"The World Is Quietly Getting Better"? The Facts & Evidence Don't Support That Meme

Conflicts over roughly the last 65 years and the casualties estimate for each. World quietly getting "better"? Judge for yourself!

Once more we behold the meme of humanity "getting better", this time trotted out by Greg Ip, e.g.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world-is-getting-quietly-relentlessly-better-11546430400

Of course this is codswallop, but ironically - if facts are only in the background and dire events kept "quietly" on the backburner - or on page 23 - then yes,  it is possible to accept it.  But any study of events over the past century or so belies the claim and the incipient basis for this fantasy.    As Exhibit A readers are directed to the graphic above showing just the conflicts that have gone on for the past fifty years or so- and the numbers of dead  estimated for each.  And this doesn't even take into account the ongoing Syrian Civil war, the numbers of dead there (est. over 1 million) and the vast number of fleeing refugees.

Ip is correct that "for most of recorded history humanity lived on the brink of starvation"  and "as recently as 1980 half of the world lived in extreme poverty", i.e. consuming less than the basic necessities - valued at $1.90 a day.  Meaning that since then the lot of global humanity has improved. No argument there, but at what cost as Neoliberalism has dominated global economics?    Well, the answer appeared in the Market Outlook section of the same day's WSJ  (p. R1) exploring 'The World's Growing Debt".  That debt, as the article notes, now stands at "$250 TRILLION" - and as the author puts it, "the world has never had so much debt".  But "growing debt goes hand in hand with growing economies" . Why? Because in the Neoliberal model growth is predicated on expectation of return in the future and leverage. Hence, Neoliberal investors are prepared to use leverage to buy stocks in companies just as companies are prepared to use leverage, i.e. go into debt, to expand. 

Why is this a negative? Because growing debt cannot be sustained. It portends a depression of extreme proportions and a return to the unthinkable poverty Ip claims is a thing of the past. Think of twenty years in a Great Depression,  few or no jobs, no capital  (far less credit) to form businesses or income for citizens. Think, in other words, of the current government shutdown and no pay, zilch, but for everyone! Well, everyone except the über wealthy like Jeff Bezos',  worth $130 b.

The fact is that even now - before a calamitous trigger brings the "house" down, Neoliberal economics has been shown to be a failure. As reported in The Denver Post last Sunday ('High Number Of Americans Getting Absolutely No Raises', p. 5K):

"Nine years into what is currently the second longest recovery in U.S. history  an unusually large number of workers is still stuck with frozen paychecks."

And corroborating this, in an article in The Washington Post today about how displaced federal workers are having to sell precious belongings to make ends meet in this Trump shutdown, we read:

"In the United States, living paycheck to paycheck is disturbingly common, regardless of profession or location. A recent report from the Federal Reserve revealed how little cushion most Americans have in their budgets: Four in 10 adults say they couldn’t produce $400 in an emergency without sliding into debt or selling something, according to the figures that surveyed households in 2017, a relatively prosperous year for the American economy."

A "relatively prosperous year" but for whom?  Not for millions of middle or working class stiffs, or the federal employees caught in this shutdown atrocity spawned by the Right's blowhards - and Dotard Donnie acting as their slave.  This is all despite the fact that the GOP and Trump promised workers better wages with the massive tax cut passed in 2017.  Now, however, we see there are no real wage gains - plus we are saddled with an addition of $1.5 trillion to the national debt, now expected to top $22.5 trillion this year.  And to add insult to injury, the demented Trump vermin now talk of raiding the disaster relief funds (for Puerto Rico, Texas, California etc.) to pay for Trump's  - or rather Limbaugh's and Ann Coulter's ...Wall.

How long can the party go on? That is the question of the moment. The answer is that the payment will come due when the first major crisis erupts and the system finds itself unable to continue without the essential resources to sustain the population.  What might that be? An immediate trigger would be a devastating nuclear war  in which nearly all of ten thousand megaton warheads currently  in nuclear powers' arsenals are detonated within a day or less.  Then civilization as we know it ends, especially with nuclear winter. 

