Do as I say, not as I do (updated)

This post was updated on April 3rd to reflect the latest satellite images. Thanks to Brent Logan for bringing the update to my attention on Twitter.

As part of my new personal site at www.jeffreymartens.com, I've been re-publishing some of my favorite blog posts from more than 10 years of writing on Blogger's platform. Instead of re-publishing I've decided to revisit the topic from one of my favorite posts, originally written in June of 2013.

From 2005 to 2014 I lived in in Hillsboro, Oregon. My regular commute took me past North American's largest solar manufacturing facility (at least was the largest when it opened in 2008), owned by SolarWorld. Their two massive buildings are located at the norther perimeter of the Hillsboro Airpot, along NW Evergreen Parkway.

One day while browsing the Hillsboro Airport on Google Maps in "Earth" mode (I love airplanes and airports), I noticed something odd. One of the world's largest and most well known solar energy companies didn't have any solar panels on their roof! See for yourself:

Google Maps, 2016

Google Maps, 2016

The above image was capture from Google Maps on April 2nd, 2016 and still no solar on their roofs. I find this odd for a few reasons. First, I was under the impression that solar was an economical choice. If so, why not put solar on their roofs, especially with their expertise and access to materials? Second, and directly related to the first, SolarWorld could install panels at a much lower cost than their customers, essentially getting the materials at cost. Meaning that even if the economics didn't work out for consumers, they'd likely work out for SolarWorld themselves.

I'm not a distractor or trying to make an argument against solar. I think its a great technology and something we should be moving society towards. That said, why wouldn't SolarWorld themselves use solar heavily at their own facilities? Especially the ones that suck down electricity like I assume a solar manufacturing facility does?

SolarWorld isn't without solar panels at their facility. I knew of two very small installations when I wrote my post in 2013 and again when I wrote this one in April (In the 2 red boxes on the left of this image). Then after originally publishing, one of my Twitter followers that lives in the area got curious and did some research. Brent Logan was able to find a more recent satellite image that appears to show a 3rd, larger solar panel installation (inside the red box on the right). Its nice to see that after 8 years they've decided to start putting *some* of their own product in place, but the location and size lead me to believe that these are more vanity installations than anything. Near the road and flanking each side of the entrance, for everyone to see. If solar is so great, why not put panels all over their vast, mostly empty roofs that appear to have no obstruction from the sun?

Image from nearmaps.com, courtesy Brent Logan

Image from nearmaps.com, courtesy Brent Logan

Why I'm buying the newspaper again

This blog post is not what you think. I'm not buying the Oregonian or New York Times. I'm reading Street Roots, and here is why.

A Homeless Epidemic

If you live in Portland, or any major west-coast city, you've likely been hearing more and more about the homeless situation. More people, more camps, more panhandling, more more more. Its true, and while I'm not going to dig up the stats, I can tell you that as someone that has lived and/or worked in the city for the last 5 years, things have changed drastically and for the worse.

I've found myself with a mix of emotions over this topic. I've felt frustrated, I've felt sad, I've felt disgusted, I've felt helpless. I want to have empathy, but at times its hard. I struggle on occasion to be kind and caring, when the easy thing to do is to simply wish the problem would go away...away from my neighborhood, away from me.

So in an effort to do what isn't so easy, to act with compassion and care, I attended an open house put on by a few local non-profits and listened. Listening turned to learning and today I am better equipped to act with compassion and care, although it will still be hard.

The Epidemic is Not New

One of the key things I learned is that this epidemic is not new, its not a 2015 or 2016 phenomenon. Its been building and growing for decades, specifically when the United States federal government stopped funding mental hospitals and other social services aimed at those that need a little help. Ending the practice of putting the mentally ill into institutionalized facilities was probably a good idea. Doing it without any other safety-net, or any option for that matter, was a bad idea. An even worse idea was what I understand to be a general pull back from funding programs for the ill, impoverished, and the incapable. The decisions of the 1970's and 1980's are now resulting in major issues, like extreme homelessness in on of the wealthiest countries on earth.

In 2016, the problem is worse in many cities. Places like San Francisco and Portland having booming economies, thanks in part to the technology industry. With a boom comes higher salaries, and with higher salaries comes higher rent. Don't read that as economic cause & effect, its more complex than that, but lets move on with my statement as relative fact.

