This just goes to show that some people who are homeless truly are good people and just need a little help.
Let's think about that when someone asks us when they are in need. Not to say that I'm giving anyone my credit
cards but perhaps some spare cash or a meal.
Friday, August 13, 2010
The Jobs Crisis: What Hit Us?
Bob Burnett - Berkeley writer, retired Silicon Valley executive
The US is stuck in an economic quagmire featuring near ten percent unemployment. As politicians argue about the solution -- massive tax cuts or increases in Federal spending -- what's missing is a succinct analysis of the problem. Why has America lost 8 million jobs?
The roots of the jobs crisis stretch back to the Ronald Reagan presidency when conservative economic ideology began to dominate American political discourse. At the forefront of this philosophy were three malignant notions: helping the rich get richer will inevitably help everyone else, "a rising tide lifts all boats;" markets are inherently self correcting and therefore there's no need for government regulation; and the US does not need an economic strategy because that's a natural consequence of the free market.
What followed was a thirty-year period where America's working families were abandoned in favor of the rich. Inequality rose as middle class income and wealth declined. As corporate power increased, unions were systematically undermined. As CEO salaries soared, fewer families earned living wages.
Conservative ideology produced a warped and brittle US economy, where more than two-thirds of our GDP was housing related: building, buying, and furnishing new homes or borrowing against existing homes in order to maintain a decent standard of living. When the credit bubble burst, the debt-based consumption model failed, taking down first the housing sector and then the entire economy, resulting in catastrophic job losses.
In order to be sustainable, the US economy has to generate 125,000 jobs each month. (To bring unemployment down to acceptable levels -- below 7 percent -- the US economy needs to generate 300,000 jobs each month for the next three years.) For this to happen, there have to be three positive conditions.
First, consumers have to be willing to spend money. Regardless of the conservative ideology, the US economy depends upon steady consumption by working Americans. The Reagan Republican theory incorrectly assumes that rich folks buying yachts and vacation homes catalyzes the consumer economy. Nonetheless, wealthy Americans have as much income as they have ever had but their purchases of Ferraris or diamonds has not been sufficient to boost the economy. Average Americans aren't consuming because they either don't have the money or are saving it because they are fearful.
Second, businesses have to be willing to hire. At the moment, many businesses -- outside of construction and commercial real estate -- have the funds available to hire but they either aren't hiring or are filling what should be full-time permanent positions with part-time temporary workers.
Third, the new jobs have to be decent jobs paying a living wage. Unfortunately, the Associated Press reported that of the 630,000 jobs created in 2010, 81 percent are low-paying service-sector positions. That's the sad backdrop to terrible unemployment data.
Since the Reagan presidency the number of decent jobs has steadily eroded. When a worker retires from a GM assembly line, and a job that pays good wages, he isn't replaced by his son or daughter; they go to work at McDonalds. There was an under-acknowledged "structural adjustment" that meant the US consumer economy could not function unless average Americans went deeply in debt: borrowed up to the limit on their credit cards or used up their home equity.
It's necessary to understand what went wrong with the US economy because fundamental changes are required to deal with the jobs crisis. So far the political rhetoric has been underwhelming. Republicans blame unemployment on the policies of the Obama Administration and argue the solution is to cut taxes, particularly for the wealthy. Democrats blame unemployment on the policies of the Bush Administration and argue the solution is to increase Federal spending. The New York Times correctly condemned both approaches noting that Republican policies produced the current economic decline and the "cut taxes to solve all problems" clearly does not work. The Times also described the Democratic approach as timid, failing to attack the systemic nature of the problem.
America has economic cancer and radical surgery is required. First, there has to be a massive redistribution of income by increasing taxes on both the wealthy and financial institutions (particularly those that were at the heart of 2008's economic meltdown).
Second, there has to be a second stimulus package that not only supports America's teachers and public safety workers but also strengthens the US infrastructure, in general. It's not logical to propose that American businesses provide better jobs without also ensuring that our schools produce workers who can meet employers' needs.
Third, the Federal government has to be involved in economic policy. The last thirty years has demonstrated that it's insane to assume the free market will do this. What we've learned is that the market follows the path of least resistance and dictates economic policy solely based on greed. Creating wealth for a handful of CEOs isn't consistent with the national interest. What are needed now are economic policies that produce decent jobs for average Americans.
The Federal government has to intervene and create the jobs that the greedy, shortsighted private sector hasn't provided.
The US is stuck in an economic quagmire featuring near ten percent unemployment. As politicians argue about the solution -- massive tax cuts or increases in Federal spending -- what's missing is a succinct analysis of the problem. Why has America lost 8 million jobs?
