Category: Uncategorized

Ad-blocking has been in the news lately. To me this is a sign of just how abusive web publishers have been. For the sites that I have run over the decades(!), whenever someone would propose a form of advertising I would preface my response with “Remember that everything on the page has to be something interesting to and useful for the readers.” If the proposed ad could not reasonably be expected to interest a reader then it couldn’t go on the site.

This is not a new idea. Look at New Yorker, for example. The ads are generally interesting and feature great photography. Maybe you don’t want to buy a $10,000 outfit but the ad is entertaining for a few moments.

At photo.net we didn’t have any ads at all until Google Ads became available because that was the first system that put reasonably relevant-to-the-content and relevant-to-the-readers ads on pages.

Perhaps the “ecosystem” (as the VCs like to say) has been permanently damaged by the glut of page views available from Facebook, et al. Nonetheless my first response to “consumers are taking the trouble to install ad blockers” is that publishers are violating what should be the first principle of publishing: include stuff that readers want/need.

 

Full post, including comments

Cato has updated its study on federal versus private sector pay. Total compensation for government workers was 1.78X what private sector counterparts earned. Adjusted for working hours, job security, and stress presumably the government option would be even better.

Young Americans should make sure to look at this before selecting a career.

[Separately, I’m wondering if the growing disparity makes government move more slowly and increases the burden of regulation. Nobody ever gets fired for saying “no” or “not yet” or “we need more time/paperwork/study.” Thus whenever there is a regulated industry and/or government approval is required, the easiest way for the government worker to preserve those 1.78X larger paychecks and pension checks is to say “no,” “we’ve never done that before,” or “please submit some more documents.” (And, actually, the pay cut from moving from public sector to private sector could be much steeper. The 55-year-old administrator getting $178,000 per year (salary, pension, etc.) who is fired after 25 years in government may not be worth anywhere near $100,000 per year in the private sector even if the skills, background, and experience are nominally comparable.)]

Full post, including comments

“The Black Family in the Age of Mass Incarceration” is an Atlantic article by Ta-Nehisi Coates, recent winner of a MacArthur “genius” award.

There is a lot of interesting stuff in the article, but to me some of the most interesting is how the writer and editors think about ambiguous facts.

For her research, Pager pulled together four testers to pose as men looking for low-wage work. One white man and one black man would pose as job seekers without a criminal record, and another black man and white man would pose as job seekers with a criminal record. The negative credential of prison impaired the employment efforts of both the black man and the white man, but it impaired those of the black man more. Startlingly, the effect was not limited to the black man with a criminal record. The black man without a criminal record fared worse than the white man with one. “High levels of incarceration cast a shadow of criminality over all black men, implicating even those (in the majority) who have remained crime free,” Pager writes. Effectively, the job market in America regards black men who have never been criminals as though they were.

It is uncertain as to why employers in this particular study were unenthusiastic about hiring black workers. It is possible that there was an association between “black” and “criminal” as the writer/editors suggest. But isn’t it also possible that employers avoid hiring people who could sue them for employment discrimination? Every black worker carries an additional expected litigation cost compared to a white worker. Alternatively, perhaps it it is the media itself, which loves to report on how black Americans do worse than white Americans in school (2009 posting on the subject). Perhaps it is the New York Times that has reduced the value of blacks in the marketplace by continuously reminding employers that race can be used as a rough guide to academic achievement. Yet the author and writer are confident that they can get inside the minds of the employers surveyed and know precisely why they preferred to hire non-black workers.

Much of the article concerns Detroit, whose decline is characterized as an unavoidable natural phenomenon, akin to an earthquake or hurricane: “Over the past half century, deindustrialization has ravaged much of Detroit. African Americans have had to deal not just with vanishing jobs but with persistent racism.” Are there no humans in Michigan who played any role in making Michigan an unattractive place to do business? (There are plenty of newly constructed car factories in South Carolina, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Texas, and Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana. (WSJ article from 2008)) The author and editors seem comfortable with that inference.

As the U.S. continues to slip downward in the world ranking of GDP per capita (CIA Factbook), I wonder if this will be Americans’ (both black and white) way of explaining the slippage: “we had nothing to do with it.”

