Window into how people think about pensions

“The End of the World? In Brazil, It’s Already Here” (nytimes) is interesting for revealing how people think about pensions:

In addition to the spending cap, Mr. Temer has introduced a proposal to revamp Brazil’s pension system. His proposal will set a minimum retirement age of 65, in a country where the average person retires at 54. The law will also require at least 25 years of contributions to the social security system by both men and women.

There are good reasons Brazil hasn’t passed laws like this before. Although the average life expectancy in Brazil is 74, we’re one of the most unequal countries in the world. For example, in 37 percent of the neighborhoods of the city of São Paulo, people have a life expectancy of less than 65 years. It’s even shorter for the rural poor.

It doesn’t sound so bad, right? People retire at 54 and then drop dead around 65, so they are getting paid for 11 years, on average. Could the writer and editors have found a source for why this might not work? How about the New York Times itself! About a year ago they ran “An Exploding Pension Crisis Feeds Brazil’s Political Turmoil”:

When Rosângela Araújo turned 44, she decided that she had worked long enough.

So Ms. Araújo, a public school supervisor, did what millions of others in their 40s and 50s have done in this country: She retired, with a full pension.

“I had to take advantage of the benefit that was available to me,” said Ms. Araújo, now 65. Her government pension stands at about $1,000 a month, five times the minimum wage.

Brazilians retire at an average age of 54, and some public servants, military officials and politicians manage to collect multiple pensions totaling well over $100,000 year. Then, once they die, loopholes enable their spouses or daughters to go on collecting the pensions for the rest of their lives, too.

The phenomenon is so common in Brazil’s vast public bureaucracy that some scholars call it the “Viagra effect” — retired civil servants, many in their 60s or 70s, wed to much younger women who are entitled to the full pensions for decades after their spouses are gone.

… economists warn that the pension crisis will grow more acute regardless of whether Ms. Rousseff stays in office, ranking it among Brazil’s most vexing structural binds. Officials had expected a major shortfall in 2030, but they now say that could happen as soon as next year.

Both articles cite life expectancy at birth. Neither article mentions that life expectancy at age 54 in Brazil is about 26 additional years (source).

Related:

Full post, including comments

Map showing how to get rich off global warming

MIT’s alumni magazine, Technology Review, has published a helpful map for where to invest if you think that global warming will be more faster and more dramatic than others expect. Set it up for 2050, for example, and Canada gets a 35 percent GDP boost compared to the “no warming” case. Russia is up 47 percent. A U.S. investment strategy doesn’t need to change; our GDP will supposedly be reduced by 5 percent in 2050 compared to if a magic wand were waved and the climate stayed the same.

[Lending support to those who are skeptical of statements by scientists, the prediction for 2099 is that Russia will be up by 419 percent compared to the “stable climate” scenario. Canada is up by 247 percent.]

Readers: What’s your best long-term climate change investment idea?

Full post, including comments

Article on rising housing costs that does not mention population growth

“The Year in Housing: The Middle Class Can’t Afford to Live in Cities Anymore” (WIRED) is interesting to me because it demonstrates an apparent blind spot for Americans. Here was my comment on the piece:

The word “population” doesn’t appear in the article. Why isn’t this what we expect as the U.S. population has grown from about 150 million post-World War II to 320 million today? Also, demographers predict immigration-driven growth to about 441 million by 2065 (see Pew Research). Wouldn’t the real estate market also reflect expected future demand based on this growth? (Note that I’m not arguing for or against population growth, merely pointing out that if we have it we will also have a rising cost for housing.)

What do readers think? We do have a lot of land in the U.S. so in theory we could build some more vibrant cities. On the other hand, we don’t seem to excel at building efficiently, so that leaves us with the same cities that we had 100 years ago (plus a lot of exurban sprawl).

Full post, including comments

The rich bastards leading us around by the nose

“Betsy DeVos, Trump’s Education Pick, Wields Wealth Like a Koch” (nytimes) talks about a rich family that is controlling American voters’ minds with their wealth:

In the 2016 cycle alone, according to the Michigan Campaign Finance Network, the family spent roughly $14 million on political contributions to state and national candidates, parties, PACs and super PACs.

According to the Times, some of the $14 million goes to “education activism, which favors alternatives to traditional public schools”.

