We recently got an e-mail (summarized below) from a reader asking for advice about a situation with her parents.

“My parents have worked hard their entire life but never saved a dime.  As they approached retirement, they worked as the resident managers for an apartment building.  They have very minimal savings, and the small amount they have (X-mas bonuses or RRSPs) they cash in for consumer purchases such as a La-Z-Boy chair, new Jeep or a string of campers.  They’ve recently bought into an expensive timeshare style campground membership.

My brother and I had a meeting with them, talked about our concerns and offered to help set them up with a small building they could manage for us.  They said they’d be happy to live there, but didn’t want to be involved in operating a business (because of bad experiences in the past) and wouldn’t take any action to help set up something to take care of their own retirement.

They joke about living in my driveway in a camper as their retirement plan.  Both seem concerned about retirement at times, but won’t change their behaviour or do anything to plan for it.  They didn’t help us with out schooling and have lived the good life, so it doesn’t seem fair that my brother and I will have to support them in their golden years (they’ve had far more, nicer trips than I have over recent years).  We both have kids we’re planning to send to school and our own financial obligations.

What is the best response in this situation?  My brother has given up on them and I want to confront them!

Since the e-mail wasn’t addressed to Mike or I specifically, our lucky reader gets a two-for-the-price-of-one response!

Mike’s Response

“Your parents are stupid, selfish and screwed. You are screwed as well unless you can disown them (which is unlikely)”.

Mr. Cheap’s Response

There are a number of perspectives on this.  I think the first two can safely be dismissed, and the later two are worth your consideration.

1.  Legal

Except for a small number of very isolated cases, there usually isn’t any legal obligation to financially support your parents.  I am not a lawyer, but my understanding of whether you support them or not in their old age isn’t a legal obligation.  You don’t mention this, but one of my friends once worried about inheriting her father’s bad debts.  This sort of Dickensian thing doesn’t happen anymore (as long as you don’t co-sign on the loans, lenders won’t be able to make you responsible for your parents financial mistakes).

2.  Cultural

I briefly dated a woman of Kenyan descent and she talked about how her parents would hit up her and her siblings for things like building a new deck on their house (hardly a necessity of life).  Even though she was working a low-paying job, the expectation was that the children would kick in to help the parents live a more comfortable life.

While your parents clearly aren’t good with money, did your dad teach you to ride a bike?  Did your mother read to you when she tucked you in at night?  Did your dad take you out to a bar for your 19th birthday and tell you why men were no good and you should steer clear of them?  Did your mom watch “The Bachelor” with you and make catty comments about the contestants?  Parenthood is about more than just paying university bills.

The obligations in Western cultures are almost entirely FROM the parent TO the child.  Some might argue that by virtue of giving birth to you and your siblings there is a debt that isn’t absolved by your parents making bad choices.

3.  Ethical

Friends and family make bad decisions for themselves.  It’s torturous when you see the problem coming from a mile away, you warn them and they tell you to mind your own business, then you’re expected to pick up the pieces when your prediction comes true.  Since you’re a mother, I’d bet you’ll have many opportunities to go through this again with your children as they get older!

Your parents are adults and should have planned for their own retirement.  It isn’t fair that they’ve dumped this responsibility on you, their children.  Instead of having a comfortable apartment, treating the family to the odd meal out and taking the grandkids on a memorable trip to Disneyland they’ve set up a situation that is going to be unpleasant for everyone involved.

Setting aside whether it is “right” to help your parents out or leave them to sink or swim on their own, imagine your OWN future.  Say it’s 20 years from now and you’re thinking back on your parents (who have since passed away).  Would you prefer to have the memory of them being a financial burden on you in their golden years or of them living an impoverished life isolated from their family? Rather than determining what’s “right” it might be worthwhile to consider the situation from the perspective of what will lead to the least personal regret in the future.

One other thought is that having your parents live with you might not be the burden you expect.  Contrary to public perception, people don’t become instantly and completely useless the instant they turn 65.  If they’ve been resident managers, your parents have a set of skills that might make them very welcome guests in your house (cleaning, light repairs, contacts with tradespeople, etc).  Even having two trustworthy, loving people to help take care of the kids might be a welcome addition to the household.

I suspect that, of these two evils, having your parents be a financial burden for a few years would be the lesser evil (which, hopefully, your siblings would share with you).  I’ve never regretted kindnesses I’ve performed in the past, even those that have cost me significant (at the time) amounts of money.

4.  Pragmatic

The entire situation may be a moot point, as Canada has a pretty nice social support system.  For an elderly person with no money, they won’t be living a lavish lifestyle but the necessities of life will probably be covered by old age security and whatnot.  While they are in good health, this should cover rent and groceries.  Once they are in worse health it should cover a retirement / nursing home.  If having your parents live with you is too great a burden for you and your siblings, government programs will cover their lifestyle (and you shouldn’t feel guilty about letting your parents use these).

For your (and your parents’) peace of mind it may be worth researching this and letting them (and your siblings) know what a realistic future looks like for them:  it won’t be sipping drinks on a golf course in a tropical destination, but it won’t be living in your driveway and eating cat food either.

If, in this situation, you had a little extra money to treat your parents to cable TV in their room or to take them out to a restaurant occassionally it would be generous to do so, but not an obligation.

What are your feelings about the situation?  Any advice for the writer?

