I have a reader in Britain. My reader is a regular reader. My regular reader must be often disappointed when s/he checks in and finds that I haven't posted for weeks. I am sorry, regular reader. I will try to do better. My regular reader checks in more often than my husband. My regular reader is more loyal. I wish I knew what my regular reader wants to read. I would try to oblige.
Spring has already sprung. My corydalis have put up their feathery fronds. My geraniums are budding. So is my lilac, which makes me happy, as a dormant lilac looks like nothing so much as a bunch of dead sticks. My bleeding heart, which I thought was dead, is not. I didn't get 'round to cutting back the pelargoniums, and one of them is blooming on the old stems. I haven't the heart to cut them off.
Matt Taibbi is leaving Rolling Stone. He was the main reason for reading Rolling Stone. He's the guy who described Goldman Sachs as a "vampire squid" and explained the LIBOR scandal. They'll probably replace him with more "100 Greatest..." lists. Hey, people who read Rolling Stone probably know who most of the 100 greatest guitarists are already. Sigh.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
Monday, February 17, 2014
Quitting
Much has been made of the Congressional Budget Office report that Obamacare may encourage people to quit their jobs. This is of concern because it may reduce productivity, and Republicans are quite sure that those who quit their jobs will take up reclining on the sofa, eating bon bons, and watching Judge Judy on TV. Now it is possible that some who quit their jobs will do just that. But many more people will find something to do that they enjoy more. One woman quit her job and takes full-time care of her granddaughter so that her daughter, a single mother, can work. Now anyone who has ever done so knows that taking full-time care of a young child is much more difficult than reclining on the sofa. It's even more difficult than paid employment.
Now most people won't quit their jobs for the health insurance subsidy. High-wage workers, for instance, don't receive any subsidy. Many of them also have employer-paid insurance as well. So we needn't worry that doctors, lawyers and accountants will suddenly decide that a life of leisure is preferable to work. Single people, with or without children, are unlikely to quit their jobs, although some of them may go from full- to part-time work, depending on how the subsidy works for them.
Who will quit their jobs or reduce their hours?
--Working poor couples with young children, where the partner who works for health insurance makes less than it costs for childcare, or the couple has to stagger their work hours and they don't see each other awake for days at a time.
--Older couples without health insurance, where the cost outside of subsidy is prohibitive. Also older singles may cut their work hours to remain within subsidy for the same reason.
--People who hate their jobs and decide that they don't have to stay because the job provides health benefits.
What's interesting about all these groups is that they are generally regarded as part of the less productive hoi polloi, those who make lower wages because they are less productive than the doctors, lawyers and others whose productivity justifies their high wages. Indeed one would think that it might be good, if they are so unproductive, for them to quit their jobs. We'd have less traffic, less air pollution and such, so the productivity loss might be offset by environmental and other savings. Some people who quit might work at the local food bank, senior center, or other worthy endeavor. Others might take up art projects that we might view as unfortunate.
But might it be that they are underpaid rather than unproductive, that the loss of productivity might cost more to the overall economy than the loss of an equivalent number of, say, bankers? If that's true, there's a simple solution--a pay raise.
Now most people won't quit their jobs for the health insurance subsidy. High-wage workers, for instance, don't receive any subsidy. Many of them also have employer-paid insurance as well. So we needn't worry that doctors, lawyers and accountants will suddenly decide that a life of leisure is preferable to work. Single people, with or without children, are unlikely to quit their jobs, although some of them may go from full- to part-time work, depending on how the subsidy works for them.
Who will quit their jobs or reduce their hours?
--Working poor couples with young children, where the partner who works for health insurance makes less than it costs for childcare, or the couple has to stagger their work hours and they don't see each other awake for days at a time.
--Older couples without health insurance, where the cost outside of subsidy is prohibitive. Also older singles may cut their work hours to remain within subsidy for the same reason.
--People who hate their jobs and decide that they don't have to stay because the job provides health benefits.
What's interesting about all these groups is that they are generally regarded as part of the less productive hoi polloi, those who make lower wages because they are less productive than the doctors, lawyers and others whose productivity justifies their high wages. Indeed one would think that it might be good, if they are so unproductive, for them to quit their jobs. We'd have less traffic, less air pollution and such, so the productivity loss might be offset by environmental and other savings. Some people who quit might work at the local food bank, senior center, or other worthy endeavor. Others might take up art projects that we might view as unfortunate.
But might it be that they are underpaid rather than unproductive, that the loss of productivity might cost more to the overall economy than the loss of an equivalent number of, say, bankers? If that's true, there's a simple solution--a pay raise.
