Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
Setting the stage for the next oil crunch
The massive spill in the gulf has led to:
- A moratorium on new deep water drilling in the gulf of Mexico.
- The probable acceleration in decline in the amount of oil coming through the Alaska pipeline: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704067504575304942111464272.html?KEYWORDS=Alaska+pipeline
- Norway banning new oil and gas drilling "until the investigation into the explosion and spill in the US Gulf of Mexico is complete"
The oil industry is already struggling very hard to keep oil production steady.
Demand for oil is growing in China, India and throughout the developing world.
The economy is improving slightly in the developed world.
Something has to give. I forsee either another 2008 run-up in prices (147/barrel or worse), the recession coming back tanking oil demand, or something in the middle. This article from the oil drum is very good:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6574#more
- A moratorium on new deep water drilling in the gulf of Mexico.
- The probable acceleration in decline in the amount of oil coming through the Alaska pipeline: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704067504575304942111464272.html?KEYWORDS=Alaska+pipeline
- Norway banning new oil and gas drilling "until the investigation into the explosion and spill in the US Gulf of Mexico is complete"
The oil industry is already struggling very hard to keep oil production steady.
Demand for oil is growing in China, India and throughout the developing world.
The economy is improving slightly in the developed world.
Something has to give. I forsee either another 2008 run-up in prices (147/barrel or worse), the recession coming back tanking oil demand, or something in the middle. This article from the oil drum is very good:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6574#more
Sunday, June 6, 2010
The ownership society
The story:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah Jazz fans sue over new seating policy
SALT LAKE CITY (AP)—A group of well-heeled Utah Jazz fans has sued the team’s corporate parent, claiming a new seating policy has caused their VIP seats to plummet in value.
Members of the Jazz 100 Club, in their complaint filed Friday in 3rd District Court, are seeking more than $19 million in damages.
The dispute stems from a January policy change allowing all season-ticket holders to also transfer ownership rights to their seats in EnergySolutions Arena.
Previously, only 220 courtside seats that were held by the 50 to 60 club members could be sold or bequeathed, an exclusivity that increased their value.
Club members say their seat positions that once sold for as much as $200,000 now go for $20,000, a drop of 90 percent.
Jazz officials say they take the matter seriously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary
Once again we see how the insiders, the elite, the privileged first rig things in their favor and then scream bloody murder if anyone attempts to undo the rigging.
Much of American society has sadly become like this. Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty can see that we have become a class society with serious privileges afforded to the top. In this case they can sell their asset (the season ticket) but others cannot (or could not). That's a pretty serious difference. A consequential difference. A class difference. In this case literally.
The average fan could buy but not sell, the real power and real ownership of those seats resided with the team owners. They retained *real* ownership. The "Jazz 100 Club seats" on the other hand afforded real ownership to the purchaser. Team owners and "Jazz 100 Club" in one class and other fans in another.
This is a metaphor for our so called "ownership society" which has always been a fraud. Like the majority of Jazz season ticket holders, people have been made to *feel* like owners but were never really *made* owners nor awarded the true privileges of ownership. In the case of the stock market the difference is one of scale not class. The middle class is given 401ks and ESOPs while the top brass is given stock grants and options that are orders of magnitude bigger.
Ownership is not real unless it's sizable.
When average Joe purchases 100 shares of stock he's not an owner in the same way that top brass are when they get grants of 10s of millions of shares. Imagine being able to purchase a corner of a cupboard in 10 million dollar home. That's what most of us get in the stock market. Technically it's "ownership" but not really.
The upper classes have always been about privilege: getting it, maintaining it and expanding it. Be it through an explicit class (like the Jazz 100 Club), through more informal manifestations of class, or through scope (the CEO gets 35 million shares, the ESOP gives you 100) they have it and always want more. When some sort of class privilege is ended it costs those in that class money.
The "ownership society" sounds like a great idea. If there was ever a sincere effort to engineer a *real* ownership society it would be a very good thing but all that we have done so far is window dressing and feel good stuff.
The next point will make for entire post at a later time. The change in corporate compensation over the last 30 to 40 years which gives top brass most of their compensation in stock has been in my opinion one of the most severe and cynical manifestations of class warfare in our nations history. Before this changeover direct comparisons of salaries provided a rigor that has been swept away with the stock option granting game. Say senior executive X makes 85,000 and an assembly line worker makes 5,000 (think 1970). The comparison is easy. But fast forward to 2010 and the senior executive makes most of his compensation via a maze of stock options and grants and it's not so simple. And there is of course an intellectual slight of hand going on whereby it's implied that the executives are not so much being *paid* as "made owners" (which is OK!). They are getting an ownership stake and that's a good thing because that "aligns their interests with those of the company."
