From the Australian Financial Review.
Mark Latham, 27th February 2014
In his 1998 memoir "As It Happened", the Hawke government's industry minister, John Button, recalled a telling exchange between Paul Keating and the automotive industry. In the government's first term, a delegation of car markers and unionists came to Canberra pleading for additional assistance. One of the business executives complained that, "if imports continue like this we'll soon all be driving Daimler Benz", to which Keating replied: "If that happens, we'll all be much better off."
We now know motorists agreed with the then treasurer. Last year, 9 out of 10 new cars purchased in Australia were from overseas. In effect, consumers have decided they don't need car manufacturing in this country. They prefer Daimler Benz and a range of other international roadsters. The industry's imminent closure was not a decision of government: it was a decision of the Australian people.
Button continued his account of the car meeting, with a harried union official emphasizing how "people were getting pretty worried on the shop floor". Then Keating, "his eyes smiling, speaking softly", intervened. "You've got to remember", he said, "that the shoe is designed to pinch". Circa 1984, this was a new and unexpected interpretation of industry policy.
Later that afternoon, Button accompanied the delegation to the front door of Parliament House. The trade unionist seemed "slightly dazed". "Shit", he exclaimed. "Would you believe that? Did you hear what that bloke said? He said, 'The shoe is designed to pinch.'"
The Labor Party has come a long way in the 30 years since this meeting - a long way backwards. Far from a pinching shoe, opposition industry spokesman Kim Carr wants to fit Australian manufacturing into a big, sloppy Ugg boot. He has repudiated the Keating-Button legacy with the retro-economics of corporate welfare.
Carr tries to give the illusion of a sophisticated strategy, using fancy terms such as "co-investment" and "industry policy settings". In fact, he believes in a crude, Third-World-type tactic: throwing government funds at multinationals. We know the Australian people don't support this approach because they have been unwilling to throw their own money at locally produced cars. As taxpayers, why would they want to do something they have refused to do as consumers?
If the show doesn't pinch, companies become complacent and inward-looking. They grow accustomed to living off state welfare, instead of investing in new design technologies and productivity. Under Ugg-boot economics, the private sector is pampered by the regular arrival of government cheques.
The wonder of Australian car manufacturing is not that it's closing down; it's that governments wasted so much public money on unsustainable jobs in an unsustainable industry. In the past decade, no Australian-based car company has recorded an operating profit.
The industry's demise is a tipping point in Australia's political economy. It's a victory for consumers over the ineffectiveness of subsidization. It's a sign that after 23 years of continuous economic growth and wealth creation, the consumption side of the economy has become more powerful than the production side. Cashed-up shoppers are exercising greater purchasing muscle than the feeble industry plans of union hand-maidens like Carr. Consumerism has finally beaten interventionism.
The political class does not want to hear this, but we have entered an era of marginalized government. Each day, the big news in the Australian economy is the strength of millions of consumer decisions, but this is essentially unreported in the electronic media. Where's the headline or controversy in people shopping? If politicians focused on the importance of consumer decision-making, how could they blame each other for economic uncertainty and unemployment?
In Canberra, it's business as usual. The opposition has latched onto a fear campaign, holding out false hope for "jobs plans". The media have a new round of conflict-based stories to report, interviewing workers and managers from ailing industries. No one's told them the war is over. Consumers have won.
Mark Latham is a former federal Labor leader.
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Carrots And Sticks
It never fails to amaze me that in the three pillars of policy -
housing, education and health - Singapore has achieved what even the US
cannot.
How did we accomplish this? Our carrots are accompanied by sticks.
Take housing for example. Under both Clinton and Bush, the US Executive forced lenders to relax their lending standards to accommodate low-income minorities. The resulting NINJA loans, catalyzed by securitization, helped cause the largest financial crisis the world has ever known.
Back home, the Singapore Government basically guarantees every Singaporean access to mortgage finance at subsidized rates. The carrot.
