Going To Harvard This Fall? Stick To Science & Math - Not Subjective Indoctrination Majors- Like Economics!

Harvard Astronomy Chair Avi Loeb making observations at the Harvard U. Observatory

WSJ op-ed columnist Peggy Noonan ('Kids, Don't Be Success Robots', March 16-17, p. A13)  was correct when she advised:

"My advice to students still considering college in the year 2019: Avoid elite universities if you can.  They're too often indoctrination mills anyway."

Well, let's amend that a bit. If you are lucky enough to have secured entry to Harvard this fall - say to study astronomy - you are doubly fortunate.  The reason is you will experience  actual inquiry over indoctrination.. Prof. Avi Loeb achieved some renown on the basis of his co-authored paper appearing in Astrophysical Journal Letters in November — thrilling E.T. enthusiasts and upsetting the  skeptical stuffed shirts and purists in the halls of space academia. In other words, upsetting those more indoctrinated than inclined to do actual open inquiry., which is what professional astronomy should be about.

 Recall in my post on Loeb's critics last month  I cited one popular astronomer - the late Carl Sagan - who actually expressed regrets (to Dr. J. Allen Hynek) he had not been more open about accepting the reality of UFOs.  Sagan had admitted to Hynek that he really did accept the validity of UFOs but "couldn't admit it in front of colleagues."  See e.g.

https://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=76926

Such is the hallmark of genuine inquiry in that one can admit one is or was wrong, either in one's previous research or previous attitude to some object of inquiry.

Contrast Prof. Loeb with another Harvard prof, Martin Feldstein who - it can be argued - is more invested in indoctrinating his Ph.D. students with the codswallop of modern Pareto-based economics.  Recall, in Pareto economics "Pareto efficiency" rules and the  basic premise is that each dollar of a rich man is worth much more than that of a poor man. Hence, any transfer of money from rich to the poor hurts the rich man much more than any poor man.   

Such a template was invoked by Feldstein some years ago when he argued that ordinary folks ought to be paid money not get expensive medical screening tests, such as colonoscopies.  Indeed, Feldstein argued that given there is no way the ordinary patient could afford to pay out of his pocket for such a test (usually $3,500- 4,000) then it makes more sense to pay her to take a hike. To fix ideas: 

 If the insurance paid part is $3,000 (while the patient's reservation price is $2, 500) it makes more sense to give the prospective testee $2,499 NOT to get the colonoscopy, than to let her get the test and consume valuable specialist time and resources via $3,000 subsidy. 

(Note:  The reservation price for a given  product or service is just the maximum price a person is willing to pay. So, if I have a 1954 Henry Aaron TOPPS baseball card (now with a very high book price) and I offer it to you for sale, and ask what the top price is that you'd pay, if you respond "one hundred dollars" then that is your reservation price.)

The same scheme can be carried over to environmental considerations, especially say, in implementing global warming regulations or fuel taxes to alter behavior - say to cut carbon emissions. Since - according to Pareto economics -  the lives of all the poorer segments of the populace are worth less in terms of their dollar use (i.e. their "utils") then those like Feldstein would always argue to allow more of them to perish from climate-caused catastrophes than to cause harm to the rich.  The latter by exacting carbon costs which will upset the commodities and stock markets, and whole economies.

Now in his latest WSJ op-ed ('The Debt Crisis Is Coming Soon',  March 21, p. A19)  Feldstein continues his Pareto efficiency shtick as the be-all, end-all to the U.S. exploding debt problem. At the top of his hit list is, you guessed it, "entitlements", i.e.

"Thus the only option is to throw the brakes on entitlements.  In particular, the government needs to hold back the growth of Medicare, Medicaid  and Social Security."

Why does he argue thus? Well because of the metastasizing debt.   As Marty is wont to complain (ibid.):

"According to the Congressional Budget Office, the deficit this year will be $900 billion, more than 4 percent of gross domestic product.  It will surpass $1 trillion in 2022.  The federal debt is now 78 percent of GDP.  By  2028 it is projected to be nearly  100 percent of GDP."

But in fact, "part of the increase in the deficit was attributable to the shift in timing of certain payments, which made the deficit appear larger.  If not for those timing shifts the deficit would have risen only 25 %  from the same period in 2018." (WSJ ,   March 23-24, p. A4).

