Meeting on madatory savings for retirement

This past Tuesday, we had our meeting on mandatory retirement schemes.

Dan pointed out that the Canada Pension Plan had done well in terms of returns in the last ten years and that as a society, we should at least have pension benefits that is just above the poverty level, with the rest of the savings at the discretion of the individual.

Dan also mentioned that there was a proposal by some of the labour leaders that Canada Pension Plan should be offering investment units for Canadian citizens to buy into that they can cash out on retirement in addition to the government pension payments.

Investing is not easy for everyone and we should have a “nudge” scheme where say 5% of our salary income will automatically deducted to go to these retirement investments unless we opt out.

We already have social security and other income supplements to add to the Canada pension plan if the retiree have no other income but these all come out of general tax revenue rather than a pension plan supported by subscribers.

No one at the meeting seems to agree with the video in the previous blog post advising young people not to save for retirement because there are too many demands on their income already.  Getting a house, raising kids are all worthwhile expenditures and while there are arguments of interest compounding benefits of saving early, there are also the non-monetary benefits of living for the moment and enjoying young families while you can.

Susanne said that it is important to get into the habit of saving early even if it may not make financial sense then.  It is much more difficult to start saving later on.

Rafi’s point was that with student loans and mortgages to pay, it does not make sense to save and invest when the after tax return from investments are much less than the debt.

However, Rafi also agreed that mandatory savings for retirement makes sense as we cannot see retired people suffer with little or not enough income and so in the end the society has to pay.  Better to make this payment from prior mandatory contributions rather than from general tax revenue.

I think we should be mindful that we are fortunate in Canada to have a government pension plan that has invested well.  While partly it is due to the mandatory nature of the plan that makes the inflow and outflow predictable for making investment decisions and the size of the investment, we should also be thankful that the management have been good and have stayed apolitical.

Mandatory contributions can easily be taken advantage of by governments wanting to use the funds for their purposes as seen in Greece and other countries.

It does come down to the ants versus the grasshopper and the ants want to force the grasshopper to contribute to the savings because the ants will end up bailing out the grasshopper in the end.

Poverty income level plus one dollar was the target mentioned in the meeting.

Now, we just have to agree on what the definition of poverty level is.

Mar 10 – Mandatory savings for retirement; the ants vs. the grasshopper?

This is another topic suggested by Dan coming out of the news that Ontario is introducing their own provincial pension plan.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/12/08/liberals-introduce-bill-to-create-mandatory-ontario-pension-plan-because-workers-not-saving-enough/

The opposition and the business community criticize it as another payroll tax that will drag the economy down.

“The reality is that a significant number of today’s workers are simply not saving enough to maintain their standard of living when they retire,” said Sousa, the finance minister for Ontario.

So the grasshopper is enjoying their present moment while the ants are concerned about what happens when winter comes.

Is it up to the ants to force the grasshopper to save for the future?  Should the ants let the grasshopper decide for itself?

Then there is the argument that humans are weak by nature, we need to be “nudged” to do what is good for us.

Besides, can we really let the grasshopper types languish in sub human conditions in their old age?  It will fall on society’s shoulders to look after those who did not make better preparations for their old age.

But what about the thought that we need to seize the day, we are only young once, and we are the only ones that can decide for ourselves what is good for us?

Perhaps the compromise is for society to have forced savings for sustaining the basics of life, and leave it to the individuals to look after the “extras”.  Similar to the egalitarian plateau concept as in free education so there is equal opportunity for all citizens.

This is likely acceptable to a lot of us but it only shift the issue to where that basic level is.  Note that the finance minister refers to today’s worker not “saving enough to maintain their standard of living”. Everyone has a different standard of living and expectations.

In the end though, I have to say that it make sense for government to run a pension program that cover the basics of life after retirement.  Using Joseph Heath’s health club membership analogy, mandatory participation in a government pension is the most efficient way of pooling the money together for investment as well as cover the variability of individual life spans.

The Canada pension plan has been a good investment not only because it is managed well but also because of its size and predictable in and out flows.

Individual retirement plans also have to make extra margin so as not to run out of money in case of living longer.

If we can only get agreement on what “basic” pension is.

Videos:

http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2013/05/02/good-question-should-we-force-people-to-save-for-retirement/

http://https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/video/playlist/retirement-videos/86-old-woman-sells-home-145037982.html

March 3, Anti-terror laws and speech crimes

The publicity of brutal acts by ISIS has raised the alarm everywhere.  Governments are now contemplating “preventative measures” which include banning terrorist propaganda, stopping “radicalized” individuals from leaving the country to join ISIS, and otherwise taking measures before the terrorist act is committed.

