I was born in 1948, at the foot of an enchanted mountain whose spirit enjoins me to rise higher

Ordinary citizen, empathetic contemplator (maybe a little too empathetic to be fully comfortable in the world, as it is). Don't look for academic credentials; this guy has none, save those gained over the course of many interesting (and, at times, difficult) life chapters, spent surviving on a shoestring budget.

Followers

Sunday, January 7, 2024

With respect to its mission, this blog is dead in the water. Why you should be concerned.

In the international hustings, America is definitely sliding and that shouldn't be happening. 

I'm not going to waste my time reproducing evidence that any dope can find online. It's a fact. Not just that, mind you, but it is irretrievably indebted at the federal level - 34 trillion dollars, going into 2024. Whose going to pony up for that? American taxpayers? Stop dreaming. Ain't no way it can be reeled in using that little donkey.

No one should dare say that the writing wasn't on the wall (Ernie Greene's Wall too, by the way). It's been there for decades, looking back.

The fact is, too many Americans believe that something magical will emerge out of nowhere that can currently be described and save the day, some kind of God-sent intervention from above.

Folks, it ain’t going to happen.

What kind of comeuppance is in store for us, I can't imagine, let alone described. It's like watching a grand piano dropping from the 75 floor of some high-rise in super-slow motion toward a crowded street below. But right across the street there's a homeless bum who has been watching that piano being hoisted up with a sense of trepidation. He sees the rope break, jumps to his feet and starts yelling at folks to get out of the way. But they just think he's crazy and avert their gaze and keep walking, just like those poor people in the Second Tower who stayed at their desks because they were advised to by the building's security personnel, even as a few folks said, “Fuck that; I'm getting the hell outta here!” and lived.

Well, this isn’t a scholarly post. Nor should it be. We are sitting on the verge of an existential crisis. No, more like somnambulating toward a political precipice is more like it. There are sirens going off everywhere but it matters little; like lemmings we march on past every danger sign posted.

This is all I have to say now. Anything useful I've said already in previous posts.

Oh, by the way, I might as well add that we are self-releasing a vinyl LP called ‘For the Record’, by Peter Wrenleau, which, if like this sort of blog, you might just like. Look for it on Bandcamp sometime in February.

Monday, May 16, 2022

THE HOMELESSNESS CRISIS - JUST FIX IT, DAMMIT!

 I'm extremely frustrated at the totally flaccid way that government in America, at all levels, is responding to the fact that so many Americans are being DENIED access to even the most basic housing, while, at the same time, coddling the favor of the financially-empowered - businesses and individuals alike - who suck on the blood of those who are the financially-challenged and psychologically-suppressed of the nation.

We have waited decades for the so-called “free market” to solve the problem - a pipe dream that didn’t just  never come true, but turned into an absolute nightmare for the nation. Anyone who thinks there is a free-market solution to homelessness in America is an idiot. After all, what's the usual definition of someone who isn't quite sane? If you don't know, it's this - it's someone who approaches a problem, over and over again exactly the same way, and fails every time, yet continues to do so, absolutely convinced that, at some point, it will magically succeed.

Christ! Does no one see: this is a fucking national crisis - the prime signature of the slow collapse of a nation moving helplessly toward the condition of a failed state. As far as failed states go, I already have one under my belt of places lived in for decades - South Africa, now reaping the fruits of past indifference to the plight of the dispossessed and oppressed and sliding inexorably, with every passing day, into the maw of future failure as a nation. The parallels between my experience of perception there, in the late 1960's/early 1970's and the current condition of American society are eerily similar. I’m not scared. I'm disgusted.

Anyone who thinks the chaos in South Africa today comes down to race isn't reading enough. What it comes down to is GREED on the part of those who have much, on the one hand, and DESPERATION on the part of those who have nothing, pure and simple - the garden-variety wealth/income dichotomy that now so bedevils the United States. Once firmly ensconced, that order of things becomes a power unto itself, and cannot be changed by civil means, human beings being what they are.

Americans, though you may not realize it, your precious democracy - the one you are so loudly proud of - is now being quietly taken over by a force of money that you seem to have neither the smarts, nor the stomach to go up against. One day soon, you will wake up and realize that you are no longer as free as you  once believed fervently you were. There will be a chain around your neck when you look in the mirror, and on the other end will be a giant faceless creature with an insatiable appetite for every last cent you manage to scrape together and every ounce of energy you can drag out of your depleted being.

That, exactly, was the life of bantus and coloureds, when I left South Africa; so don't think it can't happen in America. The forces that now propel tens of thousands of Americans into living in their vehicles or, God forbid, into encampments or onto the streets are a lot more powerful and sophisticated than those that formerly controlled the lives of people in South Africa. And having seen what happened there when the chains were removed, they are not about to make the same mistake in the US.

There isn't much time left for the people of this nation to prevent that from happening. Robust countermeasures are needed, post haste, and the sole entity with the power to turn the tide (albeit slowly) is the government owned and maintained by the People for their greater benefit.

The only thing that will temper the rapacious appetite for money that informs what the providers of housing now charge is a MASSIVE TIDE OF GOVERNMENT FUNDED, PRODUCED AND MANAGED HOUSING - housing that is both basic and robust, yet potentially improvable and available for purchase by INDIVIDUALS ONLY who opt to occupy those dwellings, initially as renters.

CHEAP RENTAL HOUSING IS THE KEY.

If you think the private sector has a secret yen to sell to the lowest and the poorest, stop dreaming. It ain't never gonna happen. Period.

GOVERNMENT DID IT WHEN GI's CAME HOME FROM WWII & ONLY GOVERNMENT CAN DO IT NOW!

One thing is for sure: if it doesn't, nothing will get better and it almost certainly will get progressively worse.

Beyond that, it's terra incognita of the kind you don't want to live through.



Friday, December 3, 2021

The peach tree

 On the second day of November, 2021 - very late in the season for such things - Rachel made a fruit salad  - bananas, apples from properties we tend and the last of the peaches that came from our garden.


Arguably, it was the most affirming thing that happened for us in the last year, or so - more memorable than the mind-boggling gain (soon notably discounted, naturally) produced by our self-managed investment account during the latter half of 2021.


It wasn't anything human-related, as might have been expected.  Rather, it was plant-related; specifically, to a tiny peach pit sprout, encountered in our compost pile after the winter of 2014/15, that we mentored the development of from a fragile fragment to a hefty bearer of the first peaches we'd ever managed to grow and the most delicious we'd ever tasted.


It was those peaches that Rachel used in the fruit salad.


So why was this so significant for us?  A few peaches, so big deal.


Because, in a word, it was emblematic of something often overlooked, but hugely important to the general success of society - that given the right attendant circumstances, apparently insignificant beginnings can lead to surprisingly consequential outcomes.


