“You don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone.” The old adage came to mind as I thought about my local newspaper – the one that’s been printing my columns for several years. It reports on local government, sports, arts, births, deaths, achievements, crimes, churches and the myriad of other things that make up our daily lives. People still clip and deliver pictures of friends because it’s something important when your child’s picture is in the paper. Continue reading You don’t know what you’ve got…
Tag Archives: economic development
WILL YOU BE FIRED?
“Oh people, look around you. The signs are everywhere. You’ve left it for somebody other than you to be the one to care.” Jackson Brown wrote those lyrics to “Rock me on the water” (click to hear Keb Mo sing it) about 50 years ago. Today his words seem to haunt our future as much as they did our past.
There are more than 7.5 billion of us humans and our numbers continue to grow. Who cares about the unintended consequences of our collective actions? Our individual choices about economics, environment, health and other questions seem to be our personal business until we consider their collective effect. Continue reading WILL YOU BE FIRED?
THE ECONOMY MUST SERVE PEOPLE
“The economy must serve people, not the other way around.” That is the opening sentence of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ statement “The Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers“. Regardless of your religious beliefs, I encourage readers to look it up on the internet. It’s easy to understand the values being taught but challenging to apply them in our lives, businesses and government. Continue reading THE ECONOMY MUST SERVE PEOPLE
Let’s start winning
Sister Jean-Delores Schmidt is a 98 year old nun who serves as a chaplain for the Loyola University basketball team and travels with them. Defying odds and expectations, the team earned a spot in the final four of the men’s basketball tournament. During the celebration, a reporter asked Sister Jean, “What did you give up for lent?” “Losing” she replied with a smile. Think about that for a moment. Continue reading Let’s start winning
MAKING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE GREAT AGAIN
We must maintain our existing infrastructure while we build more of it; and we need to agree on how to do that. One guiding principle for those decisions is “TANSTAAFL”. That’s the acronym for “There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch”. Infrastructure is expensive.
The report card on American infrastructure published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) is probably the most comprehensive analysis available. It identifies a multitude of current and anticipated concerns. Our Congress has paid only scant attention to ASCE warnings about our backlog of maintenance and construction needs.
President Trump has proposed spending $1 Trillion on infrastructure over the coming decade and has pointed out that a lot of new jobs could be created through such a program. He has yet to clarify how projects would be selected, who would own them and how they would be funded.
Our existing infrastructure has been built and is owned by a sometimes bewildering mix of local, state, regional and national government entities along with utility companies, railroads, airport authorities, and various kinds of public-private partnerships. Sometimes, as in the case of abandoned dams and waste disposal sites, ownership is not clearly identified.
Even if the congress could agree on a way to standardize and prioritize our infrastructure ownership and financing, it would probably be a bad idea. The ways of doing things that work well in rural America are often different from the best ways to do things in urban areas. The process of deciding what to build, how much government money to spend and how to organize the effort will necessarily be complicated, messy, and sometimes controversial. Despite that, it’s worth doing.
We should look back at the last serious effort to renew our infrastructure in hopes that this effort will succeed where the last one failed – in the United States Senate. In 2011, President Obama proposed a more modest and more specific infrastructure plan that called for $50 billion in federal spending on highway, rail, airport and transit improvements plus another $10 billion to start a “National Infrastructure Bank” intended to spur public-private partnerships. The proposal passed the Senate by a 51-49 vote but was blocked by a Republican filibuster – as were most Obama initiatives.
President Obama proposed to pay for his plan by imposing a surtax of 7/10 of one percent on incomes in excess of $1 million. President Trump’s more ambitious proposal appears to call for $200 billion in federal spending plus unspecified local and state spending and unspecified private spending accounting for the rest of the $1 trillion price tag. He has not announced a plan to pay for it other than by mentioning that our low interest rates make this an inexpensive time to borrow money.