I don't know how to underscore the sheer generosity of this. Anyone who has ever purchased knows that the first port of call is not your agent, but your broker. No loan, no deal.
Suffice to say that a few years ago, the typical Australian was paying more in mortgage interest than the typical Singaporean earns annually. Young Singaporean couples can house-hunt with confidence, knowing their deposit will not be jeopardized by financing issues.
The price of all this? The government garnishes your wages, eliminating the risk of default. The stick.
The beauty of the Singapore system lies in its simplicity. Carrots, balanced by sticks.
How did we accomplish this? Our carrots are accompanied by sticks.
Take housing for example. Under both Clinton and Bush, the US Executive forced lenders to relax their lending standards to accommodate low-income minorities. The resulting NINJA loans, catalyzed by securitization, helped cause the largest financial crisis the world has ever known.
Back home, the Singapore Government basically guarantees every Singaporean access to mortgage finance at subsidized rates. The carrot.
I don't know how to underscore the sheer generosity of this. Anyone who has ever purchased knows that the first port of call is not your agent, but your broker. No loan, no deal.
Suffice to say that a few years ago, the typical Australian was paying more in mortgage interest than the typical Singaporean earns annually. Young Singaporean couples can house-hunt with confidence, knowing their deposit will not be jeopardized by financing issues.
The price of all this? The government garnishes your wages, eliminating the risk of default. The stick.
The beauty of the Singapore system lies in its simplicity. Carrots, balanced by sticks.
Mortgage Offsets And The CPF OA
Disclaimer: Not financial advice, just an idea.
A few years ago I was very upset that 100% offsets weren't available in Singapore.
This idea stemmed from observing many Singaporeans engage in unnecessary consumption because they have excess income, but few viable investment options. For example, the median household income is 5K/month, but one currently only needs about 3K/month (including housing) to live frugally.
In my experience, only a few commercial banks even offer bastardized versions of offsets. DBS has an FX-linked offering while HSBC features one with a separate interest rate. In my opinion both are unusable. The term "offset" remains only as a marketing gimmick, with the underlying mechanics modified to the bank's benefit.
However, I have belatedly realized that since the HDB mortgage rate is deliberately pegged to the CPF Ordinary rate (+0.1%), interest returned on your OA balance offsets that paid on your loan.
If you had a mortgage of 100K and 10K in your CPF OA, you would be effectively paying interest on only 90K of the loan. Of course with amortization the actual monthly payment would be larger as it would include part of the principal. You would have to top up your OA to replace this.
The main advantages of saving excess funds in an offset is that you reduce the interest payable on your current mortgage, while retaining (in this case, partial) liquidity. Without redraw facilities, additional funds paid into a loan account are locked up.
The obvious downside here - OA funds are less liquid than cash. Most people partially get around CPF restrictions by investing their OA funds in various assets. Still, certain regulations still apply - for example, the original sum withdrawn from CPF must be paid back from any investment profits, and half the CPF Minimum Sum must be set aside before you can use OA funds to purchase a second property. Not to mention the risk that these regulations may change in the future.
Of course, no one is suggesting you permanently park funds in the OA over the long term, where it will be decimated by inflation. But a medium-term strategy of saving excess income in the OA can be a useful low-risk stepping stone for upgraders or those planning future investments.
In short, this might be a viable strategy if:
1) You have a substantial interest bill. This could be because your current HDB mortgage is relatively large (think resale flats), or if the mortgage rate increases in the future. For smaller BTOs (less than 150K), the risk and trouble of locking up your cash in CPF is probably not worth it.
2) You have plenty of excess income but are not financially savvy, or have a low appetite for risk. Otherwise you would already be parking your cash in higher-yield investments.
It's amazing how Singapore provides all the tools and opportunities one needs to succeed.
A few years ago I was very upset that 100% offsets weren't available in Singapore.
