Glad For Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon

In our cynical world, the tech world's Big Four (Facebook, Google, Apple, and Amazon) have their share of haters and scoffers.  Who hasn't bashed on or whined about any and all of these tech behemoths?  But consider each company's raison d'etre - how audacious these aims would have sounded to someone just a generation ago, and yet how each has largely and remarkably been achieved:

Facebook - To connect the whole world.  What has been a better connector during Sandy than FB?  Through its News Feed, I heard how everyone was doing, got a sense of where power was going out, took turns laughing and crying at various news images being shared, and received heartwarming notes of concern from friends and family outside of the East Coast.  My world just got a lot smaller, in a wonderfully good and fantastically efficient way.

Google - To organize the world's information.  If it hasn't been refreshing my Facebook feed, it's been tracking news and satellite images from Google's various sites.  Again, think of how improbable it would have been just a generation ago to aggregate all of this information.  Now think of how easy it is today.

Apple and Amazon - To make insanely and extraordinarily beautiful consumer products, and to turn the whole world into your shopping cart.  Done and done.  These we might have imagined a generation ago, but kudos to Apple and Amazon for actually executing.  Btw, do you realize that "pinch and zoom" is only five years old?  Or can you remember the user interface and product selection of online shopping from just 15 years ago?

We still live in a world in which an unacceptably high number of people live in abject misery, so my next statement is tempered with that reality and with the burden it should place on all of us who are fortunate.  But life is, for many people in this world, unbelievably rich.  For those of us lucky enough to be counted among that growing number, let's quit all the complaining and snark. 

National Debate

There's been a lot of buzz, in the wake of Sandy, about how many prominent Republicans, including Mitt Romney, are on record as wanting to get rid of FEMA.  It is preposterous, it is said, in times like this, to even think about leaving places without a mechanism for the federal government to come to help. 

Perhaps people who are saying this are making the argument that a centralized body for responding to large-scale emergencies is the most efficient use of national resources and the most efficient mechanism for deploying those resources to places of need.  But I think that many people who are saying this are making a simpler, and incorrect, argument: that the counterfactual to FEMA not existing to handle hurricanes is that there would be no resources to handle hurricanes.

Of course, that's not how this works.  FEMA takes money to run.  And the federal government can't magically generate that money; it has to tax and/or borrow to get that money.  So really what FEMA is (and any federal government action, really) is the federal government taking a little bit of money from everyone and saving it for large-scale emergencies.  That's money that could have been used for other purposes, including by individuals and by state and local governments to more directly prepare themselves for natural disasters.

Again, you can argue that centralizing this role makes perfect sense, and that would be a fine discussion to have.  But you can't argue that either you have FEMA helping people or you have no one helping people.  Everything has a cost, and the cost of FEMA taking money from all of us is that that money cannot otherwise be deployed.  Every federal expenditure represents a transfer of resources from one group (all taxpayers) to another group (people in need of help in the midst of natural disasters).  And every federal function represents the possibility of individuals and of state and local governments partially or fully absolving themselves of preparing to perform that same function. 

Some roles really do make sense to be done centralized, and that justifies taking a little bit of money from everyone in order to provide for those roles.  Bear in mind, though, that there are always unintended consequences.  For example, one might argue that some parts of this country might build themselves out in ways that are physically dangerous, because they have the federal government as a backstop; take away that backstop, and more rational, environmentally sustainable land use patterns might emerge.

(A much older example dates back to the very earliest days of our country.  After the Declaration of Independence, the US was still a fairly loose confederation of states.  This made sense, since we were just emerging from under the rule of a tyrannical central government. The founding fathers started to push the young nation towards greater centralization.  One piece of that was federal assumption of Revolutionary War state debts.  Some states were fiscally prudent and weren't for federal assumption; others were deeper in debt and federal assumption seemed quite attractive.  Virginia, land of Jefferson and Madison, was suspicious of centralized authority and had relatively low debt.  In a grand compromise, they agreed to federal assumption if the nation's capital could be moved to closer to Virginia, in a swampland they called the District of Columbia.  The pro-assumption northeners agreed, never thinking that mosquito-infested DC would ever house the federal capital.  Of course, assumption worked in binding the nation together, DC became a viable capital location, and the story ended well.  But at the time, the notion of a centralized federal government, and of federal assumption of state debt, was controversial.  Some states could have argued that their fiscal prudence was being punished, because they were now sharing a federal government that was taking on others' profligate spending.  And they would have a fair argument.  My German readers are now sadly nodding their heads.)

