How much is 1 trillion of anything? Let's count McDonald's burgers.
McDonald's sold its 100 billionth burger in 1993 and changed the sign to read "Billions and Billions Sold." The best guess I could find is that McDonald's now sells 4.6 billion burgers per year -- call it 5 billion. Thus, McDonald's has yet to sell 200 billion burgers.
At the current sales rate of 5 billion per year, McDonald's will not sell its 1 trillionth burger until the year 2173. Nobody alive today will witness the event.
If you exchange one McDonald's burger for each dollar of America's $14 trillion debt, then you're looking at a payoff date sometime in 4773 A(fter) D(igestion).
One trillion is such a huge number that the human mind cannot put it into perspective.
The human mind can understand one billion. McDonald's began franchising in 1953 and sold its billionth burger in 1963. McDonald's hit the 5 billion mark in 1969 and the 20 billion mark in 1976. People can understand 1 billion in total or even the rate of 1 billion per year.
Fortunately, we have computers that can count trillions as easily as people count fingers. Computers can easily design and compare an infinite number of plans to pay off the national debt.
Paying off a loan, however, is more than a math problem. A borrower must have that intangible quality -- integrity -- to honor the debt. If the borrower will not honor the debt, that's that.
It is my considered opinion that the American people do not have the integrity to honor the national debt. I cannot prove that Americans are as morally bankrupt as they are financially bankrupt. But I can provide events that draw me to this conclusion.
Fifty years ago, General Motors was the world's leading automaker. GM also excelled at building locomotives and diesel engines. GM was a powerhouse; its stock was as blue as a blue chip could be.
But then, GM rested on its laurels and eventually borrowed and overextended itself until the company had to declare bankruptcy in 2009. Blame it on the Corvair and Ralph Nader if you want, but GM's management forgot how to compete.
In many respects, GM's path to poverty mimics the nation's plight.
GM's Chapter 11 bankruptcy, though big, was not so big that the courts couldn't restructure the company. Bigger companies already had been through the system. But this time, the White House stepped in to override the bankruptcy court and dictate the terms of recovery.
Under bankruptcy law, the secured creditors are paid first. They have first dibs on the assets. In GM's case, the secured creditors were thrown a bone and told to take it or leave it.
The president of the United States all but ordered the nationalization of GM, a publicly owned company, and there was hardly a peep of protest. Forget tradition. Forget the "rule of law" that politicians always crow about. Forget the term "secured debt."
Federal bankruptcy laws were reformed in 1979. The laws were trying to keep up with the times. Bankruptcy was no longer something to be ashamed of. Bankruptcy filings were increasing, and the system needed reforming to speed reorganizations and liquidations.
Bill McLaughlin, former CEO of CB&T bank, explained to me in the mid-1980s that the bankruptcy law had become a "management tool." He was as right as he was succinct.
When the housing bubble popped, people walked away from their mortgages without regret. And the mortgage markets are still a long way off from normalizing.
From the White House to the poor house, Americans have shown they will not honor their debts. Can you expect with any reasonable assurance that Americans will pay off $14 trillion in Treasury Notes?
I could be wrong. We could have a turnaround. Or we could have another Pearl Harbor -- an event that stirs us to greatness. America does have a history of doing the impossible and doing it well.
I personally believe that $14 trillion is so big that it is mathematically impossible to pay it back in a reasonable time period. But I could be as wrong as wrong can be on this, too. I may be a finger-counting relic trying to conceptualize 1 trillion while ignoring the power of computers.
And I could be way off in predicting when McDonald's sells burger No. 1 trillion. You just never know about making burger predictions. What if people in India had a change of attitude about their sacred cows?
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Friday, May 20, 2011
Even Ken Jennings Can Be Replaced By a Machine
In my last column, I touched on automation as a reason for improved workplace safety. Perhaps we should revisit automation as a job killer. This is not new. The most famous automation story is the Luddite Revolt of 1811 when English weavers set about to destroy newly-invented looms run by Jacquard’s punched card system.
Eli Whitney introduced the cotton gin in 1794. Whereas Jacquard’s machine replaced highly-skilled workers, Whitney’s machine replaced unskilled labor. And further, the cotton ginning machine did more to guarantee consistent quality than increase production. Hence, there was no revolt in America’s cotton belt.
Automation, nevertheless, continues its march. We accept it because it works.
When I visited the T. L. Smith factory in Milwaukee in the late 1970s, I expected to see machinists standing at their lathes turning out parts for Telsmith rock crushers. I always admired machinists and their ability to hone steel. But on that day in Milwaukee, the machinists were sitting in lawn chairs, reading the paper and drinking coffee. The machine tools were made by Cincinnati Milacron and, like Jacquard’s loom, were operated by a punched tape drive.
Fixed machines performing repetitive tasks are the easiest machines to automate. Machines that move in space and time present much more of a challenge. But the advent of global positioning satellites has made that task less difficult.
In the last few years, highway contractors have been fitting bulldozers with GPS receivers and computers. The highway construction plans are digitized in three dimensions and loaded into the onboard computer. The GPS controls tell the computer where the bulldozer is on the X and Y axes. A laser reference light provides the elevation reference (Z axis).
Studies indicate that computer-controlled bulldozers are up to 50% more efficient and use some 40% less fuel than their human-operated peers. The savings are obvious. Two bulldozers do the work of three; each bulldozer uses 30 gallons less fuel per shift.
Companies like Caterpillar are now designing bulldozers that will be totally operated by other machines. The bulldozer of the future won’t require an OSHA-approved, rollover-proof, soundproofed and air-conditioned operators cab.
The automated bulldozer always knows where it is in space, and it does not rely on a survey crew to set grade stakes as reminders. So the need of the surveyor has diminished. But surveying work has already diminished for another reason—the work of a four-man survey crew 30 years ago is now done by one man with an electronic instrument.
