Requiring Paid Sick Leave - Republicans have some valid points - but...

Last year California enacted legislation that requires every employer in the State, even little guys like me with just a couple employees, to provide a couple days of paid sick leave to employees each year (it takes effect July 1).

The Democrats who pushed it through argued how hard it was for employees to balance family and health needs with jobs, that people couldn't afford to take time off to go to the Doctor, or could get fired for taking a sick kid to emergency.  Working people problems, some perhaps overblown, but still real issues.

Republicans argued vociferously that this bill would be a job killer, that it would make California less competitive with other states, that it would drive employers out of the state.  

Republicans are right, all that will happen to some degree.  When I look at my business balance sheet it is a problem to build in that extra cost.

But, for me, Republican policies of the last 30 years are the reason we have a poor solution to the problem rather than a better solution and they offer no alternative to the not very good Democratic solution but the status quo.

The biggest problem facing our economy is inequality.  Ever since Republicans took control of the economic agenda in the early 1980's our government has been about cutting taxes on the wealthy, cutting the power of labor unions and cutting regulation on business.   The end result has been a rise in income inequality over the last 30 years to the point a very small percentage of people own most of the wealth in this country.

Rich people don't really buy that much.  Sure they have to do something with their money, so they buy and sell art, and houses and expensive cars, and stocks and sell businesses back and forth, for ever increasing prices.  So they drive up the price of investable assets.  But it is regular people that don't have all they need that really drive a consumer economy.   After 30 years of trickle down economics, regular people just don't have that much money to spend.  It was all masqueraded in the late 1990's and early 2000 because people were borrowing against their home equity to spend for things they couldn't actually afford, and some are doing that again, but that path is not sustainable.

So each year the economists tell us this is the year the economy is finally going to turn around, but then it doesn't.  Because all the wealth in this country is in the hands of people who have no real need for consumer products, so there is no increasing demand to feed business growth. 

As a country our economy has continued to grind forward because of debt financed spending coupled with the fact we still can sell stuff to other countries, so big international businesses have been doing fine, but smaller businesses and main street businesses are shriveling up and disappearing.  New business starts ups are at the lowest point in decades because there isn't consumer demand to support a new business.  (Unless you are a tech start-up aiming at a world wide consumer base)

But Republicans are still believers that trickle down economics is the answer.   On California's sick pay law the only alternative the Republican opposition would offer was tax breaks to businesses to make it economically beneficial to provide sick leave.  Basicly their solution was to use public funds to buy cooperation from business by helping their bottom line.  

That's the Republican way these days.  There is always political hay to be made in criticizing what the other guy is doing, and lots of pitfalls in actually proposing things and opening yourself up to criticism.  But lately Republicans seem to feel like once they have figured out a way to criticize their job is done.  They just want to maintain the status quo.  If powerful business interests want to pay people peanuts so they can take home millions of dollars a year, well, we should thank them for creating jobs. 

Slaveholders on the plantations in the south created a lot of jobs but eventually we figured out there was something morally repugnant about their business model.

Sure our current system is vastly better than the slave economy of the south, but we are still stuck in that historical philosophical rut where we fail to address the fact many of the people most driven to acquire wealth are most interested in relative wealth, not absolute wealth.  They want to set themselves apart by being way richer and more powerful than everyone else.  So if their activities make most folks poorer, even if they also end up somewhat poorer in the long run, they are even more rich in comparison.  Greater equality is exactly what they don't want.  (There are psychological studies to support this notion by the way). 

Economic data, and simple common sense, suggests that the way to sustain long term economic growth in a free market is by setting rules that spread the wealth broadly across society.  When we allow wealth to concentrate new ideas and youthful energy tend to stagnate because the wealthy and powerful are interested only in their agenda and many creative people have no outlet for their talent.  

For those of us who think greater equality is the better choice there is a little to offer from the Republican party.  Seeking greater income equality doesn't seem to be a notion that fits anywhere in the Republican rear view mirror view of reality.  

Inequality in South America

A recent Economist article provided a lot of detail about inequality south of the Border.  Although income inequality in the United States has ballooned in the last 30 to 40 years it is even worse in Central and South America.

To me the inequality is caused by simple human nature.  Bosses control who gets paid how much, but bosses are competing with other companies.  So in a competitive market the most selfish and exploitive bosses are going to force everyone to bring wages down to their level to compete.

Conventional economics relies on the minimum wage to mitigate the damage.  That's like trying to do heart surgery with a meat cleaver.  Because raising minimum wages in one country disadvantages that countries industries competing against other countries it is very hard to get a minimum wage passed that is not minimal.  On top of that minimum wages generally apply across the board, so very small businesses where the owner makes little money won't be able to afford the higher wages so will lay people off and perhaps go out of business.

