Why Are There So Many Help Wanted Signs?

One of the more perplexing questions facing the US Economy today is, Why are there so many help wanted signs?

Today I will address that question, debunk a common misconception, dissect the make-up of the problem, reveal a strange paradox, and finally, point to the obvious solution.

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash

Clearly, Covid Changed Everything

During March and April of 2020, the US economy lost 22 million jobs.

That Spring President Trump signed the Bipartisan CARES Act which significantly changed the nation’s approach to unemployment benefits.

It was extended multiple times but combined the effort sought to accomplish three things.

Expand Coverage

Increase duration

Improve adequacy

For the first time, coverage was expanded to include part-time workers, the self-employed, and gig workers such as your local Uber driver.

Most states provide up to 26 weeks of Unemployment benefits while some offer as few as 12–20 weeks. The Cares Act increased the duration of coverage to 49 weeks.

Even the most generous states offered the unemployed about 40% of lost wages with many being significantly stingier. The Cares Act as signed by Trump added an additional $600 a week to the state benefit. The extension under Biden cut this to $300.

The Benefits Made a Difference

Combined with other stimulus efforts, the preservation of consumer buying power via these unemployment benefits helped prevent the entire economy from free falling into a major recession.

JP Morgan Chase concluded that the benefits not only helped the unemployed but stabilized aggregate demand in the overall economy.

But Were They Too Generous?

In the Spring of last year, various Governors began to question whether the benefits were discouraging workers from accepting available work & thereby hampering the economic recovery that was clearly already underway.

26 states opted out of the program starting in June of 2021.

There have been many studies that looked at the question of whether or not the opt-out states did better than those who did not.

With one partial exception, the overwhelming number of studies agreed that they did not. Among the most authoritative I found was one by the Economic Policy Institute.

The 26 States who cut benefits saw an average 0.9% increase in job growth while those who did not actually gained a 1.6% in the same period.

Those who cut had a decrease of 0.2% in their unemployment rates, while those who did experienced a 0.4% decrease.

This seems to suggest that the benefits were not keeping people from seeking work.

Now, these are average numbers across many different states. Those that cut benefits tended to be in the South and more rural areas as opposed to the more urbanized states that did not cut benefits. Other factors such as a better mix of job opportunities may have also been at play.

During the height of the epidemic there probably were people who were better off due to the benefits than had they taken the first job they could have found in the depressed labor market.

But the evidence suggests that such benefits are not the answer to the current issue of Why There Are So Many Help Wanted Signs.

Besides, the program ended in all states 8 months ago — last September.

Some Sectors Do Better Than Others

The US Chamber of Commerce adds some clarity to the question by looking at which sectors of the economy are most impacted by labor shortages.

They note that the most affected sector, the Leisure and Hospitality group lost 1 million workers in November of last year, yet they hired 1.2 million — the highest hiring rate of all sectors.

The transportation, health care, social assistance, and the accommodation and food sectors have the highest number of current job openings.

Yet with the exception of Accommodations and Food, these have low quit rates.

Labor force participation varies by sector, some have a shortage while others a surplus.

For example, the Chamber reports that Durable Goods Manufacturing, Wholesale and Retail Trade, Education, and Health Services have a Labor Shortage with more job openings than people with the required skills and experience needed to fill them.

Conversely, transportation, construction, and mining have a labor surplus, with more experienced unemployed workers than job openings.

Now to the Strange Paradox

The Civilian Labor Participation Rate measures the percentage of all Americans aged 16 and over who are working.

Covid caused a sharp drop in the participation rate, which has rebounded significantly but not quite to pre covid levels.

Now here is the weird part.

While the overall Labor force participation rate has declined and has been doing so since 2010, when you break it down by age cohort including 16–19 teenagers, 20–64 adult working age, 65–74 Retirement age, and 75+ Elders, the labor force participation rates in each age cohort are at their highest levels in generations.

How can that be?

Today in America we have fewer people aged 16–19 than we used to, and the same is especially true of the primary workforce the 20–64 cohort that makes up the vast bulk of our workforce.

The Baby Boom has aged, and while a greater percentage of their age cohort are still working than ever before, the total American workforce has shrunk significantly.

The answer, Immigration

Every significant period of economic growth in American History from the 1800’s on was bolstered by major influxes of people from overseas.

Today, if we are to remain a dominant player economically in the world and hold our own vs the China of today and the India of tomorrow, we need to dramatically increase our immigration rate.

In my lifetime, in the 1950’s we benefited from not only German scientists like Werner Von Braun but hundreds of thousands of displaced people fleeing the devastation of post-war Europe.

Our GNP growth was also boosted by the baby boom bulge and the entry in previously unknown numbers of women in the workforce in the 1960s, 70s, and beyond.

Today we are in a baby-bust era and need new blood to build the future of America. And as an aside, we also need new faces and paychecks to pay into our Social Security fund.

There is much more to say about the need for immigration, but the answer to the question of why there are so many help wanted signs is at least in part because we have run out of people. Particularly those of working age.

1

The above article was previously posted to my Medium account https://enetwal.medium.com/

with the specific article link of https://enetwal.medium.com/why-are-there-so-many-help-wanted-signs-7a5bc2abfced

And was based on a speech I prepared for my Toastmaster Group, Realtors 2512 based in Edina MN

1

Veterans Day 2021

When I was a boy of 11 or 12, I heard the president ask me, to ask not what my country could do for me, but what I could do for my country.

A decade later I found myself in a combat zone, like many others in my age cohort as well as millions who served before and after my time.

Some gave all, and all gave some.

Today on this Veterans Day, in an era where the meaning of patriotism seems confused, I say look not to those who shirked their duty, but wrap themselves in the flag, calling those who served suckers, but instead look to those who have rolled up their sleeves,

… and gotten vaccinated, not just for themselves but in defense of the nation and humanity itself. This second group are today’s true patriots.

