The other day someone pointed out that if Sweden were a U.S. state it would not rank very high on per capita GDP. This was a Facebook conversation and the tone of the post was "see you socialist left wing fanatics, even in the best case your socialist state is worse off than almost all of the U.S.". This, of course, created a small firestorm of posts, which I think was the object of the provocation. The comparison is interesting though.
There are cases where the differences in governance, national attitude and results are stark. For example, Haiti and the Dominican republic share an island, but the contrast between the two is stark. The same can be said of Costa Rica and Nicaragua. Sweden is not, of course, a socialist state. The U.S. and Sweden are both industrialized nations with relatively educated populations. The U.S. has a leg up because of its vast natural resources.
Given the general similarity of status of Sweden and the U.S. as industrialized nations, a comparison of social policy and the results for the average citizen is worthwhile. I think the differences between Sweden and the U.S. are largely a reflection of basic philosophical differences in national attitude. As a nation the U.S. attitude is: social darwinist, each man for himself, pull yourself up by your bootstraps, if you cannot make it here don't blame anyone but yourself, government always does a worse job than the private sector. I have never been to Sweden so I cannot report firsthand on conditions there. From the outside its social policy seems more: we are all in this together, each does better when all do better, we are all people and things happen so let us support each other, government programs work well at providing the basis for us to build strong lives.
The Swedish GDP for 2010 is about 458,000 (millions). With a 2011 estimated population of 9,415,300 the per capita GDP is about $48,640. This is roughly the same as North Dakota at 47,714 which ranks as the 20th highest state GDP per capita. There is some disagreement about these numbers. For example the wikipedia article on the Swedish economy gives a per capita GDP of about $37,775, which would make it closer to Michigan, the 42nd poorest state. Sweden cannot prop up its social welfare system with natural resources like North Sea oil (Norway, Britain). It must pay through basic productivity.
In the World Economic Forum (the Davos folks) Global Competitiveness Report, Sweden ranks above the US (because of the recession)
Sweden is not going bankrupt. Its overall national debt is 40% of GDP compared to 60% - 90% for the United States (depending on whose number you use). Sweden went through a real estate and financial crisis in the early 1990s and had to re-adjust its social spending to accomodate lower GDP. Sweden is now used as a model for how a nation should handle financial crises. Sweden can afford its social programs. Because it is somewhat poorer pre capita than United States, we could afford similar programs if our national philosophy allowed it. The difference is choice, not money.
Sweden ranks high in taxation about 48% of GDP (2007). In the developed world, Sweden is on the high end of taxation exceeded only by Denmark. In the U.S. taxes are about 27% of GDP (2006). The U.S. tax rate is one of the lowest in the developed world. Only Mexico, Turkey, Korea, and Japan have lower taxes as a percent of GDP.
So, which resident gets the better deal: someone living in Sweden with its not-outstanding per capita GDP and high taxes or a resident of Michigan/North Dakota.
Health care in Sweden requires patients to pay a fee per visit/prescription, but total costs to the patient is limited to about $360 per year. In comparison to the US Sweden has more doctors and nurses per capita. Life expectancy is higher, and infant mortality is lower. Over 80% of all medical costs are paid by the government (vs. 45% in the US) but the total cost spent on health care is so much lower that the US government pays more as a percentage of revenue than Sweden does. So, in Sweden everyone is guaranteed health care, the cost is lower both to the individual and the government than in the U.S.. The outcomes of health care are generally better, and citizens do not need to fear medical bankruptcy.
In education, Sweden works hard to make sure that opportunity is equalized for children. Grants from the national government take into account the economic conditions of the particular region. Poorer regions are subsidized and richer regions bear an extra cost. Rural regions are compensated for transportation costs and smaller class sizes. There are independent schools, roughly equivalent to charter schools in the U.S. Parents may have to pay a fee for preschool and childcare, but there is a ceiling to those costs which takes household income into account. Higher education is essentially free to the students. Students must pay for text books, and equipment needed for personal use. This means that students enter the workforce essentially debt free.
This contrasts with the United States which has limited pre-school support and where higher education is increasingly unaffordable. Two thirds of students leave higher education with an average debt of $23,000 dollars. We have created a generation of young adults who, instead of leaving college and becoming entrepreneurs, are forced by debt to ender the labor force as employees. In the United States, public dollars going to higher education have decreased and tuition costs have increased. The United States of America is the only OECD country where 25-34 year-olds are not better educated than 55-64 year-olds. This may be in part because other countries had more room to improve over the past 25 years.
In Sweden, taxpayers spend about 6.6% of GDP on education. In the U.S. about 5.5% of GDP is spent by the government on education.
We all know how skewed incomes are in the United States where the top 400 wealthiest people have more than the bottom 150 million.
About 80% of the Swedish workforce is unionized. As might be expected in a place where people tend to feel part of a single society and look after each other, the unions make the society more equal, but do not eliminate inequality or reward laziness. In hard times, looking after each other may mean unions accepting pay cuts to save jobs. The Swedish unemployment system looks much like the US unemployment system.
If we honestly compare industrialized societies, the US doesn't look so good. We have a national mythology that we are a nation of rugged individualists in a country that provides the opportunity for everyone with drive and determination to make whatever they want of their lives. While we do pretty well on the individualist side, shunning all non-business forms of collective action. We do less well on the opportunity side. American families are less socially mobile than families in other countries.
Much of the U.S. national catechism is simply incorrect.
People do not do best as rugged individuals working for their own benefit. We are social creatures who do best as collections of individuals working together and helping each other.
People are not naturally dishonest or working to game the system. There is a persistent, endemic problem of dishonesty, but this is the exception not the rule. Most people getting unemployment benefits, welfare, food stamps, WIC payments, social security, medicaid ... are ordinary hard-working folks just like you and me who have hit hard times. Most of them will be back on their feet in a little while, they just need some help to see them through.
Work and money are not the center of most people's lives. Most people work for money to earn enough to live, but are not particularly interested in accumulating large amounts of wealth. Everyone would love to be wealthy, but if you talk to people about what they would do once they got that big pile of cash, very few of them talk about accumulating more. Most people would simply do more of what they currently enjoy the most. We should not be educating our children to be effective workers, we should be educating them to understand themselves and the world around them.
Government can be effective. Government is comparable to other large organizations in efficiency and effectiveness. I have worked as a consultant to both government and private entities. The problems are somewhat different, but both government and private entities tend to have about the same level of bone headedness. If we look around the world, we can see examples of more effective governance. Sweden seems to be one of those places.
The United States has low taxation, both at the individual and the corporate level. The question in most of the developed world is not "how much am I taxed", but "what do I get for my tax dollars". As an example, the citizens of every country with universal health care are basically pleased with their system do not want a privatized system.
Showing posts with label injustice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label injustice. Show all posts
Saturday, December 17, 2011
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Fairness and US Federal Tax
I keep seeing articles about "fairness" of the federal tax system. In particular, that the wealthiest americans fund most of the government. For example, the Wall Street Journal "As it happens, the top fifth of earners currently pay 67% of all federal taxes". On the face of it, it doesn't seem fair that twenty percent of the population should pay two thirds of federal taxes. To make this even worse, depending on how you work the accounting, somewhere between ten and forty seven percent of households pay no Federal taxes at all.
This blog entry was triggered by an opinion piece written by Glenn Hubbard, a chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. "Left, Right and Wrong on Taxes". In that piece Mr. Hubbard says
I think all of this is nonsense. It seems to be based on the simplest possible notion of "fair" and a deep misunderstanding of wealth, taxes, and spending.
Anything to do with taxes and finance is complicated, but this note is not. I am using a very broad brush, but in data I use the numbers that argue against my point of view. For example, I use federal spending numbers from 2000 when the government spent much less than it does now. The income figures come from 2005, which gives households a higher income than in 2000. I did this because it is hard to get a consistent data set but I wanted to make sure I could not be accused of cherry picking data.
The gist of my argument is that the wealthiest must pay most of the burden because, frankly, they are the only ones that have any money. The federal government goes after them because they cannot get the money anywhere else without having people starving in the streets.
In 2000 the federal government spent about 1,789 billion (about 1.8 trillion) dollars. See: Government Spending Details, Federal Spending by the Numbers 2010, Table 1.1 — Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits: 1789–2009 . In 2005 there were about 110 million households . Dividing federal spending by households gives an "average" federal tax burden matching taxes to spending. In billions, this is: 1,789/.11 or $17,890/household
In 2005, twenty percent of all households had an income less than $18,500. That means for one out of five people to pay their "fair share" we would have to confiscate all their money leaving them nothing for food, shelter, heat, water... Looking at income breakdowns, the poor are disproportionately young and have less education. This group has more households headed by single women. My own experience and the fact that they tend to by younger indicates there are often children in the households. Children have no say in when or to whom they are born.
My earlier post discusses how, in virtually all societies, wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. If you compare the wealth curve to the tax curve. you will find general agreement. Compare "But by 2005, the top 10 percent accounted for nearly 55 percent of all federal tax revenues, while the rest of the population paid about 45 percent." with the fact that the top ten percent has about 71% of the wealth.
The federal government taxes the rich for the same reasons Willie Sutton robbed banks. That is where the money is. If you look at capability to pay taxes (percent of wealth vs. percent of tax burden), the top ten percent are getting off easy. In terms of power politics, that makes sense. The wealthiest have the greatest ability to influence government policy and public opinion. As Warren Buffet famously said, "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."
We have income redistribution in the United States, as does every industrialized country in the world. We do this because the alternative is having malnourished children and a huge homeless population.
It would be impossible to argue in favor of the current federal tax system with its arcane rules and special deductions. Eliminating many of the current deductions would allow stated tax rates to go down and would make the stated rates closer to the actual rates. But calls to “Broaden the base, lower the rates” are another salvo in the class warfare already going on. If we look at Mr. Hubbard's specific proposals we can see where he stands.
The United States is the wealthiest nation that has ever existed. Even with our debt crisis we can afford to support those among us who are the poorest and most vulnerable, but it will require taking some wealth from those who have the most.
This blog entry was triggered by an opinion piece written by Glenn Hubbard, a chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush. "Left, Right and Wrong on Taxes". In that piece Mr. Hubbard says
When I left my job as the deputy assistant Treasury secretary for tax policy in 1993, I left a message on my office blackboard for my successor. I wrote, “Broaden the base, lower the rates” repeatedly until I filled the entire space. I then had it covered with wax so it could not be erased. (Yes, the government charged me for my bit of vandalism. But it was worth it.)
I think all of this is nonsense. It seems to be based on the simplest possible notion of "fair" and a deep misunderstanding of wealth, taxes, and spending.
Anything to do with taxes and finance is complicated, but this note is not. I am using a very broad brush, but in data I use the numbers that argue against my point of view. For example, I use federal spending numbers from 2000 when the government spent much less than it does now. The income figures come from 2005, which gives households a higher income than in 2000. I did this because it is hard to get a consistent data set but I wanted to make sure I could not be accused of cherry picking data.
The gist of my argument is that the wealthiest must pay most of the burden because, frankly, they are the only ones that have any money. The federal government goes after them because they cannot get the money anywhere else without having people starving in the streets.
In 2000 the federal government spent about 1,789 billion (about 1.8 trillion) dollars. See: Government Spending Details, Federal Spending by the Numbers 2010, Table 1.1 — Summary of Receipts, Outlays, and Surpluses or Deficits: 1789–2009 . In 2005 there were about 110 million households . Dividing federal spending by households gives an "average" federal tax burden matching taxes to spending. In billions, this is: 1,789/.11 or $17,890/household
In 2005, twenty percent of all households had an income less than $18,500. That means for one out of five people to pay their "fair share" we would have to confiscate all their money leaving them nothing for food, shelter, heat, water... Looking at income breakdowns, the poor are disproportionately young and have less education. This group has more households headed by single women. My own experience and the fact that they tend to by younger indicates there are often children in the households. Children have no say in when or to whom they are born.
My earlier post discusses how, in virtually all societies, wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. If you compare the wealth curve to the tax curve. you will find general agreement. Compare "But by 2005, the top 10 percent accounted for nearly 55 percent of all federal tax revenues, while the rest of the population paid about 45 percent." with the fact that the top ten percent has about 71% of the wealth.
