What's in a Name?: a name can persuade and/or mislead

     I am certain that it happens throughout the world, but I can only (without a lot of research which I would just become depressed to do) talk about the US and its habits. The power of a name can move people one direction or another based on long-term associations. The name may not be appropriate. The name may mean something very different from popular usage. The name may be nonsensical. But they are still powerful.

Fear of the people? Redirect definitions

     Lately, the US political system is dismayed that “Democratic socialism” is becoming popular within the US. However, it isn’t the socialism part, which is actually not even close to textbook socialism, that scares them. It is the democratic part of the name. Most people in the US have very little idea what socialism is. If you want a summary, check out the Wikipedia link here (or above). It is a word, just slightly less to be feared than communism, to strike fear in the average (tell me what to think, don’t make me research the issues) US voter. The democratic part of the name says that people start deciding, once again, how taxes are to be raised and spent. And THAT is the part that is scary to the political system.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. All subscribers are appreciated and posts are free but paid subscribers to help to free up time to write. Thank you all.

Just what is “patriotic” anyway?

     One of the “worst” things someone can do in the US is to call someone “unpatriotic”. It is also one of the most flexibly defined words used within politics and barrages (I shall not call them discussions) between people. For some, patriotic means to support government actions no matter what. For some, patriotic means to support the Constitution and the laws no matter what. For some, the Pledge of Allegience is more a worship of the symbol than “to the Republic for which it stands”. The abstract (piece of cloth) is more important to some than our laws and principles. A visitor to our planet, and our country, would be so absolutely confused. I often am.

     We use the word patriotic to justify all kinds of actions. This is true especially in the war department. “Patriot” missiles. The “Patriot” Act. Whether they are misleading or not is a matter of perspective. This is often called “framing” which is putting something into a context (patriotism) that makes it more difficult to oppose them. Looking beneath the label is a necessity to decide but, just as true for other aspects of US legislation and politics, this does not seem to be a popular thing for the general citizenry. Politicians, and legislators, usually know exactly what they are doing and why.

Use of “framing” for legislation

     As stated above, people in favor of legislation may feel that the bill, or military campaign, may be validly called by its title. At best, however, they are still often misleading. The USA Patriot Act MAY have increased internal security against terrorists but it definitely weakend Constitutional rights, including privacy, of peaceful regular citizens and inhabitants of the US. The “Defense of Marriage Act” would more appropriately have been called the “Defense of Traditional Heterosexual Marriages Act” or even “Strengthening Attacks against Non-traditional Marriages Act”. You can see how the title makes the bill appear less biased than it actually was.

     Another example of misdirecting casual observers of legislation was the “Healthy Forests Restoration Act”. In support of its title, it is true that careful clearing of areas of land can reduce the likelihood, or severity, of forest fires. But the title doesn’t mention that the bill would also open up National Forests to commercial logging and that such logging would not be required to meet appropriate wildfire reduction logistics.

     The “Affordable Care Act” was a compromise bill that did some good but not fully as proposed. Although promised, the statement “if you like your plan, you can keep it” was not true for all people. Also, it did expand the number of people in the US covered but the “affordable” was not always true. As a compromise bill, everyone had areas that they disagreed with. It did not come close to making affordable health care available to all inhabitants of the US. (And has never covered undocumented immigrants in spite of what some sources have lied about.)

     The framing occurs for all political viewpoints and guards. “For the People”, “Patriotic”, “Family Values”, and so forth. Just call it by names that no one would ever consider “bad” and proceed. The political system in the US (and, likely, much of the rest of the world) knows that people (especially the 98%) have many needs for their time and energy and very often (way too often) do not choose to allocate their time to research what a piece of legislation does or what a candidate, or party, has really done.

Marketing

     Get your “gluten-free water” here! “Fat-free cardboard”. Why not? If a word becomes important, and frequently used, then it must be plastered onto every possible place. Get your “AI biscuits” here, folks! This happens with every marketing or technological or scientific fervor. Many times, I was in a room full of technical people and we would laugh at what marketing had put together. To us, it was silly. To the marketing people, and presumably to the people they were attempting to persuade, it was showing that we were on the front edge and no other company had something we didn’t. That might actually be true but the statement was still silly (see the first “gluten-free water” note at the beginning).

     This type of marketing method is called “processing fluency”. Basically, your eye (or ear) catches something that you associate with something good (“Artisanal bread”) or lack of something bad (“cholesterol-free vegetable oil”) and you have already categorized it as positive to buy without taking the time to remember that no vegetable, or vegetable product, EVER had cholesterol.

Binary protests. Pro and Anti. For and Against.

     Most issues are not “black and white”. Almost all issues are a shade of gray. But, when it comes to naming “causes” and “movements”, we can’t seem to make up our mind. The other viewpoint from pro-choice IS anti-choice but the media seems to be perfectly okay for the one side to call themselves “pro-life”. Ah, but what life? That is the question and is why we should always translate the issue firmly back to anti-choice for that is what it is. Pro-life, as a label, makes very little sense, since the opposite side of the position would be anti-life which would be very hard to justify.

     These situations fall into the “framing” methods mentioned above. Each frame, or scale, has different variations along it from “Anti-X” to “Pro-X”. But a group that is “anti-” already has a negative perception against it because people don’t like to think of themselves against something but, rather, for something. Sometimes, groups really should make use of marketing or PR groups to help in naming.

     Anti-fascism (or antifa, for short) is a great term and fascism is what people in the “Allied” group in World War II fought against. Most US people have little idea what fascism is but they do recognize that “anti-” is against something. If they thought about it, almost all people would agree they are against fascism with its marginalization of everyone who is not part of the command group. But, it can be counted on that most won’t do that consideration.

     At any rate, groups that are aware of naming biases don’t like to call themselves “anti-” so they change the frame, or scale so they can ALSO be “pro-” just as in “pro-choice” versus “pro-life”. Totally different frames that have nothing to do with the other but both get to declare themselves (correctly or not) by a “pro-” label.

Draping oneself under the flag or community standards.

     “Mothers for Freedom” is the title of a group which has a primary focus of forcing their opinions upon all families. That’s not how I, personally, define freedom. Many states end up with “Right to Work” petitions and legislation. These laws remove the ability to require everyone to join a union even though they get the benefits negotiated by the union. Thus, they can work even if the other union covered workers are on strike. A referendum that says “Union busting” or “Union weakening” just don’t have that same emotional appeal as “right to work”.

     I’m sure that those of you who are reading this can come up with lots of other comparisons that shift the frame. Or examples where the flag is used as a cover for things that most would not consider to be part of the country’s aims and values. I’d love to see a few in the comments.

Understand the language!

     It wouldn’t work if people got into the habit of looking past the name and understand the language that we speak then the titles, and use of potentially misleading names would not matter. Alas, that is not the case

but it should be!

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Never Known Hunger: The benefits of having been poor (and are no longer)

     Do you have children who are picky with foods? They don’t eat one of the food groups or the portion isn’t big enough or they would have preferred to have had two desserts and no vegetables? It is beyond their ken to truly visualize not having food and being very glad to have any.

     Although this newsletter is titled to be about food, it is really about the realities of knowing what it is like to be without via experience and the blessings that exist when you can experience having it. It can apply to food, shelter, transportation, good water (I have this tendency to often say, after a long drink of water, “I love water”), clean air, safety, love, or whatever quality you can think of that is not inherent (though perhaps it should be).