The roots of the jobs crisis stretch back to the Ronald Reagan presidency when conservative economic ideology began to dominate American political discourse. At the forefront of this philosophy were three malignant notions: helping the rich get richer will inevitably help everyone else, "a rising tide lifts all boats;" markets are inherently self correcting and therefore there's no need for government regulation; and the US does not need an economic strategy because that's a natural consequence of the free market.
What followed was a thirty-year period where America's working families were abandoned in favor of the rich. Inequality rose as middle class income and wealth declined. As corporate power increased, unions were systematically undermined. As CEO salaries soared, fewer families earned living wages.
Conservative ideology produced a warped and brittle US economy, where more than two-thirds of our GDP was housing related: building, buying, and furnishing new homes or borrowing against existing homes in order to maintain a decent standard of living. When the credit bubble burst, the debt-based consumption model failed, taking down first the housing sector and then the entire economy, resulting in catastrophic job losses.
In order to be sustainable, the US economy has to generate 125,000 jobs each month. (To bring unemployment down to acceptable levels -- below 7 percent -- the US economy needs to generate 300,000 jobs each month for the next three years.) For this to happen, there have to be three positive conditions.
First, consumers have to be willing to spend money. Regardless of the conservative ideology, the US economy depends upon steady consumption by working Americans. The Reagan Republican theory incorrectly assumes that rich folks buying yachts and vacation homes catalyzes the consumer economy. Nonetheless, wealthy Americans have as much income as they have ever had but their purchases of Ferraris or diamonds has not been sufficient to boost the economy. Average Americans aren't consuming because they either don't have the money or are saving it because they are fearful.
Second, businesses have to be willing to hire. At the moment, many businesses -- outside of construction and commercial real estate -- have the funds available to hire but they either aren't hiring or are filling what should be full-time permanent positions with part-time temporary workers.
Third, the new jobs have to be decent jobs paying a living wage. Unfortunately, the Associated Press reported that of the 630,000 jobs created in 2010, 81 percent are low-paying service-sector positions. That's the sad backdrop to terrible unemployment data.
Since the Reagan presidency the number of decent jobs has steadily eroded. When a worker retires from a GM assembly line, and a job that pays good wages, he isn't replaced by his son or daughter; they go to work at McDonalds. There was an under-acknowledged "structural adjustment" that meant the US consumer economy could not function unless average Americans went deeply in debt: borrowed up to the limit on their credit cards or used up their home equity.
It's necessary to understand what went wrong with the US economy because fundamental changes are required to deal with the jobs crisis. So far the political rhetoric has been underwhelming. Republicans blame unemployment on the policies of the Obama Administration and argue the solution is to cut taxes, particularly for the wealthy. Democrats blame unemployment on the policies of the Bush Administration and argue the solution is to increase Federal spending. The New York Times correctly condemned both approaches noting that Republican policies produced the current economic decline and the "cut taxes to solve all problems" clearly does not work. The Times also described the Democratic approach as timid, failing to attack the systemic nature of the problem.
America has economic cancer and radical surgery is required. First, there has to be a massive redistribution of income by increasing taxes on both the wealthy and financial institutions (particularly those that were at the heart of 2008's economic meltdown).
Second, there has to be a second stimulus package that not only supports America's teachers and public safety workers but also strengthens the US infrastructure, in general. It's not logical to propose that American businesses provide better jobs without also ensuring that our schools produce workers who can meet employers' needs.
Third, the Federal government has to be involved in economic policy. The last thirty years has demonstrated that it's insane to assume the free market will do this. What we've learned is that the market follows the path of least resistance and dictates economic policy solely based on greed. Creating wealth for a handful of CEOs isn't consistent with the national interest. What are needed now are economic policies that produce decent jobs for average Americans.
The Federal government has to intervene and create the jobs that the greedy, shortsighted private sector hasn't provided.
Obama signs $600M border security bill into law
Do you feel secure in your home? While you may feel somewhat secure there are many who live in the border states of the US that do not. Why? Because our nations borders have become a free-for-all. In many areas all that stops one from entering the US is a tattered fence - if that. So bad is the problem that one town in Texas has illegals cropping through the town every night and residents have been told by the Sheriff to carry a firearm if need be. And yet we spend millions of dollars each and every day in a needless war in Iraq and sending our troops to Afghanistan when in fact we should be securing our nations borders. We're beginning to look more and more like the Roman Empire every day.
President Barack Obama on Friday signed into law a $600 million measure that will put more agents and equipment along the Mexican border.