Perhaps as much as $5 million then goes to advocating for changes to education policy. Can we put that number in context?

The Department of Education says that, in 2012-13, American taxpayers spent $620 billion on public schools. This analysis suggests roughly 850 hours of actual instruction per year for California schools, which are presumably representative. Schools are thus spending 0.73 billion tax dollars per hour or $202,614 per second.

The rich bastards are purportedly significantly influencing the national debate about public schools with 25 seconds of spending.

Full post, including comments

Queen Victoria in the domestic sphere

This will be the first of a few posts about Victoria: The Queen: An Intimate Biography of the Woman Who Ruled an Empire (Julia Baird 2016). What does the biographer have to work with?

It has been conservatively estimated that Victoria [1819-1901] wrote an average of two and a half thousand words per day during her reign, a total of approximately sixty million words.

19th century fathers weren’t waiting outside with cigars…

Queen Victoria was born, roaring, at 4:15 A.M., in the hour before dawn on May 24, 1819. As the duchess lay writhing and breathing through contractions, His Majesty’s ministers waited in an adjoining room. The duke had forewarned them that he would not entertain them, as he planned to stay next to his wife, urging her on. As tradition dictated, these high-ranking men listened to the cries of the duchess during the six-hour labor, then crowded the room once the baby arrived, to attest that it was in fact the mother’s child.

Kids didn’t have to wait to grow up to get their OxyContin:

It was, after all, a dangerous thing to be born in the nineteenth century. Of every thousand infants, about 150 died at birth. Even then, the prevalence of measles, whooping cough, scarlet fever, and cholera meant that the likelihood that a child would survive to the age of five was little more than 70 percent. Children from poor, urban families who were not breastfed or were weaned too early had even slimmer chances. It was also a common practice to give infants opium to stop their crying, and many babies lost their appetite and starved as a result. Predictably, the mothers were blamed for working long days in factories and leaving their children with strangers. A piece published in 1850 in Household Words, the journal edited by Charles Dickens, attributed this practice to “ignorant hireling nurse(s)” who managed eight or nine babies at a time by keeping them drugged. Concoctions called “Soothing Syrup,” “Mother’s Quietness,” and a laudanum-based potion called “Godfrey’s Cordial” meant “the quiet homes of the poor reek[ed] with narcotics.” Karl Marx, writing in Das Kapital in 1867, described the “disguised infanticide and stupefaction of children with opiates,” adding that their parents were developing addictions of their own. Infant deaths were so common that parents insured their newborns, and were typically paid £5 if they died, a practice that was thought to encourage infanticide. By 1900, 80 percent of babies were insured.

Unrestrained by the father, who died in 1820, Victoria’s mother was inattentive when the future queen was young and then exploitative as the teenager grew close to ascending the throne:

Victoria trusted only one person: her governess. Baroness Lehzen, the daughter of a Lutheran pastor from Coburg, was an eccentric, single-minded, clever woman who dedicated her life to ensuring that Victoria would be a forceful, intelligent queen. … she was the only person who had solely Victoria’s interests at heart. … When Victoria was ill, Lehzen stayed by her side, quietly stitching doll clothes, as Victoria’s mother continued to visit friends and travel.

She knew ambition was curdling her mother’s heart, just as apprehension was gripping hers. It was now, when still a child who played with dolls, that Victoria’s seven-year battle with her mother began, one that would deeply scar her. But her prayers would change once she realized her mother was seeking to snatch away her crown before it could be placed on her head.

Her mother openly chastised Victoria, reminding her of her youth and telling her that she owed all her success to her mother’s good reputation. The woman who had insisted on breastfeeding her child and delighted in her fat cheeks had grown hard with anxious hunger for power, seduced by her own victim narrative of the long-suffering mother. She pointed out repeatedly that she had given up her life in another country to devote herself to raising a girl into a queen. Victoria soon stopped speaking to her.

[see also the 19th century parental altruism paper referenced in this chapter]

The 4’11” queen struggled with her weight:

Walking, she said, made her feel sick. Melbourne also told her to stop drinking beer, which she loved. By December, a “cross and low” Victoria found to her distress that she weighed 125 pounds—an “incredible weight for my size.”

