Justice Thomas coined an interesting phrase: "telescopic philanthropy," to refer to someone who cares more about people far away than issues at home. Here is the link to the speech:
http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publish/printer_080529Thomas_commencement.shtml
I always like quoting Justice Thomas directly because of the criticism he receives from the media. When the media paints a man as polarizing, it's important to look at what he says, rather than what is said about him.
"And if an epitaph be my story, I'd have a short one ready for my own: I had a lover's quarrel with the world." -- Robert Frost
Thursday, June 26, 2008
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
East and West: Singaporean-American Blogger Sued for Defamation
I lived in Singapore for a little while and loved it, so I took a special interest in today's San Jose Mercury News, which had a story about the Singaporean government suing a blogger for defamation. The blog can be found here:
http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Most of the blog has a sensationalist style, but there are two well-written paragraphs where the blogger successfully articulates his position:
This whole matter boils down to one question. A right to free speech and expression. It appears to me as well as anyone watching this case that what the Singapore authorities are trying to say is this. Do not criticize the Singapore judiciary no matter what. Even if the Singapore judiciary were to say, two and two is ten, the Moon is made of cheese and Christmas Day does not fall on December 25th, we have to keep our mouths shut and go about our business as if nothing happened! What the Singapore authorities are trying to say, if I correctly understand it, is that human beings are disallowed from criticizing the judiciary, period! They are above criticism. They are beyond question. They are invincible. Infallible. They are the best, and need no criticism from mortal human beings! That they are Gods.
I, as a human being cannot understand this to be correct, surely. I was born a Singaporean. I lived my life here in Singapore. I am a former Singapore politician. The welfare of Singapore and Singaporeans should be more my concern than that of Central West Africa! Surely. Criticism is necessary for any organization to improve, to get better. Without criticism, there is stagnation. And with stagnation there is no hope. This has always been the case. What I had done and said was for the welfare of Singapore, a country that I care for and a country in which I have a stake, even if I am now an American.
Whenever someone criticizes Singapore, it is usually from a myopic Western perspective. Most people in Western societies equate democracy and free speech with success or, if they are more condescending, with civilization. But being democratic is no surefire avenue to express the majority's will, as we saw with Al Gore's contested election and as we see now with the current war in Iraq. Also, restricting free speech is not an uncommon tactic--Germany bans swastikas, and France just prosecuted Brigitte Bardot for inciting violence against Muslims. As such, the Western media seems to unfairly single out Singapore without providing appropriate context and its different path of Eastern values, which emphasizes cooperation over independence.
It may seem contradictory for a libertarian to defend Singapore when it sues its own citizens for criticizing the government, but Singapore is a unique country, and its actions must be taken in the context of its size and broad-based economic success. First, Singapore is small and has very few natural resources. Its area consists of about 300 square miles--to give you an idea of how small that is, Rhode Island, the smallest state in the U.S., is about 1500 sq miles. Second, Singapore is very diverse--when I was there, I saw Chinese Buddhists, Israeli Jews, Malaysian Muslims, white Christians, and Indian Hindus. As a result of being diverse, both religiously and ethnically, Singapore takes special care to regulate speech to make all groups feel welcome and to minimize chances of a racial riot (a risk it is particularly sensitive to after its 1964 riots). In short, Singapore needs to project an image of harmony to ensure its status as Southeast Asia's banking hub. In exchange for good behavior, Singapore offers its citizens subsidized housing (HDB flats), safety (no drugs are allowed in the country, and gun-related deaths are rare--for a general overview, see http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf), and low unemployment (on 1/30/08, the reported unemployment rate was 1.6%).
In some ways, Singapore seems like the polar opposite of the United States. It does not have a 2nd Amendment, freedom of speech, large land mass, and an adversarial system of checks and balances. But it works. In smaller countries, a government can successfully micromanage its population to create stability. For example, the U.S. government and the Fed Reserve just pumped a lot of money into the American economy, but it is having little effect and will probably cause inflation. In a smaller population, a government can pump in a smaller amount of money into its economy and positively affect its entire population, while avoiding massive inflation due to lower population numbers. In simple terms, Singapore can use very little money to build a few good housing projects and solve homelessness, while America needs to do a lot more and spend a lot more to solve homelessness. In addition, with a smaller population, inflation stops more quickly after benefits or monies are given because the monies are expended in a faster and more predictable fashion, whereas in a larger population, granting extensive benefits may lead to prolonged periods of inflation as the money works its way more slowly and more unpredictably through the economy.
