I know...the faithful readers were wondering "where is our morning blog?" Well, it is the afternoon but your busy dude here has been...well, busy--panel in the morning and, then, there was lunch...but I digress...

   Yesterday, there was a fascinating column in The New York Times--fascinating in showing out truly out of touch the columnist is. David Leonhardt, a Times' economic columnist, had a piece that basically said to you'all: you don't know how good you have it when it comes to inflation. His basic argument was this:

There is also something particular to inflation that aggravates loss aversion. Price increases are obvious. But price declines are often hidden. The cost of an item stays about the same for years, while everything else gets more expensive and nominal incomes rise.

When you dig into the Consumer Price Index, you start to realize just how many things fall into this category. The price of major appliances has been flat over the last year. Furniture is 1 percent less expensive. A decade ago, a basic four-door Toyota Corolla LE cost $16,018, according to the company. The 2009 basic model costs $16,650, and it’s a safer, more powerful, more fuel-efficient car than its predecessor.

To top it all off, most people don’t buy any of these items very often. “People tend to remember things they do frequently,” says Stephen Cecchetti, an economist at Brandeis University who studies inflation. “And what do you buy more frequently than gas and food?”

But combine the less noticeable trends with some true price declines, like a 5 percent drop in women’s clothing over the last year, and an inflation rate of 4 percent starts to seem more reasonable. Inflation really has gotten worse recently — it was only 2 percent a year and a half ago — but it’s not as bad as it feels.

    I added the bold. Actually, it is pretty bad. Here is why government statistics mislead because they don't sqaure with the reality that most people endure. The government statistics, taken as a whole, might show inflation is "not as bad as it feels" but that misses the human reality. People can't do without food or gasoline (well, people who rely on their cars certainly can't live without gasoline). They can postpone buying a new car or a major appliance or even a new garment (I know, for some people that seems impossible).

   So, it's not simply overall price increases that make people feel the way they do. It's WHAT HAS ACTUALLY GONE UP and what is a necessity that people must pull out their wallets for.

 

    It's no secret that undocumented workers are some of the most vulnerable workers in society. Employers ruthlessly exploit them. I don't think that most people can understand--deeply understand in your gut--the fear that undocumented workers have to live with every day. Well, here's as close as you might get to understanding what it feels like.

    Rep. George Miller, chair of the House Education and Labor Comittee (and one of the Democrats who I actually find is relentlessly on the job on behalf of workers), held a hearing on U.S. and foreign workers' lives. Check this video out (you need to wait after the witness's opening remarks until you hear the audio recording).

 

   If your blood doesn't run cold after you hear the audio recording of the employer's threats, you ain't human. But, that's what a lot of people experience every day.

    I'm a little surprised that this story has become more than it should be. Apparently, yesterday's story in The Wall Street Journal that related Barack Obama's pledge that he would work to end the government control over the Teamsters has caused a bit of a hoo-hah. It elicited this story today in The New York Times:

The Teamsters union vigorously denied on Monday that its decision to endorse Senator Barack Obama in the presidential race was in any way tied to Mr. Obama’s statement that federal supervision of the union had run its course.

    What exactly is the story here? That a government control of a union that is TWENTY YEARS old might be a bad idea and that a Democratic presidential candidate might say that he opposed it and would support its end? Big deal.

    And, the fact is Hillary Clinton also made a pretty close to similar pledge when she appeared before the union's executive board meeting, as the Times story points out. I listened to the audio files from that meeting where both Obama and Clinton appeared. It would be very hard to distinguish any difference in what the two of them were saying. Here is the audio file for Obama and here is the audio file for Clinton.

    So, it leaves me to wonder: who drummed up that story at this point in the campaign? I'll leave the imagination to the reader--and the obvious.

    The Wall Street Journal has this interesting story today:

Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.

    And...

Neither Sen. Obama nor Teamsters President James P. Hoffa has spoken publicly about easing up federal oversight, a top priority for Mr. Hoffa since he became union president in 1999. On the campaign trail, Mr. Hoffa stresses Sen. Obama's criticism of the North American Free Trade Agreement as the big factor in winning the 1.4-million member union's support.

But John Coli, vice president for the Teamsters central region, who brokered the Teamsters endorsement, said Sen. Obama was "pretty definitive that the time had come to start the beginning of the end" of the three-member independent review board that investigates suspect activity in the union. Mr. Coli said that Sen. Obama conveyed that view in a series of phone conversations and meetings with Teamsters officials last year.

Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the candidate's position in a statement to The Wall Street Journal, saying that Sen. Obama believes that the board "has run its course," because "organized crime influence in the union has drastically declined." Mr. Vietor said Sen. Obama took that position last year.

    The promise to end the government oversight, according to the article, had nothing to do with the Teamsters' endorsement of Obama:

    You may recall that 13 workers died on February 7th in an explosion at a sugar refinery in Port Wentworth, Georgia. Today, The Wall Street Journal has a fine story looking at the disaster and the dangers from dust and the failure of federal and safety officials to do much about the risks. First, what did it feel like when the explosion took place?:

The four-story building at the heart of the Imperial Sugar Co. shook. Embers and debris blasted across the 155-acre complex, and a column of flame shot hundreds of feet into the air. Mr. Sexton, who had been about 50 yards from the explosion's suspected center, roused himself and inched through the dark plant, helping a badly burned co-worker along the way.

Superheated sugar flowed like lava until it cooled and formed rock-hard barriers. The building's steel frame melted. It took firefighters a week to finally put out the fire. The disaster at the 91-year-old factory, known for its "Dixie Crystals" brand, killed 13 of Mr. Sexton's co-workers and injured 45 others -- the deadliest such accident in more than 25 years.

    I can't even imagine the pain felt by those who were burned to death, not to mention those who lived. To try to clean up workplace and deal with the clear, known danger posed by dust, the House passed a bill on Wednesday--championed as usual by Rep. George Miller--that would give the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 18 months to write regulations to minimize the danger. But, surprise....:

Though the Senate must still vote, the White House has echoed OSHA concerns that the association's recommendations are too specific to be realistically applied to the more than 200,000 workplaces where dust is a threat.

   Yeah, things are too specific when it gets to workers' safety...you think they said that, gee, those tax cuts are way too specific? Nah. And OSHA is the crux of the problem, as the article points out:

When I read yesterday's account of the debate over what to do about rising gasoline prices, I really was astounded by the pandering--though I sometimes wonder why one would be astounded in this era where getting elected is far more important than taking a principled position. On this issue, the scorecard is clear: Sens. Clinton and McCain failed miserably and Sen. Obama took the right stand.

    If you think the home value situation couldn't get worse, think again:

American homes are losing their value at the fastest rate in two decades, according to a closely watched report released on Tuesday.

In the 12 months ended in February, the Case-Shiller home price index, which measures the value of single-family homes in 10 major metropolitan regions, fell 13.6 percent, the worst decline since records began in 1987. A broader 20-city index dropped 12.7 percent.

The slump in home prices was more severe than the worst point of the recession of the 1990s, the last time values fell so far, so quickly.

As foreclosures rise and mortgage lenders tighten their standards, the market is expected to continue to suffer under the pressure of sagging inventories and a dearth of qualified buyers, economists said.

    And what of the people like Robert Rubin, who stand at the helm of the very institutions that created the mess? They are doing just fine, thank you:

Since arriving at Citigroup, Mr. Rubin has been awarded compensation worth at least $126.1 million, according to Equilar, a research firm. That would place him firmly in the top 25 percent of earners if compared to the chief executives of Fortune 500 companies.

    And, indeed, Rubin is still being pointed to by both Democratic presidential candidates as a wise person who should be called on to fix the mess. Am I missing something here? Do you think any regular worker who messed up royally would last a New York minute and his or her job--not to mention being rewarded like a king? The answer is obvious.

    There has been a movement growing among truckers nationwide to protest not just high gasoline prices but the general attack against workers. It's an interesting movement in large part because it's truly grassroots--it has been driven (no pun intended) by a loosely-knit group that has found allies throughout the country but it has no real organizational structure. Yours truly has been lending a minor hand as the folks gear up to protest in NYC.

   Yesterday, the truckers descended on Washington, D.C. The New York Times only mentions the protest in passing as part of a report on the presidential campaing debate about whether to give relief to people via a gas tax cut. The Washington Post, though, has a stand-alone story:

A caravan of horn-honking truck drivers rolled their rigs through Washington yesterday, protesting rising gasoline costs and demanding that Congress impose caps on prices at the pump.

The truckers, who formed a long column, circled the Mall about noon and blared their horns. Some spectators waved while others covered their ears.

"The high price for oil is hurting our economy," said Mark Kirsch, a trucker from Myerstown, Pa., who helped organize the rally. "It's hurting middle-class people."

    Read more about these folks at this website.

    Underneath the anger about gas prices is a general seething over the assault on workers' livelihood. Heck, they even are planning on coordinating a nationwide shut-down in coordination with an action by the longshoremen on the West Coast.