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. All posts are free but paid subscribers help the posts to be regular. Thank you.

Growing up without

     Once upon a time (in a galaxy very close but seeming far away), my birth family went through many periods of financial struggle. I have never starved, wondering whether I would last to the next day, because my parents always somehow made it not be the case. Nor have I had to sleep in a car or a back alley. But I sometimes slept on the floor and then, when a paycheck came in, on a mattress on the floor.

     I most remember the periods of stretching food as far as we could (maybe that is why having good food is so precious to me nowadays). A few times we were on food stamps and I remember the three pound blocks of Velveeta (or some other processed cheese) and the two pound tubs of margarine. One of my uncles was stationed in Alaska and, for a couple of years, we received a case of canned salmon for Christmas. There were salmon burgers twice a week for the next two months.

     One of the dishes that lingered the most for me was “ham and beans”. This meant soup made with a ham hock and lima (or butter) beans. We had that five dinners a week for what seemed like months (though I am certain it wasn’t for that long). Although I can eat butter beans now (60 years later), it is always with memories rising to the surface.

     When buying clothes, they were purchased from the bargain racks of a local thrift store. I remember the delight I felt when I got a pair of bell bottom jeans three or four years after they were fashionable. They didn’t last long as the fabric was pretty thin but the rhinestone designs on them made me smile. Thank goodness, no one ever razzed me about them though, as I said, they were badly out of fashion and I never encountered anyone else with a pair while walking through the school aisles.

     I had relatives who had even less than I did so I sometimes felt “rich”. Feelings of richness or poorness is always a matter of comparison. I had a few friends whose families were “professional” (a banker’s son and a dentist’s son) and I slept over in the dentist’s son’s home a time or two. It was the first time I had ever even heard of an electric toothbrush.

Refugees and Immigrants

     In the case of a refugee, the movement from their country is not voluntary. They either no longer have a home or their home area is not safe for them (politically or physically). Immigrants have more control over their movement. They want to move and they have a chance to prepare for the move.

     In both cases, they have inherent motivation to do better in the new country than they were doing in their previous country. For a refugee, it may just be the chance to continue living. If jobs are available, they are usually willing to do any job that will allow them to survive. Often, these jobs are not in accordance with their prior positions or training. It is only when jobs are NOT available, that problems surface. Immigrants who have options have a lower crime rate than that those that already have citizenship including born citizens.

     I had a grandfather to my two older children who immigrated to the US. In his original country, he was an engineer. When he arrived, he no longer qualified to pursue his engineering career. He did a number of things including working with a fast food franchise and owning a health food store. He could not be an engineer but he could, and did, do what he could. This happens with many refugees, or involuntary immigrants. They drop from “professional” careers to labor careers.

     Although fictionalized, “Moscow on the Hudson” with Robin Williams is a good illustration of an immigrant/refugee’s process. Robin’s character took many different jobs to continue to survive. He was also fortunate to make some good, supportive, friends early in the process. Some immigrant/refugees have members of family to help. Some have support from others of their cultural, or ethnic, group. (Some are taken advantage of by others of their cultural, or ethic, group because they are ill-advisedly trusted.)

     In all cases, they have inherent motivation to do their very best.

No one wants to stay poor

     My parents were not always at the upper line of the lower income group. Sometimes they were at lower line of the middle income group. No vacations but they did have the ability to buy a home (in the 1960s, a steady income at minimum wage made such things possible) and they could send us to school and we had the privilege of being able to stay in school and study. No significant savings. I was supported in being the first of my family to graduate from college via social support arising from the death of my father (a Korean “Conflict” veteran) when I was 14.

     During those periods when my parents (and the children) lived on unemployment and food assistance, my brother and I could always hear them talking about possible jobs and methods of stretching what savings they had. As part of their midwestern job ethics, they wanted to leave unemployment and assistance as soon as possible.

     My father did various jobs and tried a few businesses. Alas, he had neither the background nor the preparation to make a business succeed. He only knew how to work hard and that, unless one is very lucky, is not enough.

What can be done?

     I truly think that all in the upper income brackets should be required to spend two years in the Peace Corps or equivalent self-supported situation. They should be required to learn what is needed to live when they don’t have access to hoards of resources most of which they cannot claim to have directly earned.

      Just having passed another Father’s Day, I find myself recollecting and recognizing some of what I did wrong while my children were growing up. (I am sure they have a longer list and, perhaps, leaving out some of things that I think of.) Although I don’t think that any sane parent would force deprivation upon their children when it is not required, I should have been much more ready to say “no” than to say “yes”. In particular, not having any choices for a number of years of their earlier years would probably have led to better hygiene and room cleanliness. Sets of chores would have been useful to them as well as the family. Helping me to repair things would have taught them more basic skills.

     What are my excuses? Well, number one was probably not wanting to be the “bad guy”. It is harder to justify a decision that requires constraint when living in a situation where there is no need for tight budgets. Another one, with which others (including professionals) agreed with, was to be “fair” and “consistent” with older half-siblings who basically did whatever they wanted to. I should have ignored their advice and my uncertainty.

Count your blessings

     There are songs about counting blessings. I truly do that. I don’t end up with a sum where I say “oh, I have 347 blessings today”. I just try to be aware of those blessings that I have. It is particularly useful when faced with a situation of anger or frustration. A driver does something rather dumb and I say to myself (sometimes out loud) “well, Charles, when you are a perfect driver, you can yell at others”. Sometimes my wife will complain that I am always trying to envision solutions to problems before they ever occur (and are often unlikely to occur) but the other side of that is that, by being aware of how things COULD go wrong, I am also very aware of my blessing of them not having gone wrong.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Healthy food versus False Economics: More profits can be made in the for-profit US healthcare system by making people sick first and then helping (but not curing) them.

     My wife and I seem to have always had the same reaction when our children told us about their school meals. “Oh, we really enjoyed our school meals when we were growing up”. They would look at us rather disgustedly and then talk about the food that they were presented with. I remember a lot of milk past its “use by” date but some of it seemed to go bad even before. I cannot really say that I know the reason just the result.

A healthy lifestyle starts at the beginning

     Japan has Universal Health Care, as do almost all developed nations in the world. Thus, the government has a direct financial interest in having everyone as healthy as possible. This includes not being obese and eating well. The US, with its for-profit healthcare, would be okay with us being healthy but doesn’t really care much one way or another. The pharmaceuticals would likely prefer us unhealthy as it gives them much more ability to create drugs to reduce symptoms (but not cure), and obtain massive profits, that the food and medical industries have helped to create.

     Besides Universal Health Care, which gives the government more motivation for healthy citizens and deprives private insurers from making money on illness, what does Japan do to help their citizens? One major thing is that, in school, they teach their children their adult responsibilities. Children help clean the schools. They help to prepare the meals. They exercise as a regular part of life walking to and from school and around the buildings. Some may be part of sports teams but, unlike in the US, all of the school children exercise in various ways.

     Most of the US has abandoned the notion of school cooked foods from real ingredients. Not so in Japan. There are no food pyramids or food balancing charts. There is tradition and regular-sized portions of freshly prepared food.

What social influences in the US fight against healthy eating?

     We have an “interesting” situation developing in the US. The prices of food at most of the “fast food” restaurants are approaching the cost of full-service regular restaurants. They are still fast because their food is either pre-prepared or prepared for immediate cooking and serving.

     This applies to food eaten at home and during travel and work. What about the schoolchildren? In the US, we have two obstacles. These are the refusal, or social unpopularity, of eating a balanced meal AND the strong desires for communities to pay less for education and children.