Obama signed the bill in the Oval Office alongside Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. It will pay for the hiring of 1,000 new Border Patrol agents to be deployed at critical areas along the border, as well as more Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. It also provides for new communications equipment and greater use of unmanned surveillance drones.
Some Republicans, including Arizona Sen. John McCain, say that while the legislation is a start, it falls short by not dramatically increasing the number of customs inspectors along the border and not funding a program that charges illegal immigrants with low-level crimes.
Arizona has been at the epicenter of the border security debate because of its new law directing law enforcement officers to be more aggressive in seeking out illegal immigrants. Although a federal judge has since struck down some of the law's major provisions, it remains a rallying cry for those who say Washington has lost control of the border
President Barack Obama on Friday signed into law a $600 million measure that will put more agents and equipment along the Mexican border.
Obama signed the bill in the Oval Office alongside Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. It will pay for the hiring of 1,000 new Border Patrol agents to be deployed at critical areas along the border, as well as more Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. It also provides for new communications equipment and greater use of unmanned surveillance drones.
Some Republicans, including Arizona Sen. John McCain, say that while the legislation is a start, it falls short by not dramatically increasing the number of customs inspectors along the border and not funding a program that charges illegal immigrants with low-level crimes.
Arizona has been at the epicenter of the border security debate because of its new law directing law enforcement officers to be more aggressive in seeking out illegal immigrants. Although a federal judge has since struck down some of the law's major provisions, it remains a rallying cry for those who say Washington has lost control of the border
Dina Lohan AMBUSHED by Matt Lauer
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Meet Desperate Housewives New Boy Toy
Looking for a fresh start after her split from Orson, Desperate Housewives‘ Bree (Marcia Cross) hires a hunky handyman—played by 90210‘s Brian Austin Green—to spruce up her, ahem, house.
“Bree has an instant physical attraction to him,” explains executive producer Bob Daly of Green’s character, who is introduced in the ABC soap’s seventh-season premiere on Sept. 26. “But then over time it turns into something more.”
Unfortunately for Bree, her boy toy has also caught the eye of Wisteria Lane’s newest cougar, Renee (Ugly Betty‘s Vanessa Williams). “Suddenly by episode 4 they’re both going after him,” says Daly. “So there’s a little competition for Brian Austin Green.”
Illegal immigrant sues over lost custody of child in Mississippi
Mississippi officials conspired to take the infant of an illegal immigrant from Mexico so the girl could be adopted by a white couple, a civil rights group charged Thursday in a federal lawsuit.
The Southern Poverty Law Center said Cirila Baltazar Cruz was separated from her daughter, Ruby, for a year before her child was returned to her in 2009 after the intervention of the group.
Cruz had the baby at Singing River Hospital in Pascagoula in November 2008. Two days after the child was born she was taken from her mother when the Mississippi Department of Human Services deemed Cruz unfit, according to the lawsuit.
Cruz - who spoke no English and little Spanish and could not read or write - was interviewed by a hospital interpreter. The interpreter spoke Spanish, not Chatino, a dialect indigenous to Cruz's native Oaxaca in rural Mexico, the group's lawsuit alleges.
After talking with Cruz, the interpreter told one of the immigrant's relatives that Cruz was trading sex for housing and wanted to give the child up for adoption, according to the lawsuit. Cruz said in the court filing that she tried to explain to the interpreter she worked in a Chinese restaurant and lived in an apartment.
"When they tried to take my baby away I felt that I was done wrong, and I was very angry. It was a very painful experience for me and for my baby. This is why I want other people to know, because I don't want anyone else to go through the same experience," Cruz said in a statement released Thursday by the SPLC. Cruz is back in Mexico with her daughter.
The lawsuit, which names MDHS, Singing River Health System and others, seeks monetary damages and alleges the state officials conspired to deny Cruz and her child their constitutional rights to family integrity, said Mary Bauer, the law center's legal director. It also alleges Cruz was targeted by state officials because of her race and nationality.
"It's hard to put a value on losing your daughter for year," Bauer said. "It's one of the most outrageous cases we've ever seen."
The child was placed in the home of Wendy and Douglas Tynes, two attorneys who lived in Ocean Springs and were foster parents. The complaint said the Tynes were seeking to adopt. The suit alleges MDHS officials conspired with a youth court judge and the Tynes to keep Cruz from her daughter so she could be adopted by the couple.
Messages left at the Tynes' offices weren't immediately returned.
Even before the lawsuit, the case had drawn national and international attention, prompting a federal review and an agreement that requires Mississippi to notify the Mexican consulate when similar situations occur.
MDHS declined to comment.
Hospital spokesman Richard Lucas said he hadn't seen the lawsuit Thursday. He said the hospital followed proper procedures.
