You know what I really liked about this month? It was a 28-day February that started on a Sunday. That meant all my calendars had lots of space on them, be it my Outlook calendars at work, or the Google calendars I use in my personal life. Four rows of days taking up the same amount of space usually allocated to five and sometimes even six rows. It's going to be quite a few years before this happens again, so I'm trying to appreciate it. A spacious screen-filling calendar where each day stands full one-quarter-height (relative to the whole calendar). No 20% or 1/6th for February 2009 days!
OK, I'm making a big deal out of nothing, but it's still mildly cool, not to mention helpful when it comes to calendar reading.
Friday, February 27, 2009
My Workout
It's rare for my mother to get a shout-out on this blog, but this link comes straight from her @aol.com e-mail address: The Jedi Training Workout. It turns out you can lose weight and get in shape by practicing your lightsaber skills. Apparently I exercised regularly all through high school, and I didn't even know it!
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
My Takeaways (from Obama's non-State of the Union)
There are a few things I think are important to take away from Obama's speech last night. I think he did a good job, and was generally pleased with what I heard. I wanted to extricate a couple of points from the rhetoric and applause breaks as being particularly poignant.
1) Obama clearly stated that a cause of our economic problems was the placement of short-term rewards over long-term prosperity. I think even he doesn't know how right he is. This is an important distinction not because recognition will fix things, but because it means they're looking at things the right way when it comes to patching up the system and putting in place safeguards to ward off similar types of market failures, market crashes, and economic implosions (and a bit of market psychology may also come into play, as the mere feeling that our leadership is doing things right will restore confidence needed to bolster credit markets and investment).
2) Obama made a great point with his already much-quoted insistence that dropping out of school isn't just quitting on yourself, but quitting on the country. He followed it up by saying America needs all of its human resources working to as close to their potential as we can get them, and he's right. Combine that with other parts of his speech in which he implored Americans to invest in themselves through college or trade school or apprenticeships or graduate school, plus the part in which he insisted that research, invention, innovation and discovery will help lead us out of our economic hardship, and we have the beginning of a clear vision, a realistic look at ourselves and what we need to do. I think he couldn't be more right, and his challenge to restore America's place as having the highest proportion of college gruadates by 2020 attests to his long-term thinking, which is exactly what we need (note that 2020 is even after his second term would end, a horizon to which not many politicians often look).
3) Healthcare, energy, and education. These were his three priorities, and they should be three of the five places we invest our public money (the other two being resurrecting our financial services industry and investing in scientific research, discovery and innovation--at least that's the PiFry Plan). We can get better healthcare for less money; most other industrialized nations get similar healthcare for less money, and we have better resources to work with here. We can lead the world again in green energy technology, and we should. Green technology is going to revolutionize the way we generate, transport, and even use electricity, and it will likely open the doors to all sorts of new frontiers we can't even imagine now. China and Denmark shouldn't be given global leadership by our complacence, and there's huge returns on investment to be had. Education can be silver bullet, and it's the way we bring up a workforce able to compete in a globalized economy, able to hold the jobs we create in healthcare and green energy, able to invent the next solar panel, the next iPod, the next microprocessor, start the next Google or Intel or Microsoft. Obama, being as clear and correct as a president ever was, pointed out that those who out-teach today will out-compete tomorrow.
And finally, I'd just like to laugh about one more thing. That thing being how Bobby shot himself in the political foot afterwards by failing to adequately deliver a largely well-written speech, and also by invoking the federal government's disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina as a reason to espouse Republican philosophies (touting how well leaving people to fend for themselves in a disaster works...I guess there wasn't THAT much looting, so who needs a stimulus package).
1) Obama clearly stated that a cause of our economic problems was the placement of short-term rewards over long-term prosperity. I think even he doesn't know how right he is. This is an important distinction not because recognition will fix things, but because it means they're looking at things the right way when it comes to patching up the system and putting in place safeguards to ward off similar types of market failures, market crashes, and economic implosions (and a bit of market psychology may also come into play, as the mere feeling that our leadership is doing things right will restore confidence needed to bolster credit markets and investment).
