The Professor's Notes

CBS News | Bush Econ Advisor: Outsourcing OK | February 16, 2004�07:04:23

This story from CBS is an Interesting commentary.

What surprises me more than anything else though, is that it is another example of politicians fleeing from thoughtful analysis for fear that the American populace will condemn them for holding a view that seems contrary.

Outsourcing has been portrayed lately as another example of a Bush Administration seeking the well being of corporations, to the detriment of the “working class families.” In fact, the Kerry campaign is pointing out quite consistently that we have a large number of jobs that have “moved” overseas. The fact is, most business professors will tell you that the globalization of the economy, and the “outsourcing” as it is so popularly described, has helped fuel the economic growth seen throughout the 90s. Yes, the 90s–that era of Clinton growth so touted by Democrats.

It is the ability to find, and leverage, comparative advantage, I commend http://internationalecon.com/v1.0/ch40/40c000.html as a good discussion of comparative advantage.

It is unfortunate that we find ourselves once again seeking to protect jobs that have become uncompetitive rather than encourage people to be re-educated, or at a minimum retrained, to do jobs in which we ourselves have a competitive advantage. Of course, educating America is a herculean effort, and given that those charged with that very task, educating America, have consistently allied themselves with a particular party, and a particular agenda, it is a task we won’t see tackled any time soon.

This is the problem with much of the discussion from the politicians. Because things seem, as that academic link says, to be counterintuitive, or worse, to be without heart, we distance ourselves from it, no matter how truthful.

Homework for today is quite simple: Read the link, and answer this thought question: How would you educate America on those issues that seem on the face counterintuitive, but if accepted would greatly improve our lot as a nation? Submit your thoughts, as a comment on this blog!

Yahoo! News Message Boards Politics News

I was making my way through the various news stories on Yahoo, and reading the various postings that the Yahoo-fans post as comments to stories. In my ramblings, I came across the linked comment from a user that stated:

“BTW….REAL Texans CAN’T STAND BUSH!”

Amazingly, we seem to again define ourselves as a “real” something, by adherence to a strict dogma.

So, being a “Real Texan” is not a function of citizenship? Then I suppose being a “real American” means something more than being a “citizen of the USA?”

I thought it was the liberals that were angry that the republicans supposedly accused them of not being “real” Americans because they didn’t support the President in everything. At what point can we at least agree that being a “real” something has to do with the attributes that make one “that thing?”

For instance, in many discussions I have had with people from various (nominally) Christian denominations, I am told that an adherence to the teachings of Jesus, in general terms, are important (but not necessary) but that any belief that he is “Christ” (Messiah, Chosen One, God) are not necessary, and in fact, only cause harm. This has led me to conclude that people with these views are not “Real Christians” but rather are “Real -ians.” When one chooses to remove Christ from His Church, then one should have the decency to remove Christ from the name, wouldn’t you think? And yet, these same people get a certain sense of “righteous indignation” when you question whether they actually are “Christians” or just “-ians.”

For me, membership in something, and thus being a “Real” anything, is a function of meeting the requirements of that group. If you choose to deny the teachings of your Church, then you should no longer be able to describe yourself as a member of that Church. If you do not accept the divinity of Christ, and the concept of a Sacrificial atonement, then you are not a Christian–simple enough. If you do, but you cannot accept the authority of the Pope over the Church, and believe that you have the right to decide what is right and wrong for you separate from the authority of the Church, then perhaps you are not a “Real Catholic.”

It really comes down to another shift in societal thinking. I wrote previously about the common urge to dispel with rules when they become inconvenient. If the situation seems important enough, let’s just set that rule of law aside, for now. We can always enforce it later, right?

Apparently this thinking extends to our inate desire to belong to a group, but an unwillingness to accept the responsibilities that go along with membership. Even worse, it has been twisted to allow us to not only redefine the definition of membership in a way that distorts the meaning of the organization, but then we use this new, twisted meaning, to attempt to exclude others. In an attempt to be inclusive, we become exclusive, seeking to denegrate those who are “different.”

