Sunday, February 10, 2013

Why are people poor and what can we do about it?

I recently read an article about the income distribution in the United States.  I'm always curious about why rich people are rich and poor people are poor.  This isn't so much of a personal interest: I've given up on "get rich" schemes and I'm content with my position in the income distribution.  The real interest for me is to distill truth from the political and media hype about how to fix these problems.  Regarding wealth: one side blames poor people for their condition and the other side says that the playing field isn't fair.  I think both sides are right, which makes this a hard problem to solve.

For example, there's the person who got wiped out by some natural catastrophe, illness, or other problem out of their control.  It would be nice if society reached out and helped that person.

But then there's the person who got wiped out by bad decisions, drugs, gambling, or whatever risky, fruitless path they chose.  Helping this person becomes very difficult.  Without reform, they become a life draining leech on society.

Then there are the rich.  Certainly the rich can afford to pay their fair share.  There are those for whom wealth came easy: inheritance, lucky timing or other opportunities, etc.

But then there's the wealthy person who got that way by saving every penny, that lived by the motto "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without".  They shiver under a blanket to save money on heat, collect water in a bucket while the shower water is getting warm to use for a toilet flush later.  They've never had pizza delivered to their house since homemade costs less.  Most likely they are already helping through their favorite charity.  They know the value of a dime and are careful how they help others.  It's possible that this person made wealth accumulation such a priority that they sacrificed personal fulfillment, family or health.

Not all poor are created equal and not all rich are created equal.


So back to the numbers.  The income distribution is surprisingly "predictable".  To me, predictable means there is a mathematical description which lends itself to greater understanding.  It turns out a good fit is a "Log-Normal Distribution", something I'm not familiar with.  After reading up on it, it turns it's just a skewed "Normal Distribution" or the familiar "Bell Curve" and found often in science.  I found the simplest way to understand it is by comparing experimental devices for generating the two distributions [source].  These are like a pinball machine or Pachinko where balls are dropped from the top, bounce left or right at each row of triangles and continue until they end up in the bins at the bottom.  The number of balls in each bin shows the distribution.


Figure a is the Normal Distribution and Figure b is the "Log-Normal" Distribution.

Since Figure b results in the same as the U.S. income distribution, it can be instructive to helping understand wealth and poverty.  Think of each row as an event in someones life.  The ball (their wealth) can go either left (they get poorer) or right (they get richer).  It may look likes it favors the rich, but the unique design is to favor winning over losing.  Each triangle is shaped such that there is always more "upside" than "downside".  For example, you'll either make $100 or lose $80.  If you win, then the amount is greater but still you'll win more than you did last time but you can't lose any more than your last win.  If you keep losing, each time you lose less than you did last time so that you aren't wiped out.  Sounds like a pretty fair system to me.

So what are these events?

Some events you have control over:
WINS: hard work, save money, sacrifice today for more tomorrow.
LOSES: Wasting time, gambling, blowing your money, taking unnecessary risks (like building your house in a flood plane)
    
Some events you don't have control over:
WINS: Lucky break, knowing the right people, being in the right place at the right time
LOSES: Illness, disability, catastrophe

Of course, not everyone has the same "entry point" at the top.  Mitt Romney's "ball was dropped" far to the right.  However, if you go back enough generations, there was someone in everyone's line who started out on the left (poor).  For Mitt, it was his father George Romney.

I think that this "log-normal" distribution is the nature of the system; meaning it can't be changed with laws, taxes or other policies.  There will always be poverty and wealth in a similar distribution.  The goal should be to increase the overall wealth, so that everyone benefits.

Gandhi said:
I cannot picture to myself a time when no man shall be richer than another. But I do picture to myself a time when the rich will spurn to enrich themselves at the expense of the poor and the poor will cease to envy the rich. Even in a most perfect world, we shall fail to avoid inequalities, but we can and must avoid strife and bitterness.
Some examples of helping:
Promote healthy families - a stable, nurturing home promotes "rightward" thinking, opportunities and actions.
Promote healthy lifestyles - many diseases and illnesses are preventable.
Teach personal finance and emotional education in our schools.

Get rid of state run lotteries - gambling creates a mentality that moves people left and by it's nature destroys wealth.

For those who truly suffer, we need to figure out how to follow this counsel:
"For I was an hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:  Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me."
 

Saturday, January 26, 2013

No Assault Rifle?