This opportunity to effectively micromanage means that smaller countries can be successfully socialist if most of its citizens cooperate and are willing to delegate. While that sounds hostile to anyone who has read Thomas Jefferson, Singapore's system continues to attract major outside investment while providing a high quality of life to almost all of its citizens. Homelessness, a high prison population, murders, poorly performing schools, and large pockets of unemployment are virtually non-existent in Singapore. Singapore's infrastructure is also better developed than most European countries and most American cities--its MRT system is as good as D.C.'s Metro or Germany's U-Bahn. By most tangible measures, Singapore is one of the most successful countries in the world, if not the most successful.
Thus, given the differences in scale, it is unfair to compare small, cooperative, and cohesive Singapore to large, adversarial, and idealistic America. At the end of the day, there ought to be room for a country that gives its citizens free/subsidized housing, safety, and cheap, delicious food, while minimizing unemployment. These are tangible, quantifiable items that Singapore works hard to bring to its people. To borrow from Walt Whitman, Singapore is not large, and it does not contain multitudes. It offers a simple, direct deal--be cooperative, and you will be safe, not homeless, and live in a stable, diverse and rich country. America's deal is different, and not necessarily a superior deal for all citizens. America is unique because it is vast and tries to live up to very high standards in an adversarial system that prizes independence. When it works, it's wonderful--we get to claim Google, we attract the best and brightest from all over the world, and we have freedom and creativity that lead to timeless films and books. But our system is unpredictable--when it doesn't work, we get Watts Riots, a costly war in Iraq, people imprisioned in Guantanamo Bay for six years without due process, many desperately poor people or people one paycheck away from being homeless, and shootings of innocent citizens, like Vahid Hosseini (San Jose, CA) and Alia Ansari (Fremont, CA). Singapore offers a different flavor for people who like to cooperate and don't mind making some intangible sacrifices.
On a personal note, when I was in Singapore, I felt safer there than here in the United States. Singapore has no history of physical violence or prolonged physical detention against its own citizens or residents. America's government locked up its own residents (Japanese and German internment camps); killed dissidents (the Black Panthers' Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, Kent State); blacklisted "subversives" (McCarthyism); and enslaved minorities. With the exception of suing its "subversives" in court--still an open process--Singapore has no history that requires it to change its cooperative structure. Given its stunning economic success, Singapore should be given the benefit of the doubt, at least for now.
http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/
Most of the blog has a sensationalist style, but there are two well-written paragraphs where the blogger successfully articulates his position:
This whole matter boils down to one question. A right to free speech and expression. It appears to me as well as anyone watching this case that what the Singapore authorities are trying to say is this. Do not criticize the Singapore judiciary no matter what. Even if the Singapore judiciary were to say, two and two is ten, the Moon is made of cheese and Christmas Day does not fall on December 25th, we have to keep our mouths shut and go about our business as if nothing happened! What the Singapore authorities are trying to say, if I correctly understand it, is that human beings are disallowed from criticizing the judiciary, period! They are above criticism. They are beyond question. They are invincible. Infallible. They are the best, and need no criticism from mortal human beings! That they are Gods.
I, as a human being cannot understand this to be correct, surely. I was born a Singaporean. I lived my life here in Singapore. I am a former Singapore politician. The welfare of Singapore and Singaporeans should be more my concern than that of Central West Africa! Surely. Criticism is necessary for any organization to improve, to get better. Without criticism, there is stagnation. And with stagnation there is no hope. This has always been the case. What I had done and said was for the welfare of Singapore, a country that I care for and a country in which I have a stake, even if I am now an American.
