Expand the Middle-Class Again: The money supply of the middle- and lower-class has been diverted for 40+ years

     Once upon a time, before Ronald Reagan’s group of associates invented the fantasy of “trickle-down” economics, many more people made a living. People were able to save, a person making minimum wage could live off of it, medical and college expenses did not put you into debt for the rest of your life, …

     But “trickle-down”, created by the rich to suck in more wealth, kept reducing the amount that the non-rich could keep and save. Minimum wage slowly descended into starvation wage and not only were the non-rich not able to save but they ended up plunging into a huge pool of debt (national and personal).

Who Did It?

     Neither political party (leaving out parties other than GOP/Dems, sorry folks) has anything to be proud of. While it is true that national debt expanded much faster under the GOP tradition of “borrow and spend”, it still went up (except under Bill Clinton) slowly under the Democratic tradition of “tax and spend”. Although “tax and spend” is a much more reasonable budget approach, it is easy to notice that both approaches have SPEND dominantly in the approach. The GOP approached spending with giving out huge military contracts, starting wars, and reducing taxes for the wealthy who already had much more than they needed or could reasonably spend. Democrats spent on creating band-aids that would allow more people to survive the various things going on in the country but did not have the backbone to address the underlying issues.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Becoming a paid subscriber includes “warm fuzzies” and the knowledge that you are helping me ignore yet another nap for the day.

Why Did They Do It?

     I doubt anyone can give a solid answer to this. It is much easier to call out the reasons why it continues to get worse and worse. Most legislators don’t know much about anything other than their own profession (and about 40% are lawyers). So they rely on their aides and the industrial sector to put together the words of legislation. Need a bill to create a national dairy policy? Listen to the Dairy Lobby (note, they represent the larger dairy distributors much more than the dairy farmers), maybe ask them to write it and then have your aides go over the potential legislation with them. How about a farm bill? Talk to the lobbyist associated with the international grain market (once again, this has very little connection to the individual farmers (decreasing in number every year)), and put them to work.

     Some of this is necessary. Every member of Congress cannot know the ins and outs of every sector of the economy. But they are talking almost exclusively with the highest echelons of that economic sector. Call them the “executive class”. These lobbyists know what the high-level people in the business want and are able to pass along legal campaign donations as well as (much too often) illegal trips to Paris and subsidized ground care for the country hideaway and so forth. This by-passing of the people who actually do the labor and production leads to laws, and funding bills, that continue to favor the rich and ignore the working folk.

Reduce Influence of the Super-Rich on Government and Tax Policies

     There are no grounds for thinking that we could ever get rid of all inequality between people. We just aren’t perfect and that would require full, selfless, cooperation between all people. Although it is probably worst in the United States’ “uber-capitalism” where taxes are used to support businesses rather than businesses supporting the general populace, the over-influence of the wealthy/powerful exists all over the world and under many types of government and economic systems.

     But that doesn’t mean it isn’t very much worth the effort to try. In the United States, the oligarchic-supporting “Roberts Court” of the U.S. Supreme Court has made a number of rulings that twists the Constitution to pamper oligarchs. Unless explicitly mentioned in the Constitution (in which case, Amendments are required), most rulings can be overridden by laws enacted by Congress. (Of course, such laws are reviewable, once again, by the Court system.)

     So, make laws that eliminate the notion of a company as a person and part of the general electorate. Get rid of the possibility of the super-rich legally purchasing legislators (still might happen behind the scenes). Forbid ex-legislators from becoming lobbyists and using their inside knowledge of the workings of Congress to bypass the limited checks and balances on the system.

Reversal of the Elimination of the Middle-class People.

    As should be obvious, make sure that the people doing the labor and production receive enough income to live. That includes being able to save so they have a financial cushion needed to survive the normal ups and downs of life. Right now, there are areas of the country that have increased the “minimum wage” above the national wage but, even in those states, the minimum has not been lifted to beyond survival wage amounts.

     We have an issue on the rise, right now, in that AI and robotics are being used to eliminate jobs for people and increase profits for the owners. This is without any type of national guidelines or some type of path of least pain. It is said that AI and robotics will remove folks from the more routine tasks to leave more time and (new jobs) to tackle the abstract and creative. Perhaps so — but it won’t get to that point without some type of coordination.

“Minimum” wage and the ability to make ends meet

     Most landlords will rent (without a co-signer) only if the rent does not exceed 50% of the person’s income. In Washington state, the current (as of this writing) minimum wage is $17.13/hour. For a four-week month (February), this gives a total GROSS income of $2741/month. Half of this is $1370.50. While there are small apartments that cost this amount (or a little less), the average rent is still above this amount. The NET income of one of my sons, who makes “minimum wage”, is $2418/month. Half of the gross leaves him $1047.50 to live on. Given a budget for groceries, transportation, insurance (car and medical), internet/communication, and so forth, he can probably meet his survival needs — with no savings or cushion. In the book “Nickel and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America” by Barbara Ehrenreich, she shows how easily a person can get off the path of survival (16 years ago, it is now much worse).

     The above example is based on the minimum wage of Washington state. The national minimum wage in the United States is $7.25/hour. Given that amount, the above formula (for February) gives $1160/month (a qualified rent of $580/month) and it is easy to see that the national minimum wage does not even reach survival amounts. What does a person do if they only make this amount? Work two jobs (if they can find them). Forget about medical insurance. Forget about housing and live in your car if you can find a place to park safely. People do manage but most would not call it living. Survival, yes.

     Minimum wage must be based on the cost-of-living of the local area. It must also have an automatic Cost-Of-Living-Adjustment (COLA) with a local review of sufficiency every ten years (COLA rarely matches true inflation rates).

Make common emergencies survivable

     Beyond a living wage, medical costs are highly unpredictable and will create havoc in the United States. Having a national “Healthcare for All” eliminates this. It is politically difficult in the United States because it drastically reduces profits for healthcare insurance and it decreases administrative and general costs. Imagine (easy to do in all the countries, other than the US, which have had universal health care for years or decades) going to a medical office, discussing your health, have references issued, prescriptions written, and further care. No “am I covered?” questions. No “Can I afford the procedure (or medicine)”. Simple, straight-forward. The cost efficiency easily saves enough to pay for the expansion of number of clients.

Bubble-Up versus Trickle-down

     I addressed this in another newsletter, but almost all economists agree that “trickle-down” does not work. That statement is not really true. It does work for its true purpose of redirecting money from the middle-class and poorer (and even some of the lower upper-class) to the wealthy and ultra-wealthy. It just doesn’t work for the STATED goal of making the economy work better. This downslide of the economy began in the 1980s under the theoretical oversight of President Ronald Reagan.

     If we want to restore the middle-class, it is not unreasonable to capture the environment of when middle-class was healthy and still bringing people up out of the lower-class pool of people. Note that there were still problems in the 1980s and it is no good to just say “everything back to 1982”. That $7.25/hour minimum wage would translate to $25.17/hour nowadays. Make it so with the addition of COLA. Tax rates were slightly lower in 1982 than today but the EFFECTIVE tax rates does not have such a blissful analysis. For the very rich, they make use of various “legal” (but not moral) methods of tax avoidance. Much is associated with a method called “unrealized appreciation”. There are also a large number of other LEGAL loopholes. Some do also make use of illegal methods. I am not qualified, and the issues are much too large, for me to expand upon this topic. Google, wikipedia, GenAI it.

     When the large pool of people earning middle to low amounts have more money, they spend more money. I call this “bubble-up” and it is acknowledged by most economists (always say “most”). This circulation of money between creators of wealth and the need for other specialized services keeps money circulating and the economy growing from the bottom up.

Conclusion.

     So, there are a few major areas to re-expand the middle-class (and upper lower-class). Change minimum wage to a COLA living (above survival) wage. Legislate the oligarchs to reduce undue influence over legislation and tax codes. Have national policies to help, guide, and support transitions to new technologies and labor practices. Establish universal health care. Enact some rational policy about education, including university-level degrees. Close tax loopholes (aim for ALL, settle for most with the rest VISIBLE). De-stress the country and increase the happiness index and quality of life.

The U.S. Police Service: its history and challenges

     First of all, let’s start this newsletter with an homage to all of those good, brave, honorable, kind, generous police officers that we know are out there and do not always get the recognition that they deserve. We thank you, every one.

We Are Not Saints

     The people of this planet are not saints. They run a spectrum in personality from horrible, antisocial, “evil” (as defined by local society) people to fantastic, friendly, “saintly” people. (“good” people are somewhere in the center as both “evil” and “saintly” are extremes.) This is independent of whether one is male, female, rich, poor, pigmented, non-pigmented, of religion X or religion Y, or whatever.

