Conference Bounce
In less then 24 hours I'll be in California for the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting 2010. First thing Monday I shall present my initial results from this past summer's research. And with any luck, I'll get a better feel of what sort of job prospects I'd have if I continued on with this lightning thing.
Oddly enough I'm finding that one of my big preferences are for where I end up in a year is where. I've found that some environments are not really for me as far as long term living conditions go, and I'd shy away from them if given a chance. I know most folks in my position are probably much further along on the job search then I am at this point, given that I'm going to try to finish up this spring, but the mix of lack of obvious choices and an itch to try something new has got me filled with uncertainty.
Sunday I hope to meet up with a very good friend and see Shrek the musical. To be honest I never ever thought there'd be a theatrical version of the movie. I'll be staying with one of the office mates. The other one was supposed to be there too but seems to be quite stuck in Antarctica. My advisor has a similar problem right now but might make the end of the conference (it lasts all week, though my stuff is the first 2-3 days only).
I also need to pick my brother up something for Xmas while I'm there. My dad suggested something 'New Hampshire-ish' but that's not really a something. Well, beyond some microbrew beers or something, but those are a pain to ship on short notice like I got and lugging them off to California first doesn't really work. The same with real maple syrup. For those who have never had the real stuff, it is soooo much better then the corn based syrups.
In other news, I think I've figured out what side of the wikileaks thing I'll be. I might not be happy with some of the things they release, but that's irrelevant. They are acting as a press out put in publishing things leaked to them from someone in the government. If you want to be outraged, be outraged by that military guy. But leave the freedom press (and speech) alone. Wikileaks is the messenger, nothing more. And they're even a messenger that does self censor to try to not get people killed. They may fail, but to my knowledge no one has died from people in Afganistan looking up something on their website.
And finally, since CNN is on right now and they're talking about the tax cut deal...
If one believes that the government should make a good faith effort to maintain or build a healthy economy (which I'd argue for since having a perpetually crappy economy is a good way to encourage armed rebellions plus our constitution says the government is established to look after the general welfare), then the government should be acting to encourage economic activity when we're in a recession/depression. There are many ways to do this of course, but the ones on the table right now are a bouquet of tax cuts and an unemployment insurance extension.
Tax cuts can help spur economic activity at rates higher then the income the government receives from them when tax rates are excessive, regressive, or sales based. Of the tax cuts being talked about, only one of them (the social security tax) is technically regressive. And that's because its a flat tax up to a certain level and incomes above that pay the tax only on the bit of their income up to that level. Why is this? Because individuals with high incomes don't have to spend as much of their income on necessary goods and services. So they can either save it or invest that money. Investing can either be into actual economic activity or financial activity. The latter of which doesn't do a whole lot but given how markets are designed these days, they tend to be lower risk then investing in start up companies that make widgets (which are economic investments since they actually make things and employe people instead of just moving money around and betting on options). So tax cuts for rich people don't really help encourage money to go to economic activity since they're basic needs are already met. The counter argument is that there is a luxury item market. But think about that for a moment. Luxury items by their very nature produced by business that make a lot of money per item, and thus can employ a few people and pay them a lot of money (or in the case of the diamond trade, employ a lot of people for slave wages no matter how much money is made for those at the top). So the luxury market is rich people buying expensive items from companies that employ other rich people. And they in turn can buy luxury items from other rich people. It takes a great many cycles of this for enough of the money to get out of that small group of people and to the greater economy.
So tax cuts for the rich don't really help the economy. So the other part of the deal is about unemployment benefits. This is money being given to people who have been laid off so they can pay their bills, buy groceries, and not much more. Its also prone to running out for a person on it. There are people who have been on unemployment months and years now, unable to find work because the economy is crap. But because they've been getting this little boost, they've been able to not starve and not loose their homes. And we're not talking thousands, we're talking millions of people in this situation. And those benefits are due to expire from law at the end of the year.
These folks have to spend almost all of the pittance the government has been giving them. That money isn't sitting around. These folks can't afford to save and sit on a pile of money. They're trying not to starve. Not only is it providing direct economic activity (purchasing real things and paying rent/mortgages, aka paying for real property), but keeping people out of eternal poverty.
If these folks loose this money, and can't find a job, they might be lucky and have friends or family whom can help house them and feed them. Some will end up living in their cars. Or under bridges. And getting by on hand outs and scrounging. Hardly economic activity. And to much of that and its a good reason for unrest. What more, companies won't be selling hamburgers, new pants, and winter coats to these folks. So they loose out as well. Laying off more people. So generally a bad idea for it to expire.
So the question comes, is unemployment insurance extensions worth giving money away to the rich who don't need it but still seem to want it? The tax cut deal seems to be a need plus a want. So is it good for the country?
In the short term, it'd be good. Because ignoring what the rich folks do, having people not be tossed into poverty seems like a good thing. The problem is the medium term on, they're likely to be tossed out into poverty anyway. You see, a certain party, which has been opposing unemployment benefit extensions for a while, is going to be in charge of the house of representatives. So we save the poor for another six months. And then they cut off the spigot and keep their tax cuts for the rich until a year and a half later. So the folks that would be screwed now if no bill was passed will be screwed later and the people who don't need the help will keep getting the goods.
And I haven't even gotten to the bit about the social security tax. The Republican Party has portrayed doing nothing, or even just keeping the Bush era tax cuts for the middle class on down, as the Obama tax hike. If this bill passes they'll get two opportunities to play that game (the social security tax cut will vanish in a year, and then the rest in two years). I'd be ok with a middle tax income tax cut provided it was temporary (I disagreed with the president there, he wanted to keep it permanently). But a temporary middle class tax cut could be tackled before the 2012 election and be an issue the Democrats could win on if the economy was still crappy.
