#219 Rioters in Charlotte. Drive Looking through the Windshield or the Rearview Mirror? (Part 1)

25 Sunday Sep 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does

First-time readers, this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. List and general description of entries to date. Annual assessment whether Revolution plausible.

Note: most characters appear in a number of entries, with many entries building on previous conversations. Profile of characters. You’ll catch on quickly. Thanks for your time and interest…and comments.

Scene: Jordan’s office in Washington, DC.

Jordan (Answering phone): “Jordan Abel.”

Matt: “Jordan, its Matt. Got a few minutes?”

Jordan: “You picked a good time to call. What’s up?”

Matt: “You know Greenie is writing a series on the causes of the Revenge Revolution. She realized there was no article about the riots in Charlotte in 2016. She asked me to do some research.”

Jordan: “And you want me to provide some insight, right?”

Matt: “You’ve lived in Charlotte for a while and I thought you would be a good place to start.”

Jordan: “OK, I’m not sure I can help but I’ll try.”

Matt: “As I’ve looked back over the material, the riots seem to have been ignited by the police shooting a black man.”

Jordan: “That seemed to be the trigger. The police were serving an arrest warrant on someone else in the same apartment complex as the guy who was shot.”

Matt: “What was this guy doing?”

Jordan: “As I understand, in his car in the parking lot and smoking some weed. The police ask him to get out of the car. When he gets out he’s got a gun in his hand.”

Matt: “I read that members of the victim’s family claimed he was holding a book and not a gun. Any evidence to support that claim?”

Jordan: “None. Even a phone video made by the guy’s wife has voices of the police telling the guy to drop the gun.”

Matt: “Seems hard to confuse a book and a gun.”

Jordan: “I agree. Why the family claimed it was a book, I don’t know.”

Matt: “Also, from what I read, the police asked the guy a number of time to drop the gun.”

Jordan: “On the family made phone video, the police ask the guy seven times, yes seven times, to drop the gun. They might have asked even more.”

Matt: “Did this guy ever fire at the police?”

Jordan: “No evidence. But if you ask someone with a gun to drop it at least seven times and he doesn’t, what are the police supposed to think? Gee, let’s just wait ‘till this guy starts firing at near point-blank range, then we’ll fire back. The police were in a very difficult situation and this guy was clearly an unknown commodity.”

Matt: “Was all this info known to the public right away? My research indicates info came out in dribs and drabs.”

Jordan: “The dissemination of information turned out to be a real problem. For example, right away the family made the claim the victim had a book in his hand and not a gun. That info spread quickly on social media. Unfortunately, for several days the police stayed quiet and never offered any hard evidence to the contrary, even though they had a video from a body cam.”

Matt: “Thus, without any evidence from the police, the black community…at least part of the black community…views the family’s version as baseline and believes the police shot a black man unnecessarily. But, still, why the riots?”

Jordan: “I’m the wrong guy to ask that question.”

Matt: “Maybe, but what do you think? Why the riots? And especially why did the rioters damage cars, buildings, and businesses in their own neighborhood?”

Jordan: “It makes no sense. To me the rioters in Charlotte are a classic case of ‘stupid is as stupid does.’ Looting businesses and burning buildings in your own neighborhood, which they did the first night, is as dumb an idea as I can think of. If I’m a rioter I want to make sure the companies that employ my neighbors and provide services to the neighborhood are damaged. Duh?”

Matt: “Aren’t you being overly harsh? Many blacks were very frustrated.”

Jordan: “Look, a lot of people were frustrated. Being frustrated doesn’t give you the right to break the law. In case no one told the rioters, damaging property and looting are breaking the law.”

Matt: “What should these people…and I suppose even more important…what should the black community have done?”

Jordan: “Matt, I’ve used the analogy many times over the years, and it seems appropriate now as well. Remarkably, some people just don’t seem to get the gist of it. I’ll start by asking, ‘Do you drive a car?’”

Matt: “Of course. Why?”

Jordan: “When you’re driving, do you look mostly out the windshield or the rearview mirror?”

Matt: “That seems like a silly question.”

Jordan: “Well, I’ll ask again. When driving do you look out the windshield or the rearview mirror?”

