Learning from people who piss you off

In a post a couple of weeks ago ("How not to negotiate"), I mentioned a potential vendor who had pissed me off. As I noted in a later comment on that post, in retrospect I had handled our interaction poorly. I knew the right negotiating tack (as I've used it successfully before) and took the wrong one instead. The right response when asked by a potential vendor what your budget is is to say, as I have on previous occasions,

I prefer not to specify a budget ahead of time, so as not to prejudice your estimate.

Instead, for some reason I took the bait and made a low ball offer. In a post yesterday on her Atlantic blog ("The Naive Negotiator"), Megan McCardle explained the problem with low ball offers:

There is a zone of possible agreement (known to those who study this sort of thing as the ZOPA). You can't negotiate your way out of that zone no matter where you start. Nor does starting from a more aggressive bargaining point always mean that you will do better in the negotiation. It can often mean you do worse, because you poison the process.

My mother used to sell real estate, and you'd see this a lot with stupid buyers, particularly men using newbie agents: they'd submit an unrealistically low bid on the notion that this would force the buyer to bargain down. What it actually did was convince the buyer that it was a waste of time to negotiate with you, and/or make them angry.

Quip of the Day

The Louisiana attorney general subpoenaed ACORN for documents related to an embezzlement case, according to an article this morning on Nola.com. The article quoted ACORN board member Vanessa Gueringer on the subpoena:

"I believe it is another lie, another witch hunt, " Gueringer said.

In the comment thread of Megan McCardle's post about this, a commenter named Thorley Winston quipped:

People afraid of witch hunts should probably refrain from flying around on broomsticks.

Dean Kamen on Health Care

From an interview with the prolific inventor in Popular Mechanics (HT: Megan McCardle):

Popular Mechanics: Yet health-care costs do keep rising. Is there a point at which we simply can't afford the most advanced treatments?

Kamen: Diabetes alone, if you include all of the long-term, insidious consequences of a lifetime of diabetes, is responsible for about 30 percent of the federal reimbursement for healthcare. Taking care of the diabetic every day is a small piece of it. But what if tomorrow we could wipe out diabetes, suddenly everybody takes a pill and it cures the people that have it, and it inoculates the other people so they'll never have it? Forgetting what a great life that would give people and their families, you take care of 30 percent of what now we project as this insurmountable problem of healthcare, which they project is going to kill us.

Well, it would kill us if we look at the 30-year actuarial data based on our 19th century confidence in technology. But I'm sure in 1920 if you asked actuaries to say what percentage of our GDP are we going to spend taking care of people with polio, they'd say: "They get polio, it goes to their lungs, they sit in iron lung machines, they could live a whole lifetime with three people watching over them. We can't support them all."

But what did it cost to deal with everybody with polio? Oh, $2 apiece. We gave them the Salk vaccine. But in the 1920s Salk wasn't around yet.

I'm with Kamen on the importance of market incentives in spurring innovation in health care, but I don't know if the Polio vaccine was the best example for him to use here: Salk refused to patent it¹. Nevertheless, even if he had patented it, the cost of the vaccine could still have been far less than the cost of keeping people alive in iron lungs, so Kamen's point still stands. He could have used a better example though to support his point. Back to the interview:

PM: In other words, R&D spending now may save money later?

Kamen: If you project forward these horrific costs of treating everybody and you want to assume we are not going to respond to that by making the therapies better, simpler and cheaper and in some cases completely wiping out the [diseases], well you know what? We might actually get to that situation—if we stop investing in technology, if we stop believing that the future ought to be better than the past.

If we want to sit here and keep assuming we should be fighting, and that we should be striving to spend less of our intellectual power and our money on great achievements to come in healthcare—that we should be fighting to make it a smaller piece of our economy—I want to know what you want to make a bigger piece of our economy. What do you want to see the future look like?

I think this debate shows a fundamental lack of vision, a lack of confidence, a lack of understanding of what's possible.