Whenever someone criticizes Singapore, it is usually from a myopic Western perspective. Most people in Western societies equate democracy and free speech with success or, if they are more condescending, with civilization. But being democratic is no surefire avenue to express the majority's will, as we saw with Al Gore's contested election and as we see now with the current war in Iraq. Also, restricting free speech is not an uncommon tactic--Germany bans swastikas, and France just prosecuted Brigitte Bardot for inciting violence against Muslims. As such, the Western media seems to unfairly single out Singapore without providing appropriate context and its different path of Eastern values, which emphasizes cooperation over independence.
It may seem contradictory for a libertarian to defend Singapore when it sues its own citizens for criticizing the government, but Singapore is a unique country, and its actions must be taken in the context of its size and broad-based economic success. First, Singapore is small and has very few natural resources. Its area consists of about 300 square miles--to give you an idea of how small that is, Rhode Island, the smallest state in the U.S., is about 1500 sq miles. Second, Singapore is very diverse--when I was there, I saw Chinese Buddhists, Israeli Jews, Malaysian Muslims, white Christians, and Indian Hindus. As a result of being diverse, both religiously and ethnically, Singapore takes special care to regulate speech to make all groups feel welcome and to minimize chances of a racial riot (a risk it is particularly sensitive to after its 1964 riots). In short, Singapore needs to project an image of harmony to ensure its status as Southeast Asia's banking hub. In exchange for good behavior, Singapore offers its citizens subsidized housing (HDB flats), safety (no drugs are allowed in the country, and gun-related deaths are rare--for a general overview, see http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf), and low unemployment (on 1/30/08, the reported unemployment rate was 1.6%).
In some ways, Singapore seems like the polar opposite of the United States. It does not have a 2nd Amendment, freedom of speech, large land mass, and an adversarial system of checks and balances. But it works. In smaller countries, a government can successfully micromanage its population to create stability. For example, the U.S. government and the Fed Reserve just pumped a lot of money into the American economy, but it is having little effect and will probably cause inflation. In a smaller population, a government can pump in a smaller amount of money into its economy and positively affect its entire population, while avoiding massive inflation due to lower population numbers. In simple terms, Singapore can use very little money to build a few good housing projects and solve homelessness, while America needs to do a lot more and spend a lot more to solve homelessness. In addition, with a smaller population, inflation stops more quickly after benefits or monies are given because the monies are expended in a faster and more predictable fashion, whereas in a larger population, granting extensive benefits may lead to prolonged periods of inflation as the money works its way more slowly and more unpredictably through the economy.
This opportunity to effectively micromanage means that smaller countries can be successfully socialist if most of its citizens cooperate and are willing to delegate. While that sounds hostile to anyone who has read Thomas Jefferson, Singapore's system continues to attract major outside investment while providing a high quality of life to almost all of its citizens. Homelessness, a high prison population, murders, poorly performing schools, and large pockets of unemployment are virtually non-existent in Singapore. Singapore's infrastructure is also better developed than most European countries and most American cities--its MRT system is as good as D.C.'s Metro or Germany's U-Bahn. By most tangible measures, Singapore is one of the most successful countries in the world, if not the most successful.
Thus, given the differences in scale, it is unfair to compare small, cooperative, and cohesive Singapore to large, adversarial, and idealistic America. At the end of the day, there ought to be room for a country that gives its citizens free/subsidized housing, safety, and cheap, delicious food, while minimizing unemployment. These are tangible, quantifiable items that Singapore works hard to bring to its people. To borrow from Walt Whitman, Singapore is not large, and it does not contain multitudes. It offers a simple, direct deal--be cooperative, and you will be safe, not homeless, and live in a stable, diverse and rich country. America's deal is different, and not necessarily a superior deal for all citizens. America is unique because it is vast and tries to live up to very high standards in an adversarial system that prizes independence. When it works, it's wonderful--we get to claim Google, we attract the best and brightest from all over the world, and we have freedom and creativity that lead to timeless films and books. But our system is unpredictable--when it doesn't work, we get Watts Riots, a costly war in Iraq, people imprisioned in Guantanamo Bay for six years without due process, many desperately poor people or people one paycheck away from being homeless, and shootings of innocent citizens, like Vahid Hosseini (San Jose, CA) and Alia Ansari (Fremont, CA). Singapore offers a different flavor for people who like to cooperate and don't mind making some intangible sacrifices.
