<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <title>Master of None</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/" />
    <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/atom.xml" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2007-12-25://5</id>
    <updated>2013-05-22T20:33:08Z</updated>
    
    <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type Pro 5.12</generator>

<entry>
    <title>New Sexting Fad: Sextanting</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2013/05/new-sexting-fad-sextanting.php" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2013://5.28004</id>

    <published>2013-05-22T20:31:01Z</published>
    <updated>2013-05-22T20:33:08Z</updated>

    <summary> Those crazy kids, what will they think of next? (HT: The Chive.)...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Michael Williams</name>
        <uri>http://www.mwilliams.info</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Humor" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mwilliams.info/">
        <![CDATA[<p><br /><img alt="sextanting.jpg" src="http://www.mwilliams.info/images/sextanting.jpg" width="500" height="740" class="mt-image-center" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0 auto 20px;" /></p>

<p>Those crazy kids, what will they think of next?</p>

<p>(HT: <a href="http://thechive.com/2013/02/26/sexting-doesnt-always-work-out-the-way-you-planned-it-26-photos/">The Chive</a>.)</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>IRS Scandal Demands Political Remedies, Not Legal</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2013/05/irs-scandal-demands-political-remedies-not-legal.php" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2013://5.28003</id>

    <published>2013-05-22T14:18:17Z</published>
    <updated>2013-05-22T14:24:14Z</updated>

    <summary>Andrew McCarthy lays out a compelling case that the IRS scandal should be resolved politically rather than through the legal process. A special prosecutor/special counsel would focus on bringing lawbreakers to trial rather than fixing a horribly broken bureaucracy. If...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Michael Williams</name>
        <uri>http://www.mwilliams.info</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Politics, Government &amp; Public Policy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mwilliams.info/">
        <![CDATA[<p><br />Andrew McCarthy lays out a compelling case that the IRS scandal should be <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/node/348982/print">resolved politically rather than through the legal process</a>.  A special prosecutor/special counsel would focus on bringing lawbreakers to trial rather than fixing a horribly broken bureaucracy. If anyone broke the law they can be prosecuted for years to come, but an investigation now would likely end any hope of significant <br />
reform of the underlying tax system.</p>

<blockquote>Let's put law and atmospherics aside and try to be completely practical. The imperative in the IRS scandal is not criminal prosecution. It is political accountability: to lay bare what corrupt officials have done, for the purpose of swiftly determining whether they are unfit to hold offices of public trust and whether the system in which they operate tends to corruption. The appointment of a special counsel would undermine that goal.

<p>The moment a prosecutor -- special or otherwise -- takes over, the public flow of information stops. All witnesses will claim that the pendency of a criminal investigation means they cannot discuss the matter "on advice of counsel." They will cease cooperating with congressional investigators. The prosecutor will claim that grand-jury secrecy rules bar comment about the expansive investigation (a claim the government routinely makes, even though the rules actually bar comment only by the prosecutor, investigative agents, and grand jurors -- not the witnesses).</p>

<p>Public disclosure should be the goal here. It is the one thing that has driven the IRS story to this point. Public disclosure of the shockingly intrusive harassment of the president's political opponents, the prohibitive legal and regulatory expenses imposed on ordinary people for merely exercising their right to participate in the political process, is what has broken through the administration's Obamedia fortress. Yet public disclosure is precisely what would be lost if Congress were to punt its oversight responsibilities to a special counsel.</blockquote></p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Ft. Hood: Still Not a &quot;Terrorist Attack&quot;</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2013/05/ft-hood-still-not-a-terrorist-attack.php" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2013://5.28002</id>

    <published>2013-05-21T14:05:10Z</published>
    <updated>2013-05-21T14:10:57Z</updated>

    <summary>The federal government refuses to categorize the 2009 Ft. Hood massacre as a &quot;terrorist attack&quot;, because obviously President Obama solved our terrorism problems and we don&apos;t have &quot;terrorist attacks&quot; anymore. What&apos;s in a name? The Department of Defense confirms to...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Michael Williams</name>
        <uri>http://www.mwilliams.info</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Law &amp; Justice" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mwilliams.info/">
        <![CDATA[<p><br />The federal government <a href="http://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/Accused-Fort-Hood-Shooter-Paid-278000-While-Awaiting-Trial-208230691.html">refuses to categorize the 2009 Ft. Hood massacre as a "terrorist attack"</a>, because obviously President Obama solved our terrorism problems and we don't have "terrorist attacks" anymore.  What's in a name?</p>

<blockquote>The Department of Defense confirms to NBC 5 Investigates that accused Fort Hood shooter Major Nidal Hasan has now been paid more than $278,000 since the Nov. 5, 2009 shooting that left 13 dead 32 injured. The Army said under the Military Code of Justice, Hasan's salary cannot be suspended unless he is proven guilty. ...

