Rogue Valley Roasting Company
Soy Vanilla Butterscotch Steamer
Croissant
I missed the blog last week because I was shopping for accessories for my Steampunk Poet costume. (Which reminds me - did I give someone my quill? Damn it, I think I did. Oh, well). Yes, I will post piccies post Halloween. I think next week will just be a Fall Photo-spread. You're welcome.
So, last night I went to get tattooed. Today, I have a partially shaved wrist and no new ink. I had been anticipating this for so long. Nine years, in fact, since I got my first moon tattoo. Now, when I finally had the doodle for my suns in hand (there's a whole other story I will relate later on), and words to live by ready to be permanently inked onto my hands and wrist, I had to stop. I hadn't been feeling great all day (serious lack of sleep, among other things) and at that moment in the chair, literally as the tattooist was about to apply the stencil, a wave of nausea hit me. Fortunately, I know my body well enough to know the risks of continuing and potentially puking and/or passing out on the nice young man about to inflict intense pain upon me. As much as I wanted to push through the discomfort, I am wise enough to know that you don't mess around with the physiology.
It was the wise thing - courageous, even - to speak up for my body and reschedule when the queasiness did not subside. And trust me, I can tell you from experience, your tattooist is much happier when you don't pass out and pee on their chair. (Let no one mistake me for a bad ass...)
But your body is a much more tangible thing than your mind. So it's easier to defend your choice to back out of your previously stated plans when it's your body that is impairing your efforts. It seems much less forgivable when you tell people something is just "too much" for you - your psyche - to handle right now.
As I proclaimed a few weeks ago, I started school at the beginning of this month. I knew it would be difficult to manage with two small boys and my high levels of stress and disorder. But I was going to "Do it anyway!" By my first day of my physics class I knew I was in trouble and that it would take a considerable effort to catch up and stay caught up. I shared my fear with some of my new classmates that I might not be back for our second class. I was met with a challenge from a woman who pushes through obstacles... Why wouldn't I make it? Little ones? So? She has kids, too. And works full time, of course. You just do it anyway. You find a way. You push through...
Rather than joyfully inspiring me to achieve more than I believed I could, she just pissed me off. She might be a lovely person. I truly do not know. She struck me, however, as someone who lacks empathy and understanding of people not like her. She had also irritated me earlier in our lab by jumping into our lab experiment without reading all the instructions. I might legitimately be slower than I ought to be (especially sans coffee), but there is value in not setting yourself up to fail by plunging headlong into a situation before you're ready. Just sayin'...
Needless to say, I did not make it to my second class. If the drop date hadn't been just days after the first class, I might have stuck it out a little longer to see if I could get on track fast enough. I think I stood a chance of pulling it off. But I risked academic probation if I couldn't make it work, and another "W" would suspend my financial aid, so I made the the best call I could at that moment.
But why couldn't I do it? What was my excuse? If she could do it, why was I failing?
Because, unlike her, for reasons known only to ourselves, my mind was deeply nauseated. And I did not want to risk the consequences of inflicting more pain and stress on it when my children were in fallout range of emotional projectile vomit. That's not an excuse. That is the wisdom of not doing it. I might have been able to do it, but it was better that I didn't.
When someone says something like, "I didn't have time to do (whatever)," a truer phrase might be, "I didn't have much time to do it, and I elected to not put myself through the difficulty of making it happen." And maybe that's a weak stance for them and maybe that's a wise choice. Only they can say. It's not for other people to decide for them which it is.
When I say, "I have kids," by way of explaining the state of things, that's only a piece of the explanation. It's a useful shorthand because most people understand the intense stress of caring for a couple of miniature crazy people. And if someone gives you crap because you don't have as many kids as them and you deign to be more exhausted and stressed out - screw them. One kid is plenty. One kid is more than some people can handle. No one has exactly the same circumstances, psychology, or physiology, and the same results should never be expected for everyone.
It is entirely acceptable to challenge people to do their best, but it is never okay to tell someone what their best is. It was incredibly difficult for me to let school go again. But I realized that that was the "it" in "Do it anyway." I was afraid of being stuck in this cycle forever and never going back, but the best thing I can do for my children is to put off the extra stress until I feel a little more stable, got a few more duckies in a row. There's no shame in that. It does not make me inferior, it just makes me different.
And one final story to drive it home...
A few weeks before giving birth to my second child, I heard a story about a woman who ran a marathon at 39 weeks and then went and gave birth. That's great. It's always inspiring to hear about someone pushing the bounds of human excellence. My birth story a few weeks later, however, may be more inspiring.
Though I have fibromyalgia, though I was in so much pain during my first delivery (even with an epidural) that I couldn't push my son out and almost had to have an emergency C-section, my second son was delivered by a water birth - no painkillers. I had taken what I had learned about myself and my body and used that knowledge to prepare myself for the second go-round. And that effort was rewarded with a completely natural childbirth experience. Boo-yah.
Marathon lady was a runner to begin with, I was damaged at the start. We both achieved something, and the fact that I didn't run a marathon before giving birth doesn't mean that I was a failure. She excelled. I overcame. We both achieved something.
But I do think my story is more relatable.
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Feel our pain - FEEL IT!
Bloomsbury Coffee House
12oz Coffee
Biscotti
Let's talk compensation for our elected representatives.
Needless to say, I think our reps should not be getting paid during the shutdown. I think I can accept them getting back-pay, but definitely no checks for them while they are withholding paychecks from other people. But while we're on the subject of their paychecks, let's just settle what that amount ought to be.
