At first blush, what follows may not seem like a very pro-pie set of statements. Many, including me, have resoundingly criticized Israel's approach to their issues with the Palestinians, including the decision to cut off relations following the electoral victory of Hamas. After all, as Ismail Haniya pointed out, their position on Israel is not all that different from Sharon's towards Palestine before he took power. The decision to give greater weight to Hamas' misdeeds than its social services and pragmatic anti-corruption positions will likely go down in history as a mistake. Sharon did more for a Palestinian state that Rabin, and the Western press at least has always been happy to make a sharp distinction between Fatah and its Al Aqsa wing. The Soviet Union held the destruction of capitalism and worldwide imposition of Bolshevism among its goals, we signed multiple treaties with them. As Thomas Barnett frequently points out, it is engagement, not isolation, that leads to behavior changes. However, for all that is was a series of diplomatic mistakes that led us to this point, it's time to ask where we go from where we are, rather than where we ought to be.
Perhaps the historical comparison isn't perfect, but replace "Olmert" with "Churchill" and "Beersheba" with "London", and all the talk about proportional response to one side sending rockets into the other's cities is really pretty clear: firebomb their cities and kill off all the draft-age men
.
This is a point which the Economist does not make in their recent Leader on the subject. Unlike the US which has the luxury of distance in defeating an adversary that doesn't follow the normal rules of war, Israel is fighting its neighbors who have effectively declared total war. Worse, it is also fighting a proxy war against the Iranians, and perhaps the Russians, both of whom are probably very interested in seeing the capabilities of the next generation of smart bombs.
It is worth saying right now that I do not lightly condemn everyone in the world's most densely populated area to death, and in fact sincerely hope it does not come to that. Hamas won the latest Palestinian election on an anti-corruption platform, with their populist and foolish stance on Israel a little crowd pleaser to warm up a rally, much like a Sarah Palin rally beginning with someone shouting "Barack HUSSEIN! Obama" to an all-white crowd of neophobes. However, any government committed to the destruction of another state must be met with force sufficient to end that threat.
The use of consistently better intelligence and smaller, smarter warheads was supposed to make war cleaner, shorter and less damaging. However, as the last 50yrs have shown, Clausewitz was right: "The military power must be destroyed, that is, reduced to such a state as not to be able to prosecute the war." Hamas has made it clear that as long as its people are able, it will send rockets into Israel. The question then, is how to change that. History teaches that direct occupation by Israel can prevent the firing of rockets, but an incursion at this point invites a repeat of 2006. Looking at the history of proxy wars, being the state not buffered by a proxy means being on the losing side, whether it's the US, USSR or Israel. Once an industrialized power has to commit its troops to fighting a vastly larger population with a dedicated core willing to see everyone around them die, it has lost. The only victory I know of in such a circumstance, and it's a shaky one at best, is the use of locals to fight on your side.
Okay, so who's Israel going to arm and send into Gaza to clean out Hamas? Well, there's a tricky question. As mentioned above, it's the Western press that regularly differentiates between Fatah and its Martyr's Brigade, not the Israelis. Collaborating with Israel is effectively a death sentence in Palestine, making an "awakening" rather unlikely, unless it's funded by Saudi Arabia. Again, do you really want a potentially hostile power building an army on your doorstep just because they're less hostile right now?
Sadly, the long-term PMCIN increasing options are limited to several very bad ones. One is to begin firebombing the Gaza Strip in response to rocket attacks, since no Gazans means no rockets. In addition to terrible humanitarian consequences, that hurts Israel's relations with the world that does not want to see first world countries engaged in mass killing. Another is to simply continue with the air strikes, as they cost Israel almost nothing, and after a while it will simply become background to other problems on the world stage. A more creative option might be to try and co-opt Russian support by offering to bomb the hell out of Iranian oil terminals in exchange for them suspending nuclear help (boosting oil prices while forcing the Iranians to ship their oil through Russia).
History provides no examples that I know of where the legit combatant state only attacked the proxies and won. So, if you really want a "proportional response" from Israel at this point that meets both Clausewitz's and Just War Theory's requirements, look to the skies over Iran and Syria. If there were ever a time for a US-led diplomatic mission to both, it would be now.
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Okay, let's raise the quality of the debate
Clearly the RNC, or at least its candidates for chairman have not been reading this blog. If they had, they would know better than publish things that confirm the worst stereotypes about the modern GOP.
