In considering investments, you often receive advice that begins with "over the long run your returns should average". Well if you think about it, the long run isn't guaranteed, especially as you get older. "Over the long run, the flow of traffic should improve. But in the short run, we need to do new construction and repair." Well, I have been delayed and inconvenienced for years by interstate and major road construction that seems to be endless, and have noticed very little change in actual travel time on those few projects that have been completed. The time I've got left to enjoy these improvements is dwindling. What's going on here?
Let's take the Grandview triangle for example. Does anyone traveling east at rush hour think things have improved? I am betting when construction on I 435 is finished, I will notice little if any change going to Olathe or Lawrence. But I am paying a heavy price in reduced times and driving safety and convenience to these destinations now, and have been for some time.
Maybe at some point we should start thinking of other solutions to traffic congestion. How about staggered work hours? What about using computer and internet technology to have remote worksites close to home? What about efficient public transportation such as rail?
It seems to me a great waste of time and money to constantly be building new and improved roads. Especially if there is no end to the construction. And who is tinkering with the stop lights? What is the purpose of those flashing yellow arrows? I guess no one knew to watch out for oncoming traffic before turning left. Perhaps more dialogue at the public policy level is necessary. It seems to me somebody has too much time and money on their hands.
Saturday, September 5, 2015
Friday, May 8, 2015
Sunday
I think back on the Sundays of my youth with nostalgia. I get a "feel good " feeling recalling those days devoted to church and family. I must confess that I have my doubts about some of the religious teachings and organized religion, especially in light of 9/11 and the trouble caused by the religious fanatics. However, much more good came from an hour a week devoted to moral teachings than harm.
Following church, there was always a big family dinner, with real conversation. There were no distractions, such as soccer or baseball. It was a unique opportunity to strengthen the family bond and to reinforce it regularly. The entire day was a chance to call time out and regroup. There was a feeling of freedom, from work, from school, and from obligations.
We now seem to have replaced this day with a day much like all the rest. There is no time for reflection or moral contemplation. There is no relief from the stresses of work or school. Activities pack the day. There is no time set aside to be with the family.
I guess that I am again on "the wrong side of history". We are led to believe that history is progress, rather than regress. But in my gut I do not feel that this is always true. Some things that are part of our heritage were meaningful, and I grieve the loss.
Old guys are past their prime. We are now being "put out to pasture". But somehow I think some things we held dear had a timeless significance. Why else would I have such fond memories of this special day?
Following church, there was always a big family dinner, with real conversation. There were no distractions, such as soccer or baseball. It was a unique opportunity to strengthen the family bond and to reinforce it regularly. The entire day was a chance to call time out and regroup. There was a feeling of freedom, from work, from school, and from obligations.
We now seem to have replaced this day with a day much like all the rest. There is no time for reflection or moral contemplation. There is no relief from the stresses of work or school. Activities pack the day. There is no time set aside to be with the family.
I guess that I am again on "the wrong side of history". We are led to believe that history is progress, rather than regress. But in my gut I do not feel that this is always true. Some things that are part of our heritage were meaningful, and I grieve the loss.
Old guys are past their prime. We are now being "put out to pasture". But somehow I think some things we held dear had a timeless significance. Why else would I have such fond memories of this special day?
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Dividing up the Pie
Dividing up the Pie
There is a lot of press about the uneven distribution of wealth. The French economist Piketty, analyzed the return on ownership of capital versus labor. He concluded in layman's terms that it is easier to grow wealth through ownership than labor. The gap between rich and poor will widen.
Do you ever wonder why we make things that increase our ability to produce more with less effort on our part? It seems that as we do this, the skilled workers work harder and longer, instead of shorter. Fewer people with high skills make increasingly more money, while the rest become unnecessary and displaced to menial or low paying jobs.
This works fine for corporations, or more specifically owners of corporations, who have seen profits increase as the jobs decrease. But it comes with a huge toll. Social unrest will increase as this pool of underemployed and low wage population rises.
People need work for their own self esteem. I don't think any job is too menial. If it needs to be done and you do it well, it will be a source of personal satisfaction. Half of the society is average or below average, but we cannot afford to throw individuals on the waste dump. There needs to be adequate reward for their efforts, even if the job is menial. And there needs to be opportunity for work if it is desired.
Corporations are lucky to have access to our markets and resources. I believe there is an obligation on their part to help educate the work force for the jobs they need, and to provide opportunity for those that want to work at a fair wage, even if this means considering shortening the work week of skilled personnel to provide more jobs. Maybe the wage structure should provide more opportunity for ownership.
