This little story pretty much sums it up:
A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She reduced altitude and spotted a man below. She descended a bit more and shouted "Excuse me, can you help? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."
The man below replied, "You are in a hot air balloon, hovering approximately 10 metres above the ground. You are between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude."
"You must be an engineer," said the balloonist.
"I am," he replied, "how did you know?"
"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is, I am still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help so far."
The man responded, "you must be in management."
"I am," she replied, "but how did you know?"
"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are, or where you are going. You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise, which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect people beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is, you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault."
27 November 2005
I have nothing very exciting to report other than our bedroom is now a butter-yellow color. For what might very well be the first time since my wife and I got married, we had time to just lounge around. No place to which to travel, no other commitments we needed to tend to. We spent Thanksgiving at home by ourselves, which was very nice. We then headed to a friend's for some desert and coffee. Not the usual Thanksgiving stresses. The next couple of days we spent playing Go and Backgammon many, many times, watched movies and episodes of The Sopranos and Absolutely Fabulous on DVD, took our dog to an off-leash preserve, and participated in general lounging around the house. We got a bit fidgety and decided in the last coupe of days to finally paint our bedroom something other than white.
I am subbing for another professor this week, and fortunately her class is the same course as mine and is a day behind mine, which means no extra prep. Tomorrow is review in my class and Tuesday is an exam, so I don't even have to prep tonight. These past few days have been sorely needed and exceptionally rejuvenating.
On a final note, I give a huge shout out to my buddy Luke who just successfully defended his doctoral thesis. Congrats, Doctor Luke! You deserve those three letters that follow your name after all that hard work and bullshit.
I am subbing for another professor this week, and fortunately her class is the same course as mine and is a day behind mine, which means no extra prep. Tomorrow is review in my class and Tuesday is an exam, so I don't even have to prep tonight. These past few days have been sorely needed and exceptionally rejuvenating.
On a final note, I give a huge shout out to my buddy Luke who just successfully defended his doctoral thesis. Congrats, Doctor Luke! You deserve those three letters that follow your name after all that hard work and bullshit.
23 November 2005
If we consider that inflation hovers around 2.6% on average, to cover the falling purchasing power of the dollar, one must get a raise of at least the rate of inflation to make, in adjusted dollars, exactly what they made the year before. So, for example, if inflation some year is 3.0%, and your employer offers you a 3.0% "raise", you really haven't earned a raise in terms of the buying power of your salary. You will be no richer or poorer than you were the year before. If inflation in a given year is 3.0%, and your employer gives you a raise of 2.5%, you actually come out 0.5% poorer the following year.
Most unions bargain for salary increases annually that act as a COLA - cost of living adjustment. These annual increases are to offset inflation and changes in cost of living, so that at the very least, employees don't get poorer the longer they work for a company. For comparison (and example), the 2006 Social Security COLA is set at 4.1% (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/latestCOLA.html).
Raises in salary must take into consideration not only inflation, but they must also take into consideration fluctuations in cost of living. Changes in what consumers pay for certain goods are reflected in the CPI - consumer price index (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm). The CPI is then used to calculate a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). The distinction between a COLA and the CPI is stated on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website:
"The CPI frequently is called a cost-of-living index, but it differs in important ways from a complete cost-of-living measure. BLS has for some time used a cost-of-living framework in making practical decisions about questions that arise in constructing the CPI. A cost-of-living index is a conceptual measurement goal, however, not a straightforward alternative to the CPI. A cost-of-living index would measure changes over time in the amount that consumers need to spend to reach a certain utility level or standard of living. Both the CPI and a cost-of-living index would reflect changes in the prices of goods and services, such as food and clothing that are directly purchased in the marketplace; but a complete cost-of-living index would go beyond this to also take into account changes in other governmental or environmental factors that affect consumers' well- being. It is very difficult to determine the proper treatment of public goods, such as safety and education, and other broad concerns, such as health, water quality, and crime that would constitute a complete cost-of-living framework."