Bear in mind that Pie and Policy is all about satire, but here we insist that it be in good taste. A Democrat publishing a similar song about imbred Bible-thumpers would be similarly tastless, but at least they can still boast a "Bubba" as one of their most powerful figures. Seriously, why stoop to that level when there's bailouts, social issues you can still win competitive races with, and a whole host of little scandals to play around with. Something chock full of race-baiting titles is just announcing to the world you don't plan to rule outside the South. Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley must be looking down on this shaking their heads sadly.
Bear in mind that Pie and Policy is all about satire, but here we insist that it be in good taste. A Democrat publishing a similar song about imbred Bible-thumpers would be similarly tastless, but at least they can still boast a "Bubba" as one of their most powerful figures. Seriously, why stoop to that level when there's bailouts, social issues you can still win competitive races with, and a whole host of little scandals to play around with. Something chock full of race-baiting titles is just announcing to the world you don't plan to rule outside the South. Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley must be looking down on this shaking their heads sadly.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Pro-pie response to recession
To review briefly, the PMCIN metric looks at three conditions to assess pie making capacity:
(1) The farming, manufacturing and shipping capacity to deliver pie-making supplies.
(2) Sufficiently well distributed income such that everyone can afford these on top of bare minimums.
(3) Sufficient leisure time to allow people to make and enjoy their pie each week.
In light of these, Pie and Policy salutes Pella and AK Steel for the very pro-pie step of increasing employee leisure time without, hopefully, reducing their incomes below the PMCIN=1 level. If you know anyone who's been affected by this, please let me know. I'm writing from the position of one who took a 60% pay cut to get a better job, and have avoided consumer credit like the plague, so the idea of a day off in exchange for a 20% pay cut without loss of benefits sounds like a really good deal to me.
Again, this is a good argument for some kind of national health care plan that decouples health benefits from one's current employer.
(1) The farming, manufacturing and shipping capacity to deliver pie-making supplies.
(2) Sufficiently well distributed income such that everyone can afford these on top of bare minimums.
(3) Sufficient leisure time to allow people to make and enjoy their pie each week.
In light of these, Pie and Policy salutes Pella and AK Steel for the very pro-pie step of increasing employee leisure time without, hopefully, reducing their incomes below the PMCIN=1 level. If you know anyone who's been affected by this, please let me know. I'm writing from the position of one who took a 60% pay cut to get a better job, and have avoided consumer credit like the plague, so the idea of a day off in exchange for a 20% pay cut without loss of benefits sounds like a really good deal to me.
Again, this is a good argument for some kind of national health care plan that decouples health benefits from one's current employer.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
A counterpoint to the "paradox of thrift"
In Keynesian economic theory, demand is king. To the extent people making personal decisions want to buy enough, that's good. However, if people do not want to buy their own industrial output, that's bad, and the government should step in to give people money to buy stuff. Thus, from a Keynesian perspective, the housing bubble was a very good thing, because it generated enormous demand for people to buy goods, and the only acceptable government response to the end of the borrowing binge is to step in and borrow considerable amounts of money itself.
The genius of Adam Smith, however, was that he found a model for ordering an economy in which everyone acting in their own best interest lead to prosperity. It is never in one's best interest to borrow money on a depreciating asset unless you expect to generate revenue from it, such as corporate jets purchased by Netjets or cars used for taxis. Otherwise, you're acting against your own best interest, and a society that encourages such behavior is essentially imposing a highly regressive credit tax on its citizens. A government that borrows heavily to support consumption moves this tax to its younger workers.
So, this is arguably the central problem of industrialization: when each individual can produce far more than he can consume, how many people can you practically employ? In a profligate society, waste drives employment, because people choose to consume more than they need. In a thrifty society, any economic activity must have greater value for the buyer than the opportunity cost of spending money. Thus, anything manufactured has to have some kind of value beyond simple entertainment. This is why notoriously thrifty societies like Japan and Korea are leaders in service robots, self-cleaning toilets, and small cars. Also, they push the market for electronic entertainment because if you want their cash, your game had better be very good.
Thus, the paradox of thrift should not be seen as saying that we must avoid becoming thrifty at all costs. It means accepting the difference between economic growth and quality of life. PMCIN is here to help with that.
The genius of Adam Smith, however, was that he found a model for ordering an economy in which everyone acting in their own best interest lead to prosperity. It is never in one's best interest to borrow money on a depreciating asset unless you expect to generate revenue from it, such as corporate jets purchased by Netjets or cars used for taxis. Otherwise, you're acting against your own best interest, and a society that encourages such behavior is essentially imposing a highly regressive credit tax on its citizens. A government that borrows heavily to support consumption moves this tax to its younger workers.