This would imply of course that without these extra inducements the senior executives might actually operate in a way opposed to the company? Does that make any sense? CEO's and other top brass were secretly sabotaging their companies in 1970 because they didn't make enough money? This is of course absurd. If there is any class of employee who we can realistically expect to "have his interests aligned with the company" to begin with it's the senior management team. Any compensation system based remotely in reality that sought to "align the interests of employees to those of the company" would start at the bottom, because it is there that common sense dictates employees are most likely to not have their interests aligned with those of the company to begin with. OK maybe they don't matter and are easily replaceable. How about skilled workers, salespeople and engineers. Wouldn't it be a good thing if we made sure *their* interests were aligned with the company? Well that's not what happened, the stock option windfall goes overwhelmingly to senior managements - the one group that we should expect to *already* have their interests aligned with the company.
What is going on of course is class warfare perpetrated relentlessly by the top 2% to 5% on the rest of us.
This group is the biggest impediment to a *real* ownership society and will have to be fought tooth and nail if it is to ever happen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utah Jazz fans sue over new seating policy
SALT LAKE CITY (AP)—A group of well-heeled Utah Jazz fans has sued the team’s corporate parent, claiming a new seating policy has caused their VIP seats to plummet in value.
Members of the Jazz 100 Club, in their complaint filed Friday in 3rd District Court, are seeking more than $19 million in damages.
The dispute stems from a January policy change allowing all season-ticket holders to also transfer ownership rights to their seats in EnergySolutions Arena.
Previously, only 220 courtside seats that were held by the 50 to 60 club members could be sold or bequeathed, an exclusivity that increased their value.
Club members say their seat positions that once sold for as much as $200,000 now go for $20,000, a drop of 90 percent.
Jazz officials say they take the matter seriously.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary
Once again we see how the insiders, the elite, the privileged first rig things in their favor and then scream bloody murder if anyone attempts to undo the rigging.
Much of American society has sadly become like this. Anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty can see that we have become a class society with serious privileges afforded to the top. In this case they can sell their asset (the season ticket) but others cannot (or could not). That's a pretty serious difference. A consequential difference. A class difference. In this case literally.
The average fan could buy but not sell, the real power and real ownership of those seats resided with the team owners. They retained *real* ownership. The "Jazz 100 Club seats" on the other hand afforded real ownership to the purchaser. Team owners and "Jazz 100 Club" in one class and other fans in another.
This is a metaphor for our so called "ownership society" which has always been a fraud. Like the majority of Jazz season ticket holders, people have been made to *feel* like owners but were never really *made* owners nor awarded the true privileges of ownership. In the case of the stock market the difference is one of scale not class. The middle class is given 401ks and ESOPs while the top brass is given stock grants and options that are orders of magnitude bigger.
Ownership is not real unless it's sizable.
When average Joe purchases 100 shares of stock he's not an owner in the same way that top brass are when they get grants of 10s of millions of shares. Imagine being able to purchase a corner of a cupboard in 10 million dollar home. That's what most of us get in the stock market. Technically it's "ownership" but not really.
The upper classes have always been about privilege: getting it, maintaining it and expanding it. Be it through an explicit class (like the Jazz 100 Club), through more informal manifestations of class, or through scope (the CEO gets 35 million shares, the ESOP gives you 100) they have it and always want more. When some sort of class privilege is ended it costs those in that class money.
The "ownership society" sounds like a great idea. If there was ever a sincere effort to engineer a *real* ownership society it would be a very good thing but all that we have done so far is window dressing and feel good stuff.
The next point will make for entire post at a later time. The change in corporate compensation over the last 30 to 40 years which gives top brass most of their compensation in stock has been in my opinion one of the most severe and cynical manifestations of class warfare in our nations history. Before this changeover direct comparisons of salaries provided a rigor that has been swept away with the stock option granting game. Say senior executive X makes 85,000 and an assembly line worker makes 5,000 (think 1970). The comparison is easy. But fast forward to 2010 and the senior executive makes most of his compensation via a maze of stock options and grants and it's not so simple. And there is of course an intellectual slight of hand going on whereby it's implied that the executives are not so much being *paid* as "made owners" (which is OK!). They are getting an ownership stake and that's a good thing because that "aligns their interests with those of the company."
