zero packaging grocery store

Hello Readers,

This week I am going to focus on food subsidies. As I pull my thoughts together on this matter, I wanted to point out a "new" type of grocery store that is being created in Austin, Texas. It is a grocery store that specializes in bulk foods with no disposable packaging. Check out this article about the store called In.gredients or watch the youtube video:




This is a great idea for a grocery store. In fact, it would be great if every grocery store was like this. However, I do need to point out that this idea is not new. This is exactly what open-air food markets and farmer's markets have done for hundreds of years.

Really, the question should be why did grocery stores stop offering bulk foods as their primary way to sell food? And why is every meal sold packaged individually in two or three layers of plastic?

Peripherally, I will be answering these questions and other food related questions while trying to tackle the issue of excessive food subsidies in the United States.

Stay tuned,

Sean Diamond

a non-ruling on climate change

Hello Readers,

According to a recent New York Times article, the Supreme Court has rejected (refused to entertain) a lawsuit filed by several states, New York City, and others against several major utility companies. The lawsuit sought to force these utility companies to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. However, the Supreme Court has (citing a 2007 ruling) declared the Environmental Protection Agency is the sole part of the government with the expertise (and authority under the Clean Air Act) to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

I encourage you to read the full NYT article for all the details; however, one particular quote intrigues me:

“The expert agency is surely better equipped to do the job [regulating greenhouse gas emissions] than individual district judges issuing ad hoc, case-by-case injunctions,” Justice Ginsburg wrote. “Federal judges lack the scientific, economic and technological resources an agency can utilize in coping with issues of this order.” 

While I agree with Justice Ginsburg, I am worried that if there is a congressional repeal of the EPA's regulatory authority, this quote/mentality may be used to deter judges from later making a necessary ruling.

On the other hand, this quote/mentality may be a good argument against a congressional repeal. In fact, it may suggest if the EPA's current ability to regulate greenhouse gas related grievances is insufficient, a congressional improvement rather than repeal may be needed.

I will be sure to post on this topic again as it appears in the news.

Sean Diamond

Bill Ford's TED Talk

Hello Readers,

I thought you might find this interesting. Bill Ford (of Ford Motor Company) has given an interesting TED Talk. It discusses potential efficiency gains in driving and transportation technology. It also offers an interesting look into the thoughts of an automotive industry leader. He even briefly references Ford's upcoming release of an all electric vehicle (the electric Ford Focus).



I would be curious to see what you think of his suggestions. While he does focus a lot on car-based advances, I am a little surprised to here him advocating for public transportation. Just imagine that suggestion from an auto executive 10 or 20 years ago.

Happy Summer,

Sean Diamond

Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2)

Hello Readers,

This is the second part of the discussion based on the post Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age. All of the previous posts in this series are listed at the bottom of this post.

I was asked: "But Sean, if it comes down to it, will you really want to retire at 78?!"

Simply put, no. I do not want to wait that long to retire. I do not think that anybody does. Unfortunately, if nothing changes about the current social security payout process, there will not be any such retirement benefits for my generation at any age! The system will have been bankrupted before I reach my 60s let alone my 70s.

However, I don't know that I would necessarily need to wait so long to retire if my proposal were implemented.  Other than self-funding my retirement until social security kicked in, a combination of 'early retirement' and 'semi-retirement' could be a great option.

Official 'early retirement' is already allowed under the current social security program (allowing participants to collect a lower amount of benefits over a longer period of time). I don't see why this would need to change. I would think that entering early retirement and working part-time at age 73 would be preferable to being required to work full time until my life expectancy of 81 (or longer, as it was pointed out in the comments to the proposal that life expectancy and lifespan can certainly differ).

The question was posed: "What happens when the life expectancy plateaus or declines?" Under my proposal, social security would remain intact. Despite having the name 'social' security, the program was designed such that individuals should not ever collect more in retirement than they contributed while working.

Aligning social security benefits more closely with individual citizen's needs (as opposed to desires for long retirements), the program should also be able to better weather inter-generational fluctuations in the ratio of workers to retirees by decreasing the length of time for which people are entitled to collect social security benefits. Eventually, this may even allow the program to be retuned to take in less and allow more people to save more money individually for retirement.

