Phoenix, Falling?

A recent Economist article reports that Phoenix, which for awhile
could do no wrong, is succumbing to crime, malaise, and
disillusionment. Rather than lazily pointing the finger at the many
low-skill immigrants that arrive from south of the border, the article
delves into a couple of other interesting possible causes.

For one, minorities have been largely left out of government and city
planning functions, resulting in far fewer and less vibrant ethnic
neighborhoods like the ones that make San Francisco, Chicago, and New
York so interesting. Others speculate that the fact that everyone is
from somewhere else has left Phoenicians with no sense of Phoenician
pride and identity, in the same way that homegrowners from Dallas,
Detroit, and Boston do. Speaking of being anti-social and
disconnected, while Philadelphia gets denser and denser in the good
ways - downtown night life is hopping because everybody's out walking
around - high temps and wide streets translate into very little foot
traffic in the streets of Phoenix.

It looks like year-round golf and a white-hot population and
employment growth aren't always enough to make a healthy city. And,
from where we sit in Philadelphia, who knew that being welcoming to
minorities, bleeding Eagles green, and having narrow streets would
lead to so much good, economically and emotionally?

http://economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9546749

Make the Whole Greater Than the Sum of its Parts

You may have heard this argument before: fans root for their fantasy players instead of teams; music lovers download singles off of iTunes instead of buying whole albums; and Christians cobble together a spiritual experience by attending service at one church, going to a Bible study at a second, and sending their kids to youth group at a third.  And the argument usually ends with: shame on these people for buying into this age's me-first consumerism.

I'm not here to absolve people from devaluing the whole for the sum of the parts they like.  But I think some burden needs to fall on the "providers" of these "goods" as well.  After all, I'm a firm believer in freedom of choice, in the good there is in having lots of choices, and in the good things that happen when competition for "customers" pushes "providers" to do better. 

The solution, then, doesn't seem to be to shame people out of their individualistic decision-making, to guilt them into settling for wholes that are less than the sum of the parts.  Rather, providers need to get the word out that the whole is in fact worth buying into, rather than picking through for the parts you like.  Sports teams can take on a persona that is greater than any of the players that come and go, bands can organize their albums such that you really need to listen to the whole thing through instead of throwing together disparate tracks, and churches can communicate to the congregants that greater than specific resources is the experience of being part of a living and breathing body.

Again, some responsibility must be taken by the "consumers," to take the time to see the good in the whole instead of just shopping around for the parts that are most interesting.  But some responsibility must also be taken by the "providers," to make their wholes worth buying into as a whole. 

Two Less Cars

If ever there was a place that defined sprawl in America, it is LA.  And yet LA is getting denser, thanks to a recent boom in downtown residential conversions.  I'm following this trend with particular personal interest, because my sister and her husband are part of this wave of young professionals moving into LA's downtown area. 

They got jobs in different parts of the greater LA area, and were trying to decide between living close to her workplace so he would commute, or living close to his workplace so she would commute.  They decided instead to live downtown, geographically further from both workplaces, but allowing both to commute by transit. 

That's two less cars clogging up LA's notoriously clogged highways, and two less cars belching pollution into LA's notoriously polluted air.  Good for them, financially, and good for LA.  Would that more Los Angelinos do the same. 

Wikinomics

The Internet, in addition to enabling me to buy furniture and wedding gifts without leaving my house, has also spawned the age of mass collaboration.  Or so say the authors of a new book deliciously called Wikinomics.  The Human Genome Project, Wikipedia, and Linux are three examples of the fundamental truth that everyone knows more than anyone.

I wonder if we Christians ought to double down on this concept when it comes to our spiritual health and our life mission.  In this day and this country, faith is all too often narrowed down to a personal and private journey.  And it is, in fact, at least that.  But it is so much more; it is also a shared, communal, and public adventure.

I am, by all accounts, a pretty independent and private person.  And yet I am challenged by this notion of mass collaboration, not only in my professional life but in my spiritual life as well.  For did not the apostle Paul describe all believers collectively as like a human body, inter-connected and intertwined?  And will not our purpose here on earth - God's grand purpose for putting us on earth -  be accomplished only by linking together so as to bear one another's burdens and benefit from one another's talents?

The next time you're mass collaborating, whether professionally (project teams, wikis, networking) or personally (YouTube, Flickr, MySpace), think about how the principle that everyone's better than anyone can apply to your spiritual vitality and to your mission on earth.  Because in this wild, wired, wiki world, we need to link up to survive and thrive.

http://www.wikinomics.com/

Fourth Metacarpal

Philadelphia Phillies second baseman Chase Utley and I have something in common: we both broke the fourth metacarpal in our right hand when it was hit by a pitched ball.  Although his happened tonight, against the Washington Nationals of the National League, while mine happened 24 years ago, against the New York Yankees of the Cupertino American Little League.  And though I haven't seen the footage of tonight's game, I'm guessing Chase probably didn't fall to the ground in a heap crying for his mommy like I did.  Nonetheless, just like I missed two-thirds of my season, Chase'll have to miss a few weeks' worth of games.  Get well soon, Chase.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/baseball/mlb/07/26/bc.bbn.nationals.phillies.ap/index.html

With Compliments

I was pretty shy all the way up until 9th grade.  I recall needing a letter of recommendation from my English teacher for some award I was applying for.  She wrote about how I had gone with her group to the local college to sell sodas as a fundraiser, and since I had done this earlier in the school year with another group, I was able to help the others around me.  In short, she saw leadership in me that I hadn't seen in myself, and her kind words gave me confidence that it was something I was good at and that I should use more.  And from that point on, I came out of my shell and became more of a leader. 

That's the thing about talent - because it comes easy to you, it's easy to discount it as not that special.  Oh, but it is special.  God was perfect in distributing talents, and there's no shame in using them for His glory.  Sometimes we can get so worried about puffing ourselves up that we commit the equally egregious sin of covering over the glorious gifts God gave us to show forth His goodness.  And sometimes we can dismiss something that comes easy to us and think that it's more noble to do something that comes harder to us, when all along what the world needs most from us is the thing we were born to do.