On a personal note, when I was in Singapore, I felt safer there than here in the United States. Singapore has no history of physical violence or prolonged physical detention against its own citizens or residents. America's government locked up its own residents (Japanese and German internment camps); killed dissidents (the Black Panthers' Fred Hampton and Mark Clark, Kent State); blacklisted "subversives" (McCarthyism); and enslaved minorities. With the exception of suing its "subversives" in court--still an open process--Singapore has no history that requires it to change its cooperative structure. Given its stunning economic success, Singapore should be given the benefit of the doubt, at least for now.
Stocks Update
The WSJ mentioned Colonial BancGroup (CNB) in an article today titled, "Small Banks Get Tempting." Author Peter Eavis said that CNB was an "intriguing prospect," but it would probably take two to three quarters (9 months) before the stock would rebound. He mentioned that the bank's charter had changed from federal to state, "allowing it to replace the Office of the Comptroller." I don't think anyone quite understands that all banks are regulated by the Office of the Comptroller if their funds are FDIC-insured. Either I'm wrong, or financial journalists aren't doing their homework.
Pinnacle Entertainment (PNK) took quite a beating today and yesterday. I only have 100 shares, and won't add anymore just yet, but I am surprised the stock is down this much. As Mr. Eavis might say, PNK looks like an "intriguing prospect" at these prices.
Open Positions
CNB = -2.51
EQ = -2.15
EWM = -3.61
GE = -6.00
IF = -8.04
PFE = -7.84
PNK = -13.72
Average of "Open Positions": losing/negative average of 6.27%
Closed Positions:
Held more than seven days but less than one year:
PPS = -2.8
WYE = +2.4%
Held less than 7 days:
ICE (+2.0%), MMM (0.5%), MRK (0.1%), PFE (1.3%), SCUR (15%) (Overall record in this category is a 3.78% average gain)
Daytrades:
PFE = +0.5%
Average of "Closed Positions" sub-categories, except for Daytrades: up/positive 2.09%
Combined Total Averages, excluding Daytrades: losing/negative 4.18%
Compare to S&P 500: losing/negative 5.15%
[from May 30, 2008 (1385.67) to June 24, 2008 (1314.29)]
The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only and does not constitute investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence.
Pinnacle Entertainment (PNK) took quite a beating today and yesterday. I only have 100 shares, and won't add anymore just yet, but I am surprised the stock is down this much. As Mr. Eavis might say, PNK looks like an "intriguing prospect" at these prices.
Open Positions
CNB = -2.51
EQ = -2.15
EWM = -3.61
GE = -6.00
IF = -8.04
PFE = -7.84
PNK = -13.72
Average of "Open Positions": losing/negative average of 6.27%
Closed Positions:
Held more than seven days but less than one year:
PPS = -2.8
WYE = +2.4%
Held less than 7 days:
ICE (+2.0%), MMM (0.5%), MRK (0.1%), PFE (1.3%), SCUR (15%) (Overall record in this category is a 3.78% average gain)
Daytrades:
PFE = +0.5%
Average of "Closed Positions" sub-categories, except for Daytrades: up/positive 2.09%
Combined Total Averages, excluding Daytrades: losing/negative 4.18%
Compare to S&P 500: losing/negative 5.15%
[from May 30, 2008 (1385.67) to June 24, 2008 (1314.29)]
The information on this site is provided for discussion purposes only and does not constitute investing recommendations. Under no circumstances does this information represent a recommendation to buy or sell securities or make any kind of an investment. You are responsible for your own due diligence.
Reno Automobile Museum, Part 2
The cars above are just beautiful. Chrysler and Mercedes seemed to have the best designs. The Ford Edsel didn't look that bad--certainly not bad enough to be associated with failure. One advertising campaign was especially interesting--to demonstrate the toughness of a car, a company drove it off a cliff, and even after it bounced several times on rocks, it was still drivable. The older cars all looked heavier and larger than modern cars.
