First, latest vehicle crash test results from the IIHS (Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, an insurance-industry body) show that many small car models fare very well in crash tests. This means that people who have been choosing enormous vehicles like SUVs because these large vehicles are perceived as safer in a crash, can start to consider smaller and more economical vehicles.
Second, a new government window sticker on new cars will begin appearing on 2012 models (and on all cars starting with the 2013 model year). It not only shows city, highway, and combined fuel economy ratings for that vehicle; but will also show (1) expected fuel costs over 5 years; (2) a numerical ranking which indicates how that car compares to other vehicles; and (3) another ranking that gives an indication of that vehicle's environmental impact.
I am particularly happy to see number 3 above, because I don't think that very many car buyers give much thought to the environmental impact that the vehicle they're buying is going to have. But even without the new ranking, there's one very simple fact they might consider: greenhouse gas emissions from a vehicle are proportional to the fuel consumed. Simply put, lower gas mileage (more gas used) means more greenhouse emissions.
Third, domestic cars seem to be getting better—and they had a long way to go, in terms of assembly quality and performance characteristics.
Let's look back quite a ways: There was a popularity for foreign, and particularly British sports cars, starting perhaps around the late 1950s and continuing for maybe two decades. This is supposedly due to American servicemen discovering some of these cars when they were overseas, around the end of WWII, and maybe even bringing them home. These cars offered better performance than American cars and were just more fun to drive.
Now, an important fact to keep in mind: When I talk about performance I'm not just talking about a car having zippy acceleration or higher top speed. Many foreign models also showed better handling characteristics: better cornering, better braking, more responsive steering.
For decades American cars lagged in these qualities (and American car buyers often did not pay attention to them, either). American cars had soft suspensions (springing) that made for a soft but wallowy ride—these cars' noses would dive under braking and they would roll during cornering—which implies poor handling during an abrupt maneuver such as in an emergency. American car makers believed that was what American car buyers wanted--a soft ride even if achieved at the expense of handling characteristics. Intrinsically, the two—ride and handling--are mutually exclusive, although more sophisticated, and inevitably more expensive, suspension designs permit good handling characteristics with less compromise of ride comfort.
Over the years American cars have come to incorporate some more sophisticated mechanical designs, both in their engines and in their chassis. But even when a U.S. car model was based on a European model—and I could give a number of examples of this, from the last 10 or 15 years—that European chassis, with its better handling characteristics, would be "dumbed down" for the American market—that is, ride characteristics would be made softer, sacrificing the car's handling qualities.
Now we're starting to get U.S. cars with decent handling, whether based on European chassis or not. People who value good handling qualities can be glad that now we can get Detroit cars that are more equivalent to European cars.
Let's look at some models that Chevrolet has offered. Their small model at one point was the Cavalier, which was regarded as not a very good car by the automobile press.
That model was followed by the Cobalt. Evidently the Cobalt was better than the Cavalier, but maybe still not good enough, because now we hear that the Cobalt's successor, the Cruze, is better than the Cobalt was.
And Chrysler, until this year, had been offering a model called the Sebring, which was almost universally said to be not a very good car, in many ways. Now the Sebring has been replaced by the 200—which evidently is substantially better than the Sebring but maybe still not good enough.
So I wonder why, in so many cases and for so many years, Detroit—which must know how to make a good car, and undoubtedly employs an awful lot of very competent engineering talent--has been content to make "better but still not good enough" cars. GM (maker of Chevrolet) might just be wising up; and Ford, too, has been bringing out good cars. Chrysler is lagging behind the other two.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Friday, May 27, 2011
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
The People vs. the Republicans
The Republicans are getting some backlash which is much deserved, in my opinion. The shining example recently occurred when Kathy Hocul, a Democrat, defeated the heavily-financed Republican candidate in a special election for the Congressional seat in the 26th District of New York State.
All eyes were on this election, and it was viewed as very largely a referendum on Medicare: That is, the defeat of the Republican is thought to have been because the Republicans are now perceived to favor cuts in Medicare, since the federal budget proposed by Republican budget-writer Paul Ryan would cut Medicare benefits.
Now, seniors (those who benefit from and who are literally the beneficiaries of Medicare) tend to be conservative in their voting, particularly on social issues. But they are a well-organized lobby, and when it comes to even threatening their government benefits (or, I should say, entitlements), they will get their backs up.
So, if the election which Hocul won really was a referendum on Medicare, I am glad that, for once, a popular message has been sent to Republicans. (Let's hope they get the message. We'll only know that they did when they begin to moderate some of their positions. You'd think they'd perceive what is in their self-interest, but they have not always been smart enough to do so.)
