Duh! … Well intended policies have negative impacts …

Well-intentioned policies to make achieving tenure more family-friendly actually have negative consequences for the salaries of college faculty, says a study co-written by University of Illinois labor and employment relations professor Amit Kramer:
“The norm in academia is that success requires the focused pursuit of academic work at the expense of other responsibilities, including family,” he said. “That suggests that the use of these policies may be detrimental to the career outcomes of tenure-track faculty members. In particular, evaluators may perceive stopping the clock for family reasons as an indicator that the faculty member lacks the commitment to his or her academic role. And that, in turn, may constrain their career prospects.”

This ‘unintended consequence’ should have been predicted (and my bet is that it was) by any rational adult who has worked in even a moderately competitive workplace (and academia in main line universities is anything but just moderately competitive.) This sort of thing is a fact of life among us monkeys, move on, nothing to see here! Trying to add some kind of anti-bias bias, as suggested later in the article, is nuts and will only make things worse.

If you want to provide this sort of benefit, do so knowing there will be ‘unintended consequences’ of this sort and allow your adult, professional staff figure out their own best path. I think providing more personal days per year and allowing them to accrue along with a reasonably strict use policy to offset impacts to the company / coworkers would be more fair and flexible.

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-04-family-friendly-tenure-policies-result-salary.html

20130429-194213.jpg

Eye Candy : Wired Photo Gallery

The Danes, Maybe too Nice? NYT article

20130421-113948.jpgJan Grarup for The New York Times || Robert Nielsen, 45, said proudly last year that he had basically been on welfare since 2001.
Danes Rethink a Welfare State Ample to a Fault
By SUZANNE DALEY
Published: April 20, 2013

I’ve always found the NYT generally more nuanced than it rock ribbed critics make it out to be.

And you could say that this article supports welfare reform, tax reasonableness, fairness etc … Until you think a bit more deeply.

“Denmark is what progressive New Yorkers want to be even if they don’t know it,” the ‘Smithsonian’ liberal in me jeers. The Danes start from such incredible heights of social redistribution it would take huge changes to get it down to the fondest dream of leftish US liberals. In regards to this article, a progressive could comfortingly say “yes welfare can go to far” and then finish with “but we ain’t even close yet.”

This is a tiny, densely populated and historically rich and educate European nation. The Danish welfare state, the Danish tax regime, the Danish government, the country of Denmark…are simply impossible to compare to the US equivalents. It has no real international borders, a proportionally huge and productive coast (the US would count the whole country as a coastal region) it’s comparable to New York City and environs in size and population, it’s highly educated, pretty homogeneous and highly protected from outside threat. Things that work in Denmark simply cannot work in the US because of scale…and even in Denmark the Danish system is tottering.

Government Power VS Individual’s rights, which comes first…

Interesting article in the HuffPost by Roger Pilon (vice president for legal affairs at the Cato Institute and director of Cato’s Center for Constitutional Studies,) discussing the libertarian view on gay marriage. But on a more general note, this quote really struck home as a fundamental point we need to think about when discussing the gov’t doing this, that or the other:

In truth, principled equal protection starts at precisely the other end, not with government’s power but with the individual’s right — with the idea that we’re all equally free. And it continues by recognizing that because government belongs to all of us, it must treat us all equally — unless there is some serious, compelling reason to do otherwise, to draw distinctions among us. That gets the presumptions and the burdens right.

20130326-214749.jpg
Just because it’s beautiful.

China Aircraft Carrier / Navy needs proper context

20130322-091837.jpg

20130322-091858.jpg

Wired and others have been nattering about the Chinese carrier, it’s nascent flight wing, how crappy the hardware is, how hard the job is, etc, etc. working to defuse the China threat they think is being blown up by the Pentagon and congressional hawks.

Look at the two pictures above, the time from first flight to rational threat back ‘in the day’ was a few years, the big gun guys were laughing the whole time. That Fighter struggling off the Lianoning is a threat today if need be, and you do not have to impress an admiral to be able to sink his fleet. No it’s no realistic threat today but don’t make the mistake of equating little with none, the US capability with the capability required to be a threat, or today with forever. The US CVN capability is essentially static or downtrend, China is on the edge of asymptotic rise, with a century and millions of man years of prior experience across the world to pull up on. As other articles in have discussed, what really is a CV in the 21st century? So how long could it be till a Chinese CV threat is more than a wild card? Not long is my estimate.

Maybe, just maybe, we have met the shortfall (in social security) and it’s (mainly) us.

Meagan McArdle, Asymmetrical Information at The Daily Beast making sense from the noise as usual. If you care about Social Security, Retirement Accounts, 401Ks, today or tomorrow, liberal or conservative, read the article, it’s possible we’ve actually got a reasonable (i.e. maybe the best distributed risk coverage that’s possible in an imperfect world) system, we just need to understand it’s on our shoulders to use it well.

Public Sector Unions and their fundamental Downside for the Public/Taxpayers

Hat tip to Instapundit and Joel Gehrke for the pointer to this excellent article

The New Tammany Hall
Public sector unions have become a labor aristocracy–and they are bankrupting states and municipalities.
OCT 12, 2009, VOL. 15, NO. 04 • BY DANIEL DISALVO AND FRED SIEGEL


laying out the fundamental problem with public sector unions. When I started and even ended my 15 years as a civil servant working for the DoD I/we accepted the trade of lower wages for more certain and good benefits including retirement. That is no longer true, public sector wages have overtaken private sector wages as time has gone on and supporters have tweaked the laws to make it possible. Worse the system puts a lot of power in their hands leading to excessively aggressive defensive tactics on their part and concomitant anger on all sides as the Public – Taxpayers claw back what their supine “representatives” gave away.

Antifragile | NYTimes oped that says a lot

A very good short piece in/on the NYT ‘Stabilization Won’t Save Us‘ by Nassim Nicholas Taleb, “a former derivatives trader, is a professor at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University and the author, most recently, of “Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder.”” The succinct and I believe very accurate + timely article is hopefully a sign that thinking is broadening among the elite, left and even right. To big to fail is a failed concept and our continued federal go’t idiocy shows the danger of letting too much power float to the top. It would not take that much to force (over a few years) the big banks and other over sized and overly protected corporations and guilds ( doctors, lawyers, politicians, AARP, …) to fragment into more useful+effective small scale somewhat competitive (or at least less centralized) organizations.

From my viewpoint large protected organizations with access to Big Data are somewhat troubling since the tools could facilitate continued centralization of wealth and power.

Fox News | Ripped apart by financial crisis, Greek society in free-fall

Ripped apart by financial crisis, Greek society in free-fall

This could happen to parts of the US if we do not fix our fiscal house. And that does not mean higher tax rates. It means reduced special deals for everyone, like a cap on mortgage interest tax relief at the average home price in the country etc.

Also this is in some ways a pointer to the effects of a corrupt and ineffective tax authority, Greece’s is awful, the IRS is quite good if not perfect, just remember taxes are a necessary evil, make sure the taxman is competent and fare or things can get ugly.