Economic Problems in Europe: A Canadian Perspective
The problems in economies of smaller European countries are serious and need more than band aid solutions currently being offered. Injection of cash from Germany and France, themselves carrying large debts, can tide these countries over but will they stay afloat? Many economists doubt it.
PIG countries Portugal, Ireland and Greece, are in trouble because the ‘investment’ from abroad that had been the source of astronomical growth in their economies till the meltdown has evaporated. The recession has caused massive unemployment and hardship among the population that had become used to easy life of well paid jobs in construction of hotels and apartments for tourists and towers for foreign corporations coming in to participate in the high growth rates. Not only is there an exodus of foreign businesses there are fewer tourists as well. The government revenues have plummeted just when the unemployment and demand for social services is at its peak. To ask for belt tightening by the already suffering populace in order to pay the bondholders may make the economic sense, it is suicide for a politician proposing it.
Before the adoption of Euro by the growing economies of relatively poorer countries, their currencies floated up and down depending on their economies. I may be wrong but I do think that if Greece still had its own currency today, the drachma would have sunk lower and interest payments would not be as onerous as they are in Euros. Lower currency would have attracted more tourists as well as encouraged exports and employment situation would not have been so bad. Lower currency would have also reduced the impact of debt and interest payments without ‘restructuring’ and the foreign banks would have taken a haircut without having to book the losses. While lower drachma may not have been a complete solution, it would have reduced the impact of recession, perhaps to a tolerable level.
Howsoever the current problem is handled; the solution will be temporary because the base of the economy in each country of Europe is different. The countries have their good and bad years at different times and need to use economic tools differently than those in a good phase. Two major tools are interest rates and the relative value of currency. By harmonizing both, Europe has taken away the flexibility the smaller economies need. With key policies set to suit large manufacturing economies of colder countries, smaller tourism based economies will continue to have unacceptable – to the citizens – periods of recession when they will need to receive the support from countries benefitting from a high Euro and the common economic policies or else they will drop out of Economic Union and muddle through on their own with their floating currencies and other economic policies to suit their situation.
Although not as serious, the situation in Canada is similar to that in Europe. The commodity based economies of Newfound Land, Alberta and Saskatchewan are prospering while manufacturing provinces like Ontario languish. Higher Loonie is a distinct disadvantage to Ontario businesses who also suffer the double whammy of higher energy prices. As an aside, if Quebec did not benefit from higher revenues from exports of electricity there would be more support for Bloc Quebecois in the forthcoming elections. The major difference between Canada and Europe is that the population is concentrated in the suffering regions in Canada and, unlike Europe, the Bank of Canada takes their interest in consideration when setting the economic policies.
Heard on the Weather Channel:
The snow will end in late June this winter and resume in early July in the next.
Poor Me!
I spent some of the Easter Sunday listening to Bach and Mahler on CBC. I enjoyed both but the question that is bothering me is this: Bach was a deeply religious man and one can understand him composing great Masses. But Mahler, by all accounts, was not religious and yet he wrote the wonderful Resurrection Symphony. Surely, there has to be more than technique in creating a great work of art; something rising from the depth of the soul. How can some doubter create work of such strong religious emotion?
One can look at the problem from a listener’s point of view too. Do you have to be deeply religious to really feel, yes feel as well as enjoy, the Mass and Requiem pieces of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Verdi and Brahms, Easter music from Parsifal or the final two movements of Resurrection? I enjoy these works but I do have a feeling that I am missing something by not being able to fully participate in the emotions represented by these works. Poor me!
Retirement Age and Life Expectancy
It is reported that the government of Alberta is trying to get retired people back to work. In this context, it may be interesting to note that till late nineteen nineties retirement age was less than the average life expectancy of the citizens of the country. The rising life expectancy caught up with the retirement age of 65 in 1995. Since then life expectancy has increased by one year every year and is now 74 while the retirement age is stuck at 65. The increasing discrepancy has serious implications not only for labour shortages but also in terms of tax revenues as well as the costs of pension plan benefits and medical care. The obvious remedy is to relate retirement to the life expectancy. If people worked to the age of 74 there would be no need to import short term workers, financial crisis in health care would disappear and most company pension plans would be solvent.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
Alberta Needs a Strong Opposition Party
I attended a political meeting the other day where both main speakers blamed the government of the day for making a mess of healthcare. It is indeed a mess and several changes in the management have only made the situation worse. Speakers insisted that there was a need for a public enquiry into the muzzling of doctors. No concrete suggestions were made from the podium or from the floor on what could be done to improve the overall situation other than letting medical practitioners speak freely.
