Click on graph to enlarge.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics; Cited by Talking Points Memo.
Saturday, February 6, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
A Larger View of Things
Time to put things in perspective. Literally.
Take a look at this nifty presentation, The Scale of the Universe, that takes us from the infinitesimal (the Planck length -- 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 m -- we are told that any length shorter than that makes "no physical sense" -- sure...)
Simon Hakansson's rendition of quantum foam somewhere on the level of the Planck length.
Take a look at this nifty presentation, The Scale of the Universe, that takes us from the infinitesimal (the Planck length -- 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001 m -- we are told that any length shorter than that makes "no physical sense" -- sure...)
Simon Hakansson's rendition of quantum foam somewhere on the level of the Planck length.to the unimaginably vast (the estimated size of the Universe -- 93,000,000,000 light years -- yeah, wrap your mind around that!)
Photo of the Andromeda Galaxy by Martin Mika taken in our backyard.
and everything in-between:
The Vitruvian Man by Da Vinci, ca. 1487.
Enjoy and marvel.
Crossposted from The Middle of Nowhere.
PRODUCTIVITY UP, WAGES DOWN! BYE, BYE, MISS AMERICAN PIE …
Earlier this week, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its fourth quarter report on Productivity and Costs. The result: Continuing productivity gains for the business sector and continuing wage erosion for American workers.
According to the BLS quarterly report, non-farm labor productivity increased at an annual rate of 6.2 percent during the fourth quarter 2009. This gain in productivity reflects increases of 7.2 percent in output and 1.0 percent in hours worked.
Unit labor costs fell 4.4 percent during the same period, the largest decline in unit labor costs since 2002. High unemployment has shrunk the US labor market and created a surge in productivity, as businesses squeeze more output from fewer workers. The implications are not good for an economic recovery any time soon. Rises in productivity hamper job creation as employers decide that they can run their companies with fewer workers.
These results are grim news for American workers who will work harder, longer hours while taking home less money. Of course, higher productivity means more profit in the pockets of corporate owners and their CEOs, who serve themselves larger and larger slices of the American pie while workers get less and less. As our country slides deeper and deeper into banana republic status, I wonder when our citizens will finally wake up.
According to the BLS quarterly report, non-farm labor productivity increased at an annual rate of 6.2 percent during the fourth quarter 2009. This gain in productivity reflects increases of 7.2 percent in output and 1.0 percent in hours worked.
Unit labor costs fell 4.4 percent during the same period, the largest decline in unit labor costs since 2002. High unemployment has shrunk the US labor market and created a surge in productivity, as businesses squeeze more output from fewer workers. The implications are not good for an economic recovery any time soon. Rises in productivity hamper job creation as employers decide that they can run their companies with fewer workers.
These results are grim news for American workers who will work harder, longer hours while taking home less money. Of course, higher productivity means more profit in the pockets of corporate owners and their CEOs, who serve themselves larger and larger slices of the American pie while workers get less and less. As our country slides deeper and deeper into banana republic status, I wonder when our citizens will finally wake up.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
THE GREENSBORO FOUR
It is now February and in honor of Black History Month I thought I’d post on a local event that had a huge impact on civil rights in North Carolina and eventually influenced the direction of the civil rights struggle nationwide. They would come to be known as The Greensboro Four.Most people are aware of the marches in the South involving Dr King and other well known civil rights leaders of the day, but few outside of North Carolina are aware of the courage and determination of a few local college students to bring equal rights and dignity to the black community.
On Feb 1, 1960, these four young men, Franklin McCain, Joseph McNeil, Ezell Blair Jr (now known as Jibreel Khazan) and David Richmond (now deceased), all students at North Carolina A&T aka Aggies, walked into a segregated Woolworths and sat down at the lunch counter and thereby sparked a movement that would spread across the nation as others quietly sat down in nonviolent protest against the inequality of “colored” and “white” public designations.They were scared but determined and eventually admired by many from both sides of the color line. Soon a local high school class joined them to help fill all the seats at the counter, every day. As one high school student recalled, their teacher made them bring their books with them as they were still responsible for doing their homework.
In late July, 1960 they finally won the right to be served as the manager relented and opened the counter to African-Americans. It would be great if I could now tell you “and then all the citizens of North Carolina realized how unfair and unconstitutional the laws and practices of the day were and so abolished them.”
But change comes slowly and on Nov 3, 1979 there came a clash on Greensboro streets between the KKK and a communist party rally that would end in five deaths. At the time, there were no convictions but many unanswered questions remained.
