Showing posts with label Tradeoffs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tradeoffs. Show all posts
Thursday, January 23, 2014
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Florida County Spends Tens Of Thousands On Ambulance For Obese Patients « CBS Tampa
Florida County Spends Tens Of Thousands On Ambulance For Obese Patients « CBS Tampa
EXCERPTS:
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. (CBS Tampa) —
"Central Florida News 13 reports that the ambulance was purchased after emergency responders had to transport at least two dozen patients who weighed more than 500 pounds last year.
“With some of these morbidly obese patients, we have to send more firefighters just to lift and to move the patient. So once they’re in and we get them to the hospital, someone has to be at the hospital to unload them,” one Orange County fire official told News 13. “That’s pulling a lot of resources from emergency calls just to do that.”
"Orange County paid $23,000 alone for the lift gate and stretcher and the stretcher is 10 inches wider than the average one.
“In the past you’d have to get five, six, seven firefighters to physically lift the patient in. It increases the chance that something could happen to the patient,” a fire official told News 13. “It also greatly increases the chance that something could happen with back injuries within fire services.”
EXCERPTS:
ORANGE COUNTY, Fla. (CBS Tampa) —
"Central Florida News 13 reports that the ambulance was purchased after emergency responders had to transport at least two dozen patients who weighed more than 500 pounds last year.
"Orange County paid $23,000 alone for the lift gate and stretcher and the stretcher is 10 inches wider than the average one.
“In the past you’d have to get five, six, seven firefighters to physically lift the patient in. It increases the chance that something could happen to the patient,” a fire official told News 13. “It also greatly increases the chance that something could happen with back injuries within fire services.”
Thursday, July 14, 2011
With no debt deal, Obama would face tough choices Aug. 3 about what bills to pay - The Washington Post
By Zachary A. Goldfarb,
EXCERPTS:
What happens if President Obama and Congress don’t strike a debt deal?
On Aug. 3, the nation would find out, with Obama forced to make a set of extraordinarily difficult choices about what to pay or not pay. By then, the government’s savings account would be nearly empty and the president would be relying on daily tax revenue to pay the nation’s bills.
There wouldn’t be enough — in fact, there would be a $134 billion shortfall in August alone.
As Obama decided what to pay, he would choose among Social Security checks, salaries for members of the military and veterans, unemployment benefits, student loans, and many other government programs, according to administration officials and an independent analysis by a former senior Treasury Department official in the George H.W. Bush administration.
To protect the nation’s creditworthiness, Obama would have to balance those priorities with the imperative of making payments to investors in U.S. government bonds — ranging from domestic pension funds to the Chinese government.
“You can move the chess pieces around all you want,” said Jay Powell, a visiting scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center and an author of the analysis. “You’re going to lose.”
For months, the president has been pressing Congress to raise the federal limit on borrowing, now at $14.3 trillion. Members of both parties have balked, saying they first want a plan to tame the growth of the debt.
On Wednesday, with negotiations over raising the debt ceiling hung up, Moody’s said it might downgrade the U.S. government’s top-of-the-line credit rating, which helps keep U.S. bonds the global gold standard, “given the rising possibility that the statutory debt limit will not be raised on a timely basis, leading to a default.”
***
Some skeptics in Congress and conservative economists say that Obama has overstated the risk of not raising the debt ceiling and that tax revenue could pay for up to 60 percent of government operations.
“You do not have to default and you don’t have to shut down the government if you choose not to,” said Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland. If Congress raises the debt ceiling without a long-term plan for reducing the federal deficit, he added, “they’ll never solve the problem, and we’ll end up like Greece.”
Obama’s advisers have said that prioritizing some payments over others is impractical and would be chaotic. Money comes in and flows out at an inconsistent rate.
“You would have to make heinous choices about which bills you would pay,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday.
***
According to the center’s analysis, the government would have to cut 44 percent of spending immediately. Through August, the government could afford Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense contracts, unemployment insurance and payments to bondholders.
But then it would have to eliminate all other federal spending, including pay for veterans, members of the armed services and civil servants, as well as funding for Pell grants, special-education programs, the federal courts, law enforcement, national nuclear programs and housing assistance.
After the debt ceiling was breached, there would be no delay in the tough decisions.
On Aug. 3, the Treasury is set to receive about $12 billion in tax revenue — mainly from people paying their taxes late — and is slated to spend $32 billion, including sending out more than 25 million Social Security and disability checks at a cost of $23 billion, according to Powell’s analysis.
Obama could decide to pay half of the Social Security checks and ignore other bills coming due that day, which include $500 million in federal salaries and $1.4 billion in payments to defense contractors.
Or he could decide not to make any Social Security payments and instead hoard tax revenues to pay investors in U.S. bonds. A failure to pay those investors would severely destabilize the financial system, analysts say.
***
More worrisome for government officials is the $100 billion in Treasury bonds that come due on Aug. 4 and must be paid off. Ordinarily, Treasury would pay off those bonds and issue new bonds.
But if the debt ceiling isn’t increased, Treasury could run into trouble “rolling over” this debt. Ratings agencies are threatening to downgrade U.S. bonds if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. If the bonds are downgraded, many investors — such as retirement funds — can’t buy them.