A better approach would be to focus on using tax policy to make companies more like teams and less like kingdoms.  Each companies median wage is the base and wages that deviate to much above the median would be taxed heavily.  So the way management makes more money is by bringing the median up, not by driving it down. 

Why Do All Police Routinely Carry Guns?

Police shootings of unarmed persons have been all over the news lately, most recently a mentally ill homeless person on skid row in Los Angeles.  

In almost every case what seems to precipitate the shooting is the officer perceiving that the suspect is trying to grab his gun.

It has made me start wondering why every police officer carries a gun, particularly in urban settings.  In the case involving the LA skid row killing it appears there were 5 to 7 officers on the scene - what if some of the officers were armed only with non-lethal weapons and were charged with actually engaging suspects, while officers with weapons monitored from a distance where no one could grab their gun?

I would have officers having only non-lethal weapons be an elite force, chosen for their social skills, athleticism and fitness and they would have special training and pay.  After all, guns aren't heavy and the most out of shape person in the world can shoot someone.

Police in England have generally don't carried guns except in special circumstances, and seem to have done just fine.

A Potential Nuclear Deal With Iran - a laypersons perspective

The news is full of chatter about Benjamin Netenyahu as he uses the forum the Republican Congress gave him to try to kill a potential deal with Iran that would allow Iran to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.  What to make of it?

I am not so foolish as to think I can have an informed opinion on the details.  First, I don't believe the actual details of the proposed agreement are all hashed out.  Second, I don't have the technical expertise to understand all the ins and outs of verification  - whether we can reasonably be sure we will know if Iran violates the terms or spirit of the agreement.  

So I am left by judging the credibility of the parties.  On the one side we have Fox news and that part of the Republican party that was so influential in our invading Iraq, and Benjamin Netenyahu representing Isreal.  On the other side we have President Obama and Secretery of State Kerry.

On the verification issue, I think back to around the turn of the century.  The UN folks monitoring Saddam Hussains nucular capabilities were reporting there did not seem to be any immediate problem, but Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush and Fox News became convinced Iraq was building Nuclear weapons, presenting all sorts of allegations they cited as evidence.  So we invaded Iraq, beginning the long chain of middle eastern destabilization that has given us the present situation with zealots running ISIS threatening to engulf the whole region in war.  And of course, after we took over Iraq we discoverd there was no nuclear weapons program going on, more or less confirming what the UN monitors were telling us. 

Now Iran is not Iraq, I think there is little room for doubt Iran is pretty far along toward Nuclear weapons.  So the question becomes, if we reach a deal that allows them to enrich uranium can we verify that they do it only for peaceful purposes.  Mr Obama and Mr. Kerry believe we can.  They could be wroing, but they are pretty sharp guys and have a lot of very smart people to investigate, and they are our elected representatives.  So for me I will rely on their decision unless some credible persons can provide credible evidence that their decision is clearly erroneous.

But on credibility, for me, the people making all the objections to the treaty have destroyed their credibility.  The hyperventilating Fox news and table thumping Republicans are the same folks that warned us that Iraq was about to start dropping nuclear missles on its neighbors.  Going back even further their logic is the same as those who objected to all the missle treaties between the US and Russia that kept the world peaceful for generations.  Their view of the world seems to be rooted in stereotypical good guys (us) and bad guys (them).  Life is a zero sum game, compete or die.  The only way to be safe is to be armed to the teeth and do everything you can to undermine the success of "them".  

That world view is correct if enough people subscribe to it.  But history has shown that societies that can develop mechanisms for cooperation with others based on verified systems that allow trust are vastly happier, wealthier and more productive. 

Over his career Mr. Netenyahu has demonstrated the same worldview.  He is against every treaty with any "them".  Isreal under his adminstration has been noisily outraged by every perceived slight against Isreal (us) and oblivous to the Palistinians (them) whom Isreal pushes aside and expropriates land.

At this point in my life, with 60 plus years of personally experienced history behind me, that world views credability, and the people who espouse it, are about at the level of a guy trying to sell you on the merits of a used car as he leans against the door to keep it from falling off.  

Global Warming - The Downside Upside

One characteristic of cities is over time the older areas decay.  Houses get delapidated, infrastructure breaks down over time.  If the city is wealthy folks can afford repairs, at least in the areas where the wealthy live.  It is a chronic problem that after World War II government began addressing by creating redevelopment agencies.  The law gave cities the power to forcibly buy big chunks of land and redevelop the area.  

Redevelopment efforts have a checkered history.  Some were pretty successful, but over the years redevelopment agencies turned into classic bureacracies heavily influenced by the developers that profited from Redevelopment.  The problem became worse as city budgets got tighter so cities relied on developers for more and more of the funding.  So small parts of town got fancied up while infrastructure decayed in the rest of town.

