I was on a walk with my fiance, and our conversation came around to some of our shared ambitions. One of our prominent goals right now is to make a home for ourselves. We are both young professionals working in a small, predominantly middle and working-class city. People are very friendly in town, but in our first few months we had yet to grow significant social relationships outside of a few work friends. We looked for a book club or something similar to join, but could not find one in the city. We walk our dog multiple times a day, but seldom saw our neighbors outside their houses. Since then, we started a book club, threw a house-warming party, and made a point of stopping whenever we do see people outside in the neighborhood to greet them, if only for a short time.
We have since talked on our walks about what seems to be lacking from much of modern life. Personal ineractions do not take the form that is recounted in family stories, movies, or any depiction of life in previous generations. I feel that this is rooted in a few primary causes.
First of all, the social movements that brought about much of modern progressive thought, including civil rights legislation, has also brought about a notion of valuing the individual over the group in our culture. To secure the rights of every individual, regardless of race, gender, color, or creed required a rhetoric that valued the individual more highly than before.
Second, the modern economic system is focused around a mobile workforce, resulting in many people in our generation, the echo-boomers, being uprooted from our original communities. (One facilitator of the mobile workforce is enhanced transportation systems, most notably in my mind the interstate highway system). This transplantation of a generation is exacerbated by the overprotective nature of parenting that has been all too common over the last 20-25 years. Children are raised, sometimes without necessary skills to take care of themselves, sometimes without a willingness to talk to strangers. How else would anyone meet a new neighbor if not by taking a risk saying hello to a stranger?
Finally, I would cite the rise of large retail stores, again facilitated by the highway system and the resulting dependence on automobiles in modern society, which results in shopping trips farther away from home for larger quantity purchases in a given time - the very model of a big box store. Large buisnesses have less capacity, by their very nature, to provide a personal experience to the customer. They are wonderfully efficient and very profitable, but pale in comparison when it comes to customer attention and service.
Herein lies the dilemma: The greatest generation came back from WWII, and under Eisenhower built the interstate highway system, which increased the access to high-speed interstate transportation to an unprecendented level. The baby boomers rose up and many of them fought for civil rights, guaranteeing the promise the country had yet to fulfill for so many of its citizens. Large retail stores and chain restaurants provided basic goods to the market at prices that more people can afford, resulting in a higher standard of living across the board. All of these changes by any simple measure were astoundingly beneficial to the country. However, they have also resulted in a change in our social culture, making us less connected to each other, to our communities.
A recent publication, "Why We Hate Us" discusses many similar points to those I am attempting to make here. NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93802002) discusses this work also in a recent show, which provided an academic air to this discussion.
Some of the results of this pattern, in my opinion, can be seen in many of the woes of the modern talk shows. Increasing divorce rate, increasing dependence on government-run programs instead of community-based programs, decreasing civic involvement, political cynicism, possibly even school shootings can be tied to this thread in our culture.
I propose, not as an end-all solution, but as a starting point, for our generation to rebuild our personal relationship skills. Simple things and changes in mindset, I feel will go a long way. My fiance and I value each other and our joined lives above our individual ambitions. We support each other and our goals, but everything we do also supports our combined goals. When there was no book club for us to join, we started our own. We value nature, but also appreciate the amenities of city life. I am planning on starting a neighborhood produce sharing program, building a sense of community in the neighborhood and providing healthy, local foods to ourselves and our neighbors. (More about this in a future post) We do not plan on living in this city more than a few more years, in order to be closer to family down the road, but we do plan on making as many positive changes as we can while we do live here. Then we will start again in our new home.
In short - "be the change you want to see in the world."
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Energy Roadmap
I've been on the road a lot for work recently, and have come across a lot of construction. Aside from the normal frustrations, I noticed that whenever one road is closed for construction, a new route must be made available if local businesses are to survive. Using this idea with respect to energy, we need to think about how we want to build our road. Building a highway with cheap concrete may be easy to build, but an ever-widening road using cheap materials won't do anything about traffic in the long-run, nor will it last or provide a good drive for anyone.
