Flashback – Does Luck Have a Half-life?

This takes us back almost seven years to the minimum wage protests at fast food restaurants. The question is whether people learn to change behavior when they are bailed out from predictable consequences. I have long argued that the reason you can’t raise a family on the minimum wage is that no one should start a family if they can only get a minimum wage job. Bad luck is not forever.

 

People who caught a bad break certainly should be helped, but behavior rewarded is behavior repeated. Irresponsibility rewarded breeds more. Over the past seven years a lot of irresponsibility has been rewarded. Here are my 2013 comments:

[More protests are breaking out around the plight of fast food workers unable to survive on the minimum wage. They are demanding a wage increase to $15 an hour. The news has presented the arguments pro and con, but have usually given more time to the protesters, sometimes, as in this CBS piece, picking out one as a kind of “poster child” for the cause. The hidden problem is that minimum wage, unemployment extensions, food stamps and other proposed government solutions ignore behavioral factors.

A primary argument in favor of this issue tells us that all these people are less fortunate, that they need a helping hand to get back on their feet, that "there, but for the grace of God,” go we. They completely ignore well-known wisdom that behavior has consequences. We are presented with the argument that every one of these fast food workers is merely down on his luck or a victim of a bad economy, and that the situation has nothing to do with consequences of behavior. This unbelievable scenario is widely accepted by otherwise rational people. The media and many politicians never challenge it.

This leads to an interesting comparison: In other circumstances, how do caring people really act? If your teenage son sits on the sofa all day playing videogames, ignoring homework and refusing to do his chores, do good parents excuse the behavior and cover for him? Do they pass it off with, “That’s OK; he’s going through a tough time”? Even non-parents know the answer. Good parents will institute consequences for this poor behavior, knowing that if they don’t, life and reality will later institute much harsher consequences. Teenage sons can be very difficult, but good parents anticipate with a pattern of similar, consistent reactions to deal with natural childhood resistance and laxness. That’s how caring people act. They don’t always come to the rescue – behavior that makes the rescuer feel powerful, but often causes long-term harm to the one rescued. When the bad situation is a bad break, sympathy and a leg up are appropriate. If the son is mugged and loses money, parents may reimburse him for the loss. If he loses it gambling, that’s the consequence of bad behavior. Bailing him out is inappropriate, dulls the impact of the consequence and no learning occurs. (For an extreme example see the recent case of "affluenza" in Texas.)

Returning to the case of minimum wage employees, especially those presented by the media and never challenged, we must ask if it was bad luck or consequences that contributed to the situation. If it’s luck, then some temporary help is appropriate, because bad luck does have a kind of half-life or statute of limitations. A little help can turn things around, but caring people do not bail out from consequences. That only fosters more problematic behavior.

Even in these seemingly innocent human-interest stories the determination requires only a few simple questions. Where did those two or three children come from? Where is the father (or fathers)? What contribution is he making? If none, why not? Did the workers finish high school; were drugs ever involved; are they applying for better jobs, are they looking for ways to increase skills, etc., etc.? What is the long-term plan, if any? (CBS later reported that their "poster-child" example turned down promotions more than once because it didn’t fit her preferred personal schedule. Another news story told of a kind social worker repairing at minimum cost the car of a woman who hasn't been able to work in 5 years due to a neck injury. She can't work, but she can drive?!)  

Looking at the situation through the behavioral lens would probably determine that many of these people are not victims. Many are living with the consequences of earlier choices. Should caring people run to bail them out, labeling them all as “less fortunate,” as the compassionistas would have us believe? Not only do they not learn and grow, but the next generation, poised to make the same mistakes, sees no example to discourage them from following the same path. So, the current, non-behavioral approaches, which lump them all into the same category, lead not to solutions but to perpetual problems.]

Flashback – (Mis)understanding Insurance

If they learn economics in journalism school, they must quickly forget everything upon graduation. Furthermore, when the facts don't make a compelling story, they resort to the usual tactic of trying to make stories fit their worldview or make things look scarier than they are. Here is a prime example I gave in December 2016.

[As I was reading the transcript of Scott Pelley’s "60 Minutes" interview with House Speaker Paul Ryan, I noticed that he seemed uninterested in hard news or in-depth information so much as he was interested in tripping up the Speaker, trying to put him in a position of disagreeing with his new boss, making one or the other of them look bad, or uncovering something potentially embarrassing.

