Anne arundel county public schools address

Introduction
Here's another effortpost on Brazil! This time I'll be talking about why the Brazilian economy stagnated, and what we can expect from Lula in terms of economic policy (I've talked about this in the past but now I'll go into more detail).
Between 1920 and 1980, Brazil was a clear economic success story. For 60 years, our GDP grew at an average of 4% a year. This 'golden age' ended in a hyperinflation crisis, which made the 1980s become known as a 'lost decade', and since its resolution in 1994 with the Plano Real, our economy has experienced minimal growth: from 1980 to 2020, the average GDP growth rate was only 0.7%.
Evolution of the Brazilian per capita product, at 2010 prices, from 1900 to 2021. The scale of the graph is logarithmic in base 2.
In this post, I'll try to explain the reasons for Brazil's low growth in the last four decades and what Lula's plans are to address them.
The debate
Before delving into the actual causes of the "semi-stagnation", I would like to explain the economic debate in Brazil. This debate revolves around two major groups of economists: the "developmentalists" and the "liberals." The term "developmentalism" may be unfamiliar to many people here, but it is very present in Latin America. A decent explanation for it could be "dirigisme with Latam characteristics."
In short, liberalism in this context is associated with economic orthodoxy and a pro-market orientation in economic policy, while developmentalism leans towards economic heterodoxy and advocates for direct state interference in the economy. This debate is, in theory, separate from the traditional right versus left political divide, as we have had governments from both ends of the political spectrum adopting policies aligned with either school of thought. For instance, Lula I (2003-2007) represented a left-wing liberal government, while Geisel (1974-1979) presided over a right-wing developmentalist government. However, in practice, liberalism is associated with the right-wing while developmentalism is associated with the left-wing.
One area of major divergence between those two groups is full employment. Liberals argue that the Brazilian economy generally operates at full employment, which means that there are well-defined supply-side limits and restrictions in the economy, whereas developmentalists believe it tends to operate below that level. This implies that the economy's natural state is one of perpetual aggregate demand deficiency, and thus the government could just increase spending to mobilize idle production factors and stimulate economic growth.
Furthermore, liberals typically view direct state intervention in the economy with distrust, opposing increased public investments in infrastructure and most forms of industrial policy. Their preference generally leans towards reducing government spending and relying on a 'crowding in' effect, together with supply-side reforms. Conversely, developmentalists perceive state intervention as a necessity to stimulate the economy, favoring a robust industrial policy and increased public investments.
Those are significant oversimplifications, and many economists do not align themselves with either group. In any case, I would say this categorization reasonably represents the current debate.
It's a tradition in Brazil to divide ministries between liberals and developmentalists to ensure a balance between the two. The current Finance Minister, Fernando Haddad, believes in a middle ground approach, with some of his secretaries (e.g., Guilherme Mello) leaning more towards developmentalism, while others (e.g., Bernard Appy) lean more towards liberalism. Planning Minister Simone Tebet and Industry and Commerce Minister Geraldo Alckmin are firmly in the liberal camp. However, due to the nature of his ministry, Geraldo Alckmin will probably concede more to developmentalist policies (as he's already doing). Aloizio Mercadante, the President of the National Bank for Economic and Social Development (BNDES), is considered the leader of the developmentalist branch of the government, along with Workers' Party President Gleisi Hoffmann (some people jokingly refer to her as the main opposition to Fernando Haddad and the 'Twitter Shadow Finance Minister' due to some of her tweets).
Without further ado, let's get to the causes of Brazil's stagnation.
Guido Mantega (Finance Minister between 2006 and 2014) and Antônio Palocci (Finance Minister between 2003 and 2006). Mantega is associated to developmentalism and Palocci to liberalism.
Education
First of all, the significant growth of the 20th century left a terrible educational legacy. Brazil only began to have a somewhat consistent educational policy in the 1990s and 2000s, when basic education was universalized. To put it into perspective, in 1990, the average number of years of schooling in Brazil was 3.8 years. Even Sub-Saharan African countries like Congo, Zimbabwe, and Zambia had higher average schooling levels than ours. Approximately a quarter of the population were illiterate.
