- Article: Link. It seems all chic to state that the government is broken. However as this article points out partisan is good because it prevents us from being at the whims of the populace and people only seem to complain when they can't get their projects through.
- Article: Link. It seems like people all voting themselves more benefits at the expense of me. It is really frustrating. It is amazing how much pensions are underfunded and how often politicians cave into state unions.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Long days as work mean short posts.
So I haven't had a lot of time to write so I thought I would say a couple of things about a couple of articles and make a couple of comments about the health care debate. Since I know you are all enthralled with what I write.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Cruising on the Ocean
So here is a way to waste time. I have grown tired of the Olympics already. They never seem to show what I want to watch (SHOW ME CURLING). Anyway. So I was surfing CNBC to find a live feed because curling was on, unfortunately they don't have a free online viewer, but I came across their video archive.
The following video is about the cruise industry (which is apparently a multi-billion dollar industry). What is interesting is to watch the video and learn how much the company makes on different aspects of the cruise. I have to say I honestly have no interest in taking a cruise. Basically the cruise looks like a bore and the ship is trying to nickel and dime you the entire time (which is true, watch the video).
What struck me most was the port of call section of the video. They interview a guy from the chamber of commerce from a small island. He was basically talking about the money they make. It is amazing how much money small towns can make on the cruise ships. What is more troubling to me is that the town IS a port of call for THAT ship. If the ship were to disappear the town would collapse overnight. Additionally the amount of money brought in is so large that it completely throws off the local economy. Now this happens all the time. There are thousands of towns that are one shop towns where if a major company moved out of the area tons of jobs would be lost. However it seems more perverse here. The cruise ship 'partners' with the people on land and takes about 50% of the cost of the tours and stuff. Thus if the locals were to demand more money the ship could just threaten to not come by anymore. Seems like a situation all around. The video ends with some shots of cruise ships being made (way awesome). To me this video basically says two things: 1) don't invest in cruise ships currently and 2) don't come because they seem like something I would not like. Additional piece of information for the video. Calling at a port in Alaska is $50 a person. Isn't that incredible.
The following video is about the cruise industry (which is apparently a multi-billion dollar industry). What is interesting is to watch the video and learn how much the company makes on different aspects of the cruise. I have to say I honestly have no interest in taking a cruise. Basically the cruise looks like a bore and the ship is trying to nickel and dime you the entire time (which is true, watch the video).
What struck me most was the port of call section of the video. They interview a guy from the chamber of commerce from a small island. He was basically talking about the money they make. It is amazing how much money small towns can make on the cruise ships. What is more troubling to me is that the town IS a port of call for THAT ship. If the ship were to disappear the town would collapse overnight. Additionally the amount of money brought in is so large that it completely throws off the local economy. Now this happens all the time. There are thousands of towns that are one shop towns where if a major company moved out of the area tons of jobs would be lost. However it seems more perverse here. The cruise ship 'partners' with the people on land and takes about 50% of the cost of the tours and stuff. Thus if the locals were to demand more money the ship could just threaten to not come by anymore. Seems like a situation all around. The video ends with some shots of cruise ships being made (way awesome). To me this video basically says two things: 1) don't invest in cruise ships currently and 2) don't come because they seem like something I would not like. Additional piece of information for the video. Calling at a port in Alaska is $50 a person. Isn't that incredible.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
Do no evil, unless, uh, that one time...
So I am sure almost everyone has heard of Buzz by now but for all the wrong reasons. I think there is a lot that can be said about this situation but I am going to take an engineering perspective on this. What I find most interesting is the consequences of what Google did.
For those who don't know, Google has decided again to try to enter the social networking market. The first attempt failed pretty bad. I mean who still have an Orkut account? So Google in an effort to quickly gain a bunch of users tacked their newest attempt into their Gmail application. So what happened? They auto-added everyone to service and automatically exposed all that information to the world. What I find is interesting is the accidental things, like since the most contacted people were exposed to the world spouses could find out about infidelities, bosses could find out about recent contacts with recruiters, and what is worrisome is that Mini-Microsoft may have been exposed. I find it interesting the legal ramifications of this.
So how does an engineer get into this problem and what can be done to prevent it. Well I think this comes from the same tunnel vision that produces poor user experiences. So it is well known that engineers design products that they want. Engineers are tinkerers. So I want a widget or program that does what I want. Other things are that the user experience is not the importance to most engineers. For instance most projects I start are never about a neat user experience or non-engineer experience, I am interested in the algorithm behind the machine learning or the new searching algorithm.
Well I think this is likely the problem with Buzz: Engineers developed a program they wanted. They got to the end and thought, hey this is great who wouldn't want this? (I have similar thoughts about things I write.) It also seems like this was pushed very hard from a 'make a profit' perspective. It is commonly thought at this time that social networking is the way to large ad profits. Which may be true. If you like or may like something then your friends are likely to like them. So you have engineers who didn't step back to say, 'how will this affect people' and 'should we do X or Y' and you have a company who is really trying to break into social networking. This is what I think was the problem. It is likely a neat idea. I would love a place where I can have all my social networking stuff in one place. However I don't feel like Buzz is the answer. For reference I have turned it off as quickly as possible.
So how do other companies mitigate these things? For one, you never turn on stuff like that by default. The second is a process which looks at the customer experience. I know I think a lot about how people use my work and how to make their experience better. I think it is a situation where you need to assume everyone is not like you. So what would someone who thinks differently than you think of X. this helps a lot. I just think it is an interesting thing. I think Buzz will fall into the same trash bin as Orkut and in this case it is completely the fault of whomever enabled this by default. At the end of the day companies that think they can force their users into something they don't want usually lose, I feel Google may have done that to themselves.
For those who don't know, Google has decided again to try to enter the social networking market. The first attempt failed pretty bad. I mean who still have an Orkut account? So Google in an effort to quickly gain a bunch of users tacked their newest attempt into their Gmail application. So what happened? They auto-added everyone to service and automatically exposed all that information to the world. What I find is interesting is the accidental things, like since the most contacted people were exposed to the world spouses could find out about infidelities, bosses could find out about recent contacts with recruiters, and what is worrisome is that Mini-Microsoft may have been exposed. I find it interesting the legal ramifications of this.
