The Easiest (But Least Useful) Thing to Do About Syria is to Complain About Obama

These days, it's difficult to escape hearing lectures directed at the Obama Administration about what it should do in Syria. Many of the critiques, even by well-meaning and reasonably well-informed individuals, amount to little more than wishful thinking. And of course, there are the fire-breathing partisans who simply want to attack the Obama Administration. On Real Time last week, Niall Ferguson issued a frothy attack on the Obama Administration's record on conflicts in the Middle East while fastidiously ignoring the repeated question of what the Obama Administration should have done. I heard one critic claiming that a year or so ago it would have been possible to support a democratic revolution in Syria, but now the groups fighting Assad are all Islamist - which raises two obvious responses, the first being that if a democratic movement is that easy to squelch it didn't have much of a chance to begin with, and if we're talking about the same groups simply modifying their stated agenda in order to get support from Qatar and Saudi Arabia it's questionable whether they actually supported what we think of as democracy in the first place.

My eye was drawn for some reason to the latest anti-Obama harangue from Richard Cohen, a man who personifies the low-hanging fruit. It's almost embarrassing to pick apart his nonsense, like debating foreign policy with a kindergarten class, but... how to resist. Cohen sneers,

The president is the master of the muddle. He concocted a doozy in Afghanistan when he announced a surge and a date of withdrawal — a marriage and a divorce at the same time.

The think that Cohen should try to remember is that there's a difference between a policy that is "muddled" and one that he is not capable of understanding. Cohen is among those who don't understand that a "surge" is supposed to be a short-term escalation followed by withdrawal, not a long-term escalation with no end date. If you have no plan to end your "surge" then it's simply an escalation. Beyond that, why shouldn't the Obama Administration project an end-date for the longest war in American history, particularly when it seems clear that Afghan factions won't negotiate in good faith while the occupation continues. It may well be that things fall apart after we depart, but unless there's a reason to believe that prolonging the occupation will have a beneficial effect all we're doing is delaying the inevitable - at considerable cost. I understand that Cohen is not a man who cares about the cost of military action that he supports, whether in dollars or human cost, and that he may not even think about the cost, but those responsible for safeguarding the nation and ensuring that we have an effective military don't share his luxury of treating global conflict like an epic session of World of Warcraft, in which losses are measured in bits and pixels.

There's also something else Cohen doesn't seem to grasp about foreign occupation: people don't like it. Even if you can make the convincing case that your military intervention was a good thing, and liberated the people - and even if the people agree with that initial assessment - they want you gone. If it needs to be said, prolonged occupation is not good for relationships with the locals.

Cohen lectures,

For opponents of U.S. intervention in Syria, the instructive precedent is the Iraq fiasco. But that has so little in common with the Syrian situation they may as well cite the U.S. occupation of Nicaragua of early last century and the ultimate victory of the guerrilla leader Augusto Sandino. The more apt comparison is the 78-day NATO bombing campaign in 1999 that ended the bloodshed in Bosnia — and cost not a single American life. (Another apt comparison is Libya where, once again, no American boots were put on the ground and U.S. combat deaths were zero.)

And do you know why, to Cohen, the latter examples are instructive when the former are not? Because (a) he doesn't know spit about the conflicts he's describing (for starters, he's confusing the Kosovo and Bosnia interventions, and seems unaware of the military activity that occurred on the ground) and (b) he's cherry-picking examples that suggest that the U.S. can enter a civil war and achieve its objectives at a minimal cost - like we're playing a live action video game. Cohen doesn't explain why he believes that Bosnia is a better example, nor why the outcome in that region (century-old ethnic rivalries ignited, and a small nation shattered into several tiny nations) would be desirable in Syria. Or perhaps he imagines that a bombing campaign would somehow cause Syria's ethnic and tribal factions to unify? Cohen won't even hear about ethnic or tribal issues, sneering, "The weary recitation of all these ethnicities suggests a colonial-era mentality: those bloody people and their bloody behavior." As if dropping the word "colonial" somehow erases ethnic and tribal tensions from reality - and never mind that he, himself, made one of those "weary recitations" only a few days ago, "I have always recognized the difficulties of any intervention in Syria and the hideous ethnic complexities of the place".

Cohen huffs,

The operative philosophy is that you do what you can when you can. The United States has the muscle. There are few grander causes than the saving of human life.

Apparently our bombs don't kill people. Cohen has lectured his readers that it's "cold-hearted" not to... I guess it's "do something" in Syria, because there's a humanitarian need. And that would be great, if we knew up front that the cure wouldn't be worse than the disease. We helped the Afghan people liberate themselves from Mohammad Najibullah. They ended up with the Taliban. Cohen seems to think that all bloodshed will end the moment the civil war ends. Not to get all "colonial" about it, but there's good cause to believe that absent a significant outside military presence the civil war will be followed at best by ethnic cleansing and at worst by ugly reprisals of the sort he might recall from Lebanon... if he knew any history. Don't just take my word for it,

Mamoun al-Homsy, a former Syrian MP and one of the country’s opposition leaders, has reportedly recently distributed a recorded message to the Alawite community in Syria, in which he warns its members against supporting Assad.

In the message, al-Homsy called on the Alawites to immediately renounce Assad, warning them that if they do not do so, “Syria will become the graveyard of the Alawites.”

He also stressed that Syria’s Sunni Muslims “will not remain silent” over Assad’s crimes, adding that they intend to abide by the rule of “an eye for an eye” and will “teach you (Alawites) a lesson that you will not forget.”