The key change came with the 1988 Constitution, which decided that Brazil would try to become an European-style social democracy. Since then, considerable progress has been made, but clearly not enough. The main educational bottleneck lies in Elementary School II, which typically spans the ages of 12 to 15. It is during this stage in Brazil that the discrepancy between age and the appropriate grade level drastically increases, leading to higher rates of grade repetition and students falling behind in their education.
This problem is probably related to the transition from a single teacher trained in pedagogy in Elementary I to several specialists teaching only one subject. This transition also occurs at the onset of adolescence, which is naturally a turbulent phase already, with the introduction of drugs, alcohol and various forms of prejudice being normal. The result ends up being a distancing of the student from school.
Two Brazilian states, which have been governed by center-left parties for many years, serve as examples in Brazilian educational policy: Pernambuco and Ceará.
A highlight in Ceará is the Programa de Afabetização na Idade Certa (Program of Alphabetization in the Right Age), which aims to ensure that all students in the state's public school systems achieve literacy by the age of 7. The plan was based on the following pillars: (1) the elaboration of a specialized literacy curriculum that was adopted in all the municipalities, with structured materials for teachers and students containing a daily routine of classroom activities and homework assignments; (2) pedagogical practices to encourage reading in the classroom; (3) financial incentives for the municipalities that achieve better results in education; and (4) evaluation and monitoring of the program, with a census and diagnostic test that is applied at the beginning of every semester.
Pernambuco has implemented a Full-Time High School system that stands out. The system is based on the following pillars: (1) the introduction of a subject called "life project," which encourages students to create plans with goals and objectives for their lives; (2) guided study, providing a space for autonomy in learning and fostering self-directed learning skills; (3) hands-on, practical classes that combine theory and practice; (4) youth clubs, where collective interests of young people are pursued; (5) tutoring, where teachers (tutors) interact with students to support their development; and (6) full-time education, of course.
Both plans have been tremendous successes and could be implemented nationwide. The Member of Parliament Tabata Amaral has proposed the program "basic education like Ceará's, high school like Pernambuco's." We might see that put in practice. Izolda Cela, the mind behind Ceará's basic education plan, is the Executive-Secretary of the Ministry of Education, and the current Minister of Education is Camilo Santana, the governor of Ceará between 2014 and 2022.
Izolda Cela (Executive-Secretary of the Ministry of Education) and Camilo Santana (Minister of Education).
Public Investments
Furthermore, there is a general consensus that the significant decrease in public investment since 1980 explains part of the problem. During the Golden Age of Brazilian growth, public investment mounted to about 6% of GDP, whereas it currently stands at approximately 4% since the lost decade. Liberal economists tend to attribute this to the expansion of the welfare state, that came with a substantial increase in the tax burden (from 25% of GDP in the 1970s to 35% in 2000). On the other hand, developmentalist economists point to the decline in public savings due to the privatization of state-owned enterprises in the 1990s.
In his second government, Lula created the Programa de Aceleração do Crescimento (PAC) (Growth Acceleration Program), whose objective was precisely to expand public investments. Unfortunately, the plan ended up with highly controversial results, primarily due to the low administrative capacity of the Brazilian State and corruption (some like to call the plan the Corruption Acceleration Program!).
But now the Workers' Party has gained new experience. Many of its state governments became famous for extensive investment programs in partnership with the private sector, delivering positive results. Chief of Staff Rui Costa, in particular, had a successful experience with public-private investments during his tenure as the governor of Bahia. He is now expected to lead the "New PAC", which will probably be announced at some point between today and July. (The project still has no name and is provisionally being called "New PAC").
Here's what Rui Costa has said about the project: "We will have, in an unprecedented way, investments with Public Private Partnerships (PPIs) at the federal level. Many states, including Bahia, have made PPI projects. [...] We are negotiating with the Ministry of Finance the conditions for guarantees so that we can leverage these projects."
Lula wants to meet with the 27 state governors to determine which state projects the Union should prioritize for its investments. In recent weeks, Costa has held individual meetings with the state governments to define which projects will be included in the new PAC. In all, eight governors have already been heard.
