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.
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Showing posts with label money. Show all posts
Saturday, January 25, 2020
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
tree health
We have two elm trees in our front yard. Probably two-thirds of our neighborhood has them. Slowly, you see the trees disappear as they die out in each person's yard. It's an inevitability that ours will die as well one day.
This Sunday, as we were pulling into the driveway from church I noticed that the bark near the top of one of the trees looks different than I'm used to. I don't know what a diseased tree looks like, but I do know that elm trees are prone to disease.
So, for the last couple of days I have been thinking about whether I need to get it looked at and what it would cost to hire a crew to come cut down both of the trees, since it's only a matter of time. Today, I decided to Google what a diseased elm tree looks like. "Huh, that's not what our trees look like," I realized. "I wonder what that could be."
It's lichen. Lichen doesn't damage trees. I feel dumb, but relieved.
This Sunday, as we were pulling into the driveway from church I noticed that the bark near the top of one of the trees looks different than I'm used to. I don't know what a diseased tree looks like, but I do know that elm trees are prone to disease.
So, for the last couple of days I have been thinking about whether I need to get it looked at and what it would cost to hire a crew to come cut down both of the trees, since it's only a matter of time. Today, I decided to Google what a diseased elm tree looks like. "Huh, that's not what our trees look like," I realized. "I wonder what that could be."
It's lichen. Lichen doesn't damage trees. I feel dumb, but relieved.
Thursday, March 07, 2019
self made
Twitter lit up a couple of days ago regarding Forbes declaring Kylie Jenner the youngest self-made billionaire, reaching that level at the age of 21.
I'll confess. My gut reaction was the same as what a lot of other peoples' reaction was. She started as a millionaire with every possible advantage available to her. How "self-made" can we possibly call her? In thinking through the logic of this assertion, I hit on what I believe are a few uncomfortable truths that a lot of people don't like to think about when comparing themselves to others.
Truth #1 - No one is self-made
While it is true that there is a sliding scale to how self-made a person is, the reality is no one is truly self-made, and I doubt many are even in the general neighborhood. If you're even mildly successful in some area of life I can guarantee that many of the factors in that are gifts that were beyond your control. I considered typing examples of this, but it's so specific to the person and the examples are usually embarrassingly obvious.
The response that most people would give to this is that, sure, I have some advantages in life, but not anywhere near the advantages Ms. Jenner has been given. Perhaps this is true, but there are billions of people who don't have the advantages that I've been given in life. In my moment of taking credit away from her I'm also thinking in the back of my mind that I've worked for and earned what I have.
Truth #2 - I am responsible for the opportunities I pass up
The reality is that I wouldn't have become a billionaire if I were Ms. Jenner. I like to think that I would have made something of the opportunities would have had in her shoes. I'm deluding myself to think that my grit and smarts would have outperformed hers. Yes, she had every opportunity, but she also clearly used it.
I have to acknowledge that my life, like everyone else's, is marked by a series of choices I have made to do or not do certain things. There are times when I have chosen a path that led to growth, and there are times when I have not. There are times when I made actively destructive decisions.
Whether I have the maturity to make a wise choice is always on me.
Truth #3 - We value people too much for their wealth
While accruing a billion dollars in wealth is significant and noteworthy, this doesn't say anything about Ms. Jenner as a person. The size of her bank account or assets alone doesn't validate or invalidate her as a person.
None of this is shocking, new, or particularly insightful. However, I find that I constantly want to go back to the same broken patterns I see others stuck in. So much of life is spent building a career with the intent to generate an income that it's easy for that to be my identity. It's then easy to compare the life that my resources allow me to have to the lives others have, then to let that determine my value.
So, when someone is shown to have accrued wealth it is easy to think of that wealth as a gauge of their worth, and whatever I have accrued as a gauge of my worth. I know it's wrong. Most people factually understand this. I also know I'm not the only person who naturally falls into this mindset, and has to combat it.
So, Ms. Jenner does deserve some congratulations on this milestone. It's significant! But, it doesn't make her a more or less significant person. If she loses her wealth and everything else tomorrow she's no more or less valuable of a person than today as a billionaire. That's a truth I find both the easiest and the hardest to believe.
I'll confess. My gut reaction was the same as what a lot of other peoples' reaction was. She started as a millionaire with every possible advantage available to her. How "self-made" can we possibly call her? In thinking through the logic of this assertion, I hit on what I believe are a few uncomfortable truths that a lot of people don't like to think about when comparing themselves to others.
Truth #1 - No one is self-made
While it is true that there is a sliding scale to how self-made a person is, the reality is no one is truly self-made, and I doubt many are even in the general neighborhood. If you're even mildly successful in some area of life I can guarantee that many of the factors in that are gifts that were beyond your control. I considered typing examples of this, but it's so specific to the person and the examples are usually embarrassingly obvious.
The response that most people would give to this is that, sure, I have some advantages in life, but not anywhere near the advantages Ms. Jenner has been given. Perhaps this is true, but there are billions of people who don't have the advantages that I've been given in life. In my moment of taking credit away from her I'm also thinking in the back of my mind that I've worked for and earned what I have.
Truth #2 - I am responsible for the opportunities I pass up
The reality is that I wouldn't have become a billionaire if I were Ms. Jenner. I like to think that I would have made something of the opportunities would have had in her shoes. I'm deluding myself to think that my grit and smarts would have outperformed hers. Yes, she had every opportunity, but she also clearly used it.
I have to acknowledge that my life, like everyone else's, is marked by a series of choices I have made to do or not do certain things. There are times when I have chosen a path that led to growth, and there are times when I have not. There are times when I made actively destructive decisions.
Whether I have the maturity to make a wise choice is always on me.
Truth #3 - We value people too much for their wealth
While accruing a billion dollars in wealth is significant and noteworthy, this doesn't say anything about Ms. Jenner as a person. The size of her bank account or assets alone doesn't validate or invalidate her as a person.
None of this is shocking, new, or particularly insightful. However, I find that I constantly want to go back to the same broken patterns I see others stuck in. So much of life is spent building a career with the intent to generate an income that it's easy for that to be my identity. It's then easy to compare the life that my resources allow me to have to the lives others have, then to let that determine my value.
So, when someone is shown to have accrued wealth it is easy to think of that wealth as a gauge of their worth, and whatever I have accrued as a gauge of my worth. I know it's wrong. Most people factually understand this. I also know I'm not the only person who naturally falls into this mindset, and has to combat it.
So, Ms. Jenner does deserve some congratulations on this milestone. It's significant! But, it doesn't make her a more or less significant person. If she loses her wealth and everything else tomorrow she's no more or less valuable of a person than today as a billionaire. That's a truth I find both the easiest and the hardest to believe.
Monday, February 04, 2019
lessons at the mechanic
When I was at the mechanic a few days ago waiting to have the brake pads battery replaced on my car I noticed that there wasn't really a way to avoid hearing chatter around me. I especially heard the conversations that other people had with the representative from the dealership who were explaining what they found wrong with their cars.
One man was told that he needed to replace his tires with a set that cost $800, but he declined to do so due to the lack of funds. An older lady was told she needed to replace her battery, and was confused that it wasn't covered by her warranty. Another man was informed that he had nails in two different tires, but that the fix was cheap and quick.
As a parent, it occurred to me that these are the sort of situations that I need to be training my kids to handle one day.
In the example of the first man, if you have a car or anything else that is expensive it will cost money to maintain. Failing to budget for those expenses leads to inevitable unpleasant surprises. I never really appreciated that at a younger age, and I certainly didn't maintain my vehicles as well a decade and a half ago as I do now. We have had some unpleasant surprises over the years related to the cars.
In the example of the older woman, my initial reaction was to think that of course the battery is not under the car's warranty. However, that is not necessarily an intuitive fact to know. Why is the alternator something that would be under warranty (which the representative explained to the lady) but the battery isn't? I know it's because the battery is guaranteed to need to be replaced, but an older lady may not understand this. The kids need to understand that the stuff that is covered by warranty is almost always the stuff that is least likely to need to be replaced. Warranties are useful, but they are also frequently written so that you still have to pay to fix the thing under warranty.
In the example of the last man, sometimes what sounds like bad news may actually be good news. Had he not discovered the nails he may have had to replace the tires, but he was able to get them plugged cheaply. Don't always expect bad news, and appreciate the good news when you get it.
The sorts of things you need to understand to manage in life aren't always what you learn in school. It's hard as a parent to remember that there are lessons to learn everywhere.
One man was told that he needed to replace his tires with a set that cost $800, but he declined to do so due to the lack of funds. An older lady was told she needed to replace her battery, and was confused that it wasn't covered by her warranty. Another man was informed that he had nails in two different tires, but that the fix was cheap and quick.
As a parent, it occurred to me that these are the sort of situations that I need to be training my kids to handle one day.
