Accelerating Generation Gap

I've been reading about the generation gap between baby boomers and Gen-Xers. I guess these two groups have had trouble playing nice in the workplace, because the boomers feel like the Gen-Xers are lazy and have inflated senses of entitlement. I imagine you could trace this story back through thousands of generations of time. One generation thinks they worked harder when they were young than they actually did, and so they expect the next generation to work equally as hard as the previous one did. You could make a strong argument that my grandfathers outworked me.

My paternal grandfather was a WWII veteran and a rail road worker. My maternal grandfather ran a large family farm. Those are hard jobs, and I'm basically a sissy compared to them. But what do you want me to do? Should I drop out of school and go work on a farm? I doubt my grandfather would give me that advice. He worked so very hard in one way, so that I could work very hard in another way.

This generation gap seems to be hitting attorneys pretty hard now. You have the guys who are now partners, who had to put in 70-80 hour work weeks for the first decade of their careers, and now they expect the new associates to do that. I doubt this is based on any rational criteria, but more on entitlement or greed. "If you have time, it should be spent here. That's what I did, so that's what you should do." What if you could use technology to be more efficient? What if a new associate can accomplish twice as much per hour as an associate 20 years ago (probably not, but just humor me) Do you think the firm would just say, "Great job, go home and relax!" It's not likely, because firms have a history of doing this, and these kids shouldn't get away with being lazy just because they work smart. Time is money.

This Generation Gap seems to run along a curve, rather than a straight progression. As technology increases, advances in technology happen more often. Eventually this has to end based on simple economics: if new stuff came out every day, nobody would ever buy anything.

However, the speed of advances is still increasing, and so the gaps between generations are getting wider.

This phenomenon is being offset by having more savvy old people :) Generation Xers (people born after the baby boom, but before 1981) are showing more resilience than the previous generation. Xers are trying to keep up with changing technology, and they are doing it better than their parents.

Nevertheless, I doubt they'll be able to keep up with their kids. The difference between my childhood and my parents childhood will be FAR smaller than the difference between my childhood and my kids' childhood.

Think about a family with parents in their 40s. They probably have a kid or two who is begging for a smart phone or some gaming system. Personally, I think it's absurd for anyone who can't drive or work to have exclusive access to a cell phone.. But is that because I didn't have access to a cell phone until I was an adult? Maybe so... but cell phones have changed drastically. Now you aren't only giving your child full access to a phone, but to an instant messaging system, a camera, a video camera, a video game player, a music player, and a fully functioning internet browser. What!? Why do my kids need to be able to text message all their friends, play tony hawk, listen to Chris Brown, and look up definitions to all the dirty words they hear--ALL on the bus ride home? This isn't the future I saw in back to the future II. I'm okay with my kids riding hover-boards. We are giving the most curious generation of all time unlimited access to insane amounts of information (some accurate and some not-so-accurate).

Next, we face the challenge of privacy. My parents used to have a phone in the basement, and the phone had a cord long enough to reach under the stairs. My sisters would go under the stairs for privacy to talk about silly things with their best friends. What kind of trouble could they have gotten into? It used to be that if your kids were home, they'd probably be okay unless they were hiding drugs under their bed. Now your kid could be reading mein kampf, or watching Nip Tuck at the dinner table. (Sorry FX fans, I don't mean to say Nip Tuck is as bad as mein kampf... not quite anyway :)

This new technology is also much different than the tech from 5 years ago. Now, due to internet access, these devices are constantly being updated. So it is very possible, that my children will obtain new technology, technology that I have never even heard of, on a daily basis. I can just imagine when hulu comes to the iphone... and parents will be like "You can watch any R rated movie you want? What do you mean you only have to check an "i'm 18" box???" Awesome... let's watch boondog saints or wedding crashers during recess.

Finally, we are getting to the point where we will be able to maintain a certain standard of living with less work. Old timers will reject the shorter work week out of precedent, young people will reject it out of greed. And what's left? Instead of taking advantage of our new efficiency by spending more time with our families and friends, we'll just cram in more work making more new technologies that will make us work even more per hour in the future.

So I will advocate for working more from home by using my technological devices. It will be possible for me to be a little league coach because I can do work from my phone if anything comes up during practice.

And the baby boomers and gen xers will probably call me lazy... I'm cool with that. I'll just pay it forward.

Ignorant Man Ponders Global Warming

I am smack dab in the middle of a massive writing project and I've hit a bit of a wall. Oddly enough, the best way for to get going again is to write a blog post or an email about nothing in particular. The lack of rigid rules and intense subject matter helps me clear my mind.

I usually blog about things I know something about like basic economics, or random life experiences. Today I want to write about something I know almost nothing about. I need your help to find good information about this subject, because I'd really like to know more about the answer. But I want to write about some of the problems i have with the whole issue.