2) Obama made a great point with his already much-quoted insistence that dropping out of school isn't just quitting on yourself, but quitting on the country. He followed it up by saying America needs all of its human resources working to as close to their potential as we can get them, and he's right. Combine that with other parts of his speech in which he implored Americans to invest in themselves through college or trade school or apprenticeships or graduate school, plus the part in which he insisted that research, invention, innovation and discovery will help lead us out of our economic hardship, and we have the beginning of a clear vision, a realistic look at ourselves and what we need to do. I think he couldn't be more right, and his challenge to restore America's place as having the highest proportion of college gruadates by 2020 attests to his long-term thinking, which is exactly what we need (note that 2020 is even after his second term would end, a horizon to which not many politicians often look).
3) Healthcare, energy, and education. These were his three priorities, and they should be three of the five places we invest our public money (the other two being resurrecting our financial services industry and investing in scientific research, discovery and innovation--at least that's the PiFry Plan). We can get better healthcare for less money; most other industrialized nations get similar healthcare for less money, and we have better resources to work with here. We can lead the world again in green energy technology, and we should. Green technology is going to revolutionize the way we generate, transport, and even use electricity, and it will likely open the doors to all sorts of new frontiers we can't even imagine now. China and Denmark shouldn't be given global leadership by our complacence, and there's huge returns on investment to be had. Education can be silver bullet, and it's the way we bring up a workforce able to compete in a globalized economy, able to hold the jobs we create in healthcare and green energy, able to invent the next solar panel, the next iPod, the next microprocessor, start the next Google or Intel or Microsoft. Obama, being as clear and correct as a president ever was, pointed out that those who out-teach today will out-compete tomorrow.
And finally, I'd just like to laugh about one more thing. That thing being how Bobby shot himself in the political foot afterwards by failing to adequately deliver a largely well-written speech, and also by invoking the federal government's disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina as a reason to espouse Republican philosophies (touting how well leaving people to fend for themselves in a disaster works...I guess there wasn't THAT much looting, so who needs a stimulus package).
Monday, February 23, 2009
My Banking System
I think policy makers are currently making the same mistakes about banking that the bankers who got us into this mess made.
No, I don't think Rahm and Larry are writing bad mortgages, but I DO think they're getting so deep in theory and math, nuance and ideology, that they're missing the fundamentals. Here's how I see it:
1) Many big banks are currently being called "Zombie banks" accurately. As awesome as a Zombie Bank would be to blog about, what the term means is that they're still standing--albeit on crutches--but lack the capital to extend credit very far into the economy. They're big, but they can't act like a big bank.
2) Any recapitalization of the banks that would allow them to achieve their former prowess (And I'm thinking of banks like Citi and Bank of America right now) would not only be so large as to be impossible without public assistance for the time being, but the sum of money would also be larger than the net worth of the banks themselves, a net worth which, mind you, is being pushed up right now (talking about market capitalization, the price per share times outstanding shares) by some probability that the government will give a huge gift to the current shareholders, bringing me to point three:
3) Any rescue plan that allows the banks to lubricate our economy the way they once did and facilitate a recovery would either (A) have to come with SOME public ownership of a bank or (B) give a HUGE gift to shareholders and allow them to enjoy most of the upside potential while the taxpayers are left with most of the downside risk.
So I see three options: (1) Don't help the banks (2) Give a huge gift to shareholders and in the process mess up economic incentive structures even more or (3) Have some public ownership of banks.
People are fighting against #1 saying we need to do something, that we're capitalists and we need our banks. People are fighting against #2 saying in capitalism, the losers die out and it is SUPREMELY unfair to lay what might be a ticking time bomb at the taxpayer's feet when any good capitalist would allow for "creative destruction" right about now. And people are fighting against #3 by saying that amounts to communism and nationalization, which isn't very capitalist and any red blooded American should be against it.
Well, they're all right, but they're all wrong. Capitalism screwed up. Ask about the causes and you get everything from poor regulation and greed to messed up incentive structures and lack of understanding of man-made systems and devices. We're going to have to do something that appears at least a little "uncapitalistic" (I'm coining the phrase).
