Foxes and Hedgehogs

#1 When a city is dominated by one industry, particularly finance, that can spell ruin for its inhabitants. Good for the wealthy and the people in the industry, mediocre for many others. Tech might smooth things out a bit, but there is no reason we need to give anything to a behemoth for coming here. Many are already make NYC home. Although not the only one, NYC has some of the best universities, many top-tier companies, pools of talented people, and the best cultural amenities. There was no reason to kowtow to a behemoth to come here. NYC is big and innovative, and it will stay big and innovative for the foreseeable future. Tech was here before and will it be here after, without being dominated by a single company. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/22/technology/nyc-tech-startups.html?comments#permid=30741436 #2 Why we would we want to be a tech town or any kind of single-industry town? Why would we want to trade one harmful kind of industry, finance, for an equally bad indust...

I would prefer a more analytical and statistical comparison. This is not to justify the bad performance of the NYT system, but one needs to consider the politics, age, and extent of each system to make a fair comparison. As for details: - Who funds the subway? - Who maintains the subway? - How much track per system? - Measured on-time performance? - How many people does it serve? - How old is the system? There are others, but you get the point, and then again, there is the culture behind the system, the inclination of a nation toward order, coordination, and rule-following. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/reader-center/international-public-transit-new-york-subway.html?comments#permid=30569669 https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/11/reader-center/international-public-transit-new-york-subway.html?comments#commentsContainer&permid=30561344

Personally, I was against the deal, but I had mixed feelings, even afterward. For some portions of our economy Amazon coming might have been good news, e.g., real estate, technology, and support industries. For others, and for infrastructure services in NYC, my sense was that it would have been a strain and a drain, taxing our resources and us subsidizing it with tax breaks, leading to higher costs for local inhabitants. My later thoughts had to do with evening out our economy, so heavily reliant on finance. For myself, I've worked in technology for 30 years, mostly in finance but lately medical. I live in Manhattan, in one of the more densely tech-inhabited areas, and Amazon would have likely been good for me personally, although that is debatable. A large number of tech job, and with Amazon's higher pay, might have both made tech jobs more competitive while also making it more lucrative. Even then, Amazon has reached out to me several times about working for them, but then ...

#1 I was surprised that less affluent groups and minorities were for Amazon coming to NYC, although I was aware that locals in my area would be in favor. I live in Murray Hill, and it has a large number of software developers, in number and percentage, in Manhattan, and many - most? - people in our zip code earn in the six figures. I've worked as a software developer for over 15 years, and have occasionally been contacted by Amazon for my skills, although I would not put too much on this as I am always being contacted by recruiters, much of worthless. Although I am likely to benefit from Amazon coming to NYC, I am not a fan of the deal in its current incarnation. It takes too much money from our coffers, circumvents city governance, will place a large burden on existing resources, and will drive up costs for many New York residents. It seems the biggest boosters would be the real estate industry, along with anyone that might be able to profit from selling to the behemoth... h...

I'm am often reminded of a statement, paraphrased from Amartya Sen, that one person's equality is another man's inequality when discussing social welfare. Making the system work could mean increasing taxes on the wealthy, reducing the military expenditure, reducing payments for unproven medications, reducing the power of insurers, doctors, and medical/pharmaceutical companies. American wellbeing, on the whole, might improve substantially, but the flip side is that all of those impinged upon would take umbrage as if their freedom was reduced. In the end, we have to realize there is a greater good to human welfare and life, and that the interests of the powerful matter less. Even then, if we tried, expect lawsuits and smears, accusations of socialism and tyranny... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/opinion/sunday/medicare-for-all-universal-health-care.html?comments#permid=30660804

In the end, the failure of this deal lays at the feet of Cuomo and De Blasio. It's a deal that should have never been made or should have been done in a way that wasn't filled with one-sided giveaways. As Amy Liu, vice president and director of the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institution, describes, Virginia worked with local constituents to address concerns, negotiated a deal that required jobs from Amazon in exchange for incentives, and put more money into developing an education-focused job pipeline, rather than a simple giveaway to Amazon. Many people are going to blame a vocal minority for the failure when the problem was the deal itself. It could have been done to satisfy the critics, or at least mollify them, while still delivering for New York. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/16/business/amazon-economy-taxes.html?comments#permid=30664506

It's obvious that much economic sentiment is simply political allegiance, although even that has some fact-based reasoning behind it. When Republicans harm Democratic-leaning states or focus on the industries of the Rust Belt, Democrats worry. Conversely, Republican worry when the newer industries common in Blue states are given prominence by Democrats. That said, little that Trump has done is good for the long-term welfare of the country, and much of the short-term benefits are really long-term losses, specifically, the reductions in taxes which will likely entail future belt-tightening, loosening of corporate regulation will lead to future costs for healthcare, environmental cleanup, and consumer debt. Rather than play the safe hand of trying to bring down an inflated market, Republicans instead chose to 'put out the fire with gasoline'. Eventually, there will be pain, suffering, and loss, but who will suffer, and by how much, is yet to be seen. As for outright ignorant...