Coincidentally, Tim Ferriss blogged about Kamen today, and in the comment thread I mentioned that Kamen was featured on an episode of the Sundance Channel series Iconoclasts (he was paired with Isabella Rossellini). Kamen is a fascinating character, which made this a fascinating episode to watch. Here is a brief clip from that episode.

The photo above of Dean Kamen accompanied the Popular Mechanics article.

¹If Salk's research weren't funded by the University of Pittsburgh and National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis -- if, say, he had been the founder of a start-up pharma company -- he would have had to patent the vaccine in order to recoup his and his investors' investment in the drug's development.

Pet Peeve

Blogging is, I know, an informal medium, but would it be too much to expect someone with an English degree from an Ivy League university to write better than Megan McCardle does on her Atlantic blog? Here's just one of her offenses today (from this post):

But of course, if Hilzoy [a prominent, pseudonymous liberal blogger] were in the Senate, she wouldn't be Hilzoy; she'd be someone who had just spent some of the best years of their life putting themself into a position to get into the Senate.

How hard would it have been to substitute her and herself for "their" and "themself" (which isn't even a word)?

Sloppy writing often correlates with sloppy thinking.

The Arc of a Typical Blog

From a post by John Scalzi last month (Hat Tip: commenter "Nate" on Megan McCardle's Atlantic blog):

The vast majority of blogs, in fact, have nothing but the following three posts:

Post One: “Here’s my blog! This is where I’m going to share all my thoughts about life, the universe and everything! It’s going to be great and I can’t wait to tell you all what I’m thinking about everything!”

Post Two: “Hey, sorry I haven’t updated in a while — life’s been crazy. But I’ll be back soon.”

Post Three: “Here’s a picture of my cat.”

And then it’s done.

Nothing wrong with this — writing on a regular basis is work, even when you’re ostensibly doing it for fun, and it shouldn’t be a surprise not a lot of people really want to work that hard. Also and perhaps more to the point, I suspect many people who start blogging realize fairly quickly that they either don’t like sharing all their thoughts to the world, or that their thoughts, while interesting to them, appear fairly banal once they’re typed out, and it’s better just not to post them for the sake of posting them. And there’s nothing wrong with this either, and indeed the blogger is to be congratulated of the bit of personal insight. Most blogs are abandoned because they should be.

Are Inflation Fears Overdone?

So say (separately) the editors of the Financial Times and New York Times columnist/Princeton economist Paul Krugman.

In an editorial yesterday ("US not in bondage") the FT editors wrote,

Shock, horror: US government bond rates are jumping. Soon, goes the story, long-term interest rates will leap, the Federal Reserve will monetise, inflation will soar and civilisation will end. Actually, no. What is happening is precisely the normalisation the Fed has sought. The government is not off the fiscal hook. But it does have at least some time.

[...]

What has happened, quite simply, is normalisation of inflation expectations

[...]

Does this mean nobody needs to worry? Certainly not. Desirable normalisation could yet become a panic over the massive prospective bond issuance. Now that the worst of the panic has passed, the administration and Congress need to agree a credible plan for elimination of the huge structural fiscal deficits. As the Congressional Budget Office’s forecasts demonstrate, President Barack Obama’s budget proposal is not such a plan: it leaves deficits of between 4 and 6 per cent of gross domestic product as far as the eye can see. This will need to change soon. But, right now, everybody needs to keep calm. Normalisation is a big success, not a danger.

In his New York Times column yesterday ("The Big Inflation Scare"), Dr. Krugman made a similar point: Inflation isn't a near-term concern, but we do

[H]ave a long-run budget problem, and we need to start laying the groundwork for a long-run solution.

Krugman also brought up the example of Japan, which has borrowed massively in recent years without driving up its interest rates or inflation. What many Americans fear -- our country losing its triple-A credit rating and having its government debt exceed 100% of its GDP -- has already happened in Japan (The CIA World Factbook says Japan's public debt exceeds 170% of its GDP). And yet, Japan's borrowing costs are significantly lower than ours. For example, according to Bloomberg, the current yield on 10-year U.S. Treasuries is 3.46%, versus 1.49% on the 10-year Japanese government bond.

