Saturday, December 25, 2010

The NEED Act — Jobs Creation

A little something on the larger political sphere from progressive Dennis Kucinich, well worth the time to read.

http://kucinich.house.gov/UploadedFiles/NEED_ACT.pdf

It's a start, and a good one. I read it; I don't get it all, not having any background in ecomonics, but here are my comments and a couple of questions:

There are a lot of aging, disabled and unskilled workers who could not do hands-on heavy construction that seems to be implied as the lion's share of job creation here, so where would they fit in? Would job training be a part of this? Who would be overseeing the jobs creation, ie, doling out of the infrastructure money? Wouldn't this be rife with pork projects? Would that matter?

I can't really address the parts about the Federal Reserve as I just don't know enough to make an intelligent comment, so I'll sit back on that one, and try to educate myself before bloviating.

The big question is, realistically, can it be passed? Can anything positive and progressive ever make it through our government? Our political system seems to be totally in the grip of special interests (corporations), and I can see a lot of objections coming from them.

The US government might maybe be by the people, but it certainly isn't for the people. If something like this fails, what hope is left?

Friday, December 24, 2010

holiday plans!

Yippee! I'm spending Christmas eve, snuggled on the floor by the wood stove reading my new copy of The Foreclosure Survival Guide! Does it get any better than that?

I am truly thankful for what I have had in life. I just wish I could get a job so I could contribute to the economy instead of becoming another foreclosure/homeless statistic, further bringing down the housing market. It's particularly painful, because I put a lot of money down on this house—over 100k—everything I had from the sale of my last house, and it's all going to go away to a bank that has gotten billions in bailouts. Just doesn't seem right.

Live and learn, right? I'd rather not be learning this particular lesson at age 54.

Friday, December 10, 2010

Downsizing. Serious downsizing.

The Tiny House movement is an option to consider if you are looking for a new way to live cheaply.  Personally, I  have long loved the idea of very compact living, and am hoping to sell my house this year and live in a cute vintage trailer or homebuilt gypsy wagon.

The main obstacle (aside from actually selling a house in this very down market) is finding a place to park your home on a semi-permanent basis, so you can enjoy the benefits of, for example, planting a garden, composting, being part of a community.

Many, many communities have restrictions on the size of a house you can build and live in full time — you may build a cabin, but you can't live in it year round. You may not have a trailer on a property for more than 30 days, etc. This is an example of the cultural bias against the poor, as well as those who choose frugality and an anti-consumerist lifestyle. Many trailer parks also have restrictions about the type of trailer you can bring in — some of them won't rent space to "different", vintage, funky, or creative looking trailers.

I think the solution is to find a small group of like minded individuals and buy unrestricted property to build on. Unrestricted land can be a challenge to find, but it is out there. I actually own some myself, and am starting to think that I might just build a small community on it instead of moving. Resources can be shared during the building stage (earth moving equipment, tools), and this scenario is open to the possibility of a large communal garden/orchard, a private dairy, livestock, solar power, wind power and other projects that would be too big and expensive for one family to take on.

Interestingly enough, I've recently read a few accounts of serious bias against full-time job seekers and employees who live in mobile shelter; how individuals were fired when it was found that they lived in trailers. This is just anecdotal right now, but it might be interesting to explore the legal issues.

Resources:

Tumbleweed Tiny House
Tiny House Forum
PBS video on one tiny house

Saturday, December 4, 2010

So. Where are the damn jobs, anyway?

I haven't yet found a practical answer to this. It's pointless to get mired in blaming former or current administrations, even though they clearly are to blame. I just want the dialog to move further, and I want to see some real solutions discussed.

I don't understand why the option of a new WPA has never come up. Isn't this what got Americans working during the last depression? Are we so hamstrung by obligations to special interests and corporations that we couldn't make this work? I'm disappointed that President Obama didn't immediately come out with this. But I suppose he knows a politically dangerous solution when he sees one.