"For us to be included in such a complaint is frivolous and entirely inappropriate," Lucas said. "Our mission includes providing care for all who come to us in need, and we did exactly that in caring for Ms. Cruz, who came to us in distress ..."
Advocates say Cruz's case is an example of a nationwide problem that is hard to document because it involves illegal immigrants who are often deported and most youth proceedings are confidential. Bauer said the law center had received calls for assistance from immigrants in other states.
For some immigrants, it's difficult to regain parental rights once they're lost. Language barriers, family court confidentiality laws and deportation are among the obstacles.
Immigrants' rights attorneys say the problem is that federal laws govern undocumented immigrants, but their children, who are often U.S. citizens because they were born here, are under state jurisdiction.
Richard Rocha, deputy press secretary for ICE, said immigrants who are being deported are supposed to retain their parental rights to make custody decisions for their children.
"If custody assistance is required, parents are able to coordinate with the proper state agencies," Rocha said in an e-mail.
That may be ICE's policy, but states usually don't adhere to it, said Marcia Zug, an assistant professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, who has researched the issue for more than a year and documented about 20 cases.
"The separation is really the result of policies of state welfare agencies," Zug said. "States are highly skeptical of whether it's in the best interest of these children to leave with deported parents rather than grow up in America."
In an October 2009 letter obtained by the Southern Poverty Law Center, U.S. Health and Human Services officials informed Mississippi DHS Executive Director Donald Thompson about the findings of a federal investigation of the Cruz case.
Joseph J. Bock, acting associate commissioner for the Administration on Children, Youth and Families, cited a lack of reasonable efforts to prevent the child's removal and that the agency used Spanish interpreters when it was known Cruz spoke Chatino.
Bock also said state officials didn't do enough to locate Cruz's relatives to place the child with them.
"The MDHS staff interviewed did not see these issues as problematic. This leads us to conclude that this may be how business is conducted and that this is not an isolated incident," Bock wrote.
Some passengers dispute jetBlue flight attendant Steven Slater's claim that he was provoked
He's ready for takeoff again.
Aside from the fact that he has "man-boobs" Flight attendant Steven Slater - suspended after he fled a jet in a snit through an emergency chute - wants his wings back, his lawyer said Thursday.
"Steven's hope is to return to aviation," lawyer Howard Turman said outside Slater's home in Belle Harbor, Queens. "That is his love."
Slater, 38, has been hailed as a working man's hero for telling off a passenger over the intercom, grabbing beer and jumping out a slide at Kennedy Airport on Monday.
But some passengers on jetBlue Flight 1052 dispute the steaming steward's claim that he was provoked by a woman who hit him with a carry-on bag or overhead door and cursed him out.
Port Authority cops interviewed about 40 people on the Pittsburgh-to-New York flight and haven't found anyone who backs up Slater's story.
College student Hilary Baribeau, 20, came home to Maine after a three-day hiking trip to find cops wanted to grill her.
"We heard your name and wanted to check in with you and see what you had to say about the flight," she said they told her.
"Pretty much what I remember happening is I got on a plane and I got off a plane," the Carnegie Melon University senior said. "I don't remember anyone getting into any fights, any confrontations."
Slater's lawyer gave a vague description of the supposed clash during early boarding in Pittsburgh that left Slater with a gash on his head.
"There was a great deal of shoving. Steven came over to assist and was hit in the head by either a bag or a bin," Turman said.
An internal jetBlue memo cast some doubt on Slater's claim.
"There's much more to this story that we don't know, including: Was there an altercation on the flight that precipitated or motivated Mr. Slater's action?" jetBlue COO Rob Maruster wrote, according to The Wall Street Journal.
After he slid out of the plane, Slater went home, where cops found him drunk and in bed with his boyfriend - his eyes bloodshot and reeking of booze, sources said.
When cops asked him if he had been drinking, Slater said, "Yes, while waiting for you to show up," sources said.
Slater, who was suspended by jetBlue, was charged with trespassing, reckless endangerment and criminal mischief.
His lawyer said he's optimistic his mercurial client will avoid a stiff penalty.
"We had preliminary discussions with the district attorney's office and believe there will be a favorable outcome for my client," Turman said.
He said a company offered to hire Slater to endorse a nonalcoholic "relaxation drink," but he turned it down because the incident "is not a joke" and his real love is aviation.
If Slater does return to the skies, there's at least one passenger from Flight 1052 who will be rooting for him.
Keleigh Nealon, 25 said she's flown with Slater several times before, and his bubbly personality always brightened her day.
"I just feel so bad for him," said Nealon. "I've been on flights with him and he's the one who is always so nice. He makes your flight enjoyable."