Some time ago Preet, Mike (& Mrs Pillars) and I got together for some yummy Thai food and adult beverages.  At one point I was expressing skeptism about something, and Preet wryly responded “Skeptical?  You?  No, never!”  While I’ll leave my own personal skepticism as an issue between myself and the team of psychologists in Vienna focused on my therapy, I’ve since been developing a model of the spectrum of credulity and skepticism.

As much as I’m probably closer to one end of the scale than the other, I don’t want to claim any correlation between intelligence or the “proper” perspective.  It’s just different ways to view the world, the right blend of which is different for every person and situation.  I’m not suggesting that this model is of any inherent utility, it’s more something I’ve been thinking about and find interesting (and hoped some readers will as well).  A number of people I’ve discussed this with agree that there’s a spectrum between credulity and skepticism, but had never thought of it in terms of discrete levels.

Getting the right level of credulity / skepticism is VITAL for personal finance.  We’re constantly bombarded by more information then we can process, all of which may (or may not) impact investments.  Paying attention to the right information (and ignoring the wrong information) can be the determining factor in many investments.

There was an interesting psychological experiment (some details, and a video, were posted to boingboing) that contrasted human willingness to blindly emulate one another to chimps.  The original paper this is based on is available here for anyone who has access through a university (or is willing to pay).

Credulity Level 1

At credulity level 1 the general assumption is that all people always tell the truth and aren’t motivated by bias.  If someone asserts something, they’re taken at face value.  The Invention of Lying explores the idea of an entire world (except for one man) which operates on this principle.

One of the big advantages of this level is you don’t have to evaluate information:  you just believe it all.  This is probably reasonable when you’re in a totally foreign environment and are trying to figure out how to function.  I personally went through this when I’ve lived abroad in the past, if someone told me I should do something (or not do something), I’d just believe them and change my behaviour.  Sure, maybe they were tricking me but it was easier to just follow what natives suggested (since, hey, it’s their country, right?).

The big disadvantage of this is that you’re very easily deceived and exploited.  Sadly, there’s a whole class of scams that exploit recent immigrants (since they are more likely to be at this levels as detailed above).

Credulity Level 2

This includes the belief that something is true because it’s in a book or newspaper (implicit faith in the editorial control of the publisher) or because a trusted source (such as a friend or family member) said so.  On the face of it this might be a reasonable and effective filtering mechanism.

This level is required for education, where someone is designated the teacher and the other the student.  Yes, it’s possible to learn if you challenge every assertion made by a teacher, but there are precious few environments that would allow this sort of behaviour from a student.  For things like learning which foods are safe to eat or which are poisonous, children would starve (or die from poisoning) if they couldn’t accept this level with their parents.

The problem occurs when someone in the trusted group is tricked, the idea can then spread quickly through their social network as each contact unquestioningly believes what was told to them.

Credulity Level 3

At this level you trust your own experiences.  Once something has happened to you and you’ve learned about it, you make predictions about the future based on those experiences and trust them.

This can be much more powerful than blindly following a teacher once you gain a deeper understanding of a domain of knowledge, as you experiences can correct misunderstandings your teacher had (“It’s a poor student who doesn’t surpass his master”).  If your real estate mentor told you to always avoid properties with foundation problems, but you come up with a strategy, based on your own experiences, which allows you to lucratively flip properties with foundation problems you might be the only one operating in a lucrative sub-market.

Things change and it can be dangerous to trust what happened in the past.  Bubbles form because an investment keeps paying off, so more money keeps pouring into it (as everyone keeps expecting the future to be like the past), which causes it to keep increasing in value, until suddenly everyone in Holland looks around and asks why they’re all so crazy for tulip bulbs.

Credulity Level 4

At this level you trust what you can sense (or reason about).

This can be worthwhile when you incorporate your personal experiences with an understanding of different environment and determine when you’re in a familiar situation and when things have changed.  Andrew Lahde understood the credit crisis before most people in the financial industry saw where it was heading, and by understanding the financial principles at play (instead of just counting on “it’s been making money up until now, I guess it’ll keep making money!”) he achieved an astronomical return for his hedge fund.

Sometimes your senses (or the data) deceive you.  A friend of mine’s father (an engineer), wholeheartedly believes in ghosts because he remembers seeing one as a child.  Beyond just the vivid imaginations of children, sometimes we see things that simply aren’t there.  Richard Dawkins relates the anecdote in one of his books of seeing a demonic visage superimposed on a neighbour’s house, which, as he approached, broke down to be just light shining out from windows.

Credulity Level 5

At this level you doubt everything (and reject any avenue the provides concrete information as unreliable).  It’s possible the world is a simulation (think Neo from The Matrix) and that everything is a lie, but how could we ever know?  Even if you see cracks in reality, how can you reason about what is outside?  At this level of extreme skepticism, everything is questioned (and doubted).  You see some people at this level in specific areas of their lives (such as conspiracy theorists, holocaust deniers or tax protesters, who remain skeptical of events that obviously happened no mater what evidence or reasoning is offered to them).

This level of skeptism can sometimes lead to radical breakthroughs, such as Einstein believing there was more to physics than what Newton had outlined.

The downside is obviously when massive amounts of thought and effort are wasted on attempts to debunk something that is, actually, true.

Increasingly, in today’s world, it is necessary to continually learn.  Whether reading books about real estate investing, pouring over a company’s annual report or retraining for a new job (or new position) life-long learning is moving from being an asset to a necessity.

As a long-term student (currently in my 9th years post high school and with at least a couple more years ahead of me), I’m always interested in techniques for learning faster or better.  One such technique, which I learned years ago in my first year of university, is easy to apply and has been valuable for occasions where I need to bear down and really learn some written material.

