away the store costs us all, and I’m quite tired of paying into the bill. Today, it’s tax money; tomorrow, it’s freedoms “for the good of everybody.”
There is little competition in the west—even Bill Gates and the demoralized Democratic Party have walked away from their respective empires. Activists are being discovered as fraudulent one-trick ponies, and one by one, their horses are bucking them off through sound scientific evidence to the contrary (Al Gore immediately comes to mind). The shroud of illusion is slowly being pulled away to reveal the little man and the switches, only the little man is out of money and ideas of how to keep the Utopian illusion alive. Fear and panic have left the building, much like any hope of the Democratic Party rising to power once again.
The “serfs” have been sitting around on their laurels, collecting dust, just like Hurricane Katrina victims—only in the form of regulation, legislation, and socialization. The bill is coming due, and they have no way to pay it. Repossession is usually the result of people who can’t pay their bills, so expect it. De-regulation, overturning legislation, and Social Security reform are just the beginning—wait for another round of welfare reform, a worker’s comp revamp, and an eventual resetting of the educational standards (hopefully much higher). Medicare is already being means-tested. Even ethanol is looking like a short-lived social experiment, because of the unintended consequences of water shortages and crop wars. Those precious planet-saving hybrids will give way to a better, more sensible technology, and they will be sorry for jumping the gun with their better-than-thou Priuses and Accords.
Thank God the west coast’s (and other Utopian state’s) real estate has risen to such lofty levels—it will serve as a barrier to keep normal, logical people from moving there. Ah, the effect of unintended consequences again—didn’t think of that one, I bet. That’s what regulation did for business, and that’s what it will do to their real estate market.
I would suggest trading in the hybrid car for a pair of bootstraps, and getting used to washing one’s hands a lot more frequently—with antibacterial soap, if it makes it easier to bear.
*Note: I am aware of other such bastions of Liberal Utopia, like the New England states, and others not connected to either coastal cluster—Colorado, for instance.
Monday, September 18, 2006
FICO Scores Under Siege…Again!
We all know that not paying credit card bills and loans in a timely manner can upset your FICO score, but did you know that overdue library book fines and parking tickets can also hit you where it hurts most?
More and more state and local agencies are turning to collection agents for all manner of receivable funds—library book fines, traffic fines, parking tickets, you name it. If you owe, they’re looking for you.
This is indicative of an even bigger problem—plugging holes in state and local budgets. Shortfalls have accumulated from overspending when times were good, along with sharply reduced federal monies sent to states because of the Iraq war funding, followed by the dwindling tax revenues of late. The reserves that once existed for rainy days and emergencies have been spent plugging other holes—now they need more, and this is one method of getting it.
Enforcement of these penny-ante penalties has been pretty lax in the past, but no more. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and I’d call hitting us right in the FICO over a library book fee pretty darn desperate! The cost of employing a collections agent far exceeds the uncollected fine by magnitudes.
Does this make sense? Not on an individual basis, but when you consider the would-be hordes of overdue books and unpaid tickets lurking out there...it makes you wonder. It would also make you wonder why someone would knowingly put his or her FICO score at risk over a lousy Harry Potter tome or a quick NYC double-park.
Consider this a friendly warning from someone looking out for your wallet (and mine), and don’t be surprised if you hear of FICOs getting dinged for not tipping the waitress at Denny’s, or Blockbuster reinstating that late fee with “Guido the FICO-breaker” as collector.
*NEW TWIST: Now credit cards, such as Capital One and AMEX, with no stated maximum credit limit (or no PUBLICLY stated credit limit—Capital One) can affect your FICO score. When reporting to FICO, only your highest balance is reported as a “maximum limit”, and that can change from month to month. To avoid this, make sure a “maximum limit” is stated and reported to credit reporting agencies—if yours doesn’t, then either change cards, or run up high balances that you can afford to pay off each month.
http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Is-A-FICO-Score?&id=15787
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Banking/Yourcreditrating/P121551.asp
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/YourCreditRating/WeirdStuffThatHurtsYourCredit.aspx
(sorry: links will not form inside text here for some unknown reason)
*PERSONAL TWIST: I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but it happened to me twice now--after possessing a Citibank card and an AMEX card, the companies suddenly quit sending me electronic bills after about 1 1/2 years of doing so faithfully. After about 2 months of unnoticed bill absenteeism, I got a letter about "my delinquent account," EVEN AFTER PAYING BILLS ON TIME AND IN FULL AS LONG AS I RECEIVED THEM! I don't know if this is a national epidemic or not, because I never see or hear about it from other places. I solved the problem by opening a CC account with my bank--THEY certainly won't forget to electronically bill me every month! I suspect this is a new scheme being used by the national cards--since I pay on time and in full, they aren't making any interest, late fees, or over-the-limit fees from me, making me unprofitable to them. What better way to generate fees from me than to "accidentally have a computer glitch which never sends an electronic bill after 1 1/2 years of membership."
More and more state and local agencies are turning to collection agents for all manner of receivable funds—library book fines, traffic fines, parking tickets, you name it. If you owe, they’re looking for you.
This is indicative of an even bigger problem—plugging holes in state and local budgets. Shortfalls have accumulated from overspending when times were good, along with sharply reduced federal monies sent to states because of the Iraq war funding, followed by the dwindling tax revenues of late. The reserves that once existed for rainy days and emergencies have been spent plugging other holes—now they need more, and this is one method of getting it.
Enforcement of these penny-ante penalties has been pretty lax in the past, but no more. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and I’d call hitting us right in the FICO over a library book fee pretty darn desperate! The cost of employing a collections agent far exceeds the uncollected fine by magnitudes.
Does this make sense? Not on an individual basis, but when you consider the would-be hordes of overdue books and unpaid tickets lurking out there...it makes you wonder. It would also make you wonder why someone would knowingly put his or her FICO score at risk over a lousy Harry Potter tome or a quick NYC double-park.
Consider this a friendly warning from someone looking out for your wallet (and mine), and don’t be surprised if you hear of FICOs getting dinged for not tipping the waitress at Denny’s, or Blockbuster reinstating that late fee with “Guido the FICO-breaker” as collector.
*NEW TWIST: Now credit cards, such as Capital One and AMEX, with no stated maximum credit limit (or no PUBLICLY stated credit limit—Capital One) can affect your FICO score. When reporting to FICO, only your highest balance is reported as a “maximum limit”, and that can change from month to month. To avoid this, make sure a “maximum limit” is stated and reported to credit reporting agencies—if yours doesn’t, then either change cards, or run up high balances that you can afford to pay off each month.
http://ezinearticles.com/?What-Is-A-FICO-Score?&id=15787
http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/Banking/Yourcreditrating/P121551.asp
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Banking/YourCreditRating/WeirdStuffThatHurtsYourCredit.aspx
(sorry: links will not form inside text here for some unknown reason)
*PERSONAL TWIST: I don't know if anyone else has experienced this, but it happened to me twice now--after possessing a Citibank card and an AMEX card, the companies suddenly quit sending me electronic bills after about 1 1/2 years of doing so faithfully. After about 2 months of unnoticed bill absenteeism, I got a letter about "my delinquent account," EVEN AFTER PAYING BILLS ON TIME AND IN FULL AS LONG AS I RECEIVED THEM! I don't know if this is a national epidemic or not, because I never see or hear about it from other places. I solved the problem by opening a CC account with my bank--THEY certainly won't forget to electronically bill me every month! I suspect this is a new scheme being used by the national cards--since I pay on time and in full, they aren't making any interest, late fees, or over-the-limit fees from me, making me unprofitable to them. What better way to generate fees from me than to "accidentally have a computer glitch which never sends an electronic bill after 1 1/2 years of membership."
Friday, September 15, 2006
Old-Line Feminists Coming Out of the Woodwork...
...to appear on TV--namely, the Donny Deutsch show the Big Idea. Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda came on, recanted their tales and careers as feminists, then proceeded to spout the most inaccurate "truth" of the century: that there is not one place on earth where women and men aren't paid the same for the same work. I can name two: the military and civil service.
I wrote Donny Deutsch and informed him of this, and also recommended he correct the women and his own viewers.
All these feminist veterans seem to be clamoring out from under their respective rocks trying to make some sort of legacy for themselves--I say too little, too late. Their cause is now rendered moot and irrelevant in this day and age.
If anyone cares to do some research, start with Betty Friedan, the "pioneer" of the women's movement--even SHE refuted her own work called The Feminist Mystique after 20 years. She admitted that she picked up her torch and lit it because of a bad marriage to an abusive man, then admitted that her husband never hit her at all--she created the whole scenario to use as fodder for the cannons. In your research, you will find that most feminist heroes became feminists because of a bad home life or a bad marriage--either way, they found a way to blame men for their own problems and shortcomings, and fought (and still fight) to be carried into the boardrooms of America on the sedan chair of ENTITLEMENT, not honest qualification.
They cry and wail because we haven't had a woman president yet. We won't have one until someone is brave enough to send our troops into harm's way, and let's face it, women hate war. Besides, presidents are politicians-in-chief--we can do better for ourselves!
