economics

No Casino in Toronto thanks

Wednesday, October 31st, 2012

Every time I read about the city getting a casino I cringe. First off, let’s be clear: I don’t like gambling. Gambling is nothing more than a way of taking advantage of people who cannot do math. I would recommend the book “Struck by Lightning” by U of T professor Jeffery Rosenthal for a better idea of what I am taking about. It answer questions like:Are you more likely to win the jackpot from that slot machine, or catch the flu from the person who used it before you?

I have been to Vegas, and I have gambled in casinos before and what strikes me most about them is the façade of excitement and joy. Rob Ford and his supporters are pushing the idea of a casino as a way of invigorating the city and adding much needed revenue to the city coffers, as well as adding jobs. The truth however is much bleaker. When I was in vegas I saw people sitting at slot machines when I went out in the morning from our hotel to go to the Grand Canyon who were still there when we got back 12 hours later. Same clothes, same machine. The law of large numbers states simply that if you play long enough, the casino will take your money.

And let’s be clear, the city will not own the casino. The government may tax the casino, but we all know corporations of ways of avoiding taxes. Someone, presumable a private investor or investors who will be reaping the rewards of human misery. Don’t forget Vegas was founded by criminals looking to launder money, the fact the government takes advantage of it doesn’t make it any less seedy. There are talks of expanding the Woodbine race track, which if you live in the Beach you’re probably not keen on. There are numerous studies that show the impact of casinos on the local communities There are hundreds more if you just search.

But rather than just be a naysayer I have a simple solution if the city wanted to make money from the public. Sell Toronto Savings bonds. Offer 5% interest or a chance to win half the interest of everyone who chooses to gamble. For example if you buy a hundred dollar bond, you could cash it in for $105 in a year. Or people could choose to forgo the $5 to earn a chance to win half the interest of everyone who participates. They still get the hundred dollars back, so they don’t lose anything, but by rolling the dice (pun intended) they get a chance to win. If 100 people participate that is (100 x $5)/2 or $250 dollars as more people participate the bigger the jackpot is.

Before you ask, yes I am aware that this is gambling and I am sure there are laws around why we can’t do this but it seems like a simple way to get city the money it needs to operate, allow people to participate without huge risk, and offer the opportunity of a payout. This isn’t the first time someone had this idea, and it is not without it’s opponents, but I think it’s still preferable to a brick and mortar casino downtown.

Share

CRTC killing innovation

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011

I had lunch yesterday with Chris Berry, and inevitably conversation drifted to the CRTC and usage based billing.  Usage based billing sounds like a good idea on it’s face.  Those who use it more should pay more, right?  We do it with electricity and natural gas, so it’s not like this is a revolutionary idea.  However we know that in some cases people resist usage based billing out of principle, for example with garbage.

Freakonomics radio produced a segment on trying to get people to throw out less garbage.  What is interesting about this is while most people did reduce their garbage with the pay-as-you-throw system, some started dumping it in the woods.  Studies have shown that people are more loss adverse than gain seeking.  Meaning people will try much harder to hang onto what they have than try to gain something new.

Take driving for example, how quick would you be to sign up for usage based driving?  Imagine your odometer gets read every year and you get sent a bill according to how much you drive.  Or we put toll booths up all over the place.  Most Canadians would balk at the idea, especially those who live in a rural areas.  It would seem that if you start with usage based billing then all is good but trying to switch later on is an issue.  Also, with most usage based billing, you only pay for what you use.  No garbage?  No charge.  That is not the case with the internet billing proposed by the CRTC.

The issue with the CRTC’s decision is three fold as I see it.  First, paying $2.00 per gigabyte is stupidly expensive.  It works out cheaper for Netflix or whoever to fill a hard drive and mail it than it to you than it would be for you to download their products.  Considering bandwidth costs (at most) $.05/GB there is no excuse for that kind of mark up.  Bell and Rogers are not offering to only charge you for the amount you use, they are wanting to charge you on top of what you already pay.  Regardless of the fact that you may have signed up years ago for “unlimited bandwidth”. We are supposedly living in an age where people can telecommute, and work remotely but at $1.50  per gigabyte we don’t.  It will not be economically sensible for me as an employee to ever work at home. Unless of course the company is willing to pick up the tab.