What stuck out the most was the car companies' willingness to experiment with designs and engineering (I saw a V-16 engine). Today, I like to say, without pleasure, that Ford and GM are slowly going bankrupt. GM is probably worth nothing without GMAC, its car loan unit. In fact, GM is probably closer to a bank than a car company. Meanwhile, Toyota innovates with hybrids and other models and does a better job of managing production and employee costs. It's sad to see the state of American car companies today and compare them with how robust they were back in the day. Part of me thinks that Kirk Kerkorian isn't buying Ford shares because he thinks there's an imminent turnaround--he's buying a large minority stake out of pure nostalgia.
Reno: National Automobile Museum, Part 1
The original R.V. (above)
Reno, Nevada, has lots to see and do. You can walk along Truckee River, relax at the Siena Casino spa, grab a classic grilled cheese sandwich off the main drag at the Peppermill, or just hit the slots at the Silver Legacy. You can also see some very old cars, and gain an insight into why car companies today aren't doing very well. In the old days, cars looked better, and American car companies were not afraid to innovate. Here is the link to the Museum:
http://www.automuseum.org
Monday, June 23, 2008
More Random Thoughts: Is it Amoral to Pay Less?
My last posting on coffee, tips, and massages surprisingly garnered the most comments so far. A masseuse read my posting about the small business in downtown San Jose and said she was "appalled" at the post, and it was amoral to pay the masseuses so little because they could not afford a reasonable living making minimum wage + tips. To read the full exchange, go back one post and click on "comments." I put my response below. It is slightly unnerving to me to hear people say that offering cheaper products or services is somehow amoral.
___________
Rebecca,
Thanks for your post. I hope your school/business is going well.
Like you said, people always want bargains. They will complain about Walmart and "exploitation" in front of their friends, but still clip coupons and go after the best deal possible.
I am not sure that paying less for a product is "amoral." Most poor(er) people charge less for certain services, because they work out of their home, or just don't have the resources to offer a more professional-looking experience. At the end of the day, Walmart and other cost-conscious companies have lifted many people out of poverty abroad, and going for the cheaper option usually means some poor person, somewhere, gets to have a job.
You are correct that when a consumer chooses a cheaper product of service, someone down the chain makes less money. But this person needs to differentiate his or her business or go extinct, and that "creative destruction" is one major source of innovation and promotes superior customer service. In any scenario, someone gets hurt. Consumers who choose to pay more help support the upper-middle-class lifestyle but hurt the chance of lifting someone out of poverty, even if it's not in the U.S. Liberals oftentimes don't understand that by advocating more laws and more expensive products, they hurt the poor and help the rich.
Most important, a little shop in San Jose won't hurt your massage business. Your business appears to be more upscale, so you won't be after the same clients that the downtown San Jose shop attracts. Therefore, both stores can co-exist. In the Bay Area, there are several upscale spas in Saratoga and Los Gatos offering the same basic services as the cheaper shops in downtown San Jose. But some people won't be seen in the "lower-price" shop, because they equate low-cost with being "lower-class." For example, I have a good friend who spends $1000/wk on clothing. When I suggested she try a Vietnamese-immigrant-owned place for her pedicures so she could save 80 dollars on what looks to me to be the exact same service, she scoffed. She wouldn't be seen dead in that place and said it might not be clean. In any business, you have to decide who you want as your customers and then proceed based on that goal. There is nothing "amoral" about buying services from lower-income groups or immigrants who offer cheaper services with very little reduced quality.
___________
Rebecca,
Thanks for your post. I hope your school/business is going well.
Like you said, people always want bargains. They will complain about Walmart and "exploitation" in front of their friends, but still clip coupons and go after the best deal possible.
I am not sure that paying less for a product is "amoral." Most poor(er) people charge less for certain services, because they work out of their home, or just don't have the resources to offer a more professional-looking experience. At the end of the day, Walmart and other cost-conscious companies have lifted many people out of poverty abroad, and going for the cheaper option usually means some poor person, somewhere, gets to have a job.