<p>The Army has not classified the wounds of the Ft. Hood victims as "combat related" and declines to label the shooting a "terrorist attack",</p>

<p>The "combat related" designation is an important one, for without it Burnett and other shooting victims are not given combat-related pay, they are not eligible for Purple Heart retirement or medical benefits given to other soldiers wounded either at war or during the Sept. 11, 2001 attack on the Pentagon.</p>

<p>As a result, Burnett, his wife Torey, and the families of other Fort Hood victims miss out on thousands of dollars of potential benefits and pay every year.</blockquote></p>

<p>President Obama's political fortunes are clearly more important than the truth, and who really cares about the follow-on injustices that only affect little people?  Hasan is "assumed innocent" of this alleged "workplace violence", so why shouldn't he keep getting paid?  His victims weren't killed or injured in a "combat zone", so why should they get any special benefits?</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Institutional Death Penalty for IRS</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2013/05/Institutional-Death-Penalty-for-IRS.php" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2013://5.28001</id>

    <published>2013-05-20T22:22:30Z</published>
    <updated>2013-05-20T20:55:45Z</updated>

    <summary>So the IRS admits that it has been targeting conservative groups for years. Duh? I was hit way back in 2009. Instead of griping about the past or hallucinating about impeaching President Obama, let&apos;s consider the best possible resolution for...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Michael Williams</name>
        <uri>http://www.mwilliams.info</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Politics, Government &amp; Public Policy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mwilliams.info/">
        <![CDATA[<p><br />So the IRS admits that it has been targeting conservative groups for years.  Duh?  I was hit way back in 2009.</p>

<p><iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/KTeuyormLSs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>

<p>Instead of griping about the past or hallucinating about impeaching President Obama, let's consider the best possible resolution for our country.  The power of the IRS wasn't abused because any of the actors in this scandal are particularly evil; they're just normal people doing what they think is "best".  Don't get me wrong -- no one behaved nobly, but their failings were well within the normal range of human behavior.</p>

<p>Unfortunately, and inevitably, vast power wielded for good intentions leads to bad results.  The people aren't the problem, not even the President.  They're no worse than average.  The problem is that the <em>tax system</em> is hopelessly twisted.  There's no way for a bureaucracy made of normal human beings to administer our tax system in a fair and just manner.  The system has too much complexity, too many purposes, too many rent-seekers, too much discretion, too many rules, too many holes, and too much history for anyone to expect it to function.</p>

<p>The solution is to execute the IRS.  Dissolve the entire organization, repeal all the tax laws, and start over with a blank slate.  A Flat Tax would be my preference, but it almost doesn't matter.  <em>Any new system would be better than what we've got right now.</em></p>

<p>The current scandal may have enough punch to penetrate the consciousness of the general public, which already has a low opinion of the IRS.  President Obama is popular and protected by the media, but more importantly he's <em>impotent</em> and he's <em>leaving office in a few years anyway</em>.  However much you dislike President Obama, don't worry, he won't be around much longer.  But the tax system will never die on it's own.  It will have to be killed.  Take this opportunity to strike at the heart of the Beast.</p>

<p>(And yes, this post makes me nervous.  If I attract the Beast's attention it could easily crush me.)</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Apollo Moon Mission: One-Page Contract?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2013/05/apollo-moon-mission-one-page-contract.php" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2013://5.28000</id>

    <published>2013-05-20T18:47:01Z</published>
    <updated>2013-05-20T18:48:38Z</updated>

    <summary>This morning I read that the government contract covering the Apollo moon missions was only one page long. I haven&apos;t yet been able to confirm or deny this claim. Can anyone find any facts on this matter?...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Michael Williams</name>
        <uri>http://www.mwilliams.info</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Random Musings" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mwilliams.info/">
        <![CDATA[<p><br />This morning I read that the government contract covering the Apollo moon missions was only one page long.  I haven't yet been able to confirm or deny this claim.  Can anyone find any facts on this matter?</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Word of the Day: Scandalabra</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2013/05/word-of-the-day-scandalabra.php" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2013://5.27999</id>

    <published>2013-05-18T23:45:52Z</published>
    <updated>2013-05-18T23:47:45Z</updated>