And sometimes all it takes to put those talents into motion is a simple compliment, like the one my 9th grade English teacher gave me.   With compliments, talents get unleashed for the world to benefit and for the Giver of those talents to be glorified.  So be generous in giving out compliments and gracious in receiving them.  I know I am thankful for the ones I receive, and eager to give out as many of my own.

Fast Info

In a free market system, price is the most important form of speech.
Price is information without which buyers and sellers can't optimally
do business. One economist called the elimination of
government-controlled price ceilings and floors a version of
"protection of freedom of speech."

In lay terms, it's quite simple: if a price for a good is too low, it
gets bid up until it's right; and if a price for a good is too high,
it gets bid down until it's right. Whether that good is a share of
stock, a pound of sugar, or an hour of a chemical engineer, billions
of transactions a day help make sure buyers and sellers work things
out without actually "talking."

Which is why 311 systems like what New York, Baltimore, and Chicago
have are so crucially important for running an efficient municipality.
Cities don't have prices per se; even if you accept that your city
taxes are a form of price in exchange for a basket of goods and
services, that bill doesn't as easily move up and down as with the
private markets.

Governments can exploit this and get lazy in terms of responding to
their "customer." Or they can be proactive and seek other ways of
"talking" to them. In fact, New York's 311 system gets 40,000 calls a
day. That's 40,000 interactions with your constituency, 40,000 data
points to help you know better what their needs are and how you can
meet them.

That sort of information rivals what the private sector has in its
arsenal to determine how many widgets to make, what bells and whistles
to put on them, and what to sell them for. Would that more
municipalities get what New York, Baltimore, and Chicago have gotten:
that 311 can open up that conversation and get you that fast info you
need to run the bureaucracy that is your city government.

http://www.govtech.com/pcio/articles/125486

China

Nice cover story in Business Week about whether China can keep up its
growth in light of lax environmental standards, consumer product
safety snafus, and an unwillingness to rein in local leaders who are
too much in bed with business. I tend to be fairly libertarian /
pro-business when it comes to these things, but while government isn't
always the best mechanism, it still needs to play a role. Keep an eye
out, as I know you do - this is a moment in time that could lead to
the creation of the next great superpower, or there could be unrest
and disaster unparalleled in the history of mankind.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_30/b4043001.htm

While we're on the subject of China, I had heard about Philly
petitioning for direct flights to Beijing, and then I got this email
from the head of Select Greater Philadelphia (edited because I'm not
sure if they're OK with publishing email addresses and phone numbers).
To the extent that business in China is booming, it certainly puts
Philly on the map to have flights that go there directly. Selfishly,
this could be perfect timing for when we head over there in early 2009
for our second China adoption.

-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas G. Morr
Sent: Thu 7/19/2007 4:43 PM
To: Thomas G. Morr
Subject: Call To Ambassadors: Regional Support for US Airways Flight to Beijing

I am writing all Greater Philadelphia Ambassadors to ask for your help.
US Airways has announced it is applying for the rights to fly nonstop
service from Philadelphia to Beijing, China in 2009. This flight will
be the first step in starting service from Philadelphia to other points
in Asia, and we welcome the economic benefit that will come to the
region as a result.

In order for US Airways to start this service, they must apply with the
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) and be awarded a designation to
serve China. This process involves many steps, one of which is
gathering support from the community. I am asking you to submit a
letter to the DOT in support of US Airways' application.

A process has been set up to help make this easy for you. Attached is a
sample letter that you can copy onto your letterhead, sign, and send to
Philadelphia International Airport (PHL). PHL will then submit your
letter to the DOT on your behalf. Any customization of the letter would
be very much appreciated. Please note in the first paragraph there are
two "blanks" that need to be filled in on the sample letter.

The DOT's route selection process for these route rights is compressed,
so the letters need to be submitted rather quickly. We ask that you
please get the letters to Philadelphia International Airport by Friday,
July 27, 2007.

We look forward to the day when the Greater Philadelphia region can
enjoy nonstop service to Asia from PHL, and we hope you will help us get
there.

Sincerely,

Tom

Thomas G. Morr
President and CEO
Select Greater Philadelphia
200 South Broad Street, Suite 700
Philadelphia, PA 19102-3896

Fifteen 5's - What Are Yours

I keep a running list of books I've read, with a score from 1 to 5, 5
being the highest. When it comes to giving out 5's, I'm stingier than
the Russian judge: there are only fifteen on my list out of hundreds
of books read. These are books that either changed my life or were so
well-written and/or entertaining that I couldn't put them down.
Here's my list, only four of which have been added in the last twelve
months:

* The Holy Bible
* Pleasures of God (Piper)
* Moneyball (Lewis)
* Good to Great (Collins)
* Free to Choose (Friedman)
* Crabgrass Frontier (Jackson)
* The Death and Life of Great American Cities (Jacobs)
* The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt (Morris)
* Made in America / The Mother Tongue (Bryson)
* The Night is Dark and I am Far From Home (Kozol)
* Strangers from a Different Shore (Takaki)
* The Visual Display of Quantitative Information (Tufte)
* Christ and Culture (Niebuhr)
* Founding Brothers (Ellis)

What are your 5's?

Orchestra at the Park

The neighborhood park, a gorgeous summer evening, the Philadelphia
Orchestra, and free. I am so there:
http://www.ucityphila.org/news/release/161.

Amy and I went the last
time they did this, in 2001, and it was just a fun, eclectic mix of
classical music, kids climbing on dogs, and one big reminder of why I
love living in University City. See you there!

An Actor I'm Not

David Oh just released his latest campaign commercial, and I'm in
it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4BXhbSJfCo.

If you forget what I
look like, I'm the one who looks uncomfortably stiff in front of the
camera. Alas, an actor I'm not. Btw, you can view other campaign
videos at http://www.youtube.com/user/DavidOh2007.

Giving Principles

I give because it's good for me, but also because I have resources that can be used by others more effectively, in an eternal sense, than they could if they were used on myself.  I remember reading somewhere that, as a Christian, we should be sure to diversify our giving such that it encompasses the following categories: straight evangelism, relief, development, and advocacy. 