On the Personal Front Facing 2020

https://medium.com/@enetwal/my-struggles-and-break-throughs-with-new-years-resolutions-94c795efa1f4

This post jointly published on Medium

My Struggles and Break Throughs with New Years Resolutions

**This post contains affiliate links and I will be compensated if you make a purchase after clicking on my links.

I have a love-hate relationship with New Year’s resolutions, a trait I suspect I share with many.

As a child, my annual resolution to brush my teeth every morning and night seldom made it past noon on the 7th day. These resolutions, of course, were made to fill in the blank. To answer parent’s or teachers’ inquiries and not self-motivated. And that was their fatal flaw.

https://noom.8utb.net/4jzP1

As an adult I have made a number of similar resolutions, most notably to lose weight or to quit cigarettes. Again these tended to fail at least in part because the goals were as much to meet my spouse’s desires as my own. Plus in the case of losing weight, they suffered from the lack of a concrete measurable goal and a specific timeline. Qualities most goal-setting gurus suggest are imperative.

The Failure Syndrome

The net result of years of failure of such resolutions to survive more than a few days or weeks at most was the development of what I came to see as my resolution failure syndrome.

This syndrome was most pronounced in my stop smoking efforts. I had resolved and then failed so many times, I began to see myself rationalizing that I should just light up now, and skip the withdrawal agony as I knew I would eventually fail again.

Each new failure added to that reality. New years resolution after new years resolution combined with more than a handful of interim midyear resolutions proved the point.

It wasn’t until I decided not to quit, but to abstain for a full year that I was able to break that chain. By adding that simple specific goal and timeline, I was able to successfully quit. Now as an aside, I had severe anxiety as I approached the year anniversary wondering if I would then relapse. Thankfully, I did not and have remained cigarette free since.

https://noom.8utb.net/4jzP1
Lose Weight For Good With Noom
http://noom.pxf.io/c/mpid}/507145/8591

It’s Hard to Stop Eating

It was one thing to give up cigarettes, another to lose weight. You can stop smoking, it is far more difficult to stop eating.

Like many people, I tried many different approaches from Weight Watchers to the Veteran’s Affair’s Move program to a dozen and a half diet plans. Generally speaking, I was successful with most — until I wasn’t.

Having quit smoking and with a sit behind the computer lifestyle, I had ballooned to over 280 pounds. On my journey to that awful level of obesity, I would lose weight on one or another diet effort only to gain it back and usually a bit more than when I had started. If this rings a bell with you, I have some hope to offer.

The Point of Maximum Pain

The point of maximum pain occurred for me, when I needed to buy a new suit for my son’s wedding, I just wasn’t comfortable being seen bulging out of my old one. (Yes, I am a one-suit, worn for weddings and funerals, sort of guy.)

In hindsight, I think it was how I would look that mattered to me most, more than the fact that I was a mini-blimp. It may well have been that pain that ultimately propelled me forward.

After the wedding, I started exploring options. A friend had success with a meal program from one of the national vendors, but he cautioned me, that while it had worked for him, he was single and thought it would be more difficult for a couple.

Exploring Noom

I had been hearing ads on public radio about Noom and went to their website. I was immediately attracted to two things. First and foremost was the chance to do a free 14-day trial. The second was that after I took the intake questionnaire they have on their site, they seemed to promise I could lose 40 pounds in four months. To go from 280 to well under 250 mark by a full additional 10 pounds excited me. Could it be true? Well, I could find out for free for a “look-see.” And so I did. The price was right.

Try Noom’s 14 Day Trial!
http://noom.pxf.io/c/1962728/599639/8591

Quick Success

The pain was mine, and so was the motivation to get started and I jumped in and followed the program to the T, especially at first. In my case that meant sticking to a 1400 calorie a day budget, and accurately logging in each meal and snack. I was pleased to learn that there were no forbidden foods. I could eat what I wanted when I wanted. However, there were also some daily readings, mini-quizzes, and suggestions. Foods were labeled Red, Yellow and Green and daily steps goals were established using my cell phone as a pedometer.

I had been something of a cell phone troglodyte, often forgetting to charge it, often leaving it at home when out and about. Noom changed that. I was daily reading the lessons, logging my meals on the phone and it became a more meaningful part of my life. If you are already married to your phone you will find the Noom ap second nature.

I started to increase my activity level and pretty religiously stayed within my daily calorie budgets which included bonus calories for exercise. Bottom line, by the 11th week I lost 35 pounds and was so proud of myself I wrote an article on Medium about my success.

The Glide Path

One of the things that made Noom work for me, was what I call the glide path. Every day I would weigh myself and enter the result into the Noom Ap. There I could see not only a graph showing where I had been but one that projected out into the future my long term goal and an estimate as to when I would get there. It showed not only my progress, but also the promise. If I kept at it.

When I think about past resolutions, particularly New Years’ ones the initial motivation was often there. What ultimately was lacking was the motivation to continue. The daily logging, the daily lessons, the input from Noom coaches and the ability to see my progress all aided in my efforts to learn to eat mindfully and within my budget.

Now at the six-month mark I have lost a total of over 60 pounds. My next target is 9 pounds away and will represent a loss of 25% of my starting body weight. That is significant. And is why I am writing this post. Noom has worked for me. In large part, because I was ready to take action, and essential ingredient. But also importantly, because it has helped me keep on keeping on.

If you are ready to make a commitment to yourself, I recommend you take advantage of the 14-day trial and see for yourself whether Noom will be as useful to you as it was to me.

Affiliate Disclosure

I have become an evangelist, because of my success and am now also an affiliate promoting Noom. Should you try the program and then stay on it, I will earn a little commission. More important to me is knowing that someone else has benefited from my experience.

Try Noom’s 14 Day Trial!

Why Klobuchar’s Calm Competency is the Answer to the Challenge Facing America

Today December 19th is one of the darkest days in the year, and after yesterday’s impeachment vote, one of the darkest days in American history. The good news is that things will be getting brighter soon — at least in terms of the length of the day, although a question remains about the political future.

The best takeaway I can offer for the impeachment is that it is quite clear that we as Americans need to take a bit more care in who we elect to lead us.

