Minimum Wage Part VII: Powerball

Odds to win the Powerball: 

1 in 175,223,510 

(1.75 x 10⁸)

Odds to pick the ideal combination of public assistance programs among 126 federally funded programs: 

1 in 85,070,591,730,234,600,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 

(8.50 x 10³⁷)

Disclaimer:

Unlike the Powerball where one either wins or loses, there are many combinations of antipoverty programs that may produce results close to the ideal (normal distribution). While the Powerball analogy is imperfect, I hope it highlights the problem of choosing which combination to implement.

Michael Tanner cites 126 federal public assistance programs received $668 billion in 2011. Individual states spent an additional $284 billion dollars funding public assistance programs.

Updated spending from fiscal year 2014 estimates >$1400 billion were spent by the federal government on public assistance programs.

• Includes Social Security and Medicare
• Estimated $880 billion was spent on public assistance excluding Social Security and Medicare
• Source: Christopher Chantrill at usgovernmentspending.com

As detailed previously, I believe current poverty alleviation efforts, including minimum wage, are failing. See:

• Minimum Wage Parts I - VII
• Unemployment Assistance Parts I - VII
• Food Assistance Parts I - II
• Private Charities Parts I - V

To preface, I hold the following assumptions:

1. There is no perfect public assistance system
• All systems and approaches have benefits and drawbacks
2. One size does not fit all
• What works for one community may not work in another
3. Individuals have various definitions of success
4. Systems cannot replace individual integrity, character, or morality
5. One cannot have freedom without personal responsibility

With such an overwhelming number of choices before us, is there any way to increase the chances of selecting an ideal system? Going back to the Powerball, one can increase their chances of winning the jackpot by purchasing additional tickets.

The same mindset could be employed in choosing antipoverty programs. Rather than our current system of the federal government picking a single combination, what if local communities and states were free to choose their own combinations? This would allow for multiple "tickets" (or combinations) to be tried simutaneously thereby increasing the odds of finding a successful combination.

As prefaced, individuals have various definitions of success. I define success as citizens making well informed decisions through a fuller understanding of what they are sacrificing (schools, roads, law enforcement, etc.) to obtain additional public assistance provision.

To optimize the path to “success”, I support the handing of public assistance provision from the federal government to states, and ideally to local communities. Currently the federal government provides ~70% of public assistance funding and states provide ~30%. Seeing this reversed could serve as an initial benchmark. As I believe all systems have benefits and drawbacks, I see the following with making states and local communities the primary source of public assistance program funding:

Potential Benefits -

1. Local communities are unable to hide the true cost of public assistance programs through hidden inflationary taxes under the auspices of the Federal Reserve. 
• Communities and states are required to have a balanced budget or risk bankruptcy (Detroit). This enables elected officials and citizens to fully realize the true cost of public assistance funding (less funding to schools, roads, public services, etc.).
2. Multiple combinations/systems may be simultaneously implemented.
• As with purchasing additional Powerball tickets, by shifting the implementation primarily to states and local communities, we increase the number of systems being tried. The worst will be discarded and the best adopted by other communities.
3. Communities are free to tailor public assistance to their unique needs
• Moves away from the one size fits all approach
4. Local citizens have greater influence in the decision making process and their vote does not get lost in the ocean of millions of others.
5. Less political gridlock and red tape.
• Local officials have numerous political hurdles and barriers removed to pass reform.

Potential Drawbacks -

1. Some communities may have insufficient resources to adequately fund public assistance programs
• I believe this was a greater concern when relocation and transportation was more difficult. Please see Private Charities Part V for additional information.
• I also suggest this may result in a spreading of assistance as those in need would relocate to areas with greater assistance and decrease the rise of impoverished communities.
2. Increased costs
• Centralizing and standardizing processes typically leads to decreased costs (especially administrative costs).
• I would suggest the increased costs may lead to greater effectiveness for the reasons cited above.

Increased complexity

• Our current public assistance system is already extremely complex. Decentralizing and removing current standardization will likely increase the complexity of antipoverty systems, especially if one chooses to relocate to another location.
• As with increased costs, I would suggest overall effectiveness has been sacrificed to reduce complexity.

Increased risk for corruption

• Local communities may have fewer safeguards in place to prevent the abuse and misuse of public funds compared to a federal system.
• I would suggest while the frequency of corruption may be higher, the rewards would be much less. No longer would all the eggs be in one basket.
• In addition, local communities would be able to more quickly vote corrupted officials out of office compared to the sluggishness of the federal government.
• Again, systems cannot replace individual integrity, character, and morality.

This concludes my series on minimum wage. While I do not believe minimum wage accomplishes its intended goal, I applaud the cities of Seattle and Oakland for exercising their freedom to increase their precinct’s minimum wage without waiting for the federal government.

As the original founding fathers and colonies supported, I believe the potential benefits of a limited central government emphasizing individual freedom rather than forced support outweigh the potential drawbacks. I leave you with the position statement of the Republican Liberty Caucus whom I believe summarize this view well:

• WHEREAS libertarian Republicans believe in limited government, individual freedom and personal responsibility; 
• WHEREAS we believe that government has no money nor power not derived from the consent of the people; 
• WHEREAS we believe that people have the right to keep the fruits of their labor; and 
• WHEREAS we believe in upholding the U. S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land;

Be it resolved the Republican Liberty Caucus endorses the following [among its] principles 5.0 Welfare:

• 5.1 The US Department of Health and Human Services should be abolished, leaving decision making on welfare and related matters at the state, local or personal level. All Americans have the right to keep the fruits of their labor to support themselves, their families and whatever charities they so choose, without interference from the federal government.

Next Post Topic: Fantasy Football 2015 Recap

Minimum Wage Part VI: Blind Dart Throwers

While blindly throwing darts at moving targets may make for an exciting (albeit dangerous) personal hobby, it is a destructive practice the federal government uses when enacting anti-poverty programs.

Success is frequently ill-defined and continually redefined. Such ambiguity creates a moving target politicians haphazardly throw poverty reduction programs at, often resulting in collateral damage.

