Now that Republicans have their talking points together, i.e., offer insurance across state lines, close the loophole that gives employers cheaper health care than employees tax-wise, I'm relatively certain we won't see these things in any sort of compromise bill.
Why? Because they're too conservative for Democrats? Nah. They aren't crazy ideas at all. Unfortunately, they won't see the light of day because there CAN'T be a compromise bill. Republicans haven't learned that elections have consequences, and they'd rather attempt to torpedo any bill, whether it has their stuff in it or not, than actually try and use their few votes to get these ideas in.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Sinner taxes
The "Soda tax" is rearing it's ugly, irrational head again. As is my role as the Skeptic, I offer no answers, only questions.
Correlation does not mean causation, we're always told, so correlative studies, such as the ones that show a link between soda consumption and obesity, are only hypothesis generating, not causation proving. How would you prove that soda consumption causes obesity? Well, you could either find people who don't drink soda and give them soda, or, alternatively, do what one of the studies cited in the above article did. Take soda away from some and see if they get thinner.
They didn't.
Yet, the argument for a soda tax continues? That's because it was never about the cause - correlation is all you need for intolerance and discrimination. Whether or not soda causes obesity, there's enough evidence out there to simply associate it with the obese, which is enough for most people to argue for taxing it.
Isn't it hate the sin, love the sinner? Yet when science shows that drinking soda is not, in fact, sinful, it becomes clear that we were pretty much always out to screw the sinner anyway. Every crisis needs a scapegoat, and our health care crisis is no different.
Correlation does not mean causation, we're always told, so correlative studies, such as the ones that show a link between soda consumption and obesity, are only hypothesis generating, not causation proving. How would you prove that soda consumption causes obesity? Well, you could either find people who don't drink soda and give them soda, or, alternatively, do what one of the studies cited in the above article did. Take soda away from some and see if they get thinner.
They didn't.
Yet, the argument for a soda tax continues? That's because it was never about the cause - correlation is all you need for intolerance and discrimination. Whether or not soda causes obesity, there's enough evidence out there to simply associate it with the obese, which is enough for most people to argue for taxing it.
Isn't it hate the sin, love the sinner? Yet when science shows that drinking soda is not, in fact, sinful, it becomes clear that we were pretty much always out to screw the sinner anyway. Every crisis needs a scapegoat, and our health care crisis is no different.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Father of the Green Revolution dies
On Saturday Norman Borlaug died. Mr. Borlaug was an agronomist who’s development of semi-dwarf, high-yield, disease-resistant wheat varieties are estimated to have saved the lives of at minimum 250 million, and as many as a billion people at risk of starvation. Although his accomplishments have hardly gone unnoticed (Norman is one of five people to have won the Noble Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal), his later years were marked with criticism by some who believe his methods of pesticides and genetically altered crops create dependency on monoculture crops and environmental degradation in poor countries.
Yet the father of the “Green Revolution” continued to be a dogged advocate for the use of science in agriculture into his 90s. His simple but persuasive argument against organic activists, who warned of the looming elimination of bio-diversity, was if we really want to promote bio-diversity the most important thing is to keep the most bio-diverse regions intact. That is to say, rainforests, the most bio-rich regions on earth, should not be deforested, yet with a growing population and an unchanging amount of farmland simple math tells us the only answer is to increase food production—which has the added convenience of bringing more food and more profits to those in the world who most need it.
However Borlaug’s arguments have done little to change the minds of those who believe the costs of using such technology in crop production outweigh the benefits. Indeed the man who went to Mexico’s desperately poor Yaqui Valley in 1944 to dig in the dirt and toll in a lab and who’s work would by 1950 double Mexico’s wheat production, a phenomenon that spread like wildfire to Pakistan, India and throughout Asia, has become a lightning rod for environmentalists.
To give Borlaug’s critics their due, we do need to be aware how genetic mutations and pesticides can alter an ecosystem, especially when incentive structures develop where agro-businesses can extract a profit from an unsustainable product. But more dangerous is the instinct to draw upon first world values to deal with the developing world’s problems. The growing environmental awareness of Americans and Europeans has created the opportunity for global progress on issues such as climate change and renewable energy—topics that have a profound impact on those in the poorest countries. Yet it is nothing short of a tragedy when such interests are taken as more important than they are. Quite simply, when the choice is as Norman Borlaug faced, between more single strain crops and more starving children dying in the sun, the moral calculus is unequivocally weighted towards the latter.