With the loss of manufacturing and unions, so went wages, and as the economy became more service-oriented there was no collective action that could have forestalled the loss in income parity. Although this looks like it only pertains to low wage workers, it is likely also true for the higher end, but not for the top few percent. Wages at even the 90th percentile, while certainly better than everyone else's, don't grow at the same rate as the wealth in general, so that every level of workers' income is decreasing under are regressive economic structure. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/11/upshot/big-cities-low-skilled-workers-wages.html?comments#permid=30115791

Aerticle: https://www.propublica.org/article/older-workers-united-states-pushed-out-of-work-forced-retirement #1 I was job-hunting earlier this year, driven but a desire to quit, but then hastened by my then employer. Prompted by a NY Times article, decided to analyze my rejection rate, the proportion of resume submissions to the relative successes of my last job search. I had started looking in early 2017, but not seriously until the end of the year and the beginning of 2018: - 43 companies received my resume - 28 submissions from me - 15 for which I was recruited - 15 phone interviews, usually the roles from recruiters - 12 on-site interviews, or multiples of - 1 offer - 3 that I declined to continue - 8 roles for which I was grossly overqualified, but roles I could enjoy - 2 were a stretch - 5 roles in another domain, for which I was technically overqualified I could have done without the direct submissions as historically all of my roles have come from recruiters...

#1 Although I can understand the feelings behind some of this behavior, and I am as skeptical of the tech monopolies goals and effects, being a Luddite is probably not the best way to handle the problem. Working in technology for the past 25 years, there has always been a need to stay ahead of the crushing wave you ride, to usurp the wave, to become the thing about to crush you. Typically, that means staying ahead of technology, to use it to automate yourself out of one's current role, and into a new one. That is not an option for most people. How can we help? It seems obvious that driverless cars can be a major enhancement over humans driving cars themselves, and I don't doubt that automation will ultimately be safer than human drivers, but how can we position technology to enhance our lives, while still allowing people to have a decent life? Do we require that all automation has a human handler? Can we make that handler role worthwhile to a person asked to perform it? Wi...

My first thought is that Trump's supporters will ultimately think he made some bad policy decisions, but that he was right in tone, and that the Democrats undermined him. To us, he seems flawed in every conceivable way, malevolent in his ignorance. Yes, some people will be so burned that they will change attitudes and parties, but the party of ignorance and regressiveness will likely remain the party of ignorance and regressiveness. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/10/us/farmers-trump-administration.html?#commentsContainer&permid=30101269

#1 @Jim Cricket - I think there might have been a more direct or apropos moral to the story, at least as it relates to Trump, in that he goes around blaming everyone else, fires them, until his term ends -  the bottom of the bowl -  and there is only one person left, and everyone realizes that there is only one person to blame, Trump himself. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/22/us/politics/trump-two-years.html?comments#permid=29862349:29864948 #2 Some people have seen a method to the madness of Trump, but he has always been a blithering, destructive idiot, and artless, heartless, and ignorant man. The only real question is how can we stop him? Minor mention, many, myself included, have thought impeachment might be problematic, Trump replaced by Pence, but considering all the harm Trump has caused, Pence would never really be quite so bad. Bad, but not nearly so.

Consumers need to bear the brunt of a decent wage, mandated by law, a sufficient living one, and when enacted across the board, prices rise such that we are paying adequately. If left to individual restauranteurs it will always be a race to the bottom... https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/21/nyregion/the-misadventures-of-an-idealistic-restaurant-in-a-cut-throat-city.html?comments#permid=29866833

#1 I'm a long-time New York resident, have watched the real estate market for years, and wonder about the cause and effect of high prices. My sense is that developers develop for the high-end because that is where the profits are. Not justifying the inequality, but over time, the only place to make major profits has been to either reduce costs at a huge scale, e.g., Amazon and Walmart, or to focus on smaller opportunities but aimed at the affluent, e.g., the luxury retail sector. Yes, it is not that simple, since cost is affected by regulations and taxation, but on its face, the high costs of developing in Manhattan, and maybe anywhere in NYC, force developers to focus on the luxury segment. At one time, significant government investment and support in affordable housing made it profitable for developers to build for average incomes, but much of that has been wiped away, along with other supports for the middle class over the past few decades, driving much of our inequality, th...