I wrote Donny Deutsch and informed him of this, and also recommended he correct the women and his own viewers.
All these feminist veterans seem to be clamoring out from under their respective rocks trying to make some sort of legacy for themselves--I say too little, too late. Their cause is now rendered moot and irrelevant in this day and age.
If anyone cares to do some research, start with Betty Friedan, the "pioneer" of the women's movement--even SHE refuted her own work called The Feminist Mystique after 20 years. She admitted that she picked up her torch and lit it because of a bad marriage to an abusive man, then admitted that her husband never hit her at all--she created the whole scenario to use as fodder for the cannons. In your research, you will find that most feminist heroes became feminists because of a bad home life or a bad marriage--either way, they found a way to blame men for their own problems and shortcomings, and fought (and still fight) to be carried into the boardrooms of America on the sedan chair of ENTITLEMENT, not honest qualification.
They cry and wail because we haven't had a woman president yet. We won't have one until someone is brave enough to send our troops into harm's way, and let's face it, women hate war. Besides, presidents are politicians-in-chief--we can do better for ourselves!
The De-Bunking of Baby Food as Necessity
It’s finally happened, and in print no less! http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9646449/
“…most advice parents get about weaning infants onto solid foods — even from pediatricians — is more myth than science.”
Some doctors, other parents, and maybe a few holistic practitioners would have told you the same thing: kids with as little as one tooth can eat finger food versions of meals at the table right along with Mom and Dad.
Do we have to limit them to boring, stodgy old American standbys? Heck no!
“It's easier — and harder — than it sounds. Easier because experts say 6-month-olds can eat many of the same things their parents do. Harder because it's tough to find detailed guidance for nervous parents.
"Parents have lost touch with the notion that these charts are guides, not rules," says Rachel Brandeis, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. "Babies start with a very clean palate and it's your job to mold it."
It's easy to mistake that for a regimented process. Most parents are told to start rice cereal at 6 months, and then slowly progress to simple vegetables, mild fruits and finally pasta and meat.
"Ethnic foods and spices are mostly ignored by the guidelines — cinnamon and avocados are about as exotic as it gets — and parents are warned off potential allergens such as nuts and seafood for at least a year.
Yet experts say children over 6 months can handle most anything, with a few caveats: Be cautious if you have a family history of allergies; introduce one food at a time and watch for any problems; and make sure the food isn't a choking hazard.”
Is there a particular order to introduce these foods, like the baby book say? Heck no!
“…rice cereal may not be the best first food. Peanut butter doesn't have to wait until after the first birthday. Offering fruits before vegetables won't breed a sweet tooth. And strong spices? Bring 'em on.
"There's a bunch of mythology out there about this," says Dr. David Bergman, a Stanford University pediatrics professor. "There's not much evidence to support any particular way of doing things.
Word of that has been slow to reach parents and the stacks of baby books they rely on to navigate this often intimidating period of their children's lives. But that may be changing.”
So there you have it—Gerber, Heinz, and even organic baby foods aren’t necessarily the best way to start baby off with good nutrition and a healthy exposure to a broad array of foods (to avoid picky eating). As far as I’m concerned, these hideously-overpriced little jars are crutch convenience foods. The manufacturers have been brainwashing us into thinking this is “THE way to feed baby” for years. Now it comes to an end.
As long as baby doesn’t risk choking, he/she will tell you if something’s objectionable, trust me. They have tremendous throwing and screaming capability.
If it’s good enough to put into your mouth, then baby can have some too. For both your sakes, I hope you eat right. At least two lives depend on it. If you think about it, baby ate everything you ate during your entire pregnancy, so why should things be different now?
“…most advice parents get about weaning infants onto solid foods — even from pediatricians — is more myth than science.”
Some doctors, other parents, and maybe a few holistic practitioners would have told you the same thing: kids with as little as one tooth can eat finger food versions of meals at the table right along with Mom and Dad.
Do we have to limit them to boring, stodgy old American standbys? Heck no!
“It's easier — and harder — than it sounds. Easier because experts say 6-month-olds can eat many of the same things their parents do. Harder because it's tough to find detailed guidance for nervous parents.
"Parents have lost touch with the notion that these charts are guides, not rules," says Rachel Brandeis, a spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. "Babies start with a very clean palate and it's your job to mold it."
It's easy to mistake that for a regimented process. Most parents are told to start rice cereal at 6 months, and then slowly progress to simple vegetables, mild fruits and finally pasta and meat.
"Ethnic foods and spices are mostly ignored by the guidelines — cinnamon and avocados are about as exotic as it gets — and parents are warned off potential allergens such as nuts and seafood for at least a year.
Yet experts say children over 6 months can handle most anything, with a few caveats: Be cautious if you have a family history of allergies; introduce one food at a time and watch for any problems; and make sure the food isn't a choking hazard.”
Is there a particular order to introduce these foods, like the baby book say? Heck no!
“…rice cereal may not be the best first food. Peanut butter doesn't have to wait until after the first birthday. Offering fruits before vegetables won't breed a sweet tooth. And strong spices? Bring 'em on.
"There's a bunch of mythology out there about this," says Dr. David Bergman, a Stanford University pediatrics professor. "There's not much evidence to support any particular way of doing things.
Word of that has been slow to reach parents and the stacks of baby books they rely on to navigate this often intimidating period of their children's lives. But that may be changing.”
So there you have it—Gerber, Heinz, and even organic baby foods aren’t necessarily the best way to start baby off with good nutrition and a healthy exposure to a broad array of foods (to avoid picky eating). As far as I’m concerned, these hideously-overpriced little jars are crutch convenience foods. The manufacturers have been brainwashing us into thinking this is “THE way to feed baby” for years. Now it comes to an end.
As long as baby doesn’t risk choking, he/she will tell you if something’s objectionable, trust me. They have tremendous throwing and screaming capability.
If it’s good enough to put into your mouth, then baby can have some too. For both your sakes, I hope you eat right. At least two lives depend on it. If you think about it, baby ate everything you ate during your entire pregnancy, so why should things be different now?
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
The Wages of Expediency (L-O-N-G)
Well, the something-for-nothing crowd is at it again—this time, they want a federal minimum wage increase without an increase in productivity or any kind of additional employee output (meaning skills or education).
“Nobody can live on $5.15 an hour!” is the rallying cry. Oh really?
Tons of people all around the world make a heck of a lot less than that, yet they manage to live with it. People are flocking here from Mexico to make five times what they’d make at home for the same labor activity and no responsibilities.
The truth is nobody can live on $5.15 an hour IN THE STYLE THAT WE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO here in America. Nobody can afford champagne on a beer budget.
The average global minimum wage for a laborer with no special skills and no formal training is about $.69 an hour, yet we pay many times this amount and manage to stir up complaints about it. A global minimum wage proposal is being worked on, and it describes many things as being part of the makeup of this new wage—one being the existing global average of $.69/hour, along with a commodity allowance, and a national minimum on top of it.
Funny how we don’t see cardboard-and-tin shacks in this country, visibly-starving people roaming the streets, or hordes of beggars with their hats out on every sidewalk, isn’t it? And yet, the something-for-nothing crowd continues to paint a bleak picture of denied opportunity, denied lifestyle, and worst of all, denied equality. The rest of us can only hand out so much—the rest has to be earned.
There is no government program for restoring dignity, hope, and self-respect, and there is no such thing as “success” insurance. At some point, people are going to have to get up off their laurels and do something for themselves—whether it’s educational, vocational, or entrepreneurial. Gravy trains eventually get the wheels knocked out from under them.
Doing the educational means doing one’s best from grade school onward, with the intent to earn a ticket into college—you know, a scholarship—this is the educational “something for nothing” that’s earned. Doing the vocational means the same thing, only with the end goal being a ticket into a “skills college.” Doing the entrepreneurial means going into business in lieu of college or vocational school, with the intent on making a profit from selling goods and/or services. Whichever route is chosen, it’s the government-free means to the “success insurance” end, and a form of expediency that doesn’t involve the government or innocent taxpayers.
By getting off the laurels and applying one’s self, the something-for-nothing promoters (activists) are put out of business. This is a good thing. Working to earn something means no debt, no emotional trauma, and no societal stigma—the fine print in that theoretical “success insurance” policy. We are what we’re worth in the open labor market, and activists aren’t going to increase our value by raising the floor—we have to raise your worth yourself through education, skills, and entrepreneurial value.
Welcome to the real working world, where it’s every man for himself, and has been for a long time. One day, the supposed “underclass” will understand that and do something about it. Government is supposed to protect us from invaders and act as a tax revenue middleman—nothing more. The Constitution guarantees THE RIGHT to happiness and a promoted general welfare, but doesn’t convey government responsibility for YOUR happiness or general welfare. Uncle Sam isn’t going to manipulate the labor market, because market manipulation of any kind is illegal. Besides, when compared globally, with equivalent skill sets and education, minimum wage workers in this country are already overpaid, judging by the over-abundance of them. There certainly is no scarcity there!