Or, it could be a global event that cripples economies across the planet such as a pandemic of Avian Flu or even a re-assorted H1N1 virus - the same which spawned the 1918 pandemic that killed 100 million. (I will have a post about this pandemic next week).  Less  likely would be a monster solar  flare hurling a super stream of charged particles in a coronal mass ejection (CME)  with the potential to knock out all our power grids and GPS satellites . Bear in mind that GPS, besides providing directions for road users, allows synchronized cell phone conversations, as well as orchestrates air traffic not to mention 'date stamping' on most financial transactions and guiding the dynamic positioning of the majority of deep sea oil drilling and gas operations. 

Don't believe the power grid is that vulnerable? Then you're living in fantasy land. The map below shows the extent of Russian hacking efforts into the power grids of at least 24 states (cf. WSJ today, 'Russia Hacked U.S. Grid', p. A9):

Map showing at least 24 states where Russian hacked into the power grid. (From WSJ, p. A9)

Then how successful were they? According to a cyber security chief (Jonathan Homer) cited in the article,  referring to a utility company briefing paper : "The Russians had penetrated the control system area of utilities through poorly protected jump boxes".  The latter are really computers that enable technicians to move between two systems: the internet and critical control networks (walled off from the web for security purposes.) 

But consider this: if the Russians could so easily create havoc - admittedly with the help of malicious or spoofed emails- imagine what a well-placed CME could do. Many experts agree a simple solution would be to install large enough resistor -capacitor systems at critical locations (e.g. near power plants or major cities)  in order to sever any CME-driven upward field aligned current connection to the grid. The problem? Major U.S. power companies don't want to assume the cost for any voluntary installations, which could run $100,000 per transformer. Hence, the grid remains unprotected against the rare - but potentially calamitous - Carrington event CME.

 

My point? The Neoliberal capitalist system, built as it is on fossil fuel consumption and competitive individualism, would not be resilient enough to survive such an event. Further, the debt amassed already would ensure returning to our present civilization unlikely if not impossible.  Hence, a dystopic future awaits  humanity  (maybe a rung or so above Dark Ages' level) though the Neoliberals can't seem to see it.

 Ip brags that "as of September half the world - 3,8 billion people - are middle class or rich" - but that is not a permanent attribute or constant. Those numbers can be wiped out in an instant by one catastrophic event - OR by an encroaching cataclysm such as extreme climate change, i.e. the onset of the runaway greenhouse.

And what of climate change? Is it even on Ip's radar? Well yes to the extent he writes:

"The warming climate is a consequence of all those new middle class entrants burning fossil fuels. Yet obsessing over such perils is how we'll likely solve them. Take global warming: Public concern over climate change is rising in the wake of wildfires and floods."

Well, if that was really true how account for the fact carbon emissions actually rose 3.4 percent the past year, e.g.

U.S. Carbon Emissions Surged in 2018 Even as Coal Plants Closed ...

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/climate/greenhouse-gas-emissions-increase.html

It appears to me the public is not as invested in controlling climate change as he claims, which in the first instance would mean accepting a significant fuel tax. But look how that worked out in Macron's France with all the Yellow vest riots.

This  Neoliberal blind spot, which also entails forecasting outrageously high economic growth  despite the ravages of climate change (Ip predicts GDP 400 % bigger by 2100) is more or less the same idiocy adopted by WSJ resident denier Holman Jenkins   Jenkins,  recall, insisted ('Climate Change Is Affordable', p. A15, Nov. 28) that the latest IPCC climate assessment allows us to "arrive at a manageable $510 billion in estimated climate-related costs by 2090"

 But as I noted in my post of October 10th, after the original IPCC report came out:

"The cost of doing nothing until 2040 and allowing the now forecast 4C rise (more likely 6C) by 2100 will be well over $100 trillion in worldwide costs - from the mega-disasters including massive flooding, fires, to loss of jobs, homes, infrastructure - including power stations."

