The Lottery

I listen to podcasts frequently.  I listen while I work (and can listen while I do work around the house as well).

This freakonomics podcast discussed the lottery, and incentives for people to do "the right thing" (whatever that means).  There was a huge jackpot in the lottery some months ago, I don't think I bought a ticket even then. 

Despite not being a math major, I know enough about the probability of winning.  I would have a greater chance of getting struck by lightening.

In the podcast, it mentioned a new type of savings account to entice people to save their own money.  You put a certain amount of money into the account, and winners are drawn weekly.  In South Africa, the interest from the accounts was pooled, and that is what one person would win.  The principal is still in your account, and can be withdrawn for emergency or savings purposes.

We dumped our bank a few years ago on dump your bank day.  It wasn't that we disliked the people at our bank, or even that we agreed (or disagreed) with the Occupy Wall Street protests.  But the bank had just enacted a steep fee (what I consider a steep fee) for having your money in a checking account, even those of us who had been loyal long term customers. 

So we moved to a credit union.  So far, the credit union has provided the same amount of service, the same features that the bank did.  In fact, they provide interest checking and these types of lottery savings accounts.  I signed up for one  after listening to the podcast. 

Again, I probably could save more and also, I have a better chance of winning something than playing the lottery (I'm competing against other account holders, not millions of people).

A death benefit or the last two weeks of life

It should come as no surprise that humans are uncomfortable with death and mortality.  American culture is obsessed with youth.  We don't want to admit to aging or dying.  I would be happy to show anyone the rows of aging creams in any pharmacy.

I listened recently to this great podcast

from This American Life about loopholes.  In it, a lawyer had read the small print and figured out an investment opportunity with annuities (sadly the loophole has been closed).  He contacted someone who was terminally ill.  I will over-simplify it, but if they agreed to sign forms, an unrelated investor would receive their entire original investment plus interest (even if there was a loss) upon the original person's demise.  The investor didn't have to be related in any way to the terminally ill patient.  For this agreement, the patient would receive thousands of dollars in cash. 

One daughter (in the program) explained that her mom really appreciated the money before she passed on.  When she went to the  mall with her grandson, she could buy him the things he wanted; she wouldn't have been able to afford them before.  The daughter said it meant a lot to her mom during her last days.

There are many issues with funding medicare.  Medicare costs keep spiraling.  And it's a sobering statistic that 80% of of the spending occurs in the last two weeks of life*.  That fact is shocking to me.  I know we are uncomfortable with death.  We hate it, we rage against it.  People are especially uncomfortable with losing parents and loved ones.

But we are bankrupting our country because we can't admit the truth, that we are dying and our loved ones will die.  (How does the cliche go?  The things that won't change - death and taxes). 

The pragmatist in me pondered the annuity idea and this medicare fact.  What if, like in the podcast, we gave terminally ill people a choice.  The government would give a portion of the money ($20,000, $50,000) cash to a family in the above situation.  The person/family then agreed that they would get only palliative care - do not resuscitate, manage pain, etc.

If I were terminally ill and near death - I would much rather have that money to spend at the end of my life.  I would want my children to have that money after I'm gone.  I would rather they have a nice vacation or pay down debt than have that money go to doctors and hospitals.

Money is such a driving force in our culture.  At times, it seems like we are selling our souls (what makes us human, what makes us unique).  But the profit motive cannot be denied. 

Most people make decisions based on finances, at least partially based on finances.  There are many other factors, but finances are often key. 

 People wouldn't be forced to take the money.  But it seems to me that when there is a financial incentive, people are much more willing to make a tough choice. 

Some may say (like the above lawyer's actions) that this is immoral or unethical.  It's true that issues of life and death are incredibly complex.   But we as a country are already steeply involved in these issues. We are keeping people on feeding tubes and ventilators because we can't bear to let their bodies go.  And some of these people were frugal during their lives.  Maybe they would take the sugar packets from restaurants.  Maybe they would drive five extra miles to save $.10 in gas.   They would be shocked and saddened to find out that their children and the government had spent $200,000, $500,000 or more in their last two weeks.

I support medicare - I support caring for our aging and infirm elderly.  But I also support making the hard choices and decisions; in recognizing what we are really paying for. 

Just because we can keep someone's body alive, doesn't always mean we should. 

*I searched for the original reference to this statistic, and I can't find it.  But it's clear from the news link, we (the government) spend(s) a lot of money during the last few months of life, and often in the ICU (which is very expensive). 