One thing the illegal aliens are teaching us, but nobody is paying attention: when the pay is much better for the same work and same benefits, don’t hesitate to relocate. That’s their “something for nothing”—no activists or legislation, no formal training or upgrades of any sort, and no debt. All they did was relocate, and that’s a lot more than most of us are willing to do. Talk about expediency! Low-skilled workers are a dime a dozen back home, and got paid accordingly. The ability to earn five times as much for the same labor and benefits was worth the risks they endured getting here.
Two workers making $5.15 an hour full-time (40 hours), after taxes, make roughly $988+/- a month, depending on total tax rate (I estimated 40% to cover state and federal). Two people working full-time (40 hours) at Wal-mart, at a much-touted $7.00 an hour, bring home about $1344+/- after an estimated 40% total taxes—a $360 increase just for switching job locations, and no additional hours, skills, or education were necessary. Reworking the W-4 can yield even more money, tax free, each month instead of getting it back at the end of the year, but not many know (or are willing to learn) how to do this.
The proposed global minimum wage, as calculated (using U.S. stated numbers available—see bottom footnote) by adding the existing global wage plus commodities allowance and national minimums, would yield roughly $9.19 an hour before taxes, and roughly $5.51 an hour after taxes (an estimated 40% again), making the take-home pay for one full-time worker roughly $881.60+/- per month. As you can see, this would be a big step forward for American workers, and a huge leap for workers in other countries. Taking this issue to the global level isn’t really the answer for the American minimum wage worker, because the hourly pay rate isn’t the problem—the taxes that are the main culprit!
Here’s how the minimum wage crowd can make more per hour:
• Go where higher pay is already the norm for such work (like Wal-mart and other big-box stores).
• Move to a lower-tax state, a lower cost-of-living state, a higher minimum wage state, or lower their own costs of living, living standards, and expectations.
• Go improve themselves to a higher point of worth through additional education and/or training. The rest of the working world has to constantly compete for better pay and benefits through education and skills, and so should they.
• Learn to give themselves a legal tax-free raise by reworking their W-4 to receive end-of-year tax money back each month, instead of all at once the following year. The sooner they see Personnel or HR about this, the faster they can begin to receive this money.
A federal government-set minimum of ANYTHING means that a certain price has been laid for sidelining a certain set of people, whether its minimum wage, federal program benefits, social service benefits, grants and/or loans, subsidies, etc. People receiving such benefits are no longer needed in the workforce, and are being paid in one form or another not to compete. The expectation is that they CAN’T compete, and shouldn’t even try. How dare our government tell us we can’t and shouldn’t compete, and how dare we accept handouts that prove them right!
To all minimum wage workers reading this right now: want more money for what you do? Then stop sitting around waiting for someone else to hand it to you. I just listed four things above that you can do for yourselves today, or in the near term.
Here’s another tip: when choosing a career to train for, use the Yellow Pages to determine which fields have the most competition, and steer clear of them—if the doctor, lawyer, plumber, and veterinarian sections are the thickest, this means your locale is already hip-deep in those professions and needs no more. If you can find an occupation heading with three company listings or less, there’s where you should shoot for—this means your competition will be light.
What are YOU willing to do or risk in order to earn more? Doing nothing will get you nothing, and then you have nothing to complain about.
Global minimum wage proposal information
“Nobody can live on $5.15 an hour!” is the rallying cry. Oh really?
Tons of people all around the world make a heck of a lot less than that, yet they manage to live with it. People are flocking here from Mexico to make five times what they’d make at home for the same labor activity and no responsibilities.
The truth is nobody can live on $5.15 an hour IN THE STYLE THAT WE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO here in America. Nobody can afford champagne on a beer budget.
The average global minimum wage for a laborer with no special skills and no formal training is about $.69 an hour, yet we pay many times this amount and manage to stir up complaints about it. A global minimum wage proposal is being worked on, and it describes many things as being part of the makeup of this new wage—one being the existing global average of $.69/hour, along with a commodity allowance, and a national minimum on top of it.
Funny how we don’t see cardboard-and-tin shacks in this country, visibly-starving people roaming the streets, or hordes of beggars with their hats out on every sidewalk, isn’t it? And yet, the something-for-nothing crowd continues to paint a bleak picture of denied opportunity, denied lifestyle, and worst of all, denied equality. The rest of us can only hand out so much—the rest has to be earned.
There is no government program for restoring dignity, hope, and self-respect, and there is no such thing as “success” insurance. At some point, people are going to have to get up off their laurels and do something for themselves—whether it’s educational, vocational, or entrepreneurial. Gravy trains eventually get the wheels knocked out from under them.
Doing the educational means doing one’s best from grade school onward, with the intent to earn a ticket into college—you know, a scholarship—this is the educational “something for nothing” that’s earned. Doing the vocational means the same thing, only with the end goal being a ticket into a “skills college.” Doing the entrepreneurial means going into business in lieu of college or vocational school, with the intent on making a profit from selling goods and/or services. Whichever route is chosen, it’s the government-free means to the “success insurance” end, and a form of expediency that doesn’t involve the government or innocent taxpayers.
By getting off the laurels and applying one’s self, the something-for-nothing promoters (activists) are put out of business. This is a good thing. Working to earn something means no debt, no emotional trauma, and no societal stigma—the fine print in that theoretical “success insurance” policy. We are what we’re worth in the open labor market, and activists aren’t going to increase our value by raising the floor—we have to raise your worth yourself through education, skills, and entrepreneurial value.
Welcome to the real working world, where it’s every man for himself, and has been for a long time. One day, the supposed “underclass” will understand that and do something about it. Government is supposed to protect us from invaders and act as a tax revenue middleman—nothing more. The Constitution guarantees THE RIGHT to happiness and a promoted general welfare, but doesn’t convey government responsibility for YOUR happiness or general welfare. Uncle Sam isn’t going to manipulate the labor market, because market manipulation of any kind is illegal. Besides, when compared globally, with equivalent skill sets and education, minimum wage workers in this country are already overpaid, judging by the over-abundance of them. There certainly is no scarcity there!
One thing the illegal aliens are teaching us, but nobody is paying attention: when the pay is much better for the same work and same benefits, don’t hesitate to relocate. That’s their “something for nothing”—no activists or legislation, no formal training or upgrades of any sort, and no debt. All they did was relocate, and that’s a lot more than most of us are willing to do. Talk about expediency! Low-skilled workers are a dime a dozen back home, and got paid accordingly. The ability to earn five times as much for the same labor and benefits was worth the risks they endured getting here.
Two workers making $5.15 an hour full-time (40 hours), after taxes, make roughly $988+/- a month, depending on total tax rate (I estimated 40% to cover state and federal). Two people working full-time (40 hours) at Wal-mart, at a much-touted $7.00 an hour, bring home about $1344+/- after an estimated 40% total taxes—a $360 increase just for switching job locations, and no additional hours, skills, or education were necessary. Reworking the W-4 can yield even more money, tax free, each month instead of getting it back at the end of the year, but not many know (or are willing to learn) how to do this.
The proposed global minimum wage, as calculated (using U.S. stated numbers available—see bottom footnote) by adding the existing global wage plus commodities allowance and national minimums, would yield roughly $9.19 an hour before taxes, and roughly $5.51 an hour after taxes (an estimated 40% again), making the take-home pay for one full-time worker roughly $881.60+/- per month. As you can see, this would be a big step forward for American workers, and a huge leap for workers in other countries. Taking this issue to the global level isn’t really the answer for the American minimum wage worker, because the hourly pay rate isn’t the problem—the taxes that are the main culprit!
Here’s how the minimum wage crowd can make more per hour:
• Go where higher pay is already the norm for such work (like Wal-mart and other big-box stores).
• Move to a lower-tax state, a lower cost-of-living state, a higher minimum wage state, or lower their own costs of living, living standards, and expectations.
• Go improve themselves to a higher point of worth through additional education and/or training. The rest of the working world has to constantly compete for better pay and benefits through education and skills, and so should they.
• Learn to give themselves a legal tax-free raise by reworking their W-4 to receive end-of-year tax money back each month, instead of all at once the following year. The sooner they see Personnel or HR about this, the faster they can begin to receive this money.
A federal government-set minimum of ANYTHING means that a certain price has been laid for sidelining a certain set of people, whether its minimum wage, federal program benefits, social service benefits, grants and/or loans, subsidies, etc. People receiving such benefits are no longer needed in the workforce, and are being paid in one form or another not to compete. The expectation is that they CAN’T compete, and shouldn’t even try. How dare our government tell us we can’t and shouldn’t compete, and how dare we accept handouts that prove them right!
To all minimum wage workers reading this right now: want more money for what you do? Then stop sitting around waiting for someone else to hand it to you. I just listed four things above that you can do for yourselves today, or in the near term.