But she set wedding dress fashion for centuries to come…

Victoria’s clothes had been carefully chosen to display her patriotism. The fabric of her dress was from the Spitalfields, the historic center of the silk industry in London, and two hundred lace makers from Devon had labored on it for months. The pattern was destroyed afterward so that no one could copy it. Her gloves were stitched in London and made of English kid. Victoria had commissioned a huge swath of handmade Honiton lace for her dress, in an attempt to revive the flagging lace industry (machine-made copies had been harming the trade).

The queen had asked that no one else wear white to the wedding. Some have wrongly interpreted her choice of color as a signal of sexual purity—as Agnes Strickland later gushed, she had chosen to dress “not as a queen in her glittering trappings, but in spotless white, like a pure virgin, to meet her bridegroom.” Victoria had chosen to wear white mostly because it was the perfect color to highlight the delicate lace—it was not then a conventional color for brides. Before bleaching techniques were mastered, white was a rare and expensive color, more a symbol of wealth than purity. Victoria was not the first to wear it, but she made it popular by example. Lace makers across England were thrilled by the sudden surge in the popularity of their handiwork.

She spent a lot of time being pregnant:

In giving Albert free rein to work alongside her as she carried nine children, Victoria was soon to discover that the clever, intellectually restless Albert was a great asset. She spent roughly eighty months pregnant in the 1840s and 1850s—more than six years in total—and even longer recovering from childbirth.

Unusually for the era, Albert was with her during her labor [with the first-born], along with the doctor and nurse.

Victoria spent two weeks in bed after giving birth, as was then customary. Her baby was brought to her twice a day when she was in her dressing room, and she watched her being bathed once every few weeks.

On Christmas Day 1840, Victoria marveled at her great luck: “This day last year I was an unmarried girl, and this year I have an angelic husband, and a dear little girl five weeks old.” When Vicky was eighteen months old, Victoria wrote she had become “quite a little toy for us & a great pet, always smiling so sweetly when we play with her.” The queen spent more time with Pussy, as she nicknamed her daughter, than was expected of her.

Why nine kids?

And so, when she found herself pregnant again just three months after giving birth, Victoria wept and raged. She did not have the aid of the natural—if imperfect—contraceptive of breastfeeding, as she refused to nurse her children as her own mother had done, and birth control was widely considered sinful. Some women tried to coat their vaginas with cedar oil, lead, frankincense, or olive oil, in the belief that this might prevent the “seed” from implanting. In 1838, many aristocrats used sponges “as large as can be pleasantly introduced, having previously attached a bobbin or bit of narrow riband to withdraw it.” But there is no evidence Victoria was even aware of such a thing. Women were also advised to have sex around the time of ovulation if they wanted to avoid pregnancy, which we now know to be precisely the time that most conceive.

Were medical professionals better informed regarding pediatrics?

Pussy became weak and unsettled when she was just a few months old, and neither Lehzen nor the wet nurse was able to soothe or fatten her. The queen wrote: “ ’Til the end of August she was such a magnificent, strong fat child, that it is a great grief to see her so thin, pale and changed.” Dr. Clark gave her ass’s milk and chicken broth with cream, which she was unable to keep down, as well as mercury-laced calomel, and the appetite-suppressing laudanum. The birth of a little brother, the boy her parents had longed for, only made little Pussy worse. The day after he was born, Victoria wrote: “Saw both children, Pussy terrified and not at all pleased with her little brother.

What about the basics?

Victoria had a “totally unsurmountable disgust” for breastfeeding. She was incensed when her daughter Alice decided to nurse her children herself, later in life, and a heifer in the Balmoral dairy was soon named Princess Alice. Victoria viewed it as vulgar, and inappropriate for upper-class women. She also believed it was incompatible with performing public duties, perhaps a persuasive argument in the days before breast pumps existed. Until commercial baby foods became widespread in the 1860s, most women in the Victorian middle class, and even aristocrats, combined breastfeeding with animal milk or mashed foods until the baby was a few months old. Wet nurses were expensive and frequently suspected of somehow corrupting their charges with dubious morals. But Victoria did not hesitate to employ them, believing it better for the child if a woman who was less refined and “more like an animal” suckled them.

Victoria’s take-away on being a mom?

Victoria was now the most famous working mother in the world. In England at the time, women who had jobs were pitied, but the 1851 census found one in four wives and two in three widows worked.

