New:
1. The Hard Way Out: My Life with the Hells Angels and Why I Turned Against Them by Dave Atwell with Jerry Langton
2. Cringeworthy: A Theory of Awkwardness by Melissa Dahl
3. Why the Monster by Sean and Rachel Qitsualik-Tinsley
Reread:
1. Festive in Death
2. Obsession in Death
Friday, August 31, 2018
Wednesday, August 29, 2018
Things They Should Invent: clothing characteristic search engine
Clothing geeks have a lot of nuanced opinions about which design features you should look for in clothing. They'll mention things like woven vs. knit fabrics, bias cut, darts, and other fabric, pattern and construction features that I don't even understand.
The problem is it's difficult to look for clothing with these features. Even if you understand them, you can't reliably search an online clothing store for bias cut dresses, or efficiently look through a bricks-and-mortar store for bias cut apart from scrutinizing the fabric of every single garment.
Even those of us who aren't clothing geeks develop an idea over time about which design features work best on our bodies. For example, I have learned from experience that I love modal sundresses. But typing modal into a website search bar is hit and miss (does zero results mean they have nothing in modal, or that you can't reliably search by fabric? Or does it mean the modal sundress is labelled under the broader category of "rayon"?) And to search for it in a real-life store, I'd have to read every single label.
Solution: a single, comprehensive search engine that does a fine, granular search of every single clothing store by clothing characteristic.
You can search for red and v-neck. You can search for princess seams. You can search for Irish linen. You can search by measurement, to screen out all the pants that you can't even pull up over your hips. And it will give you the results for all the stores, or for all the stores with physical locations in your city, or all the online stores that ship to your city, or all the online stores that ship to your city with free returns.
Clothing stores' incentive to participate (and stores' and manufacturers' incentive to provide detailed information) is that this will tell potential customers that the store has the thing the customer is looking for. There are hundreds (thousands?) of clothing stores - dozens in my neighbourhood alone - and the very red v-neck or modal sundress I'm looking for could be right there in one of them, hanging in a place where passers-by can't see it.
Google Shopping could do it, I'm sure. Currently it only seems to cover some stores, all of which appear to be major chains. But if they could use their power and influence as the search engine of record to tell literally every store "Give us your clothing specs in granular detail, and the customers looking for what you're selling will find you". (I'd also be thrilled to see someone non-Google do it, but Google more likely has the influence to get all the stores to participate.)
The problem is it's difficult to look for clothing with these features. Even if you understand them, you can't reliably search an online clothing store for bias cut dresses, or efficiently look through a bricks-and-mortar store for bias cut apart from scrutinizing the fabric of every single garment.
Even those of us who aren't clothing geeks develop an idea over time about which design features work best on our bodies. For example, I have learned from experience that I love modal sundresses. But typing modal into a website search bar is hit and miss (does zero results mean they have nothing in modal, or that you can't reliably search by fabric? Or does it mean the modal sundress is labelled under the broader category of "rayon"?) And to search for it in a real-life store, I'd have to read every single label.
Solution: a single, comprehensive search engine that does a fine, granular search of every single clothing store by clothing characteristic.
You can search for red and v-neck. You can search for princess seams. You can search for Irish linen. You can search by measurement, to screen out all the pants that you can't even pull up over your hips. And it will give you the results for all the stores, or for all the stores with physical locations in your city, or all the online stores that ship to your city, or all the online stores that ship to your city with free returns.
Clothing stores' incentive to participate (and stores' and manufacturers' incentive to provide detailed information) is that this will tell potential customers that the store has the thing the customer is looking for. There are hundreds (thousands?) of clothing stores - dozens in my neighbourhood alone - and the very red v-neck or modal sundress I'm looking for could be right there in one of them, hanging in a place where passers-by can't see it.
Google Shopping could do it, I'm sure. Currently it only seems to cover some stores, all of which appear to be major chains. But if they could use their power and influence as the search engine of record to tell literally every store "Give us your clothing specs in granular detail, and the customers looking for what you're selling will find you". (I'd also be thrilled to see someone non-Google do it, but Google more likely has the influence to get all the stores to participate.)
Sunday, August 19, 2018
The first shapes
Circle, square, triangle, rectangle. Shapes are an extremely basic thing taught to toddlers, alongside letters and numbers and colours and animals.
But they're also rather an artificial human construct.
I mean, some shapes do exist in nature, but most of nature is irregular in shape. Prehistoric humans could have gone a lifetime without ever seeing a triangle, so they probably didn't feel the need to name it. And if they did name it, they wouldn't feel the need to teach it to children as a basic core concept.