As a result, there could be far fewer buyers of Treasury bonds and the U.S. government would have to pay much higher interest rates.
Government officials and analysts say a spike in rates would dramatically increase the cost of funding the government and lead to far higher interest rates on mortgages, credit cards and other types of debt.
EXCERPTS:
What happens if President Obama and Congress don’t strike a debt deal?
On Aug. 3, the nation would find out, with Obama forced to make a set of extraordinarily difficult choices about what to pay or not pay. By then, the government’s savings account would be nearly empty and the president would be relying on daily tax revenue to pay the nation’s bills.
There wouldn’t be enough — in fact, there would be a $134 billion shortfall in August alone.
As Obama decided what to pay, he would choose among Social Security checks, salaries for members of the military and veterans, unemployment benefits, student loans, and many other government programs, according to administration officials and an independent analysis by a former senior Treasury Department official in the George H.W. Bush administration.
To protect the nation’s creditworthiness, Obama would have to balance those priorities with the imperative of making payments to investors in U.S. government bonds — ranging from domestic pension funds to the Chinese government.
“You can move the chess pieces around all you want,” said Jay Powell, a visiting scholar at the Bipartisan Policy Center and an author of the analysis. “You’re going to lose.”
For months, the president has been pressing Congress to raise the federal limit on borrowing, now at $14.3 trillion. Members of both parties have balked, saying they first want a plan to tame the growth of the debt.
On Wednesday, with negotiations over raising the debt ceiling hung up, Moody’s said it might downgrade the U.S. government’s top-of-the-line credit rating, which helps keep U.S. bonds the global gold standard, “given the rising possibility that the statutory debt limit will not be raised on a timely basis, leading to a default.”
***
Some skeptics in Congress and conservative economists say that Obama has overstated the risk of not raising the debt ceiling and that tax revenue could pay for up to 60 percent of government operations.
“You do not have to default and you don’t have to shut down the government if you choose not to,” said Peter Morici, an economist at the University of Maryland. If Congress raises the debt ceiling without a long-term plan for reducing the federal deficit, he added, “they’ll never solve the problem, and we’ll end up like Greece.”
Obama’s advisers have said that prioritizing some payments over others is impractical and would be chaotic. Money comes in and flows out at an inconsistent rate.
“You would have to make heinous choices about which bills you would pay,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday.
***
According to the center’s analysis, the government would have to cut 44 percent of spending immediately. Through August, the government could afford Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, defense contracts, unemployment insurance and payments to bondholders.
But then it would have to eliminate all other federal spending, including pay for veterans, members of the armed services and civil servants, as well as funding for Pell grants, special-education programs, the federal courts, law enforcement, national nuclear programs and housing assistance.
After the debt ceiling was breached, there would be no delay in the tough decisions.
On Aug. 3, the Treasury is set to receive about $12 billion in tax revenue — mainly from people paying their taxes late — and is slated to spend $32 billion, including sending out more than 25 million Social Security and disability checks at a cost of $23 billion, according to Powell’s analysis.
Obama could decide to pay half of the Social Security checks and ignore other bills coming due that day, which include $500 million in federal salaries and $1.4 billion in payments to defense contractors.
Or he could decide not to make any Social Security payments and instead hoard tax revenues to pay investors in U.S. bonds. A failure to pay those investors would severely destabilize the financial system, analysts say.
***
More worrisome for government officials is the $100 billion in Treasury bonds that come due on Aug. 4 and must be paid off. Ordinarily, Treasury would pay off those bonds and issue new bonds.
But if the debt ceiling isn’t increased, Treasury could run into trouble “rolling over” this debt. Ratings agencies are threatening to downgrade U.S. bonds if the debt ceiling isn’t raised. If the bonds are downgraded, many investors — such as retirement funds — can’t buy them.
As a result, there could be far fewer buyers of Treasury bonds and the U.S. government would have to pay much higher interest rates.
Government officials and analysts say a spike in rates would dramatically increase the cost of funding the government and lead to far higher interest rates on mortgages, credit cards and other types of debt.
Monday, May 16, 2011
McDonald’s to shake up food ordering system
EXCERPTS:
"McDonald’s is to change the way customers order its meals in Europe, partly replacing cashiers and the use of banknotes at its 7,000 fast-food restaurants in the region with touchscreen terminals and swipe cards.
“Ordering food has not changed for 30 or 40 years,” said Steve Easterbrook, president of McDonald’s Europe, in an interview with the Financial Times.
The move is part of the fast-food chain’s efforts to woo cash-strapped customers by making its restaurants more convenient and convivial. It is refurbishing stores, and introducing longer opening hours and new menus.
/
Mr Easterbrook said that the changes would make life easier for consumers as well as improve efficiency, with average transactions three to four seconds shorter for each customer. McDonald’s European stores serve 2m customers a day.
/
But Joe Surkitz, 21, was less convinced. “I’m looking for work and if there’s more machines doing jobs I’ll find it harder. Plus you won’t get service with a smile.”
