Public workers' pension

In the recent row about public workers' pension and its affordability by the government, a lot of effort is made by non-public worker to make a comparison between their pension or the lack thereof and public workers' pension in the economically challenging time. The point often missed is that the comparison should be made in a fairer manner when private sector workers, on average, take home higher pay for a similar level of job in seniority term when times are better. This of course does not include bonuses, benefits and other perks like company car, private health care, private dental car, paid expenses, interest-free loans.

The advantages of a job in the public sector are job security and flexibility. Many people go into public sector career for this reason, fully aware that there will not be company cars, company parties, private health care, etc but they want to be able to rely on modest but less risky income at the end of their work life. This suits many people with family and those who do not wish to live life in the fast lane.

I have worked in both sectors and appreciate the drawbacks in each. In the economic boom times, private sector workers' salary is often 2-3 times more than public sector workers on the same career level. The financial company I worked for awarded employees bonuses worth 0.5 to 2 times their annual salary. Public sector workers might get a small financial reward based on performance but it will never be anything of this level.

Now that the bad time comes around, the private sector takes some of the stick and the argument that we should be in it together is interpreted as the public sector should suffer too but it creates unfairness because it never got to enjoy the perks that private sector was privileged to during the good times.

Passion and life satisfaction

Do one's passions in life provide satisfaction or happiness in the face of adversity? Do you have to have a deep interest in something to give your life its meaning? Should people try putting meaning into life by finding their true calling when they do not have a capacity to do that for a living? Should they try to fill the void with what they are passionate about?

Conversely, extreme passion can probably harm the less discerning enthusiasts who have no sense of moderation.

Can we exist happily just because? Earn enough to survive. Not too much as to get burnt out. Look after people around us. Without that 'calling'.

Dictators

Dictators' success is often the result of their ability to manipulate and in some cases brainwash. We have seen many examples in many world dictators whom to some are clearly tyrants but to their subjects are beloved and highly revered. Pinochet, Stalin, Milosevic, Mao, and the list goes on. It is no surprise then with the current Thai politics. Although the former PM of Thailand did not suppress people through violence of threats thereof, there is clear use of media manipulation amongst other innovative schemes. Maybe in 20 years, people who revere him now will still not change their minds even though there are evidence of corruption and other wrongdoings.

See people how you would write them a job reference

Okay, we all have strengths and weaknesses, good points, bad points and inclination. But people improve themselves more by learning from others' positives. Some of us have been hard-wired to judge others by their wrongs so it isn't easy to rewire and try to see people in an objective light and look for the best in them. One technique I have been trying to use is to try to see people how you would write them a job reference.

You would highlight their strengths and make a connection between these and their aspirations. You would be kind enough as not to paint a false rosy picture that creates complacency. You would tactfully give an honest opinion that doesn't necessary make your referee feel insufficient.

Where there are deficiencies that they might benefit from addressing, you would try to offer constructive solicited suggestions or directions.

And then you will learn from their positives and be involved less in conflicts. And if everybody is taught to do so from a young age, then we would have a more agreeable society to live in.

Welsh mine tragedy

It is such a tragedy when men are sent to risk their lives for the consumption of man kind. Should we not have self restraint to prevent us from consuming at the expense of others' lives? The Gleision coal mine's loss of four men cannot be justified. We need energy from the coal but we shouldn't do at the costs of lives. Surely we are civilised enough to be able to limit our consumption. If these men were our own family members, we would have certainly done so.

The law should not allow such jobs to be taken by human anymore with the level of technology that we have nowadays. Robots are sent to work in inhospitable environments all over the place and even in the space. It is only economic reasons why they are not in mines - cost saving by mine operators using primitive technologies - miners need jobs to feed their family - energy companies save costs by suppressing their supply price.

Energy companies win, consumers win, mine owners probably do too. But at the cost of fellow human beings. Is it worth the pennies and pounds saved?

Being charitable

We all want to do something worthwhile. Some of us aspire to do it for a living. I want to do something I truly care about, not just do work for existence, such as being in a charitable organisation's workforce but it seems to me that one should practice what one believes. People working for the good of others, should be generous, kind and charitable. Charitable in a sense that you don't choose the recipients of your charity, regardless of how undeserving they may appear to be. If people cannot be charitable to those around them, should they still be part of organisations whose goal is to help others?

Peace and Justice - to be decided by answers from psychological science?

The Economist online debate forum posts:

"Punishing wrongdoers is fundamental to securing lasting peace"

The vote is currently 80% but can psychologists devise scientifically rigorous experiment to give a definite answer as to whether wrongdoing is deterred by punishment or otherwise?

Are our actions guided by fear of punitive measures rather than moral obligations?

Death

The more advanced a society is, the more averse to deaths people seem to be. Death, particularly in the West has become regarded more and more as unnatural. There will be fewer natural deaths because most illnesses or unfortunate events are now categorised and preventative or curative measures invented and applied. Deaths caused by human errors are not even accepted even though it is acknowledged that people do make mistakes.

