in this season of changes...changes

Coronavirus has destroyed the myth of the deficit | Yeva Nersisyan and L Randall Wray https://t.co/0gRrfmx9Zn

— The Guardian (@guardian) April 17, 2020

See this discussed on twitter
+ bonus:

the cure https://t.co/W1qTXRi3wU pic.twitter.com/0wJ7TDgCOT

— REALbubbler (@realbubbler) April 18, 2020

Make sure you subscribe! 
Also subscribe to NewsBuka.
Follow all my blogs on one twitter.  
Follow on facebook.

Critical Thinking Notes

 Survivorship Bias: Why you shouldn't trust successful people's advice



Advertisement: Read my books.###Three Sisters, novel #1 here###

Because traffic is killing, because 5-days a week is so 20th century, because why is there a crater in the middle of the highway, because we may really need to make the meetings snappy, because weren't all these gadgets supposed to raise human productivity, because whatever happened to just chilling, because let's spread the work around so we won't have so many unemployed...

It's Thursday. We're almost there.
Then rinse, repeat.

Whose idea was the 40-hour workweek, anyway?  Hint, it's why we celebrate Worker's Day, aka my birthday :)

And how long before 40-hours-a-week goes the way of the pocket calculator? Hint: as soon as people decide they can tolerate the change.  Who would you be without a job, without the predictability of a daily commute?  Everybody's doing it, so it must be right, right?  

 Even CNBC, which must surely hold the usual mainstream business media bias, snuck in a story, courtesy of Larry Page's comments
soooo 
Next time you get a query about skipping work to get that extra sleep, play with the kids, enjoy the neighbourhood, or just get a slow haircut and manicure, just point to this page or this one and tell'em: I'm in the Future.

Just kidding.
Sort of.
We're almost there.  
Get email updates so you don't miss out

Micro- and Macro-

Membership, email

Macroeconomics

Microeconomics

Because learning never stops

The World Can Afford to Shrink The Workweek

Interestingly, workers are not ready for the freedom that a shrinking workweek may entail.  For many the fear is "if I'm not commuting to and from work daily or earning a better job title, then who am I?"- an existential crisis.  The same type of fear that makes even wealthy people hate losing their job - rather than embrace the opportunities for a newer freer life, they're just upset because they want, more than anything zen you can think up, to keep in the game, so to speak. The job gives them meaning and order.

It is also true that many, particularly the poorest, need the jobs because they absolutely need the income.  Employment creates a pathway, particularly for the poorest people, to scramble out of poverty into the realm of possibility.

Employment creates a pathway for the poorest NATIONS also, and this is why it must remain a pillar of economic policy in Nigeria and several other developing nations - massive employment gives the population something to do that is not destructive, it may sometimes give the people a skills ramp too so they can move to higher-value production, and - very importantly - it earns income in a granular way that goes direct to the people and fosters democracy rather than through a central source that then fosters inequality and crime and war in the extreme scenario.  

Anyway, here are two comments on the need to shrink the workweek instead of moaning endlessly about unemployment:

Vivek Wadhwa, in We're Heading into a jobless future, no matter what the government does (The Washington Post):
"...Summers is right. Within two decades, we will have almost unlimited energy, food, and clean water; advances in medicine will allow us to live longer and healthier lives; robots will drive our cars, manufacture our goods, and do our chores. There won’t be much work for human beings. Self-driving cars will be commercially available by the end of this decade and will eventually displace human drivers—just as automobiles displaced the horse and buggy...
Summers is wrong, however, in his belief that governments can do as they did in the industrial age: create “enough work for all who need work for income, purchasing power and dignity.” They can barely keep up with the advances that are happening in technology, let alone develop economic policies for employment.  
The only solution that I see is a shrinking work week. We may perhaps be working for 10 to 20 hours a week instead of the 40 for which we do today. And with the prices of necessities and of what we today consider luxury goods dropping exponentially, we may not need the entire population to be working. There is surely a possibility for social unrest because of this; but we could also create the utopian future we have long dreamed of, with a large part of humanity focused on creativity and enlightenment."