Shocking news:  no AR-15 assault rifle was used at the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting last month  [link].  Of course this is not accurate according to the latest press release from the Connecticut State Police on January 18, 2013.  The guns found were:

Seized inside the school by the suspect's body:
#1. Bushmaster .223 caliber-- model XM15-E2S rifle with high capacity 30 round magazine
#2. Glock 10 mm handgun
#3. Sig-Sauer P226 9mm handgun

Seized from suspect’s car in parking lot:
#4. Izhmash Canta-12   12 gauge Shotgun

Here's an analogy for you:
Imagine that the Sandy Hook shooting never took place, but instead, a drunk driver hit a school bus with the same 20 children and 6 adults on board, killing everyone.  The drunk driver's car is searched and they find a bottle of Jack Daniel's and a  6 pack of beer.  All of the media outlets report on how terrible Jack Daniel's is.  The politicians jump on the bandwagon and decide to ban all alcohol that is 80 proof or higher.  "No one needs to get drunk that easily".  They want to ban all imports and production.  The producers of high proof Alcoholic Beverages are now the villains.  The National Alcohol Beverage Industries Council (NABIC) comes to their defense saying that "Alcohol doesn't kill people, drunk drivers kill people" and "We will not compromise on the right of people to drink high proof alcohol".  The NABIC is made out to be public enemy number one.  Which is to blame for the drunkeness?  The beer or the Jack Daniel's?
This is a valid analogy since drunk drivers kill about as many people as are murdered by guns [CDC] [FBI].  Depending on how you count it (and who is counting) both numbers are over 10,000 people killed each  year.  (Use this calculator http://www.ou.edu/oupd/bac.htm to determine what you can drink without exceeding the legal blood alcohol limit)

Both gun violence and drunk driving are serious problems.  Fortunately, gun deaths continue to decline in the U.S.  It would be nice to know why.  Regarding assault rifles, I know there are people in my neighborhood that own military style assault rifles.  I feel perfectly safe walking at night in my neighborhood.  I actually feel a little bit safer knowing that many of my good neighbors are armed.  I don't feel safe when they are drunk.

I've heard how great Japan is.  Very few guns and therefore very few gun-related deaths (0.07 per 100,000, while U.S. is 10 per 100,000).  Unfortunately, a large percentage of gun deaths in the U.S are suicides: 17,000 or the 30,000 suicides per year are gun-related.  However, without a gun problem, Japan has about twice as many suicides per capita (22 per 100k in Japan compared to 12 per 100k in U.S.).

Of course, our Hollywood celebrities decided to make a commercial called "Demand a Plan", saying we have to do something about it.  Someone cleverly edited it to show their hypocrisy.  Warning: after 3 minutes, the captions are obscene (f-word, etc.)

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

What it will be like when things get bad

There's a tipping point when your credit runs out and all of your rainy day reserves dry up where things get really bad.  It seems that's happening in Greece as many can't afford the price of heating oil and are burning anything they can get their hands on to keep warm.  The unfortunate consequences: depleting forests that finally have recovered from the Nazis, cutting down parts of a 3,000 year old olive tree where Plato taught, and terrible air pollution (not to mention contributing to global warming).

http://capeandislands.org/post/under-cloud-austerity-real-smoke-clouds-greece-well
http://greece.greekreporter.com/2013/01/22/high-oil-prices-drive-greeks-to-burn-wood/
The part about the forests I heard on the radio.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Worst Business Correspondence I've Ever Seen

I just got this letter in the mail today.  We had this company aerate our lawns one time, then they came back a second time though we didn't authorize them.  I tried calling to tell them that we no longer wanted their service but they never answered the phone.  Finally, they were at a neighbors house, so I was able to tell them.

Here are a couple tips when sending business correspondence:

  1. Make it very clear what action you expect from the recipient.
  2. Be concise.  Don't repeat yourself.
  3. Check spelling and grammar

Do you have any additional tips for how to write business correspondence?

Click to view large size image.


Sunday, November 25, 2012

The End of Thanksgiving

As my four days off of work come to an end, I think back on how much I enjoyed this holiday.  Then I think about the conversation I had with a high school student last Wednesday.  He was angry with his history teacher for saying that the Thanksgiving story was made up.  Apparently the pilgrims never had a Thanksgiving dinner with Native Americans (I wish we could still call them indians).  If you think rationally about the story, it does seem a bit far fetched.  This really shakes my faith in holiday narratives.  I guess that even if Thanksgiving is fake, I at least have something to be thankful for: Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Cupid.

Friday, November 9, 2012

California > Florida + Ohio

Why didn't California get more attention during the election? It's the most powerful state in the most powerful country in the history of the world.  We heard much about the swing states: Ohio, Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Nevada, Wisconsin, Colorado, North Carolina and even puny New Hampshire.