How do we determine what is fair compensation? There is no real private sector equivalent to a congressman (and we will just not go into all the other things we can equate a congressman to). Some have said they should make minimum wage, or some derivative of that (no more than double the minimum, for example). But I think it's pretty fair to say that a minimum wage job isn't equivalent in responsibility and consequence to that of an elected official's. It's worth adding that that does not make either worker superior or inferior to the other (just sayin').
Some people put forth a specific amount for compensation (as it is now), extrapolated from current values within the economy. But that criteria is pretty subjective, and that amount would naturally need to be adjusted as costs adjust. And, as I am against minimum wage being tied to votes, I would be against rep pay being tied to votes, and for the same reasons. Whatever the criteria by which we set their pay, their pay should move as the economy moves and be self-adjusting, as minimum wage should be.
So what's fair? I say, if they are representing us, they should make what we make. Any representative should receive whatever is the median income of their constituents. All the way up to the White House.
Yes, I think the "Leader of the Free World" should make about 40 grand a year.
Naturally, there would be other forms of their compensation - company healthcare, company car (or company "Air Force One"), pensions, etc. And representatives do have to maintain more than one residence - in their home districts and in their governing cities. There would be expected traveling expenses going back and forth. It would be reasonable to cover some of those costs to allow our representatives to fulfill the obligations of their jobs. Within limits.
But when it comes to the actual paycheck, why should our public servants receive such vastly higher pay than their employers - us? Shouldn't they have some skin in the game? The truth is that most of these people are already rich. You nearly have to be in order to run for office nowadays. Which begs two conclusions. First: if they're already rich, then why do they need more money? Second: we need to implement some other reforms while we're at it, so that people who are actually more representative of us are able to be elected to represent us.
A couple thoughts...
First, term limits. You can be re-elected once to the same job. Maybe you can sit out a term (or two) and come back. But to serve 30, 40, 50 years, in a job with a two-year term? That's just not a healthy relationship for either of us, and we both need to move on.
Next - money. Everybody seems to talk about how horrible is the influence of money in our elections. How many people actually put forth any real reforms to fix that? Public matching funds are one fix that might make a little difference, but they don't fix the main driver of increasing election costs. It's the advertising, people. Buying television ads are incredibly costly to campaigns and they are the worst source of information for voters. But they sure are effective for the well-funded campaigns, and who wants to give up that advantage?
If we were to restrict or eliminate political television ads, the costs needed to wage political warfare would be reduced, and that would make the playing field just that much more level. Much of the political messaging gets out through other, less costly, means anyway (internet ads, news proxies). But we could still make efforts to give equal quality exposure to more candidates. Perhaps a series of 30-minute prime-time informative spots donated via public television. Or something. But in the age of the internet and hyper-social media, we can better serve both candidates and voters by moving away from the TV.
Oh, and I think most of us can agree that money is not speech. Can we just pass that language so the judiciary is no longer confused on this point?
I could go on (and on) but I'm getting distracted and running out of coffee. I think that will do for today.
12oz Coffee
Biscotti
Let's talk compensation for our elected representatives.
Needless to say, I think our reps should not be getting paid during the shutdown. I think I can accept them getting back-pay, but definitely no checks for them while they are withholding paychecks from other people. But while we're on the subject of their paychecks, let's just settle what that amount ought to be.
How do we determine what is fair compensation? There is no real private sector equivalent to a congressman (and we will just not go into all the other things we can equate a congressman to). Some have said they should make minimum wage, or some derivative of that (no more than double the minimum, for example). But I think it's pretty fair to say that a minimum wage job isn't equivalent in responsibility and consequence to that of an elected official's. It's worth adding that that does not make either worker superior or inferior to the other (just sayin').
Some people put forth a specific amount for compensation (as it is now), extrapolated from current values within the economy. But that criteria is pretty subjective, and that amount would naturally need to be adjusted as costs adjust. And, as I am against minimum wage being tied to votes, I would be against rep pay being tied to votes, and for the same reasons. Whatever the criteria by which we set their pay, their pay should move as the economy moves and be self-adjusting, as minimum wage should be.
So what's fair? I say, if they are representing us, they should make what we make. Any representative should receive whatever is the median income of their constituents. All the way up to the White House.
Yes, I think the "Leader of the Free World" should make about 40 grand a year.
Naturally, there would be other forms of their compensation - company healthcare, company car (or company "Air Force One"), pensions, etc. And representatives do have to maintain more than one residence - in their home districts and in their governing cities. There would be expected traveling expenses going back and forth. It would be reasonable to cover some of those costs to allow our representatives to fulfill the obligations of their jobs. Within limits.
But when it comes to the actual paycheck, why should our public servants receive such vastly higher pay than their employers - us? Shouldn't they have some skin in the game? The truth is that most of these people are already rich. You nearly have to be in order to run for office nowadays. Which begs two conclusions. First: if they're already rich, then why do they need more money? Second: we need to implement some other reforms while we're at it, so that people who are actually more representative of us are able to be elected to represent us.
A couple thoughts...
First, term limits. You can be re-elected once to the same job. Maybe you can sit out a term (or two) and come back. But to serve 30, 40, 50 years, in a job with a two-year term? That's just not a healthy relationship for either of us, and we both need to move on.