In the example of the first man, if you have a car or anything else that is expensive it will cost money to maintain. Failing to budget for those expenses leads to inevitable unpleasant surprises. I never really appreciated that at a younger age, and I certainly didn't maintain my vehicles as well a decade and a half ago as I do now. We have had some unpleasant surprises over the years related to the cars.
In the example of the older woman, my initial reaction was to think that of course the battery is not under the car's warranty. However, that is not necessarily an intuitive fact to know. Why is the alternator something that would be under warranty (which the representative explained to the lady) but the battery isn't? I know it's because the battery is guaranteed to need to be replaced, but an older lady may not understand this. The kids need to understand that the stuff that is covered by warranty is almost always the stuff that is least likely to need to be replaced. Warranties are useful, but they are also frequently written so that you still have to pay to fix the thing under warranty.
In the example of the last man, sometimes what sounds like bad news may actually be good news. Had he not discovered the nails he may have had to replace the tires, but he was able to get them plugged cheaply. Don't always expect bad news, and appreciate the good news when you get it.
The sorts of things you need to understand to manage in life aren't always what you learn in school. It's hard as a parent to remember that there are lessons to learn everywhere.
Monday, September 24, 2018
retirement
In thinking about life goals one of the obvious questions that comes to mind is when I want to retire. I've been struggling with that thought as of late because, as far as I can tell, retirement isn't very scriptural.
The one passage that I have come back to time and again over the last few years is Luke 12:13-21. In this passage a man asks Jesus to mediate an inheritance dispute he has with his brother. Jesus' response is to question why he should be an arbitrator in this dispute, then to warn against greed and an abundance of possessions. He follows it up with what seems like a damning parable.
In the parable a rich man has a bumper crop, and his response is to build grain storage. He figures he can now live off this grain, kick back, and not worry about life any more. The NIV records him as saying, "Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.” Jesus calls the man a fool and spells out the condemnation the man is to experience.
A typical westerner will read this passage with an almost automatic, "Of course Jesus isn't warning against savings! He's simply preaching against greed, laziness, and lack of care for others in a general sense. Sure, saving excessively is greed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't save for retirement." Without fail, if I bring this issue up to others in a church or Bible study setting with a question about retirement, someone jumps to retirement's defense without really addressing the fact that Jesus told a parable where the villain's villainy was simply that they saved when they should have given away.
I'm not actually trying to make a point here. I honestly don't know what to do with this. I have a retirement account. I don't contribute at the level that Fidelity says you should, but it exists for the purpose of providing an income when Golden and I are older. Is this wrong?
I think the question of what to do with this passage invites knee-jerk responses, but it really deserves heartfelt contemplation, even if a person decides that retirement accounts are good and acceptable. As I noted, I have a retirement account and I still contribute to it. Part of the why is that I'm not convinced yet that it's inherently wrong.
One potentially valid argument that I have heard is that the cultural rules for caring for one's elders has changed. Retirement accounts weren't a thing because elders in the same family unit worked together in whatever the family trade was and all raised the children together. Retirement accounts are a natural result of a structural shift in our culture where family units are smaller, and don't include grandparents. Whether that is good or bad can be debated, but it is possible that this cultural element to this that changes the application of this passage.
One thing I am certain Jesus was decrying is a mindset that I do see within the church today, and that I am prone to. Jesus very clearly indicated that the person who believed they had earned the right to leisure and pleasure was to be condemned. So, perhaps the question isn't whether retirement from a specific career is wrong, but whether the attitude surrounding that retirement is wrong. If I have the perspective that I've earned or I deserve to spend the rest of my life devoted to "me time" because I've banked enough money to do that, I'm inviting condemnation.
It's a lot to think about when reviewing my 401(k).
The one passage that I have come back to time and again over the last few years is Luke 12:13-21. In this passage a man asks Jesus to mediate an inheritance dispute he has with his brother. Jesus' response is to question why he should be an arbitrator in this dispute, then to warn against greed and an abundance of possessions. He follows it up with what seems like a damning parable.
In the parable a rich man has a bumper crop, and his response is to build grain storage. He figures he can now live off this grain, kick back, and not worry about life any more. The NIV records him as saying, "Take life easy; eat, drink and be merry.” Jesus calls the man a fool and spells out the condemnation the man is to experience.
A typical westerner will read this passage with an almost automatic, "Of course Jesus isn't warning against savings! He's simply preaching against greed, laziness, and lack of care for others in a general sense. Sure, saving excessively is greed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't save for retirement." Without fail, if I bring this issue up to others in a church or Bible study setting with a question about retirement, someone jumps to retirement's defense without really addressing the fact that Jesus told a parable where the villain's villainy was simply that they saved when they should have given away.
I'm not actually trying to make a point here. I honestly don't know what to do with this. I have a retirement account. I don't contribute at the level that Fidelity says you should, but it exists for the purpose of providing an income when Golden and I are older. Is this wrong?
I think the question of what to do with this passage invites knee-jerk responses, but it really deserves heartfelt contemplation, even if a person decides that retirement accounts are good and acceptable. As I noted, I have a retirement account and I still contribute to it. Part of the why is that I'm not convinced yet that it's inherently wrong.
One potentially valid argument that I have heard is that the cultural rules for caring for one's elders has changed. Retirement accounts weren't a thing because elders in the same family unit worked together in whatever the family trade was and all raised the children together. Retirement accounts are a natural result of a structural shift in our culture where family units are smaller, and don't include grandparents. Whether that is good or bad can be debated, but it is possible that this cultural element to this that changes the application of this passage.
One thing I am certain Jesus was decrying is a mindset that I do see within the church today, and that I am prone to. Jesus very clearly indicated that the person who believed they had earned the right to leisure and pleasure was to be condemned. So, perhaps the question isn't whether retirement from a specific career is wrong, but whether the attitude surrounding that retirement is wrong. If I have the perspective that I've earned or I deserve to spend the rest of my life devoted to "me time" because I've banked enough money to do that, I'm inviting condemnation.
It's a lot to think about when reviewing my 401(k).
Tuesday, August 07, 2018
careful what you wish for
I know this sounds weird to hear, but I remember when Tiffany Trump was born. Clearly I wasn't there, but I remember it announced on the news. It had minor significance to me at the time that I thought would be passing, but reflecting on that memory today has put in perspective for me how much viewpoints can change in one's life.
Ms. Trump was born at a time when my dad was moving between jobs, and so our family was living with my grandparents in a reasonably lengthy interim. There wasn't a lot of money available in our family at the time, and while I did not grow up rich by any stretch, we were especially poor at that time. The adults in the picture at the time (my parents, grandparents, and great aunt) all tried to make the best of it, and I was given more or less full reign in my grandparents' basement as my room, which was nice. So, we weren't destitute on the street, but a big part of my personal identity at the time was feeling broke and trying very hard not to look poor.
At the time all I knew about Mr. Trump was that he lived in New York and was wealthy due to some businesses in the city. I knew nothing of his personality, the nature of his businesses, who was in his family, or anything. In a passing statement in the evening news the anchor mentioned that Mr. Trump and Marla Maples had a new daughter that they were naming "Tiffany" after the jewelry store. The anchor implied that he owned the store, but my understanding now is that he just had business dealings with them. I remember that all I could think in that moment was that this was a kid who was going to have a much easier time in life than I was having as I experienced a moment of envy.
Fast forward to my current adult life, and I understand today that the source of my envy could not be further from the truth. I don't know anything about Tiffany Trump, but I do know that I would have hated my life being in now-President Trump's spotlight with all of the associated scandals. I don't know her relationship with her father, but I do know that it's a running gag among comedians that her relationship isn't as good as with the president's other children. That alone would be painful. I don't know a ton about how Mr. Trump parented his kids, but the sources I have heard have indicated that he left a lot of that to the children's mothers. From money or not, I can't imagine a more isolating situation to live in.
She clearly doesn't crave the limelight, because she'd be in it if she did, but her name is one that almost everyone in the country knows. It would be hard to establish deep friendships because people already have an opinion of her before meeting her, and who's to say they aren't trying to use her to get to her dad. How would you even do something as simple as go on a date? It would be like getting all of the drawbacks of being a celebrity with the only positive being a bit of extra wealth.
I've heard warnings all of my life about being careful for what you wish for. It's a very common trope in entertainment. Still, you don't really appreciate the advice as much until you see it play itself out in action. I really would not ever want to trade my life with that of anyone in the Trump family, and that's something my fourteen-year-old self would have been surprised to hear.
Ms. Trump was born at a time when my dad was moving between jobs, and so our family was living with my grandparents in a reasonably lengthy interim. There wasn't a lot of money available in our family at the time, and while I did not grow up rich by any stretch, we were especially poor at that time. The adults in the picture at the time (my parents, grandparents, and great aunt) all tried to make the best of it, and I was given more or less full reign in my grandparents' basement as my room, which was nice. So, we weren't destitute on the street, but a big part of my personal identity at the time was feeling broke and trying very hard not to look poor.