In my view, too often the "man in the street" does not, cannot, perceive that the Republican party is the representative of wealthy individuals and corporations. Corporate interests (made all the more influential since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which removes restrictions on corporate political contributions) buy the votes, in Congress, through their army of highly paid lobbyists, and through out-and-out contributions to those candidates' election and re-election. Thus, Republican legislators are unabashedly beholden to corporate interests, which tend to have interests contrary to those of the public.
The Medicare thing should make people realize that they Republicans pretty generally have no sympathy for the poor, the elderly, the unemployed--anyone for whom a more compassionate government provides a "safety net." The latest example—more recent than Paul Ryan's to-hell-with-Medicare budget—is that Republicans now want to cut funding for the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), which is charged with keeping our food (and medicines) pure and safe. In a rather typical example of their very odd logic (to put it mildly), the Republicans claim that reducing the funding to the FDA—which already lacks adequate resources to inspect food producers and processors, so that we have had numerous outbreaks of food-borne illness like Salmonella—will somehow contribute to, rather than undermine, the safety of the food which every single American must eat. Evidently it's again that extreme free-market thinking that says, Just leave them alone (free from regulation and other government "interference" such as inspections) and they will do the right thing, and we'll all be better off. How absurd. Any time—and let's acknowledge that this happens, often—that the corporate bottom line conflicts with what benefits customers and the public, you know which gets put first by the corporations—and by their Republican lackeys in Congress.
Update/Correction, May 26, 2011
1) The election which Hocul won was indeed regarded as a referendum on the treatment of Medicare in the Paul Ryan budget proposal because Hocul's opponent had specifically endorsed the proposed Medicare changes.
2) It was not exactly correct to say that the Ryan budget proposal would cut Medicare. Ryan's idea is to replace government-run Medicare with private insurance. This is in line with far-right ideological notions that Medicare and even Social Security are "socialist" programs, that everything should be left to the private sector and as little as possible administered by the government. Going back at least to Ronald Reagan, conservatives have been telling us that government is bad, or is bad as long as it is as big as it is--never mind that they themselves are part of "government." Somehow the inconsistency does not occur to them. "Oh yes, the body politic is evil and too big, so I guess (being part of it) I'll cut my arm off."
Update, May 26, 2011
Tim Pawlenty, a possibility for the Republican presidential nomination, has announced he supports Paul Ryan's Medicare proposals. Is he too stupid to have learned from the Hocul election? Of course I don't mind if any particular Republican, or even the whole party, self-destructs.
Update, May 27, 2011
Here I mention, for the third time, the Citizens United decision. I gave an incorrect impression, that that decision permits corporate contributions directly to candidates. It does not; rather, it permits corporations to fund, for example, advertising on issues rather than candidates. (Thus we see TV "public service announcements" that advocate for or against a certain position or proposed law, and their sponsorship by corporations or industry trade groups is disguised by a statement such as "Paid for by Citizens for Such-and-Such.") However, in today's news, a judge has ruled that corporate contributions to candidates are legal.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
All eyes were on this election, and it was viewed as very largely a referendum on Medicare: That is, the defeat of the Republican is thought to have been because the Republicans are now perceived to favor cuts in Medicare, since the federal budget proposed by Republican budget-writer Paul Ryan would cut Medicare benefits.
Now, seniors (those who benefit from and who are literally the beneficiaries of Medicare) tend to be conservative in their voting, particularly on social issues. But they are a well-organized lobby, and when it comes to even threatening their government benefits (or, I should say, entitlements), they will get their backs up.
So, if the election which Hocul won really was a referendum on Medicare, I am glad that, for once, a popular message has been sent to Republicans. (Let's hope they get the message. We'll only know that they did when they begin to moderate some of their positions. You'd think they'd perceive what is in their self-interest, but they have not always been smart enough to do so.)
In my view, too often the "man in the street" does not, cannot, perceive that the Republican party is the representative of wealthy individuals and corporations. Corporate interests (made all the more influential since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which removes restrictions on corporate political contributions) buy the votes, in Congress, through their army of highly paid lobbyists, and through out-and-out contributions to those candidates' election and re-election. Thus, Republican legislators are unabashedly beholden to corporate interests, which tend to have interests contrary to those of the public.
The Medicare thing should make people realize that they Republicans pretty generally have no sympathy for the poor, the elderly, the unemployed--anyone for whom a more compassionate government provides a "safety net." The latest example—more recent than Paul Ryan's to-hell-with-Medicare budget—is that Republicans now want to cut funding for the FDA (Food and Drug Administration), which is charged with keeping our food (and medicines) pure and safe. In a rather typical example of their very odd logic (to put it mildly), the Republicans claim that reducing the funding to the FDA—which already lacks adequate resources to inspect food producers and processors, so that we have had numerous outbreaks of food-borne illness like Salmonella—will somehow contribute to, rather than undermine, the safety of the food which every single American must eat. Evidently it's again that extreme free-market thinking that says, Just leave them alone (free from regulation and other government "interference" such as inspections) and they will do the right thing, and we'll all be better off. How absurd. Any time—and let's acknowledge that this happens, often—that the corporate bottom line conflicts with what benefits customers and the public, you know which gets put first by the corporations—and by their Republican lackeys in Congress.