     And it applies to police officers. Anyone who believes that all police officers are saints is not being honest to themselves or others. The same is true of those who have never experienced a healthy interaction with police officers — good police officers do exist. Some problems occur out of policy. More occur from inappropriate training. A few exist because the recruiting of police officers does not sufficiently filter out those people who fit firmly on the negative end of the spectrum of “goodness”.

The History of the U.S. Police Service May be Different from What You have Imagined

     The general view of the U.S. police service will vary a lot from personal, familial, and cultural experience. As children, some are taught to rely on them as friends. Some are taught to be very cautious from a potential of abuse. There is no unique, singular, self-description of the police officer within the U.S. The mottos range from “On Guard for All” to “Justice and Peace, Hand in Hand” to “Hope, Honor, and Healing’.

     The beginnings of the U.S. police service were associated with municipalities. With more people, there were more crimes. In addition, cities grew and, with insufficiently regulated capitalism, wealthy segments developed. In the South (and areas of the North at some periods of history), Slave Patrols were created. Boston created a Night Watch and other cities such as New York City, Salt Lake City, and Philadelphia. In all regions (but adapted to local situations), it was largely a matter of protecting the wealthy (or relatively wealthy) from the poor. Unions, and Union organizers, were considered to be a particular danger to the status quo. (In the South, it was a more formal separation due to ethnic history and skin color.) Although the Slave Patrols officially disappeared with the ending of the U.S. Civil War, unofficially they continued within the structure and “duties” of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Paid subscribers get “warm fuzzies” and encourage me to keep digging through life experience.

     The dominant authors of the times also were well acquainted with the structure and focus of the police forces of their countries. “Les Miserables” is often read, made into movies, and acted out in plays but the primary conflict is between the poor (who stole bread to survive) and the rich (who might not have even been aware of where the kitchen was). As the years unfolded, police forces were created, and made part of municipal areas, in order to protect people with a strong inclination of protecting the wealthy from the less wealthy.

     In the 1800s, police units (in the North, still the Slave Patrols in the South) were integrated into their neighborhoods. This had a lot of advantages in that people knew the police officers of their areas. However, the police departments were also directly tied into the local political structures so, in effect, they often acted as political (and sometimes financial) enforcers of the community.

     The 1900s brought technology to the systems. Police officers could talk with each other and with a central dispatcher. With patrol cars, officers started living away from the neighborhoods for which they were involved. This split off political enforcement but also gave them less knowledge of the communities and people. They became strangers to the communities in which they served but were used less as political and cultural enforcers.

     A more recent development has made use of local police departments, often without public knowledge or approval, being “dump sites” for military equipment which is in excess, or redundant (military budgets are almost never audited). This has worked to tilt police departments even further away from the stated desires of serving the public.

Corporate Media Controls the Language Used about Differences

     As discussed in a different newsletter, corporate media has long had a leaning towards making the publication profitable and to please the owners of the media. Of late, this leaning has become more blatant and with many fewer journalistic standards applied.

     This drift away from accuracy affects many aspects without direct lies. The most obvious, “time honored”, item is titles of articles. How many times have you plunged into an article only to find that the article truly had nothing to do with the headline? The same drift from veracity occurs when reporting about something and giving it a name. “The Boston Strangler” only came to life when a paper gave them that title. Something similar has occurred with the idea of defunding the police. The concept primarily dates back to abolitionist days to eliminate the Slave Patrols. But, beyond the Southern Slave Patrols, the term has been used for a spectrum of definitions and interpretations. Just as a misleading title will guide a reader down a path that may not be indicated by the contents of the article, overuse of a word, or using it without context, can eliminate the wide underlying meanings of the concept. This has happened with applying the word “defund” to the police departments.

     There do exist people, and groups, that argue for the elimination of the police service, but these people are not in the majority. The primary problem in a large percentage of situations is that the modern police forces are not able to effectively meet the needs of the community. Personally, I think that the word RETRAIN is much better used in this situation. If you give a list of legitimate purposes for a police officer such as preventing and catching murderers, rapists, assaulters, and thieves then most people will say that there needs to be some such person (of whatever title) to do such.

Typical Daily Duties of a Police Officer

     So, what does a police officer typically do during a work day?

     A lot of the time is spent with paperwork/reporting and another large chunk is spent moving around, including responding to requests for help. Along with administrative duties, this amounts to around 60% of a police officer’s time.

     According to a New York Times analysis on time spent in actual activities (New York Times, Jeff Asher & Ben Horwitz, “How Do the Police Actually Spend Their Time?”, June 19, 2020), the remaining 40% of a police officer’s time is spent

• Serious violent crime (homicide, robbery, rape, assault, ..) about 4%

• Incidents with guns around 0.5%

• Traffic work, general complaints & non-criminal interactions give us about 1/3 of the officer’s time

• Non-violent domestic disturbances (perhaps the most dangerous because the scene is difficult to anticipate and prepare for) around 7%

• The rest is spent with patrol, traffic enforcement, checking neighborhoods and so forth.

     This doesn’t add up to a tidy 100% (although that cheater “the rest” is there to fill in the gaps). Some of that 60% overhead probably merges into “the rest”.

     This gives us a general picture, however. A police officer has a lot of paperwork and other overhead. Around 5% may involve guns (appropriately used or not). And then the rest is “serving the public”.

Training for a Police Officer

     Training for municipal police officers is determined, and coordinated, by the various states — so the specific courses, and hours required, vary a lot. These numbers are approximated from Bureau of Justice Statistics data (2022 Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies). Some primary sources include:

• https://bjs.ojp.gov/topics/law-enforcement/training

• https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/state-and-local-law-enforcement-training-academies-and-recruits-2022

• https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/slletatti22st.pdf

     As stated above, these are for municipal police officers. County, state, and federal officers may have different numbers associated with their training. Hours (within the police academy, more hours continue after graduation) vary from 400 hours of study to more than 900 hours of study).

     The greatest amount of time (about 20%) is spent with firearms skills. About 1/3 of the hours (includes firearms) is for firearms and defensive tactics, Around a quarter of the time is spent studying the laws (traffic, juvenile, criminal, constitutional). A good chunk (17% or so) is spent getting the officer-in-training into good enough physical condition. A final quarter of the time is knowing how (operations) and practicing.

Training versus Day-to-Day Usage

     A big thing that jumps out is all of the paperwork/administration. It seems that day-to-day life seems oriented towards producing frustrated bureaucrats. And the mindset of the average police officer on duty is an important matter. The next is that almost all of the rest of the time is dealing with traffic incidents (and, sometimes, directing), domestic situations (particularly potentially dangerous within the US), and neighborhood checks and watches. Very little time is spent in situations where firearms are appropriate and potentially useful.

So, How Could We Ideally Retrain Police Officers?

     First, give police stations more administrative staff. Reduce paperwork for police officers (though it is unlikely they can be isolated from it). Reduce frustration and, speaking of frustration, have a solid counseling crew for backup with the stresses and tensions of police work. Second, rather than spending so much time on usage of firearms, devote much of the time training in conflict resolution techniques. Prevent violent situations rather than create endpoint situations. Finally, similar to the United Kingdom, don’t have armed officers for typical deployment. Have special, specifically trained, people (call them SWAT if you want) who are well trained in how to use and WHEN TO NOT USE weapons. In this manner, you retrain to a department whose primary purpose is to serve the public and help to enforce laws that have been determined by the community.

Indefensible Behaviors

     I can, with great effort, think of AN instance where a person shot in the back might be defensible. A convicted mass murderer running away with every likelihood of continuing their spree of killing. That’s about it. Killing someone, in a non-defensive situation, is giving the police officer the power of judge and jury with a death penalty outcome.

     Sell some loose cigarettes illegally? Definitely deserves the death penalty, doesn’t it? Just run away when the officer asks them to halt and answer some questions? I would say that being murdered by being shot in the back justifies their fears and their running away. As I said in the above paragraph, I can imagine a potential justification for shooting someone in the back. Perhaps that might occur in one out of 100,000 times. Otherwise, shooting someone in the back is second-degree murder, in my opinion. Giving a death penalty verdict for potential crimes, or actions, that deserve nothing even close to the death penalty. Choking, battering, and other potentially deadly uses of force are close to as clear-cut.

     I have heard that some drug users, and some with particular psychotic behaviors, may require use of force that, for most, would be excessive. So be it. But, in such situations, they are not running away and, once subdued, the behavior by the officer that might have been justified becomes fully non-justifiable.

