Insight: The dark side of Germany's jobs miracle | Reuters

Wage restraint and labor market reforms have pushed the German jobless rate down to a 20-year low, and the German model is often cited as an example for European nations seeking to cut unemployment and become more competitive. But critics say the reforms that helped create jobs also broadened and entrenched the low-paid and temporary work sector, boosting wage inequality.
Insight: The dark side of Germany's jobs miracle | Reuters

• a 20-year low, and the German model is often cited as an example for European nations seeking to cut unemployment and become more competitive. But critics say the reforms that helped create jobs also broadened and entrenched the low-paid and temporary work sector, boosting wage inequality. Labor office data show the low wage sector grew three times as fast as other employment in the five years to 2010, explaining why the "job miracle" has not prompted Germans to spend much more than they have in the past. Pay in Germany, which has no nationwide minimum wage, can go well below one euro an hour, especially in the former communist east German states.
• Trade unions and employers in Germany traditionally opt for collective wage agreements, arguing that a legal minimum wage could kill jobs, but these agreements only cover slightly more than half the population and can be circumvented
• Critics say Germany's reforms came at a high price as they firmly entrenched the low-wage sector and depressed wages, leading to a two-tier labor market.New categories of low-income, government-subsidized jobs - a concept being considered in Spain - have proven especially problematic. Some economists say they have backfired. They were created to help those with bad job prospects eventually become reintegrated into the regular labor market, but surveys show that for most people, they lead nowhere.
• While wage inequality used to be as low in Germany as in the Nordic countries, it has risen sharply over the past decade. "The poor have clearly lost out to the middle class, more so in Germany than in other countries," said OECD economist Isabell Koske. Depressed wages and job insecurity have also kept a lid on domestic demand, the Achilles heel of the export-dependent German economy, much to the exasperation of its neighbors.
• ILO's Ernst says Germany can only hope that other European countries do not emulate its own wage deflationary policies too closely, as demand will dry up: "If everyone is doing same thing, there won't be anyone left to export to.

Decision Quicksand

Should you read this story? Why you're having trouble deciding - Red Tape
some extracts:

• Little decisions cause a big problem precisely because they are surprisingly hard. Faced with too many options, consumers unconsciously connect difficulty with importance, and their brains are tricked into heavy deliberation mode.
• Instead of realizing that picking a toothbrush is a trivial decision, we confuse the array of options and excess of information with decision importance, which then leads our brain to conclude that this decision is worth more time and attention.
• Research shows that time spent in decision quicksand before a choice correlates with dissatisfaction after the fact.  And of course, there's all that wasted time and emotional energy.
• Set decision rules and stick to them. In other words, start with a time limit that reflects the true importance of the choice. For example, "I will book a flight in 5 minutes, no matter what."
• Breaks can also help. Spending time away from a decision-making process can free the brain from an obsessive loop. "Even minor interruptions, short breaks, or momentary task switching can change information processing from a local, bottom-up focus to a top-down, goal-directed mode 

I wonder if this is in anyway related to the phenomenon described by Antonio Damasio in his book Descarte's Error, where a subject with frontal lobe damage, whcih meant he had limited emotional engagement in decisions, couldn't decide between two roughly equal dates for an appointment. It seemed the lack of an emotional weight one way or the other (or to end the process) resulted in an endless rational reasoning loop. Could another factor in decision quicksand be that trivial decisions lack emotional weight, and hence are vulnerable to such infinite analysis? And does this say anything about those of us (like me) who seem particularly inclined to fall into it?

The paradox of behaviour tests

Failure rate of 50% a worrying statistic for drivers - The Irish Times - Wed, Aug 08, 2012



It seems 50% of cars fail their yearly roadworthiness test in Ireland, which raises some interesting paradoxes. Should this be viewed as a good thing, in that so many dangerous cars are identified and taken off the road? Or is the testing contributing to the problem, since knowing that there will be a yearly test, people are skipping on regular maintenance and services? This is an interesting example of a common undesired side-effects of checking human behaviour : it removes responsibility for the problem from the individual, which means both bad and good behaviour is reduced. I could see something similar occurring in France, where now motorists are legally obliged to carry breathalizers  with them. Initially, and overall, I think this is a good thing, since most people do not want to drive over the limit, but might often (if even wilfully) assume they are not. However if confronted with clear evidence (from their own breathalizer) that they are, then they are left no moral wiggle room, and can only continue to drive if make a clear decision to break the law, as opposed to just hoping they aren't. And of cours those that would drive regardless would so so anyway, test or not. The corrolary of the test though, is that there are probably many cases where people overestimate their blood alcohol content, and don't drive because they think they are over the limit when they actually aren't (the limit is apparently surprisingly high for some people). These people would never have driven when fully inebriated, but now would be encouraged to do so when partially. Given that any alcohol in the system affects performance, then there is a likelihood that this will actually result in these people crashing, when they otherwise wouldn't.