This would imply of course that without these extra inducements the senior executives might actually operate in a way opposed to the company? Does that make any sense? CEO's and other top brass were secretly sabotaging their companies in 1970 because they didn't make enough money? This is of course absurd. If there is any class of employee who we can realistically expect to "have his interests aligned with the company" to begin with it's the senior management team. Any compensation system based remotely in reality that sought to "align the interests of employees to those of the company" would start at the bottom, because it is there that common sense dictates employees are most likely to not have their interests aligned with those of the company to begin with. OK maybe they don't matter and are easily replaceable. How about skilled workers, salespeople and engineers. Wouldn't it be a good thing if we made sure *their* interests were aligned with the company? Well that's not what happened, the stock option windfall goes overwhelmingly to senior managements - the one group that we should expect to *already* have their interests aligned with the company.
What is going on of course is class warfare perpetrated relentlessly by the top 2% to 5% on the rest of us.
This group is the biggest impediment to a *real* ownership society and will have to be fought tooth and nail if it is to ever happen.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
The truth about immigration
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/27/reading-ranting-and-arithmetic.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37493275/ns/world_news-americas
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37493275/ns/world_news-americas
Friday, May 28, 2010
If you love your freedom thank Ben Joravsky
So often we are told something like "if you love your freedom thank the troops".
Thank the troops. Thank the soldiers. Thank the military. Thank the vets. Without them we would not have freedom.
Funny but Saddam Hussein had lots of troops and Iraqi's were never free under him.
General Noriega had lots of troops but Panama was not free under him.
The Soviet Union had lots and lots and LOTS of troops but they were never free.
The truth is that troops are tools of the state. Tools that can be used for good, bad or indifferent purposes. It's pretty obvious if you look around that a large supply of available troops is not really the deciding factor in whether a nation is free or not.
Arguably the nation with the greatest relative supply of willing troops -in all of history- and a potent high tech military machine to effectively use them was Nazi Germany.
Generally when a nation indulges in excess militarism it's a bad sign. Right now the U.S. spends more on military expenditures than the rest of the world combined.
Saying "if you love your freedom thank a vet" is kind of like "We Americans are the good guys". It's a sign that you have "drank the cool aid". Obviously we are not inherently good or bad, we are what we make ourselves to be. We have the same DNA as all other humans and the same needs and passions. We are a very powerful country that has done a lot of good and (of course)some bad.
This brings us to Ben Joravsky. My opinion is that it's guys like Joravsky who are the real difference between free societies and and totalitarian societies or just corrupt societies. Jaravsky has spent considerable time and effort in examining the TIF system in Chicago. A system that was justified on the basis of "helping the poor" but whose benefits have gone overwhelmingly to the rich and well connected. In fact it has clearly redistributed (property tax) wealth from the poor to the rich all the while politicians tell us (over and over again) that it's for the benefit of the poor. The TIF system is corrupt. The way it is structured almost guarantees it will benefit the wealthy areas of the city because only they typically have the means to create a TIF district - which is the nucleus of the TIFF benefit system. Ben Joravsky has been pounding away on this for quite some time. Exposing the truth and the exposing the hypocrisy and lies. Without guys like Joravsky there would be no counterbalance to this kind of thing.
How does this bring us to war and freedoom? Little corruptions lead to big corruptions and the biggest corruption of all is unnecessary war.
A nation at war cannot be a free nation. War and freedom cannot exist simultaneously for long. Actually this idea (freedom or war not both) would make for another whole post.
Guys like Joravsky were there before and during the American Revolution. They were there fighting slavery. They were there in the labor movement. They were opposing the Vietnam war. It' is THEY and not "the troops" who have made and kept us free so far. It is THEY who have steadfastly fought corruption and that fight has for the most part prevented our freedom from evaporating.
Thank the troops. Thank the soldiers. Thank the military. Thank the vets. Without them we would not have freedom.
Funny but Saddam Hussein had lots of troops and Iraqi's were never free under him.
General Noriega had lots of troops but Panama was not free under him.
The Soviet Union had lots and lots and LOTS of troops but they were never free.
The truth is that troops are tools of the state. Tools that can be used for good, bad or indifferent purposes. It's pretty obvious if you look around that a large supply of available troops is not really the deciding factor in whether a nation is free or not.
Arguably the nation with the greatest relative supply of willing troops -in all of history- and a potent high tech military machine to effectively use them was Nazi Germany.
Generally when a nation indulges in excess militarism it's a bad sign. Right now the U.S. spends more on military expenditures than the rest of the world combined.
