Category Archives: Societal Issues

#352 Why Do Federal Reps, Senators Have No Shame? My 25¢ Analysis.

29 Sunday Sep 2019

Posted by in Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

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 the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #332.  

The past few blog entries have been an intentional diversion from the craziness in Washington. This entry puts us back inside the Beltway.

Ever wonder why elected Federal representatives, House and Senate, seem to have no shame? Why some individuals take one position when a Republican is in office and flip-flop when a Democrat is in office?

An extreme example of no shame is Lindsey Graham, Republican Senator of South Carolina. In 2016, when Graham and Trump were Republican presidential candidates, Graham claimed Trump was evil and untrustworthy. The criticism from Graham went far beyond what one would consider normal “campaign talk.”

Once Trump was elected, and after Graham’s guardrail John McCain died, Graham became a die-hard Trump supporter. In the most recent Trump fiasco – threating to withhold approved military aid unless Ukraine investigated a potential Democratic rival, and then trying to squash an investigation — Graham dismissed Trump’s actions as a mere phone call, not worthy of Investigation.

Graham was more than willing to overlook the abuse of power for personal gain, Trump obstructing Congress and then Trump publicly threatening anyone who put country ahead of politics. To Graham, let’s forget the oath to uphold the Constitution he took as a Senator, supporting Trump is more important. One has to wonder if Graham would have taken the same stance if those actions had been taken by a Democratic president.

Another flip-flopper is Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell. McConnell has been more than willing, with no apparent remorse, to switch his position whether the Senate should have a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee if an election is upcoming within a year or so. When Obama was President, McConnell stated emphatically any hearing for a SCOTUS nominee was out of the question. While Trump has been President such a SCOTUS hearing is imperative and must be done now. Mmm, wonder what Mitch’s position will be on voting on impeachment?

Graham and McConnell are not alone. There are many examples on both sides of the aisle. In the current environment, Republicans seem to hold the edge on shamelessness. In the Trump/Ukraine debacle, among the Senators, the only one who seems to have expressed publicly any concern about Trump’s behavior is Mitt Romney. Might be a coincidence that Romney is not a lawyer but a businessman.

I’m not naive about politics and party loyalty. However I do find troubling a willingness to support party over the Constitution and frankly, what’s right for the country.

Why are these elected officials exhibiting behavior that most of us would never tolerate in the private sector? Have these officials no shame?

My $0.25 analysis? The cause of the behavior, in Yogi Berra terms, is a combination of training and lack of training.

#1 The effect of training. Most Federal Representatives and Senators are lawyers.   Lawyers are trained to be able to take multiple stances on a given issue. Successful attorneys, especially defense attorneys, may need to present different sides of an argument depending on the particular situation of and charges against their client. Further, society does not expect attorneys to agree personally with every stance taken in defense of a client. The only expectation of the attorney is to make a fair effort defending the client.

Not being expected to argue a position necessarily consistent with personal beliefs allows attorneys to shift positions back and forth without any concern about consistency in approach. For many lawyers supporting a position without regard to past support of a different position, might seem perfectly normal and part of their everyday activity. However, members of the House and Senate need to put away their lawyer training and remember their oath of office is to uphold the Constitution; not an oath to represent the president of the United States. The president is NOT their client.

#2 The lack of training. The second factor why Congressional reps show no shames could be lack of military service. For lawyers, the effect the lack of military training may be more pronounced than other occupations. For lawyers, there are generally two outcomes, win or lose. There are very few situations where a win-win is a desired outcome.

As anyone who has been in the military knows, two things become evident in basic training. The first is it matters not your background, family wealth, family connections, one’s level of education, etc. During basic training drill instructors treat every trainee exactly the same, like dirt.

The second thing that becomes evident in basic training is the necessity to work in teams. In military training at least early on, the object is not to win or lose but to build a team and learn to work closely with other teams. And you have no choice of what team you’re on. The teams are comprised of people from all different backgrounds and skill levels. Thus, to make any progress, and avoid further harassment by the DI, one needs to learn to cooperate and work with people who are radically different than normal associates.

An example I recall from my own un-storied military career was during advanced training for light infantry. Part of the training included qualifying on a wide range of weapons. The base commander put a challenge out to several larger units training at the camp. If a designated training unit could tie or break an existing scoring record when qualifying with a specific weapon, that group would receive a weekend pass beginning noon Friday. I don’t recall whether we had six or seven weapons to qualify with — pistols, assault rifles, machine guns, anti-tank weapons, etc. — but I do recall our group setting 5 or 6 post records and being able to leave Friday noon.

The records were achieved because we worked together. Most of us had not been in basic training together so there was little many of us had in common other than wanting to get through training and wanting to get a pass starting Friday noon.

Another major incentive to work together and set a base record, although not articulated by the training staff, was the fort’s location. We were stationed at Fort Ord, California, near Carmel and Monterey Bay. Getting out Friday noon would give us enough time to visit Reno, drive Big Sur to Santa Barbara, go to San Francisco and generally have a good time.

Since sending our Congressional reps to Army basic training would be fun to watch, but not really practical, what do we, societal we, do to get our elected officials to begin working more closely with one another? A solution used in private industry that might work is to have Democrats and Republicans participate in team-building exercises. Before legislators began returning to home districts on the weekends, interaction with members of the other party occurred regularly at golf courses, during poker games, and family outings. During that era many reps, spouses and children of both parties were close friends.

Like the idea of basic training, the chances of either party supporting team-building exercises is nil. I cannot imagine how loud Fox News bloviators Sean Hannity and Tucker Carlson would scream over such an idea. “Political parties working together? How dare someone suggest cooperation. An effective outcome would ruin our ratings!”

Thus, the only realistic approach seems to be the ballot box. But I think we, again societal we, need to start thinking differently about the importance of elections. To effectuate change, the primary election may be more important than the general election. If we want government to start working again, then we need to start nominating centrist candidates in both parties. We also need to be willing to switch parties if the candidate of one’s preferred party is too extreme.

If your state requires party selection to vote in the primary, then chose Republican or Democrat and vote in the primary. No one’s forcing you to vote a straight ticket in the general election.

The only way we are going to get elected representatives to Congress to start behaving with some consistency and integrity is to nominate people with positions on issues that are good for the welfare of this country, not some small slice of the population. If you look back in US history, the times when the economy was the strongest over time (constant $), when a strong middle class developed (think of “Leave It to Beaver”), when a major portion of society was able to advance in education, and when we had the most support among a wide range of countries worldwide was a time when we had a president and members of both parties working together.

The most disruptive times in US history occurred when there was a major division of the parties. I’m voting for working more closely together.

As a sidebar: One of the reasons I started writing this blog in 2013 was to alert people to what was likely to happen without some major changes in society. While I remain hopeful such changes can occur, my fear is the US will experience another revolution, the Revenge Revolution, before any meaningful change happens. Please prove me wrong.

#351 What if Trump Were…? Serious Questions about How Individually We View Presidential Behavior.