Nealon didn't see a confrontation. But when she was stepping off the plane, she heard an agitated Slater venting to a colleague about how "common courtesy has gone out the door."
"It was so out of character," Nealon added. "You knew something was wrong. Something bad had happened."
Friday the 13th...
Well the day has just begun and as we all know many people are very much superstitious about this day. From the horror movie of the same name to the person who tells you not to walk under that ladder to the black cat that stares at you while you walk to the train station on your way to work, today - Friday the 13th, is a day of fear for some. But what is this day all about anyways?
Friday the 13th occurs when the thirteenth day of a month falls on a Friday, which superstition holds to be a day of bad luck. In the Gregorian calendar, this day occurs at least once, but at most three times a year. Any month's 13th day will fall on a Friday if the month starts on a Sunday.
The fear of Friday the 13th is called friggatriskaidekaphobia, frigga meaning "Friday" and triskaidekaphobia (or paraskevidekatriaphobia) being a word derived from the concatenation of the Greek words Paraskeví (Παρασκευή, meaning "Friday"), and dekatreís (δεκατρείς, meaning "thirteen") attached to phobía (φοβία, from phóbos, φόβος, meaning "fear"). The word was derived in 1911 and first appeared in a mainstream source in 1953.
According to folklorists, there is no written evidence for a "Friday the 13th" superstition before the 19th century. The earliest known documented reference in English occurs in an 1869 biography of Gioachino Rossini:
[Rossini] was surrounded to the last by admiring and affectionate friends; and if it be true that, like so many other Italians, he regarded Friday as an unlucky day, and thirteen as an unlucky number, it is remarkable that on Friday, the 13th of November, he died.
One theory states that it is a modern amalgamation of two older superstitions: that thirteen is an unlucky number and that Friday is an unlucky day.
In numerology, the number twelve is considered the number of completeness, as reflected in the twelve months of the year, twelve signs of the zodiac, twelve hours of the clock, twelve tribes of Israel, twelve Apostles of Jesus, twelve gods of Olympus, etc., whereas the number thirteen was considered irregular, transgressing this completeness. There is also a superstition, thought by some to derive from the Last Supper or a Norse myth, that having thirteen people seated at a table will result in the death of one of the diners.
Friday has been considered an unlucky day at least since the 14th century's The Canterbury Tales, and many other professions have regarded Friday as an unlucky day to undertake journeys or begin new projects. Black Friday has been associated with stock market crashes and other disasters since the 1800s. It has also been suggested that Friday has been considered an unlucky day because, according to Christian scripture and tradition, Jesus was put to death on a Friday.
Some events are intentionally scheduled for Friday the 13th for dramatic effect. They include:
Resident Evil 5 was released in the US and UK on Friday March 13, 2009.
SAW - The Ride at Thorpe Park, UK was opened on March 13, 2009. Coincidentally the ride was marred by "teething problems" for the first few days after it was opened
Black Sabbath's eponymous debut album was released in the UK on Friday, February 13, 1970.
The Opening ceremony of the Athens Olympic Games took place on Friday, August 13, 2004.
The 13th book in A Series of Unfortunate Events was released on Friday, October 13, 2006 by Lemony Snicket, also known as novelist Daniel Handler.
Four of the twelve films in the Friday the 13th series, including the most recent (reboot of a second film), were released on a Friday the 13th. The sequel to the reboot is planned to be released on Friday September 13, 2013.
Joss Whedon's show Dollhouse aired its pilot on February 13, 2009.
Every Friday the 13th thousands of bikers ride to the small town of Port Dover Ontario, Canada.
Boston Lee Day is celebrated every Friday the 13th. Participants gather to enjoy the Boston Lee Drink for which this day is named.
The popular Browser-based RPG Dragonfable has an undead war every Friday the 13th, with a common drop being the hockey mask all of the monsters wear.
The 2009 film 2012 was released on Friday November 13, 2009.
Stuntman Sam Patch scheduled a 125-foot jump into the Genesee River on Friday, November 13, 1829, his largest jump to date. The jump killed him.
Due to the large number of events that happen in the world, a similar list could be compiled for any combination of day of the month and day of the week. Events that have been notable for being linked to the concept of Friday the 13th include:
Hurricane Charley made landfall in south Florida on Friday, August 13, 2004.
The "Friday the 13th Storm" struck Buffalo, New York on Friday, October 13, 2006.
The asteroid 99942 Apophis will make a close encounter with Earth, which had been thought may have been closer than the orbits of communication satellites, on Friday, April 13, 2029.
The Andes Plane Crash of 1972 occurred on Friday, October 13, 1972.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
