American Manufacturing: Totally not dead, and even mostly alive.

I had to write a research paper for my Macroeconomics class. The topic was "What is the future of American Manufacturing, and is it key to economic stability?" It was supposed to be a group paper, but naturally I would rather stab myself in the eye than trust my grade to them, so I only allowed them to make the Powerpoint presentation of my work (which I then heavily edited).

My group, hard at work

Anyhow, I figured "Why not put this up on my blog and get double credit for the same work?"

Capitalism, baby!

So, here it is. "The Future of American Manufacturing". Spoiler: It's pretty good, but not for the reasons you think.

The Future of American Manufacturing

Jordan Karim

(Edited by my girlfriend and my really good writer friend. You know who you are)

(Not contributed in any way, shape, or form by my worthless group mates. You also know who you are)

“There exists limitless opportunities in every industry. Where there is an open mind, there will always be a frontier.”  - Charles F. Kettering (American Engineer, inventor of the electric starter, 1876-1958)

            What would someone see if they pictured American Industry? They would see the thousands of workers in sepia-toned overalls, diligently hammering, pounding, and pulling the levers of the economy. The phrase “American manufacturing” has an almost nostalgic feel to it, like something left over from time gone by. Indeed, a quick Google search of the phrase “Fall of American manufacturing” returns 1.67 million results. This comes as no surprise, of course; everyone knows that American manufacturing is dying, with politicians frantically searching for the defibrillator.  This “common knowledge” is based in the faulty assumption that the product the manufacturing sector is supposed to yield is “jobs”. The truth of the matter, however, is that manufacturing exists to produce things. In that endeavor, American Industry has never been stronger. This fact is often overlooked as manufacturing becomes a smaller portion of the overall GDP. It has and will continue to be a vital piece of the economy; it just won’t be the piece most Americans think it should be.

            From the time of America’s founding until the early 19^th century, our economy was primarily founded upon agriculture. Prior to the Revolution, this was because restrictions were placed on the Colonies by the King of England, prohibiting trade with foreign powers (and, indeed, with each other). After it won its independence, the fledgling United States had difficulty competing against more developed “old world” countries, particularly mother England due to their more developed industrial complex. This continued through the War of 1812. Once the second war with Britain was concluded, however, a wave of tariffs combined with new technologies allowed for a massive revolution in American production. It is true that some of this technology was “borrowed”, such as the cotton mill (Cliffnotes, 2013). The steam powered engine, invented in Wales in 1804, also did not take long to make its way across the Atlantic (Bellis).    

Not all new technology was imported, however. Vulcanization, invented by Charles Goodyear in 1839, allowed natural rubber to be strengthened. The sewing machine, invented by Elias Howe in 1846 and improved by the more well known Isaac Singer, freed the American housewife from the toils of sewing and darning. As revolutionary as these inventions were, they were quickly overshadowed by that of Samuel Morse. His electric telegraph allowed for instantaneous communication starting in 1844 and continuing to fruition in the 1860’s, just in time for the Civil War.

While telegraph lines were racing overhead, so too were rails racing along the ground. Acquisitions of large tracts of land, the product of Manifest Destiny, were followed by a massive expansion of the rail system between 1830 and 1860. This pattern was copied elsewhere in the industrialized world, allowing for rapid travel and communication across the globe.

            Amid this background of technological development America built her first factories. From the Cliffnotes summary:

In 1813, the first factory in which spinning and weaving were performed by power machinery all under one roof was established in Waltham, Massachusetts. In Lowell, which was planned and built as a model factory town in 1822, young women made up the majority of the workforce at the mills. (Cliffnotes, 2013)

            The impact of the 19^th century industrial revolution on the landscape of the American economy cannot be understated. In 1840, the percentage of workers employed in agriculture was “roughly 70 percent of the labor force” (Johnston, 2012), compared to approximately 20% in services and 10% in manufacturing. By 1901 the gap had closed dramatically, with only 40% of Americans working in agriculture, compared to approximately 28% in manufacturing. Manufacturing finally surpassed agriculture in the 1910’s and never looked back. See the chart below.

            By 1939, near the end of the Great Depression, employment in manufacturing surpassed 9 million workers (BLS, 2013). This number grew steadily in the following decades, through a massive peak in World War II, then to its maximum number of 16.35 million in 1953. From then on, however, manufacturing job numbers have continued to fall. Most recently, in the first quarter of 2013, the job count stood at 11.9 million workers, or just over 20% of all workers in America. This sounds disheartening, but the underlying causes behind the fall reveal this is not as troubling as it may at first appear.

            Prior to World War II, shifts between service and manufacturing labor were mainly the results of shifting demand. According to Johnston, the service sector grew prior to the Great Depression due to the rising incomes of Americans. It is well documented that wealthier people tend to demand more grooming, financial, and food services.

            After World War II, however, increased efficiency “pushed” workers out of manufacturing. Somewhat paradoxically, the increase in efficiency meant that fewer workers were needed to keep up with demand. Productivity in the service industries did not benefit as greatly from the Second Industrial Revolution, meaning more workers were needed to keep up with demand. While the service sectors have increased their share of labor to match demand, manufacturing has increased its efficiency.