Amazing isn’t it. Tolerance, and acceptance, have been twisted by those who espouse it to allow intolerance and exclusion.

Perhaps nothing really has changed after all. It still is about the selfish qualities of human nature.

The Olympics have shown that we now have an epidemic on our hands. No, not “gold Fever” but rather a sense that some things are more important than the rules. If you are at all comfortable with this statement it says much about how widespread the epidemic is. The Olympics are all about rules. It is the rules that ensure fair treatment of athletes, and fair play on the field of friendly strife. So how have we come so far, that we expect to see rules “suspended” or ignored, simply because we believe someone was treated unfairly?

In the Olympics we see discussions about whether the Korean gymnast should also be given the gold medal, since he was “wronged” by the judges. Of course, that glosses over the fact that the gymnast should have looked to see that his degree of difficulty was what he expected. It’s what the US team had done prior to the team all-around. Remember, the US team was upset that their high bar routines were downgraded, and that was before they ever mounted the device. Also the Korean coaches missed their opportunity to protest, instead protesting after the competition was final, and the medals awarded.

These rules are put in place with the intent of ensuring a fair, or even, opportunity for competition. Errors can be expected, since judges are also human, and thus other rules are put in place for protesting a decision. These rules are placed in recognition that one cannot wait to protest, because of the turmoil that will create.

Unfortunately, the Olympics are just the latest venue to face an assault on rules. If you remember the US elections in 2002, the Democratic Candidate for the US Senate seat for New Jersey withdrew from the race inside the window allowed by law to find a replacement candidate. Simple enough. In fact, one would think more simple a decision than sporting rules–just abide by the law. But that was too obvious a solution. Somewhere in our convoluted world, we decided that the “law” was too constricting. The Democrats went to court, not to challenge an illegal action by their opponent, but rather to seek justification for their desire to break the law.

This of course ignores another reason for laws: to provide a rational, reasoned response before a crisis, so that the “heat of the moment” doesn’t force an unfair decision. Unfortunately, even our courts are allowing the “heat of the moment” to hold sway. Decisions that should be clear and simple are twisted, distorted beyond recognition.

We even saw this mentality with the Clinton impeachment. When Senator after Senator stood up and said that what he did was wrong, and perhaps even a violation of the law, but could not bring themselves to vote for impeachment, they allowed the emotional tug of the moment to command the reason of the law.

Worse yet, defenders of Clinton were heard to say that, while what he did was bad, his “bad” was outweighed by his “good” and that we should give him a “pass” on any rules or laws he may have broken.

It’s not that the Law is wrong. It’s not that the rule is bad. It’s that “these circumstances” demand we suspend the law, or ignore the rule.

The most grievous example is found not in an instance of when the courts set aside the rule, but in the criticism when the courts abide by the rule of law. Commentators from the left continue to refer to President Bush as the “President Select” because of the decision of the US Supreme Court. Alas, if one steps past the emotions of the moment, what one finds is that all the Supreme Court said was “no, you cannot set aside the rule of law.” Since when is the Supreme Court “wrong” to uphold the law? When your side loses, apparently.

Which brings us back to the Olympics. Some venues followed the rules. In Breaststroke, Piersol believed another swimmer was executing an illegal turn in the event. He brought it to the attention of the judges, and the officials ruled that they could do nothing about it since they did not observe the infraction. Fair enough. He accepted that. When Piersol swam the backstroke a judge ruled that his turn was illegal. The US Coaches protested immediately, following the rules for the protest. The officials followed their protocols, and overturned the decision, on technicality some would say, but a correct decision none the less.

The rules, when followed, ensure fairness. The law provides structure. And the US Swimmers and Gymnasts proved that they are class acts. Perhaps they deserve gold fever.

Imagine: A Gold Medal for sportsmanship.