Moving back to Cohen's opening paragraph,

I have written so many columns about the Syrian civil war they are like rings on a tree stump — a way of gauging Barack Obama’s steadfast inaction and what the cost has been. In one of my first columns about that war, I called on the administration to arm the rebels and impose a no-fly zone, grounding Bashar al-Assad’s attack helicopters and his airplanes. At that point — March 27, 2012 — the war had taken the lives of 10,000 Syrians.

For Cohen to relate the discussion back to his first demonstration of ignorance reveals little more than how wise the Obama Administration is to ignore him, even if it causes him to write an occasional angry missive about how they're not showing him the respect he deserves. Does Cohen understand that Syria built its air defenses using Russian technology to defend against an Israeli military? It's not that the U.S. cannot defeat Syrian air defenses - it's that doing so will involve considerable risk, and will necessarily involve bombing targets throughout the country, including in densely populated areas. Even Cohen must know better than to lecture, "Somebody like Assad would never endanger civilians by building air defenses that cannot be taken out without bombing civilian neighborhoods." But then, he seems to believe that bombs don't kill people, so... who knows what he thinks.

More than that, Cohen is ignorant of the fact that Syria is not dependent on aircraft and, just as in Libya, there's no reason to believe that a cumbersome, expensive no-fly zone would create a significant shift in favor of anti-Assad forces. Were Cohen aware of the history of U.S. actions in Libya, he would be aware that the Obama Administration rejected the simple imposition of a no-fly zone because they did not believe that it would result in Qadaffi's defeat. Cohen has incredible faith in no-fly zones because... he imagines them to have a much more impressive history of affecting the outcome of regional conflicts than history in fact indicates. The no-fly zone in Iraq was in effect for a decade and, while preserving the status quo, did not remove Hussein from power nor weaken his ability to maintain control without a full-scale U.S. invasion.

And this magic wish, "Let's arm the rebels" - if it were easy to find rebels worthy of being armed, it would be a no-brainer. As it's not, the only no-brainer in the discussion is again Richard Cohen. There's a reason Israel is fastidiously refusing to publicly take sides in the conflict, and it's not because they want Assad to win or because they don't care about the outcome. In the early column he references, Cohen purports that a rebel victory "would be a boon to Israel". If he's capable, perhaps Cohen should ponder for a while why Israel doesn't seem to share his opinion. Perhaps as part of that consideration, he can ponder the Pentagon estimate that it would take 75,000 ground troops to ensure that Syria's chemical weapons arsenal - which is highly portable and highly distributed - does not fall into the wrong hands.

Here's a thought that should be obvious, even to Cohen: If there were good, easy choices to be made to end this conflict, we wouldn't be wrestling with how to avoid turning an already big mess into a bigger mess. If the sort of magic solution that ends the conflict, replaces Assad's regime with a more forward-thinking, inclusive government, and prevents humanitarian catastrophe were easy, the world would have already implemented that solution. Instead, the only part of the conflict that's easy is to sit at the sidelines with little knowledge of the region, its history or the facts on the ground and complain, "The Administration's not doing things the way I would."

John McCain's Thoughtless Militarism

I was reading about John McCain's views on whether or not we should intervene in Syria and couldn't help but note that he simultaneously wants to launch a massive military assault on Syria to remove the Assad regime, but without putting boots on the ground. Never mind that the Assad regime has distributed caches of chemical weapons throughout the nation, and to bomb them (assuming we can even locate them) would almost certainly involve the release of chemical clouds, causing deaths on top of those of the civilians who would be killed in the bombing raids themselves. I have no doubt that Assad has placed weapons caches in locations that all-but-ensure that a bombing raid would cause civilian deaths. I also suspect that Assad might take the opportunity to set off some explosions and chemical releases of his own, and blame them on a U.S. raid. And if we topple Assad, all those caches are up for grabs - and some very nasty weapons could end up in the hands of factions allied with Hezbollah or Al Qaeda in Iraq, among other anti-U.S. groups.

McCain's recent grandstanding, through his surprise trip to Syria, also highlights both his ignorance of the region and its actors - he wants the Obama Administration to arm "good" Syrian rebels, but didn't know the history of the factions he met with, and doesn't seem to understand that the majority of rebels want to create an Islamist state. He also doesn't seem to be aware, or perhaps doesn't care, that a rebel victory is almost certain to be followed by atrocities or (at best) ethnic cleansing of Alawites. It's also worth noting that the groups he wants to support are not uniformed forces - they're the type of forces he would eagerly label "unlawful combatants" if they were fighting the U.S. or its allies. I'm reminded of this:

I think McCain's heart is in the right place, which is to say that he's in the "peance freeance" faction of the Republican Party - those who think that the U.S. military takes the form of the Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers and, once they defeat the evil overlords and their minions, peace and democracy will break out all over. The problem is, he has no apparent interest in non-military solutions, or at least doesn't seem to deem them worthy of consideration or discussion, nor does he have any particular interest in the region or its actors. Why does he confuse Sunni and Shia, why doesn't his staff ensure that he doesn't meet with factions that are opposed to U.S. goals and interests when he grandstands, why does he seem to think that if you decapitate a despotic regime the people will immediately clamor for Western-style democracy? Because, to the extent that the subject matter doesn't make things go "boom", he appears to have given very little thought to pretty much any significant foreign policy issue. His mistakes suggest that he's not even interested, even as he plays the elder statesman and lobbies for war. He shows no sign that he's willing or able to learn from our nation's history, no matter how recent and no matter what role he played in that history.