The federal government taxes the rich for the same reasons Willie Sutton robbed banks. That is where the money is. If you look at capability to pay taxes (percent of wealth vs. percent of tax burden), the top ten percent are getting off easy. In terms of power politics, that makes sense. The wealthiest have the greatest ability to influence government policy and public opinion. As Warren Buffet famously said, "There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning."
We have income redistribution in the United States, as does every industrialized country in the world. We do this because the alternative is having malnourished children and a huge homeless population.
It would be impossible to argue in favor of the current federal tax system with its arcane rules and special deductions. Eliminating many of the current deductions would allow stated tax rates to go down and would make the stated rates closer to the actual rates. But calls to “Broaden the base, lower the rates” are another salvo in the class warfare already going on. If we look at Mr. Hubbard's specific proposals we can see where he stands.
- Broaden the base lower the rates.
- Reduce taxes for the wealthiest americans (softened by removing deductions).
- Cut corporate taxes.
- Increase income mostly for the wealthiest americans. The evidence that this spurs economic growth is sketchy at best.
- Shift from income tax to a consumption tax.
- This disproportionately affects those who must spend all their income.
The United States is the wealthiest nation that has ever existed. Even with our debt crisis we can afford to support those among us who are the poorest and most vulnerable, but it will require taking some wealth from those who have the most.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Wealth Distribution and The Work Week
In this post I have quite a few links. They vary in political slant and probably somewhat in numerical values, but the overall picture is largely consistent. Often I reference an article rather than the base data because I found the article itself interesting. Sometimes the general articles contain other useful links.
I read a quote a while ago - but cannot find it now. It went something like "Every successful person says they got that way by dint of hard work, intelligence and perseverance. I never met an unsuccessful person who did not blame circumstance and bad luck."
I can interpret this statement in at least three ways, all of which have some truth. One is that successful people work hard and meet adversity with intelligence and persistence while unsuccessful people blame the world around them. A second interpretation is that successful people are likely to pat themselves on the back and attribute to themselves results that may have come from simple luck. A third interpretation is that both sides are correct. Hard work, intelligence and perseverance may be necessary precursors of self earned success. While these traits may be necessary, they are not sufficient. Many people are defeated by events beyond their control.
In my last blog post I requested a 1950 lifestyle in exchange for a work week that corresponds to current productivity compared to 1950 (11 hours per week). With steady increases in productivity it is a reasonable to question why life is as hard as it is and why the work week has not gotten any shorter, and may have gotten longer. I saw an analysis (unfortunately not very good) of hunter-gatherers that estimated they spent about 40 hours a week on survival. That means that in the past 4000 years we have we made no progress on shortening the labor needed to survive. Admittedly "survival" now is much different than 4000 years ago. Life is much more comfortable, longer and, for most of us, less brutish. Still... something seems wrong.
About a century ago an economist named Wilfried Pareto noticed than many phenomena including income and wealth follow what is now called a Pareto Distribution. This is often known as the 80/20 rule and says that 20% of the population have 80% of the wealth/income... The distribution is self similar in that if you take the top 20% it will follow the same distribution. That is, 20% of the most wealthy people will have 80% of the wealth in the wealthy group.
The distribution of wealth is not exactly a Pareto Distribution but it is close, particularly at the high end of the income/wealth scales. This is true in many societies around the globe including medieval Hungary.
When something is this widespread it argues for a common mechanism. This mechanism could be the distribution of brains/work ethic/persistence or it could be something having to do with the nature of economic systems. In 2002 the Harvard Business Review published an article "Wealth Happens" . Simulations based on a few assumptions about money flow show a Pareto Distribution occurring strictly by chance. That is, a few chance events may cause one person to become wealthy while another becomes poor. In their simulations, the basic feedback mechanism was investment. If you gained enough wealth to start investing in things that provided more wealth, you headed up the wealth chain. Wealth is compounding, so the more you have the more you get.
The numbers 80%/20% are really just an example. Different societies have different percentages. Most people underestimate how skewed wealth is and overestimate social mobility (moving from poor to rich or vice versa).
Net worth is the value of everything you own minus all debt. In 2007 the median net worth of a family was $120,000. If this were a stack of $100 bills, it would be a little less than six inches tall. The 400th richest American in 2007 was Kenny Troutt of Excel Communications with a net worth of 1.3 billion. That would be a stack of $100 bills just over a mile tall. Bill Gates topped the world list that year at 59 billion, a stack of $100 bills about 45.5 miles tall.
It is worth a moment to talk about "mean" and "median". In the last paragraph I said the median net worth in 2007 was $120,000. The median is the middle number. That is, if you have 11 different numbers then 5 numbers will be less than the median and 5 numbers will be greater than the median. The "mean" is the average you get by adding up all the numbers and dividing by the total. For the numbers (1,2,3,4, 10000) the median is 3. There are two numbers (1, 2) that are less than the median and two numbers (4, 100000) that are greater than the median. The mean of these numbers is 2002 = (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 10000)/5. The difference between the median and the mean is an indication of how skewed a distribution is.
In the case of US family net worth in 2007, the median was $120,000. The mean was $556,380. The Pareto Distribution is quite skewed. If we confiscated all wealth and redistributed it evenly among all families, every family in the US would be around the current 80th percentile of net worth. That is, every single family would be better off than about 80% of the families today.
Before you start the revolution remember the Harvard Business Review article. It indicates that inequality would quickly reassert itself and we would be in the same position as today in relatively short order. Many people would lose almost all their money and a few people would become fabulously wealthy.
Over the past 20 years the US has become less equal in terms of wealth distribution, but the absolute wealth of each class may have increased. That is, the economic pie has gotten bigger so that even though the very wealthy have increased their percentage of the pie, the rest of us still got a little more pie than we used to.
In social mobility there is a general trend for poor families to improve their lot over several generations. In the US it takes about four generations to move from 20% of the average income to about 90% of the average income. There is more social mobility in much of the developed world than in the United States. That is, families pull themselves out of poverty significantly faster in France, Canada, and Denmark than they do in the US.
On a macroeconomic level, measurements indicate productivity and wages are somewhat linked. At and industry level, this correlation does not hold. This can be seen in agriculture. Agricultural production has increased many fold over the past century and a half, but farm wages remain among the lowest of any industry.
I have said that Pareto Distributions of wealth and income probably have some basic underlying cause. That means we will always have a lot of relatively poor people and a very very few fabulously wealthy. However the percentages can and do vary from society to society. I believe that much of the difference is a result of government policy. In a Kleptocracy, 95% of the wealth may be owned by 5% of the population. Social welfare states (most of Western Europe) tend to have less wealth inequality than we have in the US.
The difference between median and mean income in the United States indicates there is plenty of room for increasing the general welfare of people and, at the same time, shortening the work week. The average American worker works 500 hours per year more than the average German worker, yet German quality of life and social security is at least as high. The difference is social policy.
The Pareto Distribution ensures that there will always be a pool of less well off people who may be willing to work more hours or for less pay. Decisions on the length of the work week are political and are based in part on how the populace feels about wealth redistribution. In US politics this topic cannot be discussed rationally. Because structural changes to the economy are likely to further concentrate wealth (possible topic of another blog post) and lack of rational discussion, you can expect to be working even longer hours in the near future.
I read a quote a while ago - but cannot find it now. It went something like "Every successful person says they got that way by dint of hard work, intelligence and perseverance. I never met an unsuccessful person who did not blame circumstance and bad luck."
I can interpret this statement in at least three ways, all of which have some truth. One is that successful people work hard and meet adversity with intelligence and persistence while unsuccessful people blame the world around them. A second interpretation is that successful people are likely to pat themselves on the back and attribute to themselves results that may have come from simple luck. A third interpretation is that both sides are correct. Hard work, intelligence and perseverance may be necessary precursors of self earned success. While these traits may be necessary, they are not sufficient. Many people are defeated by events beyond their control.
In my last blog post I requested a 1950 lifestyle in exchange for a work week that corresponds to current productivity compared to 1950 (11 hours per week). With steady increases in productivity it is a reasonable to question why life is as hard as it is and why the work week has not gotten any shorter, and may have gotten longer. I saw an analysis (unfortunately not very good) of hunter-gatherers that estimated they spent about 40 hours a week on survival. That means that in the past 4000 years we have we made no progress on shortening the labor needed to survive. Admittedly "survival" now is much different than 4000 years ago. Life is much more comfortable, longer and, for most of us, less brutish. Still... something seems wrong.
About a century ago an economist named Wilfried Pareto noticed than many phenomena including income and wealth follow what is now called a Pareto Distribution. This is often known as the 80/20 rule and says that 20% of the population have 80% of the wealth/income... The distribution is self similar in that if you take the top 20% it will follow the same distribution. That is, 20% of the most wealthy people will have 80% of the wealth in the wealthy group.
The distribution of wealth is not exactly a Pareto Distribution but it is close, particularly at the high end of the income/wealth scales. This is true in many societies around the globe including medieval Hungary.
When something is this widespread it argues for a common mechanism. This mechanism could be the distribution of brains/work ethic/persistence or it could be something having to do with the nature of economic systems. In 2002 the Harvard Business Review published an article "Wealth Happens" . Simulations based on a few assumptions about money flow show a Pareto Distribution occurring strictly by chance. That is, a few chance events may cause one person to become wealthy while another becomes poor. In their simulations, the basic feedback mechanism was investment. If you gained enough wealth to start investing in things that provided more wealth, you headed up the wealth chain. Wealth is compounding, so the more you have the more you get.
The numbers 80%/20% are really just an example. Different societies have different percentages. Most people underestimate how skewed wealth is and overestimate social mobility (moving from poor to rich or vice versa).
Net worth is the value of everything you own minus all debt. In 2007 the median net worth of a family was $120,000. If this were a stack of $100 bills, it would be a little less than six inches tall. The 400th richest American in 2007 was Kenny Troutt of Excel Communications with a net worth of 1.3 billion. That would be a stack of $100 bills just over a mile tall. Bill Gates topped the world list that year at 59 billion, a stack of $100 bills about 45.5 miles tall.
It is worth a moment to talk about "mean" and "median". In the last paragraph I said the median net worth in 2007 was $120,000. The median is the middle number. That is, if you have 11 different numbers then 5 numbers will be less than the median and 5 numbers will be greater than the median. The "mean" is the average you get by adding up all the numbers and dividing by the total. For the numbers (1,2,3,4, 10000) the median is 3. There are two numbers (1, 2) that are less than the median and two numbers (4, 100000) that are greater than the median. The mean of these numbers is 2002 = (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 10000)/5. The difference between the median and the mean is an indication of how skewed a distribution is.
In the case of US family net worth in 2007, the median was $120,000. The mean was $556,380. The Pareto Distribution is quite skewed. If we confiscated all wealth and redistributed it evenly among all families, every family in the US would be around the current 80th percentile of net worth. That is, every single family would be better off than about 80% of the families today.
Before you start the revolution remember the Harvard Business Review article. It indicates that inequality would quickly reassert itself and we would be in the same position as today in relatively short order. Many people would lose almost all their money and a few people would become fabulously wealthy.
Over the past 20 years the US has become less equal in terms of wealth distribution, but the absolute wealth of each class may have increased. That is, the economic pie has gotten bigger so that even though the very wealthy have increased their percentage of the pie, the rest of us still got a little more pie than we used to.
In social mobility there is a general trend for poor families to improve their lot over several generations. In the US it takes about four generations to move from 20% of the average income to about 90% of the average income. There is more social mobility in much of the developed world than in the United States. That is, families pull themselves out of poverty significantly faster in France, Canada, and Denmark than they do in the US.
On a macroeconomic level, measurements indicate productivity and wages are somewhat linked. At and industry level, this correlation does not hold. This can be seen in agriculture. Agricultural production has increased many fold over the past century and a half, but farm wages remain among the lowest of any industry.
I have said that Pareto Distributions of wealth and income probably have some basic underlying cause. That means we will always have a lot of relatively poor people and a very very few fabulously wealthy. However the percentages can and do vary from society to society. I believe that much of the difference is a result of government policy. In a Kleptocracy, 95% of the wealth may be owned by 5% of the population. Social welfare states (most of Western Europe) tend to have less wealth inequality than we have in the US.