     Police officers need much more training in conflict resolution. They need ready, non-judgemental, access to counselors to maintain a proper, productive, work attitude. They need special training for persons they may encounter on the street. This includes mental illnesses as well as the socially maladroit. They need training in martial arts and non-deadly (not necessarily not potentially deadly) methods of restraint and control. They typically don’t need guns, of which the easy access may exacerbate the situation.

     A police officer deserves, and needs, extra judicial and legislative protection for their safety, and actions, when performing, or as a result of performing, their lawful duties. But, if they are the ones breaking the laws, then there should be no judicial or legislative protection. I remember a situation in Denver about 40 years ago when a police officer entered the courtroom to murder his wife’s lawyer during a contentious divorce. According to the wording on some protective laws, they would be immune to prosecution.

Conclusion (or invitation to continue contemplating)

     “Defund the police”. No, in most cases there are reasons for someone to be there with the responsibility of serving and protecting the public. But retraining is likely to be necessary. Supporting the police with counselors, decent pay and benefits, and required duties that are in sync with their training is a great thing. Active support for their lawful actions performing their lawful duties. But holding them to a standard that is a positive example to the community is also necessary.

Choices: Often, we are not able to change a situation, but we can almost always make a choice about our response

     I have a long list of possible newsletter ideas which keeps getting longer. Sometimes, I go back to a topic I put on the list ten years ago and pick it. More often, it is something that popped up for me based on something I have seen or heard recently. When it does pop up, I try to make sure that I haven’t written about it recently. In this case, I thought it had been done within the last year and then I decided … not quite. I wrote about “Control” about a year ago. And control isn’t really the same as choice.

Control versus Choice

     So, what’s the difference? Control says that your choices/decisions will lead to a determinate goal. Choice points out your ability to take a current situation and lead off from there to various potential destinations. Potential is the powerful word. We might subdefine it (in either a fully subjective way or in a “calculated” manner that probably has a lot more assumptions in it of which we are not aware) as likely, unlikely, good, bad, and so forth. Not only do we assign (consciously or not) a label to the choices but there are many. These always include the choice of not doing anything.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Paid subscribers receive “warm fuzzies” and encourage me to spend time on these essays.

Limitation of Choices

     There are a lot of situations that lead people to say “there is no choice”. Many of these have special names such as “Sophie’s Choice” or “Catch-22” or “Morton’s Fork”. The idea is that, because of our subjective analysis of the potential choices, many can/must be ruled out immediately and, therefore, is not a legitimate choice. But, they really are choices and it is unlikely that the choices are as limited as what we see.

     The simplest of choices is a binary one. Do it or don’t do it. I don’t think it is ever really that simple but it can seem that way to us. Breathe and live for a bit longer or don’t breathe and die sooner. Although I tried to be accurate in my descriptions, I am sure that most of you immediately start seeing additional “sub-choices”. Do I place myself in a situation in which I cannot change my mind (throwing away my helmet while doing a space walk seems hard to change)? Or am I in a voluntary situation where, once the carbon dioxide level in my blood has built up enough, my body takes over and my diaphragm moves “all by itself”? (It is very hard to die via holding your breath if you are sitting in a chair and very easy if you are resting on the bottom of a pool.)

     We are often presented with (or present ourselves with) a limitation of choices. This can be called a “false dilemma” because there are almost always other choices. Some may no longer be present because of waiting too long. Others will “pop up” when time elapses. If you ever find yourself saying “it’s either this or that” then sit back and take some time to comb through the possibilities. In other words, choices always exist but planning ahead can give a person better, more favorable, choices.

Elections and Apparent lack of choice

     In life, we often are faced with choices where we don’t like any of the choices (remembering that not making a choice IS making a choice). Elections often evoke this irritation. What has really happened is that choice has been delayed past the primaries and other possibilities have been discarded. We will hope (probably without reason) that the best candidates have made it through the preliminary processes. But we don’t like either of them. What to do?

     IF it is true that both candidates are “equally bad” then voting or not really makes no difference. But that is highly unlikely. Often, when someone says the choices are “all bad” (or “both bad”) it means that neither really speaks to them as a potential voter. Either a voter wasn’t active during the primaries or they have a specific issue, or set of issues, that don’t seem to be important to the candidates currently available to receive our vote.

     Believe it or not, that one issue does not define a candidate. Maybe you don’t care whom they hate but maybe you do. Maybe you don’t care where they get their campaign money from or maybe you do. Maybe you don’t care how they treat their staff and family or maybe you do. There is very likely to be a candidate that really IS “worse” (according to your own preferences). Guess what!!!! If one candidate is worse than the other then that other candidate (according to your judgement) is BETTER. And that better candidate may lose if you don’t bother to vote just because they aren’t “perfect”. (Still, my opinion is that you should have gotten involved in the primaries and helped to put forth better candidates.)

Too many choices leads to choice paralysis

     Yes, there can be a thing as too many choices. Both heading out of high school and between jobs as an adult, I went through career counseling and workbook procedures. They gave me lots of tests (I also went through tests with a Naval recruiter and he just would not leave me alone after testing) that were to tell me what I was, or could be, good at. They were supposed to narrow down my aptitude, skills, and direction such that I could consider from a small set of possibilities. All they did was to say “you can do whatever you want” which was of zero value.

     Unless a specific choice “shines” for you and makes all other potential choices hard to consider, you will be trying to make a choice by making use of a process of elimination. As mentioned above, if given only two choices, one will almost always be better even if that choice is “not good enough” as far as your feelings go. When you have multiple choice, you have to rate each one and keep discarding the “worst” choice for each round.

     When I have an election to choose among candidates, I go through the descriptions and, for each candidate, give them a “-” for each thing I don’t like and a “+” for each thing I do like. Adding them up after reviewing all (-1 for “=”, +1 for “+”) I hope to come to a number. Get rid of the lowest and leave either the single highest or the group with the same highest number. Multiple left, try to evaluate again, and be pickier. Although I think it happens MUCH less often than I hear from fellow voters, it IS possible you will be left with more than one with the same score. Pick according to your own subjective insight or use a dart board.

Sophie’s Choice

     As in the book,or movie, a sadist may force you to choose one of two horrible fates. I have no advice to make such a situation less painful. May God, or the universe or whatever, guide you and console you.

Conclusion

     Choices give you a chance to change the odds for your future. It may not be easy. You may have been provided a situation, from which to make that choice, that makes all options less visible and makes all options have more bad aspects. Choice is still your influence on the future. Blessed be.

Labor and Leverage: Leverage to grow business and leverage to share profits

     As far as I know, there is no generalization that is always true. But, for the vast majority of those in the wealthy region EXCEPT for BORN WEALTHY their wealth was only achieved via the labor and skills of many, many other people. Even the born wealthy rely on the labor and skills of others to maintain their level of wealth. Some recognize and remember this. Others seem to develop amnesia, or lose cognitive powers, as they become wealthier.

From the Start

     At the beginning of any enterprise, there are only a few involved. Perhaps only one, perhaps a dozen. But not a lot. There is an idea and a plan. Perhaps this was the breakthrough of one person, maybe it was done as the result of collaboration of the entire group. The plan, if done well, will allow for growth unless, of course, no growth is desired. Even in a no-growth situation, a constant review of status and needs is required.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Paid subscribers receive “warm fuzzies” and occasional chapters from my books.

     Even at this stage, people are relied upon. A phone network, or internet structure, is needed for communication and research. That requires the efforts of many people. People will be moving from place to place and they may require potential, and actual, customers to move from place to place. The transportation networks require many people. The reality is that people are not isolated from the community and they are unable to do much that affects the community, including their own place within that community, without relying upon its resources.

     There are many legends of where and how economic successes began. Hewlett and Packard in their garage. For that matter, Jeff Bezos started in his garage. Garages seem to have been favorite incubation locations for businesses. This makes sense because, without cars within them, garages are basically extra living spaces away from the main flow of the residence. Other ones also exist. But do you know of a single beginning story that started within the midst of a forest on a hike? An idea, perhaps, but not the beginning of an enterprise.

     There are histories of people who have bootstrapped themselves. Carl, of Carl’s Jr fame, started with a hot dog cart. Patagonia was started out of a blacksmithing/climbing-gear side business. In both (and other) cases, the general model was scalable. They could test marketability by starting from a small basis and then growing. Catering businesses and Bezos’ garage bookstore are other examples. They make use of what is often called “sweat equity”.

     In other situations, it was a matter of family financing. Bill Gates came from a wealthy family as did Elon Musk.

     There are as many instances as there are companies but, in each case, as they grew they either re-invested earnings (particularly via “sweat equity”) or gathered outside investment (familial or venture capital). As they grew, others invested their own time, labor, and savings. An idea may start from the thoughts of one person but the implementation takes the resources of the community and the involvement of the labor and skills of many people.

