"Workforce Quality" - per the Indiana Chamber of Commerce

I wasn't going to go on a rant today, but I just can't help myself. I am so tired of Chamber of Commerce types talking about how there are all of these jobs going unfilled because of the "skills gap" or something. This is nothing more than an attempt by the business community to get something for nothing, i.e. highly trained employees that the business didn't have to invest in to get the skills.

Recall that the business community has consistently backed right-wing initiatives in this state, including right-to-work and school privatization/voucherization schemes. What do these have in common? They devour the training pipeline for employees in the state in the short-sighted mission of "cutting costs." Well, you cut the costs all right. In so doing, you also cut the farm league, so to speak.

I saw this letter in the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette today, and it just infuriates me:

It's impossible to have any business conversation today without the workforce issue coming up.

"The workforce issue" is a nice euphamism. I think what he means is "we can't get the product/skills we want at the price we're willing to pay so we're going to demand that the government step in and solve this problem for us."

Results of the Indiana Chamber's latest annual employer survey highlight the challenges facing Hoosier companies.

Wouldn't it be nice if Hoosier lawmakers had the same concern for Hoosier citizens that it has for Hoosier businesses?  

For the first time, more than half of the survey respondents left jobs unfilled in the past year, citing underqualified applicants. The 51 percent total is the fifth consecutive increase, starting with 39 percent in 2014.

As I've said before, my firm left the "$25,000/year, 12-0 at the Supreme Court, $2M book of business" job open last year too. We just couldn't find a candidate to fill it! 

Another concern: A third responded that filling their workforce/talent needs is their biggest challenge. The total climbs to 80 percent when adding in those employers who cite workforce needs as one of their biggest challenges.

I thought that IN business doesn't favor giving something for nothing. I mean, they have had their corporate taxes cut for the last 5 years or so; why haven't they just used that money to fill out their "talent needs"? 

These alarming trends got our attention. The Indiana Chamber recently announced formation of the Institute for Workforce Excellence, which is dedicated to helping businesses attract, develop and retain the talent they need.

The institute has a number of offerings in place. An exclusive partnership with Ivy Tech Community College on the Achieve Your Degree initiative provides a 5 percent tuition rebate. The Indiana INTERNnet statewide internship matching program can lead to new hires, while Indiana Workforce Recovery guides employers on how they can help workers with opioid or other substance misuse.

Various employee education and training opportunities are also available, with additional strategic partnerships anticipated for 2019 that will lead to more statewide programs and initiatives.

Notice that there is no discussion herein as to "I bet if Hoosier corporations gave back the tax giveaway that Mike Pence gave them when he wanted to distract from RFRA, the state would have a bunch more money to fund high school and trade school programs." Instead, what do they offer? A catchy name for a program and a pittance of a "refund" that will easily be swallowed up and never seen by the student. 

The lost business opportunities from workforce deficits are real and have a negative effect on these companies, their existing employees and the overall economy.

Then spend money to train people or raise wages! It's not that hard! If your business can't remain profitable after paying its employees a market wage, that is not a government problem; that is a business-model problem. 

The state must continue to develop, implement and communicate effective training programs, while employers have the responsibility to investigate all options for increasing the skills of their associates. Attracting more workers to the state is also paramount.

I don't know what this even means. However, I would note that it looks like the IN Chamber demanding that the state government spend money to fulfill business' needs; this is the same organization that screams "Socialism!!" every time anything, no matter how little, is proposed to help actual people that would either add regulatory obligations to some businesses (in the form of such terrible things as labor laws, for example) or cost them money (i.e. taxes).

We hope the new Institute (www.indianachamber.com/workforce) will enable the business community to further engage and ultimately help move our workforce forward.

For starters, what does it mean to "move our workforce forward?" Does that mean that the IN wealthy can get more highly skilled employees without having to pay anything extra for them? Or does that mean that Hoosier wages go up? I think that the IN Chamber is probably not all that concerned with whether Hoosier workers make a living wage. 

Kevin Brinegar

President, Indiana Chamber of Commerce Indianapolis

 Why don't you hope in one hand and $hi+ in the other? Let's see which hand fills up first. 

Sen. Mike Young and his "Priorities"

I got an email from our illustrious state Senator Mike Young, he of the government-funded law degree. Anyway, included in that email was this little gem:

Like Senate Republicans, Gov. Holcomb is working to bring more high-paying jobs to the state, further develop a 21st century skilled workforce, support education and help protect our at-risk children.

As both readers of this blog know, I have a high opinion of Gov. Holcomb. However, I found this statement to be a bit of a stretch:

• Maybe I'm dense, but I'm not sure how continuing the bankrupting of labor unions through Right to Work laws "is working to bring more high-paying jobs to the state." It seems to me, it's working to ensure that the jobs in this state are low paying. I understand (if disagree with) the rationale for this. However, just own it!
• "Further develop a 21st century skilled workforce" sounds to me like "make the government pay to train workers that companies won't themselves pay to train." Why is it the government's job to make sure that companies have trained workers? Can't the companies train the workers themselves, the way they used to?
• "Support education" by continuing to siphon money to charter schools
• "Help protect our at-risk children" by having yet another "study commission" on how to improve DCS without actually giving it the money it needs.

Senator Young, please don't insult our intelligence any more.

Further, I actually followed the link on the quote; I have more thoughts on that, which I will post tomorrow.

Lives v. Livelihoods

I play in a few rock n' roll bands for charity. One of the bands has a part-time member who is a bona fide professional musician. Other than the varying talent levels, what is the difference between myself and the bona fide professional musician? I will only play music that I like. The pro will play whatever he gets paid to play.