Go USA!

WHIOTV.com – News – Fairborn Schools Face Another Failed Levy

Ever wonder why school levies always seem to fail, and yet school taxes always seem to go up, and never go down? It’s simple– the levies keep coming back, and coming back, until they pass. It is interesting, the levies lose, and lose, and lose, but then, due to low turn out, or bad weather, or just a weird turn of events, the levy passes, often by a number of votes that can be counted on one hand. And that settles it.

I first noticed this rather odd turn of events in St Louis, where they were trying to pass a referendum to allow riverboat gambling. The referendum failed during every election for over two years, and at every defeat those supporting the referendum vowed to bring it back again. Once the levy passed, they proudly declared “this has been settled once and for all.”

So, what makes it “once and for all” when one side wins, and not another? I think it is because those that are pushing for these issues are quick to try to shut down further debate. In fact, they often use draconian tactics to make their point.

One of my favorite responses from a school district, when their levy failed, was to not only take away busing, but then add insult to injury by coming out and announcing that if any children are injured by having to walk to school, that the fault would lay with the taxpayers who were “too cheap” to pass a levy. Yup–rather than find waste in their budget (and there was a large administrative staff that could have been cut) they went for the jugular, playing roullette with the lives of children for the sake of money.

Another school district said they would have to eliminate the advanced placement and honors classes. When pressed, they said they wouldn’t fired any teachers. Why not? Because they still had full classroom loads of students. So, this was another effort to lower the education of students, simply to “blackmail” the community into paying higher taxes.

So what would my solution be, for school districts? Let me say, my suggestions are focused not on how to defeat, or repeal, the levies, but rather on how school districts could do better without them. These suggestions at times may require a rethinking of what “public education” means, but that isn’t an insurmountable obstacle.

First, make students buy their own textbooks. College students have to do it, so why not public school students? I hear the screams now “but what about poor families that cannot afford the books?” Simple: we help them. If you are below a certain income level, then you get “free” books. If you aren’t, then you can also economize by purchasing used books, and then selling them back, just like the college model. The books in public schools now are often used for several years in a row. Requiring the purchase of the books would perhaps result in students taking better care of the books, since parents will have a direct financial stake in the care of the books.

Second, continue to require students to pay to play. Participating in sporting events and teams at taxpayers expense shouldn’t be viewed as a “right” of students. They should be required to take physical education classes, and that should be community funded, but anything beyond that should be seen as “above and beyond.”

Third, permits for parking (at local High Schools) should be purchased. This would perhaps reduce congestion (price it high enough so many would choose not to drive) and also help subsidize the busing system.

Fourth, identify any additional “above and beyond” programs, and charge fees that are appropriate for sustaining the program. If it is an event with spectators, then charge an appropriate fee for that program, and have that money go directly to support that program. Any money generated by a program should be used directly, and not subsidized a “lesser interest” program.

One quick aside on this point: If taxpayers subsidize a program, such as the football team, they should be allowed to attend for free. They already paid for it–they should get to see it!

One of these days, I want to see people insist that a referendum that passed be brought back just one more time. after 4 defeats, to finally win and declare final victory seems “odd.” How about “best two out of three.” Think we could convince people to go for that?

Don’t forget, the midterm exam is coming. Leave your homework in a pile on the desk on your way out, and make sure your name is on your work.

So we are in a period of economic growth. We are seeing 4+% GDP growth, which in any economy is seen as a strong, sustained growth rate. In fact, while we often talk about the “recovery” that fact is, we haven’t really had a need to recover from anything since 2001. The economy has been growing ever since–it’s not recovery, but a period of sustained growth. Don’t believe me? Then believe this. Customer service has declined, by my anecdotal experience, and a company could only get away with this, if they feel they are growing and can afford to lose customers.