     McDonald’s, at the urging of some vocal parents, has attempted to have healthier food on their menu several times. We still have apple slices as options but most of the attempts have failed. Because who thinks of going to McDonald’s for a healthy meal?

How, and where, does it go wrong for US schoolchildren?

     First, I should say that Japanese schoolchildren and adults do face marketing barrages to eat fast food and processed foods. They are not isolated from the rest of the world. But they see them as treats, special occasion foods that add a bit of variety to their nutritious, but not necessarily always exciting, regular meals.

     As is true everywhere, US parents have only a limited amount of time and energy. But the surrounding environment, and peer culture, encourages parents to not spend much time on nutrition. It used to be that, when I was working on preparing dinner in the kitchen, one of my children would be there with me learning to cook (and learning to accept mistakes). No longer. But, I still cook. About half of the time, I can only call it “preparing” (heating up, combining a few things) but the rest of the time I still cook.

     So, in spite of their parents doing the best they can (which, unfortunately, is sometimes not very well at all), children are not ready, and able, to find their own route to healthy practices. Nor should they be. The community, or the “village”, should be doing that. But not in the US.

Don’t forget about cost.

     I can buy a nice apple for $1.25 in the US. I can buy a Snickers® candy bar for $1.50 and, often, on sale for that same $1.25 or even a $1. Now, I like Snickers® candy bars and my wife likes them even more. They are one of the more nutritious candy bars but they are still candy with plenty of lovely addictive refined sugar. In Japan, not barraged by ads and peers showing the fast, commercial, path a person would likely usually prefer the apple. How many of you, or your children, would pick the apple?

     I like cooking shows and, based upon the number of them produced and the channels dedicated to them, I am not alone. But I can only gape at the healthy cooking shows. The previously mentioned apple is only a single item in a large comparison list between the advertised healthy meal and the easily obtained processed food menu. If a person examines the comparison only from a point of money, the healthy food menu does not often win. But it does win occasionally. But, add the time needed for preparation and cleanup and the scale tips very awkwardly towards the processed food.

     School boards are always being requested to not raise taxes. There are areas which can NOT be put off. There are areas which can be put off (maintenance) but will mean even greater expense in the future. Then there are the students and their education. Many parents will use something like Great Schools (https://www.greatschools.org/) to compare schools and try to live in the “best” area, that they can afford, for their children. This site concentrates on test scores and college readiness. They also have statistics about class sizes and compositions and so forth. What they do NOT have is “how good are the lunches?”, “what are the arts and music programs like?” or other non-quantitative areas.

     School lunches don’t fall into the quantitative category. Thus, they are an area in which the school board can cut budgets without badly reflecting in the quantitative scores. And they do. A processed lunch that just needs to be heated up and served is not only less expensive that a nutritionally balanced, freshly prepared and cooked, meal — but it is what the student expects and what their peers expect.

     We had a friend of the family (not a real close friend but someone we could talk with) who was a nutritionist for the elementary school that our children attended. One day, we heard she had quit — she just couldn’t handle heating up processed food for the children every day anymore. She wanted to use her skills, and experience, and prepare healthy food but that was spitting against the wind.

Children who get accustomed to unhealthy meals are unlikely to make healthy choices in the future.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The Price of Happiness: Nope -- it has almost nothing to do with the amount of money

     Once upon a time (over 20 years ago), my wife and I went to Peru to see Machu Picchu and other sites within Peru. It is a beautiful country, full of many wonderful and friendly people. As part of our tour, we did quite a lot of walking and were often walking at greater than a mile altitude. One trip was to an elementary school high in the mountains. My wife, a schoolteacher, had brought our weight limit’s worth of supplies. Notebooks, crayons, and so forth. The school was basically just rooms with desks and decorated walls. I suspect that it was quite cold in the winter. But the teacher and children were glad to see us and our supplies. We did not intrude long upon their class time.

     In order to get to the school, we had to walk along trails leading from mountain peak to mountain peak. Not difficult walks but certainly longer than most US suburban dwellers are used to. We had one 82-year-old woman from Maryland with us. We could barely keep up with her. At any rate, during our treks, we would occasionally walk by a private house, One such had a number of articles in the yard that we were mistaken in thinking that they were trash. A plastic milk jug, some sheets of plastic, some broken dolls. No, these were treasured play things. They were very happy to have them and likely had as much enjoyment from them as my children had from video games in their youth. (I am certain there are children in Peru, in the cities, who are glued to videogames just as my children are.)

     It was a wonderful trip in many ways but what I most brought back was a love and respect for the wonderful people. From what we were used to, they had so little but from a more important basis, they had health, they had each other, and they had happiness in what they had.

     One note in somewhat of an explanatory disclaimer. The people in this small house in the mountains, as well as the children in the school, did have access to community supplied healthcare as did others. This was certainly a factor in the reduction of their stress in “having enough”.

     There exists a list (we seem to love lists, don’t we?) called “The World Happiness Report”. This report ranks the average happiness of citizens of different countries in the world (the Scandinavian countries seem to always do well). It says that the main three of its six criteria are income, social support, and freedom. Well, I certainly won’t try to disagree with them but we should recognize that they are trying to come up with a quantitative number. In order to do such, they have to have criteria that they can evaluate into a ranking number. In my opinion (and other opinions can have equal validity) the basis of happiness can be reduced to security and community. Another way of naming them would be the physical and spiritual sides of happiness.

Security as a basis of happiness

     I use the two words, security and community, to simplify the definition of a basis for happiness. Note that there may be (completely reasonable and valid) reasons why a person might have these in their life and still not be happy.

     What do you think of when you think of security? I think of lack of fear. To be not afraid of not having food to eat. To be not afraid that someone will snatch me, or a member of my family, off the street or break down my door in the middle of the night. To be not afraid that, if I get really sick, I will lose all my savings and become homeless.

     Currently, in the US, any one of these may happen to someone and, for some people, perhaps more than one.

Community as a basis of happiness

     What is community? For me, community requires at least two humans interacting with one another. A certain degree of community can come out of taking care of, and being taken care of by, a pet. That may be sufficient for some people but most need the ability to share with, and be reflected by, at least one other person.

     Of course, communities may be positive, constructive, beneficial groups of people or those communities may be negative, destructive, and malicious. Some groups may be supportive within the group but highly negative with those outside of their group. I don’t think I am qualified to say whether happiness can occur within such a group. Happiness at the expense of the happiness of others? The thought makes me sad.

Does money come into the formula for happiness?

     It all depends on the societal makeup. For most, satisfying the physical security requires some money. The money is a method of arranging for the true needs. In my opinion, the “safety net” of Scandinavian countries allows much physical security without explicit exchanges of money. Naturally, money as a resource is still needed but actual transfer has less importance.

     But a strange thing has happened within much of the “modern” society and that is the concept of “needing” more than is necessary for physical security. Perhaps this occurs, in part, due to the generally stressful situation of a society in constant change. It can lead to a malaise, or even disease, where this desire for more, more, more prevents any capability of obtaining the spiritual/community portion of happiness. Too much creates fear of having less. Too much can start to denigrate the physical and community needs of others. Too much actually DECREASES happiness.

All in all, happiness requires balance

     Physical security and spiritual community work together to give a balanced life and sense of happiness, not matter what words are used to describe it. As usual, this newsletter is not meant to give any “final answers” but a basis for discussion and investigation.

     Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The economy: A set of interconnections

     The economy, whether for a household, a country, or the world, is a game with money as the tokens. Granted, it is a very serious game where the losers may lose their lives, in addition to anything else they possess, without “extra lives” or the ability to reset the game. Some people treat it ONLY as a game and forget that most of the players are everyday people. As a game, it becomes extremely important, and dangerous, when the great majority of the tokens are available only to a few people. Those people have learned to manipulate the rules of the game to take advantage of them for personal triumph but their goal is incorrect and deadly. The proper goal for an economy is to maximize the ability of ALL the people to participate.

An overview of an economy

     As I wrote about in 2014, money is an abstraction of resources and energy. At the very foundation, the basis is about the things that you directly interact with — eat, drink, feel comfort, enjoy, and so forth. The larger the community, the more specialization that occurs and the more abstract money becomes.

     There is a “spider web” that casts out from the specific item to foundational societal, and personal, uses. For example, getting a screwdriver involves a store, sales people, sales environment, stockers, distributors, manufacturers, parts manufacture and assembly, and raw material sourcing. Once upon a time, during a Google interview, I proposed that a tool that worked with the interactions of all such ladders could be of great use for planners and the economy. It could help to answer such questions as “how does moving the economy from private automobiles to public transportation affect jobs?” “How does moving from fossil fuels to renewable energy affect jobs?” Nowadays, the question might be “How will GenAI affect jobs?” but we may not know enough to be able to be sufficiently specific in our questions. GenAI, itself, might be able to do the interconnections but, first, it requires the data.

     A part of the economy that hits most of us week on week is income. One of my sons has gotten a job which does NOT use his bachelor’s degree in Computer Science. It is in a deli for a local grocery store. It is a good company, good people, and the work is work that he does well and for which he is appreciated. But, he is already in the work by the week, counting until the weekend (for him, that is Wednesday and Thursday). In spite of his B.S. and six years as a coordinator at a grocery store in Maryland, he is making minimum wage which is not quite enough to meet his desires to leave home and be on his own. (However, it is better in the state of Washington than many others.) He is definitely not alone. Other forms of income are interest and dividends but those are usually something that exists for older workers or those that come from wealthy families.

     His outgo is like most of ours. Living within the family household, he doesn’t face the corset of a true budget yet but he does know he must live within his means and he has tasted the stock market and wishes to dive back in. For others, not in his situation, they have a “most important first” budget which often does not quite include things most feel are normal. For the rich, and mega-rich, outgo is not really of any importance. All required things are just bloops upon the income/outgo stream. For most of us, the outgo must be monitored closely to not exceed the income. Sometimes we don’t succeed.

     The tokens of the game circulate. The true foundation lies with the material world. That includes food, raw materials, and infrastructure. Without them, the economy would collapse quickly. Other things that we now consider “necessary” for everyday life truly are not although our reliance on the digital economy could indeed crash everything with a few dozen strategically located electromagnetic pulses (EMPs).

The parts of the economy associated with taxes

     “The only things certain are death and taxes”. Just what are taxes and why are they so ubiquitous? Taxes are an allocation of resources for local or national group usage. There are many services that are common worldwide for people to pool resources (often via taxes) to serve the general populace. Such areas include infrastructure (roads, electrical networks, dams and reservoirs, water treatment plants, sewage treatment). Sometimes these are subscription services where individuals, who are willing to do so, pay for service. But, since they are for the common good, they are more often public services paid for by taxes. Can you imagine the situation if only 60% of the community decided to subscribe to waste services? It would leave 40% of the waste lying around causing health problems for everyone — possibly even another Black Death or other epidemic.

     Other services, often paid for by taxes, include improvement of life areas. These may include police service, fire fighting service, libraries. These have a more haphazard payment situation however if (for example) fire fighting was a subscription service then a fire occurring to your next-door neighbor’s house would endanger your own house (and others) if you had private insurance and they had none. It is safer for the community if fire fighting is available for all people and all property. Perhaps you might say “I never use the library, why should my taxes be used to pay for it?” Perhaps you don’t, personally, make use of it but the fact that it is available to your neighbors helps to reduce juvenile delinquency, general unemployment, community estrangement, and social malaise. In other words, your community is healthier.

     National taxes are traditionally used for national services. These include infrastructure that helps transportation from community to community (airports, roads, etc.). It also includes “defense” spending which should be used almost totally for protection of the general citizenry. There is a category of social spending that involves bringing in taxes and then redistributing them according to needs. Retirement and associated disabled benefits is another community support that is spread back among communities. Finally, an increasing expense is interest which is paid on debt owed by the national government to pay out on the budget.

     The national budget, very simply, is a matter of money in and money out. It has been very popular over the past 40 years to pursue the fantasy of “trickle down”. This has led to a general lowering, and flattening, of income into the treasury without corresponding reduction of outgo to non-social services (such as defense). Note that social services such as “food stamps” are such a small portion of the budget that, even if politically appealing, they don’t really make much of an impact to the budget.

     One can look at the budget deficits over the years and recognize that those yearly deficits continue to accumulate into our national debt.

The three biggest deficits shown (in order) occurred for WWII, the COVID pandemic, and the “Great Recession”.

Money, as a resource, must keep in motion to be useful.

     Money has many attributes similar to that of physical resources such as water or air. As a representation of resource, it must be distributed and redistributed to keep the economy healthy.

     “Trickle-down” creates dams and spill over which don’t serve the purpose of circulating money through the economy. Having lots of people able to afford other people’s services and products is what keeps money circulating. That cannot happen if it is jammed up into the pockets of a few.

     Repeating some of the information from the old blog/newsletter. Money started when society outgrew barter. During barter, some type of conversion rate was agreed upon. One dozen eggs equals one fish. A cord of firewood equals one yard of woven fabric. Once the group of people grew larger, it had to be abstracted as someone who could provide a wall hanging might not need, or want, two cords of firewood. The conversion/barter rate needed to be converted into tokens which eventually became coins and money. It was the ability to easily transfer the coins that established the basic mechanisms of money and an economy.

     Without movement of the money, the economy gets stuck and no longer is healthy and able to fulfill its purpose.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Posts are free and will continue to be free but paid subscriptions will help to maintain my momentum.

We the People ...: Democracy is the right to be part of the decisions for a society

     The word democracy has its origin within two Greek words. These words are demos and kratos. Together, they mean power (or rule) of the people. As in the subtitle, this means that we the people have a right to be part of the decisions that direct our society. That is the foundational idea but the process of democracy was probably used prior to any written history of humanity. A group of people getting together, discussing something, and jointly making a decision is an example of “democracy” at work.

     The formal version of democracy, where people vote on issues (or people), is recognized to have started in Athens (508 BC) with Cleisthenes who made the idea of general participation as part of the decision-making process part of a series of reforms.

Direct versus Representative

      A democracy can be set up as a direct democracy or a representative democracy. Direct democracies work best with small groups of people. When the U.S. democracy was initiated, transportation was not easy. The roads and infrastructure presented barriers to make a gathering of people for a direct democracy difficult, so it was created as a representative democracy. A substantial number of the writers of the U.S. Constitution were in favor of a direct vote limited to the “elite”. The final language was the result of compromises that left eligibility to vote vague and primarily in the hands of the states’ governments.

Qualifications and expansion of the electorate

     Although left vague in the Constitution, voting was initially limited to “white”, “educated”, male property owners. New Jersey allowed women to vote (if they had property and were white) for a while but backed away from it in 1807. During the 1800s, the states slowly retreated from the requirement of owning property (this did not require an Amendment as voting privileges were state controlled).

