The USA Oligarchy-Austerity-Schadenfreude Thread

[Nordic]

The Pentagon is "war gaming" large-scale economic collapse in the United States.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1653093678&play=1

[Elvis]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/09/g8-leaders-menu

G8 summit: forget famine, here's the lamb

Larry Elliott and Patrick Wintour
The Guardian, Thursday 9 July 2009

Forget climate change. Leave to one side what the G8 says about nuclear proliferation or free trade. As usual, much of the talk tonight was not about what the leaders of the west were doing to help end global famine, but what they were shovelling down their throats.

While the dinner was not quite as lavish as the 25-course banquet put on by Japan last year, Silvio Berlusconi called in his personal chef, "il famoso" Michele Persechini, to prepare a sumptuous six-course feast washed down by half a dozen fine wines.

The meal got off to "il famoso's" take on the salad caprese beloved of Italian trattorias around the world. After the warm tomato salad with cheese, it was time for miniature macaroni with ragu before the centrepiece of the dinner – roasted lamb with beans and summer truffles from the Sangro hills accompanied by aubergines, green beans and roast potatoes.

Next there were cheeses, then a sweet pizza desert made with almonds, and for those still peckish a selection of local celluci biscuits.

The sommelier favoured local wines in the spirit of solidarity after April's earthquake. Leaders sipped a Montepulciano d'Abruzzo before Berlusconi poured Barack Obama a glass of Cerasuolo Hedos Cantina Tollo 2008, the president's favourite wine. A Quindi Trebbiano d'Abruzzo, an Il Villa Gemma Montepulciano, a Plaisir bianco 2008 and a Montepulciano d'Abruzzo Colline finished off the list.

Adrian Lovett of Save the Children said: "More than one billion people are going hungry. Given the poor performance of the leaders at this summit, they don't deserve their dinner."

Let them eat Torta al Vino.

[Wombaticus Rex]

Highly, highly recommend both of Eric J. Weiner's books. The Shadow Market is his most recent, and as someone who reads economics books pretty much constantly (it is my job and all) I was supremely impressed with what a face-melter it was. Not only did he do a great job painting the big picture, but he's got a ton of information and connected dots I'd actually never seen anywhere else. It came out Sept. 2010 and actually includes the Pentagon exercises Nordic posted a link to...weird, huh?

His earlier book was even better. When people ask me what The Book on Wall Street is, I'm tempted to say Doug Henwood. Or to recommend some nice, palatable and clean Michael Lewis. I don't, though...instead I recommend What Goes Up, which is an "oral history" of Wall Street. He collected thousands of hours of interviews and then scoured books, papers and magazine to fill in all the gaps. The result is fucking amazing. The glee and ease with which these old white dudes discuss their criminal history is jaw-dropping, and the book moves faster than Harry Potter. It's really great stuff and I've heard nary a negative word from anyone I've recommended it to this year.

[Nordic]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/09/g8-leaders-menu

G8 summit: forget famine, here's the lamb

Larry Elliott and Patrick Wintour
The Guardian, Thursday 9 July 2009

Forget climate change. Leave to one side what the G8 says about nuclear proliferation or free trade. As usual, much of the talk tonight was not about what the leaders of the west were doing to help end global famine, but what they were shovelling down their throats.

While the dinner was not quite as lavish as the 25-course banquet put on by Japan last year, Silvio Berlusconi called in his personal chef, "il famoso" Michele Persechini, to prepare a sumptuous six-course feast washed down by half a dozen fine wines.

The meal got off to "il famoso's" take on the salad caprese beloved of Italian trattorias around the world. After the warm tomato salad with cheese, it was time for miniature macaroni with ragu before the centrepiece of the dinner – roasted lamb with beans and summer truffles from the Sangro hills accompanied by aubergines, green beans and roast potatoes.

Next there were cheeses, then a sweet pizza desert made with almonds, and for those still peckish a selection of local celluci biscuits.

The sommelier favoured local wines in the spirit of solidarity after April's earthquake. Leaders sipped a Montepulciano d'Abruzzo before Berlusconi poured Barack Obama a glass of Cerasuolo Hedos Cantina Tollo 2008, the president's favourite wine. A Quindi Trebbiano d'Abruzzo, an Il Villa Gemma Montepulciano, a Plaisir bianco 2008 and a Montepulciano d'Abruzzo Colline finished off the list.

