A Report from Occupy Boston

Yesterday's events were fairly mellow, but the crowds were huge and the momentum is clearly building.

While the bulk of the people camping out were twenty somethings and college students, it's clear the movement itself is much larger than that.

People run the gamut in age, race and ideology, but are friendly and welcoming. I'd say upwards of half the total people there were seniors and young families, many with kids, so it's not just college students and twenty somethings, even if those are the biggest groups camping out.

There's also a wide variety of backgrounds, from Cornell graduates with degrees in engineering to the unemployed and everything in between.

It's a little crunchy granola, but you can't help but feel empowered and inspired by the people participating together in the movement. There's a real sense of community in "Tent City," not to mention the sense that everyone is a part of something much bigger.

Everything was very peaceful and people were greatful that the police have been accommodating thus far. There were certainly constant efforts to keep it that way, with lots of self policing and reminders from members of the community if you were doing something that could attract police attention, even mundane things like not leaving room to pass through the sidewalk.

There's also worries that the Mayor's recent antagonizing comments could change things in regards to the police. The protesters are prepared for that, but have made every effort to avoid it.

They've kept the camp contained to just the square, even though they're at capacity in "tent city" and would like to expand to more of the greenway. There's been little impacts on traffic and lots of effort has been made to keep things safe and sanitary - both of those issues have entire working groups dedicated to them.

Yet, there are also daily work shops for legal training so people know their rights and know what to do if the situation changes and there are arrests. Numbers are given out on who to call if legal help is needed and people are told to write it down on there persons, not just their phones (which can be confiscated), should they think there could be arrests.

Getting Involved

There's going to be a 3pm march today sponsored by several organizations, including labor. It will start with students at the band stand on the Commons at 2pm (gathering at 1:30) and from there, meet with the rest of Dewey Square and the unions for the big 3pm effort. There should be literally thousands of people there.

The General Assemblies are daily at 7pm and are a true experience in democracy to be witnessed. Specifics can be found at the Occupy Boston website beyond that.

These are great opportunities to come and be a part of it all - one of the 99% - as the normal go of things is a much quieter, more subdued affair, with some work group or presentation usually going on every hour or so, but otherwise just lots of people gathered in clusters, holding signs or doing other mundane things.

Those quieter moments are what you make of them. If you want to stay busy, you need to get involved and volunteer.

There's dedicated areas to get involved in their working groups, find out more information, a place to stay at night or grab something to eat.

If you come in to visit, consider bringing some donations, like food and water. At the General Assembly, the food services group specifically asked for vegan salad dressing and a large coffee maker. These are the things that keep people - and therefore the movement - going.

The Massachusetts Miracle?

I'm not quite comfortable talking about what's going on in Massachusetts -- treading water -- as a "miracle," but it's a helluva lot closer to that than what Texas has done.

Dragging the Democratic Party on Wisconsin, Kicking and Screaming

The President and national Democratic Party clearly does not want to rise to the level of defending the Wisconsin workers. That became very clear today in Press Secretary Jay Carney's statement on whether or not public and private unions should have the same rights.

What we have said and what the President has said is that with regard to what’s happening in the states now, as the states address their fiscal situations, everybody needs to tighten their belts, everybody needs to sacrifice and work together to bring state budgets into balance, to bring stability to the fiscal situations in the states, much as we need to work together at the federal level. And that’s our position.

Unfortunately, that wasn't today's only scary sign of where national Democrats are at. Democratic Maryland Governor O'Malley, who's in the past come out strong for collective bargaining rights, wasn't so strong on it today, after coming out of a Governor's meeting at the White House.

After a White House meeting with President Obama, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley was asked if the on-going public employee union dispute was raised in their meeting. "No, not really," O'Malley replied bluntly. "We were focused today on the things that we can do together to create jobs."

"So, we didn't talk about whatever it is they're doing in Wisconsin today," O'Malley reiterated.

"I think most of us see that as distraction, really, from the most important work that we can do, which is creating jobs," he said. "All of us get things done. We're about getting things done. We're not primarily an ideological group of people."

President Obama, who, as a candidate, said he'd get up and picket with the protesters if collective bargaining was on the line, and national Democrats must get on board the Wisconsin workers. Union jobs are the jobs we need in this country most of all, so why the President and other prominent party leaders isn't sticking up for them is a very disturbing question. At the end of the day, the Democratic Party does not win without labor, not to any degree of the success that would deliver a majority -- but it looks like we're going to be dragging them kicking and screaming to this fight. The good news is it's a fight working people are winning, even if Democrats in Bizarro Land (Washington, D.C.) are too scared of the Republican Boogeyman to realize that yet.

The Bottom Line on Wisconsin

The size of the Wisconsin Governor's tax cuts for Big Business and the rich? $140 million. The size of the cuts he's trying to make to public employees? $140 million.

Now factor in the fact that the unions will agree to the cuts if the Governor agrees not to go after collective bargaining, and where does that leave us? A Governor who manufactured a crisis in order to help his friends and take a bat to the one group of organizations left that can combat big national corporations and the wealthy elite: unions.

This is not about the money; this is about breaking the will of the American worker, and tearing apart the last big force left to confront the moneyed interests of the right-wing that would like to roll us all the way back to before the Enlightenment. They want a plutocracy, folks. Don't let them have it. We need to do what we can to help the hardworking people of Wisconsin.

