Building a Blog

Writing is like building. There are steps to complete before you can open for business. Starting with a thought or topic is like digging the hole and pouring the foundation. Nothing can proceed without a direction for the essay. I never worry if my topic seems off color or disconnected. I have plenty of time to rework it. It’s a starting point and holds the rest of it up. A business article could start with a news item about Walmart breaking into the online selling market. I would add opinions at this stage and include at least some direction, the basic point.  

After the foundation comes the framing. Framing is the discipline stage. It takes the longest and forms the largest part of the project. This is tying ideas together and stress testing them with research and logic. No one writes an essay and makes up the details. Details are like the steel beams. You need to understand how ideas fit together and strengthen the structure. History, philosophy, personal experience and statistics reinforce the thesis. The Walmart story needs some background and figures for a fuller picture. Framing helps fit those into place and support whichever conclusion is needed.

Without proper research your ideas fall flat like a camping mattress when the air is let out. I try to avoid generalities like "really big" or "very expensive" without including objective facts.

After the framing is up the floors and infrastructure get added. By infrastructure I mean plumbing, electrical, drywall and windows. I’ve missed a few key installations but you get the point. This isn’t really about building, it’s about writing (so settle down carpenters). I think of this as the second draft of the essay. The first draft is putting your ideas into a type of vertical grid. It’s a way of telling yourself, this the general point of what I want to say. Stay within the frame. The second draft is where cleaning happens, the rough sentences shaved off, ground down. On closer inspection some areas need more depth and some just need to go. After a thorough edit the article is almost ready.

The last phase is the exterior phase. Add whatever article links or graphics will help make the words pop, I add them and do a grammar check. I always find more sloppiness to clean up even in this phase. After a final inspection, the essay is ready to post.

 Most of these phases happen automatically now. I don’t consciously realize when phase 2 or 3 have happened, I just kind of roll into them. What’s helpful for me is to avoid trying to say everything perfect in the first phase. I tell myself “Don’t do it”. That’s what editing is for. Besides, you’ll make yourself crazy cleaning up every error and the ideas won’t flow. They jam up in the brain like water in a kinked garden hose. I’ve learned in writing that perfect is the enemy of good.  The ideas are supreme. Get the thoughts out of your head first and then edit. Edit a few times if you have to but don’t slow down because of mistakes. Just write.

I've heard a lot of writers describe their process. They’re all a little different but the ‘stages’ thing seems to be true across the board. Stephen King uses a “Door Open/Door Closed” policy when comes up with new material. He writes with the door closed first to get out all the nastiness in his head. I take that to mean he uses poor grammar, run-on sentences and weird ideas to get some of his thoughts on the page. Some ideas are too weird even for King apparently. Then, he opens the door and cleans it up so it takes on a polished look for presentation. His stages take on the same form, rough at first but presentable later.

Some of the stuff I write requires more research and verification than others. Anything with economics means I’ll fire up the Google machine at least a few times. I need a sense of numbers even if when I don’t need specifics. If not I’ll be guessing. The “here’s my story” classic blog bits don’t demand as much (like this one for instance). My memory isn’t great, but details can be inferred if I remember a setting or a general conversation.

As much as I love to read fiction I have trouble composing dialogue in general. Non-fiction and essay writing come more natural to me. I can’t say why. I guess it has something to do with understanding a character’s motivations and writing from different points of view. Not everyone talks or thinks or acts the same way. We all understand situations differently and our speech reflects our underlying biases and philosophies. It’s tricky for me to vary patterns in dialogue and shorten sentences so the speech sounds like actual people talking. My speaking parts often read like professors giving oral histories on niche topics, too long and too wonkish. People don’t talk like that.

 I just think fiction takes more work. I am building it just the same.

Economics and Snapshot Thinking

There is a tendency in all of us to think in terms of immediacy. In other words, to look at the world as it’s currently structured and imagine it will always be that way. I call it snapshot in time thinking. By trying to make legal changes in the system we ignore the technological changes making those rules obsolete. Snapshot thinking leads to bad policy ideas and lack of innovation. American companies naturally want to protect their industries from competition, both foreign and domestic. They assume the current economic situation will remain steady. But it never does.