The economy of Alberta is dependant on oil and gas. Government of the province derives a substantial portion of its revenue from royalties on the production of hydrocarbons. The province has no sales tax and a low rate flat rate income tax. However, the industry is cyclical and the royalty revenues fluctuate over a wide range. When commodity prices are low the royalty income drops precipitately and a sense of desperation prevails in Albertans and in the government departments. The funding of programs is cut across the board as if there is no tomorrow. Then the pendulum swings, the prices and royalty revenues recover, the cuts are restored and then some. Albertans feel prosperous again, immigrants flood in, an election is called and the Conservatives are returned to power. In absence of a strong opposition party, the efficiency of the programs is never examined and no one cares to see if the services could be delivered better in some other way.
For a government to be effective it needs a strong opposition that forces it to closely examine its policies. The right wing government of Alberta has been at the helm for last forty years. Only challenge to the ruling Conservatives is from Wild Rose party whose supporters are even further to the right. Centrist Liberals have been unpopular in Alberta ever since the Federal government tried to impose some controls on oil industry. That was thirty years but people have long memories, particularly when reminded by the ministers and the industry at regular intervals. As for the left wing parties, every one looks at them as if they have just landed from a different universe. In an atmosphere like this, the government makes major decisions without considering them from all angles. That is why almost every year a new health minister is appointed who changes the system to suit his whim. One year we have one authority to administer the Healthcare system for the whole province, the next year we have fourteen regional authorities. Then we revert to one. Every time there is a change, hundreds of executives depart with enormous separation packages and new ones, some of them old ones being rehired, come in with fatter packages in their contracts. Unfortunately, Healthcare is not the only department operated in this way. Education and infrastructure budgets have their ups and downs although they are not noticed as much by the public. I suggest that if there were an alternative government in waiting to take over after a closely fought election there would be a lot more thinking before changes on this scale were made and there would be some continuity in policies and their execution.
As indicated earlier, the problem in Alberta is that the oil prices fluctuate wildly and so do the government revenues. Governments realize this but make no effort to even out the expenditures based on the average price of oil and gas over a cycle. It is just too tempting to bribe the citizens when times are good and too easy to blame foreign manipulators when the times are bad.
Two simple devices would fix the problem. First, if elections were held on a set time table the governing party would not be able to hold them in good time and guarantee its hold on power. This would provide an incentive for saving in good times and minimize drastic cuts in the expenditures in bad times. Second, Alberta should have a law that sends the royalty income above the average of a fixed duration, say previous ten years, into a fund which can be drawn only in lean times. It needs a selfless leader and an enlightened electorate to implement these policies. Unfortunately, one party regimes like Alberta do not have enlightened electorate and you need two or more parties of similar strength to bring forward great leaders.
I attended a political meeting the other day where both main speakers blamed the government of the day for making a mess of healthcare. It is indeed a mess and several changes in the management have only made the situation worse. Speakers insisted that there was a need for a public enquiry into the muzzling of doctors. No concrete suggestions were made from the podium or from the floor on what could be done to improve the overall situation other than letting medical practitioners speak freely.
The economy of Alberta is dependant on oil and gas. Government of the province derives a substantial portion of its revenue from royalties on the production of hydrocarbons. The province has no sales tax and a low rate flat rate income tax. However, the industry is cyclical and the royalty revenues fluctuate over a wide range. When commodity prices are low the royalty income drops precipitately and a sense of desperation prevails in Albertans and in the government departments. The funding of programs is cut across the board as if there is no tomorrow. Then the pendulum swings, the prices and royalty revenues recover, the cuts are restored and then some. Albertans feel prosperous again, immigrants flood in, an election is called and the Conservatives are returned to power. In absence of a strong opposition party, the efficiency of the programs is never examined and no one cares to see if the services could be delivered better in some other way.
For a government to be effective it needs a strong opposition that forces it to closely examine its policies. The right wing government of Alberta has been at the helm for last forty years. Only challenge to the ruling Conservatives is from Wild Rose party whose supporters are even further to the right. Centrist Liberals have been unpopular in Alberta ever since the Federal government tried to impose some controls on oil industry. That was thirty years but people have long memories, particularly when reminded by the ministers and the industry at regular intervals. As for the left wing parties, every one looks at them as if they have just landed from a different universe. In an atmosphere like this, the government makes major decisions without considering them from all angles. That is why almost every year a new health minister is appointed who changes the system to suit his whim. One year we have one authority to administer the Healthcare system for the whole province, the next year we have fourteen regional authorities. Then we revert to one. Every time there is a change, hundreds of executives depart with enormous separation packages and new ones, some of them old ones being rehired, come in with fatter packages in their contracts. Unfortunately, Healthcare is not the only department operated in this way. Education and infrastructure budgets have their ups and downs although they are not noticed as much by the public. I suggest that if there were an alternative government in waiting to take over after a closely fought election there would be a lot more thinking before changes on this scale were made and there would be some continuity in policies and their execution.