Every individual would find out what their retirement age is during the decade they turn 50 (between ages 41 and 50). Under current life expectancy conditions, everyone would have 20-30 years or more to plan out their retirement. If life expectancy declines to the point where most people are dying in their 60s or earlier, there would be less time to make plans and save money. Yet, there would also be less time for which plans and funds are required. 

Of course, if the life expectancy in the US falls below 50, my proposal would indeed run into some difficulty. However, I would posit that in such a case 'retirement' would be the least of our worries. This may sound callous, but it is extremely practical.

Finally, I must point out that this progression of posts has attempted to touch upon a topic that could take a couple of books to resolve: reforming social security in order to keep it permanently intact.

To make any progress in this matter, readers must concede that the purpose of social security is to promote the security of our citizens at the end of their lives. It cannot be to fully support multi-decade retirements. To expect a 15-25 year retirement after only working for 40-50 years is simply not sustainable at a country-wide, multi-generational level.

Furthermore, the current program structure exacerbates the problem by requiring significant political momentum to accrue on a regular basis to make the tough decision to alter the retirement age periodically. Thus, with some modifications as brought out in this discussion, my proposal still stands:

The United States government should enact legislation that implements an automatically adjustable retirement age for social security retirement benefits, such that: during the decade in which citizens turn 50 their retirement age will be set at an age that is 3 years less than the average United States life expectancy at the time.

While this will not 'save' social security as it is now, it will certainly go a long way toward making it financially sustainable.

Posts in this series:
The Times They Are 'A Changin'
Proposal: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Response: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 1)
Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2)

I hope this series helps to start a lively discussion. Please look for the next series of posts related to climate change and national debt, which will discuss: reducing or eliminating farm subsidies that result in overproduction of unhealthy foods.

Cheers,

Sean Diamond

a plastic bag manufacturer complains, files lawsuit

Hello Readers,

You may have heard about the plastic bag islands hovering over the Pacific Gyres. You may have even seen it on TV... for example this 2004 CBS News Report (sorry about the preceding commercial... I do not necessarily agree with whatever might appear prior to the news report). Or perhaps you just understand that plastic grocery bags are an unnecessary bit of waste as the EPA has been suggesting for years.

Well, according to a recent New York Times article, a industry leading plastic bag manufacturer is now complaining that Chicobag (a reusable bag manufacturer) has been making damaging and misleading advertising claims. The NYT article points to one particular claim sited in the plastic bag manufacturer's lawsuit against Chicobag: "that ChicoBag’s Web site cites Environmental Protection Agency information that is outdated. The E.P.A. no longer endorses estimates like the one ChicoBag cited: that only 1 percent of plastic bags are recycled. Mr. Keller [Chicobag's president] said an industry site used the same figure until recently."

Perhaps there are more claims in the lawsuit, but it does seem as though this lawsuit is more likely an attempt to rack up court fees against a smaller competitor rather than right a wrong.

Reduce by Reusing!

Sean Diamond

Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 1)

Hello Readers,

So far I have proposed the implementation of an automatically adjustable retirement age for collecting social security retirement benefits and reviewed some of the comments that the proposal prompted.

After considering all of these comments, I would like to put forward a few counter arguments and clarifications to defend my position as well as a few amendments and concessions to help sharpen my proposal.

Yet before I continue, I must clarify that the proposal would not force the elderly to remain in the work place. It simply delays the age at which government-funded social security retirement benefits could be collected. Anyone who has enough personal savings to retire would still be perfectly capable of retiring. Such self-funded retirees would just have to wait for social security payments to kick in at the same age as everyone else. To my knowledge, the current system also works this way just with a much earlier retirement age.

A lot of the comments focus on the extra burden placed on each aging individual, so a majority of the discussion will have a similar focus. Retaining more seniors in the work place admittedly has the potential to pose difficulties for individuals, families, companies, and/or society. Thus, altering the legislation would need to be accompanied by a shift in corporate culture as well as society in general.

After innumerable conversations with my grandfather, who is currently in his 80s and regularly recounts his doctor's advice to stay active, I find a great deal of difficulty with assertions that encouraging a later retirement age will decrease life expectancy. To the contrary, I would suggest that allowing and/or encouraging seniors to remain active in the workplace just a little bit longer may be to their benefit.