The following article summarizes some of the concerns.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/10/roach-forcese-the-governments-new-speech-crime-could-undermine-its-anti-terror-strategy/

Our justice system have always been based on the presumption of innocence. We are all innocent until proven guilty.

This only works in an ordered society where violence is a rare exception.

There is a case now where the police have infiltrated a couple who intend to ignite a pressure cooker bomb similar to the ones used in the Boston Marathon a couple of years ago.

We can all see that it is much more difficult to prevent these incidents from happening by monitoring the public and infiltrating the suspects to intercept them and to prove their intent.  So it is not difficult to see that the government would like to go one step further to stop people from becoming “radicalized” to start with.

According to the article mentioned above, banning any discussion of radicalized action and ideology only suppress the discussion underground and prevent the moderates from having rational discussions with the radicals.

What is the standard we must set in our free society to say that individual freedoms must be curtailed against someone who wants to leave to follow what they think they should dedicate their life to?

We would all prefer that we can talk sensibly to these radicalized individuals and change their minds.  But what if they don’t?

It is a more open approach if we preserve freedom of speech and openly challenge the ideas of radical Islam and the Caliphate in an open forum. Are we lending credibility to bad ideas?

In hind sight, would it have been any different to band discussion of Nazism prior to the second world war outside of Germany?

Are we safer for banning the discussion of joining ISIS?

Are we safer for keeping radicalized youths here at home?

Or are we on a war footing where normal rules of freedom no longer applies?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/more-anti-terror-legislation-coming-harper-says/article22363887/

Feb 10 meeting – What is courage?

Next Tuesday, we will discuss “courage” at our Ideas Cafe.

Wikipedia started this with “Courage is the ability and willingness to confront fear, pain, danger, uncertainty, or intimidation”.

That seems to sum it up quite nicely.

There is a deep pool in a canyon in our area where teenagers jump off to the waters below.  Monuments have been erected to remember those who died and warn others against doing this.  Still, every summer, jumpers keep jumping off.

Reckless may be a better description of this behavior even though it fits the above description for courage.

What is the difference?  Is it a matter of the utility of the outcome of this brave or reckless act?

If someone shows courage in a war that we don’t think is worth fighting for, would that still be a courageous act on his part?

Very often, the cliff jumper is jumping because he is trying to impress his social group, or is influenced by the group to jump.

Is an act courageous if it is influenced by the anticipated reaction of one’s peers?

Honor, valor, and group camaraderie are strong motivators for brave acts during times of war.  Are these acts courageous or are they just second nature reaction to a situation that is thrust upon us.  The soldier that covers a ticking grenade to save his mates does not have time to think about being courageous.  Similarly with the mother that stands in harm’s way to protect her children without thinking.  Are these intuitive actions without deliberation an act of courage?

What about the judgment of the danger or uncertainty that is to come.  The home owner who insists on staying home against government evacuation orders due to a storm or fire.  Is he courageous or is he stubborn?

Now that you have judged him, what if he is staying behind to save other people’s property or lives instead of his own? Will that change your judgment of his behavior?

It takes courage to assert one’s influence in one’s future and the future of one’s community. Giving up control on our future to fate or the whims of some supernatural being is one of the least courageous thing to do.

Courage seems to be a quality that helps one to persevere for a purpose in the face of obstacles and dangers. It is obviously a virtue that we want to develop and encourage.

How can we become more courageous?

1. Have a clear view of the situation. What is the purpose and rationale behind what we are doing until we reach this decision point of choosing options of varying difficulty and danger?

2. Recognize the motivations behind actions that can later on be consider reckless.  Is it curiosity? Hunger for recognition? Delusion into not seeing that a decision is required?

3. Be aware that we are naturally risk adverse.  It may be evolutionarily advantages for us to default to a path that seems safer for now but we are no longer in the short term jungle life of our ancestors. Human flourishing require long term views as well as considerations that affect others requiring risks of short term harm and ridicule. Recognize risk statistics for acts of physical courage and resist for our reticence to act in case of moral courage against popular opposition or shame.

4.Get use to being different from the herd. It is so easy to be anonymous in the crowd and doing what everyone else is doing so that we don’t have to question the validity of these actions.  We need more practice in knowing the basis of our actions and the validity of the facts our actions are based on.  This is quite difficult in our complex interdependent society but is nevertheless what should be done.

