Timothy B Lee over at Vox yesterday, wrote a very neutral discussion of TPP, The Trans-Pacific Partnership Is Great for Elites. Is It Good for Anyone Else? And it is still a blood bath. The answer is: no. It is not good for anyone else. Let’s just discuss the one positive section in Lee’s article, “Trade Liberalization Has Modest but Real Benefits.” According to an estimate by the Peterson Institute for International Economics, in a decade, the TPP will add a half a percent to our GDP. Now that is down there in the noise — literally so if you look at the variation of GDP after subtracting the trend line.

But we don’t even need to think about the size of this. After all, a half percent of GDP would come out to roughly $77 billion in 2025. That’s still a lot of money. That would represent decent paying jobs for a million American workers. The problem is that the $77 billion is not going to go to workers. We’ll be lucky to get a hundred thousand minimum wage jobs out of this. In fact, let’s take a nice little statistic from our friend Bernie Sanders:

That first statistic is stunning. It comes from a Brookings Institution speech back in February, “In fact, the latest information that we have shows that in recent years, over 99 percent of all new income generated in the economy has gone to the top 1 percent.” The fact-checker at The Washington Post had a bit of a problem with it, but it was mostly along the usual lines where liberals have to be found wanting, so the complaint is that not everyone agrees with the study cited. Check out the whole article — most especially including Sanders’ response.

Let’s assume that the $77 billion will be similarly partitioned. That means, the top 1% will get $76.23 billion and the bottom 99% will get $77 million. Now we know that isn’t reasonable. Most likely, the top 10% will get it all and then some, while the bottom 90% actually fall further behind. But let’s just suppose that the $77 million will go to minimum wage workers. The current minimum wage is $7.25 per hour. Assuming a 2% inflation rate, the minimum wage would be $8.83 in 2025. This too is a joke, of course; the minimum wage is worth a dollar less than it was in 1956. But I’m being generous. Let’s assume $8.83. That’s a full time salary of $17,675 per year. That’s a big ol’ 4,356 new minimum wage jobs — or approximately 200 more McDonald’s franchises.

I’ve written about this subject before, No Trade Deals Until Our Economy Is Fixed. The fact is that I don’t care if the TPP is going to add $77 trillion to our economy. Until our economy is set up to share the fruits of our labors and our resources, it doesn’t matter. I’m not buying.

But as Lee’s article points out again and again, the TPP is not even about trade. It is about allowing the power elite to take an even bigger slice out of the economic pie. It’s about increasing the prices that we all pay for drugs and entertainment. And that extra cost will not go to employing more researchers and comedy writers. It will go to corporations to better exploit their rents. And the sad thing is that I don’t see much in the way of Democratic resistance to this. A nuclear deal with Iran — well them’s fightin’ words for Congressional Democrats. But funneling even more money to the rich? That’s just the American way! Am I right, Chuck?!

Even though my background and training are in the sciences, most of my friends are more humanities kinds of people. That’s probably because science for me is just one interest. It is not dominant. If I had to choose science or literature, I’d probably pick literature. But it bugs me that pretty much no college graduate I know took calculus in college. The reason is because calculus is college level math. But because our educational system is so very bad at teaching math, that the whole system has been adjusted so that people get out of college taking just a semester of algebra or statistics. And that’s sad because math is as varied and wondrous as English literature. These students lose out.

So I am actually a big believer is education standards. At the same time, I’m totally against Common Core. The reason is that it gets education backwards. It starts with the test and moves back to the education. Education shouldn’t be a second thought. When it is, it becomes a distorted simulacrum of real education. And I think this is one of the primary reasons why mathematics education is so bad. Things like multiplication tables are very easy to test for. Long division is very easy to test for. Equation solving is very easy to test for. There’s just one problem: none of those things have much to do with math.

What the proponents of Common Core, and education “reform” generally, want to do is to make all forms of learning systematized the same way math has been. This is why schools are pushing children to forego reading stories and instead read nonfiction. Education isn’t supposed to be fun; it is supposed to be for turning our children into adults who will be able to get good jobs. I come back again and again to this quote by Jonathan Kozol[1]:

Back in September of last year, Gabriel Arana wrote, Common Core’s Political Fiasco: How It United the Left and Right Against It. It’s actually kind of disturbing because the only reason that conservatives are against Common Core is because Obama is the president. If it were Mitt Romney or John McCain in the White House, they would have no problem with it. Liberals are against it because they are against standardized tests. (Or if you asked Jonathan Chait, they are against it because they care about teachers unions more than the kids. He knows because his wife told him so.) The fact that there isn’t much actual policy behind what conservatives want is not surprising, but it makes me worry about the future.