I do not expect Trump to be removed from office, although I believe he should be. I do expect him to be defeated next November though. The question is by whom.

latimes.com image

My predisposition has been to support Joe Biden, who clearly is the most capable of stepping into the office and ramping up to its chores and duties without skipping a beat.

However, as a Minnesotan, I have also had a soft spot in my heart for our “favorite daughter” Amy Klobuchar. I know her and the quality of her work, and I respect her good sense. I believe she would return to the office of President, the calm competency it so badly needs.

As the still large field of candidates has begun to shrink, I have also grown in my conviction that she may in fact be the best candidate to — as her campaign wants us to see- the ablest to “Win Big.”

In contrast to a few of the candidates who offer us Santa Claus presents all to be paid for by the wealthy, she is far more realistic in her promises. In contrast to the well-spoken mayor, she has a depth of experience as a state legislator, county attorney, and is now in her third term in the Senate. Frankly, we have suffered enough by the current incumbent’s lack of relevant experience.

There are four main reasons I now see her as our best choice going forward as a champion to return the bright light of Liberty’s Torch to America at large.

She is/has…

  • a worker bee
  • moderate
  • a sense of humor
  • grit
usnews.com image

Worker Bee

Some politicians are media stars, some show horses and some workhorses. Amy is the last.

According to govtrack.us, Klobuchar has sponsored or co-sponsored 111 bills in the current 116th Congress, more than any other Senator.

In the prior congress 65 of the 92 bills, she sponsored had Republican co-sponsors — demonstrating her ability to work across the aisle.

And not just sponsored — she had the second-highest percentage of her bills to get out of Committee of all the Democrats in the Republican-controlled Senate, and the third most overall to actually pass.

Among all Senators, she had the 5th most bicameral support — meaning that there was also a companion bill in the House demonstrating her ability to work with both houses of congress.

Moderate

Her ability to work across the aisle is proof enough of her ability to work with people with whom she disagrees. Some on the far left of the party sees this as her weakness. I see it as her strength.

Several candidates from what I call the “Santa Claus” wing of the party promise a ton of freebies all to be paid for by the wealthy. Even should they win, the question is will they be able to get their proposals through a Congress lead by the likes of Mitch McConnell.

This is where Klobuchar’s appeal to “Win Big” matters most. Our presidential candidate to be successful must not only win but win big enough to carry both the Senate and the House. Failure to do so condemns us to another period of stalemated malaise.

In her last Senatorial race, Klobuchar carried 42 counties that Trump won in Minnesota, 39 of which were rural. She is intent upon not just representing her base but representing the entire nation, urban and rural, liberal and conservative while plainly forwarding a progressive agenda.

Her ability to relate to rural America is our best hope to win Senate and House seats.

Humor

I continue to regret the resignation of Minnesota Senator Al Franken, but even though a professional comedian, I have often thought that Amy, not Al was the funnier of the two.

This personal human trait is more important that one may at first think. The ability to laugh and especially to laugh at oneself is an important one. Can you think of a time when Donald Trump told a joke? (Not counting the times he claimed one or more of his outrageous statements were jokes.)

Grit

The woman has spunk. While most often mentioned is her presidential announcement during a Minnesota snowstorm, the real proof has been her stature in the debates to date. Any Minnesotan worth their salt can withstand a blizzard, we are a hearty breed. Her depth of experience and skills as a prosecutor have shown brightly during Senate committee hearings over and over, be it her exchanges with Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court hearings, or those of Barr during his Attorney General hearings, or in the debates to date.

She can stand up to the bully in chief and will take him down.

The bottom line

Amy Klobuchar has the best shot at winning not just the presidency, but also of bringing the nation together again. Her goal is not to lead the left in a continuing futile war with the right, but to become America’s president.

Her goal is not just to defeat Trump, but to renew America both here at home and to return us to our prior role as a leader of the free and democratic nations of the world. To restore our alliances and return us to our traditional role as the world leader.

And perhaps most importantly of all to return to the white house a leader with calm competence.

https://medium.com/@enetwal/why-klobuchars-calm-competency-is-the-answer-to-the-challenge-facing-america-3140b2b5a492?sk=ab7a21d1c66e157d828913bb73116805

The Minneapolis Gay Rights Ordinance — A Personal Story By One Who Was There

I admit it. I was committed but also afraid.

Gays and lesbians have won the right to marry and are widely accepted in America today, but this most certainly was not always the case.

I played a role in that transformation many years ago. The following is my account of how Minneapolis became one of the first major cities in the US to adopt a Gay Rights Ordinance.

I will discuss the political circumstances of the time, a bit about me, and then the process as best I recall.

The Times Were A-Changing

In the fall of 1973, Richard Nixon was still president, having defeated anti-war candidate George McGovern by a landslide nationally and in Minnesota. The Watergate scandal had already broken, and the leading cohorts of the Baby Boom were beginning to take their positions in society, including local politics. I was one of them.

Upon returning to Minnesota as a Vietnam veteran, I had made a personal commitment to work for peace from the grassroots level up. I became involved in the Minneapolis Model Cities Program. I also got a job working as paid staff coordinating the McGovern campaigns voter registration efforts in the Fifth Congressional district, encompassing Minneapolis and some adjacent suburbs.

Those credentials were enough to win a DFL (Democratic) party endorsement for Sixth Ward Alderman. On the back of that endorsement, plus that of Hubert H Humphrey and a lot of door-knocking, I eked out a 134-vote margin of victory to join what turned out to be an 11 Democrat, 1 Independent, and 1 Republican city council landslide. That year’s municipal election permanently reversed long-standing Republican domination of Minneapolis politics and included the election of a Democratic mayor, Al Hofstede.

The turn of events was significant enough to merit a story by the Voice of America, not because of the change of party control, but due to the overall age of the mayor and city council. I turned 25 the day after the election, and the average age for the Council was around 33. We did have a few older, but by and large, ours was a baby boom council bursting with new ideas.