Stepping away from the analogy now, the first and most important thing that needs to be done is to reduce energy use. Waste needs to be eliminated as much as possible. Everything we do needs to get more efficient. This needs to be an ongoing process, leading the energy effort and sustaining it into the future. The days of laissez faire mentalities about energy use need to end. We're all in this together, so this needs to be a call on everyone to take this seriously, educate themselves on energy basics, and take systematic actions to incorporate conservation practices into their daily lives. Once we mark the trail, it will become easier to follow every time.
Seccond, we need an integrated approach to the entire energy flow of the country. More and more, energy is bought and sold on an integraed market, so a decrease in demand of natural gas for home heating will increase the demand for it in electricity generation. Essentially what this means is that unless we have a strategy for the entire picture, there is no solution yet.
Here I do not suppose to have the answer, but I pose a potential direction to start. First, analyze current use. Second, create a vision for the end goal. Third, define clear steps to achieve that end through systematic efforts. Going back to the road analogy, we cannot use a new highway if we don't build an entrance ramp and provide intermediate detours until the final highway is built. We also will not end up at the right destination if we do not plan the highway construction properly.
First, our current energy use is supplied by five sources as broken down by the EIA, serving four sectors (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html). Petroleum, natural gas, coal, renewable energy sources, and nuclear energy serve transportation, industrial, residential/commercial buildings, and electricity generation. Transportaion is primarily provided by petroleum; industry is served primarily by petroleum and natural gas; commercial and residential buildings are served mostly by natural gas; and electricity is mostly generated with coal, with significant contributions from nuclear and natural gas. This totals about 102 quadrillion BTU's. For the sake of argument, this figure can be used for scaling purposes only now - it's not necessary to wrap your head around just how much energy is embodied in that figure. It's like counting the national debt. Even in stacks of $100 bills, it's a lot.
The end goal I see takes the following considerations into account: transportation as it currently exists is best served by dense fuels that can easily be stored and transferred. Liquid fuels and electricity meet these criteria, so that's as far as I would propose to go right now. Again, as I said before, significant efficiency improvements are NECESSARY for any change to the energy system to be sustainable. A rough target might be an energy grid reduction of 30-50% by 2050. A 1% reduction each year is aggressive, but very achievable.
Second, the new distribution of energy I envision would include liquid biofuels and traditional renewable energy as the two primary sources. Liquid biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) and electricity can power a transportation system if driving conservation and efficiency improvements are realized and public transit is incorporated as a matter of necessity in dense population areas. These same biofuels will also need to be producecd in a sufficient quantity to supply home and commercial heating systems, as well as industrial processes. Solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal power (among others) should be implemented as much as possible to supply the electric grid, with additional power supplied by fuel cell cogeneration plants, which are fueled by the biofuels, most likely reformed into a chemical composition tha can be used by the cells.
Obviously, this system would rely heavily on biofuels, so this should be the primary area of public and private investment in the near future. A sustainable biofuel generation system produces a high yield of fuel per unit of energy input, with minimal or no impact on food supplies, another critical area for consideration. The first place for use of these fuels is in the transprtaion sector, with the introduction of flex-fuel vehicles, hybrids, and electric cars. All these efforts have been started and need to continue. In the electricity generation sector, early efforts need to focus on renewable energy generation and storage (because wind and solar power do not always produce electricity exactly when it is needed).
As biofuel production is increased and a distribution system is constructed supported by the transportation sector, furnaces, boilers, and other equipment that typically burn natural gas should be designed to accept biofuel inputs. This development will affect the residential, commerical, and industrial end uses. The longest term technology development that is required by this proposal is the reforming process and cogeneration process supplying electricity and heat from fuel cells. Fuel cells are the most ideal (of the currently available technologies) electricity generation systems because of their high electricity-to-heat generation ratios and the relatively large electricity demand compared to heat requirement in the country, added to by the new electricity requirement of cars and public transit developed earlier.
The next step beyond a general framework like this would be to develop numerical targets and development timelines, which I will propose in a future post.
Stepping away from the analogy now, the first and most important thing that needs to be done is to reduce energy use. Waste needs to be eliminated as much as possible. Everything we do needs to get more efficient. This needs to be an ongoing process, leading the energy effort and sustaining it into the future. The days of laissez faire mentalities about energy use need to end. We're all in this together, so this needs to be a call on everyone to take this seriously, educate themselves on energy basics, and take systematic actions to incorporate conservation practices into their daily lives. Once we mark the trail, it will become easier to follow every time.