Here’s another tip: when choosing a career to train for, use the Yellow Pages to determine which fields have the most competition, and steer clear of them—if the doctor, lawyer, plumber, and veterinarian sections are the thickest, this means your locale is already hip-deep in those professions and needs no more. If you can find an occupation heading with three company listings or less, there’s where you should shoot for—this means your competition will be light.
What are YOU willing to do or risk in order to earn more? Doing nothing will get you nothing, and then you have nothing to complain about.
Global minimum wage proposal information
Monday, September 11, 2006
Over the Home Décor Horizon
Boy, just when I thought we couldn’t go any further in the “house bling” department, I stumble upon this little number.
I have been to the mountain, and this is what I bring back: corporate sponsorship of home décor. Someone alert the ravens!
A TV show called “I Want That!” shows it all, from electronics that would bring Bill Gates to his knees, to the ultra-plush, ultra-comfortable, ultra-glamorous, and ultra-expensive furnishings that would suit the likes of Paris Hilton.
Since we, the common man, would never be able to afford this on our own, not even through 30-year furniture mortgages, the corporate sponsorship method of accruing things out of our budget has been applied.
Remember what corporate sponsorship did for weddings, especially the mother of all weddings—the Star Jones one? Well, picture it as Star Jones-Reynolds Sets Up Her First House, where nothing is ordinary, recognizable, or attainable by any of her friends or neighbors.
House bling has just been kicked up another notch.
Of course, everyone reading this should know that corporate sponsorship is used when nice things are wanted, but a lowly budget is possessed—in other words, it’s another way to get something for nothing. When that sponsorship gets yanked, then what is the homeowner left with? And oh yes, sponsorships DO get yanked—just ask any pro athlete.
I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to open my home and life to any stranger passing by who was curious about the technology or furnishings that went into the making of my home—and that’s exactly what these homeowners are expected to do with their sponsor-paid items: become the showroom to the world.
Corporate sponsorship doesn’t include the residual costs like energy bills, eaten space, malfunction, damage due to attempted theft, or natural events such as hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc. And don’t even ask what this high-tech, newfangled stuff will do to your homeowner’s insurance costs.
Give me privacy, personally-owned house contents, and sensibly-bought appliances any day of the week! I need to go lie down now—the dizzying heights of house bling is making me woozy.
I have been to the mountain, and this is what I bring back: corporate sponsorship of home décor. Someone alert the ravens!
A TV show called “I Want That!” shows it all, from electronics that would bring Bill Gates to his knees, to the ultra-plush, ultra-comfortable, ultra-glamorous, and ultra-expensive furnishings that would suit the likes of Paris Hilton.
Since we, the common man, would never be able to afford this on our own, not even through 30-year furniture mortgages, the corporate sponsorship method of accruing things out of our budget has been applied.
Remember what corporate sponsorship did for weddings, especially the mother of all weddings—the Star Jones one? Well, picture it as Star Jones-Reynolds Sets Up Her First House, where nothing is ordinary, recognizable, or attainable by any of her friends or neighbors.
House bling has just been kicked up another notch.
Of course, everyone reading this should know that corporate sponsorship is used when nice things are wanted, but a lowly budget is possessed—in other words, it’s another way to get something for nothing. When that sponsorship gets yanked, then what is the homeowner left with? And oh yes, sponsorships DO get yanked—just ask any pro athlete.
I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want to open my home and life to any stranger passing by who was curious about the technology or furnishings that went into the making of my home—and that’s exactly what these homeowners are expected to do with their sponsor-paid items: become the showroom to the world.
Corporate sponsorship doesn’t include the residual costs like energy bills, eaten space, malfunction, damage due to attempted theft, or natural events such as hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc. And don’t even ask what this high-tech, newfangled stuff will do to your homeowner’s insurance costs.
Give me privacy, personally-owned house contents, and sensibly-bought appliances any day of the week! I need to go lie down now—the dizzying heights of house bling is making me woozy.
Friday, September 08, 2006
Business Discovers Less is More
We frugalites have known it for years, but business has been playing catch-up to the wisdom of “less is more.” In more ways than one, business is putting it to work:
• Smaller payrolls through layoffs, plant closings, off-shoring, outsourcing, and using software, robots, and machinery to replace workers.
• Smaller corporate footprint through off-shoring, spinning off, or downsizing their buildings and office parks. Some companies are even renting out space to new tenants, making that unused space pay for itself.
• Slimming down the product line, service line, and the ingredients that go into products and services.
• Going to where it’s cheapest to operate in terms of the cheapest raw materials, labor, regulatory hurdles, and taxes.
• Merging with or buying out other companies, instead of spending the money to invent, create, and maintain their own new product or service lines.
• Taking the company private so it doesn’t have to compete in the new world of transparency and Sarbanes-Oxley regulations.
• Making smaller numbers of the slimmed down product line products, thereby gaining per-unit pricing power through demand and scarcity, rather than maintaining the old format of market share and volume sales profits.
• Fewer and less tempting incentive discounts, especially in the way of coupons and rebates.
In short, business is pulling out nearly all the stops just to stay in business. The consumer has tapped himself out with stupid homeowner “refi” tricks, and the Home ATM is now empty. Competition is quite cutthroat, and some businesses never learned how to swim, i.e., never operated in a downturn, so they don’t know how to survive bad times. The ones who know they don’t have a chance have already sought (or are seeking) the shelter of a merger or private equity firm.
The more these business events happen, the worse the future profits forecasts for those sectors. Big (or what we think of as big) businesses are clamoring for regulation so they no longer have to compete for our dollar—regulation sets a base price for a set number of services, and it’s usually higher than what was offered out in the free market. Even the once monolithic Ma Bell is slowly and slyly reassembling the bits that deregulation tore asunder and flung to the four corners of this country. This alone ought to be a sign to you: land line-based telephone service is so cheap that the Baby Bells aren’t profiting from it, but are instead making money in cell phone service and internet connectivity through broadband and wireless services.
Cable television is another example: once Sprint criss-crossed this country (and parts of overseas markets) with fiber optic cable, all kinds of cable service providers cropped up, and all kinds of choices were suddenly available to the consumer. Slowly, companies were buying out other companies, and now we have Baby Bells offering “bundles” of cable/internet/phone services, as well as bigger cable companies offering phone and internet service.
Back when I lived in Texas, we had CP&L for our electricity (Central Power and Light). Today, it’s AEP (American Electric Power), and part of a much larger service area—the old CP&L got bought out. GTE used to be the phone company, and then it became Verizon. The local internet service provider became part of Roadrunner Networks. My how times changed in one small rural Texas town!
The more this merger-and-acquisition happens, the more it’s a sign that the consumer is starving the business beast. By withholding our dollars in search of better buys, we are helping to weed out the weak, and making the survivors face reality in the fierce competition of commerce. If they can go to the bottom and stay there, they may make it—that is, until they pile up so much cash that they outgrow their position.
Then, in a few years, the great grand business cycle will start anew like spring: new fledgling shops will open up with clever, inventive, and cheap offerings to tempt us, we may or may not buy, and the strong will survive—over and over again it will happen, usually in time to the interest rate cycle. All we can do is vote with our dollars and hope “our guy” wins in the perpetual race to the bottom.
Have you lost your job lately, or know someone who has? Blame the consumer for not doing his or her part in supporting the company’s profit margins. The customer will ALWAYS have the last say in business, and this is why companies are moving offshore in droves, especially to India and China—the customer base is surely bound to be larger, insuring more profits. Sweetening this pot is the overload of cheap workers, both skilled and educated (especially in the case of India—and they speak English, too!). This is the only way to compete in a global economy where imported goods are cheaper than home grown ones, and costs of doing business are cheaper elsewhere—American companies are now the “new” imports.
The wool is coming off everyone’s eyes, and they don’t like what they’re seeing. Even the little man behind the curtain, Greenspan, has departed for greener pastures. But don’t worry—all is not lost yet, as another round of fledgling startups in the “alternative energy” arena will likely spur a new round of technology and manufacture, but not nearly to the extent that we saw after WWII. We won’t be needing it, though, as the Boomers are aging and on the way out of the economy and workforce--only to be replaced with a much-reduced generation of American workers, along with a woefully under-skilled and under-educated immigrant class.
The old boom times are gone (not to be resurrected for some time to come), and both businesses and consumers need to adjust to this new realty. The next boom wll be in the area of alternative energy, and it won't be nearly as big as the last boom--it won't need to be.
• Smaller payrolls through layoffs, plant closings, off-shoring, outsourcing, and using software, robots, and machinery to replace workers.
• Smaller corporate footprint through off-shoring, spinning off, or downsizing their buildings and office parks. Some companies are even renting out space to new tenants, making that unused space pay for itself.
• Slimming down the product line, service line, and the ingredients that go into products and services.
• Going to where it’s cheapest to operate in terms of the cheapest raw materials, labor, regulatory hurdles, and taxes.
• Merging with or buying out other companies, instead of spending the money to invent, create, and maintain their own new product or service lines.
• Taking the company private so it doesn’t have to compete in the new world of transparency and Sarbanes-Oxley regulations.