The thing is, the fed stimulus money benefits a very small slice of the US workforce. Were we all supposed to go to work building roads? That was what everyone was talking about last year, but doesn't this really just benefit the large construction corporations? And what was all that about "green jobs"? Are we all supposed to retrain and retool to work in the "green sector"? 

We need jobs for the other 90% of workers, and we need them now. It's clear that the private sector is going to hold onto their profits. It's clear that the term "social justice" isn't in the corporate vocabulary. It's up to our elected officials to do something now, before major unrest from the unemployed begins.

Did we all like the Black Friday riots at the Big Boxes? Wait till you see the bread line riots.

Keeping warm

One of the smartest things I've ever done was to install a woodstove in my house.

I live in an 80 year old house with a 50 year old oil furnace. When I first moved in, I had the tank filled. It was $650. I asked the delivery guy how long he thought the oil would last. When he nonchalantly estimated six weeks, I knew that wasn't going to be viable, and went out the next day, armed with cash from the sale of my previous house, to buy the stove. No regrets, going into my fifth heating season.

It is hands-down the least expensive way to provide heat, and it's off-grid, which is a wonderful thing. You don't have to worry about power failures — as long as you can get to the wood pile, you'll be warm. At times last year that was a challenge, as I had to dig through four feet of snow, but hey, it's good exercise, and got me outside to experience the power and beauty of nature.

Last year, in the eastern part of the US we had an amazing amount of snowfall. My area had a total of 101 inches. It was cold. I heated my house for $360. No, not for one month — the entire winter.

'Start-up costs' will vary. My stove was $2200. Installation more than doubled that, but I had to have the brick chimney lined and repaired. Some installations can be just a few hundred dollars; it just depends on where you want your stove to go.

If I was going to do this again, I would emphatically not choose a stove with a catalytic combustor. These are devices that re-burn the particulate matter in smoke as it exits the chimney, thus producing a cleaner burn. They are also more efficient, so you'll use less firewood. However, if you are new to heating with wood, you'll probably ruin your first two before you get the hang of things. They are very fragile, hard to find and expensive to replace (about $200). There isn't a lot of information about how to burn using a catalytic stove.

Best advice — never close the damper until all the moisture has burned out of the wood. Moisture is what "kills" them.

Fuel (wood) is available everywhere, sometimes for free. Stacking a good looking cord of firewood is one of the most satisfying outdoor activities ever on a crisp fall day.

Wood burning also contributes to the local economy, as you get your wood from the guy down the road who cut the trees, split the logs and delivered them, not a huge corporation. All of the guys I've bought from lead economically marginal lives, and I'm happy to directly support the cash economy. Win-win all around.

Being responsible vs. Asian imports

This isn't a post about vilifying China. It's a ramble about failed personal good intentions to be responsible with where my money goes in a larger picture than just "can I afford this".  It's about thinking about how one person's actions fit into the bigger picture of the overall economy, and the zillions of American jobs lost to overseas manufacturing, where workers earn a pittance and have few benefits.

I try to buy American made clothing whenever I can. But when you don't have a lot of money, it's easy to just go to the Big Box and find clothes that you need at a price you can "afford". So recently I refreshed my utilitarian wardrobe with a visit to Target. I didn't even think for a second about checking labels. I went for warm, well made and cheap. And I didn't even think about looking online for "made in the USA".

Now I'm feeling the guilt. I'm a part of the problem, not a part of the solution — a small one, but nontheless, a part of it. In no way will I throw my guilt completely onto the manufacturers who have chosen to close their factories here and outsource, or onto the politicians to made it easy and profitable for them to do so.

It's obvious that we have to bring back our [textile and clothing, just for one] industries to return jobs to US workers, but it will never happen. It's a big economic death spiral — unemployed people can't buy things, factories continue to close, more jobs are lost, the US loses its autonomy. Lack of purchasing power on the individual level weakens the whole economy. It all comes back to JOBS.

And now, a bit of nostalgia. Did you grow up with that ILGWU jingle stuck in your brain? I can still remember every word, though I never really thought about the importance of them until recently.


Jobless recovery? What exactly does that really mean? What idiot invented that term? Discuss among yourselves.