Take a look at the auto industry in the fifties and sixties. Assembly workers put in overtime nearly every week and made good salaries. America was king in cars. There were hurdles in countries with high tariffs but basically no one could compete. The snapshot in time view insists, this couldn’t change anytime soon. The good times went on until about the late eighties when Japanese car makers started selling in the US. In the 1990’s American dominance had dropped off, primarily due to foreign sellers putting lower cost autos within reach of price conscience consumers. Also, the costs of building cars increased. As a result, American car makers like GM and Ford cut back on the workforce.

The auto industry shows what can happen to any industry over time. Technology, labor costs, free trade deals and shifting demand all force businesses to change. Cars are better now both from American makers and from foreign. Better because they run longer and need less repairs. Competition helped this improvement along but mostly, the cost of materials and labor in countries like Japan fell. After that, Toyota set up factories in the US to sell direct to Americans and save on freight and taxes, not to mention pesky quotas. Even though Toyota is a foreign owned company, the jobs they provide are for Americans. 

The auto manufacturers’ business didn’t change dramatically, but economic realities forced change in the nature of the work. More automation and less physical labor allows companies to run leaner than before.

Computers changed the way people work as well. An old photograph of an office environment in 1965 (above) would show rows of desks with typewriters and adding machines. Everyone has a computer now. If you sold typewriters you couldn’t imagine being out of a job. Almost no one uses them anymore. Typewriter sales fell very quickly. Thinking about economics in the snapshot stunts possibilities for growth. It hurts the prospect the business will break new ground, see additional opportunities. The best companies are the ones that innovate. It doesn’t require seeing the future as much as taking risks and spending wisely.

Uber is starting to do this. By now we all know, and have probably used, the car shuttle service that ferries riders around like discount taxis. Their model is innovative because it took an old idea, taxi cabs, and improved it by making it cheaper and quicker. GPS linked phones allow drivers unfamiliar with big cities to transport customers anywhere. Now they are starting a food service. Called UberEATS, restaurants use the service to deliver their orders. It’s still quite new and no one knows for sure how big the demand for delivery food is. But the ride share innovator isn’t sitting back and hoping to keep doing taxi service forever.

Amazon still sells books after all, but the business they developed is more online box store than niche library. That isn’t even counting their cloud services (AWS) that raked in over 17 billion last year.

Snapshots equal short term thinking.

The industry with the biggest need for innovation is health care. It needs to innovate because it’s too expensive. From hefty insurance premiums to expensive hospitals and high co-pays, the whole bloated sector is ripe for pairing down. Trying to untangle the mess and understand how we got here is difficult. But more important is finding a way out. People want to be responsible for their own health and not have to sign a stack of forms at every clinic and verify employment while cross checking medication coverage. Only by taking out all the layers (middlemen) does this mess begin to correct. Too many insurance companies and drug wholesales take a percentage at every level. These layers between hospitals and patients lead to expense and confusion. Once health care becomes affordable for workers outside of employer plans, it will get easier.

I am confident that health care (and skyrocketing costs) will be less of a concern for people in 30 years. For all our problems of over-regulation we live in a dynamic country that keeps growing and changing old models. One promising area for reducing costs for healthcare, is in tech. A few companies are using blockchain technology to keep patient data secure and easily accessible by doctors. Because of the decentralized nature of blockchains, the costs of medical billing are greatly reduced because verification of patient information is instantaneous. It may not radically change the industry but it’s a good example of where to start.

Every business changes over time. What worked in a previous generation may not in the next. Snapshot thinking is the culprit. The rule for the future is “stay flexible with your offerings and don’t overextend”.

  

Business As Usual in the PRC

I once heard a sporting goods salesman explain the technology of their new composite wrapped baseball bat. “You get more distance relative to other bats. More distance equals more home runs.” I know they test these things so I pressed a little. “Does it really work that much better than other high end bats?” He looked a little confused “Um...It should.” It reminds me of how the business community thought of China’s growing economy over 20 years ago. Many thought the country could be ‘turned’ into a free market capitalist society. Based on foreign investment and market reforms it seemed to some that “It should.”  

Turns out that reality is more complicated and what a lot of corporate types hoped would happen, didn’t.

 Early last week China’s president Xi Jinping announced that he was ‘changing’ the constitution so as to serve unlimited terms as the leader. Previous presidents served two terms of 5 years each. It’s doubtful that any constitution had law binding capabilities that would be upheld by the Communist Party. But in the late nineties the State Department and a lot of CEOs believed that a growing market economy in China would force a softening toward the West. If the Chinese could become consumers and build a middle class they would insist on democratic reforms and more freedoms like Hong Kong, it was thought.