He asked how often the two speak on the phone and who initiates the conversation. The answers were almost daily and both. No news there. How does he answer the phone? “He doesn’t say, ‘This is the president-elect?’” No. “Have you told him being president is not being CEO of the United States, that the Congress is going to have a say?” 

Instead of asking how the two got together after a contentious election, he asked, “Who apologized to whom?” It’s clear by now that Pelley has no liking or respect for Donald Trump, thinks he is a bully and a racist, and is searching for evidence to back up his views. Better yet, he would like to get Ryan to agree on any point that might make it seem he is of the same opinion.

The silliness and self-serving finally comes to a close, and Pelley asks a number of questions about policy issues. Soon he gets to the details about possible changes to Obamacare and the sniping continues. At one point Pelley says “And women will pay the same as men? That didn’t used to be the case.” This is a question designed to get an answer that will incite outrage. He is trying to get some admission of Republican bias against women, but showing in the process that he does not understand how insurance works and counting on the fact that many Americans don’t either.

Insurance usually works by assessing the risk and charging premiums accordingly. If you have homeowner’s insurance you expect a discount for having a working alarm system. Teen drivers are generally less safe than more experienced drivers, but boys have more accidents than girls. Auto insurance for a young man 16-25 is higher. There is no outrage there. It’s not unusual for companies to charge smokers more for their health insurance benefits. Owners of cars with higher repair costs pay higher premiums. Older cars are cheaper to insure due to the lower replacement cost. Those who don’t drive as many miles sometimes pay lower premiums. Costs of auto and homeowners insurance vary by what part of the country and by the size of the town or city you live in. And since women outlive men and take fewer chances, they pay less for life insurance. Older people pay more, as do those who participate in dangerous hobbies like skydiving or juggling chainsaws.

This all happens without a stir. Everyone seems to understand that certain classes of people are at a higher risk for either the frequency or the size of insurance claims. Hence they should pay more. The ones in the classes with higher premiums don’t like it, but they pay. So why would people be upset that some women, especially those of childbearing age, might have to pay more? That “used to be the case” and it didn’t have anything to do with prejudice or victimization.

Apparently the government and some group of citizens have now decided that charging women more for health insurance can be explained only by prejudice. Everyone must purchase the same insurance for the same cost or there will be an uproar. And Scott Pelley and others in his profession are more than happy to incite and later fan the flames of that uproar, because it makes their job of reporting the news so much easier. Their job is not to inform or to educate; their job is to attract views and clicks. Nothing does that better than a good demonstration or protest, even those grounded in fundamental misunderstanding.]

P.S. I have often said that problems with healthcare costs must be solved on the basis of costs, not by tinkering with health insurance, but that’s for another discussion.

Life Is Tough.

From ABC news: “Two men who believe they were switched at birth nearly 80 years ago are suing a Roman Catholic diocese in West Virginia, alleging negligence and breach of duty by the hospital where they were born.”

One of the men discovered through a DNA test that he was not related to people he thought were his family. He learned the identity of the other man and found his “real” family by searching hospital records from 1942. Together the two are suing. They claim to have “suffered a ‘lifetime of consequences’ from the switch and are seeking unspecified damages.” 

One of the men has blue eyes and says he “looks different from the family that raised him and always felt out of place.”

This falls into the category of news that is hard to distinguish from satire. Have these people really suffered over the past 78 years because they were not blood relatives of the people who raised them? Would there have been any distress had he not uncovered the facts? Does not looking like the rest of your family lead to psychological damage? Finally, what do these claims say about adopted children?

According to Wikipedia, a parent is “a caregiver of the offspring in their own species. The most common types of parents are mothers, fathers, stepparents, and grandparents.” Including stepparents extends family relationships to beyond blood relatives and to people the children may not look like.

Furthermore, since both sets of parents were ignorant of the error, there would have been no reason for them to treat the “switched” sons any differently. It’s hard to imagine what damage was done.

An adoption website points out that there are “hundreds of thousands of adoptive families in the world who all represent wonderful families….” Chances are most of these children don’t look like their parents or siblings either, but they are members of the family. 

From another source: “Adoptive families can be transracial, international, or have members of the same family from different parts of the country.  Adoptive families look different. Adoptive families are beautiful!  They are a picture of what happens when one part of the human race decides to care for another human being.” 

To most of us, family means more than a blood relationship, but rather a source of love and support.

But these concepts are not good enough for the two and their lawyers. Like many Americans they believe life is tough, and those who suffer from the most trivial problems or minor irritations deserve sympathy and compensation whenever possible. Look at the emotional support animal industry (not to be confused with service animals).