Here's what you can do locally:

Call the Wisconsin State Democratic Party at (608) 255-5172 to find out how to participate in a virtual phone bank, or join a rally at the State House on Tuesday, from 4-6pm, to support the protests in Madison and elsewhere. 

Dear Parents, Please Save Your Freaking Children From Massive Debt

Here's a great NYT piece on the near-criminal enterprise that is today's Law School. They're puppy mills and, like almost all puppy mills, they don't care about the dogs. Law schools don't exist to train people to become lawyers; they exist to suck up all kinds of money for the school, and that's why they've rapidly expanded, even though the profession hasn't (quite the opposite, in fact).

The sad thing is you could easily apply this to most of academia, given the extent of degrees that aren't worth the paper they're printed on. We tell children, in what should be pure mythology, that college is the answer to everything. We've even convinced ourselves that it is as a society. I certainly bought it when I went off to school.

Meanwhile, there's untold millions of people graduating college today who have job prospects that are little better than if they hadn't gone to school at all, particularly for graduate programs and certain BAs. I can't count the number of friends who have graduated from college and can't find a meaningful job that makes use of their skills -- and these are all perfectly smart people, most finishing in the top 10-20% of their class. Some have been forced to take jobs that they certainly could've had right out of high school; others were forced to take jobs where they're lucky to be able to afford the rent. Finally, some have been forced to consider what should be the unthinkable: Grad school.

For the latter, they'd say at least they'd be doing something fun with their time -- less hopeful that the grad degree would provide them an edge for a job as they are hopeful a two year pause would provide enough time for the market to sort itself out. Yes, I've actually heard that argument -- from sane and rational people who are very desperate and know it's easier today to get into a decent grad program than it is to get a decent job. Of course, they'd be sorely mistaken, particularly given the millions of others who share the same thoughts -- and would be competing for the same jobs. The only group of people making out here is academia -- and the sad thing is, deep down inside, they probably know it.

But college graduates looking into grad school at least have some foresight and understanding of what all that debt will do. Teenagers graduating high school don't -- and they should be pitied most of all. We just throw students out there, with little time for them to understand what they even want to do or what their options will truly cost -- and without that kind of a plan ahead of time, four years can go by and a student can realize they just wasted all that time and money. Case in point: My college friend who learned he really wanted to study English after nearly getting enough credits for a degree in Biochemistry. Every teen thinks they know what they're doing and it's so hard to argue to them that they don't, but given the enormity of a possible mistake in this day and age, no responsible adult should let them before they have some idea of what the consequences would be -- and what those consequences would mean.

In Massachusetts, we're worse off than most states, because we suffer from HarvaBuMit-tus, where students are caught with the bug that makes them think it's somehow unseemly to go to public college, as if public schools were tainted or something. In a day and age when UMASS is ranked in the top 100 schools across the Globe, you'd think we could make some headway on this -- but alas. This, of course, goes doubly for community colleges -- which induced laughter amongst many of the snobbier types at my high school back in the day.

Those ignorant enough to choose private schools without the means to pay for their debt (aka those without wealthy parents) should be pitied, because they really have no idea and they won't want to be dissuaded -- until it's too late. Private schools will cost twice as much or more in almost all cases, but they certainly won't make you twice as likely to get a job or even get into grad school. No where close. Your experience and, most importantly of all, contacts, are far more likely to help in that department -- and your GPA and field-appropriate grad-school test scores are the tickets into that town, should you be foolish enough to choose it.

Thinking back on how stupid we all were at 17 and 18, picking where we'd go to school, I'm utterly shocked our society lets us do it as easily as we do. The NYT makes a great case that law school admissions, or at least rankings, need a great deal of reform -- but the truth of the matter is our entire system does. Far from empowering students to do what they want, our system of endless and easy college loans in this country is a system of neo-indentured service -- and the only people it empowers is colleges and universities to grossly inflate the cost of a college education. For students, those who graduate or not, they get giant loan payments that force them to sacrifice what they want to do for what they have to do -- killing entrepreneurship, creativity and even happiness.

As a simple matter of protecting students who don't understand what the real world is like and making sure we get as much bang for our buck in terms of government investments, any student who takes a government loan to go to college should first have to go to a two years at a community school before going onto a bachelor's program. Would it really hurt anyone doing that? For students, they'd still get all the same opportunities, as well as

1. Two more years to learn what they really want to do, so they can avoid disastrous mistakes (like my friend who spent 2+ years studying Biology before he realized his passion was English),
2. A greater likelihood of obtaining at least some kind of degree, rank or training in a specialized field requiring a two-year course,
3. Get the first two years of their education at a greatly reduced cost, saving millions from a crushing debt some may never truly be able to afford. 

The government would also get the tangential benefit of being able to greatly increase the number of students able to receive loans and grants, which would empower far more Americans. Why haven't we done this yet?

When I was looking at schools at 17 or 18, I'm glad I had the sense (at the last minute) to avoid all the private schools I desperately wanted to go to -- but had someone told me what even UMASS would cost, I'd have run to North Shore Community College for two years first. Back then, I seriously thought my loans would be pocket change -- something like $50 or $100 a month -- instead I have a $500 monthly albatross, binding me to my childhood home.

