The front page story of today’s Star Tribune was a timely one. With nearly every economic indicator hinting that Minnesota’s economy is loosing it’s famous luster, it is time to evaluate where our economic policies are taking us. The title of the article: “Minnesota’s economy: Cause for concern … or just a blip?”
The article begins:
Minnesota’s unemployment rate dipped slightly in June, but the latest state jobs report suggests that the slow fade of the state’s economy from national front-runner to also-ran is continuing.
Since 2004, Minnesota’s growth in jobs, per-capita personal income and output of goods and services have risen at a lower pace than the national average. That’s a departure from the 1980s and 1990s, when Minnesota outshone most states on such important measures.
…
“We’re losing ground,” said Minnesota State Economist Tom Stinson. “It’s gone on long enough that it’s disquieting.”
The downward trend is especially puzzling in light of tax cuts and other measures taken this decade that were meant to make the state more competitive.
That last line is not one that has gone unpredicted.
Study after study has shown that Minnesota’s historic economic success has been dependent upon it’s high quality of life and solid repertoire of Government services. That may seem counter-intuitive for some traditional conservatives, but surveys of Minnesota business leaders have shown that things like transportation, an educated workforce, stable healthcare, and good quality of life are the main considerations for doing business in Minnesota, not taxes. After all, if taxes were the main consideration why would we be doing so much better than Alabama?
There are some of you that will never be convinced but
Loading ...
None of this should surprise ANYONE. Every person with a BA adds an average of $1 million more to the economy than someone with only a high school education. The best return on investment is early childhood education - something that isn’t even on the radar of the private marketeers. There is a ton of information out there that suggest if we simply get rid of the $90,000 cap on Medicare contribution levels, we could have the most efficient and low-cost single payer health care in the world. That’s right, for those of you who don’t know, we only make contributions to Medicare (one of the most successful and efficient welfare programs in the world) up to $90,000 of income. If you think about that a little more, you realize the vast majority of the funds that keep that program going are coming from the middle and lower income levels. Very stupid fiscal planning. Furthermore, the most prosperous time in American history was that of the late 1960s, going into the 1970s, when the United States virtually mirrored that of a social democracy.
Pawlenty’s financial and social principles do not allow him to have allegiance to anything but the market. The market does not have a brain. It operates on one principle, which is produce more for less. Quality of life does not increase under those circumstances, plain and simple. Banks, insurance companies, and the filthy rich sure do though.
I agree completely 35. Early education, early education, EARLY EDUCATION!!!
A35,
I find it interesting and a bit sad that Republicans and Democrats can be so much the same and not realize it. Both are willing to exchange a persons rights and liberties in exchange for the perception of safety. “Conservatives” use foreign dangers as the the object of worry while “Liberals” use poverty. The Unites States has only marginally a capitalist system. 26% of our workforce receives their pay from the government at some level, farm subsidies, tax increment financing, zoning laws, professional licensing and a tax system that treats just about everybody differently according to which way the political winds are blowing. These are only a few of the ways in which our economy is controlled by things other than market forces.
You did have one thing right. The market does a good job of producing more for less. Is this not the same reason many people give for wanting to socialize medical care? Quality of life most certainly is improved by being able to provide more food, housing and clothing for less fuel, labor and other recourses. It does not promise an equal distribution of product which is what I assume you truly have an issue with. Over the centuries and around the world the economies that are have the least central control and are the most liberal (small “l” meaning a real liberal not socialist) have a strong tendency to have the highest standard of living and quality of life. They also tend to produce the most innovations in science, medicine and the arts.
The same power you propose to give to the President and Congress can be easily turned against you with one election that doesn’t go your way. Imagine if all arts funding came through government and a turn of events made the form you enjoy suddenly unpopular. All the funding could be cut and because there is no independent funding source all the infrastructure supporting that form could be lost. How about if they increased the taxes on newspapers because they didn’t want people reading as much? Decentralizing power is the key to our safety and liberty. We have to move beyond the socialism/pseudo-capitalism arguments given to us by Democrats and Republicans and find a new way to do things.
How about a completely free market, free trade, open boarders a dramatically reduced military and a transparent tax system (that very few would complain about paying) that would provide the fundamentals of living to those truly in need. Right now the status quo is the two parties going back and forth between two wrong answers. Risk is part of life, we have to start taking a few if we want things to change.
