Why Young People With Options Go Elsewhere (and what we can do to stop it)

Ah, my "hometown." Fort Wayne, IN.

I have lived there four (4) separate times in my life. The first time, I moved there in 1985. The last time, I moved there in 2013. I was happy to leave all four times I left.

Today, I read this in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette about a branding effort to get young people to move to northeast Indiana. Here is the new logo they came up with.

From the article:

Business leaders are hoping a new branding effort will help lure people to live and work in northeast Indiana.

The Northeast Indiana Regional Partnership today unveiled "Make It Your Own," a marketing effort designed to attract people ages 21 to 45 to the 11-county region. The partnership, which is made up of business and civic leaders, worked with national and local marketing agencies to produce the tagline and a "brand strategy," according to a news release.

"Northeast Indiana's number one business need is increasing our talent pool," Michael Galbraith, director of the partnership's Road to One Million initiative, said in a statement. "On average, we have more than 6,000 unfilled jobs in the region in our jobs portal. For our region to thrive in today's global economy, we must grow our population to one million people by 2030."

Don't get me going on this "unfilled jobs" red herring. I've discussed this ad nauseum and my thoughts on it are well known.

As much as I appreciate the optimism of those who are trying to help the area, the fact of the matter is that people don't go there because opportunity is hoarded. It's not because Ft. Wayne lacks a "brand strategy," it's because Ft. Wayne lacks "opportunity."

I moved to Ft. Wayne after college and couldn't get a job that required a college degree. Is it any mystery why I left? I moved there after law school and left as soon as a law firm (as opposed to the company I was working for as an "in-house" lawyer . . . who performed precisely zero legal work) offered me a job in Indianapolis. Any mystery why I left?

That company I worked for had me purchasing right-of-way for utility lines. Boring, but decent work. I met a lot of "successful" people in the area and, to a disconcerting degree, most of the "successful" people I met were "successful" because they "won the sperm lottery" and were born into "successful" families. It had very little to do with these peoples' intelligence, motivation, innovation, or other such quality. Rather, it had everything to do with "my family started farming here in 1870" or "my grandfather started this warehouse company back in the '40s" or "my dad locked down the auto dealership market in this town in the 1950s." Pretty much everyone else in Ft. Wayne who is "successful" was raised, educated, and first hired and nurtured elsewhere. It was only after achieving professional success that they were "bribed" to move to Ft. Wayne and work for the large incumbent companies.

Maybe there was opportunity there in 1950 or 1920, but there sure ain't much opportunity there in 2019.

I write about this for two reasons. First, this is, to a large degree, my "hometown." I graduated from high school in Ft. Wayne. Second, and much more important, however, is that I want to see Speedway be a place where opportunity is planted and nourished, as opposed to hoarded by the incumbents. Is Speedway going to be a dynamic place, or is it simply going to be the place where the underwhelming offspring of the natives simply stay because they have no other opportunities? I'd prefer the former, but I fear the latter and can't help but notice how difficult it is for Indianapolis natives to break in with the large incumbent employers. Until and unless that changes, there will be a constant brain drain as the natives who can go where the opportunity is, and the large incumbent businesses are left trying to bribe mid-career professionals to return, just like in Ft. Wayne.

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?

School Comparisons

For the first time, the Indiana State Board of Education has released a study comparing the effectiveness of charter schools versus traditional public schools.

Before getting to the real meat of this post, I note that the Indy Star has precisely zero mention of this report on its home page (the main page right now discusses how the Indiana Lottery often ends high-prized scratch-off games before awarding all prizes . . . an issue of importance I'm sure, but I value a quality education for my children (and the rest of the children in this state) over getting something for nothing via the lottery, but that's just me).

I had to go to the Ft. Wayne Journal Gazette for some actual (what do they call that?) reporting. Some highlights:

As of the 2016-17 school year, there were 93 public charter schools serving 44,444 students. That is about 4 percent of total enrollment in the state.

Good to know that baseline number.

On enrollment, it found charter schools enrolled more free-and-reduced-price-lunch students but fewer special education students and English-language learners.

On performance, it found charter students are doing better in improvement on state tests but worse when it comes to passing the test. 

