I was amused to find two age-related posts in my Grist feed: one reports that the Nature Conservancy's members are old and gray, which causes concern; the other reports that climate change deniers are old and gray, which causes pleasure.
The mantra of my household is: don't grow old.
Thursday, February 09, 2012
Wednesday, February 08, 2012
Those Destructive Government Employees
Did you hear that Obama shot off a cannon in the State Dining Room? Not content with destroying our free enterprise system, he's now intent on destroying the White House so Mitt can't take it over.
People Leave the Country: 1920's {corrected]
I knew the 1920's were not good for US farmers, but I was totally floored by the economic history piece on 1920's which included this graph: 20 million people left the farm in the 1920's.
[Correction: Note the different scales on the left (population) and right (employment), so the decline in population is about 1.5 million, not 20 million. I thank the author, Gene Smiley, for pointing out my mistake.}
[Correction: Note the different scales on the left (population) and right (employment), so the decline in population is about 1.5 million, not 20 million. I thank the author, Gene Smiley, for pointing out my mistake.}
Tuesday, February 07, 2012
Civil Servants: Pay and Expectations
The Post reported this morning on an investigation in DC of people who drew unemployment insurance while employed by the District. Apparently particularly for intermittent employees, the pattern was when they got paid by the District they failed to report the fact back to the unemployment people.
My immediate response was drastic, jail 'em. Maybe that's because I think highly of public service, so feel let down when civil servants screw up. Then I thought: if civil servants should be models, isn't that a basis for paying them more? (Think of the public school teacher in a small town in the old days.) But then the prestige of the job is additional compensation.
Bottom line: I'm confused and don't know what I think.
My immediate response was drastic, jail 'em. Maybe that's because I think highly of public service, so feel let down when civil servants screw up. Then I thought: if civil servants should be models, isn't that a basis for paying them more? (Think of the public school teacher in a small town in the old days.) But then the prestige of the job is additional compensation.
Bottom line: I'm confused and don't know what I think.
Blast from the Past
Hat tip Grist: Bloomberg reports on the big planting plans for 2012, including this quote
If corn prices are going to drop in 2012, what happens to the cash rent leases and the mortgaged land sales? The only thing keeping us from repeating the crash of the early 80's is the fact farmers aren't nearly as indebted now as then.
“There is unlikely to be any ground that won’t be planted this year,” said Todd Wachtel, a 40 year-old who farms about 5,700 acres in Altamont, Illinois, and plans to expand his corn fields by 21 percent when seeding begins in early April. “Farmers know that they have to plant more when prices are high because they may not last.”Of course, if every farmer plants more when the prices are high she guarantees the prices will fall. It's called the law of supply and demand. Farm programs used to have a supply management feature, which enabled farmers to act as a cartel. Without government intervention, there's no way for an individual farmer to have the market power to adjust supply. The only alternative to such intervention is for the industry to restructure itself with vertical integration, meaning a handful of companies acquire power over the supply chain and thereby can informally coordinate supply and prices. That's what's happened in the US to poultry, eggs, and hogs, and most recently with tobacco.
If corn prices are going to drop in 2012, what happens to the cash rent leases and the mortgaged land sales? The only thing keeping us from repeating the crash of the early 80's is the fact farmers aren't nearly as indebted now as then.
Monday, February 06, 2012
How Far to an FSA Office?
Via Farm Policy, Senator Grassley has written USDA about the possible closures of FSA offices in Iowa. He goes so far as to challenge the 20 mile distance, pointing out that a couple of the offices are actually at least 23 miles away from another FSA office by road.
In a way this sort of letter is the obverse of earmarks; it's the elected representative using his local knowledge, or rather channeling the local knowledge of his constituents, to affect the decision-making of a bureaucracy. I think we'd all agree this is useful, even though some of us may oppose earmarks.
On a lighter note, I was remembering Roy "T" Cozart, an official in ASCS in the 1970's/80's. He was, I believe, CED of Deaf Smith County, Texas (pronounced "deef" and named after the scout first into the Alamo after the killing stopped). Maybe it was that county, maybe another, but he delighted in mockery and one thing he'd mock was Easterners and the way he'd mock was to describe how long it would take to drive his county, hours and hours at least as I remember it.
Maybe he was pulling my leg, because with the magic of Wikipedia I can find that Deaf Smith county is just about 1500 square miles, meaning it's a rectangle roughly 30 by 50 miles. In the Texas panhandle it wouldn't have taken long to drive, so maybe Roy was reminiscing about his days as district director in middle Texas. For comparison, Linn County in Iowa is about 750 square miles.
Sen. Grassley's constituents face a round trip drive of 25 miles to the FSA office, maybe 35-40 minutes assuming Iowa roads are straight. In Texas one assumes the distance would be double or triple that. And if you want to talk about Montana: the counties mostly range from 2000 to 5000 square miles.
What's my point? The distance parameter is arbitrary. No corporation, no Walmart or Subway, would allocate their stores the way the US government allocates its offices.
In a way this sort of letter is the obverse of earmarks; it's the elected representative using his local knowledge, or rather channeling the local knowledge of his constituents, to affect the decision-making of a bureaucracy. I think we'd all agree this is useful, even though some of us may oppose earmarks.
