Okay, all,
Since Colbert's "mockery" of congress has brought this perennial issue back to the front burner, here's my distillation of one of the more salient arguments that needs to be considered (as Colbert did, I will focus specifically on immigrants who work in agriculture):
1 - "They're taking American jobs." Truth is, there is work available for any legal resident in the fields and packing houses. Any legal resident who shows up to work will be given a job. The UFW even offered the jobs already held by migrant workers to legal residents... so far only 7 legal residents have shown up to even try the jobs out for a day.
2 - "Well, that's because they're willing to accept such low wages and drive the salary down. If there were no illegals available to hire, then the law of suppy-and-demand would drive the wages up to a level legal residents are willing to work for." That's a great point! The question is: could the employers afford to stay in the agriculture business if they had to pay higher wages to all of their workers? Well, the easy answer is yes; they could raise their prices and since people have to eat, they'd just pay more for food.
The real answer, however, has to take into account the flooding of our country with cheap food products from abroad (like Mexico and Chile, where workers are paid so little that they risk their lives to come work here for wages to low for legal residents to consider) that local growers have to compete with. There are two ways to address this problem: limit cheap imports or impose duties to allow local growers to compete in the marketplace... or subsidise the local growers to allow them to pay fair wages and still compete. Ideally, some combination of the two would be the most helpful.
Ironically, it's the heavy subsidizing of some crops (especially corn) by our government that has made foreign crops unable to compete (like Mexico), costing agriculture jobs in Mexico and sending those workers... guess where... to look for work!
The current system is messy and complicated, and needs to be fixed, to be sure. Ideally, our policies would work in such a way that local farmers could afford to employ legal residents, and migrants would have less incentive to come since they'd be making decent wages at home. Comprehensive reform is needed to really address this issue in any sustainable way, but most of the reforms proposed only hit one area, threatening to destabilize the whole system and ultimately failing. We need to be stricter about imports (what about auditing foreign growers for human rights/fair wages to avoid being slapped with huge duties at the border? Keep the foreign produce at a price that American growers can compete with), stricter with American growers about hiring practices (what about tying subsidies to effective auditing practices to make sure that all workers are legal and hitting them with fines and/or witholding subsidies in excess of the amount they would have had to offer to attracte legal workers?), and create a legal category for migrant workers that is accessible and creates a way for us to collect taxes on their income (the current system has unrealistic caps on legal workers that doesn't take into account the actual numbers needed by growers. It also makes the workers traceable to the IRS, which neither the growers nor the workers want when they're being paid cash under the table at rates below minimum wage).
Okay, that's my first pass at this issue. Comments?
- "Why, so can I, or so can any man; but will they come when you do call for them?"
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
Remember how much I hate standardized tests? No? Here's a reminder!
I noticed that my most recent posts are not particularly recent, so I thought I'd point back to some oldies but goodies up at the top of the list. Enjoy these classic rants (and I'll try to get back to finishing the list!):
Top 10 list #5
Top 10 list #6
Top 10 list #7
Top 10 list #8
Top 10 list #9
Top 10 list #10
Top 10 list #5
Top 10 list #6
Top 10 list #7
Top 10 list #8
Top 10 list #9
Top 10 list #10
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
When Jon Stewart has the smartest sounding idea around, we're in trouble...
So, Jon Stewart floats this option every time anyone remotely connected to the economy is on his show, and I have yet to hear one of them argue why it can't be done. Nobody has put forward a reason why his option would be worse than any of the other options we've heard.
Here's Stewart's idea in a nutshell, then I'll add my own brilliant flourishes (make it shiny!):
- The insurance companies (like AIG) are in trouble, because they have insured these loans that just aren't going to get paid back, and they can't afford to cover the banks' losses;
- The banks are in trouble because they have all of these loans on their books that aren't going to get paid back, and so their actual capital is less than what they need to be able to loan money out like they're supposed to;
- The homeowners are in trouble because they have these mortgages they can't pay back because they were stupid/gullible/greedy/whatever and were lured into taking out mortgages that they couldn't afford (and shouldn't have been approved for).
So far, our solution has been to give money to the insurance companies and banks: Now the insurance companies can cover the losses they've insured at the banks, and the banks can start lending money again. Homeowners... well, sorry, you're screwed... but you should have known better!
The problem is that the insurance companies and the banks aren't taking the money and using it to fix the economy, they're taking it and awarding themselves crazy bonuses, throwing lavish events, and not putting the money back into circulation in the form of loans, etc. So the economy is not moving forward, and our tax dollars are disappearing.
Jon Stewart thinks it's time to give the 3rd party in the debacle a chance to show us what they'll do with the money. Why not give the bailout money to the homeowners so they can pay off their mortgages? Then, the toxic assets aren't toxic anymore, banks balance books look like they're supposed to (provided they don't start making stupid loans again), AIG et. al. don't have to cover the losses on those loans because they're not losses anymore... problem solved, right?
Those are the pros, what are the cons?
1) Well, do homeowners who took risks they should have known better than taking be bailed out by the goverment? Is that fair to others who either continue to make their payments, or to others who didn't buy a home because they knew that they couldn't really afford it?
2) If we just give money to them, how do we know they'll use it responsibly to pay down their debt? What if they waste it on frivolous spending?
It's funny, because the cons of giving the money to the homeowners are the same as the ocns we've seen fleshed out in gory detail for the banks and insurance giants. So what if we can structure a bailout of homeowners that takes some of our experience with the financial institutions into account?
Right now, we own part of AIG and several banks as taxpayers. I'm not interested in owning those companies, I'd rather own houses! What if the government buys houses from people who are stuck in houses that they're in danger of defaulting on? Here are some ideas to make this work:
1) The government will buy any home that is in danger of foreclosure under certain conditions. Some conditions might have to do with when the loans originated, the payment history before interest was reset for ARMs, the percentage of equity versus the current appraised value of the property, etc.
2) The government will pay a price that covers the payoff amount of the mortgage, plus a percentage of the equity based on some formula that takes the aforementioned conditions into account. The payoff money for the mortgage does not go to the homeowner, but directly to the lending institution, releasing the title to the government. The balance goes to the homeowner in exchange for releasing the title to the government.