The struggle has been long and sometimes violent but this week on Feb 1, 2010, 50 years to the day that the Greensboro Four walked into that Woolworths, the International Civil Rights Center & Museum opened on that very site.
Fifteen years in the making, there were times when it looked like the project was dead, only to be revived once again. Many hands, hearts and wallets contributed to the reality of this museum. Because of the surprise snow storm that hit the area before the grand opening on Monday, city crews worked through the weekend to clear all snow from the street and sidewalks.On Monday, the three surviving students cut the ribbon and took their rightful place in American history.
Rogue Vogue
Was the huge vogue for Going Rogue helped along by having SarahPAC purchase thousands of copies of the best seller? Campaign contributors' money and funds from right-wing publications were used to produce and promote the book by giving out free copies while she got royalty checks.
"Irregardless" as a Sarah fan might say, it did help her legally transmute PAC money into a royalty check and since she walked off the job and isn't running for another position of public trust, the conversion apparently wasn't illegal. For those of us still interested in why she quit the Governorship, perhaps the ability to pocket all that PAC cash and avoid going to jail for it might help us to understand.
Perhaps some will remember that before she donned the robes of roguery, it wasn't a particularly nice way to describe anyone. Certainly not as nice or as honorable as Maverick, the title she was forced to relinquish after threats from the descendants of the eponymous cattleman, but who can doubt that the robes fit?
Meanwhile, back at that rogues' paradise called Facebook, Sarah has been channeling the wolves she used to strafe from various aircraft and attempting to sink her teeth into the Obama administration by going after Rahm Emanuel for using the word "retarded" in an internal strategy session -- as though it had been directed at Down's syndrome children and the Special Olympics and not at the stupidity of a co-worker. No, Sarah, retarded is not like the "N word" and although you'd love it to be, and although Mr. Emanuel has already been put in the position of having to apologize to the Special Olympics organization, you haven't said much about the "witches" you've praised your beloved pastor for persecuting. There are no Witches, only innocent people who don't share your religion -- there are people whose cognitive skills fall behind the norm no matter what euphemism you prefer. There are people who are stupid and there are people who are inexcusably and viciously retarding the progress of our country toward Liberty and Justice for all.
"Irregardless" as a Sarah fan might say, it did help her legally transmute PAC money into a royalty check and since she walked off the job and isn't running for another position of public trust, the conversion apparently wasn't illegal. For those of us still interested in why she quit the Governorship, perhaps the ability to pocket all that PAC cash and avoid going to jail for it might help us to understand.
Perhaps some will remember that before she donned the robes of roguery, it wasn't a particularly nice way to describe anyone. Certainly not as nice or as honorable as Maverick, the title she was forced to relinquish after threats from the descendants of the eponymous cattleman, but who can doubt that the robes fit?
Meanwhile, back at that rogues' paradise called Facebook, Sarah has been channeling the wolves she used to strafe from various aircraft and attempting to sink her teeth into the Obama administration by going after Rahm Emanuel for using the word "retarded" in an internal strategy session -- as though it had been directed at Down's syndrome children and the Special Olympics and not at the stupidity of a co-worker. No, Sarah, retarded is not like the "N word" and although you'd love it to be, and although Mr. Emanuel has already been put in the position of having to apologize to the Special Olympics organization, you haven't said much about the "witches" you've praised your beloved pastor for persecuting. There are no Witches, only innocent people who don't share your religion -- there are people whose cognitive skills fall behind the norm no matter what euphemism you prefer. There are people who are stupid and there are people who are inexcusably and viciously retarding the progress of our country toward Liberty and Justice for all.
Same old, same old
Seems "the most liberal Senator in all of American History" is even more of a hide bound conservative than I imagined, if it's true that he intends to beef up the misbegotten War on Drugs rather than admit that the 73 year old enterprise has succeeded on doing to drug use, to organized crime and public safety what the Volstead act did when it made private alcohol sales and consumption a crime.
President Barack Obama's new drug czar, former Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske told us just 8 months ago that the idiocy was over, that "We're not at war with people in this country" but action speaks louder than words.
The new budget for fiscal 2011's war on drugs is increased and the emphasis is still on "enforcement" which means more spitting on constitutional rights, more interference with private matters, more clogging up of courts, more disrupted families, more crime, more prisons training more harmless people to be criminals and more ruining the lives of innocent people. In fact it's more of George W. Bush and it's more of what has only made things worse and worse. Even so, that 15.5 billion dollar budget vastly understates the cost to the nation as much as that of our former administration because it ignores the huge cost of incarceration and due process.