Shapes would probably become more common as humans started making things, and standardizing the thing they're making. Then they would need to communicate what the things should look like, so they'd need names for shapes.
Would some time have elapsed between the naming of shapes and teaching them to children as a basic concept? On one hand, if they were a fairly new human invention, people might not feel they're a basic concept that small children need to know. On the other hand, in the past children have been closer to their parents' livelihoods, so they would likely learn the vocabulary of their parents' trades and/or the tasks of everyday living early on simply as a matter of course.
It's also interesting to think about the time between when people started making things but hadn't yet named shapes. If you don't have a word for a shape, you're less likely to be thinking in terms of shapes. Therefore, people probably didn't see it as necessary for things to be a particular shape in the way we do today. For example, you probably aren't going to think that the rocks around the fire need to be in a circle if you don't have a word for a circle. You probably aren't going to think your room needs to be rectangular if you don't have a word for a rectangle. Why should flatbread be round? Why should a tent be triangular? Things might have been all kinds of funny shapes simply because people didn't have the vocabulary for standard shapes!
Also, what constitutes a "standard" shape may well have varied depending on what kinds of things a particular society made. If you live in a teepee, you might have a word for triangle or cone, but not a word for rectangle or cube. If you live in an igloo, you might have a word for circle or dome, but not triangle. The internet tells me that igloos are made of blocks of ice, but perfectly cubic blocks won't make a perfectly hemispherical dome, so maybe your concept of what constitutes a "block" or a "dome" is affected by this fact.
And then, after millennia of no shapes, and millennia of shapes being the result of what people made, we somehow transitioned into theoretical shapes - perfect circles, squares, triangles and rectangles. Which affected the shapes of things people made, and eventually became so commonplace that they were no longer just for mathematicians and architects and engineers, but instead taught to preschoolers.
But they're also rather an artificial human construct.
I mean, some shapes do exist in nature, but most of nature is irregular in shape. Prehistoric humans could have gone a lifetime without ever seeing a triangle, so they probably didn't feel the need to name it. And if they did name it, they wouldn't feel the need to teach it to children as a basic core concept.
Shapes would probably become more common as humans started making things, and standardizing the thing they're making. Then they would need to communicate what the things should look like, so they'd need names for shapes.
Would some time have elapsed between the naming of shapes and teaching them to children as a basic concept? On one hand, if they were a fairly new human invention, people might not feel they're a basic concept that small children need to know. On the other hand, in the past children have been closer to their parents' livelihoods, so they would likely learn the vocabulary of their parents' trades and/or the tasks of everyday living early on simply as a matter of course.
It's also interesting to think about the time between when people started making things but hadn't yet named shapes. If you don't have a word for a shape, you're less likely to be thinking in terms of shapes. Therefore, people probably didn't see it as necessary for things to be a particular shape in the way we do today. For example, you probably aren't going to think that the rocks around the fire need to be in a circle if you don't have a word for a circle. You probably aren't going to think your room needs to be rectangular if you don't have a word for a rectangle. Why should flatbread be round? Why should a tent be triangular? Things might have been all kinds of funny shapes simply because people didn't have the vocabulary for standard shapes!
Also, what constitutes a "standard" shape may well have varied depending on what kinds of things a particular society made. If you live in a teepee, you might have a word for triangle or cone, but not a word for rectangle or cube. If you live in an igloo, you might have a word for circle or dome, but not triangle. The internet tells me that igloos are made of blocks of ice, but perfectly cubic blocks won't make a perfectly hemispherical dome, so maybe your concept of what constitutes a "block" or a "dome" is affected by this fact.
And then, after millennia of no shapes, and millennia of shapes being the result of what people made, we somehow transitioned into theoretical shapes - perfect circles, squares, triangles and rectangles. Which affected the shapes of things people made, and eventually became so commonplace that they were no longer just for mathematicians and architects and engineers, but instead taught to preschoolers.
Saturday, August 18, 2018
In which my brain writes antagonist-POV advice column fanfiction
I have a good friend who lives in my town. I’m not sure why, but we became estranged. She just stopped talking to me. After that, I decided I didn’t want her friendship anymore. But it’s uncomfortable to run into her at the pizzeria or the supermarket. I smile, say hello and move on. How do I stop feeling bad about this?ANONYMOUSIf you’ve read Social Q’s before, you know that I often make a pitch for trying to sort out the misunderstanding. “What happened between us? Why did you stop speaking to me?”