Secondly, producers already pay for bandwidth once. Take the CBC for example, you can watch episodes of Being Erica, or live HNL games online streamed to your computer.  I don’t think I am giving away any trade secrets when I mention the CBC spends a considerable amount of money on terabytes of bandwidth.  If the CBC spends money to serve it, and then you pay again to watch it, then we are getting dung twice for the content. Because the CBC and other content producers are able to offset their costs through advertising it’s okay to pay for content distribution, but if no one is willing to pay for the content because it is now too expensive to download, that model dies. no audience = no ad revenue = no content

Thirdly it kills porn  innovation.  I jest but actually lots major advancement in web technology arrived from porn.  Flash? – porn.  Video streaming? – porn. Online payment systems ? – porn.  Live chat? – porn.  In a world which is increasing it’s broadband capabilities, you have to wonder why Canada is attempting to stifle it.

It will kill the blossoming online gaming industry.  Why bother downloading a game from a service like Steam if a 25 Gb game is going to cost $50 just go buy it. Companies like Steam should be screaming at the CRTC that this will kill their business in Canada.    World of Warcraft?  I don’t think so, if playing for an evening is going to cost you $6 a night in bandwidth costs above the $18/month you are already paying.  I have a Flickr account with gigabytes of photos, it will now cost me more to upload and download my own files.  Uploading to YouTube, Facebook and on and on it goes.

There isn’t a pipeline clog as the communication companies would have you believe.  Any blockages are in the last 100 metres.  Meaning it is the cable in your house or apartment that is the issue, not the fiber optic networks.   We as Canadians payed to have the cables lines put in, not Rogers or Bell and as such we need to express to the CRTC in no uncertain terms we will not accept this sort of nonsense any longer.  It is time for Canada’s  to have real competition in it’s cable and communication markets.

http://www.antiubb.com/

Share

Why the Toronto strike will be a loss for workers

Saturday, July 4th, 2009

Whether you feel the striking CUPE workers in Toronto are right or not, you have to conclude that the striking workers will lose.  No matter what happens in the end, whether they go back voluntarily, are legislated back to work, or strike until their demands are met, the (wo)man on the front lines loses.  The problem unfortunately is a simple matter of mathematics.

  1. Strikes are battles of attrition. Attrition works in two ways.  One you outlast your opponent, two you hurt your opponent more than they hurt you (essentially outlasting them). Let’s say the auto workers go on strike, it is a simple waiting game where the corporation needs to give in to keep making money. It is a business so a strike means no products to sell.  The city on the other hand has no product to sell.  In fact, the city of Toronto saves $300,000 a day in unpaid wages according to the Toronto Star.  Councillor Denzil Minnan-Wong thinks the city has saved about $28 million a week!There are 30,000 workers striking, averaging lets say $18/hr and working 8 hours a day the total saved works out to $4,320,000/day on an hourly basis and that doesn’t even include the benefits.

    According the CUPE’s website, the strike pay is only $40/day to a maximum of $200/week
    .  So each day the average employee looses $104. It doesn’t take long to see that the city which is saving money is not hurt by the strike.  While one could argue that there is lost revenue because of unfulfilled applications, etc, the city doesn’t really loose anything, the public does.

    Now the fun part, on average union members pay 2.45% in union dues.  If the average CUPE salary is $35,000/year that means the average union dues is $857.50. That means the union makes $25.7 million from dues a year. A 10 day strike eliminates every dime made from union dues that year!

    Also for union members they get the shaft from both ends.  First they lose almost a thousand dollars a year in dues and then get hosed for $100 a day while on strike.

    In this war of attrition CUPE is going to get it’s ass handed to it.  One thing that could mitigate this however is if the public supported the strike, but they don’t.