And let's note that one of Jenkins' standard ploys is to whine constantly about  "doom mongers", i.e. those of us seeking to control fossil fuel consumption.  But look,  if people were rational beings, as opposed to pawns and zombies manipulated by the media pundits and BS'ers like Jenkins and his WSJ op-ed cohort, fear would not be necessary . Able -minded citizens could examine the climate news and data dispassionately e.g.   Climate report understates threat

And arrive at the same conclusion as climate scientists like Myles Allen.  Prof. Allen,  an Oxford University climate scientist and an author of the IPCC report. was quoted in one NY  Times piece after the release of the UN report:

"It’s telling us we need to reverse emissions trends and turn the world economy on a dime,”

This is, of course, why in my first post this year I predicted climate change would become unstoppable, e.g.

2019 Forecasts: Climate Change Becomes Unstoppable...

The very fact we in the U.S.  were unable to limit our carbon emissions -  even as coal plants closed - -  supports this. Totally.  I hate to puncture Greg  Ip's little pink balloon of false hope, but there it is. Sometimes you have to put on your 'big boy' pants and face cold, hard facts.

The latest news that the oceans are now 40 percent warmer ought to also strike  fear (or at least a dose of reality)  into the hearts of those like Jenkins, as well as puncture the presumptuous optimism of those like Greg Ip (and Steven Pinker).  See e.g.

Ocean heat is climbing 40% faster than thought - Axios

https://www.axios.com/ocean-heat-climbing-40-percent-faster-carbon-removal-e6a10...

1. Cached

Hitherto, let us note, the world's oceans have provided a buffer to moderate the warming by absorbing excess CO2 in the atmosphere.  But when the seas absorb CO2 from the atmosphere carbonic acid is formed - and the oceans become acidic. The particular chemical reaction is:

H2O + CO2 -> H2 CO3

The lower the pH level in the seas ('7' is neutral pH), the more acidic they are. This is also worrisome because mass extinctions of marine creatures in the past have been linked to instances of ocean acidification.  But now with oceans much warmer it is clear we are approaching another tipping point where the limits of  the oceans' CO2 absorption may have been reached and now we may well be in for the worst.  

 Indeed, since the Industrial Revolution the acidity of the oceans has jumped 25 % from a pH of 8.2 to 8,.1 according to the U.S.  Global Change Research Program;s 2014 National Climate Change assessment. If current trends continue unchecked the acidity would increase 100-150 percent above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century, according to Carol Turley of the Plymouth Marine Laboratory in the UK. 

 But it seems now that with the oceans much warmer the carbonic acid concentrations may have peaked but the outgassing of CO2 may be not far away. If so, we may have passed the point of no return. In an article appearing  in Eos Transactions of the AGU (Vol. 83, No. 34), from August 20, 2002, ‘Progress Made in Study of Ocean’s Calcium Carbonate Budget’, we are alerted that sedimentary carbonates represent the largest reservoir of carbon on Earth. The author also notes that “a third of the anthropogenic CO2 that has been added to the atmosphere since the middle of the 18th century has been absorbed by the oceans”. This means that the oceans, acting as CO2 reservoirs, have actually masked the worst effects of global warming and that when their saturation point is reached, the spillover effect will be rapid and calamitous indeed.

The oceans now being 40 percent warmer means that saturation point is quite near. If so, the tipping point that sends our civilization crashing is also not far away, all Greg Ip's assurances notwithstanding. 

World getting quietly, relentlessly better?  Sure, from the perspective of an ostrich! 

 

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2016/10/skewering-spurious-global-warming.html


AND:

Olivia Alperstein

Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)

Environmental Policy

This EPA Rule Change Could Kill Thousands

"Missing Babies" In The Western World? Of course There's No Mystery!

In an Economist article from April 30th this year, the header appeared to present a quandary: 'The Strange Case of he Missing Baby' (p. 55), with the 'baby' emblematic of all the alleged "missing infants" that should have been born in the West but weren't.   The absence evidently even aroused the consternation of Pope Francis who asserted: "The great challenge of Europe is to return to being mother Europe".