I agree with that sentiment, and am guided by two other principles, both of which I believe are Biblical and economical:

1) Support work done by people in their home culture - Contrary to what you might think, there is very little inter-lingual missionary work in the Bible.  That does not negate those who do cross cultures and languages for the sake of the gospel, of course, but it also means that such types of missionaries aren't the only ones out there worth supporting.  People working in their home culture need no language or cultural adaptation, require no furlough, and (for non-US missionaries) generally cost less to support.

2) Teaching a man how to fish is better than giving him a fish - It may take longer and sound less sexy in a newsletter, but in the long run, it has a more profound impact on the recipient and a more sustainable impact for the Kingdom.

Accordingly, I would like to encourage you to give with me to the following organizations.  Although I don't agree with everything they do, I agree with enough to support them with my prayers and my wallet:

* Christian Aid Mission (www.christianaid.org) - I support a Kenyan evangelist who reaches out to nomadic tribes in Kenya, and a Kenyan couple who run an orphanage in Kenya. 

* Opportunity International (www.opportunity.org) - I give to a fund that provides women in Uganda with small loans to start enterprises that can repay the loans and sustain their families

* Bread for the World Institute (www.bread.org) - the advocacy arm of this DC agency, which works to end hunger here and abroad through US domestic and foreign policy

Further Along or Right Where They Should Be

For as Type A as Amy and I both are, I think we have been very relaxed about our kids, in terms of just letting them be kids.  We're not stressing about getting them into the neighborhood's prestigious pre-school, we don't turn everything into a life lesson, and we don't shuttle them from activity to activity.  By and large, we want our kids to be kids, to have happy-go-lucky childhoods, and to have time and space to explore. 

But that doesn't mean we don't fret over them being further along than they are.  We are no less susceptible to our age's rat race culture, and probably even more prone than the average parent.  We worry about Aaron being able to learn to calm down when he sees us preparing his bottle instead of crying uncontrollably until the bottle is actually in his mouth.  We worry about Jada having behavioral issues because she can't deal with the demise of her carefully constructed world in which she's the center of the universe (or at least our attention).  We worry about both of them slogging through being adopted, being in an inter-racial family, being Asian in America.

I'm more guilty of these kinds of worries than Amy is, because I tend to be more future oriented.  I have to be reminded that Jada is 2 1/2 and Aaron is 6 months, and that they are right where they should be, which is to say in a family that loves them and that has their best interests at heart.  I have to be reminded that our kids are not a competition, against other parents, but that parenting them well is for their good and not so we can show them off. 

Most of all, I have to be reminded that my job as parent is to be a temporary steward (albeit for 18+ long years) of a life, but that ultimately that life was brought into existence by a God who continues to stay at the table and who will see that life through until it is perfected in its reflection of His character.  In a worldly sense, my kids could be further along; but in a deeper sense, they are right where they should be.

Virtual, Really

I've never visited Second Life, or played any MMPORG, for that matter, but the more I read about it, the more I am intrigued by this parallel universe.  If you've never heard of it, Second Life is a virtual world in which you can create an avatar, build stuff, buy and sell stuff, and meet other avatars.  As you can imagine, this being the Internet, it's a pretty crazy place: anonymity makes for bizarre behavior, people trick out their avatar's appearances, and let's just say there's a lot of sex going on. 

Meaningless pursuits aside, more and more people are catching on to the real-world potential of this fake-world platform.  The Swedish government is setting up an embassy for virtual tourists to get info on visiting the real country.  And while some people go to Second Life to trawl for virtual booty, others who are tech recruiters in the real world go there to trawl for employment candidates.

When virtual reality hit what seems like ages ago, I thought it would be "the" killer app to end all killer apps.  But aside from carnival games that leave you dizzy wearing those big space googles, what have your heard about VR?  But maybe apps like Second Life, and more real-world parallels, like Microsoft's Virtual Earth, which is increasingly being used by police departments and urban planners, will give VR a (wait for it) "second life."


http://www.govtech.com/gt/125968

Mass Customization

Five is the perfect scale for rating things, in my opinion.  If I'm asked to rate something 1, 2, or 3, I always feel like I need a 1.5 and a 2.5.  If I'm asked to score something from 1 to 10, I always use just the even numbers.  In other words, three is too few and ten is too many; five is perfect.

Let me go on:

* Why don't car horns have three volumes instead of one?  Hybrid cars are getting so quiet that I predict manufacturers will actually provide drivers with ways to make noise, lest pedestrians have no advance notice that a car is coming.  A "light horn" could do the trick.  And a "heavy horn" could be reserved for, well, whatever you think is appropriate on the road.

* And why don't toilets have two flush strengths instead of one?  Most of the time, you're just flushing down liquid; does that really need the same amount of water and force as the, um, more solid things you're flushing down?

* On the other hand, do mountain bikes really need 21 speeds?  I do a fair amount of hills, and if my bike had five or six speeds instead, I don't think I'd miss the other 15 or 16.

However, the proliferation of items in your typical grocery store, on Amazon.com, and on TV are, I think, a good thing.  If there are enough different customer types out there, and they can all be served profitably, that's a good outcome: it means we all get more choice, and that more of us can be served with something close to our ideal choice instead of having to get something less than ideal. 

Of course, it's really been in the Internet age that we've been able to approach such mass customization, or as Chris Anderson put it in 2000, "the long tail" (signifying the massive amounts of movie titles or music singles on the right side of a graph that plots number of users on the y axis and popularity ranking on the x axis).  Obscure bands can get hooked up with new fans via MySpace, obscure documentaries live long lives at Netflix, and the three people in the world who are into John Mayer, John Coltrane, and John Denver can meet up on Facebook. 

So while there are some things in this world that are too much and some that are too little, when it comes to customer choices and customer types, more and more and still some more is just right.

Never Out of Control

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was once known as hysteria, and attributed to the weak constitutions of "the fairer sex."  It was really only when grizzled Nam vets experienced the exact same symptoms that people started to realize that PTSD had very little to do with the heartiness of the sufferer.  Flashing forward to the present, then, we are much more sympathetic about PTSD, particularly when it is experienced by someone who was abused at a young age, like the many survivors of the recent Catholic Church sex scandals. 