Yes, it is an industry. There are websites that offer, for a fee, certificates and vests to meet an "epidemic" demand for support animals. Technically only mental health professionals can provide documentation.  Some sites skirt the issue by employing counselors to do a quick interview or review a questionnaire. Still the person not the animal’s behavior is evaluated, and counselors would not be qualified to do so. That places thousands of untrained, unpredictable animals in public with presumed special privileges, although the certification only allows the pet on an airplane or in housing that forbids animals. It is not blanket permission to take the animal anywhere.

The government accommodates these people with special laws without scientific evidence. Wikipedia reveals, “Researchers have not established that untrained emotional support animals provide any significant benefit to people with mental or emotional disabilities…the scientific research is limited and of low scientific quality.” 

See the parallel? This lawsuit is not an isolated incident. It’s a reflection of the times. These two elderly gentlemen claim to have suffered consequences all their lives. No one dares ask why they failed to take charge at some point over 60 years of their adult lives. We have no expectations of responsibility from victims. They suffer a wrong and seek (monetary) relief 78 years later. Like the growing number that require emotional support animals, they are comforted rather than confronted. And life goes on.

People act like victims. They need and expect to get their settlements, their furry crutches or whatever without question. Anyone critical is branded as unfeeling.

Two hundred years ago they’d all be dead. At one time life was tough, and you had to be tougher just to survive. Today life is significantly (significantly!) easier, but it’s also easier to play the victim and complain rather than to be responsible in taking on life’s challenges. Doing so is hard and might even lead to personal growth and maturity, but don't expect the government or society to take that view!

Flashback - Unbelievable Numbers?

[Almost a year ago I wrote about the statistics that politicians, pundits and experts spread without any support. They are repeated to the point where everyone accepts them as gospel, and no one bothers to check. It happens often. These are just a few that I highlighted at the time.]

Politicians and other entities trying to raise awareness to one or another kind of problem or injustice love to toss out surprising numbers to gain support for their cause. In many cases these are not real numbers. They could be based on data collected by the program itself with no effort to be unbiased, in fact, the more shocking the better. They may have been based on a single survey that made no effort to confirm results, and may directly conflict with the results of similar surveys. Like the unverified number of discarded plastic straws that was really based on a small survey for a grade-school project that led to such an uproar, the numbers are often repeated so many times by so many people that everyone assumes they are correct. 

With so many examples, how can we tell what to believe?

Everyone knows that ten thousand steps per day is the recommended amount to stay healthy and to boost longevity – or do they? This NPR piece tells us “the idea of walking at least 10,000 steps a day for health goes back decades to a marketing campaign launched in Japan to promote a pedometer” and is not some kind of magic number. In a recent study published in JAMA, older women who averaged 4,400 steps per day were better off than those taking only 2,700, with little or no benefit over about 7,500 steps. This finding was confirmed elsewhere.

The myth of 10,000 daily steps is akin to 8 glasses of water daily. There is no basis. Someone made it up. The best advice, to drink when you are thirsty, continues to be drowned out by the “hydration parrots” who swear by 64 ounces.

Other examples include the unacceptably high number of school shootings. The Campus Safety Magazine puts the number for 2018 at 82, “the highest there have ever been since 1970.” They mention that the second highest was 59 in 2006, so it can hardly be called a trend, perhaps more of a blip. They then state that the majority didn’t happen on school property – indicating a rather loose definition of school shooting. Compare that to the Wikipedia list of each occurrence by location with a total of only 36 for the same year.

A Time article calls into question the widely circulated number of one in five women in the US having been raped. They call that number misleading noting “the striking disparity between CDC figures and the Justice Department’s crime statistics based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (which includes crimes unreported to the police).” This article provides much detail and there is room for doubt (as I pointed out earlier), yet we continue to hear the same number.

Of course everyone also knows that crime and teen pregnancy are worse than ever – not so fast! “Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century.” Here is a link to that Pew survey from earlier this year showing several graphs on violent and property crimes all heading in the right direction, although you’d never know it from the news coverage. That explains why the public perception is the opposite. Likewise a site called the Seeker reports, “the fact is that teen pregnancy is low and has been dropping.”

Can the recent increase in tornados be attributed to Climate Change? This article from a Carbon Brief posting calls it highly uncertain – with references to the data. “What is clear is that there is no observable increase in the number of strong tornadoes in the US over the past few decades,” adding: “Any role for climate change in affecting the conditions for tornado formation is still very much an open question and the subject of ongoing research by the scientific community.”