Norman Borlaugh saved the lives of millions of the world’s most needy. For that he will forever in my mind remain one of the greatest Americans of the 21st century.
Yet the father of the “Green Revolution” continued to be a dogged advocate for the use of science in agriculture into his 90s. His simple but persuasive argument against organic activists, who warned of the looming elimination of bio-diversity, was if we really want to promote bio-diversity the most important thing is to keep the most bio-diverse regions intact. That is to say, rainforests, the most bio-rich regions on earth, should not be deforested, yet with a growing population and an unchanging amount of farmland simple math tells us the only answer is to increase food production—which has the added convenience of bringing more food and more profits to those in the world who most need it.
However Borlaug’s arguments have done little to change the minds of those who believe the costs of using such technology in crop production outweigh the benefits. Indeed the man who went to Mexico’s desperately poor Yaqui Valley in 1944 to dig in the dirt and toll in a lab and who’s work would by 1950 double Mexico’s wheat production, a phenomenon that spread like wildfire to Pakistan, India and throughout Asia, has become a lightning rod for environmentalists.
To give Borlaug’s critics their due, we do need to be aware how genetic mutations and pesticides can alter an ecosystem, especially when incentive structures develop where agro-businesses can extract a profit from an unsustainable product. But more dangerous is the instinct to draw upon first world values to deal with the developing world’s problems. The growing environmental awareness of Americans and Europeans has created the opportunity for global progress on issues such as climate change and renewable energy—topics that have a profound impact on those in the poorest countries. Yet it is nothing short of a tragedy when such interests are taken as more important than they are. Quite simply, when the choice is as Norman Borlaug faced, between more single strain crops and more starving children dying in the sun, the moral calculus is unequivocally weighted towards the latter.
Norman Borlaugh saved the lives of millions of the world’s most needy. For that he will forever in my mind remain one of the greatest Americans of the 21st century.
Monday, September 14, 2009
The growing "Joe Wilson" complex
Congressman Joe Wilson’s (R-SC) outburst during President Obama’s address before Congress was a breach of decorum and as such was widely chastised. In Mr. Wilson’s "defense" he said he simply lost control of his emotions. Indeed he did, yet what is more shocking and unfortunate is how common deep-seeded hatred such as Rep. Wilson’s has become in the political sphere. No doubt, those who argue that political disrespect and polarization are new elements of American politics have short memories; liberals hated Bush at least as much as conservatives hate Obama and hated Bill Clinton. Indeed, one needs to only read archived op-eds from the Vietnam era to find a history rich with polarized viewpoints and disrespect in the public square. Yet after watching a few of the most popular news shows, such as Bill O’Reilly, Keith Olbermann, or Glenn Beck, listening to the maddening crowds at town hall meetings, and seeing the disdain public officials so blatantly show for those on the other side of the aisle, one can’t help but get the feeling things aren’t getting better and they very may well be getting worse.
According to Bill Bishop, author of the book, The Big Sort, Americans are grouping themselves into communities of like-minded individuals like never before. Take the example of the growing political homogeneity of America’s neighborhoods. In the 1976 election of Jimmy Carter only 24 percent of counties that voted President Carter were landslides (over sixty percent voting for Carter). However, in 2004 over 48 percent of counties that voted for President Obama were landslides—double that of 1976. Bishop’s thesis is that Americans have a growing interest in being around and associated with those who are as like them as possible, and with the average American moving once every five years, the phenomenon is increasing.
Yet polarization is not only expanding in our neighbors, its also growing inside our online networks. The internet—arguably the greatest platform for communication the world has ever known—with its ability to bring different people from differences places together with a click of a mouse might seem like an unlikely place for group polarization, but with endless opportunities for self-selection it’s a prime environment for group-think. Harvard professor Robert Putnam makes such a prediction in his book Bowling Alone, Putnam argues that by eliminating the constraints of geography organizations can create themselves in whatever way they want, eliminating stragglers, dissenters, and black swans. For example, if you were a car enthusiast in 1970 and you wanted to join a car club with your 1964 cherry-red Mustang, you would be forced to join the local car club where inevitably you would have to interact with other enthusiasts with different makes and models. Today, with a quick Google search you could find a virtual group of only those who own other 1964 cherry-red Mustangs. In such an environment you would surely learn more about your Mustang but you wouldn’t know anything about your next door neighbor’s lighting-blue 1960 Chevy.