Mr Easterbrook said that the new technology would allow McDonald’s to harness more information about customers’ ordering habits. Supermarkets and other retailers have huge databases of information on customers’ shopping habits, which they gather from loyalty cards.
"McDonald’s is to change the way customers order its meals in Europe, partly replacing cashiers and the use of banknotes at its 7,000 fast-food restaurants in the region with touchscreen terminals and swipe cards.
“Ordering food has not changed for 30 or 40 years,” said Steve Easterbrook, president of McDonald’s Europe, in an interview with the Financial Times.
The move is part of the fast-food chain’s efforts to woo cash-strapped customers by making its restaurants more convenient and convivial. It is refurbishing stores, and introducing longer opening hours and new menus.
/
Mr Easterbrook said that the changes would make life easier for consumers as well as improve efficiency, with average transactions three to four seconds shorter for each customer. McDonald’s European stores serve 2m customers a day.
/
But Joe Surkitz, 21, was less convinced. “I’m looking for work and if there’s more machines doing jobs I’ll find it harder. Plus you won’t get service with a smile.”
Mr Easterbrook said that the new technology would allow McDonald’s to harness more information about customers’ ordering habits. Supermarkets and other retailers have huge databases of information on customers’ shopping habits, which they gather from loyalty cards.
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Black Friday: Police called after customers rush door at Toys R Us near Appleton | postcrescent.com | Appleton Post Crescent
EXCERPTS:
"Black Friday started with a black mark this year. The line of several thousand waiting customers wrapped entirely around the Toys R Us building at 4411 W. Wisconsin Ave. Thursday night. Moments before the store opened at 10 p.m., the line of those who’d just arrived and line of those who’d waited many hours overlapped.
"Black Friday started with a black mark this year. The line of several thousand waiting customers wrapped entirely around the Toys R Us building at 4411 W. Wisconsin Ave. Thursday night. Moments before the store opened at 10 p.m., the line of those who’d just arrived and line of those who’d waited many hours overlapped.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
State, Federal Rules Rush to Protect Consumers in Advance of New Agency - WSJ.com
EXCERPTS:
"Even before Congress unveils a consumer-protection agency, new state and federal laws are ushering in the most sweeping changes in consumer finance since the 1960s.
On July 1, Arizona will force changes on the state's 595 payday-loan stores—outfits that make high-interest loans against future paychecks—that could effectively put them out of business. Wisconsin banned small loans backed by car titles that led many people to lose their vehicles. Arkansas, Maine and New York joined other states in putting curbs on tax preparers who offer costly loans against expected tax refunds.
The federal government, meanwhile, is for the first time requiring that lenders verify a borrower's income and assets before issuing a home loan. It has also slapped broad new rules on credit-card issuers, limiting their ability to boost interest rates and charge certain fees.
"It's a pace of regulatory output we've never seen before in the consumer area," says Richard Hackett, who teaches consumer-finance law at Boston University's Morin Center for Banking and Financial Law.
The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, while housed inside the Federal Reserve, would be fully independent of the central bank, with a leader appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.... It will write and enforce rules on the structuring and marketing of loans as well as other financial products sold by banks, credit unions, credit-card issuers and even neighborhood check-cashing outfits.
***
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas), a member of the House-Senate conference committee negotiating the final bill, called the new regulator a "consumer credit rationing agency" that would "take choices away from consumers and choke desperately needed credit out of our economy."
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), a leading proponent, said the agency would "watch out for the average citizen in our country when they are abused by a financial market place that takes advantage of them on home mortgages and credit cards."
1. Who do you think is right, Rep. Hensarling, who says this new regulation will take choices away from consumers and ration credit, or Sen. Dodd, who says it will "watch out for the average citizen?" Explain your reasoning.
"Even before Congress unveils a consumer-protection agency, new state and federal laws are ushering in the most sweeping changes in consumer finance since the 1960s.
On July 1, Arizona will force changes on the state's 595 payday-loan stores—outfits that make high-interest loans against future paychecks—that could effectively put them out of business. Wisconsin banned small loans backed by car titles that led many people to lose their vehicles. Arkansas, Maine and New York joined other states in putting curbs on tax preparers who offer costly loans against expected tax refunds.
The federal government, meanwhile, is for the first time requiring that lenders verify a borrower's income and assets before issuing a home loan. It has also slapped broad new rules on credit-card issuers, limiting their ability to boost interest rates and charge certain fees.
"It's a pace of regulatory output we've never seen before in the consumer area," says Richard Hackett, who teaches consumer-finance law at Boston University's Morin Center for Banking and Financial Law.
The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, while housed inside the Federal Reserve, would be fully independent of the central bank, with a leader appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.... It will write and enforce rules on the structuring and marketing of loans as well as other financial products sold by banks, credit unions, credit-card issuers and even neighborhood check-cashing outfits.
***
Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R., Texas), a member of the House-Senate conference committee negotiating the final bill, called the new regulator a "consumer credit rationing agency" that would "take choices away from consumers and choke desperately needed credit out of our economy."
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), a leading proponent, said the agency would "watch out for the average citizen in our country when they are abused by a financial market place that takes advantage of them on home mortgages and credit cards."