I've wondered for some time about why Japan has so much lower borrowing costs than the U.S., despite having a lower sovereign debt rating and a much higher ratio of debt to GDP, but I haven't heard a convincing explanation yet. When I asked The Atlantic's Megan McCardle about this, she said the answer was Japan's Postal Savings System, but according to Wikipedia, prior to the beginning of its privatization in 2007, that system only held about 20% of Japan's government debt. Perhaps someone will leave a more convincing answer in the comment thread below.

The Economics of Blogging

A Wall Street Journal column last week by the Democratic Political consultant Mark Penn, "America's Newest Profession: Bloggers for Hire", alleged that 452,000 Americans made their living by blogging. One professional blogger, Megan McCardle, explained on her Atlantic blog why this estimate was "addled" ("Blogging for Big Bucks"):

The estimates of professional bloggers seem wildly inflated--if you help update the company blog once a week as part of your marketing internship, you are not a paid professional blogger. And the numbers they themselves link to tell a much different tale from the article: most blogs bring in pitiful amounts of money for their owners.

This seems to follow the model of Mark Penn's book: find some bizarre number and mindlessly extrapolate it to an absurd conclusion. Yet I still don't understand why common sense did not keep him from publishing this article. Anecdotal evidence would suggest that almost all of us know many more computer programmers than professional bloggers--this is true of me even though I am a professional blogger, as are half my friends. Or he might have called some professional bloggers, who would have (sorrowfully) told him that no one is making $75K a year off of 100,000 pageviews a month, that being about how much traffic I pulled when I was starting up in 2002. Or, hell, he might have noticed that in the very BLS survey so nicely transformed into a table for his article, there is not entry for "blogger"--but that if you add up every writer, reporter, editor, PR person, technical writer, or "media and communications worker, other", there are only 499,890. Since Penn says that there are 452,000 paid bloggers, this implies that 9 out of every 10 communications workers are professional bloggers.

There may be one guy with some incredible niche--or moronic employer--making a ton of money with a modestely well-trafficked blog. But the plural of "anecdote" is not data.

Believe me, I'd love to think that blogging is a surefire path to riches and job security--but I'm afraid all most people get out of their blogs is the satisfaction of a job well done.

Coincidentally, a few days after reading Megan's post, I discovered the newest blog by Daniel Wahl, The Nearby Pen ("helps you live a happier and more productive life by sharing good art, reviewing good books, and explaining good thoughts") which included a post ("AdSense Pennies Make Dollars") that unintentionally supported Megan's point about the paucity of bloggers who make significant money from their blogs. In his post, Daniel mentioned the revenues he had generated from his three blogs over the last few months:

Not only will I not be making loads of money with Adsense, but at this stage of the game I should not expect to.

So why use Adsense? Quite simply, because--as the title suggests--pennies make dollars. Or to put it differently, a little bit of money adds up, even if little by little. And who knows, perhaps those pennies will grow faster with traffic at each site. In my view, it pays (at least a little) to learn more about how advertising on one's blog works while the blog is growing. I also think it is interesting. Here's the data for my first three months:

January...........4,291 page impressions...........$1.97 earned
February..........4,242 page impressions..........$3.62 earned
March.............4,411 page impressions..........$11.15 earned

This is no knock on Daniel -- I'm sure if I were using Google AdSense my ad revenues would be as low or lower (which is one reason why I never signed up for them) -- but it underlines Megan's point about why Mark Penn's estimates seem dubious. As for Daniel's point that pennies make dollars: sure, but time equals money, and, for most of us, there are much more remunerative uses of our time than blogging. So why do it? I mentioned one reason in my first post: to attract a few commenters I could get feedback from and bounce ideas off of. Another reason is the same reason most callers call talk radio stations, or letter writers write letters to the editor of newspapers: to express opinions. I have gotten a couple of ideas from writing this blog (or, more accurately, from observing the responses to a handful of posts), and one or two of those ideas could lead to a business opportunity down the road, so, in that sense, this blogging might end up being profitable as a form of brainstorming, but that remains to be seen.

