Category Archives: Economics

Posted on by

The #ClimateChange activists really, really don’t understand how many Americans live They just blithely claim we can go out and spend $10,000 to $20,000 on things they insist we need

It was early Monday morning, March 12, 2018, when we received five inches of heavy, wet snow at our farm in Estill County, Kentucky, and we lost electricity, in our all-electric home, sometime before 4:30 AM. No, I’m not relying on memory; I’m actually kind of obsessive about recording things in my At-A-Glance Daily Diary, and I have a whole shelf of them, dating back to 1986, missing only 2001’s, which was lost somehow.

Fortunately, it was 42º F and sunny outside by afternoon, which helped some, but it still got down to 52º F inside the house. My wife, having to work the following day, drove to Lexington to stay at our daughter’s apartment, so she could do something really radical like take a shower in the morning. There was just enough sort-of warm water in the water heater for me to take a quick shower on Tuesday morning. While my wife could leave, I had to stay at home to care for the critters.

To make a long story short, we finally got sparktricity back at 4:54 PM on Thursday, March 15th. It had gotten as cool as 37º F inside the house, though warmer in my bedroom, which I heated with sunshine through the window and my own body heat. The high for that day was 58º F, so that helped some. I wonder how bad things would have gotten if we had lost power for 4½ days in mid-January.

Thus, it was with somewhat of a jaundiced eye that I noticed a series of tweets:

Dan Walters: These power outages have me even more appreciative of having a gas-fired stove, so we can at least have hot food. Something to ponder as officialdom tries to make homes all-electric

panama bartholomy: By now we recognize that burning gas in buildings is one of our leading air polluters, more than cars and power plants combined, part of the reason we have terrible air in CA. We can’t clean up our air and continue to burn gas. We also cannot run a gas system just for cooking (1)

panama bartholomy: If we replaced all of our furnaces with amazing 400% efficient heat pumps (http://bit.ly/3CuNhOU) and water heaters with heat pump water heaters we could cut over 90% of gas use to buildings and have dramatically better air. (2)

The embedded link led to this OpEd in The Washington Post:

Why everyone is going to need a heat pump

By Robert Gebelhoff, Assistant editor and Opinions contributor | January 4, 2023 | 2:43 PM EST

For anyone using fossil fuels to heat their homes, I have good and bad news.

The bad: You’re going to want to replace that system with heat pumps eventually, and it might be expensive. The good: The government can help you, and the change will have huge benefits for you and the world.

Oh, the government can help us? How will the government help us?

These heating and cooling systems, once considered useful only in warmer climates, have in the past few years become far more sophisticated. They are now the best chance we have to phase out fossil fuels as a means of heating and could set the stage for a climate policy revolution. . . . .

Americans are not yet as enthusiastic, but policymakers in many states recognize heat pumps’ potential. A New York commission recently approved a plan to require all new houses built in the state after 2025 to use electric systems rather than those running on natural gas, oil or propane. After 2030, it seeks to require homeowners to replace all fossil-fuel-burning systems with non-carbon-emitting ones once they give out.

New York’s approach is the most aggressive in the country, but it’s by no means alone. Fifteen states and more than 100 cities have plans to encourage heat pump installation. The federal government is in on the strategy, too. The Inflation Reduction Act provides generous rebates and tax incentives for those who install the devices, and the Energy Department has dedicated $250 million to increase their production.

Really? Generous rebates and tax incentives? In March of 2021, we had to replace our heat pump based HVAC — heating, ventilation and air conditioning — system due to the record-setting flooding on the Kentucky River. The rising waters destroyed the old system, but while they got into the crawl space, they did not get into our house itself. Replacing the old system was $6,100, $6,100 we didn’t want to spend. The price was lower for us in that the ductwork from the previous system was still in place and usable. Fortunately, we had the cash to do it, though I wonder just how many of my eastern Kentucky neighbors could say the same.

And if you are living paycheck-to-paycheck, $6,100 is a lot of money, money you have to pay up front to get your new HVAC system installed, months before you ever see those generous rebates and tax incentives. While the numbers fluctuate, surveys in May of 2022 showed that 49% of Americans didn’t have the cash available to handle an unexpected $400 expense.

Can people in such close financial straits get the credit to have a new HVAC system installed when they don’t have the cash?

These efforts are well worth the expense. Consider that buildings consume about 40 percent of all energy in the United States. Residential buildings alone contribute to about 20 percent of U.S. carbon emissions, with half heated by burning fossil fuels.

This is where Robert Gebelhoff, an Assistant editor and Opinions contributor for The Washington Post, tells us just how much he doesn’t understand much of America. “These efforts,” he wrote, “are well worth the expense.” Well, perhaps to someone who has a relatively high position for one of our nation’s most famous and important newspapers, (probably) earns a decent salary — and no, I couldn’t find Mr Gebelhoff’s salary or net worth — and could, I assume, afford that expense. And never forger: Mr Gebelhoff once blithely wrote, “NASA’s latest gamble might not pay out, but it’s worth the $2 billion anyway“. But both my wife and I grew up poor, and if we’re not poor now, having retired back to Our Old Kentucky Home, we can and do see plenty of poorer people living around us.

Heat pumps, in contrast, simply move heat from the outside air or ground inside — even during frigid winter months.

They do? Technically, yes, that’s how they operate. But taking heat from the outside air, when the outside air is 10º F, isn’t quite the same thing as doing so when it’s 45º F. That’s part of the reason why, as we have pointed out previously, wealthy New Englanders, when going through expensive home remodeling on Thie Old House, chose gas heating systems. We have also previously noted that it “seems that everybody wants a gas range,” even though the climate activists don’t want people to have that choice. Today’s left appear to be pro-choice on exactly one thing.

Our remodeled kitchen, including the propane range! All of the work except the red quartz countertops was done by my family and me. Click to enlarge.