So how does an engineer get into this problem and what can be done to prevent it. Well I think this comes from the same tunnel vision that produces poor user experiences. So it is well known that engineers design products that they want. Engineers are tinkerers. So I want a widget or program that does what I want. Other things are that the user experience is not the importance to most engineers. For instance most projects I start are never about a neat user experience or non-engineer experience, I am interested in the algorithm behind the machine learning or the new searching algorithm.
Well I think this is likely the problem with Buzz: Engineers developed a program they wanted. They got to the end and thought, hey this is great who wouldn't want this? (I have similar thoughts about things I write.) It also seems like this was pushed very hard from a 'make a profit' perspective. It is commonly thought at this time that social networking is the way to large ad profits. Which may be true. If you like or may like something then your friends are likely to like them. So you have engineers who didn't step back to say, 'how will this affect people' and 'should we do X or Y' and you have a company who is really trying to break into social networking. This is what I think was the problem. It is likely a neat idea. I would love a place where I can have all my social networking stuff in one place. However I don't feel like Buzz is the answer. For reference I have turned it off as quickly as possible.
So how do other companies mitigate these things? For one, you never turn on stuff like that by default. The second is a process which looks at the customer experience. I know I think a lot about how people use my work and how to make their experience better. I think it is a situation where you need to assume everyone is not like you. So what would someone who thinks differently than you think of X. this helps a lot. I just think it is an interesting thing. I think Buzz will fall into the same trash bin as Orkut and in this case it is completely the fault of whomever enabled this by default. At the end of the day companies that think they can force their users into something they don't want usually lose, I feel Google may have done that to themselves.
You get a house, you get a house, everyone gets a house.
There are just so many examples of 'bad government' policies I could blog for years. So what is it this time? Multiple news sources have reported that Obama has decided to use some tarp funds to help significantly underwater home owners. It should be noted that this will only help in states like California, Nevada, Florida, etc. Which also happen to be states where the democrats are either hoping to save or pick up seats. (Well they are planning in a lot of places but those are a few hot spots, coincidence? Though they are targeting districts in lots of states so it may be just that. However you can't help but notice that Harry Reid may lose and Obama announced in Nevada...)
So while researching this I came across a couple of interesting articles about (affordable) housing and homelessness. (Interesting result from the article on affordable housing is that it costs $600k for the red tape and bureaucracy in San Fransisco to buy a house. This is before you even buy the land. Incredible. It is under the 'Cost of "Right to Build"' section.)
Let me say the biggest problem with a lot of home related issues is that housing is propped up by the central government. Basically through tax benefits. I would really like it if there was a rent benefit. You can deduct taxes and interest and I get to deduct my rent. This is an area where the government should really equalize the playing field.
There is research to suggest that when people own a house they are more likely to take an interest in the area, upkeep their property, etc. However this misses the fact that it forces a lot of people out of housing or forces them to borrow heavily to afford the house. (This is like the minimum wage removing low-paying jobs.) This is a very bad situation. (Not to mention that government intervention into forcing banks to give more loans to lower income people was a contributing factor to the current crisis.) Basically the housing isn't affordable in many of these states (which is why no one is buying the houses). The biggest problem that the government doesn't realize is that whenever they give a grant of say $X to someone to buy a house, the seller just raises the cost by $X. Additionally supply of houses and the demand for houses should be allowed to equalize. Blargh. I'll stop ranting about this and focus another posting on this specifically.
In regards to the homelessness portion of the problem, the biggest problem is that local governments outlaw various aspects of being homeless. This causes the homeless people to have criminal records.
All this does is cut off more opportunities for employment to these people. This is a kind of negative re-enforcing loop where one problems leads to another until the person is in the situation they are in completely because of the situation they are in. It should be noted the failed anti-drug policies of the United States cause the exact same problem. While I do not want a druggie to be driving a semi on the interstate, does this mean they should be cut out of all jobs? (Drug policy is a huge problem and will be the subject of many future posts.)
At the end of the day the money is only 1.5B. I mean how much is a billion anymore? The deficit is was 12T right now right? So what is 1.5B. I just wish that if they were going to bail out people like this that I would get my bailout.
So while researching this I came across a couple of interesting articles about (affordable) housing and homelessness. (Interesting result from the article on affordable housing is that it costs $600k for the red tape and bureaucracy in San Fransisco to buy a house. This is before you even buy the land. Incredible. It is under the 'Cost of "Right to Build"' section.)
Let me say the biggest problem with a lot of home related issues is that housing is propped up by the central government. Basically through tax benefits. I would really like it if there was a rent benefit. You can deduct taxes and interest and I get to deduct my rent. This is an area where the government should really equalize the playing field.
There is research to suggest that when people own a house they are more likely to take an interest in the area, upkeep their property, etc. However this misses the fact that it forces a lot of people out of housing or forces them to borrow heavily to afford the house. (This is like the minimum wage removing low-paying jobs.) This is a very bad situation. (Not to mention that government intervention into forcing banks to give more loans to lower income people was a contributing factor to the current crisis.) Basically the housing isn't affordable in many of these states (which is why no one is buying the houses). The biggest problem that the government doesn't realize is that whenever they give a grant of say $X to someone to buy a house, the seller just raises the cost by $X. Additionally supply of houses and the demand for houses should be allowed to equalize. Blargh. I'll stop ranting about this and focus another posting on this specifically.
In regards to the homelessness portion of the problem, the biggest problem is that local governments outlaw various aspects of being homeless. This causes the homeless people to have criminal records.
All this does is cut off more opportunities for employment to these people. This is a kind of negative re-enforcing loop where one problems leads to another until the person is in the situation they are in completely because of the situation they are in. It should be noted the failed anti-drug policies of the United States cause the exact same problem. While I do not want a druggie to be driving a semi on the interstate, does this mean they should be cut out of all jobs? (Drug policy is a huge problem and will be the subject of many future posts.)