Great Men Theory

There is a theory of history that great men shaped our current society.  Regular, normal people could not do it, could not build empires or win wars, but these men did.  And their mothers, of course, who shaped them (tongue in cheek here).  Think Julius Caesar, George Washington, Christopher Columbus.

While these men are important, I think it's worth noting that only very rarely does some act completely alone.  There are always people who make it happen.  Either they were the grandparents who worked overtime to send a child to college, ancestors who moved to a land of more opportunity or even the silent long-suffering spouse who does everything so the artist can create.

That was my response to Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers, and it's my response when I hear the claim that one man or woman changed a generation.  In Outliers, Gladwell outlines just how so many successful men became life-changing and revolutionized the way we view things.  There were a whole host of factors that created an environment where change was possible.  A host of parents, teachers, community members, economic realities nurtured success. 

While leadership is important, it's shortsighted to believe that only a leader is responsible for success, of a country, of a company, of a school.  It's the people who go to work every day, the parent(s) who are there each night, the people who make change possible. Great figures are a strange coincidence of fate and possibility - being in the right place at the right time. Would they be great if they had to spend hours doing their own laundry? I wonder.

That's not to say we shouldn't mourn someone's passing, or recognize a person's good deeds.  And it is true that sometimes a person is not appreciated now, but is appreciated with the passing of time.

I believe we sell ourselves short when we don't recognize that our everyday efforts might lead to bigger and better things - and may lead to change. 

Whether or not it's true, many public figures will recognize this.  They will mention all the people who helped them along the way.  That's not necessarily false humility, I believe they mention it because it's true.       

Grow where you are planted

I wrote this post at latterdaymainstreet (MSP) about living in the midwest - in this particular state and location.  Enjoy!

The appearing and disappearing video store

While running errands yesterday, I drove past a former video store.  The past year or so, the business had just been hanging on.  When we would (rarely) go in to rent videos, there were only a handful of people there.  So, I'm not surprised that the store was shuttered.

What I do find interesting is that so many of these stores appeared and now have disappeared.  I remember when they seemed to spring up everywhere. My own family got a VCR back in the mid-eighties.  I realized that of the five video stores in my area in the past ten years, only one is currently open.

There was a time when video stores seemed to be popping up everywhere, in many strip malls.  Going to the video store to rent movies was an activity.  I remember walking through the aisles with many different people.  There was always a discussion about what to see, what movies a person felt like seeing that night, what someone had seen or hadn't seen.  Depending on the person, this process might take some time.

I'm trying to think of movie scenes where a person is renting videos or in the video store.  I'm fairly certain there are quite a few.  The two I can think of are Orgazmo and Jersey Girl - both are off color scenes/films.

With the advent of movie home delivery services, through-the- mail game delivery and order-in cable - the video stores are vanishing.  My library also rents dvds, and from my understanding, it's the biggest circulation that they have. 

I suppose it makes me a bit wistful.  Before the dot-com bubble burst, and people discussed the new economy - I didn't think (necessarily) video stores would be a casualty.  For so long, ordering or watching videos on one's pc was clunky, choppy and the technology was dicey (at best).  But technology has caught up - and things are disappearing.  While there is still some demand for video stores and game rental - it's just not what it was. And all those small businesses (and franchises) disappear.

It's interesting to think about what else might disappear.  I've talked about technology before...Gas stations on every corner, that's probably going to disappear at some point. Particularly with more fuel efficient cars.  But the other functions that gas stations have probably won't disappear, the mini-mart soda and candy shop part.  Post offices and bank branches may disappear or shrink as well.

My theory is that what people can do online, eventually they will.  It's not that there won't be post offices, because they still have a function.  Just like video stores.  And not everyone has access to the internet (or cable), so some video stores will still have a market. Just not as large of a market as they once had. 

Guns, Germs and Steel

I don't know if I've mentioned recently how much I enjoy my book club. I'm still participating, and we are still reading fabulous books. This is one of the books I suggested last year.




I recommend this book to just about anyone (including former mormons in particular). It is long and at times, difficult to wade through (wordy). This is exactly the type of book I would have been assigned to read in a college history course. I don't think that should discourage anyone. It was certainly much more interesting than some of the assigned readings I remember.

It has a lot of information about why various countries and cultures are in the situation they are in currently. Some countries control most of the wealth in the world, and others don't.

The distribution of large mammals/animals that could be domesticated appeared to be a huge factor. Most of those animals were based out of Eurasia, not Africa, North or South America. There were also more species of edible plants based out of Eurasia originally than those other continents. Diamond includes data (charts and graphs) to back up these assertions (as well as an extensive bibliography).