22 Sunday Sep 2019

Posted by in Societal Issues, Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

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 the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #332.  

The past few blog entries have been an intentional diversion from the craziness in Washington. While this entry doesn’t address activities inside the Beltway per se, the entry does address how we view such activities.

As 2019 progresses into primary season then migrates to the general election, I thought voters should ask themselves a very simple question. In order to put the question in proper context, there’s some background information, which you should read, please.

Background Information. Trump took office as president in January 2017. Assume everything about the president and the presidency is unchanged since that point. For example assume: the same number of and content of Executive Orders; the same high turnover of cabinet members; the same number of “acting” heads of agencies; the same number of unfilled agency staff positions; the same effort to rollback all environmental programs implemented during the Obama Administration; the same denial that global warming has been accelerated by human activity; the same tax cut that transferred huge sums to corporations and the wealthy; the same tax cut that has created sharply higher federal budget deficits; the same tweets that have insulted members of Congress; the same tweets that have insulted Cabinet members; the same tweets that have insulted heads of state of long-term US allies; the same unusually friendly and secretive behavior with Vladimir Putin; the same unusual behavior with Kim Jung Un; the same refusal to disclose personal income taxes; the same effort to direct military expenditures to benefit property in Scotland; the same promise that Mexico would pay for the border wall; the same meetings with Russian diplomats, one of whom a known spy, after which notes from the meeting were destroyed; the same effort to strong-arm president of Ukraine to investigate a political rival’s family; the same repeated trashing of the US intelligence community; the same appointment of “Where’s my Roy Cohn?” as Attorney General; the same encouragement to white supremacists; the same numerous cabinet and Trump election-campaign officials who have plead guilty to felonies and are in prison or awaiting sentencing; the same number of days spent playing golf; the same repeated trashing of the judicial system; the same repeated refusal to comply with the US Constitution…and on and on and on.

I tossed a coin and the Republicans get the question asked first. The question to Democrats follow.

Republicans: none of the above information changes except one thing – Trump is a Democrat.

Question: if Trump were a Democrat, would you continue to support him as vigorously as you have and as most Republicans have?

If you answered, “Yes,” then if a Democratic president were to take all or most of the same actions, obviously you would support the Democratic president.

If you answered “No,” then why are you supporting actions taken by Trump, if you oppose the same actions if Trump were a Democrat?

The question is not some trick or “gotcha” question. Go look yourself in the mirror and answer the question as honestly as you can. Your call, not mine. If you really believe Trump, and would support him as a Democrat, OK.

If you wouldn’t support Trump’s same actions if taken by a Democratic president, then your loyalty is to the Republican Party and not to any kind of personal moral or ethical standard. Before you react to my comment, go sit down and think seriously about the question and your answer.

Democrats: none of the above information changes except one thing – Trump is a Democrat.

Question: if Trump were a Democrat, would you oppose him as vigorously as most Democrats have?

If you answered, “Yes,” then if a Democratic president were to take all or most of the same actions, obviously you would oppose the Democratic president.

If you answered “No,” then why are you opposing the actions being taken by Trump?

The question is not some trick or “gotcha” question. Go look yourself in the mirror and answer the question as honestly as you can. Your call, not mine. If you really oppose Trump, and would oppose him as a Democrat, OK.

If you wouldn’t oppose those same actions by a Democratic president, then your loyalty is to the Democratic Party and not to any kind of personal moral or ethical standard. Before you react, just sit down and think seriously about the question and your answer.

Whether these-type questions will help people pause and at least think through their positions, I don’t know. What I do know, is these-type questions need to be asked and each of us should take time and consider our answers.

Comments and questions welcome as always.

#341 SCOTUS Puts another Arrow in Revenge Revolution’s Quiver

30 Sunday Jun 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

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 the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #332.  

The original entry for this week was a diversion from politics, culture and the potential for a Revenge Revolution sometime after 2020. The topic was ideas about the Big Bang Theory and the formation of the universe. (I’ll publish the Big Bang entry sometime in the next few weeks.)

Maybe discussing the idea of the Big Bang was fortuitous. A big bang seemed to be the thinking of the Supreme Court this past week. The decision regarding legality of extremely partisan gerrymandering — Rucho vs. Common Cause — may go down as one of the most illogical SCOTUS decisions of the last 100-150 years. Use Plessy vs Ferguson as a reference point for being illogical.

The majority opinion, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, claimed SCOTUS was not entitled to second-guess state legislatures’ decisions re gerrymandering, even if the result was extreme disproportionate representation. Really? The majority of SCOTUS’ justices claimed the Constitution did not provide authority for the Supreme Court to address such state issues as gerrymandering, and besides, the framers envisioned that politics would influence the drawing of legislative districts.

Duh, Roberts, put aside the legal mumbo-jumbo and try to figure out what’s right and wrong for the country. The case, which involved extreme gerrymandering in North Carolina, demonstrated clearly that Republican legislators intended to discriminate against certain voters, i.e., Democrats, the Party which happens to include most black and Hispanic voters.

The consultant, hired by the Republican-controlled NC legislature, publicly stated disappointment that he could ensure Republicans only 10, not 11, of 13 the seats in the US Hose of Representative despite the percentage of voters in North Carolina being split about evenly between Democrats and Republicans, and slightly favoring Democrats.

Gee, Roberts, using your logic, it’s OK if Democratic votes in North Carolina count less than 1/2 of what Republicans votes count. (Of the 13 districts, based on the number of Republicans and Democrats, at least six (6) should be represented by Democrats. With the gerrymandered districts, Democrats hold only three (3), or less than 50%.) If the SCOTUS justices keep referencing the Constitution as the basis for the gerrymandering decision, at least have Democratic votes count 3/5 of a Republican vote, which is what the Constitution noted that slaves counted.

When citing laws and legal precedent, ever think about considering the 14th Amendment? What about considering the Voting Rights Act? What about Brown vs. Board of Education? Okay, I understand your logic. None of these decisions had been made when the Constitution was written and, therefore, should not be considered.

But wait. What about the Citizen’s United case?  In Citizens United the majority, of which you were a member, claimed that when it came to campaign financing a corporation was really a person and should be treated as such. I’ve looked at my copy of the Constitution and I can’t find where corporations are mentioned, let alone being considered “people.” Your logic must be to reference the Constitution when convenient but to disregard the Constitution when you want a different outcome.

A second Supreme Court ruling this past week was well-publicized, but frankly a bunch of meaningless noise. The second decision prohibited the Bureau of Census from including a question about citizenship during the 2020 census. Roberts, in an apparent Fox-News attempt to be “fair and balanced,” sided with the Democrats on prohibiting the citizenship question.

But Roberts’s position is a ruse. The SCOTUS decision does not prevent future census from including a citizenship question. Moreover, with all the publicity around the case, Roberts and Republicans already have convinced many immigrants, even legals, not to respond to the census. And who can blame them? As long as Trump is in office, immigrants will be targets for deportation, regardless of status, and the Trump administration has demonstrated repeatedly a willingness to ignore restrictions on misusing and/or sharing confidential information.

