Many in the news media have readily compared the current economic situation to WWII, commenting on the deficit spending, the national debt, the unity that needs to pull the country together. The initial reaction is that a worthy analogy has been proffered. Until, that is, we realize that people aren't dying by the thousands.
The tendency to compare our economic woes to events in history is a fine exercise, and ought to take place so that we can learn to "not rewrite history." Comparing it to one of American history's most devastatingly tragic wars, however, is stepping beyond what is acceptable. To compare portfolios to people not only offers little true comparative value (by what measures can you compare such estranged variables?), it also demeans the value of a life to dissatisfaction with quality of living, to not having the most enjoyable job, to not being able to buy a new television. To me, setting TVs and ethos on the same footing is dastardly distortion of our analytical ability.
Recently I have read too many articles and news stories that relate life with living standard. Perhaps this is due to the dying off of the generation that could easily make an unequivocal distinction between the two. If that is the case, I fear what further hijackings of history and distortions of morality will surface as we move progressively away from experiences of real danger, and start equating (illogically) commercial woes with issues of life and death, making ourselves both foolish for doing so and negligent of reflective ability regarding true tragedies of our history. The future will tell the outcome, if only it can remember where it has been.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
Unions are like gum: bubbles are fun to blow, but messy when popped
Ok, so, here's the deal. Today I read a story in the Washington Examiner, a daily I get handed at the metro station in the morning. It presents an issue that has begun to gain air time in the media, regarding the unions. Though the days of Jimmy Hoffa are in the past, and the Internet and other advocacy means are readily more available and effective than old style union organization, fading unions are on the move again, using more of their member's shrinking reserves to enlist new ranks of workers. The AFL-CIO (probably the most prominent union posterboy) has announce its gameplan outright: to grow their numbers in order to save the pensions of their retirees.
The heart of the new recruitment initiative is to emphasize the things a union can do for an aspiring young worker. One such thing is the removal of the secret-ballot system, which allows union members to cast vote without being watched or tracked. (This is the system we use in national elections, under the pretext that if you don't risk social derision for your heartfelt convictions, you are more likely to voice your actual opinion, resulting in elections that are more honest and reflective of society's values.) The rationale behind removing the secret-ballot system in the unions is that it will grease the wheels of the feedback mechanism, allowing more focus to be placed where organized voice is needed. i.e. identifying and deriding views unaligned with the unions' demands of higher pay, better benefits, and daily pats on the back by business owners.
The problem with this idea, though, is that it simply reimposes the organised body of power which unions were originally formed to dissolve. It provides access to a coercive force, with which it is more able to force business to capitulate to its demands. There is, however, a seed of hope planted in this issue, though a passive sense of hope. In order to provide the persuasive power necessary to lure new members, the unions have to offer benefits to the prospective members that will tip the scales in their direction, offering a loaded benefits packages along with promises of greater future payout. This they must do without causing an uproar among existing members, upset by the fact that their tenure has not afforded them the leverage of power.
The sobering point of that seed of hope, is that it may never take root and grow into anything more than a sapling, due to the predatory nature of unions, aiming to choke out any opposition. And the way this will happen, is in the form of another economic bubble. Even though people generally know that a bubble is bad, they are self-interested enough to also understand that if they can concentrate the benefits for themselves from the costs dispersed on others, they may end up with more than they started. (This idea is only possible 'ceteris paribus,' as all other things are held constant, which, in a dynamic social economy, is never the case.)
That is to say, though there may be a way that the unions can actually pull this off, which will take the orchestration of a ponzi scheme rivaling that of Bernie Madoff (or the Social Security program), it will come at the cost of huge loss in productivity and bloating of an already sagging economy. Only so many people can try to get more at the expense of others for so long; when it all catches up, it will spell disaster. That logic hasn't stopped that trend over the past few generations, so it may not stop in for a while still. One thing is for sure, though, eventually things will equalize, the GIANT bubble will pop. I, for one, don't want to be around when it does, even if I'll be able to say, "See, I told you so."
Often, there is little satisfaction in being right, when it comes at the price of lots of other people getting screwed, which is exactly what would happen to all the new union enlistees of my generation who are now promised soft clouds and lolly-pops for their retirement but who will receive, at best, steal bedframes and stale bread from all the dues they'd be paying. But we know what will ultimately happen if that many people simultaneously have the wool pulled over their eyes and the rug pulled from under their feet; they will come running/crawling/clamoring to government with the matter-of-fact air that says, "how could we have known? You GOTTA help us out!" And that will precipitously build an even bigger bubble on top of the bubble unions are currently aiming to develop, which is on top of the old generation's existing bubble. And from my days of BubbleYum as a kid, bubbles on bubbles on bubbles are not sustainable; you only end up with a sticky mess in your hair and a buzz cut to come!