Seccond, we need an integrated approach to the entire energy flow of the country. More and more, energy is bought and sold on an integraed market, so a decrease in demand of natural gas for home heating will increase the demand for it in electricity generation. Essentially what this means is that unless we have a strategy for the entire picture, there is no solution yet.
Here I do not suppose to have the answer, but I pose a potential direction to start. First, analyze current use. Second, create a vision for the end goal. Third, define clear steps to achieve that end through systematic efforts. Going back to the road analogy, we cannot use a new highway if we don't build an entrance ramp and provide intermediate detours until the final highway is built. We also will not end up at the right destination if we do not plan the highway construction properly.
First, our current energy use is supplied by five sources as broken down by the EIA, serving four sectors (http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pecss_diagram.html). Petroleum, natural gas, coal, renewable energy sources, and nuclear energy serve transportation, industrial, residential/commercial buildings, and electricity generation. Transportaion is primarily provided by petroleum; industry is served primarily by petroleum and natural gas; commercial and residential buildings are served mostly by natural gas; and electricity is mostly generated with coal, with significant contributions from nuclear and natural gas. This totals about 102 quadrillion BTU's. For the sake of argument, this figure can be used for scaling purposes only now - it's not necessary to wrap your head around just how much energy is embodied in that figure. It's like counting the national debt. Even in stacks of $100 bills, it's a lot.
The end goal I see takes the following considerations into account: transportation as it currently exists is best served by dense fuels that can easily be stored and transferred. Liquid fuels and electricity meet these criteria, so that's as far as I would propose to go right now. Again, as I said before, significant efficiency improvements are NECESSARY for any change to the energy system to be sustainable. A rough target might be an energy grid reduction of 30-50% by 2050. A 1% reduction each year is aggressive, but very achievable.
Second, the new distribution of energy I envision would include liquid biofuels and traditional renewable energy as the two primary sources. Liquid biofuels (ethanol and biodiesel) and electricity can power a transportation system if driving conservation and efficiency improvements are realized and public transit is incorporated as a matter of necessity in dense population areas. These same biofuels will also need to be producecd in a sufficient quantity to supply home and commercial heating systems, as well as industrial processes. Solar, wind, geothermal, and tidal power (among others) should be implemented as much as possible to supply the electric grid, with additional power supplied by fuel cell cogeneration plants, which are fueled by the biofuels, most likely reformed into a chemical composition tha can be used by the cells.
Obviously, this system would rely heavily on biofuels, so this should be the primary area of public and private investment in the near future. A sustainable biofuel generation system produces a high yield of fuel per unit of energy input, with minimal or no impact on food supplies, another critical area for consideration. The first place for use of these fuels is in the transprtaion sector, with the introduction of flex-fuel vehicles, hybrids, and electric cars. All these efforts have been started and need to continue. In the electricity generation sector, early efforts need to focus on renewable energy generation and storage (because wind and solar power do not always produce electricity exactly when it is needed).
As biofuel production is increased and a distribution system is constructed supported by the transportation sector, furnaces, boilers, and other equipment that typically burn natural gas should be designed to accept biofuel inputs. This development will affect the residential, commerical, and industrial end uses. The longest term technology development that is required by this proposal is the reforming process and cogeneration process supplying electricity and heat from fuel cells. Fuel cells are the most ideal (of the currently available technologies) electricity generation systems because of their high electricity-to-heat generation ratios and the relatively large electricity demand compared to heat requirement in the country, added to by the new electricity requirement of cars and public transit developed earlier.
The next step beyond a general framework like this would be to develop numerical targets and development timelines, which I will propose in a future post.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Capital
This entry is a follow-up to the Suplus (http://sustainableforum.blogspot.com/2008/05/surplus.html) posting.
Thinking about the relationship between manufacturing and economic well-being brought forward in my mind that I had left out the capital markets that can provide profits from a company in one area to investors in another area. In other words, there are two ways to make money: labor invested on raw materials to make something more valuable to generate wealth, or capital invested in an organization can allow someone to share in the profits of the other person's labor.
This leads me to two points; that a reduction in industrial investment in an area will likely result in a more uneven distribution of wealth, and that much of the capital in today's market is disconnected with the activities of the companies receiving the investment beyond profits.