Us? We remodeled our kitchen — the whole house was a livable but nevertheless fixer-upper home when we bought it — in 2018, after the power-outage but still planned before it, and we added what my wife wanted, a gas, propane actually, since there’s no natural gas service in our rural area, range, a propane water heater — our electric one was on its last legs anyway, so we needed to replace it — and a propane fireplace. When it got down to -5º F over the Christmas holiday, and our heat-pump based HVAC really couldn’t keep up, that fireplace kept it nice and warm at home. When the floods of 2021 destroyed the old heat-pump HVAC system, the propane fireplace kept us warm.

We had, of course, learned our lesson in our previous home in Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania. We got fourteen inches of heavy, wet snow on Christmas Day of 2002, and yes, the power failed there as well. We had a heating oil fired steam boiler for our heating system, but it still required a 110-voly, 20-amphere electric circuit to activate the boiler and run the pump. The power was restored at around 6:30 PM . . . on December 26th. We subsequently added a woodstove, which was easy enough, because the previous owner had installed a hearth and chimney for one.[1]If we had to replace that system with a heat-pump based HVAC one, it would have been very expensive. Not only would it need to be a system with 50% more capacity than the one we have here, because … Continue reading

A cheery fire in our wood stove in Jim Thorpe, December 18, 2016.

Would it be superstitious of me to note that we never had a subse-quent power failure of more than a few hours since we installed the alternate heating systems? 🙂

Naturally, I haven’t quoted every word of Mr Gebelhoff’s original, but, further down is this:

This is why heat pumps often save energy costs in the long term, even though they can be expensive to install, especially when replacing existing systems. Cost estimates vary widely depending on the size and age of a house, ranging from as low as $3,000 to upwards of $20,000.

How blithely he wrote that! Yes, heat pumps “often save energy costs in the long run,” but it’s that “expensive to install” part that one of the Washington elite just doesn’t get: you have to have the money to install them in the first place, and that “upwards of $20,000” part isn’t always easy for people. When 49% of Americans, hit hard by inflation in 2022, can’t handle an unexpected $400 expense, how does Mr Gebelhoff expect them to write a check for ten or twenty grand?

One last paragraph from Mr Gebelhoff:

Naturally, efforts to push consumers to embrace heat pumps have generated much anxiety on the right. Republicans in New York have panned their state’s plan as “radical” and claimed it will leave residents “in the dark and in the cold.” But policymakers must not flinch. Yes, retrofitting homes can be expensive. The answer is to offset the costs with subsidies, as many states are already doing.

With this, the Post’s columnist was right there on the cusp, right at the point of realizing that yes, the power can go out, but if he did realize it, he never mentioned it; there isn’t a single word in his column telling us what people who are completely committed to all-electric heat would do in sub-freezing weather — something fairly common in the winter in New York state, when the electricity failed. When Buffalo and Watertown and the other areas in upstate New York get hammered by three or four feet of lake-effect snow, power outages are frequent. If they happened to be dependent upon the type of fuel-oil burner that my family had in Pennsylvania, or the gas furnace my daughter had installed in her home in Lexington when her heat-pump powered HVAC system failed, a simple, gasoline-powered generator that can be bought at Home Despot or Lowe’s can provide the current the 110-volt, 20-amp circuit such systems use to keep their homes warm. A heat pump? The system I have here is on two separate — one for the exterior condenser and one for the crawl space unit — 220-volt, 50-amp circuits. That’s going to require a much larger, much more expensive generator.

Mr Gebelhoff isn’t stupid; you don’t get hired by The Washington Post if you’re an idiot. But, living in the liberal Washington bubble, he is seemingly ignorant about how many Americans live. Not to pick solely on him — his OpEd column is simply a catalyst for mine — but this is a common problem amongst the climate change activists: they simply do not understand the problems that so many Americans work, and can be completely airy-fairy about suggesting policies which will make Americans poorer.

References

References
↑1 If we had to replace that system with a heat-pump based HVAC one, it would have been very expensive. Not only would it need to be a system with 50% more capacity than the one we have here, because the house was 50% larger, but since the system in Pennsylvania was used steam radiators rather than forced air ducts, we’d have had to have those installed as well, in a house built in 1890.
Posted on by

We tell you what the government will not: you’re going to get poorer this year

It was September of 2016, and the Obama Administration was having none of the bad economic news. The economy was doing great, we were told, unemployment was way down as the economy recovered from the 2008-9 recession, and everything was peaches but the cream. Trouble is, the American people just didn’t quite believe it:

Problem: Most Americans don’t believe the unemployment rate is 5%

by Heather Long | September 6, 2016 | 3:18 PM EDT

Americans think the economy is in far worse shape than it is. The U.S. unemployment rate is only 4.9%, but 57% of Americans believe it’s a lot higher than that, according to a new survey by the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University.

The general public has “extremely little factual knowledge” about the job market and labor force, Rutgers found.

It’s another example of how experts on Wall Street and in Washington see the economy differently than the regular Joe. Many of the nation’s top economic experts say that America is “near full employment.” The unemployment rate has actually been at or below 5% for almost a year — millions of people have found jobs in what is the best period of hiring since the late 1990s.

But regular people appear to have their doubts about how healthy America’s employment picture is. Nearly a third of those survey by Rutgers believe unemployment is actually at 9%, or higher.

Republican candidate Donald Trump has tapped into this confusion. He has repeatedly called the official unemployment rate a “joke” and a even “hoax.”

As it happened, the U-6 unemployment rate — “Total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force.” — was in the nine percent range, 9.6% to be more precise, and if few people actually look at the various unemployment categories, the public can sort of feel them in their bones.

Well, the supposed good news is that the current ‘official’ unemployment rate has dropped to a multi-year low of 3.5% as the non-farm economy added 223,000 jobs in December. But, with the labor force participation rate still lower than before the disruptions caused by government reaction to the panicdemic — no, that’s not a typographical error, but exactly the spelling I believe it should have — the unemployment number is being held artificially low. The civilian labor force stood at 164,966,000 in December, just 262,000 higher than it was in December of 2019, the last pre-virus year, but the workforce-eligible population, those aged 16 and over, not in the military nor incarcerated, is 4,633,000 higher than in December of 2019, 264,814,000 vs 260,181,000.

