High-speed Rail in California versus China

Today’s New York Times carries an article about high-speed rail in California. It seems that if everything goes according to plan and there are no difficulties or delays, the state will spend $68 billion to build a 520-mile railroad to be completed by 2029 ($131 million per slowly built mile).

How do the innovative geniuses of California compare in performance to the plodding dullards of China? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China says that the Chinese will spend $300 billion to complete 16,000 miles of track by 2020 ($19 million per quickly built mile).

[You might ask whether or not performance is comparable. Wikipedia says that the Chinese trains can go 160-220 mph. Wikipedia says that the California system will have speeds of “over 200 miles per hour” (and also that the system might cost closer to $91 billion.]

Update: Another way to look at this is what it would cost to fly people back and forth between these destinations efficiently. Absent government regulations to protect local carriers and unions, Americans would be flown around by an efficient airline such as Ryanair. This costs about 7 cents per seat mile (source). So the cost of taking one passenger on a 520-mile trip would be about $35. Suppose that the $91 billion estimate is more realistic and that, instead of being used to construct this railroad, it were invested in infrastructure projects in growing economies and yielded a 4 percent real annual return. That’s about $3.64 billion per year in cash, enough to fund 104 million one-way trips every year (i.e., 2.7 trips per year per current California resident). So instead of paying $91 billion for this railroad and then also paying for tickets to ride on it, Californians could use the money to pay for virtually unlimited free north/south air transportation (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/ shows that Americans and foreign visitors only got on airliners about 643 million times in 2013).

[Update 2018: One wag’s comment on the new cost estimate of $77 billion and new delivery date of 2033 was “People used to rob trains. Now trains are used to rob the people.”]

Full post, including comments

Why do American hotels have such crummy Internet service?

Folks:

Today I was deposed as an expert witness in a software patent case. An attorney charging $500 per hour was supposed to be asking me tough questions while three more attorneys and a court reporter looked on. Due to the lack of slack in the American airline system, the recent snowy/icy weather had caused all of the attorneys to spend 6-7 hours waiting in various airports day after day and only three out of four made it to Boston. The attorney asking the questions was marooned in a hotel in Denver, Colorado while the rest of us sat in a meeting room at the Charles Hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

The solution was a pair of iPads and Apple’s Facetime software. It would have worked out great from a hotel in Singapore to a hotel in Hong Kong or from Seoul to Tokyo. But high-speed Internet seems to be one thing that nearly all American hotels aren’t capable of doing (see my July 2004 posting from a $300/night hotel in Los Angeles, this November 2005 report comparing California and Mexico, this August 2006 posting from an expensive casino). So the connection kept going in and out, resulting in a waste of more than $2000 in combined fees (the deposition took about an hour longer than it would have).

Why is this something that Americans cannot master? Given the value of business travelers’ time, you’d think that this would be something that business hotels would be great at doing. They spend a fortune making it faster for frequent business travelers to check in and out. Why not make it possible for those folks, who can’t wait an extra three minutes to check in, to get some work done?

[Separately, the fanciest hotel in Cambridge was hopping at lunch time today with a banquet for hundreds of people. Who were they? City of Cambridge employees celebrating the recent election of City Council members (work one evening/week for nine months/year and get paid $75,000 (September 2013 posting))) using City resident tax dollars.]

Full post, including comments

Will de Blasio’s new income tax for New Yorkers actually increase income inequality?

A friend here in Massachusetts was singing the praises of New York’s Mayor de Blasio for adding taxes on high-earners in order to reduce income inequality. It sounds reasonable on its face, but then I remembered my helicopter student, age 39 and about to retire from NYPD on a 100% pension. He was up in Boston attending Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, courtesy of New York City taxpayers and, once done he was planning to retire to his native Philippines and have New Yorkers wire him money every month.

Since government workers are paid, on average, more than private sector workers, mightn’t extra taxes that actually increase income inequality? State and local governments overwhelmingly spend money on salaries, health care, and pension benefits for government employees. (See http://seethroughny.net/payrolls/city-of-ny and http://seethroughny.net/index.php?cID=189 for some public-employee salary and pension data.)

Suppose that the tax rates are left unchanged. The high-income New York City resident now has the money to go out for some additional restaurant meals. for example. Many restaurant workers earn less than average and probably nearly all earn less than city employees.

What do readers think? Will inequality of income go up or down in New York City with this new tax?