OK. That seems like fair reporting. I've always believed that charter schools cherry pick their students, but perhaps it's a bit more complicated than that. Similarly, the school choice advocates I know maintain that charter schools perform better, but you can see that too is a bit more complicated than a bumper sticker slogan.

In accountability grades, charter schools received more A's and fewer F's than similar traditional public schools.

I question that statistic. It would seem that given the disparities in numbers, traditional public schools would have both more A's and more F's. After all, charters only account for 4% of total enrollment in the state.

All four virtual charters received an F grade in 2016-17.

And, above, we have the award for the most predictable outcome.

Superintendent of Public Instruction Jennifer McCormick said other states focus a lot of quality and not “choice for the sake of choice” and asked about charter school closures.

Twenty-three charters closed between 2011 and 2017. 

23 huh? There are currently 93 operating, and 23 more have closed in the past 6 years? If we have a total of 116 charter schools opening since 2011 and 23 have closed, that is a closure rate of nearly 20%. That is pretty distressing. What happens to that 20% of charter students? Are they then dumped back into public schools after missing a year or more of instruction in their destined-for-closure charter school?

Over all, I think that charter schools can be a positive force for good; it all depends on how they are implemented. A former teacher myself, I was always concerned that charter schools would take what was the figurative equivalent of working at a GM factory in the 1970s and turn it into the figurative equivalent of working at Wal-Mart. Conversely, a charter school could be the figurative equivalent of a small law firm . . . it does one or two things really well and is owned by the teachers (as law firms are owned by the lawyers).

Food for thought. I'm hungry.

 

Net Whopper Neutrality

We are really on a roll today.

I think that "net neutrality" is possibly the WORST name for a cause ever devised. No wonder nobody cares about it; nobody knows what the hell it's even talking about!

Anyway, I saw this great video today. Enjoy:

YIMBY

I think that most people have heard of the term "NIMBY." This stands for Not In My Back Yard and generally refers to those who want to remonstrate or otherwise impede development. Further, it reflects the idea that many people are perfectly fine with developing property so long as that property is not to close to their own homes.

There is a movement in other cities, in response to NIMBYism, called YIMBY, i.e. Yes In My Back Yard.

Count me in. I would like to see development in my backyard. I want to see Wilshaw built, particularly if it is not dominated by parking structures. I want to see increased bus routes between Speedway and every other part of the city. I want to see a train connecting the airport to downtown via Speedway. I want to see condos built around IMS for wealthy racing team owners to stay in, hopefully for more than just a few weeks in May. I would like to see more bars and restaurants open throughout Speedway, not just on Main St. I want to see the Speedway Supercenter (i.e. the Kroger development) grow like gangbusters. I would like the McGilvery's development to fill in, whether it is with liquor stores, bible stores, health clubs, or whatever.

Along those lines, I love the International Marketplace on W. 38th Street! In a city that is dominated by chain franchise restaurants and stores, it is so refreshing to see all of those independently owned and operated restaurants and other businesses. I try to patronize them as often as I reasonably can.

As I wrote a long time ago, the traffic that comes along with these developments is evidence that people actually want to be here. That is a good thing. If there is no traffic and considerably more parking than would ever reasonably be required, that is evidence that our home is not worth visiting to those who don't live here. That is a bad thing!

PLEASE in my backyard! Maybe instead of YIMBY we should call people like myself PIMBYs.

Geo-Engineering - Interesting Proposal

Being Speedway's Resident Liberal (I guess), I'm sure it is no surprise when I say that I (a) believe the global climate is changing; (b) believe that this change is anthropogenic; (c) global climate change is problematic, from a human existential standpoint; and (d) we should do something about it.

My initial instinct has always been to advocate for "lesser impact" living where possible. Reuse; Reduce; Recycle, as they taught us in school. I read an interesting article tonight in The Atlantic, which I highly recommend. A few highlights:

For the past two years, Wolovick has studied whether a set of targeted geo-engineering projects could hold off the worst sea-level rise for centuries, giving people time to adapt to climate change and possibly reverse it. He is exploring whether building underwater walls at the mouth of the world’s most unstable glaciers—huge piles of sand and stone, stretching for miles across the seafloor—would change how those glaciers respond to the warming ocean and atmosphere, dramatically slowing or reversing their collapse.

