Culture matters, and not all cultures are equal

At a first approximation, barring serious childhood malnutrition, all humans are more or less alike in their native abilities.  As far as we know now intelligence, physical strength, endurance, and other native abilities are distributed roughly the same in all human populations. So why are some civilizations so much more advanced than others? Why are some nations functioning reasonably well and others are thoroughly dysfunctional? The answer is culture.  Culture matters.

Culture consists of the world views, the assumptions (many unspoken and even unconscious) the biases, the religious and political expectations, the “way things are done” and the like that are laid in in childhood and control a culture’s view of and response to the world throughout life.

Some cultures are trusting; some are not. It is pretty hard to establish a vibrant market economy in today’s world if people don’t trust one another at least to some degree. Tribal cultures are at a special disadvantage here.

Some cultures are inclusive and some are not. Cultures that limit the education and opportunities of a significant portion of their members (for example, women) are at a serious disadvantage in the modern world, where nations need all the good brains they can muster to compete in an advanced technological world.

Some cultures waste enormous amounts of energy and scarce resources on old hatreds (for example, Shia vs Sunni) and nursing past grudges. That wasted energy and the resources wasted on killing and destruction put them at a great disadvantage.

Some cultures are driven by religious fanaticism and/or religious dogma, and controlled by (often fairly narrow-minded) authoritarian religious leaders, usually to their detriment.

Some cultures are resistant to outside ideas, while some cultures gratefully and gleefully absorb new and better ideas from any source. Those resistant to new ideas are quickly left behind in today’s rapidly evolving world.

Some cultures instill a willingness to work hard; some don't.  This makes a big difference.

Some cultures prize knowledge and learning; some don’t.  There is a good reason why Jews, who prize learning, make up only 0.002% of the world’s population, but have been awarded 22% of the Nobel Prizes. There is a good reason why Asians, who prize learning, are increasingly filling the top technical jobs in America.

It is these cultural differences, far more than any inherent differences in native abilities, that explain why some groups do well in today’s world and some don’t.  It has been fashionable in some quarters to argue that all cultures are equal; all are to be equally appreciated and equally respected. Bollocks!  Some cultures are simply more competitive in today’s world, better adapted to the rapid pace of knowledge, better at marshaling all their potential resources, better at putting their efforts where they most matter for the long-term survival of the society. Natural selection operates here as it does everywhere else in nature, which is why the better-fitted societies are winning out and the less-fit societies are increasingly being left behind.

We would do well to look at our own American society and culture in this light. We are certainly doing better than a thoroughly dysfunctional culture, such as for example Pakistan.  But is our national culture really as competitive as it could be? Do we, for example, as a national culture really value learning as much as we should?  Do we as a national culture really pay enough attention to long-term goals as opposed to short-term goals? Have we, as a national culture, lost much of the work ethic of our immigrant ancestors? Do we, as a national culture, pay enough attention to stewardship for future generations as opposed to satisfying our whims of today?

It is an interesting question to ponder.

The time bomb we really ought to worry about

There are many issues that desperately need attention these days, but I would suggest there is one that in the long run is more important than all the others: The abysmal employment rate of our youth.

Here is the logic behind this assertion: the youth of America represent our workforce in the next couple of decades. If our workforce is well prepared, the economy will prosper (other things being equal) and there will be adequate tax revenue to do lots of good things – improve the infrastructure, support research, provide a safety net for those less-well-off, etc. etc.  If the workforce is not well prepared, the economy will not do as well, there won’t be as much tax revenue, American companies won’t be as innovative and productive, and problems will multiply.

Now in today’s world it takes two things to really prepare youth for their productive employment years. (1) it takes good education to prepare them to work in a more technologically-advanced world, and (2) it takes early work experience to establish the practical experience and work habits that make them productive later.

There is already a revolution starting in higher education, but elementary and secondary education, particularly in the public sector, is still inadequate in many parts of the country. Still, there is progress in this area, despite union opposition, and if it continues the situation will eventually improve.