But maybe that isn't possible any longer as the Neoliberal agenda and virus metastasizes to every nook and cranny so that citizens' economic security feels under siege. It is a given then that they would not feel comfortable enough to start or raise a family when each kid costs roughly $235,000 U.S. to raise to maturity.  A hell of a lot more than when my folks raised five kids back in the 50s and 60s, e.g.




















Visiting near Everglades National Park in the year 1957. In that year - at that time-  we could all live on one salary of $4,750 a year, believe it or not - and all of us attended parochial schools and ate 3 squares a day.

In those halcyon economic days we could all afford new suits, as well as visiting sundry places including taking trips to St. Augustine, Sarasota, Eureka Springs, Arkansas and Milwaukee. All that despite having only one bread winner - my dad. Try that today and see how far you get with five kids!  Often now, especially since the financial meltdown in 2008, two family earners are needed, just to make enough to afford a roof over the head and food.

Startling new information in the Sunday New York Times pointed out how difficult things are by noting the minimum yearly income a family now needs to live in various cities.  For San Francisco (where I may have to soon return to get further treatment for recurrent cancer) that amounts to a full $119,000 a year. Even for Miami, FLA, where we lived in the 1950s, that's now $84,000 a year. Even accounting for inflation my dad's salary as a commercial artist at Jordan Marsh wouldn't support a family of five in the Miami of today. (It would be about $38,000/yr.)

So basically, my folks would not have been able to afford even two kids, far less the five they actually had. Similarly, why would anyone with sense expect a modern ordinary family (not one of the gilded one percent) to afford any more?

As The Economist piece points out (ibid.):

"The financial crisis abruptly turned the (baby) boom to a bust. Countries in the European Union delivered 5,469,000 babies in 2008 but only 5,075,000 in 2013 - a drop of over 7 percent. That was too much for Kimberly -Clark, the maker of Huggies nappies, which announced in 2012 that it would pull out of most of Europe. In America, the fertility rate fell from a peak of 2.12 in 2007 to 1.86 in 2014. Ken Johnson a demographer at the University of New Hampshire estimates the U.S. is missing 2.3 million babies".

But "missing" in the context above only references loss of corporate sales (e.g. to Kimberly-Clark)  - which is all the Neoliberal cares about anyway.  He doesn't give two shits or a ratfuck about your family and its quality of life, only how many credit card charges he can ring up - to put you further into debt.  And the more babies your family burdens itself with, the larger the credit card debt pile.

"Missing" is also kind of a ridiculous term because it patently assumes all those babies would not be missing if the financial crisis hadn't occurred. But this misses the point that seven more years of zero job growth (to completely account for population increases up to then - via new entries into the work force) had occurred, as well as the fact wage stagnation had gone on for that extra time. So families over that time were still not making headway and there is no evidence at all, zero, that had the crisis not occurred corporations would have added sufficient decent paying jobs for families to afford homes....in Denver, St. Louis, Miami, or anywhere.

Indeed, one could argue all the extra people would have inevitably created an even bigger demand for housing, such as here on the Front Range of Colorado, where the median price of a home is now $265,000 in Colorado Springs, and nearly $410,000 in Denver. This has rendered most homes beyond the reach of families forcing them to be renters. So, it's easy for economists sitting in ivory towers to wring hands and pop off about a birth "deficit" but they can do this because they selectively blind themselves to other factors.

So we then come to the 'DUH' revelation (ibid.):

"The crunch was unsurprising: anxiety about jobs and money put people off children."

Then again, adding how "young and even not so young couples" are "finding it hard to buy property" not only in the States but in Europe. And there, as here, there are on average 4 in 10 of  24- to 29-years olds still living with their parents. Moreover they're saddled with college debts,  thanks to the Neoliberal leech student loan model.

One lamo American economist cited in the piece, Richard Easterlin, actually buys the codswallop that babies might be missing because too many people feel they wouldn't be able to raise them in the style to which they themselves were raised.