   

How realistic was it to assume that with a little prosperity and lower trade barriers, China could transition from the closed world of protectionism to a free market nation? Depends who you ask but the idea was pervasive. Right now though it seems foolish to assume an authoritarian government would relinquish any control, whether financial or cultural. In order to understand why smart people thought this way we have to understand the time.

During the late nineties the Communist Party began experimenting with privatization and banking reform. Led by Deng Xiaoping, reforms in certain industries like agriculture began turning a failing sector into a secure and profitable enterprise. They encouraged foreign investment and deregulated much of the economy. The poor nation needed money so it looked to the West. It was limited in scope and most of the really profitable industries (energy, manufacturing) remained state owned. But the reforms worked and created a sense, among some, that the one party state was opening up to the rest of world.

Two big events happened after that. First the British began handing back Hong Kong to Beijing with certain exceptions. Hong Kong would retain the ability to govern itself, keep its valuable currency and operate in a free economic zone apart from Beijing’s interference. The Brits had operated Hong Kong as a territory and set it up as a free trade zone after ceding control. Hong Kong had been separate from China before. 

Second, the United States and other Western partners admitted China into the WTO (World Trade Organization) if they met certain benchmarks, mainly they had to make their economy open to foreign business and ensure self-governance. Also China agreed to abide by the rules of trade for members of the WTO. Rules on tariffs and quotas have to be voted on by members and international courts preside over disputes among member countries. It’s worth noting that the PRC (People’ Republic of China) did make some drastic moves at home (at least superficially) to show their commitment to joining the club. In 2001 they were admitted as a full member and the mainland economy grew exponentially.

The internet was seen as a positive development that could bring democratization to Chinese citizens and introduce them to new ideas and, hopefully, Western thought. This wasn’t completely naive. When people are connected across vast swaths of the country leaders are held to account for bad behavior. But the Chinese were never going to let any new technology into the country until they had a way to control it. They periodically blocked news websites like the BBC and Bloomberg for various reasons. Certain words or phrases like “democracy” or “Falun Gong” (a religious group) would not return any results with a Google search. The censors blocked countless websites viewed as subversive. Arrests and detentions of journalists and Christians still happened but less so, since more the government needed to appear conciliatory. If not conciliatory at least they understood the importance of hiding the uglier aspects of a police state.   The economy was growing so well no one wanted to slow it down and hold Beijing accountable for obvious infractions. Neither did the Chinese government want to rock the diplomatic boat over some display of police brutality or arrest of a prominent journalist. China didn’t change dramatically in the 2000s but did learn to hide a lot their moves.

American businesses that entered the market mostly became frustrated by the lack of cooperation and intellectual property theft that is as common as the cities’ smog.

Intellectual property theft is more serious than people realize. If patents aren’t respected in foreign countries companies can’t sell product and demand the same value. It works like this, if Nike designs a running shoe for sale in retail stores around the world they expect to be the only ones making that shoe. Chinese factory owners frequently copy the design to sell to their own venders. DVDs create the same problem, as do software and tools and anything that carries a patent. Knock off copies of nearly everything exist within the country because the law doesn’t effectively crack down on theft. The authorities do some token sweeps of sellers from time to time but it doesn’t amount to deterrence. I once asked a Chinese business man why the authorities don’t enforce the law. “Why should they? The factories that make the fakes create thousands of jobs for unemployed workers and shoppers like cheap options. From a Communist official’s point of view, it doesn’t make sense to curb it.” 

Another aspect of opening a Chinese branch of your particular business is the ‘shared’ aspect of making money in the country. Big companies like Yum Brands (Pizza Hut, KFC) have to partner with a Chinese local company and share profits in order to open a location. This creates friction when the regulations change and rules aren’t clear. Having a partner means sharing financial information and intellectual property. Not every foreign company is doing poorly but the trend is toward less control in decision making.

I’ve wondered how much of the optimism toward China was genuine and rooted in positive changes the government was making, and how much purely driven by new markets. When the opportunity to make money presents itself you take it. Did American shareholders really believe that China was on the cusp of a global opening for democratic norms, or did they just pretend to in order to expand. The old saying about business is that if you aren’t growing you’re dying. What better opportunity to grow than in a country with 1.6 billion consumers? Like my baseball bat salesman, something tells they didn’t really know but figured “it should” work.