I presume this is because music is my love (and possibly/probably his as well) but it is his livelihood. If he doesn't play what people pay him to play, people don't pay him; he doesn't earn his living. If I don't, I simply go back to practicing law, which I was going to do anyway.

When it comes to law, I take plenty of cases I don't particularly love, because it's my job.

I have noticed that a lot of people have made a sport of bashing the Speedway Animal House. Full disclosure, I am not an animal lover. However, I think that too many people are applying their own sense of morality, attributable to their own love of animals and pets, to the business practices of Speedway Animal House.

I don't like mushrooms, "eggs" that come in a milk carton "pre-scrambled," canned gravy, or paper-thin bacon. That's why I don't eat at Charlie Brown's anymore. I eat at Flap Jacks on 10th Street, which I find to be a much superior choice. I don't go out of my way to bash Charlie Browns for the type of food they sell. Maybe somebody likes it?

I don't like "solid state" amps. I don't bash every guitar store on earth for carrying them. I just don't buy them.

My bottom line is that people need to leave the Speedway Animal House the hell alone if they don't like it. If you  don't like a business' practices, don't shop there. Don't expect a business owner to necessarily care as much about your passion as you do; a business exists to make money, not push anyone's moral crusade. Assuredly there are tons of better targets for our moral protests in the world of corporate America (oil and other chemical companies polluting our air, water, and ground; Big Pharma actively pushing and marketing opioids to the masses, to say nothing of Big Tobacco's track record; arms manufacturers selling their wares to dictators . . . just to name a few). Leave the local business alone; if people don't want to shop there, they won't. If they do, then the proprietors of Speedway Animal House are entitled to carry forth with their legal business.

If you have nothing better to do than drive a locally owned business underwater, you need to find a new hobby. Pardon my rant.

Verizon & Wildfires - A Cautionary Tale re. Net Neutrality

I can't help but wryly recall those times when I was told that industry would self regulate better than the government could, and attempts to interfere with the "free market" would invariably backfire. "That which governs least governs best."

Fast forward to today, where I read this story about Verizon purposely "throttling" or "slowing down" the firefighters' data plans because they had "gone over their limit."

OK.

It seems to me that Verizon just "self regulated." No doubt Verizon profits from each GB of data it sells; why else would it be in business? That said, am I naive in thinking that, to the degree that functional (or actual) monopolies are granted and/or tolerated, is it too much to ask that the monopolists provide their services, in a very limited set of circumstances, at either a reduced rate of profit or free from profits? Wouldn't a wildfire that is literally consuming one's state fall within such limited set of circumstances?

Frankly, while I am inclined to make a specific policy point about regulations and their relation to business, I think that this simply illustrates a much larger point.

I know that Verizon could (and did) do this with or without the repeal of net neutrality rules. This is not  a post about the specifics of net neutrality. Rather, I write to repeat the obvious but glorious point, made on NPR on Wednesday, that when push comes to shove, corporate America is going to act in its own interests. If doing so at the public expense is what it takes, then so be it, I guess.

One final note: since the "shareholder revolution" of the 1980s, corporate America's singular interest is profit.

Gambling & Motorsports

The Supreme Court recently ruled that the national ban on sports gambling, with the exception of Nevada, is unconstitutional.

OK.

I am not a gambler, so it really has little effect on me. I have heard the arguments that casinos and gambling outfits are deleterious to communities, but I am skeptical. As a general rule, when it comes to local activity, I prefer to let people do what they want to do. If they want to gamble, then they can gamble. I do hope that people bet with money they can afford to lose, but I say the same thing about people running up bar tabs, credit card debt, etc.

What I wonder about, though, is what effect that will have on motorsports, particularly the Indy 500. How much would it add to the fan experience if you could go and place bets, not only on the winner but also first to wreck, first to pit, most laps led, top-5 finishers, trifecta, slowest finisher, top speed, etc.

I don't have hard numbers to back it up, but I am given to understand that outside of the 500, IndyCar is having financial problems. I have also heard many rumors that the 500 itself is experiencing generally declining attendance. As I said, this is what I've heard, not what I've researched.

Anyway, perhaps auto racing will have somewhat of a renaissance because of this. What do you think?

Those Pence Brothers . . . They're Just so Nice!

Ugh! I think I need to go punch myself in the face just for writing that headline! Hopefully anyone who has ever read this blog recognizes the sarcasm in the title.

Anyway, this recently came to my attention:

Vice President Mike Pence turns nostalgic when he talks about growing up in small-town Columbus, Indiana, where his father helped build a Midwestern empire of more than 200 gas stations that provided an upbringing on the “front row of the American dream.”

The collapse of Kiel Bros. Oil Co. in 2004 was widely publicized. Less known is that the state of Indiana — and, to a smaller extent, Kentucky and Illinois — are still on the hook for millions of dollars to clean up more than 85 contaminated sites across the three states, including underground tanks that leaked toxic chemicals into soil, streams and wells.

Indiana alone has spent at least $21 million on the cleanup thus far, or an average of about $500,000 per site, according to an analysis of records by The Associated Press. And the work is nowhere near complete.

Well, I mean, what's $21m when you're a "christian first, conservative second, and Republican third" here in Indiana? It's not like you're some selfish school kid who wants to, you know, eat lunch or something. Million-dollar pollution problem? Great! Poor kids want lunch? Feed 'em to Rokita!

Kiel Bros. has paid for only a fraction of the overall effort.

OK. So here we are, the Pence family business has imposed tens of millions of dollars on us, the taxpayers, and people are still willing to believe in his so-called "fiscal conservatism." I tell you what, next time I'm looking for someone to get my spending under control, I'm not just going to let him (or her) do my spending for me!