3) The government then immediately puts the home on the market, using a formula for the price that takes into account the price paid for the home and the current appraised value for the home. Any financial institution that wants to handle the mortgage for these government sales must choose from a limited number of options, like fixed-rate 30-year notes with minimal interest rates. It might even be an option to offer 40 or 50 year notes to qualifying buyers.
4) Current occupants of the home can be given the first opportunity to apply for the new loan and buy the house back from the government. If they apply (with realistic qualifications), they don't have to move out of the house and then move back in. They don't get the house for free, they get a restructured loan with government assistance.
So, the loans are no longer toxic, just a little bit nauseating. The banks exchange theoretical assetts and interest income that they'll never get back for a less amazing looking return, but a return they will actually receive. The government intervenes to make sure that the bank recoups its initial investment plus interest, though the interest is less amazing than they thought they could get in their pre-bubble-burst fantasy world.
Insurers don't need to save the banks, therefore they don't need government assistance, therefore they can use their own money to pay out bonuses and throw lavish to-dos.
Homeowners don't get a free house from the government, they just get another chance to pay off their debt with restructured loans that are more realistic. People who waited and didn't buy a home with crazy, unrealistic rates now have a chance to buy a house with reasonable rates that will stay reasonable from the government from those homeowners who really shouldn't have even tried, and who lose their homes but don't end up hopelessly in debt.
Why not? There's lots of cons, but I posit that the downside is less dreary than the current system of propping up the financial institutions directly. They've shown they can't be trusted to be responsible with our money. I'm all for giving the little guys a chance to disappoint us. We might be pleasantly surprised...
- "Now begone, before somebody drops a house on you!"
Here's Stewart's idea in a nutshell, then I'll add my own brilliant flourishes (make it shiny!):
- The insurance companies (like AIG) are in trouble, because they have insured these loans that just aren't going to get paid back, and they can't afford to cover the banks' losses;
- The banks are in trouble because they have all of these loans on their books that aren't going to get paid back, and so their actual capital is less than what they need to be able to loan money out like they're supposed to;
- The homeowners are in trouble because they have these mortgages they can't pay back because they were stupid/gullible/greedy/whatever and were lured into taking out mortgages that they couldn't afford (and shouldn't have been approved for).
So far, our solution has been to give money to the insurance companies and banks: Now the insurance companies can cover the losses they've insured at the banks, and the banks can start lending money again. Homeowners... well, sorry, you're screwed... but you should have known better!
The problem is that the insurance companies and the banks aren't taking the money and using it to fix the economy, they're taking it and awarding themselves crazy bonuses, throwing lavish events, and not putting the money back into circulation in the form of loans, etc. So the economy is not moving forward, and our tax dollars are disappearing.
Jon Stewart thinks it's time to give the 3rd party in the debacle a chance to show us what they'll do with the money. Why not give the bailout money to the homeowners so they can pay off their mortgages? Then, the toxic assets aren't toxic anymore, banks balance books look like they're supposed to (provided they don't start making stupid loans again), AIG et. al. don't have to cover the losses on those loans because they're not losses anymore... problem solved, right?
Those are the pros, what are the cons?
1) Well, do homeowners who took risks they should have known better than taking be bailed out by the goverment? Is that fair to others who either continue to make their payments, or to others who didn't buy a home because they knew that they couldn't really afford it?
2) If we just give money to them, how do we know they'll use it responsibly to pay down their debt? What if they waste it on frivolous spending?
It's funny, because the cons of giving the money to the homeowners are the same as the ocns we've seen fleshed out in gory detail for the banks and insurance giants. So what if we can structure a bailout of homeowners that takes some of our experience with the financial institutions into account?
Right now, we own part of AIG and several banks as taxpayers. I'm not interested in owning those companies, I'd rather own houses! What if the government buys houses from people who are stuck in houses that they're in danger of defaulting on? Here are some ideas to make this work:
1) The government will buy any home that is in danger of foreclosure under certain conditions. Some conditions might have to do with when the loans originated, the payment history before interest was reset for ARMs, the percentage of equity versus the current appraised value of the property, etc.
2) The government will pay a price that covers the payoff amount of the mortgage, plus a percentage of the equity based on some formula that takes the aforementioned conditions into account. The payoff money for the mortgage does not go to the homeowner, but directly to the lending institution, releasing the title to the government. The balance goes to the homeowner in exchange for releasing the title to the government.
3) The government then immediately puts the home on the market, using a formula for the price that takes into account the price paid for the home and the current appraised value for the home. Any financial institution that wants to handle the mortgage for these government sales must choose from a limited number of options, like fixed-rate 30-year notes with minimal interest rates. It might even be an option to offer 40 or 50 year notes to qualifying buyers.
4) Current occupants of the home can be given the first opportunity to apply for the new loan and buy the house back from the government. If they apply (with realistic qualifications), they don't have to move out of the house and then move back in. They don't get the house for free, they get a restructured loan with government assistance.
So, the loans are no longer toxic, just a little bit nauseating. The banks exchange theoretical assetts and interest income that they'll never get back for a less amazing looking return, but a return they will actually receive. The government intervenes to make sure that the bank recoups its initial investment plus interest, though the interest is less amazing than they thought they could get in their pre-bubble-burst fantasy world.
Insurers don't need to save the banks, therefore they don't need government assistance, therefore they can use their own money to pay out bonuses and throw lavish to-dos.
Homeowners don't get a free house from the government, they just get another chance to pay off their debt with restructured loans that are more realistic. People who waited and didn't buy a home with crazy, unrealistic rates now have a chance to buy a house with reasonable rates that will stay reasonable from the government from those homeowners who really shouldn't have even tried, and who lose their homes but don't end up hopelessly in debt.
Why not? There's lots of cons, but I posit that the downside is less dreary than the current system of propping up the financial institutions directly. They've shown they can't be trusted to be responsible with our money. I'm all for giving the little guys a chance to disappoint us. We might be pleasantly surprised...
- "Now begone, before somebody drops a house on you!"
Friday, November 21, 2008
No, not that Matt McDonell...