5. More ideas?

Feb 3 meeting – Should doctors do what they do not agree with?

Next Tuesday at the Ideas Cafe, our discussion will be about how doctors should handle conflicts with what the patient or society want in a medical situation.

There are two separate considerations here.  One is where the general medical opinion and social values differs with the patient.  The other is where the physician’s personal value system differs from the society’s.

If the patient does not trust conventional medicine and want to go for unproven therapies, should the doctor force the patient against their will?

Most doctors do not agree with the underlying principle behind naturopathic cures where the medication is diluted with water until there is no trace of the initial medication. When all the explaining does not convince the patient, should we let the patient go knowing their health will suffer?

As an engineer, when we come across situation where our clients do not want to follow our recommendations, we simply do what they want after advising them of the implications.  So long as it is safe and legal, it is our client’s assets that are at risk.  In the extreme, we can pull out of the assignment and let the client hire someone else.  The client is solely responsible for his actions. We only act as advisers.

In the medical arena, we expect the duty of care to go further than that.  It is up to the medical profession to determine if someone should be committed to mental institution against the patient’s will for the good of the patient and society as a whole.  We expect society to declare children as wards of the state if their parents withhold procedures such as blood transfusions for religious reasons.

For people who abandoned evidence based conventional medical practice to go to “alternative” therapies, should we force them to have regular treatment?  When should patient consent be overruled?

In a real world of limited time and resources, how much effort should be spent in these conflicts when there are other patients waiting for attention?

As to the second point of the individual physician’s belief and value systems that differs with the society’s, how obligated is the physician to do what society wants against his personal beliefs? In our society where assisted suicide is not allowed, medical workers are at the front line seeing patients who suffer and wanted to end their suffering.  For those who believe in individual choice and their patient wants help to die in peace, it must be difficult.

At this point, I am going to do a U turn.

I have been trying to argue that doctors have to face conflicts of multiple demands of what the patient wants, what medical science believe is best for the patient, what the society impose as laws, and demands for his time from other patients.

The argument from the other side is simple.

As part of the overall society, let the legal system deal with the controversy and act according to the law.  If the legal system takes too long or too much effort so that the patient suffers, it is up to the society at large to improve the legal system.

Each doctor can choose their practice and specialty to align with his beliefs.

If the political system determines that some of the desperately needed medical funds for patient care should be diverted to “alternative” medicine that most doctors see no evidence of doing any good, let the population at large change the system.

In other words, keep your head down and obey the rules.

Better still, make an effort to be political, take time from the busy practice and try to influence public opinion by educating the public and move public health policy to where you think it should be.

Idealistic and simplistic? Perhaps, is there any other way?

For those wanting a more nuanced look, here is a slideshare presentation on “futility”, “do not resuscitate”, “slow code”

Medical futility DNR from Sreedharan Koliyadan

Meeting on loyalty and preferential treatment for one’s social group

We had our meeting on loyalty last Tuesday.

The Peter Singer videos posted in my previous blog pushed the point of why we give preferential treatment to the social groups that we belong to.  The tighter the relationship, the better we treat them.

We can say that we are more loyal to the groups that are closer to and tighter with us.

But why?

Some suggested that it must be so because if we treat every human equally then we will end up taking away incentives that motivate us to push ahead and progress.

Others suggested that we like to be in teams, like to compete and win.

Still others say we just have to look after ourselves and our family first before we start to help others.

Are these good justifications for behaving the way we do, giving superior treatment to our families while there are starving people elsewhere?

Nor do these notions help in stopping the use of patriotism and group loyalty in times of war and conflict to motivate violence on other humans.

More than explaining why, these points are more of what is, rather than what ought to be.

The real breakthrough came towards the end with a great analogy.

Loyalty was compared to sex.

Both are human urges that are built into us.  Asking why we want to be loyal is like asking why we are interested in sex.

Just like sex can be the ultimate bond in a couple relationship, loyalty is the strong social glue that holds a social group together.

There can be no social group formation if there is no expectation of loyalty from members of that social group.

Sexual attraction that leads to betrayal needs to be controlled and curbed just like loyalty that leads to destruction of other beings.  In both of these situations, our logic and ethics need to come into play against our natural sexual and loyalty urges to bring balance to the whole picture.

Though not directly answering the question why, the analogy shed considerable light to why we want to be loyal.

If we accept that we are social animals that like to form social groups to cooperate and look after each other, then by definition of social group formation, we want to be loyal.