The first point I think proceeds as a natural progression in one of two ways. Assume that there is a business owner and a large number of workers in the business in an area. The workers are paid for their labor from the difference in value between the business's inputs and outputs. The owner makes a profit from the margin between the value generated and the labor expenses. Add an investor to this, which allows the owner to improve the business's operations earlier than might otherwise be possible, allowing for a share of the profits to be directed to the investor. If all these people have a connection, they are likely to work towards providing a better quality of life in the area, because it is likely that the owner and investor rose from the ranks of the workers by their talent and ambition. They are therefore personnaly invested in the area. In this scenario, the owner and investor likely make more profits than the workers, but everyone improves their situation.
Remove the connection between the investor and the better interests of the area. The investor is now primarily interested in receiving as much profit as can be achieved. The workers are paid less, or the jobs are outsourced, because there is no connection between the ranks anymore. The owner, as a member of the community resists at first, but at the threat of the removal of capital to continue operations gives in to pressures to remove jobs from the area, or to squeeze more work out of the local workforce for less pay. As a result of this action, the profits do go up, so the owner is rewarded for this action, making it justifiable to do it again in the future, when investor pressure is turned up again. Owners and investors profit much more in this system, with the workers suffering.
The second main point I would make in this post is that we, for the most part, live in the second scenario right now. The most impersonal organization is the collection of many people, where the will of the group is reduced to the lowest common denominator. One example of such a group would be a mutual fund. A large number of people provide a small share of their earnings to a large pool of money, with return on this investment as the only measure of success. In essence, the downfall of an economy can be traced to the success of the masses and the attempt to share the weath of capital investing to small investors.
There are two reasonable solutions to this situation in my mind - investing in sustainable mutual funds (those that support businesses that partake in conscientious practices) or by supporting, either through private investing or through purchase of their products, local private businesses. These are not perfect options, and each has its costs, but the benefits are significant and deserve consideration.
Thinking about the relationship between manufacturing and economic well-being brought forward in my mind that I had left out the capital markets that can provide profits from a company in one area to investors in another area. In other words, there are two ways to make money: labor invested on raw materials to make something more valuable to generate wealth, or capital invested in an organization can allow someone to share in the profits of the other person's labor.
This leads me to two points; that a reduction in industrial investment in an area will likely result in a more uneven distribution of wealth, and that much of the capital in today's market is disconnected with the activities of the companies receiving the investment beyond profits.
The first point I think proceeds as a natural progression in one of two ways. Assume that there is a business owner and a large number of workers in the business in an area. The workers are paid for their labor from the difference in value between the business's inputs and outputs. The owner makes a profit from the margin between the value generated and the labor expenses. Add an investor to this, which allows the owner to improve the business's operations earlier than might otherwise be possible, allowing for a share of the profits to be directed to the investor. If all these people have a connection, they are likely to work towards providing a better quality of life in the area, because it is likely that the owner and investor rose from the ranks of the workers by their talent and ambition. They are therefore personnaly invested in the area. In this scenario, the owner and investor likely make more profits than the workers, but everyone improves their situation.
Remove the connection between the investor and the better interests of the area. The investor is now primarily interested in receiving as much profit as can be achieved. The workers are paid less, or the jobs are outsourced, because there is no connection between the ranks anymore. The owner, as a member of the community resists at first, but at the threat of the removal of capital to continue operations gives in to pressures to remove jobs from the area, or to squeeze more work out of the local workforce for less pay. As a result of this action, the profits do go up, so the owner is rewarded for this action, making it justifiable to do it again in the future, when investor pressure is turned up again. Owners and investors profit much more in this system, with the workers suffering.
The second main point I would make in this post is that we, for the most part, live in the second scenario right now. The most impersonal organization is the collection of many people, where the will of the group is reduced to the lowest common denominator. One example of such a group would be a mutual fund. A large number of people provide a small share of their earnings to a large pool of money, with return on this investment as the only measure of success. In essence, the downfall of an economy can be traced to the success of the masses and the attempt to share the weath of capital investing to small investors.