QUESTIONS:
1. Who do you think is right, Rep. Hensarling, who says this new regulation will take choices away from consumers and ration credit, or Sen. Dodd, who says it will "watch out for the average citizen?" Explain your reasoning.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Obama Warns Insurers on Rates - WSJ.com
EXCERPTS:
"President Barack Obama told health-insurance executives they should keep a lid on big rate increases, but the executives said some rises were unavoidable because the new health law requires them to offer better benefits.
Mr. Obama met with them the same day he touted new regulations released Tuesday, in line with the law's provisions, that lift limits on insurance coverage and prevent insurers from denying care to consumers.
***
In remarks afterward, the president ... said insurers should justify rate increases and shouldn't use the law to drive up rates in an "unreasonable" way, citing a proposed 39% rate increase by WellPoint's California subsidiary.
Insurance company executives, speaking after the meeting, said they couldn't be expected to improve customers' benefit packages as required by the law without charging more.
Ron Williams, chief executive of Aetna, cited the law's rule that insurers allow children to stay on their parents' plan until age 26. That rule "does increase costs, and that cost is going to show up in the premium increases," he said.
***
Starting next year, insurers must use at least 85% of premiums to pay for medical care for patients when they are selling to large employers, and 80% when they are selling to individuals and small employers. The remainder of premiums can go to administrative costs and profit.
Ms. Praeger said she was concerned some insurers will pull out of certain markets because they can't meet the requirement. An administration official said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius indicated the law allows her to modify the regulations on a case-by-case basis if they would disrupt the market.
The new regulations released Tuesday cover four parts of the bill that take effect starting Sept. 23 or later. They prevent insurers from placing lifetime caps on insurance coverage and restrict the value of annual limits to no lower than $750,000 a year, with a gradual increase to $2 million a year by 2012. The law says insurers must accept children with pre-existing health conditions.
***
Mr. Obama called the rules a "patients' bill of rights," evoking Congress's failed attempt almost a decade ago to pass legislation ensuring basic medical rights and a fairer insurance appeals process. He criticized Republicans who want to repeal the law, citing four stories of Americans who were harmed by insurers.
"Anybody who favors repeal is welcome to come talk to these people and tell them why we should go back to the status quo prior to us signing this bill," he told an audience that included congressional Democrats and the insurance executives.
2. If the insurance company's costs increase but it is not allowed to increase the price charged for its product, what consequences will result?
3. If the services included in an insurance policy, and the price that can be charged for the policy, are decided by someone in government, rather than by competition between insurance companies, do you think this change will benefit or hurt the average person? Defend your answer using economic concepts.
"President Barack Obama told health-insurance executives they should keep a lid on big rate increases, but the executives said some rises were unavoidable because the new health law requires them to offer better benefits.
Mr. Obama met with them the same day he touted new regulations released Tuesday, in line with the law's provisions, that lift limits on insurance coverage and prevent insurers from denying care to consumers.
***
In remarks afterward, the president ... said insurers should justify rate increases and shouldn't use the law to drive up rates in an "unreasonable" way, citing a proposed 39% rate increase by WellPoint's California subsidiary.
Insurance company executives, speaking after the meeting, said they couldn't be expected to improve customers' benefit packages as required by the law without charging more.
Ron Williams, chief executive of Aetna, cited the law's rule that insurers allow children to stay on their parents' plan until age 26. That rule "does increase costs, and that cost is going to show up in the premium increases," he said.
***
Starting next year, insurers must use at least 85% of premiums to pay for medical care for patients when they are selling to large employers, and 80% when they are selling to individuals and small employers. The remainder of premiums can go to administrative costs and profit.
Ms. Praeger said she was concerned some insurers will pull out of certain markets because they can't meet the requirement. An administration official said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius indicated the law allows her to modify the regulations on a case-by-case basis if they would disrupt the market.
The new regulations released Tuesday cover four parts of the bill that take effect starting Sept. 23 or later. They prevent insurers from placing lifetime caps on insurance coverage and restrict the value of annual limits to no lower than $750,000 a year, with a gradual increase to $2 million a year by 2012. The law says insurers must accept children with pre-existing health conditions.
***
Mr. Obama called the rules a "patients' bill of rights," evoking Congress's failed attempt almost a decade ago to pass legislation ensuring basic medical rights and a fairer insurance appeals process. He criticized Republicans who want to repeal the law, citing four stories of Americans who were harmed by insurers.
"Anybody who favors repeal is welcome to come talk to these people and tell them why we should go back to the status quo prior to us signing this bill," he told an audience that included congressional Democrats and the insurance executives.
QUESTIONS:
1. When the government requires insurance companies to provide additional services how does this affect the company's costs?2. If the insurance company's costs increase but it is not allowed to increase the price charged for its product, what consequences will result?
3. If the services included in an insurance policy, and the price that can be charged for the policy, are decided by someone in government, rather than by competition between insurance companies, do you think this change will benefit or hurt the average person? Defend your answer using economic concepts.
Friday, June 11, 2010
Obama Meets Toto - Dan Henninger: WSJ.com
EXCERPTS:
"Two historic events happened in the Gulf of Mexico this spring: Unimaginable amounts of accidental oil rose from a hole one mile below the water's surface. Bigger than that, the federal government was exposed as the Wizard of Oz, unable to do anything about it.