This complicated but important issue is the kind that our traditional Congressional procedures were designed to address. Advice from experts will be needed, followed by a great deal of negotiation and compromise. There is no perfect plan for such complex needs. There will be negotiations to determine which states and communities get their projects approved. Every decision will be subject to criticism and second-guessing. That’s how it was with big federal projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority and facilities for NASA, our armed forces and other federal departments. The planning was complex and controversial but certainly worth the trouble.
Leaders in both political parties know that our national infrastructure needs renewal and expansion. Both parties have proposed it when they were in power. Are they up to the task of responsibly designing a way to achieve and pay for that ambitious goal? Their predecessors in the 1930s through the 1960s figured out how to establish a national power grid, phone service, interstate highways, NASA, hydroelectric dams, public water and sewer systems, national parks, airports, hospitals, schools…the list goes on. They facilitated public-private collaboration in ways that worked for American citizens – things like blending rural utility co-ops, private utility companies, and municipally owned utilities into national electric, gas, and phone systems.
Today about 18 million Americans are served by water systems that violate lead safety standards. That’s just one example of our problems. There are similar concerns in every category of infrastructure and there are no simple answers. We need a congress that is willing to do their homework and make hard decisions on behalf of the citizens who elected them. That can happen if voters demand it. TANSTAAFL.
WE CAN CHOOSE HOPE OVER DESPAIR
“There are people whose lives are so hard they break.” Those are the words of Eileen Crimmins, a professor at the University of Southern California. She wasn’t talking about Syrian refugees or undocumented immigrants. She was talking about a large subgroup of white American citizens.
The average life expectancy of white Americans age 25-54 declined between 1999 and 2014 because of a rapid rise in premature deaths from drug overdoses, suicides, and cirrhosis associated with alcohol consumption. The death rate from drug overdoses among 25 -34 year old whites was five times higher in 2014 than in 1999. It tripled among 35 – 44 year olds. By 2014, the overdose death rate among whites was double the rate for blacks or Hispanics. Although whites still live longer, the black-white gap closed considerably because of the premature white deaths.
The rising death rates are heavily concentrated among whites without college degrees. Rural areas and small towns of the Southeast, Southwest, and the Midwestern “rustbelt” have been especially hard hit.
Why are so many white Americans killing themselves with drugs, alcohol and guns? (Almost half of all American suicides are by gun.) The most common hypothesis among researchers is that these are “deaths of despair” among Americans who no longer have hope for a satisfactory future.
Economists, sociologists, psychologists and public health researchers are only beginning to study and understand this troubling trend. It’s clear that the problems of poverty, lack of jobs with good wages, and lack of education have existed at higher rates among black Americans than among whites for all of our history but it’s the white Americans who are killing themselves with drugs, alcohol and guns. Why?
One hypothesis is that this large group of white Americans have been taught to expect that, like their parents, they could support a family and live middle-class lives with a high school education. They counted on factory work, and semi-skilled labor to pay for necessities and a few luxuries. Those expectations have been shattered. They blame corporations, immigrants, government, and public policy (such as trade treaties) for their plight. They also point a finger at themselves and far too many turn to drugs, alcohol, and suicide as avenues of escape.
The white labor class may be suffering so much despair because they are just now experiencing what the black labor class, unprotected by labor unions and discriminated against by employers, have known from childhood. They can’t pay their way into the middle class. In many cases their marriages have failed and their families have shattered under the stress of economic pressures. Many lack the literacy skills, time and money to pursue better opportunities. They see little hope for themselves and their communities.
Our economy will use the least expensive combination of machines, computers, and people to produce goods and services. Then it will sell those goods and services in exchange for more money and repeat the process. In that environment, it is up to each individual to find a way to succeed. Otherwise, the economy will find you to be expendable.
Blame is irrelevant. The important question is, “What future will we choose to create?” The replacement of human work with automation and artificial intelligence has barely begun and no one knows how rapidly it will accelerate. A report by PWC, an international consulting firm, says that 38% of American jobs are at high risk of replacement by automation in the next 15 years.