I'm not arguing for the superiority of any of these lines of thinking.  I'm just saying you have to play them out.  There is no such thing as free government help, because it costs someone somewhere and takes resources away from other possible uses.  You can quibble with Romney and others for not thinking that FEMA is a prudent use of the federal government's taxing power to fund a certain function, but it's not fair to say there's no upside to not paying for FEMA and no unintended consequences associated with paying for it.

Model United Nations

We were driving down 52nd Street in West Philadelphia last weekend when Jada asked us, "Why is everyone around here black?"  I told her that, as a matter of fact, many neighborhoods in this city and throughout the US are all one thing, like all black or all Hispanic or all Asian or all white.  I also told her that, as a matter of preference, many people like to live only near people like them.  I also told her that, as a matter of preference, many people who are not black do not like to live near black people.

I said this all in an explanatory tone (i.e. without sounding preachy or betraying any value judgment about my statements), but it didn't sound right to Jada, so she asked, "Is God happy with that?"  I told her God is not happy when we do what's called "segregate," that one of the reasons Martin Luther King is famous is because he bravely fought against it, and that one of the images the Bible gives us about what heaven will be like is that all the nations will come together in a city and worship God.  Which is why, I explained, it matters our choices of where we live, where we go to school, and who our friends are, because it can be a way to reflect what God's wishes are for us and not how we sometimes choose to be instead.

My kids aren't geniuses or saints, but they aren't dummies, either.  They can figure out that there are certain places that are all one race or ethnicity, and that those places differ in physical condition and housing quality.  And they can see the difference between Jada's school (which is 30 percent black) and Aaron's school (which is 85 percent black), that even though they are only four blocks apart, one is in a brand new, well lit building and the other is in an old, deteriorated structure.  And, by Jada's questions, I can tell that they get that this all doesn't make sense and isn't how God wants it. 

As they get older, I hope these early exposures, lessons, and explanations will take hold.  I hope they won't become like many of us, who know what is right and wrong but, out of self-preservation or comfort-seeking, justify our own contributions to segregation and inequality with cryptic code words and self-soothing statements.  I hope, in other words, that they'll do the right thing, anchored by what they believe is right and not what everyone else is doing.

In all this, I hope they will be able to say that they did so because they saw their parents doing so.

Lessons from Sandy from Women in My Life

With Hurricane - excuse me, Frankenstorm - Sandy on the way, everyone in the Northeast Corridor is scurrying hither and thither to prepare: grocery run, extra batteries, back-up plan should power be out for a week or more.  Needless to say, it's more stressful than the typical weekend around here.

On the eve of its arrival, Sandy has also meant opportunities for Christians to trust and obey.  Amy was super anxious Friday night, after email after email at work warning her of the possible extent of the devastation.  So anxious, in fact, that she interrupted the usual Friday night dinner routine by asking us to all hold hands and pray, and as she prayed, she called on God to grant her the peace that comes from calling on Him.  I appreciated the reminder and the action.

Later that evening, as we told the kids of all the things that might happen - no electricity, flooding, trees falling on our car - Jada said, "God is bigger than all of that, though, right?"  Again, a good reminder, in the midst of worrying, since there's a difference between worrying without God in the picture versus worrying with God in the picture.

The next morning, I got an email from our pastor, who said a church event was being cancelled, asking how we were all doing in making preparations, and urging us to reach out to those around us as well as those more vulnerable within our church family, to make sure they were OK.  The lesson was undeniable: seeing God in the situation means doing more than internally worrying, but rather being at peace and taking action to serve others.

I'm glad for these reminders - I needed to be reminded - and glad for these people in my life to give them to me.  I hope you have been reminded as well as you go about your preparations.  Let's see how it all plays out.

US Closed

"We don't collect news to inform us.  We collect news to affirm us."  So says a pollster in a recent article from Time Magazine.  And he's right, sadly.  Whether it's what news outlets we read, what we share on Facebook, or who we rant with about the latest political or neighborhood news, more than likely we're not really looking to learn something new as much as make ourselves feel good about the old we think we know already. 