The book club discussion was lively, even among the few people who joined us for the discussion. The discussion leader had set up the projector to view parts of the pbs special - we didn't even get to a "lull" in the discussion to view the scenes.

My only personal question was with his assertion about the north/south axis of the various continents vs. the east/west axis. Diamond claimed that various plants and animals didn't spread throughout the continents (North and South America and Africa) due to the change in climate. It is certainly true that there is a huge difference between the climate in Maine than Florida or Texas. And I think it would take a great deal to attempt to cross a desert if one didn't know when or if the desert ended.

But with that said, I also believe people will do just about anything to save themselves and their families from starving. In other words, people move towards paths of least resistance. Humans are resourceful and have a great deal of courage. I saw this myself the other day, someone had parked in an empty gas station lot with their pick up truck, selling watermelons. It's too early for watermelon season here - so my guess is this person had driven from a place where watermelons are currently ready for harvest (i.e. Texas or Florida). And as a phenomenon, this is incredibly common. People move to where the work is, to a place where they can feed their families.

In an epilogue in a later edition that I read, Diamond acknowledged that there were still many fields for research and encouraged scholars to investigate those fields. I will definitely be reading his "Collapse" book as well. This book challenged many assumptions, and included the data to back up Diamond's theories. I recommend

My pick? The next bubble: Medical

I'm not an economist. I don't pretend to understanding all the factors in various economies. I don't pretend to understand the current financial crisis or the internet bubble (or even the tulip bubble in the Netherlands in the 1630s).

But I will share my observation and experience. Some months ago, I went to a local newly renovated hospital for some routine tests. (I'm fine, btw).

I was taken aback by the opulence. I have been to the Hermitage (in St. Petersburg), and that palace was opulent.



(Note: this is a photo from the Hermitage museum, NOT the local hospital)

And I do believe that a person's environment and surroundings influence their attitude.

But this hospital was full of new, original works of art (paintings and sculpture). This was not the framed print from motel 8. In the lobby, full of plush new chairs, there was a grand piano. There was also a schedule for when the pianist would be performing (8 - 5, daily).

If I hadn't seen the wheelchairs, I wouldn't have realized I was in a hospital lobby.

The other thing to bring up is that in our large Midwestern town, there are at least four other major hospitals within a thirty minute radius. And they are all competing for patients (and physicians). They want to provide the best experience possible. Sometimes I feel like they are re-decorating just to re-decorate.

Because the health care business is booming.

And much like the housing crisis, I've also heard comments like "people will always get sick. They will always need access to good health care."

That statement is emphatically true.

But just as with housing, the level of care (or type of housing people will always need) changes. Clearly, housing prices have not always gone up. So will the medical field continue to grow? Exponentially?

Do I really need a hospital with a pianist in the front lobby? Do I (or my insurance) really need to pay for that? Can I live without that and still have a good experience getting medical care?

I do want to go to a doctor with the best experience and good, safe, reliable equipment.

I also believe in supporting the arts.

However, it is hard to support the arts on the backs of people going bankrupt to pay for their illnesses.

At what point does this system reach critical mass, where the field has over-extended? I can't say. And how can we balance good care and availability of care? Maybe it will never be over-extended or over-built.

I don't have a solution.

I just observe that maybe we need to re-think our priorities as a society.

Insider Trading

Some years ago, I saw this program on PBS about the dot com bubble. I had worked for a dot com start up, so I was fascinated by the notion of a bubble.

If memory serves, one of the people interviewed was the grandson of a "insider" from the 1920s. He explained how his grandfather (and his associates) would manipulate the stock prices of various companies. They would literally call or write one another the day before a major change - a change in management, or when they would be selling their shares. The insider would then be able to sell high, as opposed to what the everyday investor was forced to do (sell at the market price).

The most important note here is that this was legal. The ethics and morality can be debated. Insider trading was above board and perfectly legal prior to this piece of legislation (from my understanding). A select group of people made an awful lot of money, while many others lost millions.

I admit that I can sympathize with my libertarian or traditional small government Republican friends. I believe strongly in moderation - some governmental and regulatory reform can be a good thing. There have to be some checks on the expansion of government.

I'm not sure where the line should be for governmental oversight of financial institutions and the stock market. But I disagree strongly that some oversight and rules are harmful or unnecessary. Some rules and regulation can indeed be a good thing, and protect the small time investor from fraudulent behavior.

