Flexibility

A baby daughter joined my family this week; which along with a move into a new neighborhood has me thinking about, what else, demographics and city structures.

The neighborhood we moved into is fairly close to downtown. Most of the homes are 70 - 100 years old, small little bungalows. A few weeks ago I was talking to a guy who has lived here for quite a while and he was telling me that most of the old timers don't understand what is wrong with the young couples who move into the area. They move in, then move out in a couple of years after they have a child or two to a larger home. The old timers raised four to ten kids in houses this size, it just doesn't make any sense to them.

The area is going through a period of demographic transition. The cycle works like this: young people couples move into affordable homes. They begin to have children and a decent amount of the families stay in the neighborhood. Although some people leave they are replaced with others in a similar stage of life. The neighborhood as a whole ages together, children leave and the parents start to retire. The stability of the neighborhood, with rising incomes raises property values and younger couples are priced out, until the older generation start to die leaving room for new young couples to enter the area, starting the cycle anew.

A lot of areas experience this cycle. Personally I don't understand it because I would prefer to move every couple of years. But for those who stay in an area for a long time you can see this happen. 

Since this is a known concept I think that public buildings should take this into account, build flexibility into the system so that every 20 years the city isn't closing elementary and high schools only to face over crowding 10 years later. My example idea is joining elementary schools with senior citizen centers. As a neighborhood ages the elementary school enrollment tapers off around the same time people start getting their AARP cards. If there was a shared structure for the two groups the seniors could take more space as their numbers grew. If there was a standard ratio declining elementary age kids and growing seniors the building itself would be able to function at its prime capacity, and reverse just as easily when the cycle started over. 

It seems to me that we live in an era where we consider almost everything disposable, including tax funded buildings and infrastructure. Doesn't it make sense to plan and design systems to last longer and easily convert from one use to another and back. 

A few years ago when a light rail transit project was being built a friend of mine on the board of directors for the local transit agency saw a large pile of creosote logs next to all of the construction  machinery. His thought was "I know we're cheap, but I didn't think we were that cheap." The logs were not for the new track, but from the old trolly line that had been there 60 years earlier. Over and over again we destroy part of the city, only to build it back again after the older generation dies off.

Really, there must be a better way; my bet is that it is a flexible one.

Cost Effectiveness

So I am no longer in school, which pains me ever so much. Instead of paying to learn cool stuff, I now have to try and apply some of the stuff learned while people pay me. I am not sure about this system.

One of the up and down sides is learning about corporate management. What a bizarre world. My colleagues and I have been discussing our company's insane management structure and coming up with solutions. 

One idea that comes up a lot in our discussion is the use of students. I have had a few internships in the past few years, and the one thing that has been constant is that the firms have made a lot of money off of me.

Students often, in my experience, have been learning new and often innovative ways of doing things, are versed in new time saving technologies, and generally have more energy than older more seasoned workers. All of these things are good because students very often have no clue about what they are doing. 

The internship experience allows the student to be taught in how to apply all of the new theories and gadgets they have learned about. When they return to school the topics discussed have more meaning because the student can figure out how it could be applied in real world situations, can ask more intelligent questions, and become a boon to a classroom.

The company on the other hand gets really cheap intelligent labor. Most internships are part time, at lower than normal rates, but they still bill clients at full rates, roughly three times what the intern is getting paid. So even if it takes the intern twice as long to get something done, if it still gets out on time a profit has been made.

Another bonus is that once the intern does figure out what is going on their productivity skyrockets and they still are making the company lots of money.

So why aren't more companies doing this? My current position had to be fought for by my manager. Most of my company's employees are people who have retired from state government. They have limited technical skill, moderate management skill and were hired mostly for their contacts.

It seems that the smart way to go would be to hire limited people with contacts, and with good management/mentoring skills and a lot of good students to maximize productivity and profit. 

Now this is obviously coming from the mindset of student, but doesn't it make a lot of sense for long term company sustainability?