Disability coverage masks US labor force problems

http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

Starting with the Bush I recession in 1990, the numbers of Americans on disability rolls has surged. The Great Recession has further accelerated the trend. Now disability spending > (food stamps + welfare combined), with 14M Americans participating (9% of the labor force).

Of course some people are truly disabled and need public assistance to survive, but many others suffer from the same "ailments" that working people have. I am not saying that these people are lazy "takers", and in fact there is a higher prevalence in southern Red states (and of course is correlated with education levels and local economic conditions). And that is kind of the point - due to structural changes in the US economy and labor force, tens of millions of Americans are now effectively unhirable in the 21st Century. Often they come from blue-collar non-desk jobs that are more physical, so it is likely that they have various pains and elements. So it is easy for a physician to approve many of them for disability. But the problem is that once they are approved and on the rolls, there is next to zero incentive for them to find a job and go through the effort of retraining. It's not like welfare and unemployment with a finite time span of benefits. And speaking of welfare - that is a driver too. "Reforms" under Clinton and Newt effectively shifted people on welfare to other programs such as disability, so it didn't really save the country much money or motivate the labor force. Probably America would get more bang for its buck if it invested in worker transition and retraining programs rather than just hide/relegate these people to the disability space (the US spends about $260B/year on the 2 major disability programs). I am not advocating kicking legitimate people off these programs, but I think it behooves us to at least perform a cost and impact analysis, and propose improvements/alternatives. Disability is just a band-aid to mask our larger labor and health care problems.

There is even a cottage industry now ("disability industrial complex") to advise and help people to get approved for disability - similar to the folks who help kids get into college or help immigrants get their green cards (one firm took in $70M in fees in 2012 alone). And some families may now see their kids as "cash cows" too, by enrolling them and collecting additional benefits. The number of kids on disability has grown 4X since 1990. Clearly medicine has improved since then, and doctors are better able to diagnose disabilities, but it is pretty much impossible to attribute that huge rise to actual increases in disability diagnoses and incidence.

Haiti after the quake: the wrong way for the world to help

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-20949624

Haiti is the poorest nation in the Americas (their $13B GDP is the same as 1/9 of IBM) and their quake 2 years ago set them back even further. 200K died out of a nation of 10M, many were seriously injured, and 20% of Haitians were internally displaced. Tough for any nation to recover from, even a rich one.

The global community showed a great outpouring of compassion and charity, giving in total $9B of aid (cash, goods, services). But those resources were mostly a boon to foreign NGOs, not Haitians directly. It's like they got a juicy gov't contract all of a sudden. I took some classes this spring about nonprofit finance and unfortunately they are not much more noble than for-profit entities. Their #1 goal is the mission of course, but goal 1.5 is related but somewhat more selfish: justify their existence, comfortably fund their operations, and grow in revenue/prestige if possible. And of course 501(c)(3) non-profits are fully entitled to earn a tax-exempt profit (see Kaiser Permanente) - they just can't legally pass it on to employees and (nonexistent) shareholders. Like many international development projects, these well-meaning folks from the G20 arrive with their Range Rovers and lofty plans. They think they know best and they tell the locals what to do and what to ask for. Then they give themselves a pat on the back, pack up, and go home to tell great stories of their philanthropy - even if the task is not done and the sustainable impact is minor. And of course there was the scandal about Christian groups trying to smuggle out (a.k.a. rescue) "orphans" and other children back to the US.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1247788/Haiti-earthquake-One-Haiti-orphans-kidnapped-American-church-group-parents.html

Yes that is an overly cynical assessment. If zero aid dollars went to Haiti, clearly they'd be in far worse shape today. Volunteers and paid workers labored tirelessly to clear debris, attend to the injured, distribute supplies, feed people, and give useful advice. Lives were touched and saved. But $9B during a global recession is a lot of green, and it could have been utilized more effectively. Some economists even suggested that it would have been better to give ~$3,000 (about 2.5 years of avg. income) to each affected Haitian and let them decide how best to use it to improve their lives. Because the way it went down, about 90% of the money didn't "stay" in Haiti and was paid out to foreign orgs. Their labor and supplies stayed in Haiti, but we know that help is temporary (and Western labor is pricey) and supplies are consumed and wear out fast. People are still in tents in refugee camps 3 years later.

So instead of this expensive "reactive medicine" to hurriedly bind the wound, collect your fee, and clear out, there was no lasting, sustainable development effort. Surely it's the Haitians' fault too with their dysfunctional government and low levels of skills/education/employment. But if they could care for themselves, they wouldn't need foreign help. We can't blame the victim. And the fact that so much $ went to foreigners suggests that the funds were not efficiently allocated. Like with Iraq and countless other examples, foreigners tend to be driven by other incentives (not necessarily helping Hatians optimally), be ignorant about conditions on the ground, and the locals know better about the people's urgent needs. Haitian leaders needed more say. But we can understand that charities, like any other orgs, want to control their money (and some may feel that it is their budgetary duty to oversee expenditures). In fact, some Haiti relief funds were legally mandated to be spent on certain projects over others, even if they were ignoring more important ones. That is the "central planning" and cobweb of nonprofit finance that makes corporate taxation look trivial. 

Maybe the lesson learned from all of it is: if you want to deliver the most impact for your charity, invest in vetted local orgs who will be there for the long haul. They don't have short term objectives and short term thinking, so they will better allocate resources and deliver impact. I guess there is a chance that the money will be squandered by corrupt local thieves, but your buck could go a lot further too.

