Weighing in on Chris Christie: Presidential Candidate

(Sorry for the somewhat insensitive title--but the governor himself often makes light of his heavy!)

So let's see, New Jersey still has among the highest property taxes in the country, which Christie promised to fix six years ago; our infrastructure and highways are crumbling from total neglect and the governor's refusal to raise the the NJ gas tax--the nation's lowest--to pay for repairs. Three years after Superstorm Sandy people are still trying to get federal money to fix their homes; Christie cancelled the tunnel project to Manhattan in the teeth of the recession, which cost thousands of jobs plus an easer commute to NYC; lost millions in federal education aid because his people didn't file the correct forms on time; and illegally refuses to fund the state pension obligations after promising to fix that situation in his first term.

And... his administration paid $6 million to a contractor buddy from out of state to chop down a bunch of trees along the Garden State Parkway because he owed him a favor. He's also presided over an unprecedented nine state credit rating reductions and the highest foreclosure rate in the country (in Atlantic County). Not to mention the fact that he hasn't brought in much in the way of new business to NJ, which is still well behind most other states in terms of economic recovery and employment. And let's not even get started on the Geo. Washington Bridge lane closure fiasco perpetrated by his lackeys to punish a small-town mayor for refusing to support the governor's reelection.

So Christie's answer to all this? Run for president! I'm thinking he's doing it because he just may want to get out of Dodge!

Sure, he's a horrible candidate and doesn't stand a chance, even among an extremely weak slate of Republican candidates--most Republicans hate him anyway. But what really interests me is how some people have mastered the art of failing upwards. Christie was no better in his first term than he's been in his second, yet NJ voters reelected him in a landslide. The same could be said about Bush II, who trashed the economy and got us mired in an endless war in Iraq in his first term, but still got reelected. 

I wish I could be rewarded for such poor performance.

The same thing happens in business. You've probably worked with people who seemed to always get promoted even though they were clueless about the business or incapable of producing anything of value. It happens at all levels. Carly Fiorina messed up at Lucent, only to be handed the CEO job at Hewlett Packard, which she proceeded to run into the ground, which got her fired. So what does Carly do? Runs for president. If she's good at anything, it's her ability to fail upwards.

The same thing happens in sports: lousy baseball managers, football coaches, and NBA head coaches fail repeatedly but are constantly recycled to different teams a year, or even months, later. These people fail upwards and laterally and get rewarded. How do they do it? It's a mystery to me. Who hires these people? Who votes for these people. What is in their brains? Haven't they heard that overworked Einstein quote in which he said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results?"

There's a lot of insanity going around. For today, let's mark Chris Christie as Exhibit A.

Boycott Disney--The Story Continues

Seems like the NY Times story on the tech worker layoffs hit a nerve with millions of workers and a vindictive Disney corporation is forced with dealing with a PR nightmare. Read this highly enjoyable follow-up story and marvel how highly successful U.S. corporations are raking in the profits at the expense of its workers. Maybe the the U.S. should institute an H1B program to replace the greedy expletive CEOs that run things in this country.

Incidentally, my wife and I were planning a Disney trip next year; however, companies that follow such heinous employment practices are now dead to us and will not benefit from our tourist dollars.

Let's Make the Next Election Interesting

It takes no special insight to notice the extreme polarization in the U.S. political landscape. Congress is expressly comprised of the extreme right and the somewhat extreme left with nary a moderate in sight. But then we have Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush leading the pack for the 2016 presidential race.

I find that disheartening. Neither candidate truly represents today's divided America--Jeb is warmed-over Mitt Romney and is only a few notches to the right of center. Hillary is a couple of clicks to the left and hardly a liberal in most senses of the word.

The conventional wisdom says that by running moderate, non-extreme candidates, your team has a better chance of winning the crossover vote and the undecideds. I disagree. I don't really believe there's much crossover in the U.S. today and no one is undecided--those who say they are just want attention paid to them by pollsters.