From "the war on drugs is over" to
President Barack Obama's new drug czar, former Seattle police chief Gil Kerlikowske told us just 8 months ago that the idiocy was over, that "We're not at war with people in this country" but action speaks louder than words.
The new budget for fiscal 2011's war on drugs is increased and the emphasis is still on "enforcement" which means more spitting on constitutional rights, more interference with private matters, more clogging up of courts, more disrupted families, more crime, more prisons training more harmless people to be criminals and more ruining the lives of innocent people. In fact it's more of George W. Bush and it's more of what has only made things worse and worse. Even so, that 15.5 billion dollar budget vastly understates the cost to the nation as much as that of our former administration because it ignores the huge cost of incarceration and due process.
From "the war on drugs is over" to
"In a time of tight budgets and fiscal restraint, these new investments are targeted at reducing Americans' drug use and the substantial costs associated with the health and social consequences of drug abuse"took us only 8 months and a return to doing what always fails; a return to pseudomoralistic prohibitions, fraudulent medical data and a continuation of being the biggest jailer in the world makes liars out of the idiots shouting "Liberal" as much as it makes liars of our administration.
ACADEMIC POPULARITY CONTESTS: PART TWO
The Tilburg University Survey of Top Schools in Economics has one noteworthy entry (or aberration depending on viewpoint): The University of Chicago, home of Milton Friedman and the Disaster School of Supply-Side Economics … ranked #2 worldwide:
The University of Chicago is the birthplace of tax cuts for the wealthy, an economy theory that results in boom and bust cycles, and the stuff that makes Banana Republics possible. To illustrate my point, this graph shows the relationship between marginal income tax rates and the income gap between rich and poor for the past 90 years (source):
As the graph illustrates, the greater the gap between rich and poor, the more unstable economies will become. In 1928, the year before Black Monday triggered the Great Depression, the top 0.01 percent (the elite) averaged 892 times more income than the bottom 90 percent. From the post-war period until the Reagan era, higher marginal income tax rates for the rich meant more money in the pockets of the middle class … resulting in real economic growth. By 2006, however, middle class wages had shrunk, inflationary rises in cost of living had consumed all marginal income, and middle class savings rates turned negative. The top 0.01 percent averaged 976 times more income than the bottom 90 percent, thus reenacting the same conditions that triggered the Great Depression. Here is another view of the same data (source):
Arthur Laffer is a "supply-side" economist who served on Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board from 1981 to 1989. Laffer is best known for the Laffer Curve, an illustration of tax elasticity, which claims that a decrease in tax rates will result in an increase in tax revenues. What began as a thought experiment on a paper napkin over lunch has turned into a mantra and marching orders for Banana Republicans ever since.
According to theory, tax revenues would be zero if tax rates were either 0% or 100%. If the tax rate is zero, there is no tax revenue because there are no taxes. If the tax rate is 100%, there are no taxes because citizens would not want to work. Assuming everything is taken from them, citizens would resort to barter or an off-the-books economy. As taxes increase from zero percent, revenues will rise but once taxes get too high, revenues will fall because there is a disincentive to work.
One problem with Laffer’s thought experiment is that the equilibrium point (the lowest possible tax that yields the highest possible revenue) can never be clearly established. There are always concerns about the costs of wars, federal budget deficits, and the servicing of public debt. Since the equilibrium point varies with public opinion, what matters more is the range of marginal taxation, not a fixed point to be taken literally.
In fact, historical data contradicts Laffer’s thought experiment. In the 8 years following Reagan’s tax cuts, personal income tax revenues rose from $353 million in 1982 to $516 million by 1989, an increase of 46%. During the same time interval, the federal deficit more than doubled.
In contrast, Clinton’s tax increases resulted in a personal income tax revenue increase from $586 million in 1993 to $1.137 billion by 2000, an increase of 94%. The Reagan era produced gigantic budget deficits. In contrast, the Clinton years yielded a federal budget surplus during a period of unprecedented economic growth (source).
Bottom line: The middle class is the economic engine that drives the economy. Marginal income tax policies that favor the wealthy and punish the middle class set the stage for disastrous consequences, as we have recently experienced. Thus, the Republican mantra of lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes, do not always achieve a desired economic outcome. As we enter into yet another public debate on tax policy and federal deficits, it is useful to keep past economic policy failures in mind.
