My Time Watching the Duggars

Since I'm now working 8 hours a day instead of 14 (and 5, not 7 days a week), I'm finding myself with a lot of downtime, and On-Demand cable.  For some reason, I developed a fascination with 19 Kids and Counting, the reality TV show about a family in Arkansas with 19 kids.  The innocuous way that it is described is behind the fascination, and also why I can't not watch this show.

The way that TLC packages the show, it's a family with strong Christian values, but other than that, they're just like you!  But more of them!  But as harmless as this sounds, the lives of these children, and increasingly, young adults, is absolutely nothing like the way that the average American family lives, including those who subscribe to a version of fundamentalist Christianity.  Granted, I married into a large family practicing a version of fundamentalism (kind of Mennonite-lite), where aunts with 9 or 10 children is not uncommon.  To make this work, there appears to be two options- either the dad has the type of job that allows for 6-figure income to pay for this size family, or there is poverty.  In the first case, the kids are told that they will have to be self-sufficient, leading to early preparation for careers.  In the second, God will provide, but not with an education that will allow these kids to escape the precarious position they had been in, and causing the cycle to continue.  The Duggars have the income of the first, but the mentality of the second.  It's a dangerous mix, and undermines the premise of the show.  There are no struggles, at least no economic struggles, because TLC is paying them money to be on the show, and the show allows the whole family to have the type of Reality TV Star jobs that somehow make money - speaking engagements, writing inane books, and selling more episodes to TLC.  Plus, Jim Bob was lucky to have real estate investments in place in NW Arkansas right when Wal-Mart expanded. 

But, that's not really the story.  I was actually pretty horrified to watch Jill's Wedding special the other day.  200 volunteers made the day possible.

Volunteers?

Um... 

TLC no doubt had paid money to the Duggars for the rights to film the wedding.  I'm sure there was a production meeting at some point where a discussion of how Jill and Derick would be compensated for their roles in this televised special.  The wedding was a TV production.  Profit was made.  So why wasn't that profit distributed to the 200 people who made the profit possible?  

My major problem with the Duggars is that they impose externalities on those around them.  The full cost of the wedding was not part of the amount that Jim Bob "paid", nor was it part of what he was paid by TLC. This seems to be a recurring theme in episode after episode.  The Duggars not only want to save money by not paying for anything, but they also expect to receive services in return for free.  Those services appear to be returned only because 1) they have as many children as they do, 2) because the have this reality TV show (and therefore are paid to live this volunteer-dependent lifestyle), and 3) they are related to these guys.  If the Duggars *only* had 10 kids, you probably wouldn't see this volunteering and TV money that allows them to have this type of lifestyle.  It's the TV money that makes this possible, and it's possible because of the TV money.

Which leads me to ask again... why weren't the volunteers at Jill's wedding paid for their work.  And with Jessa marrying yesterday under similar circumstances, was her wedding made possible as well by unpaid labor?  Sure, there's a lot to analyze and criticize... mainly that this is one set of Christian values, that other Christians may find abhorrent... but can we talk about why the Duggars devalue work performed by anyone who isn't a Duggar?

Bad HR on TV: Undercover Boss (Mohegan Sun)

Nothing like a little insomnia to make one watch some bad HR practices on TV.  My new favorite show for this is Undercover Boss.  Fortunately, reruns on the OWN network may let me review every single one here.  The premise seems to be the same on each show: Boss encounters employee who does everything that the job asks for, but because of the shitty way they are treated by the company, they either want to leave, or can't make ends meet.  Then, rather than thinking, "Hey!  We have institutionalized problems within our HR policies that may need to be changed for the betterment of all workers!", the boss assumes this employee is an exception, plays Santa Claus, and fixes the problem for just the one employee by throwing cash or a unique opportunity their way.


I'm watching the most recent Undercover Boss, where the Chairman of Mohegan Sun Casino, sorry, Entertainment, goes undercover.  Yes, the slot runner's job sucks (hire more?  Perhaps if the marginal productivity of the next worker is offset by an increase in revenue), and there's a lawsuit waiting to happen forcing the female servers to wear skimpy dresses and not the men, but the biggest problem is with the Valet Shift Lead.  At least she isn't designated a Shift Supervisor when she has no managerial authority, but there are still problems with her job.


Set aside the fact that the CEO of an organization just said that a job should not be performed by anyone over the age of 50, but the Valet Shift Lead mentioned that not only does she work part-time, but her hours are being cut.  She's currently on state welfare to provide health insurance, and she's not sure if she can make ends meet if the situation continues.  Bear in mind that this is the Pocono Casino.  Not on tribal land.  It's a commercial venture doing business in Pennsylvania, subject to Pennsylvania law, and using state subsidized healthcare to get workers for lower wages than they would otherwise be willing to work.  It's likely that in order for these workers to get state healthcare, food stamps, or other forms of welfare, they must prove that they are employed - which creates a need to take these low-paid, low-hour jobs, distorting the labor market.  It's also dickish on the part of the casino to hire someone for 20 hours per week, then only assign them for 10.


So, what's the solution?  Walk away from generous state funds that heavily subsidize the labor costs of the casino?  Unlikely.  Continue to hire part-time, but with a set shift schedule so that an employee can better juggle multiple jobs?  That would be nice, but, dagnabbit, the company loses flexibility!  Flexibility is so much more important than providing employees with the ability to be self-sufficient.  Undercover Boss' solution was to give this employee EVEN MORE TIME OFF to take her GED, and hire a babysitter.  Okay, and $10K for her wedding, $10K for health care (that's, like, a year for a family of three), and a $15K college fund for her daughter.  See - throwing $35K at one employee just totally solved the problem!  And, isn't the Mohegan Sun Casino Entertainment Basketball Hotel Conglomerate just awesome for doing this!

