Perfect : The enemy of the good
It’s a simple thesis: Perfection is the enemy of the good. All that I will try to do in this post is to convince you of this simple idea. I will start off with what seems like a digression, but constitutes the first piece of evidence. I move on to another example, again drawn from my life, and that’s the second piece of evidence. I conclude by drawing parallels with a highly relevant and topical point of debate. That’s the final piece of evidence.
I started this blog in the summer of 2008. The reasons for starting it have been alluded to elsewhere in an earlier blog post, “I am still alive and well.” The topics for my initial blog posts were deeply influenced by the books I had an opportunity to read during those wonderful months. While most of the books that I read did not lead directly to a blog post, they did influence me, some more than others. One of the most notable of such books has been “The Abolition of Man” by C.S. Lewis. A gentle word of advice: If you haven’t read the book yet, stop reading this blog now, go to a public library and read the book. It is a quick read, that shouldn’t take you more than 3 hours at most, but can certainly lead to some fantastic conversations, as it did for me, with my good friend, Kaustav.
In any case, these days, I hardly get to read books, outside of those for my course work. This entire summer, I have read a single book, so far: Losing Ground, by Charles Murray, a number, I hope, I am able to increase. However the fact that I am not reading books at the pace I used to, should not stop me from posting since I can choose to reflect on experiences, outside of those that draw on books.
The other reason I have been averse to posting something is a desire for perfection, the topic of this post. For instance, occasionally people in the past few months have asked me about the financial crisis and what I think of it. The fact that I am finally in an Economics Ph.D. program gives me a bit more credibility with these folks, including those who may have thought that my interest in these matters was no more than a passing fad. Trust me, I have had my assessment of the situation and have not been shy of sharing the same with folks who have bothered to ask me about it. Some of those conversations have been over e-mail and I have actually penned down my thoughts, which could be converted to a blog posting, without too much of an additional effort. And yet, you will find a gaping hole in this blog- not a single word on the financial crisis, arguably the most severe since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The reason is simple. I feel that while I know a fair bit about what has happened and what is happening, I need to know more about it before I feel comfortable enough to post something about it. And given the demands on my time over the past few months, I have never been able to quite get the time to read all of the New York Times editorials on the matter and then work my own post such that I end up saying something that is different and perhaps more insightful than what David Brooks and Tom Friedman have said already, a tremendously tall order, as you would realize. And that is the reason why you don’t see me saying anything about the crisis. Evidence #1.
Over the past six weeks or so following the end of regular classes, I have started working on a research question that will eventually morph into my summer paper. The first two weeks or so were marked by a state of nervous restlessness as I was trying to decide what topic I should pick for the paper. I did have an idea based on a term paper that I had written for a course but I wondered whether it had enough potential in it or not. What if the effort that I would put into operationalizing my idea led to no results of statistical and economic significance. What if, what I was hypothesizing, did not quite pan out to be true. What if the people in front of whom I would have to present this idea in the fall scoffed at it and derided it altogether. What if. And on and on. Till at some point of time, I decide to stop these nagging thoughts and tell myself: “Look. I think this is an interesting idea and am really fascinated by it. I cannot guarantee that when I finally do run the regressions, I will get the results that I hope to get. But then at the end of the day, in a way, that is what research is all about- going into unchartered territory and not knowing exactly what you will find.” If all that one is doing is repeating what others have already done, then there is a term for that- it is reproducing or replicating results. It has its role to play in the development of knowledge but that ain’t research, my friend. Wanting to run the perfect regression can also stop me from running the OK regressions. And therefore without further ado, I mustered the courage to embark on my research project. I am still hoping to get some good results once all the dust settles down. Evidence #2.
