The Accident(s) of Birth: Opportunity Knocks

“You’ve got the world by the strings, kid. Just don’t blow it.”

-- Advice from a Caddy, Myopia Hunt Club, c. 2000

Last week, Boston Globe columnist Shirley Leung wrote a terrific column on the need to engage white men in ongoing efforts to make a more inclusive, more opportunistic society—in Boston and across the country. Leung quotes Colette Phillips, President and CEO of Colette Phillips Communications, Inc. (a Boston-based public relations and marketing communications firm), who stated, “In Boston, we need to create a new normal — white men at the table. You can’t talk about inclusion and exclude.”

Phillips’ incisive and earnest sentiment is all-too-often absent from discussions about a wide variety of issues—from reproductive justice (viewed as a “woman’s” concern, rather than a central element of public health for all) to corrections/policing policy (where elected officials often seek to curry favor in communities of color, but do little to engage white voters on the same issues).

This absence is particularly notable since political parties often speak about the need to embrace a “big tent” theory of coalition politics that bridges the divide between many segments to achieve a governing consensus. Neither party has done a particularly good job at this in recent years—as both Republican Tea Partiers and Democratic purists have imposed strict litmus tests on candidates, hollowing out the middle of the American political spectrum in the process.

There is plenty more to say on that subject in later posts. However, today I want to focus on a central idea raised by Leung’s column: how people privileged by the accident of birth should approach (and use) that privilege.

A Road to Opportunity
Myopia Hunt Club, Bay Road, South Hamilton, Mass.

I’m one of those privileged souls—a paradigmatic example of a beneficiary of centuries of prejudice. Some of the factors are immediately obvious to anyone who sees me. I’m White. I’m male. I’m rich. I’m healthy.

Other factors secured to no credit of my own aren’t apparent on the surface, but also form a basis for my privileged position. I’m an American Citizen. I’m heterosexual. I grew up in a two-parent/two-income household. I had a network of people who looked out for me as I was growing up (teachers, Little League coaches, fellow congregants at the First Church of Wenham, the parents of close friends, etc.).

The caddy who offered me advice at the age of 16 was not so blessed. He grew up poor, in a single-parent home in Peabody. His mature approach to offering counsel to his naive co-caddy was evident, both from his willingness to cop to mistakes he made along the way and his steadfast effort to make sure that I didn’t let the riches that I had inherited go to my head. More importantly, by characterizing my position as one in which I had “the world by the strings,” he made it abundantly clear that the world would judge me less by the opportunities provided by Grace, and more by what I chose to do with those opportunities.

Taking advantage of opportunities is, to some degree, a straightforward proposition. Work hard. Pay attention and adhere steadfastly to First Principles. Devote your professional life to your most cherished values.

The harder part is resisting the urge to judge others by the opportunities they have/don’t have. It is telling that the Ten Commandments include a directive not to covet what others have, but do not include a similar, more affirmative edict to do your best with what you’ve been given. Whether it’s “real estate envy” in New York or jealously about the personal or professional lives of friends or colleagues that always seem one step ahead of ours, the human inclination to worry about what we lack, rather than revel in what we have, threatens our ability to seize on opportunities as they arise and undermines our capacity to work with people to solve collective problems.

In the end, no matter what your race, class, sex, or creed, we all bear the burden of not “blowing it”—of seizing on the opportunities that come our way to better the lives of our fellow citizens.

North Shore Taxis Must be Accessible to All

“With today’s signing of the landmark Americans for Disabilities Act, every man, woman, and child with a disability can now pass through once-closed doors into a bright new era of equality, independence, and freedom.”

-- President George H.W. Bush, 1990

This week, as reported by the Salem Evening News, the Peabody City Council unveiled a compromise for new taxi licenses, dividing the 15 new permits equally among three cab companies. However, the article buried a truly distressing piece of news—none of the new taxi licenses would be for accessible taxicabs. 