In a statement, Pence’s older brother Greg Pence — who was president of Kiel Bros. when it went bankrupt and is now running for Congress as a Republican — distanced himself from the cleanup costs.

“Greg Pence has had nothing to do with Kiel Bros since 2004. This is another attempt by the liberal media to rehash old, baseless attacks,” campaign spokeswoman Molly Gillaspie said. 

A few things: first off, I forgot that the Pence brothers were multiplying . . . God help us! 

Second, Ms. Gillaspie, perhaps you weren't aware that underground pollution plumes take decades to develop. In fact, I'll bet that someone on one of the Pence teams has already acknowledged this:

Pence spokeswoman Alyssa Farah called the findings “a years old issue” that the vice president has addressed before. She did not elaborate.

So, what is it? Did the pollution occur during the Pence family's "stewardship" of Kiel Bros. or did it occur after? Maybe before? All I've seen is blah blah blah liberal media blah blah blah old blah blah blah liberal media blah blah baseless.

The fact that the company stuck taxpayers with the lion’s share of the cleanup bill rankles some observers, especially in light of the family’s reputation as budget hawks critical of government spending.

You don't say. It's like I've seen this tragicomedy before.

 Greg Pence, who is seeking the vice president’s old congressional seat, has total assets worth $5.7 to $26 million.

Nearly a decade after going under, Kiel Bros. sites still ranked among the top 10 recipients of state money for such cleanups in Indiana in 2013, the last year for which the petroleum industry has reliable spending data for the company. That was out of more than 230 companies seeking cleanup money that year, including major gas station chains with a substantially larger presence in the state.
Founded as an oil distributor by businessman Carl Kiel in 1960, the company expanded into the gas station business. Pence’s father, Edward, joined in the early years and, by the mid-1970s, rose to corporate vice president.
Mike Pence says he worked for the business — which mostly operated under the name Tobacco Road — starting at age 14. But it was his brother who took over after Edward Pence’s 1988 death and eventually became president.

Just so we're clear: the Pence family made a ton of money running this company. This company cut costs by polluting our air and water. Now we get to pay to not be poisoned while the Pence family gets to go and bring their special sauce to the nation as a whole.

 When an underground tank leaks, companies are liable for the damage, but Indiana has been especially amenable to using public money to pay for heavily contaminated soil to be excavated and for high-powered pumps to suck toxic liquid and vapor from the soil.

The state’s payout limit was $2 million per site until Mike Pence signed a 2016 law as governor, increasing it to $2.5 million. In 2016, Indiana paid out nearly two-and-a-half times the national average per incident, according to records.

I for one can't imagine why the state can't afford to do such trivial things as reform its child welfare issues, after a mere 15 years of studying the issue.

Pence 2018: Starve the kids and poison the water!

Taking the Ball and Running

I love Indianapolis as a whole nearly as much as I love Speedway. It constantly perplexes me, however, that there isn't much that's particularly memorable about Indianapolis, food wise. For a long time, I have believed that perhaps that is because Indianapolis is a test market for regional or national restaurant corporations; they test new concepts here and have sufficient budget to both be able to fail without financial catastrophe while simultaneously setting an artificially high bar for survival for local concepts.

Recently, I read a great piece in the Urbanophile that made me question whether I had thought this entirely through. The piece discusses the diverging fortunes of Nashville Hot Chicken and Hoosier Breaded Pork Tenderloin.  I highly encourage anyone to click through and read the entire article. A few snippets should you forego the opportunity to click through:

First, about Nashville "Hot" Chicken:

In other words, it’s possible that this dish has been around a while in some form in the local black community, but what we know today as the Nashville hot chicken is from the 70s or 80s. A Midwestern reader with longstanding family ties to Nashville told me a while back that at least through the 1990s he never heard hot chicken mentioned there. I read that Nashville hot chicken is now supposedly popular around the south, but having spent extensive time in Alabama 10-15 years ago, I never once came across it there.

I have no reason to doubt this analysis, but then again I'm not from the South. I don't recall ever hearing about Nashville Hot Chicken until just a few years ago, though.

Now, as to the Hoosier Tenderloin:

the pork tenderloin is fairly ubiquitous in Central Indiana, where it is on practically every bar and grill menu. 

I can attest to that. I don't know how long the pork tenderloin has been ubiquitous in Indianapolis, but it's been at least the entire time I've lived here (since 2003).

The question, of course, is:

Why was Indianapolis unable to do with the tenderloin what Nashville did with hot chicken?

His answer, essentially, is that Indianapolis doesn't even try.

I again and again see that Southern cities start with little to nothing, and yet what they do have they treat as the greatest things of all time. As illustrated by Nashville hot chicken, they’ve also looked at their often neglected black community as a source of local cultural identity.

The Midwestern cities not only fail at this consistently, they typically don’t even try. There are tons of regional food products in the Midwest – Chicago style dogs, St. Louis pizza, etc. – but other than Chicago’s deep dish pizza, they have been dramatically underexploited in the marketplace even as these cities say that they are very keen to raise their brand profiles.

Interesting.

Being a litigator (and thus having nothing whatsoever to do with tourism, or the friendlier side of humanity generally) I don't really know what to say about this. Nonetheless, it is worth considering. It also gets me a-thinking about what it is, aside from racing, that Speedway hangs its hat on. I get that the 500 is, in the immortal words of Joe Biden, "a big f**kin' deal." Nonetheless, what is the "thing" about Speedway during the other 350 or so days per year? Food? Festivals? Sport? Music?