When I look back at the Bush Administration, and its colossal incompetence on foreign policy issues, I'm reminded of the opportunities George W. Bush squandered in the early months of his regime. That would have been a time to reach out to nations like Egypt (with its aging leader) and to Syria (with its new leader), to try to move the region toward democracy, encourage economic development, and push for the development of institutions and policies that would make those states less oppressive and better able to eventually transition to democracy (e.g., driving corruption out of the civil service, ensuring independent courts, pushing for better respect for human rights). But for all of the talk of Bush's "Freedom Agenda", his actions suggested something else. The "Freedom Agenda" was a cloak for realpolitik - leaders that the Bush Administration wanted to keep in place knew that they were safe, and Bush had no apparent interest in pushing for changes that might upset those leaders or in trying to create bridges to leaders of traditionally hostile nations. That is, when it involves serious diplomatic effort, developing an understanding of the region or its players, or getting up to your elbows in difficult, long-standing factional conflicts, neither Bush nor McCain have much visible interest in advancing democracy. But if you can drop some bombs and call it a "Freedom Agenda", the're all in.

Grandstanding over Syria isn't helpful, because there's no good path forward. If the U.S. intervenes and things don't improve - or worsen - it will be deemed necessary to escalate our involvement. Once we're in, we'll yet again be in a situation where our departure is all but certain to be followed by a civil war or atrocities, but those issues will likely be even harder to resolve than they were in Iraq. So we pour hundreds of billions of dollars, perhaps a trillion or more, into yet another war in the Middle East followed by another indefinite occupation. It's not enough to say "Let's do something, but not put boots on the ground", even if it plays well on Fox News. And it's never enough to view the entire world as a military target, because the only tool in your toolbox is the military. But it seems, that's about all McCain has to offer.

Michigan's Legislature vs. That Democracy Thing

One of Gov. Snyder's comments that caught my attention was, in essence, "I supported cramming a 'right to work' law through the legislature to punish unions for trying to put collective bargaining rights into the state constitution."

When asked about right to work, Snyder said he was never working on the legislation and it was not a top priority of his. He said he asked proponents of Proposition 2 not to continue their efforts and warned them right to work could be an issue if their ballot initiative failed.

“But when it comes down to it, if it’s controversial, you hired me to make decisions, and I’m not going to walk away from an issue that’s on the table,” he said.

“It was my view that it was clear, that this was the right thing. It’s about workers rights, it’s about standing up for workers… but we’ve made that decision so let’s put the issue behind us and move on to the next issues we have to work on.”

Obvious reactions include the obvious: Reducing the rights of workers is pretty close to the opposite of "standing up for workers" and, if you're going to tout the notion of running government like a business, making dramatic policy changes that you would not otherwise support in order to punish an outside group is about as far from what you would want a business (or a government) to do as you can get. But the greatest concern is the means by which Snyder helped cram the law through the legislature:

As virtually everyone knows, a bill making Michigan a Right-to-Work state was rammed through the legislature in a single day during a so-called lame-duck session last December.

Not only were there were no committee hearings and no real debate: The Capitol Building in Lansing was closed to the public for what were said to be “safety reasons.”

The way in which this bill was passed has sparked a great deal of outrage, not all of it from groups automatically opposed to right to work legislation. The law, by the way, outlaws the so-called union shop, and means no worker can be forced to join or pay a fee to be represented by a union, in any public or private industry....

The aim of Michigan’s Open Meetings Act is simple: To protect our right to know what government is doing by opening to full public view the processes by which both elected and non-elected officials make decisions for the people.

After all, we elected them, and they work for us. Korobkin says that didn’t happen here. He told me, as other people have, that the public galleries were deliberately packed that day with assistants to Republican officeholders to squeeze out the general public. The ACLU also says closing the Capitol building was outrageous.

Indeed, nobody can ever remember this happening on any other piece of legislation.

If you like democracy, you have to dislike the process that the legislature and governor followed.

Rick Snyder's Missing "C"

Gov. Snyder believes that the state needs to make an effort to attract talented workers to Michigan:

"There are three 'Cs' that are critically important. Collaboration, creation and connection. Collaboration is about working with the private sector to say 'what are your needs today and tomorrow?' The second 'C' is about creating talent, that's the education sector, about giving people the tools to be successful. Finally, connecting those tools."

First and foremost, in terms of attracting and keeping talent, Snyder is missing the most important "C" - compensation. Instead he substitutes determining the needs of the private sector - which I expect translates roughly into, "Getting whatever workers we need for the lowest possible compensation," the opposite of what attracts and retains talented workers. He draws on Econ 101, picturing the job of government as changing the point at which the supply curve (workers) crosses the demand curve (what employers want) - but doesn't really explain what he would do to change the point at which the two lines intersect beyond mentioning a state-run jobs bulletin board. I'm no economist, but here's a nice refresher course on supply, demand and market equilibrium, and the importance of price in eliminating a market shortfall.

Snyder comments on the jobs board, "we have over 60,000 open jobs... and these are good jobs". Not that it's a scientific test, but here's what I just found on that board:

Asparagus Harvester
Todd Greiner Farms Packing, Llc

Job Code Number: 4015674

Job Description: Involves hand-harvesting the asparagus crop while riding a self-propelled personnel carrier. Employer needs 5-7 workers per group. Asparagus harvest will begin around May 1st, and will continue through approximately mid-to-late June. Hours vary between 45-55 hours per week (based on weather and other occurrences beyond employers control). Wages: Piece rate= $0.14 p/lb. for processing and $0.16 p/lb for fresh market. Employer guarantees Michigan minimum wage or $7.40 p/hr. Some licensed housing is available depending on group size. No bonus.

Here's the thing: I didn't go searching through the jobs board for the worst job listed at the worst pay.¹ That job was featured on the front page of the website, the very first job listing under the heading "Featured Jobs".

