Monday, March 03, 2008
Why I Don't Drive to Work, Aesthetic Edition
by Ken Houghton
The drive to the train station is about four to six minutes.* And when I'm running late, I don't change the radio to one of the two good stations.**
So this morning's song was this:
Let's ignore the additional cost, incremental time spent doing nothing else, hassle, wear-and-tear (on car and driver), and all the other stuff that makes Tom consider bicycling through Madison (WI) a reasonable alternative.
The drive to the train station is about four to six minutes.* And when I'm running late, I don't change the radio to one of the two good stations.**
So this morning's song was this:
And this evening's song was this:
Forget turn signals; why do people pay for a radio in their car??
Labels: just life, mass media, pop music
Geeky Economists 4 Life
by Ken Houghton
YouNotSneaky! returns with a long post on utilities and, worse, a foray into the Buffyverse that should not go unpunished. Or unembellished.
Labels: blogging, mass media, Meme-A-Riffic, Meta
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Culture Wars
by Ken Houghton
Presumably, since NYPD Blue became famous for showing Dennis Franz's naked buttocks (and was not fined for same), the FCC has decided that a woman's buttocks, but not a man's, is a sex organ.
The ramifications of this decision are left as an exercise to the (adult, consenting) reader.
Via Dr. Black, family values at work at the FCC:
The [FCC] said [NYPD Blue] was indecent because "it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs, specifically an adult woman's buttocks."
The agency rejected the network's argument that "the buttocks are not a sexual organ."
Presumably, since NYPD Blue became famous for showing Dennis Franz's naked buttocks (and was not fined for same), the FCC has decided that a woman's buttocks, but not a man's, is a sex organ.
The ramifications of this decision are left as an exercise to the (adult, consenting) reader.
Labels: Current Events, mass media
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Why I Was Thinking about Barstow
by Ken Houghton
It's not just that my college girl friend* is Barstow High Class of 1976, which, iirc, was the last year that high school was open. It's for precisely those reasons that I was looking at Barstow.
Anyone can want to live on Newport Beach, or in Miami. And you can rationalize building up the suburbs of Chicago.
It takes something else to move to Barstow (good luck with the $4.8million offer). Or Xenia, OH. Or even, say, Southfield, MI.
So I've been looking at Barstow to remind myself that, while there may be areas where the drop is more than 30%, the national average may not get that high. Because I really don't want to be correct that 30% is optimistic.
And I was almost there. until I read this post at CR today.
That "six trillion dollar" figure—first heard, to my knowledge, from Robert Shiller's lips at the AEA two and one-half weeks ago—is now coming reportage.
With the worst yet to come.
*who has been AARP-eligible for the past two months and thirteen days, not that I'm counting.
Dilbert Dogbert, in comments to an old post, noted the glory of Barstow:
Barstow is high desert and may not see snow for decades but it is high and therefore colder than hell, California style, in the winter. Other than that the wind can blow like hell too. High winds mixed with sand!
It's not just that my college girl friend* is Barstow High Class of 1976, which, iirc, was the last year that high school was open. It's for precisely those reasons that I was looking at Barstow.
Anyone can want to live on Newport Beach, or in Miami. And you can rationalize building up the suburbs of Chicago.
It takes something else to move to Barstow (good luck with the $4.8million offer). Or Xenia, OH. Or even, say, Southfield, MI.
So I've been looking at Barstow to remind myself that, while there may be areas where the drop is more than 30%, the national average may not get that high. Because I really don't want to be correct that 30% is optimistic.
And I was almost there. until I read this post at CR today.
That "six trillion dollar" figure—first heard, to my knowledge, from Robert Shiller's lips at the AEA two and one-half weeks ago—is now coming reportage.
With the worst yet to come.
*who has been AARP-eligible for the past two months and thirteen days, not that I'm counting.