How should the Supreme Court decisions be interpreted? In the months and years ahead, the US will experience more partisanship, and as hard as it might be to believe, even more extreme positions by politicians. With the gerrymandering decision in place, politicians must now consider all members of the other party as the enemy if a politician is to survive in the primaries in the gerrymandered districts. Compromise and civility will be surefire paths to losing a primary, which has become the defacto general election.

The gerrymandering decision piled on top of the Citizens United case, should be viewed as the Supreme Court putting another arrow in the Revenge Revolution’s quiver. Given the stupid-is-as-stupid does approach of the Supreme Court combined with the abdication by the McConnell-led Senate Republicans to thwart any illicit and illegal actions by Trump, the only solution to steer this country back to the middle where a government can work for all people seems to be a revolution.

Comments, welcome, as always.  Any, yes, have a happy 4th of July.  Wasn’t there a revolution sometime around then?

#340 Abbott Awards Costello the Presidential Medal of Freedom

23 Sunday Jun 2019

Posted by in Economics, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Stupid Is as Stupid Does, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

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 the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #332.  

Begin Entry #340.  Somewhat buried in this past week’s news was that Bud Abbott awarded Lou Costello the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Well, okay, it wasn’t really Abbott and Costello, but it might as well have been.

The actual players were Donald Trump and Arthur Laffer. If you don’t follow the players in the field of economics, you might not recognize the name Laffer. In the mid-1970s, Arthur Laffer, then working in the Nixon/Ford Administration, but previously a member of the faculty at University of Chicago, outlined for Messrs. Rumsfeld and Cheney (the same two as in the Bush 43 administration) a curve to illustrate the theory that government revenues could be maximized at certain marginal tax rates.

According to Laffer, too high a marginal income tax rate would be a disincentive for people to work and/or invest and tax revenues would fall. If the margin tax rate were too high, then lowering the tax rate would result in the economy expanding with overall tax revenues increasing despite the lower maximum rate.

The Laffer Theory, commonly referenced as the Laffer Curve, was cited as justification for large cuts in tax rates under Presidents Reagan, Bush 43, and Trump. In fairness to Laffer, his theory, which had been discussed earlier by other economists, could be true where a country had exceptionally high tax rates – although too high a tax rate has never been defined – and there was no compelling societal need justifying the higher rates.

Laffer’s Theory should also be considered the foundation for what is known as “trickle-down economics.” However logical Laffer’s theory and “trickle-down economics” might seem, to my knowledge there is no empirical evidence demonstrating the theory is correct.

In the 1950s, for example, maximum marginal income tax rates in the US were 70%. Yet during the 1950’s the labor-force participation rate was very high and the economy was strong. One might argue – and I think fairly – that the very high marginal tax rates were justified by a societal need. The US needed to pay down some of the enormous debt the US incurred during WWII.

More recent tests of Laffer’s theory include the Reagan, Bush 43 and Trump Administrations. What happened to government revenues when the Laffer Curve was used to justify lowering income tax rates in each of those administrations? The economy grew some but income taxes remitted to the Federal government never increased enough to offset the rate cuts. The result was a sharp increase in the Federal debt, both nominally and as a percent of GDP.

The Laffer Theory has been tried in other venues. In 2012 the Republican governor of the State of Kansas, to whom Laffer was an advisor, convinced the legislators to reduce maximum marginal tax rates. The project result, according to Governor Brownback, would be a rapidly growing economy and enough additional revenue to the state to offset the reduced tax rates.

What happened was just the opposite. Like the experience of the Federal government, tax revenues in Kansas plunged. The difference between the State of Kansas and the Federal government is a critical one. Unlike Washington, the State of Kansas is constitutionally required to balance its budget and does not have a Treasury Department that can print money. The only alternative for Kansas was to raise taxes and substantially cut expenditures in such critical areas as education and infrastructure.

Bush 41 called “trickle-down economics” that emanated from the Laffer Curve, “voodoo economics.” The voodoo economics label seems to be widely shared among most well-respected economists, with more than 95% of professional economists rejecting the Laffer Theory.

So why did Laffer receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom? The president has wide discretion in awarding the medal. A recent recipient, for example, was the golfer Tiger Woods.

What struck me as comical was the Administration’s justification for selecting Laffer. The White House press release indicated Arthur Laffer was “…one of the most influential economists in American history.” (Maybe true but “influential” does not equate necessarily to being correct.) Adding to the comedy of the press release were remarks by Trump, who claimed to have studied Arthur Laffer’s theory for many years.

Seriously? Studied for many years? Trump is anything but a student. He’s repeatedly demonstrated an appalling lack of understanding of basics taught in economics 101. While the examples are numerous, a couple of recent economic headscratchers include his claim that tariffs are paid by the country of origin – i.e., tariffs on goods shipped from China are paid by the Chinese. No, Donald, the tariffs are paid by the residents of the receiving country. The receiving country is called the United States and the tariffs are effectively a tax on consumers.

Another head-scratching idea is that world trade must be a zero-sum game; therefore, the US should work toward having a trade surplus with most all, if not all, countries. If that were true, then nearly every country worldwide would make and consume its own products. If I’m not mistaken, Trump’s theory went out millennia ago.   Maybe Trump should study more about such people as say, Marco Polo. Somehow I think Marco Polo was in the international trading business.

What about Trump’s approach to increase US GDP over the long term? Roughly 2/3 of US GDP is driven by consumer consumption. If you don’t increase the number of consumers and/or increase consumption per capita, then GDP is not going to grow and it will gradually decline. As the population ages, consumption per capita decreases and the economy can stall or start to slide — just look at what happened to the Japanese economy beginning in the 1990’s. In the US, the declining birthrate among native-born citizens will result in lower potential GDP growth unless some fundamental changes are made.

One change to help ensure sustained economic growth could be to increase the pool of younger consumers. How does the US expand the pool? The government can’t force families to have more babies. So what about more Immigrants? Wouldn’t more immigrants help offset the declining birth rate?

According to the Trump Administration, the US should not allow more immigrants, especially those entering without visas. Moreover, according to Trump, even the number of legal immigrants should be reduced sharply.

Mmm, this economics game is not so simple. Maybe Trump should have attended economics class more often. Economics seems something like a teeter-totter. Somehow the two sides need to be balanced for the system to work.

What’s the takeaway from this blog entry? Most everyone, well most everyone except Trump’s hardcore supporters, acknowledges Trump is uneducated about many subjects and his decisions are often arbitrary and conflicting.

Maybe the purpose of this entry is allowing me – and I hope some of you – to vent frustration and anger at Trump with his gang of incompetents and enablers. For many years, I’ve studied economics and had jobs where applying economic theory was a key part of a critical decision. In many of those decisions, the financial well-being of numerous families was affected. In my view, and one seemingly shared by many others, Trump’s decisions about lowering income tax rates mostly for the wealthy, efforts to influence the Federal Reserve, restructuring immigration policy could harm significantly the potential for sustained economic growth in the US.

