Categories
economics

The disappearing middle class

Pundits constantly decry the disappearing middle class. The NYT article I linked to last time made a comparison of hourly workers from 1976 and today and found that their hourly wages had gone down by 7% or so. They were comparing that to folks up in the top 1% and how much more their wages had gone up. I went over my take on the top earners in my last post, I’m going to talk about those poor hourly workers…

I make the claim that even if the wages have gone down by 7%, that is more than made up for by the stunning advances in the standard of living since 1976. Think about, what has changed since then…. damn near everything really. I will use myself as an example. How many retail workers were able to travel the world in 1976? How many of them managed their own retirement accounts back then? How many had retirement accounts? How many had color TVs? No I don’t actually have a TV, but I do watch the programs on my computer, in color of course. The air is cleaner, we have things like the internet, computers, more people can afford cars, more can afford things shitake mushrooms, brie, pomegranates, food that only the wealthy had access to in 76. What about medical advances? My God, things have come a long way. Folks with MS in 1976 were essentially SOL. The same goes for any number of other diseases. The advances in imaging, drugs, etc, have literally added 5 or 6 years to our lives…

It seems to me that folks that consider themselves as middle class would solidly be in the upper classes back in 76 when viewed through the lens of what their possibilities are. That is the only real way to judge wealth. Money, even adjusted for inflation, does not tell the whole story. A person with $500 back in 1976 could do far less than the person with the equivalent amount of cash today. Think about it, how much more money would you have if you lived like middle class folks did in 1976? Drop your cell phone, cable TV, computer, and internet. How much more money would you have in your pocket each month? Drive an (on average) older  and more dangerous car, stay in an (on average) smaller house/apartment, only pay for medicine from back then, etc. It’s difficult to do of course, but its a handy way of trying to see how much wealthier we are today.

I’m not saying that wages aren’t important but I am saying that there is an awful lot more that needs to be considered when we talk about how “bad” we’re doing. We’re doing really well. Even the folks below the poverty line are doing better than they did back then. They have longer life spans, a stunning percentage have more than one car, the average number of TVs in those households is over 2. The most common medical issue? Obesity….

There is a huge middle class today and we are quite a bit better even if our wages have gone down by 7%, so smile!

Categories
economics freedom

Harry Potter and income inequality

There’s a lot you can do with statistics, not all of them are useful. For example, I could average all of the address numbers in a zip code. I would come up with a number, but it wouldn’t mean anything and no one would care. In a similar vein, I can compare what the wealthiest people make and compare it  to what the rest make. Once again, we’d come up with a number, but it doesn’t actually tell you anything useful. Unfortunately, a lot of people do care about it…

The only reason why income inequality might actually be useful is if you think that making a lot of money is just a bad thing. In that case, you could point at those people and say, “Look, look at all the bad stuff they’re doing!” I’ve already covered some of this  ground before, but I’ll recap. There are four ways you can make money. You can a) take money from someone else, b) buy low and sell high,  c) offer a service that people find valuable or d) come up with a new idea or insight that lots of people like. “A” is generally called theft, and if you do it on a big enough scale you can get incredibly rich. See Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong Il for examples. “B” is your typical businessman and financial wizard. “C” has various sports and entertainment superstars as examples. “D” is made up of folks like Steve Jobs and JK Rowling, . Type “a” folks are unquestionably bad, we need to have as few of those people as possible. There are quite a few people that assume that type B’s are bad, but c’mon, there’s nothing wrong with buying something and selling it for more than you paid. They perform a valuable service, and they are rewarded for it. C’s and D’s are not controversial, everyone likes them. But somehow when B’s C’s and D’s are grouped together as “the rich,” they get treated like type A’s, as if they did something wrong.

 

That’s the only basis I can think of as to why people care if people are making more money than others. A friend recently posted a link to a NYT article wondering why economists aren’t saying more about income inequality. The whole piece has at it’s core the idea that income inequality=a bad thing. Here’s a few counterpoints to that.

