Sports - Mountaineers, not so fast

Did anybody see the game last night? I was playing tennis and by the time I got home it was late, so I just watched the last two minutes of the game. What I saw was Ruoff back to his old self, bricking threes in the crucial moments. He was 2-11 from 3 and 3-15 overall. The box score made it seem like Jones and Ebanks had nice games. I think WV needs to be very careful with South Florida on Sunday. SF beat Marquette at home and only lost to WV by 3 in Morgantown. Back to back losses could put them in trouble.

Religion - The Sabbath

I am going to attempt to do a post each Thursday that relates to the youth group lesson the night before. We are "reading the red", the words of Jesus, and are currently cruising through Matthew. Of note, as Pastor Jay related recently in a sermon, the first person to print a copy of the Bible with the words of Jesus in red did so to remind himself of the blood shed by Jesus. We finished chapter 11 and began chapter 12 last night.

Jesus discusses the Sabbath at the beginning of chapter 12. The Pharisees were seeking to catch Him in an act that broke their laws and were carefully watching His actions on the Sabbath. Knowing their hearts, Jesus put things in perspective, telling them that it was good to do good things on the Sabbath. The Sabbath was a day to honor God, not to follow some set of strict guidelines. He told a story of a sheep falling into a pit and asked who among them would not save it even on the Sabbath. He then healed the withered hand of a man, an action the Pharisees considered sinful and illegal.

We take this story and others like it and get from it that good deeds are good deeds, no matter which day of the week that they occur on, that the Sabbath is not restricted to rest, a day where one can do nothing, and rightly so. However, as I thought about this after class, I wondered if we have taken this too far, if we have used these words of Jesus as an excuse to circumvent the will of God. The Sabbath was set aside to be a day of rest, but, perhaps more importantly, it was set aside as a day to focus on God. The two reasons are actually very strongly linked. Is it not much easier to focus on God when you are at rest, when you are not filling your day with errands and chores and your own fun activities? There needs to be time with God and it should be all through the week, but one day a week, God asks us to put away the daily obligations that we must fulfill throughout our lives and focus on Him. Do we?

This is particularly tough for me to write about because I am as guilty as anyone. I give the morning to God, but the afternoon and evening are mine, no different from any other day. Granted, I don't work and I do usually take it easy, but the thought I mostly have is that this is my time. I do have an excuse with two young boys running around the house like whirling tornados; it is not exactly the environment for quiet time and rest. Still, it was no different for me before I had kids, so using that excuse would be a delusion.

There seems to be a fine line to walk here. God doesn't want us to obsess with rules to the extent where we miss the point of the rule. However, I do believe that our worship day is a special day for God and we should treat it as such. Jesus debunked the idea that we are forbidden from action on the Sabbath, but I see nothing where Jesus discounts the importance of the Sabbath. We should put God first every day of the week, but we are human and our lives are busy and we generally fail miserably in that regard. He asks that on one day of the week we make a conscious effort to focus on Him and give our activities, whatever they may be, to Him. Do we? If I answered honestly, I would have to answer no.

Sports - A little love for the Spiders

A little love for the Spiders, but even though they have won 4 of 5 the season still feels like one of missed opportunities. The Spiders rebuilding looks to be going well, but the winner's mindset still seems to be lacking. Butler being inserted into the starting lineup and seeing more minutes has helped. He's scrappy and does the little thing and can also shoot. The Spiders biggest problem is the lack of consistent scoring, particularly down low. It makes me wonder what the season would have look like if their leading scoring from last year, center Dan Geriot, would not have been sidelined for the entire year with an injury. If he can come back healthy next year, the team would return in tact, basically trading Geriot for Giddings which would be a huge upgrade. The youngsters would have another year of experience and not be so young. It may be the crucial year. Barring injuries, the team should make a strong push for a 20 win season.

UR hosts GW this weekend, a game they should win. They should also have a shot at Charlotte the following week, with the final game against Xavier a long shot. 9-7 in the A-10 is a possibility, which is not too bad in the Atlantic 10. Next year, however, average will not be acceptable.

Politics - DeHavenator response to Obama's speech

I watched Obama's speech last night. I'm not sure why, it was on and I couldn't look away, not like a train wreck, but more like a Globetrotters vs Generals basketball game where you knew the outcome but watched for the entertainment value, the skill and, at the same time, silliness of it all. Obama, in the speech realm, is a Globetrotter while all others and merely Generals. However, being able to do some fancy tricks doesn't make you a world class basketball player.