At the time all I knew about Mr. Trump was that he lived in New York and was wealthy due to some businesses in the city. I knew nothing of his personality, the nature of his businesses, who was in his family, or anything. In a passing statement in the evening news the anchor mentioned that Mr. Trump and Marla Maples had a new daughter that they were naming "Tiffany" after the jewelry store. The anchor implied that he owned the store, but my understanding now is that he just had business dealings with them. I remember that all I could think in that moment was that this was a kid who was going to have a much easier time in life than I was having as I experienced a moment of envy.
Fast forward to my current adult life, and I understand today that the source of my envy could not be further from the truth. I don't know anything about Tiffany Trump, but I do know that I would have hated my life being in now-President Trump's spotlight with all of the associated scandals. I don't know her relationship with her father, but I do know that it's a running gag among comedians that her relationship isn't as good as with the president's other children. That alone would be painful. I don't know a ton about how Mr. Trump parented his kids, but the sources I have heard have indicated that he left a lot of that to the children's mothers. From money or not, I can't imagine a more isolating situation to live in.
She clearly doesn't crave the limelight, because she'd be in it if she did, but her name is one that almost everyone in the country knows. It would be hard to establish deep friendships because people already have an opinion of her before meeting her, and who's to say they aren't trying to use her to get to her dad. How would you even do something as simple as go on a date? It would be like getting all of the drawbacks of being a celebrity with the only positive being a bit of extra wealth.
I've heard warnings all of my life about being careful for what you wish for. It's a very common trope in entertainment. Still, you don't really appreciate the advice as much until you see it play itself out in action. I really would not ever want to trade my life with that of anyone in the Trump family, and that's something my fourteen-year-old self would have been surprised to hear.
Tuesday, June 12, 2018
fruits and vegetables
I know I have to be getting irritating to those around me all I talk about food nowadays, but the last year has represented a huge shift in how I think about food so it's frequently on my mind. Believe it or not, this is keeping my thoughts on the matter short.
I have completely changed how I think about American healthcare system and the causes of disease and chronic health problems. When I talk about weight loss with other folks a lot of them comment about being hungry all of the time when they're on a diet. That was historically the primary thing that kept me from watching what I ate. I had that a little when I started watching what I eat, but once I started eating fruits and vegetables in significant quantities to where I was getting 30 to 40 grams of fiber a day that was rarely a problem. The only days that I get hungry are when I eat too much red meat, breads, or sweets and run out of calories by the end of the day.
Because of my experience, I'm realizing that one major factor that is driving health issues in the United States is simply access to fresh produce. When I visited a General Dollar near my in-laws a few months ago I was struck by two things. First, food there is very reasonably priced. Second, there is very little produce. If that was my nearest shopping option and my transportation was limited I would have to go out of my way to get the amount of fiber that I now try to consume. I'd probably have to mostly eat beans. Without knowing any better, which I didn't until very recently, I am certain my health would be negatively affected, and I wouldn't really know why other that to blame myself for snacking too much or not exercising enough.
I don't know what the solution to this problem is. Some people say that national policy should be changed to encourage farmers to grow healthier crops, or focus less on red meat production, or whatever. There are a host of potential consequences from that, and there is debate as to how effective it would be anyway, so I don't know what to think at this time. I suspect that agriculture policy could be tweaked to improve people's health, though.
I have also noticed that some fast food places have made it easier than others to get a low calorie option from their menu than others.While healthy fast food is an oxymoron, I have noticed some fast food places providing reasonable alternatives to fries in their combo meals. However, if your primary local options are Burger King and KFC, it's going to be difficult to stay on a calorie budget with a combo meal.
I'll just conclude with the thought that I'm realizing how extremely fortunate I am. I have been able to adjust my diet in a reasonably affordable way because I have access to healthy foods. I also don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, and I've grown to really enjoy many of snack foods I now have available at home. There are a lot of people in food deserts who can't afford healthy, satisfying foods.
I have completely changed how I think about American healthcare system and the causes of disease and chronic health problems. When I talk about weight loss with other folks a lot of them comment about being hungry all of the time when they're on a diet. That was historically the primary thing that kept me from watching what I ate. I had that a little when I started watching what I eat, but once I started eating fruits and vegetables in significant quantities to where I was getting 30 to 40 grams of fiber a day that was rarely a problem. The only days that I get hungry are when I eat too much red meat, breads, or sweets and run out of calories by the end of the day.Because of my experience, I'm realizing that one major factor that is driving health issues in the United States is simply access to fresh produce. When I visited a General Dollar near my in-laws a few months ago I was struck by two things. First, food there is very reasonably priced. Second, there is very little produce. If that was my nearest shopping option and my transportation was limited I would have to go out of my way to get the amount of fiber that I now try to consume. I'd probably have to mostly eat beans. Without knowing any better, which I didn't until very recently, I am certain my health would be negatively affected, and I wouldn't really know why other that to blame myself for snacking too much or not exercising enough.
I don't know what the solution to this problem is. Some people say that national policy should be changed to encourage farmers to grow healthier crops, or focus less on red meat production, or whatever. There are a host of potential consequences from that, and there is debate as to how effective it would be anyway, so I don't know what to think at this time. I suspect that agriculture policy could be tweaked to improve people's health, though.
I have also noticed that some fast food places have made it easier than others to get a low calorie option from their menu than others.While healthy fast food is an oxymoron, I have noticed some fast food places providing reasonable alternatives to fries in their combo meals. However, if your primary local options are Burger King and KFC, it's going to be difficult to stay on a calorie budget with a combo meal.
I'll just conclude with the thought that I'm realizing how extremely fortunate I am. I have been able to adjust my diet in a reasonably affordable way because I have access to healthy foods. I also don't feel like I'm missing out on anything, and I've grown to really enjoy many of snack foods I now have available at home. There are a lot of people in food deserts who can't afford healthy, satisfying foods.
Friday, September 22, 2017
capturing value
Years back in Managerial Economics, the very first class that I took as part of my MBA program, the very simple concept of capturing value was presented. The example used to illustrate the idea was something like the following.
With a few notable exceptions, most of the classes I took in that program could be boiled down to, "These are the strategies you take to capture the most value." I even had one instructor who I respected a great deal state that a business person's primary objective is to collect the most margin dollars, which is another phrase for capturing the most value. If you understand the nuances of this, you're more or less an MBA, I guess.
What is noteworthy to me is that this is slightly different than the economic story that I usually hear people tell laypeople. One illustration I heard a radio personality provide was the following.
On the very simplest of levels this works, but there's a reason that this is not the example provided to business students. Business is not the art of creating value, but rather it is the art of capturing value. If I run the business I'm less concerned with who creates the value than I am with whether I get to capture that value.
When I hear someone present an illustration like the above I now figure that they haven't gone through business training, or I assume that they have a vested interest in their audience having an incomplete understanding about how business works.
This distinction is important for a few reasons.
First, the mowing example is typically in line with what parents teach their kids. It's actually a good example to use to explain a minimum wage job. It's probably not a good example to give someone who is looking to establish a career, though. There are many types of jobs where the worker captures less value than the business. All else being equal, it is in a person's best interest to look for fields in which workers are able to capture more of the value that they personally create.
Second, the mowing example implies that there's a yard out there to mow and that I have the skill to mow it. While this has always been the case, automation is changing the economy such that the ratio of unskilled work to skilled work is decreasing. Some people have the means to "learn how to mow" and some do not.
Third, this understanding is key to grasping the value or danger (depending on your perspective) of a union. One of the things a union provides is a guarantee to capture a specific amount of value for the worker, and on the flip side a union causes a business not to be able to capture specific value from its operations. FYI, I have no strong opinions of unions in general.
There are other reasons for understanding the distinction, I'm sure. I'll stop at two for now, though.
Person 1 wants to sell a car and Person 2 wants to buy a car. Person 1 values his or her car at $8000 and person 2 values that car at $10,000. There is therefore $2000 worth of value to be captured. If Person 2 purchases the car for $2000 he or she has captured that amount of value in the transaction. If he or she purchases the car for $9000 both individuals capture $1000 of value.
With a few notable exceptions, most of the classes I took in that program could be boiled down to, "These are the strategies you take to capture the most value." I even had one instructor who I respected a great deal state that a business person's primary objective is to collect the most margin dollars, which is another phrase for capturing the most value. If you understand the nuances of this, you're more or less an MBA, I guess.
What is noteworthy to me is that this is slightly different than the economic story that I usually hear people tell laypeople. One illustration I heard a radio personality provide was the following.