"Mad Ireland"

That was the headline of Megan McCardle's post on her Atlantic blog in response to Paul Krugman's New York Times column today about Ireland, "Erin Go Broke". In his column, Dr. Krugman suggested that Ireland got into trouble (it's economy is projected to contract by as much as 10% this year) because it was too free market oriented, noting that Ireland was ranked #3, behind only Hong Kong and Singapore, on the Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom. What Krugman didn't mention is that Australia, which was ranked #4 on that Index last year (and is ranked #3, switching places with Ireland, on the 2009 Index of Economic Freedom) is weathering the economic storm much better than Ireland or the United States. Australia is in a recession now, but its economy is projected to contract by less than 1% this year. So perhaps having a free market economy wasn't the proximate cause of Ireland's economic troubles.

Megan's post in response to Krugman's column isn't worth quoting here -- the best part of it was the headline, in response to which I wrote,

Hey, is that an allusion to Auden in the headline (from his poem "In Memory of W.B. Yeats"*)? If so, nice: the sign of a tasteful and expensive education (to borrow Neal Stephenson's phrase).

[...]

*I'm thinking of the great line "Mad Ireland hurt you into poetry", which I think of whenever I flip the channels and see Celtic Woman on a local PBS station. I wonder if "Mad Ireland" hurt them into doing their 50-piece Enya covers.

The photo above, of what apparently are the stars of Celtic Woman, is from the Celtic Woman website. Note that the neither the photo nor the name "Celtic Woman" gives a sense of the scope of the enterprise that is Celtic Woman. It appears to be comprised of dozens of Celtic women, along with dozens of Celtic men.

"John Gapper Brings the Crazy"

Add the FT's John Gapper to Megan McCardle's crazy contingent¹ for questioning the political influence Goldman Sachs wields via its alumni in government. In his column today ("Don’t set Goldman Sachs free, Mr Geithner") Gapper writes:

Goldman wants to escape the burdens of political control while retaining the benefits of public backing. That does not seem like a good deal for the taxpayer.

There are obvious political risks in letting Goldman roam free while other banks remain bound by the troubled asset relief programme (Tarp). It would exacerbate suspicions that Goldman, with its long history of producing Treasury secretaries, gets special treatment. These were not soothed by the decision to pay off all Goldman’s credit default swaps with American International Group, now controlled by the state.

The bigger danger is the long-term precedent it would set. Goldman wants to bolt before Congress or Mr Geithner, who still operates as a one-man band while the nomination process for his senior staff meanders along, has the chance to change fundamentally how it operates.

So far, it has faced mildly irritating limits on how much it can pay staff but nothing on the scale of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act, which imposed structural reforms on Wall Street after the excesses of the Jazz Age. It would never acknowledge it, but its political campaign is going just fine.

[...]

[Goldman CEO Lloyd] Blankfein criticised Wall Street’s past pay practices as “self-serving and greedy” but Goldman is still putting aside 50 per cent of revenues – $4.7bn in the first quarter – for the bonus pool. Inside, it may feel “humbled”, as Mr Blankfein said, but it looks like the same old bank.

The same, that is, except for one thing – Goldman is now backed by the US government. That is why Mr Blankfein wants to repay the Tarp money. Once it has repaid the $10bn, Goldman hopes to go back to paying employees what it wants, buying and selling more or less what it fancies and operating as before.

He is peddling an illusion. Even if Goldman repays the equity, the world has changed irrevocably because it is a government-backed enterprise.

The illustration above accompanied Gapper's column in the FT.



¹New readers can see this previous post for an explanation: "David Weidner Brings the Crazy".

A Canadian's Comment on Health Care

Interesting comment from Tom West on a health care post on Megan McCardle's Atlantic blog:

Boy, the more I read, the guiltier I feel about living in Canada. We sort of have the ideal position.