Do you guys really go around all day and convince each other Minnesota is gone down the toilet?
Have you ever wonderd why Minnesota has slipped from number one to number one in health care?
Have you evert wondered how Minnesota has gone from number 2 to number one in ACT and gradualtion rates since One Term Timmy took over?
If you really want to be depressed lay down and be depressed.
Let us attract new family supporting jobs and keep the best doctors, nurses, researchers and teachers from moving to South Dakota.
When you get up, go ahead and lead under your new banner:
Life Sucks, Vote DFL
Damn, it sucks to be proven right when it means bad news for Minnesota. It seems that the Republicans have created a self fulfilling prophecy, after all their years of crying about a “Bad Business Climate” they’ve finally got it.
Matt,
I don’t trust your economic indicators one bit. You were the same guy who told me three months ago that the stock market was crashing and we would be in recession. Didn’t the market close above 14,000 this week? In case you didn’t know, 14,000 is record territory and it is nearly double the close after the low reached (7,100)following the September 11 terrorist attacks.
P.S. Matt,
If the state’s economy is in the toilet, why did we see an extra $150 million in tax receipts this week that the state wasn’t expecting? I don’t see you posting any articles about that inconvenient truth.
Chris, please point to the post where I said that the stock market was crashing and we’d be in a recession. I honestly don’t recall such a post.
Secondly, the $150 million in tax receipts has nothing to do with the economy. This is simply a matter of accounting. Even you have to realize that there is no real comparison there.
Also, Purpledogblog, high school graduation rates are down over last year. Please check your facts before commenting. I haven’t done my research on ACT scores, however, so you may be right on that account.
Matt,
Come on, buddy give me a break. Check back in February when the market dipped one day due to a sell off in the Chinese stock market. You ran the same logo and said that Bush and Pawlenty were causing the stock market to crash. Go back and take a look.
I would expect you to say nothing less about the $150 million in money the state wasn’t expecting. It’s pretty typical of you guys in the DFL. I think I’m gonna start calling you the Bad News Bears because that’s all you have to offer: bad news.
Chris,
The bad news has been created by, spoon fed to, and regurgitated out of the mouths of the Republican party and their army of smarmy pundits.
I don’t see too many reasons to trust anything you or your dittoheads have to say. Why do you even bother posting here, pally? Have you people been right about anything over the last 6 years? Is there any competence whatsoever by your leadership? I don’t see any. All I see is our Government being turned into the RNC.
I find you revolting. (I think I threw up in my mouth)….
“LOLS Bad News Bears”…If you remember the movie, they won.
Nitro,
The problem is there are more registered Democrats than Republicans. They tend to be higher income and have had more education. The underdog they ain’t. You often act in the same way, if not worse, than those you chastise. Your resulting hypocrisy damages support for your ideas just as it does for others.
I’ll have to disagree with your opinion piece, Kerosene. I’ve dealt with violence directed at me for years from the right, as you know. I certainly am not a violent person, but I am angry, and have every right to be.
I will not back down, sorry. As far as damaging support for my ideas, I’m not too concerned about that. I’m sure a small potato like myself isn’t going to change the hearts and minds of people like some of the rightie trolls on this site.
Certainly, the Republican party is in trouble. You can see it in their actions, their mannerisms on Capitol hill. This is not the Summer of 2004 anymore. They’re in trouble because they have for years alienated, and frankly, pissed off a very large segment of the population, and I expect every day there are more and more people who decide not to contribute campaign money to any Republican no matter who it is.
I’m just saying your net affect is negative. I didn’t comment on its magnitude.
“Why do you even bother posting here, pally?”
So people with divergent opinions aren’t welcome? That’s the only reason I come here. What’s the point of posting if you’re preaching to the choir?
“As far as damaging support for my ideas, I’m not too concerned about that.”
Again, why post anything if your intent is not to inform or pursuade? Maybe you should think about listening to all sides of an issue and being open to others opinions? The way this comes off otherwise makes you out to be pig-headed and unworthy of paying any attention to.
Good point Moose! That’s why I come here too, to be challenged to think differently and to offer to others the same. That is the joy of debate, right?
KH: As usual, I agree with much of what you said, and even some of what I don’t agree with I find intriguing and worth deeper thought on the issue. However, I have to take issue with a few statements:
1) “The Unites States has only marginally a capitalist system. 26% of our workforce receives their pay from the government at some level, farm subsidies, tax increment financing, zoning laws, professional licensing and a tax system that treats just about everybody differently according to which way the political winds are blowing. These are only a few of the ways in which our economy is controlled by things other than market forces.”