Next - money. Everybody seems to talk about how horrible is the influence of money in our elections. How many people actually put forth any real reforms to fix that? Public matching funds are one fix that might make a little difference, but they don't fix the main driver of increasing election costs. It's the advertising, people. Buying television ads are incredibly costly to campaigns and they are the worst source of information for voters. But they sure are effective for the well-funded campaigns, and who wants to give up that advantage?
If we were to restrict or eliminate political television ads, the costs needed to wage political warfare would be reduced, and that would make the playing field just that much more level. Much of the political messaging gets out through other, less costly, means anyway (internet ads, news proxies). But we could still make efforts to give equal quality exposure to more candidates. Perhaps a series of 30-minute prime-time informative spots donated via public television. Or something. But in the age of the internet and hyper-social media, we can better serve both candidates and voters by moving away from the TV.
Oh, and I think most of us can agree that money is not speech. Can we just pass that language so the judiciary is no longer confused on this point?
I could go on (and on) but I'm getting distracted and running out of coffee. I think that will do for today.
Saturday, October 5, 2013
Sanctimonious Fucktards
Mix Sweet Shop
12oz Soy Chai
Lemon Whiskey Macaroon
Cranberry Scone
I'm guessing you guys can guess where this one's going.
Imagine for a moment the very smart couple. They got their education. They got married. They had their careers, they bought a house. At thirty, they decided to start their family. They had three beautiful, amazing children, who are a testament to their parents' awesomeness. They did everything right. And in 2008, they got knocked on their asses when they both lost their jobs to the Great Recession.
Over the last few years they have been knocked around badly, not knowing where the next job, the next meal, the next temporary housing situation was going to come along. They and their children have been amazingly resilient, though not without their bruises from these ordeals. But finally - finally! - they are getting back on their feet. Back into regular employment, back into regular housing, and regular meals.
Or, they were getting back on their feet, until October 1st when they got the dreaded news: furloughed.
I don't think the sanctimonious fucktards who caused this shutdown can appreciate the word "dreaded." They have no idea, not the faintest wisp of empathetical understanding, of what it is to live in terror of having no paycheck. No net, no back-up plans, no hope of escape, and now, no help from the government they have been helping with every precious paycheck for so many years.
Let's imagine someone else now.
There are millions of pregnant women out there this very moment. A significant number of them are still in their first trimester, or early in their second. Early enough to get an abortion in most places. Almost none of these women (as a percentage of the overall population) is rich enough to not be worried about their own finances, let alone the overall economy. Many, many, many of these women are very, very worried about their own finances.
So think about one of these more anxious, more desperate women. Maybe she was smart and did everything right. Maybe she wasn't that smart. Maybe she was foolish enough to trust, in people, in situations. Maybe she didn't tread carefully enough. Maybe she was just human. Whatever path brought here, here she is - due, and dreading what kind of life her child might have. What do you think that pregnant woman is thinking now when all safety nets have been removed? How much trust does she have that those nets will be restored? that they will be enough? How much does she trust that they won't be ripped away again before she's more stable? And how long will that take?
Does she dare keep the baby? When she has been robbed of the means to care for herself and the child, and robbed of all confidence that there will be a safety net if she were to need it again - how can she bring herself to invest in a human life under those circumstances?
These are not hyperbolic or abstract examples. These are real fucking people and there are thousands - millions - of them. Their pain - their daily, living, breathing dread - is very fucking real. And not only are they suffering directly by the hands of these self-righteous, self-deluded bigots, but everyone else is going to begin suffering by proxy. Even the rich are eligible for fallout, whether or not they are willing to acknowledge it.
I confess I'm feeling a bit hostile writing this. And I was in such a good mood today... But this is a Miller's Facepalm of epic proportion. And if somebody says the words "Obama's shutdown" in front of me, I will have a very difficult time not punching them in the face. And I'm such a nice person... But no matter how much some people want to engage in rebranding and double-think, this is in no way a bi-partisan impasse. This was a directly Republican engineered disaster.
This was in no way unavoidable. Conflicting budgets were passed by each house six damn months ago, and all they had to do then was follow normal procedures and appoint the people from each house to sit down together and hash it out. But that didn't happen, did it? Nope! And, yes, it was because of the Republican leadership. Even now, all the Speaker has to do is bring a bill to the floor to be voted on that would fund the government - at sequester levels! - for a few weeks while they finally sit down and try to agree on a budget. He will not bring the bill to the floor. One guy. One asshole. One great big sanctimonious fucktard is choosing to continue this.
And compromise? That's like saying you'll stop punching someone in the head if some other guy will start kicking him in the nuts. Either way, if you get what you're demanding or you keep doing what you're doing, someone's going to the hospital. And, oh yeah, he doesn't have health insurance.
There are plenty of reasonable Republicans out there who don't want this. But they are complicit in this theft and abuse of these citizens who are being robbed of their pay, of their life-saving assistance. And they are just as guilty of the reckless endangerment of public safety. And, oh yeah, the economic safety of the fucking world if they continue this through the debt ceiling, too. Even if you do believe that the Affordable Care Act has serious problems, and even if you believe this could actually rectify any of those problems, the consequences of this tactic are, right now, doing more real harm to far more people. If you want to get rid of Obamacare, vote it out with something better. This is just not worth it.
12oz Soy Chai
Lemon Whiskey Macaroon
Cranberry Scone
I'm guessing you guys can guess where this one's going.
Imagine for a moment the very smart couple. They got their education. They got married. They had their careers, they bought a house. At thirty, they decided to start their family. They had three beautiful, amazing children, who are a testament to their parents' awesomeness. They did everything right. And in 2008, they got knocked on their asses when they both lost their jobs to the Great Recession.