Update/Correction, May 26, 2011
1) The election which Hocul won was indeed regarded as a referendum on the treatment of Medicare in the Paul Ryan budget proposal because Hocul's opponent had specifically endorsed the proposed Medicare changes.
2) It was not exactly correct to say that the Ryan budget proposal would cut Medicare. Ryan's idea is to replace government-run Medicare with private insurance. This is in line with far-right ideological notions that Medicare and even Social Security are "socialist" programs, that everything should be left to the private sector and as little as possible administered by the government. Going back at least to Ronald Reagan, conservatives have been telling us that government is bad, or is bad as long as it is as big as it is--never mind that they themselves are part of "government." Somehow the inconsistency does not occur to them. "Oh yes, the body politic is evil and too big, so I guess (being part of it) I'll cut my arm off."
Update, May 26, 2011
Tim Pawlenty, a possibility for the Republican presidential nomination, has announced he supports Paul Ryan's Medicare proposals. Is he too stupid to have learned from the Hocul election? Of course I don't mind if any particular Republican, or even the whole party, self-destructs.
Update, May 27, 2011
Here I mention, for the third time, the Citizens United decision. I gave an incorrect impression, that that decision permits corporate contributions directly to candidates. It does not; rather, it permits corporations to fund, for example, advertising on issues rather than candidates. (Thus we see TV "public service announcements" that advocate for or against a certain position or proposed law, and their sponsorship by corporations or industry trade groups is disguised by a statement such as "Paid for by Citizens for Such-and-Such.") However, in today's news, a judge has ruled that corporate contributions to candidates are legal.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
"Sovereign Citizens" (and other not-quite-so-extreme conservatives)
There recently was a segment on the TV Program "60 Minutes" (which I viewed online, as you can as well) about a group or movement called "sovereign citizens."* These individuals are somewhat like some of the extreme right-wing militia groups we've got in the US. Based on erroneous ideas about the philosophies that prevailed in the late eighteenth century, they question the legitimacy of the US government as it currently exists. They refuse to acknowledge the authority of the government, or the police, over them. They won't carry driver's licenses. They draw up documents declaring they are "sovereign," so in effect each of these sovereign citizens is his own country. They believe--and this is downright silly--that if they draft these documents in a certain way—for example, putting the text diagonally across the page, or writing with orange crayon or signing with a fingerprint in blood--that this makes their sovereignty documents valid and they can't be challenged.
These people are scary, especially when you combine their extremist ideas with the wide availability of guns—and even assault weapons—in America. One sovereign citizen who was profiled on the program was stopped, along with his son, by police for a traffic violation. The man and his son opened fire with assault weapons—getting off something like 22 shots. A police officer was killed and I think both the sovereign citizen and his son were killed.
People who consider themselves sovereign citizens are estimated to number as many as 300,000. This is scary but of course it's only one American in 1,000. So hopefully most Americans would see these people as extremists and wack jobs. Still, they're only one or two steps farther to the right than some people I have known and talked to.
Some of the latter have told me they don't feel they should have to pay taxes. Such people need to simply read our Constitution, where Article 8 clearly gives Congress the power to impose taxes.
A "no taxes at all" view is extreme, still; but some would simply say they are loath to see their taxes ultimately benefit (or, in their minds, be paid to) any less fortunate individual. I could understand the conservative "no tax money of mine to help the less fortunate" position if their argument went something like, "Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs didn't work. Rather than throw money at social problems like urban poverty, let's wait until they're better understood, and/or we know what sort of measures work." But their argument is simply, "It's their [the people needing assistance] fault that they are in the situation they're in." I guess if I objected, "What about victims of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods. . . ?" they'd reply, "Well, it's their fault for living in the wrong place."
______________
*If you go to youtube.com and search for "sovereign citizens," about 128 listings will appear, many of them from the viewpoint of the sovereign citizens themselves, who feel they are persecuted when the government lists them as terrorists. Paranoia is one element of the whole phenomenon of the sovereign citizens.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
These people are scary, especially when you combine their extremist ideas with the wide availability of guns—and even assault weapons—in America. One sovereign citizen who was profiled on the program was stopped, along with his son, by police for a traffic violation. The man and his son opened fire with assault weapons—getting off something like 22 shots. A police officer was killed and I think both the sovereign citizen and his son were killed.
