Official BBO Hijacked Thread Thread

[kenberg]

My grandfather came over from Ireland 5 years before your uncle and your father. He saw that cars were catching on and made a good living as a car salesman. He was not an economist but I feel sure he would have agreed that a system in which the minimum wage, adjusted for inflation, has declined by a third over the last half century, while worker productivity has increased 150 percent, is not working for everyone. I see that my library has Mr. Rajan's book which is out on loan. I've placed a hold. When it becomes available, I'll see if he has more to say on this topic and perhaps post more here.

 

It would be good to pin down, at least some, just what the problems and the goals are. If we look at minimum wage when I was young, 75 cents an hour, it matches up pretty well with today's federal minimum wage of $7,25 when inflation is factored in.The inflation calculator at https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ tells me that $1.00 in 1953 equates to $9.40 in 2019. If you multiply 0.75 by 9.40 you get 7.05. And many states have a higher rate than the 7.25. The 1950s are often spoken of as something of a golden age for the working man, so it might be worthwhile to ask just why it is that we do not have such a rosy view of today's situation. I look back on my adolescent years in the 1950s with pleasure. Of course we forget some of the less pleasant things but still, I think that they were good years. And I gather that many young people today are finding it tough. So what is the explanation? The minimum wage does not seem to be the whole story.No doubt part of the story is that I was white and male. But the young women that I knew were pretty optimistic about life also. I definitely am not saying that people are just imagining things when they worry about how things are going, but I am saying that the minimum wage seems to not be the most important part of the story. Optimism seems hard to come by right now. Just why is worth exploring.

[y66]

It would be good to pin down, at least some, just what the problems and the goals are. If we look at minimum wage when I was young, 75 cents an hour, it matches up pretty well with today's federal minimum wage of $7,25 when inflation is factored in.The inflation calculator at https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ tells me that $1.00 in 1953 equates to $9.40 in 2019. If you multiply 0.75 by 9.40 you get 7.05. And many states have a higher rate than the 7.25. The 1950s are often spoken of as something of a golden age for the working man, so it might be worthwhile to ask just why it is that we do not have such a rosy view of today's situation. I look back on my adolescent years in the 1950s with pleasure. Of course we forget some of the less pleasant things but still, I think that they were good years. And I gather that many young people today are finding it tough. So what is the explanation? The minimum wage does not seem to be the whole story.No doubt part of the story is that I was white and male. But the young women that I knew were pretty optimistic about life also. I definitely am not saying that people are just imagining things when they worry about how things are going, but I am saying that the minimum wage seems to not be the most important part of the story. Optimism seems hard to come by right now. Just why is worth exploring.

For me, "capitalism that works for everyone" does not mean that real income levels do not fall over time. It means that the benefits of growth in output are shared in ways that reasonable people agree are fair. For example, if output per worker grows by 150% in a span of 50 years, then reasonable people might agree that real income levels should increase by some amount closer to 150% than zero.

[kenberg]

For me, "capitalism that works for everyone" does not mean that real income levels do not fall over time. It means that the benefits of growth in output are shared in ways that reasonable people agree are fair. For example, if output per worker grows by 150% in a span of 50 years, then reasonable people might agree that real income levels should increase by some amount closer to 150% than zero.

 

I think this really does reflect a difference in views that I have noticed. People speak much more of income inequality than they used to. I worry that concentration of wealth can screw things up, I think it is a serious danger, but that's where my worry is focused. If my life is going well enough, I just don't worry, and never much have, about the unfairness of the distribution of wealth. It goes way back. When I was in high school I somehow got into a conversation with my girlfriend's father about future plans and I explained that I wanted to go to college because I was really interested on math and physics, but as long as it paid adequately for my needs i really didn't care much beyond that. He probably spoke to his daughter about this later! When I started college and met various people this fellow student suggested we all bike out to her parent's place on White Bear Lake where they owned, among other things, a boat with a 70 horsepower inboard that we could ski behind. While we were biking she explained that her parents were thinking of selling their house in Florida since they also had a house in St. Paul and the house on White Bear Lake, and three houses were really too much, didn't I agree. It gave me a story that I could tell for years about how I had to restrain myself from saying "Yes, I was just the other day telling my father that three houses are really too much". But I didn't envy her. I just enjoyed the day.

 

I do worry that kids today do not have as easy a life as I had, and in a country as rich as this, that's just crazy. I want kids to be secure and I want them to have access to a good education. If some other kid gets an Alpha Romeo for his sixteenth birthday, that's fine. I always liked the Alfie, but I bought a 1947 Plymouth for $175. It my date didn't like it, she could hunt up the guy with the Alpha Romeo.And I got into college without my parents bribing anyone.

