BNET Intercom

If you’ve been following the healthcare debate, then you’ve probably heard of this WHO finding, which forms the basis of so many arguments for reform: “The U.S. health system spends a higher portion of its gross domestic product than any other country but ranks 37 out of 191 countries according to its performance.”

But scholars at the CATO Institute counter that those stats do not provide an accurate diagnosis of the health of America’s healthcare system.  When one factors in innovation (basic science, diagnostics and therapeutics), they argue, then the American system does not look so bad.  America has fewer people than the EU but we’ve recently won more Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology and produced more pharmaceutical wonder drugs over the last few decades.

If an ambitious doctor is looking for fertile ground to find a better cure, America looks like it’s the best place to set up shop.  It follows then, that attempts to exert government control over the healthcare system could thwart innovation and also weaken one of the American economy’s strongest sectors.

However, the report’s authors mention an odd side effect of our system which I think weakens, rather than helps, their case:

Consider, for example, the frequent claim that European health systems achieve similar health outcomes to those of the United States at a much lower cost. That claim fails to consider that higher U.S. spending levels could be generating innovations that improve health outcomes in Europe and around the world.

As the CATO scholars go on to point out, the rest of the world is essentially getting a free ride off of our investments in medical innovations.  When these innovations can be controlled and patented, as is often the case with new drugs, then American companies and our broader economy both benefit overall.  But many investments in innovation, such as long-term health studies, end up as global public goods.  We pay the price to figure out a new procedure and everyone else gets to adopt it, free of charge.

Perhaps there is a better way for the world to share the costs of all these healthcare advances since the benefits don’t necessarily trickle down to Americans who can’t afford insurance.

In an ideal world, increases in productivity (or, the measure of employee output per hour) will lead to higher corporate profits.  Some of that extra money can then be used to hire more workers.  When more people are employed, there are more people that can spend money.  And everyone lives happily ever after.

But these days, productivity has surged, jumping up at a 9.5 percent annual rate in the third quarter, according to Labor Department statistics released yesterday.  That’s the best clip in six years.  However, that positive data has been immediately followed by bad news from the Department.  Today, it was announced that October’s unemployment rate rose to 10.2 percent, the highest rate in 26 years.

BusinessWeek’s Peter Coy suggests recent productivity gains could be somewhat artificial since lay-off survivors have had to work harder than ever. In other words, productivity has risen because unemployment has also gone up and there are fewer employees left to handle all the work.

From your own experience working through this recession, do you agree with Coy’s assessment?  And do you think your company’s productivity gains could be undermined by employee burnout?  Please share your thoughts below.

Over half of academic life science researchers maintained financial ties with industry, according to survey results published in Health Affairs.

Here are the key details about the relationship between universities and corporate America, according to the Wall Street Journal:

About a third of the respondents said they had served as consultants, nearly a quarter said they had been paid speakers and 20% said they had received research funding from industry. That last figure is down from 28% of researchers who said they received research funding from industry in a similar survey conducted in 1995.

The authors suggest a number of possible causes of the drop in researchers who said they got industry funding for research, including a big increase in NIH research funding since 1995 and more scrutiny of academic-industry ties.

Interestingly, it was also found that faculty with industry support “were more productive than faculty without such support on virtually every measure.” However, we cannot conclude that corporate support caused the productivity surge, since it’s possible that the most productive researchers tend to attract the most money.

 Loading ...

If you demand identity privacy or insist on paying with cash when patronizing a local business, then you could be a suspected terrorist.  That’s according to FBI flyers which have been sent to tattoo shops as part of its “Communities Against Terrorism” drive.

The government now wants local businesses to keep an eye on their customers and report any suspicious activity. Apparently, getting a group tattoo or radically changing your hairstyle is a cause for concern.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t most potential terrorists religious fanatics from the Islamic world who sneak into America hellbent on wreaking havoc?  Kind of like those 9/11 highjackers?  So why target tattoo shops, then, FBI?  Muslims can’t get tattoos per their religious traditions.  And who would bother getting a tattoo if they were about to blow themselves up?

