About three weeks ago I called attention to the effect of computerization on jobs in my post at:
http://mile181.blogspot.com/2011/02/robotics-and-economics.html
Today the New York Times reports on the ability of computer software to replace entire platoons of lawyers with software in complex litigation cases. The article here explains how new advances in software allow firms to screen vast volumes of computer files for relevant documents responding to discovery requests. The impact is substantial. In some cases provided as an example, five hundred attorneys can be replaced with a single attorney.
Experts familiar with the developments suggest that the effect will be that in the future there will be fewer legal jobs, not more. Similar effects are being felt among loan and mortgage officers and tax accountants.
Ironically, computers are also replacing computer engineers who once worked designing computer chips. In fact, unemployment in information technology leads the list of fields tracked by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in unemployment.
The bottom line: the United States economy is being “hollowed out.” New jobs are coming at the bottom of the economic pyramid, jobs in the middle are being lost to automation and outsourcing, and now job growth at the top is slowing.
The only thing left to do seems to be to replace the financial manipulators at the top of the pyramid with software.
Let them look for a job.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Friday, March 4, 2011
Census and Elections
The Census Bureau has just released additional data for local jurisdictions in North Carolina. The data for municipalities is posted on the North Carolina League of Municipalities web site. Below are population figures for municipalities in Pamlico County, along with voter registration numbers for each municipality (from Pamlico County Board of Elections):
| 2010 census | Voter Reg | |
| Alliance | 776 | 469 |
| Arapahoe | 556 | 330 |
| Bayboro | 1,263 | 519 |
| Grantsboro | 688 | 459 |
| Mesic | 220 | 154 |
| Minesott Beach | 440 | 408 |
| Oriental | 900 | 870 |
| Stonewall | 281 | 187 |
| Vandemere | 254 | 200 |
Thursday, March 3, 2011
The Country Is Broke?
Are we really broke? Some of my recent posts on the economy make reference to "starve the beast" and other efforts that have been pursued over a sustained period. The obvious goal was to increase the power and wealth of the powerful and wealthy. It seems to be working, to the detriment of everyone else.
Today's New York Times has a different (and clearer) take on the same process here. It is worth reading.
Today's New York Times has a different (and clearer) take on the same process here. It is worth reading.
Wednesday, March 2, 2011
What's the Hurry?
A local media outlet described the pending amendment to Oriental's Growth Management Ordinance as including "a provision to grant automatic rezoning approvals."
This is not completely accurate. In fact, the draft amendment to GMO Article XV would apply to any amendment to any provision of our zoning regulations, not only amendments to the growth management map. It would apply to changes in setbacks, for example, to height limitations, to density provisions or any other zoning rule. The proposal would provide automatic granting of any application for any amendment if the Board of Commissioners fails to take final action on the application within 95 days of their first meeting to consider the application.
What's the hurry?
The good news is that the Board of Commissioners has returned the draft to the Planning Board.
This is not completely accurate. In fact, the draft amendment to GMO Article XV would apply to any amendment to any provision of our zoning regulations, not only amendments to the growth management map. It would apply to changes in setbacks, for example, to height limitations, to density provisions or any other zoning rule. The proposal would provide automatic granting of any application for any amendment if the Board of Commissioners fails to take final action on the application within 95 days of their first meeting to consider the application.
What's the hurry?
The good news is that the Board of Commissioners has returned the draft to the Planning Board.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Zoning - On Getting It Right
Oriental's March 1 meeting of the Board of Commissioners decided to send the present draft amendment to the Town's Growth Management Ordinance back to the Planning Board for further work.
This is one of those times it seems best to make the effort and take as much time as necessary to do it right. The issue under consideration is how to proceed with amendments to the Town's zoning ordinance.
There seem to be no urgent projects on the horizon at present. The Board has apparently decided it is more important to get it right than to rush forward.
Good decision.
This is one of those times it seems best to make the effort and take as much time as necessary to do it right. The issue under consideration is how to proceed with amendments to the Town's zoning ordinance.
There seem to be no urgent projects on the horizon at present. The Board has apparently decided it is more important to get it right than to rush forward.
Good decision.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Zoning in Oriental
And now for some local news.
Last Tuesday evening, at the request of the Oriental Town Board of Commissioners, the town Planning Board recommended some changes to the Growth Management Ordinance, Article XV, Sections 230 - 237 (Amendments).
