Dealing with the Stress of the Strike All I Wanted for Christmas Were My Writers Back January 9, 2008March 10, 2017 THE STRESS TEST First they shave enough of your chest to stick on eight additional nipples (only these are metal), to which wires will later be snapped as if you were an amplifier feeding the examining room’s surround-sound speakers. ‘No one told me anything about chest-shaving,’ I said, not thrilled, listening to Chapter 61 of David Baldacci’s The Collectors on my iPhone (which I’ve decided I really like). Then someone else comes to hook up an I.V. in the back of your hand, through which to inject a nuclear isotope. ‘No one told me anything about an I.V.,’ I said, my blood pressure reaching 130 over 84, trying to concentrate on Jerry Bagger, who had just had one of his goons throw the hooker out the window of Tony’s hotel room. Then, once you’ve got the Geiger Counter all staticky, the doctor comes in and starts the treadmill at a gentle incline, ramps up the speed a bit, then a bit more, all the while watching the little earthquake printout they call an E.K.G. Then you go with a lab tech to lie under some kind of machine that takes 12 minutes of pictures of your radioactive heart, during which Oliver and Annabelle (who has no idea Bagger has caught up with Tony and now knows her identity) abduct Trent to exchange for Shaw (all the while planning to retrieve Trent so that he might be hanged for treason). Then – if you’re lucky, as I was – the doctor comes back and tells you you have the heart of a 20-year old, takes your blood pressure one more time (100 over 60), and sends you on your way. Before I left, we spent a minute discussing stress, and he imparted a bit of medical wisdom I had not heard before: ‘Really, it’s not what you eat that matters so much as what’s eating you.’ THE WRITERS’ STRIKE How many times can you watch the ‘big salad’ episode of Seinfeld? (Answer: 14. After that, it begins to get old.) I really, really want this strike to end. Yet the current betting, according to a couple of folks on the edges of the negotiation whom we met over New Year’s, is . . . June. That’s when the actors might go on strike too, and management will really get serious about coming to terms. Yesterday, I suggested that income inequality, if it got out of hand, could be a bad thing; but that just how wide that inequality had to be to be ‘out of hand’ was open to legitimate debate. Picking up on that prelude . . . Andy Long: ‘I have to admit I cringe every time I hear or read about someone talk about economic fairness. In the entire history of the world, there has probably been no more than 15 or 20 minutes of economic fairness. Total. ‘Fairness’ is a euphemism for ‘I want more of your money.’ If the writers want a bigger piece of the future pie, fine but it’s not a question of fairness, it’s a question of coming to an agreement about a price at which they are willing to provide their labor and the price that management is willing to pay for it. As for the fairness or unfairness of the expired agreement, my basic position is that if writers thought the prior agreement was fair when they signed it (and I assume they did, no one forced them to sign it [except that maybe their rent was due or their kids needed to eat? – A.T.]) then that agreement was fair throughout its life, regardless of how it turned out. Finally, isn’t it amazing how often the writers bring up Fraser, I Love Lucy and Everybody Loves Raymond. Nobody ever brings up I Dream of Sheldon or My Favorite Cockroach or any of the other unsuccessful shows where the writers got paid for the script and the producers made zero. How many writers have offered to return their fees when a pilot crapped out? I understand that writers are angry that they are the lowest rung on the movie/TV show ladder but that’s because they’re the most easily replaced.’ Chris: Petersen: ‘I don’t know how to feel about the writer’s strike. At least Ken Levine gets 19 cents from American Airlines. I design products for a living. When my products are sold and used, I get nothing. There are plenty of people out there that get nothing when their work is used. So I don’t feel that Ken or the other writers are entitled to payments long after they have finished their job unless they have assumed financial risk.’ Jeff Cox: ‘While granting that 19 cents is a ridiculously small check for anything and also granting that Mr. Levine wrote television that is better than most, the overall quality of television is so bad that I would still favor leaving the writers on strike forever.’ Hats off to (writer) James Surowiecki of The New Yorker for this lucid perspective on the writer’s strike – and the dynamics of strikes generally. It concludes: . . . [S]trikes . . . often turn more on questions of fairness than on strict economics. Fairness doesn’t matter much in conventional economics, which assumes that, if you and I can make a deal leaving us both better off, we’ll make it. But, in the real world, if the deal seems unfair to me I may very well reject it, even if doing so leaves me worse off. The quintessential example of this is the so-called ultimatum game, where participants offered a share of a ten-dollar bill by a fellow-participant will actually turn down the free money if they think their share isn’t big enough. In the same way, a capuchin monkey who’s being rewarded for working with another monkey will often refuse to participate if she sees her partner get a better reward. And in a series of experiments run by the economists Simon Gaechter and Ernst Fehr people prove willing to pay in order to punish those who act unfairly. Readiness to pay a price in order to enforce an idea of what is right is part of what keeps sides from settling: writers accept the loss of paychecks because they believe they deserve a cut of the revenue from their work, and producers accept the loss of business because they believe that TV shows and movies are their property. The paychecks and the profit-and-loss statements may indicate that the writers and the producers should be able to resolve their dispute quickly. But in labor relations the bottom line isn’t always the bottom line. ☞ Remember Michael Ovitz, who left Disney after a year with a $140 million settlement a few years ago? Well, management and boards of directors understand: talent is expensive. His contract was the product of a negotiation. That’s all the writers are doing, and for what I would guess will amount to a lot less than $140 million for all of them combined. (As I understand it, the writers want 2.5% of the income from Internet downloads of their stuff, leaving 97.5% for everyone else.) Some believe there is a certain talent required in writing a TV show capable of delighting millions of people – not that anyone would argue it rises to the level of talent you’ll find in the executive suite. Arguably, the writers are doing no more or less than Ovitz did in negotiating his contract with Disney; and Disney, et al, should be just as tough in looking out for the shareholders’ interest as they were in negotiating Ovitz’s contract. Which I would argue was not so very tough at all.