Of course, one of my recent “bad experiences” is with SprintPCS. Who would have thought one would get bad customer service from a cellular company, eh? The bottom line here is that I had a piece of hardware (the car charger) fail in a fairly spectacular way. I had to hit the brakes on the car, which let the cell phone slide down on to the floorboard of the car. As it did so, it ripped out the already lose power connector from the cord. When I went to exchange it, I was told that, while they would replace it this time, I had “abused” it, and that they would not replace any more of them.

I had two other experiences that surprised me. First, I called Delphi, because my XM Satellite Roady has a problem either with the antenna wire, or else inside the Roady. I was told I had to mail/ship the defective unit to the repair center, and they would send a repaired unit back to me. When I asked how I would be reimbursed for my shipping costs, I was told that I would have to pay to ship it to them, and they would cover the return costs. I told the customer service rep that this didn’t seem quite right, given that the unit had failed, and I had paid to have a working unit. Rather than work with me, or even work to explain anything, I was told, quite curtly, that “This is the best warranty in the business, and all the other customers are just happy to get their radio working again.” Needless to say, I was a little less than happy with being told essentially that I should be quiet, and just hope they get a working unit to me.

The other experience was at the local Panera Bread. I had handed the young lady my credit card, and she set it down to run and get something else. When she returned, she couldn’t find the card. She “looked every where” and then called her manager over. Her manager made it very clear that I could not have given her the card, because the card wasn’t there. I was invited to come behind the counter myself if I felt it was there. (I had witnesses from the people in line behind me.) So guess what? I found the card in 10 seconds, under the register, where I had told them several times I had thought it had gone. The outcome? She told me she was sorry, and she made sure I paid the full value.

Yes, I have used this forum to vent, but I usually like to vent with purpose. First, I teach supply chain and logistics courses, and a large portion of what we cover is the importance of customer service, and of major importance is customer service at the transaction point. Most bad service experiences can be overcome by proper handling at that point. Most lectures on customer service also point out the importance of existing customers. Did you know it costs significantly more to attract new customers than it does to keep existing ones? A $30 charger (retail price–no doubt a $15 unit at most) could cost SprintPCS an account that routinely generates $140/month for them.

So what could cause a company to have this approach to customer service? There are many possible reasons, but one of them could be they are being lulled into a sense of complacency with sustained growth, over the past few years. Perhaps they are wondering why they should spend time and money on training people in customer service, when the customers cannot leave? Or perhaps, the budgets are tight, and the companies are not willing to spend the money on training, in an effort to cut corners.

Either way (and even with any of the various other permutations that one could theorize) these companies are being remarkably short sighted. Customers have long memories, and need to be treated as the people that are responsible for paying the bills. If a firm loses sight of the customer, they have lost their business.

Today’s Assignment? Take the time to thank people for good customer service. We always remember the bad experiences. Make an effort to reward the good ones!

Then come back here, and leave your experiences as a comment. Let’s share our good, and our bad, experiences!

Class dismissed

Yahoo! News – CBO Report: Bush Tax Cuts Tilted to Rich

Wow!! Here I was preparing to write a blog about how both sides can present “true” facts (yes, I realize the humor in that…) and still hold opposing views.

It turns out that the Democrats chose to distort the facts anyway. Why would they do that? Because the facts from the CBO report show that everyone–yes everyone benefited from the tax cuts. In fact, refer to my previous discussion about why the tax cuts were a good idea to help recover from the slowing economy that Clinton passed on to Bush.

So, let’s start with the distortions. According to the Democrats, as reported in the Yahoo/Reuters news story, The CBO report shows that “the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million per year, will receive an average tax cut of $78,460 this year, and have seen their share of the total tax burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1 percent.” While this is most likely “accurate reporting” (that is, the Democrats did say this) it’s not actually to be found in the data of the CBO report. In fact, if you look at Table 3 of the report (use the link above, and read this for yourself) you will find that the share of “Total Tax Liabilities” for the top 1% of the population hits 21.2% by 2010, when the tax laws sunset (that is, revert back to the higher tax rates of 2000.)