Adrian Lovett of Save the Children said: "More than one billion people are going hungry. Given the poor performance of the leaders at this summit, they don't deserve their dinner."

Obama recently said in a speech that he "celebrates wealth". This is proof that indeed he does.

[Bruce Dazzling]

Virginia: House Joint Resolution 557: ‘Establishing a joint subcommittee to study whether the Commonwealth should adopt a currency to serve as an alternative to the currency distributed by the Federal Reserve System in the event of a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System.’

Via Cryptogon

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in In re Rahrer, 140 U.S. 545, 554 (1891), that “the police power” of a State “is a power originally and always belonging to the States, not surrendered by them to the general government, nor directly restrained by the Constitution of the United States, and essentially exclusive”; and

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in Beer Company v. Massachusetts, 97 U.S. 25, 33 (1877), that the police power of the States “extend[s] to the protection of the lives, health, and property of the[ir] citizens, and to the preservation of good order”; and

WHEREAS, the protection of the lives, health, and property of Virginia’s citizens, and the preservation of good order in the Commonwealth, depend upon the maintenance of both an adequate system of governmental finance and a sound and robust private economy; and

WHEREAS, an adequate system of governmental finance and a sound and robust private economy cannot be maintained in the absence of a sound currency; and

WHEREAS, the present monetary and banking systems of the United States, centered around the Federal Reserve System, have come under ever-increasing strain during the last several years, and will be exposed to ever-increasing and predictably debilitating strain in the years to come; and

WHEREAS, many widely recognized experts predict the inevitable destruction of the Federal Reserve System’s currency through hyperinflation in the foreseeable future; and

WHEREAS, in the event of hyperinflation, depression, or other economic calamity related to the breakdown of the Federal Reserve System, for which the Commonwealth is not prepared, the Commonwealth’s governmental finances and Virginia’s private economy will be thrown into chaos, with gravely detrimental effects upon the lives, health, and property of Virginia’s citizens, and with consequences fatal to the preservation of good order throughout the Commonwealth; and

WHEREAS, Virginia can avoid or at least mitigate many of the economic, social, and political shocks to be expected to arise from hyperinflation, depression, or other economic calamity related to the breakdown of the Federal Reserve System only through the timely adoption of an alternative sound currency that the Commonwealth’s government and citizens may employ without delay in the event of the destruction of the Federal Reserve System’s currency; and

WHEREAS, “legal tender” denotes a currency that must be accepted in payment of a debt denominated in United States “dollars” if the parties have not stipulated that some alternative currency is to be used as their medium of payment or are not otherwise required to use such alternative currency; and

WHEREAS, the Federal Reserve System’s currency has been designated “legal tender” under color of Title 31, United States Code, Section 5103; and

WHEREAS, under Title 12, United States Code, § 411 and Title 31, United States Code, § 5118(b) and (c), the Federal Reserve System’s currency is not redeemable in gold or silver coin or the equivalent in bullion; and

WHEREAS, that the Federal Reserve System’s currency is not redeemable in gold or silver coin or the equivalent in bullion is being identified by more and more experts as a, if not the, major reason for the ever-increasing instability of the Federal Reserve System; and

WHEREAS, all gold and silver coins of the United States are designated “legal tender” under the aegis of Title 31, United States Code, §§ 5103 and 5112(h), and must be so designated perforce of Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the Constitution of the United States; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of and the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, each State must make gold and silver coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; and

WHEREAS, the Supreme Court of the United States in Lane County v. Oregon, 74 U.S. (7 Wallace) 71, 76-78 (1869), and Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108, 111 U.S. 701, 706 (1884), has ruled that the States may adopt whatever currency they desire for the purposes of performing their sovereign governmental functions, even to the extent of adopting gold and silver coin for those purposes while refusing to employ a currency not redeemable in gold or silver coin that Congress has designated “legal tender”; and

WHEREAS, “the police power” being the primary sovereign governmental function of every State, under Lane County and Hagar every State may adopt its own currency, consisting of gold or silver, or both, whenever necessary and proper to facilitate exercises of that power in aid of the general welfare of the State and its citizens; and