Other featured jobs include driving a truck for an apple orchard, working as a quality inspector (high school diploma or GED required) with no corresponding job listed through the opportunities section of the company's website, working contracts through a staffing company that sends workers to companies throughout the nation, working as a project manner for a technology company that has a broken job search function on its own website.... I ran a few searches, attempting to filter for the better jobs, but didn't see much that hinted at Michigan's future, let alone a large number of job openings that are unlikely to be filled if the employer is willing to pay the compensation the market demands.

Snyder came out of Gateway computers, so he should have a pretty good sense that even with the best "account management" or "collaboration", no government can save a company from itself. No doubt, Gateway could have used better talent in its later years - but in management, not on the assembly line. Snyder continued to serve on the Gateway board during its final decade of decline, prior to its acquisition by Acer, and briefly served as interim CEO during that period, so he should have a pretty good idea of what a poor job even talented, motivated managers and bean counters can do in terms of anticipating a company's future needs and turning around a declining company. When we talk about running government like a business I'm not sure what business we have in mind, but it's not Gateway.

It's also fair to ask, what can the state actually do in terms of boosting the education sector. Under Synder's tenure the primary "education" focus of the legislature has appeared to be, "How to weaken teacher's unions, reduce their compensation and benefits, and boost for-profit charter schools," which to me doesn't appear to reflect deep concern for the quality of public education. State colleges continue to feel a budget squeeze. If I look at his actions, the governor appears to share the philosophy of the state legislature. How will Michigan's present education policies create talent and, to the extent that it does, why would that talent want to stay in the state? Even if they can find a job on the job search board, many talented graduates going to do what Snyder did - chase the best job, even if it means moving to another state.

Snynder has not fully unveiled his plans, but he did say this:

“We have a number of action items that we’re still putting together and will be rolled out soon. Particularly we’re looking at working within regions at talent connection and making sure that skilled trades are an emphasis.”

That suggests to me that Snyder seeks Michigan's future as involving lower-paid factory jobs. That interpretation seems consistent with the actions of Snyder and the legislature, from its treatment of schools and teachers to the legislative shenanigans behind making Michigan a "right to work" state, but it's the sort of emphasis that seems likely to keep Michigan's most talented graduates looking for jobs in other states, and will keep the best-paying jobs in those other states.
-------------
1. Before you accuse me of cherry picking, I'll note - that job is listed as well, and it also guarantees no more than minimum wage. If you want me to cherry pick, we need to move up to the type of salary John McCain once suggested.

Hating the Haters is... So Cool!

Was somebody on the Internet mean to Stephen Marche?

The Internet has reached peak hate. It had to. At every other moment in history when there has been an explosion of text — whether through social change, like the birth of a religious movement, or technological change, like the advent of print — a period of nasty struggle ensued before the forces of civility reined it in. In the past few months alone, we've seen the catfishing of Manti Te'o, a professional tennis player quit because of trolling, and a rash of teenage suicides from cyberbullying alongside the by-now-standard Twitter hatestorms of various strengths and durations. The sheer bulk of the rage at the moment can seem overwhelming. But the fact that we recognize it and have acknowledged its unacceptability is a sign of the ancient process reasserting itself yet again. The Internet is in the process of being civilized.

Peak hate? Is that like "peak oil" - you think you've reached it, and then somebody finds a new source or finds a way to dig a deeper well?

Hate is a source of acknowledged pleasure. Hate-watching. Hate-listening. Hate-reading. These are all things that you, your friends, and your neighbors, not monsters, likely do. We deliberately expose ourselves to objects of contempt to stoke inner outrage in order to enjoy the release of fury. It's not just online, though the Internet is the most obvious theater of cruelty.

The Internet is "the most obvious theater of cruelty"? Seriously? I guess, perhaps, if the most dangerous thing you do is interview models and send tweets from your home office. But... seriously?

Marche then proceeds to imply that every mean thing said on the Internet is a form of cyberbullying, admits that he takes personal thrill in it, and suggests that we're headed down a road toward having anonymity legislated out of the Internet. He's a reporter, but I think he missed some foundational lessons on the First Amendment. Also, I don't think it's helpful to define bullying so broadly to encompass every mean thing posted on the Internet. Marche should take personal note here, given that when he argues that "Twitter and Web comments are really just new expressions of that oldest of monsters: the crowd", that "these hatestorms" against individuals on the Internet are a form of bullying, and "bullies and their victims both have a higher rate of mental illness for decades afterward", it's difficult to avoid the fact that he's describing his own conduct. I'll grant, he uses the term "we" a lot, but that seems largely to be a matter of projection.

Wildness is always followed by civilization, the root of civilization is civility, and the rules of civility have not meaningfully changed in two thousand years. Cicero outlined them in "On Duties": Speak clearly. Don't speak too much. Make sure everybody has a chance. Don't interrupt. Alternate topics so that everybody can talk about something of interest to them. Don't criticize people behind their backs. Don't be angry or lazy. These are the rules. You already know them. They've always been the rules. People are just going to start following them again.

Except the thing is, it's not as if human nature has changed over the past 2,000 years, and Marche himself admits that what he's describing is simply a manifestation of human nature, at times magnified by technology. Were Marche to look at the past 2,000 years of human history, he would quickly find that Cicero's rules are most often honored in the breach. That's not going to change, and the Internet is not going to be tamed by (imagined) legislation that requires you sign your real name to everything you post. If Marche wants to transform himself into a champion of online civility, a role model for us all, that would be great. If he thinks he can change others, or transform human nature through legislation, though, he has quite a bit to learn about the limits of his capacity.

Résumés? What's a Résumé?

Touching on the job-seeking post from a couple of days ago...

We've learned more details about Apple's new 'GPU Design Center' in Orlando, Florida, following our reporting from earlier this week.