When you google yourself, you learn all kinds of things about yourself that aren't true... and aren't you. Apparently, my name is common on Milwaukee and Australia. Here are some highlights from google entries that are about other me's:
- Gouda to Matt!! Big Cheese is here for you!!! You have been a wonderful addition to DC, hope to see those posts coming. (Apparently, this other me is a cheese enthusiast)
- Matt .. you have been so much fun and I am a huge fan :) (true, but not about me, unfortunately)
- My name is Matt McDonell, and I’m from Saint Cloud, Minnesota. I was born in California but moved to Minnesota at the age of four, so I’ve known the cold ... (I was born in California, but never lived in Minnesota. Therefore, another me)
- Matt McDonell,. today. revealed the secret to. writing a great media. release. “There are three aspe. cts to this,” he said, “layout, ... (apparently the Australian version of me likes to end sentences whimsically several times within each complete thought whereas I as everyone knows here in the United States will refuse to punctuate long run on streams of thought that could clearly be broken up by at least one period and certainly could use a little help from several commas semi colons and or colons hyphens dashes etc you know what I mean oh yeah question marks too)
- On an individual basis, Matt McDonell was recognized most often (72%) (it seems ironic that I could be recognized most often... and yet it was never me that was being recognized!)
- “The project targets people who are looking for something different”, says Matt McDonell, Chairman of Greater Sydney Tourism. (what's really weird is that Sean McDonell is the Chairman of Leser Sydney Tourism...)
- Winning second place was ASWN: Damen Hatton, Matt McDonell and Josh Long, all senior electrical engineering majors. They were awarded $200. (Clearly, electrical engineering is the perfect preparation for a career in promoting Australian tourism)
- Lakota Lacrosse Club and Lakota School District name Matt McDonell Head Coach for East boys for 2009 season. (Lacrosse: The sport of Australian Electrical Engineers)
- I am a third-generation Oaklander, both of my parents and three of four grandparents were born in Oakland (one grandfather was born in foreign lands, Berkeley), my grandfather’s house and father’s family home are still in the family, McDonell Avenue is named after my great-grandfather, I was married in the Rose Garden and our reception was at the Snow Building in Knowland Park. (This is really weird. I live across the bay from a street named after my great-grandfather... who is actually not related to me at all...)
- Temko welcomed new employee Matt McDonell to the District. Matt was recently. hired as a Deputy Harbormaster at Pillar Point Harbor. (This is from San Mateo, also next door to my home of San Francisco. There seems to be some sort of plot to draw out the Matt McDonells from Australia and Minnesota and concentrate them here, in the bay area...)
And there are many, many more. There seems to be a high concentration of Matt McDonells involved in sports around the world: I found Matt McDonells who were soccer players, lacrosse players, runners, rodeo riders, cricketers, and one Matt McDonell who provoked an online stream of swearing from a fellow whose knee Matt McDonell had thrown a stick at. Anyone who knows me knows that I live for sports and simultaneously watch up to 11 contests on the many HDTV's hanging from the walls and ceilings of my subterranean lair, so this makes perfect sense.
So google yourself. You'll discover sides of yourself that you never imagined to be true about yourself.
- "I'm not myself."
- Gouda to Matt!! Big Cheese is here for you!!! You have been a wonderful addition to DC, hope to see those posts coming. (Apparently, this other me is a cheese enthusiast)
- Matt .. you have been so much fun and I am a huge fan :) (true, but not about me, unfortunately)
- My name is Matt McDonell, and I’m from Saint Cloud, Minnesota. I was born in California but moved to Minnesota at the age of four, so I’ve known the cold ... (I was born in California, but never lived in Minnesota. Therefore, another me)
- Matt McDonell,. today. revealed the secret to. writing a great media. release. “There are three aspe. cts to this,” he said, “layout, ... (apparently the Australian version of me likes to end sentences whimsically several times within each complete thought whereas I as everyone knows here in the United States will refuse to punctuate long run on streams of thought that could clearly be broken up by at least one period and certainly could use a little help from several commas semi colons and or colons hyphens dashes etc you know what I mean oh yeah question marks too)
- On an individual basis, Matt McDonell was recognized most often (72%) (it seems ironic that I could be recognized most often... and yet it was never me that was being recognized!)
- “The project targets people who are looking for something different”, says Matt McDonell, Chairman of Greater Sydney Tourism. (what's really weird is that Sean McDonell is the Chairman of Leser Sydney Tourism...)
- Winning second place was ASWN: Damen Hatton, Matt McDonell and Josh Long, all senior electrical engineering majors. They were awarded $200. (Clearly, electrical engineering is the perfect preparation for a career in promoting Australian tourism)
- Lakota Lacrosse Club and Lakota School District name Matt McDonell Head Coach for East boys for 2009 season. (Lacrosse: The sport of Australian Electrical Engineers)
- I am a third-generation Oaklander, both of my parents and three of four grandparents were born in Oakland (one grandfather was born in foreign lands, Berkeley), my grandfather’s house and father’s family home are still in the family, McDonell Avenue is named after my great-grandfather, I was married in the Rose Garden and our reception was at the Snow Building in Knowland Park. (This is really weird. I live across the bay from a street named after my great-grandfather... who is actually not related to me at all...)
- Temko welcomed new employee Matt McDonell to the District. Matt was recently. hired as a Deputy Harbormaster at Pillar Point Harbor. (This is from San Mateo, also next door to my home of San Francisco. There seems to be some sort of plot to draw out the Matt McDonells from Australia and Minnesota and concentrate them here, in the bay area...)
And there are many, many more. There seems to be a high concentration of Matt McDonells involved in sports around the world: I found Matt McDonells who were soccer players, lacrosse players, runners, rodeo riders, cricketers, and one Matt McDonell who provoked an online stream of swearing from a fellow whose knee Matt McDonell had thrown a stick at. Anyone who knows me knows that I live for sports and simultaneously watch up to 11 contests on the many HDTV's hanging from the walls and ceilings of my subterranean lair, so this makes perfect sense.
So google yourself. You'll discover sides of yourself that you never imagined to be true about yourself.
- "I'm not myself."