  2. Taxpayers are not behind the strikers. Without public support the union and it’s members are screwed.  If the public felt strongly enough they would pressure their elected representatives to pay the employees more, even if it did mean in increases in taxes. I believe this because I think deep down most people are fair, and Canadians in particular have a strong sense of fair play.The strike, while not hurting the city in any meaningful fashion is wreaking havoc with the lives of ordinary Torontonians many of which would jump at a chance to work for the city even at the current wage with or without the banked sick days.Most people are willing to endure some hardship or inconvenience if they feel it is for the better good, but given the discrepancy between what union workers make and what private sector workers make it is unlikely that the public will ever support the union.In addition, Torontonians already feel overtaxed with the city adding a new licensing tax on vehicles and another land transfer tax.  Throw on the HST and most Torontonians will feel a little stretched.  Toss on a global economic crisis and the union is left with no support.  Their only hope is arbitration.
  3. Arbitration is a lose-lose proposition.  I suspect what will happen is the city will petition the government to enact back-to-work legislation. This will in turn require an arbitration which means the union and city will settle half way in between.  This is a lose/lose solution  The union member will never get back the wages they have lost while on strike and the public is a little worse off.  The only winners are the union and the city. The city wins by having saved millions of dollars and the politicians, relying on the short memories of the electorate, will certainly not be penalized for the inconvenience.  The union will win by telling it’s members that it “stood up to the city” or some other bullshit rhetoric and raise union dues six months from now.

So the strike isn’t good for the union members or the public who will ultimately be the ones who pay the price, despite the fact that there is nothing either of these groups can do about it.  The time for unions has passed.  There is enough employment legislation in place that companies cannot gouge workers or force them to work unreasonable amounts. Unions are now a hindrance to progress, and do more damage in respect to workers rights and workers pocketbooks than help.

Share

Credit and the dangers of debt

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

One of my favorite shows is “Until debt do Us Part” with Gail Vox-Oxlade.  To be honest the show just makes me feel supior because I am not as monumentally retarded with my money as the people she helps on the show.

The average Canadian student who leaves school with a bachelors degree is $20,000 in debt.  Credit cards charge between 17-20% on outstanding balances and department store cards can go as high as 28%.  The Canadian criminal code allows interest rates as high as 60%.

Pay day loans are even more astounding.  Here is an exerpt from a CBC article:

But that’s not the worst of it. On March 29, 2004, CBC Radio One’s The Current talked to one lawyer who represented a woman who borrowed $520. She kept rolling over her loan every two weeks for more than two years because she was never able to repay the original loan. Each rollover cost her $130 in fees and interest. By the time she was able to come up with the full amount owing (some 30 months later), she had paid more than $8,000 in fees and interest. (A link to The Current‘s full report on payday loans is on the bottom of this page).

I came across this great little interactive thingy on CBC about credit cards. The government has some valuable information on credit cards as well especially who is charging what and the special conditions on the interest free periods (not what you think).

I also came across this great little reader’s digest post on credit cards and how to get yourself back in the black.

All of this comes to bear on my house hunting.  There is “good” debt and bad debt.  I am looking for the good kind.

Share

What would you do?

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

Someone suggested at the CBC that they would be willing to give up a days paid leave to help save jobs.

What would you be willing to give up, or do to save a co-workers job?

When I originally posted this question it was because of something someone had said at the presenation at the CBC today.  Luckily someone captured it and here it is:

Q. from John, Digital Archives: Out of crisis can come ingenuity, and I think we’re about to cross the Rubicon. I kind of felt for you and the management team in yesterday’s broadcast. I understand and appreciate the trouble you went through. But we need your help, and we’re in this together, and this is a time for solidarity as much as it is for divisiveness and anger. (Applause.) The question becomes: What are we all prepared to do? I’m going to give up one day a month of unpaid leave for a year if we can work it out. Many I’ve talked to are willing to do the same. Save jobs, save money, maintain the quality of show we’re accustomed to such as Marketplace and Fifth Estate. Take this information to the prime minister, the minister of finance, and the minister of heritage.

Maybe the question I should be asking is, What would you do to save the CBC?

Share

It’s always prime time

Tuesday, March 24th, 2009

A co-worker Mark and I were discussing the changes going on in the various media industries of late.  First the recording industry is taking a thrashing with groups like Radiohead and Nine Inch Nails releasing albums online and giving the record labels pinks slips.  They, the recording industry, are now attempting to force new artists to sign 360 degree contracts which would give them a cut of all profits.  This is eerily similar to what the UFC has done to fighters forcing them to sign away exclusive rights to their own likenesses.