But for the most part, except for certain endangered species, we accept the killings of animals either by human or by other animals in the food chain. Mankind seems to have established that human lives are more precious and worth preserving. This is, in my view, arguable but I won't elaborate.

We pour money into medical research to prolong life and prevent death. I don't oppose this especially one that will help physical suffering. But we have to cure and nurture the mind too. Judging from what has been happening in England, we haven't done anywhere near enough to prevent moral degradation.

So my two points are that 1. death doesn't have to be viewed squeemishly if the minds are clear. I view death as a passing from one dimension to another or a dissolution in case of a nirvana and 2. we don't do enough to nourish the mind when we are still alive but we disproportionately overdo life preservation. This should change.

Infidelity

The sanctity of marriage, like other moral dimensions, is less connected to the law that governs the punishment of unlawful behaviours, but more regulated by the person's integrity, inhibition and moral compass. I wonder how much effect religious beliefs in steering people towards the morally 'right' path.

Respect for others

We all ask each other for respect, different societies, different cultures, different believes, different practices, and so forth. But it all starts at home.

Because individuals have different ways to approach everything. To a smaller or larger degree, we interpret and respond to a situation differently and we learn to understand each other, compromise and negotiate to reach mutual agreement in every little thing we do that involve other people, all this with varying degrees of respect for others.

Some people avoid the negotiation experience, some constantly accept others' influence, while some impose on others at the peril of alienating people around them. We try to learn this skill all the time, at home, in the school playground and at work. We learn to respect people.

The problem happens when the degree of respect varies amongst the actors, creating conflicts. What can individuals and societies do to promote respect for others? Moral teaching? Religions?

UK Higher Education and Internationalisation Success

Today, I attended a conference session with presentations by a Peruvian, Columbian, Italian and Canadian students, chaired by a Greek lecturer, who talked about national and international innovation policies. We cannot say the U.K. has not succeeded in internationalising their Higher Education sector.

Lady Gaga

Should someone be doing a thesis on Lady Gaga's marketing prowess? In just 10 minutes of her live performance,

1. she used her personal stories about her dad being ill,
2. talked about her (real or fabricated) affection towards the Royal family (saying how she wished she were invited to Will and Kate's wedding and the "news" allegedly supplied by her PR people that she was learning to speak with the Queen's accent, and
3. tried to appeal to the audience by saying what she was told to and not to do on the BBC e.g. swearing, and
4. performing the unreleased tracks which she shouldn't do.

The woman is a genius. Musically, maybe not so much but marketing-wise, she's definitely top of the game in the pop world.

Nick Risinger

What dedication!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110512/ap_on_sc/us_night_sky

I wish I had that kind of passion.

Social mobility

Social mobility's only real meaning is the ability to move up socially. It only talks about one direction of movement - upwards. Not downwards, or even sideways. People do not want to move down social scale so it is implied that efforts to promote "social mobility" always create win-win, unlike a zero-sum game. However, social mobility is directly linked and contributed mainly by economic power, either on the mobilized's part or mobilizee's. If economic gain is not zero-sum, is it possible that social mobility is indeed a win-lose game also? As many move upwards, there are always those moving downwards or left behind. Or is it simply that the bar gets continually raised until everyone is royalties? Five-starred becomes six, seven or ten-starred. Luxury becomes standard and first class becomes economy. Is the aim of social mobility Utopia?

Mindfulness and Positivity by Joe Wilner

A brilliant blog:

"Understanding that our interpretations of events are what drive our emotions, and that our interpretations may not always be rational is a major part of learning to be more open-minded and accepting. We no longer need to constantly make social-judgments and comparisons, and can instead learn to simply experience what comes without always critically evaluating."

Joe Wilner

America and the World on Libya and the Middle East

I find the world's and the U.S.'s response to events in Libya quite disproportionate. I can't help but compare this to the unrest in Burma a few years ago. The U.S. President certainly did not make a speech as the incident took place nor was there coordinated effort to evacuate foreign nationals on a grand scale and I really believe that this is not due to the higher level government oppression or human right abuse in the Middle East in comparison to that in Burma. I do not doubt that the stakes are higher for the West in terms of their economic interests and hence the little sanctions that have been applied. But if they really have conviction about human rights issue, surely more could be done in relation to Burma.

We are all different

What is the best strategy in dealing with people's differences in a group and an organisation?

When we work alone, we have control in what we do and how we do it. But when we come across differences, most people's reaction is to make a judgement and compare others' actions to how they would act. It is probably the most instinctive reaction. It takes certain conditioning for some of us to learn to react in different ways, some of which are more productive ways.

We naturally trust our own judgement more than other people's. When things are done differently from how we do them, we automatically think that there is the right and wrong ways to do things and of course we think we are right.

But even when we are right, should we just let go of our doctrine and wait until we are proven right with time which is a less stressful option in the short-term? Or do we push for everyone to hold the same quality standard which might bear some fruit in the long-term?