What I found most interesting about the article is the makeup of the group that created the Common Core standards:

So it was developed by a billionaire businessman and some millionaire businessmen. In other words, it was just what Jonathan Kozol was talking about, helping “IBM in competing with Sony.” These are not honest actors. These are people with a very clear ax to grind. Yet most of the reporting on it (typically by upper-middle and upper class journalists like Chait) portrays these people as just looking out for the kids while those awful teachers only care about their salaries.

At best, the Common Core ends with educated cogs going into the modern assembly lines that I discussed this morning. And the result of that will be adults who hate and fear both math and reading. And after coming home from their soul crushing jobs, they won’t be capable of doing more than plopping down on the couch and watching the new season of Dancing With the Stars. I have seen the future of the human race: a boot stamping on a televised dance floor — forever.

[1] This is a quote from an interview in The Progressive, 1 December 1991. The complete quote is not online for free. I am searching for the full quote. All I have is, “The best reason to give a child a good school with a teacher who is confident…”

H/T: Diane Ravitch

I was out in the front yard earlier today pulling weeds. Really, the place is starting to look like an abandoned house. And given how often I leave the house, there is something to that. Never leaving is not much different from never coming. But it is remarkable that there is so much growth going on when there is so little water. I’m been worried about the water situation here in California since I was in seventh grade when we had a big drought. Not that I minded it at the time — it meant that I didn’t have to get naked in front of a bunch of boys to shower after PE. But ever since then, I’ve seen California is always on the verge of turning into a desert.

My concern only got worse when I went to graduate school and shared an office with another student who was doing work that showed in a warmer world, California was going to get much drier. And now California is experiencing its worst doubt on record. It used to be that in my hometown of Santa Rosa, the average annual rainfall was about 30 inches, but the new normal seems to be around 20 inches. In the 2013 calendar year, we got less than 5 inches of rain. This season (which is effectively over), we’ve gotten 21 inches — and that’s only because of a deluge of almost 13 inches we got in the middle of December. Historically, we got almost 6 inches of rain in January — this year, we got 0.02 inches. We should get over 5 inches in February, we got under 3. March should bring three and a half inches, we got 0.13. It’s very bad.

So what are we going to do about it? The first thing we need to recognize is that our current drought is not due to misbehavior by California farms and residents. This, my friends, is global warming. According to a recent Pew Research poll, only 37% of Republicans even think there is solid evidence that the earth is warming. That’s not “human caused warming” — that’s any warming at all. And only 25% of them think it is a major threat to the United States. This is with almost 27% of the country living in California, Texas, and Florida. But the numbers are not much better overall. Less than half of all Americans (48%) think that global warming is a problem.

I imagine someone with a cut on her leg. It’s not a big deal — she ignores it. But it gets red and somewhat inflamed. It’s a problem, but it isn’t notably worse than it was the day before. Soon, it is clearly festering — but only slightly more than the day before. And so on and so on until no one can stand the smell of it. She goes to the hospital and they have to amputate her leg. Global warming is like that. It isn’t going to be suddenly hotter one day. And as a result, charlatans like Fred Singer can go around saying global warming isn’t real, just as he said that second hand smoke didn’t cause cancer.

Last week, the always insightful and generally brilliant Michael Hiltzik wrote, The Wrong Way to Think About California Water. He noted an amazing statistic: here in California, we use 38 billion gallons of water every day. So any time you hear about millions of gallons of water being wasted, bear that in mind. He also countered a common claim, “It takes four gallons of water to grow one almond.” That’s true, but that’s also over the course of four years. And almonds are actually not that water intensive a crop. If we are concerned about agriculture, we should think about meat.

Kyle Kim, Jon Schleuss and Priya Krishnakumar put together an amazing interacting info-graphic that shows how much water it takes to put food on your plate. A half pound of oranges takes 20 gallons of water. A half pound of rice takes a 130 gallons of water. (Note: rice is farmed very efficiently!) A half pound of potatoes takes just 124 gallons of water. But chicken? That’s 133 gallons. Pork? That’s 330 gallons. Beef? That’s a staggering 850 gallons of water!

Living in wine country, I’ve long thought that the vineyards used a lot of water. But that’s not true. An 8 ounce glass of wine requires only 28 gallons of water. Compare that to an 8 ounce glass of milk, which requires 44 gallons. In fact, wine is more efficient than apple, orange , pineapple juice. It is also slightly more efficient than a pint of beer. But the news is not all good: chickpeas (which I’ve been going crazy with in my recent obsession with falafel and hummus) require almost 610 gallons for every 8 ounces.

