Labor Day Weekend Funnies

Robert Reich: "Labor Day 2028"

To celebrate the kickoffs of the high school and college football seasons, the 29th anniversary of the marriage of the lovely Mrs. Diddie and I -- no, neither of those.  This is a reason-for-the-season reposting of former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich's blog post about a Labor Day in the near future, predicted from 87 years in the past.

In 1928, famed British economist John Maynard Keynes predicted that technology would advance so far in a hundred years – by 2028 – that it will replace all work, and no one will need to worry about making money.

“For the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his permanent problem – how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares, how to occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won for him, to live wisely and agreeably and well.”

We still have thirteen years to go before we reach Keynes’ prophetic year, but we’re not exactly on the way to it. Americans are working harder than ever.

Keynes may be proven right about technological progress. We’re on the verge of 3-D printing, driverless cars, delivery drones, and robots that can serve us coffee in the morning and make our beds.  But he overlooked one big question: How to redistribute the profits from these marvelous labor-saving inventions, so we’ll have the money to buy the free time they provide?

Without such a mechanism, most of us are condemned to work ever harder in order to compensate for lost earnings due to the labor-replacing technologies.  Such technologies are even replacing knowledge workers – a big reason why college degrees no longer deliver steadily higher wages and larger shares of the economic pie.  Since 2000, the vast majority of college graduates have seen little or no income gains.  The economic model that predominated through most of the twentieth century was mass production by many, for mass consumption by many.  But the model we’re rushing toward is unlimited production by a handful, for consumption by the few able to afford it.

The ratio of employees to customers is already dropping to mind-boggling lows.

When Facebook purchased the messaging company WhatsApp for $19 billion last year, WhatsApp had fifty-five employees serving 450 million customers.  When more and more can be done by fewer and fewer people, profits go to an ever-smaller circle of executives and owner-investors. WhatsApp’s young co-founder and CEO, Jan Koum, got $6.8 billion in the deal.  This in turn will leave the rest of us with fewer well-paying jobs and less money to buy what can be produced, as we’re pushed into the low-paying personal service sector of the economy.  Which will also mean fewer profits for the handful of billionaire executives and owner-investors, because potential consumers won’t be able to afford what they’re selling.

What to do? We might try to levy a gigantic tax on the incomes of the billionaire winners and redistribute their winnings to everyone else. But even if politically feasible, the winners will be tempted to store their winnings abroad – or expatriate.

Suppose we look instead at the patents and trademarks by which government protects all these new inventions.

Such government protections determine what these inventions are worth. If patents lasted only three years instead of the current twenty, for example, What’sApp would be worth a small fraction of $19 billion – because after three years anybody could reproduce its messaging technology for free.  Instead of shortening the patent period, how about giving every citizen a share of the profits from all patents and trademarks government protects? It would be a condition for receiving such protection.  Say, for example, 20 percent of all such profits were split equally among all citizens, starting the month they turn eighteen.  In effect, this would be a basic minimum income for everyone.

The sum would be enough to ensure everyone a minimally decent standard of living – including money to buy the technologies that would free them up from the necessity of working.  Anyone wishing to supplement their basic minimum could of course choose to work – even though, as noted, most jobs will pay modestly.  This outcome would also be good for the handful of billionaire executives and owner-investors, because it would ensure they have customers with enough money to buy their labor-saving gadgets.  Such a basic minimum would allow people to pursue whatever arts or avocations provide them with meaning, thereby enabling society to enjoy the fruits of such artistry or voluntary efforts.

We would thereby create the kind of society John Maynard Keynes predicted we’d achieve by 2028 – an age of technological abundance in which no one will need to work.

Happy Labor Day.

I wanted to post about something besides Houston city elections

-- But I am really not interested in talking about Sheriff Ron Hickman, or Fox News pushing his white conservative lies further out, while Hickman himself doubles down.  Other people have spoken for me anyway.

Hickman's rhetoric only pours gas on an ever-expanding forest fire.  More people will be shot down, unarmed black people and peace officers alike, as a result of his bloviating.

Thanks, Adrian Garcia!  One hell of a parting gift you left us.

-- I don't want to talk about Kim Davis, either.  It's "factually impossible" for me to talk about her.

-- I also won't be spending many pixels talking about Donald Trump, in Spanish or in English.  Not going to run many cartoons of him in the future, either.

These are all jokes that just aren't funny to me.

-- Nobody could have foreseen that Hillary Clinton would be struggling in the polls.  Bless his poor old hippie heart, Ted still can't see it.

-- Do you think we have immigration problems in the United States?  Do you think they have immigration problems in places like Syria, or Turkey, or Greece?  Who's got the bigger problem, do you think?  Us or them?  I'm thinking it's humanity that has the problem.