The difference between median and mean income in the United States indicates there is plenty of room for increasing the general welfare of people and, at the same time, shortening the work week. The average American worker works 500 hours per year more than the average German worker, yet German quality of life and social security is at least as high. The difference is social policy.
The Pareto Distribution ensures that there will always be a pool of less well off people who may be willing to work more hours or for less pay. Decisions on the length of the work week are political and are based in part on how the populace feels about wealth redistribution. In US politics this topic cannot be discussed rationally. Because structural changes to the economy are likely to further concentrate wealth (possible topic of another blog post) and lack of rational discussion, you can expect to be working even longer hours in the near future.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Productivity and Lifestyle - Are We Being Shafted?
If we are to believe productivity statistics it should take 11 hours of work per week to have an output that is equivalent to a 40 hour work week in 1950. It should take 23 hours per week to equal 40 hours in 1975. http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/rauch/worktime/
I am writing this in my house, built in 1956. In front of the house is our single car, a ten year old Honda. Something seems wrong either with the statistics or with my life. Currently I am starting a new business, so I expect to be working a lot without much (any) monetary gain. That said, I have worked at least 40 hours per week for decades and I have never been four times as well off as the equivalent worker in 1950.
There are explanations (aside from the obvious one that I have been shafted for my entire adult life). Mostly these revolve around the difficulty of comparing time periods. On the measurement side, we have shifted from a manufacturing to a service economy. How do you compare my productivity as a software engineer (a white collar position that did not exist in 1950) with that of a mid level manager at a blender manufacturer in 1950. Within an industry we can more easily measure productivity gains, but as one industry becomes more productive, workers are laid off and shift to new industries.
On the consumption side, the goods and services we use have changed drastically. Instead of an expensive, crummy, black and white TV, I have a a big screen high definition TV that I can use to stream movies off the internet. Instead of a single phone line with expensive long distance, we have multiple cell phones and the internet. My 10 year old car is undoubtedly more efficient, comfortable and reliable than a brand new car in 1950. We have several computers in the house all of which are wirelessly connected to the internet.
Despite these difficulties, I personally believe the "we are all being shafted" theory. Honestly, my life is not that much different from life in the 1950's or the 1970s. My house was built in 1956 and has no air conditioning. The heater has changed several times, but is still a natural gas burning central system. My car, while of higher quality, is still just a car. I do not own that many appliances. Those that I do own are of higher quality and probably more reliable than anything available a couple decades ago, but their basic design and operation is essentially the same.
On the working side, I have always worked at a full time job, but these days most households have every adult member working outside the home for wages. In 1950 a primary white collar wage earner would have supported a household on 40 hours a week. Now we need two wage earners working close to 80 hours for my household. On top of that, many of the tasks that used to be someone else's job are now mine. For example, in the grocery store I used to wheel my cart up to a check out lane and someone would ring up my purchases. Now I have to ring it up myself. A business traveler in the 1950s or even the 1970s would have a travel agency - either external or internal - book travel. Now even highly paid executives book their own travel. White collar workers in 1950 or 1970 had secretaries for clerical work, now we do it all ourselves.
I would trade my current lifestyle for a 1950 lifestyle working 11 hours per week. It is true that I enjoy modern conveniences, so I am willing to double my work week to get some of that (computers and the internet). That brings me up to 22 hours per week. Heck, I'll throw in a couple hours for free and make it an even 24 hours of work a week - but that is my final offer.
Don't even get me started on the flying car that all visions of the future thought we would have by now.
I am writing this in my house, built in 1956. In front of the house is our single car, a ten year old Honda. Something seems wrong either with the statistics or with my life. Currently I am starting a new business, so I expect to be working a lot without much (any) monetary gain. That said, I have worked at least 40 hours per week for decades and I have never been four times as well off as the equivalent worker in 1950.
There are explanations (aside from the obvious one that I have been shafted for my entire adult life). Mostly these revolve around the difficulty of comparing time periods. On the measurement side, we have shifted from a manufacturing to a service economy. How do you compare my productivity as a software engineer (a white collar position that did not exist in 1950) with that of a mid level manager at a blender manufacturer in 1950. Within an industry we can more easily measure productivity gains, but as one industry becomes more productive, workers are laid off and shift to new industries.
On the consumption side, the goods and services we use have changed drastically. Instead of an expensive, crummy, black and white TV, I have a a big screen high definition TV that I can use to stream movies off the internet. Instead of a single phone line with expensive long distance, we have multiple cell phones and the internet. My 10 year old car is undoubtedly more efficient, comfortable and reliable than a brand new car in 1950. We have several computers in the house all of which are wirelessly connected to the internet.
Despite these difficulties, I personally believe the "we are all being shafted" theory. Honestly, my life is not that much different from life in the 1950's or the 1970s. My house was built in 1956 and has no air conditioning. The heater has changed several times, but is still a natural gas burning central system. My car, while of higher quality, is still just a car. I do not own that many appliances. Those that I do own are of higher quality and probably more reliable than anything available a couple decades ago, but their basic design and operation is essentially the same.
On the working side, I have always worked at a full time job, but these days most households have every adult member working outside the home for wages. In 1950 a primary white collar wage earner would have supported a household on 40 hours a week. Now we need two wage earners working close to 80 hours for my household. On top of that, many of the tasks that used to be someone else's job are now mine. For example, in the grocery store I used to wheel my cart up to a check out lane and someone would ring up my purchases. Now I have to ring it up myself. A business traveler in the 1950s or even the 1970s would have a travel agency - either external or internal - book travel. Now even highly paid executives book their own travel. White collar workers in 1950 or 1970 had secretaries for clerical work, now we do it all ourselves.
I would trade my current lifestyle for a 1950 lifestyle working 11 hours per week. It is true that I enjoy modern conveniences, so I am willing to double my work week to get some of that (computers and the internet). That brings me up to 22 hours per week. Heck, I'll throw in a couple hours for free and make it an even 24 hours of work a week - but that is my final offer.
Don't even get me started on the flying car that all visions of the future thought we would have by now.
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Student Debt is Bad for All of Us
In the Atlantic (online) Conor Clarke wrote a blog entry called "Let College Students Get Into Debt". One statement in the note really stands out.
An interesting rebuttal can be found at
Problems With Clarke's Student Debt Post.
The practical absurdity of the Clarke's statement can be seen in the phrase "bring lifetime consumption more in line with lifetime income". Let us make the giant leap of faith that individuals and lenders are rational enough to take expected lifetime income into consideration. In order to smooth out our consumption we would have to have an accurate notion of an individual's lifetime income. This brings to mind my favorite John Kenneth Galbraith quote. "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable." It is the rare person of any age who can accurately predict their income even five years in the future.
The best information about lifetime income comes from statistics about current and past incomes for people in various occupations. This information is useless to an individual for several reasons. First, it is out of date. If the buggy whip apprentice in 1890 had access to these kind of statistics, he would feel good about borrowing money because his future was so secure. Second, it assumes an occupation. Apparently the average college student changes majors two to three times during the course of their studies. Most basically, aggregate statistics may not accurately describe the situation for any individual Averages and Actuals.
Every debt you incur and intend to pay limits future options. Suppose you are a college student anticipating a career with a relatively high income and you borrow commensurately while you are in school. When you graduate, you must quickly (usually within six months to a year) generate sufficient, steady income to service the debt. This puts lower income jobs out of reach. The problem is, many career paths demand some time at a low income. If you cannot tolerate a low income for a period of years, you may not be able to start a business of your own.
Student debt is pernicious because it limits options at a time of life where options are most important. Individuals and society gain when bright people are free to pursue their dreams. These people often give us the new ideas and new businesses that are the lifeblood of the future. One of the natural times for this adventure is the time between schooling and family. Many of our brightest and most educated end their schooling not with a clear field of opportunity, but with the almost immediate need to generate a steady income to service school debt. For many, this pushes them down the employee rather than the entrepreneur path.
The second problem is more specific: if the the point of credit-based consumption is to bring lifetime consumption more in line with lifetime income -- as I believe it is -- then college students more than anyone else should be getting into debt.
An interesting rebuttal can be found at
Problems With Clarke's Student Debt Post.
The practical absurdity of the Clarke's statement can be seen in the phrase "bring lifetime consumption more in line with lifetime income". Let us make the giant leap of faith that individuals and lenders are rational enough to take expected lifetime income into consideration. In order to smooth out our consumption we would have to have an accurate notion of an individual's lifetime income. This brings to mind my favorite John Kenneth Galbraith quote. "The only function of economic forecasting is to make astrology look respectable." It is the rare person of any age who can accurately predict their income even five years in the future.
The best information about lifetime income comes from statistics about current and past incomes for people in various occupations. This information is useless to an individual for several reasons. First, it is out of date. If the buggy whip apprentice in 1890 had access to these kind of statistics, he would feel good about borrowing money because his future was so secure. Second, it assumes an occupation. Apparently the average college student changes majors two to three times during the course of their studies. Most basically, aggregate statistics may not accurately describe the situation for any individual Averages and Actuals.
Every debt you incur and intend to pay limits future options. Suppose you are a college student anticipating a career with a relatively high income and you borrow commensurately while you are in school. When you graduate, you must quickly (usually within six months to a year) generate sufficient, steady income to service the debt. This puts lower income jobs out of reach. The problem is, many career paths demand some time at a low income. If you cannot tolerate a low income for a period of years, you may not be able to start a business of your own.
Student debt is pernicious because it limits options at a time of life where options are most important. Individuals and society gain when bright people are free to pursue their dreams. These people often give us the new ideas and new businesses that are the lifeblood of the future. One of the natural times for this adventure is the time between schooling and family. Many of our brightest and most educated end their schooling not with a clear field of opportunity, but with the almost immediate need to generate a steady income to service school debt. For many, this pushes them down the employee rather than the entrepreneur path.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Can't we all just get along?
A new coffee shop opened across the street from the office where I work. The local paper had a small article and the online version allowed readers to comment. At another location of the same shop a couple people had bad experiences and posted them. The two incidents were a pregnant woman (eight months) who was feeling ill and put her stocking feet (shoes off) up an a chair to raise them. The owner came by and asked her to take her feet off the chair. The second incident was when a couple of families had strollers that were blocking an aisle. Again, the owner told them to move the strollers. In both cases the people did not complain that they were asked to stop what they were doing. They were upset because the owner yelled at them and treated them badly. Some people called the owner "a jerk".
A second group spoke up in favor of the owner saying the original posters were unbearably rude and deserved the treatment they received. Terms used for the (ex) customers included "self-entitled yuppies", "self entitled a-holes", and "self absorbed". The vitriol was strong.
In thinking about it, I think the "self absorbed" title is probably not far off. The customers engaged in actions that I find completely innocuous, but apparently offend a fair number of people. I think "self entitled" probably better describe the group that defended the owner. Self entitled seems a perfect title for people who expect everyone around them to conform to their notion of correct public behavior. As for the owner, yelling at people probably does make him a jerk.
If something poses a danger to you or others, step in and fix things. But be aware we live in a very large world among people with vastly different upbringings and customs. What is outrageous to one group of people is ordinary to another. I am reminded of the Scandinavian nanny who was arrested in New York because she left the baby in a stroller outside and went into a store. In her home city that was ordinary and expected behavior.
Each of us is upset by different things. In the face of this, we should give each other a little slack. If you find yourself getting upset, ask yourself if your feelings are well grounded. In the case of stocking feet on a chair there is essentially no chance of harm being done to anyone. If you feel strongly about feet on chairs, have a serious discussion with a shrink about why that is. If you are irritated by strollers in the way, politely help to correct the situation, but be aware that people are pretty good at avoiding obstacles.
Also, put yourself in the other person's shoes. Almost everyone has had a crummy day and blown up over some small thing. All of us have had other things on our mind and inconvenienced those around us. Let's all sigh and smile a little more at what we perceive to be bad behavior and try to dial down the outrage. Can't we all just get along?
A second group spoke up in favor of the owner saying the original posters were unbearably rude and deserved the treatment they received. Terms used for the (ex) customers included "self-entitled yuppies", "self entitled a-holes", and "self absorbed". The vitriol was strong.