In the movie, Dorothy and her friends in Oz admit the Wizard's limits. Not here. After a century of faith in the government's omnipotence, the discipleship can't believe this is happening....
[They believed] that with things like health care for the poor or protecting the environment, the private sector would never step up. [They were] willing to pay high taxes to let government do it, no matter how stupid, corrupt and inefficient the government might be, because that was better than the alternative, which was nothing.
Whatever the validity, for most of the postwar period, many people bought into this Faustian bargain. Throw money, accept the inefficiencies, and hope the government does more good than harm.
Arguably, achieving certain public goods this way could have endured for the Democrats—but only if programs like Medicaid remained as modest as their originators promised. Or if government's advocates had made choices. We can do this (Medicare for the elderly), but not that (Medicare for all, now called ObamaCare). But any liberal suggesting judgment or restraint—a Sen. Pat Moynihan— was tossed off the magic bus.
Now government's inefficiency has become indefensible and its fantastic costs, its oceanic spending, a clear and present danger.
Re-read Barack Obama's nomination-acceptance speech in Denver, an amazing compendium of promises ending with: "America, we cannot turn back (applause) not with so much work to be done; not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for; not with an economy to fix, and cities to rebuild, and farms to save; not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend."
The speaker of those words can't stop the oil, but his language shows how indiscriminate faith in government omnipotence has become, and how incapable the believers are of targeting discrete goals, rather than vapor-filled clouds such as "saving the planet" or "mending lives."
This truly is the land of Oz.
But Toto has pulled the curtain back, and it looks like this year's clear-eyed electorate is ready to go home to Kansas.
"Two historic events happened in the Gulf of Mexico this spring: Unimaginable amounts of accidental oil rose from a hole one mile below the water's surface. Bigger than that, the federal government was exposed as the Wizard of Oz, unable to do anything about it.
In the movie, Dorothy and her friends in Oz admit the Wizard's limits. Not here. After a century of faith in the government's omnipotence, the discipleship can't believe this is happening....
[They believed] that with things like health care for the poor or protecting the environment, the private sector would never step up. [They were] willing to pay high taxes to let government do it, no matter how stupid, corrupt and inefficient the government might be, because that was better than the alternative, which was nothing.
Whatever the validity, for most of the postwar period, many people bought into this Faustian bargain. Throw money, accept the inefficiencies, and hope the government does more good than harm.
Arguably, achieving certain public goods this way could have endured for the Democrats—but only if programs like Medicaid remained as modest as their originators promised. Or if government's advocates had made choices. We can do this (Medicare for the elderly), but not that (Medicare for all, now called ObamaCare). But any liberal suggesting judgment or restraint—a Sen. Pat Moynihan— was tossed off the magic bus.
Now government's inefficiency has become indefensible and its fantastic costs, its oceanic spending, a clear and present danger.
Re-read Barack Obama's nomination-acceptance speech in Denver, an amazing compendium of promises ending with: "America, we cannot turn back (applause) not with so much work to be done; not with so many children to educate, and so many veterans to care for; not with an economy to fix, and cities to rebuild, and farms to save; not with so many families to protect and so many lives to mend."
The speaker of those words can't stop the oil, but his language shows how indiscriminate faith in government omnipotence has become, and how incapable the believers are of targeting discrete goals, rather than vapor-filled clouds such as "saving the planet" or "mending lives."
This truly is the land of Oz.
But Toto has pulled the curtain back, and it looks like this year's clear-eyed electorate is ready to go home to Kansas.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Protecting, or hurting, nannies?
EXCERPTS:
"To be a Times contributor, you apparently have to write like Mara Gay, who penned these lines for a front page article last week:
New York may soon become the first state to offer employment protection for nannies. The state Senate passed a bill of rights for domestic workers this week, a measure that would require employers to offer New York’s approximately 200,000 household workers paid holidays, overtime pay and sick days. Supporters say the step will provide needed relief to thousands of women — and some men — who are helping to raise the children of wealthier New Yorkers without any legal workplace rights beyond the federal minimum wage.
Now, you see, if I had been writing this article, it might have opened more like this:
New York state may soon become the first state to restrict employment opportunities for nannies. The state Senate passed a bill this week that would prohibit New York’s approximately 200,000 household workers from accepting any position that does not include paid holidays, overtime pay and sick days. Opponents say the step will bring unnecessary hardship to thousands of women—and some men—who have found employment because of labor markets that operate freely, except for constraints imposed by the federal minimum wage.
A more neutral observer might have noted that this bill, if passed, will be good for some of those nannies who retain their jobs, bad for the many nannies who will be driven out of the business, and extremely good for people like Ai-jen Poo, director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, who will represent the winners and can conveniently ignore the losers.
"To be a Times contributor, you apparently have to write like Mara Gay, who penned these lines for a front page article last week:
New York may soon become the first state to offer employment protection for nannies. The state Senate passed a bill of rights for domestic workers this week, a measure that would require employers to offer New York’s approximately 200,000 household workers paid holidays, overtime pay and sick days. Supporters say the step will provide needed relief to thousands of women — and some men — who are helping to raise the children of wealthier New Yorkers without any legal workplace rights beyond the federal minimum wage.