This idea stemmed from observing many Singaporeans engage in unnecessary consumption because they have excess income, but few viable investment options. For example, the median household income is 5K/month, but one currently only needs about 3K/month (including housing) to live frugally.
In my experience, only a few commercial banks even offer bastardized versions of offsets. DBS has an FX-linked offering while HSBC features one with a separate interest rate. In my opinion both are unusable. The term "offset" remains only as a marketing gimmick, with the underlying mechanics modified to the bank's benefit.
However, I have belatedly realized that since the HDB mortgage rate is deliberately pegged to the CPF Ordinary rate (+0.1%), interest returned on your OA balance offsets that paid on your loan.
If you had a mortgage of 100K and 10K in your CPF OA, you would be effectively paying interest on only 90K of the loan. Of course with amortization the actual monthly payment would be larger as it would include part of the principal. You would have to top up your OA to replace this.
The main advantages of saving excess funds in an offset is that you reduce the interest payable on your current mortgage, while retaining (in this case, partial) liquidity. Without redraw facilities, additional funds paid into a loan account are locked up.
The obvious downside here - OA funds are less liquid than cash. Most people partially get around CPF restrictions by investing their OA funds in various assets. Still, certain regulations still apply - for example, the original sum withdrawn from CPF must be paid back from any investment profits, and half the CPF Minimum Sum must be set aside before you can use OA funds to purchase a second property. Not to mention the risk that these regulations may change in the future.
Of course, no one is suggesting you permanently park funds in the OA over the long term, where it will be decimated by inflation. But a medium-term strategy of saving excess income in the OA can be a useful low-risk stepping stone for upgraders or those planning future investments.
In short, this might be a viable strategy if:
1) You have a substantial interest bill. This could be because your current HDB mortgage is relatively large (think resale flats), or if the mortgage rate increases in the future. For smaller BTOs (less than 150K), the risk and trouble of locking up your cash in CPF is probably not worth it.
2) You have plenty of excess income but are not financially savvy, or have a low appetite for risk. Otherwise you would already be parking your cash in higher-yield investments.
It's amazing how Singapore provides all the tools and opportunities one needs to succeed.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Yet Another Poor Boy
Why did I even bother to comment in the first place?
I wanted to highlight to you that:
1) There are others who hail from humble backgrounds who disagree with your opinion that it's tough to be a poor kid in an elite school.
Tough to be a poor kid in ACS, sure. Don't generalize excessively, and especially not to the general state of society.
2) These same others would characterize your attitude as "ungrateful".
Seriously, think about it. The Government identifies a poor boy's talent, gives him the best education possible, spends five times as much on him as the typical student. The result: instead of a very different life, he ends up a successful professional.
Many other Governments would not even bother.
$50/month is a drop in the pond compared to what they have done for him. Yet instead of appreciating this, he chooses to claim that they have not done enough? That it is "ridiculous" he is not subsidized further? What is this if not an entitlement mentality?
Not to mention that those instructors easily charge $50/HOUR externally. ACS certainly pulled some strings. Were those appreciated?
3) If you want more than facile "I agree" comments on this blog, you probably want to be more considerate towards criticism.
Given how wrong you have been Re: Stonewall, a good dose of reality wouldn't hurt either.
I wanted to highlight to you that:
1) There are others who hail from humble backgrounds who disagree with your opinion that it's tough to be a poor kid in an elite school.
Tough to be a poor kid in ACS, sure. Don't generalize excessively, and especially not to the general state of society.
2) These same others would characterize your attitude as "ungrateful".
Seriously, think about it. The Government identifies a poor boy's talent, gives him the best education possible, spends five times as much on him as the typical student. The result: instead of a very different life, he ends up a successful professional.
Many other Governments would not even bother.
$50/month is a drop in the pond compared to what they have done for him. Yet instead of appreciating this, he chooses to claim that they have not done enough? That it is "ridiculous" he is not subsidized further? What is this if not an entitlement mentality?