According to the Federal Reserve, the dollar value of U.S. manufacturing output in November was $2.72 trillion (in 2000 dollars), which translates to $234,220 of manufacturing output for each of that sector’s 11.648 million workers, setting an all-time record high for U.S. manufacturing output per worker.

Workers today produce twice as much manufacturing output as their counterparts did in the early 1990s, and three times as much as in the early 1980s, thanks to innovation and advances in technology that have made today’s workers the most productive in history. (Perry, 2009)

            Paul Markillie, writing for the Economist, called what is happening in manufacturing today a “Third Industrial Revolution.” To illustrate, he examines two emerging methods in manufacturing processing. The first is what is known as “Additive Manufacturing”, or more commonly, “Three Dimensional Printing”.

Instead of bashing, bending and cutting material the way it always has been, 3D printers build things by depositing material, layer by layer. That is why the process is more properly described as additive manufacturing. An American firm, 3D Systems, used one of its 3D printers to print a hammer for your correspondent, complete with a natty wood-effect handle and a metallised head.

This is what manufacturing will be like in the future. Ask a factory today to make you a single hammer to your own design and you will be presented with a bill for thousands of dollars…For a 3D printer, though, economies of scale matter much less. Its software can be endlessly tweaked and it can make just about anything. (Markillie, 2012)

            In a sense, additive manufacturing combines the advantages we once had when our manufacturing relied on armies of artisans with the advantages of mass production. The artisan could hand craft a tool or product specifically to the precise needs of the customer. Into it went the sum total of decades of experience. Mass production made it possible to create good products cheaply and efficiently, raising the standard of living and the productive capabilities of industrialized nations by orders of magnitude.

            With additive manufacturing, anything that can be modeled on a computer screen can be printed out, allowing for the right tool to be perfectly crafted for the right job at a much lower cost than before. As Markillie says, “It might be a pair of shoes, printed in solid form as a design prototype before being produced in bulk. It could be a hearing aid, individually tailored to the shape of the user's ear. Or it could be a piece of jewellery.”

The implications are not only limited to the formal factory. Because the size of the machines are small and the set up costs are low (compared to buying an entire factory) it lowers the barriers of entry for new firms and individuals. Increased competition naturally breeds greater innovation and creativity. Firms are punished for producing shoddy or more expensive products as customers switch to products made by rival firms. Therefore, increased competition is generally desirable in a market system (McConnell, Brue, Flynn, 2012).

            The trend in almost every sort of manufacturing has been to lower labor costs by removing as many man-hours from the process as possible. Nothing embodies the idea of removing labor while increasing production more than the philosophy of “lights out” manufacturing. This methodology was thought dead by many after it was originally attempted by the Detroit car companies in the 1980s (Markillie, 2012). The technology of the time was unable to keep pace, and the tendency for poorly calibrated machines to simply produce excessive amounts of scrap caused it to be untenable. Now, thanks to advances in robotics and computer calibrations, this may once again be a path forward.

            The term “lights out” comes from the idea that the factory could essentially run itself without human supervision or interference. Since machines do not need light to see, you could turn the lights out. Machines do not demand as many sick days, nor do they drink as much coffee as their mammalian counterparts, making a nearly human-free work environment extremely desirable for business owners. Naturally, the reality does not exactly live up to its name.

“Of course, it’s not entirely human-free. Machines require programming and maintenance, while materials must be loaded and retrieved. But the streamlining of production through automation can greatly improve product quality and quantity, as well as lower expenses.” (Lane, 2012)

            Many companies, such as FANUC out of Japan, use lights out manufacturing to essentially create an additional shift of production, during which the machines can run unsupervised. Of course, the more advanced the machine, the more skilled the worker who programs it and maintains it must be. Therefore, it is unlikely that the labor component of manufacturing will ever reach zero. As Rodney Brooks stated for the Economist, “The PC didn’t get rid of office workers, it changed the tasks they did.”

Greater production power is not the only reason that manufacturing in America is still relevant. Manufacturing contributes to economic growth in ways that service related industries do not. For example, despite its relatively small share of the American GDP (11%, approximately), manufacturing represents 68% of spending on research and development (Markillie, 2012). Moreover, an increase in manufacturing production that is accomplished without the addition of labor can still be a boon for the job market as a whole. According to the Manufacturing Institute (2009) “every dollar in final sales of manufactured products supports $1.40 in output from other sectors of the economy. Manufacturing has the largest multiplier of all sectors…” Increases in production power for manufacturing can mean more jobs elsewhere to replace those lost in manufacturing itself.

The value of a robust manufacturing sector goes beyond the GDP. The ability to manufacture products domestically for use in war is also an important strategic capability. One of the many things that World War II demonstrated was the tremendous role industrial capacity can play in warfare (Overy, 2011). In this respect we still outperform out leading competition from potentially unfriendly states. Our production matches that of roughly dollar for dollar, yet we accomplish that with only 10% of the workforce that the Chinese require, according to Susan Hockfield from MIT. Our production tends to focus on things that require more technology and expertise to produce, such as aircraft and semiconductors. Meanwhile China focuses on things that can be made with masses of low-paid workers. As Schuman put it, “That’s why the U.S. sells Boeing aircraft to China, and the Chinese sell blue jeans to America”.