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Lunch
I don't usually report on my lunch, as I think most people aren't interested. Not only that, we almost always have simple sandwiches or leftovers at home. There's not much to excite anyone there. But yesterday Friend A and I went out to lunch, and Mother's is to be highly recommended. It's new, so there was a line, but it wasn't down the block. Some people might be put off by the fact that it's vegetarian (with a few vegan items), but my only objection to vegetarian restaurants is that they try to make things "taste like chicken." Why? If you're a vegetarian restaurant, stand up proudly for vegetables.
That's what Mother's does. There is nothing anyone would claim tastes like chicken. But there are very good vegetarian dishes. I had the Capitol Cobb Salad, with avocado dressing (I'd have licked the dish, were that not inappropriate) with various winter vegies and the best falafel I have ever eaten in my life. In fact, I wished they served falafel as a sandwich or side dish. Friend A had the Carrot Nut Burger, and her only criticism was that the bun wasn't sturdy enough for the filling, and she had to eat it with a fork. We also had very good cookies for dessert.
It's a small place, and the tables are close together, so I was able to examine the choices of my fellow diners. No, I did not ask them for a taste. But I would suggest that those inclined to try the restaurant order a salad or sandwich, and then share a couple of the small side dishes. The chicken-fried mushrooms looked particularly good. And try the lemonade, with a mild infusion of lavendar.
Today I'm having a ham and cheese sandwich on toasted sourdough.
That's what Mother's does. There is nothing anyone would claim tastes like chicken. But there are very good vegetarian dishes. I had the Capitol Cobb Salad, with avocado dressing (I'd have licked the dish, were that not inappropriate) with various winter vegies and the best falafel I have ever eaten in my life. In fact, I wished they served falafel as a sandwich or side dish. Friend A had the Carrot Nut Burger, and her only criticism was that the bun wasn't sturdy enough for the filling, and she had to eat it with a fork. We also had very good cookies for dessert.
It's a small place, and the tables are close together, so I was able to examine the choices of my fellow diners. No, I did not ask them for a taste. But I would suggest that those inclined to try the restaurant order a salad or sandwich, and then share a couple of the small side dishes. The chicken-fried mushrooms looked particularly good. And try the lemonade, with a mild infusion of lavendar.
Today I'm having a ham and cheese sandwich on toasted sourdough.
Sunday, February 2, 2014
Kashkari
I had been thinking of doing a blog post on one of the sorry Republicans running for Governor, but Matt Taibbi did a much better job than I ever could have, so go here and read. Then if you must, remember that the other guy running forgot that he had a gun in his carry-on luggage at the airport.
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
Once Upon a Time
It used to be that employers would, when firing someone, laying people off or closing their business, would give two weeks' notice. Employees were also asked to give two weeks' notice when leaving their jobs. There were no laws requiring this, absent union contracts, but most everyone did it. This changed in the 1980s, when the mergers-and-acquisitions people decided that it was easier when moving jobs somewhere else, to skip the notice. Workers would arrive at their place of employment to discover that they no longer had jobs, and then be escorted into said place of employment under guard to recover their personal effects. Such behavior was so gracious and charming that laws were passed requiring employers of large numbers of people to give the community 60 days' notice that the business was closing.
But the tacky behavior spread throughout the land, and now businesses all over the place close down without a word to the employees. They're notified by email that they no longer have a job, or they find a note tacked to the door when they report for work. Three restaurants have closed in recent months here, and two of them gave no notice to the employees in advance. Given that restaurant work doesn't pay much, most of the employees probably didn't have much in savings to tide them over while searching for a new job, so these employers have a lot of bad karma to work off. One restaurateur, Adam Pechal, did give his workers notice and, not only that, two weeks' notice. While commendable, given the behavior of the other two, this used to be standard practice.
I cannot help but think that the demise of unions, in addition to crashing wages for the majority, also enabled employers large and small to make their contribution to the current meanness of our world. Notice that your job is disappearing is such a little thing, one would think.
But the tacky behavior spread throughout the land, and now businesses all over the place close down without a word to the employees. They're notified by email that they no longer have a job, or they find a note tacked to the door when they report for work. Three restaurants have closed in recent months here, and two of them gave no notice to the employees in advance. Given that restaurant work doesn't pay much, most of the employees probably didn't have much in savings to tide them over while searching for a new job, so these employers have a lot of bad karma to work off. One restaurateur, Adam Pechal, did give his workers notice and, not only that, two weeks' notice. While commendable, given the behavior of the other two, this used to be standard practice.