In thinking about it, I think the "self absorbed" title is probably not far off. The customers engaged in actions that I find completely innocuous, but apparently offend a fair number of people. I think "self entitled" probably better describe the group that defended the owner. Self entitled seems a perfect title for people who expect everyone around them to conform to their notion of correct public behavior. As for the owner, yelling at people probably does make him a jerk.
If something poses a danger to you or others, step in and fix things. But be aware we live in a very large world among people with vastly different upbringings and customs. What is outrageous to one group of people is ordinary to another. I am reminded of the Scandinavian nanny who was arrested in New York because she left the baby in a stroller outside and went into a store. In her home city that was ordinary and expected behavior.
Each of us is upset by different things. In the face of this, we should give each other a little slack. If you find yourself getting upset, ask yourself if your feelings are well grounded. In the case of stocking feet on a chair there is essentially no chance of harm being done to anyone. If you feel strongly about feet on chairs, have a serious discussion with a shrink about why that is. If you are irritated by strollers in the way, politely help to correct the situation, but be aware that people are pretty good at avoiding obstacles.
Also, put yourself in the other person's shoes. Almost everyone has had a crummy day and blown up over some small thing. All of us have had other things on our mind and inconvenienced those around us. Let's all sigh and smile a little more at what we perceive to be bad behavior and try to dial down the outrage. Can't we all just get along?
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Running the dog
In looking through old writing, I ran across this letter I wrote to the city after receiving the second in a series of tickets. The topic of the letter is of less than earth shaking importance, but there are serious issues on the function of government and freedom versus order.
After writing the letter I did some research. I discovered that the level of injury and death caused by dogs is almost exactly the same as that resulting from baseball, and the most common victim in both cases is children. It also turns out that dogs are most likely to cause trouble in or near their homes and least likely to cause trouble in public places. In addition to normal animal control my city (through its Natural Resources department) spends on the order of a quarter million dollars a year enforcing leash laws. The leash law applies to all animals including cats, but there is a specific exemption for birds under voice control.
In the end, the city had its way. The fines double on every ticket and I could no longer shoulder the burden. I made some attempts to change the law, but could find no leverage point. I no longer spend much time at the park. Other dog owners have also been driven away. When I do go by the park the dogs are gone, and so are many of the people. I was genuinely surprised at how important the simple pleasure of running the dog at "my" park was to me, and how betrayed I felt at having local government stop me. When my dog running disappeared, so did my pride and sense of responsibility toward the city.
The Letter
This note is about a bad law that has been badly applied. On September 29, 2004 I received a ticket for having my dog off leash in Spring Creek Park (animal at large). This is my second ticket. Each ticket was issued by park rangers I had never seen before and have not seen since. Each of them said they had no discretion in issuing the ticket. The second ticket was issued in what looked like a concerted effort by the city to crack down on unleashed dogs in the park. There were at least two rangers, one of them driving a pickup truck through the park to make sure lawbreakers did not escape.
Over the past nine and a half years I have come to Spring Creek Park at least twice a day virtually every day: rain, snow or shine. I spend between ten minutes and half an hour at each visit. That makes about 7000 visits to the park or about 1400 hours. I think it is accurate to say that over the past ten years I have spent more time in Spring Creek Park than anyone else. Until receiving this latest ticket, it was my intention to create and publish a photo essay book showing daily views of the park over an entire year.
The purpose of those 7000 visits to the park has been to run my dog. She is an impeccably trained border collie. If you have ever been around a border collie, you know that they are active dogs that need to run. I have trained Josie to run laps around the ball fields. She is getting old now and has slowed down. In her prime she would routinely run 20 or so laps around the ball-field as a warm up. After the laps she generally has the energy to do other training exercises. Her record is 50 laps, or about eight miles, at a full run. I have taken her to the dog parks, but there is nothing there that can provide the flat out running that she both enjoys and needs. She is completely disinterested in other dogs and humans.
I stopped bringing a leash to the park years ago. I can honestly say that, in all our visits, not once has my dog been a danger to any person in the park. By training and temperament, Josie rarely acknowledges that there are people in the park. As a border collie, she is all business and her business is running in the patterns that I tell her to.
Josie is a fixture at the park. She is known by the workers and the neighbors. She is admired for her ability and her training. I have received countless compliments on this dog. The number of complaints can be counted on the fingers of one hand. On the rare occasion someone looks nervous or says something, I take Josie out of the park. Periodically, either in Spring Creek Park or in other parks, an animal control person will stop by and tell me about the law. Without exception, those folks have complimented me on Josie's obedience and asked me to take her out of the park. To make life easier for all of us, on those occasions I leave the area. One animal control person said they were responding to complaints about dogs in that particular park. He suggested other places where he would not be patrolling that day.
The animal control workers and the visitors to the park have understood something the city ordinance and the park rangers do not. My dog running in the park is an innocuous and safe activity that improves my life, the dog's life, and is largely a joy to other park visitors.
While I am at the park, I pick up more dog waste than Josie leaves. I collect and throw litter away. Every couple of years I find a stray that has wandered away from home. I track down the owners and return the dog. One time I found and returned a wallet that had been stolen from a truck in the neighborhood. The owner didn’t even know it was missing. When teens rolled one of the trash barrels out onto the frozen lake, strewing garbage along the way, I recruited a couple of fire-fighters from the next door station. We retrieved the trash barrel and picked up the garbage.
Of course, the fact that my dog is well behaved does not make the law bad nor does it excuse me as a lawbreaker. What makes the law bad is that it worsens rather than betters the community. I have spent a lot of time researching human behavior, particularly in cities. We know a lot about what makes good, vibrant communities. One of the most important factors is that neighbors know each other, are aware of their surroundings, and take responsibility for the community. Parks can be marvelous places, but many towns have the problem that their parks are dangerous, particularly in off-hours. One of the major differences between a safe park and a dangerous one is community use. Crime and trouble avoid public view. When good people are near and watching, trouble moves away.
Over the years it has been interesting to see how people use the park. Almost no one simply walks through the park enjoying it. People come because they have a reason. They do what they planned to do, then they leave. Parents who bring their kids to the park stay very close to the playground. The more adventurous will walk over to the ball field to play for a couple of minutes. Ball players stay on or next to the playing field. Walkers and runners tend to either walk in a straight line through the park or they travel the perimeter. Sunbathers invariably pick a spot away from these main uses. Except for dog runners, most of the park is simply unused other than as an attractive backdrop to the other activities. People with dogs off lead almost always stay away from other park users and run their dogs in the open, unused spaces.
I seem to be pretty typical of the people who take their dogs to Spring Creek Park. These are neighborhood people who care about the neighborhood and take care of the park. I know this because I see them every day. I see them talk with each other and pick up after themselves and others. Some of the dogs are on leash, most of them are not. The difference seems to be in the temperament of the owner and the dog. If someone has a dog that will not obey or is flighty, they will only take the dog off lead once or twice. The adventure of screaming at your dog while chasing it through the public park or nearby neighborhood is a powerful deterrent to letting untrained animals off lead. People with leashed dogs behave more like walkers. They move through the park rather than spend time in it.
I am sure the Parks Department receives complaints about dogs running wild through the park. Many people feel threatened by dogs on the loose and many people simply do not like the idea that others violate the law. If the city banned blue flowers, I am sure it would receive many calls about the law violators with blue flowers in their yards.
In terms of actual danger or harm, I cannot speak with authority because I do not have the figures. I can speak from my experience and observations. Fossil Creek Park just opened. It is a beautiful park and heartening in terms of its design. For some time parks have been dumbed down to make sure that no visitor can be injured. Fossil Creek Park seems to have very thoughtfully constructed play areas, but ones where the users must take responsibility for their actions. The skate park at Fossil Creek is marvelous and seems to be heavily used. Even without seeing the figures, I can guarantee that there are more injuries in that skate park in a single week than dogs have caused in Spring Creek Park in the past ten years. Of course there is a difference between me falling off my own skateboard and being accosted by a strange dog. One I control, the other I do not. Whenever a skateboarder lets his board fly and it hits someone else or a dog owner has a dog that is out of control, they should be held accountable. But control is the problem, not the activity.
The Parks Department is in an awkward position. There is a law on the books. Until the law is changed, they must either ticket the offenders or turn a blind eye. I would prefer that the law is changed, but this is an area where emotion runs high. Not many politicians will stick a neck out for a fight that will gain them nothing but animosity, regardless of the facts. We, unfortunately, live in a time where many areas of civil behavior have been written into law. Most of them are well intended, but many of them are violated routinely. If a policeman decided to ticket every lawbreaker he saw, he could never get to a violent crime scene. He would spend all his time ticketing speeders, jaywalkers, and litterers along the way. When laws are numerous they are, and always will be, selectively enforced. I suggest that the Park Rangers would be better employed by spending more time getting to know the neighbors who do the real policing in the parks and less time driving them away by ticketing them for harmless activities.
After writing the letter I did some research. I discovered that the level of injury and death caused by dogs is almost exactly the same as that resulting from baseball, and the most common victim in both cases is children. It also turns out that dogs are most likely to cause trouble in or near their homes and least likely to cause trouble in public places. In addition to normal animal control my city (through its Natural Resources department) spends on the order of a quarter million dollars a year enforcing leash laws. The leash law applies to all animals including cats, but there is a specific exemption for birds under voice control.
In the end, the city had its way. The fines double on every ticket and I could no longer shoulder the burden. I made some attempts to change the law, but could find no leverage point. I no longer spend much time at the park. Other dog owners have also been driven away. When I do go by the park the dogs are gone, and so are many of the people. I was genuinely surprised at how important the simple pleasure of running the dog at "my" park was to me, and how betrayed I felt at having local government stop me. When my dog running disappeared, so did my pride and sense of responsibility toward the city.
The Letter
This note is about a bad law that has been badly applied. On September 29, 2004 I received a ticket for having my dog off leash in Spring Creek Park (animal at large). This is my second ticket. Each ticket was issued by park rangers I had never seen before and have not seen since. Each of them said they had no discretion in issuing the ticket. The second ticket was issued in what looked like a concerted effort by the city to crack down on unleashed dogs in the park. There were at least two rangers, one of them driving a pickup truck through the park to make sure lawbreakers did not escape.
Over the past nine and a half years I have come to Spring Creek Park at least twice a day virtually every day: rain, snow or shine. I spend between ten minutes and half an hour at each visit. That makes about 7000 visits to the park or about 1400 hours. I think it is accurate to say that over the past ten years I have spent more time in Spring Creek Park than anyone else. Until receiving this latest ticket, it was my intention to create and publish a photo essay book showing daily views of the park over an entire year.
The purpose of those 7000 visits to the park has been to run my dog. She is an impeccably trained border collie. If you have ever been around a border collie, you know that they are active dogs that need to run. I have trained Josie to run laps around the ball fields. She is getting old now and has slowed down. In her prime she would routinely run 20 or so laps around the ball-field as a warm up. After the laps she generally has the energy to do other training exercises. Her record is 50 laps, or about eight miles, at a full run. I have taken her to the dog parks, but there is nothing there that can provide the flat out running that she both enjoys and needs. She is completely disinterested in other dogs and humans.
I stopped bringing a leash to the park years ago. I can honestly say that, in all our visits, not once has my dog been a danger to any person in the park. By training and temperament, Josie rarely acknowledges that there are people in the park. As a border collie, she is all business and her business is running in the patterns that I tell her to.
Josie is a fixture at the park. She is known by the workers and the neighbors. She is admired for her ability and her training. I have received countless compliments on this dog. The number of complaints can be counted on the fingers of one hand. On the rare occasion someone looks nervous or says something, I take Josie out of the park. Periodically, either in Spring Creek Park or in other parks, an animal control person will stop by and tell me about the law. Without exception, those folks have complimented me on Josie's obedience and asked me to take her out of the park. To make life easier for all of us, on those occasions I leave the area. One animal control person said they were responding to complaints about dogs in that particular park. He suggested other places where he would not be patrolling that day.
The animal control workers and the visitors to the park have understood something the city ordinance and the park rangers do not. My dog running in the park is an innocuous and safe activity that improves my life, the dog's life, and is largely a joy to other park visitors.
While I am at the park, I pick up more dog waste than Josie leaves. I collect and throw litter away. Every couple of years I find a stray that has wandered away from home. I track down the owners and return the dog. One time I found and returned a wallet that had been stolen from a truck in the neighborhood. The owner didn’t even know it was missing. When teens rolled one of the trash barrels out onto the frozen lake, strewing garbage along the way, I recruited a couple of fire-fighters from the next door station. We retrieved the trash barrel and picked up the garbage.