For another perspective, please refer to my post of February 10, 2009: A Ghost of Depression Past.
H/T to Brad Delong for posting the Tilburg Ranking.
Click on image to enlarge.
The University of Chicago is the birthplace of tax cuts for the wealthy, an economy theory that results in boom and bust cycles, and the stuff that makes Banana Republics possible. To illustrate my point, this graph shows the relationship between marginal income tax rates and the income gap between rich and poor for the past 90 years (source):
Click on image to enlarge.
As the graph illustrates, the greater the gap between rich and poor, the more unstable economies will become. In 1928, the year before Black Monday triggered the Great Depression, the top 0.01 percent (the elite) averaged 892 times more income than the bottom 90 percent. From the post-war period until the Reagan era, higher marginal income tax rates for the rich meant more money in the pockets of the middle class … resulting in real economic growth. By 2006, however, middle class wages had shrunk, inflationary rises in cost of living had consumed all marginal income, and middle class savings rates turned negative. The top 0.01 percent averaged 976 times more income than the bottom 90 percent, thus reenacting the same conditions that triggered the Great Depression. Here is another view of the same data (source):
Click on image to enlarge.
Arthur Laffer is a "supply-side" economist who served on Reagan's Economic Policy Advisory Board from 1981 to 1989. Laffer is best known for the Laffer Curve, an illustration of tax elasticity, which claims that a decrease in tax rates will result in an increase in tax revenues. What began as a thought experiment on a paper napkin over lunch has turned into a mantra and marching orders for Banana Republicans ever since.
Click on image to enlarge.
According to theory, tax revenues would be zero if tax rates were either 0% or 100%. If the tax rate is zero, there is no tax revenue because there are no taxes. If the tax rate is 100%, there are no taxes because citizens would not want to work. Assuming everything is taken from them, citizens would resort to barter or an off-the-books economy. As taxes increase from zero percent, revenues will rise but once taxes get too high, revenues will fall because there is a disincentive to work.
One problem with Laffer’s thought experiment is that the equilibrium point (the lowest possible tax that yields the highest possible revenue) can never be clearly established. There are always concerns about the costs of wars, federal budget deficits, and the servicing of public debt. Since the equilibrium point varies with public opinion, what matters more is the range of marginal taxation, not a fixed point to be taken literally.
In fact, historical data contradicts Laffer’s thought experiment. In the 8 years following Reagan’s tax cuts, personal income tax revenues rose from $353 million in 1982 to $516 million by 1989, an increase of 46%. During the same time interval, the federal deficit more than doubled.
In contrast, Clinton’s tax increases resulted in a personal income tax revenue increase from $586 million in 1993 to $1.137 billion by 2000, an increase of 94%. The Reagan era produced gigantic budget deficits. In contrast, the Clinton years yielded a federal budget surplus during a period of unprecedented economic growth (source).
Bottom line: The middle class is the economic engine that drives the economy. Marginal income tax policies that favor the wealthy and punish the middle class set the stage for disastrous consequences, as we have recently experienced. Thus, the Republican mantra of lower taxes, lower taxes, lower taxes, do not always achieve a desired economic outcome. As we enter into yet another public debate on tax policy and federal deficits, it is useful to keep past economic policy failures in mind.
For another perspective, please refer to my post of February 10, 2009: A Ghost of Depression Past.
H/T to Brad Delong for posting the Tilburg Ranking.
Monday, February 1, 2010
ACADEMIC POPULARITY CONTESTS: PART ONE
Two academic rankings are in the news this week, one from Shanghai University, Ranking of Top Schools in the World, and the other from Tilburg University, Survey of Top Economics Schools. School rankings always seemed silly to me. Inasmuch as there are research schools (scored according to how many publications pour out the publication tap) and teaching schools (scored by admissions competitiveness), selection criteria do not always measure the quality of education or the percentage of students served. At best, there is always an elitist Simon Scowl favoring one factor or the other (with neither of special significance).
Despite concerns about our country losing a competitive edge across various sectors, it is gratifying to note our high marks in higher education. We have 55% of the world’s top 100 schools and 30% of the world’s top 500 schools. The United Kingdom ranks second with 11% and 8%, respectively.