When we were in grade school, teams were often selected by captains. The good players were chosen first, and so on until everyone was on a team. We did this out of a sense of fair play. It seemed to make sense then. Why not now?
Service in the Technology Age
Service in the technology age ( Answer the phone ...hole)
If you are like me, you have found yourself enunciating every forbidden word you ever learned at a machine. I wonder if someone records this? What ever happened to person to person communication? I'm quite sure businesses would gain a competitive advantage if they just picked up the phone. Instead you are referred to a web site with a list of common questions, or a chat service, or email. A simple two minute conversation is turned into an all day event.
I just got a drone for my birthday, a gift for someone who really doesn't need anything. Anyway, I decided to try it out. Instructions were limited. I couldn't find the on/off switch, or figure out what any of the symbols on the phone app meant, and none of this was discussed in the instructions. I couldn't get the drone to take a photo, although I pushed and pushed the "camera" icon.
Frustrated, I went online to solve the problem, as you couldn't just call anybody and ask a couple of questions. The first YouTube I viewed was by a very sincere 20 something and it was somewhat helpful, but I could still not take a picture or turn the device on or off. Finally, I saw a You Tube video produced by a 7 year old (in front of a Christmas tree that was still standing) that answered more of my questions. I'm still searching for the 4 year old for the final answers.
Representatives of a weight loss app would not talk to me to tell me how to transfer my stored food library from my iphone to my ipad. "We are unable to talk over the phone" they informed me after my 5th email telling them their instructions made no sense to me, and imploring them to talk to me. Finally, on the second day I found out that "sync data to your device" was the same as "upload to the web" so that it could be downloaded to the ipad, "sync device to ....com".
How many times have you tried to communicate with a cable service or phone service with the same frustrations? Most of the time the menu I listen to doesn't address the problem I am having. IT professionals need to test their algorithms on me before they unleash them on the public. ( I would charge a reasonable fee.)
I think there must be a business in here somewhere, between the customer and the company, that restores old fashion communication. The automated phone system should at least understand "representative please" , even if said in a an agitated voice associated with a few invectives. Answer the phone ...hole!
If you are like me, you have found yourself enunciating every forbidden word you ever learned at a machine. I wonder if someone records this? What ever happened to person to person communication? I'm quite sure businesses would gain a competitive advantage if they just picked up the phone. Instead you are referred to a web site with a list of common questions, or a chat service, or email. A simple two minute conversation is turned into an all day event.
I just got a drone for my birthday, a gift for someone who really doesn't need anything. Anyway, I decided to try it out. Instructions were limited. I couldn't find the on/off switch, or figure out what any of the symbols on the phone app meant, and none of this was discussed in the instructions. I couldn't get the drone to take a photo, although I pushed and pushed the "camera" icon.
Frustrated, I went online to solve the problem, as you couldn't just call anybody and ask a couple of questions. The first YouTube I viewed was by a very sincere 20 something and it was somewhat helpful, but I could still not take a picture or turn the device on or off. Finally, I saw a You Tube video produced by a 7 year old (in front of a Christmas tree that was still standing) that answered more of my questions. I'm still searching for the 4 year old for the final answers.
Representatives of a weight loss app would not talk to me to tell me how to transfer my stored food library from my iphone to my ipad. "We are unable to talk over the phone" they informed me after my 5th email telling them their instructions made no sense to me, and imploring them to talk to me. Finally, on the second day I found out that "sync data to your device" was the same as "upload to the web" so that it could be downloaded to the ipad, "sync device to ....com".
How many times have you tried to communicate with a cable service or phone service with the same frustrations? Most of the time the menu I listen to doesn't address the problem I am having. IT professionals need to test their algorithms on me before they unleash them on the public. ( I would charge a reasonable fee.)
I think there must be a business in here somewhere, between the customer and the company, that restores old fashion communication. The automated phone system should at least understand "representative please" , even if said in a an agitated voice associated with a few invectives. Answer the phone ...hole!
Why I Don't Totally Like Democracy
Why I Don't Totally Like Democracy
I guess I am too left brained to like the messy way our legislation is created. Take the ACA (the affordable health care act) for example. If we as a people decide that providing care to the uninsured is a reasonable thing to do, then the legislation should be straight forward. Clearly, if we are going to spend more money, then revenue must be raised. Someone must pay this revenue. This revenue should be called a tax, and who is paying this tax should be clear. None of this transparency was present in this act.
