Phillip's economic 'total plan of awesomeness'

If you search the words ‘trickle up economics’ in Google you don’t even get a Wikipedia page (although I guess there is one), in fact one of the first hits is from the author of Dilbert. I love Dilbert, but I wouldn’t go to Scott Adams for economic advice (nor me for that matter). When you search for ‘trickle-down economics’ you get a ton of fancy hits, even a Wikipedia page. I know that people no longer can be convinced of anything, instead we are so rooted in our beliefs we wouldn’t know a good idea (if it differed from ours) if it kicked us in the groin; however, I am going to attempt to convince you that trickle-up economics is what this country needs.

Trickle-down economics is the idea that if you give tax breaks to rich people that in turn, this will trickle down to benefit those below them on the economic pyramid. Ever since I was smart enough to care about this stuff (so about 3 months), I have always thought this was crap because rich people save money, poor people spend it. So I am proposing that we, as a culture not as a government, change to trickle-up economics.

Trickle-up economics is just that, get money to poor and middle class families, and they in turn will spend that money. This then boosts the revenues of businesses, thus allowing them (in a perfect world) to grow. If the recession and poor economy has taught us anything, it is that people are allergic to saving money. So instead of giving money to the rich and waiting for it to reach the poor, I say we instead get money to the poor because it will reach the rich probably by noon tomorrow (unless there is a 24-hour Wal-Mart nearby).

The government can’t lead this crusade to save our economy. Sadly, we have to depend on a group I trust even less to do what is right: the rich. Not just the rich like I think of the rich, I mean the super-rich. The people that get the office especially cleaned up when they visit. The people that don’t even check their own email or answer their own phones. I mean the CEOs and executives of the world. The people that make more money that I believe anyone should ever make. Not that there is anything wrong with making as much as you can. Let the record officially state I am not against rich people nor do I want to take away people’s ability to be rich. I don’t want the government to take money from the rich and give it to people that don’t want to work. Nope, that is not my plan. Instead, I want rich people to WANT to do so, or at least be forced by the general population. Not through taxes, they are already way too high (yes, I am a liberal, but taxes are still too high). Instead, I want CEOs and executives to get paid less.

According to Forbes, In 2006 CEOs as a group received a 38% pay raise. Lawrence Ellison, the CEO of Oracle, made ~$193 million. Howard Schultz, the guy that runs Starbucks, made $98 million (what a chump). Granted, this is total compensation, and since most of the people on the list have recently run their companies into the ground they didn’t get to take home all of that, but still, they aren’t doing too bad. The example I want to us is newly appointing Michael Duke, who only made $13 million last year (generic brands here he comes!).

In my warped vision of the world, Mr. Duke and his fellow ‘rich beyond all recognition’ cronies would all take pay cuts. Even if they don’t want them, their companies stockholders and boards have the power to force it upon them. Take that money and pay front-line employees more. This would benefit everyone in a few ways. First, by paying people more, people that work at Wal-Mart would (hopefully) value their jobs more, and thus treat customers better. Second, employees would SPEND that money, as opposed to Mr. Duke who saves the majority of it. This is an assumption, but I bet I am right. By spending money, Mr. Duke and companies will make more. I would continue on to third, but the first two are all that matter right now.

Too much of our wealth is saved and stuck in the top 1% of our economic pyramid. In 2005, almost one third of the countries wealth was in the top 1%. I don’t blame the people that have it. I blame boards and shareholders for letting CEO pay get totally out of control.

I wish that someday I would be important enough to show that I mean this because I promise you I would never make $897 million a year, or even $13 million. I know it is easy for me to piss and moan from the bottom (well not the bottom), but I really believe that this is a better system that in the end would benefit more people. I know people will disagree, and that is fine. I don’t care about stats and history and the same old arguments. We have tried those, and the fact of the matter is that we are in the situation we are in because of our current system (and a combination of many other things). This would work. I am sure some of my republican friends could read this and find stats and history to back up arguments, they always seem to do that. But isn't the situation too unique? What has happened in the past is history, this is today. This isn't the early 80's or the Great Depression. This is the global economy and the 21st century. Do we have any better answers?

