Matt Metzgar

Worst Supporter of the Year Nominee

 
I caught this story the other day about how some people are protesting a 2-cent soda tax in Philadelphia.  In the above photo, a man is protesting the tax outside of City Hall.  Okay, is this guy really a good poster child for not taxing soda??

Drinking soda will rot out your teeth and probably a good bit of your body as well.  It would be one thing if the eventual medical costs from drinking soda were self-contained, but in reality they're not.  Almost half of all the spending on health care in the US comes from the government, which is of course funded via the taxpayers.  So if someone drinks soda long-term and eventually destroys their body, there's a good chance taxpayers will have to pick up a portion of the bill via Medicare at some point.

And that's why I support a tax on soda!  

Where Is Everybody?

It was just about a perfect day weather-wise today.  It was around 68 degrees with sunny skies.  Yet I was surprised that there wasn't many people outside enjoying the weather.

I read about all kinds of anti-obesity efforts, but in some ways, they are overlooking the obvious: technology is sucking people in and keeping them indoors.  So even under perfect weather like today, technology can still prove to be too persuasive.

I remember a perfect example of this years ago when I lived in Tennessee.  I was having trouble with my cable TV service, and they sent a repairman out.  At one point, he went outside and had to shut down the tv service to everyone in the apartment building.  Within a minute or two, all these people came out to see what was going on.  This included many people I had never seen before that lived right near me!  It was almost like this was an emergency-type situation with no cable service.

I wonder what it would have been like to lived when there was no tv available.  Maybe it was more boring, but at least there would have been more personal interaction and outdoor activity.

Tour de Dope

I saw where George Hincapie, whom Lance Armstrong considers a "brother", has told the feds that Armstrong did indeed use performing enhancing drugs.  I thought this to be the case for years, and now it's starting to come out.  I'm sure Armstrong wasn't the only one who was doping, and in fact, it may have been the minority who were clean.

Armstrong had all the tell-tale signs of covering up, acting in an egotistical fashion a la Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, etc.  If he has any sense, he will eventually come clean like Mark McGwire did.  You see this same pattern over and over: people hide a secret for years, get a little older, and then want a clean conscience.  It's a very predictable and sad pattern.   

Women and Work

I've seen a couple interesting articles about women having less children.  This article points out that nearly 1 in 5 women are now childless at the end of their childbearing years, which is an increase from past decades.  Another article shows that women who are more educated end up having fewer children or none at all.  The reasoning is that educated women are spending more time pursuing their careers.

This trend is troublesome to me.  It shouldn't be an either/or situation for women where they either have a career or they stay at home with the kids.  I would like to see a greater integration of children into workplaces to address this issue.

There are a few programs out there already, like programs that allow women to bring babies to work.  But I would like to see more done.

This subject also connected to a new blog post over at Freedom to Learn.  Here is a quote:

"Hunter-gatherer adults recognized that children learn by watching, listening, and participating, and so they did not exclude children from adult activities. By all accounts, they were enormously tolerant of children's interruptions, and they allowed children into their workspaces even when that meant that the work would go slower."

Here's what I'm wondering: will some organizations allow children in the workplace even if that means the pace of work is slightly reduced?  If firms are only focused on profits and efficiency, then they probably won't.  If however they look at things in a more holistic way, including social responsibilities, than maybe they will.

10k for What?

I saw where Tim Ferriss is now hosting a weekend where he talks about his book-selling secrets.  The price?  $7,000 to $10,000!  Unbelievable!

Either some people have too much disposable income, or I have underestimated the power of marketing.  You can buy a car for $10,000.  That will last you a few years, while this seminar only lasts a few days.  Will this seminar really turn all the attendees into best-selling authors??

Wow, maybe I need to get into this business.  $10,000 x 200 attendees = $2 million dollars.  Minus minimal expenses means he probably never has to work again if he manages his money right.

If someone has got $10,000 burning a hole in their pocket, I'll be happy to take it off their hands.  I'll set up a "Paleo Weekend" where I can talk about Paleo eating, exercising, the whole nine yards.  Please send cash only - it's easier that way. 