     At the time of the adoption of the post-war 15th Amendment, voting had largely eliminated the requirement of ownership of property. Note that Amendments to the Constitution are required for national coordination of rights and commerce to be consistent among the states. When each state can do as they wish, no Amendment was, or is, necessary.

     The 15th Amendment officially ended the requirement for voters to be “white” males (note that “educated” had also fallen away as a requirement). Alas, if people want to get around a law, they will find ways (similar to the recent attempted “SAVE” Act within the US) to limit indirectly. Poll taxes were established to have an income requirement. Literacy tests were set up to require certain levels of education (and then it was made very difficult for the poor and non-whites to obtain education). Many of these restrictions were deemed illegal in the courts but each of them had to be fought and, even when the courts agreed that the practices were illegal, states sometimes would not enforce them (and it still happens).

     The 19th Amendment expanded the right to vote (suffrage) to women in 1920 and the people of the First Nations were allowed citizenship, and voting rights, in 1924 but, since it was not done via an Amendment, it has not been universally accepted, or enforced, by all of the states.

     In each of these expansions, a new set of voters was only allowed after EXISTING eligible voters agreed to the expansion (via state changes in laws or via Amendments for national changes). These expansions occurred, indicating a majority of existing voters approved of the expansion. The minority could, and did, make things very difficult for the new voters. This is still true in present days.

     In 1965, the Voting Rights Act (NOT an Amendment) was enacted to strive to enforce the voting rights of those who had been granted such rights since the original Constitution. This was primarily to assist in the voting of non-white people but the Act was designed to help ALL eligible people to be able to vote. Alas, since it was an Act of Congress, once the elite, propertied, wealthy gained control of the US Supreme Court, they have been able to effectively nullify the Voting Rights Act.

     The last Amendment associated with national voting qualifications has been the reduction of the federal voting age to 18 in 1971 via the 26th Amendment. This was during the last years of US involvement in Vietnam when tens of thousands of 18-year-olds were deployed, and killed, every year. That probably had something to do with passage of the Amendment.

Criticisms

     As mentioned above, the “Founding Fathers” (FF) were not in agreement so they created relatively vague specifications, with states having control, to be cleaned up later. It is possible that some things (such as the War Between the States) might have been avoided had they been able to reach consensus at the time. We’ll never know.

     Most of the FF were in agreement that full access to information and a well developed education were needed for successful participation in democracy and to make it thrive. Ben Franklin was in favor of making sure that the general populace qualified by having good, free, education. Others were more of the mind that wealth, allowing for extensive personal education, was needed to qualify a person to vote.

     Even today, there is not a full consensus about the qualifications needed to vote. There are still issues of sexism, racism, elitism and other special qualities that people feel should disqualify people or should support them. Of course, the person doing the criticism usually feels that THEY meet those criteria.

     Robert A. Heinlein felt that the right to vote, and participate in democracy, should be earned. One of his major criteria for earning the right to vote was to have served in the armed services (which, of course, he had). Personally, I don’t think that earning the right to vote is a bad one. The problem is setting up the criteria such that EVERYONE has an equal ability to earn that right.

Registration

     How does one demonstrate, in a speedy and efficient fashion, that they are permitted to vote? In the United States, this process is done during registration. When applying to register to vote, documents indicating eligibility are submitted. Eligibility includes age (or birthdate), citizenship, and where they live. Characteristics which are Constitutionally mandated cannot be used as criteria for denial or removal.

     Individual states still have control of purging of voter rolls. This ends up with over-purging (enthusiastic removal of voters that may, or may not, still be eligible) and under-purging (leaving non-eligible voters on the rolls which, theoretically, would allow someone to use the voting privilege of a no-longer-eligible voter).

Identification

     Since identification is done at the time of registration, it speeds up the time needed to make sure the person is qualified to vote when it is time to do such. The people helping with the voting check the person’s name and address against the copy of the voting roll that they have. This is also the process that happens via mail-in ballots or other not-in-person voting. While it is conceivable that someone else might vote in place of a legally registered, and eligible voter, the process of registration makes it very difficult for an eligible voter to vote more than once.

     So, what is to prevent someone else (not the eligible voter) from taking the place of the eligible voter? The process of identification varies from state to state. There have been various Congressional Acts that theoretically give more security about this. All of them continue to be described as ways to prevent voter fraud. This is very misleading. Voter fraud is almost non-existent in the U.S. because of registration and voter rolls. Extra identification possibly could help to prevent people substituting for others but that is not pertinent to the concept of voter fraud. Such Acts are primarily methods of suppression and election fraud.

Referendums

     Referendums are special votes on specific issues. In concept, this is applying direct democracy to specific subsets of government issues. There are binding referendums where the legislators are supposed to have no choice but to follow the wishes of the electorate. There are also non-binding referendums which act as formal statements of preference. Unfortunately, the states have varying records of following through on referendums. Sometimes the state legislators will follow through with the voters’ wishes, sometimes not. Often, the courts are needed to enforce the results of referendums.

Suppression

     Suppression and gerrymandering are the two most prevalent means of election fraud. Election fraud occurs when groups of eligible, qualified, voters are prevented from voting or prevented from having their vote have appropriate weight within elections. This is often done making use of income, race, sex, or political affiliation. In the United States, it is attempted on a regular basis to be able to get more votes than the opposition. The recent SAVE Act is an attempt at voter suppression and election fraud.

Conclusion

     The United States representative democracy was designed originally to have a base definition of the electorate with specificity left to the various states. Various Amendments have mandated specific national inclusions but anything other than an Amendment can be overridden by state legislatures, with approval by the court system. Even Amendments can effectively be overridden by legislatures and/or court systems that have lost balance and objectivity. While voter fraud (individuals voting without eligibility) is very rare in the United States, voter suppression (election fraud) is an attractive method of bypassing democracy and controlling society by various individuals and groups.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber on substack. All new posts will continue ot be freed but consider having a paid subscription to help me to allocate time for research and writing. Thank you.

An exploration of intolerance: A rising tide. Can it be addressed with caring?

     Intolerance is mostly defined by the root word, which is tolerance. To be intolerant is to NOT be tolerant. Tolerance is one of three basic categories of the parables and lessons of Jesus Christ. “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to cast a stone at her” is a common translation of the contents of John 8:7. This projects tolerance as a characteristic of self-examination. It is not saying that the behavior is correct according to the perceiver’s societal norms but it is saying that no one is perfect and we should address our own imperfections and foibles before we complain about those that we perceive within others.

     “I am tolerant of all things except intolerance”. Tolerance is not a straight-forward topic because of the huge variance of viewpoints. For example, jokes which were once acceptable (and desired to still be acceptable by some people) can be considered a type of verbal violence. And, certainly, if a person is within a group where something is considered okay to think, say, or do then anyone who disagrees with that must be, themselves, in the wrong? Correct?

The perception of wrong and abstraction of something often encountered.

     The aspect of perception is an important aspect of tolerance. If I believe that certain clothing is wrong but I am “tolerating” that anyway, it does not mean that that clothing IS wrong. It is my perception of something that, in itself, has very little (if any) attribute of good/bad right/wrong about it. It was a defining characteristic of the Puritans that their entire definition of right or wrong was based on their own opinions, and interpretations, of proper behavior within their own group. Alas, they had no qualms about using that intragroup specification as a criterion for OTHER groups.