At the end of the day the money is only 1.5B. I mean how much is a billion anymore? The deficit is was 12T right now right? So what is 1.5B. I just wish that if they were going to bail out people like this that I would get my bailout.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Wait, I should have a place in this course
So I have nothing important to blog about tonight. I have no energy to blog something complicated. However I wanted to talk about a really frustrating thing that I witnessed today.
So I am in training currently. After you leave school and enter the work force you will continually train both for your benefit and for a check box on your manager's commitments. Some training is good and some is bad. My training this week is putting me to sleep. It makes me feel good to know I can still learn things on my own though. I am probably too knowledgeable to get a LOT out of the course. Little victories in life is what all people have to look forward to once they graduate.
Anyway, when you sign up for the course it specifically says that if you are not there on time your seat will be given away. It actually says this in every email they send to you to remind you about the course. Thus you can show up the day of and get in usually because people just do not show up. So anyway today two people came in about 15 minutes late and were lucky there were still seats in the room. The course was just opened like last week so apparently many people didn't get a chance to get approval. Well anyway, about 2 hours later (about 25% of the day is gone by now) two people walk in right after each other and try to sit down. The instructor is like, um, 'no leave, there is no room'. To which the people are like, but 'I am registered'. The course had run out of books for the course and thus there was no possible way they could have gotten in.
Even though all the emails and websites are like, 'you will lose your seat if you are not on time' these people still went up to the instructor and were like, 'but I'm registered'. Unbelievable. If I was the instructor I would not have been that nice to them. I am sure the instructor deals with it all the time though. For one the courses start about 9 AM usually. Which is a whole hour after normal work starting times for other people. This time is very much in the core hours of work time. If you can't make it into work by this time there really is something wrong. I just can't believe people in the world feel like they can just walk into anything and do whatever they want. Based on the driving habits of people around here I really shouldn't be surprised at this attitude though. Completely unbelievable.
So I am in training currently. After you leave school and enter the work force you will continually train both for your benefit and for a check box on your manager's commitments. Some training is good and some is bad. My training this week is putting me to sleep. It makes me feel good to know I can still learn things on my own though. I am probably too knowledgeable to get a LOT out of the course. Little victories in life is what all people have to look forward to once they graduate.
Anyway, when you sign up for the course it specifically says that if you are not there on time your seat will be given away. It actually says this in every email they send to you to remind you about the course. Thus you can show up the day of and get in usually because people just do not show up. So anyway today two people came in about 15 minutes late and were lucky there were still seats in the room. The course was just opened like last week so apparently many people didn't get a chance to get approval. Well anyway, about 2 hours later (about 25% of the day is gone by now) two people walk in right after each other and try to sit down. The instructor is like, um, 'no leave, there is no room'. To which the people are like, but 'I am registered'. The course had run out of books for the course and thus there was no possible way they could have gotten in.
Even though all the emails and websites are like, 'you will lose your seat if you are not on time' these people still went up to the instructor and were like, 'but I'm registered'. Unbelievable. If I was the instructor I would not have been that nice to them. I am sure the instructor deals with it all the time though. For one the courses start about 9 AM usually. Which is a whole hour after normal work starting times for other people. This time is very much in the core hours of work time. If you can't make it into work by this time there really is something wrong. I just can't believe people in the world feel like they can just walk into anything and do whatever they want. Based on the driving habits of people around here I really shouldn't be surprised at this attitude though. Completely unbelievable.
If at first you don't succeed...
...please don't shove your ideas in my face.
This post is about ObamaCare. I am not really going to talk about the content of the bills (thought that will likely be coming) but about the process. My article for reference for this is from the reason again. I don't really think articles need to be referenced for this post though because it is common to read articles about this bill over the last year. However I have words various groups:
Democrats:
Look, pushing through an unpopular bill is not going to help. It won't help you get elected again, and if you don't get re-elected you have to actually use the health care you want to pass (for good or bad). The biggest problems for you guys is that you have let the industry write your laws and this bill (which I can't even sit through and read) is just too complicated. Too many exceptions and inclusions and specifics. You don't seem to realize complicated bills have holes you can drive a semi through. This is a problem. Make the bills simple. Also stop bending-over to cater to special interests. I am hugely behind getting this health care thing figured out however bending over to unions was enough to completely lose my support. If you want to tax 'Cadillac' plans then do it. I have a 'Cadillac' plan I work my hard for it and my employer feels like I deserve it. If the unions don't have to pay the tax on their plan why should I? You have a perception problem where it seems like you favor people over others. Perhaps you shouldn't give that idea fuel. Also, meeting behind closed doors wasn't helpful either. This bill could potentially completely reshape America, it is important to me to know what is going on. Make it open or I will never support you. As a final note, do not do some underhanded maneuver to pass any bill. Start over and really attack the problem.
Republicans:
You are as much to blame for the failure of health care reform as the democrats, and it isn't something to be proud of. Spreading false information is not helpful. There were real and valid concerns about the bill as it was being crafted by special interests. However fear-mongering, finger-pointing, and generally having nothing constructive to do is not helpful. Additionally you need to stop the over playing 'core issues'. For instance, health care reform should have end of life consoling and should provide benefits for abortion. Like it or not in America you can get an abortion and not realizing this is not helpful. Perhaps you should concentrate on helping educate people about abortion rather then force those who want it to pay for it out of pocket when you insure every idiot who does something stupid. This isn't helping the public good. Additionally children are expensive and providing abortion benefits could help lower the costs of this reform in the long run. You do have good ideas on how to improve health care, like tort reform, lowering costs, however stop protecting your campaign contributors. Do what is right.
The President:
Don't make promises you can't keep. Letting your party off the hook with the closed door reconciliation of the two bills was a major problem. Additionally playing up the fact that you would pass health care while president was just a ploy since you had nothing to do with the monstrous bills that were produced (however I applaud your efforts to let congress make the bills like it should be, I am just upset that you ran on a platform of passing health care without doing anything about it. I would have preferred if you just expressed your enthusiasm for change and let it at that). Unfortunately you inherited a situation where the economy is in bad shape. However only quoting the most optimistic cost of bills from the CBO is a bad move. It is going to cost more and we all know it. Let's call it correctly here.