Of course, the fact that my dog is well behaved does not make the law bad nor does it excuse me as a lawbreaker. What makes the law bad is that it worsens rather than betters the community. I have spent a lot of time researching human behavior, particularly in cities. We know a lot about what makes good, vibrant communities. One of the most important factors is that neighbors know each other, are aware of their surroundings, and take responsibility for the community. Parks can be marvelous places, but many towns have the problem that their parks are dangerous, particularly in off-hours. One of the major differences between a safe park and a dangerous one is community use. Crime and trouble avoid public view. When good people are near and watching, trouble moves away.
Over the years it has been interesting to see how people use the park. Almost no one simply walks through the park enjoying it. People come because they have a reason. They do what they planned to do, then they leave. Parents who bring their kids to the park stay very close to the playground. The more adventurous will walk over to the ball field to play for a couple of minutes. Ball players stay on or next to the playing field. Walkers and runners tend to either walk in a straight line through the park or they travel the perimeter. Sunbathers invariably pick a spot away from these main uses. Except for dog runners, most of the park is simply unused other than as an attractive backdrop to the other activities. People with dogs off lead almost always stay away from other park users and run their dogs in the open, unused spaces.
I seem to be pretty typical of the people who take their dogs to Spring Creek Park. These are neighborhood people who care about the neighborhood and take care of the park. I know this because I see them every day. I see them talk with each other and pick up after themselves and others. Some of the dogs are on leash, most of them are not. The difference seems to be in the temperament of the owner and the dog. If someone has a dog that will not obey or is flighty, they will only take the dog off lead once or twice. The adventure of screaming at your dog while chasing it through the public park or nearby neighborhood is a powerful deterrent to letting untrained animals off lead. People with leashed dogs behave more like walkers. They move through the park rather than spend time in it.
I am sure the Parks Department receives complaints about dogs running wild through the park. Many people feel threatened by dogs on the loose and many people simply do not like the idea that others violate the law. If the city banned blue flowers, I am sure it would receive many calls about the law violators with blue flowers in their yards.
In terms of actual danger or harm, I cannot speak with authority because I do not have the figures. I can speak from my experience and observations. Fossil Creek Park just opened. It is a beautiful park and heartening in terms of its design. For some time parks have been dumbed down to make sure that no visitor can be injured. Fossil Creek Park seems to have very thoughtfully constructed play areas, but ones where the users must take responsibility for their actions. The skate park at Fossil Creek is marvelous and seems to be heavily used. Even without seeing the figures, I can guarantee that there are more injuries in that skate park in a single week than dogs have caused in Spring Creek Park in the past ten years. Of course there is a difference between me falling off my own skateboard and being accosted by a strange dog. One I control, the other I do not. Whenever a skateboarder lets his board fly and it hits someone else or a dog owner has a dog that is out of control, they should be held accountable. But control is the problem, not the activity.
The Parks Department is in an awkward position. There is a law on the books. Until the law is changed, they must either ticket the offenders or turn a blind eye. I would prefer that the law is changed, but this is an area where emotion runs high. Not many politicians will stick a neck out for a fight that will gain them nothing but animosity, regardless of the facts. We, unfortunately, live in a time where many areas of civil behavior have been written into law. Most of them are well intended, but many of them are violated routinely. If a policeman decided to ticket every lawbreaker he saw, he could never get to a violent crime scene. He would spend all his time ticketing speeders, jaywalkers, and litterers along the way. When laws are numerous they are, and always will be, selectively enforced. I suggest that the Park Rangers would be better employed by spending more time getting to know the neighbors who do the real policing in the parks and less time driving them away by ticketing them for harmless activities.
Saturday, June 28, 2008
Blog Comments, Families, Us and Them
I started this blog not because I expected anyone to read it, but because the act of writing clarifies thought. I had been meaning to do more writing for some time, but didn't have an excuse or outlet.
If you look through the posts, at least so far, the comments are made by a small set of people. These folks are my immediate family, the clan for which I am the "Pater Familias". That title does not come from the Roman honor, but from a line in the movie "O Brother Where Art Thou". The title of that movie came from a fictional book in another wonderful movie, "Sullivan's Travels".
I am finding out that the comments are an interesting part of the blogging experience, even if they mostly come from my own family. The comments themselves usually have something to say. They are also touchingly protective. They announce "See, I'm reading this. I care". This protective attitude is amusing because, when my children were little, they assumed I was indestructible. To this day I am often mistaken for a trampoline. On an emotional level, one of the favorite pastimes of the family is putting me in humiliating situations. For example, when I had some friends over on Halloween to help in building a fence, my clan insisted I spend dinner dressed up in drag as a beauty queen, complete with toilet paper sash announcing my title "Miss Evil Colorado".
This is part of what I call the hierarchy of social identification. Most of us identify with a whole set of groups that extend from family to peers to school/work, community, nation... This is one of the most powerful forces in human society and sets the stage for collective action. On the dark side, it separates "us" from "them" and allows our collective action to be unspeakably cruel. A family, as with most social groups, has plenty of internal friction. But facing outward, will present a united front and protect its members.
It is demonstrably true that humans band together into trust groups. Innate traits like skin color or epicanthal folds are easy markers. As a regrettable consequence, each of us tends to exclude those with innate differences as not part of our group. This is natural, but not inevitable. For example, imagine a room with two black and two white men. If one white man and one black man both have gang tattoos and one black man and one white man are both wearing expensive business suits, they will initially pair up based on clothing rather than skin color.
None of us belong exclusively to a single group and all of us are capable of forming strong associations with almost anyone. Put a group of musicians from around the world in a single room and in short order they will be forming new associations based on their shared passion for sound.
The identification with social groups and antipathy toward outsiders seems to be a base human trait. I know of no social group without some degree of this. The positive part of this tendency is the ability to come together to work toward a common goal. On the negative side, the separation between us and them allows “us” to treat "them" without any consideration other than our own aim.
Separation of "us" from "them" is often justified because “they” are different from “us”. Biologically, this is hogwash. Each of us has parents and there are familial traits. Some of us are blonde and some have black hair. Some groups of people have lived with enough isolation to show adaptation to their surroundings. For example, groups living farther from the equator tend to have lighter skin. These differences are marked enough so that pathologists can identify human groups from these physical traits. That said, humans are also nomadic and relatively recent. This underlies a remarkable degree of genetic homogeneity. I liken the differences between humans to the differences between brown spotted and black spotted Dalmatian dogs. As a species, we have so little genetic diversity that some scientists postulate that the species was reduced to a very small number of individuals in the not so distant past.
Because there are physical differences between human groups, it is interesting to ask if there might be analogs in other areas. For example, some groups of humans might be more or less capable of mathematical reasoning or eye/hand coordination. I think this is unlikely. Variants like skin color give an advantage in a particular region. Mental and social advantages have no such geographic constraints. People with the advantage will quickly spread the genetics outside their own group. Only extreme geographic isolation could keep advantageous adaptations out of the general gene pool. Human history is filled with tales of travel, conquest, and stranger's babies. Unjustified claims of essential differences between groups of people have been used to justify genocide. To counter this tendency, the standard of proof for assertions of fundamental differences between groups must be extremely high. I know of no evidence that there are physical differences between human groups that elevate the fundamental capabilities of any group. This is especially clear when we look at genius. Genius is characterized by some capability that is far greater than normal. Think Leonardo da Vinci, Mahatma Gandhi, or Michael Jordan. Genius springs up around the world and cannot be characterized by family, "race" or any other factor I know of. There are musical families, but to paraphrase Aaron Copeland : there was nothing to indicate that Leonard’s parents would produce a Bernstein.
Our upbringing affects who we are, not just emotionally, but physically. There is evidence, for example, that people brought up speaking a tonal language tend to respond differently to sound than those brought up speaking non-tonal languages. In those cultures, a higher percentage of people perceive absolute pitch. Our bodies change based on our environment, but are especially malleable before adulthood. There are some abilities, like language acquisition, that fall off as we grow older.
Humans are genetically pretty homogeneous, but in values, and hence behaviour, we vary greatly. Because we learn behaviour from each other, values and behaviour tend to be cultural. The biggest influence is family followed peer groups and finally the culture as a whole. Some societies are monogamous, some have men with multiple wives and some have women with multiple husbands. In some societies butchers are respected and prosperous. In others they are outcasts. Food taboos are so strong that it is difficult to imagine violating them. Culturally forbidden foods include fish, insects, dogs, and pigs.
Even in groups with strong cultural mores, there will be rogues. Every society has outcasts and criminals. Some people, gangs, clans, and governments are dangerous to outsiders. That is one of the reasons that we look for cultural allies. They may help protect us from the dangerous humans. But the tendency to bond in groups is more than a need for protection. We also have a need for acceptance by others in our group. The combination of fear and the need for acceptance and protection is very powerful. A social group can manipulate individual humans to do literally anything. They will rape, torture, and murder neighbors with whom they have lived peacefully for years. They will kill themselves and their own children. That is, the very groups we rely on for protection from the dangerous humans can also transform us into those dangerous humans.
Everyone thinks they have things they will do and things they will not do. However, the power of circumstance and persuasion move these lines. Totalitarian regimes recognize this so they create programs to make everyone complicit. Right now you would not think of killing the Jew/Black/Korean/Armenian shopkeeper on the corner, but in light of the past actions of people like him, would you be willing to keep an eye on him and report suspicious activity? Would you if there were a payment? One thing leads to another. Lines are drawn between us and them. They are clearly threatening. You are one of us. You have shown it by your actions – even accepting favors or money. But your status is provisional and must be earned by showing your commitment to us. You must show your commitment to us by acting more strongly against them.
We are all susceptible to these forces, but we can also recognize them. It is up to each of us to recognize both the danger and the opportunity in the strangers among us. Some wariness is important for self protection. But given a chance, that person who is currently part of "them" may be a valuable part of "us" in the not distant future.
If you look through the posts, at least so far, the comments are made by a small set of people. These folks are my immediate family, the clan for which I am the "Pater Familias". That title does not come from the Roman honor, but from a line in the movie "O Brother Where Art Thou". The title of that movie came from a fictional book in another wonderful movie, "Sullivan's Travels".
I am finding out that the comments are an interesting part of the blogging experience, even if they mostly come from my own family. The comments themselves usually have something to say. They are also touchingly protective. They announce "See, I'm reading this. I care". This protective attitude is amusing because, when my children were little, they assumed I was indestructible. To this day I am often mistaken for a trampoline. On an emotional level, one of the favorite pastimes of the family is putting me in humiliating situations. For example, when I had some friends over on Halloween to help in building a fence, my clan insisted I spend dinner dressed up in drag as a beauty queen, complete with toilet paper sash announcing my title "Miss Evil Colorado".
This is part of what I call the hierarchy of social identification. Most of us identify with a whole set of groups that extend from family to peers to school/work, community, nation... This is one of the most powerful forces in human society and sets the stage for collective action. On the dark side, it separates "us" from "them" and allows our collective action to be unspeakably cruel. A family, as with most social groups, has plenty of internal friction. But facing outward, will present a united front and protect its members.
It is demonstrably true that humans band together into trust groups. Innate traits like skin color or epicanthal folds are easy markers. As a regrettable consequence, each of us tends to exclude those with innate differences as not part of our group. This is natural, but not inevitable. For example, imagine a room with two black and two white men. If one white man and one black man both have gang tattoos and one black man and one white man are both wearing expensive business suits, they will initially pair up based on clothing rather than skin color.
None of us belong exclusively to a single group and all of us are capable of forming strong associations with almost anyone. Put a group of musicians from around the world in a single room and in short order they will be forming new associations based on their shared passion for sound.
The identification with social groups and antipathy toward outsiders seems to be a base human trait. I know of no social group without some degree of this. The positive part of this tendency is the ability to come together to work toward a common goal. On the negative side, the separation between us and them allows “us” to treat "them" without any consideration other than our own aim.