For this you’ll need a set of set of markers (of assorted colours) and a copy of the information that you’re learning that you can basically destroy (don’t do this to library books!).

Associate each color with some judgment about the text.  I use red to strike out redundant (or well understood) information, yellow to highlight information that I need to memorize (such as vocabulary when I’m getting up to speed in a new area), I write questions in blue about something I’ve read that I don’t understand, and I write in green actions I need to take to follow up on information (to ask somebody about it, look at another source, or think about later).

At this point, more than just text, it becomes a working document.  I can look at it again later, see the points in blue, and immediately know what I have to work on to understand the text (it keeps me from forgetting any of the questions I had while reading it).  When I’m planning out a day, I can scan over it and copy out the green actions and put them on my todo list.  If I’m studying, trying to memorize terms, I just focus on the yellow highlighted portions (and skip over the red parts).  As I deal with these, I strike them out in red (so if I’ve memorized a yellow-highlighted term  I strike it out, if I deal with a green action I strike it out in red) and when the text is totally red I’m done with it (and throw it away).

Beyond focusing your attention on important parts of the text for different purposes later on, I think it’s also helpful as it transforms reading from a passive activity to an active one.  I’ve often found when I’m trying to read something boring that my mind will drift as I “read” through a section (and suddenly realize I don’t remember what I just read).  When you’re reading and trying to decide “is this important to know?  do I understand it?  do I understand everything well enough to cross it out and never look at it again?” it’s pretty tough for your mind to wander and evaluating it keeps you very engaged with the material.

I’ve used this during my undergrad on course notes, and as a grad student when reading academic papers.  I’ve never actually used this on a book (it would kill me to mark up a book this way), but I should.  Books are purchased for the knowledge they contain, and absorbing that information is more important than keeping the book in pristine condition.

There is a small “silly” feeling as part of this (it feels more like colouring than working hard).  Usually with academic papers I’ll stick to two highlighter colours and a pen for making notes instead of the full range of multi-coloured markers (especially when I’m working at a coffee shop or in my shared office).

Although this may or may not work for everyone, it’s easy to try (and if it helps you learn material, why not?).

This approach certainly isn’t universally valued.  One book specifically mentions it as something that takes longer and interferes with learning.  Cal Newport mentions this in the introduction to one of his books as an ivory tower approach to learning that doesn’t really work (although it has worked for me, so his experience isn’t universal either).

What is your favourite technique for learning new material?  Do you often use study habits from your school days (assuming you’re out of school)?If you try this out, please return and comment whether it was useful to you or not!

When I was working on my undergrad degree a friend told me that his parents had always said to him “You can be a butcher, baker or candlestick maker as long as you’re the BEST butcher baker or candlestick maker you can be”. At the time I thought it was heady, open-minded, inspirational stuff. In the years since then, I’ve come to view it as idealistic, vague nonsense.

With the Olympics occurring in Vancouver, Canada we’re being given the chance to see the best in the world of a variety of activities such as hockey, skiing, or skating. When the Canadian Women’s Hockey team’s 21 members hit the ice, are they REALLY the absolute best 21 women hockey players in the country?  Is there any chance that someone who would have made the team got injured or had a non-hockey commitment and couldn’t be a part of it?  Are all 21 members definitely and absolutely better than the first alternate player (do we have that much faith in the coach’s ability to appraise their ability?).  Might one of the 21 members be a worse player than the first alternative, but just fit better as a teammate for the other 20 women?

Similarly, when someone doesn’t get a job they applied for (and another candidate is hired), can it be absolutely said that the person who was hired was “better”?  Does ANYONE have that much faith in the hiring process?

I was at a bar with friends recently and one of the guys ordered a double shot of their most expensive scotch.  When I started talking scotch to him, it became quite apparent that he didn’t know a thing about single-malts (and probably would have been just as happy with a double shot of Johnnie Walker Red Label).  Heck, the guy chased it with a bottle of Corona!  With a slice of lime!!!  When I asked him why he’d bought the most expensive scotch, his only justifications was “it was the most expensive, so that makes it the best!”  For non-scotch drinkers, many of the more expensive scotches have extreme tastes (like smokey, peaty or iodinie).  It is certainly NOT the case that everyone will find these tastier than the cheaper options.

So, given that the meaning of “best” is nebulous, is the pursuit of some personal definition of it still worthwhile?  I’d still say no.

Do I want people to be proficient at their chosen occupation?  You bet your ass I do!  I don’t want to get sick from eating bad meat or rotten bread (or, I guess, buy defective candlesticks?).  Do I need the BEST meat, bread or candlesticks in the world?  Naw, not really.  In the book review of Better I did in October, I felt one of the weakness was that the author didn’t address the cost of the continual improvement he advocated.

Are there times, say with an Einstein or a Shakespeare, where the world benefits from a genius who focuses themselves on a tight domain of human activity and changes the course of history?  Of course!  Is it worthwhile for the person themselves?  That I’m not so sure about.  In an amazing  1986 talk by Richard Hamming he says that doing Nobel-Prize work is better than “wine, women and song” put together.  He also admits to neglecting his wife while in pursuit of this work.  Is the compromise worthwhile?  Are his accomplishments REALLY better than wine, women and song, or is that what he has to tell himself to justify what he’s sacrificed?