When I say that the public feel it in their bones, I look at other indicators, and this story stood out for me:

Macy’s warns holiday-quarter sales will come in light, citing squeeze on shoppers’ wallets

by Melissa Repko | Friday, January 6 2023 | 4:33 PM EST | Updated Friday, January 6 2023 | 7:43 PM EST

Macy’s on Friday warned its holiday-quarter sales will come in on the lighter side, saying consumers’ budgets are under pressure and that it anticipates that squeeze to continue into this year.

The department store operator said net sales are now expected to be at the low- to midpoint of its previously expected range of $8.16 billion to $8.4 billion. It expects adjusted diluted earnings per share to be in the previously issued range of $1.47 to $1.67.

For the year-ago period, Macy’s reported revenue of $8.67 billion and adjusted earnings per share of $2.45.

Shares of the company fell about 4% in aftermarket trading Friday.

Macy’s is the latest retailer to provide clues about the consumer, as investors await holiday results and look for signs of whether demand is holding up as inflation remains high

There’s more at the original, and no, it isn’t behind a paywall.

So, Macy’s, a very-sensitive-to-Christmas retailer, is going to see an absolute drop in holiday revenue, yet the inflation rate in November — the December inflation figures are not out yet — was 7.1%. Macy’s has seen a total holiday revenue decline of roughly 5%, at a time when prices have increased 7.1%. And this was during the first real Christmas season in which people weren’t under mask mandates and the general malaise of the panicdemic.

There are real, solid reasons for this. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that average hourly earnings were 4.6% higher in December over December of 2021. That would be great . . . if the inflation rate hadn’t been much higher. The average American was poorer, in real terms, this Christmas than he was last Christmas. The Biden Administration doesn’t want people to know that, but the public can see it, can feel it, in their wallets and in their bones. And that’s why Macy’s saw a drop of revenue.

There’s more: we might not be in a recession now, but economists believe there will be one before 2023 is over:

Big banks are predicting that an economic downturn is fast approaching.

More than two-thirds of the economists at 23 large financial institutions that do business directly with the Federal Reserve are betting the U.S. will have a recession in 2023. Two others are predicting a recession in 2024.

The firms, known as primary dealers, are a collection of trading firms and investment banks that include companies such as Barclays PLC, Bank of America Corp., TD Securities and UBS Group AG. They cite a number of red flags: Americans are spending down their pandemic savings. The housing market is in decline, and banks are tightening their lending standards.

“We expect a downturn in global GDP growth in 2023, led by recessions in both the U.S. and the eurozone,” economists at BNP Paribas SA wrote in the bank’s 2023 outlook, titled “Steering Into Recession.”

The main culprit is the Federal Reserve, economists said, which has been raising rates for months to try to slow the economy and curb inflation. Though inflation has eased recently, it is still much higher than the Fed’s desired target.

The Fed raised rates seven times in 2022, pushing its benchmark from a range of 0% to 0.25% to the current 4.25% to 4.50%, a 15-year high. Officials signaled in December that they plan to keep raising rates to between 5% and 5.5% in 2023.

There’s more at the original, but it all boils down to one thing: if you’re wealthy, you’ll see some economic losses, but you’ll still be able to live. If you are living paycheck-to-paycheck, you’re in for some real pain.
_____________________________
Also posted on American Free News Network. Check out American Free News Network for more well written and well reasoned conservative commentary.

Posted on by

How wealthy New Englanders fight #ClimateChange

It was last January that we noted the Westerly Ranch House project on one of my favorite shows, This Old House.

The [ughh!] Magnolia Network is, this Saturday morning, running reruns of This Old House, season 41, originally broadcast in 2019-2020, a major, expensive, remodel of a home in Westerly, Washington County, Rhode Island. Westerly is a beach resort town which in the 2020 election gave 55.6% of its votes to Joe Biden; Washington County as a whole voted 58.57% to 39.20% for Mr Biden.

And what did the obviously wealthy homeowners, in liberal Rhode Island, in a show originally meant for the liberal Public Broadcasting System, choose for this project? One episode shows the installation of a 1,000 gallon underground propane tank, for their heating system, their water heater, their range, and their fireplace.

Now we return to another This Old House project, the Seaside Victorian Cottage, in Narragansett, Rhode Island. According to Wikipedia, voters there gave 5,333 votes, 59.1% of the total to Joe Biden, and only 3,551, 39.3%, to President Trump in 2020. Now, I don’t know how the obviously well-to-do homeowners specifically voted; there’s always a chance that they were smarter than the majority of their neighbors and voted for Mr Trump.

This series was hard dated: the initial walk-through was just prior to the COVID panicdemic beginning, and ran through the summer and into the fall of 2020, as the Democrats were running on global warming climate change, and touting their proposals to fight it and dramatically reduce or eliminate the use of fossil fuels.

But one thing I noticed, and for which I specifically looked, was the energy source they planned. And there it was, in the second episode — season 42, episode 6 — the remodeling contractor said that there would be a 1,000 gallon propane tank installed in the back yard. Richard Trethewey, the plumber and HVAC expert for the show, showing us in a later episode, that a new, modulating gas furnace was installed.

Yup, once again, those wealthy New Englanders aren’t going for electric heat pumps, but warm, dependable gas heating for the cold, Rhode Island winters. Their HVAC system appears to allow the large, new exterior condensers to be used for heating as well, but the gas furnace is new and in place.

More, the homeowners had a new, fairly sizable gas fireplace installed, as you can see in the photo to the left. More, they had a gas fireplace installed outside, on their backyard patio.

The kitchen features an oversized Wolf gas range.