On a lighter note, I was remembering Roy "T" Cozart, an official in ASCS in the 1970's/80's. He was, I believe, CED of Deaf Smith County, Texas (pronounced "deef" and named after the scout first into the Alamo after the killing stopped). Maybe it was that county, maybe another, but he delighted in mockery and one thing he'd mock was Easterners and the way he'd mock was to describe how long it would take to drive his county, hours and hours at least as I remember it.
Maybe he was pulling my leg, because with the magic of Wikipedia I can find that Deaf Smith county is just about 1500 square miles, meaning it's a rectangle roughly 30 by 50 miles. In the Texas panhandle it wouldn't have taken long to drive, so maybe Roy was reminiscing about his days as district director in middle Texas. For comparison, Linn County in Iowa is about 750 square miles.
Sen. Grassley's constituents face a round trip drive of 25 miles to the FSA office, maybe 35-40 minutes assuming Iowa roads are straight. In Texas one assumes the distance would be double or triple that. And if you want to talk about Montana: the counties mostly range from 2000 to 5000 square miles.
What's my point? The distance parameter is arbitrary. No corporation, no Walmart or Subway, would allocate their stores the way the US government allocates its offices.
Saturday, February 04, 2012
Charles Murray, the Two Tribes, and Social Class
David Brooks in the Times blogged on Mr. Murray's new book, suggesting that the white upper and lower classes have diverged greatly in mode of life and social mores since the 50's. Specifically, the top 20 percent or so don't divorce, while the bottom don't marry or they divorce. And so on.
Here's a 1957 short film, not a documentary, on social class in America, part I and part 2. (Hat tip to someone, maybe Tyler Cowen.) What is interesting is the assumptions the creators make, which are apparent in retrospect. The discussion of class is a bit more open than I'd expect today, though that might be because it's apparently a sociologist behind the film. ("Ascribed status" and achieved status, mobility.)
There are 3 kids, upper, middle, and lower class. All 3 kids are boys, their class is defined in terms of the occupations and backgrounds of their fathers, and they all come from unbroken homes. All 3 graduate from a public school, though one goes on to the Ivy League, and graduation is an achievement for the lower class boy. All 3 fathers wear suits for the high school graduation.
The upper class boy graduates and works for his father's factory, the lower class is a gas station attendant training to be a mechanic The middle class boy follows his dream of art to NYC and an ad agency--horizontal mobility leads to upward mobility. The city is seen as the route for upward mobility because standards are different.
Seems to me that the social structure was more stovepiped in the 50's; each town had its own lower, middle, and upper class. Since then the big banks have absorbed the local banks, the big real estate companies have absorbed the locals, the restaurant chains have ousted the local diners, the local auto mechanic is a dying breed, etc.
So parts of the film seem to support the Murray thesis while others don't.
Here's a 1957 short film, not a documentary, on social class in America, part I and part 2. (Hat tip to someone, maybe Tyler Cowen.) What is interesting is the assumptions the creators make, which are apparent in retrospect. The discussion of class is a bit more open than I'd expect today, though that might be because it's apparently a sociologist behind the film. ("Ascribed status" and achieved status, mobility.)
There are 3 kids, upper, middle, and lower class. All 3 kids are boys, their class is defined in terms of the occupations and backgrounds of their fathers, and they all come from unbroken homes. All 3 graduate from a public school, though one goes on to the Ivy League, and graduation is an achievement for the lower class boy. All 3 fathers wear suits for the high school graduation.
The upper class boy graduates and works for his father's factory, the lower class is a gas station attendant training to be a mechanic The middle class boy follows his dream of art to NYC and an ad agency--horizontal mobility leads to upward mobility. The city is seen as the route for upward mobility because standards are different.
Seems to me that the social structure was more stovepiped in the 50's; each town had its own lower, middle, and upper class. Since then the big banks have absorbed the local banks, the big real estate companies have absorbed the locals, the restaurant chains have ousted the local diners, the local auto mechanic is a dying breed, etc.
So parts of the film seem to support the Murray thesis while others don't.
Friday, February 03, 2012
Congratulations to NRCS
NRCS has made their soil survey info available on mobile devices. What's not clear to me is whether they're using the GPS info available in some such devices to automatically pull up the soil profile you're standing on. I suspect they aren't, but it's the obvious next step.
How People Get Smarter Over Time
From Ajah Shah's blog, a post on changes in the computer world:
In the 1980s, software came with fat manuals. Users actually sat down in training classes. A remarkable feature of the new world is how the manuals and training are gone. Software is incredibly capable but there are no manuals. Google maps or Amazon or Apple Mail are very powerful programs, but the fundamental assumption is that a reasonable person can just start tinkering with them and learn more as he goes.
The modern office worker gets no formal training in software all his life. The modern knowledge worker learns major tools (e.g. a programming language) and often puts in enormous effort for these. But for the rest, the ordinary flow of day to day life, where new software systems come up all the time, is done without formal training.One of the puzzles of life is the Flynn effect, which says every generation is smarter than the previous one. Personally I think we drastically underestimate the effect of the learning which floats in the environment, which Mr. Shah's observation implies.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)