Hermits and sociopaths likely do not value loyalty in their considerations.

Maybe some day when we find out why we are interested in sex, we may find out why we want to be loyal!

Jan 13 meeting – is group loyalty a good thing?

As social animals, It is part of human condition that we feel a part of the social group that we belong to.

The school we went to while growing up, the neighborhood, city, province, and country we are in, all connects us more than other communities.

Two and half years ago, we had an Ideas Cafe discussion on loyalty and put loyalty as our emotional tendency that sometimes makes short cuts in decision making in favor of the group without first going through logical analysis.

The ethical philosopher Peter Singer had the example of someone who is wearing his new shoes when he came across a drowning boy in a shallow pond.  He will ruin his new shoes in the saving that boy but few will hesitate to do so in this situation.

Singer than compare that to the large number of children in desperate situations in developing countries that can benefit if we send the money equivalent to his new shoes to help them instead.

There is, of course, a big element of emotion involved in seeing a child drown versus reading about desperate situations elsewhere.  However, there is no denying that we will help those close to us much more than those more removed from us.

Is this uneven application of charity a good thing? Justifiable?

Some will argue that we need to put our own house in order first before helping others.  Make sure that our own families and communities have the proper resources to thrive and be independent before considering helping others with what is left.

Just how much of a disparity between our welfare and others before we are ready to accept that our community is “properly cared for” before we say the others are too desperate to ignore?

Pushed to the limit, this argument will eventually have all members of the human race have equal resources.  Anyone who won the lottery needs to share all his winnings with not just his spouse, his family, his extended family, his country,…..indeed, the whole world.

After all, winning the lottery is just a matter of luck.

But then, so is one’s place of birth, situation in our development, business and everything we do.  Luck plays a part at every turn. No matter how hard one works, there are others who worked just as hard but are not lucky enough to succeed.

So there is really no excuse to keep anything more than any other human we can find.

For that matter, why should humans enjoy superiority over other animals?

Singer calls killing other animals so that we can eat meat an act based in “speciesism”.  Other animals have every right to object to us claiming to be superior much like one race claiming to be superior to another race.

I suspect I have lost the argument long before this point, but on what logical basis?

Just because we favor our families, local communities, and eat meat from ever since we can remember, does that make it right?

If you have to convince someone local to cheer for the visiting team at the next sports event, what argument will you use?

Is group loyalty a good thing? a selfish thing? a weakness of human character?

Or is it what makes us socially human and not an unfeeling logical machine?

New year resolutions

New year, new blog site!

Why do we make new year resolutions?

It seems like we are constantly aware of things we know we can improve on but keep putting it off.  A new year is as good a trigger as anything else to make a new start, to get better, and part with the old ways.

Every January, the swimming pools are predictably full and then gradually fade off as February rolls around.

I imagine the same is with health club attendance and sale of exercise machines.

Why do we not always carry through with our resolutions?

The fact that we did not start acting on the new resolutions until new year means that some effort is required.  Any improvements that require minimal effort would have been taken up as they become available.  We put off the harder ones, knowing we should do it but procrastinate because of what it takes.

Some say that “today is the first day for the rest of your life” and that we should undertake any worthwhile endeavor as soon as we can. If we procrastinate, there is real reluctance and we are not ready to pay the price for the gain.

So new year resolutions seems doomed to failure, especially if the goals are lofty making the realization difficult.

What about smaller, achievable goals? Can a “surge” effort in the new year bring some positive feedback on the small gains realized which builds to more substantial goals?

Can the occasion of the new year itself be cause to reflect on what can be improved on the past and spur changes out of that reflection?

My move of the Ideas Cafe blog from Blogger to WordPress is the result of that reflection.

I wish you all a happy and prosperous new year and may your resolutions grow and blossom with positive feedback as I hope mine would!

Ideas Cafe on WordPress!

Thinking about change.

Hi, this is my first post on WordPress as my experiment to improve the blogging experience.

While Ideas Cafe have been on blogger for several years, I have not been able to solve the problem of people unable to put in a comment other than being “anonymous”. Even then, some of you have had issues getting on to comments.

Here is an attempt to see if WordPress will make that easier and encourage a more lively discussion in the comments.

Unfortunately, the domain name of Ideascafe is already in use so ideascafenet is the name we have to use from here on.

Please put in a comment just to test the comment section before I move on to the next step of posting ideas and discussions summary here, and then may be a full move from blogger.

Thanks and here is to more ideas!

Oliver….