Update: Great blog on a WSJ story about how wages are declining across the country and probably won't rise for a very long time; the blog ties it into the greater (failed) strategy of the past 20 years that very much relates to what I wrote above.

Instead of cutting Social Security, why not expand it?

I'm not the first person to suggest this, but it hasn't quite percolated through the Washington Bubble, quite yet. While it's not "conventional wisdom," it probably should be. All this deficit commission cat food commission talk of cutting Social Security should get nixed, immediately, and replaced with talk of expanding Social Security. Now is honestly the perfect time to do it. Why? Some of the people least likely to find new jobs in this economy are people in their 50s -- and guess which age group is one of the least likely to be unemployed?

Creating an early retirement age for Social Security, maybe with reduced benefits and perhaps an increased ability to offset those benefits by allowing them a slightly increased cap on what they can earn while on Social Security while still being able to maintain eligibility, would help solve the unemployment problem in two major ways. The first being that it would immediately help those people on the cusp of Social Security, who don't have a job, without having to worry about perpetually extending their unemployment benefits and redoing that political fight every 3 months. The second being the ability to lure some people into early retirement, thus opening up jobs for everyone else. There are lots of people who are 59, 60 and 61 who would think of retiring a bit early if they could have just a little help in the years between 59 and 62. Why not give them that push, when our job figure's so rotten.

Furthermore, while the cat food commission is obsessed with the zombie lie that Social Security is in trouble, it's pure myth. Social Security is set to take in more than it gives out until 2037, and even when that date comes, Social Security has a sizable trust fund to keep it afloat. The government may not be able to raid it anymore, but it will stay solvent. Surely, a modest bump in Social Security's payroll ceiling could fund this expansion option. I'd at least like to see the government to look at this as an option and run the numbers, especially when the economy's actually getting more bleak.

A "strike marked by several violent incidents"

First, let's all give a round of applause to the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 791, the Shaw's distribution workers who just successfully ended their 17 week strike by negotiating a favorable contract. It's important these workers are well compensated for their hard and important work, as we wouldn't eat or drink without them (at least when it comes to perishable goods, like meat and milk). Most people don't think about all the effort it takes to get our food to the grocery store; it doesn't just magically appear there.

However, the article covering their impressive victory was horrendously prejudiced and misleading, making it sound as if the strikers were violent criminals. Don't take my word for it; here's the first sentence of the article.

A four-month strike marked by several violent incidents and arrests ended peacefully yesterday when workers at the Shaw's distribution center ratified a new contract.

Unfortunately, the Eagle Tribune doesn't follow up on the "violent incidents" written in that lead until the end of the article, with two of its final three paragraphs on the strike:

Methuen police maintained a 24-hour detail to keep the peace at the picket line outside the warehouse. The officers directed traffic for delivery trucks and workers who crossed the picket line.

Police arrested a truck driver who waved his middle finger at yelling strikers and then drove his truck at a police sergeant on March 30. A month later, police arrested another trucker who spat at a striker.

Why is it that the mainstream media, even the local variety, almost always portrays activists engaging in non-violent civil disobedience as violent criminals, if it covers them at all?

Given that almost no one reads until the end of a newspaper article, the lead in this story was completely irresponsible. If the Eagle Tribune wasn't going to clarify exactly what it meant by a strike "marked by several violent incidents" right at the beginning of its article, it shouldn't have included that sensationalist introduction at all.

Baker Wants to Cut Unemployment Benefits

His plan would have stripped more than 11,200 people from their unemployment benefits, in the face of the greatest recession this country has seen since the Great Depression, had he been in charge and got his way.

17% of country's private sector jobs created in Mass

Lynne picked up that statistic.

The new jobs report (national and state) are out for May, and Massachusetts once again is looking great in recovery compared to the rest of the union.

The Massachusetts unemployment rate held steady at 9.2 percent in May as the state’s economy added 15,800 jobs, the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development said today.

According to a recent Twitter update by David Bernstein, 7,000 of the jobs were private sector, compared to 41,000 private sector jobs nationwide. That means that 17% of the new private sector jobs were in Massachusetts, which is pretty astounding.

Pretty astounding, indeed.

19,000+ jobs this month -- and not one slot machine

Of course, we know that casinos don't really create jobs (they just steal them from local businesses, by driving those local businesses under), but this past month proves that casinos will not be part of the recipe in getting ourselves out of a recession.

Take this for example.

Of the 16 regressions run in an Illinois study, only three municipalities showed a statistically significant increase in employment or decrease in unemployment. The same regressions indicated that for every job created, local businesses lost one or more jobs. Another study, conducted by the New York Times found that 27 out of 57 counties analyzed experienced a net job loss.

The fact of the matter is the only casino job growth comes from the initial construction, which won't really come at all at the state's race tracks, since they're not going to be real casinos. After the casinos are built, the jobs are -- at best -- a wash. Usually, it's a net loss across the wider region.

This, of course, makes logical sense: When you create one huge, homogeneous, all-encompassing source of entertainment for the wider area, you don't need thousands of small ones. When that one source can then sell an addictive product that's illegal elsewhere, and makes enough money from that one product that they can then give away other desired products for free to get people in the door -- like alcohol -- who on earth would think the local pub or bar down the street could compete? They can't, they don't, and when casinos are built, they go out of business.