Now, I hope I’ve made the case for why I cringed when Trump awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to someone like Arthur Laffer. I cringed not because of Laffer. He had no hand in this decision. I cringed at the thought of what’s going to be the next incredibly stupid decision made by Trump that will have lasting negative consequences for US citizens.

We should all be concerned, regardless of political party. As for Abbott and Costello, my apologies to them for being drawn into the discussion. Unlike the Trump Administration, even Abbott and Costello figured out who was on first.

Post Entry Update: In the week following publishing Entry #340, Eli Broad (rhymes with road), a multi-billionaire, published an Op-Ed piece in the NYT outlining why taxes on the very wealthy should be raised.  Unlike Trump, Broad views a higher-tax rate for the wealthy as necessary to help begin eliminating the growing economic inequities in the US.  Link to comments, 19 06 26 NYT Eli Broad OpEd re Asking to Raise His Taxes.

Comments welcome, as always. Thanks for your time.

 

 

 

#339 Still Supporting Trump? Quit Claiming to be a Republican.

16 Sunday Jun 2019

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

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 the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  Most recent sense check, Entry #332.  

Current entry — the reason I skipped the blog entry last week was to take time and try to make some kind of sense of actions by Trump and actions, or lack thereof, by Republicans in Congress and elsewhere. By any measure, Trump’s behavior is illogical, inconsistent and illegal.

In fairness to Trump, he’s exhibited this same behavior for many years. While being president has inflated his ego and allowed him to exhibit behavior dangerous to the country, his approach to decision-making and working with others – now as head of government rather than just head of a real estate company – has remained the same as it was in New York. Noting that Trump has not changed his behavior as president does not condone his behavior. Trump continues as he has been for decades – a scumbag crook.

What has changed is the behavior of all but a few Republicans. Proposals and/or actions undertaken during the Obama and Clinton Administrations that Republicans labeled as illegal or even treasonous, are now considered by Republicans as perfectly acceptable under the Trump Administration.

Recall when Trump wanted to lock up Hillary Clinton for a having a personal email server, even though no evidence was found that classified information was compromised? Now the same Republicans who chanted “Lock her up!” think it’s okay when Trump indicates publicly he’d take information on a candidate provided by a foreign entity, even if an enemy of the US. If offered such information, he would not call the FBI. Just in case you’re wondering such behavior is illegal and possibly treasonous. And no, his insincere recant of his statement doesn’t count.

While the list of egregious behavior by Trump, his family and/or members of the Trump Administration is almost endless, what has me the most confused – baffled might be a better term – is why so-called Republicans have been so quick to join Trump and discard long-held positions on free trade, fiscal responsibility, and individual rights. What happened to the Republicans who supported those long-held beliefs?

As noted periodically in this blog, I think many so-called Republicans have been brainwashed by watching too much Fox News and/or listening frequently to Rush Limbaugh. However, if 75% of the former Republicans have been brainwashed, that still leaves 25% who should be able to think. So where is this 25% group that’s not been brainwashed? Who knows because other than a handful, no high-profile Republican seems to be speaking out against Trump.

The malleability of Republicans is dangerous. Putting Trump aside, the US needs two viable political parties to function correctly. Right now we have one party that’s functioning as a party – the Democrats. Then we have a bunch of people supporting a wannabe autocrat, but not functioning as a political party – so-called Republicans.

Let’s consider this comparison. You say, “Look at all of what Trump has done. It’s been great. So don’t get so hung up on his behavior.” If that’s your logic, then ask yourself, “If I were in Germany in the 1930s, would I support Hitler? After all, Hitler helped improve the economy. Forget that he got rid of a few million of those pesky ‘undesirables.’ Overall, things were better for Germany and we should support Hitler.” The question might be a bit of a stretch but many Republicans appear to be as malleable and spineless as many Germans in the 1930s.

Here’s a more straightforward question for people who support Trump and claim to be Republican. Are you a person who believes in long-term Republican values — free trade, fiscal responsibility, individual rights, etc.? Are you willing to discard those core values and support someone who has no ethics, shows no loyalty to others and even shows no loyalty to the United States? If you decide to continue to support Trump, obviously it’s your choice. But if you continue, please stop claiming to be a Republican.

One more item to consider. Please take time to read and think about the meaning of the oath taken by the president of the United States. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Now, go look in the mirror and ask yourself, “Has Trump made every effort to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?”

 

#338 The Human Toll of the Coming Technology Tsunami – Example, Lordstown, OH Plant

01 Saturday Jun 2019

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Education Issues, Societal Issues, Tech Tsunami

≈ Leave a comment

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 the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  With all that’s happened lately in Washington, I wrote a special sense check, Entry #332.  

One of the contributing factors to the Revenge Revolution will be a technology tsunami, which I believe is rapidly headed toward US shores.  Fifteen recent entries addressed various aspects how the tech tsunami might: (i) affect the US economy and family incomes; (ii) be mitigated by taking certain actions.  The series of entries is available as an eBook. This entry is an supplement to the booklet and now included with the booklet.  (Download: 19 06 01 Tech Tsunami Booklet with Supplement)

The impact of the technology tsunami can easily be viewed as an abstract concept, especially if one is not affected directly. For example, you read an article about technology replacing someone’s job. Then the person replaced finds another job, which is fairly easy in today’s labor market. Reader thinks, “What’s the net effect on the person whose original job was replaced by technology? Zero. What’s the net effect on the unemployment rate? Zero. Time to move on to the next article.”

But, hold on, there’s more to this story. What prompted this blog entry was an article in the New York Times about a family whose members had worked at the GM Lordstown, OH plant almost from the opening day of the facility.

The Lordstown plant was built in the mid-1960s, but over the years GM continued to invest and upgrade the facility. What resulted from investments in Lordstown and other plants throughout North America was increased potential capacity with lower labor content per car/truck produced. Thus, more output with fewer employees. (As I wrote in late 2018, although I had no first-hand information, based on my experience inside GM, closing Lordstown, and other plants in North America, seemed justified.)

What happens to workers when a GM plant closes? Depending upon an individual’s seniority and the number of jobs available at other facilities, some laid-off employees might be eligible to transfer to another GM plant. Some laid-off workers at Lordstown met the criteria and have transferred.

What about workers who aren’t eligible to transfer or who don’t want to transfer, which often involves relocation? Some training is available for other types of jobs, which are usually non-automotive and often at lower pay. In addition, some laid-off workers, again depending upon seniority, receive from GM supplemental unemployment benefits for a limited period.

Back to the family featured in the NYT article. If you haven’t read the article, it’s worth a read. (19 05 28 NYT Lordstown Shutdown Employee Impact Examples ) The short version is the father gets out of the military, goes to work at the Lordstown plant soon after it opens. Over time the father becomes a representative of the union. The son, born after the father starts at Lordstown, doesn’t study much in school but is confident he will get a job at the plant, primarily because of his father‘s position with the union.