People who consider themselves sovereign citizens are estimated to number as many as 300,000. This is scary but of course it's only one American in 1,000. So hopefully most Americans would see these people as extremists and wack jobs. Still, they're only one or two steps farther to the right than some people I have known and talked to.
Some of the latter have told me they don't feel they should have to pay taxes. Such people need to simply read our Constitution, where Article 8 clearly gives Congress the power to impose taxes.
A "no taxes at all" view is extreme, still; but some would simply say they are loath to see their taxes ultimately benefit (or, in their minds, be paid to) any less fortunate individual. I could understand the conservative "no tax money of mine to help the less fortunate" position if their argument went something like, "Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs didn't work. Rather than throw money at social problems like urban poverty, let's wait until they're better understood, and/or we know what sort of measures work." But their argument is simply, "It's their [the people needing assistance] fault that they are in the situation they're in." I guess if I objected, "What about victims of hurricanes, tornadoes, floods. . . ?" they'd reply, "Well, it's their fault for living in the wrong place."
______________
*If you go to youtube.com and search for "sovereign citizens," about 128 listings will appear, many of them from the viewpoint of the sovereign citizens themselves, who feel they are persecuted when the government lists them as terrorists. Paranoia is one element of the whole phenomenon of the sovereign citizens.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Further Dialog on Conservatives (or, Rant Against Conservatives. Part III or Part IIA)
Regular readers of this blog may be aware that one posting, "A Rant Against Conservatives. Pt. II," has provoked some comments.
To one poster of a comment, I posted a comment replying to him. It seems that his and my dialogue could continue to go back and forth, but I don't want to see the Comment feature used in that way.
I do, however, want to write about one or two of his ideas. First, he says that the fact that I got some free work done by the painter whom I mentioned shows that conservatives can be "compassionate." Well, two things in reply to that, if indeed this example supports any generality: First, the freebie thing can't be taken too far. Yes, he did one thing for me and refused compensation. Another thing that he offered to do for me, he did not follow through on. He never called to arrange a return visit—but I'm okay with that; it's reasonable and natural and even almost expected.
But also, I think that a point I made is still supported: I mentioned that conservatives might be nice (whether "compassionate" is the appropriate word, I'm not at all sure) when they know the person involved. So they're nice to family, friends, neighbors, fellow church members, customers. But I still say that it's very different when we're talking about people who they don't know, who are distant, different, etc.--for example, the poor or people of another race or ethnicity.
I said that I feel this is like people in small towns who might be thought to be warm, neighborly, the salt of the earth, and all that. Yet they're suspicious and even hostile toward strangers or any "outsiders."
I said also that this is a matter of "we" versus "they." And I believe even more strongly that I was right about that, in view of something I saw on TV a couple days ago. There was a PBS program called "The Human Spark," hosted by Alan Alda, who first became known to many from starring in the TV show M*A*S*H. (This program was originally shown last January, and anyone reading this may view the program on the PBS web site, pbs.org.)
This program showed some experiments with very young children. In one, it was first established which of two foods the child preferred, between some "slimy" green beans or graham crackers. Then two puppets were shown to the child; one puppet was presented as liking and disliking the same food choices as the child (liking the crackers, disliking the beans; and then vice versa for the other puppet). Then the child was offered the choice of which puppet he wanted to play with, and nearly all the children picked the puppet who had the same food preferences as himself.
This is what is to be inferred: We like, and presumably identify with, those (puppets and presumably people) who we think have the same preferences as ourselves, who are like us. The experimenter (Karen Wynn of Yale) infers, this shows we have an instinct to affiliate with those who are like ourselves. Paul Bloom* phrased it only slightly differently: we have "an inclination to bond with others who are like us."
This is a very close paraphrase of some of what Bloom said:
As yet another scholar said, this is why we have holy wars like the Crusades.
_______________
* Paul Bloom is the spouse and collaborator of Karen Wynn, who is also quoted here.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
To one poster of a comment, I posted a comment replying to him. It seems that his and my dialogue could continue to go back and forth, but I don't want to see the Comment feature used in that way.
I do, however, want to write about one or two of his ideas. First, he says that the fact that I got some free work done by the painter whom I mentioned shows that conservatives can be "compassionate." Well, two things in reply to that, if indeed this example supports any generality: First, the freebie thing can't be taken too far. Yes, he did one thing for me and refused compensation. Another thing that he offered to do for me, he did not follow through on. He never called to arrange a return visit—but I'm okay with that; it's reasonable and natural and even almost expected.
But also, I think that a point I made is still supported: I mentioned that conservatives might be nice (whether "compassionate" is the appropriate word, I'm not at all sure) when they know the person involved. So they're nice to family, friends, neighbors, fellow church members, customers. But I still say that it's very different when we're talking about people who they don't know, who are distant, different, etc.--for example, the poor or people of another race or ethnicity.