WHEREAS, under the aegis of Title 31, United States Code, § 5118(d)(2), and perforce of Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to, the Constitution of the United States, Americans may employ whatever currency they choose to stipulate as the medium for payment of their private debts, including gold or silver, or both, to the exclusion of a currency not redeemable in gold or silver that Congress may have designated “legal tender”; and

WHEREAS, under the aegis of Title 31, United States Code, § 5118(d)(2), and perforce of Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 and Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to, the Constitution of the United States, the citizens of Virginia may choose to employ as the medium for payment of their private debts whatever alternative currency, consisting of gold or silver, or both, that the Commonwealth may adopt in the exercise of “the police power”; and

WHEREAS, in light of the possible instability of the Federal Reserve System, proposals for states and their citizens to adopt an alternative currency consisting of gold or silver, or both, are receiving increasing attention throughout the United States, as evidenced by bills that have been or are being introduced in the legislatures of the States of Georgia, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, and South Carolina; and

WHEREAS, various systems of alternative currency employing gold or silver, or both, in the form of coin or its equivalent in bullion have already proved themselves in the free market, and could either be employed by the Commonwealth directly or be used as models for a new system created by the Commonwealth to meet Virginia’s unique needs; and

WHEREAS, the adoption of an alternative currency consisting of gold or silver, or both, would not destabilize the present monetary and banking systems, the Commonwealth’s governmental finances, or Virginia’s private economy, because it would not compel or commit the Commonwealth or her citizens to employ such alternative currency to the exclusion of the Federal Reserve System’s currency immediately, but would merely make the alternative currency available, and enable it to be used in competition with and preference to the Federal Reserve System’s currency, to the degree that the need for such use became apparent; and

WHEREAS, the United States Congress, the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and the Federal Reserve System have taken and are preparing to take no action to provide the United States with an alternative to the Federal Reserve System’s currency, in the likely event that the latter would be destroyed through hyperinflation; and

WHEREAS, because legislators in Virginia know or should know all of these facts; and because the General Assembly has the authority, the ability, and the duty to take timely action to deal with this situation without first seeking the approval of or assistance from Congress or any other state; and because the Constitution of Virginia provides, “That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people, that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them”—for these reasons, the citizens of the Commonwealth will properly conclude that the members of the General Assembly will be primarily responsible if the Commonwealth is found to be without an alternative currency when the Federal Reserve System’s currency collapses in hyperinflation, or some other related economic calamity supervenes; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That a joint subcommittee be appointed to study whether the Commonwealth should adopt a currency to serve as an alternative to the currency distributed by the Federal Reserve System in the event of a major breakdown of the Federal Reserve System.

The joint subcommittee shall consist of eight legislative members who shall be appointed as follows: five members of the House of Delegates to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Delegates in accordance with the principles of proportional representation contained in the Rules of the House of Delegates and three members of the Senate to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Rules. The joint subcommittee shall elect a chairman and vice-chairman from among its membership.

In conducting its study, the joint subcommittee shall call or hear from such witnesses and take such other evidence as it deems appropriate and shall consider recommendations for legislation, with respect to the need, means, and schedule for establishing such an alternative currency.

Administrative staff support shall be provided by the Office of the Clerk of the House of Delegates. Legal, research, policy analysis, and other services as requested by the joint subcommittee shall be provided by the Division of Legislative Services. Technical assistance shall be provided by the Treasurer of the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Bureau of Financial Institutions of the State Corporation Commission. All other agencies of the Commonwealth shall provide assistance to the joint subcommittee for this study, upon request.

The joint subcommittee shall be limited to six meetings for the 2011 interim, and the direct costs of this study shall not exceed $12,000 without approval as set out in this resolution. Approval for unbudgeted nonmember-related expenses shall require the written authorization of the chairman of the joint subcommittee and the respective Clerk. If a companion joint resolution of the other chamber is agreed to, written authorization of both Clerks shall be required.

No recommendation of the joint subcommittee shall be adopted if a majority of the House members or a majority of the Senate members appointed to the joint subcommittee (i) vote against the recommendation and (ii) vote for the recommendation to fail notwithstanding the majority vote of the joint subcommittee.