If they work as planned, these large walls could make glaciers last as much as 10 times longer than they otherwise would. In rudimentary simulations, the walls make a glacier that would collapse in 100 years last for another millennium.

More and more, I find myself thinking that my own focus on preventing global climate change, or at least minimizing it, has perhaps blinded me to the other end of the stick, so to speak, as to solutions. We not only need to focus on living more sustainably, but we also need to focus our building codes and engineering projects with an eye toward mitigating what we have already done.

The idea referenced above is interesting to me because it takes for granted that upon which we do agree, i.e. that the glaciers are melting. It then moves forward from a position of pragmatism. What can we do that will minimize this problem?

Another idea that occurs to me is that, particularly near rivers, creeks, and streams, we ought to be building and refraining from building in such a way as to promote the natural function of creekbeds: absorb and purify water. Reclaiming wetlands goes right along with this. I used to live in Ft. Wayne, and there is an enormous wetland directly south, and a little to the north of, Engle Rd. there. This used to be a fallow field that could easily have been sold for commercial development; it was right off U.S. 24/W. Jefferson Blvd., which is kind of the big E/W thru-way in the Fort.

Anyway, the wetland is more than just hippy-dippy tree-hugger stuff. Directly to the southeast of the wetland is the largest landfill I have ever seen. The landfill is more or less built on an enormous, industrial, clay shower floor that drains to a series of pipes. Imagine all of the pollution in that drainage, but it has to go somewhere. Hence the wetland. I am given to understand that this landfill drainage ("leachate") is filtered a few times, in various ways, and then sprayed out over the wetland. The landfill operators get an environmental-donation tax benefit; migratory birds get a stopping point; the landfill gets drained; the water gets cleaned. We can only hope that this is a win-win.

I am meandering off the point, though. Go read the article in The Atlantic. 

Aspirations for 2018

I hate resolutions. I'm not generally a resolute individual. However, I do like to believe that I am an aspirational person. With that in mind, I offer aspirations for 2018:

1. Reform of Occupational Licensure Requirements

I am not a conservative, so I am told, but nothing erodes freedoms more than economic regulations that can deprive one of his ability to make a living and feed his family. It matters not to me whether one makes his/her living braiding hair, making dog treats, doing paralegal work, or coding medical bills. I don't see that a license is necessary to do any of this, much less a license that necessitates thousands of dollars in training that an employer used to provide(s).

Instead of having a highly trained and mercenary work force, we instead have the same work force with large tuition debt hanging over them; we have made society worse. Let's stop doing that. Instead, how about we allow people to pursue a livelihood without throwing up gratuitous barriers.

As a final note on this point, I can't help but think that so many occupational licensure requirements are simply "incumbent protection rackets." For example, the fact that an English teacher who is fully certified in Michigan has to sit through a battery of tests in Indiana to teach English is nothing but a protection racket for IN English teachers (a member of such group as I used to identify). Requiring thousands of dollars in gratuitous and unnecessary "training" to become a hair stylist merely serves to limit the universe of hair stylists and drive up the cost of stylist services. This makes everyone except incumbent stylists poorer: consumers pay more, aspiring stylists can't get into the industry. I could go on and on about this, as there are so many useless occupational licensing requirements it makes one's head spin.

2. Minimization of Land Use and Zoning Regulations

I view land use and zoning regulations, to a lesser extent, in a similar vein as occupational licensure requirements. Zoning does nothing but make incumbent landowners wealthier in most cases. Why can't someone who owns a home on Lynhurst open a public business there? What about on 15th St?* I also think that if someone is so inclined, he should be able to buy a parcel on Main St. and build whatever the hell he wants on it so long as he is not bothering others with his use of his own property. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. I fully recognize that some in this community don't necessarily see eye to eye with me on this. I do sincerely hope we can all agree to disagree.

3. Decriminalization of Harmless Behavior

There is a concept in the law known as "standing." It essentially says that you can't bring a lawsuit unless you can show a few things, including that you, the complainant, have been harmed. Generally, the enforcement of a law is presumed to be in the public interest, conferring standing on the prosecutor's office.

What if the elimination of the criminalized behavior is not in the public interest? What if enforcement of certain laws creates more of the undesirable behavior that we seek to eliminate in the first place?