After completing high school, the son is hired and one of his jobs is prepping cars before final painting. Painting is an areas where the auto industry has installed as much technology as possible over the years to improve the quality and consistency of the finish. The implementation of technology in the paint shop has dramatically reduced employment. At Lordstown plant the number of employees declined from 38 to 4, a decrease of almost 90%. While the decrease in employment in the paint shop is at the high-end, substantial declines in employment from technology have affected body welding, engine machining and other high-precision areas with high labor content.

At the time of closing, the son had worked at Lordstown for 25 years. While no specific age was cited in the article, the son is probably in his mid to late 40s. With his years of service, he’ll be eligible for a modest pension from GM. However, he has at least 20-25 years left before being eligible for Social Security and Medicare.

Where does the son find another middle-class paying job given his limited education and skill level? Another job in the auto industry unless he relocates to another GM plant. Even if he finds an auto job, he runs a high risk of losing it given the continuous implementation of labor-saving technology by the auto companies and suppliers.

The extent of how many jobs in the auto industries (and other industries) are being eliminated by technology goes far beyond the assembly plant, which most people think of. In an earlier blog entry I mentioned an auto supplier in Fort Wayne, IN that bends tubing to make exhaust systems for cars and trucks for many auto OEM’s. If you don’t think there are lots of twists and turns in your vehicle’s exhaust system, next time you see a car or truck up on a service rack, go take a look underneath.

The process of bending tubing might seem straightforward (no pun intended) until one thinks about what happens when a tube is bent. The metal on the “outside” of the bend becomes thinner and the metal on the “inside” of the bend wants to “crinkle.” Bending tubing can be much more complicated than it first appears.

The company that bends the tubes is a perfect example of the impact on employment of the coming technology tsunami. The company incorporates an extraordinary amount of high technology, with a plethora of very sophisticated machines…and very few people staffing those machines. The parking lot of the company is the tell-tale sign of the technology tsunami. The company operates 24×7 with significant daily output, yet has a small parking lot that even during the day when office staff is working, has plenty of empty parking spaces for visitors.

Is this just a story about how one family was affected by a GM plant closing or are there broader implications? If the attitude of the now unemployed son is at all representative, then US society has a growing problem. While the son apparently has not yet come to grips with the long-term implications of the layoff, he is searching for answers to “Why is this happening to me?” “Why, after 25 years of working at this facility, am I getting screwed?”

He’s very frustrated and believes that people in Washington “just don’t get it.” The frustration includes Trump, whom he voted for in 2016, and members of both parties. He’s also frustrated with large corporations, which he thinks suffer no penalty for shuttering plants and relocating operations to say Mexico.

The frustration and anger of the son is understandable. While from a business perspective I think GM is more than justified in closing the Lordstown plant, especially given some of labor problems over the years, the business justification does not eliminate the economic and social issues facing the laid-off workers.

We, as I keep suggesting is the proverbial societal we, need to help this family transition from pissed-off members of society to being productive workers in an ever-increasing technology-laden workplace. As it stands now, even with a small pension and some additional benefits, the son is the kind of guy who is ripe to be part of a Revenge Revolution. For those not familiar with northern Ohio, almost guaranteed he’s got a deer rifle or two and a bunch of ammo. Now, he’s out of a job, has shrinking income, thinks politicians don’t understand the problem, and thinks large corporations are exploiting people and communities. Not a good combination.  (The son is much like the character “Sandy” who appears periodically in the blog entries.)

Without some serious societal effort, the ranks of this group are going to grow. Making America great again does not involve trying to reintroduce high-labor content products or industries from decades past. The implementation of technology to replace humans is going to continue. All types of jobs and skill levels will be affected, from manufacturing to legal to medical. Without a national plan to begin lifetime education for people of all ages, from 6 to 66 (and older), the US is going to face a growing segment of the population which is extremely angry and poses a growing threat to a stable democracy.

Reminder: For more about how the technology tsunami might affect the US economy and culture, and ideas to help mitigate the effects, there’s a free ebook waiting for your download. The book is a compilation of this entry and 15 earlier blog entries about the technology tsunami. Comments welcome. (Download, 19 06 01 Tech Tsunami Booklet with Supplement)

#337 Compartmentalizing Irrational Behavior. Fiction Trumps Truth.

27 Monday May 2019

Posted by in Back Asswards Thinking, Causes of the Revolution, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

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 the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1.

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  With all that’s happened lately in Washington, I wrote a special sense check, Entry #332.  

One of the contributing factors to the Revenge Revolution will be a technology tsunami, which I believe is rapidly headed toward US shores.  Fifteen recent entries addressed various aspects how the tech tsunami might: (i) affect the US economy and family incomes; (ii) be mitigated by taking certain actions.  The series of entries is available as an eBook.  (19 05 19 Tech Tsunami Booklet)

The first draft of this blog entry was an attempt to convince Trumpsters to ask themselves why they continued to support behavior that if exhibited by a Democrat would have caused them to be apoplectic. With each passing month I have become more perplexed why and how Republican thinking switched 180 degrees from categorizing certain behavior as unacceptable in pre-Trump to categorizing the same behavior as acceptable under Trump. What caused the definition of “acceptable behavior” to change? Formerly unacceptable behavior has become the norm with only a whimper of protest from a few Republicans. Why?

The blog entry got delayed because of activities surrounding Memorial Day weekend…fortunately. Why fortunately? There was a fascinating opinion piece in the “Review” section of the 05/26/2019 NY Times, titled, “Why Fiction Trumps Truth” that seemed to explain how some people willingly allow clearly untrue assertions to affect some of their behavior, yet act rationally much of the other time. The article noted that people who compartmentalize seem to accept more readily claims that are truly bizarre and outlandish.

Whether the author’s analysis is completely accurate, I don’t know. I am not a trained psychologist, psychiatrist, psychoanalyst. Some people think I’m just psycho. However, the writer’s premise and support seems plausible and helps me understand what can best be described only as irrational behavior. In previous blog entries, I’ve suggested the cause of such “compartmentalized” behavior by Trump supporters was some form of brainwashing.

Part of the brainwashing could be attributed to such talking heads as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who fill their airtime not with questions and analysis but with declarative statements and claims unsupported by facts. An even more influential source for the brainwashing is Trump, who if nothing else, is a master of making and repeating false statements, offering no context or support for his claims. After a while, people here the lie often enough, they get brainwashed and believe the lie.

While Republicans under Trump seem to have taken the compartmentalizing phenomenon to the extreme, the phenomenon is not unique to Trump supporters or the Republican Party. We are all probably guilty of some degree of “compartmentalizing” irrational behavior, even if such behavior applies only to a favorite sports team.

Please read the opinion piece using the link above. Given the degree of compartmentalization, the question now seems to be, “How does US society get out of this mess?” Other than a catastrophic event, such as a revolution, is there any to convince “compartmentalized” voters, left and right, to come out of the closet, err compartment?