            The idea that a bustling factory floor is the true symbol of a productive society has been durable, but is no longer accurate. There once was a time when the ringing of a blacksmith’s hammer on an anvil signaled production and industry. It may have been unthinkable at the time, but now it seems obvious that the blacksmith had to adapt in order for the economy to flourish. Just as the master blacksmith before him, so too will the sepia-toned factory worker become a thing of the past. Many in the media and on Main Street worry about the change, but that is due to a failure to think economically. Economics is the study of scarcity, which means that, all other things being equal, a process which produces more while using fewer of our limited resources is an economic success. Changes always mean that some people will lose work or will find their skills no longer in demand. While unfortunate, it is a sign of greater things to come. The factory worker is not leaving America; he is simply putting away his hammer and picking up a laptop. 

References

CliffsNotes.com (2013) Growth of Manufacturing. Retrieved from
http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/topicArticleId-25073,articleId-25037.html

Mary Bellis. The History of Railroad Innovations. About.com. Retrieved from http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blrailroad.htm

Louis D. Johnston (2012). History Lessons: Understanding the Decline in Manufacturing. Minnesota Post. Retrieved from http://www.minnpost.com/macro-micro-minnesota/2012/02/history-lessons-understanding-decline-manufacturing

U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics (2013) All Employees: Manufacturing, Employment Situation by Thousands of Persons. Retrieved from http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/MANEMP.txt

Mark. J. Perry (2009). Manufacturing: Employment Falls to Record Lows, But Productivity Soars. Seeking Alpha. Retrieved from http://seekingalpha.com/article/179648-manufacturing-employment-falls-to-record-lows-but-productivity-soars

Jon Bruner (2011). U.S. Manufacturing Surges Ahead – But Don’t Look for a Factory Job. Forbes. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/jonbruner/2011/08/22/u-s-manufacturing-surges-ahead-but-dont-look-for-a-factory-job-infographic/

Brian lane (2012). Lights Out Production: The New Late-Night Shift. Thomas News. Retrieved from http://news.thomasnet.com/IMT/2012/11/06/lights-out-production-the-new-late-night-shift/

Paul Markillie (2012). A Third Industrial Revolution. The Economist. Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/21552901

Michael Schuman (2011). Can China Compete with American Manufacturing? Time. Retrieved from http://business.time.com/2011/03/10/can-china-compete-with-american-manufacturing/

McConnell, Brue, Flynn (2012). Macroeconomics: Principles, Problems, and Policies. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin

Richard Overy (2011). World War Two: How the Allies Won. BBC. Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/how_the_allies_won_01.shtml

The Manufacturing Institute (2009). The Facts About Modern Manufacturing. Retrieved from http://www.nist.gov/mep/upload/FINAL_NAM_REPORT_PAGES.pdf

Your Mom (Last Night). Retrieved from: In between the sheets.

Boom.

Inevitable: Oregon proposes confiscation of guns

Whenever an advocate of gun rights expresses his concerns about harsher gun control laws it is only a matter of time before he is called paranoid. After all, we live in America. The government doesn't want to take your guns, silly! I mean, that sort of thing only happens in far off, exotic lands like England, China, and Oregon.

Hotair raised the flag a few days ago on the insane proposal known as Oregon HB 3200 (text here). In case there is any sort of confusion as to the goal of the law, the executive summary makes it pretty plain:

"Creates crime of unlawful possession or transfer of assault weapon or large capacity magazine.
Punishes by maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, $250,000 fine, or both.
Requires current owners to dispose of or register assault weapons and large capacity magazines."

Of course, only some very select, highly specific things qualify a weapon as an assault weapon. These include such terrifying features as:

1. Collapsible stock
2. Pistol grip
3. Heat shields on the barrel
4. The ability to accept a detachable magazine.

In other words, weapons that include "common sense safety/utility features that look scary because I saw them in Call of Duty once" are hereby prohibited. Even the magazines are now contraband. You know, in case you load them up with rocks and throw them or something.

The law also goes into effect immediately. presumably because they figure if they're going to make criminals out of thousands of citizens there's no time like the present. Carpe Diem!

If you find yourself in possession of a contraband magazine/weapon, you have 120 days to do the following, and I swear I am not making this up (emphasis mine):

"Any person who, prior to the effective date of this law, was legally in possession of an assault weapon or large capacity magazine shall, within 120 days after the effective date of this 2013 Act, without being subject to prosecution:
(a) Remove the assault weapon or large capacity magazine from the state;
(b) Sell the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to a firearms dealer licensed under 18 U.S.C. 923 for lawful sale or transfer under subsection (2) of this section;
(c) Surrender the assault weapon or large capacity magazine to a law enforcementagency for destruction;
(d) Render the assault weapon permanently inoperable;

If you happen to be reading this while driving, I recommend you pull over immediately, because I haven't even gotten to the best part yet. How can it get worse than 10 years of jail time for possessing a previously legal weapon if you refuse to give it to the government, you ask?"