Since 2012 the Communist Party has started reverting back to old tactics, crushing dissent and purging the ranks of powerful cadres. The first big move Xi Jinping made was to start a ‘corruption drive’ to weed out bent officials and purify the party. It turned into a ploy aimed at removing rivals. Not that party corruption wasn’t a problem, citizens are all too aware of it, but it served a larger purpose for the young president, eliminate competition and send a message. Since then he has taken a wide swath of leadership positions and chairs that other presidents never assumed. He has tightened the noose of internet censorship and built up military bases along the South China Sea. The military buildup in particular is a direct affront to the US which patrols the region under a freedom of the seas initiative. Freedom of the seas ensures rights to travel through the ungoverned parts of the ocean. Building bases on shoals and tiny islands threatens this concept for both commercial and US Navy ships. Almost weekly we hear of Vietnamese and Philippine fishing vessels turned around, told to leave the area.

The US is in a tough position now. We have to determine what is important to national security first, economic considerations should be second. We should have learned by now that as long as the Communist Party is running the show, open markets and liberal reforms are a nonstarter or at least very limited. Keeping the South China Sea open for commerce is essential. America's Navy should double its presence in the waters as a show of force. If the Chinese restrict movement and dominate the sea our influence in the entire region is over. Conflict is almost certain in the future. It doesn’t have to lead to a full scale war, but our objectives on clear shipping lanes should be enforced. Better an economic war than a military one. Hopefully is doesn’t come to that. Our optimistic notions of China a bastion of free trade was always a pipe dream. 

Whether we really believed it or not is a mystery.  

Google's ad filter

There is really one way to avoid annoying pop up ads online. Download an ad blocker extension or use a separate browser like “Brave”. The advantages of a blocker are pretty obvious. The ads disappear and browsing becomes a much easier experience. On the downside they seem a little slower to me. Restricting the web page from bringing up ads causes a slower loading time. For most people this is still not bad considering pages that have ads don’t load until the ads are present anyway. I tried using one for a while but quickly discovered I couldn’t add clip images to my blog the way I could with Chrome. Also, it didn’t save my work website passwords for easy access. I am sure with a little tinkering I could have fixed that problem as well, but I don’t like tinkering. I want as simple an experience as possible and things that don’t work right the first time are useless to me. “Patience and diligence” what’s that?

 So I went back to Chrome. 

I was pretty pumped when I read that Google was updating its Chrome browser with an “ad filtering” feature. This is big news for a couple of reasons. First, Google relies heavily on money from advertisers for a big chunk of their revenue. Without looking I’d say most of it. Telling advertisers what they can and can’t use on their platform seems like cutting off the tree limb your sitting on. But it isn’t. Chrome has something like 60% of the traffic (of the entire web) using their platform. That makes it a big player and one that can set effective parameters for advertisers.

Walmart tried something like this over a decade ago. They set requirements to vendors who hoped to put product on their shelves by dictating terms. Before that vendors had exclusive rights to decided details like packaging, price and quality. Afterwards, sellers lined up to adjust product offerings for a chance at selling to the largest market share in the country. Only a large player like Walmart could have pulled that off. Market share is everything.

Tech blogs are not impressed with Google however. Mostly their criticism revolves around privacy concerns of regular users and not Google’s war on annoying pop ups. Most of the ones I scanned don’t think it will make a difference to the overall experience of users. I disagree. By establishing guidelines, Google forces advertisers to eliminate the most egregious ads, the ones that drive people to use blockers in the first place. I can’t speak for all PC users but that was my situation. The types of ads on the chopping block are the ones with video and sound, the full screen ones where you can’t find the exit button and those grating countdown timers that explode out of nowhere. It’s a simple request but one that should stem the tide, for a while, on consumers ditching traditional browsers for blockers.

Why now? In other words why didn’t they do this years ago when the internet was crawling with adware like lice on a dead sparrow? Ad blockers were not very good and the sheer number of users who had them wouldn’t fill out a subreddit thread. They weren’t a threat to any of the major browsers. But now they are. A whopping 26% of users employ an ad blocker on their desktops and 15% do it on their phone. My concern though is with desktop software since I use an Iphone and don’t have issues on the mobile side. Also I do all my work on my laptop and until I can afford a Mac (Safari), I’ll stick with Chrome. Google is losing ad money to consumers who have checked out, tired of the onslaught of flashing, obnoxious advertising.