While both parties have voters in such compartments, the degree to which Republicans have begun accepting as normal, behavior that for decades had been considered “highly unacceptable,” is startling and hard to explain. Why do Republicans without any protest whatsoever allow Trump to enable the Attorney General, if he so chooses, to disclose publicly any and all sources of intelligence information, domestic and foreign?

Whether the Attorney General ever discloses the sources doesn’t matter. The damage is already done. The fear by the source of being “outed” will cause most every source to no longer provide information. In many countries, any type of disclosure for a source has a severe negative consequence – imprisonment, torture and possibly death. Trump’s action, which was done purely for political reasons, is a direct threat to national security. And where were protests from Republicans, who claim to be the party of national security? No response!!!!!

Where are all the Republicans who clamored for putting Hillary Clinton in jail for using a non-government server? Where’s the protest Representative Jim Jordan Ohio? Guess you’re not such a tough guy wrestler after all. Trump seems to have you in a choke hold. Where are protests from Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader? Cat got your tongue? Where are Republican supporters of the military when Trump tweets that Russia and North Korea are not really threats?

I’ll tell you where Republicans are. Clamoring for an investigation of the people in the FBI and CIA who found out people in the Trump Campaign were dealing with the Russians before the election. And, no, Trump supporters, there was no attempted coup. First, Trump and supporters should thank James Comey for handing Trump the election with the press conference chastising Hillary Clinton.

But, no, in Trump world everything is backwards. Good is bad and bad is good. Next, go read the Muller Report, not Trump’s or Barr’s misinterpretation. If you still need convincing that Trump just might be acting in violation of US law, look at all the financial information from Trump’s tax returns, phony foundation, money laundering through Deutsche Bank and elsewhere.

Despite overwhelming evidence, Republicans in a classic flip flop compared to demands for say Clinton, insist any financial information not be disclosed. Why? The information would be used for political purposes. Republicans would never do such a thing but Democrats always do. Well then, let’s use this argument. The law requires the IRS to turn over tax returns to specified members of Congress. Using a standard Republican argument about complying with the law, if Trump’s done nothing wrong and has nothing to hide, why not let people view the information who are charged in the Constitution with oversight of the Executive Branch? If you have questions about the House’s authority, please read Article I of the Constitution.

OK, I’ve ranted enough and probably not changed a single Republican’s mind. I do hope, however, that everyone reading the blog (Republicans and Democrats) will at least read the opinion piece in the NYT and step back and ask, “What irrational behavior (fiction) am I ‘compartmentalizing’ and allowing to influence my behavior that I would otherwise consider unacceptable?” Also ask, “How can each of us change behavior to avoid what seems to be the inevitable road to the Revenge Revolution?”

Comments and suggestions welcome. Thanks for your time.

 

#335 Curiouser and Curiouser

13 Monday May 2019

Posted by in Causes of the Revolution, Economics, Education Issues, Societal Issues

≈ Leave a comment

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 the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1. 

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  With all that’s happened lately in Washington, I wrote a special sense check, Entry #332.

Have we, societal we, fallen down the rabbit hole? Have we lost our sense of direction? Have we lost our moral compass?

Over the last couple of months, most entries in this blog have focused on what I’ve characterized (as have others) as the coming technology tsunami. The entries describe the possible significant negative effect on the US economy of the tech tsunami and proposed solutions, the centerpiece of those solutions being more education. Education, however, not just for those currently in school but education for all age groups, even those in their 60’s. Education efforts would also include those who are, or have been unable to learn when taught using more traditional methods.

Many ideas suggested in the blog entries are not new. What’s changed is the urgency created by the oncoming technology tsunami. Like climate change, waiting until the impact is obvious to most everyone is too late. At that point the game for the US economy will be over. The fat lady will have sung…and done an encore. For the doubters, the tech tsunami is not some abstract idea or a tsunami that’s far-off shore. The water at the shoreline has started to recede and the need to take action is now.

Others share this view. Others also share the view that different approaches to education need to be tried. I was heartened by an article in the 05/12/19 New York Times  (19 05 12 NYT Teaching Math Like Football) suggesting math teachers should approach the classroom more like a football coach in the locker room. Hear, hear! Great idea. In grammar school and high-school, I was lucky enough to have a couple of “football-coach” math teachers. They challenged each student and tried to make learning math fun. The football-coach approach could be helpful to many students who do not “get math” taught using traditional approaches.

OK, what about a topic for this entry? When thinking about what to write, what kept running through my head was a simple question, “Why do educated people keep supporting a president whose actions, by US law, are clearly criminal (obstruction of justice and tax evasion are just two) and possibly treasonous?” “How can rational people overlook, let alone support such behavior?” (He even cheats at golf!)

And, the behavior is not sporadic. It’s a continuous stream. What is the latest from the Trumpland? Asking Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer, to go to the Ukraine and ask the Ukrainian president to try to dig up dirt on a family member of a candidate for Democratic nominee for president. Duh, Republican folks, that’s Trump asking yet another foreign country to meddle in a US election. When are Republicans going to wake up and realize where Trump’s allegiance lies? If you don’t know where to start looking, try his bank account.

Trump does not care about any Republicans, let alone members of the hardcore base. Let me repeat Trump does not care about any Republicans, let alone members of the hardcore base.

If you don’t believe me, then what about those tariffs on Chinese exports? Do you believe Trump’s tweets that the Chinese will pay the tab? Even Trump’s economic advisor won’t buy that outrageous claim. No, the tariffs per se might go to the Treasury but the prices of Chinese goods sold in the US will increase by the amount of the tariffs…and possibly more. And, yes, you get to pay for the tariff. Yet another economics class Trump skipped while in college.

“Hold on,” you say, “Chinese jobs making all those goods will come back to America. Trump is actually creating jobs. Trump is saving America! Wake up liberals.”

Okay, a few jobs might come back, but only a few. But how many more other jobs will be lost with China’s retaliatory tariffs on American exports (imports to the Chinese).

But then you say, “Didn’t Trump save thousands of jobs when he negotiated to have GM sell the Lordstown, OH plant to that other company? You know that Workhorse company?” Sorry to inform you, the answer again is “no.” Workhorse buying the Lordstown assembly plant (not a done deal as of this entry’s publication) created no net new jobs. Workhorse was merely looking for a facility to assemble a proposed electric-powered truck.

And the list of misconceptions, misunderstanding, sheer blindness by Republicans continues on and on and on. Even the Energizer Bunny is starting to get tired. The lack of a modicum of thinking by Republicans makes their behavior curiouser and curiouser. What’s the value to Republicans of supporting Trump? Trump’s in the White House for cash. What do Republicans get out of the deal?

When I hear a Republican gloat about supporting Trump, I ask a very simple question. ”Assume all the same policies, economic conditions, cabinet appointments, relationships with foreign countries, tweets, known lies, etc. Now assume Trump is not a Republican but a Democrat. Would you still be supporting Trump and/or be opposed to the investigation by the various committees in the House?” Count how many current Trump supporters say “Yes they would continue to support Trump if he were a Democrat.” If you can count more than a handful, let me know.

