Complexity and Money

Scott Adams (Dilbert) has a blog and on it he recently wrote about banks.  I found myself nodding when I read the following:

As a general rule, you can usually assume that someone is trying to screw someone else whenever you find these two elements working together:

  1. Complexity
  2. Money

Complexity is how evil schemes are hidden from the public. Complexity is what caused so many people to get mortgages they couldn't afford. Complexity is how hedge funds hide their treachery. Complexity is how the derivatives debacle was possible. Complexity is how your financial manager can get away with charging you for doing nothing. Complexity is why you don't know if you can get a better deal with another phone carrier.

 

 

United Republic

Although I think United Republic would be a great name for a band for the purposes of this post it refers to a new organization that wants to get big money out of politics.  While I'm somewhat sympathetic to the Occupy movement, and very skeptical as to its actual effectiveness, I think that groups like United Republic offer more promise to actually do something to help fix our political system. Here's a short video featuring Larry Lessig talking about the new coalition:

Lawrence Lessig Welcomes Rootstrikers to United Republic from Rootstrikers on Vimeo.

 

Adams (or someone like him) in ’12

Scott Adams, the dude behind Dilbert, says he's running for POTUS as an Independent in 2012.  You have to believe him because he wrote it in his blog which, as we all know, is how you know you're dealing with someone serious.  Even if he doesn't run I'd like to have a candidate who thinks like he does:

On the budget, I propose a plan to cut every Federal government expense by 10% and increase every Federal tax by 10%. I'd call that the default plan, meaning I prefer a better plan, but I wouldn't expect anyone to come up with one. The advantage of this plan is that it's bad for every American. That's a little something I call "fair."

I'd also call a public debate on the topic of supply side economics, to end once and for all the question of whether lowering taxes increases government revenues. I would host the debate myself, with a Judge Judy sort of approach, and decide the winner. If it turns out that my proposed 10% tax increase would reduce government revenue, I'd cancel that part of my plan the same day.

I'd propose capping the amount any one person can inherit per death at $50 million. Estates can choose to donate the rest to charities, distribute it to stockholders, or give it up in taxes. $50 million is more than enough to turn any offspring into a lazy, self-absorbed, drug addicted, douche bag. Any more would be a waste. That plan needs some fine tuning, but you get the idea.

As President, I would remain deeply committed to flip-flopping. If new information or better thinking changes my opinion, so be it. That's how brains are supposed to work.

I can also promise that I won't try to remember the names of other world leaders, federal agencies, or even my own staff. Only an idiot believes a president can remember all of that stuff. 

Textbooks

I have a thing about textbooks.  As I've written before I think the textbook industry is basically a crock and that our school systems need to seriously consider blowing up the current system and looking at innovative ways to use technology to serve students rather than requiring them to carry around 50-pound backpacks filled with dead trees. As you might expect I'd love to attend the panel discussion on textbooks tomorrow (Thursday, November 17)at UNC, but sadly I won't be able to make it so I'm hoping they post video or a transcript of the session online.

Kicked When They’re Down

While the banks might have abandoned their plans, for now, to start charging debit card fees they do have one group they're hitting with fees – the unemployed:

Bank of America recently aborted plans to charge ordinary banking customers $5 a month to use their debit cards in the face of national outrage. But the bank has quietly continued to mine another source of fees: jobless people who depend upon the bank's prepaid debit cards to tap their benefits. Bank of America and other financial firms — including U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo and JP Morgan Chase — have secured contracts to provide access to public benefits in 41 states. These contracts typically allow banks to collect unlimited fees from merchants and consumers.

In short, the same banks whose speculation delivered a financial crisis that has destroyed millions of jobs have figured out how to turn widespread unemployment into a profit center: The larger the number of people who are out of work and dependent upon the state for sustenance, the greater the potential gains through administering their benefits.

 

 

More Employers Questioning Need to Offer Health Insurance

Some of the insights shared at a recent Winston-Salem Chamber of Commerce meeting about the state of the health care industry won't shock anyone who’s been paying attention the last few years:

Keith Kiser, a senior vice president for BB&T Insurance Services, said his group is fielding more questions from employers about the justification for providing health insurance to employees, besides as a carrot to hire and retain quality workers.

“Chief executives and chief financial officers are fully engaged in these conversations these days,” Kiser said, considering the cost of providing health insurance typically ranging from $8,000 to $10,000 for each employee.

The 2011 Kaiser Family Foundation study on employer health benefits, out in September, found 99 percent of large companies — 200 or more workers — offer health benefits, but only 48 percent of those with three to nine employees do and 59 percent of those with 3 to 199 workers do.

Three-quarters of small firms (3-199 employees) not offering health benefits believed their employees would prefer a $2 an hour increase in wages rather than health insurance, Kaiser said.

Kiser said the reality that 1 in 5 consumer dollars goes to health-care costs “does keep you awake a night.”

This trend will likely get more prominent as the new federal health regulations, aka Obamacare, go into effect:

The federal health-care overhaul will allow employers to stop providing health insurance — beginning in 2014 — with their employees going into a government-controlled exchange.

However, employers with 50 or more workers that don’t offer coverage will be required to pay $2,000 for each full-time employee in its full-time work force. The fee begins if at least one employee enrolls in a plan through a health-insurance exchange and receives a federal subsidy. Two part-time workers are considered as one full-time employee.

The top executives at Blue Cross Blue Shield N.C., Novant Health Inc. and Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center said they empathize with businesses’ concerns about health-care costs since they are large employers as well as providers.

So, should you spend $8-10,000 insuring your employees or pay the government $2,000 for not insuring them?  An interesting question, especially when you consider that companies only started offering health insurance in general during World War II as a way to entice workers in a highly competitive hiring market.  It’s a relatively recent phenomenon in American history for companies to provide health insurance to their employees and over the years it became a kind of “least common denominator” in terms of employee benefits packages.  That began to change when health care costs started to explode, and now it looks like health insurance is returning to it’s original role – a very nice perk that can act as a set of “golden handcuffs” for valued employees.

You Know You’ve Ticked Them Off When…

You know you've ticked off the voting public when two candidates for village council seats win via write-in and the mayor almost loses to a write-in.  Voters in Clemmons were sufficiently teed off at some of the candidates on the ballot (it had to do with a bond referendum and what appears to be a rift between a "new guard" and an "old guard") that they voted in two people who weren't even on the ballot, and narrowly missed voting out the incumbent mayor with a write-in campaign.  That's what I'd call a motivated voting populace.

Over in Lewisville things were much more sedate. I had the pleasure of serving on the Planning Board with two of the town council's newcomers, Sandy Mock, who garnered the most votes and Ed Smith who wasn't far behind in the vote count.  I think they'll do a great job for the town.