I rarely reflect on a topic unless it ties in with something else in the external world that is of more significance than my decision to post a blog or my decision to embark on research on a particular topic. And in this instance too, what I am saying ties in very closely with a topic that should be of concern to all of you, at least all of you who plan on staying in the United States for the foreseeable future, and that is the fate of Social Security and Medicare. I don’t know how much you know about these programs other than the fact that the government decides to tax away approximately 8% of your income, over and beyond, the federal income tax and the state income tax, and taxes your employer likewise. Thus if you worked for say Yahoo, and are paid $100,000, then approximately $8,000 of those dollars each year are deducted from your pay check and another $8,000 are deducted from the employer and all that money goes into what is called a Trust Fund, supposedly to pay for your retirement income and health benefits. While you might resent the $8,000 being deducted from your pay check, you might be happy that your employer also has to put in $8,000 into the same trust fund. However it is an unmistakable empirical observation, substantiated by numerous journal papers that I am happy to refer you to, that the burden of this additional taxation, nominally on the employer, also eventually falls on the employee. Which translated in plain English means that while you might be seeing a take home pay of $72,000 per year or $6,000 per month, say, (significantly lower if you live in sunny, high-tax California), you could have been seeing a take home of $72,000 + $8,000 + $8,000 or $88,000 per year or $ 7,333 per month, in the absence of these taxes. Make what you will of it but the idea of sending $1,333 per month, every month throughout my working life to the government for them to “fund” my retirement, seems like an awfully paternalistic idea to me, something that should be found in nanny welfare states like France, not in the United States of America. Yet that is how matters rest, and should our beloved President Obama have his way, some of us, in fact the most productive amongst us, will see an increase in the taxes that we pay to the government without a corresponding increase in benefits. In politically incorrect speak, that is also known as welfare.
In any case, all of this was just a primer, if you knew nothing (or next to nothing) about Social Security and Medicare. Now this is where the fun begins. As per the latest 2009 projections, the Medicare and Social Security trust funds will be exhausted by 2017 and 2037, advanced from last year's estimates of 2019 for Medicare and 2041 for Social Security. It is a scary thought that when I had last written my blog on The legacy of George Walker Bush, America's 43rd President, the projected date for the impending bankruptcy of Social Security was 2043. In other words, every time that I have looked at this issue, the date of bankruptcy has actually moved closer and closer to the present day. And yet Congress and the administration have chosen not to do anything about it. As Newsweek columnist Robert J. Samuelson points out in his well-written piece, Let Them Go Bankrupt, Soon, dated June 1, 2009, “Presidents and Congresses have chosen to sidestep the underlying choices, and avoid making the difficult trade offs that are required.” Bill Clinton proclaimed "We must save Social Security for the 21st century,". George W. Bush, who for one, at least attempted to attack the issue before running out of steam, warned, "The system … on its current path is headed toward bankruptcy". And now you can bet Barack Obama has also made the right noises, as he seems to be doing with everything else.
What stops us from reform. Well, like with most complex issues, there are multiple causes. For one, there are different underlying beliefs as to what is an acceptable role of the state and for the state. I find it incredibly paternalistic and repulsive that that state will provide for me in retirement.
My elder brother disagrees and he thinks of Social Security and Medicare as being good government programs that should survive. To me good government program is the classic oxymoron, but he too differs on that. Now if the two of us cannot see eye-to-eye on this matter, think how hard it might be for Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner to come to an agreement on whether benefits should be reduced or taxes increased. So political philosophy does play a role in indecisiveness. Then there are questions of what is the right balance between the present generation and future generations. To what extent should we increase the national debt so that retirees can live a comfortable existence in Everglades, Florida. How much is good enough? Is a retirement income of $3,000 per month good enough for the retiree or must that be higher, say $4,000 per month? If we are OK with $4,000 per month, why not let him have $5,000 per month, that would enable him to enjoy a Comcast Premium subscription instead of a Comcast Basic subscription? How much is enough? No easy answers there I suspect, other than to say that the person ought to have only what he can afford for himself either through his personal income, during his working life or through his personal savings. But half of the country somehow sees the issue differently.
Well, now to all of these reasons, add one more- the desire to go for what is perfect instead of what is good. Legislators would like to draw up (and I am giving them a pass here and not questioning their motives, a huge stretch, I would say) legislation that is perfect- legislation that doesn’t raise taxes, that doesn’t raise the retirement age or cut benefits for retirees. But alas, such a legislation does not exist and cannot exist because there is no magic wand that will miraculously solve all of the problems of Social Security and Medicare, without making some hard choices. Perfect becomes the enemy of the good and what we get is advancing dates on when the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will go bankrupt.
To conclude, the above examples attempt to show why a simplistic approach towards going for the perfect is usually counter productive. Deciding not to do something just because we don’t have the perfect fix for it is not an acceptable excuse, or one that should merit praise. Deciding not to do something is also a decision. It may be the easy decision but is rarely the best one, something that we forget at our own peril. Perfection therefore is not to be viewed as a goal, but as a journey, the first step in which would be, doing what is good even if that isn’t perfect. Enough said.