We need jobs and we're getting them now, far sooner than a real casino could even be built. This state needs to say no to casinos and gimmicks and focus on real solutions. Those solutions are out there, we're already on the right path. We shouldn't be building something that could actually make the state less able to deal with future recessions, by creating a major taxable source of income (slots) that fluctuates greatly from one year to the next -- making it impossible for states to plan things -- robs the state of other, steadier taxable income (like income taxes from small businesses and the state lottery), and by creating an industry that literally sucks up Massachusetts dollars already going to our local economy -- the lifeblood of our entire state -- and shoots it off out of state and out of country, never to be seen again.

Where will the 5,000 jobs come from, Charlie Baker?

Perhaps Baker's biggest "issue" of his campaign thus far is his claim that we need to cut state jobs -- 5,000 to be exact. Not only can Massachusetts do this, he says, but he actually has the gall to say this will make Mass government work better. Chutzpa, you got to give him that. His only appeal thus far has been to people who want to drown government in their bathwater.

Well, it's easy to throw out a nice, round number like 5,000, with no meaning whatsoever, but much harder to sit down and say where those 5,000 people are going to come from. Where are they going to come from, Charlie? Which state workers are you going to give the pink slip?

It's much harder to discuss how cutting 5,000 jobs will improve the Massachusetts economy, so it'll probably be even more difficult to ask him where those 5,000 hard-working employees are supposed to find new work, or what 5,000 newly unemployed state workers with nifty resumes will do for the other thousands of people who have already been unemployed for months. Ready to answer that question, Charlie?

Baker also talks about how people in the private sector are taking gigantic paycuts, throwing out the number "20%" for the private sector, that he claims are way more than state government, without citing any sort of legitimate comparison numbers. Another question for Charley Baker: How many of those private-sector employees taking 10-20% paycuts worked for Harvard Pilgram? In times like these in which health care is what people (and towns) are struggling to afford most of all. Did Charley Baker take a 20% pay cut? He could have passed that kind of savings along to a city or town struggling so they could avoid laying off 2-3 teachers, just by his lonesome.

Well, I have to say this joke of a candidate keeps getting funnier. Declaring on the radio this morning that no one in state government's taken a pay cut, he asks Erica, a state employee, if she knows anyone in state government who's had a pay cut. "Absolutely," she says, "I took a pay cut." Not only pay cut, but furloughs, she says. "Well, you're the exception to the rule," he says.

And you know what? She's right. Governor Patrick cut 750 state jobs just last year -- and ordered 5,000 executive branch employees to take furloughs of up to 5 days each, many employees actually working through it (for the math impaired, a week's pay is 2% of a state employee's entire salary). Watch the whole radio clip below, in which Baker clearly shows he either can't remember or didn't bother to read about what was gigantic, above-the-fold news on the economic disaster that struck our state less than a year ago. Baker's title of "Smartest Man in Government" is quickly becoming the biggest gag in politics.

Obama has lost it, Part 2

This is the second time I've had to title a post of mine like this. [Update: Let's call this the Hoover edition.]

Obama's introducing a plan to create a "spending freeze" -- which is really a spending cut. A lot of people would be fine with that, but let's consider a few things.

First off, a federal spending freeze/reduction that doesn't include the pentagon's overly inflated budget, littered with cold-war-era expenses, is disgusting. How on Earth could we freeze social spending, but not the military budget, when the US spends more on its military than every other government on earth combined? Yikes.

Second, the President has declared that he'll protect critical programs from the freeze -- those programs will actually have expanded budgets. Sounds nice -- great even -- until people realize that this bill will have to go through Congress. What do we know about Congress? The good programs tend to get cut, while special deals to keep constituents happy are the ones to stay. No doubt, we'll see huge cuts to critical social programs, while things like the Farm Bill keeps on getting uglier and uglier and don't get touched.

Finally, we're still in the middle of a recession -- the worst one ever since the Great Depression. Things have become a little more positive, but we're still in a very weak position as a country. This is not the time to start cutting government spending -- if anything, a major part of the reason why more than 10% of this country is unemployed is because the stimulus bill was not enough. Every major economist who hadn't been proven wrong a million times before predicted this -- and they were right. Now we're going to add even more cuts?

We ought to be talking about a jobs bill, not cutting $250 billion from the budget.

Update: Does Obama even want to be reelected? Obama's press secretary told Ed Schultz, liberal radio and tv guy, that he was "lying" about Obama's policy to increase viewership. What was the lie? That the Senate bill was a gift to HMOs -- corporate welfare. Um, Gibbs, it is corporate welfare. That's why America hates it. Whatever, though. Even if Schultz lied to get viewers, Obama's lies to get votes. What's worse?

Deval's Economic Development

Good news.

Governor Deval Patrick’s administration will spend hundreds of millions of dollars this summer building roads and highway ramps for at least five struggling private developments - from the former Naval air station in Weymouth to Somerville’s Assembly Square - in hopes of jump-starting construction and the local economy.