Jumping back to the butcher, say I’m setting out to be the best butcher I can be.  Obviously I’d learnt the practical skills of running a butcher shop (inspecting meat, cutting to specification, running a business, food safety, etc, etc, etc).  Once I’m a competent butcher, I need to develop an obsessive interest in butchering to continue getting “better” (in pursuit of the elusive “best that I can be”).  When my wife wants to do an eco-tour of Costa Rica for our holiday, I’ll have to over-rule her and instead take her to Hyōgo Prefecture, Japan to learn about Kobe Beef.  If my friends want to go out for beers (and to buy the most expensive scotches available), I’ll have to decline as I study up on identification of parasites in pork.  Rather than watch my daughter’s dance recital, I’ll be taking classes on exotic marinades for gamefowl.

Are these compromises really desirable in pursuit of becoming the best?  And can someone possibly be considered the best of something if they put family and friends (or other interest) ahead of the pursuit of their field of excellence?

As a computer scientist, I’m inherently a 2nd rate mathematician and scientist (we’re a lazy mixture of both).  I’m not a particularly good computer scientist, so it’s probably generous to consider me third rate at either.  I could, with a focus of attention, be a dramatically better writer, blogger, teacher, researcher, friend, son, brother, boyfriend, employee, entrepreneur, investor or programmer.  If I tried to be massively better in one of these areas, the others would all suffer.

Instead,  I settle on doing an ok job in each.

Is there something you try to be the best (or your best) at?  What are some of the costs of that pursuit and do you ever question the value?

We’re coming up on Valentine’s Day, when the young (and old) hearts and thoughts take a romantic turn. In this spirit, my posts for this week and next will all involve love and personal finance. If any other bloggers want to join in on the fun, please send me a link to your post at cheapcanuck@gmail.com and I’d be happy to profile what you’ve written.

As I alluded to in my economics of dating post, I have an approach to dating that I’ve used and have recommended to friends which I think would be useful to many people who are unhappily single.  To be completely upfront, I’ve never been married (and have only lived with one woman for a brief period of time).  However, I’ve dated a reasonably large number of woman (enough that I’m not sure the exact count at this point) and have had a few women who would have been willing to marry me, so I stand behind this.

For anyone who questions if dating advice belongs on a personal finance blog, who we marry (and whether we stay married to them or not) MASSIVELY affects our financial situation.  Along with career choice and spending habits, our partner is probably one of the biggest determining factors in personal finance.

The first element of this is that the date-seeker needs to get rid of any idea of “soul mates” or “their type”.  I suspect that over the course of a lifetime we all meet 100-200 people we could probably have a reasonably happy life with.  It’s ok to find some characteristics attractive (personally I really like redheads – yum!), but if you become fixated on something as an absolute requirement, and there aren’t many people who fulfill your requirement, you’re setting yourself up to be alone.

As an example, many woman want a guy who is taller than them, earns more money than them and has nice hair).  That’s great unless you’re a tall, successful woman and you’re competing with similar women for the same small pool of guys.  If a guy’s only demand is that the women he dates be swimsuit models, he’s got some long, lonely nights ahead of him.

Some people say “be picky, you’re worth it!”  If someone wants to be dating and they aren’t, then they’re being too picky.  Of course, if someone would rather be alone than compromise, that’s totally cool but they need to own that decision (they’ve chosen to be alone:  no complaining ).

The second element that needs to be jettisoned is the idea that singles can sit back and wait to run into Mr. or Mrs. Right.  They can’t.  All sorts of people never get married and they cop out later in life with the lame excuse “I just never met the right person”.  Bullshit.  They needed to go out and find the right person (and instead, unwisely, chose not to).

Once these two ideas have been abandoned, the date seeker just needs to find enough prospects to ask out in order to find enough people to date seriously in order to find someone to propose to who’ll say yes and get married to them (it’s as easy as that!).  Think of it as a pyramid or a weeding out process where the most important part is the number of prospects (there needs to be enough of them to find that special someone).

I once read about a psychologist who got tired of his clients saying “no one will date me” and he ran an “experiment” where he would walk up to women and ask them if they’d go out on a date with him (no cheesy lines or anything, just walk up and ask).  It took him 50 tries, but eventually someone said yes.  I don’t know how good (or bad) looking he was, but I think this would probably be true for anyone (eventually someone will say yes).

Fortunately, technology makes things even easier.  Sign up for Match.com, eHarmony, OkCupid and Plenty Of Fish and send messages to 3 people a day.  That’s 21 people a week or about 90 a month.  Push through the pain of rejection or fear and eventually there will be dating.  Say 1 in 10 people messaged on OkCupid will respond and meet for coffee, 1 in 10 people met for coffee will go on a second date, and 1 in 5 of these people dated a second time becomes a serious relationship leading to marriage.  This implies 500 people need to be messaged to find true love.

I’m somewhat (not completely) sympathetic to women who aren’t willing to ask men out or initiate contact on dating sites (so women can lead G8 countries, but can’t ask a man out on a coffee date?  RIIIGGGHHHTTT).  If someone decides they aren’t going to do the asking out, they have an obligation to make it very clear that they’re available, single, and likely to say yes.  I’m not sure the exact mechanics of this (I’d appreciate any women who can make suggestions in the comments), but the nearest I’ve figured it out is that it involves smiling a lot and working into the conversation that she’s single (“well, as a single woman who isn’t seeing anyone right now, I have a particular interest in whether or not Greece is on the verge of bankruptcy…”).

For guys who think they’ll be destroyed (DESTROYED!) by a woman saying no to them:  you won’t be.  Man up!

If you’re married or in a relationship, what’s your favourite piece of dating advice?  If you’re (unhappily) single what’s been preventing you from finding someone?