I cannot help but think that the demise of unions, in addition to crashing wages for the majority, also enabled employers large and small to make their contribution to the current meanness of our world. Notice that your job is disappearing is such a little thing, one would think.
Wednesday, January 8, 2014
Auto-Pay
Some months ago I received a telephone call from my "personal banker" at the local branch of my bank. Now my balance is unworthy of a personal banker, so I was amused at the prospect of a personal banker actually helping me with investments. But he did do one useful thing for me, which was to help me sign up for online access to my bank account. I check in every few days to see what's going on with our account--how much J spent at the grocery store, whether checks have cleared, whether J's automatic deposits have been received and so on. I can also check our monthly spending, but that's pretty worthless, as it all depends on when checks clear. My landlord deposited the rent check before the first, so it shows up in December spending, rather than January.
My "personal banker" also suggested that I check out "auto-pay", which would allow me to pay bills without having to write a check. This sounded like fun, so I investigated it. And was disappointed. In most cases, my creditors allow only the auto-pay that allows them to pull money from my account, rather than the auto-pay that allows me to push money to them. Now I don't give strangers access to my bank account. I don't even give friends and family access to my bank account. So giving someone the right to pull money from my account was not going to happen.
And I was disappointed to find that, in most cases, a push auto-pay just meant that the bank wrote a check and sent it off the the creditor. Gee, I can do that myself, and have been since 1972. Worse, as I discovered by reading up on the Internet, the money is taken from my account when the check is written, not when it is cashed, so I have no proof that it was received. When the creditor either cashes the check or converts it to ACH, I know that they're received the funds. It's proof that they were paid. (Frankly, I'm not concerned that I lose the money a few days early, as I don't have the money in an interest-bearing account. Our interest-bearing account pays 0.03% interest at this point.)
I can't figure out any reason for this, except that creditors may have to pay to receive push ACH payments and are too cheap to do so. Given that, they can receive a check and convert it to ACH or take it to the bank and deposit it. Most irritating, though, is the new way landlords have devised to eke more money out of tenants. Some landlords now want to be able to pull auto-pay payments from their tenants' bank accounts. And they charge a fee for tenants who won't allow this, and write checks for the rent.
Unfortunately tenants can't do much about this, other than passing on the unit. And as more landlords start pulling this one, tenants are going to face a choice between paying more for the privilege of deciding how to give up their money or allowing some stranger to access their bank accounts. Worse than that, the bank won't allow you to terminate the auto-pay without the consent of the creditor, so if your landlord pulled the money, for instance, after you moved, you'd have to go after the landlord to recover the money.
The State Legislature should intervene to stop this practice. I have no other creditors who pull this stunt. If landlords really want auto-pay, they should sign up for push transactions, and pay the cost.
My "personal banker" also suggested that I check out "auto-pay", which would allow me to pay bills without having to write a check. This sounded like fun, so I investigated it. And was disappointed. In most cases, my creditors allow only the auto-pay that allows them to pull money from my account, rather than the auto-pay that allows me to push money to them. Now I don't give strangers access to my bank account. I don't even give friends and family access to my bank account. So giving someone the right to pull money from my account was not going to happen.
And I was disappointed to find that, in most cases, a push auto-pay just meant that the bank wrote a check and sent it off the the creditor. Gee, I can do that myself, and have been since 1972. Worse, as I discovered by reading up on the Internet, the money is taken from my account when the check is written, not when it is cashed, so I have no proof that it was received. When the creditor either cashes the check or converts it to ACH, I know that they're received the funds. It's proof that they were paid. (Frankly, I'm not concerned that I lose the money a few days early, as I don't have the money in an interest-bearing account. Our interest-bearing account pays 0.03% interest at this point.)
I can't figure out any reason for this, except that creditors may have to pay to receive push ACH payments and are too cheap to do so. Given that, they can receive a check and convert it to ACH or take it to the bank and deposit it. Most irritating, though, is the new way landlords have devised to eke more money out of tenants. Some landlords now want to be able to pull auto-pay payments from their tenants' bank accounts. And they charge a fee for tenants who won't allow this, and write checks for the rent.
Unfortunately tenants can't do much about this, other than passing on the unit. And as more landlords start pulling this one, tenants are going to face a choice between paying more for the privilege of deciding how to give up their money or allowing some stranger to access their bank accounts. Worse than that, the bank won't allow you to terminate the auto-pay without the consent of the creditor, so if your landlord pulled the money, for instance, after you moved, you'd have to go after the landlord to recover the money.
The State Legislature should intervene to stop this practice. I have no other creditors who pull this stunt. If landlords really want auto-pay, they should sign up for push transactions, and pay the cost.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
