New Normals III

Jobs. No Thanks. "I don't want one," is the response from 34.3% of people. This is the latest statistic from the Wall Street Journal, where it is noted this is up from 30% just two decades ago. In a recent paper, Declining Labor Force Attachment and Downward Trends in Unemployment and Participation, by economists Regis Barnichon and Andrew Figura divided those out of the labor force using a simpler standard: whether or not the person says they want a job. the paper is rather technical, but understandable. But it does render a couple of questions. (1) How much unemployment by those not wishing employment can a prosperous nation absorb - and remain prosperous? (2) What is the critical mass whereby this "don't want a job" attitude toward work becomes epidemic in society? The answer the the second question is unexplored.

There is another population out there not yet analyzed. This group, those people employed by in totally non productive venues. Many government workers can be so classified. So also are many in law and order. This is not to say they have no value; they do. They are usually high in relative intelligence. They protect us from another class in society - those that violate laws. But they don't actually produce. One could posit that the Soviet society collapsed partly under the weight of its unproductive human infrastructure.

This new normal reflects the attitude of an endless summer for too many. It indicates that big success will not happen, that the nose upon the grindstone of life is not in their thinking. It suggests a lower standard of living where there is a life that is viable. It diminishes, what for many of us, have long regarded as the natural progression from childhood to adulthood. It indicates a diminusion of expectations in favor of an idealic world of fantasy. It suggests a dangerous trend. This viewpoint and lifestyle assumes that the country is so strong and so powerful it can and will sustain regardless. It suggests a good job shold be delivered without personal effort. It implies an psychological and philosophical emptiness of massive proportions.

In the old days, religions demanded all should strive to contribute, if only in a small way. Pride could be taken in achievement. In the new days, with religion depracated, there are few guideposts, few societal demands exacted upon anyone. Rather we have the new normal that if YOU want to earn more, then seek it, work hard for it, achieve it. But if you don't there is no penalty of any kind. Do nothing - that's ok. Do something - that's ok too.

Lies. So much has been written about the continual barrage of lies we face from advertising to politics. A silver lining to all this exists.  It makes people calloused and hardened to any and every statement.  People are forced to think about what to believe. The new normal of total lies has strengthened the mind of the populace false promises.  I think - or I'd like to hope.

Compromise Not.  Cling to your position until that last moment.  Politics has become a game of chicken.  Polls have determined ultimately what politicians will do. Control the message implies controlling the polls and this in turn implies controlling the agenda.  This new normal suggests a fundamental change in the manner politicians transact business. 


Think big.  Think bold.   Advocate huge programs.  Pass massive laws.  Demagogue the position.  Do little.  Or do Nothing

Comments XIV

Hotels.  Today I am at a hotel in Helsinki.  The hotel maid speaks English fine.  Last month I was in Miami.  None of the hotel maid  understand English.  :)

History.  It seems that history flows along on a river of blood.

Education.  It seems that the less students are willing to do, the more teachers are asked to do.

1.      Trust but verify.  This essential quote from President Ronald Reagan has gripped politics and the American press.  Yet, too many trust and must trust because they cannot verify.  This even goes with scientists themselves.  This is another aspect of problem solving.  It creates impossible problems where the assertion without verification leads to conflicts. Those who insist on verification but don’t see it, become distrustful and this, like an infectious disease, spreads to all comments or “trusting” of such testimonials. You know many people that frequently make obviously unverifiable statements.  It comes to this: eventually no matter what this person says on other matters is suspect - even disregarded.  Trusting, nonetheless, is but an eyelash away from belief.

1.      How do you solve a problem?  If you’re in business you favor business solutions; if a politician, political solutions; if a scientist, scientific solutions.  You use the techniques you know and are comfortable with. If you are running for office, you promise to find the best possible solutions, but you use your familiar techniques.  You cannot escape you.   If you are a politician, say, trying to solve or endorse a scientific problem, you are out of your sandbox (pond).  You still appeal to your techniques perhaps relying on testimonials of those you trust, i.e. those like yourself.   If you are a psychologist, say, trying to solve a math problem, then you are outside your sandbox completely.  Your level of profundity is exposed.  You must learn the math or admit you cannot solve the problem.  Admission of inability is difficult for experts.