Hardly! More than likely, they knew that from the get go, given the national lack of affordable housing - plus the lack of jobs, wages to pay for what does exist. It seems it's more a case that people realize having even one kid is folly minus winning a Powerball. And short of that miracle, bringing a kid into the world might only ensure homelessness or destitution.

In terms of the U.S. alleged 2.3 m "missing babies" let's also acknowledge the problems a Neoliberal culture and economy impose - on those with babies, as well as those without. In this regard two recent letters to the NY Times op-ed pages are illuminating. In one, from a Linda Porter of Seattle, we learn (in response to an article advocating a more family -centric workplace by Judith Shulevitz):

"What does Judith Shulevitz' brand of feminism offer  to women who do not have children...it is just assumed that women like me will take over for the new moms. By the time she gets back to work I'm exhausted but there is no leave for me. The same when children are sick, or it's the school play or any other of the myriad times mothers take time  off for their children. Doesn't anyone realize that all that assistance offered to women with children is at the expense of someone else?"

- Points well taken, and again, let me reiterate this is in the context of a workaholic, no free or family time enabled Neoliberal corporate culture.  A corporate culture that also frowns on giving sick days even for restaurant workers suffering from contagious infections like norovirus. Thus, Ms. Porter is right to complain how she and other childless women are the ones left holding the 'jobs to do' bag when co-working moms have to go to the school play, attend a sick kid or whatever.

But it comes from the other side too, as noted by one Joan DeNatale Green writing a letter on the same op-ed page:

"Employers and the general public do not value child care or treat it as a real job."

And she then cites a friend who, on being informed Mrs. Green was returning to work, replied: 'Well, that's a good idea since your husband has been working all these years.'

Again, these disparate views could only emerge from a Neoliberal business culture and general societal culture which leaves every individual to his own devices, to try to find his or her own economic support and security.  Contrast this to the child care support in the 50s when two dollars a day child care was available and as I noted earlier, it wasn't essential for both parents to work.

But again, people in the U.S. mostly are victims of the fundamental attribution error, which notoriously blames individuals for their economic failures as opposed to the economic system itself. Hence, no surprise that working moms could be blamed, e.g. for having soft schedules and dumping work on their childless colleagues, while also themselves blaming the "general public" for "not accepting that motherhood is a real job". Hence the stage is set for strife and division as the Neoliberals want.

One interesting and welcome (to me) aspect of the missing babies syndrome, according to the Economist  (p. 56) is that the American Census Bureau now "has slashed its prediction for the country's population in 2050".

They now have it at 398m instead of 439m. Good! Less clogged highways, as well as hospital ERs, and National Parks - not to mention more (hopefully!) housing stock available.

But, as is their wont, these economists only obsess over the 'glass half empty' aspect of the population decrease whining that (ibid.):

"A fertility rate of only 1.8 would mean twice as large an annual Social Security deficit by 2089".

Not realizing or appreciating that IF those 2.3 m extra babies had been born they'd also want to collect their Social Security.  The way out isn't to keep adding to the population to pay for existing workers' benefits but to cut the military portion of the GDP back to where it was pre- 9/11.

But don't look for these turkeys to move off their higher population bandwagon as the solution to all things financial anytime soon!

Are Greedy Elders Taking Advantage of the Young? Not In U.S. - But Perhaps in the U.K.

In a WSJ piece from several months ago ('When Older People Do Better Than The Working Age', March 21, p. A2) a number of claims were made concerning economic advantages reaped by seniors not shared by the young working contingent. All of these bear closer examination, especially in the wake of the Brexit vote (previous post).

According to the authors (Jason Douglas and Jon Sindreu):

"Seniors in the U.S. have recently enjoyed healthier income gains than their younger counterparts, census data show...The average person 65 years and older in the U.S. earns  77% of the income of the average citizen up from 69% in 2008".

Okay, several points, since the earlier claim - preceding this statement is that "the divergence is exacerbating generational imbalances in government pension systems".