I started this blog in the summer of 2008. The reasons for starting it have been alluded to elsewhere in an earlier blog post, “I am still alive and well.” The topics for my initial blog posts were deeply influenced by the books I had an opportunity to read during those wonderful months. While most of the books that I read did not lead directly to a blog post, they did influence me, some more than others. One of the most notable of such books has been “The Abolition of Man” by C.S. Lewis. A gentle word of advice: If you haven’t read the book yet, stop reading this blog now, go to a public library and read the book. It is a quick read, that shouldn’t take you more than 3 hours at most, but can certainly lead to some fantastic conversations, as it did for me, with my good friend, Kaustav.
In any case, these days, I hardly get to read books, outside of those for my course work. This entire summer, I have read a single book, so far: Losing Ground, by Charles Murray, a number, I hope, I am able to increase. However the fact that I am not reading books at the pace I used to, should not stop me from posting since I can choose to reflect on experiences, outside of those that draw on books.
The other reason I have been averse to posting something is a desire for perfection, the topic of this post. For instance, occasionally people in the past few months have asked me about the financial crisis and what I think of it. The fact that I am finally in an Economics Ph.D. program gives me a bit more credibility with these folks, including those who may have thought that my interest in these matters was no more than a passing fad. Trust me, I have had my assessment of the situation and have not been shy of sharing the same with folks who have bothered to ask me about it. Some of those conversations have been over e-mail and I have actually penned down my thoughts, which could be converted to a blog posting, without too much of an additional effort. And yet, you will find a gaping hole in this blog- not a single word on the financial crisis, arguably the most severe since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The reason is simple. I feel that while I know a fair bit about what has happened and what is happening, I need to know more about it before I feel comfortable enough to post something about it. And given the demands on my time over the past few months, I have never been able to quite get the time to read all of the New York Times editorials on the matter and then work my own post such that I end up saying something that is different and perhaps more insightful than what David Brooks and Tom Friedman have said already, a tremendously tall order, as you would realize. And that is the reason why you don’t see me saying anything about the crisis. Evidence #1.
Over the past six weeks or so following the end of regular classes, I have started working on a research question that will eventually morph into my summer paper. The first two weeks or so were marked by a state of nervous restlessness as I was trying to decide what topic I should pick for the paper. I did have an idea based on a term paper that I had written for a course but I wondered whether it had enough potential in it or not. What if the effort that I would put into operationalizing my idea led to no results of statistical and economic significance. What if, what I was hypothesizing, did not quite pan out to be true. What if the people in front of whom I would have to present this idea in the fall scoffed at it and derided it altogether. What if. And on and on. Till at some point of time, I decide to stop these nagging thoughts and tell myself: “Look. I think this is an interesting idea and am really fascinated by it. I cannot guarantee that when I finally do run the regressions, I will get the results that I hope to get. But then at the end of the day, in a way, that is what research is all about- going into unchartered territory and not knowing exactly what you will find.” If all that one is doing is repeating what others have already done, then there is a term for that- it is reproducing or replicating results. It has its role to play in the development of knowledge but that ain’t research, my friend. Wanting to run the perfect regression can also stop me from running the OK regressions. And therefore without further ado, I mustered the courage to embark on my research project. I am still hoping to get some good results once all the dust settles down. Evidence #2.
I rarely reflect on a topic unless it ties in with something else in the external world that is of more significance than my decision to post a blog or my decision to embark on research on a particular topic. And in this instance too, what I am saying ties in very closely with a topic that should be of concern to all of you, at least all of you who plan on staying in the United States for the foreseeable future, and that is the fate of Social Security and Medicare. I don’t know how much you know about these programs other than the fact that the government decides to tax away approximately 8% of your income, over and beyond, the federal income tax and the state income tax, and taxes your employer likewise. Thus if you worked for say Yahoo, and are paid $100,000, then approximately $8,000 of those dollars each year are deducted from your pay check and another $8,000 are deducted from the employer and all that money goes into what is called a Trust Fund, supposedly to pay for your retirement income and health benefits. While you might resent the $8,000 being deducted from your pay check, you might be happy that your employer also has to put in $8,000 into the same trust fund. However it is an unmistakable empirical observation, substantiated by numerous journal papers that I am happy to refer you to, that the burden of this additional taxation, nominally on the employer, also eventually falls on the employee. Which translated in plain English means that while you might be seeing a take home pay of $72,000 per year or $6,000 per month, say, (significantly lower if you live in sunny, high-tax California), you could have been seeing a take home of $72,000 + $8,000 + $8,000 or $88,000 per year or $ 7,333 per month, in the absence of these taxes. Make what you will of it but the idea of sending $1,333 per month, every month throughout my working life to the government for them to “fund” my retirement, seems like an awfully paternalistic idea to me, something that should be found in nanny welfare states like France, not in the United States of America. Yet that is how matters rest, and should our beloved President Obama have his way, some of us, in fact the most productive amongst us, will see an increase in the taxes that we pay to the government without a corresponding increase in benefits. In politically incorrect speak, that is also known as welfare.