The money, a combination of federal stimulus money and state funds, will not go directly to the private developers, but rather for public works that Patrick aides said they expect will make it easier for companies to arrange financing in otherwise tight credit markets. That, in turn, would kick off construction of the planned office parks, shopping centers, housing, and hotels that will create new jobs.

The better news is just where these projects are proposed -- these are places ripe for job growth, many of which have a particular need for good jobs.

Although more projects may be chosen later, the ones already approved include not only SouthField in Weymouth and Assembly Square, but a new business park in Fall River that will recruit biotech companies, the Westwood Station project, and Waterfront Square at Revere Beach.

I'm particularly excited about the Fall River and Revere projects. Revere's project will be right across the street from Wonderland. There's a Blue Line station right there and plenty of further development opportunity, quite likely in Wonderland itself (it is closing, after all), which may be spurned on by these investments. Fall River is just an economically depressed city - the family median income is around $25k. It needs those jobs desperately. The thing about Fall River (and New Bedford) that makes it a great place for entrepreneurs is that the property there is dirt cheap - way cheaper than the rest of the Massachusetts, cheaper than the Tri City area in NC that's been siphoning off some biotech jobs. It's also close enough to the Boston area that it still has access to recruiting the top talent in the US for biotech or other high-tech jobs, not to mention a great university next door (UMASS Dartmouth), as well as plenty of Universities in Rhode Island, in and near Providence.

Here's hoping two years from now we can see tangible results from these major economic developments. It's just a start, but it's an illustration of the fact that Deval Patrick and his administration are serious about making sure the economic success that Boston's enjoyed over the years will finally be distributed throughout the state, in all our gateway and former mill cities that have been struggling for decades.

Techy Future for Gateway Cities?

From Governor Patrick:

HOLYOKE – Thursday, June 11, 2009 – Governor Deval Patrick, MIT President Dr. Susan Hockfield, UMASS President Dr. Jack M. Wilson, Boston University President Dr. Robert Brown, Joseph M. Tucci, Chairman, President & CEO of EMC, and John T. Chambers, Chairman & CEO of Cisco Systems today announced a collaboration that will lead to the development of a world-class, high-performance computing center in Holyoke, and a statewide collaborative research program. The center will be powered by a combination of green and cost-competitive energy, making it a cost-effective and environmentally sound facility....

The Patrick Administration, MIT, the University of Massachusetts, Boston University, EMC, and Cisco have signed an agreement committing to work collaboratively over the next 120 days to create an action plan with the ultimate goal of building and opening the new facility and forming the statewide research agenda. The plan will be assisted in part by the John Adams Innovation Institute and local collaboration of Holyoke Mayor Michael Sullivan and the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, and will seek to identify the operational, capital, environmental, workforce, and academic elements of the project, along with a project timetable, which will be completed in several phases. Other major institutions and private companies are expected to join the collaborative effort.

“This is a cutting edge concept, and its impact on the city will be significant,” said Congressman John Olver. “The Computing Center will dovetail nicely with other big projects underway in Holyoke like the Multimodal Center and the Canalwalk. This is a very exciting time for the city.”

"This is an incredible opportunity for this Gateway City to re-invent itself and Holyoke cannot thank Governor Patrick and his economic development team enough for being our advocates,” said Mayor Sullivan. “I have long spoken to the issue of the ‘Holyoke advantage’, the difference is that Governor Patrick listened and understood how the City and the state could leverage their assets to create something powerful. It is a beautiful day in Holyoke.”

We, as a Commonwealth, need to figure out some way to bring our Gateway Cities the same prosperity that Greater Boston's enjoyed. Lynn tried to do something similar to Holyoke in the late 90s/early 2000s, capturing on the internet explosion. Several startups moved into Lynn and for a while it looked like it would fuel a reemergence of Lynn as being a great place to live and work.

Alas, the internet bubble burst. However, what Holyoke is building, because it's fueled by much more than startups - leveraging state, city, academic and private sector resources - has a much greater chance of finding success. What's more, these things tend to cluster. If this center, when built, is successful, it will fuel startups and expansions nearby. It could just mean hundreds of very good jobs for the area. Now we just need to figure out what to do with half a dozen other Gateway Cities in Massachusetts.

From the Ashes

I had a little debate with a friend a few weeks ago, who was horrified by all the car dealerships closing down. I wasn't as worried -- essentially making the point that while it was unfortunate for people who would lose jobs, new jobs and opportunity would soon emerge from the ashes. It looks like developers are already interested.

The only thing particularly troubling is that these car dealerships offered a lot of great, working class jobs. There aren't whole tons of those to go around anymore. However, we may be seeing a shift in the entire auto industry -- who knows if people will ever buy new like we did in the 90s and early 2000s anymore. If that's the case, perhaps the jobs will just shift from dealerships to more local auto shops.

Yet, in any case, there is resiliency in the economy: land will always hold value and all these soon-to-be vacant dealerships will certainly offer a lot of future opportunity, as well as jobs.

People Want Public Transit

David Luberoff, of Harvard, pens an excellent opinion piece in today's Globe arguing that new construction projects for public transportation are actually very popular. According to Luberoff, 80% of public transportation ballot questions across the country, questions that raised taxes to fund public infrastructure projects, were ultimately victorious on election day. Unfortunately, we can't put such measures on Massachusetts ballots:

Because our state constitution neither requires nor allows such votes, Bay State voters won't get the chance to vote on a similar measure. But the state's elected officials still can learn four important lessons from the long history of successful - and occasionally unsuccessful - bond referenda from around the country.

