International Working Patterns, Part III: Teleworking

With soaring fuel prices adversely affecting consumers and businesses throughout the world, this might be a good time for employers to explore or reexamine the possible benefits of teleworking. Also often referred to as telecommuting, a name which reflects the idea of technological communications replacing the traditional commute to work, telework involves regularly working at home or in another location remote from one’s employer at least some of the time.

The current situation is reminiscent of the oil crises of the 1970s, when the pressures of rising transportation costs and the promises of new technology first sparked off interest in teleworking. Futurist authors such as Alvin Toffler were soon predicting that traditional working patterns would be dramatically changed by telework which would, it was often argued, bring about additional benefits such as improved productivity and reduced costs for employers as well as an improved work-home life balance for their staff.

The pace and nature of technological change since then has far exceeded the expectations of many 1970s futurists, with the Internet and the widespread use of portable computers and handheld devices making it theoretically possible for people to work almost anywhere. Yet on the surface, at least, there is little evidence that these technologies have been used to transform working practices to the extent expected.

International Comparisons

From the available data, it appears that teleworking has been taken up at a faster pace and to a greater degree in the U.S. than in other countries. In the U.S., the growth in telework has been boosted by the championing effects of the government’s own telework initiative as well as the perceived wisdom following the September 11 terrorist attacks of having dispersed, less vulnerable workforces. An IDC survey reported that 2.44 million employees were working at home full-time in 2007, a 30% increase since 2005, while a WorldatWork survey estimated that 12.4 million employees were being allowed to work from home at least one day each month in 2006, an increase of 63% since 2004. According to an Office of Personnel Management survey, the number of federal employees who regularly telework increased by 37% between 2003 and 2004, reaching 140,694.

Directly comparable recent data on teleworking among employees in European countries is not readily available, but it was estimated in 2001 that there were a total of 2.2 million teleworkers in the UK, including both employees and the self-employed, an increase of up to 70% since 1997, and with the fastest growth among employees teleworking. The percentage of employees teleworking in the UK at this time was reported to be slightly above average when compared with nine other European countries: Finland had the highest percentage of employees teleworking and Germany and France the lowest.

Recently, there have been reports that some major U.S. employers who have traditionally been heavy users of teleworking, including the federal government, have been bringing teleworkers back into office environments. One of the main reasons for their apparent reversal in policy, despite claims that they still support teleworking, is a reported concern about data security; another is the view that teams work better when co-located. Anecdotally, these decisions are reported to be unpopular with many of the employees affected, some of whom have opted to leave their companies rather than revert to more traditional working arrangements. Decisions to reduce rather than increase opportunities for teleworking may prove to somewhat short-sighted in the face of impending recruitment pressures relating to demographic changes, let alone the rising fuel costs which may lead people to seek jobs closer to home if teleworking is not an option.

Conspiracy Theories and the Federal Reserve: Say What?

Recently, in an attempt to generate some calm in the wake of the IndyMac Bank failure, I published an article (on another website) about FDIC insurance and how it works. My intent was to settle some of the rampant fear that kicked off the week of July 15, 2008. I work in a bank, and trust me, people all across America were freaking out, worried about their money and whether or not it was safe.

Almost immediately after publishing (what I thought was) a very basic, purely informational piece, I began to receive e-mails advising me that I was ‘misinformed’ about the history behind FDIC insurance and the Great Depression, and that specifically, the Great Depression was intentionally created by a worldwide banking cartel so that this selfsame cartel could buy up smaller banks and entire corporations at discount rates and eventually run the whole world. FDIC, I was told, was created by this cartel to give the ordinary people the illusion of deposit security so the cartels could control their money unmolested.

Oh. Really?

Well, no, not really. I mean, I really did get the e-mails. But no, the corrections the e-mailers made to my piece were themselves incorrect. These ideas are the brainchild of filmmaker Peter Joseph, who released the ideas (and so many others) in the form of a 2007 film entitled Zeitgeist. After circulating on the internet for the past year (it is also one of the most popular YouTube videos) the film has earned a degree of respect and credibility that it in no way deserves.

Zeitgeist doesn’t restrict itself to a single conspiracy theory involving bank presidents, world wide banking cartels, and the Federal Reserve, nor does it limit its historical rewrites to America in the 20th century. If you watch the film, you will also learn that the historical Jesus was a myth, that our own government planned and staged the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks, and that income taxes are unconstitutional and you don’t have to pay them. This argument, you will be told, holds up perfectly in a court of law, but most Americans are too stupid to know this, so we just keep paying.

Wow.

How can a person with an interest in finance and economics not love a movie that right off the bat explains not-so-patiently that the viewer is stupid and gullible? Usually it takes a conversation a few minutes of give and take to get around to name calling, but in this case, we get the abuse right up front: “Listen up: First of all, you’re stupid. Secondly, Jesus never existed and last but not least, a worldwide banking cartel controls your life. Stop paying your taxes right now you moron you. Any by the way your Mom made up that whole tooth fairy thing. Gimme that cookie.”