Put it this way: instead of trying to stretch and grow in different directions, if only to better understand "the other side," let alone to keep an open mind that we might actually not yet know it all, we are actively digging ourselves deeper into our already established positions.  Even worse, we'll even buy lies to further validate that the "truths" we already buy.  From the same Time Magazine article: "Human beings are simply more willing to believe falsehoods that confirm their worldview."  Yikes.

And yet we'd all say we're open-minded.  Whatever.  Check yourself before you say you really are.  

Heavenly Voices

We usually sit close to the front during morning service, and since our worship hall is pretty big, voices reverberate all sorts of crazy ways.  Sometimes, I close my eyes during singing, and imagine (it's not hard to imagine this) that behind me are not just my fellow congregants but a countless multitude of people in heaven belting out praise songs to God.  I think of the sheer number, as well as of individual stories: loved ones I've lost who I'm now reunited with, the downtrodden and broken who are now whole, the unsung heroes now sheathed in glory.

There is much to glory in in this present day.  But thinking about the world to come, that is far more glorious. 

When ROI and SROI Diverge

It wasn't very long into my Wharton undergrad days that my classmates and I got schooled in the way business works: if there's profit to be made, you do something, and if there isn't, you don't.  Whether you want to call this ROI or NPV or MR=MC, it's not actually that unique to the world of commerce, since humans think like this all the time: if something will get me more benefit than it costs, I will do it, and if it won't then I won't do it.

We may not think in dollar terms but we think like this nonetheless, whether it's buying an iPad (will my happiness exceed the $599 that it will set me back?) or taking up a hobby (will I gain more than the time and money it will cost me?).  That being said, sometimes this calculation is more straightforward than others: as you start talking about more and more abstract things, it becomes easier to grossly undervalue or overvalue them, leading to decisions which end up being poor choices for you and others.

A little later in school, we learned about externalities, both positive and negative.  That is, this notion of costs and benefits gets a little skewed sometimes, because costs and/or benefits sometimes are generated to other actors besides you.  The classic positive externality is education: we pay for schools to educate our kids, but in addition to us benefiting, society benefits from a more educated populace.  The classic negative externality is pollution: a business makes and sells a product, but generates pollution in the process that we all have to pay for in the form of dirtier air/water. 

Therein lies the twofold dilemma, from a public policy standpoint.  Absent some outside mechanism, we will end up with too much of some things and too little of other things than is socially optimal.  Now, I want to be careful here, given that I have just used a term, "socially optimal," that makes me sound like a Soviet central planner.  Many choices are matters of opinion, and in a diverse and democratic society there is going to be great disagreement between whether we have too much or too little of something.  I raise this not so much to complain that we are worse off as a society as a result of our choices, but rather to explore the way in which make those choices and what consequences result.

Let's go back to business decisions, which is what I think about a lot.  If I am a business, and I have the opportunity to invest 100 units in order to earn 200 units, I will do it in a heartbeat.  But what if, in the process of converting 100 units of investment into 200 units of earning, I generate negative 50 units of costs to society?  One can argue that there should be some fair mechanism to transfer units from the business to some entity that will offset the negative costs to society with some positive benefits to society.  And, if, instead, in the process of converting 100 units of investment into 200 units of earning, I generate negative 500 units of costs to society, one can argue that there should be some way that society can organize itself to prevent me from proceeding.

Let's flip this now.  If I am a business, and I have the opportunity to invest 100 units in order to earn 50 units, I will not do it ever.  But what if, in the process of converting 100 units of investment into 50 units of earning, I generate 500 units of benefits to society?  One can argue that there should be some fair mechanism to transfer units from society to the business, so that the transaction becomes worth doing for the business, so that society can enjoy those benefits.

Of course, we do this all the time in our society, through government taxes, subsidies, and regulations.  We tax some things to draw out their negative externality (ex: sin taxes), we subsidize some things to make them happen when they won't happen absent government help (ex: energy efficiency tax credits), and we forbid some things outright when they are bad for society (ex: no dumping toxic waste into rivers).  But, in theory and in practice, the logic is fuzzy and the results are mixed.  Even at a simpler, philosophical level, you can disagree with how involved government should be in adjusting the marketplace.  And, when you get down to specific transactions, it becomes even murkier as to if, how, and how much government should insert itself: how do you value societal benefits and costs, what government tool is best for adjusting the market outcome, and will there be any unintended consequences?