So we live, socialize, work, vote, and pray with those who think the way we do, what’s the problem? Surely, there are advantages to being with those we feel connected to. Indeed, Richard Florida in his book The Creative Class argues innovation-clusters and the economic gains that follow, are created in urban communities that bring together vibrant, creative, and artistic people. Similarly, in a report I co-authored ranking U.S. states based on their development towards the New Economy, the technology- and innovation-leaders were landslide states for Barack Obama (Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey took the top five spots).
First, it’s unclear if the gains that are made from a creative and highly-educated population could not be achieved to a greater degree in diverse communities. In fact, in Why Societies Need Dissent Harvard University professor Cass Sunstein points out that boards of directors who tend to disagree often are financially more successful then those who predominately share views. Second, by isolating ourselves to those whom we agree we limit our propensity for intellectual progress. In the word of Professor Sunstein, “Democracy is contingent on unplanned, unanticipated interactions with those whom are unlike ourselves.”
In reality, isolating ourselves to those who share our viewpoints restricts our ability to explore new territory and sharpen our understanding of the world. Yet as technology and higher standards of living make it easier to self-select associations, we need to make explicit efforts to seek out the opinions and viewpoints that differ from our own. Although I have a long way to go before fully taking my own advice, I do have a small ritual I perform to learn about the viewpoints of those I disagree with. Fridays are what I call “Speaker’s Corner Fridays”, where I read at least four things I know at the onset I’ll probably disagree with. The origin of this little tradition came from when I was living in London and I would run on Fridays through Hyde Park past Speaker’s Corner, where the craziest dissenters got their say. Although the concept is slightly silly, I believe it has actually helped me developed a much more rounded worldview and a keener understanding of public policy.
According to Bill Bishop, author of the book, The Big Sort, Americans are grouping themselves into communities of like-minded individuals like never before. Take the example of the growing political homogeneity of America’s neighborhoods. In the 1976 election of Jimmy Carter only 24 percent of counties that voted President Carter were landslides (over sixty percent voting for Carter). However, in 2004 over 48 percent of counties that voted for President Obama were landslides—double that of 1976. Bishop’s thesis is that Americans have a growing interest in being around and associated with those who are as like them as possible, and with the average American moving once every five years, the phenomenon is increasing.
Yet polarization is not only expanding in our neighbors, its also growing inside our online networks. The internet—arguably the greatest platform for communication the world has ever known—with its ability to bring different people from differences places together with a click of a mouse might seem like an unlikely place for group polarization, but with endless opportunities for self-selection it’s a prime environment for group-think. Harvard professor Robert Putnam makes such a prediction in his book Bowling Alone, Putnam argues that by eliminating the constraints of geography organizations can create themselves in whatever way they want, eliminating stragglers, dissenters, and black swans. For example, if you were a car enthusiast in 1970 and you wanted to join a car club with your 1964 cherry-red Mustang, you would be forced to join the local car club where inevitably you would have to interact with other enthusiasts with different makes and models. Today, with a quick Google search you could find a virtual group of only those who own other 1964 cherry-red Mustangs. In such an environment you would surely learn more about your Mustang but you wouldn’t know anything about your next door neighbor’s lighting-blue 1960 Chevy.
So we live, socialize, work, vote, and pray with those who think the way we do, what’s the problem? Surely, there are advantages to being with those we feel connected to. Indeed, Richard Florida in his book The Creative Class argues innovation-clusters and the economic gains that follow, are created in urban communities that bring together vibrant, creative, and artistic people. Similarly, in a report I co-authored ranking U.S. states based on their development towards the New Economy, the technology- and innovation-leaders were landslide states for Barack Obama (Massachusetts, Washington, Maryland, Delaware and New Jersey took the top five spots).
First, it’s unclear if the gains that are made from a creative and highly-educated population could not be achieved to a greater degree in diverse communities. In fact, in Why Societies Need Dissent Harvard University professor Cass Sunstein points out that boards of directors who tend to disagree often are financially more successful then those who predominately share views. Second, by isolating ourselves to those whom we agree we limit our propensity for intellectual progress. In the word of Professor Sunstein, “Democracy is contingent on unplanned, unanticipated interactions with those whom are unlike ourselves.”