As indicated earlier, the problem in Alberta is that the oil prices fluctuate wildly and so do the government revenues. Governments realize this but make no effort to even out the expenditures based on the average price of oil and gas over a cycle. It is just too tempting to bribe the citizens when times are good and too easy to blame foreign manipulators when the times are bad.
Two simple devices would fix the problem. First, if elections were held on a set time table the governing party would not be able to hold them in good time and guarantee its hold on power. This would provide an incentive for saving in good times and minimize drastic cuts in the expenditures in bad times. Second, Alberta should have a law that sends the royalty income above the average of a fixed duration, say previous ten years, into a fund which can be drawn only in lean times. It needs a selfless leader and an enlightened electorate to implement these policies. Unfortunately, one party regimes like Alberta do not have enlightened electorate and you need two or more parties of similar strength to bring forward great leaders.
Friday, April 15, 2011
Why Vote in the Next Election?
I had lunch with an old friend who has supported Conservative/Reform/Alliance party all his life. No more. He told me that he is so fed up with the dishonest practices of the present government that he is going to put a straight line across all squares facing candidates’ names. We had a discussion on the issue of wasting the vote. I suggested to him that being neutral is not equivalent to showing dissatisfaction; it is equivalent to being on the sidelines. If he is as unhappy as he says he is, he should vote for an opposition party preferably for the candidate who is most likely to defeat the incumbent Conservative. If he wishes to spoil the ballot he may just as well stay at home to watch his favourite program on TV and save the time and trouble of going to the polling station.
There are certain critical issues in this election on which the electorate must make their voice clear. The most important issue is the respect for democracy among the elected representatives. Rather than respect the parliament, Mr. Harper has shown his contempt for the legislative body again and again. He prorogued the parliament to avoid the no-confidence motion, defended ministers who lied to the parliament, gave deliberately false answers to questions in the parliament and the latest; according to the Auditor General, the government under his watch incurred fifty million dollars in expenses which might be illegal. All this when he was in a minority position! I dread to think what he would do if he had a clear majority and could follow whatever policies would forward his far right-wing agenda which a majority of Canadians abhors. By his shenanigans, including lying to the parliament, Mr. Harper lost the confidence of the House and in any reasonable society would have lost the confidence of the country too. There is no doubt that if the last week of our parliament had happened at the Westminster, the mother of our parliamentary system, the disgraced Prime Minister would have resigned the leadership of his party.
Canadians can argue about the justification for sending soldiers to Afghanistan and bombers to Libya but there can be no doubt that Canada has lost the respect it had among the developing countries for its fairness. Our foreign aid policy has been distorted by the short term view of our economic interests, policies in the Middle East and blinkered views on family planning. For decades Canada sent peace keepers to countries suffering from civil wars, now we send bombers. Canada used to send financial and technical aid to fight disease, draught and famine wherever the need arose. Now we look the other way if the area is out of the zone of our economic interest.
To make up for the loss of prestige in developing countries, we glory on our membership of G8 even if we have to spend a billion dollars in hosting their meeting while cutting the budget for education and social welfare. Our cities are choking, yet there are no funds for public transit but we have thirty billions for military jets to be used against the enemies we don’t have. Our government cuts GST and taxes on hugely profitable corporations, many of them foreign while professing poverty when it comes to supporting education and helping the citizens in need.
Yet another black mark on our name in the last decade is our environmental record. Mr. Harper claims to be the Energy Powerhouse of the world boasting about the reserves of oil in Oil Sands in Western Canada. To counter the environmental damage by the emissions in the extraction process, we have put all our eggs in the basket of Carbon Capture and Storage without any proof that the technology would work. We oppose the carbon tax and play all kinds of word games to show that oil extraction from sands is environmentally safe while disregarding studies proving it to be otherwise. In the process we risk the health of future generations over a vast area so that foreign investors can reap windfall profits and the Americans can quench their oil thirst. Canadians do not oppose the extraction of oil from sands per se; the general complaint is that we are doing it with reckless abandon without careful consideration of long term implications.
Last but not the least, the government that hires a convicted fraudster in a sensitive senior advisory position proposes harsh legislation to prolong longer sentences when the crime rate is declining and there is no proof of their efficacy. The prevention measures like encouraging kids to stay in school and increasing the number of police officers on the beat are disregarded and the budgets of provincial governments are strained further by additional costs of more prisons and guards. If there were a case of ideology gone berserk, this is it.