Saying "if you love your freedom thank a vet" is kind of like "We Americans are the good guys". It's a sign that you have "drank the cool aid". Obviously we are not inherently good or bad, we are what we make ourselves to be. We have the same DNA as all other humans and the same needs and passions. We are a very powerful country that has done a lot of good and (of course)some bad.
This brings us to Ben Joravsky. My opinion is that it's guys like Joravsky who are the real difference between free societies and and totalitarian societies or just corrupt societies. Jaravsky has spent considerable time and effort in examining the TIF system in Chicago. A system that was justified on the basis of "helping the poor" but whose benefits have gone overwhelmingly to the rich and well connected. In fact it has clearly redistributed (property tax) wealth from the poor to the rich all the while politicians tell us (over and over again) that it's for the benefit of the poor. The TIF system is corrupt. The way it is structured almost guarantees it will benefit the wealthy areas of the city because only they typically have the means to create a TIF district - which is the nucleus of the TIFF benefit system. Ben Joravsky has been pounding away on this for quite some time. Exposing the truth and the exposing the hypocrisy and lies. Without guys like Joravsky there would be no counterbalance to this kind of thing.
How does this bring us to war and freedoom? Little corruptions lead to big corruptions and the biggest corruption of all is unnecessary war.
A nation at war cannot be a free nation. War and freedom cannot exist simultaneously for long. Actually this idea (freedom or war not both) would make for another whole post.
Guys like Joravsky were there before and during the American Revolution. They were there fighting slavery. They were there in the labor movement. They were opposing the Vietnam war. It' is THEY and not "the troops" who have made and kept us free so far. It is THEY who have steadfastly fought corruption and that fight has for the most part prevented our freedom from evaporating.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Technically I'm talking about extortion
Within a month or so Lebron James will start to negotiate a new contract. It's believed that he will be able to command well over 30 million dollars per year. Regardless of how much he ends up making we will be told by many that he is "worth it" because he will deliver even more value to the team and city where he chooses to play. The line will be something like "If James delivers 50 million per year in benefits to...[fill in the blank city/team] and he only gets 30 million in return then he is a bargain." Of course if he goes somewhere else he *costs* the city and team who *could* have had him.
Recently some articles came out examining compensation for bankruptcy lawyers. Some have been making over 1000/hour. Many analysts have called the compensation justified based on the logic that if a law firm delivered X dollars of assets to it's client and only billed a fraction of that (at *whatever* per hour it does not matter) then the client came out ahead. 1000/hour might even have been a bargain if the client recovered enough money from the court.
We routinely hear of what seems like massive CEO compensation being justified on the basis of what the CEO can "deliver" and the negative ramifications to the company if he or she left. When these discussions occur we often hear that compensation is a means of "keeping score" and "keeping score" is one of the fundamental things we must do in a capitalistic, competitive society. Keeping score ensures people work hard and provides necessary motivation. It's important. It's right. It's a key part of what generates prosperity.
Right now we have a massive oil spill in the gulf of Mexico. Perhaps the most devastating oil spill in history. Oil is gushing out of a broken well under 5000 feet of water and wreaking havoc on the gulf coast. As I write this the flow has not been arrested. A group of the best engineers and scientists in the world have been assembled to work on the problem. Would it be appropriate for them to demand (lets say) 1500/hour before even flying to Houston. If they applied the same logic as the other professions I mention above they might say "lets face it we are a little more important to society at this moment than bankruptcy lawyers who just got 1000.hour, our skill and dedication may mean the difference between survival or death for several whole *industries* on the gulf coast for a generation. Our skill and dedication could be make a multi billion dollar difference to the entire economy of the gulf coast. Our skill and dedication could be the difference between moderate damage and a Chernobyl type of disaster that compromises an entire ecosystem for generations. The value of a bankruptcy lawyer getting some money from or a creditor just pales in comparison. Hence we are worth *at least* 1500/hour and we won't get on the plane to Houston without an agreement to give us that".
My sense is that if they played hardball like this they actually *could* command 1500/hour right now. If the same logic was applied to them as applied to professional athletes, CEO's and bankruptcy lawyers 1500/hour would be a huge bargain. But they wont make such a demand because the engineering and technical professions simply have no history in doing this kind of thing nor any infrastructure to support it. Infrastructure like agents in the case of professional sports, captive/friendly compensation consultants in the case of CEO's and controlled access to the legal system brought to you courtesy of the legal profession.