Episode 9 has Mr Trethewey telling us about the water heating system. The homeowners are going with a more efficient ‘instant’ hot water system, but, anticipating higher demand, they’ll have three instant hot water units, all gas fired, linked.

The final show of the series showed us, very briefly, that a new, large propane-powered generator had been installed in the back yard, so the homeowners wouldn’t have to worry about losing sparktricity in a New England nor’easter.

Now, I certainly don’t begrudge the homeowners for the opportunity they had, and the money they were able to put into a dilapidated home. I was unable to find a value on the house, but similar homes in the area are valued at over a million bucks. But the city of Narragansett, which has an historical commission very interested in keeping the exterior of the home in keeping with the neighborhood, and local city permit agencies, apparently had no objection to the extensive use of propane in the remodeled home.

So, when I read how the climate change activists want to push people to “Electrify (their lives) in 2023 to fight climate change,” I note that the people who can afford to remodel extensively in high cost areas love them some natural gas or propane service!

Posted on by

You can’t make poorer people wealthier by making wealthier people poorer

Though Philadelphia is, overall, quite “diverse,” a word that I mostly despise due to the way it has been co-opted, it is, internally, one of the most segregated large cities in America. As we previously noted, the Editorial Board of The Philadelphia Inquirer were aghast that the “percentage of Black and Hispanic Philadelphians who feel unsafe in their neighborhood is double the percentage of white Philadelphians.”

Gun violence is both a disease and a symptom. It’s crucial that our city’s goal be twofold: ensuring that all Philadelphians feel safe, and that the ranks of those who do not isn’t determined by skin color. Only when that is the case can Philadelphia truly say it is facing its challenges together.

For what are the Board asking here? They have already let us know that they don’t like gentrification, wealthier white people moving into predominantly black and Hispanic neighborhoods, and fixing up distressed homes; that, they claimed, led to segregated white pockets in the city. Somehow, no one seems to see the increased values in gentrifying areas lifting the net worth of the homes of black and Hispanic people living in those areas, or the value of white residents who are completely accepting of living in an integrated neighborhood. The Board seem to want more black residents in Chestnut Hill — which, with zip code 19118, one of the examples the Board used, being 67% white, ought to be considered integrated because that means 33% are not white — and Rittenhouse Square, but unless those residents can afford to move there, either the city, or someone, will have to provide the same subprime mortgages that caused the crash of 2007-9, or build ‘affordable housing’ in places which would then see other people’s property values decline due to it.

There is, of course, a not-so-subtle undertone to the Board’s editorial, the theme that white people make places safer, while blacks and Hispanics make areas more dangerous. The members would deny that, of course, but it is right there, obvious to anyone who reads what they wrote.

Unless, of course, the Board are saying that white Philadelphians should feel as unsafe as black and Hispanic residents do? If Will Bunch is on the Board, that wouldn’t surprise me!

And now the Board want to financially depress white areas of the city:

Race should not determine where you live

A recent lawsuit shows that segregation remains high in Philadelphia and that significant obstacles remain for Black households to build wealth through real estate.

By The Editorial Board | Tuesday, December 20, 2022 | 6:00 AM EST

As demonstrated through The Inquirer’s “A More Perfect Union” series on the legacy of racism in Philadelphia, bias and discrimination have a long history in our city. It is a rot in the foundation of America that we must all continue to repair and rebuild.

A recent housing lawsuit may be the latest part of that effort.

A Philadelphia landlord is accused of steering federal housing voucher recipients into properties in majority-Black neighborhoods, but not in predominantly white areas. This closes even more doors for people already hemmed in by a growing shortage of available rental housing and perpetuates racial disparities.

It is also a violation of the federal Fair Housing Act and the city’s own prohibition against tenant discrimination, as detailed in the suit against ProManaged Inc., a Mount Laurel-based landlord with 77 rental properties throughout Philadelphia.

Housing choice vouchers were designed to give low-income households a choice in where they live. Rather than being forced into disinvested areas, these families would have options, with market-rate housing in middle-class neighborhoods finally on the table. At least it was supposed to be.

What are federal housing vouchers? From the Department of Housing and Urban Development:

A housing subsidy is paid to the landlord directly by the PHA on behalf of the participating family. The family then pays the difference between the actual rent charged by the landlord and the amount subsidized by the program.

Note that: unless the voucher is for 100% of the rent, the family with the voucher are responsible for part of the rent. While the property owners are guaranteed the voucher amount, since that money is sent directly to them, they remain dependent upon the family to pay the remainder. And if the family are poor enough to be eligible for the vouchers in the first place, that means that many of them will be poor enough to be shaky in their ability to pay even the reduced amount.

A 2018 Urban Institute study found that two-thirds of landlords in the city refused to even meet with voucher holders. Compared to municipalities around the country, Philadelphia also had one of the highest disparities between acceptance rates in high- and low-income neighborhoods, a difference of 26%.

There’s some irony that the Inquirer’s editorial was published the same morning that the City of Brotherly Love informed us that it’d hit an even 500 homicides for the year. Given the fact that Philadelphia is a very violent city, and that violence is heavily concentrated in the neighborhoods with higher black and Hispanic percentages of the population, is it any particular surprise that a property owner in a ‘better’ neighborhood would not be all that happy about renting to people from those neighborhoods? Yes, it’s something of a ‘profiling’ judgement, but if the ‘profiling’ is being done based on vouchers rather than race, even there’s a question as to whether that constitutes racial discrimination. After all, poorer whites would face the same problem.

Even the Board recognized the problem, albeit in a backhanded way:

It’s no accident that maps showing structural racism in housing and the current epidemic of gun violence are nearly identical, according to a study by the Office of the City Controller.

Though it’s probably outside of the Board’s paradigm, they have said, inter alia, that bringing more black families into wealthier, whiter neighborhoods means bringing in more of the culture of violence. The people living in Kensington or Strawberry Mansion might be attempting to escape the violence of those areas, but they have also been more culturally conditioned to accept violence as normal, to accept the open-air drug markets as normal.