Homophobia 90 Victims 10

Young folks entering politics today cannot appreciate the pervasiveness of homophobia just decades ago, just as they cannot fully understand the improbability of reaching the moon pre-1969. For them, gay rights, like space travel, are not a fantasy but merely history. In the early 1970s, homophobia was virtually universal among men, if not the entire population, to one extent or another.

The exception being gays themselves, and maybe a smattering of others. Most gays were closeted. It was national news when the University of Minnesota professor and state senator Allan Spear, representing a liberal Minneapolis district with the University at its heart, came out in 1974.

His coming out was preceded by the activism of Jack Baker, who ran for and was elected student body president at the University of Minnesota in 1971. Baker and his partner Michael McConnel had earlier applied for a marriage license, been denied, then opted for McConnel to adopt Baker legally, and ultimately became the first gay marriage in Minnesota and the nation on Sept 3, 1971. Their activity attracted national attention and brought the gay rights issue to the surface locally.

Lunatic Fringe

It is interesting to note that Allan Spear is quoted by reporters at the time, as referring to them and their marriage effort as being part of the “lunatic fringe.”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_McConnell_and_Jack_Baker

Two camps emerged. One, led in part by local gay activist Tim Campbell, was decidedly “in your face,” to the point of planting cream pies in various people’s faces as part of their campaign to advance the cause of gay rights.

From my perspective, such antics detracted from progress rather than advanced the cause. However, there is no doubt that these efforts brought the issues in the public eye and served to rally gays to become more active.

My journey

Growing up, I was oblivious to gays and the gay lifestyle. During the Summer of 1967, while on a Midshipmen cruise aboard the USS Benner DD803, I had a personal encounter while in port in San Francisco, which frankly left me traumatized and shaken.

Five years later, after separation from the Navy, I returned to Minneapolis to complete my BA at the University of Minnesota. Shortly after locating my off-campus housing, I discovered I had moved into what had become the Minneapolis Model City area. I soon found they were going to have an election to get people involved and that so far, no one had signed up from my precinct.

It was time to mount my white charger and plow into the weeds of grassroots politics. Three of us filed for the two spots the final week before the deadline. With some actual campaigning, I won one of the two slots — and in doing so, my first election. The third candidate who did not prevail was Jim Anderson, who lived across the street from me.

One evening I was visiting with Jim to get to know him. We smoked a joint together and were breezily discussing and resolving the political issues of the day. I liked the guy, and it seems he liked me as well. When he propositioned me, I was shocked. He demurred, but still, we talked. I was curious, and he was willing to talk about himself and how he had always known that he was gay from an early age.

That private conversation was the most important single factor in my transition regarding gay rights.

The Sandbox

The Model Cities experience was also pivotal. I won an election to its Planning and Policy Board in what was, in essence, a mini legislature on the neighborhood level. We had money, and the authority to spend it courtesy of Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society efforts. While most of us were anti-war activists at one level or another, we had a big sandbox that had us focusing on the practical issues of improving a large, poor inner-city area.

At weekly meetings, we would hash out the issues of the day in terms of inner-city housing, recreation needs, economic development, and social services. I was a member of the Income Core, which focused on economic development, jobs, and job training.

My participation in the income core led to an appointment to the Board of Directors of the Concentrated Employment Program (CEP) as a community representative. I learned a lot.

Still, a student, I lived on the $20 meeting stipends paid to Planning and Policy Board Members and my $175 a month GI Bill subsidy. I devoted myself to university studies and to understand the needs of the community and how to meld it into a Greater Society.

I came to believe that an appropriate goal of the government was to create the circumstances in which every person had the greatest possible opportunity to maximize their talents, no matter their background.

I believe that to this day. That philosophy extended to people like Jim Anderson, who happened to be born gay.

Your socks don’t match.

On January 2, 1974, I was sworn in as Sixth Ward Alderman.

Days into my new role, I faced my first neighborhood dispute regarding a half-way house in the Whittier neighborhood.

I worked with the organization and its neighbors to restore neighborhood peace. In the process, I met Bob Knight and his nearby neighbor’s Merry and Duane Elg, who together would become my closest friends and advisors during my city council days.

Bob was gay, and while it may be trite to say so far more sensitive to style than me. I’ve tended to be sartorially challenged or perhaps more correctly, oblivious. One day early in my term, he was in my office and upon parting, confided his dislike for my choice of socks. I don’t remember exactly why — probably they didn’t match my outfit, possibly each other.

I liked that. When each council member was allocated funds to pay for a staff person, I asked Bob to fill that role on the theory that he would speak the truth to me.

Steve Endean, the Persistent Charm Offensive

I do not remember how I first met Steve Endean, whether it was through Bob or that Steve just made an appointment to see me. However, it occurred, it was during those heady first few weeks in office. Steve argued there was a need for Minneapolis to pass a gay rights ordinance, and I quickly committed myself to support an effort to do so.

Born in Iowa, Steve Endean was a recently graduated political science major from the University of Minnesota. A stocky, handsome man with a cleft lip scar that added to his rugged looks. He chose to wear a sport coat and ties and courted support for his cause with persistence and respect.

Almost daily throughout the first months of 1974, Endean would come to my office, if only to drop off his coat, and would then, as the opportunity presented itself, engage my fellow Aldermen in quiet conversation.

He became a common fixture for several weeks among the crowd that made up the hubbub of political energy that infused the council chambers. Always in coat and tie, always respectfully.

His first task was to breakthrough residual bias and, more importantly, fears consciously or unconsciously affecting people’s perceptions. Here was a polite, positive person who was gay and not a threat. Today, the importance of that underlying reality may be hard to appreciate, but it was an essential first step.

Once that base of trust was built, the more significant issue of explaining the need for an ordinance was next. Was this really an employment issue or just occasional bad behavior by bullies and drunks targeting people they did not understand? Not that that wasn’t bad enough in its own right.

Just how many people were gay? While the Kinsey Report suggested as many as 10% of the population are gay, most of my colleagues and I probably were aware of few, if any, besides Steve Endean and a handful of others in the media. In my case, I knew Bob and his partner Dave and perhaps one or two others.