SO, if we want people who work for a company to maintain their standard of living, i.e. not get poorer every year they work for said company, they must demand COLAs at bare minimum (which one could quickly figure is at least the inflation rate). A raise below the set COLA is in actuality a pay-cut.
COLAs - good for people who work for a living.
Most unions bargain for salary increases annually that act as a COLA - cost of living adjustment. These annual increases are to offset inflation and changes in cost of living, so that at the very least, employees don't get poorer the longer they work for a company. For comparison (and example), the 2006 Social Security COLA is set at 4.1% (http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/latestCOLA.html).
Raises in salary must take into consideration not only inflation, but they must also take into consideration fluctuations in cost of living. Changes in what consumers pay for certain goods are reflected in the CPI - consumer price index (http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm). The CPI is then used to calculate a Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). The distinction between a COLA and the CPI is stated on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website:
"The CPI frequently is called a cost-of-living index, but it differs in important ways from a complete cost-of-living measure. BLS has for some time used a cost-of-living framework in making practical decisions about questions that arise in constructing the CPI. A cost-of-living index is a conceptual measurement goal, however, not a straightforward alternative to the CPI. A cost-of-living index would measure changes over time in the amount that consumers need to spend to reach a certain utility level or standard of living. Both the CPI and a cost-of-living index would reflect changes in the prices of goods and services, such as food and clothing that are directly purchased in the marketplace; but a complete cost-of-living index would go beyond this to also take into account changes in other governmental or environmental factors that affect consumers' well- being. It is very difficult to determine the proper treatment of public goods, such as safety and education, and other broad concerns, such as health, water quality, and crime that would constitute a complete cost-of-living framework."
SO, if we want people who work for a company to maintain their standard of living, i.e. not get poorer every year they work for said company, they must demand COLAs at bare minimum (which one could quickly figure is at least the inflation rate). A raise below the set COLA is in actuality a pay-cut.
COLAs - good for people who work for a living.
One more thing. From the Economic Policy Institute:
"In 1979, a woman working at the minimum wage earned 70% of the hourly wage of the median female worker (the woman right in the middle of the female wage scale). By 1998, that ratio had fallen to 52%. Similarly, in 1979 a single mother working full time at the minimum wage earned enough to lift a family of three (herself and two children) above the poverty line. By 1998, however, the same family would be 18% below the poverty line."
In addition, if a dollar bill was worth $1.00 in 1980, it's pruchasing power today would be $0.48.
"In 1979, a woman working at the minimum wage earned 70% of the hourly wage of the median female worker (the woman right in the middle of the female wage scale). By 1998, that ratio had fallen to 52%. Similarly, in 1979 a single mother working full time at the minimum wage earned enough to lift a family of three (herself and two children) above the poverty line. By 1998, however, the same family would be 18% below the poverty line."
In addition, if a dollar bill was worth $1.00 in 1980, it's pruchasing power today would be $0.48.
Many people argue against progressive taxation, because they don't understand how federal income taxation works in the first place. Unfortunately, this ignorance is only perpetuated by the mass of websites and software programs that dumb down the information. Here is amore accurate description found at Moneychimp.com
"Your tax bracket is the rate you pay on the "last dollar" you earn; but as a percentage of your income, your tax rate is generally less than that. To take an example, suppose your taxable income was exactly $100,000 in 2003 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:
What this means is that the poorest of the poor are taxed at the same rate as the richest of the rich on the first $7,000. Although, overall, the person in the example above is taxed at an average rate 23.7, each person (wealthy and dirt poor) is taxed equivalently for the amount of money each has in each tax bracket. In essence, although our tax code looks progressive, it isn't. If we skimp out on the details and just look at broad averages, it can look deceivingly like the rich are taxed more on their money. This is not necessarily true, as the poorest of the poor can't participate in the 35% tax rate, because he or she never earns enough income to be taxed at that rate, and the richest person that does have income in that bracket does not pay that rate (35%) for his/her entire income. Rather, the rich guy only pays on how much of the income leaks into that bracket. Remember that his first $7,000 is taxed at the same rate as the lowest taxed person, the same holds true for the next chunk of his change that ends up in the second tax bracket.