-You really must clarify that. First of all, “at some level” means nothing. If you are speaking specifically of those who are public servants or receive a paycheck from the state or federal government for a job they do, that’s one thing, but there are a ton of people in this country who do receive some kind of benefits in the form of direct money payments that are so small and insignificant as to make little or no impact on their ability to move themselves out of the situation they are in. I just think you have to clarify what you are saying here. I personally can think of very few examples of anything that is not capitalist in this country, so I’m not sure what you mean. I totally agree on that tax code. It is actually illegal to collect income taxes, unless they are evenly divided among the population of the country or directly used to fund programs that go back into society. That’s why a very large amount of people beat the IRS whenever they challenge them after getting audited. They simply say in court: “Show me the law that says I am required to pay a tax on my labor.”
2)”The market does a good job of producing more for less. Is this not the same reason many people give for wanting to socialize medical care? Quality of life most certainly is improved by being able to provide more food, housing and clothing for less fuel, labor and other recourses.”
-The problem here is that the market, if left to its own unregulated natural tendency (the tendency of the modern human) also lowers the price of labor in the process, so in the end, it is a net loss for everyone, other than the owners of the companies that provide the options for labor. While it is great that poor folks can go to WalMart and feel good about having enough money to shop at a name brand store, the chance of opening a small business near it goes right out the window. In many other countries around the world, lower income folks actually do own small businesses. My wife’s mother has a small business in Budapest. She doesn’t bring a lot of money, but she sells interesting stuff that is NOT made by wage-slave labor and is fairly traded.
3) “Over the centuries and around the world the economies that are have the least central control and are the most liberal (small “l” meaning a real liberal not socialist) have a strong tendency to have the highest standard of living and quality of life. They also tend to produce the most innovations in science, medicine and the arts.”
-This you really need to provide some facts on, because I think you are wrong. Hungary, for example, is world renowned for its “brain power”, as well as its massive contributions to computer programming, mathematics, and try to find a film that doesn’t have a Hungarian on the crew, usually as a camera person. This is a country that until only very recently was always on strong state control. They also produced Franz Liszt and Bela Bartok, to name only two. Furthermore, the United States was under MUCH more state control when we entered the industrial revolution, and much of what many would argue is the best music ever created in the United States was created during times of strong state control and unfortunately terrible economic conditions. Point is, art flourishes when material wealth wanes. I was a professional jazz musician for 15 years, and have spent at least that long thinking about the role of economics and politics on music and the arts.
Lastly, while I understand what you are saying about real liberty, versus the liberty that we are saddled with in today’s political rhetoric, I disagree. True liberty, for me at least, is that ability to do what you love, no matter whether it turns a big profit or not. Ask yourself in this age of massive wealth why our school band programs are dying, and why nobody strives to be an artist for a living, etc. Bottom line is, as long as profit is the sole motive, those of us who choose professions that don’t turn big profits are doomed to a life of suffering, as the age-old conundrum goes. I started playing the trombone when I was 12 years old. By the time I was 16 I was playing professional gigs in big bands. By the time I was 21, I was going to a conservatory in New York City. by the time I was 30, I had recorded on more than a dozen albums. What do I do now? Well, I don’t play music for a living anymore. I only play for the love of it. However, I long for the days when I could put my eight hours in every day practicing, so that I played my ass off in the evenings. Why shouldn’t that kind of dedication be rewarded the same way a computer programmer’s dedication is rewarded? I practiced my horn diligently for 5-7 years before I ever made money at it. It was ten years before I could put food on my table from it, and even then, that’s all it did for me. I even paid taxes on the income I made from playing music, though I got no unemployment insurance, no health insurance, and …. That’s the market.
PS: How do you explain Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, etc., all usually in the top five in terms of “living standard” as defined by the UNDP?
Moose,
Why do you think I have Nitro on permanent ignore? Trust me, it’s more enlightening to engage in discourse with a gnat than it is to listen to anything Nitro says.