The engineering/tech sector is arguably the *only* profession in America that regularly stands in a position to do this kind of thing but does not - and in so doing hurts itself in my opinion.
From Forbes Magazine: "according to government data released Monday, doctors, on average..have the best-paid jobs in the country." Considerable evidence exists to show that medical costs passed on to the patients are far higher than "intrinsic" costs and are high (and rising) because of "the ramifications". IE if you are really sick and you don't get help you may well die. Or be crippled. Hence you will pay just about anything and hence the medical profession can charge you just about anything and they do.
Some rankings from Forbes:
1. Surgeon
Average Annual Pay: $219,770
One-Year Change: +6.2%
2. Anesthesiologist
Average Annual Pay: $211,750
One-Year Change: +7.1%
3. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon
Average Annual Pay: $210,710
One-Year Change: +10.6%
and on and on. Notice the big increases in pay even in the depths of the worst recession since the great depression. So much for restraint. Whatever taboo that existed in the medical profession about "monetizing" their position is obviously long gone. Is part of the reason for the high salaries to balance the need for exorbitant liability insurance? Of course. But the whole liability/lawsuit thing is really just another manifestation of (for lack of a better word) extortion. If you are a doctor and you don't have liability insurance and something goes wrong (and it will given the nature of the world) then you can lose all your money in court. By force. Judgment against you. If you get sick and don't get treatment you may well die. Or be crippled. That is a strong axis from which to extract a lot of money - and it's exploited to the n'th degree by the medical and legal professions both.
Back to the notion that compensation is a means of "keeping score" and "keeping score" is really important and hence people should do whatever is necessary to get whatever they can.
Are we really serious about that?
If we are serious about this, then the engineers and scientists headed to the gulf of Mexico really *should* demand all they can get. Otherwise they are selling out their profession. They are shirking their (capitalistic) duty not to.
Arguably engineers and scientists are every bit as important to society as doctors, lawyers, professional athletes and CEO's. If doctors, lawyers and professional athletes can engage in (for lack of a better word) extortion then a case can be made that engineers and scientists should also. Otherwise they are degrading their profession and giving young kids a disincentive to join their ranks. If "keeping score" so vital then the profession should do whatever is necessary to score more.
This country faces a critical shortage of people going into math, science and engineering. Could it be that low prestige and pay (relative to other similarly skilled professions) could be a factor? Could it be that bears crap in the woods?
A more interesting question is whether the low prestige and pay are partly the result of an antiquated taboo on (for lack of a better word) extortion. A taboo that has been long cast off by other professions that are competing for scarce talent.
Recently some articles came out examining compensation for bankruptcy lawyers. Some have been making over 1000/hour. Many analysts have called the compensation justified based on the logic that if a law firm delivered X dollars of assets to it's client and only billed a fraction of that (at *whatever* per hour it does not matter) then the client came out ahead. 1000/hour might even have been a bargain if the client recovered enough money from the court.
We routinely hear of what seems like massive CEO compensation being justified on the basis of what the CEO can "deliver" and the negative ramifications to the company if he or she left. When these discussions occur we often hear that compensation is a means of "keeping score" and "keeping score" is one of the fundamental things we must do in a capitalistic, competitive society. Keeping score ensures people work hard and provides necessary motivation. It's important. It's right. It's a key part of what generates prosperity.
Right now we have a massive oil spill in the gulf of Mexico. Perhaps the most devastating oil spill in history. Oil is gushing out of a broken well under 5000 feet of water and wreaking havoc on the gulf coast. As I write this the flow has not been arrested. A group of the best engineers and scientists in the world have been assembled to work on the problem. Would it be appropriate for them to demand (lets say) 1500/hour before even flying to Houston. If they applied the same logic as the other professions I mention above they might say "lets face it we are a little more important to society at this moment than bankruptcy lawyers who just got 1000.hour, our skill and dedication may mean the difference between survival or death for several whole *industries* on the gulf coast for a generation. Our skill and dedication could be make a multi billion dollar difference to the entire economy of the gulf coast. Our skill and dedication could be the difference between moderate damage and a Chernobyl type of disaster that compromises an entire ecosystem for generations. The value of a bankruptcy lawyer getting some money from or a creditor just pales in comparison. Hence we are worth *at least* 1500/hour and we won't get on the plane to Houston without an agreement to give us that".