OK, while it may appear that THIS felicitous outcome was little more than an instance of serendipity that simply fell into our laps, that would be a gross misperception.  We didn't just plop a peach pit into the ground and then wait four years for fruit to arrive.  


Nothing like it!


While turning our newly established compost pile in the spring of 2015, I noticed a germinating little shoot, emerging from the split shell of a discarded pit, with its pale taproot on the other end, under a layer of humus.  It takes a cold winter and a slow thaw to make this happen.  Cold temperatures are needed to suppress an enzyme that, in a default way, would normally prevent the seed from germinating at any time of the year other than early spring.  If that happened in fall, the delicate seedling would be killed by frost and if it happened in late spring to early summer it might succumb to heat or lack of moisture.  Nature is very clever.


Any other day, I might just have turned that delicate sprout under, without a thought, like many before it.  But, this time, I decided to go one better.


I knew that it would be a long shot to expect getting peaches from this tiny thing - for all I knew, we wouldn't even be in this location, even if the peach DID manage to grow in the harsher conditions of our upland locale. There weren't any other peach trees in town that I knew of to show that it could be done.  Nevertheless, I thought, why not give it a try?


I carefully cleaned excess humus off the shoot and planted it in decent soil in a flower pot, so we could pay special attention to it, until it was big enough to be transplanted in some dedicated spot on the property.  It grew, but it would be another year before it was strong enough to go into the ground.


Our hand was tipped by the natural death of a wonderful cat we had adopted in the previous year.  We decided it would be a fitting testament to Nature's endless recirculation of life if our beloved cat could live on, not only as a beautiful tree with delicate blossoms in spring, but also as the bees that would come for pollen and nectar in the summer and as any and all who happened to eat whatever fruit the tree might produce in the years ahead - including ourselves.


Entertaining a beautiful notion is one thing; manifesting it is another.  Success would require both work and sustained attention for an unknown number of years into a future that we knew was uncertain.


The morning after Pumpkin died, we chose a spot where we thought a full grown peach tree would look pleasing - juxtaposed against the building - and dug a deep hole into the stubborn ground at the southwest corner of the property.  Owing to compaction from vehicles having been driven over that spot for years before we arrived, the going was slow.  The process unearthed no small quantity of large stones, rusty metal objects, asbestos tiles and remnants of construction debris buried there by previous generations.  After a lot of exhausting digging, we got the hole to a depth and width we thought would facilitate root growth.   Then, we laid gentle little Pumpkin to rest and covered her body in alternating layers of cleaned-out soil and aged compost from our garden pile.  Only then was the tiny tree, not even knee high, carefully planted.  


With a stable regimen of watering - not too little and not too much - it grew fast in its new location.


But, as anyone living in these parts knows, a tiny fruit tree, left unprotected, has about as much chance of reaching maturity as a peanut butter sandwich left unattended on a picnic table in a city park in which a healthy population of crows has established itself. The problem is usually succinctly summed up by gardeners in these parts in two syllables: “Damn deer!”, in the wake of some disastrous nighttime grazing visit.


Clearly, our little upstart tree had to be protected or its life would be short.  Lucky for us, the North Fork John Day River Watershed extension, a block down highway 395 from us, had many rolls of salvaged wire fencing lying around.  They were happy to part with enough of it for us to erect a protective barrier around the little tree and some garden beds we had dug on the west side of the old café.  


We were later able to extend fencing around the whole garden, but not before needing to prevail in a contentious dispute with our neighbors over their insistence on driving over part of our property. A professional surveyor, that THEY hired, settled the issue in our favor.  


Of course, they could have given my integrity the benefit of the doubt, been reasonable and saved themselves a bunch of change, but that's rarely the way things are settled out here.


Over the next two years, the tree grew ever larger - taller than Rachel and then taller than me, at about which point, it bore its first five unsuccessful blossoms.  A year later, there were scores of blossoms, but still no fruit.  We knew it would take a few years for that to happen, but trusting in the fact that stone fruit trees usually propagate true to kind, we were content to just wait and give the tree whatever care it needed - judicious irrigation and a little preening to maintain good structure.


This year, our patience paid off, not just satisfactorily, but so generously that we had to tie the limbs and branchlets together.  Even at that, some branchlets broke.  Relative to the branch ends they're attached to, a group of peaches can appear impossibly big, strung on a tiny limb. Somehow, the fruiting limb bends down slowly under the weight without snapping, unless there's a big wind (which we did have a couple of).  


In the end, we got 96 peaches off that tree, along with 17 from another one year younger. Not bad.


Post harvest, there is still work to do if the yield next year is to be good; we have to put down a new layer of sifted compost, remove dead lower branchlets and check to see whether the overall shape of any of the five trees we now have might require tweaking.


It wasn't all pleasant or easy and it took careful watering to bring through the big heatwave we had, but in the end, our peach tree was able to grow safely and do its thing.


There was a life lesson in this.  


That outcome didn't just happen overnight, all by itself.  It required a resolute engagement of care and attention on our part.


Nor will success just happen for any of the other four peach trees in our garden. If that were possible, there would be fruit-bearing peach trees all over every place wherever people, having eaten peaches, idly cast the pits aside, allowing new trees to grow.  Personally, I've never run across a community where that appears to have occurred.


This town has been here for 160 years - plenty of time for the numerous generations of former citizens that preceded us to have established other peach trees around town.  Even so, while we, in our seven years here, have established five such trees, in all the rest of town, only one other scraggly peach tree exists, which, this year, got no help surviving and languished in the seer heat, because the owner of the property had moved elsewhere.  Its desiccated fruit dropped early and not even the deer would touch them where they lay.


He who doesn't relish a nice, juicy peach, ripe and straight off the tree, is an odd fellow indeed.  So, one has to wonder why, in a town so blessed with whatever peaches require to flourish, virtually no one, besides us, has a tree or two, the better to help make the most of these glorious, late-summer days.  


Okay, our town is only a tiny blip on the map, but in its own small way, the situation says something about the capacity of humankind to mentor, to optimal expression, the wealth of potential readily available everywhere (particularly, within other humans)- something not all that encouraging.


It takes time, steadfast faith and some degree of effort on the part of someone who cares enough for that kind of sequence from seed to tree to fruit to manifest. The idea of a multi-year period of faithfully tending the growth of very slowly developing things, for the betterment of a future world - in short, classic mentoring - is a lifestyle that is as foreign to most Americans throughout the rest of the country as it is to those in our town.  Life is short.  Why should one invest in an outcome you might not even be around to see?