The heart of the new recruitment initiative is to emphasize the things a union can do for an aspiring young worker. One such thing is the removal of the secret-ballot system, which allows union members to cast vote without being watched or tracked. (This is the system we use in national elections, under the pretext that if you don't risk social derision for your heartfelt convictions, you are more likely to voice your actual opinion, resulting in elections that are more honest and reflective of society's values.) The rationale behind removing the secret-ballot system in the unions is that it will grease the wheels of the feedback mechanism, allowing more focus to be placed where organized voice is needed. i.e. identifying and deriding views unaligned with the unions' demands of higher pay, better benefits, and daily pats on the back by business owners.
The problem with this idea, though, is that it simply reimposes the organised body of power which unions were originally formed to dissolve. It provides access to a coercive force, with which it is more able to force business to capitulate to its demands. There is, however, a seed of hope planted in this issue, though a passive sense of hope. In order to provide the persuasive power necessary to lure new members, the unions have to offer benefits to the prospective members that will tip the scales in their direction, offering a loaded benefits packages along with promises of greater future payout. This they must do without causing an uproar among existing members, upset by the fact that their tenure has not afforded them the leverage of power.
The sobering point of that seed of hope, is that it may never take root and grow into anything more than a sapling, due to the predatory nature of unions, aiming to choke out any opposition. And the way this will happen, is in the form of another economic bubble. Even though people generally know that a bubble is bad, they are self-interested enough to also understand that if they can concentrate the benefits for themselves from the costs dispersed on others, they may end up with more than they started. (This idea is only possible 'ceteris paribus,' as all other things are held constant, which, in a dynamic social economy, is never the case.)
That is to say, though there may be a way that the unions can actually pull this off, which will take the orchestration of a ponzi scheme rivaling that of Bernie Madoff (or the Social Security program), it will come at the cost of huge loss in productivity and bloating of an already sagging economy. Only so many people can try to get more at the expense of others for so long; when it all catches up, it will spell disaster. That logic hasn't stopped that trend over the past few generations, so it may not stop in for a while still. One thing is for sure, though, eventually things will equalize, the GIANT bubble will pop. I, for one, don't want to be around when it does, even if I'll be able to say, "See, I told you so."
Often, there is little satisfaction in being right, when it comes at the price of lots of other people getting screwed, which is exactly what would happen to all the new union enlistees of my generation who are now promised soft clouds and lolly-pops for their retirement but who will receive, at best, steal bedframes and stale bread from all the dues they'd be paying. But we know what will ultimately happen if that many people simultaneously have the wool pulled over their eyes and the rug pulled from under their feet; they will come running/crawling/clamoring to government with the matter-of-fact air that says, "how could we have known? You GOTTA help us out!" And that will precipitously build an even bigger bubble on top of the bubble unions are currently aiming to develop, which is on top of the old generation's existing bubble. And from my days of BubbleYum as a kid, bubbles on bubbles on bubbles are not sustainable; you only end up with a sticky mess in your hair and a buzz cut to come!
Saturday, August 8, 2009
from State of Fear to state of purpose
So I guess a pretty good way to a new beginning is a new end... I have always been inspired to write my thoughts; quite a nice resource for flushing out thoughts, clarifying my own ideals while potentially inspiring others, or at least providing some form of optional entertainment. The problem is that it is hard to organize life under any particular organized structure. So from here forth on this page I dedicate my musings to an eclectic composition of various thought processes that have no other concrete theme than a curiosity for life, and the reflections sunsequently following from satisfying such an inclination.
Now regarding the "new end" that I mentioned above... I just finished reading Michael Crichton's book, 'State of Fear.' It is quite a good book, filled with a mix of storying telling and established facts. I think that's why I like Crichton's work. He combines actual points in his work, which makes his books more not less enjoyable.
State of Fear discusses many issues concerning social enfatuation with environmentalism. The story follows a few people who are basically pawns in a game played by envioronmental activists trying to create more catastrophes to draw attention to their cause and others (from a definite social minority) trying to protect those who would be harmed by such unnatural "natural" disasters. Somewhere in the middle the pawns discover the intricacies of the issues that are presented in society as plain facts.