Finally, are there more black men in prison in the US than in colleges and universities? It’s a handy throwaway line for a speech emphasizing victimhood, but I picked that one apart very nicely about 5 years ago.

We can’t rely on the orators, advocates, media and advertisers to get it right. Use critical thinking. Question everything.

Flashback – Freedom and Responsibility

[What results from a lack of responsibility is often deceptive. No one gets hurt, and any important job usually gets done. When an individual fails to take care of it, someone else takes up the slack by doing it for them. The so-called helicopter parents fit into this category. But what happens when this behavior occurs on a societal level? – The helicopter government steps in with programs and regulations, and we give up our freedom one step at a time. It's true both for citizens and for corporations.

I reminded everyone of this consequence back in July 2011.]

Some think the opposite of freedom is slavery or perhaps living under a dictatorship, but in our society the opposite of freedom is the benevolent authoritarianism of warnings and legal restrictions resulting from our failures in the dimension of responsibility.

We are told that we are all victims of the economy, of our high-stress jobs, and of our non-stop lifestyles. The word is used in ads everyday, one even asking me if I am the victim of hair loss. We are presumably victims of big oil when gasoline prices rise, of big drug companies, or of big insurance companies when they raise their rates or dispute our claims. 

Especially in legal cases involving civil suits, attorneys first persuade prospective clients that they are victims (you’ve seen the ads on TV) then persuade juries that their clients are victims and someone should pay. In those same TV ads you often hear the word settlement, because the targets of these lawsuits fear that juries will buy into this point of view. It's cheaper to settle out of court, because those juries, from a basic lack of economic understanding, assume that a big corporation or insurance company will pay the cost out of their own pocket and it will never get back to us.

Claiming victimhood is an easy answer. It takes no effort. What went wrong is someone else’s fault; we are not to blame; we share none of the responsibility. It’s a passive stance. I don’t have a high-paying job, not because I didn’t bother to finish high school, but because I am being discriminated against. I got lung cancer not because I refused to quit smoking, but because the tobacco companies tricked me. My kids have too many toys not because I bought them, but because of the cartoons on the TV. The banks fooled me into getting a mortgage I couldn’t afford. When I have a sore knee, I ask the doctor for a pill or for surgery rather than losing some weight. I get to put all my problems in someone else’s hands. Responsible people don’t act like this, but victims do.

When we feel and act this way, we need to be protected. That’s when the warnings and regulations begin. Since these people can’t take care of themselves, we must require warnings on cigarette packages, on ladders, on hairdryers, and on almost every other product, telling them not to use them in ways that may seem stupid to the average person. When we sign up our kids to play sports, we must sign “hold harmless” forms. All the warnings don’t stop the lawsuits, so next come the regulations: all playgrounds must provide soft landings, all car trunks need an escape handle, all lawnmowers must have an automatic shutdown device, etc. Some cities ban the sale of certain foods or of fast food in certain neighborhoods. Victims are treated like children and must be protected from the real world and from themselves.

Where does it all end? The old analogy of boiling a frog applies. Throw a frog into boiling water and he jumps back out. Put him into a pot and slowly increase the temperature and he sits complacently until it’s too late. Likewise, when we don’t behave responsibly, our freedoms slowly trickle away.  Each of those efforts seems well-meaning and harmless at the time, but each is another example of someone restricting our choices for their interpretation of our own good. Each restriction is a loss of freedom, the consequence of patterns of behavior that show weaknesses in the dimension of responsibility.

How Can You Believe Those Numbers?

Politicians and other entities trying to raise awareness to one or another kind of problem or injustice love to toss out surprising numbers to gain support for their cause. In many cases these are not real numbers. They could be based on data collected by the program itself with no effort to be unbiased, in fact, the more shocking the better. They may have been based on a single survey that made no effort to confirm results, or they may be in conflict with the results of similar surveys. Like the unverified number of discarded plastic straws based on a small survey for a grade-school project that led to such an uproar, the numbers are often repeated so many times by so many people that everyone assumes they are correct. 

With so many examples, how can we tell what to believe?

Everyone knows that ten thousand steps per day is the recommended amount to stay healthy and to boost longevity – or do they? This NPR piece tells us “the idea of walking at least 10,000 steps a day for health goes back decades to a marketing campaign launched in Japan to promote a pedometer” and is not some kind of magic number. In a recent study published in JAMA, older women who averaged 4,400 steps per day were better off than those taking only 2,700, with little or no benefit over about 7,500 steps. This finding was confirmed elsewhere.