The inescapable reality is that rising to THAT measure of dedication requires of a person attributes and disciplines which, owing to a preference for unabated convenience and entertainment, on demand, most Americans typically take a pass on developing within themselves, since doing so would demand an intensity of focus, resolve and effort that would inevitably not always be easy or convenient.


Foremost among those attributes needed to achieve ends that take time to ripen is forbearance.  Without forbearance, nothing that needs time to germinate and develop can be brought to the fullness of its inherent potential.  


The most important thing about this maxim is realizing that it doesn't just pertain to fruit trees and diverse life quests; it also extends to individuals, just as much as any other kind of growing entity.  Individuals, particularly, require an extended period of patient backstopping by stronger individuals, through thick and thin, in better times and worse, to fully realize their potential.  


Without the forbearance of the strong, backstopping of the weak cannot be maintained long enough to allow the fragile beginnings of the young, growing slowly, but soundly, to become solidly self-sustaining enough to return, in later years, multiples of whatever it took to sponsor their initial development.  


I've lived in the US for close to half a century - long enough to observe that the country is littered with the remnants of half-realized dreams that should not have died on the vine and broken people in the rubble left behind that other people gave up on too easily or too quickly - all for want of an conscionable quotient of backstopping by those who could easily have helped, but didn't.

 

Actually, forbearance is not a singular thing.  It's a complex of constituent attributes - patience, resolve, self-discipline, diligence and fortitude.


But, just in case you're tempted to give forbearance, by itself, a blanket thumbs-up, we should remember this:  that, by itself, forbearance can just as readily be turned toward  darker ends as socially contributive ones by those whose focus is power over others.  In fact, most people who live larger than normal lives use forbearance to excel in both selfish and unselfish ways, usually in that order.


If you think about it, it quickly becomes evident that, while patience, resolve, self-discipline, diligence and fortitude, by themselves, may be excellent tools for the purposes of achieving goals, what they have to offer to the world could just as easily be channeled by some dictator into the grim realities of a nation held together by merciless enforcement of its top-down codex of laws alone, as anything we normally think of as positive in a functioning democracy.


Worryingly, (from my point of view), anti-democratic expressions of forbearance seem now to be rising in America. It's a direction the country has incrementally been drifting toward over the past four decades, or so. And though national comity is not yet dead and buried, it is perilously close to the tipping point where faith in the idea of a common fold is abandoned in a rush toward political tribalism under which it becomes every man for himself.  At that point……..Ah wait; that's another subject, isn't it?


The point is that forbearance, alone, isn’t ALL that is required to bring the national success story some of us still dare to hope see manifested.


Something more is needed.


Some might posit, “Awareness!”, but even that is not enough, because awareness can just as well be elitist as inclusive.  Elitism and democracy are not compatible ideas.


Yes, something more is, indeed, needed; and (lest the notion tempt) it can’t be provided by government, regardless of how much money it throws at the problem.  It has to come from within people themselves.


That essential complementary ingredient required for forbearance to be unerringly benevolent, as far as I can see, is for it to be rooted in the passion to see another entity prosper without feeling the need to control. It's an attribute that every genuine, lifelong do-gooder expresses to some degree or another.  Call it unconditional love, or call it natural empathy, either will do.


To illustrate this passion that one might have for another, I've included a story:


The other night, Rachel and I ran into a nurse whom we had met a couple of years ago at the hospital where Rachel was working.  He was there on a temporary stint.  His name is Chris and he is, originally, from Puerto Rico.  As we were talking, he told us a story about how it was that he became a nurse:


He had moved to the United States in the early 1960s and worked for decades as a machinist in various shops when, one day, he received a call from the local college, which had received money from an anonymous donor who wanted to pay the full tuition required for him to become a nurse.


From machinist to nurse?!  “Why not?”, he thought. He decided to take the offer.  For several years, he set up the machines in the morning and studied during the day and, eventually, became a nurse, not knowing who was paying his way, until someone who was privy to who that person was let it slip.  The donor was his 7th- and 8th-grade teacher in Puerto Rico! 


She changed his life.  Becoming a nurse has made it possible for Chris to own a home in a college town in Oregon, raise a couple of children with his wife and to pick up temporary nursing gigs all around the country and the world.  Don't get me wrong, the job of a machinist is a worthy line of work, but, if ever there were a people person, Chris is one of them and, I'm sure, he has provided gentle comfort to many, many of those who have been lying in a hospital bed.


His teacher (whom he visits nearly every year) saw in her student great potential, kept in touch with him and stood by him in a very real way, until he came out on the other side.  She believed in him and wanted to see him do well.


Only when ALL of those virtues - patience, resolve, self-discipline, fortitude, diligence, faith, truthfulness and empathy - are fused together in the average individual, to an extent both ubiquitous and clearly above the current extant condition, so that all things great and small, once more, begin to flourish, and the stronger side finds self-realization and pleasure in backstopping the more fragile side, will this nation, as a whole, begin the long journey back toward real strength and, in time, truly prosper.  


Until then, it would be a disingenuous thing to try to put an optimistic spin on the long-term prospects for America.  Being a Pollyanna in the face of Apocalypse is about the worst thing one can do; akin to exhorting the crew to pay attention to what the band is playing, while the ship takes on water.


So how does all of this relate to the peach pit?


Easy.


Just as that little peach pit did not get to being a peach-bearing tree by itself, the individuals that make up this nation will not rise to the full potential that's within them, all by themselves.  Greater levels of mentoring will be needed. And, as the mentoring goes, so will go the nation, as a whole.


Nor, like the tree, should society - or the nation - be expected to effect a turnaround quickly.  It will take years of sustained backstopping by stronger individuals, at every level, for other weaker individuals, developing their strengths, to reach a state of shared prosperity and security.


Is that even possible? Indeed, it IS possible, but is it probable? Maybe, maybe not. I don't know. Perhaps, if they hurt enough, with the way things are going………


But, if they really DO decide that they want to take on the huge task of realizing the nation's as yet untapped potential, Americans are going to have to take on some tough nuts to crack.


To even begin, they're going to have to wean themselves off a few deeply-ingrained tenets and habits.  


Chiefly, they have to drop being so attached to the idea that if you do something of great importance, you automatically get paid for it. The real truth is that there are many critically important rôles in life for which many stalwart Americans either get no monetary compensation or, if they are paid, receive only a pittance, relative to others whose contribution to the greater benefit of society is far smaller.


