January 12

 Almost half past January and we haven't seen any significant snow since Christmas week. We also haven't seen any really cold temperatures. It just doesn't feel like winter.

Robert Reich has a suggestion about how to solve the "labor problem." Basically he says people should be paid more. I would add a caveat that the workers who need and deserve more are those at the lower end of the pay scale. Those are the people who have to work two or three jobs to earn enough to pay rent in almost all housing markets. Or they need two or three people contributing to the rent. Every now and then we check out the local rents and even rent in areas a distance from us. When we moved in here the rent took half and a bit more of our combined income. The basic rent here has doubled in the last 25 years we have been here for new renters. Ours hasn't been raised that drastically because we are established tenants. But the rent exceeds the 30% of our combined income that is the recommended limit. Neither of us could afford to live here by ourselves. Why should people work in a system that doesn't even pay them a living wage? Key item in Reich's article is this:

So what should be done about the difficulty employers are having finding workers?Simple. If employers want more workers, they should pay them more.

Jerome Powell and the Fed don’t want to hear this. They’re aiming to deal with the “labor shortage” by slowing the economy so much that employers can find all the workers they need without raising wages.

 

But this is cruel. Slowing the economy will cause millions of people to lose their jobs — disproportionately low-wage workers, women, and people of color. 

This reminds me of the arguments of slave holders who insisted they were as humane as possible because the (n word) would not work without the fear of the lash. Or the arguments against direct food aid during the Great Depression that poor people wouldn't work without the pain of hunger.

We have been told forever that "smart" (i.e., programable) thermostats save energy and money. The pundits insisted that if everyone converted (i.e., shelled out a significant portion of their grocery money for a new gadget) "we" could save so much energy, prevent so much pollution, and consumers would save so much money we wouldn't know what to do with it all. This article throws cold water all over the argument. A couple of interesting points. First, the Department of Energy, like the FDA, relies on the manufacturers' own data to make their recommendations and that data might not be all that trust worthy. After all the profits of the manufacturer (like the drug company) depend on good recommendations. Second, what works well in the lab doesn't always work all that well when scaled up to a mass market. Third, what works well when people who develop these gadgets use them might not work nearly as well when ordinary consumers use them.