In 2012, Michael Tanner with the CATO Institute found the federal government alone has at least 126 anti-poverty programs. Furthermore, Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield with The Heritage Foundation found since 1964, $22 trillion have been spent on anti-poverty measures by federal and state governments (2012 dollars). Furthermore, this $22 trillion excludes Medicare, Social Security, and measures such as minimum wage which is primarily paid for by consumers rather than direct government expenditures.

That’s a lot of darts… Especially considering $22 trillion is more than 3x the amount of money (clearly not human life and disabilities) of all military wars in U.S. history since the American Revolution in 1775.


Today, minimum wage is the anti-poverty drum of choice. Following Tuesday's elections, four states (Alaska, Arkansas, Nebraska, and South Dakota) easily passed legislation increasing minimum wage. It is anticipated more states, cities, and perhaps the nation will follow.

Please read previous posts for a complete understanding of why I see a need for alternatives to minimum wage legislation:

• Minimum Wage Part I: For and Against
• Minimum Wage Part II: Cited Effects
• Minimum Wage Part III: American Samoa, The Face of Minimum Wage, and Sound Cited Effects
• Minimum Wage Part IV: Uncle Rico, Buzz Lightyear, and Questionable Claims

Disclaimer: I have moved from minimum wage to poverty alleviation efforts as I believe minimum wage proponent’s actual desire is to eliminate poverty and increase prosperity rather than to simply see wages rise. Proponents desire an increase in standards of living which they see being achieved through wage increases.

In the midst of a multiyear recession, the call for poverty alleviation resonates loudly. While I desire increased long term prosperity for all (Part I), I believe minimum wage has few benefits to those it is intended to help (Part V). Having a lack of faith in minimum wage, my search for alternative poverty alleviation measures yielded numerous other programs including: 

• Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), Child Tax Credit (CTC), negative income tax, guaranteed basic income, public work programs, public funded training/education programs, targeted credits/subsidies (food assistance, housing assistance, medical assistance), private charity efforts, and others.

Of the many poverty alleviation programs, is there an ideal program or magical combination that will lead to success? Is there a way to discover what program(s) to promote other than blindly throwing darts at a moving target? I encourage you to read the books How Helping Hurts and The Tragedy of American Compassion for further insights into reducing poverty.

It is said the poor will always be with us. Will we choose to continue the status quo of hundreds of programs and trillions of dollars with limited success? Or will we choose to change our approach to poverty? Next post, I will share my convictions on how to improve our approach to reducing poverty.

Next Post: Minimum Wage Part VII: Chaos in the States

Minimum Wage Part V: The Titanic Meets Minimum Wage

The majority believed the Titanic was unsinkable. The majority also believes the potential benefits of minimum wage outweigh the potential drawbacks. Will minimum wage, like the Titanic, hit a proverbial hidden iceberg causing grave injuries?

• Disclaimer
• The Titanic was a sudden tragic disaster. It is not my intent to diminish or minimize the catastrophe in any way. I am suggesting a similar, albeit slower and less grotesque, tragedy of pain and suffering is occurring to millions of individuals and families struggling to persevere through America’s Great Recession.

After detailing cited effects of minimum wage legislation, it is time to contemplate the question of who benefits and who is harmed by minimum wage laws.

Please do not short circuit a thorough understanding of minimum wage effects. It is important you understand why there is support and opposition to increase the minimum wage. Much has been written about the perceived effects of minimum wage and Part II includes a list of articles: 

• Minimum Wage Part I: For and Against
• Minimum Wage Part II: Cited Effects
• Minimum Wage Part III: American Samoa, The Face of Minimum Wage, and Sound Cited Effects
• Minimum Wage Part IV: Uncle Rico, Buzz Lightyear, and Questionable Claims

Prior to any discussion, it is critical to understand the assumptions thoughts are built upon.

• Assumption #1: Minimum wage has been set above the market wage in certain occupations
• A minimum wage below market wages has no effect. For example, applying a minimum wage of $10 an hour to neurosurgeons will affect nothing. (other than wasting tax payer resources paying officials to enact a useless law)
• Assumption #2: Long term, sustainable growth is preffered
• Prosperity can also be short circuited resulting in immediate gains at the expense of long term, sustained growth and prosperity.
• Assumption #3: I am for increased prosperity for all (including equal treatment of all ages, genders, race, income status, etc.)

Who Benefits?

1. Politicians
• Gain votes by giving people what they are asking for (minimum wage) instead of what they truly desire (increased prosperity).
2. Foreign Countries
• Increasing production/service costs at home increase the competitiveness of other countries who enter the market (China, India, Mexico, SE Asia).
• Tariffs are the next peddled action, but tariffs hurt all of America by forcing us to buy higher priced, poorer quality goods and services (in terms of subjective value).
3. Some low wage workers
• Benefits workers who receive a wage increase who otherwise would not have (assuming their work hours are maintained)
• Macpherson and Evans found ~2/3 minimum wage workers received a raise within one year. Thus ~1/3 of low wage workers who retain prior levels of employment and hours may benefit from minimum wage increases after 1 year.
• These findings do depend on the level minimum wage

Who is Hurt?

1. Middle class
• Receive none of the benefits (increased wages) yet pay a large share of the costs (higher product and service costs). A double whammy.
2. Low wage workers
• While some will benefit, more will find it increasingly difficult to find long-term employment (see Part III).
• Companies will choose to take business overseas 
• Some find this unpatriotic, however often the choice becomes move the business or go out of business. I’m not sure it is patriotic to shut down business entirely.
• Low wage workers will bear the brunt of increased consumer prices. They both consume a greater percentage of low cost goods and services compared to the middle and upper class, and have less discretionary income to cover the increased costs.
3. Upper class (least affected)
• While they will pay increased consumer costs, they consume less low end products than the lower and middle class. In addition they are able to withstand increases in consumer prices more than low and middle class workers due to greater incomes.
4. Domestic Producers
• Less able to compete in the global marketplace
5. Economy
• GDP will likely fall due to less production occurring at home secondary to businesses moving operations to foreign countries.
6. Law abiding citizens
• Favors under the table cash payments which hurts job prospects and increases the tax burden of law abiding citizens.