To understand Capitalism imagine I need $20. I then go to my neighbor and agree to exchange one hour of my time to mow his yard and he gives me $20 for that time. Through this arrangement we both get what we need. I get the $20 and he gets a mowed lawn.
On the very simplest of levels this works, but there's a reason that this is not the example provided to business students. Business is not the art of creating value, but rather it is the art of capturing value. If I run the business I'm less concerned with who creates the value than I am with whether I get to capture that value.
When I hear someone present an illustration like the above I now figure that they haven't gone through business training, or I assume that they have a vested interest in their audience having an incomplete understanding about how business works.
This distinction is important for a few reasons.
First, the mowing example is typically in line with what parents teach their kids. It's actually a good example to use to explain a minimum wage job. It's probably not a good example to give someone who is looking to establish a career, though. There are many types of jobs where the worker captures less value than the business. All else being equal, it is in a person's best interest to look for fields in which workers are able to capture more of the value that they personally create.
Second, the mowing example implies that there's a yard out there to mow and that I have the skill to mow it. While this has always been the case, automation is changing the economy such that the ratio of unskilled work to skilled work is decreasing. Some people have the means to "learn how to mow" and some do not.
Third, this understanding is key to grasping the value or danger (depending on your perspective) of a union. One of the things a union provides is a guarantee to capture a specific amount of value for the worker, and on the flip side a union causes a business not to be able to capture specific value from its operations. FYI, I have no strong opinions of unions in general.
There are other reasons for understanding the distinction, I'm sure. I'll stop at two for now, though.
Monday, August 08, 2016
nine lives
A couple of years ago we got a cat, and CD fell in love with it. Since then, a significant part of her identity has been one of a cat lover. So, once she found out about the movie Nine Lives several months ago, about a man who is switched into a cat's body, she has waited in eager expectation
for when she would be able to see the movie. So, we had to watch it this past weekend when it opened.
It is obvious from the trailer what sort of movie it is, so I fully anticipated not caring too much for it. However, I did find it more tolerable than I expected. The reason I was largely uninterested was the same reason I didn't care for Click or The Family Man. It belongs to a specific genre of movie where the central point is that a dad needs to learn to lessen his focus on work to focus on his family. That point is not a bad point, but the point is typically made in a way that makes it look like it is less than ideal for a man to be committed to a job that supports his family. So, imagine my surprise when a Nine Lives subplot almost went the opposite direction.
Certainly, the central theme of the movie is a man's discovery that he has not been there for his kids. Not to spoil too much, but the protagonist cannot switch back to being a human until he learns that lesson (Surprise!). This character being mind-bogglingly rich removed most concerns about the portrayal of a man who is just trying to support his family, and the secondary plot in the movie actually goes the other direction.
In this subplot this man's passion in life, to own the tallest building in North America and have his name on it, is ultimately presented as more of a positive than a negative. This would go over the heads of most of the kids watching the movie, but the story is presented in a way that idealizes rather than demonizes a man who is willing to squander other peoples' investments for what amounts to a vanity project. This is ultimately a minor quibble I have with the movie, but it was a surprise.
The movie itself was enjoyable enough for what it is--a kid's movie that is complex enough to entertain adults. It isn't ridiculous enough that it would be embarrassing to watch without kids, but it isn't a movie I'd seek out if I didn't have kids. Now that I think about it, that describes almost everything I see in the theater these days.
It is obvious from the trailer what sort of movie it is, so I fully anticipated not caring too much for it. However, I did find it more tolerable than I expected. The reason I was largely uninterested was the same reason I didn't care for Click or The Family Man. It belongs to a specific genre of movie where the central point is that a dad needs to learn to lessen his focus on work to focus on his family. That point is not a bad point, but the point is typically made in a way that makes it look like it is less than ideal for a man to be committed to a job that supports his family. So, imagine my surprise when a Nine Lives subplot almost went the opposite direction.
Certainly, the central theme of the movie is a man's discovery that he has not been there for his kids. Not to spoil too much, but the protagonist cannot switch back to being a human until he learns that lesson (Surprise!). This character being mind-bogglingly rich removed most concerns about the portrayal of a man who is just trying to support his family, and the secondary plot in the movie actually goes the other direction.
In this subplot this man's passion in life, to own the tallest building in North America and have his name on it, is ultimately presented as more of a positive than a negative. This would go over the heads of most of the kids watching the movie, but the story is presented in a way that idealizes rather than demonizes a man who is willing to squander other peoples' investments for what amounts to a vanity project. This is ultimately a minor quibble I have with the movie, but it was a surprise.
The movie itself was enjoyable enough for what it is--a kid's movie that is complex enough to entertain adults. It isn't ridiculous enough that it would be embarrassing to watch without kids, but it isn't a movie I'd seek out if I didn't have kids. Now that I think about it, that describes almost everything I see in the theater these days.
Friday, June 03, 2016
like edison
When I was a kid I dreamed of being an inventor. The idea of taking materials that weren't all that valuable on their own and assembling something valuable out of them was extremely appealing. As a result, stories like that of Thomas Edison's were very appealing.
I remember hearing about all of the things Edison created, with over 1000 patents to his name, and the underlying philosophy that was part of his persona. He is credited with the assertion, "Genius: one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration." I remember visualizing him sitting in a dark room trying material after material in his light bulb until something worked. This whole ideal perfectly fit the philosophy of a nation where most would at least claim to believe in meritocracy. Intelligence is just hard work, and intelligence that doesn't work can't be called genius.
While I don't fault the focus on effort, as it is a necessary ingredient to success, this philosophy misses a ton of what made Edison successful. Because the story has historically stopped here many have been led to believe that his secret was simply trying hard, when there was a bit more to it. Edison brought a bit of intelligence and a lot of elbow grease to the job, and that's all it took to get all of those patents. So, all that is stopping you is the elbow grease.
In more recent years Edison's reputation has taken a bit of a beating due to what is viewed as his mistreatment of Nikola Tesla. While I don't know enough to know whether this new reputation is deserved, what I do know is that it shines light on where that perspiration came from. Edison was right that the genius of his success was in hard work, but it is not appreciated that he hired a lot of that work. There isn't anything wrong with this, except that the team and their work is always forgotten in order to give credit simply to the guy who hired them.
Also, this illuminates (Ha!) that sometimes one guy working really hard isn't enough. Some jobs require a team to be successful. This doesn't fit into a narrative that celebrates our individualistic ideals, so it is scrapped.
I wish I understood all of this earlier, because this is extremely helpful to understanding how the world works today. If you're fortunate you could be successful as some guy working by himself, but it's unlikely. You're certainly not going to emulate Edison levels of success that way. To be successful like Edison isn't just to work hard, but to get others to work hard as well toward that same goal.
I don't actually feel the need to be as successful in this world as Edison today, but since I did aspire to that in my youth I wish I understood what that really meant.
I remember hearing about all of the things Edison created, with over 1000 patents to his name, and the underlying philosophy that was part of his persona. He is credited with the assertion, "Genius: one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration." I remember visualizing him sitting in a dark room trying material after material in his light bulb until something worked. This whole ideal perfectly fit the philosophy of a nation where most would at least claim to believe in meritocracy. Intelligence is just hard work, and intelligence that doesn't work can't be called genius.
While I don't fault the focus on effort, as it is a necessary ingredient to success, this philosophy misses a ton of what made Edison successful. Because the story has historically stopped here many have been led to believe that his secret was simply trying hard, when there was a bit more to it. Edison brought a bit of intelligence and a lot of elbow grease to the job, and that's all it took to get all of those patents. So, all that is stopping you is the elbow grease.
In more recent years Edison's reputation has taken a bit of a beating due to what is viewed as his mistreatment of Nikola Tesla. While I don't know enough to know whether this new reputation is deserved, what I do know is that it shines light on where that perspiration came from. Edison was right that the genius of his success was in hard work, but it is not appreciated that he hired a lot of that work. There isn't anything wrong with this, except that the team and their work is always forgotten in order to give credit simply to the guy who hired them.
Also, this illuminates (Ha!) that sometimes one guy working really hard isn't enough. Some jobs require a team to be successful. This doesn't fit into a narrative that celebrates our individualistic ideals, so it is scrapped.
I wish I understood all of this earlier, because this is extremely helpful to understanding how the world works today. If you're fortunate you could be successful as some guy working by himself, but it's unlikely. You're certainly not going to emulate Edison levels of success that way. To be successful like Edison isn't just to work hard, but to get others to work hard as well toward that same goal.
I don't actually feel the need to be as successful in this world as Edison today, but since I did aspire to that in my youth I wish I understood what that really meant.
Friday, March 18, 2016
why i'm a tightwad
I used to watch Suze Orman quite a bit. It could have really been any personal finance advisor on TV, but she was the one who was on CNBC on Saturday nights years ago when I had an hour every week.