I think the part of you that feels bad wants to do that, too. But if you are committed to estrangement, you’ll have to live with the discomfort. How could you not flash on the good times and the hurtful ending — mixed feelings incarnate! — every time you bump into her?
My brain wrote a story where Friend didn't actually stop talking to LW, Friend just got caught up in whatever was going on in her life and hasn't been proactive about reaching out. (Much like I have with my real-life friends since my head injury. I see you guys and I love you even though I'm quieter than usual!) And when LW decided she didn't want Friend's friendship any more, Friend just assumed that the same sort of thing had happened to LW.
So whenever they run into each other at the pizzeria or supermarket and say hi, Friend thinks "Isn't it awesome how our friendship still persists even though we've both gotten caught up in our own stuff!"
Thursday, August 16, 2018
The Dyslexie font helps me read with convergence and accommodative insufficiency resulting from head trauma
The biggest problem with the visual issues that came with my head injury (for the googlers: my diagnosis was convergence insufficiency and accommodative insufficiency) is that I can no longer effortlessly skim large, dense pages of text, especially on screen.
Instead of "YAY, a new article/blog post/fanfic!", my visceral reaction is "AAAAH! Wall of text!" It takes work to read things that would previously need no work, and all too often I'd just skip interesting articles or stories that I would otherwise enjoy, because I don't have it in me to put in the work. (Especially after a full day of translating, where I have to put in the work).
When I was researching vision therapy, I stumbled upon the fact that many child vision therapy patients are initially diagnosed as dyslexic. Apparently the difficulties with reading look the same to external observers, and, since the children have never been able to read, they can't tell the difference between "pulling the letters into focus and keeping them there is hard" and "reading is hard".
I remembered seeing something about a font designed for people with dyslexia. Even though I'm not dyslexic, maybe it could also help me?
It turns out there's a browser extension called OpenDyslexic that lets you toggle the Dyslexie font on and off. So I gave it a try, my eyes instantly relaxed, and I could once again effortlessly skim and absorb everything.
When I hit a wall of text, I just toggle it on, and suddenly it's back to being effortless to read! It doesn't change the formatting like Firefox's reader mode does, it's the same layout and design as the regular webpage - just with this funny-looking font instead. It even works with dynamic, constantly-updating pages like Twitter!
Because Dyslexie is funny-looking, I don't like to use it all the time. When the combination of font, layout, spacing and colours is such that I don't struggle to read, I actually find Dyslexie intrusive. Fortunately, the OpenDyslexia browser extension makes it effortless to toggle on and off, so I don't have to choose.
I don't know if the improvements I experience with OpenDyslexia are specific to my post head trauma convergence insufficiency and accommodative insufficiency, or if the design of the Dyslexie font can make dense text more skimmable to anyone. But if you struggle with walls of text for any reason, it might be worth giving OpenDyslexia a try. It's free, it takes seconds to install, and you can switch if off instantly if it doesn't help.
Instead of "YAY, a new article/blog post/fanfic!", my visceral reaction is "AAAAH! Wall of text!" It takes work to read things that would previously need no work, and all too often I'd just skip interesting articles or stories that I would otherwise enjoy, because I don't have it in me to put in the work. (Especially after a full day of translating, where I have to put in the work).
When I was researching vision therapy, I stumbled upon the fact that many child vision therapy patients are initially diagnosed as dyslexic. Apparently the difficulties with reading look the same to external observers, and, since the children have never been able to read, they can't tell the difference between "pulling the letters into focus and keeping them there is hard" and "reading is hard".
I remembered seeing something about a font designed for people with dyslexia. Even though I'm not dyslexic, maybe it could also help me?
It turns out there's a browser extension called OpenDyslexic that lets you toggle the Dyslexie font on and off. So I gave it a try, my eyes instantly relaxed, and I could once again effortlessly skim and absorb everything.
When I hit a wall of text, I just toggle it on, and suddenly it's back to being effortless to read! It doesn't change the formatting like Firefox's reader mode does, it's the same layout and design as the regular webpage - just with this funny-looking font instead. It even works with dynamic, constantly-updating pages like Twitter!
Because Dyslexie is funny-looking, I don't like to use it all the time. When the combination of font, layout, spacing and colours is such that I don't struggle to read, I actually find Dyslexie intrusive. Fortunately, the OpenDyslexia browser extension makes it effortless to toggle on and off, so I don't have to choose.