So I am going to leave off with my hopes for the future new bill (I hope):
This post is about ObamaCare. I am not really going to talk about the content of the bills (thought that will likely be coming) but about the process. My article for reference for this is from the reason again. I don't really think articles need to be referenced for this post though because it is common to read articles about this bill over the last year. However I have words various groups:
Democrats:
Look, pushing through an unpopular bill is not going to help. It won't help you get elected again, and if you don't get re-elected you have to actually use the health care you want to pass (for good or bad). The biggest problems for you guys is that you have let the industry write your laws and this bill (which I can't even sit through and read) is just too complicated. Too many exceptions and inclusions and specifics. You don't seem to realize complicated bills have holes you can drive a semi through. This is a problem. Make the bills simple. Also stop bending-over to cater to special interests. I am hugely behind getting this health care thing figured out however bending over to unions was enough to completely lose my support. If you want to tax 'Cadillac' plans then do it. I have a 'Cadillac' plan I work my hard for it and my employer feels like I deserve it. If the unions don't have to pay the tax on their plan why should I? You have a perception problem where it seems like you favor people over others. Perhaps you shouldn't give that idea fuel. Also, meeting behind closed doors wasn't helpful either. This bill could potentially completely reshape America, it is important to me to know what is going on. Make it open or I will never support you. As a final note, do not do some underhanded maneuver to pass any bill. Start over and really attack the problem.
Republicans:
You are as much to blame for the failure of health care reform as the democrats, and it isn't something to be proud of. Spreading false information is not helpful. There were real and valid concerns about the bill as it was being crafted by special interests. However fear-mongering, finger-pointing, and generally having nothing constructive to do is not helpful. Additionally you need to stop the over playing 'core issues'. For instance, health care reform should have end of life consoling and should provide benefits for abortion. Like it or not in America you can get an abortion and not realizing this is not helpful. Perhaps you should concentrate on helping educate people about abortion rather then force those who want it to pay for it out of pocket when you insure every idiot who does something stupid. This isn't helping the public good. Additionally children are expensive and providing abortion benefits could help lower the costs of this reform in the long run. You do have good ideas on how to improve health care, like tort reform, lowering costs, however stop protecting your campaign contributors. Do what is right.
The President:
Don't make promises you can't keep. Letting your party off the hook with the closed door reconciliation of the two bills was a major problem. Additionally playing up the fact that you would pass health care while president was just a ploy since you had nothing to do with the monstrous bills that were produced (however I applaud your efforts to let congress make the bills like it should be, I am just upset that you ran on a platform of passing health care without doing anything about it. I would have preferred if you just expressed your enthusiasm for change and let it at that). Unfortunately you inherited a situation where the economy is in bad shape. However only quoting the most optimistic cost of bills from the CBO is a bad move. It is going to cost more and we all know it. Let's call it correctly here.
So I am going to leave off with my hopes for the future new bill (I hope):
- Tort reform.
- Universal Coverage of basic (and only basic) health care. (If we want to believe that health care is a basic right we should cover everyone at a basic level, think physicals, nutrition consultations, broken bones, maybe dental cleaning, the things EVERYONE needs).
- Require all conditions covered for bought insurance. The biggest thing for this is electronic records and a central database to query. This will help a lot. That way all conditions are known to all parties. The reason different groups have different rates is because they have different cost/risk profiles. You can't get rid of that or you won't have private insurance companies anymore.
- Cost controls. You can't do this by just saying you will do it. Allow more transparency in costs. I should be able to know the costs before I get helped by a doctor. Require it (for non-emergencies obviously and for emergencies set ceilings). I shouldn't go in for a physical be surprised by the bill (both number and costs).
- Reduce the overhead. The electronic records will do a lot for that.
- Make EVERYONE pay for it. Everyone should pay for this. Remember, when people stop paying for it even a little bit the incentives will back fire (remember that wall street thing... like that). Make is a x% tax on all wages which is not reimbursable or something. Everyone should pay we are in this together, act like it.
- Think about how to control medical training costs. France has a really good system for paying for medical degrees, perhaps you could ask them about it.
- Fair taxation and benefits.
- Open source government sponsored research. I am tired or the tax payers paying for the research that drug companies do and then them charging out the ass for the drugs. If the research is partially funded by grants or money from the government then the papers and results are free and unencumbered. The NIH did a good job when the opened up the papers funded by us. Continue this.
- Stop letting university researchers make money off patents. This creates bad incentives for universities. Lets fix this as well. While you are at it, stop letting them patent my genes. Patenting life is stupid. Stop it. Now.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
The rewards of schooling...
(So this topic will likely be the combination of multiple posts across months. I have so much to say on the topic of education and the rewards (or lack thereof of them). I also have a lot of say of the problems having been exposed to the darker underbelly of the education system. Anyway on with this post.)
So what is this post about? Well let me pose it like this: I was once asked by a friend who was getting their Master's why they wouldn't make enough money to pay for it. Well I have finally found a great article to cite to discuss the answer. My original answer (while true) was hard to articulate when someone doesn't understand economics (or worse doesn't 'believe' in it).
Anyway the article was from the reason.com. The article doesn't really talk about education but the text is directly applicable to education. So basically the article discusses something really important, the market DOES NOT reward merit, it rewards value. Let me say that again, NOT merit, but value. (Merit would be like trying hard, paying a lot for an education, or some other entitlement.)
What is value in an economic sense? Basically anything people will pay money for. I think what is really interesting is there has been a discussion on a private distribution list I am member of about the value of a college education in the wake of significant government intervention in the loans market (which only increase the cost of the education which I will discuss in another post). An interesting anecdote was provided about a plumber who make $100 an hour and lived way better than the rest of the people in the neighborhood (who were all engineers). He also worked less hours and was in general, 'happier'. Why did he make so much? Well barriers to entry was one, but also he was doing a job a lot of people can't or don't want to do, and people are willing to pay for it. That is value.