 

Imagine that JK Rowling moved next door to me. The income inequality in my neighborhood would shoot through the roof. Would I be worse off? Would anyone in the neighborhood? Even though she is only one person, she would impact the overall income inequality in the country. What if all of the 1000 most wealthy people moved to the US. Would we be worse off? If my next door neighbor become a football superstar, would anyone be worse off? The argument that we are actually worse off because of them only makes sense if those folks are taking money from everyone else. A lot of the arguments about why income inequality matters seem to revolve around jealousy.

The statistic of income inequality is an artifact, it is derived from something, but it has no meaning of its own. It has no descriptive power at all, it doesn’t give us any information. The fact that JK Rowling is worth $1.5 billion is totally irrelevant to me. The world is much better off due to her efforts that made her rich.  What’s wrong with that? Is it her fault if other people aren’t doing things that people consider as valuable? Should anything be done to prevent people from making gobs of money just because some people don’t? If you have a burning, powerful hatred of the type B’s of the world and feel that they should be punished (God knows why) for being wealthy, just remember that you can’t hurt them without hurting the Steve Jobs and JK Rowlings of the world.

I’ll talk about the “fact” that the wealthiest 1% have made significant gains over the last 30 years while the average hourly wage has gone down (according to the NYT article) in another post. If you want to read the original article, it is here:

Economic View – Confronting Income Inequality – NYTimes.com: “”

 

Categories
technology

Played around with Google TV today

Stopped by the Sony store after work to look at some TVs. A guy at work put a bug in my ear about cheap, smallish TVs. Got me thinking that an actual TV would be kind of nice for hockey season… Anyway, the first thing I noticed when waling in was a 24″ TV with Google TV on it. Got a chance to play with it a bit.

 

Eh….

 

Look ma, it’s the internet! ON THE TV!!!!! Did I ever tell you I owned a WebTV? Back in the days when a Windows 98 box using a 386 processor was cutting edge tech, I had a WebTV. It did what I wanted, which was mostly getting online and email. I nearly went blind trying to read all that mostly text based internet on my TV, but I got my content. Of course a year later I dropped nearly 2 grand for the 386 based computer. The WebTV was quickly forgotten, until today.

 

The salesman brought up the Chrome browser on the fancy TV and it was…. the internet. It was WebTV 2.0. It was a lot sharper cause the TVs nowadays are that much better, but still, it wasn’t anything that I don’t have right now. The guy was trying to make a big deal about seeing the internet and the TV at the same time. I didn’t mention that I could do that now, it’s called a laptop with the TV on. And that highlights the other problem with Google TV, at lest the Sony version, it is beyond clunky. The interface is awful. Seriously, have you seen the controller? It’s a mass of tiny buttons, a total disaster. A laptop is sooooo much better, an iPad takes it to the next level. Once airplay allows you to put your iPad content directly on the TV, there really won’t be any reason to put up with the awful controller of the Sony.

 

The one thing that might help Sony’s Google TV is the Android store. The things I’ve liked about Boxee, and I think Roku does this as well, is the apps. If you’re looking for content on your TV that isn’t TV, the apps make it easy to find stuff. There are all sorts of video podcasts, webcasts, private streaming channels, web based sports, movies, etc The apps I’ve seen are a lot like on demand channels with their own content ranges. I didn’t see anything like that on the Google TV. You could do a search for content and it looks like it would grab stuff from both online and on demand. When they integrate the Android market on there, maybe there will be some interesting stuff to see.

 

After playing around a bit, I understand Apple’s approach with the Apple TV a little more. The Apple TV is much simpler, and keeps the TV the TV and doesn’t involve the internet much. I think that’s going to have much more appeal than Google’s approach. Personally, if I were to get something like this, I would drift towards a Roku or Boxee box. They seem to have a good balance between internet-ness and good old TV entertainment. I’ll be really surprised if Google achieves any widespread penetration in its current shape.