Friday, September 26, 2008
Customer Disservice
My sister-in-law has been doing some sleuthing into the fee-scheduling practices of her current (soon to be former) bank, and her findings are interesting, infuriating, frustrating, and (I'm afraid) fairly typical. (I won't name the bank, but it's the bank of our continent... and the next one down...)
Devious and hidden fees aside (par for the course, you know?), what was particularly upsetting was the way that she was "served" when calling the bank's customer service number. There's so much here, I'll make a list:
1) Attitude. The attitude of the person on the other end of the line communicated that their job would be so much easier if it weren't for all of these customers calling all day long and demanding service. That's the job! That's what you're paid for! Similarly bemusing was the fact that the length of the call (to be fair, it was a long phone call with lots of questions) seemed to be the most irritating thing to this alleged service provider. If you work answering customer service calls from 9-5, what does it matter if you handle 5 1-hour calls or 30 20-minute calls? I can think of many reasons to consider either one of those scenarios to be "more work" than the other, but the fact that there is a substantial wait time to speak to a human leads me to believe that my sister-in-law was keeping them from answering another (potentially annoying) call, not from taking a donut break. Of course the people calling don't know what's going on and are not helpful... that's why they're calling! If they knew the information they're asking you about, they wouldn't call! It's like a doctor complaining about how they just see sick people all day. Yeah, the people who aren't sick are at work! The people who understand how their banking services work are not going to call you to talk about last night ball game.
2) Deception and/or Incompetence. The person (or persons, she made several calls) she talked to gave her information about the fees levied upon her account that was false. There are 2 options for why this was so: 1) the person lied, or 2) the person was misinformed. If the person lied, that's just wrong! Did they lie because they were instructed to lie by management, or did they lie of their own volition to get this person off the phone?
But what if it was an honest mistake? The person just had the wrong information? Well, it seems to me that this is a failing higher up in the hierarchy: it is the responsibility of management to insure that employees tasked with disseminating information to customers be supplied with accurate information! I'd be willing to bet that the accountants who handle monthly statements are higher up on the list of people who need to know important fee-schedule information than customer service phone-jockeys, and that's wrong.
Regardless of where the deception or incompetence began in the chain of command, it seems reasonable to me to dismiss any fees levied against a customer if an employee of the firm whose responsibility it is to communicate factual information to the customer tells them that there are no fees. Decisions are made based on the assumption that the information received is correct: whether to transfer money to another account or another bank, for example. Money lost because of that incorrect information should be refunded (with interest). To say that the regulations on the books take precedence over those communicated by human beings employed by the bank is to abdicated responsibility in an inexcusable manner.
The real problem is that customer service is embedded into what is essentially a bureaucracy. You start out wanting to make sure that all of your employees and customers are treated fairly, and if your organization becomes large enough, you need to develop some protocols and guidelines to make sure that the same procedures are followed for everyone. It's intended to serve well and serve without bias. Then, you get so large that you need to hire people just to make sure these procedures are carried out.
The fundamental flaw in any bureaucracy appears the instant a bureaucrat understands their primary function to be serving the procedures and rules rather than serving the employees and customers. The rules exist because they were deemed at some point to be the best tools for serving the needs of employees and customers while minimizing time and cost expenditure to the employer. A bureaucrat must realize, however, that cases will come up on occassion where the original purpose for instituting the rules and procedures are disserved if those same rules and procedures are followed to the letter. Bureaucrats must feel that they have the flexibility to amend procedures on occassion when they don't serve their intended purpose.
Once a bureaucracy is entrenched, however, rules and procedures are developed to serve the structure of the bureaucracy, with service to employees and customers no longer part of the rubric. Any manager of an organization that seeks to serve the public or their own employees must be willing to review the machinations of bureacracy on occassion and weed out those places where the machine is serving itself at the expense of those it was built to serve. What do you do if the robot you built to mow your lawn ends up needing to burn your lawn to create fuel for itself? Well, you go back to the garage and pull out the old manual mower, or you let the lawn grow out of control. Neither of these is an attractive option, but that shouldn't stop us from shutting down the destructive grass-burning mower.
"Bureacracy" doesn't have to be a pejorative, and the eventual dissolution of customer service doesn't have to be inevitable. It might require more time, money, or even more thought. It's sad that in the current economic climate, that's a deathblow to treating those we ostensibly serve like annoying fuel.
- "No, wait, I'll go upstairs and hit some guests."
Devious and hidden fees aside (par for the course, you know?), what was particularly upsetting was the way that she was "served" when calling the bank's customer service number. There's so much here, I'll make a list:
1) Attitude. The attitude of the person on the other end of the line communicated that their job would be so much easier if it weren't for all of these customers calling all day long and demanding service. That's the job! That's what you're paid for! Similarly bemusing was the fact that the length of the call (to be fair, it was a long phone call with lots of questions) seemed to be the most irritating thing to this alleged service provider. If you work answering customer service calls from 9-5, what does it matter if you handle 5 1-hour calls or 30 20-minute calls? I can think of many reasons to consider either one of those scenarios to be "more work" than the other, but the fact that there is a substantial wait time to speak to a human leads me to believe that my sister-in-law was keeping them from answering another (potentially annoying) call, not from taking a donut break. Of course the people calling don't know what's going on and are not helpful... that's why they're calling! If they knew the information they're asking you about, they wouldn't call! It's like a doctor complaining about how they just see sick people all day. Yeah, the people who aren't sick are at work! The people who understand how their banking services work are not going to call you to talk about last night ball game.
2) Deception and/or Incompetence. The person (or persons, she made several calls) she talked to gave her information about the fees levied upon her account that was false. There are 2 options for why this was so: 1) the person lied, or 2) the person was misinformed. If the person lied, that's just wrong! Did they lie because they were instructed to lie by management, or did they lie of their own volition to get this person off the phone?
But what if it was an honest mistake? The person just had the wrong information? Well, it seems to me that this is a failing higher up in the hierarchy: it is the responsibility of management to insure that employees tasked with disseminating information to customers be supplied with accurate information! I'd be willing to bet that the accountants who handle monthly statements are higher up on the list of people who need to know important fee-schedule information than customer service phone-jockeys, and that's wrong.