Machinists. Bulldozer operators. Surveyors. These are just three good-paying occupations that have to compete with machines.
We have the technology to replace air traffic controllers. Unfortunately, we will tolerate sleeping Luddites until an air disaster forces our government to have the will to do so.
When Boeing and Airbus began designing aircraft with seats for two pilots, a joke circulated around the industry. It went: The new planes are so sophisticated that the cockpit only needs two seats—one for the pilot and one for a dog. The pilot’s job is to feed the dog. The dog’s job is to bite the pilot if he reaches for the controls.
We’ll never see this happen because we think all pilots are like “Sully” Sullenberger. But the point of the joke remains.
Now that human medical scans are digitized, why do we need a radiologist to read the image? We don’t. The computer can read the image as soon as it is taken. The computer can see pixels that the human eye cannot.
Is there a limit to replacing humans with machines?
In February, the game show Jeopardy staged a contest pitting an IBM computer vs. the two biggest Jeopardy winners on record. The computer won.
Impressively.
Many faithful fans derided the computer as having an unfair edge—it could beep the beeper faster than a human. Well, so what?
Others derided the computer by saying that Jeopardy was essentially a memory test, and that a computer could memorize everything in print. Well, so what?
Jeopardy is a trivia test, not a simple memory exam. Remembering trivial facts is a very human pursuit. Programmed by humans to win a human game show, the computer displayed a degree of human intuition.
Is this not the same underlying concept as programming the Jacquard loom’s punched cards to weave patterns that are pleasing to the eye?
Machines will only become smarter. Machines will take away more human occupations. So what will humans of the future do for work?
John Henry (and Ken Jennings), we feel your pain.
Eli Whitney introduced the cotton gin in 1794. Whereas Jacquard’s machine replaced highly-skilled workers, Whitney’s machine replaced unskilled labor. And further, the cotton ginning machine did more to guarantee consistent quality than increase production. Hence, there was no revolt in America’s cotton belt.
Automation, nevertheless, continues its march. We accept it because it works.
When I visited the T. L. Smith factory in Milwaukee in the late 1970s, I expected to see machinists standing at their lathes turning out parts for Telsmith rock crushers. I always admired machinists and their ability to hone steel. But on that day in Milwaukee, the machinists were sitting in lawn chairs, reading the paper and drinking coffee. The machine tools were made by Cincinnati Milacron and, like Jacquard’s loom, were operated by a punched tape drive.
Fixed machines performing repetitive tasks are the easiest machines to automate. Machines that move in space and time present much more of a challenge. But the advent of global positioning satellites has made that task less difficult.
In the last few years, highway contractors have been fitting bulldozers with GPS receivers and computers. The highway construction plans are digitized in three dimensions and loaded into the onboard computer. The GPS controls tell the computer where the bulldozer is on the X and Y axes. A laser reference light provides the elevation reference (Z axis).
Studies indicate that computer-controlled bulldozers are up to 50% more efficient and use some 40% less fuel than their human-operated peers. The savings are obvious. Two bulldozers do the work of three; each bulldozer uses 30 gallons less fuel per shift.
Companies like Caterpillar are now designing bulldozers that will be totally operated by other machines. The bulldozer of the future won’t require an OSHA-approved, rollover-proof, soundproofed and air-conditioned operators cab.
The automated bulldozer always knows where it is in space, and it does not rely on a survey crew to set grade stakes as reminders. So the need of the surveyor has diminished. But surveying work has already diminished for another reason—the work of a four-man survey crew 30 years ago is now done by one man with an electronic instrument.
Machinists. Bulldozer operators. Surveyors. These are just three good-paying occupations that have to compete with machines.
We have the technology to replace air traffic controllers. Unfortunately, we will tolerate sleeping Luddites until an air disaster forces our government to have the will to do so.
When Boeing and Airbus began designing aircraft with seats for two pilots, a joke circulated around the industry. It went: The new planes are so sophisticated that the cockpit only needs two seats—one for the pilot and one for a dog. The pilot’s job is to feed the dog. The dog’s job is to bite the pilot if he reaches for the controls.
We’ll never see this happen because we think all pilots are like “Sully” Sullenberger. But the point of the joke remains.
Now that human medical scans are digitized, why do we need a radiologist to read the image? We don’t. The computer can read the image as soon as it is taken. The computer can see pixels that the human eye cannot.
Is there a limit to replacing humans with machines?
In February, the game show Jeopardy staged a contest pitting an IBM computer vs. the two biggest Jeopardy winners on record. The computer won.
Impressively.
Many faithful fans derided the computer as having an unfair edge—it could beep the beeper faster than a human. Well, so what?
Others derided the computer by saying that Jeopardy was essentially a memory test, and that a computer could memorize everything in print. Well, so what?
Jeopardy is a trivia test, not a simple memory exam. Remembering trivial facts is a very human pursuit. Programmed by humans to win a human game show, the computer displayed a degree of human intuition.
Is this not the same underlying concept as programming the Jacquard loom’s punched cards to weave patterns that are pleasing to the eye?
Machines will only become smarter. Machines will take away more human occupations. So what will humans of the future do for work?
John Henry (and Ken Jennings), we feel your pain.
Friday, April 22, 2011
How Many Ladders Does it Take to Keep a Workplace Safe?
April 28 marks the 40th anniversary of OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. I was never convinced that the nation needed OSHA.
In 1971, I attended a seminar to learn how the new OSHA law applied to highway construction. The first topic discussed was the chapter of regulations on trenches. We learned that any excavated trench 3 feet deep or deeper required escape ladders spaced every 25 feet.
If a 3-foot-deep trench collapses, the angle of repose of the fallen earth will limit the depth of the dirt and rock in the center of the trench to a foot or less. In a trench that is 4 feet wide or wider, there would be no dirt in the center. Regardless, escape ladders were required.