Major factors in this election are the future of democracy in Canada, our standing in the world, alignment of social and economic priorities of the next government with those of most Canadians and the future of our children and their children. There is much at stake. Vote for whoever you consider most likely to set the policies that will help you achieve your goals and under no circumstance spoil your ballot.
Three Questions:
Why is a driven personality always in the driver’s seat?
When the driver refuses to listen, is the passenger being driven to distraction?
Are the Canadian voters as stupid as our leaders think they are? We will find out on May 2.
I had lunch with an old friend who has supported Conservative/Reform/Alliance party all his life. No more. He told me that he is so fed up with the dishonest practices of the present government that he is going to put a straight line across all squares facing candidates’ names. We had a discussion on the issue of wasting the vote. I suggested to him that being neutral is not equivalent to showing dissatisfaction; it is equivalent to being on the sidelines. If he is as unhappy as he says he is, he should vote for an opposition party preferably for the candidate who is most likely to defeat the incumbent Conservative. If he wishes to spoil the ballot he may just as well stay at home to watch his favourite program on TV and save the time and trouble of going to the polling station.
There are certain critical issues in this election on which the electorate must make their voice clear. The most important issue is the respect for democracy among the elected representatives. Rather than respect the parliament, Mr. Harper has shown his contempt for the legislative body again and again. He prorogued the parliament to avoid the no-confidence motion, defended ministers who lied to the parliament, gave deliberately false answers to questions in the parliament and the latest; according to the Auditor General, the government under his watch incurred fifty million dollars in expenses which might be illegal. All this when he was in a minority position! I dread to think what he would do if he had a clear majority and could follow whatever policies would forward his far right-wing agenda which a majority of Canadians abhors. By his shenanigans, including lying to the parliament, Mr. Harper lost the confidence of the House and in any reasonable society would have lost the confidence of the country too. There is no doubt that if the last week of our parliament had happened at the Westminster, the mother of our parliamentary system, the disgraced Prime Minister would have resigned the leadership of his party.
Canadians can argue about the justification for sending soldiers to Afghanistan and bombers to Libya but there can be no doubt that Canada has lost the respect it had among the developing countries for its fairness. Our foreign aid policy has been distorted by the short term view of our economic interests, policies in the Middle East and blinkered views on family planning. For decades Canada sent peace keepers to countries suffering from civil wars, now we send bombers. Canada used to send financial and technical aid to fight disease, draught and famine wherever the need arose. Now we look the other way if the area is out of the zone of our economic interest.
To make up for the loss of prestige in developing countries, we glory on our membership of G8 even if we have to spend a billion dollars in hosting their meeting while cutting the budget for education and social welfare. Our cities are choking, yet there are no funds for public transit but we have thirty billions for military jets to be used against the enemies we don’t have. Our government cuts GST and taxes on hugely profitable corporations, many of them foreign while professing poverty when it comes to supporting education and helping the citizens in need.
Yet another black mark on our name in the last decade is our environmental record. Mr. Harper claims to be the Energy Powerhouse of the world boasting about the reserves of oil in Oil Sands in Western Canada. To counter the environmental damage by the emissions in the extraction process, we have put all our eggs in the basket of Carbon Capture and Storage without any proof that the technology would work. We oppose the carbon tax and play all kinds of word games to show that oil extraction from sands is environmentally safe while disregarding studies proving it to be otherwise. In the process we risk the health of future generations over a vast area so that foreign investors can reap windfall profits and the Americans can quench their oil thirst. Canadians do not oppose the extraction of oil from sands per se; the general complaint is that we are doing it with reckless abandon without careful consideration of long term implications.
Last but not the least, the government that hires a convicted fraudster in a sensitive senior advisory position proposes harsh legislation to prolong longer sentences when the crime rate is declining and there is no proof of their efficacy. The prevention measures like encouraging kids to stay in school and increasing the number of police officers on the beat are disregarded and the budgets of provincial governments are strained further by additional costs of more prisons and guards. If there were a case of ideology gone berserk, this is it.
Major factors in this election are the future of democracy in Canada, our standing in the world, alignment of social and economic priorities of the next government with those of most Canadians and the future of our children and their children. There is much at stake. Vote for whoever you consider most likely to set the policies that will help you achieve your goals and under no circumstance spoil your ballot.
Three Questions:
Why is a driven personality always in the driver’s seat?
When the driver refuses to listen, is the passenger being driven to distraction?
Are the Canadian voters as stupid as our leaders think they are? We will find out on May 2.
Friday, April 8, 2011
The Noble Professions
Teachers and physicians choose these public service careers essentially because they have an urge to serve the fellow human beings. Service gives them satisfaction; earning a living is almost by the way. Teachers serve by teaching, i.e. preparing the next generation for their adult life. Physicians heal the sick. Both offer crucial service to the society. By and large they love what they do. When things are going well their hearts are suffused with contentment.