Labels: Calculated Risk, Housing Bubble, mass media
Monday, January 21, 2008
Oprah & Orman's Housing Advice
by Ken Houghton
Now this was a fine set of interviews, I have to tell you.** The returnees (saved for the end) were a couple where he worked full-time and somehow they didn't have health insurance for their children.*** There was also the couple with two SUVs, the second of which they describe as "an impulse buy" due to "pressure from the salesman"—who apparently sold them two SUVs on the same day, so they now have three cars and two drivers.**** And there was the couple making $6,600/month (not certain if that was net or gross) who spend $1,800/month on child care. And there was another, whose details I probably slept through.
They were all interchangeable, so I have no memory of anything that distinguished the fourth couple. Their common claim: Our marriages are falling apart, and we would do anything to keep them together.
And who knows more about finances and marriage than famed lesbian Suzie Orman?*****
There was one piece of advice that was given to all four couples: sell your house(s). You cannot afford it (them).
Think about that in the context of this (h/t Dr. Black). And I don't have the impression these people were in a bubble area, though at least one may have been in the suburbs of Chicago.
Note the plural above. This is because one family—the one with the SUV "impulse buy" above—got into their dire straits because three things occurred in rapid succession: (1) the bought the new house without being able to sell the previous one, (2) the bought the new SUVs, and (3) he was laid off, turning a dual-income family into single-income.
Now, don't get me wrong. It is likely that, even if the first house had been sold, then would have had some troubles paying for two cars, a house, and children on a single income. But it's difficult to avoid the reality: the inability to sell the first house triggered their problems.
So telling them "sell your houses," as if those are liquid assets, isn't the best idea in the world.
This was made most clear by the "returning" couple. The wife's hair was cut.****** And they had moved into an apartment, and were trying to maintain a budget.
But they haven't sold their house yet.
So, basically, they're covering a mortgage, property taxes, and an apartment rent now. Or maybe they're not covering a mortgage; maybe they're just moving closer to foreclosure.
One way or another, this appears to be poor financial planning advice—or at least poor execution of same.
But in Oprah-world, they're "trying to stay together," so everything is great.
Meanwhile, there are four houses on the market, and at least one spare SUV for sale, and people are thinking they should make their carrying costs even higher by renting an apartment as well.
What did I learn from Oprah? Houses are not quick assets. But I knew that already; it just seems that Suzie Orman and her clients don't.
*Wait! Didn't we just have six years of prosperity. How do they find these people?
**Not fine enough to keep me fully awake, so I may mix up a few people.
***They declared that this was because the wife spent all their monies on Starbucks and her hair (without noticeably good results), but this does leave one to wonder about the "good job" the man supposedly has "full-time" that did not offer health insurance for his family.
****Keep this couple in mind.
*****That she is gay relates to the link, since straight people don't have to worry about "losing 50%" of their inheritance. Otherwise, let us be generous and assume her knowledge of finance and financial planning needs is accurate.
******To her benefit, I think. Not that that means much.
I spent the usual ca. 90 minutes in the doctor's office Friday night (follow-up to this, which appears to be "just" a sprained shoulder). Most of that time was an Oprah episode that visited three families (and re-visited a fourth) that were overextended.*
Now this was a fine set of interviews, I have to tell you.** The returnees (saved for the end) were a couple where he worked full-time and somehow they didn't have health insurance for their children.*** There was also the couple with two SUVs, the second of which they describe as "an impulse buy" due to "pressure from the salesman"—who apparently sold them two SUVs on the same day, so they now have three cars and two drivers.**** And there was the couple making $6,600/month (not certain if that was net or gross) who spend $1,800/month on child care. And there was another, whose details I probably slept through.
They were all interchangeable, so I have no memory of anything that distinguished the fourth couple. Their common claim: Our marriages are falling apart, and we would do anything to keep them together.
And who knows more about finances and marriage than famed lesbian Suzie Orman?*****
There was one piece of advice that was given to all four couples: sell your house(s). You cannot afford it (them).
