Cool Biz but not cool enough by Tony Green

Image of Japanese worker 

One of the latest attempts by the Japanese government to save energy has been to the increase temperatures on Tokyo’s trains and office buildings with the intention of lowering their energy input.

One method the government had elected to persuade the generation to adapt to warmer trains during Tokyo’s notoriously hot summers is allow business people to forgo the typical suit and tie and go with a shirt sleeve shirt common referred to as “cool biz”. The Japanese Ministry of the Environment (MOE) began advocating the “Cool Biz” campaign in summer 2005 as a means to help reduce electric consumption by limiting the use of air conditioning.

The Cool Biz dress code advises workers to starch collars so they stand up and to wear trousers made from materials that breathe and absorb moisture.

As a show of support all of the government leaders practiced Cool Biz. Former Prime Minister Koizumi was frequently interviewed without a tie or jacket, and this produced a significant advertising effect.

Yet many still wear suits and ties for business reason as old customs are difficult to change. Even those who favored the idea of dressing more casually became self-conscious during their commutes when they were surrounded by other commuters who were all wearing standard business suits. In addition, many government employees stated they felt it was impolite not to wear a tie when meeting counterparts from the private sector.

Another method implemented by the government is designating one of the cars as a "weak" car which is maintained at a higher temperature with the intention of reducing energy consumption. During a summer rush many commuter choose not to sit in this car.

Which brings me to the question of whether minimizing our energy footprint energy ever provide sufficient motivation to modify the way we live our lives? Is a little inconvenience enough reason to warrant to change the method we are accustomed to conserving our energy?

As a measure the impact, in 2006 the MOE estimated that the campaign resulted in a 460,000-ton reduction in CO2 emission which is the equivalent volume of CO2 emitted by about 1 million households for one month.

I guess business will never be cool enough yet the concept where only executives and old school salesman wear suits and ties for the reason they are unnecessary has worked brilliantly in Silicon Valley for more than the 10 years I since I moved there. 

Thank goodness we are not in a Depression by Tony Green

At least we are not in a depression.....

Is the current recession in fact a depression and no one in the media wants to say so? We are all clear on the end result; the economy is crippled, families are shattered, and lives have been altered.

A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of negative growth in the gross domestic product (GDP) which is the total value of goods and services produced. investorwords.com states a recession is, in general, accompanied by a drop in the stock market, an increase in unemployment, and a decline in the housing market. A recession is, by and large, considered less harsh than a depression, however, if a recession continues long enough the occurrence is classified as a depression.

The definition of a depression is not so clear - a severe and prolonged recession characterized by inefficient economic productivity, high unemployment and falling price levels. A depression is defined by its length; it’s usually large increases in unemployment; and falls in the availability of credit, often due to some kind of banking or financial crisis.  Price deflation and bank failures are also common elements of a depression which are not normally a part of a recession.

I think people, in general, want to think the Great Depression was a one- time occurrence assuming it could never occur again. Didn’t the depression happen once before?  In 1929, a perfect storm of events combined to cause the stock market to crash. Is the current scenario any different from where multiple separate occurrences all converge to wreak havoc on the world’s economy?

During the Great Depression the GDP of the United States decreased by 33% and the rate of unemployment increased to 25%. When compared to the current recession according to bea.gov the revised estimates show for the period of contraction from 2007 to 2009 the economy contracted at an average annual rate of 3.5% while the unemployment rate reached 10%. To get an appreciation on how this compares to the economic environment in December 2007, prior to the recession, the unemployment rate hovered at 5.0% while by June 2009; the rate had jumped to 9.5%. In the months, the unemployment rate peaked at 10.0 percent.

After reviewing the numbers I feel better our nation’s economy has not reached depression levels. (Yet) But with the turmoil and the fact it will take us years as a country and a planet to fully recover, in actuality, what is the difference to people other than economists in what this challenging economic period is called?

The end of the investment of home ownership by Tony Green

People purchased homes before the housing market crash not only with intention of having a place to live but with the goal of making an investment in their future.  The reality of renting an apartment versus owning a home meant the payment being spent on rent on a monthly basis went down the tube never to be seen again.  In the past, a symbol of success was burning the title of your home, which you now owned after the last payment had been deposited by the mortgage company.

Fast forward to today and the situation is drastically different. In a time of high unemployment and limited access to credit with the lowering of property values to the point where the amount on the loan is in excess of its value has turned the monthly mortgage payment into a financial black hole.

Image of beautiful  home

In the event you are unemployed the result is you are between a rock and a hard place since if a person cannot show a regular salary coming it is not possible to qualify for a modification on your loan. More ever if a short sale was attempted to avoid foreclosure and the house sold at a amount less than the value of the property the capital gains tax would transfer you mortgage debt to the IRS assuming the tax break for underwater properties would not be reinstated at the end of the year in the same fashion as the Bush era tax cuts.

The prospects of improvement sooner than later are slim which has caused me to consider moving back to an apartment. This will ensure I understand what payment I will owe and which won’t adjust arbitrarily dependent on some obscure formula for the interest rate. At least, you know what your rent money goes away for and there would be no need to think about the other painful occurrences such as foreclosures, short selling, and re-modifications, etc. Just like an apartment.  How’s that for full circle?