Some of their recommendations, if adopted, will fix things that need to be fixed.
Some won't. Accordingly, I oppose the present draft.
The proposed draft is on line at the Town of Oriental web site. The agenda packet can be found here. Click on "proposed amendments."
The impetus for amending the GMO was last year's application by developer Sylvan Friedman to change the zoning of a residential (R-3) parcel he owns on Midyette Street to MU. The public hearing (required by law) and action by the Town Board were delayed three times (twice at the request of the applicant). The application was opposed by neighbors during the public hearing. The neighbors submitted a formal petition opposing the measure, thus establishing a requirement for an affirmative vote by three fourths of the Board.
Because of the delays, the Board failed to act within the 65 days required by the GMO, thus effectively denying the Friedmans' request. Some Board members expressed the view that the failure to act should be deemed an approval.
The planning Board recommends extending the period to 95 days from first consideration of the request and changing the rule to stipulate that failure of the Board to act constitutes approval.
There are some who believe the applicant deserves a timely response from the Board. This misses the main point. It's about the public, not the applicant. As the GMO explains: "The Town Commissioners shall not regard the advantages or disadvantages to the individual requesting the change, but shall consider the impact of the proposed change on the public at large."
Other than requiring a public hearing before any amendment is adopted and requiring a three-fourths vote in event of a valid petition opposing an amendment, North Carolina General Statutes do not require the town to act in accordance with the opinions of the public voiced at the hearing. This is a political process - a legislative process, not a quasi-judicial proceding. That means it is not only proper but strongly advisable for Town Commissioners to seek the advice of residents before making a decision.
The public should expect Commissioners to take their views seriously. Accordingly, I believe any action deadline should be tied to the public hearing. For example, it makes sense to require that the Commissioners act within thirty-five days following the required public hearing. That way, the views of the public will be fresh in the minds of the commissioners.
Should the Commissioners be unable or disinclined to act within a deadline, the default position should be to maintain the status quo.
The public should not be penalized for inaction by a Town Board.
Last Tuesday evening, at the request of the Oriental Town Board of Commissioners, the town Planning Board recommended some changes to the Growth Management Ordinance, Article XV, Sections 230 - 237 (Amendments).
Some of their recommendations, if adopted, will fix things that need to be fixed.
Some won't. Accordingly, I oppose the present draft.
The proposed draft is on line at the Town of Oriental web site. The agenda packet can be found here. Click on "proposed amendments."
The impetus for amending the GMO was last year's application by developer Sylvan Friedman to change the zoning of a residential (R-3) parcel he owns on Midyette Street to MU. The public hearing (required by law) and action by the Town Board were delayed three times (twice at the request of the applicant). The application was opposed by neighbors during the public hearing. The neighbors submitted a formal petition opposing the measure, thus establishing a requirement for an affirmative vote by three fourths of the Board.
Because of the delays, the Board failed to act within the 65 days required by the GMO, thus effectively denying the Friedmans' request. Some Board members expressed the view that the failure to act should be deemed an approval.
The planning Board recommends extending the period to 95 days from first consideration of the request and changing the rule to stipulate that failure of the Board to act constitutes approval.
There are some who believe the applicant deserves a timely response from the Board. This misses the main point. It's about the public, not the applicant. As the GMO explains: "The Town Commissioners shall not regard the advantages or disadvantages to the individual requesting the change, but shall consider the impact of the proposed change on the public at large."
Other than requiring a public hearing before any amendment is adopted and requiring a three-fourths vote in event of a valid petition opposing an amendment, North Carolina General Statutes do not require the town to act in accordance with the opinions of the public voiced at the hearing. This is a political process - a legislative process, not a quasi-judicial proceding. That means it is not only proper but strongly advisable for Town Commissioners to seek the advice of residents before making a decision.
The public should expect Commissioners to take their views seriously. Accordingly, I believe any action deadline should be tied to the public hearing. For example, it makes sense to require that the Commissioners act within thirty-five days following the required public hearing. That way, the views of the public will be fresh in the minds of the commissioners.
Should the Commissioners be unable or disinclined to act within a deadline, the default position should be to maintain the status quo.
The public should not be penalized for inaction by a Town Board.