For What It's Worth - Part II

Recall that yesterday's post dealt with the anti-Joe Donnelly ad populated by an alleged local businesswoman who just couldn't understand why Joe Donnelly would vote against the wonderful, glorious, and absolutely necessary tax "reform" plan. The point of that post was that we should be aware when someone is trying to play us.

Enter today's contestant for dishonesty - Sinclair Broadcast Group. For those who don't realize, Sinclair Broadcasting Group owns more than 100 local news stations and has required those local anchors to read certain scripted editorial content during the local news.

Watch for yourself:

One of the first lessons I learned in litigation: "If you look around the table and can't tell who the sucker is, it's probably you."

Amazon Finalist - Indianapolis

I am of course torn as to how I feel about Amazon moving to Indianapolis. Some thoughts, in no particular order:

1. I have, once again, heard the usual trope about how it remains questionable whether there will be enough "skilled applicants" to fill all of the jobs that Amazon would bring. Once again, my response is that if you can't find someone willing to sell the thing you need for the price you offer, you should offer more for that thing and not spend your time whining to the government about some supposed "skills gap." I also note that the Chamber of Commerce types who like to bemoan the "lack of qualified workers" conveniently refuse to note what "qualifications" they're looking for. Again, my law firm has an immediate opening for a litigator who is 12-0 in front of the United States Supreme Court, has a portable book of business worth $1m/year, and is willing to buy me a Ferrari. We will pay that litigator $15,000/year. Any takers? No? Must be a skills gap!

2. Taking at face value the notion that at least some of the people who work at the Amazon HQ would have to be imported, I think it is important to review the image of Indiana that our state government has blasted out to the world. Who can forget RFRA, or Mike Pence walking out of the Colts game, or Milo Smith's bill allowing people offended by National Anthem protests at NBA and NFL games (but not at the Indianapolis 500, baseball games, Indy 11 soccer games, or Indy Fuel hockey games) to get a refund? I mean, all three of those are examples of pandering to your base of intolerant voters. If I was not from Indiana and had professional options, it would take a lot more money to get me to move here than to, say, Denver. If I was an outsider, I would wonder what it was about me that the locals would determine was sub-human? Is my choice of romantic partner going to be acceptable? What about my religious choices? The books I read? Will those make me an outcast? A target? Essentially, this is a plea for tolerance here in the Hoosier state. Most citizens of this state are remarkably tolerant and warm-hearted people; it continually baffles me that the citizens of Indiana elect legislators who are so profoundly anti-Hoosier in this element of their behavior.

3. I question whether Indianapolis would respond positively to an Amazon HQ even if we got one. With that size of a corporate headquarters and that many jobs moving here, more housing would have to be built. Is anyone confident that these houses would result in increased density in Indianapolis as opposed to more sprawl in Hamilton, Boone, and Johnson counties? I'm not. I have witnessed the NIMBYism here in Speedway with respect to the Redevelopment Commission and the NIMBYism in Indianapolis writ large with respect to the old Coke bottling plant, and it has been disheartening.

4. I am also reminded that obtaining a "thing" (a "res" in legalese) is only worthwhile so long as you don't overpay for that thing. Remember when the Chicago Cubs really hit a home run (pardon the pun) by signing Alfonso Soriano? How did that one work out? My point is that sometimes we overpay for things and when we do so, the result is worse than if we had simply walked away from the deal.

On leaving people the hell alone

I see that once again, the Speedway conservatives vocal minority has decided to protest yet another piece of progress, this time Big Red Liquors' attempt to open a store at the development at 30th and High School.

Some thoughts:

1. The owners of that property, much like the owners of other property, should be allowed to use their property as they see fit so long as such use doesn't bother others' use of their own property. I see nothing in a liquor store that would "hurt" the area any more than having (a) a bar (McGilvery's, an establishment of which I am a modest fan) and (b) empty property (that attracts blight, squatters, etc.).

2. I thought that Speedway was die-hard Republican/Conservative. It's not exactly the same thing anymore, but it is a pretty good overlap. Where are all of these small-government "conservatives" when it comes to their own neighborhood? Is small government only something that is imposed on others? I see that they all want to "remonstrate" against this proposal, much as many of the same culprits "remonstrated" against Wilshaw.

NEWSFLASH: when you "remonstrate," you are merely asking that the government intervene on your behalf to prevent others from doing as they please with their own property.

I am not entirely against remonstrations, by the way. If someone wanted to put a fracking compound in to replace Meadowood Park, I would be concerned, as that use would disturb my use of my own property by, among other things, polluting the air and water in the immediate vicinity of my home. However, if someone wants to put a porn shop in next to Kroger, who am I to complain? My recourse is to not shop there.

Bottom line here is that this little song and dance routine gets very old, very fast. You can't call yourself a "small government" "libertarian minded" "live and let live" "conservative" and turn around and remonstrate against every little change/development because "it impedes on my 'free' parking" or "it is in an inappropriate place" (i.e. too close to my house). If you want the government to intervene on your behalf, you are not a "small government conservative."

Of course, the biggest irony I can see is that some of the same vocal minority protesting everyone else's use of their own property are the same ones that believe that additional Wall Street regulations or health insurance subsidies are an enormous and unacceptable infringement on FREEDOM.

Be The Change

I attended the meeting of Concerned Citizens and Business Owners of Speedway at the American Legion on Georgetown Rd. yesterday. I'm not sure what to say about it. Karlee Macer was there. She's nice I guess, though I could have done without her comment about how she is a Democrat, but she has common sense. Uhhh. What about being a Democrat necessarily implies that you don't have common sense, and what about being a Republican necessarily implies that you do?

Anyway.