Not to mention that those instructors easily charge $50/HOUR externally. ACS certainly pulled some strings. Were those appreciated?
3) If you want more than facile "I agree" comments on this blog, you probably want to be more considerate towards criticism.
Given how wrong you have been Re: Stonewall, a good dose of reality wouldn't hurt either.
A Poor Boy
Reproduced for posterity from: http://flaneurose.blogspot.com.au/2014/02/sumptuary-laws-moe-edition.html
“Sumptuary laws (from Latin sumptuariae leges) are laws that attempt to regulate permitted consumption… In the Late Middle Ages, sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to cap the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie of medieval cities, and they continued to be used for these purposes well into the 17th century.“ – Wikipedia entry
The Straits Times ran an article today on funding cuts for six independent schools, as well as requesting that schools moderate fund-raising activities.
I agree with Bertha Harian. The article was poorly reported and instead of informing the reader, left him or her with more questions.
It’s not hard to see where the motivation behind these cuts (and the accompanying loud but incoherent publicity) come from. Income and wealth inequality have become sensitive topics, and the government, in an effort to convince the citizenry that it’s behind the little guy (and hence not lose votes in the next election) is suddenly draping itself in socialist vestments.
Leaving aside how genuine the sentiment behind wanting to narrow inequities is, as opposed to merely a cynical exercise in electioneering, one really must tease apart how effective such measures are in achieving their purported goal. This post also aims to address other peripheral issues.
My thoughts:
Even with official frowning over fund-raising for lavish new swimming pools and tennis courts, “good” schools will always find a way a differentiate themselves, just as the wealthy subverted sumptuary laws in centuries past. Latest example: five star hotels in China seeking to “de-star”themselves (but probably finding some other way to up the luxury ante) so that corrupt Chinese officials can continue to stay there. Gold leaf mooncakes are so passé.
Who knows what elite Singapore schools will spend on, now that conspicuous consumption is out?
I can think of a few ideas. I attended Anglo Chinese School in my salad days years ago on government largesse. I was in the school band for a year, and the set-up in the ACS band then was that new recruits had to sign up (and pay) for a few months of private group lessons with instructors. These lessons were held by section (e.g. clarinets, flutes, trumpets etc.)
The conductor for the band was an active member of the Singapore Symphony Orchestra (he played the trumpet), and the instructors were his colleagues from the SSO. While lessons were mandatory only for the first few months, we were strongly encouraged to continue having them on an ongoing basis to improve our abilities. I doubt any other secondary school band in Singapore back then (and perhaps even now) enjoyed the advantage of having musicians from the SSO as regular instructors for all their band members.
The lessons were paid for by students ($50 per student per month if I recall correctly). So, as far as I know, ACS didn’t finance the extra training. But that’s not to say ACS couldn’t have chosen to do so.
The experience of how the ACS band operated sure put the Singapore Youth Festival into perspective for me. Early on in life as a student, instead of knowing the SYF as a celebration of a well-rounded education, I instead learnt the importance of the role of money behind excellence and achievement. And school rankings needless to say.
(Post script: As a lower middle class student in the GEP paying just $12 a month in school fees, my father found it ridiculous that he had to pay $50 a month for private music lessons when education under the GEP was supposedly subsidized. There were a few ugly scenes in school, and after some wrangling between my parents and my teachers, to save myself embarrassment and long awkward conversations with my teachers, I left the band of my own accord and joined another CCA. On hindsight, this negative experience with money and education probably influenced me signing up for a government scholarship later in life.)
Any curtailment in legacy admissions, which the article highlights as one of the measures to be imposed, is bound to elicit howls of protest or at the very least, grumbling from disgruntled alumni.
Which may not be a bad thing from schools’ perspective. Scarcity goods enjoy a premium. Expect even bigger and fatter donations from alumni parents anxious to get their kids into their alma mater. You know the Chicago song, “When you’re good to Mama…”? Exactly.
All this sort of makes the funding cuts and restrictions on fund-raising moot.