In other words, geezers are supposedly profiting at the expense of the youngsters who have to pay into "entitlements" like Social Security to support them.  This is confirmed as the authors later write (ibid.):

"As the elderly population increases, younger workers face a rising bill for the extra tax dollars needed to fulfill past government promises to retirees".

So....according to the WSJ duo, it's evidently the fault of the parasitical seniors for bleeding down the pay and resources of the young - keeping them poor and on a losing treadmill.

Of course this is bollocks. Apart from the fact no account is taken that those on "government pensions" had already put in their working years (decades, in fact) - thank you very much - there is no attention paid to the fact what those pensions don't exactly provide a princely sum. To shed needed light we can thank Nancy J. Altman and Eric Kingson, authors of 'Social Security Works' .

As the authors observe (p. 40):

"It is false that most older Americans are on "easy street". A very small percentage are, many more are poor or near poor, while some maintain a modest, middle class life style, often struggling to make ends meet."


In the graphic shown on page 47, the authors present the actual income distribution for the elderly which shows nearly three out of four senior households have incomes below $50,000 - which is not a majestic  sum considering health costs, etc.. Not when a senior might be one bad fall from a nursing home stay  that will suck up $70k a year. Or,  one major medical catastrophe can savage  frugal savings. (Dunned by continuous zero interest rates for years.) These are problems the young don't have, and the young always have time to get back on their feet - most seniors do not  - say after a major medical calamity.

Anyway the income distributions are indicated a follows:

- 72.5% have less than $50,000 /yr.

- 18.5% have from $50,000 - 99,000

- 5.3% have $100,000 - 149,999

- 2.0 % have $150,000 - 199,999

- 1.9% have more than $200,000

In other words, barely 9 percent of elderly - or 1 in 11, has more than what is regarded as a middle class income. So we (they) are not exactly living on "Easy Street". Other objections to seniors' benefits as being "too much" I already skewered in this blog post, which I invite people to read:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/11/no-oldsters-are-not-gluttonous-uncaring.html

Interestingly, the situation may well be different with respect to oldsters in the U.K., especially in the wake of the Brexit vote. As noted in the same WSJ piece, seniors in the U.K. "earn 89 percent of the average citizen's income".   And yet these older folks found it necessary to vote "leave" in the Brexit vote, thereby taking away opportunities in work, travel, and advancement for the 18-34 age set.

As expressed in opinions of some of the younger U.K. demographic in today's New York Times ('Among Young Britons, A 'Bad Feeling' On Result', p. A1:

From Louise Driscoll, a 21-year old barista in London:

"What do we do now? I am very scared!"

And from Lewis Phillips, 27 of London:

"We're the ones that have to live with it for a long time but a group of pensioners have managed to make a decision for us."

From Dan Boden of London:

"Truly gutted that our grandparents have effectively decided that they hate foreigners more than they love us and our futures."

Hannah Shaw, 25, who works at the National Health Service, had this to say:

"I'm already part of a generation stuck in rented property, unable to buy a house. The older generation seems so happy with the result, almost smug like it's some sort of victory completely unaware of the chaos they've caused for my generation. I'm dreading what will happen to employment, worker's rights, the environment and our economy"]

Which are certainly valid worries for those her age, given the narrowing of opportunities expected now that England likely recedes to merely being an island state again.

The outrage of the U.K. youthful segment is perhaps best summed up,  NY Times p. A8:

"They have expressed astonishment, anger and despair that their parents and grandparents would seek to limit the travel, exposure to other cultures and opportunities to work and study that being part of the European Union afforded them".

Thus, the Brexit vote effectively took away their acquired European identity, feeling part of a whole culture and continent as opposed to merely citizens of a provincial island nation.

From the level of their rage it will be a long time before they get over it, if ever. Meanwhile, the geezers in the U.K. need to ponder now what they have done by actually limiting the work and educational opportunities of the young which bears no comparison to anything oldsters have done in the U.S.

But to be sure, Neoliberalism has wrought havoc in the States too. But this is not the fault of oldsters who are equal victims of its excesses, in terms of extreme increases in prescription drug prices, further increases in Medicare premiums -  while cutting S.S. COLAs, and having to support their offspring and often their offspring, because the Neoliberal state has found it expeditious to retain a service -oriented, low wage society with little or no chance of upward mobility.