The joint subcommittee shall complete its meetings by November 30, 2011, and the chairman shall submit to the Division of Legislative Automated Systems an executive summary of its findings and recommendations no later than the first day of the 2012 Regular Session of the General Assembly. The executive summary shall state that the joint subcommittee intends to submit to the General Assembly and the Governor a report of its findings and recommendations for publication as a House or Senate document and shall specify the date by which the report shall be submitted. The executive summary and the report shall be submitted as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents and reports, and shall be posted on the General Assembly’s website.

Implementation of this resolution is subject to subsequent approval and certification by the Joint Rules Committee. The Committee may approve or disapprove expenditures for this study, extend or delay the period for the conduct of the study, or authorize additional meetings during the 2011 interim.

[justdrew]

The myth of 'American exceptionalism' implodes
by Richard Wolff
Until the 1970s, US capitalism shared its spoils with American workers. But since 2008, it has made them pay for its failures


A homeless encampment known as Tent City, in Sacramento, California, in 2009. Since the 1970s, real wages stopped growing and the gap between rich and poor expanded as the US economy slowed down after decades of growth. Photograph: Rich Pedroncelli/AP

One aspect of "American exceptionalism" was always economic. US workers, so the story went, enjoyed a rising level of real wages that afforded their families a rising standard of living. Ever harder work paid off in rising consumption. The rich got richer faster than the middle and poor, but almost no one got poorer. Nearly all citizens felt "middle class". A profitable US capitalism kept running ahead of labour supply. So, it kept raising wages to attract waves of immigration and to retain employees, across the 19th century until the 1970s.

Then everything changed. Real wages stopped rising, as US capitalists redirected their investments to produce and employ abroad, while replacing millions of workers in the US with computers. The US women's liberation moved millions of US adult women to seek paid employment. US capitalism no longer faced a shortage of labour.

US employers took advantage of the changed situation: they stopped raising wages. When basic labour scarcity became labour excess, not only real wages, but eventually benefits, too, would stop rising. Over the last 30 years, the vast majority of US workers have, in fact, gotten poorer, when you sum up flat real wages, reduced benefits (pensions, medical insurance, etc), reduced public services and raised tax burdens. In economic terms, American "exceptionalism" began to die in the 1970s.

The rich, however, have got much richer since the 1970s, as every measure of US income and wealth inequality attests. The explanation is simple: while workers' average real wages stayed flat, their productivity rose (the goods and services that an average hour's labour provided to employers). More and better machines (including computers), better education, and harder and faster labour effort raised productivity since the 1970s. While workers delivered more and more value to employers, those employers paid workers no more. The employers reaped all the benefits of rising productivity: rising profits, rising salaries and bonuses to managers, rising dividends to shareholders, and rising payments to the professionals who serve employers (lawyers, architects, consultants, etc).

Since the 1970s, most US workers postponed facing up to what capitalism had come to mean for them. They sent more family members to do more hours of paid labour, and they borrowed huge amounts. By exhausting themselves, stressing family life to the breaking point in many households, and by taking on unsustainable levels of debt, the US working class delayed the end of American exceptionalism – until the global crisis hit in 2007. By then, their buying power could no longer grow: rising unemployment kept wages flat, no more hours of work, nor more borrowing, were possible. Reckoning time had arrived. A US capitalism built on expanding mass consumption lost its foundation.

The richest 10-15% – those cashing in on employers' good fortune from no longer-rising wages – helped bring on the crisis by speculating wildly and unsuccessfully in all sorts of new financial instruments (asset-backed securities, credit default swaps, etc). The richest also contributed to the crisis by using their money to shift US politics to the right, rendering government regulation and oversight inadequate to anticipate or moderate the crisis or even to react properly once it hit.

Indeed, the rich have so far been able to use the crisis to widen still further the gulf separating themselves from the rest, to finally bury American exceptionalism. First, they utilised both parties' dependence on their financial support to make sure there would be no mass federal hiring programme for the unemployed (as FDR used between 1934 and 1940). The absence of such a programme guaranteed that real wages would not rise and, with job benefits, would likely fall – as they indeed have done. Second, the rich made sure that the prime focus of government response to the crisis would benefit banks, large corporations and the stock markets. These have more or less "recovered".