• Making smaller numbers of the slimmed down product line products, thereby gaining per-unit pricing power through demand and scarcity, rather than maintaining the old format of market share and volume sales profits.
• Fewer and less tempting incentive discounts, especially in the way of coupons and rebates.
In short, business is pulling out nearly all the stops just to stay in business. The consumer has tapped himself out with stupid homeowner “refi” tricks, and the Home ATM is now empty. Competition is quite cutthroat, and some businesses never learned how to swim, i.e., never operated in a downturn, so they don’t know how to survive bad times. The ones who know they don’t have a chance have already sought (or are seeking) the shelter of a merger or private equity firm.
The more these business events happen, the worse the future profits forecasts for those sectors. Big (or what we think of as big) businesses are clamoring for regulation so they no longer have to compete for our dollar—regulation sets a base price for a set number of services, and it’s usually higher than what was offered out in the free market. Even the once monolithic Ma Bell is slowly and slyly reassembling the bits that deregulation tore asunder and flung to the four corners of this country. This alone ought to be a sign to you: land line-based telephone service is so cheap that the Baby Bells aren’t profiting from it, but are instead making money in cell phone service and internet connectivity through broadband and wireless services.
Cable television is another example: once Sprint criss-crossed this country (and parts of overseas markets) with fiber optic cable, all kinds of cable service providers cropped up, and all kinds of choices were suddenly available to the consumer. Slowly, companies were buying out other companies, and now we have Baby Bells offering “bundles” of cable/internet/phone services, as well as bigger cable companies offering phone and internet service.
Back when I lived in Texas, we had CP&L for our electricity (Central Power and Light). Today, it’s AEP (American Electric Power), and part of a much larger service area—the old CP&L got bought out. GTE used to be the phone company, and then it became Verizon. The local internet service provider became part of Roadrunner Networks. My how times changed in one small rural Texas town!
The more this merger-and-acquisition happens, the more it’s a sign that the consumer is starving the business beast. By withholding our dollars in search of better buys, we are helping to weed out the weak, and making the survivors face reality in the fierce competition of commerce. If they can go to the bottom and stay there, they may make it—that is, until they pile up so much cash that they outgrow their position.
Then, in a few years, the great grand business cycle will start anew like spring: new fledgling shops will open up with clever, inventive, and cheap offerings to tempt us, we may or may not buy, and the strong will survive—over and over again it will happen, usually in time to the interest rate cycle. All we can do is vote with our dollars and hope “our guy” wins in the perpetual race to the bottom.
Have you lost your job lately, or know someone who has? Blame the consumer for not doing his or her part in supporting the company’s profit margins. The customer will ALWAYS have the last say in business, and this is why companies are moving offshore in droves, especially to India and China—the customer base is surely bound to be larger, insuring more profits. Sweetening this pot is the overload of cheap workers, both skilled and educated (especially in the case of India—and they speak English, too!). This is the only way to compete in a global economy where imported goods are cheaper than home grown ones, and costs of doing business are cheaper elsewhere—American companies are now the “new” imports.
The wool is coming off everyone’s eyes, and they don’t like what they’re seeing. Even the little man behind the curtain, Greenspan, has departed for greener pastures. But don’t worry—all is not lost yet, as another round of fledgling startups in the “alternative energy” arena will likely spur a new round of technology and manufacture, but not nearly to the extent that we saw after WWII. We won’t be needing it, though, as the Boomers are aging and on the way out of the economy and workforce--only to be replaced with a much-reduced generation of American workers, along with a woefully under-skilled and under-educated immigrant class.
The old boom times are gone (not to be resurrected for some time to come), and both businesses and consumers need to adjust to this new realty. The next boom wll be in the area of alternative energy, and it won't be nearly as big as the last boom--it won't need to be.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
The Tipping Point, or the Art of the Snowball
You’ve undoubtedly heard of the book “The Tipping Point” by now, and you may have even read a copy. For those who haven’t, here’s how tipping points exist for the everyday men:
• Find a penny, pick it up. It only takes 100 pennies to equal a dollar, and that one penny can be the start of a massive fortune.
• Send an extra $10/month to your mortgage principal—it may knock off hundreds in interest off the back end of the mortgage.
• Increase your 401(k) or IRA contributions by 1% or a set dollar amount, and it, too could add up to a fortune in retirement savings.
• Send an extra $10 to your credit card bills each month, and it could eliminate debt faster by incurring less interest, and cutting the balance that much faster.
It’s the little things that count, or so says the author of the book. Even though he mostly talks about trends, how they get started, and the types of people who are most likely to start trends, he doesn’t mention how the little guy can participate in a sane, realistic way.
I just did, and I only named a few.
Other ways that will likely be more obvious to you are:
• Keeping a lean, mean closet—less expense in purchasing and laundering, not to mention “depreciation” from giving away, yardsaling, or donating.
• Keeping a lean, mean pantry, freezer, and refrigerator—less money spent on less food, and you gain space, energy (in lower bills), good health, and money from the things you AREN’T spending money on.
• Keeping a lean, mean driveway/garage by owning the least amount of car for the mileage—you have to do lots of shopping comparisons to find the vehicle that does all you need it to do while getting the best mileage, least car theft attraction, and least maintenance and insurance costs.
• Keeping a lean, mean household size—face it, kids cost money. More and more of us are expected to pick up the tab for a lot of our own lives, and about a third of us are foregoing children as a result. Pets can also fall under this category.
• Keeping a lean, mean tax loophole radar by learning how to make the tax code, and all its yearly changes, work for you. Less money to Uncle Sam means more money to you.
• Keeping a lean, mean job income-generating machine by keeping a pole in the water at all times. As Stephen Pollan, author of Fire Your Boss would advise you, “As soon as you start, begin making plans for your eventual exit.” In other words, don’t get too comfy, because your next move may be right around the corner. Learn to negotiate a favorable package for hire AND termination, as well as your next job.
• Keeping a lean, mean reference library at home to read, learn, and refresh your savviness in areas that relate to your snowball-building skills and talents. If this isn’t possible, then have a library card to access books when you feel you need them (which should be frequently). The right book(s) will teach you what to do with that penny you picked up, and anything that accumulates as a result of that penny. That library card will DEFINITELY pay you back many times over.
Most importantly, don’t lose sight of how little things can add up. Frugalites can already attest to this through debt elimination, savvy purchasing or allocation, savvy investing, and savvy tax reduction. All it takes is something as small as picking up a penny. It’s what you do with that penny that creates the tipping point. Start with one small thing, and add another, and another, until pretty soon, you have snowballs big enough to make snowmen out of—then an army of snowmen, then an igloo…you get the point. But all that snow is YOURS to keep, and you get to decide which “freezer” you’re going to keep it in (meaning the stock market, bond market, real estate market, or something else).
Go ahead—pick up that penny and make it work for you today!
• Find a penny, pick it up. It only takes 100 pennies to equal a dollar, and that one penny can be the start of a massive fortune.
• Send an extra $10/month to your mortgage principal—it may knock off hundreds in interest off the back end of the mortgage.
• Increase your 401(k) or IRA contributions by 1% or a set dollar amount, and it, too could add up to a fortune in retirement savings.
• Send an extra $10 to your credit card bills each month, and it could eliminate debt faster by incurring less interest, and cutting the balance that much faster.
It’s the little things that count, or so says the author of the book. Even though he mostly talks about trends, how they get started, and the types of people who are most likely to start trends, he doesn’t mention how the little guy can participate in a sane, realistic way.
I just did, and I only named a few.
Other ways that will likely be more obvious to you are:
• Keeping a lean, mean closet—less expense in purchasing and laundering, not to mention “depreciation” from giving away, yardsaling, or donating.
• Keeping a lean, mean pantry, freezer, and refrigerator—less money spent on less food, and you gain space, energy (in lower bills), good health, and money from the things you AREN’T spending money on.
• Keeping a lean, mean driveway/garage by owning the least amount of car for the mileage—you have to do lots of shopping comparisons to find the vehicle that does all you need it to do while getting the best mileage, least car theft attraction, and least maintenance and insurance costs.
• Keeping a lean, mean household size—face it, kids cost money. More and more of us are expected to pick up the tab for a lot of our own lives, and about a third of us are foregoing children as a result. Pets can also fall under this category.
• Keeping a lean, mean tax loophole radar by learning how to make the tax code, and all its yearly changes, work for you. Less money to Uncle Sam means more money to you.
• Keeping a lean, mean job income-generating machine by keeping a pole in the water at all times. As Stephen Pollan, author of Fire Your Boss would advise you, “As soon as you start, begin making plans for your eventual exit.” In other words, don’t get too comfy, because your next move may be right around the corner. Learn to negotiate a favorable package for hire AND termination, as well as your next job.
• Keeping a lean, mean reference library at home to read, learn, and refresh your savviness in areas that relate to your snowball-building skills and talents. If this isn’t possible, then have a library card to access books when you feel you need them (which should be frequently). The right book(s) will teach you what to do with that penny you picked up, and anything that accumulates as a result of that penny. That library card will DEFINITELY pay you back many times over.