1) The 26% number does not include any of those receiving welfare or social security. It is only those receiving paychecks directly from city, county, state or federal governments or those on full time contract to one of those entities. You want to add those that receive just benefits like Social Security and I would imagine the number starts to get even more ridiculous. Add on top of that all of the people working for businesses doing government projects like building roads or aircraft. Government controls all business to some degree. Try to get the permits to open a restaurant, repair shop or convenience store. The city of Minneapolis uses zoning and inspections to screw with people it doesn’t like and force them out of business. Just because government is incompetent, corrupt and fail to meet anybody’s expectations doesn’t mean they don’t have control.
3) Comparing economies is difficult because they are massively complicated overlap with one another and are affected by things beyond economics such as climate, war, etc.. Our best hope at viewing different methods is to look at things over long periods of time and across all boarders or try to find examples that are as self contained as possible.
Europe and the United States represent a very small slice of the world population and have economic systems that are nearly identical when viewed on the true scale of economic types between absolute authoritarian controlled economies and an anarcho-capitalist system. Over the short term, even a century or more, governments can maneuver budgets, borrow money and disguise economic performance. They can work to shit interest rates and unemployment to mask poor productivity, but for a limited time only. If we look at the complete planet over a long period of time places like Hungary, Poland, Germany, Ireland and even Sweden have done better as they liberalized their economies. How do you think the people from Hungary would be doing if it were still a communist country? The old communist block states are the easiest examples but Ireland is the best and most recent. They dramatically reduced their tax rates and became a oasis for business in Europe. The following increase in standard of living and reduction in unemployment has been a big part to the end of violence in Belfast. Asia and South American too are full of examples of countries moving from centrally planned economies to ones with at least some measure of liberalization.
2&4) I group these because they are related. In a liberal society we can protect people right to have the opportunity and choice to follow the path they desire. We cannot guaranty success. You have the right to attempt to make a living at playing music but it is wrong to use government to force others to support you endeavorers. This is true for you just as it is true that a person wanting to make cars shouldn’t expect you to be forced to buy them the tools they need to do so. If you want to make a living doing what you love you should be able to convince them to pay you voluntarily, not anonymously using government agents.
The market values productivity, not intent. Dedication is only one element to being a contributing member of a community. Each of us has to produce more than we consume and a true market, more than other methods, encourages society to be productive and take care of our needs before luxuries. (A note: I think our public and private debt level, including entitlement promises, along with government subsidization of poor lifestyle choices is the main reason for our overconsumption and waste.) We need doctors before painters and police officers before flower arrangers. The market keeps from shortages of skills we need even if some of those filling the roles would rather be doing something else. Central planning would have to do the same thing, it would just do it much more poorly and would surly be corrupted beyond anything possible in an open market where nobody is in charge.
P.S. Do I love my job? Not always but I know I am being productive in a positive way and have long term plan that gives me as much out of life as anybody can expect. It is different than what I thought it would be 10 or 20 years ago but we can’t force the world to follow our demands, we have to have the flexibility to find a path without anger and bitterness.
Moose — This is a little off topic, but where do you get the idea that the income tax is illegal? None of those arguments has ever held up in court.
People “beat” the IRS in audits because they are able to substantiate their claims, not because they have found some clever legal argument.
Why do you think I have Nitro on permanent ignore?
LOLOLS!!!! Wow that’s quite a loss for me.
I’m so hurt. How was your weekend off? Did you and Mikey enjoy snuggling up and watching Brokorback Mountain together? Very very romantic.
The Libertarian viewpoint is an interesting puzzle. On the surface it’s so basic and simple. There’s the appeal but, the devil is in the details. How would the “free marketeers” feel about anti-trust and anti-monopoly legislation? How about enviromental and worker saftey legislation? What about workers ability to organize and negociate for fair wages and benefits? These are all laws and regulations that business claim is governments intrusion into the market. Every time we’ve edged toward less government intrusion in the market, the income gap has grown so where is the benefit in a free market for all of society? Milton Freidman was an interesting theoritician but I prefer Keynes. He actually did something.
Richard,
You’re right about one thing. Keynes did in fact do something: he promoted policies that, when enacted under the Carter administration, caused Stagflation. Milton Friedman did something else, he won a Nobel Prize in Economics for his achievements.
“Moose
Keynes was an important economist but things have progressed in the 61 years since he has been dead. Picking a favorite expert who”s views support your goals is the same method “Creation Science” supporter use. You don’t get to pick which economist you like and promote those ideas any more than you do biologists and environmental scientists. Liberals, most Conservatives now too, avoid economic science like the religious right avoids most other science. Sciences evolve as we learn but if you have a conclusion first and force the science to fit you will always be wrong.