Good intentions have no guarantee to produce desired outcomes. While I believe many passionate and well-meaning individuals support increases in minimum wage, I believe it will fail to produce their desired results. 

As some Titanic passengers found safety in lifeboats, some will escape increases in minimum wages unscathed. However, I believe more will find themselves fighting for economic survival rather than floating safely in a lifeboat.

Next Post: Minimum Wage Alternatives

Fantasy Football 2014: Draft Recap

A fantasy football draft is akin to building a house and the season a time of weathering. Time will tell if I built a house of straw, sticks, or bricks. My initial impression is my planning, preparation, and discipline enabled me to build a brick house to endure the winds of injuries, suspensions, depth chart changes, and a world of unknowns.

Please refer to Draft Prep for league details and draft strategy.

LDF -

Overall: A

• Missed on Brandon Cooks

Individual Picks: A-

• Minor mistake in round 10 (Cooks)

Team: A-

• A little too much risk with young RBs

Good:

• First 7 rounds went as good as could be expected
• Pulled trigger on Patterson at 37 overall.
• Patterson highlights the need to know your league’s scoring system. I see lots of mediocre WRs between picks 30 and 60. This league is non-ppr, gives points for kickoff returns and punt returns, and allows for 2 keepers per year. All of these factors increase Patterson’s value.
• Took value when it fell to me (Brady at 79 overall)
• Solid RB core with Ball, Ellington, and Jennings

Bad:

• Took Mark Ingram (who I like) rather than Brandon Cooks (who I really like). The points for return yards and keeper potential make Cooks a better option at 109.

Ugly:

• Teams left without RBs
• 1 team forced to start Sankey with no third. Another starting Lamar Miller with no backup (prior to Moreno injury), a third team starting Joique Bell with Mike Tolbert as third
• I have Heath Miller as my TE. I would have preferred better, however, I made the decision to trade for one later
• Out of my control but I lost Andre Williams as a handcuff to Jennings prior to my pick at 108

Final thoughts:

• Lots of risk in unknown players: Ball, Ellington, Patterson, Rashad Jennings  
• I need to remember the majority of people take a backup TE and take my starting TE earlier in the draft

Bemidji -

Overall: A+

• Stacked team. I will be shocked if I don’t make the playoffs. I anticipate a 55% win rate in non-bye weeks and a 60% win rate during bye weeks as my bench is amazing (Ellington, Rashad Jennings, Michael Floyd, Wright, Pierre Thomas)

Individual Picks: A+

• Limiting to factors in my control, I would not have done a single pick different.

Team: A+

• Difference makers in Calvin, Dez, Murray, Stafford, and Gronk. Additionally, I have a very deep bench that should allow me to make and have a small edge in the playoffs.

Good

• Every pick starting in round 7 (overall pick 53) I was saying, “how in the world is this player still here.”
• Gronk, Brady, Ellington, Michael Floyd, Kendall Wright, Pierre Thomas, Golden Tate, Rashad Jennings, Roethlisberger, Cooks

Bad

• Inaugural year of the league. Rule voting left rosters with only 1 flex position (rather than 2). A meager 72 skill position players (QB, RB, WR) are started each week. This means every team is stacked to some degree.
• Lots of overlapping players – 3 patriots, 2 Lions, 2 NYG, 2 Cardinals, 2 Cowboys
• Fortunately none of these teams share bye weeks

Ugly

• 6 kickers taken before the final 2 rounds
• Too many good players left on the waiver wire will bail out the teams who drafted poorly
• Kelvin Benjamin, Reuban Randle, Sankey, Steven Jackson, Carlos Hyde, Justin Hunter, Boykin
• After the first 2 weeks does not seem many of these are that great…
• Although more on the wire: Gerhart, Terrance West, Bernard Pierce, Lamar Miller, Zac Stacey, Jeremy Hill
• Someone dropped T.Y. Hilton who is tied for 5th in targets after week 2. As much as I like Cooks, I had to drop Cooks to pickup Hilton.

Final Thoughts

• 1 pick away from landing Antonio Brown at pick 28 (4th round) 
• Taking Stafford at 21 overall (3rd round) was my least favorite selection. Part of me wishes I went Antonio Brown. I could have chosen to roll the dice with Brown and hoped Stafford fell back to me. I will never know. I think Stafford was the safer pick rather than going 3 straight WRs (consistent with valuing flexibility as discussed in Draft Prep). 
• Taking Stafford still allows me to rotate Cruz, Michael Floyd, Wright, and Golden Tate in my WR3 and Flex position.

While I felt and still feel great about my drafts, results after 2 weeks have been okay:

Overall Record: 2-2

• Bemidji League: 1-1
• Week 1: Scored 188 points, second most in the league and lost.
• Week 2: Scored 147 points, 4/8 in the league and won thanks in large part to opposing team having both Charles and A.J. Green who were injured
• LDF: 1-1
• Week 1: Won my LDF league by scoring 116.5 points (3/12 teams in total points).
• Week 2: Put up 64 points, the least in the league...

Although I am off to an okay start, there are many more weeks and headlines to shake things up. I anticipate my deep benches will allow me to hit my stride during the 9 weeks teams have their bye weeks and will reveal who has houses built of straw, sticks, or bricks.

Next Post Topic: Minimum Wage Part V: Politicians, Middle Class, and Foreigners

Fantasy Football 2014: Draft Prep

Westbrook kneels at 1 yard line

As in Dungeons and Dragons, fantasy football is not much more than random rolls of the dice. Amongst injuries, suspensions, dog houses (Ridley), poor performances, kneeling at 1 yard line (Westbrook), early TD celebrations (D-Jax), garbage time statistics, and on and on and on. No one knows with what will happen in fantasy football.

• 2013 Exampes: Ray Rice, Doug Martin, C.J. Spiller, Trent Richardson, Josh Gordon, Zac Stacey, Alshon Jeffrey, Julius Thomas, Keenan Allen

How do we navigate a minefield filled with gems? With knowledge, a plan, and intentionality. Similar to Draft Prep 2013 and Draft Prep 2012, I will outline:

• General strategy
• Goals
• League Overviews and Plan
• Player Valuations
• tldr

General Strategy

Unless otherwise noted, I assume a 10 or 12 team 

league with standard roster sizes and scoring systems.