Studies show that the main thing that worsens PTSD is the sense of loss of control: not only is something bad happening to me, like being stuck in a hurricane or getting raped or seeing my fellow soldiers being shot, but there is nothing I can do about it.  In dozens of experiments, lab rats have been wired in pairs for electric shock, with one of the two rats able to control a switch that turned the shock off; though the shocks are of equal strength, it is the rat that can stop the shock that consistently survives the experiment with minimal damage. 

It can seem pithy to mention the love of God to someone who has been through a significant trauma.  But God is big enough for life to include really, really bad things.  Just read enough of the Bible and you'll see that trauma isn't foreign to the faithful Christian.  Some of my deepest experiences with God have been when I and others have gone through some painful experience, only to give God room to expand our world view until it is big enough to account for that experience and God's goodness, leaving us no less wounded but with a greater and grander estimation of God. 

One aspect of that goodness is God's ultimate authority and control over all things.  We may feel out of control when we are faced with unspeakable trauma, but God is most certainly not out of control.  We may have no explanation for how some incident can reconcile with a God who is all-powerful and all-loving, but neither need we think our world has completely spun out of whack. 

It does not mean He keeps us from harm; far from it.  For the most relevant example is not Abraham and Isaac, in which God spares Abraham's son when he is about to kill him; but rather another Father and Son, in which God does not spare His own Son but delivers Him up for us all.  And yet that moment, far from signifying defeat and darkness, was the very pinnacle of victory and redemption. 

For those in this world who suffer from PTSD - and there are many, from children in war-scarred regions and IUD victims in Iraq to battered spouses and violated children - relief may not come on this side of glory.  And if it does, it will be a long, arduous journey.  But that path to healing can be somewhat alleviated by the thought - no, the rock-solid fact - that while that trauma might have made them feel completely out of control, all along there was a loving God who was completely in control. 

Zero to Five

In this country, education from ages 5 to 18 is free, usually paid for by local property taxes.  From an economic standpoint, it is considered a "positive externality," or something that has positive spillover benefits to those beyond the direct recipients - in other words, getting educated helps you, and it helps you help society, and thus, we as a society are willing to subsidize you getting that education. 

From a public policy standpoint, then, we consider education to be worth subsidizing in this way.  We're investing in ages 5 to 18 so we can reap a return from ages 18 to 65. 

More and more studies are coming out that affirm the importance of investing in ages 0 to 5, particularly as it relates to cognitive development and emotional intelligence.  Without going so far as to say that zero to five is a make-it-or-break-it time window, these studies suggest that how you do from zero to five goes a long, long way towards determining your future success, physical health, and emotional wellbeing. 

Daunting stuff for me, a father of two under five (and whose third will likely arrive before my oldest turns five), but good daunting, in that it reminds of the importance of investing in my kids at this most crucial stage in their development.  Personal perspective aside, I wonder if we will consider the implications of these studies from a public policy standpoint; that if investing in ages 5 to 18 is worth offering free public schooling, what sorts of investments make dollars and sense for ages zero to five. 

Transformers

I didn't watch Transformers growing up, nor have I seen the movie yet, but I do know they're robots that can change into cars and other machines, and that they're pretty darn cool.  I couldn't help but think of this when I read Ezekiel 36 this morning, which talks of some other, pretty incredible transformations: the desolate city becoming inhabited again, waste places bursting forth with life, and, most radical of all, stone hearts being quickened to life.

We usually believe that change, if it happens at all, will happen slowly and gradually, like how the Grand Canyon was formed over many millions of years.  In many cases, we wonder if change will happen at all, as the visual evidence leads us to believe we may actually be going backwards.  And yet, when it comes to the Kingdom of God, this may not be the case.  It is the core thought of Malcolm Gladwell's bestseller, "The Tipping Point," and also a running theme in the Bible: change happens, and it can happen in an instant.

I do not negate the need for patience in waiting out deep healing: for many of us who wrestle with, and who support others who wrestle with, long-entrenched dysfunctions, the wounds did not get inflicted overnight, and they will not heal overnight.  However, I do affirm that change can happen, and it can happen quickly and dramatically.  Relationships can be mended, cities can be turned around, and hearts can be brought back to spiritual life.  If we believe, we can see radical transformation in our lifetimes.  More radical even than a robot turning into a car.

Make it Pay to Not Pollute

Sorry for the flurry of Friedman posts, I just can't help it.  Injecting market forces into reining in pollution has always been a pet interest of mine, and Friedman treats the subject sublimely.  Business gets blamed for belching poison into our air and water, and yet Friedman writes that it's the consumer and his wants that are the main cause.  Business is but a conduit, translating inputs into desired outputs; and the outputs consumers desire happen to either require a certain amount of pollution, or the reduction of that pollution would drive the costs of those products to levels that would make them undesirable to consumers.

Rather than putting caps on pollution, most economists agree that taxing it would lead to better outcomes.  In this way, products whose production process led to more pollution would end up costing more, which is fair.  And producers would have a financial incentive to figure out how to reduce pollution and remain profitable: sustainability in both the environmental and economic sense.  (Some the shrewdest companies in the world, anticipating the eventual tax on carbon, are already figuring out innovative business models that allow for profit maximization in light of this new cost.)

Importantly, we'd get more knowledgeable about how to best reduce pollution.  If a small tax caused pollution levels to plummet, hooray for Mother Earth; with minimal disruption to the prices we're used to paying, we've drastically lowered our negative impact on the environment.  But if a large tax caused pollution levels to fall only slightly, we'd understand that we'd have to take a different tack, and we'd have large amounts of tax revenue to undo the damage or figure out an alternative.

Pardon the pun, but this'll never fly because the thought of allowing businesses to pay their way out of not polluting feels, well, dirty.  And yet business is driven by profit, and profit comes from innovation, and innovation has resulted in some extraordinary advances in processing and technology that have led to cleaner air and water and a generally safer and more sustainable way of living than what was experienced say 100 years ago.  So why not put that profit motivation into motion for the most optimal benefit of businesses, consumers, and the environment?

Why A Higher Minimum Wage is Bad for Poor People

In his seminal book, "Free to Choose," Milton Friedman discusses the mechanics behind why a higher minimum wage is bad for poor people.  It seems counter-intuitive, especially since proponents of a higher minimum wage are self-styled defenders of the poor.  (Although, and maybe I'm not well-read enough, but I haven't yet read where the real defenders of the poor are arguing for a higher minimum wage.  Warrants mentioning.)