 
The Cynic.  First he said he was deprived of puberty, then youth, then middle age, then naivety, then hope, then promise, then dreams, then care, then faith.  This chap has not much further to go.  :)

Implication.  In mathematics or most every subject if I say that A implies B and B implies A, this is the same as saying A and B are the same, or as we say in the business, equivalent. This makes implication a powerful tool of logic.  But there is a weaker logic implicit in the term "to find."  When I visited the artistic retreat far in the mountains, the mantra at the entrance said here "Expression finds Freedom and Freedom finds Expression."  This is a weak form of implication, no where near implicating equivalence, much less the only path to the achievement of either.  But it illustrates the fuzzy nature of  our language.  The expression seems lofty, profound, and even universal, but essentially means little. It is deceptive; it is distracting; it promises much while delivering little.

Having a Plan. There is a favorite line from the movie Tremors, 1990, starring Fred Ward and Kevin Bacon,  I truly like.  Said Fred Ward in one scene, "We always have a plan.  That way we don't have to do anything right now."  That's me.

Problem Solving.  Everybody supports problem solving.  The schools, especially so, as it is tied completely with the mantra of enhancing the teaching of critical thinking.  So, the mandate for no less than the new Common Core Curriculum is to bring this front and center into mathematics teaching.  But is this an impossible problem?  Can  teachers teach problem solving if they themselves are not problem solvers. Most teachers can surely navigate their students through set problems, but are they missing critical instructional understanding of at least a few essential problem solving techniques when problem solving as a venture is not fully appreciated by themselves. My view is that teachers should be constantly challenged by new problems - if only so they feel, firsthand,  the same pain and puzzlement of their students when confronted by new problems. (Mind you, I'm not talking about difficult problems, but only new one that demand teacher critical thinking.) This dimension of puzzlement is where most of their students live. Do teachers fully understand it? 

You cannot teach a skill you yourself do not have.

Ten years.  Suppose a message were delivered to you that you were to be given an extra ten years to do what you wanted, and then regular life resumes afterwards.  What would you do?

Victim.  It seems that once a person regards oneself as a victim of whatever, they also regard that a suspension of normal rules of behavior apply.  It is like the victim has a license to misbehave.


Kathleen Sebelius.  Judging by Robert Gibbs comments yesterday that the Obamacare website is a total WH embarrassment, it seems certain that HHS Secretary Sebelius is on her way out.  Someone big must pay the price.   Robert Gibbs is affable, true, but he is also completely loyal to the President.  This leads us to believe his remarks were orchestrated from on high.

Advice:  As I’ve told students and colleagues for years.  Be careful about giving advice.  If your advice taken, you do assume a measure responsibility. Yet, nonetheless, advise is so easy to give, and is often done with almost no thought of the full circumstances.

Gresham's Law.   This law, simply put, states that bad money chases out the good. Named after Sir Thomas Gresham (1519-1579), an English financier, it was first mentioned in 1858 by Henry Dunning Macleod.   "Good" money is money that shows little difference between its nominal value (i.e. the face value of the coin) and its commodity value.  But when the money is diluted by diminishing the percentage of precious metal in it, the money becomes "bad" and the good money is sequestered by owners for another day.  Bad money has been shown historically to create economic disasters. Witness the debacles in 17th century China. There is a political counter part, to wit when a credible source suggests the welfare-improving choice and a less credible source simultaneously suggests a choice that will make subjects worse off, subjects make worse decisions than when only the credible source is available.  Bad information has an effect.  When conflicting information about various political candidates is presented, it is not evident that the voter will discount the lesser source(s) of credibility.   This implies that the obvious not exactly not that obvious.  Like the dilution of the precious metal, conflicting information dilutes the truth with the consequence that some citizens will be attracted to alternative, less reasonable problem solutions.

In general, bad often drives away the good. 


Compromise  is an art requiring both skill and practice.  In the absence of either, it is an impossible, though essential, tool of government.