I said that I feel this is like people in small towns who might be thought to be warm, neighborly, the salt of the earth, and all that. Yet they're suspicious and even hostile toward strangers or any "outsiders."
I said also that this is a matter of "we" versus "they." And I believe even more strongly that I was right about that, in view of something I saw on TV a couple days ago. There was a PBS program called "The Human Spark," hosted by Alan Alda, who first became known to many from starring in the TV show M*A*S*H. (This program was originally shown last January, and anyone reading this may view the program on the PBS web site, pbs.org.)
This program showed some experiments with very young children. In one, it was first established which of two foods the child preferred, between some "slimy" green beans or graham crackers. Then two puppets were shown to the child; one puppet was presented as liking and disliking the same food choices as the child (liking the crackers, disliking the beans; and then vice versa for the other puppet). Then the child was offered the choice of which puppet he wanted to play with, and nearly all the children picked the puppet who had the same food preferences as himself.
This is what is to be inferred: We like, and presumably identify with, those (puppets and presumably people) who we think have the same preferences as ourselves, who are like us. The experimenter (Karen Wynn of Yale) infers, this shows we have an instinct to affiliate with those who are like ourselves. Paul Bloom* phrased it only slightly differently: we have "an inclination to bond with others who are like us."
This is a very close paraphrase of some of what Bloom said:
At every point we're splitting the world into those who are allies and those who are enemies.. . .People have an inclination to bond with others who are like us. . . .
People unite with others like themselves, e.g. with the same religion, and help each other. . . .they may wear the same clothes and eat the same foods. That means being united against those who are "over there" or who practice different beliefs.
As yet another scholar said, this is why we have holy wars like the Crusades.
_______________
* Paul Bloom is the spouse and collaborator of Karen Wynn, who is also quoted here.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
A Balanced View of American Labor Unions
With the recent news of efforts in Wisconsin and several other states to undermine the power and influence of labor unions—even taking away, by fiat, the rights of unionized workers in public employ to bargain collectively—it might be a good time to give some thought to unions.
I have a certain sympathy for unions and the labor movement. A hundred years ago, give or take, labor unions filled a great need. Workers may have worked long hours, for poor wages, and under unsafe conditions. There was no OSHA (US Occupational Safety and Health Administration) to ensure safe conditions in the workplace.
When workers unionized and attempted to use their main tools--the strike and picket lines--to better their working lives, they were often met by thugs hired by the factory owners and even the police, who cracked heads and even at times killed some of the picketers.
But by my lifetime—by the middle of the twentieth century—things had changed radically. Many factory workers were well enough paid to live middle-class lives. Organized workers had good benefits such as health plans and pensions.
In fact, you might even say that unionized workers' aims backfired. As American workers achieved good pay, they were not particularly thinking globally. They did not realize that their pay needed to be viewed in comparison with workers' pay in other countries. So what has happened is that labor costs for American manufacturing is higher than those in any other countries, so even American companies were having their products made by foreign labor. There is essentially no more clothing being made in the US. There are essentially no shoes being made in the US. A big shoe factory here in Chicago with a widely known name in shoes--was first turned into a warehouse, stocked with shoes made abroad. Then the building lay empty and was available for redevelopment and was, I think, when I last drove by, being turned into condominiums.
So, sadly—as no one, least of all the rank-and-file worker and not even their leaders—foresaw, the American industrial worker priced himself out of the world market.
Also, labor unions nearly completely killed railroads at one point. Nearly all railroad passenger service had to be taken over by Amtrak in 1971. Freight railroads have had to merge and consolidate. The reason? Railroads were being forced, by union "work rules" to run trains with crews of a certain size—essentially, with more crew members than were needed. This was a practice known as "featherbedding." Needless to say, that meant unnecessary cost to the railroads which they couldn't do anything about. It was purely a matter between the unions and the railroads.
There was also a bad situation in Chicago regarding a huge convention center. Trade shows and exhibits finally were refusing to hold their shows in Chicago. This was because of union work rules: it might have required one union to string some wires for a light, a different union to screw the light bulb in, and so forth. (That is a hypothetical example, but the reality was very much like that.) Of course this multiplied the number of workers involved. More workers, more cost. The unions were gouging the people holding the shows.
All my life, it seems, I've been noticing that anytime there's a work crew—say, working on roads or, as I saw yesterday, working on railroad tracks—there are one or two workers who clearly are working, and maybe five or six who seem to be essentially standing around, doing little more than watching, at best. It finally occurred to me that this is also probably a matter of union "work rules"—meaning more workers than are needed must be allowed to be on the job—and, of course, paid.