When rents go up for highly paid tech workers, you probably say that there couldn't be any impact on lower income earners, but thats just not true. As rents at the high end go up, rents in the middle market will likely climb to fill the gap, and then rents at the low end will climb to fill the new gap left by the middle. Additionally, the business value of apartments rises as rents (business income) rise, and the value of the land that dwellings live on goes to to match. We live in a beautiful, free and market based economy, but it has its drawbacks. Rising rents, even for the folks who don't have rising incomes in booming industries, become a reality.

Imagine you are a low income individual and your pay $500 a month for rent. Now its $650. A high paid tech worker says "so what" but that $150 makes all the difference in the world to others. That $150 a month increase could literally lead to homelessness. And as I understand, it not only could, it is.

Enter Street Roots

What does all this have to do with newspapers? I'm making a very small contribution now, which I feel very good about, thanks to a newspaper.

Street Roots is a newspaper, created by journalists and industry experts, that supports the homeless community in Portland. One of the ways they support the community is by offering an opportunity for people living on the street to earn an income, rather than beg for it. I learned about Street Roots when it's Executive Director and Publisher, Israel Bayer, spoke at the above mentioned community event on the homeless issue in Portland. I was blown away not only by the concept of Street Roots, but by the knowledge Israel dropped on the audience and what I believe is his unique opportunity to do something about the issues our city faces.

Speaking of the concept around Street Roots, here is the ore of it: People in need buy the newspaper for $0.25 and sell them for $1.00. They sell outside of businesses, where they might otherwise sit and beg if it weren't for Street Roots. Now they provide a service, a product, a fair trade, action.

I LOVE this idea! It offers dignity in what is a community we few opportunities for self-worth. Instead of simply asking for a handout, the individuals that sell Street Roots offer my something I crave. News, information, entertainment, and an honorable way to give back to those in my community with need.

For Me as Much as for Them

I feel a bit selfish, because of all the things I like about Street Roots, how it makes me feel is one of the strongest. I feel great about contributing a (very) small amount of money each week. I like that I am supporting someone that is motivated to earn a dollar instead of beg for a dollar. I like to think its win/win, but I fear that I get more out of it than they do.

Thats probably okay, because Street Roots has gotten me off the sidelines. I'm doing something now, verse nothing. I'm doing it in a way that offers dignity and respect, and I find myself less conflicted in my heart or in my mind.

Join Me in Reading the Newspaper

So in this world of digital content, short attention spans, 24 hour news, and our comfortable tech industry salaries, I ask you to join me in buying the newspaper. Next time you see someone on the street selling Street Roots, buy a copy. Do so and know that you are helping a motivated and humble human being who is someones son/daughter/father/mother/brother/sister/etc.

Buy the paper and see how you feel. I bet you'll feel good about what you are contributing to the community. I also bet you'll learn something new and interesting while reading the paper. You'll be entertained, you'll know more about your community, and you'll be glad you read the paper.

From the Archives: Thoughts on the Law

The following was originally published on my Blogger blog space, in early 2013. While I don't claim to be a legal expert, I do claim to be a common sense citizen that understands the law. That being said, I still hold the following beliefs.

Recently I've noticed what may be an increasing irreverence of the law. Specifically are two very different but interesting examples.

First, the uproar over the suicide of Aaron Swartz. Not the uproar about his death specifically, but the blame that Swartz supporters are levying on others. If you are unfamiliar with the Aaron Swartz story, here is an overly simplified overview. Swartz is an internet celebrity and internet/technology advocate. He (allegedly) hacked into the MIT computer network, downloaded proprietary research from JSTOR, and then freely distributed JSTOR's property on the internet. He was charged with at least 6 felonies and faced anywhere from 6 months to 35 years in jail. He committed suicide recently, and his family reports that he took such an unfortunate and permanent action because he was so distraught over the legal action pending against him. Many Aaron Swartz supporters (and lovers of the internet for that matter) are blaming Aaron's death on the legal system.

This blows me away. Apparently some people have a hard time separating their affinity from things like logic and reason. Like it or not, breaking into a private computer network and stealing property is a crime! Swartz (allegedly) broke the law! If someone broke into your company, stole your valuable property, and gave it away to strangers for free, would you not expect them to be prosecuted?