Third, the current drive for government budget austerity – especially focused on the 50 states and the thousands of municipalities – forces the mass of people to pick up the costs for the government's unjustly imbalanced response to the crisis. The trillions spent to save the banks and selected other corporations (AIG, GM, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, etc) were mostly borrowed because the government dared not tax the corporations and the richest citizens to raise the needed rescue funds. Indeed, a good part of what the government borrowed came precisely from those funds left in the hands of corporations and the rich, because they had not been taxed to overcome the crisis. With sharply enlarged debts, all levels of government face the pressure of needing to take too much from current tax revenues to pay interest on debts, leaving too little to sustain public services. So, they demand the people pay more taxes and suffer reduced public services, so that government can reduce its debt burden.

For example, California's new governor proposes to continue for five more years the massive, broad-based tax increases begun during the crisis and also to cut state services for the poor (reduced Medicaid funding) and the middle class(reduced budgets for community colleges, state colleges, and the university system). The governor admits that California's budget faces sky-high interest costs and reduced federal government assistance just when the crisis increases demands for public services. The governor does not admit his fear to tax the state's huge corporate and private individual wealth. So, he announces an "austerity programme", as if no alternative existed. Indeed, a major support for austerity comes from the large corporations and wealthiest Californians, who hold the state's bonds and want reassurances that the interest on those bonds will be paid.

California's austerity programme parallels similar programmes in many other states, in thousands of municipalities, and at the federal level (for example, social security). Together, they reinforce falling real wages, falling benefits, falling government services and rising taxes. In the US, capitalism has stopped "delivering the goods", as it so long boasted. The reality of ever-deeper economic division clashes with expectations built up when wages rose over the century before the 1970s. US capitalism now brings long-term painful decline for its working class, the end of "American exceptionalism" and rising social, cultural and political tensions.

[undead]

[justdrew]

[nathan28]

vast majority of Americans, including Teabaggers, do not support cuts to social security:

edited to reformat the cut-and-paste:

Raise payroll cap / Cut benefits

All 77 / 10

Dem 84 / 4
GOP 69 / 17
Ind 77 / 11

Tea Party 67 / 20

18-29 80 / 0
30-45 69 / 17
46-65 82 / 8
65+ 75 / 13

$0-30K 79 / 5
$30-50K 75 / 11
$50-75K 79 / 7
$75-100K 78 / 13
$100K+ 72 / 18

So why the fuck is this even an issue?

Even among those most affected -- people making over $100,000 per year -- only 18 percent opt for benefits cuts rather than raising the payroll tax cap. And for those least affected -- the youngest cohort -- the poll couldn't pick up any support for cutting benefits.

Yet outside of the punditry, the DC political class, and a tiny fringe, no one wants benefits cuts.

Like the link says, these results are "stark". Most Americans don't want to cut SS, one of the most effective social programs in the US. Most don't! Even among the wealthy of the non-political class, they'd prefer higher taxes to less benefits for old folks.

Which means, simply, that this is an instance where the power/media elite is promulgating a policy--probably successfully--that not even the economically privileged care for.

Here's von Hayek, prophet of the neoliberal managerial class:

Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where, as in the case of sickness and accident, neither the desire to avoid such calamities nor the efforts to overcome their consequences are as a rule weakened by the provision of assistance, where, in short, we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state helping to organise a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong. There are many points of detail where those wishing to preserve the competitive system and those wishing to supersede it by something different will disagree on the details of such schemes; and it is possible under the name of social insurance to introduce measures which tend to make competition more or less ineffective. But there is no incompatibility in principle between the state providing greater security in this way and the preservation of individual freedom.

Tellingly, despite von Hayek's acceptance of state-sponsored (i.e., paid with taxes) old age and disability insurance here, Road to Serfdom was *also a failure* initially, largely a fringe idea that influenced a limited set of people.

I just can't really wrap my head around this, really. Unpopular policies are popular in DC and the media; even their apparent "natural allies", the well-off, in the broader world are to the "far left" of the policies being promulgated. There isn't popular support! My only thoughts can be:

--Despite the lack of popular support, the general population doesn't care that much about SS cuts.
--The policy-making class is hopelessly in the grips of technocratic theory that supports something that, well, exactly who supports?

That last bit is important, b/c the figures don't provide any further elaboration as to who it is, exactly, supporting cuts, at least in a meaningful way. Is there a difference in lawyers vs. bankers? Doctors vs. check-out clerks? Upper management vs. executives? Golf-players vs. bowlers? Etc., etc.

