Economics does not need to be complex for one to grasp a very basic "something is wrong here." I believe I've got an easy way to explain it using actual numbers and a tiny bit of work. The math adverse will still hate it but anyone with high school algebra can follow along.
Rhode Island is an easy state to review because the numbers are relatively small overall. If we go through a very basic exercise we will see the State is in quite a bit of trouble. First we look at Rhode Island's Census population estimate and work on the numbers. Here's the raw data. It's from the US Census and is about as accurate as we can get:
Population Estimate: 1,051,511
% of Population under 18: 20.6%
% of Population over 65: 15.1%
Private Nonfarm Employment: 406,222
We can then leverage other studies to determine the percentage of people living in the State who are 65 and over and are working. This gives us a margin for error, but it shouldn't be too high considering the data is from the American Community Survey a few years prior to the last Census. In this survey, we discover 6.3% of Rhode Island's population is 65 - 74 (with 23% of these individuals still working) and 7.6% is over 75 (with 5.8% of these individuals still working).
Now we need to take the population and remove all people who are not working due to being underage or over 65 (676,212) and then add in those people over 65 who are still working (4,635 who are over 75 and 15,236 who are between 65 and 74). This gives us a total of 696,083 people in the State who can work or are already working.
Let's subtract that from the employment number above and we have a final number of 289,861.
What this means is that every 1.4 working Rhode Islanders has to support 1 fellow Rhode Islander-- one who could work but isn't-- in some way.
Could be a non-working spouse.
Could be Unemployment.
Could be Housing.
Could be some other Government program.
Might be a State or Municipal employee (remember, the private workers have to pay State/Local salaries and benefits).
The big thing to remember here is that the working individual is not just supporting these other people. They also have to support themselves. No matter what the reason, that 1.4:1 is a huge ratio. And what makes it even more scary is that it doesn't even include the 216,611 children or the 138,907 people above 65 who are not working.
If we have another Recession (or, more accurately, fail to emerge from the one we have been in since 2007) States like Rhode Island are in deep trouble. Someone needs to take the lead and make some very difficult choices or who knows how bad things could get.
I wonder if we have the stomach for what that entails.
Showing posts with label General. Show all posts
Showing posts with label General. Show all posts
Monday, February 3, 2014
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
On work and working hard:
io9 has a question up about long hours and if they are a status symbol:
The general question they float is whether or not long hours are good. This can be tricky for people; I've found individuals I associate with enjoy their leisure time but (typically) also want to earn the best living they can. Where is the boundary between too much and too little work?
I'm a bit of an odd case, what with working at least a few hours of overtime every week, going to school, writing and publishing with varying degrees of regularity, and still having all my little pet projects going. In between all that I understand it's important to see the ladyfriend and relax a bit when possible. Personally, I define the boundary between too much and too little work as, "too tired to answer the bell." When my body begins to demand 10 to 12 hour sleep cycles it's a sign that I need to scale back for a few days.
In my opinion, the path to success is pushing yourself to lengths you thought were impossible. I'm at my best with too much to do and too little time to do it, and I personally enjoy it when I have an excess of responsibility. Millennials (like myself) have weathered a number of worsening economic conditions over the past 15 years and the long term outlook of my peers is hardly as rosy as it was for previous generations. Most hope they will do 'okay' but few with any experience in the labor market are absolutely certain they will do better than their parents or grandparents. Developing a powerful work ethic gives someone an edge over competitors who will flame out instead of putting in the additional effort, which is critical when dealing with 6.7% - 23% Unemployment depending on who you want to believe.
When I go back and study successful people of the past or present, I find an ironclad desire to work through all obstacles. An easy example is found in writers. The most successful authors were rejected dozens (or hundreds) of times with very few exceptions. I met a children's author when I was 17, and when I asked her how to succeed in her field she told me, "You will often be turned away at the door, so that means you need to find an open window to crawl through."
How many people look at their careers or their personal aspirations the same way? My guess is there are fewer who are willing to really do the work necessary to hit their goals without saying, "Meh... good enough." And all this doesn't even begin to get into the question of focused, intense practice.
So to answer io9's question: Yes, long hours are good. People are rarely overnight sensations and it's better off that way. Money and influence can only get a lazy person so far. Hard work is a gold standard all it's own, and one that never suffers from inflation.
80 years ago, long working hours seemed to be on the decline, with ideas like the six-hour work day being floated. Now, that trend has reversed — and so has the way we think about them.The New Yorker has a look at the way long working hours have become more accepted, and even sometimes a point of pride
The general question they float is whether or not long hours are good. This can be tricky for people; I've found individuals I associate with enjoy their leisure time but (typically) also want to earn the best living they can. Where is the boundary between too much and too little work?