Over the last few years they have been knocked around badly, not knowing where the next job, the next meal, the next temporary housing situation was going to come along. They and their children have been amazingly resilient, though not without their bruises from these ordeals. But finally - finally! - they are getting back on their feet. Back into regular employment, back into regular housing, and regular meals.
Or, they were getting back on their feet, until October 1st when they got the dreaded news: furloughed.
I don't think the sanctimonious fucktards who caused this shutdown can appreciate the word "dreaded." They have no idea, not the faintest wisp of empathetical understanding, of what it is to live in terror of having no paycheck. No net, no back-up plans, no hope of escape, and now, no help from the government they have been helping with every precious paycheck for so many years.
Let's imagine someone else now.
There are millions of pregnant women out there this very moment. A significant number of them are still in their first trimester, or early in their second. Early enough to get an abortion in most places. Almost none of these women (as a percentage of the overall population) is rich enough to not be worried about their own finances, let alone the overall economy. Many, many, many of these women are very, very worried about their own finances.
So think about one of these more anxious, more desperate women. Maybe she was smart and did everything right. Maybe she wasn't that smart. Maybe she was foolish enough to trust, in people, in situations. Maybe she didn't tread carefully enough. Maybe she was just human. Whatever path brought here, here she is - due, and dreading what kind of life her child might have. What do you think that pregnant woman is thinking now when all safety nets have been removed? How much trust does she have that those nets will be restored? that they will be enough? How much does she trust that they won't be ripped away again before she's more stable? And how long will that take?
Does she dare keep the baby? When she has been robbed of the means to care for herself and the child, and robbed of all confidence that there will be a safety net if she were to need it again - how can she bring herself to invest in a human life under those circumstances?
These are not hyperbolic or abstract examples. These are real fucking people and there are thousands - millions - of them. Their pain - their daily, living, breathing dread - is very fucking real. And not only are they suffering directly by the hands of these self-righteous, self-deluded bigots, but everyone else is going to begin suffering by proxy. Even the rich are eligible for fallout, whether or not they are willing to acknowledge it.
I confess I'm feeling a bit hostile writing this. And I was in such a good mood today... But this is a Miller's Facepalm of epic proportion. And if somebody says the words "Obama's shutdown" in front of me, I will have a very difficult time not punching them in the face. And I'm such a nice person... But no matter how much some people want to engage in rebranding and double-think, this is in no way a bi-partisan impasse. This was a directly Republican engineered disaster.
This was in no way unavoidable. Conflicting budgets were passed by each house six damn months ago, and all they had to do then was follow normal procedures and appoint the people from each house to sit down together and hash it out. But that didn't happen, did it? Nope! And, yes, it was because of the Republican leadership. Even now, all the Speaker has to do is bring a bill to the floor to be voted on that would fund the government - at sequester levels! - for a few weeks while they finally sit down and try to agree on a budget. He will not bring the bill to the floor. One guy. One asshole. One great big sanctimonious fucktard is choosing to continue this.
And compromise? That's like saying you'll stop punching someone in the head if some other guy will start kicking him in the nuts. Either way, if you get what you're demanding or you keep doing what you're doing, someone's going to the hospital. And, oh yeah, he doesn't have health insurance.
There are plenty of reasonable Republicans out there who don't want this. But they are complicit in this theft and abuse of these citizens who are being robbed of their pay, of their life-saving assistance. And they are just as guilty of the reckless endangerment of public safety. And, oh yeah, the economic safety of the fucking world if they continue this through the debt ceiling, too. Even if you do believe that the Affordable Care Act has serious problems, and even if you believe this could actually rectify any of those problems, the consequences of this tactic are, right now, doing more real harm to far more people. If you want to get rid of Obamacare, vote it out with something better. This is just not worth it.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more...
Downtowne Coffee
12oz Soy Mexican Mocha w/orange
Blueberry Elf Muffin
(Woo-hoo formatting!)
I'm going back to school next week. Again. I am beyond anxious about this.
I had a rough time when I first went to college, dealing with a stressful relationship and an almost panicked urgency to "just finish school" so I wouldn't get stuck being poor forever. But things went how they went and I had to take a semester off... for a few years. And then I accepted that I couldn't make my situation any better than it was, and I tried to go back to school in an "as is" kind of situation. It didn't work out. I tried again. It didn't work out. Every semester, something happened - I had schedule issues, I had falling asleep every time I opened my homework issues, I hurt my back, I got kicked out. I even missed the final for my Stress Management class because I had a panic attack.
You read that irony correctly.
Withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal... It got to the point that I developed a kind of complex about going back to school. And all the while, my academic knowledge slipped further and further away. I was a math/physics major once upon a time. I finished all my calculus and linear algebra and the like, and now I cannot remember almost any of it. I'm just about starting from scratch.
I've began to question whether I'm up to the demands of school, especially with the two boys. I can't keep up with my dishes - how am I supposed to keep up with school? Angels though they are, it is basically non-stop stress all day, and all night, sometimes. I have a hard time finding time to "cool down" my brain. Me time.
And what I'm going to do with a degree anyway? Years and years and years from now, when I eventually get it...? I have concluded that I lack the rigor for the tedious research of such an academic degree as astrophysics. That does not mean I can't work on something tirelessly for hours on end. I've certainly done it before. It just means that I've learned about myself that I have to love what I'm doing or it will fall apart. Or, I'll fall asleep. And sifting and sorting through data about redshifty galaxies, while interesting to hear about, could not hold my concentration long enough to process it myself.