Frontline: To Catch a Trader

Trying something new... I'm watching PBS, writing as I watch, and hoping to have something publishable shortly afterwards.  I'll see what happens.


FRONTLINE is back with a look at insider trading with "To Catch a Trader."  This time, we're looking at hedge funds, specifically SAC Capital.  I'm personally skeptical of hedge funds in general - they appear to be fee structures that if they do make real money, there is so much trading involved that the actual assets one owns at any point is not entirely clear.  In general, I worry about anything that's a black box.  I like to know how my money is making more money. 


With Wall Street, the question is not just about transparency, but legality.  We'll put the ethics on the side for now.  If you want to move first, then you need information about what move to make, and you need to move before everyone else in order to make the most money.  If you make the most money, then you get the largest clients, as people want their money to make the most money possible.  All incentives are to get this information fast, and to act on it, even if doing so is illegal.  Insider trading is not just unethical, or bad manners, but is flat-out illegal.  But if your incentives are contrary to legal compliance, and you perceive that you chance of getting caught is low, then the choice that is most advantageous to a fund is to do that which is illegal.


This isn't about morals.  Companies are amoral.  Not immoral, but without morals.  If your firm's goal is to maximize profits, then the expected benefits should outweigh the expected costs (chance of getting caught * expected fine), and the firm does it.  Possible ways around it are to increase the fines that are collected (unpopular politically, as this gets rolled into your 401(k) management fees) or to increase the likelihood of getting caught (which increases payroll... increasing government expenditures... also unpopular politically).  The business isn't going to police this activity.


Instead, it may come down to the individual trader.  (S)He will be the one on the line for illegal behavior.  At this point, one's salary vs the fine may be more likely to spur legal behavior.  Actual jail time might also incentivize correct behavior in the individual.  But, this only works if you believe that you will get caught.  The last piece of the pie is whether illegal behavior is socially acceptable.  So, if you go to Wharton, do your classmates assume that you will be making money while keeping to the straight and narrow?  Probably not.  FRONTLINE mentioned that one hedge fund relied on their Wharton network to get the insider tips on which the hedge fund business model relied.


So, how does one fix this?  How do you design a system that incentivizes proper behavior?  Is it socialization in business school?  Stricter oversight?  More scrutiny of actual trades?  Or do you expect investors to somehow know that huge returns above market may indicate some funny business on the part of the person you've entrusted with your money?  Considering how pervasive the culture on Wall Street is to make money, it's hard to see how any one fix can overturn an entire system that appears to be corrupt.

Bad HR on TV: Mystery Diners

This may be a well documented phenomenon, but with winter break and no internship or work for the first time in 9 years, I have nothing to do all day.  So, I'm watching a bunch of bad reality TV shows.  Food Network has a show called Mystery Diners.  Not only is it highly unlikely that this is a real show, but my fear is that people may watch these shows and assume that what is happening is legal, ethical, and more than a marketing ploy.

Case in point is the Cheeseburger Baby episode that aired at 3:30 this afternoon that has me a bit riled up.  Owners suspect that the ex-con that they hired has been stealing, try to entrap him, but while monitoring him, discovers that a waitress has been the one stealing from the till.  Ooh... what will Charles Stiles (whoever that is) and the owners do?  It almost makes for compelling TV, but not entirely.

First of all, the easiest way for the owners to stop theft is to lock the cash office (seriously?  It's in an open cabinet?), restricting access to the manager, and giving each cashier a till.  This state-of-the-art system has been standard practice since the mid-1990s, when I had the crappy retail job in high school that encourages all to never work retail again.  Maybe a security camera in the cash office, too, especially if you are located in a city like Miami.  Yeah, it might be problematic to have security cameras all over the place, but it's not illegal.  These are areas where employees do not have a reasonable expectation to privacy like a bathroom or locker room.  It is concerning that employees are under video monitoring without notification.  However, to fix the problem, a notice that the cash office is under surveillance (or a camera in plain sight with a red blinking light) gets around most privacy laws for most states.  That the sting relied on manufactured situations that boarder on entrapment leads one to question the ethics f the situation.  Sure, not illegal.  But, if Guillermo the Ex-Con had fallen for one of these ploys and this led the owners to state that he was probably behind the other thefts, then there would be a huge-ass defamation lawsuit in the works.  Fortunately, this didn't happen.  It would have made for bad TV.

At the end, there is a major violation of privacy when the owner rips the fanny pack off "Christia"'s body and examines the contents.  Here, the employee DOES have a reasonable expectation of privacy.  It's tantamount to looking through the employee's clothing.  THAT is not allowable.  If there was evidence, and this had been a real situation, then the police should have been called and an investigation ensued.  Otherwise, huge-ass lawsuit.  Oh, none was filed?  Yeah, there's a reason for that.  Worse, even if you think this is fake, you may believe that employees have the right to frisk employees and seize property.

So, no, the ex-con is not responsible.  Aren't the owners wonderful for giving this guy a second chance?  Aw.  What wonderful employers!  In fact, that's what this show is trying to do: it reinforces that small businessmen are tiny gods, whose failure at business could only be because of the bad, no good, evil low-wage employees who thwart their boss' God-given right to a profitable business.  It's BS.  But it's not the only show that reinforces these stereotypes.