Where does this leave merit? The market will only reward merit as much as it creates value. So what about people who work really hard but never make a lot of money? Or what about people with $100k computer science degrees who are replaced by a person overseas who didn't pay anything for their education? Out of luck mostly. If someone can do your job (add the same value/cost or greater than you) then why should the company pay for you? Why should the public pay for your technology over someone else's to repair a bridge if another 'less innovative' approach works as well? (It is amazing to me how many people make truck loads of money doing stuff others don't want to do because it is not glamourous or is boring).
This article really made me think because too often we would like the market (or companies) to reward merit more because it seems like the right thing to do. ('Wow that is a neat idea they should make money.') But in reality it can't work that way, do you go to the expensive salon and pay 2x the cost of the low cost provider when they produce a equal amount of value? Of course not. So why should I or anyone else expect to get pay or awards all because I 'deserve' it? The market doesn't pay you more for an education unless you provide value. (It you do add value and are not paid for it you should find a new job which will pay for that value.) The flip side of this is how do you know if you are adding value? I'll attempt that topic more in future posts as I have some thoughts about that.
So back to the answer to my friend. The reason is that your Master's degree doesn't add enough value to warrant having gotten it. While they said it was 'what they wanted to do' and 'without it wouldn't get paid much or get any jobs in their chosen area'. Well the problem is the area is overcrowded and has a low bar of entry for new talent. In places like this value is everything and it is very hard to find value from just a degree. Also stay out of the public sector as they rarely reward value (what does value mean in a government context) nor merit (when the state is giving out money everyone 'deserves it') but usually time (how long you worked there which is not correlated with value) and who you know (which is inefficient).
So what is this post about? Well let me pose it like this: I was once asked by a friend who was getting their Master's why they wouldn't make enough money to pay for it. Well I have finally found a great article to cite to discuss the answer. My original answer (while true) was hard to articulate when someone doesn't understand economics (or worse doesn't 'believe' in it).
Anyway the article was from the reason.com. The article doesn't really talk about education but the text is directly applicable to education. So basically the article discusses something really important, the market DOES NOT reward merit, it rewards value. Let me say that again, NOT merit, but value. (Merit would be like trying hard, paying a lot for an education, or some other entitlement.)
What is value in an economic sense? Basically anything people will pay money for. I think what is really interesting is there has been a discussion on a private distribution list I am member of about the value of a college education in the wake of significant government intervention in the loans market (which only increase the cost of the education which I will discuss in another post). An interesting anecdote was provided about a plumber who make $100 an hour and lived way better than the rest of the people in the neighborhood (who were all engineers). He also worked less hours and was in general, 'happier'. Why did he make so much? Well barriers to entry was one, but also he was doing a job a lot of people can't or don't want to do, and people are willing to pay for it. That is value.
Where does this leave merit? The market will only reward merit as much as it creates value. So what about people who work really hard but never make a lot of money? Or what about people with $100k computer science degrees who are replaced by a person overseas who didn't pay anything for their education? Out of luck mostly. If someone can do your job (add the same value/cost or greater than you) then why should the company pay for you? Why should the public pay for your technology over someone else's to repair a bridge if another 'less innovative' approach works as well? (It is amazing to me how many people make truck loads of money doing stuff others don't want to do because it is not glamourous or is boring).
This article really made me think because too often we would like the market (or companies) to reward merit more because it seems like the right thing to do. ('Wow that is a neat idea they should make money.') But in reality it can't work that way, do you go to the expensive salon and pay 2x the cost of the low cost provider when they produce a equal amount of value? Of course not. So why should I or anyone else expect to get pay or awards all because I 'deserve' it? The market doesn't pay you more for an education unless you provide value. (It you do add value and are not paid for it you should find a new job which will pay for that value.) The flip side of this is how do you know if you are adding value? I'll attempt that topic more in future posts as I have some thoughts about that.
So back to the answer to my friend. The reason is that your Master's degree doesn't add enough value to warrant having gotten it. While they said it was 'what they wanted to do' and 'without it
We have an Image to Improve
(You will notice I labeled this shows, because not all shows are on TV anymore.)
I have recently watched a new show called 'Undercover Boss'. It was on after the Superbowl and after eating like 6 pounds of fat I didn't feel like getting up. Anyway I have to say I am glad I didn't. The aforementioned show was interesting to say the least. So basically the premise is that the CEO of a corporation goes undercover as a low-level employee to see how the corporation really works.
This show is meant to pull the tears out. It plays up the drama a lot. I have to admit as well if I was one of the employees and this guy (or girl) had a camera crew following them around I would be suspicious. Maybe not that it was the CEO but I don't know if you could get honest people and honest situations. Everyone plays for the camera.
Anyway, the good. I think there is quite a place in corporate America for the CEOs to come down and look around. I think too often 'numbers' get thrown around without actually doing any good. However I don't know how good of an opinion you can form by just working a job for a day. Also I like it that highly compensated individuals have problems doing basic jobs. Maybe companies could be more accomidating for people to learn those skills.
The bad, it is contrived. Every person the CEO meets gets something at the end. I feel like a couple of them are like whammies. One person gets a $10,000 trip and another gets to 'hold the CEO accountable'. Every show so far has a person whom the CEO basically showers with presents for just doing a job. Now that being said some of them are doing hard jobs that multiple people should do. However there is likely at least 10 people in the companies that are just like the person singled out, why shouldn't they be found out either, and compensated? A lot of people have tough lives, is it fair to favor one person over another for a non-work related reason? Additionally is it a fair way to spend money in the company? Showering one person with gifts? I also suspect that this is basically orchestrated by the film crew but you never know. I will say that the first one who got 'presents' was doing the jobs of multiple people and because of the show would be getting more help so the work wasn't overloaded. That seems like a better way to go forth from the show.
To be honest I don't think I will be watching the show much longer. While heart warming occasionally I feel like the actual positive effects are negated by the biased way the show places them.
I have recently watched a new show called 'Undercover Boss'. It was on after the Superbowl and after eating like 6 pounds of fat I didn't feel like getting up. Anyway I have to say I am glad I didn't. The aforementioned show was interesting to say the least. So basically the premise is that the CEO of a corporation goes undercover as a low-level employee to see how the corporation really works.