Larry Page, in this famous, and very highly recommended, chat that also features Google co-founder Sergey Brin and venture-capitalist Vinod Khosla.  
"VinodKhosla The vast majority of employment shifted from farming to only needing about 2-percent of the U.S. workforce. That happened between 1900 and the year 2000. I see the beginnings of that happening again with the rapid acceleration the next 10, 15, 20 years.
LarryPage I totally believe we should be living in a time of abundance, like Peter Diamandis' book. If you really think about the things that you need to make yourself happy - housing, security, opportunities for your kids - anthropologists have been identifying these things. It's not that hard for us to provide those things. The amount of resources we need to do that, the amount of work that actually needs to go into that is pretty small. I'm guessing less than 1-percent at the moment. So the idea that everyone needs to work frantically to meet people's needs is just not true. I do think there's a problem that we don't recognize that. I think there's also a social problem that a lot of people aren't happy if they don't have anything to do. So we need to give people things to do. We need to feel like you're needed, wanted and have something productive to do. But I think the mix with that and the industries we actually need and so on are-- there's not a good correspondence. That's why we're busy destroying the environment and other things, maybe we don't need to be doing. So I'm pretty worried. Until we figure that out, we're not going to have a good outcome. One thing, I was talking to Richard Branson about this. They don't have enough jobs in the UK. He's been trying to get people to hire two part-time people instead of one full-time. So at least, the young people can have a half-time job rather than no job. And it's a slightly greater cost for employers. I was thinking, the extension of that is you have global unemployment or widespread unemployment. You just reduce work time. Everyone I've asked-- I've asked a lot of people about this. Maybe not you guys. But most people, if I ask them, 'Would you like an extra week of vacation?' They raise their hands, 100-percent of the people. 'Two weeks vacation, or a four-day work week?' Everyone will raise their hand. Most people like working, but they'd also like to have more time with their family or to pursue their own interests. So that would be one way to deal with the problem, is if you had a coordinated way to just reduce the workweek. And then, if you add slightly less employment, you can adjust and people will still have jobs.
SergeyBrin I will quibble a little bit. I don't think that in the near term, the need for labor is going away. It gets shifted from one place to another, but people always want more stuff or more entertainment or more creativity or more something."
Watch and/or read the complete fireside chat and transcript here.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one...

Process thinking

I once worked in a place where things would often go wrong, and the question on the boss's lips would be "Who...?" as in "who did this?" "who was in charge of this..." so that the person would be in trouble and presumably the problem would go away.  

Engineering processes

As an engineer, I found this to be the most puzzling thing.  Why waste your time on such an irrelevant question as "who"?
Because the more important thing should be maybe "what" happened, and then "why" it happened, and then "why" that happened, and in that case you find yourself with the "root cause" which you can fix (along with the team, the who's that run the process) and then hopefully that issue would not crop up again.

Good engineers are lazy

 Along with the inclination to abuse the "stupid employees" was this baffling habit of designing stupid processes, ones that put a great deal of strain on the boss and the people, and that relied more on hard work than on intelligence, and still produced a high error rate in the results.
I think the missing knowledge was of something called Process Thinking.  Process thinking is important.  It will make you calmer, and make your work many times easier and your results a lot better.

Individual and society

So too in my country in Africa, we think relationships are key to everything.  In the name of basic relationships (what does my wife or my father think of me is the familiar question) we have institutionalized actions that harm self and harm the larger population too.
We think in small groups (I better pass my neighbour, God give me promotion) but ignore the self (does this make ME happy, can I sleep at night?) and ignore the whole too (is this the right thing to do, does it hurt somebody else?)
This mindset is understandable because we've come so recently from small worlds - small village, small ethnicity, small clan - but in the current world we all see that it doesn't produce very good outcomes.  Individuals are frustrated and the country is poor.  Working harder may not solve the problem.  Defeating your neighbour, "feeling rich", getting promoted, "achieving success" may not be the answer. 

Engineering systems

Even on the political front, have some not tried to solve our misidentified "leadership problem" by replacing people?  But we come to the realization that no, we must re-engineer systems instead.  We must fix a risk-reward system at the individual, group, and institutional level.  This is to say, we might think of a country or an economy as an abstract thing, or as an organism, or as a machine, in order to repair it. 

School for intelligence

This is why I respect a good engineering education.  It's one of those things that (hopefully) prepares you to understand systems (like the human body, the global economy, or the market for films) and processes (like the workflow at a branch office, the election of a president, the Arab spring).

a sketch of a helicopter by Leonardo da Vinci 500 years ago

A decade ago, I read that engineering was "the new liberal arts" degree. Along with whatever specific facts and knowledge it might give a student, it would develop his/her critical thinking, systems understanding, process thinking, and design ability.  Then also it should broaden knowledge of the world and importantly of self.  It is a good training for an uncertain job title in an interesting life. 

Cartoon showing laziness as the mama of invention

 Links for more learning
Lazy engineers: Unusual habits of good engineers
Process Thinking: It can make you happier at work and at home
Policy analysis: The Nigerian subsidy example, The technocracy example

The site formerly known as BusinessDayOnline

is now at BusinessDayNIGERIA.com 

By whatever name, it's the best paper on the market (especially since I can get it at my university job for just 50 bucks.)

Front page of the newspaper