Frequent Citations

Fidelity: Or, For Better For Worse

We went to see "It's Complicated" the other night, TFL and I.  The acting, of course, was superb.  But as we left the theater we turned to each other with some puzzlement --

"Did that strike you as a little . . . weird?"

"Yeah -- like it's okay to just throw away a marriage . . . like there's nothing valuable in a long-term relationship."

We spent the whole walk home puzzling it out and came to a couple of conclusions.  First, obviously, we're either old-fashioned (to our friends and fans) or fuddy-duddies.  Second, we remain mystified by what people think "or worse" means when they vow to remain together "for better or for worse."  And let me cut off all squabbling about abuse by saying here and now, for the record, that I think abuse pretty effectively dissolves marriage vows as fraudulent, because no one capable of real physical abuse is also capable of sincerely vowing to "cherish," a concept wholly exclusive of abuse.  Now back to the point:  what do people think "or worse" means?  And do they leave marriages just because, as this film implies, they think the grass is greener?  And when they're on the other side of the fence, they sometimes look back and think no, wait, it was greener where I was before?

I figure, average life-spans being what they are, TFL and I are heading into the middle years of our marriage.  Sure, we were lucky, true love plus two pretty nice and decent people (if I do say so myself) is a good way to start a marriage.  But, and avert your eyes dear reader if you fear that I am about to shatter your illusions, even true love takes work, and even we have faced "or worse."  To state the obvious, it''s not a fairy-tale life we lead, wherein TFL and I are always happy and delightful people.*  On the other hand, we really know each other, better than anyone else in the world.  We can communicate with a look, we have our shorthand, we have our history.  We are a part of each other, forever, come what may.  We can still make each other laugh.

There's something infinitely valuable, infinitely precious, in being given the chance to be together for decades.  It's not something to squander or take for granted.  It's worth the "for worse."

There's a scene in the movie where the divorced couple is sitting on a swing together, space between them.  The actors being as phenomenal as they are, you see the mutual understanding, the deep connection forged over the years of fighting and raising children and eating delicious meals together.  You see the gift, flawed and wonderful, and you see them walk away from it.  They just -- walk away. 

Idiots.  

*At least, I'm not always delightful.  There were those 5 minutes back in 1993, and oh yeah, that entire evening in 2005... 

Juniors, Juniorettes

Two of my dear friends are pregnant.  One is around my age, one quite a bit younger.  One is single and pregnant with her first child, one is married and already has one child.  Both are whip-smart, determined women who Know Their Minds.  I respect and admire them both tremendously.

I get down on my knees and thank the Benevolent Creator that I am not in their shoes.  They, of course, both know that I do so because I lack their character, energy, grace, and coping mechanisms.

I can barely manage to juggle a career and two adult children -- I cannot imagine juggling a career with actually trying to raise children, which I found to be a full-time job with incredible stress-inducing potential.  Said potential was often realized.

I lost count of the number of times TFL and I rescued each other from going insane with frustration, fear, or rage when we were holding a shrieking infant and were out of ideas.  I lost count the first week, probably.  The three times TFL was out of town for extended periods of time -- once when the kids were 1 and 2, once when they were around 5 and 6, and once when they were 13 and 14 -- are etched in my mind forever.* Being a parent with a loving, devoted, supportive spouse is hard; being a single parent is a whole different ball-game.

I'm beyond excited for both of my friends, who will be completely fantastic mothers.  Just because the mere thought of having a baby at my age makes me weep with exhaustion doesn't mean that my one friend won't be filled with all the energy she needs to care and cherish a child she has so long desired, and just because I utterly lack the capacity to mingle child-rearing with my current career doesn't mean my other friend won't wring every last drop of enjoyment out of both.  Certainly I pray that it will be so, but I don't pray very hard because, frankly, I don't think they're much in need of my prayers.

My friends' good fortunes thrill and delight me.  So does my own.  Funny how life works out, isn't it? 

Now I have to go look for some baby cap patterns and cute yarn because I need a new knitting project.

*Especially the time when TFL managed to be gone to a sunny and balmy clime when we at home were hit with an Epic Snowstorm, and I spent hours and hours shoveling out the car, and then doing it all over again.  Not that I'm resentful or anything.

Budget And Taxes

Brace yourselves:  some of you will find this post to verge on the pinko commie!

This article on the proposed budget is in line with other analysis I've seen (and is written in plain English, a bonus!). For historic income tax info, see this site.

But here's what you really want to know:  the top 1% includes only those families making over $388,000--and what the tax site's table doesn't show you is that most in the top 1% make far more than that (think many many millions a year).  ALSO:  the average tax rate for the top 1% is only about 20%.  When you see the numbers in the high 30s, that's their marginal rate--what they pay on the last dollars of their income.  That's (one reason) why the argument that raising taxes on the wealthy removes the incentive to become rich is absolute bunk:  you're paying exactly the same rate as everyone else on your first $250,000 or $388,000 or whatever, and only pay the higher rate on the money you make after that.  So would you rather have 80% of $10, or 80% of $10 plus 70% of $100?  Gee, let's see...  I'll take the $78, not the $8, thanks.

We're not in the top 1%,  but we probably will be within a few years (if--knock on wood--we both keep our jobs), which is precisely when these tax increases will hit.  So I'll be (I hope) working in a job I love in a city I love, making more than I would be anywhere else but taking home less than I would living almost anywhere else because of city taxes...  And I still think this tax reform is a darn good idea.  It doesn't solve the inequities and iniquities of our current tax system, but it's a step toward a less destructive system, and a step toward investing in some of the right priorities (such as education and benefits for veterans).