She told her daughter that childbearing was “a complete violence to all one’s feelings of propriety (which God knows receive a shock enough in marriage alone).”

She also warned her daughter against neglecting her husband or duties because of too much love for her babies. “No lady, and less still a Princess,” she said, would be fit for her husband or her position if she “overdid the passion for the nursery.” Victoria insisted that she saw her youngest children being bathed and put to bed only about four times a year.

For seven excruciating months in 1884, there had been glacial silence at the royal table. From May to November, Beatrice and her mother refused to talk to each other, instead pushing notes across the table to communicate, while their knives and forks clinked against china. The large block of ice Victoria regularly had placed on the dining tables to cool the summertime air was barely needed. It was bitterly awkward, especially given their usual closeness. Victoria’s youngest child had, to this point, shown only obedience. But now she had fallen in love with the handsome Prince Henry of Battenberg, right under Victoria’s nose.*1 When the dutiful, shy twenty-seven-year-old Beatrice confessed that Prince Henry had snatched her heart, Victoria was predictably selfish and melodramatic: “Pleasure has for ever died out of my life.” Victoria had long dreaded this moment. She had tried to prevent the word “wedding” from being uttered in front of Beatrice. She had ensured her daughter was never left alone in a room with a man and never danced with anyone but her brothers. She had delayed her confirmation. She wanted to protect her beloved youngest daughter from an institution she viewed with skepticism; after all, Victoria now claimed to hate marriage. She had adored her own, of course, but thought that incessant pregnancies were traumatic and painful, the loss of a child was an unbearable wrench, and most marriages were miserable. Her own family bore this out. Vicky was miserable in Prussia, bullied by disapproving and controlling parents-in-law; Louise had married a man suspected to be gay and had taken on a series of lovers; Alice had died in a far-off land; only the introverted Helena

Full post, including comments

Rex Tillerson, jury member

“What I learned about Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson after spending a week on jury duty with him” (Dallas News) is kind of interesting for those who are curious about our new Secretary of State.

[Separately, the case is a reflection of our times: “A young girl had accused her mom’s boyfriend of sexual assault”. As noted in the Children, Mothers, and Fathers chapter of Real World Divorce, “A sociologist we talked to said that ‘this is the first time in human history where we actually encourage unmarried teenage girls to be in intimate domestic contact with men other than a father or brother.'”]

Full post, including comments

Wall Street titans and the Trump victory

“George Soros reportedly lost around $1 billion after Trump’s election” is interesting for proving the adage that “nobody knows anything”:

Additionally, most Wall Street analysts believed that a Trump win would sow uncertainty and cause a sell-off.

They could have bought portfolio insurance for almost nothing! (see Wall Street nerds: How much does it cost to hedge against a 20-percent drop in the stock market this week?)

Full post, including comments

Whole-drive encryption for Dell XPS 13 running Windows 10?

Folks:

After the Microsoft Surface Book debacle I am ready to dip my toe back into the laptop market (upcoming trip to Hawaii where I need to get a lot of work done!). The new Dell XPS 13 2-in-1 seems to have some potential. I can use it to read a book on an airplane, type a report in a hotel room, set it up to run a slide show (tent mode), etc.

Back in 2011 I wrote “Why isn’t file encryption more popular?” and the question seems to be equally relevant today. Windows 10 Home doesn’t do it. Windows 10 Pro does, but does that even make sense to enable after the operating system has been installed?

What’s the practical consequence of having one’s laptop stolen? The criminals can mount the hard drive in their own computer and read all of the files, right? If you’ve got saved passwords in Google Chrome can they then use those passwords and cookies to shop at Amazon, transfer money in online banking, etc.? (this article says “not unless the criminals crack your Windows password”)

Using an eDrive would seem like the best solution but those don’t seem to be available as factory options from Dell. (And setting one up after the fact is not simple: article.)

Apple fans: How does Apple do this on their laptops? There is a separate OS partition that is never encrypted? And when the purchaser starts up the machine he or she is prompted for a password to use for unlocking the user files, which are subsequently encrypted?