The government, in their benevolence, has deemed that the serfs may own one "assault" weapon and three high capacity magazines, because apparently 90 rounds is the threshold between "law abiding citizen" and "crazed mass murderer". Of course, there are conditions.

"(3) The department shall create and maintain a registry for owners of assault weapons
and large capacity magazines who qualify for registration under section 4 of this 2013 Act.
The department may adopt rules concerning the administration of the registry, including but
not limited to renewal and revocation procedures and storage requirements for assault
weapons and large capacity magazines.
(4) The department may conduct inspections of registered owners of assault weapons and
large capacity magazines to ensure compliance with the storage requirements of section 4
of this 2013 Act."

If you want to own an assault weapon and those damned dirty magazines, not only must you register it with the government; not only must you store it in an unspecified manner TBD; you must be willing to submit to random searches and inspections by the government, at the whim of the government at any time.

Note the complete absence of regulations restricting the frequency of such searches, or the scope, or anything that could possibly be construed as Oregon giving a passing nod to the Fourth Amendment on its way to Screw-The-Citizenry-ville.

There is a silver lining to all this: Lever action rifles are excluded. So if your defensive weapon of choice uses no technology developed after 1860, you're in the clear.

Keep your hands off my Civil-War era guns and racism, Washington!

It was only a matter of time: Women in the Combat Arms

There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth on Tuesday when Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced the immediate rescinding of the long-standing military policy of restricting Combat Arms jobs to men. You can read the entire memo here. The decision was endorsed by the Joint Chiefs, and comes at the twilight of Panetta's term as Secretary of Defense.

While the restriction is lifted immediately, the Armed Forces have some time to implement the new policy. Each branch must submit their plan of action by May 15, 2013. Integration "will occur as expeditiously as possible...but must be completed no later than January 1, 2016."

The decision is not final, of course, as all actions of this sort must be reviewed by Congress. Should any branch find that a specific job not be suitable for women, they can submit their recommendation that that job remain closed, and Congress will have the final say.

So, what to make of this shockingly fast turn of events? Will this be the end of the military as we know it? Will the infantry descend into sex-fueled chaos, leaving us weak and defenseless before our enemies? Will freedom be destroyed because there's nobody left at home to make the sammiches?!

Probably not. Other armed forces have employed women in combat roles, and history hasn't imploded yet (I'm looking at you, Israel and the Celts...which would actually be a really cool name for a band). There are obstacles, however, that should be taken seriously when the branches make their plans.

Problem 1: Physical standards

For those of you who are not familiar, the military employs a double standard currently between men and women. A man of my age group must run the 2 mile in 17:00 in order to barely pass. A woman has 20:30. She only has to do 17 pushups, compared to my 39. Neither of those standards are high, but the standard held for women is woefully inadequate when it comes to the demands of combat.

If women are to do the same job as a man, then they must be able to maintain the same standard. Here at least the military seems to already be on the ball. The defense official who announced the policy change said that "it's likely the Army will establish a set of physical requirements for infantry soldiers. The candidate, man or woman, will have to lift a certain amount of weight in order to qualify. The standards will be gender neutral."


My biggest concern here is that these "gender neutral" standards will be a compromise, rather than an absolute assessment. I can already see the lax standards being relaxed further, under the rallying cry of "Fairness!" (more on that later). More than that, they will likely not be comprehensive. After all, it is no good if a 130 lb. woman can do the same number of pushups as me if she can't also carry an ammo can, or throw me on her back and run 50 meters if I get shot. What happens if we have to march a few miles before we make an attack? Will she be able to carry all her water, food, armor, ammo, mortar shells, extra ammo for the machine guns, etc., etc., etc? Or will some of that weight be shifted to me?

How you overcome it: The same standard for every applicant who applies to a job. A standard specific to that job. A true, accurate standard, that does not care who can make it. The standard only cares about what is necessary to do the job well.

Problem 2: Mental training

If you've ever asked yourself "I wonder if being an infantry soldier is like Call of Duty?"

The answer is: "Absolutely, except add in the part where Leonidas kicks that dude down the well. It's just like that."

My point is, I'm not talking about what women are capable of doing. It's established fact that the weaker sex is all weak and stuff and can't possibly perform the death defying stunts that I must do on a regular basis. I'm actually talking about the menfolk here.

Specifically, the mental instincts of protection that are present in a large portion of the male population. Many men react differently to seeing women in danger than they do with men. Whether this response is biological, conditioned socially, or both is irrelevant. The fact is, it is there. Look to LCOL Grossman's book On Killing:

In On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman briefly mentions that female soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces have been officially prohibited from serving in close combat military operations since 1948 (in 2001, subsequent to publication, women began serving in IDF combat units on an experimental basis). The reason for removing female soldiers from the front lines is no reflection on the performance of female soldiers, but that of the male infantrymen after witnessing a woman wounded. The IDF saw a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression.

