How Come No Jobs And High Prices?

       I was reading Mother Jones just now and a comment on one of the articles got me to thinking. I know, that's hard to believe, but it's true. There are lots of reasons why jobs remain scarce in America. Like outsourcing and shipping jobs overseas and mechanization. But here's one I hadn't thought of  before. And it's just as true as can be.
       For the last few decades, there have been so many mergers of companies in America it's hard to keep track. In fact for the average person who follows that stuff, it's almost impossible. Just imagine how hard it is for the rest of us. So what? So every time companies merge it means fewer jobs. Simple, cost savings is one of the main reasons for mergers. The more mergers, the fewer jobs.
      But it means more than just that. It means less competition. Less competition means higher prices. And it means lower wages for the employees and much higher compensation for management, especially CEOs. With less competition there's little reason to keep prices low. It also means fewer job opportunities for employees to consider. Then by keeping wages low for workers, CEOs can demand more and higher compensation.
       So who's fault is it? Corporations are always looking for ways to enhance their bottom line. That's just smart business. CEO's love it because they make out great even if they lose their jobs because of golden parachutes. What's not to love about that? Workers don't get a say. They aren't considered in the plan at all. The only one left to stop these marches to consolidation is the government. It is government's job after all.
       But for the last few decades, government has pretty much sat back and watched the changes take place without lifting a hand. In fact it's big news when a merger is stopped by the government. Why? Where do you think the money comes from to run campaigns? It comes from the giant companies that do the merging? Nobody bites the hand that feeds them, unless they have a desire to get out of politics. How many politicians do you know that have that death wish? Most would have trouble doing an honest day's work.

Are You Satisfied With This Blog Entry?

       When's the last time you had cause to use your insurance coverage? Or how about someone else's insurance coverage? Or how about buying a car or almost anything larger than a loaf of bread? My car got rear ended and since it was the other guy's fault, his insurance paid for it. No hassle, which was the good part. But starting with the guy who looked the car over to the guy who told me how much they'd pay and where I could get a rental car, even the woman at the rental agency. To a man (and woman), they all finished up the conversation by asking "Were you satisfied with the service I provided today?"
       What if I hadn't been satisfied? Or they said "Did I answer your question satisfactorily?" What if I wasn't satisfied? Then there's the questionnaire they send you, or the survey. Do you answer the survey questions honestly? What if you think they should get a two in a one to ten question, one being very unfavorable and ten being extremely favorable? Or what if you're hoping for a better rate on your insurance if you say eleven? Sorry. It doesn't work that way. Trust me on this.
       Here's the thing, when the representative asked me if I was satisfied with the service rendered, they first begin the conversation by warning me that it may be recorded. So if they recorded  the conversation, can't they just write my answer down? Or is the survey a test to see if I remember what I said to the representative?
       If I remember what I said, most likely I was displeased and said so. If I can't remember, I'm sure it's because I was satisfied. Chances are I've never been TEN satisfied. Usually I'm about SIX satisfied if I'm satisfied at all. To be TEN satisfied, they'd have had to detail my car and given me a back rub and maybe a three day vacation at a nearby resort, all expenses paid. Then they might get that TEN, or maybe an eleven if she was cute.
       The thing is, everybody is asking the same dumb question. You can bet they have the question printed out in one inch high letters on the wall over their desk. I'll bet there's a wire from the phone to their seat. If they don't ask the question they get a cattle prod shock. I'm afraid that one of these days, I'll use a public rest room and a recording will come on as I'm washing my hands "Were you satisfied with the service we provided today?" That's where I draw the line.

What's A 501(C)4 Anyway?