Matt: “The windshield, of course. You can’t go very fast looking out the rearview mirror…and that would be dangerous besides.”

Jordan: “Exactly. If you go through life looking mostly through the rearview mirror, then you cannot go very fast and you’ll miss all the opportunities that lie ahead.”

Matt: “Unless you look through the windshield, all those opportunities will pass you by.”

Jordan: “Now you understand why I asked the question.”

Matt: “What about addressing problems from the past?”

Jordan: “I’m not trying to discount the problems of the past. Blaming someone else for those problems might make you feel good. However, running around blaming someone else for problems does not provide a solution. The solution…”

Matt: “…lies with the individual and lies ahead. To solve the problem you’ve got to start looking through the windshield and quit spending all your time looking through the rearview mirror.”

(Continued)

#218 Voting for the Devil You Know vs the Devil You Don’t Know

20 Tuesday Sep 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

First-time readers, normally this blog is set in the future (sometime after the year 2020). Each entry assumes there has been a 5th revolution in the US — the Revenge Revolution. More about Revenge Revolution and author, Entry #1. List and general description of entries to date.

Periodically I change formats for this blog, writing commentary rather than dialogue for the regular characters. Since starting the blog, I’ve tried to keep the politics reasonably well-balanced without exagggerated bias left or right. I consider this entry in the same vein, although I’m certain some will disagree.

With less than 50 days until the 2016 US presidential election, I thought this commentary was appropriate…and needed. One thing for certain in this election – voters are frustrated. To some the frustration stems from a dislike of president Obama; to others the frustration stems from a lack of meaningful action by Congress; to others the frustration stems from just ‘government.’

To address these frustrations and help solve the problems, however one perceives the problems, voters have a choice between Trump/Pence or Clinton/Kaine. A small percentage of voters will support a 3^rd party – the Libertarian ticket of Johnson/Weld or the Green Party. Voting for a 3^rd party is effectively not voting, although one can argue that with enough 3^rd-party votes, the president-elect might consider some issues of the 3^rd-party platform. Enough 3^rd-party votes might also influence the reformulation of the Republican Party, which is likely to occur, whether Trump wins or loses.

For those considering the two major parties, many are selecting their candidate based on a false dilemma or false choice. The false choice — if a voter dislikes Hillary Clinton, for example, then the voter thinks he or she must vote for Trump. If the voter dislikes Trump, then Clinton must be the choice.

Such a false choice is not necessary. However, I’m not naïve enough to think that a large percentage of prospective voters actually studies the issues. Based on my observations, the vast majority of voters, including seemingly well-educated voters, select a candidate based on an array of intangibles. The selection is made without considering the impact of proposed policies and/or without considering meaningful past behavior of the candidate. And, yes, everyone makes mistakes. But one needs to consider the frequency of major mistakes and the context.

Even some who claim to study issues, intangibles override evidence. Over coffee recently, a colleague replied to my presentation of well-documented economic data with the comment, “That’s your version of the facts, I have mine.” No, my friend, you don’t have “your version” of facts; you have voodoo facts. Facts don’t come in versions.

So, what how should a non-policy, non-fact-based voter decide which presidential candidate to vote for? My suggestion is simple. Ask yourself the question, “Am I better off voting for the devil I know or voting for the devil I don’t know?” For a voter wanting to change behavior in Washington, please remember that all legislation is initiated by Congress. Legislation is not initiated by the president but by Congress. While the president can modify some policies by issuing Executive Orders, the effect of many EO’s can be negated by Congress.

Where the president has more influence is in building and maintaining US relations with other countries…and some influence but not outright control over certain aspects of the military. So when you’re ready to cast your ballot, you should think about how well will the candidate of my choice work with other countries, the military and Congress? I understand you might not like either candidate – you’re not alone – but the choice of candidates is not a false choice. You do not have to choose Trump because you dislike Clinton…or you do not have to choose Clinton because you dislike Trump.