This show is meant to pull the tears out. It plays up the drama a lot. I have to admit as well if I was one of the employees and this guy (or girl) had a camera crew following them around I would be suspicious. Maybe not that it was the CEO but I don't know if you could get honest people and honest situations. Everyone plays for the camera.
Anyway, the good. I think there is quite a place in corporate America for the CEOs to come down and look around. I think too often 'numbers' get thrown around without actually doing any good. However I don't know how good of an opinion you can form by just working a job for a day. Also I like it that highly compensated individuals have problems doing basic jobs. Maybe companies could be more accomidating for people to learn those skills.
The bad, it is contrived. Every person the CEO meets gets something at the end. I feel like a couple of them are like whammies. One person gets a $10,000 trip and another gets to 'hold the CEO accountable'. Every show so far has a person whom the CEO basically showers with presents for just doing a job. Now that being said some of them are doing hard jobs that multiple people should do. However there is likely at least 10 people in the companies that are just like the person singled out, why shouldn't they be found out either, and compensated? A lot of people have tough lives, is it fair to favor one person over another for a non-work related reason? Additionally is it a fair way to spend money in the company? Showering one person with gifts? I also suspect that this is basically orchestrated by the film crew but you never know. I will say that the first one who got 'presents' was doing the jobs of multiple people and because of the show would be getting more help so the work wasn't overloaded. That seems like a better way to go forth from the show.
To be honest I don't think I will be watching the show much longer. While heart warming occasionally I feel like the actual positive effects are negated by the biased way the show places them.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
The third full week of May is....
Dog bite prevention week. Do you have your plans yet? I was thinking of biting people in honor of dogs, everyone knows the most dangerous breed of dog, human. (Though puppies never bite.)
Seriously you can't make this up. I got to the CDC website because I was looking at articles about insuring dogs (I am sure I will post about this in the future because I don't know where I should come down on the issue, so I will be looking into that). I have to ask why does the CDC have a page on dog bites. I didn't know you could catch one by not washing your hands (well maybe you can if you have a meat smell on your hands...). I also think it is hilarious that the postal service supports National Dog Bite week. Do dogs really chase mailmen? That is so 1940. Wait what is mail? I know what email is. If it like an 8-track or a newspaper?
What I do like towards the bottom of the page is that there is a discussion about the breed specific policies about dog bites. The website is very level-handed about this in saying that this is the only information that is available is for fatalities so there are no statistics on bites/breed in general. I also like the discussion about intelligent policies towards different breeds. (On a side note, whose job is it to write these documents?)
I do really appreciate page 5 of the document when it talks about breed bans. I would love to have a Rottweiler some day but there is a lot of prejudice against them. Well page 5 does a pretty good job of laying out the lack of evidence on breed specific dangers and specifically said that these bans are ineffective. However I fear most local politicians are too 'busy' to read something like this before infringing on my rights. However the existence of this document from the CDC seems to open a very good challenge to those laws. However if someone just sat down and thought about it everything in this document is obvious, maybe that is what America lacks most days common sense. (Though there is an evolutionary reason for stereotyping and probability estimates which I am sure I will discuss eventually.)
Other interesting things from the website is that Georgia has a plan to educate people about dog bites. You know like, don't let a dog bite you. Anyway, I was curious so I looked into the program and can't find anything about the program (like how much it cost the state). Seems like garbage spending to me. Anyway.
I was entertained that the CDC had a dog bite page and actually had a great document explaining that there is no correlation between dog bites and breed.
Seriously you can't make this up. I got to the CDC website because I was looking at articles about insuring dogs (I am sure I will post about this in the future because I don't know where I should come down on the issue, so I will be looking into that). I have to ask why does the CDC have a page on dog bites. I didn't know you could catch one by not washing your hands (well maybe you can if you have a meat smell on your hands...). I also think it is hilarious that the postal service supports National Dog Bite week. Do dogs really chase mailmen? That is so 1940. Wait what is mail? I know what email is. If it like an 8-track or a newspaper?
What I do like towards the bottom of the page is that there is a discussion about the breed specific policies about dog bites. The website is very level-handed about this in saying that this is the only information that is available is for fatalities so there are no statistics on bites/breed in general. I also like the discussion about intelligent policies towards different breeds. (On a side note, whose job is it to write these documents?)
I do really appreciate page 5 of the document when it talks about breed bans. I would love to have a Rottweiler some day but there is a lot of prejudice against them. Well page 5 does a pretty good job of laying out the lack of evidence on breed specific dangers and specifically said that these bans are ineffective. However I fear most local politicians are too 'busy' to read something like this before infringing on my rights. However the existence of this document from the CDC seems to open a very good challenge to those laws. However if someone just sat down and thought about it everything in this document is obvious, maybe that is what America lacks most days common sense. (Though there is an evolutionary reason for stereotyping and probability estimates which I am sure I will discuss eventually.)
Other interesting things from the website is that Georgia has a plan to educate people about dog bites. You know like, don't let a dog bite you. Anyway, I was curious so I looked into the program and can't find anything about the program (like how much it cost the state). Seems like garbage spending to me. Anyway.
I was entertained that the CDC had a dog bite page and actually had a great document explaining that there is no correlation between dog bites and breed.
Monday, February 15, 2010
Bad Government: What is harder than the Bar Exam (you know, that lawyers take)
So before I tell you the answer, let me introduce this segment of my blog. Exactly what it says, Bad Government. I will discuss various laws, court cases, or actions by the government that I have run across which are hurtful to the public (or rationality and intellect) that it is trying to protect.
Answer: The Louisiana Floral Exam. (For reference the state level is 77% passed in 2009 for the bar exam.)
(For reference the time line of this spans 2003 through today.) Yes, in order to arrange flowers in Louisiana you have to be licensed to do so. After taking an hour written exam and pass a four hour 'practical' exam. I originally learned of this from one of my favorite haunts, Reason.com. For reference the organization attacking this 'dumb law' is the Institute of Justice. This looks like a group to take a second look at. Anyone who wants to help remove stupid laws from the books is perfectly ok with me. I am sure there will be a forth coming blog about them. (Here is a link to the Institute of Justice's website about this case.) Gotta love it that NPR did a report on this as well.