Hiltzik’s article is based upon work by Ellen Hanak at the Public Policy Institute of California. And it is focused on ways to improve the water market here in California — so that water is used in the most efficient way. This is classic free market environmentalism. And it is something I very much believe in. We are never going to fix our environmental problems by whining at people to act responsibly. So you would think that these kinds of ideas would appeal to conservatives. But they generally don’t. The truth is that existing businesses like things to stay the way that they are. And the conservative movement is only interested in maintaining the status quo. They will do nothing long past the point of no return. But hopefully, California will continue to make necessary reforms and accelerate them.

Leave it to a business “guru” to ruin and totally misunderstand a great movie. Yesterday, while doing a Google search to go along with my article for Charlie Chaplin’s birthday, I came upon an article by Dan Pontefract, What CIOs Can Learn From Charlie Chaplin’s Film Modern Times. And really, I don’t want to rag on guy too much. He seems nice enough. I mean, he’s trying to use one of my favorite films to teach IT professionals how to do their jobs better. That’s preferable to telling them to read, Think and Grow Rich. But it is nonetheless true that he doesn’t understand the film.

Let’s start with this description, “Sheep metaphorically make way for humans, as the workers emerge from the subway en route to ‘the factory.'” The sheep don’t “make way” for the humans. The sheep dissolve into the humans. The point is clear: the humans are sheep. The modern world has turned individuals into an unthinking collective. This may be something that is hard for modern people to comprehend. But in 1936, there was still a living memory of a different kind of life. Our Town was written in 1937 and told the story of such a time. One of the biggest problems facing our society today is that no one remembers things being any different. And that is most of all true of Pontefract who doesn’t think about getting rid of the assembly line, but rather tinkering with it so that it works better.

Pontefract also seems confused about the technology in Modern Times. He refers to the “new technology the workers are getting used to.” But this isn’t the case at all. The little tramp — like the other workers — is extremely good at his job. The problems start when he acts like a human to stretch or brush an insect away. The whole point here is that workers have been turned into mere extensions of the business system. Indeed, one of the best moments of this first two reels is when the tramp clocks out to go to the bathroom. And even there — off the clock — he is given no peace.

So what exactly are CIOs supposed to get out of Modern Times? Unfortunately, Pontefract doesn’t write in English; he uses business-speak. For example:

What this seems to mean is companies should encourage their employees to be better sheep and then give them the right technology to be the best sheep that they can be. But the CIO (as Pontefract labels him) in Modern Times would completely agree. The system is perfect! If only the little tramp didn’t take time to yawn! As it is, the CIO dismisses the idea of the feeding machine because it isn’t practical — it doesn’t conform to the needs of the worker.

But I accept the fundamental point: in the film, humans are forced to conform to technology. But all Pontefract is offering is that we reverse the order of priority on the assembly line. He still sees humans as mere cogs in the business system. And worse, he wants to treat them as automatons that can be tinkered with to increase productivity so organizations can “remain competitive in tomorrow’s future.” This is all that Frederick Winslow Taylor was doing, and he too took into account the abilities and limitations of the human machine.

I think that the sheep metaphor is wrong. The workers filing into the factory at the beginning of Modern Times are not sheep; they are beaten dogs. The true sheep are people like Dan Pontefract and so many other people I’ve worked with over the years. They are eager to follow the lead of other sheep, offering up the newest catch phrases like, “Behavioral change” and “Copy Exactly!” They are not broken. They are eager to follow everyone else into “tomorrow’s future,” which to no worker’s surprise is just like yesterday’s future.

See Also: Unstable Weirdos and Business Success.

Last week, Francis Pusok was badly beaten by ten sheriff’s deputies in San Bernardino. I’m sure the deputies will claim that they were very, very afraid. It seems that police officers spend their entire lives in great fear. There is apparently no more cowardly group of people than police officers. Now it seems that just about every group that can investigate this beating is. Of course, that’s only because there was video of it. If there hadn’t been, it would be ten sheriff’s deputies’ word against a known horse thief. We’ve seen this play out before — in fact, we see it every day.

This incident is an interesting companion to Michael Slager’s killing of Walter Scott. What most struck me in that video was how calm Slager was. There was no emotion. Even putting down a rabid dog would elicit more emotion in most people. I’m sure that it never occurred to Slager that anyone would question what he was doing. And I doubt that Slager saw what he was doing as outside his job description. Scott ran from Slager. How dare he?! What disrespect! And if Scott had gotten away, he might have gone on to miss another child support payment! Slager was just doing his job.