This “3 foot rule” brought laughter. Well, the men with calloused hands laughed very hard. Those with clean fingernails just giggled nervously but knew not why.
The instructor then directed us to the chapter on ladders. There was page after page of regulations on how to build a ladder. The key language here was that ladders must be 6 feet long or longer.
A 4-year-old child who has ridden the playground teeter-totter knows about fulcrums, but not the architects of OSHA. With this revelation, the laughter was over. It had become crystal clear that the OSHA rules had been written and approved by desk jockeys with no work experience and no common sense.
OSHA required trucks and heavy equipment to have back-up alarms. Every time the machine backed up, the alarm beeped to warn everyone.
Good idea in conference room theory. Not always so good in practice. In a congested area like a highway cut, with three vehicles backing up at the same time (a common event), the alarms confuse everyone. The alarms echo off the walls of a cut, the same as they would in a canyon.
I never have been in favor of back-up alarms. For one thing, back-up alarms lull you into a false sense of security. If the alarm fails to work, and that does happen, you may get run over while waiting to hear a horn beep. When one works around heavy equipment, staying alert is the only safe option.
At the 1971 seminar, we also reviewed the chapter on fire extinguishers. Never have I read a document so vague and so confusing. The only conclusion I could draw was for a business to buy a lot of fire extinguishers and hope they had enough of them when OSHA showed up.
Because OSHA required so many fire extinguishers in the workplace, the agency must have thought that, in case of fire, the workers would play hero, grab fire extinguishers and fight the fire until they were overcome by smoke. I thought it was counter-productive for a safety agency to expect everyday workers to fight fires.
Before OSHA, few fire extinguishers were sold, and the sellers were relegated to peddler status. After OSHA, fire extinguisher peddlers became very successful businessmen.
In February, a congressional committee called OSHA to task for being a job killer. Assistant Labor Secretary David Michaels defended OSHA by saying: “…there is clear evidence that OSHA’s commonsense regulations have made working conditions in this country today far safer than 40 years ago …, while at the same time protecting American jobs.”
Then he went purple, claiming that “OSHA standards … drive technological innovation, making industries more competitive.”
As proof, OSHA reverts to statistics. They cite that workplace injuries per 100 workers have dropped dramatically since 1972. This is a fool’s errand, comparing the workplace of 1972 to the current workplace.
The accident rates fell because we either exported the dirty, dangerous jobs overseas or replaced domestic workers with automated, robotic machinery. For example, comparing the American auto plant of 1972 with today’s plant is like comparing apples to kumquats. (Credit Japan, not OSHA.)
Not just manufacturing has been automated. Computers answer telephones; computers operate other machines. ATMs have replaced thousands of bank tellers. We explore Mars with a robot. And so on.
Injury lawsuits have done more to improve workplace safety than anything OSHA has done. The Mandolidis decision in 1978 alone sent a message to companies to either automate the equipment, export the dangerous jobs or be sued out of existence.
Forty years of OSHA rules notwithstanding, humans are as accident-prone as ever. The demands of the marketplace and resulting advances in technology have made jobsites safer.
The government is broke. OSHA is a luxury we cannot afford.
Happy birthday, OSHA.
Double check your fire extinguishers before blowing out the candles.
In 1971, I attended a seminar to learn how the new OSHA law applied to highway construction. The first topic discussed was the chapter of regulations on trenches. We learned that any excavated trench 3 feet deep or deeper required escape ladders spaced every 25 feet.
If a 3-foot-deep trench collapses, the angle of repose of the fallen earth will limit the depth of the dirt and rock in the center of the trench to a foot or less. In a trench that is 4 feet wide or wider, there would be no dirt in the center. Regardless, escape ladders were required.
This “3 foot rule” brought laughter. Well, the men with calloused hands laughed very hard. Those with clean fingernails just giggled nervously but knew not why.
The instructor then directed us to the chapter on ladders. There was page after page of regulations on how to build a ladder. The key language here was that ladders must be 6 feet long or longer.
A 4-year-old child who has ridden the playground teeter-totter knows about fulcrums, but not the architects of OSHA. With this revelation, the laughter was over. It had become crystal clear that the OSHA rules had been written and approved by desk jockeys with no work experience and no common sense.
OSHA required trucks and heavy equipment to have back-up alarms. Every time the machine backed up, the alarm beeped to warn everyone.
Good idea in conference room theory. Not always so good in practice. In a congested area like a highway cut, with three vehicles backing up at the same time (a common event), the alarms confuse everyone. The alarms echo off the walls of a cut, the same as they would in a canyon.
I never have been in favor of back-up alarms. For one thing, back-up alarms lull you into a false sense of security. If the alarm fails to work, and that does happen, you may get run over while waiting to hear a horn beep. When one works around heavy equipment, staying alert is the only safe option.
At the 1971 seminar, we also reviewed the chapter on fire extinguishers. Never have I read a document so vague and so confusing. The only conclusion I could draw was for a business to buy a lot of fire extinguishers and hope they had enough of them when OSHA showed up.
Because OSHA required so many fire extinguishers in the workplace, the agency must have thought that, in case of fire, the workers would play hero, grab fire extinguishers and fight the fire until they were overcome by smoke. I thought it was counter-productive for a safety agency to expect everyday workers to fight fires.
Before OSHA, few fire extinguishers were sold, and the sellers were relegated to peddler status. After OSHA, fire extinguisher peddlers became very successful businessmen.
In February, a congressional committee called OSHA to task for being a job killer. Assistant Labor Secretary David Michaels defended OSHA by saying: “…there is clear evidence that OSHA’s commonsense regulations have made working conditions in this country today far safer than 40 years ago …, while at the same time protecting American jobs.”
Then he went purple, claiming that “OSHA standards … drive technological innovation, making industries more competitive.”
As proof, OSHA reverts to statistics. They cite that workplace injuries per 100 workers have dropped dramatically since 1972. This is a fool’s errand, comparing the workplace of 1972 to the current workplace.