Readers: What is the most sensible practical approach? Use Windows 10 Home and take the risk that someone grabs the laptop? If someone does, change a bunch of passwords using some other PC? Or Windows 10 Pro and Bitlocker and take the performance hit plus the hassle of entering a password all of the time? (though maybe the fingerprint reader on the new Dell eliminates that annoyance)

[All of my previous questions about the PC market remain live as well! Dell seems to be promoting primarily computers, including laptops, with mechanical hard drives. A SanDisk 480 GB SSD retails for $125. How could it ever make business sense for Dell to try to get a consumer to buy a machine that boots from a mechanical hard drive?]

Full post, including comments

Moving a parked domain away from Network Solutions

Folks:

I registered some domains so long ago that the registrar is Network Solutions, which was somewhat expensive in the old days but now has cranked up their prices to crazy expensive. I might just give up the domain, which I’m not using: clickthrough.net. Back in the mid-1990s, it seemed like measuring clicks from one domain to another would be exciting (see the User Tracking chapter of Philip and Alex’s Guide, for example). But who is even aware of this now?

I can’t remember anyone ever inquiring to purchase this domain. That means it is worthless, right?

Can I park this worthless domain somewhere for $10? Or should I just let it expire?

Thanks in advance!

Full post, including comments

Andrew Jackson was our first Donald Trump?

Have you seen reports in the media of an ill-bred president whose sexual habits and choice of spouse excite gossip and disapproval? According to White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America, we already had one: Andrew Jackson, from 1829-1837.

Given that his initial support in the 1824 campaign came from Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, and Tennessee, Jackson was derided for having cornered the cracker vote.

Jackson partisans were routinely chastised for their lack of taste and breeding.

The candidate’s private life came under equal scrutiny. His irregular marriage became scandalous fodder during the election of 1828. His intimate circle of Tennessee confidants scrambled to find some justification for the couple’s known adultery. John Overton, Jackson’s oldest and closest friend in Nashville, came up with the story of “accidental bigamy,” claiming that the couple had married in good conscience, thinking that Rachel’s divorce from her first husband had already been decreed. But the truth was something other. Rachel Donelson Robards had committed adultery, fleeing with her paramour Jackson to Spanish-held Natchez in 1790. They had done so not out of ignorance, and not on a lark, but in order to secure a divorce from her husband. Desertion was one of the few recognized causes of divorce.62 In the ever-expanding script detailing Jackson’s misdeeds, adultery was just one more example of his uncontrolled passions. Wife stealing belonged to the standard profile of the backwoods aggressor who refused to believe the law applied to him. In failing to respect international law, he had conquered Florida; in disregarding his wife’s first marriage contract, he simply took what he wanted. Jackson invaded the “sanctity of his neighbor’s matrimonial couch,” as the Ohio journalist Charles Hammond declared.63 All sorts of vicious names were used in demeaning Rachel Jackson. She was called an “American Jezebel,” “weak and vulgar,” and a “dirty black wench,” all of which pointed to her questionable backwoods upbringing. It was pro-Adams editor James G. Dana of Kentucky who luridly painted her as a whore. She could no more pass in polite company, he said with racist outrage, than a gentleman’s black mistress, even if the black wench wore a white mask. Her stain of impurity would never be tolerated among Washington’s better sort. Another unpoliced critic made a similar argument. Her crude conduct might belong in “every cabin beyond the mountains,” he wrote, but not in the President’s House.64 Even without the marriage scandal, Rachel Jackson had the look of a lower-class woman. One visitor to the Jacksons’ home in Tennessee thought she might be mistaken for an old washerwoman. Another described her as fat and her skin tanned, which may explain the “black wench” slur. Whiteness was a badge of class privilege denied to poor cracker gals who worked under the sun. Critics laughed at Mrs. Jackson’s backcountry pronunciation; they made fun of her favorite song, “Possum Up a Gum Tree.” She smoked a pipe. Alas, Rachel Jackson succumbed to heart disease shortly before she was meant to accompany her husband to Washington and take up her duties as First Lady.

President Jackson helped popularize the title phrase:

Though “white trash” appeared in print as early as 1821, the designation gained widespread popularity in the 1850s. The shift seemed evident in 1845 when a newspaper reported on Andrew Jackson’s funeral procession in Washington City. As the poor crowded along the street, it was neither crackers nor squatters lining up to see the last hurrah of Old Hickory. Instead, it was “poor white trash” who pushed the poor colored folk out of the way to get a glimpse of the fallen president.

Full post, including comments