So first, the Democrats actually understate the tax burden by 1 full percentage point. Not “even” a rounding error mistake. But what’s worse, they are arguing that it is “not fair” in some measure that 1% of the population is only paying 21% of the taxes. Read that again, slowly. 1% of the population is only paying 21% of the taxes. Let that sink in. That’s apparently too low, according to the Democrats.

Wow.

As if that isn’t enough, Table 4 actually is more “telling” since it presents the differences in tax Rates and liabilities. Yes, the tax rates for the top 1% dropped by a greater percentage. Could that be due to the fact that we are taxing them at a much higher rate to begin with? Remember, the more money you earn after you hit the highest tax rate, the greater percentage of your income you pay at that rate. If today, you happen to earn one dollar over the line, pushing you into the highest tax bracket, you will pay that rate–but only on one dollar. On the other hand, if you earn 1 million dollars over the line, you pay that higher rate for that total amount. So the total effective tax rate for a person one dollar over the line is far lower (given that the vast weight of the rate is the lower tax rates) than the rate for the person one million over who, for all practical purposes, earned all their income at the higher rate.

Now, that being said, you would think that the total change in share of the tax burden, or as the CBO report puts it, the total share of the “Individual Income Tax LIabilities” would decrease by a greater rate. But we see that is not the case. According to their report, those people in the top 20% of earners (highest quintile) actually show an increase in the share of the liability for most years, and there are only three years (2006-2008) when the tax share decreases at all for those in the top 1%. On the other hand, those in the bottom 60% of earners show a decrease in the total share of income tax burden every year. EVERY year.

Please, Democrats, let’s be intellectually honest here. Present the facts. The facts being simply this–The tax cuts put more money back in everyones’ hands, and at the same time did maintain the progressive tax structure that you believe is so important.

The other fact is even more insidious. Most people won’t go read the report, and the CBO won’t engage in political debates, so they won’t correct you.

But I will. And hopefully so will others.

Your homework today? Find truth. Seek truth. Live Truth.

I have thought long and hard about what I should be putting in these blogs. My desire is to try to tackle the bigger questions, go for the “deeper” issue and philosophical underpinnings of an issue. Of course, this is predicated on the notion that logic will prevail. If presented with a cogent, factual argument, people will be persuaded, and can change.

I of course, am not convinced of this.

For instance, I struggle with trying to identify “core values or beliefs.” For instance, I am frustrated by the constant repetition that the Democrats will unify, while the Republicans are divisive. Michael Medved was clear on his show Tuesday, when he pointed out the nation is divided, and that is seen in the political parties, and not the other way around.

Let me ask (yet another rhetorical) question. What makes the Democrats believe that they can “unify” the nation? The division isn’t simply one group liking one person and disliking another. We have at the heart of the dispute disagreements that are fundamental. While we all want the same overt outcomes (success for people, healthcare, jobs) how we view people, and thus how we believe our nation can best achieve these goals, are vastly different.

This is made manifest in just listening to the personalities on Air America, especially their morning shows. One morning they commented that they don’t disrespect, or hate, Christians, and then, literally in the next breath, they made fun of these people who “actually believe” these things. Now, how they can’t see the blatant hypocrisy in that statement, I don’t know. Another interesting of the division is when Janeane Garafolo commented that George Bush “actually said the verdict is still out on Evolution” and continued to deride his Christian beliefs. The true irony came when she said essentially that it is terrible that “Bush doesn’t believe in Evolution.” Heck, is it belief, or something else?

See, the debate is fundamental. This isn’t about parties, and divisive politics. It’s about vastly different world views, irreconcilable world views.

So honestly, how can EITHER party truly consider themselves uniters? Even Clinton, who sees himself as a great uniter, never was able to earn even 50% of the popular vote, in either election.