The accident rates fell because we either exported the dirty, dangerous jobs overseas or replaced domestic workers with automated, robotic machinery. For example, comparing the American auto plant of 1972 with today’s plant is like comparing apples to kumquats. (Credit Japan, not OSHA.)
Not just manufacturing has been automated. Computers answer telephones; computers operate other machines. ATMs have replaced thousands of bank tellers. We explore Mars with a robot. And so on.
Injury lawsuits have done more to improve workplace safety than anything OSHA has done. The Mandolidis decision in 1978 alone sent a message to companies to either automate the equipment, export the dangerous jobs or be sued out of existence.
Forty years of OSHA rules notwithstanding, humans are as accident-prone as ever. The demands of the marketplace and resulting advances in technology have made jobsites safer.
The government is broke. OSHA is a luxury we cannot afford.
Happy birthday, OSHA.
Double check your fire extinguishers before blowing out the candles.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Double Secret Probation Couldn't Stop Animal House Or Meth
“There was panic in the parlours and howling in the halls,
There was crying in the cow-sheds and shrieking in the stalls”
From Mr. Toad’s song in “Toad of Toad Hall”
The above passage by A. A. Milne reminds me of our state government whenever the subject of controlling meth labs comes up. In 2005, the meth lab panic caused our legislature to put Sudafed behind the druggist’s counter. This bold move was going to deny meth lab chemists their magic ingredient.
Well, if one stupid law doesn’t do the trick, then it’s time to invoke “double secret probation.”
In the just-completed 2011 session, the legislature went all out. HB2946 made Sudafed (and several related over-the-counter medicines) a Schedule III drug which can only be prescribed by a physician. The bill passed the House with a large majority. The Senate deadlocked in a tie. Double secret probation failed.
Let’s pause for a moment and consider some common sense. Doctors are busy. Doctors don’t have the time to prescribe FDA-approved, over-the-counter medicines to everyone who gets the sniffles. But if they did have the time, they would charge for an office visit and examination.
Those who argued in favor of HB2946 would have you believe that doctors would call in a prescription for Sudafed whenever asked. The logic of this defense fails because the doctor is no longer writing a prescription for over-the-counter Sudafed. Under HB2946, the doctor would be prescribing a Schedule III drug, and it is terribly naïve to expect a doctor to “call it in.”
Politicians favoring HB2946 were quick to blame Big Pharma for lobbying against the bill. Big Pharma was accused of wanting to sell drugs above all else. While Big Pharma’s motives are just that, I still believe that Big Pharma was on the right side in this debate.
When the legislature first voted to control the sale of Sudafed in 2005, the noble body was treating all Sudafed buyers as if they were meth lab operators or suppliers. Think about it. All Sudafed consumers were restricted to buying 3 packs of pills per month; the only reason being is that such a limit would deny meth labs of a needed chemical.
You want Sudafed? Then, you’re guilty of something. And the beauty (in the state’s eyes) is that the state doesn’t even have to make a case against you. The state restricted Sudafed because the state said it will end up in a meth lab and that’s that.
Airline passengers are now presumed to be smugglers or underwear bombers. Hence, everyone boarding a plane has to submit to an unreasonable, and humiliating, search.
Schoolchildren are presumed to have contraband or weapons on their person or in their lockers. Hence, schools are locked down, police sometimes patrol the hallways, and pity the poor child that has medicated cough drops without permission of the US Surgeon General.
Did you know that the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 is Title VII of the anti-terrorism USA PATRIOT Act? Of course you don’t. Who has time to read the USA PATRIOT Act, a law that strips away our constitutional rights when it comes to illegal searches, illegal wiretaps, and any other form of illegal police snooping.
During the debate on HB2946, did you ever hear the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 mentioned? Of course you didn’t. Who wants to be reminded of another law that failed to win a single battle in the War on Drugs? If we keep being reminded of failed drug laws, then we might lose faith in our government.
So let me see if I understand this. The state wants to control meth labs. The 2005 West Virginia law failed to do that. The federal USA PATRIOT Act failed to do that. The federal Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 failed as well. But this time is different; if only doctors can prescribe Sudafed in West Virginia, then the problems of meth labs will go away.
Yes, that all sounds logical to me.
Consider this: The US Army occupies Afghanistan but is ordered to ignore the poppy fields and heroin crop. In February, three people in Harrison County died from heroin overdoses. And our state legislature is focused on Sudafed?
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. And along the way, the billboards all bear the same message: “There Ought To Be a Law.”
There was crying in the cow-sheds and shrieking in the stalls”
From Mr. Toad’s song in “Toad of Toad Hall”
The above passage by A. A. Milne reminds me of our state government whenever the subject of controlling meth labs comes up. In 2005, the meth lab panic caused our legislature to put Sudafed behind the druggist’s counter. This bold move was going to deny meth lab chemists their magic ingredient.
Well, if one stupid law doesn’t do the trick, then it’s time to invoke “double secret probation.”
In the just-completed 2011 session, the legislature went all out. HB2946 made Sudafed (and several related over-the-counter medicines) a Schedule III drug which can only be prescribed by a physician. The bill passed the House with a large majority. The Senate deadlocked in a tie. Double secret probation failed.
Let’s pause for a moment and consider some common sense. Doctors are busy. Doctors don’t have the time to prescribe FDA-approved, over-the-counter medicines to everyone who gets the sniffles. But if they did have the time, they would charge for an office visit and examination.
Those who argued in favor of HB2946 would have you believe that doctors would call in a prescription for Sudafed whenever asked. The logic of this defense fails because the doctor is no longer writing a prescription for over-the-counter Sudafed. Under HB2946, the doctor would be prescribing a Schedule III drug, and it is terribly naïve to expect a doctor to “call it in.”