[Separately, why would an employer want to deal with people like this, who blame their failures on external factors? Why not build a facility in a location where workers will take responsibility for the quality of their work? And if that is the goal, how to find such a place? If the goal is a factory within the U.S. (perhaps to capture government handouts/corporate welfare), is the answer to find a map of Atlantic subscribers and locate where the smallest percentage of residents subscribe?]

Full post, including comments

Ayn Rand wrote 1088 pages of Atlas Shrugged to disprove the theory that every Russian immigrant can be a Nabokov. What I remember from wading through this sea of prose (about 15 years ago, to see what the fuss was about) was (a) an astutely observed description of the bureaucratic mind, and (b) the idea that the most productive American individuals flee the bureaucratic/socialist constraints to form their own society in the mountains of Colorado. My thoughts about the book at the time were that, like Karl Marx, Ayn Rand succeeded pretty well as a historian (describing the American fondness for bureaucracy and top-down government planning of the economy) but failed as a prophet. The share of the U.S. economy consumed by government has grown since the 1957 publication of Atlas Shrugged (chart), but few individuals have fled (example exception).

I’m a little embarrassed by this idea but now I am wondering if Ayn Rand might not have been mostly right in her prophecy, just wrong about the structure of the fleeing. In Atlas Shrugged individuals fled physically. What if we looked at the extent to which corporations have fled virtually?

If I recall correctly, not everyone sought to flee in Atlas Shrugged. The less productive chose to stay around as cronies of the government or collectors of government hand-outs. The least productive American enterprises certainly seem to be sticking around: education, health care delivery, health insurance, etc. I haven’t heard about an American hospital system engaging in a corporate inversion with an Irish hospital or funneling all of the profits through an offshore trust in the Netherlands. What about our corporate heroes, though, such as Apple and the pharmas? There is still a lot of accumulated wealth in the U.S. so they operate here but, perhaps with an eye toward the Tax Foundation’s tax competitiveness index (U.S. rank: 32/34), are virtually fleeing to other jurisdictions as their tax and/or profit home.

• “Curbs Don’t Stop Tax-Driven Mergers” (WSJ on inversions)
• “U.S. Beer Maker Says Tax Code Encourages Foreign Takeovers”
• “The Hypocrisy of ‘Helping’ the Poor” (nytimes article by Paul Theroux suggesting that managers of U.S. companies act against shareholders’ economic interests by locating factories in the U.S. South)

Full post, including comments

As a society we have invested more than $1 billion in web sites, e.g., healthcare.gov, to allow Americans to search for health insurance. Is there an analogous site that lets Americans search for actual “health care”?

Newspaper articles complain that Americans go to the emergency room (“ED” as the docs call it) too much. To some extent this could be because the U.S. has so few doctors per capita and therefore regular doctors are typically too busy to see a walk-in. I’m wondering if there is also pressure on hospital emergency departments from the fact that it is hard to find a provider that (a) is open, (b) has available appointments, and (c) accepts one’s insurance. The market economy provides this for restaurants. For example, one can search with Yelp.com for restaurants that are nearby, open, and accept credit cards. What’s the analogous service for finding medical care? If there isn’t one, should we be surprised that people drive to the nearest hospital instead of spending a couple of hours making phone calls to various clinics and doctors’ offices?

[Fresh data: I have had a sore throat for a week, so today decided to look into the possibility of getting a “quick strep” test from a nurse. I called my regular primary care doctor’s office, meaning that I shortcut the process of figuring out where facilities were located and which accepted my insurance. I was on hold for 7 minutes and 45 seconds before the front desk staff could determine whether or not the office would be able to see me. As it happened, they were able to see me but not able to do a quick strep test. The doctor explained that for a small practice such as this one (she has about five partners in this office) the “federal CLIA” paperwork and regulation was too onerous to make it worth doing even the simplest lab tests on-site. How can CVS clinics do it then? “They’ve got a big company behind them so they can spread out the cost a lot better,” she responded.]

Full post, including comments

“The Anti-Redskin” is an interesting Atlantic Magazine article on Ray Halbritter, the self-described “Indian the white man doesn’t want to see.” For students of American cronyism there are some interesting elements:

Halbritter was the sort of adversary the Redskins had never seen before: a leader of an American Indian tribe, with media chops, A-list political ties (he sat beside Obama at a White House event in 2013 and hosted a golf fund-raiser for John Boehner this August), and a bankroll big enough to keep the NFL’s third-most-valuable franchise under a blistering spotlight.