So, this is arguably the central problem of industrialization: when each individual can produce far more than he can consume, how many people can you practically employ? In a profligate society, waste drives employment, because people choose to consume more than they need. In a thrifty society, any economic activity must have greater value for the buyer than the opportunity cost of spending money. Thus, anything manufactured has to have some kind of value beyond simple entertainment. This is why notoriously thrifty societies like Japan and Korea are leaders in service robots, self-cleaning toilets, and small cars. Also, they push the market for electronic entertainment because if you want their cash, your game had better be very good.
Thus, the paradox of thrift should not be seen as saying that we must avoid becoming thrifty at all costs. It means accepting the difference between economic growth and quality of life. PMCIN is here to help with that.
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Some questions for the new Secretary of Transportation
First, some background:
Once again, the head of the Transportation Department has been handed to a member of the losing party as a sign of bipartisanship. This is probably as good an explanation of the current state of our highways, bridges and air traffic control network as one can ask. The planned upgrades discussed in both links have been discussed in some form for as long as I can remember. Somehow, the opposition member's portfolio never seems to get the attention or funding the job deserves.
So, Mr. LaHood, or anyone on the transition team, I wish you the very best of luck, but I would like answers to the following:
(1) Illinois has proven to be a leader in public-private cooperation on projects such as toll roads, do you plan to export this model around the country, and if so in what capacity?
(2) We hear about many "shovel ready" projects, but the road construction workforce is currently tapped out and aging rapidly. How do you plan to train workers on a time scale compatible with economic stimulus while insuring the quality of new infrastructure?
(3) What priority will be placed on upgrading the national air transportation system? Where do you plan to source the money for it?
(4) What role do you see general aviation playing in the future of the country's overall transportation architecture?
(5) Where do you see the role of the Transportation Department relative to the other departments like Energy, Commerce, Agriculture and Interior? In particular, how does your status as the only Republican in the group effect that relationship?
(6) Newt Gingrich pointed out during the Jack Abramov scandal that large budgets draw corruption like flies to meat. How do you plan to balance accountability with the need to fund projects rapidly?
Once again, the head of the Transportation Department has been handed to a member of the losing party as a sign of bipartisanship. This is probably as good an explanation of the current state of our highways, bridges and air traffic control network as one can ask. The planned upgrades discussed in both links have been discussed in some form for as long as I can remember. Somehow, the opposition member's portfolio never seems to get the attention or funding the job deserves.
So, Mr. LaHood, or anyone on the transition team, I wish you the very best of luck, but I would like answers to the following:
(1) Illinois has proven to be a leader in public-private cooperation on projects such as toll roads, do you plan to export this model around the country, and if so in what capacity?
(2) We hear about many "shovel ready" projects, but the road construction workforce is currently tapped out and aging rapidly. How do you plan to train workers on a time scale compatible with economic stimulus while insuring the quality of new infrastructure?
(3) What priority will be placed on upgrading the national air transportation system? Where do you plan to source the money for it?
(4) What role do you see general aviation playing in the future of the country's overall transportation architecture?
(5) Where do you see the role of the Transportation Department relative to the other departments like Energy, Commerce, Agriculture and Interior? In particular, how does your status as the only Republican in the group effect that relationship?
(6) Newt Gingrich pointed out during the Jack Abramov scandal that large budgets draw corruption like flies to meat. How do you plan to balance accountability with the need to fund projects rapidly?
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Who's running the Senate GOP?
I'd started working on a little post about Navy procurement, a topic I rant about frequently in person, but I really can't say anything better than a host of milbloggers like Galhran. Suffice to say it would be nice if someone could tell the US taxpayer exactly who we think we are fighting, and how the Navy plans to adapt to a world in which the line between police work and military action is very blurry. Juan Garcia, Obama's reported pick for SecNav, is not that man. Bob Work, the director of the SSGN program, or anyone who served on a surface vessel off Africa or the Middle East and thus has some idea of what it's like to deal with low intensity conflict would be a far better choice.
Instead, the news this week offers up two great examples of how not to run a country. First of all, we have the Lumbering 2 (Ford looks to be in good shape over all) screaming for enough money to stave off bankruptcy until the most optimistic projections suggest the economy might start to improve. Fat chance of that, says Honda's president, and without a clear restructuring program, there's no reason to throw money down a hole. However, Chrysler and GM apparently did present an acceptable restructuring plan to Congress, at least by Congressional standards, but it failed because the unions would not accept a pay cut fast enough. As I've said before, the only way the GOP is going to claw its way back to relevance is if it can offer a credible benefit to workers who have not, and likely will not, directly benefited from "trickle down" economics.