I'm a bit of an odd case, what with working at least a few hours of overtime every week, going to school, writing and publishing with varying degrees of regularity, and still having all my little pet projects going. In between all that I understand it's important to see the ladyfriend and relax a bit when possible. Personally, I define the boundary between too much and too little work as, "too tired to answer the bell." When my body begins to demand 10 to 12 hour sleep cycles it's a sign that I need to scale back for a few days.
In my opinion, the path to success is pushing yourself to lengths you thought were impossible. I'm at my best with too much to do and too little time to do it, and I personally enjoy it when I have an excess of responsibility. Millennials (like myself) have weathered a number of worsening economic conditions over the past 15 years and the long term outlook of my peers is hardly as rosy as it was for previous generations. Most hope they will do 'okay' but few with any experience in the labor market are absolutely certain they will do better than their parents or grandparents. Developing a powerful work ethic gives someone an edge over competitors who will flame out instead of putting in the additional effort, which is critical when dealing with 6.7% - 23% Unemployment depending on who you want to believe.
When I go back and study successful people of the past or present, I find an ironclad desire to work through all obstacles. An easy example is found in writers. The most successful authors were rejected dozens (or hundreds) of times with very few exceptions. I met a children's author when I was 17, and when I asked her how to succeed in her field she told me, "You will often be turned away at the door, so that means you need to find an open window to crawl through."
How many people look at their careers or their personal aspirations the same way? My guess is there are fewer who are willing to really do the work necessary to hit their goals without saying, "Meh... good enough." And all this doesn't even begin to get into the question of focused, intense practice.
So to answer io9's question: Yes, long hours are good. People are rarely overnight sensations and it's better off that way. Money and influence can only get a lazy person so far. Hard work is a gold standard all it's own, and one that never suffers from inflation.
Tuesday, October 8, 2013
Slow going and Fake Excitement:
Over the past couple weeks, it's been slow going on every project I'm working on. The novel isn't moving like it was a couple weeks ago, fixing the short story is taking far more time than I anticipated, and even exercising seems laborious. Work is dreary and draining. School is somewhat better, but not where I need to be. It's almost all just 'blah'.
Generally, when things like this occur it gets to the point where I start to feel resistance in anything I try to do. Ever try to lift something that shouldn't be that heavy, and yet it is? That's where I am.
My martial arts instructor taught me a trick that works well in times like this: Fake excitement.
My first reaction to this was a small amount of skepticism. Only a small amount. Master Park is an amazing person who was one of the catalysts for a dramatic turnaround in my life. So when he talks I listen, even if I'm not sure I believe what he's saying. When I follow the logic eventually I come to the conclusion he's right.
So how does one fake excitement when they don't feel it? It's as easy as it sounds. Approach a project and and decide to be excited about it. "Woo-hoo, I'm cleaning my house!" "I just can't wait to dig into this huge pile of work!"
It sounds cheesy but it works.
For example, over the weekend my to-do list was enormous. Instead of allowing myself to get overwhelmed, I decided to get excited. Not only did I get everything accomplished, I discovered something very interesting about the main character of my novel. Fake excitement when I ask struggling to make progress gave me a new internal conflict, and it's made me genuinely excited to get back to the keyboard.
Speaking of which, it's time to fake some excitement so I can drag myself to the gym.
Generally, when things like this occur it gets to the point where I start to feel resistance in anything I try to do. Ever try to lift something that shouldn't be that heavy, and yet it is? That's where I am.
My martial arts instructor taught me a trick that works well in times like this: Fake excitement.
My first reaction to this was a small amount of skepticism. Only a small amount. Master Park is an amazing person who was one of the catalysts for a dramatic turnaround in my life. So when he talks I listen, even if I'm not sure I believe what he's saying. When I follow the logic eventually I come to the conclusion he's right.
So how does one fake excitement when they don't feel it? It's as easy as it sounds. Approach a project and and decide to be excited about it. "Woo-hoo, I'm cleaning my house!" "I just can't wait to dig into this huge pile of work!"
It sounds cheesy but it works.
For example, over the weekend my to-do list was enormous. Instead of allowing myself to get overwhelmed, I decided to get excited. Not only did I get everything accomplished, I discovered something very interesting about the main character of my novel. Fake excitement when I ask struggling to make progress gave me a new internal conflict, and it's made me genuinely excited to get back to the keyboard.
Speaking of which, it's time to fake some excitement so I can drag myself to the gym.