For a while now, there has been talk in the business world about SROI: social return on investment.  This is exactly what I'm talking about, that to a business, ROI is about comparing return to the business with investment by the business, whereas to a society, SROI is about comparing return to the business plus return to society against investment by the business and investment by society.  Fair enough.

What, then, happens when the ROI tells you something is a go but the SROI tells you no-go?  Or vice versa: what happens when the ROI tells you something is a no-go but the SROI tells you go?  I think even the most ardent believers in government are sober about government's ability to properly insert itself into these transactions and to accurately size the tax, subsidy, or regulation that will move us to a more optimal solution.  And, I think even the most ardent believers in business are sober about business' ability to make choices that are in society's best interest and not just their own narrow interest.

One promising development in this realm is the rise of the informed consumer and the enlightened employee.  Increasingly, both consumers and employees are making decisions - with where they spend their dollars and where they want to work - based on these social factors.  Aiding these consumers and employees is the explosion of media coverage - from traditional sources to individual blogs, social networks, and word of mouth - to elevate good corporate behavior and uncover bad corporate behavior.  As a result, businesses are thinking twice about doing things that are good from an ROI standpoint but bad from an SROI standpoint (or vice versa), because they know that they might lose consumers and employees as a result.

Of course, losing consumers and employees means that, at some point, ROI and SROI might converge: things that are good from an ROI standpoint but bad from an SROI standpoint will actually be bad (or at least less good) from an ROI standpoint when factoring in the losses associated with boycotting consumers, employee attrition, and bad publicity.  This may be even more true if government becomes more aggressive in its taxing, subsidizing, and forbidding (I say "may be" because of course there is the possibility that government gets these things wrong and we end up with a bunch of unintended consequences).

Maybe you can tease out where I personally stand on how this all should work: how businesses should behave and what role government should play.  If you can, let me know, because I don't think I've figured out where I stand!  But I know it is helpful for me to explore these concepts, and I hope this has been helpful for you as well.

Lazy Linking, 80th in an Occasional Series

Stuff I liked on the Internets lately:

80.1 Cool and cheeky concepts for conserving water? Yes, please http://bit.ly/PKznND @oddeeblog

80.2 RIP George McGovern...btw, is it normal to be interviewed for an obit 7 yrs before you die? http://nyti.ms/WBuU1C @modeledbehavior

80.3 Forget about "binders full of women," how 'bout other Mittisms like "gosh" and "good heavens" http://nyti.ms/ScgnG1 @nytimes

80.4 Dear Charlotte: you're big enough that a NY Yankee's ankle surgery shouldn't be your lead story http://bit.ly/TpV32C @jposnanski

80.5 Talk about unintended consequences: a paper on penicillin’s role in increasing risky sexual behavior http://bit.ly/PjRA4s @freakonomics

What Am I Working On

As has become my custom every three months, here's what I'm working on now at work. I won't repeat anything from last time that I happen to still be working on, and for confidentiality's sake I have to blur some of the details for some of these studies.


Modeling the return on investment of a statewide tax credit program.

Estimating the new revenues and expenditures to a municipality for a proposed transit-oriented project.

Forecasting the tax revenues generated by a set of developments over the course of the 60-year period of its land lease.

Helping a local CDC connect businesses in its neighborhood to business-to-business and shared purchasing opportunities.

Estimating the economic, employment, and fiscal impact of a statewide venture fund.

Determining the property value impact of housing rehab projects in a municipality over a 40-year period.

Forming recommendations for public policy that supports job creation within a region.

Estimating the employment impact of a major infrastructure investment in a manufacturing plant.

Exploring construction cost differences across regions (labor, materials, regulations, and process).

Calculating the number of green jobs in a region.

Updating previously estimated economic impact estimates for a waterfront amenity that has now been built.

Estimating the economic and employment impact of a proposed casino in the Midwest.

Helping a business resource center expand to a second location.

Helping two social service agencies in their application for government funding.  