So, what’s to be done if we really want to narrow inequalities in the educational system?
One way is to increase funding to lower ranked schools. One of the ironies in the Singapore educational system is that it is precisely the most advantaged students who receive the most funding, like the Gifted Education Program for instance. Although as a GEP alum I am grateful for the funding, the fact is that even by my time 20 years ago, the majority of the kids in my GEP class in ACS were indistinguishable from the regular ACS kids when it came to socio-economic background. I was one of the rare kids in my class who lived in an HDB flat, something really unusual in ACS. (I was odd in other ways too, such as walking to school and only entering the program in Secondary 1 instead of Primary 4, the so-called ‘supplementary intake’).
The article doesn’t go into specifics as to whether redistributing funding is what MOE is going to do going forward. A related measure is to make ‘bonus’ funding conditional on improving academic outcomes for incoming cohorts of students rather than on absolute achievement. This would favor schools with a lower base of achievement that prove that they can produce improved outcomes.
As for breaking open the “closed circles” that our elite schools have evolved into, encouraging kids from lower income households to apply to higher ranked institutions could be one solution. However, affirmative action or income diversity quotas may have very mixed results. Speaking as a former lower income student in an elite institution, I can categorically state that psychologically, it’s tough to be a kid from a lower income household in a good school.
And I was one of the top students in my cohort. Without having private tuition which is ubiquitous today. Academics has always been low stress for me (compared to social interactions), but I can imagine that being lower income and struggling academically in an elite institution could be potentially an enormous source of stress.
My preferred strategy for leveling the playing field if I was in charge of setting education policy? Teachers. Sending the best teachers to the most disadvantaged schools.
A conversation with a teacher in my NS platoon during one of our interminably boring ICTs revealed to me that MOE scholars, the crème de la crème of the teaching profession, typically get assigned to the better schools after graduation. Again, this feeds back into the irony that the most advantaged students in our system receive the most and best resources, and you can’t get a better resource than a good teacher.
Ostensibly, the rationale for this is that MOE scholars are being groomed for leadership positions in the educational system and perhaps the larger civil service. So, exposure to opportunities is important for their career development, and what is true for students is just as true for the teachers. Good schools simply have more to offer teachers in terms of resources, interesting projects and resume-building opportunities.
While I understand that there is a master teacher career track for teachers who wish to specialize in *gasp* teaching, I don’t think it’s a terrible leap of imagination to realize that between the management and the teaching track, one track enjoys far greater prestige and money. Ergo, that’s where the talent gravitates to.
Which is why the Equity Project in New York City is so interesting. In this charter school, teachers are paid USD125,000 per year, twice as much as other public school teachers, and the idea is that the quality of the teaching talent will make a real difference in student outcomes These teachers are literally a ‘dream team’ – the Physical Education teacher was Kobe Bryant’s personal trainer. Given the longitudinal nature of educational outcomes, it’s hard to know if this experiment will pan out the way its supporters expect it to. But it certainly bears watching.
“Sumptuary laws (from Latin sumptuariae leges) are laws that attempt to regulate permitted consumption… In the Late Middle Ages, sumptuary laws were instituted as a way for the nobility to cap the conspicuous consumption of the prosperous bourgeoisie of medieval cities, and they continued to be used for these purposes well into the 17th century.“ – Wikipedia entry
The Straits Times ran an article today on funding cuts for six independent schools, as well as requesting that schools moderate fund-raising activities.
I agree with Bertha Harian. The article was poorly reported and instead of informing the reader, left him or her with more questions.
It’s not hard to see where the motivation behind these cuts (and the accompanying loud but incoherent publicity) come from. Income and wealth inequality have become sensitive topics, and the government, in an effort to convince the citizenry that it’s behind the little guy (and hence not lose votes in the next election) is suddenly draping itself in socialist vestments.