       I don't know whether you agree with what the IRS did or didn't do or not, but it has come to light that they did do something very wrong, some time ago. Back when Congress passed the law that provided for 501(C)4 social welfare organizations, the law stated that such organizations must be exclusively social welfare groups. But the IRS decided instead to require that these organizations should be primarily focused on social welfare.
       Now you may not think so, but there's quite a big difference between exclusive and primarily. A lot of political groups realized this difference early on after the Supreme Court decided to let any corporation or extra wealthy person to spend as much as they want on elections. They realized something else. They realized they could create one of these 501(C)4 tax exempt organizations, keep the donors names under wraps and spend like crazy on political ads.
       See they can claim what they're doing is, what? Well they say it's social welfare, but what social group are they talking about? Social circles are different ya know. Now to be honest, you and I could donate as much as we want too. It would just have to be to one of these 501(C)4 groups. But all you and I could afford wouldn't buy much air time on TV. And it surely wouldn't be enough to influence one of these multimillion dollar groups, unless you've got a whole lot more than I know about.
       Well, anyway, along comes Rep. Chris Van Hollen from Maryland to sue the IRS for not adhering to the law's wording. He wants the IRS to follow the law and not make up it's own law. I think that's a pretty good idea. I've got two reasons for agreeing. First, if I decided to change the wording of a law to suit myself, I'd get arrested. Secondly it would cut out a lot of these bitter attack ads or at least let us know who's paying for them. I'll guarantee a lot of donors, especially corporations that like to do business with folks of both parties, would stop paying for these ads.
       Now there's a downside to this law suit. If the suit is successful, some groups who actually do some social welfare good, along with their political work, mostly as an incidental, might not be there to do those good works. Not many, mind you, but some. That's because very few of these organizations do any good at all for anyone but themselves.

Close Your Eyes To Vote.

       Can you imagine that? There have been 7200 gun deaths since Sandy Hook in Newtown Ct. Yes, 7200 deaths involving guns. Now certainly, not all those shootings involved mass murderers in elementary schools. In fact I don't think there has been more than a very few such tragedies. Yet. But, you and I know it's just a matter of time. I also know that all those deaths weren't intended. The figure includes accidents and justified shootings, like police killing in a gunfight. But 7200.
       That's a remarkable number for Americans to have to put up with. Of course we don't have to put up with that number. We just seem to be willing to put up with that kind of carnage. Now if you disagree that we're willing to put up with that many, then why are we allowing it. See here, I'm not suggesting we outlaw guns or anything like that. I'm a gun owner. And the Constitution states I have the right to own guns. But the Constitution also says gun ownership can be regulated. If you don't agree, then you actually need to read it.
       Of course you won't hear the NRA make that statement. They have other interests. Like supporting the business of the gun manufacturers and their bottom line. They don't seem to care how many people get killed. So long as they continue to increase their profits and, of course, they're not one of the unfortunates.
       But what about us? How important to you are the profits of the gun manufacturers? How important are those 7200, or those 26 at Sandy Hook? We're not asking for a lot. We're not asking for anyone's guns. What we're asking for is to begin to help get the guns out of the hands of those who shouldn't have gotten them in the first place. And then keep them out of those hands. Why is that such a terrible thing to ask? I'll bet if you were staring down the barrel of a gun, you'd want those guns collected. So when it comes time to vote, close your eyes and pretend it's happening to you. Then pick a candidate who thinks like you.

Don't Tax Money. Tax The Poor.

       I've got an acquaintance who thinks that everyone should pay taxes. Even the poorest should pay something. No more free rides. All taxes should be based on payroll. A wage tax, in other words. The government should get out of the business of charity, is another idea he has that fits right along with his tax plan. And I guess on the face of it, it makes sense. Charities should support the needy and government should get out of their way.
       He thinks that investment money is money we've already paid taxes on and therefore we shouldn't have to pay more taxes on top of that, on the same money. You'll have difficulty finding a rich person who disagrees with that thinking. A few, but not many. That's because the wealthy get a very small portion of their income, if any, from payroll. Most of their income comes from investments. Income from the money they already paid taxes on sometime in the past. No taxes on money, just people.
       First lets look at the tax idea. If you only collect tax on working people, you would be cutting taxes by something over a third. That means a third less for government to use to run the government. So how do you save a third? Cut all entitlements out? But entitlements are a small portion of the budget unless you include Social Security and Medicare. If you eliminate them, you throw millions of people under the bus. Without them the savings become far too small to cover the lost revenue. Even eliminating all subsidies, you won't make up for the loss. Meanwhile the rich will be getting a free ride. Most wealthy folks really don't have to work at all to live quite comfortably.
       Then there's the charity business. It hasn't been all that many years since government stepped into the charity business. I can remember, as a youth, seeing beggars on the steps of the local county courthouse. Sitting there with a tin cup out, hoping someone would throw some coins in it for them. I wondered at the time why these folks didn't get jobs instead of begging. Later I came to realize they couldn't find work because we were still in the depression, or that they just weren't able to find work because of their lack of needed skills. Some were physically unable to work. Private charity was unable to meet the needs of so many people in this country with so many needs. That's why government stepped in to help in the first place. So do you think we can trade the rich for the poor and still come out with enough to run a government?