My sense is that if they played hardball like this they actually *could* command 1500/hour right now. If the same logic was applied to them as applied to professional athletes, CEO's and bankruptcy lawyers 1500/hour would be a huge bargain. But they wont make such a demand because the engineering and technical professions simply have no history in doing this kind of thing nor any infrastructure to support it. Infrastructure like agents in the case of professional sports, captive/friendly compensation consultants in the case of CEO's and controlled access to the legal system brought to you courtesy of the legal profession.
The engineering/tech sector is arguably the *only* profession in America that regularly stands in a position to do this kind of thing but does not - and in so doing hurts itself in my opinion.
From Forbes Magazine: "according to government data released Monday, doctors, on average..have the best-paid jobs in the country." Considerable evidence exists to show that medical costs passed on to the patients are far higher than "intrinsic" costs and are high (and rising) because of "the ramifications". IE if you are really sick and you don't get help you may well die. Or be crippled. Hence you will pay just about anything and hence the medical profession can charge you just about anything and they do.
Some rankings from Forbes:
1. Surgeon
Average Annual Pay: $219,770
One-Year Change: +6.2%
2. Anesthesiologist
Average Annual Pay: $211,750
One-Year Change: +7.1%
3. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon
Average Annual Pay: $210,710
One-Year Change: +10.6%
and on and on. Notice the big increases in pay even in the depths of the worst recession since the great depression. So much for restraint. Whatever taboo that existed in the medical profession about "monetizing" their position is obviously long gone. Is part of the reason for the high salaries to balance the need for exorbitant liability insurance? Of course. But the whole liability/lawsuit thing is really just another manifestation of (for lack of a better word) extortion. If you are a doctor and you don't have liability insurance and something goes wrong (and it will given the nature of the world) then you can lose all your money in court. By force. Judgment against you. If you get sick and don't get treatment you may well die. Or be crippled. That is a strong axis from which to extract a lot of money - and it's exploited to the n'th degree by the medical and legal professions both.
Back to the notion that compensation is a means of "keeping score" and "keeping score" is really important and hence people should do whatever is necessary to get whatever they can.
Are we really serious about that?
If we are serious about this, then the engineers and scientists headed to the gulf of Mexico really *should* demand all they can get. Otherwise they are selling out their profession. They are shirking their (capitalistic) duty not to.
Arguably engineers and scientists are every bit as important to society as doctors, lawyers, professional athletes and CEO's. If doctors, lawyers and professional athletes can engage in (for lack of a better word) extortion then a case can be made that engineers and scientists should also. Otherwise they are degrading their profession and giving young kids a disincentive to join their ranks. If "keeping score" so vital then the profession should do whatever is necessary to score more.
This country faces a critical shortage of people going into math, science and engineering. Could it be that low prestige and pay (relative to other similarly skilled professions) could be a factor? Could it be that bears crap in the woods?
A more interesting question is whether the low prestige and pay are partly the result of an antiquated taboo on (for lack of a better word) extortion. A taboo that has been long cast off by other professions that are competing for scarce talent.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Demolition in Detroit
"Detroit Shrinks Itself, Historic Homes and All"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703950804575242433435338728.html
in a nutshell Detroit will be demolishing 10,000 vacant homes including historic homes like the boyhood house of Mitt Romney. The reason is that they have become "eyesores" and are "bad for the neighborhoods" and so forth. Federal stimulus money will pay for much of the demolition work.
This strikes me as wasteful and profligate. Paying money to destroy assets. These homes could not be fixed up? They could not be given away in return for pledges to fix them up?
I'm sure that the big homebuilders lobbied Michigan, Detroit and Washington to do this - spend federal money on demolishing existing housing stock. Guys like Pulte, KB and the National Association of Homebuilders. Existing homes demolished will mean new homes are needed. Don't be fooled by the "green space" wool (as in over your eyes). This is about reducing supply so when the economy turns there will be a need to build NEW homes.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703950804575242433435338728.html
in a nutshell Detroit will be demolishing 10,000 vacant homes including historic homes like the boyhood house of Mitt Romney. The reason is that they have become "eyesores" and are "bad for the neighborhoods" and so forth. Federal stimulus money will pay for much of the demolition work.
This strikes me as wasteful and profligate. Paying money to destroy assets. These homes could not be fixed up? They could not be given away in return for pledges to fix them up?
I'm sure that the big homebuilders lobbied Michigan, Detroit and Washington to do this - spend federal money on demolishing existing housing stock. Guys like Pulte, KB and the National Association of Homebuilders. Existing homes demolished will mean new homes are needed. Don't be fooled by the "green space" wool (as in over your eyes). This is about reducing supply so when the economy turns there will be a need to build NEW homes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)