Leaving aside how genuine the sentiment behind wanting to narrow inequities is, as opposed to merely a cynical exercise in electioneering, one really must tease apart how effective such measures are in achieving their purported goal. This post also aims to address other peripheral issues.
My thoughts:
Even with official frowning over fund-raising for lavish new swimming pools and tennis courts, “good” schools will always find a way a differentiate themselves, just as the wealthy subverted sumptuary laws in centuries past. Latest example: five star hotels in China seeking to “de-star”themselves (but probably finding some other way to up the luxury ante) so that corrupt Chinese officials can continue to stay there. Gold leaf mooncakes are so passé.
Who knows what elite Singapore schools will spend on, now that conspicuous consumption is out?
I can think of a few ideas. I attended Anglo Chinese School in my salad days years ago on government largesse. I was in the school band for a year, and the set-up in the ACS band then was that new recruits had to sign up (and pay) for a few months of private group lessons with instructors. These lessons were held by section (e.g. clarinets, flutes, trumpets etc.)
The conductor for the band was an active member of the Singapore Symphony Orchestra (he played the trumpet), and the instructors were his colleagues from the SSO. While lessons were mandatory only for the first few months, we were strongly encouraged to continue having them on an ongoing basis to improve our abilities. I doubt any other secondary school band in Singapore back then (and perhaps even now) enjoyed the advantage of having musicians from the SSO as regular instructors for all their band members.
The lessons were paid for by students ($50 per student per month if I recall correctly). So, as far as I know, ACS didn’t finance the extra training. But that’s not to say ACS couldn’t have chosen to do so.
The experience of how the ACS band operated sure put the Singapore Youth Festival into perspective for me. Early on in life as a student, instead of knowing the SYF as a celebration of a well-rounded education, I instead learnt the importance of the role of money behind excellence and achievement. And school rankings needless to say.
(Post script: As a lower middle class student in the GEP paying just $12 a month in school fees, my father found it ridiculous that he had to pay $50 a month for private music lessons when education under the GEP was supposedly subsidized. There were a few ugly scenes in school, and after some wrangling between my parents and my teachers, to save myself embarrassment and long awkward conversations with my teachers, I left the band of my own accord and joined another CCA. On hindsight, this negative experience with money and education probably influenced me signing up for a government scholarship later in life.)
Any curtailment in legacy admissions, which the article highlights as one of the measures to be imposed, is bound to elicit howls of protest or at the very least, grumbling from disgruntled alumni.
Which may not be a bad thing from schools’ perspective. Scarcity goods enjoy a premium. Expect even bigger and fatter donations from alumni parents anxious to get their kids into their alma mater. You know the Chicago song, “When you’re good to Mama…”? Exactly.
All this sort of makes the funding cuts and restrictions on fund-raising moot.
So, what’s to be done if we really want to narrow inequalities in the educational system?
One way is to increase funding to lower ranked schools. One of the ironies in the Singapore educational system is that it is precisely the most advantaged students who receive the most funding, like the Gifted Education Program for instance. Although as a GEP alum I am grateful for the funding, the fact is that even by my time 20 years ago, the majority of the kids in my GEP class in ACS were indistinguishable from the regular ACS kids when it came to socio-economic background. I was one of the rare kids in my class who lived in an HDB flat, something really unusual in ACS. (I was odd in other ways too, such as walking to school and only entering the program in Secondary 1 instead of Primary 4, the so-called ‘supplementary intake’).
The article doesn’t go into specifics as to whether redistributing funding is what MOE is going to do going forward. A related measure is to make ‘bonus’ funding conditional on improving academic outcomes for incoming cohorts of students rather than on absolute achievement. This would favor schools with a lower base of achievement that prove that they can produce improved outcomes.
As for breaking open the “closed circles” that our elite schools have evolved into, encouraging kids from lower income households to apply to higher ranked institutions could be one solution. However, affirmative action or income diversity quotas may have very mixed results. Speaking as a former lower income student in an elite institution, I can categorically state that psychologically, it’s tough to be a kid from a lower income household in a good school.