[Personally I think that the new tax might not result in much additional cash being collected. A certain number of New Yorkers who currently spend 140 days per year in (potentially tax-free) places other than New York City might decide to start spending 183 days in those places (see this article on what people are doing already). A handful of businesses will move to places with lower tax rates. So more money will be collected from those who stay for at least 183 days but there will be fewer people from whom to collect tax. This could be a positive for helicopter charter operators as more people try to get out to the Hamptons before midnight (which would tend to reduce income inequality, since helicopter pilots make a lot less than school teachers or police officers!).]

[There is no question that New York’s government needs the money. The Tax Foundation says that New York needs to collect 12.77 percent of state residents’ income in order to function (probably higher in the city). This compares to 7.9 percent in Texas, 8.1 percent in New Hampshire, and 10.4 percent in Massachusetts.]

Full post, including comments

Feel better about your humanities degree: Glenn Beck’s bestselling history book

Back in 2010 I wrote about Glenn Beck’s salary in comparison with his educational spending (never enrolled in college).

This evening it was pointed out to me that Glenn Beck, high school graduate, is the author of a New York Times bestseller on American history: Miracles and Massacres: True and Untold Stories of the Making of America. The book gets 4.5 stars from Amazon reviewers, narrowly beating out Pauline Maier’s American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence (Vintage) (Maier is a professor at MIT with a PhD in history) and crushing Drew Gilpin Faust’s The Creation of Confederate Nationalism (Faust, possessed of an Ivy League PhD, is now president of Harvard University!).

Full post, including comments

Who appreciates the Dave Eggers book “The Circle”?

Folks: Who else is reading The Circle? The ideas for technological innovations are banal (video cameras everywhere, RFID tags inside humans) but I like the way that the interior life of the mega-corporation and the ambitions of its employees are painted. (The company is a combination of Google, Facebook, Twitter (“Zings” instead of “tweets”!), and PayPal.)

I’m about one third of the way through, listening as a book on tape, and the Amazon reviews (“well written but pointless”) are encouraging me to return it to the library before I’m finished. Who has read to the end?

[Oftentimes I find that with science fiction-tinged books the author’s best ideas are in the first 100 pages.]

Full post, including comments

Idea for an employment agency: The 100th Week

The federal government is winding down its five-year-old program of sending checks to people who held jobs relatively recently but currently are not working (nytimes; also see my January 2011 posting on the 99-weeks-of-Xbox system).

So here’s an idea for a business… An employment agency for the long-term unemployed. Offer intensive training in areas where there is currently a shortage of workers as well as relocation assistance to parts of the country where jobs are abundant (check this map). Get funding from state and federal government grants (e.g., from http://www.doleta.gov/ ) and maybe from employers if the new workers is successful during his or her first 90 days on the job. Call the company “The 100th Week”.

[Separately and curiously, the New York Times article on the subject highlights the difficulties of an “information technology expert and web designer” in finding a job. If he is truly an expert and truly cannot find a job (perhaps due to his age of 68) that indicates a terrible lack of efficiency in the employment market, since employers say that they are finding it impossible to recruit IT experts (the example guy is also in the Washington, D.C. area, which has arguably the best job market in the U.S. (this study says it is second best for college grads)).]

Full post, including comments

Review of Start-Up Nation

I’m wondering if there should be a genre on Amazon of “Jew-pride” books. If so, Start-up Nation: The Story of Israel’s Economic Miracle should be first in the category. The book meets all of the rigorous standards of business bestsellers, which is to say that it is mostly anecdotes.

The book opens rather unfortunately, celebrating the achievements of Better Place. Given that Arab countries surrounding Israel won’t allow Israeli cars on their roads, it is basically impossible to drive farther than a person would within the state of New Jersey. So it was practical to set up a network of battery-swapping stations. Better Place would own the batteries, relieving consumers of the burden of having to pay for them up front and also from having to worry about battery condition deteriorating. The batteries could be charged at times that were most efficient for the Israeli electric grid. You had a group of consumers not necessarily enthusiastic about contributing to the demand for oil that has been funding wars and terrorism against Israel (e.g., the Saudi government paying the families of suicide bombers or the Iraqi government, back in Saddam’s day, doing the same (CBS News)). Better Place managed to secure a partnership with Renault to make the vehicles that would accept the batteries. It looked like a great idea when the book was printed… but by now we know how it worked out (investors left with a $700 million hole in their pockets, though unlike similar greentech companies in the U.S., these seem to have been private investors rather than taxpayers).

Lesson 1: Start-ups are risky, even when Israeli!