Pointing out to voters that the Democrat-designed bailout leaves GM and Chrysler's overpaid management in charge of the ships they ran aground scores positive political points. The fact that an Obama administration would begin with government money being used to lay off workers by buying out contracts would sell really well in the Rust Belt, something like "we want to make it easier to employ people, they gave millionaires billions of tax dollars to lay people off!" So, allowing for a moment that Republicans in the Senate are not uniformly fools, why did they not take to opportunity to say this? More importantly, why does GM need to guarantee cost parity with Toyota? If we apply that logic, then why not demand average wages in Berkley, CA be the same as South Bend, IN? Or that call centers in Oklahoma City, OK pay the same as Bangalore, India? An effective opposition is good for governance, but a "straw man" opposition like this is bad for everyone.
The white elephant in the room, implicit in a somewhat more cogent statement from Senator McConnell, the minority leader, is that health care in this country is too large a burden to place on employers. The UAW is right to resist taking payment for their retirees in GM stock, because that paper is almost completely worthless today, and no one I've seen is willing to bet their health and pension on the company remaining solvent in the long run. GM and Chrysler need to enter bankruptcy to let them shed their unproductive dealerships and brands, hand a portion of their retiree benefits over to the federal government, and renegotiate its various labor contracts to get the cost structure and flexibility it needs to survive as a leaner, stronger company. With guaranteed health care, those workers will suffer much less than they are set to now.
The WSJ's suggestion that the Pelosi-Reid team wanted this bailout to make sure they could specify what kind of cars GM built is hogwash, or at least mostly. They want certain environmental standards met, but then so does everyone who doesn't wear a "Drill, Baby, Drill" shirt or count on oil stocks to buoy a portfolio. Oil is currently priced below the cost of exploration required to maintain current output, and some kind of carbon tax is on the way, so we're looking at a long term demand for efficient and flex-fuel vehicles. However, the very necessary and painful restructuring of the Lumbering 2+Ford will probably cost around 1.5million jobs and make it much harder to keep Indiana and Michigan blue.
The implications of all of this for pie making are actually quite simple. A very large amount of fruit is grown in Michigan, and so things that reduce the pollution load and cost of living there are generally pro-pie. An auto industry that has to restructure in the face of a thriftier nation will put a lot of people out of work, but they will be needed to fix decaying infrastructure and for projects like insulating cities. Some, hopefully many, will turn to farming and biofuels projects, which are labor intensive if they are to have low impact on the environment. This is not a "high growth" strategy, but PMCIN=1 prosperity doesn't require constant spending growth, just a stable society that adapts as necessary.
A way to guarantee that starting a small business won't cost your family its health insurance is a big step in that direction. It will also help make American manufacturing competitive because a cost that is now on our labor will be spread over the whole economy, as is the case in all other developed countries.
Instead, the news this week offers up two great examples of how not to run a country. First of all, we have the Lumbering 2 (Ford looks to be in good shape over all) screaming for enough money to stave off bankruptcy until the most optimistic projections suggest the economy might start to improve. Fat chance of that, says Honda's president, and without a clear restructuring program, there's no reason to throw money down a hole. However, Chrysler and GM apparently did present an acceptable restructuring plan to Congress, at least by Congressional standards, but it failed because the unions would not accept a pay cut fast enough. As I've said before, the only way the GOP is going to claw its way back to relevance is if it can offer a credible benefit to workers who have not, and likely will not, directly benefited from "trickle down" economics.
Pointing out to voters that the Democrat-designed bailout leaves GM and Chrysler's overpaid management in charge of the ships they ran aground scores positive political points. The fact that an Obama administration would begin with government money being used to lay off workers by buying out contracts would sell really well in the Rust Belt, something like "we want to make it easier to employ people, they gave millionaires billions of tax dollars to lay people off!" So, allowing for a moment that Republicans in the Senate are not uniformly fools, why did they not take to opportunity to say this? More importantly, why does GM need to guarantee cost parity with Toyota? If we apply that logic, then why not demand average wages in Berkley, CA be the same as South Bend, IN? Or that call centers in Oklahoma City, OK pay the same as Bangalore, India? An effective opposition is good for governance, but a "straw man" opposition like this is bad for everyone.