So... aren't you glad I'm blogging about those boring old city council races?

The At Large 5 contest

For those who wish to catch up, here are my posts on the state of play in the mayor's race from last week, along with AL1, AL2, AL3, and AL4.  Somebody is going to release a poll very soon in the mayoral; I'm kind of surprised we haven't seen one yet.  As a reminder, we don't talk about advertisements, or fundraising, or viability scores 'round these parts.  My humble O is that those things are by degrees undemocratic and have no place in estimating the value of potential political officeholders.  Issues, policy, clearly-staked positions, and how hard a person is actually trying to encourage people to vote for them, by their presence online and offline at various functions is how I evaluate worth.  YMMV, of course.

For you deadliners, the last day to register to vote in this election is October 5th; and early voting begins on October 19.  On to the participants in this race, listed in ballot order:

• Brad Batteau
• Jack Christie (incumbent)
• Philippe Nassif
• Sharon Moses
• Tahir Charles

Perennial candidate Batteau was instrumental in helping CM Michael Kubosh get elected in AL 3 two years ago.  He, Rogene Calvert, Roland Chavez (running again this year in District H), and Jenefer Rene Pool (running again in AL1) all split the vote neatly enough between themselves to allow Kubosh to go into a runoff against Roy Morales (who is also running again, in AL4).  That could happen once more here in AL5.

Batteau, sixth in a field of six with 8.6% of the vote in 2013, doesn't really seem to be getting the message voters are sending him.  Perhaps he's still holding on for an Andrew-Burks-in-2011-ish miracle.  He's running the same campaign he's run in the past, which is to say nonexistent.  This KTRK piece from four years ago is evidence that some things never really change.

And then there's J. Brad Batteau. He has run for an at-large position before. He says he's the man to represent the whole city. He hasn't raised any money or posted many signs but did address his robbery conviction 30 years ago.

"It shouldn't matter because what I'm going to do for the people doesn't have anything to do with my past back in 1987. I was a teenager ... I'm now 42," he said.

It's important to note that Batteau didn't know Rebuild Houston is when we asked him.

I would be surprised if he knows anything about it today.  Name recognition and first-on-the-ballot can't be completely discounted in municipal races, unfortunately.

Conservative Republican Christie defeated two half-hearted Democrats challenging him in 2011 with 55% of the vote, and four years ago finally prevailed in a third try over incumbent Jolanda Jones in the runoff by a similar 54.2% margin... with a helping hand from former mayor Bill White.  It is never-say-die candidates like Christie and Burks who give hope to the likes of people such as Batteau.  Greg Wythe's Texas Political Almanac has a good summary of that race in 2011...

The "Jack & JoJo Show" earned its third season as candidate Christie once more filed to run against CM Jolanda Jones. While many of the ethical charges brought against CM Jones during the past two years failed to merit serious attention, the spotlight brought attention on Jones' often combative approach to representing the city. While Jones remained popular in African-American communities -- particularly on the south side -- not enough voters elsewhere saw her as an independent voice at Council. Jones was the most frequent member on council to tag items on the city agenda, delaying action for a week on numerous items. The result was not dissimilar to the previous campaign and runoff. But the one thing missing from this election was that of a well-funded African-American candidate for mayor in a runoff that would help boost turnout to benefit Jolanda.

Wythe left out the Bill White part, probably because he was a White acolyte from the get-go in the former mayor's bid for the Governor's Mansion in 2010.  But the history he did write reminds us to watch for this African American dynamic in play in this cycle's runoff.  You can rest assured that either Sylvester Turner or Ben Hall -- or both -- running off for mayor in December changes the calculus of downballot council runoffs.  Christie wanted to run for mayor this time, but was crowded out by CM Oliver Pennington, himself an early dropout.  Both men are probably kicking themselves as they watch Hall ascend to the conservative throne.

Nassif is the Democrats' standard-bearer.  For whatever his reasons, Durrel Douglas wound up not filing to run here, and that clears the field a little for the liberal activist of Mexican and Lebanese descent.  He's got all the endorsements and support flowing his way.

Sharon Moses seems to have good qualifications for a potential council member if in fact this is her LinkedIn profile, but no other web presence and no past experience in running for office works against her.  Tahir Charles' website has a good bio of him but his Facebook page was last updated in May.  Both candidates -- and Batteau, for that matter -- might bite into Nassif's tally among African American voters.

Prediction for the general: If the four Democrats -- one establishment (Nassif) and three unorthodox (Batteau, Moses, Charles) succeed in canceling each other out, then the odious Christie goes back to council for a third term.  If the best hope for Democratic liberals, Nassif, can force the incumbent -- whose ceiling in past elections has been around 55% -- into a runoff, they should raise their expectations for knocking off the Republican on council.