Most importantly, don’t lose sight of how little things can add up. Frugalites can already attest to this through debt elimination, savvy purchasing or allocation, savvy investing, and savvy tax reduction. All it takes is something as small as picking up a penny. It’s what you do with that penny that creates the tipping point. Start with one small thing, and add another, and another, until pretty soon, you have snowballs big enough to make snowmen out of—then an army of snowmen, then an igloo…you get the point. But all that snow is YOURS to keep, and you get to decide which “freezer” you’re going to keep it in (meaning the stock market, bond market, real estate market, or something else).
Go ahead—pick up that penny and make it work for you today!
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
The Law of Unintended Consequences Part 3: Something for Nothing
Expediency: the straight line between what you have and what you want
There are different degrees of expediency, ranging from earning (or borrowing from an earner) to stealing and commandeering—it all depends on how much you’re willing to exert yourself.
As we witnessed in New Orleans with Hurricane Katrina, plenty of people were willing to sit back and collect government handouts, but not willing to pack up and get out of harm’s way, even on their own two feet. They definitely got something for nothing, all right: a destroyed house, destroyed belongings, and a destroyed life. Some are STILL seeking something for nothing in New Orleans in the form of pre-prepared places and continuing benefits for Katrina evacuees, as attested to by an e-mail to the Glen Beck show—a woman wrote in to complain about FEMA rent vouchers coming to an end next February, and she was “going to have to return to New Orleans, but only if a place was ready for her.” In other words, her Houston gravy train was rolling to a stop, and she wanted a longer ride on a New Orleans one now. Multiply that times the number of other evacuees who feel such “entitlement” because it’s been handed to them all their lives, and you get a truer sense of how The Big Easy got its nickname.
To be expedient is to be human. Greed is good—the desire for more is acceptable, as long as there is some input on your part. Then, greed becomes a perk—a reward for your hard work. A recent church marquee siting here in Norfolk said: “Success before work only happens in the dictionary.” Amen, brother!
The opposite of greed is fear, and fear is what keeps people from doing things to get more. To be fearful is also to be human—if we weren’t afraid, we’d be dead from mindless risk-taking.
The best place to see all this play out is in the stock market: we place “bets” by buying shares of certain company stocks we think are going to appreciate, and we sell shares of companies who we think won’t appreciate any more. We are rewarded in two ways: one with dividends, and another with price appreciation through traders bidding up the stock. Greed will drive traders to buy the stock and bid it up through demand, while fear will make people sell the stock to avoid downside risk. The profit garnered through stock ownership is something for (nearly) nothing—all you had to do was choose to buy the stock at the current price. Make the correct bet, and a long-standing stock purchase can pay you back handsomely, as in the case of retirement investing.
Rewards also come to those who take time to study the game rules, form a strategy, and work with their minds instead of their backs. A perfect example of this is the tax code: while holding down a job and reporting your income, you can earn deductions and credits while filling out your forms. But beyond that is the thick book of the actual laws, which serve to tell us what we can and cannot do to earn money and pay taxes, and at what rate. What is not-so-widely known is that the rule makers don’t necessarily like to be subject to their own rules, so they leave a “back door” or loophole to those rules—it’s up to you to find them buried in the text.
There are risks involved with NOT doing something as well, such as leaving doors unlocked, not learning how to read and write, practicing unsafe sex, sex without birth control, and being an uninformed consumer. INaction is an action too, and will surely garner you something for nothing—most likely a whole lot of unwanted trouble.
What we commonly refer to as “rich” people have gamed the system—they’ve read the fine print and learned how to profit from something for nothing (or very little). According to Thomas Stanley, author of The Millionaire series (The Millionaire Next Door, The Millionaire Mind, and The Millionaire Woman Next Door), the best businesses to own (as confessed by millionaires themselves) are the ones that require the least personal effort: car washes and Laundromats. Property is bought, machinery installed, people hired to maintain and run, and quarters collected—TONS of them, year after year.
Truly enterprising people have made money from other people’s “as-is” castoffs—the epitome of something for nothing. To do any better would be to get paid for breathing.
Also buried within the fine print is the difference in sources of income and their different tax rates: to pay the least taxes, you need to have income from certain sources. Jeff Scheppner, author of “How to Pay Zero Taxes” comes out with what I call “my little loophole manual” for each tax year, and it clearly and concisely spells out the fine print, deciphers it into plain English, and shows you how you can take advantage of it—both personal and business codes in one volume. He puts any new code changes in an up front sectio0n, and also includes it in the appropriate “business” or “personal” section, along with an explanation of what it means and how to best use it to your advantage.
Stay-at-home housewives have learned a method of getting something for nothing by staying out of the workforce, in the areas of time with family, better cost control, better nutrition through scratch cooking and careful shopping, less work-related stress and expense, and fewer taxes through less income. They make no income through direct workplace labor, but are rewarded nonetheless through various tax breaks on their spouse’s income. The spouse himself is rewarded for having a stay-at-home wife and children through deductions and credits to income before it even gets taxed. Retirement accounts for himself and his wife enhance this even more.
Investors have a whole “something for nothing” world of their own: stock price appreciation, dividends, interest appreciation, market value appreciation through tight supply and heavy demand. The tax code rewards this by creating a whole new class of income at a much lower tax rate—PASSIVE or unearned. This is money you didn’t have to work for. Note that the less you have to get your hands dirty, the fewer taxes you’re assessed.
Regular individuals in the workplace also have “something for nothing” rewards in the tax code, but they are few and far between, and not exactly exclusive to single earners. They are usually taxed at the highest rate—ACTIVE or earned. This is money you had to work for.
Businesses also get rewarded for their risk-taking and contribution to the economic system with various write-offs. The bigger the business, the more loopholes it’s entitled to, and the lower the tax rate on profits.
Their “something for nothing” ends up being tax-free money to keep or spend however they choose, at the expense of the so-called “poor” consumer. Note that business owners work more with their heads than their hands, and get assessed the least amount of all—they are a write-off machine, and have the expenses to prove it.
The flip-side: another example of rewards from strategy is the social service system. What we commonly refer to as “poor” people have read the fine print on federal social programs, and learned how to profit from it—gaming a whole different system. The best social programs to belong to are the ones that require the least personal effort—welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP dental programs, housing vouchers, subsidized daycare, and many more—where the reward greatly outweighs any risk. You may have to bear an illegitimate child or two, break up a family, hold a low-paying full-time job with no benefits (and no responsibilities), or maybe live in a substandard dwelling infested with rats and roaches—nothing too difficult, but those checks and benefits arrive on time, every month, for a set period of time as long as the qualifications are met. There are no tax code rewards because no taxes are paid when all is said and done.
Their “something for nothing” ends up being tax-free benefits to use as often as they want, at the expense of the so-called “rich” taxpayer—this is the Liberal Democrat preferred method of “wealth redistribution” or robbing Peter (you) to pay Paul (them).
Now that you see how we all need each other, how we each make our way in life, and certain loopholes accessible to everyone have been laid out, which path will you choose to get your something for nothing? How will you display your expediency? Either way, good things come to those who game.
There are different degrees of expediency, ranging from earning (or borrowing from an earner) to stealing and commandeering—it all depends on how much you’re willing to exert yourself.
As we witnessed in New Orleans with Hurricane Katrina, plenty of people were willing to sit back and collect government handouts, but not willing to pack up and get out of harm’s way, even on their own two feet. They definitely got something for nothing, all right: a destroyed house, destroyed belongings, and a destroyed life. Some are STILL seeking something for nothing in New Orleans in the form of pre-prepared places and continuing benefits for Katrina evacuees, as attested to by an e-mail to the Glen Beck show—a woman wrote in to complain about FEMA rent vouchers coming to an end next February, and she was “going to have to return to New Orleans, but only if a place was ready for her.” In other words, her Houston gravy train was rolling to a stop, and she wanted a longer ride on a New Orleans one now. Multiply that times the number of other evacuees who feel such “entitlement” because it’s been handed to them all their lives, and you get a truer sense of how The Big Easy got its nickname.
To be expedient is to be human. Greed is good—the desire for more is acceptable, as long as there is some input on your part. Then, greed becomes a perk—a reward for your hard work. A recent church marquee siting here in Norfolk said: “Success before work only happens in the dictionary.” Amen, brother!
The opposite of greed is fear, and fear is what keeps people from doing things to get more. To be fearful is also to be human—if we weren’t afraid, we’d be dead from mindless risk-taking.
The best place to see all this play out is in the stock market: we place “bets” by buying shares of certain company stocks we think are going to appreciate, and we sell shares of companies who we think won’t appreciate any more. We are rewarded in two ways: one with dividends, and another with price appreciation through traders bidding up the stock. Greed will drive traders to buy the stock and bid it up through demand, while fear will make people sell the stock to avoid downside risk. The profit garnered through stock ownership is something for (nearly) nothing—all you had to do was choose to buy the stock at the current price. Make the correct bet, and a long-standing stock purchase can pay you back handsomely, as in the case of retirement investing.