There are two reasonable solutions to this situation in my mind - investing in sustainable mutual funds (those that support businesses that partake in conscientious practices) or by supporting, either through private investing or through purchase of their products, local private businesses. These are not perfect options, and each has its costs, but the benefits are significant and deserve consideration.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Energy Incentives
I work in the business of energy efficiency. I have found some realities to exist within this field: Energy management and proper use of efficient technology, controls, and management programs makes good business sense, strictly in terms of operating costs vs. capital costs (green marketing value and environmental benefits, etc. are another argument, not discussed in this post). Some efficiecy measures are more attractive to a wider market when incentives are provided for the implementation of these technologies. Altruism is rare - by this I mean that if a utility offers incentives for efficient air conditioning (for example), the incentive paid by the utility is less that the expense that would otherwise be required to build a power plant with that generation capacity. In effect, everyone wins with this type of incentive - the utility avoids a large capital expense, the customer saves money on their energy bill, the environment is not polluted with the additional level of power plant emissions, and the supply-demand curve affecting the general public's energy costs gets shifted slightly towards lower price for everyone.
In effect, the larger this type of program becomes, the more benefits are enjoyed by everyone. One principle should apply to these programs to help them be widely implemented for the benefits listed above. Transparency. Customers will be more likely to participate in these programs if they are confident they will gain a benefit from the program - i.e. if they are sure they will get their incentive check. Any uncertainty will decrease the likelihood that people will participate in this type of program. Many programs, to their benefit, have prescriptive measures that have clearly defined incentives for a given project. Unfortunately, a large portion of projects do not fit neatly into these pre-defined boxes. One challenge that will exist to expand efficiency efforts will be to identify these types of projects such that this uncertainty (and risk to the customer implementing the project) is minimized or removed.
In effect, the larger this type of program becomes, the more benefits are enjoyed by everyone. One principle should apply to these programs to help them be widely implemented for the benefits listed above. Transparency. Customers will be more likely to participate in these programs if they are confident they will gain a benefit from the program - i.e. if they are sure they will get their incentive check. Any uncertainty will decrease the likelihood that people will participate in this type of program. Many programs, to their benefit, have prescriptive measures that have clearly defined incentives for a given project. Unfortunately, a large portion of projects do not fit neatly into these pre-defined boxes. One challenge that will exist to expand efficiency efforts will be to identify these types of projects such that this uncertainty (and risk to the customer implementing the project) is minimized or removed.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Fair Bidding
I recently dealt with a vendor who was irritated for being left out of a fair bidding process for a government project. The project under question was a building that the city was planning to heat and cool with a heat pump system. The vendor's complaint was based on the fact that he did not sell heat pump equipment, but instead, sold another type of HVAC equipment. This provides a situation representative of a large policy question - how does a government entity allow for fair bidding practices that allow all interested parties to compete on an even field without taking exorbitant time and resources for the bidding process itself?
In this particular situation, a heat pump was the best system for the building's end use. So how does the government expedite their design process when the choice is evident?
One idea that came to me was for the government to maintain staff engineers and designers whose job it is to assess varying technologies for a given application and to provide a recommendation to the bidding group to limit the technologies to a short list. This may work, however, it may also provide the possibility for design preferences to systems that the staff engineers know well, creating a bias against new technologies.
Another idea is to request outside consulting to determine the best system for a given application, to achieve the goals of the first proposal, but with the opportunity to distribute work among many organizations and to allow for periodic refreshing of the reviewing engineers if a bias is observed. This work would also need to be bid, per the prior issue. This work, however, could be bid on annual (or other periodic) contracts rather than case by case, so individual projects couls still have a relatively short turnaround time.
I work in a company that specializes in energy efficiency measures, and may have a vested interest in this type of work being farmed to companies like mine, but in all honesty, there is a lot of work available in energy efficiency right now and I am not in particular need of more work just to keep ahead. I am more interested, as a citizen, in seeing my government operate effectively and use the best technology for a given application.
I do not know how issues like the one raised by this vendor are traditionally dealt with, but a fair system that can still work with expediancy would be good to see.
In this particular situation, a heat pump was the best system for the building's end use. So how does the government expedite their design process when the choice is evident?
One idea that came to me was for the government to maintain staff engineers and designers whose job it is to assess varying technologies for a given application and to provide a recommendation to the bidding group to limit the technologies to a short list. This may work, however, it may also provide the possibility for design preferences to systems that the staff engineers know well, creating a bias against new technologies.