Apart from that, let's bear in mind the 2017 Trump- GOP tax cuts added nearly $1.5 trillion to the deficit by itself.  ("The tax code overhaul in 2017 had constrained federal revenues over the past year." - ibid.)   It was evident from the time this trash was passed the GOOPs would need to find ways to make up for the losses, so have focussed  on cutting Medicare ($845b in Trump's recent budget, and gutting the ACA - which would toss tens of millions off their health care.)

So how does Feldstein propose to deal with these entitlements? His plan emphasizes (ibid.):  "Raising the age of eligibility for full Social Security benefits from 67 to 70."  Here, Feldstein shows that - like Alan Greenspan - he's oblivious to the the fact  that a third of seniors have Social Security as their only income. Also, more than 50 percent of Americans claim their Social Security by age 62.  

Why are so many citizens doing this? It isn't always a case of not wanting to work but rather, for too many,  not being able to last at demanding physical jobs, i.e. landscaping, roof repair, nursing home aide,  etc.  It is fairly easy to work past 70 when it's all consulting, paper pushing or brain work.   But not so much when one is involved in heavy day -to -day labor like a nursing home caretaker moving an elderly patient from bed to chair and back many time a day - not to mention other tasks, such as bathing, toilet use etc. Work that takes its toll on the back, as well as many other parts of the anatomy.

Interestingly, nowhere in Feldstein's op-ed is there any mention of cutting the defense budget, despite the fact we have ample evidence it's one of the biggest yearly deficit engines, e.g. 

We also know that at $716 billion annually, the U.S. spends more on the military than the next 11 nations combined, That includes Russia and China. As one recent WSJ letter writer put it: "The Pentagon already has enough enough resources to keep America secure.":

The sad fact is that too many of the nation's seniors do not, yet those like Marty Feldstein would just as soon indoctrinate more Harvard economics students into a useless system that's also heartless.

Kids, if you're headed for the ivy halls of Harvard, pick astronomy to study, not econ from a Feldstein clone; adjunct, lackey or TA.  Your brain will thank you for it, so will millions of us on "entitlements"!

See also:

Social Security

Honoring Frances Perkins, the 'Mother' of Social Security

AND:

Healthcare Policy

Rural America Needs Medicare for All, and Fast

AARP Perpetuates Trope That The Only Good Codger Is A "Productive" (Or High Spending) Codger

It is amazing that when one travels to more socially progressive nations, especially strong on social insurance, or which embrace democratic socialist values,  there is not only greater happiness noticed, e.g.

• Oprah got perfect response from Danish woman on their social welfare state 

But also the belief that once workers retire, at whatever age, there is no longer a need for them to be either "productive" or "consumers".   Not so in the US of A, evidently.   Our nation is still dominated by capitalist and Calvinist memes that reinforce the canard that the only worthy citizens are those who contribute directly to the GDP, either as productive workers, or consumers (consumption is responsible for nearly 70% of the Gross Domestic Product in the U.S.).   To underscore this we have the bastardized "Pareto economic model" which defines economic efficiency in terms of "utils" - such that each dollar spent by the rich or investor class is always worth more than each dollar spent by the lower 50 percent or hardcore saver class, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/06/modern-economics-its-evil-basis-pareto.html

One of the most glaring examples being when, in 2003, the Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan - before the Senate Banking Committee  - averred  "Social Security benefits need to be cut to pay for Bush’s tax cuts."   What on Earth was the man thinking? Well, he's thinking on the basis of Pareto efficiency!

Social Security payments, especially with COLAs, do everything the Fed Chairman didn’t want. They pour more money into the economy, but not via productive labor or market investments. People receive their checks merely by existing and breathing day to day, and having paid into the system with FICA deductions.   In other words, the elderly are mostly unproductive drains who must be tolerated, say even if we can't get their Social Security monies converted to private investments, or their Medicare turned into "voucher" systems.

Now, this trope is resurrected in the latest AARP POV column by Jo Ann Jenkins ('Changing the World's Conversation About Aging-. p. 42, April , AARP Bulletin). She writes:

"Where leaders once looked at the growing aging population and saw only retirees, they are now beginning to see a new type of experienced, accomplished workforce. Where they once saw only expensive costs, they are now beginning to see an exploding consumer market that is bolstering our economies...no longer a growing pool of dependents."