And I was one of the top students in my cohort. Without having private tuition which is ubiquitous today. Academics has always been low stress for me (compared to social interactions), but I can imagine that being lower income and struggling academically in an elite institution could be potentially an enormous source of stress.
My preferred strategy for leveling the playing field if I was in charge of setting education policy? Teachers. Sending the best teachers to the most disadvantaged schools.
A conversation with a teacher in my NS platoon during one of our interminably boring ICTs revealed to me that MOE scholars, the crème de la crème of the teaching profession, typically get assigned to the better schools after graduation. Again, this feeds back into the irony that the most advantaged students in our system receive the most and best resources, and you can’t get a better resource than a good teacher.
Ostensibly, the rationale for this is that MOE scholars are being groomed for leadership positions in the educational system and perhaps the larger civil service. So, exposure to opportunities is important for their career development, and what is true for students is just as true for the teachers. Good schools simply have more to offer teachers in terms of resources, interesting projects and resume-building opportunities.
While I understand that there is a master teacher career track for teachers who wish to specialize in *gasp* teaching, I don’t think it’s a terrible leap of imagination to realize that between the management and the teaching track, one track enjoys far greater prestige and money. Ergo, that’s where the talent gravitates to.
Which is why the Equity Project in New York City is so interesting. In this charter school, teachers are paid USD125,000 per year, twice as much as other public school teachers, and the idea is that the quality of the teaching talent will make a real difference in student outcomes These teachers are literally a ‘dream team’ – the Physical Education teacher was Kobe Bryant’s personal trainer. Given the longitudinal nature of educational outcomes, it’s hard to know if this experiment will pan out the way its supporters expect it to. But it certainly bears watching.
Rhetoric Versus Reality
So much rhetoric about helping others. How many have actually lived with them?
From the recent body corporate minutes:
Unit 16: The DHS (Department of Housing Services) tenant has now moved out, since 2006 the tenants have been causing problems. Various tenants over the years have been drug addicts and had mental issues. Police are always called. Homeground don't visit and check up on the tenant.
DHS need to improve the standard of tenants they put into their unit. If there are problems the DHS need to respond better.
From the recent body corporate minutes:
Unit 16: The DHS (Department of Housing Services) tenant has now moved out, since 2006 the tenants have been causing problems. Various tenants over the years have been drug addicts and had mental issues. Police are always called. Homeground don't visit and check up on the tenant.
DHS need to improve the standard of tenants they put into their unit. If there are problems the DHS need to respond better.
Monday, January 13, 2014
Technical Privilege
Original post: http://pgbovine.net/tech-privilege.htm
While I sympathize with his goals, this is mostly meaningless fluff.
Micro-inequities? Technical privilege? Man up. Stuff like this could only have come from an academic. This is ubiquitous behavior in the working world. Once upon a time, we called this "building character".
Funny how male teachers in female-dominated environments never get any love.
Doing nothing is sometimes the best option. From a practical perspective, what can be done anyway? Suffice to say, the world has much bigger fish to fry.
It's good that he stopped short of asking for government intervention. Sometimes the cure is worse than the malady.
Of particular note is his admission of anger at these "inequities". Maturity requires moving beyond that initial emotional response to appreciate the bigger picture.
While I sympathize with his goals, this is mostly meaningless fluff.
Micro-inequities? Technical privilege? Man up. Stuff like this could only have come from an academic. This is ubiquitous behavior in the working world. Once upon a time, we called this "building character".
Funny how male teachers in female-dominated environments never get any love.
Doing nothing is sometimes the best option. From a practical perspective, what can be done anyway? Suffice to say, the world has much bigger fish to fry.
It's good that he stopped short of asking for government intervention. Sometimes the cure is worse than the malady.
Of particular note is his admission of anger at these "inequities". Maturity requires moving beyond that initial emotional response to appreciate the bigger picture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)