A monetary reciprocal is only possible when the doing of something can actually be monetized, either by a business or by some kind of professional service provider.  Managing a home compost pile, rationing water use, caring for a tree, sharing the product of one's garden, stopping to take a rock out of the road, picking up the odd item of litter, adopting an animal, maintaining the sidewalk and street in front of your home, helping to reduce fossil CO2 by wearing enough warm clothing to keep the thermostat lower, putting up a bird house or two, having friends over for a home-cooked dinner, etc., etc., may seem so minor, nebulous and occasional that they cannot possibly count for much in the BIG PICTURE OF THINGS. In most cases, they cannot be discharged under the aegis of a conventional business.  But discharged in a dutiful way by tens of millions, north and south, from coast to coast, without a second thought, they are, nonetheless, essential to the preservation of the condition of a truly developed society.  They are things that elevated people do spontaneously, whenever needed, in a spirit of good citizenship, as they may, without consideration of financial emolument.


And that's just the beginning point of what I'm talking about - the trivial stuff.  On the other end of the scale, there's a level of mentoring higher up the ladder that involves a truly serious commitment to what it means to be of service to others, not to be undertaken lightly.


That level includes examples like, say, being a parent for a second time round to your children's children, buying someone a car, helping friends and family with money to get over a rough spot, sponsoring someone’s education or business or putting up a chunk for the down payment so someone can get out from under the soul-sucking drain of having to rent.  But, given that the opportunity to be helpful in minor ways pops up in multiples, everyday, the cumulative effect on the overall condition of society of minor instances of assistance, either direct or indirect, is huge.


We didn't wait to be told we would be paid for the work we put into raising that peach tree before we did it. As mentors, we acted on faith. It was our pleasure to watch it grow.  And, yes, we DID get an uncommon dividend in our first harvest of peaches, but it was never guaranteed. Now that we know the peach will actually bear fruit, we hope output will only increase, for as long as anyone lives on this property, at least, for the next sixty years, or so.


Neither form of mentoring - grand or petty - supplants the need for the other.  Sustained flows of every degree are critical to the maintenance of an elevated condition in society.


The inner dialogue of people who mentor is typically pretty simple.  Serious cogitation isn't necessary.  Generally, it follows the dictum, “If not me, then who? If not now, then when?” and, of course “Am I capable of it?”


Another dictum I'm fond of is, “From those unto whom much has been given, much is expected”.  In the Bible, it's written this way, “Unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required”.  Luke 12, verses 47-49. I'm not a Bible thumper, but this nugget of sophistry would make good sense, whoever came up with it.  The word “much” can pertain to any form of surplus over which a person has agency and, in this context, the phrase “has been given” is meant to be understood as “has accrued”, implying that the means whereby such surplus came to be in one's possession is irrelevant.


We must be clear:  mentoring is very different from volunteering.  Mentoring is not something that you do under the aegis of another agency that preceded you and will persist with, or without, your participation. It is something that YOU decide to do, without being prompted, all on your own. It is the dedication of some strength - time, encouragement, effort, influence, funds, protection, resources, whatever - that you have enough of to spare, so that someone or something whose existence you cherish may progress toward a desired end with a greater chance of succeeding. It is the taking of some good cause under your wing, on behalf of another, or others, quite irrespective of what others decide to do or say about it.


Sadly, as they grow older, under the relentless conditioning of modern life, many people slowly lose the reflexive propensity to be of service to others, mistaking fear and disinclination for wisdom.  Whole nations, the median age of whose populations are now moving upward, lose faith in mentoring and shift politically from a progressive and contributive attitude to a regressive, receiving or hoarding mentality.  Collective wealth begins to decline, social mobility grows sclerotic, inequality soars, innovation slows, artistic output stagnates and poverty across all age groups increases, as the winners in the game become fixated on the intermingling of financial advantage with the political protection of social dominance and privilege.


As one of those older folks, on the verge of entering my 74th year, with life experience on three continents to draw on, I know well how, as you age, there are ever fewer people to have to account to for your actions and more and more ways to get things for cheap, while basically sliding by, as if all of this were just the natural order of things, beloved by God.  Personally, I think it's a bunch of self-serving, weak-minded hooey.  


Growing older shouldn't be used as an excuse for becoming less willing to contribute and more presumptuous about what favors and privileges the world owes you, but people do it all the time. It's the absolute kiss of death for social vitality, in my opinion.  One should strive ever to be useful and contributive, in whatever way Wisdom suggests you can.


Ah, but there's the rub:  just how wise are we, as a nation? After almost five decades in America, I'd be lying if I didn't say, “Not very.  Cleverer, yes, but not wiser, and perhaps growing less so.”  


(Imagine, all of that arising out of the growth of a humble little peach pit!  Not a first, mind you.  I recall having read somewhere something similar regarding a mustard seed).

Sunday, August 23, 2020

Toward reducing homelessness when Covid-19 related eviction moratoriums expire and beyond

This blog is not the most compelling of reads.  I'm acutely aware of that.  For the most part, the posts center on one basic theme: how to reduce the wealth dichotomy in America, before the wealth dichotomy reduces America to basket-case status. 

It's been ten years since I first began posting thoughts on this blog.  Those essays involved hundreds of hours of work, which, for all the good it’s done in the world, were probably wasted.  Though the truth of it is impossible to gauge, in retrospect, I wish I had spent them doing things for which some more tangible result could have been delivered.  Everything I sought to mitigate against has now fallen upon our society like a great crushing weight - tens of millions who rent their homes now facing imminent eviction at the hand of landlords who, up to the point that Covid-19 entered our collective reality, had been allowed by Greater Society to claim every last dollar remaining to renters after their critical needs had barely been met.

If the experts are right, up to thirty million renters in the nation will be evicted the moment currently operating moratoriums in each state expire.  If the number were only a fifth of that figure, it would still be enough of a body blow to society and the general economy to merit description as a national disaster.  

Before dawn, this morning, after having been woken up by a really bad dream, I lay in bed thinking about what the coming months might hold for us, in light of all these people being on the verge of not having a safe place to sleep or simply be.  In the predawn dark, such thoughts can run away with your mind.  There was nothing for it; I couldn’t just lie there letting that mental weight gather, so I got up, grabbed the initiative and made a pot of tea.

Fatalism, in the face of impending disaster, helps no one.  Surely, those many hours of contemplating on how the impact of rent on average Americans could be engineered to be smaller had given me ideas that might prove useful at this time, now that many of the negative effects that I predicted in that earlier writing were beginning to come to pass, at a scale even larger than I suggested might occur, if proactive measures were not implemented (which they weren't, at least not to any degree that might have averted what is shaping up to occur in the latter half of 2020).

At this point, it is too little, too late, to boost the transitioning of younger Americans out of renting into home ownership, though efforts on that score are indeed useful to the longer-term challenge of reducing the demand for rental housing that is behind the rapid rise in rent, for same occupancy value, experienced all over the country, far surpassing increases in average earnings for the demographic sector most in need of such housing.