Regardless of where the deception or incompetence began in the chain of command, it seems reasonable to me to dismiss any fees levied against a customer if an employee of the firm whose responsibility it is to communicate factual information to the customer tells them that there are no fees. Decisions are made based on the assumption that the information received is correct: whether to transfer money to another account or another bank, for example. Money lost because of that incorrect information should be refunded (with interest). To say that the regulations on the books take precedence over those communicated by human beings employed by the bank is to abdicated responsibility in an inexcusable manner.
The real problem is that customer service is embedded into what is essentially a bureaucracy. You start out wanting to make sure that all of your employees and customers are treated fairly, and if your organization becomes large enough, you need to develop some protocols and guidelines to make sure that the same procedures are followed for everyone. It's intended to serve well and serve without bias. Then, you get so large that you need to hire people just to make sure these procedures are carried out.
The fundamental flaw in any bureaucracy appears the instant a bureaucrat understands their primary function to be serving the procedures and rules rather than serving the employees and customers. The rules exist because they were deemed at some point to be the best tools for serving the needs of employees and customers while minimizing time and cost expenditure to the employer. A bureaucrat must realize, however, that cases will come up on occassion where the original purpose for instituting the rules and procedures are disserved if those same rules and procedures are followed to the letter. Bureaucrats must feel that they have the flexibility to amend procedures on occassion when they don't serve their intended purpose.
Once a bureaucracy is entrenched, however, rules and procedures are developed to serve the structure of the bureaucracy, with service to employees and customers no longer part of the rubric. Any manager of an organization that seeks to serve the public or their own employees must be willing to review the machinations of bureacracy on occassion and weed out those places where the machine is serving itself at the expense of those it was built to serve. What do you do if the robot you built to mow your lawn ends up needing to burn your lawn to create fuel for itself? Well, you go back to the garage and pull out the old manual mower, or you let the lawn grow out of control. Neither of these is an attractive option, but that shouldn't stop us from shutting down the destructive grass-burning mower.
"Bureacracy" doesn't have to be a pejorative, and the eventual dissolution of customer service doesn't have to be inevitable. It might require more time, money, or even more thought. It's sad that in the current economic climate, that's a deathblow to treating those we ostensibly serve like annoying fuel.
- "No, wait, I'll go upstairs and hit some guests."
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Subscribe!
You may have noticed that I have added a box to the left-hand side of my blog (under my little professor Homer picture) which allows you to subscribe to my posts. This should be handy for those of you who like reading what I write, but don't want to check back every couple of days during the frequent breaks of several months during which no new material is posted. Just enter your e-mail address and new posts will be sent to your e-mail. Check it out!
- sorry, no quote.
- sorry, no quote.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Renters vs. Speculators
This article on CNN.com made me think about the nuances of the mortgage crisis a little harder.
I agree that people who bought houses as speculators should not be helped out of those bad investments by the government. Any investment involves risk, and buying a home as a purely money-making investment with a mortgage structured to guarantee that you'll never actually pay it off should count as one of those risks.
When someone buys a home to live in however, it's more than just an investment. The purpose of buying the home isn't merely to use it as an opportunity to increase capital; it's fulfilling one of the basic human needs: shelter. Many people who bought homes to live in via a poorly structured loan would never have been able to qualify for a loan otherwise. They were the vicitims of predatory lending practices, but before that they were the victims of an economy that places home ownership out of people's grasp.
There's another option for people who can't qualify to buy their own home: rent one! And here's where it gets sticky. What happens when an unscrupulous speculator buys a home as an investment, but then rents it out to someone who is not a speculator, but merely someone renting to fulfill the basic human need of shelter for themselves and their family? When the owner is foreclosed upon because they gave up on paying off the mortgage for a home they don't even live in, what options do the renters have, and what rights should they have?
The renters could buy the home from the bank, but many people rent precisely because they don't have the credit history or income necessary to qualify for a loan from the bank to buy a home.
Here's what I propose:
1st step - The bank must allow the renters to remain in the home after foreclosure for the duration of their lease or 6 months, whichever is greater, while paying the rent specified in their lease directly to the bank, as long as the amount of the rent is greater than or equal to the amount the erstwhile owner was supposed to pay the bank as specified in the original mortgage agreement. There is an understanding that after this time period is over, the lease will not be renewed.
2nd step - If the rent specified in the lease is less than the mortgage payment required of the owner, the bank extends the option to the renters to remain in the home for the duration of their lease or 6 months, whichever is higher, but they must pay to the bank the amount that the owner was supposed to have paid as per their mortgage agreement (non-retroactive: just keep up, they don't have to catch up!). There is an understanding that after this time period is over, the lease will not be renewed.
3rd step - If the renters have lived in the house for at least 1 year and have a perfect history of paying their rent, then once the lease (or 6 months) is up, the bank offers the renters the first chance at buying the property. The sale amount is not to exceed the balance of the mortgage, and the regular credit-score/income requirements should be waived. If the equity already in the house is equal to 15% of the current value of the house, no down payment is required. If not, a down-payment which will bring the equity up to 15% of the current value of the house may be required by the bank at the bank's discretion.
4th step - If the renters have lived in the house for less than 1 year and/or have a less than perfect history of rental payments on the house, then they will also have the first chance at buying the property with a loan structured as above, but the bank may apply the regular credit-score/income requirements to the renters.
5th step - If the renters are unwilling or unable to purchase the house under the above structure, the bank is free to offer the house for sale as it would any other foreclosed property.
Throughout this whole process, the speculative/deadbeat owner is cut out: They have been foreclosed upon and have no further connection to the property. Any investment they made in the property is lost, and their credit history reflects their poor investment choices.
So, what do you think? Is this fair? Is it reasonable for the government to require lending institutions to extend these options to renters?
- "None at all."
I agree that people who bought houses as speculators should not be helped out of those bad investments by the government. Any investment involves risk, and buying a home as a purely money-making investment with a mortgage structured to guarantee that you'll never actually pay it off should count as one of those risks.