The thing I always noted about the show was that the people featured on it tended to fall into one of two categories. The first category were the people who made every right financial decision in the book, had great jobs that allowed them to do what they were supposed to do, and called or wrote into the show more to brag than to ask for genuine advice. The second were people who made a lot of bad decisions, or who were in unfortunate situations such that their finances were in shambles or close to it. I never felt I fit in either category. That, plus no longer having the spare hour every week, caused me to lose interest in the show after a couple of years.
Like most people in our demographic, we are in between these two extremes. We are nowhere near destitute. We aren't in the impossible ideal where many financial advisors say you should be either.
One of the things I have wished existed was some way to indicate whether you're making the right financial decisions. I am not concerned with decisions about investments, or things of that nature. As ridiculous as it sounds, I just wish there were guarantees that if I made such and such decision or put a certain amount of effort into work that this would cover all of the unforeseen things that we'll need to handle in the years to come.
I know that the worry that drives this is sinful. I'm trying to repent of this, but I'm still human and I still have human drives. It is something God is still working on in me.
The real problem I have been butting up against is that on a basic level I don't know what my responsibility is and what God's responsibility is. Both the Bible and American society frown upon men who do not financially support their family. What that actually means and what responsibilities it entails seems fluid, though. What one person considers being financially responsible another considers not trusting God enough, or putting career in front of family.
Because of all of this I sort of default to being a tightwad since it's the safest option. If I don't allow many frivolous expenses it's not my fault if some day if we're unable to cover some important expense.
I know this seems silly coming from someone in my situation. I've got a decent job, a couple of degrees, and no student loans. I still think about it, though.
The thing I always noted about the show was that the people featured on it tended to fall into one of two categories. The first category were the people who made every right financial decision in the book, had great jobs that allowed them to do what they were supposed to do, and called or wrote into the show more to brag than to ask for genuine advice. The second were people who made a lot of bad decisions, or who were in unfortunate situations such that their finances were in shambles or close to it. I never felt I fit in either category. That, plus no longer having the spare hour every week, caused me to lose interest in the show after a couple of years.
Like most people in our demographic, we are in between these two extremes. We are nowhere near destitute. We aren't in the impossible ideal where many financial advisors say you should be either.
One of the things I have wished existed was some way to indicate whether you're making the right financial decisions. I am not concerned with decisions about investments, or things of that nature. As ridiculous as it sounds, I just wish there were guarantees that if I made such and such decision or put a certain amount of effort into work that this would cover all of the unforeseen things that we'll need to handle in the years to come.
I know that the worry that drives this is sinful. I'm trying to repent of this, but I'm still human and I still have human drives. It is something God is still working on in me.
The real problem I have been butting up against is that on a basic level I don't know what my responsibility is and what God's responsibility is. Both the Bible and American society frown upon men who do not financially support their family. What that actually means and what responsibilities it entails seems fluid, though. What one person considers being financially responsible another considers not trusting God enough, or putting career in front of family.
Because of all of this I sort of default to being a tightwad since it's the safest option. If I don't allow many frivolous expenses it's not my fault if some day if we're unable to cover some important expense.
I know this seems silly coming from someone in my situation. I've got a decent job, a couple of degrees, and no student loans. I still think about it, though.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
powerball
Recently, the Powerball lottery got up to some ridiculous level that causes a lot of people to want to gamble. Usually when that happens someone in my office decides to buy a pool of tickets, and whoever contributes gets a share of any winnings. I always go in for the price of one ticket for one reason and one reason only: insurance.
Like most things, my view on gambling is that it is not sin, but the attitudes a person brings into it are frequently sin. So, for a lot of people gambling is sin because of why they gamble, or what gambling brings out in them. In fact, I do believe it's difficult to gamble without a sinful attitude. If I were to find myself daydreaming about never working again, or longing for whatever luxury items something like that would afford, or risking my family's stability, those would likely indicate underlying problems. I hope in that instance I would avoid participating, because that would be a sign of something wrong with my motives.
What I don't want to happen, and what I am genuinely concerned about, is for everyone else in my office to win then quit on the same day. Being the last guy left in the department would be an absolute nightmare. So, I throw in the minimum so that if that sort of thing happens I have a little more freedom to decide what to do.
Truth be told, I don't really want to win the lottery. Sure, I would love the money, but the problems that would come from getting the money in this way would probably outweigh that. There are a number of people in my life who have moral issues with this, so it would open multiple uncomfortable conversations. Then, there would be pressure to contribute to specific causes, and while it would be great to have that opportunity, it would open up a lot of saying no to disappointed people as well.
Another concern I have has its basis in pride. The odds of winning the lottery are outlandish, and I don't want people to think I that I bought tickets with a serious hope of winning. The joke goes that the lottery is a tax on those who are bad at math, and a prideful part of me doesn't want others to associate me with that. How could I not if I were known to have won the lottery?
So, while I try to make sure I'm technically covered from the bad results of everyone winning the lottery at a cost I'll gladly pay, I'm not actually hoping for us to win. The good news is that, unlike most people playing the lottery, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of what I am hoping for.
Like most things, my view on gambling is that it is not sin, but the attitudes a person brings into it are frequently sin. So, for a lot of people gambling is sin because of why they gamble, or what gambling brings out in them. In fact, I do believe it's difficult to gamble without a sinful attitude. If I were to find myself daydreaming about never working again, or longing for whatever luxury items something like that would afford, or risking my family's stability, those would likely indicate underlying problems. I hope in that instance I would avoid participating, because that would be a sign of something wrong with my motives.
What I don't want to happen, and what I am genuinely concerned about, is for everyone else in my office to win then quit on the same day. Being the last guy left in the department would be an absolute nightmare. So, I throw in the minimum so that if that sort of thing happens I have a little more freedom to decide what to do.
Truth be told, I don't really want to win the lottery. Sure, I would love the money, but the problems that would come from getting the money in this way would probably outweigh that. There are a number of people in my life who have moral issues with this, so it would open multiple uncomfortable conversations. Then, there would be pressure to contribute to specific causes, and while it would be great to have that opportunity, it would open up a lot of saying no to disappointed people as well.
Another concern I have has its basis in pride. The odds of winning the lottery are outlandish, and I don't want people to think I that I bought tickets with a serious hope of winning. The joke goes that the lottery is a tax on those who are bad at math, and a prideful part of me doesn't want others to associate me with that. How could I not if I were known to have won the lottery?
So, while I try to make sure I'm technically covered from the bad results of everyone winning the lottery at a cost I'll gladly pay, I'm not actually hoping for us to win. The good news is that, unlike most people playing the lottery, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of what I am hoping for.
Thursday, July 17, 2014
contentment
Last week I completed a six month read through the Bible which ate up more of my spare time than I anticipated it would. This has been enlightening, but it has solidified my belief in something that causes me a great deal of concern. God promises a lot of things in the life to come, but in this life we are promised little more than fulfillment and faith.
What I am talking about is illustrated in the context of the very popular verse, Philippians 4:13. That specific verse is the one many quote which indicates that Paul can do all things through Christ's strength. Ignoring context, it sounds heroic. In context, it is challenging.
I have long been careful not to tie my faith to comfort and claim that my belief in God is based on His caring for my needs and the needs of my family, because what happens when our needs conflict with God's purposes? God is more than willing to undo me for His purposes. If that were to occur, what value would faith be that says, "I trust you God because I believe you will always provide what I think I need?" That so-called faith would be sorely tested, then eventually destroyed.
I know that this passage is intended to be encouraging, that even when things are bad contentment can be found. I am seeing the limits of my faith in this passage, however. I have a great deal of difficulty trusting the true promise of this passage, that God provides contentment in truly bad circumstances. I see what other people have had to deal with—loss of spouses or children, loss of jobs, serious medical issues, divorce, etc.—and I honestly wonder how God could provide contentment in those situations. This is not a question of doubting God's ability, but rather doubting His willingness to hand out contentment. Even that is probably an inappropriate doubt, however.
Through my doubts I do still believe, however. I do still believe.
What I am talking about is illustrated in the context of the very popular verse, Philippians 4:13. That specific verse is the one many quote which indicates that Paul can do all things through Christ's strength. Ignoring context, it sounds heroic. In context, it is challenging.
"I rejoice greatly in the Lord that at last you have renewed your concern for me. Indeed, you have been concerned, but you had no opportunity to show it. I am not saying this because I am in need, for I have learned to be content whatever the circumstances. I know what it is to be in need, and I know what it is to have plenty. I have learned the secret of being content in any and every situation, whether well fed or hungry, whether living in plenty or in want. I can do everything through him who gives me strength. Yet it was good of you to share in my troubles."- Philippians 4:10-14To summarize, Paul understood relative wealth and poverty. In all of these circumstances he had learned the secret to contentment. The implication is that this is found in the Lord. The challenge to my faith lies in the fact that we are not promised easy lives. We are only promised that Christ's strength can give us contentment in the middle of difficult times.