The joy in service and hunger for power – or its substitute, the wealth - are two ends of the spectrum of human endeavour. At one end of the spectrum, there are rare saints who have no wish for power and are totally dedicated to serve, much like Mother Teresa. They derive great deal of satisfaction from their work and wish for no monetary reward. At the other end of the spectrum, there are examples of physicians and teachers who only work for the money and have little interest in genuine welfare of their wards. They neither wish nor receive any spiritual satisfaction from their work. Most people are somewhere in between these extremes and for them job satisfaction and financial goals are complimentary. When there is a high degree of job satisfaction financial reward is less important. However, better compensation becomes an issue for them when the job environment is not to their expectation.
Till a few years ago physicians and teachers were regarded as members of the two noble professions. They were widely respected and their service was accepted by public at large with gratitude. They felt appreciated and were happy to serve. They put in long hours and volunteered more time in service of the profession. Yet, the cases of burnout were few and far between. They worked for as long as their health permitted. However, the equation has changed with the advent of internet. Perhaps high expectations and the temperament of the ‘me generation’ – nothing can be good enough for me - also contribute to the growing unease of many professionals. Teachers often have to go to inordinate lengths to justify assignments to the kids and the parents, the grading of students’ work is frequently challenged and their voluntary work to help the children carries risks including that of the law suits if events take an unpredictable turn. Medical advice is challenged by the patients based on faulty and inappropriate information from biased websites written by ignorant bloggers and physicians are blamed even when their prescriptions were not followed. It is not surprising in this environment that a large number of teachers and physicians are unhappy in their jobs. They work fewer hours and are reluctant to volunteer their time for peripheral services. They demand and receive better compensation, sometimes for less work. It is no wonder that the budgets of government departments dealing with education and healthcare are increasingly under pressure and there is a dire shortage of competent teachers and physicians.
Practitioners of ‘noble professions’ have limited options when there is a danger of burnout or when they reach retirement age. If there is a financial need, they soldier on even if the work is stressful rather than a joy. Conversely, if the health is failing the choice to stay in their jobs may not be practical. The fortunate ones with adequate pensions or other resources and in good health compare the satisfaction from their occupation with the emotional rewards from what they plan to do with their time after retirememt. Playing golf in the day and bridge at night, traveling to tropical resorts, theatre, concerts and opera in great cities like Vienna are no doubt tempting and many retire to a well-deserved life of rest and recreation. For some, though, the recreational activity is not enough. They want the genuine good feeling they get by contributing to the welfare of others. If one is accustomed to serving, switching gears to full time recreation can be difficult. These are the individuals who have a difficult decision to make, all the more so because they are rightly afraid that the alternate activities which can provide comparable sense of worth that they obtained from the practice of their profession may turn out to be a mirage. The thought of giving up a bird in the hand when the one in the bush may not turn out to be good enough, is not palatable. In most cases they carry on, albeit with a lighter load, till the work becomes onerous or the age catches up with them.
Comment:
Margaret Wente wrote a column in the Globe and Mail (March 31, 2011) saying that University education was wasted on a many entrants who would be better off as tradesmen. There were a number of letters countering it with the argument that the University graduates earn, on average, substantially more than tradesmen annually and over the lifetime.
This is another case where the averages are deceptive. Many graduates in law, medicine, computer sciences, engineering, business and many other professions earn several times more than the tradesmen. But there are graduates in Arts faculties, some sciences and social services who have difficulty finding and holding relatively low paid jobs even with post-graduate degrees. Graduates in these subjects have significantly lower income than tradesmen when they have any income at all. Moreover, they have spent money on fees and upkeep over several years taking on large loans in the process while their school classmates who went into trades were earning money. It is these graduates who have wasted (from earning viewpoint alone) there years at the University which they could have fruitfully employed working for trade diplomas. On the other hand, there are many businessmen who started as tradesmen and graduated into service company owners with six and seven figure incomes. It boils down to the old saw – you can’t keep a good person down. Conversely, it is hard to raise a not so good person however much you plaster him with paper degrees.
One can not make conclusions of life time importance based on broad statistics; data have to be examined in detail. If this were done, the merit of Ms. Wente’s argument will become clear and if the conclusions were put into practice, Canada, Alberta in particular, would not have to import highly paid workers in crucial industries.
Teachers and physicians choose these public service careers essentially because they have an urge to serve the fellow human beings. Service gives them satisfaction; earning a living is almost by the way. Teachers serve by teaching, i.e. preparing the next generation for their adult life. Physicians heal the sick. Both offer crucial service to the society. By and large they love what they do. When things are going well their hearts are suffused with contentment.