Thus, we rely solely on Beacon Hill, the MBTA, Pike and Washington to solve our transportation problems. Yikes. Now, while many are usually skeptical about ballot questions, putting big projects on ballots seems a great idea, so long as they include a funding mechanism. It's similar in ways to the good part of Prop 2 1/2 - the authority of the voters in a town for building a new school or library is often granted when the needs are great and the plans are strong.

Politicians are always wary to raise taxes for anything, despite the fact that polls have shown in the past that people are willing to pay for whatever's important, including investments into the public infrastructure. Thus, we've seen only minor improvements to public transportation in the past half century. Giving Massachusetts citizens the right to put these projects on the ballot would encourage groups, voters and politicians to come up with good designs, ideas and funding mechanisms that would improve lives, communities and the economy all across the state. Inclusive, well-designed measures that show where the money will come from would pass, more often than not. 80% of them passed this year, in a bad economy, despite the fact that they raised taxes.

Imagine a vast expansion of the MBTA for the city as well as suburbs, a New Bedford train, more Worcester options and a train linking Springfield to Hartford. Massachusetts would be a much more prosperous place. Everyone would benefit from such a wide range of projects; no one would be left behind. New neighborhoods would emerge; thousands of businesses would be created. Areas across the state that have been stuck for the past 50-100 years would suddenly become reinvigorated, from Lynn to Springfield to New Bedford. They'd be affordable places to not only live, but live well. After long years of decline, they'd see major growth - our former mill towns across the state finally seeing the benefits of living in what has otherwise been a prosperous state.

Beacon Hill needs to get over its irrational fear of raising taxes, or it needs to give the people the ability to pass our own transportation plans at the ballot box. We're not afraid of paying for something when the plan is good, even if it scares the whits out of Beacon Hill. Someone needs to bring Massachusetts and its infrastructure forward; perhaps, sadly enough, the electorate itself is the only credible entity left with the will to do so. We're just lacking the legal ability.

A Depression It Is...

The Republicans have no soul. The culture war is more important to them than avoiding another depression. That's what their refusal to support Detroit means.

We can expect, then, to lose most of the three million jobs related to the auto industry if the Big 2 1/2 go under. To put this in perspective, in the last year the US has lost 2.7 million jobs. This would be more than the job losses for an entire (lousy) year. The US lost half a million jobs last month, and almost every economic forecaster expects the US to lose even more jobs in January, when retailers go fish-belly up due to an abysmal Christmas retail season.

And no one give me any kind of crap Republican spin. The fact is that

A) Current GM union employees earn only $4 more an hour than Toyota factory owners in Alabama - and that's with increased expenses in Detroit and the fact that their employee base is older.

B) The fringe-right $78 whacko spin number only exists if you take into account all of GM's retired employees and ignore the fact that Toyota and Honda's American plants haven't existed long enough to have a bulk of retirees. Let me reiterate that: the Big 3's increased costs are largely due to the fact that they've existed longer and thus have retirees.

C) There were almost no strings attached to the $700 billion bank bailout, or an of the other $100s of billions we've given to banks and AIG. The GM/Ford/Chrysler bailout, on the other hand, saw the Democrats give into almost every Bush admin demand to the point where part of me would be glad this thing went down in flames if not for the fact that it likely means a 2nd Great Depression should these companies fail.

The Democrats shouldn't pass a single Republican-favored bill until the Big 3 are bailed out. Our entire freaking economy is at stake; this is no time for us to be playing games. If the Republicans think so, then we must inflict upon them great pain.

Hmm...

I wonder how Toyota and Mercedes would "compete" if not for the billion or so Alabama's given them to set up shop in that state? Ulterior motives, anyone?

Sherlock Holmes and the Case...

Sherlock Holmes and the Case of
the Mysteriously Changing Race Track Job Figures!

By Ryan

It was the Wednesday when I last read my email - on July 16th, 2008 to be precise - where I first noticed something was amiss. I imagined that what I was reading was as if I had been reading it one hundred years before, electronically digitalized text transposed to paper and ink, the kind that would rub off your fingers if you read it too long. There were many stories, in many papers, that day, but none of them quite made sense. I knew this was a job for my friend, the great Sherlock Holmes.

So I left my home and wandered down the dirty streets of London. There were the shops, the barbers, the butchers, the bakery - all the sorts of things you'd expect to see walking through a densely packed London street. The people were walking to and fro as if nothing was wrong at all. And then I saw it - Holmes's flat, nearly like any other. Years ago there may have been a sign above his door, but he had no need for such advertisement these days. His powers of deduction, now famous, were quite beyond compare, of course. That's why I knew if anyone could figure out how many jobs were at Race Tracks in that little state across the pond, Sherlock Holmes could.

So I walked up his first few steps and knocked on his door, as I had hundreds of times before, to see his servant girl open the door quite kindly. She led me to the parlor, where Holmes was sitting smoking his pipe as usual, reading the daily papers.

"Why, Watson, my boy, how good to see you!" Holmes said.
"Indeed, Mr. Holmes, I quite agree."
"And I can tell you're worried about these stories of all different job figures."