I have long been careful not to tie my faith to comfort and claim that my belief in God is based on His caring for my needs and the needs of my family, because what happens when our needs conflict with God's purposes? God is more than willing to undo me for His purposes. If that were to occur, what value would faith be that says, "I trust you God because I believe you will always provide what I think I need?" That so-called faith would be sorely tested, then eventually destroyed.
I know that this passage is intended to be encouraging, that even when things are bad contentment can be found. I am seeing the limits of my faith in this passage, however. I have a great deal of difficulty trusting the true promise of this passage, that God provides contentment in truly bad circumstances. I see what other people have had to deal with—loss of spouses or children, loss of jobs, serious medical issues, divorce, etc.—and I honestly wonder how God could provide contentment in those situations. This is not a question of doubting God's ability, but rather doubting His willingness to hand out contentment. Even that is probably an inappropriate doubt, however.
Through my doubts I do still believe, however. I do still believe.
Sunday, February 09, 2014
world games?
I'm not sure how much of the Sochi Olympics we will be watching this year. The kids are at that age where they can sort of watch the events, but they get bored with most of them. Our five-year-old daughter was able to sit through and watch one or two figure skating routines this evening, but otherwise complained when the games were on. I think the upcoming games in Rio de Janeiro and in PyeongChang will hold their attention better than this year's games in Sochi.
For my own part, some of the Winter Olympics sports can be a little difficult for me to get into. I sort of alluded to this eight years ago (Has it really been that long?), but a lot of the events feel like the sorts of things that only a few hundred or a few thousand people in the world even have the access and resources to compete in if they are interested.
As an example of what I am talking about take a look at the list of official bobsled tracks in the world. Cool Runnings taught us that you don't need to live near one to compete in the Olympics, but you certainly cannot expect to place well unless you live near a good track, can afford a bobsled, and have the time and money to practice. This means that there are only a few thousand people in the world who can even realistically have the opportunity to compete in the sport, so this doesn't feel have the world-reaching feel that it should.
As another example if you live in the United States and you want to get into ski jumping you'd better hope you live near one of the seven ski jumping slopes in the country. Really, any skiing competition limits the pool of potential competitors quite a bit based on means and geography, but the ski jump is the most extreme of those.
Every sport requires some sacrifice and/or means, but it seems like there are more that have this limit in the Winter Olympics than in the Summer Olympics. My sense is that there are more Winter Olympic games that are outside the reach of what a typical family with an Olympian could afford than there Summer Olympic games. I do acknowledge that there examples of accessible and inaccessible sports in both.
I think speed skating, and especially short track speed skating, is among my favorite sports in the Winter Olympics for this overall reason. While training and equipment are probably expensive, it is an accessible sport. You can become fast on skates without a trainer and without equipment, and so it is conceivable that you could acquire a sponsor of some sort to get a trainer once you prove your natural and practiced abilities. It's the track and field events of the Winter Olympics.
I am looking forward to the Rio games in a couple of years.
For my own part, some of the Winter Olympics sports can be a little difficult for me to get into. I sort of alluded to this eight years ago (Has it really been that long?), but a lot of the events feel like the sorts of things that only a few hundred or a few thousand people in the world even have the access and resources to compete in if they are interested.
As an example of what I am talking about take a look at the list of official bobsled tracks in the world. Cool Runnings taught us that you don't need to live near one to compete in the Olympics, but you certainly cannot expect to place well unless you live near a good track, can afford a bobsled, and have the time and money to practice. This means that there are only a few thousand people in the world who can even realistically have the opportunity to compete in the sport, so this doesn't feel have the world-reaching feel that it should.
As another example if you live in the United States and you want to get into ski jumping you'd better hope you live near one of the seven ski jumping slopes in the country. Really, any skiing competition limits the pool of potential competitors quite a bit based on means and geography, but the ski jump is the most extreme of those.
Every sport requires some sacrifice and/or means, but it seems like there are more that have this limit in the Winter Olympics than in the Summer Olympics. My sense is that there are more Winter Olympic games that are outside the reach of what a typical family with an Olympian could afford than there Summer Olympic games. I do acknowledge that there examples of accessible and inaccessible sports in both.
I think speed skating, and especially short track speed skating, is among my favorite sports in the Winter Olympics for this overall reason. While training and equipment are probably expensive, it is an accessible sport. You can become fast on skates without a trainer and without equipment, and so it is conceivable that you could acquire a sponsor of some sort to get a trainer once you prove your natural and practiced abilities. It's the track and field events of the Winter Olympics.
I am looking forward to the Rio games in a couple of years.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
access to amusement
When I was a kid I mostly lived in rural areas and did not have a lot of disposable income, so I did not go to places like Chuck E. Cheese's, zoos, or amusement parks in general much. We did go to some to be sure, but the opportunity to do this much was not there. Small towns do have other things to offer, like bowling, soccer leagues, the Shriner's circus, and city pools, so I still did well.
It's in contrast to this that I notice that our kids have gotten to experience a lot of the things I would have dreamed of as a kid. They have gotten to experience multiple amusement parks, zoos, pumpkin patches, because the opportunity was there. In fact, we have already purchased season tickets to Silver Dollar City for the upcoming year. This past weekend they got to visit the KC Legoland Discovery Center and the KC Sea Life Aquarium, which are two more things that are simply not accessible to a lot of kids. Based on what I see on Facebook, though, I suspect that we do fewer events like this than the average family.
It is this contrast that is making me wonder, do kids do more things like this that back twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years ago? When you were a kid did you go to amusement parks much (more than once a year)? Did you visit zoos much or fairs, or Chuck E. Cheese's, or other such things? Were there other things you did more that offset modern amusements that weren't available to you?
I'm not one to complain that kids these days have it too easy, because each generation is faced with it's own unique challenges, and there will always be individual kids in each generation that have to face enormous hardships. I am wondering if the difference I am noticing is age-related, money-related, city-versus-rural-background-related, or something else entirely, though.
It's in contrast to this that I notice that our kids have gotten to experience a lot of the things I would have dreamed of as a kid. They have gotten to experience multiple amusement parks, zoos, pumpkin patches, because the opportunity was there. In fact, we have already purchased season tickets to Silver Dollar City for the upcoming year. This past weekend they got to visit the KC Legoland Discovery Center and the KC Sea Life Aquarium, which are two more things that are simply not accessible to a lot of kids. Based on what I see on Facebook, though, I suspect that we do fewer events like this than the average family.
It is this contrast that is making me wonder, do kids do more things like this that back twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty years ago? When you were a kid did you go to amusement parks much (more than once a year)? Did you visit zoos much or fairs, or Chuck E. Cheese's, or other such things? Were there other things you did more that offset modern amusements that weren't available to you?
I'm not one to complain that kids these days have it too easy, because each generation is faced with it's own unique challenges, and there will always be individual kids in each generation that have to face enormous hardships. I am wondering if the difference I am noticing is age-related, money-related, city-versus-rural-background-related, or something else entirely, though.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
the dad who works too much
I recently saw a Lifetime movie the title of which I don't recall that belongs in a very specific niche genre of movies. It is a movie where the central focus is that a relationship is restored to a functional state once the man in the relationship discovers that he has focused too much time on his job at the expense of his family. I can't begrudge this about the movie too much , since this is the type of movie that would be well-targeted to Lifetime's typical audience, and I did enjoy it more than I would have expected. These type of movies do get to me on some level, though.
I have mentioned this before at a time in my life when this was much more of a sore spot for me than now, but I'm still a bit sensitive to movies where the fault is placed squarely on the husband who places work above family. I know there are a lot of men who focus more on their work than their family, but it oversimplifies a complex issue. It also usually couches the issue in terms that make the husband irrevocably the selfish bad guy who is the only person who needs to change for the relationship to be made functional again.
Most breadwinners in situations similar to the characters in these movies are not working long hours to afford a nice summer home, but rather to provide standard of living that they see as important. The movies do not usually appropriately portray the inherent split priorities trying to be a good dad and a provider can be in the best of situations. What we learn from this sort of movie is that if a man has to spend a lot of time working or if he pursues his career dreams at some family sacrifice that he doesn't really love his family or is not committed to them. So, the women in the audience who feel like their men care about work more than them are supplied with a erroneous perspective that will only add harmful conflict and tension to the relationship.
I should acknowledge that of course the fact that this is a sore spot for me says a lot of negative things about me. Of course it says that I view financial and other types of responsibility differently than I should, and it will be a long time before that is not true. Of course it means that I still need God to set some of my priorities right. All of this is something that I have been trying to allow God to fix in me, but old tendencies die hard.