Politicians favoring HB2946 were quick to blame Big Pharma for lobbying against the bill. Big Pharma was accused of wanting to sell drugs above all else. While Big Pharma’s motives are just that, I still believe that Big Pharma was on the right side in this debate.
When the legislature first voted to control the sale of Sudafed in 2005, the noble body was treating all Sudafed buyers as if they were meth lab operators or suppliers. Think about it. All Sudafed consumers were restricted to buying 3 packs of pills per month; the only reason being is that such a limit would deny meth labs of a needed chemical.
You want Sudafed? Then, you’re guilty of something. And the beauty (in the state’s eyes) is that the state doesn’t even have to make a case against you. The state restricted Sudafed because the state said it will end up in a meth lab and that’s that.
Airline passengers are now presumed to be smugglers or underwear bombers. Hence, everyone boarding a plane has to submit to an unreasonable, and humiliating, search.
Schoolchildren are presumed to have contraband or weapons on their person or in their lockers. Hence, schools are locked down, police sometimes patrol the hallways, and pity the poor child that has medicated cough drops without permission of the US Surgeon General.
Did you know that the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 is Title VII of the anti-terrorism USA PATRIOT Act? Of course you don’t. Who has time to read the USA PATRIOT Act, a law that strips away our constitutional rights when it comes to illegal searches, illegal wiretaps, and any other form of illegal police snooping.
During the debate on HB2946, did you ever hear the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 mentioned? Of course you didn’t. Who wants to be reminded of another law that failed to win a single battle in the War on Drugs? If we keep being reminded of failed drug laws, then we might lose faith in our government.
So let me see if I understand this. The state wants to control meth labs. The 2005 West Virginia law failed to do that. The federal USA PATRIOT Act failed to do that. The federal Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005 failed as well. But this time is different; if only doctors can prescribe Sudafed in West Virginia, then the problems of meth labs will go away.
Yes, that all sounds logical to me.
Consider this: The US Army occupies Afghanistan but is ordered to ignore the poppy fields and heroin crop. In February, three people in Harrison County died from heroin overdoses. And our state legislature is focused on Sudafed?
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. And along the way, the billboards all bear the same message: “There Ought To Be a Law.”
Monday, March 7, 2011
Court Deserves Praise for Annexation Ruling
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia recently issued a ruling regarding the procedures that a city is required to follow when annexing property without an election, or what is more commonly known as a shoestring annexation. In the past, this process has ignored the rights of property owners abutting the highways used to extend city limits.
In Doering, et al v. City of Ronceverte, the court reversed the annexation of Stoney Glen subdivision into the city of Ronceverte. The city chose to follow the right-of-ways of three state highways (the shoestring) and then lasso the subdivision.
Writing for the court, Justice Menis Ketchum does an admirable job in explaining that property owners abutting certain state roads own the land under the roadway, and that the roadway is built on an easement. This is particularly true with the county road system that the state took over from the counties in 1933. Referring to the testimony of a Division of Highways right-of-way manager, Justice Ketchum wrote:
“… in the absence of documentation to the contrary, the holdings so acquired by the state were in the form of easements and right-of-ways, with titles to the underlying fee remaining with owners whose property abutted the roads.”
The Supreme Court ruled that certain property owners abutting roads leading to Stoney Glen were “… voters and freeholders of the annexed territory but were unlawfully excluded from the annexation process …” The court has made the correct ruling in this case, and the justices should be applauded.
But you won’t hear any hand clapping in city halls or county courthouses. You can rest assured that no county commission has ever considered property rights as set forth in Doering in past shoestring annexations.
I won’t say that the Supreme Court has opened a can of worms, but it has opened a can of Vienna sausages, a food that a late farmer friend of mine derisively called “lips and noses.”
The Greenbrier County Circuit Court previously ruled the land owners abutting the road lacked standing to file their lawsuit, and further, that these land owners “… failed to demonstrate any significant ownership of the property being annexed …” Doering corrects these errors.
The county tax assessor does not discriminate the easement from the underlying land. Thus, the landowner is taxed for land he cannot use for his purposes. In the aggregate, this amounts to a hefty property tax bill. Typically, a county road easement is 30 feet wide. For every 1,000 miles of county roads, there are 3,636 acres of land covered by a road easement.
Indirectly, Doering may have opened the question as to whether land taken by an effectively perpetual, county road easement, the use of which is controlled by the state, is taxable by the state.
The determination of who owns the land under our roadways is often confusing. As mentioned above, most of the county roads follow easements over private lands. There are exceptions, however. For example, sections of the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike in Randolph County (built in the 1840s) reverted to county roads when U.S. 250 replaced part of the turnpike using a different route.
Modern roads such as interstates and Appalachian Corridor highways are built on land condemned by and purchased by the state. Again, there are exceptions. Appalachian Corridor D follows, but not always, U.S. 50 from Clarksburg to Parkersburg. U.S. 50 follows, but not always, the Northwest Turnpike from the 1830s.
You can hire the best lawyer in the state to examine the title to your land, and that lawyer won’t be able to find all the property records regarding highway ownership. Some records are located in the local courthouse. The Division of Highways exclusively maintains some other records. Some records are located in Virginia courthouses or the state capitol at Richmond. And some records are lost to time because the courthouse in West Virginia or Virginia burned to the ground.
The state, then, should use Doering as an impetus to reconcile its highway land records and make those records available to the public at the appropriate courthouse record room. This reconciliation is needed.
As of this writing, the city of Clarksburg and the Division of Highways are at loggerheads as to who owns portions of Chestnut Street in that city. In 1863, the mayor of Clarksburg knew whether Chestnut Street was a city street, an easement or a Virginia turnpike. Why is this now a mystery?
Property rights are an integral part of democracy and capitalism.
In reversing Doering, the Supreme Court deserves praise, especially since this ruling recognizes the standing of property owners in an annexation without election.