Far more drastic action is needed, and moratoriums are NOT the answer.  In fact, moratoriums, if not quickly followed up by concerted action to massively increase the supply of below-market-rate rental housing, may actually make the situation far worse than if no such moratoriums had been imposed, because the scale of negative social effects is greatly amplified by everyone being placed at risk of being evicted on the same day a moratorium expires.

 Let's be clear on one thing: there is no absolute cure to this, only mitigative action.  Nevertheless, with the awful consequences of homelessness so clearly before us already, any degree by which the number of new homeless can be reduced may rightfully be termed a significant victory in the grand quest to keep American society from declining any more than is absolutely unavoidable.

It was never a just thing that so many fellow citizens were forfeiting such a large percentage of what they could earn to rent.  Most people work damn hard for whatever they manage to take home with them after payroll taxes have been deducted.  Landlords across the nation have been justifying their take from what earners manage to bring home on the basis that anything the market will bear is rightfully theirs to lay claim to and, by and large, government has meekly being going along with that justification, without ever asking itself whether it's obliged to, or even whether going along with whatever landlords want is consonant with the broad pledge people in government make to serve the greater interests of the public.  Just about every facet of life in the country is in some way regulated in the interests of serving the public good in the best way possible.  The world of rental relationships, however, is something that legislators are loath to meddle with.  It's a thorny thicket of deeply rooted powerful interests.  You could find yourself fighting a coalition of hostile people with very deep pockets - more often than not, a career-ending scenario.  Ironically, even proposals that stand to bring greater security and professionalism to the world of renting are shied away from, lest some can of worms be opened.  

Refusing to become engaged with a problem and just hoping that the private sector will do like Elon Musk and come up with a money-making fix is one way of dealing with the persistent problem of a lack of affordable housing and quite congruent with Libertarian philosophy, but as we can see by comparing the response of China to Covid-19, versus the poorer results produced by the U.S., not always the best one, particularly when it is highly dubious that private sector investors can realistically expect to make a profit worth the predicted effort involved.  When it is likely that that requirement cannot be realistically met, and the problem needing to be addressed will have serious negative social consequences, government is bound by oath to step in and do whatever it can, and spend whatever it must, to improve things in a manner that is both timely and efficacious.

This truth neatly highlights why, in times of crisis, having a business person in charge of an organ of government, as opposed to a career bureaucrat, can be a very bad thing.  The two career paths see social challenges from fundamentally different perspectives.  Business has to create a monetary profit, or fail; government has to create social benefit and protect people from harm, or fail.

Given the scale and scope of what is shaping up to happen when these eviction moratoriums start expiring,   I believe strongly that now is not the time to be watching government pennies, or for being overly deferential toward private sector interests in the nation's rental industry, which is inherently resistant to any form of change, even when change is critically needed to avert massive harm befalling the fabric of American society.

Mandates from government, imposed upon the private sector, in the form of limits on rent and conditions that owners must abide by are the most commonly floated ideas directed at improving the lot of renters.  Less often put forward are ideas using clever incentives to get owners of rental property to get on board with government programs aimed at lowering the rent bar for those who cannot buy and are, thus, obliged to rent.

In the past, I have put forward a number of incentive-based proposals in posts on this site.  I'm not going to revisit those ideas in this post.  It will be devoted solely to the idea of increasing the number of rental units that fall within the general guideline issued by HUD that rent not consume more than one third of a renter's take-home pay.


It is imperative that executive action, at the federal level, be planned right now and implemented as soon as possible, otherwise we can look forward to massive social dislocation and all its attendant spiritual and economic knock-on effects.


To that end, I propose two programs that would work together on the goal of increasing the supply of rental housing that met HUD's income-to-rent advisory.


The first would invest federal money in the construction of stackable, wood-frame construction, housing modules that are scalable as multi-storey apartment complexes.     So as to conserve the carbon sequestration in the structures, they would be constructed with good “bones” that would serve as a solid basis for subsequent upgrading at such time as they could be sold off to entities in the private sector (in much the same way that obsolete military buildings often are), thereby recovering some portion of the public funds invested.


A number of designs already exist and some remarkably tall buildings have been made this way.  The advantage of this form of construction - apart from indefinite carbon sequestration - is the speed at which construction can be made to go, owing to the fact that it does not have to occur in a vertically linear fashion, except during the stacking process, during which, the modules selected are simply bolted together.  It might help the reader to imagine the way containers are loaded onto a ship, only in a more sophisticated fashion that lines up apertures and mechanical conduits.  Another point to digest is the ease with which young computer whizzes can plan and assemble such modules in the virtual reality formats now available to them on computer in 3d.


A key point, here:  this portion of the combined approach I'm floating is not for old hacks steeped in traditional methodologies.  It's for savvy, dedicated young go-getters who can work long hours without grumbling and get stuff done.


Anyway, the housing created in this manner would be of sufficient quality to be a huge step up from being on the street, but much more basic than that offered in the private sector under current government construction mandates.  It would guarantee only four things - solid construction, safety of occupancy, a sufficiency of utilities and rent economy - but still be eminently helpful as transitional housing, either short-term, or long.  Initially, such complexes would either be government owned or owned by activist foundations, for as long as that situation proved beneficial to the public, and the need for the living units in them existed, both as places to live cheaply, and also as a market counterweight to the presence of rent gouging in the private sector.


Critical to this initiative would be strong executive leadership, of the variety that says to the functionaries upon whom responsibility for discharging the mission has been placed, “Get it done, or look forward to being replaced by someone who says they 

can.”


The companion program to the above would be a rewards program, based on a formula that increases the deductibility of rental income conforming to the HUD price standard.  Under the controlling formula of the program, the lower the ratio between the rent charged, per occupant, when compared to household income, per occupant (eligibility increases in accordance with age), the more of the rent received would be tax free.  This tax reduction is conditioned further by the gross income of the lessor/owner.  The higher the gross income of the owner, the lower the formula makes the tax exemption. 


The thrust of this program, which would use IRS data, with both renters and owners reporting independently (in much the same way that businesses and independent contractors are required to use 1099 reporting protocol as a check on tax fraud) is as much a demonstration of social appreciation as as it is a substantive give back to qualifying participants.  People who rent out to their fellow citizens at very economical rates need to see something positive and substantive from a government that says it desperately wants to see more affordable rental housing for those who need it and could use private sector assistance in actually providing it.


The potential, HUD-conforming housing stock is already there.  It falls under the following headings:

  1. Currently overpriced rental dwellings of every kind
  2. Currently idled structures and units being held solely as investment property
  3. Vacant accessory units on, and in, residential property
  4. Usable rooms in private homes
  5. Empty bedrooms in shared homes
  6. Unused spaces suitable for vehicles that people use to sleep or live in


So, let's cut to the chase.  Here's at least ONE formula that would definitely make genuinely affordable rent more ubiquitous, allowing many thousands of renters, down on their financial luck, to get into a new home at a far lower price, while tempering the number of Americans progressing on into homelessness, and bringing a measure of tax relief to those who stepped up to the noble challenge of providing rental housing at that price.