The joy in service and hunger for power – or its substitute, the wealth - are two ends of the spectrum of human endeavour. At one end of the spectrum, there are rare saints who have no wish for power and are totally dedicated to serve, much like Mother Teresa. They derive great deal of satisfaction from their work and wish for no monetary reward. At the other end of the spectrum, there are examples of physicians and teachers who only work for the money and have little interest in genuine welfare of their wards. They neither wish nor receive any spiritual satisfaction from their work. Most people are somewhere in between these extremes and for them job satisfaction and financial goals are complimentary. When there is a high degree of job satisfaction financial reward is less important. However, better compensation becomes an issue for them when the job environment is not to their expectation.
Till a few years ago physicians and teachers were regarded as members of the two noble professions. They were widely respected and their service was accepted by public at large with gratitude. They felt appreciated and were happy to serve. They put in long hours and volunteered more time in service of the profession. Yet, the cases of burnout were few and far between. They worked for as long as their health permitted. However, the equation has changed with the advent of internet. Perhaps high expectations and the temperament of the ‘me generation’ – nothing can be good enough for me - also contribute to the growing unease of many professionals. Teachers often have to go to inordinate lengths to justify assignments to the kids and the parents, the grading of students’ work is frequently challenged and their voluntary work to help the children carries risks including that of the law suits if events take an unpredictable turn. Medical advice is challenged by the patients based on faulty and inappropriate information from biased websites written by ignorant bloggers and physicians are blamed even when their prescriptions were not followed. It is not surprising in this environment that a large number of teachers and physicians are unhappy in their jobs. They work fewer hours and are reluctant to volunteer their time for peripheral services. They demand and receive better compensation, sometimes for less work. It is no wonder that the budgets of government departments dealing with education and healthcare are increasingly under pressure and there is a dire shortage of competent teachers and physicians.
Practitioners of ‘noble professions’ have limited options when there is a danger of burnout or when they reach retirement age. If there is a financial need, they soldier on even if the work is stressful rather than a joy. Conversely, if the health is failing the choice to stay in their jobs may not be practical. The fortunate ones with adequate pensions or other resources and in good health compare the satisfaction from their occupation with the emotional rewards from what they plan to do with their time after retirememt. Playing golf in the day and bridge at night, traveling to tropical resorts, theatre, concerts and opera in great cities like Vienna are no doubt tempting and many retire to a well-deserved life of rest and recreation. For some, though, the recreational activity is not enough. They want the genuine good feeling they get by contributing to the welfare of others. If one is accustomed to serving, switching gears to full time recreation can be difficult. These are the individuals who have a difficult decision to make, all the more so because they are rightly afraid that the alternate activities which can provide comparable sense of worth that they obtained from the practice of their profession may turn out to be a mirage. The thought of giving up a bird in the hand when the one in the bush may not turn out to be good enough, is not palatable. In most cases they carry on, albeit with a lighter load, till the work becomes onerous or the age catches up with them.
Comment:
Margaret Wente wrote a column in the Globe and Mail (March 31, 2011) saying that University education was wasted on a many entrants who would be better off as tradesmen. There were a number of letters countering it with the argument that the University graduates earn, on average, substantially more than tradesmen annually and over the lifetime.
This is another case where the averages are deceptive. Many graduates in law, medicine, computer sciences, engineering, business and many other professions earn several times more than the tradesmen. But there are graduates in Arts faculties, some sciences and social services who have difficulty finding and holding relatively low paid jobs even with post-graduate degrees. Graduates in these subjects have significantly lower income than tradesmen when they have any income at all. Moreover, they have spent money on fees and upkeep over several years taking on large loans in the process while their school classmates who went into trades were earning money. It is these graduates who have wasted (from earning viewpoint alone) there years at the University which they could have fruitfully employed working for trade diplomas. On the other hand, there are many businessmen who started as tradesmen and graduated into service company owners with six and seven figure incomes. It boils down to the old saw – you can’t keep a good person down. Conversely, it is hard to raise a not so good person however much you plaster him with paper degrees.
One can not make conclusions of life time importance based on broad statistics; data have to be examined in detail. If this were done, the merit of Ms. Wente’s argument will become clear and if the conclusions were put into practice, Canada, Alberta in particular, would not have to import highly paid workers in crucial industries.