In a speech on the May 1st holiday, Lula said the following about the project: "We are inviting foreign businessmen to invest in Brazil and we are showing them the great projects that we are going to present in the third PAC. It will be the largest infrastructure project in this country."
Former Governor of Bahia (2014 - 2022) and current Chief of Staff Rui Costa.
Deindustrialization
Another problem is the early deindustrialization that is taking place in Brazil: we are losing our industry before becoming rich. In the beginning of the lost decade, the industry accounted for one-quarter of the Brazilian GDP, whereas today it represents around one-tenth. The reason for this process is complex, and once again, economists disagree. Liberals point to the new form of production organization that emerged with globalization, where the manufacturing of goods was fragmented into different stages, each executed in different countries. According to this line of thinking, Brazil failed to adapt to the new industrial configuration and remained stuck in an unrealistic autarkic dream. On the other hand, developmentalist economists usually argue that after the end of hyperinflation, Brazil fell into a trap of having an overvalued currency and high interest rates, demolishing the industry's competitiveness. (I am more inclined towards the first thesis, although it is a fact that the Brazilian exchange rate was detrimental to the industry after the Real Plan).
Now I want to talk a little bit about the Brazilian industrial bourgeoisie and its problems. In the 1960s, the then sociologist and future president Fernando Henrique Cardoso published his thesis on the Brazilian industrial entrepreneurs. Based on his research, he concluded that Brazilian industrialists did not have any national project, and (1) "only cared about their personal interests when speaking on behalf of the class" and (2) "[their] political action consists of personal participation in the patrimonialist game." Brazil has a serious problem related to what we call 'patrimonialism,' which refers to the capture of resources from the Brazilian state to benefit private interests.
Unfortunately, industrial policy in Brazil often results in tax exemptions, subsidies, tariff protections, etc., for an inefficient, patrimonialist, and somewhat broken industry that was developed in the 20th century. The Workers' Party itself fell into this outdated corporatism while in power, especially during the first Rousseff administration (2011-2015). It is a shame that advocating for greater state involvement in the economy ends up becoming a defense of those interest groups.
In this sense, I find myself opposed to both liberals and developmentalists. While the latter end up promoting an agenda that only benefits private interests, albeit with good intentions, the former dismiss any state planning, believing in an 'economic abiogenesis.' Since 2016, we have been reducing the role of the state and waiting for a crowding in effect, but with no success. We need strong a industrial policy, but it has to be transparent and not perpetuate the old game of patrimonialism.
In the words of the brilliant economist Laura Carvalho: "We want a State that identifies ways to stimulate technological innovation and product development in partnership with the private sector. But this policy cannot become hostage to the existing private sector. We have remnants of our industry of the 20th century, for example the automobile industry, and when we do industrial policy, we end up just giving incentives to them. This is a state that does not choose winners, but rather is chosen by losers. Those who are struggling in the industry try to eat the resources of the state to survive."
Unfortunately, the signals from the new Lula government are quite negative. Industry and Commerce Minister Geraldo Alckmin recently announced a plan of incentives for the automobile industry, which is essentially the same program that has failed several times in the past. There are positive things coming from his ministry, but few of them have much to do directly with a well-made industrial policy. It's a shame.
His plans beyond industrial policy appear positive, as shown in the following excerpt, at least: "Brazil had an early deindustrialization. Europe also deindustrialized, but ours was precarious and severe. More than reindustrializing, we need a neo-reindustrialization. A central issue is the competitiveness agenda. There is a principle in medicine that says: suppress the cause and the effect ceases. We have to act on the causes of low growth. Our tax model generates an absurd cost for companies. It is not fair. We have an absurd judicialization that leads to legal insecurity and hinders exports. The whole world has a VAT (value added tax. I defend it. I think Haddad is doing well and I am a great enthusiast of the tax reform."