As is obvious, this is a sort of soapbox for me but I have said enough of my peace. Is there a specific sub-genre of movie or type of character or common plot twist that sets you off like this, even when you find the movie overall enjoyable? Do you have a movie soapbox? The obvious caveat to answering that question is that it reveals something about you as well.
I have mentioned this before at a time in my life when this was much more of a sore spot for me than now, but I'm still a bit sensitive to movies where the fault is placed squarely on the husband who places work above family. I know there are a lot of men who focus more on their work than their family, but it oversimplifies a complex issue. It also usually couches the issue in terms that make the husband irrevocably the selfish bad guy who is the only person who needs to change for the relationship to be made functional again.
Most breadwinners in situations similar to the characters in these movies are not working long hours to afford a nice summer home, but rather to provide standard of living that they see as important. The movies do not usually appropriately portray the inherent split priorities trying to be a good dad and a provider can be in the best of situations. What we learn from this sort of movie is that if a man has to spend a lot of time working or if he pursues his career dreams at some family sacrifice that he doesn't really love his family or is not committed to them. So, the women in the audience who feel like their men care about work more than them are supplied with a erroneous perspective that will only add harmful conflict and tension to the relationship.
I should acknowledge that of course the fact that this is a sore spot for me says a lot of negative things about me. Of course it says that I view financial and other types of responsibility differently than I should, and it will be a long time before that is not true. Of course it means that I still need God to set some of my priorities right. All of this is something that I have been trying to allow God to fix in me, but old tendencies die hard.
As is obvious, this is a sort of soapbox for me but I have said enough of my peace. Is there a specific sub-genre of movie or type of character or common plot twist that sets you off like this, even when you find the movie overall enjoyable? Do you have a movie soapbox? The obvious caveat to answering that question is that it reveals something about you as well.
Thursday, July 05, 2012
cross to bear
A while back another mother of one of NJ's preschool classmates told Golden that she did not know if she could handle a situation we were dealing with regarding NJ at the time as a compliment to her patience. Within a couple of months we received word that that mother had to deal with her son having a medical situation far, far worse than we have dealt with for either of our kids yet.
Unless he or she had a traumatic childhood, I do not think the typical person realizes the severity of the challenges that most people have to face in life until they are no longer considered a young adult. Everyone has something, and that something is usually huge. I feel like almost every family I know has some issue that I do not know how I would deal with. Whether it is serious illnesses/death, miscarriages, affairs, divorces, major financial hardships, perpetual unemployment, mental/emotional instability, or simply rebellious children, almost no one is immune. It also seems like all of this bad stuff is from recent years.
I know that a lot of bad stuff happened to people I knew when I was a kid, but a lot of that stuff is usually shielded from kids. As an example, it may sound uncaring but when you hear about an adult in the hospital as a youth it does not sound unexpected. You don't get the morbid details of the complications that person goes through, and it rarely directly impacts you. Older people end up in hospitals, and you don't have an appreciation for someone in their thirties or forties being relatively young. It's simply another name brought up for a prayer request. That changes as an adult when forty isn't old any more and I am more closely acquainted with those who are sick.
To be fair, there are difficulties that Golden and I face. In a vacuum they often seem serious, but when I compare to others, we do not have it that bad. A lot of what we do face has to do with being parents of two energetic kids, so those difficulties even frequently have benefits that far outweigh them.
Given how poorly I have handled the curve balls that life has thrown me, I have some doubts about how I would handle a more serious hardship. My crosses seem horrible until I see some of what others have to tolerate. God, give them strength.
Unless he or she had a traumatic childhood, I do not think the typical person realizes the severity of the challenges that most people have to face in life until they are no longer considered a young adult. Everyone has something, and that something is usually huge. I feel like almost every family I know has some issue that I do not know how I would deal with. Whether it is serious illnesses/death, miscarriages, affairs, divorces, major financial hardships, perpetual unemployment, mental/emotional instability, or simply rebellious children, almost no one is immune. It also seems like all of this bad stuff is from recent years.
I know that a lot of bad stuff happened to people I knew when I was a kid, but a lot of that stuff is usually shielded from kids. As an example, it may sound uncaring but when you hear about an adult in the hospital as a youth it does not sound unexpected. You don't get the morbid details of the complications that person goes through, and it rarely directly impacts you. Older people end up in hospitals, and you don't have an appreciation for someone in their thirties or forties being relatively young. It's simply another name brought up for a prayer request. That changes as an adult when forty isn't old any more and I am more closely acquainted with those who are sick.
To be fair, there are difficulties that Golden and I face. In a vacuum they often seem serious, but when I compare to others, we do not have it that bad. A lot of what we do face has to do with being parents of two energetic kids, so those difficulties even frequently have benefits that far outweigh them.
Given how poorly I have handled the curve balls that life has thrown me, I have some doubts about how I would handle a more serious hardship. My crosses seem horrible until I see some of what others have to tolerate. God, give them strength.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
it worker backgrounds
I have worked in technical support ten of the last eleven years, and have had significant interactions with people with all kinds of technical skill sets. This post is about one observation I have made that I have not seen anyone else make about people in general in the industry. Specifically, I think technical workers are disproportionately from poorer backgrounds.
My observation that a lot of people in IT came from poorer families could be completely wrong, and it is almost certainly partially due to the fact that my career to this point has mostly been in technical support rather than something more glamorous in the industry. I have seen a large number of technical workers who have purported to come from modest backgrounds, though. Beyond this, I have also noticed an inordinately large number of people from modest backgrounds who have taken a significant interest in tech as their key to a better life, even if they have not ultimately gotten a technical job.
In some respects this makes total sense. It seems like the industry more than most others rewards and punishes workers based on ability and intelligence. Politics applies, but to a lesser degree. If you're not cut out to be a programmer, or a systems administrator, or whatever it is going to matter less if your dad is the CTO for the company. You probably could coast in a different department, such as Marketing, where individual contributions are more difficult to quantify. On the flip side, if you are naturally skilled and someone gives a chance you can do well.
This also makes sense from the education perspective. This is a white collar profession where a bachelors degree or a graduate degree is not required. The same cannot be said for other white collar roles, from doctors to lawyers to mechanical engineers. Sure, most technical jobs claim to require at least a bachelor's degree, but most of those will also allow for "equivalent work experience." Less of an educational requirement means a lower barrier for people who don't have the money up front for a college education and/or four to eight years available to make a bet on a specific career.
I think the biggest reason for this, however, is the marketing from schools like DeVry and ITT Tech. By their nature they target students with lesser means (in either time or money) than a traditional school targets. Since the biggest bang for their buck is to target those industries where someone with an undergrad degree or less can make a decent living, they focus on the tech and healthcare industries. I have worked with a lot of DeVry graduates, and an unfortunate side-effect of their education that seems to be a universal is significant student loan debt. Since not everyone is cut out to work in technical fields, this presents a bit of a risk that the degree will not lead to a job to pay off the loan for the degree. It presents a hidden risk to those who are cut out for the industry as well, though.
Something that I learned before I had much technical experience on my resume is that, unless your degree is from a relatively prestigious school, experience matters far more than education when applying for a technical job. The places that hire straight out of school usually expect some specific ability or depth of knowledge that you don't necessarily get in the classroom. The people who do well tend to be the ones who did a lot of out-of-class learning on their own. This is a problem for any student with limited real-world experience. For-profit school students, with their higher-than-average debts that will not go away until they are paid off, are in a much tougher situation, however. A degree does not guarantee a job in the industry, and one may not ever be available for specific, individual graduates.
As a final note, I do seem to run across a lot of people who think that IT is the gateway to six-figure incomes, and I think this draws in people looking for something akin to an earned lottery payout. There are people who make that but, based on what limited information I have, they tend to fall into one or (very likely) more of the following four categories.
My foundational point is that technical jobs do offer opportunities that do not exist in other places, but they should not be pursued by people who do not have a genuine interest in the work. The payout simply is not as high as some people think it is, and there is a good chance a person looking to enter the field for the money will have to fight for opportunities just to get a position to acquire the experience employers expect. If you do like the work and have realistic expectations regarding what you will make, then entering the industry makes sense.
My observation that a lot of people in IT came from poorer families could be completely wrong, and it is almost certainly partially due to the fact that my career to this point has mostly been in technical support rather than something more glamorous in the industry. I have seen a large number of technical workers who have purported to come from modest backgrounds, though. Beyond this, I have also noticed an inordinately large number of people from modest backgrounds who have taken a significant interest in tech as their key to a better life, even if they have not ultimately gotten a technical job.
In some respects this makes total sense. It seems like the industry more than most others rewards and punishes workers based on ability and intelligence. Politics applies, but to a lesser degree. If you're not cut out to be a programmer, or a systems administrator, or whatever it is going to matter less if your dad is the CTO for the company. You probably could coast in a different department, such as Marketing, where individual contributions are more difficult to quantify. On the flip side, if you are naturally skilled and someone gives a chance you can do well.