• Quarterbacks
• I find myself waiting to draft a QB until greater than overall pick 100
• I see little difference between QB 4 and QB 14 (Rivers). I want to draft the 10-14th QB off the board, not the 5-7th.
• I will take a top 3 QB after my top 3 WRs and 5 RBs
• Thus, the earliest I would take a QB would be pick 9.

• Tight Ends
• Unless you have more confidence than me on a breakout TE, I suggest waiting on a TE
• I am confident starting Zach Erzt, Dennis Pitta, Greg Olsen, and Heath Miller as late round TEs leading me to wait even further to draft a TE
• After Graham and Thomas, I have no idea what the rest of the TE ranks will be at the end of the season
• Graham is a stud and I rank him after my top 5 RBs, top 3 WRs and top 3 QBs in a non-ppr, 6 point passing TD league (earliest being 12th overall). In a ppr league or 4 point per passing TD leagues, I suggest taking Graham before the big 3 QBs (or as early as 9th overall).
• Rational
• I think the top 3 QBs can give you 1000 yards and 10 TDs more than replacement which is 100 points. Graham can give you 550 yards and 5 TDs which is 90 points. This makes QBs better, with exception of ppr or 4 point per passing TD leagues where graham will pick up another 20-30 points on his replacement players and/or QBs will only being 80 points better than replacement.
• I like J. Thomas with Decker leaving. However it is difficult for me to warrant getting him around 30th overall. I would be more excited to get him around pick 50.
• I am not touching Gronk unless it’s the 50th+ pick. Even if he does play please remember he is coming off of an ACL tear in week 14.

• Running Backs
• I rarely like my mock drafts unless I have a clear #1 RB. My last #1 RB is Le’Veon Bell being drafted at #18 overall. Morris or Martin my be a low end #1, however I am not excited about these two.
• There are a lot of RB fliers, but the last RB I would be comfortable starting week 1 is Rashad Jennings/Gerhart being drafted at 55 overall on CBS ADP
• This means I plan to get RBs early and often
• Other potential backs are Joique Bell, Richardson, Ben Tate, Steven Jackson, Pierre Thomas
• All backs I forsee being startable by midseason. I am not confident at this time to start them week 1 though (exception being Tate who is a ticking time bomb with injuries)

• Wide Receivers
• I want one of my top 8 (ending with Brown), followed by 2 more in the top 60. The last WR I am excited about starting in week 1 is Michael Floyd being drafted at 62 overall.
• There are a lot of WRs I am excited about between picks 70 and 110, but I prefer to watch and wait on these rather than start them week 1.
• Torrey Smith, Colston, Tate, Maclin, Kendall Wright, Terrance Williams, Eric Decker, Riley Cooper, Reuben Randle

• Positional Recap
• I want at least 3 RBs and 3 WRs in the first 60 overall picks. I also like the values of WRs between picks 70 and 110. Therefore, I find myself ignoring QBs/TEs and drafting A LOT of RBs/WRs.
• In my last mock draft, my first 10 picks were RBs/WRs. I then took Romo and Ertz with my next 2 picks. I have no regrets rounding out my team with Romo and Ertz and love the rest of my team.

• I minimize risk early and gradually increase my risk tolerance as the draft progress
• I believe as Matthew Berry states, "You can’t win your draft in the first few round but you can definitely lose it."
• I stick with safety early and shoot for high risk, high reward in the middle and end of the draft

• Flexibility
• There is a balance between having flexibility and taking the best value player.
• I prefer to keep as balanced as roster as possible. It is frustrating when a great value RB falls to you in the 5th round, but you have taken 3 RBs and 1 WR. 

• Know what positions you can get where
• I know RB falls off a cliff after pick 55. I love the top 8 WRs, however I believe there is good value at WR in the 50-60 range (Cruz, White, Floyd, Garcon) and good flier WRs between 70-110
• After pick 25 there is a notable falloff in both RB and WR safe picks. IMO there are safe QB and TE picks much later (> pick 100)
• As is common, I will select a DST and K in last two rounds of my draft

Goals

1. Make playoffs in all leagues
2. Have a 59% overall win rate amongst all leagues (16-11 combined regular season record for 2 leagues)
3. Finish in the top half of each league with median total weekly points
• Head to head leagues favor consistency more than extreme highs and lows. Median is a better measure of consistency than mean.

League Overviews and Detailed Plans -

LDF Warhawks: 12 team, 2 keeper, standard scoring (6 points per passing TD) with 8 teams making playoffs; low competition

• Due to the low competition I am more willing to take fliers on late season bloomers (Gronk and Gordon last year). This year I probably value Sankey, Monte Ball, Ray Rice, Lamar Miller. Basically anyone that may start slow but end strong.

Ended last year winning the regular season at 9-4

• Many good players with Megatron, Demaryius, Josh Gordon, Zac Stacey, and Monte Ball
• Traded D. Thomas to move up 30 draft picks ranging from 85 overall to 55 overall
• Traded Zac Stacey to move from 36 to 33 and 66 to 57

Draft picks: 33, 37, 55, 57, 60, 79, 108, 109, 132, 133, 156, 157, 180, 181

• 33 – Best Case: Antonio Brown; 2nd: Andre Ellington; 3rd: Alshon Jeffery
• 37 – Best: Andre Ellington; 2nd: Patterson; 3rd: Andre Johnson
• I value Patterson higher due to receiving 1 point for every 25 kickoff return yards (Patterson had 1300+ last year), keeper potential, and liking the WRs with my 3 picks at 55, 57, and 60
• 55, 57, 60 – Best Case: Jennings/Gerhart/Vereen, Floyd, White
• Need a 3/4 or 4/3 split of RBs/WRs
• 79 – Terrance Williams, Golden Tate
• 108, 109 – Best: Romo/Ryan/Brady and TE (Olsen, Ertz)
• If Health Miller and Zach Ertz are both on the board, I may hurt myself here and wait on a TE by grabbing Rueban Randle
• Last 4 picks: RB and WR Fliers: Cooks, Cooper, Greene, Bryce Brown, Doug Baldwin, Kelvin Benjamin, Boykin, Hunter

Concluding Thoughts -

• I need to leave my flex open for my 3 picks between 55 and 60 (which will likely decide the outcome of my year). I will be hoping to get Andre Ellington at 33 or 37 and take a WR with my other pick. This will leave me a 2/2 split of RBs/WRs allowing me great flexibility for my 55, 57, and 60 picks.
• At 79 I may be looking Pitta if no one else is available (Williams, Tate) and then at 108 going QB and Rueben Randle.