In Doering, et al v. City of Ronceverte, the court reversed the annexation of Stoney Glen subdivision into the city of Ronceverte. The city chose to follow the right-of-ways of three state highways (the shoestring) and then lasso the subdivision.
Writing for the court, Justice Menis Ketchum does an admirable job in explaining that property owners abutting certain state roads own the land under the roadway, and that the roadway is built on an easement. This is particularly true with the county road system that the state took over from the counties in 1933. Referring to the testimony of a Division of Highways right-of-way manager, Justice Ketchum wrote:
“… in the absence of documentation to the contrary, the holdings so acquired by the state were in the form of easements and right-of-ways, with titles to the underlying fee remaining with owners whose property abutted the roads.”
The Supreme Court ruled that certain property owners abutting roads leading to Stoney Glen were “… voters and freeholders of the annexed territory but were unlawfully excluded from the annexation process …” The court has made the correct ruling in this case, and the justices should be applauded.
But you won’t hear any hand clapping in city halls or county courthouses. You can rest assured that no county commission has ever considered property rights as set forth in Doering in past shoestring annexations.
I won’t say that the Supreme Court has opened a can of worms, but it has opened a can of Vienna sausages, a food that a late farmer friend of mine derisively called “lips and noses.”
The Greenbrier County Circuit Court previously ruled the land owners abutting the road lacked standing to file their lawsuit, and further, that these land owners “… failed to demonstrate any significant ownership of the property being annexed …” Doering corrects these errors.
The county tax assessor does not discriminate the easement from the underlying land. Thus, the landowner is taxed for land he cannot use for his purposes. In the aggregate, this amounts to a hefty property tax bill. Typically, a county road easement is 30 feet wide. For every 1,000 miles of county roads, there are 3,636 acres of land covered by a road easement.
Indirectly, Doering may have opened the question as to whether land taken by an effectively perpetual, county road easement, the use of which is controlled by the state, is taxable by the state.
The determination of who owns the land under our roadways is often confusing. As mentioned above, most of the county roads follow easements over private lands. There are exceptions, however. For example, sections of the Staunton-Parkersburg Turnpike in Randolph County (built in the 1840s) reverted to county roads when U.S. 250 replaced part of the turnpike using a different route.
Modern roads such as interstates and Appalachian Corridor highways are built on land condemned by and purchased by the state. Again, there are exceptions. Appalachian Corridor D follows, but not always, U.S. 50 from Clarksburg to Parkersburg. U.S. 50 follows, but not always, the Northwest Turnpike from the 1830s.
You can hire the best lawyer in the state to examine the title to your land, and that lawyer won’t be able to find all the property records regarding highway ownership. Some records are located in the local courthouse. The Division of Highways exclusively maintains some other records. Some records are located in Virginia courthouses or the state capitol at Richmond. And some records are lost to time because the courthouse in West Virginia or Virginia burned to the ground.
The state, then, should use Doering as an impetus to reconcile its highway land records and make those records available to the public at the appropriate courthouse record room. This reconciliation is needed.
As of this writing, the city of Clarksburg and the Division of Highways are at loggerheads as to who owns portions of Chestnut Street in that city. In 1863, the mayor of Clarksburg knew whether Chestnut Street was a city street, an easement or a Virginia turnpike. Why is this now a mystery?
Property rights are an integral part of democracy and capitalism.
In reversing Doering, the Supreme Court deserves praise, especially since this ruling recognizes the standing of property owners in an annexation without election.
Friday, February 4, 2011
Leaders May Promise Jobs, But Not Workers
A West Virginia election is a lot like the game of musical chairs. There is a great fanfare of trumpets. Then, all of the incumbent politicians who have been sitting on folding chairs jump up and run around in circles until the tooting stops. Occasionally, a chair will be removed from the dance floor, and one politician will have to go home or take a politically appointed job.
In our last election — the one for the open U. S. Senate seat — no chairs were removed, and every politician involved ended up in a different chair. Once everyone was seated, the “sitants” thanked the voters for voting and then joined together to sing a chorus of “We must create jobs.”
Let’s be positive for a moment. Let’s give the new senator, the new acting governor and the new legislative leaders the benefit of the doubt. Let’s ignore history and assume that West Virginia politicians can actually create jobs.
The thought has occurred to me that if 10,000 private sector jobs were created, there might not be anyone here to fill them. The reason is due to the demographics of our state’s population. West Virginia’s population has several negatives that could thwart an attempt to create even a modest 10,000 jobs.
The state’s population peaked in 1950 and has never recovered. West Virginia went from six congressional districts in the 1950s to the present three after the 1990 census. These three lost seats in the House of Representatives (and the influence their seniority might bring) could very well make the difference in keeping the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency from shutting down the state’s coal and electric power industries.
Influence in the nation’s capital does correlate to a state’s economy. West Virginia is more likely to lose another House seat in the foreseeable future than gain one.
West Virginia’s population has the third-highest median age — 40.6 reported in 2008. Even more telling is that the state ranked second in its share of population older than 65 at 15.6 percent. For the most part, people over 62 are considered out of the work force in any survey measuring the available workers for new business start-ups. Even though the 62-plus crowd (19.2 percent of the state’s population) tends to be dependable and productive, the fact remains that they are the most expensive employees to hire.
On the other end of the age curve, people aged 21 and younger (25.3 percent of the state’s population) are considered to have little or no meaningful work experience. When added to the over-62 population segment, some 45 percent of West Virginia’s population is not considered available for hire.
The 2000 census reported that 14.8 percent of West Virginia residents had a bachelor’s degree or higher as compared to the national average of 24.4 percent. The Lumina Foundation for Education recently reported that West Virginia has the fewest college graduates among working adults (ages 25-64). Even more depressing is the 54 percent of working adults with a high school degree.
The 2000 census reported that 22.5 percent of West Virginians were disabled as compared to a national average of 16.4 percent.