But Friedman puts it this way (and I'll update the numbers, since he wrote this some 30 years ago).  Different people have different skills that are valued at different rates, which translates into higher or lower wages: a chemist usually makes more than a burger flipper.  It is also true that the same people have different skills over time, which are valued at different rates: you usually can earn more at 38 than at 18.  There are some people and some skills for which a wage below the government-mandated wage is a fair wage: the marketplace values a service at, say, $6.50 per hour, and there are people out there who are willing to render that service for $6.50 per hour.   It may not be much, but it's a foot in the door that allows a person to build experience and skills for an even better job down the road.

A minimum wage says that those intersections won't happen anymore, and that for some people starting at the very bottom of the ladder of success, the first run on that ladder is unreachable to them.  In effect, a minimum wage forces employers to discriminate against low-skilled workers.  Their choice, in our previous example, is to pay that person $7.15 per hour, or the appropriate rate of $6.50 plus $0.65 per hour in charity, or to not employ that person.  As Friedman puts it, "It's always been a mystery to me why a person is better off unemployed from a job that would pay $7.15 an hour than employed at a job that does pay $6.50 an hour."

But you might argue that what happens is that that employer bites the bullet and pays that extra $0.65 an hour, and that extra $0.65 an hour makes the difference between a family starving and a family making it.  Except that history tells us otherwise.  In the 1950's, the unemployment rate was four percent, and ten percent for teens, to be expected for people just entering the workforce.  Importantly, it was relatively equal for white and black teens.

Then the minimum wage was pushed upwards considerably.  By the time Friedman wrote his book in the 1970's, unemployment was at 15-20 percent for white teenagers and 35-45 percent for black teenagers.  Here Friedman gets downright frisky: "The government first provides schools in which many young people, disproportionately black, are educated so poorly that they do not have the skills that would enable them to get good wage.  It then penalizes them a second time by preventing them from offering to work for low wages as a means of inducing employers to give them on-the-job training.  All this in the name of helping the poor."

Indeed, all in the name of helping the poor.  I buy a lot of the arguments of the people advocating for a higher minimum wage.  But let's not think that to be for a higher minimum wage means to be for the poor, and to be against it means to be against the poor.  It's not quite that simple, and in fact that might be completely backward.
 

BlogPhiladelphia

I recall several years ago when Philadelphia was trying too both the Republicans and Democrats to host their convention here.  You know how you clean up your house when guests are coming over?  Imagine that spread out over the entire city.  Streets were swept, bridges lit up, and flowers planted.  It was quite a sight to behold for us residents.  And it worked, at least for the Republicans, who we hosted in 2000.

Fast forward to the present, and to the BlogPhiladelphia "unconference" that took place yesterday and today.  Sponsored by the Greater Philadelphia Tourism and Marketing Corporation among other local entities, this event is meant to be more a resource for bloggers than a sell job on Philadelphia, what with its sessions on keeping your professional and social blogs separate or on how to market your website. 

Still, if all these hip young cats come to town and have a good time, what do you think they're going to go?  That's right, they're going to blog about it.  And increasingly, what bloggers say carries a lot of weight.  So if you see someone walking down the street, laptop in hand, don't try to grip up the laptop; instead, give him or her a cheery, "Welcome to Philadelphia!"  Your momentary lapse of kindness might translate into tourism dollars down the road. 

Through the Bible

If you know me, it won't surprise you to learn my approach to reading the Bible is, well, systematic.  I'm a firm believer in the usefulness of the entirety of the Bible, not just the sections I happen to like.  So I've divided the Bible into nine sections, and study a section at a time for six to twelve months, not returning to a section until I've studied all the other sections:

1) Pentateuch: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy.
2) Histories: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job
3) Samuel: 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 & 2 Kings, 1 & 2 Chronicles
4) Poetry: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon
5) Major Prophets: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Ezekiel
6) Minor Prophets: Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
7) Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
8) Epistles I: Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians
9) Epistles II: Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 & 2 Peter, 1 & 2 & 3 John, Jude, Revelation

I try to toggle between Old Testament and New Testament, so for example, right now I'm in the major prophets, having studied Epistles I, and with Epistles II on deck.  I also mix in Eugene Peterson's The Message, which is the entire New Testament in contemporary English. 

So that's ten units, which when studied in six to twelve month increments, usually means I'm able to get through the whole set every seven years or so.  It works for me.  What works for you?

Love for Baseball

I don't have time to watch sports live anymore, so I tape the game and watch in the next morning while I'm on the treadmill.  Football and basketball are fun to zip through, fast-forwarding between plays and other long stops in action.  I always turn the volume down because I can't hear anything over the whirring of the treadmill anyway.

But baseball, my first love, is different.  Last night, I taped the All-Star Game, which may be a yawner to some but is one of my favorite games to watch.  And, as opposed to how I blaze through football and basketball, I watch every minute of the All-Star Game telecast.  Because no matter how much you like or dislike the announcers, they always take the time to tell you the stories behind the players and behind the seasons they're having.

Even better, baseball always makes sure to connect to its storied past during every midsummer classic.  Last night, it was the Say Hey Kid, Willie Mays, walking in from center field with his godson, Barry Bonds, and throwing out the ceremonial first pitch.  (What other sport has a better ceremonial first anything than baseball's?) 

In fact, it was an All-Star Game that reignited my childhood love for the game.  I didn't watch hardly any TV in college in the early 90's, and 1994 was wiped out by a strike.  But the McGwire-Sosa home run chase started to thaw me out.  And then the 1999 All-Star Game came around. 

If you watched it, you remember Teddy Ballgame, Ted Williams, wheeled in and being immediately surrounded by the all-stars.  In an instant, the game's best players were reduced to wide-eyed kids, nudging each other goofily, holding back tears, and gawking at the game's greatest hitter.  In that moment, all the hours I spent devouring old baseball books at the library near our house back home came back to me.  I was a baseball fan again. 


http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/1999/all_star/news/1999/07/13/allstar_williams_ap/

Poor Self-Image and Self-Adulation

Two of the fifteen sins on the list my accountability partner and I go through each week are Poor Self-Image and Self-Adulation.  Poor Self-Image (some people know it as "insecurity") means we temporarily trade our sense of self-worth derived from God's valuing of us for one derived from something else.  Self-Adulation (some people know it as "pride") is basically the same thing, but instead of beating ourselves up, we puff ourselves up.  The fact that the two sins are essentially one and the same explains how one can often have both insecurity and pride about the exact same subject. 