Bemidji: 8 team, 1 ppr, 2 QB (4 points per passing TD) with 4 teams making playoffs; 6/10 competition

• Starting Rosters: 2 QB, 2 RB, 3 WR, 1 Flex, 1 TE; I will not know my pick until ~15 minutes prior to draft
• I originally had 2 Flex positions to further increase the value of RB/WR, however this was voted down to 1 Flex position which additionally decreases RB values

General Notes -

• RBs have very depressed value with 8 less starting week and ppr adding viable backs in Vereen, Pierre Thomas, CJ0k, and potentially Joique Bell, Sproles, Spiller, Jennings, Gerhart
• I plan to have 1 solid starter ending with Ellington
• QB values go up marginally overall compared to standard leagues. Due to their consistency I bump them up further than their actual value increase. There are 16 QBs I feel comfortable starting week 1 and Palmer is my #17 QB. I plan to have 3 of my top 17 QBs.
• General Draft Strategy
• Early Rounds: After 4 picks I want as many difference makers (top 3 RBs, 3 QBs, 1 TE, 8 WRs) as possible and a RB no worse than Ellington (see rankings below)
• RB: 1 early, 2nd once RBs start thinning out (typically around pick 40), 3rd and 4th I will wait as long as possible before ending with Pierre Thomas, Rashad Jennings, Toby Gerhart, Spiller, Richardson, Ray Rice (typically very late, around pick 85)
• I have 30 RBs I am comfortable starting and need minimum of 3 with hope to have 4
• WR: I plan to get 2 of my top 8 WRs then grab as many as possible after I secure my 2nd RB and 2 QBs (typically after pick 55 through the end of the draft)
• QBs: Depending on how fast QBs are taken, I anticipate getting my 2nd QB between picks 50 and 60.
• I plan to have Brady, Romo, Ryan as my QB2
• TE: Unless I get Graham I do not plan to draft a TE until after pick 120
• Early Rankings -


1. Peterson
2. McCoy
3. Charles
4. Calvin Johnson
5. Dez Bryant
6. Deymarius Thomas
7. Forte
8. Graham
9. Brees
10. Manning
11. Rodgers
12. Lacey
13. Ball
14. Murray
15. Green
16. Julio Jones
17. Marshall
18. Brown
19. Nelson
20. Bernard
21. Le'Veon Bell
22. Lynch
23. Martin
24. Foster
25. Ellington
26. Cobb
27. Jeffrey
28. Stafford
29. Vereen?

Final Plan -

• Draft Position: 5 (5, 12, 21, 28, 37, 44, ect.)
• Randomly drew the 3rd position. I did not want to take a RB with first pick. I hastily made the first trade of the season by swapping draft orders with the 5th overall pick.
• Initial Plan
• Follow rankings above. I anticipate I will end up with Calvin Johnson or Dez Bryant at 5 and then I will be in agony hoping a player outside my top 11 is taken to guarantee me a 2nd stud (top 3 RBs, 3 WRs, 1 TE, and 3 QBs).
• If I don't get a QB at the 12th overall pick I will be looking for 1 more WR and my first RB. After that it's all about value :)

Player Valuations -

Highly subjective. These are based on a 10-12 team league standard league with 6 points per passing TD. Notes have been made for ppr. I initially reviewed the ADP charts of ESPN and CBS on 8/12/14. My rankings reflect this. Of note I believe CBS rankings as of this posting are excellent.

2013 Review -

• Undervalued:
• Hit on 5, missed on 7, wash on 1 (Sanders)
• Overvalued
• Hit on 8, missed on 1, wash on 1 (Witten)
• Sleepers
• Hit on 2, missed on 8

As I only have 1 year of data, I am unsure of how successful to consider my 2013 player valuations. On the surface it appears I am very good at identifying overvalued players, decent at discovering undervalued players, and middle of the road at finding sleepers.

2014 Valuations (8/12/14) - 

Format:

• Player Name (CBS/ESPN Average Draft Position (##/##)
• Notes
• I would take ahead/behind: ____________

Overvalued -

• Peyton Manning (5/4)
• There are too many good WRs and RBs in the first 9 picks for me to get Manning or other QBs before pick 9
• I typically am favorable to taking a QB early, however the difference between the top 3 and 9-12, while still substantial, may be less than ever before.
• Forte, Lacey, Calvin, Dez, Demaryius, Graham
• Julius Thomas, TE (31/25)
• I like Thomas as the #2 TE, but there are too many players of other positions I would rather have
• Antonio Brown, Cobb, Ellington
• Gronk (26/31)
• Simply too risky for my blood anymore. Coming off knee and back injuries (ACL in Week 14 last year) I question if he will return to his pre-injury form.
• I still have him as my #3 TE
• See Julius Thomas
• Andrew Luck (52/36)
• QB is too deep this year
• Ellington, Gerhart, Jennings, Andre, Keenan Allen
• Gore (46/38)
• His touches will be limited. Not much tread left on his tires
• Jennings, Gerhart, Vereen 
• Zac Stacey (25/18)
• Upside is too limited given risk of low floor. Young player, not exactly sure what I'm getting. I advocate avoiding risky picks in the first 2 rounds.
• Morris, Bernard, Ellington
• Keenan Allen (42/47)
• I like the player and his ADP is close. This is mostly a ranking of seeing other WRs also being undervalued around him and a limited body of evidence with an offensive coordinator change.
• Roddy White, Cruz, Crabtree
• Sammy Watkins (86/74)
• Rookie, no QB, run first team
• Almost anyone. I'm not convinced Watkins is draftable.