    <summary>Via John Avlon who uses the neologism to describe the collection of scandals enveloping Barack Obama: scandalabra. The latest non-Watergate to be labelled its second coming is actually a combination of three separate scandals afflicting the Barack Obama administration. The...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Michael Williams</name>
        <uri>http://www.mwilliams.info</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Humor" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mwilliams.info/">
        <![CDATA[<p><br />Via John Avlon who uses the neologism to describe the collection of scandals enveloping Barack Obama: <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10065801/American-Way-dont-impose-Watergate-on-the-scandals-facing-Obama-they-stand-on-their-own.html">scandalabra</a>.</p>

<blockquote>The latest non-Watergate to be labelled its second coming is actually a combination of three separate scandals afflicting the Barack Obama administration.

<p>The collective weight of this scandalabra threatens to derail the president's ambitious legislative agenda, dragging him to premature lame duck status. But it doesn't represent outright criminality emanating from the Oval Office or promise to provoke a constitutional crisis, however fervently Obama's critics might wish it.</blockquote></p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Missouri Legislature Sends &quot;Paycheck Protection&quot; Bill to Governor Nixon</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2013/05/missouri-legislature-sends-paycheck-protection-bill-to-governor-nixon.php" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2013://5.27997</id>

    <published>2013-05-14T15:01:33Z</published>
    <updated>2013-05-14T15:04:46Z</updated>

    <summary>The Missouri legislature has tried and failed to pass a right-to-work law for a while, but now they&apos;re sending a &quot;paycheck protection&quot; bill to Governor Nixon which would have a similar effect, though more limited. Nixon is likely to veto...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Michael Williams</name>
        <uri>http://www.mwilliams.info</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Politics, Government &amp; Public Policy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mwilliams.info/">
        <![CDATA[<p><br />The Missouri legislature has tried and failed to pass a right-to-work law for a while, but now they're sending a <a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/elizabeth-crisp/legislation-would-require-annual-consent-for-public-employees-union-dues/article_8499e734-cda2-5df3-97a1-d090ed17623d.html">"paycheck protection" bill to Governor Nixon</a> which would have a similar effect, though more limited.  Nixon is likely to veto the bill, and the Republican legislators don't appear to have enough votes to override a veto.</p>

<blockquote>But the legislation, which earned final approval at the Capitol on Monday, would require public employee unions to get consent every year from members before deducting fees from their paychecks. Additionally, the bill also would require such unions to get annual written permission from members before using those fees for political purposes. ...

<p>The measure passed the Republican-controlled House in an 85-69 vote -- well below the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto.</blockquote></p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Fastest-Growing Tech Hub for 2013: St. Louis!</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2013/05/fastest-growing-tech-hub-for-2013-st-louis.php" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2013://5.27996</id>

    <published>2013-05-14T14:51:00Z</published>
    <updated>2013-05-14T14:53:00Z</updated>

    <summary>As a St. Louis area resident this was a surprise to me: Dice.com has ranked St. Louis as the nation&apos;s fastest-growing tech hub! St. Louis - The Golden Arch - The number of St. Louis-based technology jobs posted on Dice...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Michael Williams</name>
        <uri>http://www.mwilliams.info</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Business &amp; Economics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="News" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mwilliams.info/">
        <![CDATA[<p><br />As a St. Louis area resident this was a surprise to me: <a href="http://media.dice.com/report/march-2013-tech-hubs-redefined/">Dice.com has ranked St. Louis as the nation's fastest-growing tech hub</a>!</p>

<blockquote>St. Louis - The Golden Arch - The number of St. Louis-based technology jobs posted on Dice jumped 25 percent year/year. And those new tech jobs are coming at a higher price tag too: average tech salaries are up 13 percent year/year to $81,245. Popular jobs? Developers, programmers and consultants. St. Louis is becoming a start-up town, with support from the St. Louis Information Technology Entrepreneur Network.</blockquote>

<p>Great news, since I plan to stay here for a while.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>How To Calculate Your Real Hourly Pay</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2013/05/how-to-calculate-your-real-hourly-pay.php" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2013://5.27995</id>

    <published>2013-05-13T19:58:19Z</published>
    <updated>2013-05-13T20:31:38Z</updated>

