Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

The Recession: Share the Pain

Robert Shiller, an economics professor at Yale, wrote an insightful opinion piece in last Sunday’s NYT, to the notice of no one as far as I can tell. (Insightful in the “That’s so obvious, why hasn’t anyone said that out loud before?” way.)

Here’s the translation: Instead of laying off tons of workers while holding on to the all-star crew during a recession, bosses should simply make everybody (including themselves) share the pain with across the board pay cuts. (Obviously, if there’s a worker who sucks, they should be fired—but that’s not a function of the recession; bad workers should be fired for being bad workers whenever it’s merited. Downturns are too often used as cover for firing bad workers who should have been replaced years ago.)

This strategy, the piece argues, will fend off the mass unemployment figures that feed into the recession, while also staving off a sort of ripple effect within companies that kills morale. Conversely, sharing the pain of company downturns (again, boss included) creates a sense of workplace spirit that can actually inspire employees during a recession.

This may seem like an off-topic article for PubliCola to be posting about (we’re not the Economist), but with so much public focus and animosity directed at state and county public employees’ COLAs and benefits during this recession, Shiller’s piece points to a similar way to share the pain in the private sector.

File this one under turning a crisis into an opportunity.




  • http://twitter.com/fattailed fattailed

    Reducing everyone’s wages is a way to turn a crisis into an opportunity?

  • Chris

    Interesting argument, but the problem is that it is generally cheaper to keep one high performer with over time (say 60 hrs/week) versus to workers at 30/w given benefits costs. This begets a weird dynamic where most of my friends are either unemployed or working their tails off

  • Jakers

    I think this makes sense when you are talking about laying off 10% of a workforce that does all the same function and has similar work hours and pay, but can a company really have a CEO who’s only there 75% of the time? What about union versus non-union exempt employees; cut my time by 25% and I’ll be working 37.5 hours, cut a union’s person time by 25% and he’ll be working 30 hours. A lot of my coworkers could cut 5 to 10 hours out of there work week and still get the same amount of work done.

  • Anonymous

    Speaking of dealing with the recession, how about if tunnel-hating, Krugman-loving Publicola mentions Paul Krugman’s piece in today’s NYT on the implications of New Jersey pulling the plug on its deep bore tunnnel:

    “Canceling the tunnel was also a blow to national hopes of recovery, part of a pattern of penny-pinching that has played a large role in our continuing economic stagnation.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=1&hp

  • Anonymous

    Speaking of dealing with the recession, how about if tunnel-hating, Krugman-loving Publicola mentions Paul Krugman’s piece in today’s NYT on the implications of New Jersey pulling the plug on its deep bore tunnnel:

    “Canceling the tunnel was also a blow to national hopes of recovery, part of a pattern of penny-pinching that has played a large role in our continuing economic stagnation.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=1&hp

  • Jakers

    That sounds a lot more connect to our issues here than some utility tunnel in Copenhagen that a whole piece was written about.

  • Acronyms Speed Solutions

    That tunnel makes sense, in that it is a train tunnel adding public transportation capacity to augment a tunnel that is already at capacity. Canceling it = dumb.

    Our tunnel is a freeway tunnel adding road capacity in a corridor (bypassing downtown) that demonstrably doesn’t need it. For just one of many flaws, most of the traffic on the current Viaduct is going to downtown, not bypassing it. It’s a Potemkin tunnel, designed to satisfy the concerns and biases of people who rarely if ever will use it.

    It will also soak up tax dollars that could be used for replacing 520, renovating I-5, adding smaller road improvements, and building Link from West Seattle to Ballard.

    (If we call it the Westside High Occupancy Rail Extension, would that get it built in my lifetime?)

  • Anonymous

    Sure it’s a transit tunnel, but Christie’s excuse for killing it is the same one McGinn is using–potential cost overruns. Can the tunnel haters be intellectually honest enough to admit that there is an economic and employment downside to killing a huge capital project in a recession this deep and prolonged? If the Seattle DBT goes down, the national headlines will not be about transit vs auto issues….