When someone buys a home to live in however, it's more than just an investment. The purpose of buying the home isn't merely to use it as an opportunity to increase capital; it's fulfilling one of the basic human needs: shelter. Many people who bought homes to live in via a poorly structured loan would never have been able to qualify for a loan otherwise. They were the vicitims of predatory lending practices, but before that they were the victims of an economy that places home ownership out of people's grasp.
There's another option for people who can't qualify to buy their own home: rent one! And here's where it gets sticky. What happens when an unscrupulous speculator buys a home as an investment, but then rents it out to someone who is not a speculator, but merely someone renting to fulfill the basic human need of shelter for themselves and their family? When the owner is foreclosed upon because they gave up on paying off the mortgage for a home they don't even live in, what options do the renters have, and what rights should they have?
The renters could buy the home from the bank, but many people rent precisely because they don't have the credit history or income necessary to qualify for a loan from the bank to buy a home.
Here's what I propose:
1st step - The bank must allow the renters to remain in the home after foreclosure for the duration of their lease or 6 months, whichever is greater, while paying the rent specified in their lease directly to the bank, as long as the amount of the rent is greater than or equal to the amount the erstwhile owner was supposed to pay the bank as specified in the original mortgage agreement. There is an understanding that after this time period is over, the lease will not be renewed.
2nd step - If the rent specified in the lease is less than the mortgage payment required of the owner, the bank extends the option to the renters to remain in the home for the duration of their lease or 6 months, whichever is higher, but they must pay to the bank the amount that the owner was supposed to have paid as per their mortgage agreement (non-retroactive: just keep up, they don't have to catch up!). There is an understanding that after this time period is over, the lease will not be renewed.
3rd step - If the renters have lived in the house for at least 1 year and have a perfect history of paying their rent, then once the lease (or 6 months) is up, the bank offers the renters the first chance at buying the property. The sale amount is not to exceed the balance of the mortgage, and the regular credit-score/income requirements should be waived. If the equity already in the house is equal to 15% of the current value of the house, no down payment is required. If not, a down-payment which will bring the equity up to 15% of the current value of the house may be required by the bank at the bank's discretion.
4th step - If the renters have lived in the house for less than 1 year and/or have a less than perfect history of rental payments on the house, then they will also have the first chance at buying the property with a loan structured as above, but the bank may apply the regular credit-score/income requirements to the renters.
5th step - If the renters are unwilling or unable to purchase the house under the above structure, the bank is free to offer the house for sale as it would any other foreclosed property.
Throughout this whole process, the speculative/deadbeat owner is cut out: They have been foreclosed upon and have no further connection to the property. Any investment they made in the property is lost, and their credit history reflects their poor investment choices.
So, what do you think? Is this fair? Is it reasonable for the government to require lending institutions to extend these options to renters?
- "None at all."
Thursday, May 08, 2008
Options for Florida and Michigan (updated 5/21)
Option 1: Don't seat any delegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,025. There are currently 86 delegates that will be determined by votes in the remaining states (and Puerto Rico), and 212 superdelegates who have not publicly pledged their vote to either candidate. Obama needs 62 (21%) of these remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton needs 247 (83%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race).
Option 2: Seat delegates proportional to votes cast and reinstate superdelegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,208, and the number of unpledged superdelegates goes up to 267. This would give Clinton half of the available pledged delegates from Florida where she received 50% of the popular vote (93 delegates), and Obama 33% of the available pledged delegates from Florida where he received 33% of the popular vote (61 delegates). Clinton would also receive 55% of the available pledged delegates from Michigan (70 delegates), while Obama would receive none, since he received no votes because his name was not on the ballot. Obama would need 185 (52%) of the remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton would need 268 (76%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race, and because of the Florida and Michigan delegates that represent votes for candidates other than Clinton or Obama).
Option 3: Seat delegates proportional to votes cast, award all "unpledged" votes in Michigan to Obama (who did not appear on the ballot, though Clinton did) and reinstate superdelegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,208, and the number of unpledged superdelegates goes up to 267. This would give Clinton half of the available pledged delegates from Florida where she received 50% of the popular vote (93 delegates), and Obama 33% of the available pledged delegates from Florida where he received 33% of the popular vote (61 delegates). Clinton would also receive 55% of the available pledged delegates from Michigan (70 delegates), while Obama would receive 40%, representing the 40% of Michigan voters who voted for "unpledged"delegates on a ballot that had Clinton's name but not Obama's (51 delegates). Obama would need 134 (38%) of the remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton would need 268 (76%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race, and because of the Florida and Michigan delegates that represent votes for candidates other than Clinton or Obama). John Edwards name did not appear on the Michigan ballot either, however, making it problematic to award all of these delegates to Obama, which leads us to the next two options...
Option 4: Seat delegates proportional to votes cast, award half of "unpledged" votes in Michigan to Obama (who did not appear on the ballot, though Clinton did) and reinstate superdelegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,208, and the number of unpledged superdelegates goes up to 267.This would give Clinton half of the available pledged delegates from Florida where she received 50% of the popular vote (93 delegates), and Obama 33% of the available pledged delegates from Florida where he received 33% of the popular vote (61 delegates). Clinton would also receive 55% of the available pledged delegates from Michigan (70 delegates), while Obama would receive 20%, representing half the 40% of Michigan voters who voted for "unpledged"delegates on a ballot that had Clinton's name but not Obama's or Edwards' (26 delegates). Obama would need 159 (45%) of the remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton would need 243 (69%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race, and because of the Florida and Michigan delegates that represent votes for candidates other than Clinton or Obama).
Option 5: Seat delegates proportional to votes cast, split the "unpledged" votes in Michigan evenly between the two delegates and reinstate superdelegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,208, and the number of unpledged superdelegates goes up to 267. This would give Clinton half of the available pledged delegates from Florida where she received 50% of the popular vote (93 delegates), and Obama 33% of the available pledged delegates from Florida where he received 33% of the popular vote (61 delegates). Clinton would also receive 75% of the available pledged delegates from Michigan (70 delegates) representing the 55% of Michigan voters who voted for her, as well as half of the voters who voted for "unpledged" delegates (even though her name was on the ballot! A generous option for Hillary!), while Obama would receive 20%, representing half the 40% of Michigan voters who voted for "unpledged"delegates on a ballot that had Clinton's name but not Obama's or Edwards' (26 delegates). Obama would need 159 (45%) of the remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton would need 243(69%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race, and because of the Florida and Michigan delegates that represent votes for candidates other than Clinton or Obama).