The bulk of the gay community was closeted, the outs that were visible tended to the flamboyant or obnoxious side. There weren’t that many of them either. Locally, Alan Spear was the singular face of gay respectability. Many others would eventually emerge from their closets as time passed, and public acceptance grew. But they were few in 1974.

In the final analysis, Steve’s effort was the most important single factor in the ultimate successful passing of Minneapolis’ ordinance. His respectful individual effort reached out to each member of the council on a personal level and made clear the need and desirability of taking action.

After the successful passage of the ordinance, Steve would be appointed the city’s Civil Rights Commission in August of 1974 by Mayor Al Hofstede.

By late February, Steve became confident the votes were there. The main debating points revolving around whether or not the city’s existing ordinances already covered gays against discrimination?”

At least one member was a sure no vote. Others weren’t sure this was a topic they wanted to go on record about.

Notice of Intent

On March 14, 1974, a formal notice of intent to introduce an ordinance was read into the proceedings of the Council sponsored by myself, and Aldermen Keith Ford, Tom Johnson, Lee Munnich, and Walter Rockenstein. This constituted the first reading of the ordinance, which was then referred to the Council’s permanent committee on Health and Social Services.

While it was one thing to be in favor of an ordinance, it was another actually to write one. Keith Ford volunteered to work with Tom Johnson, on the task of drafting the new ordinance. In addition to Steve Endean, Jack Baker involved himself in the discussions, leading to a tussle over the choice of wording. Keith Ford remembers it being the breakthrough when the language “Affectional or Sexual Preference” was agreed upon and then added to each portion of the existing ordinance as a protected class.

Just what that term meant was not spelled out. That would come later and is where Minneapolis has a claim to being the first in the nation, although we may not have realized it at the time.

As the buzz grew around city hall, that the ordinance was in the works, some closeted city staff drew lots to choose which one would lobby the council’s lone Republican, Walther Rockenstein. Rocky remembers that they were afraid of being outed and risking their jobs. Their fear was a testimony to the need for the ordinance.

That brave lobbyist was happy to discover that Rocky was a long-time advocate for civil rights, coming from what I call the Lincolnian branch of the Republican Party. Too bad its numbers have decreased so significantly.

Eddy Felien remembers Baker lobbying his support for the ordinance in a city hall elevator encounter, which led to the committee hearing before the Health and Human Services Committee, which he chaired. Felien recalls, “It was a lively hearing with fundamentalist ministers ranting about the devil.” My recollections of that meeting have faded, I think, because there wasn’t an earth-shaking public reaction one way or the other.

The final passage

After the committee hearing, a decision was made at the DFL caucus meeting to schedule the eventual final passage on a day when Russ Green would be absent. Mostly out of respect for him, as our most senior member and a sure no vote. Keith Ford would also miss that council meeting, but we were by then confident of the majority, although there were more than a few members nervous about the potential political repercussions.

On the day of the vote, March 29th, 1974, I remember lobbying Dick Miller, the other single male on the council, with a public opinion poll that showed majority support for “gay rights.”

Alderman Sam Sivanich (Ward 1) was among the more nervous, and when the ordinance came up on the agenda, he moved to refer it back to committee for additional public hearings. That motion was seconded but failed.

The final vote was ten ayes, no nays, with Sivanich not voting and two absent.

Upon passage, Council President DeMars’s suggested we all be listed as sponsors of the ordinance. I was a bit taken back as I had all along considered this to be my baby, but let that ride, and besides, it was a case where we would all either hang together or take credit down the road. And while that to passed, it was not officially recorded in the council’s official proceedings, which do not always list authors of ordinances.

The ordinance was approved by Mayor Al Hofstede on April 4th, making Minneapolis one of the first major cities in the nation to take similar action.

Aftermath

It was some weeks later that I received one of the few thankyous I got as a result of the ordinance passing. It came in the form of a letter from a man in Duluth, Minnesota. It seemed that he had been hired as a telephone installer in Duluth as a result of our ordinance. Northwestern Bell, the then local phone company, headquarter within spitting distance of City Hall, had changed its personnel policy as a result of the law, not just for the city of Minneapolis, but its entire operating area, including Duluth. Their prior policy would not allow the hiring of gays for any position that put them into people’s homes.

It was gratifying to know that our effort had reached beyond our borders.

But wait there is more.

The original solution of adding the language “affectional or sexual preference” was a short term breakthrough. It did the trick and got the ordinance passed, but just what did the phrase mean and who was covered and who was not.

Increasingly other council members and I were approached by transgender and transvestite people who wanted assurances that they too were included.

Here my memory of events fades a bit. But in September of 1975, the official proceedings of the City Council report that Alderman Rockenstien, DeMars, Johnson, and Quillan introduced another amendment to the ordinance which was referred to the council’s Government Affairs Committee, chaired by Tom Johnson.

I was not on that committee and cannot speak to details, but the proposed change added a new paragraph X to the ordinance defining the phrase ‘Affectional Preference.’

(X) Affectional Preference. ‘Affectional Preference’ means having or manifesting an emotional or physical attachment to another consenting person or persons, or having or projecting a self-image not associated with one’s biological Maleness or one’s biological Femaleness.

This amendment was passed unanimously by the city council at the final meeting of our two-year council term on December 30, 1975.

An MSNBC article by Emma Margolin from June 3, 2016, noted that this established Minneapolis as the first city in the country to pass protections for transsexuals. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/how-minneapolis-became-the-first-city-the-country-pass-trans-protections?fbclid=IwAR1ewcA15PHJaVK1XEZnFeYE1R22vXMr4nay_7tkRLuO01lQggpdjlRpJ7w

The Unspoken Fear

As a politician, there was always a fear that supporting a Gay Rights ordinance might backfire electorally. This is the standard stuff of everyday life for elected officials — the balancing act that informs the democratic process. Some only act when they are confident of support; others will pursue ideas, passions, and ideologies until they crash and burn. Most of my colleagues seemed to strive for the middle course. To progress without getting derailed. Preferring a half loaf and the chance to continue to serve versus purity and potential political death.