Crichton weaves hard science with the arguments he presents in the book, by both sides of the issue. It comes out even more clearly in the 'Author's Message' section at the end of the book; he wants people to check out the information on their own, and come to their own conclusions. That, I proffer, is the best way to win an argument, and a fantastic way to present a book.
The difficult thing about learning so much about things that typically fall beneath the social radar is that I feel I'm becoming more and more of a minority. Now, this is not some egotystical opinion that sets me above the rest, but simply a distinction - just as a doctor or pilot or movie editor or any other specialized profession develops a sort of knowledge that generally falls unstimulated in common conversation. (It wouldn't suit a movie editor very well to watch a movie with his or her friends and comment about the effects that were used to make the unreal appear real; it'd ruin the experience for everyone else, so he or she simply has to repress the knowledge, or at least the articulation of that knowledge.) That's how I feel the more I read, the more I work in the research community, the more I maintain an undefinied path in life. It's annoying, it's enjoyable, it's costly, and it's rewarding.
In fact, the more I think about it (and this thought came us only as I was writing this), Michael Crichton, now dead and unable to appreciate the utility I draw from reading his works, stands as a fairly stark example of a man in the same vein to which I was just reflecting. From his days as med student, to his decision to go to hollywood instead of the opperating room, to his affinity for the uncommon, unliked and opposed take on social issues, he was his own man, to the very end. So perhaps the value of such a life choice comes not explicitly but intrinsically through the course of exposure to one's ideas. Just as I gained from Crichton's work without his knowledge (somehow I don't think the %1.75 I paid at the used bookstore will trickle back to him in any way), the purpose he had in writing it may continue through the perspective I recieved and have the potential to further promote. Yet another example of the value of the cliched phrase "pay it forward," or the "favor bank" that is referred to by Tom Palmer at the Cato Institute.
Now regarding the "new end" that I mentioned above... I just finished reading Michael Crichton's book, 'State of Fear.' It is quite a good book, filled with a mix of storying telling and established facts. I think that's why I like Crichton's work. He combines actual points in his work, which makes his books more not less enjoyable.
State of Fear discusses many issues concerning social enfatuation with environmentalism. The story follows a few people who are basically pawns in a game played by envioronmental activists trying to create more catastrophes to draw attention to their cause and others (from a definite social minority) trying to protect those who would be harmed by such unnatural "natural" disasters. Somewhere in the middle the pawns discover the intricacies of the issues that are presented in society as plain facts.
Crichton weaves hard science with the arguments he presents in the book, by both sides of the issue. It comes out even more clearly in the 'Author's Message' section at the end of the book; he wants people to check out the information on their own, and come to their own conclusions. That, I proffer, is the best way to win an argument, and a fantastic way to present a book.
The difficult thing about learning so much about things that typically fall beneath the social radar is that I feel I'm becoming more and more of a minority. Now, this is not some egotystical opinion that sets me above the rest, but simply a distinction - just as a doctor or pilot or movie editor or any other specialized profession develops a sort of knowledge that generally falls unstimulated in common conversation. (It wouldn't suit a movie editor very well to watch a movie with his or her friends and comment about the effects that were used to make the unreal appear real; it'd ruin the experience for everyone else, so he or she simply has to repress the knowledge, or at least the articulation of that knowledge.) That's how I feel the more I read, the more I work in the research community, the more I maintain an undefinied path in life. It's annoying, it's enjoyable, it's costly, and it's rewarding.
In fact, the more I think about it (and this thought came us only as I was writing this), Michael Crichton, now dead and unable to appreciate the utility I draw from reading his works, stands as a fairly stark example of a man in the same vein to which I was just reflecting. From his days as med student, to his decision to go to hollywood instead of the opperating room, to his affinity for the uncommon, unliked and opposed take on social issues, he was his own man, to the very end. So perhaps the value of such a life choice comes not explicitly but intrinsically through the course of exposure to one's ideas. Just as I gained from Crichton's work without his knowledge (somehow I don't think the %1.75 I paid at the used bookstore will trickle back to him in any way), the purpose he had in writing it may continue through the perspective I recieved and have the potential to further promote. Yet another example of the value of the cliched phrase "pay it forward," or the "favor bank" that is referred to by Tom Palmer at the Cato Institute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