The white elephant in the room, implicit in a somewhat more cogent statement from Senator McConnell, the minority leader, is that health care in this country is too large a burden to place on employers. The UAW is right to resist taking payment for their retirees in GM stock, because that paper is almost completely worthless today, and no one I've seen is willing to bet their health and pension on the company remaining solvent in the long run. GM and Chrysler need to enter bankruptcy to let them shed their unproductive dealerships and brands, hand a portion of their retiree benefits over to the federal government, and renegotiate its various labor contracts to get the cost structure and flexibility it needs to survive as a leaner, stronger company. With guaranteed health care, those workers will suffer much less than they are set to now.
The WSJ's suggestion that the Pelosi-Reid team wanted this bailout to make sure they could specify what kind of cars GM built is hogwash, or at least mostly. They want certain environmental standards met, but then so does everyone who doesn't wear a "Drill, Baby, Drill" shirt or count on oil stocks to buoy a portfolio. Oil is currently priced below the cost of exploration required to maintain current output, and some kind of carbon tax is on the way, so we're looking at a long term demand for efficient and flex-fuel vehicles. However, the very necessary and painful restructuring of the Lumbering 2+Ford will probably cost around 1.5million jobs and make it much harder to keep Indiana and Michigan blue.
The implications of all of this for pie making are actually quite simple. A very large amount of fruit is grown in Michigan, and so things that reduce the pollution load and cost of living there are generally pro-pie. An auto industry that has to restructure in the face of a thriftier nation will put a lot of people out of work, but they will be needed to fix decaying infrastructure and for projects like insulating cities. Some, hopefully many, will turn to farming and biofuels projects, which are labor intensive if they are to have low impact on the environment. This is not a "high growth" strategy, but PMCIN=1 prosperity doesn't require constant spending growth, just a stable society that adapts as necessary.
A way to guarantee that starting a small business won't cost your family its health insurance is a big step in that direction. It will also help make American manufacturing competitive because a cost that is now on our labor will be spread over the whole economy, as is the case in all other developed countries.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Whole wheat crust
As part of the Victory Pie!, I promised to post my whole-wheat crust recipe. Here it is:
Ingredients:
1 1/2 Cup unbleached all-purpose flour
1 1/2 Cup whole wheat flour
1/2 Cup (1 stick) unsalted butter
1/2 Cup vegetable shortening
1t salt
1T sugar
1/2 Cup very cold water
Procedure:
1) In a medium or large bowl, combine the dry ingredients and mix well.
2) Cut the butter stick into 1/4" segments, scatter them over the dry ingredients and cut in with a pastry blender.
3) Scatter the shortening over the mix, cut with pastry blender until you have pea-sized bits
4) Slowly add the water a few tablespoons at a time while scraping the walls and bottom of the bowl with a fork. Stop adding water once the dough can be compressed into a ball easily.
5) Form two balls. If you're making a double crust, make one slightly larger for the bottom, otherwise keep them about even and freeze the one you're not using (or make two pies). Knead each ball several times and wrap in plastic or waxed paper and refridgerate for at least 1hr, preferably overnight. A frozen crust will take about 2hrs to thaw properly on the counter in a 60-65F kitchen, less time during the summer.
Ingredients:
1 1/2 Cup unbleached all-purpose flour
1 1/2 Cup whole wheat flour
1/2 Cup (1 stick) unsalted butter
1/2 Cup vegetable shortening
1t salt
1T sugar
1/2 Cup very cold water
Procedure:
1) In a medium or large bowl, combine the dry ingredients and mix well.
2) Cut the butter stick into 1/4" segments, scatter them over the dry ingredients and cut in with a pastry blender.
3) Scatter the shortening over the mix, cut with pastry blender until you have pea-sized bits
4) Slowly add the water a few tablespoons at a time while scraping the walls and bottom of the bowl with a fork. Stop adding water once the dough can be compressed into a ball easily.
5) Form two balls. If you're making a double crust, make one slightly larger for the bottom, otherwise keep them about even and freeze the one you're not using (or make two pies). Knead each ball several times and wrap in plastic or waxed paper and refridgerate for at least 1hr, preferably overnight. A frozen crust will take about 2hrs to thaw properly on the counter in a 60-65F kitchen, less time during the summer.