Sources told MacRumors that the engineers Apple hired recently were not laid off from AMD, but were instead actively recruited -- largely via their LinkedIn profiles. Apple is said to have learned that many of AMD's 3D graphics patents were issued from its Orlando offices and targeted this area specifically. AMD has job listings for its Orlando offices to fill several of these recently vacated positions.

They probably didn't even know they were looking for jobs before the recruiter called.

The End of Job Applications As We Know Them

First, a word in defense of Thomas Friedman (and his taxi drivers). Although he has the human tendency to seek points of view that reaffirm his own, at least he's sticking his head outside of the bubble and listening to somebody other than like-minded talking heads or agenda-driven "confidential sources". I also agree with Friedman's general conception that the job market is changing, as are the means by which people will find jobs and maintain their positions (or should I say, salaries) over their working lives. That said, in his column about a new website that tests the skills of job applicants... I think he's a bit too credulous toward the creators of the site he touts in his zeal to endorse a new era of employment.

The way HireArt works, explained Sharef (who was my daughter’s college roommate), is that clients — from big companies, like Cisco, Safeway and Airbnb, to small family firms — come with a job description and then HireArt designs online written and video tests relevant for that job. Then HireArt culls through the results and offers up the most promising applicants to the company, which chooses among them.

The problem I see with that is that designing tests isn't a one-off. If you want tests that are measurably effective at assessing worker's skills, you have to do a lot more than create a test for a given job. You need to test the test. Further, let's say you create a test with "the right questions" - how do you grade the answers? If we were talking about tests of math skills, that could be automated. But we're not - at least as highlighted in the column, these are subjective tests:

HireArt asks candidates to do tasks that mimic the work they would do on the job. If it is for a Web analytics job, HireArt might ask: “You are hired as the marketing manager at an e-commerce company and asked to set up a Web site analytics system. What are the key performance indicators you would measure? How would you measure them?”...

Sample question: “Kanye West just released a new fashion collection. You can see it here. Imagine you had to write a tweet promoting this collection. What would your tweet be?” Someone applying for a sales job would have to record a sales pitch over video.

Really, more than a test, that's more like creating a standardized set of interview questions and giving applicants time to think through the answers. In essence, rather than just submitting résumés, the applicants would be interviewing in writing. But who would review the answers, and based upon what criteria? Enter the human element. Or perhaps even the computer element - if you get 500 people applying for each job, odds are that the initial "scoring" is going to be a computerized process, or performed by somebody associated with the website as opposed to a person who would actually be making a hiring decision. If you were hiring a salesperson, how valuable would the pre-recorded pitch be, as opposed to tasking a candidate to make a pitch during the interview and seeing how they respond to you in the role of customer? How much time would you save, reviewing perhaps hundreds of videos from applicants as opposed to interviewing leading prospects?

So what does she advise? Sharef pointed to one applicant, a Detroit woman who had worked as a cashier at Borders. She realized that that had no future, so she taught herself Excel. “We gave her a very rigorous test, and she outscored people who had gone to Stanford and Harvard. She ended up as a top applicant for a job that, on paper, she was completely unqualified for.”

From which I infer, she didn't get the job.

For some of us, the idea of somehow being tested before applying for a job is old hat. I can't recall the last job I applied for that did not want multiple writing samples, a sample document of some sort relating to the work I would be doing, or something else that would suggest qualification (or lack thereof) before I was selected for an interview. And I haven't applied for a job in a very long time. Perhaps outsourcing that sort of pre-screening will work for some employers.

However, I think the future lies in a somewhat different direction. While large employers may well continue to reach out to new college grads through sites like the one Friedman describes, more and more jobs are going to be filled through personal connections and networking. A commonly recited statistic is that 80% of job openings are never advertised. I see a future in which that rises well over 90%, as people rely more and more on sites like LinkedIn to find and check references on people who may not even be aware that they're being considered for a job offer. The test will in no small part be your actual accomplishments, as documented on your profile and as verified by trusted people in your extended network.

The Return on Investment for Law, Business, and Medical School

My last post resulted from a search in which I was looking for general information about the cost of law, business and medical school, in response to what I found to be a dubious assertion from the AEI.

But it may surprise some readers to learn that the sizable rates of return for doctors appear to be less than for other professional degrees such as in business or law. Dentists and physician specialists have comparable rates of return, but primary care doctors have lower—albeit still impressive—rates of return. This is consistent with the general impression that primary care doctors are “underpaid” relative to specialists. Not surprisingly, there is a shortage of primary care doctors.

Frankly, given that the authors wrote a book on this subject, you would think that they would offer a bit more certitude than "appear to be" - the reason that readers would be surprised by the authors' assertion is that the authors "appear to be" wrong.

Upon re-examining the assertion and accompanying graph, and noting the lack of reference to sources or data beyond reference to the authors' recently published book, there didn't seen to be much of a point in tracking down the data. The authors reference "Hours-adjusted annualized internal rate of return on educational investment over a working lifetime", which I infer to mean that they divided cost of training by hours of training... although with medical school that raises the question of whether you should (or whether they did) include residency training along with medical school itself. The authors also speak of the rise in CEO pay, "rising from less than 60 times average U.S. worker compensation in 1940 to more than 100 times that average by 2004", making me wonder if the projections for the return on investment for law school are also predicated upon data that is now, to put it mildly, extremely dated and bearing little relevance to the present legal job market.