I have a confession to make, in this regard: I often experience both Poor Self-Image and Self-Adulation when it comes to understanding urban issues.  I am fortunate to get to study urban issues for a living.  And almost everywhere I turn, my understanding and experience is dwarfed by that of others: co-workers with far more letters next to their names and far more years under their belt, partners who know infinitely more about their area of expertise than I can even get my head around, and clients who live and bleed their issue far more than I ever have or will. 

I chose such a setting because I love it - I love learning, I love being challenged, I love figuring it out.  But I'd be lying to you if I said I didn't often wander into the land of Poor Self-Image.  The fact of the matter is that I am a flawed human being, trying in vain to feel good about myself by propping up my flimsy intellect when the Creator of the Universe wants me instead to dwell securely in the knowledge that He made me and He loves me.  I've lived in that security for fleeting moments, and it sure is secure.  But I sure don't live there that long or too often.

Even worse, I compound my sin by swinging to the other end of the pendulum, or more correctly, by trading my self-worth for something else in a similar but slightly different way.  Because I study urban issues for a living, it's easy for me to lord that over others who don't.  I would think it the height of arrogance not to mention idiocy if a doctor puffed himself up for knowing more medical stuff than me, or if a lawyer did the same because she knew more law than me.  And yet I do this almost daily.  Ah, Self-Adulation: I'm there a lot too.

Poor Self-Image and Self-Adulation: polar opposites, or two sides of the same coin?  Or just plain the same coin?  My vote's for the latter.  And my hope is that I flip that coin, and try instead that place where I can be better than some and worse than others without it being about me, but rather about a God who made all of us and who ultimately deserves all the puffing up.

Intersections

I just finished this month's Fast Company, and I simply had to rip out two articles for my files: the one on Al Gore's surprising resurrection/reinvention, and the one on whether bottled water is good or evil.  It occurred to me after I'd filed the articles away that this is why I like Fast Company so much: it trades in the space that represents the intersection between financial profits, environmental stewardship, and social virtue. 

Far from pitting one against another, it seeks to shine the spotlight on people, places, and things that seek all three at once.  Gore's now-famous slide show, whether you believe it or not, is a profound nexus of his political savvy, his quant side, and his love for the environment; the media business and venture capital fund he co-founded are, if less well-known, equally motivated and equally meaningful.  And bottled water, with images of mountain purity and healthy living, has a tainted side that must be considered: Fiji Water, for example, is transported thousands of miles from its island source, while far too many of the residents of that very island lack for potable water. 

I'm reminded of the many ways I've actively chosen to hang my shingle on the crossroads of one or more worlds.  I want to be the best professional and the best parent.  My job requires an understanding of how the public, private, and non-profit sectors play with each other.  Even in my faith, I want to see the secular in the spiritual and the spiritual in the secular.  Given how often I like to sit in the intersection, it's no wonder I like Fast Company.

Equal is Not the Same

This gives you an indication of my social life: my pleasure reading right now consists of economist Milton Friedman's seminal book, "Free to Choose."  And it is actually a pleasure to read!

I just finished a chapter about liberty and equality, a not irrelevant topic with the Fourth having just past.  Friedman says some insightful things about the creep in our country from equality before God to equality of opportunity to equality of outcome. 

He made a lot of good points here, but I want to emphasize one, which I'm paraphrasing as: equal is not the same.  Equality before God does not, after all, mean that we are completely identical in every way.  In fact, equality before God is profound precisely because we are all different - and yet we have equal standing before God.

Nor is equality of opportunity meant to be the same opportunities for all.  Those born with a gift to sing or run have the opportunity to do that for a living; should we then make sure that others not similarly gifted are given sufficient training so they have the identical opportunity?  In fact, equality of opportunity is profound precisely because we are all different - and yet we ought to turn away any prejudicial or capricious structures that keep some out while others are in.

It all seems so simple, and yet it truly is profound.  Far from squelching liberty in the name of making people equal, we are most able to enjoy equality in its deepest sense when we are most liberated to be ourselves, whoever we are.  Jefferson called it a God-endowed right to pursue happiness; Adam Smith called it "the invisible hand" that ensured the most efficient outcome for all of society as a result of the logical choices of every individual; and the rest of us economists would call it rational self-interest. 

As Friedman describes, regimes that have subscribed to the notion that equal is the same have quickly devolved into cruelly totalitarian and grossly unequal societies.  Pursue equality as sameness and you will soon have neither liberty nor true equality; pursue the defense of liberty and you will likely have both it and true equality. 

For equal does not mean the same - far from it.  Would that we all work towards defending the liberties that allow us to be not the same, and yet equal in the deepest meanings of the word.

Bears or Nats

The 13th Floor, Governing Magazine's sublime blog, just ran a fun post comparing DC's public subsidies to woo the Nationals baseball team versus its public subsidies to woo a panda from China.  As a fan of the national pastime and of zoos, I read with great curiosity, admittedly rooting for baseball to win. 

Alas, it appears pandas are a better return on investment: $600 million for the Nats to draw 2.5 million fans a year, vs. $10 million, paid for by a corporate sponsor, to get the panda and spike up zoo attendance by 700,000.  Although the post ends by saying its point isn't that bears are better than Nats, but that zoos shouldn't be overlooked as an urban economic development tool. 

As a two-time annual zoo membership holder, who is as likely as not to be found with kids in tow on a Saturday morning, along with, it seems, half the families in the Philadelphia metro area, I'd have to agree.  Even assuming all these families motoring in from the suburbs are pass holders ( i.e. they're not paying $17 a head, plus $10 for parking, each time they come in), they do shell out for food, souvenirs, and face painting.  Get a panda, and you just might woo some family from further away, who will stay in a hotel and eat at restaurants and make it a weekend. 