It is true that not every man may have this sort of reaction. It is also true that the military deals in the aggregate, and if a significant percentage of men react this way then it is worth addressing.

Unfortunately, it isn't considered politically correct to suggest this sort of reaction might exist, or if it does, that it's not really a bad thing. "Shouldn't you want to protect your fellow soldiers?", goes the refrain of the civilian.

The answer is no, at least, not always. For example, if I am in the middle of an assault on an objective and my best friend gets shot in the face right next to me, I'm going to be understandably shook up. I am going to want to help him, drag him to safety, do whatever I can do save him. These are all normal, healthy reactions, and they are what I absolutely must not do if I want my friend to live. In this situation, the best thing I can do for him is to ruthlessly murder the enemy as quickly as possible so I can have time to save his life later. If I stop the forward momentum of the attack and turn the battle into a casualty evacuation, more people will die.

How you overcome it: One word: Training. The military trains soldiers to turn off instinct all the time. Most notably, the instinct against killing. Despite the fact that humans are extremely aggressive we also have a built in block against actually killing our fellow man. The military has, through decades of practice, learned how to teach soldiers to turn this switch off and allow them to kill, but only under very specific stimuli. The instinct is not gone; soldiers who return home are no more likely to kill than anyone else. But when exposed to the situation they were trained to deal with, they are able to overcome it upwards of 90% of the time.

If this protective instinct does in fact exist there is reason to believe it can be similarly dealt with in a way that leaves the instinct intact back home. After all, we don't want to raise a generation of soldiers who are even more likely to beat their wives than they already are, because that would mean I'd have to sit through even more powerpoint presentation on that subject, and I swear to the almighty raptor Jesus if I have to sit through one more powerpoint presentation I will literally punch a baby.

But we should be able to make it so that soldiers are able to deal with it if they see a woman injured, at least enough so that they can accomplish the mission.

Problem 3: Logistics

"An Army marches on its stomach."

One of the realities of warfare is that you are only as good as your logistical framework allows you to be. The toughest Spartan warrior won't be much of a threat if he hasn't eaten in three weeks and has the plague. In the field, logistics get tougher. Every drop of water, every scrap of food, every needed bullet must be carefully planned, and then carefully delivered to the wrong FOB because they read the map upside down.

Women are more difficult to supply in the field for long periods of time due to their biological needs. They are more prone to infection due to certain...areas...on their...you know...Anyway. Sanitation is more important there, and more sanitation requires more water. It also requires something to deal with that special time of the month, because as Science has told us, their menstruations attract bears.

How you overcome it: By not being obstinate and actually admitting this is a problem. It means that the supplying of ground soldiers just became more difficult to achieve. Not impossible, just a bit more complicated.

The bear thing is pretty much insurmountable though.

Problem 4: Order & Discipline 


Leading soldiers is kind of like parenting children. Really big, obnoxious, stupid children with bad potty mouths and poor grammar.

Sometimes your soldiers do well. You need to praise them, let them know they're succeeding. Sometimes, they need some help, and then you need to patiently instruct them, usually by cursing as much as possible.

And sometimes they just need to have the hell beat out of them. At those times you pull them aside, away from their peers, and perform corrective action until they get it straight. Most times you do it privately so as not to embarrass them in front of others.

What happens when I pull a woman aside, alone, for a time to do corrective action? What happens if I'm accused of impropriety? Hell, even typing "corrective action" like that sounds like a really dirty euphemism. I can tell you what would happen in the current military: SGT Karim would become PVT Karim faster than you can say "wrongful accusation". So I bring a witness. What if we're both accused of being in on it together? So I bring a third? A fourth? Accusations aside, will I be accused of being "insensitive" if I yell and curse at her the same as I do for my other soldiers (which actually has a combat related purpose, believe it or not)?

I won't even go into the fact that there's going to be banging going on of gigantic proportions. You put that many young, irresponsible men and women in close quarters together than there is going to be an all-out boner fest of epic proportions. If you think I'm wrong, allow me to kindly direct your attention to Olympic Village, or to every college campus ever.

How you overcome it: By realizing that equal treatment means equal treatment, as in the same. By making it so the accusation of impropriety does not absolutely mean guilt. By walking that fine line between taking those sorts of things seriously (because they do happen), while also not letting them be used as a blackmail tool to undermine good order.

I firmly believe that the vast majority female soldiers are professionals like any other. It isn't the majority of professionals I'm worried about, it is the minority that always screws it up for everyone else.

Not sure what to do about the boners. Cold showers?

Problem 5: "Fairness"

We must understand one thing above all others. One thing needs to be absolutely clear in every person's mind as we go through this process. That thing is this: When it comes to the military, what is "fair" ranks a distant second to what is effective. This flies in the face of what many of us are taught as kids (and, indeed, what I teach my own kids). We at least try to make things as fair as possible, because it is the right thing to do.

Unfortunately, we have to realize that the military exists for one purpose. That purpose is to win wars. To kill people. To break stuff. To just generally be an asshole and make a mess in someone else's yard. And when it comes to that sort of job, being a fair fighter is a pit stop along the way to being a dead one.