There's one more option that would definitely be the least fair to Senator Obama, especially since his name didn't even appear on the Michigan ballot...
Option 6: Treat both states as "winner take all" and award all available pledged delegates to Clinton and reinstate superdelegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,208, and the number of unpledged superdelegates goes up to 267. This would give Clinton all of the available pledged delegates from Florida where she received 50% of the popular vote (185 delegates), and all of the available pledged delegates from Michigan (128 delegates) where she received 55% of the popular vote. Obama would need 246(70%) of the remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton would need 118 (33%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race).
Notice that currently, Clinton needs over 80% of the remaining delegates to gain the nomination, while Obama only needs 21%. Almost any option that involves apportioning Florida and Michigan delegates in some sort of fair way reduces Clinton's needed delegates to 69% or 76%... not a huge change. The only way that she gains an advantage is if she gets ALL of the delegates from Florida and Michigan, which seems unfair since Obama received a third of the votes in Florida, and 40% of the voters in Michigan turned out and voted for "unpledged," which HAS to be interpreted as a vote that would have been cast for Obama or Edwards if they had been on the ballot. It's not too much of a stretch, either, to imagine that some of those who voted for Hillary might have voted for Edwards or Obama if they had been on the ballot.
I say award delegates proportional to the votes they received (option 2). That's not the fairest option (I think that option 4 would be closer to the real numbers), but it should take away any whining ammunition that Hillary might take into the convention if Obama gets to 2,025 delegates but not 2,208.
What do you think?
- "There's no crying in baseball!"
Option 2: Seat delegates proportional to votes cast and reinstate superdelegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,208, and the number of unpledged superdelegates goes up to 267. This would give Clinton half of the available pledged delegates from Florida where she received 50% of the popular vote (93 delegates), and Obama 33% of the available pledged delegates from Florida where he received 33% of the popular vote (61 delegates). Clinton would also receive 55% of the available pledged delegates from Michigan (70 delegates), while Obama would receive none, since he received no votes because his name was not on the ballot. Obama would need 185 (52%) of the remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton would need 268 (76%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race, and because of the Florida and Michigan delegates that represent votes for candidates other than Clinton or Obama).
Option 3: Seat delegates proportional to votes cast, award all "unpledged" votes in Michigan to Obama (who did not appear on the ballot, though Clinton did) and reinstate superdelegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,208, and the number of unpledged superdelegates goes up to 267. This would give Clinton half of the available pledged delegates from Florida where she received 50% of the popular vote (93 delegates), and Obama 33% of the available pledged delegates from Florida where he received 33% of the popular vote (61 delegates). Clinton would also receive 55% of the available pledged delegates from Michigan (70 delegates), while Obama would receive 40%, representing the 40% of Michigan voters who voted for "unpledged"delegates on a ballot that had Clinton's name but not Obama's (51 delegates). Obama would need 134 (38%) of the remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton would need 268 (76%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race, and because of the Florida and Michigan delegates that represent votes for candidates other than Clinton or Obama). John Edwards name did not appear on the Michigan ballot either, however, making it problematic to award all of these delegates to Obama, which leads us to the next two options...
Option 4: Seat delegates proportional to votes cast, award half of "unpledged" votes in Michigan to Obama (who did not appear on the ballot, though Clinton did) and reinstate superdelegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,208, and the number of unpledged superdelegates goes up to 267.This would give Clinton half of the available pledged delegates from Florida where she received 50% of the popular vote (93 delegates), and Obama 33% of the available pledged delegates from Florida where he received 33% of the popular vote (61 delegates). Clinton would also receive 55% of the available pledged delegates from Michigan (70 delegates), while Obama would receive 20%, representing half the 40% of Michigan voters who voted for "unpledged"delegates on a ballot that had Clinton's name but not Obama's or Edwards' (26 delegates). Obama would need 159 (45%) of the remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton would need 243 (69%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race, and because of the Florida and Michigan delegates that represent votes for candidates other than Clinton or Obama).
Option 5: Seat delegates proportional to votes cast, split the "unpledged" votes in Michigan evenly between the two delegates and reinstate superdelegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,208, and the number of unpledged superdelegates goes up to 267. This would give Clinton half of the available pledged delegates from Florida where she received 50% of the popular vote (93 delegates), and Obama 33% of the available pledged delegates from Florida where he received 33% of the popular vote (61 delegates). Clinton would also receive 75% of the available pledged delegates from Michigan (70 delegates) representing the 55% of Michigan voters who voted for her, as well as half of the voters who voted for "unpledged" delegates (even though her name was on the ballot! A generous option for Hillary!), while Obama would receive 20%, representing half the 40% of Michigan voters who voted for "unpledged"delegates on a ballot that had Clinton's name but not Obama's or Edwards' (26 delegates). Obama would need 159 (45%) of the remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton would need 243(69%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race, and because of the Florida and Michigan delegates that represent votes for candidates other than Clinton or Obama).
There's one more option that would definitely be the least fair to Senator Obama, especially since his name didn't even appear on the Michigan ballot...
Option 6: Treat both states as "winner take all" and award all available pledged delegates to Clinton and reinstate superdelegates. In that case, the total number of delegates needed to win is 2,208, and the number of unpledged superdelegates goes up to 267. This would give Clinton all of the available pledged delegates from Florida where she received 50% of the popular vote (185 delegates), and all of the available pledged delegates from Michigan (128 delegates) where she received 55% of the popular vote. Obama would need 246(70%) of the remaining delegates to win the nomination, Clinton would need 118 (33%). (The two percentages don't add up to 100%, because of the 9 delegates awarded to John Edwards before he dropped out of the race).