Separation of "us" from "them" is often justified because “they” are different from “us”. Biologically, this is hogwash. Each of us has parents and there are familial traits. Some of us are blonde and some have black hair. Some groups of people have lived with enough isolation to show adaptation to their surroundings. For example, groups living farther from the equator tend to have lighter skin. These differences are marked enough so that pathologists can identify human groups from these physical traits. That said, humans are also nomadic and relatively recent. This underlies a remarkable degree of genetic homogeneity. I liken the differences between humans to the differences between brown spotted and black spotted Dalmatian dogs. As a species, we have so little genetic diversity that some scientists postulate that the species was reduced to a very small number of individuals in the not so distant past.
Because there are physical differences between human groups, it is interesting to ask if there might be analogs in other areas. For example, some groups of humans might be more or less capable of mathematical reasoning or eye/hand coordination. I think this is unlikely. Variants like skin color give an advantage in a particular region. Mental and social advantages have no such geographic constraints. People with the advantage will quickly spread the genetics outside their own group. Only extreme geographic isolation could keep advantageous adaptations out of the general gene pool. Human history is filled with tales of travel, conquest, and stranger's babies. Unjustified claims of essential differences between groups of people have been used to justify genocide. To counter this tendency, the standard of proof for assertions of fundamental differences between groups must be extremely high. I know of no evidence that there are physical differences between human groups that elevate the fundamental capabilities of any group. This is especially clear when we look at genius. Genius is characterized by some capability that is far greater than normal. Think Leonardo da Vinci, Mahatma Gandhi, or Michael Jordan. Genius springs up around the world and cannot be characterized by family, "race" or any other factor I know of. There are musical families, but to paraphrase Aaron Copeland : there was nothing to indicate that Leonard’s parents would produce a Bernstein.
Our upbringing affects who we are, not just emotionally, but physically. There is evidence, for example, that people brought up speaking a tonal language tend to respond differently to sound than those brought up speaking non-tonal languages. In those cultures, a higher percentage of people perceive absolute pitch. Our bodies change based on our environment, but are especially malleable before adulthood. There are some abilities, like language acquisition, that fall off as we grow older.
Humans are genetically pretty homogeneous, but in values, and hence behaviour, we vary greatly. Because we learn behaviour from each other, values and behaviour tend to be cultural. The biggest influence is family followed peer groups and finally the culture as a whole. Some societies are monogamous, some have men with multiple wives and some have women with multiple husbands. In some societies butchers are respected and prosperous. In others they are outcasts. Food taboos are so strong that it is difficult to imagine violating them. Culturally forbidden foods include fish, insects, dogs, and pigs.
Even in groups with strong cultural mores, there will be rogues. Every society has outcasts and criminals. Some people, gangs, clans, and governments are dangerous to outsiders. That is one of the reasons that we look for cultural allies. They may help protect us from the dangerous humans. But the tendency to bond in groups is more than a need for protection. We also have a need for acceptance by others in our group. The combination of fear and the need for acceptance and protection is very powerful. A social group can manipulate individual humans to do literally anything. They will rape, torture, and murder neighbors with whom they have lived peacefully for years. They will kill themselves and their own children. That is, the very groups we rely on for protection from the dangerous humans can also transform us into those dangerous humans.
Everyone thinks they have things they will do and things they will not do. However, the power of circumstance and persuasion move these lines. Totalitarian regimes recognize this so they create programs to make everyone complicit. Right now you would not think of killing the Jew/Black/Korean/Armenian shopkeeper on the corner, but in light of the past actions of people like him, would you be willing to keep an eye on him and report suspicious activity? Would you if there were a payment? One thing leads to another. Lines are drawn between us and them. They are clearly threatening. You are one of us. You have shown it by your actions – even accepting favors or money. But your status is provisional and must be earned by showing your commitment to us. You must show your commitment to us by acting more strongly against them.
We are all susceptible to these forces, but we can also recognize them. It is up to each of us to recognize both the danger and the opportunity in the strangers among us. Some wariness is important for self protection. But given a chance, that person who is currently part of "them" may be a valuable part of "us" in the not distant future.
Friday, June 13, 2008
Flying Has Gotten Really Bad
US air travel says a lot about people and organizations, some of it not so nice.
The conditions on most airlines approach that a cattle car filled with refugees fleeing for their lives. While on the plane we are expected to stay almost completely motionless and quiet for the duration of the flight. Our bodies are built for motion. Even while sleeping, people constantly change position. On an airplane this is impossible. The conditions are so unnatural that people actually die from the experience due to deep vein thrombosis. The airline rules enforce this motionlessness with ruthless efficiency. The aisles are narrow, the galley off limits, and a cart is pushed back and forth to both block and clear the aisles. The seat positions limit human interaction. In the unlikely event that you converse with another passenger you are likely to end up with a neck ache from the strain of trying to actually see them. Conversation is unlikely partly because the chance of two strangers having both the same need for interaction and the same interests is small. Contact is made even less likely by the stress induced by the experience. I say this as someone who likes the high vantage point that air travel provides.
There are periodic instances of people snapping on planes. Sometimes they get drunk and assault another passenger, sometimes they just become delusional in one way or another. It is true that people fall apart in lots of ways and in lots of places, but I believe that being crammed on a contemporary airline approaches the limits of human endurance.
Of course each airline differs somewhat. Southwest has a single class of seats and somewhat more reliable pricing. United is perhaps the worst of the worst. Most airlines seem to be rushing toward the United end of the continuum so that end is discussed here.
The time on the plane is only one part of the dehumanizing experience. The whole system is inhuman. I mean literally inhuman. That is, there is very little true human contact involved. The basic corporate motivation is money and the current competitive environment largely removes all other motivations from both selling and buying decisions. Passengers are higher paying, but more inconvenient, cargo.
It is a general truism that interaction with paid employees decreases over time. The cost efficiencies of automated systems move us in this direction. I find that a well designed automated system is more effective and more pleasant than trying to explain my intentions to a stranger I will never see again. However, the automated systems lead us to evaluate on a small number of criteria and these criteria generally reflect airline corporate needs. Most airline systems tell you about flight times, duration, stops, and (immediate) price. Consumers tend to fly on the cheapest flight. The flight is something to endure and surely the big contract or time with Grandma is worth a few hours of pain. Might as well save the money to use on something more worthwhile. Given these conditions, the airlines have competed almost exclusively on price. Occasionally one will try larger seats or better food, but those efforts do not seem to pay off enough to be sustained. The reservation systems turn these into intangibles that do not enter the flyer's decision making process.
I heard a prediction that in the future all prices will be instantaneous. The vending machine that gives you a soda for a quarter in the dead of winter will charge a buck fifty on a hot summer day. Airlines have been the vanguard of this for many years. They have been willing to invest in a wide variety of profit maximizing devices. I do not want to paint the airline companies as uncaring blood sucking vampires seeking the last drop of blood from their unfortunate victims. Wait, I do want to paint them that way. However, as with any good vampire story, you have to have some sympathy for vampire who may not have wanted to become what he did. Many airline companies have lost unimaginably vast sums of money for year after year. A few dollars more per customer may mean the difference between profitability and bankruptcy (which they regularly enter). Ok, enough sympathy, let's look at what they have done to us.
If you can manage it, it is an interesting experience to compare fares with the people around you. Because of the ways fares are managed and the multiple outlets for selling, everyone pays a different amount. The person sitting in the seat next to you, even if it is a middle seat, may have paid close to ten times more than you did (or vice versa). The same thing holds for all airline transactions. I was on a business trip with two colleagues when our plans changed and we had to rebook flights. The three of us had the class of tickets on the same planes. We sat across a table from each other and each called to make changes. I fared the worst (charged two hundred dollars), one person did not have to pay at all and the third, for unknown reasons, was given a credit of forty dollars.
The techniques to make sure the planes are more or less full, but that you pay more than you would like are interesting. Here is my naive and uniformed guess at some of the techniques. My information comes from lightly tracking the topic in my general reading and my direct observations.
The airlines would love to sell all their seats at the highest price, but a full seat (some money) is always better than an empty one. This is particularly true because many of the costs (fuel, labor for pilots/attendants...) are fixed. The best flight for the airline is a completely full flight. This is easiest to accomplish if you can sell more tickets than there are seats. A certain percentage of people will miss their flight. Those customers will likely lose the cost of the fare. If you have someone at the gate ready to sit down in the seat of a passenger who missed the flight, two people have paid for one seat. What could be better for the airline. If the airline overbooks too much, it risks losing the little goodwill that is left with the traveling public. Too little overbooking and there could be empty seats.
To get the most money from each person, the first goal of the airline is to split the herd. There are at least four types of passengers I have identified from the fare structure: fare indifferent passengers, forced passengers, flexible passengers, whim passengers.
The first class of passengers are the first class passengers. These are people less constrained by money. They are willing to pay high prices for the added comfort of first class. First class passengers pay dearly for their comfort. Of course, the worse the conditions behind the flimsy first class curtain, the better the first class seats look. Sometimes there are not enough people willing to pay the high fare. If the rest of the plane is full, a desperate passenger may be forced to pay a higher fare "economy sitting in first class". This is usually less than full first class, but much more than any other seat on the plane. If no one can be forced into a higher fare, the first class seat can be bought by frequent flyer miles. This is a zero cost way for airlines to reduce their frequent flyer miles debt load.
Forced passengers are those whose travel plans are completely determined by outside forces. Those who must travel on a fixed schedule (generally business travelers) are forced to pay more. Common tricks to identify these travelers include: unwillingness to stay over a weekend, short notice for travel, a desire to keep an option open for last minute changes, and a desire for short travel times. Once identified, the airlines charge these passengers a higher rate.
Because the people who can be forced to pay more are identified by certain characteristics, the people who get lower prices are those that don't share those traits. These are the flexible passengers. Because of the way forced passengers are identified, flexible travelers flights will generally be longer and less direct. They will be staying over a weekend and, with some notable exceptions. Their fares are also non-refundable with a charge for changes (even to a "cheaper" flight). Earlier booking is a double edged sword for the airlines. On one hand, they are assured a fare. On the other hand, that fare is less than they might get if they waited for a more desperate person. Some of this can be handled by overbooking, but not enough. So, the airlines play intricate games with the prices that take into account the history of the flight and the actual booking numbers every point in time.
If a plane is truly under-booked, the airline may sell seats through discount sites on the internet, but that is a last resort. To discourage use of these services, they must be somewhat unreliable. That is, you cannot be sure whether you will be able to make it to Mabel's wedding on Sunday. These tickets are sold to whim passengers. A typical whim passenger is someone who has a lover in another city and would like, if it is cheap and easy, to take a last minute flight for the weekend.
Everyone who travels frequently has stories about how late they were and still got the plane. Many of us have missed a flight or two. I have known people who left a rental car illegally parked in the departure zone. I have left a car with the keys under the mat in close parking and called the rental company to pick it up. For business travelers someone else is usually picking up the tab, so we are a little more cavalier than personal travelers. My ideal for the airport is to walk up to the gate exactly when my row is being called for boarding.
Reliable time planning is impossible because of several choke points in the process. The lack of reliability is why you are asked to be at the airport a couple of hours before boarding. That extra time for uncertainty reduces the number of trips for which it is worthwhile to travel by air. For me, the crossover is about 450 miles. For any trip less than 450 miles, it is just as fast and usually cheaper to rent a car and drive. Driving has other drawbacks (I hate to drive, more susceptible to weather problems...) so sometimes I fly anyway, but that crossover point is a longer trip than you might guess. The crossover point is different for everyone, mine is increased by the fact that I have an hour drive to the airport.
The main choke point in the process are checking bags and security. At any given airport you may know the average wait, but the times are extremely variable and you may be caught in a long line on any given trip.
Let's also get this out of the way at the beginning. Airport security is a huge joke. Unfortunately, the traveling public is the butt of the joke. Airport security costs vast amounts of money and disrupts the travel of every single passenger to protect against attacks that are both unlikely and stupid.
Here is an uncomfortable fact. Planes crash. Not very many of them and not very often, but they crash. In this inherently risky business of flying, your biggest worry is not terrorists. Less than 10% of all air fatalities have resulted from sabotage (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_crash).
Governments conceal many of their security operations so we will never hear about them. On the other hand "Terrorist Caught with Bomb at Airport" makes an irresistible headline. What better way to build support for the current airport security efforts. I have been unable to find a single instance where airport security has detected and stopped a terrorist attack from occurring. I have found numerous cases where governments have stopped attacks in the planning stages, but none where airport security has done so.
