Baby culture

I grew up in a place where everything revolves around the family - having children; family activities.  If you don't have children, there's probably something wrong with you.  Having children is right; not having children is wrong... gay? medical problem?  It's not a choice; it's mandatory unless you have a valid excuse; a note from your doctor; people whisper.  So Facebook comes along and everyone's posting ultrasound photos.  Then someone invented the gender announce party.  I guess I wasn't really surprised to see the photo above.  What sorta surprised me was the amount of plastic involved in these pregnancy tests.  OK, maybe it's the equivalent of a toothbrush... nope - I looked it up - there are actually electronics involved in what could be a simple dipstick.  So not just plastic - electronic waste.  Inside is a CR2016 battery, three LEDs, the processor, and of course, the readout screen.  Seriously?!  This test could be performed by a simple dipstick, but in their moment of crisis (or aspiration?), people can't wait for ambiguity.  Except (see above)... three days in a row?  Because... ambiguity.

So while some places are considering banning plastic straws, in the land where having children is mandatory, I wonder how many of these pregnancy tests are going into the electronic waste bin versus landfill?  Why am I not happy for the young couple?  Why are environmentalists such killjoys?!  This device... well, it's slightly worse (more electronic waste) than the music-playing greeting card.  Of course I'm happy for them.  But I'm a bit shocked at the evolution of pregnancy tests from frogs to rabbits to whether it turns blue to... electronic waste?   Are environmentalists really killjoys?  Somehow we need to repackage the message to compete with the marketing of electronic waste - for the future of the children whose existence is being detected.

Global trade - autos; oil

This morning's trivia surrounding the notion of free markets and global trade... I was going to say the beginning of the end for the US auto industry was the oil embargo in the 70's. The acronym OPEC comes to mind, but guess what? It wasn't OPEC :-)

"The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) was founded in Baghdad, Iraq, with the signing of an agreement in September 1960 by five countries namely Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. They were to become the Founder Members of the Organization."  OPEC

How about... OAPEC?
"The 1973 oil crisis began in October 1973 when the members of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries proclaimed an oil embargo. The embargo was targeted at nations perceived as supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War. The initial nations targeted were Canada, Japan, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States with the embargo also later extended to Portugal, Rhodesia and South Africa. By the end of the embargo in March 1974, the price of oil had risen nearly 400%, from US$3 per barrel to nearly $12 globally; US prices were significantly higher."
Wikipedia

And just for the record:  (OAPEC*) "Member countries include Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iraq, Kuwait, Libya, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and the United Arab Emirates. (Egypt’s membership was suspended in 1979, but it was readmitted in 1989. Tunisia ceased to be a member in 1987.)"
Britannica

Here's a nice graph, with the results of the oil embargo being the blip in the middle.  Production in the US has risen substantially with the discovery of the Williston Basin, but the US is still not producing as much as it consumes.  And large vehicles are still as popular as ever.

*"Iraq initially declined to join, preferring to work under the umbrella of the Arab League, considering OAPEC too conservative. Equally the three founders considered Iraq too radical to be desirable as a member.  However, by early 1972, the criterion for admission had changed to oil being a significant source of revenue (rather than the principal source) of a prospective member nation; and Algeria, Iraq, Syria and Egypt had been admitted. Consequently, OAPEC became a much more activist organization, contrary to the original intention."    Wikipedia

Economics - ownership vs labor

Consider this scenario: a bicycle courier risks their life and works their ass off for close to minimum wage.  The owners of the internet-based courier company get rich. The venture capital company that takes the company public makes a handsome profit.  Shareholders  get a decent return (at least for awhile?).  What's wrong with the picture?  Who's taking the most risk?  Who's getting the most reward?

Unfortunately, I have no formal training in economics, but as a citizen I've been thinking about some of the various theories; from simple - raising minimum wage, to Universal Basic Income, to Modern Monetary Theory.  

To be honest, based on my experiences in Australia, I'm not a fan of raising minimum wage.  I've worked plenty of minimum wage jobs in the US - sometimes it was ok, sometimes it was just treading water and getting more into debt.  And though Universal Basic Income has some appeal, I think it would be far more beneficial to change the nature of the corporation and shareholding.  Why should a person who invests only money get a far greater return on their investment than a person who risks their entire life in a dangerous occupation?  

That said, I am not in favor of uneducated employees making decisions that well-educated business managers need to make.  So the answer isn't necessarily full-on worker-ownership and worker-management, but the answer is definitely more in the direction of shared investment return, when the investment on the part of some is their life, while the investment of others is merely financial.  I'm not even advocating for equal investment return. What I'm advocating for is that as long as there are dividends and ownership of any given enterprise, those who have poured their blood into that endeavor - including the workers - should be a part of the revenue sharing.   Of course many corporations fall by the wayside, but some may have made a handsome salary and even tidy profit before the downfall, while the only thing others received were wages and unemployment.  I'm not advocating for more equal wages, though the salary differentials have become absurd - I'm just saying that rather than all of that money going to financiers and managers, a portion of that needs to be shifted downward; not even necessarily into pay, but into long-term equity.

In some ways, these notions reduce the role of government in redistributing wealth.  Rather than arbitrary increases in minimum wage, or taxing to redistribute to the poor, this is a restructuring of the framework of a corporation, so that all inputs are given value that is appropriate.  Of course, while we're at it we might consider the environmental costs of obtaining raw materials, or industries that do not contain and recycle harmful byproducts.  But for now, the discussion is about ownership and labor, and the value of human life.