I don't know if the improvements I experience with OpenDyslexia are specific to my post head trauma convergence insufficiency and accommodative insufficiency, or if the design of the Dyslexie font can make dense text more skimmable to anyone. But if you struggle with walls of text for any reason, it might be worth giving OpenDyslexia a try. It's free, it takes seconds to install, and you can switch if off instantly if it doesn't help.
Wednesday, August 15, 2018
Young Sheldon
The interesting thing about Young Sheldon is it hardly ever makes me laugh, but is still very effective.
Each episode is a gentle, heartwarming, effective piece of storytelling, and every story told is a story worth telling. But I very rarely end up laughing. Is there even anything else like that on TV?
I don't think it would have gotten made if it weren't a spin-off about a break-out character from a hit sitcom. I don't see how they could have marketed it in a vacuum. I don't see how the idea of watching it would have occurred to me in a vacuum.
But because it is about a character I enjoy, I did start watching it. And I am enjoying it, even though I would never have thought I'd enjoy gentle, heartwarming storytelling that only rarely makes me laugh.
Each episode is a gentle, heartwarming, effective piece of storytelling, and every story told is a story worth telling. But I very rarely end up laughing. Is there even anything else like that on TV?
I don't think it would have gotten made if it weren't a spin-off about a break-out character from a hit sitcom. I don't see how they could have marketed it in a vacuum. I don't see how the idea of watching it would have occurred to me in a vacuum.
But because it is about a character I enjoy, I did start watching it. And I am enjoying it, even though I would never have thought I'd enjoy gentle, heartwarming storytelling that only rarely makes me laugh.
Saturday, August 11, 2018
Unwanted "healing"
A couple of years ago, my brain started doing that old-lady thing of accidentally calling people by the wrong name.
One of the most unexpected after-effects of my head injury was that my brain stopped doing this. I can't explain why, it just...didn't happen. For months and months and months.
I'm sad to report that that's over. In the past few weeks, the wrong name has been coming out of my mouth with pre-head-injury frequency.
I really could have done without that bit of "recovery"! Why couldn't that part of my brain stay "injured", and my vision bounce back instead??
One of the most unexpected after-effects of my head injury was that my brain stopped doing this. I can't explain why, it just...didn't happen. For months and months and months.
I'm sad to report that that's over. In the past few weeks, the wrong name has been coming out of my mouth with pre-head-injury frequency.
I really could have done without that bit of "recovery"! Why couldn't that part of my brain stay "injured", and my vision bounce back instead??
Monday, August 06, 2018
Civic Holiday should be Emancipation Day
I'm 37 years old, I've lived in Ontario my entire life, and it's only this year that I learned a) August 1 is Emancipation Day, b) Caribana is a celebration of emancipation, and c) John Graves Simcoe, after whom Simcoe Day is named (Civic Holiday technically being called Simcoe Day), was instrumental in abolishing slavery in Canada.
This information has always been available, it just never reached me. In my life some people have been pedantic about calling Civic Holiday "Simcoe Day", but I was like "Yeah, yeah, yeah, another politician from history, whatever", and didn't bother to actually look at his legacy. And with Caribana, I was like "Yeah, yeah, yeah, cultural tradition, whatever", without bothering to look into its origin and meaning because it isn't for or about me. I never even realized that they're related and that the backstory is of interest!
This needs to be made more glaringly obvious. Because the end of slavery is definitely worth celebrating and being celebrated by everyone, and not everyone knows that this is what is being celebrated.
Solution: rather than calling the Civic Holiday "Simcoe Day", we should name it "Emancipation Day". It can either be celebrated in August 1 or on the first Monday of the month - people more knowledgeable of the nuances can make this decision.
But they should put Emancipation Day right out front, printed on our calendars on the day people get off work, so even clueless idiots like me will notice what it's marking!
This information has always been available, it just never reached me. In my life some people have been pedantic about calling Civic Holiday "Simcoe Day", but I was like "Yeah, yeah, yeah, another politician from history, whatever", and didn't bother to actually look at his legacy. And with Caribana, I was like "Yeah, yeah, yeah, cultural tradition, whatever", without bothering to look into its origin and meaning because it isn't for or about me. I never even realized that they're related and that the backstory is of interest!
This needs to be made more glaringly obvious. Because the end of slavery is definitely worth celebrating and being celebrated by everyone, and not everyone knows that this is what is being celebrated.
Solution: rather than calling the Civic Holiday "Simcoe Day", we should name it "Emancipation Day". It can either be celebrated in August 1 or on the first Monday of the month - people more knowledgeable of the nuances can make this decision.