Think about that in the context of this (h/t Dr. Black). And I don't have the impression these people were in a bubble area, though at least one may have been in the suburbs of Chicago.
Note the plural above. This is because one family—the one with the SUV "impulse buy" above—got into their dire straits because three things occurred in rapid succession: (1) the bought the new house without being able to sell the previous one, (2) the bought the new SUVs, and (3) he was laid off, turning a dual-income family into single-income.
Now, don't get me wrong. It is likely that, even if the first house had been sold, then would have had some troubles paying for two cars, a house, and children on a single income. But it's difficult to avoid the reality: the inability to sell the first house triggered their problems.
So telling them "sell your houses," as if those are liquid assets, isn't the best idea in the world.
This was made most clear by the "returning" couple. The wife's hair was cut.****** And they had moved into an apartment, and were trying to maintain a budget.
But they haven't sold their house yet.
So, basically, they're covering a mortgage, property taxes, and an apartment rent now. Or maybe they're not covering a mortgage; maybe they're just moving closer to foreclosure.
One way or another, this appears to be poor financial planning advice—or at least poor execution of same.
But in Oprah-world, they're "trying to stay together," so everything is great.
Meanwhile, there are four houses on the market, and at least one spare SUV for sale, and people are thinking they should make their carrying costs even higher by renting an apartment as well.
What did I learn from Oprah? Houses are not quick assets. But I knew that already; it just seems that Suzie Orman and her clients don't.
*Wait! Didn't we just have six years of prosperity. How do they find these people?
**Not fine enough to keep me fully awake, so I may mix up a few people.
***They declared that this was because the wife spent all their monies on Starbucks and her hair (without noticeably good results), but this does leave one to wonder about the "good job" the man supposedly has "full-time" that did not offer health insurance for his family.
****Keep this couple in mind.
*****That she is gay relates to the link, since straight people don't have to worry about "losing 50%" of their inheritance. Otherwise, let us be generous and assume her knowledge of finance and financial planning needs is accurate.
******To her benefit, I think. Not that that means much.
Labels: conspicuous consumption, Economics, Housing Bubble, mass media
Friday, January 18, 2008
Stop Thinking about Tomorrow: the DGA and NYT agree that the Internet isn't Important
by Ken Houghton
For a slight counterpoint, let's look at the overview of the summary from United Hollywood:
Anyone who believes that the savings here will be passed on as consumer surplus is either lying or Greg Mankiw (if I'm not repeating myself).
It takes only a moment to realise why the DGA has the wrong idea. Look at what happened with VCR royalty rates, right after the Sony decision and over the following 20+ years:
Just change that first date to "2008," update the modes of distribution accordingly, and this 'graf will be valid for the next twenty years.
The NYT tells us that the writers were worrying their pretty little heads over nothing:
After months of informal talks, Hollywood’s movie and television directors agreed Thursday afternoon to a new contract with production companies. The accord would appear to send a none-too-subtle message to striking screenwriters: This is not the time to get hung up on new media....
Over all, the agreement — which also increases minimum compensation rates and other gains for the union — was meant to reflect the directors’ belief, bolstered by an independent study of industry economics, that digital media will provide a negligible amount of revenue during the life of the contract.
In the directors’ opinion, digital media revenues will become significant only after 2010. [emphases mine]
For a slight counterpoint, let's look at the overview of the summary from United Hollywood:
For the first 100,000 downloads of a TV show, the payment is the DVD rate: 0.3%. After the first 100,000, it rises to .7%
For features, the rate is 0.3% for the first 50,000 downloads and 0.65% thereafter.
The good: It's more than twice what we had before.
The bad: What we had before was based on the miserable DVD formula. WGA, SAG and DGA had all agreed that that number really should be 1.2%, and the unions have actually sued the congloms over it, claiming that the use of the DVD formula for downloads is a misinterpretation of their respective MBAs.