Friday, April 1, 2011
The Art of Conversation
Dave was one of my major clients when I was starting out as a consultant in the oil industry. Our business relationship ended when he was promoted to a senior management position in a different department. After that we met by accident, may be once every few years. Therefore, it was a surprise to run into him the other day and of all places in the lobby of a concert hall. Some friend had offered me a free ticket for a performance of Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra. In the first half a young pianist played Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No 1 to such effect that she received a standing ovation and sustained applause brought her back on stage no fewer than seven times. During the intermission, I stood near a pillar in the lobby and watched with amusement groups of finely dressed young and old men and women chatting excitedly. One had to talk a little louder to be heard and I was glad I had no company to shout at. But my good fortune was short lived. It was with some consternation that I saw Dave, a glass of red wine in his right hand, deftly working his way through the crowd towards me.
We exchanged pleasantries and checked on each other’s families. Then he discussed his health at a great length. Just when he was telling me about his last visit to the doctor a young woman, perhaps his daughter, joined us. During the conversation that followed he made a remark which stayed with me for several days. So far as I could tell it was made innocently and without malice. It was in context of my comment to the young lady, “Dave and I did a lot of work together at one time.” “Yes, I worked hard to make him a millionaire,” he had replied with a straight face,
I let the remark go by. It occurred to me later that it revealed some dissatisfaction with his situation, not envy with my good fortune. I was aware that Dave lived even more modestly than I did. It is hard to tell whether it was because he had a much larger family to support or there was a significant income disparity between us. Still, I was unhappy that I had not appropriately responded and gave it some thought. Three different replies came to mind:
1.“Dave, you were just one of many people I was working for”. This may have hurt him while boosting my ego in some strange way. This is the kind of answer that would have shot out of my big mouth in my young days. Obviously I have learnt something. It did not even occur to me till the next morning.
2.“Dave, I hope my work was worth what you paid for it”. This would have been a commonplace answer, may be slightly better than nothing but not much. This is usually what I am told when I thank my former clients for their business.
3.“Dave, you supported me when I was starting out and that was most appreciated then as it is now”. This would have been the graceful reply that would have made him feel better with himself and perhaps with me too. Not only that, it would have been correct and a true expression of my feelings. But I am too slow-witted to ever come up with the right response unlike the aunt of Dylan Thomas who said the right thing always.
Good conversation is an art which comes naturally to some, others become proficient in it with training and a few like me never learn it. The lack of this skill makes one introspective and solitary. Or is it because one is introspective that he does not develop the ability that every extrovert seems to have mastered? I do not really have the answer except to suggest that, contrary to the first impression, only a few of the extroverts have a good two-way conversation, quite often it is all about the person herself. This is also true that I have yet to come across an introvert who could converse fluently and interestingly. I do know many who do so admirably on paper. Unfortunately, much to my regret and that of my family and a few remaining friends I can not do either.
Comment
The fall of Harper government on March 25 after two and a half years of minority rule does not come as a surprise. The divided opposition and leadership upheavals in the main opposition party allowed Mr. Harper to carry on as if he had a substantial majority. He periodically blamed the opposition for not working together with the government while relying on their divisions and unpreparedness for the election to rub their noses and implement right wing policies unpopular with all but the most partisan Canadians. He played his hand close to his chest concentrating power into Prime Minister’s office, brooked no opposition within the party losing some very able lieutenants in the process, prorogued the parliament to survive a no-confidence motion, shielded critical information from the parliament and the public and emboldened by the successes of his undemocratic practices did what led to his government’s fall – he deliberately gave parliament the wrong information. It is not that the Conservatives didn’t do some good things. They managed the economy reasonably well during the meltdown but negated the impact by expensive policies on fighting crime and defense procurement.
The possibility of an interesting election campaign is remote because there is no vital issue at stake for most Canadians. A low turnout on the Election Day is almost assured for another reason. Most Canadians, young and old, are sick of election talk ever since Harper prorogued the parliament the first time. The streams of hot air from five mouths over next five weeks are only going to make it worse. The newspaper and TV will repeat the same comments day in and day out and the leaders will give the same speech whether they are in Moncton or in Burnaby. Promises will be made on tax cuts, no mention will be made of reduction in services. Long before May 2 arrives, most Canadians will be thinking of leaving the country for good. How can one vote in that frame of mind?
There are not many Canadians who harbour any doubts about the return of the Harper government. The Conservatives have built up a huge slush fund and they have no hesitation to spend it on false propaganda. Moreover, they have used, and will continue to do so, the government machinery for partisan advantage. Liberal leader has no charisma and the NDP leader is hell bent on dividing the centrist vote even if it helps the Conservatives. The die is heavily loaded in Harper’s favour. One can only hope that Quebec will once again save Canada from a calamity; a majority Harper government.