Personally I think from a political fairness principle, Option 3 is the best, though every criticism against it is pretty accurate. But we can't do nothing, and we can't take the risk associated with Option 2. The question should be how to manage public ownership and get it back to private as soon as possible, but we need our banks. To fund innovation, new businesses, infrastructure investment, and put investors and creators together. Without our banks, recovery will be a lot slower, so instead of coming up with half-measures that won't work (odd and sophisticated loan structures, caps on pay which will just send the smartest people fleeing to other industries, "bad banks" and "stress tests"...to name a few), let's start thinking about how to fix the big problems. Let's focus on using taxpayer money and the money we borrow from our children to invest in their future; let's figure out an exit strategy for public bank ownership (there are plenty of good ones); let's figure out how to let the people who take on the risk share in the rewards; and let's stop with the small-potatoes finger pointing, half-measures and PhD level minutiae that's standing in our way.
No, I don't think Rahm and Larry are writing bad mortgages, but I DO think they're getting so deep in theory and math, nuance and ideology, that they're missing the fundamentals. Here's how I see it:
1) Many big banks are currently being called "Zombie banks" accurately. As awesome as a Zombie Bank would be to blog about, what the term means is that they're still standing--albeit on crutches--but lack the capital to extend credit very far into the economy. They're big, but they can't act like a big bank.
2) Any recapitalization of the banks that would allow them to achieve their former prowess (And I'm thinking of banks like Citi and Bank of America right now) would not only be so large as to be impossible without public assistance for the time being, but the sum of money would also be larger than the net worth of the banks themselves, a net worth which, mind you, is being pushed up right now (talking about market capitalization, the price per share times outstanding shares) by some probability that the government will give a huge gift to the current shareholders, bringing me to point three:
3) Any rescue plan that allows the banks to lubricate our economy the way they once did and facilitate a recovery would either (A) have to come with SOME public ownership of a bank or (B) give a HUGE gift to shareholders and allow them to enjoy most of the upside potential while the taxpayers are left with most of the downside risk.
So I see three options: (1) Don't help the banks (2) Give a huge gift to shareholders and in the process mess up economic incentive structures even more or (3) Have some public ownership of banks.
People are fighting against #1 saying we need to do something, that we're capitalists and we need our banks. People are fighting against #2 saying in capitalism, the losers die out and it is SUPREMELY unfair to lay what might be a ticking time bomb at the taxpayer's feet when any good capitalist would allow for "creative destruction" right about now. And people are fighting against #3 by saying that amounts to communism and nationalization, which isn't very capitalist and any red blooded American should be against it.
Well, they're all right, but they're all wrong. Capitalism screwed up. Ask about the causes and you get everything from poor regulation and greed to messed up incentive structures and lack of understanding of man-made systems and devices. We're going to have to do something that appears at least a little "uncapitalistic" (I'm coining the phrase).
Personally I think from a political fairness principle, Option 3 is the best, though every criticism against it is pretty accurate. But we can't do nothing, and we can't take the risk associated with Option 2. The question should be how to manage public ownership and get it back to private as soon as possible, but we need our banks. To fund innovation, new businesses, infrastructure investment, and put investors and creators together. Without our banks, recovery will be a lot slower, so instead of coming up with half-measures that won't work (odd and sophisticated loan structures, caps on pay which will just send the smartest people fleeing to other industries, "bad banks" and "stress tests"...to name a few), let's start thinking about how to fix the big problems. Let's focus on using taxpayer money and the money we borrow from our children to invest in their future; let's figure out an exit strategy for public bank ownership (there are plenty of good ones); let's figure out how to let the people who take on the risk share in the rewards; and let's stop with the small-potatoes finger pointing, half-measures and PhD level minutiae that's standing in our way.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
My Burgers
I'm on a mission to find the best burger in Philadelphia. Any nominations?
Chuck and I are still thinking about our food blog, and I think it'd be neat to have a Burger Map of Philadelphia included, rating them on taste alone, then taking into account value and plotting an efficient frontier.