The choice for president is real. So even if you dislike Clinton…and I mean dislike intensely…do you really want to vote for a candidate who has encouraged the assassination of the rival candidate? Mr. Trump has twice encouraged supporters to do so. And, no, he was not being facetious when making those comments. Do you really want someone as president who admires a strong-arm dictator? Putin the dictator, who Trump so admires, in fact, assassinates the opposition.

The situations encountered by the president should not be viewed as a zero-sum game. Developing economic and fiscal policy, working with members of Congress, negotiating trade deals, strengthening international relations are not zero-sum games. Building coalitions within the US and strengthening relations with other countries are not the same as negotiating tax abatements for hotels in Manhattan.

The president needs to make certain the primary players feel as if the negotiations were fair and each came out somewhat ahead. Negotiations are not just about one side, as seems to be the mantra of Mr. Trump.

Do you want someone as president who has bragged repeatedly about not paying taxes and who refuses to release tax returns? What is there to hide in the tax returns? And, no the IRS does not care if tax returns are released. If you want that kind of person as president, and you’re not part of the 1.0%, then plan on getting the shaft. If you want that kind of president, then you also need to explain to your children and/or grandchildren why you voted for someone with such obvious irrational behavior. Explain to them why you took the risk of increasing the likelihood of an even more intense and prolonged Revenge Revolution.

Now you ask, “Is this guy smoking something or is such a revolution possible?” I started publishing this blog in 2013. The original idea for a 5^th US revolution stemmed from some research I did in 2009. Since originally developing the premise about a 5^th revolution, the negative attitude and polarization of the electorate have intensified. Unfortunately, I think the Revenge Revolution is inevitable no matter which candidate wins in 2016. However, based on my observations and analysis, the severity of the Revenge Revolution will be far less if Hillary Clinton rather than Donald Trump becomes president.

Why will the Revenge Revolution be less intense under Clinton? Because Trump has demonstrated repeatedly erratic, irrational behavior…and encouraged violence. Just listen to his words…carefully listen… if you don’t believe me. To me electing Trump is not worth the risk. While one might not like the options of either Clinton or Trump, voting for the devil you know seems more rational than the risk and consequences of voting for the devil you don’t know…and, don’t kid yourself, you really don’t know Trump.

#217 Trade Agreements Cost Jobs! But Why? (Part 4 of 4)

11 Sunday Sep 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Back Asswards Thinking, Economics

≈ Leave a comment

Scene: Jordan’s Office, on phone with nephew of long-time friend. Nephew is taking advanced economics course and been assigned paper to determine if trade agreements cost US workers jobs. Conversation begins Entry #214.

Jordan: “Billy, you asked if automation might be costing jobs in the service industry. What do you think?”

Billy: “I’ve never really thought about it. All the hype in the 2016 presidential election was on manufacturing jobs. I don’t remember much talk at all about service jobs.”

Jordan: “That’s because many jobs in the service are not affected by trade agreements. As we talked about, if you want to stay in a hotel in Manhattan, a hotel in Cancun is of no value, no matter how inexpensive it is.”

Billy: “Where should we start?”

Jordan: “We’ll look at some general categories of service sector jobs. Let’s start with banking.”

Billy: “As best I can tell, automation and the internet have been responsible for a major loss in banking jobs. You know, the only time I’ve been in a bank is with my grandparents. Other than needing some cash now and then, which I can actually get at the grocery store, why do I need a bank? If people need a bank, put it in the grocery store.”

Jordan: “What about safe-deposit boxes for valuables – jewelry, old coins, pictures, important papers? That kind of stuff.”

Billy: “People store furniture and other items in self-storage units. Why couldn’t you have a self-storage unit of safe-deposit boxes? Most of those self-storage places are open 24×7…and banks sure aren’t. You could make the place as secure as a bank.”

Jordan: “What about the food service industry? We know most jobs are unaffected by trade agreements…but what about automation?”

Billy: “Lots of places…at least the ones I go to…have an iPad-like device on the table for ordering. In most places, people still bring your food but there aren’t many servers around.”

Jordan: “What about automation in the kitchen?”

Billy: “I see more automation all the time, especially at fast food places. And you know what? I think the quality is more consistent and overall, the food tastes better.”