Now the newspaper industry is collapsing upon itself.  There is even a wonderful little website newspaperdeathwatch.com.  Now I don’t know if blogging is to blame or the internet or what.  But what I do know is that the only consistent thing in life is change.  I am sure there was a time when they thought that they were indestructable just like the Big 3 and the banks.

There is another change coming, and there are already whiffs of it in the wind.   The Canadian government is ready to help struggling broadcasters.  However, they have not stopped to consider why they are struggling.  Media broadcasting is dying out.  Not only are the advertisers disappearing in this declining market, but new and more effective forms of advertising are popping up. Also in this day and age I can stream every television show I want to watch, and skip every commercial!

Everything changes. The questions become by how much and what is the impact?

We need to change the way we do business.   We need a MEGA-change in how we think about information, how we consume it, how we distribute it how, how we maintain ownership of it.  No more geo-fencing, no more limiting who can see what where and when.  Everyone can create content now.  You don’t need expensive camera or big studios. 

While television might not be ready to go the way of the dodo just yet anyone who thinks broadcasting signals is the way to go had better think again. 

The advertising opportunities with streaming media is mind-boggling.  No longer would you need to consider the lead-in shows or the bridge shows.  Advertisers will be able to target their video commercials with laser precision. Find the show with your exact demographics and BAM!   For example I like Family Guy, it appeals to me and other 20-40 something white males.  If that is your demographic you tie your ads to the show then the info (and your ad) is deliverable to me 24 hours a day.  No more wasted commercials during prime time because you know what?

It’s always prime time on the internet!

Share

Just when you thought banks couldn’t sink lower

Wednesday, March 4th, 2009

Bank’s suck.  No seriously they do.  They are behemouth organizations that are slow to change, don’t give a shit about their customers, and are inherently dishonest.  All one has to do is look at the current financial mess they have gotten themselves into to see that they were doing something on the shadey side.

Now they ask for bailout money. “Help us, we’re in trouble!” they cry.  But please ignore the record profits we’ve been recording for the previous 10 years; the executive bonuses that would make Midas gush like a little school girl; the dodgy business practices that we’ve employed, and will continue to employ until a law is enacted to make us stop.  (did we mention we own the politicians?)

If you doubt that banks are inherently evil watch this documentary on the root of money. Keep in mind the dishonest practices right from the very beginning to get around canonical laws that said Christians could not be money lenders.

After watching that, then look at what the previous administration did to the US, and the heap of shit that poor Obama now has to deal with.  If you are visually inclined here is a great diagram on the NYTimes website which illustrates this recession.

Anyway, if you doubted that banks couldn’t become bigger scumbags than they currently are, they have now started targetting the greiving families of dead people.  Well done banks. Setting an all time low, in a year of all time lows.

Share

Productivity Trilemma, What are you trying to produce

Sunday, February 8th, 2009

Chris Berry responded to a post that another collegue, Maciek made regarding productivity and cheapening of their product or lowering their labour costs versus niche markets.

I think the point that both are trying to make, without actually saying it is that is always about profit.  The catch is in ensuring you are in a niche where no one will low-ball each other.  For example, you can buy raw coffee beans in bulk for a couple cents a pound.  That is pretty much as low as it can go.  This is selling a commodity. 

If you take those beans and roast them, grind them and package them you can sell them for much more.  The additional costs of production not withstanding.  The beans were purchased for a nickel, a dime was spent in processing and the resulting product was sold for fifty cents.  This is selling a product.   The problem is someone can come along and sell it cheaper.

Brew that coffee and sell it in a diner and maybe you can make a couple dollars for a pot of coffee.  Here they are selling a service. but there is lots of competition, so again you end up lowballing each other.

However, if you look at Starbucks, they are not selling the coffee, they are selling the experience.  There are lots of places that serve coffee. I know of several that have better tasting coffee, but none that provide the same experience.

I got to thinking about this because of a TED talk I watched by Joseph Pine.

When looking at companies such as Apple, I would argue they are selling the same thing.  Ever walk into an Apple store?   They are all about the experience, from the white clean environment to the bubbly helpful staff (and there are lots of them).  Even using their products are about the experience. 