We’re coming up on Valentine’s Day, when the young (and old)’s hearts and thoughts take a romantic turn. In this spirit, my posts for this week and next will all involve love and personal finance. If any other bloggers want to join in on the fun, please send me a link to your post at cheapcanuck@gmail.com and I’d be happy to profile what you’ve written.

I’m a feminist (of the Cathy Young brand of equality feminism, not the cuckoo-for-coco-puffs Andrea Dworkin or difference feminism brands of feminism).  Sometimes I’ve grappled with the best way to divide expenses within a romantic relationship.  As an ideal, splitting the costs evenly seems to make sense, but I’m certainly aware that often two people will differ in their disposable income or earning potential.  The actual mechanics can sometimes be difficult, with each person thinking they’ve paid more or becoming amateur accountants trying to balance the various expenses.  In the past, I’ve typically taken a generous view and offered more than strictly half (and have never come to regret it), and have had the good fortune of having mostly dated women who insisted on keeping things fairly divided.

One couple who I was friends with ran into a problem with this while dating as undergrads.  He had a fairly “macho” view of masculinity and dating and insisted on paying all the bills whenever they went out.  Eventually it got to a point where dating was costing more than he could afford.  He discussed this with her, and her reaction was that she wanted things to be more fair and was happy to contribute when they went out.

The guy initially thought this was ok, but told me he was humiliated whenever she paid and he would have to slip off to the washroom because he was so uncomfortable with her paying the bill.  I thought this was kind of lame of him (get over it!), but I thought their solution had some merit.

Basically, they opened up a joint bank account, got a debit card for it, and would always add equal amounts of money to it (so when it got low they’d add $150 each to it or whatever).  They’d then use it to buy anything that they wanted to pay for “as a couple”.  Instead of having to keep a mental tally (I paid $39 for dinner two nights ago, then you paid $21 for the movies, but I paid $7 for the popcorn…), by using the account they were guaranteed that they’d split the bills down the middle.

The other “benefit” was somewhat lopsided.  He would always pay with the communal account, giving the appearance that he was treating (when she was stealthily paying half).  If she didn’t protest, why should I?

All sorts of variants are possible on this for all sorts of situations.  Instead of setting up a joint bank account it’d be possible for one person to use a credit card solely for couples activities, then they split the bill every month.  In addition to a romantic couple, this approach for splitting expenses could be used for friends (2 or more) who are traveling together and want to split all expenses.

If one person earns more than the other, they can decide whatever split makes sense, then still use this approach.  If the girlfriend earns double her boyfriend’s salary, she can put double whatever he does into the account and they’ve neatly split all bills 1/3rd to him and 2/3rds to her.

There certainly can be dangers to shared accounts.  We’ve probably all heard stories about one member of a couple being left with bills after the relationship ends (whenever I see one of those court shows on TV it seems these are almost the only cases they get).  You’d also want to limit how much cash and credit was available in such accounts in case someone goes nuts (I recently mentioned in a  post about the brother of a friend who had $10,000 of his money drained from a joint account after his fiancé went on a weekend gambling binge).  There’s also the chance that your partner might make an impulse buy with the joint account (shoes he just has to have, or her buying drinks for men with loose morals in bars).  If your partner is doing this sort of thing (or you’re worried they will), do you really want to build a life together with them in the first place?

It’s always interesting seeing unexpected consequences play out in government policies.  It’s almost like the old story about the monkey paw, where every time something is wished for, it goes horribly awry (including trying to fix previous wishes).  The TTC recently embarked on a series of foolish decisions when they wanted to raise the fare.

Prices go up, and I don’t have any problem with them raising the price.  The cash fare went from $2.75 to $3.00 and a token or ticket increased from $2.25 to $2.50.  While the fare increase was still under consideration, some enterprising commuters decided that it would be worthwhile to stockpile tokens (since they’d use them anyway and if the price went up, they’d have gotten them cheaper).

For some reason, the idea of this *REALLY* annoyed the transit commission.  People were only getting a 10% discount, the commission would get the payment upfront (for services that wouldn’t be provided until the future – possibly the far future if people bought a ton of tokens), and there’s a decent chance that a proportion of the stockpiled tokens would get lost over time.  Behind all this, the TTC was terrified of the possibility that the citizens of Toronto would get this discount, the very people the service was provided for and who pay for any shortfalls in funding (through municipal taxes).

I’m 100% in favour of fees where the people using the service pay for it, and I definitely agree that the TTC’s funding should come from its riders.  *BUT* since it already gets some funding from municipal taxes, I *REALLY* don’t see why it’s so horrible if some riders get a slightly better deal for a very short time.  The people getting the deal will be the same people bailing out the TTC in the future.  Besides, how many people are really going to invest their life savings into TTC tokens?

I understand that there was probably also a concern that some people might stockpile tokens then resell them.  Given that the absolute maximum profit margin they could make would be 10% (and many people would be leery of buying tokens from some black market source) and that it would probably be less (after costs to get tokens to buyers and offering a discount to entice people to buy from the vendor instead of directly from the TTC), I can’t for the life of me see why this was would be such a concern.

So, given that their objective was to prevent a) their customers and bosses from getting a small discount & b) from business people who are bad at math and business trying to arbitrage the fare increase, what did the TTC do?

First they stopped selling tokens entirely.  This at least makes more sense then in the past when they’ve “rationed” tokens before an increase, but either approach is pretty darn ridiculous.  They created an entirely new fare ticket (a temporary ticket that would only last until the end of January) and this is the only thing riders could buy.  I wonder how much retooling everything to sell these temporary tickets cost?  And, you could only buy them from the operators in the booths (they shut down the automated vending machines).