Jordan: “What about delivery services – pizza, FedEx, UPS, even the Post Office? How much has automation affected employment?”

Billy: “From what I understand, a lot. Most of the automation is in areas we don’t see – back office stuff. Also, a lot of drivers are being eliminated by self-driving vehicles. Again, those are in areas we don’t see – one warehouse to another. The deliveries in the neighbor are still by humans…but who knows how long that will last.”

Jordan: “Two more categories and then we’ll call it a wrap.”

Billy: “OK, you’ve really got me thinking.”

Jordan: “What about skilled trades – carpenters, plumbers, electricians, brick layers?”

Billy: “Did you know another uncle has a construction company? Mostly new residential.”

Jordan: “No, tell me more.”

Billy: “When I was 7 or 8 years old, he used to take me to the job sites to watch homes being built. Lots of people hammering, sawing, installing stuff. People everywhere.”

Jordan: “You still go?”

Billy: “I did this past summer and wow, what a change.”

Jordan: “What’s so different?”

Billy: “Most all the heavy-duty construction is done in a factory. The job site is more like assembling Lego’s. He’s even got robot installing lots of bricks.”

Jordan: “Where are all the skilled trades?”

Billy: “Some skilled trades are in the factory to make sure everything installed correctly and a few at the job site for final hook-up. But a lot of skilled trades have been replaced by machines at the factory and workers with fewer skills.”

Jordan: “But none of the people replaced by robots or constructing in a factory were the result of trade agreements, right?”

Billy: “All affected by automation. What’s the final category?”

Jordan: “There are many more industry categories we could address – medicine, legal, auto technicians, for example – but I want you to think about the effect of trade agreements on software development.”

Billy: “Well, it’s really hard to put a wall around electrons. I suppose you could put some sort of tariff on software development.”

Jordan: “Any ideas how?”

Billy: “Not really. Companies could develop software and then put on servers in another country. People in the US could easily access software and their files though the cloud. I just don’t know.”

Jordan: “Billy, what’s your conclusion now? Do trade agreements affect employment in the US?”

Billy: “Some. The real culprit seems to be innovation. And innovation is going to occur with or without a trade agreement.”

Jordan: “What about trying to bring jobs like it used to be in America?”

Billy: “You mean like the Trump slogan from 2016, ‘Make America Great Again’?”

Jordan: “Possible or not?”

Billy: “One thing is for certain. If you try to recreate a by-gone era, it’s guaranteed the rest of the world will run past and the US will fall behind.”

Jordan: “Now you have the foundation for your paper. Countries should try to make sure the playing field is reasonably level for any trade agreement. However…”

Billy: “…thinking one can recreate the past and avoid being realistic about the impact of technology on jobs is fool hearty. Right?”

(End of segment on trade agreements. I know there’s more to cover but enough for now.)

#216 Trade Agreements Cost Jobs! But Why? (Part 3)

04 Sunday Sep 2016

Posted by Jordan Abel in Causes of the Revolution, Corporate Policy, Economics, Gov't Policy

≈ Leave a comment

Jordan: “Billy, I’ve got my coffee refilled. Back to the question, ‘Do trade agreements cause job losses for US workers?’ For now focus on manufacturing jobs.”

Billy: “I suppose it depends on what expertise each country has.”

Jordan: “Give me an example.”

Billy: “If a country has much lower labor cost, then high labor-content jobs might move to the new country…assuming the skills were there.”

Jordan: “OK, I’ll buy that argument. What about jobs where labor content is low?”

Billy: “Then there’s no reason any jobs should be lost. Why would you move to a different country if labor content in the US plant is low? That makes no sense.”

Jordan: “What about moving jobs if the labor cost in the new country is lower but the delivery times are longer and other logistics issues are more complicated?”

Billy: “That might make sense. If I were the US company, I’d have to decide if responding to customer orders more quickly was more important than savings a few bucks. I suppose if you’re making Popsicle sticks that are all the same, cost per stick becomes more important. However, I think for many products turnaround time and responding the customer requests are more important than a few dollars saved.”

Jordan: “You mean if you were selling products like clothing, furniture, cars? Stuff like that?”