I am not saying fairness should be disregarded. By all means, if we have two options available to us that are equally effective and one is more fair than the other, let's be fair about it. But if it's a choice between fairness and effectiveness, effectiveness needs to win. Every time.

With that in mind, let's project into the future. The first few women who join the Infantry are going to start where everyone else did: as privates. That means that they will be in subservient positions, surrounded by men who outrank them, who have more experience than them, and are just plain better at their jobs than they are. Not one of their superiors will be female.

And that needs to be okay.

It takes time for a soldier to develop the skills necessary to lead other soldiers in battle. That means that, for a while, there won't be any women who are qualified to lead. Not because they're women, not because they are stupid or incompetent. They won't be leaders for the same reason we don't let male graduates of basic training instantly become leaders (unless those graduates also happen to have taken a series of useless classes in college too, in which case we will instantly put them in charge of entire platoons, cuz you know, America). In time, they will gain the experience to earn promotions, and at that time those promotions should absolutely be given.

The danger is that we will rush the integration, that we will decide that women need to be in leadership positions right away, and so we promote those who aren't ready, or move a Staff Sergeant used to managing a team of cooks into an Infantry Squad Leader position and expect them to succeed. Some will, but most won't, and it will lead to a weaker force. Bad leaders train bad soldiers who become bad leaders.

How we overcome this: By managing our expectations and not expecting wholesale change overnight. The all-male military is a tradition that goes back centuries. Changing it will take time, if we want to do it right.

In closing, I actually part from many of my compatriots in my beliefs. I think that this has the potential to be a very good move, one that could strengthen the military as a whole by making sure everyone who really wants to be a soldier, can be. The problems I've put forward, and those that I didn't think of, are real, but they aren't insurmountable. With careful consideration and thoughtful planning, they can be dealt with.

See, my beef with this thing whole thing isn't even about women being in the infantry. It's not about me doubting that they can succeed there, because I have the utmost confidence they can.

I just also have the utmost confidence that the Army will screw it up in the most extravagant way imaginable.

A rational response to tragedy

Recent events have once again resurrected the gun debate, namely whether or not people should have them. Unlike many of my Facebook friends, I don't see this as improper (though perhaps we should wait until the bodies are in the ground before we use them for political points). The way we can turn a negative event into a positive outcome is to examine the event, determine its causes, and decide on a plan of action to prevent it in the future. That formula is as true for a workplace accident as it is for a schoolyard shooting. Most of the issue with post-tragedy discussion, though, stems from an emotional response to a terrible act. We want desperately to do something, and so we end up doing anything, just to appease our feelings. This is folly. So, the purpose of this post is to frame the argument in a rational way so that we can at least have discussions that are meaningful.

Humans are violent creatures. Our superior aggression is one of the primary factors in our emergence as the top species on the planet. It is why it is Homo Sapiens, and not the Neanderthals, roam the Earth as its unchallenged master. This capacity for violence is an innate part of who we are. Of course, being indiscriminately violent would not be terribly conducive to building a world-spanning empire. Fortunately, evolution equipped us with a mechanism of restraint. Humans don't naturally like killing other humans. Hell, most don't even like conflict.

If this seems like a contradiction, consider the millions of Americans, even in the most violent of cities, that manage to get through their lives and never harm another person intentionally. Even bullies and bruisers tend not to fight to kill, but to intimidate and prove dominance. Normal humans under normal conditions do not mortally wound other humans. It isn't in our nature. (For more interesting reading on this subject I recommend "On Killing" by Lt. Col Grossman) Clearly, though, there are times when this "fail safe" fails. Soldiers are trained to suppress this instinct under certain stimuli, sociopaths have no such block, and even normal humans under extreme duress can tap into their more aggressive natures.

Before it is even brought up, "violent video games" do not cause violent behavior. In fact, the more access to video games a country has, the less likely they are to experience gun violence (with America being a statistical outlier).

Another cause is the ease with which killings can occur when guns are employed. One of the reasons firearms have completely changed the world of warfare (aside from their valuable intimidation functions) is that they enable practically anyone to kill anyone else, regardless of their relative size or strength. Superior aggression will lead the more violent party in a conflict to victory, all other things being equal, but I think there is little doubt that the body count of a school stabbing would be much lower than a similar shooting.

So, we have two causes:

1.  Innate violence of humans, and the failure of the mechanism that controls it.
2. Firearms function as the "great equalizer" of men.

Other factors could be considered: What was the child's upbringing, what was going on his life, was he bullied, was he loved, etc., etc., etc. I would argue, though, that all of these factors are really subsets of issue #1.

But just identifying these causes isn't enough. We must also decide what parts of them we can change or mitigate. Much as a scientist trying to design a better rocket would likely not entertain "lower the gravitational constant" as a solution because it is beyond his power to alter, we must identify what we be changed.

I think it is self evident that the violent nature of humanity has been a constant for millennia and while it may be a noble goal to change this for the future, it is unlikely that any effort of ours will alter this in the foreseeable future. The mechanism that controls it, however, has been demonstrated to be malleable.

