Tag Archives: Money

Sawing the rungs off the ladder

Posted on by

The California budget crisis is getting worse by the minute, the Los Angeles Times reports, and our dysfunctional legislature (hamstrung by a super-majority requirement to pass significant legislation) is engaging in pre-Christmas yammering and not much else.

There’s an air of anxiety here at the college, and it isn’t just on the part of students getting ready for final exams. The governor has made clear that there will certainly be major mid-year budget cuts as part of the coping strategy for the state’s massive deficit. This means that money already allocated — and in many cases spent — will be taken away from colleges, universities, and school districts up and down the state. In immediate terms, one of the worst things the state has done (though it may well have been necessary) is raise fees for our winter intersession from $20 to $26 per unit. Compared to those fees in other state community college systems, California’s are low; I understand the need to boost revenue. But the problem is that most of our students have already registered and paid for their winter session classes at the $20 price. It is now the college’s job, not the state’s, to track down each and every student and bill him or her for the remaining $6 per unit. If a student can’t cough up that extra money by the end of the second week of winter classes, he or she will be dropped. It’s added expense to hunt them down, and it’s embarrassing to us and burdensome to the students to add this special assessment onto what they already paid.

It is axiomatic that community college enrollments skyrocket when unemployment rises and the economy contracts. People come back to school for retraining in an ever-more competitive economy; those who might otherwise be tempted to leave college for well-paying jobs find that they are better off stickiing it out and picking up a degree or a certificate. Our enrollment this year is at record numbers, and the campus and its facilities are bursting at the seams.

Of course, precisely at the moment that we are most needed in order to help folks weather the recession, our budget gets slashed. At the moment demand increases, cutbacks will mean that we will be able to offer fewer classes rather than more. Adjunct faculty may find their contracts aren’t renewed, and though no one is yet daring to speak the word “lay-offs” for full-time professors, there is real fear that that day may yet come. Pasadena City College last laid off teachers in 1983; several of our most senior faculty members were around in that scary time and remember it well. Those of us who have seniority are a bit better insulated in terms of job protection, but our concern is not merely for ourselves or even our junior colleagues. Our concern is for the students we teach and the community we serve.

Community colleges are the ladder into the middle class for millions. What’s exasperating is that the rungs are only reinforced in times of plenty when they are least needed, and sawed off precisely at the moments that they are most desperately required. I have no solution, but lament the impact upon my students and more vulnerable colleagues.

Centering women

Posted on by

Barack Obama called this morning for a major public works investment. (As long as environmental concerns are given equal weight with job creation and transportation needs, I’m fine with the idea.) SusanG, who writes at Daily Kos, captures one aspect of Obama’s address today. Speaking about the fear generated by the current recession, Obama said:

Yesterday, we received another painful reminder of the serious economic challenge our country is facing when we learned that 533,000 jobs were lost in November alone, the single worst month of job loss in over three decades. That puts the total number of jobs lost in this recession at nearly 2 million.

But this isn’t about numbers. It’s about each of the families those numbers represent. It’s about the rising unease and frustration that so many of you are feeling during this holiday season. Will you be able to put your kids through college? Will you be able to afford health care? Will you be able to retire with dignity and security? Will your job or your husband’s job or your daughter’s job be the next one cut?

Your job, your husband’s job, your daughter’s job. Almost effortlessly offhand, and yet it centers women, as SusanG points out, in a speech that isn’t aimed at an exclusively “women’s issue”. SusanG:

In a speech about universal fears and hardship, he is addressing his primary listeners as women. Never have I heard sentence construction like that from a president — women addressed directly in a non-”women’s issues” setting as legitimate, fully fledged and very concerned and invested breadwinners. The effect is stunning.

Agreed. And no, my men’s rights advocate friends, this doesn’t mean men are being marginalized. Recognition that the economic angst touches everyone, including women, is long overdue.

Exit polls, the marriage gap, and the importance of strong public institutions

Posted on by

It has become almost axiomatic in American politics that one of the biggest divides among voters is that between the married and the unmarried, particularly women. The exit poll data from Tuesday’s election makes clear that if anything, this divide is growing.

Married People (both sexes):

McCain: 52%
Obama: 47%

Single People (both sexes):

Obama: 65%
McCain: 33%

That’s a pretty stunning gulf; McCain wins all marrieds by 5; Obama wins the single by a staggering 32 points. But wait, it gets better.