Now, you see, if I had been writing this article, it might have opened more like this:
New York state may soon become the first state to restrict employment opportunities for nannies. The state Senate passed a bill this week that would prohibit New York’s approximately 200,000 household workers from accepting any position that does not include paid holidays, overtime pay and sick days. Opponents say the step will bring unnecessary hardship to thousands of women—and some men—who have found employment because of labor markets that operate freely, except for constraints imposed by the federal minimum wage.
A more neutral observer might have noted that this bill, if passed, will be good for some of those nannies who retain their jobs, bad for the many nannies who will be driven out of the business, and extremely good for people like Ai-jen Poo, director of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, who will represent the winners and can conveniently ignore the losers.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Google sued for "faulty" map directions
EXCERPT:
"A California woman is suing Google after she was hit by a car while following directions provided by Google Maps on her cell phone, according to AOL News.... The directions did not tell her that there were no sidewalks along Deer Valley Drive, which, Rosenberg alleges, led to her being struck by traffic.
"As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Google's careless, reckless and negligent providing of unsafe directions, Plaintiff Lauren Rosenberg was led onto a dangerous highway, and was thereby stricken by a motor vehicle, causing her to suffer severe permanent physical, emotional and mental injuries," according to the complaint filed in Park County district court.
Rosenberg is asking for Google to pay her medical expenses in addition to punitive damages and loss of earnings.
QUESTIONS:
Do you agree that Google should be required to help this woman? Explain why you agree or disagree.
"A California woman is suing Google after she was hit by a car while following directions provided by Google Maps on her cell phone, according to AOL News.... The directions did not tell her that there were no sidewalks along Deer Valley Drive, which, Rosenberg alleges, led to her being struck by traffic.
"As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Google's careless, reckless and negligent providing of unsafe directions, Plaintiff Lauren Rosenberg was led onto a dangerous highway, and was thereby stricken by a motor vehicle, causing her to suffer severe permanent physical, emotional and mental injuries," according to the complaint filed in Park County district court.
Rosenberg is asking for Google to pay her medical expenses in addition to punitive damages and loss of earnings.
QUESTIONS:
Do you agree that Google should be required to help this woman? Explain why you agree or disagree.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
The "time horizon" of government decision-makers
EXCERPT:
"The chance that the [Congress] will pass a budget this year is “fading,” Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said Tuesday.
He is pessimistic because House [members] don’t know whether they want to pass a resolution that would officially acknowledge the certainty of big deficits. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and other Democrats have indicated that would be a tough vote in an election year.
QUESTIONS:
Think about what this excerpt suggests about the "time horizon" of government decision-makers. In the short run, who benefits from their reluctance to deal with the deficit problem? In the long run, who bears the cost?
"The chance that the [Congress] will pass a budget this year is “fading,” Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said Tuesday.
He is pessimistic because House [members] don’t know whether they want to pass a resolution that would officially acknowledge the certainty of big deficits. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and other Democrats have indicated that would be a tough vote in an election year.
QUESTIONS:
Think about what this excerpt suggests about the "time horizon" of government decision-makers. In the short run, who benefits from their reluctance to deal with the deficit problem? In the long run, who bears the cost?
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Brussels decrees holidays are a human right - Times Online
EXCERPTS:
"AN overseas holiday used to be thought of as a reward for a year’s hard work. Now Brussels has declared that tourism is a human right and pensioners, youths and those too poor to afford it should have their travel subsidized by the taxpayer.
Under the scheme, British pensioners could be given cut-price trips to Spain, while Greek teenagers could be taken around disused mills in Manchester to experience the cultural diversity of Europe.
The idea for the subsidised tours is the brainchild of Antonio Tajani, the European Union commissioner for enterprise and industry, who was appointed by Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister.... Tajani, who unveiled his plan last week at a ministerial conference in Madrid, believes the days when holidays were a luxury have gone. “Travelling for tourism today is a right. The way we spend our holidays is a formidable indicator of our quality of life,” he said.
"AN overseas holiday used to be thought of as a reward for a year’s hard work. Now Brussels has declared that tourism is a human right and pensioners, youths and those too poor to afford it should have their travel subsidized by the taxpayer.
Under the scheme, British pensioners could be given cut-price trips to Spain, while Greek teenagers could be taken around disused mills in Manchester to experience the cultural diversity of Europe.
The idea for the subsidised tours is the brainchild of Antonio Tajani, the European Union commissioner for enterprise and industry, who was appointed by Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian prime minister.... Tajani, who unveiled his plan last week at a ministerial conference in Madrid, believes the days when holidays were a luxury have gone. “Travelling for tourism today is a right. The way we spend our holidays is a formidable indicator of our quality of life,” he said.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Volcano flight chaos leaves many passengers broke
EXCERPT:
APRIL 19, 2010
"SYDNEY (AP) - Andrew and Debbie Jackman of Britain spent more than two years saving up for their family vacation to Australia. They probably wish they'd saved a little longer.