Now let me try to defend the organization (I really am trying here). Why could someone believe this is a good idea. Perhaps you are interested in keeping a certain minimum level of 'beauty' in the flower arrangements in your state. Well, why should it matter what I have in my house? Why should the person be licensed (which will increase his fees since he now has to pay for an additional business expense)? Lets say that the reason to ensure a consistent viewing beauty of an area or wedding. Well if I don't care about something like, 'if the wire used is the correct size,' why should I be forced to pay for it. If the towns and populace of the state want their public buildings to have some kind of standard why don't they pass a specific law which says that arrangements destined for state use have to have a certain standard (Though personally for me if the state didn't want to spend the extra money why should they? Aren't most states beyond broke?).
It is really easy to see who this helps. Therein lies the problem. Now I will admit it is hard to tell what the cost of this lack of competition is on the customer. How can you compare something like floral arrangements. I tried trust me. The best I could do is find something to compare (arrangement of just 12 red roses). What I did was look for towns on both sides of a border (Vidalia, La. and Natchez Mi. were the two I choose). So I prices 12 red roses on both sides. From Vidalia I found: 49-69, 65-100, and 70. From Natchez I found: 70, 75, 65. However all of the websites look like the same person made them. So the results are inconclusive (they could all be owned by the same person). However lack of results doesn't imply lack of effects. I have to ask though, what is the real point of this licensing board? If there were stronger competition in Louisiana maybe the populace could save a little money. Even if this is not true, freedom is more important than ' unhelpful laws'.
So how did the story end up with the Institute for Justice? Well the website is still up for the licensing board, as always 'working' with the legislators to ensure 'florist's needs' are being met (whatever that means, it seems the only thing I could find them doing was stopping a law to remove this licensing requirement). (Obviously they only care about those who are in the program not those who are shut out of the program.) Schools are still open which provide a 'notebook covering the 80 hour course' for only $890.00 plus $785.00. Yes, you read that correctly. If you want a low-level floral arrangement job it will cost you about 167 hours (at $10 an hour) which is about 7% of your yearly income if you work 2000 hours, before taxes. You would not believe how hard it is to find materials about the outcome of the case but after way too long I have found a couple of things: this is from the Institute for Justice's website (read the bottom of the article, if this doesn't scream remove special interests from politics I don't know what does).
So I was actually able to track down the court case ruling. The results can be found here (you would not believe how hard this was to find, just goto the 5th circuit court in Louisiana and search for 'Barbara Peacock'). Basically hurricane Katrina and the length of legal proceedings have made the case moot since neither women wanted to arrange flowers in Louisiana anymore. This seems like a missed opportunity to invalidate a suffocating law but I am sure justice was served since to rule the court case needed to still be applicable. However I have to ask if after this amount of time the court case could ever have not been moot. The court case was about the inability to apply a trade in the state. No one can be unemployed for that long. So no matter what the women would have moved onto other things. It seems to me that this requirement for the case is more the devil here. Anyway that was the result. The opinion is short and enlightening (about how the system actually works).
As a footnote I read across a hardcore libertarian opinion on the case (found here). Read at your leisure but don't expect me to comment on that article. I haven't fully digested it yet and don't want to comment on it because of that.
Answer: The Louisiana Floral Exam. (For reference the state level is 77% passed in 2009 for the bar exam.)
(For reference the time line of this spans 2003 through today.) Yes, in order to arrange flowers in Louisiana you have to be licensed to do so. After taking an hour written exam and pass a four hour 'practical' exam. I originally learned of this from one of my favorite haunts, Reason.com. For reference the organization attacking this 'dumb law' is the Institute of Justice. This looks like a group to take a second look at. Anyone who wants to help remove stupid laws from the books is perfectly ok with me. I am sure there will be a forth coming blog about them. (Here is a link to the Institute of Justice's website about this case.) Gotta love it that NPR did a report on this as well.
Now let me try to defend the organization (I really am trying here). Why could someone believe this is a good idea. Perhaps you are interested in keeping a certain minimum level of 'beauty' in the flower arrangements in your state. Well, why should it matter what I have in my house? Why should the person be licensed (which will increase his fees since he now has to pay for an additional business expense)? Lets say that the reason to ensure a consistent viewing beauty of an area or wedding. Well if I don't care about something like, 'if the wire used is the correct size,' why should I be forced to pay for it. If the towns and populace of the state want their public buildings to have some kind of standard why don't they pass a specific law which says that arrangements destined for state use have to have a certain standard (Though personally for me if the state didn't want to spend the extra money why should they? Aren't most states beyond broke?).
It is really easy to see who this helps. Therein lies the problem. Now I will admit it is hard to tell what the cost of this lack of competition is on the customer. How can you compare something like floral arrangements. I tried trust me. The best I could do is find something to compare (arrangement of just 12 red roses). What I did was look for towns on both sides of a border (Vidalia, La. and Natchez Mi. were the two I choose). So I prices 12 red roses on both sides. From Vidalia I found: 49-69, 65-100, and 70. From Natchez I found: 70, 75, 65. However all of the websites look like the same person made them. So the results are inconclusive (they could all be owned by the same person). However lack of results doesn't imply lack of effects. I have to ask though, what is the real point of this licensing board? If there were stronger competition in Louisiana maybe the populace could save a little money. Even if this is not true, freedom is more important than ' unhelpful laws'.
So how did the story end up with the Institute for Justice? Well the website is still up for the licensing board, as always 'working' with the legislators to ensure 'florist's needs' are being met (whatever that means, it seems the only thing I could find them doing was stopping a law to remove this licensing requirement). (Obviously they only care about those who are in the program not those who are shut out of the program.) Schools are still open which provide a 'notebook covering the 80 hour course' for only $890.00 plus $785.00. Yes, you read that correctly. If you want a low-level floral arrangement job it will cost you about 167 hours (at $10 an hour) which is about 7% of your yearly income if you work 2000 hours, before taxes. You would not believe how hard it is to find materials about the outcome of the case but after way too long I have found a couple of things: this is from the Institute for Justice's website (read the bottom of the article, if this doesn't scream remove special interests from politics I don't know what does).