Hailing his stimulus bill, he is pressing forward to spend big money in three areas: alternative, clean energy, education, and health care. Let's take them one at a time.

If we are to spend big money in an effort to stimulate the economy, there is perhaps no better avenue than alternative energy. The main reason is that progress in this industry could create a much better environment for our businesses (did you think I was going on a green rant?). Long-term, it would be highly beneficial if we could produce our own energy, it's a matter of national security in some ways. I do have a green slant when it comes to environmental politics, so that this could help that environment is a bonus perk for me. Another great reason to invest here is the economics of the matter. Investing and producing alternative energy is not yet very profitable, the natural economic incentive to produce it is lacking. Yet, for our future, everyone (rich and poor) would likely be better off it we began doing so a little more quickly than the natural process would permit. There are certain things, such as roads, that one person or one group would not want to pay for because everyone gets equal benefit, so why should they bear all the costs? The government, unfortunately, must handle these areas. I think alternative energy is currently in this stage but will someday be profitable. At that time, government would need to get out. So, I support Obama in this area, but just one word of cautions. Please do not ignore nuclear power. Our ability to harness nuclear power could be our most likely path of success.

I should let my wife go on the education rant, but I've listened to her (except when a game is on) and I've learned some things. First, let's talk about k-12. The US spends more per capita on k-12 education than any other country, yet we perform poorly here. Throwing more money at the problem will not help. The issue with public education is not funding, it is its rules and focus. Often, administrators do not support teachers and will give in to parents and students demands. Leaving teachers powerless in their own class rooms is a growing problem. The other, particularly in early education, is the lack of focus on the basics. The three r's should be drilled home relentlessly to build the foundation for all other learning. Instead, our young children must memorize historical facts and scientific principles and learn the arts. These things are good in time, but the basics must be mastered first. Consider public versus private school teachers. Public teachers make more money and receive better benefits, but private schools have no trouble finding good teachers because of the superior working environment they offer. Private schools have the freedom to support their teachers and not act in a manner that suggests the parents and the students have all the rights and the school must acquiesce to them. Also, the school has the ability to set their own curriculum and not follow some bureauctratic plan written by men and women in Washington who are removed from the classrooms. Empower teachers and you will see more improvement than by giving them more money to toe the government line. As for increasing assistance for college education, I have mixed feelings about that and am willing to support a reasonable increase.

The final and most complicated subject is health care. Health care costs are certainly out of control. The question, however, is how to decrease the costs to perform medical services not to decrease the cost to the individual. The US could simply agree to pay half of everyone's medical expenses, co-pay and all, and that would lower the individual's cost. It would balloon our debt even more of course. So, that's not the source problem. The question is has the cost to perform an x-ray skyrocketed? If so, why and is there anything that can be done? Obama mentioned improving some efficiency issues and that could help, but I am not optimistic the actual costs can be substantially reduced. Medical liability costs are enormous because of our ability to sue for any wrong doing and for any punitive amount. Perhaps limiting the punitive damages could reduce the medical liability insurance medical providers pay and thus lower the costs. Obama, however, would not want to offend his lawyer constituency, so I doubt we'll hear much about that. It would probably only nibble into the problem anyway. I wonder at the source of rising costs. Is it that we now go to the doctor for every minor concern? Is it that we have found better treatments but they are more expensive? This issue requires an honest investigation instead of assuming that the problem can be solved by paying the citizens bills for them.

On a final note, and here is where I thought he became a laughable politician, Obama spoke of cutting into the deficit. After all the talk of spending and our gloomy economy, Obama said he would reduce our deficit. How? He would do so by getting out of Iraq (that's a good start) and by raising the taxes our businesses and wealthy, the producers (that's a bad finish). Again, there is no evidence that increasing that tax bracket will increase revenue, and even if it did it couldn't make a dent in that massive spending he has completed and is proposing. People will chose to cheat/avoid taxes as they are raised to levels they find excessive and they will decide not to expand/create businesses. The second part of that is worrisome. Raising taxes in the midst of a severe economic downturn is very risky. If a business owner has to pay $40,000 more in taxes and his profits are decreasing because of a sluggish economy, will he simply say, "Oh, well". No, he will act, most likely by reducing employee wages or cutting jobs entirely. So, when Obama says that he will raise taxes on the wealthy, but reduce our (middle class) taxes he is telling you the truth. What he is not saying is that by doing so, he may be cutting your job. Hey, at least then you really won't be paying any taxes! No matter how much a socialist might want to change it, the producers hold the keys to our economy, not the laborers. That's how it should and must be. Who would you prefer steering our economy, Bill Gates, his maintenance staff that works for him, or, even worse, the government?