Are companies starting to get it?

Well, the answer is probably not. No matter what it is, companies probably are not going to 'get it,' but especially when it comes to customer service. Business Week's article was very interesting and brings up some very interesting points.

First, is it wrong as a customer to expect to be treated well? Recently Katie had an issue with her bank, and they would not help her. Seriously, it is a wonder that the banking industry is falling apart. Here Katie is trying to deposit money into your bank, but you won't let her. And instead of providing options, you turn her away. Forget that she has banked with you for a long time, that doesn't matter. Instead, you are going to lose her current and future business. As the economy continues to get worse, should not companies be fighting for clients? Doing what it takes to get your business? Retailers are. Heck, Kohl's is basically giving away items with the sales they have right now. I guess I think that one good thing that will come out of this recession is that companies will remember what good customer service is, because good customer service is the best competitive advantage you will find. People will pay more (not a lot, but some) to shop or buy from a firm that offers great service. I can promise that if I was going to buy a car, I had best be treated well because I am spending a ton of money.

Second, I am glad that some companies are willing to rethink customer service and perks. While I still cannot believe that CEOs are making millions and we can't discuss the stupidity of that because you are labeled 'against the free market,' but I hope that companies don't realize you need to treat your 'front line' employees well if you want them to treat your customer well. The CEO of Wal-Mart makes ~$13 million a year. Now we can piss and moan about the stupidity of that, but you will never get me to think CEOs making that much is a good thing. But my point is that if companies are going to pay them that much, they had best realize that paying your entry-level people, the people that interact with your customers, well is what is going to keep your store relevant. Katie and I were at HOBO (similar to Home Depot) the other night and one of their employees was complaining about needing to work this weekend. I bet if you paid them enough and treated them well enough they wouldn't worry about it. Like I have said before, I would hope that Google's employees don't complain like that because they know they aren't getting the treatment they have at Google ANYWHERE else. I am sure they complain some, but not as much as where I work I bet.

Well I just got information that I get to go to a dinner at my future in-laws house. Read the article, I thought it was good.

Bring back the culture

I often catch myself saying what I would like to change about the world if I were in charge. I might be in the minority, but I don’t think many of the worst issues in our lives are political, I think way too many are cultural. That is why the first thing I would change (while not the most important…) is that I would get rid of ‘fancy’ chain restaurants. Yes, that is right, I would get rid of all the Applebee’s, TGI Fridays, Olive Garden’s, Ruby Tuesdays (which I think is already gone), and all restaurants like them.

I eat at them, so I am not attacking the people that eat there, in fact, just the opposite. I don’t think we really have a choice, and I want to give people back that choice because I feel that these restaurants have eliminated local culture. If you travel to Boston, Milwaukee, or San Francisco you can get the same food and you have to go out of your way to eat at a ‘local’ restaurant. Instead of having 8 Applebee’s in a town, we could have restaurants that focus on local culture and serve local food. You can’t get cheese curds at any of these places in Milwaukee, why not? I bet the clam chowder sucks at Boston’s TGI Fridays. You get my point.

I would leave the fast food places, although getting rid of fast food crap that kills you would be on my list of things to rid the world of too (that is for another day). I won’t get rid of Subway, Qdoba (Joe would kill me), or anything else like that—just places that make you sit down, with a waiter, that serve the same crap in every city.

I know, I know. Free market this, just don't eat there that. I am sick of that argument because if nothing else I am too lazy. Make it easier. :o)

What do you think?

George W. Bush: worse than a dead man?

I love lists, but I am typically highly disappointed with them. Perhaps the worst place to get a solid 'best' list is from Rolling Stone. Their lists are always complete crap, like their list that ranked Bob Dylan as the seventh best singer of all time. I like Bob Dylan, but the man cannot sing better than all but six people that have ever walked the earth. Write songs, perhaps, but not sing them.