We're large enough that most of us don't see the direct comparison with the American system, (which is nice, but three times the price). America operates as our second tier which is close enough that the rich aren't upset about going there for expensive health-care, but far enough away that the even the moderately well-to-do don't look at it as a serious alternative.

We're insulated enough so that when the doctors say "there's nothing we can do", you can believe it without feeling guilty about not destroying your family's finances to pay for some sliver of hope. We benefit from the American innovations when they're finally brought down to a cost that our bureaucrats consider acceptable¹. The doctors don't have to cater to ridiculous demands for unnecessary tests, and have no incentive to give them.

We have a Corolla health-care system as opposed to the American Lexus, but it does a decent job for most of us, and ends up being an element of society that binds most Canadians together rather than becomes a source of resentment and distrust. (Tommy Douglas who introduced our health-care system was recently selected as Greatest Canadian ever by viewing audiences.)

That said, sadly for those few Americans that look at our health-care system as a model, I'm afraid it wouldn't work for you. You'd be missing the one ingredient that helps it work as well as it does... You.

¹Tom uses the passive voice here, but Canadian bureaucrats often actively lower drug costs by imposing price controls.

"David Weidner Brings the Crazy"

Somehow I doubt we'll see a post with that headline on Megan McCardle's Atlantic blog in response to Weidner's MarketWatch column today, which questions the influence Goldman Sachs has exerted on the government's response to the financial crisis ("Government Sachs is in control"¹). Last month Megan used a similar headline when a Member of Congress raised similar questions about Goldman Sachs ("Maxine Waters brings the crazy"). In that post, Megan embedded the video below, of Rep. Waters questioning Treasury Secretary Geithner, and opined that,

She seems to get all of her questions off of the fringier conspiracy sites.

Some commenters dismissed Waters because of her previous comments, or because she flubbed some basic terminology in this video (e.g., referring to Geithner's deputy -- a Goldman Sachs alumnus -- as his "CEO"), but as I wrote in the comment thread of Megan's post at the time,

Maxine Waters is neither crazy nor stupid, as some here seem to think. She and her family members seem to have done quite well in business dealings trading off of her position²: she has to have some savvy to have been able to do that and not get in trouble with the law (at least so far). Since her family's success in business seems to have been from rent-seeking, she probably assumes that's how big business works too, which may explain her apparent contempt for corporate CEOs. In the case of Goldman Sachs, she may not be entirely off base. It's certainly not unreasonable to ask questions about the ubiquity of Goldman Sachs alumni in influential positions, and how that may have influenced government policies that, so far, have been very good for Goldman Sachs.

¹In his column, Weidner wrote,

Since the fall of Bear Stearns Cos. a little more than a year ago, Goldman has taken more than $20 billion in taxpayer cash through loans, payments and backstops.

[...]

In the last year, Goldman has benefited from Paulson's selective bailouts, a fortuitously timed ban on short selling, a liberal interpretation of bank holding company rules and soon, an easily gamed auction of distressed securities run by the government.

A conspiracy theorist might think this run of fortune has something to do with the former Goldman executives having influential roles in the Treasury Department.

²See this previous post for some examples, "Peering Under the TARP: Foul Waters"

Former Australian PM Blames Financial Crisis on Geithner

Today's Sydney Morning Herald reports comments made by former Australian Prime Minister Paul Keating about Tim Geithner at a recent speech in Sydney ("Obama's economic saviour savaged as Keating lets rip"). Excerpts:

When Barack Obama announced his champion to rescue the world from economic ruin, it was the first time most Americans had ever heard the name Tim Geithner.

The initial impression was good. The stockmarket surged and the pundits swooned.

[...]

If anyone in the US media had thought to ask a former Australian prime minister for his assessment, they would have heard a different view. And they would not have been so surprised at Geithner's performance since.

In a speech to a closed gathering at the Lowy Institute in Sydney on Thursday, Paul Keating gave a starkly different account of Geithner's record in handling the Asian crisis: "Tim Geithner was the Treasury line officer who wrote the IMF [International Monetary Fund] program for Indonesia in 1997-98, which was to apply current account solutions to a capital account crisis."