Many labor unions have been tarred by scandal. Some of their leaders were stealing union funds, such as pension funds. So that the unions were not operating for the benefit of their rank-and-file members but rather, the union leaders were feathering their own personal nests. A couple unions come to mind as having gotten a reputation for corruption but I'm not going to name them here.
Now I don't want to go so far as to say that, although 100 years ago labor unions were needed—and in fact, union workers and organizers and strikers were often heroic—today the story is completely the opposite. Unions have lost a lot of their strength and power: fewer workers are in unions these days. That's partly a matter of the decline of American manufacturing which I mentioned above. But many unions are still powerful, and I think it's still true that any worker who is in a union is likely to be well paid. Unions have served their members well, and maybe even too well, sometimes. But they probably do not have the power and influence they once did, so maybe many of the excesses have been corrected.
Except I do still see those over-manned work crews.
Update, October 12, 2011
The City of Chicago, under its new mayor, Rahm Emmanuel, is struggling to deal with a deficit in the city budget. One difficulty Emmanuel is having is trying to get the unions that represent city workers to agree to changes in work rules.
Another problem is with the city's transit system. I heard that many trains and buses have to be canceled, because of absenteeism--which of course makes the public--the riders--suffer. I know that in jobs I have held, if I or any co-worker was absent excessively, we'd be in danger of losing our jobs. But then, we were not unionized.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
I have a certain sympathy for unions and the labor movement. A hundred years ago, give or take, labor unions filled a great need. Workers may have worked long hours, for poor wages, and under unsafe conditions. There was no OSHA (US Occupational Safety and Health Administration) to ensure safe conditions in the workplace.
When workers unionized and attempted to use their main tools--the strike and picket lines--to better their working lives, they were often met by thugs hired by the factory owners and even the police, who cracked heads and even at times killed some of the picketers.
But by my lifetime—by the middle of the twentieth century—things had changed radically. Many factory workers were well enough paid to live middle-class lives. Organized workers had good benefits such as health plans and pensions.
In fact, you might even say that unionized workers' aims backfired. As American workers achieved good pay, they were not particularly thinking globally. They did not realize that their pay needed to be viewed in comparison with workers' pay in other countries. So what has happened is that labor costs for American manufacturing is higher than those in any other countries, so even American companies were having their products made by foreign labor. There is essentially no more clothing being made in the US. There are essentially no shoes being made in the US. A big shoe factory here in Chicago with a widely known name in shoes--was first turned into a warehouse, stocked with shoes made abroad. Then the building lay empty and was available for redevelopment and was, I think, when I last drove by, being turned into condominiums.
So, sadly—as no one, least of all the rank-and-file worker and not even their leaders—foresaw, the American industrial worker priced himself out of the world market.
Also, labor unions nearly completely killed railroads at one point. Nearly all railroad passenger service had to be taken over by Amtrak in 1971. Freight railroads have had to merge and consolidate. The reason? Railroads were being forced, by union "work rules" to run trains with crews of a certain size—essentially, with more crew members than were needed. This was a practice known as "featherbedding." Needless to say, that meant unnecessary cost to the railroads which they couldn't do anything about. It was purely a matter between the unions and the railroads.
There was also a bad situation in Chicago regarding a huge convention center. Trade shows and exhibits finally were refusing to hold their shows in Chicago. This was because of union work rules: it might have required one union to string some wires for a light, a different union to screw the light bulb in, and so forth. (That is a hypothetical example, but the reality was very much like that.) Of course this multiplied the number of workers involved. More workers, more cost. The unions were gouging the people holding the shows.
All my life, it seems, I've been noticing that anytime there's a work crew—say, working on roads or, as I saw yesterday, working on railroad tracks—there are one or two workers who clearly are working, and maybe five or six who seem to be essentially standing around, doing little more than watching, at best. It finally occurred to me that this is also probably a matter of union "work rules"—meaning more workers than are needed must be allowed to be on the job—and, of course, paid.
Many labor unions have been tarred by scandal. Some of their leaders were stealing union funds, such as pension funds. So that the unions were not operating for the benefit of their rank-and-file members but rather, the union leaders were feathering their own personal nests. A couple unions come to mind as having gotten a reputation for corruption but I'm not going to name them here.
Now I don't want to go so far as to say that, although 100 years ago labor unions were needed—and in fact, union workers and organizers and strikers were often heroic—today the story is completely the opposite. Unions have lost a lot of their strength and power: fewer workers are in unions these days. That's partly a matter of the decline of American manufacturing which I mentioned above. But many unions are still powerful, and I think it's still true that any worker who is in a union is likely to be well paid. Unions have served their members well, and maybe even too well, sometimes. But they probably do not have the power and influence they once did, so maybe many of the excesses have been corrected.