Friday, December 5, 2008
A pie-centric approach to unions and healthcare
I haven't had time to read the full details of the GM restructuring plan, but, much to my surprise, I find myself generally agreeing with Michael Moore on the subject. Batteries, I think we will find, are not a good large-scale means of energy storage for transportation, but the Volt's serial hybrid model is about the most efficient system possible for a car. And seriously, who asks for $34billion of government money to lay people off as unemployment is hitting numbers that haven't been seen since the 1970s? Okay, I said this wasn't a post about why we shouldn't hand GM and Chrysler money outside of a Chapter 11 restructuring, so I'll stop now.
This post is about two issues that are central to the Lumbering 3 bailout, and will be even more central when the new Congress gets started next year. The first topic is health care, the cost of which has been skyrocketing and is among, if not the top, issues in labor disputes in the last few years. The other is the horribly named Employee Free Choice Act, designed to force 70's style union-management relations on small manufacturers.
The problem with both is that they fundamentally misunderstand what a "job" is in the modern context, much like a 30 year mortgage is probably the wrong standard housing contract for a population that moves every seven years or so. When manufacturing made up 35% of the economy, it was very likely a person would graduate (or not) from high school, get trained to use a particular machine in a particular factory, and expect to use that machine or derivatives of it for the next thirty years, followed by retirement with a decent, employer-funded pension. At the same time, a legacy of the wage control policies of WWII, the employer would provide for the health care of the worker's family. In this environment, the worker is almost completely powerless without a strong union, because after a few years his only skill is the use of one particular machine, and it is unlikely any of his company's competitors will hire him when there's a steady stream of young workers coming out of the high schools. Nationally, politicians have the choice of dealing with strong unions or face massive unrest. It's no accident that the industrial world split between heavily unionized and communist economies in the first half of the previous century.
The downside of this high school-to-grave, rigid relationship between employer and union member is that it requires a world that doesn't change substantially for roughly 30yrs, plus another 10-30yrs of continued business success to handle pensions. This assumes that the company makes a product that will be popular enough to collect its current market share and profit margin for roughly 60yrs, in clear violation of the basic principle of zero long-term economic profit (basically: if an industry is making more profits than others, competitors will enter it until it doesn't). So, taking steps to keep UAW workers safely cocooned in their factories is ultimately a serious disservice to them and the labor movement at large.
Instead, Congress and the AFL-CIO should have a listen to the Planet Money podcast from last week entitled Cousin Knows Best. It discusses how a young man's flexibility and an environment with multiple competing employers has done more to put him on a path to PMCIN>=1 prosperity than a college degree in a non-technical field would have. Thus, we should not think of unions primarily in terms of getting contracts that guarantee people shackled to one company get decent pay and benefits, they should instead position themselves to be the preferred source of highly qualified labor.
As a model, I would take something like the Sheet Metal Worker's Local #20 in South Bend, IN, where I trained as a welder in a previous life. The members there do very good work installing ducting and making making parts on contract for various companies, and run (or at least ran) a well-equipped training facility that also provided their members a venue to demonstrate their skills to potential alternative employers. For them, prosperity depends not on a single company, factory or even business model, but on a steady supply of innovative companies that need to move air or build things out of metal. The point is that long term prosperity requires not contracts with vertically integrated oligarchs, but smart, capable and flexible people who can choose between employers, rather than between working and striking.
To facilitate this, we need some form of national health care that follows workers between jobs. Towards that end, I like what I understand of the Obama plan, and tapping Daschle for HHS is a step in the right direction. Most of the big expenses discussed in the Lumbering 3 bailout hearings, the Boeing strike and other recent "industrial actions" involve rapidly rising health care costs that companies can no longer afford. Instead, the best thing for labor would be a situation in which workers are not bound to their jobs by the fear of someone in their families getting sick, and where employers can hire more cheaply (thus giving employment options).
For much the same reason that a desire for peace requires preparations for war, the desire for sustainability requires flexibility. Unions that provide high quality, reasonably flexible workers with a specific skill set (like framing rooms in buildings, regardless of the material) will serve their members better than ones that demand rigid contracts that ignore the actual forces markets will bring to bear. The best thing a Democratic administration and Congress can do to facilitate this is come up with a health care system that controls costs and provides coverage that is not necessarily tied to employers.
This post is about two issues that are central to the Lumbering 3 bailout, and will be even more central when the new Congress gets started next year. The first topic is health care, the cost of which has been skyrocketing and is among, if not the top, issues in labor disputes in the last few years. The other is the horribly named Employee Free Choice Act, designed to force 70's style union-management relations on small manufacturers.