I think my favorite thing about lists is when they change for no reason. There was a ranking for the top 100 athletes of the 20th century that was released in 2000 (there were many I am sure) and Babe Ruth was first on many of them; however, when the lists were released in 1950 he wasn't. Strange that people like Jim Thorpe became worse as Babe Ruth become better.

This brings me to my main point of today. C-SPAN recently ranked all of the presidents. I think this is stupid because the presidency is almost too hard to compare. How would Abe Lincoln have responded to 9/11? We can guess, but we don't know. I know that smart, intelligent journalists (especially those still awake at C-SPAN) need something to do, and this is basically porn for them, but still, why? And how can we really compare George Washington to George W. Bush? The world has changed so much. George W. Bush was TERRIBLE at foreign relations, but how can we safely assume that George Washington would have been that much better? If Washington wanted to go to England he had to take a freaking boat for crying out loud. GW can just call or email (assuming he can figure out how to work those high-tech devices).

My second issue with the list, other than the complete non-necessity of the list, is how some of our oldest presidents actually GOT BETTER at their jobs since the list was last created in 2000. For example, George Washington was ranked 3rd overall in 2000, but is now 2nd. Abe Lincoln, while still number one, became more persuasive. Isn't that amazing? The cynic in me laughs because even dead people seemed to be better presidents over the last eight years that George W. Bush, but part of me just brushes off this list as just another stupid, inconsistent list.

Who is to blame?

Is there anyone that can agree that the economy has totally tanked? I remember last fall that some people, even myself, said that the poor economy was widely fabricated. Part of me still gets really upset that a lot of people are refusing to change their way of life. I read and hear that the economy is bad, yet so many people refuse to change their spending habits. What is a savings account?

So with this in mind, I was watching 60 Minutes tonight while folding laundry. My life is super exciting, I know. So there was this lovely story on the housing crisis called World of Trouble. Now I know, this is the liberal media because it wasn't Rush Limbaugh or Fox News, and it lived up to their billing because they presented the issue only as the banks fault. That it was the banks that forced bad loans onto people. There was one woman's story told where the bank used her income (of like $1,500) and since that did not qualify her for the loan, they used her husbands income. This seems normal until you consider that her husband was dead.

Now this is bad. I agree. Everyone at the bank that was involved with that loan should have been fired immediately, but part of me wonders why this is all the banks fault. 60 Minutes did not seem to think that the woman who took the loan should share the blame, at least this wasn't presented. When Katie and I were buying a house over the summer we were approved for much more than we could afford, but we had the brains not to take out the highest amount we could.

The skinny is that both sides are to blame. Banks did some terrible things. They got greedy and were pushing people into loans that they could not afford simply to get a commission. I hope that no one denies that, but the people seem to be getting off scott-free on this deal. You still signed the loan document. Even if the greedy, persuasive salesman (salesperson) told you this was a good loan there has to be a part of your brain that starts beeping when your mortgage payment is higher than your monthly income. Right? That part of your brain needs to work, otherwise you end up in these situations, and the salesperson who lives off of their 100% commission job isn't going to tell you NOT to take out the loan.

Sadly we have to fix the mess we got ourselves into. I will be the first to admit I have no easy answers. Part of me says screw the people that took out these loans because they should know better. But then I see stories like this about some of the incredibly terrible practices banks were using to get people to take these loans.

So my question is how do we use both sides and come together with a solution? We can't simply bail out people who took out loans they couldn't afford, but we can't just burn the banks either...

Back in the Saddle Again

So I have wanted to start up a new BLOG for awhile. Not because of aspirations of developling a website that hundreds (or even tens) of people come to and read, but instead just because I enjoy it. Not sure if that is bad or not, but I do.

So here it is. Not sure where I will go with it all, or even if this will be anything worth taking the six-seconds to read. I hope someone enjoys it besides me, but if not we will all survive.