Job Talk

Next Wednesday there will be back-to-back hearings hosted by the Jobs Commission of the City of Philadelphia, which was recently formed by popular vote and is being supported by my firm via research and analysis.  While there's a lot you could talk about related to jobs, the stated focus of this group is what policy levers the City has to increase private sector employment for City residents.  If you're interested in testifying, listening, or just meeting the Commission members (who, by the way, I have thoroughly enjoyed worked for, and whose individual efforts I greatly admire), we'll be at City Hall at 3:00pm and 6:00pm. 

Just Because It Feels Good

My daughter Jada knows, from a variety of sources, that smoking is bad for you.  One day she asked me, “If smoking is bad for you, why do people still do it?”  To which I replied, “Well, smoking is bad for you, but some people still do it because it feels good.”  She seemed surprised that smoking felt good.  But I continued: “So you see, just because something feels good doesn’t mean that it’s good for you or that you should do it.”  In a hedonistic, anything goes society, this is an important distinction. 

My daughter also knows, from Amy and me telling her, that the way babies are made is by mommies and daddies putting their special parts together, resulting in a baby growing in the mommy’s tummy.  One day she asked us if we had ever put our special parts together.  Since her and Aaron were both adopted and didn’t come from Amy’s tummy, this is a fair question.  We responded by saying that we had, because it’s something that people who are married can do to love one another and because it feels good.  As with smoking, she seemed surprised that sex feels good.   But we continued: “But you know, because it feels good, sometimes people do it even if they’re not married, and Mommy and Daddy believe that God made putting special parts together for just people who are married to one another, and that it’s wrong to do that if you’re not married.  So you see, just because something feels good doesn’t mean that it’s good for you or that you should do it.”

You probably agree with me that smoking is bad for your health.  You may or may not share my belief that sex outside of marriage is immoral and not good for you.  Regardless, the larger point I’m trying to make is the one I’m trying to make to my children, which is that their decisions shouldn’t be governed by what feels good.  Feelings are important, and they are helpful parts of who we are as humans.  But our decisions should be governed by something greater than what feels good.  And our kids are better off if they learn this, from their parents, than if they have to figure out their own way on their own.

A Magical Community

A lot of my friends congratulated me earlier this month on the Oakland A's miraculously making the playoffs, and then offered condolences when the team was bounced by the Detroit Tigers in the first round.  The exhilaration from the first more than offset the sadness from the second, since I didn't expect the team to be good until 2014 or later, so this magical run was more than could be expected and I really was "just happy to be here." 

I couldn't follow the team much - not that it was easy, what with minimal coverage on the East Coast and a roster full of no-names - but it wasn't hard to be captivated by one of the best stories in all of baseball.  Here was a team with the second-lowest payroll in the league, an all-rookie starting rotation, one of their best relievers being a converted infielder, and one of their best starters suspended for the season for PEDs.  Throw in a scary line drive to the head of popular starting pitcher Brandon McCarthy, the gut-wrenching loss of Pat Neshek's one-day-old baby boy, and an improbable AL West division title, and you knew you had the makings of a special group and a special time. 

Indeed, through triumph and tragedy, the Oakland A's grew from a professional baseball team to an extended family that absorbed workers, spouses, and fans, laughter and tears and all.  You want to hold out to things like this.

It occurs to me that, in a small way, I do have such a community.  We don't spend weeks on the road, pour hours of sweat into perfecting our craft, and focus maniacally on one glorious championship outcome.  But we are bound together by something bigger than us, we do get intimately involved in each others' lives, and we rejoice together and weep together through the happiness and hurts of real life.

I am speaking, of course, of my church community.  And I really do mean it, for we are not the comfortable country club that too many churches in America have become.  Warts and all, we do life together.  That has meant rejoicing in redeemed lives, healed bodies, and the ability to love again.  It has meant delighting in beautiful children and happy couples and unexpected blessings.  It has also meant saying sorry, confessing sin, and asking for help.  It has involved being there when sons were murdered, marriages frayed, and jobs were lost.  We deal with the fallout of sexual trauma, substance abuse, and mental illness. 