The Editorial Board at least noted that accepting vouchers came with its own economic disincentive to property owners:

For their part, landlords complain that accepting vouchers is costly and cumbersome. Unlike a private rental license — which in Philadelphia does not require an inspection — apartments leased to voucher holders must be inspected, and are held to higher standards. The landlord must also become certified through the Philadelphia Housing Authority.

So, the rental property owners must have their properties inspected by the city, which exposes them to unanticipated costs if the inspector finds something out of compliance. While the certification courses are listed as being free, they also require two days of the owners’ time, and time is money.

Leasing to voucher holders also comes with significant delays to the move-in process, keeping tenants unhoused and landlords unpaid from anywhere between 45 and 90 additional days when compared to a nonsubsidized rental. With record-low vacancy rates in the city, keeping units empty is expensive.

It sure seems as though people with apartments or houses to rent would want to keep them rented, rather than up to three months of vacancy, and no rent coming in, along with the problems that having an unoccupied dwelling brings. The owners’ property taxes don’t get suspended just because the property is vacant!

Property owners are rightly concerned about their properties’ values, and there’s a cost to that in bringing in people who must rely on vouchers to pay all or part of their rent. When the neighborhood starts to have more poorer people in it, it’s not just the rent: it’s vehicles of lesser value parked on the streets or in the driveways, it’s property not kept quite as nicely as previously, and it’s a subtle, but nevertheless real, perception that the neighborhood is losing value. These are things which depress property values, not only for the landlords, but the other properties in the neighborhood.

What the Editorial Board want is not just for landlords to accept more vouchers and rent to more poorer people, but for the resident homeowners to see the value of their properties to go down. It might not be politically correct to say — and being politically correct has never been something I do — but poverty metastasizes, poverty spreads more widely than just the poor family itself.

It’s both humorous and ironic that the Editorial Board have previously weighed in against “gentrification,” the very thing that both increases racial integration and raises property values in currently heavily minority areas. It takes some research, and familiarity with the Inquirer and its editorial slant, but if you read all of their editorials, and consider them together, you might well come up with the same conclusion I have: the Editorial Board want to mostly keep whites out of existing heavily minority neighborhoods, but move black and Hispanic residents into the more heavily white areas. Just how that makes sense mystifies me!

Home ownership is the best path to the economic success of a working class family, and we should not try to deny it to black or Hispanic Americans. But it is also something which cannot be forced, and the Editorial Board just don’t realize this. Rather, they would make people poorer by reducing their existing home values by pushing an influx of poorer people into established and economically growing neighborhoods.

The problems in Philadelphia are the things that the Editorial Board simply do not want to hear: they are cultural, in the acceptance and normalization of violence, the acceptance and normalization of bastardy, and the acceptance and normalization of drug use. Those are the things which have to be addressed, and they have to be addressed not by Governors and Mayors and city Councilmen, but by parents and neighborhoods and churches. There is no reason that poor or black or Hispanic residents cannot have a moral and ethical structure which leads to decent and safe neighborhoods, but the Board just don’t like people saying radical things like Christian or Jewish or Islamic morality are important culturally, that some of the individual choices some people take are harmful to both themselves and the community around them.
________________________________
Also posted on American Free News Network. Check out American Free News Network for more well written and well reasoned conservative commentary.

Posted on by

I take no joy in seeing Washington Post employees getting laid off

I’ve said it before: I really love newspapers! I delivered the Lexington Herald and the Lexington Leader — now combined as the Lexington Herald-Leader — when I was in junior high and high schools, and, being hearing impaired, I find it much easier to read the news than to watch and listen to it on television. More, television news stations are in the business of presenting stories which happen right away, stories which have a strong visual component. Only newspapers have the capacity to dig more deeply, to present more information than people can get from a thirty-second story on television; that’s just the nature of the different media forms. With the switch to a mostly digital format, newspapers are no longer stuck with assigned story length, save in the actual print editions.

More, running a conservative blog as I do, I like to cite credentialed media publications with a liberal reputation as my sources; this insulates me from criticism that my sources are somehow untrustworthy because they are conservative themselves.

And this is why I have been discouraged to learn about the pending layoffs at The Washington Post, and why I don’t share in the schadenfreude of others like Breitbart:

‘Mood Is Really Grim’ at Imploding Washington Post

by John Nolte | Thursday, December 15, 2022

More bad news is coming from the imploding Resistance Force that calls itself the Washington Post.

On Wednesday, Breitbart News informed you that the Washington Post, a far-left propaganda outlet devoted to spreading lies and conspiracy theories, has lost 500,000 subscribers since January 2021. This drops its subscription base to just 2.5 million.

The Post also announced to its staff of entitled Resistance Babies on Wednesday that layoffs were coming to its 2,500-person workforce. No numbers were yet available on the layoffs. All we know is that it will be a single percentage (1 to 9 percent) of the current workforce.

The response from our journalist elites was exactly what you’d expect from entitled babies:

There’s a lot more at the original, and Breitbart is not behind a paywall, so I’m not asking anything big for you to check out the rest yourselves. The Post’s own story is behind the paywall, so if you aren’t a subscriber, you won’t get more than a couple of paragraphs, unless you haven’t tried to access Post stories recently; you do get a couple of freebies every month.

The Washington Post announces more job cuts next year

The announcement comes amid a season of layoffs throughout the media industry and weeks after the paper said it will eliminate its stand-alone magazine

By Elahe Izadi and Sarah Ellison | Wednesday, December 14, 2022 | 2:31 PM EST | Updated: 6:21 PM EST

The Washington Post will continue to eliminate jobs early next year, Publisher Fred Ryan said Wednesday, weeks after the paper announced it will shutter its Sunday magazine and lay off 11 newsroom employees.