    <summary>You probably know how much you earn per hour gross, on paper. Even if you&apos;re salaried this is usually easy to calculate: take your annual salary and divide by 2,080 work-hours per year. But is that really what your hard...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Michael Williams</name>
        <uri>http://www.mwilliams.info</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Business &amp; Economics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mwilliams.info/">
        <![CDATA[<p><br />You probably know how much you earn per hour gross, on paper.  Even if you're salaried this is usually easy to calculate: take your annual salary and divide by 2,080 work-hours per year.  But is that really what your hard work is bringing home?  Not even close.  Here are some additional factors you need to put into your formula.</p>

<ul>
	<li>Taxes.  You only pay taxes because you have income, so they're a direct subtraction from your gross.</li>
	<li>Work-related expenses.  These are other expenses that you only pay because you're working.  Subtract these from your annual salary.  This category includes things like:</li>
<ul>
	<li>Child care</li>
	<li>Gas and depreciation on your car due to commuting</li>
	<li>Eating out at lunch</li>
	<li>Work clothes</li>
	<li>Lawn care or housekeeping that you pay someone else to do</li>
</ul>
	<li>Now increase the number of hours in your denominator from 2,080 by including the amount of non-paid time you spend on work.  This includes things like:</li>
<ul>
	<li>Getting dressed and prepped for work each morning</li>
	<li>Driving to and from work</li>
	<li>Dropping kids off and picking them up from childcare</li>
	<li>Time spent away from home due to work travel</li>
	<li>Unpaid overtime</li>
</ul></ul>

<p>Say you earn a great salary: $104,000 per year!  By normal calculation that would be $50/hour.  Not bad, right?  But let's incorporate some of the adjustments above.</p>

<ul>
	<li>Taxes: 15% for state and federal, since you probably have some deductions.  Could be higher. <strong>-$15,600</strong></li>
	<li>Work-related expenses:</li>
<ul>
	<li>Child care: $500/month (only one kid??)  <strong>-$6,000</strong></li>
	<li>Gas and car: $0.55/mile (national average) for <a href="http://www.reference.com/motif/sports/average-commute-in-miles-for-americans">16 miles</a> one-way is $17.60 per day, for 50 weeks per year.  <strong>-$4,400</strong></li>
	<li>Lunch: $30/week. <strong>-$1,500</strong></li>
	<li>Work clothes: Who knows... <strong>-$2,000</strong></li>
	<li>Lawn and housekeeping: You are cheap and do it yourself!</li>
</ul>
	<li>Work-related time:</li>
<ul>
	<li>Getting dressed and prepped for work: 30 minutes per day.  <strong>125 hours</strong></li>
	<li>Commuting: <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/05/americans-commutes-not-getting-longer/1963409/">25 minutes each way</a>.  <strong>208 hours</strong></li>
	<li>Child care driving: Who knows... 10 minutes per day.  <strong>42 hours</strong></li>
	<li>Work travel: Zero, right?</li>
	<li>Unpaid overtime: Zero, right?</li>
</ul>
</ul>

<p>So what's the net?  Actual annual pay: $74,500.  Actual work-related time cost: 2,455.  Actual pay per hour: <strong>$30.34</strong>.</p>

<p>If you make $52,000 salary per year and have similar expenses and time-sinks you might only be taking home $14/hour or less.</p>

<p>Please note that these calculations assume no unpaid overtime, no work travel, only one child in paid care, no reduction in income due to Social Security or Medicare, etc.  </p>

<p>So, how much do you enjoy your job now?</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>How To Prosper in Booms and Busts</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2013/05/how-to-prosper-in-booms-and-busts.php" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2013://5.27994</id>

    <published>2013-05-13T17:25:34Z</published>
    <updated>2013-05-13T18:24:40Z</updated>

    <summary>Mr. Money Mustache has an article about how to prosper in booms and busts that is interesting. I&apos;ll note a couple disagreements. In booms he suggests: Ratchet up your job. Earn more and save everything you can. Crap is overpriced...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Michael Williams</name>
        <uri>http://www.mwilliams.info</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Business &amp; Economics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mwilliams.info/">
        <![CDATA[<p><br />Mr. Money Mustache has an article about <a href="http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/05/07/how-to-prosper-in-an-economic-boom/">how to prosper in booms and busts</a> that is interesting.  I'll note a couple disagreements.</p>

<p>In booms he suggests:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Ratchet up your job.</li>
	<li>Earn more and save everything you can.  Crap is overpriced now, so don't buy much.  Downsize your house or move to a rental.</li>
	<li>Reduce exposure to equities and buy more bonds.  I don't agree with this, at least with regards to our current "boom".  Interest rates are far too low to buy bonds now.</li>
</ul>