Probably more than any other politician of expression today, Haddad positions himself as a republican and talks about reducing the patrimonialist distortions of the Brazilian public budget. He talks about "closing the drains of what is called Brazilian patrimonialism" and "ending a series of abuses that have been committed against the fiscal base" of the country. He says that many sectors have been "overly" benefited "with rules established over the decades and that have not been reviewed by any outcome control. Many have expired from the point of view of efficiency, and need to be revoked."
Former Governor of São Paulo (2001 - 2006; 2010 - 2017) and current Vice-President of Brazil and Minister of Industry and Commerce Geraldo Alckmin.
Business Environment
Brazilian productivity has been stagnant for decades. What is causing this? The main suspect is the Brazilian tax system. There is an enormous complexity in the various indirect taxes (ISS, ICMS, PIS/Cofins, and IPI), which forces every company to have an excessively large department dedicated to tax payment. Additionally, numerous divergences of interpretation arise between the Federal Revenue, state authorities, and businesses. On every corner of our cities, there is a specialized tax law office to assist companies in dealing with the extremely high level of litigation in our taxation system. To make matters worse, our indirect taxes discourage investment in locations with higher social returns, as the tax complexity and special tax regimes artificially alter the profitability of investments and production. A general simplification of these taxes, with the adoption of a Value Added Tax, could have an impact on the economy's efficiency equivalent to the Plano Real, which ended hyperinflation.
Even beyond the tax issue, the Brazilian business environment is terrible. According to the World Bank's Doing Business 2020 report, which measures the ease of doing business in 190 countries, Brazil ranks 124th. This problem is related to excessive bureaucracy, unexpected judicial decisions, loopholes in regulatory frameworks, and disrespect for contracts.
The Tax Reform is going to be the government's main priority after the approval of the New Fiscal Anchor. Planning Minister Simone Tebet summed up the reform as follows: "The Tax reform is the only silver bullet that we have to save Brazil."
And here's what Finance Minister Fernando Haddad has said about it: "There is no way to grow Brazil's productivity with this tax system [...] We are developing a tax reform that is even more modern, because it introduces in the national tax system a Value Added Tax that solves a good part of the flaws of the current system that, in my opinion, is the great villain for the low growth rates of our productivity." The idea is to approve the Tax Reform still this year (Haddad talks about doing it in the first semester!).
Special Secretary for Tax Reform Bernard Appy.
Economic Isolation
Brazil has a very closed economy. Among the 160 countries analyzed by the World Bank, the Brazilian economy is only less open than that of Sudan. The average protection applied by Brazil to capital goods is 14 times higher than in Chile and 25 times higher than in Mexico. This is probably the most expressive cause of the low productivity and deindustrialization in Brazil, together with the tax system. Here, I quote the brilliant economist Edmar Bacha: "[The closure of the Brazilian economy during the Geisel government (1974 - 1979)] caused a tremendous drop in the economy's productivity and an increase in the cost of capital goods. And this, I believe, is what lies at the root of our stagnation after the so-called economic miracle (1968-1974). Our industry became unable to compete internationally. And we were forced, because the industry has this extraordinary lobbying capacity, to prevent the redesign of the Brazilian industry to participate in global value chains."
Bacha's argument makes sense: the collapse of GDP growth coincides with the collapse of capital accumulation (the growth rate of the capital stock) after Geisel's government. Why did capital accumulation collapse? Bacha explains that using a decomposition of the investment = savings relationship: K' = s(1/p)v - δ, where K' = capital accumulation, s = savings rate, p = relative price of investment, v = output-capital ratio, and δ = depreciation rate.
Between 1950-1980, the "golden age" of Brazil, K' grew at nearly 9% per year. Between 1981-2014, this number was 3%. Why? Looking at the historical series, the difference is not in savings or depreciation. What happened was that the output-capital ratio fell by about one-third, and the relative price of investment increased by one-third. In other words, the capital requirement per unit of output increased significantly, and at the same time, the price of investment goods rose significantly. According to Bacha, this process occurred between 1973 and 1983, a period in which the Military Government pursued an autarkic economic policy.
