George Rebane
There is no question that governments at all levels have become less efficient from the taxpayers’ viewpoint. This inefficiency is felt from many quarters and with respect to applied metrics, ranging from ‘bang per buck’, through layers of onerous regulations and mandates, to the ongoing removal of freedoms often through gratuitous criminalizations.
We live in a county that, on the whole, is fiscally well managed. However, in recent years many of us have started to notice some pretty significant lapses in how our elected officials do business. As examples, we may consider the string of bad decisions made during the recent AtPac lawsuit (q.v.), the demonstrated and endured lack of competency in the county counsel’s office, and our county’s official discounting/denial of its unfunded pension obligations. On all of these, the inquiring citizen faces a phalanx of tightly circled wagons, and is ridiculed for bringing up individual issues.
The portent of the county’s unfunded liabilities are undoubtedly the biggest sword hanging over our taxable heads. The amount that the county will have to pay out in the future (the out-years) is actually a complex calculation, and depends on not only the legal obligation to the public service retireds, but also on how much CalPERS will have in our account. We have to remember that PERS is just an investment manager for the retirement funds the county remits to it. PERS has no obligation to do anything except disperse what is in the Nevada County’s account. (And then we are in a risk pool with a couple of hundred other jurisdictions like the profligate City of Bell, which is a whole other dimension of risk.)
This account may go up or down, depending on the vagaries of the securities markets and how astute the PERS portfolio managers are. Their obligation as a fiduciary is only to do their best, come what may, and also to tell us their best estimate of what our unfunded part is when payments come due. And that is where the problems start. Local jurisdictions all over the country are basically in arrears, and many cities and counties are on the brink of Chapter 9 bankruptcy.
In California, Stockton is our next city that is prepared to file. The San Francisco Chronicle has a more complete report on the entire situation in the state, and it isn’t pretty.
Added to the above calculations we have at least one “side fund” and yet to be explained amounts of monies due that are not shown on the county’s financial statements. The situation is murky indeed, and our electeds are not exactly leaning forward to clear up the obligations that are facing us. What I would like to see is a chart like the one below that shows by year Nevada County’s total known and anticipated obligations with error brackets showing the high-to-low range.
For more a higher level perspective, we recall the 2009 quote by Mr Ron Seeling, Chief Actuary of CalPERS –
"I don't want to sugarcoat anything. We are facing decades without significant turnarounds in assets, decades of …unsustainable pension costs of between 25 percent of pay for a miscellaneous plan and 40 to 50 percent of pay for a safety plan …unsustainable pension costs. We've got to find some other solutions.”
And things have gotten worse since then.
Continue reading "‘Rural Myths’ – don’t worry, be happy (updated 2mar12)" »
The Value of Stereotyping
George Rebane
But if you understand the underpinnings of stereotyping, it can be a valuable tool in making all kinds of decisions, and also serve as a mirror for better understanding yourself. I was motivated to write this piece when recently reading Daniel Kahneman’s monumental Thinking, Fast and Slow which dances around the subject without getting into the nitty-gritty of it because of the little math involved. Kahneman, recent Nobelist and co-father of behavioral economics with the late Amos Tversky, is also a giant in the field of psychology. In that field stereotyping comes up under the forbidding label of representativeness (q.v. – which is short for quod vide or ‘which see’, and I’ve concluded that its modern version is simply ‘google it’.)
Stereotyping is the use of a template of characteristics that are thought to belong to members of a particular class more frequently than members of the general population of which the class is a subset. The template of characteristics is also known as the stereotypical characteristics like, say, a plastic pocket protector full of writing instruments more often seen in the shirt pockets of male engineers than in the pockets of other men.
Stereotyping has gotten a bad rap in our society, and its use is roundly criticized in the public forum. However, stereotyping, so as to assign or exclude someone from membership in a given class, is built in to almost every critter that lives on this planet. Why? Simply because it is a low cost survival technique that has evolved in all species to simplify quick decisions about the famous ‘Three F’ functions – feed, fight, or mount - important to everyone.
Now consider seeing a good looking woman, finely coiffed, beautifully dressed, and dripping with expensive jewelry, getting out of a chauffeured limousine in front of a fancy restaurant. You wonder if she’s a member of the currently notorious ‘1%’. More particularly, what are the chances (friendly word for ‘probability’) that she is a member of that exclusive class, given she has some of the stereotypical characteristics of that class that you just observed? If you had been facing the other way and your friend told you that a woman just got out a car behind you; then without seeing her, what would you answer if he mused whether the woman belonged to the '1%'?
Continue reading "The Value of Stereotyping" »
Posted at 02:38 PM in Books & Media, Critical Thinking & Numeracy, Culture Comments, Science | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)
Reblog (0) | |