And we do it all together, as one body, as the Biblical analogy goes.  As the A's have shown, it is a magical ride, one you just want to grasp onto and not let go of.  And, battered as we are, this church - and the Church, capital C - have more to go, and more to be added to.  And, in the end, it will be triumphant.  At the end of every A's win, Kool and the Gang's "Celebration" is played, fans rollick, and teammates high-five.  It's kind of how this A's fan imagines that heavenly moment will be like at the end of it all.

Inter(national) (Di)Varsity

Most of my grade school friends were Asians.  Among my outsized 13-person high school crew was all Asians except one white guy.  It was what I was most comfortable with. 

Heading off to college, at a school that was less than 10 percent Asian the year before my freshman year, I decided to apply for housing on the "East Asia House" floor of one of the high rises.  Again, it was what I was most comfortable with, so I figured that if I was going to go to school 2,500 miles from home, I'd want to make sure I found other Asians.

My freshman year, in addition to being my first extended time away from home, was also a significant year in my spiritual journey.  Having just become a Christian in high school, after not growing up anywhere near a church, I wanted to make sure I found other Christians and so got involved in a Christian group called Intervarsity.  There were a handful of other Christian groups to choose from - most notably Campus Crusade for Christ and a few Korean and Chinese churches that had on-campus meetings - but I ended up at Intervarsity.

By the end of my freshman year, it was my primary social network.  And it could not have been more ethnically diverse.  Sure, there was a heavy concentration of Asians.  But there was also white, black, Hispanic, and innumerable international students representing a United Nations of countries.  I particularly recall an end-of-year gathering in which it seemed attendees were arriving in precise one-minute increments, each from a different nationality: Brazil, Nigeria, Spain, Japan, Mexico, England, and on and on. 

Sure, for this Taiwanese kid from suburban San Jose, there was the cool factor of having so many friends from different parts of the world.  But it also imprinted on me that the family of believers is indeed multinational, and not only multinational but together.  It's a fact and a blessing I experience to this day. 

Nomination Exhilaration

I've attended my church for 15 years and been an elder for 12, and yet before last year had never served on its Nominating Committee.  I was Vice Chair last year and Chair this year, and I recently convened this year's team to make nominees for elder and deacon. 

We're still in process, so I can't quite fully share our results yet.  But I can say that our time together as a team was really meaningful, talking about and praying for various members in our congregation.  Each person is a literal treasure, and we grew in thankfulness to God as we went from name to name. 

Even better than just getting to think about each person was considering if and how leadership would be a blessing to them and to the church as a whole.  Since we completed our discussions and I began to follow up with candidates, I've had some who've said no and some who've said yes, and again I've gotten a chance to consider each of these people as official leaders and delight in the anticipation of how that will be good for them and good for us all. 

I cherish my fellow congregants, individually and in the aggregate.  Who knew serving as Chair of the Nominating Committee would be such an exhilarating way to experience this?

Public Hearing on the Competitiveness of Philadelphia

Competitiveness.  It's all the talk, at a global, national, and local level.  And deservedly so, for the world moves fast, and jobs for us and our kids are on the line.

If you're interested in hearing about the future competitiveness of Philadelphia from some of our most respected current leaders, I encourage to pop over to City Council chambers today or tomorrow.  Councilman David Oh is convening a two-day hearing of City Council and the Pennsylvania Senate, and the agenda is packed with the right angles and the right people.

You can find a full agenda here.  See you there!

Party Party

I really ought to get out more, since it's so socially enjoyable and since it helps to cultivate my work network.  But I can't tell you the last time I was out on a weekday evening. 

Good that I had not one but two worthy events to attend last Thursday.  First, The Enterprise Center had its annual Passing the Torch fundraiser.  Not only is the organization so worth contributing to, but the event is always a fun one. 

I only regret I had to cut out early, for I also had to make a fundraiser for my alma mater, the Fels Institute of Government, which has been celebrating its 75th anniversary.  Here too were ample opportunities to network, feel-good speeches from respected leaders, and pride in a strong affiliation.

Indeed, I'm honored to count The Enterprise Center and Fels among my deepest loyalties.  I wore both pins proudly on my lapel, and didn't at all mind the havoc these two events wrought on my sleep schedule.  Kudos to both places for doing so much good for so many people.

Business Hours

Without giving too much away, I want to take you behind the curtain on my approach to time management at work.  I fancy that this will resonate with others in the professional services world, and I welcome hearing from others, so consider this a conversation starter on a vital but often under-discussed topic.