The ideal scenario for Brazil would be to open its economy and have an export-oriented industry. The industry we have developed is heavily reliant on our domestic market, without external competition. In the words of economist Nelson Barbosa: "Brazil cannot produce ships, but it can produce airplanes. Brazil does not have car manufacturers, but it has bus manufacturers. Brazil cannot have a domestic production of microelectronics, but it has a good domestic production of electric motors. So we need to study what worked in these sectors to see if it can be replicated in other sectors. All these successful sectors, Embraer, Weg, Marco Polo, are sectors that are competitive in Brazil and in the world. Here is the first clue: correct industrial policies create domestic production that competes domestically and internationally. They are integrated products that import and export extensively. Value chains."
However, an open trade policy without a plan may not be positive either. In Nelson's words: "Development always means increased productivity. Opening the economy can stimulate productivity, but it can also lead to a negative specialization. You can open your economy and become a country that only exports commodities, with an inflated services sector that only sells domestically, with a significant portion of your population relying on informal jobs. Which is what happens in Brazil. So I think trade openness is inevitable, more developed countries are more open, but thinking that just opening up will automatically lead to development is naïve and something we shouldn't do in the 21st century. I believe that strategic trade integration is crucial and necessary for development. Unilateral openness, without any plan, will only reinforce the specialization we already have today."
In any case, it is certain that the current excessive protectionism cannot be maintained. Opening up would allow broader access for companies to (1) cheaper and higher-quality inputs and (2) foreign-produced capital goods and technology, (3) create significant competition effects to invigorate the economy, and (4) create a 'selection effect' that would eliminate losers and favor winners.
But this is the agenda that I am least hopeful about. Trade openness is a topic that faces strong opposition from the Brazilian left and would likely only occur under a moderate center-right government. I hope, at least, that some trade agreements can be reached to open up the economy. The European Union-Mercosur trade agreement would have a significant impact and would be very important but I'm not very hopeful that it'll be approved.
Haddad is still optimistic, though! He said that a more emphatic diplomatic effort will be made starting in the second semester, in a movement that will take advantage of Brazil's leadership in Mercosur and Spain's leadership in the European bloc.
Simone Tebet (Planning Minister) and Fernando Haddad (Finance Minister).
Interest Rates
Interest rates in Brazil are much, much higher than the global average. Our credit is scarce and dysfunctional. Lula likes to repeat that Brazil is a capitalist country without capitalism because there is no credit.
Brazil has the second-highest bank spread in the world, second only to Madagascar. This means that banks in Brazil charge very high interest rates for lending money. To give you an idea, Brazil's bank spread is higher than the average observed in countries at war. There are several reasons for this, but some stand out: (1) savings in Brazil have historically been very low (around 20% of GDP), (2) the government consumes a significant portion of savings to finance itself, and (3) the Brazilian banking sector is extremely concentrated, with a few banks dominating the entire sector.
The other issue in this discussion is the current policy interest rate set by the Central Bank. Brazil currently has the highest real interest rate in the world, at around 9%. The debate about whether this interest level is correct or not is quite active in Brazil, with its proponents arguing that the current Brazilian inflation is demand-driven and pointing to inflation in the services sector and core inflation, while its critics argue that inflation is not demand-driven, pointing to the fact that Brazil has had a negative output gap since 2015 and that supply shocks can explain the inflation in services.
This debate is complex, and it is hard to determine definitively which side is right. Nevertheless, the Central Bank is strongly adhering to the first thesis.
The current Chairman of the Central Bank, Roberto Campos Neto (RCN), is the grandson of an economist of the Military Dictatorship and was appointed by Bolsonaro. He will remain in his position until 2024 due to the new autonomy granted to the Central Bank in 2021. In this scenario, Lula engaged in a public war against RCN, urging him to lower interest rates. The situation became tense, but Lula never showed any willingness to take effective action to remove him, remaining only in rhetoric. Throughout the conflict, Haddad positioned himself as a moderate, playing a certain "good cop, bad cop" game with Lula and gaining trust in the financial market. Apparently, Lula intends to nominate former executive-secretary of the Finance Ministry Gabriel Galípolo to replace RCN in 2024. He was recently appointed as director of monetary policy at the Central Bank, and is widely identified as a heterodox economist.