In other words, Geithner fundamentally misdiagnosed the problem. And his misdiagnosis led to a dreadfully wrong prescription.

[...]

Geithner thought Asia's problem was the same as the ones that had shattered Latin America in the 1980s and Mexico in 1994, a classic current account crisis.

[...]

But the Asian crisis was completely different.

[...]

But Geithner, through his influence on the IMF, imposed the same cure the IMF had imposed on Latin America and Mexico. It was the wrong cure. Indeed, it only aggravated the problem.

Keating continued: "[former Indonesian leader] Soeharto's government delivered 21 years of 7 per cent compound growth. It takes a gigantic fool to mess that up. But the IMF messed it up. The end result was the biggest fall in GDP in the 20th century. That dubious distinction went to Indonesia. And, of course, Soeharto lost power."

Exactly who was the "gigantic fool"? It was, obviously, the man who wrote the program, Geithner, although Keating is prepared to put the then managing director of the IMF, the Frenchman Michel Camdessus, in the same category.

Worse, Keating argued, Geithner's misjudgment had done terminal damage to the credibility of the IMF, with seismic geoeconomic consequences: "The IMF is the gun that can't shoot straight. They've been making a mess of things for the last 20-odd years, and the greatest mess they made was in east Asia in 1997-98, so much so that no east Asian state will put its head in the IMF noose."

China, in particular, drew hard conclusions from the IMF's mishandling of the Asian crisis. It decided that it would never allow itself to be dependent on the IMF, or the US, or the West generally, for its international solvency. Instead, it would build the biggest war chest the world had ever seen.

[...]

"These reserves are so large at $US2 trillion as to equal $US2000 for every Chinese person, and when your consider that the average income of Chinese people is $US4000 to $US5000, it's 50 per cent of their annual income. It's a huge thing for a developing country to not spend its wealth on its own development."

[...]

Keating went on to argue that, by frightening the Chinese into building their vast $US2 trillion foreign reserves, Geithner was responsible for the build-up of tremendous imbalance in the world financial system. This imbalance, in turn, according to Keating, contributed to the global financial crisis which has since devastated the world economy.

Hat tip to a couple of commenters in the comment thread of a post ("Should Geithner Go?") on Megan McCardle's Atlantic blog.

The photo above, of Tim Geithner, is from the Affordable Housing Institute.

"The Management Myth"

In a couple of posts Monday on her Atlantic blog, Megan Mcardle lamented that the skills of mortgage bond traders and structured finance associates might not translate to the job opportunities that might be created by an economic stimulus package. Those sentiments reminded me of a post Megan wrote in November, "Right to Work" (scroll about half way down that page to find it). In that post, by way of demonstrating her empathy for auto workers that would need to be laid off in a restructuring of the domestic automakers, Megan wrote about how the recession of 2001 dashed her hopes of becoming a management consultant. She described having an job offer in hand from a management consulting firm after getting her University of Chicago MBA in June of that year, only to have the offer rescinded shortly after 9/11:

For the next eighteen months, I struggled to find a job, in the teeth of a recession that kicked MBAs especially hard.

[...]

I remember going to see Avenue Q on a date, and writhing in humiliation, thinking that my date must be identifying me with the aimless failures on stage. I was 29 years old, and living at home. I had money--I always managed to work. But as far as I could tell, I had no future.

When I finally did get a job, with The Economist, it paid about a third of what I'd been expecting as a consultant. I had about a thousand dollars in loan payments, and of course, I had to live in New York, where my job was.

I'll pause briefly here to note, for those unfamiliar with New York, that, like most major cities, it is served by a vast network of trains and buses which convey those who live more cheaply elsewhere to their jobs in the city. These workers are known as "commuters". I'll note also that Avenue Q¹ was mildly clever and original for Broadway musical, though it wasn't as good as you might have expected it to be, given the hype. Back to Megan:

For the first time in my life, I understood what Victorian novelists meant when they described someone as "shabby". Over the years since I'd had a steady income, my clothes had stretched out of shape, ripped, become stained, gone out of style. I couldn't afford new ones. And I wasn't one of those whizzy heroines who can make over her own clothes. Instead, I frumped around in clothes that never looked quite right, and felt the way my clothes looked.