As a consultant, of course, your primary responsibility is to your clients.  Depending on how big your firm is, where you are on the depth chart, and what kind of work you do, that might be 100 percent of your time.  As for me, I have three other things competing for my time, all of which relate to my client work and all of which I have to figure out how to juggle alongside my client work:

(1) Working on the business.  This is a pet phrase of my former boss, Della Clark, who helps entrepreneurs grow their companies at The Enterprise Center.  Inside this category go all the things that go into keeping a company going, from internal processes to big-picture strategy, from hiring and evaluating talent to making decisions about what technology or data sets to buy.

(2) Professional development.  You only get hired if you know stuff.  So that means you have to stay abreast of current events, policy news, and analytical tools.  Which means I have a lot of reading to do, of publications and reports and reference books.

(3) Networking.  You only get hired if you know people.  So that means you have to be out there, making new contacts and managing relationships with existing contacts.  So I need to make time to attend events, grab lunch with colleagues, and reach out via email and social media.

I think my ideal time split is 70/10/10/10: 70 percent of my time on client work, and 10 percent each on the three other things above.  Of course, there are weeks when client work overwhelms, and I have to decide whether I diminish my time in these other three areas, or alternatively work more hours and cut into my personal time. 

I'll leave unsaid what my split is now, and how I manage the ebbs and flows of various time commitments.  Suffice to say, I wish I had more hours in the day, and struggle to find peace in the finite number of things I can get to each week.  I welcome any advice and sharing on this most impactful topic.

Green and Gold October

The Oakland A's, the team of my youth, are in the playoffs.  After trading away their top two starters and their closer before the season.  Losing three other starters to steroids, an injury, and a life-threatening line drive to the head.  Trotting out an all-rookie starting rotation for the last six weeks of the season. 

Predicted to lose 100 games, the team with the 2nd lowest payroll in the majors ($55M, vs. $198M for the Yanks and $175M for the Phils) are AL West division champs instead.  They gained 6 games on the powerhouse Texas Rangers in the last nine days of the season. 

I'd be lying if I didn't say I'm just happy to be here.  But I won't rule out a playoff-long extension to this magical ride.  Stranger things have happened in October.  Let's go, A's!

Oh Say Can UC

I've written many times about how I love my neighborhood that you'd think there'd be nothing more to say.  And yet I am continuously and pleasantly surprised by the freshness and vibrancy of my surroundings.  Walking around this past weekend, I marveled at it all: lots of people of all walks of life buzzing around, signs of residents investing in the physical appearance of their homes, and new storefronts popping up everywhere.  (Even the closures are a positive sign: the big porn shop that anchors the shopping plaza three blocks from my house is going out of business.) 

You can credit the big institutions - University of Pennsylvania, Drexel University, University City District, Councilwoman Blackwell's office, Spruce Hill Community Association, The Enterprise Center - and you wouldn't be wrong, because all have done good things to make this area what it is.  But what's been fun about the evolution of University City has been how it's primarily about the individual homeowners and shopkeepers, each making their unique contribution to the beauty and liveliness, together resulting in a great place to live, work, play, worship, eat, shop, and socialize. 

Who could've known in 1991, when this nerdy kid from suburban San Jose flew out here to go to school, that so much more would be waiting for him 20+ years later? 

Lazy Linking, 79th in an Occasional Series

Changing things up a bit on my whole "Lazy Linking" thing, as I'll also be tweeting these from my @leehuang Twitter account.  Enjoy the links and feel free to reply/retweet/favorite/etc.!

79.1 Not at all surprised US gas use concentrated in a few auto-oriented places http://onforb.es/Outdkb @Forbes

79.2 Every time I watch this clip from "Up," someone's cutting onions nearby http://bit.ly/QB0xVh @DisneyPixar

79.3 Lost in the MNF fiasco: even kids know to bat down the pass http://bit.ly/QxujdZ @EagledelphiaPA

79.4 Philadelphia 9th among US metro areas in fast-growing companies http://bit.ly/Qgu6Z9 @Inc

79.5 Rittenhouse Square: 10th most @FourSquare check-ins among US city parks http://bit.ly/UP6oJo  @TravlandLeisure