 

I do think that heavy concentration of wealth is dangerous. That bothers me.

 

[Winstonm]

I think this really does reflect a difference in views that I have noticed. People speak much more of income inequality than they used to. I worry that concentration of wealth can screw things up, I think it is a serious danger, but that's where my worry is focused. If my life is going well enough, I just don't worry, and never much have, about the unfairness of the distribution of wealth. It goes way back. When I was in high school I somehow got into a conversation with my girlfriend's father about future plans and I explained that I wanted to go to college because I was really interested on math and physics, but as long as it paid adequately for my needs i really didn't care much beyond that. He probably spoke to his daughter about this later! When I started college and met various people this fellow student suggested we all bike out to her parent's place on White Bear Lake where they owned, among other things, a boat with a 70 horsepower inboard that we could ski behind. While we were biking she explained that her parents were thinking of selling their house in Florida since they also had a house in St. Paul and the house on White Bear Lake, and three houses were really too much, didn't I agree. It gave me a story that I could tell for years about how I had to restrain myself from saying "Yes, I was just the other day telling my father that three houses are really too much". But I didn't envy her. I just enjoyed the day.

 

I do worry that kids today do not have as easy a life as I had, and in a country as rich as this, that's just crazy. I want kids to be secure and I want them to have access to a good education. If some other kid gets an Alpha Romeo for his sixteenth birthday, that's fine. I always liked the Alfie, but I bought a 1947 Plymouth for $175. It my date didn't like it, she could hunt up the guy with the Alpha Romeo.And I got into college without my parents bribing anyone.

 

I do think that heavy concentration of wealth is dangerous. That bothers me.

 

A problem I have is in the necessity to bow to capitalistic principles at all costs. Education comes to my mind. I have no problem with students being required to pay for higher education - but why should a third-party affiliate profit from that government investment? Why aren't student loans interest free?

[kenberg]

A problem I have is in the necessity to bow to capitalistic principles at all costs. Education comes to my mind. I have no problem with students being required to pay for higher education - but why should a third-party affiliate profit from that government investment? Why aren't student loans interest free?

 

It would be good to keep the interest rate down but maybe not 0. Student loans are another of those things that have become complicated. Sometimes they can be forgiven, but not easily and I am not sure that the rules can be relied on not to change. As a student I

A. Had a scholarship. This did not need to be paid back and I didn't.

B. Took out a student loan. This was to be paid back in full and I did.

I liked the clarity. Scholarship meant don't pay it back, loan meant do pay it back.

Now loan seems to mean maybe you have to pay it back, maybe not, we will let you know what we decide you have to do to maybe get some or maybe all of it forgiven if you can figure out the rules and if we don't change them.

[Winstonm]

The ROI for student loans should come over a lifetime of greater productivity, not from interest on a loan. The U.S. government is in the enviable position of being able to lend the amounts necessary without needing to profit directly from the loan.

 

Monetary ROI is an idea of capitalism that should not be involved in a governmental decision.

 

It makes no sense that a bank can borrow from the Fed for 2.5% yet a student has to pay 5.05% for an undergraduate loan.

[Winstonm]

Isn't it odd that the death threats to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are being made by the same people who clammer to have unrestricted access to guns, part of a greater group who believes they have the right to tell everyone else how they must live in order to be an American.

[Winstonm]

And how does Boeing respond to the two deadly crashes of its newest jet? Why, in the most American way possible.

 

Boeing Sets Monthly Political Donation Record as Crash Scandal Swirls

 

The company doled out $827,000 in political contributions in February, more than its PAC has ever reported donating in a single month, according to a review of FEC records.

 

Yep, that ought to fix those problems.

[y66]

re: Boeing doling out $827,000 in political contributions in February -- that's actually somewhat lower than their average monthly political contributions for the last 20 years but yeah they are good earners for members of Congress.

[Winstonm]

re: Boeing doling out $827,000 in political contributions in February -- that's actually somewhat lower than their average monthly political contributions for the last 20 years but yeah they are good earners for members of Congress.

 

I think the article reference this, the PAC.

[cherdano]

No conversation these days is safe of being hijacked by Brexit.

(Condensed in order not to make you suffer through the typical 20-minute questionnaire from a 4-year old.)

 

My 4-year old son: Why does the king wear a crown?

Me: So that everyone knows he is the king.