Stat of the day - according to Obama's own numbers, each job created/saved by the stimulus will cost the American taxpayers about $200,000.

Quote of the day (Jindal) - "Who among us would ask our children for a loan, so we could spend money we do not have, on things we do not need? That is precisely what the Democrats in Congress just did."

Economics - The Stimulus & tax raises

I have read a fair amount on the stimulus. This recession and the discussion about how to prevent a depression has renewed my enthusiasm for economic theory. Politicians generally gloss over economics and pretend to understand its dynamics. They make broad predictions about the effect their policies will have on the economy and assume that citizens will believe in those predictions because they want to believe in those predictions, not because they make sense. The economy is an extremely hard thing to predict, especially in the long term, but it is fun to speculate. Politicians must be having a blast.

Government spending in large doses, such as this stimulus bill, will generally have a positive effect on the economy in the short-term. In this case, it may not mean that our economy turns around, just that the economic free fall reduces its speed. In the short-term, it doesn't really matter where the government spends its money, but in the long-term it is crucial. Much of the stimulus argument centered around not whether to spend, but where to spend. If the spending had been on the military and accompanied by tax cuts, the Republicans could not have lined up fast enough. Instead, the spending went to Democratic interest groups, which is understandable since the Democrats control our government currently. I disagree with some of the outlets that were chosen for the money as they will not do much to assist the economy in the long-term. However, we can leave the details of that discussion for another time. In general terms, Obama and the Democrats gave the money to the middle class and poor along with some constituency groups.

It is very debatable whether stimulus helps the economy in the long run. The economy has it own cyclical motions, so it is hard to determine what effect government action has had. One thing is for sure, the economy is more like a tractor trailer than a sports car. It takes wide turns, can take a long time to get going and is hard to slow down. With this in consideration, my biggest criticism of the stimulus is the rushed manner in which it was done as if a day would make a difference. I would much prefer no stimulus than an unopposed stimulus bill with little discussion. Add in the fact that the Democrats used the stimulus to alter policy to their constituency and in a manner that does not seem all that stimulating, and I cannot support the measure.

Obama also now plans to attack the ever growing, ever burdensome deficit. He plans to do that through tax increases on business and the wealthy while cutting back on military spending, particularly in Iraq. I find no fault with the latter choice; it is well past time for America to reconsider playing the hero all over the world while our own balance sheet suggests that bankruptcy may soon be our undoing. The former, however, when added to all the benefits the working class and unemployed receive is a swift shift towards socialism, not that we weren't already falling into the principles of that economic theory that is doomed to fail.

The blame that Obama and the Democrats continually seem to place on businesses and the wealthy have me more concerned about our future than anything else. The tone is continually negative. I, as a Christian, am fully aware of the great virtue of helping those in need and the satisfaction one can receive from making a difference in the lives of others. There is no virtue in forcibly taking money from one person and handing it to another. That is stealing. However, everyone loves the story of Robin Hood and enjoys painting the rich as the villain and the poor as the victim. Throughout the history of the world that was generally the case as the rich demanded production from the poor for little to no pay for their own benefit, whether it was through slaves or serfs or through the nobility class structure enforced. America was different. America allowed business owners to keep their profit. America encouraged hard work, risk taking, talent, and creative thinking. The poor could become rich and the rich could become poor. America thrived.

Now politicians are to make us believe that the rich are guilty by definition and the poor innocent in a similar way. We are to tax the rich as much as possible to make them pay for their guilt and give it to the poor who deserve it. Barack Obama is playing Robin Hood and is receiving a hero's welcome. Yet, there are several problems with these ideals in the long-term.

The first issue is that the wealthy should not be, by definition, the villain. I admit that I have met several selfish, greedy rich people in my day that I wished were more generous with their wealth. On the other hand, many wealthy individuals worked very hard for their wealth and do share it. Bill Gates and Oprah Winfrey are both large philanthropists. Even if one chooses not to share his wealth, I think we should be careful in labeling these people the villain of our economic story. The successful entrepreneurs of this country have taken the risk and some have made massive amounts of money. The ones that have grown their companies have employed many people, purchased many supplies and services from other companies, paid a great deal of taxes, and, thus, greatly helped our country's economic condition. We should be careful of chastising and penalizing these individuals. We may not like them, we do not have to socialize with them or even enter into business with them if we do not like, but as long as they are making money within the legal boundaries of this country, we should applaud their effort, not revile it.
Take Exxon for example. Each quarter I have heard about "record profits" (I suppose this has or soon will come to an end) and the slant of the story is that they are evil for making so much money. I don't pretend to know the workings of oil and gas companies, but as long as they are not breaking any laws through price control collusion or otherwise, I don't see why they should be scorned for making money. Isn't that the objective?