Notice that currently, Clinton needs over 80% of the remaining delegates to gain the nomination, while Obama only needs 21%. Almost any option that involves apportioning Florida and Michigan delegates in some sort of fair way reduces Clinton's needed delegates to 69% or 76%... not a huge change. The only way that she gains an advantage is if she gets ALL of the delegates from Florida and Michigan, which seems unfair since Obama received a third of the votes in Florida, and 40% of the voters in Michigan turned out and voted for "unpledged," which HAS to be interpreted as a vote that would have been cast for Obama or Edwards if they had been on the ballot. It's not too much of a stretch, either, to imagine that some of those who voted for Hillary might have voted for Edwards or Obama if they had been on the ballot.
I say award delegates proportional to the votes they received (option 2). That's not the fairest option (I think that option 4 would be closer to the real numbers), but it should take away any whining ammunition that Hillary might take into the convention if Obama gets to 2,025 delegates but not 2,208.
What do you think?
- "There's no crying in baseball!"
Friday, May 02, 2008
The voice behind the mouth
Hello, loyal readers,
I recorded another short "Perspective" for our local NPR station (KQED) and it will air Wednesday, May 7th. It's another installment in my ongoing, multi-part, multi-media rant on standardized testing. I think it airs at 7:37 am and again at 8:37 am... but I'm not sure. If you aren't able to tune in, you can listen to their archive of past Perspectives here, as well as my two previous contributions to the program here and here.
-"I'll make you famous."
I recorded another short "Perspective" for our local NPR station (KQED) and it will air Wednesday, May 7th. It's another installment in my ongoing, multi-part, multi-media rant on standardized testing. I think it airs at 7:37 am and again at 8:37 am... but I'm not sure. If you aren't able to tune in, you can listen to their archive of past Perspectives here, as well as my two previous contributions to the program here and here.
-"I'll make you famous."
Thursday, May 01, 2008
I love you, Jonathan Kozol!
I've started to read Jonathan Kozol's latest: Shame of the Nation. I love it. Basically, Kozol is tracing the backward slide of American public education into segregation and inequity to a degree we haven't seen since the 1950's. Poor kids (especially black and latino kids) are being sequestered educationally and denied access to facilities, teachers, opportunities and especially money. Sounds like the good old days, doesn't it? I love the way he cuts through the political double-talk that we hear so often that claims that "throwing money at the problem" won't work for the education of poor, urban, minority students. If the rich really believe that, muses Kozol, how do they justify the insane amounts of money they gladly fork over for their own kids education? Their behavior certainly does seem to suggest that at some level they believe that a better education costs more money... or they're big suckers, easily parted from the money, an option which the fact of their wealth would seem to invalidate.
Anyway, reading this book is great... but there's a problem. So far it's just making me angry and frustrated, and I think that's valid. It should. But what good does that do anyone? Complaining loudly about how messed up things are has become something of a national pastime in post-modernist America, and being outraged at injustice has become an acceptable substitute for actually working for justice.
Not to say that it's our responsibility to fix the problems of the world, but here's a little game I like to play in my own mind: I call it "what if everyone made the same choices as I do?" I know that my owning a hybrid rather than a Hummer will not by itself save the world from global warming, or that whether I throw my soda can in the garbage or the recycling will determine whether or not my descendants will have to live in caves underground. But it is helpful to assume that on each issue, the world is full of two kinds of people: those who are making the problem worse and those who are making it better. At that point, I have to decide which group I want to belong to.
Making these choices more about the identity I want to reinforce for myself and the kind of person I want to continue becoming rather than about changing the world is very freeing. It's not my responsibility to change the world, but I can choose to be a part of the group that takes individual responsibility to the whole seriously.
So, back to the issue at hand: how should I respond to Kozol's damning indictment of American education? Here's some ideas I've been thinking of... please reply with more if you come up with any... and let me know how you're doing on following through!
Anyway, reading this book is great... but there's a problem. So far it's just making me angry and frustrated, and I think that's valid. It should. But what good does that do anyone? Complaining loudly about how messed up things are has become something of a national pastime in post-modernist America, and being outraged at injustice has become an acceptable substitute for actually working for justice.
Not to say that it's our responsibility to fix the problems of the world, but here's a little game I like to play in my own mind: I call it "what if everyone made the same choices as I do?" I know that my owning a hybrid rather than a Hummer will not by itself save the world from global warming, or that whether I throw my soda can in the garbage or the recycling will determine whether or not my descendants will have to live in caves underground. But it is helpful to assume that on each issue, the world is full of two kinds of people: those who are making the problem worse and those who are making it better. At that point, I have to decide which group I want to belong to.
Making these choices more about the identity I want to reinforce for myself and the kind of person I want to continue becoming rather than about changing the world is very freeing. It's not my responsibility to change the world, but I can choose to be a part of the group that takes individual responsibility to the whole seriously.
So, back to the issue at hand: how should I respond to Kozol's damning indictment of American education? Here's some ideas I've been thinking of... please reply with more if you come up with any... and let me know how you're doing on following through!
- Vote for political candidates that favor more equity in public education (well, assuming the choice is given, check!)
- Write op-ed pieces, letters to the editor, my elected representatives at local, state, and national levels, and express my disappointment with the injustice going on and my hopes for their moral integrity as one of their constituents (check!)
- Try to let everyone I know in on what's "really" going on with public education, and deciphering the statistics and political jargon for what it really is: a concerted effort to make sure that any available resources are shifted toward those who already have more than they need at the expesne of those who really need it (If you're reading this... check!)
Now, the really tricky ones... the ones that trip up those avowed liberals in Hollywood or the left-wing politicians who talk the talk but send their own kids to the same elite schools as the rest of the rich people:
- Resist the pressure of society to seek out places to live with "good-schools" and assuming that my responsibility to my own children mandates sheltering them from "those people" and making sure that none of the "problems" of growing up as an urban minority have anything to do with me or my family.
- Work in an inner-city, minority school and teach those kids with everything I've got.
- Send my own kid to a public, urban school with a diverse population instead of the elitist schools that my race and socio-economic status hold out to me, and then invest heavily in that school community as a parent volunteer and advocate .
So that's the kind of response I want to have to a book like this. Please keep me accountable when you see my making choices that betray my convictions.
- "Have you met them? The poor?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)