So this is a fools game. I oppose this tax cut deal. Its a bad political move and a bad move for the country.
Oddly enough I'm finding that one of my big preferences are for where I end up in a year is where. I've found that some environments are not really for me as far as long term living conditions go, and I'd shy away from them if given a chance. I know most folks in my position are probably much further along on the job search then I am at this point, given that I'm going to try to finish up this spring, but the mix of lack of obvious choices and an itch to try something new has got me filled with uncertainty.
Sunday I hope to meet up with a very good friend and see Shrek the musical. To be honest I never ever thought there'd be a theatrical version of the movie. I'll be staying with one of the office mates. The other one was supposed to be there too but seems to be quite stuck in Antarctica. My advisor has a similar problem right now but might make the end of the conference (it lasts all week, though my stuff is the first 2-3 days only).
I also need to pick my brother up something for Xmas while I'm there. My dad suggested something 'New Hampshire-ish' but that's not really a something. Well, beyond some microbrew beers or something, but those are a pain to ship on short notice like I got and lugging them off to California first doesn't really work. The same with real maple syrup. For those who have never had the real stuff, it is soooo much better then the corn based syrups.
In other news, I think I've figured out what side of the wikileaks thing I'll be. I might not be happy with some of the things they release, but that's irrelevant. They are acting as a press out put in publishing things leaked to them from someone in the government. If you want to be outraged, be outraged by that military guy. But leave the freedom press (and speech) alone. Wikileaks is the messenger, nothing more. And they're even a messenger that does self censor to try to not get people killed. They may fail, but to my knowledge no one has died from people in Afganistan looking up something on their website.
And finally, since CNN is on right now and they're talking about the tax cut deal...
If one believes that the government should make a good faith effort to maintain or build a healthy economy (which I'd argue for since having a perpetually crappy economy is a good way to encourage armed rebellions plus our constitution says the government is established to look after the general welfare), then the government should be acting to encourage economic activity when we're in a recession/depression. There are many ways to do this of course, but the ones on the table right now are a bouquet of tax cuts and an unemployment insurance extension.
Tax cuts can help spur economic activity at rates higher then the income the government receives from them when tax rates are excessive, regressive, or sales based. Of the tax cuts being talked about, only one of them (the social security tax) is technically regressive. And that's because its a flat tax up to a certain level and incomes above that pay the tax only on the bit of their income up to that level. Why is this? Because individuals with high incomes don't have to spend as much of their income on necessary goods and services. So they can either save it or invest that money. Investing can either be into actual economic activity or financial activity. The latter of which doesn't do a whole lot but given how markets are designed these days, they tend to be lower risk then investing in start up companies that make widgets (which are economic investments since they actually make things and employe people instead of just moving money around and betting on options). So tax cuts for rich people don't really help encourage money to go to economic activity since they're basic needs are already met. The counter argument is that there is a luxury item market. But think about that for a moment. Luxury items by their very nature produced by business that make a lot of money per item, and thus can employ a few people and pay them a lot of money (or in the case of the diamond trade, employ a lot of people for slave wages no matter how much money is made for those at the top). So the luxury market is rich people buying expensive items from companies that employ other rich people. And they in turn can buy luxury items from other rich people. It takes a great many cycles of this for enough of the money to get out of that small group of people and to the greater economy.
So tax cuts for the rich don't really help the economy. So the other part of the deal is about unemployment benefits. This is money being given to people who have been laid off so they can pay their bills, buy groceries, and not much more. Its also prone to running out for a person on it. There are people who have been on unemployment months and years now, unable to find work because the economy is crap. But because they've been getting this little boost, they've been able to not starve and not loose their homes. And we're not talking thousands, we're talking millions of people in this situation. And those benefits are due to expire from law at the end of the year.
These folks have to spend almost all of the pittance the government has been giving them. That money isn't sitting around. These folks can't afford to save and sit on a pile of money. They're trying not to starve. Not only is it providing direct economic activity (purchasing real things and paying rent/mortgages, aka paying for real property), but keeping people out of eternal poverty.
If these folks loose this money, and can't find a job, they might be lucky and have friends or family whom can help house them and feed them. Some will end up living in their cars. Or under bridges. And getting by on hand outs and scrounging. Hardly economic activity. And to much of that and its a good reason for unrest. What more, companies won't be selling hamburgers, new pants, and winter coats to these folks. So they loose out as well. Laying off more people. So generally a bad idea for it to expire.
So the question comes, is unemployment insurance extensions worth giving money away to the rich who don't need it but still seem to want it? The tax cut deal seems to be a need plus a want. So is it good for the country?
In the short term, it'd be good. Because ignoring what the rich folks do, having people not be tossed into poverty seems like a good thing. The problem is the medium term on, they're likely to be tossed out into poverty anyway. You see, a certain party, which has been opposing unemployment benefit extensions for a while, is going to be in charge of the house of representatives. So we save the poor for another six months. And then they cut off the spigot and keep their tax cuts for the rich until a year and a half later. So the folks that would be screwed now if no bill was passed will be screwed later and the people who don't need the help will keep getting the goods.
And I haven't even gotten to the bit about the social security tax. The Republican Party has portrayed doing nothing, or even just keeping the Bush era tax cuts for the middle class on down, as the Obama tax hike. If this bill passes they'll get two opportunities to play that game (the social security tax cut will vanish in a year, and then the rest in two years). I'd be ok with a middle tax income tax cut provided it was temporary (I disagreed with the president there, he wanted to keep it permanently). But a temporary middle class tax cut could be tackled before the 2012 election and be an issue the Democrats could win on if the economy was still crappy.
So this is a fools game. I oppose this tax cut deal. Its a bad political move and a bad move for the country.