This tempered approach gives politicians a bad name among zealots interested in any given issue. A politico’s caution is seen as a lack of commitment, if not outright sabotage. Often, even the valiant are seen as merely doing what they should be doing, with little credit for the bravery required.

But on the issue of Gay Rights, there was a second layer of fear. A personal one, the fear of being thought of as gay. This fear may have been particularly acute for myself and another council member who was also unmarried at the time.

I was championing a cause but did so as quietly as I could in the background. Continually monitoring and cheering Endean’s efforts, comparing notes but not playing an obvious role in lobbying colleagues. I suspect that fear was shared to some degree by the entire council (all male by the way.) The times may have been changing, but just barely.

In hindsight, while I am proud of many other endeavors pursued during my two terms in office, this particular effort is the one of which I am most proud, maybe mostly because it required taking a stand while afraid. That I understand is known as courage.

This article was first published on Medium:

My Recent Post in Medium about my early experience with downzoning in the interests of preserving the Single Family nature of Minneapolis’ neighborhoods.

A Zoning Lesson Remembered

The city of Minneapolis has passed a 2040 plan that includes making triplexes permitted housing in every residential area in the city which were previously mostly single-family homes with a mix of duplexes in some areas. This change has many arguments for it and a few against it.

I recently wrote a reflection on my past efforts many years ago dealing with an effort to reduce – not increase zoning density in an effort to preserve the strength and vitality of single-family neighborhoods. It was published in the South Side Pride.  https://southsidepride.com/2019/12/02/up-zoning-remembered/

Before being elected to the city council in 1973 at age 24, I was an elected and active member of the Minneapolis Model City Planning and Policy Board, which was made up of citizen representatives elected by precincts within the Model City area. This included a broad area roughly between Cedar and Lyndale and I-94 to around 38th Street – a large chunk of the city just south of the downtown central business district.

We had independent funding courtesy of Uncle Sam and split into four major cores, Housing, Social Services, Recreation and Public Safety, and Income. While I served on the Income core, with a personal focus on developing employment training programs, I became fully apprised of the issues determined as important in each of the other cores at our every two-week meetings.

Housing was a big deal. The Model City area was home to some of the oldest properties in the city, and rental demand was high as the leading edge of the baby boom was flooding the area due to its proximity to downtown jobs and for students the university. Rents were relatively low although increasing in the face of the burgeoning demand. The downside was that much of the housing was clearly substandard with most dating back to the 1800s and pre WWI era.

As would be expected much of the attention was on ideas to upgrade the housing stock with loan and grant programs aimed at housing rehab, to political support for ideas like rent control, and tenants’ rights and ending redlining. New housing utilizing defensible space for security, and innovative ownership structures were investigated. Less flashy was an examination of just how the area slipped into decline.

People tend to like to find villains, and two were identified: Absentee landlords and two and a half story walkups.

While a significant majority of the entire area was already converted into rental properties, there were still sections of the neighborhoods I represented once elected to the city council that had a core of owner-occupied single-family homes and owner-occupied duplexes. These residents were concerned about their neighborhood and its short and long term prospects. They tended to fall into two groups: long term survivors and young urban pioneers, demographically the old and the young.

The young within the model city effort looked to the old to explain what had happened and why. They heard tales of one, and then another owner-occupied home on their block selling to investors as urban flight and the suburban life lured people away, not to be replaced by homeowners. Tales of tall grass and peeling paint diminishing the overall look of the neighborhood. And a cycle began, as one homeowner after another escaped before their property values declined further, except for those who could not or would not.

They told stories of developers acquiring two or three adjacent properties and then informing the adjoining neighbors that they would be building an apartment building and to either sell now or suffer the increase in traffic and unknown new neighbors next door. The process was called blockbusting, and it occurred throughout the area.

At that time, the entire residential area of my ward was zoned R-6 under the then in effect zoning. That was the highest possible density level and was the same as was required for the Cedar Square West high rise complex, also in my ward.

In essence, it was as if there were no zoning restrictions at all. The result was that many many blocks of previously all single-family or duplex housing were host to at least one apartment building — typically a two and a half story walk-up. This added to street congestion, increased mobility rates, and coincidental crime issues and a transformation of the neighborhood from being family-oriented to one less so.

Within my ward, the area with the strongest residual base of homeownership was in the Whittier neighborhood. Together with activists from the community, we began what was called a 40-acre study. This process was required because courts have ruled that a city cannot reduce the zoning on a property “capriciously.” Doing so would be limit the potential uses for a property, and fewer and less dense alternatives would make the underlying land less valuable.

Changing the zoning category and lowering its potential uses from high rise densities to that of single-family homes constituted an illegal taking of property rights from the property owners without compensation. The courts recognized the rights of cities to lower zoning as long as it was part of an overall reexamination of zoning over a sizable area rather than on a parcel by parcel basis. They settled on 40 acres as the minimum size needed to justify a city exercising its “police” powers in the form of restricting people’s rights to do what they will with their property.

This study required extensive community hearings and an in-depth look on a parcel by parcel basis at actual existing uses. Several well-attended neighborhood meetings ensured that the stakeholders in the community were informed and demonstrated support for the changes. By and large, community sentiment was to lower the area’s zoning to the dominant existing uses. The city council eventually passed the proposed changes.

The success of the first effort, lead to its replication throughout the rest of my ward and elsewhere in south Minneapolis.

The resulting zoning changes made homeownership a less risky endeavor in the “inner city” and may have indirectly assisted in improving the availability of mortgages in the area. As importantly, the process allowed citizens an active role in claiming and defending their neighborhoods. It is my belief these actions helped preserve the livability and quality of the areas housing stock and made the city a safer and more secure area in which to live.

In hindsight, if I were to go back and make a change to the results, it would have been to allow more density along arterial streets, while protecting the interior blocks. In the past, blanket higher zoning led to the disruption in the character of the neighborhood and led to disinvestment by owner-occupants. This, in turn, leads to an eventual decline in the quality of the housing stock. That is the lesson we learned back in the Model City days and remains true today.