  

Civic Duty

 
 A local credit union built a new drive-thru ATM near where I live.  The way it was built, cars leaving the ATM go right across a sidewalk on to a main road.  The cars leaving the ATM are on a slight curve, and there's also a building blocking the view of the sidewalk.  In short, it seemed like there could be a safety issue.  Given that people (like me) walk on the sidewalk, it seemed worthwhile to call the company about it.

I made a call and explained the situation.  I walked by the ATM today and low and behold, they put up a pedestrian sign.  Cool!  It's nice to know that someone cares. 

Running on Water

 

A funny video I came across.  The marketers behind this earned their pay on this one.

Fading Retail

It seems that the internet and online shopping continue to eat away at retail purchases.  I find myself buying less and less at brick-and-mortar stores, and more and more online.  Generally, the selection is wider and the prices are cheaper online.

What's strange is how some companies run an online store that actually puts their own retail stores at a disadvantage.  Let's say you wanted to buy Art Devany's new book, for example.  The retail price at Barnes & Noble is $24.99, but if you buy it at Barnes & Noble online it's only $15.50.  Even if you pay for shipping, you'll still save 5 bucks or so.  The online version of Barnes & Noble has to compete with the likes of Amazon, and so they actually steal business from their own brick-and-mortar stores.

I see a time where retail stores will be mostly for display.  Shoppers may go into stores to look at goods and try them out, but many will end up buying it at a cheaper price online.  It seems inevitable given the markups of retail stores due to labor and overhead costs.

The Market Catches Up Eventually

One of the principles of economics is that markets usually produce efficient results.  In general, I believe that competition is a powerful force and produces good results in the long run.  I feel that organizations that choose not to or are not able to compete will eventually be deleted by the market.

Here's an example from about 25 years ago.  One day my stereo broke down.  Growing up in a smaller town, there was only one stereo repair shop close by.  They checked it out and said they would fix it within a couple weeks.

Two weeks went by.  I stopped in, and they said they were still working on it.  3 weeks went by, and the same thing happened.  Then 4 weeks, then 5.  It became apparent that this company really didn't care about me or fixing my stereo.  They had a virtual monopoly and so they could do what they wanted.  Eventually, I just gave up and told them to give me the stereo back.  It only worked halfway but it was better than nothing.

Years later, I noticed this company went out of business.  I couldn't have been happier.  It was just an awful business that soaked time and money from consumers.

When wal-mart first started, you read about how it put out many "mom-and-pop" businesses.  This was true, but nobody seemed to mention how many of these mom-and-pop businesses were poorly run and overpriced.  In my mind, wal-mart did communities a favor.  I am all for wal-mart (even though I don't shop there).  It's simply makes markets more competitive and puts inefficient companies out of business.

I think the internet has also done markets a favor.  Now you are no longer trapped dealing with a local geographic band of suppliers, but you have a worldwide supply.  Again, more competition equals more efficiency.

Coming from this perspective, it bothers me when I see organizations that aren't competing.  Do they think they are insulated from the rest of the world?  Do they think they don't have to compete for some reason? 

I think not.  Markets will catch up with all the weak players eventually.

School Bus Advertisements

This story caught my eye the other day.  A number of states are looking to allow schools to sell ad space on buses.  This strikes me as a terrible idea.

First of all, do kids have any say in this matter?  Do they get to vote whether they want to look at ads on their school buses every day?  Of course not.  It's all being done at the administrative level.

Second, isn't anyone concerned about how this will allow companies to gain a fotthold into a school?  For example, let's say a bank advertises on a school bus.  Then assume this bank also wants to come in and give presentations to the school, or sign children up for junior accounts.  Does anyone think that their odds of being allowed into the school won't increase if they also happen to be buying ad space?

The co-mingling here between business and school bothers me.  You have the separation of church and state, but apparently no separation between commercial enterprises and the state.  So if a church wanted to buy ad space on a bus, that would not be allowed.  But if McDonalds wants to, then that's okay?

I think it's a distinct possibility that junk food and fast food businesses will buy ad space.  And if a school tried to turn down that money, it could be a First Amendment issue.  It would obviously be hypocritical for schools to try and promote a healthy environment in school, and then send kids home on a bus with Burger King ads.

If schools want to do something useful with the exteriors of their buses, why don't they let art students paint a mural or designs on the buses, or something along those lines?  Schools exist to serve students, right?