First, lets review some of the Global Warming Highlights:

1: There's some sort of correlation between CO2 and temperature.

2: If temperatures change dramatically, local climates will change causing the established industries several problems. (i.e., Rapid global cooling might hurt orange farmers in Florida, while rapid warming would probably screw up Idaho farmers, but that's just my assumption)

3: If the ice caps melt something bad would happen. There doesn't seem to be a consensus about how much oceans would rise, but coastal areas and low elevation places like Miami, Hong Kong, and the Netherlands would have all sorts of problems and might be uninhabitable.

3.1: Also, Al Gore says that if the ice caps melt the earth would reflect less heat back into space, (less ice = less white reflectivity) so earth would get hotter faster.

4: Some commentators and celebrities say that our future is in serious jeopardy.

5: Other commentators say Global Warming is a hoax.

6: Global warming scares these people

I'm seriously confused. I can't find any really good article that lays down both sides of the argument. I've heard that CO2 causes temperatures to rise, I've heard rising temperature causes Co2 to rise. I've heard there is a scientific consensus about warming, I've heard that hundreds, maybe thousands of notable scientists don't think the verdict is in.

MY PROBLEM WITH THE GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS

On the one hand, I don't think you should just blindly believe Glenn, Rush, Sean or Mr. Savage when they say Global Warming is a hoax. I get it guys, the planet has cooled over the last 10 years. I also get that the Global Warming believers changed the name to global climate change when the cooling started.

These people, typically more conservative folks, are quick to point out that many scientists argue one of two things: 1) That the Globe may be warming or cooling, but Man isn't the cause. 2) That even if man were contributing to global warming, the contribution isn't significant enough for us to really reverse anything, and that our efforts won't have an environmental impact but may have other large costs.

Okay Gentlemen, go ahead and tell everyone that the debate isn't over, but you are seriously calling it a hoax? It seems like there are plenty of reputable scientists out there who say Global Climate Change is caused by man, and we should try to reverse it.

MY PROBLEMS WITH THE GLOBAL WARMING CLAIMANTS

1: So is the debate over? Is there a scientific consensus? Why would you claim that when there are opposing scientists? A vigorous debate brings attention to the issue. If you think you have such a strong case, have a national debate about it and get people involved. If the facts are on your side, people will follow you. Instead, you argue that the debate is over, and then nobody reads about the issue. It's kind of like Sports. If you are claiming that your team is the best and that another team has no chance, the best way to prove it is to play the other team and kick the crap out of them. Sure, you risk the chance of getting embarrassed, but if you are so confident then get on the field.

2: You really aren't accomplishing anything. Our conservation efforts are meager at best. The celebrities and all of the stupid green (which also means money) symbols on television aren't really swaying public opinion. The Global warming issue is fading a bit because of other major problems in the world and you'll never get cap and trade or kyoto passed if the public isn't behind it.

3: If you are really so scared, why can't you scare other people enough. Nobody seems to be moving off the coast because of global warming. The president doesn't even seem to be completely convinced about the urgency of climate change. Seriously, this is end of the world type stuff that some of you are claiming. If there was a known and impending nuclear threat, we'd be going all Jack Bauer on its eh ess ess.

4: Your strategies are stupid. Are you more concerned with saving the planet or being "right". You want to battle this? You should do it with economics not guilt. Figure out a way to make it cheaper to be "green" and you will make huge strides. Instead you try to get policies passed to increase the cost of being not-green. And if you can't make green products cheap, make them really awesome. Have Steve Jobs teach you how to design and market your products.

5: Some of your solutions seem to be dirty. Is it true that hybrid batteries are depleting natural resources and causing terrible disposal problems? Is it true that the "green" lightbulbs are toxic and cause pollution at disposal? Is it true that ethanol actually doesn't end up conserving energy and causes food shortages and higher food prices?

Anyway, I really want to know more about this. I would do anything for my baby, and if we're completely screwing over the future climate that she will live in (like we are economically) then I am happy to get involved. But it seems like there is a lack of good information out there.. all I can find is "Of course global warming is real, go live in a tent" :)

Anyone have any good sources for me to read?

The ridiculously high cost of college education

Disclaimer:

The statistical analysis I provide here is pretty rough. I understand that there are many different factors that I simply didn't take the time to consider. However, the numbers are correct, and I believe the information raises some interesting questions and concerns.

Methodology:

I am comparing the expenditures of several different Colleges and Universities. I'm not analyzing tuition costs, but the overall economic cost of these institutions. I gathered all of my information from the 2007 and 2008 annual reports for these institutions. I did not include any expenses for university hospitals, research, athletic programs, or student unions.

