On rebels

There was a point in my life when I thought all novels were about the individual oppressed society. I think that it had something to do with being a teenager and incapable of seeing the world other than through my own lens. But there's something in that.

Actually, some books--not the most interesting books--deal exclusively with that question. I'm thinking of the teenage boy authors--Conrad, Keruac.

But the more interesting question concerning rebellion against societal norms is "is it a good thing?"

Although I've been kicking against the way things are for a good 20 years now, I'm not sure it changes things or makes me a better person. There is something intellectually dishonest about revolution and rebellion. I think most people who make a pattern out of it fail to admit that they are, in fact, a part of society and that they do, in fact, need other people.

Crazies

One of my favorite things about being a lawyer is the occasional crazy litigant representing himself. Today I got a pleading from the "Republic of California" against various Moes, Does, and Roes and their vessels. Apparently, although from a landlocked county, it was an admiralty cause of action.

But it got me thinking that I'm maybe not using this blog thing to its full potential. What I really need is a conspiracy theory, a beef against the government, and to found my own religion. I also clearly need to read more Ayn Rand.

A Social Security Theodicy

I picked up a Money magazine today because I forgot a book for the bus. It featured some scary black and white pictures of baby boomers and another scare story on social security.

There are a certain number of things in life that exist only because we believe in them. God and the Tooth Fairy don't work that way. No matter how hard I believe, I'm not going to be able to wish them into existence. But other things exist and have meaning because we believe. For example, love. Another example would be a promise. Still another example is social security. Yes, the dollars we all put in matter. But what really matters is that we believe that this is a promise and that our society's (social) promise means something (security for older and disabled Americans).

And lest I open myself up to charges of bleeding heart liberalism [I suppose mentioning love and social security in the same blog is hopelessly muddle-headed], I'll point out that every economy is founded on shared beliefs. We all believe that little green pieces of paper mean something. Many of us have an irrational belief that stocks will go up by 10% in perpetuity. If we stopped assigning meaning to the green pieces of paper, the economy wouldn't work.

So, the real question confronting us on social security is who are we? Do we make and keep promises? Do we work to create a society? Do we care about people beyond our kin group and beyond the people who look and act just like us?

Alternatively, maybe we want a society where if you're born poor and work hard all your life, we say too bad--keep working until you drop for your sins of being poor or ignorant or not saving. What privatizing social security really says it that we are not responsible for each other.

If we come to believe that we will have neither a society nor security.

My Management Philosophy

I currently have a boss who enjoys 2-3 hour meetings on the subject of his management philosophy. So, apparently this is a fascinating subject.

My management philosophy is that management is a bull shit profession designed to give white men something to do that they can get paid a lot of money for. Too bad I can't make a book out it. I could have chapters like: How to be white. How to be a man. How to act entitled. How to act busy. How to call a meeting to discuss your management philosophy. How to get paid 3 times as much as your subordinates who are doing all the work.

Dedication to the Cause

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32921-2005Mar14.html

It's hard to comment on this one, but wow. I'm trying to think of what I would slice off my finger for, and I can't think of one thing.

A Poverty Creating Bill

CNN Story

The new bankruptcy bill that is poised to become law is a terrible idea for everybody except the credit card companies and the lawyers.

The most interesting thing about the debate on the bill has been how completely unsuccessful the Democrats were in connecting macroeconomics issues to everyday life.

As a practical matter this bill means that:

1. Bankruptcy lawyers will be more costly.
2. Your bankruptcy case will be judged on the basis of IRS formulas.
3. You will have a hard time wiping out all of your debts.
4. The credit card companies can come in and contest your repayment plan in a chapter 13 case.

As a result, more people will be unable to support, feed, and shelter their families.

Since we no longer have a decent social safety net in this country, people made poor by the bankruptcy law will not have the kind of government assistance that they could count on in the past.

Apparently, our country has become a cold hearted place and the specter of families out on the street is not enough to move our elected leaders. So, maybe a little Keynesian macroeconomics will help. By creating an impoverished and enslaved class of people, this bill will create an perpetual underclass of people who cannot pay for their basic needs. If consumers are the engine of the economy, shifting money away from consumers and creating a class of people who effectively can't consume will slow the economy.

We may be forced to wake up from our credit card dreaming, and it's not going to be a beautiful world we wake up into.

Crackpot Idea in Honor of Woman's Day

I can't find the article anymore, but there was an interesting recent study on the subject of the wage gap between men and women. The study found that there was no wage gap if regression analysis was applied to wages to sort out things such as willingness to do dirty work and work overtime hours. Of course regression analysis can be used to show some pretty absurd things, so I'm not entirely convinced.

But it does seem to be true that women are more willing to accept low pay in exchange for fulfilling jobs than men are. Female coal minors are rare. Female kindergarten teachers are pretty common.

Women are also less willing to work crazy hours and kiss ass with bosses. Which is interesting, because supposedly women are the manipulative sex. But I think it has to do with women not investing as much identity in work as men do.

So, here is my crackpot proposal to achieve pay equity.

First, put everyone (including managers) on a 37 hour week. Pay everyone (including managers) overtime. Triple the overtime rate after 40 hours.

If everybody were forced to work reasonable hours, men and women could compete on an even playing field, we'd be more likely to achieve full employment, and everybody could stop wasting so much time at work.

Second, for particularly disagreeable jobs, mandate that people only work 20 hours a week and get paid for 37. That would make things like being a coal minor or garbage truck driver more bearable. It would also make it a family friendly choice and attract women to those professions.

In my experience, people who work 60 or 80 weeks are inefficient and/or attempting to escape some kind of hellish homelife. It is not good for the economy or for the people that have to live that kind of life.

The Housing Bubble

As a San Francisco resident, I've always intuitively known that buying a house would be a stupid thing to do, but I didn't have proof. This week's Economist has an article doing the math. Given a choice between renting a $2,000 a month apartment and buying an $800,000 house and assuming the buyer sells the house after 7 years, the buyer will be worse off by $120,000 than the renter.

Yes, rent is money down the drain. But property taxes, interest payments, and the potential for your house to lose value are also ways to lose money.

Sacramento Musings

I spent today reading through a bill file that I ordered from the state archives. A number of interesting things emerged from this bill file. The first was that the process appears rigged. There were hundreds of letters from constituents begging that the bill be amended to reflect the needs of small business. (My favorite--Please don't drive a steak through the heart of my company)

The letters also asked for public hearings--there were none on the final version of the bill. The letters from the real players were far less pleading. "We note that you have amended the bill to do x, we think it would be better amended to do y."

I happen to have seen assembly member Peace (the bill's author) in action when I worked in Sacramento. He was a complete blowhard and responsible for energy deregulation and other assorted back room deals. I have no inside knowledge about that man. I don't want to slime him. I just think he's one of the creepiest human beings I've ever met and my gut instinct is that he's corrupt.

And I was thinking that the usual solution to having legislators like him would be voter education, cutting out special interests, electing Ralph Nadar. The other solution would be for the press to do what we pay them to do.

The file I'm reading is a public file available from the public archives. Another back room deal was just completed on this very subject with some of the same terrible ideas that were in the last bill.

I'll give my imaginary journalist readers another big hint from my time in Sacramento. If nobody knows the contents of a piece of legislation until the moment before the vote, something corrupt and fishy just happened. Those giant controversial bills that get passed at the end of session are the ones you need to dig around on. Usually there was a buy off and a compromise and sometimes there will be a quid pro quo for another bill. And yes, they don't generally let journalists into the smoke filled rooms. But with a little hard work, it just might be possible to connect the dots as to how it was done....