overachievers

Every election there are some board positions on my ballot.  The local water system board, the school system board, and the community college board are all positions elected by the citizens.  So, some time in October I start reading through campaign websites and social media pages to get a sense for what qualifies the people running for these positions.  They definitely attract a type of person, but I genuinely don't understand that type.

It's fairly typical for a person running for a board position to highlight that they have multiple children, a job with some authority, and also hold multiple other board positions. This is ignoring other community and church volunteer positions that are typically listed.  I want to know why.  Why, if you are already being clearly pulled in fifty different directions would you want to add a fifty-first?  At some point you trade quality for quantity.  I don't necessarily want to elect someone to a board if they are already on four or five other boards that meet regularly.

I do understand wanting to be involved in decision-making when your life is more opened up.  If you are a semi-retired educator and want to use the breadth of your experience to help guide your local school district or community college through difficult decisions, this makes sense to me.  It also makes sense to me that a parent would want to join a board to have a voice.  I just don't understand it being the fifth board you're on, at the expense of time with your children.

working from home

My company decided that my office will be closed for the foreseeable future and I am now a work-at-home employee.  The official line is that this is permanent and not going to change at the end of the COVID-19 pandemic, but I know that things can still change in a heartbeat.

I'm torn on this news.  Being a severe introvert, this has been a bit of a fantasy for me, and it has worked well for the month-and-a-half that I have been doing this.  It has been great having more opportunity to eat with and interact with the family while still being on top of my work.  I will miss my co-workers, though.  It also introduces some instability to my job.  Will my employer continue to consider me or the rest of the people in my office as important when no one physically sees me working, and will this make me more of a layoff target in the future?  It can't help.

I am among those who think this is a harbinger of things to come in business in general.  It often doesn't make sense to pay to lease and maintain business facilities when employees can be just as productive from home.  This pandemic is going to be an excuse for a lot of businesses to drop some facilities expenses from their books.

There are things that are important about an office, but I don't think they're always the things that management says are important about having an office.  The rationale that I normally hear is that an office makes it easier for workers to collaborate.  That may be somewhat true, but technology has come a long way in this regard.  The bigger issues I see are less opportunity to build rapport on a team and more difficulty in training new employees.  I don't have a good, non-buzzword solution for these things, but if someone does solve those issues a lot more business will be removed from traditional offices.

I do think this is going to lead to a fundamental change in much of society, and could be the beginning of a nightmare scenario for extroverts.  Will this drive extroverted people out of typical office jobs into fields where they can interact more with other people?  I know that finance, accounting, and technical fields already have a reputation for being a bit anti-social.  Will marketing, HR, legal, and PR follow suit as people in those fields work more from home?

genetic testing

I just rewatched Gattaca for the first time since the 90s last night.  For those unaware, the premise is that in the near future children who are not genetically engineered are discriminated as such, and cannot get the same opportunities as those who are genetically engineered.

This calls to mind a concern I have had, and how it affects some minor decisions.  If given the opportunity I probably would not have genetic testing done, and I probably wouldn't get screening for diseases which lack a cure, such as Alzheimers.  The reason is not because I am morally or intellectually opposed to such testing.  The reason is that I think it will eventually mess up my insurance.

In Gattaca, the protagonist experiences discrimination in his desired profession of astronaut because his health makes him a risk to a mission.  He is instead only able to get a job cleaning offices.  The plot of the movie involves how he gets around the system in his attempt to get into the space program.

I don't fear my genetics or the results of a test would eliminate me from jobs like the main character in this movie, though I am already medically eliminated from a few. I am alert to the possibility that one day such a test could cause me to be unable to get health insurance or life insurance, however.

Right now in the U.S. it is not legal for health insurance companies to refuse to sell insurance to someone based on pre-existing conditions.  That may or may not be reversed in the future, as there is a lawsuit going through the federal court system which may do just that.  This is something that I always need to keep in mind when getting tested.

Furthermore, the pre-existing condition limitation also does not apply to companies who sell life insurance.  If I were to have a test done that showed I had a mutation that made me a bit more likely to have a stroke or get Alzheimers, I would be obligated to share this information with a company I was planning to by life insurance from, and potentially get myself priced out of the life insurance market as a result, in the case that I decided to get additional life insurance to what I currently have.

Some would jump to the insurance company's defense and say that their job is just to provide a service that sets a price based upon a calculated risk.  I am not casting blame, however.  I am just saying that in the current environment, there is a potential motivation to not know everything about your health and genetics.

Policy makers should keep in mind that systems which allow for filtering on pre-existing conditions or genetic conditions motivate some people like me to simply avoid pursuing that data.  There has to be a better way, so that willful ignorance isn't a winning strategy.