Now that we understand why I don't weep at the rich woman's tax rate, let's look at a couple other things the wealthy have going for them. The first is that they get to deduct more because they spend more. Someone who earns $7,000 per annum will never spend enough to make deductions on his tax form. The woman who earns $200,000 will end up spending enough that she can deduct thousands, if not tens of thousands from her tax filing. What this means in many cases is that, after deductions, the wealthier individuals end up paying, LESS a percentage of their income in taxes than the poor.
Finally, let's talk about capital gains tax. Capital gains are the monies earned in interest from investments. Capital gains in 2000 were taxed at 10% for the first bracket and 20% for the second bracket (there only being two brackets, unlike income tax). Now, let's compare the people who earn their bread through work and those who earn it through investment, sippin' on their martinis. The person who works for a living will get taxed at the tax rates listed in the example above from moneychimp. The person who earns their income from capital gains while sitting back playing polo and drinking fine scotch will actually pay less in taxes than the person who earns the same amount from working. For example, in 2000, for two people each earning $100,000 a year, one from work and one from investments, the one earning her wage from working will pay approximately $29,600 in taxes. The one earning their $100,000 from capital gains will only pay approximately $19,600 in taxes. The person who earned her $100,000 from work will pay a tax rate 50% higher than the person who doesn't work and just collects from capital gains. THIS IS ASS-BACKWARDS. The only place where capital gains taxes exceed federal income taxes happen only in the case that the person working earns less than $28,000. But, of course, the comparison is irrelevant for that person, because he's only making $28,000 from work can't afford to invest and make income on capital gains; he's barely paying the bills. He's not even in the game for there to be any comparison.
In short, the less one makes, the more of one's income one might pay in taxes. Likewise, if one earns one's income through work, one pays more of one's income in taxes than the guy who does shit and just collects on capital gains. As you can hopefully begin to see from this small window into the world of taxation, the poor get fornicated by paying the larger percentage of their income in order to support the habits of the avarice-inflicted of society - those who do not work and get richer for just sitting on their asses (and collecting on capital gains). Workers of the world unite!
"Your tax bracket is the rate you pay on the "last dollar" you earn; but as a percentage of your income, your tax rate is generally less than that. To take an example, suppose your taxable income was exactly $100,000 in 2003 and your status was Married filing separately; then your tax would be calculated like this:
| ( | $ 7,000 - | 0 ) | x .10 : | $ 700 |
| ( | 28,400 - | 7,000 ) | x .15 : | 3,210 |
| ( | 57,325 - | 28,400 ) | x .25 : | 7,231 |
| ( | 87,350 - | 57,325 ) | x .28 : | 8,407 |
| ( | 100,000 - | 87,350 ) | x .33 : | 4,175 |
| Total: | $ 23,723 | |||
This puts you in the 33% tax bracket; but as a percentage of your income, your tax is about 23.7%."
What this means is that the poorest of the poor are taxed at the same rate as the richest of the rich on the first $7,000. Although, overall, the person in the example above is taxed at an average rate 23.7, each person (wealthy and dirt poor) is taxed equivalently for the amount of money each has in each tax bracket. In essence, although our tax code looks progressive, it isn't. If we skimp out on the details and just look at broad averages, it can look deceivingly like the rich are taxed more on their money. This is not necessarily true, as the poorest of the poor can't participate in the 35% tax rate, because he or she never earns enough income to be taxed at that rate, and the richest person that does have income in that bracket does not pay that rate (35%) for his/her entire income. Rather, the rich guy only pays on how much of the income leaks into that bracket. Remember that his first $7,000 is taxed at the same rate as the lowest taxed person, the same holds true for the next chunk of his change that ends up in the second tax bracket.