I'm not proud of that admission. I wanted to believe that I was capable of so much more. Maybe I could have been if things had gone differently, if the stresses hadn't been so relentless, all life long. I'm sure there is a parallel universe out there somewhere where, right now, I am teaching all the college kids about parallel universes. But here, now, my brain has been fried. I've spent too long emotionally strung out to realize the promise I might have once possessed.
Mope, mope.
But who cares? I ain't dead yet.
And I want to learn, damn it. Going to school isn't just about the potential financial stability. After all, they make it almost financially fucking impossible just to get the damn degree. But my brain hungers. It's restless. It craves more than just marathon days of HGTV in the background while I run around rescuing the boys from the certain peril of furniture pratfalls and territorial toy disputes.
So, strung out, chasing babies, blogging brief, cryptic haiku... "as is," but hopefully with clean dishes... once more unto the breach, I go...
12oz Soy Mexican Mocha w/orange
Blueberry Elf Muffin
(Woo-hoo formatting!)
I'm going back to school next week. Again. I am beyond anxious about this.
I had a rough time when I first went to college, dealing with a stressful relationship and an almost panicked urgency to "just finish school" so I wouldn't get stuck being poor forever. But things went how they went and I had to take a semester off... for a few years. And then I accepted that I couldn't make my situation any better than it was, and I tried to go back to school in an "as is" kind of situation. It didn't work out. I tried again. It didn't work out. Every semester, something happened - I had schedule issues, I had falling asleep every time I opened my homework issues, I hurt my back, I got kicked out. I even missed the final for my Stress Management class because I had a panic attack.
You read that irony correctly.
Withdrawal, withdrawal, withdrawal... It got to the point that I developed a kind of complex about going back to school. And all the while, my academic knowledge slipped further and further away. I was a math/physics major once upon a time. I finished all my calculus and linear algebra and the like, and now I cannot remember almost any of it. I'm just about starting from scratch.
I've began to question whether I'm up to the demands of school, especially with the two boys. I can't keep up with my dishes - how am I supposed to keep up with school? Angels though they are, it is basically non-stop stress all day, and all night, sometimes. I have a hard time finding time to "cool down" my brain. Me time.
And what I'm going to do with a degree anyway? Years and years and years from now, when I eventually get it...? I have concluded that I lack the rigor for the tedious research of such an academic degree as astrophysics. That does not mean I can't work on something tirelessly for hours on end. I've certainly done it before. It just means that I've learned about myself that I have to love what I'm doing or it will fall apart. Or, I'll fall asleep. And sifting and sorting through data about redshifty galaxies, while interesting to hear about, could not hold my concentration long enough to process it myself.
I'm not proud of that admission. I wanted to believe that I was capable of so much more. Maybe I could have been if things had gone differently, if the stresses hadn't been so relentless, all life long. I'm sure there is a parallel universe out there somewhere where, right now, I am teaching all the college kids about parallel universes. But here, now, my brain has been fried. I've spent too long emotionally strung out to realize the promise I might have once possessed.
Mope, mope.
But who cares? I ain't dead yet.
And I want to learn, damn it. Going to school isn't just about the potential financial stability. After all, they make it almost financially fucking impossible just to get the damn degree. But my brain hungers. It's restless. It craves more than just marathon days of HGTV in the background while I run around rescuing the boys from the certain peril of furniture pratfalls and territorial toy disputes.
So, strung out, chasing babies, blogging brief, cryptic haiku... "as is," but hopefully with clean dishes... once more unto the breach, I go...
Friday, September 20, 2013
Sick days and other Inelastic Goods.
Downtowne Grounds
12oz Soy Mojito Mocha
I love it when smart people quote me. John Stewart does it periodically, like when he suggested "decoupling" health care from jobs. I have used that very term to argue the same point. Recently, I viewed this link to a video wherein John Green (another smart person) mentions (as I often have) the "inelastic" nature of health care.
For the record, I think that Obamacare is about the dumbest way to move forward that we could have come up with - but it is moving forward. I only hope that, in time (preferably short time), we come back to the subject and, instead of compulsively trying to defund it, we make some real improvements to it. But the one thing that I do not think we should do is return health care to the "Free Market." Because the health care market is inherently not "free."
Free markets, or rather, markets that can move freely, are elastic. Coffee is an elastic good. (Arguably, if I'm being woken up by Henry at 6am and I just got to bed at 1:30am). That means, if you jack up the price from two bucks to twenty bucks, people will stop buying coffee (as much). However, if, as Mr. Green suggests, your life-saving prescription goes up from, say, 7 bucks to over 100 a month, you're still going to find a way to pay for it. The demand is "inelastic" because it does not change dramatically when the price does. And because of that inelastic nature, this is where the government has an appropriate place to step in.
Now, stepping in can take many forms - be it through regulations of private insurers or providing health care as another public service, or some combination thereof. But the goal is simply to prevent people from being exploited, since they are inherently vulnerable in such markets. This is why, as I mentioned above, we need to stop allowing health care to be treated as a "perk" that either is or isn't in someone's benefits package, and instead view it as a mandatory cost of living that should be reflected in their paycheck (one way or another). If an employer can't or won't provide affordable health care coverage to their employees, that employer shouldn't pay a fine to the government, but should pay those employees enough to provide insurance for themselves.