It is unrealistic to believe that we will lower the effectiveness of firearms (either by changing the firearm itself or equipping every citizen with armor), or banish them from existence entirely. We could conceivably change the ease with which they could be obtained, though.

Now that we've got a good handle on what we're trying to solve, we can finally move on to the next step in problem solving: Find solutions and compare all alternatives. I emphasize the word all, because the biggest mistake I see happening is the shouted refrain "We can't just keep the status quo! Something must change!" Once again, this sound and feels good to say, but the baseline for any analysis is always option 1: Do nothing. Even if it is not pleasant, if you do not allow the current state of things to be an option then you lack a frame of reference with which to judge other options.

From this point, the solutions we determine are up for debate. I'm not going to set down exactly what I think should happen step by step, because frankly I don't know. Here, though, are some points to consider: 

• We can attempt to strengthen the "violence control mechanism" through better educations about mental health and access to psychiatric care, potentially nipping problems in the bud. Should this be the domain of government? I would submit that the way to fix this is by fixing society, which is possible if difficult. I doubt a government mandate that we all drop the stigma attached to mental health problems would work.
• Unfortunately, even the best system in the world will inevitably miss some. Those that fall through the cracks will go on to be violent, and when someone is intent on harming their fellow man, words often are not enough. Sometimes, the only way to negotiate with violence is with the overwhelming application of violence. The change necessary is that the source of "anti-harm" violence must be nearby and capable of eliminating the threat. Relying on the police alone for this job is, I think, untenable. As the saying goes, "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away."
• Outlawing something does not necessarily make it unattainable. If you wish proof, google "Drive-by's in London" (which is a gun-free zone) or look at the statistics for drug use. Laws only restrict those who obey them, and by and large those who obey laws are not the threat. That isn't to say that laws do not have a place, but it is to say that you cannot turn to a new law as some sort of panacea for every problem.

Addendum to debt post: Now with pictures

Saw this neat little graph on Hotair after I made my entitlement debt post yesterday. This comes from the Government Accountability Office.

Click here for a bigger picture. In case it isn't clear, that's the debt held by the public as a percentage of GDP. The blue baseline assumes we reform entitlement programs (such as Social Security and Medicare). The non-unicorns & rainbows option is the "Alternative", without reform. See the difference?

In completely unrelated news, Treasury Secretary Geithner said that Social Security was off the table for negotiations. Because it's not currently a driver of the deficit.

Show your friends this graph, but don't frame the argument in "See all this debt? Isn't that bad!?" Nobody cares about abstract fiscal policy. Instead, bring it on home.

"The government isn't some invisible force that has no effect on your lives. If the government runs out of money, they will start taxing. Those taxes mean less money in the economy. That means fewer jobs. Fewer jobs mean that yours is at risk, and even if you don't lose yours, you will get paid less. The best entitlement program is a growing economy."

Debt-powered rocket engines over the Fiscal Cliff

To hear politicians talk, you would think that those who steward our government's budget are penny pinching mega-accountants. They would have it all figured out if it weren't for those dastardly "rich" folk always getting away with paying less than their share of taxes! Still, they reason with a long-suffering sigh, they can go back to the books and get tough on some kind of spending. They obviously won't touch Social Security or Medicare, they say, but they'll cut the hell out of that damn "discretionary spending" budgets!

Unfortunately, all of the above is balderdash. For your reading pleasure, I direct you to an article in Forbes which breaks down a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report and explains why it paints a bleak picture.

The Congressional Budget Office recently published “An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook:  Fiscal Years 2012 and 2022.”   The outlook is bleak.  For the fourth straight year the annual deficit exceeded one trillion dollars.  Accumulated red ink continues to climb:  “Federal debt held by the public will reach 73 percent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year—the highest level since 1950 and about twice the 36 percent of GDP that it measured at the end of 2007.”

Next year under CBO’s most favorable estimate the budget deficit would fall to “only” $640 billion.  Over the next decade Uncle Sam would pile up another $2.3 trillion worth of debt.  The deficit would start climbing again in 2019—for years.

But what are politicians doing about it? They said they were cutting spending, right? Well, forgetting that discretionary spending doesn't include some extremely large expenditures (I'm looking at you, TARP), the levels that Congress has promised to stay below has been met only 4 times in the last 50 years. Not exactly a stellar record.

But is it really that bad?

Moreover, both higher tax rates and higher deficits would threaten the economy.  The former would cut incentives to work and save.  As for the latter, explained CBO:  “larger budget deficits and growing federal debt would hamper national saving and investment and thus reduce output and income.”  That is, government spending would crowd out productive private activity; as a result, we would earn less while having to pay more.  The agency projected that real GDP would be 1.7 percent lower under the alternative fiscal scenario.

Overall, warned CBO, “the policies assumed in the alternative fiscal scenario would lead to federal debt that would be unsustainable both from an economic and from a budgetary perspective.”  Indeed, the financial horror facing America is evident in another recent CBO study, “The 2012 Long-Term Budget Outlook.”