4YO: Why does he want everyone to know?

Me: Because the king gets to make the decisions, so everyone should know.

4YO: What if someone doesn't like the decision by the king?

Me: Yes that's a problem, that's why we don't have a king anymore.

4YO: So how do they make decisions now?

Me: &!$~!#$Grrr!

[y66]

I think the article reference this, the PAC.

I compared average monthly lobbying expenses to February 2019 political contributions. Apples to oranges. Sorry for the confusion.

[Winstonm]

I compared average monthly lobbying expenses to February 2019 political contributions. Apples to oranges. Sorry for the confusion.

 

I appreciate you cared enough to look for the facts.

[y66]

From In Patagonia by Bruce Chatwin:

 

The Patagonian desert is not a desert of sand or gravel, but a low thicket of grey-leaved thorns which give off a bitter smell when crushed. Unlike the deserts of Arabia it has not produced any dramatic excess of the spirit, but it does have a place in the record of human experience. Charles Darwin found its negative qualities irresistible. In summing up The Voyage of the Beagle, he tried, unsuccessfully, to explain why, more than any of the wonders he had seen, these 'arid wastes' had taken such firm possession of his mind.

 

In the 1860s, W. H. Hudson came to the Río Negro looking for the migrant birds that wintered around his home in La Plata. Years later he remembered the trip through the filter of his Notting Hill boarding-house and wrote a book so quiet and sane it makes Thoreau seem a ranter. Hudson devotes a whole chapter of Idle Days in Patagonia to answering Mr Darwin's question, and he concludes that desert wanderers discover in themselves a primeval calmness (known also to the simplest savage), which is perhaps the same as the Peace of God.

[Winstonm]

This just in. Fox News has just moved three Central American countries to Mexico to avoid U.S. penalties. El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras are now part of Mexico.

[Cyberyeti]

This just in. Fox News has just moved three Central American countries to Mexico to avoid U.S. penalties. El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras are now Mexican counties.

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=688723654877844&set=a.109671489449733&type=3&eid=ARDtch0moAQCf2GCHbBF3DjqgCWgIktXw1AsbgK4wV_nEwFbm8Vu9Ygc582AvgU32hY9SoNwHcO-uYQL

[jjbrr]

a facebook link, huh? yikes...

[y66]

I just sent a wire transfer from my bank in the U.S. to a bank in Australia. The transaction details include something called a SWIFT code that uniquely identifies financial institutions. The transfer did not go through initially due to a SWIFT code error. The Australian bank confirmed I had the right code and suggested I ask my bank to append XXX. That worked. Such is the state of the art of the international financial system.

[shyams]

I just sent a wire transfer from my bank in the U.S. to a bank in Australia. The transaction details include something called a SWIFT code that uniquely identifies financial institutions. The transfer did not go through initially due to a SWIFT code error. The Australian bank confirmed I had the right code and suggested I ask my bank to append XXX. That worked. Such is the state of the art of the international financial system.

Did the U.S. bank charge you extra for the bounced transaction from the SWIFT error? If yes, you should inform them that their Operations Unit is at fault

 

Although 8 character SWIFT codes are technically allowed, most banks' systems are designed for 11 character SWIFT addresses as standard. And Ops units in all banks know that if a customer includes a 8 character SWIFT code, the must append the XXX (default) to make it into the preferred 11 character format.

[y66]

Did the U.S. bank charge you extra for the bounced transaction from the SWIFT error? If yes, you should inform them that their Operations Unit is at fault

 

Although 8 character SWIFT codes are technically allowed, most banks' systems are designed for 11 character SWIFT addresses as standard. And Ops units in all banks know that if a customer includes a 8 character SWIFT code, the must append the XXX (default) to make it into the preferred 11 character format.

No extra charge. Just an extra 30 minutes of back and forth to resolve something that is apparently beyond the capability of the people handling international wire transfers at my bank. Kudos to their Australian counterparts who knew about the XXX thing.

[johnu]

Spineless partisan Paul Ryan offered advice to AOC and is surprised that she ignored him :lol:

 

Paul Ryan said Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ignored his advice to 'just take it easy' as a new member of Congress

 

Former [mediocre] Speaker of the House Paul Ryan offered some advice to freshman congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez when she arrived in Washington, but she wasn't interested in his guidance, Ryan said on Tuesday night.

 

Why would anybody want to take advice from Paul Ryan who resigned in ignominy after being run over and flattened like a pancake by Dennison's golf cart? Certainly not somebody with integrity and actual potentially good ideas like AOC.