The formula calculates the portion of the rent that is federal income tax free.  The information needed by the IRS is the following:

  1. The owner's gross income
  2. The combined occupancy allotment of those in the dwelling, based on the age of each occupant (over 18 counts as one unit, 12 to 18 counts as 3/4 unit, 6 to 12 counts as 1/2 unit, 1 to 6 counts as 1/3 unit)
  3. The combined household income of those residing in the dwelling
  4. The rent charged for the dwelling


Using those items of information,  the first preparatory calculation involves dividing the rent on the dwelling by the gross occupancy allotment to find the monthly rent per unit of occupancy  (let that be r). The second divides total household income, PER MONTH, over however long the dwelling was rented, by the gross occupancy allotment to find the monthly income per unit of occupancy (let that be i).  The third divides the owner's annual income by 12 (let that be I).  You now have the figures needed to plug into the formula, which goes as follows:


6,400/(I+1,600) X (i-3r)/(.5i+200) X (rent per month on the dwelling) = amount of rental received, per month, that is tax free


Now, I'm not so naive as to imagine that anyone is actually going to invest the time to see whether this formula produces results that could actually be used (been there before and know the score).  But I want it to at least be on record that a formula does indeed exist, and that it could be of HUGE help. Whether it could use tweaking of the control values, is now up to others with better resources than I have.  At the very least, let it be known that it was produced and looked promising to me, even if nobody else ends up caring enough to investigate its potential to be useful at this time.


What I AM expecting rather more, however, is that nothing that has long term benefit will be hatched by a congress more concerned with the outcome of the next presidential election than with critical legislation and, as a result, life for millions of people across the nation will literally fall off a cliff for them in the very near future.


I've been homeless, decades in the past, and, though I now own my own home, free and clear, I still have nightmares where I am once more in that dread state.  The shadow it cast over my outlook on life has never left.  Every time I see a fellow human being, homeless, by the side of the street, I feel that cold shadow darkening. I know that it will only be lifted when, at last, I live in a country where involuntary homelessness, occasioned by misfortune, has been done away with by the public and the government that serves them.  


As things stand, it is not likely to be this country, America, at least not before I die.  I would pay a princely sum, if I had it, to finally be on soil where homelessness has been relegated to the dustbin of history, where no one is forced to experience the sense of utter abandonment by society that I did, and the march toward progress, enlightenment and a genuinely useful understanding of collective security has continued unimpeded to the level of coexistence that this country has long had the resources to realize, but lacked the comity and the will to actually manifest.


I would be overjoyed to be proven wrong in this prognosis.

Thursday, April 13, 2017

The wealth dichotomy: The the main drivers are so obvious. The solution is simple.

I'll keep it brief this time (as brief as clarity will allow for).

I've fixed thousands of broken things in my life, many of them simple messes.  When you're faced with a mess, the best approach, I've found, is to first separate what faces you into piles of items that share some salient common characteristic.  After that, each pile can be treated in its own special way.  Immediately, things that can be useful to you become apparent.  Things that can be recycled can be arranged for ease of handling.  Stuff that others can use can be set aside and so on.  In the end, if you're smart about it, the minimum turns out to be absolutely unusable.

It's not too much of a stretch to call the American wealth dichotomy a mess - a giant social mess that continues to get bigger and a glaring failure of our current approach to democracy.

You will never comprehend the nature of relative poverty if you fail to recognize that there are two distinct classes of causality behind such poverty.  The first comes out of left field in a person's life, laying them low, as the result of entirely unique personal factors.  The other relates to systemic factors that act, without surcease, to imprison whole classes of people in permanently disadvantaged circumstances.

Individual misfortune can be very difficult for government to redress in any meaningful way, and since this essay is directed at what I believe government should be doing, I'd like to put the class of individual misfortune off to the side with the casual observation that love connections - as opposed to institutional structure - can be most helpful in bringing relief to any given situation of personal misfortune.

The class of people this writing is dedicated to helping, however, involves those who find themselves trapped in communities where, no matter how hard they work, they just never seem to be able to get ahead of the endlessly rotating monthly cost of being where they are.  This second type of burdened Americans, includes various sub-classes, most of which could experience some degree of government-engineered relief, if we could only muster the intellectual force and the political will needed to design and enact appropriate fixes.  As it now stands, obstacles standing in the way of implementing of such relief are simply permitted to persist, interminably.

I can hear it now - the murmur of collective objection rolling in from that territory of political thought where any government expense on behalf of the disadvantaged and the struggling is verboten - unless, of course, it's for the purpose of continuing to expand our already enormous military/industrial complex.  Simmer down guys, these ideas aren't directed at expanding welfare rolls.  Quite the contrary, in fact.  They're directed at helping working people to keep more of what they earn so they can make more of the lives they have.

In America, outside of academia and a smattering of books and periodicals, we have tended towards a highly politicized view of poverty, muddied by the existing Democratic/Republican duopoly, the realities of which compel lawmakers to battle for political office in a way which tends to make them abandon sensible nuances for brazenly lopsided political polemic.  The white-hot realm of electing most lawmakers, swamped by blandishing tides of biased advertising that go for the gut effect, don't allow much room for finely tuned reasoning.  The observing public is coaxed into lusting after silver-bullet mental nuggets, most of which would do more harm than good if they were ever implemented.  Many politicians succumb to the temptation to oblige this lust, embracing the inevitable attention of the press with both arms.  Thus the opportunity to winnow out useful understanding from destructive disinformation, in the laying down of some base of useful common ground, is lost to a flood of angry emotion, election after election.

Arguably, frustration with that situation is what led many voters to opt for a presidential candidate whose personal means appeared to put him beyond having to pander to entrenched political process.  It remains to be seen whether that run around the flank of the system will prove to have been a good bet by American voters or a foolish abandonment of cautious protocol.  Personally, I don't care what party Mr. Trump actually belongs to; as far as relieving relative poverty is concerned, both the main parties have been miserable failures.  If his administration succeeds in allowing the United States middle-earnings class to both garner - and hold onto - a greater share of overall wealth, I will be jubilant.

As I have indicated in my essay toting the usefulness of lateral, class-neutral, person-to-person financial assistance in the mitigation of wealth disparity, there is nothing inconsequential about people falling from security into the spiritual pit of hard times.  It should be understood, however, that there is not much that government can do about insulating people from the effects of either bad luck, or bad choices, without becoming an oppressive force on their natural freedoms.