     A basic problem about discussing tolerance/intolerance is that there ARE very distinct, varied, viewpoints. I know which ones I consider to be “right” and you very likely know which viewpoints that YOU consider to be “right”. They may be the same, there may be some overlap, or they may be completely opposite viewpoints of each other. But the concept of tolerance, or intolerance, is still important BECAUSE there isn’t a single structure of viewpoints.

A matter of boundaries

     One of the tricky aspects of intolerance is that of the extent of the perceived wrongness. It is not a fixed matter. The degree of boundaries indicates the amount of conflict between the observer and the person perceived to be wrong. It might be said that the amount of conflict is an indication of just “how tolerant”, a person interacting with the perceived wrong, is. In my arbitrary categories, the numbers increase as the perceived wrongness becomes “in your face” or difficult to ignore.

     At the most self-contained, the perceived wrongness has no visible or other sensory indication (speech mannerisms, for example) that the person, or item, has any of the perceived wrongness within them. This is the basis of “don’t ask, don’t tell” types of rules and regulations where one group imposes their own definitions of wrongness upon another group but will “tolerate” the behavior as long as they are unaware, or can pretend they are unaware, of the perceived wrong behavior. Call this category one.

     The next step up for boundaries may be visible, auditory, or via some other sensory perception. People can detect defining characteristics of the perceived wrongness without a need for investigation or inquiring. If the perceived wrongnesses are fully involuntary such as skin color or a limb missing, they could be considered category two-a. The perceived wrongness may be an external characteristic that is voluntary but noticeable everyday. Payot (long sidelocks) or dreadlocks or a tonsure on men or a yarmulke (skullcap) might exist as part of the person’s expressed identity. These signs, considered part of their identity, fall into category two-b. Shouting slogans or displaying signs are where the one group voluntarily demonstrates a behavior that others may perceive as wrong. This would be category two-c.

     A pair of boundaries (or lack thereof) is broken when there is interaction between people. The items of this pair are similar in action but different in intention. Mutual, consensual behavior where both are in agreement about the behavior could be called category three. When a person, who has a perceived wrongness, forces their behavior upon others it can be considered category four.

     These categories are primarily useful for purposes of discussion. As mentioned earlier, the categories are defined to increase in number as it becomes more difficult, for the person noticing, to ignore.

An inversion of standards

     The most intolerant of people are forbidding of people who are in category one. There is no effect upon the perceiver. They may even be heartily approving of the person before discovering the aspect of perceived wrong within them. Knowledge of the existence of the perceived wrongness, alone, is sufficient for them to forbid. Note also that some groups, such as the Puritans, consider it a part of their existence to be fully intolerant of any deviation from what they consider wrong.

     Categories two-a and two-b are not that different, from the point of evaluation, from category one. The only difference is there is no need, for the person who perceives wrongness, to investigate (or “discover”) the perceived wrongness. Category two-c may bring additional perceptions of wrong to the perceiver. The Pilgrims and Puritans were highly intolerant, coming in at the category two of perception. Note that, from Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter” both Hester Prynne and the minister were considered good citizens until they left category one.

     Category three is the last area (in my opinion) where tolerance may be pursued on the part of the perceiver. Nazis, KKK members, white supremacists, and such are at the category four as their actions are violent against others in many different ways. (This is part of their self-definition.)

Levels of reaction

     Silence about perceived wrongness is the most tolerant. Criticism is less tolerant/more intolerant. Acting upon the perception is quite intolerant and may include enacting laws and penalties, or even active violence.

     In parallel with the general group ethics of the Puritans, it is possible for a group to have intolerance as part of their identity. Their intolerance may be restricted only via legislation or physical restraint.

When should one become intolerant of tolerance?

     As mentioned above, I don’t think that anyone should be tolerant of a category four situation. Being tolerant of such is becoming an accomplice and, by definition, category four situations are violating the rights, and sometimes liberties and lives, of others.

     I can understand, but not agree with, the problems of being tolerant of categories two-c and three behaviors. It is difficult, or impossible, to ignore yet the behavior is not directly hurting anyone and not directly infringing on the rights of the perceiver or other people voluntarily participating. If a person wears a t-shirt indicating perceived unpleasantness or yelling slogans or insults over a megaphone, is this actually falling into category four? Even if not directly affecting others, it is a type of forced non-consensual behavior of one person, or group, upon another.

     I remember the scene in “The Blues Brothers” where a group of Nazis is encountered by the Blues Brothers. AT THE TIME, they were only practicing behaviors in category three but, by their own self-definition, they were a category four group. The Blues Brothers ran them off the road into the water. Legally, they were in the wrong as the action was within category three. But, morally?

     The biggest hurdle may be a fear of expansion of a behavior. If one is tolerant of category two-c or category three behaviors, is this encouraging escalation into “higher” categories? And, if you are in agreement with that behavior, then “obviously” you would consider the behavior to be accepted which is beyond toleration. But, if not in agreement, …

No real conclusion just thoughts

     Tolerance and intolerance are reflections on the diverse viewpoints within society. What was once unacceptable might now be accepted, or something of which tolerance is encouraged. And it may also occur in the other direction. Behavior which was once tolerated, and even accepted by some, can become something that is no longer acceptable or tolerated by society.

     Life is complex but, as long as people have varieties of behavior and thought, tolerance allows us to interact. That is the importance, and need, for tolerance.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Lazy, lazy, tests: They are fast, easy, and non-invasive but they should never be solely relied upon

     Once upon a time (about 30 years ago), I was going through various dating services trying to find a lifemate. (Found her at a mutual meeting on an outdoor walking excursion.) I decided to use a reasonably rated dating service in Seattle. I filled out, completely honestly and transparently, all about me and the most important things about the person I wanted to meet. It did not work out well.

      I am short (shorter as I age) and a bit pudgy. I am also very well muscled. I used to be able to do leg presses of heavier weights than most of the people on my high school football team (I didn’t make the team — another story).

The erroneous world of BMI

     My height and weight statistics were such that I had a BMI of 31.3 which is considered “obese”. My height and weight were almost exactly the same as the quarterback of the Denver Broncos. No, I won’t claim I was in as good of condition as the quarterback. As I said, I was pudgy. What I wasn’t was “obese”. But no woman in the dating records had any interest in dating an “obese” man. I offered to go into their office and show them. No go. They had their fast, easy tool that told them what they wanted to know and they didn’t care at all that it was totally inaccurate.

     I was self-employed at the time and had my own health insurance. I was penalized for my muscle. The insurance agent SAID that he understood and sympathized but could do nothing about it. (The BMI is known to only be accurate for about 85% of the time — due to “abnormal” body composition of too much muscle or thick bones or other non-average aspects.) The company used the BMI as their Bible. There are other tests for better accuracy such as a water displacement test and a caliper test. There is even a pretty easy measurement test that is a lot more accurate. It includes the circumference of your waist and wrist in addition to height and weight. No go. Fast, easy, and wrong.

The autocratic world of Reddit

     Once upon a time, when I was building my audience for my blog (https://technoglot.blogspot.com) I made use of some of the subreddits of Reddit. As you may know, each subreddit has its own owner, or owners. They control the topic as well as the rules for appropriate entries. They are the ruling folks. But, as the royalty, they have no obligation to follow their rules. The rules are there to meet the requirements of a subreddit. Following them is optional.