The myth of 10,000 daily steps is akin to the 8 glasses of water daily. There is no basis. Someone made it up. The best advice, to drink when you are thirsty, continues to be drowned out by the “hydration parrots.”

Other examples include the unacceptably high number of school shootings. The Campus Safety Magazine puts the number for 2018 at 82, “the highest there have ever been since 1970.” They mention that the second highest was 59 in 2006, so it can hardly be called a trend, perhaps more of a blip. They then state that the majority didn’t happen on school property – indicating a rather loose definition of school shooting. Compare that to the Wikipedia list of each occurrence by location with a total of only 36 for the entire year.

A Time article calls into question the widely circulated number of one in five women in the US having been raped. They call that number misleading noting “the striking disparity between CDC figures and the Justice Department’s crime statistics based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (which includes crimes unreported to the police).” This article provides much detail and there is room for doubt (as I pointed out earlier), yet we continue to hear the same number.

Of course everyone also knows that crime and teen pregnancy are worse than ever – not so fast! “Violent crime in the U.S. has fallen sharply over the past quarter century.” Here is a link to that Pew survey from earlier this year showing several graphs on violent and property crimes all heading in the right direction, although you’d never know it from the news coverage. That explains why the public perception is the opposite. Likewise a site called the Seeker reports  “the fact is that teen pregnancy is low and has been dropping.”

Can the recent increase in tornados be attributed to Climate Change? This article from a Carbon Brief posting calls it highly uncertain – with references to the data. “What is clear is that there is no observable increase in the number of strong tornadoes in the US over the past few decades,” adding: “Any role for climate change in affecting the conditions for tornado formation is still very much an open question and the subject of ongoing research by the scientific community.”

Finally, are there more black men in prison in the US than in colleges and universities? It’s a handy throwaway line for a speech emphasizing victimhood, but I picked that one apart very nicely about 5 years ago.

We can’t rely on the orators, advocates, media and advertisers to get it right. Use critical thinking. Question everything.

Government Shutdown Hardships

A week ago CBS reported on IRS workers' problems that came from the shutdown. “After a month with no pay, real hardship does exist for IRS employees including not having the money needed to get back and forth to work or to pay for the child care necessary to return to work right now.” Even some cities have been struggling as spending and the related sales tax revenues decreased. There were many other reports from around the country about similar hardships: food, utility bills, transportation, credit card payments, rent, etc.

It’s sad to see about 800,000 Federal workers furloughed with no pay. Many were required to continue coming to work not knowing when they would next be paid. They would struggle until the dispute was settled and back pay arrived. I have no solution to propose to avoid shutdowns, but I know what should happen immediately upon the workers' return. All government workers should be given a class in personal finance.

Suze Orman is not the only one who has been advocating for many years that everyone have an emergency fund, but she gives familiar advice. Here from a 2015 article is a typical example. “Your long-term goal is to have eight months of living expenses set aside in your emergency fund. I know that’s a lot, but I want you and your loved ones to be okay if you were ever laid off, or sick for an extended period of time.” Other experts are more conservative, recommending 3 to 6 months. But still, that’s more than a few weeks.

Of course, no one has been listening. Unfortunately, government workers thrown into a panic, resorting to food banks after missing a single paycheck does not strike the public as unusual. An emergency fund of only $1000 would be a good start, but a Bankrate survey from 2018 showed “only 39 percent of survey respondents said they would be able to cover a $1,000 setback using their savings.” That leaves 61 percent of the entire population out in the cold – or going to a food bank – soon after losing a job.

Admittedly, losing their job is not usually on the minds of government workers. Their job security is enviable. However, there have been four shutdowns in the last six years, each with the potential to cause similar problems. Between that and the same chances of personal emergencies that they share with the rest of the population – auto accidents, illnesses, personal injuries, etc. – their lives overall are not that much different or more secure than the rest of us.

Critical thinking dictates a need to build an emergency fund. Discipline is required to stop living paycheck to paycheck in order to do that. Responsibility implies that hardships after only a month without pay gives them no right to play the victim. That status, however, is too convenient for politicians trying to shame the other side, trying to shift the focus away from their own inability to act like competent leaders or even like adults.

This is yet another crisis that can be laid at the feet of individual behavior. The news media has this same information, but don't expect them to report it that way. They are too busy pushing sob stories and manipulating our emotions to keep the ratings up, to ask what personal choices could have allowed those crises to be averted.