The War on Drugs is the first thing that comes to mind. Unless a prosecuting authority can demonstrate that an actual human being was harmed, the prosecution should fail as a matter of policy. If there is an arms-length transaction, who really cares what is exchanged? Particularly with respect to marijuana, who cares? If an adult, who has full agency and freedom, decides to spend his hard-earned money on some pot, who cares? Why do we then tax that same adult to hire police and build prisons so that people who participate in this exact same behavior can become wards of the state? What in the hell are we doing?

Another example is prostitution. I certainly have a problem with human trafficking and the like, but again with the arms-length transaction . . . if a woman wants to sell an hour of her time doing "whatever" for a considerably larger amount than she could otherwise command for an hour of her time, who am I to say that I know better? I grant you that if there were "ladies of the night" "plying their trade" in Meadowood Park, my position would be different, as the entire community would be harmed in such an instance. However, if she sells her goods for three hours per night, out of her own home, what business is it of mine?

I could go on, but I think that the point has been made. Enough expenditure of public resources on morality crusades, which brings us to the next point . . .

4. Judicious and Equitable Use of Public Funds

I could go on for some time about this, whether we are talking about using public money to finance a private developer's parking garage or using public money to finance enforcement of some theocrat's version of morality, enough is enough.

Along those same lines, I know that there has been considerable discussion of late of the antics of Scott Harris vis a vis the Redevelopment Commission and the State Board of Accounts. Is it too much to expect to have the system, from which Mr. Harris repeatedly embezzled thousands of dollars, to institute reforms? Is it too much to require that anyone who handles public funds post a performance bond? I don't think so, but I'm not on the Town Council. Perhaps we should ask them.

Additionally, as pertains "equitable" use of public funds, can we think long and hard about who benefits from public expenditure and whether they need it? Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled that IMS is here and I recognize that it is the lifeblood of Speedway, if not Indianapolis. Nonetheless, I don't think that IMS needs taxpayer handouts any more than Mr. Billionaire/3 and 13/$750m stadium Jim Irsay needs our money, or the Simon family needs our money. Somehow, they all manage to get my tax money; I guess they need that money more than I do? I am perfectly happy to see my tax money spent to maintain and improve Speedway's schools, roads, sidewalks, parks, etc. I'm happy to see public money go to having free meals for poor kids when school isn't in session. It grates me a bit when those who are wealthy beyond my wildest dreams have their hands in the public till. Have you no shame?

5. Forward-Looking Use of Public Resources

This is the flip side of the "use of public funds" wish. I am given to understand that the Speedway Redevelopment Commission presently owns approximately $5m worth of real estate, primarily near the intersection of Crawfordsville Rd. and I-465. To those on the SRC, PLEASE think ahead when you determine what to do with this property. I do not believe that time is of the essence when it comes to alienating and developing that property; getting it right is of primary importance.

I am sure that a developer is more than willing to put a medical office park there. Woo frickin' hoo. Isn't that what was initially at the development just northwest of Crawfordsville/Lynhurst? Look at what a blight that is now. If you want to see more examples, just drive around Indianapolis and look at all of the initially-profitable-but-now-blighted medical office parks around the city. They're useful for perhaps 10 years as Class A office space, then they become Class B, eventually turning into essentially garbage office space, suitable for very little except for exceedingly cheap rent.

I am similarly sure that a developer would be willing to build a regular office park there. I believe that the same dynamic applies that applies to medical office parks. Office buildings retain their value when they are in desirable places, i.e. on the Circle, on Mass Ave., etc. Perhaps an office building would retain value on Main St., but even that is questionable.

I could sit here for hours and list all the things I don't want to see there. What would I like? Frankly, I don't know; an outdoor concert venue would be wonderful but I question whether it would be viable.

CONCLUSION

I write this post not as a rant but as an aspiration for the new year. As I am not an elected official in any capacity, there is very little I can do about these things other than apply pressure to public officials. That is one of the beauties of Speedway. I am one of only about 12,000 people who live here. Compare this to a citizen of Indianapolis, who is one of roughly 864,000 people who live there. As far as I can calculate, that means that I have 72X the influence in Speedway that I would have in Indianapolis.