     I never succeeded in staying on a subreddit long because they didn’t like a blog to occupy a place there (I did get quite a few views). None of the rules said no blogs but … I had one person who had written their own tool for spam detection. The tool detected duplicate base URLs! (So blog.com/X was spam of blog.com/Y because they both were based on blog.com.) An article from newsweek.com would have registered as spam because other articles would also exist within newsweek.com. But, their tool was fast and easy and they didn’t care that it was wrong (I have a Master’s degree in Computer Science). Not important.

The world of AI detection following the easy, quick incorrect path.

     Now, we are entering the world of AI generating text and material. I am getting reports on the use of tools dictating what is AI and what is not. One of the rules is that of using the — (emdash). Apparently, AI detection tools have decided that only AI generated text makes use of the emdash. Balderdash. But, I am trying to wean myself away from using that indication of an extended pause because I would prefer to not be erroneously marked as AI. First BMI, now potentially AI. All out of laziness being more important than accuracy.

     So, what other items is an AI detector likely to flag? Formal, academic style writing, simple and clear sentences. If it is clear, direct, easy to understand then you are likely to be in trouble. We will all need to write like Lewis Carroll in “Jabberwocky”. We all need to make our prose as unpredictable and erratic as possible. Oh, there are some understandable authors that have a “unique” voice who should be safe. Coming from a non-fiction, technical, background, I am probably going to be in deep doodoo.

     Frankly (does anyone ever say “Georgely”?) I don’t think it can be done. So be prepared to be accused of being an AI if you love language and want to type it according to the rules of English. Oh, yes, ESL folks are also likely to be flagged because they are taught direct, straight-forward, sentence structure and “normal” writers don’t sound like that.

What’s going to happen?

     I would like to say that all of these folks that are using these tools will sit up and say “my goodness, are the tools that bad? We should immediately stop relying on them so much”. But, people are people and most want to follow the quick, easy, cheap route. Plus, here in the US, we love those numerical scores. If a tool can give us a number as output, we can’t help but fall in love with it.

     I’m “lucky”. I make almost no money from my books, blogs, and newsletters. So, it doesn’t matter if I am accused of being an AI. And I can find (and have found) other methods of distributing my blogs (and make use of SEO tools). And I am settled into a permanent “death do us part” relationship. So, as Bill Murray says so eloquently in “Meatballs” — “it just doesn’t matter”.

Sure, it doesn’t. Good luck to all of us.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

A Leadership Position: Not always a replaceable cog in the machine

      Please feel free to repost, or restack, as I think it is past time for this to be discussed around the dining table, boardroom, or virtual water cooler.

     When, in 1983, Steve Jobs hired John Sculley to run Apple, the decision was made because it was felt that a person who had successfully run a campaign to improve Pepsi-Cola’s position versus Coca-Cola could also market Apple products amidst increasing competition. This was reasonable, and rational, on paper. But Apple, and its products, are not fashioned around something that anyone can do or produce. While “the power to be your best” wasn’t a bad campaign idea it could have been used by other competitors without much of a change.

1984

     There was a successful collaboration between Steve Jobs and John Sculley for a while with the peak being the iconic “1984” Apple commercial. But the approaches were just too different between the non-tech Sculley and the tech visionary Jobs and Sculley forced Jobs away from Apple in 1985. Jobs headed off to found NeXT where he wanted to re-create a new Apple from scratch using his experience at Apple. Technically, he was very successful with the NeXT cube used as the software and hardware base for Tim Berners-Lee initial work on the World Wide Web. Commercially, it was not as successful as the journey towards perfection tends to be a costly process. NeXT eventually folded and its modified UNIX® (the ancestor of Linux®) became the basis of Apple’s OS X operating system.

Beyond Apple

     So, is this a newsletter/blog about Apple? No, though the Apple/Sculley/Jobs situation is a great example. The board of Apple wanted Jobs to bring in an experienced executive to run the company. That might have worked for another company but not for Apple.

     This same attitude persists, through today. Boards of directors will compete against each other for the best-known, or highest “ranked”, executive. They treat them as cogs for a machine. If they can run a company making widgets at that place then they can do the same here. Maybe. If they are paid $200 million at Company A then they are surely worth it and they might come over here if we offer them $300 million and an espresso machine. It sounds silly and it is silly and it is a large part of the reason why the ratio of pay between CEOs and line workers is totally out-of-control nowadays within the USA.

Roles of a CEO

     A CEO basically has three roles. One of these is to be the figurehead, or icon, for the company. While the need for a figurehead is true for all companies, it is particularly true for companies that are trying to improve market perception of the product or brand. In this situation, perhaps pay can be justified as though they were a celebrity (sports, music, acting, …). Of course, I’m not at all certain that celebrities should be paid so much but the case can be made that, in some cases, the CEO is to be treated as a celebrity. Steve Jobs, Lee Iacocca, Mark Zuckerberg, Warren Buffett, and more can be considered in this category. One of the first within US history was probably Henry Ford.

     While it is true that a small percentage of CEOs can be seen, and “justifiably” paid, like a celebrity or icon, the great majority do not qualify for such and should be paid much less. All of them, however, do function as the “head” of the company. Sometimes they are actively visible and sometimes they work behind the scenes.

     The second role is as an internal leader for the company. This is important (as Apple discovered within their fiasco). Even if the employees are not treated great, the employees need to feel like their efforts matter to the company. Decisions must be made and communicated in a constructive fashion. The CEO has the “last buck” stopping at their desk and it is vital they are aware, communicate, and take responsibility.

     Any leader can make bad decisions but good leaders recognize, acknowledge, and take responsibility for those bad decisions and redirect before harm occurs. Great leaders work with others whose skills, and expertise, compliment their own skills such that they make very good decisions most of the time. Bad leaders either fail to make timely decisions or make decisions without paying any attention to feedback or outside information. Terrible leaders not only mostly make poor decisions but surround themselves with sycophants (or “yes people”) who will reinforce the tendency to make poor decisions.

     The third role is in the area of networking. This is important for understanding what is happening in the market within which the company’s products are competing. It is also important for making others in the industry aware of what the CEO’s company is doing. New product ideas (and features) occur as a result of networking as well as internal feedback. Public collaboration (cabals and price fixing need not apply) may be of mutual advantage. To know, and be known, within the industry — THAT is the question.

Can a great soft drink CEO be a great tech CEO?

     In the case of Apple/Sculley, the answer was no. Is such a situation always a bad decision? I don’t have enough knowledge and experience to give a definitive answer but my basic feelings are that it CAN work for certain market segments. It is very difficult in the tech industry. In the processed food industry, it is likely very easy.

     If a company has an icon in the driver’s seat then that icon needs to know the product(s) of the company forward, backward, historically, and sideways. Or they have to present themselves as knowing such. If the company does not have an icon in charge, then that CEO can perform, or delegate, the other roles, as long as they have good supporting team members.

What about company employees other than the CEO?

     People filling certain roles can be critical within a company’s long-term plans and ability to support existing products. They can be considered to be mini-CEOs and, within their subdomain within the company, can be treated, and analyzed, in the same ways as the CEO. The head of a product division, for example, may be known within the industry for that product as well as having in-depth knowledge of the product, and people working on that product. This is certainly a definite advantage for the company.

Analysis of needs

     When a CEO is placed, or replaced, within a company there is a need to analyze just what roles is the person to fulfill. Although not titled a CEO, when Ronald Reagan was chosen by his party to be the Presidential candidate, it was to fill the first role of a CEO. He was to represent and be the figurehead of the company (USA). The second and third roles of leadership and networking were left to others behind the scenes and not in the spotlight.