Everyone Claims to Be a Victim

I read the transcript of a podcast: “Is the media making American politics worse?” It comes from a political journalist who believes all of his colleagues are honorable and hardworking, but “I’m worried we’re failing. I’m worried we’re making American politics worse, not better.” To get a more objective viewpoint he invites a professor of journalism to discuss it with him. The exchange goes as follows.

The crisis is “because everything around us has changed — our business models, the way people read us, the way we compete with each other, the way we’re manipulated — and we’re not keeping up. Instead, we’re getting played by the outrage merchants and con artists and trolls and polarizers who understand this new world better.” Apparently this crisis of trust is not of their own making. It’s someone else’s fault, the trolls and polarizers.

“We’re being used to fracture American democracy, and I don’t think we know how to stop it.”

His guest believes the president is forcing journalists to cover his “nuts” rallies. The host complains that the media run in packs, so if you get a story wrong it has no consequences, because everyone else got it wrong too. They just move on to the next story without any investigation of their own missteps or any feeling of responsibility to make corrections.

They are concerned that the outrageous elbows out the important in news coverage.

Both admit the media is now in the entertainment business which is different from journalism and that “We don’t really have a press corps that takes responsibility for the priority list that it ends up working from. We have journalists who are just reacting to events.”

So we have journalists admitting that when stories come in, it’s their organizations that decide what is news and what is not (the priority list). Despite that, they don’t want to admit any bias. They want to be seen as arbiters of right and wrong, of truth and lies, but this printed exchange of ideas reeks of political bias. More evidence comes out as they comment on their audience: “So on the one hand, we become more important to the people who feel like they are on our side. And we have become less important to the ones who aren’t.” They then go on to agree that those who disagree with them – not on their side – are wrong and that’s what keeps them from doing their jobs.

See how easily they portray themselves as victims. What they write and what they choose to report is out of their control; and there is nothing they can do about it.

Part of this is a responsibility issue with the reporters, and part is a perspective issue with the audience. The media must deal with a crisis of trust and a built-in conflict between the entertainment and journalism sides of the business. But none of it is their fault. The audience is driving them to water down the important with the “new, outrageous, conflict-oriented, secret, interesting” stories that the outrage merchants force them to cover. As for their audience, our lack of perspective, our yearning for the new and outrageous, results in us getting the news we deserve rather than important and meaningful stories. Meanwhile, these journalists portray themselves as victims of the system.

The bottom line is that we can’t expect anyone to watch out for us. The truth is out there somewhere, but to find it we must question everything! The future lies in critical thinking and perspective, with a little responsibility on the side.

Economic Connections

Last time I checked into a hotel or motel, it was quite simple. I parked temporarily in front, walked in and told the desk clerk my name and handed over my credit card. In short order I got my credit card back along with my room key and was politely given directions to the room along with other information, such as breakfast or pool hours. I parked my car or drove it to the most convenient doorway. It was easy and pleasant.

The last time I boarded an airplane was a different story. If someone dropped me off, parking was limited and patrolled – and don’t leave the car unattended. I had to show an ID to get my boarding pass and check luggage, which was presumably inspected after the airline took control. I then took my carry-on bag to the security area where everyone lined up, showed an ID again, showed a boarding pass, took off shoes, emptied pockets, separated electronic devices, walked through a scanner, and sometimes had to be rescanned or even searched. I then picked up my belongings, refilled my pockets, put on my belt and shoes and walked to the gate.

It used to be much simpler. Relatives could even meet you at the gate when you arrived, but not any more. Now there is security everywhere, and for good reason. We don’t want terrorists or crazy people to be able to use the airports or airplanes for murder.

This came to mind when I read about  MGM "suing" the victims and survivors of the shooting massacre in Las Vegas where a lone gunman used the MGM-owned Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino as his base of operations to slaughter 58 concertgoers and wound many others. 

Suing these innocent people sounds heartless, but the word is not being used in the familiar sense. There will be no trial, no testimony, no demand for payment. MGM filed for a declaratory judgment, where a judge decides whether they can be held liable for damages. “Here, MGM is asking a federal court to pre-emptively determine whether a particular federal law prohibits a lawsuit by the victims against MGM, instead forcing them to sue only the vendor that provided security.” As people line up to sue someone, MGM wants a judge to move them out of the line of fire.

Of course there are lawyers already jumping into the fray looking for victims to represent and for deep pockets to exploit. In addition, because people either don’t understand the intent of the lawsuit and jump to the conclusion of heartless behavior or believe that the victims deserve as much compensation as possible regardless of real fault, boycotts are being encouraged.