A Call to Action Minnesota – Save The SALT!

Today, I want to ask each of you to make 3 phone calls. In the next few minutes I will explain why and to who.

It matters not whether you are Democrat, Independent or Republican. I will tell you why it is urgent and assure you that it is not too late nor pointless. My Goal is to get each of you to help me “Hold the Salt.” Or perhaps better said, Save the Salt.

So what is SALT. State and Local Taxes, more specifically the exemption on federal taxes on the taxes we are already paying locally, and thereby avoiding Double Taxation.

As you know, Congress is trying to rewrite the tax code.

The current House Plan has many winners and losers. Some of the provisions, I like – others not so much. Personally, while I believe some corporate tax changes are needed, I see many things to dislike. But there is not time today to cover every detail.

But there is time to focus on one element that matters to Minnesotans and which we should ask our Representatives in Congress to advocate for us. And that is SALT.

Now before I go any further, let me assure you that our Representatives can advocate for us if they choose to do so. The bill, while formed in secrecy is now public and open for debate.

Changes can be and are being made to it.  As recent as Monday, the House leadership accepted a major change and there is every reason to believe additional changes can and should be made. (The Ways and Means committee watered down a proposed excise tax on foreign affiliates of multinational companies, raising the cost of the package by 150 Billion in lost revenue.)

But in Minnesota there are only 3 people that matter. They can choose to help us, or not. They are Representatives Jason Lewis, Eric Paulson, and Tom Emmer.

The good news is that means you only have 3 people you need to call.

So what is the issue?

By and large, Minnesota gets screwed…. Again!

Lets look at 3 things

  • What SALT removal does
  • MN tax policy and why we are different than others like Wisconsin
  • How MN does overall in the national tax policy mix.

Under current and likely future tax policy should this bill get passed in any where near its current framework about 30-35% of mostly above average income earners in Minnesota will still claim exemptions.

Why does this matter?  Our more productive citizens will get a double whammy on income paid for state and local taxes, making it harder to recruit and retain top talent, and harder to maintain MN more progressive tax posture.

 

Starting in the early 1970’s Minnesota began a committed drive to reduce the burden of property taxes.  Recognizing them as the most hated and regressive tax strategy.  It started building a series of state aids to education and local governments aimed at equalizing support for poorer school districts and reducing local goverments reliance on the property tax.  Some will remember Wendell Anderson appearing with a borrowed pike on the front of Time magazine. The Minnesota Miracle, the focus of the article celebrated that policy change. Since then, members of both parties have strengthen the effort, albeit always squabbling about the details.

Today, in contrast to Wisconsin, which has the nation’s highest property taxes for homes, Minnesota has among the lower. This high property tax level in Wisconsin, may be why Speaker Ryan of Wisconsin got a change made to the tax bill on SALT to exempt much of the property tax portion but not other SALT taxes. Good for Wisconsin, not so good for Minnesota.

Which is why we should not be afraid to ask Minnesota’s Representatives to stand up for us as well.

So why should Minnesota get special treatment? Consider this.

For every dollar Minnesota send the Feds in Income tax, we get the 2nd to the lowest return on a dollar for dollar basis. We are already a donor state. Only Delaware fairs worse.

The exclusion of the SALT deduction will only serve to perpetuate Minnesota’s plight as a taxpaying chump.

Now I do not begrudge sending Minnesota tax dollars where and when they are needed. For example, I fully support FEMA expenditures in Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico. I would point out though that when the weather gets bad in Minnesota, we call out the snow plows and pay for it ourselves. (Our winters and their cost in terms of roads is just one big reason we have higher taxes in Minnesota)

So fellow Minnesotans, heed the call, and do call. Our Representatives job is to represent Minnesota. They owe it to us to fight to protect our interests. And to those of you who lean Republican, do your guys a favor and let them know that this tax injustice is riling people up and that we will remember whether they supported Minnesota or just played dead within the Republican Caucus.

I hope each of you will take a few minutes today to make three quick calls. Just leave the recording or staffer a message that you are concerned that the elimination of SALT will hurt Minnesota businesses and people.

 

Call:       Tom Emmer 6th District  (202) 225-2331    Eric Paulson 3rd District  (202) 225-2871   Jason Lewis 2nd District  (202) 225-2271

Suggested Message: I am concerned that the loss of the SALT deduction will hurt Minnesota and its businesses. Please work to retain that deduction for Minnesota.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Blue Marble Remembered by an Earthian Worried about a Passing Cloud

Occasionally I am asked about a favorite or influential movie. I find it hard to answer as their have been many but two lesser ones occur to me today.

The first is What’s It All About Alfie.

The quintessential question. Why did God put me here?

Like most people, over my life I have answered that based on my birth circumstances.

In ninth grade, you would find me at mass every day, and also Vespers and Stations of the Cross and the entire nine yards of Roman Catholic ritual.

A half decade later, you would find me on the University of Minnesota campus, in my full dress Navy Midshipmen uniform, in an era where antiwar sentiment was hot and getting hotter.

As a Catholic, as an American my sense of purpose was wrapped up in the circumstances of my birth.

The second movie was a bit more obscure, called Stop The Earth I Want To Get Off!

While I remember nothing about the movie, I do remember its impact. Disconcerted feelings of doubt.

What if I had been born of different parents in Tehran or of Shinto parents in Japan?

How would a just and merciful God favor one over the other?

At the time, the generation gap was clearly defined.

As with many baby boomers I had seen the underbelly of America in nightly news in my youth, watching the civil rights movement giving question to the highest self image we wanted to believe our nation stood represented.

And as the Vietnam war continued other questions came to the fore.  To my generation, the US was not all it might be.

Our parents had a different view. After all, America for them was a place of pride in their own accomplishment, that of standing up to nationalist in Germany and Japan bent on world conquest. When they said they were going to “Keep the Oil” they meant it.