Growth and Profits

     As is true in the beginning, it is still true at all stages of growth and development of an enterprise. It requires use of a greater number of people with their labor and skills. And, here is where paths of companies diverge with much of the required guidelines based upon the rules and regulations established.

     Let’s have an arbitrary example. A “mom and pop” business starts a business with two people. The business grows to make $350,000/year gross income. Perhaps their overhead, and cost of sales, is $200,000/year. This leaves (yes, lots of little details being left out here) $150,000/year profit for perhaps 70 hours/week from 2 people. (Starting businesses often require very long hours. My business partner and I worked an average of 75 hours/week for the first couple of years after we started out company.) Part of that profit is used for childcare, and neither of them wants to continue to work so many hours per week, so the couple decides that the father should stay home with the kids and they should hire another two people allowing the mother to reduce her hours to 45 hours/week.

     (This is an arbitrary example with arbitrary numbers but the general scenario came from a family with a Falafel quick-stop back in Colorado.) As the business continued to expand, they opened up a second location with the mother overseeing one of the businesses and the oldest son looking after the second one. They now have six employees (not including mother and son) and a gross income (for the two stores) of $800,000/year with $250,000/year difference between gross income and the overhead/cost of sales. How is this $250,000 distributed? The family needs, and deserves, some. The six workers need, and deserve, some.

     We have now come to the dilemma of how to portion capital versus labor. The mother and son deserve some of the profit for their labor. The family deserves some for their original concept and hard work to establish the business. Yet, the stores would not be as large as they are, nor produce as much money/profit as they do, without the active time, labor, and skills of the six people. They deserve some.

     The allocation of profits is determined by many things.

Determination of wages

     The distribution of profits is an art and a challenge. It depends on many, many things and it is possible that no configuration exists which appears “fair” to all of the people involved. What are the factors involved?

• Replaceability of the workers. What are the skillsets needed? Include all of the skillsets needed. For this example of the falafel stores, “soft skills” are very important. In the case of a worker for a company where only a few people encounter customers, “soft skills” may not be as mandatory (though they still may help the interior workings of the company a lot).
  

• Availability of workers with adequate skills. Is the skillset such that “anybody” could do the job? Do you have a choice from 100 people for each position that you have in your company? Or are there only a few people qualified with strong competition among similar companies for their work and skills?
  

• Cost of finding, and training, replacement workers. How much does it cost to find a person willing to fill a position with the pay/benefits alloted to the position? How many hours of training are needed to bring the new employee to an overall useful point of behavior?
  

• Rules and regulations. What do the local laws indicate is the least you can pay? A livable wage SHOULD be the minimum but not many governments (national or local) understand the helpfulness of setting a common baseline for companies within an area of business. They may allow the businesses to dictate to the governments rather than the governments acting as servants to the people.
  

• Flexibility of the amount to be charged for products. You want to pay your employees an extra $1/hour? Great, you have two wide areas of possibility (without reducing profits) — raise the price of the services or have the employees generate more sales (which can happen spontaneously with a positive corporate culture).
  

• Personal philosophies of the people who have legal charge of, and responsibility for, the business. Some people in charge have the attitude of “pay them as little as we can get away with”. Others have the attitude of “we wouldn’t make any money without them, so spread the profits as much as possible to optimize employee pay/benefits”.
  

• Existence, or non-existence, of outside finances (stockholders/investors). If people have invested in your company, they WILL expect a “return” on their money. In your calculations, you cam include this ROI as part of the overhead/cost-of-sales.
  

     You can find examples of many types of distribution of profits. One argument that is often given is that paying a living wage will decrease profits. This is almost never true unless the flexibility for charging is zero. And that flexibility could be zero only if the rules do not exist for ALL of the competing businesses. Even then, a company with happy, friendly employees who are paid living wages will do better in the market than a company with unhappy, exhausted and uninvolved employees who are paid just enough to exist but where every day is a challenge and potential disaster.

Rules and Regulations level the playing field.

     Most companies (I believe this but I cannot give proof for it) want to be a good community neighbor. They don’t want to pollute. They want to pay good wages. They want to give good benefits (or support policies that give everyone good benefits). They want the children of the community to have good educations and be great future employees.

     But they also want/need to make profits in this capitalistic society. This is even more true for publicly traded (with stockholders) companies. I don’t want to pollute, but non polluting adds to my overhead placing me at a disadvantage in competition. So, reluctantly (but not reluctantly enough to not do it), I pollute and stay competitive. IF there are (enforced) rules and regulations, then all companies are required to not pollute and an innately well-behaved company is not penalized.

     I want to pay my employees a living wage at the minimum. But, there is no living wage mandated and my competitors can pay starvation wages because there are a lot of people needing jobs. If the law says that THIS level of pay is the minimum I can pay and it allows employees to live then I can pay them that and be competitive.

     Companies who want to do the “right” thing for their employees and community SHOULD welcome fair and enforced rules and regulations. They don’t always do such.

Determination of distribution

     The owners need, and deserve, some amount (these include stockholders). The employees need, and deserve, some amount for the work and skills. The company infrastructure needs re-investment for maintenance and expansion.

     In some of the high-tech or high profit businesses with a smaller potential employee pool and greater competition for workers, they “reverse engineer” wages and benefits. They take the gross income of the company and divided by the number of workers. This gives a number that indicates the average contribution to the company of the workers’ work and skills. They decide on the profit level desired and the overhead allocated to the worker from the company needs as well as benefits associated with each worker. This leaves a number which indicates average wages.

     For example, take a company that earns one billion dollars per year ($1,000,000,000). They have 2500 employees. This means each employee contributes an average of $400,000 per person. A desired profit margin is 25%. This is now $300,000 per person. The overhead is another $100,000 per person. We are now down to $200,000 per person. Benefits, FICA, unemployment, health insurance, and other benefits reduces that amount to $125,000 per person available as the AVERAGE wage for people working at the company. These general numbers are often calculable for various companies in the same general field which verifies competitivity for workers. Benefits, overhead, and profit margin may be jiggled a bit to make their company attractive to potential employees.

     Possibly the goal is to maximize profits. If so, the amount will be calculated from the “bottom up”. Minimum wage plus minimum benefits and overhead give net costs. The desired gross amount is created from net costs. If the desired gross amount is not high enough, due to market demand or competition, benefits are reduced. We saw something of this nature used within the “mom and pop” example.

     Much depends on the philosophies of the controllers of capital. That philosophy may also depend on the reliability of memory and recognition of contribution for both the employees and the community. But a large spectrum of wages, benefits, and profits is possible.

Union leverage

     The workers recognize their contribution. There isn’t always transparency, however, on other factors towards profitability of the company. While it SHOULD be the object of the company to work towards that subjective goal of fairness, final control of capital and determination of profit margin and average wages/benefits is in the hands of the controllers of capital according to the general outlines of a capitalist society. What if (hopefully not, but often so) the recognition of contribution and value of the work and skill is NOT kept at a solid conscious level?

     Unions represent the workers. They force the controllers of capital to be aware of the contributions of the workers. They struggle, in a “tug of war”, to make allocations recognize the contributions, and needs, of the workers. Strikes (which damages the workers as well as the controllers) are the largest tool available for use by the unions.

Conclusion

     The contribution of labor, skills, and community always exist at all stages. The controller of capital needs awareness, and appreciation, of this. Sometimes it is necessary for unions to form to force this awareness. Rules and regulations created by outside bodies (often government) level out the playing field between companies. Out of all of this comes a distribution of profits which is unlikely to be subjectively considered to be “fair” to all but it should be the goal.

Corporate Media: Just what in the world is meant by corporate media?

     When you hear discussion about virtually anything, you may very well encounter the term “corporate media”? What does that mean? Is it inherently bad? Or good? What else exists besides corporate media? Is social media corporate media?

The olde towne crier

     We have always wanted, and needed, to spread the news. At first, it was just one person telling another. But, within every community there was always one person who knew more than others and, the more they were known for their news, the more people utilized them as a means of disseminating the news. The town gossip (or clan gossip or tribal gossip) usually just “came about”. It usually wasn’t a paid position and it certainly wasn’t a position for which you went to school. As communities turned into villages, which turned into towns, which turned into cities, a need became clear as to how to spread official news. This might be news from the king, or the mayor, or some other “official” source. This was an addition, to the town gossip, for official community informations. This person (almost universally male) was called the town crier.

     In addition to telling the official news, the town crier would also post notices about new policies, laws, or general information. As has always been true, official information was not always correct information but the source was known. Of course, that was true about the town gossip also. At heart, you trusted the news if you trusted the source. And we knew (or thought we did) the sources.