What A Difference A Dollar Makes.

       There's a great article in the Washington Post this morning about why mobility in America is among the lowest of any rich nation. It explains that, for one thing, spending on education is so lopsided. Wealthier students have an average of $9000 per year spent on them, while poor students have an average of less than $1300 spent on their education. In America.
       Now I know that many people will claim this is untrue, but consider that most of K-12 educational spending comes from local real estate taxes. Poor neighborhoods are obviously taxed lower because of the lower value of the real estate. Of course if you feel this is 'only fair', then you must accept that poor children won't be getting the best schools or supplies or equipment and the best teachers likely won't be teaching them.
       Under those circumstances and coupled with less help from families struggling to survive, most of these children are destined to remain poor. So what's the point? The point is that if you don't like having all these people on the public doll, then start making sure the children of these people get a better start, improved educational opportunities, better funding for their schools.
       The suggestion that more money won't provide a better education is completely disproved by these statistics. The proof that more money does mean better education is right in front of our faces. Check out the alumnae of schools in upper class school districts and the average spent on those students, at school and at home, and what's spent on school districts in poor communities. Then check the success rates of those alumnae from the two different districts.
       Who cares? Both you and I should care. Both of us should demand that poorer schools are improved to the level of those provided by wealthy districts. Why? Because we really don't want anyone on welfare, whether for selfish reasons or equality. If every student had the same opportunities to learn, including improved home life through healthcare, nutrition, and access to learning advantages, there would be far fewer people on those food stamps so many people complain about.

We'll Always Have This Argument.

       Here's the argument and the rational behind it. If you're accustomed to earning $20,000 or $50,000 or 100 or 500 or even more and somebody tells you that you have to make less, you're not gonna like it. And it doesn't matter whether it's wages or profits or stock returns or anything else. And if you're in a position to do anything about it, you're gonna do that and stop it from happening.
       So when the government tells business it has to pay for health insurance for it's full time employees, business is gonna make it's full time employees part time employees. Because business doesn't want to give up the profits it's accustomed to. That's pretty straight forward and understandable. Nobody wants to earn less. Not Even The Employees.
       But ya know what? We'd be having this same argument, even if we were talking about an increase to minimum wage. In fact that argument is ongoing. On the other hand, and from the perspective of the employee, if the management and ownership can afford health insurance, why shouldn't employees be able to afford such insurance? And what about wages? If management can get whopping increases in income, why shouldn't employees get at least a living wage?
       I understand why a company feels it's management is worth more than it's employees, but why is it they think management is worth hundreds upon hundreds of times what it's employees are worth? How many companies have tried to get the product out the door without the employees? If the efforts of one person has value, then that value should be worth a living wage. If that person works half time then they should make living wages for the half time he or she works.
       Now, I understand that many companies are gonna take a hit on this issue. Some will be forced to downsized, some can increase the price of the product, some will grow and some will be forced out of business. But ya know what? The ones who are forced out of business obviously didn't have a management team that was up to the task. They shouldn't have been making what they were making in the first place. That's what they call capitalism. Capitalism isn't the science of forcing people to live on substandard wages without healthcare. At least not if it's capitalism for everyone. And the law doesn't say "capitalism is only for the chosen few."