I noticed that there was a lot of general griping about how people don't feel as though they are being properly respected by their town councilors. (I do note that one gentleman, to his credit, had a specific complaint about the town council's procedures).

I would say two separate things about this:

First, if your town councilor does not pay you the mind or attention that you think s/he ought to, unseat him/her. It's really that simple. If your ideas/demeanor/instincts are superior, you should be able to defeat your town councilor. Take a page from the Tea Party and get people together to protest. Hang out in front of Kroger on Saturday afternoon and at Charlie Brown's on Saturday morning and talk to people.

Be the change.

Second, as to the gentleman's (very well done) criticism regarding the town council's procedure, that too is a political problem that is to be solved with political means. The gentleman asked Rep. Macer if there was some sort of state law that could be passed to require that town council meetings be conducted a certain way, and I couldn't disagree with that approach more. I don't want some know-nothing state representative from Fort Wayne or Buck Creek coming into Speedway and telling us how to run our community. I do, however, want to see a competitive political environment in Speedway.

Be the change.

I've written before, and I will reiterate, that we get the political representation we deserve. If 51% of Speedway's voters automatically vote for the Republican on the ballot, regardless of who it is or what they know about that person's past, agenda, etc., then the Republican candidate will win, regardless. If the Republican candidate only has to ensure that she stays in the good graces of a half dozen Marion County Republican Party officials, then she could not care less (literally) about what the people of Speedway think. After all, why should she? As long as she gets on the ballot with an R next to her name, she is guaranteed victory. Everyone else can go pound sand.

If you don't approve of the way that Speedway is run, be the change. Talk to the candidates. Talk to your neighbors. Protest the town council, if you want. They have publicly noticed meetings. Conduct a protest march down Main St. if you want.

As a final note, to all those who talk about their disapproval of the Redevelopment Commission . . . if you feel that nobody listens to your complaints about the Redevelopment Commission, and you feel like it is going to do what it wants to do despite popular opinion, then perhaps you are misreading public sentiment. Perhaps the Redevelopment Commission is doing what it does because of popular opinion. My general impression is that people support the Redevelopment Commission's (imperfect) efforts. If they didn't, the SRC would not have the mandate that it does.

What Doesn't Ch. 13 Bankruptcy Discharge?

Disclaimer, I am not a bankruptcy attorney. However, I was reviewing a Ch. 13 petition for bankruptcy the other day and found it somewhat interesting the debts that cannot be discharged in Ch. 13 bankruptcy, largely because I figured they were important policy determinations. You tell me what the underlying policy being promoted on each category of protected asset is; my best guess is enumerated below:

1. Domestic Support Obligations - just because the debtor got in too deep, that does not mean that his children need support any less. Society has an interest in guaranteeing that children, who had no choice in who their parents are, get support lest society itself is obligated to provide it.
2. Taxes and Certain Other Debts Owed to Governmental Units - government wants to get paid, and it doesn't want people shirking tax obligations by not paying when due, only to get too deep in debt and then not pay the government.
3. Claims for Death or Personal Injury While Debtor Was Intoxicated - just because you declare bankruptcy, you still have to answer for getting drunk and running someone over.
4. Student Loan Obligations
5. Other Domestic Support, Separation Agreement, and Divorce Decree Obligations - as noted in regard to #1, plus the added bonus of all the divorce asset-hiding shenanigans in which people engage.
6. Obligations to Pensions or Profit-Sharing, and Other Similar Obligations - as noted in #1, 2, and 3; generally I believe this is a business consideration. We don't want the boss shortchanging the pension just because he is dating the secretary behind his wife's back and buying the secretary new cars every six months, driving himself into bankruptcy. Those pension obligations need to be paid, as the employees who depend on that had no part in making the financial decisions that led to bankruptcy.

As you can see, I am a bit at a loss re. #4. I suppose it makes sense to ensure that wealthy professionals don't walk away from their student loan obligations right before their big pay day (i.e. doctor completes residency; attorney makes partner). However, that seems like a bazooka killing a gnat to me, and it smacks of the student-loan industry buying statutory provisions. 

Intellectually Dishonest Criticism

I get that there are legitimate concerns people have regarding transitioning America's healthcare system to a single-payer system (i.e. "Socialized Medicine"). However, in keeping with my previous points (repeated, seemingly, ad nauseum), if your concerns are so legitimate, you don't need to lie about them.

Today's example comes from the FoxNews of newspapers, the New York Post. Titled in such a manner as to scream "no agenda here," the post is called, "How BernieCare slams working people." Skeptic of the New York Post that I am, I decided to read it and see what their argument was. Here is the nut of the argument:

BernieCare guarantees you hospital care, doctors’ visits, dental and vision care, mental health and even long-term care, all courtesy of Uncle Sam. Amazing, right? But read the fine print. You’ll get care only if it’s “medically necessary” and “appropriate.” Government bureaucrats will decide, and they’ll be under pressure to cut spending.

Good point. The only thing missing from the article is any acknowledgement whatsoever that this practice already goes on in the private insurance industry. It's called "medical underwriting" and "claims management." If whatever treatments your doctor prescribes are deemed "not medically necessary" by your insurance company, then your insurance company won't pay for the care.

I read this criticism to be a defense of the present situation. However, if I criticize a proposed change for doing precisely what the present situation does, what is my criticism all about? It remains a mystery.