Now that we understand why I don't weep at the rich woman's tax rate, let's look at a couple other things the wealthy have going for them. The first is that they get to deduct more because they spend more. Someone who earns $7,000 per annum will never spend enough to make deductions on his tax form. The woman who earns $200,000 will end up spending enough that she can deduct thousands, if not tens of thousands from her tax filing. What this means in many cases is that, after deductions, the wealthier individuals end up paying, LESS a percentage of their income in taxes than the poor.
Finally, let's talk about capital gains tax. Capital gains are the monies earned in interest from investments. Capital gains in 2000 were taxed at 10% for the first bracket and 20% for the second bracket (there only being two brackets, unlike income tax). Now, let's compare the people who earn their bread through work and those who earn it through investment, sippin' on their martinis. The person who works for a living will get taxed at the tax rates listed in the example above from moneychimp. The person who earns their income from capital gains while sitting back playing polo and drinking fine scotch will actually pay less in taxes than the person who earns the same amount from working. For example, in 2000, for two people each earning $100,000 a year, one from work and one from investments, the one earning her wage from working will pay approximately $29,600 in taxes. The one earning their $100,000 from capital gains will only pay approximately $19,600 in taxes. The person who earned her $100,000 from work will pay a tax rate 50% higher than the person who doesn't work and just collects from capital gains. THIS IS ASS-BACKWARDS. The only place where capital gains taxes exceed federal income taxes happen only in the case that the person working earns less than $28,000. But, of course, the comparison is irrelevant for that person, because he's only making $28,000 from work can't afford to invest and make income on capital gains; he's barely paying the bills. He's not even in the game for there to be any comparison.
In short, the less one makes, the more of one's income one might pay in taxes. Likewise, if one earns one's income through work, one pays more of one's income in taxes than the guy who does shit and just collects on capital gains. As you can hopefully begin to see from this small window into the world of taxation, the poor get fornicated by paying the larger percentage of their income in order to support the habits of the avarice-inflicted of society - those who do not work and get richer for just sitting on their asses (and collecting on capital gains). Workers of the world unite!
19 November 2005
A comment from one of my readers:
When you are asked, "How are you" it is indeed correct toThe debate continues . . .
reply, "I am good," not because you are saying that you are
morally good, but because "am" is a linking verb, and with
linking verbs, the adjective is preferred over the adverb.
That's how I understand it, at least. "Well" is used in
reference to health.
18 November 2005
I still don't understand why it is that a PhD is required to teach at an undergraduate liberal arts college. Why does one need a research credential if one won't be training researchers or doing research? Let's not forget that before the PhD even existed, people with Masters degrees taught college, and people were just as smart and successful back then. Furthermore, why would a community college want a PhD? It doesn't make any sense to me considering that Community College is the farthest thing from a research university, and community colleges seem to place its greatest emphasis on teaching. Those of us who have been to college at any level know how terrible an academically credentialed person can be as a teacher. I actually think that in most cases the relationship between academic credentials and teaching talent is inversely proportional. There's become such hype about academic credentialing, when in actuality credentials mean very little as far as teaching ability goes. This also holds true for public school teachers that are required to get masters degrees. Why? One can be filled to the skull with theory and not have an idea of how to teach. I've taken classes with plenty of Dr.'s in education that had no idea how to teach at all. They were damned good researchers, though!
So, here I am - someone who has a BS in Physics from a good college, an MA in Education from an ivy league, and I can't get a job teaching physics at a community college, because I don't have a masters in Physics. Here's the kicker: every physics course taught at the community college level I've taught to high school students in very difficult circumstances, and my students did very well - 80% of them passed the calculus-based physics AP test (with an 80% or higher), the highest physics course offered at all of the community colleges I've looked at.