On Friday, they found out their Qantas flight from Sydney to Britain had been canceled thanks to a volcano erupting in Iceland. So the Cambridge couple and their two teenage sons squeezed into a 150 Australian dollar ($138) hotel room to wait out the night. On Saturday, the hotel raised the price of the same room to AU$350 - simply because it could....
"I stayed in my hotel last night, but that was all my money," he said at the Narita International Airport, near Tokyo. "I think I'm going to stay here and sleep at the airport. Help me God."
"I stayed in my hotel last night, but that was all my money," he said at the Narita International Airport, near Tokyo. "I think I'm going to stay here and sleep at the airport. Help me God."
Nicolas Ribard, 29, from Avignon, France, was among about a dozen stranded tourists squatting on sleeping bags that Narita airport officials had lent them. He and three other friends had about 3,000 yen between them, and were surviving on airport-issued crackers, bottled water and coupons for one free shower a day.
Their earliest possible flight would be Taiwan's EVA Airways on May 12 - but only if they are willing to pay an extra 150 euros ($200). Otherwise, they have to wait until June, Ribard said.
"I am a little afraid that my pay will be docked," said Napier, 35. "I also have tutoring jobs during the week that usually supplement my salary. That will be gone. And even if I don't get my pay docked, all my days off will have to be charged as sick days."
Steeper-than-usual hotel prices is another passenger complaint. In Hong Kong, Busi Daniel, a 39-year-old French tourist, said he spent Sunday night in a hotel after his flight was canceled. But a huge jump in price meant he would be forced to sleep at the airport on Monday.
"Yesterday, we had a hotel room at 250 euros. At midday, it was 460 euros, and in the evening, the price was 800 euros for a room - we can't pay that," he said Monday as he waited at KLM Royal Dutch Airlines' counter in Hong Kong's airport.
The Jackmans spent hours pleading for mercy from the Novotel Sydney Brighton Beach after it raised the price of their room the second night.
Asked if the hotel was guilty of price-gouging, the hotel's general manager, Alan Burrows, said simply, "We dynamically price much like the airlines do, according to how many rooms we have to sell in the hotel."
Unlike many airlines, Qantas - Australia's largest carrier - has said it's been paying for stranded passengers' accommodations and providing meal vouchers. That was news to the Jackmans, who said airline representatives told them they were on their own.
On Monday, after spending three hours on hold with Qantas, the family trekked back to the airport (another AU$30 cab ride), and spoke to a customer service representative in person. It was only then, they said, that the airline offered to pay for a hotel room - for one night.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Israel considers 'popcorn law' for movie munchers
EXCERPT:
"An Israeli lawmaker is hoping to butter up voters and pass a law that would limit outrageous popcorn prices at the movies....
'We have to put an end to this. The public should not have to mortgage their houses for a soft drink and a snack,' Shama told the paper.
A large box of popcorn usually sells for about five dollars (four euros) at theatre concession stands, more than double what it costs at a supermarket and 10 times more than it would cost to make at home.
"An Israeli lawmaker is hoping to butter up voters and pass a law that would limit outrageous popcorn prices at the movies....
'We have to put an end to this. The public should not have to mortgage their houses for a soft drink and a snack,' Shama told the paper.
A large box of popcorn usually sells for about five dollars (four euros) at theatre concession stands, more than double what it costs at a supermarket and 10 times more than it would cost to make at home.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Airlines Will Cancel Flights to Avoid Risk of Fines for Delays | NBC Dallas-Fort Worth
EXCERPTS:
"Passengers may soon be seeing more cancellations on airport departure boards.
Several airlines, including Fort Worth-based American and Houston-based Continental, say they will cancel flights rather than risk paying stiff penalties for delaying passengers on the runway."
Under new federal guidelines that take effect next month, airlines can be fined up to $27,500 per passenger if a plane is stuck on the tarmac for longer than three hours.
“How can they say there is nothing wrong with having someone sit on a seat and run out of water and everything and sit on there for three, four, five hours? That's ridiculous,” Kelly said.
With the new fines, a delayed MD-80 could cost American Airlines close to $4 million, and a fine for a full 757 could cost more than $5 million.
“It's unavoidable that more flights will be canceled to avoid fines,” said American Airlines spokesman Steve Schlachter. “It's one of the unintended consequences of a bill that has no flexibility.”
"Passengers may soon be seeing more cancellations on airport departure boards.
Several airlines, including Fort Worth-based American and Houston-based Continental, say they will cancel flights rather than risk paying stiff penalties for delaying passengers on the runway."
Under new federal guidelines that take effect next month, airlines can be fined up to $27,500 per passenger if a plane is stuck on the tarmac for longer than three hours.
“How can they say there is nothing wrong with having someone sit on a seat and run out of water and everything and sit on there for three, four, five hours? That's ridiculous,” Kelly said.
With the new fines, a delayed MD-80 could cost American Airlines close to $4 million, and a fine for a full 757 could cost more than $5 million.
“It's unavoidable that more flights will be canceled to avoid fines,” said American Airlines spokesman Steve Schlachter. “It's one of the unintended consequences of a bill that has no flexibility.”