The Turning Stone Resort Casino, a ribbon of white stone and dark glass located half an hour east of Syracuse, is one of the top-grossing American Indian casinos, raking in well over $200 million a year in revenue from its slot machines, golf courses, and hotel rooms.

… The U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, in turn, revoked his status as the tribe’s federally recognized representative. Halbritter drew on his ties with New York politicians; the bureau reversed its decision within 24 hours.

Six months before the showdown, Halbritter had inked a sweetheart deal with then–Governor Mario Cuomo to open Turning Stone. It was the first legal casino in New York State, and it didn’t have to share a cent of gaming revenue with any government. The deal’s generous terms, along with the tribe’s lawsuits—which sought to reclaim land from 20,000 property owners, many of them local homeowners—poisoned relations between the cash-swamped casino and the struggling rural communities around it.

What puzzles me about the article is how Dan Snyder and the Redskins are managing to resist the trend toward comparative victimhood that has swept America. Are people so busy worrying about gender discrimination and Ellen Pao that they don’t have time anymore to care about the hurt feelings of Indians?

Readers: What’s your best guess as to whether and/or for how long the football team in D.C. can continue to be “the Redskins”?

Full post, including comments

I was enthusiastic about buying a Microsoft Surface Pro 4. My 1993 prediction of the death of Microsoft Office, in favor of collaborative browser-based apps, has stubbornly failed to come true. The Surface seems like a good travel companion. I can look at documents that are stored in DropBox and edit them with Office and then email them off to patent litigators (where my carefully crafted prose will ultimately be shredded 🙁 ). My DropBox plan is 1 TB. This seems to hold my current expert witness work plus a year of photos and videos (the rest to be archived on a 6 TB mechanical hard drive on my desktop computer, then backed up via CrashPlan).

One would think that the 1 TB of SSD is the most expensive requirement, with a Crucial driveretailing for $315 (though perhaps Microsoft pays less as a wholesale customer?). How much does the $315 of SSD pump up the price of a $900 Surface Pro 4? It is available only with a Core i7 CPU, which I don’t need, and 16 GB of RAM ($80 at retail?), which I do need, for a total of… $2,700 (to add insult to injury, it is not even available for pre-order in this configuration). This is more than I paid for my monster desktop computer, which includes a 1 TB SDD, a 6 TB mechanical hard drive, and 32 GB of RAM.

Who loves the Surface and wants to tell me that it is worth $2,700? And how is that keyboard? Could one type out the Great American Novel on it?

Full post, including comments

The best answer for “how risky is that?” is generally “how much would it cost to insure against that?” Now Zurich, the Swiss insurance company founded in 1872, is saying that the cost of securing the Internet will exceed the benefits of connectivity by 2019: report.

Related:

• unemployed = 21st century draft horse?

Full post, including comments

TIME magazine recently ran “Polygamy Is Natural For Some People,” an essay advocating that polygamous marriages be recognized in the U.S.:

As far as my second wife and I are concerned, we’re married. But changing the law would afford her legal recognition and protection.

Legalizing polygamy actually empowers women. … If such relationships were legally binding, all spouses would be protected and have an equitable stake in the common property.

… Currently, some polygamists abuse the system by putting their additional wives on welfare. States only recognize one spouse in marriage, therefore making “single mothers” out of subsequent wives. Legalizing polygamy would also help neutralize some of the social stigma. People tend to confuse legality with morality. Same-sex marriage was illegal in many states until this summer. Interracial marriage used to be illegal. The laws only changed because people stepped forward.

Monogamy is natural to many. Polygamy is just more natural to us, and I’m fighting for our rights as a family.

Readers: Have you seen other examples of mainstream publications running advocacy pieces for polygamy?

Full post, including comments

I strolled down to the MIT Sailing Pavilion to get a few late afternoon photos and discovered that MIT now requires students to wear helmets:

 

(wind at nearby Logan airport was reported at 6 knots)

Separately, what about the Hovding airbag helmet for bicycling? Annoying to have to charge it every 10 hours but it seems like a better idea than conventional bike helmets.

Full post, including comments