In reality, isolating ourselves to those who share our viewpoints restricts our ability to explore new territory and sharpen our understanding of the world. Yet as technology and higher standards of living make it easier to self-select associations, we need to make explicit efforts to seek out the opinions and viewpoints that differ from our own. Although I have a long way to go before fully taking my own advice, I do have a small ritual I perform to learn about the viewpoints of those I disagree with. Fridays are what I call “Speaker’s Corner Fridays”, where I read at least four things I know at the onset I’ll probably disagree with. The origin of this little tradition came from when I was living in London and I would run on Fridays through Hyde Park past Speaker’s Corner, where the craziest dissenters got their say. Although the concept is slightly silly, I believe it has actually helped me developed a much more rounded worldview and a keener understanding of public policy.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Results Oriented Work Environment
Our current means of motivating employees is antiquated and inefficient, argues Dan Pink. Instead, he says, we need to focus on intrinsic motivators that generally revolve around autonomy, purpose and mastery.
As someone who works in software, which he mistakenly dismisses as one of those 'left brain activities', I couldn't agree more. We don't have very many carrots at work, but we have quite a few sticks. And we have one more thing that he doesn't mention that's far more pervasive: The implied admission that candle problems cannot be solved by incentivized behavior from management, but a different direction in how to react to that. Instead of changing the way work culture is, how we exchange ideas, and focusing on intrinsic motivators, there's a Herculean effort to find a mechanical way to turn candle problems into non-candle problems.
We have 'best practices', step-by-step instructions, 'industry standard' architectural models and a plethora of other things that a junior engineer with no right brain capacity whatsoever is supposed to be able to apply in a very mechanical way to turn all candle problems into non-candle problems. The idea here is that we can somehow learn from other problems that required creativity to turn similar problems into simple mechanics. It doesn't work at all.
I'm a major believer in the free market, but that doesn't mean I think bonuses are intrinsic to the free market, but rather competition. If some companies adopt the ROWE atmosphere and others do not, then the evidence presented in this TED Talk indicates that those who adopt ROWE will out compete those who do not. This is going to be such a gargantuan change in our labor culture as to be unrecognizable. Imagine a world in which all the jokes in Office Space no longer make any sense.
A small price to pay for more overall fulfillment, I'd claim.
As a not-so-long-ago new hire into the Corporate world, I was mystified every day by this question, "What is it, exactly, that you do here?" I still can't account for over 90% of the people I work with. I can't account for why we have 8-9 hour days that are dominated by water cooler chatter, web surfing and meetings that serve as escapes from our real jobs while still making us feel important and productive. ROWE gets rid of all that. It really is going to be a huge culture shift.
I do have one question, though, and want to know what others think about this. The candle problem showed that incentivising an employee once he's already solving the problem narrows his focus too much and renders him less capable. But what about incentives as a means to attract talent in the first place? I'm not sure the candle problem's findings apply here. In other words, once you have good talent in place, punishing them with management bureaucracy and enticing them with Chili's gift certificates doesn't work. But if you had to hire someone new, wouldn't offering the best compensation still attract the best talent pool? I'd claim it'd have to via reductio ad absurdem. If the candle problem findings are true, AND apply to attracting new talent rather than rewarding current employees, then you'd find yourself in the odd position of saying that paying nothing gets the best results.
As someone who works in software, which he mistakenly dismisses as one of those 'left brain activities', I couldn't agree more. We don't have very many carrots at work, but we have quite a few sticks. And we have one more thing that he doesn't mention that's far more pervasive: The implied admission that candle problems cannot be solved by incentivized behavior from management, but a different direction in how to react to that. Instead of changing the way work culture is, how we exchange ideas, and focusing on intrinsic motivators, there's a Herculean effort to find a mechanical way to turn candle problems into non-candle problems.
We have 'best practices', step-by-step instructions, 'industry standard' architectural models and a plethora of other things that a junior engineer with no right brain capacity whatsoever is supposed to be able to apply in a very mechanical way to turn all candle problems into non-candle problems. The idea here is that we can somehow learn from other problems that required creativity to turn similar problems into simple mechanics. It doesn't work at all.
I'm a major believer in the free market, but that doesn't mean I think bonuses are intrinsic to the free market, but rather competition. If some companies adopt the ROWE atmosphere and others do not, then the evidence presented in this TED Talk indicates that those who adopt ROWE will out compete those who do not. This is going to be such a gargantuan change in our labor culture as to be unrecognizable. Imagine a world in which all the jokes in Office Space no longer make any sense.