In other words, reaffirming the trope that if an oldster isn't working and productive, or spending on all kinds of material bullshit:  RVs, new TVs,  gas-fired barbecues, new carpets, etc.  s/he is an "expensive  drain and "dependent".   Gasp!  Just a retiree! Imagine! But, WTF is wrong with just being a retiree, say after you've put in your dozens of years of hard work? And what is wrong with retiring and not having to be a spendthrift freak  either?   Only in America, the land of the almighty dollar, where profits are put before people,  can this type of degenerate thinking prosper and be sold to ...who? Well, mainly Neoliberals and closet Calvinists convinced the only good Medicare beneficiary is one who works 5 hours a day to pay for his medical treatments!

Be assured that Ms. Jenkins babble isn't the first on this issue. Some 7 or so years ago there appeared the cheery, upbeat Saturday Evening Post article, 'The New Retirement'. Therein we were  informed that "Americans are increasingly choosing to stay on the job after age 65 and money is only part of the story". Well, who'da thunk?

On the next page, we find the photos of two obviously well-provided for seniors at the top who were wealthy enough to actually retire early and buy an 85-acre farm where they "pursue their passion" by stuffing bouquets of flowers into canning jars and selling them. Well, nice work if you can get it! And, the couple informs us they're blissfully happy doing all that canning and insist: "If our health holds out we'll do this as long as we can".

My first reaction, to this well-heeled but dumb pair was, WTF!? The rate of human knowledge is doubling every 4 years and you choose to waste your remaining years canning flowers!

But that's just me and maybe my own priorities are wrong. I happen to think that in a limited life time humans owe it to themselves to learn as much about their world and cosmos as they possibly can. And that doesn't mean wasting time canning miniature flower bouquets if you don't have to!

Next we're introduced to a well-coiffed exec of 71 who has absolutely NO intentions of leaving her job as senior vice president of career services at the Ayers Group. As the lady exclaims:

"I just wouldn't know what to do with myself if I retired!"

 Well, uh, how about reading a few books...not just romantic pot boilers from Jacqueline Susanne, but areas of astronomy, psychology, philosophy to broaden that bean counter brain? How about even traveling to other places, like Switzerland, or Sweden or India? To gain something beyond a parochial perspective?

But evidently the thought never crosses her brain. She's obviously content to remain in her little corporate cubbyhole until she croaks.   But hey! At least she's "productive" - in line with Jo Ann Jenkins'  AARP crusade to remake the American image of aging - to think of us 70-plus geezers less as bums and more as.... workers and consumers!

Fortunately, a Mother Jones piece coming out at about the same time as the Post pabulum, thoroughly demolished its "working longer is better", e.g.

In other words, most older Americans (past 65)_ who do choose to stay on the job longer do so often at the expense of their health, and without much in the way of monetary return. 

What would it take to get me to rejoin the work force, at the age of 71 and with new (rising) PSA tests showing the prostate cancer may be coming back? Well, for starters,  a salary of at least $150-$200 an hour.

Oh, and that would be on a part time basis only and working at home. That alone would work given that I may not have that many years left, and I don't wish to spend them pushing paper, checking emails or "learning coding",  but rather learning more about the latest scientific and other research developments - some of which make it into my blog posts.

Btw, regarding the coding frenzy and "2 million more jobs" cited by Apple CEO Tim Cook (in his 'Revolutions' appearance on MSNBC last Friday) I will have more to say - rather naysay - in a coming post.

Oldsters, especially in their 70s - 80s deserve to be left alone by the media mavens and others who try to impose their own expectations on what an American retiree ought to be or do. If in fact millions wish to waste their time -  if they already have scads of $$ - canning flowers, or working as Walmart greeters,  then so be it. If that's what floats their boat, let 'em do it. But if others just wish to kick back and  read and learn, or attend university classes (even online) then let them do it. Stop hectoring us 70-somethings  to "go back to work" to satisfy the trope of the "on the go, productive" senior.  Or the high spending senior!

The Mythical Social Security Cost Of Living Increase

In the press the past few months one read regular, breathless accounts of how seniors were due - for the first time in nearly five years - a 2 percent increase in the Social Security cost of living allowance.  We both looked forward with great eagerness to this increase since, of course, the cost of living is going through the roof. Our home insurance alone has increased more than 70 percent the past two years, and the car insurance nearly 40 percent. So any real increase in Social Security payments would be welcome.