So far my front runners are Misconduct Tavern, Happy Rooster and in the cheap-eats category, Five Guys (ironically, all within a few blocks of each other). Honorable mentions go to Loie, Smith's, and ofcourse, Copa Banana on Half Priced Burger Wednesdays. This is all so far. I still have a lot of research to do.
Chuck and I are still thinking about our food blog, and I think it'd be neat to have a Burger Map of Philadelphia included, rating them on taste alone, then taking into account value and plotting an efficient frontier.
So far my front runners are Misconduct Tavern, Happy Rooster and in the cheap-eats category, Five Guys (ironically, all within a few blocks of each other). Honorable mentions go to Loie, Smith's, and ofcourse, Copa Banana on Half Priced Burger Wednesdays. This is all so far. I still have a lot of research to do.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
My Streaming Netflix
An old high school buddy just informed me that for 2009, Netflix is on pace to have streamed more instant-watch movies than mailed DVDs. I'm wondering: what does this tell us? Obviously the landscape of the business is changing, but what else?
A non-obvious possible conclusion I came up with: we're watching more movies alone. It used to be one would rent a movie and snuggle up with a sweetheart or the family, now it's sitting in front of a computer in a way we never used to before. Convenience can change the whole movie experience.
I'm still thinking about this, but any other ideas?
[Editor's Addendum: I fired off this post pretty quickly, full of incomplete information and first impressions. Rick Blaine just schooled me in the comments, and it's worth reading. If I were a smarter PR person, I'd just delete the whole thing and start over, but this is going to be the character-building part of my blog where I get to be the bigger man (or at least a man). The great part about having a blog, though, is that you don't HAVE to do any research if you don't want to. Thank YOU, Internet.]
A non-obvious possible conclusion I came up with: we're watching more movies alone. It used to be one would rent a movie and snuggle up with a sweetheart or the family, now it's sitting in front of a computer in a way we never used to before. Convenience can change the whole movie experience.
I'm still thinking about this, but any other ideas?
[Editor's Addendum: I fired off this post pretty quickly, full of incomplete information and first impressions. Rick Blaine just schooled me in the comments, and it's worth reading. If I were a smarter PR person, I'd just delete the whole thing and start over, but this is going to be the character-building part of my blog where I get to be the bigger man (or at least a man). The great part about having a blog, though, is that you don't HAVE to do any research if you don't want to. Thank YOU, Internet.]
My Advice To Facebook Users
OK, there's been a lot of stuff in the news about Facebook, information and privacy, especially as the latter two pertain to the internet. In the midst of a great and important national debate of issues that will soon define what historians think of modern US Supreme Courts, let me offer some specific advice to those Facebook users caught in middle of the storm, wondering what to do and what they think:
Don't put any information in your Facebook profile unless you don't care if anyone or everyone knows or ever will know it.
It's that simple. Deal with it.
Don't put any information in your Facebook profile unless you don't care if anyone or everyone knows or ever will know it.
It's that simple. Deal with it.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
I've been looking for an anecdote I can share that would relate some feelings I've been having about work lately. This one does a pretty good job.
Monday, February 16, 2009
My Smoke Detector
I just recently learned something that I'm amazed I didn't know before about how smoke detectors work. I expect most of my readers don't know it either, so this post is my very first PSA (Public Service Announcement).
There are two kinds of smoke detectors: ion alarms and photoelectric alarms. Most smoke detectors manufactured and installed to date are ion alarms, because for a long time they were much cheaper, more efficient, portable and could operate on batteries (photoelectric alarms only recently became as flexible). Photoelectric alarms, however, are much better.
Ion detectors are essentially electric currents that are easily interrupted by smoke particles. When the current gets interrupted, the alarm goes off. Photoelectric detectors use an optical technique that involves bouncing light off of smoke particles and catching reflections in photo-detectors.
Ion alarms are more prevalent, but worse. Ion alarms more readily sound false alarms (such as in response to cooking steam). This often causes people to turn them off and forget to turn them back on again (or just disable them permanently around areas like the kitchen). But the worst part about ion alarms lies in the difference in response times between detectors depending on the type of fire. In a large blaze, an ion alarm will respond about thirty seconds faster than its photoelectric counterpart. But in a smoldering fire, photoelectric alarms can respond up to thirty MINUTES faster. This has to do with the types of particles created and how they're hurled into the air.