However, as one comment pointed out, "[J]ust because the average life expectancy has increased, does not mean that people's capability to work/support themselves has stretched out likewise." Unfortunately, this is largely the case. As people age past middle age, their stamina and mental acuity often decline, which could lead to frustration for seniors, coworkers, and customers.

Still, this difference between youth and age does not necessarily mean that seniors are incapable of working. Instead, it may just mean that contemporary career ladders need to be reassessed. Today, most careers (at least in theory) start off with 'entry-level' or apprenticeship work move onto some version of team leader or 'mid-level' management and then progress to an executive or 'senior-level' management position before heading into retirement.

Of course, modern career paths are often fraught with diversions, road-blocks, and side-tracks. Yet, the pattern typically remains the same: the older and more experienced a person becomes the more responsibility is placed upon them up until retirement. Perhaps this career arc needs to include a bit of socially lauded decompression.

This could take a variety of forms ranging from simply allowing for decreased working hours for more elderly employees to allowing aging workers to start to assume mentoring or less strenuous positions with lessened direct responsibility. This sort progression already takes place to some extent when seniors 'come out of retirement' to take on part-time jobs.

This discussion is continued in Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part 2).

Intro to USDA subsidies

Hello Readers,

In preparation for the next topic in my The Times They Are A-Changin' series, I encourage you to take a look at this Climate Progress blog post about USDA food subsidies. Here are some visuals from the Climate Progress posting:

Don't worry, the rest of the conversation about Social Security reform will continue on Wednesday and Friday this week.

Happy Tuesday,

Sean Diamond

Responses: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age

Hello Readers,

Two weeks ago I posted a proposal about reforming social security. The gist of the proposal is to implement an automatically adjustable retirement age. In my proposal, retirement benefit payouts would be structured with the intention of benefits being collected for an average of 3 years. I encourage you to review the proposal before reading this post.

The point of the proposal was to offer an idea that might reduce the costs of social security retirement benefits. Ultimately, the reform may help make the social security retirement program more financially sustainable. This is especially pertinent as social security as a program is expected to start paying out more money annually than it takes in within the next decade and to be bankrupt within the next 30 years!

Here are some excerpts from responses that I received to the proposal from friends on facebook, in person, and on this blog.

"What happens when the life expectancy plateaus or declines? Also, what does such a plan you're proposing do for employment? Part of the idea of retirement is to free up space within the labor force to allow younger people to move up. How would your plan account for generations that are successively larger and smaller in terms of labor markets?"

"[I]f people had to work longer into old age, then perhaps that might lead to a decrease in life expectancy (i.e. continued stress, labour etc...) then over time could your algorithm cause the retirement age to settle back down again to what it was a few decades beforehand?"

"But Sean, if it comes down to it, will you really want to retire at 78?!"

"An important distinction to draw here is the difference between life expectancy and life span. A life expectancy of 58 and 62 in 1935 was impacted FAR more by infant mortality than it is today...i.e. if you lived to 5 years old, you could tack about 10-15 years more on to that number."

 "One thing that this model does not appear to consider is that the ability of people to work/support themselves in old age might not be so closely correlated to the average life expectancy as time goes by... To put it another way, just because the average life expectancy has increased, does not mean that people's capability to work/support themselves has stretched out likewise."

After considering all of these comments, I would like to put forward a few counter arguments and clarifications to defend my position as well as a few amendments and concessions to help sharpen my proposal.

Please see: Discussion: Social Security Reform - Adjustable Retirement Age (Part1) and (Part 2).

Collaborative Consumption

Hello Readers,

This week I plan to respond to the comments about the proposal I made regarding social security reform. I received several on Facebook and one on the blog so far. If you have any that you haven't sent my way, please hurry.

In the meantime, I stumbled across an excellent TED talk from last year that puts a new spin on the concept of sustainable consumption: "Collaborative Consumption"...

Enjoy:

Food Supply & Climate Change in the New York Times

Hello Readers,

I don't have time to analyze this article right now, but the significance may lie more in the fact that the article was published than in how thorough it is...

A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself

...published in the New York Times.

Check back for more posts this week.

Good Night,
Sean