     The printing press brought newspapers which were often generated by one person. The reputation of this person was the reputation that you trusted. Then bigger and bigger. It then became the reputation of the people at the newspaper, as a whole, that determined your trust. But the bigger it was, the more abstract it became. Some papers were no longer content to report the news, they wanted to make it.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Paid subscribers help to support the time needed for research and writing and get wam fuzzies.

From local to corporate

     Newspapers were still local. Then mass media took hold. William Randolph Hearst grew his group of newspapers to nearly 30 and is considered to be a founder of “yellow journalism” (cheap newspaper turns yellow with age). Yellow journalism carried the news that the owners wanted and suppressed what they didn’t want. Sometimes they even invented “news” if public opinion did not move towards the desires of owners (Hearst, for example) quickly enough. Although not directly responsible for the Spanish American war, Hearst newspapers helped fan the flames.

     When newspapers were local, the object was primarily to inform. The local owners certainly wanted to earn a profit or, at least, break even. But, they were very much part of the community and their reputation, and pride, was partially connected to the reputation, and veracity, of the newspaper. As they grew, and as ownership was separated from the community, this bond was stretched to become unimportant. All that was left was the “journalistic code”.

     As there became more methods of conveying information beyond that of the printed word, or announced from the printed word, the word media was used as an envelope for the different methods of distribution. These still include the printed word but also broadcast, streamed, cabled, radio/podcast, and other methods of distribution.

The Journalistic Code or the “Code of Ethics”

     Professional journalists, who took pride in their craft, wanted to be looked at seriously and to be trusted. This was especially true in the US, where the First Amendment, though often attacked and confronted, guarantees an independent press and the ability of citizens to civilly express their thoughts. To support this, professional associations created a Code of Ethics. These ethics include the concepts of

• Seek Truth and Report It

• Minimize Harm

• Act Independently

• Be Accountable and Transparent

     Of course, not all individuals adhered to this code of ethics but it was a standard to be used within the profession.

Erosion of the Code in Corporate Media

     For a very few organizations, the Code still comes first. But even those few sometime back off a bit from the harder parts of the Code. I understand it. There are too many situations where a person or organization may be “right” and still end up paying (in time and money and personnel) to the point of severe loss.

     In more of the organizations, owned by even larger corporations or directly by ultra wealthy families or individuals, the journalistic code became a cute idea whose time had passed. Individual people on staff might try to continue to honor it but the corporation, as a whole, had little interest. That which would increase profit was good. Information that the people who paid (advertisers and readers) liked was what they wanted to publish. Being true was a bonus but not necessary.

The slippery distinction between investigative reporting and event reporting

     If a journalist were to investigate a person, group, or event then they would attempt to use the Code in their dealings. They would present the most honest and accurate representation of the truth that they could. But what happened when they were not determining the information; they were reporting on information presented by others? Does the Code apply to this? When someone who is being quoted says something incorrect or inflammatory, does the journalist have the responsibility to call this out so that the reader not only is informed of what was said but also what was true? I am not sure that that is directly addressed in the Code but doing such certainly is to the benefit of the reader. It is not often done, especially within corporate media.

Journalist versus Announcer

     A journalist tries to work within the Code of Ethics of journalism. They don’t always succeed but they try. One test of such is whether they apologize for errors and publish retractions that call out changes of information. People make mistakes. People that care about reality admit their errors, and take responsibility for them, when they find out they make a mistake. Someone who makes errors (particularly those that make them often) and never take responsibility for, or acknowledge, those errors is NOT behaving in accordance with the journalistic code (and, for that matter, are not behaving in an honorable fashion).

     How about those who present themselves, or their words, online or on the air or in print, and don’t take on the journalistic code as an obligation? They are announcers. They are modern “town criers”. They say what they are paid to say. Alas, in the US (and presumably elsewhere in the world) this happens more and more often. Some “news” outlets (such as FoxNews for the “right” and The Daily Beast for the “left”) are really sufficiently unreliable (without cross-checking and further fact-checking) that they should be treated as only infotainment. Infotainment is comforting (aligned with your own biases) information in a pseudo-news entertainment format.

     A journalist tries to follow a code of ethics. An announcer says what they are paid for.

The slide towards corporate media

     So, corporate media is associated with larger corporations which is no longer connected to their audience. The owners don’t “mingle” with the consumers. The owners feel no responsibilities to the consumers. Their aim is to understand the consumers well enough to produce a profitable product. Recognizing what the consumers, and any financial supporters such as advertisers, are expecting, they align information with expectations to make them more desirous to continue watching/reading/seeing from that source. Truth is irrelevant. The corporation is amoral. Sometimes, when a desire to harm the consumers with their information exists (this may be called propaganda), they may even be declared immoral.

     The movement towards corporate media is caused by consolidation and separation from the market. A small number of owners who lead lives isolated from the lives of the consumers. Or, in other words, sources owned by a few ultra-rich individuals or groups highly isolated from the lives of consumers of their product.

How to work to regain journalistic integrity in media

     Split up, and require more owners of corporate media sources. Don’t have three or four ultra-rich groups/individuals owning, and controlling, hundreds of media sources. Instead, have hundreds of less-wealthy groups/individuals who are located near (and live in the same fashion as) their consumers control those hundreds of media sources.

     Require adherence to the journalistic code of ethics. Make certain that errors are acknowledged and retractions made obvious and public.

     When reporting (non-investigative but information gathering) activities are done, ensure that the public consumer is presented with the equivalent journalistic investigation along with the accurate quotations of what others say. In other words, there should be in-line fact-checking that is included with reporting of what people say.

     Will that happen? Not without regulation. Unregulated capitalism favors information tailored to the customer, in order to maximize profits, and this is antithetical to journalistic integrity.

It is up to us.

Lifeline: Everyone needs one ... be a lifeline

     When I was 14, my father drove his car into our garage-converted-into-a-recreation-room, sealed the door again, sat in the car, and turned the engine on. I have never felt like any of it was my fault, even at that age and even less as I have grown older. We each make choices and the choices are our responsibility even if we have had no control over the circumstances.

What is a lifeline?

     But, I have sometimes wondered if I could have been more present for my father. Perhaps, I could have been someone that was important for him to continue to be around. You may say that it should have been the other way around but those “should”s are slippery things. The reality is that we never truly know how our actions, or lack of actions, will affect others. Which is an excellent reason to always do our best even if we know sometimes we will fail.

     There are many instances of real, physical, lifelines. One that immediately jumps into the front of my thoughts is with pairs of mountain climbers (perhaps even more so with rock face climbers). One is not the lifeline of the other, they are lifelines of EACH other. Either one may lose their grip and fall and, hopefully, the line between them will save a life. Occasionally, the situation may be such that the second also loses their stability and both fall to an unforeseen doom. Such is the risk.

     Other lifelines are not quite so dramatic but still important. For a roofer, the lifeline may not be to another person but “just” to some part of the building that is considered stable. The same type of thing may be present for a window washer or someone installing windows on a skyscraper.

When a lifeline doesn’t have a line

     One can extend the concept of a lifeline to many safety devices. A parachute or a bicycle helmet. The parachute is a lifeline for a pilot in an airplane. It is sports equipment in the case of a parachutist. A lifeline is supposed to help protect you from severe harm, and potentially death, if something goes wrong. Some are integrated like with a “governor” which notices when a vehicle is going too quickly and starts applying the brake and doing other things to protect the user.

People can be lifelines but we choose the limits.

     Lifelines are still not “unbreakable” and, just like with the mountaineer team that plummets down the mountain side together, the lineless type of lifeline can still end up being a risk for both.

     I had a cousin who was an alcoholic. She would call and I would listen. I considered this to be my requirement to be a good cousin to her. Once she asked for some money, which I gave to her. But, another time she asked to come stay with me as she “had no place to go”. I admit that I panicked. It is one thing to be a support and another to invite a vampire into your house. I hit my limit. It is “easy” to invite someone into your house but not so easy to have them leave again if they have severe problems. It can be like trying to save a drowning person. Are you strong enough to support them while they are trying to drown themselves and you? I said no which is something that is not easy for me. I still don’t know whether I did the “right” thing. I only know that I did what I was able to do at the time.

Everyone needs lifelines

     We don’t all have them but, in my opinion, we all need lifelines. Because we can all “fall”.

     Some people use rigid scheduling and life structures as lifelines. This method works until it breaks. They often break. Many more have a friend (not always reliable) to whom we can stretch out and have them hold our hands. That person may be a relative such that, in theory, there are two lifelines between you. One is as someone you trust and the other is a familial obligation (such as myself with my cousin). My wife is my partner and best friend so I trust that lifeline a lot. But, based upon my life experiences (starting at the beginning of this piece), I refuse to allow myself to rely on any lifeline. Whether that is a strength or a weakness is something I do not know.