Re-reading that November post from Megan jarred my memory about an entertainingly skeptical essay on the profession of management consulting by Matthew Stewart in the June 2006 Atlantic magazine, "The Management Myth". With that circuitous set up out of the way, below are the first few paragraphs of Stewart's essay.

During the seven years that I worked as a management consultant, I spent a lot of time trying to look older than I was. I became pretty good at furrowing my brow and putting on somber expressions. Those who saw through my disguise assumed I made up for my youth with a fabulous education in management. They were wrong about that. I don’t have an M.B.A. I have a doctoral degree in philosophy—nineteenth-century German philosophy, to be precise. Before I took a job telling managers of large corporations things that they arguably should have known already, my work experience was limited to part-time gigs tutoring surly undergraduates in the ways of Hegel and Nietzsche and to a handful of summer jobs, mostly in the less appetizing ends of the fast-food industry.

The strange thing about my utter lack of education in management was that it didn’t seem to matter. As a principal and founding partner of a consulting firm that eventually grew to 600 employees, I interviewed, hired, and worked alongside hundreds of business-school graduates, and the impression I formed of the M.B.A. experience was that it involved taking two years out of your life and going deeply into debt, all for the sake of learning how to keep a straight face while using phrases like “out-of-the-box thinking,” “win-win situation,” and “core competencies.” When it came to picking teammates, I generally held out higher hopes for those individuals who had used their university years to learn about something other than business administration.

After I left the consulting business, in a reversal of the usual order of things, I decided to check out the management literature. Partly, I wanted to “process” my own experience and find out what I had missed in skipping business school. Partly, I had a lot of time on my hands. As I plowed through tomes on competitive strategy, business process re-engineering, and the like, not once did I catch myself thinking, Damn! If only I had known this sooner! Instead, I found myself thinking things I never thought I’d think, like, I’d rather be reading Heidegger! It was a disturbing experience. It thickened the mystery around the question that had nagged me from the start of my business career: Why does management education exist?

Stewart starts back with Frederick Taylor's "Scientific Management" experiments with Bethlehem Steel at the turn of the 20th Century in his attempt to answer that question. The rest of his essay is worth reading.


¹As I wrote that sentence, I remembered a silly gratuitous anti-Bush lyric from the show, which I assumed at the time was an ad lib. It turns out it wasn't, and now the writers of the show are looking for a replacement. From the show's website:

It's of the most-loved lyrics in AVENUE Q. But starting January 20th,
"GEORGE BUSH IS ONLY FOR NOW" must be replaced, and WE NEED YOUR HELP!

Submit your idea for a replacement lyric for "GEORGE BUSH" -- and you could win a bunch of cool AVENUE Q stuff, including a revised script that includes YOUR LYRIC!

"Great Moments in Landlord/Tenant Relations"

A post by Megan McCardle on her Atlantic blog about her D.C. rental market travails prompted this comment from commenter "TallDave":

Pity you're not in southern Wisconsin. I'd gladly rent you a beautiful little 1900 sq ft townhouse I've been advertising for a couple months -- and, of course, you'd get my special libertarian discount.

Instead, I'll just share a "Great Moments in Landlord/Tenant Relations" story I had from a college tax teacher. A friend of her husband's had a nonpaying tenant (an old woman) in an Eastern state where it was very hard to evict people (had to go to court several times, pay a lot of money). After six months of nonpayment, he went to the tenant and told her "Look, I will give you $2,000 to move out." Her reply? "No way, if I move I'll have to start paying rent."