The Data:

Total Yearly Education Expenditures:

University of Utah: $1.256 BILLION

University of Kansas: $877 Million

Utah State University: $442 million

Utah Valley University: $167 Million

Southern Utah University: 85 Million

Dixie State College: 47 Million

Yearly Expenditures Per Student:

University of Utah: $43,928; For Instruction: $9,262 (% of Total: 21%)

University of Kansas: $29,161; For Instruction: $9,680 (33%)

Utah State Univ: $18,101; For Instruction: $4,715 (26%)

Southern Utah: $12,216; For Instruction: $3,367 (28%)

Dixie State: $10,831; For Instruction: $2,237 (21%)

Utah Valley: $6,684; For Instruction: $2,511 (38%)

State Funding Per Student:

Utah: $9,430

Kansas: $9,069

Utah State: $5,932

Southern Utah: $4,374

Dixie State: $3,038

Utah Valley: $2,023

Analysis:

First of all, it's really hard to determine the quality of an education. So many factors go into the evaluation: salary at graduation, overall learning experience, level of happiness, finding a career that matches your goals/personality, etc.

I went to Dixie State college, and I'm here to tell you that it wasn't a great education, but it got me into a good Law School, and I had a good job before that. I can't say how the education compares to the University of Utah, but I doubt the U of U is 4 times better than Dixie (UofU spends 4 times as much money per student)

Also, I recognize that the big universities have more graduate programs and that they cost a lot of money, but I have removed a lot of the graduate related expenses (i.e., research costs, medical clinic costs)(I removed 800 million in expenses at the UofU and still included grad students in the per student equation, double bonus for utah), and I have the numbers for several large Universities.

Next, I want to briefly talk about the law of diminishing returns. I'm no economics expert, but I have a basic understanding of this "law". Picture a house full of furniture that needs to be moved across the street. If one man was moving alone, it would take him a very long time, say 20 hours. If two men were working, it would be more than twice as fast, or something like 7 hours. If four were working, it might only take 2 hours. If 20 men were working it would take 30 minutes or so. Somewhere along the line, the "returns" would start to diminish. IF you had 200 men, it's unlikely that they could move the stuff 10 times faster than the 20 men. There's no way 200 men could move the stuff in 2 minutes. There simply aren't enough doors, and you just don't need that many people. Men would be standing around, and the efficiency per person would go down.

This principle applies to schools as well. At some point, a university would get too big for it's britches, and would be less efficient per employee. (And less efficient per student). So two universities with 20,000 students might actually be more efficient than one university with 40,000 students. However, I'm fairly certain that a school like Dixie State, with around 5,000 students, could get more use out of its facilities and its teachers if it had more students.

My point is, there's no way that Dixie State should be more efficient than all the bigger schools. However, it is possible that UofUtah could actually get cheaper per student if they cut back a little.

NOW, if you're actually reading this, you'll see my argument.

I'm suggesting that Universities should be able to run on the same expenses per student (or less) as Dixie State College. Also, you may have noticed above that Utah Valley kicks everyones butt in this category, but I know nothing about the level of education at UVU, and so I won't be using it as an example. Even though they must be doing something right.

So let's finally get to it. Dixie State spends about 10,000 bucks per student per year. The revenue for these expenses comes in through Tuition, State Funding, and Donations/grants.

After the State pays up, Dixie has to raise around 7,000 per student in tuition and donations.

Here's how the other Universities Stack up:

Utah: They have to raise $34,498 per student after the state pays

Kansas: $20,092

Utah State: $12,168

Southern Utah: $7,842

Dixie: $7,171

Utah Valley: $4,660

Now, if all the schools were as efficient as Dixie (10,000 per student) Here's how much they'd have to raise in tuition and donations after the state pays up (per student)

Dixie: $7,171

Southern Utah: $6,456.95

Utah State: $4,899

Kansas: $1,762

Utah: $1401.34

So basically, the University of Utah gets enough money from the State to offer a free 4 year education to all 25,000 of it's undergrad students. The rest could easily be raised in donations (U of U raised nearly 3000 per student in gifts)

I can just feel some of you out there saying, "come on John, Utah is 5 times more expensive per student because it's way bigger and way better."

But this doesn't really happen in the business world. Huge walmarts are not usually more expensive per customer than small Walmarts. Large Airplanes are not more expensive per passenger than small airplanes.

As far as I can tell, Universities get so gluttonous, not because it's more efficient, but just because they can get away with it.

In conclusion:

I know that the "better" professors teach at the "better" schools, but the professors at Dixie were excellent. They all had practical real-world experience and they worked directly with all of us (as opposed to a grad student TA) Students all over the country are going into crazy high amounts of debt in order to get degrees from these ridiculously expensive schools. And who is at fault? Employers. Employers are under the strange impression that it's better to hire someone from a more prestigious school, and so students try to go to these schools so they have a better chance to get a good job. These schools can rake you over the coals because they know that they are the doorway to the career you want.