How to assess a decent PhD

Would it be possible for a PhD to be assessed in a different manner in the near future? The ground for creation of new knowledge becomes open more and more to wider public as knowledge is more easily accessible, beyond the libraries of universities.

Traditionally submitted in written format, usually 50,000 to 80,000 words long. Could the format of PhD theses extend beyond the format of hard-bound door stoppers, music compositions, plays/performance to perhaps programming codes, a web site, a documentary. A start-up company, perhaps?

Jamie Oliver

Should we appreciate his recipes as they are even though they are completely a disrespectful version of the authentic cuisines which are true to their locale? He tries to cook "Indian", "Spanish", "Greek", "Thai" and yet his disrespect for the real flavours in those cuisines is apparent.

One could argue that people will consume what they like, and if it happens that they appreciate the taste of Jamie's cooking, then it does not matter that if they are true to the authentic recipes or not.

But then will you be arguing that Clueless is more popular than Emma and so it should be consumed as such?

The difference I guess is, while we, the general public might be none-the-wiser as to what is authentic in the culinary world. Jamie does it for a living and has the means to procure such knowledge. It is not very responsible of him to be ignorant to generations of these culinary refinement. Rick Stein does it all the time as did Keith Floyd. Their cooking shows respect for people's knowledge of food ingredients which has evolved over hundreds if not thousands of years.

We are served the cheap and superficial dishes by Jamie all the time. Do we not deserve better?

Footballer's price

A recent calculation by an academic at LSE for BBC 4 suggests that top Premier League football clubs just about break even or make a "small loss" and such is sustainable. Not being an economist nor having financial knowledge, I am not sure how making losses could be viewed as sustainable in the case that they make perennial "small losses".

Their main cost is the players' payroll which accounts for about 40% of all expenditure. Despite their global success, the pricey tickets, the TV rights, merchandise, and other hospitality income, it is a no brainer why they still make a loss considering that an average annual salary for a player is £700k in the Premier League. 30 players in their book and they have to make £50 only to break even. This of course excludes all the buying in of talents (or in some cases, marketing tool) from other clubs for many more millions.

American football leagues have a salary cap and evidence is there that teams still attract players. Is there really that much difference for football (soccer) to reject the same principle?

I cannot imagine myself running a business and making a loss year on year when it is already an established cash-cow business. Perhaps I am wrong.

And then an outcry about and criticism of university vice-chancellors taking £200k per annum pay? These people who are leaders shaping our higher education system. Would there be a need for a research on the impact, social or economic, they have on the society versus that of the footballers'?

Why not start with the University of Manchester's annual income of £787m compared with £300m of Manchester United FC?

General election, 2015!

It puzzles me when the media speculate about how Tories and Lib Dem are going to campaign for the 2015 election with their current coalition position, some suggesting that there will be joint campaign where Tories and LD candidates will concede seats for each other. It seems to me that the British media's over-active reporting is the result of under-active imagination.

Naturally, there are too many variables as to what will happen in over 4 years time. The coalition might not last until then. The public poll might swing many times before the actual election. There may even be change of leadership as history suggests. Some MPs might be have been prosecuted with their expense claim scandal. It seems absurd for journalists and broadcasters to be asking politicians now how the coalition will work out for the election results when wars, terrorist attacks, climate change could have bigger impact on our lives between now and then.

Listen to spoken text

The power of praises

Harvard business research shows the power of praises and how they convert into favours. Surely this is basic psychology?

It is nice anyway to notice the positives about others and point these out often, given that it is delivered with genuineness. We can't be kind enough to each other in this age of accountability and litigation. But if you were to come across a genuinely not-so-nice person whom you wish to pick up something nice about but just find it beyond possibility, without going into psychoanalysing them (given you are capable of it), would you choose to make up the praises or omit any comments altogether?

Being critical

I have only recently been able to differentiate between being self-critical and being hard on self. So many times I failed to recognise my own errors when the same would not escape my radar if made by others. It is so easy to be hard on yourself and yet less forgiving of others. Until I stopped to digest events, would I realise that when you criticize others' actions, the same could be said about you and your flaws.

It is not hard to be nice to other people and to forgive. The more people trying this, the better off the society would be. And yet we tend to let our baser reaction take control of our interaction with others - the media thrashing the government, the public bodies like our healthcare, police, schools being harshly judged all the time when their work is the hardest. If you think about it, profit making organisations have it easy in my view. The worse that could happen is you make a loss. Although shareholders could claim that they could voice their views about how the execs handle their business to protect their interest, we hear all the time about these fired execs getting offered a new job in the rival firm in no time at all.

Information Overload?

Information consumption is becoming a chore to me. We are expected to blog, tweet, post facebook statuses, etc. Then we consume others' blogs, tweets, posts, etc. And this ranges from our friends, associates, acquaintances, famous people, friends of friends', associates of associates', down to any random guys. And all this is in addition to our other searches for information through the web. There should be a research that confirms that it is not physically humanly possible for us to keep sane with all this information, without having a life outside of iPhone, iPac, BB, and PCs.