The authors claim that the success of a handful of companies has changed societal norms:

Most importantly, launching a start-up or going into high tech has become the most respected and “normal” thing for an ambitious young Israeli to do. Like the stereotypical Jewish mother, an Israeli mother might be satisfied with a child who becomes a doctor or a lawyer, but she will be at least as proud of her son or daughter “the entrepreneur.” What in most countries is somewhat exceptional in Israel has become an almost standard career track, despite the fact that everyone knows that, even in Israel, the chances of success for start-ups are low. It’s okay to try and to fail. Success is best, but failure is not a stigma; it’s an important experience for your résumé.

[I asked a married-with-kids friend who is a computer scientist in Israel “If a mom had to choose, would she be happier to see the new graduate going to medical school or into a startup?” and he responded “For sure, go to Medical School!”]

The most confusing thing about the book is that in several places the authors throw rocks at Singapore. The authors claim that having compulsory military service and existential threats to the country as a whole are conducive to economic success, citing Israel, South Korea, and Singapore as examples. But Singapore is supposedly woefully deficient in start-ups compared to Israel:

Although Singapore’s military is modeled after the IDF—the testing ground for many of Israel’s entrepreneurs—the “Asian Tiger” has failed to incubate start-ups. Why? It’s not that Singapore’s growth hasn’t been impressive. Real per capita GDP, at over U.S. $35,000, is one of the highest in the world, and real GDP growth has averaged 8 percent annually since the nation’s founding. But its growth story notwithstanding, Singapore’s leaders have failed to keep up in a world that puts a high premium on a trio of attributes historically alien to Singapore’s culture: initiative, risk-taking, and agility…

I’m not sure where they are getting their data on Singapore’s failure to keep up. The CIA Factbook says that Singapore has a GDP per capital (purchase-power adjusted) of $61,400. This is almost double Israel’s, at $32,800. If that is failure, where can we get some?

[The authors are not alone in their tender concern for the wealthy Singaporeans sweating peacefully next to their koi ponds and bonsai: “As the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman put it, ‘I would much rather have Israel’s problems, which are mostly financial, mostly about governance, and mostly about infrastructure, rather than Singapore’s problem because Singapore’s problem is culture-bound.'”]

The authors note that a planned economy worked well in the 1950s when Israel needed to build out basic infrastructure:

Israel’s economic performance occurred in part because of the government’s meddling, and not just in spite of it. During the early stages of development in any primitive economy, there are easily identifiable opportunities for large-scale investment: roads, water systems, factories, ports, electrical grids, and housing construction. Israel’s massive investment in these projects—such as the National Water Carrier, which piped water from the Sea of Galilee in the north to the parched Negev in the south—stimulated high-velocity growth. Rapid housing development on kibbutzim, for example, generated growth in the construction and utilities industries. But it is important not to generalize: many developing countries engaged in large infrastructure projects waste vast amounts of government funds due to corruption and government inefficiencies.

The authors go on to point out that this centrally planned economy worked only because of an unusual lack of corruption (Israel didn’t have any big companies lobbying for special benefits back in the 1950s and, in any case, the place is so small that ordinary citizens would have howled in protest at sweetheart deals for the connected). Anyway, the command-and-control economy stalled out and resulted in inflation rates above 400 percent in the 1970s:

… private entrepreneurs may not have been essential because the largest and most pressing needs of the economy were obvious. But the system broke down as the economy became more complex. According to Israeli economist Yakir Plessner, once the government saturated the economy with big infrastructure spending, only entrepreneurs could be counted on to drive growth; only they could find “the niches of relative advantage.” The transition from central development to a private entrepreneurial economy should have occurred in the mid-1960s. The twenty-year period from 1946 through 1966, when most of the large-scale infrastructure investments had been made, was coming to an end. In 1966, with no more frothy investment targets, Israel experienced for the first time nearly zero economic growth. …

A main reason for the hyperinflation was, ironically, one of the measures the government had taken for years to cope with inflation: indexing. Most of the economy—wages, prices, rents—were linked to the Consumer Price Index, a measure of inflation.

The last paragraph is cautionary for the U.S. as the government gradually assumes a larger role in the U.S. economy (see this chart for the growth from about 20 percent of GDP after World War II to nearly 40 percent now). A lot of government expenditures are indexed to the inflation rate, notably pensions, Social Security payments, etc. If inflation takes hold here, it may not be as easy to stop as it was in the past.

