Showing posts with label Wehr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wehr. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Creeping Anarchy

I think it was my good friend Justin who recently pointed out to me that one Anarchist viewpoint is that societies are largely self-organizing -- and government is a sham. There's something interesting in this argument, though I am not yet ready to accept it in total. It's an empirical statement, and as such it's either right or wrong.



I DO think that our would be overlords are generally helpless to impose unpopular policies, thanks to our democratic institutions. And no matter how you poll it, healthcare reform is hugely unpopular.This recent AP News blurb documents the likely shedding of still more features from the planned healthcare legislation package. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't that mean there is no meaningful healthcare reform left in either of the bills? Sure there's that thing about how the states should maybe do something about the lack of competition in the market for health insurance, but that doesn't count, especially compared against what was planned but has since gone missing: the public option, a requirement that large companies provide health insurance, regulation of insurance, elimination of the tax break on employer provided plans, meaningful provision of aid for the poor, any means for containing costs, and funding.

I think this all has to do with the fact that,

"...rules are hard to change (because they) reflect the values that are embedded in a culture."

Sound wisdom.

Sunday, January 3, 2010

Emergence

Like my good friend Justin, I'm looking for some advice on grad school. I'm currently in progress toward a Master's of Engineering in Systems Engineering, and I'm thoroughly enjoying the program. I want to pursue a PhD next, but I'm not sure what kind of program I want to enter or where I'd like to go to school.

My goals in pursuing a PhD are as follows, though not necessarily in this order:

  • Learn and grow and enjoy my studies.
  • Learn how to do, and actually do, meaningful research. 
  • Meet more people who are both intellectual and practical - people who care about results as well as ideas.
  • Increase my career choices - this is not about money, it's about being able to do work that is meaningful and significant.

    My primary interests are in the concept of emergence (how organization emerges from complexity), and in how to engineer emergence. That's very broad with applications ranging from public policy, to international development, to organizational management, to the design of transportation (or other) systems.

    My question is, which programs at which schools are most likely to help me achieve my goals, and allow me to study and do research relating to the engineering of emergence? The way I see it, there are many kinds of programs that touch this concept at least tangentially, and any of those might work for me as long as I was given a measure of freedom to emphasize my interest. And there are a few programs that either directly approach the topic of emergence (for example, the Systems Science program at Portland State University), or provide tools that are pertinent (economics, probability, etc.).

    Where I go to school matters for a lot of reasons, but most importantly because of the second two items on my bulleted list above. I want to work with high quality people and I want my degree to open doors for me. That said, there are some boundaries that I would like to stay within (though I'd consider going beyond them for the right program or the right school). Ideally I would like to stay in the western U.S., and I have a strong preference for the Pacific coast states. I'd also like to avoid the Los Angeles basin if at all possible (but I'd go there for the right program).

    What insights do you have into schools, programs, and faculty that might be useful to me? What cautions can you provide about whether or not pursuing a PhD is likely to help me achieve my goals?

    Thursday, December 24, 2009

    The Future of Labor

    In 1850 about 50% of Americans made their living as farmers or farm laborers. In 2000 it was about 1%. Increases in productivity can dramatically decrease the demand for labor in a particular part of the economy. This is all for the best, but it is difficult for the displaced laborers.

    I haven't seen data to support it, but the conventional wisdom is that demand for unskilled labor is in steady decline. One story to illustrate this idea is that increased automation in factories eliminates unskilled positions, but may increase the number of skilled positions in the form of an expanded technical staff who develops and maintains the automation equipment. I think that story is at best an oversimplification of reality (e.g. increasing automation may mean that a factory doesn't eliminate jobs but trades skilled labor, like machinists, for unskilled labor in the form of machine operators who only need to push some buttons and measure parts), but even if it's accurate it doesn't tell us what's happening to the number of unskilled labor positions in the overall economy.

    Productivity increases in an industry lower the cost of production for that industry, meaning that society can spend less on that industry's products. That's why I spend a smaller percentage of my income on food than did my grandfather, and why fewer people are working on farms today than were in 1850. As we've gotten to be better at producing food we have saturated demand. The US produces more food than it knows how to consume. You can just as easily blame farm worker displacement on the 'low' demand for food as on high farm worker productivity.