There's another inelastic market: paychecks. People don't hold up signs saying, "Will work for food, shelter, and extra vacations days." They stop at "food." People will vastly undersell their product - their work - just to keep from starving. This is why I advocate so strongly for a movable, livable, minimum wage. Wages have been allowed to drop so far below inflation (as well as disproportionate increases in the cost of inelastic things like health care and college tuition), that we've essentially had a fire sale on American Labor for the last several decades. Any MBA should be able to tell you that that is an unsustainable business model. And many economists (like Robert Reich who has some kind of new PowerPoint documentary about income inequality) have been trying to tell you that it is an unsustainable economic model.
Again, there are more than a few ways to try to balance the inequality of an inelastic market. Unions are one way, and their decline has paralleled the decline of middle-class income. Government regulations of wages and other employment issues are another means of rectifying the imbalance of power. Any solution has its pros and cons, but the lack of intervention is no solution at all. Because such markets generally utilize very destructive means to "correct" themselves over the long run.
And I, for one, prefer my revolutions with more dancing and less broken things.
12oz Soy Mojito Mocha
I love it when smart people quote me. John Stewart does it periodically, like when he suggested "decoupling" health care from jobs. I have used that very term to argue the same point. Recently, I viewed this link to a video wherein John Green (another smart person) mentions (as I often have) the "inelastic" nature of health care.
For the record, I think that Obamacare is about the dumbest way to move forward that we could have come up with - but it is moving forward. I only hope that, in time (preferably short time), we come back to the subject and, instead of compulsively trying to defund it, we make some real improvements to it. But the one thing that I do not think we should do is return health care to the "Free Market." Because the health care market is inherently not "free."
Free markets, or rather, markets that can move freely, are elastic. Coffee is an elastic good. (Arguably, if I'm being woken up by Henry at 6am and I just got to bed at 1:30am). That means, if you jack up the price from two bucks to twenty bucks, people will stop buying coffee (as much). However, if, as Mr. Green suggests, your life-saving prescription goes up from, say, 7 bucks to over 100 a month, you're still going to find a way to pay for it. The demand is "inelastic" because it does not change dramatically when the price does. And because of that inelastic nature, this is where the government has an appropriate place to step in.
Now, stepping in can take many forms - be it through regulations of private insurers or providing health care as another public service, or some combination thereof. But the goal is simply to prevent people from being exploited, since they are inherently vulnerable in such markets. This is why, as I mentioned above, we need to stop allowing health care to be treated as a "perk" that either is or isn't in someone's benefits package, and instead view it as a mandatory cost of living that should be reflected in their paycheck (one way or another). If an employer can't or won't provide affordable health care coverage to their employees, that employer shouldn't pay a fine to the government, but should pay those employees enough to provide insurance for themselves.
There's another inelastic market: paychecks. People don't hold up signs saying, "Will work for food, shelter, and extra vacations days." They stop at "food." People will vastly undersell their product - their work - just to keep from starving. This is why I advocate so strongly for a movable, livable, minimum wage. Wages have been allowed to drop so far below inflation (as well as disproportionate increases in the cost of inelastic things like health care and college tuition), that we've essentially had a fire sale on American Labor for the last several decades. Any MBA should be able to tell you that that is an unsustainable business model. And many economists (like Robert Reich who has some kind of new PowerPoint documentary about income inequality) have been trying to tell you that it is an unsustainable economic model.
Again, there are more than a few ways to try to balance the inequality of an inelastic market. Unions are one way, and their decline has paralleled the decline of middle-class income. Government regulations of wages and other employment issues are another means of rectifying the imbalance of power. Any solution has its pros and cons, but the lack of intervention is no solution at all. Because such markets generally utilize very destructive means to "correct" themselves over the long run.
And I, for one, prefer my revolutions with more dancing and less broken things.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Pavlov's Bitches and the rise of the Ramenista Class
Mix Sweet Shop
12oz Soy Raspberry Mocha
Egg-pastry thingy
We're all pretty familiar with Ivan Pavlov's work with dogs. At least the part about drooling. But old Ivan produced a conditioned response - that the dog would anticipate the arrival of food when it heard a bell - so that the dog would produce saliva. He was not trying to associate a particular behavior that would result in a food reward, though that is the standard technique for dog trainers nowadays.
So what do you think Pavlov's dog would learn if you gave it a big old juicy steak, not when a bell rang, but whenever the dog did anything. What would you get if you gave a dog a steak even when he crapped on the carpet?
You'd get Donald Trump.
Okay, cheap shot. To be fair, I'm not talking about all CEOs or businesspeople in general. But there is a predominant kind of thinking right now that says if you're rich, then you deserve it - and if you're poor, you deserve it even worse. Not everyone subscribes to that philosophy, but it remains so pervasive that our entire economy has been fundamentally crippled because of it. And, as I argued in one of my first blogs (Of Food Stamps and Smart Phones), it is psychologically crippling our people as well. This shaming of the poor, whether it was cynically contrived or the simple result of protecting the rich man's ego from guilt (or responsibility), allows for this very unhealthy economy to continue.
Our economic structure is so skewed right now that basically no one is getting paid what they deserve. How can you deserve to work hard, full-time, and and not be able to take care of yourself, let alone a family? And how can you deserve a multi-million dollar a year salary when the employees of your company have to ask for government assistance to feed their children? If your people are not thriving, then your business is not thriving and you, sir - or madam - have not earned your yacht.