If a person has no lifelines

     In the US, we have an example of someone with no lifelines as a prominent figure in electoral politics. He has no one to rely on and there is no one who can rely upon him. Everything, and everyone, is a potential threat. He must always think of himself first and only of himself. Without any external line for safety, the walls have to be built “solid” but they can never be solid enough. As for the safety others, what does he care?

Who, what, and where are your lifelines?

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Posts are always free but contributing to my work helps to encourage time to allocate to them.

 

It takes two: But somehow, US legislators hide the other behind a curtain

     This newsletter is about something that should be of concern to everyone. But, to discuss it, I will be jumping over a topic that is of great controversy within the US. It is an important topic and I have very firmly held opinions. Others have very different firmly held opinions. It just isn’t the focus of this newsletter. Discussing controversial topics is something that people should not shy from but my newsletters are written primarily to inform of basic issues.

     So, I jump over a very important period of time. And here we are with an undesired pregnancy. At this point, there are a lot of states and legislators who feel that they should direct the outcomes.

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Although all will receive the postings, paid subscribers get the warm cuddlies that they are helping me to continue on.

Some Basic Facts

     For a pregnancy to occur (at present, cloning or asexual reproduction may not always stay within the realm of science fiction) it requires an egg and a sperm. One comes from a person who has the genetic capacity to produce eggs. The other comes from someone who has the genetic capacity to produce sperm. We call these women and men though genetics are not always so simple (but 99.99+% of the time it is).

     A journey is started when the sperm encounters the egg. At what point the result is called this or that is not the focus of this newsletter. It has happened and an end result occurs. What happens then? At this point, there is a fertilized egg. It is estimated that between 50% to 70% disappear before they are noticed by the mother or a pregnancy test can come back with a pregnancy verdict. Beyond that point, it is considered a “pregnancy”.

Now that it is a “pregnancy”, humans start making decisions

     Once a pregnancy is known, people start having opinions about it. Some love it. Some fear they will not be a good parent. Some never wanted it. Some others feel that it has been decided by fates beyond the control of humans. For some, it was violently forced upon them. Unfortunately, many who feel “it was meant to be” decide that they want to control the pregnancy and the mother. Yes, I said the mother — the (mostly male, but not exclusively) legislators decide that they know more than the mother, doctors, and the universe what is best. AND they almost always neglect the participation of the father in the event even though IT TAKES TWO to start the journey.

Consequences and Control

     50 to 70% of the fertilized eggs disappear before they can be counted within the group called pregnancy. Does that mean that nature, and the universe, has given the fertilized egg a pass? No, in the first trimester another 10% to 20% cannot continue to make the journey towards the outside world and are taken away. But, once it is officially a pregnancy, some legislators want to control the woman (never the man) for what nature has decided — it makes no difference to their legislation how, or for what reasons, the journey has been launched.

      What if the mother (or the father — in this situation, the man does often make the decision; I know of several abortions that were insisted upon by the man) decides it is best for the fertilized egg to not complete the journey? This often falls into the same laws that apply if nature/the universe/God has made that decision. Once again, such legislation is pointed towards the woman and NOT the man even though IT TAKES TWO.

Some of the various out-of-balance legislation concerning the journey of the fertilized egg.

     Once considered pregnant (even earlier if one counts “morning sickness” and similar bodily effects), the woman is the entire universe of the fertilized egg in transit. As I understand it, rabbinical scholars consider the egg in transit to be an integral part of a woman and not a separate object. It is also true that, in many cultures with high infant mortality, even after escaping into the world, a child is not named for a year or two as something that is part of the family for so short of a period of time does not need one. Those items of information do not sway the opinions of those who feel they should control the woman’s body.

     In the US, many government entities and courts feel that the fertilized egg, independent from the mother, has individual rights that are considered to be more important than the rights and safety of the mother. They give themselves authority, and control, over the woman carrying the fertilized egg in transit once it can be defined as a pregnancy. (There are some outliers who want to define even earlier in spite of the very high spontaneous abortion rate.)

     Mostly, these controllers of women want to make sure that the mother does nothing to stop the journey of the fertilized egg. Prevention of undesired pregnancies is not of importance, consequences of forced pregnancies is not important, the likely future situation of the escapee at the end of the journey, and the health of the mother and fertilized egg are not important. The journey MUST continue! And that’s a problem in many different ways.

     First, is the reality that 10 to 20% of the journeys are stopped by the universe with no direct interference from anyone. But, once recognized as a pregnancy, it is the responsibility of the mother (the father is kept behind the curtain) to keep the journey going and can get into severe trouble if the universe decides differently and spontaneously (as part of that 10% to 20%) end the journey. The choice to terminate this particular journey is removed, regardless of the impact on the woman, her life, and future. The choice is also made by those outside sources not taking into account the future stages of the fertilized egg.

     Secondly, the journey is easy for some women. For other women, it is very hard and there is need of all kinds of support — financial, medical, social. But that’s not important to the controllers. Only the journey matters and the woman (not the man) will be held responsible even for consequences directed by the controllers.

     Thirdly, once the fertilized egg has moved out from the warm comfort of the woman into the harsh, cold world, the controllers don’t care. And that’s a huge problem since the controllers are making sure the consequences will happen if the fertilized egg is forced to continue to move into the outside world.

What about the man, where is he?

     Back to that second half (the sperm) of the start of the journey of the fertilized egg. There isn’t much special during the period before the fertilized egg makes itself known. But once it makes its announcement, the mother faces momentous things in her life. Most of the time, it is hopefully a joyful discovery. But not always and, when outside groups take control of her and her body, choices become fewer and more dangerous.

     What about the man? In my opinion, he should be informed. Past that, the mother should be making all final decisions. Should the man be part of this journey? Was his part an unwanted, perhaps forced, event upon the mother? Will the man be a welcomed and supportive part of the journey?

     At this point, those who want to control COULD be of assistance. Once identified, the male-side-of-the-journey should be required to financially support. If his part was forced upon the woman then I think measures should be taken such that this never happens again. Prison or castration. At all times, the mother should be in control of her own body and her own decisions.

When control of her body is taken, all support is mandated

     Even though not desired, if an outside group does make decisions of control over the woman then they must also commit to support of the mother during the journey and after the possible entry into the outside world. Anything else is completely immoral according to both explicit and implicit standards of society. Aside from the remembrance that a man is also (perhaps exclusively) responsible for the start of the journey, this is the primary point for this newsletter. One can swipe from the comics as “with great power comes great responsibility” but, in any set of words, control must be teamed connected to support.

The community, or village, is there to support

     The group of people, with final responsibility, is the community. The village should be in full support of the journey, if desired, within the mother. And, the village should be supporting of those who recognize the completion of the situation which includes the mother and the originator of the sperm. The journey of the fertilized egg started with a man and a woman and, with the woman’s body being that which is most directly affected, the continued participation of the man, and the surrounding village, should be the primary source of support of any needed nature.

Smoke Gets in Your Lungs (updated)

     This is an article that I published in here on February 22, 2013. I try to make my articles “timeless” as I try to work with “foundational” issues — that are hopefully applicable to current times. But, I think that the previous article could use a new release with a bit of tweaking.

     I am attempting to move towards my substack -- Ideas & Interpretations, which is a reader-supported publication.  The substack system allows interested readers to get my material quickly and safely, but I will continue dual publishing as long as folks on the net want to read the blogs. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Paid subscribers, in particular, help me to decide to allocate time for these newsletters.

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

____________

     In the present day, there’s a lot of controversy about smoking. Old substances (tobacco) are in decline and are often under public disdain. “New” ones (marijuana) are in ascendance and are becoming more acceptable and may even cross the line back into legality (it’s not really new and has a long history of various stages of legality -- see the Wikipedia entry Legal History of Cannabis).

     However, because of its controversial legality and use, the health aspects of marijuana smoking have not been pursued as it has been for tobacco. There are also other substances that are sometimes smoked -- heated and inhaled or brought into the mouth or lungs. So, let’s take a step back and just look into smoke.

     Smoke occurs when substances are burned. Many firefighter (and people trapped in fire areas) injuries are associated with smoke inhalation. There are good (but highly technical) sources such as Wikipedia for articles on the various possibilities depending on factors such as heat, presence of other substances, humidity, and so forth. In this blog, we will concentrate on the tobacco and marijuana smoke voluntarily inhaled in relatively limited amounts by “smokers” and “tokers”.