This difference was brought to my attention when an ion alarm's failure to activate in a smoldering fire resulted in the deaths of three Philadelphians. The article on philly.com contains the information I posted here, and is my primary source on the subject.
This concludes my first PSA.
There are two kinds of smoke detectors: ion alarms and photoelectric alarms. Most smoke detectors manufactured and installed to date are ion alarms, because for a long time they were much cheaper, more efficient, portable and could operate on batteries (photoelectric alarms only recently became as flexible). Photoelectric alarms, however, are much better.
Ion detectors are essentially electric currents that are easily interrupted by smoke particles. When the current gets interrupted, the alarm goes off. Photoelectric detectors use an optical technique that involves bouncing light off of smoke particles and catching reflections in photo-detectors.
Ion alarms are more prevalent, but worse. Ion alarms more readily sound false alarms (such as in response to cooking steam). This often causes people to turn them off and forget to turn them back on again (or just disable them permanently around areas like the kitchen). But the worst part about ion alarms lies in the difference in response times between detectors depending on the type of fire. In a large blaze, an ion alarm will respond about thirty seconds faster than its photoelectric counterpart. But in a smoldering fire, photoelectric alarms can respond up to thirty MINUTES faster. This has to do with the types of particles created and how they're hurled into the air.
This difference was brought to my attention when an ion alarm's failure to activate in a smoldering fire resulted in the deaths of three Philadelphians. The article on philly.com contains the information I posted here, and is my primary source on the subject.
This concludes my first PSA.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Happy Valentine's Day, readers, and Happy Sports New Years as well.
Also, hello to whoever from the Dominican Republic started reading this blog (I don't get a lot of data, but I get a rough location of readers). With your added readership, I've now been visited by people from 48 countries and 48 states. I've always wondered which list would hit 50 first (I obviously have the most appeal to US residents, but getting all the states vs. less than a third of countries makes it a fair fight). So I'm eager to see what will happen first, hits from two more countries, or hits from Iowa and Wyoming.
Also, hello to whoever from the Dominican Republic started reading this blog (I don't get a lot of data, but I get a rough location of readers). With your added readership, I've now been visited by people from 48 countries and 48 states. I've always wondered which list would hit 50 first (I obviously have the most appeal to US residents, but getting all the states vs. less than a third of countries makes it a fair fight). So I'm eager to see what will happen first, hits from two more countries, or hits from Iowa and Wyoming.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Thursday, February 12, 2009
My Fourth New Years
Rosh HaShannah. January 1st. Chinese New Years. And now, Sports New Year's Day.
Barkeep is proposing that Valentine's Day serve a double purpose: a renewal of the Sporting Year. Superbowl's over, baseball spring training is about to start, hockey, basketball, and college basketball games haven't mattered yet, but are about to start to as everyone has a shot at the playoffs or the March Madness tournament. The major golf tournaments are coming up (the long awaited return of Tiger this year), and with everything going on, it may be a good time to reflect on our rabid allegiances and reflect on the sports year recently ended as we look forward to the next baseball season. This new holiday falls neatly in the off-season of both American national pastimes (baseball and football), and nothing else major is going on...yet. We stand on the brink, but we can take a day to renew our commitments, update our expectations, make a few resolutions, and mock each other.
And as I look back on the past sporting year, I only have one thing to say:
WORLD CHAMPIONS.
Barkeep is proposing that Valentine's Day serve a double purpose: a renewal of the Sporting Year. Superbowl's over, baseball spring training is about to start, hockey, basketball, and college basketball games haven't mattered yet, but are about to start to as everyone has a shot at the playoffs or the March Madness tournament. The major golf tournaments are coming up (the long awaited return of Tiger this year), and with everything going on, it may be a good time to reflect on our rabid allegiances and reflect on the sports year recently ended as we look forward to the next baseball season. This new holiday falls neatly in the off-season of both American national pastimes (baseball and football), and nothing else major is going on...yet. We stand on the brink, but we can take a day to renew our commitments, update our expectations, make a few resolutions, and mock each other.