This, of course, led to MASSIVE line ups at the sales booths (every time I used the system over the holidays there was a line).  When I asked about the temporary ticket, and if it would expire, the vendor said “no, no, you just have to pay a quarter along with the temporary ticket after the fare increase”).  This turned out to be a lie:  the adult ticket is completely non-refundable and expires at the end of the month (at which point they’re useless pieces of paper that cost me $2.25 each).  Adding a quarter will only work for the month of January.  I bought 10 tickets (so I wouldn’t have to line up again), and only used 5 of them, so I’m out the cost of the remaining 5 tickets which I won’t be able to use (I’m not planning to go back to Toronto in January).

The thing that really drives me nuts about the whole situation is this is something that happens ALL the time over the ENTIRE WORLD!  Transit fare increases have happened numerous time IN TORONTO, BY THE TTC!!!  There is NO EXCUSE for them to make such a mess of it, cheat riders who have paid for tickets they won’t be able to use and waste everyone time by massive line-ups and congestion at the turn-stills (the only way to use a ticket is to squeeze past the people in line and drop it into a box in front of the operator).  One Toronto business professor suggested sidestepping all the silliness and just letting people buy as many tokens as they want or moving to a flexible pricing technology (which is pretty cutting edge – transit systems have only been using it for 25 years).

It sure must be nice having a government supported monopoly, as I can’t see this level of incompetence existing many other places.

Years ago I lost all taste for arguments, debates and heated discussions.  One of the underlying basis for engaging in these is the idea that through the contest, truth will emerge.  All other things being equal, the person with the correct perspective SHOULD be able to “out-argue” the person with the incorrect perspective (since they’ll have stronger points to use as weapons).  This is, in part, the basis for the legal system in most countries.

I think this is false, and the entire exercise is, at best, a waste of time.

Logical Fallacies

Years ago I took “Elementary Logic” during my undergrad (I joked with friends that it should be easy, since it was “elementary”).  One part of the course was a list of logical fallacies which SEEM to prove a point, but don’t.  The textbook presented these saying that the intention WASN’T to use these to attack another’s position (“Well sir, you’ve just undermined your own position by making an ad hominem fallacy”), but to examine our OWN assertions and make sure they are free of fallacies in order to strengthen them.

Just about any Internet discussion forum or blog (certainly including my own posts) is RIFE with logical fallacies to the point that the discussion seems pretty meaningless.   Some communities adopt guidelines, such as Godwin’s Law, to try to prevent the most egregious instances of this, but I’ve never encountered a community that came anywhere close to avoiding them.

Desperate to Win

I think a big part of the problem with arguments is that quickly people become more interested in “winning” and any pursuit of the truth goes out the window.  I’ve known people who would just make stuff up to try and win arguments.  One of my friends may have put it best when he told me that “you can’t win debates with people who are intellectually dishonest”.  A friend of a friend once bragged that he had never lost a debate.  With a bit of digging, it turned out that he was just incredibly stubborn and would keep insisting he was right and the other person was wrong no matter what else was said.

Self Protection

It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.

-Upton Sinclair

I am reminded of this quote every time a real estate agent comments on one of our real estate agents posts.  I find most of the justifications of the value of agents offered to be laughably transparent (and the attacks on the original posts to be bizarre straw man attacks – they criticize Mike for things he never said in the posts or comments).

Underlying Basis for Conflicting Views

At its heart, I think this is the real reason I find arguments unproductive.  Often people disagree about very fundamental issues, and rather than discussing them they argue about derived issues.  If a staunch republican was arguing with a staunch democrat about which candidate is the better person to be president, they’ll both be able to argue forever.  They aren’t actually arguing about who is the better person for the job, they’re disagreeing about ideology (but that’s not what they’re talking about, they pretend it’s about the candidates).

Consider another two individuals, one who believes that individuals are in the best position to make decisions about themselves and their property and one who believes that people can be protected from making bad decisions and that those who are better off have an obligation to help those who are worse off.  These two people will disagree about almost every social policy that is proposed.  Rather than getting to the heart of the matter and admitting they have different philosophical outlooks, they will argue, and argue and argue the details of any proposal and will be incapable of reaching a genuine consensus.

Democracy

The truth isn’t democratically determined, but I think people living in democracies lull ourselves into thinking it is.  If everyone in a discussion forum feels A is true, but one lone person rails on about B, the view tends to be that A must be true.  If everyone thought this way we’d still be living in caves.  You get the same dynamic in group arguments where the majority can shut down the minority by interrupting them, giving “everyone a chance to have their say” (which leads to the majority getting more air time) and congratulating one another on their “iron clad” arguments (which the only thing iron clad about them is that they agree with the persons original belief).  I love an old video of one of Milton Friedman’s lectures where a hippie tries to rebut Friedman’s view (with the enthusiastic support of the audience) and Friedman, once he’s finally allowed to respond, calmly and methodically rips the beatnik’s argument to shreds.

What’s The Alternative?

People are welcome to argue with one another if they enjoy it (apparently Wikipedia has taken all the fun out of cocktail party debates – the only topic people can still argue about is whether or not Wikipedia is a valid source of information).  I think science has long had a better model of getting to the truth:  stating position on paper rather than back-and-forth dialogues.  This certainly isn’t to say there’s no disagreement in the sciences (nature-vs.-nurture in psychology and light as a wave or a particle in physics were both protracted and vicious).  Instead it forces people to state their position clearly and for the record, instead of allowing them to backpedal and use rhetorical games to make their point.