Haddad's current plan is to stabilize Brazil's deficit to allow for a monetary loosening. Here's what he said: "We are not at a point where fiscal expansion is going to help the economy. If there is room for any stimulus, it will be monetary. If we know how to make the transition, there is room for a lower interest rate, you just have to give security to the monetary authority." He does not seem to be concerned about banking concentration, though.
Chairman of the Central Bank Roberto Campos Neto.
TL;DR
The Brazilian economy has seen very little growth since the the lost decade in the 1980s. One of the primary factors contributing to this stagnation is the economy's low productivity. There are several reasons behind this low productivity, including:

1. Inadequate infrastructure and insufficient investments in its development.
2. A significant delay in comparison to other countries in terms of investing in education.
3. Unreasonable economic protectionism.
4. Private groups exerting undue influence and capturing the Brazilian state (patrimonialism).
5. Failure to adapt our industry to a globalized world.
6. Excessively high bank spreads.
7. A terrible business environment, particularly due to the tax system.

There are other reasons for sure, but I'd say most people would agree those are the most important ones. Also, here's my effortpost on the Workers' Party, in case you haven't read it.

(Pic of my gorgeous, meadow-like backyard haven that can only even be seen by one other house, taken today, eight days after my "violation" was issued.)
Dear Sirs, Madams, et al. of the High Weeds & Grass Program:
I am the owner and primary resident, along with my husband, at my address. This past week I received a violation notification from your fine board, indicating that I have unleashed “an environmental public nuisance … Specifically, vegetation which has not been cut, mowed or otherwise removed” that has attained a height of “twelve (12) inches or more.”
I would first like to request clarification, along with an extension on the time period you’ve suggested before the city comes on to my property and removes plants that are residing here quite intentionally. I feel it’s necessary to protest the vague distinction of “vegetation” that has achieved a “height of twelve (12) inches or more” that could only be offending a very few people in the small cul-de-sac in which I live. Virtually every other yard in my neighborhood has vegetation in the forms of trees, bushes, and other lawn ornamentation well over twelve inches, and I myself have a multitude of trees, bushes, and so forth that fall into the realm of “vegetation” that cannot reasonably fall under the quite specific measurement of twelve inches. I would like a list of the specific vegetation you wish for me to remove, which I think is quite a reasonable request before you demand money from me for forcing unwanted changes onto property I own and pay ever-increasing taxes on.
Furthermore, I’d like to address the fact that I have very specific intentions for the future of my yard and property that don’t include the almost constant noise pollution many of my neighbors in this same cul-de-sac produce with unnecessary and excessive use of gasoline-powered lawn tools that not only disrupt the natural habitat we’re lucky enough to enjoy in this still-secluded part of Marion County, but that also make this otherwise haven of nature and beauty into a constant cacophony of chainsaws, lawn mowers, edgers, and blowers. I’d like to point out that my neighbors allow feral cats to wander around the neighborhood—a practice that is far more disruptive in a small ecosystem like the one we enjoy here than allowing a few plants to take their natural course for a few months of the year. (I can send along a number of studies and articles about the nuisance feral cats create. Here is just one from wildlife.org: https://wildlife.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Feral-Cats.pdf.)
I’m quite happy to produce any number of scientific texts and references, in whatever form you’d like, that show leaving a property alone for the first two years of ownership is the best way to learn the natural landscape with which you’re working and create a productive plan for moving forward with a regenerative natural landscape that doesn’t require constant upkeep and that also provides valuable ecosystem protection that’s far more important than a collection of six houses having perfectly manicured lawns, at the expense of all the peace and quiet we should enjoy every day. I’m sure the landscapers who offered to mow my lawn for the incredibly reasonable price of $1,085 as a first payment and then $300/ mo into perpetuity are making sure to keep selling that expectation to my neighbors, but I hope to demonstrate a different way to be in the future. After all, we’re already seeing effects of climate change in our state, and we all should be changing our approaches and views when it comes to the same-old ways of performing lawn care.