To be fair, you should ask some Democrats the same question. “Assume all the same policies, economic conditions, etc., would you still be so anti-Trump?” My guess is a much greater percentage of Democrats would continue to be anti-Trump and especially support the investigations in the House of Representatives.

So why do Republicans support Trump when so many of his policies are reversals of long-held Republican positions? Why have Republicans let Trump hijack their brain? As noted in several earlier blog entries, it seems that many Republicans have been brainwashed.

How can such a large group be brainwashed? If there’s one thing Trump is very good at doing, its manipulating people. Especially vulnerable are those with limited inner strength. Helping Trump with the brainwashing are the Republican talking heads – Limbaugh and Hannity in particular – who fill their air time not with questions and a discussion of possible solutions, but fill their air time with declarative statements of suggested attitudes and behavior. Kim Jung-un probably listens to “Fox News” for ideas how to brainwash North Korean citizens more effectively.

Other recent truly bizarre actions by Trump include declaring that executive privilege can apply retroactively to virtually any discussion of any action taken by anyone in the Trump Administration. Huh? Trump has also told Administration officials to ignore the law. And where are the voices of the righteous Constitutionalists Republican Senators? Save one or two, Republican Senators have contracted laryngitis while also sucking up to Trump.

The willingness to support a rogue and lawless president rather than the Constitution leaves me with only one conclusion. There needs to be a Revenge Revolution in the US in order to rid the country of the Trump cancer and bring the Republicans back to their senses. Let’s hope the 2020 election can accomplish the same thing but I’m not as hopeful.

One might not like the actions or style of certain Democratic leader, or proposed policies of certain Democrat candidates for president. Those disagreements are understandable and part of a democracy. What is not understandable is why Republicans are blaming Democrats for trying to uphold their obligations under the Constitution by investigating criminal behavior and possibly treason of the president, members of the president’s family, members/former cabinet members and people associated with the 2016 campaign.

Just in case you, and maybe Republicans in the Senate, need a reminder of the words contained in the oath for members of the House and Senate, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.” (I can’t find where the oath mandates allegiance to the president, can you?)

#334 Could a Change in Semantics Break the Ideologue Logjam? More about Cost of Preparing for the Tech Tsunami.

05 Sunday May 2019

Posted by in Economics, Education Issues, Gov't Policy, Societal Issues, Tech Tsunami

≈ Leave a comment

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 the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1. 

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  With all that’s happened lately in Washington, I wrote a special sense check, Entry #332.

This week’s Entry continues the series about preparing for the upcoming “technology tsunami” that will have a major impact on the US economy.  The series starts Entry #319. 

Arguments against society-wide programs – healthcare, education, climate change – claim that such programs are too expensive. Taxpayers cannot afford these programs.

There is a kernel of truth to that claim. Such programs have considerable start-up costs and the payback is often a few years out. Sometimes the payback is a decade or two later.

Of course, the idea of having delayed payback does not apply when the same “too expensive” group decides to make business or personal Investments. Nor does the logic apply when this group is evaluating the performance of coaches for favorite college or professional sports teams. Why coaches? Surely everyone knows it takes time to build a solid sports team. Give the coach at least five years to perform and demonstrate his or her worth.

More seriously, the question is, “Is society willing to take the risk of not investing in programs that will have a sustained, if delayed, return on investment? As an example of a similar personal-level decision is whether to delay needed maintenance on your house or car. Delaying can result in some immediate cash savings. However, the decision to delay is a two-edge sword. The repairs are needed and by waiting the severity and cost of repairs likely will be much higher. While delaying maintenance may seem to be a savings in the short-term, the decision to delay is not really savings at all, but additional cost. To paraphrase an old TV commercial, pay me now or pay me more later.

How does “pay me now or pay me more later” apply to the education of people who will be displaced by the technology tsunami? Let’s say the cost of educating those displaced averages $25,000 per person, roughly equal to 2 years cost of tuition, books and fees at a community college and even some state universities. In addition to the cost of education, let’s assume those being retrained receive a salary of about $50,000 per year. For the two years, the total cost for retraining would be about $125,000 per person.

The $125,000 cost per person seems extraordinarily high until one calculates the cost of not retraining. What is the cost not to retrain?

Assume the median age of the person being retrained is 45 years old, which means the person has 20 to 25 years left before retirement. Without retraining for the post technology-tsunami world, the person may be unemployable, and therefore, receive assistance for the next 25 years of his or her working career. In addition, the person would receive some form of assistance for another 10 to 15 years after reaching retirement age. Total time not working and receiving assistance…and not paying taxes? A total of 35-40 years.

If the person receives just $10,000 per year assistance, which is on the very low side, the cost of assistance for a person previously employed but now displaced, would be at least $400,000. Thus, the cost of not retraining is more than 3x the cost of 2-year training – tuition, fees, books and salary of $50,000 per year. Oops, we’re not finished. The person on assistance and not employed, would also not pay income taxes as well no withholding for FICA and no withholding for Medicare.

So which is smarter? Pay now to retrain the person displaced by the technology tsunami or pay more than 3x as much later (constant dollars) to have the person on assistance his or her entire life and never again paying income taxes or contributing to the cost of Social Security or Medicare?

The ROI to retrain workers is positive for workers in their 50’s and even early 60’s when all the costs are included. In addition to society saving money by retraining workers, having an employed workforce with more disposable income will increase consumer consumption, increase overall GDP and with some tweaks, to the tax structure, increase family wealth.

Despite the obvious benefits, for some reason “return on investment” does not yet seem to be part of most discussions about broad social programs, whether the discussion in Washington or in many state capitals. I am always personally baffled why Republicans focus on immediate cost and ignore “return on investment” logic for social programs, yet use the very same ROI logic for personal and/or business investment decisions. Guys, voters are not completely stupid. ROI is a concept that voters can understand.

To break the ideologue logjam, maybe such programs need to be positioned with Republicans as “business Investments” and not “social programs.” To mollify Republican critics of these programs, maybe recipients of the proposed technology-tsunami education program should be required to pay a minimum tax of say 1.0% of gross income per year for up to 10 years following completion of the retraining. The minimum tax would allow Republicans to claim assistance recipients have some “skin in the game.”

Democrats would do well to position technology-tsunami retraining, the Green New Deal, Medicare for all and other ideas, not as social programs, and especially not as “socialist programs,” but position as Investments that will help increase US GDP. Democrats should also agree that every wage-earner has to pay some income tax, even if it’s only $100 per year.

Some of the changes in positioning should be considered more semantic than substantive. However, the changes could allow Republicans and Democrats to claim some type of victory and begin to work more closely together. The changes would also thwart some of the statements by conservative talking heads implying that about half the population pays no tax. These talking heads only state “income tax” and make no mention of people paying sales tax, property taxes, fees and many other related taxes. (FYI, the percentage is remarkably flat by quartile of income paid for all types of taxes.)