For 2009, West Virginia’s obesity rate has been estimated at 31.7 percent, the third highest in the nation. Obesity correlates to the overall healthiness of the work force.
West Virginia revamped its jails and maximum-security prison during the past 20 years. These facilities have been overcrowded for some time. Given the newness of our jail system and given how fast it overfilled paints an unflattering picture of the state’s 25-64 age group, the most likely people to be locked up. The experts predict a need to almost double the regional jail cells in the coming decade.
The last demographic worth considering is substance abuse among people aged 25 to 50, the prime work force. No single statistic adequately reflects the extent of drug abuse and alcoholism in West Virginia. But the numbers that we can find point to high rates of addiction. For example, there are nine for-profit methadone clinics in the state.
When the recession began in 2008, the state’s unemployment rate was 3.7 percent, or 29,800 unemployed. Assuming the recession ends and the state unemployment rate returns to the 4 percent level, it would be next to impossible to find workers to fill 10,000 new jobs.
I will give the politicians credit where credit is due for creating jobs in a recession. Total state and local government employment increased from 122,900 to 129,700 (17.34 percent of the non-farm work force) during 2010.
Just what we needed — another 6,800 government employees.
In our last election — the one for the open U. S. Senate seat — no chairs were removed, and every politician involved ended up in a different chair. Once everyone was seated, the “sitants” thanked the voters for voting and then joined together to sing a chorus of “We must create jobs.”
Let’s be positive for a moment. Let’s give the new senator, the new acting governor and the new legislative leaders the benefit of the doubt. Let’s ignore history and assume that West Virginia politicians can actually create jobs.
The thought has occurred to me that if 10,000 private sector jobs were created, there might not be anyone here to fill them. The reason is due to the demographics of our state’s population. West Virginia’s population has several negatives that could thwart an attempt to create even a modest 10,000 jobs.
The state’s population peaked in 1950 and has never recovered. West Virginia went from six congressional districts in the 1950s to the present three after the 1990 census. These three lost seats in the House of Representatives (and the influence their seniority might bring) could very well make the difference in keeping the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency from shutting down the state’s coal and electric power industries.
Influence in the nation’s capital does correlate to a state’s economy. West Virginia is more likely to lose another House seat in the foreseeable future than gain one.
West Virginia’s population has the third-highest median age — 40.6 reported in 2008. Even more telling is that the state ranked second in its share of population older than 65 at 15.6 percent. For the most part, people over 62 are considered out of the work force in any survey measuring the available workers for new business start-ups. Even though the 62-plus crowd (19.2 percent of the state’s population) tends to be dependable and productive, the fact remains that they are the most expensive employees to hire.
On the other end of the age curve, people aged 21 and younger (25.3 percent of the state’s population) are considered to have little or no meaningful work experience. When added to the over-62 population segment, some 45 percent of West Virginia’s population is not considered available for hire.
The 2000 census reported that 14.8 percent of West Virginia residents had a bachelor’s degree or higher as compared to the national average of 24.4 percent. The Lumina Foundation for Education recently reported that West Virginia has the fewest college graduates among working adults (ages 25-64). Even more depressing is the 54 percent of working adults with a high school degree.
The 2000 census reported that 22.5 percent of West Virginians were disabled as compared to a national average of 16.4 percent.
For 2009, West Virginia’s obesity rate has been estimated at 31.7 percent, the third highest in the nation. Obesity correlates to the overall healthiness of the work force.
West Virginia revamped its jails and maximum-security prison during the past 20 years. These facilities have been overcrowded for some time. Given the newness of our jail system and given how fast it overfilled paints an unflattering picture of the state’s 25-64 age group, the most likely people to be locked up. The experts predict a need to almost double the regional jail cells in the coming decade.
The last demographic worth considering is substance abuse among people aged 25 to 50, the prime work force. No single statistic adequately reflects the extent of drug abuse and alcoholism in West Virginia. But the numbers that we can find point to high rates of addiction. For example, there are nine for-profit methadone clinics in the state.
When the recession began in 2008, the state’s unemployment rate was 3.7 percent, or 29,800 unemployed. Assuming the recession ends and the state unemployment rate returns to the 4 percent level, it would be next to impossible to find workers to fill 10,000 new jobs.
I will give the politicians credit where credit is due for creating jobs in a recession. Total state and local government employment increased from 122,900 to 129,700 (17.34 percent of the non-farm work force) during 2010.
Just what we needed — another 6,800 government employees.
Friday, January 7, 2011
We're in a Deep Hole ... and Still Digging
The number one song in America is "Ninety-nine Unemployment Checks in the Mail" (sung to the tune of "Ninety-nine Bottles of Beer"). The catchy lyrics, written by Rep. Nancy Pelosi, got much more air play than traditional holiday music during the past few weeks.
Before long, West Virginia lawmakers will be singing Nancy's song and raising unemployment compensation premiums. The popularity of "ninety-nine weeks of unemployment checks" has drained the fund (again). For the second time in two years, politicians will raise premiums rather than cut benefits, arguing that you cannot put a price on compassion.
Extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks may seem compassionate, but creating a long-term dole is a cruel hoax. Here are some fallacies about the dole.
Fallacy 1: The unemployed are required to accept suitable employment offers; they may reject unsuitable employment and continue to draw benefits. "Suitable" employment generally means a comparable or better job.
In a recession, the suitable jobs disappear first, e.g., the housing industry is in a deep downturn. If there is less demand for oak flooring, then there is less demand for Appalachian oak lumber. The local sawyer is laid off, as are most sawyers within a 50-mile radius.
There are no suitable jobs for the local sawyer. The sawyer has a choice between working for less money or drawing unemployment. He will probably choose the latter, even though he could earn more money by taking a lesser job because unemployment compensation has been sold as an entitlement similar to paid vacation.