With blogs I think we get a mixture of the two conversations, comments (which are a lot more like discussion / debates) and rebuttal posts (which are more like the scientific format).  While I’ve received a large number of excellent comments, others have been of fairly low quality (and have been FAR worse then even the worst rebuttal post).

I actually think this could be a superior model of government, where an open website is provided and anyone (lawmakers and concerned citizens) can write commentaries on the issues of the day.  In a “Digg” style, the community could promote which articles recieve the focus, and it could lead to more accountable politicians (perhaps they’d be more ashamed seeing their deceits in black-and-white instead of videos or news articles where they could claim they were “taken out of context”).  Popular perspectives could originate anywhere and be promoted to provide a mandate to officials.

I grew up with an older brother and part of that experience was learning how to deal with disagreements. One thing that I think we both discovered fairly early on is that threats are rarely a good way to get what you want. I’m amazed at how often people try to use them within an ongoing relationship and am perplexed that they haven’t clued in to how ineffective they are.

To start, I’d like to clarify what I mean by a threat (people have commented that it’s odd when I give definitions at the beginning of a post, but commenters regularly misunderstand what I was getting at, sometimes believing I’ve asserted the exact opposite of what I intended, so it’s worthwhile to take the time to be clear). A threat CAN be physical violence (“do this or I’ll hurt you”), but it can also be removing something good (“do this or no desert for you”), changing the relationship (“do this or I’ll break up with you”) or emotional (“do this or I’ll be angry with you”).  Heck, you can even threaten SELF-HARM (“Pay my rent or I’m going to be living on the street”) and use the fact that someone cares about you against them (I personally find this particularly odious).

I think in each case, it sometimes works to get you what you want, but it comes at a cost of damaging the underlying relationship. This can be fine in some situations, such as a one-off transaction with a street vendor while on vacation (“give me a better price or I’m walking away”), but usually the long term hurt isn’t worth any (potential) short term gain.

I love the board game “Risk” (and putting modesty aside I’m fairly good at it). Typically in Risk it’s important to avoid two-front wars, and if you can get the other players to leave you alone while you hammer on one of them (ideally with help from at least one other player), you’re half-way to winning.  Sometimes when I’d hammered away at someone and left them in tatters, I’d tell them I’d let them live if they promised not to attack me (a threat) or to join me in attacking someone else.  This would let me focus on a bigger threat, instead of committing resources to wiping them out completely.  They’d either refuse, and I’d have to wipe them out, or they’d agree and betray me at the earliest possible opportunity (Risk cards allow a weak player to explode later in the game).

The realization I eventually had was, it was a bigger cost to their ego to feel like they’d given in to my bullying them than it was worth for them to stay in the game.  They’d rather reject my demand (and suffer the consequences) than feel like they’d “given in”.  What’s bizarre is even when they stakes are much higher than a board game, people still have the same reaction.  For a world leader to get on the TV and proclaim “We do NOT negotiate with terrorists” makes them look strong and powerful, when in fact, they may be doing a disservice to those they represent.

I contacted some property owners who had units which had been available for rent for an extended period locally (over 4 months).  The owners were eager to talk about selling, but quickly made it clear that they expected me to jump through hoops to buy from them.  They were clearly at a disadvantage in the negotiation (since we both knew their property was sitting empty costing them money each month), but they were so desperate to strengthen their position that I wasn’t able to reach an agreement with any of them (one wouldn’t even let me make an offer – he demand the offer exceed “market rate” but couldn’t tell me what he thought market rate was or how he would calculate it).

Within an employment context, threats to fire or quit are EXTREMELY harmful.  I’ve basically taken the position that I don’t mention quitting until I’m 100% sure I’m leaving.  I’ll try to talk about problems, but I never would mention quitting until I was certain I would leave.  At a number of workplaces they tried to convince me to stay, but at that point I would be a lame duck.  They’re going to remember I was ready to leave, and that will affect any future promotions or assignments.  One retired man I talked to once told me that in all his years of working, he’d found when someone threatened to quit and were convinced by management to stay, they’d usually be fired within 6 months.  Management convinced them to stay so they’d have more time to transition them out of the role they were in, not because they wanted to keep the employee.  Similarly with threats to fire someone, how many times will they need to hear that before they decide it’s better to get another job before it happens?

There’s a clear moral reason against threats (it’s not a particularly honourable way to negotiate), but on top of that they aren’t effective at getting what you want.  On top of that, it makes it harder to negotiate with the person in the future.  If there’s ever a good time to use a threat in a negotiation, it’s very rare (perhaps in life or dead survival situations or one-off interactions like the street vendor mentioned above).

Reacting to threats is also a funny situation.  It’s always tempting (and so very satisfying) to say your own variation of “I don’t negotiate with terrorists” and shut down talks after someone has threatened you.  I think this is less than optimal as well, because you lose any options that might have come out of negotiations with that person.  Giving in to threats is very dangerous (you’ve validated to the other person that threats are a good way to get what they want from you, and they’ll be more likely to threaten in the future).  Setting aside your ego and continuing the interaction can still possibly lead to agreement.  I gave up on the for sale by owners after they’d threatened me, but I should have kept the lines of communication open and told them that I want to buy their property if they decide to sell in the future.

My recent post about Working With Canadians generated some interest (and discussion), so I figured I’d move forward with a second post on a related subject.