The problem with both is that they fundamentally misunderstand what a "job" is in the modern context, much like a 30 year mortgage is probably the wrong standard housing contract for a population that moves every seven years or so. When manufacturing made up 35% of the economy, it was very likely a person would graduate (or not) from high school, get trained to use a particular machine in a particular factory, and expect to use that machine or derivatives of it for the next thirty years, followed by retirement with a decent, employer-funded pension. At the same time, a legacy of the wage control policies of WWII, the employer would provide for the health care of the worker's family. In this environment, the worker is almost completely powerless without a strong union, because after a few years his only skill is the use of one particular machine, and it is unlikely any of his company's competitors will hire him when there's a steady stream of young workers coming out of the high schools. Nationally, politicians have the choice of dealing with strong unions or face massive unrest. It's no accident that the industrial world split between heavily unionized and communist economies in the first half of the previous century.
The downside of this high school-to-grave, rigid relationship between employer and union member is that it requires a world that doesn't change substantially for roughly 30yrs, plus another 10-30yrs of continued business success to handle pensions. This assumes that the company makes a product that will be popular enough to collect its current market share and profit margin for roughly 60yrs, in clear violation of the basic principle of zero long-term economic profit (basically: if an industry is making more profits than others, competitors will enter it until it doesn't). So, taking steps to keep UAW workers safely cocooned in their factories is ultimately a serious disservice to them and the labor movement at large.
Instead, Congress and the AFL-CIO should have a listen to the Planet Money podcast from last week entitled Cousin Knows Best. It discusses how a young man's flexibility and an environment with multiple competing employers has done more to put him on a path to PMCIN>=1 prosperity than a college degree in a non-technical field would have. Thus, we should not think of unions primarily in terms of getting contracts that guarantee people shackled to one company get decent pay and benefits, they should instead position themselves to be the preferred source of highly qualified labor.
As a model, I would take something like the Sheet Metal Worker's Local #20 in South Bend, IN, where I trained as a welder in a previous life. The members there do very good work installing ducting and making making parts on contract for various companies, and run (or at least ran) a well-equipped training facility that also provided their members a venue to demonstrate their skills to potential alternative employers. For them, prosperity depends not on a single company, factory or even business model, but on a steady supply of innovative companies that need to move air or build things out of metal. The point is that long term prosperity requires not contracts with vertically integrated oligarchs, but smart, capable and flexible people who can choose between employers, rather than between working and striking.
To facilitate this, we need some form of national health care that follows workers between jobs. Towards that end, I like what I understand of the Obama plan, and tapping Daschle for HHS is a step in the right direction. Most of the big expenses discussed in the Lumbering 3 bailout hearings, the Boeing strike and other recent "industrial actions" involve rapidly rising health care costs that companies can no longer afford. Instead, the best thing for labor would be a situation in which workers are not bound to their jobs by the fear of someone in their families getting sick, and where employers can hire more cheaply (thus giving employment options).
For much the same reason that a desire for peace requires preparations for war, the desire for sustainability requires flexibility. Unions that provide high quality, reasonably flexible workers with a specific skill set (like framing rooms in buildings, regardless of the material) will serve their members better than ones that demand rigid contracts that ignore the actual forces markets will bring to bear. The best thing a Democratic administration and Congress can do to facilitate this is come up with a health care system that controls costs and provides coverage that is not necessarily tied to employers.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Pie for (Almost) All
As promised back at the beginning of October, here is a pie for everyone with common food allergies and vegans. Obviously, one can't really promote a "PMCIN of 1 per capita, forever" strategy without pies that can be eaten by most everyone. We also understand that this does not work for people with a fructose intolerance, but don't worry, the P&P kitchens are hard at work finding something for you, too.
Also, this is a plug for the need for small businesses, and a financial and regulatory environment in which they thrive, since some of these products are not available in large chain stores.
Without further ado: Pie for all!
Crust:
1 Cup rice flour
1 Cup tapioca flour
1T Granulated sugar
1t salt
1/2 Cup shortening
1/2 Cup cold water
Mix the dry ingredients in a large bowl. Cut in the shortening until it's about the size peas. Add the water a little at a time, being sure to lift the stuff off the bottom. Form into two balls, one slightly larger than the other (the bottom), and chill for 1+hr.
Roll out the bottom crust and line a 9" pie pan with it. Roll out the top crust and have it ready. Heat the oven to 400F.