Categories
MS

Why insomnia may be a good sign

I’ve been having trouble falling asleep the last several days. This has had the usual effect that not being able to sleep usually has, I’m a little cranky and I’m yawning quite a bit. Last night I got about 4 hours of sleep, a couple of things struck me today:

1) I haven’t had trouble falling asleep in like… 2 years? If anything, I’ve had trouble avoiding falling asleep. My modus operendi over the last couple of years was to go to bed early and sleep late. I needed 9 hours of sleep in order to have a chance to feel rested.

2) Along those lines, I was tired today, but I wasn’t exhausted. There is a significant difference. There have been times over this past year where I would wake up from an 8 or 9 hour sleeping session and wonder if I had died I was so tired. Imagine spending your whole day feeling like you do when the alarm first goes off in the morning. That groggy, can’t wait to close my eyes, maybe I should call in to work so that I can sleep another 10 hours kind of feeling. I had weeks of feeling like that, and it didn’t matter how much sleep I got, I woke up exhausted. Today I was tired because I didn’t get enough sleep. What a feeling! Sure, I yawned a bit, and it took me a little while to get going this morning, but I felt good!

 

I’ve also noticed a clearing up around the edges of my mind recently. Once again, I have had weeks where I’ve been reduced to a more or less reptilian state of mind. Both because of the fatigue and the dreaded “brain cloud” that accompanies MS. Once I felt rested, I felt sharper too. Over the past several weeks, I have had the remaining mists clear out. The feeling is akin to getting a new prescription on your glasses. You don’t realize how fuzzy things were until they clear up.

 

The upshot to this is that I’m feeling pretty good. Noticeably better than in recent history. And since this has come with the start of my new treatments, I’m willing to give it credit for the improvements. My second treatment is next week. I’m hoping for more improvements! But now, I need to go to sleep, I can only feel good for so long:-)

Categories
freedom of choice technology

Amazon on demand vs. iTunes store

I really will stop talking about streaming media soon, but I’m obsessing right now…. Tried my first Amazon video on demand tonight. Tried a Dr. Who episode (the Agatha Christie one FYI) just to see how it was. I had heard that they let you buy the episode for 99 cents as opposed to the iTunes 99 cent rental. Amazon does let you buy the episode, but there plenty of strings involved.

First off, if you’re on a Mac, you can’t download the content you have purchased from Amazon on Demand. You watch it on the Amazon website. That’s kind of a bummer, but really, the only thing I would really need on my computer for was if I was going to put it on my iPod. I’m always online whenever I use my computer, so I can get to it whenever I want.

By using the viewer, I get all of the advantages of cloud computing. My library could potentially all be stored up at Amazon, it wouldn’t take up any space on my computer, and I wouldn’t have to worry about losing the data if my computer died.I could also watch it on other computers too I suppose. On the other hand, I would always have to be online. Like I said that’s not a big deal usually but if I go to my father’s place, I can’t use his bandwidth limited internet connection to watch it.  The thing I actually worry about is Amazon changing its mind or changing period. All of my purchases could just go away…

I think in this case, I like Apple’s approach better. I can rent the episode for the same 99 cents. For just a little bit more, I can buy the episode and download it to my computer. The folks doing the pricing have done their homework, it’s a tough choice. It might be different if I had a set top box that could use Amazon (like the Roku). IWith set top boxes, the price would be the same, the difference would be that with Amazon, I could go back and watch it whenever I wanted to since I would have “bought” it. Since I will be doing everything on the computer, think I’ll stick to the iTunes store. God, I love having all these choices…

Categories
economics

Metal mania

Wow. Silver has gone up 5 bucks an ounce in the last month, it’s currently around 23.30 an ounce. That’s about a 27% rise! Gold is approaching $1350 an ounce. There is now more gold in the hands of private investors than in central banks. There are a lot of people putting their money into metals instead of currency. Maybe they’re wrong, or maybe they know something…

Categories
technology

Boxee

Continuing with my exploration of media streaming devices, I downloaded Boxee. Unlike the Apple TV and Roku boxes, this is software installed on a computer (although the Boxee box is supposed to be coming along any time now), and unlike Google TV, this is free.