However, raw numbers can be misleading. If one considers the ratio of top schools to served populations, these rankings change significantly. Among the top 100 schools, the U.S. (Octopus score = 12) falls below Switzerland (30) and Denmark (20). Among the top 500 schools, the U.S. (Octopus score = 7) ranks below Sweden (16), Switzerland (16), Israel (14), United Kingdom (12), Australia (10), Canada (8), and Denmark (8), respectively. Why are these ratios more important than raw numbers? Countries with higher ratios are educating more students ... by a factor of more than two to one in some aforesaid countries. Although our worldwide ranking is respectable, there are still other countries doing a better job.
H/T to Infidel753 for posting the Shanghai Ranking.
Despite concerns about our country losing a competitive edge across various sectors, it is gratifying to note our high marks in higher education. We have 55% of the world’s top 100 schools and 30% of the world’s top 500 schools. The United Kingdom ranks second with 11% and 8%, respectively.
However, raw numbers can be misleading. If one considers the ratio of top schools to served populations, these rankings change significantly. Among the top 100 schools, the U.S. (Octopus score = 12) falls below Switzerland (30) and Denmark (20). Among the top 500 schools, the U.S. (Octopus score = 7) ranks below Sweden (16), Switzerland (16), Israel (14), United Kingdom (12), Australia (10), Canada (8), and Denmark (8), respectively. Why are these ratios more important than raw numbers? Countries with higher ratios are educating more students ... by a factor of more than two to one in some aforesaid countries. Although our worldwide ranking is respectable, there are still other countries doing a better job.
H/T to Infidel753 for posting the Shanghai Ranking.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY OCTOPUS!
Here on the sunny beach where the ocean plays its eternal song against the ever shifting sands, we are preparing for a celebration of the birth (hatch?) day of our own Octopus (sorry, I don’t have the capability to correctly spell out your new moniker).The bonfire is stoking and the crustaceans are awaiting to meet their fate in the flames. The seaweed and coral cake has been decorated and….
THE GIFTS! Enough for every one of your eight tentacles!HAPPY, HAPPY BIRTHDAY, OCTOPUS!
Sunday, January 31, 2010
The French confection
Bob Greene made me laugh this morning, writing about the magazine ad for a Hermès suitcase priced at $27,100. He thought at first it was a joke until the Hermès store in Naples Florida told him that it wasn't even their most expensive bag, which of course is diamond encrusted. This one isn't. It's trimmed in "Evercalf" leather which I suspect to be much like the "rich Corinthian" leather of Chrysler Cordoba fame, which means most of the cost -- at least $27,000 of it -- is in the trademarked name for a perfectly ordinary 
material. Otherwise it's just a canvas bag, or "officer canvas" as they call it, which means you may have to salute it if you're wearing a Hermès hat.
Why? Greene keeps asking, although I know and you know exactly why anyone would actually buy one at a time when more Americans are cramming their things into shopping carts and Hefty bags and wandering the streets. It's precisely because it cost $27,100 and you can't afford to toss that kind of money away on nonsense, hand stitched or not.
It's not the sort of bag most people would really notice, except that it doesn't have the silly handle and wheels that make our airports seem like farmyards full of goat carts, but then it's designed for another purpose, it's designed both to remind you and to help you forget that there are people -- millions of people trying to support families on one Hermès suitcase a year.
Hey, don't get angry. It's your money and you're taxed enough already. Under Reagan's tax structure you'd have had to make do with Louis Vuitton or perish the thought, Hartmann, so the country owes it to you and you needed to buy it now, before that Marxist in the White House restores the tax rates of that prince of Capitalism -- right?
material. Otherwise it's just a canvas bag, or "officer canvas" as they call it, which means you may have to salute it if you're wearing a Hermès hat.Why? Greene keeps asking, although I know and you know exactly why anyone would actually buy one at a time when more Americans are cramming their things into shopping carts and Hefty bags and wandering the streets. It's precisely because it cost $27,100 and you can't afford to toss that kind of money away on nonsense, hand stitched or not.
It's not the sort of bag most people would really notice, except that it doesn't have the silly handle and wheels that make our airports seem like farmyards full of goat carts, but then it's designed for another purpose, it's designed both to remind you and to help you forget that there are people -- millions of people trying to support families on one Hermès suitcase a year.
Hey, don't get angry. It's your money and you're taxed enough already. Under Reagan's tax structure you'd have had to make do with Louis Vuitton or perish the thought, Hartmann, so the country owes it to you and you needed to buy it now, before that Marxist in the White House restores the tax rates of that prince of Capitalism -- right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)