So the 0.7% and 0.65% numbers are still terribly low. In addition, many downloads will not reach the 100,000 or 50,000 threshold, and will generate only the abysmal 0.3%.
It's frustrating to us that the DGA couldn't increase that number out of the DVD range. The DVD formula was based on the notion that "home video" meant a bulky plastic VHS tapes with enormous manufacturing and transportation costs. Those costs decreased dramatically over the years. But no increase in residuals. They decreased dramatically again with birth of DVDs. (You can slip them under a door!) But no increase in residuals. With downloads, the manufacturing cost is exactly zero dollars. And terabytes of storage are getting cheaper by the hour. But we still can't improve that DVD formula? Really?
Anyone who believes that the savings here will be passed on as consumer surplus is either lying or Greg Mankiw (if I'm not repeating myself).
It takes only a moment to realise why the DGA has the wrong idea. Look at what happened with VCR royalty rates, right after the Sony decision and over the following 20+ years:
The 0.3% and 0.36% home video residual formula was negotiated in 1985, when the cost of manufacturing and distributing videocassettes was a significant factor in the cost structure for the studios. The AMPTP companies argued that they “needed a break” in order to develop this “unproven business model.” In the years since, as the cost of manufacturing and distribution declined to become a negligible factor, and the business model proved to be one of the most profitable of any of the segments of the entertainment business, the companies have fiercely resisted any change in this formula. Industry analysts predict that home video will continue to be a very important revenue stream for years to come, and it is clearly long past time for an improvement in the home video residual formula.
Just change that first date to "2008," update the modes of distribution accordingly, and this 'graf will be valid for the next twenty years.
Labels: labor unions, mass media, movies, writing
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
A Justification for the "Death Penalty," or Firing Colin Campbell
by Ken Houghton
No, not that one. It's time to end the Philadelphia Flyers franchise.
I say this with a heavy heart, knowing I have at least one relative who may never speak to me again. Knowing that the Devils have the best record in the conference (take that, Burnside), knowing that the Rangers have not won in 2008 yet. But when Bobby Clarke gets loose with this, it's clear there's GOOD reason that league games are more difficult to find than the English Premier League football:
What's Clarke's definition of "Went after"?? Here's Downie on Blake:
That's right:
Here's Downie's hit on Dean McAmmond in the preseason, which may not quite reach McSorley or Todd Bertuzzi levels, but for which there is no excuse:
Well, unless you're Clarke:
"The consequences" = sucker punched while the referee holds him.
Here's that 25-game Boulerice hit (with the Flyer announcers trying to be nice):
Colin Campbell should resign in shame, having admitted that he "sells hate."
There is some justice, but even that's not the type anyone wants to see. Ken Campbell (presumably no relation to Colin, as he appears moderately sane) notes:
Enough is enough. It's intersession, and I was going to try to enjoy hockey. Instead, this coming Saturday features matches with Arsenal, Manchester United, and Juventus. None of whom employ Bobby Clarke or Colin Campbell.
WARNING: VIDEO EMBEDS NOT SAFE FOR KIDS. OR MOST HUMANS.
No, not that one. It's time to end the Philadelphia Flyers franchise.
I say this with a heavy heart, knowing I have at least one relative who may never speak to me again. Knowing that the Devils have the best record in the conference (take that, Burnside), knowing that the Rangers have not won in 2008 yet. But when Bobby Clarke gets loose with this, it's clear there's GOOD reason that league games are more difficult to find than the English Premier League football:
"When he went after [Jason] Blake, I loved it," Clarke told The Sports Network of Canada.
What's Clarke's definition of "Went after"?? Here's Downie on Blake:
That's right:
Downie punched Blake in the left eye as Blake was being held back by an official during a scuffle. [emphasis mine]
Here's Downie's hit on Dean McAmmond in the preseason, which may not quite reach McSorley or Todd Bertuzzi levels, but for which there is no excuse:
Well, unless you're Clarke:
Clarke said Blake deserved Downie's punch for saying Downie should have been suspended for more than 20 games.