The Freedom to get Ripped Off

If you haven't heard about the Equifax hack yet, welcome to Earth . . . we've missed you. Here is the thumbnail sketch:

• Equifax is a credit reporting agency.
• As a credit reporting agency, Equifax compiles information on consumer spending, including such trivial items as credit accounts, utility accounts, bank accounts, social security numbers, income, etc.
• Equifax and Experian are the "Coke" and "Pepsi" of credit reporting agencies, though even that analogy may understate their dominance in the industry.
• Credit reporting agencies are how your credit score is derived.
• Equifax was provided with information in March that informed it that its information was vulnerable to hackers.
• Equifax was provided with a fix for this vulnerability, in March.
• In May, this vulnerability was exploited by hackers.
• To repeat, Equifax was notified of the vulnerability in March, offered a fix for the vulnerability in March, and was then hacked via this vulnerability in May.
• Three top executives then dumped more than $1m worth of stock in Equifax days after discovering that it had been hacked, but well before publicly acknowledging the hack.
• Equifax announced that it had been hacked, exposing sensitive information on 143,000,000 Americans on September 7.

So here we are. If your own sensitive, personal information did not get ripped off in the equifax hack, then either the person to your left, the person to your right, or both of them had theirs ripped off.

I note that often times when businesses get hacked, there is at least a bit of responsibility on the consumer's part (even if illusory). If Big Red Liquors gets hacked and somehow my credit card number is stolen from their database, I suppose I could possible be a bit to blame in that I chose to shop at Big Red Liquors. I could have shopped at 21st Amendment or Kroger (or not imbibe, but who are we kidding?) after all.

Equifax is different. I never made any sort of a conscious choice to do business with them or expose my information to them. 

Nonetheless, they had my sensitive information. They were careless with it. They lost it.

For all of those out there who believe that "Government is not the solution; government is the problem," I ask you what is the solution to a situation like this? Is there a market mechanism whereby Equifax will in the future be willing to expend resources to keep the information of its "marks" safe? Why would they? Wouldn't their executives and stockholders simply prefer higher profits and less security? It's not as though their "marks" have any choice in whether to have their credit monitored by these "big brother" organizations.

Perhaps we should ask those lovers of "freedom" representing Indiana at both the state and national level. Congressman Rokita, any thoughts? Congressman Messer? Senator Young (IN and D.C. versions)? How do we address a problem like this without "big government"?

Anyone have any ideas? I tend to think this is a matter for government regulation. Is that what makes me a liberal?

"Obama Phones"

Perhaps you remember all the talk about Obamaphones? As readers will recall, Obamaphones were talked about incessantly in right-wing media; supposedly this was a program for welfare recipients to get the nicest, newest iPhone (or whatever phone) without having to pay for it. Of course, the implication was always that your hard-earned money was going to support those people who didn't want to work. You know that rusty old trope they pull out: lazy, shiftless, not to be trusted, no work ethic, etc.

Anyway, good liberal that I am, I was listening to NPR on my way to work this morning and there was a talk about "rural broad band access" and increasing the "universal service fee" from $0.16/month to $1.97/month. For the uninitiated, the "universal service fee" is what paid for rural telephone access and was a program initiated by Ronald Reagan . . . it is also the program that was derided as "Obamaphones."

Well, now that it's "rural" (read "white") folks who want to socialize the cost of their telecommunication needs, I can't help but wonder where Greg Garrison and company are on this. Why haven't we heard a snappy "TrumpBand" or "Trumpernet" epithet?

Personally, I don't really care one way or the other about the additional $1.90/month. However, let's be clear: this is a tax, whether it is levied and collected by the government or levied and collected by a telecommunications company at the behest of the government. This is subsidization. This is in dereliction of the free market.

Where are all the John Galts of the world now? Oh yeah, I forgot, they only threaten to "go Galt" when its urban people of color who are subsidized. When it's rural white people, apparently there's some distinction (that escapes me).

Just one more observation of how the hysterical right has changed now that there is a rich, white, male plutocrat in office.

Here we go again

I couldn't help but notice this polished turd in today's Indianapolis Star.

Once again, our local leaders (who plead poverty when it comes to such luxuries as police, schools, and street lights) are lining up to throw bags full of cash at well-heeled corporate leaders. This time, it is Amazon that Mayor Joe Hogsett of Indianapolis (he of the "insiders who rig our system and steal our tax dollars" ads) and Mayor Scott Fadness (fiscal conservative, right?) of Fishers are tripping over themselves to "lure" with our tax dollars.

An excerpt or two from the Star:

The two cities that have been the most successful at luring technology companies to Indiana are making a combined pitch to win Amazon.com Inc.'s prized second headquarters.

Indianapolis Mayor Joe Hogsett and Fishers Mayor Scott Fadness on Monday announced they are collaborating with other state and regional economic development officials to submit a proposal to Amazon. The mayors said they will emphasize Central Indiana's existing tech ecosystem, its growing business climate and a plethora of available real estate sites in a proposal that is due Oct. 19.

It is nice that the local Gannett franchise Indianapolis Star at least buries the lede in order to spare us "little people" from the ugly truth of what our government is doing in this "combined pitch." Alas, the lede can't be buried forever:

Hogsett and Fadness said they would look to Gov. Eric Holcomb and the Indiana Economic Development Corp. for leadership, including discussions about tax incentives, while hoping those officials would agree that metropolitan Indianapolis would make the best home for Amazon.

Nice euphamism: "tax incentives." I suppose when I went to keggers in college, the host was providing "beverage incentives" for people to show up, right?

More from the story:

Hogsett and Fadness declined to discuss their own appetites for tax breaks. 

So, the Star buries the lede and only mentions in passing that this is all about a big tax giveaway. Then, it credulously reports that our leaders "declined to discuss their own appetites for tax breaks" and leaves it at that. Where is the outrage from our local paper, demanding that Hogsett and Fadness explain themselves and their willingness to give our tax dollars away to a corporate entity that doesn't need them?

