Days after print publication, Bill Knight’s syndicated newspaper column, which moves twice a week, will appear here. The most recent will appear at the top. (Columns before Sep. 11, 2017, are archived at http://billknightcolumn.blogspot.com/).

Saturday, July 28, 2018

As workers wonder where their share is, employers warn of raises


Bill Knight column for Thurs., Fri. or Sat., July 26, 27 or 28, 2018

Between wage hikes and bonuses, the Trump administration last year predicted that average U.S. household income this year would jump by $4,000 because of “tax reform.”
Trump economic adviser Kevin Hassett said, “There really shouldn’t be much doubt about that.”
If you’re like most Americans, you’re wondering and waiting about that raise.
Meanwhile, there seems to be a concerted campaign against pay increases.
President Trump has told many lies (thousands, according to a Washington Post fact-checker reckoning). One of the biggest falsehoods was the promise that the tax cuts passed last December – “The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” which dropped corporations’ rate from 35 percent to 21 percent as a way to supposedly create jobs – would mean more take-home pay for workers.
The White House claims that 3 million workers have received one-time bonuses from employers including Disney and Comcast, but just 4.3 percent of U.S. workers will receive any such bonuses or wage increases because of the law, according to an April analysis of Fortune 500 companies by the Americans for Tax Fairness coalition.
Elsewhere, American Prospect magazine reported that total pay hikes and bonuses to workers as of mid-June totaled about $7 billion – just 9 percent of the $77 billion in tax cuts corporations have enjoyed.
So where’s the other 91 percent money going? Overwhelmingly, the benefits are going to the richest Americans, as corporations use the savings to buy back their own stock
Buybacks inflate stock prices by eliminating shares – making them scarcer. Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Shiller of Yale University described buybacks as “smoke and mirrors.” This bit of staged magic artificially boosts share value but also disguises a key measure of a corporation’s profitability: Corporations seem better off than they are.
Such stock manipulation also worsens income inequality as phony corporate gains go to investors in the stock market, often beginning with companies’ top executives.
“This very partisan corporate tax bill has fueled a surge in stock buybacks that is hurting economic growth and shared prosperity for workers,” U.S. Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) told CNNMoney. “This exposes the false promise of trickle-down economics.”
Since 2008, U.S. companies have spent $5.1 trillion to buy back their own stock, according to the stock market research firm Birinyi Associates. Between 2007 and 2016, companies in the S&P 500 devoted 54 percent of their profits to stock buybacks, according to research by economist William Lazonick of the University of Massachusetts - Lowell, Co-Director of the Center for Industrial Competitiveness.
“This was not good for the U.S. economy,” Lazonick said.
Indeed, consider the numbers: $5.1 trillion in a decade means than corporations spent $510 billion a year on stock buybacks, which translates to $42.5 billion per month.
So: Where does the money NOT get spent? Better pay for everyday workers, job/skills training, hiring more employees, improving production, YOU.
Advocates of corporate buybacks say that boosting value to shareholders is better than hoarding wealth. That logic is like endorsing car thefts as preferable to home foreclosures.
As to that appearance of an energized employer resistance to using profits to fairly compensate workers, a series of stories in the dominant news media has lent credence – cover – to employers.
The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post all have dutifully published uncritical pieces expressing companies’ claims that better pay jeopardizes the economy.
“It’s clear that many in the media are terrified by the prospect that as the labor market gets tighter, workers might get a larger share of the pie,” said economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. “Perhaps this should not be surprising when billionaires control major news outlets, but it does mean that economic reporting might be getting pretty far out of line with economic reality.
“If workers did see pay increases at the expense of profits, they would just be getting back some of what they have lost in this century,” he continued. “The after-tax profit share of national income rose by almost three full percentage points between 2000 and 2016. That would correspond to an average loss of almost $3,000 per worker per year.
“Corporations were happy to take advantage of the weak labor market, especially in the years of the Great Recession, to increase their profit share,” he added. “Now they are warning of disaster if they have to give back some of their gains if the labor market continues to strengthen.”