"Blake was a guy who had no problem going out and saying [Downie] should be suspended for life or suspended for the year," Clarke said. "When you say something that stupid, why shouldn't this kid go after him for it?
"The kid did what every hockey player should do. If a player like Blake who's been around as long as he has wants to criticize a player, then he has to go on the ice with him and suffer the consequences."
"The consequences" = sucker punched while the referee holds him.
Here's that 25-game Boulerice hit (with the Flyer announcers trying to be nice):
Colin Campbell should resign in shame, having admitted that he "sells hate."
There is some justice, but even that's not the type anyone wants to see. Ken Campbell (presumably no relation to Colin, as he appears moderately sane) notes:
But perhaps the Flyers will learn something from the fact they’ll be without Joffrey Lupul for at least two weeks after he suffered a concussion and a bruised spinal cord. Because the only reason it happened was that he was decked by his own teammate’s illegal hit.
The only reason why it’s Lupul and not Maple Leafs winger Alexander Steen who is injured, is that Flyer defenseman Derian Hatcher’s classic headshot didn’t hit the intended target. On the play, Hatcher spotted Steen skating through the neutral zone, then came in with his elbows up and left his feet in an attempt to separate him from his senses.
Although Steen did get hit, he managed to avoid the brunt of it, but Lupul, who was skating right behind him, took his teammate’s elbows right to the head. Had that hit connected on Steen, there’s a good chance the league would have been reviewing two incidents involving the Flyers. [emphasis mine; think Downie's hit on McAmmond, and realise how well that "double secret probation" is working]
Enough is enough. It's intersession, and I was going to try to enjoy hockey. Instead, this coming Saturday features matches with Arsenal, Manchester United, and Juventus. None of whom employ Bobby Clarke or Colin Campbell.
Labels: hockey, mass media, real football, sports
Saturday, November 24, 2007
The Whole Truth?
by Ken Houghton
Strangely, looking at the film, there are no attempts at "surprise" interviews.
FiOS description of The Big One:
PG-13. 1997. Biased documentary analyzes the idiocy of corporate layoffs in the wake of record profits, with attempts at surprise interviews with executives. Director: Michael Moore
Strangely, looking at the film, there are no attempts at "surprise" interviews.
Labels: Journamalism, mass media
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Why I Need CNBC
by Ken Houghton
Since that only leaves consumption, it would appear that the Estate Tax is sustaining the current economy. Clearly, not something we want to repeal.
Explained just now: The Estate Tax discourages savings and investment.
Since that only leaves consumption, it would appear that the Estate Tax is sustaining the current economy. Clearly, not something we want to repeal.
Labels: Journamalism, mass media
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Happy Felix Unger Day!
by Ken Houghton
If I have to explain the reference, you probably think Jerry Seinfeld invented comedy.
Labels: mass media
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
For the Gang at EOB: Writing AND Zombies
by Ken Houghton
Go Read the Whole Thing. And then go see Dan in Real Life, because Steve Carell really does remember where he came from.
Since I can't send anyone Erin-way today (this being a family blog, at least for Tom), Joss Wheedon Explains It All to You:
And as work? Well, in the first place, it IS fun. When it’s going well, it’s the most fun I can imagine having. (Tim Minear might dispute that.) And when it’s not going well, it’s often not going well in the company of a bunch of funny, thoughtful people. So how is that work? You got no muscles to show for it (yes, the brain is a muscle, but if you show it to people it’s usually because part of your skull has been torn off and that doesn’t impress the ladies – unless the ladies are ZOMBIES! Where did this paragraph go?) Writing is enjoyable and ephemeral. And it’s hard work.
Go Read the Whole Thing. And then go see Dan in Real Life, because Steve Carell really does remember where he came from.
Labels: labor unions, mass media, Optimal Resources, writing