So the landlord is at a bar, telling this story, and there was a guy there who was due to report to prison in a week. He wanted some prison money, and so he offered to get the woman moved out for half what the landlord would have paid the woman, $1000. The landlord agrees (they make no terms as to methods, of course). So the guy breaks into her apartment, tells her she better move, and breaks her arm to prove he's serious; she moves out in terror, he pockets a grand, and the landlord gets a paying tenant.

Is this a classic failure of government regulation, or what?

Does Warren Buffett's Secretary Have a Higher Effective Tax Rate than Him?

On her Atlantic blog ("Tax talk"), Megan McCardle writes,

And [University of Chicago Economics Professor and erstwhile Obama economic adviser Austan] Goolsbee justly points out that under the current system, Warren Buffet's secretary has a higher average tax rate than he does.

To be precise, Megan writes "average" tax rate, but since the effective tax rate represents the percentage of one's income that one actually pays in taxes, I assume she meant effective tax rate¹. Does Buffett's secretary (I've also heard the claim made about his housekeeper) have a higher effective tax rate than him? I'm skeptical about this.

According to these data from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, effective federal tax rates in America (taking into account payroll taxes as well) are highly progressive. In 2005, the lowest quintile of earners had an average effective federal tax rate of 4.3%, and the highest quintile had an average effective federal tax rate of 25.5% (the top 1% paid 31.2%). It's possible that the ultra-wealthy such as Buffett have lower effective tax rates than the top 1%, because nearly all of the income of the ultra-wealthy comes from capital gains, but I doubt the ultra-wealthy have lower effective tax rates than housekeepers and secretaries. I'd be more inclined to believe that Buffett's physician has a higher effective tax rate than him than that his housekeeper does. Perhaps Buffett will make public his and his secretary's and housekeeper's tax returns so others can verify this.

In the meantime, the issue of Buffett's taxes versus his secretary's taxes raises a couple of meta-questions:

- Does it make sense to make tax policy based on a small number of outliers such as America's multi-billionaires?

- Would proposed changes in tax policy materially affect these billionaires?

The answer to both questions appears to be "no". Multi-billionaires have far more control over how and when they get paid -- and how and when they get taxed -- than any other tax payers. I doubt Buffett's taxes will be materially affected by any tax code changes made in Washington next year.

The real impact of any changes in tax policies will fall mostly on the "working rich": the surgeon, high-end salesman, or other worker making $250k-$500k+. There will be little if any impact on the Buffetts of this country. Buffett, I would think, knows this, but he is politically savvy enough to position this as an issue of the super-wealthy such as himself paying their 'fair share'. Whether Buffett really thinks he doesn't pay enough in taxes is another question. Two data points suggest otherwise.

The first is Buffett's occasional boasting in his annual letters to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders about how much Berkshire (of which Buffett remains the largest individual shareholder) pays in federal taxes. This, for example, is from his 2006 Letter:

Berkshire will pay about $4.4 billion in federal income tax on its 2006 earnings. In its last fiscal year the U.S. Government spent $2.6 trillion, or about $7 billion per day. Thus, for more than half of one day, Berkshire picked up the tab for all federal expenditures, ranging from Social Security and Medicare payments to the cost of our armed services. Had there been only 600 taxpayers like Berkshire, no one else in America would have needed to pay any federal income or payroll taxes.

The second data point that suggests Buffett isn't really worried that he pays too little in taxes is the method in which he makes his generous donations to the Gates Foundation. Currently, Buffett donates shares of Berkshire Hathaway to the foundation. If Buffett were truly concerned that he didn't pay enough in taxes, he could easily remedy this by selling his Berkshire Hathaway shares first, paying the capital gains taxes on the sales, and then donating the net cash proceeds to the Gates Foundation. Presumably, Buffett donates the shares instead because he feels he pays enough in taxes already, or because he feels that the Gates Foundation will spend his money more wisely than the federal government will. Whatever the reason, avoiding the capital gains tax by donating the shares is inconsistent with Buffett's lamentations about not paying enough in taxes.


¹Update: The phrase "average tax rate" is a synonym for the phrase "effective tax rate". Thanks to commenter Jason for indirectly pointing that out.