Billy: “For clothing it’s probably OK to source overseas generic items like T-shirts, underwear and some other articles that rarely change – maybe some standard jeans, for example. But for products that are more subject to fashion changes, I’d want to have assembly as close to the marketplace as I could.”

Jordan: “What about automotive products — cars and trucks?”

Billy: “If I ran an auto company, I’d want at least some cars and trucks assembled in the US.”

Jordan: “Seems as if the most of the foreign auto companies agree with you.”

Billy: “Never thought about how many foreign auto companies have assembly plants in the US. Let’s see, Toyota, Nissan, Honda, BMW, and Hyundai…even Mercedes. I’d also want key components assembled in the US. Look what happened to the Japanese auto companies after the earthquake and tsunami in Japan in what 2011 or 2012. The Japanese auto companies had to cut way back on production until they could find another supplier before resuming production. Then they had to air freight some of the parts to keep the assembly lines operating. Talk about expensive.”

Jordan: “What else do you think is different about auto plants…in fact most manufacturing plants…than 25-30 years ago, and especially 40-50 years ago?”

Billy: “Not sure what you mean. I wasn’t around then.”

Jordan: “Here’s another way to think about it. Do you know how to use a typewriter?”

Billy: “I know how to type…but you know what? I don’t think I’ve ever seen a typewriter, other than photographs in books and in old movies.”

Jordan: “Ever seen a picture of an old auto assembly plant?”

Billy: “Yeah, lots of people working on an assembly line.”

Jordan: “Have you seen a picture of a modern auto assembly plant?”

Billy: “Seems as if no one is around. Most everything is assembled by a robot. The few people who are around seem to be watching the robots.”

Jordan: “Now do you understand my question about what’s different from 25-30 years ago?”

Billy: “You mean much of the labor content in putting together cars and trucks has disappeared.”

Jordan: “With that in mind, now what do you think about the argument by some politicians that countries with which we have trade agreements have stolen many US jobs?”

Billy: “The jobs in automotive…and probably most manufacturing jobs…were not lost to Mexico or China or wherever…but lost to automation.”

Jordan: “Claiming jobs were lost because of trade agreements makes for good 10-second sound bites. And, yes, some jobs were lost. But the decline in manufacturing jobs and the decline in jobs requiring say high-school or some college have been lost to automation, not trade agreements.”

Billy: “My paper needs to explain that while some jobs in certain industries can be lost due to trade agreements, many of the job losses, in fact possibly most of the job losses in manufacturing, are due to adaptation and implementation of technology.”

Jordan: “So far we’ve talked about manufacturing jobs. What about the service sector?”

Billy: “You know, I don’t think I’ve heard a politician talk about whether trade agreements affect jobs in the service sector. From what I’ve studied so far in economics, the service section is a much greater percentage of GDP than manufacturing. In terms of employment service sector accounts for about 70.0% of all jobs.”

Jordan: “Good guess. It’s a bit higher — 75.0%+.”

Billy: “Then why don’t politicians talk about the service sector? Why just manufacturing jobs when they talk trade agreements?”

Jordan: “Because many service-sector jobs…not all but many…cannot be exported.”

Billy: “So politicians focus on the sound bite, not the substance.”

Jordan: “I’m not discounting the importance of manufacturing jobs. I’m a big believer of a very strong manufacturing sector. But the fact is, service jobs dominate the economy. If you want to stay in a hotel in Manhattan, you cannot export your stay to a hotel in Cancun. The hotel, staff, food service all have to be in Manhattan.”

Billy: “What about the effect of automation on service sector jobs, like what happened to jobs in manufacturing?”

Jordan: “Great question, Billy. We’ll talk about that next. I think many people are in for a big surprise.”

(Continued)

usrevolution5

~ USA Headed for a 5th Revolution! Why?

Monthly Archives: September 2016

#219 Rioters in Charlotte. Drive Looking through the Windshield or the Rearview Mirror? (Part 1)

#218 Voting for the Devil You Know vs the Devil You Don’t Know

#217 Trade Agreements Cost Jobs! But Why? (Part 4 of 4)

#216 Trade Agreements Cost Jobs! But Why? (Part 3)