I’m Radioactive! January 8, 2008March 10, 2017 No, seriously. As you read this, I will be scurrying like a hamster, with some kind of nuclear pellet inside me to make my heart glow – a ‘stress test’ – the thought of which, just hours away, has me only mildly stressed. What has me very stressed is not being allowed to eat. I graze; so suddenly shutting off my natural flow of clover for twelve hours is a thud to my cud. And the notion of actually having to be someplace at nine in the morning – not just awake, mind you, but clothed and physically elsewhere – let’s just say I need to go to sleep immediately. But that I have found ‘urgent sleeping’ to be as unlikely as winning a bet when you actually need to. Plus, who can sleep when, finally, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are back on the air? Which brings me to the writers’ strike. But, first, the writer’s strike brings me to: THE GINI INDEX Imagine a society where one citizen makes all the income and all the others, none. Such a society would have a Gini Index of 100 – whereas the Gini Index of a society where everyone had equal income would be 0. According to this (which does not account for the last few years of increased U.S. income inequality) we are at 45 . . . significantly more egalitarian than Namibia (71) or Bolivia (61), but significantly less so than Sweden (25), France (27), Germany (28), Holland (31), Switzerland (33), the U.K. (37), India (33), Canada (33), Australia (35), Israel (39) or Ghana (30). Equality of income is not, per se, a good thing. Indeed, it is likely to be a bad thing, because it removes incentives that spur productivity, prosperity, and feed the happiness that comes from dreaming and then, oft-times progressing toward that dream (if only with the pay raises that accompany seniority). But when things get too unequal, people get angry. At just what level, and in what circumstances, that anger is justified, or becomes dangerous, is open to differing points of view. Case in point: the writers are getting angry, while the TV executives – and some of you – don’t see it as justified. I have to go to sleep now, but come back tomorrow for some thoughts (mostly yours) on the writers’ strike. * WA-MOOPS Needless to say, I feel terrible having suggested this one to you, and FMD as well. My hope is that both will recover – but it’s by no means guaranteed. Here is an encouraging assessment of WM, posted a couple of weeks ago before the dividend was cut from 56 cents to 15 cents.
Winning the Popular Vote January 7, 2008March 10, 2017 TWO MOVIES Just a reminder not to miss Charlie Wilson’s War. And now – also based on a true story – The Great Debaters. I’d tell you more, but my favorite thing is to go to a movie and NOT know what it’s about. IMPARTIALITY John Bakke: ‘The Corrente essay you linked to Friday is an interesting read, albeit unpersuasive. But it really appears to me as though you are pointing readers to it under entirely false pretenses, ‘enthusiastically neutral’ notwithstanding. It’s equivalent to push-polling.’ ☞ You’re right. It was an error in judgment. I linked to it because I thought it was really interesting. But – as it does, clearly, have a point of view that disfavors one of the candidates – I shouldn’t have done it. (And have removed it.) I remain enthusiastically neutral among all our fine Democratic candidates. Speaking of whom . . . AN ENCOURAGING WAY TO LOOK AT IOWA James Musters and others: Total Iowa Voter Turnout (approximate) 356,000 Percentage of total vote: 24.5% Obama 20.5% Edwards 19.8% Clinton 11.4% Huckabee S/HE WHO GETS THE MOST VOTES WINS? Now, THERE’S a Novel Idea There’s one good thing about the Electoral College. Imagine a recount – tough enough to do for a single state, but imagine, in a very close election, having to do it for the entire nation. Not a trivial concern, I think, especially when we still haven’t secured our voting machines (see yesterday’s Sunday Times Magazine cover story). Still, Maryland just passed a law that would – once enough other states to total 270 electoral votes had passed similar legislation – assign its votes in the Electoral College to the candidate who won the national popular vote. A clever end run around the current system. Click here for details. KRISTOL James Hickel: ‘Slate offers this article advertised as, ‘The Left Needs to Shut Up About Bill Kristol’s New Column.’ In my opinion, the willingness of the New York Times to hire one of its own worst critics as a columnist is one of the reasons why it is probably the greatest newspaper in the English-speaking world.’