The youth unemployment issue, of the other hand, is getting worse. As of June 2013, of youngsters 16 to 19, only about one in three is employed. For young adults 20-24, about 60% are employed.  Young people used to be able to get summer jobs, and many expected to. But many of these jobs have now disappeared with the restructuring of the economy, and out-of-work adults are now competing for the remaining ones.

We are in danger of producing a whole generation of young workers who lack the requisite education and/or work habits to be productive workers in the economy of the next few decades.  This is a real time bomb.

And just to make the matter more dangerous, consider that the civil and political unrest in much of the world, especially in the Arab world, is driven by masses of unemployed and unemployable youth, disillusioned with their economic status and ripe for exploitation by political demagogues (of whom there are always plenty).  So this is much more than just an economic issue, it bears directly on the future civil and political stability of the nation.

Thus far this is an issue our political leaders appear unaware of.  We ought to change that.

Recommended: Lessons from a Front-Row Seat for Detroit's Dysfunction

Bill Nojay, who was for a while last year the head of Detroit's transportation department, has an illuminating article in today's Wall Street Journal about how dysfunctional Detroit has become.  His article, Bill Nojay: Lessons From a Front-Row Seat for Detroit's Dysfunction, shows just how out-on-control some of these cities have become, and in particular how public service unions have abused their power to make it almost impossible to run a city.

“Save” Detroit?

Now that Detroit has declared bankruptcy, a number of unions are demanding that the administration “save” Detroit, by which they really mean use taxpayer money to save the wages and pensions of their members from the consequences of bankruptcy.

There is no doubt that this bankruptcy, if it is allowed to proceed (a state judge has ruled that Detroit can’t declare bankruptcy, so there will be a lot of court battles about this) will affect a lot of worker’s current and future pensions. That is unfortunate.

On the other hand, Detroit is a poster child for political excess. The former mayor, Kwame Kilpatrick, is in jail for massive corruption. Politicians for decades have cut cozy deals with public service unions to give them extravagant benefits and pensions in return for their votes. Just about any political abuse one can think of is represented in Detroit’s history. So the current situation was inevitable. That it came now is probably due in part to the current recession (or whatever we are calling it these days), but it would have come soon in any case

In fact, it is not clear that Detroit can be “saved” no matter what we do. Detroit’s main economic engines, the auto companies, have largely moved out of Detroit for more attractive locales with better and more competitive labor market conditions. And unlike some other cities, Detroit didn't work to find and recruit alternative businesses while it was still relatively healthy. The city’s tax base has shrunk dramatically, as has its population. City services are now so poor that new businesses have no incentive whatsoever to move in. “Saving” the pensions of retired city workers will address none of these issues.

Detroit is important because it represents a test case for lots of cities around the country. Many other cities have gotten themselves into this sort of mess – acquiring massive pension obligations that so strain their budgets that they can no longer afford to finance adequate city services like fire and police. The problem has always been the inevitable cozy relationship between city worker unions and the politicians who negotiate their contracts yet need their votes. Unfortunately, as seems to so often be the case, the politicians who made those unwise promises in the past are no longer around to suffer the consequences of their actions.

I assume President Obama knows better than to throw America taxpayer money into this bottomless pit, though he will no doubt feel politically obligated to make the appropriate liberal statements about the problem and show appropriate concern for the union workers. If he were to succumb to the temptation to throw federal money at Detroit’s problem, you can bet the next morning there would be a line outside the White House of other cities asking for the same sort of handout.

The higher education bubble

We have seen a number of economic bubbles deflate recently; now there is another one – higher education. A number of second tier colleges are finding this summer that their freshman enrollment for next year is down sharply, 20% to 30% in some cases. This of course leaves them in substantial financial difficulty, and some will no doubt eventually close. Not surprisingly, this is not affecting the most elite schools, probably because those in the highest income brackets are less concerned about economic considerations.

There are probably several reasons for this sudden drop in enrollments, but certainly one big one is the extraordinarily high cost of higher education these days, fueled in no small part by all the direct and indirect government subsidies over the past decades that have allowed colleges to go on massive building sprees, expand their administrations until in some schools there are more administrators than teachers, and raise their fees faster than inflation. This is yet another case of well-meaning but poorly though-out government intervention.