Married women without children (of any age):

McCain: 53%
Obama: 44%

Unmarried women without children:

Obama: 69%
McCain: 31%

That’s much broader than for men.

Unmarried men, no kids:

Obama: 56%
McCain: 41%

Married men, no kids:

McCain: 52%
Obama: 48%

What to make of this? Heterosexual marriage (it’s hard to tell from the exit polls whether legally married same-sex couples in Massachusetts or California were included) tends to make its participants more conservative. Men are already more conservative in their politics than women, so the “conservatizing effect” is comparatively greater upon women. (Among all men, Obama beat McCain by 1 point, 49-48; among all women, Obama cruised to victory, 56-43. This year’s gender gap was 12 points.) No wonder conservatives are so eager to “protect” and “defend” traditional marriage — it’s a reliable vote-getter. Support among the single, particularly among single-women, is absolutely wretched for the GOP. Continue reading →

Fighting the “quiet civil war”, and fighting it civilly: some reflections on striving to be a kind culture warrior

Posted on by

I make no secret of my left-wing leanings, but I am a fairly frequent reader of some conservative websites, including the National Review. This comment from the often funny, often pompous (pot, meet kettle) Mark Steyn intrigued me: A cold civil war? Steyn quotes author William Gibson, and right-wing blogger Hyacinth Girl, who writes:

Every generation says that the politics of the current generation is more contentious than in “their day,” and though we’ve been through a lot as a country–a civil war, two world wars, the threat of nuclear annihilation, and a vicious attack on our homeland–I’ve never before seen such a willingness by one side to tear this country down. A willingness to lie, cheat, and steal this election, reprehensible actions that are absolved by the high priests of modern liberalism, as they are done in the service of the “greater good.” I find myself continually taken aback by how many people claim to be disgusted with this country, desiring that it be remade in the image of a dying Europe.

This country is now, as Steyn has said numerous times, a “50/50 nation.” We are increasingly divided, in a way that is reminiscent of the country my parents inhabited in the late ’60′s, which I’m sure is no coincidence, given the work “educators” like Bill Ayers have been doing for the past several years. I’m not convinced we’ll see a return to the civil unrest of the ’60′s, but I can’t see this country coming together again on much of anything. If 9/11 failed to unite us–it divided us sharply along previously unobtrusive fault lines, surprising many, myself included–then I’m not sure what would. Throughout this election, I’ve expressed my enthusiasm for smaller government and fewer taxes, and I couldn’t comprehend how this did not appeal to everyone. I’m becoming increasingly aware of a growing attitude amongst my countrymen for a more intrusive government, a populace willing to pay higher taxes so long as they don’t have to take care of themselves. Apparently, roughly half of this country feels this way. And I can’t see how that side will “come over” to the side of self-reliance (though I’m not so sure that “we’re” for that anymore either).

So are we witnessing the beginning of a cultural and political standoff? A “cold civil war,” as is has so eloquently been phrased? If so, what the hell are we going to do about it?

I’m not going to get into an argument over the absurdity of Hyacinth Girl’s charges about “stealing” the election. If Obama wins, I do suspect that many on the right will begin to sound very much like the late great Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, intimating that the election was indeed “stolen.” That will give us three consecutive elections in which many on the side that lost the presidency came away convinced that they were “done in” by thievery and not the weaknesses of their own particular candidate. It’s a depressing thought.

What I’m interested in is the notion of a “quiet” or a “cold” civil war. I think Steyn and Hyacinth are on to something, even if I quibble with the latter’s implication that it has “never been this bad.” As a historian by training and profession, I tend to think that knowledge of Clio’s secrets is inversely proportional to how unique one imagines the current situation to be. Those who claim “things have never, ever been this bad” are almost invariably revealing their own ignorance.