[justdrew]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_George_Peterson

[Pele'sDaughter]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... 064b1964eb



Requests for unemployment benefits up due to snow

(AP) – 8 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — The number of people applying for unemployment benefits rose sharply last week, but the figures were largely distorted by rare snowstorms that swept through the Southeast.

Applications surged last week by a seasonally adjusted 51,000 to 454,000, the highest level since late October, the Labor Department said Thursday.

A government analyst said that a major reason for the spike was the harsh weather in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. That forced many companies to shut down temporarily and also prevented many people from applying for benefits in the previous week.

When state offices, which had closed, reopened and people were able to file applications that pushed the number of requests up sharply, the analyst said.

The four southern states reported a large increases in the number of requests for unemployment benefits. Trucking companies, delivery firms, construction companies and others were affected.

Applications had been declining steadily for several weeks. Requests for unemployment benefits fell sharply in the previous week to 403,000.

Many economists consider data in January less reliable because of seasonal fluctuations.

Applications below 425,000 tend to signal modest job growth. But they would need to dip consistently to 375,000 or below to indicate a significant decline in the unemployment rate.

The four-week average, a less volatile measure, also rose last week by 15,750 to 428,750.

The average had hit a two-year low of 411,250 on Jan. 1. That had suggested companies — operating with lean work forces — may need to add more workers as the economy gains momentum.

Even with last week's increase, economists are optimistic that layoffs will slow and that hiring will pick up this year.

"We expect claims to drop next week, and we then anticipate further declines as the return of bank credit to small firms allows them to ease off on the pace of layoffs," said Ian Shepherdson, an economist at High Frequency Economics.

Employers will create a net total of 2.2 million jobs in 2011, according to a new AP Economy Survey. That would be double the number generated last year. The economists predict consumers will spend more, allowing the economy to grow at a faster clip of 3.2 percent this year.

Yet the economy would need to grow faster — closer to 5 percent for a full year to reduce unemployment by one percentage point. The nation's unemployment rate now stands at 9.4 percent. By the end of this year, it is expected to slip to 8.9 percent, according to the AP survey.

Thursday's Labor Department report also showed that number of people on the unemployment benefit rolls increased by 94,000 to 3.99 million in the week ended Jan. 15. That data is one week behind the figures for benefit applications.

It doesn't include millions more unemployed people who are receiving benefits under emergency federal programs enacted during the recession. Roughly 4.6 million people received aid under the extended benefit programs. Those program provide benefits for up to 99 weeks in states with the highest unemployment rates.

Overall, some 9.4 million people are receiving unemployment benefits.

[vanlose kid]

Step Aside The Bernank Here Comes Timothy Jeethner: The Bears Explain Banker Bailouts And The Screwing Of The American People
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/29/2011 15:21 -0500

The same two bears who explained Quantitative Easing so that even the ADHD afflicted could understand Bernanke's indirect subsidies to the PDs, once again simply finance and in 6 minutes explain the core issues behind the bank bailouts. Concepts explained include the Too Bigger To Fail banks (the JP Morgan Chase Bear Stearns Washington Mutual and the Bank of America Countrywide Merrill Lynches), Goldman Sachs' HoldCo position over the US government, the "very real evil empire's" Goldman Sachs profiting on the AIG, the reason why the failed CIT's boss is the same person who bought a $70,000 desk, and why "when you constantly get the bailouts you don't care about the shame." Also explained are NY Fed boss, The Timothy Jeethner, The Change brought from The President Obama, why The Ben Bernank will not lend you money, and The Screwing Of The American People.








*

[Pele'sDaughter]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/LIVING/02/08/sh ... n.cubicle/

Goodbye office space? The shrinking American cubicle

(CNN) -- If you feel like your cubicle walls are closing in around you, you may be right.

A combination of the troubled economy and the influx of mobile technology is changing the workplace landscape. Literally.

Companies across the country are shrinking those boxed-in work areas or scrapping the notion of the once-ubiquitous cubicles altogether.

At tech-giant Intel, employees who used to work in a 72-square-foot space now work in a cozier 48-square-foot station, company officials say.

"Everyone used to get a cube, but that doesn't work for the way people actually do their work today," said Neil Tunmore, director of corporate services at Intel, who spearheaded the corporate redesign that began in 2007.