<p>And in busts:</p>

<ul>
	<li>Basically hunker down in your job and be glad that you didn't overspend during the boom times.</li>
	<li>Upsize your house, if desired.  Buy rental property.</li>
	<li>Buy all the equities you can.</li>
</ul>

<p>Overall these are good tips, at least if you're planning to make it to the next end of the cycle. One of the main components that MMM neglects is the effect of inflation.  Inflation and interest rates are often not cyclical with booms and busts, and they can complicate all your rules-of-thumb.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Complaints From Bureaucrats Reassure Me That Waste Is Being Reduced</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2013/05/Complaints From Bureaucrats Reassure Me That Waste Is Being Reduced.php" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2013://5.27993</id>

    <published>2013-05-09T16:02:00Z</published>
    <updated>2013-05-09T16:13:55Z</updated>

    <summary>The ongoing sequestration has reduced federal spending by only about 3%, but since &quot;mandatory&quot; spending is exempt those cuts all come from &quot;discretionary&quot; spending. The cut to &quot;discretionary&quot; spending is somewhat less than 6%. Anyone who has managed a family...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Michael Williams</name>
        <uri>http://www.mwilliams.info</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Politics, Government &amp; Public Policy" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mwilliams.info/">
        <![CDATA[<p><br />The ongoing sequestration has reduced federal spending by only about 3%, but since "mandatory" spending is exempt those cuts all come from "discretionary" spending.  The cut to "discretionary" spending is somewhat less than 6%.  Anyone who has managed a family budget knows that cutting expenses by 6% is a walk in the park that should barely be noticed, and yet we're being flooded by <a href="http://ksmu.org/npr/furloughs-only-latest-blow-federal-worker-morale">doom and gloom from federal bureaucrats</a>.  I don't believe the complaints.</p>

<blockquote>Jenny Brown is in her 27th year as an examiner for the Internal Revenue Service, where she answers peoples' tax questions. The IRS is a major employer in Ogden, Utah, where Brown works, but her co-workers are getting fed up and leaving -- and they aren't being replaced.

<p>"We keep being told things like, 'Work smarter, not harder.' Or, 'Well, you're just going to have to do more with less,' " Brown says. "And there's only so much you can do."</p>

<p>As a result of understaffing, Brown says, wait times on the IRS hotline have quadrupled. And after more than an hour waiting on the phone, taxpayers get downright ornery.</blockquote></p>

<p>These effects sound like they're caused by a cut of more than 6%, so what's going on?  Presumably  Jenny Brown's office has been cut by more than 6% so that other spending could be protected.  I can see why that would frustrate her (and the taxpayers who require her services).  Perhaps her office's funding shouldn't have been cut so heavily, but from the outside it's hard to know.</p>

<p>However, as a taxpayer it's reassuring to me that the bureaucrats are being forced to make trade-offs.  If every bureaucrat was heavily funded and content then we'd know that waste was running rampant.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Retirement: It All Depends on Your Savings Rate</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2013/05/retirement-it-all-depends-on-your-savings-rate.php" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2013://5.27992</id>

    <published>2013-05-07T19:43:29Z</published>
    <updated>2013-05-07T19:55:03Z</updated>

    <summary>No matter how much or how little money you make each year, the date you&apos;ll be able to retire depends on only one number: the percentage of your take-home pay that you save. It&apos;s obvious, but the more you save...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Michael Williams</name>
        <uri>http://www.mwilliams.info</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Business &amp; Economics" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
        <category term="Life Stories" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mwilliams.info/">
        <![CDATA[<p><br />No matter how much or how little money you make each year, the date you'll be able to retire depends on only one number: the percentage of your take-home pay that you save.  It's obvious, but the more you save now the less you're spending.  Lower lifestyle expenses means that the amount you save will last you longer in your retirement.  Mr. Money Mustache has a handy chart to help you calculate <a href="http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/">how many years you'll have to work based on your savings rate</a>.</p>

<p>The key insight is worth repeating: frugality now gets you double benefits.  If you spend less now you will save more now, and your cost of living will be lower when you retire because you'll be used to frugal living.  Here's the chart:</p>

<p><img alt="retirement years.jpg" src="http://www.mwilliams.info/images/retirement%20years.jpg" width="482" height="636" class="mt-image-center" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0 auto 20px;" /></p>

<p>MMM saved 65% of his take-home pay and retired in around 10 years.  I'm not doing that well, but looking at this chart sure inspires me to save more.</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Is Psychiatry Medicine?</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2013/05/is-psychiatry-medicine.php" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2013://5.27991</id>