     If the board believes that an icon is needed for the company then, by all means, compete with other companies for that iconic/celebrity position. But, make sure that either the person is capable of filling the other roles or make it clear to them that they will not be controlling such duties. It may be necessary to fill an additional position at the same time to formally (or informally behind the scenes) handle the other duties.

     What if an icon is not truly needed? It isn’t needed for most CEO-level positions. The board (or other group of searchers) must find someone who can be adequate at the figurehead position but who excels in the roles of leadership and networking. Pay them well, in accordance with company performance, but don’t treat them as a celebrity. They are a working stiff who is expected to do their job well and produce results.

Conclusion

     There are broadly known icons within business. They are stars and celebrities. But most are not such icons and should not be paid as celebrities. They are working stiffs expected to do their duties well and who should be well, but not extravagantly well, paid and treated. By paying attention to needs and matching such to a candidate’s abilities, good long-term choices can be made.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Changes arriving for the Future: Sometimes necessary things don't just spontaneously happen

     Back in 1811, the Luddite movement started in Nottingham, England. It was composed primarily of weavers and home textile workers who had lost their jobs as the looms and cloth production plants became automated. People who had developed skills all their lives, sometimes as a third or fourth generation craftsperson, found themselves with no way to support themselves and family. They would mask themselves and destroy factory equipment, trying to regain their livelihood.

     Of course, the tides of change overwhelmed them. Many suffered. Most survived and retrained with nostalgic stories of their past lives. They had no support from the English government which gave full violent support to the owners of the factories.

Technology changes whether we want it to or not

     This is not an uncommon scenario throughout history. The advancement of the automobile pushed horses (literally) out to pasture and changed roads, use of land, and an entire industry which went from supporting the living horse to support of the “iron horse” (which term was primarily applied to locomotive engines but could apply, in principle, to the personal automobile). As Danny Devito says in “Other People’s Money”, a couple of suppliers of horse harnesses and “buggy whips” survived and they probably made “the best buggy whips ever”. But the vast majority of leather workers had to find other outlets or trades.

     As is true with the climate, people are used to change. Humans have survived throughout the centuries because they are adaptable. They make tools, they move, they change their daily habits. But a mass of people can adapt to change that takes place over multiple generations (hundreds of year) much more easily than they can over a period of a couple of years or even a decade.

     Self-service options are available at more and more stores and fast food restaurants. At the grocery store, my wife and I avoid the self-checkouts. Why? Though, by ourselves, we do not make much difference we are putting on the brakes, just a little, on a transition that is happening too quickly for people to adapt to.

Rapid change requires coordination, including climate change

     Some islands (primarily in the Pacific Ocean) with only low elevation are disappearing. Their people need someplace to move to. Some areas that have crops used to regular rainfall are having periods of drought on a more frequent basis. They need crops that are bred for the newer climate and/or different crops that will work in the new climate. The same holds for areas that are now experiencing more rainfall — especially when it occurs in multiple brief periods causing flash floods and mudslides. New reservoirs may be needed and, preferably, they need to be designed such that they do not disrupt the local ecology too badly. I fear greatly what will happen as the glaciers, providing major sources of water to large populations, disappear.

     100-year-floods are now occurring every five years. Hurricanes are stronger and more frequent. Tornadoes are happening in areas of the US that have no recent memory of tornadoes. It is too soon to know if earthquakes, and reactivated volcanoes, have generally increased but there certainly have been a few global ones that were unexpected. When they happen off the coast, tsunamis need to be allowed for.

     Such phenomena are occurring now. In the relatively near future, they are likely to get worse. Population shifts need to be coordinated between governments. Support, in both transition subsidization as well as hybridization and crop planning, for farmers and resource harvesters needs to be increased. New building regulations need to be made to have housing better resistant to new weather disasters and climatic situations. Is your government actively working on such? The government in the US is definitely not.

Technology changes directly lead to economic needs.

     Some technology changes can make smooth transitions. People typing on computer keyboards is not much different from typing on typewriters (though the ease of mistake correction can lead to “bad” typing habits). Using calculators (or calculator apps on phones) is not that much different than using slide rules, although I am sure the manufacturers of slide rules would not agree with me. I received a beautiful bamboo slide rule for my high school graduation. Small iterations are noticeable but not alarming. Most people can adapt.

     The Luddites saw a transformation in a very few years that displaced their skills entirely. Right now, executives are being told all kinds of things about what AI can do and they are leery of continuing business as usual. Perhaps they are right but they are also running into situations where AI can NOT improve things in the ways they were told, or hoped. This AI bubble is making everything shaky and there is a decent possbility that a large section of workers will not just have to learn new skills in their profession but may have to change professions.

     There is a general consensus that AI will displace many administrative and clerical jobs. It is much less certain about the technology sector. Some high level administrators are loudly proclaiming that they can get rid of 90% of their staff. Others indicate only a minor change (primarily a requirement of AI experience before hiring). Only time will tell. However, the delay, and uncertainty, is putting new graduates in Computer Science through purgatory. Two of my sons are among them. Other disciplines, and recent graduates, are also affected but not as much as within technology majors.

     Consider a store, in which one quarter of its staff deals with collecting money from customers in transactions of buying products. If you have lots of stores no longer needing one quarter of its staff that adds up to a lot of people.

Will there be jobs available for those who want them?

     No one knows. Historically, technology changes have left holes that were rapidly filled as new technology led to new job types and positions. This change is somewhat different however in that both the repetitive labor jobs (automation) and creative/interpretative jobs (AI) are being assaulted. It is pretty well certain that new types of jobs will be needed and there must be a market for them in order to work within existing economic models.

     There is a definite possibility of further increases in income inequality. With continued automation and AI increments, a business might be able to reduce staff by 25 to 40%. Presumably, the workers remaining are the ones with the greatest experience and skills to continue to be useful in the business. If they are paid in accordance with their contributions then profits will be distributed in a more equal fashion. If the remaining staff continues to be paid the same as before, then profits will rise and be directed to the pockets of owners of capital and stockholders, which will increase income inequality.

     Populations continue to increase their average ages and the numbers in their oldest brackets. This is happening at the same time as population growth levels off or shrinks. Health care needs are expected to grow considerably but the economic system in the US does not support this and the US healthcare system is more and more expensive and much less dependable (on purpose to increase profits).

     Jobs that require physical presence should be safe through this shift in the job market. Trades (electricians, plumbers, carpenters, …) should be safe until automation/robotics is adequately flexible to do the same type of work. Social/health work will continue to grow as population ages and population pressures increase. In order for such to be paid, some changes in the infrastructure will be needed. Jobs requiring originality, creativity, and aesthetic judgement should continue to be safe and even potentially expanding. Note that it can be envisioned that continued advances of AI and automation might still put these positions in danger.

     What would those potential new jobs be? Most of them would exist in the “soft”, non-physical, job areas. The incorporation of such may require economic changes. The spread of wealth, or reduction of income inequality, would allow greater use of, and payment for, such new “soft” professions. That will be greatly resisted.

Conclusion

     Humans have survived for thousands of years because they can adapt to changes. But, for rapid change, coordination and planning is needed to minimize suffering and thrashing. In addition, concentration of wealth and resources to a very minor section of the population will make it much more difficult to create new job niches and categories with livable wages.

Ideas & Interpretations is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.