In any case, all of this was just a primer, if you knew nothing (or next to nothing) about Social Security and Medicare. Now this is where the fun begins. As per the latest 2009 projections, the Medicare and Social Security trust funds will be exhausted by 2017 and 2037, advanced from last year's estimates of 2019 for Medicare and 2041 for Social Security. It is a scary thought that when I had last written my blog on The legacy of George Walker Bush, America's 43rd President, the projected date for the impending bankruptcy of Social Security was 2043. In other words, every time that I have looked at this issue, the date of bankruptcy has actually moved closer and closer to the present day. And yet Congress and the administration have chosen not to do anything about it. As Newsweek columnist Robert J. Samuelson points out in his well-written piece, Let Them Go Bankrupt, Soon, dated June 1, 2009, “Presidents and Congresses have chosen to sidestep the underlying choices, and avoid making the difficult trade offs that are required.” Bill Clinton proclaimed "We must save Social Security for the 21st century,". George W. Bush, who for one, at least attempted to attack the issue before running out of steam, warned, "The system … on its current path is headed toward bankruptcy". And now you can bet Barack Obama has also made the right noises, as he seems to be doing with everything else.
What stops us from reform. Well, like with most complex issues, there are multiple causes. For one, there are different underlying beliefs as to what is an acceptable role of the state and for the state. I find it incredibly paternalistic and repulsive that that state will provide for me in retirement.
My elder brother disagrees and he thinks of Social Security and Medicare as being good government programs that should survive. To me good government program is the classic oxymoron, but he too differs on that. Now if the two of us cannot see eye-to-eye on this matter, think how hard it might be for Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner to come to an agreement on whether benefits should be reduced or taxes increased. So political philosophy does play a role in indecisiveness. Then there are questions of what is the right balance between the present generation and future generations. To what extent should we increase the national debt so that retirees can live a comfortable existence in Everglades, Florida. How much is good enough? Is a retirement income of $3,000 per month good enough for the retiree or must that be higher, say $4,000 per month? If we are OK with $4,000 per month, why not let him have $5,000 per month, that would enable him to enjoy a Comcast Premium subscription instead of a Comcast Basic subscription? How much is enough? No easy answers there I suspect, other than to say that the person ought to have only what he can afford for himself either through his personal income, during his working life or through his personal savings. But half of the country somehow sees the issue differently.
Well, now to all of these reasons, add one more- the desire to go for what is perfect instead of what is good. Legislators would like to draw up (and I am giving them a pass here and not questioning their motives, a huge stretch, I would say) legislation that is perfect- legislation that doesn’t raise taxes, that doesn’t raise the retirement age or cut benefits for retirees. But alas, such a legislation does not exist and cannot exist because there is no magic wand that will miraculously solve all of the problems of Social Security and Medicare, without making some hard choices. Perfect becomes the enemy of the good and what we get is advancing dates on when the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will go bankrupt.
To conclude, the above examples attempt to show why a simplistic approach towards going for the perfect is usually counter productive. Deciding not to do something just because we don’t have the perfect fix for it is not an acceptable excuse, or one that should merit praise. Deciding not to do something is also a decision. It may be the easy decision but is rarely the best one, something that we forget at our own peril. Perfection therefore is not to be viewed as a goal, but as a journey, the first step in which would be, doing what is good even if that isn’t perfect. Enough said.
Labels: Medicare, Personal reflections, Research, Social Security
posted by sutirthabagchi | 5:39 PM
|
0 Comments