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Worker rights and unemployment
In Spain, if an employer fires a worker that worker is entitled to 45 days' severance pay per year of service. So if a worker has worked at a company for 8 years, that worker receives a severance payment equal to almost a full year salary. Do you think U.S. workers would benefit from having that kind of right? You'd better ask "what would that cost, and who would bear that cost?" How do you think such a policy would affect your ability to get a job, and the unemployment rate? Consider the following:
"Massive joblessness could further slow Spain's climb out of debt. Even in good times, unemployment never got below about 8%. Now the rate is nudging 20% overall and close to 45% among young people—statistics that reveal to economists a deeply flawed employment market.
"Wages are set through a complicated system of bargaining with trade unions that imposes wage increases on firms even if their business can't afford it. Because wages are inflexible, Spanish companies can cut labor costs only by firing workers. Yet some workers, hired on so-called indefinite contracts, are deeply entrenched, not least because they are entitled to 45 days' severance pay per year of service."
"Massive joblessness could further slow Spain's climb out of debt. Even in good times, unemployment never got below about 8%. Now the rate is nudging 20% overall and close to 45% among young people—statistics that reveal to economists a deeply flawed employment market.
"Wages are set through a complicated system of bargaining with trade unions that imposes wage increases on firms even if their business can't afford it. Because wages are inflexible, Spanish companies can cut labor costs only by firing workers. Yet some workers, hired on so-called indefinite contracts, are deeply entrenched, not least because they are entitled to 45 days' severance pay per year of service."
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Politicians in Wonderland - Thomas Sowell
EXCERPT:
"The young have less experience to offer and are therefore less in demand. Before politicians stepped in, that just meant that younger workers were paid less. But this is not a permanent situation because youth itself is not permanent, and pay rises with experience.
Enter politicians. By mandating a minimum wage that sounds reasonable for most workers, they put a price on inexperienced and unskilled labor that often exceeds what it is worth.
Mandated pay rates, like mandated insurance coverage, impose on buyers and sellers alike things that they would not choose to do otherwise.
Workers of course prefer higher wage rates. But the very fact that the government has to impose those wage rates means that workers were unwilling to risk not having a job by refusing to work for less than the wage rate that has been mandated. Now that choice has been taken out of their hands, with the hidden cost in this case being higher unemployment rates.
It is of course no secret that there is no free lunch. It is just an inconvenient distraction that gets left out of political rhetoric."
"The young have less experience to offer and are therefore less in demand. Before politicians stepped in, that just meant that younger workers were paid less. But this is not a permanent situation because youth itself is not permanent, and pay rises with experience.
Enter politicians. By mandating a minimum wage that sounds reasonable for most workers, they put a price on inexperienced and unskilled labor that often exceeds what it is worth.
Mandated pay rates, like mandated insurance coverage, impose on buyers and sellers alike things that they would not choose to do otherwise.
Workers of course prefer higher wage rates. But the very fact that the government has to impose those wage rates means that workers were unwilling to risk not having a job by refusing to work for less than the wage rate that has been mandated. Now that choice has been taken out of their hands, with the hidden cost in this case being higher unemployment rates.
It is of course no secret that there is no free lunch. It is just an inconvenient distraction that gets left out of political rhetoric."
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Utopia Versus Freedom - Thomas Sowell
"Back in the 18th century, Edmund Burke said, 'It is no inconsiderable part of wisdom, to know much of an evil ought to be tolerated' and 'I must bear with infirmities until they fester into crimes.'"
Friday, June 26, 2009
Obama's Health Future - WSJ.com
"'Look, the first thing for all of us to understand that is we actually have some -- some choices to make about how we want to deal with our own end-of-life care,' Mr. Obama replied. After discussing ways 'we as a culture and as a society [can start] to make better decisions within our own families and for ourselves,' he continued that in general 'at least we can let doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller.'"
President Obama is certainly correct that choices have to be made about medical care. The key question is, "who's going to make those choices, and what will the options be?" Will private individuals be allowed to choose between private medical service providers who have to compete with each other for customers? Or, will we have a system in which someone in government decides which services will be provided, and for whom, and in which providers are essentially working for the government, rather than for the individual patient? How these questions are answered will significantly affect how much incentive providers have to provide patients with the care they want.
President Obama is certainly correct that choices have to be made about medical care. The key question is, "who's going to make those choices, and what will the options be?" Will private individuals be allowed to choose between private medical service providers who have to compete with each other for customers? Or, will we have a system in which someone in government decides which services will be provided, and for whom, and in which providers are essentially working for the government, rather than for the individual patient? How these questions are answered will significantly affect how much incentive providers have to provide patients with the care they want.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Another "Good Thing" - Thomas Sowell
"No reason is given why one of these numbers is better than another. Apparently the implicit assumption is that education is a 'good thing' that it is always better to have more of. But, if that is the case, why 55 percent rather than 75 percent, 95 percent or 100 percent?
Even food is not a 'good thing' categorically, without limit. We can't live without it but, beyond some point, it causes obesity and shortens our lives."
Even food is not a 'good thing' categorically, without limit. We can't live without it but, beyond some point, it causes obesity and shortens our lives."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)