A small price to pay for more overall fulfillment, I'd claim.
As a not-so-long-ago new hire into the Corporate world, I was mystified every day by this question, "What is it, exactly, that you do here?" I still can't account for over 90% of the people I work with. I can't account for why we have 8-9 hour days that are dominated by water cooler chatter, web surfing and meetings that serve as escapes from our real jobs while still making us feel important and productive. ROWE gets rid of all that. It really is going to be a huge culture shift.
I do have one question, though, and want to know what others think about this. The candle problem showed that incentivising an employee once he's already solving the problem narrows his focus too much and renders him less capable. But what about incentives as a means to attract talent in the first place? I'm not sure the candle problem's findings apply here. In other words, once you have good talent in place, punishing them with management bureaucracy and enticing them with Chili's gift certificates doesn't work. But if you had to hire someone new, wouldn't offering the best compensation still attract the best talent pool? I'd claim it'd have to via reductio ad absurdem. If the candle problem findings are true, AND apply to attracting new talent rather than rewarding current employees, then you'd find yourself in the odd position of saying that paying nothing gets the best results.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
The President? Advising MY Children? It's more likely than you think.
Coming from the Conservative wing of the Otter Party, I have to ask this question - what on Earth is wrong with the PRESIDENT OF OUR NATION telling kids to stay in school?
What, do you think there's going to be subliminal messages or something? "Stay in school, Kids, (and support communism)". "Don't do drugs! (And undermine our armed forces while you're at it.)"
This is absurd. There are many, MANY reasons to disagree with or not like the job Obama is doing, but going after a speech to kids isn't one of them. It's kind of like a freebie.
What, do you think there's going to be subliminal messages or something? "Stay in school, Kids, (and support communism)". "Don't do drugs! (And undermine our armed forces while you're at it.)"
This is absurd. There are many, MANY reasons to disagree with or not like the job Obama is doing, but going after a speech to kids isn't one of them. It's kind of like a freebie.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Planes, Trains and Automobiles
As a part of the stimulus plan, there's going to be an expansion in American High Speed Rail (110+ mph) capacity. Now, as a technophile, understand my first emotion is to get really excited about this. After all, high speed rail just seems really, really cool. Plus, as a cold war era jingoist, it makes me jealous that crummy countries like Japan and France have more high speed rail capacity than us.
But let's think about this for a second - does America really need high speed rail? Someone new to the topic might see high speed rail as the panacea between gridlocked automobile traffic and our greenhouse gas spewing airlines. Somehow, intuitively, we think since rail goes along the ground, it's intrinsically less costly than flying, even though current day train tickets simply aren't nearly where they need to be to be competitive with flight. Imagine what tickets on a high speed rail system will cost?
And this isn't just America. The same cost differences exist elsewhere too. When I took the high speed chunnel to and from France, while I was studying in the UK, tickets were upwards of 100 quid and it took probably a little over an hour. When I flew later on RyanAir, tickets were around 40 quid and actual flight time was less than thirty minutes.
Why is there still a fascination with high speed rail when air travel is so much faster and more cost competitive? Probably because, like I said, it's really really cool. But it's not something America needs - we're already subsidizing Amtrak (and our airlines, for that matter), we don't need yet another underutilized mode of transport for the government to prop up.
But let's think about this for a second - does America really need high speed rail? Someone new to the topic might see high speed rail as the panacea between gridlocked automobile traffic and our greenhouse gas spewing airlines. Somehow, intuitively, we think since rail goes along the ground, it's intrinsically less costly than flying, even though current day train tickets simply aren't nearly where they need to be to be competitive with flight. Imagine what tickets on a high speed rail system will cost?
And this isn't just America. The same cost differences exist elsewhere too. When I took the high speed chunnel to and from France, while I was studying in the UK, tickets were upwards of 100 quid and it took probably a little over an hour. When I flew later on RyanAir, tickets were around 40 quid and actual flight time was less than thirty minutes.
Why is there still a fascination with high speed rail when air travel is so much faster and more cost competitive? Probably because, like I said, it's really really cool. But it's not something America needs - we're already subsidizing Amtrak (and our airlines, for that matter), we don't need yet another underutilized mode of transport for the government to prop up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)