There are actually good answers to many of the questions you ask
because people who look at economics as a science know problems have
to be solved rather than ignored. The environment is the most current and interesting one. Many of the green movement leaders have embraced them. Mostly they involve not having government subsidize waste and realize the true cost of natural recourses and including them in a products cost. We should also calculate into prices the cost of waste produced. So far government regulation and courts has allowed polluters to pay nothing if it is within guidelines they have set.
There are plenty more examples of how modern economics has found ways to correct past errors. Using methods and ideas from a hundred years ago is by no means progressive or liberal. In fact it makes Keynesian style economists the most conservative ones you can find these days.
Why do so many people worry most about the income gap and not the actual situation of people in this country? I can understand helping those in need but to use terms that at the same time vilify the rich seems petty and bitter. Before you guess incorrectly that I am wealthy consider the fact I paid my way through college, don’t own a house and ride a scooter to work to save money.
Sorry, my bad. I meant Anonymous35.
Randy: Actually, I posted the thing about federal income tax being illegal. You are dead wrong when you say the only reason folks beat the IRS when they were audited is because they prove their case or what have you. There actually was a case not too long ago when a guy simply said in court, “show me the law that says I am required to pay a tax on my labor.” The court was unable to produce the law, and still has not to this day. The reason is that the law does not exist. I challenge anyone here to produce the law.
KH: Sometimes I wish we could get together and chew the fat in person. You are really a great debater and could teach me a lot. I have some major disagreements with some of the more minute details you have mentioned, but not enough time to address them right now. I will try later today.
Perhaps more important that anything though: I am not suggesting to be paid for my dedication, nor my tens of thousands of hours of practice, fine tuning my skills. What I do expect to be paid for is what I provided society when I was a musician. The market does not care about culture, nuance, nor enjoyment. It cares about dollars, naturally. That is why we have things like governments, to keep us from acting like a bunch of animals that can do nothing but react to things in survival mode. There are countries in the world, Austria for one, that actually give performance venues money with which they can use to pay musicians. That produces much higher varieties of music, and actually better music gets into the clubs as well. There are hundreds of very heavy books on subjects like this, so we can never adequately address it here. My primary point is that if the only thing that gives a profession its worth is how much money it brings in on the open market, you end up with a few grotesquely rich people at the top of the pyramid, exactly what we have now, and a disappearing middle class. More later.
Government already subsidizes arts quite substantially.
Who helped pay for the Ordway & Guthrie?
If society doesn’t value arts/music enough to make it economically viable why should government step in to prop it up? And, who’s to decide what types of arts/music are worth funding? There are certainly forms of music that are economically viable and making their artists & financial backers plenty of money.
Society values economic output in a capitalistic structure - as it should.
“There are certainly forms of music that are economically viable and making their artists & financial backers plenty of money.”
Like gangster rap?
Maybe Moose’s argument would hold water if there weren’t basically four record companies running the entire commercial music industry, and three companies that own every major radio station in the country. Wake up!
A35 — There is a difference between an acquital and a court declaration that a law is unenforceable. O.J. Simpson was acquited, but that doesn’t make murder legal.
I suggest you look up “jury nullification.” The jury in this case decided that it didn’t want to convict the defendant, so refused to do so. The government can’t appeal an acquital.
This case should not be taken as precedent for anything. The IRS still could go after him civilly (assuming the statute of limitations is not a problem).
Which case are you talking about? Because as far as I remember from what I saw in this movie (can’t remember the name at the moment), they interviewed a juror, and she said that the judge admitted that the law could not be produced, “because there is no law.” That much I am totally certain of. As a matter of fact, there was even a challenge offered by an organization in which it would pay anyone $100,000 to produce the actual law that states every American citizen must pay a tax on their labor. I just remembered the name of the movie: “America: From Freedom to Fascism”, an it is directed by a guy named Russo, who is a very well know director in Hollywood I think. Anyway, it is really worth a watch, very interesting stuff is discussed. I have not seen the whole thing, but I am very intrigued by the premise of the movie.
To this day, NOBODY has produced the law for that challenge.