For starters, despite all talk to the contrary, the act was not funded. Remember all that talk about how the deficit would actually decrease. Nearly half of the "funding" was a savings in expected expense for Medicare advantage. Now, as we all know, Medicare is grossly underfunded, and any "savings" in that program should be applied to future expenditures to lengthen the program's viability. Spending money you don't have isn't exactly "paying" for a new program.
Secondly, the fact that money raised for the program was actually a tax was obfuscated. Individual mandates, or any mandates were in fact taxes. This deception was clearly intentional to blunt opposition. The supreme court called the administration out on this in ruling in favor of the ACA.
Thirdly, the incidence of the taxes were obscured. Who is really paying? People who like to tan? People that have too fancy of a health care policy? People that don't buy insurance? Medical manufacturer's or the people who use their products? People that earn a high income? Maybe none of these as exceptions keep coming up.
My proposal would have been to simply estimate the cost and add it as a surcharge to the income tax at all levels, then everyone would know their share. We could judge as a society whether the benefit of this program was "affordable". It is a shame that in order to pass legislation we have to disguise the facts we need to make an informed choice.
I guess I am too left brained to like the messy way our legislation is created. Take the ACA (the affordable health care act) for example. If we as a people decide that providing care to the uninsured is a reasonable thing to do, then the legislation should be straight forward. Clearly, if we are going to spend more money, then revenue must be raised. Someone must pay this revenue. This revenue should be called a tax, and who is paying this tax should be clear. None of this transparency was present in this act.
For starters, despite all talk to the contrary, the act was not funded. Remember all that talk about how the deficit would actually decrease. Nearly half of the "funding" was a savings in expected expense for Medicare advantage. Now, as we all know, Medicare is grossly underfunded, and any "savings" in that program should be applied to future expenditures to lengthen the program's viability. Spending money you don't have isn't exactly "paying" for a new program.
Secondly, the fact that money raised for the program was actually a tax was obfuscated. Individual mandates, or any mandates were in fact taxes. This deception was clearly intentional to blunt opposition. The supreme court called the administration out on this in ruling in favor of the ACA.
Thirdly, the incidence of the taxes were obscured. Who is really paying? People who like to tan? People that have too fancy of a health care policy? People that don't buy insurance? Medical manufacturer's or the people who use their products? People that earn a high income? Maybe none of these as exceptions keep coming up.
My proposal would have been to simply estimate the cost and add it as a surcharge to the income tax at all levels, then everyone would know their share. We could judge as a society whether the benefit of this program was "affordable". It is a shame that in order to pass legislation we have to disguise the facts we need to make an informed choice.
Sunday, March 15, 2015
Gay Marriage
Gay Marriage
So let's jump in. Here's an easy target to rile people up emotionally. How did we get here? What does it all mean?
First we had to change the definition of marriage. For years, it was commonly understood to represent a union between one man and one woman. But if you use a word in a different context often enough, the definition changes. Language is dynamic. I am not entirely opposed to this. I like the word smarky, a combination of smirk and smarmy. It is the superior smile that makes you instantly hate a person who has a self satisfied demeanor, a face that you see on most MSNBC commentators.
Next, we had to argue that marriage between homosexuals is essentially the same as heterosexual marriage. That's like figuring out if two shapes are identical in pre school. Some are better at this than others.
Thirdly, after leaping to the conclusion that there is really no difference, we argue we should give the benefits previously reserved to married heterosexuals to all marriage. Wait a minute! I pay for these benefits, and I want something in return, like social utility. We've gone a long time without homosexual marriage, and frankly I didn't notice. The natural consequence of heterosexual unions are little buggers that need care, education, and socialization. I have an interest in fostering this union. So does society as a whole. But what do I care about the personal relationship of two same sex partners?
Now you might argue that gay couples raise kids too. And you have a point. I am not opposed to figuring out something here. But a childless gay couple should have no more right to assign social security benefits to a partner, than a single person to a family member or close friend. Discrimination!
Let's face it. We wouldn't be talking about "gay marriage" if unions between same sex couples and straight couples were the same. There is a distinction. If we want another institution called gay marriage or civil union, so be it. But it is different and the rights and benefits should be separately constructed.
I think all this is obvious. The real underlying issue is acceptance. But, this cannot be decreed by laws. Unless you change the definition of normal, or natural, the gay union lies outside of these bounds. But most of us probably have some traits, conditions, proclivities, that are "not normal" or usual. We live with these and they are part of us. I don't think the word proud applies to our feelings about these parts of our nature, but we can expect others to accept us. I think that is reasonable.
So let's jump in. Here's an easy target to rile people up emotionally. How did we get here? What does it all mean?