Friday, September 6, 2013
The Hugos and Being Happy for Others
The Hugo awards came out a few days ago, and some of the winners are debatable in quality. Awards are always debatable, which is part of the fun. Did Patrick Nielsen Hayden really have a better year editing than Toni Weisskopf? Did Redshirts really represent the best novel of the year? Was Blackwater really better than the Dr. Who episodes? These are fun things to debate with friends.
Part of the trouble with the SF/F fandom is how passionate we are. Oh, it’s certainly a blessing to those of us who create things for others to enjoy, but as a whole we can get a little too passionate at times. Pick a series and we all know one person or another who lives and dies by the machinations of that universe. Consider how major conventions look to outsiders. There’s a reason why the general population considered Trekkies somewhat loony for a couple decades.
Our fandom is also technically savvy and enjoys posting our strong feelings for SF/F where others can easily view and comment. Text does not convey tone as well as personal conversation between friends, so it can often come to pass that preference in public leads to debate, and debate leads to angry argument. Some people are also just jerks, but let’s discount them for a minute.
We are going to argue among ourselves for our favorites. We’ll also argue against certain individuals/series that we feel have jumped the shark—or that we feel were never very good to begin with. You’ll disagree with me and while I think you are incorrect, we can debate it and enjoy ourselves while perhaps understanding a bit more about the other person we are conversing with. Their favorite series speaks to them for a reason, after all.
The point here is that while I do not agree with who won all the awards, I’m happy for all the award winners, including the people I felt did not deserve a win in their category. They achieved recognition from the fandom, and are quite pleased with themselves. Rightfully so.
Part of having a happy life involves learning how to enjoy things that might not be immediately pleasurable. I sometimes wonder if the vitriol against award winners is being inflamed by the “participation trophy” culture so many of us grew up in. When our favorite things lose an award, or our least favorite people win, our passion in the SF/F fandom can make it feel personal. If we have a generation of egos established on a foundation of never suffering defeat, it’s difficult for these people to deal with the ramifications of the real world where one will be a loser from time to time. It is possible to have enjoyment in defeat. George RR Martin did this by creating the Hugo Losers Party at WorldCon many years ago, and it is a wonderful tradition.
So the next time you feel that flash of anger because an award somehow missed the genius of your favorite thing or rewarded an individual you feel is a degenerate, try refocusing your attention on spending a few minutes being happy for the award winner. I’ve found that to be the best way to avoid soul crushing negativity. Life is too short to be angry about annual awards. Someone better might just win next year.
Part of the trouble with the SF/F fandom is how passionate we are. Oh, it’s certainly a blessing to those of us who create things for others to enjoy, but as a whole we can get a little too passionate at times. Pick a series and we all know one person or another who lives and dies by the machinations of that universe. Consider how major conventions look to outsiders. There’s a reason why the general population considered Trekkies somewhat loony for a couple decades.
Our fandom is also technically savvy and enjoys posting our strong feelings for SF/F where others can easily view and comment. Text does not convey tone as well as personal conversation between friends, so it can often come to pass that preference in public leads to debate, and debate leads to angry argument. Some people are also just jerks, but let’s discount them for a minute.
We are going to argue among ourselves for our favorites. We’ll also argue against certain individuals/series that we feel have jumped the shark—or that we feel were never very good to begin with. You’ll disagree with me and while I think you are incorrect, we can debate it and enjoy ourselves while perhaps understanding a bit more about the other person we are conversing with. Their favorite series speaks to them for a reason, after all.
The point here is that while I do not agree with who won all the awards, I’m happy for all the award winners, including the people I felt did not deserve a win in their category. They achieved recognition from the fandom, and are quite pleased with themselves. Rightfully so.
Part of having a happy life involves learning how to enjoy things that might not be immediately pleasurable. I sometimes wonder if the vitriol against award winners is being inflamed by the “participation trophy” culture so many of us grew up in. When our favorite things lose an award, or our least favorite people win, our passion in the SF/F fandom can make it feel personal. If we have a generation of egos established on a foundation of never suffering defeat, it’s difficult for these people to deal with the ramifications of the real world where one will be a loser from time to time. It is possible to have enjoyment in defeat. George RR Martin did this by creating the Hugo Losers Party at WorldCon many years ago, and it is a wonderful tradition.
So the next time you feel that flash of anger because an award somehow missed the genius of your favorite thing or rewarded an individual you feel is a degenerate, try refocusing your attention on spending a few minutes being happy for the award winner. I’ve found that to be the best way to avoid soul crushing negativity. Life is too short to be angry about annual awards. Someone better might just win next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)