You are correct that when a consumer chooses a cheaper product of service, someone down the chain makes less money. But this person needs to differentiate his or her business or go extinct, and that "creative destruction" is one major source of innovation and promotes superior customer service. In any scenario, someone gets hurt. Consumers who choose to pay more help support the upper-middle-class lifestyle but hurt the chance of lifting someone out of poverty, even if it's not in the U.S. Liberals oftentimes don't understand that by advocating more laws and more expensive products, they hurt the poor and help the rich.
Most important, a little shop in San Jose won't hurt your massage business. Your business appears to be more upscale, so you won't be after the same clients that the downtown San Jose shop attracts. Therefore, both stores can co-exist. In the Bay Area, there are several upscale spas in Saratoga and Los Gatos offering the same basic services as the cheaper shops in downtown San Jose. But some people won't be seen in the "lower-price" shop, because they equate low-cost with being "lower-class." For example, I have a good friend who spends $1000/wk on clothing. When I suggested she try a Vietnamese-immigrant-owned place for her pedicures so she could save 80 dollars on what looks to me to be the exact same service, she scoffed. She wouldn't be seen dead in that place and said it might not be clean. In any business, you have to decide who you want as your customers and then proceed based on that goal. There is nothing "amoral" about buying services from lower-income groups or immigrants who offer cheaper services with very little reduced quality.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Random Thoughts: Coffee and Tips
I had an interesting week. I stayed up late writing motions on a case where a public company is suing some ex-employees. The company is "pink-listed," or traded OTC (over the counter), at three cents a share. The company claims that my clients took their trade secrets. California case law requires "trade secrets" to have independent economic value, and this fabless semiconductor company's IC chips appear antiquated. (They have plenty of money to pay lawyers rather than R&D, apparently.) One line in my brief compared their product to the Gutenberg Press and how it couldn't be a "trade secret," even if a company makes its employees sign an agreement promising not to disclose the Gutenberg Press. The other side had no response to that line in their reply brief. As scintillating as all this might sound, the lawsuit is one example of how the big guys can crush or bankrupt small guys because it's usually more cost-effective for individuals to settle even frivolous cases than to pay for all the motions and depositions that come with any case (only 5 to 10% of civil cases actually get to trial, at least in Santa Clara County). In this case, my clients have decided to fight the good fight...and I guess I'll see how much debt I have to write off this year. Anyway, we'll get back to how my case is relevant to the economy.
First, I discovered this great foot massage place in San Jose, along Story Road (Little Vietnam/Saigon area). I talked with the owner, and we discussed how different cities deal with massage places. The vice squad of the local PD always vets these businesses--I represented some acupunture places before, so I am somewhat familiar with the licensing process. This San Jose owner has a great operation. He partnered with an educated Chinese immigrant who's been in California for many years. I am guessing she's the hard worker and connections, and he's the capital (he was perusing some bylaws as we spoke). They hire grads from massage schools in S.F. and L.A., probably pay them minimum wage, and the workers get to keep their tips. All of the workers are professional and appear to be Chinese immigrants. Customers are around each other in a relaxing, open area. Massages are only 20 dollars for an hour, an incredible bargain (massages are usually $40 to $60 an hour here, but those massages allow full body contact).
The massuers and massueses rely on tips in this business structure. After my massage, I gave my massuese a 4 dollar tip. I don't usually carry cash and use my credit cards to rack up points (paying off the balance each month). Realizing a 4 dollar tip was not enough, I asked my friend to provide me with two more dollars, thinking a 30% tip was sufficient. But in between receiving the additional dollars and giving it to my masseuese, I saw that she was clearly upset over receiving just a four dollars (20%) tip. When she received the 6 dollars, she appeared to be fine, or at least not insulted. Two thoughts came to mind:
1. There might be some relationship between how much it costs to buy one cup of coffee and tips. Coffee is ubiqitous and an everyday product. Everyone, rich, poor and even homeless, expects to be able to buy it. Pre-Starbucks, a cup of joe cost about a buck. In those days, a 2 dollar tip when the underlying service cost 20 dollars or less (e.g., bellhops, a few drinks) was sufficient. Now, even when the underlying cost for a service is 20 dollars or less, people expect more than just a few dollars as a tip. Psychologically, times have changed. A reasonable minimum tip might be calculated by how much it costs to buy two cups of coffee (in this case, around six dollars). Coffee prices might be a good indicator of inflation.