The second problem is that taking from the rich and giving to the poor in an open and free economic country will eventually lead to the much worse things for the poor and middle class. Many will become impoverished. There is great risk and work in starting and owning a company. I have often thought of starting my own business, but these factors have and probably will prevent me from doing so. People take these risks for different reasons, but a key factor is the hope that they could become wealthy. If the government's tax structure penalizes income too severely, man will not be willing to take the risk. Those already in business may choose not to expand as the risk doesn't meet the reward that has been greatly diminished through taxation. Combine Obama's suggested new rate (39%) along with an average state income tax rate and Medicare (I'll leave out SS because it is capped, but this too could be changed), and for every additional dollar a successful businessman earns, the government will take about half. That is a factor in deciding to create or expand a business. If the business leaders of the future decide that the tax burden diminishes the reward too much to take the risk, our economy will not grow, it will decline. Where will the jobs be for the middle class? How could the poor hope to find a good job?

An example of this worked its way through General Motors. The union was very strong. It pushed for better pay and benefits for its workers as hard as it could. The workers loved the union. Why? Because the union was able to negotiate more pay than they could have received anywhere else, pay that was over the market value of the employee. In my town, it was probably the best jobs one could have if he did not have a college education. GM gave in many times on the pension benefits, pushing the cost down the road. They have struggled along and finally reached the end that for which they were destined, bankruptcy or government subsidy. GM cannot compete with foreign auto makers who have lower labor costs. The union helped the workers of the that day as the owners took less profit, but eventually the company failed and the workers now will be out of jobs or taking less wages. Such is the path of our socialist agenda, help everyone we can now and leave the future generations to suffer the consequences. Nothing in life is free, the cost will eventually be paid in full.

What of the government jobs? Who do you think pays for those government jobs? It's taxpayer money, and who pays the taxes? The top 10% bear an extremely high percentage of the tax burden. If they refuse to expand and create, then they refuse to pay, and if they refuse to pay the Federal government will be in serious trouble even more quickly. One, even a world super power, cannot borrow forever without showing some ability to repay its loans. The US is sending warning signs that they will never repay their debts. If the national debt were divided evenly, each household in America would be responsible for about $100,000 of the national debt. Yet we spend more and give more out in "entitlements" as if it doens't matter, falling deeper into that hole while President Obama is discouraging those who can produce and those whose production could trim away at the national debt from producing.

One final statistical point. Over the history of our country, the amount of tax revenue has not been correlated to the highest tax rate imposed. Conversely, it has been closely correlated to our GDP. There are various reasons for this, but the evidence suggests that Obama's tax hike on the rich will do nothing to raise tax revenue, it may actually do the opposite as our GDP shrinks. President Obama is an extremely intelligent man, I would hope he is aware of this data. If so, there are only two reasons to raise taxes on the wealthy in the midst of a serious economic downturn - to satisfy his constituency and/or to punish income/success. Neither is noble or acceptable.

Sports - Mountaineers in "Lock" status?

WV had an easy win at Rutgers on Sunday, so at 19-8 (8-6), fans love to talk about their tourney status. Many people think in terms of Mark Schlabach's "Bubble Watch" http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/bubblewatch , either a team is a lock or it is still on the bubble. I have a hard time with the "lock" status, because I'm not sure what that means. It could me a) that the team would definitely be in if the season ended today or b) that the team is definitely in regardless of the results of the rest of their games. Anything else would be subjective - "as long as they win one more game, or two more games" and would seem to contradict the lock status. I don't see how it could be situation "a" because Mr. Schlabach would have many more teams in lock status if that was the view he was taking. It can't be "b" because he recently moved a team, Butler, out of lock status after they lost a couple of games. So, it's subjective to him. Apparently, to him, lock status just means that he's willing to bet the house that the team will make the tournament. Butler may leave him seeking shelter.