[Winstonm]

Oh, look, God changed his mind again!

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints said on Thursday that it would allow children of same-sex couples to be baptized, a remarkable reversal of church policy from one of the religious groups that had long sought to be a bulwark against gay rights.

 

So confusing. What's right? What's wrong? Is there no absolute? B-)

[y66]

Fresh lemon juice hack:

[y66]

Good stuff: What seven years at Airbnb taught me about building a company

[y66]

From Robert A. Caro on the means and ends of power by David Marchese at NYT:

 

I know that when you’re planning your books, you write a couple paragraphs for yourself that explain what the books are about, and then you use those paragraphs as a North Star to guide your writing and outlining. Yes.

 

What if you have great material that you can’t make fit into an idea expressible in those two paragraphs? Does having them box you in at all? It’s the opposite. Let’s take “Master of the Senate.” I had two paragraphs that explained that I was writing about power, and that the form of power I wanted to write about was legislative power. More specifically the book is about how a guy, Lyndon Johnson, rises to power in the Senate and then for six years makes the Senate work. And the other half of it is what he does with that power. Well, he passes the first civil rights bill in 82 years. I’m telling you my train of thought here.

 

Yep, I’m with you. So there’s this character, Senator Richard Russell. He’s fascinating because he’s so smart, he’s so learned. In foreign affairs he’s like a consul of Rome. He sees the whole world, you know? But he’s this son of a bitch.

 

And a racist. Yes. Here’s how I boiled that book down: I said that two things come together. It’s the South that raises Johnson to power in the Senate, and it’s the South that says, “You’re never going to pass a civil rights bill.” So to tell that story you have to show the power of the South and the horribleness of the South, and also how Johnson defeated the South. I said, “I can do all that through Richard Russell,” because he’s the Senate leader of the South, and he embodies this absolute, disgusting hatred of black people. I thought that if I could do Russell right, I wouldn’t have to stop the momentum of the book to give a whole lecture on the South and civil rights. What I’m trying to say is that if you can figure out what your book is about and boil it down into a couple of paragraphs, then all of a sudden a mass of other stuff is much simpler to fit into your longer outline.

 

One of the criticisms your books have gotten is that, in the case of Johnson, the depiction of him is too Manichean, too black-and-white. I’m wondering if the boiling down you’re describing might result in your portraying Johnson in a way that lends itself to being boiled down. I don’t think it’s Manichean at all. To oversimplify ridiculously, Lyndon Johnson wanted to create social justice, and because of his incredible capacity for turning compassion into governmental action, he had an unrivaled capacity to do that. But on the other hand, there was the Vietnam War. There were 58,000 Americans killed in that war. Over two million total killed — I can’t even get the total number. I will get the number. But to what extent does Johnson’s personality play into the incredible escalation of Vietnam? You said, “Oh, that’s a guy that’s Manichean.” But it isn’t black or white. It’s all the same personality. It’s the same character.

 

Have you ever felt there was anything to some of the criticisms? Or did they all feel invalid? Well, the book that got the most criticism was “The Power Broker.” In those days New York had six or seven newspapers, and several of them printed whatever Robert Moses said as fact. He was attacking me after the book came out3 — and he’s a great writer! You’d read a quote about yourself and say: “That poor guy Caro. Oh, wait, that’s me!” I don’t even think the reviews of that book were unanimously good. But you asked did I think any of them were right?

 

Or even valid. Yeah, no. “The Power Broker,” there was a lot of criticism from academics.

 

About your subscribing too much to a great-man theory of history? Yes. Last night I was at a dinner, and this professor comes up to me. He teaches in urban affairs at Harvard and he said he’s teaching “The Power Broker.” It made me think: All those professors were attacking the book when it came out! But I don’t believe that I’m writing a “great-man theory of history.” I believe that what I’m writing about are the rare individuals who can harness political forces and bring something out of them, either for good or for ill.

 

Insofar as you can tell, is the way political power is used today different than in the days of Moses and Johnson? Well, if by today you mean during the Trump presidency, I don’t want to get into that.

That was not a veiled Trump question. I just mean in the contemporary political era. Oh, good. Well, Johnson and Moses are unique: We live in a democracy, where power is supposed to come from being elected, but here is Robert Moses, who had more power than anyone who was elected and held it for almost half a century and shaped our whole landscape. And with Lyndon Johnson, no one since the days of Webster, Clay and Calhoun had made the Senate work, but Johnson did. And no one has done it since.