And as I look back on the past sporting year, I only have one thing to say:
WORLD CHAMPIONS.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
My Sandwich, and an Economics Question
I want to eat this (scroll down for the double, the true object of my desire).
Also, does anyone think that tax cuts are going to be as government effective as spending in an economy where people are frightened, confused, uncertain, and facing next-to-zero interest rates which cripples the fed's ability to close the gap between capacity and output?
(Usually lowering interest rates incentivizes investment today over investment tomorrow, and in any reasonably normal credit market companies start requiring more services/goods/materials from each other...but the fed controlled rate is now in a band between 0 and 0.25%, and credit spreads, or risk premiums, are only now starting to come down from apocalyptic to huge.)
Also, does anyone think that tax cuts are going to be as government effective as spending in an economy where people are frightened, confused, uncertain, and facing next-to-zero interest rates which cripples the fed's ability to close the gap between capacity and output?
(Usually lowering interest rates incentivizes investment today over investment tomorrow, and in any reasonably normal credit market companies start requiring more services/goods/materials from each other...but the fed controlled rate is now in a band between 0 and 0.25%, and credit spreads, or risk premiums, are only now starting to come down from apocalyptic to huge.)
Monday, February 09, 2009
My Credit Card
I don't get any free stuff with my credit card. I know it's sub-optimal, but I haven't had the time to do a good job researching all my options, making sure I'm not getting scammed or about to get slammed with some hidden fees (a herculean task in and of itself), and selecting, applying for, and getting a new credit card. I am giving more money to the credit card industry than I should be, essentially rewarding their establishment of what Scott Adams once called a "confusopoly" (that is, an industry that makes money off the confusion of its customers--airlines and their frequent flyer programs, cell phone service providers, and most of the insurance industry works this way as well).
I suspect others may be in the same boat I am. So I suggest we pool our resources. I'm opening the comment thread on this post for discussion on credit cards we're considering, credit cards we're using and are happy or unhappy with, and complaints about companies and banks whose credit card divisions will surely be among the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Right now I'm looking at a simple Capital One MasterCard that gives 1% cash back on everything. It's not a ton, but it's flexible in case my lifestyle or consumption habits ever change. It also comes with no yearly fee (which, until I'm making and spending a lot more money than I currently am, would all but negate, if not wipe out and then some, the benefits). I personally don't care about the interest rate, because I'm a big fan of "Don't Buy Stuff You Can't Afford" (I know some others, Groucho in particular, are with me on that). And it's a good fallback, if they accept my application, because I know for sure I'd be about 1% better than I am now.
That's currently winning out over the Wawa Credit Card (in case the only Wawa near me closes and all my accumulated rewards become useless), the Hilton Credit Card (I could leverage my Harrisburg trips, but I don't know how much use I'm going to have for Hilton points), and the Amazon.com card (might be good, but in the limited time I've had to look at it, I've yet to be able to understand the rewards policy well enough to do simple breakeven analysis, even with the help of my good friend Excel). I still may wind up being sub-optimal, but at least I'll be getting something, and 1% cash back is easy enough to understand (though I'm sure it'll come in the form of 25 dollar pre-loaded gift/debit cards every 2500 dollars I spend or something like that).
I suspect others may be in the same boat I am. So I suggest we pool our resources. I'm opening the comment thread on this post for discussion on credit cards we're considering, credit cards we're using and are happy or unhappy with, and complaints about companies and banks whose credit card divisions will surely be among the first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
Right now I'm looking at a simple Capital One MasterCard that gives 1% cash back on everything. It's not a ton, but it's flexible in case my lifestyle or consumption habits ever change. It also comes with no yearly fee (which, until I'm making and spending a lot more money than I currently am, would all but negate, if not wipe out and then some, the benefits). I personally don't care about the interest rate, because I'm a big fan of "Don't Buy Stuff You Can't Afford" (I know some others, Groucho in particular, are with me on that). And it's a good fallback, if they accept my application, because I know for sure I'd be about 1% better than I am now.