Like the U.S., Israel does not seek out educated immigrants. There is no Australian/Canadian/NZ-style point system that favors the educated and/or skilled. Anyone with a connection to Judaism can immigrate. Israel spends lavishly on integrating immigrants into its society, with a wide range of welfare programs targeted specifically at immigrants. How has it worked out?

… This was part of a secret Israeli government effort; the 1984 airlift mission, called Operation Moses, brought more than eight thousand Ethiopian Jews to Israel. Their average age was fourteen. The day after their arrival, they were all given full Israeli citizenship. .. The Ethiopian immigration wave has proven to be an enormous economic burden for Israel. Nearly half of Ethiopian adults age twenty-five to fifty-four are unemployed, and a majority of Ethiopian Israelis are on government welfare.

But then Israel picked up a batch of immigrants from Russia, who showed up with fantastic technical educations:

Between 1990 and 2000, eight hundred thousand citizens of the former Soviet Union immigrated to Israel; the first half million poured in over the course of just a three-year period. All together, it amounted to adding about a fifth of Israel’s population by the end of the 1990s. The U.S. equivalent would be a flood of sixty-two million immigrants and refugees coming to America over the next decade.

It seems that these Russians may in fact be the secret to Israel’s recent economic success:

Walk into an Israeli technology start-up or a big R&D center in Israel today and you’ll likely overhear workers speaking Russian. The drive for excellence that pervades Shevach-Mofet, and that is so prevalent among this wave of immigrants, ripples throughout Israel’s technology sector.

If so, that is hardly replicable for other countries, few of whom would welcome 800,000 Jews as immigrants (the authors note that “Even after World War II ended and the Holocaust became widely known, Western countries were still unwilling to welcome surviving Jews. The Canadian government captured the mood of many governments when one of its officials declared, ‘None is too many!'”).

One good thing about the book is that the authors interview people who have invested in Israel to ask “Why were you crazy enough to put your money at risk in a war zone?” It does seem reasonable for an investor to ask “What happens to my money when the Iranians finish their nuclear weapons and decide to test them out over Israel?” Warren Buffet’s subordinates shared his perspective with the authors:

Buffett spent fifty-two hours touring Iscar, the machine-tool company he’d purchased for $4.5 billion, and Israel, the country he had heard so much about. “You think of people walking those steps 2,000 years ago,” he said of his visit to Jerusalem, “and then you look at the Iscar factory on a mountaintop, supplying 61 countries—whether it’s Korea or the United States or Europe or you name it. It’s pretty remarkable. I don’t think you can really find that kind of combination of the past and the future, in such close proximity, virtually any place in the world.”

Buffett’s view, she told us, is that if Iscar’s facilities are bombed, it can go build another plant. The plant does not represent the value of the company. It the talent of the employees and management, the international base of loyal customers, and the brand that constitute Iscar’s value. So missiles, even if they can destroy factories, do not, in Buffett’s eyes, represent catastrophic risk.

Israel is a relatively crummy place to do business, according to the Heritage Foundation (link). The government chews up 45 percent of GDP, for example, compared to 17 percent in Singapore (the failed state, according to the authors of this book, because they are not cranking out as many iPhone apps!). But it used to be even crummier:

… in 2003, [finance minister at the time] Netanyahu cut tax rates, transfer payments, public employee wages, and four thousand government jobs. He also privatized major symbols of the remaining government influence on the economy—such as the national airline, El Al, and the national telecommunications company, Bezeq—and instituted financial-sector reforms. “In the sense that he tackled the stifling role of government in our economy, Bibi was not a reformer but a revolutionary. A reform happens when you change the policy of the government; a revolution happens when you change the mind-set of a country. I think that Bibi was able to change the mind-set,” said Ron Dermer, who served as an adviser to four Israeli ministers of finance, including Netanyahu.18 Netanyahu told us, “I explained to people that the private economy was like a thin man carrying a fat man—the government—on its back. While my reforms sparked massive nationwide strikes by labor unions, my characterization of the economy struck a chord. Anyone who had tried to start a [nontech] business in Israel could relate.”19 Netanyahu’s reforms gained increasing public support as the economy began to pull out of its rut. At the same time, a package of banking-sector reforms pushed through by Netanyahu began to take effect.

Full post, including comments

Is percentage of GDP the right way to measure health care costs?

Folks:

Generally when people question whether or not our central planners are allocating the right amount of money for health care, the debate is cast in terms of percentage of GDP (given that government will spend 67 percent of health care dollars in the Obamacare era (source) it seems fair to say that the level of health care spending is now almost entirely determined by bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.). Given how capital-intensive medicine has become, however, I’m wondering if this is the right measure.