As 2017 (a truly horrible year that I am happy to see close) fades into memory, I can reflect on my good fortune to live in a community such as this one and do my best to see to it that Speedway continues to thrive and improve. Here's to 2018; Cheers!





* As with most of these ideas, there is a legitimate end point even if I can't explicitly state where that is. I do not believe that food regulations should be eliminated, nor do I think that someone should be able to open another Crystal Clean in the middle of a residential area. I do, however, think that people should be able to do business in more places than they currently can. Also, I believe that some occupational licenses are necessary. I prefer that my healthcare provider be trained in providing healthcare. Unfortunately, however, so many of these licensure requirements have become rackets designed solely to protect the incumbents in the market at the expense of new entrants and a dynamic market.

On Bike Lanes and Neighborhood Connectivity

As much as I would like to advocate to have some sort of a shuttle that takes residents of Speedway from one end to the other, I fully recognize that such a service is likely prohibitively expensive. I would, in its place, like to advocate for a bike "thru-way" through our town. Such a thru-way could be done for a fraction of the cost and would provide a wonderful amenity for the people of Speedway.

First off, I think that the goals of the thru-way need to be clearly defined. I, for one, don't think that this bicycle trial should necessarily be built for the fitness gurus of the world. While it is great that some people slather on the spandex and want to go riding for scores of miles, I think that a lot more people simply want to ride their bikes down to Main St. or over to the grocery store.

Thus, Tabletop Joe's Principle #1: the thru-way is primarily for transportation.

The second thing is that it has to be inclusive. The way I figure it, there are essentially four (4) Speedway "neighborhoods" (for lack of a better term). I live in Meadowood, and I believe that Meadowood is one neighborhood. Some good friends live by Main, and I believe that the Old Speedway neighborhood (10th - Crawfordsville; Main - Lynhurst) is a second neighborhood. I think that the Allison neighborhood (Lynhurst - Georgetown; 25th - Crawfordsville) is a third neighborhood. I think the last neighborhood in Speedway is essentially the area that is from the River to Lynhurst, and 10th to Crawfordsville.

Tabletop Joe's Principle #2 is inclusivity. The bicycle thru-way should go through, and connect, each of these four neighborhoods.

The third thing is cost. I don't want boondoggles. We already have roads that go through Speedway's neighborhoods. I see no reason why some of these roads can't be painted something uniquely Speedway (probably checkered flags, or some sort of racing theme) to let people know what roads the bicycle thru-ways are on.

Tabletop Joe's Principle #3: Don't overspend. We don't need newly built trails a la Carmel. Simply paint the bicycle thru-way on the existing residential streets.

The fourth thing is access. I don't want to ride a bike on Crawfordsville Rd. or Lynhurst. I don't imagine many of my fellow townspeople do either. Keep the thru-way focused on the residential streets. Also, people generally don't want to ride a bike in the dark, as they're afraid they'll get run over. Keep the thru-way well lit via street lights.

Tabletop Joe's Principle #4: Access. Make it something that as many people as possible can use as often as possible.

My suggestion would be to ensure that people could get to the main commercial "hubs" at the four corners of Speedway: 30th/High School Rd.; IMS; Crawfordsville/High School Rd. strip mall; Main St.

I will post more in the future regarding proposed routes.

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?

On Wages

I have been hearing for years that wages for most Americans aren't budging, despite an ever-growing GDP, because people simply don't have the skills to demand higher wages. That has always struck me as a cop-out answer put forth by people whose wages have moved just fine, generally as an excuse to do "nothing" about the problem.

Today, I read something interesting in the Urbanophile (an excellent blog if you've never read it).

A taste:

Employers are having trouble finding workers. A big problem is pay, but not many employers plan to add higher wage jobs.

The survey asked how firms dealt with positions they couldn’t fill. Here were the results:

• 55% left unfilled until a candidate was found
• 18% assigned duties internally to other workers
• 11% hired an underqualified candidate
• 16% other

Notice what’s missing from this list: raising the wage on offer in order to attract qualified applicants. Maybe some of that is included in “other” but it’s clearly a small amount.

Generally speaking, if you're in the market to buy a "thing," (whether that "thing" is a cheeseburger or a day's worth of work) and you can't find a willing seller, you offer more. This is not a complicated theory, yet it seems to be lost on our intrepid "job creators" these days.