  • Josh Feit

    Have you guys seriously turned this into a thread about the tunnel? Sigh.

  • Jakers

    hahahahaha, love it!!

  • Jakers

    “replacing 520, renovating I-5″ what about replacing an unsafe, at capacity highway 99??

  • http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/ Jeff Welch

    Apples and oranges. If you own a company that makes widgets, and your company is selling fewer widgets because people aren’t buying as many widgets – you don’t need as many people to produce widgets. An across the board pay cut in manufacturing and other industries feeling the pain of lower sales may save jobs, but it won’t help the company. You’ll have the same number of people to do less available work.

    The attempt to buffer this against arguments being directed against public employees runs into limits in the supply-demand economic model.

  • Chris

    Nobel or not, Krugman is so married to Keynesianism as to be completely unable to see anything else. There is no way to get out of a debt problem with more debt! the debt must be dealt with, either by default or devaluation – that’s it. To see everything that’s wrong with our economy as an aggregate demand issue without understanding or recognizing this debt is the cause of this lack of demand is insane. Gov’t spending might work is we were a nation of savers with a trade surplus, but we are not….

  • Anonymous

    I’m happy to admit that I was looking for someone on Publicola to notice the relevance of Krugman’s column today to the current debate in this town, and your post was the best excuse I could find. NYT op-ed? check. recession fighting? check.
    But if you want to debate Shiller’s silly proposal on its own merits, I’m fine with that. In the real world, outside of Harvard, lowering wages reduces buying power, and digs a recession deeper. Once wages go low, they take much longer to come back up than workforce numbers do, which is why unions will always accept layoffs before they accept wage give-backs.

  • David Sucher

    Josh is absolutely correct.

    Of course the widget factor will have fewer sales and the GNP will be lower.

    But
    1. fewer people will be totally without a job
    2. unemployment insurance costs will go down
    3. organizational capability (i.e. you have the crew) is maintained
    4. morale increases because we are all in this together.

    Of course the tragedy is that we are NOT all in this together.

  • David Sucher

    Everything is about the tunnel.

  • David Sucher

    There are plenty plenty plenty un-met capital needs.
    Don’t worry about where to spend the $2 billion.
    In fact there are more useful ways to spend it that on the tunnel.

  • gloomy gus

    A for effort though, a noble try.

  • http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/ Jeff Welch

    Not really applicable to Metro bus drivers and other workers putting in their hours – and more.

  • http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/ Jeff Welch

    A+. Nothing else to add.

  • http://pstransitoperators.wordpress.com/ Jeff Welch

    A+. Nothing else to add.

  • Reasoned

    In a responsibly-run organization, 35-45% of an employee’s cost is taxes, benefits, and overhead. 15-20% of that is taxes. It is cheaper to fire an employee and take the smaller tax hit on added overtime for those who remain.

    Simple cash-flow modeling, which they don’t typically teach in school, would do wonders for the voting public in trying to understand this stuff.

  • gloomy gus

    A+ certitude, D minus analysis.

  • Jakers

    Don’t (didn’t?) most companies in Japan have this kind of system?

  • Jakers

    If your total salary costs were the same in the two scenarios, your taxes should be close to the same. Benefit costs would be lower with fewer employees, but unless you are also reducing capital investment, the overall overhead won’t drop much and would actually increase per employee.

  • David Sucher

    Reasoned,
    I think you may not be getting the Josh’ point.
    OF COURSE it appears to be the rational course — fire people.
    The issue is really whether it is.

  • maynardian

    “There is no way to get out of a debt problem with more debt” — actually we ran HUGE deficits into ww2….then for decades more….and grew our way out of it.

    How do you think we got out of the depression?

  • Gomez

    Asking 5 people to cut back keeps them all employed, whereas taking away one person’s livelihood and maintaining the jobs of the other 4 (and doing so doesn’t necessarily spare then from future cuts) does not.

  • Gomez

    This is a great point… and for the most part it will never happen because the vast majority of management personnel think they can never be paid enough and will never willingly cut their own wages just to save those beneath them.