Here in California it got so bad that Governor Brown, a former Mayor of Oakland and well versed in the problems of redevelopment, abolished redevelopment agencies.

As a result, here in the Bay area, much of the infrastructure, from the gas and water lines underground, to the roads and wires above ground, are old and decaying.  The cost of replacement is far beyond what government In California is willing to spend.

Not to worry, there is a downside upside.  Rising sea levels could inundate much of the greater Los Angeles area, much of the Bay area, most of Sacramento, Stockton, Modesto, big swaths of San Diego.  Much of the state will have the opportunity to build new cities from the ground up.  So our lack of will to address global warming will save us from our lack of will to address decaying infrastructure.

Toward a More Perfect Union

Democracy in the United States can be discouraging.  The two dominent political parties have a monopoly on public policy but are so unwieldy they make political change almost impossible.  Money buys sophisticated ad campaigns carefully crafted to touch emotional buttons that result in voters often voting against what would be in their self interest. 

Frustration periodically boils over in protests from extremes at both ends of ideological spectrum.  When the protests can be turned into votes (think Tea Party) they produce tangible results.  When the protests do not produce tangible change in voting behavior, they produce only instability that undermines the restraint and respect that inoculates democracy from potential dictators. 

Some try to address the disfunction of our two party system by forming smaller minor parties, as is typical in parlimentary systems.  In theory a minor party could be beneficial as power brokers - if they limit their activities to developing committed constitutents who will vote as a block for whichever major party buys into their platform. Unfortunately the leaders of minor parties in the United States generally are so full of themselves they run hopeless campaigns to get themselves elected.  In the end their efforts usually end up helping the major party whose views are most far removed from their goals get elected.

In the end the path to change in a democracy comes only through wiser voting.  Studying issues outside the Washington/Media controlled political dialogue could inoculate most voters from the massive media campaigns that control elections these days, but, as long as life is pretty good most folks are so busy enjoying life they end up having no time to investigate issues.  So an election rolls around and either they don't vote, or they fall back on ideas rooted in emotional attachment to what is familiar, and are subject to emotional manipulation by the effective use of the media. 

In a burst of idealism I created a web site a couple years ago thinking I would start acting to develop an organization that voters could use for educating one another on issues (http://www.theidp.org/ ).  Alas, since that burst of enthusiam I have done nothing further toward bringing the organization into existence - I am to busy enjoying life to find time to act on it.

Do Protests Based in Confrontation Work?

Based on my knowledge of history I think confrontation works in some specific (and rare) circumstances, but not in others.  Here is my thesis:  Confrontation is counterproductive if the people you need to achieve your goals identify with the people whom you are confronting.

The Civil Rights movement in the United States used protest marches, sit-ins and other confrontational tactics and in the end they were very successful, segregation was abolished. The reason the movement was successful was that the marches, sit-ins and other confrontational approaches were directed at the people of the South.  The people and local and State governments in the South just got angry and defiant in response to the protests. But the rest of the country, that did not particularly identify with the people of the south because of their segregationist policies, imposed the solution through Federal legislation.

Gandhi used similar tactics in India to achieve independence.  The people in England, thousands of miles away, largely unaffected by the protests, imposed the solution.

Confrontational tactics in South Africa made little headway for decades.  The white population that dominated government just got more determined to defend Apartheid.  The end of Apartheid was the result of press coverage that ultimately caused the uninvolved rest of the world to impose crippling economic sanctions.

On the other hand in my 45 years of adult life I have seen confrontational protests by many groups about many perceived wrongs that in my estimation did not produce positive results.  The Vietnam war protests went on for nearly a decade and in my estimation did not shorten the war and may have lengthened it.  The lack of success by the Occupy protests of a couple years ago is highlighted by the fact the Republicans whose policies created the inequality economy are about to take over both houses of Congress.   The numerous protests that led to the overthrow of dictatorships during the Arab spring have failed miserably because in the end the confrontational tactics undermine the restraint necessary for a functioning democracy and have resulted in a confrontational (as in shooting each other) free for all among different groups striving for influence.

So, I conclude that unless there is some uninvolved greater power that can impose a solution, the emotion confrontation causes in those confronted will undermine both the support of many of the folks needed to create the solution, and to some extent the restraint and respect fundamental to democracy.

The current wave of protests about trigger happy cops in local jurisdictions does not seem to me to lend itself to solution by imposition from some uninvolved greater power, and in fact the confrontational actions are aimed at the citizens and police of the jurisdictions where the change must occur.  They are in the face of the people they need to solve the problem.  They are more likely to create resentment than cooperation.

Comments?