If you take the time to watch this movie, it becomes immediately apparent that the loosely constructed, wide-ranging premise is wacko to the n-th degree, but what really bothers me is the credibility that this particular piece of sludge has gained with otherwise sane, intelligent people who, in most other cases, are able to read books and do their own thinking. It’s kind of like the notion that Eskimos have 100 different words for snow. That idea was repeated in a few academic papers fifteen years back with no reliable documentation to back it up, and soon it became accepted fact even though Eskimos do NOT have 100 words for snow. Seriously, they don’t.

To this day people still repeat that ‘fact’ without thinking twice. Eskimos have a couple words for snow instead of the single word snow with modifiers, like we have (wet snow, dry snow, and so forth) but factually speaking, for Eskimos and most other people in the world, snow is snow.

The idea of snow jobs does apply here though.

Something about Zeitgeist’s outrageous revisionism seems to appeal to the worst in all of us; our darkest fears and suspicions, and most of all our very visceral need to that believe someone, anyone, is in control during chaotic times, even if that controlling entity is itself dark and menacing. Better the Devil writ large than some kind of amorphous, hard-to-grasp chaos created by ordinary human folly and greed. A well-defined, coherent Devil is easier to understand and thus, to fight. That’s the idea anyway.

A popular quotation exhorts:

“No good of himself does a listener hear,
Speak of the devil he’s sure to appear”

[Stevens Point Journal, Wisconsin, February 1892]

Invoke the Devil and you will always see him forthwith, but among all his more romantic titles (Prince of Darkness, etc and so forth) is one we would do well to remember: “Prince of Lies.” Some would go so far as to say that the Devil himself is a lie, a human invention, a device whereby human weakness and deceit is projected outside the self and personified. The Devil is nothing other than our own weakness, writ large and reflected back to us in the magic mirror of fear, hatred, and blame.

Using this sort of familiar conjuring, the fact that people are by nature sometimes greedy and short-sighted becomes a worldwide banking cartel. The reality that ordinary people on the other side of the globe have reason to want to blow us up because of their own beliefs and frustrations becomes a vast conspiracy created by a worldwide banking cartel. And should you feel inclined to think this through a bit more carefully and be cautious and kind, remember that all of your religion is the invention of a worldwide banking cartel and you keep believing it because you are stupid.

I did watch the movie. I’m (obviously) not impressed. It takes more than insults and pumped-up rhetoric to persuade me that nonsense is reality, and I hope it takes more than that to convince Amateur Economists’ readers too. But I’ll tell you what does scare me.

The title.

Zeitgeist?

Does anyone recall another time in history when a Western nation, once respected and powerful, but by and by battered by war and economically damaged, saw its currency plummet in value so rapidly that people became afraid and angry and many of them, especially the youth, backed a tyrannical, radical political sect as a way to re-empower themselves?

Most of the young people today who buy into the ideas in Zeitgeist probably don’t remember much about Nazi Germany. They weren’t born yet. The internet didn’t even exist. So why should they care about it?

The Great Depression was brought about by greed and unbridled speculative trading on Wall Street, the same kind of greed and unbridled speculative trading that went on during the housing bubble that preceded our current economic problems.

Pure unfettered Capitalism will always create this drama. Karl Marx knew that, but so did our own government for much of our country’s history. That’s why we regulate banks and financial institutions. We don’t regulate them to just to be irritating, we do it to put some brakes on a train that has a known tendency to run off the tracks. Over the course of the past 25 years we’ve witnessed the removal of those brakes by two major Republican administrations, and now its deja vu all over again.

Are some people way too rich right now? Definitely. Do they collectively comprise a worldwide banking cartel that goes back centuries?

No. Sadly, they are not nearly that smart.

So keep let’s them away from YouTube, OK?

The Prohibitive Cost of Electronic Medical Records

The use of electronic medical records has been touted as an enormous economic benefit in terms of cost savings as well as a boon to increasing patient safety. So why aren’t more doctors using them?

Although many doctors employed by larger medical entities are making use of EMRs because the costs of implementing the system are covered, smaller practices with few doctors are unable to afford the $5,000-$50,000 start-up costs, not to mention the approximately $1,000-a-month maintenance fee.

There is also the issue of time lost and decreased productivity during the implementation of the system. It takes a lot of time to enter data on each individual patient into the system. Once the system is fully functional, doctors report that much of their time is still eaten up during clinic visits entering data into the system.

While larger medical centers are willing to pay these costs and train staff to use them, it is just not feasible for smaller practices with fewer resources. Additionally, there is little incentive from the government and insurance companies, although they receive most of the benefit from the use of EMRs.

Another reason for doctors’ worries are that there are many different models of EMRs, some of which are not compatible with each other and are unable to share the very information they were designed for.

So what can be done to encourage smaller practices to purchase an EMR system? Very few doctors report receiving financial subsidies to help mitigate the cost of implementing the system, according to a Texas Medical Association survey. If these systems will save the amount of money that they are predicted to and save as many lives as the companies who make them claim they can do, perhaps the government needs to help smaller practices implement these systems by paying for a substantial amount of the start-up costs.