So while testing is overall needed, since it clamps down on the extremes, it is never without unintended consequences.

Eat,fast, live longer

Another interesting (if not yet reliably useful) food/health documentary last night: Horizon's "Eat, fast, live longer" which reported on recent studies suggesting occasional extreme fasting (~50 cals per day for 4 days every few months) or regular (alternate-day) near-fasting (~400 cals per day) could provide major health benefits, even if people ate normally (or even badly) the rest of the time.

(BBC link here, guardian review here)

This is not the first time I've heard of how low calorie intake is linked with longevity, but until now I only knew about people who were (without a lot of human based evidence) living long term with massively reduced energy intakes, which didn't seem very worthwhile, since even if it did make them live longer, reduced their energy levels so much it was debatable whether they were able to live life at all. The recent research however, though presumably arising from the same evidence, suggests that it might not (just) be consistent reductions in calories that brings benefits, but even short term occasional fasts. There seems to be signs that the body enters a kind of 'repair' mode when starving, and the are hopefuly indicators of how this might reduce or even prevent illnesses such as heart disease or stroke.

While I can't comment on the scientific basis (which was admitted to be only new and limited, albeit promising), there are perhaps a few general common sense points that can be made. My own personal 'gut instinct' is that any diet which matches our evolution, has to make sense; hence modern artificially concentrations of sugars,salt, and fat have to be viewed with suspicion. Beyond this though, as incredibly versatile omnivores, it is probably quite hard to work out what our ideal pre-modern diet actually was. It's likely that life was hard, and resources scarce, so it does make sense that it was largely plant based, since presumably hunting was harder and more unpredictable. However, given that we can consume animal meat, and in certain cultures (eskimos) can survive on it, then I would be wary of excluding it altogether, although it might make sense to limit it. So I would think a balanced diet, with emphasis on plants, sounds like a good idea, and have never seen strong evidence against this.

However, leaving aside the type of food, and focusing on the quantity, such a boom-and-bust cycle of nutrition could also fit well with the latest fasting research, since our bodies would have done well to adapt to (and even make use of) such times of shortage. The problem however, as with all neat evolutionary stories, is it is important to keep in mind the arena in which evolution operates, something which might not align well with modern life expectancies. Evolution works on the fitness of the animal primarily until it procreates, and then perhaps for some while after as it supports its offspring/descendants. The problem is, given that ancient man might only have lived till 30 or 40, and heart attacks and cancer are mainly illnesses of later years (perversely rising cancer rates can be a good thing, since indicates a society living longer), it's very possible that there is nothing evolutionary in us to combat them. This doesn't mean there aren't optimum ways of extending our lifespan, but rather that we are inventing them, not re-discovering them. It might be that the issue is not making the machine run as it should, but finding ways to make it run as it could.

However, this then raises the questionas to whether the same approaches fit all stages of life. It could be that in earlier, fitter, more active years one type of diet is optimum (and matches evolutionary history), but in later years a change of strategy is needed. For example I wonder about the link between growth and cancer. Several times recently I have seen evidence about diets which seem to reduce cancer rates, but perhaps also impact normal cell growth. This of course makes sense, since cancer ultimately is excessive growth, so it is logical that what would stop growth normally, would stop cancer as well. But what is far less from clear is whether this is a desirable thing, under normal healthy circumstances. Like constant restriction of calories, could the cure (limited life) be worse than the disease (risk of limited lifetime). It coudl even be the case that in certain stages of life one approach makes sense (run body at full power, albeit putting under stress) but at other, older, stages another is appropriate (scale back to focus on preservation, not performance). Ultimately of course a balance is needed, but making the judgement needs more evidence and consideration than just jumping on the latest diet that shows (even if verified) improvement in one range of parameters. Better cholesterol, lower glucose levels, are good things, but what else changes, and what are the overall effects? From what I remember, the studies for example (as those mentioned in the film forks over knives) involved people who were already unhealthy - older, obese etc. It is one thing to provide a solution for people who clearly have a problem, it is another to show that solution is applicable to preventthat problem in the first place.

in the spirit of balance and moderation, I therefore think fasting diets sound so extreme that is would be prudent to wait for more evidence. One probably reliable maxim that can be taken is overconsumption, even without obesity, but of meats etc. might be a problem. So probably a safe bet, to limit, but definitely not exclude, meats, ramp up plant elements, and overall keep consumption down and in line with activity. Still, who knows how this research will develop, and all thought about food, is valuable food for thought.