Filling: (note, any fruit filling will work)
5 Cup peeled and chopped apples
1 Cup cranberries
2T lemon juice
1/3 Cup brown sugar
2T cornstarch
2T granulated sugar
Combine the fruit and lemon juice, let sit for 10min. Stir the cornstarch and sugar in a small bowl, then add to the fruit. Pour and scrape the mix into the pie dish, cover with the top crust. Poke holes around the edge of the pie with a fork, you'll check doneness later by looking for bubbling fluids here.
Place in the heated oven for 30min, rotate, reduce temp to 375F, and continue baking until the juices thickly bubble through the vent holes. Let cool at least 2hr before eating.
-------------------------
I wrote this whole entry about 3x faster than my usual "bulleted" approach, does it read well? Comments appreciated.
Also, this is a plug for the need for small businesses, and a financial and regulatory environment in which they thrive, since some of these products are not available in large chain stores.
Without further ado: Pie for all!
Crust:
1 Cup rice flour
1 Cup tapioca flour
1T Granulated sugar
1t salt
1/2 Cup shortening
1/2 Cup cold water
Mix the dry ingredients in a large bowl. Cut in the shortening until it's about the size peas. Add the water a little at a time, being sure to lift the stuff off the bottom. Form into two balls, one slightly larger than the other (the bottom), and chill for 1+hr.
Roll out the bottom crust and line a 9" pie pan with it. Roll out the top crust and have it ready. Heat the oven to 400F.
Filling: (note, any fruit filling will work)
5 Cup peeled and chopped apples
1 Cup cranberries
2T lemon juice
1/3 Cup brown sugar
2T cornstarch
2T granulated sugar
Combine the fruit and lemon juice, let sit for 10min. Stir the cornstarch and sugar in a small bowl, then add to the fruit. Pour and scrape the mix into the pie dish, cover with the top crust. Poke holes around the edge of the pie with a fork, you'll check doneness later by looking for bubbling fluids here.
Place in the heated oven for 30min, rotate, reduce temp to 375F, and continue baking until the juices thickly bubble through the vent holes. Let cool at least 2hr before eating.
-------------------------
I wrote this whole entry about 3x faster than my usual "bulleted" approach, does it read well? Comments appreciated.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Product Review: Bob's Red Mill Gluten-Free
As one might expect, I made several pies this weekend, including the first version of my "pie for (almost) all" (recipe tomorrow, no, really, I mean it). Towards the end of the weekend, someone suggested I try the pie crust recipe on the back of Bob's Red Mill GF Baking Mix.
From that, I have a couple of thoughts:
(1) Unlike my other Gluten Free (GF) pie crusts, this one was not a sticky mess to roll out. In fact, I couldn't get it to stay together at all, despite repeated kneading and re-rolling.
(2) The recipe on the bag suggested 2cups of flour for the crust, usually enough for a standard double crust. However, given the problems getting this to hold together, I wound up using all of it to line a deep dish pan for a "browned butter pecan pie" straight out of Ken's book. The pie was very good, and I can't wait to make it in a better crust.
(3) The problem with using biscuit mixes for pastries is the baking soda/powder they contain. When baked, these ingredients puff, given an interesting texture that I might try for a more cobbler-like pie, but the effect is very similar to serving pie filling on a half-charred biscuit.
(4) An upshot of the biscuit-crumbliness (that's a real word) is that it lets pie fillings that drip (i.e. all of them) find their way to pan, where they burn to the bottom, making it more difficult to remove slices.
Bob's Red Mill makes some good stuff, but they overstretched by suggesting you could make a pie out of their biscuit mix.
From that, I have a couple of thoughts:
(1) Unlike my other Gluten Free (GF) pie crusts, this one was not a sticky mess to roll out. In fact, I couldn't get it to stay together at all, despite repeated kneading and re-rolling.
(2) The recipe on the bag suggested 2cups of flour for the crust, usually enough for a standard double crust. However, given the problems getting this to hold together, I wound up using all of it to line a deep dish pan for a "browned butter pecan pie" straight out of Ken's book. The pie was very good, and I can't wait to make it in a better crust.
(3) The problem with using biscuit mixes for pastries is the baking soda/powder they contain. When baked, these ingredients puff, given an interesting texture that I might try for a more cobbler-like pie, but the effect is very similar to serving pie filling on a half-charred biscuit.
(4) An upshot of the biscuit-crumbliness (that's a real word) is that it lets pie fillings that drip (i.e. all of them) find their way to pan, where they burn to the bottom, making it more difficult to remove slices.
Bob's Red Mill makes some good stuff, but they overstretched by suggesting you could make a pie out of their biscuit mix.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)