For me, I'll answer both situation "a" and "b" for the Mountaineers. "A" - yes they would certainly make it if the tournament started today, probably as about a 5 seed. As for "b", no they cannot simply show up to the remaining 4 regular season games and Big East tournament and expect to get a bid. There really are probably not that many teams that have entered that safe ground with a couple of weeks left in the season. If WV lost 5 straight, finished 19-13 (8-10), they would be out, no question about it. They would have lost to Cincy, South Florida, DePaul, Louisville, and likely a mediocre opponent in the first round of the BE tournmanet. So, we cannot breathe easy just yet. Of course I believe they will win at least two more games, which is probably all they need. I don't see how they would lose to DePaul, which means that they would need just one more. However, if they were to lose at Cincy and at South Florida this week, it would become dicey very quickly.

So, let's get a couple of road wins this week and truly lock this thing up this week 'eers! I'm sure Huggy Bear will have his team fired up to play at Cincy. Starters - be prepared to play the whole game even if you are up by 40.

Religion - Tolerance level

There is a debate going on in the church today about how tolerant we as Christians should be. On the one extreme you have some who argue we should accept everyone lovingly and let each person hold his own lifestyle, theology, and understanding of Christ without meddling in that individual decision. On the other extreme there are Christians who do want individuals who agree on minute details of theology to attend or join their church.

As I grow in wisdom, a process that will never be completed here on earth, I have become aware of how little wisdom I actually possess. If you are to learn, then you must first believe that you have something to learn. In the spiritual realm, I have no doubt that there is one truth, one way that God would have us to live, one set of rules, one way in which He operates this universe. I do not subscribe to the notion that the truth can vary from individual to individual. However, finding that truth, the very essence of God is something I know I will never completely accomplish. On the day of judgment I am quite sure I will have a few things wrong in my theological stands. I believe I will be right on the big one - that Jesus was the son of God and was crucified for my sins and raised from death so that my faith in Him as my savior along with my acknowledgment of my sins will place me in Heaven. On some of the controversial issues within the church, however, I do not have the audacity to assume I will be correct on every one. Therefore, I attempt to have a good amount of room for theological tolerance, provided that the person is clear on the issue of salvation. I do not feel that we as Christians generally have much tolerance for theological differences. It may perhaps be my lack of self confidence in my own theology, but I feel like if I do not assimilate to the theological beliefs of others than they will look at me with less respect. I also believe that the unchurched views us in this way, many think that to join a church they must accept and agree with all the positions of the church, not just on the issue of salvation and a possible few other tenants that the denomination considers vital to its identity. This prevents successful evangelism.

I will share a brief example of theological differences. There is a divide within the church today about the inerrancy of the Bible, the belief that the Bible is 100% accurate. Both sides have legitimate arguments. On the side that does not believe inerrancy, they will of course have different stances because they can pick the parts with which they disagree. This fact is generally a concern of those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. Still, within the group that believes in the inerrancy of the Bible there are many disagreements. Those that are very conservative believe the Bible prohibits women from serving in leadership roles, while moderate conservatives who still believe in the inerrancy of the Bible disagree. There are issues from predestination to the use of alcohol where people who hold steadfast to inerrancy disagree. Interpretations are simply different. This fact has often made me ponder why people are so animated over the issue of inerrancy. If you are free to interpret the Bible how you please, does it really matter if you read something and interpret it slightly differently than the literal translation or just come out and say that the passage is not exactly in accordance with the truth of God? I could go on and on about this issue, but I'll leave it there for now.

The point of this is, from a theological standpoint, it seems to me that we should be tolerant on issues that are not crucial to salvation. An open, polite dialogue is best. The conversations can be fascinating and thought provoking if we do not intimidate others from sharing their full theology. An interesting topic to discuss with our tolerance level is the belief in Hell. Some Christians today do not believe in Hell. Many Christians would take the tone that these people are not truly Christians at all. As I mentioned before, there is one truth, there either is or isn't a Hell, that is indisputable. However, assuming there is a Hell, would one's denial of its existence guarantee that he or she spends eternity there? The gospel continually tells us that our salvation is based on our faith in Jesus Christ and commitment to Him. I see nothing that a belief in Hell is required. From a practical standpoint, a belief in Hell is very useful. It is an excellent motivator for one's self and also to be an evangelist for Jesus, assuming that a person does not want his loved ones to spend eternity there. As a salvation issue, however, is it a determining factor? I don't see how. If a person loves Jesus, believes in Him, accepts Him as the savior of his sins, and lives a life committed to Him, then I believe that person will find himself in Heaven.