There is another problem for desktop PC users who don’t utilize a blocker, more page interference than ever before. When your boat capsizes everyone is exposed to sharks. Those who climb into the life raft avoid the feeding frenzy. Anyone still in the water when the sharks come by has to fend off additional attacks. Same situation for those still on traditional browsers, they catch the ads that were meant to be spread out among a larger number of viewers. Fewer people mean more ads. It’s a cyclical mess that promotes leaving Chrome altogether, it seems like Google is finally getting it. Their model is threatened without seriously reigning in the worst types of pop ups.  

I can deal with some types of internet advertising. I expect shoe companies to target me when I search for Mizuno or Nike sneakers. The targeted ads that appear in the margins of your favorite news site are just a result of recent searches anyway. I’d rather not see it at all but considering I am browsing for free, the trade-off doesn’t bother me as much as it does some people. Anyway with more news sites opting for paywalls it doesn’t leave many quality freebies. It may yet resemble a neighborhood after the good stores leave and all that’s left is liquor marts and pay day lenders; or more appropriately Breitbart and Buzzfeed.

In the early days of web surfing (mid 90’s) everything was free (mostly) but given the limited use advertisers didn’t bother paying for slots on pages. Some did, but it wasn’t targeted like now. The availability of tracking data and site click minutiae didn’t exist. The openness and ‘share anything’ culture created stars and popular bloggers pushing out their own content. People still get famous for weird, silly, creative and awful behavior but the sheer amount of devices online now means getting noticed as the next great singer is tougher, making it sort of like life before the web. Singers, writers, actors, film makers and artists have to go through the same tiered systems as always.

Create content and market the content.  Hope someone notices the content and pays for more similar content. This was true before the internet and it’s true now.  

This might sound like pinning for the good ol’ free days. I promise it isn’t. The internet is much more efficient now despite the odd insurance commercial that plays at full volume.  As much as we all hate it advertising makes a lot of stuff free that we would otherwise pay for. Nothing is really free after all and consumers ultimately decide how much is too much with regard to ads. Google’s move in creating a built in ad filter is just the first step in an effort to keep advertisers in check and hold on to a dwindling base.

More to come on ad restrictions? I certainly hope so.  

Cherry Ho!

There’s only one way to eat cherry turnovers---enthusiastically. I don’t mean one sensible bite at a time, between alternating sips of Earl Grey. Really get in there, like a pitbull munching on a tennis ball. Don’t let a second of time pass between the brief chewing phase and the next massive chomp. Chew a bit, swallow, and chomp. Repeat the process until the sugary pastry is kaput. Then grab another.

I discover this little quirk every time I buy a box (Awww... is that for me?). I’ve tried to just eat one. It must be easier to cure diabetes than tear oneself away from the ribbon festooned box with the warm bakery scent wafting through the paper bag. Some people have trouble walking past a shoe store, others can’t miss a good garage sale but even fewer pass by a bakery without that Pavolovian twitch in the taste buds. For me cherry turnovers are it. The all.

When baked just right, the corners fold together evenly like a stack of napkins at an upscale restaurant; the pebble sized sugar bits sink into the cooling dough and rest neatly on top like pillows on a bedspread. The melted frosting pools delicately around the base. When done poorly…still not bad actually-nothing the microwave can’t fix. They get overcooked sometimes which is worse than being under cooked for the same reason people eat raw cookie dough and not burnt cookies.

The toughest time is bringing back the gift box of warm turnovers. My appetite for sweets gets stronger on the long ride home from the bakery. I become engaged in a mind battle, a struggle for the soul.

Stomach: “I’ll just eat one, save one for breakfast and maybe polish it off tomorrow.”

Brain: “Yeah…heard that before”

Stomach: “Oh my Goooood, so good! I am getting another”

Brain: “You said. You promised. One and done…remember?”

Stomach: “It’s only two, that’ll leave two for tomorrow, perfect even number. Although, maybe just one more before bed, glass of milk to wash it down.”

Brain: “You realize that’s a family size box right? Three! Are you kidding, don’t do it!

Stomach: “Well, only one left. Don’t think that’ll be enough for breakfast, may as well finish it off.”

Brain: “You make me sick, disgusted really.”

Stomach: “Did we remember to get Tums? I don’t feel so well.”

I don’t pretend I can bake them but I know what passes for success and what decides failure. Under this logic I could be a host on a baking show and make the contestants bring me a platter with sweets. I could pick a favorite but would have no advice for how to make the bland ones better, “Umm probably needs more sugar”. “Yes, definitely more sugar. And what else did you use, frosting? Use more of that too.”