Many would argue that we have already strayed into the territory of government interference in people's lives, with no net social gain to show for it.  For the most part, I do not subscribe to that view.  One concern I do share, however, is what certain over-cautious regulatory controls might be doing to dissuade people from trying their luck in the niche business sector.

The one role of government that it would please me to see more vigorously applied is in the dismantling of entrenched systems of commercial, or financial, privilege that entrap whole classes of people in a financially disadvantageous situation, particularly in America's large cities.

When people migrate, en masse, to urban areas, looking for social gratification and work opportunity, the demand for housing becomes so intense that landlords jack the price up as high as the market will bear.  People end up being barely able to hang on to whatever housing they have secured.  They're left with very little to spend on the local, street-level economy.  Any hope of getting beyond renting and into a house of their own evaporates; and the situation remains that way, year after year, until they age out of the work roles they hold and are suddenly faced with being unable to make the rent they've been paying.

The grand solution to this pressing nationwide problem is so simple that it pains me to contemplate the institutional foot-dragging that surrounds the issue.  It all revolves around the simple principle of increasing supply and reducing demand in urban areas where people are closely packed together.  

I believe the whole situation would do a huge U-turn for the better if only people saw living in one of America's smaller communities as being more attractive than they do now, and one way to help that happen is for government to invest in improving public services and amenities in those smaller communities, in a word, by making them better.

 Another way to sweeten the bait is for government to do a better job of helping smaller, rural-based businesses survive (if not thrive).  The codes that apply to having a business in a rural community need to be simpler and reflect rural realities.  For instance, requiring some chuck wagon on some corner out in the middle of nowhere, patronized by ranchers and cowboys (like the one in our 150-strong town) to have a wheelchair-accessible bathroom, like some eating establishment in a city, is totally counterproductive, to put it kindly.  That business will simply disappear (leaving a lot of die-hard burger-chowing Republican gripers in its wake).

I'm advocating this approach from the standpoint of personal experience.  We moved out of Seattle to occupy and restore an old building in a one-horse town in the middle of nowhere.  It was a bit of a bumpy ride, at first.  People out here tend to be a bit rough around the edges, compared with their city brethren.  The trick was to not care too much about how much we stuck out.  It took time to find paying employment.  That period of difficulty forced us to invent our way toward living well on very little money.  The up side of being out here is that there is a lot of flexibility available, once you cop to the pace of things, and a huge bounty in natural providence.  All told, we now get to keep more of each dollar made than when we lived in Seattle, with very little to waste it away on.

Not a day goes by without me marveling at how financially lucky we've become, even though we may rail against the social and torpor of the surrounding county and its lackluster business activity.

This is a huge, mainly empty, country with thousands of languishing small towns waiting for earnest people with drive to come and breathe new life into them.  It's also veers hugely toward voting Republican, which is boring as all get out.  Why leave all of this bounty of ease and beauty to the Republican Party to monopolize.  I hardly think the nation's founders would delight in the idea of vast swaths of rural America sinking into the ideological swamp of entrenched, one-sided political discourse.

Now that's something to contemplate, isn't it?

Yes, we CAN make America great again; but not before we free the renters from urban servitude and help them get happily settled in slower-paced, more rural communities.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

The trouble with coffee and tea at this time in history

I love coffee, I love tea.
Without those two, where would I be?
Out without a paddle on the deep blue sea.
I love coffee and I love tea.

No, seriously, I LOVE coffee and I LOVE tea.  I love them even more than beer, with whom I have a kind of love/hate relationship, given that the bigger the night I have with beer, the less I like myself in the morning after, but once I'm getting into the swing of things with it, the more I want of it.  Beer keeps things interesting however, so I'm not down on it, by any means.  On more than one occasion during a big night out with beer, I've met some incredible, beautiful people who've enriched my life.  Yes, so beer is definitely in the mix, but only as mood and pocket change permit.

Coffee and tea, on the other hand, are everyday must-haves.  Tea lifts this ailing shell out of its post-sleep torpor, and that, duly achieved, raises my blood pressure to the point where the afterburner of several cups of full-bodied coffee can be allowed to kick in.  Only then can I sit down at the piano and practice a song or two as if I were on stage in front of a packed house.

Nothing I can say about coffee can add anything to the countless tributes of exultation coffee has earned itself from writers of merit.  In all its forms of preparation, coffee is a staple upon which minds, both great and small, depend in some way.  Some use it to wake up, others to get going and still others to avoid falling asleep.  A great many use it just to get a break from whatever's in front of them.  It's the pretext that helps those who'd like to know what's up with one another get together, including those intent on romance.  The true gourmand uses a demitasse of it to put the finishing touch on the evening's meal.  Drivers, bedeviled by the hallucinations of night driving on long trips, get it to avoid death behind the wheel.   Young women drink lattes to-go, seemingly by the gallon, for reasons I have yet to fully understand.  Had too much alcohol to drink to feel secure about driving?  Nothing works to bring you back to your center like a cup of good, strong, black coffee with a teaspoon of sugar.  There are even those who like to drink coffee like a night cap, even though it's supposed to wake you up.

This seems an appropriate point at which to announce out that October 1st, 2016 was the second annual official WORLD COFFEE DAY.  

But there's something about coffee, particularly, that we should pay more attention to, especially if we think sustainable production of high quality coffee is an important goal for producing-countries and consuming-countries to strive for - the dread scourge of soil degradation caused by establishing a one-way conveyor belt of vital nutrients from plantations to the sewers and landfills of consumers.  This concern carries the extra weight that this final transfer moves from mostly poorer countries (exceptions are the USA and Australia whose combined output is around 3,600 metric tons - .0041 percent of world production of 8,315,984 metric tons), where the hourly cost of the labor needed to harvest and process the coffee for shipment is relatively cheap, to richer countries where people (at least, those of them that still have paying work) are notably better off - as in, not living so close to the edge of daily survival.  In its very essence, this business is inequitable, to some degree, although there are many trying to reconcile that fact, with some recent success, by shortening the supply chain and, thereby, leaving a larger percentage of the final per/lb cost paid by the consumer available for paying the hands-on producers.  Such counter-measures against inequity aside, however, the long-term peril of soil depletion persists and we must address it now or pay a painful price for failing to get a counterbalancing flow of vital nutrients established that is as organic as the coffee we drink.

The first small steps have been taken toward reducing outright waste.  Many municipalities - at least, those with a progressive and industrious bent (read, those with a higher proportion of younger adults) - have taken on the task of creating facilities that make compost from organic waste, along with legislation that encourages or compels citizens to separate their household waste streams into compostable matter, recyclable materials and non-recoverable garbage.  Those with the best systems even separate woody compostables from food-derived side product, such as peels, cores and, most notably, spent coffee grounds, since these produce the highest and most easily produceded grade of compost.  That, at least, keeps useful compounds within the biological envelope of the world.  What it doesn't do, however, is keep nutrients within that envelope in the kind of balance that are best for the production of all food products, particularly as regards coffee.