A One-Armed Economist
President Truman once complained about his economic advisers.
"They come in," he said, "and tell me 'on the one hand, this,' and 'on the other hand, that.'"
"What I need," he lamented, "are some one-armed economists."
"They come in," he said, "and tell me 'on the one hand, this,' and 'on the other hand, that.'"
"What I need," he lamented, "are some one-armed economists."
Friday, February 25, 2011
Starving the Beast
So why did President Reagan and both Bushes follow a "borrow and spend" fiscal policy instead of making sure the national expenditures were paid for, as they could easily have done?
Because they didn't want to balance the budget. They wanted to follow the policy of "starving the beast."
Don't take my word for it - read the analysis by Bruce Bartlett, writing for Forbes.com.
Here is how economist Paul Krugman describes the scheme in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette.
Although the Republican Party has complained about deficit spending ever since the Great Depression, this was never previously a big deal with the GOP, with their predecessors the Whig Party, or with their original predecessors, the Federalist Party. In fact, President Washington, on advice of his Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, began his administration with an enormous deficit.
This came about when the Federal Government under the new constitution purchased at face value revolutionary war bonds issued by the states. This represented an enormous windfall for speculators who had purchased the bonds from original investors at pennies on the dollar.
The rule: millions to subsidize financial speculators, but not one cent for ordinary people.
This continues to be the policy of the GOP.
What offended Republicans about the New Deal was not the deficit financing, but to whose benefit the money was spent.
Democrats, on the other hand, have from the time of the Anti-Federalists and especially from the Andrew Jackson administration, opposed deficit financing. The reasons:
1. Government borrowing drives up the cost of credit for ordinary people;
2. Paying off government debt takes money from the pockets of the poor and transfers it to the rich;
3. Driving up the cost of money increases the cost of American products and reduces exports;
4. Government borrowing from foreign lenders makes us vulnerable to foreign interests;
5. Etc.
Only in truly extraordinary circumstances do Democrats support extensive deficit financing: the Great Depression and World War II are the clearest examples.
Six years ago, Paul Krugman exposed the whole Starve the Beast bait and switch scam.
Now they have extended the scam from the Federal level to the State level by making it impossible for Washington to provide enough stimulus money to counteract the reduction in state expenditures resulting from state constitution requirements to balance the budget. Earlier, Krugman described the dilemma facing the states and the implications for the national economy in his article Fifty Herbert Hoovers. The article is worth reading again.
Because they didn't want to balance the budget. They wanted to follow the policy of "starving the beast."
Don't take my word for it - read the analysis by Bruce Bartlett, writing for Forbes.com.
Here is how economist Paul Krugman describes the scheme in the Pittsburg Post-Gazette.
Although the Republican Party has complained about deficit spending ever since the Great Depression, this was never previously a big deal with the GOP, with their predecessors the Whig Party, or with their original predecessors, the Federalist Party. In fact, President Washington, on advice of his Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, began his administration with an enormous deficit.
This came about when the Federal Government under the new constitution purchased at face value revolutionary war bonds issued by the states. This represented an enormous windfall for speculators who had purchased the bonds from original investors at pennies on the dollar.
The rule: millions to subsidize financial speculators, but not one cent for ordinary people.
This continues to be the policy of the GOP.
What offended Republicans about the New Deal was not the deficit financing, but to whose benefit the money was spent.
Democrats, on the other hand, have from the time of the Anti-Federalists and especially from the Andrew Jackson administration, opposed deficit financing. The reasons:
1. Government borrowing drives up the cost of credit for ordinary people;
2. Paying off government debt takes money from the pockets of the poor and transfers it to the rich;
3. Driving up the cost of money increases the cost of American products and reduces exports;
4. Government borrowing from foreign lenders makes us vulnerable to foreign interests;
5. Etc.
Only in truly extraordinary circumstances do Democrats support extensive deficit financing: the Great Depression and World War II are the clearest examples.
Six years ago, Paul Krugman exposed the whole Starve the Beast bait and switch scam.
Now they have extended the scam from the Federal level to the State level by making it impossible for Washington to provide enough stimulus money to counteract the reduction in state expenditures resulting from state constitution requirements to balance the budget. Earlier, Krugman described the dilemma facing the states and the implications for the national economy in his article Fifty Herbert Hoovers. The article is worth reading again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