We shouldn’t even try to stop the trend, but we do need to prepare for it. Public education must be redesigned to prepare every student for life-long learning at the college level. Parents and communities must encourage and support it because jobs with good wages will require continuous learning at that level. Even if manufacturing returns to the US, the old jobs will not accompany it. There will be far more automation and the new jobs will require skills that few of us have today. In addition, minimum wage, healthcare, and other public policies must be sufficient to support viable families.
As we envision our futures, it’s good to remember Jackson Browne’s line, “You can dream but you can never go back the way you came.” We can create a good future, but it won’t be the same as our past. We must not sacrifice another generation of Americans by preparing them for a future that won’t exist. Instead, we should prepare them for hope and success.
References for further reading:
Commonwealth fund brief on white mortality trends
We can do well while doing good
The ongoing debate about the economic impact of HB2, North Carolina’s “bathroom law” seems both sad and laughable because its effect is so small when compared to another foolish decision made by the state’s Republican legislature. The economic and human damage done by the decision to reject expansion of the Medicaid program is greater by far.
Republican friends, before you disagree, do your homework and discover the facts for yourselves. Bring truth to the debate and then see how your legislature’s decisions look under that bright light. Before considering human impact, let’s examine some raw financial facts.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Urban Institute have collaborated on research to understand the economic impact on states that rejected Medicaid Expansion. They found that health care funding in North Carolina would be increased by $41 billion in the decade from 2017-2026 if the state accepts Medicaid expansion. That would require $4.9 billion of state funding and would bring $36.1 billion in federal funding. Do the math. $36.1 minus $4.9 equals $31.2 in net gain. Another way to look at it, suppose someone offered you $36.10 in exchange for $4.90. Would you accept it? That is one billionth of the deal that Republicans rejected. The legislature knew this information when it rejected the Medicaid expansion.
Some will argue that our state budget is too large and we shouldn’t increase it further by expanding Medicaid. That is a reasonable concern, so let’s look at Medicaid expansion in the context of other government spending.
Most federal highway grants require a 20 percent state match. State funding of $4.9 billion would produce a federal highway match of $19.6 billion. That is $16.5 billion less than we would get if we spent the money on Medicaid expansion. Therefore, if one accepts purely financial justification for not expanding Medicaid, the state would be better off by $16.5 billion to reject the highway match and use the money to fund Medicaid.
In addition to providing health care to uninsured North Carolinians, the Medicaid expansion would create thousands of new jobs in health care to replace those lost in other industries.
The argument that “we can’t afford it” doesn’t hold water when made by legislators who spend money on items that yield a far smaller return on investment. It’s a matter of priorities, and this legislature obviously sees other spending as more important than keeping poor people alive and creating jobs.
What about the human effect of the decision? The Medicaid expansion was designed to provide coverage for the working poor, many of whom have jobs (sometimes more than one job) but who are paid so little that they can’t afford insurance even with the help of the Affordable Care Act. Whatever became of that right wing mantra “take a bath and get a job”? As cynical as it sounds, the Medicaid expansion is designed to support exactly that behavior. It provides health care for people at the bottom of the economic ladder so that they can stay healthy enough to work and support themselves.
Instead of supporting a program that fits with their own traditional philosophies, Republicans rejected the expansion. That leaves us with a law that requires hospitals participating in Medicare and doctors with privileges to practice there to provide emergency and obstetrical care without regard to a patient’s ability or willingness to pay. The cost of that is invisibly built into the prices paid by everyone else. As a result, North Carolinians will pay for surgery to add a few months of life for an emergency patient diagnosed with advanced colon cancer. But we won’t expand Medicaid to pay for the colonoscopy that could have prevented the cancer from forming in the first place. The result of Republican policy is higher cost and a dead patient.