I have to doubt whether this initiative is really about the terrorist bogeyman.  What’s more likely: Selling a million dollar lottery ticket or selling to a terrorist?  It seems just as, if not more, plausible that this is about quashing political dissent.

Getting neighbors to rat on their neighbors is a page straight out of the Soviet Union playbook.  When there is that kind of distrust at the local level, it’s a lot more difficult to rally around a petition against the government.

If business owners care more about the principles for which this government stands than for whatever officials happen to have the power that day, then they have a responsibility to reject these types of FBI-community “partnerships.”

We all know a coworker that slips inappropriate jokes into the conversation here and there. So now that President Obama has signed an updated hate crime bill (ironically stuffed into a defense measure) into law, does that mean the “thought police” are going to send everyone who gets a cheap laugh from that fellow to jail?

First of all, keep in mind that the bill expands federal hate crime legislation that’s been on the books since 1968. Along with race, religion and national origin, it now covers “actual or perceived” sexual orientation and gender identity as well. If local authorities don’t have the will or resources to investigate violent crimes motivated by this type of hate (yes, critics, all crimes are indeed motivated by hate), then the Attorney General has the right to swoop in and finish off the case.

In other words, your crass coworker still has the legal right to spew his opinions on race, religion and sexual orientation. But if that coworker is notorious for making jokes about gays all day at work and then one night he goes out and commits a violent crime against someone, the federal government could investigate the entire office, turning the “criminal prosecution into a political correctness prosecution.”

Therefore, if the joke wouldn’t get cracked in front of the cameras, it shouldn’t be said in the office either. Simply put, unless those soundbites are relevant to your job, keep your mouth shut.

And one last thing: I’m not a lawyer and obviously cannot offer legal advice. But I have read the whole bill and gather that this the extent of what could happen. If you have a different interpretation of this new law, feel free to share it below.

Does your state bleed Barack blue or Republican red?  America seems more divided than ever between liberal and conservative regions and at this point, our public discourse has become so hyper-partisan that one starts to wonder whether half the country lives in France while the other half lives in a John Wayne movie.

If you are convinced that the dominant political philosophy in your state leads to the best economic outcomes, the new public option proposal may put your assumptions to the test.

Under Senator Harry Reid’s proposal for healthcare reform, states will have the option to opt out of the federal public option. Many are assuming that red states will stick to the status quo by opting out while blue states will put their fate in the hands of the feds.

If this proposal passes, it could set up the ultimate red state/blue state showdown, as Peter Brown suggests in a Wall Street Journal op-ed today:

Will some people migrate to states that offer it, perhaps because they are more trusting of government than insurance companies, while others head the other way for the opposite reason?

Then there is the matter of whether people attracted to states with the public option will be more or less likely to be a net plus to the accepting state’s economy, both in terms of their productivity and their need for government services.

Do you think the red state or blue state way will be better for business?  Please share your predictions below.

Yesterday I wrote about whether there might be career lessons from Rush Limbaugh’s failed attempt to be a part of the team that is trying to buy the St. Louis Rams. A few commenters took issue with the post, echoing a view shared by a Washington Post reporter. They claim Limbaugh was “banished for essentially exercising his right to speak.” So does this mean America’s free market system is threatened by tyrannical “PC Police,” as this argument goes?

Well, let’s refer to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution to find the legal foundation for free speech:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Clearly, Congress cannot force Limbaugh to shut his mouth, although I am sure a lot of Democrats in power would love to silence him. And last time I checked, the US government has not intervened in the NFL’s business.

Yes, you have right to say whatever you want. But your colleagues and customers also have the right to not work with you if you say things that are offensive to the company’s stakeholders.

Ultimately, Rush has been rejected in the marketplace. Under a free market system, no one has to buy what you are selling. Limbaugh has no one to blame but himself.

A new Citibank/GfK Roper survey has found that America’s small business owners aren’t that fond of the latest social networking tools:

The study found 76 percent of small-business owners polled were not using social media or finding it helpful in generating business leads during the last year, and 86 percent said the did not use such sites to get advice or information.