Now of course there are lots of people noticing that a college education, at $40,000 to $50,000 a year for four years, no longer guarantees a job at the end, especially for fields outside of science and engineering. That leaves lots of people unemployed yet saddled with huge debts. No wonder college enrollments are down.

 No doubt the advent of free and low-cost on-line college courses will continue to drive the shift away from the traditional expensive residential college experience.  And it should. The old model of huge Ivy-covered campuses, highly-paid tenured professors who only teach half-time anyway, layers and layers of deans and administrators and their staffs, and unnecessary “distribution requirements” to force students to take courses in subjects that don’t interest them (but keep the faculty paid) is clearly outdated, and incompatible with the economics of the current world.

The Wal-Mart ”living wage” issue

The Washington DC city council passed a bill in June requiring businesses with $1 billion in annual sales and stores with more than 75,000 square feet to pay at least $4/hour above the legal minimum wage ($12.50/hr vs the legally required $8.50/hr). This is aimed primarily at Wal-Mart, though other big box stores like Home Depot and Lowes would be affected as well. Wal-Mart (and some other big box stores) will probably simply not build more stores in the city if this law is signed by the mayor, thus depriving the city of several thousand new jobs. This is another case of well-meaning but illogical thinking – trying to make outcomes equal instead of making opportunities equal.

This isn’t rocket science. Wal-Mart sells things as cheaply as it does (to the great benefit of the poorer segment of the population) simply because it keeps labor costs down. Raise the labor costs and the goods would no longer be so inexpensive. Also, Wal-Mart offers a lot of part-time jobs, employing a lot of people who wouldn’t be employed otherwise. Make that employment unprofitable by, say, requiring the company to pay more than the work is worth, and those jobs will simply disappear.

As I have argued before, the business model is really very simple. The people a company hires must, directly or indirectly, produce more saleable value than they cost in wages and benefits, or the company goes out of business. Of course companies try to keep wages as low as possible given the dynamics of the labor market, and employees always would like higher wages.  But if the company has to pay a worker more than that worker’s labor is worth, it simply will find another alternative – eliminate the job, automate it, or outsource it to a lower wage area or nation. It has to, to stay in business.

The only sustainable way for workers to increase their wages is to acquire skills worth more in the labor market, so that it is worth it for a company to employ them, even at a higher wage. That means workers have to go back to school or apprentice themselves and upgrade their skills.  Some people don’t want to do that.  It’s a free country so they don’t have to, but then they have to live with the consequences – unemployment or lower paying jobs.  No amount of well-intentioned legislation is going to change this simple fact.

In fact, one simple rule of capitalist societies is that no one is “owed a job”, or owed a given rate of pay. If an individual wants a job that individual has two choices (a) acquire skills some company is willing to pay for, or (b) start one’s own business. That’s it. There is no free lunch, much as some people wish there were.

We in America (and Europe as well) have a severe structural problem right now. Many of the lower skill jobs in the economy have simply disappeared, outsourced or replaced by automation. No amount of government intervention or legislation, well-meaning as it may appear - is going to change that. The work force - all of us - simply have to adapt, and for many people that means going back to school and retraining themselves and improving their skills. Some simply can't or won't do that, for a variety of reasons. That is their choice, but it has consequences.

On becoming 75

I reached the three-quarter century mark last month, well past the traditional three score and ten, and certainly out of warranty by now, and was thinking last night (as I drove to the airport) about what it means to get that old. Of course most of the members of my age cohort are now beginning to replace knees and hips, acquire hearing aids and pacemakers and stronger glasses, and many are beginning to fight the diseases of old age, such as cancer (I have had my own turn at radiation treatment). And an increasing number of my old friends and classmates and colleagues are beginning to turn up in obituaries. And in fact I ache a bit more than I used to, and find it harder to work upside down under a sink or on my knees in the garden.