Ryan said at a companywide meeting that the cuts will probably amount to a “single-digit percentage” of the company’s 2,500 employees but did not provide specifics. He added, though, that the company will add new jobs to offset the loss of positions that are “no longer serving readers,” and that The Post’s total head count will not be reduced.

Later, in an email to staff, Ryan said that the plan to cut jobs “in no way signals that we are scaling back our ambitions” but that “like any business, The Post cannot keep investing resources in initiatives that do not meet our customers’ needs.”

The publisher walked out of the meeting after dozens of employees raised their hands and peppered him with questions. Plans for job cuts will be finalized “over the coming weeks,” Post spokeswoman Kathy Baird said in a statement.

The development comes during a difficult season for media workers, as companies across the industry have laid off workers and instituted hiring freezes. Citing “economic head winds” as a factor last month, The Post’s executive editor, Sally Buzbee, announced the newspaper will end its weekly stand-alone magazine, along with the jobs of its 10 staffers. The magazine’s last issue will publish Dec. 25. The company also eliminated the job of Pulitzer Prize-winning dance critic Sarah L. Kaufman. None of those employees were offered new roles at the paper.

During Wednesday’s employee meeting, Ryan cited a difficult economic environment, particularly for companies reliant on advertising, and he acknowledged that “for those people whose positions will be eliminated, this will be a difficult time.”

There’s more at the original.

In this, I think of my favorite reporter, the Post’s Heather Long. I became familiar with her work when she was an economics reporter for CNN, and appreciated it for one simple reason: I could not tell, from her reporting, whether she was conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat. And if I couldn’t tell, that meant she wasn’t pushing an agenda in her reporting; that’s the kind of thing that, for me, distinguishes between a journalist and a journolist.[1]The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their … Continue reading

I’m not too worried about Miss Long’s job: she has, in a fairly brief time, worked her way up from being an economics reporter to one of the Post’s columnists and Editorial Board members. But she left CNN, and CNN later experienced layoffs, and now she’s with the Post, and they, too, are seeing layoffs.

So, what’s up? Miss Long, along with data analyst Andrew Van Dam, reported in June of last year that a lot of different types of businesses had responded to the panicdemic — and no, that’s not a typographical error; I spelled it exactly the way I believe it should be spelled — by offering subscription services, for all sorts of things:

Subscriptions boomed during the coronavirus pandemic as Americans largely stuck in shutdown mode flocked to digital entertainment and signed up for regular home delivery of boxes of items such as clothes and chocolate. But what really set the past year apart was the increase in subscriptions in the hard-hit services sector. Owners of restaurants, hotels, home-repair companies and others upended their traditional business models to try subscriptions and often found more interest — and revenue — than they anticipated.

“This was really about flipping the business model for restaurants: paying before eating instead of eating before paying,” said Vinay Gupta, a winemaker who spearheaded the Summerlong Supper Club in Washington and New York City.

Upon reading that, my first thought was: if people are paying restaurants before eating, how are the restaurant employees who depend on tips going to survive? But, further down:

The typical U.S. consumer now has two to three subscriptions, according to user data from budget app Mint and research by Tien Tzuo, author of “Subscribed” and chief executive of subscriptions platform Zuora.

There’s a growing trend of “power subscribers” with 10 or more recurring payments, according to budgeting app Truebill. The app’s users average 17 subscriptions and typically spend $145 a month, according to an analysis Truebill did for The Washington Post. Last spring during the shutdowns, Truebill users averaged 21 subscriptions, as people tried different entertainment, home workout and delivery services.

Perhaps, just perhaps, with inflation having spiked, and even with it coming down recently, has outpaced the average weekly earnings of Americans, some Americans are starting to dump some of those subscriptions? The Post had more than three million digital subscribers at the end of 2020, but were down to 2.7 million by October of 2021, and around 2.5 million now. Maybe the Post needs to find a way to make it more valuable to customers than Hulu?

Me? Miss Long turned me on to a $99.00 per year subscription in 2017, which increased to $104.94 in 2020, a 6.00% increase, and I’m now scheduled to be billed $120.00 next August, a 14.35% bump. Yeah, I’m still going to pay it; it’s still a lot cheaper than my subscription to The New York Times, at $17.00 every four weeks, or $221.00 a year, $5.49 a week, or $285.48 a year to The Philadelphia Inquirer, — which also wants federal government subsidies to support the newspaper industry — or the utterly hideous amount I pay for The Wall Street Journal.

Still, a question has to be asked: why is The Washington Post, one our nation’s premier newspapers, and one of the four listed ‘newspapers of record,’ starting to lose subscribers, and money? What must the Post differently to attract more readers, more paying readers, so that the newspaper starts to make money again? John Nolte blamed it on the liberal bias he sees in the Post, and their continued bias against Republicans and supporters of former President Trump. The New York Times said, “As the breakneck news pace of the Trump administration faded away, readers have turned elsewhere, and the paper’s push to expand beyond Beltway coverage hasn’t compensated for the loss.” Nevertheless, the Times also noted, “two of The Post’s top competitors — The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal — have added subscriptions since Mr. Trump left office.”

There are real differences between the two New York newspapers and the Post. A city of 8½ million people is a heck of a lot bigger market from which to draw, and The Wall Street Journal is a specialty publication which meets different needs, and appeals to a different customer base. But when the Post, supposedly the number one newspaper for reporting on our federal government, returns zero relevant returns on a site search for Sam Brinton, the ‘gender fluid, non-binary’ former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Spent Fuel and Waste Disposition in the Office of Nuclear Energy who was fired for stealing suitcases from airports, it starts to look as though the newspaper either has a truly pathetic search engine, or is covering up for the utter embarrassment that Mr Brinton has brought upon the Biden Administration.

CNN’s online content is free, as is content from Fox News and MSNBC. Print newspapers, as they transition to a digital subscription medium, have to find ways to compete with free. The New York Times seems to be doing so, even if few other newspapers are, so the Post should be able to as well.