It's time for all of this to change. It's time for schools to learn to get more efficient as they grow larger, and it's time for them to start spending more than 21% of their expenditures on Instruction (I'm talking to you Utah.)

Costco: I hate loving you, but I just can't quit you.

I have a vicious hate-to-love relationship with Costco. Costco holds a special place in my heart. Its chocolate muffins held my hand through 2 years of chinese food; it's food court provided an arena for me to court my wife during lunch for only 5 dollars total (don't knock it--it worked); it also allowed me to buy the best jacket I have ever worn (for only 20 bucks); finally, costco sells really really cheap diapers (huggies knock offs)

How could I betray a friend like that? How could I speak ill of such a positive influence in my life?

Because Costco is an unhealthy addiction.

I love the Costco (Kirkland) muffins. I really really love them. They are heavy, and the chocolate chips melt in the microwave to create a molten river of pure joy. BUT... I have to buy 12. They tried to trick me by splitting the packages up into two six-muffin love-trays. But you have to buy both.... which allows you to "mix and match". This is Costco's idea of accommodation. It's like a husband who sees his wife struggling to clean up the kitchen, so he offers to pause the game on DVR and unload the silverware from the dishwasher.

But dearest Costco, I don't want 12 muffins... I want 4 muffins. I know many of you out there may say that I should just freeze the muffins and eat them over a long period of time, (or, if you are my Mother, you just say I will die of heart disease if I don't stop eating them... I love you Mom) I have a serious freezer problem. My backpack could fit more food than my freezer. The ice trays take up 1/5th of the space. But I freeze them anyway, because I am forced to enable costco to hurt me. I am the wife of an abusive spouse.... Costco, the wife beater. I go ahead and freeze the muffins and smash them in there somewhere. If you grab a bag of frozen chinese food, it's likely that a muffin will fall on your toe and severely injure you. (Yes they are that heavy... yum)

I also love Costco hot dogs. A huge foot-long hot dog and a drink for $1.50. Are you kidding me?

They even ambiguously offer you more with the "with refill" sign. They know that most people will refill more than once, but this is how the Wife Beater works... it captures you with guilt. You are a bad person for doing what everyone else lets you do!!! Even worse is the fact that the food court is the only reason I carry cash. You see, Costco couldn't get along with Visa, so they struck a sweetheart deal with their concubine American Express. So if I want to buy a hot dog, I either have to have cash, a costco cash card, or I can go wait in line at the regular checkout and put a hot dog on my debit card. Please Costco, just put a debit card machine at your food court... or you could just continue to abuse me.

Of course this doesn't stop me from shopping there. I even pay just to go inside. I have to show that artificially happy old lady my costco card just to get inside to see where the magic happens. ANd then, after I flash my "please-beat-me" Costco card, I get to walk in to the circus. 70 inch Tv's, amazing deals on everything. But then I read reports about how loyal price-club shoppers don't even save money in the long run. But I don't care.. I'm the exception.. that could never happen to me... Costco Loves me... it's my fault it hurts me. So I've already paid my 50 dollar membership fee, but at least I get to spend 50 bucks on twice as much printer ink as I need. Or I can buy a 50 lb bag of wonderful rice (weevil farm) And then I can go through the ridiculous check out lines, where they are so nice that they have signs that say "leave heavy items in cart"... oh Costco, you do love me! I only have to do most of the work... And then afterward, I get to wait in line again, behind all of costco's other lovers, so that the next artificially happy old man can "check my receipt to make sure I got everything". Riiiight. But it's okay, Costco doesn't have to trust me... because I trust Costco. In Costco I trust. I wouldn't dare refuse the cart check. One person told Costco that they couldn't check through the items in his cart. They allowed him to pass (who wouldn't want to be held prisoner in a costco!) but they cancelled his membership and told him to never come back.

Sometimes I have nightmares about that happening to me.. I'd rather be abused that be alone and forced to resort to Walmart.

Everytime I get the courage to end our relationship, Costco sweet talks me back. One time I was pushing our new mattress and box springs out on the long orange cart (more like Santa's Sleigh!) and I was almost to the parking lot when a giant bearded man (not Santa) dove onto the mattress. Large Lardo managed to snap the middle board in the box springs. (I guess he has to have reinforced mattresses, even if he sleeps alone) I walked back into Costco with my wife (Costco beats her too) and I expected them to tell me how stupid I was for walking passed the fat man in the first place.. but No, costco welcomed me with open arms and gave me a new mattress. Because Costco loves me.... even if it beats me. It can change... One day, it will change.