Moose: The Ordway and the Guthrie are not nearly 100% supported by government if that is what you are saying. Also, that is a typical way to “support the arts” without actually putting any money into helping individual artists produce their works. That said, Minnesota is the most generous state in the union as far as a I know, when it comes to funding for the arts. There are organizations like the McNight foundation that give substantial amounts of money to very deserving musicians and artists of all kinds, so that they can produce cutting edge shows that they would never be able to produce without outside funding.
Just to clarify what I am saying here: I do not believe that all musicians, or even all of the greatest musicians, should be on some kind of government payroll. What I mean is that arts of all different kinds are indespensible to the culture of America and the world. In fact, jazz many would argue, is America’s greatest export to the rest of the world. Imagine the world without Ellington, Miles, Monk, Coltrane, Sinatra, Armstrong, and on and on and on. All I am suggesting is that there is nothing inherrantly wrong with providing very minor support - in the form of heath care, food assistance, and maybe rental assistance - to artists, musicians, etc, who can demonstrate a high level of achievment, relevance, and viability. For every musician out there who makes a great living playing their own music, there are hundreds who you will probably never hear, because they live in relative obscurity, creating for creation sake. Imagine if they didn’t have to work as telemarketers by night and all that crap. That’s all I’m saying. When you look at the appalling amount of money our government spends - absolutely none of which coming from income tax incidentally - on programs that don’t work, there is really no excuse for not making social and cultural investments as well.
These are very deep issues that cannot be answered simply by saying “Society values economic output in a capitalistic structure - as it should.” Nobody, including myself, has said that economic output shouldn’t matter. What I AM saying is that there are other things that SHOULD matter, and clearly don’t, because of our insistence on the tyranny of the bottom line.
Case in point: I have a friend who played his original music for 35 years in the United States, recording more than 15 albums. He never sold more than 5000 of any one album in the United States. He never made a living from it. He never had health care his entire life either. However, he is regarded as a legend among many jazz and creative improvising musicians all over the world. Two years ago, he went to Vienna to play a jazz festival, and he never came back. He got an artist visa, and he now makes a minimum of 250 euro every single time he performs for the most part, often making as much as 1000. Why? Simple, Austrians love good music; there are many clubs that book live music; and the Austrian government provides funding to many of the clubs, so that they can pay the musicians even when they are not bringing in as much money as others. Utopia? No, society, with the help of government funding in many cases, has developed a deeper appreciation for the role of art and music.
This is what the market, when not controlled, totally misses. And we don’t have scrap capitalism to do it. Believe me, many of these countries that offer financial assistance to artists on a much larger scale are countries that are very capitalist, Austria included. By the way, my friend the saxophone player pays a grand total of 48 euro/month to buy into the Austrian national health care system. Zero deductible, and it even covers major operations. And, if that was not enough, it covers transportation and fees if he was to have a condition that could not, for some reason, be treated in country and therefore has to be sent abroad.
35 can’t get paid $75k/year to play music all day and we’re all supposed to feel sorry for him.
How many people would get “real” jobs if the government was going to step in to pay significant wages for hobbies?
$75k/year? Are you fricken crazy? Do you really think that is what some broke-ass struggling musician would demand. Saying something as ridiculous as that shows exactly why people in other parts of the world think Americans are classless. I’m talking seriously small beans. I’m not saying pay me a salary so I can sit around and practice my trombone all day. What an ass! Try simple things like providing health care, and maybe food stamps! Musicians are pros at living on nothing much. What they need is help with the small but very necessary things.
With your above statement, I have simply lost my patience. You are rude, ignorant, and totally disrespectful. I’m sorry that you are so bitter as to think think that music, dance, art, literature, etc. are merely “hobbies”. And for your information, I went back to school and got a degree that I have personally put to very good use, doing work that matters, helping a lot of people. I still play music, but only as a “hobby”, because people like you unfortunately run the world. Mark my works: Unless something very powerful is done to help boost America’s artistic community, in twenty years you will see virtually no band programs in schools. You will see less and less live music in clubs. You will hear progressively less talented musicians making progressive more and more money playing worse and worse music.
$75k/year. Please. I work 70 hours per week, and 75k is a fortune compared to what I make, and I still don’t feel nearly as broke as I was when I was playing music for a living.