    <published>2013-05-04T13:17:53Z</published>
    <updated>2013-05-04T13:24:17Z</updated>

    <summary>Is psychiatry really medicine? Are the diseases in the DSM really scientific, or just fancy ways to describe self-evident symptoms? The American Psychiatric Association will release the fifth Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DSM-5, on May 22nd...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Michael Williams</name>
        <uri>http://www.mwilliams.info</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Science, Technology &amp; Health" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mwilliams.info/">
        <![CDATA[<p><br /><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/05/the-real-problems-with-psychiatry/275371/">Is psychiatry really medicine?</a>  Are the diseases in the DSM really scientific, or just fancy ways to describe self-evident symptoms?  The American Psychiatric Association will release the fifth Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, the DSM-5, on May 22nd and Gary Greenberg is an ardent critic who believes that most of psychiatry is just hand-waving nonsense.  One day we may understand the brain well enough to map some of these disorders onto observable biochemical conditions, but I bet that mapping won't look much like the DSM.</p>

<blockquote><strong>You're a practicing psychotherapist. Can you define "mental illness"?</strong>

<p>No. Nobody can.</p>

<p><strong>The DSM lists "disorders." How are disorders different from diseases or illnesses?</strong></p>

<p>The difference between disease and disorder is an attempt on the part of psychiatry to evade the problem they're presented with. Disease is a kind of suffering that's caused by a bio-chemical pathology. Something that can be discovered and targeted with magic bullets. But in many cases our suffering can't be diagnosed that way. Psychiatry was in a crisis in the 1970s over questions like "what is a mental illness?" and "what mental illnesses exist?" One of the first things they did was try to finesse the problem that no mental illness met that definition of a disease. They had yet to identify what the pathogen was, what the disease process consisted of, and how to cure it. So they created a category called "disorder." It's a rhetorical device. It's saying "it's sort of like a disease," but not calling it a disease because all the other doctors will jump down their throats asking, "where's your blood test?" The reason there haven't been any sensible findings tying genetics or any kind of molecular biology to DSM categories is not only that our instruments are crude, but also that the DSM categories aren't real. It's like using a map of the moon to find your way around Russia. ...</p>

<p>It's circular -- thinking that anybody who commits suicide is depressed; anybody who goes into a school with a loaded gun and shoots people must have a mental illness.</blockquote></p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>Generosity Experiment</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2013/05/generosity-experiment.php" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2013://5.27990</id>

    <published>2013-05-03T16:46:55Z</published>
    <updated>2013-05-03T16:49:25Z</updated>

    <summary>A brilliant generosity experiment conducted by a homeless man who asks &quot;which religion cares most about the homeless&quot;? A collection of labeled bowls reveals the results! A smart way to exert social pressure to collect money. (HT: Boing Boing.)...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Michael Williams</name>
        <uri>http://www.mwilliams.info</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Society &amp; Culture" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mwilliams.info/">
        <![CDATA[<p><br />A brilliant generosity experiment conducted by a homeless man who asks "which religion cares most about the homeless"?  A collection of labeled bowls reveals the results!  A smart way to exert social pressure to collect money.</p>

<p><img alt="begging-experiment.jpg" src="http://www.mwilliams.info/images/begging-experiment.jpg" width="500" height="477" class="mt-image-center" style="text-align: center; display: block; margin: 0 auto 20px;" /></p>

<p>(HT: <a href="http://boingboing.net/2013/05/01/homeless-mans-ab-test-of-ge.html">Boing Boing</a>.)</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

<entry>
    <title>New Comment System, Try It Out!</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.mwilliams.info/archive/2013/05/new-comment-system-try-it-out.php" />
    <id>tag:www.mwilliams.info,2013://5.27989</id>

    <published>2013-05-03T16:08:04Z</published>
    <updated>2013-05-03T16:09:31Z</updated>

    <summary>I just installed the Disqus comment system on my blog. I think it&apos;s far superior to the basic Movable Type system that was in place. Please leave a comment and test it out!...</summary>
    <author>
        <name>Michael Williams</name>
        <uri>http://www.mwilliams.info</uri>
    </author>
    
        <category term="Site Information" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
    
    
    <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://www.mwilliams.info/">
        <![CDATA[<p><br />I just installed the Disqus comment system on my blog.  I think it's far superior to the basic Movable Type system that was in place.  Please leave a comment and test it out!</p>]]>
        
    </content>
</entry>

</feed>