Much like the previous post, my goal isn’t to provide a perfect profile of every techie (generalizations, by their very nature, don’t hold for every member of a group).  Instead I just wanted to highlight some of the characteristics that are common with people who’ve chosen to work with computers.  This could be useful to help understand the system administrator at your office, the web developer you’ve hired to build a website for you or that cousin who earns a living designing digital circuits.

Much like the Canadian post, I am a computer nerd, so against my best intentions I might be projecting some of my own characteristics onto computer nerds as a whole (please call me out on it if you disagree with anything I write here).

Social Awkwardness

“The Big Bang Theory” is about physicists more than computer workers (one of them is an engineer, so that’s a little bit closer).  They’re certainly nerds though.  The running joke of the series is contrasting the four main male characters intellect and geekiness with their neighbour Penny’s attractiveness and common sense.

Allowances have to be made, if someone is doing technical work at a company, don’t put them in a role which requires social skills they may not have.  If someone is a genius programmer but insults customer, KEEP HER AWAY FROM THE CUSTOMERS! (and let her code)  I’ve always warned employers in the past that I have no artistic skills, so if they ask me to build an interface (or design the website myself), it’s going to be ugly.  Fortunately most are aware of this, and respond something along the lines of “oh yeah, we never expect programmers to do the design”.

Some technical people DO have solid social skills, and for this rare combination consider putting them in a role to take advantage of both (such as managing other techies or working with customers).

Honest

I don’t mean to say that a nerd will never tell a lie, but there IS a tendency for them to BE more honest than is typical and to EXPECT more honesty than is typical.  I had a job pull a “bait and switch” on me (they said I’d be working on one thing, then after I’d quit my current job and started with them they moved me to another, less desirable, project).  I was never able to get over this initial deception and the job didn’t work out in large part because of this.

Don’t try to “sell” stuff to techies.  Computer people tend to be very good at thinking for themselves, and if you misrepresent something they’ll probably be able to see it.  Present the facts, if some things aren’t ideal, be upfront, provide an explanation and let the nerd make up their own mind about it.  For example, if you need a website done, DON’T try to convince a nerd that 1/2 market rate is the going price for websites!  They’ll realize that’s not true and get angry at being lied to.  If you say something like “there’s a lot of developers looking for work right now, so we’re looking for someone with extra time who can give us a good deal” or “that’s all we can afford right now and realize it’s below market, but we want to build a relationship with someone and will hopefully be able to offer higher paying jobs in the future”) they’re more likely to buy it.

Interesting Problems

This isn’t to say that salary or working environment are unimportant, but computer nerds NEED interesting problems to work on.  If you hire someone and say “we want you to do this exact thing in this exact way for the next 5 years”, they aren’t a real computer nerd if they don’t quit.  This isn’t to say there aren’t jobs well suited to people who are willing and able to use computers, but for people who *love* them, we need variety and challenge.  One fortunate element to this is you can turn a boring task into an interesting one by saying “how can we automate this or make it easy enough to let someone earning minimum wage operate it?”.  *BAM*!  It just got interesting.

How Things Work

A computer nerd will be very interested in understanding how things work.  The benefit to this is that they’ll learn systems inside and out.  The downside is that they’re likely to spend time where it looks like they’re just playing with the technology (which they are), but that’s part of the process.

Hackers

The original meaning of hacker, rather than meaning someone who breaks into computer systems, was people who delighted in understanding a system so thoroughly that they can stretch it’s capacity and make it do new and surprisingly things.  From a security perspective, this often entailed getting permissions from the system you weren’t supposed to have, but other real world examples include things like the coffee cam, creating new senses or Steve Wozniak building one of the first personal computers.

Competency

Because they investigate things so thoroughly, hackers tend to to be VERY good at what they do.  Like any other employees, problems come up, but if you have a problem with a nerd, jumping to the conclusion that they’re not competent is probably a mistake.  It’s dangerous territory to accuse them of this.  On the off chance you’re right, they’ll probably be abashed and redouble their efforts to understand what they’re working with and become competent.  If you’re mistaken about this, it’ll probably trigger the honesty issue and lead to very bad feelings (being called incompetent, or having this implied, is probably one of the worst things you could do to a serious computer type, so tread carefully).

Optimists

Computer nerds are natural optimists (I read once that no one would ever start writing software if they were honest with themselves about how many problems they’re likely to run into).  The good side of this is probably they’ll see a new project in the best possible light.  The downside is that you’ll often get “best case” estimates from nerds, no matter how often you ask for most-likely or worst-case.  Pad estimates whenever possible so that there are resources in reserve that can be allocated if it turns out the problems are harder than expected (they always are).

Inmates Running the Asylum

When you’re working with hard-core hackers, chances are they’ll understand what they’re working on FAR better than you do.  Many people used to a traditional management role will be bothered by this.  It means that you’ll have to ask questions and gather information from the techies working for you, instead of dictating things to them.  Say they estimate it’ll take two weeks and you demand it be done in one?  You’re going to have problems (if they *DO* deliver it in a week, I guarantee either it won’t work properly or your team will have killed themselves to meet the deadline, they can only do that so often).  Say they recommend designing things one way and you demand they do it another?  Chances are there are going to be unforseen (by you) problems with the design that could have been avoided by talking to the people implementing it.

So I’ll turn the post over to our readers at this point (nerds and non-nerds hopefully both have a perspective on this).  Any of these you agree with?  Any big points I’ve missed that you’d add?  Any of these points that you feel miss the mark?