That's currently winning out over the Wawa Credit Card (in case the only Wawa near me closes and all my accumulated rewards become useless), the Hilton Credit Card (I could leverage my Harrisburg trips, but I don't know how much use I'm going to have for Hilton points), and the Amazon.com card (might be good, but in the limited time I've had to look at it, I've yet to be able to understand the rewards policy well enough to do simple breakeven analysis, even with the help of my good friend Excel). I still may wind up being sub-optimal, but at least I'll be getting something, and 1% cash back is easy enough to understand (though I'm sure it'll come in the form of 25 dollar pre-loaded gift/debit cards every 2500 dollars I spend or something like that).
Saturday, February 07, 2009
My post on surging army recruitment seems to have gotten a lot of attention (though I'm not sure anyone got or liked my "surge" pun). I thought people who are thinking about modern military policy might also be interested in this table of military expenditures per capita by nation. The United States is not, as many would predict, first. It's third. #1 is predictable, but #2 surprised me.
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Surging Army Recruitment
For the first time in 5 years the Army is not only meeting, but exceeding its recruitment goals. An economist I respect (among many others) is attributing it to a combination of high unemployment and better incentives (both of which are typical factors that contribute to higher enlistment rates in the armed forces). It makes sense, but I'm not buying it. Recruitment shot up after 9-11, and I think there's another external non-economic factor at play here (though considerably more minor).
We have a new commander in chief. Joining the armed forces is risking your life, and you're more likely to do it if you think the risk is lower. Furthermore, the more you trust the guy in whose hands you're putting your life, the more willing you are to do it. I don't think this can possibly be a result of better positive incentives and fewer alternatives alone (though it's certainly a part). I think that from the perspective of potential recruits, there has been a significant drop in their own personal barriers to entry. I'm going to go up against the experts here and say I believe that Obama sitting in the Oval instead of Bush is a statistically significant component of the Army's newfound ability to meet and exceed recruitment goals (if anyone can think of a good way to test these hypotheses, let me know).
[Editor's Addendum: Read First Tiger's reply in the comments section; it's well-thought out and insightful. The only thing wrong with it is that he disagrees with me, though I'm not sure our positions are mutually exclusive...it may just be a matter of degrees.]
We have a new commander in chief. Joining the armed forces is risking your life, and you're more likely to do it if you think the risk is lower. Furthermore, the more you trust the guy in whose hands you're putting your life, the more willing you are to do it. I don't think this can possibly be a result of better positive incentives and fewer alternatives alone (though it's certainly a part). I think that from the perspective of potential recruits, there has been a significant drop in their own personal barriers to entry. I'm going to go up against the experts here and say I believe that Obama sitting in the Oval instead of Bush is a statistically significant component of the Army's newfound ability to meet and exceed recruitment goals (if anyone can think of a good way to test these hypotheses, let me know).
[Editor's Addendum: Read First Tiger's reply in the comments section; it's well-thought out and insightful. The only thing wrong with it is that he disagrees with me, though I'm not sure our positions are mutually exclusive...it may just be a matter of degrees.]
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
My Dating Sites
How specialized can a dating site get before it's TOO specialized? Clearly some specialization can help, but basic economic theory would indicate that the value in a dating site depends entirely on the size and quality of the network of people on it. So how narrow (or "segmented" to use the marketers' term) do you want to get?
JDate is a wll-known example, catering to Jews (and, I suppose, people looking for Jews, but it primarily works if you're Jewish). This works well, because there's a significant number of Jews, who tend to be geographically concentrated, and for many of them, finding another Jew is a high priority.
Many of the most popular and successful ones (judging by TV ads at least) seem to cater to those looking to get married on the soonish side. This makes sense because it's a large population in the highest need of such services, and they'll typically have the most cash. Furthermore, it's not a very deep specialization. In fact, it's arguably most of the market.
There's even Ashley Madison, which has gotten a lot of attention because it's for married people looking to have affairs with other married people (I'm not sure why it needs to be with another married person, but I guess it's safer because they understand the problems, share your need for secrecy, and probably don't want to ruin their lives and reputations either by disclosing something like an affair). I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's providing value to society, but it's definitely profitable for the owners.