Stunned, I looked Sherlock Holmes over yet again, no matter how well I knew him, he always could manage to surprise me.

"Howsoever did you know?"

"Why, Watson, it's elementary - my dear boy - elementary. I know that, this early in the morning, you would never come to see me on a Thursday, of course, unless you had some sort of burning question in your mind. Furthermore, like me, I know you're prone to read the papers in the morning. So when I began to read, after I got up from bed, I noticed very peculiar stories, each contradicting the other, each with quotes coming from the same person on the same day."

"But how did you know."

"Oh, quiet Watson, I was getting at that. Of course, most people would find these contradicting stories quite perplexing, so when I noticed you came here at this hour, I simply deduced the fact that you wanted to get to the bottom of these ever-changing figures."

"Indeed."

"Well, fear not, Watson, I've already figured it out."

I shouldn't have found myself surprised one bit, but of course I did. "How?"

"Well, to be honest, it's quite easy. Let's take a look at the stories."

Holmes picked up several papers from a pile, each a different newspaper and each with a story about a mysterious man named George Carney. He was a man both powerful and influential both behind the scenes and out in the open - wealthy and quite willing to use his wealth to help hatch his mastermind plots. Of course, he also had a charming, quaint nature about him, and was savvy, getting most reporters to apparently believe or at least not question whatever he said.

"Here's the first story, Watson. Here, in the Taunton Gazette, he reports that 800-1000 jobs would be lost at two different tracks, if the Greyhound ban were to be enacted by popular vote. That would be about 400-500 jobs per track, but one would think he'd know whether his track were employing 400 or 500 people - because 100 people would represent upwards of a million dollars in costs every year. So, my dear Watson, it's quite clear - in just reading this article alone - that Carney is lying."

Stunned, I watched Holmes place the Gazette back on the table, replacing it with two other papers, now in his hand.

"And in these papers, the Brockton Enterprise and Patriot Ledger, we hear a completely different story. His track alone, he claims now, employs a full 650 people. While that further illustrates his dishonesty when it comes to these numbers, let's ignore that for now. Knowing that the two tracks could employ as little as 800 people, according to him, that would mean the other track would employ only 150 people. Is it likely that one track would employ 650 and the other 150, when they do the same job and require similar amounts of Greyhounds? I think not, Watson, I think not. It's only more clear that he's being rather liberal with his truth."

"Furthermore," Holmes began, "some of the stories began to get at other numbers that Carney didn't present, the ones that are actual facts and figures, according to the Government - the reporters, apparently, never bothered to look at them, failing to properly do their jobs, simply questioning Carney, but never his motives. It's quite sad, really. So I did a little searching to find the source of these Government figures."

"And you had time to do that this morning?" I asked.

"Of course, my dear boy, of course. You see, there's this wonderful thing that guys like George Carney just don't know about; I believe people like him call it 'The Google.' You just type in a few practical words here and there, and you could find information on almost anything! To people like Carney, it must seem like a difficult magic that must take a lifetime to learn, so they just ignore it as if it didn't exist. But people like me - we use it to find facts, figures and important theories nearly instantaneously."

He went on, "Knowing that it is your behavior to come here to clear such peculiar circumstances up, I decided to search these Googles before you arrived, to find out the real answer to your question - because, quite frankly, I'm tired of searching halfway across the country for them! So, if you'll allow me to continue?"

I didn't say anything else, but couldn't help but notice Sherlock Holmes's genius. He was able to get at the truth with nothing but a few words and a computer! Wow!

"Perhaps the most perplexing article of the bunch," he said, as he pointed to one of the final papers on the table, "comes from the Boston Globe."

He put down the Ledger and Enterprise, picking up the Paper of Record.

"Here we find another article that contradicts Carney's numbers, the article saying that both tracks employ 650 people combined. That's rather closer to reality, though still hundreds too inflated. Now, what's odd is the way the paper describes those 650 jobs. Here, I'll read the quote.

Carney added that the ban, if approved, will result in a loss of jobs; the two tracks employ about 650 part-time and full-time workers.

Now, does that mean Carney is saying the tracks employ 650 people? Likely, that's the case, and the reporter simply forgot to add a qualifying statement at the end of his sentence, such as 'according to Carney,' because the Boston Globe repeats a different number - much closer to reality - just two more sentences in. Here, have a look, Watson."

Holmes handed the paper to me, pointing to this particular sentence:

Supporters of the ban said Carney's employment figures are greatly inflated. "That number is closer to 250, according to the census," Adams said recently.

"Wow, this is quite perplexing, Mr. Holmes. What do you make of it?

"Well, as I said, the paper doesn't make this completely clear, though the probability is that - so closely tied to Carney's statement - Carney had informed the paper that 650 total jobs were at stake. Otherwise, the Globe would have had to reveal some kind of source before making such a blanket statement. Given that all the real sources, provided by the Government, reveal that there's a total of 707 total employees at all Massachusetts Race Tracks, including horse tracks and amateur car speedways, that's quite unlikely. The other tracks take up far more than 57 jobs, especially since one of the horse tracks is the biggest of all Massachusetts Race Tracks."

"So what's the answer?" I asked, "How many people are really employed at these dog tracks?"