One could become depressed at this, but then as my father-in-law used to say “old age is a gift denied many”. On the positive side, I have had almost 40 years now with my beloved spouse and best friend in the world, I have three healthy and happily married children of whom I am inordinately proud, and three grandchildren whom I love dearly and am enjoying watch unfold into young adulthood. And with the perspective of age I see the world much more clearly than I did when I was younger, and I appreciate it more. I think that is a worthwhile trade for a little added discomfort.

There is a sign on the wall of our fitness center that says “Old age is not for wimps”. That is true. It takes patience, fortitude, and more than a little humor to live a worthwhile old age, but it sure beats the alternative.

Thoughts on Edward Snowden and the PRISM scandal

There is a good deal of debate on the internet about whether Edward Snowden, the ex-CIA contractor who revealed secrets about the government’s extensive surveillance activities, is a criminal or a hero. After thinking about it for some weeks, and reading a lot of opinions, I guess I think he is both. He certainly broke the law by revealing classified information, which makes him a criminal. Yet we as a nation really needed to know the unprecedented extent to which the government had expanded its surveillance activities against US citizens, so to the extent that he knowingly undertook the dangers of revealing this information, he is also a hero in the mold of Daniel Ellsworth and the Pentagon Papers.

The administration argues that all this data collection has already prevented some terrorist activities, and I don’t doubt that it has. But is that an adequate justification for such a wide ranging invasion of privacy? There are lots of things that would make law enforcement, and detection and prosecution of crimes, easier. Putting an electronic tracker on every person would certainly help, but are we willing to let the government do that? (In fact, everyone who carries a cell phone already carries a personal tracker). Putting surveillance cameras in every room of our homes would no doubt detect more crimes, but are we prepared to let the government do that?

The fourth amendment to the US constitution expressly forbids “unreasonable searches”:

 The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized 

By “unreasonable searches “ it means searches done simply as “fishing expeditions”, without some reason to suspect a crime. That is why police have to go before a judge and request a warrant, and why the judge has to see some reasonable evidence of a probable crime before they will issue that warrant. In theory that is going on with the government’s secret United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, but in fact that court seems to have approved almost every request put to it (all but 11 of the 33,942 warrants requested up though 2012), which suggests that it isn’t setting a very high bar.

My own sense is that wholesale collection of metadata about every phone call made in the US fits the definition of a “fishing expedition”, or an unreasonable search. The government argues that in fact, while it does collect and store all that information, it can only access it under specific guidelines and with a warrant from the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. That would be more convincing if the process of applying for such warrants was more open. Since it is done in secret, essentially in a Star Chamber, it is ripe for misuse and abuse, such as surveillance of political opponents. We have already seen that sort of abuse in, for example, the administration of President Nixon, and more recently in the IRS scandal about conservative groups.

I am reminded of Ben Franklin’s words “Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither”. And of a quote from James Madison: “If tyranny and oppression come to this land it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.”

More on Zimmerman trial

I notice in passing that while the nation is up in arms about one shooting in Florida last year, there were 48 shootings in Chicago alone just this last weekend, 11 of them fatal, and apparently encompassing all the racial possibilities – white shooting white, black shooting black, white shooting black and black shooting white.  Strange how none of that made the national news, or is being commented upon by the usual civil rights figures, or causing demonstrations in the streets. 

Chicago is more dangerous to Americans than Iraq or Afghanistan, at least in terms of casualties.

Where is our sense of proportion?

The George Zimmerman verdict

I see that there are protests across the nation today in response to the acquittal of George Zimmerman (accused of murder after he shot a black teenager who was, at the time, apparently on top of him and pummeling him). Predictably, knee-jerk civil rights activist like Al Sharpton are calling for the Federal Government to find a way to retry him for the same event. (Would Al be so keen if it was a black guy who shot a white teenager? I don't think so, because that has happened a number of times without any public response from Sharpton.)

NBC of course made the whole issue much worse by airing an edited version of the exchange between Zimmerman and the police dispatcher he was talking to at the time;  The edited version, deliberately edited to make Zimmerman look racist, went like this:

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black.

And of course that is all most people have ever heard.  The actual exchange, which paints a very different picture, went like this: 

Zimmerman: This guy looks like he’s up to no good. Or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about.

Dispatcher: OK, and this guy — is he black, white or Hispanic?