Undervalued -

• Roddy White (53/48)
• Falcons line improved, healthy, large body of evidence supporting White as a high caliber receiver
• D-Jax, Garcon, Allen
• Michael Floyd (63/70)
• 1000+ yard receiver as a sophomore receiver. Second year in Arians' system. I think his 1000 yard, 5 TD 2013 campaign is his floor
• Hilton, Edelman, TEs, QBs
• Gerhart (35/62)
• Again, CBS is good here, ESPN at 62 is crazy, especially if you are in a ppr league
• RBs are thin, you need to get 3 quality RBs and Gerhart is a great low end 2nd or high end 3rd
• Gore, Tate, Matthews, Spiller, lots of WRs
• Pierre Thomas (86/79)
• 77 receptions last year, no Sproles...
• Sankey, Steven Jackson, Ridley, TEs, QBs
• QBs in the 9-14 range
• I don't care who falls here, but whoever does will be a great value on draft day. I especially like Brady/Romo/Ryan
• The 5th through 8th QBs off the board
• Terrance Williams (96/85)
• #2 WR in an offense that may though > 650 times, I am buying
• Wayne, Boldin, Wallace
• Andre Ellington (30/50)
• High talent, in line for lots of touches. 30 is a fair valuation, 50 is drastically too low
• Matthews, Ben Tate, Gore, lots of WRs
• Dez Bryant (17/16)
• High floor and high ceiling. See Terrance Williams.
• #3 WR for me. I have as a top 11 selection
• Decker (96/85)
• Geno Smith has improved. Someone has to catch the ball. Once they get in the red zone he is their best target
• Wayne, Maclin, Welker
• Torrey Smith (72/73)
• Welker, Edelman, Harvin

Sleepers -

• Bryce Brown
• Chances either Spiller or Jackson gets hurt?
• Rudolph
• Norv Turner with an improved offense
• Randle
• #2 WR in a West Coast offense w/o a TE. Biggest red zone threat for the NYG.
• Heath Miller
• Healed from injuries, Pit lost Emmanuel Sanders and Cotchery, they are going to pass
• Justin Hunter
• Sophomore WR with great offensive coordinator and has looked good in the preseason
• Lots of rookie RBs
• Hyde, West, Andre Williams
• Baldwin
• Tate gone, Seattle will limit Lynch's carriers
• Brandon Cooks
• Down Lance Moore. Colston is an injury risk. I think locked in as #2 or #3 WR in the Saints offense. I like the potential opportunity.
• Boykin
• If Nelson or Cobb gets nicked up. Plus the #3 WR for GB in absence of a TE could be good this year as well.
• Zach Ertz – 
• Eagles have to replace D-Jax. I don't trust Maclin or Cooper. I see a lot of McCoy and Ertz this year.

tldr: Have a flexible plan. Know your draft board including who to target where and what positions are available at various points in the draft. Assume everyone knows everything. Find your edge managing risk, taking value when it falls to you, and made every pick provide value.

Have a great year of enjoying America's favorite sport and check back in two weeks when I recap my drafts.

Book Review IV: The Tragedy of American Compassion

Overall Rating: 4.5/5

Estimated Reading Time: 8 hours (244 pages, ~2 minutes/page)

Why I choose to read -

• I enjoy learning and writing about public assistance programs
• I feel America’s public assistance programs can be improved, but I am unsure how

Background -

• Author: Marvin Olasky
• First Edition: 1992
• Cultural Context: Not particularly important as book deals with wide range of historical years

Author Details -

• Born 6/12/50 in Boston, Massachusetts
• Engaged in journalism, editorship, speech writing
• Wikipedia Biography
• World Magazine
• Video series detailing Olasky’s life and thought progression. I did not view these videos, however they appear to be very detailed.

Reflections -

What I appreciated:

• Olasky attempted to remain unbiased while detailing what he believes
• Author makes a strong case of the need to alleviate more than just physical suffering to break destructive cycles
• Very detailed historical foundation of how government came in position of providing the majority of social services

Shortcomings:

• Vague and limited on proposed solutions. Focuses on here is where we are and here are examples of what has worked before. This allows Olasky to have less bias, but results in a lack of specific suggestions for change.
• Published in 1992, thus 20+ additional years of poverty alleviation efforts with limited results have elapsed. It would be ideal if an updated version was released.

Key Messages -

• Culture constructs systems of charity in the image of the god(s) they worship

• America:
• Money – We throw money at problems
• Independence – We do not want to become personally involved. We would rather give money than become personally involved.
• Comfort – We largely believe no one should suffer, regardless of the circumstances leading to their suffering.
• Feed and forget model
• Current public assistance and charities are designed more for givers than receivers. They are designed to make people feel as if they are doing something and no longer responsible or inconvenienced by the needs of the poor.
• Nothing is more demoralizing to the struggling poor than successes of the indolent or vicious
• Indolent: wanting to avoid activity or exertion; lazy
• Author asks: “If social universalists believe money will create goodness, then why does the wealthiest nation in the world suffer from high levels of crime, despair, and depression?”
• (My thought) Increased wealth only makes us more of who we are
• Author greatly supports affiliation/bonding through personal relationships, work tests, and is vehemently against indiscriminate giving.
• Bad charities drive out good charities
• Bad charities: Defined as those who give aid indiscriminately to relieve solely physical needs
• Good charities: Defined as those engaging in: 
• discriminate giving to the worthy poor
• alleviation of psychological, emotional, social, and physical needs 
• modifying the underlying behavior of why individuals are currently in poverty
• Discriminate giving to the worthy and unworthy poor
• Author supports there are those in poverty who are worthy of assistance and those who are unworthy. Olasky goes on to describe how discriminate giving is needed in such situations. Unfortunately large scale public assistance efforts are unable to engage in discriminate giving. Rather it must use impersonal mathematical formulas and flowcharts. (Food Assistance, Unemployment Insurance)
• Charities found some individuals needed to suffer in order to be willing to change
• Similar to a person needing to hit “rock bottom” before change can occur
• Difficult and unpopular belief in America. We are often too impatient with relieving suffering, likely due to idolizing comfort
• Suffering aside, cited charities supported not allowing anyone to starve regardless of the cause
• Litmus test: Do we care for the hearts, minds, and souls of those who are suffering or just their bodies (physical)?
• Welfare often creates an appetite which is more harmful than the pain it is intended to relieve
• AICP (Association for Improving the Conditions of the Poor) stressed all relief should be temporary
• AICP found chronic, unexpiring relief bred huge problems in both the recipients of aid and in the resulting compassion fatigue of workers who felt disheartened, exhausted, and ineffective.
• Read When Helping Hurts for more on compassion fatigue
• By concentrating on the millions (federal public assistance programs), we lose compassion for individuals (local assistance)
• S. Humphreys Gurteen with Buffalo COS (charitable organization society) implemented work test and used loans (rather than free handouts) with impressive results
• Work tests allowed dispensing of aid while retaining dignity
• One of the key psychological and social factors to poverty is the need to restore a person’s dignity. Work tests enabled those receiving aid to begin the restorative process.