But I'm not allowed to teach full-time at the community college level, because I don't have some credential which is completely irrelevant to any courses I'll be teaching. Do I really need a graduate course in quantum mechanics to teach students about Newton's Laws and Freshman-level electromagnetism? Puh-lease.
This credential craze is just hype. It's keeping good teachers out of higher education and bad one's in.
I recently interviewed at a liberal arts college so that I might cover for one of their doctors that teaches calculus. Guess what? They took me. Why? Because of my extensive teaching experience. They were convinced because of my previous teaching experience with AP Physics: C that I could teach Calculus (I had to do it for the physics students), and they cared more about the fact that I could teach the material, not that I had taken 20 credits of math beyond Calculus.
Granted, in order to teach Calculus, someone has to have taken it and understood it. But does one need a Masters degree or PhD in Mathematics to teach Calculus? Many high school teachers teach calculus (and do it well)! It would be asinine for them to have required such a credential for such a job at the liberal arts college, and fortunately they saw this.
Now, granted, I understand that if I were to be hire full-time as a math professor at a 4-year college, a Masters degree should be required, But I still argue that a PhD is superfluous for all professoriate except those that will be teaching at a research university.
So, here I am - someone who has a BS in Physics from a good college, an MA in Education from an ivy league, and I can't get a job teaching physics at a community college, because I don't have a masters in Physics. Here's the kicker: every physics course taught at the community college level I've taught to high school students in very difficult circumstances, and my students did very well - 80% of them passed the calculus-based physics AP test (with an 80% or higher), the highest physics course offered at all of the community colleges I've looked at.
But I'm not allowed to teach full-time at the community college level, because I don't have some credential which is completely irrelevant to any courses I'll be teaching. Do I really need a graduate course in quantum mechanics to teach students about Newton's Laws and Freshman-level electromagnetism? Puh-lease.
This credential craze is just hype. It's keeping good teachers out of higher education and bad one's in.
I recently interviewed at a liberal arts college so that I might cover for one of their doctors that teaches calculus. Guess what? They took me. Why? Because of my extensive teaching experience. They were convinced because of my previous teaching experience with AP Physics: C that I could teach Calculus (I had to do it for the physics students), and they cared more about the fact that I could teach the material, not that I had taken 20 credits of math beyond Calculus.
Granted, in order to teach Calculus, someone has to have taken it and understood it. But does one need a Masters degree or PhD in Mathematics to teach Calculus? Many high school teachers teach calculus (and do it well)! It would be asinine for them to have required such a credential for such a job at the liberal arts college, and fortunately they saw this.
Now, granted, I understand that if I were to be hire full-time as a math professor at a 4-year college, a Masters degree should be required, But I still argue that a PhD is superfluous for all professoriate except those that will be teaching at a research university.
Note to journalists: May implies permission, might implies probability.
"I'd like to ask another question if I might" (NPR Interview). Well, of course you might ask another question. As a matter of fact, considering you're doing an interview, it is very likely. What is correct to say is "If I may", because you are implicitly asking the interviewee if he or she would take another question.
Likewise, "Do you think you'll make it to the party tonight?" "I may go". Of course you may go, otherwise you wouldn't have been invited. You already have permission, and that's obvious. What is more accurate is to say "I might go", i.e. there is a probability you will go.
How many times do I need to see and hear these errors in the NEW YORK TIMES AND NPR before I start writing nasty letters to the Editor? You people are JOURNALISTS. Did you not take English classes? How many times does a second grade teacher have to say "You may go to the bathroom." when you ask "Can I go to the bathroom?" MAY IMPLIES PERMISSION IS GRANTED.