Here is a simple example of misplaced security. I always carry a pocket knife (swiss army tinker). I use it every day. Every few months I either have to mail it back to myself from the airport (if I have time) or throw it away (if I do not have time). No airliner can be hijacked with a box cutter, or a knife, or any other sharp object.. It has not been possible to hijack a plane this way for years. There are two reasons for this. Before the September 11th attacks, the best way for a passenger to survive a hijacking was to cooperate with the hijackers. After September 11th, the best way for a passenger to survive was to actively eliminate the threat. We have seen this numerous times in the past few years. When a passenger on a flight is perceived as a threat, the other passengers attack him and eliminate the threat. You and your fellow passengers are the first line of defense. In the unlikely event that someone with a knife starts killing passengers, the plane will not go down. The doors to the cockpit are reinforced and no matter what happens in the passenger cabin, the pilots will not open the door.
Reinforcing cockpit doors and educating pilots never to open them are probably the most effective defenses against a September 11 style attack. If hijackers cannot get control of the plane, they cannot use it as a missile. If planes cannot be used as missiles, their value as a terrorist target is greatly reduced. The most someone bent on destruction can hope for is a crashed plane with a few hundred dead. There are other, more attractive targets.
We are mostly kept safe by the fact that there is a vanishingly small number of people who wish to crash a plane and governments are trying to find monitor those people. Of course the best way for governments to monitor these folks is for ordinary citizens to be aware of their neighbors and be willing to report people who seem to be threatening. This requires the trust and goodwill of the people toward their government. Goodwill is hard to feel at the end of airport screening.
Security at airports will never be relaxed no matter how useless and illogical it is. No one wants to be blamed for something going wrong. Governments also have a vested interest in fostering a certain amount of fear. Fear of outsiders unites us behind the government and makes us willing to follow instructions, even when they go against our self interest.
Checking in used to serve the function of telling the airline that you were at the airport and ready to catch the plane. Now that you can do it online, check in serves to get you through airport security. A primary goal of airline management is to reduce labor costs. The ideal for management is for no human interaction with airline personnel at all. For passengers without luggage, they have almost accomplished this. You buy your ticket from an online system. Check in is either on line or, if you don't have baggage, an electronic kiosk. To board the plane, you hand your boarding pass to the only human you will interact with before boarding the plane.
Luggage is inconvenient for airlines in a couple of ways. First, human labor is needed to get it on to and off of the correct plane. Second, it takes up room in what could be a cargo hold. A natural discouragement is knowing that airlines are neither careful nor reliable with luggage. Airlines have recently found some excellent (from their point of view) workarounds to the luggage problem. This first is to charge for checked bags. This makes your luggage ordinary paid cargo. It also increases the ticket price in a way that does not show up when you make your reservation. Businesses love the hidden fee. It allows them to compete on the basis of a deceptively low price. See http://redtape.msnbc.com/2008/01/how-red-tape-be.html. The danger for the airlines is that people will try to carry on even more than they already do. For this, security takes the hit. At the same time the airlines announced luggage charges, the security folks said they had to limit the amount any single person can take through the line.
Most people on a plane are not in First Class. The airlines mantra is "pack em in". There was a time when you could put down your tray table, open a laptop and do some work. Those days are long past. The seats are so close that if the person in front of you reclines, you must have your laptop half closed. I have spent time typing reports without viewing the screen, my hands inside the half closed clamshell of the computer. There are a few seats with, very slightly, more legroom. The airlines are mandated to put these in so that you can reach the emergency exit in case of a crash. Many airlines charge more for these seats. They do not, however, charge less for the seats in front of the exits that cannot recline.
The closeness of the seats is one of the reasons movement is so difficult in planes. If someone by the window wants to get up, the passengers between him and the aisle must exit the cramped space to let him by. The aisle is just wide enough for a food cart. "Watch your elbows" is probably the flight attendants most common phrase. Once the passengers between the window seat and the aisle are up, they must march single file up the aisle so the window sitter can escape. There is not enough room for people to pass each other in the aisle so if the people in the aisle and center seats head the wrong way, it is a chinese puzzle to get everyone in place.
Inter-city busses have the reputation of being uncomfortable and dirty. Inhabited only be the undesirables who cannot afford another means of travel. I would say that airlines have become the inter-city busses of the sky, but I have never been in a bus that is as uncomfortable as a "modern" airline. Just as with busses, you can expect nothing from the company but a seat. For a long trip on either, everyone knows they must bring their own food and drink. The vestige of past food and drink service, the cart going up and down the aisle, serves almost no function but to keep the attendants busy with a moving battering ram to keep people out of the aisles.
I joke that if a completely safe anesthetic is created, the airlines will dose all the passengers and stack us like cord wood.
I have no real complaints about traveling once I am out of the airport. Often when I get off the plane, there is no real public transportation. Car rental companies use new cars which are, on the whole, quite reliable. All the car rental companies I use have worked pretty hard to make the experience easy even as they have reduced the amount of human interaction needed. Sure, they try to gouge with insurance, gas, and upgrade charges. If you rent a few times, you get used to the three or four "no"s it takes to avoid these standard traps. In the cities where there is public transportation, it is usually pretty good. I expect some inconvenience when traveling to a city that is not my own. Pretty universally, people are helpful, and transportation systems work well.
The conditions on most airlines approach that a cattle car filled with refugees fleeing for their lives. While on the plane we are expected to stay almost completely motionless and quiet for the duration of the flight. Our bodies are built for motion. Even while sleeping, people constantly change position. On an airplane this is impossible. The conditions are so unnatural that people actually die from the experience due to deep vein thrombosis. The airline rules enforce this motionlessness with ruthless efficiency. The aisles are narrow, the galley off limits, and a cart is pushed back and forth to both block and clear the aisles. The seat positions limit human interaction. In the unlikely event that you converse with another passenger you are likely to end up with a neck ache from the strain of trying to actually see them. Conversation is unlikely partly because the chance of two strangers having both the same need for interaction and the same interests is small. Contact is made even less likely by the stress induced by the experience. I say this as someone who likes the high vantage point that air travel provides.
There are periodic instances of people snapping on planes. Sometimes they get drunk and assault another passenger, sometimes they just become delusional in one way or another. It is true that people fall apart in lots of ways and in lots of places, but I believe that being crammed on a contemporary airline approaches the limits of human endurance.
Of course each airline differs somewhat. Southwest has a single class of seats and somewhat more reliable pricing. United is perhaps the worst of the worst. Most airlines seem to be rushing toward the United end of the continuum so that end is discussed here.
The time on the plane is only one part of the dehumanizing experience. The whole system is inhuman. I mean literally inhuman. That is, there is very little true human contact involved. The basic corporate motivation is money and the current competitive environment largely removes all other motivations from both selling and buying decisions. Passengers are higher paying, but more inconvenient, cargo.
Buying the Ticket
It is a general truism that interaction with paid employees decreases over time. The cost efficiencies of automated systems move us in this direction. I find that a well designed automated system is more effective and more pleasant than trying to explain my intentions to a stranger I will never see again. However, the automated systems lead us to evaluate on a small number of criteria and these criteria generally reflect airline corporate needs. Most airline systems tell you about flight times, duration, stops, and (immediate) price. Consumers tend to fly on the cheapest flight. The flight is something to endure and surely the big contract or time with Grandma is worth a few hours of pain. Might as well save the money to use on something more worthwhile. Given these conditions, the airlines have competed almost exclusively on price. Occasionally one will try larger seats or better food, but those efforts do not seem to pay off enough to be sustained. The reservation systems turn these into intangibles that do not enter the flyer's decision making process.
I heard a prediction that in the future all prices will be instantaneous. The vending machine that gives you a soda for a quarter in the dead of winter will charge a buck fifty on a hot summer day. Airlines have been the vanguard of this for many years. They have been willing to invest in a wide variety of profit maximizing devices. I do not want to paint the airline companies as uncaring blood sucking vampires seeking the last drop of blood from their unfortunate victims. Wait, I do want to paint them that way. However, as with any good vampire story, you have to have some sympathy for vampire who may not have wanted to become what he did. Many airline companies have lost unimaginably vast sums of money for year after year. A few dollars more per customer may mean the difference between profitability and bankruptcy (which they regularly enter). Ok, enough sympathy, let's look at what they have done to us.
If you can manage it, it is an interesting experience to compare fares with the people around you. Because of the ways fares are managed and the multiple outlets for selling, everyone pays a different amount. The person sitting in the seat next to you, even if it is a middle seat, may have paid close to ten times more than you did (or vice versa). The same thing holds for all airline transactions. I was on a business trip with two colleagues when our plans changed and we had to rebook flights. The three of us had the class of tickets on the same planes. We sat across a table from each other and each called to make changes. I fared the worst (charged two hundred dollars), one person did not have to pay at all and the third, for unknown reasons, was given a credit of forty dollars.
Getting That Last Penny
The techniques to make sure the planes are more or less full, but that you pay more than you would like are interesting. Here is my naive and uniformed guess at some of the techniques. My information comes from lightly tracking the topic in my general reading and my direct observations.
The airlines would love to sell all their seats at the highest price, but a full seat (some money) is always better than an empty one. This is particularly true because many of the costs (fuel, labor for pilots/attendants...) are fixed. The best flight for the airline is a completely full flight. This is easiest to accomplish if you can sell more tickets than there are seats. A certain percentage of people will miss their flight. Those customers will likely lose the cost of the fare. If you have someone at the gate ready to sit down in the seat of a passenger who missed the flight, two people have paid for one seat. What could be better for the airline. If the airline overbooks too much, it risks losing the little goodwill that is left with the traveling public. Too little overbooking and there could be empty seats.
To get the most money from each person, the first goal of the airline is to split the herd. There are at least four types of passengers I have identified from the fare structure: fare indifferent passengers, forced passengers, flexible passengers, whim passengers.
The first class of passengers are the first class passengers. These are people less constrained by money. They are willing to pay high prices for the added comfort of first class. First class passengers pay dearly for their comfort. Of course, the worse the conditions behind the flimsy first class curtain, the better the first class seats look. Sometimes there are not enough people willing to pay the high fare. If the rest of the plane is full, a desperate passenger may be forced to pay a higher fare "economy sitting in first class". This is usually less than full first class, but much more than any other seat on the plane. If no one can be forced into a higher fare, the first class seat can be bought by frequent flyer miles. This is a zero cost way for airlines to reduce their frequent flyer miles debt load.
Forced passengers are those whose travel plans are completely determined by outside forces. Those who must travel on a fixed schedule (generally business travelers) are forced to pay more. Common tricks to identify these travelers include: unwillingness to stay over a weekend, short notice for travel, a desire to keep an option open for last minute changes, and a desire for short travel times. Once identified, the airlines charge these passengers a higher rate.
Because the people who can be forced to pay more are identified by certain characteristics, the people who get lower prices are those that don't share those traits. These are the flexible passengers. Because of the way forced passengers are identified, flexible travelers flights will generally be longer and less direct. They will be staying over a weekend and, with some notable exceptions. Their fares are also non-refundable with a charge for changes (even to a "cheaper" flight). Earlier booking is a double edged sword for the airlines. On one hand, they are assured a fare. On the other hand, that fare is less than they might get if they waited for a more desperate person. Some of this can be handled by overbooking, but not enough. So, the airlines play intricate games with the prices that take into account the history of the flight and the actual booking numbers every point in time.
If a plane is truly under-booked, the airline may sell seats through discount sites on the internet, but that is a last resort. To discourage use of these services, they must be somewhat unreliable. That is, you cannot be sure whether you will be able to make it to Mabel's wedding on Sunday. These tickets are sold to whim passengers. A typical whim passenger is someone who has a lover in another city and would like, if it is cheap and easy, to take a last minute flight for the weekend.
Getting to the Plane
Everyone who travels frequently has stories about how late they were and still got the plane. Many of us have missed a flight or two. I have known people who left a rental car illegally parked in the departure zone. I have left a car with the keys under the mat in close parking and called the rental company to pick it up. For business travelers someone else is usually picking up the tab, so we are a little more cavalier than personal travelers. My ideal for the airport is to walk up to the gate exactly when my row is being called for boarding.