 Those shows seemed more concerned with presentation than taste, which makes sense in a fancy setting but doesn’t work with me. Maybe it’s how I am wired but taste should come first since it has the longest memory tail. I’ve only been to one of those expensive dinners where everyone wears ties and gets their portions in drips and drabs. “Oh look dear, they arranged the veal with a little parsnip and marinara sauce!” I remember the dinner was good but I like to eat faster than the 2.5 hours it takes the place to send out waiters to the table like Western Union couriers delivering telegrams. I remember the dessert, French silk pie with a perfect balance of rich whip cream and melted chocolate. Point being I remember the dessert and wait time, not the presentation.

Apparently it is rude to ask for seconds, thirds are out of question. I don’t want to be that guy, but I kind of am.

I’ve even bought the frozen pre-cut cherry turnovers before too. They aren’t bad but the taste is in the ingredients and something tells me the ingredients in frozen packaging are sub par. Same goes for the little packets of frosting and cherry filling, they end of tasting closer to a “Toaster Strudel” than a baked turnover. I’ll try a few different brands and see what sticks.

The same problem is likely to arise, so many turnovers so little time. Saving money requires buying in bulk but the only bulk I keep get to keep is in the stomach area.

Till next time, happy eating.

    

"The Cuban Affair": Review

 In doing research for this book Nelson Demille visited Cuba, probably shortly after the Obama administration tried to normalize relations. I didn’t check to see how long he was there but it is a safe assumption he spend at least a week or more. His detail of the roads and layout of the city is impressive, not only in Havana but also some of the other spots.

The Cuban Affair builds intrigue slowly, revealing just enough about the mission to keep anyone interested.

His hero is a retired Army officer named Daniel McCormick (Mac) who owns a charter boat in Key West that he uses to take fishing groups on excursions in the Gulf. One day a wealthy businessman offers him a chance of a lifetime. Through a series of events, he is to join a tour group from the states, under an assumed identity, and bring back some secret documents and money. He is joined by a Cuban American woman (Sara Ortega) who helps him get around the country What could go wrong?

 Despite the risks he agrees to the terms. A fishing tournament off the shores of Cayo Guillermo serves as the opening for a way to get the hidden loot from its hiding spot in Cuba to Mac’s boat just off the coast. It’s a risky stunt and we are never sure what the real value of the hidden treasure is. Like any good story it unfolds a little at a time, never giving too much away and continually raising the stakes.

Mac has a grouchy old partner who enters the fishing tournament while Mac and Sara join an official tour group as a way to get into the country.

I’ve always like the way Demille writes dialogue. The story unfolds from the mind of the lead and the reader sees the plot develop around them. This puts us in the head of the main character, what he is really thinking. It’s funny too.

Sara: “I want to do it now…in case I don’t get back”.

 Mac: “In that case it doesn’t matter”

Sara: “Yes…but…it’s the right thing to do. Even if you cheat, you shouldn’t lie.”

Really? I though lying and cheating went together. But maybe Catholics need to confess. 

Mac: “Let’s decide tomorrow.”

Demille’s leads are sarcastic and pepper the story with one-liners and inside jokes. And since he writes from first person (mostly) we follow the plot from Mac’s point of view.

The story isn't forced since Mac isn’t political or passionate about causes. He doesn’t preach to us about the cruelty of the Cuban police state, he lets the story develop that way and leave no doubt. It’s sympathetic to anti-Communists and harsh with citizen informants “los chivatos” who are really just stand-ins for the police. They report suspicious activity regarding foreigners. 

I’ve always thought there was too much romanticism surrounding Cuba from Americans. Partly because of Ernest Hemingway (he had a home there) and partly because of the “What might have been?” aspect of almost 60 year embargo. This book will not make anyone think the US made a mistake in slamming the door to trade on the Castros. It keeps the history pretty light assumes readers understand how the island came to be run by thugs. 

The Cuban Affair blames the decay of the country as the fault of the leaders only, not of the citizens trying to scrape by on $20 a month.

What results is an adventure with plenty of romance, scuttled plans and an impressive knowledge of the city layout in Havana.

Who Owns the Tip?