References

References
↑1 The spelling ‘journolist’ or ‘journolism’ comes from JournoList, an email list of 400 influential and politically liberal journalists, the exposure of which called into question their objectivity. I use the term ‘journolism’ frequently when writing about media bias.
Posted on by

Bidenflation How many of those 81,283,501 people who voted for Joe Biden would have done so if they'd known they'd be five percent poorer in two years?

You may have heard the supposedly good news: the year-over-year inflation rate declined to 7.1%:

Consumer prices rose last month at the slowest 12-month pace since December 2021, closing out a year in which inflation hit the highest level in four decades and challenged the Federal Reserve’s ability to keep the U.S. economy on track.

The Labor Department on Tuesday said that its consumer-price index, a measurement of what consumers pay for goods and services, climbed 7.1% in November from a year ago, down sharply from 7.7% in October. The pace built on a trend of moderating price increases since June’s 9.1% peak, but it remained well above the 2.1% average rate in the three years before the pandemic.

There’s a lot more in The Wall Street Journal’s original.

Of course, the inflation rate only makes sense when compared to earnings. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Table B-3, average private sector hourly earnings increased from $31.23 in November of 2021 to $32.64, a 5.09% increase, while average weekly earnings moved from $1,086.80 to $1,129.01, which was only a 3.88% increase. Compared to hourly wages, the average American worker is 2.01% poorer, in real terms, than he was in November of 2021; compared to average weekly earnings, he’s 3.22% poorer.

That isn’t the whole story. From November of 2020 to November of 2021, Table B-3 Historical Tables, average wages increased from $29.95 to $31.23, a 4.27% increase, while average weekly earnings went from $1,031.82 to $1,086.80, a 5.33% rise. Remember: this was moving from a COVID-19 restricted economy to one where almost all of the restrictions had been removed. But the November 2021 year-over-year inflation rate was 6.8%.

So, not only was the average American worker 3.22% poorer in November of 2022 than he was a year earlier, that’s on top of being 1.47% poorer, in real terms, the previous year. Due to the compounding effect of the math, average consumer prices were 14.38% higher in November of 2022 than in November of 2020,[1]1.068 x 1.071 = 1.1438 while average weekly earnings were 9.42% higher. That’s a loss of real earning power of 4.96%.

I wonder how many of those 81,283,501 people who voted for Joe Biden in November of 2020 would have done so if they’d known they’d be five percent poorer in two years.

And it’s going to get worse:

The figures leave the Fed on track to lift interest rates by 0.5 percentage point on Wednesday, following larger increases of 0.75 point at their past four meetings.

So, while economists anticipate home prices to start to fall, as demand is lowered due to higher interest rates, that does not mean that rent prices will fall. If the demand for buying homes declines, the demand for rental property necessarily increases, and that means higher rents. Rent increases for existing tenants normally occur just once a year, but rental increases for people moving during the year can and do occur at any time.

In 1849, Scottish writer Thomas Carlyle called economics the dismal science, and in a lot of ways, he was right. Economic reduces things to numbers, and a lot of people don’t like that, but it doesn’t mean that the numbers aren’t true.

The numbers I gave were averages, and I’m sure that many of the 81,283,501 Biden voters have managed to weather the inflation of the past two years reasonably well. But for every Biden voter who hasn’t had a problem with inflation, there’s another who has had Bidenflation eat up more of his earnings than the average. For every Biden voter who hasn’t seen any appreciable loss of economic well-being, there’s another who is worse off than the already-depressing averages.

References

References
↑1 1.068 x 1.071 = 1.1438
Posted on by

What Are The Democrats Three Main Economy/Inflation Plans Now That They Kept The Senate?

At the time of writing this, the GOP has 217 wins for the House, and just need one more for control, and they’re leading in 4, with a few others being close. Be thankful, because the Democrats plans are as bad now as they were prior to the election

Now that Americans elected Democrats to keep the Senate, here are their 3 major plans to fix the economy and fight inflation

…

The House is still too close to call, and in the event of a Republican takeover, a blue Senate will have limited power. They would be able to confirm Biden’s judicial and executive branch nominees but not pass significant new legislation on partisan lines. Still, Democrats have heralded the victory as voters’ rejection of far-right extremism, and their desire to see abortion rights and fair elections safeguarded.

Those may be the big takeaways, but Democrats locking down the Senate — and likely only conceding a slim majority to Republicans in the House — also indicate that voters favor Democrats’ plan to rein in a tumultuous economy.

I seriously doubt that. Every poll stated that Americans trusted Republicans more than Democrats. The results were surely about many other things. When Independents and squishy Democrats say Democrats are doing a poor job, well, sure, let’s do the same

Supporting Biden’s spending, such as the IRA and a restored Child Tax Credit

Republicans on the campaign trail blamed Biden’s spending for the country’s inflation problems, arguing that the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan has been one of the major instigators. Experts say that if it was, the impact wasn’t significant. Still, the GOP similarly united against Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.

But public favor for the legislation was solid out of the gate, with a Reuters/Ipsos poll from August showing broad support for individual measures of the Inflation Reduction Act, even if Americans were divided on the package as a whole.

Yeah, the ones that give them money directly. Mostly, voters say it won’t make a difference on inflation or reducing the cost of energy, clothes, food.

Tackling corporate profits as an inflation-fighting measure

Several of the Democrats who achieved close wins slammed corporations for enjoying record profits over the last few years without easing the burden for consumers amid record inflation.

So, class warfare. It won’t make a damned bit of difference, and could drive up prices and reduce jobs, but, it’ll whip the moonbats up for 2024.

Making healthcare more affordable by expanding Medicare and lowering drug costs

Democrats spent the back half of their midterms pitching themselves as strongholds for entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security, and framing Republicans as a threat.