The central planners are currently spending 18 percent of our GDP on health care and they are on track to increase this spending to 25 percent. As I noted in my health care reform proposal back in 2009, the Mexicans spend 6 percent of their GDP on health care (World Bank) . So in theory we will be spending only 4X as much as the Mexicans. But measured in dollars, we will actually be spending more like 20X (since our per-person GDP is about 5X larger, according to the World Bank).

If the only cost to health care were labor maybe it would make sense to use the percentage of GDP as a comparison. But health care involves a lot of stuff that is traded on the world market and costs about the same everywhere. There is cement to build hospitals. There are pills that come from factories in Israel and India. There are machines that go “bing” in the treatment rooms. There are LCD televisions in the waiting room.

So when people say that we spend double what the U.K. spends on health care right now (18 percent of GDP versus 9 percent), despite the fact that the U.K. manages to cover all of its residents without burying them in billing and insurance paperwork, that’s understating the difference. GDP in the UK is only about 75 percent of US GDP. A comparison in terms of spending power for buying stuff other than health care would show that we are spending closer to 2.7X what the UK spends.

What do folks think? Is it more accurate to assess our government’s competence in delivering health care with percentage of GDP consumed or absolute dollars spent?

Full post, including comments

Sony A7r: dream camera with crippling autofocus shortfall?

Friends and I have been playing around with the Sony a7R, supposedly the dream camera of 2013. Indoors, it turns out to be very slow to autofocus, to the point that it is almost unusable for conventional family photography. A friend who is a regular Nikon D800 user said “I really wanted one of these but now that I have seen how slow it is, I will stick with a conventional SLR.” This was after an hour or so of taking pictures at a noon to 2 pm party lit by a fair amount of window light and also some incandescent bulbs (i.e., much darker than outside but nowhere near as dark as a home interior at night).

I tried it last night taking pictures of a sleeping baby in a room lit by a table lamp. A Samsung Note 3 mobile phone didn’t have any trouble capturing focus on the baby’s face (though the result was grainy). The a7R hunted, despite blasting the baby with a bright AF illuminator. It really was not a usable device, though in theory it has reasonable manual focus capabilities (hard for an old Canon EOS user to wade through Sony’s interface, though!).

For now I think it is safe to say that the Sony a7R is a dream camera for landscape photographers looking for a lightweight hiking companion but I don’t think it is as good a general-purpose camera as an Sony NEX-6 (still slower than an SLR but usable).

Is all of the excitement about mirrorless cameras misplaced? The old Canon Rebel G film body was very light and compact and had much better AF than this latest Sony (at 10X the price!). I’m wondering if we aren’t all suffering from a collective delusion and if it wouldn’t be better to stick a sensor in the back of a Rebel G.

I’ve posted some example images on Google+ and will be adding to the collection periodically.

Full post, including comments

U.S. military saves taxpayer dollars by replacing $300,000 helicopters with $6 million ones

A friend sent me this ArmyTimes article about the U.S. Army “cutting costs” by replacing old Bell JetRanger helicopters (the civilian 206B equivalents are available in airworthy condition for $300,000 to $500,000).

For active duty, the $300,000 single-engine machines will be replaced with $20 million twin-engine Apache helicopters. For primary training, students will learn to hover in $6 million twin-engine Eurocopter EC-145s (the “Lakota”). After you’ve paid the $6 million, what do these cost to run? Back in 2011 Conklin and de Decker estimated nearly $1200 per hour (source), i.e., nearly triple the cost of the EC120, a modern equivalent to the JetRangers that will be retiring.

[What do other countries do for primary training, you might ask? Some have decided to use the Robinson R44, whose brand new purchase cost is about $350,000 and whose direct operating costs are about $200 per hour. Where 100LL gasoline is impractical to obtain and brand new helicopters are desired, the jet-powered Robinson R66 is getting some military sales. These are about $800,000 to purchase with direct operating costs of perhaps $350-400 per hour.]

If this really does save money, I think our flight school needs to look into getting rid of our single-engine Piper Warriors ($30,000 to $80,000 in value, depending on vintage and engine time; about $85 per hour in operating cost). We could replace them with brand-new twin-engine jet-powered airplanes that cost $800 per hour to operate and then reduce our prices for customers.

Related: July 2010 posting about the Port Authority of New York operating Sikorsky S-76 helicopters for $15,500 per hour when the mission could have been done for $400 per hour in an R44.

Full post, including comments