"It's a wonder that only one of these papers even bothered to source the best source, when the Gazette attributed 700 jobs at all race tracks, including horse and car, to the Massachusetts Department of Labor. However, none of the papers referenced the US Census numbers, which describes how many jobs are at each track - which would have saved a guy like me all this trouble! I'm retired, for heaven's sake!"

Sherlock Holmes was clearly annoyed, yet he somehow managed to continue.

"All they had to do was click here on their computers, they would have found the answer. Carney employs between 100 and 249 people at his Race Track according to the Census, which breaks businesses into various size classes. However, looking at the payroll of his company, which is public records through a court case he filed, we can tell that the actual number is close to around 200 as of a few years ago. Though, that's likely down a few employees, because his company has been bleeding profits. We know that the other Race Track in question, Wonderland, claimed the 250-499 bracket on the Census data from a few years ago."

"Well, if Wonderland employed 499 people, wouldn't that mean Carney's numbers were right?"

"Unlikely, my dear Watson, unlikely. Nay, impossible even. Knowing that both tracks require around the same number of dogs and that the Raynham track is and has been the more successful of the two for over a decade, Wonderland's track must have employed something very close to the 250 figure those years ago. However, we now know that Wonderland is taking in less than 2 million a year in wagers, meaning they couldn't afford to employ 250 people and stay in business. It's very likely that the number today is below 200, and likely far below it. And don't forget that we know, from the State Department of labor, that all the tracks employ a maximum of 707 people."

"So, as I said before, how many people do the tracks employ?"

"I'm getting there, Watson, I'm getting there. It's clear that Raynham employs around 200 jobs; it's quite likely that Wonderland employs around the same. That would be a total of about 400-450 jobs, leaving 250-300 between the horse and car tracks. Suffolk Downs, the state's largest track, would likely need around 250 employees to run the facility and serve the patrons, so I think we have our number, pinned within 50 employees."

"Indeed we do, Mr. Holmes, indeed we do."

"Thank goodness, Watson! Now, if you'd please, let me finish reading this morning's paper!"

Watson shook his friend's hand and left for the day, knowing that come another there would be more mysteries to solve - mysteries, he hoped, that would take more than Google to uncover.

The Casino Job Mythos

One of the biggest reasons some people claim to support casinos is for the jobs. It's one of the age-old arguments - that casinos create jobs time infinity, all of which provide decent benefits. Of course, it's another age-old phenomenon that the pro-casino lobby usually lies, distorts and cheats it's way to their much ballyhooed numbers. Anyone remember those 25,000 construction jobs? Yeah, right.

Well, as the casino debate in Massachusetts shifts to Racinos this summer, it's important for everyone, including Beacon Hill, to note that the Racino Lobby is as gifted with their math as the Casino Lobby - 25,000 construction jobs being only the most laughable example. Need a refresher? Let's take a look at what George Carney, owner of the Raynham tracks, has said in the past:

Falsehood #1

"I'm sticking with 650 [jobs]."

George Carney continuously claims to employ 650 people at the Raynham Racetrack. Of course, according to the Census, the actual number is less than 250 - including part timers. Specifically, between 100 and 249. Oops.

How gross is that lie? Well, if you combine all the race tracks in this state - dog, horse, car, whatever - there's 707 employees, according to the Massachusetts Department of Labor. So, George Carney claims to employ almost as many racing-related jobs as the entire industry of Massachusetts. George, we know you're big, but not that big!

What tangled webs we weave. Let's pretend George is right - he has 650 employees. George also released documents that give definitive labor costs for the Raynham Track. Here's George's labor costs over a 9 month period in '06:

Taunton Dog Track, Inc. – “casual labor” $8,800
Taunton Dog Track, Inc. – “salaries and wages” $544,500
Massasoit Greyhound Association – “contract labor expense” $1,980,092
Massasoit Greyhound Association – “salaries and wages” $2,622,384
Total: $5,155,776

So, if George's claims are right and he truly employs 650 people, there's some very simple math to do. 650/5,155,776 = $7,931. Either George is paying his 650 minimum wage or less (and he claims his jobs are good jobs), or he's completely full of himself. Even George knows his math is as fuzzy as a pair of over-used tennis balls.

Now, if George really employs ~200 people, that number is a more reasonable $25,779. Sound about right?

Falsehood #2

"If the ban on dog racing wins approval... it could eliminate 6,000 to 8,000 jobs at the two tracks."

Right off the bat, we've deduced that Carney employs between 100 and 249 employees at Raynham. Let's be generous and round up to 250. If that's the case, the other park in question, Wonderland Racetrack, would have to employ between 5,750 to 7,750 jobs. Of course, according to Census numbers, that's laughable. Note to George: they couldn't fit that many cars in the Wonderland Parking Lot.

In 2002, Wonderland employed between 250 and 499 full time and part time employees. Of course, there's probably even less now, given recent trends at Race Tracks in Massachusetts and across the country. In fact, Wonderland even threatened that if it doesn't get its way with Racinos, it'll shut up shop and close for good. Good riddance. With hundreds of millions being invested just across the street on the beach, as well as a T station even closer, there's limitless possibilities for those acres to be used, which could bring more and better jobs for the area - industries that aren't so prone to lie, distort and cheat about their numbers.