So I was actually able to track down the court case ruling. The results can be found here (you would not believe how hard this was to find, just goto the 5th circuit court in Louisiana and search for 'Barbara Peacock'). Basically hurricane Katrina and the length of legal proceedings have made the case moot since neither women wanted to arrange flowers in Louisiana anymore. This seems like a missed opportunity to invalidate a suffocating law but I am sure justice was served since to rule the court case needed to still be applicable. However I have to ask if after this amount of time the court case could ever have not been moot. The court case was about the inability to apply a trade in the state. No one can be unemployed for that long. So no matter what the women would have moved onto other things. It seems to me that this requirement for the case is more the devil here. Anyway that was the result. The opinion is short and enlightening (about how the system actually works).
As a footnote I read across a hardcore libertarian opinion on the case (found here). Read at your leisure but don't expect me to comment on that article. I haven't fully digested it yet and don't want to comment on it because of that.
Researching at Night
I have to say I have been researching a post for quite a while here and I have to say that government websites are usually just terrible to the point of usability. I am currently trying to get on the 5th Circuit Court's Louisiana Website and the thing is down. This is all too common. I research a lot of things I read about and the lack of reliability and organization on these websites make me cry for democracy. Really how can people be informed if the sites are so bad. I would be more than willing to donate money to an organization that actually helped the government make the information it has more accessible. I mean this is ridiculous. Don't even get me started on local websites. I found one a while ago where the head of the city council had been dead for like 5 years. Ridiculous.
Maybe I will get to finish the post tomorrow morning. It is a good one, I'll keep you on the edge of your seats. :-)
Maybe I will get to finish the post tomorrow morning. It is a good one, I'll keep you on the edge of your seats. :-)
Sunday, February 14, 2010
My brother the Chimp
So the current class I am 'taking' (let me say there is a big difference between taking a class in college and taking a class by watching the videos online,) a course called 'Global Population Growth'. So I started taking this class because I want to watch the later courses. There are interesting videos later in the course about the course of the future of humanity. I am interested in this because the growth of population and the strain on resources are going to be huge (and possibly destabilizing) stories of the next 40 years. I am also interested in them because I would like to understand the problem better so I can pick our companies better that will profit from technologies to alleviate these problems and help vote for policies that will help alleviate the problems.
Well I was slightly surprised by the first 3 or 4 lectures which were completely about the current scientific scholarship on the community aspects of chimps and early humans. What is interesting is how close it is the content of 'The Third Chimpanzee' which I had read recently. (I am a huge fan of Jared Diamond.) This is good because I have something to point to give someone an idea of what was in the book (since most people don't devour books as much or as fast as I do). However the content is not 1:1.
What is interesting to me is the biology of reproduction and how it differs from chimps to humans. (Also the history of human civilization is very interesting. The book I recommend for this is 'Africa: A Biography of the Continent'.) There is a lot that can be learned from our nearest 'relatives' in the animal kingdom. However I think to understand the difference between humans and 'animals' it is important to understand the similarities. Specifically these videos go into things like the maximum childbearing capacity of a chimpanzee female and the theoretical maximum of humans (in early human development). Also there is some interesting discussion on the biological processes that limit reproduction. What is interesting (and is illuminated in the later lectures like #5) is the religious and sociological aspects of society especially those that try to limit the number of children a couple can have. This is needed because of the distribution of resources in the environment. I just find it incredibly interesting that throughout history a lot of religions have created constructs which attempt to mold human reproduction in a way that is most optimal for the environment. It is an interesting set of data points to me.
Well I was slightly surprised by the first 3 or 4 lectures which were completely about the current scientific scholarship on the community aspects of chimps and early humans. What is interesting is how close it is the content of 'The Third Chimpanzee' which I had read recently. (I am a huge fan of Jared Diamond.) This is good because I have something to point to give someone an idea of what was in the book (since most people don't devour books as much or as fast as I do). However the content is not 1:1.
What is interesting to me is the biology of reproduction and how it differs from chimps to humans. (Also the history of human civilization is very interesting. The book I recommend for this is 'Africa: A Biography of the Continent'.) There is a lot that can be learned from our nearest 'relatives' in the animal kingdom. However I think to understand the difference between humans and 'animals' it is important to understand the similarities. Specifically these videos go into things like the maximum childbearing capacity of a chimpanzee female and the theoretical maximum of humans (in early human development). Also there is some interesting discussion on the biological processes that limit reproduction. What is interesting (and is illuminated in the later lectures like #5) is the religious and sociological aspects of society especially those that try to limit the number of children a couple can have. This is needed because of the distribution of resources in the environment. I just find it incredibly interesting that throughout history a lot of religions have created constructs which attempt to mold human reproduction in a way that is most optimal for the environment. It is an interesting set of data points to me.
I'm back
So I have been gone... for a long time. Sorry to my 1 reader. I guess I got a little too into World of Warcraft. :-) Oh well. I have one of the bet retribution paladins on my server. It was fun but I have decided to put time back into other things. One of those things is to revive my blog and post material based on the things I read and research. I didn't stop reading those things in the last couple of months but I just haven't sat down to think about them. This will give me the opportunity to write about them as I let them sink in, probably a good thing. I am also taking time to expand my horizons with other activities (though I am playing Zelda on the Wii right now which isn't helpful).
I have been surprised at the improvements to blogger too. You may notice some tabs at the top of the page which are some collection pages for posts as I go forward. I will likely rearrange my old posts in the future and cleaning them up. (Sorry if it clogs up your reader, I promise not to do them all at once. :-) ). Hope you all enjoy reading my blog as I go forward. I'll try to make it interesting at least.
I have been surprised at the improvements to blogger too. You may notice some tabs at the top of the page which are some collection pages for posts as I go forward. I will likely rearrange my old posts in the future and cleaning them up. (Sorry if it clogs up your reader, I promise not to do them all at once. :-) ). Hope you all enjoy reading my blog as I go forward. I'll try to make it interesting at least.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