Peabody Councilor Tom Walsh rightly grilled taxi owners on their failure to provide this service, saying that if restaurants and hotels can do it, certainly a critical element of the North Shore’s transportation network should be able to as well. Nevertheless, North Shore Taxi’s lawyer, James Mears Jr., described the accessible taxis as “cost-prohibitive,” requiring not only a special vehicle but also a trained driver.

This is a completely insufficient excuse for failing to provide service to people with disabilities on the North Shore (not to mention thousands more who do not technically qualify as disabled, but whose limited mobility makes the features of accessible taxis essential to comfort and accessibility).

Indeed, when Congress passed the Americans with Disabilities Act nearly 25 years ago, it was indicative of a commitment made by the American People to share the costs of making our society—its public institutions, places of accommodation, and, yes, transportation networks—available to all users. Just as we pay slightly higher property taxes to retrofit our schools and Town Halls, so our transportation system must absorb the expense of full and complete access into the cost of doing business.

(as a sidebar, let’s not forget the groups who lobbied aggressively against the ADA—the same groups that have continued to fight landmark legislation to improve conditions for workers and their families, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Businesses)

Furthermore, technology offers several ways of making the system less expensive for business and more convenient for users.  As I noted in a letter to the Boston Globe last year, cabs in Massachusetts should embrace tech-savvy services such as Accessible Dispatch, which serves New York City and allows people to digitally hail accessible cabs through mobile apps or over the phone.

London has a 100 percent accessible taxi fleet. Given the density difference between the North Shore (where a significant portion of cab service is by pre-arrangement) and cities like New York and London (where most cab service is by hail), having a 100 percent accessible fleet may not be necessary to ensure an equivalent level of service for all users in our area.

However, I believe it is essential that every cab company operating in the Bay State have at least one accessible cab on the road 24 hours a day, 7 days a week (or whenever the cab company is serving customers). Taxi passengers, taxi operators, and taxpayers should share the costs associated with this service. For instance, in New York, which recently agreed to adopt regulations requiring that half of the City’s yellow cabs be accessible to people with disabilities within six years, the City and State are providing tax credits to aid companies in converting old cabs to accessible cabs or purchasing new vehicles. 

In the end, if the ADA’s eternal promise is, as President Bush declared, that “people with disabilities are given the basic guarantees…[of] independence, freedom of choice, control of their lives, [and] the opportunity to blend fully and equally into the rich mosaic of the American mainstream,” surely we can do better on the North Shore of Massachusetts than to simply throw up our hands and say that honoring this promise is too expensive.

Comcast, General Electric, and The Role of Government in America

“The winners…will be those who…insist on being number one or number two in every business they are in. Don’t play with businesses that can’t win. Businesses that are number three, number five in their market—Christ couldn’t fix those businesses. They’re going to lose anyway.”

-- John “Jack” Welch, CEO, General Electric

Last week, Comcast announced its intention to buy Time Warner Cable in a $45.2 billion deal that will unite the nation’s two largest cable providers. According to the New York Times, the resulting company will operate in 43 of the 50 largest metropolitan markets, and will serve nearly 30 percent of paid television subscribers and about one-third of all broadband Internet subscribers.

Outcry about the anticompetitive effects of the merger has been strong—not only from consumer groups, but from politicians on both sides of the aisle—an unsurprising result given that Americans pay more for worse service than most countries in the developed world.

A 2011 study by Pando Networks found that U.S. Internet speed was 26th in the world and a 2012 study by the New America Foundation found that Tokyo residents enjoy speeds that are eight times faster than New York’s for a lower price. And Hong Kong residents enjoy speeds that are 20 times faster, for the equivalent price.

Many cities—from Lafayette, Louisiana to Chattanooga, Tennessee—have have launched municipal fiber networks in an effort to thwart the monopolistic behavior of the telecommunications industry. 