Interesting interview with Sheryl Sandberg on her recent book about working women

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/11/173740524/lean-in-facebooks-sheryl-sandberg-explains-whats-holding-women-back

Book review: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/07/books/sheryl-sandbergs-lean-in.html?_r=0

Some opinions about her: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-facebook-sheryl-sandberg-deserves-respect-20130306,0,6928927.story

In general, I think it's not that effective when a super-successful outlier person tells everyone else, "You can be like me." Same goes for books from Obama, Jack Welch, etc. I know Sandberg isn't saying that explicitly, but she is a role model. Sandberg is an amazing story, but got a lot of help and special opportunities (and luck) along the way. Most working women will find themselves under more constraints, even if they are as sharp as Sandberg. I like the part of Sandberg's message that women shouldn't be their own worst enemy and limit themselves from their own fears. If you have a problem with something, stand up and do something about it. I think that advice applies to a lot of men too. All around us are messages and influences that say, "You can't do this, you can't do that, don't stick your neck out, just play it safe." But sometime they're right, because there isn't a 2nd chance if we take the wrong risk. And generally women have less room for error (partly due to our sexist culture). What about all the other Sandberg types who didn't make it big - maybe accidentally pissed off a boss or got pregnant at the "wrong time" or picked a bad company along the way? They had just as much potential and worked just as hard, but the truth is we often don't have much control of our destinies - even in the "meritocracy" of Silicon Valley.

To me, the irony of her message is that all the "bad" habits that Sandberg says women practice that hold them back (being humble & compromising, seeking out a mentor, second guessing - which gets a bad rap but often times saves one from a mistake!), are actually good working (and life) behaviors! Remember how Bush was seen as so much more "decisive" and "bold" than Kerry or Gore? Hitler was decisive and bold too (not implying parity among those leaders!). We know women are generally better human beings than men. It's just that the asshole men that tend to run the world don't do those civil things and take advantage/dismiss people who do. So once again, it's not "passive women" who are the problem, but ultra-aggressive/selfish/

greedy/sociopathic men and their contrived, dysfunctional professional culture. Similar to our previous emails, when it's too daunting to take on the assholes and try to change them, then the alternative (Sandberg's message) is "join 'em". I know that isn't exactly her thesis, but clearly she's not asking men to tone it down and act more "womanly." Heck Sandberg probably knows how to be a man more than I do. I am sure she understands men's contribution to the problem, though as a strong successful woman, it's unappealing to be a cliche: acting the victim and "blaming men", even if it's mostly accurate. Both sexes play a role, but instead of urging women to get more assertive, why doesn't she urge a change in workplace culture (like the Harvard article on civility) to accept and reward courteous, sensible, work-life balance women who also have great things to contribute? Why can't we figure out how to tap that resource, instead of forcing everyone to confirm to ghastly, male work expectations?

6 former Shin Bet (Israeli FBI) heads speak out about Israeli occupation

"[Shin Bet leaders] are practical. ...They have used all the measures — in order to suppress any kind of terrorist activity. These are the guys... that have conducted targeted assassinations, tortured people in order to get intelligence ... and at the end of the day when they look at the Israeli society and they are saying in a loud and clear voice, 'Enough of the occupation. We cannot win this battle. We have to try to compromise. If we try to eat the whole cake and not share it we will lose.' And this fact surprised me completely, because you don't think this is what a security official will think." - Filmmaker and former IDF soldier Dror Moreh

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/28/172706218/the-gatekeepers-offer-candid-assessment-of-israels-security

Shin Bet is Israel's anti-terror national security agency. Their retired leaders are not leftists, but probably center-right. They are proud of and have no problem with the tough tactics they practiced in the name of protecting Israel. But use them when necessary, and as part of a larger intelligent strategy. They criticize the out-of-touch right-wing leadership that is misusing the security services and not making Israel safer in the long run.

Since the 1970's, they have had to investigate Jewish terrorists too - usually settler religious fanatics who want war to fulfill scripture (so they fight the peace process and do things to provoke the Palestinians to violence, which would justify Jewish reprisals). This culminated in the assassination of Rabin, which opened the flood gates to much more illegal settlement activity by Israel's fringe right wing (great idea to allow the most radical, uncompromising Jews to live in occupied lands among angry Palestinians, huh?). Every time there is talk of abandoning settlements and such, these extremists rise up and even burn mosques and kill Palestinians. Shin Bet found it difficult to investigate and punish them though (and many were released due to political pressure from pro-settlement leaders). They stopped a plan to bomb the Dome of the Rock (one of Islam's holiest sites) which would have incited a global religious war, only to watch the smiling perpetrators get released to cheering crowds (that did not represent the Israeli mainstream).

Former PM Sharon was the "father" of the Israeli settlement program, but as the more centrist Likud leader, he saw that they were now a liability and hurting Israel's future. He pulled Israel out of Gaza and wanted to do the same in the W Bank (as part of a larger peace deal), but suffered a stroke and his leaderless party lost. Then right wing Bibi took power and peace was off the agenda. Sharon had the credibility to broker the deal because of his former hardline rep, but actually the extreme right in Israel was the biggest roadblock. There were plots to kill Sharon (and not by Hamas), maybe even more than those against Rabin.

One of the Shin Bet leaders, Avraham Shalom, grew up in pre-WWII Austria. He was almost beaten to death by his Austrian classmates for being Jewish. Now in old age, he compared the IDF occupation of Palestine with the German occupation of Europe (not the Holocaust, but the military occupation). "We have become cruel." That means a lot coming from a Jew who experienced the worst racism and occupation.