On the other hand, it’s hard to dispute that we’re in one — of many — periods of cultural strife. On hot-button social issues (abortion, guns, gay marriage); on military affairs (Iraq); and on the question of America’s role in the world (uniquely elect or called to humility in a community of equals), we are obviously a divided people if not a divided nation. Those divisions seem stronger, of course, because of how close that division is, demographically speaking. Most of us whose memory goes back more than a few decades remember landslide elections rather than the nailbiting affairs of this new century. The country was “divided” in 1964, 1972, and 1984 as well, over many issues — but that didn’t translate into close elections. Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan had their vociferous detractors, but in various ways they were able to assemble massive coalitions to carry them to easy victories. By the standards of the last few years, even Bill Clinton’s relatively small wins in 1992 and ’96 over George HW Bush and Bob Dole seem easy and foreordained.

I think Barack Obama will probably (not certainly, but probably) pull out this election. It will not be a landslide, either in the popular vote or in the electoral college. And if trends hold, he will take office immensely distrusted (and perhaps hated) by at least 40% of the American public. But given the conditions under which the likes of, say, Rutherford B. Hayes assumed the presidency, I still don’t see the need to claim that we are more divided than at any other time in our history. For most of us, however, we are more divided than at any time in living memory — and while that’s obviously a very different thing, it’s still understandably troubling. Continue reading →

$138 a barrel, and mixed feelings

Posted on by

I’ve got the business channel on; oil has risen more than 10 bucks today, and is at $138 a barrel. At the Chevron near campus, I filled up the Volvo (which likes premium gas) for $4.74; regular was 20 cents lower.

I have mixed feelings about the rise in oil prices. On the one hand, I like the fact that more people are using public transportation. I like disincentives to environmentally destructive behavior, and I like incentives for conservation. That sales of large trucks and SUVs are plummeting, and sales of hybrids and smaller cars are rising, strikes me as a very pleasant and helpful consequence of skyrocketing fuel prices. The real hope, of course, is that the high cost of gas will lead to more rapid development of alternative, renewable, environmentally sensitive fuel sources. (I have mixed feelings about biofuels, both because I’m worried about the conversion of more undeveloped land for agriculture and because of the impact on food prices for the poor.)

On the other hand, I have no interest in seeing oil company profits skyrocket, and certainly little enthusiasm about seeing the likes of the house of Saud and Vladimir Putin get richer and richer. I worry too that some folks will draw exactly the wrong lesson, and use the rising price of gasoline as an excuse to advocate for driiling in ANWAR or off the coast of California. Conservation and the development of sustainable alternatives, not increased petroleum production, is the only viable long-term answer. Fortunately, all of the major candidates for president, including the unreliable and mercurial John McCain, oppose drilling in the Arctic. With the likelihood that the Democrats will continue to control Congress after the fall election, the chances are good that we can restrain the desires of the oil companies to expand drilling.

I am also keenly aware that the rising cost of gas has a direct and deleterious impact on the lives of my students. Public transportation networks in the San Gabriel Valley are poor at best, and many of those in my classes have little choice but to drive to and from school and work. The cost of filling up hurts them. It’s deeply insensitive for me to wax eloquent about “price disincentives” when those who consume the least and live closest to the margins are the ones being most powerfully affected.

So as I see the prices rise — 50 cents a gallon in the past four weeks alone — I have mixed feelings. I’m excited and enthusiastic when I see the numbers go up, because I’m thrilled about the increased reliance on public transportation. I’m pleased that the American love affair with big cars is showing signs of fading, perhaps for good. And I’m delighted that the often-ignored voices that counsel conservation and alternative energy sources are at last being heard. But rising prices — and rising oil company profits — are blunt and ineffective instruments for lasting social change.

Of cell phones and the Pill, tuition and travel, wealth and diversification: some random economicky thoughts

Posted on by

My splendid cousin Ted, a marketing major at CSU Chico, comments on the increasing recognition that the current economic slowdown impacts the poor and the middle-class more than the wealthy.

I recently made a presentation to my Sales Force Management class, where as I played the newly appointed V.P. of sales. I had to convince the CEO that we needed to switch from the low-end market for wristwatches( this is an arbitrary product that was assigned to me) to the high-end market, like Rolex and Bulova. The premise for my reasoning was mainly the impending recession that our country has fallen into, and that only the high-end market will stay profitable at a constant rate. This poses an interesting question of why do the the consumers with plenty of discretionary income continue to have some cash? How could the recession of an entire economy only hurt the low income citizens?