In 1994, the average office worker had 90 square feet of office space, but the area had been whittled down to 75 square feet in 2010, according to the International Facility Management Association, a professional network for the facility management industry.

Space for senior office workers shrunk, too, from 115 square feet in 1994 to 96 square feet in 2010.

But not to worry, that corner office keeps growing. During this same time, space for executive management actually increased.

Gensler, a design firm in San Francisco has renovated spaces for 70% of the Fortune 500 companies. On average, they estimate those companies have downsized the cubicle from an 8-by-10 foot area to a 5-by-5 foot work space.

Open-space seating found at companies such as Facebook are becoming a popular "team-oriented" model in the past 10 years, she says.

"In recent years, we've seen how companies are trying to shed real estate cost," says Shari Epstein, director of research at the IFMA. "When you have less space to work, you will try to cram as many people into one space."

The word "cubicle," which emerged in the 15th century, is derived from the Latin word for bedroom. But the office partitions to which most white-collars workers are accustomed were introduced in the late 1960s. At the time, Robert Propst with Herman Miller Inc. of Michigan pioneered the idea of a more efficient open-office model called "Action Office," which became known as the cubicle.

Cubicles became attractive because they were a functional way to give workers an office without relying on heavy construction, says Lisa Bottom, a design director at Gensler.

Over the years, cubicles have been mocked in popular culture such as the Dilbert comics and the movie "Office Space."

"The panels made it so you could move it around," Bottom said. "It made it the job of the facility manager easier; it had little to do with making the worker's life easier."

Several of the companies that have opted to reduce their cubicle sizes say their reasoning goes beyond simply boosting the bottom line.

With flat screens replacing clunky monitors and the growing popularity of wireless products, such as such as laptops, iPads and BlackBerries, some managers say cubicles no longer make sense for workers who don't need to be tethered to their desks. And employees in the younger, more tech-savvy generation embrace the idea of working remotely and from different spots in the office.

Smaller office spaces come with environmental perks. Less space reduces the carbon footprint, workplace and design experts say.

In response to the shrinking workspace, sales of new lines of slimmer, lighter, eco-friendly furniture that often serve dual purposes have increased, says John Michael, general manager for business interiors at Staples, a leading office furniture seller.

Cubicle furniture made of lighter materials and featuring lower walls are in high demand, according to Staples.

For example, filing cabinets with plush tops that transform into seats and thinner cubicle panels have been in higher demand over the past five years, he says.

Intel officials say when the cubicle downsizing began in four years ago, they eliminated extra furniture and waste. On one office floor, the company disposed of nearly 10 tons of paper, says Tunmore at Intel.

While cubicle farms may be out, open shared spaces are in.

Intel has created more conference and meeting rooms where employees can collaborate. Intel is also going wireless. About 30% of their employees in the renovated space don't have assigned cubicles, officials say.

Instead, sales people and laptop users can grab chairs at kidney-shaped desks where they can boot up remotely.

So how are employees adjusting to less work space?

Martha Johnson, administrator of the General Services Administration, says the government has improved its efficiency by overhauling the large, clunky outdated cubicles spaces for the past few decades. GSA is a federal organization that rents out office space to government agencies.

Many employees don't mind the smaller work spaces, Johnson says. She added that 30% to 50% of work space typically isn't used because of meetings or travel.

"It's not about making it smaller," Johnson says. "It's about making it more flexible. People don't all want their own space."

But Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of organizational behavior at Stanford Business School, says working in such close quarters may bother some employees who need more privacy or feel crowded.

After all, he says, employees spend almost half their day at work.

"Cubicles, and often times many of these cubicle farms, don't have very good acoustics, and so you are hearing other people and getting distracted," Pfeffer said.

There is also the belief, particularly among baby boomers, that cubicles are a status indicator: More space equates to more power, workplace design experts say.

Though it tends to be rarer case, some companies are taking the opposite approach to shaving off cubicle work spaces.

For two years in a row, Fortune magazine has named SAS, a business intelligence software company in North Carolina, the No. 1 place to work. Company officials say they give almost all their employees private offices, which they say contributes to their success.

"We do value an employee not just as a commodity," says Jim Davis, senior marketing officer. "But as an asset."

[barracuda]

[Bruce Dazzling]

ZOMG!

America has become Idiocracy, as directed by Paul Verhoeven.