Another example comes from my home state of Oregon where a county sheriff has warned the Obama administration that he will not enforce any new gun laws or regulations that he believes violate the Second Amendment. Yes, you read that correctly, he will not enforce the law. The problem here is that it is not a sheriff's job to decide what is or isn't law. That's why they are called law enforcement, not law makers.

Our country has arguably the most fair, transparent, and civilized legal system. The people elect representatives, who create laws, enforced by the legal system, and ultimately ratified or shot down by the courts (specifically, the Supreme Court). There are fair, transparent, and civilized ways of challenging or changing the law. If society doesn't like something, they can change it. Swartz had every opportunity to a fair trial and full defense. Sheriffs and the citizens of their counties have a voice through their elected representatives and via elections.

Why do supporters of the internet and information freedom believe they get to unilaterally decide what is a crime or isn't? Would they have cared so much if Swartz wasn't an internet icon or if it were their property broken into and stolen? Why does a sheriff think he can ignore the law of the land and interpret the constitution on his own?

What happened to the rule of law and civility? This is a scary trend and I hope it does not continue.

My personal mission statement

Earlier today, in response to a disagreement with a distant family member, I penned the following on Facebook. I think this is my new personal mission statement. Put it on my tombstone!

"I will always call it like I see it. I will never hide my beliefs, feelings or emotions. I will never be 'politically correct' outside of my profession. Silence will never define me, but action will. I seek to put love behind everything I am. I will put truth and love over all, even family. You may call it rude or mean, I call it being real."

As Iggy Azalea once said: "First things first, I'm the realest. Drop this and let the whole world feel it!"

From the Archives: Martens Theory of Wealth

I've been blogging off and on for years, since 2006 in fact. My personal blog was setup on Google's Blogger platform where I published more than 130 posts over the years. With my new personal web site here at www.jeffreymartens.com, I've decided to migrate over some of my favorite posts. Below is a post about a topic I'm passionate about, and hopefully the focus of future studies and writings. It was originally published on 7/29/2013.


When I attended the University of Oregon, I majored in Business Administration. After a misguided attempt to minor in Computer Science, I switched my secondary focus to Economics because it was an easy minor to obtain as a Business major. Turned out though, I loved Economics! My 300 and 400 level Econ classes were some of my favorite. It was a thinking man's subject....it really got the wheels turning.

Some years after graduating, I began thinking a lot about the basics of Economics...the fundamentals. Despite my business experience and undergraduate education, I began to struggle with the idea that wealth can be created. If wealth is created, where does it come from? Where was it before? Does it just appear out of thin air?

I mean, look at the physical sciences as an example. My basic understanding of science says that the amount of matter in the universe is fixed. I also understand that energy can't be created or destroyed, it can only change forms. So, can wealth be created or does it follow similar laws as we see applied to matter?

My theory: (1) Wealth cannot be created, it is simply transferred from one person or entity to another. (2) There is a fixed amount of wealth in our world.

Let's walk through an over-simplified example together.

Say a fast food restaurant sells a hamburger for $1. When I buy one, I give them a dollar. That dollar gets split up in many ways. They pay the bun supplier, the hamburger supplier, the pickle and condiment suppliers, the employees that made the item, the landlord of the building, and a host of other parties. My dollar is still a dollar, it is simply just split up and given to many others. Let's say that the cost of materials, labor and overhead is $0.98, leaving the company with $0.02. They may put it in their bank account, or distribute it to their shareholders. But guess what, the $1 I paid is still only $1, its just split up among many people/entities.

That dollar was just $1 when I had it and $1 when the restaurant received it. One dollar is still one dollar, it just changed hands. Of course, I got that dollar from somewhere, likely my employer. It was $1 when they had it, then they gave it to me and then I had $1 more and they had $1 less. Before that, a customer had $1 and they gave it to my employer. That dollar changed hands, but it was still just $1. Where is the wealth creation? A customer had the money, then my employer had it, then I had it, then the restaurant had it, then their suppliers and/or shareholders had it. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar.

I think this is an important concept to meditate on. Looking at the theory in a macro scale can be eye opening. If I get one more dollar, it means that someone else has one less. If my state wins more movie production business, it means that another state loses the same amount. When China's economy grows by X, other countries economies shrink by X. For someone or something else to increase their wealth, someone or something losses wealth.

So what do you think? Am I missing something obvious and fundamental? Where does wealth come from?