 In case you didn't know, in their reports the CBO usually follows two alternate realities: One "baseline", which has America populated solely by unicorns and kittens, who get to work on pixie powered rainbows. The second, "alternate", scenario is somewhat more realistic (the rainbows are powered by gasoline).

Neither of these scenarios include some very bad, and likely, things. Recessions, foreign disasters that threaten oil supplies, or economic damage caused by fiscal policy (that means the government screwing stuff up again) could all cause the truth to be far, far worse.

In general, the problem we have is not one of revenue, AKA taxes. The so-called "rich" we are supposed to be taxing into oblivion can't possibly bail us out.

Former congressmen Chris Cox and Bill Archer warn:  “When the accrued expenses of the government’s entitlement programs are counted, it becomes clear that to collect enough tax revenue just to avoid going deeper into debt would require over $8 trillion in tax collections annually.  That is the total of the average annual accrued liabilities of just the two largest entitlement programs, plus the annual cash deficit.”  In contrast, the total adjusted gross income of those earning more than $66,000 a year was $5.1 trillion and net corporate income was $1.6 trillion.  Confiscate it all and there still isn’t enough to pay the annual increase.  And you could only steal the money once, since people wouldn’t keep working if government left them with nothing.

If we took literally every penny that corporations and the rich made it would still not be enough to cover the deficit for even one year. The problem isn't income; the problem is spending. Social Security & Health Care, despite being touted as above reproach, are absolutely a part of this spending problem.

This is not something that we can put off till tomorrow. The growing deficits and interest we are stacking up can swiftly push debt to unimaginable heights. By just 2037 debt could be as high as 200% of GDP. Greece, by comparison, peaked at 143%. The longer we wait, the worse it gets.


Increased government spending, deficits, and debt isn't just some abstract problem. This isn't a debate over whether the rich should be able to have more of their money or not. A necessary part of a growing economy is safety and security. Remove that confidence and you remove the profit incentive. If people no longer have reasonable assurance that their investments are secure then they will not invest. Lower investments mean less business being conducted, which lowers demand for capital.

Guess what?  

Your job is capital.

The Green Boot: Feds crush small business "for the environment"

In case you were worried about small businesses being able to continue their villainous plots of employing local workers, never fear: the Federal Government once again has the solution: Just shut them down.

U.S. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar told a popular oyster farm at Drakes Bay on Thursday to pack up and leave, effectively ending more than a century of shellfish harvesting on the picturesque inlet where Europeans first set foot in California.

Naturally, the small business being crushed under the Fed's bootheel won't affect anything. I mean, it only employed 30 measly people. Not like they produced 40% of the oysters harvested in California or anything.

The government is able to do this thanks to the fact that the business is operated out of land owned by the National Park Service. The reason that the land is owned by the Federal Government is that it was sold to them in the 1970s to protect the local businesses from developers, with the understanding that they would have their 40 year leases renewed in perpetuity.

Not pictured: The irony of selling your land to the Feds to protect your business, only to have them confiscate it at the first opportunity.

Secretary Salazar wishes to keep the land of this are in its pristine, unemployment producing state. Obviously, increasing poverty in any area is the fastest way to improve its environment. "Conservationists" in the area are, of course, overjoyed.

"A heartfelt salute to Secretary Salazar for his wisdom and statesmanship in choosing long-term public good over short-term private interests," said Sylvia Earle, a local environmentalist and the former chief scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. "Protecting Drakes Estero, America's only West Coast marine wilderness park, will restore health and hope for the ocean and for the interests of all of the people of this country."

Sylvia was oddly silent on the fact that the way the decision was handed down will require Lunny to ruthlessly slaughter the 5-10 million juvenile oysters growing to adulthood.

Before we judge the government too harshly, though, let's take a step back. At the end of the day, it's very important to note that the government was able to look past the money side of this: all the lost taxes, revenues, jobs, and really cut to the heart of the matter. They objectively looked at the science of the matter at hand, carefully examined the data, then twisted the data any damned way they pleased to fit their preconceived notions.

...a panel of scientists concluded that National Park Service officials made errors, selectively presented information and misrepresented facts in a series of reports about his Drakes Bay shellfish operation.

The findings mark the second time in a year that the Park Service has been put under a spotlight for essentially fudging data in its attempts to show that the Drakes Bay Oyster Co. harmed the environment.

While the report did not specifically accuse anyone of misconduct, it raised serious questions about governmental misuse of scientific data.

The Park Service said the number of harbor seals declined from 250 to 50 in the area Lunny developed. Park Service officials also claimed the oyster farm could hasten the spread of destructive nonnative species that hitchhike on the oyster shells. The voluminous waste produced by oysters, they said, increased sedimentation in the estuary.

Goodman used Park Service records to refute much of the disputed data, including evidence that the amount of eelgrass in the bay doubled between 1991 and 2001, and that the number of harbor seal pups increased overall in the bay while oyster harvesting was under way.

The Federal Government: Deliberately publishing falsehoods in order to crush small businesses and ensure that the environment is pristine for our future, poverty stricken generations.