I bought my house in December of 2020. The past two summers, I’ve done minimal lawn care and have observed where the sun hits the lawn at various times of day to learn where I want to plant the native plants I’ve been studying in the meantime. This year, I’ve been participating in No-Mow May with a large collection of people in various online communities encouraging people to stop feeling the need to constantly hack away at their lawns, wasting time and money, and also making neighborhoods worse in myriad ways with noise pollution. I’d ask that a member of the High Weeds & Grass Program come spend a day in my yard and witness him- or herself how much more pleasant it is to hear birds and wind and various wildlife than it is to hear constant motors running. Within the next five years, my lawn will be highly manicured and packed full of native plants in properly delineated flowerbeds, but I’m not a rich enough person to do it in one fell swoop. I will work toward making improvements over this long holiday weekend, as I’d planned to do anyway, but I’d still like a review that explains far more specifically what’s wrong with my lawn.
I don’t expect us to be in disagreement once we have a better understanding of one another’s intentions, but I’m shocked that in a city as progressive as Indianapolis and a state as conservative as Indiana we can’t appreciate both environmental truths and the importance of respecting personal property.
Please don’t assume that every person with a bit of a messy yard is lazy or neglectful or unloving of their property. I love my house and the land I own, and even though it’s incredibly beautiful to me with all my vegetation over twelve inches, I am willing to bring it in line with expectations once they’re more clearly outlined. I’d also like to remind the city AND my neighbors to have some grace and consideration for several factors: This is the first home my husband and I have owned. He and I lived our entire adult lives in apartments in the city before we moved here—over half our lives at this point. Lawn care hasn’t been something we’ve had to fit into our days, and also—we don’t have years of equipment built up. We had to replace our entire HVAC in the first year of owning our home, which limited the amount we’ve been able to invest in tools that others take for granted. Times are difficult. Inflation is unbelievably high. Wages are low. People are struggling and suffering. I find it hard to believe that a few stray plants in my yard are causing “an environmental public nuisance” to anyone who doesn’t need to check their priorities. No one comes and shows you how to properly care for your lawn. There’s a steep learning curve, and we’re still on it.
Please let me know what specifics you require of me. You’re welcome to come to my door (with a properly made appointment), email me directly, or give me a call instead of sending me vague, threatening letters in the mail.
My regards—

The last two jobs have been short stints where I learned a lot. Company C “laid me off” after I questioned shady financial practices. This job only lasted 4 months.
I just left Company D because they didn’t take safety seriously and my company vehicle brakes went out in a customer’s driveway (I almost hit their car and house) after months of me pleading with management to get them fixed before they went out.
My work history looks like this: Company A - 10 years. (First stint) was promoted from plumbing apprentice, to Journeyman, to Master. Then got promoted to BIM/VDC/ Plumbing Design. After several years I was asked to teach at night through their apprenticeship program while still working my VDC Plumbing Design Job During the Day.
County Schools - 1 Year. It was a good job but bad bosses. Work was either on fire or dead slow. I got tired of lack of challenges. So I moved on to company B.
Company B. 1.5 years. Good company, went through a major restructure, I knew my job would be eliminated in 6 months so I went back to school at local community college to learn welding.
The college found out I had extensive experience in drafting, and asked If I would teach. I taught for 1.5 years.
Company A called me again and said they wanted me back for more money and a new boss. Stayed their 3 years, but left due to lack of mobility (linear or upward). I was just Stuck where I was at, with no chance in moving to something more challenging in the company.
The last 2 jobs have been absolutely junk. I left company A for company C (small upstart), but was only their for 4 months. I still learned a lot (and learned not to question why the owner bought his wife a new corvette after the initial success of me changing his pricing structure.) I was promptly laid off after questioning several shady financial dealings.
Then I found a Job at company D. The interview went great, but after 3 months I came to the realization that the owner was absolutely clueless about skilled trades, and only cared about profits. I quit on the spot after my brakes went out on my company vehicle and he wanted to put me into another company vehicle that was 2 years out of inspection. My safety comes first.
How do I explain all of this to new employers?