Yes, HB2 is a foolish law that should be repealed. Yes, the cancellation of concerts and sports events has an economic impact on hotels, restaurants and tourism. Yes, the law unfairly discriminates against a largely defenseless class of citizens. Yes, it should be repealed. But so far no one has died as a result of HB2 and the economic impact is microscopic compared to the rejection of Medicaid expansion.
It’s a fabulous opportunity when the right thing to do is also the profitable thing to do. We have two such opportunities at the moment. Accept the Medicaid expansion. Repeal HB2. Everybody will win.
Republican friends, the facts don’t support your policies. It’s time to change your minds.
What is the future of our jobs?
Today I’d like to introduce you to SAM. His full name is Semi Automated Mason. SAM can lay as many bricks as three human masons. He has only one year of experience and will become more skilled and productive as he continues to learn. On the other hand, SAM could become unemployed when on-site 3-D printing of walls becomes feasible. It’s being tested now.
SAM’s story is important because it exemplifies a worldwide trend. We are still in the early days of an economic and social upheaval that will be bigger than the industrial revolution; and we’re not prepared for what’s coming. An Oxford University study identified jobs most and least likely to be replaced by automation. Looking at the list, it becomes apparent that some among us will benefit from less expensive products and services produced through automation while others lose their jobs.
It’s going to happen regardless of what presidential candidates promise about creating jobs or trade treaties. Even in China and undeveloped nations, automation is faster and cheaper than human labor. That is true in the production of both “things” and services. Human operators for elevators and long distance phone calls were displaced a long time ago. Soon automation will replace us in jobs as diverse as loan officer, manicurist, and drivers – not just drivers of taxis but also of trucks and buses.
In economic terms, this revolution means that fewer people can produce more goods and services. The total amount of wealth available will increase. Some of us will benefit from that but those who are replaced probably won’t. If you’re old enough to remember it, think of what happened when mechanized agriculture drove down the cost of eggs, milk, corn, cotton and other products. They became cheaper while previously successful farm families were devastated by agribusiness competition. Today we can see entire communities and families that are no longer self-sufficient because their jobs are gone.
The much-talked-about decline of the middle class is not primarily caused (and won’t be fixed) by tax or trade policies. Instead, it is caused in large part by technologies that are cheaper and more productive than human labor. This inevitable change brings opportunities along with threats.
What then, shall we do to prepare ourselves?
- Know the facts. It’s particularly important for elected officials, educators, economic developers, city planners and business leaders to correctly anticipate the future and plan for it. News media can improve public knowledge by researching and reporting on these subjects.
- Understand the education and skills that will be necessary for success in the future economy. I cringe when I hear someone say that, “not everyone needs to go to college.” The statement is true of course, but it masks a more important truth. Successful people will need to be able to learn at the college level. Change will come at a pace that requires continuous learning of new information and skills. The ability to read and learn at the level expected of a college freshman will be necessary for success in skilled trades, health occupations, and just about any field we can imagine. It is a great disservice to children and parents to lead them to believe that they can succeed with less.
- Prepare community and regional infrastructure for success. For example, gigabit internet service will be more important than highways and railroads. An increasing number of businesses require high-speed and high volume internet service at all of their locations. That’s often true of small startup businesses and may be true for in-home education opportunities. Communities that lack gigabit service may be left behind as badly as those that lacked electricity, roads or railroads a century ago.
- Re-design public education and libraries to support lifelong learning so that all of us can continuously acquire new knowledge and skills as we need them, regardless of our economic status or geographic location. We can discover ways to use the internet to deliver our finest instruction and most complete information to every American.
Issues of this kind should be on the agendas of national, state and local governments. Instead we are arguing about voter IDs and bathroom privileges. I don’t know all the answers, but I’m sure of one thing. The people who find the right answers will be the ones who are asking the right questions.
KILLING BERTA CACERES
A friend recently described the life and death of Berta Caceres to me. Today, I’m sharing her story with you along with concerns about America’s role in the affairs of other nations.