And that concludes my little tax rant, which I am sure is pretty much opposite to everything you hear on certain "news" channels (or from certain of my beloved family members).  But I will add this:  many of our current economic troubles can be traced, directly and indirectly, to the long-term transfer of wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.  Stopping that trend and redressing some of the past harm is pure national self-interest.

I don't think I'm a pinko commie and I'm very much in favor of making more money my own self (shoes to buy, people!), but once in a while I suppose my religious ancestry exhibits itself in this crazy streak of wanting fairness, even if it may cost me a pair--several dozen pairs--of shoes.

Leopards And Privilege

I was concerned when the President nominated his SecTreas.  The Secretary was smack dab in the middle of creating our current economic debacle.  The Chairman of the New York Fed is a key player under any circumstances, and the news accounts indicate that this one was deeply involved in conversations and decisions that set (or failed to set) policy.  Those decisions, that policy--they don't seem so prudent these days.

A leopard doesn't change its spots, as some say.

And that was my worry: that instead of learning that the theories and philosophies of the banking world were critically flawed, he would cling to them as central truths.

We hear a lot of angry rhetoric these days about "privileged" bankers thinking they have a right to all the money in the world and screw the rest of us.  The sight of their multi-million dollar homes and stories of their absurd ideas about interior decorating only reinforce this notion, that it's all about privilege.

But I think it's not.  Many people in this country are filthy rich, and we applaud them for it.  Rags to riches is a big part of what this country is all about.  And money inevitably brings certain privileges.  But I don't think we really want to say that people who can afford it shouldn't be able to fly first class or go to awesome restaurants or underwrite the opera.  I want no part of saying that someone who can build real wealth shouldn't be allowed to do so.

The people in charge of fiscal policy, and the bankers they regulate, live in a bubble.  They are insulated and protected and unaware of the larger world.  But I am not refering to wealth or community standing or privilege.  They are isolated in a world of regimented thought, living in an opaque bubble of economic theory with no vision of alterntaive explanations and ideas.  Our current SecTreas still seems to be locked right in that bubble.

When something doesn't work, why do you keep trying exactly the same thing?  Senseless. 

I know from first-hand experience that the people in this bubble and the people who develop their theories think I am insane.  They think that when I posit that real property maybe isn't the best thing to securitize I am full of nonsense.  (Now they're trying to figure out who actually owns these homes being foreclosed.)  When I argue that people are sometimes motivated by concerns other than profit, they roll their eyes and walk away.  They think I'm soft-minded.  I think they're blind and cripplyingly narrow in their thinking. 

We know the world is a messy place and people are frustratingly unpredictable.  I think there are bankers out there who understand this, and who do have broader horizons, and don't think in lockstep with their peers.  Our SecTreas?  So far, not so good.

For example, he's saying that he doesn't want to give the details until they "get it right."  Well that's just idiotic.  There's no trust in Treasury's ability to get it right, not after the last few months (really years, but that's another post).  Get the plan out there and let people smarter than you, and people with different perspectives, and even people who have no idea what they're talking about, pipe up with their opinions on it.

Maybe you'll learn something.

Then again, maybe you won't change your spots.

At any rate, my point is just this:  it's not about their wealth or their lives so different from most of ours.  It's about their life in a bubble, their inability to break through to a new idea.  They can create ever more fanciful financial instruments, but they can't understand that $350 billion is too much money for The People to hand off without wanting to know how it's being spent.

We'll see what some of the other players say today.

Board Of Directors: Seat For One

Plenty of chit chat these days centers on capping CEO salaries in financial companies.  Hmm.  I think it's been pretty well shown that the CEOs of the various Big Banks have not been earning their hundreds of millions.  But I would like to point out that those CEOs are not the only ones who are, arguably, overpaid.  So are Directors.

Overpaid CEOs are a problem.  But not just because it's bad for employee morale, or because it's inefficient, or because it's a way to scam shareholders.  It's a problem because they're a symptom of divorce from reality.

Sure, some (maybe many) of today's CEOs of major financial companies and other public companies are living in quite the bubble.  They are kept in that lovely bubble, however, by their boards of directors.  Who is there to say no to the latest salary increase, to point out that something besides sacks of gold should be keeping the boss involved and on top of things and even--dare we say--visionary?  Who is going to insist that no, the CEO should not be getting his personal jet when the company is laying off thousands?

I'll tell you who.  Every publicly traded company should have one seat on its board of directors reserved for an employee, one from the lowest-paid ranks.  Put a regular person in that room, one who worries about making ends meet and buys their own groceries and and takes public transportation or tries to get the family car to last just a little longer.  Have someone on the compensation committee whose jaw drops at a proposal to pay anybody in the millions, and who knows what a big deal an extra thousand a year can be to a working stiff.  (Oh yeah, mandatory membership in the compensation committee.)

Pay the employee what every other board member makes for attending meetings, eating fancy lunches, and voting for raises for their cronies.  Let that employee go to the fancy functions for a year, be exposed to the rarified world of the directors of large companies.  And swap the empoyee out every year.

Maybe they'll never win a vote, but at least these employees could throw a little cold water around from time to time.  Maybe they would even prompt a little rationality.  At least they'd enjoy some lovely lunches on the company's dime.

You may notice I've created a new category.  I am full of crackpot ideas, and I am cranky.  Hence: crankpot theories.