Thursday, July 26, 2018

Good news for farmers and the environment


Bill Knight column for Mon., Tues. or Wed., July 23, 24 or 25, 2018

From labor relations to relations with Russia, it seems these are Days of Dangerous Divisions. So: Need some good news?
Increasingly there’s common ground for farmers and environmentalists.
First, just looking at farm fields, one recalls the Rodgers and Hammerstein lyric “the corn is as high as an elephant’s eye,” and next, new research from the University of Illinois College of Agriculture, Consumer and Environmental Studies strengthens the notion contained in that song, “Oh, What A Beautiful Morning.”
Agriculture faces increasing demands for food, feed, fiber and fuel under the threat of climate change, so the challenge is to meet needs while protecting Nature, and studies show there’s hope that farmers can balance agricultural and environmental concerns and financially benefit.
In the journal Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, UIUC researchers identified the need to build capacity for farm practices that consider the environment and agriculture.
“Land is the resource in fixed supply on the planet. We have to figure out how to best use the land to meet diverse needs,” says Madhu Khanna, Distinguished Professor in UIUC’s Department of Agricultural and Consumer Economics. “We need to be looking not just at what the technologies are and what their environmental benefits are, but also at their economic effects so that we can weigh the trade-offs.”
The study, conducted at the Northwestern Illinois Agricultural Research and Demonstration Center near Monmouth, showed that rotating crops increases yield and lowers greenhouse-gas emissions compared to continuous corn or soybeans.
“I think farmers are looking for reasons to avoid growing in a monoculture,” said researcher Gevan Behnke of the Department of Crop Sciences. “They’re looking to diversify and rotate their systems. It lowers greenhouse gases and it could potentially result in a substantial yield increase.”
Elsewhere, estimating the extent and cost of damages from climate change over the next century can make planning difficult for temperatures and precipitation, increased frequency and intensity of storms, droughts, etc. But in a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science journal, researchers from UIUC and Yale offer a method to develop better forecasts of uncertainty through the year 2100.
UIUC assistant professor Peter Christensen compared estimates from economists and an analysis of long-run trends, and he found substantially higher uncertainty than current studies of climate change impacts, damages, and adaptation.
“The scientific community has been underestimating uncertainty,” Christiansen said. “Results from the study suggest more than a 35-percent probability that emissions concentrations will exceed those assumed in even the most severe scenarios.”
Yale colleague Kenneth Gillingham added that the outcomes “have worrisome environmental implications if we don’t see real effort by policymakers.”
A third study showed efforts to cooperate with neighboring farmers can effectively combat resistant weeds such as water hemp, which is already resistant to multiple herbicides.
“If you take the cheap route, you’ll save some money in the short term on your herbicide costs, but in the long term, you’ll have a much greater likelihood of developing resistance,” said USDA’s Agricultural Research Service researcher Adam Davis, an adjunct professor in UIUC’s Department of Crop Sciences.
The option – effective and free – requires that “people talk to each other and work together as opposed to doing everything on their own,” Davis said. “The message is not to use the most expensive herbicide program possible; the message is to use the available tools to manage weeds better. If you do that on your own farm, certainly it’s going to help. If you do it on a bunch of adjoining farms, it’s going to help even more.”
Farm associations, drainage districts, etc. can facilitate collaborations, he suggested.
The outlook isn’t completely rosy, as the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ) warns that parts of the proposed Farm Bill are controversial environmental issues:
* The bill could cut the Conservation Stewardship Program, the Conservation Reserve Program, the Agricultural Conservation Easement Program, the Regional Conservation Partnership Program and the Environmental Quality Incentives Program, and the SEJ notes that “when land is taken out of production, it not only saves soil but also props up crop prices.”
* The biggest item in the bill could authorize EPA to approve new pesticides without considering their impact on endangered species, as it does now.
* Animal-welfare issues, especially in large-scale animal operations, concerning air and water quality, could be addressed since the measure could outlaw state regulations.
* The bill also could undermine the National Organic Standards Board, a citizens group overseeing USDA organic rules, to let the Agriculture Secretary unilaterally decide which non-organic substances can be used post-harvest.
Despite concerns with Congress meddling in agriculture, UIUC’s research offers hope.
As the song’s chorus ends, “I’ve got a wonderful feeling, everything’s going my way.”