The aspects of smoke

Smoke has four major aspects: carbon monoxide, tars and particulates, active ingredients, and additives.

1. Carbon Monoxide. This gas is created by incomplete burning of the material. It is primarily a danger to those “inhaling” as it is more lung-related. It is present in all smoke in varying degrees and is considered to be a poison as the body will absorb it and it decreases general function and may cause death. It is absorbed into the blood cells and decreases the ability to absorb oxygen and, thus, reduces stamina and general ability to perform at optimum levels. There is little difference in the effects between tobacco and marijuana smoke.
   

2. Tars and Particulates. These are the visible parts of smoke -- if you can see it, they are present. They are what cause the darkened areas of X-rays of lungs. “Tars” are resinous substances -- usually quite sticky and they cause the staining of teeth (and lungs) and can act as a kind of glue in the lungs, reducing the ability of the lungs to absorb oxygen. The particulates can vary in size depending on the temperature of the burning material and the size of the parts being burned and can act as an irritant causing more mucous production which is a major cause of “smoker’s cough”. It takes about five years for the lungs to fully repair from the damage caused by these substances and is considered to be a major trigger of lung cancer. This area could use more study but it is likely that there is little difference between tobacco and marijuana smoke.
   

3. Active Ingredients. These are the substances that interact with other parts of the body to cause the effects anticipated by smokers and tokers. In tobacco, this substance is nicotine which has many effects but primarily acts as a stimulant. It also has a mild diuretic (body water removing) effect which may cause weight loss for beginning smokers (and cause some temporary weight gain after quitting). It is water-soluble and, thus, is ideally administered via smoking. Anecdotally, nicotine is considered to help general focus and mental activity but there are no controlled studies verifying this. Nicotine also tends to paralyze the cilia in the trachea (windpipe) and, thus, may increase mucous retention and coughing. There are a few minor medical purposes for nicotine but it is considered to be highly physically addictive.
   
   The primary active ingredient in marijuana is tetrahydrocannabinol (usually referred to, for obvious reasons, as THC). Its effects vary from individual to individual and is considered primarily a “psychoactive” (acting primarily on the central nervous system) drug. Common effects include increased appetite, decreased nausea and pain, and a reduced sperm production in men. It is not considered to be highly physically addictive although a varying amount of emotional or psychological addiction is possible for both marijuana and tobacco.
   

4. Additives. Since tobacco has been legal for many years and is a highly competitive industry, each company does what it can to both distinguish and “enhance” its brand of tobacco. Glycerin is normally added to increase shelf life and prevent the tobacco from drying out. Formaldehyde (think of frogs in jars in biology class) is added to make absorption and crossover to the brain more rapid. This increases the risk of physical addiction. Many other additives are also present -- from spices such as cinnamon and cloves to liquids such as menthol and other oils. Formaldehyde is known as a carcinogen and the burning by-products of the other additives have not been extensively tested. However, this is an area that is highly likely to contribute to act as cancerous triggers (especially for non-lung-related cancers). Tobacco is much worse in this area than marijuana.

     Inhaling or not inhaling? As a water-soluble drug, the effects of nicotine are dependent upon the surface area times the duration of exposure. This is also true for other additive burn by-products. Thus, inhaling would be worse if holding it in the mouth was done for the same amount of time. However, this is not actually the case as cigar and pipe smokers tend to allow the smoke to remain in their mouths longer. Thus, there may be close to the same exposure for nicotine and additives. However, there would still be greatly reduced effects from the carbon monoxide and particulates. With THC, it varies upon the general environment. It is not considered to be water-soluble but it IS lipid (fats) and alcohol-soluble so, if taken with food or drink, it is probably absorbed as readily (or more readily) than bringing into the lungs.

Secondary smoke

     What is secondary smoke? Secondary smoke is when a person is not voluntarily inhaling smoke but cannot avoid it. If there is a wildfire, or a person smoking anything, anyplace on the planet, you are dealing with secondary smoke. This is not what people usually think of. They primarily think of cigarette smoke.

     As is true anything that comes to the public consciousness, there will be studies on those items. It seems that these studies have found that the limit of awareness of someone smoking cigarettes is about six meters (or 25 feet) in the outside air. That is one part per some very large number of air particles. Awareness means annoyance for many. The 6 meter/25 foot warning is directed toward addressing possible awareness/annoyance and creating pressure on smokers to quit (it is assumed that the more difficult it is to find places to smoke, the more likely they will decide to quit). But, in order to have health effects, the concentration must be much greater.

     At what point are there potential health effects of those in the vicinity of general secondary smoke? I don’t know. It varies depending on many conditions and, in the case of wildfires or heavily polluted air, it may not be avoidable and equipment (such as breathing masks) may need to be used. In open air, the distance from cigarette smoke, which potentially can trigger health problems, is probably measured in inches rather than feet (or centimeters rather than meters).

     The worst is in an enclosed space with no ventilation. The concentration will continue to increase as long as smoke is being produced. What if ventilation exists? There is no clear number as ventilation systems vary a LOT. It can be as well ventilated as outside with no enclosure or the ventilation may be practically non-existent.

Conclusion

     If there were no factory modifications of the substance (tobacco or cannabis), the health effects of the smoke would likely be about the same. However, with additives in tobacco, its smoke is likely worse. Neither substance can be declared healthy but health effects are highly dependent on the genetics of each individual. Secondary smoke health effects are highly dependent on the environment but outside restrictions are focused on discouraging smokers and preventing annoyance of non-smokers.

Addiction: Hooked and caught or a search for something missing?

     When a person hears the word “addiction”, thoughts often go directly to the agonies of withdrawal. A person without their addiction trying, perhaps desperately, to get back to their addiction. But that is really only an aspect of addiction and it is the attempted (voluntary or involuntary) elimination of addiction. How about the other direction — becoming addicted, staying addicted, becoming addicted anew after having “kicked” the addiction?

Just what is addiction?

     Addiction is rooted in dependence. You cannot, or do not want to, do something without something. Almost everyone in the US is addicted to refined sugar but it is so common and so omnipresent that it just isn’t looked at in that manner. A European eating a meal in the US will quickly notice just how much we rely upon table salt to flavor, and enhance, our foods. Salt is an excellent flavor enhancer. Salt is so much less expensive than herbs and spices that it gets put into almost all processed foods in the US. And, if given the choice between something that is salted the way we are used to and something with only a modicum of salt, almost all of us will choose the saltier version. Many different parts of life can become addictive. These include food, social aspects, and drugs (legal or illegal).

     Most people don’t consider food additives in the realm of addiction. There are others less common. In the book “The Space Merchants” by Frederick Pohl and C. M. Kornbluth, the advertising/marketing division of companies deliberately cause severe addiction. Except for the extent of the addiction, it is similar in the US. US people have been trained to prefer the unhealthy versions.

     Beyond the region of food (of which much more can be said), we have what are sometimes called “social addictions”. Many are considered mild, even positive. And given that we all have twenty-four hours in each day, perhaps it is not important.

     The point at which social addictions become bad is when they endanger that ability to continue making it to the next day or which diminish our ability to enjoy our lives beyond the addiction. Gambling can risk capital, or items, that are needed for continued prosperity. Sexual addiction can put health at risk as well as familial and social connections. A potentially healthy activity, such as playing videogames, can be overdone such that people lose jobs, have unhealthy living environments, become ill, and so forth.

     For many, an addiction immediately brings the idea of drugs to mind. Primarily, drugs that are considered to be illegal or tightly controlled are considered. But legal prescription drugs can be addictive as can be legal recreational drugs such as alcohol, tobacco, or cannabis.

Why is addiction alluring?

     There is no single answer to this question. Alcohol, for much of human history, has been part of human culture filling a vital role of providing “safe” liquid to drink before filtering and pasteurization existed. Although drinking non-distilled alcohol can certainly have deleterious effects, limits are enforced between stomach and bladder. Distilled alcohols, increasing the percentage of alcohol, increases the “social” use. Relaxation and reduction of social barriers made distilled alcohol a cheap way to facilitate social events. Alas. some are vulnerable to distilled alcohol and start wanting more and more.

     Other “social” drugs such as tobacco (nicotine) and cannabis (THC, CBD) chemically help to de-stress, focus, create euphoria, reduce pain, reduce nausea, and so forth. What can be done chemically usually has alternative methods of achieving and what is acceptable within society at one time may become disapproved of, or illegal, at other times.

     Depression, curiosity, peer pressure, and misleading advertising (usually by those selling it) are often a first step in making use of more potent drugs. Still, there is often something “lacking” that the user is trying to overcome. Loneliness, depression, boredom, anger. Wherever negative emotions lurk, there is something to entice whether it is a bowl of ice cream or a snort of cocaine.