And, that philosophy doesn't work in practice. Obama, a perceived liberal (though he's not!) beat so-called moderates in John McCain and Mitt Romney. Reagan, a staunch conservative beat a relatively moderate Jimmy Carter. And Bill Clinton, a perceived liberal (though he really wasn't!), beat a moderate G.W. Bush. 

Plus, it seems that America responds to those who truly take a stand, whether it's on the Tea Party right or tree-hugger left. If that's the case, the Republicans may have a better chance of winning if they ignore the crossovers and go with a more radical approach, such as a Rubio or Cruz rather than sticking with a milquetoast Bush.

By the same token, who really needs another triangulating Clinton on the Democratic ticket? Democrats should wear their liberal, progressive badge with pride and go with Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren.

That would finally give America a real choice, scare the partisans on both sides into voting, and inject our electoral politics with some needed adrenalin.

The One Thing That Could Fix The American Economy

The U.S. recession officially ended in 2009. How are liking the recovery so far? Me neither! The recovery has been sluggish to say the least. Many remain unemployed or under-employed and most people I know don't have two nickels to rub together and many haven't had a raise in years.

The problem is most of the policies that pulled the economy out of the recession were too limited and benefited a small sliver of the population--mainly the very wealthy and large corporations. The long-term problem has not been addressed--the lack of consumer demand.

Businesses Are unable to sell as much as they can because no one except the rich have the money to buy everything they need--and much of their wealth goes to savings anyway. Besides, there aren't enough rich people to create enough of a demand spike to fuel a more powerful economy. But there is a fix for that.

Raise the minimum wage to $15/hour.

Maybe not all at once; but do it! The nation is awash with jobs paying sub-subsistence wages, so just from a humanitarian standpoint, it makes sense to essentially double the current federal minimum wage. The economic benefits would be enormous.

People would finally have money in their pocket to go out and buy the things they need, which would boost overall demand. Businesses large and small would start growing again since there will be more money in motion from more people. Raising the minimum wage also raises the floor on other wages, providing an income lift the economy hasn't seen since the mid 90s. 

Of course there are objections. Many say that raising the minimum wage will cause businesses to fire workers because they can no longer afford to pay them the higher rate. That seems to make sense, but it's just not true according to the research. As this set of studies shows, areas in the country that have raised their minimums have prospered more than adjacent areas that kept the same low rate. Maybe it's because business picked up so much in the higher rate areas that they could easily afford to pay their current workers more and even hire additional staff to address burgeoning demand.

Raising the minimum wage would also wean companies like Wal-Mart off the public dole. U.S. taxpayers subsidize the low wages paid by retailers and other minimum-wage businesses through the federal food stamp and Medicaid programs. What if these businesses had to pay workers enough that they could support themselves and no longer qualify for safety net benefits? Wouldn't that be a nice way to shrink government spending a little?

In a society where the spoils of our economic system are tilted disproportionately to the well-off, why not pass a measure that will benefit millions of people who really need it while igniting the type of recovery this nation really needs?

RAISE THE MINIMUM WAGE TO $15!

Boycott Disney

As this article reports, the U.S. doesn't lack for skilled professionals to fill tech positions in the IT industry--they just don't want to pay them. Guys like Bill Gates and the NY Times own Tom Friedman and David Brooks decry the lack of software professionals turned out by the U.S. university system and urge the increased granting of temporary work visas to poorly paid foreign IT workers, especially India.

While this article focuses on how company bean counters at Disney are laying off high performing American professionals because they make too much money, this process is also being followed by other highly profitable companies, including AT&T, Bell South, California Electric and Gas, and IBM (who did it to my wife 7 years ago).

The irony is that in many cases, the so-called talent brought in from Asia have performed so poorly that they had to be replaced by American workers, resulting in a net loss of revenue and customer good will. But we live in a cutthroat world where price is everything, so I don't expect the kind of short-term thinking indulged by corporate monsters like Disney to change anytime soon.

So, in the meantime: BOYCOTT DISNEY!

Postscript--the Times article has created quite a stir.