2. There's a greater lesson here than just how much to tip. A service economy relies on workers getting adequate tips, which shifts salary costs from businesses to customers. I did a service this week, too. I didn't get paid a tip, but I got paid $190/hr (a discounted rate, and I "no-charged" several hours also). The American economy has catapulted certain service professions from tip status into non-tip status. The non-tip jobs are usually the better ones, because the lack of tip means that the full price of the service is included, and the price is less elastic due to the greater bargaining power of the seller. I had to wonder, as I received my massage--who was contributing more to the economy and wellness? Me, with my motions and oppositions in a frivolous case filed by a three-cents-a-share company, or the masseuse?
I came to the conclusion that American society has arbitrarily vaulted my job into the non-tip column because theoretically, my job requires the use of other positions--paralegal, court clerk, judge, process server, and even a law school professor. The masseuse, while offering a more benign skill, gets paid less in the American economy because her job does not create other jobs. That appears to be the benchmark for getting paid in a capitalist system--make sure your job theoretically requires several other jobs, or is interlinked with a diverse set of jobs.
In reality, my job, at least this week, was less important or useful than the masseuse's. That's the problem with having a service-based economy--it arbitrarily makes certain positions better than others not based on output, but on expected total consumption. Other countries appear to be positioning their economies on output, i.e. paying persons who produce things more money. (Neither the masseuse nor I produce anything in the classical sense.) So in China, the jobs go to people who produce clothing, shoes, motorcycles, etc. People can make a living producing things. In India, the jobs go to people who produce generic drugs, steel, and computer products. Of course, all countries have a service and manufacturing sector, but until recently, most service-based jobs paid similarly, regardless of status. Doctors in Russia many years ago did not make much money. Lawyers certainly don't make as much money anywhere else in the world as they can in America. In Singapore, I interned in a firm's corporate legal division--almost all the lawyers in that division were women making about 45,000 U.S. annually. Looking at the American economy in this way, it appears to be based on pure air, just like our money post-Bretton Woods. Meanwhile, other countries are basing their service jobs on selling products to Americans. I don't have the time now or the mental energy to think these ideas through, but there is something dangerous lurking in the shadows (and no, I did not deliberately try to make that sound as ambiguous as possible).
I am off to Reno in eight hours for a short three day trip. I got a great deal on Southwest Airlines. The key to getting their cheaper internet fares seems to be buying a flight at least two weeks in advance. Speaking of Reno, there are two public companies in Reno that might be decent investments: 1) IGT, in which I own shares; and 2) SRP, or Sierra Pacific Resources.
SRP sells electricity and also natural gas. Once I get more funds available in my retirement accounts, I will look more closely at SRP and its dividend.
IGT sells gaming systems, better known as slot machines or electronic games, to casinos and Indian reservations. It's got a wide moat. No one is going to risk going with a newer, cheaper competitor in this area.
Due to my trip, I won't be posting anything new until at least June 24, 2008. I will update readers on the NVDIA shareholder meeting when I return. Good night, and wish me luck.
First, I discovered this great foot massage place in San Jose, along Story Road (Little Vietnam/Saigon area). I talked with the owner, and we discussed how different cities deal with massage places. The vice squad of the local PD always vets these businesses--I represented some acupunture places before, so I am somewhat familiar with the licensing process. This San Jose owner has a great operation. He partnered with an educated Chinese immigrant who's been in California for many years. I am guessing she's the hard worker and connections, and he's the capital (he was perusing some bylaws as we spoke). They hire grads from massage schools in S.F. and L.A., probably pay them minimum wage, and the workers get to keep their tips. All of the workers are professional and appear to be Chinese immigrants. Customers are around each other in a relaxing, open area. Massages are only 20 dollars for an hour, an incredible bargain (massages are usually $40 to $60 an hour here, but those massages allow full body contact).