But they should put Emancipation Day right out front, printed on our calendars on the day people get off work, so even clueless idiots like me will notice what it's marking!
Sunday, August 05, 2018
Things They Should Invent: legally binding #StealThisIdea
TV writers on Twitter keep telling people not to tweet show ideas at them. Apparently if you tweet an idea at them, they're not allowed to use it for legal reasons, and that could mess things up if they already have an episode using that idea in the pipeline.
As a person who has a lot of ideas but isn't equipped to actually execute them, I find that disheartening. I would be thrilled and delighted to see any of my ideas (for television episodes or otherwise) actually brought to life.
They should invent some legally-binding way of marking ideas you post on the internet as being freely stealable, so the people who can make them happen can make them happen. (BTW, that is the intention behind my Things They Should Invent, Free Ideas, and Research Ideas blog categories. Take it, implement it, and I'll be thrilled)
And, of course, if you don't want people stealing your ideas, you can just not mark them as such.
The #StealThisIdea hashtag seems to exist, and would do the job nicely.
Unfortunately, like all my ideas, I have no idea who can actually make this happen. But if they do stumble upon this post, I hereby formally authorize them to steal this idea.
As a person who has a lot of ideas but isn't equipped to actually execute them, I find that disheartening. I would be thrilled and delighted to see any of my ideas (for television episodes or otherwise) actually brought to life.
They should invent some legally-binding way of marking ideas you post on the internet as being freely stealable, so the people who can make them happen can make them happen. (BTW, that is the intention behind my Things They Should Invent, Free Ideas, and Research Ideas blog categories. Take it, implement it, and I'll be thrilled)
And, of course, if you don't want people stealing your ideas, you can just not mark them as such.
The #StealThisIdea hashtag seems to exist, and would do the job nicely.
Unfortunately, like all my ideas, I have no idea who can actually make this happen. But if they do stumble upon this post, I hereby formally authorize them to steal this idea.
Saturday, August 04, 2018
Things They Should Study (or publicize, if they've already studied it): to what extent do social programs make life easier for employers?
I am truly terrible at washing my windows. Every time I wash them, they end up covered in streaks - basically I'm just rearranging the streaks a couple of times a year.
I've considered on and off hiring someone to wash my windows, but I have no idea how to hire someone good. I'd be happy to pay well for completely streak-free windows, but if they're just going to rearrange the streaks, that isn't worth anything to me - I can do that myself.
The problem, of course, is that all window-washers and any number of random odd-job people are incentivized to say "Of course I can give you streak-free windows!" They need money. They need to hustle. Conventional wisdom is that you should apply for jobs even if you aren't confident you can do them.
But this makes it much harder to find someone who actually is good - especially if, like me, you're unaccustomed to hiring people - so I end up hiring no one.
I have heard small business owners make similar complaints - they're often in the market for skilled, competent help before they're in a position to put resources into long-term development, but, because they don't have much experience with hiring, they have trouble finding/identifying people who actually are skilled and competent in and among all the gumption/desperation applicants, so they often end up not hiring at all.
In the shower the other day, it occurred to me that basic income might improve this situation. An effective basic income program would eliminate the desperation factor, so employer and prospective employee could have a straightforward conversation about their needs and abilities.
So I could say "What I really want is completely streakless windows. A cleaning job that results in streaks has no value to me. Are you able to guarantee streaklessness?"
And my prospective window cleaner would have the leeway to say "You know, I don't think I can do a job that could make you happy." Or to quote me a ridiculously high price since I'm so needy and demanding, which I can then accept or reject depending on what it's worth to me.
And my prospective window cleaner would be far less likely to be a person who's bad at cleaning windows, because people who are bad at cleaning windows aren't going to be going around looking for window cleaning jobs.
I did one brief, cursory google and couldn't find much on how basic income interacts with the hiring experience from an employer's point of view. So I started looking into the logistics of Ontario's basic income pilot, to see whether it could produce relevant results . . . and, that very day, the government cancelled the basic income pilot.
***
In recent discussions of introducing pharmacare, I was surprised to see the idea raised of pharmacare covering people who don't already have a drug plan through work.
That seems like an administrative nightmare. (How will the government know who does and doesn't have drug coverage through work? Will pharmacare cover my the large co-pay in my workplace plan? Do we have to worry about coverage gaps if we lose our job?)