Boxee is pretty slick, it gives you access to a lot of things like TV shows, music, and other video sources, all on demand. It also has a slew of applications that give you access to MLB.TV, Netflix, MTV music, Vimeo, Pandora radio, and a bunch of other things. Boxee is an open source project unlike the other media streaming projects. That has some advantages, the price in particular, but it also has some disadvantages too. First, there is a certain lack of expected things on there, like You Tube. Google isn’t going to give away something that might compete with its own Google TV. I’m pretty sure Apple and Roku are paying for the privledge of having You Tube on them. The other thing that really stood out was how low the video quality was when I tried to watch a few TV episodes. Even on my tiny 13″ screen, things looked pixelated and fuzzy. Can’t imagine putting that on any real TV. There were also a bunch of times when i would click on a TV show title and it would play something totally different. The phrase “You get what you pay for,” comes to mind. Paying services like Apple TV and Amazon on Demand will have a big advantage here.

The free stuff that is available on the internet via Vimeo, video podcasts, etc. did look pretty good, but it highlighted my biggest problem with Boxee, there really wan’t anything that I wanted to watch on there. I’ve had a similar issue with TV in general, the only thing I watch on TV is sports. The MLB.TV app has some appeal, it would allow me to watch virtually any baseball game during the season. The problem is that it undoubtedly of lower quality than TV. On demand isn’t really much of a benefit with sports, watching live is the way to go. Yes, it was convenient to have lots of video podcasts and other internet only content in Boxee’s interface, but I don’t watch enough of those to make it worth my while.

In short, as cool as I think this technology is, it just isn;’t for me. I’ll keep track of the developments in this area, especially in regards to sports, but I won’t be buying an Apple TV, Roku box, Boxee Box, or Google TV any time soon.

Categories
technology

Google TV vs. Apple TV

Just had a look at a Google TV demo. It looks pretty cool. They have a bunch of “apps” that link you directly with MSNBC, Netflix, NBA, Pandora, Amazon on demand, etc. They are also saying that you will be able to use the Android market for apps similar to the apps on the Android phones and soon to be tablets. All of it will be accessible on the TV and seems like it would really open up what you can do with your TV. In comparison, the new Apple TV gives you Netflix streaming, streaming from your computer, direct rentals from the iTunes store, streaming from your Apple mobile devices… and that’s about it.

This difference epitomizes how conservative Apple is. No, the Apple TV is not as full featured as the Google TV is. On the other hand, the Apple TV is shipping right now and works very well. Google TV looks like something made by geeks for geeks. Lots of features, lots of potential for expandability. Apple has chosen simplicity and an evolution of how people use their TVs as opposed to the wholesale shift the Google TV represents. Apple has made a product that anyone can use and enjoy. I have a feeling that if my parents were given a Google TV, they wouldn’t know what to do with it.

 

Being a bit of a nerd, I really like what Google TV is offering. We’ll have to see how well they implement it and how well they will be able to differentiate themselves from similar boxes from Roku and Boxee. If I watched more movies, I would enjoy an Apple TV. I think that there is quite a bit of potential with the new Apple TV, but Apple is doing its usual slow and methodical steps towards products. I’ll be checking the non-Apple things out as they start shipping and I’ll let you know what I think about what your TV can be turned into. I’ve got high hopes. Right now, the TV s just a way to watch live sports for me, it would be good if it got interesting again.

Categories
economics free market freedom

Making money

There are two ways to get more money. People can willingly give you money in exchange for a good or service you offer. That’s business, trade, etc. The other way you can get more money is if you take it from someone else. That is commonly called theft.

 

If you want to discuss the morality of making money, just look at how they get it. In my view, earning money through selling goods or services is morally neutral. Of course, there might be a moral component to those goods and services, but as far as the act of making money goes, I don’t see any moral component to it, good or bad. Contrast that with theft, which is always a bad thing.

