The young will suffer most long- term from the pandemic

Posted by on

“Young people are fuelling the coronavirus.” So suggested the World Health Organisation last month, after youngsters defying distancing rules were blamed for rising infection rates across Europe. In Preston, UK, councillors even urged local youth not to “kill granny”.

But the young are not to blame for this pandemic. They are its “forgotten victims”. UK national debt has reached a “staggering” £2trn – a burden which will take decades to pay off, and which will fall hardest on a generation that has already given up so much. To protect the nation from a disease that rarely endangers them, the young have sacrificed their education, along with all the fun of being young. Already, the number of under-24s claiming benefits has doubled; now hundreds of thousands more young people are entering the labour market at the start of what may be the worst recession in 300 years.

There’s no sugar coating it, the outlook is bleak. There are 60% fewer graduate jobs on offer than at this time last year; and that will put more pressure on non-graduate jobs – at a time when they are also being cut in droves, as restaurants, bars and shops close down. U.K. Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s £2bn Kickstart scheme – creating apprenticeships for under-25s – may help some; but as the furlough scheme draws to a close, it can’t stop the approaching “jobless tsunami”.

Even those who have found work are struggling. Senior staff may like working from home; but for young people starting out, it can be lonely and frustrating: how do you shine, if you only see your bosses in awkward Zoom meetings? In previous recessions, the young could flee abroad in search of adventure or opportunity. Now, that avenue is closed, leaving them festering at home, their independent lives curtailed, their dreams abandoned.

The Tories have a history of rewarding the old, who vote for them; but today’s young have loud voices. If they feel the burden of this recession is falling on them disproportionately, it will have “ugly” political consequences. (Sunday Times, The Week and others 5 September 2020)

My take: When I was 19 I was an army officer responsible for 45 people in Cyprus. Later I hitch-hiked round America and down to Central America, all with the knowledge that there would surely be a job for me later, and when else could I have time for adventure? Now young people can’t travel or find a job. This is really sad, and will not end happily.

The marshmallow test

Posted by on

“How old were you when you realised that hard work and sacrifice weren’t worth it? Some realise it at retirement, when, after a lifetime of indispensability and missed weekends, they have failed to reach the top and are smoothly replaced and forgotten within a month or two.

For others the revelation strikes later. ‘I wish I hadn’t worked so hard’ is always one the top regrets of the dying. A few precocious individuals work it out in time to fail the ‘marshmallow test’ in infancy. Asked by a stranger with a clipboard if they’d rather have one sweet now or two later, they sensibly surmise that given the inherent randomness of the universe, ‘later’ is just too much of a gamble.” (Martha Gill,The Times)

My comment: Oh, how I relate to this! I had a business in the London area. I worked long hours every day, including most weekends, conscious that I was responsible for a staff which at one point numbered 120. Then, POUFF!! the Apple Mac was introduced and our products were no longer wanted. Caput! My company was history, and was taken over (for very little). The new owner was heartily disliked by the staff, which drifted away. I married my American wife and have lived much more happily ever after, but my former colleagues – well, dispersed to the winds, they probably reflecting that their hard work had been for nothing much, except for the companionship (and the endless jokes that were the hallmark of the company). What did we do it all for? Sad!

In memoriam

Posted by on

Yesterday, my brother-law, Martin Dean, died of heart failure in a hospital in Taunton, England. He had been in poor health for quite a long time. He was an economic historian, a tourism officer and local Council employee, and author of a book on railways.

Rest in peace, Martin. We will miss you.

(Forgive me, but I don’t feel like posting normally on this blog today)

Couples sleep better together

Posted by on

It is well established that people in stable relationships tend to have better mental and physical health than singletons. Now, scientists have discovered a possible explanation for this: it seems that sharing a bed promotes good sleep. Humans sleep in cycles, shifting between rapid-eye-movement (REM) sleep – during which vivid dreams occur – and non-REM periods.

Though all sleep is important, uninterrupted REM sleep is thought to be particularly beneficial to both mind and body. For a study at the Centre for Integrative Psychiatry in Kiel, Germany, 12 heterosexual couples spent four nights in a sleep lab, two of them with their partners and two alone. The researchers observed that on the nights when participants slept with their partner, they experienced around 10% more REM sleep, even though they thrashed around more. The authors of the study suspect that physical proximity to a loved one promotes certain sleep-boosting hormones, though more research is needed to establish this. They also note that their findings might have been different had any of the couples been heavy snorers. “That could certainly worsen the sleep of a partner, no doubt about it,”. (Henning Drews,The Times. and The Week)

My take: The conclusions might well be correct, but I am a bit turned off by the fact that only 12 couples were subject to this research.  How can one apply the results to the population in general, using such a tiny sample?  I note that the results of this research are not carried in the New Scientist, for instance.

The myth attached to raising taxes on the super-rich

Posted by on

“When state governments consider raising taxes on rich people, rich people in those states like to claim that if their taxes are raised too much, they’ll just pack up and leave for another state with lower taxes. If this were true, states raising taxes on rich people would end up losing tax revenue at the end of the day, making it seem like keeping tax rates on the rich low is the best option. But it’s not true, even if it so widespread as to seem like common knowledge. It’s so pervasive that it has stopped even the most vocally progressive Democratic leaders from taxing the rich in any substantive way. So we need to dispel the myth once and for all.

“Despite a couple of high-profile cases of cowardly millionaires fleeing their homes for states with no income taxes, the overwhelming majority of millionaires don’t leave when their tax bills go up. It turns out that all those rich people threatening to leave are almost crying wolf. For years, study after study has shown that millionaires don’t leave in significant enough numbers to affect state revenue when their rates change.

“This makes sense if you think about it. If you’re a rich person, a slight increase in your tax rate doesn’t actually affect your day-to-day life or standard of living all that much. Most rich people can afford to pay more without much trouble, especially considering that many already avoid paying their fair share in both federal and state taxes thanks to a dizzying array of loopholes, tax breaks, and special privileges that help many of them pay a lower tax rate than working class folks. Tacking a couple extra percentage points onto a state income tax isn’t even going to make a dent in their overall wealth, and they’ll likely still be paying disproportionately less than ordinary Americans.

“If anything, rich people are less likely to move for financial reasons. While rich people might like to live in a low-tax state, they’re not going to uproot their lives to avoid paying slightly higher taxes. Their homes are there, their businesses and professional connections are there, their families are there, and their friends are there. That’s a lot to give up for a negligible financial loss.”.  (Patriotic Millionaires, 22 Sept 2020).

My comment: I like Patriotic Millionaires.  It’s very existence shows that not all the super-rich are selfish, greedy so-and-so’s, and it’s opinions have more credibility than the blatherings of the corrupt.