Now I have no interest at all in MGM, but I can predict the ramifications of such a battle. Lawyers will argue that the hotel, and by extension MGM, did not do everything possible to avoid the situation – that’s the usual argument, “everything possible.” Everyone else in the hospitality industry will be put on notice. Their insurance will increase, and they will begin to take steps to do everything possible – which, by the way, is impossible when you can’t predict what threat(s) to anticipate.

As a result, all travelers will be affected in at least a couple of ways. First, things will cost more. Economic understanding tells us that when costs like insurance and precautions go up across an entire industry, there is no competitive incentive to absorb the costs. They are easily passed on to all customers.

Second, could checking into a motel become more like taking the plane, with some combination of heavily monitored parking, baggage inspections, metal detectors, photo IDs, take off your shoes and empty your pockets – with the same for all visitors and meeting attendees? 

The second outcome is not guaranteed, but it is possible. This lawsuit by the owner of a Vegas hotel may seem unfair and distant, but our world is connected in many unexpected ways.

A Hairy Subject

Men, are you suffering from hair loss? That’s the way the ad copy reads – suffering. A reader sent me this link a few weeks ago. Neither of us knew whether to laugh or cry.

The subject is the age-old search for a baldness cure. After the usual silly introductory story, The New Yorker, to show the seriousness of the situation, states that in 2013, “German researchers published a study indicating that men experienced hair loss as an ‘enormous emotional burden’ that could lead to an ‘impaired quality of life’ and ‘psychological disorders’.” Also mentioned was that people are more likely to vote for a (male) political candidate who has a full head of hair.

So this is scary for two reasons.  First, so many men are frightened of losing their hair that they support the hair-growth industry to the tune of $3.6 billion a year. But the only thing they are buying is the promise of slower hair loss – not actual hair growth – along with a “small risk of serious side effects.” Imagine what will happen when someone actually comes up with a way to grow back hair!  Imagine the suffering it will prevent!

Second, it’s just another indication that, despite what we try to teach our children about not judging a book by its cover, voters are so superficial that appearance wins out over competence.

The real message here is not about the hair but about the suffering. In the article they write about how the problem has a history all the way back to early Rome and Biblical times. But I doubt that common men, who were struggling to stay alive every day, were very worried about their hairiness or lack thereof. For most of recorded history the standard of living was relatively stagnant for ordinary people.  From generation to generation they had to struggle just to stay alive, to keep their family fed, clothed, sheltered and safe from bandits and raiders. The few technological advances prior to the industrial revolution primarily affected the wealthy.  Today things have changed and the regular working stiff has the luxury of “suffering” from hair loss – facing the “enormous emotional burden.”

Additionally, today, in contrast to the near-stagnant pace of progress in earlier times, changes take place from generation to generation at an ever-accelerating rate. I recently stopped in to see an 81-year-old friend. When he was born, a few Americans could buy a bulky, 12-inch black and white television for the equivalent of nearly $8,000 in today’s money. It was another 20 years before half the families in America owned a single television. Today almost no one is without access to at least one TV, to do without is considered a sacrifice. Last month the World Health Organization suggested that “gaming addiction” should be classified as a mental health condition. From TVs being exceedingly rare to gaming addiction within one lifetime, and that’s just one example.

Last week I stopped at Subway and took along the change container I keep in my car. When I paid, the woman behind the counter asked the young man she was working with if he recognized it. He hadn’t a clue. It was a plastic container used for 35mm (camera) film. Kids laugh at grandparents when they get confused using an iPhone; grandparents laugh at kids when they don’t comprehend terms like “dial the phone,” “roll down the car window” or even “floppy disk.”  That's the rate of change we have to keep up with in a single generation.

As a result of all this rapid change, the definition of suffering has been watered down to the point where losing one’s hair, not having air conditioning on a hot day, giving up TV for a week, back acne, sinus problems or not having therapy dogs and teddy bears at final exam time are considered suffering. It makes people weep, protest or spend billions of dollars – all for lack of perspective.

(Mis)understanding Insurance

As I was reading the transcript of Scott Pelley’s 60 Minutes interview with House Speaker Paul Ryan, I noticed that he seemed to be not interested in hard news or in-depth information so much as he was interested in tripping up the Speaker, trying to put him in a position of disagreeing with his new boss, making one or the other of them look bad, or uncovering something potentially embarrassing.