Dave was one of my major clients when I was starting out as a consultant in the oil industry. Our business relationship ended when he was promoted to a senior management position in a different department. After that we met by accident, may be once every few years. Therefore, it was a surprise to run into him the other day and of all places in the lobby of a concert hall. Some friend had offered me a free ticket for a performance of Calgary Philharmonic Orchestra. In the first half a young pianist played Beethoven’s Piano Concerto No 1 to such effect that she received a standing ovation and sustained applause brought her back on stage no fewer than seven times. During the intermission, I stood near a pillar in the lobby and watched with amusement groups of finely dressed young and old men and women chatting excitedly. One had to talk a little louder to be heard and I was glad I had no company to shout at. But my good fortune was short lived. It was with some consternation that I saw Dave, a glass of red wine in his right hand, deftly working his way through the crowd towards me.
We exchanged pleasantries and checked on each other’s families. Then he discussed his health at a great length. Just when he was telling me about his last visit to the doctor a young woman, perhaps his daughter, joined us. During the conversation that followed he made a remark which stayed with me for several days. So far as I could tell it was made innocently and without malice. It was in context of my comment to the young lady, “Dave and I did a lot of work together at one time.” “Yes, I worked hard to make him a millionaire,” he had replied with a straight face,
I let the remark go by. It occurred to me later that it revealed some dissatisfaction with his situation, not envy with my good fortune. I was aware that Dave lived even more modestly than I did. It is hard to tell whether it was because he had a much larger family to support or there was a significant income disparity between us. Still, I was unhappy that I had not appropriately responded and gave it some thought. Three different replies came to mind:
1.“Dave, you were just one of many people I was working for”. This may have hurt him while boosting my ego in some strange way. This is the kind of answer that would have shot out of my big mouth in my young days. Obviously I have learnt something. It did not even occur to me till the next morning.
2.“Dave, I hope my work was worth what you paid for it”. This would have been a commonplace answer, may be slightly better than nothing but not much. This is usually what I am told when I thank my former clients for their business.
3.“Dave, you supported me when I was starting out and that was most appreciated then as it is now”. This would have been the graceful reply that would have made him feel better with himself and perhaps with me too. Not only that, it would have been correct and a true expression of my feelings. But I am too slow-witted to ever come up with the right response unlike the aunt of Dylan Thomas who said the right thing always.
Good conversation is an art which comes naturally to some, others become proficient in it with training and a few like me never learn it. The lack of this skill makes one introspective and solitary. Or is it because one is introspective that he does not develop the ability that every extrovert seems to have mastered? I do not really have the answer except to suggest that, contrary to the first impression, only a few of the extroverts have a good two-way conversation, quite often it is all about the person herself. This is also true that I have yet to come across an introvert who could converse fluently and interestingly. I do know many who do so admirably on paper. Unfortunately, much to my regret and that of my family and a few remaining friends I can not do either.
Comment
The fall of Harper government on March 25 after two and a half years of minority rule does not come as a surprise. The divided opposition and leadership upheavals in the main opposition party allowed Mr. Harper to carry on as if he had a substantial majority. He periodically blamed the opposition for not working together with the government while relying on their divisions and unpreparedness for the election to rub their noses and implement right wing policies unpopular with all but the most partisan Canadians. He played his hand close to his chest concentrating power into Prime Minister’s office, brooked no opposition within the party losing some very able lieutenants in the process, prorogued the parliament to survive a no-confidence motion, shielded critical information from the parliament and the public and emboldened by the successes of his undemocratic practices did what led to his government’s fall – he deliberately gave parliament the wrong information. It is not that the Conservatives didn’t do some good things. They managed the economy reasonably well during the meltdown but negated the impact by expensive policies on fighting crime and defense procurement.
The possibility of an interesting election campaign is remote because there is no vital issue at stake for most Canadians. A low turnout on the Election Day is almost assured for another reason. Most Canadians, young and old, are sick of election talk ever since Harper prorogued the parliament the first time. The streams of hot air from five mouths over next five weeks are only going to make it worse. The newspaper and TV will repeat the same comments day in and day out and the leaders will give the same speech whether they are in Moncton or in Burnaby. Promises will be made on tax cuts, no mention will be made of reduction in services. Long before May 2 arrives, most Canadians will be thinking of leaving the country for good. How can one vote in that frame of mind?
There are not many Canadians who harbour any doubts about the return of the Harper government. The Conservatives have built up a huge slush fund and they have no hesitation to spend it on false propaganda. Moreover, they have used, and will continue to do so, the government machinery for partisan advantage. Liberal leader has no charisma and the NDP leader is hell bent on dividing the centrist vote even if it helps the Conservatives. The die is heavily loaded in Harper’s favour. One can only hope that Quebec will once again save Canada from a calamity; a majority Harper government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