So the probably accurately describe Greatest Generation say America as a place of Pride. One that not only won a war, but set up institutions to keep the peace in Europe ending tens of centuries of almost constant wars.  For them the remaining ills of our society were secondary.

Thus the Boomers sought a Revolution, and our parents like Archie Bunker suggested that We Love America or Leave It.

In 1972 an image emerged.

Now they say a picture is worth a thousand words.

This picture was worth at least 4.5 billion words.

Nicknamed the Blue Marble, it was taken by
Apollo 17 on the last Moon mission.

This image was taken by the crew of the final Apollo mission as they made their way to the moon.

The image pierced through the gloom of the era. The Whole Earth, Space ship Earth, the ideal of being World Citizens, of caring for the planet and its peoples.

A sense of commonality. Humankind.

The worlds poor were our poor, the world ills our ills.  Blessed were the peacemakers.

Ronald Reagan not many years later would constantly talk of America as a Shinning City on the Hill.

His vision he described as teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.

In recent months, a cloud has appeared overhead that has dimmed the shinning city.

A cloud of inward thinking, nationalism and exclusion.

I fear that cloud is full of lightening and capable of destructive tornadoes.

I pray that it will pass by without too much damage.

I want to believe it is just a historical artifact. Like a pause in the stock markets advance. A setback that will serve to refresh and lead to ever higher values, and that the time will soon come when we can once again build on a global dream.

In closing, let me answer Alfie’s question.  What is it all about. Accumulating wisdom, and then sharing it as effectively as possible. I hope I have done at least a little of that today.

 

 

 

Is Russia an Enemy of the United States? Who are our enemies?

Who are America’s Enemies?

Currently there are a lot of Democrats stressing that Russia is an enemy of the United States.

All of this is in reaction to President Elect Donald Trump’s apparent bromance with Vladimir Putin. His appointments have strengthened the image of his tilt to Moscow, particularly his choice for Secretary of State.

The talking heads on MSNBC and CNN appear to be leaning toward a more robustly anti Russian posture for Democrats. One that is troubling to me.

Yes, I am skeptical about Trumps pro Moscow tilt and yes, I do believe the Russian thumb on the electoral process may have tilted the scale.

But I want to stress that the enemy is not Russia, but its leadership, in the form of Trump and Tillerson’s buddy, Vlad.

Let’s not let the pain of the past election steer the Democratic party into a we against our enemies posture.

Russia under Putin is a threat.

Iran is a threat, as is China particularly in the South China Sea.

These are threats, not enemies.  Their goals, aspirations and national interest may run counter to ours. That is the realm of diplomacy, and schwerd strategies and alliances. To declare them enemies is counter productive to a goal of building a harmonious world in which our national interests can flourish.

If there is one enemy, it may well be The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. In their case, we still are at best in an armistice, with more than casual saber rattling  by the other side.

 

All four actors along with ISIS and the general terrorism threat all constitute challenges to the United States.

But until there is an actual act of war, they are not enemies.  ISIS is an enemy, the others something less.  And the focus should be to deal with them on a practical level, without the enemy moniker.

Trump is right that it would be great to have Russia as friend.  To ignore Putin’s encroachments and violations of international norms in the Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere is foolish on the Donald’s part.

To make Russia a rhetorical enemy, as a tool to paint Trump as bumpkin or puppet is over playing the hand.  Yes we should advocate for policies designed to counter Putin’s moves, to ensure freedom on the seas in the South China sea, and to defuse the Shiite Sunni conflict. But lets do so from a constructive framework, not that of war and enemies.

 

 

Enough is enough!

I was trying to wait.

Give the guy a chance, he may surprise you.

The “misstep” about Taiwan, – maybe it was not such a bad ploy after all…

Maybe it is a good idea to shake things up a little.

I didn’t think it right, but I could think it calculated and yeah I admit, I didn’t mind the US tweaking China’s nose  a bit.

But then the parade kept coming.

Appointment after appointment with scary implications.

I fear, it is time to say what I thought I would have to say…

to my Trump friends…

You’ve been snookered!

An oil industry secretary of state opposed to sanctions against Moscow, eager to play in Russia’s oil fields, a no minimum wage fast food, pay em peanuts head of the Department of Labor, no there no science here, climate denier as protector of our environmental health and a president who increasingly appears to be in Moscow’s pocket.

Ye Gads!

All the crap I didn’t want my lefty bomb throwers to throw pre election are coming true.

The bash on Trump and the fears are manifest!

God save us.

We may need divine intervention.

Putin has sold us the rope his predecessors prophesied and given us one of our greatest capitalists to do the dirty deed.

The CIA says the Kremlin helped.  How can we believe Trump to the contrary. His past statements have been euphemisms, a Billion dollar word for LIES.

Still weeks away, but doom is approaching for much of what the very people he said he would help need most.

The opportunity is however growing brighter. Surely the reality of this all will become evident even to his most loyal followers.

The Oil Industry and Billionaire Class have taken over the country. The liberal alliance with Western Europe is about to be overthrown by a new Moscow Washington axis.

The time to organize is upon us.

But who will be the champions? The Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warrens who can be proud of being ones of five who oppose otherwise bipartisan support on a Senate Bill that finally has bi-partisan support.

Should we be looking to the purist for leadership? To the Kieth Ellison’s whose idea of progress is to stake a line in the sand as far to the left as possible in the hopes of getting the center redefined a little closer to their ideals?

No, for even when the center is won, they turn around and attack those who made it happen as being to not good enough. Not pure enough.

That is hugely popular with the left’s elites, but unmarketable to those who see it as a game, and a game in which they are not players.

We need a new series of champions.

Good solid liberals with an ability to not only appeal to the left, but to the center and to those who don’t know what they believe.

Perhaps an Amy Klobuchar or a Jennifer Granholm? Others will emerge.

And the lay of the land looks as if there will be fertile ground to plow. Maybe not right away, but with these picks, it cannot be long before the wool falls away and the people see.

Unfortunately our emperor has clothes, the finest, and an eager group of Republican lackeys, but they will be among the first to scream when the budget goes as red as our presidents best friends in Moscow.