The massuers and massueses rely on tips in this business structure. After my massage, I gave my massuese a 4 dollar tip. I don't usually carry cash and use my credit cards to rack up points (paying off the balance each month). Realizing a 4 dollar tip was not enough, I asked my friend to provide me with two more dollars, thinking a 30% tip was sufficient. But in between receiving the additional dollars and giving it to my masseuese, I saw that she was clearly upset over receiving just a four dollars (20%) tip. When she received the 6 dollars, she appeared to be fine, or at least not insulted. Two thoughts came to mind:
1. There might be some relationship between how much it costs to buy one cup of coffee and tips. Coffee is ubiqitous and an everyday product. Everyone, rich, poor and even homeless, expects to be able to buy it. Pre-Starbucks, a cup of joe cost about a buck. In those days, a 2 dollar tip when the underlying service cost 20 dollars or less (e.g., bellhops, a few drinks) was sufficient. Now, even when the underlying cost for a service is 20 dollars or less, people expect more than just a few dollars as a tip. Psychologically, times have changed. A reasonable minimum tip might be calculated by how much it costs to buy two cups of coffee (in this case, around six dollars). Coffee prices might be a good indicator of inflation.
2. There's a greater lesson here than just how much to tip. A service economy relies on workers getting adequate tips, which shifts salary costs from businesses to customers. I did a service this week, too. I didn't get paid a tip, but I got paid $190/hr (a discounted rate, and I "no-charged" several hours also). The American economy has catapulted certain service professions from tip status into non-tip status. The non-tip jobs are usually the better ones, because the lack of tip means that the full price of the service is included, and the price is less elastic due to the greater bargaining power of the seller. I had to wonder, as I received my massage--who was contributing more to the economy and wellness? Me, with my motions and oppositions in a frivolous case filed by a three-cents-a-share company, or the masseuse?
I came to the conclusion that American society has arbitrarily vaulted my job into the non-tip column because theoretically, my job requires the use of other positions--paralegal, court clerk, judge, process server, and even a law school professor. The masseuse, while offering a more benign skill, gets paid less in the American economy because her job does not create other jobs. That appears to be the benchmark for getting paid in a capitalist system--make sure your job theoretically requires several other jobs, or is interlinked with a diverse set of jobs.
In reality, my job, at least this week, was less important or useful than the masseuse's. That's the problem with having a service-based economy--it arbitrarily makes certain positions better than others not based on output, but on expected total consumption. Other countries appear to be positioning their economies on output, i.e. paying persons who produce things more money. (Neither the masseuse nor I produce anything in the classical sense.) So in China, the jobs go to people who produce clothing, shoes, motorcycles, etc. People can make a living producing things. In India, the jobs go to people who produce generic drugs, steel, and computer products. Of course, all countries have a service and manufacturing sector, but until recently, most service-based jobs paid similarly, regardless of status. Doctors in Russia many years ago did not make much money. Lawyers certainly don't make as much money anywhere else in the world as they can in America. In Singapore, I interned in a firm's corporate legal division--almost all the lawyers in that division were women making about 45,000 U.S. annually. Looking at the American economy in this way, it appears to be based on pure air, just like our money post-Bretton Woods. Meanwhile, other countries are basing their service jobs on selling products to Americans. I don't have the time now or the mental energy to think these ideas through, but there is something dangerous lurking in the shadows (and no, I did not deliberately try to make that sound as ambiguous as possible).
I am off to Reno in eight hours for a short three day trip. I got a great deal on Southwest Airlines. The key to getting their cheaper internet fares seems to be buying a flight at least two weeks in advance. Speaking of Reno, there are two public companies in Reno that might be decent investments: 1) IGT, in which I own shares; and 2) SRP, or Sierra Pacific Resources.
SRP sells electricity and also natural gas. Once I get more funds available in my retirement accounts, I will look more closely at SRP and its dividend.
IGT sells gaming systems, better known as slot machines or electronic games, to casinos and Indian reservations. It's got a wide moat. No one is going to risk going with a newer, cheaper competitor in this area.
Due to my trip, I won't be posting anything new until at least June 24, 2008. I will update readers on the NVDIA shareholder meeting when I return. Good night, and wish me luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)