Except I do still see those over-manned work crews.
Update, October 12, 2011
The City of Chicago, under its new mayor, Rahm Emmanuel, is struggling to deal with a deficit in the city budget. One difficulty Emmanuel is having is trying to get the unions that represent city workers to agree to changes in work rules.
Another problem is with the city's transit system. I heard that many trains and buses have to be canceled, because of absenteeism--which of course makes the public--the riders--suffer. I know that in jobs I have held, if I or any co-worker was absent excessively, we'd be in danger of losing our jobs. But then, we were not unionized.
Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
A Rant against Conservatives. Part II
This posting will attempt to make two points. First, that conservatives will put forth arguments that they know to be false. Second, I want to look at the idea they often put forth, trying to justify their opposition to any aid to the poor by saying, "I pulled myself up out of poverty, why can't they?"
My painter, last week, among other things, started to say that taxes--his taxes, naturally--go to pay for unemployment compensation. I pointed out that unemployment benefits are funded through an insurance scheme into which employers pay. Turns out he knew that. (In Part I, I mentioned another example of this same guy using something that he probably knew was incorrect in arguing.) Also he said, in so many words, about those bad people who collect unemployment benefits and get food stamps, "Why can't they just go and get a job?" I failed to remind him that jobs, just now, are hard to get. He'd probably insist that anyone who really wants a job can get one.
On the national scene, one Senator Kyle publicly claimed that Planned Parenthood spends 90% of the funding it receives from the government on abortions. When it was pointed out to him that the correct figure actually is 3%, he (or his lackeys) said of his assertion, "That was not intended to be a factual statement." What??? As I think about that, the only "translation" I can make of that absurd statement is, "It was a lie and I knew it at the time."
The myriad organizations that lobby against rights (such as marriage rights or non-discrimination in employment) for gay people very egregiously use false information: half-truths and out-and-out untruths. I think they use this tactic cynically and calculatingly, and know that they're lying. The belief (or simple prejudice) comes first, and then the wide reach to find something to support the belief. (As an aside, a University of Chicago law professor named Martha Nussbaum has said that she beliefs that nearly all anti-gay prejudice has at its base a disgust at the thought of sex acts between two people of the same sex.) Anyway, their tactics work in fund-raising letters. (Sadly, the "other" side may use at least broadly similar, "the-sky-will-fall-unless-you-send-money," tactics in its fund-raising letters.)
Now, my other point. I think a lot of conservatives are your stereotypical up-from-poverty, Horatio Alger* types. One might think that someone who lived amidst poverty or other disadvantage in childhood might have more sympathy for others who have had similar struggles. But it doesn't seem to work that way. It becomes, "If I could do it (get up and out of the ghetto, or whatever), then why can't they?"
Some people are afflicted by poverty. Some by drug or other additions. Some by disabilities or other liabilities. And some people show wonderful success in how they deal with these problems; others do not.
Also, even if you look at, for example, those with the problem of drug or other addiction, it would seem that, even for a single individual, there might be times when they can deal with the problem successfully and times when they cannot. They might go along for months or years before they somehow become ready, willing, and able to change.
I wrote about this once. But, since I personally never have never had to deal with an addiction, I would have liked a person who has done so to tell me more about what had to first change within them before they could make progress in fighting their addiction.
But it's not completely clear that escape from poverty is analogous to shaking off a substance addiction. It might be said, without much of a stretch, that there are external conditions in both cases. It's almost a cliché—and I don't know enough about the subject to know how true this is—that the addict may begin to use drugs regularly to escape from an unbearable reality. However, although poverty is a matter of an individual's or a family's personal pocketbook, there are definitely impoverished neighborhoods, so it seems to be a social, rather than strictly individual matter.
So, our model person in the Horatio Alger scenario says to him- or herself, "I'm living in these awful conditions, and I don't want to live with plumbing that doesn't work (etc., etc.) for my whole life. So I'm going to study hard, get good grades in school, go to college. . . ." I think that, whether it's this case or that of overcoming other sorts of disadvantages, it takes determination and perhaps a whole lot of internal traits, and maybe luck and other external circumstances such as a mentor, a teacher, someone to inspire, encourage, etc.
And it's not a case of some unchanging internal state: the addict may be able to do something--admitting his problem and going to seek treatment--tomorrow but not today. Today but not yesterday.
The more conservative types will say, Anyone can do it, it's just a matter of wanting to. I think this is a more complicated matter than that and needs more thought and maybe study by scholars.