Another idea is to request outside consulting to determine the best system for a given application, to achieve the goals of the first proposal, but with the opportunity to distribute work among many organizations and to allow for periodic refreshing of the reviewing engineers if a bias is observed. This work would also need to be bid, per the prior issue. This work, however, could be bid on annual (or other periodic) contracts rather than case by case, so individual projects couls still have a relatively short turnaround time.
I work in a company that specializes in energy efficiency measures, and may have a vested interest in this type of work being farmed to companies like mine, but in all honesty, there is a lot of work available in energy efficiency right now and I am not in particular need of more work just to keep ahead. I am more interested, as a citizen, in seeing my government operate effectively and use the best technology for a given application.
I do not know how issues like the one raised by this vendor are traditionally dealt with, but a fair system that can still work with expediancy would be good to see.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Common Cause
In my working years, few as they may be, I have encountered a number of different philosophies of compensation. One such encounter was with a friend at a previous employer. I was proposing that the company could get a much better result from the employees in positions similar to mine if they received more training, tools, and support. By providing these tools (software in this case) and training to use them, many unnecessary hand-offs could be avoided, which were currently resulting in miscommunications which, in turn, resulted in excessive amounts of time to complete relatively simple tasks. This training, I proposed, could significantly increase the productivity of the on-site workforce, removing much of the need for some the work that was becoming more and more dependent on outsourced labor. In return, the company would have significantly reduced costs for achieving the same amount of work at a higher quality. For this increased level of productivity and increased potential for profitability, the company should compensate those workers willing to engage in the training and increase their productivity. Everyone would win, right?
My friend suggested that the company make the training mandatory, ask for the increased productivity, but maintain pay at the same levels that they were at currently. Why pay more if you don’t have to? I countered that this would take advantage of the workers, making them feel less appreciated for their efforts, which would result in a higher turnover rate, and the company would lose its training investment. Still, this did not seem to sway his opinion. I left the company within a year, partly due to this type of attitude being systemic in the company.
A principle I believe in is cooperation. Labor and management working to a common cause with fair compensation for the labor provides a positive workplace, better productivity, more creativity, higher retention rates, and benefits for both. Labor and management opposing each other provides situations for high turnover, unionization, strikes, lockouts, and a general distrust, in which neither party benefits. Both sides need to take responsibility in order to create a better environment. Labor needs to be honest with management about work loads, high or low, and show a willingness to sacrifice some personal comfort in times of high intensity for the benefit of the company. Management needs to fairly compensate the workforce, sharing profits with those generating them, as well as maintaining a proper workload so that people are neither bored nor consistently overworked. Anyone can initiate this principle, from the top or from the bottom. Its acceptance will provide better opportunities for increasingly better promotion of combined benefits, while its denial after a genuine effort may appear as a sign to try the approach better.
The principle also applies to companies and customers. In the auto market, investment in fuel efficiency, for example, will create a product that costs more, but provides a better quality and lower operating cost to the end consumer. The company benefits because they can make a profit on a more expensive, more valuable item. The customer benefits because their overall costs of owning AND operating the vehicle are lower over the life of the car. Companies that have this long-term view of providing a good product to their customers (currently these are primarily foreign companies in the auto market) are gaining market share, and those companies that are trying either to cost-cut their way to profitability or to push higher cost vehicles, due to size only and not based on value, are doing poorly. The free market should decide which companies are providing the best value, but in the interest of maintaing domestic manufacturing jobs (see Surplus), it would seem good policy to increase CAFE standards significantly, as one example.
My friend suggested that the company make the training mandatory, ask for the increased productivity, but maintain pay at the same levels that they were at currently. Why pay more if you don’t have to? I countered that this would take advantage of the workers, making them feel less appreciated for their efforts, which would result in a higher turnover rate, and the company would lose its training investment. Still, this did not seem to sway his opinion. I left the company within a year, partly due to this type of attitude being systemic in the company.
A principle I believe in is cooperation. Labor and management working to a common cause with fair compensation for the labor provides a positive workplace, better productivity, more creativity, higher retention rates, and benefits for both. Labor and management opposing each other provides situations for high turnover, unionization, strikes, lockouts, and a general distrust, in which neither party benefits. Both sides need to take responsibility in order to create a better environment. Labor needs to be honest with management about work loads, high or low, and show a willingness to sacrifice some personal comfort in times of high intensity for the benefit of the company. Management needs to fairly compensate the workforce, sharing profits with those generating them, as well as maintaining a proper workload so that people are neither bored nor consistently overworked. Anyone can initiate this principle, from the top or from the bottom. Its acceptance will provide better opportunities for increasingly better promotion of combined benefits, while its denial after a genuine effort may appear as a sign to try the approach better.