• Philanthropy has become as cold as the payment of taxes - mostly because it is the payment of taxes
• Federal Emergency Relief Administration on direct relief (1934): 
• “Direct relief has little to commend it. While at the present time it may happen to be the cheapest way of meeting the problem, in the end . . . it probably will prove the most expensive”
• Direct relief being meeting only individual’s immediate physical needs rather than going further to meet emotional, psychological, knowledge, and skill needs/gaps
• (My thought) It is humorous to read public assistance proponents demand federal leadership to solve poverty and enact wealth distribution. They are equating “leadership of federal government” with progressive taxes and redistribution of resources.
• As I place a high value on freedom (My Voting Issues), I would error on leaving the level of public assistance up to the people. If they do not want to give indiscriminately, then the people have spoken.
• If the federal government was a charity, how much (if any) would you choose to donate? 
• There is no right or wrong answer. Your answer simply reflects how effective you believe the federal government is at alleviating poverty/hardship.
• I disagree with author’s suggestion of using tax deductions and credits to lower economic barrier to funding private charities.
• Again, leave it up to the people, if they do not want to give indiscriminately, then the people have spoken. Subsidizing certain organizations only distorts people’s true preferences.
• Many charities found people needed to be able to freely come and leave poor houses (personal choice)
• Individual choices are the means to end poverty
• Difficult, if not impossible, to help those who do not want to be helped
• Again, see When Helping Hurts
• Historically, most aid given was actual materials, not money
• Actual materials, rather than money, restrict recipients choice of how to utilize aid (loss of freedom)
• Author believes aid should come at an expense of freedom
• Could argue a black market would emerge, but efficiency is lost by selling/bartering actual materials (food stamps, ect.)
• In addition, a well organized, local charity participating in discriminate giving would likely be informed of aid abuses and no longer provide aid to such individuals. Unfortunately large government charities are slow/unable to discriminate in such a way.
• Charles Brace – “the best politics and the most complete form of government are nothing if the individual morality be not there
• Brace found a combination of personal, theological, and economic incentives moved families to care for impoverished children
• Josiah Quincy (1821 chairman of Massachusetts legislative committee) on pauper laws concluded:
• “There must always exist, so many circumstances of age, sex, previous habits, muscular, or mental strength, to be taken into the account, that society is absolutely incapable to fix any standard, or to prescribe any [universal] rule by which the claim of right to the benefit (public assistance) of the public provision shall absolutely be determined.”
• Paraphrased: Universal, mathematical formulas would be unable to determine level of need or qualifications for aid

To who would I recommend reading?

• Anyone frustrated with current poverty alleviation efforts
• Anyone currently affiliated or considering participating in any form of poverty alleviation effort (public or private systems) 

To who would I not recommend reading?

• If you have no interest in public assistance programs

The Tragedy of American Compassion succeeds in detailing a history of poverty alleviation efforts. While lacking in proposed solutions, it shines in providing hope and encouragement efforts can be improved.

For me, overcoming poverty in America and the world seems overwhelming. Olasky stated, "by concentrating on the millions, we lose compassion for individuals." I believe it is important to start small, one person/family at a time.

How do you eliminate poverty in one's lifetime? I start today and remove the poverty label from just 1 person this year (lets assume you were this person). Next, you and me in the second year remove the poverty label from 1 person each (2 total). In the third year, the 4 of us snowball our efforts and each remove 1 person from poverty in year 3 (8 total out of poverty label). Even though after 34 years, I personally would have only removed the poverty label from 34 individuals, everyone's efforts combined would purge the entire world of poverty (8.5 billion total persons). Astounding.

Next Post Topic: Fantasy Football 2014: Draft Prep

Minimum Wage Part IV: Uncle Rico, Buzz Lightyear, and Questionable Claims

We have all experienced it. Someone has exaggerated the greatness of something or someone.

Last month, I detailed cited effects I believe are caused by minimum wage legislation. Today, I will detail cited effects I would refute or find unreliable to be caused by minimum wage, much as I believe we all find the claims of Uncle Rico and Buzz Lightyear to be unreliable at best :).


Cited effects I would refute –

1. Increases productivity

• As Governor Peter Shulmin, Governor Dan Malloy, and Mike Konczal have stated (Minimum Wage Part II: Cited Effects), higher earnings encourage employees to work harder and when workers have more to lose, they do their jobs better leading to productivity increases. Unfortunately none of these authors cited the studies they referenced.
• I agree as minimum wage increases, average worker productivity increases. However, I would suggest this occurs as individuals and businesses are forced to find ways to increase average worker productivity to cover increased employee costs. Unfortunately productivity increases often come in the form of automation, outsourcing (China, India), consumer effort (self checkout lines), labor-labor substitution (replacing less productive workers with higher productive workers), and/or increasing prices. All of which primarily affect the least productive workers.
• Much like the price of an item does not affect its function, productivity capacity is not connected to wages. Paying twice as much for the same item does not increase the function or productivity of the higher priced product.

• An artificial wage floor may increase average worker productivity, however it decreases total economic productivity as some workers are priced out of employment. As detailed last month, it is unfortunate those workers most in need are often the ones who find it increasingly difficult to acquire and maintain employment.

2. We should support it because it is popular

• We have all seen it. Just because something is popular does not make it good or truthful.