But in an important sense, that’s true. Slager was just doing his job. He was doing what we Americans seem to think is right and fitting. Sure, we don’t like to be reminded of it so graphically. But this is what we want. I am still haunted by a segment I saw on The Last Word. (If anyone has the link to it, please let me know.) It was after one of the many highly publicized police shootings. But this was video of a couple of police officers trying to deal with a clearly mentally disturbed man who had a knife. Eventually, the officers killed the man. And Lawrence O’Donnell presented it as the police doing a good job.

You see, the officers did try to reason with the man. And they spent a fair amount of time before killing the man. But the whole thing shocked me. That was good police work? That is what we owe to the mentally disabled? I don’t think so. There are actually a lot of ways that a crazy man with a knife could be dealt with. Of course, that isn’t the job the police. They are trained to deal with normal criminals. It’s not surprising that they saw that their only choice was to kill this man.

The question is why it is that the police were called to deal with this situation. Everyone else in the area was gone. The only potential victims were the police officers. Why police officers? Why not, I don’t know, mental health professionals? I am not a mental health professional myself, but I imagine two guys dressed in white with a big net like something out of cartoon. That would have been a more effective response to that situation. I’m sure there are much better still.

Ta-Nehisi Coates dealt with this issue in an article yesterday, The Myth of Police Reform. He noted that we spend too much time talking about what exactly a police officer did and was thinking rather than asking the more profound question, “Why was the officer even there?” Walter Scott is dead because we have the criminal justice system deal with child support issues instead of the more reasonable choice of social workers.

So we have three layers. We have the officers themselves — the focus of our concern, but actually the least important aspect of our problems. We have the police agencies themselves, which really are a major problem all by themselves. But the overriding problem is our wish to make all problems about criminal justice. I doubt we will do anything about it, however. We Americans are a very fearful and simplistic people.

I have never understood Marco Rubio’s appeal. To me, he’s a typical white as paste Republican. But given that he is a Cuban American, the Republicans can claim that he is a Latino and so he shows that the party has diversity. As it is, he got into the Senate because of a three-way race during a very pro-Republican year. He embarrassed himself when he gave the response to the State of the Union address. And his efforts at being a “reform” Republican were a total failure, despite being tepid. Above all, I see him as a man-boy: he seems like he ought to be the president of the college Young Republicans club.

It is possible that Rubio could catch on with the public. But at this point, I think he is mostly a big deal because he’s a Republican who the mainstream media can paint as a moderate. Of course, he is anything but. He’s a global warming denier. He’s against same sex marriage. He voted against the Violence Against Women Act — but of course he claimed that he wanted to vote for it but there was just this one thing that he couldn’t abide. He’s against relations with Cuba. And of course he’s virulently anti-choice and very much pro-gun. If the mainstream media reported on his policies accurately, he would never have a chance. But what are the odds that the mainstream media is going to be interested in his policy positions?

On Monday, Brian Beutler wrote, Marco Rubio Is the Most Disingenuous Republican Running for President. You see, the Republicans understand that all else being equal, they will lose any presidential election. The truth is that the Democrats are just more popular than the Republicans. So various candidates are looking for ways to seem more friendly to the middle class. They don’t want to be seen as candidates of the rich — the way that Mitt Romney was.

Back a year ago, Jonathan Chait wrote, I Have Seen the Future of the Republican Party, and It Is George W Bush. He argued that the Republicans were going to abandon their obsession with deficits and start spending like it was 2001. There was never any question of that. Unlike the Democrats, the Republicans never care about the budget when they are in power. And so Rubio is following this plan. Last year, he put together a tax plan that, unlike previous Republican plans, would actually help the middle class. Of course, that’s what Bush said. When the plan came out, it added $2.4 trillion to the federal debt over ten years. And it consisted mostly of tax cuts for the rich with some “modest middle class benefits” thrown in. But apparently, even this was too little for the plutocrats.

So Rubio came out with another plan. The new plan includes even more benefits for the rich. This includes the elimination of capital gains taxes and the inheritance tax. Rubio may be young, but his ideas are just a recycling of what Republicans always want to do. It’s interesting that Michael Gerson was praising Rubio’s “new ideas” and complaining that all Democrats want to do is push old ideas like raising the minimum wage to the level it was in 1969. Meanwhile, one of the big “new ideas” of the Republicans is to get rid of the minimum wage altogether. I’m looking forward to other “new ideas” like the 78 hour work week.

What we can depend on from Marco Rubio is that he will go right along with the conservative movement. Unlike liberals, conservatives aren’t expected to have “Sister Souljah moments.” Because the media will pretend that extremists like Rubio are actually moderates. There is really nothing ideologically that separates Rubio from Ted Cruz. But I’d actually rather have Cruz as a president. At least he is able to think for himself. Rubio is just another Republican automaton. He’s a Young Republican, all grown up.