Zimmerman: He looks black.

In any case, I think for once President Obama got it right when he commented that although many may disagree with the verdict, it was the unanimous verdict of a jury who heard ALL the evidence, and under our system that trumps anyone else's less-informed opinion, as it should. They apparently concluded, after listening to weeks of evidence, that there was insufficient evidence to convict him on that charge. American law does not allow a person to be tried a second time for the same crime (as used to happen in less democratic nations if the powers that be didn't like the original verdict). It would be a travesty for the Federal government to try him again, even if they use the fiction of trying him on a different charge (civil rights violation).

There is some evidence that Zimmerman was a bit of a vigilante, and may have suspected the victim in the first place because he was young and black, but the reality apparently is (a) that neighborhood had been burglarized repeatedly by young black men (so suspecting another one is not so unreasonable), and (b) the victim was indeed physically attacking Zimmerman at the time he was shot.

This is, I think, another case where populist emotion and political ideology is overwhelming common sense. He was tried. A jury didn't think there was enough evidence to convict him. Case closed.

Human stupidity

We have just returned from a three-week trip to Britain, and I spent an hour today catching up on the accumulated copies of The Economist that were in the mail. Unfortunately the thing that stood out most clearly in all that reading is the endemic stupidity of the human race. From the dysfunctional political systems around the world (including our own here in America to those in the European Union to those in hapless South America and African nations to Indian's, Pakistan's, China's and Russia's) to the self-defeating policies of left-wing and right-wing groups to the religious wars, humans all over the globe seem as hell-bent now on doing stupid things as they have been throughout recorded history.

There are certainty many issues on which there are legitimate differences of opinion as to causes or best solutions - I don't count those arguments as stupid.

What is truly stupid is waging wars over religious differences (eg: Shia vs Sunni, Catholic vs Protestant). What is truly stupid is waging expensive wars when it is not necessary and there is no pressing national interest at stake (eg: Afghanistan, Iraq).  What is truly stupid is launching expensive social programs, or promising expensive pensions when there is no possible way to pay for them over the long term (eg: EU welfare states, US Obamacare). What is truly stupid and self-defeating is preventing the immigration of the best and brightest from other nations (eg: US immigration policies, the immigration policies of many European nations).  What is truly stupid is ignoring or denying compelling scientific data (eg: climate change, nutrition studies).  What is truly stupid and self-defeating is allowing the systems that educate our young - the workers and leaders of tomorrow - to remain in the hands of incompetent bureaucracies (eg: most nations in the world, including especially the US).

The past three weeks of The Economist report instances of all of these stupidities, and many more, throughout the world, just in the past three weeks.  It is enough to make even an optimist despair.

“Free and fair” elections

The US media has been making much of the overthrow of an Egyptian president elected in “free and fair” elections. This plays into a prevalent fantasy among American politicians and US media that somehow popular elections create democracy. In fact, democracy is a fragile flower that requires a specific set of shared cultural values which are not often found, and certainly not in a country coming out of decades of authoritarian rule.

The Egyptian elections were apparently “free and fair” to the extent that no one seems to have stuffed the ballot boxes or tinkered with the counts, as has happened recently in places like Russia and Iran.  But it was hardly a level playing field.  After Mubarik’s overthrow, the only group that was well organized was the Muslim Brotherhood, so of course they won the elections. It was hardly an informed decision by the majority of the population.

But then, are American elections “free and fair” when corporations and unions can pour millions into campaigns, or when incumbents (at least in Congress) have free postage and free media exposure?

Recommended: Abdel Fattah al-Sisi—Memorize That Name

As is so often the case, American media is discussing the Egyptian unrest in terms of American world-views, not Egyptian world-views, which means that much of the media commentary on this issue is meaningless.  Adam Garfinkle has a great article in his National Interest blog: Abdel Fattah al-Sisi—Memorize That Name. He gives a much better context to this event than anything else in the American press that I have read.

Abdel Fattah al-Sisi—Memorize That Name

Abdel Fattah al-Sisi—Memorize That Name

Abdel Fattah al-Sisi—Memorize That Name