The populism expressed in the Sanders'  -- and to a lesser extent Trump campaign- have touched on these divisive issues, but there may yet be more unsettling events to come.

See also:

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/richard-eskow/67837/after-brexit-who-will-lead-the-new-global-rebellion

Update:

An analysis by The Financial Times in the wake of the Brexit vote found that only 36% of 18 to 24 year olds actually cast a vote in the election. In effect, these complacent young voters contributed to their own demise, much as they have tended to do by not turning out in U.S. off year elections.

"Sharing Economy"? Thanks, But No Thanks!

To paraphrase Robert Reich from a recent article on the "sharing economy" at salon.com

"What's wrong with a country where robots do everything that can be predictably programmed in advance, and almost all profits go to the robots’ owners?

Meanwhile, human beings do the work that’s unpredictable – odd jobs, on-call projects, fetching and fixing, driving and delivering, tiny tasks needed at any and all hours – and patch together barely enough to live on."

Well, this is the world of "on demand" - Johnny on the spot workers, where you get paid by the hour and have to be ready to go do your thing at a moment's notice. Formerly, temping was the precarious downside of corporate office work, and adjunct teaching the bargain basement for many college profs. Now, work on demand is the new normal for even more workers. They include Uber drivers, Instacart shoppers, and Airbnb hosts.

Also:  Taskrabbit jobbers, Upcounsel’s on-demand attorneys, and Healthtap’s on-line doctors.

There are also  Mechanical Turks.

As Reich puts it:

"The euphemism is the “share” economy. A more accurate term would be the “share-the-scraps” economy."

At its heart, as Reich observes,  are  "new software technologies embedded in assorted apps that allow almost any job to be divided up into discrete tasks that can be parceled out to workers when they’re needed, with pay determined by demand for that particular job at that particular moment".Customers and workers are matched online. Workers are rated on quality and reliability

Everyone seems to be raving about this  "sharing economy" but I suspect it's mostly bloviation and PR since  the big money goes to the corporations that own the software while only scraps go to the on-demand slaves......errrr,  workers.

SO pardon me if I want no part of it. Take Airbnb, started in 2008. Now why in the hell would I let out my home to strangers I don't know from Adam, just to make a few bucks? It's asinine and nonsense. Why the hell would I leave my house to strangers to pick and snoop over - as well as possibly damage or steal assorted goods? It's totally a downside. The only people I'd remotely consider doing such house renting with might be nieces, or other family members (assuming they are on the right side of me)

Then there's 'Yertle" where you supposedly offer assorted items you no longer want for sale or trade with others. Again, why would I want to trade my stuff for theirs? I took many years to accumulate a certain aggregate of collectibles for which I still place value, such as vintage sports cards, as well as old stamps and books and even some World War II memorabilia (and old coins)  left by my dad.. I would not trade these for the simple reason there's nothing others have that would entice me to part with any item.

 Yertle thus offers no benefit to me so there's no reason to use it, to "share'.

The same goes for all the other manifestations of the sharing economy such as 'TaskRabbit' where people auction off their services or 'Fiverr.com, where people are paid $5 each to write jingles or write press releases for some Neoliberal rag or other. I am not interested because there's no amount of money I can think of (say less than ten grand) that would entice me to trade my time for such fleeting labor.

One of the worst aspects of the on demand job world is how it destroys workers' ability to plan, whether for simple budgeting, taking holidays, or a simple thing like day care for a child. As one woman noted on CBS Early Show yesterday, what if she gets a job but it only lasts for an hour or two. She still has to call a babysitter to mind her kid, but then if the job ends after an hour (or less) she's already at home and didn't need the day care.

Those who aspire to become little "task rabbits" at the end of assorted app tethers to jump through hoops to do some little task or other for a "fiver" or trade for junk, are of course welcome to do so. Whatever floats your boat. Just count me out!