The principle also applies to companies and customers. In the auto market, investment in fuel efficiency, for example, will create a product that costs more, but provides a better quality and lower operating cost to the end consumer. The company benefits because they can make a profit on a more expensive, more valuable item. The customer benefits because their overall costs of owning AND operating the vehicle are lower over the life of the car. Companies that have this long-term view of providing a good product to their customers (currently these are primarily foreign companies in the auto market) are gaining market share, and those companies that are trying either to cost-cut their way to profitability or to push higher cost vehicles, due to size only and not based on value, are doing poorly. The free market should decide which companies are providing the best value, but in the interest of maintaing domestic manufacturing jobs (see Surplus), it would seem good policy to increase CAFE standards significantly, as one example.
Government
Increasingly, I hear of government contractors and government officials discussing cost-benefit analyses of public programs. There has always been something unsettling about this to me, although I have not been able to put my finger on exactly what was the troubling aspect. Listening to the news this morning, in a discussion of the Iraq war, still in progress after more than 5 years, I heard a government contractor discussing the potential for the region – the economic potential. He said “I’m not here because I’m interested in the people. I believe there’s money to be made – a lot of money.”
I believe in business and free enterprise. I believe that a company that can add value or do a job efficiently has every right to profit from these endeavors and that these profits will help the laborers at the company as well as reward the owner for taking the appropriate risks, making the right decisions, and providing their product or service to their customers. Government, however, should operate differently. Increasingly, it does not. Government is overrun with business-minded people and lacking in public servants.
Government, namely the United States federal government, exists to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” They do not have any mandate to generate a profit. This government should be the long-minded policy developer to ensure that the profits of today do not damage the opportunities of tomorrow, to ensure that the benefit of some does not endanger the well-being of the population. While businesses should be free to explore new avenues for investment for profit, government should be engaged in ensuring that the policies it sets forward are for the benefit of the governed.
I do not see this opinion as naïve or overly idealistic. By limiting government investment to those areas where it may promote otherwise unavailable economic growth and those areas where the actions directly promote the common short-term and long-term benefit of the population, the government may operate on a limited budget, reducing the tax burden on the people, and may promote just policies that can be supported by the majority of the governed. Areas of public concern most notably include, among others, health care, education, sustainable development, economic stability, and equal protection under the law. A simple litmus test for any public policy could be “does this policy benefit the society as a whole?” Anything that does not pass this litmus test should be seriously questioned as a matter of public policy. In no way does this litmus test include any sort of cost-benefit analysis. Dollars and cents are the language of business; public well-being should be the language of government.
I believe in business and free enterprise. I believe that a company that can add value or do a job efficiently has every right to profit from these endeavors and that these profits will help the laborers at the company as well as reward the owner for taking the appropriate risks, making the right decisions, and providing their product or service to their customers. Government, however, should operate differently. Increasingly, it does not. Government is overrun with business-minded people and lacking in public servants.
Government, namely the United States federal government, exists to “form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty.” They do not have any mandate to generate a profit. This government should be the long-minded policy developer to ensure that the profits of today do not damage the opportunities of tomorrow, to ensure that the benefit of some does not endanger the well-being of the population. While businesses should be free to explore new avenues for investment for profit, government should be engaged in ensuring that the policies it sets forward are for the benefit of the governed.
I do not see this opinion as naïve or overly idealistic. By limiting government investment to those areas where it may promote otherwise unavailable economic growth and those areas where the actions directly promote the common short-term and long-term benefit of the population, the government may operate on a limited budget, reducing the tax burden on the people, and may promote just policies that can be supported by the majority of the governed. Areas of public concern most notably include, among others, health care, education, sustainable development, economic stability, and equal protection under the law. A simple litmus test for any public policy could be “does this policy benefit the society as a whole?” Anything that does not pass this litmus test should be seriously questioned as a matter of public policy. In no way does this litmus test include any sort of cost-benefit analysis. Dollars and cents are the language of business; public well-being should be the language of government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)