A small modicum of actual "reporting" would probably have revealed this element of Amazon's "search" for a new headquarters' site:

Among the criteria Amazon will use to determine where its second headquarters will go is everything you'd expect: a large-enough population, good schools, solid public transportation.
And, inevitably, tax breaks. Loads and loads of tax breaks.

"Incentives offered by the state/province and local communities to offset initial capital outlay and ongoing operational costs will be significant factors in the decision-making process," said Amazon's request for proposals. "The initial cost and ongoing cost of doing business are critical decision drivers." 

 I couldn't say it any better than U.S. News & World Report already did:

In a perfect world, every state and city would just agree not to throw any money at Amazon, and make the company choose the home of its next headquarters on the merits of place alone. But of course that's not going to happen; too few lawmakers are willing to take a stand for fiscal sanity, and too many are willing to undercut everyone else for the chance to be at a ribbon-cutting. So no matter which city Amazon ends up choosing, the internet giant itself is going to be the real winner, and the taxpaying public is going to lose.

 Can someone, just once in my lifetime, say NO to the well-heeled interests? Just once?

Hurricane Evacuation

I am always amazed at how good We Americans (myself very much included) are at armchair quarterbacking the decisions of other people. I note that this trait is particularly prevalent among the smug.

After Katrina, we heard over and over about how the government shouldn't be expected to come in and clean up after other people's mistakes. They should have evacuated! The same thing seems to happen with every natural disaster.

In the spirit of these arguments, I provide the following two excerpts from our beloved media.

Exhibit A:

People who live in the possible paths of Hurricane Irma, which could make landfall on American shores as soon as this weekend, face the difficult decision of whether to stay in place or flee. In addition to weighing the costs of leaving town, many also have to consider whether evacuating could put their job at risk. 

Almost as soon as government officials started warning residents of many parts of South Florida to get out of Irma’s path, people began seeking advice on social media on what rights and protections workers have during the storm. One of the most common questions surfacing on Reddit and Twitter was whether workers could be fired for not showing up to work because they had left town ahead of the storm. 

The answer to that question, in many cases, is that they can indeed be fired. Sharon Block, the executive director of the Labor and Worklife program at Harvard Law School and a former Department of Labor employee, says a major storm, even one that yields a state of emergency, doesn’t suspend labor laws. This means that laws that protect workers’ pay still stand, but because in Florida, workers are employed at-will, it also means that (barring a collective-bargaining agreement or contract stating otherwise) workers can still be fired for their absence. “You can be fired for a good reason [or] a bad reason—as long as it's not an unlawful reason, which is usually discrimination,” Block says.

 Now, I don't live in Florida. I don't practice employment law.

I do, however, provide for my family. If there was a hurricane bearing down on Indianapolis (far fetched hypothetical, I am aware) I would most assuredly not evacuate if it meant that I may lose my job for failing to show up for work the morning after the hurricane struck.

Ironically, because I work in a "white collar, professional" job, I have the flexibility to evacuate, work remotely, make up the time I lost, meet urgent deadlines as I see fit, etc. In other words, I have flexibility. Along with that, I have the (limited) means to evacuate my family, i.e. I can afford to fill the gas tank up even with inflated prices; I can put my family up in a motel a few hundred miles away; I can spring for a few days' meals at a restaurant.

What about those who work hourly retail jobs? They have families too, but they can't really afford to evacuate; they have little or no employment or income security; they can't afford to lose their jobs. What are they to do? Alas, our national media has provided another pertinent piece of commentary

Exhibit B:

BATON ROUGE, LA—As punishing wind and rain from the former Hurricane Harvey made landfall, government officials urged Louisiana residents Wednesday to evacuate dangerous lower income brackets. “Given the extent of the potential destruction, we urge anyone in the path of the storm to make their way to higher median incomes immediately,” said Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards, adding that residents should resist any urge to wait out the dangerous weather below the poverty line and proceed directly to a higher tax bracket. “We know from experience that in hazardous conditions like these, the safest place for Louisianans to be is at least four or five times wealthier than they are now. This is no time to take risks—please, leave right now and make your way to the upper-middle class if at all possible.” Edwards went on to say that while no one could be forcibly evacuated, anyone who chose to remain in a lower income bracket should not expect to receive help anytime soon.

Courtesy: The Onion. Spot on as always!

Bloomington - Most Expensive City? (Part 2)

Speaking of incentives in the system, in-state tuition was traditionally based on the notion that in-state students' families had been underwriting the public colleges for a long time and, thus, the children of these citizens of the state should be given preferential treatment in said public colleges.

As state support for public colleges has waned, so too has the preferential treatment. However, as any economist will tell you, prices are sticky. It's hard to suddenly jack up tuition on in-state students and close the gap against out-of-state students. So, out-of-state tuition is raised in concert with in-state tuition, and generally cross-subsidizes in-state tuition. In other words, out-of-state students become profitable.

In a country where certain portions (NY, NJ, the east coast in general) are wealthier than others (IN, KY, MI, OH, TN, AL, etc.), yet these relatively "poor" places have excellent educational institutions, it is understandable that a lot of people in the "wealthier" portions of the country want to send their children to these colleges. If you're someone living an upper-middle-class lifestyle in the New York metropolitan area, doesn't it make sense to send your child to a B1G (Big 10) university and save a boatload of money on housing? Compare rent in Bloomington to that in New York City. It's not even close.

Therefore, the rent in cities like Bloomington can be at rates that would be laughable in Fort Wayne or most of Indianapolis. If the alternative is renting a $2500/month shoe box in New York City, a $1400/month swanky loft in Bloomington, IN, seems like a really good deal.