In the UK, a company called Bio-Bean has created a success out of using spent coffee grounds to make high-grade stove pellets.  Currently, they take in 50,000 metric tons of raw material - ten percent of what UK coffee drinkers produce - and that recapture rate is increasing.  Environmental groups cite this as an example of free market ingenuity being the antidote to outright waste.  Though it does have a 'green' upside to it, in that something once wasted is now being used to provide energy, while acting as an offset for the use of ancient-carbon fuels, it still falls far short of the kind of bi-lateral, symmetrical exchange in trace nutrients needed to keep soil inventories on both sides of the coffee trade healthy.

The reader may be thinking that I have some kind of solution up my sleeve that would slow or stem this giant global problem.  In all truth, I don't.  The fact is that a huge amount of biological material, perfect for soil amendment currently ends up in the mixed garbage and mixed sewage streams.  Ideally, we would not be mixing recoverable waste materials of a bio-active nature that can be turned into high grade fertilizer with materials that are either potentially toxic or problematic to the achieving of that end.

Some progress has been made toward streaming different types of waste for recycling but the potential for greater sophistication in that area is far from being tapped out.  I'm a believer in the idea that government has to lead the way by investing heavily  and ostentatiously in systems and companies of sufficient scale and institutional will to make believers out of skeptics.  When it looks like the players really mean business, the cache of supporters is increased and that of critics diminished.  The skeptics I'm referring to are average people of generally good intent who tend to sit on the fence about things until they see them appearing to work out well.  Only then, are they content to fall in line and get with the program.

The beauty of sorting what you don't want into well defined repositories is that it preserves the opportunity for all players, both active and potential, to be able to use those resources intelligently and at a scale large enough to derive useful recovered product efficiently.  A good example of this is the well-established industries that use recovered aluminum in countless forms - everything from balls of used foil to the cut off ends of massive beams - to make a slew of gleaming new products - like the case of this Dell Precision M65 laptop I'm using, for instance.  The cardinal mistake that many naysayers make, in assessing whether new ways of doing things are viable, or not, is in completely dismissing the role of what appears to be normal social behavior, as opposed to aberrant.  They claim that people only will do what it suits them to do.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  At 68 years of age, I look back and see many forms of behavior, once considered normal when I was a child, that are now considered aberrant by the majority - casually lighting up a cigarette anywhere you like, racist humor, blatant sexist behavior, the underpaying of women for equal work done, racial segregation, casual cruelty to animals, throwing litter out of a car window, disposing of chemicals down the drain, beating children, trophy hunting of rare animals, dumping used motor oil on the ground, just to name a few.  In most of America's large cities, you can add to the list, not sorting your household solid waste into recyclable and non-recyclable materials.  The point I'm trying to make is that the overwhelming majority of people get used to doing things the way they believe is the right way and that, given time, most will come around to supporting institutions of social action, regardless of whether doing involves a little extra effort on their part.

If that is indeed a fact of social behavior, then the potential for creating a complex of systems designed to return vital nutrients, present in coffee grounds and municipal sewage in the coffee-consuming world, to the tropical lands whence they arose as raw bean tonnage.  Bio Bean has already shown that thoughtful users are prepared to participate in the massive collection of used grounds (which, by the way, make an excellent compost additive).  The basic components that are taken up by the coffee producing lands from the air - carbon dioxide, oxygen, water and nitrogen - are universally available.  Those components that are not  part of the atmosphere include the following.  The list that follows was excerpted from an analysis of inorganic versus organic coffee, posted on the internet.  Don't be confused by the numbers; they denote the number of milligrams of the listed element per gram of, first, organically grown coffee and, second, coffee grown using inorganic chemical fertlizers:

Table 3. Elements in “Organic” Coffee and “Inorganic” Coffee (unit: μg/g)
Element OrganicArabica Coffee InorganicArabica Coffee
Magnesium
2898.44 ±130.22
2976.34 ±128.79
Calcium
818.36 ±75.28
1883.11 ±246.66
Manganese
52.74 ±6.38
35.436 ±3.882
Iron
4519.45 ±396.80
5645.66 ±647.22
Nickel
41.13 ±3.95
26.43 ±2.80
Zinc
316.47 ±29.62
255.36 ±16.16
Gallium
41.82 ±7.737
32.73 ±6.55
Germanium
-0.01 ±0.02
2.07 ±1.02
Bromine
12.98 ±2.44
20.67 ±4.30
Rubidium
14.76 ±1.86
41.95 ±1.96
Strontium
0.12 ±1.34
46.99 ±15.64
Molybdenum
1.11 ±0.22
2.76 ±0.54
Silver
-0.31 ±1.18
12.20 ±3.05
Tin
5.29 ±1.45
4.13 ±1.06
Barium
0.73 ±2.59
450.87 ±117.83
Cesium
1.29 ±0.57
18.66 ±2.97 

I don't want to get into comparing "organic" against "inorganic".  Different soil regions will, doubtless, produce different ratios.  But just look at that range of trace elements coffee uses to create that beautiful flavor we so love!  (By the way, naturally occurring strontium is not radioactive.  Chemically, it mimics calcium).  The above says nothing about the molecular arrangement of these elements, made by the plant and the full complex of living organisms, large and microscopic that surround and inhabit it.  We have to keep in mind that it takes work by living systems to make all those delicate - but vital - organic molecules, so the less those systems have to work to put those elements back in place, after agricultural activities have occurred, the easier it is for the soil and plant to grow, thrive and produce yet another crop of fruit and seeds (the seeds of the coffee plant being what we want for our morning repast).

Naturally, the same concern applies to the production of fine-tasting black and green tea from the the camellia sinensis plant.  The commercial production of this kind of tea occurs in cooler hill country of various tropical nations in Asia.  The work involves careful harvesting of the newer growth of plantings.  Originally,  harvesting at scale was made possible only with the manual help of many skilled pickers, paid a daily pittance for their work under the fierce tropical sun.  Today, mechanization has reduced the amount of field labor required.  The soils, however, still have to bear the demand from the world's steadily growing number of tea drinkers.  As with coffee producing areas, the nutrient drain is incessant.

I'm not saying that I have any really implementable ideas that would slow this slow transfer of phyto-chemicals from poorer nations to the waste-handling systems of the developed world.  What I'm saying is that we should start resolutely down the path of exploring how nutrient recovery and return, from the waste systems of consuming nations to the soils of the producing regions, might be implemented, slowly and progressively, so that the internal financial structures involved in this sector have time to adapt.

That would be a good thing, indeed.