Another quote:

The real question that needs to be asked is why these firms aren’t offering a market clearing wage.

If they can’t afford to pay the going rate, then these firms don’t have a skills gap problem, they have a business model problem. The problem is with the companies, not the workforce. 

I would agree. Again, I can't help but note the irony of businesses simultaneously demanding that the government shrink in size (presumably in order to shrink their tax obligations) AND train their workers for them. Remember, these are the same types that like to talk about how government is the "problem" and not the "solution." I suppose if the problem is an untrained workforce, it must be the government's fault.

Here is the money line:

It’s not government’s job to underwrite a highly skilled but poorly paid workforce.

Happy Taco Tuesday!

 

Congratulations to Greenwood (and Speedway!)

I heard a report on NPR today on my way home from work that said Greenwood has experienced a 33% increase in recycling since providing its citizens the big, rolling 96-gallon containers for free.

The mayor (I think . . . it may have been the director of public works or some other such official) was discussing, among other things, the cost savings for the city in not having to secure as much landfill space. He also mentioned the environmental benefit of more recycling and less waste. Bravo!

I couldn't help but note, with a profound sense of satisfaction, that Speedway has a similar program.

As a side note, I have often wondered why we used to (maybe we still do?) have to pay a separate monthly bill to have recycling service, yet trash was built into our municipal utility bill. Why not the other way? Why not allow people to recycle to their hearts' content, paid for by a city utility bill? Along those lines, why not have a program where you have to buy a tag to get your garbage taken? I remember when I went to IU in the 1990s that in order to have the City of Bloomington take your trash, you had to buy a tag for each bag at Marsh. The cost was minimal, but it was enough of a pain that I can imagine it having a positive effect on people's behavior.

Solutions for the Brickyard 400's Lackluster Attendance

In 1994, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway held the first official running of the Brickyard 400 in front of a crowd that was allegedly approximately 250,000.

In 2016, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway held the 22nd (if my math is right) running of the "Crown Royal 400 at the Brickyard" in front of a crowd that was perhaps 1/4 the size.

What happened?

I will admit that I am not a racing aficionado, so most of my analysis is "from the hip," as they say. However, the people with whom I've spoken have simply said that the Brickyard is a boring race . . . like watching cars play "follow the leader" until they pit, and then having a pit-stop competition.

Boring.

Those in the know have said that because IMS is such a large track (2.5-mile oval), it does not have nearly as much racing action (i.e. passing, bumping, etc.) as other tracks, such as Bristol and Martinsville (roughly 0.5-mile ovals). Certainly, someone who watches racing, and NASCAR, regularly would be able to offer better commentary on why the NASCAR race in Indianapolis is so boring. Nonetheless, that is the general consensus I have heard.

Well, we can't very well rebuild the oval at IMS. However, there is a solution to this staring us in the face: the road course. So far as I can tell, there are a handful of other road races in the NASCAR season, and adding one more, with the possibility of improving attendance at the Brickyard, certainly couldn't hurt.

Add to that the necessity of lowering ticket prices. After all, I can't imagine dropping $100+ on a ticket for a race that can't sell out more than half the stands. NASCAR could take a page from the MegaBus pricing, and sell the first 10,000 tickets for $1 or some other nominal price. Assuredly, those tickets would sell out almost immediately. Perhaps the next 10,000 tickets go for $10. Suddenly, we've got a rather large crowd of people who've paid a small amount for the race; this would enable people to bring their kids (something they really can't do at $100/head) and possibly create lifelong fans.

This is merely a muse, of course, given that the Brickyard is nearly upon us. I do hope that they have better attendance, but I am not optimistic.

Gov. Holcomb & Drug Treatment

"We're not going to arrest our way out of the opioid crisis."

So says Gov. Holcomb, a man for whom I have much respect. While I tend to disagree with the Republican party on many things, their choice to put Eric Holcomb at the helm of the State of Indiana is one decision that I wholeheartedly endorse.

Readers of this blog may be familiar with my previous post regarding drug addiction, i.e. it's not a moral failure. I believe that drug addiction should be treated as a public health crisis, not unlike obesity, instead of a criminal justice problem.