This leads me to the other point, the life one leads. Is it committed to Christ? Jesus said that you can tell the type of tree by the fruit it bears. We are to be disciples to of Jesus. Judgment clearly is not ours, but if an individual comes to church on occasional Sundays, professes Jesus as Lord, and does nothing for Him in the rest of his life, it would seem that the faith is somewhat questionable. God cannot be conned through lip service; He sees the heart. It seems to me that perhaps our tolerance level is too high when it comes to those who choose not to serve Christ. Christianity is faith based, please do not misunderstand. However, deeds are a better indication of faith than details of ones theology and we should remember that before we look down with scorn on someone who disagrees with our theology but has a heart to serve Christ.

Sports - Mountaineer Status 02/20

After losing 3 of 4 WV (losses vs Pitt, at Louisville, and at Syracuse and only beating St. John's at home) looked very shaky, now WV has won 3 of 4 (wins vs Providence, Villanova, and ND with a loss at Pitt) and looks in solid shape. WV has 3 road games before hosting weakling DePaul and then powerhouse Louisville. Those three road games are not monsters (Rutgers, Cincy, South Florida), but they are Big East road games. WV is 2-4 on the road in Big East, losing its last three. So these are not gimmes. Still, if WV can manage a 3-2 record over the last 5 games, they would finish 10-8 in the Big East. This may be good enough for a 5 or 6 seed, the neighborhood that WV seems to be when they make the tourney in recent years. If they were to somehow run the table and put in a solid Big East showing, they could jump as high as a 3. The RPI is extremely strong. The losses are quality losses. What the resume lacks are high quality wins. A home against Villanova will probably go down as their best wins while road wins that seemed huge at that time against Georgetown and Ohio St. have lost their luster. It is a team that has handled inferior teams and been handled by superior teams. So, while I generally would think there would be a slip up somewhere during three straight road Big East games no matter which teams they faced, perhaps they will win them all since none of those teams have the talent level of the Mountaineers. That is the good news. The bad news is that I still don't see a magical tourney run for this team. Their weaknesses are exposed against better teams. They will need a favorable draw.

Economics - Talent Brings Companies?

A local head of an organization who attempts to attract businesses to Richmond was quoted in the newspaper as saying that despite several of our corporations closing operations, Richmond would be able to replace those companies because of the talent we now have that is out of work. In essence, that our increased supply of skilled labor would draw companies here to Richmond. Does this make sense or is it just the politics of the position that is talking?

In some ways, the theory does hold water. As a company closes its doors, other companies may see an opportunity, a void in the local market. If a company acts quickly enough, it could scoop up many of the recently laid off workers and have labor that would require less training than if starting from scratch. That happened here in a small scale not long ago when Wachovia bolted for St. Louis. Edelman Financial expanded from its Northern Virginia location and hired Wachovia employees who fit their corporate profile and who had decided not to move to St. Louis with the company. Clearly they saw an opening and talent available.

The problem with the theory is twofold. First of all, Edelman did not hire all of the displaced workers, I imagine it wasn't even close. Supply may have an impact on demand as the increased supply, in this case labor, can be purchased at a lower cost (wage). Supply, however, does not simply create demand. There must be some pricing pressure involved. The second is the timing of the statement. The statement may have made more sense two years ago. Currently, however, Richmond is not alone in having talent available in the job market. National demand for labor is dropping and shows no signs of picking up yet. To be enticing to companies, which there are few of who are looking for workers in bulk, the price (wage) may have to be dropped significantly, meaning these displaced workers would need to settle for significantly less than they were making. Even this has it problems as employers are fully aware that hiring someone at a $50,000 annual salary who was making $70,000 may be a short term proposition. That employee will be watching for the first opportunity to jump back to his or her previous earnings. Companies generally try to avoid hiring salaried employees for the short-term due to the sunken costs.

So, while the thought of "if you have it, they will come" is a nice rosy picture that someone in an organization charged with attracting businesses to our community might say, in these times, it's just talk. Richmond has been excellent in being recession proof in the times before, but this one appears too deep and too wide and we will have to take some lumps with the rest of the country.

Welcome

Welcome to the DeHavenator blog, where I am able to freely ramble about any subject I like. You'll find my thoughts to be mostly concerning my interest areas - politics, religion, and sports (with a focus on the Mountaineers). I do my very best to approach each topic objectively and independently of my preconceived notions. Blog with me if you like, but if you simply repeat the talking heads without understanding what you are even saying, be prepared to be called out for it. I love intellectual debate/discussions, but do not enjoy arguing with someone who lacks an open mind. Other than that, sit back, read, and enjoy!

As a little ps note, if you're interested in family information and updates, please contact me directly and I will hook you up with my wife's private blog that is focused on our family. I will not write of personal, family information here.