What is the purpose behind the tip at a restaurant? Is it the friendly attitude and ‘can-I-help-you’ demeanor of the waiter or waitress? Does it depend on how long it took to cook that “extra anchovy” pizza? Is the food quality the reason, or is it all decorum and timing?

I guess everyone has an imaginary sliding scale in their head on what determines a fair tip. Since the service is what I notice first, I tend to weigh it higher than food quality. Everyone is different though. 

The one thing most people know about the restaurant business is that competition is fierce. That Korean BBQ place you like might go belly up in a few years, that local deli with the perfect Ruben might be close to bankruptcy. Even profitable ones are often one slow season from shutting the doors forever. The reasons are pretty simple. Alternatives exist and even most small cities have a handful of options for dinning out. From steak houses to Applebees and everything in between, this country is chock full of places to gorge. Owners decide daily on how to cut costs and remain profitable. One measure is in salary for employees whether wait staff, cooks or bus workers. Retaining good cooks, especially at swanky places, is imperative for offering top quality. With such tight profit margins owners are sometimes forced to use tip pooling schemes to pad the salaries of everyone.

Understandably this doesn’t sit well with servers. At least in those cases where they are used to tips as a part of their income, a ‘pooling’ requirement would undercut their totals. Currently the Department of Labor is considering tossing out the Obama era’s policy that make’s pooling illegal. The existing law bars restaurant owners from using server tips as a means to pay cooks, bartenders and bus boys for their labor. President Trump’s proposal would overturn that requirement, giving owners total control over payroll. At its core, this law gives owners the freedom to make choices in the best interest of their businesses.

 Without the freedom to make payroll choices though restaurants may find themselves quickly out of business. The best option for any company trying to survive is to make choices that fit their model and make sure everyone working there understands it.

Some businesses get around the pooling law by adding a percentage fee (10%) to the total bill after the sales tax. That way half the tip (assuming a 20% gratuity) is already spoken for. It usually gets added to a salary fund and divided among the ‘back of the room’ staff like cooks. This does seem a bit like taking money from the servers, but again it depends on what the tip represents. Is it a reward for excellent service, or payment for a great meal and wonderful experience? If the former, than steeling the server’s income is what it feels like. If the latter, than the staff shares in the reward due to everyone.

I think the old model of servers getting the whole portion of the tip is on the way out, probably has been for a while. I never think to ask when eating out “How exactly is my tip being spent?” but most establishments have probably figured out what works best for them by now. I imagine if too many dine in places go the pooling route, good wait service will see a huge drop off. That’s the downside. Removing the incentive for great service means removing great service. There is some question as to how much of a link there is between customer care and tip percentage. Most people put down between 15% and 20% for even mediocre service; Acting ‘extra nice’ to paying customers doesn’t seem to garner a higher percentage.

I don’t want to live in a country that doesn’t prize customer service though.

 US companies generally prize customer service, this is especially true for dinning out. I went to Ireland a few years ago and ate nearly every meal out, some at fast food short order places and some at proper dining restaurants. In the short week I was there I noticed that places used to hosting foreigners had decent to good service. One place even cooked for us after the kitchen had closed from catering an all-day wedding. The burger and fry joints were universally bad though, the service was worse than an 8 hour license check at the DMV. Slow moving workers, forgetful cashiers and bland (really bland) food were the norm. “For the love of taste, has anyone ever heard of seasoning salt!?”

The best incentive in customer service is money. I like a culture that emphasizes taking care of paying customers. We shouldn’t take away that importance altogether even if it means the dinning business has to rethink some core methods for paying its help.

FirstPrinciples believes a one size fits all approach to paying workers is bad business and hurts those with a unique model and a varied customer base. Let enterprising owners decide how to hire and pay their own staff according to the model best suited. Who can say what creative marketing ploy they might devise anyway to attract hungry diners. If tipping wait staff for excellent service is what customers want, use it as a selling point for your new venture. “Waiters get to take home any extra tips” as a model, might just work for a large enough segment of your city’s foodies. It would certainly attract good servers eager to earn higher rates than the competition.

For exactly the same reasons I was against the smoking ban for restaurants over twenty years ago. Some places cater to smokers. It seemed silly to insist they all ban it. Don’t like working in a smoke filled dinner? Don’t. You don’t like eating in a restaurant with a smoking section? Don’t. There were plenty of places going smoke free before the ‘ban’. Let owners decide which (smoking or non) is a better fit.

Putting one size fits all regulations on company restricts their ability to compete. Put choice before out dated requirements.