This is my theory of why Bloomington is the most expensive city in the state.

Happy Saturday.

Commercial Property on Main St.

I keep hearing about how the incumbent business owners on Main St. are being harmed by the redevelopment thereof. I keep getting confused about what their problem is.

This is two distinct parcels on Main Street. Clearly, the picture is dated, as the building that used to house the Town Press now houses Tacos & Tequila (I can't wait . . . sounds so delicious), and the vacant lot to the right now houses O'Reilly's (here again . . . ) and Wilcox Engineering (unaffiliated with "Wilshaw," by the way).

Anyway, I choose these two properties because they are two of the original properties on Main, in their more-or-less original state. These properties were assessed, for taxation purposes, at $69,900 (on the left) and $37,800 (on the right). Links to the publicly-available property tax assessments can be found here and here.

Based on that property assessment, one could own both of these buildings for $107,700. Call me skeptical on that, and my skepticism was born out.

Just today, I was perusing the internet and came upon this listing. For those who prefer not to click through, the listing is for Ted's Beauty Shop, located at 1344 Main St..

This property is presently assessed, for tax purposes, at $99,100, as of 2016. The asking price for the property is currently $489,000.

By my calculations, that is an increase of approximately 493%. Someone, PLEASE, explain to me what it is that the property owners along Main St. have to complain about. I can think of approximately 389,900 reasons why the owner of Ted's Beauty Shop (Stella Szatkowski) should be supportive of Main Street's redevelopment.

Similarly, I can think of plenty of reasons why the incumbent property owners along Main Street should be, give or take, 493% supportive of the redevelopment efforts.

Finally, please note that the property just to the south of Ted's Beauty Shop is owned by the Speedway Redevelopment Commission. It was bought in June, 2015, for $65,000, according to tax records. I will be interested to see the final sale price for Ted's Beauty Shop, but based on the asking price, it appears that the efforts of the Redevelopment Commission are bearing fruit. Keep up the good work!

My Understanding of History and its Lessons - Part I

I am not a historian, nor do I play one on TV. In fact, I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I did, however, major in the humanities in college and pay at least passing attention in high school. In light of that extensive scant historical training, I'd like to offer a lesson I gleaned from it.

In roughly 1908, Henry Ford perfected a fairly revolutionary idea for his day: assembly line manufacturing. Contrary to popular belief, Henry Ford did not invent the assembly line, but he did perfect it.

To say the least, manufacturing made the fabrication of fairly complex things, like say an automobile, considerably easier and less expensive to do, when done on a large scale and supported by well-capitalized industrialists. While the manufacture of the automobile put many previous artisan car builders out of business (if not immediately, then eventually), it put the automobile within the financial reach of considerably more customers than previously. I don't have the exact figures, but a car made in roughly 1900 cost about $1,000 in 1900 dollars. By 1924, Ford was selling the Model T for about $265 in 1924 dollars . . . a price cut of about 75% in real dollars, not adjusted for inflation.

That is one hell of an innovation, and the ripple effects were clearly far and wide. An automobile suddenly became affordable for the "masses," and was no longer a plaything for the wealthy. As a result, the American auto industry became one of the industrial powerhouses of mankind, and a thing for the country to admire and celebrate. Additionally, the nation responded by constructing an interstate highway system and built out its cities, towns, and counties with car-passable roads. A small town in central Indiana even started an endurance race to see who could make a car go 500 miles the fastest.

Unfortunately, it also had the effect of replacing high-skilled jobs with relatively low-skilled jobs. Previously, building a transmission, for example, was a very difficult thing for one person to know how and be able to do. After Henry Ford, it was still a difficult task, but when you're building 100,000 of them with 500 workers, they get considerably cheaper to build per unit and each person only has to know how to put one portion of it together. The world can have transmissions for much cheaper. Cheaper transmissions mean cheaper cars. More people can afford cars. The trucking industry becomes a thing (to name but a single example). All well and good, except for the guy who used to make a good living hand-building transmissions and now works putting one portion of it together on an assembly line for a fraction of the pay.

Bummer. It is a good thing that, eventually, people came to realize that when every member of the workforce makes so little he can't afford much "stuff," then the builders of that "stuff" can't sell any "stuff." America relied on the benevolence of employers to pay well for awhile until it became untenable, and we started making laws about unions, labor practices, etc. (Mind you, there is a lot of history that I am omitting when discussing working conditions, pay, unionization, worker's rights, etc.) However, we ultimately figured out a way to make it work and have the government and industry working symbiotically in such a manner as afforded the citizens of this country to be balanced in their contentment with their present station in life and able to consume on the one hand, and not becoming idle but instead striving to better themselves and their families through hard work on the other hand.

It sure is a good thing that President William Howard Taft, by no means Mt. Rushmore material, decided that embracing the innovations of Henry Ford, and allowing local governments to work in their own immediate interests to develop roadways, was a better course of action than trying to protect the livelihoods of the hand-made transmission guild or the buggy whip makers.

Because President Taft and his successors understood that innovation is good and allowed Henry Ford to profit from it without seeking to protect the handsome profits of the Pullman Railroad Car Company, to give one example, or the jobs of the buggy whip makers, to give another, the American auto industry was allowed to flourish. Because the American auto industry thrived, we were able to develop the American trucking industry. With affordable coast-to-coast shipping, California vineyards could sell their overpriced Pinot Noir to rich financiers in New York (one example illustrating the point and utility of national shipping).

Lets not forget that things could have gone the other way. We were not destined to be a superpower but became one because we made good decisions along the way. Making good decisions in the future also seems like a good idea. Draw your own conclusions as to what my lesson was. Answer tomorrow.