What’s interesting is how people see the fabulously wealthy. Somehow, without even thinking about it, the moral indignation of theft creeps into the conversation even though the money was voluntarily given to those people. There is an assumption that hedge fund managers, Wal Mart, athletes, etc. have somehow done something wrong by making all that money. There’s probably an historical bias there. Over the centuries, when someone became very wealthy, it usually did involve stealing money from someone. Various barons, conquistadors, armies, kings, etc. have made a habit of it. Modern day thugs such as Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il, Hosni Mubarak, etc. use a similar approach. Contrast those guys with Warren Buffet, JK Rowling, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and the like. Notice anything? Right, the first set of guys (why is it always guys?) use the power of governments to extract wealth from their populations. They are thieves. They get rich at the expense of someone else. As they get richer, others get poorer. The second set of guys made their money by offering services or products and getting paid for them. Trick question, who became poorer so that Bill Gates could make all that money?

The answer is of course no one. Wealth creators get rich without making anyone poorer. Yes, people had to give some of their money to Bill, but they got something back for it, it was an exchange. As a matter of fact, people got much more out of Bill’s products than what it cost them to buy them. Through trade, both parties are made better off. That’s trade for you, and it’s the appeal offered by actual free trade and capitalism.

 

“But that billion dollars they made could pay for 20,000 teachers!” That’s a different issue. You don’t like what they do with their money. I’ll first point out that it is always easier to allocate other people’s money (see congress for a prime example). I’ll also point out that they are not you and do not share your priorities. The fact that they don’t share your priorities is probably why they made a billion dollars… When you worry and fret about what people do with the money they make, try to remember all of the people that they made better off through their activities. It is that which made them rich. People had to decide that what they were offering was worth more than their money. The billionaires have already done a lot for society simply by offering a demanded service or product and they got rich as a reward for it. No, they probably won’t pay for 20,000 teachers, but they will do something with that money. They will reward someone else for services and products and the cycle goes on and on. Earning money is a great thing for everyone.

 

Categories
economics free market freedom

What capitalism is

In my last post, I gave a defense of capitalism against a common critique (it’s exploitive, it’s evil, etc.) but I didn’t really talk about what it is. Capitalism is what happens when people are free to make the most of what they have. People have skills, education, money, land, etc. and they want to use those things to better themselves. That’s capitalism. It is something that occurs naturally, it isn’t something you can legislate or put into action from on high. A government can do little but impede it. Capitalism is a “ground up” as opposed to a “top down” phenomena. Clearly, free trade is involved in this too, they are related, but not exactly the same thing.

Here’s the thing about capitalism, what it looks like will vary depending on what system it is in. What many people decry as capitalism is really the effect of being in a system where influence is being sold. There is a big difference between crony capitalism and free market capitalism. Here in the US, companies routinely get special breaks, incentives, and outright subsidies from the government. Strangely enough, people tend to get angry with the companies instead of the system that allows them, encourages them actually, to purchase that influence. Why get angry at the people asking when you cold get angry at the people selling the influence? Cronyism is a feature of a government with too much influence.

Capitalism happens regardless of what system is implemented in the government. The uglier the capitalism is, usually the stricter the government control of it is. The overall impact of capitalism will be better the more freedom there is. Black markets usually breed violence as they run up against government authority. With true free markets, violence just isn’t worth it. Free markets also allow people to improve themselves as they accumulate capital. That capital may be in the form of money and the things you can get with money, but often times it takes the form of improved skills. This is why easy entry into the job market is so crucial. Developing skills is the surest way to increase pay. If you have no skills, or very few, you are going to have to start at the low end of the pay scale. As you develop more skills, capitalism will allow you to parley them into better jobs. Having a large pool of skilled workers will allow countries’ overall wages to climb.

 

Capitalism is something that is done by individuals trying to make the most of what they have. INothing wrong with that. n my view, anything that tries to limit that is the true evil.