The Recycled Industrial Mesh that Holds Up Our Pouf (Whatever Pouf Is) January 5, 2008March 10, 2017 Oops. See February 5 — for this column.
Kristol, Krugman, Sex, Etc. January 4, 2008March 10, 2017 LET’S CHARGE PEOPLE MORE TO COME TO AMERICA Upping the visa application fee (from $100 to $131) should encourage them to come. Especially when they know the hike is to help cover the cost of fingerprinting them. I think Macy*s should take a page from this playbook and charge people $5 to enter the store, to help defray the cost of shoplifter surveillance. KRISTOL The New York Times has added William Kristol to its op-ed page, presumably on the theory it’s good to have someone who’s been pretty consistently wrong to balance those, like Paul Krugman and Frank Rich, who have been pretty consistently right. My pal Charles Kaiser goes into more detail in his weekly column here. SEX, ETC. Feel awkward having ‘the talk’ with your kids? Just have them click here. (But check it out yourself first, perhaps by watching this clip. Prepare to be horrified but what the teens say is today’s norm.) WHO INSURES THE TERM LIFE INSURERS? Mark Lucia: ‘As a new dad evaluating term life insurance, should I be concerned about finding an insurance company that is somehow less likely to be sideswiped by a potentially huge natural disaster? I have this fear that even an A+ rated insurer could go under if (when?) we have a series of Katrina-level disasters. Are there ways to evaluate how much exposure a life insurer has to specific kinds of risk? In other words, maybe it’s more prudent to find a lower-rated mutual company focused on life and auto policies than a top-rated behemoth with lots of hurricane/flood/earthquake-type policies. Just curious if you have given this any thought.’ ☞ Congratulations on becoming a dad. The life insurance arm of any insurer is likely to be separately incorporated, and covered by separate state-insurance guarantee funds. The chances that you will die before your child is grown are slim. The chances that a highly-rated life insurer will collapse are slim. The chances of both happening at the same time – and with insufficient guarantee-fund backup or government intervention – are real, I suppose, but infinitesimal.
20 Financial Predictions January 3, 2008January 5, 2017 GIVE MAMA A LLAMA – Pt. 2 Clare Durst: ‘You missed the essential point of Heifer International. They give someone a beast, and training for care, and that person promises to give its firstborn to someone else in their village, who likewise promises the same, etc. So the benefit isn’t just to one family, but to many. Rabbits spread faster than llamas. I’m cutting back on charities but not on Heifer International.’ CINEMA PARACHEAPO -Pt. 2 Paul Lerman: ‘The media room advice from Don Tingle Friday was right on the money. Last year I put in a 720p Sanyo projector and a 106″ gray pull-down screen and with some good 5.1 audio. It’s very close to what some of my clients spend $50K or $60K for (all at my bargain-shopping cost of well under $4K).’ John Seiffer: ‘A sales person at Circuit City who seemed to know what he was talking about said you won’t notice the difference between 720 and 1080 with a cable hi def signal – only with a HiDef or BluRay DVD and then you’d definitely want a 1080p rather than a 1080i. Interestingly, a very well reviewed Toshiba unit is $300 cheaper at CircuitCity.com than it is in the store itself but you can buy it online and pick it up in the store. What are these people thinking?’ 20 FINANCIAL PREDICTIONS I thought these were interesting. They are not pretty. But until the house next to me that sold for $105,000 in 1998 and then $765,000 in 2005 gets back down to around $275,000 or $375,000, I’ll wonder whether we’ve really bottomed. And I don’t see how that happens without a lot more pain to the economy and financial institutions.
Happy New Year! January 2, 2008January 5, 2017 Last month still has me reeling. First I learn I may live forever. Kurzweil has me truly believing. Then I learn we’re all going to die in 2030. That’s when Bill Joy suggests a bright but disgruntled teenager may have the ability to turn the biosphere to dust. So do I floss or don’t I floss? A BIT MORE JOY . . . because of the recent rapid and radical progress in molecular electronics – where individual atoms and molecules replace lithographically drawn transistors – and related nanoscale technologies, we should be able to meet or exceed the Moore’s law rate of progress for another 30 years. By 2030, we are likely to be able to build machines, in quantity, a million times as powerful as the personal computers of today – sufficient to implement the dreams of Kurzweil and Moravec [and me]. As this enormous computing power is combined with the manipulative advances of the physical sciences and the new, deep understandings in genetics, enormous transformative power is being unleashed. These combinations open up the opportunity to completely redesign the world, for better or worse: The replicating and evolving processes that have been confined to the natural world are about to become realms of human endeavor. Read it for yourself.