Look at how many times the candidates visited each of these states (in order):

State# of Campaign VisitsVisit was for Fundraising
Ohio1487
Florida11516
Virginia987
Iowa680
Nevada562
New Hampshire482
California4536

REALLY, New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes are worth more visits than California's 55?  Of course the real reason they come to California was for our money.  Only 9 visits to California were not related to fundraising.

If the 55 electoral votes from California were split into Obama's California and Romney's California, it would be two powerful states with 33 and 22 electoral votes respectively.  Florida has 29 and Ohio has 18 electoral votes.  Both states are a New Hampshire (4 electoral votes) size smaller then California's split states!

WAIT!!!  You might think this is just a Republican ploy to get more electoral votes.  Problem is that the swing in 44 electoral votes (-22 for Democrats and +22 for Republicans) would not have changed the results in any of the elections over the last 50 years (I got tired of looking after 1960).

2012 Obama wins by at least 68
2008 Obama wins by 192
2004 Bush wins anyways
2000 Bush wins anyways
1996 Clinton wins by 220
1992 Clinton wins by 202
Republicans took the state in 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988 so Democrats would have benefited
1964 Johnson wins by 434
1960 Kennedy would have picked up extra votes

What Exactly am I Proposing?

End the winner-takes-all allocation of electoral votes in California, switching to a proportional allocation.

Some might argue that this deviates from the original intention of the founding fathers.  They wanted to avoid the problems of selecting a president by popular vote.  The reality is that what we have today is pretty close to selecting by popular vote.  The only difference is some of the problems outlined above.  Either way, the U.S. Constitution grants the states the rights to determine how to allocate their electoral votes, so this would be totally constitutional.  This is a state's rights issue, not a national one.

So why do it?


Reason #1: Focus Attention on California During the Campaign

Did you find yourself scratching your head about debating over coal or automobile manufacturing?  These might be important issues, but what about California's issues?

Reason #2: Increase Voter Participation

California had about 51% turnout for registered voters while the swing states had 78%.  Fewer Californians registered to vote (77% of eligible voters) compared to swing states (84%).  The difference is around 5 million fewer Californian voters.  Talk about voter suppression.  The first time my son voted, he was excited until he realized that his vote didn't matter.  I'm sure the 5 million feel the same way.

Reason #3: Keep California in the Game

Due to the later time zone, sometimes the election is decided before the polls in California even close.  The news showed long lines at the polls.  When I voted, there was no line.  I would love to see Californians rushing to the polls, engaged in the election.

So what can you do about it?

Sign this petition: http://signon.org/sign/no-more-winner-takes?source=c.em.mt&r_by=5906874

FAQ


Why use signon.org?  Aren't they a liberal organization?  signon.org is associated with moveon.org which is considered liberal, but the intent and strategy is to be non-partisan.  It was used by a couple of high school girls to petition the Presidential Debate Commission for female moderators.  It worked for them, maybe it will work for us.  If there is a better petition organization, then by all means lets use it.  There are already many like-minded, fair voting organizations that might be better suited to align with.

Do I have to give my email to moveon.org when I sign the petition?  A good strategy is to have multiple email addresses for various purposes.  I created a unique email address specifically for this cause: nomorewinnertakesall@gmail.com.  It's already been spammed by moveon.org.  Let me know if yours gets spammed.

Sources of Information:

http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/swing-state/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2012-presidential-campaign-visits/
http://www.270towin.com/states/California
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/scores.html#1992
http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2012P.html

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

No more winner-takes-all electorate


Dear Friends and Family,

I'm sending this to you since I think you might be sympathetic to my "cause".  Sorry if this seems like spam but I tried to be selective in who I sent this to (no church member lists).

I decided to take personal action while I'm still motivated.  I'm tired of my vote not counting in California since I am a political minority.  55 electors is too big a chunk to hand over to one party, so I think it should be split up.  Why should Ohio or Florida have so much sway?

That's why I created a petition to The California State House, The California State Senate, and Governor Jerry Brown, which says:

"My state should no longer use a winner-takes-all assignment of electors but should instead use a proportional elector allocation for national elections."

Will you sign this petition? Click here:

http://signon.org/sign/no-more-winner-takes?source=c.em.mt&r_by=5906874

Hopefully you can share with your networks.

Thanks!

Ron Carter

P.S. I saw an interview on C-Span on how moveon.org has become a strong political force, so I decided to use their petition generation to push my cause.  Fight fire with fire.