Another one: good and well. "How are you?" "I am good." Really? Good is a what. What are you? I am good. Good implies virtuous or (morally) right. Well means better than bad. When speaking of corporate share holders, David McReynolds made this distinction, saying, "Shareholders don't want to do good, they want to do well". Doing good for society is not the same as doing well for society. "I am doing good" is not the same as "I am doing well". The former means you are performing acts of goodness. The latter means you are not feeling ill or anxious or afraid, etc. In the above example well means doing well financially. An example of doing good financially would be to donate money to a food bank.
Lesson over.
"I'd like to ask another question if I might" (NPR Interview). Well, of course you might ask another question. As a matter of fact, considering you're doing an interview, it is very likely. What is correct to say is "If I may", because you are implicitly asking the interviewee if he or she would take another question.
Likewise, "Do you think you'll make it to the party tonight?" "I may go". Of course you may go, otherwise you wouldn't have been invited. You already have permission, and that's obvious. What is more accurate is to say "I might go", i.e. there is a probability you will go.
How many times do I need to see and hear these errors in the NEW YORK TIMES AND NPR before I start writing nasty letters to the Editor? You people are JOURNALISTS. Did you not take English classes? How many times does a second grade teacher have to say "You may go to the bathroom." when you ask "Can I go to the bathroom?" MAY IMPLIES PERMISSION IS GRANTED.
Another one: good and well. "How are you?" "I am good." Really? Good is a what. What are you? I am good. Good implies virtuous or (morally) right. Well means better than bad. When speaking of corporate share holders, David McReynolds made this distinction, saying, "Shareholders don't want to do good, they want to do well". Doing good for society is not the same as doing well for society. "I am doing good" is not the same as "I am doing well". The former means you are performing acts of goodness. The latter means you are not feeling ill or anxious or afraid, etc. In the above example well means doing well financially. An example of doing good financially would be to donate money to a food bank.
Lesson over.
08 November 2005
A CNN poll: Do you think France is doing enough to stop the violence. My answer: NO. Do you know why I say no before you start calling me a fascist and promoter of police violence? I say NO, because sending out the Property Guards (police) does NOthing to help the violence. So I'm saying that France isn't doing enough, because what it is doing does nothing. Let me explain further. Addressing the topical symptoms of a larger, root (or radical) problem does not actually cure any part of the problem, rather it only eliminated the symptoms, and because the symptoms seem to hjave disappeared, people think the problem has disappeared, and then the problem continues to grow under the surface until even worse symptoms appear later.
If you are using a pressure cooker and the top blows off, using excessive force to put the cover back on might stop the steam from coming out for a couple of minutes, but if you don't turn the fire off that heats the pressure-cooker, the top will blow off again, and next time with even greater force.
So does sending in the French police and enacting curfews help stop the problem? NO, it stops the symptom . . . temporarily, and, in fact, makes the problem worse. So are the French doing enough to stop the violence? Well, in the short term, yes. In the long term they are making it worse.
If you are using a pressure cooker and the top blows off, using excessive force to put the cover back on might stop the steam from coming out for a couple of minutes, but if you don't turn the fire off that heats the pressure-cooker, the top will blow off again, and next time with even greater force.
So does sending in the French police and enacting curfews help stop the problem? NO, it stops the symptom . . . temporarily, and, in fact, makes the problem worse. So are the French doing enough to stop the violence? Well, in the short term, yes. In the long term they are making it worse.
06 November 2005
It's been some time since I've written. Between two "paying" jobs, being a delegate for my union, job applications, and trying to make last-minute plans for our 2-week honeymoon in the Caribbean, I'm totally scattered. My day planner isn't even helping me much. Of course, when I'm driving in my car I have many of those you-know-what-really-grinds-my-gears? moments, but when I get home I have long forgotten about it or have to take care of a gazillion other things. Man, and we don't even have kids! You know who America's hardest workers are? Single parent wage-slaves. Fuck all those CEOs makin' millions off the sweat of others' labor. The moms and dads that works two or three jobs on a crappy wage just to support her/himself and a child (or more) to take care of - those are the American heroes. The fortitude and stamina these people must have is superhuman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