Rewards also come to those who take time to study the game rules, form a strategy, and work with their minds instead of their backs. A perfect example of this is the tax code: while holding down a job and reporting your income, you can earn deductions and credits while filling out your forms. But beyond that is the thick book of the actual laws, which serve to tell us what we can and cannot do to earn money and pay taxes, and at what rate. What is not-so-widely known is that the rule makers don’t necessarily like to be subject to their own rules, so they leave a “back door” or loophole to those rules—it’s up to you to find them buried in the text.
There are risks involved with NOT doing something as well, such as leaving doors unlocked, not learning how to read and write, practicing unsafe sex, sex without birth control, and being an uninformed consumer. INaction is an action too, and will surely garner you something for nothing—most likely a whole lot of unwanted trouble.
What we commonly refer to as “rich” people have gamed the system—they’ve read the fine print and learned how to profit from something for nothing (or very little). According to Thomas Stanley, author of The Millionaire series (The Millionaire Next Door, The Millionaire Mind, and The Millionaire Woman Next Door), the best businesses to own (as confessed by millionaires themselves) are the ones that require the least personal effort: car washes and Laundromats. Property is bought, machinery installed, people hired to maintain and run, and quarters collected—TONS of them, year after year.
Truly enterprising people have made money from other people’s “as-is” castoffs—the epitome of something for nothing. To do any better would be to get paid for breathing.
Also buried within the fine print is the difference in sources of income and their different tax rates: to pay the least taxes, you need to have income from certain sources. Jeff Scheppner, author of “How to Pay Zero Taxes” comes out with what I call “my little loophole manual” for each tax year, and it clearly and concisely spells out the fine print, deciphers it into plain English, and shows you how you can take advantage of it—both personal and business codes in one volume. He puts any new code changes in an up front sectio0n, and also includes it in the appropriate “business” or “personal” section, along with an explanation of what it means and how to best use it to your advantage.
Stay-at-home housewives have learned a method of getting something for nothing by staying out of the workforce, in the areas of time with family, better cost control, better nutrition through scratch cooking and careful shopping, less work-related stress and expense, and fewer taxes through less income. They make no income through direct workplace labor, but are rewarded nonetheless through various tax breaks on their spouse’s income. The spouse himself is rewarded for having a stay-at-home wife and children through deductions and credits to income before it even gets taxed. Retirement accounts for himself and his wife enhance this even more.
Investors have a whole “something for nothing” world of their own: stock price appreciation, dividends, interest appreciation, market value appreciation through tight supply and heavy demand. The tax code rewards this by creating a whole new class of income at a much lower tax rate—PASSIVE or unearned. This is money you didn’t have to work for. Note that the less you have to get your hands dirty, the fewer taxes you’re assessed.
Regular individuals in the workplace also have “something for nothing” rewards in the tax code, but they are few and far between, and not exactly exclusive to single earners. They are usually taxed at the highest rate—ACTIVE or earned. This is money you had to work for.
Businesses also get rewarded for their risk-taking and contribution to the economic system with various write-offs. The bigger the business, the more loopholes it’s entitled to, and the lower the tax rate on profits.
Their “something for nothing” ends up being tax-free money to keep or spend however they choose, at the expense of the so-called “poor” consumer. Note that business owners work more with their heads than their hands, and get assessed the least amount of all—they are a write-off machine, and have the expenses to prove it.
The flip-side: another example of rewards from strategy is the social service system. What we commonly refer to as “poor” people have read the fine print on federal social programs, and learned how to profit from it—gaming a whole different system. The best social programs to belong to are the ones that require the least personal effort—welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, Medicare, CHIP dental programs, housing vouchers, subsidized daycare, and many more—where the reward greatly outweighs any risk. You may have to bear an illegitimate child or two, break up a family, hold a low-paying full-time job with no benefits (and no responsibilities), or maybe live in a substandard dwelling infested with rats and roaches—nothing too difficult, but those checks and benefits arrive on time, every month, for a set period of time as long as the qualifications are met. There are no tax code rewards because no taxes are paid when all is said and done.
Their “something for nothing” ends up being tax-free benefits to use as often as they want, at the expense of the so-called “rich” taxpayer—this is the Liberal Democrat preferred method of “wealth redistribution” or robbing Peter (you) to pay Paul (them).
Now that you see how we all need each other, how we each make our way in life, and certain loopholes accessible to everyone have been laid out, which path will you choose to get your something for nothing? How will you display your expediency? Either way, good things come to those who game.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
The Tragedy of “House Bling”
Ever wonder exactly led to the housing bubble? It wasn’t just house and land value appreciation.
Today’s homebuyer is like a raven—distracted by shiny things.
All the granite counters, the stainless steel appliances, the spa-like bathrooms, and the magazine-cover landscaping are hiding horrendous energy sins, both personal and literal.
Practicality, like the raven, has flown out the window shouting, “Nevermore!”
The tragedy of house bling is the energy it takes to keep up appearances—all the cleaning, specials cleaners, special use precautions (usually in the form of “don’t do…”), ease of replacement (or lack thereof), and the monthly bills that come along with their use. All the shiny glitz has beckoned us to overbuy for our needs.
Even washers and dryers get into the mix with an unspoken insistence on matching—again, for looks, not energy efficiency, in spite of them being banished to a publicly- unseen location. In fact, whole kitchens have fallen for this “matching” concept while turning a blind eye to energy efficiency—matching manufacturers, matching styles, and matching handle finishes—in spite of them being positioned throughout the kitchen (meaning NOT in close proximity for visual comparison).
Will someone tell me why we need granite countertops in the bathroom? How about multiple shower heads? And those heated, self-lowering toilet seats—are the seat wars so hot that we now need plug-in toilets to defend ourselves? This, of course, goes directly against the electricity-and-water-not-mixing law of common sense.
Doesn’t anybody realize the insanity that went along with appreciating home and land values? It’s not the home or land itself that drove up prices—it’s the bling inside. From a resale standpoint, you spend money to make money, and it’s a losing proposition unless you’re in a high-end market.
Sure it looks nice, and sure, you’re shelling out for it all in home price, but is it REALLY worth it? Think about all the extra cleaning and maintenance you have to perform each day just to keep up appearances—if you have small children, this could mean hundreds of stainless steel wipe-downs each day with who-knows-how-toxic cleaners. And does anybody know how much MORE water you use in the shower when multiple heads are involved? I’m sure that lovely landscaping sucks up more water and electricity than you care to think about, especially the lighting. Speaking of lighting, don’t get me started on those cleverly-arranged pot lights and halogen sconces that nobody uses after the guests are gone.
Even granite counters need occasional sealing, and some “don’t do’s” come with those too. Same for tile and marble kitchen floors—unless they’re factory-sealed, they are porous and will absorb all kinds of stains.
Speaking of floors, hardwood is NOT impervious to water—not even laminate flooring, as I can personally attest to with a toilet water inlet hose gone bad. It happened overnight, and I awoke to my entire ground floor flooded about 2”, and my inherited Pergo® ruined. Imagine what an errant puppy or tippy toddler can do to it while your attention’s elsewhere, or aren’t even aware of the transgression until days later? Shudder to think what might be hiding under the huge rug in the living room—many more puppy transgressions from days gone past, and stained, warped flooring to go with it.
There must be some measure of sanity and practicality restored to home markets—at least for the average Joe with no house staff to polish the bling all day and keep little Joe away from it.
The REAL tragedy of house bling is that even after some homes get blinged up, they sit on the market for eons, only to become rental fodder. Would you spend that kind of money on a house that might very well wind up an expensive rental? Can you picture what bad tenants could do to destroy such a home? Could you afford to replace any of it should tenant destruction occur? The wrong bling at the wrong house at the wrong time could price you right out of your own market!
Even if the home is NOT up for sale, the price of owning and running it may drive the owners to sell. Candace Olsen of Divine Design never sticks around long enough to see the bill from her pot light-and-halogen-sconce handiwork, and the city could care less about your electric bills as they assess your home’s value for property taxes—from the outside.
Just think—in another 10 years or so, the “new” renovating trend will be something else, and all those perfectly good granite countertops and stainless steel appliances will be ripped out and discarded for another round of trend accommodation. Where else can we possibly go from here—asteroid countertops and animal-skin appliances?
I just hope it’s a round of sane, energy-efficient house bling—perhaps a “dumpster diver” look made up of used stuff and what we already have lying around in the garage and shed. By then, we may be shopping for a “minimalist” house instead of a McBling Villa, because we will be more aware of our effect on the environment.
I’m picturing homeless people pushing shopping carts with dumpster-dived granite as we speak.
Today’s homebuyer is like a raven—distracted by shiny things.
All the granite counters, the stainless steel appliances, the spa-like bathrooms, and the magazine-cover landscaping are hiding horrendous energy sins, both personal and literal.