KH: leobixby@yahoo.com
doing work that matters, helping a lot of people
doing work that matters, helping a lot of people
That’s a nice defination for the arts. When you were playing you were doing exactly the above. Too bad you can’t feed a family on that. The music scene is getting bad but there are local acts out there and they need support. Not so much financial as people getting out there and shaking their ass’s. Whenever you run across a DJ, find the owner who booked him and ask when’s the next live band going to play. Boobs like the moose think playing is all about “making it big” and don’t understand the viseral pleasure that comes from playing and performing at a certain level. I’d do it for free if I had the time.
Yes, good point. Also very good point on people getting out to see live music. That is other issue in this, that the American cultural landscape has become bed-ridden if you will. The Twin Cities, Chicago, Austin, Nashville, and a few other cities are the only really good live music scenes left in the United States. San Francisco, where I am originally from, had a tremendously robust live music scene until the early 90’s when the “dot com” boom happened. With some thought, one can easily draw the connections.
We are indeed blessed in the Twin Cities, because the cost of living is such that musicians often can at least survive on what they make from playing, if they are really really good. Furthermore, we are also blessed that many of these musicians are playing their own very creative music that does not fit within the traditional tiny little boxes the corporations like force music into. We’ll see how long that lasts.
Since this discussion has gone way off topic, I’ll end my part by saying I suggest further reading to be: “The Political Economy of Music” by Jacques Attali. This book really changed the way I see music, especially its role as the “mysterious fortune teller of times to come.” Very enlightening read that people like Moose really ought to open their mind with.
Whoa… this post has exploded into quite the discussion. I realize that many of you are now talking about the merits of social programs, but if I can return to the purely economic side of things for a moment:
We had Minneapolis Federal Reserve Research Director Art Rolnick on “Minnesota Matters” yesterday to talk about the state of Minnesota’s economy. Art’s analysis: it’s just a blip. Essentially, he said that Minnesota’s vitals are still strong enough relative to the size of this downturn that it shouldn’t inspire worry. Additionally (apparently, according to Art), Minnesota’s economy was more heavily tied to the housing market than elsewhere in the nation and now (obviously) that’s hurting us.
Art did also say, however, that the current education funding situation should cause some worry; especially the total lack of early ed funding. He seemed to indicate that if we don’t remedy our education funding situation (our funding rate has not kept pace with other states) that it will hurt our vitals down the road, which WILL have more than a blip affect. Additionally, he indicated that the state of disrepair the transportation system is in poses another threat to our vitals.
So, Art sez: we’re fine for now, as long as we get back on board and reinvest in education and transportation; ESPECIALLY EARLY ED.
I really trust Art Rolnick. He knows what he’s talking about when it comes to the local economy and, in my experience with him, he’s right most of the time. So, I’m willing to write this off as a “blip” for now but, as Art said, the numbers will tell the story in the end. So if our economic indicators continue in this direction, the time for concern will dawn. Until then, I’m content to ride it out and work on education and transportation.
It’s not so far off topic. The government has a role in society some would want increased, others decreased. Grover Norquist and that crowd would like government small enough to drown in a bathtub. Reagan’s most famous quote was a direct attack on role government can play helping people. Privatize everything and let the market sort it out is their mantra. It’s a utopian vision that has next to nothing to do with the real world. It’s an entirely unworkable fantasy much like the communist economy. Under pawlenty’s fiscal mismanagement, our state has lost ground and is no longer the leader in a number of key indices. But that’s okay, we don’t tax our wealthiest.
I listened to Art last night on my drive home and as always, you guys have got it going on. Blips have a way of turning into serious trends if course adjustments aren’t made. State and Federal government could do quite a bit more to encourage job creation in the manufacturing sector.
One of the reasons I moved here to the Twin Cities from my native San Francisco is that there is still a very robust artistic culture here, as well as a progressive political base that doesn’t just talk the talk, but walks the walk. San Francisco is a cesspool of overly wealthy bitchers and moaners, who could care less about who is dislocated from their native city as a result of the moneyed masses coming in like locusts to buy up every damn thing in the city. Sooner or later, the cycle will come around, but until then, SF ain’t what it used to be. I hope I don’t end up saying the same thing about the Twin Cities ten years from now.
I saw world renowned guitarist and multi-instrumentalist David Lindley at the Cedar Cultural Center a while back and he said: “It’s great to be back in Minnesota, the last sane place to live in this country.” I totally agree.
Welcome to Minnesota. We can always use another good horn player. Maybe start thinking about easing back into the gigging thing. It’s all right here and all very local. You’re not going to make a lot of dough but it’s fun and good for the soul. Can’t escape karma.