#1 Trump's, and the GOP's, mismanagement of the economy is leading to this outcome. The first mistake Trump made was voiding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), leaving Asia to China and cutting out the US. Later, they undercut the ACA. They then created both short-term illusory profits increases along with huge government deficits. More recently, the trade war Trump set off has had numerous negative repercussions, and as expected, it harms the economy and businesses. Now, Trump blames Powell for the mistakes. There was a plan to avoid overheating the economy and to try and bring it down to reasonable levels, but Trump and the Republicans voided any sane responses to the economy. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/23/us/politics/fed-chairman-trump-jerome-powell.html?comments#permid=29874639 #2 Many Republicans believed Trump's success in business would translate to good for the country, ignoring that his successes were really strings of failures. Only after multiple ...

Responding to an article by Krugman on Bitcoin, Opinion | Transaction Costs and Tethers: Why I’m a Crypto Skeptic , I wrote the following: People that I know of that have an interest in bitcoin and its related activities mostly see a future in the ledger aspect, not in mining. Cryptocurrencies themselves will likely die out, maintained in an alternative world of criminal activity, while the ledge has been taken up by many as a way of maintaining accuracy in transactions, not necessarily monetary. In retrospect, it might be more judicious to think that Bitcoin will not die out but morph into some other beast, as it is unlikely as it will completely disappear, simply added to the mix of technologies. Someone will make better use of it as a transactional system.

Over dinner, a friend mentioned that she thought a particular country produced the most patents, and although I remember reading the same article about 10 years ago, - I believe it was in the NY Times - it is no longer true if it ever was. Looking at patents per capita, I found a variety of articles based on quality sources, and although the country does not rank in the top 10, it does rank well in Bloomberg's Innovation Index. The latter is not solely based on patent numbers since one needs to consider other measures of innovation. Bloomberg's scoring includes indicators such as R&D spending, manufacturing, the number of high-tech companies, secondary education attainment, and the number of research personnel. On a separate note, countries with large engineering and semiconductor industries and those that score well in international comparisons on science and math will dominate patents and innovation, as well as those countries with freer cultures, although this is syn...

In response to a NY Times article discussing the non-sensical hype surrounding Trump and the economy, How Good Is the Trump Economy, Really? , my post received over 600 Recommended clicks, the equivalent of likes: I see several major issues with the Trump economy: The current economy is really an extension of the Obama economy. Obama inherited a miserable situation created by Republicans, the same Republicans that prevented the economy from regrowing by implementing austerity measures, in effect harming many people. Whatever exuberance beyond that is the irresponsibility of tax cuts and deficit spending that Republicans are going to use to eventually harm Medicare, Medicaid, and Socal Security. The good of the economy is mostly for the upper end of the income spectrum. Even though there is low unemployment, most Americans are not really thriving.

Although the most common narrative in the major press focuses on its immediate effects on income, what do I think is likely to happen, outside of the common narrative: A return to faux fiscal hawkishness to justify cuts to social welfare spending Additional cuts to federal worker wages and benefits Additional reductions in oversight justified as an effort to restrain waste and expenditures Tax collection efforts will falter, as the IRS suffers resource constraints and people game the system for maximum benefit Even more disingenuous and corrupt behavior from politicians, since they've finally ruined the ACA... Reductions in longevity, employee safety, environmental health, maternal welfare, and educational outcomes - There are multiple factors at play, and some aspects like longevity might improve if the country can get a handle on opioid addiction - although rather than outright reversion, one might see even slower improvements than in previous years

Since it involves predictions about the Trump presidency, a post on another of my sites , I thought to report here: Trump might have made inflammatory statements about trade, from his cabinet choices it looks like a ploy to increase defense expenditures and oil profits. His hard-right appointees will unsettle regions, if not lead to all-out war, and doing so requires increases in defense, and a disrupted oil flow will increase the cost of oil that will increase Exxon's profit margin and turn US extraction profitable. Even his anti-terrorism slant would lead to profits in companies tied to Peter Thiel, Palantir. Expanding infrastructure and real estate deals, disguised as urban renewal, could also assist Trump, or at least enlarge his influence over the real estate world. You might be right in predicting he will increase tariffs, as well as foul trade in other ways, but most presidents tone down their rhetoric once they are in power. Unless Trump's business empire can benefit ...