Caceres was co-founder of COPINH, an organization created to protect the interests of the indigenous Lenca people of Honduras and to save their natural environment from rapacious development. She and her organization received threats and were victims of violence over the years. The controversy escalated when COPINH was able to stop construction of a huge hydroelectric dam that would have taken water and land historically belonging to the Lenca people. It was jointly sponsored by Honduras-based DESA and Sinohydro, a Chinese company that is the world’s largest dam builder. Defeating that project earned Caceres the 2015 Goldman Environmental Prize (perhaps the world’s most prestigious environmental recognition). It also earned her the enmity of some very powerful people.
On March 2, 2016 Berta Caceres was shot and killed in her bed. The assassins were reportedly graduates of the “Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation” (AKA “School of the Americas”) that is jointly operated by the US Army and the CIA. That school also educated at least 10 military dictators including Manuel Noriega (Panama) and Juan Velasco Alvarado (overthrew the government of Peru). Their training by American professionals included assassination and torture.
In January, 2006, Manuel Zelaya was elected President of Honduras. He ran on socialist principles and soon created closer ties to Venezuela and Cuba. That engendered concern from Honduran and American business interests and from the Bush Administration in the US. In June 2009, Zelaya was kidnapped and taken to Costa Rica by the Honduran military. Pre-arranged support from the Honduran Supreme Court included immediate installation of Pofiro Lobo as President.
Central American Nations and the European Union called for Zelaya’s return to power but dropped their insistence when the Obama Administration, in the person of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, encouraged recognition of the new regime. The never-stated quid pro quo may have been American acceptance of the regime’s legitimacy and its domestic policies in exchange for their collaboration in a war against drug lords. The Chicago Religious Leadership Network on Latin America reports specifics of 229 politically related Murders under President Lobo. Many who died or disappeared at the hands of government death squads were environmentalists or social reformers.
When the journal “Intercept” interviewed Berta Caraces about security concerns and threats from government, businesses and paramilitary interests she said “The army has an assassination list of 18 wanted human rights fighters with my name at the top, I take lots of care but in the end, in this country where there is total impunity I am vulnerable. When they want to kill me, they will do it.” The Catholic Herald reports that many church-affiliated groups are urging the US to conduct transparent investigations of multiple political murders including that of Berta Caraces, but the US has not responded.
There are rumors that the dam project will be resurrected with support from banking, land development and construction interests. Assassinations and arrests of opponents continue, as does the drug trade; and Honduras continues to have the world’s highest murder rate.
Mass market journalists have paid little attention to these events, but recently the well respected National Catholic Reporter (US based) has confirmed the story and added that, “The leader of the coup, Honduran General Romeo Vásquez Velásquez, was a graduate of the notorious School of the Americas, a U.S. Army training program nicknamed “School of Assassins” for the sizable number of graduates who have engaged in coups, as well as the torture and murder of political opponents.” Nevertheless, US policy created by Secretary Clinton and still supported by her today is to refuse refugees from Honduras while continuing to accept them from Cuba.
After all the bloodshed, it seems that the US would have learned that training and equipping citizens of other nations to kill each other and overthrow their governments doesn’t help anyone. It certainly did not help Honduras control the drug trade or help Iraq eliminate terrorists and it made lots of new enemies for Americans. We’ve tried it without success in Iran, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Peru, Chile, Cuba, Syria, Guatemala, Nicaragua and probably in some places that I don’t know about. It’s evil. Let’s resolve to never do it again!
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OUR INDUSTRIAL MEGASITE
When the Randolph County Commissioners decided to develop an industrial megasite, I was cautiously optimistic because they are attempting to create much-needed economic and job growth. Today it is alarming that our usually fiscally conservative Commissioners have committed $10 million – essentially all of the money available for economic development projects – without adequate planning. Continue reading ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OUR INDUSTRIAL MEGASITE