Here's another way to put it: $15,080. That's what a full-time 40 hour a week worker earns in a year, gross. Assuming that person works from age 18 to age 65 (47 years, right?), they will earn (without adjusting for inflation) $708,760 in their working lifetime. Do we really think that anyone's work is so important, so irreplaceable, that they deserve to be paid more in one year than a hard-working minimum wage worker will be paid in their entire lifetime?
It was reported this week that income inequality is the highest it has been since right before the Great Depression. That should alarm you. It was also reported that 95% of the economic recovery has gone to the wealthiest 1%. That should piss you off and alarm you.
Fortunately, it has pissed off fast food workers, and other low-wage workers around the country - the Ramenista Class - who are beginning to protest and demand a real living wage. Again, minimum wage has fallen so far behind the real cost of living that it would take a radical readjustment to catch it up to what it should be. And I know that are many nay-sayers out there, and many a small businessperson is shaking their head, saying, "There's just no way I could pay my people anymore - I'd go out of business!"
And the truth is, yeah, they might go out of business - if they were the only ones paying a living wage. But it is a myth to say that it cannot be done. There are innumerable economists out there who are saying that not only can we do it, but we need to do it or we're never going to have a sound economy. And after all, the money you keep out of your employee's pocket is money you keep out of your customer's pocket, too.
There was a study by a (I think "progressive") think tank, Demos, that said that if the major retailers (Walmart, Target, and a few others) were to raise their base wage to $12.25 an hour, they would raise tens of thousands out of poverty, create jobs, reduce other social costs, and boost the overall economy. Could they afford it? Pretty easily. And if they passed the cost on to the consumer? Pennies per shopping trip.
The main difference is that those giant retailers make up such a large percentage of the low-wage labor force compared to a single small business. So the actions of that handful of employers would have a far-reaching impact over the basically insignificant impact of that mom-and-pop shop that wants to do right by their workers. There is some percentage, I'm sure, that represents a 'critical mass' needed to move the economic baseline without the intervention of government. Apparently, these mega-retailers could do it on their own if they just chose to.
So far, that doesn't seem to be happening. Nor does it seem that the government will be moving that line any time soon. And so, the Ramenistas have arisen to demand it. It seems the market will not bear this pseudo-indentured servitude anymore.
I give that Miller's Fistpump.
12oz Soy Raspberry Mocha
Egg-pastry thingy
We're all pretty familiar with Ivan Pavlov's work with dogs. At least the part about drooling. But old Ivan produced a conditioned response - that the dog would anticipate the arrival of food when it heard a bell - so that the dog would produce saliva. He was not trying to associate a particular behavior that would result in a food reward, though that is the standard technique for dog trainers nowadays.
So what do you think Pavlov's dog would learn if you gave it a big old juicy steak, not when a bell rang, but whenever the dog did anything. What would you get if you gave a dog a steak even when he crapped on the carpet?
You'd get Donald Trump.
Okay, cheap shot. To be fair, I'm not talking about all CEOs or businesspeople in general. But there is a predominant kind of thinking right now that says if you're rich, then you deserve it - and if you're poor, you deserve it even worse. Not everyone subscribes to that philosophy, but it remains so pervasive that our entire economy has been fundamentally crippled because of it. And, as I argued in one of my first blogs (Of Food Stamps and Smart Phones), it is psychologically crippling our people as well. This shaming of the poor, whether it was cynically contrived or the simple result of protecting the rich man's ego from guilt (or responsibility), allows for this very unhealthy economy to continue.
Our economic structure is so skewed right now that basically no one is getting paid what they deserve. How can you deserve to work hard, full-time, and and not be able to take care of yourself, let alone a family? And how can you deserve a multi-million dollar a year salary when the employees of your company have to ask for government assistance to feed their children? If your people are not thriving, then your business is not thriving and you, sir - or madam - have not earned your yacht.
Here's another way to put it: $15,080. That's what a full-time 40 hour a week worker earns in a year, gross. Assuming that person works from age 18 to age 65 (47 years, right?), they will earn (without adjusting for inflation) $708,760 in their working lifetime. Do we really think that anyone's work is so important, so irreplaceable, that they deserve to be paid more in one year than a hard-working minimum wage worker will be paid in their entire lifetime?
It was reported this week that income inequality is the highest it has been since right before the Great Depression. That should alarm you. It was also reported that 95% of the economic recovery has gone to the wealthiest 1%. That should piss you off and alarm you.
Fortunately, it has pissed off fast food workers, and other low-wage workers around the country - the Ramenista Class - who are beginning to protest and demand a real living wage. Again, minimum wage has fallen so far behind the real cost of living that it would take a radical readjustment to catch it up to what it should be. And I know that are many nay-sayers out there, and many a small businessperson is shaking their head, saying, "There's just no way I could pay my people anymore - I'd go out of business!"
And the truth is, yeah, they might go out of business - if they were the only ones paying a living wage. But it is a myth to say that it cannot be done. There are innumerable economists out there who are saying that not only can we do it, but we need to do it or we're never going to have a sound economy. And after all, the money you keep out of your employee's pocket is money you keep out of your customer's pocket, too.
There was a study by a (I think "progressive") think tank, Demos, that said that if the major retailers (Walmart, Target, and a few others) were to raise their base wage to $12.25 an hour, they would raise tens of thousands out of poverty, create jobs, reduce other social costs, and boost the overall economy. Could they afford it? Pretty easily. And if they passed the cost on to the consumer? Pennies per shopping trip.