Why go back?

     Some physical withdrawals are horrendous, even occasionally fatal. But emotional dependency is almost always closely connected to the physical addiction. A person can be “clean” and yet have a strong yearning for the effects that they had experienced while using drugs, or gambling, or cutting themselves, or …

     The yearning can be a matter of liking the way it feels when doing the addiction, liking the sensory aspects, liking the effects, liking the satiation. Once satiated, one may say “well, this isn’t good for me, I don’t think I’ll do it again”. But they do. When the yearning is connected to bodily physical addiction, there is both a push and a pull to continue with the addiction.

     There are many places to eliminate the direct physical dependency on various substances. “One day at a time” is a mantra of those who know they want something, recognize it, and also recognize that their life is much better without it. The concept of NEVER having that yearned-for item is a much larger mountain to cross than taking it “one day at a time”.

A matter of measure

     Most people would laugh off the idea of food addictions, even though it can be shown they are likely to shorten life, cause higher likelihood of diseases, or decrease the ability to enjoy life. Various other types of drug addictions are harder to laugh off but easier to ignore depending on cost and social encouragement or discouragement. You may be confronted daily with commercials advertising your favorite legal drug of choice. The illegal ones are not publicly advertised but may be a “normal” thing within your peer circles. Gambling, for instance, may be detrimental to your general life but still acceptable as long as that limit is maintained beyond which your life gets quickly worse.

     One thing that can backfire in public challenges against addictions is poor media coverage or overstatements. The 1938 film “Reefer Madness” probably made more people curious about marijuana than those whom it discouraged because it is so “over-the-top” that one is tempted to discount ALL the information. It leads to “but he does it and is okay” or “they have been doing it for years and they are fine”. Maybe they are and maybe they aren’t but a realistic assessment and description of the downside of various substances and addictions is of greater use, allowing realistic comparisons and evaluations.

Conclusion

     Physical addictions do not have to keep a hook into a person forever. Associated emotional addictions can be stronger than superglue and many situations can only be addressed “one day at a time”.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Gift of Play: It isn't easy for all of us

     I had enough to eat. I had clothes on my back and shoes on my feet. I had shelter. I even had love in the manner they were able to give it. But, I didn’t really have safety and a person needs safety in order to be able to play. If a person is scared of punishment for any potential action, it is always safer to just withdraw and not do very much.

     To a considerable degree, this newsletter is autobiographical. But the history, stories, methods, and results may be applicable to many a child who grows up under enforced isolation.

A background for an isolated child

     My mother could not stand unrestrained noise (polka music was alright). She also demanded instant attention and responses. Perhaps this was her inheritance from her childhood where they had seven people living in a 1000-square-foot house with two bedrooms. The boys got the second bedroom. The girls slept in the bathroom. (One of my aunts slept in the bathtub — the habit of which may have saved her life later when her house (a different one) was hit by a tornado.)

     In addition to the needs of my mother (my father was quite introverted and did not play an active part of the family), I was/am likely on the autistic spectrum. In particular, my social skills were greatly behind those of others around me. Although I could, and did, learn social skills they have never been innate. The one that hit me hardest in my younger days was that of “social lying”. I remember my mother taking me to a neighbor’s house and telling me “be sure to compliment her on something”. The neighbor had a completed puzzle on a table that she used as a decoration. I saw it and the picture was nice and interesting. I put my finger on it and moved it through the deep layer of dust on the puzzle in order to see the picture better. The neighbor, and my mother, approached and, remembering my mother’s words I said “this is a nice picture but it sure is dusty”. That did not make my mother happy.

     One of my most vivid early childhood memories was of the last time I was physically punished. Although my father was not much of an active part of the household, he would do as my mother told him and was used (as a threat and as fulfillment) as the instrument of punishment. My mother uttered that universal fear of a child “wait until your father gets home”. As the belt came down upon my rear end (not truly that hard, my father was not a violent person) I kept yelling “what did I do wrong?” I never found out. I never knew what I was being punished for. And that was the last straw out of which I built my retreat of safety. If I could be punished for no known reason at any time, I needed to disappear as much as possible. My brother took a different route, he was absent from the house as much as possible.

     There were positive aspects to this. I burrowed into books. I checked out the maximum allowable number of books from the local library whenever someone was willing to take me (in my birth town, I could walk (the local librarian gave me library card number 4, which she reserved for me until I could apply for a card) to the library). Books included school books. I would read all of my textbooks cover to cover within the first week of school which allowed me to really absorb their contents over the school year. And my mother was willing to permit me to spend time in my room studying, although I still needed to quickly attend to her needs when called.

     I also learned not to make known any attachment to anything or anyone, as they were likely to be used as a weapon against me. I received a puppy from my grandmother after I had isolated but before all sense of play was lost. I loved that puppy, played with it, fed it. Then one day it was gone. It may have been “given to a farmer” as I was told. It may have been run over by a car as one of her bad habits was to chase cars. She might have gotten seriously sick and died. I don’t know and, at that time, I already had lost sufficient trust to never believe the farmer story.

     I was a serious comic collector, and had accumulated quite a few comics by junior high. One day, my mother decided that I had to get rid of them. The bags were in my closet. They were not in the way of anyone or anything. But they had to go. From the issues that I remember (and I had a lot that I probably don’t remember), my mother forced the removal of hundreds of thousands of dollars of vintage “silver age” comics. Although this story is not unique among collectors within the US public, my mother did it specifically because I spent “too much” time reading comics and “not enough” time attending to her needs.

What is play?

     You are probably better qualified than I am to define play. “To occupy oneself in an activity for amusement or recreation” seems pretty flat. Although it does call out why one of the largest problems with the ultra-rich is boredom. At the low-income point, most activity is for survival. Nevertheless, many people in lower income brackets do make time for “amusement or recreation”. An extra clause to some (but not all) definitions of play adds activity “for its own sake”. In other words, there is no “reason”, no “goal”, it’s being done only because the person wants to do such and enjoys it.

     Enjoy. Yes, I have allowed a small amount of enjoyment to creep back into my life. Not that you would likely notice by looking at my face or body language. And I do a few things just because I enjoy them. But amused by them? A form of recreation? I’ll do it for others if they ask (but I’m highly unlikely to be the person asking).

     “Because it is there” may be a type of goal but it is often just a component of the recreation. It is impossible to climb mountains without a mountain (VR journeys don’t count). And play certainly isn’t universal. I, personally, have no interest in parachuting for “fun” but that doesn’t mean that parachuting is not a valid type of amusement (recreation?) for many people. Amusement is a highly subjective thing. As for the distinction between amusement and recreation, I think that both are put into the definition to ward off arguments. (“That isn’t an amusement, it is recreation:,)

Work and play

     What! You enjoy your work? Congratulations! But, even if you find it amusing as well, it just isn’t inherently play because there is a goal (or multiple goals). Would you do it without the pay? Without the observable output? If so, perhaps it might qualify as play in addition to work. But, if it is something that is necessary, does THAT still count? Say that I work for eight hours a day. I have another eight hours (all approximate) to eat, clean the house, move from place to place, brush my teeth and use the restroom. Would there be time, within that second block of eight hours, to earn a living to keep “body and soul” alive? Wouldn’t the eight hours at “work” be disqualified to be considered “play” since it is necessary to continue with the bills and such?

The requirements for play

     If a child is to play, they must be able to be spontaneous. There can’t be a careful examination of how others (especially adults) will respond to your actions. Although it is important to recognize the feelings, and needs, of others, it is important to carry through to do what you want in the way you want to do it. (Children must learn to work with the needs and feelings of others. When they never succeed in doing that, it is a sign of the problem of sociopathy.) Perhaps the most important aspect is the recognition of joy within oneself. What is FUN for you to do? I would appreciate any insight you might have about what is play and how to enter into it.

     In combination with spontaneous, there can’t be a judge. Errors don’t exist. Everything that doesn’t hurt someone else is okay to do. Play is supposed to be a reservoir filled with opportunities for learning. Learning doesn’t happen without finding out what doesn’t work.

Restoration of a sense of play

     I don’t know if that is truly possible. One of my sons continues to try to get me to play. But play means spontaneity. It requires not thinking through everything in advance. It may even mean causing accidents or unforeseen problems. It might hurt other people’s feelings. How does one rewire the brain to reinstill something that was once present but now is fully lost?'

So,….

     Play is spontaneous. Play is non-judgemental. Play is from a universal pool of creation. Go have yourself a play date, you lucky person you.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Paid subscribers are appreciated in giving me more incentive to spend time on these newsletters but all are welcome and posts are available to all.