Fallacy 2: Week 100 arrives, and jobless benefits expire. The unemployed worker accepts lesser employment. When he returns to work, he finds out that technology has changed the workplace. When he last worked, he was proficient using Windows XP. Now he has to learn Windows 7 just to get up to speed in this "lesser" job.
Spending two years away from the modern workplace guarantees that one's work skills will deteriorate. Not only does technology change, but so do markets. And in week 100, our unemployed subject very well may accept a job description that did not even exist when he last worked.
Fallacy 3: A middle-aged worker drawing the maximum, or near-maximum, jobless benefit can get by financially. But the worker has lost two of his most productive work years if he takes that route. The worker will not realize the cost of his "two-year vacation" until he reaches his 50s. Then he learns one of life's cruel ironies -- he doesn't have the stamina that he did in his 30s. He also will learn that businesses want to hire 30-somethings but avoid hiring 50-somethings.
This worker also will learn the hard way that the money he saved when he was 30 has grown in value. The money he saves at age 55 will grow very little before he retires.
Fallacy 4: When unemployment premiums go up, there is less money for a business to spend on equipment, facilities, wages and benefits. Politicians don't seem to understand the macro effect of this tax increase. Indeed, politicians seem to have tunnel-vision regarding unemployment compensation premiums as evidenced when Rep. Pelosi declared that unemployment checks stimulated economic development because the unemployed spend all of that money.
There is no economic theory -- not even Marxism -- that says long-term unemployment stimulates a nation's economy.
Fallacy 5: This is the "Atlas Shrugged" effect. Productive, well-run businesses are taxed to pay for these long-term unemployment benefits. Rep. Pelosi's philosophy regarding long-term unemployment benefits reads like a scene out of Ayn Rand's novel. As the novel suggests, you can only bleed the productive businesses for so long before they rebel and move their production to lower cost states or overseas.
Fallacy 6: After the unemployed worker has slept in for three weeks, he has gotten out of the routine of going to work. You cannot measure this effect like you could lost earnings, but most people will lose, or greatly diminish, their sense of self-worth the longer their idleness continues.
The Legislature raised unemployment premiums 50 percent in 2009. We've blown through that money in less than two years. So, will the coming premium increase be even higher?
West Virginia has been down this road before. Some 20 years ago, the state borrowed heavily from the federal unemployment fund. To pay the federal loan back, the state taxed workers and businesses alike for about four years.
Yes, Nancy, unemployment checks do stimulate the economy -- in the worst ways possible.
Before long, West Virginia lawmakers will be singing Nancy's song and raising unemployment compensation premiums. The popularity of "ninety-nine weeks of unemployment checks" has drained the fund (again). For the second time in two years, politicians will raise premiums rather than cut benefits, arguing that you cannot put a price on compassion.
Extending unemployment benefits to 99 weeks may seem compassionate, but creating a long-term dole is a cruel hoax. Here are some fallacies about the dole.
Fallacy 1: The unemployed are required to accept suitable employment offers; they may reject unsuitable employment and continue to draw benefits. "Suitable" employment generally means a comparable or better job.
In a recession, the suitable jobs disappear first, e.g., the housing industry is in a deep downturn. If there is less demand for oak flooring, then there is less demand for Appalachian oak lumber. The local sawyer is laid off, as are most sawyers within a 50-mile radius.
There are no suitable jobs for the local sawyer. The sawyer has a choice between working for less money or drawing unemployment. He will probably choose the latter, even though he could earn more money by taking a lesser job because unemployment compensation has been sold as an entitlement similar to paid vacation.
Fallacy 2: Week 100 arrives, and jobless benefits expire. The unemployed worker accepts lesser employment. When he returns to work, he finds out that technology has changed the workplace. When he last worked, he was proficient using Windows XP. Now he has to learn Windows 7 just to get up to speed in this "lesser" job.
Spending two years away from the modern workplace guarantees that one's work skills will deteriorate. Not only does technology change, but so do markets. And in week 100, our unemployed subject very well may accept a job description that did not even exist when he last worked.
Fallacy 3: A middle-aged worker drawing the maximum, or near-maximum, jobless benefit can get by financially. But the worker has lost two of his most productive work years if he takes that route. The worker will not realize the cost of his "two-year vacation" until he reaches his 50s. Then he learns one of life's cruel ironies -- he doesn't have the stamina that he did in his 30s. He also will learn that businesses want to hire 30-somethings but avoid hiring 50-somethings.
This worker also will learn the hard way that the money he saved when he was 30 has grown in value. The money he saves at age 55 will grow very little before he retires.
Fallacy 4: When unemployment premiums go up, there is less money for a business to spend on equipment, facilities, wages and benefits. Politicians don't seem to understand the macro effect of this tax increase. Indeed, politicians seem to have tunnel-vision regarding unemployment compensation premiums as evidenced when Rep. Pelosi declared that unemployment checks stimulated economic development because the unemployed spend all of that money.
There is no economic theory -- not even Marxism -- that says long-term unemployment stimulates a nation's economy.
Fallacy 5: This is the "Atlas Shrugged" effect. Productive, well-run businesses are taxed to pay for these long-term unemployment benefits. Rep. Pelosi's philosophy regarding long-term unemployment benefits reads like a scene out of Ayn Rand's novel. As the novel suggests, you can only bleed the productive businesses for so long before they rebel and move their production to lower cost states or overseas.
Fallacy 6: After the unemployed worker has slept in for three weeks, he has gotten out of the routine of going to work. You cannot measure this effect like you could lost earnings, but most people will lose, or greatly diminish, their sense of self-worth the longer their idleness continues.
The Legislature raised unemployment premiums 50 percent in 2009. We've blown through that money in less than two years. So, will the coming premium increase be even higher?
West Virginia has been down this road before. Some 20 years ago, the state borrowed heavily from the federal unemployment fund. To pay the federal loan back, the state taxed workers and businesses alike for about four years.
Yes, Nancy, unemployment checks do stimulate the economy -- in the worst ways possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)