I’m not an economist; in our family, it’s my wife who manages both our money and, in her business management firm, other people’s as well. But I’m fortunate enough to go back and forth between very different economic worlds quite frequently. My students — and I am close to many of them — are, like so many community college students, economically very vulnerable. Most, however, are not homeowners; perhaps more importantly, most who live at home live in rentals rather than “owned” homes. In an odd way, many have been able to weather the worst aspects of the “credit crunch” because for them and their families, home-ownership is often an as-yet unattained aspiration. Though rents have not come down as fast as house prices, they have stabilized in Los Angeles County as the economy tries to absorb the massive increase in housing stock. Purely anecdotally, this has actually benefitted my students who live in apartments more than those whose parents recently (since, say, the run-up of the early part of the decade) purchased a home. In this sense, the “lower-middle” is getting squeezed more than the “bottom.” Continue reading →

Economic slowdown anecdotes

Posted on by

Further signs of a declining local economy. At my boxing gym, attendance at classes has gone down substantially while demand for private training has stayed level. The owner of the gym theorized that those who only attend classes (at $15 per pop) are more likely to be vulnerable to economic fluctuations than those who can afford private sessions ($60-$90 per hour.) The notable drop in class attendance over the past three or four months, and the comparable stability of the private client pool, seems to bear this out.

I called my local tux shop today as well. One of these days, I’ll get around to buying a really nice vegan tuxedo, but for now, I just rent a standard black tie outfit for the three or four annual occasions for which I need one. (I’ve got an event coming up in ten days or so.) I know the fellow who owns the shop, and he lamented that business had been slow. Just as many wedding parties to kit out, but slightly lower attendance at black and white tie charity galas has been taking a toll.

At the Mobil station on Del Mar and Arroyo Parkway (one of my favorites), regular unleaded gas is $4.12. But the streets are as crowded as ever.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Where to give the “stimulus” check?

Posted on by

I haven’t been able to figure out whether my wife and I qualify for one of the economic stimulus checks coming from the federal government next month, but if we do get one in the mail, I’m going to be quite cross. It’s not that I don’t like getting checks in the mail, but I’d infinitely prefer that the government use the money to protect natural resources or pay for increased Medicare benefits rather than sending us something we don’t really need.

At Feministe, there’s a good thread about where those of us fortunate enough not to need this ridiculous-hand-out-to-the-already-lightly-taxed ought to donate the largesse. Excellent suggestions to be found. If we get the check, 100% of whatever we receive will go to charity.

My concerns tend to revolve around animal rights issues, environmental preservation, and women’s rights. Three charities to consider in each category:

Animals:

Farm Sanctuary
Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
Matilde’s Mission — now supporting chinchilla rescue abroad!

Environment:

Nature Conservancy
Sierra Club
Big Sur Land Trust

Gender Justice:

EMERJ
Global Fund for Women
Women’s Sports Foundation

And your local food bank would probably really appreciate the giving, too.

Check out the Feministe thread for more. And for Pete’s sake, tax me more, not less.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged

Buying my friend a filet: of veganism, Volvos, and the complexity of seeing every dollar as a vote

Posted on by

Our Florida vacation continues apace. Tonight, we drove up to Fort Lauderdale to have dinner at Sublime, one of the most renowned purely vegan restaurants in the country. There’s nothing like being able to go somewhere new and know that every last thing on the menu is completely “safe”, with no dairy or eggs or honey or any other animal product. The food was exquisitely good.

Greater L.A. has far too few “high end” purely vegan restaurants. (Madeline’s Bistro is perhaps the one exception). San Francisco has the splendid Millenium, where I carbo-loaded for a marathon last summer. And next month, we’ll be checking out the renowned Candle 79 in New York. But we’ve had Sublime on the list for a while, and I am delighted we got to experience it tonight.

A friend of mine asked recently how I, as a vegan, felt paying for other’s meat. I do take friends and family to lunch from time to time, and we rarely get a chance to go somewhere vegan. I always order a strictly vegetarian meal, but many of those whom I care about don’t. Some of my friends and family will eat vegetarian out of respect for my values, but I never insist that they do so. Recently, my wife and I picked up the tab at a dinner where two of our companions ate filet with lobster — about as “un-vegan” a meal as you could get. We had invited these friends to dinner, and we had selected a restaurant with multiple options; as a result, we ended up spending our dollars for something we find morally repugnant. Continue reading →