As Susan Crawford, visiting professor at Harvard Law School [my alma mater] and author of “Captive Audience: The Telecom Industry and Monopoly Power in the New Gilded Age,” wrote in the Boston Globe this week:

The way to do this is to install a new wholesale fiber network controlled by the city…Cities do not have to be in the business of competing with private providers, but their control of the basic infrastructure is essential to make sure that competition emerges.

We’ll talk more about the nation’s connectivity problems in another post, but today, I want to use the struggle to find a solution for sluggish Internet to examine how we should outline the scope of government in the 21^st century.

For guidance, let’s go back 30 years to one of the seminal philosophies in American corporate history: Jack Welch’s effort to streamline General Electric into a capitalist juggernaut.

Welch—a native of Peabody, Mass. who grew up in Salem and later graduated from the University of Massachusetts—famously scribbled his philosophy on a napkin during an interview with Forbes Magazine in 1984 (see picture, left).

The picture shows GE’s three “core” businesses, from Welch’s perspective, as well as other non-core businesses that were either number one or number two in their respective fields. For businesses that failed to fall into one of those two buckets, the solution was brutal and short, "Anything outside the circles we will fix, close, or sell," Welch said.

This philosophy was anything but charitable. In his first five years as CEO (1981-1986), Welch slashed 130,000 jobs – 1 of every 4 workers at GE. However, those who remained were the beneficiaries of a more directed, stable, profitable company, which grew shareholder (and worker) value.

Welch’s leadership of one of America’s flagship companies provides meaningful guidance on how we should go about determining the size and scope of government in America, his misguided statements about the growing chasm between executive and worker pay notwithstanding.

Government, unlike private business, does not always have a legion of natural competitors (national defense, for instance). However, government does compete with the private sector in a variety of ways (public universities and the Postal Service just to name a few). I believe that defining the role of government starts by examining what you want government to do and placing it into one of the four boxes of the two by two matrix below:

 

          I.     Things government does well that private industry also does well

        II.     Things government does well that private industry does poorly

      III.     Things government does poorly that private industry does well

      IV.     Things government does poorly that private industry also does poorly

Like Welch’s three circles, we should examine everything that government does through this matrix to determine where to “fix,” where to “close,” and where to “double down.”

Let’s start with the easy stuff in boxes II and III.

We should be doubling down on government investment in functions falling into box II, not only because government excels, but also because there is no logical alternative. Many of these functions are so-called “natural monopolies” such as water and national defense (though there is admittedly some question as to whether government does well in these categories—more on that later).

We should completely eliminate functions in box III, where government is a woeful failure and private industry does fairly well. Venture capital (“picking winners and losers”) is perhaps the most obvious example of this, though others surely exist.

Now things get tricky. What do we do with box I? I believe that we should neither buy or sell, but “hold” our investments in these areas and take advantage of the private sector mechanism where feasible. For instance, few government investments are as beneficial as higher education and research and development. However, private universities (here’s looking at you, MIT) are incredibly successful at putting these dollars to work. Thus, government should continue to provide public higher education (particularly to provide low-cost alternatives to students of lesser means), while also pumping billions of dollars into R&D at America’s private colleges and universities.

Lastly, we come upon the bane of our existence: box IV. The first question to ask is whether the function need occur at all. Assuming that the answer is yes—and that someone has to do it—government has no choice but to fill the gap. However, given government’s terrible track record, legislators must be even more willing than usual to (a) experiment with innovative approaches to service delivery and (b) exercise unusually probing oversight.

A good example of this is the operation of commuter railroads. In Massachusetts, both the government (MBTA) and private enterprise (MBCR) have proven ineffective at keeping the trains on time and on budget. Thus even though optimism abounds that a new private carrier, Keolis, will succeed where others have failed, legislators should be on the lookout for waste, fraud, and failure.

In the end, like Welch’s circles, the matrix I’ve outlined won’t hold all functions demanded of government or the private sector. However, it is an effort to get at one of the first principles of American democracy: how to determine the shape and scope of our government.