Reliable time planning is impossible because of several choke points in the process. The lack of reliability is why you are asked to be at the airport a couple of hours before boarding. That extra time for uncertainty reduces the number of trips for which it is worthwhile to travel by air. For me, the crossover is about 450 miles. For any trip less than 450 miles, it is just as fast and usually cheaper to rent a car and drive. Driving has other drawbacks (I hate to drive, more susceptible to weather problems...) so sometimes I fly anyway, but that crossover point is a longer trip than you might guess. The crossover point is different for everyone, mine is increased by the fact that I have an hour drive to the airport.
The main choke point in the process are checking bags and security. At any given airport you may know the average wait, but the times are extremely variable and you may be caught in a long line on any given trip.
Security
Let's also get this out of the way at the beginning. Airport security is a huge joke. Unfortunately, the traveling public is the butt of the joke. Airport security costs vast amounts of money and disrupts the travel of every single passenger to protect against attacks that are both unlikely and stupid.
Here is an uncomfortable fact. Planes crash. Not very many of them and not very often, but they crash. In this inherently risky business of flying, your biggest worry is not terrorists. Less than 10% of all air fatalities have resulted from sabotage (http://www.planecrashinfo.com/cause.htm, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plane_crash).
Governments conceal many of their security operations so we will never hear about them. On the other hand "Terrorist Caught with Bomb at Airport" makes an irresistible headline. What better way to build support for the current airport security efforts. I have been unable to find a single instance where airport security has detected and stopped a terrorist attack from occurring. I have found numerous cases where governments have stopped attacks in the planning stages, but none where airport security has done so.
Here is a simple example of misplaced security. I always carry a pocket knife (swiss army tinker). I use it every day. Every few months I either have to mail it back to myself from the airport (if I have time) or throw it away (if I do not have time). No airliner can be hijacked with a box cutter, or a knife, or any other sharp object.. It has not been possible to hijack a plane this way for years. There are two reasons for this. Before the September 11th attacks, the best way for a passenger to survive a hijacking was to cooperate with the hijackers. After September 11th, the best way for a passenger to survive was to actively eliminate the threat. We have seen this numerous times in the past few years. When a passenger on a flight is perceived as a threat, the other passengers attack him and eliminate the threat. You and your fellow passengers are the first line of defense. In the unlikely event that someone with a knife starts killing passengers, the plane will not go down. The doors to the cockpit are reinforced and no matter what happens in the passenger cabin, the pilots will not open the door.
Reinforcing cockpit doors and educating pilots never to open them are probably the most effective defenses against a September 11 style attack. If hijackers cannot get control of the plane, they cannot use it as a missile. If planes cannot be used as missiles, their value as a terrorist target is greatly reduced. The most someone bent on destruction can hope for is a crashed plane with a few hundred dead. There are other, more attractive targets.
We are mostly kept safe by the fact that there is a vanishingly small number of people who wish to crash a plane and governments are trying to find monitor those people. Of course the best way for governments to monitor these folks is for ordinary citizens to be aware of their neighbors and be willing to report people who seem to be threatening. This requires the trust and goodwill of the people toward their government. Goodwill is hard to feel at the end of airport screening.
Security at airports will never be relaxed no matter how useless and illogical it is. No one wants to be blamed for something going wrong. Governments also have a vested interest in fostering a certain amount of fear. Fear of outsiders unites us behind the government and makes us willing to follow instructions, even when they go against our self interest.
Checking In and Luggage
Checking in used to serve the function of telling the airline that you were at the airport and ready to catch the plane. Now that you can do it online, check in serves to get you through airport security. A primary goal of airline management is to reduce labor costs. The ideal for management is for no human interaction with airline personnel at all. For passengers without luggage, they have almost accomplished this. You buy your ticket from an online system. Check in is either on line or, if you don't have baggage, an electronic kiosk. To board the plane, you hand your boarding pass to the only human you will interact with before boarding the plane.
Luggage is inconvenient for airlines in a couple of ways. First, human labor is needed to get it on to and off of the correct plane. Second, it takes up room in what could be a cargo hold. A natural discouragement is knowing that airlines are neither careful nor reliable with luggage. Airlines have recently found some excellent (from their point of view) workarounds to the luggage problem. This first is to charge for checked bags. This makes your luggage ordinary paid cargo. It also increases the ticket price in a way that does not show up when you make your reservation. Businesses love the hidden fee. It allows them to compete on the basis of a deceptively low price. See http://redtape.msnbc.com/2008/01/how-red-tape-be.html. The danger for the airlines is that people will try to carry on even more than they already do. For this, security takes the hit. At the same time the airlines announced luggage charges, the security folks said they had to limit the amount any single person can take through the line.
On the Plane
Most people on a plane are not in First Class. The airlines mantra is "pack em in". There was a time when you could put down your tray table, open a laptop and do some work. Those days are long past. The seats are so close that if the person in front of you reclines, you must have your laptop half closed. I have spent time typing reports without viewing the screen, my hands inside the half closed clamshell of the computer. There are a few seats with, very slightly, more legroom. The airlines are mandated to put these in so that you can reach the emergency exit in case of a crash. Many airlines charge more for these seats. They do not, however, charge less for the seats in front of the exits that cannot recline.
The closeness of the seats is one of the reasons movement is so difficult in planes. If someone by the window wants to get up, the passengers between him and the aisle must exit the cramped space to let him by. The aisle is just wide enough for a food cart. "Watch your elbows" is probably the flight attendants most common phrase. Once the passengers between the window seat and the aisle are up, they must march single file up the aisle so the window sitter can escape. There is not enough room for people to pass each other in the aisle so if the people in the aisle and center seats head the wrong way, it is a chinese puzzle to get everyone in place.
Inter-city busses have the reputation of being uncomfortable and dirty. Inhabited only be the undesirables who cannot afford another means of travel. I would say that airlines have become the inter-city busses of the sky, but I have never been in a bus that is as uncomfortable as a "modern" airline. Just as with busses, you can expect nothing from the company but a seat. For a long trip on either, everyone knows they must bring their own food and drink. The vestige of past food and drink service, the cart going up and down the aisle, serves almost no function but to keep the attendants busy with a moving battering ram to keep people out of the aisles.
I joke that if a completely safe anesthetic is created, the airlines will dose all the passengers and stack us like cord wood.
On the Other Side
I have no real complaints about traveling once I am out of the airport. Often when I get off the plane, there is no real public transportation. Car rental companies use new cars which are, on the whole, quite reliable. All the car rental companies I use have worked pretty hard to make the experience easy even as they have reduced the amount of human interaction needed. Sure, they try to gouge with insurance, gas, and upgrade charges. If you rent a few times, you get used to the three or four "no"s it takes to avoid these standard traps. In the cities where there is public transportation, it is usually pretty good. I expect some inconvenience when traveling to a city that is not my own. Pretty universally, people are helpful, and transportation systems work well.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Averages and Actuals - Groups and Individuals
Periodically news comes out that [group X] scores lower than [group Y] on the [test of Z]. The groups and tests differ depending on who is doing the testing and where it is done. In a way it is like ethnic jokes. The group that scores higher is usually a dominant group at the time and place where the study is done. The group that scores lower is generally of some concern to the dominant group. Sometimes the work stems from real societal concern. For example: [women] score lower than [men] in [math tests]. If you are interested in math education, or sex linked traits this is a legitimate concern.
I see references to these studies in the news. Usually if follows a common news pattern:
• It is inflammatory. Everyone in the group that scores lower is bound to be insulted. The reporter can create an objective report filled with outrage on all sides "You are calling all of us stupid!" and "You are misrepresenting the work!".
• The headline and the perhaps the lead paragraph are terrible simplifications of the work and are easy to misinterpret.
• Further study and clarification show flaws in the original work or provide evidence that something unexpected is at work. These clarifications do not get the same attention as the initial headlines.
• The news is irrelevant to anyone but specialists in the field.
This particular news pattern is also present in most national crime stories (missing child, grisly murder...) and lawsuits (man sues for a gazilion dollars upon death of tropical fish).
The part that interests me today is the irrelevance of the information. To see this, let me invent a story and pretend it is true. "Women score significantly lower than men in spatial reasoning tests. Scores on spatial reasoning tests are among the best indicators of success in engineering graphics." Let me also posit that I am a manager in an engineering graphics firm that is looking for new employees. How does this information help me?
Almost any test taken by a large population shows a wide variance in skill. In most cases the results form what is called a normal distribution, the familiar bell shaped curve. This expresses the fact that there is an average level of skill and that most people's scores cluster to some degree around that average. The ends of the bell curve show that there are a some people who do extremely well (or extremely poorly) on the test.
When we hear that [group X] scores lower than [group Y] on the [test of Z], what that really means is that when we compare the curves for the two groups, the average score is lower in one group than the other. Even with a perfect test, depending on how many people take the test and who they are, we can expect some differences. Statisticians have been studying this for a few centuries and they have developed measures for how likely it is that the the differences between the averages of the test scores is just an accident of who happened to take the test or whether there may be some real underlying phenomena. Usually news that [group X] scores lower than [group Y] on the [test of Z] involves differences larger than we would expect by chance, but sometimes not by much. In our case, let's assume that women, on average, score WAY below men and that chance is extremely unlikely to be the cause of the difference.
As the hiring manager, I do not hire an average man or an average woman. I hire a specific man or a specific woman. When I am interviewing a particular person, I may be faced with a man who scores much lower than the women's average or I may be faced with a woman who scores much higher than the men's average. Here is another way to put it. Women, on average, may score lower than men. But given any particular man, regardless of how well he scores on the test, I can almost certainly find a particular woman who scores even higher.
It is hard to imagine someone more concerned with the results of testing than our hiring manager, but it turns out that our study of the difference between men and women is completely irrelevant. What matters is the particular man or woman across the desk.
I see references to these studies in the news. Usually if follows a common news pattern:
• It is inflammatory. Everyone in the group that scores lower is bound to be insulted. The reporter can create an objective report filled with outrage on all sides "You are calling all of us stupid!" and "You are misrepresenting the work!".
• The headline and the perhaps the lead paragraph are terrible simplifications of the work and are easy to misinterpret.
• Further study and clarification show flaws in the original work or provide evidence that something unexpected is at work. These clarifications do not get the same attention as the initial headlines.
• The news is irrelevant to anyone but specialists in the field.
This particular news pattern is also present in most national crime stories (missing child, grisly murder...) and lawsuits (man sues for a gazilion dollars upon death of tropical fish).
The part that interests me today is the irrelevance of the information. To see this, let me invent a story and pretend it is true. "Women score significantly lower than men in spatial reasoning tests. Scores on spatial reasoning tests are among the best indicators of success in engineering graphics." Let me also posit that I am a manager in an engineering graphics firm that is looking for new employees. How does this information help me?
Almost any test taken by a large population shows a wide variance in skill. In most cases the results form what is called a normal distribution, the familiar bell shaped curve. This expresses the fact that there is an average level of skill and that most people's scores cluster to some degree around that average. The ends of the bell curve show that there are a some people who do extremely well (or extremely poorly) on the test.
When we hear that [group X] scores lower than [group Y] on the [test of Z], what that really means is that when we compare the curves for the two groups, the average score is lower in one group than the other. Even with a perfect test, depending on how many people take the test and who they are, we can expect some differences. Statisticians have been studying this for a few centuries and they have developed measures for how likely it is that the the differences between the averages of the test scores is just an accident of who happened to take the test or whether there may be some real underlying phenomena. Usually news that [group X] scores lower than [group Y] on the [test of Z] involves differences larger than we would expect by chance, but sometimes not by much. In our case, let's assume that women, on average, score WAY below men and that chance is extremely unlikely to be the cause of the difference.
As the hiring manager, I do not hire an average man or an average woman. I hire a specific man or a specific woman. When I am interviewing a particular person, I may be faced with a man who scores much lower than the women's average or I may be faced with a woman who scores much higher than the men's average. Here is another way to put it. Women, on average, may score lower than men. But given any particular man, regardless of how well he scores on the test, I can almost certainly find a particular woman who scores even higher.
It is hard to imagine someone more concerned with the results of testing than our hiring manager, but it turns out that our study of the difference between men and women is completely irrelevant. What matters is the particular man or woman across the desk.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)