Here's the thing: when you break down the cost of getting a MBA (two years) or JD (three years) against a getting a MD (four years of medical school followed by a residency) to an hourly figure, you are intentionally distorting the cost-benefit analysis by pretending that the programs could be the same length. First, medical school is more expensive than business school or law school. Second, it's a longer program. Let's imagine an investment where you can contribute $X per year, with a rate of return that diminishes slightly with each additional year. You pick a fixed number of years, make your investment, and you're done. Your two year (business school) investment will provide a greater 'rate of return' than your four (or more) year (medical school) investment, but with a smaller contribution per year and a lower number of years of contribution, odds are you'll still look back in twenty or thirty years and think, "Wow, think how much better off I would be had I gone for that four+ year investment plan." A comparison of this type really only works if the cost of tuition is comparable and the length of the program is comparable: Once you have an MBA, you're done - you can't re-enroll for another two years in order to increase the size of your investment.

The authors' conclusions, although not atypical of the quality of AEI scholarship, verge on platitudinous:

It is well-known that much of the difference in healthcare spending between the United States and other nations can be attributed to the higher prices Americans pay for medical care. But the foregoing comparisons suggest that high prices for health labor in the United States might simply reflect higher returns to skilled labor across the board. After all, if we were “overpaying” doctors, we would expect to see a doctor surplus. Yet this is not what we observe. Paying doctors less would not benefit the country as a whole. That is, every dollar saved by consumers also would be one less dollar of income for doctors. Moreover, if doctors were paid much less, more people might get MBAs or law degrees instead. This would surely reduce health spending, but reasonable people might disagree on whether it would improve social welfare.

First the largest contributors to the cost of medical care are, from most costly to least costly, pharmaceutical costs, facilities costs and doctor salaries. If you are going to overlook the first two cost factors and suggest that we're simply looking at an American preference to give higher pay for skilled labor, you're not even trying to build a case. Physician salaries represent roughly 20% of medical costs. If we paid doctors nothing our nation's healthcare system would remain the most costly in the developed world. Medical schools routinely reject qualified applicants. We can easily expand our nation's pool of doctors by expanding medical schools, funding more residencies, and creating an easier path for foreign doctors to qualify to practice in the United States. The constraints we impose do lead to higher salaries for doctors, but through the distortion of the education and labor markets.

In terms of a "doctor surplus", there's in fact an artificial shortage of doctors in the U.S., driven in no small part by the AMA's successful obstruction of the expansion of medical schools, and also from immigration and accreditation policies that make the U.S. market unattractive to doctors in foreign nations who would otherwise be happy to practice in the U.S. Would lower salaries deter people from becoming doctors? Given that among nations in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), nations other than the U.S. have significantly more doctors per capita, that would not appear to be a valid concern.

The argument that "We don't get any real savings if we pay doctors less, because every dollar saved by a consumer 'would be one less dollar of income for doctors'" - why, then, are AEI's scholars in a constant tizzy about labor unions, taxes on the wealthy, teacher salaries, whether government workers are overpaid, the minimum wage... it all comes out in the wash, right? How about this: We can legislate market distortions and subsidies that increase lawyer salaries to the tune of $1 billion per year and, when people complain, respond, "Paying lawyers less would not benefit the country as a whole, because every dollar saved by consumers also would be one less dollar of income for lawyers." Sound good?

I'll go back to something I said a few weeks ago:

You want the public to subsidize medical schools and residencies, so that you graduate with a lower debt load and, after your initial medical education, have a more comfortable lifestyle? I'm listening - if we give you that, what are you offering in return? How about we reduce compensation for medical care to an amount more in line with the amounts paid by the rest of the world? Do we have a deal?

You know what else that proposal would do? Massively increase the "return on investment" for medical school under the model described above, even though doctor salaries would drop. Go figure.

Law School's a Great Deal If....

It's a couple of years old, but I just came across this one.... After advising law students about how they should get into the best law school they can and, if it's not one "sufficient brand equity to land the 'Big Law' position you want", to transfer after your first year to one that has sufficient brand equity ("work hard in your first year to earn top grades, and then transfer to a better school" - it's that easy, you know, which is why most law students have top grades and most top law schools are overflowing with transfer students after the first year - so you can get that BigLaw job.) The only type of legal job that makes sense to the author. Oh yes, and you should "have a passion for some aspect of law" because "there is never a guarantee of graduating with a high-paying job" and without passion the "tuition will never be worth it".

The author runs a company that coaches students on how to take the LSAT, so I think the biggest takeaway is that his advice "Do not take the LSAT until you are fully prepared.... Find a top class and experienced tutor, and take as many practice tests as you can" and the suggestion that even if you get into a crappy law school it's okay because you can study hard and transfer to a top school after your first year, were about protecting or promoting his business. The rest of the advice... sorry, there's no easy path to go from a school at which BigLaw does not recruit into a top law school, even if you're "committed to excelling during the admissions process". Around the same time the author was writing this piece, I received a letter from the dean of my law school (one where BigLaw recruits) suggesting that alums might might a special effort to hire graduates. You can be a great lawyer from a great law school, but if you start your career off the few tracks that lead to BigLaw jobs, odds are they're not going to let you back on.

But really, only about 13% of new law school graduates end up in permanent, BigLaw jobs upon graduating from law school. A small, additional number might join that track after completing judicial clerkships. If law school only makes economic sense if followed by a career in BigLaw, all that talk about transferring truly is about rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic - the lifeboats don't get any bigger. Worse, your reward is a career in BigLaw. (Oh, sure, some people love it. Others spend a career trying to figure out how to unshackle themselves from the golden handcuffs.)