    Interestingly, increases in farm worker productivity have lowered the costs of non-farm products as well, because all that displaced farm labor was freed up to be used to produce more valuable items like cars and houses. And now we're choking on too much supply of those items as well (due to increasing productivity), and workers are again being displaced.

    As Arnold Kling puts it:

    "...before you tell me that we are outsourcing to China, you should remember that (a) our manufacturing output has been increasing, even though the number of people working in that sector is declining; and (b) employment in China's manufacturing sector has been shrinking, also."

    So what is the future of labor, skilled and unskilled? Continual displacement from one industry to another, and a falling cost of necessities and luxuries. These are near certainties. But what else? Will the unskilled be left behind? The unskilled will always earn less and be less productive than the skilled, but I don't see any evidence that they are simply being left without work. I do see that average, middle class people are spending more of their income on paying someone else to care for their lawns, to service their cars, and to clean and repair their homes.

    One day cars will be rolling off of 'lights off' manufacturing lines, with only a handful of humans monitoring entire factories. I don't believe that we'll have high unemployment, or (more to the point) a human welfare crisis when that day arrives.

    Sunday, November 15, 2009

    Sunday Links

    Alex Tabarrok points to a man who paints himself invisible. (Marginal Revolution)


    And speaking of optical illusions, tilt-shift photography continues to fascinate me. (Instant Shift) 
    And here. (Wehr in the World)


    Scott Adams has a great post about turning advertising around. I really, really hope this takes the place of 'push' advertising. (Dilbert Blog)


    This scares me... (Philip Greenspun)


    All this discussion of health care spending makes now a really good time to think about the meaning of the large numbers that are being kicked around. (Wehr in the World)


    My family plays a game a lot like this. Never thought that it could be useful for more than entertainment. (Wehr in the World)


    In case you don't already know, NASA's Earth Observatory page has some striking photos and interesting information. Regularly updated. (Earth Observatory)

    Friday, November 6, 2009

    Organ Donor

    xkcd hits it hard, again.

    Awhile back I had a friendly online debate about the important parts of human experience that are difficult to rationalize. At one point I said:

    "I guess what I really believe is that "shoulds" are real, and that internal experience (unreliable as it is) is all we have to work with if we want to get to the "shoulds". I realize that many people won't see it this way, and I realize how many pitfalls there are on the path I've chosen (there's a long history of murder and evil justified by "shoulds"), but it's the best I can do. I'm willing to hear arguments for another way, but it will be hard for me to accept anything as sterile as: Just do what's in your own best interest, everything else is nonesense."


    To be perfectly honest, that discussion and some since then has eroded my faith in the 'shoulds', and even made me question the belief most central to my philosophy of life - that humans possess divine identity. (Please don't understand that too quickly. Just because I said 'divine', it doesn't necessarily follow that I'm talking about a relationship with God, Christian or otherwise.) This is demoralizing to me. I don't want it to be true that people disappear when they die.


    The poet said, "We live as dream - alone."

    Wednesday, November 4, 2009

    The Non-Obvious Path to Well-Being

    Hot shot researcher Justin Wehr applies what he knows about analyzing data to his everyday life. He is recording numerous variables, some that are driven and some that are drivers, and using regression to find non-obvious correlations.

    What a great way to optimize your efforts for maximum positive effect in your life! Want to know if the latest fad diet works better than the previous fad diet? You can! Want to figure out whether video game abuse is ruining your life? No problem!

    Of course there are also the added benefits of daily feedback. In organizational management there is a saying that 'you get what you measure'. Want to watch less TV each week? Keeping a daily record of your habits can raise your awareness, and help you form concrete mini-goals to achieve each day.

    To me, though, the really interesting part is the possibility of discovering a combination of small tweaks to your daily routines that could have a large impact on your sense of well-being. Who knows how much happier you could be?


     
    Copyright 2009 REASON POWER POLICY