Night blooming cerus Tucson Arizona USA
As I grew older my understanding of long term consequences
of social engineering, regulations, tax policies, R&D priorities and other
phenomena has grown. A course of action
that is beneficial in the short term might not be so beneficial down the
road. An example of that is a recent
celebration that consumer debt had risen and thus helped the economy. As this debt comes due, less spending will be
the result, which will negatively impact the economy for as long as it takes to
pay the debt. Interest goes to the
moneylenders, who sock it away to gamble on derivatives, shorts and other
nonproductive 'investments'. Investments
like these used to be called a 'stake' in gambler's lingo. Maybe this short term gambling leads to long
term malaise of the economy.
The betting on whether a country will default or not should
be confined to Las Vegas and other gambling centers. Huge sums bet on national default in today's
world will result in activity that brings default about, in order to cash in on
insurance purchased. It's like buying
life insurance on your neighbor, then setting him up so you can collect. Who is investigating if this is happening?
Student debt is of much discussion and a huge debate whether
to raise student debt interest rates or not has not produced a solution to the
problem that graduates don't have jobs waiting for them. As a student, I remember knowing that degrees
in the arts might not be able to get a job after graduation. Students choose their major and apparently
the student loan people do not limit the debt to people who are specializing
where the jobs are.
Why have the costs of education versus income changed so
much? The Arizona constitution
guarantees an education at reasonable cost.
Is student debt a reasonable cost?
For how long is this debt reasonable or is it reasonable to demand a
long term lien on future earnings in order to go to school at all? Has it become so that the average student
MUST assume debt in order to access school?
That is not a reasonable cost.
When I entered the University
of Arizona in 1963, tuition was about $424 a year plus about $160 more for
books. Working at $3.00 an hour, it took
about 5 weeks to earn that money by working at a service job. Now, in state tuition at the UofA is $9,286 a
year, which would require about 1,160 hours of work at $8.00 an hour, slightly
over minimum wage. Now a student would
have to work 29 weeks to earn the tuition, while in 1963 a student would work
just 5 weeks to earn the tuition.
Economic problems result from little planning and the
student loan problem is a good example of what EZ Loans can do to a society, as
future productivity is harnessed for the present, resulting in future economic
slowdowns based on the debt service.
This harms the consumer market because the debt prevents spending on
widgets and the few moneylenders who are amassing the money can only use so many
widgets.
Unintended consequences from policies and thoughtless
legislation have resulted in detrimental effects towards perpetuating the long
term culture. The formation of unions
when workers were little more than slaves was appropriate for the time but the
politically powerful unions have now lobbied their advantage throughout the
nation. The unplanned long term
consequence of requiring union membership is seen in rising costs and fewer
jobs.
Another phenomena is
that of the government assisting the unions in control of workers by forcing
the deletion of union dues from workers' paychecks instead of the unions
collecting their own dues. It appears
that some of these organizations are so good at getting their workers such high
wages and benefits that the widgets they make can be made for much less
elsewhere, and shipped here for sale at a profit. The short term planning is always higher
wages and more benefits, not whether their demands will bankrupt the business
in the long term. Forcing workers to
finance organizations like these is not going to result in economic
recovery.
The union stalemate creates very few high paying jobs and
expensive products that cannot even compete locally in the global economy. The laws forcing union membership are actually preventing access to a willing
and able workforce who would work for less, which would allow the production of
a lower priced product. Some unions are
essential, but membership should be voluntary, with a secret ballot. Competitive hiring would allow for more
workers to be hired, at a lower rate than union scale. The issue of 'benefits' must be addressed
next.
The long term consequences of requiring employers to buy
health insurance for their workers is affecting our economy today. Workers in hazardous jobs like mining and
police work should receive coverage of job related health care costs, which was
the original intent of activists who saw workers suffering from job related
maladies who were then replaced without regard for compensation for
injuries. Such is the moral basis of capitalism,
that businesses must legally be bound to take care of workers injured on the
job but the unions have ballooned 'benefits' into total coverage for every wart
for the worker and his family, even after they retire. And the insurance companies responded to the
mandatory insurance requirement by raising their prices. Some businesses are not hiring workers due to
the unpredictable escalating costs of providing insurance.
I say go back to the free enterprise system and cancel all
the mandatory insurance requirements. If
an individual wants 'coverage', then that individual can find their own
insurance plan and pay for it. Employers
will then be relieved of paying and arranging for insurance for employees and
employees will be free to spend their money however they like. There is already a low cost health care
option in the form of the urgent care outlets and drug store nurses, who can
serve the locals' minor needs quickly and inexpensively. Individuals should not be required to buy
health insurance. Let the market
determine health care costs, not the insurance companies. The populace and employers should not see an
ever increasing percentage of their income go to insurance.
The government should not be in the business of requiring
purchase of anything. Taxes are already
a burden. The long term consequences of
mandatory insurance in the workplace has been inflation in health care and
insurance costs. The insurance brokers
and health care suppliers continually
raise prices, while the populace has no say but must pay ever higher costs.
Short term thinking has resulted in problems for our nation. The EZ loan caused housing bubble and the
sale of worthless derivatives based on the subprime loans caused politicians to
vote to bailout the institutions that insured those loans, rather than the
original investors who were defrauded.
The long term consequences for this bailout remain to be seen, but the
recent J.P. Morgan financial losses point to more of the same behavior that
caused the financial crisis.
Repeal of the Glass Steagall Act was a prime example of
short term thinking that had negative long term consequences. I disrespect anyone who had anything to do
with that, including President Clinton, who signed it.
Reaching For Rain