The author's suggestion that passion can... I guess make up for the poor return on your investment if you don't get a job with a decent salary? For the most part, employers recognize student passion (real or feigned) for what it is - something that's not particularly related to the work they will be doing in their jobs. What if you have a passionate interest in, say, environmental law? Well, the best paying jobs are with the companies that are trying to avoid the application of environmental laws and regulations to their business activities. If you have the passion of a Dick Cheney, I say, "Go for it." If your passion is to "save the planet", you will find that there are lawyer jobs in public interest organizations. But for the most part they don't pay well. Oh yes, and they're full.

Where is passion likely to help? If you can develop true passion for, say, tax law, that can be an advantage if you can convey that passion to employers who are hiring entry level tax lawyers. That passion could matter if it's an area where few of your peers have strong interest and if you're actually capable of convincing an employer that your passion is real (because, as will shock you, a lot of job applicants will lie through their teeth about their passion and commitment to whatever it is the prospective employer wants). Good luck with that.

At the end, I'm left with the image of a pick-axe salesman in 1856, begging people to come to the California gold rush and assuring them how much better their odds are of finding the mother lode... if they buy enough supplies and the right pickaxe on their way to stake their claim.

Robert Saumuelson's ObamaCare Journamalism

If you read Samuelson's column, you know that he's not particularly interested in analyzing the issues of the day, so much as he is interested in advancing a specific, right-wing economic agenda. But he could at least make an effort, couldn't he?

To get some answers, I recently talked with the heads of four “professional employer organizations” (PEOs) — these are companies that act as “human resources” departments for small companies. They provide payroll services and advise on fringe benefits and government regulations. Their customers include construction companies, restaurants, small manufacturers and professional firms. Many of these firms are only now coming to grips with the ACA, because they’d assumed that the Supreme Court would invalidate it or that a Republican White House would repeal it.

That's the first place I would look for answers about the PPACA - a bunch of consultants who were apparently happy to reassure their clients, "Don't worry about ObamaCare because it will be repealed or overturned," or who knew better but were not sufficiently competent to convince their clients to prepare for the possibility that they might actually have to follow the law.

To encourage candor, we talked on a not-for-attribution basis.

As if they would own up to that level of incompetence and then speak with Samuelson on anything but a "not-for-attribution basis".

First, some companies now providing insurance are being hit with huge premium increases. Before Obamacare, said one PEO adviser, his clients typically received annual increases of 6 percent to 12 percent. “This year we’re seeing 30 percent rate hikes,” he said. The surge is blamed, rightly or wrongly, on the ACA’s requirement for more comprehensive coverage and on its formula for calculating premiums (aka “community rating”).

Seriously? Is it that the incompetence of the consultants who spoke with Samuelson reached beyond their failure to advise their clients to prepare to comply with the law, and extended into not even knowing the basic economics of health insurance and premium costs? Or is it that Samuelson didn't ask the obvious follow-up question, "Which is it - rightly or wrongly?" To be fair to Samuelson, I think he knows the answer, but if he said it out loud ("wrongly") his three-point list would as a consequence have only two points.

Second, most companies haven’t made final decisions. Those who have go both ways. Another adviser described a 250-worker car dealership with good wages but no health insurance; it will provide coverage and cut wages to help pay costs. Another example involved a 60-worker manufacturing firm with wages of $12 to $15 an hour. It offered bare-bones policies with steep deductibles. Confronting higher premiums for expanded coverage, the owner will drop insurance. He found the ACA “too complex,” said this adviser.

Should we assume at this point that we're talking about a cause of higher premiums other than those that employers rightly or wrongly attribute to ObamaCare? If so, it's pretty much a given that some employers will choose to drop insurance, pay the penalty, and let its workers seek coverage through the exchanges. They're probably better off than with the "bare-bones policies with steep deductibles" (i.e., "crap") policies Samuelson says their employer previously offered - I think it's safe to assume that Samuelson has a gold-plated Medicap plan on top of his own, government-paid, comprehensive Medicare benefits - the workers who need adequate insurance may be better served by their employer's choice. But seriously? The consultant who is paid to make the process as simple as possible for a client employer can't get his client past, "It's too complex"? And that would be the fault of... somebody other than the consultant?

Third, many firms are revising their business models to minimize insurance costs. One favorite idea: Hold workers below the 30-hour weekly threshold requiring insurance. Many part-time employees who work more (say, 35 hours a week) will lose hours.

I've heard about this little scheme, as well. The fixes are so obvious (e.g., setting the penalty based upon total employee hours) that the only reason that it's worth discussing is that people like Samuelson anticipate that Republicans will filibuster any effort to implement a fix. But you know what? It may not amount to much. When an employee is given a choice between working two jobs because his employer won't give him more than thirty hours, and working one job with decent health benefits, guess which job anybody worth hiring is going to choose?

If Samuelson had any experience working in an environment where employees earn at or near minimum wage, he would have some appreciation for how little it takes to convince an employee to change jobs. Samuelson wouldn't notice fifty cents an hour. Were he making $7.25 per hour, it would become a big deal. If you want to run the business with employees who don't mess up orders, don't waste food, are less likely to steal, are easier to train and supervise, etc., as a general rule you have to pay a bit more than the guy down the street. If my competitor in food service were intent on keeping his employees below thirty hours a week, I would be happily skimming the cream off of his workforce.

Another adviser mentioned a client, an engineering firm with 48 workers, that had deliberately restrained expansion.

This is where I make a coughing noise that sounds a lot like I'm actually saying "bull****". If this engineering firm truly is constraining its size to avoid giving its employees decent health insurance, it's not going to have much luck retaining engineers. They have even better options than the movie theater worker and hotel workers whose anticipated plight was, mere moments ago, giving Samuelson such... is the word, delight?

I would suggest that Samuelson stop "concern trolling" ObamaCare and propose some meaningful solutions, but... as I suggested up front, I see no evidence that he's interested in solving the problems ObamaCare is attempting to address.

