Showing posts with label Social Architecture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Architecture. Show all posts

June 6, 2013

Charting Your Course


New article here by Andy Blumenthal in Public CIO Magazine called "Using Enterprise and Personal Architecture To Chart Your Course." 

"As a leader, one of your primary jobs is to bring a coherent, rousing vision and strategy to the organization and execute it to keep the organization relevant -- that is enterprise architecture."

Hope you enjoy!

Andy

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

January 4, 2013

Have It When You Need it


At an event that I attended recently, I heard a young woman explain her philosophy on life. 

She said, her grandmother taught her: "Better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it."

Thinking about it at the time, it seemed pretty wise--because you never want to be without something you really need. 

And good planning and survival skills say to always be prepared--you never know what happens. 

But then with the fiscal cliff and all the talk about social entitlements, I started to think about this some more. 

In a sense, as a society, we have come to think of social entitlements as something that we better have in case we need it--Unemployment Insurance, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid and more. 

You never know when it's your turn to get laid off, sick, old, or needy. 

And isn't that what's it for--it's a safety net--these are like personal insurance and you never want to need the coverage and not have it. 

But as we should know by now, having it--doesn't come for free. 

So the question is how much social entitlements or insurance do you need--and part of the answer is how much can you afford. 

So is it really better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it--if you can't afford what you're buying?  

In this case, our grandparents and parents having it and not really needing all of it--may mean that we and our children will not be able to have it when we do need it. 

To have social entitlements, we need to be able to pay into the system for it or borrow to finance it. 

Unfortunately, as a nation we have been doing more borrowing, because we have spent beyond our national means--we have even raided our very own social entitlement programs that we hold so dear, to pay for other things--maybe that's why they call it a trust fund, because you really do have to trust, almost blindly, that there will be something there, when it's your time to need it. 

It's great to have it, but if we are gluttons and don't responsibly plan for genuine needs--then as a nation, we really will be left needing and not having it when the time comes.

In short, spend all your money to soon, and tragically, there won't be any candy later. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Share/Save/Bookmark

July 24, 2011

How Do You Like Those Apples?

Apple

A new proposed method for determining Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) for people receiving Social Security and federal and military retiree pensions is called the Chained Consumer Price Index (CPI).

The Federal Times (18 July 2011) reports that "proposed COLA changes would mean smaller annuities for retirees."

Essentially, the Chained CPI doesn't just look at the change in prices for "market basket" of goods, but it "takes into account...the fact that most consumers change their buying habits when prices go up."

What this means in a simple example (exaggerated for effect) is that:

If the price of an Apple goes up from $1 to $2 instead of COLA being adjusted so that retirees get $2 for the apple, we give them instead maybe $1.25, since we ASSUME that because the price of apples went up "people are likely to buy fewer apples or switch to a cheaper fruit."

Does that sound right from your shopping experience?

Are you going to buy fewer apples or are they sort of a necessity? Further, if the price of apples goes up, is it not likely that the price of other common fruits will go up in an inflationary environment as well.

This proposal which is estimated "to save $300 billion in its first decade" sounds like quite the fuzzy economics indeed.

So how do you like those apples?

(Source Picture: here)

Share/Save/Bookmark