There are plenty of general ones, and the first-movers with good advertising budgets seem to be leading the pack.
But tonight I saw an ad for crewdating.com, a website catering to people in the aviation industry. I have to wonder: is this too specialized, and if not, how much further can it go? It makes sense that other airline employees would understand your hectic schedule during which you're almost never home, but do aviation professionals (flight attendants, pilots, etc.) really place dating other aviation professionals as a high priority? Does having a similar career really add a lot to the feasibility or enjoyability or probability of success of a relationship if you work for Delta? As near as I can tell, this service has only two things going for it: (1) people who work in aviation probably need a partner who's very understanding of the demands of the job and (2) because of their extraordinary relative mobility, geography isn't as big a boundary. By this I mean that someone in Philly could date someone in New York a lot more easily if they're both aviation professionals than if they're both lab technicians in the same cities.
As I think about social networking sites, and specifically ones looking to create high-value connections (dating sites primarily, but also in a way, job/employee search sites), I'm growing increasingly fascinated. I find myself wishing there were large amounts of data about these sites freely available. What aspects of the phenomenon will be a fad, and what components will mature to form a core part of the new social order of our increasingly connected, integrated, globalized, and technologically sophisticated society?
JDate is a wll-known example, catering to Jews (and, I suppose, people looking for Jews, but it primarily works if you're Jewish). This works well, because there's a significant number of Jews, who tend to be geographically concentrated, and for many of them, finding another Jew is a high priority.
Many of the most popular and successful ones (judging by TV ads at least) seem to cater to those looking to get married on the soonish side. This makes sense because it's a large population in the highest need of such services, and they'll typically have the most cash. Furthermore, it's not a very deep specialization. In fact, it's arguably most of the market.
There's even Ashley Madison, which has gotten a lot of attention because it's for married people looking to have affairs with other married people (I'm not sure why it needs to be with another married person, but I guess it's safer because they understand the problems, share your need for secrecy, and probably don't want to ruin their lives and reputations either by disclosing something like an affair). I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say it's providing value to society, but it's definitely profitable for the owners.
There are plenty of general ones, and the first-movers with good advertising budgets seem to be leading the pack.
But tonight I saw an ad for crewdating.com, a website catering to people in the aviation industry. I have to wonder: is this too specialized, and if not, how much further can it go? It makes sense that other airline employees would understand your hectic schedule during which you're almost never home, but do aviation professionals (flight attendants, pilots, etc.) really place dating other aviation professionals as a high priority? Does having a similar career really add a lot to the feasibility or enjoyability or probability of success of a relationship if you work for Delta? As near as I can tell, this service has only two things going for it: (1) people who work in aviation probably need a partner who's very understanding of the demands of the job and (2) because of their extraordinary relative mobility, geography isn't as big a boundary. By this I mean that someone in Philly could date someone in New York a lot more easily if they're both aviation professionals than if they're both lab technicians in the same cities.
As I think about social networking sites, and specifically ones looking to create high-value connections (dating sites primarily, but also in a way, job/employee search sites), I'm growing increasingly fascinated. I find myself wishing there were large amounts of data about these sites freely available. What aspects of the phenomenon will be a fad, and what components will mature to form a core part of the new social order of our increasingly connected, integrated, globalized, and technologically sophisticated society?
Monday, February 02, 2009
My Statistic
OK, I'm sick of people using statistics and not understanding what they're talking about. To make fun of the entire population, I will hereby do the exact same thing in a manner so obviously stupid you will have no choice but to feel mocked:
50% of people who get married get divorced. So if you're married, ask yourself, "Do I want to get divorced?" And if you don't want to get divorced, chances are your spouse does. There. That oughta haunt you.
50% of people who get married get divorced. So if you're married, ask yourself, "Do I want to get divorced?" And if you don't want to get divorced, chances are your spouse does. There. That oughta haunt you.
Sunday, February 01, 2009
While I'm on old favorites, I thought I'd post The Cam Exam, which actually aired on Canadian television.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)