First we had to change the definition of marriage. For years, it was commonly understood to represent a union between one man and one woman. But if you use a word in a different context often enough, the definition changes. Language is dynamic. I am not entirely opposed to this. I like the word smarky, a combination of smirk and smarmy. It is the superior smile that makes you instantly hate a person who has a self satisfied demeanor, a face that you see on most MSNBC commentators.
Next, we had to argue that marriage between homosexuals is essentially the same as heterosexual marriage. That's like figuring out if two shapes are identical in pre school. Some are better at this than others.
Thirdly, after leaping to the conclusion that there is really no difference, we argue we should give the benefits previously reserved to married heterosexuals to all marriage. Wait a minute! I pay for these benefits, and I want something in return, like social utility. We've gone a long time without homosexual marriage, and frankly I didn't notice. The natural consequence of heterosexual unions are little buggers that need care, education, and socialization. I have an interest in fostering this union. So does society as a whole. But what do I care about the personal relationship of two same sex partners?
Now you might argue that gay couples raise kids too. And you have a point. I am not opposed to figuring out something here. But a childless gay couple should have no more right to assign social security benefits to a partner, than a single person to a family member or close friend. Discrimination!
Let's face it. We wouldn't be talking about "gay marriage" if unions between same sex couples and straight couples were the same. There is a distinction. If we want another institution called gay marriage or civil union, so be it. But it is different and the rights and benefits should be separately constructed.
I think all this is obvious. The real underlying issue is acceptance. But, this cannot be decreed by laws. Unless you change the definition of normal, or natural, the gay union lies outside of these bounds. But most of us probably have some traits, conditions, proclivities, that are "not normal" or usual. We live with these and they are part of us. I don't think the word proud applies to our feelings about these parts of our nature, but we can expect others to accept us. I think that is reasonable.
Friday, March 13, 2015
Taxes Anybody
Taxes Anybody?
A lot of controversy whirls around the fact that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. The fact that Warren Buffet ( not exactly your average rich guy) paid a lower rate than his secretary did is all the proof needed. The actual facts don't matter. Anybody able to read a chart can see the majority of income taxes are paid by the top earners. Also, the rates are progressive so that the more one earns, the higher the tax bracket. Except for the relatively few exceptions that seem to make the press, the graduated rates apply.
Most of those that are complaining the rich need to pay more, have no concept of how much they are currently paying. To give you an idea, I earned my income through professional services. If I did not provide the service, I recieved no money. I did not earn the income supervising others to do the work. In those good years, where I approached the upper one or two percent, the taxes I paid could purchase a new luxury car for the government with cash every year. Imagine that. Uncle Sam told me I should buy him a new car each year with cash. And for what? Excluding entitlements, which are paid separately, the Federal Government provides defense and some other services, many of which duplicate services provided by the state and are frankly unnecessary at the federal level.
When can we ask the government to budget our money as carefully as we would? Why should the majority be able to vote taxes on others, with no consequence to themselves? Perhaps we should adopt the "equal pain" rule. If taxes go up, everybody's taxes rise. Those who earn more could pay more, but there should be equal pain for all income groups. Instead of dividing us, we would be united in setting standards for government.
A lot of controversy whirls around the fact that the "rich" don't pay their "fair share" of taxes. The fact that Warren Buffet ( not exactly your average rich guy) paid a lower rate than his secretary did is all the proof needed. The actual facts don't matter. Anybody able to read a chart can see the majority of income taxes are paid by the top earners. Also, the rates are progressive so that the more one earns, the higher the tax bracket. Except for the relatively few exceptions that seem to make the press, the graduated rates apply.
Most of those that are complaining the rich need to pay more, have no concept of how much they are currently paying. To give you an idea, I earned my income through professional services. If I did not provide the service, I recieved no money. I did not earn the income supervising others to do the work. In those good years, where I approached the upper one or two percent, the taxes I paid could purchase a new luxury car for the government with cash every year. Imagine that. Uncle Sam told me I should buy him a new car each year with cash. And for what? Excluding entitlements, which are paid separately, the Federal Government provides defense and some other services, many of which duplicate services provided by the state and are frankly unnecessary at the federal level.
When can we ask the government to budget our money as carefully as we would? Why should the majority be able to vote taxes on others, with no consequence to themselves? Perhaps we should adopt the "equal pain" rule. If taxes go up, everybody's taxes rise. Those who earn more could pay more, but there should be equal pain for all income groups. Instead of dividing us, we would be united in setting standards for government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)