A lot of people are down on wooing sports teams, but they're a scarce resource and a huge economic and psychic boon, so woe to those cities that lose their teams.  However, pandas are scarce resources, too, and apparently huge economic and psychic boons to boot.  Something to think about when trying to figure out what to build so the masses will come. 

http://governing.typepad.com/13thfloor/2007/07/the-bear-facts.html#more

A Bigger Impact

One of the things my former boss impressed upon her charges was that whatever we were doing should be for more than just the task at hand.  She called it the "McDonald's approach."  The McDonald's brothers ran the restaurant, but it was Ray Kroc who franchised it and turned it into the global icon that it is today.  Similarly, we should have a bigger picture in mind when we created and ran our programs.  And in fact, we did end up helping others do what we did, leading to countless informal and formal replications of our work.

I find myself returning to the same approach in my current job.  Whoever the new mayor of Philadelphia will be, it is likely he will be the type of person who will read the kind of reports we produce, and not just read them but pore over them, dissect them, and incorporate them into his policies.

And so it is that while we are doing various reports first and foremost for our clients, they and we agree that there is a larger audience and impact in mind.  Whether it is affordable housing, economic development, immigration, minority business, taxes, or transportation, what we produce can have an impact on our city for the next four to eight years.  It's daunting and exciting to have that opportunity.  So I thank my former boss for helping me get my head around that bigger picture.

What is Just

It is my understanding that, all things being equal, if Social Security were completely blown up, the people that would be hurt the most would be . . . the very rich.  That's because Social Security takes 7.5% of your annual income up until $200,000.  So everyone earning less than $200,000 is 7.5% lighter in the wallet when they get their paycheck.  But if you earn more than $200,000 a year, you're only paying 7.5% of $200,000.  7.5% of $200,000 is $15,000.  So if you make $200,000 a year, Uncle Sam takes $15,000 for Social Security, or 7.5% of your gross pay.  If you make $20 million a year, Uncles Sam takes . . . $15,000 for Social Security, or 0.075% of your gross pay.  (This is what is known as a regressive tax: it is unfairly borne more heavily the poorer you are.)  In other words, relatively speaking, those of us who make less than $200,000 a year have the most to gain from Social Security going away. 

It is also my understanding that, all things being equal, full market valuation of property will benefit people living in poor, stagnant neighborhoods at the expense of rich, booming neighborhoods.  That's because long lags in property assessment mean that rich, booming neighborhoods are severely undervalued, leading to lower real property tax rates; while poor, stagnant neighborhoods are more correctly valued, leading to relatively higher real property tax rates.  Valuing properties more frequently and more closely to market levels would almost certainly lead to lower tax bills for the poor and higher tax bills for the rich.  (This assumes a revenue neutral implementation, in which the municipality intends to generate the same amount of property tax revenue, it just wants to re-allocate where that revenue is coming from.) 

So how is it that we tell the poor to fear the elimination of Social Security and the adoption of full market valuation?  Are we misinformed?  Or are we satisfied with the status quo because it benefits us at the expense of others who are powerless on their own to change the status quo?  It is unjust for the very rich to pay a lower percentage into Social Security than the poor, and it is unjust for poor, stagnant neighborhoods to pay a higher percentage into a municipality's property tax revenue bucket than rich, booming neighborhoods.  Should we not, then, who are seeking justice for the poor and marginalized desire to reform these two situations?

I am all for do-gooders seeking justice for the poor and marginalized.  I just want to make sure that what is being advocated is in fact justice, and not actually the very opposite. 

Dear Democrats

In Philadelphia, there are five times as many registered Democrats as Republicans.  And the neighborhood I live in (University City) and the circles I run in (liberal Christians, economic development, minority entrepreneurship) are similarly overwhelmingly Democrat. 

So I write to the Democrats today, about why it makes sense for you, as a Democrat, to vote for a Republican, David Oh, with one of the five votes you have for City Council at Large.  Here are ten reasons you should vote for David and then for your four favorite Democratic at-large candidates:

10.  All five of the Democratic at-large candidates will still get seats.  The way the at-large seats are apportioned, the majority party gets five and the minority party gets two.  There are five D's and five R's you can choose from.  All five D's will get about 300,000 votes or more; the two highest R's will get about 100,000.  So if you vote for four D's and David, the fifth D you don't vote for will still get a seat.

9.  David is the best Republican to have on City Council.  But by voting for David and no other Republicans, you will help him get a seat.  And David will be the better City Councilperson for you.  See below for reasons why.

8.  David gets immigration.  His law firm handles tons of cases for immigrants.  He is on the board of the Welcoming Center for New Pennsylvanians.  And he aims to make Philadelphia a truly international city, welcoming of immigrants and the contributions they can make to our culture and our commerce.

7.  David wants Philadelphia to grow.  There's no reason we need to keep sliding in population.  The other cities that are growing are growing because they are friendly to immigrants.  Stop being unfriendly to new immigrant residents, start growing as a city.

6.  David isn't anti-union.  In fact, early endorsements include Teamsters Joint Council No. 53, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1776, and Fraternal Order of Housing Police.

5.  David is the choice of young progressives.  Here's a quote from the June 25 issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer: "Bloggers on the avowedly lefty www.youngphillypolitics.com site are floating the idea of casting a vote for a Republican City Council candidate: David Oh. The thinking is that a few thousand Democratic defectors wouldn't hurt the chances of the five Democratic at-large candidates, at least not in a city where Democratic voters outnumber Republicans 5-1. Meanwhile, they surmise, the progressive vote might be enough to tip the balance in the Republican contest to Oh, whom they see as a step up from incumbent Republican Councilman Jack Kelly."

4.  David is committed to Philadelphia.  Born and raised here, he went to Central and has served on numerous boards in and for the city.

3.  A vote for David isn't a vote for George Bush.  Last I checked, City Council worked for the citizens of Philadelphia, not for the US Government.

2.  David is what we need in a City Councilperson.  He's honest, tough-minded, and devoted, as proven by his many accomplishments in his long and illustrious professional career. 

1.  David has a diverse team of supporters behind him.  While he would make history as the city's first Asian-American City Councilperson, and certainly has the support of most Asian groups in the city, his support team is ethnically and politically diverse, demonstrating his appeal to all Philadelphians.  He has my vote, and I hope he can count on yours, too.