As a result, Rogers the only carrier of the iPhone here in Canada can charge whatever they want.  The Aesthetes, as Maciek calls them will pay.  But I would argue they are paying for the experience.  There is nothing special about the iphone.  There are several phones out with the same overall functionality, however they don’t provide nearly the same experience.  There are several MP3 players that have more functionality, better quality than the iPod, but the experience…

My partner Zuimei has his own business called Shiatsu One.  There are several similar shiatsu and massage places in the neighbourhood and if you walked up the street to Chinatown you could get a massage for half of what he charges.  But I guarantee the experience would not be the same.  Zuimei takes great care and pride in providing what he feels is the best shiatsu experience he can.  From the way he greets you to the heated towels to the soft music everything is about providing that experience.  He does very little in advertising because he knows if that experience is pleasurable and unique it’ll be remarkable.

The problem arises when a company or product has no differentiating feature.  If your product is producing websites, then you’re screwed.  Sorry but you’re totally hosed because there are lots of places that produce websites.  There is a library of software that can produce websites.  There is an army of developers in India who will create exactly what they are told.

Many digital marketing agencies are just that, website producers.  They may talk about being innovative, and cutting edge but they’re not.  Innovation takes risk and “cutting edge” cuts both ways.  They have a profit margin to meet or angry share-holders to deal with. 

Chris Berry is correct that much of what is produced is what the customer ordered, but that is because these agencies are selling a product not an experience.

Share

VW getting less efficient

Wednesday, October 29th, 2008

There are many rumors and urban myths about gas companies buying/stealing/cajoling the patents on electric cars, cars that run on water, or super efficient cars and for the most part you might think that is total crap. Except that some car manufacturer’s are getting less efficient!

Take the 2004 Volkswagon Jetta for example.

According to Canadian Driver it got 6.2 litres/100 km in the city (46 mpg) and 4.6 (61 mpg) on the highway. Pretty impressive!

Now look at the 2009 Jetta,

Car and Diver writes that the 2009 Jetta TDI has been officially rated at 30 mpg city, 41 mpg highway.  That is a loss of 16 in the city and 20 on the highway.

What the Hell Volkswagon?!! Given today’s economic and environmental state, why would you make a vehicle less fuel efficient unless it is because you are in cahoots with the oil companies?

Share

The banking industry needs to evolve

Wednesday, October 8th, 2008

Every industry evolves.  It evolves or it dies.  In the music industry records evolved into cassettes, cassettes into CDs, and now CDs into mp3s. In the communications industry wireless gave way to radio, radio to T.V., and now the T.V. is giving way to the Internet.

While these industries have had mutated offspring, Beta max and laser discs to name just two, the strongest survive and the industry gets stronger.  One could easily argue that communications today is much stronger, and more evolved than in Edison’s day.

Unfortunately the same cannot be said about banking.  This is because banking has long be suckling at the teet of government which protects it and helps the weaker ones along.  Leahman’s not withstanding, banks have not been allowed to collapse and die the same way other companies have.  This current credit crisis is a perfect example. Rather than allow nature to take it’s course and allow companies like Wachovia and AIG to collapse the government is only adding fuel to the fire by giving them a bail out. (Not to mention AIG spent almost half a million dollars on a spa resort for executives after the government bailed them out.)

Where all this will lead is to forced evolution.  And like the music and communications industries will come through the Internet.  The Internet forces the music industry to change the way it does business and in return has given rise to iTunes and down-loadable music.

Within the banking industry it will lead to people removing their money from banks and putting it into social investing and social lending sites.  For example, zopa.com or prosper.com through which people can borrow and lend money to other people.  While these might be slow in uptake and more complicated than older banking customers want, they are very interesting propositions.

Someone's prosper profile

With better rates than banks, these companies will take those bread and butter transactions from traditional banks.  If you doubt the solidity of these companies consider that many people never set foot in a bank.  You can now open accounts online, and through automatic deposit and online bill payments never need to actually meet anyone from a bank.

Change is coming.  The bailout only delayed it.  And it is going to hit like the meteorite that killed the dinosaurs. 

I can’t wait.

Share