But it also seems like it would be a lot more convenient for employers if pharmacare were universal. Employers wouldn't have to administer or pay for drug plans any more. Employers who don't provide drug plans wouldn't lose quality employees who can pick and choose to other employers with better benefits. And employers who already provide good benefits would immediately realize significant savings by not having to do so any more.
***
When they were talking about creating an Ontario pension plan, they were also talking about having it apply only to people who don't have pensions through work.
Again, it seems like it would be far more convenient for employers if the public pension plan covered everyone, for exactly the same reasons. It would save employers the trouble of administering a pension plan, employers who are unable to provide a pension plan wouldn't lose out on quality talent, and employers who already provide a pension plan would immediately realize significant savings by not having to do so any more.
***
Discourse about social programs tends to focus on what it can do for regular people, which is, of course, where the focus in planning and delivering social programs should be.
However, I've noticed a strong correlation between people who are opposed to social programs and people whose roles involve hiring. I also remember seeing things from time to time where organizations representing small businesses object to the fact that government employees receive benefits, presumably because their tax dollars are supporting providing benefits that they can't offer their own employees.
It would be useful to have the data to quantify how social programs can make life easier for employers, in addition to making life easier for ordinary people.
I've considered on and off hiring someone to wash my windows, but I have no idea how to hire someone good. I'd be happy to pay well for completely streak-free windows, but if they're just going to rearrange the streaks, that isn't worth anything to me - I can do that myself.
The problem, of course, is that all window-washers and any number of random odd-job people are incentivized to say "Of course I can give you streak-free windows!" They need money. They need to hustle. Conventional wisdom is that you should apply for jobs even if you aren't confident you can do them.
But this makes it much harder to find someone who actually is good - especially if, like me, you're unaccustomed to hiring people - so I end up hiring no one.
I have heard small business owners make similar complaints - they're often in the market for skilled, competent help before they're in a position to put resources into long-term development, but, because they don't have much experience with hiring, they have trouble finding/identifying people who actually are skilled and competent in and among all the gumption/desperation applicants, so they often end up not hiring at all.
In the shower the other day, it occurred to me that basic income might improve this situation. An effective basic income program would eliminate the desperation factor, so employer and prospective employee could have a straightforward conversation about their needs and abilities.
So I could say "What I really want is completely streakless windows. A cleaning job that results in streaks has no value to me. Are you able to guarantee streaklessness?"
And my prospective window cleaner would have the leeway to say "You know, I don't think I can do a job that could make you happy." Or to quote me a ridiculously high price since I'm so needy and demanding, which I can then accept or reject depending on what it's worth to me.
And my prospective window cleaner would be far less likely to be a person who's bad at cleaning windows, because people who are bad at cleaning windows aren't going to be going around looking for window cleaning jobs.
I did one brief, cursory google and couldn't find much on how basic income interacts with the hiring experience from an employer's point of view. So I started looking into the logistics of Ontario's basic income pilot, to see whether it could produce relevant results . . . and, that very day, the government cancelled the basic income pilot.
***
In recent discussions of introducing pharmacare, I was surprised to see the idea raised of pharmacare covering people who don't already have a drug plan through work.
That seems like an administrative nightmare. (How will the government know who does and doesn't have drug coverage through work? Will pharmacare cover my the large co-pay in my workplace plan? Do we have to worry about coverage gaps if we lose our job?)
But it also seems like it would be a lot more convenient for employers if pharmacare were universal. Employers wouldn't have to administer or pay for drug plans any more. Employers who don't provide drug plans wouldn't lose quality employees who can pick and choose to other employers with better benefits. And employers who already provide good benefits would immediately realize significant savings by not having to do so any more.
***
When they were talking about creating an Ontario pension plan, they were also talking about having it apply only to people who don't have pensions through work.
Again, it seems like it would be far more convenient for employers if the public pension plan covered everyone, for exactly the same reasons. It would save employers the trouble of administering a pension plan, employers who are unable to provide a pension plan wouldn't lose out on quality talent, and employers who already provide a pension plan would immediately realize significant savings by not having to do so any more.
***
Discourse about social programs tends to focus on what it can do for regular people, which is, of course, where the focus in planning and delivering social programs should be.
However, I've noticed a strong correlation between people who are opposed to social programs and people whose roles involve hiring. I also remember seeing things from time to time where organizations representing small businesses object to the fact that government employees receive benefits, presumably because their tax dollars are supporting providing benefits that they can't offer their own employees.
It would be useful to have the data to quantify how social programs can make life easier for employers, in addition to making life easier for ordinary people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)