I look at today's kids and society in general and just have to coment on negative changes and the deterioration of civilization.  It's expected of me.  I'm an old retired guy now.  However, I just can't accept the line that "Oh, you're just getting old and out of touch with things."

So here comes a "when I was a kid" story.

When I was a kid, I had a paper route that included caring for a newspaper box in front of the apartment building where I lived in North York.  Let me describe this box to you.  It was a metal box with a top and a bottom and three sides.  The front was wide open.  On one side of the box was a small metal box about the size of a deck of cards, with a coin slot in the top. There was a small lock on the bottom which could be removed to empty the coins out of the box, which I did each day. 

In the several years that I had this route, there was only one time where the number of missing newspapers did not tally with the amount of money in the payment box.  On that occasion, when missing money suggested that someone had taken a paper without paying, the newspaper company sent a representative to investigate. 

Transpose that scenerio to modern times and put that box of papers in a suburban or urban area, filled with papers.  What would happen?  I don't think thre is any question.  At very least many of the papers would be stolen and likely the money box would be smashed and stolen.  Nowadays we have the closed, locked boxes where you have to put in your money in order to get at a paper, and there are still people who put money in for one paper and take several when it's open. 

When people tell me that things haven't really changed, I think of this one tangible example which proves to me exactly how much things have really changed.  I'm sure there are other similar stories.  The feeling that many things have changed for the worse is not just old folks grumbling.  It is very real.

    One of my favorite Blog sites is "Whatever", by John Scalzi.  It is very much an inspiration for my own blogging style and topics.  Check it out at http://whatever.scalzi.com 

    A recent entry was the result of a blog discussion between him and Robert Sawyer as to whether SciFi authors will be able to make a living a decade from now.  I think the broader question involves not just SciFi writers, but any authors or publications. 

    We are in the process of digitizing the printed work industry just as we did the music industry.  E-books in various formats are available on Kindles, I-Pads and even cell phones.  Novels, comic books, magazines and newspapers are being turned into digital media to make them more readily available to the consumer through these new paths. 

    What prevents the same thing from happening to the printed word industry as happened to the music industry?  Digital availability means easy and quick reproduction in ways that sacrifice copyright and the ability of the author and publisher to make a living.  I can already point you to newsgroups where e-books are freely available along with cracks for e-book readers.  Some devices, such as Kindle, maintain control over their content, but it is only a matter of time before hackers find a work-around or generic versions of the devices make that control useless. 

    We would then face a situation where all authors would not receive fair payment for their work and where magazine sales would become financially untenable.  Musicians are able to make money with concerts and merchandising.  I don't see that as an option for authors.  Speaking tours?  As Scalzi and Sawyer point out, writers have to consider themselves lucky if they can get speaking engagements. Movie or TV deals are rare and I can't say I've ever seen someone wearing a t-shirt for a novel or author (except maybe "Ender's Game").  Combine that with what seems to be a growing trend not to read at all, and the butchering of the written language on Facebook, Twitter and MSN and we may be staring into a crisis for western culture. 

    Well that's OK.  It seems our brains are getting smaller anyway.   

    Further to the previous entry, here are a few excerpts from a recent article by Yukio Hatoyama, the new PM of Japan. 
    "How can we put an end to unrestrained market fundamentalism and financial capitalism, which are void of morals or moderation, in order to protect the finances and livelihoods of your citizens?'
    "In terms of market theory, people are simply personnel expenses.  But in the real world people support the fabric of the local community and are the physical embodiment of its lifestyle, traditions and culture.  An individual gains respect as a person by acquiring a job and a role within the local community and being able to maintain his family's livelihood."
    "Our responsibility as politicians is to refocus our attention of those noneconomic values that have been thrown aide by the march of globalism.  We must work on policies that regenerate the ties that bring people together, that take greater account of nature and the environment, that rebuild welfare and medical systems, that provide better education and child-rearing support and that address wealth disparities"
    These are the ideals that a lot of the G8 protesters wanted to bring to the forefront.  Globalization is for the most part American Globalization and consists of the "unrestrained marked fundamentalism” spotlighted by Hatoyama.  In the last few years we have seen the product of that policy and there can be little doubt that it needs reconsideration.  Unfortunately, the radical protestors and anarchists were effective in eclipsing any meaningful protest ideas.  In the coverage I saw of the G8 in Toronto, about 25% was dedicated to the rather impotent events of the actual meeting, and 75% was dedicated to pictures of two burning police cars.  No mention was ever given to the ideas being proposed by legitimate protestors. 

  I did the rounds to do some routine shopping the other day.  In the Rogers store there were all kinds of perks for people subscribing to new services, including discounts on plans, deals on new hardware, etc.  Afterwards I went to the bank and found the same thing on the posters displayed there.  All kinds of incentives for people opening new accounts.  I commented to the bank manager that it was a shame that all these privileges were being offered to new customers, not to loyal customers.  It seemed a bit unfair and even insulting, like someone overtly spending all their time with a new friend and ignoring the old ones.  The manager had little to say, but mumbled something about how there were lots of perks for old customers as well. 
  I had no intention of getting into a discussion with him (or him with me, I'd bet), but I gave the question some thought afterwards. 
  When I was a kid and opened my first savings account at a bank, I remember the interest rate being 11 or 12 percent.  The teller took time to explain to the young, novice customer that saving was good and could yield you more money over time because of interest.  Properly managed long term investments could yield as much as 18 % interest.
That sounds absurd in a day and age where you're lucky if bank accounts don't cost you money in the form of service fees.  These banks are collecting 18% on outstanding VISA balances and more people are taking out loans and mortgages now than ever before.  Regardless of the recession, in the years immediately before it and since, banks are on record as profiting by billions of dollars.  And yet my mother received a letter from the bank the other day regretting that she can only yield 1% on a long term investment coming up for renewal.  Interest on savings accounts is barely noticeable, unless you have a substantial amount as a balance. 
  Not only is customer loyalty a thing of the past, but so too is employee loyalty.  In the name of "cutting costs" banks and other institutions (who are not in any real financial difficulty) lay of experienced workers so that they can pay salaries lower on the wage scale and cut back on benefit costs.  "Thank you for your 20 years of devoted service.  Now bugger off so we can hire some young and cheaper labor to take your place."
I know it sounds cliché, but greed has totally taken over.  Decisions are made, not with any humanistic values in mind, but purely on the criteria of profit margin.  The decisions might as well be made by a computer.  (IN my next entry I'm planning to bring up some ideas from the current PM of Japan, who has some interesting solutions to this.)  I am not anti-capitalistic, but this is a form of mechanical, heartless capitalism which is out of control and out of touch.  We have forgotten that it is in the best interest of society to provide opportunities for all.  We have forgotten that the loyal customer or the loyal employee deserves credit.  The loyal customer who is not valued will cease being a loyal customer.  Why not go surfing from one company to another in order to best benefit from the perks?  Similarly, don't think that those new, young employees haven't noticed how they treated the old loyal ones.  Do companies really expect them to work hard when they witness how little that hard work is valued?  It's not good for the system.  That kind of capitalism (-I guess you could call it fundamentalist capitalism-) erodes human values in a way that causes the system to degrade over time. 
  If my cell phone carrier gives me perks for loyalty, I'm more likely to put up with inconveniences before switching to another company.  That strengthens the system.