I'm reminded of an unofficial football game my husband's fraternity played in college (that's another story). They (the anti-fraternity fraternity my husband belonged too) were playing the soccer player fraternity and losing miserably. My husband suggested they try the "flying wedge" formation - which, not surprisingly worked (but is completely illegal by almost all football regulations). Without a referee (or someone who had studied illegal football moves) they got away with it.

What we want are the right kind of rules, the appropriate balance of regulation where people and companies are free to grow and do business in good faith. But at the same time, regulation should protect the majority of Americans from underhanded dealings and unclear playing rules.

providing

Like many people, I've found the instability in the job market and economy stressful. It's stressful in particular for me because I am the main breadwinner for my family. And as I've mentioned before, the situation with my current company is precarious.

I was reading Andrew S's post here about mormon men, women and careers.

I realized/remembered that I had actually started thinking about these types of things at fourteen and fifteen, while I was still mormon. My parents (quite liberal in LDS terms) had stressed the importance of education and of marriage to a good man, not necessarily a mormon. I was just realizing that I knew (even at that age) that I wanted to provide for myself. When you provide for yourself, there's a certain amount of control that you retain. You are still subjected to the whim of the corporation, and there are still a host of things you can't control.

In my case, I felt like at least I would know, no matter what, that I was employable and had experience.

Part of the reason I knew this was that I had watched my family (and my mother) through my own father's long unemployment. My mom was a SAHM to five kids when my dad was laid off (due to a crash in his industry, much like the current housing crash). She had a degree in social work, but no relative experience (at least from the past ten years). There was a lot of other stuff going on at the time but more than anything, that traditional model of a father providing (through the job he had a
degree in), mother working at home just was not working for my family.

At fourteen, fifteen, I knew without a doubt that I never wanted to be there if I could help it. There was this insane resentment loop where my Mom resented the fact my Dad had lost his job and couldn't provide - but yet it never seemed to me that the option was on the table that my Mom could go to work. This was right around the time that the mormon prophet (leader) from that time counseled all women to stay home and be mothers.

I suppose I still have some anger surrounding this entire experience - anger that my family was in this situation, anger that my parents were following bad advice (from my perspective, bad advice for them). Some of it was totally out ofeveryone's control,
and I have compassion for my parents that they were at least able to get through what happened. Some day I hope to be able to let some of that anger go - and I'm sure I'll get there. (I'll also figure out where the fear is in that situation, but that's a story for another day).

But yeah. Despite the current economic turmoil, I'm so glad I am not there (where my Mom was).

I know that what happens to me is really dependent on the choices I make, instead of the choices/actions of my spouse. In each situation, there is more that I can control than I realize (even if it's just changing my perspective). I can't say what's right for other people or other families. I just know this is the best path for me.

On my mind

"So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself -- nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance." FDR's first inaugural address

I had a long post on fear last night, which I removed.

I thought about it, and it could have been taken as insensitive to the many people suffering right now. While President Roosevelt had many issues and failings, I think this quote is great. And definitely appropriate for the place we are in currently as a country.

And miles to go

Yesterday was Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. day. I'm not going to talk about the signifcance of Rev. King, his amazing message or ability to inspire non violent resistence.

And as an aside, we were not able to get out and volunteer as a family. One of these years, particularly as the kids get older, we will definitely find the time to volunteer on this holiday. Or just volunteer all year long.

I worked out at the gym last night - fortunately by myself and not with the kids. I was walking out when one of the trainers walked up to me. I had noticed a police car outside with its lights on but hadn't thought twice about it. The trainer had been talking to the woman walking ahead of me, but I hadn't heard what he said.

The trainer asked if I was parked on the right side of the building (which I was). He then mentioned that someone had just been robbed over there at gunpoint and to be careful. My neighborhood isn't the best - but it is relatively safe. So this was a bit shocking. There have been break-ins at the gym, but never a mugging (that I knew of).

But the delicious irony for me is the meaning of yesterday as a national holiday. I find it sad and ironic that the thief choose yesterday of all days to make their move.

We still have a long way to go to truly honor all of Rev. King's dreams.

Sign O' the Times

I drove past one of my favorite restaurants Friday and it had closed. I never saw a ton of people there, and it was a little pricey - but I will miss going there.

They had this great salad with mango, jicama, goat cheese, cranberries and almonds. It was really good. Now I'm going to have to figure out how to make it on my own.

I think I will see more restaurants and businesses closing in the coming year.