Thus it was I tore open the letter from the Social Security Administration yesterday afternoon, announcing with the first sentence of the first paragraph:

Your Social Security benefits will increase by 2.0 percent in 2018 because of a rise in the cost of living.

A- Your monthly amount before deductions is    $ X    +  0.02 X

B- The amount we deduct for Medicare medical insurance is Y  +  0.02 X

Okay,  'X' is the monthly Social Security benefit received, currently, 'Y' is what we are paying in for Medicare already or $104.00.   So if this was a REAL cost of living increase we'd be ahead of the game by the amount shown in (A) minus Y ( $104.00.)

BUT as you can see, the increment for the monthly COLA increase (0.02 X) is exactly the amount by which our Medicare deduction has ALSO increased.  Result?  COLA increase =  0.02X  - 0.02X  = $0

In other words, after the Medicare deduction there is no COLA!

Now before anyone starts the ridiculous thought process that I'm getting really cheap medical care, think again.  In Medicare, we all have to get an additional supplement plan (usually called "Plan F") which covers the balance of costs that Medicare doesn't, such as for specialized cancer treatments like my focal cryotherapy, or having a precancerous lesion removed from my back in May.  That cost for me has currently increased from $220 a month to $228 (as per a recent advisory letter from the insurer).

We also have to cover the costs of the Part D drug plan premium plus the cost of med copays. In addition, Medicare covers nothing for eyeglasses or dental care, which in the past two months has cost me:  $460 (eye exam, newly corrected glasses) and  $1,450, respectively (a crown, a filling and two periodontal cleanings). So don't anyone hand me any BS that I am getting an "entitlement".

What could make the COLA landscape much worse for seniors? Implementing a chained CPI, such as buried in the Senate version of the Repuke tax bill.  The brainchild of billionaire Peter G. Peterson,  the chained CPI reckons inflation (and hence adjustments) at barely one third of the regular COLA - based on the standard CPI or Consumer Price Index. Thus, most seniors in the country will find themselves either malnourished  or in the poorhouse after five years.

The use of the "chained CPI" assumes that as prices increase, consumers will buy lower cost alternatives, reducing the amount of inflation they experience via less costly choices. For example, if the price of stew beef or hamburger rises by 50 cents a pound, they'll opt for pork.  If pork prices increase by 50 cents a pound (say owing to the Chinese buying tons of corn meal for their own hogs) then consumers will move to chicken. If chicken prices rise too much they will move to cheap fish or canned tuna. If those prices rise too much....well, I guess there's always dumpster diving (Repubs have already cut the food stamp budget to the bone.)

Basically then, the chained CPI introduces a race to the bottom.

Look, I hesitate to employ charged words like "evil" to describe the chained CPI so let's call it barbarous. It is barbarous (and cynical) because it invokes the discredited concept of "Pareto efficiency". In so doing it regards the dollars of the wealthy and affluent as having more "utility" than the dollars of fixed income seniors, or the poor. This is why former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan went on record in an appearance before the Senate Banking Committee (in 2003) to assert that "Social Security benefits need to be cut to pay for Bush’s tax cuts."

Was Greenspan mad or just your garden variety econ psycho? No, just  a victim of Pareto think, like too many ivory tower economists (e.g. Martin Feldstein). Social Security payments, especially with COLAs, did everything the Fed Chairman didn’t want. They poured more money into the economy, but not via productive labor or market indices, stock returns. S.S. beneficiaries  receive their monthly checks merely by existing and breathing day to day, and having paid into the system with FICA deductions. Even then, they receive far more in benefits than actually paid in, making a total mess of "utils" earned.

Thus, in considering any option of whether to give more relief to fixed income seniors or the wealthy- who may use it to buy yachts, $2 million 'Billy the Kid' tintypes, 50 Lamborghinis or blood diamonds, it's always better to give the money to the latter while letting the former suck salt, or pound sand.

 Let's also note that the S.S. COLAs increase the non-productive payments each year, one reason why – back in 1997 – Greenspan demanded an artificially much lower COLA increase than had originally been proposed. (And which certainly doesn’t reflect seniors’ increased costs for medical treatments and prescription drugs).

That was never accepted, but the latest twist - to raise the monthly amount of the Medicare premium by exactly the same amount as the putative COLA, accomplishes something even better: it de facto wipes out ANY COLA increase. This, while making the less-mathematically inclined actually believe they're getting a real COLA increase.

What sleight of hand!