In that light, I was very pleased to see this. Some excerpts:

Governor Eric Holcomb announced Wednesday that Indiana’s Family and Social Services Administration’s drug treatment program will be opening five new facilities in Allen, Johnson, Monroe, Vigo and Tippecanoe Counties.

“This is how we are going to attack this problem. We are going to put people first. Even those who are surrounded by darkness,” said Gov. Holcomb.

Bravo Governor! I particularly like the comment about "those who are surrounded by darkness." Anyone who has ever witnessed a loved one struggle with addiction can certainly sympathize with the "darkness" referenced. I'm also heartened to hear the rhetoric about putting people first.

I see this as a refreshing alternative to the "lock 'em up" approach championed by Atty. General Curtis Hill, among many others.

Origination

For the 4th of July, I will leave aside the cheap jingoism that too often accompanies the holiday and instead focus on what I believe was the founding idea of this great nation of ours.

For millennia, the commoners (like my ancestors) were expected to live at the pleasure of their royal "betters." The "landed gentry" was a term that arose in the context of a society where there were a few people who had land, and then there was everyone else who worked said land for the pleasure of its owners. These were the feudal lords, and at the culmination of this system were the titular royals who had the authority to grant land and titles, both of which directly correlated to more bountiful and comfortable lives. Pardon the oversimplification.

At some point, our founding fathers determined that they could set up a new system whereby power and wealth amassed not based on one's parentage but based on one's merit. Again, pardon the oversimplification.

I still believe that this is a beautiful aspiration: the populace governs itself, instituting policies that are based on objective evidence, and rejecting the policies that repeatedly fail. . . stubbornly refusing to repeat the mistakes of our peoples' collective history. A place, not unlike ancient Rome, where good ideas are always welcome; where we understand that those good ideas make our society better and are more than a mere vehicle to launch people into perpetual un/underemployment.

Maintaining such an idea requires vigilance and a constant longview. What may be good for today and tomorrow may be immeasurably bad for the day after. We need to be mindful of such things.

As I've written before, good policy outcomes in the past don't necessarily mean good outcomes in the future. Perhaps, we should have a conversation as to what outcomes we want. Then, we can move on to how we get there. That is the essence of self governance.

Happy 4th of July. Be careful.

On Elephants and Incomes

Yesterday, I watched the PBS Nightly News Hour and there was a very interesting discussion on the so-called "elephant" chart. For those unfamiliar, here it is:

This is the so-called "elephant" chart. The name makes sense if you imagine the uptick on the right representing the trunk, and the large hump in the middle and left representing the elephant's back.

Anyway, it is important to note what this chart shows. The horizontal axis represents where people are in the global ranking from rich to poor. The vertical axis represents income growth from 1988-2008.

Clearly, someone at 50 on the horizontal chart has half the world making more than him and half the world making less. For comparison purposes, a family of 4 making $40,000/year is currently in the riches 11.3% of the global population. That family of 4 making $20,000/year is in the top 20% of the global population. That family of four making $200,000/year is in the global top 0.4%.

As the chart shows, there has been enormous income growth for those between approximately the 10th percentile and the 70th percentile. To give some perspective, this chart shows the following:

• If you made $1,000/year in 1988, you would likely make $1,500/year in 2008
• If you made $200,000/year in 1988, you would be making roughly $320,000/year now.
• If you made $20,000/year in 1988, you probably make about $19,000 now.

This pretty clearly shows the hollowing out of American middle class and that of the remaining developed world. In 1988, you will recall, globalization really kicked off. By 1993, the U.S. had ratified NAFTA.

I think that if you ask most Americans, they are quite happy that the developing world, particularly in India and China, has done so well. However, it is difficult to conclude anything but that this global income growth has come at the expense of the middle class in the developed world.

The saying used to be that it is better to be a C- student in America than an honors student in China, because America provides so much more opportunity. I think that is no longer the case, and the days of getting a factory job and working 8-5 for 40 years so you can retire and afford to move to Florida are over.

This may also explain much of the rise of right-wing nationalism throughout the developed world, from Trump to Brexit to the near-miss in France with Marine LePen.

DISCLAIMER: I am not an economist, but I do find this chart to be very revealing and interesting.

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.