Sunday, July 22, 2018

Writers in the movies run the gamut


Bill Knight column for Thurs., Fri. or Sat., July 19, 20 or 21, 2018

Writers occur regularly in many movies worth seeing, and it’s not usually the self-indulgent, sheltered or haughty people fans may suspect. Films’ writers can be just as flawed and heroic, villainous and pathetic, inspiring and entertaining as cops or spies, doctors or lawyers, thugs or jocks.
As shown in this list – presented the week of the 119th anniversary of Ernest Hemingway’s birth – movies’ writers also can be weak and strong, mysterious and victimized, menacing and uplifting.
Besides these are many others: “The Adventures of Mark Twain,” “The Adventures of a Young Man (based on a Hemingway story). “The Trials of Oscar Wilde,” “Misery,” “Adaptation,” “Julia” …
“Beloved Infidel” (1959). Gregory Peck is F. Scott Fitzgerald in this drama about a doomed romance Fitzgerald is working as a screenwriter, struggling with alcoholism and the demands of his ill wife, when he meets British gossip columnist Sheilah Graham.
“Devotion” (1943). Ida Lupino, Olivia de Havilland and Nancy Coleman portray Emily, Charlotte and Anne Bronte in this costume drama set in Victorian England, dealing with their hard-drinking musician brother Branwell (Arthur Kennedy) and handsome pastor Arthur Nichols (Paul Henreid).
“Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas” (1998). Hunter S. Thompson’s quasi-autobiography was directed Monty Python’s Terry Gilliam starring Johnny Depp as the gonzo journalist. Thompson, accompanied by his goofy sidekick (Benicio Del Toro), leaves Los Angeles for Las Vegas in a drug-induced fog. The romp features an all-star cast: Cameron Diaz, Gary Busey, Harry Dean Stanton, James Woods, Tobey Maguire, Mark Harmon, Laraine Newman and Christina Ricci
“Finding Forrester” (2000). Sean Connery plays a reclusive author who becomes a mentor for a young scholar-athlete (Robert Brown). It co-stars Anna Paquin as a student and F. Murray Abraham as a suspicious professor.
“Iris: A Memoir of Iris Murdoch” (2001). This Oscar-winning film has fine performances from Judi Dench s Murdoch and Jim Broadbent as her husband, who helps maintain their love through Alzheimer’s disease. Kate Winslet co-stars.
“The Jack London Story” (1943). Michael O’Shea has the title role in this biography co-starring Virginia Mayo and Susan Hayward. London’s life from oyster pirate, explorer and sailor to radical, war correspondent and writer provides a backdrop for exaggerated exploits.
“Mrs. Parker and The Vicious Circle” (1994). Jennifer Jason Leigh is riveting as Dorothy Parker, the alcoholic, talented writer tied to 1920s New York’s noted Algonquin Round Table. The intellectual friends drink too much, while Parker herself – at the epicenter– is flung from assignment to project to romance to Hollywood like a craft without a compass. The cast is outstanding, including Matthew Broderick as Charles MacArthur, Campbell Scott as Robert Benchley, Keith Carradine as Will Rogers, Gary Basaraba as Heywood Broun, plus Wallace Shawn, Gwyneth Paltrow and Stanley Tucci.
“Naked Lunch” (1991). Filmmaker David Cronenberg directed Peter Weller in an amusing, disturbing tale of author and exterminator Bill Lee, who accidentally kills his wife. Adapted from William Burroughs’ writings, “Naked Lunch” has the character leave for an exotic Mediterranean port, where he hopes to free his writing. Mathematicians, zookeepers, drug addicts and surfers combine to make this bizarre. Roy Scheider, Judy Davis and Ian Holm co-star.
“Reds” (1981). Warren Beatty wrote, produced, directed and starred in this biography about radical writer John Reed. Diane Keaton co-stars as writer and romantic interest Louise Bryant, with Jack Nicholson as Eugene O’Neill, Maureen Stapleton as Emma Goldman, plus Gene Hackman, George Plimpton and Paul Sorvino. It’s an epic with poignant moments. Nominated for four Oscars, it’s interspersed with interviews with Reed’s real-life colleagues.
“Shadowlands” (1993). British writer and theologian C.S. Lewis is the subject in this love story starring Anthony Hopkins as Lewis (author of the Narnia books). Debra Winger is Joy Gresham, an American free spirit and fan who leads Lewis to experience emotions and discovers a hidden depth in herself.
“Shakespeare in Love” (1998). Joseph Fiennes is the Bard in this farce, struggling to write plays like “Romeo and Ethel, the Pirate’s Daughter.” Gwyneth Paltrow co-stars in the romantic comedy as an actress appearing on stage in drag (women weren’t permitted to act), and they fall in love. Ben Affleck and Judi Dench co-star.
“The Shining” (1980). Jack Nicholson is a troubled writer who accepts a job as a resort’s caretaker in Stanley Kubrick’s adaptation of Stephen King’s bestseller. Gradually, a snow storm, isolation and writer’s block “possess” the writer. Shelley Duvall co-stars.
“Sunset Boulevard” (1950). William Holden is a desperate screenwriter drawn into a twisted relationship with silent-movie star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson), who thinks a comeback is possible. Billy Wilder directed, with Jack Webb, Erich Von Stroheim and cameos by Cecil B. DeMille and Buster Keaton.

Construction booming, but workers needed

U.S. construction nationally is experiencing somewhat of a boom, shown in several months of growth. However, more workers are needed to me...