So, more government. Which won’t actually reduce costs. Wasn’t Obamacare supposed to do that? And hasn’t? This is a plan to continue driving prices up, or, at least, keeping them high. Notice there is nothing in their plan about increasing affordable energy. Of course, they’ll get nothing done, because the House controls the purse strings. If the GOP is wise (always an iffy proposition) they’ll focus on the economy, energy, crime, and the border. Don’t try and pass abortion stuff. No impeachment stuff. Minimize investigations into Biden. That plays to the base, and ends up being a lot of inside baseball.

Posted on by

NY Times Is Here To Tell You How To Save Money On Your Biden Inflated Power Bills

This is what it’s come down to: the Times and so many other Credentialed Media outlets telling you how to maybe save money, rather than castigating the Government to stop being part of the problem, namely, policies that cause energy prices to go higher (paywalled Times article here)

How to Save on High Heating Bills This Winter

The cost of heating a home is expected to spike this winter as higher prices for natural gas and heating oil combine with a forecast for slightly colder weather than last winter.

But financial help is often available for paying bills as well for updating heating systems to more efficient models. There are also steps to take to conserve energy.

The average cost of heating a home is estimated to rise almost 18% from last winter, to $1,208, according to the National Energy Assistance Directors Association. The group coordinates state policy for federal grants that help low-income families pay heating and cooling bills.

The estimated seasonal bill for natural gas, which about half of Americans use to heat their homes, is $900, up 25% from last winter, according to the most recent data from the federal Energy Information Administration. Natural gas has become pricier because of factors such as greater demand for cooling during this year’s scorching summer (natural gas powers plants that produce electricity to run air conditioners) and surging exports, the administration said.

The seasonal bill for heating oil, which is common in New England, is estimated to be $2,694, up about 45% from last winter.

It’s due to Wuhan Flu and to the policies of Joe Biden and his Democratic Party comrades, who keep doing things that create problems, both before and after COVID. The U.S. really doesn’t get much from Russia, we have our own supplies.

Help with heating bills is available for low-income families. The Biden administration is distributing $4.5 billion for the federal Low Income Home-Energy Assistance Program, which provides grants to states to help residents pay their energy bills. But, Wolfe said, overall funding is lower than last year, under a pandemic relief program, and more federal money may be needed.

Well, that only helps folks making around $20K or less. What about the rest of us?

Consumers can take steps now to prepare for the winter and conserve energy. “It’s November; there’s still time to get ready,” Wolfe said. Heating contractors are typically less busy right now, he said, before temperatures plummet.

The most widely recommended step: Schedule a professional checkup of your heating system. A tuneup is advisable because dirty components reduce airflow, blunting performance and possibly damaging the system, according to ASHRAE, a professional association of heating and cooling professionals. A tuneup typically costs $200 or more, but some utilities cover the cost.

So, spend money to save a little

If your home has a lot of windows, particularly older ones, you may be losing energy through the glass. One easy fix, he said, is to stick clear plastic Bubble Wrap — the kind used to ship packages — over the windowpanes. (Spray the glass with water first so the wrap sticks.) It won’t look great, he conceded, but it will save you money.

Really? This is their idea? Bubble wrap? I feel like it’s the 1930s or something

You could consider replacing an old heating system with a more efficient model. The costs range from $4,000 to $7,000 for a gas furnace and from $5,500 to $40,000 or more for some heat pump systems, according to estimates provided by contractors in western and central New York state.

They seriously wrote $40,000. Is this with your $20K solar panels and $56K EV?

Meanwhile, here’s CNET on the perfect setting for your winter thermostat

According to the US Department of Energy, it’s best to keep your thermostat at 68 F for most of the day during the winter season. For maximum efficiency, you should also designate eight hours per day during which you turn the temperature down by between 7 and 10 degrees. By following this routine, you may again be able to reduce your yearly energy costs by up to 10%.

Who’s up for keeping your casa at 58-61?

Posted on by

The plague of public-sector unions

It was actually a minor line in an article by Robert Stacy McCain about Democrats not accepting election results that didn’t go their way, but one I found very important:

Government employee unions are a conspiracy against taxpayers, and when the people of Wisconsin elected (Scott) Walker to fight these unions, Democrats refused to accept the legislative consequences.

As it happens, I still have a Scott Walker t-shirt, from his failed campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. Yeah, it’s pretty worn and threadbare, but it’s still good for work around the farm in hot, humid Kentucky summers.

Economically, unions in the private sector have to, in the end, be partners with the unionized businesses, because businesses can fail. If the unions demand so much that the business cannot make a profit, the business fails and the unionized employees’ wages drop to $0.00 per hour. And as much as some union leaders hate business, see themselves opposed to corporations, they do realize that a $0.00 per hour wage is possible if they drive the business out of business. Sometimes those private sector unions don’t get it right, as the bankruptcy and failure of Hostess brand demonstrates.

But public-sector unions are different, because the public sector cannot be driven out of business! Where private companies are trying to sell their products to customers who have the ability to choose to buy or not buy their goods, the public sector takes in its revenue through taxation, which is enforced by the law, and ultimately, by law enforcement. If public-sector unions demand so much that the government agencies cannot afford it under their current revenues, the government has the option of raising taxes, to increase its revenues at, in the end, the point of a gun.

Governor Walker tried fighting the public-sector unions, and succeeded, sort of, for a brief time. Governor Matt Bevin (R-KY) tried to get the Commonwealth’s rising retirement indebtedness under control, and the teachers’ unions went absolutely ape, and campaigned so vigorously against him that he lost his bid for re-election, in a very red state, to the odious — anyone who can simply suspend our constitutional rights and get away with it is by definition odious — Andy Beshear, 709,577 (49.20%) to 704,388 (48.83%), a margin if just 5,189 out of 1,442,390 ballots cast.

Public-sector unions have so much power because they are workers in an ‘industry’ that cannot fail, and they are bargaining for contracts with people who have little experience in business and no pressure to keep the ‘company’ in business. That’s why Virginia has become a ‘blue’ state, as wealthier federal government workers have metastasized into northern Virginia, and why public-school teachers are paid significantly more than the median income in the districts that support them.