And if you do partake of the "share economy" bear in mind how you are helping to prop up a system for serfs - which the grandees at Davos (recent confab) want to expand!

IDIOTS R US: The Lamo Right Compares Cliven Bundy to Occupy Wall Street

An Occupy Wall Street protestor  from November, 2011 (top) and Cliven Bundy. Is she the same as Bundy? Only a moron would believe so!

 

After the recent Right Wing media debacle of supporting nutso racist Cliven Bundy and his merry band of militia losers, one can't imagine how the mental deterioration could get worse. But evidently it can, because they're now trying to compare Cliven Bundy's Nevada stand - the egregious claim he "owns" the land his cattle are grazing on - to the Occupy Wall Street protestors of 2011. 

 

According to one idiot Denver Post letter writer (who clearly got this nonsense from FOX or some other lamo news site):

 

"A previous letter writer said the Republican Party is 'saddled with' Cliven Bundy forever. Is the Democratic Party saddled with the anti-government Occupy Wall Street people? Probably not! The Democratic Party jumped into bed with that ridiculous group the same way the Republicans did with the ill-spoken Bundy"

 

Not so fast there, Sparky! False equivalence is widespread but you gain nothing by attempting to invoke it against the Dems.

 

Let's try to clear the air for this numbskull:

 

1) Occupy Wall Street was not a unilateral "anti-government" group as this fool claims. They were protesting against ONE facet of government:  the privileged banking -financial sector (mainly based in Federal Reserve- though technically it isn't even a part of the federal gov't) which had been responsible for expediting the nation's plunge into the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression (in 2008).  Conversely, Bundy declared opposition to ALL branches of the federal government, to the extent he wouldn't even recognize it!

 

 

2) Bundy and his band of nuts were REAL anti-government tools, who actually took arms against Bureau of Land Management staff in NV - with militia snipers hiding in the covers aiming their rifles. By contrast, Occupy Wall Street protestors had been placed in the sniper sights of security forces, for example in Houston TX, see e.g.

http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1494

 

3) Occupy Wall Street protestors made no remarks or statements that could be construed as racist, or endorsing the horrific slave system, unlike Bundy who blustered:

 

"I wanna tell yuh one more thing I know about the Nigras! Weren't they better off as slaves, pickin'  cotton  and havin' a family life  ..."

 

 

4)  OWS actually protested on allocated areas permitted for those purposes, in assorted cities, e.g. NYC. Even the odd protestors (as in LA) who took over an area,  didn't lay permanent claim to it or graze cattle on it like Bundy did. They did not appropriate land for which federal FEES are assessed - remain there for YEARS (with the fees and penalties piling up) then refuse to pay them.

 

5) OWS protestors didn't have "militias" arrive, armed to the teeth,  from all over the country and point their rifles at the police who faced off against them.

 

6) Occupy protestors were fighting against the rampant inequality of income distribution (enshrined in the Neoliberal capitalist system)  that has allowed the wealthy and their scions get wealthier  while the ordinary middle class has descended further into the morass of debt and economic despair. Even seeing their offspring saddled with monstrous college debt that now totals $1.2 trillion.

 

Bundy - already a millionaire rancher- has demanded special privileges for himself in grazing his cattle free off federal land, that no other NV ranchers have. In this he has put himself firmly in the class of the privileged elites (1 percent)  that OWS inveighed against.

 

Mixing Occupy Wall Street with Cliven Bundy is the typical false equivalence tactic I'd expect from a Reepo moron, thereby attempting to tar both parties- but it won't work.   We already know which party is racist and also know which party wants to keep most workers in the country poor ....and on food stamps.

 

For that look no further than the Repukes' blocking any hike in the national minimum wage yesterday. They'd rather have and support those like Cliven Bundy than the typical OWS protestor who still owes $30,000 in college debt. The Repukes want millionaire  "socialists" who want to feed off government's teats (e.g. land)  for free - not indebted and impecunious young people!

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/55682/cliven-bundys-friends-have-become-the-koch-brothers-useful-idiots