The main difference is that those giant retailers make up such a large percentage of the low-wage labor force compared to a single small business. So the actions of that handful of employers would have a far-reaching impact over the basically insignificant impact of that mom-and-pop shop that wants to do right by their workers. There is some percentage, I'm sure, that represents a 'critical mass' needed to move the economic baseline without the intervention of government. Apparently, these mega-retailers could do it on their own if they just chose to.
So far, that doesn't seem to be happening. Nor does it seem that the government will be moving that line any time soon. And so, the Ramenistas have arisen to demand it. It seems the market will not bear this pseudo-indentured servitude anymore.
I give that Miller's Fistpump.
Saturday, September 7, 2013
Never pass up a chance to pee.
Mix Sweet Shop
16oz Soy Chai
Chocolate Croissant
8oz Americano
I feel like a bit of a jerk. I'm a bit sick and sitting in the middle of a crowded coffee shop. But I absolutely needed to be out of the house for a while today. We just got back from our first family-of-four trip late last night and I'll be spending the rest of the day decompressing/putting the apartment back in order. That's also why this will be a bit brief.
First, when going on your first long trip with your two small children - overpack. As long as there's still room in the trunk, and you keep the diapers and snacks and a couple basic soothers in immediate reach, just take everything you might remotely need or imagine somebody might want. Only by going will you learn what can be culled and what must be taken on future trips. Be prepared to go to Fred Meyer at 10:30 at night for more supplies. (Also, bring your own baby-proofing supplies if you want to avoid going to Fred Meyer at 10:30 at night).
Plan what you want to do in advance. Then cut it in half. Then cut that in half and add an hour to each stop. Then be prepared to do something else entirely.
Take lots of pictures, but take more pictures in your head. You're going to have an experience, so experience it.
Give yourself at least a day to recover from your trip before you have to go back to being responsible for stuff.
Make sure you empty the trash before leaving, even if it isn't full. Especially if it contains dirty diapers. Seriously. It's okay to be a bad hippy sometimes.
As per Hitchhiker's Guide, bring a towel. You will want something to lie on when you have to stretch out on the gross sidewalk outside the McDonalds because your back hurts from driving for-freakin-ever.
Take the speed limit seriously. There are places we were driving in SoOr and NorCal - especially on the 101 - where the speed limit should have been even less than what was posted. Also, pay attention to the signs because the limits change frequently and many drivers act like, well... California drivers, who specialize in Making Good Time.
Don't make good time. Have a good time.
And... Go. Even though Oliver is not even two and Henry is only three and they may remember little of the feel of the gritty wet sand or the smell of the salty ocean, go anyway. Oliver fell asleep before making it to the Trees of Mystery, and Henry was more interested in creaky gates and rickety bridges and the ice cream in the gift shop. Still, the stillness of the forest, the towering redwood canopy, the vast trunk of the fallen 3,000 year old tree, the beauty of a green untamed wilderness will seep into their consciousness and linger on in their dreams. And when we go again someday - years from now - they will connect to the experience and understand without understanding why, and their memories will be stronger for having gone this time.
Oh, yeah, and... never pass up a chance to pee.
16oz Soy Chai
Chocolate Croissant
8oz Americano
I feel like a bit of a jerk. I'm a bit sick and sitting in the middle of a crowded coffee shop. But I absolutely needed to be out of the house for a while today. We just got back from our first family-of-four trip late last night and I'll be spending the rest of the day decompressing/putting the apartment back in order. That's also why this will be a bit brief.
First, when going on your first long trip with your two small children - overpack. As long as there's still room in the trunk, and you keep the diapers and snacks and a couple basic soothers in immediate reach, just take everything you might remotely need or imagine somebody might want. Only by going will you learn what can be culled and what must be taken on future trips. Be prepared to go to Fred Meyer at 10:30 at night for more supplies. (Also, bring your own baby-proofing supplies if you want to avoid going to Fred Meyer at 10:30 at night).
Plan what you want to do in advance. Then cut it in half. Then cut that in half and add an hour to each stop. Then be prepared to do something else entirely.
Take lots of pictures, but take more pictures in your head. You're going to have an experience, so experience it.
Give yourself at least a day to recover from your trip before you have to go back to being responsible for stuff.
Make sure you empty the trash before leaving, even if it isn't full. Especially if it contains dirty diapers. Seriously. It's okay to be a bad hippy sometimes.
As per Hitchhiker's Guide, bring a towel. You will want something to lie on when you have to stretch out on the gross sidewalk outside the McDonalds because your back hurts from driving for-freakin-ever.
Take the speed limit seriously. There are places we were driving in SoOr and NorCal - especially on the 101 - where the speed limit should have been even less than what was posted. Also, pay attention to the signs because the limits change frequently and many drivers act like, well... California drivers, who specialize in Making Good Time.
Don't make good time. Have a good time.
And... Go. Even though Oliver is not even two and Henry is only three and they may remember little of the feel of the gritty wet sand or the smell of the salty ocean, go anyway. Oliver fell asleep before making it to the Trees of Mystery, and Henry was more interested in creaky gates and rickety bridges and the ice cream in the gift shop. Still, the stillness of the forest, the towering redwood canopy, the vast trunk of the fallen 3,000 year old tree, the beauty of a green untamed wilderness will seep into their consciousness and linger on in their dreams. And when we go again someday - years from now - they will connect to the experience and understand without understanding why, and their memories will be stronger for having gone this time.
Oh, yeah, and... never pass up a chance to pee.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)