By the way, the painter quoted here (and in Part I) is a nice guy. He's done some things for me with no remuneration. And a lot of conservatives would strike us (or me) as "nice people" if, for example, we met them on a cruise and did not yet know some of their views. Clearly, people can or will be "nice" to people who they know, but they're not benevolent to some people they don't know--"them." I think it's analogous to the fact that small-town Americans are helpful to their neighbors but can be suspicious of strangers. This is not just an American trait, it's a human trait: the business of "we" versus "they" that I have blogged about before.
_____________
* Alger was a nineteenth-century writer—better known at one time than now—who wrote books for juveniles in which the protagonists rose from rags to riches.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
My painter, last week, among other things, started to say that taxes--his taxes, naturally--go to pay for unemployment compensation. I pointed out that unemployment benefits are funded through an insurance scheme into which employers pay. Turns out he knew that. (In Part I, I mentioned another example of this same guy using something that he probably knew was incorrect in arguing.) Also he said, in so many words, about those bad people who collect unemployment benefits and get food stamps, "Why can't they just go and get a job?" I failed to remind him that jobs, just now, are hard to get. He'd probably insist that anyone who really wants a job can get one.
On the national scene, one Senator Kyle publicly claimed that Planned Parenthood spends 90% of the funding it receives from the government on abortions. When it was pointed out to him that the correct figure actually is 3%, he (or his lackeys) said of his assertion, "That was not intended to be a factual statement." What??? As I think about that, the only "translation" I can make of that absurd statement is, "It was a lie and I knew it at the time."
The myriad organizations that lobby against rights (such as marriage rights or non-discrimination in employment) for gay people very egregiously use false information: half-truths and out-and-out untruths. I think they use this tactic cynically and calculatingly, and know that they're lying. The belief (or simple prejudice) comes first, and then the wide reach to find something to support the belief. (As an aside, a University of Chicago law professor named Martha Nussbaum has said that she beliefs that nearly all anti-gay prejudice has at its base a disgust at the thought of sex acts between two people of the same sex.) Anyway, their tactics work in fund-raising letters. (Sadly, the "other" side may use at least broadly similar, "the-sky-will-fall-unless-you-send-money," tactics in its fund-raising letters.)
Now, my other point. I think a lot of conservatives are your stereotypical up-from-poverty, Horatio Alger* types. One might think that someone who lived amidst poverty or other disadvantage in childhood might have more sympathy for others who have had similar struggles. But it doesn't seem to work that way. It becomes, "If I could do it (get up and out of the ghetto, or whatever), then why can't they?"
Some people are afflicted by poverty. Some by drug or other additions. Some by disabilities or other liabilities. And some people show wonderful success in how they deal with these problems; others do not.
Also, even if you look at, for example, those with the problem of drug or other addiction, it would seem that, even for a single individual, there might be times when they can deal with the problem successfully and times when they cannot. They might go along for months or years before they somehow become ready, willing, and able to change.
I wrote about this once. But, since I personally never have never had to deal with an addiction, I would have liked a person who has done so to tell me more about what had to first change within them before they could make progress in fighting their addiction.
But it's not completely clear that escape from poverty is analogous to shaking off a substance addiction. It might be said, without much of a stretch, that there are external conditions in both cases. It's almost a cliché—and I don't know enough about the subject to know how true this is—that the addict may begin to use drugs regularly to escape from an unbearable reality. However, although poverty is a matter of an individual's or a family's personal pocketbook, there are definitely impoverished neighborhoods, so it seems to be a social, rather than strictly individual matter.
So, our model person in the Horatio Alger scenario says to him- or herself, "I'm living in these awful conditions, and I don't want to live with plumbing that doesn't work (etc., etc.) for my whole life. So I'm going to study hard, get good grades in school, go to college. . . ." I think that, whether it's this case or that of overcoming other sorts of disadvantages, it takes determination and perhaps a whole lot of internal traits, and maybe luck and other external circumstances such as a mentor, a teacher, someone to inspire, encourage, etc.
And it's not a case of some unchanging internal state: the addict may be able to do something--admitting his problem and going to seek treatment--tomorrow but not today. Today but not yesterday.
The more conservative types will say, Anyone can do it, it's just a matter of wanting to. I think this is a more complicated matter than that and needs more thought and maybe study by scholars.
By the way, the painter quoted here (and in Part I) is a nice guy. He's done some things for me with no remuneration. And a lot of conservatives would strike us (or me) as "nice people" if, for example, we met them on a cruise and did not yet know some of their views. Clearly, people can or will be "nice" to people who they know, but they're not benevolent to some people they don't know--"them." I think it's analogous to the fact that small-town Americans are helpful to their neighbors but can be suspicious of strangers. This is not just an American trait, it's a human trait: the business of "we" versus "they" that I have blogged about before.
_____________
* Alger was a nineteenth-century writer—better known at one time than now—who wrote books for juveniles in which the protagonists rose from rags to riches.
Copyright (c) 2011 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