For more information, please go to www.davidoh.org or http://www.myspace.com/davidoh2007.

More Can Mean More

Here's yet another difference between Philadelphia and Seattle.  In Philadelphia, we recently arrested a loud street performer for disturbing the peace.  In Seattle, Mayor Nickels pays street performers with public money. 

It's the Jane Jacobs school of thought when it comes to parks: more action means more crowds, and more crowds means less riff-raff, and less riff-raff means less perception of crime, and less perception of crime means more crowds, and so on and so on. 

In other words, parks by themselves are neutral city resources. If they are deserted, people fear them and they become liabilities.  But if they are bustling, people are drawn to them and they become assets.

At least in Philadelphia, it has always been easier to develop in the suburbs than in the city.  Part of this is unions, part of this is land assembly, and part of this is demand.  But while some of that equation is still in place, in many cases the suburbs are becoming almost as hard to develop in. 

Chalk it up to suburbanites who, having fled the noise of the city, are loath to have the noise creep out to them.  So any proposed development is viewed as contributing only bad things: more congestion, more users of public services, more crime.  In the suburbs, more is less.

It doesn't have to be that way.  More can, in fact, be more.  More can mean parks and streets are healthily trafficked, leading to sufficient eyes and ears to keep away the riff-raff and allow families to enjoy leisurely strolls and social outings without fear of being stuck in a deserted part of town.  More can mean exposure to new people, new sights and sounds, new experiences.

So whether in the city or the suburbs, more doesn't have mean less; more can mean more.  And it doesn't even necessarily take a mayor willing to pay street performers a few bucks to draw a crowd. 

Help Me Support David Oh, Candidate for City Council at Large

Here are excerpts from a letter I recently sent to people I know who live in the City of Philadelphia, encouraging them to support my friend David Oh, who is running for City Council at Large.  If you can vote in November, I hope you'll consider David!

**********************************

Dear friend,

I am writing to ask for your support of David Oh, candidate for City Council at Large.  I believe David is supremely qualified for the office.  He is honest, hard-working, and devoted to the City and its good, and thus he is the kind of person we need on City Council.

Here are some things you can do to join me in supporting David:

1.  Vote for David.  On November 6, vote for David and no other Republican City Council at Large candidates.  David must place in the top two among Republican candidates to gain a seat.  If you are accustomed to voting Democratic, vote for four Democratic candidates and for David.  If you are accustomed to voting Republican, vote for just David.  

2.  Learn more about David's platform.  David has some exciting ideas for Philadelphia.  Please consider joining in on the discussion by coming over to my house on Sunday, July 15, any time between 3:00pm and 6:00pm.  .  This is not a fundraiser, in that there will not be a donation required, but certainly donations will be accepted at that time (make checks payable to Citizens for David Oh).  We will have a small kiddie pool and an even smaller barbecue grill going, so feel free to bring kids and meat (just so we're clear, the kids will go in the kiddie pool and the meat will go on the barbecue grill!).  David will try to stay for as much of the time as possible, to meet you and to answer questions.  I'll send around an evite to get a sense of who can stop by.

3.  Join me in canvassing University City.  I'm looking for 4-5 of you to walk around the neighborhood getting the word out about David.  Again, feel free to bring kids in tow, mine will be with me!  If you are interested, please email me and we'll coordinate a date and time.

4.  Contribute to David's campaign. You can give directly on David's campaign website: www.davidoh.org.  Or you can drop off a check to Citizens for David Oh to my house or to David's campaign headquarters at 1700 Race.  Any amount between $10 and $2500 is gratefully accepted.

For more information, please contact me or go to www.davidoh.org .  You can also read the article below from the June 25 issue of the Philadelphia Inquirer.  Thank you in advance for your consideration.

Regards,

LH

---------- Forwarded message ----------

The Philadelphia Inquirer
June 25, 2007
Lefty bloggers go GOP

It's hardly a movement with mass support, but at least some of the city's self-styled progressive reformers may do some strategic voting in November. Bloggers on the avowedly lefty www.youngphillypolitics.com site are floating the idea of casting a vote for a Republican City Council candidate: David Oh.

The thinking is that a few thousand Democratic defectors wouldn't hurt the chances of the five Democratic at-large candidates, at least not in a city where Democratic voters outnumber Republicans 5-1. Meanwhile, they surmise, the progressive vote might be enough to tip the balance in the Republican contest to Oh, whom they see as a step up from incumbent Republican Councilman Jack Kelly.

The city charter reserves two of the seven at-large Council seats for the minority party. Each party has five Council nominees, but it would be stunning if the Democratic candidates didn't win their spots running away. Incumbent Councilman Frank Rizzo seems likely to win the top GOP spot, and Oh and fellow Republican nominees Patricia Mattern and Phil Kerwick will fight Kelly for the final Republican slot.

Oh, a lawyer and former assistant district attorney, thinks Philadelphia needs to enhance its status as an international business center and do more to attract young residents.

It's a message that resonates with some of the blog's readers, but certainly not all. Democratic Councilman W. Wilson Goode Jr. sure doesn't like the idea of the city's progressives voting for a Republican.

"Go ahead, make George Bush smile," he said in an online posting.

- Patrick Kerkstra

**********************************

Chance Encounters for the Second Time

One of the things I prefer about city living over suburban living is the invariable chance encounters you have as you're going from Point A to Point B.  Yesterday morning, as I was taking the kids to the park, I bumped into a former classmate of mine, who works for the City's budget office, and we talked shop for a few.  And then in the afternoon, as Amy and I were walking the kids to the Penn campus, we ran into a former co-worker of mine, who is back from two years abroad and who caught me up on his goings-on.  Two times out of the house, two chance encounters.

Contrast that to more car-centric suburban areas, where the only encounters you have from Point A to Point B are with other enraged drivers on the highways or the intersections.  You're literally walled off from the rest of the world in your climate-controlled steel-encased conveyance. 

Sure, it's nice to listen to surround sound, control the temperature and humidity, and distance yourself from the riff-raff.  But there's something healthy about being out and about in the city, rubbing shoulders with the people.  In an age where disconnection and segregation are destroying us from within and without, it's nice to be reminded that we're connected as humans.  And who knows, along the way, you might have some pleasant chance encounters.