• I disagree we should pass legislation simply because a majority wants it. Rather, policies should be considered on the basis of sound theory/logic and available empirical evidence demonstrating a measure accomplishes our core desires.
• Enough said, just don’t support something on the sole basis others do. We don’t need to follow the fool’s parade.

Cited effects I find unreliable -

1. Boosts economy

• A general consensus states low income earners spend a greater proportion of their income than they save. The opposite is said of higher income earners who tend to save and invest rather than spend. Subsequently, it is proposed by raising minimum wage, money will be transferred into low income households who will in turn spend their earnings immediately providing an economic boost.
• Many authors cite a study by Daniel Aaronson and Eric French from the Chicago Federal Reserve estimating  raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour would create a $28 billion boost in 2012 GDP.
• I agree with the general consensus and the results found by the Chicago Federal Reserve. However, as stated in Aaronson and French’s conclusion (below), I find the effect of an economic boost unreliable as it depends on what time frame you assess. It is likely a short term economic boost is seen with minimum wage increases. Unfortunately this effect appears unsustainable and potentially detrimental to sustainable economic growth, a core desire of mine (Minimum Wage Part I)
• Aaronson and French conclusion
• “Finally, it’s important to stress that the aggregate household spending response discussed in this article is relevant for only the first few quarters after a minimum wage hike. Beyond that time frame, households must pay off debt they incurred in the short run by spending less. Thus, a minimum wage hike provides stimulus for a year or so, but serves as a drag on the economy beyond that.”

2. Pulls people out of poverty

• A popular cited effect of minimum wage legislation is raising the wages of the lowest income earners will raise people out of poverty through increased incomes. With countless variables affecting the poverty rate, it is difficult to determine the true effect of minimum wage legislation on the nation's poverty rate. Hence I consider it an unreliable cited effect as:
1. Due to efforts to increase average worker productivity (automation, outsourcing, etc.), minimum wage increases the difficulty of workers most likely living in poverty acquiring and maintaining employment, the exact population minimum wage is intended to help.
2. It may push as many people down into poverty as it raises out. Middle class gets a double whammy by paying all the costs of minimum wages (increased prices) while receiving none of the benefits (income is not increased).
3. From 1959 to 2012, in the year of and year after minimum wage was increased, average poverty rates increased 0.9% while in all other years the poverty rate decreased 2.3%.
• Not strong enough data to make a sound judgment, however the data does trend towards minimum wage failing to pull people out of poverty.
• Data Source: United States Census Bureau 

3. Reduces use of public assistance programs

• Similar to pulling people out of poverty, it is cited raising the wages of low income earners will decrease public assistance expenditures. Determining the utilization of public assistance programs has innumerable variables leading me to label this effect as unreliable. I have these concerns why this effect may be unsound:
• Welfare expenditures increased an average of 9.2% in the 2 years following a minimum wage increase while welfare expenditures decreased an average of 1.2% in other years.
• Again, if automation, labor-labor substitution, increased prices, outsourcing, and increased consumer effort (self checkout lines) increase, more workers will find themselves in search of work (CBO study) and therefore utilizing public assistance programs.
• If prices rise, some will be pulled down into poverty who have their expenses increase without a subsequent rise in income (middle class especially).

• As James Sherk writes, wages are not the primary barrier to higher incomes, obtaining employment is. 67% of individuals living below the poverty line did not work during the last year.
• Does not account for those who would have earned raises by increasing productivity through experience/training. James Sherk cites an Employment Policies Institute (EPI) study which found 2 out of 3 minimum wage workers received an average raise of 24% within 1 year.
• Of minor note, I consider minimum wage a subsidized wage. It is an indirect form of public assistance that is paid for by private individuals rather than directly by government expenditures (which are also paid for by they public through taxes).
• All things considered, I believe minimum wage will lift some out of poverty, but largely at the expense of the least productive workers being replaced/not hired and higher prices placing an added burden on all, especially low and middle income households. With cost of living rising, more people will find themselves in poverty rather than out of poverty. A trend supported by the subsequent increases in both public assistance program expenditures and the poverty rate in those years following a minimum wage increase.

4. Reduces gender and income inequality

• I am for equal compensation across all demographics (Minimum Wage Part I). I find implementing policies on the basis it favors certain demographics more than others a slippery slope. I believe the means to accomplishing the end of reduced gender and income inequality do matter. Attempting to cater public policy to favor certain demographics over others may reduce quantitative inequality, however I fear it may be detrimental. Rather than giving equal treatment to all, it attempts to favor disadvantaged groups perpetuating the cycle of favoritism.
• While I oppose prospective favoritism to rectify past injustices, I do support retrospective litigation to compensate workers who experienced past injustices.
• In addition, if gender and income inequality exists because of differences in productivity, the least productive workers will find it increasingly more difficult to obtain employment in a world of automation, outsourcing, consumer effort (self-checkout lines), and labor-labor substitution. Thus, minimum wage legislation may actually worsen inequality by enacting a policy that is prohibitive of the lowest productive workers to acquiring employment. Referring again back to James Sherk, 67% of workers living in poverty have not worked in the last year. Thus, employment is a bigger problem than wages.

5. Morally just

• Workers should be paid fair wages and not unjustly employed. However, I believe this should ideally come from generosity, not forced payments (see Private Charities).
• We should desire to care and meet one another’s needs, however I believe this is more effectively and efficiently accomplished by individuals and private charities rather than impersonal public assistance programs.
• I am unconvinced you can force morals upon people. I believe pandering "good morals" will at best change some outward behavior while producing inward bitterness and resentment.

Many states and cities have taken action apart from the federal government to raise minimum wage in its jurisdiction. Most notably, Seattle has passed legislation to raise minimum wage to $15. Seventeen months after President Obama proposed a higher minimum wage in his January 2013 State of the Union Address, minimum wage has remained a prominent topic in the news media.

With a myriad of potential effects, who benefits from minimum wage legislation? My next minimum wage series post will detail who I believe benefits and is harmed by minimum wage. Lastly I will explore viable alternatives to minimum wage and determine which, if any, may more effectively accomplish my original desires.

Next Post Topic: Book Review