When it Comes to Tablets, Microsoft is Overplaying its Hand

Perhaps inspired by a burning desire to do a "gotcha" over the historic "Mac vs. PC" ads, where a guy who needed a shave pokes fun at a pudgy guy in a suit, or perhaps inspired by the increasingly tiresome, "You have an iPhone? Let me show you this cool feature in my Samsung" ads, Microsoft is taking a potshot at the iPad:

The ad makes three basic criticisms of the iPad:

1. 1. It has a relatively bland, traditional desktop whereas Windows 8 uses "smart tiles" that continuously update;

2. 2. It does not multi-task; and

3. 3. Microsoft has dropped the ball when it comes to writing software for iOS.

It then presents an intentionally misleading price comparison between the iPad and an entry level Windows tablet (with a much lower resolution screen¹ and plastic case).

The first two issues are in no small part about power management. I can't tell you the degree to which Apple may incorporate multi-tasking or updating in the next version of iOS, which will include a significant revision of much of the user interface, but history suggests that Apple will continue to favor long battery life over power-draining features that have limited utility. Don't get me wrong - I would like Apple to allow users to have greater choice, even if it means that they will need to recharge their iPads more often. But it's highly misleading to suggest, "Our new mobile OS is really cool" without addressing how that coolness affects battery life and performance.

In terms of iOS not offering Microsoft Excel, well, yeah... Microsoft has delayed producing a version of Office for iOS to the degree that it's difficult to infer any motive but Microsoft's traditional, "Delay upgrading and offer inferior versions of Office for Apple products." Perhaps their next commercial will show some sort of Zune software running on the Windows tablet, with iTunes running on the iPad? My, how turnabout can sting.

Right now I'll admit to having more computers in my house than occupants. One is OS-X, two are Windows 7. And we also have a couple of tablets. The people who claim that tablets are mere toys, or are about to go the way of the Dodo, either haven't used one or aren't paying attention to how they're used. Games aside, a tablet is an incredibly useful tool for consuming online content - checking email, browsing the web, watching streamed or stored video, video conferencing and the like. Responding, "I can do all of that on my desktop or notebook" misses the point - the convenience and portability factor. A few years ago if you went to an airport you would see a lot of people working on notebook computers, trying to scrounge an outlet. These days you see an even larger number of people using tablets to read or otherwise entertain themselves, and notebook users have a lot less competition for those outlets.

But if I'm trying to type or edit a document, work on a spreadsheet, or do any sort of complex or multi-window task, I want to be at my desktop computer with a large monitor and keyboard. It may well be that I would be impressed with the touchscreen UI for Excel. I doubt it, given how unimpressed I am with the touchscreen UI for Windows 8, but Microsoft could surprise me. But what would I do if I actually needed to work on a spreadsheet? I would set down the tablet and use either one of our portable computers or my desktop computer - because they're better designed for that kind of work.

The Samsung ads, in my opinion, have devolved from being cute and funny to, more or less, showing Samsung owners wearing out their own arms by patting themselves on the back.² Oddly enough, Microsoft seems to understand this, even if they don't actually present a reason to buy a Windows phone other than "It's not an Apple or a Samsung".

The difference is this: If I weigh the pros and cons of the various smartphones available today, I can come up with valid reasons why I might prefer a Samsung over an Apple, or vice versa. If I put the two phones next to each other and run various tasks, I am going to see why I might prefer one over the other.

But if I were to recreate the comparison from Microsoft's commercial at an electronics store, putting the Asus tablet next to an iPad and running various apps, I would not have the experience depicted in the commercial. I would immediately see that the Samsung had an inferior build and display. And from the reviews I've read, I would see the Asus tablet slow down or become momentarily non-responsive when multi-tasking. I might notice that the battery has a significantly lower capacity than that of the iPad, and while crediting advances in CPU technology for its reasonably long battery life nonetheless recognize that the battery life is extended by the use of the much lower-resolution screen. Reviews indicate that I would find the cameras in the ASUS to be of good quality, but that I would likely be displeased by the camera software. And while the tablet might perform better if it weren't running a full version of Windows 8, without that you would have to drop the "And look how well it runs Microsoft software" part of the ad.

I'm reminded of the highly effective commercials Microsoft ran, touting the sub-$1,000 entry price for Windows notebook computers. I'm also reminded of how that series of commercials fizzled out when Apple started offering sub-$1,000 notebooks and Microsoft started touting lower price points - instead of comparing computers of reasonably comparable build and performance, getting into a quality of build and performance that no reasonable consumer would find to be a compelling point of comparison to the Apple product.

If Microsoft's goal is to get buzz, the victory goes to Microsoft - here I am talking about their products. But if its goal is to convince consumers to buy Windows tablets, the commercial seems to oversell the product, creating the potential for customer dissatisfaction at a time when Microsoft needs to build a significant user base for its tablets and risks increasing consumer skepticism of its marketing pitches.
---------------------
1. The Asus screen offers 1,366 x 768 pixels, for a pixel density of 155 ppi. The iPad offers 2048 x 1536-pixels, for a pixel density of 264 ppi.

2. Commercials I would like to see:

"Why are you and that other guy bumping your phones together?"
"My phone has this awesome feature that allows me to exchange data by bumping it into somebody else's phone, does your phone do that?"
"Um... my phone has email."

"Hey, you're using an iPhone. Wanna see this really cool feature my phone has that yours doesn't have yet? No? You said 'No?' What do you mean, you wouldn't use that feature? What do you mean, 'pro's and con's to every phone'?"

"You waited in line to buy your phone? I got a phone that nobody waits in line for. Wait, that didn't come out the way I wanted."