Tuesday, January 29, 2008

A thought

Bar Stool Economics

Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
it would go something like this:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.

So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every
day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the
owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers, he
said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20. Drinks
for the ten now cost just $80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers?How could they
divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'

They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted
that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man
would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner
suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly
the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should
pay.

And so:

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four
continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men
began to compare their savings.

'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He
pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'

'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar,
too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I!'

'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back
when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'

'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get
anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'

The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough
money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.

David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics, University of Georgia

Monday, January 28, 2008

Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement

I have hard copy and electronic copy of the draft environmental impact statement for transforming the nuclear complex. I was sent this copy by NNSA and have been asked for comments.

In the past, when I have given comments about 80% of the comments have been followed.

Comments on this statement are beyond my abilities. I would like help, soon.

If you want to help, contact me.

A thorough job of evaluating the statement and making actionable comments will take you about 6 hours. A quick, targetted job will take less.

Thanks

Friday, January 25, 2008

The future of the Lab

OK, here is a topic. What ideas do all of us (whomever is reading the blog and Eric) have to help LANL diversity in a smart manner, such that we retain the good workforce we have now (that does not mean retain all, just halt attrition at the top level) and attract the workforce of tomorrow?

- GL

The text above was a question by GL as a comment under the post titled "Winston Churchill". I put it at the top so that it would be easier for people to find.

Please comment.

I moved it to the top again. There is starting to be a discussion in the comment section.
If we are going to do anything to avoid becoming solely a pit production facility, I think that the time to do it is now. In a few months, I think that the time will have passed.

There has been a request to move this to the top again so that more can find this post and join the discussion. To those new people, welcome.

A post from July 2007 and again from December 2007

Legal aspects 2

From a legal point of view, what is LANS?

Here are some answers that I have been told. (Yes, they are contradictory.)

  1. A project related LLC that will disappear when the contract for managing the Lab disappears.
  2. A way to protect the assets of the four companies from any legal assault.
  3. A shell that can be breached easily in a suit to recover damages.
  4. A semi governmental something or other operating under unclear legal rules. (Think Blackwater in Iraq)
  5. A covert arm of NNSA.
  6. A private company subject to all risks that might previously have been directed at UC.
Does anyone have solid suggestions?
The people who told me each of the above were very experienced in their fields and were sure that they were right.

Thanks,

Originally posted 12 October 2007

Legal aspects of TCP2 et al.

In the meeting last night, I was helped to go down a new train of thought.

Were the actions taken by NNSA/LANS etc. with respect to pensions, benefits, and transition not merely annoying but actually illegal under Federal law?

Anyone have an answer to this question?

Originally published 12 October 2007

What do you want?

If you have been laid off from LANL or are afraid that you soon will be laid off, what do you want?

Do you need to stay in New Mexico?
Do you need to use the job skills that you have built up?
What is the national demand, obvious or non obvious, for your skills?
Does it appear that you have to stay within DOE labs?
Do you need to make at least 30% of your old salary?
Do you need to keep your children in the same schools?
Do you need good schools nearby?
Do you need affordable shopping within 15 miles?
Do you need mountains to walk in or ski on?
Do you need high quality affordable healthcare?

These are some of the questions that most people need to answer in deciding what to do next.

Moved up from 7 December 2007

ERISA and you

I went to an interesting meeting yesterday.

In it a lawyer, Michael Mozes, was talking about some of the laws governing TCP1 and TCP2.

Michael is a trial lawyer in Albuquerque who specializes in ERISA law.

ERISA is a set of laws, documents, etc. that governs non governmental pension plans.

Michael made a few comments about what ERISA says is legal and what apparently happened here.

Stay tuned.

Originally posted 12 October 2007

No need to scroll

Yes, I know where there are lots of resources to help employees at LANL, Sandia, and Livermore get through this calamity.

These resources include job hunting and managing resources for a family better.

They also include a network of people - counselors, ministers, accountants, SelfHelp, etc. - who provide value.

Later

Once again I move this to the top.

Per request - My phone number is 505-662-3115. My email is eric.fairfield@gmail.com

I will do my best to help those who have recently voluntarily separated from a national lab (remember I am a former Lab employee and have been through this game myself) or those who would like to leave if there were somewhere good to go.

Moved up from 8 December 2007

Tuesday, January 22, 2008

The view from

A number of commenters on the future of LANL and other national labs seem to be myopic. They are mad that the future is not turning out the way that they want it to.

In part these commenters appear to refuse to see that the other players in this game are playing under different rules and for different rewards.

Here is one example.

The consortium that runs LANS gets about $60,000,000,000 in contracts from the U.S. government each year. This makes the consortium, in terms of income more than twice the size of the entire Department of Energy.

On this income, ignoring the University of California which is a more complicated case, the members of the consortium average 20% a year in gross profits and probably about 13% after government fines and other things. Thirteen percent is not a great return nor a bad return for a company.

So, on the sixty billion income, the consortium would be expected to make $7.8 billion in profit in an average year. If they make less profit than this, their investors take the investment money somewhere else.

LANL brings in about $2 billion dollars a year in income. At 13%, the expected profit on this income would be $260,000,000. Two hundred and sixty million dollars is 4.4 times bigger than the $58.8 million that they actually got. The fifty eight million represents a 3% profit not a 13% profit. If your bank only gave you a 3% return on a CD you would pick another bank.

So, the consortium should not have bid on running LANL if they were only going to get a 3% return and they knew that they were only getting a 3% return, which they did.

Hence, the bid was about something other than running LANL, such as building buildings and cleaning up environmental waste. Building and cleaning is what these companies do, not managing scientific research labs.

Does this make sense?

Monday, January 21, 2008

But, we didn't think that we needed a plan

I said that I would quit posting what I am finding, but this one
Privatization without a Plan
was too juicy. Governments are privatizing at many levels without thinking hard about what they are doing. OK, this has been going on for quite a while and has interesting budgeting.

Enjoy (or not)

Buy me lunch

I have a lot of other articles about Bechtel around the world. I will link to some of them as time permits.

I have to get back to my main work.

If someone wants to buy me lunch, anonymously of course, at Ruby K's in Los Alamos, I will post more articles.

Ciao

The big sieve

It seems that the Big Dig is springing leaks. This is after parts of the roof caved in on a car. There has been a penalty of $300,000,000 to Bechtel et al.

Yucka Mountain

Bechtel has closed Yucca Mountain and made deep layoffs

Here is the next step

Another shoe has dropped at Oak Ridge. Bechtel is outsourcing the pensions to the firm, Mercer, who did the analysis of what 'substantially equivalent' might mean.

Aha

The cat is out of the bag. There are buildings to destroy and things to cleanup. This process with cost the government $8,000,000,000 over 15 years and is basically being sole sourced by Bechtel to itself. This sure beats $70,000,000 at year in fees.

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

The numbers still do not work

The apparent budget shortfall is $100,000,000 to $300,000,000.

450 people have left. At an average of $130,000 cost per person (most are not expensive technical staff members), this amounts to $58,000,000 in apparent savings leaving $41,500,000 to $241,500,000 unaccounted for. Following Director Anastasio's comments that the 39 weeks of severance pay is the same as a person's salary from now until the end of the fiscal year (and ignoring complications of trying to follow where all the overhead costs really go), it is not clear whether there is any savings in expenditures at all.

Can someone explain the apparent smoke and mirrors to me?