The only way I can see, is to win the election, and then pretend that no one disagrees with you, and that your mandate is complete–the very view the Democrats have accused the Bush Administration for taking.

The exam is next week–I hope you are studying.

4 Mile Creek

Okay, I had to add this quick link.

It’s not every day that I find a military officer who runs such an open opinionated blog. It’s interesting, and evokes many a rant from the left.

Check him out!

Yahoo! News – Al Qaeda Plans Include Assassination Plot -Report

Have you ever wondered if the political bickering could ever stop long enough to just “be reasonable?”

I have been hearing for weeks now criticism of the Department of Homeland Security’s consideration of plans for postponing the elections for a few days in the event of a terrorist attack. The charges are usually made that this is another effort by the Bush Administration to steal an election, and that it is an effort to subvert the democratic process. Scary and heady stuff, if true. (And yes, I heard the most scathing criticisms come from the Air America gang–Al Franken, Janeane Garafalo, and that “Morning Sedition” bunch, but there was also a hue and cry from members of Congress–people we expect to be reasonable, to reason, to be “deliberative.”)

A couple interesting tid-bits from history. Let’s start with recent history. It wasn’t that long ago, actually about 4 or 5 years ago, there was concern that we would end up with a national crisis that would require the suspension of the constitutional process, so that another President could remain in office. I, for one, always get nervous when discussions about setting aside the Constitution occur, and I had my issues with that particular President, but I did not in any way expect him, or any other President, to do such a thing.

Now, something a bit “longer” out.  If you all will recall, we are Constitutionally required to have the election on the first Tuesday of November.  The “electoral college” then?  The electoral college members meet in each State on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December” (see: Electoral College Information). Why is there such a long delay? The inauguration is then set for later in the following January. Simply because when we first started as a nation, the vast physical distances were also vast distances in time. People did not get the “exit polling results” from around the nation tipping the electorate off to the outcome of the election before polls had even closed in the western part of the nation. Each person (then, white male) would vote their conscience, without any insight into the voting practices of the other members of the voting population, and would not find out the final outcome for months. There was no angst, no nashing of teeth, no complaint that they failed to have instant gratification.

This brings us back to today. What was the proposal that generated so much anger, and venom, towards President Bush and the Department of Homeland Security? The proposal was to, if necessary, delay the election for a few days to ensure a fair election following a terrorist attack. The election would still be held with more than enough time for the electoral college to meet, and most certainly wouldn’t interfere with the Inauguration held a short 2 1/2 months following the election.

Is the plan so unreasonable? Let’s think about this for just a minute. Who is most likely to benefit from an election held under the cloud of a recent terror strike? I would posit the Republican candidates would regardless of incumbency. Why would I say this? Assuming conventional wisdom from the 2000 election is still true (and there is some question about this, for Florida this fall) then the vast majority of absentee ballots are cast by conservative military members, and cast for conservative candidates–most likely the Republican candidate. If a terror strike was within a day or two of the elections, people would perhaps be afraid to go to the polls–who wants to go gather in large groups? Large groups are terror targets! This would then have the effect of reducing voter turn out, and place far greater emphasis on the absentee ballots.

Let’s be reasonable. Let’s all work together, as Patriots, seeking the good of the nation, to ensure that all citizens are given the opportunity to vote. Let the citizens choose to vote without fear. Let the citizens have a few extra days to go to the polls if necessary. If you vote Absentee, we give you quite a long time to make your decision–it just has to be received before election day.

Think of it as “absentee voting” on the flip side, and for those that choose to actually appear at the polls.

Oh, and your homework assignment? Read up on the electoral college, and the history of our Federal election process. Did you know that the Senate used to not be elected by popular vote? Check it out!

have spacesuit, will travel: An Officer And A Gentleman

Two in one day, so I will make this one short(er).

I commend this “read” to you, and the various blogs he references. I too have my views on officership, and perhaps, someday, I will share them here.

Anyway–more fuel for the “where were you in 1972″ discussion.