This week’s rant of the week is “A Hard Problem.”
This week’s essay of the week is The Worst-Run Big City in the U.S.
An amazing number of people think that genius is doing something random and then marketing it. A perfect example of this is an 18 button gaming mouse. The Inquirer has an amusing review. Reminds me of Wes Peden’s juggling. . . It’s different, totally random, and completely unappealing.
Business has been picking up. We got caught out by unexpected sales driven by desperate promotions, followed by major months-long issues with our supply of steel (almost as important as electricity). We’re behind the curve, and we have been hiring back some production people to help ramp up production.
I ran into one of those people on Friday. I was surprised to see her as she had been let go quite a long time ago, before the cutbacks had affected any salaried employees. There could be more to this story, complexities I am not aware of, but the effect of seeing someone so far back in the queue working again was to provoke the suspicion that many people earlier in line had turned down the opportunity to work here. And I doubt too many of them have jobs elsewhere.
I’ve been told before that statistically we are very competive in our pay and benefits for this area. And I’ve heard stories from the other manufacturing facilities that can make this place seem enlightened. I wonder if the lack of enthusiasm for returning to work for Acme should reflect on Acme’s reputation, or on the work ethic of the departed? I know some of the salaried people had every intention of running out the last drop of their unemployment.
The best thing I could make of it is perhaps this person had a good reputation and was preferred on the call-back. But this doesn’t line up with my understanding of the context of her departure. So I am pretty sure it is a bad sign one way or the other.
They say the New York’s system of juvenile prisons is broken. I am sure they are right. I am also sure they have no idea of what they are talking about. I could not stand reading the article, but I made myself finish it.
I guess I sound like I am some kind of wanna be Zen master. But I really don’t know how to express myself to people who have not seen what I have seen and don’t know what I know. And I know that few people want to consider this problem honestly and no one has the brains to figure out a good solution.
It is so easy to play the populist. I would probably play one myself if I didn’t know better.
Let’s play the populist game. Let’s play different parts of the article against each other.
First we have this….
The state spends roughly $210,000 per youth annually, but three-quarters of those released from detention are arrested again within three years.
Then we have this….
“These institutions are often sorely underresourced, and some fail to keep their young people safe and secure, let alone meet their myriad service and treatment needs,” according to the report, which was based on interviews with workers and youths in custody, visits to prisons and advice from experts.
What a contrast, eh? How can a system that spends a couple hundred grand per kid per year be sourly underresourced? I mean, how much more do we really want to pay to take care of young thugs?
Yet the system is sorely underresourced. But that does not change the fact that the state cannot afford to spend more money on its prison system.
To explain this sad state of affairs fully would take essay upon essay. But you can quickly grasp the nature of the problem by understanding that the only two “good” choices are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
Choice number one: You can shoot every kid who has been convicted of anything that resembles a serious crime with no appeal allowed. This would be very cheap and it would dramatically cut the crime rate.
Choice number two: You can hire the best Drill Sargents that the military can produce and give them lots of discretion and money. This will produce the best chance of turning young criminals into productive citizens as long as you keep the Drill Sargent to youth offender ratio low and hold the Drill Sargents accountable for the results that they achieve.
The disadvantages of the first choice is obvious to the modern mind. The disadvantage of the second choice is that it is hideously expensive. People who have the skills to be good Drill Sargents have lots of career choices. And without significant monetary compensation, most of them are not going to put working with young thugs on their list of dream jobs.
The fundamental problem is that the closer you get to the middle ground between these two choices, the closer you will get to creating a system that is the worst of all possible worlds.
And the worst of all possible worlds is a bureaucracy were nobody has the authority to punish or reward. A bureaucracy where any kind of meaningful interaction with the wards of state is against the rules. A bureaucracy whose only goal is to carry the kids through their term safety so that they can come out more dangerous and hardened then when they went in.
And that is what New York State has now.
This week’s poem of the week is “A Man Said To The Universe”
This week’s rant of the week is Sherman’s Letter to Atlanta.