Will the rhetoric change and Republicans and Democrats begin working together soon – at least agree to retrain workers to be displaced by the technology tsunami? Maybe start working together before the Revenge Revolution? As long as Trump is controlling the Republican Party, there is no hope. Republicans have demonstrated repeatedly a willingness to prostitute themselves for whatever the Donald demands, however contrary those demands are to long-held Republican principles.

Democrats, however, have a great opportunity for 2020 to begin repositioning arguments that many so-called “socialist programs” are really business Investments with positive ROI.

Should we be hopeful? Let’s see what happens. Stay tuned.

 

 

#333 Preparing for the Technology Tsunami: On-Going Education (12th in Series)

28 Sunday Apr 2019

Posted by in Economics, Education Issues, Societal Issues, Tech Tsunami

≈ Leave a comment

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 the Revenge Revolution, a list of earlier revolutions and the author, Entry #1. 

Periodically I write a “sense check” to assess whether in the next few years, a revolution in the US is still possible or whether the entire exercise is based on a statistical aberration — i.e., a roughly 50-year cycle between major upheavals in the US.  With all that’s happened lately in Washington, I wrote a special sense check, Entry #332.

This week’s Entry continues the series about preparing for the upcoming “technology tsunami” that will have a major impact on the US economy.  The series starts Entry #319. 

The need for on-going education and training of workers is nothing new. Who’s been responsible in the past for such training? Until about the mid-1990’s or early 2000’s, the employing organization seemed to be the principal source of on-going training.

In some cases, employee training was done on the organization’s premises; in other cases, employees were encouraged to attend classes outside. Expenses for such classes usually were reimbursed by the organization. Based on my experience, mostly in manufacturing-based companies, the training seemed to focus on procedures and systems unique to that company.

What has changed within the companies in the last 20-25 years is how machines and support equipment operate. There is ever-growing integration of software programs to help manage all aspects of machine operation, movement of material and the flow of information.

While some features of the software programs might be unique to the organization, the fundamental components of a given software program, or suite of programs, are the same. Understanding the fundamentals of software programs has created two classes of workers:

  1. A group, generally younger, who are now more mobile. Because these workers understand the fundamentals of software, they can carry that knowledge to another organization and not face as steep learning curve, thereby contributing more quickly than workers in the past;
  2. A group, generally older, who were trained in the organization’s approach before many software programs were integrated into daily operations. These workers become far less mobile and, despite their experience, less valuable to the existing organization. The “reduced-value” phenomenon applies to both blue-collar and white-collar workers. Unfortunately, some of these “reduced-value” workers have 25 to 30 years remaining before retirement. This group will be the most negatively affected by the technology tsunami.

What does society do with existing “reduced-value” workers…and ideally implement plans to minimize the number of such workers in the future? Back to school! But, can you really teach an old dog, or a middle-age dog, new tricks?

The stumbling block for many of these workers seems to be never having learned basic math. While one does not need to know calculus to understand how to use computer programs effectively, one does need to know basic algebra. Programs are basically built are conditional statements – if A, then B, etc. Understanding the approach applies not only to Excel-type programs but word-processing programs as well.

What about people who just don’t “get” math, even basic addition and subtraction taught in grammar school? Obviously, not everyone learns the same way and not everyone is skilled at every subject. However, my guess is at least half the people who claim “not to get math” would “get it” if math were taught in a way more understandable to them.

Without having completed any formal research, I’ll bet there are at least three approaches used to teaching math. And one of those approaches probably will work on most people. So, for the “I-don’t-get-math” group, let’s take away the stigma of not understanding the traditional approach to teaching math, and try using the other approaches. Just visualize the smiles on faces when “I-don’t-get-math” students move to the “I-get-math” category.

Will all these students become math wizards? No, but once the basics are understood, we…societal we…might be shocked at how many in this group progress to basic algebra, and beyond.

What about people who despite different approaches to teaching, never “get” math? How do we prepare them for the tech tsunami? Or, what if someone just doesn’t want to learn?

A certain percentage of people won’t learn, and the consequences are the same whether one is unable to learn or chooses not to learn. The consequences in all likelihood will be a lower-paying service-type job. For those who try, but can’t learn, unfortunately the consequence are the same.

Any time society has been disrupted by technology — printing presses replacing scribes, machinery replacing farm hands, robots replacing assembly workers…and other examples – some people are left behind economically. While a society-funded safety net can provide some assistance, a large percentage of people in this category will fall several rungs on the economic ladder.

OK, you say, I’ll buy the argument that we should be training more workers for the tech tsunami. But who should pay for the training, much of which seems to be remedial? Why should taxpayers pay for the bill and let the companies off the hook? Shouldn’t companies that are laying off workers have an obligation to retrain these workers?

If one looks at other countries for guidance, many industrialized countries, especially in Europe, have laws that penalize, or even prevent companies from relocating or arbitrarily dismissing employees. The US has no such laws. As a result, companies are not penalized for relocating and leaving behind infrastructure installed specifically to help the company and/or leaving behind a loyal workforce with some skills that need updating.

In many states, North Carolina and South Carolina are but two examples, “economic development” is defined primarily as enticing other companies to relocate operations from the Midwest or Northeast to North Carolina or South Carolina. Incentives thrown at companies to relocate border on the ridiculous, but almost always include taxpayer-funded training for employees.

Yet the same “economic development” efforts often ignore, or even discourage, albeit possibly inadvertently, entrepreneurs from starting companies or offering no meaningful incentives to smaller company businesses trying to expand. If any incentives are offered to entrepreneurs, the “incentives” often consist of an “opportunity” to locate in some rehabbed building at a lower rent. While the reduced rent is nice public-relations strategy for politicians, most start-up businesses are starved for capital and capable key executives.

In the near-term, laws preventing companies from relocating and/or laws preventing states or cities from offering incentives for relocation are not likely to be implemented. Even if passed, there likely would be a drawn-out court challenge. A more effective approach to encourage existing companies to stay put might be to help the company analyze costs and determine if updating skills of employees and implementing other cost-reduction systems might be more effective than relocating, especially relocating operations outside the US.

Encouraging companies to stay put and retrain workers gain momentum in the next few years, especially as the technology tsunami becomes more apparent. While the US 2020 presidential election is 18 months away, many Democratic candidates seem to be discussing how to help rebuild the American middle class by leveraging new technology rather than the Trump approach of propping up industries on the decline – coal, e.g.

Programs to help update skills of existing workers could be very “hands-on,” akin to how many infrastructure projects were initiated in the 1930’s under New Deal WPA. Such national WPA-like programs are even more likely after the technology tsunami hits and/or after the country experiences the Revenge Revolution.

Programs to help mitigate the technology tsunami, programs to implement the evolving Green New Deal and other such ideas present a great opportunity for the US to create sustained economic growth. Sustained economic growth, however, can only be achieved with a high labor-force participation rate…and a high participation rate in a technology-tsunami world can be achieved only with an educated workforce.