I’m sure a lot of new media gurus will take this as yet another piece of evidence that most companies still “don’t get it.”  But the results shouldn’t be surprising and it’s not that irrational for business owners to conclude that Twitter is a waste of resources.  If 86 percent don’t use social networks themselves to get information, than it’s reasonable to assume their customers and colleagues aren’t using them either.

And if those social networks don’t actually lead to sales, than what’s the point of having all those friends and followers?

The key with new media is to be where your customers are.  If you sell something geared toward younger people, than a Facebook fan page may make sense.  But if you own a restaurant that serves a local market only, than you probably want to monitor your online reputation on search engines and traditional directories before diving into the social media realm.  However, be aware that many of these directories, such as Yelp, are morphing into social networks too.  So you may need to sign up, at least to protect your brand and direct traffic to your true website, sooner or later, even if you don’t plan to actively participate in the prominent web networks.

Even if you are new to Twitter, you’ve probably already learned that most of the tweets are “pointless babble” about whatever users had for lunch.  Even though almost half of all tweets could be classified as nothing more than narcissistic notes, it is important to send out messages other than links to the latest “hot deals.”  Because if you don’t add those personal soundbites, you will seem like a spammer.  No one will follow you, ensuring that Twitter ends up being a waste of your precious time.

So naturally, it seems fitting to fill your feed with tweets about your job.  Many use the service solely to promote themselves or their company (shameless plug: follow my new feed).  However, while the evidence hasn’t yet proven that Twitter can further your career, it can certainly end it if you foolishly broadcast nasty things about your employer.  Here are five ways Twitter can get you fired, according to Applicant, a job blog:

1. Tweet how much you hate your boss

2. Brag yourself up on successfully lying to your boss

3. Make it public that you are sleeping with your boss

4. If you are quitting and don’t think before tweeting

5. Block your boss and tweet as you please

Everything that’s published on the web circulates virally across multiple platforms.  Nothing that’s published can be deleted so those tweets can always get back to you.  Therefore, I’ll add a sixth lesson: use common sense.  Those 140 characters aren’t worth your paycheck.

What’s the worst job-related tweet you’ve ever seen?  Feel free to share it below.

Nationwide, unemployment hit 9.8 percent in September. Of course, some regions have been hit harder than others but at a certain point, it may make sense for anyone who is unemployed to consider cutting their losses, packing up and leaving.  The forecast still looks relatively sunny throughout Texas and in coastal metropolises like New York, Seattle and Washington, DC (for a handy breakdown on the best job markets in small, medium and large cities across America, check out New Geography’s tables; for the worst cities for jobs, check Forbes).

Let’s say you’ve made the decision to seek greener pastures elsewhere but haven’t actually moved yet. How can you keep your local-address-less resume from reaching the wastebasket?

Here are six tips for the long-distance job search, edited down for length and clarity, from career guru Penelope Trunk:

• Pitch yourself as specialized Most people are relocating from a city that is in low demand to a city that is high demand; if you want to get a job [in a big city like San Francisco] from Tucson, you need to have one of those skill sets that people do not think they can hire for in San Francisco
• Pitch yourself as a big-city catch Some of you are trying to move the opposite direction: New York City to Tuscaloosa; in that case, you can pitch yourself as having big-city know-how that you can bring to a smaller city
• Get a reality check If you can’t pitch yourself in either of those ways, then you’re going to have to relocate before you get a job
• Be amazing at building local networks If you are still determined to get a job before you move…you need to have a strong network on the ground where you want to relocate; this does not mean inviting forty people in that city to connect with you on LinkedIn
• Choose a city since you can’t choose a job Since you are going to have to move before you have a job, why not make sure you are going to the right place?   For figuring out where you belong, [see] Richard Florida’s book, Who’s Your City, which he has conveniently broken up into web-friendly widgets for your relocating pleasure
• Consider your friends and family Before you relocate for money, consider that the number-one factor for whether or not your next job will improve your happiness is whether you’ll be moving closer to friends and family; [O]nce you have the basics of a good job, it’s your relationships that make you happy

If you’ve recently relocated to find a new job or are considering a move, please share any additional tips or words of wisdom in the comments section below.