He asked how often they speak on the phone and who initiates the conversation.  The answers were almost daily and both.  No news there.  How does he answer the phone?  “He doesn’t say, ‘This is the president-elect?’”  No.  “Have you told him being president is not being CEO of the United States, that the Congress is going to have a say?”  Instead of asking how the two got together after a contentious election, he asked, “Who apologized to whom?”  It’s clear by now that Pelley has no liking or respect for Trump, thinks he is a bully and a racist, and is searching for evidence to back up his views.  Better yet, he would like to get Ryan to agree on any point that might make it seem he is of the same opinion.

The silliness and self-serving finally comes to a close, and Pelley asks a number of questions about policy issues.  Soon he gets to the details about possible changes to Obamacare and the sniping continues.  At one point Pelley says “And women will pay the same as men? That didn’t used to be the case.”  This is a question designed to bait an answer that will incite outrage.  He is trying to get some admission of bias against women, showing in the process that he does not understand how insurance works and counts on the fact that many Americans don’t either.

Insurance usually works by assessing the risk and charging premiums accordingly.  If you have homeowner’s insurance you expect a discount for having a working alarm system.  Teen drivers are generally less safe than more experienced drivers, but boys have more accidents than girls.  Auto insurance for a young man 16-25 is higher.  There is no outrage there.  It’s not unusual for companies to charge smokers more for their health insurance benefits.  Owners of cars with higher repair costs pay higher premiums.  Older cars are cheaper to insure due to the lower replacement cost.  Those who don’t drive as many miles sometimes pay lower premiums.  Costs of auto and homeowners insurance vary by what part of the country and by the size of the town or city you live in.  And since women outlive men and take fewer chances, they pay less for life insurance.  Older people pay more, as do those who participate in dangerous hobbies like skydiving or juggling chainsaws.

This all happens without a stir.  Everyone seems to understand that certain classes of people are at a higher risk for either the frequency or the size of insurance claims.  Hence they should pay more.  The ones in the classes with higher premiums don’t like it, but they pay.  So why would people be upset that some women, especially those of childbearing age, might have to pay more?  That “used to be the case” and it didn’t have anything to do with prejudice or victimization.

Apparently the government and some group of citizens have decided that now charging women more for health insurance can be justified only by prejudice.  Everyone must purchase the same insurance for the same cost or there will be an uproar.  And Scott Pelley and others in his profession are more than happy to incite and later fan the flames of that uproar, because it makes their job of reporting the news so much easier.  Their job is not to inform or to educate; their job is to attract views and clicks.  Nothing does that better than a good demonstration or protest, even those grounded in fundamental misunderstanding.

(I have often said that the problems with healthcare costs cannot be solved with insurance changes, but that’s for another discussion.)

Driving Home The Need For Responsibility

An ongoing theme of these posts has been that when we don’t take responsibility, we give up some freedom.  Another recent example makes that very clear.

According to this Washington Post report New York may be the first state to pass a law allowing police to access a cell phone after an accident to determine if the driver was texting at the time of the accident.  The proposal is “causing concern among some civil liberties groups, who say that it could interfere with people's cellphone privacy.”  The state counters with the argument that the so-called Textalizer, which takes its name from the Breathalyzer, does not capture the content of a message but “only determines if the phone was in use at the time of the accident.”

“The bill includes language that gives law enforcement ‘implied consent’ to having one's phone tested at the scene of the crash.”  (Note:  driving is a privilege, not a right, so the government can add reasonable conditions – like being 16 years old.)

A group advocating methods to reduce distracted driving has promoted this idea.  The need for this additional measure then, arises from an increase in distracted driving, especially related to cell phone use.  Several years ago this was not an issue, but as more people (not necessarily you and me) abused the responsibility to pay attention while driving, we all are subject to what some consider another intrusive practice.

But the continual erosion of freedom is not the primary reason to act responsibly.  Research presented in the Harvard Business Review bears this out.

 “When we fail, we internally pinpoint what the authors [of the study] call an ‘attribution of responsibility – namely taking personal ownership for the outcome or blaming it on external circumstances.’ If you take personal ownership, their research shows you’re much more likely to learn from and work harder after that mistake.”  Those test subjects who put the blame on outside factors were less likely to succeed in a follow-up exercise.

In other words, those who play the victim don’t even take the time to figure out what went wrong and take corrective action.  They just assume everything is beyond their control.  It’s easier to turn power (and along with that some of their choices) over to someone else and not have to deal with it or admit failure.  That’s when the politicians come along promising to “fight for you,” which of course only leads to more regulation and less freedom.  Not acting responsibly becomes a vicious cycle.