This also makes sense from the education perspective. This is a white collar profession where a bachelors degree or a graduate degree is not required. The same cannot be said for other white collar roles, from doctors to lawyers to mechanical engineers. Sure, most technical jobs claim to require at least a bachelor's degree, but most of those will also allow for "equivalent work experience." Less of an educational requirement means a lower barrier for people who don't have the money up front for a college education and/or four to eight years available to make a bet on a specific career.
I think the biggest reason for this, however, is the marketing from schools like DeVry and ITT Tech. By their nature they target students with lesser means (in either time or money) than a traditional school targets. Since the biggest bang for their buck is to target those industries where someone with an undergrad degree or less can make a decent living, they focus on the tech and healthcare industries. I have worked with a lot of DeVry graduates, and an unfortunate side-effect of their education that seems to be a universal is significant student loan debt. Since not everyone is cut out to work in technical fields, this presents a bit of a risk that the degree will not lead to a job to pay off the loan for the degree. It presents a hidden risk to those who are cut out for the industry as well, though.
Something that I learned before I had much technical experience on my resume is that, unless your degree is from a relatively prestigious school, experience matters far more than education when applying for a technical job. The places that hire straight out of school usually expect some specific ability or depth of knowledge that you don't necessarily get in the classroom. The people who do well tend to be the ones who did a lot of out-of-class learning on their own. This is a problem for any student with limited real-world experience. For-profit school students, with their higher-than-average debts that will not go away until they are paid off, are in a much tougher situation, however. A degree does not guarantee a job in the industry, and one may not ever be available for specific, individual graduates.
As a final note, I do seem to run across a lot of people who think that IT is the gateway to six-figure incomes, and I think this draws in people looking for something akin to an earned lottery payout. There are people who make that but, based on what limited information I have, they tend to fall into one or (very likely) more of the following four categories.
- They hold a senior role.
- They live in an expensive city that necessitates high pay.
- They are a consultant and can tolerate the income variability.
- They happen to be an expert in a relatively new and highly-used technology.
My foundational point is that technical jobs do offer opportunities that do not exist in other places, but they should not be pursued by people who do not have a genuine interest in the work. The payout simply is not as high as some people think it is, and there is a good chance a person looking to enter the field for the money will have to fight for opportunities just to get a position to acquire the experience employers expect. If you do like the work and have realistic expectations regarding what you will make, then entering the industry makes sense.
Thursday, December 01, 2011
craigslist killers
A recent story that has been in the news, and has some extra significance for me because one of the perpetrators is from the town where my sister currently lives, is regarding the "Craigslist killers." I do not know all of the details, but I do know that they lured men to their deaths with a job offer for only $300 a week, plus board. That is what stuck out to me. The people who responded to the ad were largely men who were beyond down on their luck.
One person in particular who was killed was Timothy Kern, who was described in the earlier linked article as taking the job to try to support his three kids. I don't know that I have much to add to this, but that thought had a significant visceral impact on me. The guy took a job, and one that ended up being too good to be true, paying basically minimum wage to support his three kids, and that is what ended up getting him killed. Not to sound trite, but Mr. Kern just could not get a break.
These sorts of stories make me feel very fortunate for the opportunities I have been given. Not everyone has the opportunity to attain higher education. Not everyone is able to find work to pay for that education and life after the education—especially not in recent years. Not everyone has seen provision throughout the situations of their lives like I have. A lot of people are looking at a future where their skill set is unfortunately obsolete or will be out of demand for a long while through no fault of their own.
Why would I focus on provision rather than family when being thankful? It is not because I am unthankful for my family, but because the ability to provide for a family is the basis for most men's self-worth. In thinking about the men in this situation the thing at the forefront of my mind is how worthless a lot of them have to feel, especially those with kids they are unable to support. Those of us whose hope is in Christ should not place our worth in temporary and arbitrary things like that, but God's work is certainly not complete in me.
All of this being said, who really knows what the future holds. Maybe I'll be challenged with joblessness at some point in the future. I hope not, but I wouldn't be the only one to have gone through it if I did. Maybe things will get bad enough that I have to look into sketchy opportunities. Again, I hope not. I can be thankful in the good things that God has given me now, though. What I would hate would be to run into hard times then realize too late how little I appreciated the good times when I was living them.
As an aside, if you're looking for someone to pray for Mr. Kern's children have to be at the top of the list. I just cannot imagine...
One person in particular who was killed was Timothy Kern, who was described in the earlier linked article as taking the job to try to support his three kids. I don't know that I have much to add to this, but that thought had a significant visceral impact on me. The guy took a job, and one that ended up being too good to be true, paying basically minimum wage to support his three kids, and that is what ended up getting him killed. Not to sound trite, but Mr. Kern just could not get a break.
These sorts of stories make me feel very fortunate for the opportunities I have been given. Not everyone has the opportunity to attain higher education. Not everyone is able to find work to pay for that education and life after the education—especially not in recent years. Not everyone has seen provision throughout the situations of their lives like I have. A lot of people are looking at a future where their skill set is unfortunately obsolete or will be out of demand for a long while through no fault of their own.
Why would I focus on provision rather than family when being thankful? It is not because I am unthankful for my family, but because the ability to provide for a family is the basis for most men's self-worth. In thinking about the men in this situation the thing at the forefront of my mind is how worthless a lot of them have to feel, especially those with kids they are unable to support. Those of us whose hope is in Christ should not place our worth in temporary and arbitrary things like that, but God's work is certainly not complete in me.
All of this being said, who really knows what the future holds. Maybe I'll be challenged with joblessness at some point in the future. I hope not, but I wouldn't be the only one to have gone through it if I did. Maybe things will get bad enough that I have to look into sketchy opportunities. Again, I hope not. I can be thankful in the good things that God has given me now, though. What I would hate would be to run into hard times then realize too late how little I appreciated the good times when I was living them.
As an aside, if you're looking for someone to pray for Mr. Kern's children have to be at the top of the list. I just cannot imagine...
Saturday, November 05, 2011
change
A while back I noted that I had worked at a grocery store that installed a CoinStar machine under the guise of serving customers better. Since the machine took a 7% cut of the change total, I always questioned the purpose of it. It wasn't like we turned down customers who opted to pay with coins, and at the least a bank would count and deposit coins free of charge for customers. Since the machine was providing a service that I felt the store should be providing anyway I was always a little bit cynical about that machine being used as a source of revenue. It seemed more a pointless extravagance in that situation, but I just today heard of a story that indicates that the grocery business may have changed since I was a cashier.
Apparently, a mother in Portland, Oregon, needed to buy some food for her kids but only had change. The information I have is that she had quarters, but perhaps there were smaller denomination coins there as well. The first grocery store she went to told her that they had a $5 limit on change-only purchases. The second grocery store tried to send her to their change counting machine (I don't know if it was specifically a CoinStar machine) that took a 10% cut of the money. When she pointed out that she could not afford to pay this fee and another customer offered to give her cash for the coins she had the store backed down.
This brings up a few points. First, the grocery store I worked for employed two types of people: high schoolers and the poor. Were the employees who enforced these rules all from the former category, because otherwise I would have expected them to be sympathetic to the woman's plight.
Second, apparently most chains do not have an official policy regarding how much you can pay in coins, but the stores themselves enforce these non-existent rules anyway. I am going to guess that the individual stores do not know that there is no actual policy on the matter because the chains want customers to feel the need to use their for-cost change counting machine.
Finally, this gives me pause since there has been a push over the last few years to accept the dollar coins. Why should anyone switch to using dollar coins if there is a chance cashiers may decide they are not going to accept them?
Apparently, a mother in Portland, Oregon, needed to buy some food for her kids but only had change. The information I have is that she had quarters, but perhaps there were smaller denomination coins there as well. The first grocery store she went to told her that they had a $5 limit on change-only purchases. The second grocery store tried to send her to their change counting machine (I don't know if it was specifically a CoinStar machine) that took a 10% cut of the money. When she pointed out that she could not afford to pay this fee and another customer offered to give her cash for the coins she had the store backed down.
This brings up a few points. First, the grocery store I worked for employed two types of people: high schoolers and the poor. Were the employees who enforced these rules all from the former category, because otherwise I would have expected them to be sympathetic to the woman's plight.
Second, apparently most chains do not have an official policy regarding how much you can pay in coins, but the stores themselves enforce these non-existent rules anyway. I am going to guess that the individual stores do not know that there is no actual policy on the matter because the chains want customers to feel the need to use their for-cost change counting machine.
Finally, this gives me pause since there has been a push over the last few years to accept the dollar coins. Why should anyone switch to using dollar coins if there is a chance cashiers may decide they are not going to accept them?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