Practicality, like the raven, has flown out the window shouting, “Nevermore!”
The tragedy of house bling is the energy it takes to keep up appearances—all the cleaning, specials cleaners, special use precautions (usually in the form of “don’t do…”), ease of replacement (or lack thereof), and the monthly bills that come along with their use. All the shiny glitz has beckoned us to overbuy for our needs.
Even washers and dryers get into the mix with an unspoken insistence on matching—again, for looks, not energy efficiency, in spite of them being banished to a publicly- unseen location. In fact, whole kitchens have fallen for this “matching” concept while turning a blind eye to energy efficiency—matching manufacturers, matching styles, and matching handle finishes—in spite of them being positioned throughout the kitchen (meaning NOT in close proximity for visual comparison).
Will someone tell me why we need granite countertops in the bathroom? How about multiple shower heads? And those heated, self-lowering toilet seats—are the seat wars so hot that we now need plug-in toilets to defend ourselves? This, of course, goes directly against the electricity-and-water-not-mixing law of common sense.
Doesn’t anybody realize the insanity that went along with appreciating home and land values? It’s not the home or land itself that drove up prices—it’s the bling inside. From a resale standpoint, you spend money to make money, and it’s a losing proposition unless you’re in a high-end market.
Sure it looks nice, and sure, you’re shelling out for it all in home price, but is it REALLY worth it? Think about all the extra cleaning and maintenance you have to perform each day just to keep up appearances—if you have small children, this could mean hundreds of stainless steel wipe-downs each day with who-knows-how-toxic cleaners. And does anybody know how much MORE water you use in the shower when multiple heads are involved? I’m sure that lovely landscaping sucks up more water and electricity than you care to think about, especially the lighting. Speaking of lighting, don’t get me started on those cleverly-arranged pot lights and halogen sconces that nobody uses after the guests are gone.
Even granite counters need occasional sealing, and some “don’t do’s” come with those too. Same for tile and marble kitchen floors—unless they’re factory-sealed, they are porous and will absorb all kinds of stains.
Speaking of floors, hardwood is NOT impervious to water—not even laminate flooring, as I can personally attest to with a toilet water inlet hose gone bad. It happened overnight, and I awoke to my entire ground floor flooded about 2”, and my inherited Pergo® ruined. Imagine what an errant puppy or tippy toddler can do to it while your attention’s elsewhere, or aren’t even aware of the transgression until days later? Shudder to think what might be hiding under the huge rug in the living room—many more puppy transgressions from days gone past, and stained, warped flooring to go with it.
There must be some measure of sanity and practicality restored to home markets—at least for the average Joe with no house staff to polish the bling all day and keep little Joe away from it.
The REAL tragedy of house bling is that even after some homes get blinged up, they sit on the market for eons, only to become rental fodder. Would you spend that kind of money on a house that might very well wind up an expensive rental? Can you picture what bad tenants could do to destroy such a home? Could you afford to replace any of it should tenant destruction occur? The wrong bling at the wrong house at the wrong time could price you right out of your own market!
Even if the home is NOT up for sale, the price of owning and running it may drive the owners to sell. Candace Olsen of Divine Design never sticks around long enough to see the bill from her pot light-and-halogen-sconce handiwork, and the city could care less about your electric bills as they assess your home’s value for property taxes—from the outside.
Just think—in another 10 years or so, the “new” renovating trend will be something else, and all those perfectly good granite countertops and stainless steel appliances will be ripped out and discarded for another round of trend accommodation. Where else can we possibly go from here—asteroid countertops and animal-skin appliances?
I just hope it’s a round of sane, energy-efficient house bling—perhaps a “dumpster diver” look made up of used stuff and what we already have lying around in the garage and shed. By then, we may be shopping for a “minimalist” house instead of a McBling Villa, because we will be more aware of our effect on the environment.
I’m picturing homeless people pushing shopping carts with dumpster-dived granite as we speak.
Friday, September 01, 2006
The Law of Unintended Consequences Part 2: Red Tape and Loopholes
I’ll begin this sermon with a phrase: “The Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away.” The Lord in this case is Congress.
Once upon a time, this country swam in red tape—regulation of all sorts—because big business was few and far between, and the few consumers weren’t spending enough to keep big business in business. When the Industrial Revolution occurred and world wars came and went, small industries couldn’t be helped from sprouting—all of a sudden, there was a need for it.
Then came the free markets, trade, and the ultimate hole-puncher: Congress. Where red tape wasn’t relaxed or eliminated completely, Congress invented a way around it.
When the garden of business wasn’t growing fast enough, or with strong enough plants, Congress tried to encourage growth through the fertilizers of tax incentives, subsidies, new regulation, or new layers of red tape.
One day, the little guy, Joe Consumer, got tired of shaking his fist and shouting, “What about me?” and started looking into ways he could use those punched holes in the red tape for himself. Congress even went so far as to spell out ways that Joe could take advantage of the rules and loopholes by making the tax code available to the public. Several authors have simplified the tax code into comprehensible volumes by year, and separate agencies were set up just for small business navigation alone.
Joe began to read and inform himself, eagerly seeking ways to get rewarded with something for nothing (or very little).
Joe’s neighbor, John couldn’t be bothered to read such a large amount of fine print, and went on to form activist groups and agendas based on the emotions he felt just from hearing about issues affecting the common man. As a result, Joe and John formed radically different views of the same issue—one from a logical, informed point of view based on fact; another from a reflexive, emotional point of view based on very little actual research. John has fallen victim to the hype and spin machines.
As a result, Joe tends to look at red tape as an opportunity for reward. John looks at it as a punishment and needless deterrent. Obviously, Joe has found the holes, and John thinks they aren’t the right size—either too big or too small. Joe is reaping the rewards of red tape and loopholes, and John is wallowing in misery, calling for the government to bail him out because he can’t understand the fine print. John's favorite saying is "there ought to be a law."
Every game comes with instructions. You have to learn them in order to play, and you have to learn the inherent loopholes in order to be successful. In the end, game winners have learned the secrets of success—the loopholes, the exceptions, and the contrarian moves that keep his competition off guard. It’s called “winning strategy.”
How do you look at red tape, especially in this country? Our red tape is the holiest, meaning full of loopholes, and even the lowliest immigrant is able to spot them and benefit. This is why we’re flooded with illegal immigrants—people who spotted an opportunity, and went for it at any cost.
By turning a blind eye to our borders, Congress is rewarding the opportunistic and punishing the protectionist. Justice may wear a blindfold, but Liberty has her eyes and arms wide open.
Once upon a time, this country swam in red tape—regulation of all sorts—because big business was few and far between, and the few consumers weren’t spending enough to keep big business in business. When the Industrial Revolution occurred and world wars came and went, small industries couldn’t be helped from sprouting—all of a sudden, there was a need for it.
Then came the free markets, trade, and the ultimate hole-puncher: Congress. Where red tape wasn’t relaxed or eliminated completely, Congress invented a way around it.
When the garden of business wasn’t growing fast enough, or with strong enough plants, Congress tried to encourage growth through the fertilizers of tax incentives, subsidies, new regulation, or new layers of red tape.
One day, the little guy, Joe Consumer, got tired of shaking his fist and shouting, “What about me?” and started looking into ways he could use those punched holes in the red tape for himself. Congress even went so far as to spell out ways that Joe could take advantage of the rules and loopholes by making the tax code available to the public. Several authors have simplified the tax code into comprehensible volumes by year, and separate agencies were set up just for small business navigation alone.
Joe began to read and inform himself, eagerly seeking ways to get rewarded with something for nothing (or very little).
Joe’s neighbor, John couldn’t be bothered to read such a large amount of fine print, and went on to form activist groups and agendas based on the emotions he felt just from hearing about issues affecting the common man. As a result, Joe and John formed radically different views of the same issue—one from a logical, informed point of view based on fact; another from a reflexive, emotional point of view based on very little actual research. John has fallen victim to the hype and spin machines.
As a result, Joe tends to look at red tape as an opportunity for reward. John looks at it as a punishment and needless deterrent. Obviously, Joe has found the holes, and John thinks they aren’t the right size—either too big or too small. Joe is reaping the rewards of red tape and loopholes, and John is wallowing in misery, calling for the government to bail him out because he can’t understand the fine print. John's favorite saying is "there ought to be a law."
Every game comes with instructions. You have to learn them in order to play, and you have to learn the inherent loopholes in order to be successful. In the end, game winners have learned the secrets of success—the loopholes, the exceptions, and the contrarian moves that keep his competition off guard. It’s called “winning strategy.”
How do you look at red tape, especially in this country? Our red tape is the holiest, meaning full of loopholes, and even the lowliest immigrant is able to spot them and benefit. This is why we’re flooded with illegal immigrants—people who spotted an opportunity, and went for it at any cost.
By turning a blind eye to our borders, Congress is rewarding the opportunistic and punishing the protectionist. Justice may wear a blindfold, but Liberty has her eyes and arms wide open.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
